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.

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.

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.

Of course Sony wouldn't pay upfront. There would be an agreement in place though. There's no way it's stretching far enough into the generation to make a considerable difference. Pemalite believes that the revisions are already being prepared. (tbh, I've got no idea either way) If true, a long term contract would make even less sense.

Of course Ms pr said that the xbox one was equally as powerful as the ps4. It's their job. I already said in another post that Sony delivered a solid machine.

With all the TV, TV and TV app talk at the reveal along with Kinect it's clear as the ocean is blue (intended) that they tried to recapture the casual audience.

Manufacturing split across 2 sku's though? Yeah, I got nothing to counter that. I simply am not informed enough. That's a good point I hadn't considered.

PR can't lie.

There is an agreement in place, that is exactly what makes the cost difference between Sony and MS. If you have a contract with a cadence of let's say 10M first year, then 18M for the next 4 years, then 10M again it certainly would have price difference against 5, 9, 5. Even if you say "but they wouldn't have a 5 year contract with quantities, we could go for Sony have a deal for 30M boxes on next 20 months, while MS have 15M there would have difference in the price sold.

There's no chance that many are being ordered though. 15 million? Sure. 30? No chance. Manufacturing and even potentially retail prices would come down before 30 million consoles would be out on the wild.

Then there's a chance of a revision or upgrade before 30 million also.