360 HD-DVD to cost 200 quid

By Games Industry.biz Published 8 September, 2006

Out in November, says source.

The Premium Xbox 360 won’t benefit from a price cut this Christmas - but instead a HD-DVD and console package is due, spearheading a marketing drive of console bundles available from November.

Retail sources have indicated to GamesIndustry.biz that Microsoft is currently planning to price the standalone HD-DVD drive at GBP 199 (293 Euro), and to package it with two HD-DVD movies. The sources also suggested that Microsoft will bundle the Premium console and next-generation movie player together for under GBP 400 (589 Euro) – and that the price could even be as low as GBP 375 (552 Euros).

Next-generation movie support is considered a unique selling point of the PlayStation 3, but Microsoft’s HD-DVD bundle could retail around GBP 50 (74 Euro) cheaper than Sony’s machine, which features the rival Blu-ray movie format.

UK distributor Gem is already offering Premium Xbox 360s with a copy of Project Gotham Racing 3 and two wireless controllers for GBP 299.

It’s expected an official Premium bundle will be made available in early November, with a newly released triple-A third-party title included.

Microsoft recently reduced the price of the Xbox 360 Core package, after many retailers had already taken a similar intiative.

With the pressure to compete with Sony over the Christmas market no longer a threat for Europe, Microsoft looks set to capitalise with a range of SKUs to help grow its installed base in the region.

Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment.

Picture of Games.

About Games Industry.biz

Read more articles from Games by visiting the Games Industry.biz archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (158) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Tonka #1 6 years ago

    Too expensive for impulse buy.

  • getinthereson #2 6 years ago

    A man once said:
    "I don't beleeeeeeiiiiiiivvvvveeeee it!"

  • #3 6 years ago

    "The sources also suggested that Microsoft will bundle the Premium console and next-generation movie player together for under GBP 400"

    dis don't add up!

    MS says "Premium and HD DVD for less then PS3" but they mean "only if you buy them together"? Surely not - they don't usually screw the userbase that badly.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 17:04

  • cyacomini #4 6 years ago

    I think it would be very for for Microsoft to offer some sort of reduction on the HD-DVD drive to those who purchased the Premium pack up to a certain date.

    Perhaps those early adopters could send their till receipt to MS and get the player for closer to £99 ? Would make me much more likely to buy one..

  • king_skins #5 6 years ago

    If it was around £100, I might have bought one just to play the occasionaly HD-DVD movie on my HDTV

  • souljah #6 6 years ago

    Yeah, too expensive for impulse.

    Could be a price reduction around March though.

  • Downside #7 6 years ago

    If you assume that HD movies will ship for £20-£25 a pop, that makes the drive £150 plus the movies.

    I'd also assume the region coding will be done by the console, so no reason not to pick one up stateside and bring it back for $199 :-)

  • Darkedge #8 6 years ago

    thats too expensive even if I wanted it...

  • spongebob #9 6 years ago

    And you can't play HD-DVD games with it.

  • Beano #10 6 years ago

    A HD-DVD player without HDMI?... thanks, but no thanks.

  • Les #11 6 years ago

    "Surely not - they don't usually screw the userbase that badly."

    No, they wouldn't think of cutting short the life cycle of their console, cutting back virtually all first party support before their next generation machine has even been released, or not making backwards compatibilty a high priority from the get-go...

    Timing of the news is great though, probably nobody will really read it with all the Sony-bashing going on right now...
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 17:21

  • captainrentboy #12 6 years ago

    Faaaar too expensive for me,I was prepared to pay £150 tops,even then that wouldn't be until next year some time.I think it would be silly to make a bundle out of it though,the daft customers I deal with on a daily basis get easily confused by the existing two skus,they really don't want to chuck a third in there.

  • dllord #13 6 years ago

    It depends what movies come with it!

  • kangarootoo #14 6 years ago

    @spongebob

    "And you can't play HD-DVD games with it"

    Errr, because they don't exist perhaps?

  • Tweakmonkey #15 6 years ago

    This HD malarkey is expensive. I'm sticking with non-HD stuff for now.

  • Ceatlan #16 6 years ago

    £150 and I could have justified it (even without movies), but £200 is too much to sneak past the wife :-(

  • Ceatlan #17 6 years ago

    > A HD-DVD player without HDMI?... thanks, but no thanks.
    >
    > Why not? Componentis more than adequate for routing "full" HD signals over.

    No HDMI will not be a problem initially because as you say there is no difference in the video quality. However as soon as HD-DVD movies start shipping with the content protection that requires a certified device connected by HDMI before playback is allowed, it will be a problem. However I'm sure MS have plans to address this when it is needed.

  • lefizz #18 6 years ago

    Very dissapointed in this. I will be $199 in the states and the equivalant of $377 here. Very bad MS, dont piss off all us early adopters cos we are they ones geting all our mate to buy 360's so we have decent people to chat with on 'Live'

  • SergioAguero #19 6 years ago

    A HD-DVD player without HDMI? No thanks.

    Yeah doesn't make a lot of difference from what I've heard. Don't believe the hype
    about HDMI - it will become the new standard, that's all.

    £199 is a little high I think, although it is much cheaper than a stand alone player.

    Better to make it cheaper than bundle it with some shit like The Chronicles of Riddick!

  • Stormflood #20 6 years ago

    It was never going to be less. How the hell could the primary components of an HD-DVD player sell for £100? How would that justify the heavily subsidised standalone players costing at least £400-odd for the cheapest model?

  • DrDamn #21 6 years ago

    @Rhythm
    "Why not? Componentis more than adequate for routing "full" HD signals over."

    Somewhere in the PS3 delayed mammoth thread there is some discussion from me with ... /racks brain ... erm, nope, someone else. Anyway upshot is that if you do not have HDMI then the studios will allow HD-DVD or Blu-ray but only at the max output of 960x540 - not that much greater than current DVD. If true in practice then the X360 may upscale this to 720p for you - but you are kind of missing out quite a lot of the benefits of the whole HD-ness. Note this would apply to the cheaper PS3 and the HD-DVD X360 add-on.

    There was a story about an X360 HDMI lead, but it was mucho expensive $99(?). Presumably because it has to convert the X360 analog out to digital before sending down the lead?

  • old_man #22 6 years ago

    I was hoping more in the region of £140-£150. Seems a bit expensive.

  • davidbarrie #23 6 years ago

    Does anyone know whether it will be able to output hd movies in their full 1080p resolution? As far as i was aware, the 360 does not currently support this??

  • lefizz #24 6 years ago

    The HDCP res restriction is now void. I may come back but only 5 years when players will be £50

  • Foxclose #25 6 years ago

    Too expensive.

    No HDMI 1080p output.

    Shame Sony is not competing this year!

  • DrDamn #26 6 years ago

    That is what I thought to be honest (hence the "if in practice" caveat). The guy in the other thread was very convincing though. Works in the industry an all that. (i.e. must be true, works in industry > bloke down pub)
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 17:48

  • Beano #27 6 years ago

    "Why not? Componentis more than adequate for routing "full" HD signals over. "

    Yes, and composite is fully capable of routing a standard def. signal.. but it isn't the best way by far.

  • thinktank #28 6 years ago

    £200 for HD-DVD player and your still all winging,

    You do know you don't have to buy it if you don't want 2, right?

    Also if you manage to find one cheaper else where let me know ;)

    You just can't please people these days.

  • SergioAguero #29 6 years ago

    1080p resolution?

    There are only about 3 TV sets on the market that do this! And they will cost you more than £2000!

    Again, HD myth. In 5 years time okay, but I doubt 1 person out of 100 could even tell the difference between 1080i and p anyway*!



    *even less would care, frankly.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 17:56

  • rhinoxious #30 6 years ago

    "Yeah but you own a HDTV right, and you are not really getting the most value out of that if you can't watch hi-def movies. As 360 owner with a HDTV, this addon represents the cheapest route to hi-def movies you will find."

    Hard to judge, but I reckon that sky HD is the currently the best option for HD movies (and other content). That's what HD-DVD and Blu-ray really have to compete with.

  • blender #31 6 years ago

    price will drop upon ps3 arrival no doubt

  • cooper #32 6 years ago

    interesting read on HDMI on consoles.

  • lefizz #33 6 years ago

    The reason the stand alone player cost so much is partly due to the drive and partly due to the fact they have a mid range PC inside them. With the 360 they already have a perfectly good CPU\ GFX card combo to do all the decoding for them.

    Then again all the HD-DVD players sold at the moment at sold at a huge loss anyway.

  • bigbadbeasty #34 6 years ago

    £200 is cheap.

    They will/do cost around £500 normally.

    Do you not remember DVD players costing £1000?!

  • effinwooly #35 6 years ago

    half the price of a stand alone player, thats not too bad.......

  • SergioAguero #36 6 years ago

    "Then again all the HD-DVD players sold at the moment at sold at a huge loss anyway.

    Plus, you get more and better features on a dedicated player and a better build quality.

    Question is, how much better than DVD will even an entry level HD-DVD player be?

    Early reviews suggest it depends on the movie, and in the first round, HD-DVD wins out on picture quality over B-Ray; now there's a shock.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 18:12

  • Zero Beat #37 6 years ago

    £280 Premium Xbox 360
    £200 HD-DVD Player
    £60 WiFi Adapter
    £80+ 60GB Harddisk
    _______________________

    £620+ Premium Xbox 360 incrementally upgraded to PS3 spec.

    Not such great value if you do want the full experience.

    I honestly believe Sony are providing better value for people over time even if it's a painful buy to start with.

  • samuraipimp #38 6 years ago

    You see this is the great thing about having it as a seperate drive. You can take it or leave it. It's not being forced upon people that only want their console to play games.

    I'm cool with the price. I already own a 360 and I have every intention of watching HD movies so paying £200 for an add-on drive to achieve that as opposed to £400 for Toshiba's HD-E1 is a very attractive proposition.

    I don't have a problem with the lack of HDMI. My TV is native 720p and component is just fine for full-bandwidth HD video at that resolution. If I decided to upgrade to a 1080p tv in the future (when they don't cost the earth) then I'll buy a stand-alone player with HDMI. I don't think anyone should worry about HDMI in the slightest unless their rocking a 1080p TV (are there any in the UK yet? Affordable ones?)

  • PS3lol #39 6 years ago

    You either want ot or you don't. No one is making you buy it. If you can find a cheaper HD DVD player go get one instead.

    Unlike Sony, MS don't ram new formats down your throat that you don't want.

  • thinktank #40 6 years ago

    did read the article or did you just decide to post based on the title zero?

    I suggest u read it properly Zero beat you might find something about a less than £400 bundle.

  • PS3lol #41 6 years ago

    Xbox 360 costs £199 and £279.99 don't add a fucking add on into the cost to make it look as expensive as PS3. YOU DON'T NEED THE HD DVD PLAYER TO PLAY GAMES. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUY IT YOU DAM RETARDS.

  • Zero Beat #42 6 years ago

    Not much good if you've already bought a 360 thinktank.

  • bauhaus #43 6 years ago

    What a gentrle thread, is this was Sony it would be touching 1000 posts by now and would contain more swearing than a squaddies toilet

  • IronGiant #44 6 years ago

    Ouch.

  • thinktank #45 6 years ago

    @Zero beat

    True, but i'd still prefer the choice as i think many others would also.

    I guess if you want choice its 360 and if you want it all at once is PS3, well except for the games.

    /Sly dig ;)

  • login_name #46 6 years ago

    "Unlike Sony, MS don't ram new formats down your throat that you don't want."

    Really? So I can use DirectX 10 on WinXP and not have to upgrade to Vista? Can I play Halo2 or Crisis or any other new next gen pc title on WinXP?

    Umm...no...

  • Zero Beat #47 6 years ago

    @Wonga

    I believe the opposite is true, having the drive and software built into the console from the start and that always being the plan should mean everything is integrated much better, as well as the drive being useable for games. The current Xbox 360 DVD playback quality, sometimes jerky downloaded HD video content playback (probably software fault that's fixable but still) and preview of how they plan to integrate the drive opening control into the dashboard doesn't leave me too enthusiastic about their drive for high quality playback and user experience.

  • Les #48 6 years ago

    "£280 Premium Xbox 360
    £200 HD-DVD Player
    £60 WiFi Adapter
    £80+ 60GB Harddisk
    _______________________

    £620+ Premium Xbox 360 incrementally upgraded to PS3 spec."

    If you take in the cheapest bundle, 375 + 60 + 80 would get you at 515, still more than PS3. So as you all see (and it is completely in line with economic theory) options come at a price.

    edit: NB, the above calculation doesn't take the superior tech of blu-ray into account as it's not sure it will win this format war

    Btw, MS supporters value choice? Hilarious! :)
    Edited by 2 at 08/09/06 @ 18:56

  • Les #49 6 years ago

    login_name +1

  • nuitey #50 6 years ago

    "What a gentrle thread, is this was Sony it would be touching 1000 posts by now and would contain more swearing than a squaddies toilet"

    so true mate, notice the lack of any critisism from eurogamer aswell, about the fact that this is a far cry from the £130 that was touted a while ago...

  • Inflatable #51 6 years ago

    @login_name, yes you can.. Crysis will also run on WinXP and DX9 without any no problem, just like 99% of all games coming out next year I bet you.. I don't know about Halo2 specifically, but who cares about that game on PC anyway?

    Also, you obviously don't get the point of forcing formats.. Sony forces you to buy an expensive Blu-ray drive with your PS3 gameconsole.. That has nothing to do with needing a certain OS to run certain games or new software..

  • Zero Beat #52 6 years ago

    IMO UI experience is very important, not only for actually doing what you want at any one time but also for the perceived overall quality of using the machine.

    I don't believe any critics outside of Microsoft have actually had a chance to sit down and use the drive for an extended period of time. Like using anything new you don't notice even half the faults with a quick eyes-on.

  • login_name #53 6 years ago

    "Also, you obviously don't get the point of forcing formats.. Sony forces you to buy an expensive Blu-ray drive with your PS3 gameconsole.. That has nothing to do with needing a certain OS to run certain games or new software.. "

    Actually it does, since Windows is the OS of choice for many people and the one most developers support. Making DirectX10 Vista only is forcing a 'format' on any PC gamer that wants to play a next gen PC title. DirectX10 will become the standard sooner or later, therefore forcing me to upgrade my OS to play new games. Microsoft is doing exactly what Sony are. A PC without Vista will eventually be close to usless.

  • Les #54 6 years ago

    "Also, you obviously don't get the point of forcing formats.. Sony forces you to buy an expensive Blu-ray drive with your PS3 gameconsole.. That has nothing to do with needing a certain OS to run certain games or new software.."

    And exactly why not? You've got to get the one if you want to have/use the other...

    edit: took me a bit too long, login already made the point :)
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 19:17

  • KillahSouljah #55 6 years ago

    Micorsoft is giving you guys an expensive choice then. For people who do want the whole package:

    £280 Xbox 360 premium system
    £200 HD-DVD player
    £60 Wi-Fi adapter
    £80+ 60GB HDD
    =
    £620+ Premium Xbox 360 incrementally upgraded to PS3 spec.

    PLAYSTATION 3 system
    Blu-ray Disc player (movies and GAMES)
    Wi-Fi built-in
    60GB HDD
    =
    £425

    Not such great value if you do want the full experience.

    I honestly believe Sony are providing better value for people over time even if it's a painful buy to start with.

    Mugs.

  • thinktank #56 6 years ago

    @login_name and les

    Don't u guys use linux or mac's as you so anti MS, i'm sure ive heard you say this on other threads.

    In which case why do you care about vista??

    or is it an excuse to have an off topic pop at something that doesn't concern you?
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 19:22

  • KillahSouljah #57 6 years ago

    XBOX 360 system
    big fat HD-DVD add-on sitting by its side
    2 big power bricks (one for system and one for player)
    Wi-Fi adaptor sticking out the back of player

    Yeh Microsoft is giving you an messy choice, i'd rather have an all in one slick design system with no one fat player sitting by it.

  • Hughes. #58 6 years ago

    My understanding reading articles here and other sites, the decoding for HD-DVD will all be handled by the 360, meaning this add-on is a box with a motor and a laser in it, for £200.

    Still, at least they're offering the choice, eh? Meanwhile Sony is "forcing" people who want their next console to have Blu-Ray, driving the cost of PS3 £110 higher than the launch cost of the PS2. Of course, with the cheapest Blu-Ray player I've seen advertised costing £1000, that's forcing an £890 discount on people. BASTARDS!

  • thinktank #59 6 years ago

    Also i would like know where this £80 60GB HDD has been annouched,

    or is it a case of mate down the pub said.....

  • thinktank #60 6 years ago

    @killahsouljah

    I agree if you want your 360 to be at the same spec as the ps3 then it is looking to be rather cumbersome, mind you its nothing that couldn't be hidden.

    Overall if you want HD DVD playback, wi fi, 60gb hdd, then the ps3 is the better buy.

    But if your happy with 'old' dvds, a wired internet connection, and £145 in your pocket then 360 is the way to go.

    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 19:35

  • Zero Beat #61 6 years ago

    The 20GB drive is going for £65 online, people want bigger drives so you work out the rest. My estimate was probably generously-low if they do release in that size any time soon.

  • Hughes. #62 6 years ago

    Have MS allowed people to use generic hard-drives this time out? I heard all sorts of stuff about people having their Live accounts cancelled and such, because they wanted more storage and fitted a bigger hard-drive. Not that they're into forcing stuff on people, of course.

  • jamesbee #63 6 years ago

    Yeah, not sure why the complaining. It's being released at the price point of a semi decent dvd player and will give you access to the latest technology. Considering the current cost of standalone HD-DVD players it's a pretty attractive option.

  • thinktank #64 6 years ago

    I'm pretty sure you cant use an external hardrive as a hardrive, but more like a aditional storage to move things to and from the existing hard drive.

    Check the link

    http://ww w.t3.co.uk/news/247/games/xbox/...
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 19:48

  • login_name #65 6 years ago

    "Don't u guys use linux or mac's as you so anti MS, i'm sure ive heard you say this on other threads.

    In which case why do you care about vista??

    or is it an excuse to have an off topic pop at something that doesn't concern you?"

    Who's Anti-Microsoft? I'm anti biased fanboy. I like the XBox and the 360, I just don't think it's the be all and end all of gaming. Also, I care about Vista because my PC is currently my primary gaming machine. My PC was not built by Microsoft and the games are not developed by Microsoft (at least the ones I play). I do however have to use Microsoft's OS in order to play the games. If I didn't, then I wouldn't care about Vista in the slightest.

    My original response was to PS3lol who was pointing out that Microsoft don't force formats like Sony, I'm saying they do. If I'm off topic, then so are most of the people posting here, including you.

  • Hughes. #66 6 years ago

    @thinktank

    At least that restriction didn't carry over from the original XBox then. Always seemed strange to me, but then I do know some naughty types who would put games on their HD and return the games under certain retailers' 7-day returns policies for a full refund. Bit of a landmine area really.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 19:55

  • chupachups #67 6 years ago

    "If it was around £100, I might have bought one just to play the occasionaly HD-DVD movie on my HDTV"

    The technology's way too new for those kinds of prices, original DVD players used to cost hundreds when the format first started.

    It's funny, people get so used to DVD players being £40, they can't believe they ever used to cost a fortune.

  • thinktank #68 6 years ago

    "Who's Anti-Microsoft? I'm anti biased fanboy. I like the XBox and the 360, I just don't think it's the be all and end all of gaming. Also, I care about Vista because my PC is currently my primary gaming machine. My PC was not built by Microsoft and the games are not developed by Microsoft (at least the ones I play). I do however have to use Microsoft's OS in order to play the games. If I didn't, then I wouldn't care about Vista in the slightest.

    My original response was to PS3lol who was pointing out that Microsoft don't force formats like Sony, I'm saying they do. If I'm off topic, then so are most of the people posting here, including you."

    Ok my assumtion was incorrect about you not using an ms os, but your argument still suffers from narrow perception. The idea of "forcing mediums" is every where, infact every console is a form of forced medium. UMDs, HD DVD, Blue Ray, and windows in terms of OS, are all forced mediums, in this respect no one is saying MS does't force mediums any more that any1 else.

    The point people are making about the HD DVD add on is a much simpler one than that which you have picked up on. Its more about choice whith regards to paying for equipment you don't really want or need (in some cases). This is not to be mixed up with the theory that sony are trying to force the blue ray medium using ps3 thats a different argument, which is what ps3lol was touching on. At the same time he didn't say MS don't do the same thing, no one did. (oops he did say ms don't force you, in which case he's wrong!)

    My response may have seemed a tad harsh but it was mainly to do with the amount of time i have heard your argument on these forums, on topics that don't remotely have anything to do with OS. Is it realy to do with microsoft forcing you to buy their os? or is it more to do with game devs forcing you to as thats the os they primarily design for because it has the biggest market share? Exactly like game devs did for the ps2?

    As for the fanboy comments, i'm won't even respond to those.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 20:24

  • captainrentboy #69 6 years ago

    Haha did someone up there refer to the PS3 as a slickly designed system?Hysterical,more like sickly designed....Word play there,fantastic.
    I can't understand the outrage at this news,why can't you people see the difference?It's not difficult.Microsoft are not forcing you to buy this drive,it's not a necessity to make your GAMES machine play all the latest software.It's an optional extra.Unlike the PS3's Blu-Ray drive,which taking a guess i'd say there is a very high percentage of consumers out there that have absolutely no interest in it,but are still FORCED to pay that bloody high asking price if they want to experience the next big exclusive Playstation game.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 20:20

  • Canadian_Mike #70 6 years ago

    Looks like desperation on MS's part.

    It would have been far smarter for them to just stay out of the HD movie biz. They've got a great console with alot of titles. Why distract people from that and risk the chance of making yourself look inferior when the other guy shows up with HD drive built in.

    ...and who wants to bet that their games will "not" stay on (just) DVD-9 if this thing sells decent.

  • Dire #71 6 years ago

    Right.

    I ponder at some folk saying £620 for the whole experience and I just laugh.

    £280 is all you need for a full experience for playing games on a xbox 360. the addon drives gives people a choice about going into the HD era with films. I even think some microsoft bloke mentioned that they do not expect the addon to fly off the shelves. Only certain users of the 360 will get this.

    You Sony fanboi's moaning about the price and how much it will all come to. It seriously makes my mind boggle.

    So please try singing a new tune.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 20:25

  • TripleSeven #72 6 years ago

    An additional (external) drive next to a console? Doesn't appeal to me at all. No HDMI and over 100 GBP - don't either.

  • JHuxley #73 6 years ago

    However you work out the maths, it's pretty clear that the PS3 isn't bad value for money (presuming Sony don't make some last minute cut-backs) compared to a similar spec 360.

    Whether you actually want all that the PS3 offers is another matter entirely...

  • mattigan #74 6 years ago

    I've got a HDTV, a 32 inch one, and I've got access to all the HD content you could waive a stick at. And really, the difference between a program on BBC-HD and a decent (not top of the range) DVD player is hardly noticable, really.

    I bought my TV to play games on and for HDTV broadcasts when they arrive free- to-air, and for games on 360 it's great as I usually move closer to the TV to play them anyway (I normally sit around 12 foot away for TV viewing).

    My recomendationis is that unless you have a 42 inch MINIMUM screen, and 50+ preferably or a projector, then don't bother. It really isnt worth it!

    Not at £200 or £425

  • #75 6 years ago

    At £150 I buy. At £200 they can go suck a chupa chupps through their miserable tight asses.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 20:42

  • bivith #76 6 years ago

    but mappy. you don't have an HD telly. There really is no point (for you)

  • #77 6 years ago

    bivith, don't make an anenome of me. I'll hunt you down, yes I will.

  • login_name #78 6 years ago

    @thinktank

    PS3lol's comment was, "Unlike Sony, MS don't ram new formats down your throat that you don't want.". They do, that was the point of my response. PS3lol's comment was a biased fanboy comment and was incorrect. It could have ended right there but Inflatable assumed I didn't understand the point of forced formats. Let me say again, there is no difference between Microsoft 'forcing' me to buy Vista to play the latest PC games and Sony 'forcing' anyone else to buy BluRay to play PS3 games. I'm not concerned with what other people are saying. I have no ill feeling towards this announcement, just like I have no ill feeling towards Sony's announcement about the cost of the PS3. I'm concerned with the people who respond to my post which was pointing out, to a fanboy, that Microsoft is just as guilty as Sony for 'forcing' formats. Oh and please quote anything I may have said in another forum about OS's, cos I really don't remember typing any. I make comments to blind fanatics, partly to open their eyes and partly to shoot them down for my own enjoyment. I don't understand the concept of hardware fanboys. Surely it goes against the whole point of being a gamer i.e. to enjoy games? My point was simple, you agree with it...end of..?

  • admir #79 6 years ago

    so the ps3 is cheper then the 360
    MS fucked their fanboys real good now i know for sure iam getting the ps3
    you get more for your money buying a ps3 then the x360
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 21:29

  • samuraipimp #80 6 years ago

    @mattigan

    The reason you are seeing very little difference between broadcast HD and standard dvds is because they share the same video codec: mpeg2, which has been in existence for the last decade. However, you should see some improvement being that the HD broadcasts will be at a higher resolution.

    HD-DVD uses a new, more efficient codec called VC1 which was designed from the ground up for HD media. So anyone using any size HDTV will see a massive improvement in picture quality with HD-DVD.

    I was recently able to demo Toshiba's HD-A1 with several different HDTVs at a specialist outlet in the states. The video quality was outstanding even on the smaller models. The smallest I tested was a 23" Samsung LCD which still looked incredible.

    Have faith guys. If not then just sit this one out while the rest of us have fun with a cool new gadget to help justify the cost of that HDTV.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 21:58

  • TripleSeven #81 6 years ago

    ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------
    "£620+ Premium Xbox 360 incrementally upgraded to PS3 spec.

    Not such great value if you do want the full experience"

    What your basically saying is that the cost of the base hardware and components added together is more expensive - Perhaps because the base hardware is superior then, and the addon offers superior playback. You get what you pay for chaps, When it comes to hi-def you want to think about quality a little you know, this isn't the domain of budget bunnies."
    ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------

    The PS3 "base hardware" (not even counting in HDMI, Blu-Ray (internal), Wifi (internal), Bluetooth, a plethora of slots...) - that is Cell and RSX - is more powerful than the 360's.
    The PS3 is silent - which the 360 clearly is not (even if it is not currently at fire ;) ). Blu-Ray is the technically better medium. > "When it comes to hi-def you want to think about quality a little you know, this isn't the domain of budget bunnies."

    So what exactly are you trying to say? Buy a PS3 which is cheaper than an 'upgraded' 360 and yet more powerful? That'd be correct.


    Don't get me wrong, that's just cash and performance. If you've bought the 360 for its (exclusive) games then that is a completely different thing. You don't have 'wasted' money then.
    Edited by 2 at 08/09/06 @ 22:07

  • mattigan #82 6 years ago

    Sorry, but I'm watching Hotel Babylon in 720p as we type, it DOES look better than DVD quality, clearly. But only from 5 feet away. I watch TV from 12 feet away, and can't tell the difference from from that distance.

    BTW - I have a fairly high end Panasonic set, not some Ebuyer Acer effort!

  • chupachups #83 6 years ago

    "However you work out the maths, it's pretty clear that the PS3 isn't bad value for money (presuming Sony don't make some last minute cut-backs) compared to a similar spec 360. "

    Great value if you have an HDTV and want a blu-ray player, but I don't have an HDTV so there's no point in me getting a blu-ray player either.

    At least Microsoft is giving me the option of leaving out an extremely expensive component that I have no possible use for.


    "Sorry, but I'm watching Hotel Babylon in 720p as we type, it DOES look better than DVD quality, clearly. But only from 5 feet away. I watch TV from 12 feet away, and can't tell the difference from from that distance."

    Yes, I totally agree, I think the industry has been guilty of wishful thinking and totally overestimates how much people actually want HDTV.

    Don't get me wrong, if I'm buying a new TV anyway I wouldn't say no to it, but I'm definitely not spending £600 to £1000 on a television just because it's HD.

    It's going to take at least five years for HDTVs to drop into my price range, and even then I probably won't bother until I need a new telly anyway, by which time the PS3 and 360 will be dead as dodos and replaced by PS4s and 720s (or whatever MS calls them).

    I think Nintendo got this one right: skip HD on this generation as a pointless expense most people can't even benefit from because they don't have HDTVs, but definitely include it on the generation after this.
    Edited by 1 at 08/09/06 @ 22:07

  • thinktank #84 6 years ago

    @Login_name

    I was referring to your comment on OS specifically rather than you as person making it and how often it comes up. On that point I may have targeted you unfairly.

    We could go round in circles with this forced formats issue, but think we can agree nearly all parties involved are guilty of it.

    “I make comments to blind fanatics, partly to open their eyes and partly to shoot them down for my own enjoyment. I don't understand the concept of hardware fanboys. Surely it goes against the whole point of being a gamer i.e. to enjoy games? My point was simple, you agree with it...end of..?”

    110% agree with this and I have spoken many a similar world myself to little avail. I Think we are playing for the same team, It’s just some times I get annoyed with the OS issue. Although I understand you were using it to respond to an earlier post and not just spouting at any opportunity which is often the case.

    Well at least an intellectual conversation was had! The loyalty to soulless brands is something that baffles me also.

    Yes deffinately "end of", there is many a fanboy to take a pop at.

    @mattigan

    “BTW - I have a fairly high end Panasonic set, not some Ebuyer Acer effort!”

    Hey!! I have an acer Al2671W from ebuyer you cheek bugger, bloody good its too you brand whore;)

    Edited by 2 at 08/09/06 @ 22:27

  • TripleSeven #85 6 years ago

    "Yes, I totally agree, I think the industry has been guilty of wishful thinking and totally overestimates how much people actually want HDTV."

    Quite the opposite. Take a look at sales figures.

  • JHuxley #86 6 years ago

    "Great value if you have an HDTV and want a blu-ray player, but I don't have an HDTV so there's no point in me getting a blu-ray player either."

    Yeah, like I said...

    "I think Nintendo got this one right: skip HD on this generation as a pointless expense most people can't even benefit from because they don't have HDTVs, but definitely include it on the generation after this."

    You may be right, only time will tell. But I wouldn't underestimate the demand for HD products. Entry level HD TV's (which should be good enough to display 360 and PS3 at their highest res) are already cheap enough to appeal to the masses. In a couple of years there'll be no point buying an STV.

    So while you might not buy a new TV right now specifically dor the purpose of watching HD films and/ playing HD games, millions of others will either through choice or necessity (as was the case with myself). And when you've got a HDTV, you may as well make use of it.

  • Hunam85 #87 6 years ago

    They can keep it till its around £80ish

  • Darren #88 6 years ago

    £200 is far too expensive for an add-on and Microsoft have effectively priced the HD-DVD drive out of the market and a premium Xbox 360 plus the drive will cost £480, making the PS3 (which has a 60GB HDD) look like a bargain at £400-£425.

    I might have considered one had it been around £100, even though I'm not ready to move upto hi-def movies yet, but at that price, it just convinces me more that I doing the right thing sitting on the fence waiting to see which format will ultimately become the standard one... once I know then I'll buy a dedicated player, thank you!

  • Psi #89 6 years ago

    the first gen us tosh hd-dvd players have just been reduced in price, the cheapest model i think is retailing at £219 or something along those lines. read it earlier on avforums. aint 100% on this news. however a full player for cheaper than the ms addon... no brainer aint it. get the propa player not some cheap console addon.

  • JHuxley #90 6 years ago

    "and a premium Xbox 360 plus the drive will cost £480"

    Read the article; they're apparently planning a premium bundle + HD-DVD add-on for around 375-400. Unless you've already got a 360, in which case that's absolutely useless and it will cost £480 after all.

    Bugger.

    PS: I like all the positive spin Eurogamer put on this news. No matter which way you cut it, this isn't a great piece of publicity for MS.

  • urban #91 6 years ago

    neh.

  • doctor__no #92 6 years ago

    Wouldn't want HD-DVD just because it doesn't have all the studio support behind it.

    Blu-ray has every studio except Universal making Blu-ray movies, HD-DVD doesn't have Fox Enterainment/20th Century Fox/Fox Searchlight, Sony/Columbia/MGM/Tristar(duh!), and Disney/Miramax/Touchstone/Buena Vista/Pixar.

    Sorry but the best movies aren't gonna be made for the HD-DVD, no sale at any price.

  • kissthestick #93 6 years ago

    ahaahahaha, MS must be smoking that crack

  • scartbat #94 6 years ago

    At this time it seams silly to focus on a £199.99 ADD ON. yes Playstation 3 has a drive in but its expencive and it the world ready for the HD dvd just yet ? Micorsoft would have been better waiting for more stand alone units to come out then once the parts are cheaper bring one out for £99.99 easer to swallow price.

  • spongebob #95 6 years ago

    No HDMI, no 1080p support and no use altogether for games. That's what I call bang for the buck (sarcasm included).

    I'd suggest people to read Insomniac's blog on IGN about Resistance: Fall of Man. They're using over 20Gb in that game and yes, they do compress their data. Also, most of the data (about 19Gb) consists of level data, not HD pre-rendered movies or sound.

    I'm pretty sure MS will release a HD DVD addon which is capable of running games sooner or later.

  • bigbadbeasty #96 6 years ago

    @AdamOfEternia

    You are spot on.

    I wish eveybody bitching would just take a moment to think.

  • zoidberg #97 6 years ago

    why are you all muttering about 1080p and HDMI ? Do you HAVE a TV set that can actually SUPPORT it? When you WILL be able to BUY one, in a few years, the 360 and PS3 will both have the SAME standard, as either BLUE RAY or HD-DVD wins the so-called format "war".

    it would seem stupid to invest in a PS3 now, when its pricepoint is high, when you're not sure that Blue Ray wins. You'll be stuck with it, and be able to only play games, and not really good ones either, since devs will not come cheaply, and you'll pay a bundle for every game since it's in Blue Ray.

    if you crave for a "next-gen" console, the 360 is somewhat more adequate, since you don't have to "buy into" a new movie format just yet. And if you DECIDE to go and get a BLUE RAY or HD-DVD player, get the standalone version, which will come down in price and will provide the "much needed" 1080p and HDMI.

    in regards to Vista/DX10 and XP, you're missing the point there too. Until last year (i think) MS still supported Windows 98, and every game worked on it too, albeit there were driver and compatibility problems. Win98 SE is still widely used, and so will XP be. MS will not cease to support its previous OS just because it launched a new one. Naturally, there will be benefits in switching to Vista, but it'll never be mandatory. No company can be that stupid.

    personally, I'm sticking with the PC and getting a Wii for even more fun.

  • login_name #98 6 years ago

    "in regards to Vista/DX10 and XP, you're missing the point there too. Until last year (i think) MS still supported Windows 98, and every game worked on it too, albeit there were driver and compatibility problems."

    Yeah, you're right, they did only recently stop supporting 98, however they have never created a DirectX that was exclusive to ONE OS until now. Times are changing thanks to their newly found interest in the gaming sector. They are using the PC to help boost their console sales and vice versa. Do you honestly think that if the XBox did not exist they would have limited DX10 to Vista?

    "Win98 SE is still widely used, and so will XP be. MS will not cease to support its previous OS just because it launched a new one. Naturally, there will be benefits in switching to Vista, but it'll never be mandatory. No company can be that stupid."

    Think again. It's actually not that stupid, just a ruthless business practice. Previously I could sit back and wait until I wanted to upgrade my OS, now I have to go out and buy it almost right away in order to play the newest titles at full spec. Support of an OS with updates and bug fixes is one thing. I'm not debating the continued support of XP as an OS. I'm looking at it from a gamers point of view who is being held hostage. I HAVE to buy Vista to run next gen titles with next gen effects. It has nothing to do with OS support. Until Microsoft announces that DirectX10 is compatible with XP and even Win2K, then it is very relevant to the whole 'Sony is forcing a format' issue.

    Let me set you straight, I am neither praising or condemning this issue. I am simply pointing out that Microsoft are not the innocent saviours of the gaming community some people believe them to be. Heck, this is Microsoft for crying out loud, they are not little David facing the Giant! Jeez.

  • jiveguy #99 6 years ago

    You could always just buy a console and enter a less vicious cycle of upgrading?

  • login_name #100 6 years ago

    @jiveguy

    I own most consoles, old and new. I'm a gamer, I like to broaden my choices.

  • captainrentboy #101 6 years ago

    I still don't get how some of you can be saying ''ohhh this isn't good publicity for Microsoft'' Amusingly it seems like a few of you could actually be comparing this news to the PS3 shocker a few days ago,sorry guys it isn't in the same league.
    Microsoft are mearly offerring a new add on drive should anyone out there want one,y'know if it's actually of any use to them,that's it.Sure it may seem a lil steep in price now,but when compared to stand alone players it could seem like a bargain.
    Anyone would think Microsoft have just announced that they're taking the Core/Premium packs off sale and that you can only buy it as a bundle with the new drive for £400.
    And I still can't see the fuss about games on Blu-Ray,just how much will they cost?Surely they'll cost a hell of a lot more than ones on standard dvds.And anyway,fuck me how hard is it to swap a dvd over should a title be such a size that it spans 2 or 3 of them.

  • captain-future #102 6 years ago

    300 EUR? -> LOLOLOL BRUAHAHAAHAAAA ooops there goes HD DVD right after Blu-ray...

    I'm more and more content with DVD.

  • Mock #103 6 years ago

    I'm no fanboy of any one specific console, company or software. I use a variety of OS's for work and for play, but it seems that people are all too quick to hand out fanboy related misdirection when someone "cocks up".

    People have made valid points about Sony and login_name makes a very valid point about MS. There is a lot of format forcing going on by everyone, but if you're talking about needless and pointless ones, MS has to be the biggest guilty party there is.

    Let's not forget that "forcing an OS" thing isn't a new thing for MS, it's just new for DX.

    There are plenty of pieces of software out there that REQUIRE XP for seemingly no good reason, I'd like to be given one.

    Let's take a widely used piece of software by Microsoft: MSN messenger.

    The latest versions of messenger require XP, why? I can't see much in the feature set of 7.5 compared to 7, let alone a reason to make it locked to a single OS. Messenger Live extended this. There were even a large group of people who set out to make the XP only version run at least on Windows 2000 with various success, simply because they like the software but either refuse to upgrade an OS or feel they shouldn't have to.

    Ok so Messenger is free... but it's not the only thing MS do that is XP specific.

    Flight Simulator is XP only, again, why? What I saw was nothing special, it certainly wasn't next gen and it didn't break any barriers compared to their previous flight sims, nor does it compete with any of the really good gaming engines that run fine on none XP systems. It doesn't use an XP specific version of DX. Other than money grabbing there is no way on earth that they couldn't have made this title run on 2K.

    They're forcing the OS on to hardcore users of specific software, to sell more copies of XP and then they'll do it to those users again when Vista pops up.

    This wouldn't be a problem if the OS was reasonably priced, but it isn't. Virtually everyone I know uses an illegal copy of windows, if MS adjusted their attitude and their pricing policy, that would turn around almost completely.

    Am I going to spend at least £60 on an OS I shouldn't need? No.

    Would I go out and buy I game I wanted that required a new OS and a copy of the OS if it was priced the same? Probably.

    My reason for not upgrading? It works fine for me and my copy of Windows 2000 is legal.

    They did it again with Media Center and 360 - which must have caused a good uproar with people, because that's due to change according to the new dashboard.

    Everyone is out to grab money, but I find it amazing that the bashing other companies get make people forget exactly the kind of underhanded crap other companies like MS hand out themselves.

  • zoidberg #104 6 years ago

    @Mock

    Flight Simulator and MSN Messenger are first-party software applicatons. They can format-lock them however they please. You can always try Yahoo Messenger or the tens of other similar applications that will work on whichever OS version you have.

    EDIT: spell
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/06 @ 13:02

  • chupachups #105 6 years ago

    "Everyone is out to grab money, but I find it amazing that the bashing other companies get make people forget exactly the kind of underhanded crap other companies like MS hand out themselves."

    Nintendo has done this too, they corruptly controlled the console market in America during the 1980s in exactly the same way Microsoft controls the OS market now. Competitors couldn't even get their consoles into shops, and couldn't get third party support no matter how much money they offered publishers, because Nintendo had locked them out through various contracts that would be considered illegal today.

    The lessons from the bad things done by Sony, MS and Nintendo is that all companies will always try and form a monopoly when given a chance, and it's up to governments and the courts to stop them in order to maintain free and fair competition.

    Competition means lower prices, better quality and lots more innovation, so from a gamer's point of view the ideal situation next generation would be a 33%-33%-33% split between the big three companies, which would put them all permanently on their toes desperate to pull ahead.
    Edited by 2 at 09/09/06 @ 13:07

  • Mock #106 6 years ago

    @Zoidberg

    "Flight Simulator and MSN Messenger are first-party software applicatons. They can format-lock them however they please. You can always try Yahoo Messenger or the tens of other similar applications that will work on whichever OS version you have. "

    I never said they couldn't do what they pleased with their own software, I was indicating two pieces of software that have no reason to be locked to a specific OS but are.

    They aren't alone in doing that, but the point simply is, they did. People are arguing that they havn't and they're wrong.

  • Les #107 6 years ago

    "Ok my assumtion was incorrect about you not using an ms os, but your argument still suffers from narrow perception. The idea of "forcing mediums" is every where, infact every console is a form of forced medium. UMDs, HD DVD, Blue Ray, and windows in terms of OS, are all forced mediums, in this respect no one is saying MS does't force mediums any more that any1 else."

    This is a non-argument. If we use you "broad perception" every product forces you to accept its features. So every product is bad?!

  • TripleSeven #108 6 years ago

    @ Wonga

    The only thing "common sense" here is that 360 is available in Europe PS3 is not.

    That doesn't change a thing, though. Two different topics. A bad price/value still is a bad one.

    You shouldn't talk about 'faith in mankind either'. Compare how people (who you call Sony's fanboys) express themselves in here with how Microsoft's 'fanboys' act in the PS3 has been delayed topic. You're just looking bad atm.
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/06 @ 13:40

  • Freek #109 6 years ago

    Studios are not so platform bound as game developers, if Blu Ray doesn't pick up steam they'll switch over to HD DVD in a hurry and vice versa.
    Simply wait till the storm is over and then buy the victoriouse player.

  • Les #110 6 years ago

    "by saying £200 is expensive for a HD-DVD drive when we all know stand alone units cost more then twice that"

    You really are an idiot or probably not old enough to have had economics class yet (probably both) but comparing the price of an add-on drive with a stand-alone one is ridiculous. If you can't figure that one out for yourself, I feel sorry for you.

  • Xerx3s #111 6 years ago

    I am sooooooo not going to buy this within the next 2 years (or the BRD for that matter).

  • Xerx3s #112 6 years ago

    £280 Premium Xbox 360
    £200 HD-DVD Player
    £60 WiFi Adapter
    £80+ 60GB Harddisk
    _______________________

    £620+ Premium Xbox 360 incrementally upgraded to PS3 spec.

    Not such great value if you do want the full experience.

    I honestly believe Sony are providing better value for people over time even if it's a painful buy to start with.


    Most ppl don't want BRD or HDDVD
    Most ppl have no use for a wifi connection

    That would take 260 quid off your price. What is the point of paying for something most ppl don't want within the next couple of years (hell, most ppl arn't even aware of next gen players).

  • captainrentboy #113 6 years ago

    Change of subject,how come EG hasn't reported on all the new Wii news that's emerging?We get MCV in my workplace,reading it yesterday and the people behind the mag seem to have got inside word on the Wii's launch date and price for Europe.Between November 20th and 24th with a sexy sounding price of £149.Let's hope it's true huh?
    Edit:Hahaha,ohh they have already.Fuck me i'm blind.
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/06 @ 14:54

  • Krun #114 6 years ago

    Im still happy with standard DvD. I only just got rid of my old video player. 3-4 years before I'll upgrade again. Which is why I dont care about sony and their blu-tac player or xbox HD -DvD.

  • Steroyd #115 6 years ago

    If you're a 360 owner who has forked out for a HDTV, Are you going to feel that £200 is too much for this technology, When other players on the market start at £499?

    But you need to buy a Xbox 360 for that....

  • Les #116 6 years ago

    Steroyd +1

    "Im still happy with standard DvD."

    And you should be. HDTV is created so that TV manufacturers can make sure everybody buys a new telly once in a while. And the movie studios really liked when everybody bought dvds of the videos they already owned and want that scenario to repeat itself more often. For regular watching (TV, movies) the DVD format or analogue TV are fine. It will not add to my viewing pleasure if the screen all of a sudden contains more more pixels. However, once you've forked out for a HDTV, all of a sudden the deficiencies of analogue TV and DVD become apparent. The only thing that might benefit from HDTV would be my gaming experience. But to me that's currently not worth the price of admission.

    I heard some talk about software for the consoles that would make use of the processing power of the console to 'upgrade' the quality of regular DVDs so that they would look acceptable on a HDTV. If that's true and really works, it might be another plus to go for a console with a next gen DVD drive versus buying a standalone.
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/06 @ 17:43

  • Mock #117 6 years ago

    @Les

    Upscaling.

  • andypeart #118 6 years ago

    I just thought i might point out why direct x 10 is vista only.
    Its becuase the driver structure model has been completely changed to allow greater performance and stability and direct x 10 requires this new model to implement the new way it works, i.e unified shaders etc.
    This new method is completely different to the windows XP driver model and therefore cannot be retrofitted into XP. I wont go into specifics as it requires a reasonable ammount of knowledge about how drivers are written, the various driver modes and how they interact with the hardware and OS. You can look it up on the inteternet fairly easily if your interested tho.

    There not forcing it on you, its just a natural progression and there is no way around it unfortuantly.

    Oh and i dont work for MS i mainly use a Mac :) i however hate sony as everything ive ever bought of theirs has broken just after a year, Phones, consoles, radios etc

    As for HDDVD VS Blue Ray, i would probably err on the side of HDDVD due to it being considerably more robust as the data layer is better protected. Plus its nothing to do with sony :D which means it shouldnt break after a year.
    in terms of picture quality the format the video is stored on is of little consiquence the decoder is the most important bit in which case choose the format based on which players are available for it:)

  • Penguinzoot #119 6 years ago

    @andypeart +1

    Common sense at last.

    Relax guys, you can put away your conspiracy theories now. As andypeart says, DX10 is Vista-only because it *has* to be. There are too many architectural changes in Windows for it to be able to work on Windows XP.

    @Mock and others

    As regards other apps (MS or other independant developer) whose system requirements state certain level of OS (for example Windows XP), this is generally for 2 reasons:

    1. There are architectural dependencies on that version of the OS, so the app will not be able to run on any other OS version.
    - Or -
    2. That is the version of the OS the app vendor did all their development and testing on, and therefore that is the version the app vendor will support.

    If the reason is down to (1), then there is not much you can do about it - the app may fail to work as advertised, perhaps spectacularly.

    In the case of (2), the app may well work on other OS versions with no problems whatsoever, but is not supported and is not guaranteed by the app vendor. How can it be guaranteed if the vendor (whether it is MS or an independant developer) has never tested the app in that scenario?

    Mock, as far as Flight Simulator is concerned, FS 2004 was supported on Windows 2000. If you are referring to FSX, then well, I don't believe Windows 2000 Pro is supported anymore except for security updates.

    This has nothing to do with forcing standards on anyone.

    EDIT: Granma
    Edited by 4 at 09/09/06 @ 21:42

  • moggsy #120 6 years ago

    Great thing choice. Speaking as a 360 owner, £200 is too much for me to pay for a higher resolution DVD player so I won't buy it. But similarly £425 is to much to pay for a games console so I won't be buying that either.

    As I said, choice is a great thing.

  • Les #121 6 years ago

    "This addon is for Xbox 360 owners"

    I think the bundle mentioned in the article is not targeted at people already owning a 360... ;-)

    @ andypeart

    I appreciate that if something is poorly constructed, you'll have to make some radical changes to get everything to work better. And I certainly value common standards and formats and I understand that the companies that invented them should get a 'reward' in the form of license fees if they want (could also opt for GPL). What I don't like however are proprietary OSs, especially not if their creator uses them to propagate it's own standards and formats. I don't think this is some evil scheme from MS, they're a company trying to please their shareholders as best they can, and this is a situation that they find themselves in. But it does result in 'unfair' competition which ultimately hurts innovation. Of course initiatives like Firefox show that if you come up with something good, there are people willing to take the effort to download your software and use it instead of the program that MS bundled with your pre-installed OS. I'm very curious how amongst others, Firefox and Google desktop search will perform after the introduction of Windows Vista, which will feature bundled software that 'borrows' their best features (and will probably benefit from better integration with the OS).

    With regards to HD-DVD: it seems like a small step up from regular DVD and so I'm curious whether it will be future proof. We will get bigger TVs with higher resolutions than 1080p. I'd hate to have to have a format transition every 5 years. But of course the manufacturers and movie studios would love that. If we really do need a new format, I'd say go for the one that offers the most storage space.
    Edited by 1 at 09/09/06 @ 22:03

  • Blanchy #122 6 years ago

    I'm not going to buy it so I don't care how much it costs.

    PS3 owners on the other hand will be forced into paying for Blu-Ray.

  • Les #123 6 years ago

    "PS3 owners on the other hand will be forced into paying for Blu-Ray."

    But nobody is forcing you to buy a PS3.

  • andypeart #124 6 years ago

    Devs can still use openGL if they want:D and thats free.

    yeh the windows xp driver model was pretty shoddy, but not as bad as the win9x one or to be honest the linux one. whats up with the linux graphics subsystem which is actually based on a networking protocal?? (x), and the ridiculous way you install drivers.

    As for wheter HD DVD is future proof, well it isnt and neither is blue ray for that, once BT has the 21cn(chaning the whole phone network to packet switched(IP) from connection switched(PSTN)) network up and running in the next few years we should all have 50-60mb connections which is actually faster than the data transfer rate of either disk based standard, i think crazy kaz has already said the ps4 wont have an optical media:0 so both will be defunct at the end of the decade anyway.

    and to be honest i really cant be bothered to replace all my current dvds with hi def versions especially as i might have to buy them all again 'online' again in 5 or so years.

    Also i think they can make hd dvds backwards compatible by adding a dvd layer to them, which would be might handy.

    200quid seems about right for an external HD DVD drive, an internal IDE writer is about £500 so its less than half the cost of a writer which is the same as it is for CD and DVD drives. dvd writer £30ish dvd reader £13ish :)

  • zoidberg #125 6 years ago

    Actually, bittorrent tech has made downloading large chunks of data (of course, movies) really easy. I've been getting HD movies (mostly 720p) from hdbits.net and other sites and they look gorgeous enough to warrant a shift from DVD to HD-whatever.

    But the PC remains the choice, since it can handle any kind of HD resolutions, 99% of the games, it can output to any TV screen and you can also get "console" controllers for it (if you're really that addicted). The price may seem high for a top-of-the-line new rig, but the versatility is worth it.

  • andypeart #126 6 years ago

    yeh i know ive been using bittorrent etc for many years, its not exactly "on demand" as it still takes many hours to download things, i was refering to streaming data which is very different. If i want to watch a movie or play a game i dont want to wait 4hrs for it to download

    Although pc is the best choice due to it versitlity its also a somewhat more expensive and requires constant upgrading which a lot of people either cant afford or cant be bothered too. A graphics card alone to play the latest games costs as much as an xbox360. Theres also the problem of a lot of people not really knowing enough about what specification of pc they need to run a game. At least if you buy an console games you know it will definatly run compared to a pc where there could be a miriad of issues not just that your pc isnt powerful enough. But then again theres no way of playing civ4 or rise of nations anywhere else:D.
    Plus its a right pain the backside keeping a pc running properly, virus's, malware, updates, things just breaking, maintenance etc etc

    The pc being able to handle 99% of games is somewhat wrong even if you include emulation. Although this is possibly close to the mark if you have a £2000 system, most people are running with intel cough"extreme"cough graphics which means they can run about 3% of all games :D Plus most emulators are a bit rubbish so i would have said 50% is a more likely figure

    Also its somewhat more difficult to have multiplayer gameing with a pc, are there any pc games which allow split screen gaming? one of the best bits about consoles, mates!
    Including internet gaming, its still a lot more difficult with a pc:D

    I do love pcs however, RTS :D and spend far too much money upgrading

  • ave #127 6 years ago

    "Let me say again, there is no difference between Microsoft 'forcing' me to buy Vista to play the latest PC games and Sony 'forcing' anyone else to buy BluRay to play PS3 games."

    That is stupid, really really stupid.


    I suppose intel is "forcing" you to use an intel core 2 duo instead of a pentium 2 to play Halo 2 is no different from what Sony's doing either.

    Get a grip, and stop trying to say "i'm not a fanboy because I like xbox lolz!!!".

    A forced upgrade would be if
    1) MS forced you to use Vista even to play older games
    2) MS forced you to buy Office Vista edition when you wanted to buy Vista.
    Edited by 2 at 10/09/06 @ 12:34

  • Tayl #128 6 years ago

    ^^Halo 2 doesn't qualify as an "older" game now?
    /cheap shot.

  • ave #129 6 years ago

    Has it been released yet?
    /cheap shot

  • andypeart #130 6 years ago

    Errrrrr yeh i agree

    Theres a massive difference, you DONT need blu ray for modern computer games, microsoft already proved this by fitting them on DVD's. Plus even if they dont fit whats wrong with having more than one disk?, better value!!!:D. But you DO need vista to be able to produce better graphics in game as directX10 is only possible using Vista. Thefore your compairson is flawed.

    What is actually true is

    Game developers forcing you to buy windows vista as they want to use the latest graphical techniques in their games as its not possible to use them in windows XP. Its not microsoft saying game devs have to use DX10 as Vista still supports all previous DX versions.

    Sony forcing a new unproven media on the general public by making it the only media on the ps3 you can play games on. As i said earlier BluRay is not required for next gen graphics.

    yes you are forced to buy the latest graphics/processing hardware (and thus the latest OS in the case of pcs otherwise it would be bit silly :D) to play the latest games. But otherwise games would all still look like commander keen!! but you are not forced to buy the latest optical drive to play games......

    A good example i think would be to look at pc games, all pc games for the last 10years probably came on CD, dvd's then came along and still games come out on CD, some are put on dvd, but are generally also available on CD too. Now dvd drives are standard and nobody has cd drives anymore most games are released on DVD because its easier and wait for it.......CHEAPER!!!!

    Sony....we need to get BluRay into peoples homes becuase we're up proverbial creek, force it into PS3....but its much more EXPENSIVE, are there any benifits for the user....they wont have to change disk on larger games........great thats 200 quid well spent fitting a blu ray over a DVD drive.

    im sure in a few years when HDDVD/BluRay drives are £30 pc games will come out on them but till then the games will still come out on DVD/CD.

    Basically to sumarise another overly long post, sony are forcing blue ray because its not required for gaming they could have easily fitted a DVD and reduced the price some 200quid and had less production issues.

    :D

    Andy
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/06 @ 15:43

  • ave #131 6 years ago

    "and your comparison about intel is ridiculous as again im sure it would be possible to make halo2 look rubbish and be able to run it on a p2, but thats the game developers choice and why would you want to?"

    Wtf are you on and can I have some?

  • andypeart #132 6 years ago

    lol im not on anything ave as yes it would be possible to run modern games on older hardware, have you never seen the mod which allowed doom3 to run on a voodoo2 :D awesome, rubbish but awesome none the less (ill ignore AI for now lol)
    [link url=http://www.firingsquad.com/media/gallery_index.as p?media_id=244
    ]http://ww w.firingsquad.com/media/gallery...[/link]




    :D

    Andy
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/06 @ 15:38

  • login_name #133 6 years ago

    "That is stupid, really really stupid.


    I suppose intel is "forcing" you to use an intel core 2 duo instead of a pentium 2 to play Halo 2 is no different from what Sony's doing either.

    Get a grip, and stop trying to say "i'm not a fanboy because I like xbox lolz!!!".

    A forced upgrade would be if
    1) MS forced you to use Vista even to play older games
    2) MS forced you to buy Office Vista edition when you wanted to buy Vista."

    You obviously didn't read the history and understand the post. I would explain but judging from your post you'd be hard pressed to understand and I hate repeating myself to morons.

  • andypeart #134 6 years ago

    yeh i know i missed the quotes on the first part of your post lol, but it was too late to rectify it someone had already replied, but anyway dont get ur knickers in a twist as in essence i was making the same point, just longer winded with a proper explanation of my reasons rather than a just a flame

    oh and for

    "A forced upgrade would be if
    1) MS forced you to use Vista even to play older games
    2) MS forced you to buy Office Vista edition when you wanted to buy Vista."

    which i never responded too, both of these are pretty poor
    1) ill let this one fly but its not a great point, mainly as it seems to suggest that what sony is doing isnt a forced upgrade, which it is read previous posts.
    2) think u messed up there, i presume you mean either, that MS bundled office vista with vista, which unless you already had a previous version of office wouldnt be an upgrade, or more likely you mean, ms made vista so only office vista would work meaning all users would have to upgrade from previous versions. What your point says is microsoft made you buy office rather than an operating system?

    and

    I suppose intel IS "forcing" you to use an intel core 2 duo instead of a pentium 2 to play Halo 2 IS no different from what Sony's doing either

    is pretty poorly written, you might want to re-read that, too many "is"'s loose the first one and replace the second with "would be" and all of a sudden it makes sense :D we all make mistakes :D

    Flame on :D first time ive really bothered to post on forums, quite fun really :D no need for bad names either lol, tis only a bit of banter.

    and ive editied the previous post to respect that i made a mistake

    Andy

  • Tayl #135 6 years ago

    -"Has it been released yet?"

    Two years ago this November, if I recall correctly.
    Edited by 1 at 10/09/06 @ 16:04

  • Azazel #136 6 years ago

    ROFLCOPTERLANDINGPAD!111112onehundredandeleventy

  • soanso #137 6 years ago

    I've always thought bringing an add-on HD-DVD drive for the 360 was a stupid idea.
    I thought that if it wasn't in the console from day one then it should never be there.
    I don't know how popular HD movie will become, a lot depends on how much the discs cost but if they are above the £20 makr I don' think it'll be such a big mass market hit like the way DVDs were.

    That's not the reason I think it's a bad idea though.
    For starters it shows they are afraif of their rivals features but it also takes it away from the games.
    Will MS make license fees off the sale of HD movies?

    I thought they should focus on the games and really put the boot into sony.
    I think that way would hurt them most!

  • sajtion #138 6 years ago

    microsoft is earning a fortune on overpriced hardware peripherals for xbox 360. i'm not buying it, hell no!!!

  • Talha #139 6 years ago

    Wow. A (likely broken, based on XBox and PS2 experience) optical media player, just 200 quid! Throwaway prices! MS cannot be making a profit on these!

  • Les #140 6 years ago

    "Its not microsoft saying game devs have to use DX10 as Vista still supports all previous DX versions."

    No but they have no choice if they want to make their games look real pretty. They could have made a DX version for XP (not an exact copy of the one for Vista because of the new driver structure) or even older versions of windows but they chose not to.

    "Basically to sumarise another overly long post, sony are forcing blue ray because its not required for gaming they could have easily fitted a DVD and reduced the price some 200quid and had less production issues."

    This is a really poor argument. I remember a times when games fit on 640k diskettes. So all the additional storage space of CDs or DVDs is not necessary?! History should have taught you that you can NEVER have too much storage space. If you give developers the space, they will use it. Resistance: FoM occupies over 20gb according to the developer and that’s not because of not using compression, because they do.

    Sony thinks the added storage space will have a positive influence on gameplay (and of course they also want to push the blu-ray format for movies) and decided to include the drive, even though that raises the price of PS3. They think they can convince consumers PS3 is worth it. Maybe they can, maybe they can’t, time will tell. But nobody is forcing you to buy PS3. There are alternatives (which can’t be said for your typical PC-style game).

  • Les #141 6 years ago

    @ AdamOfEternia

    If I remember correctly, when Sony used the "PS3 thrown in for free"-argument for justifying the price of PS3, a lot of xbox fanboys cried foul... How ironic! :D

  • Les #142 6 years ago

    @ AdamOfEternia

    I read your post, that's why my post only reacts to that 'argument'... Oh, and btw people who only want a next-gen dvd player (no games) have a good deal in the PS3 too...

    But this whole "forcing" argument is turning into a farce. I'll explain it once more: every product you buy forces you to accept the decisions its designers made. So the 360 forces you to use an external power supply, a PowerPC processor and a regular DVD drive for your games. The PS3 forces you to use a Blu-Ray drive and a Cell processor. A Ferrari forces you to use a 400hp+ engine, a wooden knife forces you to use a knife made of wood, etc, etc. But for most products, like PS3, there's an alternative that you can get if you don't like its price or features.

    So to sumarize, complaining that you can't get a PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive is like complaining that you can't get a Ferrari with a 75hp diesel engine.

  • thinktank #143 6 years ago

    Wow, this thread is still going

    meh, its an add on.

    Buy it if you like, and don't buy it if you err... don't.

  • Les #144 6 years ago

    There's no difference between your argument and the one from Sony: they both show that standalone players will cost you more than the console with player and therefore that console and player are not that expensive.

    "that the games don't utilize (at this point anyway)"

    I don't know about all PS3 (launch) games, but the developers of Resistance claim to already use over 20gb (which is more than can fit on a regular DVD). And if I'm not mistaken, Singstar PS3 will feature more songs and videos than could fit on a regular DVD. But I wouldn't be surprised if multi-platform games will (certainly at first) not make use of the extra blu-ray capacity. As in past-gen, those titles tend to be developed with the lowest specs in mind.

    Oh and your Ferrari-comparison (though I’m flattered that you re-used my metaphor) doesn’t really hold: without a driving license you can’t (aren’t allowed to) drive the thing at all and therefore it’s useless. Even if the PS3 game disks don’t contain more data than a regular DVD, PS3 is still capable of playing them. It would be more like driving a Ferrari with a speed limiter set at 80 miles/hour… ;-)

  • Les #145 6 years ago

    "Personally I dont want blu ray movies... I do want MGS4 and any new FF games."

    You don't have to buy the movies. You can still buy a PS3 and just play games on it. Of course then the "PS3 thrown in for free" argument doesn't hold and you should think hard whether or not you really want to spend that amount of money just to play games. But you do have a choice: not buying it.

    I would be very surprised if MGS4 and FF wouldn't make use of the extra capacity on Blu-Ray by the way. Those are two data-hungry franchises.

  • Agent_Orange #146 6 years ago

    It looks pretty crappy - just a huge box attached to the console by a cable. And yes it is way too expensive

  • andypeart #147 6 years ago

    @les
    actually it isnt possible if you look at the way directx10 interacts with directx10 graphics cards to achive new effects and the increased performance. to achive everything devs,MS, hardware developers wanted in DX10 it couldnt be made backwards compatible. The whole point of directx10 is to get away from the way dx9 and below worked as it was inneficient and inflexible. If they made a new version for windowsXP and below it would just end up being directX9.d i.e c with a few more pixel shader options. Not exactly the great leap an entirely new structure would allow. Thus microsoft making the choice to produce something that is vista only will only benifit everyone as even if you dont want to upgrade anytime soon, eventually you will and then reap the benefits :D

    20gigs is only like 2dvds, not a big deal and thats only one developer. Crysis a pc game wont be coming out on bluray or hddvd and i assure u that games graphics blows everything else out the water. Your taking something one developer said and assuming its the be all and end all. nobody used to complain about 4 disk games before, Like shenmue on the DC, final fantasy on PS,PS2, resident evil, etc etc. Why is it suddenly an issue? More than one disk or spending ~£200 for the benefit of not having to change disk, err im good thanks.

    Also if you look back properly, as i said in the rest of my argument you either diddnt read or diddnt want to add in as it explained why i said

    "Basically to sumarise another overly long post, sony are forcing blue ray because its not required for gaming they could have easily fitted a DVD and reduced the price some 200quid and had less production issues."

    pc never uses the latest format as soon as it comes out, a few early adopters might buy the drive for backing stuff up but thats about it. When enough people have the drive and the media is cheap to produce, then pc games come out on that format, not when its expensive and unproven. I never said larger media wouldnt be useful, sure it would be, but not when it increases costs so much. next gen when the drives are £30 yeh sure np bluray/hddvd all the way in ps4 or xbox 1080 or whatever they choose.

    And sony only want the bluray drive in there to sell their movies and beat HDDVD :p, gameplay my arse

  • captainrentboy #148 6 years ago

    See I think that if Sony had asked 1000's of it's potential buyers (the general public)what they'd rather have from the PS3,either a machine that costs £425 and plays Blu-Ray movies and games,when necessary,straight from the box(We'll ignore the lack of high def leads for now)but let them know that Blu-Ray is infact an unproven technology,and in a lot of homes they'll need a new tv to actually get the most out of it.
    OOOrrrrrr a console that costs say £280-£300,which downsides are that it only plays dvd movies,and games based on dvd discs,which might mean that 20hrs or more into a game they might have to swap the dvd over to carry on.
    I think there would be a higher percentage that would still go for the cheaper option.So that's how I come to the conclusion that Blu-Ray is being unnecessarily forced on consumers.Most of us just don't need it.

  • Les #149 6 years ago

    "Your taking something one developer said and assuming its the be all and end all. nobody used to complain about 4 disk games before, Like shenmue on the DC, final fantasy on PS,PS2, resident evil, etc etc. Why is it suddenly an issue?"

    Not every type of game lends itself to disk switching, think of GTA and other open world games. I certainly wouldn't say it's a huge problem, but you can't argue that everything on one disk is more convenient. But with your logic (and that of captainrentboy) 360 and PS3 should use the 3.5" floppy as the medium because the past shows us that it's perfectly possible to fit games in that space and it would reduce the cost of the console significantly. And to be honest, there are few games I've enjoyed as much as Secret of Monkey Island 2 and it was on 10 disks. So maybe we should just quit with technological progress...

  • andypeart #150 6 years ago

    lol thats not what i said at all.
    I said use the newer tech when its reasonably priced not still an early adopter premium product. I said yeh use bluray on the next gen when its £30 for a drive instead of £200 for a drive....read the post lol.

    My point was pc games are released on the best medium at the time which isnt nescessarily the latest most expensive one its usually the one thats been out for a while and is affordable. Once the newer tech becomes affordable then the games switch onto that format, until that u just have to change disk.....oh no

    And no by my logic putting games on a 3.5floppy wouldnt be the way to go, as i said the cheapest way, and 6266 floppy disks certainly costs more than 1 dvd, however 1 dvd drive and a couple of dvd disks is much cheaper than 1 blu ray drive and 1 blu ray disk. A happy compromise.

    And im sure they could put GTA on cd if they really wanted too(rahter than dvd oh and it was on cd for the pc lol) and just get u to change disk at the end of certain boundrys, just like ShenmueI&II, i never minded that on my dc, the shenmue series are still up at the top of my favourite games ever. if you havent played shenmue it had very large citys/towns to roam around freely doing whatever you want.

    Wait 5 years for the next gen consoles and when bluray is proven and affordable, use it, but not yet
    Edited by 1 at 11/09/06 @ 13:37

  • Les #151 6 years ago

    "And no by my logic putting games on a 3.5floppy wouldnt be the way to go, as i said the cheapest way, and 6266 floppy disks certainly costs more than 1 dvd, however 1 dvd drive and a couple of dvd disks is much cheaper than 1 blu ray drive and 1 blu ray disk. A happy compromise."

    A shame I have to spell it out but I wasn't talking about DVD-sized games on floppies. Your argument about dvd being big enough for games can be applied on dvd vs. cd, cd vs. floppy, etc. And with that kind of logic, there's no progress.

    "Wait 5 years for the next gen consoles and when bluray is proven and affordable, use it, but not yet"

    Your logic implies PS2 and the original Xbox shouldn't have used DVD, because it was unproven (marketing language for "new products/technology from competitors";) and expensive. I hope you're trying to be funny, but I'm affraid you're not. Why do you think DVD did get and Blu-Ray probably will become cheaper in time? Because it's used on a large scale. If your logic were the rule (thank god, it isn't), DVD, Blu-Ray (or every other new tech) would never become cheaper (or very slowly) because all companies were waiting for others to implement it.

    The PC market is not comparable to the console one. There is no standard configuration. And PC makers don't sell their hardware below cost price at the introduction.

    But if you don't value the addition of Blu-Ray to PS3, there's no need to get worked up over it. You don't have to buy the thing.

  • andypeart #152 6 years ago

    you seem to be missing my argument completly yourself,

    dvd when xbox came out wasnt brand new, its a 12x drive lol, it had been around a long time, as had dvd when the ps2 came out, the early adopter phase of £500 machines had been and gone. Plus dvd still used red laser technology so the drives wernt that much more expensive to produce than a cdrom drive. just better optics etc and loads of lasers were already produced every year.

    DVD released 1997
    PS2 released 2000
    xbox released 2002
    Bluray/hddvd released 2006
    ps3 released 2006/2007

    Notice a difference!

    sony with the ps3 are likely to be one of the first machines available in this country which can play blu ray disks, a somewhat different situation to xbox or ps2.

    i dunno where ur getting that i dont want larger optical disks, they will be really useful, but normally when a new format is created its a few years till its really stable and widley adopted. This happened with all previous formats, sony is pushing bluray into mainstream too quickly. its always the same

    Early adopters>rich guys>lots of people>everyone
    sony are going
    lots of people>everyone

    whereas its not possible to fit uber graphics onto a cd, its is possible to fit them on a DVD, or a bluray, ill spell it out

    YOU DONT NEED LARGER OPTICAL MEDIA TO PRODUCE HIDEF GRAPHICS!!! which u cant seem to get ur head around. your entire argument is based on your belief that you do, when its proven fact u dont.

    If the only way to produce next gen graphics was larger optical media i would be all for it, but it just isnt so its a wasted ~£200.
    If sony had spent that money on SLI(two rsx processors running in parralell) (the RSX is bassically a geforce 7900ish) i assure u it would have been money much better spent:D

    Yes i know about the economics of scale etc, sony are just missing out the standard early adopter phase of new technology, where its expensive while the manufacturers get upto speed producing components, integrating chips etc etc. Once the drives are fairly cheap say £100 rather than £500 they start appearing everywhere then scale of production kicks in reducing the prices down to £30 for example.

    The reason sony are having so many production issues is becuase they are trying to force bluray into the market before all the manufactuers are upto speed. There arent enough blue(or violet as they actually are) lasers produced at the moment becuase no manufacturers have had a chance to ramp up production yet, and work the bugs out of process.

    and no i wont buy a ps3, probably wont get an xbox360 either, pc, wii and a ds will do just fine.

    Edited by 1 at 11/09/06 @ 14:36

  • andypeart #153 6 years ago

    yeh lol i know ta

    my work here is done lol, this is the sort of thing that happens in that last week b4 going back to uni lol. lots of spare time

  • Les #154 6 years ago

    "a somewhat different situation to xbox or ps2"

    At the time of PS2 release in Europe, DVD wasn't a common technology, even though the technology itself might have been around for a while. DVD players were still very expensive. So I don't miss your point at all.

    "YOU DONT NEED LARGER OPTICAL MEDIA TO PRODUCE HIDEF GRAPHICS!!! which u cant seem to get ur head around. your entire argument is based on your belief that you do, when its proven fact u dont."

    I NEVER said this. Please read my posts again.

    "The reason sony are having so many production issues is becuase they are trying to force bluray into the market before all the manufactuers are upto speed."

    True. But that's Sony's problem not mine. Production will cost them even more, they'll get less machines than they wanted at launch so fewer sales.

    To summarise your posts, you don't see the value to gaming of Sony adding a blu-ray drive to PS3. Well if you don't, don't buy the thing. Nothing to get worked up about.

    I'm out.
    Edited by 1 at 11/09/06 @ 14:52

  • captainrentboy #155 6 years ago

    Good post Andy,that's the type of point I wanted to make.But alas,I'm too stupid.

  • AOFanboi #156 6 years ago

    The developers of "Resistance: Fall of Man" apprently already have filled 20 GB of the disk for their PS3 game. So titles are already past the 9 GB limit of double DVDs. And I distincly recall reading about some XBox 360 developers complain that they had to economize on content to stay under that DVD ceiling.

    That part of the discussion is moot anyway since that £200 HD-DVD drive isn't for games. Disk swapping is such a non-option on a device that ideally sits an inconveient number of feet away from the couch you're in. Other consoles got relatively few disk-swapping titles - possibly for that reason alone.

  • Les #157 6 years ago

    "Ridiculous, There are many shades of gray, It's not one extreme or the other at all. I say, a certain car is perfectly sufficient for getting from A to B, I don't need a Ferrari.. You say "But by your logic we should go back to horse and cart", I laugh at you."

    This thread has continued way too long and I'll stop reacting to the subject matter of posts, but I can't let this ill-treatment of logic pass by.

    Andy made a point of not including a new technology until it was proven. So he reasoned that a cheap old technology (DVD) had proven to be good enough for games so that the new, higher cost technology (Blu-Ray) should not be implemented. If that kind of attitude were to prevail, there will be no progress (or it will be very slow). And to use your phrase, we would still indeed be using horse and cart. That was my point.

    What you are referring to with your “many shades of grey” comment is that even if new technology has been introduced, there can still be room for the old or for alternative versions of the technology. This, of course, is true. E.g. people are still using CDs for storage even though writeable DVDs have long been available. But then you make a mistake in logic: Ferrari's and that certain car of yours are both based on the same technology. One is more advanced than the other, but they still both use a combustion engine. You could compare it with a 12x (the certain car) vs. a 24xDVD player (the Ferrari). I was not saying you should always use a Ferrari, I say if people had not built cars before they were proven and cheap technology, we would still be using horse and cart.

    Please let me know if any of the above is not clear to you and I'll try to phrase it in simpler terms.

  • andypeart #158 6 years ago

    err whatever, not at all what i was saying,
    in terms of logic, its illogical to release to the mass consumer a format you have no idea how robust is, whether you can meet production demands or produce at a reasonable cost
    the logical and generally followed route is to bassically release to early adopters at high prices and see what happens, fix bugs, streamline production, release to mass market.

    im done here, im sure everyone else reading this would have already got my point much earlier on, but meh

    andy
    Edited by 1 at 12/09/06 @ 00:36

  • Penguinzoot #159 5 years ago

    @andypeart

    +lots, Good posts, very patient as well ;-)

    @Les

    First point, oh dear, umm... you cannot use logic to predict/determine what happens in the world of business.

    How can I put this? Business (like other forms of human endeavour), is an activity conducted on the whole by individual, sentient and most importantly, organic beings, who will react differently, and respond to stimuli in individual, unpredictable or even irrational ways. Not necessarily logical ways. If individuals that make up the whole cannot be relied upon to respond in logical ways, how can an unorganised activity conducted by a group of the same individuals ever be considered logical?

    You cannot reify a notion like "business". Its ridiculous. We wouldn't need economists.

    With regard to new technology uptake, I think you must be being deliberately obtuse. Selling new, unproven (by the test of time) technology first to early adopters/geeks at a high price is an obvious and extremely common practice in business whether we are talking about consoles, computers, graphics cards, TVs, washing machines, cameras, whatever - and you know it is.

    As for DVD players not being widely available when the PS2 released in 2000, I don't know what planet you were living on at the time, but DVD players *were* widely available in 2000 in all the consumers favourite stores (Comet, Dixons and Currys etc). In fact I bought my first DVD player (a reasonably top-end Pioneer) in 1999 for £330. Lesser brands were available for quite a bit less, and considerable price reductions followed into 2000. I was sick as a dog. 'Swhat happens when you buy into a new technology earlyish, I suppose :-(

    DVD was NOT cutting edge tech when fitted to the PS2. DVD was already tried and tested, coming down in price, and on its way to becoming a commodity item around the world, even in the UK (against the predictions of many in the industry at the time).


    Edited by 1 at 12/09/06 @ 10:43

  • Les #160 5 years ago

    @ Penguinzoot

    "First point, oh dear, umm... you cannot use logic to predict/determine what happens in the world of business."

    Which I didn't. The "logic" I am referring to is in the arguments of Andy. He says PS3 shouldn’t have a Blu-Ray drive in it. He argues for implementing new, cutting edge technology at high prices to early adopters and wait till prices drop before the mass market will follow. This is exactly what Sony is doing with PS3. Its high price point (the most expensive console) is surely not attractive to the mass market. And I didn't make any predictions about the success of this strategy of Sony. I never said it was right or wrong, just that it’s silly to attack them for it. If you don’t see the benefit of Blu-Ray for games, you don’t buy the expensive PS3. It’s that easy.

    “DVD was NOT cutting edge tech when fitted to the PS2. DVD was already tried and tested, coming down in price, and on its way to becoming a commodity item around the world”

    But it wasn’t a commodity yet and if I’m not mistaken, many people attribute the early success of PS2 to it being a relatively cheap alternative for a DVD-player.

  • Penguinzoot #161 5 years ago

    @Les

    DVD WAS a commodity item in 2000, just not as cheap a commodity as it is today :-)

    If with regards to BluRay you are saying that Sony are perfectly entitled to pursue whichever business strategy they please (wise or unwise) then I would agree with you. If you are saying (which you appear to be) that PS3 is targeted at early adopters rather than the mass market, then again I would agree with you.

    As I have said elsewhere on these forums before, this whole mess for Sony was prompted by MS wrongfooting them with the early release of the 360, forcing Sony to bring the PS3 (with its BluRay drive) forward or risk losing market share in the only division which makes real money for them.

    If Sonys timetable hadn't been upset by Microsoft, things would have looked very different - picture a different world in say in a year or twos time, where the 360 has not been launched:

    HDDVD and BluRay players and movies would have been on the market for maybe a couple of years; they may have even gained a significant measure of consumer acceptance; BluRay may even have turned out to be the movie player of choice; prices would be high but maybe starting to move downwards, with economies of scale etc.

    Launching the PS3 at this point, with a lower price, Sonys value proposition would have looked much better, even compelling. As it stands at the moment, it doesn't.

    This represents a huge gamble for Sony. They are betting the farm on BluRay and PS3 as a delivery vehicle. If it comes off, Sony are in the clear. If it doesn't then maybe its Sayonara Sony.

    You can't get away from the fact that an awful lot of gamers who want to continue to be Playstation gamers (like myself) nevertheless resent having to pay the price for PS3: not just as early adopters for an expensive format they currently see no pressing need for, and that may turn out to be redundant as an HD movie format in the end. But also paying the price for Sonys crushingly complacent business sense and arrogance which has put them in this position in the first place.

    Edited by 1 at 12/09/06 @ 13:15

  • Les #162 5 years ago

    @ Penguinzoot

    "As I have said elsewhere on these forums before, this whole mess for Sony was prompted by MS wrongfooting them with the early release of the 360"

    I totally agree. This isn't the situation Sony was hoping to be in. I think they had expected Blu-Ray to have already been rolled out by this time. But difficulties within the Blu-Ray consortium about DRM and talks with Toshiba to prevent a new format war, postponed Blu-Ray production. As far as I know the 360 is the first console that doesn't use a larger size storage medium than it's predecessor (Wii also uses DVD but the Cube had the custom smaller size disks). It might have been caused by having to rush or have been a deliberate and smart choice. It might be the key to 360's success or failure. Time will tell.

  • SergioAguero #163 5 years ago

    @Peguinzoot

    I'd agree with much of that. Sony has got their timing badly wrong. Gamers don't want to hear this, but in 2 or 3 years time the PS3 will be an excellent machine. When there are many more HD Flat screen TVs in the UK (and you can buy a good 28" model for say £400) a machine with high capacity discs and HDMI output will be that much more compelling than it is now.

    It boils down to this: in 2006/2007 the Sony machine will cost £400+ and many people will NOT see the added value in Blue-Ray or Cell technology.

    When you look at the 360, it at least offers 3 different options. If Microsoft have any sense they will try harder to captilise on Sony's European problems by:

    Selling the HD DVD standalone for £150 and not £199.

    Selling the HD DVD Premium back for (wait for it) £360. Effectively £80 for the movie drive, and although they take a massive hit, this would sell like hotcakes especially come february when the next Sony delay is announced!

    I have to say as well though that if gamers (already with 360's) with £150+ to spare in November then instead of buying the new DVD player, the will get themselves a Wii; more fun no?







  • Penguinzoot #164 5 years ago

    @Les,

    I think it is likely that MS decided there was not a good enough case at that time for a HiDef drive, whether HD or BluRay. After all, when they launched the 360 none was available. I think simply getting to market first was more important to them.

    From MS point of view, by the time the successor to the 360 is released, the HD / BluRay format war will be over. It will either be a draw, or there will be a winner and a loser. Then MS will simply put the winning drive format (by this time it should be as cheap as DVD drives today) in its new console.

    ... that is, if we are still using optical drives for distributing games at that time ;-)

    Yes, time will tell. We shall see.