PDA

View Full Version : MS loses $127 per every xbox 360 made



Sylentwulf
11-24-2005, 06:10 AM
http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/11/23/1549209.shtml?tid=211

Didn't see a post on this yet.

THATinkjar
11-24-2005, 06:17 AM
Honestly, it is $126...

Anyway, I thought it would be more, to be honest, but that is still damn bad. Honestly, they'll have to really sort things out and drop that price if they're to have any hope of making some money on the hardware. I'm sure the accessories (another reason for the two bundles) and games will reap their rewards, though.

Arkaign
11-24-2005, 06:33 AM
Hmm, without actually looking at Microsoft's internal documents, this should seriously be taken as a very educated guess, not fact. It could be substantially lower or higher than this.

Factor in support, advertising, R&D, the legal department, and misc. other expenses, it's probably costing MUCH more per unit sold at this time. Which is exactly what Microsoft was expecting, I'm sure.

It's a gamble I suppose, to hit critical mass where people are shelling out enough for rehashed titles and Live access that they start to generate some actual profits from this. Xbox1 was still losing tons of money, and now it's obsolete.

In a wider strategy, I wonder if they even intend for 360 to ever become profitable, or if it's just a 'finger in the dike' move to try to keep threats to Windows and other Microsoft cash cows from gaining wider acceptance. I'm sure they could be nervous about tens of millions of linux-ready HD multimedia boxes having the potential to move people away from Windows. Taken this way, this could be a shrewd defensive strategy by Microsoft.

Personally, I run BSD or Fedora Core 4 most of the time, and for games that can't/won't do Linux, I boot into XP32 (seperate drive).

It's not inconceivable that PS3+Linux could represent the most serious threat to Windows dominance in homes that has ever existed. Of course this will depend entirely on the ease-of-use and attention given to this area.

Ulticron
11-24-2005, 07:59 AM
I doubt that will hurt Bill Gates' wallet. If memory serves me correct the PS2 lost loads of money on their console for a time, and only made money off the games and accessories. I don't really think MS goal here is to get rich off of the 360 they just want to dominate another market, and if they take a loss no biggie they can just write it off on their taxes.

Johnny_Rock
11-24-2005, 08:28 AM
Correct me if im wrong but didnt the original xbox not make any profit either?

THATinkjar
11-24-2005, 08:37 AM
Correct me if im wrong but didnt the original xbox not make any profit either?

You are correct. It has lost them four billion dollars and counting. Pretty funny, really.

captain nintendo
11-24-2005, 09:03 AM
I heard it was 76 per console?


Isn't i going to retail for 350 dollars in Japan? @_@
(they only get the premium package there)

Mr.FoodMonster
11-24-2005, 10:29 AM
Alright boys and girls, I dont know how this gets past so many people, but let me refresh your memory.

Money is NEVER made on consoles. EVERYTHING is the software. Thats where the profits are at. Its worth it to lose X on each console if they make 3 times that on a multimillion selling game. Halo 1 & 2 anyone?

Arkaign
11-24-2005, 11:00 AM
Alright boys and girls, I dont know how this gets past so many people, but let me refresh your memory.

Money is NEVER made on consoles. EVERYTHING is the software. Thats where the profits are at. Its worth it to lose X on each console if they make 3 times that on a multimillion selling game. Halo 1 & 2 anyone?

Gross overgeneralization is not your friend.

Microsoft is still admitting massive losses on the entire Xbox project, not just on the console.

I mean, say they sold 50 million copies worldwide, at an average retail price of $50, with the margins bringing Microsoft back a raw $30 on each copy. That adds up to 1.5 billion in income. This certainly does NOT put a substantial dent in the billions lost each of the last 5 years on the Xbox project. R&D, advertising, exhorbitant initial mfg costs, service and support, etc.

Also, the NES, SNES, Gameboy, Genesis were all highly profitable per unit. The PS1, PS2 became profitable after the component prices fell some. With the increased level of complexity of modern consoles, it's likely that the window of loss/break-even will extend even further. With hard drives, cd/dvd drives, highly specialized video subsystems, etc, prices are undeniably increasing.

There is a danger (evident in the first Xbox) that you will continue to lose money over the entire feasible lifespan of a console, in terms of unit cost vs. selling price. This is not true for all units.

I think Microsoft's big chance to make 360 profitable is going to be testing the bounds of how much they can rake in off of Live and online content, in addition to the handful of huge titles (Halo 3) that will contribute to the cause.

Of course, with Microsoft's nearly endless cash reserves, this is hardly troublesome for them. I think it's rather a move to try to eliminate any and all possible threats to their market by any and all means. Microsoft will never be satisfied until there exists only one corporation.

Sony is just as evil as Microsoft, only less versatile and less powerful. You can bet they would be employing the exact same tactics if they had the same resources.

This could be the death of gaming as we understand it. If Sony and Nintendo are washed away, Microsoft could literally name their own price for their products, just like Office, Windows, etc. Most likely they would test the limits of what people would pay. $80 games with $20/month fees anyone? How about $50 controllers. It'd be just as horrible if Sony destroyed both Microsoft and Nintendo.

Nintendo was downright angelic when their monopoly ruled the earth, in comparison, even in the midst of price fixing, etc. Give me Nintendo and Sega over Microsoft and Sony any day, any time.

Lothars
11-24-2005, 03:33 PM
Alright boys and girls, I dont know how this gets past so many people, but let me refresh your memory.

Money is NEVER made on consoles. EVERYTHING is the software. Thats where the profits are at. Its worth it to lose X on each console if they make 3 times that on a multimillion selling game. Halo 1 & 2 anyone?

Gross overgeneralization is not your friend.

Microsoft is still admitting massive losses on the entire Xbox project, not just on the console.

I mean, say they sold 50 million copies worldwide, at an average retail price of $50, with the margins bringing Microsoft back a raw $30 on each copy. That adds up to 1.5 billion in income. This certainly does NOT put a substantial dent in the billions lost each of the last 5 years on the Xbox project. R&D, advertising, exhorbitant initial mfg costs, service and support, etc.

Also, the NES, SNES, Gameboy, Genesis were all highly profitable per unit. The PS1, PS2 became profitable after the component prices fell some. With the increased level of complexity of modern consoles, it's likely that the window of loss/break-even will extend even further. With hard drives, cd/dvd drives, highly specialized video subsystems, etc, prices are undeniably increasing.

There is a danger (evident in the first Xbox) that you will continue to lose money over the entire feasible lifespan of a console, in terms of unit cost vs. selling price. This is not true for all units.

I think Microsoft's big chance to make 360 profitable is going to be testing the bounds of how much they can rake in off of Live and online content, in addition to the handful of huge titles (Halo 3) that will contribute to the cause.

Of course, with Microsoft's nearly endless cash reserves, this is hardly troublesome for them. I think it's rather a move to try to eliminate any and all possible threats to their market by any and all means. Microsoft will never be satisfied until there exists only one corporation.

Sony is just as evil as Microsoft, only less versatile and less powerful. You can bet they would be employing the exact same tactics if they had the same resources.

This could be the death of gaming as we understand it. If Sony and Nintendo are washed away, Microsoft could literally name their own price for their products, just like Office, Windows, etc. Most likely they would test the limits of what people would pay. $80 games with $20/month fees anyone? How about $50 controllers. It'd be just as horrible if Sony destroyed both Microsoft and Nintendo.

Nintendo was downright angelic when their monopoly ruled the earth, in comparison, even in the midst of price fixing, etc. Give me Nintendo and Sega over Microsoft and Sony any day, any time.

I agree I mean I would rather have sony over microsoft any day but tehy are both evil in there own rights

but to say nintendo was downright angelic lol

I disagree i think nintendo in a sense is just as bad as both sony and microsoft but no corporation is perfect none will ever be.

Arkaign
11-24-2005, 03:47 PM
LOL

well, I said they were angelic in comparison to Microsoft, not angelic in and of themselves :D

Sylentwulf
11-24-2005, 07:18 PM
Just to clarify, I wasn't stating that MS was losing money on consoles, I was just posting that someone claimed to have an exact AMOUNT per console stated as to how MUCH they lost. And yes, I'm sure it's a fairly rough, but well edjucated guess based on hardware and mfg. costs.

Porkchop
11-24-2005, 09:06 PM
Microsofts goal it to continue to rule the home computer market. When Sony come out with the PS2 and said it was the computer for the family TV they started a war. Bill Gates does not like to lose and he is going after Sony.

It you want to learn more about Bill Gates and what makes him tick read "Hard Drive" great book. My money is on Microsoft in this war, but we shall see.

joshnickerson
11-24-2005, 09:07 PM
How about $50 controllers.

They ARE charging $50 for controllers. X_x

heyricochet
11-24-2005, 11:17 PM
Gross overgeneralization is not your friend.

Microsoft is still admitting massive losses on the entire Xbox project, not just on the console.

I mean, say they sold 50 million copies worldwide, at an average retail price of $50, with the margins bringing Microsoft back a raw $30 on each copy. That adds up to 1.5 billion in income. This certainly does NOT put a substantial dent in the billions lost each of the last 5 years on the Xbox project. R&D, advertising, exhorbitant initial mfg costs, service and support, etc.

+ Massive rant.


Sony might get bumped out this gen, but they really aren't doing that bad, while Nintendo is still making a profit as per always and they are not going anywhere while all of us are loyal to them. Sony and Nintendo are not getting "washed away" anytime soon.

Personally, I think the gaming craze is going to die down a bit. I may have bought into the Nintendo hype, but I do agree that gaming needs a shot in the arm. Its nowheres near dying out, but I think a good amount of people will stop gaming this gen.

Arkaign
11-25-2005, 01:08 AM
+ Massive rant.


LOL

Yeah, good points :) Anyhow, I've divided my gaming almost completely to PC for new/FPS, and classic consoles for other stuff. I have basically already given up on modern console gaming. Insanely expensive games / accessories, online fees, charge you up the butt for extras, etc.

I might get a PS3, but I doubt I would EVER buy a game for it. Linux+HD MMedia playback would be it.

It will be a cold day in hell with George Bush singing a duet with Marilyn Manson before I own a 360.

Rev could be interesting, but details are too sketchy for me to know for sure. Nintendo is clever.

Next likely gaming-centric purchase will probably be one of those $100 DS dealies.

Hope u all had a great Turkey day.

davidleeroth
11-25-2005, 04:09 AM
Why can't they make a $127 console and give them away for free? Best business plan ever. *shrug*

evil_genius
11-25-2005, 07:58 AM
He should sell them on eBay, he would make a fortune.

hezeuschrist
11-25-2005, 09:57 AM
Yeah, good points :) Anyhow, I've divided my gaming almost completely to PC for new/FPS, and classic consoles for other stuff. I have basically already given up on modern console gaming. Insanely expensive games / accessories, online fees, charge you up the butt for extras, etc.

I really don't know how you can make that argument that current console gaming is too expensive when you say that you play new FPS games on PC. The hardware requirements every year or two for a decent PC gaming experience are FAR more expensive for PC gaming than any glut microtransactions could ever be.

As for insanely expensive games, Doom 3 anyone?

I mean, it's certainly your right to abandon console gaming for whatever reasons, but it will ALWAYS be cheaper than PC gaming. That will never change.

Sylentwulf
11-25-2005, 10:23 AM
I really don't know how you can make that argument that current console gaming is too expensive when you say that you play new FPS games on PC. The hardware requirements every year or two for a decent PC gaming experience are FAR more expensive for PC gaming than any glut microtransactions could ever be.

As for insanely expensive games, Doom 3 anyone?

I mean, it's certainly your right to abandon console gaming for whatever reasons, but it will ALWAYS be cheaper than PC gaming. That will never change.

Actually, this really isn't overly a valid arguement anymore. You can get a 2.4ghz cpu for around $100 now. Hard drives haven't made any real useable size or speed advancements in probably 10 years (anything over 10GB is plenty to play games with). You can get a 256mb video card for $50-$75. Sound card can easily be $0-$25, and 1GB of ram can be under $100 easily. Mobo to hold it all - $50.

All in all, Using components more than 5 years old from your last PC, and a few new upgrades, you could build a gaming pc for less than a new console no problem. And speeds aren't really expected to go up on ANYTHING ANY time soon really. What I listed above is virtually a new PC for around $300-$400 max. If you throw rebates and deals and other crap into that.....

Arkaign
11-25-2005, 11:39 AM
Yeah, good points :) Anyhow, I've divided my gaming almost completely to PC for new/FPS, and classic consoles for other stuff. I have basically already given up on modern console gaming. Insanely expensive games / accessories, online fees, charge you up the butt for extras, etc.

I really don't know how you can make that argument that current console gaming is too expensive when you say that you play new FPS games on PC. The hardware requirements every year or two for a decent PC gaming experience are FAR more expensive for PC gaming than any glut microtransactions could ever be.

As for insanely expensive games, Doom 3 anyone?

I mean, it's certainly your right to abandon console gaming for whatever reasons, but it will ALWAYS be cheaper than PC gaming. That will never change.

I can agree that there can be a variety of expensive options on PCs, but it's kind of an apples to oranges thing anyway. I do much more on my PC than is possible on consoles right now (Content Creation, burning, projects, etc). Also, it doesn't have to cost a fortune if you are selective. I built the rig I'm running now piecemeal, and found many incredible deals (6800GT 256mb PCIe for $150, etc). I don't have to have the latest and greatest for anything. But I can also play BF2, CSS, Quake 4, and literally hundreds of other games online, with no additional fees over my standard cable internet.

Another thing that I realize can work both ways : customization. At this point in history, no console has EVER come near a PC in terms of how tight you can tune it, how crazy you can configure it, and how far you can take it in the future. It will evolve with you over time if you are the type that chooses upgrades carefully. I'm not a video card junkie, I buy one only when I find a really good deal, which usually works out to once a year or so. The good thing about Consoles is that you don't have to think or worry about customization, you can just plug stuff in and play it.

And I haven't totally abandoned console gaming, I still love the classics, and wholly admit that many genres (fighting, sports, racing for the most part) are just plain superior on consoles, for so many reasons.

Finally, why do/did you consider Doom 3 to be expensive? I got mine for $27.99 I think, from Fry's (satan!). The Xbox version that launched admirably close to the PC version was about the same price (45-50ish). When I say expensive, I mean $59, and then fees on top of that for mods/online play, etc. I still play Diablo II once in a while, and I got that for $20, and have NEVER had to pay a cent for server access or any of the cool stuff they've added in patches since then.

Admittedly, with the paradigm shift towards MMORPG (Everquest series, WoW, that bigass SW game, etc), you can get charged up the butt for PC gaming on a monthly basis as well. I'll sooner stop gaming (or just play the classics, there are so many great ones!) than pay monthly for something I've already bought.

Anyways, as has been somewhat noted, you can have a great PC gaming experience fo not a lot of $ if you're selective. And consoles are more expensive than ever before :(

Thanks Sylentwulf, those are great points.

Sylentwulf
11-25-2005, 05:24 PM
Ya the sick part is that I have an unbelievable gaming pc setup, but I really don't play ANY PC games. I use it mainly to know that there's nothing I can do to make it faster. Usually just video editing, surfing, web creating, etc...

Arkaign
11-25-2005, 05:38 PM
Ya the sick part is that I have an unbelievable gaming pc setup, but I really don't play ANY PC games. I use it mainly to know that there's nothing I can do to make it faster. Usually just video editing, surfing, web creating, etc...

That's kinda sad :) I don't game much myself anymore (maybe 1-2hrs/week, sometimes not at all)

What types of games do you like? FPS and RTS are both amazingly well-represented on PC, and there are some decent Rpgs hidden out there as well. Quality racing and sports titles are a bit more rare, and fighting games, well, they're just nonexistent.

BF2, Quake 4, and COD2 are all really impressive and quite fun on good PC if you're into those sorts.

On the plus side, there are tons of fun things to do with PCs that don't involve gaming at all :D

CYRiX
11-25-2005, 09:37 PM
Alright boys and girls, I dont know how this gets past so many people, but let me refresh your memory.

Money is NEVER made on consoles. EVERYTHING is the software. Thats where the profits are at. Its worth it to lose X on each console if they make 3 times that on a multimillion selling game. Halo 1 & 2 anyone?
QFT

Joker T
11-25-2005, 10:17 PM
PC gaming is expensive @_@

Graphics Cards running $400-$500 even more with SLI
Ram and Processors are not as much but when you buy a console you know that you can put in any game and know it wil most of the time run well. Plus these graphics cards are state of the art now but not in 8 months. I love PC gaming in many ways but not upgrading.

Arkaign
11-25-2005, 11:24 PM
Alright boys and girls, I dont know how this gets past so many people, but let me refresh your memory.

Money is NEVER made on consoles. EVERYTHING is the software. Thats where the profits are at. Its worth it to lose X on each console if they make 3 times that on a multimillion selling game. Halo 1 & 2 anyone?
QFT

No no no .. I already explained above, that even if 50 million copies are sold of a particular title, with a solid $30/unit coming back as pure profit, that it only adds up to 1.5 billion. Not enough to put much of a dent in the massive Xbox losses.

And plenty of money has been made from almost every other console, especially after the component prices drop and manufacturing becomes more streamlined. Nintendo is the master of wringing profits from software AND hardware.

QFT = QFF

Sylentwulf
11-26-2005, 05:54 AM
PC gaming is expensive @_@

Graphics Cards running $400-$500 even more with SLI
Ram and Processors are not as much but when you buy a console you know that you can put in any game and know it wil most of the time run well. Plus these graphics cards are state of the art now but not in 8 months. I love PC gaming in many ways but not upgrading.

The people that spend $400-$500 on video cards are morons. And THEY'RE the people that perpetuate the fact htat PC game is "expensive" I've beaten this sentance to death, but here it is again. My video card cost me $75 about a year ago (probly more than a year) It's a radeon 9600 SE with 256mb ram on it. I can play doom 3 and half life 2 at the highest settings with it. What more is there to say? You DO NOT NEED to spend more than $50-$85 on a video card for pc gaming.

hezeuschrist
11-26-2005, 12:39 PM
PC gaming is expensive @_@

Graphics Cards running $400-$500 even more with SLI
Ram and Processors are not as much but when you buy a console you know that you can put in any game and know it wil most of the time run well. Plus these graphics cards are state of the art now but not in 8 months. I love PC gaming in many ways but not upgrading.

The people that spend $400-$500 on video cards are morons. And THEY'RE the people that perpetuate the fact htat PC game is "expensive" I've beaten this sentance to death, but here it is again. My video card cost me $75 about a year ago (probly more than a year) It's a radeon 9600 SE with 256mb ram on it. I can play doom 3 and half life 2 at the highest settings with it. What more is there to say? You DO NOT NEED to spend more than $50-$85 on a video card for pc gaming.

Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are hardly "New" PC games. They're both over a year old. That, and no, a 9600 SE can not run both Doom 3 and HL2 with 4x AA and 16xAF. It can't, and if it did it would be a horrendous slideshow. Do me a favor and go tell me how awesome HL2: The Lost Coast runs on your machine at "highest settings." There is no room for gross overexageration here.

I have a 9800 Pro and it gets by in Doom 3 and HL2, certainly enough to make the games enjoyable. I bought this card nearly 2 years ago and it's gettin a bit rough around the edges, but thats why i got a 360. It'll run Call of Duty 2 flawlessly, if I wanted it to run like it does on a 360 I would need to spend well over $1000 upgrading my system to make it run that well. Thats fact, and you can not argue that. If you want to have any kind of decent PC gaming experience, it's going to cost more than $85 every once in a while.

If you want to stay current in PC gaming, it's more expensive than console gaming, through and through, and theres no counter argument. Spend $400 on a console once over 5 years if you adopt before the first price cut, or spend between $400 and $1000 upgrading your system to get marginal performance out of the latest titles... hrm. If I even WANTED to upgrade my Video Card now I would have to get a new motherboard and new processor. At best that upgrade alone is $400, not to mention where it'll be in two years.

Arkaign
11-26-2005, 01:25 PM
PC gaming is expensive @_@

Graphics Cards running $400-$500 even more with SLI
Ram and Processors are not as much but when you buy a console you know that you can put in any game and know it wil most of the time run well. Plus these graphics cards are state of the art now but not in 8 months. I love PC gaming in many ways but not upgrading.

The people that spend $400-$500 on video cards are morons. And THEY'RE the people that perpetuate the fact htat PC game is "expensive" I've beaten this sentance to death, but here it is again. My video card cost me $75 about a year ago (probly more than a year) It's a radeon 9600 SE with 256mb ram on it. I can play doom 3 and half life 2 at the highest settings with it. What more is there to say? You DO NOT NEED to spend more than $50-$85 on a video card for pc gaming.

Doom 3 and Half Life 2 are hardly "New" PC games. They're both over a year old. That, and no, a 9600 SE can not run both Doom 3 and HL2 with 4x AA and 16xAF. It can't, and if it did it would be a horrendous slideshow. Do me a favor and go tell me how awesome HL2: The Lost Coast runs on your machine at "highest settings." There is no room for gross overexageration here.

I have a 9800 Pro and it gets by in Doom 3 and HL2, certainly enough to make the games enjoyable. I bought this card nearly 2 years ago and it's gettin a bit rough around the edges, but thats why i got a 360. It'll run Call of Duty 2 flawlessly, if I wanted it to run like it does on a 360 I would need to spend well over $1000 upgrading my system to make it run that well. Thats fact, and you can not argue that. If you want to have any kind of decent PC gaming experience, it's going to cost more than $85 every once in a while.

If you want to stay current in PC gaming, it's more expensive than console gaming, through and through, and theres no counter argument. Spend $400 on a console once over 5 years if you adopt before the first price cut, or spend between $400 and $1000 upgrading your system to get marginal performance out of the latest titles... hrm. If I even WANTED to upgrade my Video Card now I would have to get a new motherboard and new processor. At best that upgrade alone is $400, not to mention where it'll be in two years.

You're insane, or just don't know where/how to buy PC components. Mobo/cpu for $400? What are you buying? Dual-core? Doesn't do jack for games. Intel? Waste of money for the most part.

Sempron 3100, clock at 2.4Ghz with a blindfold. $99
Gigabyte Socket 754 mobo, $1 shipping from newegg! $39

Hmm, $138, and will run about in the range of an A64 3200/3400. Hardly shabby.

Toss in 1gb of PC3200 cl2 for well under $100, and you can even score a GF6800XT for $142.

So for under $400, you can get cpu, mobo, 1gb ram, and a very nice 3d video card.

If you're a snob who doesn't understand that you can make a very respectable gaming PC based on a sempron, you can pay $40 more for a A64 3200+ Clawhammer with 1mb L2 cache.

I've got a fairly old config, a venice at 2.6ghz, and a pipeline-unlocked and slightly overclocked 6800gt. It's NOT an expensive combo, and I can do a hell of a lot more than just game with it. Even so, I can run COD2 at 1600x1200 w/2xAA and all high details with excellent framerate. At extreme resolutions, AA doesn't even make much difference anyway.

Anybody can be ignorant with money and purchases, and I'll give you that it takes more intelligence and experience to make a logical balance between price and performance for PC gaming. Particularly if you're not a FPS nut. You can play RTS and MMORPGs up and down the street with middling hardware very easily, and not miss a beat.

Sylentwulf
11-26-2005, 03:54 PM
<shrug> frankly I couldn't even tell you what 4xaa 16Xaf, or whatever you wrote, is. All I know, is that when I jack all the settings up, the game looks friggin awesome, and the framerate doesn't suffer at all. My 9600se is also newer than your 9800 if you bought it over 2 years ago somehow.

Basic statement - Anyone who spends over $100 on a videocard is a damn moron if they're complaining about computer prices. It's like a fanboy badge of honor "Oh yeah, I spent $500!! on my videocard, friggin sweet!" Ya, that's great. I'll get the same card next year for $60 from rosewill.

Joker T
12-01-2005, 04:22 PM
The only thing that i am saying is it can be expensive and as hezeuschrist said HL 2 and Doom 3 aren't new. I'm saying for the best performance in brand new games you need to spend a bit of extra money.

Griking
12-01-2005, 06:16 PM
The only thing that i am saying is it can be expensive and as hezeuschrist said HL 2 and Doom 3 aren't new. I'm saying for the best performance in brand new games you need to spend a bit of extra money.

Agreed. It's costs a lot to be on the cutting edge of technology. Fortunately you just don't need a cutting edge PC to run the majority of the latest games at full speed.

Maybe it's just me but I really couldn't tell the difference between running Half Life 2 at 40fps or 45fps and the game that I've playing the most lately, WOW runs fantastic on my older Athlon 2800 w/ a gig of ram.

Joker T
12-09-2005, 09:06 AM
Yeah I mean even high end rigs can have trouble playing Call of Duty 2 with high resolution and full anti-alliasing and texture filltering. I agree that you can make a good rig for cheap but you need to drop down some cash for the top performance in today's games.

comrade
12-09-2005, 09:24 AM
Why can't they make a $127 console and give them away for free? Best business plan ever. *shrug*

Do me a favor? Quit what you are doing right now, and go into business. Smartest guy on the boards. LOL

OK, back on topic.

MS can't be losing too much money. I mean, they can't even supply enough consoles for them to even have the chance to lose $127.

SegaAges
12-10-2005, 03:08 AM
Well, I read a bunch of this, and now I want to throw my 2 cents in (I rarely ever give my opinion on this stuff):

All 3 corporations are evil.

Nintendo: They have been going crazy when it comes to pirating, and come on, Sega didn't even go as hardcore on pirating and they should have.

Sony: Anybody remember bleemcast? Go ahead and ask the creators how "nice" of a compnay Sony is. I actually e-mail one of the guys talking with him awhile back, wow, that is all I can say.

Microsoft: Well, do I really need to go into examples as to why they are evil? This is what happens when you give money to people. People change when they have money, because all they think about it getting more. Microsoft is a perfect example of capitalism in its finest.

These 3 companies will be around for a very, very long time to come.

The biggest beef I have with all of these consoles is the fact that it is all about hardware. Think about it: since the idea of the polygon (which was an insanely huge step in gaming history), I honestly can't think of another HUGE jump like that without adding in beefed up hardware. We can maybe throw in shadowing and anti-aliasing, but those both stem from better hardware.

I know this seems off topic, but it really isn't off topic that much.

My belief is this: stop upping the hardware! There needs to be another software jump. The SNES handled polygons through the SUPER FX chip. I have an idea myself, but to be honest, I am waiting until I can afford a patent before I descibe it.

With my idea, I know that there are others out there that are thinking in this mindset. Who cares how powerful the 360 or ps3 are, where is the new software technology? Give me new software technology and then come back and tell me why I should by next gen system X.


EDIT: I do not want you guys to think that I am just coming from a Fanboy perspective. Look at my collection, I own 70 ps2 games and only 1 more gc game than xbox. I am just throwing out an opinion about the way these 3 companies are.

XianXi
12-11-2005, 02:36 PM
$126 per unit is kinda too low. The person who wrote that forgot that MS isnt selling the units to retailers for $399, they sell them to retailers for way less than that. Also the materials they use are bought in bulk and I highly doubt MS is taking a loss since the parts they use are bought at an extreme discount since there is a direct relation with the manufacturer of the parts. If we pay $50 for a part retail, the cost to the manufacturer is about 5-20% of the retail price usually.

For example:
A USB printer cable retails for $24, cost to retailer is only $3.

mjluther
12-12-2005, 12:32 PM
$126 per unit is kinda too low. The person who wrote that forgot that MS isnt selling the units to retailers for $399, they sell them to retailers for way less than that.
I checked into this at a major retailer soon before the release. They were actually charged an absurd price. I don't recall it precisely, but it was somewhere in the $390 range for the premium bundles. Retailers make very, very little money on 360 console sales.

Ed Oscuro
12-12-2005, 12:34 PM
Par for the course. Everybody banks on making money off game sales - for a retailer, it's resales that make the $$$.

Kamino
12-12-2005, 01:15 PM
I will likely buy an xbox 360 just to make em lose $