News & Rumors: Xbox One (codename Durango)

[Averagejoe]

Please, by all means, share with us your estimated BOM of the leaked specs. And be sure to post sources for your numbers.

Is not based on estimate boom,is based on what the system has inside.

The 360 had a 3 core CPU that was something rare even on PC for not saying missing in action,and it had a GPU inside better than what top of the line PC had on 2005 to,yet there was a $299 version and a $399 premium model.

The leaked spec of Durango point at DDR3,with a 77XX GPU and Kinect,you do know the first Kinect was $56 dollars to make but it was been sold for $150 right.?

The major component of the unit are not expensive at all,i would be surprise if between GPU,CPU,Kinect and DDR3 they spend more than $150.

Sure there are other expenses to,but those expenses were also on the xbox 360 back then.

 

[eastmen]

It's too much money the market says, that's what's wrong with it. ...And it is, for the rumored hardware. The costliest component is an APU which traditionally goes into mid-end notebooks, which can be had for $500, only then you get a honkin' big battery and a screen included with that price as well.


Except if you actually used that xbox for that whole time period, you would have been forced to buy at least two of them and potentially several more, because they kept breaking all the time. Lol.

...So you see, it's not that simple.

I still have a launch 20 gig that works fine. The only reason I have bought multiple Xbox's is because I have a media center with 8 tuners and it runs tv in my house.

I'm not sure where your going to get an 8 core apu with the same graphical might and 8 gigs of ram.

I'd love a link to it

 

[Averagejoe]

Um, does that mean the iPhone 5 is really only worth 199 USD? A Samsung Galaxy S 4 is only worth 199 USD?

A brand new car with a 20,000 USD price tag purchased with a 100 USD down payment + monthly payments is only worth 100 USD?

That reasoning is ridiculous. Take out the Xbox Live Gold membership (5 USD a month) and that 299 USD price + 5 USD monthly still comes out to 419 USD.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 499 USD price on the non-subsidized phone is more to get people to buy the 299 + monthly version. But if people want to pay for the non-gold subsidized version, far be it for Microsoft to deny them.

Personally, I'm still unlikely to buy either the PS4 or Xbox next. But if the non-gaming services on either one are significantly better than what I can provide with my HTPC, then that will be what gets me to buy one.

Regards,
SB

Apparently you know little how the console market has work for years,losses on hardware are always expected,MS loss $125 per xbox 360 on launch,by the first year it was breaking even on hardware,tech this days go down in price really fast,even that the 360 had the equivalent of a $500 GPU inside on 2005.

Blowing up the price of your console to basically bring a subsidized method to console isn't something really good either,more if xbox live is included which has no value what so ever,since every one on this planet play online for free even cross hardware like Ios and Android PS3 and PC.

I don't know much about hardware and how they work,but i do know a thing or 2 about consoles i have been and owner since the Atari days.

Is silly that people are acting out like MS really has a justification to price that high,using cell phones analogy even worst cars,a car is a loan that gain interest do to he high amount of money invested and that the bank buy the car from the dealer for you with their money.

What i am complaining about is MS rising the cost of unit on purpose to make the $299 with xbox live included at the tune of $120 per year more attractive,this is what AT&T does with Cell phones.

Like an Iphone 5 16GB is really worth $650 dollars to them,if you actually believe that you have some serious lack of knowledge about economics and business tactics use by companies.

The Ipad has better tech more material bigger screen and cost less,how you explain that.?

Some people don't get this is sad if true,MS is forcing people to byte into xbox live is a sad strategy is true,xbox live has no value what so ever,it basically charge you for something every one else has been getting free for years.

If you are ok with that fine is your money,some like me are not.

 

[Averagejoe]

these tweets were just posted on gaf and sound good

https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/328100156794875904



https://twitter.com/tomwarren/status/328103734657818625

I have been doing that for years on every gaming electronic device i own that has online play,and free the Vita even allow for party chat like on 360 and online play still is free.

MS is just to money hungry,no gamer should pay for online play.

 

[Gradthrawn]

Is not based on estimate boom,is based on what the system has inside.

First, I felt I needed to address this separately. What's inside is the BOM! In your statement, you explicitly excluded everything but the systems specs, thereby excluding the value proposition of the software stack (or lack there of) . If you're only talking about hardware and claiming expensive, you have to be talking about hardware cost and its expense.

Is not based on estimate boom,is based on what the system has inside.

The 360 had a 3 core CPU that was something rare even on PC for not saying missing in action,and it had a GPU inside better than what top of the line PC had on 2005 to,yet there was a $299 version and a $399 premium model.

The leaked spec of Durango point at DDR3,with a 77XX GPU and Kinect,you do know the first Kinect was $56 dollars to make but it was been sold for $150 right.?

The major component of the unit are not expensive at all,i would be surprise if between GPU,CPU,Kinect and DDR3 they spend more than $150.

Sure there are other expenses to,but those expenses were also on the xbox 360 back then.

You make a claim that what's inside is not expensive. Fine. Now back your claim up with actual numbers. Otherwise, someone can just as well say they think the Wii U is under-priced based on what's inside. Why, because it has a whole bunch of custom parts, that aren't common, and other unsupported, unsubstantiated, claims. Better still, the PS4 would be vastly overpriced at $300. Why? Because its using a CPU designed for ultra low power mobile devices, and a middling GPU in a non-mobile desktop (tabletop) device. Its quite easy to make these claims and "back them up" with nothing but unsupported supposition and "gut feeling".

Case in point, you said, and I quote, "They are selling you Durango for $299 which is the price it should carry with the leaked specs". Now what I'm asking is for you is to back up your claim in regards to cost (or even value of the hardware based on other available hardware) with actual data. Based on your reply above, you don't have any real numbers or data to the back that up, and are just doing some gut feeling wild guessing. If that's case, that's fine, but please clarify that you're basing your statements off of no verifiable data. That will make the followup discussions must simpler.

 

[pjbliverpool]

Is not based on estimate boom,is based on what the system has inside.

The 360 had a 3 core CPU that was something rare even on PC for not saying missing in action,

When the 360 launched, dual core was the maximum possible in the PC.

and it had a GPU inside better than what top of the line PC had on 2005

I wouldn't quite say that. There was one GPU that was decent step above in most performance metrics although it did lack the unified shaders and DX9+ features of Xenos.

I'm not sure where your going to get an 8 core apu with the same graphical might and 8 gigs of ram.

8 cores doesn't really matter since it is possible to get a 4 core APU with more power, and 8GB obviously isn't a limiation for a PC based APU. The graphical might bit though is clearly several years away from PS4's launch.

 

[dagamer]

When the 360 launched, dual core was the maximum possible in the PC.



I wouldn't quite say that. There was one GPU that was decent step above in most performance metrics although it did lack the unified shaders and DX9+ features of Xenos.



8 cores doesn't really matter since it is possible to get a 4 core APU with more power, and 8GB obviously isn't a limiation for a PC based APU. The graphical might bit though is clearly several years away from PS4's launch.

I'd argue that the number of cores is clouding our judgement, multi-core CPUs certainly could have existed sooner. It's really all about the silicon budget, because that's what determines the actual cost of the chip in the end. Having 1, 2 or 3 cores doesn't matter as long as it fits the die budget.

I would say the fact that single-socket multi-core CPUs didn't exist when the 360 was launched was more a symptom of Intel's blind pursuit of more megahertz which hit them in the face pretty hard back in 2004-2005 when Pentium 4 was a hot toaster oven, none of their CPUs scaled past 4Ghz (when the long term goal was 10Ghz mind you), and best of all AMD was king of the hill.

 

[Cyan]

http://x-surface.tumblr.com/post/41282771026/x-surface-dont-believe-everything-you-read

Don't believe everything you read.

How a very elaborate hoax made into the news today when the author of the article which I linked above said that the new Xbox Infinity was going to be just called "Xbox", among other things.

According to him, Microsoft was going to revert to the name of its first videogames console released 11 years ago, the Xbox.

In addition, the new Xbox was meant to be a hub to a number of devices to carry an "X" branding, one of which was the much rumoured 7 inch gaming tablet, which was apparently going to be called X-Surface, not Xbox Surface as previously thought.

Then the spread began and the news was known worldwide and had quite an impact. :smile:

The article he wrote is very interesting because he describes how he created the hoax and how it worked.

Paraphrasing the very beginning of his article....

"I am a gamer. I don’t work for Microsoft.

I, like most other gamers, am sick of seeing endless rumours and speculation citing “anonymous sources” or “insiders” with no evidence, no proof, no guarantee that they’ve been fact-checked or can be relied on.

The games industry is the only one I can think of that will quite happily publish guesswork as news. So-called ‘analysts’ are no different - they make money by guessing. They’re about as much use as a ‘source’ as I am.

So let’s see how easy it is to be a ‘source’ "

 

[eastmen]

When the 360 launched, dual core was the maximum possible in the PC.

core's don't matter. You can buy a quad core cpu in a phone. Is that as powerful as a top of the line 4 core ivy bridge part ? Same amount of cores so they must cost the same no ?

I wouldn't quite say that. There was one GPU that was decent step above in most performance metrics although it did lack the unified shaders and DX9+ features of Xenos.

Within the launch window of the 360 we got the x1x00 series that had their own 512 megs of ram. The pcs at the time would have another 2-4 gigs of ram.

8 cores doesn't really matter since it is possible to get a 4 core APU with more power, and 8GB obviously isn't a limiation for a PC based APU. The graphical might bit though is clearly several years away from PS4's launch.

is it ? what apu out there offers the same performance ? The gpu's inside amd's apu are lower spec. The gpu inside ivy bridge is much lower spec.

I think just throwing out random numbers based on random parts and saying this is how much this should cost is fool hardy .

Its obvious that these new consoles will be expensive at the start and with each micron drop will fall in price.

There is a reason we haven't seen an apu with similar specs yet.

 

[pjbliverpool]

is it ? what apu out there offers the same performance ? The gpu's inside amd's apu are lower spec. The gpu inside ivy bridge is much lower spec.

That's what I was saying, PC APU's will be at least 2 years behind the graphical performance of PS4 when it launches later this year. But in CPU power terms they will already be ahead (in fact they already are now).

 

[eastmen]

That's what I was saying, PC APU's will be at least 2 years behind the graphical performance of PS4 when it launches later this year. But in CPU power terms they will already be ahead (in fact they already are now).

But it was the same back in 2005

Do you think an amd x2 4800 was slower than the waternoose cpu in the xbox 360 ? do you also think that the xbox 360's gpu was faster than the x1x00 series ?

consoles are allways behind the pc.

 

[Averagejoe]

First, I felt I needed to address this separately. What's inside is the BOM! In your statement, you explicitly excluded everything but the systems specs, thereby excluding the value proposition of the software stack (or lack there of) . If you're only talking about hardware and claiming expensive, you have to be talking about hardware cost and its expense.



You make a claim that what's inside is not expensive. Fine. Now back your claim up with actual numbers. Otherwise, someone can just as well say they think the Wii U is under-priced based on what's inside. Why, because it has a whole bunch of custom parts, that aren't common, and other unsupported, unsubstantiated, claims. Better still, the PS4 would be vastly overpriced at $300. Why? Because its using a CPU designed for ultra low power mobile devices, and a middling GPU in a non-mobile desktop (tabletop) device. Its quite easy to make these claims and "back them up" with nothing but unsupported supposition and "gut feeling".

Case in point, you said, and I quote, "They are selling you Durango for $299 which is the price it should carry with the leaked specs". Now what I'm asking is for you is to back up your claim in regards to cost (or even value of the hardware based on other available hardware) with actual data. Based on your reply above, you don't have any real numbers or data to the back that up, and are just doing some gut feeling wild guessing. If that's case, that's fine, but please clarify that you're basing your statements off of no verifiable data. That will make the followup discussions must simpler.

And just by looking at the components inside you can get and estimate of how expensive is it,there is no complex process to this is simple you use cheap components your bom is low period there is no way around this..

MS can claim that the bom is $450 dollars,isupply will basically kill it in an instant,is like wanting to believe that Crysis 3 can run max out on 720 at 1080p 60FPS with those specs,if they claim people from this site will basically kill that rumor in an instant,because you know what the leak spec are and what they can do more or less.

Is the same with the bom.

Denying that the spec right now are down right low is a joke,the 360 on 2005 boosted tech comparable to would be a 680GTX or even higher on time frame this days,and was $300 and $400.

What you want are number from links which is a joke the 720 is 1.2TF by spec is a 77XX either 70 or 90 which in worst case is $139 for average joe on PC,for MS that GPU should not be more than $30,is impossible that with all the knowledge on hardware you people have you want to actually believe that some how the bom is high for the 720 with those low end spec,DDR3,77XX GPU come on those are the most expensive component alone side the CPU which by the way is also a jaguar which is cheap as well.

Not one of you can deny that the 720 spec are basically low for not saying down right pathetic,compare to what the xbox 360 carry on 2005,the PS4 ones are not that much better either.

But let end with the wii U the Wii U has a tablet for controller,you may argue that the CPU and GPU are crap,but a 360 controller is $50 dollars,the PS3 controller $55,the wii u controller replacement is $150 from what i read,now even if the build materials are just worth $100 or even $70,how can any one complain about its price,sony and MS controller cost $50 or more and don't have the kind of complexity,size or material the Wii U controller has,so while we may argue the spec are crap and the system is over priced (which i believe is) they have an expensive controller which eat greatly from that bom.

I bet all i have that the Wii U controller actually has higher bom than Kinect 2.


I know some give MS the benefit of the doubt,but my argument is simple if they had a 680GTX inside,and wanted me to to byte a subsidize 720 for $300 or $350 with $10 a month xbox live fee for 2 years i would byte,but come on a 77XX GPU for $299 with 2 years of xbox live for $10 a month is a joke,there is nothing great about the 720 hardware,sorry i owned a 360 since day 1,it was a powerful machine,the 720 s just average at best hardware wise.

 

[Averagejoe]

http://x-surface.tumblr.com/post/41282771026/x-surface-dont-believe-everything-you-read

Don't believe everything you read.

How a very elaborate hoax made into the news today when the author of the article which I linked above said that the new Xbox Infinity was going to be just called "Xbox", among other things.

According to him, Microsoft was going to revert to the name of its first videogames console released 11 years ago, the Xbox.

In addition, the new Xbox was meant to be a hub to a number of devices to carry an "X" branding, one of which was the much rumoured 7 inch gaming tablet, which was apparently going to be called X-Surface, not Xbox Surface as previously thought.

Then the spread began and the news was known worldwide and had quite an impact. :smile:

The article he wrote is very interesting because he describes how he created the hoax and how it worked.

Paraphrasing the very beginning of his article....

That happen but mostly false rumors will die very quick or get shoot down when the message is analyze,like the 2 APU rumors,and the 3 GPU rumors as well...

If you examine most of the leaks about the PS4 to sites like VGleaks were very close for not saying spot on,even the 8GB amount was leak by eurogamer before sony confirms it,and it was tag fast as been a lie or made up,until sony confirm it.

 

[Averagejoe]

But it was the same back in 2005

Do you think an amd x2 4800 was slower than the waternoose cpu in the xbox 360 ? do you also think that the xbox 360's gpu was faster than the x1x00 series ?

consoles are allways behind the pc.

Now but price wise you could buy 2 360 premium model xbox live and 2 games.

That CPU on 2005 was $1,000 dollars my friend,and i am not sure it was that much powerful than the 360 one,at least no by endless miles,then comes the fact that multi core CPU usage was down right rare to not sa non,most programs back then ran on a single core,and adding a dual core barely did anything.

The X1900 was release like 2 months after the 360,and carry like a $600 price tag and wasn't that far from the 360,so effectively on CPU and GPU alone you have $1600 dollars and you still missing quite a few component to make those 2 work,when you could basically get a 360 for $300 cheap version and play with similar or even better graphics.

This is why i put a healthy fight against a 720 with the current spec for $500 dollars it would be a joke,after how much the 360 had inside.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I never spoke about fiscal losses.

Which means it doesn't matter. Not to MS. People can whinge all they like on the intarwebz - it's not going to make any difference to MS's performance once they announce the product and start selling it on its merits as communicated by MS. So why bother giving in to the demands of a bunch of internet whiners who feel MS have to provide them with something just because they're curious?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

http://x-surface.tumblr.com/post/41282771026/x-surface-dont-believe-everything-you-read

Old news we covered back in January when it happened.

 

[Gradthrawn]

And just by looking at the components inside you can get and estimate of how expensive is it,there is no complex process to this is simple you use cheap components your bom is low period there is no way around this..

MS can claim that the bom is $450 dollars,isupply will basically kill it in an instant,is like wanting to believe that Crysis 3 can run max out on 720 at 1080p 60FPS with those specs,if they claim people from this site will basically kill that rumor in an instant,because you know what the leak spec are and what they can do more or less.

Is the same with the bom.

Denying that the spec right now are down right low is a joke,the 360 on 2005 boosted tech comparable to would be a 680GTX or even higher on time frame this days,and was $300 and $400.

What you want are number from links which is a joke the 720 is 1.2TF by spec is a 77XX either 70 or 90 which in worst case is $139 for average joe on PC,for MS that GPU should not be more than $30,is impossible that with all the knowledge on hardware you people have you want to actually believe that some how the bom is high for the 720 with those low end spec,DDR3,77XX GPU come on those are the most expensive component alone side the CPU which by the way is also a jaguar which is cheap as well.

Not one of you can deny that the 720 spec are basically low for not saying down right pathetic,compare to what the xbox 360 carry on 2005,the PS4 ones are not that much better either.

But let end with the wii U the Wii U has a tablet for controller,you may argue that the CPU and GPU are crap,but a 360 controller is $50 dollars,the PS3 controller $55,the wii u controller replacement is $150 from what i read,now even if the build materials are just worth $100 or even $70,how can any one complain about its price,sony and MS controller cost $50 or more and don't have the kind of complexity,size or material the Wii U controller has,so while we may argue the spec are crap and the system is over priced (which i believe is) they have an expensive controller which eat greatly from that bom.

I bet all i have that the Wii U controller actually has higher bom than Kinect 2.


I know some give MS the benefit of the doubt,but my argument is simple if they had a 680GTX inside,and wanted me to to byte a subsidize 720 for $300 or $350 with $10 a month xbox live fee for 2 years i would byte,but come on a 77XX GPU for $299 with 2 years of xbox live for $10 a month is a joke,there is nothing great about the 720 hardware,sorry i owned a 360 since day 1,it was a powerful machine,the 720 s just average at best hardware wise.

I'm amazed with all of that text you still haven't provided much of a coherent argument outside of "the GPU is $100 (and everything else inside is cheap because I say so), so, it shouldn't be more than $300". Half of your statements appear to be emotionally fueled, which seems to be coloring your conclusions. Perfect example: "Denying that the spec right now are down right low is a joke,the 360 on 2005 boosted tech comparable to would be a 680GTX or even higher on time frame this days,and was $300 and $400." First, there was no mention made as to the performance of the specs. Therefore, denying or accepting the implied performance of the specs is irrelevant to this discussion. Second, what the 360 was sold at is also largely irrelevant to the discussion of how much the Durango hardware cost. And that's ignoring the fact that it (and the PS3) were sold at a loss.

You also seem to have completely missed the hyperbole in my (hyperbole example) statements about Wii U and PS4 pricing. Your counter argument to my unsupported hyperbole examples was more unsupported statements and hyperbole. Perhaps that is my fault for not wording it more clearly as an example as to why the types of statements you were making make for poor discussion points.

Not one of you can deny that the 720 spec are basically low for not saying down right pathetic,compare to what the xbox 360 carry on 2005,the PS4 ones are not that much better either.

Who is this "not one of you"? Is there some mystical brotherhood I've joined without knowing it? Please point me to where I have made estimations as to the Durango's cost? You seem to be under the impression that if someone asks you to actually support your statements with actual facts and verifiable data that they must not agree with you and therefore must be taking the opposite position as you. That's a silly position to take. I'm not apart of some MS "defense force", but I do hate seeing unsupported opinions passed off as fact.

What it comes down is that you made a blanket statement that the Durango, based on rumored specs, should be $299. I wanted to see if you actually had any real data and numbers to support that or if it was nothing more than pure supposition and gut feeling. I now have my answer. Thank you.

 

[rockaman]

No need to get cheeky lol

I think if we're going to talk about the rumoured prices, we also have to consider that 720 is probably going to include the Kinect v2 bundled in at least one of the SKUs.

So if we're going to say 'Why might MS be pricing like this?' that's one thing we also have to look at on top of the system specs.

Also @interference yea I think undercutting Sony could be a good strategy. MS has to think both short and long term here of course, just like Sony or Nintendo should. Measuring what the best price point to launch at and when to cut prices is a question to put to the analytic companies though

And also someone brought up the idea that the $500 model might be in place to push customers to consider and buy the "cheaper" $299 upfront cost with the tied subscription. If they go with those prices I think that's probably the strategy too.

 

[Averagejoe]

I'm amazed with all of that text you still haven't provided much of a coherent argument outside of "the GPU is $100 (and everything else inside is cheap because I say so), so, it shouldn't be more than $300". Half of your statements appear to be emotionally fueled, which seems to be coloring your conclusions. Perfect example: "Denying that the spec right now are down right low is a joke,the 360 on 2005 boosted tech comparable to would be a 680GTX or even higher on time frame this days,and was $300 and $400." First, there was no mention made as to the performance of the specs. Therefore, denying or accepting the implied performance of the specs is irrelevant to this discussion. Second, what the 360 was sold at is also largely irrelevant to the discussion of how much the Durango hardware cost. And that's ignoring the fact that it (and the PS3) were sold at a loss.

You also seem to have completely missed the hyperbole in my (hyperbole example) statements about Wii U and PS4 pricing. Your counter argument to my unsupported hyperbole examples was more unsupported statements and hyperbole. Perhaps that is my fault for not wording it more clearly as an example as to why the types of statements you were making make for poor discussion points.



Who is this "not one of you"? Is there some mystical brotherhood I've joined without knowing it? Please point me to where I have made estimations as to the Durango's cost? You seem to be under the impression that if someone asks you to actually support your statements with actual facts and verifiable data that they must not agree with you and therefore must be taking the opposite position as you. That's a silly position to take. I'm not apart of some MS "defense force", but I do hate seeing unsupported opinions passed off as fact.

What it comes down is that you made a blanket statement that the Durango, based on rumored specs, should be $299. I wanted to see if you actually had any real data and numbers to support that or if it was nothing more than pure supposition and gut feeling. I now have my answer. Thank you.

Don't you think a better thing will be that you prove to me how the 720 with a 77XX GPU a jaguar CPU and kinect can have a $500 price tag.

Because you say i haven't provide anything but have you.?

What is inside the 720 even by rumors than actually make the bom of the unit be high in your opinion,not only that how it is not possible that MS is playing things in the scenario i describe.?

Can't MS really cheapen out and actually charge allot for something not worth the price.?

Isn't there any history prior to this that show MS can and have over price hardware,or and services vs other competitors.?

Has MS hide things in order to make costumer buy something.?

The answer to several of those is yes,you are just not looking.

$50 dollar for online play,a novelty on 2002,not other company did this 11 years running.

$30 dollars for a DVD remote to unlock dvd playing function on the xbox another novelty on 2001 on consoles.

$99 dollars 20GB HDD, On PC that got you back then like a 250GB one.

$99 dollars Wi-Fi Adapter,this is one of the most over priced one on PC $20 or less.

Hide netflix,hulu,Facebook,tweeter and other apps free to every one on other devices under a pay wall,in order to get people to pay for Live gold.

$150 dollar Kinect when the Bom for the camera was an estimate $56 dollars...

How can all this has happen and people still find impossible that MS can do something like this,instead of asking me for proof why don't you prove me wrong,show me something that justify that $500 i am more than sure that just like me you can't,yet i don't claim that you are emotionally fueled like you did.

I just don't like to be taken as a sucker by companies and hate more when people actually try to prove me wrong with nothing on hand either to do so..

 

[Gradthrawn]

No need to get cheeky lol

My apologies. But he seemed to be arguing against a position held by some common entity. I thought it was funny in a "you people!" kind of way.

Don't you think a better thing will be that you prove to me how the 720 with a 77XX GPU a jaguar CPU and kinect can have a $500 price tag.

Nope, because I haven't made any statements about its price. You, however, have made quite the declaration with a very specific number.

Because you say i haven't provide anything but have you.?

No I haven't. Nor have I made any statements about its price that require any proof. Haven't made any statements about its price at all, just questions about your statement about its price.

You seem to have switched your argument from "because reasons!" to "prove me wrong!". Which would be fine, if I was arguing that the Durango isn't $300. But I've made no so such statements nor made any such argument. I've simply asked you to prove your argument. But there's no need for you to do that, anymore. I know what I need to now.

What is inside the 720 even by rumors than actually make the bom of the unit be high in your opinion,not only that how it is not possible that MS is playing things in the scenario i describe.?

Never claimed the BOM was high, or higher than your estimate

Can't MS really cheapen out and actually charge allot for something not worth the price.?

Isn't there any history prior to this that show MS can and have over price hardware,or and services vs other competitors.?

Has MS hide things in order to make costumer buy something.?

The answer to several of those is yes,you are just not looking.

You keep changing the subject and trying to make this discussion about something its not. Again, your statements seem fueled by an emotional perspective on something irrelevant to the cold hard cost of the actual hardware. That's fine and all, but its not what I asked about.

$50 dollar for online play,a novelty on 2002,not other company did this 11 years running.

$30 dollars for a DVD remote to unlock dvd playing function on the xbox another novelty on 2001 on consoles.

$99 dollars 20GB HDD, On PC that got you back then like a 250GB one.

$99 dollars Wi-Fi Adapter,this is one of the most over priced one on PC $20 or less.

Hide netflix,hulu,Facebook,tweeter and other apps free to every one on other devices under a pay wall,in order to get people to pay for Live gold.

$150 dollar Kinect when the Bom for the camera was an estimate $56 dollars...

How can all this has happen and people still find impossible that MS can do something like this,instead of asking me for proof why don't you prove me wrong,show me something that justify that $500 i am more than sure that just like me you can't,yet i don't claim that you are emotionally fueled like you did.

I'll resist the urge to post a cheeky response this time and just say see above.

I just don't like to be taken as a sucker by companies and hate more when people actually try to prove me wrong with nothing on hand either to do so..

Here's the core problem with this argument. I've already stated this but you seem to ignore it. You keep thinking I'm trying to prove you wrong, but as I've noted I have not offered any counter data. Why? Because I'm not arguing a counter point to your position! I was asking you to actually support your claim of price with actual data. I'm no longer asking for that because this discussion has gone absolutely nowhere. Its quite clear to me where the basis for your position is coming from. I have no interest in getting suckered into an emotional debate about the corporate policies of MS.

EDIT

Actually, a discussion about the past decisions and polices of MS in regards to their entertainment division probably would be interesting! But I'm not going to let someone use that as a distraction because they don't want to provide real numbers or relevant data to support their position. So, I'll simply say good day to you and thank you for your time. :smile: