By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - $400 X360+Halo bundle revealed. No X360 price cut despite PS3 Slim and WiiU launches?

withdreday on 15 July 2012
thehusbo said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
CGI-Quality said:
withdreday said:

Jeez, what are they trying to do, give the console lead to Sony?

Even if the PS3 passes the 360, the "console lead" belongs to the Wii. Second, we don't know what Microsoft is planning (outside of this bundle). 

Regardless, I'm sure neither of them wants the legendary 3rd place.

1. Of course they can afford it and are making healthy profits on hardware

2." The legendary 3rd place"? do you just make that up?  I dont recall such a legend.

3. If Sony release their new slimmer slim at a much reduced price then they are dummer than even I thought they were.... Why bother with a new cheaper iteration if all you do is pass that on to the consumer?  In normal circumstance perhaps you can argue this is a good move but in Sony's current state thats idiotic.


Why is Sony so idiotic releasing a cheaper console? 

It's not. I think he's just a bit drunk.



Around the Network
Lafiel on 15 July 2012
kowenicki said:

Even right at the end of a gen?  I dont think so.  Indeed I think Nintendo has shown over the generations that marketshare is nothing but vanity.  Given that Sony has had the highest marketshare for the last two gen and didnt make a bean in the long term

Nintendo had the largest marketshare aswell in a lot of gens - in the handheld market. That definitely helped their financial situation, especially during the GC time.



withdreday on 15 July 2012
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
CGI-Quality said:
withdreday said:

Jeez, what are they trying to do, give the console lead to Sony?

Even if the PS3 passes the 360, the "console lead" belongs to the Wii. Second, we don't know what Microsoft is planning (outside of this bundle). 

Regardless, I'm sure neither of them wants the legendary 3rd place.

1. Of course they can afford it and are making healthy profits on hardware

2." The legendary 3rd place"? do you just make that up?  I dont recall such a legend.

3. If Sony release their new slimmer slim at a much reduced price then they are dummer than even I thought they were.... Why bother with a new cheaper iteration if all you do is pass that on to the consumer?  In normal circumstance perhaps you can argue this is a good move but in Sony's current state thats idiotic.

1. I'm still looking for concrete numbers on that.

2. It was a bit of sacrasm, surely you aren't that dense.

3. Idiodic? Despite the fact that Sony has a half a billion to spend on GaiKai, and the 3 revised slims plan worked out well on the PS2 and a lower price point will lead to greater sales?

Yeah, I think most companies aim to be "idiodic" like that. 

1. Google it, I'm sure its there somerhwere..

2. Dense? no but you may have something as "sacrasm" isnt something I am familiar with... (sarcasm?)

3. Sony are spending to accumulate... giving money away to consumers doesnt fall into that bracket... what the hell does the PS2 have to do with anything?  I see you are one of those sony fans still living in the past and in complete denial about the very perilous state that Sony finds itself in. 

What I am proposing would actually help Sony... reduced manufacturing costs but retain the retail price, or perhaps a slight price reduction, but why give money away when you are selling the most weekly anyway?

 

Now perhaps your can remove your fan glasses and comment with some sensible and non insulting views from a good business planning perspective.

1. Still looking...

2. It was the Auto correct. Get over it.

3. Because the more people who buy the system, buys games and downloads stuff online. And that's where most gaming companies make their cash from. Licensing fees and online revenue. Microsoft took a huge loss at the start of this gen just to get the 360 in people's living rooms to buy games and get on Live. If you don't know the industry too well, then it's best not to come in pretending to be an expert.

And what does it have to do with the PS2? That's the damn business model that's they've been following since the PS1 days and it's lead to millions of sales. That's how people knew it would eventually be a PS3 slim. 

Please don't tell me you're this clueless...



withdreday on 15 July 2012
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
CGI-Quality said:
withdreday said:

Jeez, what are they trying to do, give the console lead to Sony?

Even if the PS3 passes the 360, the "console lead" belongs to the Wii. Second, we don't know what Microsoft is planning (outside of this bundle). 

Regardless, I'm sure neither of them wants the legendary 3rd place.

1. Of course they can afford it and are making healthy profits on hardware

2." The legendary 3rd place"? do you just make that up?  I dont recall such a legend.

3. If Sony release their new slimmer slim at a much reduced price then they are dummer than even I thought they were.... Why bother with a new cheaper iteration if all you do is pass that on to the consumer?  In normal circumstance perhaps you can argue this is a good move but in Sony's current state thats idiotic.

1. I'm still looking for concrete numbers on that.

2. It was a bit of sacrasm, surely you aren't that dense.

3. Idiodic? Despite the fact that Sony has a half a billion to spend on GaiKai, and the 3 revised slims plan worked out well on the PS2 and a lower price point will lead to greater sales?

Yeah, I think most companies aim to be "idiodic" like that. 

1. Google it, I'm sure its there somerhwere..

2. Dense? no but you may have something as "sacrasm" isnt something I am familiar with... (sarcasm?)

3. Sony are spending to accumulate... giving money away to consumers doesnt fall into that bracket... what the hell does the PS2 have to do with anything?  I see you are one of those sony fans still living in the past and in complete denial about the very perilous state that Sony finds itself in. 

What I am proposing would actually help Sony... reduced manufacturing costs but retain the retail price, or perhaps a slight price reduction, but why give money away when you are selling the most weekly anyway?

 

Now perhaps your can remove your fan glasses and comment with some sensible and non insulting views from a good business planning perspective.

 

1. Still looking...

2. It was the Auto correct. Get over it.

3. Because the more people who buy the system, buys games and downloads stuff online. And that's where most gaming companies make their cash from. Licensing fees and online revenue. Microsoft took a huge loss at the start of this gen just to get the 360 in people's living rooms to buy games and get on Live. If you don't know the industry too well, then it's best not to come in pretending to be an expert.

And what does it have to do with the PS2? That's the damn business model that's they've been following since the PS1 days and it's lead to millions of sales. That's how people knew it would eventually be a PS3 slim. 

Please don't tell me you're this clueless...

 

you are a very angry young man arent you.... relax... you dont have to end every post with an insult.

3. .... and yet still Sony hasnt made a single cent from gaming...  go do some research.  Any profts from PS1 and PS2 (and believe me there wasnt that much considering their domination) more than evaporated with PS3.  So that business model isnt working is it.  Nintendo has a business model that works and it isn't based on the vanity of market share but on being profitable from day one.  MS lost money at the beginning of this gen primarily due to RROD, if RROD hadnt existed then MS would have been creaming it in even earlier than they actually achieved, according to you the 360 managed over a $1.32bn profit in 2011 without hardware being profitable? 

 

Read this link from joystiq -  http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/28/xbox-360-costs-715-to-make/   The 360 actually wasn't even close to profitable at launch mainly because they doubled the planned ram.

And if anything, the PS3 scuffled because they veered away from their business model, and went for fresh, expensive tech in Blu-ray(which cost a whooping 1000 bucks per drive). The business model of selling at a loss to increase market share in the beginning and getting it back through software sales isn't going anywhere anytime soon, unless you want every next gen console to be the Wii.

 



withdreday on 15 July 2012
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
kowenicki said:
withdreday said:
CGI-Quality said:
withdreday said:

Jeez, what are they trying to do, give the console lead to Sony?

Even if the PS3 passes the 360, the "console lead" belongs to the Wii. Second, we don't know what Microsoft is planning (outside of this bundle). 

Regardless, I'm sure neither of them wants the legendary 3rd place.

1. Of course they can afford it and are making healthy profits on hardware

2." The legendary 3rd place"? do you just make that up?  I dont recall such a legend.

3. If Sony release their new slimmer slim at a much reduced price then they are dummer than even I thought they were.... Why bother with a new cheaper iteration if all you do is pass that on to the consumer?  In normal circumstance perhaps you can argue this is a good move but in Sony's current state thats idiotic.

1. I'm still looking for concrete numbers on that.

2. It was a bit of sacrasm, surely you aren't that dense.

3. Idiodic? Despite the fact that Sony has a half a billion to spend on GaiKai, and the 3 revised slims plan worked out well on the PS2 and a lower price point will lead to greater sales?

Yeah, I think most companies aim to be "idiodic" like that. 

1. Google it, I'm sure its there somerhwere..

2. Dense? no but you may have something as "sacrasm" isnt something I am familiar with... (sarcasm?)

3. Sony are spending to accumulate... giving money away to consumers doesnt fall into that bracket... what the hell does the PS2 have to do with anything?  I see you are one of those sony fans still living in the past and in complete denial about the very perilous state that Sony finds itself in. 

What I am proposing would actually help Sony... reduced manufacturing costs but retain the retail price, or perhaps a slight price reduction, but why give money away when you are selling the most weekly anyway?

 

Now perhaps your can remove your fan glasses and comment with some sensible and non insulting views from a good business planning perspective.

 

1. Still looking...

2. It was the Auto correct. Get over it.

3. Because the more people who buy the system, buys games and downloads stuff online. And that's where most gaming companies make their cash from. Licensing fees and online revenue. Microsoft took a huge loss at the start of this gen just to get the 360 in people's living rooms to buy games and get on Live. If you don't know the industry too well, then it's best not to come in pretending to be an expert.

And what does it have to do with the PS2? That's the damn business model that's they've been following since the PS1 days and it's lead to millions of sales. That's how people knew it would eventually be a PS3 slim. 

Please don't tell me you're this clueless...

 

you are a very angry young man arent you.... relax... you dont have to end every post with an insult.

3. .... and yet still Sony hasnt made a single cent from gaming...  go do some research.  Any profts from PS1 and PS2 (and believe me there wasnt that much considering their domination) more than evaporated with PS3.  So that business model isnt working is it.  Nintendo has a business model that works and it isn't based on the vanity of market share but on being profitable from day one.  MS lost money at the beginning of this gen primarily due to RROD, if RROD hadnt existed then MS would have been creaming it in even earlier than they actually achieved, according to you the 360 managed over a $1.32bn profit in 2011 without hardware being profitable? 

 

Read this link from joystiq -  http://www.joystiq.com/2005/12/28/xbox-360-costs-715-to-make/   The 360 actually wasn't even close to profitable at launch mainly because they doubled the planned ram.

And if anything, the PS3 scuffled because they veered away from their business model, and went for fresh, expensive tech in Blu-ray(which cost a whooping 1000 bucks per drive). The business model of selling at a loss to increase market share in the beginning and getting it back through software sales isn't going anywhere anytime soon, unless you want every next gen console to be the Wii.

 

I dont want that business model to go away, in the sense that I dont want ground breaking tech to disappear.  But I think you will see other ways that this is achieved next gen.  People arent going to pay $500 to $600 for a games machine from the off.  This we now know. 

Of course not. And if Sony PS3s themselves again next gen, you can waive goodbye to them in the game industry. Same thing with Microsoft. I heard they're looking at a 16 core processor for their next console. They might want to take a look at this gen and rethink that.



Around the Network
Chark on 15 July 2012

@koweniki

There is a very good reason to pass most of the cost savings onto the consumer. If they maintain the same profit margin as the current model than they would only be selling more units and thereby making more profit. But the real advantage is spurring more potential software sales and accessories, where most agree the majority of profits come from.



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Lostplanet22 on 15 July 2012
Troll_Whisperer said:
Lostplanet22 said:
it is better to sacrifice profit to get more marketshare?

That's what I'm asking. I guess your answer is no.

But marketshare is a long term investment, I think they could've sold much more last and this holiday season and they could've hurt PS3 and WiiU more if they reduced the price. That in turn would've made the Xbox brand stronger, which is always good before launching a next gen console. It could bring more X720 sales and it may be more beneficial to do that in the long term.

 

MS make a lot of profits on HW as it is and I think it would've been smart to cut the price last year. They'll still profit on HW and get more Xboxes out there.

No, it is certainly not long for consoles, the Wii's almost 50% marketshare back in the day did not do that much, sega's bigger marketshare in Europe with genesis did not help them at all, many EU gamers know what a Genesis/megadrive is but ask what a saturn is and they will answer 'A planet? A giant electronic German store?'. The most profitable region for MS (for every console sold) is probably going end up being Japan where they had an amazing attach rate were Xbox 360 owners were eating more MS points than they would rice/sushi or noodles (or cats)*


*yeah cats remember shoko Nakagawa...http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_xgr9IqyR4Xw/S076S6jpx3I/AAAAAAAAAX0/SXYpj-ufOMc/s640/japanese-girl-eating-cat.jpg.



 

Squilliam on 15 July 2012
withdreday said:
Rudisha said:


why do you believe this?

I just can't see any other reason they won't cut the price. They were are in position to put their foot on Sony's throat on several occasions with a price cut this gen, and they didn't, which leads me to believe they still want to turn a profit on the console.


Why cut the price in order to attract the least profitable customers? The generation is almost over and these people are only *just now* getting a console? Do you expect them to be buying many games and accessories? Are they just going to raid the greatest hits and used sections of the game store? There is little point in competiting for the worst customers.

Also they probably want to establish the perception of stabililty and quality. I.E. They sell the Xbox 360 for 'more' than the PS3 for the equivalent SKU and that is with fewer features and pay to play online. They want people to think that the Xbox brand represents high quality and therefore is worth paying for. They also want to establish a degree of stability with the pricing so people don't feel they have to wait for a price cut, with Sony I have a feeling that people expect the price cuts too much and they become a self fulfilling prophecy. I.E. people expect a cut every X number of years so the sales go down as people wait for it which forces Sony to cut the price. They want people to jump on board as quickly as possible so look for a $X - $200 deal with $15/month Xbox Live at launch.



Tease.

Wh1pL4shL1ve_007 on 15 July 2012

Microsoft is very hard to provoke lol.



Yay!!!

Zappykins on 15 July 2012

I really like the BLUE LED's on the console and controller - plus I think part are smokey/clear - which is rather cool looking too.

I have the Halo: Reach Console/Control and they have held up well. Just the tiniest bit of ware on the bottom of the controller where it rest on a flat surface. But the painting/decal parts are just fine.

I think is a nice deal and well sell well - even better if it get's a price cut. I can't imagine they wouldn't have a price cut this year.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!