As I said in my last post I agree with that, but someone less informed reading the thread might still have interpreted your original comment as Sony actually breaking even/profiting on the hardware itself at launch, which is why I clarified.

I'm curious as to how much each system costs to run, electricity wise.
I know the Wii hardly used any electricity.
Also, that external power brick. Sony has done a great job at keeping it internal.

But Mark Cerny told me GDDr5 is good and mark cerny knows everything...

Another day, another FUD. Plus it's an MS in-house developer. Just let the games do the talking

The only way it would be "uncomfortable" is if they get down to micromanaging the registers during optimization. And the only reason why is different types of RAM handle data differently. Once you learn what is different between the processes it will be "easy".

As some pointed out it is just an in house developer making the console they are paid to work with look better.

All I have to say is, it's a bit sad what microsoft is trying to do at this point. Just saying something is better, when it's by the very definition, not.

I dont know anything about tech,but it doesnt look like MS engineers were trying to downplay sony they were just saying we did this because we tought it was the best for the console architecture.
For me Ryse looks awesome thats all i need to know in terms of graphics.

There is no bias or flawed reasoning in this post...

What MS mean by balance is the balance between games, apps, tv, Kinect and price. If they had loads of GDDR5 plus a better GPU and still included Kinect which seems to be a core focus for them then the price would have been in the plus £500 range.

SMH