Microsoft officially launches $99 Xbox 360 with two-year contract


Recommended Posts

Microsoft officially launches $99 Xbox 360 with two-year contract

Microsoft_Xbox_subscription_coupon.png

Just as we reported last week, Microsoft is selling the a 4GB Xbox 360 console with a Kinect for $99 with a two-year Xbox Live Gold contract for $14.99 per month. Unfortunately, you'll have to live near a Microsoft Store to cash in on this deal; you'll need to bring in the coupon (or have the store associate enter a specific offer code) and sign up for two years of service. Overall, this bundle will cost $458.76 over the course of two years (before taxes), as compared to a $299 bundle bought outright, plus two years at $59.99 per year for Xbox Live Gold, which can often be found at a discount ? so while you'll save some money off the bat by signing that contract, you'll actually spend a little more over the course of the two years.

Developing...

Source: The Verge

Edited by SHoTTa35
Content fix

What a horrible deal lol

People are so bad at saving money it's unbelievable

This is - quite literally - the smartphone contract applied to consoles.

And this is bad *why*? Because "it's never been done this way" - sure it has.

How much are exclusive games (which are generally the AAA titles for any console) *each*?

You get BOHICA'd over the cost of the console itself, then get BOHICA'd *again* over the game cost, then by the DLC, etc.

What this contract is intended to do is enable those that balk at the upfront cost of a console (even though XB360+Kinect is still cheaper then PS3+MOVE) by spreading it out (and partially subsidizing it).

Subsidized smartphone handsets are exactly *why* such phones are practically the default in North America.

I'm actually surprised that Sony didn't try it with PS3+MOVE.

Ok so lemme get this right;

Xbox 4GB for $199 + 2yrs of Xbox live @ $49 x 2 ($98) = $297 + Tax

Xbox 4GB for $99 + 2yrs of Xbox Live @ 14.99 x 24 ($359.76) = $458.76 + Tax

Is my math off or wtf? :blink:

Ok so lemme get this right;

Xbox 4GB for $199 + 2yrs of Xbox live @ $49 x 2 ($98) = $297 + Tax

Xbox 4GB for $99 + 2yrs of Xbox Live @ 14.99 x 24 ($359.76) = $458.76 + Tax

Is my math off or wtf? :blink:

This includes the Kinect. The bundle without the 2 year contract would normally cost $299 plus two years of Live at $59, which comes out to $417

Ok so lemme get this right;

Xbox 4GB for $199 + 2yrs of Xbox live @ $49 x 2 ($98) = $297 + Tax

Xbox 4GB for $99 + 2yrs of Xbox Live @ 14.99 x 24 ($359.76) = $458.76 + Tax

Is my math off or wtf? :blink:

You forgot to include the cost of the Kinect in the first part. :p

This includes the Kinect. The bundle without the 2 year contract would normally cost $299 plus two years of Live at $59, which comes out to $417

You forgot to include the cost of the Kinect in the first part. :p

Hell in that case then it's not such a big deal then. $50 more is the cost over 2yrs so that's basically one less happy meal a month and you can pay for it. LOL Sure it costs more and I guess I wouldn't do it either but I guess some people will look at it as being able to have your Xbox now rather than in 4-6 months or whatever when you'd be able to save it up. Doing it via credit card is obviously the worse idea however as you'll get interest on top of that too.

According to the article it only costs $38 more than buying the bundle outright and then paying for two years of Live.

You'll still be paying for your "old" 360 in two years when most likely all the new games are going to be coming out for the next gen hardware. I'm a big believer in buying what you can't afford right now, can't afford a 360? Save up and buy one when you have the money! It's not essential, you'll live without one

The 360 will probably be outright $99 in less than 2 years.

Something like this might be a little more appealing day 1 of a new console launch ($599 PS3 anyone?), but now? No thanks.

I am not against this. While I wouldnt take part in this as I usually try to find my xbox gold deals for $30 or less. But as the article states its only $38 more, some people have issues with putting out $299 + $60 all at once (for a gaming console). So if they can "save" $260 upfront (spreading it out @ $15 a month) and it only ends up cost them $38 over the next 24 months, so be it.

@audio - agreed something like this should have been done sooner

I think of this as a test run for them and I expect them to offer a deal like this for the next Xbox either day 1 or a few months later (to keep the retailers happy since this seems to be limited to MS stores only). In that case, seeing how systems cost a good chunk when new it makes way more sense for people to buy them this way from the start since you're going to have it and use it for at least 2 years anyways.

The 360 will probably be outright $99 in less than 2 years.

Something like this might be a little more appealing day 1 of a new console launch ($599 PS3 anyone?), but now? No thanks.

I would agree. It would likely be much more popular at the beginning of a console life. My only concern is if people try to find a way to do something shady or run with the XBox... lol I'm curious how this is structured since you would be getting the console from a 3rd Party. Do they enroll you and your credit card at time of purchase I presume?

And I really don't think it's a bad idea. Not for me personally, but I can see this being popular with some people...

I think of this as a test run for them and I expect them to offer a deal like this for the next Xbox either day 1 or a few months later (to keep the retailers happy since this seems to be limited to MS stores only). In that case, seeing how systems cost a good chunk when new it makes way more sense for people to buy them this way from the start since you're going to have it and use it for at least 2 years anyways.

Day 1 I think would be a mistake considering how hard it is to keep a console on the shelves early on. I would expect this to roll out a few months later, maybe 6 months or so, when they have a steady supply and can to some extent meet demands... But I fully expect something like this to be available for the next XBox at this point.

That's a pretty bad deal on its own. Add in the fact that you can always find a year of live for well under the normal $60 and it becomes far worse. Perhaps if they actually gave you the useful model, the one with the hdd, this deal wouldn't be so terrible.

So is this a sign that Xbox Live service will be $15 a month?

How is for anyone cost-effective to get an Xbox 360 with 2 year contract at $15 a month? Your total sum comes out to like $460 for something you would pay $350 otherwise, especially when we know when you sign up for 2 years you can't change the contract, so Microsoft comes out in 2 months and lowers the Xbox 360+Kinect price to $200 while you stlil have to continue paying $460 off.

Crazy.

So is this a sign that Xbox Live service will be $15 a month?

How is for anyone cost-effective to get an Xbox 360 with 2 year contract at $15 a month? Your total sum comes out to like $460 for something you would pay $350 otherwise, especially when we know when you sign up for 2 years you can't change the contract, so Microsoft comes out in 2 months and lowers the Xbox 360+Kinect price to $200 while you stlil have to continue paying $460 off.

Crazy.

$460 against say $370 (if you can score the $35 XBL gold deals), is not a really a rip-off (but kind of still is :p). It is a type of loan anyway and you shouldn't be complaining about future price drops. :/

I'd never go for such items but this is no different than cell phone plans.

Um, not sure that's true. You can buy the Xbox 360 + kinect for 260-270 bucks on amazon and Xbox live gold for 60 bucks and that's 320-330 bucks actually but I was generous with my number in previous post.

Considering you are stuck into contract this whole deal doesn't seem great really. At least IMO.

Found it:

10. EARLY TERMINATION FEES.

An Early Termination Fee ("ETF") is a charge made to your credit card if any of the following occur:

  • If you do not return your Console Bundle during the 30 day Return Period, and you cancel your Subscription before the two year term ends;
  • If you fail to provide an on time, full Subscription payment and we are required to cancel your Subscription; or.
  • If you violate the Xbox LIVE Terms of Use, resulting in termination of your Xbox LIVE membership.

The ETF is intended to provide reasonable compensation to Microsoft for the losses it suffers when a customer does not remain a customer for the full term of the Agreement. The early termination fee (ETF) is part of this Offer and is not a penalty.

Schedule of Early Termination Fees to be paid to Microsoft:

Year One of Subscription (Months Post Purchase)

Months Post Purchase 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ETF for Cancellation $250 $250 $250 $240 $228 $216 $204 $192 $180 $168 $156 $144

Year Two of Subscription (Months Post Purchase)

Months Post Purchase 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ETF for Cancellation $132 $120 $108 $96 $84 $72 $60 $48 $36 $24 $12 $0

Taxes may apply to an ETF. The content of the Offer and the applicable taxing authority for the state where you live determine if taxes apply. These taxes are valid and not a result of a billing issue.

http://www.xbox.com/...-contract-terms

edit: looks like the tables are funny when posting

So is this a sign that Xbox Live service will be $15 a month?

How is for anyone cost-effective to get an Xbox 360 with 2 year contract at $15 a month? Your total sum comes out to like $460 for something you would pay $350 otherwise, especially when we know when you sign up for 2 years you can't change the contract, so Microsoft comes out in 2 months and lowers the Xbox 360+Kinect price to $200 while you stlil have to continue paying $460 off.

Crazy.

I don't get how you're assuming XBL will now be $15 a month now this is out. If anything, that would make this deal extremely generous?

It's not supposed to be cost-effective long run (pay monthly deals never are!) but it's hardly a gigantic rip-off - even if you get the absolutely best deals ($260 for 4GB + Kinect) and then somehow get lucky and snag XBL 1yr sub for $35 each, you're still only paying $120 more doing it on this new plan, or $5/mo, which is hardly a big deal. Considering XBL costs $5/mo anyway, you're paying $10 more and getting a heavily subsidised console package up front - I'd say that's a good deal. People have been doing it with phones for years and no one bats an eye lid, so I don't see what the deal is.

Granted, not exactly a great time to launch this thing right now for the 360 - however being able to do it for the next-gen console within the launch window would be fantastic. It'd give Microsoft a bit of leverage on the pricing front - They could launch the console for $399 or $199 with 2 year XBL for $20/mo - a reasonable deal for a new console really.

So is this a sign that Xbox Live service will be $15 a month?

How is for anyone cost-effective to get an Xbox 360 with 2 year contract at $15 a month? Your total sum comes out to like $460 for something you would pay $350 otherwise, especially when we know when you sign up for 2 years you can't change the contract, so Microsoft comes out in 2 months and lowers the Xbox 360+Kinect price to $200 while you stlil have to continue paying $460 off.

Crazy.

If you buy the 360 outright and MS comes along and drops the price of the bundle you can't go back and get a refund.

What this contract is intended to do is enable those that balk at the upfront cost of a console (even though XB360+Kinect is still cheaper then PS3+MOVE) by spreading it out (and partially subsidizing it).

Not if you use comparable bundles:

http://www.amazon.com/Xbox-360-250GB-Console-Kinect/dp/B003O6JLZ2/ref=sr_1_3?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1336951021&sr=1-3

XBox 360 250GB w/ Kinect + 2 games -- $395

http://www.amazon.com/PlayStation-320-System-Move-Bundle-3/dp/B002I0K956

PS3 320GB w/ Move + 1 game -- $349

Not counting in the cost of a Live sub, the bonus game for the XBox, and the need for the seperate nav controller for the Move, I'd say it's pretty much even.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Removed the blue and underline as you did not post a link. This would also  be considered spamming.
    • Why it's almost impossible to produce a smartphone in the United States by Hamid Ganji If you look at the back of some Apple products, you can see the famous phrase “Designed by Apple in California, Assembled in China.” This phrase appears on products from one of the largest smartphone brands in the United States. These products are designed in the U.S., but their manufacturing takes place in China, India, Vietnam, or even Brazil. But why can’t Apple, as one of the largest American tech companies, produce its iPhones on U.S. soil? The idea for this topic came to me after the Trump Foundation launched a smartphone called the T1 and claimed that it was designed and built with American values in mind. However, this claim did not last long, as it was revealed that Trump’s phone was actually a rebranded HTC U24 Pro, with only a gold case and minor internal component changes. You see? Even a phone that is supposed to represent American values is manufactured in China. With a gross domestic product (GDP) exceeding $32 trillion, the United States is currently the world’s largest economy, while China ranks second with around $20 trillion. On the other hand, the United States is by a wide margin the global leader in various technological fields, and American companies spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually on research and development. From Apple and Google to Microsoft, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and others, American tech and industrial giants lead their foreign competitors in many sectors. The United States also has no shortage of smartphone brands. Apple, Google, and Motorola are among the major brands in the smartphone market, collectively holding a significant share. However, the vast majority of their products are manufactured outside the United States. So why is it that the world’s largest economy, home to the most advanced technology companies and industrial powers, cannot produce a smartphone on its own soil? Let’s explore this question together. Even threats to impose tariffs won’t work After Trump entered the White House as the 47th President of the United States, his administration adopted strict tariff policies. One of these policies was the imposition of a 25% tariff on smartphones manufactured outside the United States. Trump said he “had a little problem” with Apple CEO Tim Cook over producing smartphones outside the U.S. So he thought that threatening a 25% tax on imported phones might force Apple to bring manufacturing back to the United States. “I have long ago informed Tim Cook of Apple that I expect their iPhones that will be sold in the United States of America will be manufactured and built in the United States, not India, or anyplace else,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. Image via The White House Although Apple currently manufactures some of the iPhone’s chips in the United States with TSMC's help, it still shows no willingness to shift full iPhone production to the country. At the time, renowned Apple supply chain analyst Ming-Chi Kuo wrote on X, “In terms of profitability, it’s way better for Apple to take the hit of a 25% tariff on iPhones sold in the US market than to move iPhone assembly lines back to the US.” However, manufacturing a smartphone in the United States is not as easy as it might seem, and many technical and economic barriers are involved. The lack of necessary manufacturing hubs There is a clear reason why many companies prefer to manufacture their products in China. China has established itself as the main global manufacturing hub for international companies, and over the past few decades, large contract manufacturers have emerged there, allowing companies like Apple to outsource production. One such example is Foxconn, which also manufactures some Apple products in India. Building the infrastructure required to produce smartphones in the United States would require tens of billions of dollars in new investment. Factories would need to be built, essential manufacturing equipment would have to be installed, and, most importantly, a skilled workforce capable of operating these systems would need to be recruited and trained. The United States currently lacks the core infrastructure needed to manufacture smartphones, and for this reason, many companies prefer to outsource production to Chinese contractors rather than spend tens of billions of dollars to build that infrastructure, which is significantly more economically efficient. Additionally, building such infrastructure in the United States could take up to a decade, ultimately leading to a significant increase in the product's final price for consumers. Shortage of trained labor in the U.S. compared to China Decades of serving as a global manufacturing hub have allowed China to build a massive talent pool in the production sector that is almost unmatched worldwide. Today, if a company chooses to manufacture its products in China, it can be confident that the workers involved in production have years of experience in their respective roles and are capable of producing high-quality goods with minimal errors. Even if we assume that tens of billions of dollars were invested in building smartphone manufacturing infrastructure in the United States, finding skilled workers would remain highly challenging. Apple CEO Tim Cook visiting the iPhone 6 assembly line in China in 2014. Image: Tim Cook on X In a 2015 interview on CBS’s 60 Minutes, Tim Cook said the main reason Apple isn’t producing in the US is a lack of skills. "China put an enormous focus on manufacturing, in what you and I would call vocational kind of skills. The US over time began to stop having as many vocational kinds of skills. I mean you could take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in the room that we're currently sitting in. In China you would have to have multiple football fields,” Cook said. Also, in 2017, at the Fortune Global Forum in Guangzhou, Cook once again emphasized the importance of highly skilled Chinese workers. “China has moved into very advanced manufacturing, so you find in China the intersection of craftsman kind of skill, and sophisticated robotics and the computer science world. That intersection, which is very rare to find anywhere, that kind of skill, is very important to our business because of the precision and quality level that we like. The thing that most people focus on if they’re a foreigner coming to China is the size of the market, and obviously, it’s the biggest market in the world in so many areas. But for us, the number one attraction is the quality of the people,” Apple CEO said. Higher labor costs in the United States Producing almost any product in the United States is more expensive than in many other countries, and one of the main reasons is the higher cost of labor in the U.S. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median weekly earnings of full-time workers in the United States were $1,235 in the first quarter of 2026. Meanwhile, the average annual salary in China's private sector in 2025 was RMB 71,590 (US$9,961). In many parts of the world, the weekly wage of an American worker is equivalent to several months of income. Another important factor to consider is that in the United States, the workforce capable of working on a smartphone assembly line is highly specialized and therefore commands higher-than-average wages. According to an estimate by Bank of America, producing an iPhone in the U.S. is technically possible, but “iPhone cost can increase 25% purely on higher labor cost in the U.S.” However, this 25% increase applies only if final assembly is performed in the United States while components are still sourced from China or elsewhere. In this case, the price of a base iPhone would rise from $799 to around $1,000. But in another scenario, if Apple were to produce the required components for the iPhone within the United States, production costs could increase by more than 90%. Trump’s dream for a “Made in the USA” iPhone might never come true In a free-market capitalist economy, one of the primary responsibilities of any CEO is to maximize profit. Using Apple as an example, Tim Cook’s role is to maximize the company’s profits so that it can fund research and development for new products and invest in areas such as artificial intelligence, while also keeping shareholders satisfied. Therefore, it is entirely understandable that Apple would choose not to bring its manufacturing back to the United States and instead keep production in countries where labor is cheaper, and products can be manufactured at a lower cost, thereby maximizing its profit margins. What is your opinion about manufacturing smartphones in the United States? If you are an American citizen, would you be willing to pay hundreds of dollars more for a smartphone made domestically in the USA? Let us know in the comments.
    • Cheers everyone for the replies. It's been very useful. 👍
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      505
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      195
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      153
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      71
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!