Support NeoGAF

[The Lamp]

That makes so much more sense mathematically. Why would they care about making $40 over 2 years? They wouldn't make this kind of offer unless it was highly profitable.

And people who suck at math (ie: most of the xbox consumer base) will happily "save $200" on the system.



lol! your wallet will turn 720 degrees and walk away

So turn around twice and keep walking in the same direction?

 

[therapist]

Lol.

Not gonna pay for xbl , hence not getting an xbox.

Cheap bastards.

 

[macewank]

Although it's speculation, didn't the BOM for PS4 come to $450? If that's accurate, it's hard to believe they'll sell the console at a $50 loss, especially after the PS3.

not all that hard to believe. in fact, it's typical for the launch of a console. they eat cost up front to get market saturation. material costs go down faster than their prices drop.

 

[Tyrax]

Although it's speculation, didn't the BOM for PS4 come to $450? If that's accurate, it's hard to believe they'll sell the console at a $50 loss, especially after the PS3.

That's not even accounting for the cost of R&D that needs to be made up for as well

 

[Mass Effect]

So turn around twice and keep walking in the same direction?

Except twice.

 

[BruiserBear]

Although it's speculation, didn't the BOM for PS4 come to $450? If that's accurate, it's hard to believe they'll sell the console at a $50 loss, especially after the PS3.

Maybe it's $450 today. What will it be in 6 months? What will it be 6 months after that?

I don't see it being a problem.

 

[Bleedorang3]

I honestly think Sony could hit $400. That's why the $500 Xbox seems so implausible to me.

From what we know they'd be losing money at that price. I don't think Sony is in the position where can want to, or can even afford to take a loss for however long it would take for GDDR5 to scale down in price.

 

[dream431ca]

I know tons of people who feel they can't afford $500 for a smartphone.

For phones, you need to pay monthly anyway to use it. Microsoft seems to want to take the console market in that direction.

 

[macewank]

From what we know they'd be losing money at that price. I don't think Sony is in the position where can want to, or can even afford to take a loss for however long it would take for GDDR5 to scale down in price.

They could take the hit and be fine. They'll make that $50-$100/console back in software sales.

 

[Mass Effect]

From what we know they'd be losing money at that price. I don't think Sony is in the position where can want to, or can even afford to take a loss for however long it would take for GDDR5 to scale down in price.

Unless they plan on emulating XBL, which is a possibility at this point.

Plus i think you're underestimating how easily they could take the hit. They'd more than make up for it with software sales/licensing and subs.

 

[The Lamp]

Except twice.

Hahaha oh.

 

[kingocfs]

You are ignoring decades of economic precedent here. Consumers do not delay gratification. From phones to cars to clothes to homes, people will buy shit they can't afford for the experience of having it now. Drawing the line in the sand for videogames seems arbitrary and weird.

And this is especially true during the holiday season.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Why are people so surprised that the PS4 could be priced to sell at a loss. That's common place for consoles, even Nintendo is doing it now. Are the 3DS and Vita selling at a loss?

 

[StevieP]

Maybe it's $450 today. What will it be in 6 months? What will it be 6 months after that?

I don't see it being a problem.

What folks on this board always seem to forget is always that BOM means nothing in regards to how much the cost of the console to be on shelves is. It will be much more than 450, especially as a pretty large percentage goes to retailers. Then there's shipping. Then there is packaging. Then there is localization. Then you have to figure if 450 is even remotely accurate, as it often isn't. What would seem like a 50 dollar loss would easily cross more than double that when you consider more than just basic BOM. Consider this: Wii was an overclocked GameCube with some new wifi chips, right? It was making Nintendo 6 bucks/console at launch. And that's without massive r+d budgets being taken into account, which the Wii had a lot of. The Wii u is also taking a loss per hardware unit (not taking r+d or even shipping into account). Microsoft is interested in profitability this time. Their investors are expecting money, not giant losses. Who's to say what Sony's folks demand?

 

[H_Prestige]

Why aren't people taking sales tax into consideration?

$500 XBOX + 10% tax ($50) + $120 Live (2 years) = $670.00

$300 XBOX + 10% tax ($30) + $15/24 months ($360) = $690.00

*This is assuming that they don't charge sales tax on Live cards at retail. I have no idea if they do or not. If they do, that would be another $12 to add to the cost of the unsubsidized console*

So for $20 more, you get a cheaper upfront cost and it includes a family subscription. Maybe even a longer warranty? Doesn't sound like a bad deal at all in my opinion.

Except with the first option you don't ever have to pay for Live to begin with. So total cost for the console up front and lifetime is $500. $190 less than the "subsidized" version.

And you're also saving the headache of being stuck in a contract and being some company's bitch for 2 years. A contract with MS of all people. After seeing how they handle credit card information I'd be wary of signing anything with them.

From what we know they'd be losing money at that price. I don't think Sony is in the position where can want to, or can even afford to take a loss for however long it would take for GDDR5 to scale down in price.

This whole notion of "oh, selling a console at a loss is suicide!" needs to stop. It isn't. It's actually quite smart if executed well. Sony used this strategy with the ps1 and ps2.

 

[BruiserBear]

What folks on this board always seem to forget is always that BOM means nothing in regards to how much the cost of the console to be on shelves is. It will be much more than 450, especially as a pretty large percentage goes to retailers. Then there's shipping. Then there is packaging. Then there is localization. Then you have to figure if 450 is even remotely accurate, as it often isn't. What would seem like a 50 dollar loss would easily cross more than double that when you consider more than just basic BOM. Consider this: Wii was an overclocked GameCube with some new wifi chips, right? It was making Nintendo 6 bucks/console at launch.

I guess you didn't know retailers make tiny margins on game consoles?

 

[StevieP]

Except with the first option you don't ever have to pay for Live to begin with. So total cost for the console up front and lifetime is $500. $190 less than the "subsidized" version.

And you're also saving the headache of being stuck in a contract and being some company's bitch for 2 years. A contract with MS of all people. After seeing how they handle credit card information I'd be wary of signing anything with them.

You need live. Bruiser - they're making more now. At least here.

 

[nib95]

So basically, it's an even bigger rip off now. Great. They better bring some insane features and included subscriptions to services for this thing. Party chat and universal invites isn't going to be nearly enough any more.

 

[BRocknRolla]

You are ignoring decades of economic precedent here. Consumers do not delay gratification. From phones to cars to clothes to homes, people will buy shit they can't afford for the experience of having it now. Drawing the line in the sand for videogames seems arbitrary and weird.

I never said people won't do it. They will. They'll flock to it in droves, I'm sure. It's a smart decision for MS because it plays on exactly the kind of human weakness you suggest. That in no way makes it a good deal or a smart decision for consumers. I only said there is no economic argument in which this makes sense for consumers. Hence, "Maybe you have $500 but I don't..." is not a sensical argument, because you'll be paying more than $500 in the long run. "I need to have this luxury item NOW," is not an economic argument, but an emotional trigger.

I draw no line here either. This doesn't just go for video games, but for anything being sold with such a plan. The only places where it makes sense are where attaining such a high degree of liquid funds would be unrealistic, or where you can't afford to delay the gratification. Cars and homes would be examples where it does make sense to have a payment plan, but even there, people need to choose the options that are within their means.

And this is especially true during the holiday season.

Even more so than before, you're talking about an emotional argument, not an economic one. That $300 price tag will certainly seem more appealing that a $500 one at Christmas, but that in no way makes it a better deal in the long run.

That's a very ignorant statement. It's all relative. Just because you can afford to spend $500 dollars on a console doesn't mean that everyone can.

But you ARE PAYING $500 for the console, and more. You're just spreading the pain over a longer period of time, and ending up with more pain in the end as a result. If you're buying the console, you do have the $500 to pay for it. You might not have it right this minute, but all you have to do is save the money you'd otherwise be spending on that subscription until you reach the $500, and you'll end up saving money. EVERYONE can do that.

The only world in which this makes sense is if you have a fixed monthly income that you lose if you don't spend it. The programs I can imagine which use such a system are one's where you wouldn't be in any position to spend your money on a new Xbox.

 

[Ephemeris]

Called that shit.

 

[Harlock]

Nothing new here. Americans love pay much more in cellphones plans because pay less up-front in the hardware.

 

[H_Prestige]

You need live

No

 

[Ace Harding]

Good idea. Nothing wrong with giving people options.

Is it safe to stockpile Gold status now? Do you think if you bought a couple of 1-year Gold cards now you'll be able to use them with whatever comes next?

I would only be pissed if this was somehow a separate service with a different pricing structure, requiring a new subscription for the new console. But I don't think they'll do that.

 

[UraMallas]

No, you probably wouldn't. If you did well and found a stock that appreciates 10% per year, you'd have the following:

Initial investment: $200 ($193 in stock, $7 for the trade)
after year 1, the value of the stock is $212.30
after year 2, the value of the stock is $233.53
Sell the stock for $7 and you have $226.53,
pay 15% cap gains tax on $33.53

You've got $221.50, so you're $18.50 in the hole.

The lesson is don't borrow money at 18% interest to make an investment.

You're assuming 6% gain but it's really such a small amount of money that I don't even know why I brought it up. Your point is made on the assumed gain but it really highlights how trivial the amount of money is. I don't think it's a big of enough gap to tell someone "what are you doing! Don't buy that on contract, you're getting screwed out of $20 over 2 years. If you were a smart invester, you'd buy the console for $500 now." I'd probably say "fuck you, I want a sandwich after this."

If the prices hold, I'd be buying the $500 version but only because I have my Live stacked through April 2015 via Christmas presents.

 

[dream431ca]

That's a very ignorant statement. It's all relative. Just because you can afford to spend $500 dollars on a console doesn't mean that everyone can.

Either way, it's an additional option that provides more choice to the consumer. How is that a bad thing?

I'm not rich. I would rather save my money and buy something out right as long as it's not too expensive. I would actually save money that way. There is a reason why poor people stay poor. They get suckered in to ridiculous deals such as this without doing their due diligence. This may sound harsh but those kind of people deserve what they get.

 

[SnakeswithLasers]

Dat discount rate.

 

[RayMaker]

What is this in old English pounds?

I paid £279 for my 360 2 controllers, COD3 = PGR3

and I paid £349 for my 60gb beast model PS3 with 2 controllers resistance 1 + and moterstorm 1


I will not pay a penny more then £349 for my next gen system and it better come with at least 1 game and a extra controller

£349 is $543 by the way

then again I might just wait GTA5 will keep me occupied until april 2014 and by then my price range should be available for sure.

 

[UraMallas]

I'm not rich. I would rather save my money and buy something out right as long as it's not too expensive. I would actually save money that way. There is a reason why poor people stay poor. They get suckered in to ridiculous deals such as this without doing their due diligence. This may sound harsh but those kind of people deserve what they get.

Let's not go this route in the thread, please.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

I'm not rich. I would rather save my money and buy something out right as long as it's not too expensive. I would actually save money that way. There is a reason why poor people stay poor. They get suckered in to ridiculous deals such as this without doing their due diligence. This may sound harsh but those kind of people deserve what they get.

$40 over a 2 year period keeps the poor people poor.

Give me a fuckin' break.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

A subsidized option isn't that bad of an idea. The real outrage will come when MS stealthily announces that current Live subs and cards won't be compatible with Durango Live.

 

[Ninja Moomin]

why is anyone judging the value of the subscription before you know what it includes

???

Just ridiculous.

They could make ot amazing value.

 

[Speevy]

Why not make it $200 with a three year contract? They'd totally destroy the competition.

 

[UraMallas]

A subsidized option isn't that bad of an idea. The real outrage will come when MS stealthily announces that current Live subs and cards won't be compatible with Durango Live.

I would fucking flip shit.

 

[Ephemeris]

Why aren't people taking sales tax into consideration?

$500 XBOX + 10% tax ($50) + $120 Live (2 years) = $670.00

$300 XBOX + 10% tax ($30) + $15/24 months ($360) = $690.00

*This is assuming that they don't charge sales tax on Live cards at retail. I have no idea if they do or not. If they do, that would be another $12 to add to the cost of the unsubsidized console*

So for $20 more, you get a cheaper upfront cost and it includes a family subscription. Maybe even a longer warranty? Doesn't sound like a bad deal at all in my opinion.

For one, I have never paid more than $35 for Live. Ever.

500 + 70 =570
300 + 360 = 660.

And who's to say they wouldn't add in tax on the XBL sub every month?

 

[Freki]

why is anyone judging the value of the subscription before you know what it includes

???

Just ridiculous.

They could make ot amazing value.

Can't wait for more ads...

 

[Ephemeris]

A subsidized option isn't that bad of an idea. The real outrage will come when MS stealthily announces that current Live subs and cards won't be compatible with Durango Live.

The previous cards worked fine. I hope it's the same going forward.

 

[Vane_MagicCity]

Why not make it $200 with a three year contract? They'd totally destroy the competition.

Why not make it $60 @ $25 a month for two years?

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I would fucking flip shit.

Prepare to flip.

 

[GavinGT]

why is anyone judging the value of the subscription before you know what it includes

???

Just ridiculous.

They could make ot amazing value.

"Judging before all the facts are in" describes half of the posts in the Gaming forum over the last few months.

 

[UraMallas]

Prepare to flip.

Why do you think that, though? Where is the precedent for that? It just sounds like a pessimistic view. Being negative for the sake of it.

 

[Bleedorang3]

A subsidized option isn't that bad of an idea. The real outrage will come when MS stealthily announces that current Live subs and cards won't be compatible with Durango Live.

I think someone would send Anthrax to Redmond if this happened. It will never happen but it would be funny to see all the internet outrage.

 

[The Lamp]

I'm not rich. I would rather save my money and buy something out right as long as it's not too expensive. I would actually save money that way. There is a reason why poor people stay poor. They get suckered in to ridiculous deals such as this without doing their due diligence. This may sound harsh but those kind of people deserve what they get.

You're looking to give this thread some serious derailing potential aren't you? Lol

 

[Jamaro85]

The fact that millions of cell phone consumers still sign up for 2 year contracts just so they can get 200 bucks off their iPhone tells me this will be a great success for Microsoft.

I don't see how this compares to cell phone subsidies at all, and it's more like $450 off. You aren't paying anything extra to get the discount on the phone. Locking yourself into a contract for two years is one thing that can be argued but you're paying that $20-$30 a month for data no matter what. If I pay $649 for an iPhone I'm paying the same monthly price that I would if I get it at $200 with a contract. Perhaps you can factor in possibly finding a better monthly or prepaid plan elsewhere but I'm not paying an arbitrary extra monthly fee like MS is charging. Maybe I'm completely missing something and there is a point to paying the outrageous full price of an iPhone.

Another thing to note is the potential resale value of your phone years later before upgrading to a new one. You're almost guaranteed to get more from selling an iPhone on eBay two years later than what you paid when you signed the contract.

Also I'd say that 50 or less is fairly standard for Live if you go through Amazon/eBay/NewEgg. I can't remember the last time I paid above $40 for a year. $659 is significantly more than $579.

 

[la flama blanca]

"Judging before all the facts are in" describes half of the posts in the Gaming forum over the last few months.

Because being hopeful about anything Microsoft does that's pro consumer is the right way to go...

Every gen it's always the same from xbox fans and their fantasy tales of what "could be" or "would it be so cool" only to have Microsoft do the same shafting every time. How LIVE as a service doesn't get more shit is beyond me, but hey, they found some people willing to pay for it so I guess they just do it to themselves.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

Why do you think that, though? Where is the precedent for that? It just sounds like a pessimistic view. Being negative for the sake of it.

Because if this is true, they have set the price if live at $15 a month. They can't credibly sell this subsidized version if people could get $40-50 Live year subs everywhere they turned. They have to either raise the price or turn Durango Live into its own thing (Live Diamond?) that costs $15 per month.

 

[muu]

if they can just offer ESPN w/o the cable commitment they'll pretty much win me over. Not gonna pay $50/mo for a few more sports channels but I'd gladly pay $10/mo for them.

Not sure what the chances of this happening is though.

 

[TheKayle]

Except with the first option you don't ever have to pay for Live to begin with. So total cost for the console up front and lifetime is $500. $190 less than the "subsidized" version.

And you're also saving the headache of being stuck in a contract and being some company's bitch for 2 years. A contract with MS of all people. After seeing how they handle credit card information I'd be wary of signing anything with them.



This whole notion of "oh, selling a console at a loss is suicide!" needs to stop. It isn't. It's actually quite smart if executed well. Sony used this strategy with the ps1 and ps2.

yeah and totally failed with the ps3

i really...dont think sony can go in loss this time......FOR SURE not for as long as the ps3 did

 

[Ace Harding]

$40 over a 2 year period keeps the poor people poor.

Give me a fuckin' break.

Seriously. Judgy ass people in here.

If someone has a better use for the incremental $200 it would cost to buy this console NOW rather than pay that over time (to save what, $40 over 2 years?) I'm not going to judge them for saving the $200 now. Is it the best financial decision? No. But I was a poor college student once that paid for a console and a bunch of games with a credit card and paid it back (plus interest) over time. I wouldn't have played the games I did then if I hadn't done that. It wasn't a great financial decision, but I don't regret it. Now that I have a job and savings and can afford to buy what I want when I want it I'm not going to look down at someone who wants to play a game NOW and will pay extra over time to be able to do that.

This is sort of an opposite example, but same concept: There are plenty of people (including me) that "waste" money buying games at launch for $60 instead of waiting a month for a $10 price drop, or waiting longer to pick up games for $20 or less. Its the same "gotta have it now" attitude. Who cares? Let people enjoy themselves. Sometimes the time you spend enjoying a game is well worth the money.

If we were talking about a luxury car, or a house you can't afford, or you were changing your baby's diapers less frequently for 2 years to get the Xbox, that's one thing. But we're talking about $40 over 2 years here.

 

[ascii42]

Good idea. Nothing wrong with giving people options.

Is it safe to stockpile Gold status now? Do you think if you bought a couple of 1-year Gold cards now you'll be able to use them with whatever comes next?

I would only be pissed if this was somehow a separate service with a different pricing structure, requiring a new subscription for the new console. But I don't think they'll do that.

They didn't for original XBOX to 360. I don't imagine they would here.

 

[Iacobellis]

yeah and totally failed with the ps3

i really...dont think sony can go in loss this time......FOR SURE not for as long as the ps3 did

Sony is still here, aren't they?