[Luca]

Well, MS just announced pricing on the XBox 360. They're going to offer a stripped down piece of crap at $299 to say they have one at $299, and then offer the console with useful accessories (like the ability to save your games) at $399.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/08...s_6131245.html

So. The $299 one comes with just the console itself, a wired controller, and standard-definition AV cables. The $399 one includes a wireless controller, HD cables, a 20 GB hard drive, an Ethernet cable, and a multimedia remote control. Although MS will be selling memory cards as a cheaper option for game saves than the hard drive, from what I understand they won't be including one with either package, requiring you to purchase one in order to get any real use out of the $299 XBox 360.

As Tycho at Penny Arcade said, "The lower cost "sku" isn't for the "Wal-Mart" consumer, it's for fucking retards."

EDIT: Found another interesting article (also linked from the PA page):

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?op...796&Item id=2

Basically a bunch of people in the gaming industry commenting on it. What I'm afraid of is:

- This will make $399 the new "standard" price for consoles
- A lot of games are going to be severely limited because despite the XBox 360 having an optional hard drive, developers will insist on not requiring the hard drive to appeal to as many people as possible. Look at the PS2... only one game uses the optional hard drive accessory. It's useless otherwise.
- WTF. Seriously, no wireless controller? Come on.
- Oh, and if you want backwards compatibility you need a hard drive. So it'll be at least $400 if you want to "save money" by getting more mileage out of your old games.
- And it's still $50 or something for a real XBox Live membership. Add a couple games and you're in low-end gaming PC territory.

[sunrain]

I agree. Totally ridiculous.

To clarify: Your old XBox Live account does transfer as one of the new "Gold" accounts though. You don't have to buy a new one.

I will get an XBox 360, but I'm much less sure that I'll buy one right away. I need a few games to come out that'll make it worthwhile and I don't see any yet.

Which reminds me. Game prices?!? What the fuck is up with charging $10 more for games produced on the same media? Games didn't all of a sudden get more expensive to produce. Arrgh.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by sunrain Which reminds me. Game prices?!? What the fuck is up with charging $10 more for games produced on the same media? Games didn't all of a sudden get more expensive to produce. Arrgh.

well i would argue that when the sophistication of games and the system goes up so does development cost

[Luca]

Originally Posted by sunrain Which reminds me. Game prices?!? What the fuck is up with charging $10 more for games produced on the same media? Games didn't all of a sudden get more expensive to produce. Arrgh.

You're right. They got more expensive gradually, not suddenly.

What, you think it cost just as much to make Halo 2 as it did to make Excitebike? Yes, our technology is better now and it allows game developers to do a lot more with the same budget that old games would have had. But what about things like voice acting, writers, concept artists, and beta testing/bug fixing? You think Super Mario Brothers had all that, or at least to the extent that something like Half-Life 2 had? Older games were just simpler than new ones, and thus didn't take as much time and effort to create. New games are comparable to big-budget action films. They're multi-million dollar productions involving a team of dozens of people working for months, or even years. And yes, there are a lot of low-budget games out there, but there are also a lot of high-budget ones too.

[Wrao]

I could see the 'core' system having a purpose if it shared components from the first xbox... kind of like upgrade pricing, but, it doesn't seem to be that way, and it really does look kinda dumb.

Well, I'm personally only interested in the Nintendo Revolution to be honest. It will probably cost less than both the PS3 and the Xbox 360, and it'll play all those old school games that I love so much(I don't really game much, but I love the oldies)

Xbox 360 could stand to gain some serious market share over the PS3 if it ends up being cheaper. People have been whispering that PS3 will be $400-500 intro price. Who knows what that'll include, what accessories will be deemed "necessary"...etc.

I'll probably end up owning a revolution first, but then a couple years later buying a cheap PS3 or Xbox 360

The 'hidden' costs associated to consoles are awful though. $300-400 for the systen $40-50 for the games $$ for memory cards $$ for controllers...etc.

I mean, they are all 'expected' costs, so we deal with them, but it seems like all that stuff has gone up so much lately to where. To have a nice library of games, a couple controllers and a system will set you back nearly a grand. I can't get behind that!

[sunrain]

Yes, the gaming industry is really hurting financially. I just drove by some programmers from Bungie panhandling on the street.

They'd better make it bloody clear that the extra $10 is worth it, because I rarely felt that way on $50 games. The production values had better just fall off the screen with huge dollar signs attached. If a game as good as Halo 2 comes out, or Morrowind, or KOTOR, sure I'm often willing to pay full price. But jesus, I just cringe thinking of some of the crap that will get produced.

[Wrao]

The other thing about pricing is that... it's so much to do with 'having the latest game'

I recently discovered the wonderful world of used games. I went to EB, I picked up half a dozen Nintendo 64 games for $10 total. Plus, they had used memory cards for a $1 a piece. Heck, even their used Gamecube and PS2 games were pretty cheap ($15-30)

It's like, I'm really not a gamer, but I do enjoy kicking back to the occasional tony hawk or super monkey ball or whatever. But, these days, it seems gaming is becoming something that you actually have to be like... 'into' as opposed to just idle recreation.

[SilentEchoes]

Yeah I remember back in the day with Atari and Nintendo and all the old consoles I used to have a ton of games. Now I only have like 3.. And the games these day's are crap. All graphics no game play.

I guess that why I will end up getting a Revolution. My little sister had a game cube, I had a ton of fun with that thing.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by sunrain Yes, the gaming industry is really hurting financially. I just drove by some programmers from Bungie panhandling on the street. They'd better make it bloody clear that the extra $10 is worth it, because I rarely felt that way on $50 games. The production values had better just fall off the screen with huge dollar signs attached. If a game as good as Halo 2 comes out, or Morrowind, or KOTOR, sure I'm often willing to pay full price. But jesus, I just cringe thinking of some of the crap that will get produced.

EA Sports for the first time in many years reported a loss last quarter

your link proves nothing other than revenue is going up. big whoop.

the cost of developing games is through the roof

and honestly, I remember when super nintento and genesis games debuted at 59.99. I don't know why you don't

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut EA Sports for the first time in many years reported a loss last quarter your link proves nothing other than revenue is going up. big whoop. the cost of developing games is through the roof and honestly, I remember when super nintento and genesis games debuted at 59.99. I don't know why you don't

Show me some figures which demonstrate that industry development costs are outstripping profit margins and revenue streams. Show me that they just *have* to raise prices and I'll shut up and buy the $60 games.

[BarracksSi]

The wireless controllers I've tried have sucked. Granted, they were in a Best Buy, but when radio interference causes the throttle to stick open in GT4, that's just stupid.

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut EA Sports for the first time in many years reported a loss last quarter

That might be because they haven't really produced anything new, and it's possible that gamers are staying away from giving EA any money because of how they treat their employees.

Originally Posted by SilentEchoes And the games these day's are crap. All graphics no game play.

Ya know, I have to agree. I saw a preview of Ninja Gaiden Black (not sure whether it was XBox 360 or PS3), and I was dazzled for about two minutes. Then, I realized that I was seeing the same old crap as before, with automatic combos, unnatural character movement, preprogrammed collision reactions, blah blah blah. It was fantastic-looking, but cripes, it's not groundbreaking at all.

I'm honestly looking forward to see improvement in racing games, but I couldn't care much less about the FPS and third-person action stuff anymore.

[Engine Joe]

If you've ever used a Wavebird (Nintendo's first party wiresless controller for the Gamecube), you'll know that wireless controllers can be done quite well.

[Luca]

And if you think wireless controllers suck because some Brand X wireless controller in Best Buy was crappy, I think there's a slight problem with your thinking... I mean, Brand X controllers ALL suck, even the wired ones. Wavebirds are awesome. That Logitech XBox controller (whatever it's called) is also awesome. Wireless can be done well.

I am also looking forward to the Nintendo Revolution. It's the one console that seems to be stressing innovative and fun gameplay over insane graphics. MS and Sony are in their obligatory spec wars, shouting about gigaflops this and HD resolution that. Graphics are fun and a great way to enhance the gaming experience, but IIRC Nintendo has actually publicly announced that they will not be focusing on making the Revolution an extremely powerful system because they would rather spend time on making gameplay better and keeping the system affordable.

I know that once all three new consoles are on shelves, it won't be hard for me to decide between a $399 XBox 360, a $499 PS3, and a $249 Nintendo Revolution. If the big N can keep costs low enough on the Revolution, I could see it becoming really popular. The main problem I think is that they are behind MS and maybe even Sony in the release schedule... it's definitely not coming out any sooner than a year from now. But who knows how those will turn out? MS, Sony and Nintendo are only slightly better at announcing accurate release dates than Apple.

[Robo]

Yeah...I think it's really stupid that they're selling a hard drive-less version. They're being incredibly short-sighted - crippling the system's games just so they can say they're launching at $299. I mean, not including the hard drive standard is literally a step backwards from the original Xbox.

What they should have done was sell the system with the hard drive and a wireless controller for $349 or so ($360, just for the hell of it...nobody would forget the price!). Or, if they wanted to get the price down to under $300, they should go about it the old-fashioned way - selling it at a small loss for a few months.

Not including the hard drive standard, though - especially just to get some shitty "Core System" under a $300 price point - just seems retarded. Anybody with half a brain is going to buy the full system anyway, but developers will no longer be able to count on gamers having the hard drive. So either developers will cripple their games so that the brainless gamers can play them, or else all the brainless gamers will have to pay $99 for the overpriced 20 GB hard drive add-on.

Like I said, it's retarded. Microsoft seems to have truly succeeded in pissing off everyone with one move - gamers and developers alike.

And does anybody else feel like the Xbox 360 is kinda complicating the console market a bit too much? Two bundles - one that won't play some games at all and won't access some features in others; two tiers of Xbox Live service - one that isn't really Xbox Live at all, because you can't really play games on it; etc. etc. etc. I'm certainly not a simpleton, but isn't the entire point of a console being able to just pop in a game and knowing it will play on your TV, without having to read any fine print on the back of the case?

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by sunrain Show me some figures which demonstrate that industry development costs are outstripping profit margins and revenue streams. Show me that they just *have* to raise prices and I'll shut up and buy the $60 games.

why are you being so stubborn? is this matter really that important to you?

your lack of reason with this is very surprising, it's pretty well noted that rising development costs are hurting the industry and weaking profits. I'm not sure where you have been. Just do a google search. jeez.

http://www.costik.com/presentations/...20Industry.ppt

[rasmits]

Is $60 games something new? I thought all new games are in the $59 bracket.

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut why are you being so stubborn? is this matter really that important to you? your lack of reason with this is very surprising, it's pretty well noted that rising development costs are hurting the industry and weaking profits. I'm not sure where you have been. Just do a google search. jeez. http://www.costik.com/presentations/...20Industry.ppt

I'm not being stubborn. I just want evidence rather than your anecdotal insistence that the industry is hurting somehow. I haven't read anything that suggests it (not that I've been looking particularly). None of my friends in the industry have mentioned it (not that I talk about business with them).

Did you look at that presentation before you sent it to me? Some of his conclusions at the end are interesting, but he admits (in the presentation) that, "All numbers off the top of my head", "Not like I’ve actually done any actual research", and has a list of assumptions that are based on what? None of his conclusions even directly assessed game prices as a problem/solution. That was a shoddy presentation. Passionate, but shoddy.

Well, here's some evidence (links below) that supports your claim, but nearly everyone says that raising game prices (particulary above $50) is *not* a viable option. Restructuring of the industry was what most seem to be suggesting. Looks like a transition is coming (similar to the movie industry) where large studios are able to offset losses with the profits from other big hits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_industry

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3758173.stm

Yup, looks like there are some problems associated with development. I just wanted to see it for myself. I don't think that's stubborn at all. These forums are for discussion and informed debate, yes? If I'm uninformed about something don't just tell me, show me. Sorry I had to waste your time on this *discussion* forum. Geez, you suck at google if that presentation was the best you were able to find. I shouldn't have to provide links for both of us.

[Robo]

Originally Posted by rasmits Is $60 games something new? I thought all new games are in the $59 bracket.

When games were cartridge-based, $59 was the common MSRP. Then, a decade ago, the PlayStation came, with CD-based games for $39. (Cartridge-based N64 games continued to cost around $59, which might partially explain how Sony took over the game market.) This generation, the price of games increased to $49 for most new titles, and next generation, most games will likely debut at $59. Unlike cartridges, though, it is increasing development costs - not manufacturing costs - that is driving the price increases.

So yeah, games used to be $59, but that was a while ago.

I'm fine (well, sorta fine) with paying $59 for a game (again), but I hope game prices don't continue to increase $10 every generation.

As an aside, I'd like to point out that the $59 price tag for next-gen games could be temporary - developers might decide to charge a premium for the earlier adopters, and in a year or two when they learn the new tools of the trade, game prices might fall again. Look at the PSP - when it first launched, most games were $49 - but now we're already seeing many titles debut at $39.

[Luca]

If I remember correctly, some old cartridge-based games cost upwards of $90 when cartridge supplies were short. I never had a console back then (the only cartridge-based video game system I have ever owned was a GameBoy, and those have always had cheap games), but I heard someone say that cartridges were extremely expensive in years past.

[Robo]

You're right, Luca, I've heard tales of people paying upwards of $80 for cartridges in areas of high demand. That was above the MSRP, though. (I live in the Midwest, so I never payed more than $60.) Thankfully, those days dissapeared as games began shipping on easier-to-manufacture CDs and DVDs.

There were also some isolated cases of "special" cartridges that cost more - for example, a certain racing game on the Genesis whose name escapes me at the moment had a MSRP of $99 because it had lots of memory. The MSRP for a standard cartridge was usually $59.99, though.

[HHogan]

in 2004 4,371 titles were released. 3,115 titles sold less than 25,000 units.

A singular game developed for the Xbox was $1.8 million, PS2 was $900,000, and GC $800,000. The total combined is $3.5 million

Development costs for high quality games on the next gen are expected to top $10-15 million.

Just some numbers for you guys to play with.

[The Return of the 'nut]

Originally Posted by sunrain Yup, looks like there are some problems associated with development. I just wanted to see it for myself. I don't think that's stubborn at all. These forums are for discussion and informed debate, yes? If I'm uninformed about something don't just tell me, show me. Sorry I had to waste your time on this *discussion* forum. Geez, you suck at google if that presentation was the best you were able to find. I shouldn't have to provide links for both of us.

no, you got extremely defensive and almost angry at the suggestion that development costs have risen and resulted in higher game prices. stubborness, immature, "discussion", whatever you want to call it, I don't care, that's how it is.

If you are uninformed about something, it is your own responsibility to educate yourself.

the link was the first thing that popped up as I really did not wish to waste my time "educating you" on a subject you strongly disagree simply because of...well.... spite.

as said, games have always debuted around 50-60 dollars. this is nothing new. not sure why you are so surprised

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut no, you got extremely defensive and almost angry at the suggestion that development costs have risen and resulted in higher game prices. stubborness, immature, "discussion", whatever you want to call it, I don't care, that's how it is. If you are uninformed about something, it is your own responsibility to educate yourself. the link was the first thing that popped up as I really did not wish to waste my time "educating you" on a subject you strongly disagree simply because of...well.... spite. as said, games have always debuted around 50-60 dollars. this is nothing new. not sure why you are so surprised

Whatever 'nut. Frame our exchange anyway you like. At least I learned one thing from this thread. Others here have tried to teach it to me, but I guess I had to "educate myself".

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by HHogan in 2004 4,371 titles were released. 3,115 titles sold less than 25,000 units. A singular game developed for the Xbox was $1.8 million, PS2 was $900,000, and GC $800,000. The total combined is $3.5 million Development costs for high quality games on the next gen are expected to top $10-15 million. Just some numbers for you guys to play with.

Wow, that's insane. Where did you get those numbers? What games were those for?

[Gargoyle]

Well, I for one like the idea of a "stripped" system for $99 cheaper. Just maybe MS are aiming this at enthusiasts that will be happy to rip the lid off a brand new console and put their own HD in. I'd buy my own HD (probably a lot bigger than 20G for $99 too) and I have enough cables lying round here to make my own! Besides, I have just spend a day making my own cables for my DVD/Amp etc so that I don't have a mile of coiled wire behind the tele! (Got rid of annoying speaker buzz)

Having a wireless control doesn't bother me.

Just as long as the actual hardware is not crippled. eg, the $200 version doesn't have an ethernet port or SATA/IDE port physically inside - now THAT would suck!

[curiousuburb]

On the HW price:

You do know that MS has been selling the Xbox at a loss of more than $100 per unit since it came out by subsidizing (read: throwing money down hole) to "compete" with Sony and Nintendo, right?

Half a billion dollars in advertising in the first year alone... trying to convince Sony/Nintendo fans and gullible media fanboys, and artificially undercut pricing on the console itself to gain marketshare and mindshare (what a surprise... shady competitive practices from Redmond)

The fact they've stopped subsidizing the console is pissing people off??

They have to make back the budget they wasted on Elijah Wood's MTV "launch" special.

On the SW Price:

Gillette proved long ago that the real money is in the blades, not the razors...

Granted MS does have more leverage over some developers than others (those who sign "exclusive to XBox" deals), but for the most part, the pricing of content is similar to the movie world... absurdly overcharged $13 to see flicks on opening night in the theatre, $2 by six months later when it hits the '5-day rental' shelf at your local dvd/video rental shop.

The premium is in the P.T. Barnum "sucker tax" on early adopters.

[Crusader]

Gillette proved long ago that the real money is in the blades, not the razors...

Apple has managed to make quite a nice profit selling the razors; more so then the blades.

As for the X-Box 360 pricing, that's a ton of cash to pay for a console. Four hundred dollars puts you in semi-decent PC territory. As for features what does one see different? Better graphics? Better physics? Whoop-dee-do. Game play and environment make much more of a difference. That's the reason why I still dust off Marathon and Deus Ex and play them. Sure the graphics may not be the best, but the game experience is second to none.

If the rhetoric coming from Nintendo is to be believed, I think the Revolution will be the most interesting console to watch. Sure it most likely won't win the spec-whore contest, but if it does bring a so called "unprecedented gaming experience" I think it will do well. The fact that a download service for the Revolution will allow you to grab NES, SNES, and 64 games seems to seal the deal for me. Last week a friend of mine brought over his 64 and we hooked it up to my Home Theater system, and I must say that was one kick-ass game of Goldeneye.

[sunrain]

Originally Posted by curiousuburb On the HW price: You do know that MS has been selling the Xbox at a loss of more than $100 per unit since it came out by subsidizing (read: throwing money down hole) to "compete" with Sony and Nintendo, right? Half a billion dollars in advertising in the first year alone... trying to convince Sony/Nintendo fans and gullible media fanboys, and artificially undercut pricing on the console itself to gain marketshare and mindshare (what a surprise... shady competitive practices from Redmond) The fact they've stopped subsidizing the console is pissing people off?? They have to make back the budget they wasted on Elijah Wood's MTV "launch" special.

No doubt. I can see that they're testing out dropping the subsidy with this pricing strategy. I just kinda figured they'd wait until they'd gotten a little more competitive in the market. This thing isn't decided yet. Not by a long shot.

Originally Posted by curiousuburb On the SW Price: Gillette proved long ago that the real money is in the blades, not the razors... Granted MS does have more leverage over some developers than others (those who sign "exclusive to XBox" deals), but for the most part, the pricing of content is similar to the movie world... absurdly overcharged $13 to see flicks on opening night in the theatre, $2 by six months later when it hits the '5-day rental' shelf at your local dvd/video rental shop. The premium is in the P.T. Barnum "sucker tax" on early adopters.

Just an opinion, but I think they'll find that a significant number of suckers won't bite at $60, if rumors are to be believed. If that's the new pricing strategy, I'll be waiting longer to buy games. I've actually been surprised that XBox Live subscriptions haven't been more than they are. That's the sweetest deal that I see from the XBox. Hell, I'd pay $100 per year, for all the entertainment it provides. Of course, it's probably coming, so I'll take the sweet deal for now.