New Xbox 360 $479 In April W/HDMI

[Groundbeef]

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/hd...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]

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]

Are they ever going to put an HD-DVD drive in the 360?

[kexodusc]

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]

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]

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]

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]

I just noticed that the above post was #400. I am not patting myself on the back!

[Groundbeef]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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!

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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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...nly-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!

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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...nly-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]

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-PS...g/49/aid/72554