*facepalm*

I know what the deal is. I fully understand it. It seems that other people are having trouble reading what I'm saying. It was someone else who drew the analogy of what's going on here with interest payments on a house or car. I'm pointing out the absurdity of that comparison, when those deals are completely upfront, making it clear that you're paying extra to compensate for not paying for everything immediately on purchase. This deal isn't doing that - it's instead using vague terms and implying that you're getting a bargain, when you're actually going to end up paying more than you otherwise would.

It would be like a real estate agent going "Normally, this house would only cost $200,000. But today, as a special deal, you'll get the house for $50,000*".

"*for twenty years at $2000 a month."

Yeah, you do end up paying extra for the deal but you get more time in the equation than compared to upfront. 

Give you time, early access, and cheap up front price in exchange for extra money. 

But whats your point? Contract "interests" has been done for many years now. What do you expect? Same price for a longer time frame? That will only result in an annual revenue loss. 

You do understand that this contract is like an investment for a company. You loose revenue per system annually but you get a better outcome in the long run.

I still dont get what all the fuss is about.  

I hope it fails.

Subscription model can be a great way to increase revenue and essentially increase cost and quality of the hardware, which is a good thing since I would like consoles to be as powerful as possible. The average selling price of smartphones would be much lower if it wasn't for the subscription and operator subsidies.

The principle is that if the costs are spread out over time, and stealthily baked within a subscription, the consumer will pay much more for a product than for an up front one time price.

But I think this initative from MS comes too late, now that next gen hardware specs are already set, so we as gamers wouldn't benefit from this experience even if it was successful.

If you're not going to take the time to actually read what my argument was, then there's no point in me continuing to explain myself to you. I already made it clear that paying more isn't the actual problem.

I never siad that. Perhaps you should re read my post.

You seem to be the only one who read it that. Everyone else seems fine with it. Anything spoken or written can multiple meaning in the enlish language. Its one of the reasons it sucks. But for the most part everyone else is on the same page. You seem to weant to read more into than is there. Hence why for the way you interpreted it you had to add another word for it to mean what you want.

This is nothing like that. I relevant info is there. People are not idiots, they know if somehting is half off or more there is a reason for it. Especaily if there is an asterik (which means hey look other conditons apply) and even more so whenthe conditons are written on the ad.

I know I haven't called you stupid. But you are hammering away at a point that no one agrees with you.  When you are the odd one it may be a time to look at your reasoning.

I was talking generally, not about specific people. And while you may not say it, your tone was similar to others'. Also, "it seems like its the other way around" carries a rather strong implication.

People on here are not typical. They're gamers. They have an understanding of Microsoft, and of game system prices. This means that, when they read it, they know that MS is saying that you have to pay the extra money. I intentionally read it without engaging that part of my knowledge, so that I could see how it looks to someone who doesn't know the gaming industry. And it's not because of vagueness inherent to the English language - it is very easy to make just a couple of small tweaks, and remove the vagueness. All it takes is better choice of words.

The relevant info is there, but the words around it makes the info unclear - is the $14.99 a "regular price" that this deal is waiving, or is it a price being charged? One thing it isn't telling them is that the regular price is only about $7, so they're charging more than double the normal Xbox Live Gold price. But the Crash-blossom-esque element is the part where it can be read as either a deal waiving the price, or a necessary charging of the price.

An idea being popular does not make it right. Indeed, the most popular ideas usually turn out to be wrong, and take generations to be "fixed". See, for instance, America's position on evolution. When you disagree with everyone else, it means you need to double-check your reasoning, sure... but it doesn't make your reasoning wrong. I stand by my reasoning. I double-checked it, and triple-checked it, before people started attacking me. And while you haven't explicitly called me stupid, you certainly implied a lack of knowledge. 

wow seriously... you believe people could get confused and microsoft outsmarts them but no person on the planet who was talking about that yet didn't understand what a "deal" this is. maybe there will be 500 people on this planet who don't understand the "2 years xbox live gold at 15 dollar/month" but really, if someone is so stupid he deserves to drive to the shop to get the information there.

It was your sentance, i just reused it. You seem to think the general public are idoits and have not seen many deals like this. Either you don't go shopping or you are being naive on purpose. Thats why I reused your sentance so maybe you could see how your tone was.

Againyou are the only one reading it that way. Everyone else is reading it just fine. Consumers are not iodiots, stop assuming they are.Wehter its a game machine, a hoiuse hold appliance, a cell phone, etc peoplea re very used to these deals. My mom has used similare deals and she knows nothing of games.

Your reasoning is wrong because you are trying to read it as a common person apparently and are not doing the common person justice assuming they are have no reading comprehension or have never read a deal before when clearly many have and do know how it works. Your also assuming that you are different (better? i dont know) than the normal consumer. These ads are being made by the companies they are being sold in, not MS. I think best buy knows what consumers are used too. That would be why they used a very common and generic ad. So does game stop. And any where else this will be sold.

I'm simply pointing out that this is really no different than any other contract for a product or service (like cell phones contracts) so there is no reason to single it out above others. 

Actually, the Kinect + 4GB bundle retails for $300. The XBOX Live Gold 12 month membership retails for $60, but it's almost always on sale somewhere for like $40-45 ($48.72 is the cheapest offered by Amazon; not a third party seller). Going with that price, you can get two years worth of XBL Gold for around $100 more, which bumps up the total to $400 total.

This "deal" being offered as it is will cost a total of $460 in the long run. Yes, I see it as an affordable payment plan, but many things can go wrong in those two years where people might not be able to pay the $15 a month. One could lose a job, get sick and have to pay medical expenses, etc. Of course, this option also frees up some money to be able to buy some games along with the system/subscription.

With the first option, you're paying a lot more up front, but you are getting everything right then and there. The $15/month option is very nice for those on a budget and I can see it benefitting those the most; anyone that figures it all out will probably want the first option more. Of course, the 4GB HDD is so small that they wouldn't be able to buy many Live games.