Support NeoGAF

[Datawhore]

Imagine M$ released two versions of Xbox Next in 2006:

Package 1:
Xbox Next, 1 Controller, Standard Cables, No Games
Price: $299 USD

Package 2:
Xbox Next, 1 Controller, Standard Cables, No Games
Price: $199 USD, but you have to sign up for Xbox Live for two years at $50/year (payable monthly)

Which Package would you choose? I think most consumers would opt for Package #2.

Sure, M$ would have to take the $100 hit initially, but they would slowly recoup that investment in Xbox Live subscriptions. Yes, the Xbox Live service does cost a lot to support and maintain, but its possible that those consumers who will have purchased Package #2 are buying more games because they are so into the Xbox Live experience. These incremental sales could possibly offset Live's suport costs.

I think Package 2's pricing model would sell a lot more Xbox Nexts (and possibly games) than the standalone package.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Package 2

 

[Drexon]

I don't think there'll be a "live" service next gen, It'll be integrated into the system an all.

 

[cvxfreak]

I'd go for Package 2.

 

[Datawhore]

For the record, I don't yet own an Xbox, so my Xbox Live package favortism is not due to any fanboy nonsense. As a consumer, I think Package #2 is a really attractive proposition.

Sega tried something similar with ISPs and the Dreamcast, but I believe it was fully subsidized if you signed up for two years of service. I think a partial subsidy could work just as well for M$.

Package 3:
Xbox Next, 1 controller, standard game cables
Price: $0, if you sign up for 6 years of Xbox Live service at $50/year.

Not a chance in hell...

 

[cvxfreak]

I think it'd have to be something like $65 a year so MS gets something too.

 

[GDJustin]

This is silly. Those that'll be going online with their system will pick 2. Those that won't will pick 1.

 

[DCharlie]

"This is silly. Those that'll be going online with their system will pick 2. Those that won't will pick 1."

or pick 2 , and pay the extra 100 off monthly over two years....

 

[Shompola]

This is silly. Those that'll be going online with their system will pick 2. Those that won't will pick 1.

There isn't a single benefit of getting package #1. It would make more sense if package #1 also had a free game of your choice. Then the question would be for the individuals, what's better for you; free game or 2 years LiVE subscription. I would personally get LiVE for sure.

 

[Rhindle]

Package 3:
Xbox Next, 1 controller, standard game cables
Price: $0, if you sign up for 6 years of Xbox Live service at $50/year.

Not a chance in hell...

I can see that happening sometime next gen. But only when we get to the point where you're paying $20/month for online services, not $50 a year.

 

[Datawhore]

Do you think Xbox Live is a driver for purchasing more Xbox games?

Another way to ask the question, is would you have bought just as many games for Xbox if you hadn't subsribed to the Xbox Live service.

If Xbox Live subscription actually increases your buying behaviour significantly, M$ could release Package 2 at an even lower price than $199 and still be indifferent between their offerings.

On the other hand, consumers certainly wouldn't be indifferent as it would be illogical to choose Package 1 over Package 2. Why pay $300 all at once, if I can pay $200 immediately and delay the remaining $100 over small monthly payments?

From M$ perspective, a more sensible price for Package 2 would be $229 USD, as to cover some of their financing costs up front.

 

[Datawhore]

I can see that happening sometime next gen. But only when we get to the point where you're paying $20/month for online services, not $50 a year.

Going through bill payments at the end of the month:

Hydro bill - paid
Telephone bill - paid
Cable bill - paid
Online Games bill - paid
Phantom Games Service bill - not so fast...

 

[FitzOfRage]

I don't think package 2 would go over well. I think people would rather pay for the box without any strings attached.

And yeah, Sega did try it, and people just looked right through it. People didn't jump on that, just like they didn't jump on MSN's unsusccessful $400 rebate program.

On the other hand, consumers certainly wouldn't be indifferent as it would be illogical to choose Package 1 over Package 2. Why pay $300 all at once, if I can pay $200 immediately and delay the remaining $100 over small monthly payments?

It doesn't make sense to just pay $300 when you could pay $200 flat out. But it starts to make a lot of sense to a lot of people when you start tacking on obligations and conditions. That scares people off.

And I think one of the problems with the idea is just the fact that Live doesn't work as a business model. They have to sort out how to actually make money, as well as how to compensate 3rd parties for supporting Live. I don't see unlimited play across an unlimited number of games coming together for $50 a year.

 

[TekunoRobby]

Package 2 without a doubt. I'm already convinced by the Xbox Live service so my answer is obviously biased. Try asking people/friends who don't own an Xbox and the answer might be different.

Writing M$ proves that you are a L337 |-|4X0RZ

 

[FitzOfRage]

I'm not trying to say no one would be interested in #2 btw. I just think the potential would be limited. Because when you say "You can get $100 of they system BUT..." you've lost a lot of people right there.

 

[DCharlie]

"Going through bill payments at the end of the month:

Hydro bill - paid
Telephone bill - paid
Cable bill - paid
Online Games bill - paid
Phantom Games Service bill - not so fast... "

I'm sure this will be misconstrued as a snipe, but i recall Kutaragi saying that eventually he envisaged Sony becoming a "utility" in that you would pay a standard monthly bill for "Sony" and this would basically encompase all your digital entertainment needs.

M$ - yeah, should we start writing Sony "S0ny" to emphasis their current state of monatory affairs? Ninyendough?

 

[ScientificNinja]

I personally don't think those pricing models are very realistic. In any case, there's no way I'd lock myself into a subscription to a Live-style service. In my budget, that'd count as a new ongoing expense in my yearly budget, not a one-off purchase. Sorry - it's been said before, but I don't need the extra bills.

 

[Ozchin]

Imagine M$ released two versions of Xbox Next in 2006:

Package 1:
Xbox Next, 1 Controller, Standard Cables, No Games
Price: $299 USD

Package 2:
Xbox Next, 1 Controller, Standard Cables, No Games
Price: $199 USD, but you have to sign up for Xbox Live for two years at $50/year (payable monthly)

So no matter what, you spend $299 USD + tax. The question becomes, do you want to have online come in the package or not... since the price doesn't change, I don't see why Package #1 is even offered.

 

[mrklaw]

Do you think Xbox Live is a driver for purchasing more Xbox games?

absolutely. My friend bought a modded xbox solely for pirate games and emus/movie playback (he's a torrent whore)

But he has probably more xbox games than I have, and just because of xbox live. If it is a good game with good xbox live features, then he'll buy the game.

I imagine something similar can work between friends, with a good multiplayer mode meaning a friend will buy a copy so that you can play together.

 

[Zenny]

Package 1:
Xbox Next, 1 Controller, Standard Cables, + Halo3
Price: $299 USD

Fixed

 

[Deku Tree]

I'd buy Package #2 and so would 99% of people because they'd feel like they were getting something for nothing. But I'd word it like this: "$299 w/ 2 free years of XBL".

 

[Solid]

If Perfect Dark is available on launch I don't care how much Xenon costs