The concept is similar, you pay inflated price for both the service and the phone or for the house, as you get a loan to take it out from the bank.

I got my phone for free with £15 a 24 month contract 15*24 = £360? phone was about £150 at the time, that's less than £10 a month for the contract itself.

How this is significantly different taking into account that you get live subscription instead of the usual contract that you get for a phone is beyond me, it's a typical model of taking things in credit. YOU END UP PAYING MORE AT THE END OF THE DAY.

Again, you seem not to understand what CREDIT is in the first place, not necessarily how to handle it. Of course if you pay off fees on time, it's possible to get a car or smaller item for the same price with 0% APR, but taking into account that this contract is two years old, not expecting any APR is quite stupid, and what makes it even more fucking lame is that you're the internet warrior all of the sudden about it, just because Microsoft decided to implement it in their own stores, not like they ram it down your throat or anything.

There is a early cancellation penalty in place for the $99 360/Live deal ($250 to cancel in the first three months, down to $12 in the 23rd month).

Not a great deal but far from the worst.

A house, car, or other large ticket item is not the same thing as there is a very small % of people in this world who can buy those without utilizing a loan based approach. It simply costs too much to obtain.

A game console is 100% different from that as it is cheap and therefore it can be obtained by the greater majority of anyone through means without paying extra.

The phone contract scenario DOES NOT cost you more. The phone service is the same price and the only difference is the reduction in the cost of the phone. On Verizon, for arguments sake, you could buy an Android Phone for $550 and pay another $60/mo for your service without any contract.... OR you could sign a two year contract and get the exact same phone for $199 and pay the exact same $60/mo for your service. There is no additional cost. Just the contract for the same prices service you would have been using with or without the contract. That is the singular difference.

MS is not charging the same MSRP price of $60 for the year. They are charging more than double that price. Its not the same and its not a fair or good deal. Now, had rumors came true where it wasn't regular old Live service, but contained extra freebies like Netflix, things would be different. But that's not the case.

That's the only real negative I can see.

I am not sure how it works in your country, but here if you opt for a high end phone on your contract instead of the regular phone, your monthly contribution increases, either way your point is invalid, it's not necessarily the extra price of the service, it reflects upon the price of the hardware itself, when you take things in credit there is a certain APR to be taken into account, and $40 something over two years is practically nothing, like what, an extra $1.70 a month? For those not being able to afford up front cost it's a great deal, for those who can get it outright the option is still there.

But that's cool, please do continue your crusade against taking things out and paying the amount out gradually - ie in credit, after all, Microsoft is the spawn of the devil, how dare they offer alternatives that end up costing about 15% increase over two years, with drastically smaller upfront cost.

When some of you start your own business. Let me know. I am sure you will let me come in and purchase $420 worth of merchandise and pay for it over 2 years without any sort of extra charge.

A good deal would be 0% interest, like they do with cars every now and then. But there isn't anything wrong here, as long as it's clearly stated, without marketing fuzzwords to hide it, that the buyer will end up paying more than the sum of the prices. It applies to phones too, IMVHO, I'm not biased and I don't like telcos' offers on expensive phones discounted but tied to expensive tariff plans, either. And I have the impression that telcos always manage to get away far easier than others with misleading marketing. Surely easier than car manufacturers, for example.