Xbox 360 $299 and $399!!!

[quote name='jam3582']hmmm you are right sir , thats why I pre-ordered the $400 version yesterday .I figure since the ps2 was 300 when I got it and got a memory card and an extra controller that came out to 350 at the time. Seeing as how with the $400 xbox 360 im getting HD cables(thank the lords) a WIRELESS controller and some other stuff .

so when I put together my spending limit I see I am going to be spending $50 more dollars on a next gen system I think that sounds reasonable. I paid 350 on accessories on the ps2 and xbox so im am gonna be paying $400 on the 360 with a lot of accessories.[/QUOTE]

Thnk GOD i reached someone...i couldnt figure how ANYONE could complain about getting a NEXT GEN system for the same price they paid for the original...made no sense at ALL!
 
[quote name='Daddy']Thnk GOD i reached someone...i couldnt figure how ANYONE could complain about getting a NEXT GEN system for the same price they paid for the original...made no sense at ALL![/QUOTE]

because they said they'd only ship 1 type of system with a HD at "around the neighboorhood of $299." it wasn't official but some of us had our hopes up.
 
[quote name='Daddy']Everyone is too spoiled in here deals wise...with all the money you saved between EB,BB, Curcuit city and every other deal posted throughout the year youd think youd have an extra $100? The graphics chip in the 360 is worth more than the whole price of the system, your gettin a deal here weather you see it or not, your blaming the extra $100 bucks as too much b/c YOU want a few games and an extra controller on top of the system?!!??! HELLO....WELCOME to next generation, if you havent been playin video games from the beggining you wouldnt know this happens EVERYtime a system launches. The system thats a hundred bucks less doesnt have a save option...UMMM did your PS2 when you bought it? NOOOO....the XBOX was the one that came with a HD...that was what 300-400 when it launched....if you were a PS2 fanboy you got a memory card or the HD add on and you paid for that shizzle. So now you can get a NEXT GEN 360 for $299 w/o a save option and your complaining? WOW, a little spoiled at first I agreed with the price points being odd, but when you think about it MS was the only one with a HD option out of the box in the past anyway. If you cant afford the system after all the deals youve taken advantage of from this forum alone I dont know what to tell ya. The 360 is next gen...NOW....not in fall 2006 with a cell chip they can barely make work...or in even 2007 the way things are lookin now or a REVOLUTION in 200?......you gotta pay to play simple as that[/QUOTE]

Actually, with all the deals going around, most CAGs end up spending more money than they normally would, so it's not like we all have extra cash bursting out of our pockets because of the good deals.

The original Xbox launched at $299, not $400.

Also, I think most people are upset because they feel like Microsoft is pretty much making them by the deluxe console and spend the $400 on it. There are already some developers who are saying games won't run as well on 360s that don't have a hard drive. Most gamers want the optimum performance from their console, especially when they are spending so much money. So they have to buy the $400 version to get that.

Microsoft set a precedent for itself when it launched the Xbox for $300 with a hard drive and a built-in ethernet port. I think it would have been a smarter move to just price the thing at $400 and be done with it. No $300 bare bones console. This is only going to confuse consumers and make little kids cry on Christmas.

Hopefully, Microsoft will go back to the drawing board before it's too late and do something to remedy this problem.
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']Actually, with all the deals going around, most CAGs end up spending more money than they normally would, so it's not like we all have extra cash bursting out of our pockets because of the good deals.

The original Xbox launched at $299, not $400.

Also, I think most people are upset because they feel like Microsoft is pretty much making them by the deluxe console and spend the $400 on it. There are already some developers who are saying games won't run as well on 360s that don't have a hard drive. Most gamers want the optimum performance from their console, especially when they are spending so much money. So they have to buy the $400 version to get that.

Microsoft set a precedent for itself when it launched the Xbox for $300 with a hard drive and a built-in ethernet port. I think it would have been a smarter move to just price the thing at $400 and be done with it. No $300 bare bones console. This is only going to confuse consumers and make little kids cry on Christmas.

Hopefully, Microsoft will go back to the drawing board before it's too late and do something to remedy this problem.[/QUOTE]

Again your asking for a next gen system to launch at the same price its original did? It would be nice but then again THATS WHAT THEY did! if you want all the hardcore stuff throw in an extra $100 and as far as optimum performance the system is NEXT GEN..the graphics card alone COST more than the system price...some people arent hardcore ...some people dont use the LIVE or care about updates...thats what the core system is for...your a cheap ass thats wants all the goodies in the $400 package but for 300 bucks plain & simple....the casual gamer isnt disappointed at ALL with the $299 price point....again your just being cheap...nothing was ever set in stone about the specs or the hardware as far as "bundles" go.....its a pricepoint plan to reach different audiences
 
[quote name='Daddy']Again your asking for a next gen system to launch at the same price its original did? It would be nice but then again THATS WHAT THEY did! if you want all the hardcore stuff throw in an extra $100 and as far as optimum performance the system is NEXT GEN..the graphics card alone COST more than the system price...some people arent hardcore ...some people dont use the LIVE or care about updates...thats what the core system is for...your a cheap ass thats wants all the goodies in the $400 package but for 300 bucks plain & simple....the casual gamer isnt disappointed at ALL with the $299 price point....again your just being cheap...nothing was ever set in stone about the specs or the hardware as far as "bundles" go.....its a pricepoint plan to reach different audiences[/QUOTE]

The casual gamer isn't disappointed with the $300 price because they know no better. When they find out their games aren't running as smoothly or have to wait several minutes for the game to load, they will wish they spent the extra money to get the deluxe 360.
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']The casual gamer isn't disappointed with the $300 price because they know no better. When they find out their games aren't running as smoothly or have to wait several minutes for the game to load, they will wish they spent the extra money to get the deluxe 360.[/QUOTE]


DAMN!!! Oh my GOD...your one of THOSE people ..YOU are the one who doesnt know better. The HD only has to do with saving there buddy...there is no load time associated with the HD....the games cache to the RAM which is 512 WHICH IS PLENTY! The HD has NOTHING to do with the games running smoothly the graphics chip and the cache to RAM will make it run smooth as hell. You are arguing about something you DONT understand, b/c your probably reading information that is incorrect. The casual gamer will be fine but you might wanna o learn about cache and RAm specs for the 360 and what they do...its called NEXT GEN for a reason.


PS- Go back through the this thread to see what the cache and RAM do i posted it about 10-15 pages back
 
[quote name='Daddy']DAMN!!! Oh my GOD...your one of THOSE people ..YOU are the one who doesnt know better. The HD only has to do with saving there buddy...there is no load time associated with the HD....the games cache to the RAM which is 512 WHICH IS PLENTY! The HD has NOTHING to do with the games running smoothly the graphics chip and the cache to RAM will make it run smooth as hell. You are arguing about something you DONT understand, b/c your probably reading information that is incorrect. The casual gamer will be fine but you might wanna o learn about cache and RAm specs for the 360 and what they do...its called NEXT GEN for a reason.


PS- Go back through the this thread to see what the cache and RAM do i posted it about 10-15 pages back[/QUOTE]

Christ, is there an IE or Firefox plug-in that will break a post into coherent paragraphs with correct punctuation?

I must be getting old b/c I can't force myself to read blocks of text like this. I feel like I skipped half of this thread b/c of these stream of consciousness posts. Then again, I probably didn't miss out on much.
 
[quote name='Daddy']DAMN!!! Oh my GOD...your one of THOSE people ..YOU are the one who doesnt know better. The HD only has to do with saving there buddy...there is no load time associated with the HD....the games cache to the RAM which is 512 WHICH IS PLENTY! The HD has NOTHING to do with the games running smoothly the graphics chip and the cache to RAM will make it run smooth as hell. You are arguing about something you DONT understand, b/c your probably reading information that is incorrect. The casual gamer will be fine but you might wanna o learn about cache and RAm specs for the 360 and what they do...its called NEXT GEN for a reason.


PS- Go back through the this thread to see what the cache and RAM do i posted it about 10-15 pages back[/QUOTE]

Geez dude, I think I actually heard you screaming as you posted. Calm down, we're on the internet.

The Elderscroll devs have already said on their website that the game will load 3-4 times faster with the hard drive. I will take the word of a dev any day over someone on a video-game message board that goes by the name of Daddy.
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']Geez dude, I think I actually heard you screaming as you posted. Calm down, we're on the internet.

The Elderscroll devs have already said on their website that the game will load 3-4 times faster with the hard drive. I will take the word of a dev any day over someone on a video-game message board that goes by the name of Daddy.[/QUOTE]


Agreed. HD has everything to do with load times. Take PS2 and Resident Evil Pitbreak for example.
 
I believe that someone from Microsoft also stated that load times could be 2-3x longer without the hard drive.

If anyone is concerned about the battery pack/charger deal, just buy some damn NiMH batteries. Hell, I bought 20, 2300 mah AA batteries for $20 and a one-hour charger for $10.
 
[quote name='Daddy']Thnk GOD i reached someone...i couldnt figure how ANYONE could complain about getting a NEXT GEN system for the same price they paid for the original...made no sense at ALL![/QUOTE]
PS1 - $300
PS2 - $300

NES - $200
SNES - $200
N64 - $200
GC - $200

Yeah, anyone who expected a consistent price must be a huge moron...
 
lol you guys are lucky some of us who game on PCs also need to worry about the prices of video cards that gets a new release every freakin year ..... thank god consoles dont work like that .
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']making them by the deluxe console and spend the $400 on it. There are already some developers who are saying games won't run as well on 360s that don't have a hard drive.

The casual gamer isn't disappointed with the $300 price because they know no better. When they find out their games aren't running as smoothly or have to wait several minutes for the game to load, they will wish they spent the extra money to get the deluxe 360. [/QUOTE]

All I've seen are longer load times nothing to do w/ games running more smoothly. Since thats all the HD is supposed to handle anyway.
 
[quote name='jam3582']lol you guys are lucky some of us who game on PCs also need to worry about the prices of video cards that gets a new release every freakin year ..... thank god consoles dont work like that .[/QUOTE]


Completely agree, just put $400 on a vid card at christmas.
 
[quote name='madportagee']All I've seen are longer load times nothing to do w/ games running more smoothly. Since thats all the HD is supposed to handle anyway.[/QUOTE]

Well, that's what I meant about games running more smoothly. I guess I should have elaborated a bit more.
 
[quote name='flashburn']Uh, no, you are wrong. Every Wireless controller comes with a cable and the rechargable battery. The thing you can buy seperately is a charging station that lets you plug an extra battery into it to always have a battery at full charge, not really needed for most people.

Not to mention the charging station COMES with an additional rechargable battery.[/QUOTE]


Not really questioning you, just hoping its true, where did you see this?
Is that the play-n-charge cable?
 
XBOX at launch = $300
Included:
1 console (with hard drive for storage of game saves and downloadable online content)
1 controller
1 video cable
1 power cable

XBOX 360 Core at launch = $300
1 console (w/o hard drive for storage of game saves and downloadable online content)
1 controller
1 video cable
1 power cable

In order to obtain the save level of functionality in the XBOX 360 at launch as the XBOX at launch, customers are basically forced to spend $100 more.
XBOX (non-Core version) = $400
or
XBOX Core ($300) + 20 Gig HD ($100) = $400

The cheapest option, to obtain similar functionality in the XBOX 360 at launch as the XBOX at launch, is still $40 more.
XBOX Core ($300) + 64 Meg Memory Unit ($40) = $340

I can understand paying more if I’m getting more. And yes, a newer console is going to be faster/prettier/etc. than an older one. But, each console released is (or should be) the best of what can be offered at their launch timeframe (for the launch price). So, there is little reason we should be paying more money for less functionality/features. Even taking into account inflation, which shouldn’t be THAT bad if we are to believe all the economic news constantly saying “the economy is getting better”, a $40 to $100 increase in price for the same/similar level of functionality vs 4 years ago is a bit steep.

Yes, the $400 XBOX 360 package does provide more stuff/functionality than the XBOX did at launch. And yes, it’s a decent deal if you plan to use all of the stuff/functionality. So, why was a $300 version even offered? Because of the historical $300 launch price barrier for console success (i.e. 3DO, Jaguar, Saturn…etc.). Unforutnately, even with a $300 version available, the amount of functionality/features for the XBOX 360 Core is below that of the XBOX (both at launch). So, we ARE basically being asked to pay more (money) for less (functionality).
 
Just talked to my brother thats a manager of an EB, he said they are only gettin 4 core systems and like 40 premium on launch just to pretty much confirm everyone is getting the premium one. Except for the 4 poor people that preorder the $300 one.
 
[quote name='madportagee']Not really questioning you, just hoping its true, where did you see this?
Is that the play-n-charge cable?[/QUOTE]
Sort of, except it isn't a 'cable', it is the 'play-n-charge kit'. They have talked about it in the past.
 
[quote name='rohlfinator']PS1 - $300
PS2 - $300

NES - $200
SNES - $200
N64 - $200
GC - $200

Yeah, anyone who expected a consistent price must be a huge moron...[/QUOTE]
I have to be in complete agreement, and for all the people who said they are going to get a PS3 because they think it will be lower are in for a BIG suprise. It will most likely be more and have less accesories.

Look at this list of todays prices on past consoles by IGN

Atari VCS launched in 1977 for $249.99 $811.21 in 2005

Nintendo Entertainment System launched in 1985 for $199.99 $354.91 in 2005

SEGA Genesis launched in 1989 for $249.99 $389.67 in 2005

NeoGeo launched in 1990 for $699.99
$1041.12 in 2005

Super Nintendo launched in 1991 for $199.99
$282.21 in 2005

Jaguar launched in 1993 for $249.99
$328.69 in 2005

3DO Interactive Multiplayer launched in 1993 for $699.95 $920.30 in 2005

SEGA Saturn launched in 1995 for $399.99 $497.66 in 2005

Nintendo 64 launched in 1996 for $199.99
$242.75 in 2005

SEGA Dreamcast launches in 1999 for $199.99 $228.09 in 2005

PlayStation launched in 1995 for $299.99 $372.01 in 2005

PlayStation 2 launched in 2000 for $299.99 $333.15 in 2005

Xbox Launched in 2001 for $299.99
$325.34 in 2005

GameCube launched in 2001 for $199.99
$216.89 in 2005
 
[quote name='Grave_Addiction']Geez dude, I think I actually heard you screaming as you posted. Calm down, we're on the internet.

The Elderscroll devs have already said on their website that the game will load 3-4 times faster with the hard drive. I will take the word of a dev any day over someone on a video-game message board that goes by the name of Daddy.[/QUOTE]


Buddy it has 512 for cache to RAM the HD doesnt need to be there, you read a few articles that are from way back when from a dev and you think thats set in stone?....When was the article you read done while they had Alpha kits? They said with the system by the way not the HD directly. And i'm not screaming but you post inncorrect info like the HD handling load times and then more people reply thinking its true....misinformation is a message board nightmare
 
[quote name='STATIC3D']XBOX at launch = $300
Included:
1 console (with hard drive for storage of game saves and downloadable online content)
1 controller
1 video cable
1 power cable

XBOX 360 Core at launch = $300
1 console (w/o hard drive for storage of game saves and downloadable online content)
1 controller
1 video cable
1 power cable

In order to obtain the save level of functionality in the XBOX 360 at launch as the XBOX at launch, customers are basically forced to spend $100 more.
XBOX (non-Core version) = $400
or
XBOX Core ($300) + 20 Gig HD ($100) = $400

The cheapest option, to obtain similar functionality in the XBOX 360 at launch as the XBOX at launch, is still $40 more.
XBOX Core ($300) + 64 Meg Memory Unit ($40) = $340

I can understand paying more if I’m getting more. And yes, a newer console is going to be faster/prettier/etc. than an older one. But, each console released is (or should be) the best of what can be offered at their launch timeframe (for the launch price). So, there is little reason we should be paying more money for less functionality/features. Even taking into account inflation, which shouldn’t be THAT bad if we are to believe all the economic news constantly saying “the economy is getting better”, a $40 to $100 increase in price for the same/similar level of functionality vs 4 years ago is a bit steep.

Yes, the $400 XBOX 360 package does provide more stuff/functionality than the XBOX did at launch. And yes, it’s a decent deal if you plan to use all of the stuff/functionality. So, why was a $300 version even offered? Because of the historical $300 launch price barrier for console success (i.e. 3DO, Jaguar, Saturn…etc.). Unforutnately, even with a $300 version available, the amount of functionality/features for the XBOX 360 Core is below that of the XBOX (both at launch). So, we ARE basically being asked to pay more (money) for less (functionality).[/QUOTE]


Umm less funtionality..IT levels the old XBOX in specs and you say $40 for a new system is TOO much...are you kidding? You used the XBOX 1 HD that much...for what some music and a few Dl's...big deal
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_Addiction
making them by the deluxe console and spend the $400 on it. There are already some developers who are saying games won't run as well on 360s that don't have a hard drive.

The casual gamer isn't disappointed with the $300 price because they know no better. When they find out their games aren't running as smoothly or have to wait several minutes for the game to load, they will wish they spent the extra money to get the deluxe 360.



All I've seen are longer load times nothing to do w/ games running more smoothly. Since thats all the HD is supposed to handle anyway.


2 people saying inncorrect info back to back....DUDE post me a link where a dev says that the non-hd makes longer load on 360 (even though it will cache to the RAM) there are plenty..MS says its a non issue though with there cache to RAm...this is becoming pointless arguement either way...we shall have to wait to launch to see
 
[quote name='Daddy']Quote:
Originally Posted by Grave_Addiction
making them by the deluxe console and spend the $400 on it. There are already some developers who are saying games won't run as well on 360s that don't have a hard drive.

The casual gamer isn't disappointed with the $300 price because they know no better. When they find out their games aren't running as smoothly or have to wait several minutes for the game to load, they will wish they spent the extra money to get the deluxe 360.



All I've seen are longer load times nothing to do w/ games running more smoothly. Since thats all the HD is supposed to handle anyway.


2 people saying inncorrect info back to back....DUDE post me a link where a dev says that the non-hd makes longer load on 360 (even though it will cache to the RAM)[/QUOTE]

Okay, I already posted that I didn't mean the HDD will make a game run at a higher framerate or stop it from lagging. I meant it would run smoother in a broad sense. IMO, having a game that loads 3-4 times faster runs smoother than one 3-4 times slower.

And here's the link I referred to earlier.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=145879
 
20050819l.jpg


This whole 2 model/price solution scares and confuses me. No one seems to think its a good idea.
 
[quote name='Daddy']Umm less funtionality..IT levels the old XBOX in specs[/QUOTE]
The PS2 leveled the PS1 in specs, plus it had a DVD player, a new controller, a network adapter, backwards compatibility, and it launched at the same price.

The Xbox 360 "core system" has less functionality than the Xbox (no HD), a nearly identical controller, no backward compatibility, and no real improvements over the Xbox except for more "power".
 
[quote name='rohlfinator']The PS2 leveled the PS1 in specs, plus it had a DVD player, a new controller, a network adapter, backwards compatibility, and it launched at the same price.
[/QUOTE]

The PS2 did not launch with a network adapter.
 
PS2 = $150
GCN = $100 + free game
Xbox =$150

Total = $400 You could get all three of the current systems for $400, and more than likely a free game with each one if you shop around. $400 for the stuff the Xbox 360 is offering right now isn't worth it. Bundle it with some better, more vital accessories instead of the filler crap it comes with, and eliminate the non-hard drive verison. That would make things a world better.
 
I can see it now

Madden 2006 for Xbox 360

60.00 for the basic complete game, includes franchise and superstar mode and even includes all the nfl football teams. You can even go online with this game.

70.00 for the complex game, includes franchise and superstar mode and even includes all the nfl football teams. You can even go online with this game. But, graphics will be .1 better than the basic complete game and John Madden commentates in this one.(Note works only with the more expense of the two Xbox 360's)
 
[quote name='Lilrogers22']I can see it now

Madden 2006 for Xbox 360

60.00 for the basic complete game, includes franchise and superstar mode and even includes all the nfl football teams. You can even go online with this game.

70.00 for the complex game, includes franchise and superstar mode and even includes all the nfl football teams. You can even go online with this game. But, graphics will be .1 better than the basic complete game and John Madden commentates in this one.(Note works only with the more expense of the two Xbox 360's)[/QUOTE]
I'd pay $10 extra to have John Madden not commentate in my football game. He's awful. 2k's commentator was the guy that played Launchpad McQuack, you can't coach that.
 
[quote name='Daddy']Umm less funtionality..IT levels the old XBOX in specs and you say $40 for a new system is TOO much...are you kidding? You used the XBOX 1 HD that much...for what some music and a few Dl's...big deal[/QUOTE]

(/Carlos Mencia voice on)

Um, I think you missed where I said...

"And yes, a newer console is going to be faster/prettier/etc. than an older one. But, each console released is (or should be) the best of what can be offered at their launch timeframe (for the launch price)."

(/Carlos Mencia voice off) :)

It's OBVIOUS that a newer console would/should be better than the previous one. If an older console has a feature that is useful, but is not supported by a newer console, then it is a step backwards in "that one area."

You may not see a hard drive as a big deal. But, let's just see what "that one area" affects. If you want to play online (Live) with your XBOX 360 Core, you MUST purchase either a $40 memory unit, or, a $100 hard drive. Also, without either of these items, there is no game save ability for the XBOX 360 "out-of-the-box" (like there was with the XBOX).

That is not simply affecting something (non-directly gaming related) like music. It DIRECTLY affects how the console functions, AND, is not equal to (or better than) the previous version. So, the XBOX 360 actually does have LESS functionality "out-of-the-box" than the XBOX did for the same $300 price (at launch).

So, it's not simply a $40 difference between the XBOX and XBOX 360. That is just to get close to the same level of funcitionality. To truely be equal in "out-of-the-box" functionalty, you must now spend $400 as compared to $300 just a few years ago when the XBOX launched.

Unless gamers want to continue to see a $100 increase with each new generation of consoles, now is the time to speak with your purchasing power. As much as we may like to discuss on forums/etc. about the things we do and don't want, it's ultimately the MONEY we do, or do not, spend that the companies will listen to. Continue to accept less while paying more and they will continue to deliver it in that fashion. It's simple economics.
 
[quote name='STATIC3D']
Yes, the $400 XBOX 360 package does provide more stuff/functionality than the XBOX did at launch. And yes, it’s a decent deal if you plan to use all of the stuff/functionality. So, why was a $300 version even offered? Because of the historical $300 launch price barrier for console success (i.e. 3DO, Jaguar, Saturn…etc.). Unforutnately, even with a $300 version available, the amount of functionality/features for the XBOX 360 Core is below that of the XBOX (both at launch). So, we ARE basically being asked to pay more (money) for less (functionality).[/QUOTE]

No, we aren't. Here's some food for thought. When the XBox was released it was built on what was essentially a Pentium 3 733 MHZ chip. This was when P4 2.0 GHZ chips were available. Now you are getting a three core 3.2 GHZ CPU.... that is super-high-end. I'm not talking about differences between prices over the years, etc. But if you bought a super high-end computer this year without a hard drive, it would cost more than a mediocre computer this year with a hard drive, the same holds true for 4 years ago. This isn't even factoring in inflation. Microsoft is shooting the moon much more than they were 4 years ago with the XBox, the specs on the 360 are rediculous, I have no clue how they can afford to even sell them at this price.

You can't say that Microsoft is "removing features" because that is equivalent to saying that Sony removed features by releasing a disc based system which couldn't hold saves on the game media anymore (like you could with cartridges). Microsoft is putting a high-end computer into each XB360, they put a mediocre-to-good (for the time) computer into the original XBox. Apples and oranges.
 
zzl365

See my post (just before yours...dang timing...lol).

I don't see why people keep missing the point. It's not just about the level of hardware within the machines. YES, hardware/features ARE going to advance and get better with each generation. That is not my point.

My point is that there is functionality that WAS offered "out-of-the-box" in the XBOX that is no longer offered within the XBOX 360 Core (even at just a "slightly" higher cost than the typical $300 launch price). The price has jumped up by $100 dollars (or approximately 33%) since the release of the XBOX. That is not simply an adjustment for inflation.

Sony didn't have this issue when the Playstation came out because they were not producing a sequal/followup console. It was a new system onto itself. And yet, even they realized the importance of supporting their established customer base with the release of the PS2 by offering backwards compatablity (not to mention support for controllers/etc.). Besides, changing media is different than altering functionality from one verison to the next when one of the very features that is supposed to be supported is something like backwards compatability.

So, yes, M$ has "removed features" when you compare the XBOX "out-of-the-box" functionality to that of the XBOX 360 Core "out-of-the-box" functionality. Oh, btw, that little issue of backward compatability also become a factor with the XBOX 360 Core when you consider that you MUST have a hard drive in order for it to work too. In other words, M$ is charging EXTRA for something Sony directly supported at no extra charge with the PS2 (their first sequal console like the XBOX 360 is for the XBOX), and, will likely support the same way with the PS3.

I just think that when a new product comes out that it should be AT LEAST as good (aka complete) as the previous one (based upon "out-of-the-box" functionality at the launch price). As it sits now, the ONLY way to get that same level of funcitionality is to spend $100 more at launch this time around.

BTW: I'm not pro/anti either Sony or M$. They both have good and bad points about their products/companies. Since the XBOX 360 is the one at hand, so to speak, that's the one I'm focusing on. As I see it, M$ made a bit of a mistake in this split package they are offering. It does not truely provide a full (complete) system at the $300 price point they were trying to match (at least if you compare what's being offered for that price to what they have been saying all along the XBOX 360 was going to be).

I still think their best bet is to drop the XBOX 360 Core version. Then, come up with a version that includes the console with a hard drive, wired controller and regular (non-HD) video cable, and, price it at somewhere around $350. (Maybe even throw in any one of the other $50 or less items when you pre-order).

Does that break the $300 price point? Yes. But, at the least, it offers the same level of functionality we saw the last time around with the XBOX. People will not feel like they got tricked into buying a system they thought would do everything their last one could do "out-of-the-box".
 
[quote name='STATIC3D']zzl365

See my post (just before yours...dang timing...lol).

I don't see why people keep missing the point. It's not just about the level of hardware within the machines. YES, hardware/features ARE going to advance and get better with each generation. That is not my point.

My point is that there is functionality that WAS offered "out-of-the-box" in the XBOX that is no longer offered within the XBOX 360 Core (even at just a "slightly" higher cost than the typical $300 launch price). The price has jumped up by $100 dollars (or approximately 33%) since the release of the XBOX. That is not simply an adjustment for inflation.

Sony didn't have this issue when the Playstation came out because they were not producing a sequal/followup console. It was a new system onto itself. And yet, even they realized the importance of supporting their established customer base with the release of the PS2 by offering backwards compatablity (not to mention support for controllers/etc.). Besides, changing media is different than altering functionality from one verison to the next when one of the very features that is supposed to be supported is something like backwards compatability.

So, yes, M$ has "removed features" when you compare the XBOX "out-of-the-box" functionality to that of the XBOX 360 Core "out-of-the-box" functionality. Oh, btw, that little issue of backward compatability also become a factor with the XBOX 360 Core when you consider that you MUST have a hard drive in order for it to work too. In other words, M$ is charging EXTRA for something Sony directly supported at no extra charge with the PS2 (their first sequal console like the XBOX 360 is for the XBOX), and, will likely support the same way with the PS3.

I just think that when a new product comes out that it should be AT LEAST as good (aka complete) as the previous one (based upon "out-of-the-box" functionality at the launch price). As it sits now, the ONLY way to get that same level of funcitionality is to spend $100 more at launch this time around.

BTW: I'm not pro/anti either Sony or M$. They both have good and bad points about their products/companies. Since the XBOX 360 is the one at hand, so to speak, that's the one I'm focusing on. As I see it, M$ made a bit of a mistake in this split package they are offering. It does not truely provide a full (complete) system at the $300 price point they were trying to match (at least if you compare what's being offered for that price to what they have been saying all along the XBOX 360 was going to be).

I still think their best bet is to drop the XBOX 360 Core version. Then, come up with a version that includes the console with a hard drive, wired controller and regular (non-HD) video cable, and, price it at somewhere around $350. (Maybe even throw in any one of the other $50 or less items when you pre-order).

Does that break the $300 price point? Yes. But, at the least, it offers the same level of functionality we saw the last time around with the XBOX. People will not feel like they got tricked into buying a system they thought would do everything their last one could do "out-of-the-box".[/QUOTE]

But my point is the functionality level is different. The XBox had capabilities of a mediocre-slightly better than average computer at the time. The 360 (theoretically) has the capabilities of a super high end computer at the time it is released. They probably could have scaled back the CPU to something like a 2.2 ghz and included a hard drive for $300, but everything has a trade-off.
Think about it this way

4 years ago you could get a Honda Civic with keyless entry for $15,000
This year you are buying a Honda Accord without keyless entry for $20,000
(those aren't even close to real prices, I'm just making up an example)

You can't compare those 2 prices because you are getting different levels of quality for different prices. When the XBox was released it was not built with the most state of the art components, not even for the time it was released, the XBox 360 is. I'm not talking about inflation at all, I'm not even factoring it in.
 
[quote name='gsr']the accessory pricing is teh suck!!!shift+1!![/QUOTE]


Yeah, that's the only thing I'm peeved about. I was expecting 400 bucks for the system with hard drive and I think that's a fair deal. It's just that the peripherals you'll buy after, will cost you more than usual.
 
[quote name='Kelcey']Yeah, that's the only thing I'm peeved about. I was expecting 400 bucks for the system with hard drive and I think that's a fair deal. It's just that the peripherals you'll buy after, will cost you more than usual.[/QUOTE]

That's what is causing me to think twice about buying one as well.
 
[quote name='zzl365']But my point is the functionality level is different. The XBox had capabilities of a mediocre-slightly better than average computer at the time. The 360 (theoretically) has the capabilities of a super high end computer at the time it is released. They probably could have scaled back the CPU to something like a 2.2 ghz and included a hard drive for $300, but everything has a trade-off.[/quote]
Does that really matter, though? I'm not seeing anything on the 360 that looks any better than Half-Life 2.

And PC hardware will catch up very soon, if it hasn't already (which is debatable). Microsoft is rushing into the next generation; of course they're going to need high-end hardware to keep up. The PC industry has always moved at its own pace, driven mostly by technology costs. Microsoft is ignoring the cost, because they're only goal is to force themself into the gaming industry.

But in the end, it's all about the games and how well developers use the hardware. Your computer could be 1% as powerful as the human brain, but it wouldn't matter one bit if developers could only program Pitfall for it.
 
You know what would be nice?

Enabling a person the option of using their old controllers on the next gen console.

Because, as it stands now - i'm fine with the ps2/xbox controllers. Why are they even changing them.

Oh yeah - profits. Whores love their money.
 
[quote name='rohlfinator']Does that really matter, though? I'm not seeing anything on the 360 that looks any better than Half-Life 2.

And PC hardware will catch up very soon, if it hasn't already (which is debatable). Microsoft is rushing into the next generation; of course they're going to need high-end hardware to keep up. The PC industry has always moved at its own pace, driven mostly by technology costs. Microsoft is ignoring the cost, because they're only goal is to force themself into the gaming industry.

But in the end, it's all about the games and how well developers use the hardware. Your computer could be 1% as powerful as the human brain, but it wouldn't matter one bit if developers could only program Pitfall for it.[/QUOTE]

Well, certainly PC hardware will catch up (probably already has), but to be on the cutting edge in the PC world is very expensive. In order to buy the video card with similar capabilities as the 360 it will cost you about $500, just for the video card alone. My point is by the time the Xbox had hit the market it was already about a year to a year and a half old in terms of being a high end system (compared with PCs). I imagine if it had been more cutting edge at the time of release the last batch of AAA titles would have been much better looking. I mean it is all potential, and we don't know that the 360 will ever reach its potential. But when buying a system at launch, isn't it all about potential anyway? Sometimes there is one or two good games, but the rest is all about what other games you are waiting for. I don't know that I will buy a 360, and the price has something to do with that, but if I was willing to throw down $300 for an Xbox 4 years ago (I wasn't; I waited until it was $199 w/ JSRF and Sega GT), I wouldn't be complaining about the price this go-around. The 360 has much more potential than the XBox has due to the fact that it is being given cutting edge technology rather than year and a half old technology. Whether it realizes its potential or not though, is the real question.
 
zzl365

Game consoles (at least sucessful ones) have not exceeded the $300 launch price. And, for that $300, you got a complete system (i.e. not a gimped one). If I remember correctly, the Atari 2600 lauched at $250 in 1977. The XBOX launched at $300 in 2001.

That's only a 20% launch price increase in 24 years. M$ is asking people to spend a minimum of $400 (Core + HD) in 2005 to get the same level of functionality they got for $300 in 2001. That's a 33% increase in just 4 years. I'm all for progress and paying more to get more. But, this jump is just a bit too much, too quick.

Game consoles are a bit different since no matter what extra features/functionality they contain, they are STILL purchased by people for the main purpose of PLAYING GAMES. People do not usually go out and buy a game console to play CD's and get the benefit of being able to play games. Game consoles are "toys" (okay, entertainment devices). As such, many people can only justify (psychologically) so much as an intial "investment" into something like this. This is one of the VERY reasons game console prices really have not changed that much over so many years.

I'm not saying it's not time for things to change or for an increase. But, based upon historical evidence, consoles that have launched over $300 had not survived/succeeded. Therefore, if the only goal was to hit that $300 mark, M$ did it. However, if the goal was to have a console that people will want to purchase (i.e. put their faith into) at that $300 price point, then M$ failed. Sure, they hit the $300 price, but at what "cost" to the effectiveness/quality/completeness of the sysetm (at least compared to the XBOX at launch). I mean, as big of an issue as backwards compatability was for the XBOX fans, you would have thought THAT would have been one of the MINIMUM requirements for the base (Core) model.
 
[quote name='STATIC3D']zzl365

Game consoles (at least sucessful ones) have not exceeded the $300 launch price. And, for that $300, you got a complete system (i.e. not a gimped one). If I remember correctly, the Atari 2600 lauched at $250 in 1977. The XBOX launched at $300 in 2001.

That's only a 20% launch price increase in 24 years. M$ is asking people to spend a minimum of $400 (Core + HD) in 2005 to get the same level of functionality they got for $300 in 2001. That's a 33% increase in just 4 years. I'm all for progress and paying more to get more. But, this jump is just a bit too much, too quick.

Game consoles are a bit different since no matter what extra features/functionality they contain, they are STILL purchased by people for the main purpose of PLAYING GAMES. People do not usually go out and buy a game console to play CD's and get the benefit of being able to play games. Game consoles are "toys" (okay, entertainment devices). As such, many people can only justify (psychologically) so much as an intial "investment" into something like this. This is one of the VERY reasons game console prices really have not changed that much over so many years.

I'm not saying it's not time for things to change or for an increase. But, based upon historical evidence, consoles that have launched over $300 had not survived/succeeded. Therefore, if the only goal was to hit that $300 mark, M$ did it. However, if the goal was to have a console that people will want to purchase (i.e. put their faith into) at that $300 price point, then M$ failed. Sure, they hit the $300 price, but at what "cost" to the effectiveness/quality/completeness of the sysetm (at least compared to the XBOX at launch). I mean, as big of an issue as backwards compatability was for the XBOX fans, you would have thought THAT would have been one of the MINIMUM requirements for the base (Core) model.[/QUOTE]
I will agree with your belief that video gaming systems, arent supposed to be what microsoft wants them to be...If i could buy a $200 XBOX360, that couldnt read MP3's, or communicate with my Media Center, or HDTV, I would...

I would however like to point out that included within the $400 package, is a ethernet cable(which was not standard with the XBOX), a headset(Also Not Standard), and a sufficiently upgraded controller(not included with the xbox)...I am not justifiying the pricing of theses items, nor the price of the value package, but I would like to point out that the $400 package is not just the whoring of an accesorie which should have been free.
 
[quote name='SkyGheNe']You know what would be nice?

Enabling a person the option of using their old controllers on the next gen console.

Because, as it stands now - i'm fine with the ps2/xbox controllers. Why are they even changing them.

Oh yeah - profits. Whores love their money.[/QUOTE]


Seriously, tell me about it. There will be probably be converters though, so you will be able to use the controllers at a price :p. Also, I can see the ps2 controllers not working on the ps3 cause it's completely wireless. On the other hand, the xbox 360 still supports wired controllers and I'd like to see what excuse they come up with as to why they don't support the old xbox controllers.
 
Ozzkev55

True, the $400 I was talking about was the XBOX 360 Core ($300) + Hard drive ($100) to get the same level of functionality as the XBOX at launch. :}
 
[quote name='el bobo']Wow this topic is hot.[/QUOTE]

yeah it is but atleast its pretty cool and calm , after reading through everyones post I must say there are alot of valid points on why the console should be and shouldnt be 2 seperate prices . This is fun lets get some more input from others .
 
STATIC3D is right, and zzl365 can't seem to read.

STATIC3D isn't speaking about graphical capabilities, he's talking about out of the box functionality. Lemme break it down (sorry if done already):

Xbox-2001-$300
-Play games
-Play music CDs
-Custom soundtracks
-Save games
-Download new content for games
-Faster load times than competing systems because of HDD
-Play online/save player data from online games

Xbox 360 Core System-2005-$300:
-Play Games
-Play music CDs
-Play DVD movies (It can, right?)

So you HAVE to spend $100 to get the same functionality. You get more if you choose to go with the premium system, but you don't if you buy the core system and a separate HDD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top