I think that is a very safe bet. Sony's machine may or may not be more powerful, but it definitely has a Blu-Ray drive compared to the regular DVD drive in the Xbox360. MS will have to drop $50-$100 under the price of the PS3.

I think I wait it out year or so and see if japanese and rpg support continues past the intial three. Maybe a miracle can happen and real platformer will come along like BK1 remake or new one like first in series.
Its funny how priorities change for person. A few years back I had no problem importing a Sega Saturn or Sony Playstation at outlandish $600 a pop launch prices. And I so got my money worth with a ton of friends coming over nonstop to play, bringing it into work so customers could see and finally selling them off month before usa launchs and coming out even. But I related to the games better then, for me they felt more magical, more like artwork. Now it seems only Madden, GTA and Halo sell now. Dang I think last game I enjoyed was Y's 6, it sold like 25k, one of worst selling games ever on ps2, very likely damning the series for another decade.
Now its all about the violence, the "mature" and ultra realistic where we agrue all way down to how many blades of grass and hair strands there are. Its funny the one game I would consider getting a 360 at launch would possibly be Kameo, the game destined to sell the worst as it gets raged on about being too "kiddie" in magazines and the net.

It was more of a statement than a joke. Apparently they're trying to price themselves out of the market.

I doubt this, as I fully expect to see the PS3 follow suit with similar pricing. Also, I think there are enough die-hard Xbox fans to keep initial sales numbers up to a decent amount. As much as people complain about pricing, people keep buying.

Even though I won't be purchasing the 360 on launch day, is everyone forgetting (or too young) to remember what systems and games used to be priced at?

$399 for a powerful computer running HD-graphics games is nothing to sneeze at, but you all think you should be paying the same price as the PS1? I don't have the energy to look up historical game console prices, but I know that $399 is low compared to other systems.

And $60 a game? So what? Why wouldn't games increase in price over time? Considering my friend paid $75 for Strider for the Sega Genesis when it came out, it comes across like "too young to know better" whining.

Compared to Neo-Geo and Jaguar maybe...

But every major console has been cheaper, with most being half that price.

Sad but true. Moron gamers are going to price me right out of gaming. Or at least out of playing current generation games.

Exactly, no major console from a major company has ever been more than $300 and most were $200 prior to last generation.

I don't know, I think it makes some sense. The PS2 was wildly successful and had no HDD. For the Xbox, everyone complained that the HDD would result in shovelware games that would only be patched after release, that the HDD caused the machine to be more unstable, that their game saves got wiped out if their HDD failed. Lots of complaints of this sort, from this forum even.

So now they are saying the HDD is an addon, you don't need it. Just like Sony is saying for the PS3. They are cutting the cost.

No. A wireless bridge of any sort will work fine for the 360 just like it did for Xbox.

Are you sure about that when inflation is included? The SNES was $200 was $200 in 1990, which is about $300 nowadays. It did come with Mario, but it was still $200 to own. :)

Exactly. According to Wikpedia, the Atari 2600 was released at $200 in 1977.

According to this, that's $649.00 today. Explain the bitching to me again?

As far as gaming pricing is concerned it has nothing to do with inflation and little to do with the actual cost of making it. At this juncture it has everything to do with the market. People will pay what they will pay and the pricing structure is up to the companies to come up with the maximize profits. Why were games more expensive in the past? Competition, or lack there of. Ask any gamer from the 70's and 80's and they will have invariably played at least several titles that you have as well. There were a lot less games on the shelves and a lot less people buying them. Now games are more expensive to produce but also have an exponentially higher market than before. If games are priced at $60-$70 I doubt it if they would be as successful but only time will tell.

It is all about what people are willing to pay. That is what the whole entertainment industry is based on. Look at movies, ticket prices are at least twice what they were just a mere 10 years ago. Owning a movie is significantly less expensive now.

You need to step away from the Inflation arguement, because it has no legs to stand on. Any increase due to inflation is quickly negated because of economies of scale. Console producers and game developers are selling a lot more product today than they were 20 years ago. The more you produce, the cheaper it is to produce. That coupled with manufacturing techniques (such as outsourcing and fully automated manufacturing) have drastically reduced the cost to make these things.

Pretty much sums it up:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2005/20050819l.jpg

Short memories here, how about the Sega Saturn at $399 when it launched?
Or do you not consider Sega to be a major company? Last I checked, before they brought out the Saturn they had a little system that did alright called the Genesis.

I paid $299 for my Playstation a month after it was released, so I feel an extra $100 for a great new console some 9-10 years later is not that big of a deal.

Like josh said, inflation is a weak arguement at best. There are just people out there unwilling to bend over and take what Microsoft gives them. People WILL pay it though because MS says it is a great deal. Others see past the bullshit. It is no different than any of their other business ventures. They bully their way in and say this is the way its going to be.

I mean look at it, console prices have been pretty much the same since 1977 and then all of a sudden the new kid, MS, declares that this is wrong? WTF? Who are they to say how this business should be handled with all their experience with their 1 system that ranks 3rd worldwide? (feel free to correct me on that last part, but the idea is the same)

The Saturn is a good comparison. It was overpriced and they had too many products out for anyone to deem it a necessary purchase. MS has 2 360's on the market AND the original Xbox that still has a solid year left of its lifespan.

People discounting inflation make no sense. Although imperfect, since there's way to factor in improving quality, that's the only way to ever come close to comparing prices over time.

The fact is that people like me actually did pay $370 for an Intellivision in the spring of 1981 (by the way, that's another system waving back to those who said consoles never cost that much). What's the equivalent 'hit' today? $827.

How does arguing that it costs less to produce consoles today change that fact? If anything, that's the reason why they're not $827 today, and why they're able to sell a lot more now. [One million used to be the point where a console was officially deemed successful. Intellivision hit a whopping 2 million by the end of 1982, its third year on the market. Sony seems like they roll that many PS2s off the assembly line in a day.]

Inflation is a perfectly valid argument to use. The X-box 360 will be more affordable to more people today than the intellivision was to people 20+ years ago. I don't think the price is really that big of a turn off for the majority of people who will buy this. I still find it amazing that people essentially complain that a company won't sell a product for more of a loss than they already are.

I disgard inflation as $200 10 years ago was about the same hit on my budget as it is today.

It probably should be considered in the debate, but I don't factor it in as it just doesn't apply to me.

$200 was the most I'd pay when I was a teenager, it's the most I'll pay now, and it's the most I'll pay in 50 years from now even if I'm a multi-millionaire. I just don't enjoy games enough to spend more than that given their like 4th or 5th on my hobby list.

If people are willing to pay $250 for a PSP to watch movies, I think the 360 will find its market just fine.

Its all pyschological people.

That one slipped my mind as I never considered buying it at that price and it tanked.

:beer2: Here's hoping for the same for the 360 at its $399 price point.

I hope you're wrong, but I doubt it. But as long as Nintendo puts the revolution out at $200 I really couldn't care less what MS and Sony charge.

I just hope the 360 doesn't sell well and encourage Nintendo to raise prices too.

I paid $300 for a Playstation when it came out. I wouldn't pay $300 for a PS2 or an Xbox when they came out. I waited for the price drop. I guess it's all relative and depends on how bad you want the system. For myself, I have decided that $400 is too much to pay for a console system and will wait for a price drop.

Weren't previous generations of games more expensive because of the carts vs. disc cost? Stuff like Strider and Phantasy Star IV were expensive because of the extra memory needed in the cart, right?

If you're going to bring inflation into the equation, then the closest market to videogames would be computers. Back in the day, you'd pay a pretty penny for a "top of the line" computer that did jack. I'm sure if you calculate inflation, the price doesn't compare to even today's top desktops. If the "next generation" is too expensive, then the masses will settle for the "last generation" which is still perfectly serviceable. In the early days of consoles, what choice did they have if they didn't want an Intellivision or Atari 2600?

If you don't mind paying 400 bucks this time, will you pay 500 next time? Then 600? Of course there will be people willing to do so, but there's also a limit in most people's minds.