XBOX COMMUNITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Aura7541]

that is the backwards part...

subtract the cost of the total price tag from the sum of their parts, which is how you know how much money you are saving...

itemizing the savings per item is erroneous as you only save on the total package, and you would have to also know first what the saving value is by doing what I said first.

Total cost - bundle cost = savings
you do not need to go back and then subtract the savings from the bundle cost to say you are only paying x for this or that, that is useless data.

Again, you're only repeating what you said before, only this time, you're doing it in fewer paragraphs. Look at my examples again. It's really simple and not so difficult to understand. I don't really understand what you're getting at other than that you want to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. Your comments basically say, "I don't like this method of analysis. Therefore, it's wrong."

Seriously, quantitatively evaluating values of bundles by subtracting the costs of the games, subscriptions, or peripherals from the price tag is simple. I don't know why you have such a problem with this method when no one else does.

[the-pi-guy]

that is the backwards part...

subtract the cost of the total price tag from the sum of their parts, which is how you know how much money you are saving...

itemizing the savings per item is pointless as you only save on the total package, and you would have to also know first what the saving value is by doing what I said first.

Total cost - bundle cost = savings
you do not need to go back and then subtract the savings from the bundle cost to say you are only paying x for this or that, that is useless data.

If I buy a chromecast and it's bundled with $20 google play credit for the same price, that does not mean i'm getting the chromecast for $20 off...

If one bundle I attribute the value of the xbox (using your logic) to ~$299, and another bundle where (using your same logic) the value of the Xbox is $399 which one has better value?

Spoiler for Hidden:

T - B = S
T = X + A + H + G
 X + A + H + G - B = S
X = S + B - A - H - G

X! = X - S || B - S

data numbers rounded for convenience...
X = 400
G = 60
A = 20
H = 50
B = 400
/\ T = 530
/\ S = 130
/\ X = B + S - (A+G+H) :: 530-130 = 400...

We aren't even disagreeing with you.  
Yes, you can look at the situation that way, but you can look at it in several other ways that are equally valid.  

Using the logic, of 399$ vs 299$ then obviously the 299$ is a better deal.  There's no confusion about this whatsoever.  

[7H3]

We aren't even disagreeing with you.  
Yes, you can look at the situation that way, but you can look at it in several other ways that are equally valid.  

Using the logic, of 399$ vs 299$ then obviously the 299$ is a better deal.  There's no confusion about this whatsoever.  

its the same bundle

[Aura7541]

Here's a different approach for the 1TB XBO + MCC + Unity + 1 YR XBL for $399 vs. 500GB XBO + MCC for $349 faceoff:

Usually, the SKU with larger storage is $50 more expensive than the standard SKU. So, for instance, if the 500GB XBO costs $349, then the 1TB XBO will cost $399. With this line of reasoning, a 1TB XBO + MCC bundle will cost $50 more than a 500GB XBO + MCC bundle. However, the 1TB XBO is also bundled with Unity and 1 year of XBL Gold.

On top of that, the Halo series is known for its multiplayer, but you need an XBL Gold subscription to play online. The 1TB XBO bundle already covers that need, but the 500GB XBO bundle does not. You have to shell out another $60 on top of the $349 price tag, bringing the total costs to $409. You'll end up spending $10 more for 500GB less storage and one less game.

As you see, completely different approach, but we still come to the same conclusion.

[the-pi-guy]

its the same bundle

Then theyre both the same deal.  Then that's not using the same logic.  
You can look at the situation any way you want, but you have to be consistent.
In my HS chemistry class it was very much the same.  You could use any scale you wanted but you had to use the same scale throughout.  

[7H3]

Then theyre both the same deal.  Then that's not using the same logic.  
You can look at the situation any way you want, but you have to be consistent.
In my HS chemistry class it was very much the same.  You could use any scale you wanted but you had to use the same scale throughout.  

It is using the same logic. for one I devalued the console, for the other I devalued the add ons

Here's a different approach for the 1TB XBO + MCC + Unity + 1 YR XBL for $399 vs. 500GB XBO + MCC for $349 faceoff:

Usually, the SKU with larger storage is $50 more expensive than the standard SKU. So, for instance, if the 500GB XBO costs $349, then the 1TB XBO will cost $399. With this line of reasoning, a 1TB XBO + MCC bundle will cost $50 more than a 500GB XBO + MCC bundle. However, the 1TB XBO is also bundled with Unity and 1 year of XBL Gold.

On top of that, the Halo series is known for its multiplayer, but you need an XBL Gold subscription to play online. The 1TB XBO bundle already covers that need, but the 500GB XBO bundle does not. You have to shell out another $60 on top of the $349 price tag, bringing the total costs to $409. You'll end up spending $10 more for 500GB less storage and one less game.

As you see, completely different approach, but we still come to the same conclusion.

that is a logical approach and see no issue with it at all and completely agree with the method used above.

Comparatively I am saying devaluing any part of the bundle to attribute a new cost based solely on that bundle is useless data, and redundant...

For example using the above bundles as an example we can devalue the xbox one to say $270 and $300($330) (generous and minimal amounts for MCC for range)  this does not give us a true estimate of savings to savings which one could say is $30 ~ $60

However, in this situation the actual value difference would be $80 or more (cost of Unity and XBL sub added to second bundle becoming $430, plus $50 difference in cost of 1TB vs. 500GB) However, you were able to come to this conclusion without the extra step of devaluing the xbox one in the quoted text! making this data redundant and not very useful at all as a metric of value for the consumer.

[Legend]

Rise of the Tomb Raider looks fun. Good shame. Keep slaying boi

This video looked jankey to me. The winter demos are what have me excited.

[the-pi-guy]

If you're devaluing something for comparison, you absolutely have to devalue the same thing.  
That's what I mean by the same scale.  You're devaluing different things, so you can't the compare the two that way.

[darkknightkryta]

When did geometry disappear in the video?

Also that doesn't sound correct, based off the behind the scenes video Microsoft showed.

She said it didn't...  

[Legend]

She said it didn't...  

"geometry isnt dissapearing in the video, its simply the switch between local physics calculation and the server based debris data with the simplified meshes."

She said it wasn't happening the way people thought. There's still "something" changing that's visible in the videos. Where is it?

[darkknightkryta]

"geometry isnt dissapearing in the video, its simply the switch between local physics calculation and the server based debris data with the simplified meshes."

She said it wasn't happening the way people thought. There's still "something" changing that's visible in the videos. Where is it?

Whatever people are complaining about that she felt the need to respond to?

[Legend]

Whatever people are complaining about that she felt the need to respond to?

I don't read chertz. I have no idea what the context is or what other people have posted. That's why I'm asking...

[darkknightkryta]

I don't read chertz. I have no idea what the context is or what other people have posted. That's why I'm asking...

I don't know either

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Well it doesn't look the great, You see falling Jenga blocks then all the sudden you see smaller pieces. It's not very convincing.  So maybe that's what they are talking about.

[Legend]

I don't know either

Everybody's clueless!