Arcade version. Sealed, in box.

And you're just giving it away to the first person that posts here? Such a charitable soul!

I'll take it!

_________________
Larreth Wolfsong (long retired)
Lanys T'vyl, Everquest

Zinky, Lvl 60 Warlock
Thunderhorn, WoW

Gratz Larreth!!

First!

.. shit!

What are you asking for it, Leo?

Something reasonable, /shrug. New 4GB one is going for $200, so $150?

For what it's worth, through a good sale I picked up a brand new 250gb Slim for $184.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

Geez, that is a good sale.

Yeah I was originally looking for one used on Kijiji, hoping to spend $150, most guys wanted $250 to $300 for all their stuff - two controllers, charger and games I didn't want. But when a local place had the 250gb version on for $190, I price matched with another place, got 10% off the difference and made it a no brainer.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

I won't ask what retailer, but you should know what they've done there is illegal. Commercial outlets aren't actually allowed to sell new consoles at less than the retail price we set. That's why you don't see price wars at the retailer level -- all three major console manufacturers have that rule.

(Edit: That's commercial retailers. Charities and private sales are not subject to that rule.)

Yeah because cartels and price fixing is legal...

If the retailer want to sell at a loss the consoles how it is Sony, MS or Nintendo's buisness?

It isn't price fixing. It's setting a minimum retail price, which is perfectly legal.

It's the manufacturer's business because a significantly low price can harm public perceptions of the product.

Actually illegal as in not allowed by law? Or not allowed by contract, else they run the risk of being cut off?

In the end it's the same fucking thing. It's lawyers playing potato / tomato.

"harming the public perception of the product"
I bet the companies laugh their asses off anyone is dumb enough to believe them when they say that.

The retailers were London Drugs and Future Shop; Future Shop being arguably the biggest electronics retailer in Canada so I'm pretty sure they did nothing 'illegal'.

_________________
Kuwen Furyblades
Hunter of Memento Reejeryn
Champion of Faydark

It's not illegal, but the manufacturer can refuse to re-supply them and there could be other consequences depending on their contracts.

If Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo were to agree on a minimum price, sure. Then you'd have price fixing.

link

If you have two products that have similiar functions, the higher priced item will almost always be considered the more prestigious, regardless of whether it is a higher quality item.

It works with almost every category of product. That's why name brand items often outsell store brand products even when they are made by the same manufacturer using the exact same materials and procedures.

You can think it's bullshit if you want, but you're simply wrong in this case.

Indeed

It's still lawyers playing potato / tomato with the meanings of words.

If Acer and BenQ were also making a Xbox360 clone, compatible with MS Xbox360 I would agree. But in the current state of things It is still bullshit.
Since Microsoft is the only one making Xbox360 systems it is price fixing.

We are not talking about Brand X orange juice VS Tropicana.

We are talking pork chops vs steak. Both are meat like both Xbox and Playstation are game consoles. Some people like both some only like pork chops some only like steaks. You buy what you like to eat if you have the money to buy it. You don't buy pork shops if you don't like pork chops.

Future Shop actually ignores a lot of contractual obligations, and they get away with it because they're so large. See also: Wal-Mart almost singlehandedly cock-blocking digital distribution of console games.

The rules in question are civil issues in a contract; there are no criminal penalties if the contract is violated, but there are criminal escalation options if the violating party doesn't comply with civil penalty clauses. For example, an outlet that breaks the price agreement can be required to sell back all their stock. If they keep any back, their representatives can be charged with theft.

(This is general corporate practice; none of this should be construed as information specific to Microsoft.)

Price fixing laws exist so that competitors cannot agree on a mutual price point and effectively stop competing. If a company has no competitors (which you are apparently claiming), then it is impossible for them to price fix their goods.

In this case though, there are competitors. There are several consoles out there that all perform the same basic functions. The companies view themselves as being in competition, and consumers do as well any time they decide to buy one over another.

Just because consoles have specific games that are only available on them does not mean that they are not in competition. My toothbrush uses heads that are not available from any other company and do not fit on any other brush, but every other toothbrush on the shelf is still a competitor.

Absolutely true. If you like the Xbox, buy it if you can afford it. It is not incumbent on the company to make it affordable to you.

I don't buy my Xbox from Microsoft. I buy it from Futureshop. Futureshop should be the only one who decide the price they sell it to me. They bought it from Microsoft. Microsoft got the money they wanted for it. Now its Futureshop's time to decide how much money they gonna make on it.


I know that right now it's not working like that. Doesn't make it right tho.

Future Shop signed an agreement and they should live up to it. Whether they should have signed it is a matter of opinion, but kind of beside my point.

Can we please move on past your imaginary point? Thanks!

Not going for subtlety tonight?