any proof?
as i imagine with the specs being so high, and MS launching theirs for more money with lower specs, something doesn't add up.
even if kinect costs around £50 to manufacture, it still doesn't add up.
In general terms, the specs aren't particularly high, but they are a massive step up compared to previous consoles, which is where it really matters.
Aside from that, there is actually very little costly hardware in them. PCBs are pretty cheap to make, BR drives will be very cheap now too, as will be the power supply.
The costly things will be the GPU and CPU, but they're both quite small, and then the GDDR5.
The GPU's cost should be abound the $30-40 mark, more like $30 due to the volume they will be made in, but a 200mm² GPU at 28nm would cost around $40 per chip to fab.
CPU shouldn't cost much more either, the only think I'm not particularly sure on is the cost of the GDDR5, but realistically it's not going to be mega money, I'd imagine around the $50-60 mark.
With it being an APU, they can cut down on PCB costs too, so won't need an elaborate PCB, I'd imagine that'd cost <$10.
You think customers only ever pay for products based on their cost of construction?
Well I didn't say that...
I'm talking about justifications of prices based on included extras that not everyone will see value in.
So if a Kinect sold by itself at say, $100, not everyone is going to see $100's value in a console bundle with a Kinect.
Microsoft are hoping that people will perceive the Xbox has being more valuable, due to Kinect, and have raised the price accordingly.
As above, that's the issue. It's a risky move including something like that and then raising the price "accordingly" because not everyone is going to see the value in it and will just see the big price and not like it.