Question: "Was the family sharing how everyone imagined it to be like (sharing games with 10 people only 2 game play one at the same time) or was it glorified demos ? "

Answer: "It was for full games. Can't comment too much on this but its purpose was to eliminate the need to ever have to physically hand someone a game that you bought to share with them."

Well that sets that rumour straight

damn if true. How much loss do they take for each xb1 sold?
I'm not hoping like sony with the ps3 fat.

edit: and if xb1 is very cheap to make, they can outplay the ps4 like it's nothing without the kinect bundle

Why is everyone automatically assuming MS is taking a loss now?

Now? It was a no brainer with that tof-chip in Kinect2 that MS loses money for every XBox One, my guess is around $150 for the initial run.

we were already assuming that. This, if true, is just a confirmation.

thats exactly what i've been saying.   the original kinect came in at $149.  when natal was first talked about it had its own special chip.  microsoft later removed the chip.  they actually made kinect suck.  i never understood when cheap hd cameras were out why microsoft pretty much had the eyetoy 640x480 rgb camera.  enter 2013.  1080p hd cam, better mic array, better infrared and a lot more tech,  i gave it about $199-249 myself.  people wondered why it's included that's the second part of the equation.

the first being total inclusion.   developers knowing that every xbox user has it meant it wouldnt necassarily be a waste of time .  

Shouldnt force the damn thing on everyone, should release the console as it is. Everyone would be happy.

"a Sony dev" =/= "Sony reps", kowenicki.

do we have one of those part by part costs for the XB1? and Kinect 2.0?

PS3 was a bargain at 599.

All seems reasonable.

You really have lost it.