"The only major difference between the two systems is RAM type and GPU cores (12 vs 18). Sony is probably paying AMD more for the APU. This is the only cost factor that can actually have a major impact on price and i think that is what NYCrysis was getting it."

Perhaps he is but it is still wrong. System-performance depends on a lot of variables and not just ram-type and gpu. Anyway it is not *much* stronger.

"And price does have a direct relation to power. Especially in this case when the two systems are directly comparable"

But they aren't. Many parts are totally different so barely comparable. And no, there is no direct relation between price and power. If this would be true, the 3ds would be much cheaper than the vita, the WiiU also. The price is also influenced by a lot of variables.

"The price you pay for consoles is determined by the manufacturing costs as well as the amount the manufacturer is willing to subsidize."

Yes, and exactly the manufacturing costs consists of a lot of things.

"And I think the Kinect price can be approximated based on the price of the current Kinect and a bit of extrapolation."

Sure but we will never get actual costs. Crash did guesstimates at best, with a little bias.

Sorry but i just don't agree. The little additions Sony and MS make to their systems are negligible and probably dont add much to the cost. Its not that hard to price these systems with a little bit of knowledge on systems and how they work. But i think what is even more obvious is that the core components of the system are the main costs. And we already know what the main components are:

GPU, CPU, HDD, MOBO, RAM, COOLER, BLURAY DRIVE etc.

Theres also the cost of the controller and kinect. At this point we also know what specialed units both Sony and MS added to the console. Components that handle Sound etc.

Again the architectures are damn near identical going by the rumours. And lets face it, the rumours have been 100% accurate...you never going to get the details straight from MS or Sony. AMD obviously heavily influenced the design of the systems theres really nothing in it. Thats why they are comparable. If these systems arent comparable then no systems will ever be comparable. Consoles have never been this comparable ever before. And the major difference right now is the ram type, compute units, and Kinect. It really is that simple. I'm sorry but theres just no other way to see it.

This is why i have said multiple times in multiple other thread why the whole argument over console power is completely dead and boring. We know everything there is to know about these consoles. Thats what happens when you take off the shelf pc parts and put them in a console.

well you have to take in consideration profit margin.... for all we know MS might have a bigger margin than Sony.... which would make any guestimate on cost of production and material cost irrelevant.... for all we know the box could be 300 right now and the PS 350 with 0 profit margin.... or the opposite the PS could be 600 and the box 550....

anyway while I see the commercial advantage in terms of sales a Kinect less SKU could be at a lower price point I think it would be a terrible decision in terms of product.... the novelty of Kinect is fading.... if they don't put it in the box it will sell less than the old one even if it's better.... and it will be irrelevant... and there will be less chance for devs to have interest in it... anyone saying it won't change if it's packed... might be right.... but if it's not it will definitely have no relevance....

and at that point even if I will probably get an XB1 if it's not packed in all SKU at launch I will not buy this year one for sure and I will really look into the steambox as fair contender for my purchase...

oh and in your calculation you forget software cost too

Just "weaker" please and based on devs. it is negligable (I know they are not a reliable sources, Internet readers are way better but I choose to believe the devs., shame on me!)... :)

You can listen to the M$ paid devs. i'll look at cold hard facts. Here are benchmark results for an amd 7770 (1.28 TFlops similar to xbox one gpu) vs 7850 (1.76tflops similar to ps4 gpu). http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/XFX/HD_7790_Black_Edition_OC/9.html the 7850 OWNS the 7770 by a larger than 50% margin.

Lol.. Foxconn/Pegatron are the manufacturers of the consoles. They don't care the least what they are assembling, but one thing is dead sure: they want hard money for their work - they are not going to lose a single cent manufacturing the stuff.

I have had tof cameras in my radar for over 30 years and I am extremely puzzled by the low price of the XBox One with Kinect2. If you have any leaks/good approximations on Kinect2 hardware costs, tell us...

Sorry by manufacturers i meant MS/Sony. Sorry for confusion.

Exactly and the fact is that the 7770 has GDDR5 and the 7850 has 16 compute vs the PS4's 20!  The fact is the PS4 is around 2x stronger than the Xbox One, cheaper to produce due to no ESRAM, and simpler to program for due to a unified architecture.

MS was caught off guard.  Plain and simple.

why include it if it's not actually required?