Very Interesting Xbox 360 Survey

[Nappe1]

You can already buy USB digital joystick that is remake of legendary Competition Pro III. (second best stick during C64/Amiga/Atari ST days, losing only to the best: TAC-2) And it costs only ~15 Euros.

for example here:
http://www.vesalia.de/?V02b0f145350...76544d0d552321517636626b7869332d41656e384f756

for real retro freaks like me, they also re-launched Competition Pro with ATARI connector/plug, so now freaks (read Nappe1) can buy a brand new stick for C64... yeppee...

http://www.vesalia.de/?V02b0f145350...5c584a4452581e426464712c6723386c5263607160264

 

[Rolf N]

That sounds pretty standard for new releases for DVDs. Just a choice of delivery, go to the store and get a hard copy or have a digital copy through MS's Live network.

IMO digitial distribution models need to cost less than hard copies because to the consumer they offer less flexibility (can I play it on my other devices, can I bring it over to a friend etc) and less security (will the license be revoked, what if the machine needs replacing).

Price parity with DVDs is pure cynicism. It costs much less to the distributor to not have physical media to manufacture, store, and shuffle around the country. Some of that needs to be passed on, because the product is inherently inferior anyway.

I wish the HD-movies were a dollar or 2 cheaper.

The survey doesn't mention HD, but standard definition movies for 19.99$.

 

[hey69]

its been so long that i would have difficulties to play on a real joystick like that again

what happened to those flightstick style joysticks... aaah memories

 

[Shifty Geezer]

As "meh" as it is to get stuck with an Apple portable music player to have access to your own music... and we all know what a sales disaster this was, innit

It's not ideal though. I'd rather have the option to buy Apple music and then play it in a non-Apple portable if I choose, then have to buy Apple music players if I to continue to use the music I've bought. Being tied in to any one brand stops you benefitting so much from competition. I wouldn't mind renting media over a platform, but if I'm buying it, I want it to be portable. It'd be just as 'meh' to buy Sony DVDs that are only watchable on Sony TVs, and then want to buy a Samsung TV...you either lose all the stuff you bought or have to buy a Sony TV.

Oh. Wait. I forgot. MS is teh evil, while Apple are ever the innovator?

That was uncalled for and unwanted in this forum. Make arguments about points, and not insults and accusations about a person making those points (especialy when accusing someone like Acert of corporate bias!)

 

[London Geezer]

As "meh" as it is to get stuck with an Apple portable music player to have access to your own music... and we all know what a sales disaster this was, innit ;-)

Oh. Wait. I forgot. MS is teh evil, while Apple are ever the innovator?

Did i just see.... No it couldn't have been.... Did you just write.... that word? Really, the trolling in your post is nothing compared to the evil of that word.

 

[Black Dragon37]

I want Controller S back.

 

[assen]

It's not ideal though. I'd rather have the option to buy Apple music and then play it in a non-Apple portable if I choose, then have to buy Apple music players if I to continue to use the music I've bought. Being tied in to any one brand stops you benefitting so much from competition. I wouldn't mind renting media over a platform, but if I'm buying it, I want it to be portable. It'd be just as 'meh' to buy Sony DVDs that are only watchable on Sony TVs, and then want to buy a Samsung TV...you either lose all the stuff you bought or have to buy a Sony TV.

I was pointing out that this locking to a particular brand of players is something that is shown to be perfectly acceptable for the general public. I'm as aware of the benefits of competition to consumers, as you are of the benefits of vertical integration to vendors.

It all boils down to the pricepoint, really. I agree that this is less free, and in some ways more convenient, in others - less, than a physical optical disc (of the same quality), and should be priced as such. After all, iTunes albums are cheaper than their CD counterparts, right?

That was uncalled for and unwanted in this forum. Make arguments about points, and not insults and accusations about a person making those points (especialy when accusing someone like Acert of corporate bias!)

I'm not accusing him of corporate bias, but of anti-corporate bias ;-) Is it somehow more acceptable?

 

[blakjedi]

After all, iTunes albums are cheaper than their CD counterparts, right??

No. Huge retail music and movie distributors liek Best buy and circuit city are actually competitive with itunes... on any given day you can find many cds which would normally price out at 13.99 or better in the retail sector for 11.99 or less (usually 9.99 or 10.99).

 

[Powderkeg]

IMO digitial distribution models need to cost less than hard copies because to the consumer they offer less flexibility (can I play it on my other devices, can I bring it over to a friend etc) and less security (will the license be revoked, what if the machine needs replacing).

Price parity with DVDs is pure cynicism. It costs much less to the distributor to not have physical media to manufacture, store, and shuffle around the country. Some of that needs to be passed on, because the product is inherently inferior anyway.The survey doesn't mention HD, but standard definition movies for 19.99$.

IMO there is no reason for digital distribution to be cheaper. They are providing you with a service you don't receive when you have to buy hard copy disks. That is, you can get the movie without leaving the comfort of your home.

And which is actually cheaper for the distributor (Which in this case would include MS) Pressing a bunch of dirt cheap DVD's, or buying and maintaining a server system capable of handling millions of customers and enough bandwidth to feed them all movies whenever they want,?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I was pointing out that this locking to a particular brand of players is something that is shown to be perfectly acceptable for the general public.

Sure, but that doesn't change Acert's personal opinion which he expressed. For him, being locked to a platform is 'meh'

I'm not accusing him of corporate bias, but of anti-corporate bias ;-) Is it somehow more acceptable?

No, but Acert isn't guilty of that either from what I've seen on my time here. It's not as though he said 'I wish this content worked on Apple instead of MS, as I hate MS!' All he said was he didn't like the idea of it being tied to an MS console - in that he'd like the media to be portable across devices.

 

[Rolf N]

IMO there is no reason for digital distribution to be cheaper. They are providing you with a service you don't receive when you have to buy hard copy disks. That is, you can get the movie without leaving the comfort of your home.

Almost. I can order stuff online and with some shops not even worry about shipping fees etc. A download service is faster, most of the time anyway.

And which is actually cheaper for the distributor (Which in this case would include MS) Pressing a bunch of dirt cheap DVD's, or buying and maintaining a server system capable of handling millions of customers and enough bandwidth to feed them all movies whenever they want,?

The bandwidth and server costs for a single customer and a single movie are negligible. I just went to a big and pro hosting outfit (around here anyway) and I can get a dedicated server and 500GB transfer volume for 100€ per month. For a 1.5GB SD movie download we're at 30 Euro-Cents (40US-Cents?), and that already includes the server. Economies of scale and/or rolling your own data-center might allow even lower costs for very large endeavours.

Realistically, the distribution would further offload infrastructure costs to the customer side/ISPs by using something like Bit Torrent.

IOW I really don't think there's any kind of operational justification for the 20$ asking price.

 

[scooby_dooby]

When MS makes a serious move for mainstream consumers they will definately need to change their accessory strategy.

Without a doubt. I hope they don't make the mistake of confusing the early adopters tendency to purchase everything, with the mainstream consumers being prepared to purchase overpriced peripherals.

 

[pipo]

Without a doubt. I hope they don't make the mistake of confusing the early adopters tendency to purchase everything, with the mainstream consumers being prepared to purchase overpriced peripherals.

Looking at the price point of both Sony's and Nintendo's controllers I'm not sure there's a lot of pressure.

I'm not saying they're not expensive though.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Looking at the price point of both Sony's and Nintendo's controllers I'm not sure there's a lot of pressure.

They've got motion sensing though. The XB360 controllers ought to be price comparable with last-gen wireless controllers, no? Which are what? $40-45 I'm guessing from UK prices.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

They've got motion sensing though. The XB360 controllers ought to be price comparable with last-gen wireless controllers, no? Which are what? $40-45 I'm guessing from UK prices.

Huh? And they've got rumble, that the Sony controller's don't have. I also don't remember any console releasing first-party wireless controllers a generation ago.

Whats with the arbitrary determination as to what consititutes "last generation" vs "this generation"? And then you base your price assumptions on this arbitrary benchmark?

To me, the 360 controllers do nothing but improve upon last generation controllers. That makes them next gen.

The Wii controllers do nothing but improve upon last generation controllers. That makes them next gen.

The Sony controllers adds functionality from last generation controllers but also removes functionality. That makes them clearly not a complete step-foward, but rather a step forward and a step back and NOT next generation. Therefore, I believe Sony controllers should only cost $30 this generation.

Actually, when you combine the fact that the Sony controllers are black, instead of white like the 360 and the Wii.. it shows how REALLY last gen they actually are, so they should probably retail for more like $25.

 

[Shark Sandwich]

For the extra $10 you get backlit buttons, rubberized grips, premium color(possibly finish) and an improved D-pad. Personally I think an extra $10 is spot on. Will I buy one? Probably not initially, but eventually. If you don't want to spend an extra $10 for it, then don't.

This is exactly how Microsoft is praying that we see it.

Remember, the 360 wireless controller costs MS about $11 dollars:
http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180201706&pgno=3
and they charge $49 for it. That is one hell of a return. Now MS may add maybe $1 of new stuff and a functioning d-pad, and charge us a $10-$20 premium? On top of an already ridiculous price?

Of course, if there were any decent competition for wireless controllers, this wouldn't be as big of an issue. Microsoft doesn't have to worry about that, though, because they're withholding the wireless protocol from third party peripheral manufacturers:
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=84808

IOW I really don't think there's any kind of operational justification for the 20$ asking price.

I agree with this. You are getting much less with a download than you get by buying a physical copy. Also, the 20 GB hard drive is barely enough for a handfull of game demos, let alone full-length, DVD quality movies. Let's assume that you can fit 10 movies on the $100 20GB hard drive. That's "$10 worth" of HDD space per movie, on top of the cost of the download itself. $20/download doesn't sound so reasonable anymore.

I'm sure MS will come out with a larger hard drive soon. Unfortunately, you know they will charge 5x what it's worth, just like they do with every other 360 peripheral.

As a 360 owner it pains me to say this, but I don't like the direction MS is going. They have complete control over the 360 hardware and software, and are using this control as a way to charge us an insane amount for everything.

 

[valioso]

IOW I really don't think there's any kind of operational justification for the 20$ asking price.

other than the license you have to pay the studios, Also if the movies are in HD arent hddvd and blueray more in the $30-$40 mark?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Huh? And they've got rumble, that the Sony controller's don't have.

Yes, but rumble isn;t going to push the price up from $40 to $60 is it? You can buy cheap rumble controllers. Motion is more pricey, so you would expect them to cost more.

I also don't remember any console releasing first-party wireless controllers a generation ago.

Nintendo Wavebird?

Whats with the arbitrary determination as to what consititutes "last generation" vs "this generation"? And then you base your price assumptions on this arbitrary benchmark?

It's not arbitary. Last gen controllers are controllers that appeared on the last generation of consoles. Two analogue sticks, D-pad, rumble, 4 face buttons, 2 extra buttons, 2 or 4 shouder buttons/triggers. Doesn't that describe DS2, XB controller, and XB360 controller?

The Sony controllers adds functionality from last generation controllers but also removes functionality. That makes them clearly not a complete step-foward, but rather a step forward and a step back and NOT next generation. Therefore, I believe Sony controllers should only cost $30 this generation.

Actually, when you combine the fact that the Sony controllers are black, instead of white like the 360 and the Wii.. it shows how REALLY last gen they actually are, so they should probably retail for more like $25.

Now you're just being silly. This wasn't an argument about next-gen'ness. It's an argument about price. How do MS justify the price of this updated controler as $70? What about it costs so much? One could say that the other consoles' controllers are pricey and so MS can be pricey, which is what Pipo said. However, the other consoles' controllers are adding pricey motion detection features, so we can understand why they cost more. This new controller is feature comparable with last gen (PS2 and XB) controllers and the existing XB360 controller, which are much cheaper. So what is it about MS's new controller that makes it so costly to make, to the tune of $70? Who would be happy paying $70 for a controller that does the same things as the $50 controller, but with glowy buttons and a bit of rubber? Are those things really worth $20?

 

[Powderkeg]

Now you're just being silly. This wasn't an argument about next-gen'ness. It's an argument about price. How do MS justify the price of this updated controler as $70?

Where did they say the price would be $70 for sure?

I see a price range given. Why are you fixated on the highest possible amount?

So what is it about MS's new controller that makes it so costly to make, to the tune of $70? Who would be happy paying $70 for a controller that does the same things as the $50 controller, but with glowy buttons and a bit of rubber? Are those things really worth $20?

Worth $10 to some people? Sure. I've seen people spend that much on controller skins, or a new faceplate, why wouldn't they spend $10 for a color change, rubber grips and glowing buttons?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It's an argument about price. How do MS justify the price of this updated controler as $70? What about it costs so much?

When will people get it through their heads that "what something costs" does not, (and should not,) translate to the price it sells at.

Companies do not need to "justify" the price of anything to anyone. If the product is worth it to you, buy it. If not, don't. Isn't that pretty much the prupose of this survey? To get a feel for what people will or will not be willing to buy?