1. I'm not downplaying anything. You're giving Sony too much credit for technology getting cheap after about 7 years on the market.

If Nintendo is paying licensing fees, why didn't they just put a Bluray in their console? I'm certain MS is paying licensing fees, but Bluray is cheap technology now. MS and Sony will still be paying DVD licensing fees I imagine.

2. Clearly MS's goal isn't to beat Sony in market share. Otherwise MS would just play it safe, remove the KInect and lower the price. Its clear that Sony's goal is to be the market leader, but MS is trying to make their console something unique. Kinect 2.0 better be pretty amazing if they're going to push it like this.

3. But it has taken years for Bluray to become more affordable. I guess you're presuming it would have taken more years for it to become this affordable.

Consumers would have benefited from any format capable of HD video.

I highly doubt Bluray will be the last hard format. Is Bluray even sufficient for 4K video?

Can't agree with the header. I'm no fan of MS and their past game division policies, but that's an oversimplification.

They're not selling at $499 because they want to generate another billion in profit, they're doing it so they don't lose money on every unit sold. My guess (which remains that until iSuppi does their teardown BoM estimate) is that the box itself probably costs in the ballpark range of $300 to produce, give or take up to 10%. The original BoM for Kinect 1.0 was about $60 per unit. Kinect 2.0 is more sophisticated, and uses much better components (just by looking at the specs and capabilities), and even when taking into consideration that these components cost less than they would have in 2010, my guess would be that the BoM for each Kinect 2.0 unit is anywhere from $60-75, possibly even higher.

So, the total BoM for the XB1 package is probably right around $400, give or take less than 10%.

My guess is that the BoM for the PS4, sans camera system, is closer to $300, give or take less than 10%, or about $100 less.

On one hand, we have Sony, who has done/is doing everything in their power to win the good will of both core gamers, independent developers, and 3rd party publishers in the interest of having the best product launch possible and avoid a PS3 style situation where they came in with the most expensive MSRP for a mass market console (Neo Geo, CD-i, etc. were expensive, smaller niche products) and were completely unapologetic about it ("you'll get a second job to afford one").

MS, seems to be playing the long game. Unfortunately, that involved ignoring most of the concerns of core demographic consumers in regards to DRM, connectivity requirements, product transfers, etc. in the interest of their long term plan. Backlash ensued, MS backpedaled on unpopular policies. They listened to the bad PR, took a look at pre-order numbers and reacted.

Both companies want your business and would be happier taking your money for the least amount of effort or risk. In regards to pricing, all Sony had to do at E3 was announce the same price they were going to announce in the first place. It's not as though they lowballed MS at the expense of a big loss per unit just because they "care about the consumer more."

No, you're mixing it up. Look up the history of Microsoft, they joined because Sony was posing a threat by having a massive marketshare and having massive success in spreading multimedia and threatening PC multimedia and gaming. Sony joined the gaming industry to prove they could beat Nintendo and also some thing it was a revenge play for Nintendo walking out of a contract with them when Nintendo was using Kutaragi to create their CD format for the SNES.

Yeah... I know those stories.

I really doubt Sony did it solely for revenge. Sony was already publishing/devloping games and had the resources to make their own console. Dominating competition is often the goal.

Microsoft tends to get involved in many thriving markets. Whether it be game consoles, mp3 players phones, tablets, etc. They even bought Skype for some reason. MS hasn't just gone after Sony, they go head on with lots of companies.

people shouldn't post stupidity on here. It only attracts more of that audience to argue for it.

Look up the story of Kutaragi and the Playstation. Sony board members in the 90's scoffed at the idea of a gaming console, but the president saved Kutaragi's job and convinced the board that making a console was a good thing. They wanted to fire him for working for Nintendo behiind their backs. Little did they know the Playstation would become one of their biggest assets when the rest of Sony was going to go through a lot of trouble. After they all agreed they worked on beating Nintendo at their own game with the hardware Kutaragi was developing for Nintendo since they opted out of the contract. Microsoft joined the industry not because of games, they wanted the multimedia. Their battle with Sony is no different better than their battle with Apple. Its a massive battle for multimedia dominance that they crave.No one can have the living room but them.

You keep saying MS had no interest in games yet MS keeps making powerful gaming machines, putting out quality games, brought attention to indie developers on consoles, and raised the bar in online gaming. MS has made great contributions to console gaming and you eventually have to accept the fact MS is just as focused on games as Sony.

Sony has shown more interest in dominating the living room than MS and Apple. In fact, Sony once did a damn fine job dominating the living room. But they fucked that up and chased many fans away with the PS3.

Hence why Sony is on the financial rocks and Microsoft isnt.

How exactly did MS pressure Sony into it?? You do come out with some balony STAGE.

Well thats nice, doesnt change that bluray was in large not needed for gaming this gen.