Completely false and unrealistic

I think what MS is doing is ridiculous from the point of view of a core gamer. Kinect has already been on the market for a few years and we already know that it is and will remain totally useless for a core gamer. Why would I want to pay extra cash for it? The only reason why MS is bundling it is to allow us to swap channels (like I watched TV anyway...), to spy on us in order to give us profiled ads (awesome...) and to increase the market for casual Kinect games (again - priceless for me). To me it looks like they made a choice and decided that XO is going to be targeted at the casuals while pretending to be competing with PS4 for the core. The thing is, how many gamers will they fool into paying additional cash for a worse product with totally redundant functions?

I for one am very happy that Sony isn't bundling the Eye with the console. I don't need it, I don't want it, I want a cheaper console to play my core games.

What do you think the price of the bundled product would be?  I doubt they would sell at an odd price in USD of 460.  Consoles almost always launch at at the nearest 100, or sometimes 50.

A price point of 400 or 500 makes most sense, possibly 450.  I would say it is more likely than not they would opt for 500 if that makes you feel more comfortable than a guarantee.

Do any hardcore gamers care about Kinect other than for novelty?

Sony has already stated they got rid of the eye to be a bit cheaper. So we were looking at $450-$460 vs $500, a lot easier to swallow that pill for sure.

Kinect is the obvious factor here but even if it costs MS $200+ I doubt they will release a Kinectless version at $300, unless things were looking extremely dire.

I would guess $450, seeing as how it is far more likely they would take a loss on the hardware at launch than try to profit off of it. Although $50 for the camera might not even be a loss.

What's unknown with PS4 is how much of a loss they are taking with $399 so an auto-bundled Eye with every PS4 at launch would have been undertaken so that Sony could make a slight profit or almost no loss. So if for instance PS4 costs $420 and Eye costs $20, that's a cost to Sony of $440. Add to that a $20 retailer mark up and that's $460. Sony might as well slap $40 profit margin on there and be making decent money from of PS4 hardware right out of the gate. However it's pretty obvious that as of now Sony can't sell an Eye bundle for $499 without sweetening the pot with a game, at least.

I actually think if Sony had a choice between a loss making $399 console without Eye, and a profit making $499 console with Eye they made the wrong choice by going the $399 route. On a head to head price basis, outside of the UK and USA, PS4 will outcompete Xb One. So $499 was safe. However I think Sony was predicting MS would enter the market at $399 so they decided they needed to enter at $399 too. I think the bean counters at Sony are a bit miffed that they aren;t entering the market at $499.

Of course the other calculus is WiiU. Sony and MS will still be wary of Wii U even though it's tanking at the moment. Sony may have decided they didn't want to give WiiU a $150 price lead, so part of the $399 decision may indeed be to not be too far away from Wii U. Who's to say that Wii U wouldn't have seen a substantial lift in sales if PS4 and Xb One were both announced at $499? I think it's entirely possible that Wii U would have got a sustained lift in Sales, and potentially sold very well this holidays at a $150 price differential.

I'm talking about before we heard anything (before any statements or leaks) from devs, based on the fact that MS has more cash and can take higher losses Sony can't afford.  U get my point now right.

They are about to loose the US & UK markets. How much more dire do you want it to be?

So by removing a $60 peripheral they saved $100, Ms should remove there £100 kinect 2, theyd save $180!

Made up logic for the win.