Kinect Only Costs $56 to Make
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Are they fucking kidding me? Most consoles turn a loss nowadays, so to have almost a 300% markup is fucking insane.
Jesus Microsoft, pull it down to at LEAST $100
Jesus Microsoft, pull it down to at LEAST $100
It should also be remembered that if the 360 was sold initially as a loss leader (which I believe it was, but I may be wrong) then this is where Microsoft will get its money from that back from. Accessories and games are the money spinners here, you really cant have it both ways and expect a company to sell a console at a loss (or minimal profit) with the obvious intent of recouping it's money at a later date with games and accessories and then sell the games and accessories at a loss (or minimal profit) too.
This is why controllers are always expensive, there is no competition there, you have to own one to use the console. I'd much rather MS try to earn its money back on a peripheral accessory that is (currently) completely unnecessary than pad the cost of future games, controllers or other things that are vital to the gaming experience. The company has to make money on the 360 as a whole and if they choose to use the kinect as their means of bumping the numbers a bit that is preferable when compared with some of the other possibilities the could have ran with.
This is why controllers are always expensive, there is no competition there, you have to own one to use the console. I'd much rather MS try to earn its money back on a peripheral accessory that is (currently) completely unnecessary than pad the cost of future games, controllers or other things that are vital to the gaming experience. The company has to make money on the 360 as a whole and if they choose to use the kinect as their means of bumping the numbers a bit that is preferable when compared with some of the other possibilities the could have ran with.
It's not that they ARE making a profit, it is HOW they are making a profit.ZyntaxError said:
We all know and accept that the unit-profit for games is huge, I mean a disc even with packaging + distribution is barley $5 but this is praised as it as gamers we consumers therefore have a common goal with the industry: more great games.
But Kinect by itself is of little value. The incentive should be with Microsoft to make profit from the games, to encourage ongoing service to their consumer with quality and quantity of games proportional to their profits.
Loss Leading has been a VERY good model since the 1990's for video games, sell a console at break-even price then make the money off the games. It's a win-win scenario.
(don't forget the distinction between unit-cost and sunk-costs)
Pretty much over-saturated with Kinect news atm. And, really, do we care how much it cost Microsoft to make? I don't and you shouldn't. The cost of a thing, and by corollary the markup of that same thing, don't say anything about actual value or why it should invoke passion for gaming in your audience.
Then what DO we care about? As gamers, the only answer should be the games. Where are they?
At the very least, Move is a $50 golf club for Tiger Woods if you already had the camera for other things, like all the arm waggling games that weren't over-hyped two years ago. This _alone_ seems to make the purchase justifiable, especially when related to the cost of an actual game of golf with an actual set of clubs. Kinect is a $150...security camera?
No, really, we've only had the thing out for 2 weeks and we know a TV is broken, a kid is suffering facial injuries, and it costs $49 to make, which sounds to me like MS desperately wants someone to laud it for making money on a device at release. Which is a fine goal, and one they will probably make. However, Kinect is not a taxpayer purchased stealth bomber. It's (ostensibly) a game controller, which begs me to ask, again, where are the games? Until then, and I'm asking Microsoft more than The Escapist, why do we need 2-4 stories a day on anything BUT Kinect games?
Then what DO we care about? As gamers, the only answer should be the games. Where are they?
At the very least, Move is a $50 golf club for Tiger Woods if you already had the camera for other things, like all the arm waggling games that weren't over-hyped two years ago. This _alone_ seems to make the purchase justifiable, especially when related to the cost of an actual game of golf with an actual set of clubs. Kinect is a $150...security camera?
No, really, we've only had the thing out for 2 weeks and we know a TV is broken, a kid is suffering facial injuries, and it costs $49 to make, which sounds to me like MS desperately wants someone to laud it for making money on a device at release. Which is a fine goal, and one they will probably make. However, Kinect is not a taxpayer purchased stealth bomber. It's (ostensibly) a game controller, which begs me to ask, again, where are the games? Until then, and I'm asking Microsoft more than The Escapist, why do we need 2-4 stories a day on anything BUT Kinect games?
$56 in materials to make it.
How much development cost is in that $150? Apparently, at least, $94.
Not to mention suppliers, like PrimeSense. It's not just Microsoft people. Read for once.
How much development cost is in that $150? Apparently, at least, $94.
Not to mention suppliers, like PrimeSense. It's not just Microsoft people. Read for once.
This comment thread restores my faith in Internetmanity a little...especially after the original article designed to fear-monger a product for reasons that are completely unextraordinary.
It reminds me of some of the political smear ads I heard around election time here in the States in which a politician would take some completely normal thing his opponent does, and describe it with terrible, loaded language making his opponent's actions sound like a terrible human being. "He personally puts pollutants into the environment every day five times that of a cigarette user" (by driving a car).
It reminds me of some of the political smear ads I heard around election time here in the States in which a politician would take some completely normal thing his opponent does, and describe it with terrible, loaded language making his opponent's actions sound like a terrible human being. "He personally puts pollutants into the environment every day five times that of a cigarette user" (by driving a car).
Years of labor by skilled workers = Not cheapUltratwinkie said:
Also, you can't just use someone else's code like that. Not for something as specific as firmware for a new piece of technology that you just designed.
$400 Million dollars promoting an item worth $150 - surely if they gave away 2.5 million units they'd get better market penetration than anything that money could buy (and still have a little coke and hooker money left over) and they'd already be half way to shipping their 5 million target 
And this isn't already widely obvious? I wouldn't exactly be suprised if a Wii cost £60 to be made, yet still retails for £120; as the same with clothes, sometimes I just look at most clothe's stores and see £30 shirts, with no specific brand that are completely generic; now, do you seriously think it cost anywhere near £30 to buy the cotton, have it manufactured into fabric, sew it all together and have it imported to the shop? No. I bet it didn't even cost £1, or less, to do all of that.
And of course, this couldn't have anything to do with selling it at a high price for as long as they think is feasible, then dropping the price as rapidly as possible, hopefully before Sony drops the price of the move, and trying to entice away the casual gaming magpies from the Wii and PS3?
You know, like they did with the 360, about four years ago. And suceeded.
Sorta.
You know, like they did with the 360, about four years ago. And suceeded.
Sorta.
By "The tech already exists" do you mean that someone had already drawn up a circuit diagram, patented, programmed and built a working prototype of the Kinect before microsoft decided to go make it? Because unless microsoft just bought a licence to produce a few million kinects from someone else, they have to go through all those processes before they can make a contract with some factory to go make a production line.Ultratwinkie said:
a profit of 93$ on the materials, what about advertising, transport, wages, warranties.
and to all the people who think, ''Jeez, $90 profit per unit? If they're bringing in THAT much, surely they can afford to price it lower.'' ask your self if millions of people were willing to buy your product for 100$ more than it cost to make it would you sell it for less? if you answered yes then your an idiot.
and to all the people who think, ''Jeez, $90 profit per unit? If they're bringing in THAT much, surely they can afford to price it lower.'' ask your self if millions of people were willing to buy your product for 100$ more than it cost to make it would you sell it for less? if you answered yes then your an idiot.