Thurott: $299 version of Xbox v.Next will come with a $15/mo XBLG sub, not $10

Yes, it certainly was with the original Xbox and early on in the 360. It was a major selling point and can continue to do so. Just because their early innovation has been met by competitors does not mean they could not continue to innovate. I love my other consoles, but Live was innovation, just more so years ago.

I don't know why you keep talking about whatever and then quoting me.

Great, it was an innovation. I'm glad that matters to some people, which is why I said some people will buy it for that.

There are plenty of people who own 360s and don't give two shits about live and just play skyrim all day.

Live is not the point of the console for some people.

This all comes back to, when you buy a phone, phone service is the main reason you're buying it. You're buying it because you need a cell phone. Angry birds is a bonus or whatever.
 
I don't think this is a bad deal. The extra money spent in the long run comes with some benefit- namely a two-year warranty for the hardware and the Gold family package allowing multiple accounts.

I think Sony should follow suit.
 
I don't think anyone is against subsidized options. We just want good pricing and this is shitty pricing. Never thought MS would go with a $499 SKU.

ummm.. why? Shit costs money? That $399 360 was released 8 years ago.

That's really the big problem with subsidies all over the place IMHO... No one has any idea what shit really costs. You have people treating $650+ mobile phones like they are disposable because they "only paid" $99 for it... despite the fact that it's a $650 piece of equipment. Heck even consoles... Neither the PS3 nor 360 cost under $399 (or $499 or $599) to manufacture at their respective launches. So now Sony and MS are actually looking to be profitable on hardware at launch... and everyone is crying.

The only thing I will say, is that IF MS and Sony are looking at being profitable on hardware day 1..... where are the reduced licensing costs on software? The entire point of licensing has always been a way to generate revenue with minimal hardware profits.. So if they are seeing better profits, why aren't we seeing better software prices through lower licensing costs.

And this digital crap can blow me as well. That $59 retail game at Gamestop has to absorb manufacturing, distribution and retail markup costs. So why is the game still $59 on either service when the only cost it is absorbing is bandwidth (which is likely pennies per GB amounting to less than 25¢ per download)
 
I thought it would be more like $20 a month, and then they'd tack on $10 for equiment rental of the console and controllers, and you give them a cash deposit which they would retiurn to you when your contract ends. They'd make more money that way and really fool the dumb dumbs that think "i've getting the console for free duuuuuuurrrrr"
 
And this digital crap can blow me as well. That $59 retail game at Gamestop has to absorb manufacturing, distribution and retail markup costs. So why is the game still $59 on either service when the only cost it is absorbing is bandwidth (which is likely pennies per GB amounting to less than 25¢ per download)

MS will certainly not undercut retail prices, they want to keep Gamestop happy. It would be great if they did though.
 
Of course it doesn't *have* to be online. But having that as a requirement makes things a lot easier and profitable for MS.

Not sure I follow your train of logic. All Statham did was basically say that there's no correlation between Microsoft's subsidization plan and DRM. It's just not valid evidence of anything.
 
MS will certainly not undercut retail prices, they want to keep Gamestop happy. It would be great if they did though.

Technically they don't have to undercut retail. aka sell download codes at retail.

So you can buy a disc version at retail for $60, or a DD version (online or a code/card at retail) for $45-50.
 
Technically they don't have to undercut retail. aka sell download codes at retail.

So you can buy a disc version at retail for $60, or a DD version (online of a code at retail) for $45-50.

Only people without credit cards(or those who don't want to give that info to MS) would go through the trouble of buying that at retail. Gamestop would still probably not be happy about digital undercutting retail, especially since they can't sell used copies of them.
 
Technically they don't have to undercut retail. aka sell download codes at retail.

So you can buy a disc version at retail for $60, or a DD version (online or a code/card at retail) for $45-50.

How much is Gamestop going to make on that sale though? They get 1/6th of a cut of 60$ disc games sales right now.
 
The subsidized move is smart. Even if MS is only making an extra $40-60 over 2 years, they will get those people into their ecosystem where customers will spend.

I plan on retaining a Live sub so the subsidized version is appealing to me.

I just want some info!
 
I don't think this is a bad deal. The extra money spent in the long run comes with some benefit- namely a two-year warranty for the hardware and the Gold family package allowing multiple accounts.

I think Sony should follow suit.

This makes the assumption that live itself is still a worthwhile product and not just a glorified paywall for Halo. The majority of its meaningful functionality is free with their competitors.
 
Two years of PS4 with no pay wall = $500 (at most)

Two years of Xbox = $660

$160 difference. Not $40. I don't know how you managed to come up with that number.

With smart phones, people have almost no choice but the subscription model and I would assume nobody wants to buy a phone without a service plan. With consoles they do. I'm sorry my point was so hard to grasp for you.

The rest of your post is incoherent babble.

He was comparing subsidy vs buying outright. Not the difference between PS4.
 
I think it's pretty up in the air on whether or not this will work out well for Microsoft.

Yes consumers pay more money all the time to subsidize things like the cost of smartphones.

But this is a video game console. Do you think Jimmy's mom wants to also have to get a contract for his new Xbox? For 'video games'? She didn't want to for the normal 360, because I'm fairly certain the $99 Xbox 360 with contract didn't do well at all. I don't think we ever sold a single one at the GameStop I worked at. No one wanted to be bothered paying a contract for a video game console.

Not to mention all the parents who don't regularly pay for Live. This is $160 more expensive to them.

For the older demographic, I don't think it will make much of a difference. I think most will just get the $500 model. If you have shaky finances and don't want to wait and save up another $200 to get the unsubsidized model, why would you feel more confident in your finances adding another bill on top of all of your other bills every month? Giving yourself another 2 year financial burden? That could potentially compromise your ability to pay other bills, or at least wouldn't be a high priority and you'd end up in trouble for skipping on your M$ payments.

If you can comfortably add $15 a month to your bills, why not just get the $500 model and be smart about it and save the money? In any case, you were buying the system regardless at this point.

I agree & I'm amazed that almost no one has thought up of this. People tolerate contracts over something like cell phones, smartphones, etc. because they hold more value for most average consumers. A video gaming console, however, doesn't hold value for them at all. Not everyone are dedicated gaming fans like we are.
 
MS will certainly not undercut retail prices, they want to keep Gamestop happy. It would be great if they did though.

I could see them doing something like PS+ though, where Gold members get a discount on games through digital.

It would theoretically be possible if MS had some sort of agreement with Gamestop where you could also get a discount at retail if you're a gold member. That would be pretty neat actually. At the same time though, when you buy a physical copy, there are a lot more people that need to get paid (distributor, disc stampers, and Gamestop) so who knows how that would work.

It is going to be interesting to see how Gamestop will evolve to fit into the digital world.
 
Why exactly is this shitty pricing?

You're paying 40$ more in the end, and you basically get XBL Gold included that whole time.

ummm.. why? Shit costs money? That $399 360 was released 8 years ago.

That's really the big problem with subsidies all over the place IMHO... No one has any idea what shit really costs. You have people treating $650+ mobile phones like they are disposable because they "only paid" $99 for it... despite the fact that it's a $650 piece of equipment. Heck even consoles... Neither the PS3 nor 360 cost under $399 (or $499 or $599) to manufacture at their respective launches. So now Sony and MS are actually looking to be profitable on hardware at launch... and everyone is crying.

Since when was $499 an acceptable price? I must have missed that memo...

This $300 sub price looks like a good deal to some because it's being compared to an $499 price tag that nobody wanted. But in the end you're paying MORE with the sub which makes it even more hilarious.
 
Since when was $499 an acceptable price? I must have missed that memo...

This $300 sub price looks like a good deal to some because it's being compared to an $499 price tag that nobody wanted. But in the end you're paying MORE with the sub which makes it even more hilarious.

499$ is a realistic price. You pay more money for higher end, luxury products. I'm not saying I'd rather it be 399$, but the reality is that both of these machines likely aren't going to cost that little.
 
$299+($15*24)=$659
$300 + $360
Well if we give Live Gold a retail market value of $5 a month, that's $10 "extra" a month for a subsidy of $240 over the course of two years. Meaning this is a $540 box (or a $500 box you're paying $540 for). Not cheap.





I was wondering why people in this thread weren't understanding the difference it makes for some consumers to be able to pay for things monthly, but I think it's simply because it's a

poor vs. rich issue.

Poor people aren't stupid, you're obviously saving money by purchasing the console at full price, but that's not the point! Point is that some people can't afford to dish out 500 dollars all at once. Hell, that's basically what I make per paycheck, and don't begin with the 'get a better job' nonsense, because that's not as easy and some people think it is, and it doesn't matter if you're a spoiled kid, or a rich adult, the fact is that jobs with high income aren't all that available for everyone.

So for some people, it will be a lot easier to drop 300 dollars, and then pay 15 dollars a month thereafter. It's not because they are stupid, or what ever you may have though, it is just a more affordable solution, especially if you have a large family that requires a huge part of your income to sustain.

If you don't 'get it.' You're probably just a spoiled kid, or a misinformed adult, and I mean these things in the nicest way possible, gaf.
lol

40 bucks..... How awful!

I think if a $40 difference over the span of two years is too much for some people around here then you're obviously in the wrong hobby. Time for some life assessment.
You're missing the point. Microsoft is charging poor people more than rich, or at least not-poor, people. This isn't the highway robbery of Rent-to-Own, but it's still pretty sleazy. Of course they already do this with the existing subsidized 360.






This has nothing to do with "poor vs. rich." It has to do with immediate gratification and higher cost vs. delayed gratification and lower cost. No one, rich or poor, needs to buy an Xbox. If you can afford an xbox at $300, you can likewise afford to wait and save to buy the cheaper system. No one is calling poor people stupid. It's trashy to suggest that.

...

If someone doesn't have $500 now, but has $300, that doesn't mean they can't save up that extra $200. If they have $15 a month to budget on entertainment for videogames to pay for a subscription, it will take them about a year to save up the extra, and they'll end up paying less long term. It's not about being rich or poor, it's about saving your money.

No one has to buy a console when it launches. These are luxury items and we should pay only what we can afford for them. If money is a concern, you go with the one that ends up costing you less, even if it means you have to wait a year, because that is the financially responsible thing to do.

But then again, maybe I'm just a spoiled kid or misinformed adult.
No there are real differences in consumer spending patterns between those who are poor and those who are not. In this case we are talking about people who CAN afford it, even though they are poor, but lower barriers to entry make it a lot more likely that they will. Getting into what people "should" do makes no difference because we are talking about how people actual consumer spending behavior.


This is patently nonsensical. Who is saying, "Get a better job?" That would obviously be dickish and elitist, and I don't see anyone making that argument.
Well... Sony said something to that effect last gen.





Screw subscription model consoles. I just want to pay for the product without extra fees, just like every other generation before this one (Wii U/PS4/Xbox ???).
I hate how subsidies mess up the consumers' perception of pricing. I really hope this doesn't become the standard model for selling consoles moving forward.
Yes, subsidies distort the market.





499$ is a realistic price. You pay more money for higher end, luxury products. I'm not saying I'd rather it be 399$, but the reality is that both of these machines likely aren't going to cost that little.
Perhaps we have hit upon the problem right here - an XBox could launch for $300 last gen now has to be at least $500 and the only way they can make up that difference is a subsidy.
 
I'll take it!

I bet Sony will do something similar w/ PS4 at E3.

Can somebody that is better suited at economics than me tell me if this is possible for Sony? It seems like subsidizing a console like this would cause a rather large upfront hit to your cash flow. Can Sony handle that?
 
Can somebody that is better suited at economics than me tell me if this is possible for Sony? It seems like subsidizing a console like this would cause a rather large upfront hit to your cash flow. Can Sony handle that?

It depends on how they handle finances. While it can impact cash flow, it will be good to have on the books because the entire value can be listed as an asset.
 
You're missing the point. Microsoft is charging poor people more than rich, or at least not-poor, people. This isn't the highway robbery of Rent-to-Own, but it's still pretty sleazy.

I think this is rather ignorant. It isn't sleazy, MS is loaning you money which you are basically paying interest on. It is the same situation when buying a car or house that you can't afford out of pocket only MS is acting as the bank.

And if you look at as MS will not be gaining interest on this money immediately after the sale then the difference in cost is even smaller.

MS is providing an option for people who can't afford the console out of pocket. This is a favor to people and a good thing.
 
Can somebody that is better suited at economics than me tell me if this is possible for Sony? It seems like subsidizing a console like this would cause a rather large upfront hit to your cash flow. Can Sony handle that?

As mentioned above, it entirely depends on how or if they want to go with this approach. They also have the option of making a partnership with another service provider and use that as a subsidized sale. For example a ps4 with a cable subscription for a lowered price etc. The method of accounting will change somewhat depending on such factors
 
I've always owned all consoles, but every rumor that comes out on the nextXbox is making me less likely to buy it. I will be closely looking at the MS exclusives come the reveal, because that's what it will come down to for me.
 
I think this is rather ignorant. It isn't sleazy, MS is loaning you money which you are basically paying interest on. It is the same situation when buying a car or house that you can't afford out of pocket only MS is acting as the bank.

And if you look at as MS will not be gaining interest on this money immediately after the sale then the difference in cost is even smaller.

MS is providing an option for people who can't afford the console out of pocket. This is a favor to people and a good thing.
Have you seen interest rates these days? $40 is still ridiculously high just for "loaning" $200 worth of value. T-Mobile USA offers phone "subsidies" for no extra charge, MS has no excuse.

EDIT: "subsidies"
 
Since when was $499 an acceptable price? I must have missed that memo...
acceptable? Again, shit costs what it costs... I'd find new Ferrari's "acceptably priced" at $299 also...

If the new systems cost >$300 to manufacture, $500 is a fair retail price. If you can't afford that, then take the subsidized unit. If you don't like being tied into a contract for 24 months AND can't afford the $500 unit... well, I can't afford that Ferrari also, so I guess we all have our problems.

Have you seen interest rates these days? $40 is still ridiculously high just for "loaning" $200 worth of value. T-Mobile USA offers phone subsidies for no extra charge, MS has no excuse.

tmobile isn't subsidizing. Massive difference. Tmobile is spreading out the remaining payments interest free, except that you are contracted to a 24 month service agreement with them so they are guaranteed that profit.. Of note, if you choose to get the installment payments from them, at no point during the 24 months are you able to pay off the rest of the phone. Furthermore, the phone is carrier locked as long as you have time left on your contract preventing you (in theory) from taking it to another carrier. Pretty big difference compared to this. Here MS is seeing a much smaller profit (essentially $40 over 2 years) AND at any point you can up and sell your Fusion for FULL USED PRICE and just pay out the remainder of your contract.

So in theory, you can buy a launch unit for $299... sell it during the xmas rush for like $600-700+, and then just be up for paying back the remaining $360 over the next two years (even though you may have just seen $400 off of your initial expense).
 
Have you seen interest rates these days? $40 is still ridiculously high just for "loaning" $200 worth of value. T-Mobile USA offers phone subsidies for no extra charge, MS has no excuse.

I am no accounting genius, but I am pretty sure phone companies roll the cost of the phone into the price of your contract correct?

I agree $40 is high for the amount that is loaned, but both Sony and MS are going to be taking a loss on new hardware (I assume) and the risk of people defaulting or breaking the contract could result in a higher loss that they want to offset. I would never expect companies to give you free money.
 
15 bucks a month? Sounds about right. I've been predicting a price increase for months. It wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being more.
 
ummm.. why? Shit costs money? That $399 360 was released 8 years ago.

That's really the big problem with subsidies all over the place IMHO... No one has any idea what shit really costs. You have people treating $650+ mobile phones like they are disposable because they "only paid" $99 for it... despite the fact that it's a $650 piece of equipment. Heck even consoles... Neither the PS3 nor 360 cost under $399 (or $499 or $599) to manufacture at their respective launches. So now Sony and MS are actually looking to be profitable on hardware at launch... and everyone is crying.

I think this has got to do with the fact that a lot of people in the western world are not very good at their finances. I know I am personally, bad with my own economy, always using more than I have before the end of the month.



My thoughts on this thread;

1)The Iphone was used as a comparison by saying it didn't count as it was a status symbol. I think that is only true for some users. I think a bigger universal group is just like I-need-this-new-electronic, which a console is a candidate for.

The more the manufacturer can convince the consumer that they need this in their life, the more they will forget about the long term loss. People buy subsidized electronics all the time because they feel its a long term investment. And a console is not something you replace unless it gets broken (usually).

And with this people have less of an incentive to sell it. So whats the deal.. - Will people be offered XBL Points for re-upping? a free game perhaps? Carriers provide lots of hooks to keep people hooked. Less likely for 360.



2) I don't think PS4 will be 400 dollars. I think it will be between 500 and 600. And if there will be a 400 Dollars version I suspect it will be a crappy SKU. Perhaps with a little-slow harddrive. Perhaps it will come with fewer ports, no HDMI cable, no wireless controller charger or whatever.

For everything we have seen and heard it just sounds like PS4 continues to be premium tech, and just because Blu-Ray is not the issue anymore, I don't think it will be cheap. It sounds expensive. If there is internal SSD for the OS, that can be expensive. It they bundle it with a move controller, or offer a Seagate Momunthus SSD/HDD hybrid drive it's going to be more expensive.


... And actually just launching a product is always overpriced. We have shaken confirmed over and over again that most normal consumers are not in the race before pre-250 dollars. 300 dollars and above is "core gamers" a group which has grown larger.

Then you have the absent of killer apps that usually appear 1-2 years after a console launch. So really, why not just launch your price at a high premium? you can always drop the price later, having established that your own product is of higher quality.

360s headstart has turned out not really to give them the long term advantage. Their lower price, the problems of Sony etc. Lets just accept that price and headstart is important in the short term, but games are expensive, and these companies want to make money of people buying call of duty passes and halo map packs. that is the new trojan horse. keep them hooked and juiced for a monthly service. Recoup your losses later.
 
Why would anyone ever consider the subsidized model? I mean if you can't afford an XBOX don't buy one. Is anyone really stupid enough to pay more for something that they can't afford in the first place?
 
How is this different than using a credit card or taking out a loan? I keep asking this question and no one answers because it's not. Sure, the numbers work out different (because you get different things), but the concept is the very same, which is to pay a little more to have something now. It's also an option someone has to qualify for with a credit check. The most important part, though, is that it's an option, and not a requirement. Why people cannot grasp some simple facts about how things are sold and how they've likely received gifts via this payment method, I have no idea. This is nothing to dread.

You're right, this is no different than using a credit card or loan. I understand the concept of paying more over time in order to have something now; My dread just comes from fact that I'm worried that maybe in the future this might be the only option given to a consumer. Now granted that will probably never happen, it's just the route my thoughts took when reading this thread. I tend to be a bit of pessimist.
 
Why would anyone ever consider the subsidized model? I mean if you can't afford an XBOX don't buy one. Is anyone really stupid enough to pay more for something that they can't afford in the first place?

I don't subscribe to this practice either (unless for a car or a TV maybe) but many MANY people do.
I mean....credit cards.....

But for a 400 dollar console? Come on, son.
 
Why would anyone ever consider the subsidized model? I mean if you can't afford an XBOX don't buy one. Is anyone really stupid enough to pay more for something that they can't afford in the first place?

are you not seeing the posts in this thread? there are TONS not only considering, but saying this is exactly what they are going to do!!!

I agree with Vigilant Walrus.. This is very much a western (and especially US) thing.. See layaway, Rent-A-Center, credit card debt, etc. We have like 1000 different ways to buy things we can't afford. This is another one. Just like all of those things have millions of people flocking to them every day, so will this.
 
Why would anyone ever consider the subsidized model? I mean if you can't afford an XBOX don't buy one. Is anyone really stupid enough to pay more for something that they can't afford in the first place?

You can apply this to so many other things other than the new xbox. People spend what they don't have. It is the American way!
 
Why would anyone ever consider the subsidized model? I mean if you can't afford an XBOX don't buy one. Is anyone really stupid enough to pay more for something that they can't afford in the first place?

It's not always the case that people cannot afford it or that they're teetering on the brink of economic doom, but it's an option when they feel they need it and are willing to pay one price to enjoy something now. Have none of you guys grown up poor or lower-middle class or what? Did you never receive gifts that were funded in a similar method of deferred payment or buy something on a credit card to end up paying a bit more than the list price? There's nothing stupid about placing one's enjoyment in the here and now over getting the lowest possible price.
 
are you not seeing the posts in this thread? there are TONS not only considering, but saying this is exactly what they are going to do!!!

I agree with Vigilant Walrus.. This is very much a western (and especially US) thing.. See layaway, Rent-A-Center, credit card debt, etc. We have like 1000 different ways to buy things we can't afford. This is another one. Just like all of those things have millions of people flocking to them every day, so will this.

I know...it's just insane. I can't wrap my head around it. I mean, people wonder why most Western economies are in the shitter right now...it's because of practices like this where people buy shit they can't afford and expect, nay demand, their elected officials to do the same. It scares the hell out of me that I live in this kind of culture.

BTW, I'm not placing any of the blame on Microsoft or the phone companies for engaging in these practices. It's a free market and you have every right to try to make some money where you can, but consumers need to step up and say "no, I can't afford that right now, I'll wait until I can."
 
I don't see how in the hell they're going to be able to justify 15 dollars a month if Sony matches the Live experience on their end. Judging from the Sony PS4 event, it looks like Sony isn't going to be caught with their pants down this time around.
 
There's nothing stupid about placing one's enjoyment in the here and now over getting the lowest possible price.
So here's the basic concept (not being condescending or a dick.. honestly).

In theory, what you are saying is true... So what..? so you are spending $40 more (or $60 or whatever) over the long run to enjoy something right now for a more affordable price?

Unquestionably it's a bad investment, strictly financially speaking. The problem is, while it really isn't the end of the world to do this one purchase.... Typically the people who do this make a habit out of it.. Heck, not only make a habit out of it, but actually BELIEVE in it. Believe they are coming out ahead. "well shit!! I'm going to have Live Gold for two years anyway!! Why WOULDN'T I do this!?!?"

So that's the basic gist in a nutshell. It's not the singular act. It's that very seldom is it a singular act. The people who know this is a bad deal probably won't do it because of the bad value. And the people who are more than likely to do it either think they are getting a good deal.. or know this is the only way they can afford it (aka are spending outside of their means)
 
499$ is a realistic price. You pay more money for higher end, luxury products. I'm not saying I'd rather it be 399$, but the reality is that both of these machines likely aren't going to cost that little.

Fair enough. But the "luxury" excuse never worked for any gaming device. Ever. PS3, Vita, 3DS, and WiiU all launched at respectful realistic prices. One thing they all have in common is they bombed at their original price tags.

But who knows. This is all based on rumours anyways. I'll wait to see what's in the box to bitch about the price.
 
So here's the basic concept (not being condescending or a dick.. honestly).

In theory, what you are saying is true... So what..? so you are spending $40 more (or $60 or whatever) over the long run to enjoy something right now for a more affordable price?

Unquestionably it's a bad investment, strictly financially speaking. The problem is, while it really isn't the end of the world to do this one purchase.... Typically the people who do this make a habit out of it.. Heck, not only make a habit out of it, but actually BELIEVE in it. Believe they are coming out ahead. "well shit!! I'm going to have Live Gold for two years anyway!! Why WOULDN'T I do this!?!?"

So that's the basic gist in a nutshell. It's not the singular act. It's that very seldom is it a singular act. The people who know this is a bad deal probably won't do it because of the bad value. And the people who are more than likely to do it either think they are getting a good deal.. or know this is the only way they can afford it (aka are spending outside of their means)

You put that way better than I was able to.
 
Why would anyone ever consider the subsidized model? I mean if you can't afford an XBOX don't buy one. Is anyone really stupid enough to pay more for something that they can't afford in the first place?


*im going to buy a console for the next generation*


Maybe I can afford one game every month or every second month. It would take me almost a year to save up for a Durango by myself. It is something I intent to keep for many years. I will recoup my lost time not having an xbox by saving an entire year by being able to enjoy it now.


It makes as much sense for an Xbox as it does with a Phone. I have had my Iphone 4s for 1,5 years now. I love it. It was totally worth paying it off for that year. And I got the big 64 model. I couldn't afford it, but it enhanced my quality of life, significantly. Suddenly the GPS on my phone, a good running app for my cardio, internet wherever I went, emails everywhere, i could get to a lot more parties by checking facebook groups invites while already out there.
It makes perfect sense, if you are going to stick with it.




What doesn't make sense is buying a subsidized product with a crazy interest rate of 20-30% that is too crazy. But that does not sound like the issue here.

The issue here is that, perhaps a 720 subsidized should be 100 dollars or 150 dollars. Because 400 dollars is a lot, and if your going to pay that much already, its not a lot up to the full 500-600 version.
 
I don't see how in the hell they're going to be able to justify 15 dollars a month if Sony matches the Live experience on their end. Judging from the Sony PS4 event, it looks like Sony isn't going to be caught with their pants down this time around.

They already charge $15 a month for current 360 subsidies and Live is $10 a month now. What makes you think they would increase the cost of Live in the future to match the monthly 2 year contract amount?
 
Fair enough. But the "luxury" excuse never worked for any gaming device. Ever. PS3, Vita, 3DS, and WiiU all launched at respectful realistic prices. One thing they all have in common is they bombed at their original price tags.

But who knows. This is all based on rumours anyways. I'll wait to see what's in the box to bitch about the price.

PS3 was a realistic price!?

Wii U was old, mediocre hardware. I don't remember 3DS and Vita prices, but handhelds really have to be cheaper to survive.

I'm not saying I like the price, I'm just saying I don't think it's as outlandish as you make it.
 
Top Bottom