160°

$500 Would Be Too Expensive For Xbox 'Durango'

Speculation about Microsoft‘s next Xbox is ramping up these days, especially with regard to continuing rumors that the system will require an internet connection to function. Veteran Microsoft analyst Paul Thurrott chimed in recently, sounding awfully confident about some numbers. A big “rumor” caveat here, but he said that the Xbox “Durango” would cost $500 or $300 with a subscription.

Snookies124033d ago

You do not know this, and quite frankly it's stupid to think that. We have NO idea what's inside the next Xbox. The thing could have a Titan inside it (not that it would lol, just saying...) Until we actually KNOW what the specs are, we have no way of saying what is too expensive.

Hicken4033d ago

Well, given how the PS3 and Vita were received at their higher prices, I think- especially if the PS4 is $50-100 cheaper- a $500 price tag would be deemed too expensive.

Of course, there are plenty of people out there- you can see em all over this site, for example- who will buy it anyway. But I think that if it's comparable to the PS4 in specs, but runs at $499 or more, it won't sell well.

CarlosX3604033d ago (Edited 4033d ago )

Thing is, for PS3, the specs justified the purchase. I even bought it at $600. Granted, it stung like a bee, but I thought "What the hell, it's Sony." Then MGS4 was about to release a whole year from the date of the purchase. I got my price-match at $500 because of the price drop that Sony made at the time.

People don't buy things just because of price. They buy things because of the brand. 50 Million Xbox 360 owners will flock unless Microsoft really f*cks up.

If Sony can get away with the price, then Microsoft surely can. 3DO costed that much, but 3DO was pretty new, especially as a company. Nevermind it was founded by the same guy that founded EA, it's still new, and to compete with other gaming kings (Nintendo, SEGA, Atari and Sony at the time) you would need a pretty strong reputation. Not at a person-level, I mean at the company-level.

I didn't even know about 3DO until one day in Redwood City, where I happen to live... I tested the machine. I walked away impressed, because at the time, 32Bit was far and wide. A perfect port of Super Street Fighter II? Sold. But even then, not a lot of people knew about 3DO. That's why it bombed, and the price didn't help matters at all, either.

thechosenone4033d ago

Too expensive? Get a second job you lazy bums! I think it's the perfect price point for such a hot commodity like the next-gen xbox.

Blaze9294033d ago

even at that, too expensive for who? $199.99 USD is still too expensive to a lot of gamers with PS2s...

Godmars2904033d ago

The hard core will buy at $500.

All others, general consumers and hardcore "wannabes" will take the $300 subscription deal.

Thing is, how much will the subscription be?

Minato-Namikaze4033d ago

Too much for my blood. If they follow the 360's 300 down and a sub at 14.99 a month would come out to 659.76 over 2 years. Now after that 2 years do they continue to charge you the 14.99 or can you then buy a 49.99 subscription?

jaymart2k4033d ago

I'm hardcore & won't buy.

The max is $400 for hardcore gamers.

PygmelionHunter4033d ago (Edited 4033d ago )

You tell 'em like it is! Err... Random internet guy?

pete0074033d ago

what do you know of hardcore gamers? youre a hardcore gamer? on a console? I am a hargcore gamer and i spend 1500$/year on hardware, + consoles+games

admiralvic4033d ago

While I am not going to get into a debate about whither or not you're actually a "hardcore gamer" (I assume no one really cares either or), it's foolish to claim that there is a price cap for that or really any group out there.

If the new Xbox has good games, interesting features, solid specs and all the other stuff you find important, then I can easily see myself spending $500 on it. Above all, plenty of people forget that the price is second to only the games that come out for the system. If the next CoD, Halo, Battlefield and everything else that matter releases on it, then it will probably sell FAR faster than it being $200 dollars with nothing coming out.

TheUndertaker854033d ago

If its the same as the 360 deal...

2 year contract for Xbox Live prorated at $14.99 a month. That's the equivalent of $360 on top of the initial cost.

360: $99 initial + $360 Xbox Live contract = $449
Next Xbox: $300 + $360 Xbox Live contract = $660

Minato-Namikaze4033d ago (Edited 4033d ago )

assuming you can then buy a regular live sub for the remaning 3 years (assuming its a 5 year life cycle) then thats another $150. $810 dollars would end up being the total cost, i cant justify this when there will be cheaper options with better games (my opinion).

ziggurcat4033d ago

with all of its rumoured "features", $500 would be the final nail in the coffin, i think.

RuleofOne343 4033d ago

How is that expensive, compared to all devices on the market. That seem about right ,am okay with it & can't wait to buy me one or maybe two.

jaymart2k4033d ago

Cause people rather buy a over priced IPad for $500 instead.

admiralvic4033d ago

In the iPad / tablets defense, they have far more uses than a gaming console.

BattleReach4033d ago

I think 400$ is a great price for a console, but as said above: we don't know the specs yet, so I'll shut my mouth about now.

Show all comments (46)
60°

Disney Dreamlight Valley teases part two of paid expansion

Disney Dreamlight Valley devs have officially teased the second part of the paid expansion titled The Spark of Imagination.

60°

Best Stardew Valley Farm Names – 100 Funny, Nerdy, Cute Ideas and More

Starting out a new farm, but need help choosing a name? Check out this article for a 100 farm name ides for Stardew Valley.

180°

Bethesda Needs to Reduce the Gaps Between New Fallout and Elder Scrolls Releases

Waiting a decade for new instalments in franchises as massive as Fallout and Elder Scrolls feels like a waste.

Read Full Story >>
gamingbolt.com
-Foxtrot11h ago

Microsoft have Obsidian but I feel it's Bethesda who just don't want to play ball as they've always said they want to do it themselves.

Once MS bought Zenimax in 2020 they should have put the Outer Worlds 2 on the back burner, allow Bethesda to finish off its own Space RPG with Starfield (despite totally different tone why have two in your first party portfolio with two developers who's gameplay is a tad similar) and got Obsidian for one of their projects to make a spiritual successor to New Vegas.

When the Elder Scrolls VI is finished Bethesda can then onto the main numbered Fallout 5 themselves.

The Outer Worlds 2 started development in 2019 so putting it on the back burner wouldn't have been the end of the world, they'd have always come back to it once Fallout was done and it would have been nicely spaced out from Starfields release once they had most likely stopped supporting it and all the expansions were released.

If they did this back in 2020 when they bought Zenimax and the game had a good, steady 4 - 5 years development, you might have seen it release in 2025.

We are literally going to be waiting until 2030 at the very earliest for Fallout 5 and all they seem bothered about is pushing Fallout 76.

RaidenBlack9h ago(Edited 9h ago)

Its not just only Todd not playing ball.
Obsidian have made a name for themselves in delivering stellar RPGs, but most famous once have always been sequels/spin-offs to borrowed IPs like KOTOR 2, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout: New Vegas, Stick of Truth etc.
Obsidian wants to invest more in their own original IPs like Outer Worlds or Pillars of Eternity with Avowed.
Similar to what Bluepoint & inXile wants to do or Kojima is doing (i.e not involving anymore in Konami's IPs).
So yea, even if New Vegas has the most votes from 3D Fallout fans, Obsidian just wants to do their own thing, like any aspiring dev studio and MS is likely currently respecting that.
But a future Fallout game from Obsidian will surely happen. Founder Feargus Urquhart has already stated an year ago that they're eager to make a new Fallout game with Bethesda, New Vegas 2 or otherwise. Urquhart was the director of the very first 1995's Fallout game after all.
And don't forget Brian Fargo and his studio inXile, as Brian Fargo was the director of Fallout's 1988 predecessor: Wasteland

KyRo5h ago(Edited 5h ago)

Obsidian should take over the FO IP. They're do far better with it than Bethesda who hasn't made a great game for almost 15 years

Duke195h ago(Edited 5h ago)

I disagree. Part of these games is the support for the mod community. If they move to releasing a "next game" every 2 or 3 years, the modding support plummets and the franchises turn into just another run of the mill RPG.

Make the games good enough to withstand the test of time, to keep people coming back to them and expanding on them with mod support.

--Onilink--2h ago(Edited 2h ago)

I dont think anyone is saying they need to come out every 2 years (not to mention almost no game is released that quickly anymore)

By the time Fallout 5 comes out, it will be more than 15 years since Fallout 4 came out (same with ES6 coming out 15 years after Skyrim). Even if you want to use F76 as the metric for the most recent release, that one came out in 2018. It will be a miracle if F5 comes out before 2030

The point is that for a studio that doesnt seem to operate with multiple teams doing several projects at once, that their projects normally take 4-5 years as a minimum, and that now they even added Starfield to the rotation, it becomes a 15+ years waiting period between releases for each series, which doesnt make sense. Imagine that Nintendo only released a mainline Mario or Zelda game every 15 years…

They either need to start developing more than 1 project at a time, let someone else take a crack at one of the IPs or significantly reduce their development times

Duke191h ago(Edited 1h ago)

Why should someone else take a crack at one of the IPs? Look at what happened to Final Fantasy as a recent example - there is pretty clear FF fatigue setting in because they are now pumping out titles in the franchise every few years. Pumping out more games faster doesn't always make a series better.

There are plenty of options to make new games, not just create more titles in the same universe at a faster pace.

mandf2h ago

Yeah I’m going to say it, who cares about the modding community when making a game? Half the time developers only tolerate modders because they fix there game for them.

Skuletor4h ago

Yeah, let's all advocate for smaller gaps between series' releases, then we'll probably get headlines about how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven. Let them cook.

SimpleSlave3h ago

"how the series have dropped in quality and they could have benefited from more time in the oven" So every Bethesda game then? Got it.

Listen, I would agree if this was about From Software or something, but Bethesda?

🤣

C'mon now. What timeline are you from?

Skuletor58m ago

Think about it, they're already bug filled messes on their current schedule, can you imagine how much worse it would be if they rushed things?

Duke191h ago

I mean you aren't wrong. People are going to complain about anything

isarai3h ago

Hows about you focus on quality, just a thought 🤷‍♂️

Sciurus_vulgaris2h ago

Bethesda [or Microsoft] would have to reallocate internal and external studios towards fallout and elder scrolls titles. Bethesda has the issue of developing 2 big IPs that are large RPGs on rotation. If you want more Fallout and Elder Scrolls, development will have to be outsourced.

Show all comments (18)