Microsoft to Introduce New SKU and Announce Price Cut for Xbox 360 at E3?

[fitbabits]

So the rumor mill would have you believe...

Softpedia (http://news.softpedia.com/news/New-Xbox-360-Model-at-E3-88111.shtml) is reporting that EEDAR analyst Jesse Divinch seems to be of the opinion that Microsoft will introduce a new SKU (60GB hard drive, from what I've heard), and also cut prices across the range of already-existing Xbox 360 SKUs. Why? Simply because Microsoft is losing ground to Sony and Nintendo.

"This [the spike in PS3 sales, plus the drop-off in Xbox 360 sales] is likely due to the exclusivity factor as exclusive releases on Sony's platforms have historically shown to be a better hardware driver than that of multi-platform releases. On average, PS3 exclusive games sell 45% more, throughout their lifetime, than multi-platform titles available on the PS3. Exclusive titles for the other two systems, the Wii and Xbox 360, only boast a small increase in lifetime sales over multi-platform titles."

The same analyst thinks that, as a response to the rise of the PS3 and to the continued dominance of the Nintendo Wii, which managed to sell more consoles than its two rivals combined in North America in May, Microsoft is getting ready to unveil a new Xbox 360 model and also to cut prices across the board for its consoles. The ESA-backed E3 expo, which is coming up in a few weeks, might be the perfect venue for Microsoft to make an announcement.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that Microsoft is losing ground, and has been for some time. They need a price cut at the very least to stay competitive. The new SKU? If it replaces the current 'Pro' model and the price remains the same, then I can see the logic behind it.

[asimonk]

For it to matter, the new SKU would have to replace the Pro and be priced lower.

[Disgustipated]

This definitely falls in line with what I've been seeing. The PS3 is rapidly catching up to the 360 while the 360's sales remain rather stagnant. A much-needed price cut should drive a lot of sales. It's been long coming, and is way overdue.

[Yeti2005]

The 360 has only been behind the PS3 in hardware sales in the US for around 2-3 months. I don't think this is a huge deal (especially since the more profitable software side is doing quite well) but if they want to continue their momentum they really should release a price cut. I think even a $50 price drop across the board would be compelling.

$220 for an Arcade (less than a Wii at that point)
$300 for a premium
$400 for the Elite

It would interesting to see how many Arcade owners would upgrade if they started selling the 20GB for really cheap.

[EternalGamer]

For it to matter, the new SKU would have to replace the Pro and be priced lower.

Yeah, they don't need a FOURTH Xbox model. That's just stupid. Put in a 60GB harddrive (it shouldn't be that much more expensive than the 20GB), and drop the price of the Pro to Wii price of $250. That is how you move systems.

[Chrome Dome]

I love my 360, and I've been really grateful for a closer race between the consoles this gen. Competition can only benefit your average gamer. MS has been strangely resistant to increased competition lately however, making the benefits of that competition less than they should have been. They've seemed to hold on to the early lead like a talisman to carry them through the rest of this generation of consoles. I hope for MS sake they don't wait till it's too late to become competitive again. It seems to me that momentum is very important in this business.

[Baron Samedi]

And the fanboys turn...

[Hellstorm]

Outside of a bump that may last a two or three months, I don't see MS' position improving in the long run with a price cut. Although I don't see the MGS4 bump lasting that long either.

[Bahamut]

*Cue someone's complaint about the misusage of SKU*

[asimonk]

Well neither system has a "wowie" holiday coming up. Both have a few decent exclusives. Price drops will move systems at this point.

[QueQueg]

I'd buy a $250 360 with a 60gb hard-drive. I'd buy one in 30 minutes or less.

Anything less than $300 is moving into "impulse-buy" territory.

[biosc1]

Are there still a lot of people sitting on the fence about these systems? Haven't those people already "bit the bullet" and purchased their system or systems of choice?

[MelbaToast]

Since it looks like I'm about to send my 4th 360 in for repair since last September, I'd say giving me some hardware that isn't going to break 10 minutes out of the box would be a step in the right direction.

[Ancalagon]

Are there still a lot of people sitting on the fence about these systems? Haven't those people already "bit the bullet" and purchased their system or systems of choice?

I havent bought a next gen gaming system.

I'm still considering it, but having a beefy computer means I'm not in dire need of new gaming hardware.

Anyway, point being that there are probably others like me out there, who are waiting for price drops or better deals, or simply available cash with which to buy one.

Or a specialized tool for collecting one - an oblong piece of masonry with high density, that is not malleable and can be launched as a projectile from a suitable limb. A brick if you will.

[Baron Samedi]

Since it looks like I'm about to send my 4th 360 in for repair since last September, I'd say giving me some hardware that isn't going to break 10 minutes out of the box would be a step in the right direction.

*Knocks on wood*

Yep, my fourth 360 is still going strong.

[frederec]

Are there still a lot of people sitting on the fence about these systems? Haven't those people already "bit the bullet" and purchased their system or systems of choice?

Absolutely. I'm one of them. I'd like to buy a 360, there's at least five games on it I'd get in a heartbeat if I had one, as opposed to the single game I've bought for the PS3 in the two or three months I've had it (The Orange Box, since I found it new for $40). The reason I refuse to get an Xbox:

Since it looks like I'm about to send my 4th 360 in for repair since last September, I'd say giving me some hardware that isn't going to break 10 minutes out of the box would be a step in the right direction.

I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars on a console that will almost certainly have to be sent in to be repaired or replaced multiple times.

[KSmitty]

Are there still a lot of people sitting on the fence about these systems? Haven't those people already "bit the bullet" and purchased their system or systems of choice?

Plenty of people are waiting on a price drop for the 360 and PS3. There are a lot of people that enjoy playing videogames, but fell that $300+ is too much to spend on a gaming system. Once they lower the cost to a more Joe Consumer friendly price point they will see a good bump in system sales.

[WaltJay]

I think they need a pricecut on the Pro model, first and foremost. Whether that requires keeping it at 20GB or not is up to MS's accounting department, but I don't see the value of just adding in more GB to the HDD to the Pro model and keeping the price the same.

A $299.99 20GB 360 would sell better than a $349.99 60GB 360 (in my universe anyway).

For E3, I'm predicting $249.99 or less Arcade, $299.99 Pro (60GB), $399.99 Elite (120GB).

[Wraith]

"This [the spike in PS3 sales, plus the drop-off in Xbox 360 sales] is likely due to the exclusivity factor as exclusive releases on Sony's platforms have historically shown to be a better hardware driver than that of multi-platform releases. On average, PS3 exclusive games sell 45% more, throughout their lifetime, than multi-platform titles available on the PS3. Exclusive titles for the other two systems, the Wii and Xbox 360, only boast a small increase in lifetime sales over multi-platform titles."Just thinking about this, to me, that makes sense for the PS3 and 360... The 360 has a larger install base and is likely to do better for sales of multiplatform games compared to the PS3 (and the Wii). So the difference between sales of exclusive games and multiplatform games is likely to be smaller. It makes sense that PS3 exclusives, going forward, are going to generate more console sales, on average, than 360 exclusives.

I don't understand how the difference is also small on Wii. I would have thought that exclusives would have sold MUCH more, on average, than multiplatform titles. Or does this have something to do with the relative lack of multiplatform games that also come to the Wii, combined with strong Wii sales to households that are less likely to have another next-gen console?

Just playing armchair analyst here...

[bapenguin]

I would think 20GB drives are more expensive than 60GB ones now anyway. Hell 60GB ones are probably more expensive than 120GB ones.

[fitbabits]

I would think 20GB drives are more expensive than 60GB ones now anyway. Hell 60GB ones are probably more expensive than 120GB ones.

The larger capacity you go, the less the cost.

Also, when I get round to buying a PS3, I'll be replacing the drive with a monster 500GB model.

[GrinR]

The 360 lead on PS3 is so huge, I can't see a few months of PS3 sales being cause for alarm. We all know there had (finally) been some good games released for the anemic PS3 lineup, so I see that as the cause more than a change in platform perception. My PS3 still sits there with Drake's Fortune as the only game I've bought.

[Franjo]

I still haven't bought a game for my ps3. It's been 4 months.

[Roc Ingersol]

On average, PS3 exclusive games sell 45% more, throughout their lifetime, than multi-platform titles available on the PS3. Exclusive titles for the other two systems, the Wii and Xbox 360, only boast a small increase in lifetime sales over multi-platform titles.Isn't that a bad thing for the PS3 though?
A higher exclusive sales rate for the less numerous PS3 consoles implies that people are only buying a PS3 if they care about the handful of exclusives, and that if you don't care about those exclusives, you're probably playing your cross-platform titles elsewhere.
Given that Sony's sales for its exclusives to date hasn't been much to write home about, I'd be really careful calling that particular number an advantage.

Also, that 'cross platform' statistic is crying out to be fleshed out and backed up with some numbers as is. I find it hard to believe that any console has a larger sales discrepancy between exclusives and cross-platform titles than a Nintendo console.

[Salesmunn]

Enough SKU's, just drop the price already.

[BabyJesus]

How about just updating the sku's and lowering the price?

I mean adding a larger drive will probably save money.. 20Gb drives have to be more expensive then something larger at this point.

[Sasori the Medic]

I'm still on the fence as well. I do PC gaming mostly and love my DS and PS2, but I don't own any of the next-gen consoles. A real price drop would definitely spur me to buy one. One thing I won't do though is fall for a cheaper model that's been gutted, like the Arcade.

[Wraith]

I'm still on the fence as well. I do PC gaming mostly and love my DS and PS2, but I don't own any of the next-gen consoles. A real price drop would definitely spur me to buy one. One thing I won't do though is fall for a cheaper model that's been gutted, like the Arcade.The Arcade/Core has always been like that. While it may not be a viable option for you, it's obviously working for some portion of the market, or MS wouldn't have kept it around this long.

[Wackman3000]

The larger capacity you go, the less the cost.

Also, when I get round to buying a PS3, I'll be replacing the drive with a monster 500GB model.

I planned on doing the same thing once I actually need the space.

I dont care how much they cut the price of the x360, the failure problems completely scared me away from the console, not to mention 90% of the exclusives end up on PC eitherway.

[Baron Samedi]

360 Arcade now costs $250! Comes with its very own Mii-creator Live!

[karak]

I hope the core drops to 199. That is just such an awesome price and for some reason carries a shitton of consumer attraction.

[vherub]

I'm on the fence, waiting for the "jasper" system that increases reliability of the system in line with normal. If, in conjunction with this, there is also a price drop, I will buy a 360 almost immediately. A 60 vs 20 gb harddrive has little interest to me.

[Knite]

The 360 lead on PS3 is so huge, I can't see a few months of PS3 sales being cause for alarm.

When in a fight, and your opponent is getting back up, knock him the F back down.

[SalaciousPuck]

About f'ing time. The only reasonable excuse for Microsoft waiting so long to offer any price cut is that they need the extra cash to pay for the RROD stuff.

Price is killing the PS3 and 360. Both of these need their low end 'Arcade' model under $200 and a 20GB model for $249, or they will become increasingly irrelevant.

Irrelevant to the available markets that is. Meaning that the bulk of the 'gamer' market has already bought in. To really expand the base they need to start expanding to groups that just will NOT shell out $400 to get their foot in the door.

[Micasa]

On average, PS3 exclusive games sell 45% more, throughout their lifetime, than multi-platform titles available on the PS3. Exclusive titles for the other two systems, the Wii and Xbox 360, only boast a small increase in lifetime sales over multi-platform titles.

So Nintendo's titles only sell a little bit better than multi-platform titles? I find that pretty hard to believe. Maybe they mean third-party developed exclusives, but that's awfully hard to swallow as well.

[bapenguin]

The larger capacity you go, the less the cost.

Also, when I get round to buying a PS3, I'll be replacing the drive with a monster 500GB model.

Considering how tough (and expensive) it is to find a 500GB laptop drive..that might be hard. I think the 500GB drives go for around $300.

[SPBTooL]

So if the rumors are to be believed it sounds like this E3 will be a crazy one for MS.
Price drop on the pro and arcade systems with the pro getting it's HDD upped to 60Gb.
New features for Live including avatars and a partnership with Netflix.
BluRay drive either external or internal in the elite.
The announcement of the new microphone and a Wii-mote killer.
Announcement of two previously unknown games that will blow everyone away.

The interesting thing to me is that only the BR drive and the Wii-mote killer sound unlikely. I could see everything else happening. Not all at once like that though. A totally new controller style and a high density disc format both sound like stuff that will be saved for the next Xbox.

[Wolvie]

Yeah MS has kinda stalled out lately. They need to start doing some hustling, because Nintendo has handed them their head on a platter since it launched, and Sony has gone into overdrive to catch up. If MS goes from being on top to 3rd... well that would be just embarrassing for them.

[MelbaToast]

Yeah MS has kinda stalled out lately. They need to start doing some hustling, because Nintendo has handed them their head on a platter since it launched, and Sony has gone into overdrive to catch up. If MS goes from being on top to 3rd... well that would be just embarrassing for them.

Were they ever on top? Haven't they been in second, well, always?

[Rogue_hunter]

I dont care how much they cut the price of the x360 ... not to mention 90% of the exclusives end up on PC eitherway.

This is my main reason for not getting a 360. That and I don't want to pay for multiplayer when my PC does it so well for free.

[Wolvie]

Were they ever on top? Haven't they been in second, well, always?

In the beginning of this generation they were by default #1, and held that spot for a time after the Wii/PS3 launches. Then Nintendo started selling Wii's like they were going out of style and MS lost it.

[ZeroOmegaZX]

Since it looks like I'm about to send my 4th 360 in for repair since last September, I'd say giving me some hardware that isn't going to break 10 minutes out of the box would be a step in the right direction.

Lies, the 360 is a marvelous piece of hardware *cough cough*, why else would fanboys support it so much?

[Edward351]

I don't understand how the difference is also small on Wii. I would have thought that exclusives would have sold MUCH more, on average, than multiplatform titles. Or does this have something to do with the relative lack of multiplatform games that also come to the Wii, combined with strong Wii sales to households that are less likely to have another next-gen console?

Just playing armchair analyst here...

I think you misunderstood the quote. The quote explained the relationship of exclusive titles to new hardware sales; not the relationship between a console and the number of multiplatform titles that get sold to it. With the attach rate of the Wii being low I would suspect that the best selling titles on it are platform exclusive. With the Wii, the exclusive title that really sells it just happens to be in the box.

[TrackZero]

This definitely falls in line with what I've been seeing. The PS3 is rapidly catching up to the 360 while the 360's sales remain rather stagnant. A much-needed price cut should drive a lot of sales. It's been long coming, and is way overdue.

Both you and fitbabits should try looking at numbers instead of "feeling" the situation.

http://i31.tinypic.com/35jcirp.jpg

So looking at the numbers. We see the margins between the PS3 and 360, where they were and where they are now:

5,266,000 more 360s than ps3s in the world - 18th november 06'

5,871,000 more 360s than ps3s in the world - 7th june '08

Wow Sony's sure closing that gap....they're behind by another 605k units. Though lately their sales have finally worked themselves up a bit (though slightly lackluster considering blu-ray "won" and with MGS4 and a decent yearly lineup finally in sight), at the current rate it'll take them until 2021 or so to catch up/surpass the 360s sales.

All the numbers and joking aside. What we've seen is PS3s finally actually selling. It doesn't mean they're taking the market back, but it just means they finally got a foothold. Which is great to see. I finally feel like I have two real consoles back "in the game" again, and we're all going to benefit from it. However, MS doing another SKU/price drop is to be expected at this stage and anyone thinking otherwise is fooling themselves.

[ZeroOmegaZX]

This is my main reason for not getting a 360. That and I don't want to pay for multiplayer when my PC does it so well for free.

The real tragedy there is that MS has conned a whole generation into thinking they have to PAY for multiplayer, and they think its GOOD. Too bad most people have either never or forgotten how great PC multiplayer gaming is, without the yearly fee....

[Wraith]

I think you misunderstood the quote. The quote explained the relationship of exclusive titles to new hardware sales; not the relationship between a console and the number of multiplatform titles that get sold to it. With the attach rate of the Wii being low I would suspect that the best selling titles on it are platform exclusive. With the Wii, the exclusive title that really sells it just happens to be in the box.So you're reading the quote as:"This [the spike in PS3 sales, plus the drop-off in Xbox 360 sales] is likely due to the exclusivity factor as exclusive releases on Sony's platforms have historically shown to be a better hardware driver than that of multi-platform releases. On average, PS3 exclusive games sell 45% more [consoles], throughout their lifetime, than multi-platform titles available on the PS3. Exclusive titles for the other two systems, the Wii and Xbox 360, only boast a small increase in lifetime consolesales over multi-platform titles."I was assuming the quote referred to game sales; exclusives sell more than multiplatform games on PS3, thus exclusives drive console sales moreso than they do on 360/Wii. Not directly that exclusives drive 45% more console sales than multiplatform games do. (And really, do we even have any kind of numbers showing what games directly drive console sales?)

[BlackPete]

All the numbers and joking aside. What we've seen is PS3s finally actually selling. It doesn't mean they're taking the market back, but it just means they finally got a foothold. Which is great to see. I finally feel like I have two real consoles back "in the game" again, and we're all going to benefit from it. However, MS doing another SKU/price drop is to be expected at this stage and anyone thinking otherwise is fooling themselves.

I think what they're saying is that Microsoft had a chance to completely kill all momentum for the PS3 by making the 360 into a no-brainer choice at a lower price point. By waiting this long and letting the PS3 become a real contender, they've made it unnecessarily harder on themselves in the marketplace.

[MelbaToast]

Wow Sony's sure closing that gap....they're behind by another 605k units. Though lately their sales have finally worked themselves up a bit (though slightly lackluster considering blu-ray "won" and with MGS4 and a decent yearly lineup finally in sight), at the current rate it'll take them until 2021 or so to catch up/surpass the 360s sales.



Well, the PS3 has closed the gap by just over a million units since December last year, so to be fair it'd be mid 2011 by the time they evened out.

[Itchyeyes]

Are there still a lot of people sitting on the fence about these systems? Haven't those people already "bit the bullet" and purchased their system or systems of choice?
I think there are a ton of people just waiting to snatch up whichever system drops below $200 first. If you look at the sales numbers from last gen and this gen, there are some 30 to 40 million people in the US alone who haven't made the leap yet.

[Sandman]

$100 price cut on all 360 skus except for Arcade which will go down to $199. You heard it here first.

I called it!

[Craigtheplague]

Having a 360 model that is much more reliable would be great, but how would we know that such a model is going to be reliable? We don't even know what causes the 360 to RROD. The only way to be sure that a model would be reliable is if Bill Gates swore it with his left hand in the air, right hand on a bible, and he spit on ground.

That, or a tech document explaining in detail the changes made that only a computer engineer would understand.

[TrackZero]

The real tragedy there is that MS has conned a whole generation into thinking they have to PAY for multiplayer, and they think its GOOD. Too bad most people have either never or forgotten how great PC multiplayer gaming is, without the yearly fee....

They didn't con anyone. I've been gaming forever and certainly wasn't "fooled". However, I also completely understand the need to pay for infrastructure (not just for the damn game servers, but for the content hosting, the media, demos, and anything else on the service platform). God knows, I've worked in the internet service industry enough to know this shit ain't free or cheap, and you're playing a fool when you act like it is and slam a company for daring to charge for a service.

And yes, I also play PC games too, and I've bought over hundreds of dollars in of games on Steam alone in the last year. I play it all, but the pennies, pennies a day for XBL? If you're complaining about that, you're just desperate for things to hate. Get over it.

[Itchyeyes]

I think what they're saying is that Microsoft had a chance to completely kill all momentum for the PS3 by making the 360 into a no-brainer choice at a lower price point. By waiting this long and letting the PS3 become a real contender, they've made it unnecessarily harder on themselves in the marketplace.
True, but you have to remember that this isn't necessarily a fight about market penetration to them, it's a fight about revenue. Sure they could have killed the PS3 if they had dropped their price maybe $50-$100 last year, but would they have made back the $500 million to $1 billion it would have cost them? There are a lot of variables in that calculation, and it isn't quite as cut and dry as who sells the most consoles.

[TrackZero]

Well, the PS3 has closed the gap by just over a million units since December last year, so to be fair it'd be mid 2011 by the time they evened out.

Heh, true enough (though if you check the chart, that appears more to be a bump from when blu-ray "won"). Of course we'll be on the next gen of consoles by then.

[Wraith]

All this talk of price cuts... Nintendo's laughing all the way to the bank, as Microsoft and Sony look at meager margins as they drop the price of their systems to boost sales. While the Wii hasn't dropped so much as $1 since launch, and is probably making a much better margin on the console (and selling more accessories).

(Yet I have a 360 and PS3, but still don't have anything convincing me to pick up a Wii anytime soon.)

[TrackZero]

I think what they're saying is that Microsoft had a chance to completely kill all momentum for the PS3 by making the 360 into a no-brainer choice at a lower price point. By waiting this long and letting the PS3 become a real contender, they've made it unnecessarily harder on themselves in the marketplace.

Oh, sure, you could have that. But who wants to? I'm not a fan of the "one console future", I WANT both Sony and MS in this race. I didn't cheer at the idea of Sony leaving the market, or MS becoming some kind of undisputed #1. Ultimately it'd turn into utter crap for the consumers.

Also Itchy's reply lines up with what I'd have said anyways.

[Valkyrist]

Are there still a lot of people sitting on the fence about these systems? Haven't those people already "bit the bullet" and purchased their system or systems of choice?

Just like Ancalagon, I too have held off so far. I JUST bought a new computer, and have been fine w/ WoW, CoD4, World in Conflict, Bioshock, etc etc. That said, I do really want a next gen console, but I wanted the dust to settle first. My Dreamcast is still sitting in my entertainment center, if only to remind me that patience is a virtue.

From an outside (not owning either one) point of view, I'm still very torn. Ignoring the Wii (my group of friends chipped $20 each to buy one and we get together once a week to play "party" games on it), the 360 and PS3 both have good selling points.

The 360 has had a dominant lead. The game library is starting to mature. LIVE is awesome. And the price is pretty reasonable. However... HDDVD failed miserably, though I understand there are plans for a BluRay player. I also remember the original XBOX, which was a noble attempt and had several awesome games, but ultimately was a failure in the shadow of the collossal PS2. This makes me wary to go with them this generation as well. The 360 also looses out on top hardware, though this early in the generation cycle, games are not pushing the boundries yet.

Speaking of hardware, the whole mass-defective 360's for the first year or so really put me off buying one at the beginning of all this. I had been debating right after they came out. But in those first 6months, I had 3 out of 10 of my close friends who bought 360's have to return them because of the ring o death. So I held off till they got all the gremlins out. It also would be nice if I could buy my own HD and use it for their system.

The PS3, on the other hand, is finally starting to shape up. While its current game library is pretty weak, there are a few gems (MGS) out there, with some big hitters on the horizon. Specificly FFXIII. I'll beat the flamers to it, and openly admit that I'm a huge Square fanboy. Have been since FFIV on my SNES. The day they announced FFVII, I left work early and bought a PSone. The exact same w/ FFX on the PS2. So not owning the system that the new FF games will be on is almost incomprehensible to me. I understand there will be square games on the 360 as well, but the majority of the big titles will be on the PS3.

Touching on the last gen: I still play my PS2 regularly. I have had good times with Sony over the last, oh, 12 years or so? I know they can do consoles right, and I give them a bit of trust over anyone else. Can you blame me? The playstation consoles have dominated since we left the 32bit days. And while I've seen the likes of Nintendo and Sega flop around like fish out of water, Sony has been a solid winner for two generations straight. That really says a lot to me, in that I feel safer investing hundreds of my hard-earned dollars into a new system.

The PS3 is not without its problems though. It's quite expensive, for one. Though I appreciate there's a BluRay player built in, that also means I'm forced to pay for one even if I'm just interested in games. Again, the game library is pretty pathetic right now, even if the future looks a good bit brighter. HOME, while nifty, is nowhere near as refined and accessible as LIVE.

But yes, I'm holding off for now. I told myself I'd break down and pick one this xmas season if both systems did a price drop (which looks like it'll happen). At that point, no matter which I pick, I'll get a system without any hardware bugs, newer features than at release, and a list of games I can pick up. Not to mention a good bit cheaper.

[Yeti2005]

The only way to be sure that a model would be reliable is if Bill Gates swore it with his left hand in the air, right hand on a bible, and he spit on ground.

Bad idea. Theologists are still unsure what would happen if Bill Gates touched a bible...or stepped on holy ground for that matter.

[TrackZero]

But yes, I'm holding off for now. I told myself I'd break down and pick one this xmas season if both systems did a price drop (which looks like it'll happen). At that point, no matter which I pick, I'll get a system without any hardware bugs, newer features than at release, and a list of games I can pick up. Not to mention a good bit cheaper.

You can't go wrong either way. Just pick the games that are right for you. Or the system that all your friends have so you can play online with them. ;)

[PathMaster]

As long as I have games to play I am happy. I have the Wii and the 360 right now and love them both. If and when the PS3 sees a price drop and/or a glut of quality games arrives for the system, then I will grab that as well. That is all that should matter.

And for all you nitpickers, quality is a subjective term. Meaning, that it is for me to decide what is and what is not quality.

On the Xbox Jasper models, honestly why wait? I grabbed an Elite last Fall and love it. No issues as of yet. Why put off the games that you could play now? Yes your 360 could die, but it might also never die. In the grand scheme of things, how long would you really be without a 360? A few weeks, a month? I am sure we each something else we could do or play.

[TrackZero]

Bad idea. Theologists are still unsure what would happen if Bill Gates touched a bible...or stepped on holy ground for that matter.

I don't know, considering Bill is paying for the only privately funded cure for AIDS in the world, dude gets some flack. Meanwhile Steve Jobs can fire someone in the elevator for looking at him funny and scream at people all day and be lauded as some kind of visionary (while he rips off Xerox). People need to stop reading Slashdot, like I did, 10 years ago.

[Flatpicker]

Seems like MS got complacent. 08 hasn't shown much for from them yet.

[Valkyrist]

You can't go wrong either way. Just pick the games that are right for you. Or the system that all your friends have so you can play online with them. ;)
Well our community Wii at my friend's place takes care of that.

For online play, I'm not too overly concerned with either console's offer. PC gaming has always had no problem filling the multiplayer-online role, and for free. I'm more interested in RPGs and other single-player games that are more story-oriented. I'm missing games like GTA4 and MGS right now and it's driving me insane.

[WaltJay]

I would think 20GB drives are more expensive than 60GB ones now anyway. Hell 60GB ones are probably more expensive than 120GB ones.

That's probably true because outside of the MS and the 360, who else is really ordering such low capacity HDDs?

[PathMaster]

On a related note, the 360 at my local Wal-mart was RROD, I took some cell pics. I think I might be one of the few who found that to be funny.

Also I have a question, can the PS3 act as a DVR? If so, that ups it value incredibly.

[Evil Avnovice]

1: I'm not seeing the logic of a new sku, when there are about three of them out there already. :confused:

2: Price drop? I guess. *shrug*

[Yeti2005]

I don't know, considering Bill is paying for the only privately funded cure for AIDS in the world, dude gets some flack. Meanwhile Steve Jobs can fire someone in the elevator for looking at him funny and scream at people all day and be lauded as some kind of visionary (while he rips off Xerox). People need to stop reading Slashdot, like I did, 10 years ago.

I should have put a smiley face at the end of my post because it was supposed to be a joke. Btw, I stopped reading Slashdot a while back too because of their ridiculous bias.

[asimonk]

Its incredibly bias in many regards. Its still useful as a news aggregator if you can look past all the rabid Linux/Apple bullshit.

[Hellstorm]

Again this isn't going to help MS with the big problem. They finally have hardware on a paper-thin profit. Cut the price and it's back in the red for them. As the Wii moves upstream and upmarket and continue to disrupt, it will further squeeze their margins and begin to steal games. It's a no-win situation against the Wii (Hardware is profit for Nintendo) and a battle of "Who wants to burn the most money on hardware" battle with Sony.

I doubt MS wants to see loses being to pile up again.

[RMan]

I play it all, but the pennies, pennies a day for XBL? If you're complaining about that, you're just desperate for things to hate. Get over it.
Hehe, I'd say if you pay for a service that's free everywhere else, then bash people who think it's stupid to pay for that which should be free, I'd say your desperate to validate the expense, for whatever reason. If you really think MS needs to charge to pay for the service, then what they really need to do is examine what everyone else is doing. And as far as the pennies a day, I don't care if it's pennies a year, paying for something that's almost invariably free is never gonna sit well with most people. This doesn't make them cheap, or desperate, just not blindly accepting (IOW, not a sucker).

As far as a price cut, it would certainly help, but I doubt it'd make much of a difference from a vs Sony standpoint, Sony could clearly cut prices as well if it started making a difference. The 360's price in relation to the Wii also makes virtually no difference.

[bean19]

Why is it that when Sony does a price-cut everyone seems to get excited (including me), but when there is an Xbox 360 price-cut the rhetoric is always that it is due to falling sales and some sort of act of desperation for a failing product?

This rhetoric just doesn't make any sense.

1. The Xbox 360 is still in second place with nearly 20 million units sold. The gap between the Wii and the Xbox 360 (~7.5 million) is only a couple million larger than the gap between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 (~5.5 million).

2. The Xbox 360 has by far the highest attach rate and sells more total video games than the even the Wii. Though the Wii is catching up to this, the Xbox 360 has not flagged in this stat and continues to be a competitive platform for developers to develop their games upon.

3. The Xbox 360 has the largest game libary and the largest library of exclusives. Additionally, they have more than twice as many games that have sold over a million copies than the Nintendo Wii and three times as many games that have earned a metacritic rating of 85% or above.

Clearly, the Xbox 360 is selling fewer consoles than the PS3 by marginal amounts in the U.S. while being trounced in Japan and seeing a similar marginal amount of lower sales in Europe. However, while the PS3 is gaining ground, they are doing it at a snail's pace. If they want to catch up to the 360's 5.5 million lead with only 100-200K more units sold each month, then it will take 3 years and 3 months for them to just get EQUAL to the number of 360's sold.

A price cut is a really good thing for all of us because it means that more families can own Xbox 360s and that means even more games will be sold, which will lead to even more games in development. More games = more stuff to play.

[GrinR]

The real tragedy there is that MS has conned a whole generation into thinking they have to PAY for multiplayer, and they think its GOOD. Too bad most people have either never or forgotten how great PC multiplayer gaming is, without the yearly fee....

Ah yes, the meta-games of:

1. Find the same voice-chat server! Bonus: Hope that it works!
2. Port, port, who's got the port?
3. Subpar Network Code Hijinks
4. Mr Switchboard, Quest for the Friendlist

... not to mention the awesome library of demos and XBLA.

[Gorvi]

Something to think about: as this generation goes on a 5.5 million lead is meaning less and less. Don't forget, the PS2 had over an 80 million unit lead last gen when the GC and XBOX died. 80.

[divinechaos]

What MS NEEDS to do is make some systems that actually work for more than 2 years. My 360 recently broke and even though MS has fixed it for free I already told all my friends not to get one because of how unreliable they are, unless they NEED to play Halo or Fable.

A lot of people have been turned off by how shitty their hardware is so they're not recommending it to friends.

[karak]

Something to think about: as this generation goes on a 5.5 million lead is meaning less and less. Don't forget, the PS2 had over an 80 million unit lead last gen when the GC and XBOX died. 80.
*looks at post*.
I don't get it...
"as this generation goes on"...but then you state last generations numbers. So our present progress...doesn't count because of last gen's ending...
What point this forum post trying to make? Asks yoda.

[TrackZero]

Hehe, I'd say if you pay for a service that's free everywhere else, then bash people who think it's stupid to pay for that which should be free, I'd say your desperate to validate the expense, for whatever reason. If you really think MS needs to charge to pay for the service, then what they really need to do is examine what everyone else is doing. And as far as the pennies a day, I don't care if it's pennies a year, paying for something that's almost invariably free is never gonna sit well with most people. This doesn't make them cheap, or desperate, just not blindly accepting (IOW, not a sucker).


But it shouldn't be free, which you'd see if you hadn't cut my post out to cherry pick. Running services like that cost money, LOTS of fucking money. It's not something that should be free. The reason it's free on the PC is because we host it, ourselves, the gamers. There's no nice interface, there's no simple portal for content. The closest thing so far is Steam, which uses torrents to push the bandwidth costs back to the users (or did for some time), or allows 3rd party companies to handle hosting in exchange for advertising space. PS2's network was a joke and a perfect reason why it couldn't be free (game's not popular anymore? oh well, guess we'll just take the servers offline), the Wii...ugh, don't get me started. And the PS3 is now introducing a similar service to the XBL gold subscriptions to try and recuperate costs for all this hosting.

What you've been seeing is a console fantasy-world up until now, where the other providers offered free services as a stop-gap to keep people using their online services. It won't be going on forever, and expect to see the playstation eventually adopting a similar model to the xbox's online offering.

As for the PC, it'll get by like it always does, with clunkiness, hard work and free hosting by the community working together. But it's not a "service" yet, and thus, no you wouldn't be paying for it. No more than you would for beta testing.

Edit: Oh yes, and I didn't call anyone stupid. I said some people are haters. And they are.

[karak]

But it shouldn't be free, which you'd see if you hadn't cut my post out to cherry pick. Running services like that cost money, LOTS of fucking money. It's not something that should be free. The reason it's free on the PC is because we host it, ourselves, the gamers. There's no nice interface, there's no simple portal for content. The closest thing so far is Steam, which uses torrents to push the bandwidth costs back to the users (or did for some time), or allows 3rd party companies to handle hosting in exchange for advertising space. PS2's network was a joke and a perfect reason why it couldn't be free (game's not popular anymore? oh well, guess we'll just take the servers offline), the Wii...ugh, don't get me started. And the PS3 is now introducing a similar service to the XBL gold subscriptions to try and recuperate costs for all this hosting.

What you've been seeing is a console fantasy-world up until now, where the other providers offered free services as a stop-gap to keep people using their online services. It won't be going on forever, and expect to see the playstation eventually adopting a similar model to the xbox's online offering.

As for the PC, it'll get by like it always does, with clunkiness, hard work and free hosting by the community working together. But it's not a "service" yet, and thus, no you wouldn't be paying for it. No more than you would for beta testing.

Edit: Oh yes, and I didn't call anyone stupid. I said some people are haters. And they are.
Much of this is true and man does hosting cost shit tons of money and especially when the game might not sell that well, you can't push the money and costs back on the developer. No matter what you are always robbing from one to pay the other. Good post.

[TrackZero]

Something to think about: as this generation goes on a 5.5 million lead is meaning less and less. Don't forget, the PS2 had over an 80 million unit lead last gen when the GC and XBOX died. 80.

Excellent point Gorvi. That difference will have less value as console sales continue (even if the delta stayed the same).

I think another factor is the game sales on the console (adoption ratio, or whatever we're calling it these days). They're still the highest for the 360, so it's at least be a haven for 3rd party developers to make a living.

[Gorvi]

*looks at post*.
I don't get it...
"as this generation goes on"...but then you state last generations numbers. So our present progress...doesn't count because of last gen's ending...
What point this forum post trying to make? Asks yoda.
That a lead of 5.5 million units in the grand scheme of things isn't all that big, especially as overall adoption of the consoles increase. Comparing it to the last generation was just for a bit of perspective on how things have worked out in the past.

Bottom line: we have 3 strong competitive consoles this time around, 5 when you count the PSP and DS. Win/win.

[TrackZero]

That a lead of 5.5 million units in the grand scheme of things isn't all that big, especially as overall adoption of the consoles increase. Comparing it to the last generation was just for a bit of perspective on how things have worked out in the past.

Bottom line: we have 3 strong competitive consoles this time around, 5 when you count the PSP and DS. Win/win.

Dude, c'mon, N-gage is going to take it all. ;)

[karak]

That a lead of 5.5 million units in the grand scheme of things isn't all that big, especially as overall adoption of the consoles increase. Comparing it to the last generation was just for a bit of perspective on how things have worked out in the past.

Bottom line: we have 3 strong competitive consoles this time around, 5 when you count the PSP and DS. Win/win.

gotcha thanks.

[51|RandoM]

I'm not so sure we'll see a price drop from MS.

I'm not sure they're willing to throw away money today for potentially better hardware sales tomorrow. Sure, they did that all last generation and during the beginning of this one, but now that they've got a decent hardware base and new hardware sales probably being profitable, I just don't see the incentive for a price drop.

Is a price drop going to suddenly make the 360 attractive to those people who are driving Wii sales? I doubt it. Is a price drop going to suddenly remove the reasons people find to buy a PS3? I doubt it.

[BlackPete]

True, but you have to remember that this isn't necessarily a fight about market penetration to them, it's a fight about revenue. Sure they could have killed the PS3 if they had dropped their price maybe $50-$100 last year, but would they have made back the $500 million to $1 billion it would have cost them? There are a lot of variables in that calculation, and it isn't quite as cut and dry as who sells the most consoles.

My understanding is that they don't really make much of a profit off of selling the consoles -- they make most of that through accessories and licensing fees. By killing the PS3, they basically increase their own market, and thus increase the number of people buying 360 titles and accessories, and make their profit that way. Also, by killing the PS3, they might (probably) have finally gained a real foothold in the Japanese market and make their money back that way.

Note that I am simply talking from Microsoft's perspective -- I actually think it would be horrible for Microsoft to snag a monopoly on this generation. It's possible that they planned a price drop long before this but the 1 billion warranty fiasco kinda screwed that up.

[RMan]

But it shouldn't be free, which you'd see if you hadn't cut my post out to cherry pick. Running services like that cost money, LOTS of fucking money. It's not something that should be free.
Show me the store that gives away 360s and 360 games and I’ll agree with your argument, until then, NOTHING you get with the system would be free. I’m not arguing it should be free, I’m arguing that, like with the other systems, you’ve already paid for it. And the PS3 is now introducing a similar service to the XBL gold subscriptions to try and recuperate costs for all this hosting.
And when the bulk of suppliers are charging for these services, then you will have an argument, until then, no. Again, you see the balance sheets as separate, but these services that the 360 has would be considered value adds everywhere else, period, and that’s what people are used to. In terms of cost, I don’t think you really get it, matchmaking is pretty much what they’re charging you for with gold, and it’s cost is not nearly as much as what you already get with silver. Really, even conservatively, by your standard Silver should cost at least $25 a year, so why do they not do that? Simple, because there are people who will pay a yearly fee, and those that won’t. They are railing the hardcore because they can, not because they ‘need’ to recoup costs.
What you've been seeing is a console fantasy-world up until now, where the other providers offered free services as a stop-gap to keep people using their online services. It won't be going on forever, and expect to see the playstation eventually adopting a similar model to the xbox's online offering.
No, what will happen is MS will stop charging for baseline MOG services. I’ve no doubt that Sony will start charging for something, Gamespy for instance charges for some of their services too, but not for baseline matchmaking services, the vast majority of consumers using Gamespy only paid for matchmaking when they bought the game.

[karak]

My understanding is that they don't really make much of a profit off of selling the consoles -- they make most of that through accessories and licensing fees.

Not much of a profit is 100% more than last gen for them. And it is one of the demands that MS had for the 360. That they began making a profit.

[sprankton]

If it's a slim version to replace the Pro then its a good move.

[Kelegacy]

I would wholeheartedly endorse the 360 to any person who loves videogames, but I can't in good faith given the unreliable nature of the hardware. However, if you're willing to overlook some inconvenience if you do RRoD, the 360 is probably the most fun I've had since the PS1. One of the best consoles I've ever owned in terms of fun.

[nixpayn]

maybe the new sku will include 'strobing rrod' which will go to the beat of whatever the soundtrack of the game disc in the drive that you cant play is

[Tel Prydain]

Lies, the 360 is a marvelous piece of hardware *cough cough*, why else would fanboys support it so much?

It's the games, silly!

[Smoof]

If the price of the Pro drops to $250, I will most definitely buy one.

[mister_slim]

Chart (http://vgchartz.com/hwlaunch.php?cons1=PS2&reg1=All&cons2=PS3&reg2=All&cons3=X360&reg3=All&weeks=150). See if you can figure out when MS should have cut the price.

[bean19]

Something to think about: as this generation goes on a 5.5 million lead is meaning less and less. Don't forget, the PS2 had over an 80 million unit lead last gen when the GC and XBOX died. 80.

Yes, but the PS3 is only outselling by by 100-200K units/month and they've only done that for a few months (this number even includes Japanese sales). If this rate doesn't increase, then it would take 3 years and 3 months for the PS3 just to catch up with the Xbox 360's units sold.

[bean19]

Is a price drop going to suddenly make the 360 attractive to those people who are driving Wii sales? I doubt it. Is a price drop going to suddenly remove the reasons people find to buy a PS3? I doubt it.

These are two really great questions.

1. Yes. The high price point is a barrier for many people to buy an Xbox 360, PS3, or even a Wii (to a lesser degree). Every time you lower the cost of the console, more people will be able to get it. Additionally, when choosing between consoles, some customers may go for the console that is perceived to be the best value. The game library doesn't target casuals and families as well as the Wii, but the Xbox 360 does have a lot of games that would appeal to these people as well as offering entry into HD gaming at the lowest price point.

2. They already beat the PS3's price, but by lowering the price, they increase the relative value of the console. Right now, gamers will generally choose the Xbox 360 as the higher value because it is already lower priced and we value the 360's superior game library. However, someone who is only interested in playing sports titles and a handful of other games might be more interested in the PS3 because it will play those games and for only $100 more, they also get a Blu-Ray player. If Microsoft wants to continue winning that customer, then they need to make the 360 an even better value.

[Gorvi]

Yes, but the PS3 is only outselling by by 100-200K units/month and they've only done that for a few months (this number even includes Japanese sales). If this rate doesn't increase, then it would take 3 years and 3 months for the PS3 just to catch up with the Xbox 360's units sold.
Absolutely, but you're missing what I'm saying. Even if you have a dead heat from here on out with them matching eachother sale for sale that gap is going to mean less and less as time goes on. Once all is said and done the 360 and PS3 will have install bases so similar that I don't think it's going to matter plus or minus a million units or so.

[bean19]

Show me the store that gives away 360s and 360 games and I’ll agree with your argument, until then, NOTHING you get with the system would be free. I’m not arguing it should be free, I’m arguing that, like with the other systems, you’ve already paid for it.

1. Xbox Live is only superior to other services because it isn't free, so I like that it is a premium service. The PS3 would like to have the same feature set but is unable to do so because it is too expensive.

2. Xbox Live needs to improve reliability of service and game integration.

3. $50/year may be worth it to many of us, but there are people who do not use these features and thus do not pay for Xbox Live. This lowers the number of people who can play online and probably leads to lower sales of games that feature online components among this audience.

4. Xbox Live Gold becoming free or ad-driven in revenue would be an improvement.

[bean19]

Absolutely, but you're missing what I'm saying. Even if you have a dead heat from here on out with them matching eachother sale for sale that gap is going to mean less and less as time goes on. Once all is said and done the 360 and PS3 will have install bases so similar that I don't think it's going to matter plus or minus a million units or so.

You are minimizing the gap though. It's 5.5 million units. Plus or minus a million units wouldn't matter, but right now that is about 35% more units available. To get down to plus or minus a million units at the current rate would still take the PS3 around 3 years at the current rate of sales.

What do you mean by matter anyway? The only reason any of this matters to me is that consoles that do well get more games. I think at this point the PS3 has shown that it isn't going to be a failure and the Xbox 360 is showing that it is a success (in selling software), so most games will come out multiplatform on both (together they have a larger install base than the Wii and a much higher attach rate).

The point of my post that your replied to was to simply point out some facts about the Xbox 360's success to some of these posters that keep characterizing an Xbox 360 as some sort of "desperate" act when they are in second place with a commanding lead and that even in second place the system is often in the lead for software sold each month while dominating in the number of total games sold as well as having the largest and mostly highly acclaimed game library.

[Demo_Boy]

I would say theres a good chance of MS lagging announcements for a BIG splash at some pre xmas press ceremony

[PathMaster]

I'm not so sure we'll see a price drop from MS.

I'm not sure they're willing to throw away money today for potentially better hardware sales tomorrow. Sure, they did that all last generation and during the beginning of this one, but now that they've got a decent hardware base and new hardware sales probably being profitable, I just don't see the incentive for a price drop.

Is a price drop going to suddenly make the 360 attractive to those people who are driving Wii sales? I doubt it. Is a price drop going to suddenly remove the reasons people find to buy a PS3? I doubt it.

You may be right, but reading your post lead me to think of something. What if the 60gb sku is actually just a hdd that will be offered at a low price? Suddenly, Pros and Arcades can gain a good deal of hdd space, maybe in preparation for a Netflix deal. Maybe MS could be really nice and take a hit and give them away for dirt cheap or even free, but that is a pipe dream. ;)

Absolutely, but you're missing what I'm saying. Even if you have a dead heat from here on out with them matching eachother sale for sale that gap is going to mean less and less as time goes on. Once all is said and done the 360 and PS3 will have install bases so similar that I don't think it's going to matter plus or minus a million units or so.

Honestly, the only thing relevant out of that info is that gamers are maturing and now have grown up jobs and can buy more then one console, thus spreading the wealth and/or there are now more gamers to purchase more hardware. That is all. The 80 million is a staggering number, but it is last generation. Give this generation another half decade or more and see where the numbers lie.

[Gorvi]

You are minimizing the gap though. It's 5.5 million units. Plus or minus a million units wouldn't matter, but right now that is about 35% more units available. To get down to plus or minus a million units at the current rate would still take the PS3 around 3 years at the current rate of sales.
I'm not minimizing it now, but 2 years from now when you've got a 360 install base of 36 million and a PS3 install base of 33 million (pulling numbers out of my ass here) that gap is going to be rather trivial. Right now, yeah, it's pretty significant, mostly in the US. What I'm saying is that as time goes on that gap will (likely) get smaller and mean less.
What do you mean by matter anyway? The only reason any of this matters to me is that consoles that do well get more games. I think at this point the PS3 has shown that it isn't going to be a failure and the Xbox 360 is showing that it is a success (in selling software), so most games will come out multiplatform on both (together they have a larger install base than the Wii and a much higher attach rate).
I simply mean "matter" in the way that publishers will look at the consoles when making a game. Both at this point are successful and that will continue.
The point of my post that your replied to was to simply point out some facts about the Xbox 360's success to some of these posters that keep characterizing an Xbox 360 as some sort of "desperate" act when they are in second place with a commanding lead and that even in second place the system is often in the lead for software sold each month while dominating in the number of total games sold as well as having the largest and mostly highly acclaimed game library.
I don't think Microsoft is desperate at all, nor should they be. They're in a good position this generation with the hardcore and if they can lower their price they'll be in a decent one with the casuals. The 360 is an absolute success and saying otherwise would be insane.

That last sentence sounds like it's ripped from a press release, though, watch it. ;)

[SpectralWolf]

The 360 lead on PS3 is so huge, I can't see a few months of PS3 sales being cause for alarm. We all know there had (finally) been some good games released for the anemic PS3 lineup, so I see that as the cause more than a change in platform perception. My PS3 still sits there with Drake's Fortune as the only game I've bought.

I still haven't bought a game for my ps3. It's been 4 months.

The two of you need to jump on the Metal Gear Solid bandwagon. That game is indeed excellent.

The real tragedy there is that MS has conned a whole generation into thinking they have to PAY for multiplayer, and they think its GOOD. Too bad most people have either never or forgotten how great PC multiplayer gaming is, without the yearly fee....

Somebody give this guy a beer.....or at least some cookies. Well said man!

They didn't con anyone. I've been gaming forever and certainly wasn't "fooled". However, I also completely understand the need to pay for infrastructure (not just for the damn game servers, but for the content hosting, the media, demos, and anything else on the service platform). God knows, I've worked in the internet service industry enough to know this shit ain't free or cheap, and you're playing a fool when you act like it is and slam a company for daring to charge for a service.

And yes, I also play PC games too, and I've bought over hundreds of dollars in of games on Steam alone in the last year. I play it all, but the pennies, pennies a day for XBL? If you're complaining about that, you're just desperate for things to hate. Get over it.

Please!!! If I was just paying a subscription to access something over the cloud with no hardware or software investment on my end besides a standards-compliant web browser, I'd agree with you. But in the case of Xbox Live, I pay for the box, the game, the internet subscription and modem lease, and have to put up with annoying ads on my dashboard and in-game.

I bought the game, now I pay a subscription to play it online that too in a peer-to peer user-hosted way? They need to subsidize it some other way IMO. Charge more premium content. Have a registration fee for online tournaments and leaderboards....something. Those pennies a day sure add up when there's more than one gamer in your household and we each have to pay for a Gold membership. I swear the Xbox 360 has been the most expensive console I owned when you factor in all the peripherals and monthly fees on top of the games.

[asimonk]

Perspective:

10 person (the smallest the provider we use offers) Ventrilo $4/month, $48/year.
1 World of Warcraft account $14.99 month to $77.94 for 6 months. Or $179.88 and $155.88 a year, respectively.

Sure Steam (the favorite counter example to Live) may be free. But a decent gaming PC will run you roughly two times the cost of an Elite 360. That's 12 years of Live subscriptions.

The argument that "I pay for my internet and rent my cable modem so gaming should be free" is bullshit. That's like saying "I pay for electricity so my internet should be free!" The simple inclusion of cross gaming voice chat more than covers (as shown above) the cost of Live.

I honestly can't believe that people are crying about $4 a month. That's assuming you don't bother getting any of the online deals that put a year's worth of Live at ~$30.

For the record, I barely even use my Live subscription compared to some people (the CoD obsessed) and I still think its a value.

[SpectralWolf]

asimonk,

I merely bring up my ISP costs to highlight the costs I already incur. To pay $60 for a game and then have 50-80% of the game's functionality locked out unless I fork over some more cash gets expensive for me in the long run. What's more it's $7+ a month if you don't do the yearly thing.

In the near future, will Microsoft allow MMO's to be played online without forking over the Gold fees first? I know that's what they said to begin with, but I wonder sometimes.

Anyway, it's pointless arguing as I know its Microsoft's decision. Thanks for your perspective anyway.

[RMan]

1. Xbox Live is only superior to other services because it isn't free, so I like that it is a premium service. The PS3 would like to have the same feature set but is unable to do so because it is too expensive.
To put it simply, XBL does not have superior features because it costs infinitely more, it’s because it’s older, and has had more development into it. What is spent on developing software doesn’t make it cost more to run. Put a $50 a year pricetag on Steam features before it's release and I’m sure you’ll have plenty of Valve fans defending it’s necessity, still doesn’t make sense to the common consumer, especially in light of Steam and most of it's contemporaries being free.
4. Xbox Live Gold becoming free or ad-driven in revenue would be an improvement.
I think this is inevitable, I think very soon they’ll decide they’re losing more customers from charging for matchmaking than they get back in revenue from the service (unfortunately, impossible to quantify). Only problem is if there’s some technical issues regarding customer IDs where they can’t deal with accounts tied to hardware, but that’s unlikely.
The argument that "I pay for my internet and rent my cable modem so gaming should be free" is bullshit.
Agreed, good thing nobody made that argument :). Unless I missed something, you are not reading full sentences.
That's like saying "I pay for electricity so my internet should be free!" The simple inclusion of cross gaming voice chat more than covers (as shown above) the cost of Live.
If most people’s most companies electricity came with internet, then your internet SHOULD be free with electricity. How much something is worth to me is almost never the same as what I pay for it, a Google level search engine is worth at least $100 a month to me, and I’m not gonna pay a nickel for it, nor should I, because Google is free. Go ahead and try to convince people they should be happy paying for a search engine just because it’s valuable, good luck with that.

[mister_slim]

The simple inclusion of cross gaming voice chat more than covers (as shown above) the cost of Live.

Voice chat is free though.

[Uniqueusername]

Replacing the Pro with an SKU that has an internal drive would make sense.

The clip-on mount adds another reseller to the chain, which is costing MS. 20GB drive probably aren't much cheaper than larger ones, so an SKU with a good value internal drive may well be cheaper for MS than the current pro, and possibly allow a price cut.

Now, if MS rolled out all the Jasper units with internal drives (arcade-20, pro-60, elite-120) and a small price cut, it would be an interesting move.

[51|RandoM]

These are two really great questions.

1. Yes. The high price point is a barrier for many people to buy an Xbox 360, PS3, or even a Wii (to a lesser degree). Every time you lower the cost of the console, more people will be able to get it. Additionally, when choosing between consoles, some customers may go for the console that is perceived to be the best value. The game library doesn't target casuals and families as well as the Wii, but the Xbox 360 does have a lot of games that would appeal to these people as well as offering entry into HD gaming at the lowest price point.

2. They already beat the PS3's price, but by lowering the price, they increase the relative value of the console. Right now, gamers will generally choose the Xbox 360 as the higher value because it is already lower priced and we value the 360's superior game library. However, someone who is only interested in playing sports titles and a handful of other games might be more interested in the PS3 because it will play those games and for only $100 more, they also get a Blu-Ray player. If Microsoft wants to continue winning that customer, then they need to make the 360 an even better value.

1. You're making the assumption that the people buying the Wii care about the library beyond Wii Sports and other select Nintendo games. The people buying the Wii in droves are not making a value proposition, they're wanting to dance around in their living room like they see in the commercials, having a blast with their twinkie friends. I don't think the Wii is selling on value, though I do agree that having a lower pricepoint is effective in cementing the decisions those people are making.

Make the 360 as cheap as you want, I still can't waggle my way through Wii Sports with my 3 very camera-friendly friends.

2. You missed the point I was making on the PS3. There are people who are buying it regardless of how much it costs, and then there are people who are buying it for a BD player. The people buying it regardless of how much it costs are obviously buying it out of loyalty to Sony and/or loyalty to franchises they expect to only appear on the PS3. While the 360 being cheaper might cause some of them to pick up a 360 as well, it isn't going to cause a significant number of them to *not* buy a ps3.

As for the BD-player people, add a BD-drive to a 360 and it will still be louder than a PS3, arguably too loud for many people when looking for a dvd/bd playback device.

All that I am saying is that I don't think a price cut is going to give them a significant advantage over the Wii, nor will it significantly increase the advantage they already have over the PS3. That said, I don't see any reason for Microsoft to gamble their hardware profitability on the potential for increased software/accessory profitability. They're not going to beat the Wii and they've already done as well as they're going to against the PS3, time to settle down and maximize the profitability of their current install base.

[51|RandoM]

I honestly can't believe that people are crying about $4 a month. That's assuming you don't bother getting any of the online deals that put a year's worth of Live at ~$30.

They're not crying about ~$4/month. They're crying that ~$4/month is infinitely more than ~$0/month, and infinitely more than they've traditionally paid on top of the cost of a game itself just to play the game multiplayer.

Microsoft taxes you yearly, the other players hit you once with a hidden addition to the base hardware/software cost. One is much easier to swallow.

The obvious answer is how many other things Live provides and how well it works, but that answer is meaningless to people who are not interested in those things and are used to using free solutions that work well enough. Live does not provide anything I want that I'm not used to getting for free from xfire, quite simply.

The people who are used to such things typically have a PC history and some experience with how Microsoft monetizes everything. The last thing you can expect them to be happy with is how Microsoft applies its age-old lock-in practice to multiplayer gaming.

[oldjadedgamer]

The people who are used to such things typically have a PC history and some experience with how Microsoft monetizes everything. The last thing you can expect them to be happy with is how Microsoft applies its age-old lock-in practice to multiplayer gaming.

Sorry if I offend but PC gamers are so annoying because of this. I've been a Mac only user for over 10 years since unlike PC users, if I don't like a product... I won't use it. It always amazes me the amount of PC users that bitch and moan and cry non stop about Microsoft but then fire up Windows to write their complaints. I thought Windows was a crappy OS so I didn't use it... and odds are, I never will. I have it installed on my Macbook Pro just in case there is some crazy reason to fire it up but so far this year, I've booted up Windows exactly twice.

Sony charged for all their PS2 online games in Japan (people always forget this) and MS charges for all their online games for America. Does it suck to have to pay here and there... sure. Is it worth the service I get in XBL and not have to deal with 17 different programs all at once... I think so.

Also, you get to avoid stuff like this:

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54432

[NationalKato]

It would interesting to see how many Arcade owners would upgrade if they started selling the 20GB for really cheap.

They ought to just make the HDD add-on cheaper, then all the Arcade owners won't have to upgrade their console at all.

[SpectralWolf]

Sorry if I offend but PC gamers are so annoying because of this. I've been a Mac only user for over 10 years since unlike PC users, if I don't like a product... I won't use it. It always amazes me the amount of PC users that bitch and moan and cry non stop about Microsoft but then fire up Windows to write their complaints. I thought Windows was a crappy OS so I didn't use it... and odds are, I never will. I have it installed on my Macbook Pro just in case there is some crazy reason to fire it up but so far this year, I've booted up Windows exactly twice.

Sony charged for all their PS2 online games in Japan (people always forget this) and MS charges for all their online games for America. Does it suck to have to pay here and there... sure. Is it worth the service I get in XBL and not have to deal with 17 different programs all at once... I think so.

Also, you get to avoid stuff like this:

http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54432

Speaking of Macs, don't even get me started on the $100/year for their stupid .mac service. Good thing they're phasing it out for their new mobile me service. I used to use Macs alot, but they're not a value proposition either. Good aesthetics tho'.

But, to stray back on topic, IMO the services Xbox Live offers should be a value-add for me, the consumer, on top of the hardware and games. Either charge me significantly lower for the hardware and get me on subscriptions and games or charge me for the hardware and games now and let me play the games online for free. If you wanna charge for premium content or services, charge me on an as needed basis or something. There has got to be other ways they could recuperate their costs.

Regardless, of how Sony's plans may or may not change in the future, I can't tell you how liberating it is to know that I can just stick Call of Cuty or Team Fortress in there and just start playing online right off the bat. I don't have to worry about my 1-month or 3-month Gold membership expiring soon or that I'm on Silver so I'll have to wait till I shell out another $50 on a new Gold card. Besides, I've got 2 other gamers in my family. I don't have to rotate Gold accounts between the 3 of us just to keep costs down. When any of us don't go online for a while, at least I don't have to worry about our paid subscription going to waste when we do pay.

[ZeroType]

I'd buy a $250 360 with a 60gb hard-drive. I'd buy one in 30 minutes or less.

Anything less than $300 is moving into "impulse-buy" territory.

QFT. I impulse bought a TV for over $2,000 FOR my Impulse bought $400 Xbox 360. At this rate, I'll head out for an oil change at the dealership and come back in a new car.

Also, anyone know what a "collection agency" is and why it keeps calling me at 8 in the morning?

[volvox]

I Just picked up a HDTV. I like the 360 but... if they don't put BluRay in that sucker its a PS3 for me.

[bean19]

1. Make the 360 as cheap as you want, I still can't waggle my way through Wii Sports with my 3 very camera-friendly friends.

Yes. My mother who enjoys playing Wii Sports and a few other party games when the family comes over will never be interested in an Xbox 360. For her, the Nintendo Wii is just a really expensive family game (and is treated that way. We have to get it out each holiday. It is literally packed away with the Christmas decorations.)

However, there are a lot of little boys out there whose parents bought a Nintendo Wii for the "family" last Christmas, but who have been playing Halo and Call of Duty, etc. at their "rich" friend's house during sleepovers for the last two years. They still want an Xbox 360 (or a PS3) and a big part of getting their parents to buy it will be getting the price down to the "big gift" range that it currently hovers outside. Truthfully, to get there completely, they need to get the Arcade down to $200, but any price drop increases parent's abilities to purchase a console for the holiday.

2. You missed the point I was making on the PS3. There are people who are buying it regardless of how much it costs, and then there are people who are buying it for a BD player. The people buying it regardless of how much it costs are obviously buying it out of loyalty to Sony and/or loyalty to franchises they expect to only appear on the PS3. While the 360 being cheaper might cause some of them to pick up a 360 as well, it isn't going to cause a significant number of them to *not* buy a ps3.

The brand loyal people are either gamers who are also getting an Xbox 360 because they want games, or they are fanboys who honestly are more happy hating another system than playing games on two consoles and Microsoft doesn't need to worry about either markets as they've already won gamers and the fanboys are impossible, so forget those.

The people they need to try to get that the PS3 appeals to are the ones that are interested in only a few titles each year. These aren't really gamers but are the guys who make sports titles like Madden sell millions of copies each year. They will play a handful of games that are obviously multiplatform. For this customer, they need the Xbox 360 to be a bargain, and if you aren't a gamer who is interested in the superior game library on the Xbox 360, then the PS3 offers a better deal due to the Blu-Ray player. The Xbox 360 needs to be a better value in order to compete with this. If the Xbox 360 is $150 cheaper than the PS3 instead of just $50 cheaper, then these people might go for the Xbox 360 anyway. Those people for whom the Blu-Ray is the number one feature and not just an add-on would pay the extra $150 for it anyway, but for people who are buying a gaming console first, the price gap will give them pause.

[RMan]

I won't use it. It always amazes me the amount of PC users that bitch and moan and cry non stop about Microsoft but then fire up Windows to write their complaints.
Yea, but that attitude implies a lack of understanding of what Windows is, Windows is a platform, not just a program. Your attitude seems like saying “If you don’t like George Bush, then stop complaining and just leave the US.” It’s just not realistic for many, if not most, PC users to stop using products that run on Windows.
The people they need to try to get that the PS3 appeals to are the ones that are interested in only a few titles each year.
Well, in the real world, the libraries are not substantially different than eachother in terms of quality, but I doubt any amount of discussion will change that assumption. Regarding the price cut, however, you're basically right, that much of a price difference would likely have an impact. Problem is, strategically the price cut doesn't help, because it'd at best be a first volley in a price war, not just an isolated price cut. Price cuts are easy to react to, if you see your competitor gaining ground, you cut your prices, crisis over, and everyone loses (well, everyone involved in price war, MS and Sony). I can see a price cut helping push product to a wider audience, but for pulling customers away from Sony in significant numbers, it really can't work unless Sony doesn't react, and of course Sony has proven they can cut prices (if any proof was ever necessary).

I do think price cuts are greatly overrated by some here, historically it'd be hard to find examples where price cuts have turned things around for a system. There are just way too many factors affecting consumer choices.

[Shadowstorm]

Lower the fucking price of the $120 GB HDD. $180 for 120 GB is outrageous.

That is all.

[oldjadedgamer]

Yea, but that attitude implies a lack of understanding of what Windows is, Windows is a platform, not just a program. Your attitude seems like saying “If you don’t like George Bush, then stop complaining and just leave the US.” It’s just not realistic for many, if not most, PC users to stop using products that run.

I think a better analogy would be if you hated George Bush yet you voted for him and then give money to his campaign.

What's the old saying? People in glass houses...

It may not be realistic for many, if not most to not use the product but it is realistic for them to not complain and cry about every thing Microsoft makes i.e. the 360.

[RMan]

I think a better analogy would be if you hated George Bush yet you voted for him and then give money to his campaign.
What's the old saying? People in glass houses...
I cast no vote for Windows, I use it because it’s the industry standard, as do the vast majority of users. Of course, that’s not really the point, even if I had somehow voted for it, being unhappy with it and complaining while using it is fine, again, it’s not a program, it’s a platform. If you can’t understand the difference then you will never understand any complaint about anything that is infrastructure.
It may not be realistic for many, if not most to not use the product but it is realistic for them to not complain and cry about every thing Microsoft makes i.e. the 360.
You need to reread your quote, you talked about the PC and your amazement at Windows users complaining about MS, Windows and the 360 are not the same thing.

[oldjadedgamer]

You need to reread your quote, you talked about the PC and your amazement at Windows users complaining about MS, Windows and the 360 are not the same thing.

I was replying to 51|Random when he said:

The people who are used to such things typically have a PC history and some experience with how Microsoft monetizes everything. The last thing you can expect them to be happy with is how Microsoft applies its age-old lock-in practice to multiplayer gaming.

[bean19]

Well, in the real world, the libraries are not substantially different than eachother in terms of quality, but I doubt any amount of discussion will change that assumption.

How would you like to compare the game libraries?

Games that have sold over 1 million copies:

Xbox 360: 41 (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=X360&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales)
PS3: 14 (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=PS3&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales)
Wii: 25 (http://vgchartz.com/games/index.php?name=&console=Wii&developer=&publisher=&genre=&keyword=&order=Sales)

Games that have an 80% metacritic rating or above:

Xbox 360: 95 (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process.shtml?page=10&sid=MTIxMzc5NzMxNzczNy4yNzQwMzMz&sb=5&metascore_s=&game_platform=xbox360&ts=&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_e=&y=3&ty=3&x=31&tfs=game_all)
PS3: 56 (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process.shtml?page=6&sid=MTIxMzc5NzQ2OTcyMy4yNzQwNTc3&sb=5&metascore_s=&game_platform=PS3&ts=&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_e=&y=15&ty=3&x=38&tfs=game_all)
Wii: 24 (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process.shtml?page=3&sid=MTIxMzc5NzU0MDI0Ni4yNzQwNzAx&sb=5&metascore_s=&game_platform=wii&ts=&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_e=&y=11&ty=3&x=33&tfs=game_all)

Total games:

Xbox 360: 526 (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=5&game_platform=xbox360&x=46&y=7&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=&metascore_e=)
PS3: 278 (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=5&game_platform=PS3&x=21&y=19&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=&metascore_e=)
Wii: 334 (http://www.metacritic.com/search/process?ty=3&ts=&tfs=game_all&sb=5&game_platform=wii&x=24&y=9&release_date_s=&release_date_e=&metascore_s=&metascore_e=)

I cannot find someone who is more recently tracking console exclusives, but as of GamingTarget's 11/2007 update (http://www.gamingtarget.com/article.php?artid=7934&pg=1&comments=), the Xbox 360 was leading the PS3 in exclusives 100 to 52 and many of these exclusives are high quality games that largely contribute to the Xbox 360 having nearly twice as many games that have metacritic scores of 80% or more.

The superior game library on the Xbox 360 is going to be based to some degree on personal mileage. You may not like first-person shooters, RPGs, racing, sports, or action/adventure titles or simply prefer those offered on other systems. However, there is a great deal of empiric evidence that shows why someone could conclude with 100% certainty that the Xbox 360 has more million game sellers, highly-rated games, and more total games than the PS3 or the Wii. In other words, it has a superior game library. Furthermore, the Xbox 360 has more exclusives set to release this Fall and thus will continue to broaden the gap between the game libraries.

Regarding the price cut, however, you're basically right, that much of a price difference would likely have an impact. Problem is, strategically the price cut doesn't help, because it'd at best be a first volley in a price war, not just an isolated price cut. Price cuts are easy to react to, if you see your competitor gaining ground, you cut your prices, crisis over, and everyone loses (well, everyone involved in price war, MS and Sony).

1. I don't think that Sony is in a position where they can easily drop the price on the PS3. Due to including a Blu-Ray player, they are still losing money on every system sold at $400.

2. A price cut is important for the Xbox 360 to be a better value in comparison to the PS3. The Xbox 360's superior game library doesn't matter to guys who only want to play Madden and a handful of other titles each year would be better served by spending an extra $50 and getting a Blu-Ray player. If they have to spend an extra $150 to get that Blu-Ray player then they might not go for it.

3. There is still the other group I mentioned. While many families picked up a Wii last Christmas for the "family", there are still a lot of children out there whose parents are not getting them an Xbox 360 because it hovers outside even the "big gift" range of expense. These kids have been playing Xbox 360 or PS3 at their "rich" friend's houses for a couple years now though and they definitely want them. The first HD console to become affordable to this group will sell a ton of them.

I do think price cuts are greatly overrated by some here, historically it'd be hard to find examples where price cuts have turned things around for a system. There are just way too many factors affecting consumer choices.

Have you looked at NPD charts? There are very clear bumps in sales that correlate to price drops.

I don't think that the expectation is that the Xbox 360 will receive a price drop and suddenly start selling out like the Wii. However, it will reinvigorate sales as new portions of the marketplace are able to afford the hardware.

[RMan]

How would you like to compare the game libraries?
Yes, yes, the 360 is older, we can all agree on that. Again, REAL people don't base purchasing decisions on charts, the vast majority of games that people are interested in are on both systems and both systems have plenty of great, highly rated and desirable games. Deal with it, it's not last year anymore, and that's why the PS3's sales numbers are continually improving.
1. I don't think that Sony is in a position where they can easily drop the price on the PS3. Due to including a Blu-Ray player, they are still losing money on every system sold at $400.
Precisely the same argument that was made before the price cut we’ve already seen. Nobody here knows what Sony or MS can ‘get away with’ in this respect, but we’ve seen more movement from Sony in this regard, so assuming they can never do it again is pretty short sighted, IMO.
Have you looked at NPD charts? There are very clear bumps in sales that correlate to price drops.
Yea, if you are arguing that it’ll result in a clear bump, yea, I’ll agree, but I’m saying many seem to think it’ll actually make a real difference, and it pretty much never does. It doesn't actually change anything significant, the GC for instance, was always dramatically lower than it’s competition, and a great ‘value’, but couldn’t touch the PS2.
However, it will reinvigorate sales as new portions of the marketplace are able to afford the hardware.
To a small degree, yea, I agree. The HD market is still a relatively expensive one to enter, and thus, lowering the price of one component of it is going to make much less of a difference.
I was replying to 51|Random when he said:
So I guess your point was you are amazed people simply use their PCs? I don’t understand you, but whatever.

[bean19]

Yes, yes, the 360 is older, we can all agree on that. Again, REAL people don't base purchasing decisions on charts. . .

So you are saying that the mass market simply isn't aware that the Xbox 360's library is superior?

This is probably true for the market we are talking about. . . guys who buy Madden and a handful of games each year (usually off the used rack), but I made that caveat. I was replying to your post that infers that there is no empiric way to compare the game libraries and showing that there is clear empiric evidence that shows that the Xbox 360 library has many more games that have sold over a million copies, scored over 80% on metacritic, and just plain more total games.

As far as how significant the results of a price drop will be, that depends on the amount of the drop and when it occurs. If they drop all of the current SKUs by $100 as some people have been saying, then I expect the results will be significant as the Xbox 360 will suddenly be the most affordable while also having a superior game library.

[RMan]

So you are saying that the mass market simply isn't aware that the Xbox 360's library is superior?
Well, superior is a tough one to nail down, as is quality, I likely should have talked in terms of desirability.
I was replying to your post that infers that there is no empiric way to compare the game libraries and showing that there is clear empiric evidence that shows that the Xbox 360 library has many more games that have sold over a million copies, scored over 80% on metacritic, and just plain more total games.
Well, this is still not what I was talking about, everything you discussed is directly influenced by the system’s age and size of userbase, if you truly were interested in comparative game quality, then average MC scores would be best. But still, I think those things are fairly inconsequential to the library’s quality in terms of desirability (especially since, for the average buyer, games over a year old are far less consequential to their choice). The vast majority of games are cross platform and identical on both systems, and there are plenty of very attractive exclusives on each system, in terms of the future, most everyone knows that’s not going to change either (both will get most games, and great exclusives occasionally).
As far as how significant the results of a price drop will be, that depends on the amount of the drop and when it occurs. If they drop all of the current SKUs by $100 as some people have been saying, then I expect the results will be significant as the Xbox 360 will suddenly be the most affordable while also having a superior game library.
Well, if going by quantum mechanics, perhaps there will be a reality where Sony just ignores such changes if they occur, just don’t think it’ll be this one, but we’ll see.

[bean19]

Well, superior is a tough one to nail down, as is quality, I likely should have talked in terms of desirability.

Only because you choose to discount empiric measurements like comparing the total number of games, number of games that have sold over a million copies, and games that have an 80% or greater metacritic score. In all three cases, the Xbox 360 dominates.

You can say that this is because they had a year head start, but how does this diminish the Xbox 360 game library's superiority? Maybe there is an alternate universe in which the PS3 released at the same time as the Xbox 360 and they compare more closely, but that isn't our universe.

Also, you can try to say that only recent releases and upcoming games matter, but the Xbox 360 has more total games and more exclusives coming out this Fall than the PS3 or Wii, so the gap is widening.

That's really the only thing selling the Xbox 360. Without the superior game library, it is a system that breaks a lot and for $50 more you can get a more reliable game console that also plays Blu-Ray movies. If not for the superior game library, we'd all hate the Xbox 360 and be singing the praises of our PS3s. However, since this is a site dominated by hardcore gamers, most of the people here who own a PS3 also own an Xbox 360. The online functionality is another strength of the Xbox 360, but it is a bit of a wash since people get superior features at the cost of having to pay to get them. The 360 lives and dies by it's superior game library.

[Tel Prydain]

The worst thing about this gen is that it's proven that the console with the best games isn't the one that will win... and that bodes very poorly for the future of gaming.

[RMan]

Only because you choose to discount empiric measurements like comparing the total number of games, number of games that have sold over a million copies, and games that have an 80% or greater metacritic score. In all three cases, the Xbox 360 dominates.
Again, a measurement completely based on it being released early. Why not include PS2 titles into the PS3’s lib, they’re playable on it. I was referring to what people, not 360 fans, or PS3 fans, see for quality, and they do not use the most favorable 360 measurements possible. Anything that scales according to unit sales is not a factor, unless you are a sheep, my games do not become more enjoyable because I know more people played them.
You can say that this is because they had a year head start, but how does this diminish the Xbox 360 game library's superiority?
Because in the real world, gamers buy games they can get, and games they are interested in, and this doesn’t include all games released ever. By your standard, the PS2 has the highest quality library, but the bulk of it doesn’t influence buyers now.
Also, you can try to say that only recent releases and upcoming games matter, but the Xbox 360 has more total games and more exclusives coming out this Fall than the PS3 or Wii, so the gap is widening.
That’s possible, but I think the idea their future lineup is stronger than everyone else’s is far from common. I think most people see the 360/PS3’s future as equally bright in terms of games (most I talk to lean towards the PS3, but I’m sure in your circle of friends the results are different).
That's really the only thing selling the Xbox 360.
Agreed, but again, that perception has dwindled, which is why it’s losing in it’s primary market now. Clearly no matter what happens, some will love the <INSERT SYSTEM>, and some won’t, and all systems will sell at some volume. But the 360 is cheaper, and currently, has a much greater market share in the US, never did I suggest everyone will stand up in unison and completely forsake it. But without a doubt, it’s hard to support your theory with sales trends, you can say people know the 360 library is clearly superior but people don’t care, I suppose, but I disagree. I think the 360’s library was clearly superior, I think now, it is not, for the games most people are interested in buying, the PS3 is just as good, and that’s why it’s selling more.

[RMan]

The worst thing about this gen is that it's proven that the console with the best games isn't the one that will win... and that bodes very poorly for the future of gaming.
Hate to burst your bubble, but that's hardly a new trend (Dreamcast demonstrated it, for instance). But if it helps, the console that you seem to feel has the best games is still the king in the segment of the market it seemed to target.

[bean19]

Rman - I disagree, but I can't respond to your points because you've gone so far off the wall in your attempt to invalidate empiric measurements that I simply can't respect the argument anymore.

You concede that in comparison to games from this generation that the Xbox 360 has more more than double the number of million game sellers, total games, and nearly double the number of games that have an 80% or greater to the library on the PS3, but somehow you maintain that these superior measurements are irrelevant when comparing game libraries.

If you are just saying all this in order to get across that despite having a superior game library, this is not always the perception that people have, then this is absolutely true. Also, perceptions are what matters when you are selling something. If the general public is not aware that the Xbox 360 has the most total games and most high quality games (according to sales and review scores), then this strength is not helpful in selling consoles.

The worst thing about this gen is that it's proven that the console with the best games isn't the one that will win... and that bodes very poorly for the future of gaming.

I know that in the past this has always been the case, but this one is weird, and honestly the Xbox 360 isn't all roses. It's still very expensive and unreliable. Plus, it compares poorly in value to the PS3 that contains a Blu-Ray player. Considering these things, it comes as no surprise to me that having the best game library is only keeping it in second place.

Also, to discuss why this happened this time, you really have to talk about the Nintendo Wii as a fad. It really is a cultural fad like the hoola-hoop, but then it is also a great gaming device with lots of innovation that is constantly improved upon by software, so it won't suddenly lose popularity in the same way as other famous fad products (Cabbage Patch Kids, hoola-hoops, etc.) To really talk about this though, I'd need to write an article on it that explains the marketing concepts.

[Variable Gear]

I just want a hoooola hoop!

[Gorvi]

I just want a hoooola hoop!
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALVIN!

[RMan]

You concede that in comparison to games from this generation that the Xbox 360 has more more than double the number of million game sellers, total games, and nearly double the number of games that have an 80% or greater to the library on the PS3, but somehow you maintain that these superior measurements are irrelevant when comparing game libraries.
Yes, I agree that the 360 has been out longer, and can present superior statistics, what I am saying is that in the real world, this is not how people decide to buy systems, and not how they evaluate the system’s library. Your assumption that the pro 360 spin on game libraries quality is how the general public perceives the libraries is what I disagree with. The PS3’s current exclusives are strong, and cross platform games (most games) are identical, they don’t care that the 360 had a year to roam free, this is now.
If the general public is not aware that the Xbox 360 has the most total games and most high quality games (according to sales and review scores), then this strength is not helpful in selling consoles.
Yes, but this seems to imply you feel a knowledge of this is important, it is not important, IMO. For instance, I think people generally knew that the Dreamcast had a larger number of quality games, but if they weren’t games that they cared about anymore (or couldn’t get), then it didn’t matter. The Dreamcast’s library when the PS2 was released was only superior in terms of history, and it doesn’t just translate to a superior current library that actually influenced their purchases.
Also, to discuss why this happened this time, you really have to talk about the Nintendo Wii as a fad. It really is a cultural fad like the hoola-hoop, but then it is also a great gaming device with lots of innovation that is constantly improved upon by software, so it won't suddenly lose popularity in the same way as other famous fad products (Cabbage Patch Kids, hoola-hoops, etc.) To really talk about this though, I'd need to write an article on it that explains the marketing concepts.
I’d use a Frisbee as an example maybe, of a fad that doesn’t lose it’s popularity fast. Regardless, I do agree, you could never talk about what is happening with the PS3/360 and ignore the Wii, it really did change things (possibly hurting Sony more than MS, but definitely hurting both). The Wii, however, far more than introducing a new control scheme, basically started recycling ‘simple’ games in a fairly natural way, in a time when MS and Sony were all but ignoring new gamers. MS and Sony, unwittingly, had as much to do with the Wii’s success as Nintendo did, I think.

[mister_slim]

The worst thing about this gen is that it's proven that the console with the best games isn't the one that will win... and that bodes very poorly for the future of gaming.

I'm sure adventure fans and flight sim players felt the same way.