iceatcs
Junior Member
I dunno why I find it a bit funny, maybe my grandfather no way to understand how is the touchscreen work. I suspect my granddad won't find or forgot to slide to unlock.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[RUMOR] Paul Thurrott: Xbox 720 is expensive: $500 or $300 for sub model, 5/21 Unveil
- Thread starter Hoo-doo
- Start date
I dunno why I find it a bit funny, maybe my grandfather no way to understand how is the touchscreen work. I suspect my granddad won't find or forgot to slide to unlock.
Wickerbasket
Member
When he says everyone, he's obviously generalising; there are always going to be outliers who do without for their own reasons. For the vast majority of people though, a mobile phone is a necessity, either due to their job or their life style.
I couldn't imagine calling a smart phone useless though, it's pretty much the single most versatile piece of technology that exists; it's the tech equivalent of the swiss army knife.
If true, I foresee PR nightmares when MS's servers are DDOS'd by spiteful people or otherwise end up offline for a prolonged period of time.
The walled garden approach can work; however, that Apple-emulated philosophy hasn't ended well for Microsoft in the recent past. Always online isn't a deal breaker but I will be taking prolonged a "wait-and-see" approach before purchasing.
The walled garden approach can work; however, that Apple-emulated philosophy hasn't ended well for Microsoft in the recent past. Always online isn't a deal breaker but I will be taking prolonged a "wait-and-see" approach before purchasing.
I'd say the real loser in this scenario is you and other customers like you. In that you've lost some fragment of your free purchasing power to a fetish industry.
Contrary to what everyone on NeoGAF tries to represent there are literally TOO MANY great games made every year for one person to play them all, even if it was your full time job. You have the power to be selective if you're willing to look just a few steps off the beaten path for games, and that power lets you selectively cut off publishers with anti-consumer business practices if you so wish.
This ignores the fact that you need to refer to EA making "great games" as a hypothetical as their track record isn't exactly heading in a positive direction. Same for Ubisoft and Activision, the major publishers who think always online is a great way to control their market with an iron fist.
The innovation is coming from the indie and PC specific side right now, that is where the great games are and most of those are either DRM free or minimized as much as possible.
Lastly, you are ignoring why these companies are trying to foist this upon the consumer with your argument that a boycott by even a small group of gamers can't possibly hurt EA et al. Fact of the matter is that their current model is already untenable. They can't afford to lose 5% of the sales on a given title, but always online will likely cost them at least that much if not a good bit more. Where does the additional revenue come from? Plying the still captive market with even more micro-transactions? The hypothetical prevention of piracy related loss they claim to be seeing? Sounds like a bunch of wishful thinking to me by executives who want magic solutions instead of having to do the real work of servicing their target consumers politely and intelligently. The exact kind of business model that got them all into this quagmire in the first place, but now they're trying to shoot the moon with it believing that somehow being as anti-consumer as possible will bring them back around to profitable. Good luck with that.
Seriously? That's how little you can read into the situation?
Ever think that Microsoft, a company with a healthy markup on pretty much every non-Xbox product, has a different pricing philosophy than a company that has not only sold the entire Playstation family at or below cost but has also done the same thing with a vast array of other consumer electronics devices to introduce them to market?
Microsoft clearly sees their competition as Apple, Google, tablets, etc. moreso than Sony and Nintendo. Apple doesn't sell iPhones, iPads, etc. at a loss. Google doesn't sell the Nexus line at a loss. Their set top boxes won't be sold at a loss. Microsoft likely feels that their brand is strong enough in the U.S. and U.K. to forgo the "handles and blades" business model and price straight to profitable hardware from day one.
They're also likely betting that a $500 non-sub and a $300 sub price comparison will drive more people to the sub SKU which is what they really want in the first place, and that if the PS3 really is ~$400 that the $100 day one purchase is enough of a delta to outsell PS3s.
End result they're cheaper* at retail and force everyone into the subscription services they really want to sell far more than the consoles. Hence the willingness for always online, they no longer give a shit about any sales to someone who isn't going to go online with the product so who cares if the console inherently alienates them?
No because if what Thurrott says is true, then MS didn't want this to leak as they wanted to PR spin the always online crap first.
This makes perfect sense. After all, you wouldn't stick a knife in your own gut, then not have any treatment on it for many months.
Right now, MS are hemorrhaging badly.
Ol No Bones
Banned
You think MS is selling at a profit and Sony at a loss. I'm glad you know how much it is gonna cost. Sony wants to make money MS wants to make money Apple wants to make money and you want to make money. It's called life. If MS thinks they can pull and Apple and make serious money on hardware more power to them but I serious doubt they would be out priced by Sony just because they weren't willing to sell at a loss like they always have in the games market. I could be wrong. The games market is an odd one because its fan base demands that hardware not be profitable at launch. I don't see the model being completely different this gen but I could be wrong. I hope MS and Sony know they can't sell at stupid prices like apple. I think the sub model is great because idiots will fall for it and the larger the install base the better IMO.
Petrae
Member
Actually, I'd counter that MS could wait to verify the "bad news" until later this year. Use the May reveal like Sony did to introduce consumers to the hardware, show some games and maybe the peripherals. Then use E3 to show more games, roll out release date, talk more about publishing partners and services offered. Maybe even offer a release window.
Then, in mid-September, after the hype machine has been in full force and consumers have shown interest, start with the not-so-good news: $500/$300, Internet required, etc.
Nintendo did the same with Wii & Wii U, withholding key details until well after E3. It's not a lock that MS does this, but it's a possibility.
I see you want Sony to crash and burn? Microsoft has basically endless war chest to fight the price war, Sony doesn't.
ms doesn't "have" either. they gave the xbox a blank check before but now it must make money..........
also why ms dont sell surface at 99$ to conquer the tablet market?
Microsoft can rationalize the next Xbox as key to the "living room battle" as much as they want. Investors will have the final say if the entertainment division continues to contribute very little or be detrimental to the bottom line. At this point, some stockholders are already calling for this section to be sold or spun-off.
No, now xbox must support their windows business... which is 1000000000^513 times more important to them than entire Xbox division. If need arise they would sacrifice Xbox in a instant just to ensure wellbeing of Windows.
daninthemix
Member
One of the best pairs of sentences I've ever read.
Many people enjoy games. Some are addicted. Some are enslaved. << MS wants more of those.
It's kind of mindblowing how many people think CoD is only on 360. I remember getting mocked by 90+ people at the MW2 launch since I was one of three people getting the PS3 version.
so ms will make xbox more powerfull than ps4 and sell it for 49$?
Few rumors about 300-350£ pricing in the UK.
Spinning Plates
Member
No but people said MS would take the hit for including Kinect. In reality it's looking like the consumer will foot the bill along with the gimped system specs.
pseye is cheaper than kinect
I presume PSEye is not as expensive as Kinect. And though PS4 and Durango hardware is similar, Durango is still more expensive (save for GDDR5 RAM) according to some comments I've read, even though PS4 is more powerful.
Interfectum
Member
MS shareholders may not agree with you.
Yeah, the shareholders at MS don't like the gaming division while Sony's kind of banking a good portion of their company's future on the PS4, which is where the key differences in budgeting for the new console development.
$5 subsidized xbox 1080 ya heard it hear first folks!
wishful thinking from sony fans, same with believing these rumors are true.
grimshawish
Banned
Like watching droplets of water dripping off the icecaps.
I'd say at this point with the plethora of leaks and sources saying it will have always online as a requirement, that you're wishful for thinking they are false.
Kotaku source said two SKUs at $429 and $529.
Asahi News (Japanese newspaper) said over ¥40,000.
But Sony shareholders agree with that pricing?
Regarding the latter, paul thurrott's a sony fan?
All I know is that it will be hilarious when its confirmed that these rumors are false.
No that would be a great day. The rumors turning out to be true would be hilarious.
Unspeakable Evil
Member
Meltdowns and salt either way is fine with me.
Alx
Member
It shouldn't be too hard for MS to provide a free app like SmartGlass that will handle the task of connecting your console to the "always online" servers. The fact that many people use their phones as their primary connection to the internet should help the "always online" scenario, rather than hurt it.
Atlantic Canada's pretty good.
fwiw I'm not balking at the price -- USD$500 today, while steep, isn't mind-blowingly so like CAD$660 was here for the PS3 at launch (which is about CAD$750 in today's dollars) or the roughly CAD$700 we estimated it at with the exchange rate at the time. This is, of course, assuming that it drops here at CAD$500 (given the exchange rate is almost 1:1). The price is entirely reasonable, relative to the tech.
That being said, I'm not going to buy it at launch. I usually skip console launches -- WiiU excepted, because moment of weakness -- and I've only regretted it once (PS3 for PS2 hardware backwards compat, though I did save $300 by waiting).
alexandros
Banned
Very true, which is why their nextbox presentation should really include lots of quality exclusives.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
We know nothing about the price of the PS4 yet. If the PS4 is 499, I don't see how the 360 will be less or more. They're essentially the same console par RAM.
Anywho, I wonder what features the Nextbox will pack to justify that pricetag. It's kind of stupid to be this negative about the box without even knowing what it is or what it does.
Anywho, I wonder what features the Nextbox will pack to justify that pricetag. It's kind of stupid to be this negative about the box without even knowing what it is or what it does.
From Paul on Twitter. Surprised he can't see the outrage.
https://twitter.com/thurrott/status/321239895651803136 Linky
eso76
Member
I don't think they are false; at best, Microsoft might not have decided what to do with used games yet and that could still be scrapped.
Then again, i can definitely see developers requiring always on and banning used games themselves; it doesn't need to be done at OS level, it's entirely possible and rumored for a couple games releasing later this year already.
What i'm still hoping is not entirely accurate is hardware related leaks.
At 500$, Durango better be a remarkable piece of hardware.
THE:MILKMAN
Member
Then why didn't Microsoft take the opportunity to deny the online requirement in their statement? It wouldn't have given their plans away if it wasn't true would it?
Of course Microsoft could now decide to can this feature and make Thurrott/Edge etc look silly.
Yeah, because the default response they have for rumors is confirmation.:-
plagiarize
Banned
if someone has a good track record with their 'predictions' or 'leaks' for a specific company, it's kind of dumb to write off what they say.
Because they never discuss something that has not been announced.
Game developers, of course.
Diablohead
Member
That's a bad case of "I have the internet all the time, thus everyone else does too"
No, game publishers.