I will purchase at least two, maybe three of the games you just listed kitchensink, but you cannot tell me that they have the history of enormous sales and brand awareness of FF, GT, MGS4 and GTAIV.

@misterd.
I agree that a $100 dollar cut is a better PR move, and now I think about it, more likely to garner high sales. It's just I dont know if MS will want to go back in the red on the console.

P.S. I know the Max Payne link:)

thekitchensink said: @Starcraft: I'm sorry, but that's just incorrect. Wrong. 100% wrong. -Splinter Cell Conviction. -Ninja Gaiden 2 -Fable 2 -Banjo Kazooie 3 (if it comes out this year) Those are just the ones I could think of that met your criteria.

 

1. Is SC going to be enough of a draw? I wonder if the plethora of SC games (6 in 6 years) hasn't watered down the name brand.

2. I'm not sure Fable 2 will be able to expand beyond the XBox base.

3. I am a huge Banjo fan, but am dismissing BK3 as a factor right now. Rare's work has been too spotty,and BK skipped a generation, which puts it's fanbase in doubt.

4. PR-wise, those games simply do not stack up against FF13,GT5, MGS4, Tekken 6, Jak and Dexter. Add in the MP titles (GTA4, DMC4, Silent Hill 5, SC4), and some of their own new IPs (LittleBigPlanet), and 2008 looks as good for Sony as 2007 looked for MS, if not better. 

I would be surprised if MS drops the price at all before Christmas. They waited two years to drop it by a lousy $50, so I don't see why they'd do it again so soon.

A $100 price cut would have been effective right before the PS3 and Wii launched, and they should have done another to $250 right before last holiday season.

As it stands right now, the 360 already has a 7 million lead over the PS3. A price cut probably wouldn't increase it by more than 1million, and MS would still have the Wii to worry about. That being said, such a cut wouldn't hurt Sony all that much, wouldn't improve their standing in the market as they'd still be a distant second behind the Wii, and would insure that MS is stil sitting on billions of dollars of red ink at the end of the generation as the hardware would be sold at a loss. Not to mention, it would look like desperation/uncertainty.

madskillz said: MS is a very patient copy. The Xbox was just a trojan horse to get the 360 to the table. If it worked, cool - if not, they were expecting that too. The big difference between the Xbox and the 360 is - the appeal and its dominance over Sony - for the time being. Sure, Halo 3, Mass Effect and Bioshock are out, but don't for once think MS has used its big guns yet. MS was the one who pushed for a later GTA IV date. Remember? I am looking at this from a purely business standpoint. MS rarely - RARELY makes mistakes. That's my plan if I was running the MS entertainment division show. For Sony to win, take the loss and force MS to counter. I would also sign tons of exclusive games to the system and get the games out, not delayed. One delay and our contract is null and void. Time is of the essence. I would rather win and leave on top or a close second than win by default.

 I'd hardly call a lead that's only because of a headstart any kind of dominance.

 MS doesn't make any mistakes?

-RROD, disc scratching, and various other hardware design flaws that were ignored and allowed to fester and worsen until they turned into PR nightmares.

-360 priced at double mass market price point from the beginning. 

-Failure to drop the price in a timely and effective manner.

-Failure to make sure that the game library of the 360 was more diverse instead of the majority of its high-profile titles being shooters, racing sims, and sports games.

- 

Lord N said: I would be surprised if MS drops the price at all before Christmas. They waited two years to drop it by a lousy $50, so I don't see why they'd do it again so soon. A $100 price cut would have been effective right before the PS3 and Wii launched, and they should have done another to $250 right before last holiday season.   Sony's high launch price and limited availability made one unnecessary in 2006 (remember no one saw the Wii as a serious competitor back then). Perception is that the $1bil warranty extension on the 360 prohibited a typical price cut in 2007. However, it is clear that Sony's price cut and new models have helped them far, far more than MS's similar actions. And now the consoles will be put in even more direct competition than in the past, as the first huge MP titles are released (GTA4 specifically, but also DMC4, Silent Hill 5, Soul Caliber 4, and others I am forgetting). With HALO3 launched, the only arrow left in MS quiver is a price cut. If they don't use it now, they could very well loose even more ground to the PS3. Remember, most of those who haven't jumped to the current gen were Sony owners last. History implies that they won't change brands unless the new console gives them a reason, which puts the pressure on MS more than Sony.   As it stands right now, the 360 already has a 7 million lead over the PS3. A price cut probably wouldn't increase it by more than 1million, and MS would still have the Wii to worry about. That being said, such a cut wouldn't hurt Sony all that much, wouldn't improve their standing in the market as they'd still be a distant second behind the Wii, and would insure that MS is stil sitting on billions of dollars of red ink at the end of the generation as the hardware would be sold at a loss. Not to mention, it would look like desperation/uncertainty.

MS can't do much about Wii so long as that price difference remains so large.

As for Sony, that 7million lead is slowly being eaten away. Since MS is frozen out of the Eastern market, it is under tremendous pressure to succeed in the US and Europe. While the US is looking OK, Europe is quickly breaking Sony's way, and Sony is looking to have a huge software year. If MS wants a decisive victory over the PS3, now is the time to act.

 

starcraft said: I will purchase at least two, maybe three of the games you just listed kitchensink, but you cannot tell me that they have the history of enormous sales and brand awareness of FF, GT, MGS4 and GTAIV. @misterd. I agree that a $100 dollar cut is a better PR move, and now I think about it, more likely to garner high sales. It's just I dont know if MS will want to go back in the red on the console. P.S. I know the Max Payne link:)

True, but you stated that Halo Wars and GTA IV were their only established IPs this year.  Come to think of it, if you're including multiplats, then why leave out DMC4, Silent Hill, Alone in the Dark, Soul Caliber (with Yoda!),?

 

Personally (and this might just be me) with regard to the price drop removing profitability, I've got two thoughts:

1. MS really isn't in this for profitability--they want to stick it to Sony, which they are doing pretty well right now.  A $100 drop would put the Arcade at mass-market sub-$200 range, and I don't think there'd be any looking back  (Although it would be nice if they at least reduced the price of a 20-gig hdd and included a bigger memory card).

2. If they reduced prices that much, I really think people would buy enough consoles that software sales would make up for any deficits.

thekitchensink said: starcraft said: I will purchase at least two, maybe three of the games you just listed kitchensink, but you cannot tell me that they have the history of enormous sales and brand awareness of FF, GT, MGS4 and GTAIV. @misterd. I agree that a $100 dollar cut is a better PR move, and now I think about it, more likely to garner high sales. It's just I dont know if MS will want to go back in the red on the console. P.S. I know the Max Payne link:) True, but you stated that Halo Wars and GTA IV were their only established IPs this year.  Come to think of it, if you're including multiplats, then why leave out DMC4, Silent Hill, Alone in the Dark, Soul Caliber (with Yoda!),?   Personally (and this might just be me) with regard to the price drop removing profitability, I've got two thoughts: 1. MS really isn't in this for profitability--they want to stick it to Sony, which they are doing pretty well right now.  A $100 drop would put the Arcade at mass-market sub-$200 range, and I don't think there'd be any looking back  (Although it would be nice if they at least reduced the price of a 20-gig hdd and included a bigger memory card). 2. If they reduced prices that much, I really think people would buy enough consoles that software sales would make up for any deficits.

 

That's the main thing. Again, MS sees this as a multi-generational war for the future of home entertainment, and their only real opponent is Sony. They simply cannot allow Sony to dominate as they did last gen, and really need to make the XBox a viable brand 2, 3 generations down the road. That'll be easier if they can stomp the shit out of Sony now, which they have so far failed to do.

 

Arcade
NA - $229
Europe - £199

Premium
NA - $299
Europe - £259


Elite
NA - $399
Europe -£349

misterd said: starcraft said: But the issue with MS's 2008 games is purely brandname. They will have games just as good as Sony, but apart from Halo Wars and GTA IV, most of them are unestablished new IP. Thats why I want an AGRESSIVE price cut or two, smaller ones over the course of the year (before GTAIV then before Christmas). My point is that MS does make mistakes - big ones, even. It's just, like the Yankees, they have enough money to keep those mistakes from crippling them. I also think they mishandled the 360 in 2007 - the PS3 has too many headline titles coming in 2008. MS should have been even more agressive last year, to keep Sony from capitalizing on these games. Now they've let the PS3 off the mat, and are trying to fend off the perception that 360 is going to lose. For the record, I'm a Wii owner and XBox owner, and am dying for a 360 cut so I can finally play Dead Rising, Mass Effect, and Bioshock. And I will never own a PS3. However, I must disagree with your assessment of the 360 lineup. As Sony has learned, new IPs that appear promising in January can prove embarassing come December. GT, FF, MGS all have proven track records. Alan Wake does not (and only the geekiest of us would know the connection to Max Payne). I also want to say that one big price cut would be better, PR-wise, than 2 small ones. A couple of quick adjustments injects uncertainty in the market - if MS cuts prices every 6 months, a consumer is likely to be willing to wait a few more for the next bargain. It also implies uncertainty on the part of MS, if not outright failure (cutting price again? First one must not have worked!). And of course psycghologically, $50 cut doesn't look as good as $100 (which is why the $30-$50-$20 cut was referred to as a "$100 cut over 3 systems" in the press releases). A $100 cut by MS would be a bold move that, I think, would convey confidence to the gaming audience, and likely allay fears that an even cheaper price would be coming soon.

Oh, MS is far from perfect, but ... one price cut this year, and another next will extend the momentum. All you have to do is look at the numbers. MS is still hanging with the PS3 in several markets (except Japan) and Sony is really using a tiny ice pick to chip away at MS's lead. And it's working, but it's driving Sony so far into the red, you'd think they're Russian. MS is smart not to do a full-court press against a formidable opponent. Even the best basketball team can't do a full-court press for 48 minutes straight.

The point I am trying to make is - a $100 price cut would work well for gamers, but not for MS. It would be a short-term gain for MS. When Sony's heavy hitters come out, MS needs something to counter the Sony steamroller. A deeper price cut, with an impressive library in the background, would foil Sony's efforts big time.

It's all about momentum - and right now, it's a tug-o-war. Who would have dreamed MS would be solidly in second place this time anyhow? It's a marathon - and having two smaller price cuts will keep the MS ball rolling.

I do enjoy reading all of this logic on this board. It's civilized and no fanboy rants. Impressive ... 

Lord N said: I would be surprised if MS drops the price at all before Christmas. They waited two years to drop it by a lousy $50, so I don't see why they'd do it again so soon. A $100 price cut would have been effective right before the PS3 and Wii launched, and they should have done another to $250 right before last holiday season. As it stands right now, the 360 already has a 7 million lead over the PS3. A price cut probably wouldn't increase it by more than 1million, and MS would still have the Wii to worry about. That being said, such a cut wouldn't hurt Sony all that much, wouldn't improve their standing in the market as they'd still be a distant second behind the Wii, and would insure that MS is stil sitting on billions of dollars of red ink at the end of the generation as the hardware would be sold at a loss. Not to mention, it would look like desperation/uncertainty.

They dropped the price to generate more sales. And yeah, folks took notice.

And most companies won't do a price cut unless - they are trying to generate sales. MS had absolutely no need until the release of several big guns, to create momentum. And by looking at the NPD numbers and such, it did just that.

How would a price cut not hurt Sony? That's less sales for Sony, more for MS and an even bigger lead. And last quarter, MS had a PROFIT in the division. Folks are confusing the Xbox with the 360. The 360 is blowing the Xbox out of the water completely. MS is making money and can afford to be bullish against the PS3. And based on the lead, which has been growing over the past year, MS isn't desparate. They aren't the kind of folks that would drop their cargo at the first sign of imperial forces. They are in it for the long haul. Sony, on the other hand, is losing tons of money - look at the last quarter financial reports and going for penetrations in hopes of scoring royalties on the Blu Ray movies and such.