The 360 price in context

I’m quite married and I still plan to buy this. Does this make me a bad person or something?[/quote]

It does. You would do better to spend the money on your wife.

I did all that BEFORE I married her

HAHA! :lol:

And what if she uses the thing too? (wishful thinking?)

Here’s a perfectly serious question:

Why don’t we have 9 page freak-out threads every time Nvidia and ATI release a $400 graphics card? Is it just because there are cheaper alternatives? Is it because you can still play games on $200 graphics cards? (though, try making FEAR run at full settings at an HD-like resolution with one of those)

I mean, it’s just a graphics card alone, and not only less powerful than one of these consoles (I’m gonna presume the PS3 costs about the same as the X360), but in itself does a whole lot less.

I’m quite married and I still plan to buy this. Does this make me a bad person or something?[/quote]

It does. You would do better to spend the money on your wife.[/quote]

Homer: Well, I really should discuss this with my wife.
Salesman: [scoffs] Your wife? [cracks an imaginary whip]
Homer: What, you think I’m going to buy a $400 game console just because you make that noise?
Salesman: [does it again] [and again] [and again]
Homer: [on his knees] I’ll take it!

Personally I freak out whenever I see video cards being sold for $400. That’s lunacy.

Dude, my wife plays more games than I do. She’s so freaking psyched about Oblivion that it’s actually audible. so yeah, that helps

TriggerHappy- Oh yeah, you didn’t get that? At launch the PS2 came with a DVD remote, headset, hard drive, and a wireless controller, along with your choice of 3 games, all for $299! Plus it made coffee and gave mediocre blowjobs.

Becker- If you really think what you said through, it makes no sense(besides being deliciously fact free). The initial article makes perfect sense. $300 is a big chunk of change too, I don’t get where there’s some magic dividing line. Paying $420 at launch for the whole bundle is an impulse purchase, but $480?

In context: I didn’t own a console in 1995, and PC’s ruled the roost.

No one denies that some folks will buy them. The question is how many, and what fraction of today’s console market that will represent.

I’m OK with Microsoft charging whatever they want, but I will certainly wait until the game library is compelling enough to justify it. I was on the borderline of considering $299 OK for one strong title… $399 is too much, I’ll wait.

No you haven’t. The Xbox isn’t even 4 years old yet. It won’t be until November of this year.[/quote]

Yes, thanks, great job.[/quote]

I don’t know if you were being sarcastic here, but this is the crux of the “too early” argument. If they were on a more traditional generational leap for a game console, this $400 price wouldn’t even be an issue. By fall of next year they could have sold it for $300. They’re artificially rushing to the next system before it’s time and someone’s gotta pay.

I doubt Sony would be considering PS3 so soon if it weren’t for this Xbox 360 thing. In fact, I doubt we’ll see the PS3 in the States until next fall, which puts Sony right about where they were between PSX -> PS2. Five to Six years.

Microsoft may create a really hard position for themselves too. If they don’t upgrade the box every four years now, they might tick people off because they’ll be EXPECTING that. The shorter the console generation, the less money you can make. That’s a BIG problem. You must draw out the generation as long as possible to pay for future generations. The real profit is on the back end, not when you’re gouging on the front.


The average computer only lasts about 4-5 years anyways. The aveage gaming PC lasts about 3.

This is the thread without the PC crap, remember?


Yeah I know but still.

Ok the average american has a car for 4 years before getting a new one.

Hows that one? :)

Man, that sure ain’t me. If I bought a car every four years, I wouldn’t be able to buy all these damn games and systems and computers and shit!


So you’re saying people have less real disposable income than in the 70’s? Only among the lowest 20% I’d guess.[/quote]

Yes, basically. No its not just the lowest 20% either. Bottom line these infaltion adjusted prices to justify the cost something are dumb. The list of how much of a percentage of income a system costs is dumb. You are pulling out one thing when there are a whole list of economics you have to consider in comparing diffrent times.

I’m sure the 360 will sell out well early on. There will be enough early adopters to snatch the numbers MS puts out(I’m sre they will make it low enough so they can claim sellouts everywhere everybody else does). But people tossing around “Its not that much when you put it this way…” Are simply putting out spin nothing more.

Microsoft is taking a page from the camera and auto industries: you have a stripped down bare-bones version so that you can use that price in advertising. This is the equivilent of a shiny new digital SLR with a crappy 50mm lense and a 16MB CompactFlash card. It’ll work, so it’s not like you’re forced to buy the expensive package, but there are enough nice things in the package that just about everyone will want to start off with it rather than paying more to buy all the upgrades separately later. But even if every single sale they make is for the $400 bundle, they can still put $299 in all their flyers.

Too lame, deleted.

Then here’s one of those “list of economics” for ya: the average age of console gamers is increasing, and along with it, the average income of them. The only people interested aren’t poor high school and college kids anymore. If you bought that PS2 at a launch as a poor college kid with a crappy part time job, you have a real job now. ;)

But people tossing around “Its not that much when you put it this way…” Are simply putting out spin nothing more.

Oh, I think it’s a lot any way you slice it. I also think $400 today isn’t like $400 was 10 years ago (it’s less). The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I also think that, expensive though it is, the next four or five years of gaming it will enable will make it a good value at that price. And that’s why I’m getting one. Others don’t see that value, so they aren’t. That’s cool.

That’s a fair point, but I’d counter with two of my own:

  1. Computing hardware has gotten a LOT cheaper over the years, even when adjusted for inflation. In the early 90’s, you’d spend $2500-3000 for a top of the line computer. Today, as we’ve been discussing in the other thread, you can build one for under $1000. So it’s not enough to say “hey, it’s inflation” when other consumer electronics have gotten cheaper, not more expensive, in that same timeframe.

  2. The two SKU thing still sucks ass.

Lets see heah: it’ll still be a Microsoft product. Therefore, I won’t pay one damn cent for it. :lol:

  1. The two SKU thing still sucks ass.

Like someone said sure its 2 SKUs but really its not.

10% buy the 299 one
90% buy the 399 one

Id love to see some nubmers on it a few months down the road.