Quote:
|
Originally Posted by shakran
Well hold on. I agree that $300 is not the low end of the consumer market, unless you count PC's. $300 vs $1,000 might just make sense. That $300 wouldn't cover some of the video cards out today.
And I don't mind paying extra for backwards compatibility. Seems to me what they're saying is "Hey! All you guys that already have first gen xboxes - you can get the upgrade for $100 cheaper - you don't NEED backwards compatibility because you already have the xbox."
|
Here's the thing. I have no problem with the $300 dollar model. That sounds about right all things considered. The problem I have is that these companies, Microsoft in particular, like to force you into buying superfluous shit because it expands their bottom line.
When the X-box came out, I recall Microsoft boasting about all the 'features' the console had. You can play you're DVDs on the X-box, you can take advantage of your big nice television and new surround sound stuff, blah blah blah. What they failed to mention is that in order to take full advantage of this stuff, you were going to have buy additional equipment. You want to play a DVD, well, a DVD kit is going to run another $30. You want crisp picture and surround sound, you should buy the Advanced AV kit, it's only another $20. The point is they nickel and dime the average gamer to death. To take full advantage of the console (as advertised, mind you) you have to spend more than the original price. So, it's not just $300. I spend $300 on an x-box, I have a nice looking paperweight that I can turn on, but not play. I have to shell out another $50 to buy a game. Another $30 so I can invite a friend over to play with me. Another $30 to play DVDs (because you can just bet, they're going to offer a DVD playback kit with this one as well.) I just think accessories should be....accessories. You don't necessarily need them to take full advantage of the system i.e. cord extensions and modified controllers.
It's certainly true, you're not going to get top of the line stuff all around, but with $300 plus the money spent on accessories you're going to have to buy, you can do some serious upgrade damage on a mid-level PC.
And no, I don't necessarily need backwards compatability because I already have an X-box, but... It's a second generation console. PS3 and the Revolution are both confirmed backwards compatable. What's the point of making the X-box 360 non-backwards compatible? Money. Greed. Love of Pay o' la. It's not that they can't do it. They just want to charge you for it. Now they can justify charging an extra $100 for a HD. After the release of the new machine, I can't imagine why they wouldn't drop the price on the old x-box...maybe around $100? So, the gamer who owns the older x-box that craps out has no choice but to spend another $100 on either an older x-box (probably less reliable and presumably more likely to crap out faster) or buy the new add-on to play all those games they've accumulated over the past couple of years.
The cynic in me prophesizes...Games like Halo and Splinter Cell will probably be "repackaged" for the new console, have a few new levels tacked on, a whole host of stupid ass add ons like interviews with the guy in the office down from Bungie studios and then sold again as "Super-Special Ultra Cool Platinum Plated Gold" Edition for $30. I mean, if we're stupid enough to spend
$20 on a new Halo 2 add-on disc whose only real substance lies in a handful of multi-player maps (their are 9 of them) then we're probably stupid enough to buy new "editions" of games we've already purchased once.