jeffdsmith

Okay Save Ferris, I thought you meant the games would be on the machine, I understand your theory now. My bad.

Chris_D

I'm pretty sure its just a case of MS tweaking the emulator settings for each game, and slowly but surely testing and verifying each game. There'd be the ability to download new versions of the emulation software via Live (presumably using the free membership). I'd be completely shocked if it was a case of having to pay $10 to play Halo, and then another $10 for KOTOR, say. Outraged as well .

LorenzoL

Under their Rumor Control section at gamespot.com, they have indicated that the suggested retail price for the Xbox 360 games will be $59.99 and will be released in November.

If this end up being true, I personally don't like the starting price point. This will make the games close to $100 here in Canada if you include the tax.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/06...s_6126948.html

Josh H

I kind of expect that to happen. $60 to squeeze every dollar out of the early adopter types who'll pay big bucks to have the newest thing, and then back down to $50 when Sony and Nintendo launch their consoles.

Apollo

I don't think this is a "cutting edge cost issue". A the market is going to see a price purely from a cost of production. They have been able to hold the line for a while at $39.99 to 49.99. I think in the future the price range will be $49.99 to 59.99 . I can see Sony and Microsoft towing this line, but I don't think Nintendo will follow due to their audience.

jeffdsmith

Games will go up in cost next generation. The only reason games have stayed low was the introduction of optical media. With the budgets games are pushing consumers will make up the difference, its a fact of economics. If consumers don't buy, the games won't be made .

There are many games that may remain smaller budgeted and focused on things other then visuals and audio, those games should launch at a lower cost, in theory.

*I reserve the right to retract all statements once MS and Sony go into a pissing match eating the costs themselves. But hey, if they arn't making money on consoles or games...

Josh H

We'll see. If all games are $60, I can see the price point sticking as consumers will have no choice. If only a few games (ones with high development costs) are $60, I imagine those games won't sell as well as gamers will spend their hard earned cash on the cheaper games and companies will be forced to reduce the price and reduce development costs. Which would be a good thing IMO as maybe it would force companies to spend time making games that are simply fun to play rather than spending a ton of money to woo the graphics whores and wasting money on licenses for movie games, music in games etc.

Personally, there's not a single game I'd even consider paying $60 for. There's few I'll pay more than $20 for really. Zelda, Mario and Metroid I'll get for between $30-50 to play at or around launch, but I can't think of any other game series I'd go above $40 for and most games I'm fine waiting a few months to drop to $20 or below.

Gallant Pig

Maybe it's just the EB Games computer hedging its bet on future orders like it seems to always do? Start high to be safe then drop when price actually announced. Pretty weak rumor source actually.

Josh H

Yeah, you can't go by that.

But a few game company execs have said in interviews recently that they expect game prices to go up to $60, it's been in stories online, in EGM etc.

mrpayroll

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=9320

Analysts predict $75 launch subsidy on Xbox 360 hardware

Rob Fahey 13:36 06/06/2005

Speculation points to $375 manufacturing price, $299 retail price

Microsoft's Xbox 360 will be priced at $299 when it hits shelves later this year, according to analysts at major investment bank UBS, with Microsoft subsidising each console to the tune of $75 in order to meet that price point.

Predictions by the analysts, reported last week in the Toronto Globe and Mail, suggest that Microsoft will pay $375 per unit to its manufacturing partners, with the final retail price of the console pegged at $299.

That's in line with comments from Microsoft boss J Allard, who told the media at E3 that the Xbox 360 would launch "in the neighbourhood" of the $300 price point at which the original Xbox launched in late 2001 in North America.

The $75 subsidy reportedly required to hit the launch price is quite high, but not unusual for a new console. Platform holders routinely subsidise their consoles at launch in order to build an installed base, and then make back the money from software sales and the rapidly falling price of hardware manufacture late in the lifespan of the console.

However, Microsoft found it more difficult to do this with the original Xbox, since it had to continue buying components from partners such as NVIDIA and Intel at high prices - unlike Sony, which has been able to hugely reduce the manufacturing cost of the PS2 as it builds most of the core components itself.

For Xbox 360, Microsoft has moved to a more Sony-like model, and expects to be able to realise similar economies as the scale of manufacturing ramps up and the component costs fall.


Chris

Josh H

I hope that's true. Would bode well for console pricing next gen as it would force Sony and Nintendo to match or beat that and only taking a $75 loss makes quicker price drops seem likely.

The loss was rumored to be a good bit higher at the launch of the X-box, I saw estimates ranging around $150 back then.

joshd2012

Yeah, this is all bullshit. Your first clue is when they say "Predictions by the analysts" who seem to always get it wrong. I'll wait until Microsoft announces a price, but I imagine they will be losing a lot more than just $75.

flashburn

nVidia to get royalties from Xbox 360

http://biz.gamedaily.com/features.as...d=9761&filter=

Gallant Pig

That bodes very well for 100% backwards compatability.

Josh H

That still seems up in the air. From that article:

Which sounds very promising, but then this part casts more doubt on the issue.

Which unfortunately doesn't sound like 100% backwards compatibility at all.

Hell, having to pay royalties my reduce the number of games they support. I mean they might decide it's not worth it to support something like Panzer Dragon Orta or Jet Set Future that weren't all that popular and make better business sense to piss those fans of and keep the millions that want to replay the Halos, Splinter Cells and KOTOR's happy by paying the royalties and offering support.

Defintely still a wait and see issue. They have to be feeling some heat with the awesome backwards compatibility offered by Sony and Nintendo.

Centurion

Awesome for some; pointless for others.

Josh H

That goes without saying.

But the poll thread here showed, that at least among us, the majority has some interest in backwards compatibility, with a good bit saying either they wouldn't by a console withouth, or that it played a large role in their purchasing decision.

And I saw a ton of uproar on other gaming boards about the limited backwards compatibility annoucement, so MS has to be feeling a little heat at least, given that and the competitions offerings.

Gallant Pig

Check out this part.

Josh H

Yeah, I caught that part.

My point was different parts of the article conflict with each other, so it's still up in the air.

I hope that part is the valid part though.

joshd2012

I'm still going to have to wait and see how this pans out. The whole Xbox deal left a very sour taste in nVidia and Microsoft's mouth, and I don't see them resolving it quickly for the sake of Backwards Compatability. I imagine that since MS was the one in need, nVidia is either charging them a cubic assload for royalties, or MS had to make promises of some future involvement with nVidia. I don't see nVidia backing down lightly as they have the power to inforce the will. If this article is correct and there was some deal worked out, I imagine nVidia walked away with huge smiles on their faces and MS is going to have to bit the bullet.

Because of this, I will have to wait and see how inclusive it really is. Financially, it doesn't pay to make it 100% backwards compatible on the technical standpoint, but on the marketing standpoint it does. There is most likely going to be a middle position there that MS is going to hold.

Save Ferris

I still say there should be no barriers keeping them from having their WHOLE library available. The majority of the popular games will be supported automatically and then the Hinkles of the universe can download a patch for their obscure titles for $2 a pop.

Josh H

I wouldn't pay $2 a pop for the obscure titles when the competion offers backwards compatibility for free.

Just a matter of principle.

It's an issue for me where they need to have free support for all the games I want to replay, or they won't get my money.

Save Ferris

Wow. I figured if someone REALLY wanted to play the game, simply making it an option would be good enough. Playing games should be about having fun, not principle.

I used to go to the arcade and waste $30 at a time pumping quarters into machines, then hitting up my parents for more. Arcade house gaming is a traditional, PURE gaming experience and yet a sinister 'pay-as-you-play' system. This isnt something MS is making up, its been around for decades. As a matter of principle, MS is STILL better than traditional gaming. Now, im saying you pay the fee once per game. After that you can play it again and again.

Now, Im taking it as a given that gaming is a luxury and nobody should be worried about playing any video games if they have no job, food, shelter etc... If you can have this luxury, $2 should be no. big. deal. In principle or finance.

lotsofdvds

So I see there's an optional peripheral for wireless internet use. I have the current wireless Xbox adapter. I know this will all be total speculation at this point, but do you think that the current adapter will work on the Xbox 360?

Josh H

Well, see it's different for me next gen as I'm 100% only buying 1 of the 3 consoles.

I have all 3 now, but I simply don't play games enough anymore (due to both losing interest and being busy with work, where I am now, and grad school) to justify the expense next gen.

Thus things like that will factor in heavily in my purchasing decision. i.e. Backwards compatibility is a fairly big deal to me, why should I give MS my money for limited backwards compatibility when the others offer 100% backwards compatibility (and there's a lot more PS1/PS2 or NES/SNES/N64/GC games I want to replay than X-box games).

It's compounded even more if I have to pay for this limited compatibility for some titles.