More 360
Well, it looks like my post from yesterday about the Xbox 360 pricing puts me in the minority.
Next Generation had a nice round-up of comments from developers, gaming press, and industry analysts.
Interestingly, the media were the most negative, while developers seemed split and the analysts were pretty positive. Here's a quick sample:
I do think saying that buying a 360 without a hard drive is like buying a Porsche without wheels is over-the-top. It's probably more like buying one without a manual transmission, or a convertible top. It's something that makes it a bit more fun but is not integral to the basic task -- playing games.
Although including a hard drive in the original Xbox was innovative, it never made a huge difference as far as the games were concerned. The main things it enabled were the ability to put custom soundtracks on the machine and, later, to download new maps and levels for games like "Halo" and "Splinter Cell". I think developers also did end up using it to preload information so as to minimize load times between levels. I don't know if that will be addressed by the 512 Mb of RAM in the 360, a major boost from the stingy 64 Mb in the original.
One thing you can be sure of is that Microsoft will make the hard sell for picking up a hard drive later. You can bet that gamers will see tons of ads for new downloadable goodies that you can only get if you buy the hard drive. I predict a fair chunk of those who initially buy the core machine will end up picking up a hard drive within a year.
As to the price, I've written here before about how $60 games aren't actually all that expensive. The original Xbox's 2001 price tag of $300 is more than $325 in today's dollars. A $50 game in 2001 would cost about $55 today.
I remember being in middle school and having to scrimp and save for new Atari 2600 games. In a typical purchase, one time I shelled out $30 for Activision's "Laser Blast". But as soon as I got home and started playing it, I regretted blowing all that money. I made my mom drive me back to Toys R Us to return it (you could still return opened games back then).
I today's dollars, "Laser Blast" would have cost me more than $57. Conversely, today's $60 games amount to about $31 in 1983 dollars.
I'm not saying that's cheap, especially when you start adding it up. Heck, you buy "Project Gotham Racing 3", "Gears of War", "Elder Scrolls", "Dead or Alive 4" and "Ghost Recon 3" and you've just dropped $300, almost $330 if you live in a place like Washington state with a 9 percent sales tax. That's the price of a new 32" TV, an iPod, or, as Dave put it, a nice massage with a happy ending. But it is in line with what the market has been able to bear historically.
Next Generation had a nice round-up of comments from developers, gaming press, and industry analysts.
Interestingly, the media were the most negative, while developers seemed split and the analysts were pretty positive. Here's a quick sample:
"One word: Blunder." -- Scott Miller, CEO, 3D RealmsAll these people know a lot more about the games industry than I do, but the one that would worry me most if I were Bill Gates is the developer reaction. Though like I said, developers seemed to be mixed, with some saying that Microsoft had told them months ago not to count on a hard drive, so most of them had designed their games appropriately.
"Anybody wanna buy my Porsche? It's $30k, or you can buy it without wheels for $25K. Hey, you’ll still be in a Porsche." -- Dave Halverson, editor-in-chief, Play Magazine
"I think the pricing strategy is correct, and I think that Microsoft will maximize revenue without gouging customers while maintaining flexibility to cut price at PS3 launch." -- Michael Pachter, analyst, Wedbush Morgan Securities
I do think saying that buying a 360 without a hard drive is like buying a Porsche without wheels is over-the-top. It's probably more like buying one without a manual transmission, or a convertible top. It's something that makes it a bit more fun but is not integral to the basic task -- playing games.
Although including a hard drive in the original Xbox was innovative, it never made a huge difference as far as the games were concerned. The main things it enabled were the ability to put custom soundtracks on the machine and, later, to download new maps and levels for games like "Halo" and "Splinter Cell". I think developers also did end up using it to preload information so as to minimize load times between levels. I don't know if that will be addressed by the 512 Mb of RAM in the 360, a major boost from the stingy 64 Mb in the original.
One thing you can be sure of is that Microsoft will make the hard sell for picking up a hard drive later. You can bet that gamers will see tons of ads for new downloadable goodies that you can only get if you buy the hard drive. I predict a fair chunk of those who initially buy the core machine will end up picking up a hard drive within a year.
As to the price, I've written here before about how $60 games aren't actually all that expensive. The original Xbox's 2001 price tag of $300 is more than $325 in today's dollars. A $50 game in 2001 would cost about $55 today.
I remember being in middle school and having to scrimp and save for new Atari 2600 games. In a typical purchase, one time I shelled out $30 for Activision's "Laser Blast". But as soon as I got home and started playing it, I regretted blowing all that money. I made my mom drive me back to Toys R Us to return it (you could still return opened games back then).
I today's dollars, "Laser Blast" would have cost me more than $57. Conversely, today's $60 games amount to about $31 in 1983 dollars.
I'm not saying that's cheap, especially when you start adding it up. Heck, you buy "Project Gotham Racing 3", "Gears of War", "Elder Scrolls", "Dead or Alive 4" and "Ghost Recon 3" and you've just dropped $300, almost $330 if you live in a place like Washington state with a 9 percent sales tax. That's the price of a new 32" TV, an iPod, or, as Dave put it, a nice massage with a happy ending. But it is in line with what the market has been able to bear historically.
<< Home