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?

Chark on 15 July 2012
kowenicki said:
Chark said:
@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.


already dealt with this once...

squilliam has put it better in his reply, see above.

I'm not sure what you are reffering to. Do you mean the least profitable customer bit? The current PS3 cost structure doesn't land Sony a substantial profit, if they price the new model in the same method they aren't doing themeselves any damage. In fact, a more attractive price point to boost profits just from the sheer influx of HW moved. Regradless of these "least profitable" customers, they will most likely still buy some new games, some digital items, and some accessories over time. This is where the majority of profits lie in this industry and gathering the consumers is a very good move. Using this method makes all the much more sense when you look at the history of when companies sell for a loss. Selling at cost is not a bad business model.

If this is about Sony missing an opportunity to make large profits from their hardware, consider that HW sales are down YoY, competition is strong, and the Wii U is launching later this year. There is not a strong case to maintain a price high above manufactering, as doing so will just reduce the sales and lead to potentially less profits in both HW and SW/accessories. 



Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Around the Network
Millenium on 15 July 2012

I think between Halo 4's special edition, bundles and holidays they don't see the need for a price-drop right now.



kain_kusanagi on 15 July 2012
Troll_Whisperer said:
kain_kusanagi said:
Troll_Whisperer said:
kain_kusanagi said:
I'm not so sure that MS needs to cut prices. If the ugle PS3 Slim2 is real it may stay the same price. The Wii U isn't a guaranteed hit. MS can cut prices at any time, but I don't think MS will unless they have to. If the PS3 gets a price cut and the Wii U is a hit then MS can react with a price cut at that time.


A PS3 price cut is guaranteed. They can't sell the 16GB model for the same price they are selling the 160GB one today. They'll at least sell the 16GB model for $199 while keeping the other two &249 and $299.


Are we sure there is going to be a 16GB model? Right now everything is a rumor and it could be a mistake. It could really be 160GB like there is now. If that's the case Sony could easily launch a new model with a pack in game at the same price levels. Unlike the Xbox 360 that can get by, just barely, without a decent harddrive, the PS3 has many games with manditory installs. 16GB just wouldn't cut it. Those of us with 60GB fats can tell you they fill up fast.

A letter has been leaked from Sony to the Brazilian version of FCC, it can't be mistaken, they must provide the right information. Also, a recent FW update changed the word "Hard Drive" to "System Storage" on the PS3 menu, so it will most probably be flash memory. So the 16GB figure is right.

If that's true there is going to be a lot of people who will find themselves clearing memory for mandatory installs more than they will like. With a 16GB system you would only be able to have two or three games installed at any given time. With Xbox 360 4GB is enough because you only need it for updates and even then you can get by without it. With PS3 there are many games that flat out require installs and 16GB just doesn't seem like enough space to me.



Troll_Whisperer on 15 July 2012
kain_kusanagi said:

If that's true there is going to be a lot of people who will find themselves clearing memory for mandatory installs more than they will like. With a 16GB system you would only be able to have two or three games installed at any given time. With Xbox 360 4GB is enough because you only need it for updates and even then you can get by without it. With PS3 there are many games that flat out require installs and 16GB just doesn't seem like enough space to me.

Oh, I agree. I would never purchase a 16gb model, it would be a hassle. GT5 alone would fill 60% of that (non-compulsory install but I like installing when I have the option).

I guess Sony's going after cheap, casual gamers that don't mind deleting installs when they finish a game, and don't download digital games. There are not that many games with compulsory installs so for these gamers I think it'll be OK. It's just an extra option, we don't know how successful it'll be yet.



No troll is too much for me to handle. I rehabilitate trolls, I train people. I am the Troll Whisperer.

withdreday on 15 July 2012
Squilliam said:
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.

You're assuming these are the "worst customers", but that's were the huge sales market is. And it's not the very poor people as you make it sound. It most likely people who have rent, cable bills, car payments, etc, and think 300 bucks on a game console is to much of a jump at this point. And once those people start buy a few greatest hits titles, they'll surely pony up for the next major release like GTA5. 

And the point about the 360 being about "high quality" is fairly debatable looking at a problem involving "red rings" early in it's life cycle. But I don't want to go debating that, so I digress



Around the Network
Chris Hu on 15 July 2012
CGI-Quality said:
Price cut or not, I was waiting on the confirmation and now I have it! Spending SO MUCH dough this Fall!


I woud buy it too if I had the money its the best looking special edition 360 so far and I'm not even a fan of Halo and I really don't like FPS in general.



smbu2000 on 15 July 2012

Just because they've announced the price of the bundle at the moment, doesn't mean they can't adjust it later. It wouldn't make sense to announce a price cut a few months in advance.

I remember last year when sony was selling the ps3 for 30,000 yen still and the ps3 Tales of Xillia special edition console was announced in early/mid 2011 for ~38,000 yen. Before the launch of that game/special edition console, so had their 5,000 yen price cut on the PS3. They ended up dropping the price of the special edition console by 5,000 yen as well even though the price had been announced previously.




starcraft: "I and every PS3 fanboy alive are waiting for Versus more than FFXIII.
Me since the games were revealed, the fanboys since E3."

Skeeuk: "playstation 3 is the ultimate in gaming acceleration"

Argh_College on 15 July 2012

Microsoft doesnt want to cut the price... i think not dropping the price since 2008 should be a crime. People buying 360s for 400$ dollars is insane, that is what Xbox 8 will cost in 1 year from now.



Squilliam on 15 July 2012
withdreday said:
Squilliam said:


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.

You're assuming these are the "worst customers", but that's were the huge sales market is. And it's not the very poor people as you make it sound. It most likely people who have rent, cable bills, car payments, etc, and think 300 bucks on a game console is to much of a jump at this point. And once those people start buy a few greatest hits titles, they'll surely pony up for the next major release like GTA5. 

And the point about the 360 being about "high quality" is fairly debatable looking at a problem involving "red rings" early in it's life cycle. But I don't want to go debating that, so I digress

Someone who buys a console nearly 7 years after release isn't going to buy as many games as a person who bought his console 3 years after release simply because the system is nearing obsolesence. They obviously aren't big gamers otherwise they would have bought the console already, wouldn't they? So another strike. If your console is making $100 on a $200 console, cutting the price $50 would require you to double hardware sales in order to increase profits but no $50 cut has ever doubled sales.



Tease.

withdreday on 15 July 2012
Squilliam said:
withdreday said:
Squilliam said:


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.

You're assuming these are the "worst customers", but that's were the huge sales market is. And it's not the very poor people as you make it sound. It most likely people who have rent, cable bills, car payments, etc, and think 300 bucks on a game console is to much of a jump at this point. And once those people start buy a few greatest hits titles, they'll surely pony up for the next major release like GTA5. 

And the point about the 360 being about "high quality" is fairly debatable looking at a problem involving "red rings" early in it's life cycle. But I don't want to go debating that, so I digress

Someone who buys a console nearly 7 years after release isn't going to buy as many games as a person who bought his console 3 years after release simply because the system is nearing obsolesence. They obviously aren't big gamers otherwise they would have bought the console already, wouldn't they? So another strike. If your console is making $100 on a $200 console, cutting the price $50 would require you to double hardware sales in order to increase profits but no $50 cut has ever doubled sales.

More people buying the console means more people paying for Xbox live, etc. And most of the new buyers could also be people who only owned the playstation and Wii and want to experience exclusives titles like Gears of War and Alan Wake. With big time exclusives coming, a price cut couldn't hurt.