XBOX 360 HD DVD drive: $199.99 for the US

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: intogamer
Sony may possibly do more price drops? Nothing is final with them yet :roll:

Unless Xbox 360 drops the suspected $100 and a $99-$149 Drive would sound better

They couldn't afford it. They are losing a huge amount of money on every PS3 sold. Sony is putting all their eggs in the Blu-Ray basket and will sink or swim because of it. Prior to announcing the reduced shipment, they were saying it would take 5+ years for them to make money off the PS3. What about now that they aren't going to be able to ship as many as they based that estimate off of?

The price drop was only for Japan btw.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
yup, upconvert to 1080p like how the old xbox did 720p? same thing sony is doing with the ps3 apparently.

I thought PS3 would do 1080p natively in games, no upconverting?

A handful of games will be 1080p (and look worse now than when they were shown off at 720p earlier this year). The rest are 720p.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: intogamer
Sony may possibly do more price drops? Nothing is final with them yet :roll:

Unless Xbox 360 drops the suspected $100 and a $99-$149 Drive would sound better

They couldn't afford it. They are losing a huge amount of money on every PS3 sold. Sony is putting all their eggs in the Blu-Ray basket and will sink or swim because of it. Prior to announcing the reduced shipment, they were saying it would take 5+ years for them to make money off the PS3. What about now that they aren't going to be able to ship as many as they based that estimate off of?

The price drop was only for Japan btw.

5 YEARS? That's a whole generation of systems! So pretty much that means they'll lose money on every PS3 sold until the PS4 comes out... smart.

And at the beginning it's not just going to be a little money lost, it's a LOT (based on estimates of what it shoudl cost to produce)

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: intogamer
Sony may possibly do more price drops? Nothing is final with them yet :roll:

Unless Xbox 360 drops the suspected $100 and a $99-$149 Drive would sound better

They couldn't afford it. They are losing a huge amount of money on every PS3 sold. Sony is putting all their eggs in the Blu-Ray basket and will sink or swim because of it. Prior to announcing the reduced shipment, they were saying it would take 5+ years for them to make money off the PS3. What about now that they aren't going to be able to ship as many as they based that estimate off of?

The price drop was only for Japan btw.

5 YEARS? That's a whole generation of systems! So pretty much that means they'll lose money on every PS3 sold until the PS4 comes out... smart.

And at the beginning it's not just going to be a little money lost, it's a LOT (based on estimates of what it shoudl cost to produce)

Yep. That's why the Sony Execs were saying that the PS3 is so powerful that it will have a 10-year lifespan (not all that wild of a statement when you consider how long the PSX lasted).

Still, the reason they are willing to lose so much money is because they'll recoup the losses if Blu-Ray comes out the winner over HD-DVD. Sony would be doing well off the Blu-Ray licensing fees at that point.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

Um, maybe because the system would have cost a lot more money, and now the consumers have the choice of whether or not they want to pay for it?

Are you asking me a question?

I was making a point you dolt. Choice is good.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Yep. That's why the Sony Execs were saying that the PS3 is so powerful that it will have a 10-year lifespan (not all that wild of a statement when you consider how long the PSX lasted).

1995 to 2000 is only 5 years. that seems about standard for a console to me.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Queasy

Yep. That's why the Sony Execs were saying that the PS3 is so powerful that it will have a 10-year lifespan (not all that wild of a statement when you consider how long the PSX lasted).

1995 to 2000 is only 5 years. that seems about standard for a console to me.

the system lasted quite longer. Sony ended production in march of 2006.

I believe Madden was release for both the ps2 and psone up to 2001 or 2002. Numerous other games were produced for the playstation also.

but they did not garner much limelight as well sony shifted the focus to the playstation 2.

 

[Journer]

BRD > HDDVD

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: Journer
BRD > HDDVD

The market would tend to disagree.

 

[0roo0roo]

I thought PS3 would do 1080p natively in games, no upconverting?

as far as i know games like mgs4 are 720p upconverted to 1080p. i doubt they will try 1080p native games, maybe for some graphically undemanding stuff. 1080p native with the matching higher resolution textures would be a huge burden for development. only 256mb to work with just like the xbox.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: Journer
BRD > HDDVD

The market would tend to disagree.

market means squat in terms of format adoption, at least when looking at history.

studio support seems to dictate which format is adopted based on providing a certain format with more titles.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

So that people who do not have an hd tv, or care to buy hd movies, only have to pay $400 for the top end gaming console.

Yup.
HDTV penetration is apparently 15% in the US (according to an interview with the US head of Nintendo on ABC).
Seems really stupid to make people in the other 85% pay for for a console which has a feature they can't use (HD-DVD playback), and 1 year ago it wasn't such an obvious move to make, since there is what, 1 or 2 of each type of player (HD-DVD and BluRay) on the market now, so a year ago when there were 1 or 0, adding an HD-DVD drive to the 360 wouldn't have been helpful, and might have delayed it, as well as adding even more cost (since MS would have been an early adopter and paid even more at the start than Sony will do 1 year on when they launch the PS3)

Makes sense considering the turnaround time on Microsoft consoles is so short. They have to keep churning out new hardware to make up for the lack of games.

In the length of time Sony plans for the PS3 to be out, there will be a big jump in HDTV owners.

 

[MBrown]

Suddenly PS3 doesn't sound that bad.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

So that people who do not have an hd tv, or care to buy hd movies, only have to pay $400 for the top end gaming console.

Yup.
HDTV penetration is apparently 15% in the US (according to an interview with the US head of Nintendo on ABC).
Seems really stupid to make people in the other 85% pay for for a console which has a feature they can't use (HD-DVD playback), and 1 year ago it wasn't such an obvious move to make, since there is what, 1 or 2 of each type of player (HD-DVD and BluRay) on the market now, so a year ago when there were 1 or 0, adding an HD-DVD drive to the 360 wouldn't have been helpful, and might have delayed it, as well as adding even more cost (since MS would have been an early adopter and paid even more at the start than Sony will do 1 year on when they launch the PS3)

Makes sense considering the turnaround time on Microsoft consoles is so short. They have to keep churning out new hardware to make up for the lack of games.

In the length of time Sony plans for the PS3 to be out, there will be a big jump in HDTV owners.

doesn't matter about the length of time they claim to want it to be around. in a few years the stand alone players will be cheap and there will be no point to a consoles supposed value as a player. especially if bluray fails

 

[Fingolfin269]

I don't even understand why people want to use these drives as their primary HD drives anyway. I have never used the DVD drive in either the PS2 or the Xbox as a primary DVD drive. I tried doing this with the PS2 when it first launched but the DVD player was horrible. I've heard the Xbox is better but meh.

I'll adopt HD-DVD when I decide to go out any buy a drive that has nothing to do with the 360. I'm just glad Microsoft gave me that choice and screw Sony for making me adopt their blu-ray tech if I want a PS3.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: destrekor
another thing: Microsoft never supported Blu-Ray, because currently Microsoft and Intel, at least for the last year, have openly supported and backed HD-DVD, especially since the codec currently being used for HD-DVD is based off the WMV9 HD format.

This is wholly incorrect. Microsoft was in both camps until just recently according to Amir Majidimehr, corporate vice president of the Consumer Media Technology Group at Microsoft.

Your reasoning is also faulty. Both Bluray and HD-DVD mandate the use of any one of three codecs: MPEG2, H.264 MPEG4, and Microsoft's VC-1 codec. It's up to the studios who own the content to choose which codec gets used, but again, both formats allow any of the three to be used.

It's a pretty safe bet to say that only Sony's in-house development studios will be writing games for 1080p - Ridge Racer 7 at TGS is already doing so. For the most part, there's just no payoff for the extra work those higher quality graphics require.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

So that people who do not have an hd tv, or care to buy hd movies, only have to pay $400 for the top end gaming console.

Yup.
HDTV penetration is apparently 15% in the US (according to an interview with the US head of Nintendo on ABC).
Seems really stupid to make people in the other 85% pay for for a console which has a feature they can't use (HD-DVD playback), and 1 year ago it wasn't such an obvious move to make, since there is what, 1 or 2 of each type of player (HD-DVD and BluRay) on the market now, so a year ago when there were 1 or 0, adding an HD-DVD drive to the 360 wouldn't have been helpful, and might have delayed it, as well as adding even more cost (since MS would have been an early adopter and paid even more at the start than Sony will do 1 year on when they launch the PS3)

Makes sense considering the turnaround time on Microsoft consoles is so short. They have to keep churning out new hardware to make up for the lack of games.

In the length of time Sony plans for the PS3 to be out, there will be a big jump in HDTV owners.

doesn't matter about the length of time they claim to want it to be around. in a few years the stand alone players will be cheap and there will be no point to a consoles supposed value as a player. especially if bluray fails

It's only about players for Microsoft. For Sony, it's about having a larger storage meduim available for games.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

So that people who do not have an hd tv, or care to buy hd movies, only have to pay $400 for the top end gaming console.

Yup.
HDTV penetration is apparently 15% in the US (according to an interview with the US head of Nintendo on ABC).
Seems really stupid to make people in the other 85% pay for for a console which has a feature they can't use (HD-DVD playback), and 1 year ago it wasn't such an obvious move to make, since there is what, 1 or 2 of each type of player (HD-DVD and BluRay) on the market now, so a year ago when there were 1 or 0, adding an HD-DVD drive to the 360 wouldn't have been helpful, and might have delayed it, as well as adding even more cost (since MS would have been an early adopter and paid even more at the start than Sony will do 1 year on when they launch the PS3)

Makes sense considering the turnaround time on Microsoft consoles is so short. They have to keep churning out new hardware to make up for the lack of games.

In the length of time Sony plans for the PS3 to be out, there will be a big jump in HDTV owners.

doesn't matter about the length of time they claim to want it to be around. in a few years the stand alone players will be cheap and there will be no point to a consoles supposed value as a player. especially if bluray fails

It's only about players for Microsoft. For Sony, it's about pushing Blu-Ray so it will be THE HD format

Fixed

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

I thought PS3 would do 1080p natively in games, no upconverting?

as far as i know games like mgs4 are 720p upconverted to 1080p. i doubt they will try 1080p native games, maybe for some graphically undemanding stuff. 1080p native with the matching higher resolution textures would be a huge burden for development. only 256mb to work with just like the xbox.

At TGS06, they announced that MGS4 would be 1080p native. It was 720p at E306. Frankly, it looked better at E3 when it was running 720p. You can tell it took quite a hit to get up to 1080p.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Queasy

Yep. That's why the Sony Execs were saying that the PS3 is so powerful that it will have a 10-year lifespan (not all that wild of a statement when you consider how long the PSX lasted).

1995 to 2000 is only 5 years. that seems about standard for a console to me.

the system lasted quite longer. Sony ended production in march of 2006.

I believe Madden was release for both the ps2 and psone up to 2001 or 2002. Numerous other games were produced for the playstation also.

but they did not garner much limelight as well sony shifted the focus to the playstation 2.

That's not that out of the ordinary. NES was produced for 12 years, SNES was produced for 13 years in Japan. Neo-Geo was continually produced for 14 years I believe (although it wasn't terribly popular due to its absurd $600 price tag ), Atari 2600 lasted 14 years.

What's more important is when the next generation comes out. In 5 years Nintendo and Microsoft will put out their next generation systems (if they're both still in the business of building systems), and they'll blow Sony's 5 year old technology away. Sony will be forced to make a next-gen system.

 

[RichUK]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Queasy

Yep. That's why the Sony Execs were saying that the PS3 is so powerful that it will have a 10-year lifespan (not all that wild of a statement when you consider how long the PSX lasted).

1995 to 2000 is only 5 years. that seems about standard for a console to me.

the system lasted quite longer. Sony ended production in march of 2006.

I believe Madden was release for both the ps2 and psone up to 2001 or 2002. Numerous other games were produced for the playstation also.

but they did not garner much limelight as well sony shifted the focus to the playstation 2.

That's not that out of the ordinary. NES was produced for 12 years, SNES was produced for 13 years in Japan. Neo-Geo was continually produced for 14 years I believe (although it wasn't terribly popular due to its absurd $600 price tag ), Atari 2600 lasted 14 years.

What's more important is when the next generation comes out. In 5 years Nintendo and Microsoft will put out their next generation systems (if they're both still in the business of building systems), and they'll blow Sony's 5 year old technology away. Sony will be forced to make a next-gen system.

And they will. I personally see Sony as a market leader when it comes to game consoles, and i think their user base reflects this.

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: NFS4
Comes bundled with King Kong and a universal remote

It's the same bundle in Canada, but for CAD$199.99, which is only US$178. Already pre-ordered.

Movies are less than I thought too at some stores. I got Corpse Bride and Unforgiven for US$21-22.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

Um, maybe because the system would have cost a lot more money, and now the consumers have the choice of whether or not they want to pay for it?

And I'm sure they'll have the choice of a $200 blu-ray add-on if that format wins over hd-dvd. But on the other hand, if hd-dvd wins over blu-ray, you're stuck with the blu-ray drive in the ps3.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: RichUK

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: RichUK
Why couldn't MS just incorporate this into the 360 from the beginning. :disgust:

Um, maybe because the system would have cost a lot more money, and now the consumers have the choice of whether or not they want to pay for it?

Are you asking me a question?

Because 95% of those buying the Xbox 360 had no use for HDDVD.

 

[Tom]

library card=free.

1. unlimited readng material.
2. free wireless access.
3. tons of music cds.
4. tons of dvd movies.

this whole internet/cable/movies/video games/cell phones/ipod media economy deserves to collapse from it's own bloated boring diseased
self.