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

Forums - Microsoft - How come people say the Xbox 360 can't have any more price cuts?

nightsurge on 24 May 2009

^So you are saying that Microsoft won't cut the price because cutting the price would be bad for them? That's odd..... seems like a winning move since it will still be profitable or near breaking even after the price cut.

And I don't know why you think "Sony's proven history in cost reduction" has any merit. All components are manufactured and over time EVERY manufacturer reduces the cost of production, especially on CPUs/GPUs which, by the way, are not made by Sony or MS, so really your argument that Sony will be able to reduce the production costs based on their history is kind of silly considering their very limited control over the situation.



Around the Network
Cueil on 25 May 2009
Million said:
Cueil said:
Million said:
yo_john117 said:
nightsurge said:
It makes me laugh when people think that the PS3 has "more room to drop the price" than the 360. In reality, though, the PS3 will never be able to reach as low of a price as the 360 because of it's extra tech and more expensive technology. While the 360 may one day reach $99 at the very end of it's life, the PS3 will only be able to be lowered to about $200 at the end of its life due to all this extra technology and more expensive technology they added into it.

The PS3's price originally will drop more, and faster, given it's initial high price tag, but after it hits $300 it will stall for easily two years before another price cut could be afforded and affective. This is because the rate at which things become cheaper can roughly follow Moore's Law and so after 2 years of production the parts should cost roughly half as much. This is true for the PS3 as at launch it cost nearly $800-900 to make and now is roughly $400-450 to make. The 360 started at roughly $475 to make and now costs about $200-225 to make. That means that the 360 will be able to afford another price cut within the coming months if needed, while the PS3's cost of production will not reach $300 for another year, and will not reach $200 production cost for at least another 2-3 years.

And that's if things follow Moore's law exactly which will not be the case.

In reality, the 360 has more room to lower the price or to change the bundles because it still holds the majority of it's sales at the $300 Pro console. This is likely to be lowered to $200-250, and then again to $200 within a year, while the Arcade will lower to $150. Ok, I know I am speaking in absolutes, so I'd just like to clarify that this is what I feel has a very great probability to happen and not necessarily the actual outcome.

Regardless, the main fact I want to come across is that since the PS3 started at such a high price, it will end at a much higher price than the 360. You will never see a mass market priced PS3 at $200 until the day this generation ends and the 360 will almost assuredly maintain a 50% cheaper model until the end of the generation.


Hmm how does that in any way end the thread ?. Microsoft could give away XBOX 360's for free if they wanted to , if the only thing your taking into consideration is Sony's and MS's ability to reduce costs/cut the prices of their consoles then your failing to take into account the more relevant factors of their competition.

Even your price cut argument is weak.


-Moores law doesn't apply to the whole PS3 , there are some non-computing components in the PS3.

-Your price cut argument doesn't take into account methods of distribution both might be using , scales of economy they might be taking advantage.

-You also fail to consider changes in currency.

-You also fail to consider the fact that Sony has sold the PS3 at a loss in past ( I don't think they are now), Sony could in theory take a loss to cut the PS3's price.

-You also fail to consider that Sony has a history in console cost reduction that Microsoft doesn't have.

 

And that's only the begining.

 


This is Microsoft's first real console...

Yes the original XBOX was imaginary.../sarcasm. what you mean is this is microsofts first comercialy viable console.

And how does that add anything to the discussion

The original Xbox was't anymore a console than the f'n Intel Mac.  A set peice of hardware with a set piece of software built specificly for the hardware configuration.  Granted the OSX can support veriaty of Video and sound cards it's still not on the same level as a PC.



 
Get your Portable ID!

akuseru on 25 May 2009
nightsurge said:
Oh and one more thing, I would argue that decreasing the price of the 360, especially in markets where it already exceeds the PS3 by a good margin, will increase the perceived value, not decrease it. The average Joe will go to a store, see 2 consoles with nearly all the same games. Both consoles he finds out can play HD and one is 50% cheaper. To that person the perceived value is going to be greater on the 360 because it can do nearly every function for half the price! Plus add on the unique features of Netflix streaming, Live with its unique features, achievements, and the greater chance that you will be able to play with your friends or that more of your friends will own this console, and the value goes up even more.

Sure you can argue that "they will need to pay for LIVE and to buy a wireless adapter so it isn't cheaper", but I would then counter argue that since only about 18 million Xbox 360 users even use the Silver/Gold level service, it is obviously not an absolute selling point (12 million 360 users not online). Also, to add on to that, wireless is not necessary, and most situations will not require it. But, in the event the average Joe pays for Xbox Live for full price, he still will get the occasional free XBLA game, and the chance to win prizes and points from all the MS promotions or Xbox Live PrimeTime.

seriously. I rarely post around these forums, but I read a lot, and wow! Let me just counter your stupidity: "Plus, add on the unique features of PS Video Store, Blu Ray Drive (for the FUTURE my friend, or do you expect DVD to hold forever??), Wireless (even though you don't use it, around 20 people I know with PS3 use it), FREE online (with basically the same features for the average consumer), More storage, cheaper prices on extra storage, no need to buy batteries for controllers, bluetooth (does 360 have bluetooth, sorry if I'm wrong), trophies (just as a counter to achievements. most GAMERS I know play games because the games are good, and does not really care about this unimportant stuff), possibilities to have lossless sound on games, HDMI 1.3, Play TV (nice feature you can add for the same price as a WiFi adaptor on the 360, or whatever)."

edit: oh and add to that: nearly (i say nearly) scratch free discs (no disc scratch problems, even if you treat your discs as garbage), minimum FAILURE rate in comparison to competition (HD consoles), play the amazing catalouge of PS1 titles. and for people with launch systems; able to play the AMAZING catalouge of PS2 titles and have all sorts of card readers (which I have used many times and see as a good feature)...

You see, 360 can't do the same things for half the price, it can't even play movies made on the next up and coming mainstream disc based movie format. And even though you may say that those extra features on the PS3 are not needed... well, for me LIVE is not needed, for me NETFLIX is not needed (because we have the PS Video Store with better content really), for me ACHIEVEMENTS are not needed... The PS3 is more of a machine than the 360 could ever be. Now go back playing through LIVE on your precious 360... Only thing the 360 has on the PS3 is a cheaper price and a year advatage in the market. NOTHING more than that... (and some games like Halo 3 (sad..), Gears (sad..) and Mass Effect (i'd like to play) + Fable (lol) and Dead Rising (i'd like to play) and I can add Crackdown.. Oh! and Alan Wake... I don't bother listing RPGs, because they don't sell on 360 and obviously they get PS3 ports down the line with more content..)

 

/rant out



Cueil on 25 May 2009
akuseru said:
nightsurge said:
Oh and one more thing, I would argue that decreasing the price of the 360, especially in markets where it already exceeds the PS3 by a good margin, will increase the perceived value, not decrease it. The average Joe will go to a store, see 2 consoles with nearly all the same games. Both consoles he finds out can play HD and one is 50% cheaper. To that person the perceived value is going to be greater on the 360 because it can do nearly every function for half the price! Plus add on the unique features of Netflix streaming, Live with its unique features, achievements, and the greater chance that you will be able to play with your friends or that more of your friends will own this console, and the value goes up even more.

Sure you can argue that "they will need to pay for LIVE and to buy a wireless adapter so it isn't cheaper", but I would then counter argue that since only about 18 million Xbox 360 users even use the Silver/Gold level service, it is obviously not an absolute selling point (12 million 360 users not online). Also, to add on to that, wireless is not necessary, and most situations will not require it. But, in the event the average Joe pays for Xbox Live for full price, he still will get the occasional free XBLA game, and the chance to win prizes and points from all the MS promotions or Xbox Live PrimeTime.

seriously. I rarely post around these forums, but I read a lot, and wow! Let me just counter your stupidity: "Plus, add on the unique features of PS Video Store, Blu Ray Drive (for the FUTURE my friend, or do you expect DVD to hold forever??), Wireless (even though you don't use it, around 20 people I know with PS3 use it), FREE online (with basically the same features for the average consumer), More storage, cheaper prices on extra storage, no need to buy batteries for controllers, bluetooth (does 360 have bluetooth, sorry if I'm wrong), trophies (just as a counter to achievements. most GAMERS I know play games because the games are good, and does not really care about this unimportant stuff), possibilities to have lossless sound on games, HDMI 1.3, Play TV (nice feature you can add for the same price as a WiFi adaptor on the 360, or whatever)."

edit: oh and add to that: nearly (i say nearly) scratch free discs (no disc scratch problems, even if you treat your discs as garbage), minimum FAILURE rate in comparison to competition (HD consoles), play the amazing catalouge of PS1 titles. and for people with launch systems; able to play the AMAZING catalouge of PS2 titles and have all sorts of card readers (which I have used many times and see as a good feature)...

You see, 360 can't do the same things for half the price, it can't even play movies made on the next up and coming mainstream disc based movie format. And even though you may say that those extra features on the PS3 are not needed... well, for me LIVE is not needed, for me NETFLIX is not needed (because we have the PS Video Store with better content really), for me ACHIEVEMENTS are not needed... The PS3 is more of a machine than the 360 could ever be. Now go back playing through LIVE on your precious 360... Only thing the 360 has on the PS3 is a cheaper price and a year advatage in the market. NOTHING more than that... (and some games like Halo 3 (sad..), Gears (sad..) and Mass Effect (i'd like to play) + Fable (lol) and Dead Rising (i'd like to play) and I can add Crackdown.. Oh! and Alan Wake... I don't bother listing RPGs, because they don't sell on 360 and obviously they get PS3 ports down the line with more content..)

 

/rant out

I stream HD movies to my 360 all the time through Media Center Extender... streaming BR is just a simple trick of streaming the drive to your console... if there isn't a plug-in for it there surely will be soon.  They even have emulator plug-ins for Media Center and web browsers...



 
Get your Portable ID!

akuseru on 25 May 2009
Cueil said:
 

I stream HD movies to my 360 all the time through Media Center Extender... streaming BR is just a simple trick of streaming the drive to your console... if there isn't a plug-in for it there surely will be soon.  They even have emulator plug-ins for Media Center and web browsers...

guess what, I do that too on my PS3, but that is not the point. If you want to play the real deal as in playing hard copies, there's only 1 console who can give you that experience.. If you don't want to buy a seperate BD player that is... Point is, I was just countering his really lame points of "extra" value on the 360...

 

Also about friends being on 360 and that is extra value... How is that extra value for me when 2 of my friends have 360 and 20 have PS3, that is just subjective and does not really add to the value. If that is the case, then 360 in Japan is lower "value" than 360 in America, etc ...



Around the Network
Squilliam on 25 May 2009
akuseru said:
nightsurge said:
Oh and one more thing, I would argue that decreasing the price of the 360, especially in markets where it already exceeds the PS3 by a good margin, will increase the perceived value, not decrease it. The average Joe will go to a store, see 2 consoles with nearly all the same games. Both consoles he finds out can play HD and one is 50% cheaper. To that person the perceived value is going to be greater on the 360 because it can do nearly every function for half the price! Plus add on the unique features of Netflix streaming, Live with its unique features, achievements, and the greater chance that you will be able to play with your friends or that more of your friends will own this console, and the value goes up even more.

Sure you can argue that "they will need to pay for LIVE and to buy a wireless adapter so it isn't cheaper", but I would then counter argue that since only about 18 million Xbox 360 users even use the Silver/Gold level service, it is obviously not an absolute selling point (12 million 360 users not online). Also, to add on to that, wireless is not necessary, and most situations will not require it. But, in the event the average Joe pays for Xbox Live for full price, he still will get the occasional free XBLA game, and the chance to win prizes and points from all the MS promotions or Xbox Live PrimeTime.

seriously. I rarely post around these forums, but I read a lot, and wow! Let me just counter your stupidity: "Plus, add on the unique features of PS Video Store, Blu Ray Drive (for the FUTURE my friend, or do you expect DVD to hold forever??), Wireless (even though you don't use it, around 20 people I know with PS3 use it), FREE online (with basically the same features for the average consumer), More storage, cheaper prices on extra storage, no need to buy batteries for controllers, bluetooth (does 360 have bluetooth, sorry if I'm wrong), trophies (just as a counter to achievements. most GAMERS I know play games because the games are good, and does not really care about this unimportant stuff), possibilities to have lossless sound on games, HDMI 1.3, Play TV (nice feature you can add for the same price as a WiFi adaptor on the 360, or whatever)."

edit: oh and add to that: nearly (i say nearly) scratch free discs (no disc scratch problems, even if you treat your discs as garbage), minimum FAILURE rate in comparison to competition (HD consoles), play the amazing catalouge of PS1 titles. and for people with launch systems; able to play the AMAZING catalouge of PS2 titles and have all sorts of card readers (which I have used many times and see as a good feature)...

You see, 360 can't do the same things for half the price, it can't even play movies made on the next up and coming mainstream disc based movie format. And even though you may say that those extra features on the PS3 are not needed... well, for me LIVE is not needed, for me NETFLIX is not needed (because we have the PS Video Store with better content really), for me ACHIEVEMENTS are not needed... The PS3 is more of a machine than the 360 could ever be. Now go back playing through LIVE on your precious 360... Only thing the 360 has on the PS3 is a cheaper price and a year advatage in the market. NOTHING more than that... (and some games like Halo 3 (sad..), Gears (sad..) and Mass Effect (i'd like to play) + Fable (lol) and Dead Rising (i'd like to play) and I can add Crackdown.. Oh! and Alan Wake... I don't bother listing RPGs, because they don't sell on 360 and obviously they get PS3 ports down the line with more content..)

 

/rant out

You know, theres no point to all this. The market determines which features are valuable and the price determins how many systems are sold. Arguing about which feature or quality you like the best doesn't really add anything or change anything.



Tease.

akuseru on 25 May 2009

@Squill

First, let me say, I respect you on these forums. I feel you contribute a lot with nice posts and I enjoy reading your replies when reading through the forums.

With that said. I was not really trying to point out which is the best (even though I'm obviously PS3 bias, but only because I'm not really fond of Microsoft. And also because I don't really fit into the 360 demographic if you know what I mean). I like how Sony build their 1st party and try new things this gen. Sony show that they are willing to improve qualities within the company, I respect the business they are trying to run and how they try to run it.

The reason I posted and ended with /rant is because it's so narrow minded to write what he wrote, when obviously there are so many things that add value on PS3 as well and he writes it like the 360 is the only console which has added value to it. Especially the part with: "and the greater chance that you will be able to play with your friends or that more of your friends will own this console, and the value goes up even more." because that is highly subjective as NONE of my friends (2 have it, but they rarely play and also borrow others PS3 to play PS3 instead) have a 360 and around 20 (or everyone else) have a PS3... How is that added value for me that many "friends" are on LIVE. That is just stupid and narrow minded arguments and has nothing to do with added value for everyone and it could just as well be the other way around. Maybe in the states this is a "fact", but not where I come from and not around the world. And as far as I know, 360 and PS3 are sold around the world and not only in the states.. This is just my 2 cents on his post, nothing more =)



Squilliam on 25 May 2009
akuseru said:

@Squill

First, let me say, I respect you on these forums. I feel you contribute a lot with nice posts and I enjoy reading your replies when reading through the forums.

With that said. I was not really trying to point out which is the best (even though I'm obviously PS3 bias, but only because I'm not really fond of Microsoft. And also because I don't really fit into the 360 demographic if you know what I mean). I like how Sony build their 1st party and try new things this gen. Sony show that they are willing to improve qualities within the company, I respect the business they are trying to run and how they try to run it.

The reason I posted and ended with /rant is because it's so narrow minded to write what he wrote, when obviously there are so many things that add value on PS3 as well and he writes it like the 360 is the only console which has added value to it. Especially the part with: "and the greater chance that you will be able to play with your friends or that more of your friends will own this console, and the value goes up even more." because that is highly subjective as NONE of my friends (2 have it, but they rarely play and also borrow others PS3 to play PS3 instead) have a 360 and around 20 (or everyone else) have a PS3... How is that added value for me that many "friends" are on LIVE. That is just stupid and narrow minded arguments and has nothing to do with added value for everyone and it could just as well be the other way around. Maybe in the states this is a "fact", but not where I come from and not around the world. And as far as I know, 360 and PS3 are sold around the world and not only in the states.. This is just my 2 cents on his post, nothing more =)

I think the one truth thats forgotten in these silly arguments is that whether someone paid $4 for an Xbox 360 and $7000 for a PS3, the value and enjoyment one could get from either is about the same. The price doesn't factor into the equation once someone has bought something. The one issue in comparing the two systems is that any comparison is a gross oversimplification at best.

Now with Nightsurge's post, I do not think his intention was to devalue the PS3. The topic of the thread is to challenge those who believed that the Xbox 360 could prosper with further price cuts. I have seen his posting before and I followed his posts in this thread, so I do not believe it was his intention to cut the PS3 down in any way. Furthermore his post could only really apply to the United States or the United Kingdom because those are the only two places where the Xbox 360 enjoys a substantive advantage over the PS3. 

In the end its an extremely complicated issue. You have to forgive people for not being able to cover all of the major scenarios in a couple of paragraphs. Im from New Zealand, so for me to honestly and productively post here I have to keep track of prices in both the E.U and U.S.A. Cultural differences between different countries for things like games and features. I know that the Xbox 360 suits the American market better, and I also know that the PS3 suits the Japanese and European market better as a whole.

I hope this helps?

 

 



Tease.

nightsurge on 25 May 2009

All I have to say is that I love when fanboys try to make my arguments look "narrow minded"

Welcome to VGChartz! I suggest you learn logic before your stay here ends abruptly.

Xbox Live has a huge selection of video content (greater than that on the PS Video Store) AND Netflix with all of it's content added on.

I also suggest you realize that by countering my arguments with "equal" solutions on the PS3 you were basically showing how the 360 is such a great value at half the price. The only real thing missing is the Blu-Ray drive, but since these are gaming consoles first and foremost, I think MS made the best choices in order to keep prices down. Also, Bluetooth isn't exactly that great. sure it is slightly better than the wireless technology in the Xbox 360's controllers, but as for headsets and other things that are not included with your PS3, it is quite a hefty price and voice quality over Bluetooth is very poor.

I would also like to point you to my earlier posts explaining why the PS3 will never be able to compete in price with the 360.

And lastly, I appreciate your opinion and how you favor the PS3 more, but you are not the average Joe consumer so really you prove nothing by saying that for you the features of the Xbox 360 and Xbox Live are not needed. There are PS3 fans, there are 360 fans, and then there are the average Joe consumers who just like to play games and don't visit online forums all the time. You are a PS3 fan, I am now just a 360 fan (since that is all I still own) but used to be a PS3, Wii, and 360 fan.



Million on 27 May 2009
nightsurge said:

^So you are saying that Microsoft won't cut the price because cutting the price would be bad for them? That's odd..... seems like a winning move since it will still be profitable or near breaking even after the price cut.

And I don't know why you think "Sony's proven history in cost reduction" has any merit. All components are manufactured and over time EVERY manufacturer reduces the cost of production, especially on CPUs/GPUs which, by the way, are not made by Sony or MS, so really your argument that Sony will be able to reduce the production costs based on their history is kind of silly considering their very limited control over the situation.

Your very closed minded in thinking the costs of the CPU/GPU are the only things which determine the cost per unit of a console , there's probably hundreds of factors which could affect Sony's ability to reduce the PS3's unit cost.

 

-Better , Cheaper Material( Casing, Fans , Cables, Buttons , Non-Computing compenents etc)

-Better Distribution

-Effective use of Outsourcing

-Effective workforce management ( Flexible workforce that varies with demand for example)

-Healthy levels of capacity utilisation

-Highl levels of quality control

 

I could go on but I won't .