The lights are on
Do you trade in or sell your games? If not, the Xbox One's still unclear restrictions on second-hand games might not bother you. Do you live in an area with blazing, stable Internet? If so, you might not be concerned about the 24-hour check-ins required by the Xbox One. Even if those two issues haven't deterred you, there's one last thing to consider: price.
Sure, Sony is taking a different road than Microsoft with regard to ownership, but the biggest piece of news was the price. The PlayStation 4 will be offered at $100 less than the $499 Xbox One. For those consumers that decide not to purchase the optional camera, that's a big difference.
Today, Xbox president of interactive entertainment Don Mattrick addressed the cost discrepancy. "We're over-delivering value against other choices," Mattrick said in a conversation with Bloomberg TV. "$499 isn't a ridiculous price point. We're delivering thousands of dollars of value to people."
The conversation moved on after that, and Mattrick didn't go into detail about where the additional value was being generated. It would be unsurprising to learn that the Xbox One manufacturing expenses are more than $499 per unit. Video game hardware is typically a loss leader, with licensing fees for software making up the difference over time. We'd be interested to hear more about the valuation, as Mattrick's "thousands of dollars" seems high.
What do you think, does the $100 price difference make you hesitate? How would you view the price if Microsoft were to drop the used game and online connection restrictions (something unlikely to happen)?
[Source: Bloomberg TV]
Email the author Mike Futter, or follow on Google+, Twitter, and Game Informer.
yeah, ok buddy.
According to the specs released for the console, I call ***. You can get everything they've put into that console for much less than 1,000.
So many low information people on this web site; well pretty much every gaming site.
Gotta pay for that supposed $4oo million dollar deal with the NFL some how, right?
I was assuming the price for both would be around $500 and that was acceptable to me. But even if they dropped all the DRM and stuff, my first buy would still have been a PS4 even if they both launched at the same price. I'll still get the One eventually, just after it's been out for a little bit and to see if they change any of their policies.
This reminds me of when Ken Kutagari said that the PS3 should cost 1,000 dollars. Microsoft seems intent on refusing to learn from history.
Honestly, out of the whole online checkups or used game arguments against the X1, it was the Kinect I had the most problems with (I'm not saying the others aren't valid points). I never liked the original Kinect, and I don't want one forced on me like the X1 is doing. Not to mention, if you were to guess the new Kinect would cost the same amount as the last one, $150, then the console alone should have cost $350. That would make it a whole lot more reasonable. Having said that and knowing Microsoft, the system probably costs more than $500 to build and ship and they fully expect to sell the stupid thing at a loss just to try and stay "competitive."
i just dont like being told what to do with some thing i pay for if i want to give my game way thats up to me i payed for it its my $60.bucks
PS4 all the way.
They just keep digging deeper and deeper
"Value" is dictated by the market. I place zero value on a camera or kinect so that supposed $100 value is meaningless to me. Also, there is value in being able to play completely offline to me and to be able to share games easily. Honestly, with my gaming preference I'd pay $100 more for what the PS4 offers, so it being cheaper made it that much easier to make my decision and start saving for it.