Cheap remote included in x360 preimum

[Johnny Awesome]

I know very few people that will buy a console at 400$ . I know some people who buy 10 games a month but wont buy the console till its 200$

Sure you do.

 

[Tap In]

As someone said, there is no "Premium" version. It's Xbox360 and Xbox360 Core. I'd prefer to call it Xbox360 "Bare" to Xbox 360Core, but I am sure the Microsoft marketing department wouldn't like the name.

My guess is that the $399 package we see now (maybe one without the remote and some other stuff) probably was the only SKU that Microsoft initially thought of (and thus all the "misleading" interviews). When they finally talked to the retailers and other "analysists" and what not, they probably convinced them that they _need_ a sub-$300 package.

And they are clearly saying that the 85% of the initial shipments will be the $399 packages. I'd like it to be $399-only for the initial couple of months, but I am sure others would cry foul...

Oh, well...

Hong.

agree (as I've repeated several times now )

as an aside:
My Game Crazy where I have my pre-order told me last night that their official policy (as of yesterday) is that everyone with a pre-order will automatically be set to receive an X360 at the $399 price. If we want to change it to the core system we can, but with over 40 pre-orders in this little neighborhood store (one of about 8 stores in 5 sq miles) he said the people calling have been overwhelmingly for the $399 system. (with no cancellations)

 

[Sis]

There is absolutely no reason to make a cutdown remote other than to get people to buy the real one. Judging from the pictures there can't be more than 5-10 cents woth of additional real cost to MS to throw in the real thing. It probably ends up costing more this way since they had to design a new remote and have it manufactured in addition to the real remote.

You can't think of a reason so it must be MS screwing people over.

How about: the cut down remote allows people to sample the media center extender ability of the Xbox 360. If they truly love it, they won't mind forking out the money for a real Media Center remote. But--as I expect to be true for the vast majority--they won't care to use it more than say a couple times a year to show their friends. MS saves money by not having to build a universal remote and the consumer wins because they get to try something new.

But somehow this is a bad thing.

.Sis

 

[Sis]

1) Remove headset and remote, add in WiFi

That would have been the best for me too.

No thanks, I don't use wi-fi for my gaming. It doesn't make sense to add a superflous component to the system that I'll never use but I'll have to pay for.

Instead, I prefer that you pay for the stuff you want to use, and I'll pay for what I want to use.

.Sis

 

[NavNucST3]

You can't think of a reason so it must be MS screwing people over.

How about: the cut down remote allows people to sample the media center extender ability of the Xbox 360. If they truly love it, they won't mind forking out the money for a real Media Center remote. But--as I expect to be true for the vast majority--they won't care to use it more than say a couple times a year to show their friends. MS saves money by not having to build a universal remote and the consumer wins because they get to try something new.

But somehow this is a bad thing.

.Sis

How exactly do they save money by building two remotes? The consumer only gets to try something new if they buy the xbox360 during the launch phase, after that the remote supposedly goes bye-bye and then your only option is the full remote.

 

[NavNucST3]

No thanks, I don't use wi-fi for my gaming. It doesn't make sense to add a superflous component to the system that I'll never use but I'll have to pay for.

Instead, I prefer that you pay for the stuff you want to use, and I'll pay for what I want to use.

.Sis

The wi-fi is superfluous, yet in your other post the limited-time only remote that "...they won't care to use it more than say a couple times a year to show their friends", is not.

Instead, I prefer that you pay for the stuff you want to use, and I'll pay for what I want to use.

So really it sounds like you are saying that there should only be the $299 version, and then we can all go buy whatever floats our own boats.

 

[Ty]

No thanks, I don't use wi-fi for my gaming. It doesn't make sense to add a superflous component to the system that I'll never use but I'll have to pay for.

Superflous for you and others, sure. Not for Joe and I though.

WiFi is better for hooking up to your network if you want to go online and also if you want to use the Xbox360 as a media center. Naturally you'd want the remote for this last function but frankly, it's better to use a decent HT remote like one from Harmony or TheatreMaster.

Instead, I prefer that you pay for the stuff you want to use, and I'll pay for what I want to use.

.Sis

Sure, I can understand that. A shame that this isn't a practical option though.

 

[Sis]

How exactly do they save money by building two remotes? The consumer only gets to try something new if they buy the xbox360 during the launch phase, after that the remote supposedly goes bye-bye and then your only option is the full remote.

One is meant only for the Xbox 360, the other has to be a universal remote? And you don't really have the inside scoop on whether the remote will be removed post-launch window, do you?

.Sis

 

[Sis]

The wi-fi is superfluous, yet in your other post the limited-time only remote that "...they won't care to use it more than say a couple times a year to show their friends", is not.

Out of the box, the Xbox 360 includes a mechanism for getting on the internet. Adding a wi-fi is superflous to this.

I agree that a Media Center remote is probably superflous, since a standard controller works, but it is arguable--in my mind at least--that without a remote it is not really a decent Media Center extender.

In other words: no wi-fi and I still have internet access. No remote, and I have a degraded media center experience.

.Sis

 

[Sis]

Superflous for you and others, sure. Not for Joe and I though.

WiFi is better for hooking up to your network if you want to go online and also if you want to use the Xbox360 as a media center. Naturally you'd want the remote for this last function but frankly, it's better to use a decent HT remote like one from Harmony or TheatreMaster.

Sure, I can understand that. A shame that this isn't a practical option though.

I agree with your final point in particular and this is probably the crux of the issue. If the adapter only retailed for $40 then I doubt it would matter whether it was included.

But a $100 bucks? Ouch. For the last generation I bought a wireless bridge which worked perfectly. The added benefit is that I later repurposed it for a PC of mine.

.Sis

 

[NavNucST3]

I agree with your final point in particular and this is probably the crux of the issue. If the adapter only retailed for $40 then I doubt it would matter whether it was included.

But a $100 bucks? Ouch. For the last generation I bought a wireless bridge which worked perfectly. The added benefit is that I later repurposed it for a PC of mine.

.Sis

The more I think about it, the less upset I get with the wi-fi price. Seeing as how I spent $100 this gen for my gaming wifi, with wires everywhere (ethernet and power), the constant blue lights flickering I would imagine I would pay the same to have a small bus powered wifi and a tiny light. This would keep my wife from placing a t-shirt or sock over the lights at night, lol, hell if I mention those things to her, maybe she will buy it for me...