VGLeaks: Xbox 720 specs rumor

[reallyscrued]

Sony still makes one of the best LCD's available today. The ONLY other LCD manufacture that goes head-to-head with Sony for the top spot is Sharp (Sharp Elite specifically). So if you don't know anyone that's bought a Sony TV, it's either because they prefer plasma, or because they can't afford a Sony.

Okay, I assume you're talking about the new array XBR model(s), in which case, that's exactly my point. None of my friends can afford that TV (or decide not to invest that much in a television display), why not offer local array dimming LED technology at smaller screen sizes? The logic goes with blurredvision's point:

Why not offer products at lower price points like Microsoft did?

I still wouldn't call Microsoft's pricing strategy genius, it's just Sony is boneheaded and won't offer lower priced options to their electronics, and in comparison, Microsoft looks to be genius. A harddrive-less, blurayless PS3 at $299 launch would have been a great idea.

 

[clok1966]

Okay, I assume you're talking about the new array XBR model(s), in which case, that's exactly my point. None of my friends can afford that TV (or decide not to invest that much in a television display), why not offer local array dimming LED technology at smaller screen sizes? The logic goes with blurredvision's point:

Why not offer products at lower price points like Microsoft did?

I still wouldn't call Microsoft's pricing strategy genius, it's just Sony is boneheaded and won't offer lower priced options to their electronics, and in comparison, Microsoft looks to be genius. A harddrive-less, blurayless PS3 at $299 launch would have been a great idea.

Um... no HD, no BluRay.. NO GAMES.. where is the logic in this.. or am i missing sarcasm? No Bluray.. digital download would work, but No HD means no way to store any game (digital downloaded or?) in any way.

as for offering products at a lower Price point (MS) you do know MS has a fat goose egg in hardware success. Yes you can use "marketing math" like MS and SONY both do to prove the 360 and PS3 are making money.. but REAL world math shows the losses MS took in creating the Xbox brand.. they are still not ahead (when you go from start to today, as in you lose 10 million on the original Xbox, but make 5 million on the 360.. you are behind 5 million still (those are example numbers, google can show you the real numbers), but marketing math only includes product cycles and such when it "sounds better").. and Sony's success with PSone and PS2 .. well all that moneys long gone with the losses the PS3 has ate up.. right now SONY is "maybe" (big maybe) breaking even on Video games if you go back to PSone days.. MS still inst..

 

[oivoodsio]

Okay, I assume you're talking about the new array XBR model(s), in which case, that's exactly my point. None of my friends can afford that TV (or decide not to invest that much in a television display), why not offer local array dimming LED technology at smaller screen sizes? The logic goes with blurredvision's point:

Why not offer products at lower price points like Microsoft did?

I still wouldn't call Microsoft's pricing strategy genius, it's just Sony is boneheaded and won't offer lower priced options to their electronics, and in comparison, Microsoft looks to be genius. A harddrive-less, blurayless PS3 at $299 launch would have been a great idea.

I'd also ask according to whom does sony make one of the best TV's. LG and Samsung by far have the better televisions available, and roughly the same price and probably sometimes cheaper, I dont often see giant sony sales.

 

[oivoodsio]

I don't understand posts like these. Your personal gaming tastes have no correlation with how successful a platform is, sorry.

In fact, PS3 and 360 are very close in sales. "Wasn't even close" is an outright lie as far as numbers go.

http://www.vgchartz.com/

I first off would look at the tense of words and then put comprehension into play. Xbox held no comparisons w/ ps3 in terms of relevant and retail sales during the campaign years. The link you provided assuming 100% accurate and current still shows a decent lead especially in the U.S. Market.

8 Xbox 360 (X360) 42.25 23.03 1.63 7.34 74.25 9 PlayStation 3 (PS3) 25.97 28.45 8.98 9.09 72.49
42.25 Million v.s. Sony's 25.97 Million, only in EU countries and Japan do you see a steady growth in sales of the ps3. Now to be really consumer relevant you need a full global release, and the U.S. even in economic catastrophe is and will continue to be a HUGE revenue source you cannot look past.

Further more we can look at Japan, Korea, and other tech savy countries and wonder how many of the products sold were for NetCafe type establisments? The number here in the U.S. would be a lot smaller than both a lot of other countries, which would tag psn as an easier sale w/ free online, where as 1 Xbox live I.D. only goes so far.

The fact is the Xbox live community feeling is better, the xbox live system is better, and the controller is more comfortable. Now don't get me wrong the controller issue can be opinion but what it really comes down to is buttons and the more easily overlooked choices. Myself I prefer the xbox triggers but I do know a lot of people who prefer the Ps3 style. At this point I rarely if ever anymore hear "Xbox 360 is big and I'm sure it is uncomfortable" or the likes, more people have held an xbox 360 controller for extended periods and while they may want or dislike specific features the design is better on hand.

 

[Arkaign]

Hah, I wonder if Microsoft's numbers account for the number of broken Xbox's that they replaced. I know several people who have had 5+ Xboxes, and not a single person with a working launch 360. Hopefully their quality is massively improved with the new one (the recent 360s seem a hopeful example of improvement).

You can't cite opinions as fact. It comes down to what games you like to play. Xbox is better for A, B, and C, PS3 is better for X, Y, and Z.

Personally, I deeply disliked the current gen of consoles, I felt they were too expensive, too flaky, and didn't have many games I really cared about. I utterly loathe playing FPS on either the PS3 and 360 controllers as well, feels like trying to drive a car with my ass cheeks.

 

[Tweak155]

Hah, I wonder if Microsoft's numbers account for the number of broken Xbox's that they replaced. I know several people who have had 5+ Xboxes, and not a single person with a working launch 360. Hopefully their quality is massively improved with the new one (the recent 360s seem a hopeful example of improvement).

You can't cite opinions as fact. It comes down to what games you like to play. Xbox is better for A, B, and C, PS3 is better for X, Y, and Z.

Personally, I deeply disliked the current gen of consoles, I felt they were too expensive, too flaky, and didn't have many games I really cared about. I utterly loathe playing FPS on either the PS3 and 360 controllers as well, feels like trying to drive a car with my ass cheeks.

Maybe, maybe not. All I know is if my PS3 broke I wouldn't think to replace it. XBox I would. Pretty good testament when they're willing to go through 5 XBox systems, thanks!

 

[zerocool84]

Hah, I wonder if Microsoft's numbers account for the number of broken Xbox's that they replaced. I know several people who have had 5+ Xboxes, and not a single person with a working launch 360. Hopefully their quality is massively improved with the new one (the recent 360s seem a hopeful example of improvement).

You can't cite opinions as fact. It comes down to what games you like to play. Xbox is better for A, B, and C, PS3 is better for X, Y, and Z.

Personally, I deeply disliked the current gen of consoles, I felt they were too expensive, too flaky, and didn't have many games I really cared about. I utterly loathe playing FPS on either the PS3 and 360 controllers as well, feels like trying to drive a car with my ass cheeks.

There are many great games that aren't fps that are out. I mainly play fps on PC but it's still easy to play them on console. B

 

[AstroManLuca]

Sony still makes one of the best LCD's available today. The ONLY other LCD manufacture that goes head-to-head with Sony for the top spot is Sharp (Sharp Elite specifically). So if you don't know anyone that's bought a Sony TV, it's either because they prefer plasma, or because they can't afford a Sony.

No one buys Sony TVs because they cost way more than competing models and most people can't tell the difference (if there even is one).

 

[American Gunner]

They just need to hurry up and do the announcement. I want to see what we will be working with and what titles to look for this fall when I get the next xbox.

 

[Anubis]

it really does not matter which system is better, its 100% irrelevant.

 

[Anubis]

No one buys Sony TVs because they cost way more than competing models and most people can't tell the difference (if there even is one).

i know 4 people who purchased Sony LCDs in the past year

 

[Malak]

Umm, no. At first I thought I should've specified NA but then realized that I quoted US prices on a primarily US-based forum and figured it would only take an idiot to not figure out what I was talking about.

I honestly don't know what the numbers are for NA consoles and software sold, but I'd bet you $20 without that knowledge that the 360 is very well ahead of the PS3.

I'll bet you $200 that more working PS3's are actively used right now than 360's. You can see that just by seeing the biggest game being sold right now is selling more copies on PS3 than 360. Total console sales are a lot less relevant, even though the fact is they are very close. The actual specific country statistics are even less relevant, you are just trying to cut a piece of pie that matches your belief and hope nobody notices the rest. You should actually do some research before spouting off on nonsense. PS3's started at a higher price point and stayed that way for a long time because they offered a lot more out of the box than a 360 did. That's why people say not having a harddrive built-in was a bad decision, and you better believe they would have sold better if they had matched Sony on hardware. Sony didn't get lucky, they were smarter the whole time. Microsoft has a much better chance of topping the market this time around since there won't be as much fight over hardware, which Sony won hands down.

 

[TheSlamma]

Finally a decent amount of RAM, hope the Vid memory is also a decent number so we can finally get some good textures.

 

[JackBurton]

No one buys Sony TVs because they cost way more than competing models and most people can't tell the difference (if there even is one).

No, the people who want the best LCD, buy Sony. Sorry if your friends don't have the money to buy one. That's not Sony's problem.

 

[JackBurton]

Okay, I assume you're talking about the new array XBR model(s), in which case, that's exactly my point. None of my friends can afford that TV (or decide not to invest that much in a television display), why not offer local array dimming LED technology at smaller screen sizes? The logic goes with blurredvision's point:

Why not offer products at lower price points like Microsoft did?

I still wouldn't call Microsoft's pricing strategy genius, it's just Sony is boneheaded and won't offer lower priced options to their electronics, and in comparison, Microsoft looks to be genius. A harddrive-less, blurayless PS3 at $299 launch would have been a great idea.

Like I said, that's not Sony's problem. I just want Sony to produce the best LCD they can, not some junk that they had to cut corners on because every Joe Blow thinks he deserves a 50" for $500. Local dimming backlit LCD's aren't cheap to produce. I'm sure that's why Sony only reserves that tech for their premium models.

 

[lamedude]

Sony's TV division has lost money for 8 years ($2.2 billion for 2011 alone). Do we have to wait until they file for bankruptcy for it to become Sony's problem that no one can afford their TVs?

 

[GoSharks]

NM

 

[JackBurton]

Sony's TV division has lost money for 8 years ($2.2 billion for 2011 alone). Do we have to wait until they file for bankruptcy for it to become Sony's problem that no one can afford their TVs?

Lowering their prices isn't going to help Sony. If they lower their prices, quality will suffer and they will be like any other junk set on the market. Sony just needs to do a better job of marketing their products. The reason Samsung does so well is not because they have a better product or offer a cheaper product, it's because they know the average person is stupid and they market their products accordingly. Their products are all flash with no substance, but that's what people want now. And Samsung is giving people what they want, a REALLY thin LCD with stupid moronic widgets ("Smart TV""), with picture quality and performance taking a back seat. Their products aren't necessarily cheaper than the competition either, just flashier.

So yes, you are going to sit their and whine about why you can't get something for nothing, and Sony will focus on realigning their business to make it profitable again. If they can't pull it off, they'll go out of business, and we'll be left with another quality manufacture exiting the market leaving us with even shittier options. Yeah!!

 

[mmntech]

Although, I do find it amusing that it will use a Blu-Ray drive. :biggrin:

I still believe that if the 360 incorporated an HD DVD drive from the start, Bluray wouldn't have emerged the victor in the format war. DVD was a cheaper medium at the time.

I'm not surprised to see optical media make a return. It's cheap to mass produce, unlike flash. Downloadable media still hasn't reached the point of being practical yet. Especially as games get bigger. Average download speeds haven't caught up to the point where they're faster than just going to the store.

As for the other specs, I think it's very interesting to see AMD powering all three eighth gen systems. That's something unprecedented for TV top consoles AFAIK. Should make porting easier but will present a lot of challenges. I'll boil down to software, price, and content delivery.

 

[Tweak155]

No, the people who want the best LCD, buy Sony. Sorry if your friends don't have the money to buy one. That's not Sony's problem.

I would have bought a Sony but when I purchased my last one, they didn't have one in my size range (they capped at 60").

EDIT:

And I have a 42" Sony for the bedroom.

EDIT EDIT:

Also, pretty sure not having money to buy their TV WOULD be Sony's problem.

 

[cmdrdredd]

No, the people who want the best LCD, buy Sony. Sorry if your friends don't have the money to buy one. That's not Sony's problem.

LOL really? You're sold on a brand that's for sure. I bet you drive a Bugatti as well huh?

Besides, anyone who really knows will buy a Plasma and calibrate it.

I still believe that if the 360 incorporated an HD DVD drive from the start, Bluray wouldn't have emerged the victor in the format war. DVD was a cheaper medium at the time.

I'm not surprised to see optical media make a return. It's cheap to mass produce, unlike flash. Downloadable media still hasn't reached the point of being practical yet. Especially as games get bigger. Average download speeds haven't caught up to the point where they're faster than just going to the store.

As for the other specs, I think it's very interesting to see AMD powering all three eighth gen systems. That's something unprecedented for TV top consoles AFAIK. Should make porting easier but will present a lot of challenges. I'll boil down to software, price, and content delivery.

Blu-Ray had more studio support thanks to better DRM on the disks. That helped quite a bit.

Lowering their prices isn't going to help Sony. If they lower their prices, quality will suffer and they will be like any other junk set on the market. Sony just needs to do a better job of marketing their products. The reason Samsung does so well is not because they have a better product or offer a cheaper product, it's because they know the average person is stupid and they market their products accordingly. Their products are all flash with no substance, but that's what people want now. And Samsung is giving people what they want, a REALLY thin LCD with stupid moronic widgets ("Smart TV""), with picture quality and performance taking a back seat. Their products aren't necessarily cheaper than the competition either, just flashier.

So yes, you are going to sit their and whine about why you can't get something for nothing, and Sony will focus on realigning their business to make it profitable again. If they can't pull it off, they'll go out of business, and we'll be left with another quality manufacture exiting the market leaving us with even shittier options. Yeah!!

Oh it can't be because Samsung and LG are the two largest builders of LCD panels can it? Oh no...it can't be because Samsung offers a product line that scales from low to high end can it? Oh no...it can't be because Sony are elitist and think their shit don't stink? Sony has made bad decision after bad decision and that is why they are going down the tubes. Their video game division is the only thing really keeping the company alive right now.

Here's something you might not understand. In the real world it doesn't matter if you're the best if when you calibrate the set you cannot tell. Why would someone pay $3000 for a 55" TV when they could get a 60" (Plasma too) for over a thousand bux less. Don't give me your bullshit about "you can't afford it" I know people who CAN afford it and they STILL don't pay for overpriced products because someone says "it's better". Especially not when a good Plasma is absolutely better than any LCD in overall picture quality and color representation.

Face it, sony is run by retarded elitist pricks. This is why they are in the terrible spot they are at. They think people care about the Sony brand these days. People don't so you can't slap Sony on it and charge over twice as much anymore.

 

[AstroManLuca]

No, the people who want the best LCD, buy Sony. Sorry if your friends don't have the money to buy one. That's not Sony's problem.

Most people have the money, they just choose not to spend it for no reason. Since when did saving money become a bad thing? I hear that so much these days, someone points out that a product is overpriced and these losers come out and accuse them of being poor.

 

[Arkaign]

LOL really? You're sold on a brand that's for sure. I bet you drive a Bugatti as well huh?

Besides, anyone who really knows will buy a Plasma and calibrate it.

I believe you've hit on the magic answer.

Low-end customers buy LCDs by the droves (not hating, I own several LCDs).

High-end customers buy Plasmas. They're just better for major home theatre/sports duty. Which leaves Sony in a weird spot. Besides, I can't tell the difference between Sony's LCDs and the high-end LG and Samsung models, but they're all second-rate compared to a good plasma. LED and modern LCDs have improved MASSIVELY since a few years back (I have a hand-me-down 42" Sony LCD from ~2006 in a spare room, and it's a piece of crap), but Plasma is still tops for movies/sports.

 

[JackBurton]

LOL really? You're sold on a brand that's for sure. I bet you drive a Bugatti as well huh?

I'm sold on performance, and Sony's LCD's currently hold the performance crown in that tech. The only other TV that can compete against it is Sharp's Elite.

Besides, anyone who really knows will buy a Plasma and calibrate it.

Yeah, that's why I have two ISF calibrated 9G Pioneers Elites (141FD and 111FD). However I aknowledge the fact some people just prefer LCD. And in that category Sony holds the crowd. You can throw all your little tantrums, but those ar the facts. The 2 best LCD's are Sharp's Elite and Sony HX950. Fact.

All your other rambling were just that. Ramblings. A calibrate edge lit LCD isn't going to do jack about its shitty black levels when compared to a full array LED backlit LCD. Now get back to me when you're done posting BS. Your responses are purely emotionally driven, not factual.

 

[zebrax2]

Lowering their prices isn't going to help Sony. If they lower their prices, quality will suffer and they will be like any other junk set on the market. Sony just needs to do a better job of marketing their products. The reason Samsung does so well is not because they have a better product or offer a cheaper product, it's because they know the average person is stupid and they market their products accordingly. Their products are all flash with no substance, but that's what people want now. And Samsung is giving people what they want, a REALLY thin LCD with stupid moronic widgets ("Smart TV""), with picture quality and performance taking a back seat. Their products aren't necessarily cheaper than the competition either, just flashier.

The problem with Sony isn't marketing (everyone knows Sony) it is that their premium pricing apply to the whole lineup from bottom to top. Their premium pricing on the top end may be justified by better PQ but the same can't be said on the <50" TV market. People on those markets care more about pricing rather than astounding picture quality as long as it is acceptable enough. Heck most of the people on that market probably doesn't even bother correctly setting the brightness, contrast, etc. on their TVs as long as it looks good to them.