XBox, PS2, and Gamecube All Selling for $199

Microsoft just cut the price down to $199 only a day after the Sony cut. Now it's Big N's turn.

[ May 15, 2002, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Lenny ]

Good times! Competition = price war, lets hope for more hehehe

I feel sorry for Nintendo, here they are stuck in a situation that they can't get out of. They are in the same situation Sega was in(pressure to make price cuts in order to compete) but difference is Nintendo is up against not only Sony but M$ which is willing to go to the distance in an effort to cut Sony down to size, and Nintendo is unwillingly pulled into the situation.

I expect Nintendo to evaluate three things: 1) wait if system holds its monthly sales against this two major announcements then make a move. 2)Price cut no more than 50 bucks, anything lower would be good for the masses, bad for Nintendo. 3)Stay still, put a brave face and be Nintendo as always.

[ May 15, 2002, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: JM: 'Beat L.A.' ]

Check that out, I've been reading alot of rumors about a possible Nintendo price drop, one to $50 reduction to as big as $100. Man, GC at $99 is a steal, no make it a murder.

People are skeptical about Cube dropping to $149, let alone $99.

I know, Nintendo comes out a loser either way. They are basically backed in a corner and with limited options. They could wait out the sitaution and watch whatever sales they get and lose(or break ever) out or etc etc etc. but I think it'll happen one way or another, but this early in the stage the cheaper it gets the better for me.

$99 is an impossibility. We're looking at $150.

Except Sony, everyone else is coming out the loser. Though Nintendo can easily swallow a X<$50 loss.

Microsoft's not coming out the loser. They're behaving exactly the same way Sony did.

Not really. They're prematurely reacting to a pricecut they really don't want. Sony cut the PSX price when it wanted and forced the other companies to respond.

Microsoft was gonna cut the price anyway. Sony wanted to steal their thunder, so they moved first. They said something about "E3 is about software, not hardware" (this from a company who did the exact same thing at E3 in 1996 that Microsoft was planning to do this year).

They knew Sony might cut the price soon. So they wanted to cut it first. I find it hard to believe that they wanted to make a 33% pricecut 6 months after launch.

Sony cut their prices 1.5-2 years after launch. They waited 3X longer than Microsoft waited. How's Microsoft using a similar strategy?

[ May 18, 2002, 11:15 PM: Message edited by: Don't Count Dooku Out ]

We've all been thinking Sony would cut the price for months. If that was their reasoning, they'd have launched at $200.

Wrong. Sony cut their price at E3 1996. Why do you think Nintendo planned to launch at $250 initially? More to the point, why do you think Nintendo dropped their price to $200 pre-launch (their launch was a year after PSX)? Unless you're talking this time around, when they obviously can't use the same strategy because like Sony in 1996, they're trying to build a brand.

Microsoft has always wanted to be priced at Sony's level. Getting too low uneccesarily would produce losses larger than they wanted. Furthermore, as time went on, the probability of a price cut increased.

Sony PSX launched sometime in 1994. Isn't E3 1996 1.5 years after launch?

Sony built a brand through a lot of ways, including price-cutting on its terms. How's that similar to what happened to Microsoft?

...And I'm the one that is benefitting from it all. I don't care is either Sony or M$ starts losing money, as long as their products are affordable and price just about right.

Sony thought this, sony thought that, point is they were greedy b@stards from day one and wanted every gamer out there willing to "overpay" for their system. M$ wants to keep Sony in check but they are losing a pointless battle.

Okay, so how would announcing a price cut at E3 before Sony's price cut be any different than announcing a price cut at launch before Sony's price cut?

Still wrong. PSX launched here in September 1995, three months after the Saturn's unexpected early launch (haha, Sega).

Microsoft's using exactly that tactic (very early price cutting) to establish its own brand. It's also outmarketing the competition, luring in older gamers than the average, and bribing developers.

For Microsoft, it's never a pointless battle. The ultimate goal is to be #1, even if they generally have to wait a couple generations to do so.

[ May 19, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Shane - The Neglected American ]

A further $100 price cut prior to launch wasn't possible.

So? PSX first launched in 1994.

PSX's first pricecut was 1.5 years following the first launch. PS2's pricecut is almost 2 years after launch. Both time they were overdue and forced everyone else to react. Microsoft's pricecut is at least 6 months early and not at all desirable.

Of course it was possible. It just didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Yes, the launch was December 1994 in Japan. By that logic, though, Dreamcast took two years to drop its price, thereby beating out almost every other system in history, an indication that the Dreamcast is among the strongest systems ever and Sega's the least desperate company ever. That is stupid on so many levels it's not funny.

Actually, PS2's price cut is coming more than two years after its Japanese launch, but again, that comparison is stupid for many reasons, not the least of which is it already experienced at least three Japanese price cuts, despite this being its first North American price cut.

If you say the PS2 took a long time to drop its price, that I fully agree with. If you say PSX took a long time to drop its price, that's nonsense. Nintendo, Sega, and the rest of the industry were floored by that price drop. Nobody had ever done something that aggressive before. It was an indication of good company health, not bad system health. Microsoft's following in that path. Not only are they not desperate, but they're actually a) easily beating Nintendo and b) kicking the crap out of every previous first system, including Sony's.

[ May 19, 2002, 05:27 PM: Message edited by: My dog's better than your dog ]

If $300 was a s0tretch, I don't see how $200 was possible.

DC's price was mass-market to begin with. I don't see why they'd need to make a large cut too soon.

The NA price has been the same for 1.5 years.

I agree it was a good move at the time. However, what they did is different from Microsoft's move since it was made after 1.5 years of having time to lower manufacturing costs. It also forced others to react.

Microsoft was losing to Nintendo worldwide the last time I checked. Not seeing how they're even doing that well except to a moderate extent in NA.

$200 is possible, as it's being hit 6 months later.

Most systems cut within a year after launch, regardless of what they start out at. DC was no exception. It's just that, unlike most systems, it launched 10 months earlier in Japan than here.

Yes, I've already said that. Just like the NA PSX price was the same for 6 months.

Microsoft's going to be opening up a new factory in China within a couple months, is reportedly renegotiating its contracts, and is using parts like a PIII (what's that running them, $1.50?). But that's really irrelevant because Sony did it to wake the world up, not because they were making money on their consoles (which they definitely weren't at $199 and probably weren't at $299).

Depends on the source. Some say Microsoft's winning worldwide. Others say Nintendo's winning. We're talking about North America here anyway.

$200 is possibe 6 months later. They're also becoming more efficient, which you agree with.

It's still different since they had 1.5 years to cut costs. That's 3X longer than what Microsoft had.

If we're talking only NA, then XBox still isn't selling as fast as N64 in the early stages. PSX isn't much of a comparison since it started out as a nobody.

Who says that?

[ May 20, 2002, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Don't Count Dooku Out ]

It was possible at launch, too.

Well, if you're going to make that lame arguement, I could make the lame arguement that Xbox is kicking the PSX's ass, and therefore is being manufactured in greater quantity, leading to lower costs.

Xbox is the fastest selling system in North American history. Beating the N64 and PS2. Not sure how a record setting system is getting beat.

NPD Worldwide said Xbox was at 4.3 million units at the end of March, a figure that would put them ahead of Nintendo's numbers.