• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Pred: Microsoft may announce an Xbox Series S price cut to $269.99 at gamescom (links incl.)

Ansphn

Banned
Then Microsoft should have been Publisher of the Year for over 20 years straight now.

Seriously man....that's just a shit argument.
Then they should have bought Basthesda and Activision for the last 20 years. Its obvious they're going all in this gen in all facets including spending money for influences and publisher of the year. Only thing they didnt go all in is actually releasing exclusives from the 30+ studios they got. I blame the #1 deals though.
 

Topher

Gold Member
Then they should have bought Basthesda and Activision for the last 20 years. Its obvious they're going all in this gen in all facets including spending money for influences and publisher of the year. Only thing they didnt go all in is actually releasing exclusives from the 30+ studios they got. I blame the #1 deals though.

Bethesda and Activision had nothing to do with MS winning Metacritic's POTY in 2021. You sound exactly like those who claim Sony bought GOTY for Naughty Dog and Santa Monica's games. That's just console warrior bullshit.
 

Chukhopops

Member
Not a good look in terms of business. MS would only cut the price if they feel they need to. Demand ain't that high if they're pulling these moves.
That’s complete bullshit, consoles have always gone done in price over time. Some costs like R&D get amortized, production processes improve, things are usually cheaper to produce past a certain scale, etc.

It’s like everyone forgot overnight how the world has functioned so far in order to make the exception feel like the norm…
 

DaGwaphics

Member
That’s complete bullshit, consoles have always gone done in price over time. Some costs like R&D get amortized, production processes improve, things are usually cheaper to produce past a certain scale, etc.

It’s like everyone forgot overnight how the world has functioned so far in order to make the exception feel like the norm…

IKR, Sony was once the king of pushing down prices to apply pressure to the competition. Look at the precipitous drops on PS1 and PS2 when both systems were at the top of their game.
 

Ansphn

Banned
Bethesda and Activision had nothing to do with MS winning Metacritic's POTY in 2021. You sound exactly like those who claim Sony bought GOTY for Naughty Dog and Santa Monica's games. That's just console warrior bullshit.
Why are you bringing up Playstation?
 

metaverse

Member
That’s complete bullshit, consoles have always gone done in price over time. Some costs like R&D get amortized, production processes improve, things are usually cheaper to produce past a certain scale, etc.

It’s like everyone forgot overnight how the world has functioned so far in order to make the exception feel like the norm…
Possibly, but I would bet the latter. When inflation is at an all time high, a business chooses to lower the price? Take Nvidia for example. They have an overstock of GPUs they need to sell. And signs point to them cutting MSRP in attempt to meet sales targets.
 

Kerotan

Member
That’s complete bullshit, consoles have always gone done in price over time. Some costs like R&D get amortized, production processes improve, things are usually cheaper to produce past a certain scale, etc.

It’s like everyone forgot overnight how the world has functioned so far in order to make the exception feel like the norm…
But the switch and ps5 have massive demand. There's a reason they ain't getting cuts. More people want them.
 

Hobbygaming

has been asked to post in 'Grounded' mode.
You are right but they have not many bundles, and the one they have been pushing is with horizon. People are informed and they are not so hot for this game and possibly they want push it with the PS5 craze otherwise they would sell 3 copies (included the one I have).
The game reviewed well and the user reviews are good
 

DarkMage619

Report me if I continue to console war
But the switch and ps5 have massive demand. There's a reason they ain't getting cuts. More people want them.
The PS2 had massive demand and the price still dropped over time. It was the best selling PlayStation ever. It is a normal business practice for a console price to drop. A console price rising is the anomaly. The is no reason to spin a console price drop as a negative, especially gamers.
 

Kerotan

Member
The PS2 had massive demand and the price still dropped over time. It was the best selling PlayStation ever. It is a normal business practice for a console price to drop. A console price rising is the anomaly. The is no reason to spin a console price drop as a negative, especially gamers.
Sony also made fuck all profit off the console sales itself. A mistake they won't repeat.
 

THE DUCK

voted poster of the decade by bots
If series S gets a price reduction already that's not a good look.

What a rediculous statement, it's been almost 2 years and the console was always meant to be a low cost unit that would attract new customers to gamepass and or more casual gamers. If not for covid/shortages it likely would launched at $269 or less.
 
Last edited:

//DEVIL//

Member
What a rediculous statement, it's been almost 2 years and the console was always meant to be a low cost unit that would attract new customers to gamepass and or more casual gamers. If not for covid/shortages it likely would launched at $269 or less.
if anything, it should be 250$. with the target price of 200$ in the future as a sweet spot for a gaming console to fly.

if that console reaches 200$, then it's golden. a 200$ machine that can play Call of duty at 120 frames.. lol fuck that is amazing. especially with a system this small you probably can hang it behind the TV.
 

Wohc

Banned
Last edited:

Apocryphon

Gold Member
$249 would be better. The legandary $199 PS2 price cut was bonkers at the time. I guess Series S will get there eventually. At that price I'd probably pick one up for my office at work.
 
John Candy No GIF by Laff


If they do anything they should leave the price the same and increase the SSD size, imo.
That and release a console with same spec as a Series S but with a disc drive. Call it the Series Y.

*You're welcome Microsoft, I look forward to my royalties!
 

Winter John

Member
Not good enough Microsoft. The S is a dirty, naughty little minx. If Phil wants that Rockstar life then he needs to start pimping her out on the corners for $50.
 

Kerotan

Member
Yeah man, when Nintendo lowered the 3DS price from $250 to €170 it was an absolute disaster and the end of the console.

Oh wait, it actually propelled the console to absolutely cock slap the Vita all over the bathroom floor and become another mega hit for Nintendo.
Wouldn't it have been better if the 3ds could do that without the price drop? Without it was doing bad by Nintendo standards. The 3ds / Wii u disaster's we're what prompted Nintendo to abandon 2 separate consoles and go the hybrid route.
 

Iced Arcade

Member
The Series S was always planned to be the model they price drop and have marketed for the sales. That thing will be $199 during holiday sales and sell like crazy.
 

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
$249 would be better. The legandary $199 PS2 price cut was bonkers at the time. I guess Series S will get there eventually. At that price I'd probably pick one up for my office at work.

Huh? $199 was the common mass market price point for electronics even outside of gaming for years at that point, and Gamecube hit $199 before the PS2. It also hit $99 before the PS2. it also hit $70 before the PS2 too. Nintendo cut that systems to shreds.

The Series S was always planned to be the model they price drop and have marketed for the sales. That thing will be $199 during holiday sales and sell like crazy.

Maybe with gift cards and free included games it will be equal to $199 after savings.
 

Apocryphon

Gold Member
Huh? $199 was the common mass market price point for electronics even outside of gaming for years at that point, and Gamecube hit $199 before the PS2. It also hit $99 before the PS2. it also hit $70 before the PS2 too. Nintendo cut that systems to shreds.
Not in the sense that the price point was unheard of, but rather the effect it had. In the 2 years that followed that price cut Sony sold 40+ million units and forced their competitors to reduce their prices too. Nintendo slashed Gamecubes price because nobody wanted then, at least not on the same scale. $199 for a console that was what, 18 months old and played DVDs? DVD players were expensive in 2002. $199 felt like a bargain.
 

Banjo64

cumsessed
Wouldn't it have been better if the 3ds could do that without the price drop? Without it was doing bad by Nintendo standards.
Not in my opinion. The 3DS price was the outlier. The DS launched for $149. All of Nintendo’s handhelds have been pretty cheap, except the 3DS. I don’t have access to the numbers, but I refuse to believe the 3DS cost that much more to manufacture than the DS, Nintendo just got greedy.

(On the topic of price, geez, the PS4 launched for £349 compared to £479 for the PS5 now)

The 3ds / Wii u disaster's we're what prompted Nintendo to abandon 2 separate consoles and go the hybrid route.
That may or may not be true. Nintendo allegedly have so much cash that they could have survivors another 2 or 3 Wii U style consoles. But the 3DS was not a disaster, the console was still sold at profit and sold over 75m units.

The Switch approach is better for the consumer IMO. I now only need to buy one piece of hardware, it serves the function of a handheld and home console and everything is in one place (to buy all of their games).

But back on topic, prices normally drop after a 2 years or so as manufacturers have historically passed on their manufacturing savings to the consumer. £229 for the Series S would just be daft territory.
 

Mr Reasonable

Completely Unreasonable
Wouldn't it have been better if the 3ds could do that without the price drop?
Nintendo: the undisputed market leader in handheld gaming, very profitable and the company that has been in business longer than any of it's competitors.

Neogaf: meh.
 
Last edited:

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
Not in the sense that the price point was unheard of, but rather the effect it had. In the 2 years that followed that price cut Sony sold 40+ million units and forced their competitors to reduce their prices too. Nintendo slashed Gamecubes price because nobody wanted then, at least not on the same scale. $199 for a console that was what, 18 months old and played DVDs? DVD players were expensive in 2002. $199 felt like a bargain.

What competitors? GameCube was $99 when Sony cut to $199 and Xbox had already announced a price cut was coming before they did. Who's left? I'm not saying the price cut didn't do anything for Sony but they were already way ahead of the competition before it. Only in the US were the others sometimes competitive, mostly Xbox, and occasionally won a holiday or two.

Nintendo: the undisputed market leader in handheld gaming, very profitable and the company that has been in business longer than any of it's competitors.

Neogaf: meh.

Nintendo only dropped the price because the Vita made the value proposition look bad, and with mobile becoming more powerful as an additional alternative, and cheap PSP model 3's and Go's on the market, sales were slower than anticipated and they consistently missed forecasts, so the price was cut with a renewed marketing campaign that revitalized sales, especially during the holiday rush, while the Vitas flaws became more prononunced.

Iwata even made some speech claiming he and others cut their salaries or something to pay for the price cut. Which many were skeptical of. If they could get away at the higher price they would have. Like they are doing with the Switch.
 

Apocryphon

Gold Member
What competitors? GameCube was $99 when Sony cut to $199 and Xbox had already announced a price cut was coming before they did. Who's left? I'm not saying the price cut didn't do anything for Sony but they were already way ahead of the competition before it. Only in the US were the others sometimes competitive, mostly Xbox, and occasionally won a holiday or two.
Sony went first and the others reacted though no?

The PlayStation 2’s U.S. launch price of $299 was reasonable enough at the time ($100 more than the Dreamcast and the GameCube and the same launch price as the Xbox), but what pretty much guaranteed the PS2’s victory was Sony’s decision to drop the price of the PS2 to $199 in May 2002.

Microsoft and Nintendo immediately responded to that price cut by dropping the prices of the Xbox and GameCube to $199 and $149, respectively.


Is this incorrect?

Edit: Yes Sony went first.


And GameCube was cut to $149 not $99 weeks layer...


So much horseshit in this thread 😂
 
Last edited:

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
Sony went first and the others reacted though no?



[/URL]

Is this incorrect?

Edit: Yes Sony went first.

[/URL]

And GameCube was cut to $149 not $99 weeks layer...

[/URL]

So much horseshit in this thread 😂

No Sony didn't go first what?

Even your own quote says the Gamecube was $199 at the start, it cut by $20 or $20 early 2002, and were already going to cut the price at $149 at E3 2002, that was planned ahead of the PS2 announcement. GameCube was always cutting prices until 2004 almost every 6 months.

So the only "others" would be Microsoft.

But insiders were already spreading rumors of Xbox cutting the price to $199 before Sony suddenly cut cut the PS2's price.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/7363/sony-cuts-ps2-price-to-199

So the answer is none of them.

What's more is that the PS2 fast price cut was in response to the Xbox to prevent it from catching up. Even though the gap narrowed later that year for a short time.

https://news.microsoft.com/2002/04/...-for-xbox-tops-1-million-mark-in-record-time/

https://www.namibian.com.na/archive19982004/2002/January/techtalk/0238195B82.html

https://www.alamy.com/microsoft-ann...-bolantemicrosoftho-apbhk-image380782525.html

Xbox had a very strong first year in NA, Sony was smart to cut the price, even if they still would have been way ahead WW, they didn't want things to be competitive in the US, although it still happened for a few years anyway, but Xbox would be prevented from catching up.
 

Apocryphon

Gold Member
No Sony didn't go first what?

Even your own quote says the Gamecube was $199 at the start, it cut by $20 or $20 early 2002, and were already going to cut the price at $149 at E3 2002, that was planned ahead of the PS2 announcement. GameCube was always cutting prices until 2004 almost every 6 months.

So the only "others" would be Microsoft.

But insiders were already spreading rumors of Xbox cutting the price to $199 before Sony suddenly cut cut the PS2's price.

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/7363/sony-cuts-ps2-price-to-199

So the answer is none of them.

What's more is that the PS2 fast price cut was in response to the Xbox to prevent it from catching up. Even though the gap narrowed later that year for a short time.

https://news.microsoft.com/2002/04/...-for-xbox-tops-1-million-mark-in-record-time/

https://www.namibian.com.na/archive19982004/2002/January/techtalk/0238195B82.html

https://www.alamy.com/microsoft-ann...-bolantemicrosoftho-apbhk-image380782525.html

Xbox had a very strong first year in NA, Sony was smart to cut the price, even if they still would have been way ahead WW, they didn't want things to be competitive in the US, although it still happened for a few years anyway, but Xbox would be prevented from catching up.
All of this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the cut to $199 contributed heavily to the landslide sales jump for the PS2 which is the original point I made.

You're the guy claiming that GameCube was already at $99 by the time Sony slashed their price to $199. You're talking out your ass bru, though I'll concede that Nintendo and Microsoft didn't react to Sony's decision as much as the article I linked to claims. Either way, $199 was a big deal for PS2.
 
Last edited:

Eddie-Griffin

Gold Member
All of this is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the cut to $199 contributed heavily to the landslide sales jump for the PS2 which is the original point I made.

You're the guy claiming that GameCube was already at $99 by the time Sony slashed their price to $199. You're talking out your ass bru, though I'll concede that Nintendo and Microsoft didn't react to Sony's decision as much as the article I linked to claims. Either way, $199 was a big deal for PS2.

Gamecube was $99, I didn't say that Nintendo officially cut it to $99. They had cut the price already at that point, and then cut it again, retailers were not selling stock and went on a rampage, Nintendo had to stop production because they had to much stock not selling months later, and at the same time they did that they announced $99 to help move stock.

Gamecube was running off overshipped numbers for sales for some time and it bit them.
 

Apocryphon

Gold Member
Gamecube was $99, I didn't say that Nintendo officially cut it to $99. They had cut the price already at that point, and then cut it again, retailers were not selling stock and went on a rampage, Nintendo had to stop production because they had to much stock not selling months later, and at the same time they did that they announced $99 to help move stock.

Gamecube was running off overshipped numbers for sales for some time and it bit them.
Fair enough bru.
 
Top Bottom