Microsoft Charts Deem Kinect Cheapest Versus Competitors

[Tom Goldman]

Microsoft Charts Deem Kinect Cheapest Versus Competitors

I'm glad to know the reasoning behind Kinect's price point, but Microsoft isn't being totally fair. A PlayStation 3 Move bundle comes with a 120 GB PlayStation 3, while the Xbox 360 Kinect bundle comes with 4 GB hard drive which will simply not do for many Xbox 360 players. Move's Navigation controllers are not positively necessary, but a second PS3 controller will run $55 anyway so that point is somewhat moot. Is Wii Fit necessary to play the Wii? Not really, but it does sort of compare to what can be done with Kinect.

I've got to admit, Microsoft has convinced me somewhat with its charts here, aside from the comparison of a 4 GB 360 slim to a 120 GB PlayStation 3. The company seems to have done its research on the matter. I'm just saying, if Kinect was priced at $99 it would have been more agreeable to most of us. Is this Microsoft spin or do these charts have a point?

Source: Kotaku [http://kotaku.com/5591724/microsofts-take-on-the-cost-of-motion-gaming]

Permalink

 

[Matt_LRR]

Every retail flyer in the universe is going to read:

Move = $50
Kinect $150

That is what people are going to see.

And then they're going to go buy a wii anyhow, because that's what they've heard about from all their kids' friends' moms.

-m

 

[awsome117]

But if they make it $50 less, that would make $250 (or $100) for new comers and "hardcorers" and would make them even more inclined to buy Kinect.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Isn't this kind of like the argument that Sony fanboys used when the PS3 price was announced? "Sure it looks expensive, but as soon as you buy this that and something else, that price isn't that low anymore!"

Either way, I see their point. What I don't see however, is me buying a 360. The exclusives don't interest me, and usually get thrown to the PC at some point, so I just never really bothered. Gears of War and Alan Wake are the only games that do, and I don't feel like shelling out £200 so that prepubescent school children can act hard online.

Calumon: Jonathan Gabriels Internet Thingy Theory.

Jack: I've seen that like on 3 different threads, is this world renowned or is it just that accurate?

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I understand it's not the most expensive out there but it's still too expensive for me.

I prefer to fuel normal games rather than kinect games.

 

[Irridium]

Well these charts are totally not biased in any way.

You don't need Wii Fit to enjoy the Wii. So take that out of the picture and all of a sudden the Wii is the cheapest of them all.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Well done, Microsoft, you've managed to construe the numbers so that you're the best.

 

[Hithlain]

It may be affordable, the problem is the games. The wii already has a huge repitoire of games with very recognizable characters to those casual gamers (and many hardcore ones as well. Honestly, I'm probably the only hardcore gamer in the world who loves the wii. Okami anyone?)

The kinect and move on the other hand not only have a measure of doubt in the games but also are very, very casual. x-box and playstation users have already seperated themselves into the more "hardcore" crowd. I would think that not many of them would be interested unless you had like "Call of Duty Kinect" or something.

 

[Cynical skeptic]

... yes, this marketing strategy totally worked the last time they tried it. I think it was sony. Or maybe they weren't stupid enough, and it was just fanboys on /v/.

 

[andreas3K]

Even if it is cheaper, it's not necessarily any better.

 

[ZeroMachine]

A... 4GB... hardrive...

I'm sorry, I can't hear Microsoft here in the generation where you wouldn't even be able to install your games (something praised by Microsoft with the newer XBoxes). Seriously, that comparison becomes bull once you look at that bundle.

But whatever. All I know is that I won't even be looking at getting Kinect until some better looking games are announced.

 

[Quesa]

Is this Microsoft spin or do these charts have a point?

I... guess the Microsoft marketing people are getting through to at least one person? That should be refreshing to Redmond.

 

[BloodSquirrel]

I'm glad to know the reasoning behind Kinect's price point, but Microsoft isn't being totally fair. A PlayStation 3 Move bundle comes with a 120 GB PlayStation 3, while the Xbox 360 Kinect bundle comes with 4 GB hard drive which will simply not do for many Xbox 360 players.

This would only be unfair if the PS3 had a 4 GB model. The Wii only comes with 512MB storage, should they add in the cost of a few dozen memory cards?

This is a "What a basic package will cost you for multiplayer" comparison, and 4GB is plenty for users who don't buy tons of things off of the marketplace. It's a cheap option for more casual players who don't need more.

There are plenty of other ways you could compare the three, but this one is no less valid than any other. The only real stretch here is adding in the Wii balance board.

 

[sammi43055]

I don't know if I am crazy about all of this...things are getting expensive with all of this additional items, and I personally would like to just sit and relax while I am playing my games. Since I have all three systems, I will just stick with the Wii's motion controls for now...

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

Man, between all three options, a gym membership, or sports equipment, exercise certainly isn't very cost effective.

 

[duchaked]

either way it's still bloody expensive...

how about this
I don't want Kinect
I don't want Move
I don't want Wii

shoot that last one's the entire console isn't it? lol

 

[edgeofblade]

A... 4GB... hardrive...

I'm sorry, I can't hear Microsoft here in the generation where you wouldn't even be able to install your games (something praised by Microsoft with the newer XBoxes). Seriously, that comparison becomes bull once you look at that bundle.

But whatever. All I know is that I won't even be looking at getting Kinect until some better looking games are announced.

If you look at the fact that Microsoft streams videos without using storage space; lets you redownload all your licensed content, including video (which Sony does not); and doesn't force you to install games... it makes a lot more sense. But I would still struggle to get by on 4GB. I'd just pop in one of the 20 usb sticks and be done with it.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

Great, so people are going to see that the Move is cheaper than the Kinect, AND not care.

I don't understand the whole motion capt ure movement... have they listened to the pliles of "I don't care"s coming out of us

And OH YES, Microsoft's date is totally unbiased.

Find a neutral source next time

 

[GodKlown]

So I noticed a slight oversight on the charts. Mircosoft claims to be the least expensive, including the console, Kinect and "multiplayer". Why didn't they advertise that it costs about $60 a year for their multiplayer? I'm really doubting heavily that Kinect will work co-op on the same console, so you'll need an XBL Gold account to be able to play with your friends at petting tigers, and hence where the $60 comes in. Factor that in just for the first year, and now you're right on par with the PS3. Good job douchebags, you are now no better than anyone else with your Fox News-like spin on the story.

 

[ZeroMachine]

A... 4GB... hardrive...

I'm sorry, I can't hear Microsoft here in the generation where you wouldn't even be able to install your games (something praised by Microsoft with the newer XBoxes). Seriously, that comparison becomes bull once you look at that bundle.

But whatever. All I know is that I won't even be looking at getting Kinect until some better looking games are announced.

If you look at the fact that Microsoft streams videos without using storage space; lets you redownload all your licensed content, including video (which Sony does not); and doesn't force you to install games... it makes a lot more sense. But I would still struggle to get by on 4GB. I'd just pop in one of the 20 usb sticks and be done with it.

True, but all the same, I'm not going to pay 300$ for a system that isn't as good as the one I have now (though I have to admit, I'm jealous of the free-wifi addon) and an attachment with barely any games when I can use the same amount to just get a better 360.

I get their (and your) point, but still, it just seems like they're twisting words around. I mean, think about it. How much will a 4GB new 360 cost without the Kinect? My guess is somewhere around 150-200$. That's saving only 50$, if it's 200$. Isn't even enough for a new game.