Xbox 360 HD-DVD "cheapest you can buy"

[Pebb]

Source: CVG

As, perhaps, you might expect, given that you have to lash out on an Xbox 360 to use it

Microsoft insider Major Nelson has fleshed out fiurther details of Microsoft's external HD-DVD drive for the Xbox 360. In a podcast interview conducted by the Major, a Microsoft employee claimed that the HD-DVD drive will be: "The cheapest HD-DVD player you can buy".

Sadly, he would not be drawn on precise pricing details, but his claims are plausible, since in hardware terms, the drive is about as no-frills as possible, leaving much of the heavy processing up to the Xbox 360 itself.

Major Nelson's podcast interview -- in which he grilled several members of the team making the external drive -- threw up a few other interesting points. Although the drive was industrially designed by Microsoft, it will be made by Toshiba, one of the leading lights behind the HD-DVD standard. And it will attach to the Xbox 360 via USB. For those who are worried about losing the precious USB ports on their Xbox 360s, fear not: the drive has two USB ports of its own, one of which sports a mounting bracket for the Wi-Fi connector. No details on release either, but the Leipzig Games Show or Microsoft's own X06 event in September will probably throw up the last pieces of the puzzle.

 

[harrytuttle]

Source: CVG

As, perhaps, you might expect, given that you have to lash out on an Xbox 360 to use it

Microsoft insider Major Nelson has fleshed out fiurther details of Microsoft's external HD-DVD drive for the Xbox 360. In a podcast interview conducted by the Major, a Microsoft employee claimed that the HD-DVD drive will be: "The cheapest HD-DVD player you can buy".

So on top of the power problems the XBOX360 is already having, now it has to power a second optical drive? I'm glad I didn't buy an XBOX360 yet. I'm waiting for next version with the built-in HD-DVD drive. Otherwise my cabinetry would have caught on fire by now.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Xbox 360: $300.
HD-DVD Drive: $150 minimum (probably $200)

Total: $450-$500 (with no harddrive).

That's still more than the $420 HD-DVD player that went on sale a week ago.

And the same price as a PS3 with a high-def drive, and wireless controllers, and a harddrive, *and* an internet browser / online out of the box.

IMO, the HD-DVD drive is *doomed* and will probably only be offered in limited supplies. It's big, it's extra, and as far as I know, it's not capable of 1080p.

Also, I find it funny that Major Nelson, a few months ago, knocked Sony for their lack of HDMI in the lower end PS3, and all of the sudden now, "HDMI isn't really necessary".


Major Nelson is a Major Moron.

 

[YSSMAN]

I wouldn't count on the pricing being that simple, but it is a tough call to make. $150 seems like a reasonable guestimate, but they could surprise us by gowing lower as well. Still a total package price of $500-ish isn't too bad, considering it will play games and functions as a multi-media-interface.

...As for HDMI, the rumors say that it is in development for future 360s, and Microsoft will offer an expansion for current 360 owners if and when the HDMI cables are ready to go.

I'm sure we all saw the pics a few months ago when they starting floating around, but nothing has been made completely offical yet. Apparently the current felling at Microsoft is that it isn't completely necessary, as many people still do not own HDTVs nor can they tell a "huge" difference between 720p (Microsoft's current standard), 1080i, and 1080p.

I quite frankly don't care either way. While on one hand I'm drawn to blu-ray for the high-def James Bond movies, technology hasn't caught up to the way the movies are formatted and displayed yet... Especially "affordable" technology. On the other hand, HD-DVD hasn't recieved full support from every film studio, and although it is argueably better than the current formats, there are going to be people who can't tell a difference.

It will be interesting to see how things play out a year from now. As Sony treads on thin ice with Blu-Ray-only technology, Microsoft could be setting themselves up for trouble as well with the add-on tech. My guess, atleast in America, it will always come down to value and the overall packaging of the product along with the available game selection. As of right now, IMO, things look worse for the PS3...

...But you can't call everything three months ahead of time...

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

How do things look worse for the PS3?

The $500 model PS3 nets you way more than a $300 Model 360 with an HD-DVD add on.

A $600 model PS3 nets you WAY more than a $400 model 360 with an HD-DVD add on.

Blu-Ray has the masses of support, while HD-DVD has minimal support among the industry.

Sony has a huge 3rd party backing, with 10,000 SDK's shipped world wide, nearly 30% more than Microsoft had shipped at this time with their 360 launch.

Sony has the technology advantage, the 3rd party support advantage, and they've got the territorial fanbase, where the 360 struggles in Japan and Europe (though to a lesser extent).

Please, explain to me how the PS3 is "worse off" when it offer the better value package in comparison to the 360 with an HD-DVD add on (that absolutely cannot be under $150 without losing a ton of money for MS).

 

[YSSMAN]

Whoa there Mr. Fanboy!

Hey, I'm calling it as I see it. I see things as "worse" for the PS3 as a combination of several things:

- Higher Prices (this is a general thing, not based on the ammount of technology, as $500 IS A LOT OF MONEY ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT)
- Technology overload (most people still cannot take full advantage of the PS3 as of yet. Time will tell of course)
- Lack of positive press (in general, parents may take it in a bad way)
- Lack of "big-name" games at launch (but that can be expected for any system, and will certainly change over time)

Either way, it is tough to offset the name "Playstation" with anything, and with big games like MGS4 and Resistance in the pipeline, things are sure to get better.

As for 3rd party support, it isn't as important as what it used to be. Developers are clammoring to work with the Wii these days, and there are quite a few projects that are splitting their work between the 360 and PS3. To me, it always comes down to in-house products on most systems, and given the big guns of MGS4 and Resistance against GoW and Halo 3, thats a fight that is going to be decided later.

As for territorial fanbases, it is another point of "who cares?" As long as the 360 sells well in the US and Europe, thats all that really matters, as that is where the 360 is making the most money. Granted, it would be nice to have the Japanese market, but that isn't Microsoft's biggest concern right now. Either way, if anyone is stupid enough to question Sony's dominance of the market share, they would be idiots, no matter where they are from.

---

"Value" is a relative term sir, and thus IMO the 360 (for me) does what it needs to do. It offers great games, a great online setup, HD quality that is good enough for most people, a HD format that (thus far) has proven to be better (again, time will tell, as formats need to change on Blu-Ray discs), and it all comes at a price that still seems "reasonable" for a next-gen system for most "average" people.

I'm taking the middle ground here, and I'm not attacking the PS3 in any way. Am I not allowed to give concern for the system? I just feel it stands on shaky ground by comparison to the more "mainstream oriented" 360 and Wii, thats all. Of course people said the same thing about the "hardcore" XBOX all those years ago (I didn't, ha ha!), and look what happened.

Hell, we could all be wrong, who knows? We're three months away from the PS3 launch, atleast two from the Wii, and everything could change by then. We don't know much more than what they tell us, and untill the systems are sitting in front of me, it would be completely silly to completely write everything off on any side, its just that simple.

The PS3 will sell well, so will the 360, and I'm sure the Wii will be the sleeper hit.

 

[Jeremy Ricci]

Whoa there Mr. Fanboy!

Hey, I'm calling it as I see it. I see things as "worse" for the PS3 as a combination of several things:

- Higher Prices (this is a general thing, not based on the ammount of technology, as $500 IS A LOT OF MONEY ANY WAY YOU LOOK AT IT)
- Technology overload (most people still cannot take full advantage of the PS3 as of yet. Time will tell of course)
- Lack of positive press (in general, parents may take it in a bad way)
- Lack of "big-name" games at launch (but that can be expected for any system, and will certainly change over time)

Either way, it is tough to offset the name "Playstation" with anything, and with big games like MGS4 and Resistance in the pipeline, things are sure to get better.

As for 3rd party support, it isn't as important as what it used to be. Developers are clammoring to work with the Wii these days, and there are quite a few projects that are splitting their work between the 360 and PS3. To me, it always comes down to in-house products on most systems, and given the big guns of MGS4 and Resistance against GoW and Halo 3, thats a fight that is going to be decided later.

As for territorial fanbases, it is another point of "who cares?" As long as the 360 sells well in the US and Europe, thats all that really matters, as that is where the 360 is making the most money. Granted, it would be nice to have the Japanese market, but that isn't Microsoft's biggest concern right now. Either way, if anyone is stupid enough to question Sony's dominance of the market share, they would be idiots, no matter where they are from.

---

"Value" is a relative term sir, and thus IMO the 360 (for me) does what it needs to do. It offers great games, a great online setup, HD quality that is good enough for most people, a HD format that (thus far) has proven to be better (again, time will tell, as formats need to change on Blu-Ray discs), and it all comes at a price that still seems "reasonable" for a next-gen system for most "average" people.

I'm taking the middle ground here, and I'm not attacking the PS3 in any way. Am I not allowed to give concern for the system? I just feel it stands on shaky ground by comparison to the more "mainstream oriented" 360 and Wii, thats all. Of course people said the same thing about the "hardcore" XBOX all those years ago (I didn't, ha ha!), and look what happened.

Hell, we could all be wrong, who knows? We're three months away from the PS3 launch, atleast two from the Wii, and everything could change by then. We don't know much more than what they tell us, and untill the systems are sitting in front of me, it would be completely silly to completely write everything off on any side, its just that simple.

The PS3 will sell well, so will the 360, and I'm sure the Wii will be the sleeper hit.

I'm not being a fanboy, I'm stating these things based off of other big hits on the market.

If people are willing to pay $300+ for something that only play's MP3's (iPod) what makes you think they aren't willing to pay $500+ for something that plays:

PS1 games
PS2 games
PS3 games
DVD's
Blu-Ray Movies
MP3's
MPEG4's
Internet Access and broswer built in

I don't know, it just seems...silly, IMO, to question the price. For every group of kids that say it's uber expensive, there is probably about 20 adults who could really care less, we were raised on PlayStation through our Teen years, and now having grown up, we'll pay for the technology.

As far as the PS3 being too far ahead of Technology...maybe you're mistaken? 1080p HDTV's are on the market now for nearly identical prices for their 720p counterparts (though the 1080p TV's are either smaller, or lacking "bonus features" like memory card slots, CableCards, "side speakers" etc).

Sony makes a 60" 1080p HDTV that's available for $3700. That's *$1300* less than sony's 1080p HDTV last year, and guess what? Next year it will drop even more!

Fact is, technology doesn't take long to "catch up" as you so eloquently put it. 1080p is a technology of *today* as seen by Blu-Ray players, HD-DVD players, PS3, and HDTV's by Panasonic, Phillips, Sony, Samsung, and other companies.

Care to tell me they are ALL ahead of their time? No. Fact is, as many people that "own" HDTV's, there are MANY MANY MORE who don't, and the fact that almost all HDTV's being released now (aside from low priced "bargain models") are 1080p...don't you think it would be WISE to support it? Why not support something you KNOW is going to be the top standard?

It's like this.

Everyone complains because PS2 doesn't intially support Progressive Scan, and other HD resolutions.

Xbox Does, everyone celebrates.

Now, 360 doesn't support all HD resolutions, no one complains.

PS3 does, everyone complains...hmm..

PS3 has no HDMI on $500 model...everyone complains (though it doesn't matter).

360 ADD ON (for $200, trust me it won't be cheaper than $150 at most) has no HDMI, and everyone all of the sudden thinks it's not necessary?

I'm sorry, but it twists the negative press around to ONLY say that everyone is at Sony's throats for no other reason than sour grapes.

 

[Pebb]

The PlayStation 3 is a bargain, but the main winners of the next gen war are the gamers.

 

[GJB93]

The PlayStation 3 is a bargain, but the main winners of the next gen war are the gamers.

Yay!!! I win!!!!

 

[Pebb]

Also the companies get quite a bit of money from us gamers, in this next generation war, so it’s a win win for everyone GJB.

 

[GJB93]

Awww!! I wanna be the one that wins

 

[Dave A]

I'm sorry, but it twists the negative press around to ONLY say that everyone is at Sony's throats for no other reason than sour grapes.

BANG.



Thats the sound of that nail being hit on the head 👍.

 

[GJB93]

I couldnt care less about the drive!!! As long as it plays the games I love, its good enough for me!!! Graphics dont always come first you know!!! Good gameplay is what you want!!!

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm not being a fanboy, I'm stating these things based off of other big hits on the market.

If people are willing to pay $300+ for something that only play's MP3's (iPod) what makes you think they aren't willing to pay $500+ for something that plays:

PS1 games
PS2 games
PS3 games
DVD's
Blu-Ray Movies
MP3's
MPEG4's
Internet Access and broswer built in

Yes, so what? How many people are going to be buying a PS3 to play PS1 games? I only played one of mine of the PS2, Gran Turismo 2, and that was it. As for DVD's, 360 has that covered, and will have HD-DVD as well. Added to that, MPEG4's and other media formats can be streamed from your PC to your 360, and with the internet... Just use your damn computer like normal people, that I assume is Microsoft's offical reasoning there.

I don't know, it just seems...silly, IMO, to question the price. For every group of kids that say it's uber expensive, there is probably about 20 adults who could really care less, we were raised on PlayStation through our Teen years, and now having grown up, we'll pay for the technology.

Yes, there are plenty of adults who will buy them, myself included a bit further down the road. But you also forget that a major chunk of the PS2's 100+ Million sales was specifically for children, bought by their parents, of whom I assume won't pay $500 for a new system when they can get similar results with a 360, or do even better for their kids with a Wii.

What I'm talking about is the average parent, the one that works all day for a decent wage, deals with the rising cost of living, has to raise their kids and take care of their spouse. Not some generation-X parent who is just starting to feel the life getting sucked out of them...

As far as the PS3 being too far ahead of Technology...maybe you're mistaken? 1080p HDTV's are on the market now for nearly identical prices for their 720p counterparts (though the 1080p TV's are either smaller, or lacking "bonus features" like memory card slots, CableCards, "side speakers" etc).

Sony makes a 60" 1080p HDTV that's available for $3700. That's *$1300* less than sony's 1080p HDTV last year, and guess what? Next year it will drop even more!

Fact is, technology doesn't take long to "catch up" as you so eloquently put it. 1080p is a technology of *today* as seen by Blu-Ray players, HD-DVD players, PS3, and HDTV's by Panasonic, Phillips, Sony, Samsung, and other companies.

Care to tell me they are ALL ahead of their time? No. Fact is, as many people that "own" HDTV's, there are MANY MANY MORE who don't, and the fact that almost all HDTV's being released now (aside from low priced "bargain models") are 1080p...don't you think it would be WISE to support it? Why not support something you KNOW is going to be the top standard?

Yes, and you vaildated my point right there. Average people still won't pay $3700 for an HDTV that is smaller than a lower-def set and lacks the features, as they are looking to get the most for their money. Added to that, most people don't have HDTV tuners or other HD Formatted media to take full advantage of their televisions, as technology is still a few steps ahead of the average person. I'm not talking about you, or me, or the tech guy who lives around the corner... I'm talking about Joe Whatshisname who lives on $35K a year, has a kid, a drives a beat-up Chevrolet.

When prices drop the technology will reach more and more homes across the country, and thus 1080p can become the format that becomes the standard. TIME must pass before that happens, and COST has to drop just a bit. Untill then, you aren't gaining anything by buying a PS3 that can pump out 1080p when you can get HD formatting from the 360 that will work with most things...

...And even then, the Wii will still fit most people's needs by being standard-def, as the majority of America still doesn't have HD formatting, let alone broadband internet, etc.

The format wars are going to be ugly, and neither you or I can call a winner right here.

I'm sorry, but it twists the negative press around to ONLY say that everyone is at Sony's throats for no other reason than sour grapes.

And for that, I don't have an answer. The press is a strange beast, and for the most part, has been completely split by the two respective DVD formats, the major gaming companies, and whats right and whats wrong. You get the XBOX fans on the right, and the PS3 guys on the left, and those left standing in the middle (Nintendo and PC anyone?) get caught in the crossfire.

And guess what? Its all our fault. Being gaming fans and having the thirst for more power and better this and that caused the format wars, caused the bitter rivalry between Sony and Microsoft, and causes the majority of the problems between people's opinions on given topics.

I say we wait and see what happens. You've got three months to see what the PS3 is going to be like, and I've got three months to wait before I can compare the three systems. Its going to be a good holiday season, we can agree on that, but afterwards things are going to get very ugly...

 

[DuckRacer]

Well, here's something to consider. The PS3 is future-proof. When 1080p sets reach a manageable price in the future, that 1080p capability of the PS3 will pwn. The PS3 will probably last everyone for at least 6 years, if not more (like 8). The 360 will last about 4, maybe 5.

Also, in the next few years when the PS3 is released, the price on it will go down. I would think the 20GB version should be about $300 by 2010. By then parents will probably buy the PS3, since it's now a manageable price and their kids will probably have bugged them to hell and back.

 

[LaBounti]

Wow, you are really anti PS3.

Yes, so what? How many people are going to be buying a PS3 to play PS1 games? I only played one of mine of the PS2, Gran Turismo 2, and that was it.

You say that is if everyone feels the way you do, using only yourself as an example. How many people download the cheesy games off of Xbox Live arcade? SF2 is the most popular game. Many 1 1/2 bit games are available and are being downlaoded and purchased. I saw that Castlevania Symphony of the Night was coming XBL aracde and people were going crazy over it. A PSone game that they will have to pay for again to play on a next gen system. Wii is strongly supporting classic games and even going as far as having Sega and Turbo GFX-16 games for. Surely there a lot of people who will and want to play classic games on next gen system.

Looking at the way things are the press would be all over Sony if they did not advertise or include backwards compatibilty.

As for DVD's, 360 has that covered, and will have HD-DVD as well. Added to that, MPEG4's and other media formats can be streamed from your PC to your 360, and with the internet... Just use your damn computer like normal people, that I assume is Microsoft's offical reasoning there.

So now we should only use Microsoft products to veiw and listen to media? you say as every would be PS3 owner will already have a 360 and a XP Media edition pc. The PS3 does have many more features than the 360. So why hate on them for it.

But you also forget that a major chunk of the PS2's 100+ Million sales was specifically for children, bought by their parents, of whom I assume won't pay $500 for a new system when they can get similar results with a 360, or do even better for their kids with a Wii.

If you say children as in from 8-16 then i think they would already have a ps2 , gamecube or Xbox. A new system purchase is unessesary unless the kid is spoiled, then if that kid is spoiled the parent wont care how much is being spent.... poorer families will stick with cheaper things, the 360 is not one them. Not going to go into the Core sytem $$$ death trap.

You seem to have negative feelings for people who can aford it and then those who can't, you are thinking very shallow, being your opinion or not. I could go on but I agree with JR.

 

[GJB93]

Stop with the effin fanboy fights ffs!!!!

 

[iceburns288]

I have to say the nice thing about the X360 vs the PS3 is that you can get it cheaper if you don't need all that extra crap. Buy a base model for $300 and you're set. PS3 base model is 500, right? What if you don't have an HDTV, don't have a need for wireless controllers or broadband, etc.

Just like the new Corvette. The C6 is a great buy at 45k. The Z06 is a great buy at 70k. What if you don't need that extra oomph, those bigger brakes, that nice suspension, etc. Then you pay 25k less and you still have a great car.

 

[YSSMAN]

I'm not trying to be anti-PS3, but don't belive for one second that I'd outright defend everything that Microsoft and Nintendo are doing either.

I just hate it when people walk in and tear everyting appart, not considering how "normal" people may feel.

 

[harrytuttle]

Note: long post. I ramble, and I'm annoyingly opinionated.

I think it should be noted that to display BD/HD-DVD movies in high-definition, you need an HDMI output. Period. You can see it in 480i (or 480p via YCrCb, depending on the model) on the non-HD outputs, though. So if Microsoft & Sony want to market their products as BD/HD-DVD movie players, both will need HDMI. Period.

Theoretically, you don't need HDMI to display 1080p. Component video can do it, but not without significant artifacts (visible at a size where the difference between 1080i and 1080p is noticeable to begin with). Microsoft's VGA option can do it without much trouble, though.

...As for HDMI, the rumors say that it is in development for future 360s, and Microsoft will offer an expansion for current 360 owners if and when the HDMI cables are ready to go.

I'm sure we all saw the pics a few months ago when they starting floating around, but nothing has been made completely offical yet. Apparently the current felling at Microsoft is that it isn't completely necessary, as many people still do not own HDTVs nor can they tell a "huge" difference between 720p (Microsoft's current standard), 1080i, and 1080p.

I'm waiting for the revised XBOX360. It's also supposed to be much cooler, and slightly faster. Here's hoping.

The real advantage HDMI has for the average consumer is not HD. It's simplifiying the installation. Remember when some coax was all you needed between your cable box, VCR, and TV? It's going to be just like that, assuming you have modern HDMI v1.3 products: one HDMI cable for HD video, Dolby-HD/DTS-HD/SACD/DVD-Audio, and simple control passthrough.

One cable to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them...

I agree with Microsoft about 1080p not being necessary, although it does sound a bit like "the grapes, they're sour". Having such high resolution only makes a difference on large fields of view, and even then 1080i is good for causual watching. With a fast paced video game, I doubt someone's going to notice the subtle difference between 1080i and 1080p, when 1080i -- in most situations -- smoothes high-speed motions better.

Yes, so what? How many people are going to be buying a PS3 to play PS1 games?

Backwards compatibility is extremely important when introducing a new platform. There are few games available, and they're not half as good as the later, more developed ones are (GT3 vs. GT4). This is the number one reason Sony maintained such a huge lead over Nintendo (and then-newcomer Microsoft) with the PS2. It's also the reason Microsoft had a bit of a disappointing launch with the XBOX360. Sure, most went and bought it anyway because it's a great technological product, but there were many that weren't ready to part with Forza (or whatever) just yet.

Nintendo is consistently stuck in a distant third place because of the lack of backwards compatibility. Only extremely fun games (and most games being kid-friendly) keep it in the game at all.

Care to tell me they are ALL ahead of their time? No. Fact is, as many people that "own" HDTV's, there are MANY MANY MORE who don't, and the fact that almost all HDTV's being released now (aside from low priced "bargain models") are 1080p...don't you think it would be WISE to support it? Why not support something you KNOW is going to be the top standard?

Most HD displays are not 1080p. Most are 720p (or 768p, for most HD plasma displays). It's true that 1080p is quickly becoming affordable, thanks to Sony pushing SXRD 👍, but it's not everywhere. Not for another year, at least. You should also remember that "affordable" is relative. Three grand is hard for the average US citizen to spend on anything that won't feed the kids, take out the trash, or do the laundry.

Well, here's something to consider. The PS3 is future-proof. When 1080p sets reach a manageable price in the future, that 1080p capability of the PS3 will pwn. The PS3 will probably last everyone for at least 6 years, if not more (like 8). The 360 will last about 4, maybe 5.

Neither assumption is valid. The majority of people who own a PS2, XBOX, and XBOX360 use the freebie cables (non-HD, composite video) hooked up to a non-HD display. They do often think that they're watching the XBOX360 in HD, though. Don't confuse yourself with "the majority". If you spend more than 30 seconds a day here, you're not the average joe. You're clearly more of an enthusiast, and looking for more from the game system than some generic high school or college kid.

Another thing to consider is how many people are perfectly happy with a Gamecube with the best option being S-Video (i.e., distinctly non-HD). Gameplay is extremely important, and can often be more successful than having all sorts of techy goodness.