New Xbox 360 $479 In April W/HDMI [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : New Xbox 360 $479 In April W/HDMI



Groundbeef
03-20-2007, 07:50 AM
Looks like April may be the time for a new XBOX 360. It will be black, have HDMI, a 120 GB Hard Drive, No HD-DVD drive Support (meaning, you will still need the add- on HD-DVD drive for HD-DVD movies), and run $479.

AND IT INCLUDES THE HDMI CABLE....unlike Sony.

Heres the link.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/03/20/hdmi-enabled-black-xbox-360-in-late-april-for-479/

And, no, I'm not pissed. I've enjoyed it for the last year and a half. Perhaps the people that just got one, but not me!

kexodusc
03-20-2007, 09:13 AM
Hmm, isn't this just a price increase for larger hard drive? I don't mind having the option, but hard drive thing isn't terribly critical to me or a lot of buyers. Would have preferred a steep discount. Oh well. I'll just keep waiting.

Ugh, kinda torn here, I want one of these consoles, but both are missing the price by some margin. Curious, if I was to add the cost of Wifi, the HD-DVD, and this 120 GB XBOX, how would it compare price and feature wise to the $599 PS3?

ericl
03-20-2007, 10:11 AM
Are they ever going to put an HD-DVD drive in the 360?

kexodusc
03-20-2007, 10:25 AM
Are they ever going to put an HD-DVD drive in the 360?

I can't imagine MS going through with it, investing a good chunk of money into redesigning the box, until it's a certainty that there'll be sufficient demand for that option. It's not like the add on drive is flying off the shelf. People who want that add on drive probably get it.
I think a good number of gamers could do without. There's probably just not enough demand predicted to be sustainable for them to bother.
And one of the criteria for that would be a strong performance by HD-DVD in the format war. With BluRay currently boasting sales in multiples of HD-DVD's numbers, one can't blame them for holding out.
They'll probably wait to see how the format war pans out first.

Woochifer
03-20-2007, 11:48 AM
As kex said, it basically seems like a price increase for a larger hard drive. The HDMI output is something that should have been integrated into the Xbox 360 from the beginning. No integrated HD-DVD drive and no wireless networking. Microsoft had an opportunity to really put the clamps down on the PS3 (given that it had a bad sales month in February) and inject some much needed momentum into the HD-DVD format, but it seems that they're content to just add a feature here and there and charge the customer for it. If anything, this seems to demonstrate Microsoft's level of commitment to the HD-DVD format.


Ugh, kinda torn here, I want one of these consoles, but both are missing the price by some margin. Curious, if I was to add the cost of Wifi, the HD-DVD, and this 120 GB XBOX, how would it compare price and feature wise to the $599 PS3?

As a pure gaming console, the Xbox 360 has a price advantage, but if you consider the HD disc playback and wireless networking, then the PS3 holds the advantage.

At $480, this black Xbox is basically equivalent to a base PS3 with a larger hard drive, no HD playback, oh yeah and a HDMI cable. The cost of the HD-DVD add-on is $200, which brings the total to $680. Add the wireless networking adaptor and the cost increases to $780.

A base PS3 can swap out with any generic 2.5" mobile hard drive, so the cost of a 120 GB drive and a HDMI cable adds about $110 to the $500 console price. Going with the $600 PS3, it already includes wireless networking and a 60 GB hard drive.

ericl
03-20-2007, 12:55 PM
What about cable card? If these machines could record HD content (natively, w/o an external tuner) and play back HD discs, they'd have something compelling, especially for the price.

As of now, at these prices, I think these are both pretty weak products. Of course I am not a gamer, but I do recognize a good product when i see one.

IMO Nintendo outsmarted both these guys by just going for pure gaming innovation.

Groundbeef, how come you're always harping on the fact that the PS3 has no hdmi cable when the xbox doesn't come with an hd drive? I'd prefer it come with an hd player over a lousy cable..

Groundbeef
03-20-2007, 01:52 PM
What about cable card? If these machines could record HD content (natively, w/o an external tuner) and play back HD discs, they'd have something compelling, especially for the price.

As of now, at these prices, I think these are both pretty weak products. Of course I am not a gamer, but I do recognize a good product when i see one.

IMO Nintendo outsmarted both these guys by just going for pure gaming innovation.

Groundbeef, how come you're always harping on the fact that the PS3 has no hdmi cable when the xbox doesn't come with an hd drive? I'd prefer it come with an hd player over a lousy cable..

MS is experimenting with IPTV (would require some sort of box), and currently does offer HD movie playback via download. I have personally rented 3 movies (SD) but am looking forward to d/l a HD feature when I see one I want. The SD is on par with a 480p DVD playback (and it IS upconverted to 1080i).

You would need to come to the table with more than just your opionon on the "weak" product. To get a similar PC to play graphics on par with either machine you would spend considerably more than either $400, or $600. Have you seen either on 50" of plasma glory with full surround sound? No, I think not. It is AWESOME.

The Wii? Not so much. Yes it is cheaper, and has fun games. Not going to argue that point. However, as HD becomes more mainstream, I think the blush is going to come off the rose pretty quick. It has NO DVD playback, no CD playback, and graphics are only offered in SD. I am not sure how "outsmart" comes into play. The Wii is a great machine, but it is by no means next gen.

The cable debate goes back quite a few threads. I am sure Wooch can point you to the origianal debate, as he bookmarks all of them, especially the one's he has lost. In this particular debate, Wooch took the stand that for $600, there was NO reason for Sony to throw in a HDMI cable when they were pushing "Tru-HD" and only shipping with the COMPOSITE (Red, White, Yellow) cables, that only offer the worst in SD transfer.

MS has never said that the 360 was for movies, it was for gaming. So, HD-DVD playback was NEVER required for HD Gaming. All 360 games were in 480i/480p/720p and 1080i. After a software upgrade, all 360 machines now can output 1080p just like the PS3. So the net difference between the 2 is ZERO for HD gaming. And the kicker was that the 360 premium pack comes with HD composite cables IN THE BOX.

And for wireless play, I have had it, and it was unsatisfactory. I am actually hardwired, and have much better interent connectivity than I did with the 360 wireless attachment.

The beauty of the 360, is that everything is a choice. I don't NEED wireless, so don't buy it. I wanted HD-DVD playback so I got the player ($159 with coupon at CC). Plus, if HD-DVD ever does die, MS has already indicated that a Blu-Ray drive could work with the 360, I would imagine that pricing would be similar to the HD-DVD addon drive.

I wanted HD quality picture so I used the HD Cable that MS provided.

Groundbeef
03-20-2007, 01:55 PM
I just noticed that the above post was #400. I am not patting myself on the back!:16:

Groundbeef
03-20-2007, 02:07 PM
As kex said, it basically seems like a price increase for a larger hard drive. The HDMI output is something that should have been integrated into the Xbox 360 from the beginning.
Probably, but at the time wasn't really needed (or needed now for that matter). Composite is working fine for me, and with the optical audio cable, sounds great!




No integrated HD-DVD drive and no wireless networking. Microsoft had an opportunity to really put the clamps down on the PS3 (given that it had a bad sales month in February) and inject some much needed momentum into the HD-DVD format, but it seems that they're content to just add a feature here and there and charge the customer for it.

If anything, this seems to demonstrate Microsoft's level of commitment to the HD-DVD format.

Neither are needed for gaming. Wireless is a feature that would be more game related, but not required, as all 360's are wired for ethernet cable connection. And, as you are well aware, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is NOT required for HD GAMING. You can shout and wave your arms high, but its not an intergral part of HD GAMING.

And we both know, that MS will use whatever tech is most adventagous for them. Right now HD-DVD fits the bill. Just imagine for a moment however if Blu-Ray somehow loses this little fight? What are they gonna do? Pull it out of all PS3's? Unlikely.

But if HD-DVD dies, MS can simply offer up a Blu-Ray attachment. Frankly, I wish they would, if it were $200 like the HD-DVD it would be a steal!

And like Sony doesn't charge for add-ons, like a HD cable for their "Tru-HD" machine?



As a pure gaming console, the Xbox 360 has a price advantage, but if you consider the HD disc playback and wireless networking, then the PS3 holds the advantage.

Again, neither are REQUIRED for HD Gaming. I got my HD drive for $159, and the wireless card for $60 off ebay. And I didn't have to pay for the cable, so I guess I came out ahead!




At $480, this black Xbox is basically equivalent to a base PS3 with a larger hard drive, no HD playback, oh yeah and a HDMI cable. The cost of the HD-DVD add-on is $200, which brings the total to $680. Add the wireless networking adaptor and the cost increases to $780.

This horse is dead and beaten. And if I buy a PS3, and I DON'T want to pay for the Blu-Ray drive, or need wireless internet? I guess in your world I OVERPAID.




A base PS3 can swap out with any generic 2.5" mobile hard drive, so the cost of a 120 GB drive and a HDMI cable adds about $110 to the $500 console price. Going with the $600 PS3, it already includes wireless networking and a 60 GB hard drive.

Don't forget that voids your warrenty on your brand new $600 machine. With the 360, undoubtably, the drive will be expensive relative to other hard drives on the market, but it won't void your warrenty to change it out.

ericl
03-20-2007, 02:29 PM
Dude, you contradict yourself constantly.. when it comes to the xbox, it doesn't matter that it doesn't come with an HD drive, because it wasn't meant for movies. But the Wii sucks because it doesn't have HD or play DVDs?? Hmm. this makes sense how? How does HD improve gameplay? It doesn't, it's just a gimmick. It's a movie with really amazing special effects but no plot. graphics, schmaphics.

And sure, they don't SAY it's for movies, but do I really have to argue why it's better to have an HD drive than to not have one? Especially at that price. If you're going to charge that much, it better have some additional functionality. I already have a DVD player. Why does that matter? If i just want a machine that plays great games, i'll just get a Wii. At least the 360 comes with an HDMI cable. :D

My opinion matters because it determines whether or not i am going to buy one these machines.

congrats on your 400th post!! hope you don't take my engaging personal. Just having a fun debate. You and woochifer make an entertaining duo.

Groundbeef
03-20-2007, 05:31 PM
Dude, you contradict yourself constantly.. when it comes to the xbox, it doesn't matter that it doesn't come with an HD drive, because it wasn't meant for movies. But the Wii sucks because it doesn't have HD or play DVDs?? Hmm. this makes sense how? How does HD improve gameplay? It doesn't, it's just a gimmick. It's a movie with really amazing special effects but no plot. graphics, schmaphics.

The difference I guess is that the PS3 was sold and flogged by Sony as having the Blu-Ray drive thus making it HD Gaming. MS has responded by pointing out that you don't NEED a HD drive for HD GAMING. The PS3 is more expensive by having a HD Drive on board. The 360 makes it optional. For the gamers that only want to play HD games, why pay an extra $200 for a feature they don't need.

Sony has been flogging the capacity of the Blu-Ray disc as instrumental in making better games.

And a HD movie, and the SD version are worlds apart. If you watch a crappy movie in HD, the picture is still incredible.

As far as the Wii is concerned, its only relevant that for example the Wii is an extra on your shelf. I have a 360 as my primary DVD player, HD-DVD player, CD player, Music streamer from my PC, Picture viewer, and Game Machine.

BTW the PS3 will also do these functions.

But for $250, you would expect that the Wii would at least function as a DVD player as well.





And sure, they don't SAY it's for movies, but do I really have to argue why it's better to have an HD drive than to not have one? Especially at that price. If you're going to charge that much, it better have some additional functionality. I already have a DVD player. Why does that matter? If i just want a machine that plays great games, i'll just get a Wii. At least the 360 comes with an HDMI cable. :D

Actually, it comes with a component cable, not HDMI as it doesn't support HDMI.

For the 360, the ONLY reason to buy the HD drive is for Movies. It DOES NOT read game discs.

So if HD movies are not for you, save the $200 and don't buy the drive.





My opinion matters because it determines whether or not i am going to buy one these machines.

congrats on your 400th post!! hope you don't take my engaging personal. Just having a fun debate. You and woochifer make an entertaining duo.
Nothing personal. Thanks for posting!

PaDave
03-20-2007, 05:51 PM
Its no PS3, it got a 120GB HD and HDMI?: who cares still GARBAGE!!!, no WIFI, Cant read memory cards, and not blue tooth, no real high definition because of the fact that they aren't putting HD DVD drive in it, no blue ray, XBOX IS WAY BEHIND NOW HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Woochifer
03-20-2007, 05:55 PM
The cable debate goes back quite a few threads. I am sure Wooch can point you to the origianal debate, as he bookmarks all of them, especially the one's he has lost. In this particular debate, Wooch took the stand that for $600, there was NO reason for Sony to throw in a HDMI cable when they were pushing "Tru-HD" and only shipping with the COMPOSITE (Red, White, Yellow) cables, that only offer the worst in SD transfer.

Nope, this time I'll let you do come up with the proof, since you're once again mischaracterizing something I'd written on a previous thread. Lost arguments from you don't require bookmarks, since you create so many PS3-bashing threads that are later debunked (i.e., the base PS3 won't include a hard drive, the base PS3 won't support HDMI, copy protection won't allow for used games, etc.), it's hard to avoid them. :cool:


Probably, but at the time wasn't really needed (or needed now for that matter). Composite is working fine for me, and with the optical audio cable, sounds great!

Yup, the audio's great -- everything, including the higher res lossless tracks get downconverted to the same old lossy Dolby Digital! :sleep:


Neither are needed for gaming. Wireless is a feature that would be more game related, but not required, as all 360's are wired for ethernet cable connection. And, as you are well aware, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is NOT required for HD GAMING. You can shout and wave your arms high, but its not an intergral part of HD GAMING.

Yup, but since you're (still) harping on Sony not including a HDMI cable, I'll just keep pointing out that the Xbox 360 does not even include HDMI. And keep in mind that this is an AUDIO board, where people will likely use their gaming consoles for more than just gaming.


And we both know, that MS will use whatever tech is most adventagous for them. Right now HD-DVD fits the bill. Just imagine for a moment however if Blu-Ray somehow loses this little fight? What are they gonna do? Pull it out of all PS3's? Unlikely.

Highly unlikely that Blu-ray will lose at this point with the latest week-to-week disc sales data now showing Blu-ray with a more than 4-to-1 advantage, and a more than 2-to-1 advantage in year-to-date sales.

It's still possible that both formats will coexist or both formats will fail, but at this point, the least plausible scenario by far is HD-DVD winning outright. Microsoft is all about HD downloading, and their half-baked support of HD-DVD is just a means to that end -- maintain enough uncertainty in the HD disc market to keep it relegated to niche status, and keep it that way long enough for the downloading market to gain traction. If they really wanted HD-DVD to actually win this format war, they would have integrated the drive into this black Xbox 360. But, I think even Microsoft's seeing the writing on the wall, and would rather squeeze some extra margins out of their Xbox hardware than sink those profits into an integrated HD-DVD drive.


Again, neither are REQUIRED for HD Gaming. I got my HD drive for $159, and the wireless card for $60 off ebay. And I didn't have to pay for the cable, so I guess I came out ahead!

Barely! And even there, you're still stuck with Dolby Digital, no HDMI output, and a 20 GB hard drive. And you still have to buy your own optical audio cable just to hear old school 5.1 Dolby Digital. And for anyone who buys these add-ons at a retail store without that long-expired Circuit City coupon you keep talking about, it brings the cost of that Xbox 360 to $700. And it still can't do HDMI! :cornut:


This horse is dead and beaten. And if I buy a PS3, and I DON'T want to pay for the Blu-Ray drive, or need wireless internet? I guess in your world I OVERPAID.

Only to you is it a "dead and beaten" horse, because it's a losing argument for you. Kex was making a specific inquiry about how much a Xbox 360 would cost with the wireless networking, 120 GB drive, and the HD-DVD drive. (I notice that you conveniently sidestepped that question since that would mean admitting that the PS3 has a price advantage in that comparison) Within his inquiry, buying an Xbox 360 with all of those add-on options would be overpaying compared to a comparably configured PS3.


Don't forget that voids your warrenty on your brand new $600 machine. With the 360, undoubtably, the drive will be expensive relative to other hard drives on the market, but it won't void your warrenty to change it out.

Yup, but I would guess that 60 GB won't easily fill up within the warranty period. If you claim that 60 GB is insufficient, then what does that say about the Xbox 360 which up until now has remained limited to 20 GB?

kexodusc
03-20-2007, 06:04 PM
For me, I'm looking at a media center type thing to replace a giant PC box and monitor in my living room - I think XBOX 360 might be the easiest for now - a bit cheaper if I don't bother with the HD-DVD.

But I am impressed with the wi-fi, BluRay and media potential of the PS3...
Honestly wasn't trying to bait Groundbeef into anything, just curious.
I suspect I'll own both again, we like too many platform-unique game series on each to not get them.

Just trying to find the sweet spot to dive in, that's all...BluRay is looking aweful tempting these days...just keep telling myself an extra year will save me a ton...I have a hard time making time for movies and games these days anyway.

emorphien
03-20-2007, 06:24 PM
Its no PS3, it got a 120GB HD and HDMI?: who cares still GARBAGE!!!, no WIFI, Cant read memory cards, and not blue tooth, no real high definition because of the fact that they aren't putting HD DVD drive in it, no blue ray, XBOX IS WAY BEHIND NOW HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
right...

Woochifer
03-20-2007, 07:03 PM
Just trying to find the sweet spot to dive in, that's all...BluRay is looking aweful tempting these days...just keep telling myself an extra year will save me a ton...I have a hard time making time for movies and games these days anyway.

To illustrate how much money you can save, just look at how the list price on that Samsung Blu-ray player has tumbled from $1,000 in August to $800 now. Best Buy sells it for $700 and I've heard that it's going for $600 in other places. That would put it right on track to meet analyst projections of Blu-ray players prices going under $400 by year's end, since the next round of Blu-ray players from Sony and Samsung (+ Mitsubishi and Philips?) are coming in at the $600 price point this summer.

As far as these gaming consoles go, this new black Xbox 360 seems more like profit taking, since it adds a higher price point, and leaves the current models and their price points unchanged. Also keep in mind that the Xbox 360's HD-DVD add-on downconverts the lossless audio formats to Dolby Digital. By year's end, the HD-DVD players prices are projected to go below $300 (with the X factor being a potential deluge of off-brand HD-DVD players that Toshiba has enabled), and those units will have HDMI 1.3 support and (probably) internal audio decoders for the high res audio formats.

Meanwhile, the PS3's market position remains very unsettled at the moment, with a big sales decline in February. By year's end, we'll probably have a better idea of the PS3's prospects in the gaming market, and by then other Blu-ray options will also be out there. As a wireless media center and Blu-ray player, the PS3 is definitely tempting, but at $600 it's still a higher price point than I'd like.

Another year also means more time for HDMI 1.3 products to enter the market, and time to get the various features on both HD disc formats more fully implemented.

emorphien
03-20-2007, 08:31 PM
For gamers the wireless is not ideal, and even I wouldn't want to rely on it for a media center as wireless can and often is flaky in many situations. It's not something I use on my computers unless I have to or it's really convenient. For something like a game console it's easy enough for me to wire it up.

Groundbeef
03-21-2007, 05:09 AM
Its no PS3, it got a 120GB HD and HDMI?: who cares still GARBAGE!!!, no WIFI, Cant read memory cards, and not blue tooth, no real high definition because of the fact that they aren't putting HD DVD drive in it, no blue ray, XBOX IS WAY BEHIND NOW HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


1. Don't need Wifi for gaming, or connecting to the internet. Wifi is not the best for gaming in any event.

2. Blu-Tooth sucks for gaming versus infared. For example, you can't even use a universal remote with your PS3, unless you purchase an add-on to accept infared signals. Even the old PS2 could do that. Oh, no Sony felt it best to make the remote Blu-Tooth, typical.

And the controllers drop off, and need to be corded to the machine periodically to re-link up with the PS3. Thats really handy when your playing, and have to stop to cord up so you can continue to play. Kinda gives new meaning to "cordless" I guess.

3. You are a tool if you think you need a HD drive to play HD games. The HD drive is for movies, NOT GAMES. All 360 games are in HD.

MS has already stated that if HD-DVD dies, they will put out a Blu-Ray attachment similar to the OPTIONAL HD-DVD drive.

Groundbeef
03-21-2007, 05:32 AM
Nope, this time I'll let you do come up with the proof, since you're once again mischaracterizing something I'd written on a previous thread. Lost arguments from you don't require bookmarks, since you create so many PS3-bashing threads that are later debunked (i.e., the base PS3 won't include a hard drive, the base PS3 won't support HDMI, copy protection won't allow for used games, etc.), it's hard to avoid them. :cool:

I post them as I see them. This board is called News And Rumors no? If something interesting comes over the new w/ regards to either 360 or PS3, I'll post it. If the RUMOR turns out false or wrong, so be it. Sure beats talking about only old news.



Yup, but since you're (still) harping on Sony not including a HDMI cable, I'll just keep pointing out that the Xbox 360 does not even include HDMI. And keep in mind that this is an AUDIO board, where people will likely use their gaming consoles for more than just gaming.

At this point, its more of a jab than anything else. To put it in perspective, I just bought a new DirecTV H20 reciever for my new TV. The reciever was $99.00 and it included BOTH HDMI, and Composite Cables. So why is it that a $99 box comes with all needed cables for HD viewing, and the $600 "Tru-HD" machine only comes with the crappiest SD cables? You keep sidestepping that one. It would only seem right that they throw in a 6' cable to make it HD no?




Highly unlikely that Blu-ray will lose at this point with the latest week-to-week disc sales data now showing Blu-ray with a more than 4-to-1 advantage, and a more than 2-to-1 advantage in year-to-date sales.

Frankly, I'm inclined to belive you at this point, and hope the blu-ray addon comes out soon.




It's still possible that both formats will coexist or both formats will fail, but at this point, the least plausible scenario by far is HD-DVD winning outright. Microsoft is all about HD downloading, and their half-baked support of HD-DVD is just a means to that end -- maintain enough uncertainty in the HD disc market to keep it relegated to niche status, and keep it that way long enough for the downloading market to gain traction. If they really wanted HD-DVD to actually win this format war, they would have integrated the drive into this black Xbox 360. But, I think even Microsoft's seeing the writing on the wall, and would rather squeeze some extra margins out of their Xbox hardware than sink those profits into an integrated HD-DVD drive.

Actually, I think the drive arguement is a red herring for both sides of the arguement. Have you seen the latest information on the Xbox Live Marketplace statistics? They are now 2nd only to Itunes in d/l movies. Thats in 4 months with an installed base of 10+ million, and a subscriber base of 6 million Xbox Live members. Thats pretty good. And MS is now the largest supplier of d/l HD movies through the service. Read here:

http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2007/03/20/video-marketplace-2nd-only-to-itunes/

Seems people like d/l movies right to their TV.

Lets see Sony match up to this.




Barely! And even there, you're still stuck with Dolby Digital, no HDMI output, and a 20 GB hard drive. And you still have to buy your own optical audio cable just to hear old school 5.1 Dolby Digital. And for anyone who buys these add-ons at a retail store without that long-expired Circuit City coupon you keep talking about, it brings the cost of that Xbox 360 to $700. And it still can't do HDMI! :cornut:

This is of course assuming that you want/need the extras. The flip side is that PS3 owners paid too much for features they don't use.




Only to you is it a "dead and beaten" horse, because it's a losing argument for you. Kex was making a specific inquiry about how much a Xbox 360 would cost with the wireless networking, 120 GB drive, and the HD-DVD drive. (I notice that you conveniently sidestepped that question since that would mean admitting that the PS3 has a price advantage in that comparison) Within his inquiry, buying an Xbox 360 with all of those add-on options would be overpaying compared to a comparably configured PS3.

And you sidestep the point that the PS3 is forcing consumers to pay to much for items they have no choice in not having. If you just want to play games, you paid $200 too much.




Yup, but I would guess that 60 GB won't easily fill up within the warranty period. If you claim that 60 GB is insufficient, then what does that say about the Xbox 360 which up until now has remained limited to 20 GB?

Never said it would fill up. You offered that you can swap out the drive, and I indicated that would void the warrenty.

Is the 20 gig to small? Probably. Is it a dealbreaker for me or others? Clearly not, as the 360 continues to sell. Point of fact, the PS2 continues to outsell both, and it doesn't even come or need a hard drive.

kexodusc
03-21-2007, 08:00 AM
PS2 still going strong, eh? How's XBOX doing, outselling 360 by chance?

I can't help but think we're still a year or more off from the point where XBOX and PS2 owners really start thinking about a next generation console.

Think it's a matter of time until we see a cheaper, barebones kit for both 360 and PS3 really tempting these consumers.

emorphien
03-21-2007, 09:19 AM
PS2 still going strong, eh? How's XBOX doing, outselling 360 by chance?

I can't help but think we're still a year or more off from the point where XBOX and PS2 owners really start thinking about a next generation console.

Think it's a matter of time until we see a cheaper, barebones kit for both 360 and PS3 really tempting these consumers.
That's complicated by the fact that the PS3 is rather pricy and the XB360 has been out for a year and costs less. If XB fans want to switch to the XB360, now is as good a time as there ever way. The PS3 still hasn't matured (assuming it will).

If the XB360 and PS3 came out closer together I'd agree with you but they didn't.

Groundbeef
03-21-2007, 09:32 AM
PS2 still going strong, eh? How's XBOX doing, outselling 360 by chance?

I can't help but think we're still a year or more off from the point where XBOX and PS2 owners really start thinking about a next generation console.

Think it's a matter of time until we see a cheaper, barebones kit for both 360 and PS3 really tempting these consumers.

No, the original XBOX was discontinued shortly after the debut of the the 360. So sales are pretty much flatline now. I think that MS is going to stop supporting games for it very shortly, and no more new games will be mfg for it. So for original xbox owners, the 1 year mark has come and gone.

There was quite a lively debate about Sony support of the original PS2 vs MS going cold turkey. Good points were scored on both sides, but I personally see the continued support of the PS2 as detrimental to the sale of the PS3.

At this point several games are being released for BOTH the PS3 and the PS2. What kind of incentive are they giving PS2 owners for switching to the PS3 when they can have the "same" game ($10 cheaper to boot) on a machine over $350 less?

MS doesn't have that issue.

But, it was also argued that to abandon the PS2 market would be leaving a lot of money on the table for Sony. I have to conceed that point, but to push people to buy the newest machine, they are going to have to get out some GOOD games only available on that system.

On that note, SONY has lost 3 more exclusives in the last month. Devil May Cry 4, some sort of air fighter game (has only been on PS, PSP, PS2 for all of its prior games), and another Capcom game (name escapes me).

This is not boding well for Sony, as they are only Losing exclusives, not gaining any differential advantage from MS.

kexodusc
03-21-2007, 10:50 AM
No, the original XBOX was discontinued shortly after the debut of the the 360. So sales are pretty much flatline now. I think that MS is going to stop supporting games for it very shortly, and no more new games will be mfg for it. So for original xbox owners, the 1 year mark has come and gone.

There was quite a lively debate about Sony support of the original PS2 vs MS going cold turkey. Good points were scored on both sides, but I personally see the continued support of the PS2 as detrimental to the sale of the PS3.

At this point several games are being released for BOTH the PS3 and the PS2. What kind of incentive are they giving PS2 owners for switching to the PS3 when they can have the "same" game ($10 cheaper to boot) on a machine over $350 less?

MS doesn't have that issue.

But, it was also argued that to abandon the PS2 market would be leaving a lot of money on the table for Sony. I have to conceed that point, but to push people to buy the newest machine, they are going to have to get out some GOOD games only available on that system.

On that note, SONY has lost 3 more exclusives in the last month. Devil May Cry 4, some sort of air fighter game (has only been on PS, PSP, PS2 for all of its prior games), and another Capcom game (name escapes me).

This is not boding well for Sony, as they are only Losing exclusives, not gaining any differential advantage from MS.

I don't think the PS2 is hurting the long-term profitability of PS3, if anything, it's helping it. Definitely not encouraging PS3 sales, but it's probably not hurting them. If they're still buying PS2, it's because they aren't the kind of consumer who's willing to shell out for PS3stuff, yet. Best to make some money off them, than none. If you're right, and they're losing money on each unit now, best to keep catering to the loyal PS fans, then wait until they make a bit more money off each sale in the future.

Great to see fewer exclusives, IMO...competition is good.

So where are things at right now...how many PS2's and Xbox's were sold, and how many PS3's and 360's?
Is it even 20% of the previous generation's sales, yet?

Woochifer
03-21-2007, 10:50 AM
At this point, its more of a jab than anything else. To put it in perspective, I just bought a new DirecTV H20 reciever for my new TV. The reciever was $99.00 and it included BOTH HDMI, and Composite Cables. So why is it that a $99 box comes with all needed cables for HD viewing, and the $600 "Tru-HD" machine only comes with the crappiest SD cables? You keep sidestepping that one. It would only seem right that they throw in a 6' cable to make it HD no?

Would I prefer that they include the HDMI cable? Of course I would. But, if I was weighing a decision between the Xbox 360 w/ the HD-DVD add-on versus a PS3, the exclusion of a HDMI cable is hardly a consequential consideration, just as whether or not the remote comes with batteries does nothing to sway me one way or another. In contrast, the Xbox 360's exclusion of HDMI output altogether is much more consequential to my decision making, since it cannot be fixed by buying a $10 cable.


Actually, I think the drive arguement is a red herring for both sides of the arguement. Have you seen the latest information on the Xbox Live Marketplace statistics? They are now 2nd only to Itunes in d/l movies. Thats in 4 months with an installed base of 10+ million, and a subscriber base of 6 million Xbox Live members. Thats pretty good. And MS is now the largest supplier of d/l HD movies through the service. Read here:

http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2007/03/20/video-marketplace-2nd-only-to-itunes/

Seems people like d/l movies right to their TV.

Lets see Sony match up to this.

And I think this is exactly where Microsoft is trying to steer the market. In the download arena right now, Apple is the heavyweight, but they have not ventured into HD media and that's an area where Microsoft can build up an advantage IF these HD disc formats don't gain a foothold.

I don't think that Sony at the moment is trying to match this since they're heavily vested in Blu-ray. But, keep in mind that because they control much of the content, they can influence the download market once it goes in that direction.


And you sidestep the point that the PS3 is forcing consumers to pay to much for items they have no choice in not having. If you just want to play games, you paid $200 too much.

And my original response was to kex who'd indicated that he wants those features. My response had nothing to do with someone who "just wants to play games" so your harping on that point is irrelevant to the question I answered. For someone like him, or someone like me, who would make use of the Blu-ray playback and wireless media networking features, it's not paying $200 too much since adding comparable features to a Xbox 360 would be more expensive.

And the PS3 is not "forcing" consumers to do anything, since the consumer retains the option of not buying. If they just want to play games, they can go with the $500 base model or if that's too expensive they can go with a different platform or wait until the first price cut.


Never said it would fill up. You offered that you can swap out the drive, and I indicated that would void the warrenty.

According to this site's instructions on how to upgrade the drive (looks even easier than changing a PC hard drive), swapping out drives does not void the warranty. The HDD access panel does not require breaking the warranty seal.

http://www.consolesource.com/blog/?p=33

Groundbeef
03-21-2007, 11:25 AM
Would I prefer that they include the HDMI cable? Of course I would. But, if I was weighing a decision between the Xbox 360 w/ the HD-DVD add-on versus a PS3, the exclusion of a HDMI cable is hardly a consequential consideration, just as whether or not the remote comes with batteries does nothing to sway me one way or another. In contrast, the Xbox 360's exclusion of HDMI output altogether is much more consequential to my decision making, since it cannot be fixed by buying a $10 cable.

Its not like the 360 doesn't play back in HD without HDMI. Sure its more convienent, but I can't use it even if it came with the 360. I use my AV setup for audio, and it doesn't have HDMI. I don't want to run it through the TV, you lose the surround aspect. I can't imagine that I am the only one in the US that feels that way. HDMI is NOT the second coming, and as numerous posts on this forum indicate there are multiple issues of 'handshake' incompatiblities with various equipment. So lets not pretend that without HDMI somehow the 360 is a less machine.

And there are other issues besides the cable (incidently at all major retailers they don't have the $10 cable next to the PS3, its the $100 Monster cable, and as a 'cheap' alternative a $75 HDMI cable. So please don't tell me the retailers are shoveling off inexpensive cables to the masses....because they are not). The remote issue is another issue. No matter what current universal remote you have, it won't work with the PS3 due to the wonky Blu-Tooth remote.

I think that some vendors (logitech) will come out with one, but why make it so hard? Whats the benefit?




And I think this is exactly where Microsoft is trying to steer the market. In the download arena right now, Apple is the heavyweight, but they have not ventured into HD media and that's an area where Microsoft can build up an advantage IF these HD disc formats don't gain a foothold.

I agree. Apple is releasing a $299 settop unit that will beam video to the TV, but we shall see how that goes. If I'm gonna pay $299, it had better do something better than just beam video....hey the base 360 costs $299 AND plays games....hmmmm




I don't think that Sony at the moment is trying to match this since they're heavily vested in Blu-ray. But, keep in mind that because they control much of the content, they can influence the download market once it goes in that direction.

Nor can they support it right now. Their "PS Store" is lackluster at best. Just wait until they actually sell some units, it won't handle the traffic. ( That my guess)




And my original response was to kex who'd indicated that he wants those features. My response had nothing to do with someone who "just wants to play games" so your harping on that point is irrelevant to the question I answered. For someone like him, or someone like me, who would make use of the Blu-ray playback and wireless media networking features, it's not paying $200 too much since adding comparable features to a Xbox 360 would be more expensive.
Maybe. That depends on where you buy your equipment. But then it comes down to games and features. And the PS3 is WAY behind in D/L content, online gameplay, networking (link to media center pc for example). So its not only a cost issue, but a feature issue.




And the PS3 is not "forcing" consumers to do anything, since the consumer retains the option of not buying. If they just want to play games, they can go with the $500 base model or if that's too expensive they can go with a different platform or wait until the first price cut.

As if MS has a gun to your head, and says "its not on the machine, BUT YOU MUST BUY IT OR DIE". You just can't admit that the 360 is less expensive, especially for gamers not interested in HD movies, or wireless networking.




According to this site's instructions on how to upgrade the drive (looks even easier than changing a PC hard drive), swapping out drives does not void the warranty. The HDD access panel does not require breaking the warranty seal.

http://www.consolesource.com/blog/?p=33

And according to this site, its not that cut and dry. Sony reserves the right to decide if you have swapped Hard Drives, and the PS3 fails, if they will cover the warrenty. So I guess you can swap the drive, but if your system fails, hope that Sony says...."Thats Ok, we will cover your failure, no problem....."

http://ps3.qj.net/Clearing-up-the-PS3-s-HDD-swap-warranty-issues/pg/49/aid/72554

Woochifer
03-21-2007, 11:40 AM
I don't think the PS2 is hurting the long-term profitability of PS3, if anything, it's helping it. Definitely not encouraging PS3 sales, but it's probably not hurting them. If they're still buying PS2, it's because they aren't the kind of consumer who's willing to shell out for PS3stuff, yet. Best to make some money off them, than none. If you're right, and they're losing money on each unit now, best to keep catering to the loyal PS fans, then wait until they make a bit more money off each sale in the future.

Great to see fewer exclusives, IMO...competition is good.

So where are things at right now...how many PS2's and Xbox's were sold, and how many PS3's and 360's?
Is it even 20% of the previous generation's sales, yet?

Here are a couple of the commonly linked sales charts. As with the chart that I posted in the Blu-ray thread, this is a composite from different sources. The PS3 had actually been keeping pace with the PS2 debut until February when sales took a big nose dive.

At this juncture, none of the next gen consoles have matched the sales rates for the PS2 and the Xbox (though the more recent Xbox 360 console sales have held up better than the original Xbox which persistently had unit sales under 200k in its second year). By the PS2's second holiday season, December console sales reached 1.9 million in North America alone. I don't know if either the Wii or PS3 will reach that sales level by this December, since the Xbox 360 peaked at 1.1 million in its second December.

This link (http://forum.pcvsconsole.com/viewthread.php?tid=11067) has the most current data for North America dating back to November 2001, while the image below shows the North American sales from the PS2 debut onward.

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/3913/saleshw7yz.jpg

powerlord
03-21-2007, 12:48 PM
I'm so glad I've come to grips with the differences of my consoles,I love both machines and all their differences now,it's what makes them unique,they both have excellent qualities and were worth the money I spent,the kids enjoy them and the grand kids love both,and they brag to their friends all the time that I have BOTH bad ass systems.Alot of the arguments I see are from people that are worried about keeping up with technology which isn't a bad thing(guilty as charged) I just think both companies came out with great machines and I'm glad,I was waiting for the next big break in gaming and movie technology and wow it came double!

emorphien
03-21-2007, 05:30 PM
I agree. Apple is releasing a $299 settop unit that will beam video to the TV, but we shall see how that goes. If I'm gonna pay $299, it had better do something better than just beam video....hey the base 360 costs $299 AND plays games....hmmmm

Unless I'm mistaken, I recall reading that requires syncing in order to play media on the TV. If that's the case (and I'm not sure it is or isn't) then that's a step backwards in usability & convenience.

Groundbeef
03-22-2007, 06:05 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, I recall reading that requires syncing in order to play media on the TV. If that's the case (and I'm not sure it is or isn't) then that's a step backwards in usability & convenience.

Here's some pictures of the beast!

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/03/22/apple-tv-unboxing/

It looks pretty slick, however it does appear that you need to do the heavy lifting with your computer, then transmit the data to the player that is attached to your TV.

This extra step may cause casual users to pass, as it just complicates the process unless your TV is in your office/computer room.

I don't know if you can remotly utilize Itunes from the unit, but if you could, that would make things easier.

It also appears that Apple is tighter with a penny than Sony. For this DEDICATED HD/SD player, Apple neglected to include ANY video cables. Thats a load of crap. For $299 they ought to include at least 1 cable. So if you buy one, make sure to get cables, or your going back to the store.

I also don't know if this unit stores programming, or simply repeats what is on your computer. Perhaps Wooch can fill in the details as he seems to know a lot about many things.

emorphien
03-22-2007, 06:13 AM
As far as I'm concerned this type of unit should be able to browse network shares (perhaps use iTunes on each computer to tell it where to look as I believe MS does with the Xbox).

Not that I want one or am planning to buy it but that's a big design oversight to me. I wouldn't really want one anyway because it would require the use of iTunes which is bad enough on a Mac but a complete mess on Windows.

Groundbeef
03-22-2007, 07:05 AM
As far as I'm concerned this type of unit should be able to browse network shares (perhaps use iTunes on each computer to tell it where to look as I believe MS does with the Xbox).

Not that I want one or am planning to buy it but that's a big design oversight to me. I wouldn't really want one anyway because it would require the use of iTunes which is bad enough on a Mac but a complete mess on Windows.

I don't think that it would browse each Itunes, after all, Itunes will only recognize 1 Ipod per computer, and Each IPod is tied to 1 Itunes.

I would imagine that the player is tied to the 'main' computer of the household. One that is always on the network.

It is intriguing, but no where near as handy as the 360. With it you can get new content off the marketplace, or stream video on your computer already. But it is NOT required to use a computer, as it can do video on its own.

emorphien
03-22-2007, 09:30 AM
I suppose Apples DRM got in their own way then, although the Xbox doesn't have that issue. Personally I don't think it's the same as loading an iPod with music because then you could bring it to another computer and give that person your music. With the apple TV it doesn't have to keep a copy of what it plays, and I still see no reason it would have to be tied to one computer.

Oh well, it's a product that doesn't make sense.

Groundbeef
03-22-2007, 09:53 AM
I suppose Apples DRM got in their own way then, although the Xbox doesn't have that issue. Personally I don't think it's the same as loading an iPod with music because then you could bring it to another computer and give that person your music. With the apple TV it doesn't have to keep a copy of what it plays, and I still see no reason it would have to be tied to one computer.

Oh well, it's a product that doesn't make sense.

Also, I seem to remeber reading that it will NOT play .wmv files (MS format) further hobbeling it, as much of video out there is the of the .wmv style.

I think that they are trying to prop up the whole Itunes video d/l up. The problem is that the video isn't optimized for playback on TV's (although maybe for this it will be). I just see it not catching on.

Frankly, I'm just getting tired of the whole "i" thing. The phone was a strech, but I don't see this device getting major play or working out in the long run.

emorphien
03-22-2007, 10:25 AM
http://shop.pcmag.com/shop/product/Apple+TV/40833654.aspx

It does stream. Didn't read it all so I'm not sure if it mentioned what formats.

Groundbeef
03-22-2007, 10:54 AM
. And for anyone who buys these add-ons at a retail store without that long-expired Circuit City coupon you keep talking about, it brings the cost of that Xbox 360 to $700.


Just wanted you to know that Sams Club has the HD-DVD drive priced @ $181.42 every day. Thats just under 10% off everyday.


http://forums.audioreview.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=184662 BTW this shows it 'ONLINE ONLY' but my local Sams has the same price!


And here:
http://www.pcnation.com/web/details.asp?affid=306&item=L17236

So, it is possible to get it less than retail.

The network adapter (if you need wireless) can be had for about $85 on Amazon.

emorphien
03-22-2007, 12:37 PM
After reading a bit on the apple TV, it has relatively thin format support.

Woochifer
03-23-2007, 09:39 AM
Its not like the 360 doesn't play back in HD without HDMI. Sure its more convienent, but I can't use it even if it came with the 360. I use my AV setup for audio, and it doesn't have HDMI. I don't want to run it through the TV, you lose the surround aspect. I can't imagine that I am the only one in the US that feels that way. HDMI is NOT the second coming, and as numerous posts on this forum indicate there are multiple issues of 'handshake' incompatiblities with various equipment. So lets not pretend that without HDMI somehow the 360 is a less machine.

And with the Xbox 360, you cannot take advantage of the lossless audio formats because it's missing the HDMI connection. The HD-DVD add-on downconverts everything to Dolby Digital, which is a total joke considering that higher res audio is one of the key features of the HD-DVD format. That's a matter of straight up functionality (as opposed to a missing cable, which the end user can readily remedy), so I'm not "pretending" that without HDMI the "360 is a less machine" because IT IS. The PS3's HDMI connection allows for 7.1 uncompressed audio output through any HDMI connection (most receivers with HDMI 1.1 and higher are setup for multichannel 192/24 PCM audio). Maybe you should stop pretending that analog video and Toslink audio connections are equivalent to HDMI, because they are not.


And there are other issues besides the cable (incidently at all major retailers they don't have the $10 cable next to the PS3, its the $100 Monster cable, and as a 'cheap' alternative a $75 HDMI cable. So please don't tell me the retailers are shoveling off inexpensive cables to the masses....because they are not). The remote issue is another issue. No matter what current universal remote you have, it won't work with the PS3 due to the wonky Blu-Tooth remote.

More strawmen that you've oh so conveniently knocked down...

Is the remote needed for basic playback? No.

Is $75 the least expensive HDMI cable found at retail stores? No.


You just can't admit that the 360 is less expensive, especially for gamers not interested in HD movies, or wireless networking.

And you can't even get my responses straight on THIS THREAD (disregarding the numerous other times you've mischaracterized/distorted my responses on previous theads).

http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=184620&postcount=5


As a pure gaming console, the Xbox 360 has a price advantage, but if you consider the HD disc playback and wireless networking, then the PS3 holds the advantage.


Just wanted you to know that Sams Club has the HD-DVD drive priced @ $181.42 every day. Thats just under 10% off everyday.


http://forums.audioreview.com/newrep...reply&p=184662 BTW this shows it 'ONLINE ONLY' but my local Sams has the same price!


And here:
http://www.pcnation.com/web/details....06&item=L17236

So, it is possible to get it less than retail.

The network adapter (if you need wireless) can be had for about $85 on Amazon.

And even after jumping through all those hoops, the price still comes out higher than the PS3, the unit still cannot utilize a HDMI connection, and the HD-DVD add-on still cannot output any of the lossless audio formats. (And we're not even on the subject of Blu-ray's studio support) :lol:

Groundbeef
03-23-2007, 10:17 AM
And with the Xbox 360, you cannot take advantage of the lossless audio formats because it's missing the HDMI connection. The HD-DVD add-on downconverts everything to Dolby Digital, which is a total joke considering that higher res audio is one of the key features of the HD-DVD format. That's a matter of straight up functionality (as opposed to a missing cable, which the end user can readily remedy), so I'm not "pretending" that without HDMI the "360 is a less machine" because IT IS. The PS3's HDMI connection allows for 7.1 uncompressed audio output through any HDMI connection (most receivers with HDMI 1.1 and higher are setup for multichannel 192/24 PCM audio). Maybe you should stop pretending that analog video and Toslink audio connections are equivalent to HDMI, because they are not.

Well, looks like I touched a nerve here. What does Sony pay you per post? Must be pretty high, as you can't seem to step away for more than 24 hours.

I forgot that I MUST be the ONLY A/V enthusiest, and gamer that DOESNT have HDMI. How stupid of me.

So according to you, if you dont have HDMI you can't enjoy HD gaming, or sound out of my receiver that DOESN'T support HDMI. So, I guess that Sony should REQUIRE all users to upgrade to new A/V equipment, New TV, and everything else to experience "Tru-HD".

Why don't you stop pretending that everyone in the world will be able to fully utilize the PS3, and the HDMI connection, because they cant. So tell me o wise one, why should I pay for features that I can't use? Would it be nice if the 360 had HDMI? Sure.
Would it matter to HD gaming/video playback? I guess if you have equipment that can utilze it. If not, not so much.

I guess in your world, if you don't have a Ferrari, then you really don't own a car. Just because its the most expensive doesn't mean its the best.






More strawmen that you've oh so conveniently knocked down...

Is the remote needed for basic playback? No.

Is $75 the least expensive HDMI cable found at retail stores? No.

I suppose the remote isn't needed, any more than HDMI. Do people have expensive remotes on this board? You bet. As you have pointed out many times before, most people reading this board are enthusiests. So why would Sony market this as a machine for enthusiests, and make them jump through so many hoops. Why not just make the remote work like 99.99% of the IR remotes out there now?

Its not a strawman for lots of people. Its just another example of Sony forcing consumers to use their format regardless of the practical application.

And I can just see the BB sales guy BEGGING consumers to buy the CHEAPEST cables in the store, to go with their most expensive game console in history.




And even after jumping through all those hoops, the price still comes out higher than the PS3, the unit still cannot utilize a HDMI connection, and the HD-DVD add-on still cannot output any of the lossless audio formats. (And we're not even on the subject of Blu-ray's studio support) :lol:

The price may be more expenisve, depending upon the cable you settle on for the PS3. And the resolution, and sound from my 360 is awesome. Sorry you are so against anyone else enjoying formats you don't approve of.

Well, I shouldn't keep you here any longer, you probably need to run out to the mailbox to pick up your Sony Shill Check.:ciappa:

ShockOpera
03-27-2007, 11:30 AM
To anyone who can help:

I'm setting up 3 movie theaters in the house. One is an actual screening room, the other two will be projector systems, as well. I'll post more on the screening room and basement one shortly. However, for my "mancave" I'm using an Optoma HD70 projector against a wall with special paint for movie projectors and for sound, I'm using an NHT (now hear this) system of 2 Absolute Zero bookshelf speakers, one of NHT center channel speakers and NHT iw3 side fills and an SVS 10" sub. This will be the identical set up, actually, for the basement as well. For an amp, I'm using any one of several that are available through Best Buy. There seem to be a lot less costly Pioneer amps than Best Buy's top of the line Pioneer for $1000 that appear to do the same thing in terms of plugging in a microphone and having it calibrate to the room. The total harmonic distortion is different, sure, but for the sake of .03%, I think my ear can live with it, right?

I'm more affluent in terms of the video side of things than the audio, so I'm looking for some help from anyone out there that really has an idea of what they are doing in this world of audio/video. Since I am buying all my components through Best Buy, can anyone help?

The last part of my question is: I bought an Xbox 360 through Best Buy, as well. I haven't taken it out of the box yet, so, since it's nearly April 1st, should I just take it back and buy the one that comes with a bigger hard drive and the HDMI cable? Keep in mind, the projector that I'm using supports everything up to 1080i. The T.V. on the opposite side of the movie wall will have a 1080p T.V. on it (bedroom).

So, talk to me like I'm a 4 year old when explaining things to me, people. I want the best value for my buck. Just because I'm putting in several theater systems, doesn't mean I want to be raped on the cost of components, as well.

Thanks,

Shock
ShockOpera@aol.com

Groundbeef
03-27-2007, 01:30 PM
It depends.

If your audio inputs in your reciever support HDMI it may pay to wait. If not, then the HD size may or may not be important.

If you want to rip alot of music, and d/l movies, then you might wait.

Woochifer
03-29-2007, 12:14 PM
Well, looks like I touched a nerve here. What does Sony pay you per post? Must be pretty high, as you can't seem to step away for more than 24 hours.

I forgot that I MUST be the ONLY A/V enthusiest, and gamer that DOESNT have HDMI. How stupid of me.

So according to you, if you dont have HDMI you can't enjoy HD gaming, or sound out of my receiver that DOESN'T support HDMI. So, I guess that Sony should REQUIRE all users to upgrade to new A/V equipment, New TV, and everything else to experience "Tru-HD".

Why don't you stop pretending that everyone in the world will be able to fully utilize the PS3, and the HDMI connection, because they cant. So tell me o wise one, why should I pay for features that I can't use? Would it be nice if the 360 had HDMI? Sure.
Would it matter to HD gaming/video playback? I guess if you have equipment that can utilze it. If not, not so much.

I guess in your world, if you don't have a Ferrari, then you really don't own a car. Just because its the most expensive doesn't mean its the best.

Talk about touching a nerve, being on someone's payroll and on call 24/7! You ought to read your own posts (and check on how quickly your responses come flying off your keyboard) sometime! :idea:

I'm simply responding to your absurdly false statement that a component limited to 1080i analog video (unless you go the VGA route, which severely limits the ability to use your receiver for video switching), and Toslink audio connections that downconvert all of the audio to 448k Dolby Digital is no different than going with HDMI 1.3. The HD-DVD add-on with the Xbox 360 doesn't even allow for the higher res audio to be output via analog audio, so going that route means that you won't ever take full advantage of the Dolby TrueHD and DTS-HD tracks. My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the HD-DVD add-on even downconverts the DTS tracks on HD-DVDs to 448k Dolby Digital. If that's true, then this add-on not only fails to deliver on one of the key features of HD-DVD, but it takes a step backwards by not even outputing the DTS bitstream.

And I'm not "pretending" that everyone in the world can utilize the PS3's the AV features. Uh, ever heard of upgrading? The PS3 was the first HDMI 1.3 device to hit the market, and it certainly won't be the last. It has nothing to do with buying a "Ferrari," it has to do with complying with standards that basically the entire home theater industry has adopted. By this time next year, HDMI will be commonplace across the board, from entry level components to high end separates.

Since all of the new midlevel receivers (and some entry level models) on the market this year will incorporate HDMI functionality, basically anyone who's in the market for new home theater components will be able to take advantage of the PS3's AV capability. The PS3 has the same Toslink optical audio connections that have been standard equipment in the home theater world for the past decade. The difference is that a HDMI connection can take advantage of features on the newer HDMI-enabled components coming onto the market, whereas the Xbox's HD-DVD add-on is stuck with analog vid and 448k Dolby Digital. If that's the same thing in your view, then why bother posting such nonsense on an audio board?


I suppose the remote isn't needed, any more than HDMI. Do people have expensive remotes on this board? You bet. As you have pointed out many times before, most people reading this board are enthusiests. So why would Sony market this as a machine for enthusiests, and make them jump through so many hoops. Why not just make the remote work like 99.99% of the IR remotes out there now?

Its not a strawman for lots of people. Its just another example of Sony forcing consumers to use their format regardless of the practical application.


The issue with the remote I regard as a definite inconvenience for those who do use IR universal remotes. But, one of the new features with HDMI 1.3 is the ability for connected components to control one another. Depending on how/if the HDMI 1.3 receivers and the PS3 implement this feature, the receiver remote (or other universal remote) can potentially be used to control the Blu-ray playback on the PS3. I don't use a universal remote, so you're barking up the wrong tree with this issue.

But, since one of the primary reasons I'd want to upgrade to HD-DVD or Blu-ray is for the higher audio quality, not having either HDMI or backwards compatible multichannel analog audio connections (which I will point out that the PS3 does not have either) is a far more significant issue than the remote. This pretty much eliminates the Xbox 360 for my HD disc viewing, regardless of how the HD-DVD format fares in the market. I'd be curious to see if this Xbox 360 Elite fixes this issue with the audio format downconversion.


And I can just see the BB sales guy BEGGING consumers to buy the CHEAPEST cables in the store, to go with their most expensive game console in history.

In other words, HDMI cables cheaper than $75 ARE available at retail, despite your diversionary protestations to the contrary. Thanks for admitting that! :cool:


The price may be more expenisve, depending upon the cable you settle on for the PS3. And the resolution, and sound from my 360 is awesome. Sorry you are so against anyone else enjoying formats you don't approve of.

Glad that you're enjoying yourself. No need for me to rain on your parade if you think that Xbox 360 is providing you with the full audio benefits of the HD-DVD format (or even delivering audio quality on par with what DVDs give you)!


Well, I shouldn't keep you here any longer, you probably need to run out to the mailbox to pick up your Sony Shill Check.:ciappa:

No such check at my end, but I would presume that Bill's been dishing out the favors for you in bunches! I mean you gotta get something for all the debunked info and questionable claims that you've passed on this board! :cornut:

Groundbeef
03-29-2007, 05:19 PM
Ok, I was a bit cranky on my last post.

The PS3 is a FINE machine. Not my cup o tea, but if you want it, go for it.

To enjoy it fully however, you are required to have a HDMI capable reciever/or TV. If you run into your TV, bypassing your reciever, I dont think you will get 7.1 or lossless audio from your TV audio output.

So in short, IF you have all of the required HDMI capable A/V equipment, out of the box it MAY be less expensive than a similarly equipped XBOX 360.

However, all things being equal, FOR THE TIME BEING, in reality there is going to only be a small percentage of enthusiests that have all the required equipment to fully enjoy the benefits.

The 360 out of the box IS capable of playing games in HD. The audio tracks wont be lossless, but it won't be on the PS3 either unless you can use the HDMI. If you CANT you will be forced to use plain ole audio cables, as I don't belive it has a TOSLINK output like the 360.

The WIFI is a red herring. Most gamers don't use it as it is too laggy. And it's not required for video playback.

The new 360 'Elite' should address some of these issues, as it will include HDMI, and a larger HD for movies and such. Yes, you will need to purchase HD-DVD drive, but it will be output on the HDMI cable.

There is also information floating around that MS will also be releasing a HDMI 'converter' for retrofitting current 360's but nothing final at this point.

Now, I gotta go and cash my MS check :)

Woochifer
04-03-2007, 02:17 PM
Ok, I was a bit cranky on my last post.

No prob, I probably could've done a better job at tempering my last response as well. :6: