Erm... what? I posted a page or so ago to point out a glaring omission. I think the point was made well enough. Kinect isn't being ignored now, but it certainly was in the value comparison which prompted my post.
What? Too much emphasis? I'm simply saying it can't be left out altogether. If that's "too much emphasis" then you too must think kinect can be ignored in any value comparison.
I'd say the XB1 launch has certainly been successful. Of course MS wants more... any healthy business wants more, thus the discussion of possible sans-optical sku.
Well... that's like saying water is wet. Of course the exact same console at a lower price is a better value than at the higher price.
The proposition made (and I've seen many comments suggesting as much recently) is that even at price parity XB1 wouldn't sell as well (other than this thread, because "it's weaker"). In this case specifically, because PS4 with optical > pseudoPS4 without optical. But the XB1 isn't just "pseudoPS4." That may be accurate enough when describing CPU/gpu and overall architecture, where both will be relatively easy to develop for and port between, and end graphics are close enough to not matter for many. Kinect is a unique feature, core to the experience, and we really can't get even a decent handle on its importance because of the current price discrepancy. But alas, it can't just be ignored.
XB1 != pseudoPS4.
XB1 ~ pseudoPS4 + kinect.
There is the other factor, which is coolness, Sony achieved that, again, with the ps4.But that one is hard to measure objectively