Clearly you have zero concept of how a poor family functions. Well....neither do I, but I know they literally have to pinch every penny.

However even poor families want to have fun. This deal makes gaming more affordable. They pay more long run but the monthly price is doable.

This whole thing is an experiment. And you left of cell phones, which is more comparable to this then car/house buying. 

Why not no money down and $20/month for 2 years? That's $480 total which ends up being $21 more than the $99 + $360, and the 360s would really fly off the shelves.

No doubt because some stupid marketing douche discovered that $15 x 24 = 360.

If it said "for $99 plus only $14.99 per month", I'd have been fine with it.

The "only" was against the $99, not the $14.99 per month. And no, "only" is a marketing word, not an advertising buzz word. It has a very solid definition, and has been used for a long time. They are suggesting that it's cheap, yes, and that's the main purpose of the "only"... but when you say "buy a XXX for only $99*", then it's false advertising if it doesn't cost only $99. And this doesn't cost only $99, it costs $99 + $14.99/month.

As I said before, if someone were to say "Come and buy a house for only $50,000*", and then had "House and property for only $50,000 with 10 year power contract at $500 per month", it would be natural for people to be confused, due to the "only". Every single other person in this thread had already read MS's explanation of the deal before forming a judgment, so they already knew the "right" interpretation. I made it a point to not read what MS had to say about the deal, only to look at the marketing of it. The first marketing I saw was that image in the first post, that just says "$99*". Hence my initial reaction based on the asterisk itself. Then, when I saw the docket-type form, it was made worse by the vagueness - I'd assumed that it would just be fine print, and the fine print would make it clear. Instead, the fine print is actually more confusing... but I seem to be the only one who avoided MS's explanation.

yo_john117 - Again, it's not the deal (the contract), it's the marketing. It's what they actually *say* about the deal. I challenge you to find an example of a house, car, etc deal in which they sell it in the same way that MS is selling their deal - that is, using words like "only" against only part of the cost, etc. You'll be hard-pressed, because they always use terms to make it clear, like "downpayment", "deposit", or "up front". And somewhere (often the fine print) they list the "minimum total price" (this is common, for instance, in gyms - where, if you want to cancel before the contract is up, you have to pay out the remainder of the minimum price).

As you admit, clearly you don't  know how poor families function. Because this isn't aimed at poor families.

Poor families don't really have $15 a month spare to be paying off a 360, and if for argument's sake they did manage to scrape up $15 per month to pay the monthly 360 bill they certainly have nothing left to buy that one thing which is essential for making a game console worth having: games. I suppose the poor family gets Kinect Adventures with the deal, so they are faced with only being able to play Kinect Adventures for the next 2 years. Not a prospect I'd be looking forward to.

And poor families don't have internet, so even the service they are paying for is useless to them. Lots of poor families don't have TVs either.

This isn't a deal for minimum wage / welfare families, this is more a deal for median / average wage families.

One thing noone ever seems to get is that when people buy a console they get games + accessories as well. How many people leave the store without a couple of games? By the time you add together say 2-3 games and maybe a controller it could be up to $200 extra on top of the console plus any applicable sales taxes.

The upfront cost of this console is perhaps $2-300 vs $4-500 which does make a difference when it comes to outright cost. Why do people forget one significant reason why the Wii was successful? Wii + Wii Sports + Wii Play = 2 games + 2 controllers + console for $299, a magic number.

It's more like ripping off lower income families.  You make less money, you need to turn to "cheaper" means of entertainment.  You're still paying more in the end after the 2 year subscription when that extra paid could be used to pay for groceries.  If you can afford a monthly payment, you can afford to put aside that amount of money to buy it later.  Lower income or higher income, this is just smart common sense shopping.  No excuse for this $99 scam/illusion whatever.

You simply do not get it. Why?

Their marketing is no different than other marketing for contract items. The word "only" is used ONLY for the $99 part which is true. The initial cost is ONLY $99 which is far cheaper than the initial price of a non-contract 360.

I see only 3 reasons why you would keep on with your nonsense.

A: Cultural difference - maybe marketing doesn't work that way in Australia, but it does in the US.

B: You've never in your life seen marketing for a household product with a contract before (or even non-contract products with hidden fees) (and no I am not talking about houses, I never was)

C: You're simply the kind of person that feels the need that they have to win every argument/debate/fight they've ever been in so even though your arguments are completely ridiculous and invalid you won't stop until you've "won".

cleary  a poor family shouldnt be buying an xbox.

especially if the cant afford to pay $200 up front.

that is economic stupidity.

That sir is reality.