Xbox360 $50 price cut August 8 rumors

[quest55720]

I dont see the big deal. PS2 never included any memory card or storage. Nor did Gamecube, PS1, Saturn, N64, etc etc. It's standard practice not too.

Sure it would be nice if they included a card, but that's just a $30 accessory. And they'd rather make the base price appear lower by not including that. Standard operating procedure.

The problem is the other 2 are doing it now. The core sticks out like a sore thumb these days it is just to bare bones. There is a reason it is called the retard pack. It would not take much to un tard it. A memory card and premiums AV cables would make a huge difference. A core like that would be a viable alternative for someone with out high speed internet or no interest in putting the console online. Maybe 4 dollars worth of accessories would turn the core into a nice little system. If you have an hd-tv the core is worthless because by the time you buy the av cable and memory card you are at the cost of the premium.

 

[function]

I dont see the big deal. PS2 never included any memory card or storage. Nor did Gamecube, PS1, Saturn, N64, etc etc. It's standard practice not too.

"Standard practice" changes with each generation. The NES/MS and MD/SNES eras didn't need memory cards, so the PS1 era broke with this by requiring memory cards. This generation has again broken with (the majority of) last generation by including large amounts of storage with the console.

There is 1 Wii SKU, 2 PS3 SKUs (3 including the retiring 20GB version) and three Xbox 360 SKUs. So in total 6 or 7. Only one doesn't come with (amongst other things) storage, and that's the Core, which as quest55720 points out is regularly referred to online as the retard pack.

The Saturn did come with internal save storage btw.

Sure it would be nice if they included a card, but that's just a $30 accessory. And they'd rather make the base price appear lower by not including that. Standard operating procedure.

It wouldn't cost $30 to bundle it in (probably more like $2) and it'll effectively lower the cost of entry to the 360 by $30 (or perhaps more if they included the 512MB card - 64 MB is something of a pathetic joke).

People aren't stupid - at around $300 the 360 isn't an implulse buy for most people and they'll factor in the price of a memory card when deciding whether they're going to buy one.

All the current pricing system does is make the Core look like awful value and push some people up to the Premium while pushing others away altogether.

 

[Rangers]

The problem is the other 2 are doing it now. The core sticks out like a sore thumb these days it is just to bare bones. There is a reason it is called the retard pack. It would not take much to un tard it. A memory card and premiums AV cables would make a huge difference. A core like that would be a viable alternative for someone with out high speed internet or no interest in putting the console online. Maybe 4 dollars worth of accessories would turn the core into a nice little system. If you have an hd-tv the core is worthless because by the time you buy the av cable and memory card you are at the cost of the premium.

I think I've come around to agree with you, for the simple fact a memory card is dirt cheap to manufacture now that I think of it. It might cost MS what, $2 to throw a 512 meg in there. And it might change the core pack perception to a few people.

"Standard practice" changes with each generation. The NES/MS and MD/SNES eras didn't need memory cards, so the PS1 era broke with this by requiring memory cards. This generation has again broken with (the majority of) last generation by including large amounts of storage with the console.

BTW I dont agree with any of this. If it was the case, Xbox 1 should have cleaned up over two competitors that had no storage, but that didn't happen. If you're basing your theory on what "the majority" of systems in a given generation do, well that's pretty flimsy. Are you sayin if GC had a HDD (thereby making the majority last gen) PS2 wouldn't have still cleaned up? Obviously that's false, a HDD would have only made GC lose even more by increasing the price.

 

[scooby_dooby]

the premium will drop 50 but the Core and Elite sku's will drop less than 50 (he didn't say how much).

More stupidity from MS I guess if true. Or an attempt to highlight the premium.

Or a sign that they may be adjusting peripheral pricing?

 

[Rangers]

Or a sign that they may be adjusting peripheral pricing?

I hadn't thought of that. That would be nice, and fairly plausible imo.

But wait I just realized, if the Elite is to drop less than 50 also, it implies the 180GB HDD will not change in price.

 

[function]

BTW I dont agree with any of this. If it was the case, Xbox 1 should have cleaned up over two competitors that had no storage, but that didn't happen. If you're basing your theory on what "the majority" of systems in a given generation do, well that's pretty flimsy. Are you sayin if GC had a HDD (thereby making the majority last gen) PS2 wouldn't have still cleaned up? Obviously that's false, a HDD would have only made GC lose even more by increasing the price.

Your response indicates that you didn't get my point - I'll attempt to clarify.

I wasn't equating mass storage with success as you seem to have understood. I was pointing out how "standard practice" has changed as the generations have. This isn't something for you to agree with or not agree with, it's what's actually happened. I don't quite understand how the above is a response to me pointing this out.

[Almost forgot, as well as the Saturn having internal storage, a lot of N64 games also came with save storgae on the cart. The N64/PS1 era really wasn't as cut and dried in favour of requiring a memory card across all platforms as you think.]

The Core compares badly to other systems (including other, far more popular 360 packs) in terms of what you get for your money. If the 360 Core was a runanway success that was leading the generation (like the PS1 and PS2) it wouldn't matter, but it's not.

On the topic of the Core's unattractiveness, the Core is also the only system (out of the Wii, 3 PS3 SKUs and 3 360 SKUs) that physically links you to the console with a wired pad. The Core doesn't have a wired pad to save money (the cost of a wireless pad over a wired pad is probably a couple of dollars - if that), it has one to make the Premium look like much better value.

The Core is a 360 pretending to be a PS2, but with none of its success.

 

[Rangers]

Your response indicates that you didn't get my point - I'll attempt to clarify.

I wasn't equating mass storage with success as you seem to have understood. I was pointing out how "standard practice" has changed as the generations have. This isn't something for you to agree with or not agree with, it's what's actually happened. I don't quite understand how the above is a response to me pointing this out.

[Almost forgot, as well as the Saturn having internal storage, a lot of N64 games also came with save storgae on the cart. The N64/PS1 era really wasn't as cut and dried in favour of requiring a memory card across all platforms as you think.]

The Core compares badly to other systems (including other, far more popular 360 packs) in terms of what you get for your money. If the 360 Core was a runanway success that was leading the generation (like the PS1 and PS2) it wouldn't matter, but it's not.

On the topic of the Core's unattractiveness, the Core is also the only system (out of the Wii, 3 PS3 SKUs and 3 360 SKUs) that physically links you to the console with a wired pad. The Core doesn't have a wired pad to save money (the cost of a wireless pad over a wired pad is probably a couple of dollars - if that), it has one to make the Premium look like much better value.

The Core is a 360 pretending to be a PS2, but with none of its success.

Yet.

Core was designed with casuals in mind which have not jumped in yet. So judging it now is futile.

And I was pointing out, something being qoute unqoute "standard practice" arguably has no bearing on success, which is what you were really implying. Again, I pointed out switching one of the two consoles last gen to integrated storage would have then made it "standard practice", yet I doubt it would have had any impact on the way the market turned out (except for, a negative effect most likely).

 

[Blazkowicz]

I wouldn't mind the wired controller, it's fair game (much cheaper to make) and has advantages : no batteries and can be plugged on a computer. hell I have one standing next to my PC and other ones would be nice for multiplayer emulated console games. then, a 3rd party memory card should be dirt cheap, and SDTV consumers either need a Svideo cable (NTSC land) or a RGB one (Europe), which is as good as component but 480/576i. I'd be in the market for the "loser" pack if I wanted to buy a current gen console.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I wasn't equating mass storage with success as you seem to have understood. I was pointing out how "standard practice" has changed as the generations have. This isn't something for you to agree with or not agree with, it's what's actually happened. I don't quite understand how the above is a response to me pointing this out.

Actually nothing has happened yet, you've seen a PS3 with HDD sell like garbage. You've seen the premium 360 sell decently, and you've seen a severely crippled Core sell badly.

Now, none of this point to a mass desire for HDD storage. It's simply shows that consumers are at least a little value conscious.

The HDD in the PS3 is certainly not propelling sales. And the core sales are simply the result of the core being a bad value. Looking for additional reasons beyond that is overlooking the main problem, which is simply that the core was never designed to sell in it's current configuration.

Why in the world would you bundle it with a wireless controller? That alone tells you that MS was intentionally setting the core up NOT to sell. The $100 pricetag on the HDD is another example. This is just not a product that is meant to be sold.

MS makes more profit on the premium. Once/If they decide to make the core a good value, then you'll see it begin to sell.

You'll probably begin to see it sell much better once it reaches it's intended audience at pricepoints <$199.

So, in short, nothing has been established yet, this generation has just begun.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Very true. This generation has barely started. There's probably a good 4-5 years left at this point given the kind of money that will need to be recouped. I agree that MS should try to make the Core more attractive by putting a wireless controller & mem card in there and if that means it's $269 instead of $249, so be it. I think consumers would rather pay the $269.

 

[Rangers]

Here's more craziness

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=7222343&postcount=909

That sounds much better to me, although the second half of the post seems like all speculation.

It honestly makes sense the more I look at it. Clearing out the 90nm units..

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

AThis is just not a product that is meant to be sold.

MS makes more profit on the premium. Once/If they decide to make the core a good value, then you'll see it begin to sell.

You'll probably begin to see it sell much better once it reaches it's intended audience at pricepoints <$199.

Exactly, and the same point I made in a different thread. I believe that MS does want Core sales to account for 50% or more of their total units sold.... eventually.

But right now they expect and want the Core to be a slim minority of their sales. The Core sales aren't supposed to spike until the price drops occur. And with this price drop being only $50 on Premium and $30 on the core, they probably aren't expecting a huge spike from this drop, either.

Their pricing strategy even after the $50 drop is still for the premium to account for the majority of sales. But as the Core moves closer to $199, its percentage of sales should increase.

I don't think MS has a plan of 'mainstreaming' the Premium, and they certainly don't with the Elite. That's why they created the Core.

Not to snag the first 10M or 20M consumers. They created the Core to snag consumers 20M-100M or 30M-100M, or whatever. Its target is the end of the curve. And as Scoob pointed out, we are still in the very very beginning.

 

[thatdude90210]

Joystiq has a rumor that the core is being "deleted" at Bestbuy... possible discontinued model?
Joystiq

 

[Tap In]

geez, with all of these "rumors" can't wait to see what they actually do when we look back on December 31st 07.

 

[one]

Exactly, and the same point I made in a different thread. I believe that MS does want Core sales to account for 50% or more of their total units sold.... eventually.

But right now they expect and want the Core to be a slim minority of their sales. The Core sales aren't supposed to spike until the price drops occur. And with this price drop being only $50 on Premium and $30 on the core, they probably aren't expecting a huge spike from this drop, either.

Their pricing strategy even after the $50 drop is still for the premium to account for the majority of sales. But as the Core moves closer to $199, its percentage of sales should increase.

I don't think MS has a plan of 'mainstreaming' the Premium, and they certainly don't with the Elite. That's why they created the Core.

Not to snag the first 10M or 20M consumers. They created the Core to snag consumers 20M-100M or 30M-100M, or whatever. Its target is the end of the curve. And as Scoob pointed out, we are still in the very very beginning.

The price diff between Premium and Core is $100. The cost to add a 20GB HDD and a wireless controller is, don't hold your breath, most likely lower than $100. This means as long as they have to sell Core with lower profit than Premium, they don't want Core sales to account for 50% or more of their total units sold unless their sole purpose is to increase the install base.

Let's assume a 20GB HDD actually costs $30 for MS and a wireless controller is $10 more expensive than a wired one. This means the fair price difference for Premium and Core is $40-50. If you apply this to the current situation, it's either Core is priced at the strategically lower price than Premium, or Premium has a jacked up price tag.

 

[tha_con]

How can a $50 price drop be a bad thing?
People are just mad at MS for not lowering it "more" but who says that this is the only price drop they will make this year?

A $50 price drop pre Falcon-revision is interesting. MS testing the waters here and remember that Halo3 will ship sep 25 and as you all know, Halo3 is what they call a system seller.

So if MS can sell a slightly cheaper hardware and lots of it thanks to the power of Halo3, then it will help with the profit/loss margins..

MS will have more headroom for price drops once the Falcon-revision is out on market (the 65nm based machine). I think that we can expect another $50 drop before years end.

But still...
How can a $50 price drop be a bad thing when we have Halo3 around the corner? Maybe the next price drop is before GTAIV is released..

Some people needs to chill immensivbly...

Because nearly every console last generation dropped in price nearly $100 after it's first 2 years? And MS is now starting on their THIRD and they are only dropping it $50?

IMO, the small price drop is the result of the enormous losses from hardware and warranty issues / etc. They simply cannot afford to bleed out losses again and expect to keep the Gaming Devision alive.

 

[scooby_dooby]

The price diff between Premium and Core is $100. The cost to add a 20GB HDD and a wireless controller is, don't hold your breath, most likely lower than $100. This means as long as they have to sell Core with lower profit than Premium, they don't want Core sales to account for 50% or more of their total units sold unless their sole purpose is to increase the install base.

Well, yes that wouldbe the idea, to increase install base.

Using your logic, MS would not want to sell anything other than the elite, since they make the most profit off that...

I think, once MS is making a tidy profit on all hardware, they will shift to increasing install base (read: pushing the core), which will pay off down the road in increased software royalties.

Right now, they're still losing money on HW, so it's understandable why they aren't pushing the core.

 

[zed]

theres 2 reasons ms dont wanna push xbox360 as hard as possible now
A/ which ppl have picked up on here, theyre really concerned about profit + selling at a loss aint helpful for this
but even more importantly
B/ the hardware problems havent been solved yet (+ prolly wont until the move to 65)
would they really want to sell an extra 1-3million consoles now only to incur the costs of replacing them later on (now that wouldnt be a smart move would it WRT turning a profit)
ms cant afford to be aggressive WRT pushing the xb360 until its hardware issues have been solved, i expect well see a 50$ cut soon though, mainly cause i expect the july npd numbers will look like wii>ps3>xb360

 

[scooby_dooby]

Ya the faulty hardware design is really hurting them.

The funny thing is, with the money MS will have to spend on the warrantee program, they could have built a console with an aditional 256mb of RAM.

Imagine how difficult it would've been for Sony to compete with a 768mb Xbox 360 at their pricepoint.

 

[dobwal]

Well, yes that wouldbe the idea, to increase install base.

Using your logic, MS would not want to sell anything other than the elite, since they make the most profit off that...

I think, once MS is making a tidy profit on all hardware, they will shift to increasing install base (read: pushing the core), which will pay off down the road in increased software royalties.

Right now, they're still losing money on HW, so it's understandable why they
aren't pushing the core.

Its hard to believe that a console built by a manufacturer, who dealt with cost reductions problems with their last console, would still be unprofitable (not including the billion dollar charge off) almost 2 years after release at its original price point.

MS's aggressively pushed the 360 out a year ahead of its competitors only to see major quality issues with its console and having 1 billion dollars set aside to deal with those issues. Its only logical for MS seeing its missteps to take a more conservative approach as its brute force methods have cost the company billions. Billions that have returned far less than the company hoped for when it decided to venture in the gaming market.