with warner brothers going blue ray do you guys think that microsoft will have to make a blue ray add on by the end of this year?

with warner brothers going blue ray do you guys think that microsoft will have to make a blue ray add on by the end of this year?

A Microsoft rep said early on that if Blu-ray won they could do an add-on for it. It was quickly retracted in the heat of "we're committed to HD-DVD" but they said it.

I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

The only way it's gonna happen is if HD-DVD dies out and until (if) HD formats start getting popular and are a lot more than 1% of the market I don't think either format is gonna die out. I don't see that happening this generation.

If Bluray "wins" then yes MS will have to put out a BR drive attachment. Otherwise they face possibly losing some of the gaming market. Any gamer that also wanted to watch high definition movies would, at least, seriously consider buying the PS3 since it is still the highest rated and cheapest option for a player. Also some of the people that bought the HD-DVD drive for their 360 would want the ability to watch newer and/or currently unreleased titles in high def and again as long as the PS3 is anywhere near the "cheapest" Bluray player people will consider buying it.

Give your playerbase a $150 option instead of buying a totally new player and you would at least stymie people turning towards the competition.

I'd consider getting a Blu-ray add-on, especially if it's much cheaper than anything else. With standalones still at $300+, a <$200 add-on could be a hit.

They will follow the $'s in the end I'd guess. If the $'s are in a BD addon, you will probably see one.

MS make a product that uses their competitor java?? Not likely.

I would say that last year when the HD add on was launched, there was talk that if HD lost the 'war' a blu-ray add on would be possible (one of the advantages of having a modular design). However with the recent 'confirmation/rumors' of an Xbox Ultimate (built in HD drive) and possible Toshiba takeover for a media center with the Xbox at the core, the likelyhood of a Blu-ray add on is even less likely. So what if blu ray wins, the HD Dvive will serve as a storage drive, and I see no reason why in the future if games are made for the HD-Disc, existing customers can buy the HD drive and play the game through that drive. The cost of premium + HD Drive = Xbox ultimate, thus if they make a Blue Dragon type of game, they could easily put it on 1 HD disc, and everyone can still play it.

I would say that last year when the HD add on was launched, there was talk that if HD lost the 'war' a blu-ray add on would be possible (one of the advantages of having a modular design). However with the recent 'confirmation/rumors' of an Xbox Ultimate (built in HD drive) and possible Toshiba takeover for a media center with the Xbox at the core, the likelyhood of a Blu-ray add on is even less likely. So what if blu ray wins, the HD Dvive will serve as a storage drive, and I see no reason why in the future if games are made for the HD-Disc, existing customers can buy the HD drive and play the game through that drive. The cost of premium + HD Drive = Xbox ultimate, thus if they make a Blue Dragon type of game, they could easily put it on 1 HD disc, and everyone can still play it.

A drive add-on for a system is a big no-no. All systems with add-on optical drives have been failures. No one wants to pay an extra $100+ just to get access to a subset of the library.

By the time HD-DVD is no longer viable (big if!), standalone Bluray players will be cheap enough to make a 360 Bluray add-on senseless. The price has already dropped 70% in the last year for players, it is not unreasonable to expect the price to drop another 50% to $150 for a Bluray player in the next year.

Really though, downloadable movies through Live is what Microsoft really cares about.

The price has already dropped 70% in the last year for players, it is not unreasonable to expect the price to drop another 50% to $150 for a Bluray player in the next year.With BD one step closer to being the only game in town, I don't see a whole lot of incentive to drop standalone prices for Blu-Ray players. I'll happily come back here and eat my words if one hits $150 by January 2009.

A drive add-on for a system is a big no-no. All systems with add-on optical drives have been failures. No one wants to pay an extra $100+ just to get access to a subset of the library.

Agreed, but would that not be cheaper than upgrading to a 'new Xbox'? (i.e in order to play Gears of War 2 (or whatever), ideally you could have the HD optical drive and on 1 disc, or play the game with 2 discs, swapping periodically). In 2 years or so, when storage might be an issue, the HD drive could be 'packaged' with a new game for $100 and then everyone can have one. People have no problem paying that kind of money for GH or Rock band.

"With BD one step closer to being the only game in town, I don't see a whole lot of incentive to drop standalone prices for Blu-Ray players. I'll happily come back here and eat my words if one hits $150 by January 2009."

Might I suggest that you are forgetting that Bluray's primary competition is DVD, which has piles of $25 players? Add the fact that a disc-based HD format needs to catch on in the small window before the hulking beast of digital distrobution shows up, and I would say there are plenty of reasons to further drop the price of Blu players.

MS make a product that uses their competitor java?? Not likely.

That is likely to be the biggest issue with MS releasing a br addon.

With BD one step closer to being the only game in town, I don't see a whole lot of incentive to drop standalone prices for Blu-Ray players. I'll happily come back here and eat my words if one hits $150 by January 2009.

The various Blu-ray player manufactures are still competing with each other, just like they do with DVD. This is unlike HD-DVD where Toshiba is the only "game in town".

Might I suggest that you are forgetting that Bluray's primary competition is DVD, which has piles of $25 players?I'm not forgetting this. Please feel free to come back and quote me in January 2009.

The various Blu-ray player manufactures are still competing with each other, just like they do with DVD. This is unlike HD-DVD where Toshiba is the only "game in town".Point taken. Please feel free to come back and quote me in January 2009.

I'm sure we are all just dying to keep your quote in the forefront of our minds for the next year. :)

I'm sure we are all just dying to keep your quote in the forefront of our minds for the next year. :)Not my concern. My thoughts are there for posterity thanks to the Intertubes. Do with them what you will. :)

You know, if they do come out with an BR add-on for around the same price as the HDdvd add-on, it will be a tough decision. For $250-ish more, you could get a PS3 and access to that (admittedly lackluster) games library in addition to BR. I think it's possible that this Warner move could give PS3 a real boost.

On the other hand, I personally have a real problem giving Sony any more of my money after the way I was treated when my 30 day old xbr2-46 died and I was given the run around for 6 months before they finally got me a working panel. I do realize that most of the world hasn't had my experience with Sony though.

I love how the talks are exactly the same. When paramount went hd dvd exclusive everyone said bluray is done. Now since warner went bluray exclusive they sad that hd dvd is done. The war is going to be around for a while. There is no winner yet.

IF MS actually does put out a BR player, and i mean IF, it would have to have all the features that come along with a standalone BR player for me to jump on the wagon.

I think MS actually said that if HD-DVD was completely dead...then they might consider a bluray add-on.

Sounds to me like a "when hell freezes over" comment. :D

I saw they are going to try a roll out the new xbox in the fall, I was wondering if you think that they will have to reconsider their plan to do this. It was going to have the built in hd dvd drive.

doesn't some blu-rays use vc-1? doesnt msft own licenses for that codec? maybe they would have something to gain

doesn't some blu-rays use vc-1? doesnt msft own licenses for that codec? maybe they would have something to gain

Yep, VC-1 is a Microsoft developed codec.. I do forsee a Blu-ray drive in the next X-Box 360 next gen version when the Ps4 comes out as well.. It is only logical.. Unless they plan on keeping HD-DVD alive by making it a cheap alternative ROM storage device.. In that case, all future X-Box's could have HD-DVD drives built in but only be used for games.. This would make sense in the short term but could potentially cost more money down the road as Blu-ray replication plants replace all SD-DVD replication plants..( I know, we are a long way off for that one)

Yep, that is the way to word this question: in the NG console from MSFT, what will be used as _game_ media . Let's hope advances in game development will be significant enough to require larger-that-DL-DVD capacity - and when/if that happens, what will MSFT do ?

The answer is clear: Bluray. And as long as it is bluray, it will of course function as a regular bd player - just like PS3 does now.

MSFT doesn't have to do much to accomplish it - no different from one buying off-the-shelf BD writer/player drive today and attaching it to one's PC. Heck, Sony might offer $30-in-bulk-price drives to MSFT as an olive branch :)

A drive add-on for a system is a big no-no. All systems with add-on optical drives have been failures. No one wants to pay an extra $100+ just to get access to a subset of the library.

I think that's because the games in the past that utilized the add-on weren't compelling enough to justify it. $250 to play a 16-bit game with slightly better audio (for example) doesn't (and didn't) fly very well.

That said it would be virtually impossible to do this, unless they somehow port WoW to the 360 and need the space. I bring this up because it would near-impossible to have installed base users blind-faith a new franchise with the caveat that they had to purchase an add-on. It would have to be established IP or forget it.

Yep, VC-1 is a Microsoft developed codec.. I do forsee a Blu-ray drive in the next X-Box 360 next gen version when the Ps4 comes out as well.. It is only logical.. Unless they plan on keeping HD-DVD alive by making it a cheap alternative ROM storage device.. In that case, all future X-Box's could have HD-DVD drives built in but only be used for games.. This would make sense in the short term but could potentially cost more money down the road as Blu-ray replication plants replace all SD-DVD replication plants..( I know, we are a long way off for that one)

You got all that from Warner's announcement did you?;)

MS make a product that uses their competitor java?? Not likely.

MS made a Java just in time compiler and virtual machine back in the 90s for use in Windows and Internet Explorer. It was much faster than Sun's implementation.

There will be no add on for Blu-Ray on this generation Xbox. I think the HD-DVD add on was a great idea back when the format war was very new, however its quite obvious that the Xbox is excelling as a gaming machine, and it has never lost that identity (like the PS3) in this format war. I think 95% of us can admit we use the Xbox primarily as a gaming machine, whereas Im not so sure those numbers are the same, on AVS at least, for the PS3. Blu-Ray might win, but there is no question the PS3 has lost significant gaming market share as a result.

As for the whole argument that "with no competition, there is no incentive for player prices to keep dropping". Complete garbage!! That argument literally makes no sense at all. Part of Warners decision to go exclusive Blu was because hardware prices have dropped, and because they recognize that two formats are confusing consumers and ultimately hurting BOTH formats. Average Joe still is not buying either formats, and the minority of us who are evidently are buying more Blu-Ray. For average Joe to buy Blu-Ray, hardware prices MUST keep dropping, along with disc prices. Having only one format to choose from is only the start.

The add ons are nice, less expensive options, for when the new players were $500 +, but now we are at the point where I think the majority of people would just rather have a standalone Blu-Ray player for $100-$200 or even less. If Blu-Ray really takes off I could see the next Gen Xbox having a BD drive. Whats really interesting to me though is how Sony handles their next iteration Playstation, because I wouldnt be surprised to see them forget about gaming all together once Blu-Ray has a firm grasp on the movie market.

MS made a Java just in time compiler and virtual machine back in the 90s for use in Windows and Internet Explorer. It was much faster than Sun's implementation.

Microsoft was sued by sun and had to stop distributing their own JVM:

http://java-virtual-machine.net/microsoft-virtual-machine.html

As I said, implementing Sun's Java in a Microsoft owned and designed hardware platform is unlikely.

I feel like Nostradamus. I started a thread about a week ago about the future of HD DVD. I really wish Warner didn't go to Blu, but instead go exclusive to HD DVD... I'm disappointed about the Warner news :(

Knowing MS though, everytime they deny something, we see it months later! always with an excuse first though, like how 1080p gaming with (hdmi) wasn't necessary, neither was a bigger HD. Nor were they making any new xbox revisions like the elite. I could understand not wanting competitors knowing about their plans, but Sometimes i think MS leaks these rumors themselves. They always end up coming true.

Microsoft might bring out a third gen 360 earlier around nov 2009 instead of 2010. It could have a dual format player so games are in hd-dvd, movies play on dvds and blu-ray. Sell it for 550 and call it a day, no addon to bother with.

As for the whole argument that "with no competition, there is no incentive for player prices to keep dropping". Complete garbage!! That argument literally makes no sense at all.It "literally" makes plenty of sense. (-1 to us both for redundant use of "literally".) If it weren't for the next-gen HDM war, prices wouldn't be as low as they are for either format. Same with the console war in general. The comparitive success of the Xbox 360 is the reason that Sony has instituted two price drops on its PS3.

Part of Warners decision to go exclusive Blu was because hardware prices have dropped,... largely as a result of the format war.

It "literally" makes plenty of sense. (-1 to us both for redundant use of "literally".) If it weren't for the next-gen HDM war, prices wouldn't be as low as they are for either format. Same with the console war in general. The comparitive success of the Xbox 360 is the reason that Sony has instituted two price drops on its PS3.

... largely as a result of the format war.

You are ignoring the other half though. I agree the war has speed up the price drop, however the average consumer is not going to buy either format, regardless if theres only one to choose from, if the price stays high. It just wont happen. When there are Blu-Ray players for well under $200 and movies in the $20 range, we will start to see a lot more of the average joes going HD.

Besides, people think because there is only one format there is "no competition". Not true. All of these different companies making players and movies are competing. Samsung isnt going to sell a lot of players at $500 if there are cheaper players on the market that perform just as well.

Worry not about prices!!

I feel like Nostradamus. I started a thread about a week ago about the future of HD DVD. I really wish Warner didn't go to Blu, but instead go exclusive to HD DVD... I'm disappointed about the Warner news :(

I am amazed that they went bluray. According to them they did it in response to strong consumer preference for the format. To me that sounds like Sony cut a fat check.

Why bother waisting time with a Blu-Ray add-on. By the time it gets mainstream, with its high price point, digital download will be everywhere.

You are ignoring the other half though.I'm not ignoring it. I just haven't addressed it.

I agree the war has speed up the price drop, however the average consumer is not going to buy either format, regardless if theres only one to choose from, if the price stays high. It just wont happen. When there are Blu-Ray players for well under $200 and movies in the $20 range, we will start to see a lot more of the average joes going HD.All valid points, but I was also addressing an earlier notion from another user that stand-alone BD players could be had for as little as $150 by the end of 2008. It's not likely to happen while HD-DVD is still kicking around, and it's even less likely if BD proves the victor. Prices are not, I repeat NOT, going to fall more rapidly if (or because) there's only one format.

Besides, people think because there is only one format there is "no competition". Not true.But you can't deny there will certainly be less competition.

Why bother waisting time with a Blu-Ray add-on. By the time it gets mainstream, with its high price point, digital download will be everywhere.

The problem is PS3s will come down in price to a point where they basically ARE the "Blu Ray Add-on". MS obviously doesn't want this to happen, as it would steal both game and video marketplace sales (which ARE coming to the PS3) from the 360.

I think if the winds change this year drastically due to the Warner deal (which I'm still not convinced will happen), I think you'll see a Blu Ray add-on in '09.

If they do or if they don't I am in the market for a 360 BR Addon, always have been and now it makes more sense then ever.

I like how warner makes a choice that there needs to be only one NOW, however they just punched 40% of the market in the gut and right after Christmas, imo if they were really in it for the consumer they would have annouced this early Nov, but no they took the Christmas money, swung a punch and then stated they did this for the betterment of everyone. So with that brilliance I'm out in the cold entirely. So they just helped out somebody that isn't even in the game yet and may never be. Who knows? So with that I am wanting a 360 BR player for one setup and I'll now wait for a $200 BR stanalone for my other, and if not I'm back at being a DVD veiwer (solely based on $$$), which isn't all bad either, it's not like they still don't look good.

CES world is Blu vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OOddp8J70

Why bother waisting time with a Blu-Ray add-on. By the time it gets mainstream, with its high price point, digital download will be everywhere.

Because people are funny in that they like to actually own movies. I'm afraid digital downloads may become the norm in the future but hopefully physical media decides to stick around for a little longer so I can build up a nice collection.

CES world is Blu vid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0OOddp8J70

That was cool, really puts the pwnage into perspective. It's definately not gonna help the HD-DVD camp that HD-DVD isn't even gonna have a presence at CES. Can't wait to see all the CNN, MSNBC, and Fox news coverage telling all the Joe Blows of the world how Blu-Ray had a huge presence at CES with no mention of HD-DVD.

The problem is PS3s will come down in price to a point where they basically ARE the "Blu Ray Add-on". MS obviously doesn't want this to happen, as it would steal both game and video marketplace sales (which ARE coming to the PS3) from the 360.

I think if the winds change this year drastically due to the Warner deal (which I'm still not convinced will happen), I think you'll see a Blu Ray add-on in '09.

Sony just choked down almost a billion dollar loss on the PS3. The PS3 will continue be out of the price point for most people in this country. Besides the Xbox 360 will always be cheaper than the PS3.

Sony just choked down almost a billion dollar loss on the PS3. The PS3 will continue be out of the price point for most people in this country. Besides the Xbox 360 will always be cheaper than the PS3.

How do you define/calculate cheap ? what does "cheap" mean for someone that spent $200 dollars for a external HD-DVD add-on (considering where the HDM maket "maybe" heading) and what is cheap when you add up the cost of Xbox Live payments over the life of the console in other words, is cheap the face value cost or the TCO (when you desire all the functionality that comes native with a PS3).

This is an old argument and some people bought the microsoft non-unified model versus the well designed long term view of pricing based on a unified (non-modular for core components) model of Sony.

Now, which group or consumers payed more and which group has less SKU confusion.
I also predict a short lifecycle for the 360 similar to the legacy xbox as developers will demand more space and an internal harddrive as a requirement in 2008 and beyond (http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=111775)(guess what that means for your ROI).

-Kbee
P.s. I just like an AV rack that looks clean, not with a noisy white console, brutish power brick, and dangling external HD-DVD

I doubt they add one on. The 360 has been a gaming machine. I think MS would prefer to go the digital download route. So I don't see a Blu-ray add on in the future. Plus if they figure most 360 owners own a PS3, why would they buy a Blu-ray add on for the 360.

Plus if they figure most 360 owners own a PS3, why would they buy a Blu-ray add on for the 360.

why would they figure that, if you compare the sales numbers between the two and even assume that all ps3 owners are 360 owners, you'd still see that only a small percentage of 360 owners also own a ps3

How do you define/calculate cheap ?

Less money.

The 360 has outsold PS3 by 10 million units. Xbox live @ $4 month is the most popular unified online gaming service in existence, and of course the 360 has the better and far more abundant game selection. If PS3 wasn't at one time the cheapest Blu-Ray player, it would be dead in the water. So congrats to Sony. They made a gaming console whose marginal "sucess" has really had nothing to do with gaming.

Believe it or not, some people actually buy game consoles to play games, not because of how much it does everything but. To this point I've seen no games or anthing else that suggests the PS3 is actually worth the premium for gamers. The best games are either on the 360 or are the same in performance for both consoles. MS was smart to make the HD-DVD an add on, that way the MILLIONS who don't want it weren't forced to pay the extra $200 for it like Sony did with the PS3.

I fully expect MS to continue to roll out new consoles every 3-4 years and I will continue to buy them. Even with the issues they have, they are still the best at what they should be, which is gaming.

Less money.

The 360 has outsold PS3 by 10 million units. Xbox live @ $4 month is the most popular unified online gaming service in existence, and of course the 360 has the better and far more abundant game selection. If PS3 wasn't at one time the cheapest Blu-Ray player, it would be dead in the water. So congrats to Sony. They made a gaming console whose marginal "sucess" has really had nothing to do with gaming.

Believe it or not, some people actually buy game consoles to play games, not because of how much it does everything but. To this point I've seen no games or anthing else that suggests the PS3 is actually worth the premium for gamers. The best games are either on the 360 or are the same in performance for both consoles. MS was smart to make the HD-DVD an add on, that way the MILLIONS who don't want it weren't forced to pay the extra $200 for it like Sony did with the PS3.

I fully expect MS to continue to roll out new consoles every 3-4 years and I will continue to buy them. Even with the issues they have, they are still the best at what they should be, which is gaming.

Strange that you conveniently skipped the link (regarding views from rockstar) and also ignored other "core developer requirements" when making your point.
Microsoft released the 360 a full year before the PS3 and while i agree the PS3 has not sold as expected it has sold a little more than half of what the 360 has done and all this is prior to the big marketing push and newer games in the Pipeline for '08 (see http://vgchartz.com ).
Again i ask, if there are over 120Mil PS2 owners, all with a library of PS1 and PS2 games, when the do upgrade will they choose to get a 360 or get a PS3 have have access to that library + newer PS3 titles (sure some will be able to afford both), combined with a cheaper SDK and easier dev tools it is little wonder why more developers have announced the PS3 as lead platform for their newer games (this was also Pachter's analysis as well as Croal's regarding PS3 strategy).

I am not saying that the 360 does not have a good library of games, i just believe that anyone that ignores what developers are saying now (regarding the need for a harddisk and/or HDM) is missing the point about cost especially when they they end up purchasing the components that are needed justify the longterm "value" of the 360 (except Arcade and Core owners who are screwed in '08+).

I assume you must be wealthy to not care if M$ has a release cycle of 3-4 years (in your words you would just keep buying them all) but again, this is an issue of you not knowing the true cost of a product (objective)TCO vs. (subjective)ROI.

But in time you will see what i am saying (....or maybe not)

Strange that you conveniently skipped the link (regarding views from rockstar) and also ignored other "core developer requirements" when making your point.
Microsoft released the 360 a full year before the PS3 and while i agree the PS3 has not sold as expected it has sold a little more than half of what the 360 has done and all this is prior to the big marketing push and newer games in the Pipeline for '08 (see http://vgchartz.com ).
Again i ask, if there are over 120Mil PS2 owners, all with a library of PS1 and PS2 games, when the do upgrade will they choose to get a 360 or get a PS3 have have access to that library + newer PS3 titles (sure some will be able to afford both), combined with a cheaper SDK and easier dev tools it is little wonder why more developers have announced the PS3 as lead platform for their newer games (this was also Pachter's analysis as well as Croal's regarding PS3 strategy).

I am not saying that the 360 does not have a good library of games, i just believe that anyone that ignores what developers are saying now (regarding the need for a harddisk and/or HDM) is missing the point about cost especially when they they end up purchasing the components that are needed justify the longterm "value" of the 360 (except Arcade and Core owners who are screwed in '08+).

I assume you must be wealthy to not care if M$ has a release cycle of 4-5 years (in your words you would just keep buying them all) but again, this is an issue of you not knowing the true cost of a product (objective)TCO vs. (subjective)ROI.

But in time you will see what i am saying (....or maybe not)

Developers may have stated that is the route they are going to go but what you keep missing is that for the last year multi games and exclusives for the 360 have outsold all of the games for both the PS3 and Wii combined. Their exclusives are not selling as expected either. VGCharts is no better at guessing about their numbers as we are debating if MS will release a BR add-on. Developers are not going to simply move to the PS3 as the lead if they are not making money on that platform in comparision to the 360(Only 4 games have made a million on the system. R-FOM, Motorstorm, AC, and COD-4). Who knows how many actually bought the PS3 as a movie player, game system or both. With they way software sales have been it looks to be more for use as a movie player first and occasionally a game system secondary.

The only reason developers led on the PS3 for Burnout is because they have history with Sony. Thats it. They have always lead on their platforms and it is simply just a good relationship. SO lets see what happens when Burnout is released and see how long they will continue to lead on a platform that is not bring them the most money.

Less money.

The 360 has outsold PS3 by 10 million units. Xbox live @ $4 month is the most popular unified online gaming service in existence, and of course the 360 has the better and far more abundant game selection. If PS3 wasn't at one time the cheapest Blu-Ray player, it would be dead in the water. So congrats to Sony. They made a gaming console whose marginal "sucess" has really had nothing to do with gaming.

Believe it or not, some people actually buy game consoles to play games, not because of how much it does everything but. To this point I've seen no games or anthing else that suggests the PS3 is actually worth the premium for gamers. The best games are either on the 360 or are the same in performance for both consoles. MS was smart to make the HD-DVD an add on, that way the MILLIONS who don't want it weren't forced to pay the extra $200 for it like Sony did with the PS3.

I fully expect MS to continue to roll out new consoles every 3-4 years and I will continue to buy them. Even with the issues they have, they are still the best at what they should be, which is gaming.

I think you miss the point, my 60gb PS3 cost $500. My Halo 360 cost $400, let's even assume I had chose to go with a regular premium for $350. For $500 I got a PS3, it has built-in Wi-Fi, a HDD, free online play, and a high-def movie player. Let's assume with my 360 I want online play and the console is around for three more years, $50x3=$150+the initial cost of the 360 at $350=$500, that's what I paid for my PS3. Let's assume I don't want any of the other stuff the 360 is missing except Wi-Fi, well that's $100 for MS's solution adapter and around $50 if you buy most any other wireless adapter. Now my 360 is still cheaper than my PS3 but only by $100. What if I want HD movies? That's the cost of my 360 plus the cost of the add-on or a standalone high-def player, that puts the price of the 360 at or above that of the PS3. What if I want more than one of these things? Then all of a sudden I've put more money in the 360 than I have for the PS3.

So if you don't need wireless, don't play online, and you don't care about HD media then yes the PS3 is marginally more expensive. If you care about any of these things the 360 is going to cost as much or more money. And that's in comparison to the more expensive PS3. The price difference becomes even greater, in the PS3s favor, with the $400 40gb PS3.

I don't know what the 360 selling more units has to do with price. I also don't know what you're talking about with the PS3 riding on being a solid Blu-Ray player. Sure around AVS alot of people probably bought their PS3s for Blu-Ray, but I'm willing to bet the main stream consumer doesn't give a damn or know that their PS3 is a Blu-Ray player.

I dunno what you mean about the PS3 not having games, I guess Resistance, NGS, R&C, Uncharted, Warhawk, Motorstorm, and Heavenly Sword aren't any good. O and lest we forget many great games on the 360 are crossplatform including Assassins Creed, CoD4, and The Orange Box.

Not sure why you expect MS to roll out a new console every 3-4 years either. I've been gaming since I was five. In that time I've gone from a NES, to a SNES to the N64/PS1 to the PS2/GC/XBox now to the PS3/Wii/360 and the only company that has launched a new console before their last one was five years old is MS. Which I would have never forgiven them for if they didn't have valid reasons for doing so. Consoles are supposed to live AT LEAST 5 years, I don't expect a company to release a new console every 3-4 years because that's absolute BS and goes against all conventional methods of how videogames have worked since the Atari 2600. With the exception of course being Sega and look where short console lifespans and pointless add-ons got them.

Again i ask, if there are over 120Mil PS2 owners, all with a library of PS1 and PS2 games, when the do upgrade will they choose to get a 360 or get a PS3 have have access to that library + newer PS3 titles (sure some will be able to afford both),


Except that the PS3 they are most likely to buy won't play their PS2 games. Who knows why Sony killed backward compatibility.

Oh, and I am one of those 120 million PS2 owners. I told Sony to go screw. :)

combined with a cheaper SDK and easier dev tools it is little wonder why more developers have announced the PS3 as lead platform for their newer games (this was also Pachter's analysis as well as Croal's regarding PS3 strategy).

I think it is known by just about everyone that the 360 has a much easier architecture and toolset to develop with. I'm not sure where you got the idea that the PS3 was easier or cheaper to develop for.

I am not saying that the 360 does not have a good library of games, i just believe that anyone that ignores what developers are saying now (regarding the need for a harddisk and/or HDM) is missing the point about cost especially when they they end up purchasing the components that are needed justify the longterm "value" of the 360 (except Arcade and Core owners who are screwed in '08+).

I don't even know what you are trying to say, here.


I assume you must be wealthy to not care if M$ has a release cycle of 3-4 years (in your words you would just keep buying them all) but again, this is an issue of you not knowing the true cost of a product (objective)TCO vs. (subjective)ROI.

MS doesn't have a release cycle of 3 to 4 years planned for the 360, so it doesn't really matter. The new XBox won't be released until the end of 2010, at least. Maybe even 2011. There are well documented reasons that the original XBox had a truncated life. The 360 has none of these faults. In fact, the biggest reason that MS wanted the 360 to be out in late 2005 was because Sony said the PS3 was going to be released around that time (of course, Sony ended up being late by a year). MS didn't want to be 2nd out of the gate this time around, like they were with the PS2. It obviously paid off for them with the 360.

They have no reason to truncate the life of the 360 because they have a great installed base. They have also invested a lot in the platform. And even if they launch their new platform in 2010 or 2011, they will still beat Sony to their next punch. :)

I think you miss the point, my 60gb PS3 cost $500. My Halo 360 cost $400, let's even assume I had chose to go with a regular premium for $350. For $500 I got a PS3, it has built-in Wi-Fi, a HDD, free online play, and a high-def movie player. Let's assume with my 360 I want online play and the console is around for three more years, $50x3=$150+the initial cost of the 360 at $350=$500, that's what I paid for my PS3.


Jeez, this has been hashed and re-hashed thousands of times here. Give it a rest. People don't like big price tags. But they don't mind spending small bits of money over time. Its a psychological thing, even if it doesn't make sense.

Either way, you could just as well use my situation. I paid $200 for my Premium 360 during a sale last year. I got a 1 year live subscription as a gift in a box that also included the live camera. Since then, I found a stash of 12 month live cards for just $27 a piece. I bought 3. No need for wireless because my cable modem is under my HDTV, you know, where the cable is needed, and that is also where my 360 is. Wired is better, anyway. :) Most games I buy for the 360 are on sale, too.

Except that the PS3 they are most likely to buy won't play their PS2 games. Who knows why Sony killed backward compatibility.

Oh, and I am one of those 120 million PS2 owners. I told Sony to go screw. :)



So was i and i decided to buy a PS3, so what does that mean for your point :confused:

Mark my words, backward compatibility is not dead in the 40GB (can you tell me a technical reason why the BC software of the 80GB cannot work in the 40, but i can give you a business reason)

Regarding your statement that i implied that the PS3 was easier to develop for, please review my posting, it was not a comparison with the ease of developing for the xbox but the prior difficulty of programming for the cell.

It is strange you seem to have not followed the thread before responding, if you did you would know who made the statement regarding a 3-4 release.
this would explain why, as you are confused by the points i am raising.

Either way, you could just as well use my situation. I paid $200 for my Premium 360 during a sale last year. I got a 1 year live subscription as a gift in a box that also included the live camera. Since then, I found a stash of 12 month live cards for just $27 a piece. I bought 3. No need for wireless because my cable modem is under my HDTV, you know, where the cable is needed, and that is also where my 360 is. Wired is better, anyway. :) Most games I buy for the 360 are on sale, too.

Yep, didn't you know that yours is such a typical senario :rolleyes: come on people ! Why pay for sh!t when it is probably there right under our beds, you know we all have a stash of some crap laying around that would make it so we never have to buy any of these xbox components (that are just optional by the way and we know we really do not need) and oh, to offset the cost lets remember to hit up mom and dad for money to buy the other crap we could not find in our stash :rolleyes: ....yeah...$200.

However, to be fair i do see your first point, people do find it easier to buy things slowly over time. I just wonder how many can honestly say that they did not buy all their xbox addons within a week of getting there 360.

Mark my words, backward compatibility is not dead in the 40GB (can you tell me a technical reason why the BC software of the 80GB cannot work in the 40)


Um, because unlike the 60gb or 80gb PS3s the 40gb has zero PS2 hardware built-in. The 60gb had the PS2 CPU and GPU built-in, the 80gb had the GPU and achieved the rest through software emulation. BC in the 40gb would mean completely emulating every PS2 game through software. Is it possible? Probably. Would it be a lot of effort? Yup. Would the payoff be worth the effort? Absolutely not.

If someone buying a PS3 wants BC they can buy the 80gb, it's that simple. If they buy a 40gb and decide later on they want BC they can hook up their PS2. It's not that hard.

Yep, didn't you know that yours is such a typical senario :rolleyes: come on people ! Why pay for sh!t when it is probably there right under our beds, you know we all have a stash of some crap laying around that would make it so we never have to buy any of these xbox components (that are just optional by the way and we know we really do not need) and oh, to offset the cost lets remember to hit up mom and dad for money to buy the other crap we could not find in our stash :rolleyes: ....yeah...$200.


Microcenter had a $100 rebate for the 360 in November/December 2006. And they had a credit card that would give you $100 back if you spent $400 in the store the first 30 days (kind of like the SonyStyle $100 deal). So, yeah, $200 for my premium.

Probably wouldn't have bought the 360 back then if that deal hadn't come around. Yeah, I'm a cheap-ass. I don't think I pay full price for any piece of electronic equipment. Owning a house and having to provide for a family tends to make you look for deals on non-essentials.

I'm glad I did buy the 360, though. I've been having a blast with it ever since. :) Even better getting it that cheap.

.... Owning a house and having to provide for a family tends to make you look for deals on non-essentials.


Point taken !

I'm glad I did buy the 360, though. I've been having a blast with it ever since. :) Even better getting it that cheap.

[/QUOTE]

And this, i guess is what is most important , personal choice and personal satisfaction. As i have been saying "both" platforms have their strengths i also find equal pleasure from my choice of entertainment.

I just found this thread (OP) interesting due to what i believe was a poor (longterm) decision by Microsoft (not including HD-DVD when it mattered) and with the Warner Brothers news of yesterday, now the continued of the viability of HD-DVD.

I personally do feel that the lack of a hard drive (as standard equipment across all consoles) was a bigger mistake than leaving out the HD-DVD drive. However, with the HD craze, perhaps both were equally large errors. The 360 was designed to be a gaming console first and foremost. However, that extra space really might be necessary in the 360's lifetime.

In any case, the biggest error was to release a console that had a high failure rate! Just think, they could have just given everyone a free HDD and HD-DVD drive in every console if they didn't RRoD!

As far as the biggest thing that pisses me off (my 360 is still running strong and relatively quite): the prices of controllers. It shouldn't cost me $70 for a wireless controller and a play and charge kit. That should come as a single package for $50 (yes you can get it on sale for that price here and there)... I know they have to make money on accessories and such, but get real. You can't tell me that the 360 controller costs that much to make (though at least they got the design right). Furthermore... $100 wireless adapters are a joke... oh and $100 20gig HDDs...

"Of course, House also admits that both consoles present their fair share of challenges, and "both have their own particular pleasures and pains". The team is reportedly still working hard on solving as many of the development riddles presented by the next-generation of consoles as they can.
At the moment, Rockstar is working primarily on the Xbox 360 version of the game, so it's been rumored that a PS3 release may be out in stores at a later date. However, at this early stage of development, it may be far too soon to tell."

So in a nutshell he's saying that regardless, they'll figure it out, and 360 owners will still most likely get first dibs. Oh well. PS3 owners are probably used to this by now since their console is a bigger pain in the ass to develop games for, big ol hardrive and everything.

I just wonder how many can honestly say that they did not buy all their xbox addons within a week of getting there 360.

Umm, that's kind of a long shot to prove a point. I didn't..I had my first 360 for a good while before I bought my second wireless controller. I got a battery pack charger for Christmas, over a year after I got my first 360. These weren't really needs as much as wants.
but again, this is an issue of you not knowing the true cost of a product (objective)TCO vs. (subjective)ROI.

But again, I think you are assuming every 360 owner bought every add-on they have available in order to make it compare directly with the features of the PS3 as if everyone needs them. I'm saying it ain't so. I would much rather have it ala carte even if it will ultimately cost more, than have features I don't want forced on me for my price of admission. I paid $399 for mine, and it does everything I need it to to this day. I don't care about wi-fi, I don't care about Blu-Ray, and I don't care about a big harddrive being built in since I can easily get it if I in fact happen to need it.
At the end of the year, do you think I care that XBL cost me $50 a year when my broadband costs me more than this every month no matter what? Drop in the bucket my man. And what good is free online gaming if noone plays it?

Not sure why you expect MS to roll out a new console every 3-4 years either.

Well, I've seen the original xbox, plus two or three new versions of the 360 in the last 5-6 years. I guess I dunno why I would come to expect it.

And of course price matters. Look at the sales figures for all the three consoles. The least technically advanced console sold the most of all @ $250. What does that tell you?

I am not saying that the 360 does not have a good library of games, i just believe that anyone that ignores what developers are saying now <snip>Developers have hardware wish lists ten miles high. They also do not pay manufacturing costs.

I assume you must be wealthy to not care if M$ has a release cycle of 3-4 yearsIt was explained to you on this forum why MS had to cut the life of the Xbox dearly short and why this will probably not happen with the 360. Please read the relevant thread before commenting further on this issue.

I personally do feel that the lack of a hard drive (as standard equipment across all consoles) was a bigger mistake than leaving out the HD-DVD drive. However, with the HD craze, perhaps both were equally large errors. The 360 was designed to be a gaming console first and foremost. However, that extra space really might be necessary in the 360's lifetime.

In any case, the biggest error was to release a console that had a high failure rate! Just think, they could have just given everyone a free HDD and HD-DVD drive in every console if they didn't RRoD!

As far as the biggest thing that pisses me off (my 360 is still running strong and relatively quite): the prices of controllers. It shouldn't cost me $70 for a wireless controller and a play and charge kit. That should come as a single package for $50 (yes you can get it on sale for that price here and there)... I know they have to make money on accessories and such, but get real. You can't tell me that the 360 controller costs that much to make (though at least they got the design right). Furthermore... $100 wireless adapters are a joke... oh and $100 20gig HDDs...

It is called Marketing 101. What company is going to sale an item at cost and expect to make money off of it. Especially when we are talking about consoles. Rock Band cost how much and it is one of the top selling games for the holidays and I know damn well those components are not that expensive to make either. Oh research brought them to the prices you see today.

IIn that time I've gone from a NES, to a SNES to the N64/PS1 to the PS2/GC/XBox now to the PS3/Wii/360 and the only company that has launched a new console before their last one was five years old is MS.Go back earlier, then.

Atari 5200: 1982.

Atari 7800: 1986.

why would they figure that, if you compare the sales numbers between the two and even assume that all ps3 owners are 360 owners, you'd still see that only a small percentage of 360 owners also own a ps3

Well lets also assume that the HD DVD add on was "pushing" the limits of the 360, would it be able to handle the bandwidth of Blu-ray?

I still say that M$ is more interested in digital downloads from Live and will not add a Blu-ray player internally or externally.

It was explained to you on this forum why MS had to cut the life of the Xbox dearly short and why this will probably not happen with the 360. Please read the relevant thread before commenting further on this issue.

Wow, commenting without fully understanding the nature of the thread or even if i was quoting someone else in the thread list. Smart :rolleyes:

I thought i already conceded to Shape's point, you are not really bringing a new point correct ?

Wow, commenting without fully understanding the nature of the thread or even if i was quoting someone else in the thread list. Smart :rolleyes:Look in the mirror.

I thought i already conceded to Shape's point, you are not really bringing a new point correct ?Yes I am, especially in light of your conviction that MS is engaged in "3-4 years" life cycle. Again, it's been explained to you why the original Xbox life cycle was terminated prematurely and why the 360 will likely not suffer the same fate. You have yet to acknowledge that point. Read up, and then comment.

MS isn't really a CE company. The only reason they had they add-on was to help HD DVD (and HDi as the interactivity system). They have no more motive to sell a BD add on then they would start selling TV's or SD DVD players. They are a software company, and only do consumer electronices when necessary.

Look in the mirror.

Yes I am, especially in light of your conviction that MS is engaged in "3-4 years" life cycle. Again, it's been explained to you why the original Xbox life cycle was terminated prematurely and why the 360 will likely not suffer the same fate. You have yet to acknowledge that point. Read up, and then comment.

let me help you, here is where 3-4 years came from:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12710552#post12710552

let me help you, here is where 3-4 years came from:If you're going to link to "random AVS user" as your proof, well... then lots'a luck to you.

Look, I'm not going to complain when someone comes into AVS and waves around a big banner that proclaims in big bold capital letters "I HAVE NOT BEEN PAYING ATTENTION" -- but there were two rebuttals to the (EDIT: "aborted prematurely") notion that you seem to have missed entirely. I'll link straight to them to make it easy for you.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12666252#post12666252
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=12666310#post12666310

Here are some of the key stats and info from the CES keynote

17.7 Million Xbox 360’s shipped to date

3.5 Billion in business during November, more than Nintendo and Playstation COMBINED. :-)

More than 10 Million Xbox Liver members online.

ABC and Disney will be offering their TV shows on the Video Marketplace

MGM are also adding their Video library to the Marketplace.

British Telecom will be partnering with Xbox to provide a TV service, the 360 will be able to be purchased via BT and it will act as a Set Top Box (decoder

If you some of you can't tell that this is their focus than I don't know what to say. From the get go they have stated what the plans are for Live. Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray when I have the movie available to me to watch. It takes me just as long to download a movie as it does to drive to Best Buy to buy the movie or rent from Blockbuster. I am not arguing best quality of picture. But the convience you can't beat with these options.

Here are some of the key stats and info from the CES keynote

.....

3.5 Billion in business during November, more than Nintendo and Playstation.

.


That should read:
"3.5 Billion in business during November, more than Nintendo and Playstation combined."

I would buy a BD add on as long as it is cheap (no more then $150) and, of course, it worked!

It would be nice if it was BC with my HD-DVD's as well. :)

If, indeed, the war is over it's not a big deal for me. I will keep my add on for the handful of HD-DVD's I currently own and I will go out and buy a BD player.

Here are some of the key stats and info from the CES keynote

17.7 Million Xbox 360’s shipped to date

3.5 Billion in business during November, more than Nintendo and Playstation COMBINED. :-)

More than 10 Million Xbox Liver members online.

ABC and Disney will be offering their TV shows on the Video Marketplace

MGM are also adding their Video library to the Marketplace.

British Telecom will be partnering with Xbox to provide a TV service, the 360 will be able to be purchased via BT and it will act as a Set Top Box (decoder

If you some of you can't tell that this is their focus than I don't know what to say. From the get go they have stated what the plans are for Live. Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray when I have the movie available to me to watch. It takes me just as long to download a movie as it does to drive to Best Buy to buy the movie or rent from Blockbuster. I am not arguing best quality of picture. But the convience you can't beat with these options.

This is exactly the reason there is no need for a Blu-Ray add-on. For the cost of the add-on I could be spending money on the same content that is already available on Live.

I don't want to pay $25 for movies. If I'm going to watch a movie in High Def I might as well download it from Comcast On-Demand for $5 instead--since I rarely watch the same movie more than once. Digital delivery is fine with me since I only have a 720p/1080i capable TV. I know the quality of digital delivery can't touch that of a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray--but the difference in quality isn't enough to justify the extra expense of the hardware or the movies. Plus, I don't have to leave my house to get the movie and return it.

This is exactly the reason there is no need for a Blu-Ray add-on. For the cost of the add-on I could be spending money on the same content that is already available on Live.


Not everyone is on Live and/or has high speed access

I got the HD add on for christmas, I want buy another add-on, I'll get a stand alone player for BD if thats where this goes. I like the add on it does a good job but it also loggs alot of hours on the 360...I'm seeing more and more movies on BD that I want...and cant get on HD...live free die hard...the Pirates movies..casino royale...etc.....

If you some of you can't tell that this is their focus than I don't know what to say. From the get go they have stated what the plans are for Live. Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray when I have the movie available to me to watch. It takes me just as long to download a movie as it does to drive to Best Buy to buy the movie or rent from Blockbuster. I am not arguing best quality of picture. But the convience you can't beat with these options.

Because the content is still over-priced, Netflix is a better deal. Then you have to have the player running all the time to download, that is the lesser of the two but 3Rod makes most of us shut the system off when not used. If they dropped the price significantly on HD material I could see this as being a huge deal.

And to those saying there is no need for a BR player on the 360, how can I then sit here and want one then? Somehow I come to a different conclusion then you as does anyone else that has a HD player. Reason: 1. Cheap BR player. 2. I rather rent from Netflix of outright buy a movie, then use live. To note I'm one that feels 720P movie quality is great and very close in comparison with 1080P movies, imo that difference is overblown. It's not about the quality it's about price and then time.

Because the content is still over-priced, Netflix is a better deal. Then you have to have the player running all the time to download, that is the lesser of the two but 3Rod makes most of us shut the system off when not used. If they dropped the price significantly on HD material I could see this as being a huge deal.

You know about the background download mode on the 360, right?

Either way, I prefer Netflix because then I can watch the movie on my terms. With XBox Live, I have to watch the movie within a week, and if I start watching it, I only have 24 hours to finish it. That is too restrictive. Then there is the increased picture and sound quality of HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

You know about the background download mode on the 360, right?


Is there something you have to enable in order to download while the console is off? Mine never seems to download when I turn it off.

How about an external combo drive (HDDVD/BluRay).

I would not buy any type of add on. I bought an HD-DVD standalone player for a reason. I did not want to work my gaming machine (X360) unnecessarily for movies. Now, I am going to get a PS3 for Blu Ray purposes, but if PS3 starts dishing out good games than even that will turn into my gaming machine and I will buy a standalone Blu Ray player. Thats just me though.

Is there something you have to enable in order to download while the console is off? Mine never seems to download when I turn it off.

Yeah, there is a background download setting under the system blade. You have to turn it on because it is off by default.

Yeah, there is a background download setting under the system blade. You have to turn it on because it is off by default.

Good, now they just have to work on the price!!! lol

I have a 360 with an HDDVD add on AND a PS3. If they released a Blu add on for the 360 I would still buy it. Why? that sounds dumb right? Well my 360 with HDDVD playing through my VGA cable looks TONS better than the PS3 through HDMI. The picture is sharper, cleaner, allows 1:1 pixel mapping just looks alot better on my set. Now that HDDVD is dead I won't buy anymore movies on it. I won't buy any Blu movies either because I don't like the output. They need to release a BR add-on or Sony will crush them in the console war.

ABC and Disney will be offering their TV shows on the Video Marketplace

MGM are also adding their Video library to the Marketplace.

British Telecom will be partnering with Xbox to provide a TV service, the 360 will be able to be purchased via BT and it will act as a Set Top Box (decoder

If you some of you can't tell that this is their focus than I don't know what to say. From the get go they have stated what the plans are for Live. Why do I need HD-DVD or Blu-Ray when I have the movie available to me to watch. It takes me just as long to download a movie as it does to drive to Best Buy to buy the movie or rent from Blockbuster. I am not arguing best quality of picture. But the convience you can't beat with these options.

I dont need 1080P or 7.1 surround sound.. especially since I dont OWN a 1080P set or 7.1 surround sound reciever.. and damn sure dont plan on buying one anytime soon to replace my 720P set and 5.1 surround sound reciever..

So you can imagine how much more a $6 HD downloadable rental appeals to me.. than goin out committing to buying a HD disc player and buying/renting an HD disc for a format that may or may not be around in the future just to watch a HD movies.

For the 1millionth & 1 time.. the same way MP3 and downloadable music is killing the CD.. 5 years from now digital download movies will be fastest growing way to watch movies at home.

I dont need 1080P or 7.1 surround sound.. especially since I dont OWN a 1080P set or 7.1 surround sound reciever.. and damn sure dont plan on buying one anytime soon to replace my 720P set and 5.1 surround sound reciever..

So you can imagine how much more a $6 HD rental appeals to me.. than goin out a buying a HD disc player and buying/renting an HD disc for a format that may or may not be around in the future.

For the 1millionth & 1 time.. the same way MP3 and downloadable music is killing the CD.. 5 years from now digital download movies will be fastest growing way to watch movies at home.

One only has to look at youtube to see it starting already.

Not just youtube.. Several networks are putting up their shows for download over the internet.

Yeah, there is a background download setting under the system blade. You have to turn it on because it is off by default.

Thanks. I was looking for that and couldn't find it anywhere.

You are ignoring the other half though. I agree the war has speed up the price drop, however the average consumer is not going to buy either format, regardless if theres only one to choose from, if the price stays high. It just wont happen. When there are Blu-Ray players for well under $200 and movies in the $20 range, we will start to see a lot more of the average joes going HD.

Besides, people think because there is only one format there is "no competition". Not true. All of these different companies making players and movies are competing. Samsung isnt going to sell a lot of players at $500 if there are cheaper players on the market that perform just as well.

Worry not about prices!!

They will have to completely eliminate production of standard DVD before I will ever adopt another format. In my opinion high def just isn't that noticeable of an improvement over an upscaled standard dvd. Not to mention 95% of my dvd's just sit and collect dust so streaming high def content directly to my TV via the internet seems a much more affordable, sensible, and convenient method of viewing high def movies. The format war is going to end like a nuclear war.....mutual destuction, with no winners. Both formats will be obsolete before they ever make it mainstream.

Well apparently I was wrong about MS having an avesion to implementing java in their hardware:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080108/tc_nm/show_xbox_dc_1

Statement from today. I guess with Microsoft officially saying they would back blu ray there is no question about their "support" of HD DVD.

I'm sure Toshiba is really glad to have friends like Microsoft :)

I'm sure Toshiba is really glad to have friends like Microsoft :)

I've always said that MS didn't have a big enough stake in HD-DVD to care much one way or another.

At this point in time or even in the future, what would be the benefit of getting an add-on vs a standalone or PS3?

I've always said that MS didn't have a big enough stake in HD-DVD to care much one way or another.

I think they have made it obvious plenty times over the last 2 years where they really stand.

I would love to see a BR addon for $149.99. We own 60 BR disks and about 35 HD-DVD's. Right now my son can play any of our HD-DVD's in his room (Cost me $150 with two free box sets) but none of our BR disks. He did not want a PS3 so those 60 BOGO disks are useless to him most of the time.

At this point in time or even in the future, what would be the benefit of getting an add-on vs a standalone or PS3?

An addon could probably be sold for $150, would probably be $200 though. Even at $200 though its a better deal for a 360 owner than a $400 PS3 thats going to require another HDMI port, cables and space. (Still funny after all this time... want HD from your PS3.. BUY A CABLE) There are 15M+ people with a 360, at least half of those do not want a PS3 or are not willing to pay $400 for one. I'd argue an addon is a pretty good product for them since HD-DVD is on life support waiting for Toshiba to say its final goodbye's.

MS had some ip in HD DVD, so they made and HD DVD player to help it get established.

But it otherwise isn't really a CE company, and you might as well be asking them to make a television or computer as a Blu-ray add-on.

I think they have made it obvious plenty times over the last 2 years where they really stand.

I would have said its a non-issue but there were repeated reassurances from amir (who at the time was still MS's HD DVD head honcho) and others that MS was 100% behind HD DVD and not considering a blu addon. Amir has posted how MS chose HD DVD because br went with Java for their interactive layer.

So much for being an HD DVD insider :confused:

Because the content is still over-priced, Netflix is a better deal. Then you have to have the player running all the time to download, that is the lesser of the two but 3Rod makes most of us shut the system off when not used. If they dropped the price significantly on HD material I could see this as being a huge deal.


I completely agree about Netflix. For $9 per month, I am normally able to watch approximately 5-6 movies per month (DVD and BR) from Netflix. Until Netflix drastically raises rates or shuts down, I see no reason to even consider paying $4 for a HD download movie considering the higher price, significantly worse quality and restrictive viewing policies.

Its interesting to see people bring up Netflix in these VoD/Disk discussions because Netflix is probably the company spending the most time and money on VoD!

The cost to ship disks is going up not down while the availability of VoD is expanding daily. Its of course not an either or situation, its a both situation.

Honestly the only thing that kept me filling my Netflix que over VoD was price. The quality is pretty darn good for VoD and the convience is great. If I go to netflix now and want to see Shooter I need to have a slot free, ntohing out then hope they get it out today to have it tomorrow of the next day. If I want to watch Shooter on VoD I can have it in a few hours. And while it will not match the 1080P HD-DVD version its going to look GREAT.

I really wish Microsoft would get it in gear and either lower new releases to 360 points or come out with a monthly subscription plan. Hell a discount for multiple movie buys ANYTHING. $6 for a rental is just too high right now.

Devils advocate for pricing to be fair: To walk into a movie theatre in my area you need a ten dollar bill. Six bucks for the same movie is not a bad deal when you consider no fuel costs or time to get to the movie and no annoying talkers while trying to watch it. (This is asuming your wife is not a talker!)

I agree Frank.. movie downloads should be about $4 bucks..

It should definitely be cheaper than renting Physical media at the local rental store.. Online digital delivery isnt just about convenience.. it should also be about savings. After all you have way less overhead to deliver the same product, so the savings should be passed along to the end customer.

Its interesting to see people bring up Netflix in these VoD/Disk discussions because Netflix is probably the company spending the most time and money on VoD!


As well it should. To avoid going the way of the dinosaur like Blockbuster, Netflix should aggressively pursue downloads in addition to the established rental service. People are interested in watching movies, not in renting optical media.

Currently, the disk vs. VoD debate comes down to what the consumer values the most; I would rather pay an average of $1.50 per movie for the highest quality experience and tolerate a two to three day wait then pay $6 for the instant gratification of VoD. I only have time to watch movies one to two nights per week anyway, so the wait time is almost irrelevant. I will be a believer in VoD when MS and the cable companies can produce a cost advantage for the consumer. Until then, I will wait for my Netflix rentals to arrive.

I agree Frank.. movie downloads should be about $4 bucks..

It should definitely be cheaper than renting Physical media at the local rental store.. Online digital delivery isnt just about convenience.. it should also be about savings. After all you have way less overhead to deliver the same product, so the savings should be passed along to the end customer.

Thanks for bringing this up. Its so true, its painful. I hope that the market becomes so saturated with options that prices will have to be driven down, because at the moment, Im sure they are enjoying their much larger profit margins and our willingness to pay for them.

The elephant in the room none of these VoD providers want to see is Divx/Xvid/MKV of course. Just an eduacted guess but I think Microsoft, Cable etc are ignoring those formats that people just go and download instead of paying for contnent.

At $6 Joe with a little savy is going to illegally download Shooter and say "I just saved six bucks!"

If they can get that price down a little more people would probably PAY for higher quality legal content.

I have to chuckle about the Hd-DVD/Blue Ray "war" and how they are going to replace DVD.

Illegal downloads are replacing DVD at this point a lot faster than HD-DVD/BR/VoD.

Well apparently I was wrong about MS having an avesion to implementing java in their hardware:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080108/tc_nm/show_xbox_dc_1

Statement from today. I guess with Microsoft officially saying they would back blu ray there is no question about their "support" of HD DVD.

I'm sure Toshiba is really glad to have friends like Microsoft :)

Well Jeff Bell still stands behind HDDVD....for now.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165321

Microsoft has never been entirely against releasing a Blu-ray add-on for Xbox 360 -- Peter Moore said as much two years ago -- but the company has been staunch supporter of HD-DVD, so they've so far limited HD-DVD as the high-def disc alternative on Xbox 360. With the announcement that Warner Bros. is now Blu-ray exclusive and analysts predicting the end of the format war, however, what's Microsoft's stance now?
During CES 2008, 1UP had the chance to speak at length with Jeff Bell, VP of Global Marketing for Microsoft's Interactive Entertainment Division, where he discussed his reaction -- and hinted at Microsoft's future intentions -- for HD-DVD and Blu-ray.

"We were disappointed with the announcement. It has a consequence. I will tell you that we are committed to HD-DVD and still have some great partners -- Universal, Paramount, DreamWorks -- these are great participants in the format," said Bell, before taking a jab at PlayStation 3. "We have sold very well the HD-DVD accessory. We did make a specific choice; we did not impose technology on our consumers. We would like choice to be our guiding principle, and it has worked for us. We're not demanding that people choose a format, but rather, we're with DVD in the Xbox 360."

At the same time, Bell recognizes that Sony and Microsoft already work together in some arenas. "You know, interestingly, we have a long history of partnership with Sony. Obviously, they run our software on their personal computers and other devices, so we have a 'coopetition' -- a word I learned at Microsoft when I joined. We've been talking to Blu-ray all along because we have the best piece of software in the business, called HDi. It is the backbone that powers interactivity in HD-DVD and we have that available to potentially partner with others."

"You never say never. I think we'd like to see how things evolve. Our commitment, however, to HD-DVD is profound and consistent, and we have done very, very well in term of our accessory sales. We have 400 HD-DVD movies from great studios available," concluded Bell. "It's a long time between now and June."

here's the thing, if there is an add on will it do 1080/24 because the hd/dvd add on cant' which is a big bummer.

here's the thing, if there is an add on will it do 1080/24 because the hd/dvd add on cant' which is a big bummer.

If you have a TV that can properly do a 3:2 pulldown and convert it to 5:5 at 120Hz, 24fps output doesn't really matter. :) The result would be the same on screen. My TV (Sony A3000) does this, and I get completely judder free playback at 1080i with the 360 HDDVD player.

Well Jeff Bell still stands behind HDDVD....for now.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3165321

Frankly I dont see how anyone can believe anything any corporate executive says. They will change their tune as quickly as the wind changes. Mr bell's statements will likely be valid for all of 5 seconds before they are retracted.

I would have said its a non-issue but there were repeated reassurances from amir (who at the time was still MS's HD DVD head honcho) and others that MS was 100% behind HD DVD and not considering a blu addon. Amir has posted how MS chose HD DVD because br went with Java for their interactive layer.

So much for being an HD DVD insider :confused:

I see my statement was vague but what I am referring too is their commitment too digital distribution over HD-DVD or BR. If they had to make a choice on which route to go it is obvious to me that it would be DD over either format.

Who knows Java may not work out as much problems they have had in the past with it. Maybe studios will look into using HD-I for BR movies in the future. Just a guess.

I think will be seeing a blue ray add-on at E3 for the 360

You will never see a blu-ray add on to the 360, at least not one sold by MS.

There is no e in Blu-ray.

There is no e in Blu-ray.

:eek:

I'd be interested in seeing an online petition for Xbox 360 owners to sign for Microsoft to look at. After all, Albert Penello (group marketing manager for Xbox hardware) did say:

"It should be consumer choice; and if that's the way they vote, that's something we'll have to consider."

deleted

I have a 360 with an HDDVD add on AND a PS3. If they released a Blu add on for the 360 I would still buy it. Why? that sounds dumb right? Well my 360 with HDDVD playing through my VGA cable looks TONS better than the PS3 through HDMI. The picture is sharper, cleaner, allows 1:1 pixel mapping just looks alot better on my set. Now that HDDVD is dead I won't buy anymore movies on it. I won't buy any Blu movies either because I don't like the output. They need to release a BR add-on or Sony will crush them in the console war.

Because of your anecdotal situation :rolleyes:

Sony will put their movies on LIVE Marketplace and Blu-Ray add on for 360... everybody makes money !! :)

Where would we be if MS would have put a HD DVD drive in the 360, a la the PS3 and blu-ray? Thanks to MS, I know where I stand.

Sony will put their movies on LIVE Marketplace and Blu-Ray add on for 360... everybody makes money !! :)

Sony already has their music videos on live marketplace. Movie downloads are the next logical step. :)

Where would we be if MS would have put a HD DVD drive in the 360, a la the PS3 and blu-ray? Thanks to MS, I know where I stand.

HD-DVD drives were not available when the 360 launched. It simply wasn't an option.