Actually that makes a lot of sense. Gold membership is only used by a fragment of the 360 users and is a goldmine for MS. Now imagine if every 360 owner purchased 2 years worth of gold membership either through console purchase or sub. That would of been worth $7.7 billion.
- Status
Actually that makes a lot of sense. Gold membership is only used by a fragment of the 360 users and is a goldmine for MS. Now imagine if every 360 owner purchased 2 years worth of gold membership either through console purchase or sub. That would of been worth $7.7 billion.
So, you don't want to pay the actual price of the good you're buying, but they're the ones that are greedy? Selling goods to break even or turn any kind of a profit is greedy and penny pinching?
It makes perfect sense. They want people to use the $299 with locked in 2 years. It gives MS a lower sticker price and gets the buyer hooked in to XBL gold, which they hope those people will continue with willingly or forget to cancel the auto subscription in two years. MS know the difference between owning a console and investing in an ecosystem.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If the pricing is true...
Who in the world would buy a 499 USD Xbox if they have even a minor interest in Xbox Live Gold?
At non-discounted Gold card prices that's 619 USD versus 539 USD over the course of 2 years. Even at discounted gold card prices (say 40 USD) that's 579 USD versus 539 USD.
At that point, smart shoppers would look at it and figure out that "if" they ever wanted to use Gold even though they weren't thinking of getting gold, that 299 Xbox would come out to be a better deal.
So during the first 2 years, Microsoft would take a minor hit in profits but if the customer gets hooked on the Gold services, then that leads to a potential lifetime boost in profits after those initial 2 years.
Or...
The 499 USD SKU is just there to give the Xbox a "premium" halo at a price that might be unattractive to the majority of consumers. Then you hit them with the 299 USD SKU and suddenly people feel like they are getting a bargain. The same sorts of people that look at carrier subsidized mobile phones and think they are getting a bargain.
And...
You get those people that are unwilling or unable to plonk down 499 USD on a single purchase, but feel comfortable spending a bit less upfront with a small monthly payment.
Either way it's a potentially brilliant move. Especially if part of the marketing in retail stores is to highlight the services available to Xbox Gold members.
Regards,
SB
Billy Idol
Legend
This sounds weird?!? Assuming this rumor has anything to do with reality: So what are the actual real costs to run Xbox Live per user? Less than...40$/2 years = 1.7$/month?
actually if you have a subscripton model then I assume the only online has to be true.
At LEAST for the subsidized model. How else would they ensure you continue to pay? No pay, no play as your live connection is severed. Like subsidized cell phone contracts.
all makes sense. maybe if you buy the full price model it plays offline?
At LEAST for the subsidized model. How else would they ensure you continue to pay? No pay, no play as your live connection is severed. Like subsidized cell phone contracts.
all makes sense. maybe if you buy the full price model it plays offline?
This is what I'm starting to think as well. You'll probably be paying for the privilege to be able to play offline. This might be how they solve the issue where some territories have inconsistent Internet service: they won't be selling the subsidized model there.
Tommy McClain
I hope something like this, internet required for subsidized model, well, Xbox Live connection required.
Still not sure. If it's true, the $299 is a much more appealing product for sure. Just not sure I want to use my credit on it. If I can pay more & not use credit then great, but even $500 is a bit much unless it has Live included. Over the years I've usually paid for 12 months of Live at a time with discounts, some times just 3 month cards. I did this when it was convenient for me. Being forced to make a payment every month at the same time for 2 years is not really appealing to me. One of the reasons I don't have a credit card or a car payment for the past 10 years. Only thing I have on credit now is my house. I sure hope the May 21 event talks about price, but I have a feeling we won't hear price there or even at E3. They will likely wait until August like they did with the original 360 or in September like Nintendo did with the Wii U.
Tommy McClain
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I used 40 USD per year not per 2 years for your average discount Xbox Live Gold card. Retailers and resellers still make a profit off of that so Microsoft certainly gets less then 40 USD per Live Gold card sold at retail (they get the full share if people sign up for the online subscription though which generally isn't discounted).
We'll never know the costs for Microsoft in order to support both Xbox Live Gold and Silver levels.
Regards,
SB
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Yup, I'm the same way. I haven't bought anything on credit or taken out a loan or mortgage in over a decade now. 2001 was the last time I got something on credit, IIRC.
I don't, however, mind making monthly payments. I have to do that for phone, electricity, internet, etc. anyway.
If I went for the 299 subsidized model, I'd definitely have to remind myself to cancel the Xbox Gold service at the end of the 2 years however so that I could then transition back to discounted Gold cards. I'm betting the Microsoft is hoping that most people won't bother to cancel the automatic billing service for Xbox Gold which will net them much more money than if people were using Gold cards.
Regards,
SB
Last edited by a moderator:
Adding more achievments seems like it could be something that can be handled by periodic queries to servers.
I think I'd personally find it annoying. I like my satisfaction with having 100% to stay that way.
The proposed scenario where devs don't like how people are playing their game and add achievments to prod players sounds a little naggy.
I think I'd personally find it annoying. I like my satisfaction with having 100% to stay that way.
The proposed scenario where devs don't like how people are playing their game and add achievments to prod players sounds a little naggy.
Averagejoe
Regular
As i see it the $299 price tag is the one the console should carry based on its specs even without xbox live $10 a month fee.
As i see it MS is purposely inflating the price of the unit,so that people bite into xbox live obligatory,think about it it makes no sense to sell the 720 subsidized with a $10 dollar a month fee,if the unit without live actually cost $500 stand alone without xbox live,why would MS do that to get back just $40 dollars over the non live unit.
My 2cent the units should have go for $350 tops,the GPU inside the 720 (by leaks) doesn't stand close to the Xenos in power equivalent to what the 360 had back then compare to PC,and still there was a $299 xbox 360 on 2005.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I'd imagine quite a few.
Anyone wanting to bring an MMO to the console, for example. That's the most obvious case.
Anyone wanting to have a single player game experience that can drastically change at any momemt is a non-obvious case.
Anyone wanting a game that is server/client based such that game balance and AI bug fixes, etc. could be changed/fixed at any moment without requiring the user to download a patch because all changes are server side only is another non-obvious case.
In that case, an RPG could introduce daily/weekly/monthly quests on the server without requiring the client (player) to download anything as long as no art assets were added or changed. Difficulty could then also be dynamically adjusted at the server for single players or all players based on how all connected players were doing.
Imagine a Police detective type of game where you have to research things in game online. Only that the stuff you have to research changes constantly each time you play. In addition when research the data for the case in game, you're actually accessing real internet information to do it. So instead of being limited by how much data can be fit onto the optical disk and hard drive, you can include any and all information available on the internet. Say you have to research some historical figure to solve a crime. Instead of the tiny bit of information games typically include for such things you can access a computer terminal in game which then allows you to research anything on the actual internet about said historical personality.
Your game world could then theoretically have more content than could fit onto 1, 2, 3, or more BluRay disks as long as the major art assets reside on the console. Although this would require a revolution in game design, as the majority of the size of a game install is art assets, sound, and video.
The possibilities are endless for game enhancing features that require a player to always be connected.
And, of course, any publisher that is worried that said console might get hacked and the game thusly get pirated. Or a developer making an multiplatform game that wants to make the PC version as difficult to pirate as possible would necessitate the console version also being that way (IE - client/server based game with as much stuff done and hosted on the server as possible).
Regards,
SB
In my layperson's view, that would just do them (a lot) more harm than good; first it would majorly tick off those people who paid premium price if there's a rapid price drop, and that would not be a good thing to do, seeing as those people would be your core followers. Second, it would make your product look unattractive or even failing, needing a rapid price cut. Wuu's reputation took it right on the chin when some chains voluntarily dropped price just a few months after launch - although the wuu is probably a much better example of an actually failing product than a durango with a fast price cut would be.
The more I read in this thread the less interested in X720 I become. If PS4 launches cheaper and is more powerful there's little reason for me to purchase the new MS console. If always online ends up a requirement for the majority of games that's even further reason not to buy the console and means MS doesn't give a shit about me as a consumer.
I can understand a $499 price tag if it is the highest tiered model of the console, considering the inflation we've had since 2005 and $500 seems about right. It depends on all the extra goodies thrown in. If they wish to make Kinect standard out of the box then they shouldn't expect me as a consumer to pay extra for that, even in the core system, if it's not something I'm fully interested in. I can understand MS wants this machine to be the center of entertainment in a home, especially the living room, but if they force me to spend more on it despite the only functionality that I require from it (GAMING) for extra features then again they're losing me as a consumer. All those things could be thrown in for extra, or not.
I can understand a $499 price tag if it is the highest tiered model of the console, considering the inflation we've had since 2005 and $500 seems about right. It depends on all the extra goodies thrown in. If they wish to make Kinect standard out of the box then they shouldn't expect me as a consumer to pay extra for that, even in the core system, if it's not something I'm fully interested in. I can understand MS wants this machine to be the center of entertainment in a home, especially the living room, but if they force me to spend more on it despite the only functionality that I require from it (GAMING) for extra features then again they're losing me as a consumer. All those things could be thrown in for extra, or not.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Any publisher that requires always online for their game on Durango will likely require always online for their game on PS4. I really don't see how it could be different.
If Sony requires that all games can be played offline then there will just end up being games that exist on Durango that don't exist on PS4.
You do also realize that there are games on PS3 that require an always online connection? So it isn't like Sony will prevent publishers from releasing games that require always online on PS4.
Regards,
SB
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky