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

Forums - Gaming - Natal less than $50

mike_intellivision on 13 July 2009

Patcher said the PSP Go price point was a rip off -- then backtracked when he was called to the woodshed.

The razorblade model might work with a console because people will have to buy games. But with an add-on that may be forgotten and not supported, I am not sure that the model would work well.

I honestly expect the item to be priced in the same range as the Balance Board and Wii Fit -- roughly $90-$100 in the US.

Mike from Morgantown

PS -- My last name is not Pachter (its' Dougherty).



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV
Around the Network
bdbdbd on 13 July 2009
sieanr said:






wiifan75 said:







nordlead said:

They can easily sell Natal at a loss, they will get their money back very quickly from what they will make on Natal games. This is, after all, part of the traditional console pricing model.

stupid analysts. This isn't the traditional pricing model at all. It is the new one that has only worked with limited success for Sony. Overall the model has been horrible for them due to the huge losses posted by the PS3. Microsoft is also yet to make any money on this model (in gaming).



I couldn't agree with you more.  You beat me to that punch.  I can't believe some fool thinks losing money up front is "Traditional".  That is exactly why Nintendo is always in the game and relevant.  They priced out a product that was affordable to make.  They make money on every console.  That's a traditional model.  Only fools lose money up front to make it on the back side.  It's too risky and it's very evident now.  The jump this generation for graphics was too much I think.  It should have been stepped into slowly.  I just don't think this should have been the HD generation.  If PS360 would have been a little more conservative and gradually increased it's power and graphics over another generation, then I think Sony would have remained #1 and Nintendo might have been contemplating software sales only on PS4 & 360.5.  Just a thought.




Because it exactly what most video game companies have done?


Its called the razor/razorblade model of business, and its what Sony did during the PS1 and PS2 gen, not just with the PS3. Most other companies, Nintendo and SNK excluded, have also sold their hardware at a loss for atleast a while. At the start of the Genesis era the head of Sega of America insisted on following this model, much to the anger of Sega of Japan. Eventually SOA had virtually 50% of the US market, while SOJ was far behind Nintendo and NEC/Hudson.


But its not just video game companies that have profitted, and flourished off this model. Besides the aftermentioned video game and razorblade industry, ommunication companies do essentially the same - free installion and DVR/modems/phones up front, then the money is made back through a subscription. Basically you can think of the costs for the hardware being subsidised by the people who buy games and accessories, or subscribe to a service.




No. Sony didn't do it with PSX. With PS2 and 3 it did (except that PS3 still haven't sold the blades), but not with the first one.

And the "razor and blades" Sega did with Megadrive, wasn't to sell it at loss, it was just bundling software, that you could sell separetely, with the hardware.

Also, Nintendo has never sold its hardware at a loss, well the cases whe currency fluctuates so, that the marginal drops to negative, are the only cases i'm aware of.

The reason why the console companies traditionally haven't sold their hardware at loss, is because the consoles have traditionally been made of cheap hardware.

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

piningforthefjords on 13 July 2009

Knowing Sony, the PS3 wand will be $300-ish.



Slimebeast on 13 July 2009
bdbdbd said:
sieanr said:






wiifan75 said:







nordlead said:

They can easily sell Natal at a loss, they will get their money back very quickly from what they will make on Natal games. This is, after all, part of the traditional console pricing model.

stupid analysts. This isn't the traditional pricing model at all. It is the new one that has only worked with limited success for Sony. Overall the model has been horrible for them due to the huge losses posted by the PS3. Microsoft is also yet to make any money on this model (in gaming).

I couldn't agree with you more.  You beat me to that punch.  I can't believe some fool thinks losing money up front is "Traditional".  That is exactly why Nintendo is always in the game and relevant.  They priced out a product that was affordable to make.  They make money on every console.  That's a traditional model.  Only fools lose money up front to make it on the back side.  It's too risky and it's very evident now.  The jump this generation for graphics was too much I think.  It should have been stepped into slowly.  I just don't think this should have been the HD generation.  If PS360 would have been a little more conservative and gradually increased it's power and graphics over another generation, then I think Sony would have remained #1 and Nintendo might have been contemplating software sales only on PS4 & 360.5.  Just a thought.


Because it exactly what most video game companies have done?


Its called the razor/razorblade model of business, and its what Sony did during the PS1 and PS2 gen, not just with the PS3. Most other companies, Nintendo and SNK excluded, have also sold their hardware at a loss for atleast a while. At the start of the Genesis era the head of Sega of America insisted on following this model, much to the anger of Sega of Japan. Eventually SOA had virtually 50% of the US market, while SOJ was far behind Nintendo and NEC/Hudson.


But its not just video game companies that have profitted, and flourished off this model. Besides the aftermentioned video game and razorblade industry, ommunication companies do essentially the same - free installion and DVR/modems/phones up front, then the money is made back through a subscription. Basically you can think of the costs for the hardware being subsidised by the people who buy games and accessories, or subscribe to a service.



No. Sony didn't do it with PSX. With PS2 and 3 it did (except that PS3 still haven't sold the blades), but not with the first one.

And the "razor and blades" Sega did with Megadrive, wasn't to sell it at loss, it was just bundling software, that you could sell separetely, with the hardware.

Also, Nintendo has never sold its hardware at a loss, well the cases whe currency fluctuates so, that the marginal drops to negative, are the only cases i'm aware of.

The reason why the console companies traditionally haven't sold their hardware at loss, is because the consoles have traditionally been made of cheap hardware.

But what about the Gamecube? It was quite powerful but dirt cheap when it was introduced.

Btw, what's with all the 'Â''s lol?



bdbdbd on 13 July 2009
Slimebeast said:

But what about the Gamecube? It was quite powerful but dirt cheap when it was introduced.


Btw, what's with all the 'Â''s lol?




The RISC-processors aren't that expensive.

Gamecube was relative powerful console, not very powerful compared to PC:s of that time. GC was designed to be cheap, it had a very simple design throughout the console, its processors had the 180 nanometer manufacturing process, GPU was cut down in clockspeed to cut costs, hardware for DVD was already cheap to manufacture, it didn't have much extra parts etc.

In comparision, PS2 had its CPU and GPU manufactured with 250 nanometer process, Sony paid more for the DVD drive, Emotion Engine has two processor inside etc. Or Xbox, that wasn't properly designed, put together out of PC bulk parts, had a harddrive, and eventually had bad deals about its hardware (Intel gave in with the CPU price, but GPU remained with a bad contract).

Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Around the Network
Snake612 on 14 July 2009

It would be pretty good if they price it at $50. So I guess I was wrong earlier, I think Natal should be bundled with the Xbox 360. This way, they could really compete with the Wii.



TO GOD BE THE GLORY

Xoj on 14 July 2009

ps3 eye is less than 50$ O.o



Staude on 14 July 2009
leo-j said:
He also recons the already released ps eye will be over $100

Impressive



Check out my game about moles ^

sguy78 on 14 July 2009

What did this guy do to get so much press?



kiefer23 on 14 July 2009
KungKras said:
This is the first time I have heard patcher being reasonable.

first, Microsoft operates very different from other companies, their priority is to make custoumers, not money. As long as they gain market share they can pour almost infinate money into a project to take over an industry. Microsoft could afford to sell a Natal that costs $200 to make for about $50 if it means that they can stomp Nintendo and become industry leaders and make up for the losses later.


Yep, they did this with the Xbox original and lost around $4 billion. The Xbox was just Microsoft getting their foot in the door.

 It has paid off for them this generation.