I thought they should have made 2 versions of the xbox. 1, purely for gaming and 2, the one they have now for TV and all other stuff. If sales are bad then they will bring out a simplier version of the xbox one I think.
As for the games, there won't be much noticeable difference.
I don't think that there's necessarily a problem with the 'extra media stuff', after-all the PS3 sold well due to the media capabilities it had, despite the price premium. These extra features won't have added much to the build cost, the HDMI input being the biggest cost more than likely. MS already had the software in place in Windows, so adding these features shouldn't be an issue.
They may have been better not to include the Kinect2 with the console, instead selling it as an optional extra, that could have brought the price of the console itself down. I think many 'hardcore' gamers see the Kinect as a waste of space, so won't value its inclusion.
MS have also historically never sold hardware at cost level, or at a loss, so they are probably making a profit on each console. I wouldn't be surprised if Sony are selling at cost (this is historically what they do, with them making a big loss on each PS3 console sold initially, relying on making the profit on games and peripherals sales). Looking at MS, they made the same decision with their tablets, with the Surface RT selling at a healthy profit, in comparison to Google selling the Nexus 7 at cost. Personally, MS would be better off taking the hit on the consoles in order to drive sales.
Their stance regarding both DRM (internet connection) and the second-hand games market is purely idiotic, and something they should have avoided. These two issues will likely be a bigger sticking point than the price.
Edit. As an aside, I don't think MS have made the decision about requiring an internet connection solely because of DRM issues (every system is likely to be hacked regardless), but more to do with their cloud vision. I'm sure they're hoping that developers will take full advantage of the cloud as an extra resource of performance etc. if they are guaranteed that everyone playing the game has access to it. The problem is, even if people have internet access, there's no guarantee that it's quick enough to really be useful. As an example, when I move back to mid-Wales in September, the quickest internet I'm likely going to be able to get is 8MB, there's no Virgin cable, there's no BT infinity etc. There's a chance of 16MB in Aberystwyth itself. However, if I live further out, the speeds drop-off massively. My parents connection flutters between 128Kb/s and about 0.5MB, it's mostly unusable for any sort of streaming, even youtube a lot of the time.
Any information about the cost of games and peripherals yet? If games are cheaper on the Xbox One, the difference in price would be a non-issue. Similarly, if the more advanced controller on the PS4 (which I believe the Xbox One can basically simulate using Kinect2?) costs a fortune to buy separately, the difference in price may be minimal once 2-3 extra controllers are purchased.
