It is just annoying how masses are willing to spend money for shit like nightclubs, alcohol, drugs, iphones, brand clothing, restaurants, and stuff like that, but console would be too expensive if it costs 1/3 of an iphone? And people buy phones way more often than consoles. Even I buy new every 3-4 years and they usually cost 400-600e
Your arguments, while indeed true, are at the same time invalid - yes, people spend shitloads of money on things they use/spend time with almost EVERY SINGLE DAY, and consoles simply don't fall under that category, they're just an unnecessary enjoyment that costs way too much compared to what it offers and how often they are being used by the average consumer. And games being 60-80$ don't help either, especially given their unfinished, buggy state at their release.
Now take the smartphones as an example, because I see them being brought to the table so often here - people spend almost whole 24h with them - they get up, and the very first thing they do is reach the phone, they go to work or school - they use the phone, they're at work/school - they use their phone, they get back from work/school - you guessed it, they still use their phone. And they keep using it throughout the rest day, up until they are lying in bed and still browsing that phone before they go to sleep, people literally wake up and go to sleep with a phone next to them, so it's absolutely understandable they are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on them. But despite that there are still A LOT of people who opt for 150-250$ models, sure the 600+ is what all the press releases and media coverage is all about, but just as with console, many people don't want to spend that much on the phones either.
And that's why I believe the MS rumored two SKU strategy is so good - the average Joe's could get their inexpensive gaming console for their CoD, GTA, Fifa etc., while people like you and me who are willing to spend extra on beefier hardware could also get what they want, as oppose to previous gen with no choice but underperforming 399 boxes.
I don't think they can, R&D went into that, Xbox division will need to justify their spending on such a machine.
You're not going to get away with 250-450m or whatever it is by throwing it out of the window.
If anything Xbox division learned a lot from this generation, if they didn't it would have been a problem - it all ends well.
As long as they keep building block by block something interesting might happen in the future.
I don't think Lockhart is/was really that expensive to develop, it's a parallel development, basically the exact same hardware (Scarlet) with just a lowered specs, think of it as a game on Ultra settings and the same game on Medium - sure, some time and work had to be put to make the appropriate assets, testing, benchmarking etc., but it's nowhere near as huge effort as making a completely new title or entire game engine. I can even imagine Lockhart costing literally 0$ to develop, as it could as well be the very XBX with just an BIOS/driver update that locks the maximum amount of addressable RAM, lowers the clock speeds, number of active GPU cores, and so on, so with basically just a patch they could've checked whether it could work or not.
But I honestly believe that when MS announces XBX price, let's say at the end of the E3 briefing, and it will be big number, Spencer will say something like "but fear not, we hear you, we have everything for everyone, please welcome the new member of Xbox family, the Xbox Series S, available this holiday season for just 399".
..avi tho, a GOAT material 
