Well, partly because the X didn't really do anything for them.  Sure, they can boast about having the most powerful machine, but its not doing them any good when they are on the same trajectory as before, selling less than half of the PS4.  The other part is cost.  MS obviously doesn't believe in subsidizing its consoles as much as Sony does, otherwise the XBO could have launched at ~$399, as well as the X.  The SAD could have been $150-$200 if they wanted.  MS isn't going to want to take massive losses on expensive HW when they are moving their business to be more focused on providing services. 

I see them aiming at $499, again, but I think the max they will subsidize is ~$50, so the system would cost them ~$550.  Sony is in a better position than they were at the launch of the PS4, so will most likely be willing to subsidize theirs more heavily.  I think they may aim for $499, too, but will be willing to take a loss of $100-$150, meaning it would cost them $600-650 to make.  Add in the fact that Sony will be able to make better deals for their chips, given they will be able to leverage the fact that they have sold ~115M PS4s by the time the PS5 releases (as well as have a proven track record, with their lowest selling home console being ~86M), and Sony could definitely end up with the more powerful machine.

He is mostly AMD and mostly Xbox.
I have listened to his videos before and there is obviously a confirmation bias.

Agreed. Ps3 was stronger yet was outperformed most of the generation. Only near the end did 3rd parties manage to get a handle on the cell. 1st party titles were very impressive considering.

PS4 was more powerful than the X1 because of Kinect. Without a shadow of a doubt. It was actually designed to only have 4gb of ram initially... They just let Ms make a mistake and provided a solid console.

X1X wasn't intended to affect the landscape. It was intended to be the most powerful and change the perception of xbox.... It has.

The og did release later. It could have also just matched specs and price with the PS2 but didn't... Much like the X. The trend and mindset of Phil Spencer and Co is set and their pockets run deep.

The real mistake wasn't Kinect. (Although that certainly didn't help)

It was the eSRAM. - That cache meant that the Xbox One chip was roughly the same size as the Playstation 4's chip and thus likely similar in cost to manufacture.
If Microsoft ditched that and sprinkled more CU's and had faster DRAM, things could have certainly played out differently.

Kinect was just an unnecessary add-on which added to cost, but it's not what caused the Xbox One chip to be technically inferior for the same price as Sony's efforts.

This, "Sony sold more thus can demand better deals" idea is poor. How many millions do you think they'll pay for in advance? 10 million? 12? 15? 20? No more than 20, which both companies are more than guaranteed to sell.

Prices will drop... They're not going to buy too far in advance for something they're likely to get cheaper... If it doesn't get revised within a year or two. It would be incredibly foolish.

Xbox launched at $499 because of the bundled Kinect. Though could have subsidised harder. I do think ms will have the more expensive console, so we agree here.

Hmm. I didn't explain myself well enough.

By saying that it was less powerful because of Kinect, I mean that the consoles design was flawed because of the direction that the X1 was aimed, casuals.

They tried to recapture that audience that had already moved on, much like they had with the Wii and tried to do enough to appease us  "hardcore" gamers too. It didn't work.

Had they decided to focus on the core gaming audience, who knows what they could have done. They decided to shoot themselves in the foot just before the race instead. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

It's not poor, it's how bargaining works.  If AMD is convinced by Sony that they have an incredible chance to sell at least 85M units, which is the lowest they have ever sold, they will give them better prices upfront.  They will still make their money even at a lower profit margin AND have the added PR of being what powers the #1 console of that gen.  And, yes, as prices fall, Sony will be able to continue to make deals for cheaper prices.  They aren't fixed. Of course, we also don't know how much involvement Sony actually had in Navi's development.  If Sony shouldered some of the cost of its development, they would most likely use that as reasoning for cheaper prices, too.

MS doesn't have the same advantage, cause only Lord knows how much they will sell.  Could be around what XBO sells or it could be much less.  They are still going to want to make their money from those chips, so will sell them with a higher profit margin.  If the XB2 is a success, then MS can make better deals with AMD.

Yes, the Kinect helped add to the price of the XBO, but MS still chose not to subsidize it when they dropped the camera, instead matching the PS4's price, even though it was noticeably less powerful.  Only after months of being outsold by the PS4 did they start having random firesales, dropping the price to ~$349 every so often.  Of course, by that time, they were probably already at break even with a $349 price.

They'll both sell out of the initial launch devices though. It makes absolutely no sense for Sony to pay for or enter a deal for 85 plus million chipsets that will be phased out. Even if they are guaranteed to sell them all. Talk about how bargaining works all you like, it would be a foolish bargain.

It also makes no sense for amd to back one horse over the other, even if PS5 is more likely to sell a higher volume than neXtbox. They're in the business to make money. Again, it would be foolish. No one has a crystal ball here. To be clear though, I do believe that the PS5 will sell more it's just not written in stone. No one expected the 360 to be as successful as it was. Nor the Wii.... The Switch... The og PlayStation... Anything can happen.

There is a fuckton of cash to be made by AMD not just through chip sales... But through licensing of I.P and lump sum payments... And that is cash irrespective of console sales. AMD doesn't do the design work for free... Especially when porting their libraries to smaller processes.
So while we are gearing up for the Xbox Two and Playstation 5, AMD is likely working on new chips to go into the "Pro" and "Slim" consoles as we speak.

Nope PS4 was stronger because Sony played their cards better, they had a single chip, single memory solution that at time of design allowed for 4GB, but as price came down they doubled it and increased bandwidth while MS due to the memory they choose had to put ESDRAM that ate a lot of the chip size and added cost.

I love that all discussion involving launching of consoles have MS and their deep pockets to make sure they will be the most powerful and sell most. And it have never really worked. I also love that Sony doesn't have merits, they succeed when other fails and fail when others succeed. Still they have been 1st on 3 of 4 generations, and on the generation they weren't first they still beat MS and sold more consoles than anything not sony except Wii. Sony is such a lucky company.

I guess you are looking at it from the wrong side.

Sony is not going to pay upfront for all the chips. What they will have is a cadence of delivery that is twice as big (perhaps even more, since MS is rumored to have 2 models and the more expensive would have much less production) and assured for the next 5 years. So with that in hand AMD can also have better contracts with foundries. All that adds up to more discount to Sony than MS, thus for on about all components for similar spec Sony will have it a little cheaper and when sum it could cost Sony 50 less per box than MS.

That is pure fabrication man.

MS was certain their console was strong and they weren't going full casual (they aren't that dumb, they saw how Wii was declining in the last years and that WiiU was DoA). And also they after the reveal of specs gone full PR defending that their console was on pair with Sony, claiming it was impossible that Xbox1 was 30% (or whatever number he said) weaker than PS4.