Microsoft: Blu-Ray Absence Boosted Xbox 360

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
And the “can-o-worms” discussion of the day is brought to you by Microsoft’s Aaron Greenberg. While he may have a 100% valid point, there will no doubt be plenty of discussion from both sides on this one.

“We’ve just taken a different strategy. Sony bet on the physical disc, and there are costs associated with that,” he told us. “The fact that we’re able to offer a console starting at $199 is a benefit of not being burdened with that cost. Being $100 cheaper is part of the reason why we’re nearly twice their installed base.”
Click to expand...
 
News Flash! People are more likely to buy a cheaper product! Whoa!

Serious note: I own a PS3 and don't think 100 dollars more to get a BD player as well is a bad deal.
Back at release though it was like 400 vs 600 though wasn't it?
 
It's a valid point. It makes it cheaper, but if it were an option offered either as an add on unit or a higher model I bet it would sell better; because it would cover a broader market.
 
FranklyShankly said:
News Flash! People are more likely to buy a cheaper product! Whoa!

Serious note: I own a PS3 and don't think 100 dollars more to get a BD player as well is a bad deal.
Back at release though it was like 400 vs 600 though wasn't it?
Click to expand...

It was a $100 price gap then as well comparing base model to base model. The major difference was the PS3 base at that time had wireless built in, hdmi and a blu-ray player. Your first statement is the important part in this entire article, and is why the wii has an even larger install base.

That said, I agree with the statements made in the article. Microsoft made a smart bet and so far it is paying off for them. Competition is never a bad thing and even though I prefer my ps3, sony as a company needed a serious wakeup call. I don't agree on the digital distribution bit though, while I believe it will become an important medium I don't buy that it will replace physical media entirely. There are simply too many factors working against it for that to happen anything in the near future.
 
The same logic then applies to the Wii...look how well it is installed. In summary....people like to buy cheap shit thinking they got the same as the more expensive item.
 
I think it's safe to say that the PS3's launch price did hurt it's market penetration.

I bought one at launch, so I'm not speaking as an XBOX fanboy, it's just the obvious truth. Is it just the BluRay drive? Nahh, the PS3's hardware in general was more costly, you can argue that it came with extras like HDMI and wireless NIC built it, but it still doesn't change the fact that the "entry level price" was much higher than the 360.

I wish Sony would have been wise and invested more into a high spec custom built GPU instead of dumping all that development funds into the Cell processor.
 
It comes down to why you want the consoles. I didn't buy my PS3 because it was a video game console. I bought it because it was the best Blu-ray player at the time (and still is).

If Microsoft had Blu-ray for Xbox360 I would definitely chose it over the PS3 (providing it's not external like their HD-DVD add-on) because the Xbox360 makes a far better Media Center Extender than the PS3.
 
Yet MS makes up that money in force paying for Live (even charging for things that are FREE or paid for elsewhere [Netflix streaming]), charging stupid amounts of money for upgraded HDD's (as much as double) and wireless adapters (comes with all PS3's now).

Nevermind the fact that DVD's are becoming to small. Ask anyone who has played Star Ocean 4 on 360 past the end to get the extra stuff. They probably headbutted a kitten because of the disk swapping which is non existent on the PS3 version (yet it came out a year later but had more stuff [JP audio, Classic UI).

Oh, and lets not forget the obvious. The most future proof BluRay player on the market.
 
I like using my 360 drive as an external and it would be nice if they did a external bluray.
 
necrosis said:
Yet MS makes up that money in force paying for Live (even charging for things that are FREE or paid for elsewhere [Netflix streaming]), charging stupid amounts of money for upgraded HDD's (as much as double) and wireless adapters (comes with all PS3's now).

Nevermind the fact that DVD's are becoming to small. Ask anyone who has played Star Ocean 4 on 360 past the end to get the extra stuff. They probably headbutted a kitten because of the disk swapping which is non existent on the PS3 version (yet it came out a year later but had more stuff [JP audio, Classic UI).

Oh, and lets not forget the obvious. The most future proof BluRay player on the market.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Xbox360 was ready to launch before the HD-DVD and Blu-ray battle royale. Microsoft just made a bad (or good, rather) choice of going with HD-DVD which unfortunately lost. They did try to move away from DVD. I'd be willing to bet if HD-DVD won, we would see revisions of Xbox360's with built-in HD-DVD drives. It just makes no sense to further their loss by adding Blu-ray support which is still too expensive at this time.
 
Derfman said:
I think it's safe to say that the PS3's launch price did hurt it's market penetration.

I bought one at launch, so I'm not speaking as an XBOX fanboy, it's just the obvious truth. Is it just the BluRay drive? Nahh, the PS3's hardware in general was more costly, you can argue that it came with extras like HDMI and wireless NIC built it, but it still doesn't change the fact that the "entry level price" was much higher than the 360.

I wish Sony would have been wise and invested more into a high spec custom built GPU instead of dumping all that development funds into the Cell processor.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but for the reason that Cell is going to get a lot of use outside the PS3... that was just the stepping stone. That thing is a beast at number crunching.
 
djBon2112 said:
I disagree, but for the reason that Cell is going to get a lot of use outside the PS3... that was just the stepping stone. That thing is a beast at number crunching.
Click to expand...

Fair enough... But, I never disputed the Cell's architecture or capabilities outside of console gaming. :p
 
This is ridiculous. It's like me saying my house is better than Bill Gates' because I didn't have to pay as much for it. While they're at it, why don't they take off HDMI and just put a coaxial output on it; they could probably shave off a few dollars and sell it even cheaper then, right? Even as expensive as the PS3 was at launch it was still a value as a bluray player compared to the price of "regular" bluray players.
 
Microsoft is just backtracking. If they truly meant this and wanted to keep away from HD media to save cost, they wouldn't of even tried the HD DVD thing. If that format won, those things would be embedded in your $399 360 console.
 
htpc_user said:
Even as expensive as the PS3 was at launch it was still a value as a bluray player compared to the price of "regular" bluray players.
Click to expand...

I agree, if it wasn't for the PS3 having Bluray the adoption rate of Bluray movies would have been slower then it already was.

As far as HDMI goes, when the PS3 came out, HDMI was finally becoming more common place in new TV models. It wasn't something everyone had at the time though, since many people were still using older TVs.

At the rate the public adopts new technologies its a shame but the PS3 really had more to offer then what was needed at the time and a price that matched that. You can argue all the things it had over the 360 at it's launch but one thing it did not have was a favorable price point and this is proven by the large increase of PS3 sales after the SLIM model released and the price point of the PS3 had dropped dramatically.
 
Azhar said:
To be fair, Xbox360 was ready to launch before the HD-DVD and Blu-ray battle royale. Microsoft just made a bad (or good, rather) choice of going with HD-DVD which unfortunately lost. They did try to move away from DVD. I'd be willing to bet if HD-DVD won, we would see revisions of Xbox360's with built-in HD-DVD drives. It just makes no sense to further their loss by adding Blu-ray support which is still too expensive at this time.
Click to expand...

I still maintain that had MS done with HD-DVD what Sony did with blu-ray, then HD-DVD likely would of come out on top. I say that as someone who was never a fan of HD-DVD.
 
Dekoth said:
I still maintain that had MS done with HD-DVD what Sony did with blu-ray, then HD-DVD likely would of come out on top. I say that as someone who was never a fan of HD-DVD.
Click to expand...

Yeah they were too cautious. They kept it separated in case HD-DVD lost. Almost sounds like they predicted it, but wasn't 100% sure.
 
Once Microsoft is done nickel and diming you on the extras and accessories, the cost comes out to about the same, if not more than the PS3

$100 network adapter!!!!

PS3 also plays Blu-rays, and unless you're gonna buy that cheap ass Phillips BR player that was on the front page yesterday, that $30 in savings if you buy the network adapter doesn't amount to jack shit once you factor in the RRoD

People can talk 360 all you want, my reason for not buying one hinges on the shitty quality of 360 consoles.

Microsoft was so obsessed with getting their console out first, that they didn't bother to design it well enough to last long.

You can say what you want about the morons at Sony who open their mouths, but they do know how to engineer something that just WORKS.
 
Twice the installed base, in America maybe. They arent really far ahead worldwide.

So how much of an impact did it really have?
 
Fail said:
Once Microsoft is done nickel and diming you on the extras and accessories, the cost comes out to about the same, if not more than the PS3

$100 network adapter!!!!
Click to expand...

Living up to your name.

The 360 has built-in Ethernet. It doesn't care how you supply the connection. For me, it's a Wireless N access point and a 4-port hub, which supplies sufficient access to my DVR, 360, TV (firmware updates), and Blu-ray player. (Needed multichannel analog audio outs -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the PS3 swings that way.) Total price was way less than the $100 network adapter, and the PS3's built-in Wireless G would have been a slower and less efficient solution. Pure Win all around.
 
My 16 year old son, and his friends like the xbox live better than the ps3. They dont care about the blue ray, or lack of. They like what offers the best gaming experience, and at this point. It is the xbox 360 in their opinion. I have bought them all, xbox, playstation, wii. The pc wins out overall, but the 360 is next in line for him.
 
Fail said:
Once Microsoft is done nickel and diming you on the extras and accessories, the cost comes out to about the same, if not more than the PS3

$100 network adapter!!!!

PS3 also plays Blu-rays, and unless you're gonna buy that cheap ass Phillips BR player that was on the front page yesterday, that $30 in savings if you buy the network adapter doesn't amount to jack shit once you factor in the RRoD

People can talk 360 all you want, my reason for not buying one hinges on the shitty quality of 360 consoles.

Microsoft was so obsessed with getting their console out first, that they didn't bother to design it well enough to last long.

You can say what you want about the morons at Sony who open their mouths, but they do know how to engineer something that just WORKS.
Click to expand...

OMG, $100 for a wireless adapter! Really? They used to be $100. $60-70 now depending on where you look. Eithe way, both for the PS3 and 360 suck ass. If you aren't hardwired, gaming/updates/downloads/steaming content all suck ass. Wireless FTL for both systems, which I have.

RRoD comes from people not properly taking care of their systems. Overheating mostly. Have had mine for years. Blow it out once in a while and don't stick it in some confined cabinet. Done deal.

As for Blu-Ray. Meh. UseNET FTW.
 
My xbox isn't even hooked up to my tv anymore, though my PS3 is still my blu-ray player and I'm looking forward to GoW3. Dragon Age came out on the xbox, but like almost every game it comes out better on my PC. Nothing is on more than the damn Wii though, I can't get my 3 year old son to stop playing New Super Mario. I think it's getting to the point where if the misses can't say no I'm going to have to box the Wii up and put it away.
 
my question is why they don't compare apples to apples... the $199 360 is a useless POS that can hold what 2 save games on the NXE? and forget updates to games, or half the features the xbox boasts since you have no storage to save.

The only use for the $199 x-box, is for all those people who needed a replacement one when the previous RRoD'd (I'm on my third :/).
 
PunditGuy said:
Living up to your name.

The 360 has built-in Ethernet. It doesn't care how you supply the connection. For me, it's a Wireless N access point and a 4-port hub, which supplies sufficient access to my DVR, 360, TV (firmware updates), and Blu-ray player. (Needed multichannel analog audio outs -- correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the PS3 swings that way.) Total price was way less than the $100 network adapter, and the PS3's built-in Wireless G would have been a slower and less efficient solution. Pure Win all around.
Click to expand...

That doesn't really make sense to claim that because your method was more efficient, it thusly proves that the 360's lack of wireless isn't a big deal. Built-in wireless is pretty huge. I say that despite my own setup having my 360 wired to a DD-WRT flashed router acting as a client bridge. The PS3 (which I also have) just has more freedom to be turned on anywhere in the house, if I so choose.

Granted, I'm still on 802.11g at my place, so they operate at the same theoretical speed regardless.
 
the 360 hada years headstart thats why they have more units out there. remember ms did offer an HD drive seperate from the xbox a stupid choice. With blu ray and built in wifi in the nd ps3 will be the winner. no i think ms made a very stupid decision and with there unit failure issues having a larger installed base is costing them 100s of millions.. MS is a software company they make crappy hardware.
 
dr.stevil said:
really? When HDMI goes to the next revision, wont that make it pretty much obsolete? :confused:
Click to expand...

It still IS the most future proof until HDMI officially goes to 1.4 as the heavily adopted standard.

Notable changes in HDMI 1.4 include:
- A 100Mb/s Ethernet data channel (full duplex). This is designed to allow any HDMI 1.4 enabled device to share an internet connection with the rest of your home - to find and share content across your home network. (nice, but not a huge game changer)
- An Audio Return Channel. Theoritcally, you would no longer need your optical audio cable from a TV or other source component in order to deliver optical audio to an A/V receiver. (meh...)
- 3D Over HDMI. Defines common 3D formats for HDMI-enabled devices to enable 3D gaming and video. (the only major change)
- Micro HDMI connector. This is a new connector, completely separate from regular HDMI connectors, which is designed to be used with portable devices like cell phones, portable media players, PDAs, etc. (it's a connector...meh)
- Automotive Connection System. This is used for in-vehicle HD content. (no real change)

In short...the changes from 1.3 to 1.4 are not really that significant. The only feature that "might" impact the average consumer is the 3D frame formats. But, I very much doubt this is going to be an immediate or even near term game changer. The one thing I like about HDMI 1.4 is the Ethernet connectivity. This would allow something like a Blu-Ray multi-disc player to be viable again.
 
dr.stevil said:
really? When HDMI goes to the next revision, wont that make it pretty much obsolete? :confused:
Click to expand...
only thing HDMI 1.4 ads is some ethernet connectivity and doesnt really add anything you need for blu rays future and HDMI 1.3 is all you'll ever need to use the capibilities of a bd player and since the xbox is only HDMI 1.2 compatible using your logic makes it more obsolete I've looked at the HDMI 1.4 standard writeups and I didn't see anything to obsolete HDMI 1.3 compatible devices, someone with more knowledge feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
 
And the Wii killed them both by being even Cheaper. Not rocket science.

Anecdotally I see the opposite in my peer group though. I am in a older demographic (>40) and every friend who bought a game machine in the last year, picked up a PS3. The Blu Ray was a deciding factor for most.

The only friend who had an Xbox recently picked up a PS3 as well. So at this point every close friend I have who has a game machine, has a PS3. Though many also have Wii (for the wife or young kids).

While there is no doubt it hurt them at first, PS3 helped Blu Ray win the format war initially and now it helps sell PS3 because it has Blu Ray. So overall the strategy was not a bad one.

The real PS3 mistake: Cell

I think Cell Processor was a far worse choice. It was also very expensive and contributed to the price without really showing a competitive advantage. It didn't help win a format war, and it doesn't help sell boxes today, it is difficult to program.

Cell also represents a forward migration problem. You are stuck with that oddball architecture of one real core and bunch of limited helpers. Going forward at least for initial backward compatibility this will be a nightmare.

Microsoft definitely made a better CPU choice. Next release they can just go to a quad core of 4 real cores and have easy backward compatibility.

Without Cell, PS3 would been less expensive, easier to program for, and have better forward migration. Really bad choice that will haunt them into the next generation.
 
Now it's become a fanboy fest in here... No use talking sense anymore it seems... If you think for a moment that it wasn't because people weren't buying the PS3 due to it's "entry level pricing" then I don't know what to tell you, cause you know not everyone needs all those extras and can live without them.

Like I said, I own both systems so I'm not fanboying it up, when I bought the PS3 (I already had a launch 360 as well) I really wanted to see the PS3 become the next PS2 success wise (my favorite system of the last generation), but it's low adoption rate up until recently did put a dent on my hopes.

For all those saying "The value of the PS3 was the fact that you could get all the extra hardware all included in the original purchasing price." that argument holds some water now that the PS3 is around the $300 price point, but it really didn't sway any purchasers back when it was $500 to $600. The recent increase in PS3 sales since the large price drop is a true testament to this fact.

Well at this point I may be talking to a wall, but it's clear that 3 to 4 years ago the PS3 wasn't benefiting from the extra cost of all their hardware that was included.
 
"For us, our bet was on digital distribution, that that was the future – the ability to do 1080p movies with no disc, no download required" This is a quote from the article.

I am curious how they can accomplish this. Or am I reading this wrong.

But if they are truly aiming for digital distribution, I'm sorry, Microsoft shouldnt have the right to brag about their $199 360 Arcade console. Sure it's 100 dollars cheaper than the PS3. But the PS3 includes a 120GB hard drive where is the Arcade version doesn't. Futureshop is selling the 60GB 360 drive for 109. Making it more expensive than the PS3. If Microsoft put their bet with digital distribution, they pretty much fail by releasing the Arcade version with no hard drive.

Not to mentions the issues people are having with the 360. Just having more sales doesn't mean anything if it can't be backed up by their quality standard. Also. for $308, it doesn't come with wifi is not a good thing. Sure Ethernet is faster, but not everyone has a Ethernet port set up next or close to their big screen tv and why should the consumer be forced to pay 70+ for a dongle when it costs next to nothing for microsoft to implement it into the console itself without seriously affecting the production.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Derfman said:
Now it's become a fanboy fest in here... No use talking sense anymore it seems... If you think for a moment that it wasn't because people weren't buying the PS3 due to it's "entry level pricing" then I don't know what to tell you, cause you know not everyone needs all those extras and can live without them.

Like I said, I own both systems so I'm not fanboying it up, when I bought the PS3 (I already had a launch 360 as well) I really wanted to see the PS3 become the next PS2 success wise (my favorite system of the last generation), but it's low adoption rate up until recently did put a dent on my hopes.

For all those saying "The value of the PS3 was the fact that you could get all the extra hardware all included in the original purchasing price." that argument holds some water now that the PS3 is around the $300 price point, but it really didn't sway any purchasers back when it was $500 to $600. The recent increase in PS3 sales since the large price drop is a true testament to this fact.

Well at this point I may be talking to a wall, but it's clear that 3 to 4 years ago the PS3 wasn't benefiting from the extra cost of all their hardware that was included.
Click to expand...

I agree with your post entirely, each point is well made.


To the others, yes you can wire your consoles if you want, I didn't have a problem with wireless on my PS3, I used a Dlink 655, actual gaming was great, no ping problems, but when it came to downloading content, for some reason it was slower than me running the 40 yard dash with my fat ass huffing and puffing as I move forward.

I'm not sure why it took it to the two extremes?

Any ideas? I wonder if wired would have made a difference, I'd imagine it would have ,but as I said, in real world gaming, the ping was low, but downloads from PSN, very slow.
 
Fail said:
Any ideas? I wonder if wired would have made a difference, I'd imagine it would have ,but as I said, in real world gaming, the ping was low, but downloads from PSN, very slow.
Click to expand...

Well I've tried both wireless and wired. I honestly had no improvement on wired for PSN downloads, I just think PSN caps their upload rate to each user to prevent their connection from being maxed out. It's the only thing I can think of to explain it.

I would have stuck with wireless but Demon's Souls had this bug for me, every time my friends and I would fight a boss, when the boss hit about 35% HP all Blue Phantoms in my game would get disconnected. Switched to wired and the problem stopped... No explanation for this, but I'm sure it's more of a Demon's Souls problem then it was a wireless hardware connection issue.
 
to all of you guys railing about the 360 hardware quality, i think that was the case a couple years ago, but not today. dont know what the official word is, but since there last two revisions, i think the whole fiasco has been curbed, there isnt nearly the outcry from new buyers that there was with the first generation owners.

regardless, the issue was serious and certainly warranted apprehension, i just think its vastly improved today, i know i havent had issues or know anyone that has (some of those others had to deal with those bad first gen consoles) with recent models. i doubt its perfect (even the ps3 has its share of failures) but it seems vastly improved.
 
trooper11 said:
to all of you guys railing about the 360 hardware quality, i think that was the case a couple years ago, but not today. dont know what the official word is, but since there last two revisions, i think the whole fiasco has been curbed, there isnt nearly the outcry from new buyers that there was with the first generation owners.

regardless, the issue was serious and certainly warranted apprehension, i just think its vastly improved today, i know i havent had issues or know anyone that has (some of those others had to deal with those bad first gen consoles) with recent models. i doubt its perfect (even the ps3 has its share of failures) but it seems vastly improved.
Click to expand...

Let's say you're right, and I can even respect that if it turns out to be true. Doesn't change one important factor in why NOT to buy a 360 if you already have a decent PC rig. Almost all the good games that aren't 360 exclusive end up getting ported to PC. For everything else, there's PS3.
 
Fail said:
Almost all the good games that aren't 360 exclusive end up getting ported to PC. For everything else, there's PS3.
Click to expand...


it's the same with both systems. They both have their exclusives but MOST are ported to the 360, the PS3 and the PC


If you really want console exclusives the wii is, hands down, your best choice
 
dr.stevil said:
it's the same with both systems. They both have their exclusives but MOST are ported to the 360, the PS3 and the PC


If you really want console exclusives the wii is, hands down, your best choice
Click to expand...

I own a Wii, I can't remember the last time I powered it on
 
i must say i would happly pay $100 for the network adapter, its dam good works well even when my 360 is 5 bedrooms away from the router.. still watch my high def tv no problems on the 360 extender.. gaming on it I like no problems there..

the hd-dvd drive, i liked it worked extremely well..

dont beleive ms, they are no doubt working on a br add on, so that whent he players get nice and cheap in 3 months or little more (3d stuff coming out then) i think yo will see new br add-ons.. esp around christmass.. with a new 360 with inbuilt br player and a new game and a 500gb hdd..

my ps3 only plays br movies.. and guitar hero every now and then (its the only game i got for it..)

my 360, gaming, xbox media centre..music, radio.

do i mind paying for the xbox live, no not at all.. great service works well.. because you play and have a set of rules most people behave themselves.. and enjoy the online experiance... the only thing i hate is the online acheivements, bah could do with out those.. there is always someone better than you online..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top