backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 152 comment(s) - last by speed99.. on Apr 6 at 2:32 PM

Pictures of a retail Xbox 360 Elite from Major Nelson's Flickr

The back of the Elite console, complete with HDMI output and logo
The Xbox 360 Elite may be Microsoft's largest compliment to Sony to date

Sony executives have been known for making some rather entertaining remarks when comparing its PlayStation 3 to Microsoft’s Xbox 360. SCEA PR chief Dave Karraker said that Microsoft was doing Xbox 360 Core owners a disservice with the introduction of the hard drive-mandatory Xbox Live Video Marketplace.

While hopes for the banishing of the Core unit remain unanswered, one of the PlayStation 3’s bullet points over Microsoft’s console was today removed from the list of Sony advantages -- the HDMI output for the highest quality picture possible on HDTVs.

The announcement of the Xbox 360 Elite is clearly Microsoft’s party, but that does not stop Sony from driving by with its welcome wagon, waving PS3 flags.

“The PlayStation 3 is the only elite gaming system on the market. Microsoft is trying to catch up to us at this point. Beyond the benefits of HDMI and a hard drive offered on every PS3 we make, we also provide game developers and consumers the huge capacity of Blu-ray disc, Wi-Fi, free online gameplay, wireless motion sensing controller and the power of Cell,” said Peter Dille, senior vice president of marketing, SCEA. “Our strategy has always been to offer all our consumers a future-proof experience when they first purchase any PS3, rather than continually asking users to upgrade with expensive new add-ons and entire new SKUs.”

Dille also commented on the new HDMI feature in the Xbox 360 Elite, saying, “Microsoft's announcement today not only legitimizes Sony's PS3 strategy, it moves us closer to adopting universal standards in the area of high definition gaming that will benefit game developers and ultimately the end user.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
<no subject>
By Scabies on 3/28/2007 9:19:43 AM , Rating: 5
Lets just get it all out of our system, K?

"Microsoft is so ignorant for not doing this sooner, and stupid for doing it at a higher pricetag (without 65nm parts)"

"Sony is downright arrogant if they think Microsoft is doing this as a bandwagon gesture"

now, constructive comments. Readygo.




RE: <no subject>
By ObscureCaucasian on 3/28/2007 9:45:49 AM , Rating: 5
Yea, the price point on this is not very exciting. Unfortunately MS can do this because of Sony. I highly doubt a $480 Xbox would exist if Sony was putting absolutely no pricing pressure on Microsoft. I'm still holding out for a fairly substantial price cut when the 65nm parts are added. Apparently MS decided to try to make some cash as opposed to putting the nails in the PS3s coffin. The $180 price point for the HDD is an abomination as well, thats 2x the retail price of the drive and I'm sure MS gets some nice volume discounts.

What they need to do right now is:

$200 core
$300 premium
$380-400 Elite

$100 - $120 for 120 HDD
$50-75 20 HDD

$50 Wireless Adapter


RE: <no subject>
By bysmitty on 3/28/2007 9:57:45 AM , Rating: 3
BlameCanada wrote: "Apparently MS decided to try to make some cash as opposed to putting the nails in the PS3s coffin."

I couldn't have said it better myself.

...bysmitty


RE: <no subject>
By ogreslayer on 3/28/2007 10:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
I agree as well but now the 360 also contains a higher value than the 60GB PS3. With HDMI cabling added to the price of the PS3 the 360 Elite could actually be cheaper once you purchase the HD DVD drive. Plus, you get 2x the HD space. Which is what I think was the 360s real weak point.

Also the thing is the Elite probably won't exist after November and component wise will be the premium and be back at the $399 mark, probably sans the 120GB HD. Or even the Premium with it and the Core with the 20GB. As long as neither Nintendo or Sony look to do a drop Microsoft has no reason to twist the knife so early this year. Christmas as we all know is the time to go for your competitor's throat; embarrassing and dominating them all in one blow.


RE: <no subject>
By darkpaw on 3/28/2007 4:23:54 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on if the person is smart and gets and HDMI cable for $10-20 or if they're a complete moron and pay $50-100 for it.

I was at a store yesterday and with the normal cables they had a generic HDMI cable for $24.99, if you went over to the PS3 section they had the exact same cable with a PS3 sticker on it for $49.99. Sad thing is, I'm sure some people would buy it too.


RE: <no subject>
By abhaxus on 3/29/2007 12:15:02 AM , Rating: 1
An HDMI cable is not an HDMI cable is not an HDMI cable. If you've ever tried to actually hook up a 1080p source through a home theater receiver to a 1080p display you would know that the $25 pieces of crap at walmart and sams are not the same as a decent $50-75 cable off the net from ethereal or bluejeanscable.

That said, the ones that have PS3 stickers on them are moderately funny. I doubt that most of them can support the bandwidth of 1080p and dual handshakes through an AVR.


RE: <no subject>
By trex1000 on 4/3/2007 1:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
Hey wait a minute there. I bought a plasma tv just for my xbox360 and ps3. Hooked up the ps3 an found that I had forgotten about the HDMI cable. I went to walmart and I paid $50 for a sony HDMI cable. It was the only one they had period. I would have rather spent the extra $25 on a quality cable rather than driven 20 miles to the nearest super walmart or to have waiten 3 days to get it from Newegg. Bluray movies do not look nice on a plasma wired through an RCA jack. It's almost like watching a 700MB 2hr divx encoded ripped cam movie on a small 32" 4:3 sdtv.


RE: <no subject>
By Samus on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By Hemipower on 3/29/2007 2:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
What is the time difference between the ps2 and pstwo? Why wouldn't you want to buy a sleeker smaller nicer version as technology advances. Its different than adding something that should have been there from the begining.

If the elite came with 65nm chip, hdmi, wifi, 120 gb hd, and was have the size for the same 400 or even 450 than it would be an obvious repurchase, or new purchase for some. Right now, not so much, unless you have hd dvd add on and a high end entertainment system.


RE: <no subject>
By cheetah2k on 3/29/2007 3:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
I've said this before in another post - why not just make it US$599 with 120gb, HDMI and native HD-DVD?

On another note, I sure would like to know if M$ has revised the internal cooling to negate further "Red Rings of Deaths" due to GPU overheating...


RE: <no subject>
By crazydrummer4562 on 4/4/2007 7:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Your logic is flawed. Surely I'd like the 360 systems to be that cheap but you have to take into realization that MS barely makes any money at all on the core system as it is, they make a little more on the premium and elite, but if they were to lower prices by that much they'd be in the same position as sony (losing money out the ears), but just with a lot more high quality game titles.


RE: <no subject>
By dpope on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By Ard on 3/28/2007 10:09:39 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah, all without a high-def video player, imagine that. I'll spend the extra $20, thank you.


RE: <no subject>
By FITCamaro on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By Teletran1 on 3/28/2007 11:16:07 AM , Rating: 4
Do you own a decent HDTV and a High Def movie player FITCamaro? If you don't I would suggest curbing the upconvert = HD Movie format talk. It simply doesn't match it or even come close. If I have the option to buy a good movie on DVD or Blu-Ray I choose blu-ray every time now. I have never paid more than $25 for any movie. I have seen Criterion Collection discs sell for more than blu-ray or HD-DVD and nobody was complaining about those.


RE: <no subject>
By Scorpion on 3/28/2007 12:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would suggest curbing the upconvert = HD Movie format talk.

Yeah, since it is not even technically accurate.


RE: <no subject>
By lufoxe on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By ilteow on 3/28/2007 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
If you are going apples to apples, take the elite, buy the additional HD-DVD drive, and then compare. The elite is still cheaper than the 60 GB model.

XBox 360 elite: $479.99
XBox 360 HD-DVD drive: $199.99
------------------------------
Total: $679.98

PS3, 60 GB hard drive: $599.99

So you're saying $679.98 is less than $599.99?


RE: <no subject>
By lufoxe on 3/28/2007 3:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry bad math, it's Wednesday it happens, haha
I would interject a "still but," but you got me, if comparing the elite with the 60GB HD then I stand corrected. Wonder how much sony would charge for a 120GB though


RE: <no subject>
By Link on 3/29/2007 2:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
With PS3, you can buy a regular off-the-shelf 2.5" 120GB HD and swap it with 60GB comes with the system on your own.
On the other hand, you cannot install an off-the-shelf HD on 360.


RE: <no subject>
By bkm32 on 3/28/2007 4:00:45 PM , Rating: 2
Hello all. I'm new, but I do a pretty decent job of determining motives or strategies of other, and I'd like to share my opinion of MS' strategy regarding HD content.

I believe that MS is not at all concerned with HD-DVD or BR-DVD as much as everyone thinks (especially Sony). I believe that MS is trying to actually kill disc-loaded HD content (with the exception of Gaming, thus the DVD for games and not an HD-DVD or BR-DVD).

By increasing the HDD to 120 and including an independent power supply, MS consumers can easily disregard any new HD disc-related content (outside of actual games). The new HDMI allows MS consumers to download and view HD content at the highest resolution (dependent upon their TV, of course, which still plays into their "consumer-choice" rhetoric).

Moreover, (and they have yet to show this anaylsis) by looking at the Core unit plus the new HDD (sans the HD-DVD), a potential MS consumer can be near "bleeding-edge" for $479.98 (the same price as the Elite, BTW). Since HD downloads are available via the Xbox Live Silver (I think), current MS customers are in the "game" HD movie-wise without any next-gen drives for under $180.00. This actually makes the X360 the cheapest next-gen HD movie device on the market.

IMHO, this is why the X360 will never have an internal HD-DVD or BR-DVD no matter which format prevails. It's a pretty clever, if not stealthy move--don't compete in the format, eliminate it by developing an alternative "all-in-one" format. MS' goal is to rule the living room by replacing traditional (albeit new) living room standards (ie. DVD, DVR, HD-DVD/BR-DVD, TV Tuners, Satellite Receivers, CD-players, AppleTV, etc.)

That's MS' goal. They want their consumers to have two media devices in the house, a PC (running Windows XP MC or Vista) and an X360. These two devices allows MS to control the living room space and the home office space (i.e. the home).

Based on the enlarged HDD (expect SSD Flash drives next year) and the New IPTV deal with AT&T, I believe that the next-gen disc drive format is and has always been irrelevant to MS. In fact, the HD-DVD add-on was designed as a distraction and red herring for Sony and a pacifier to the consumer. I believe MS' truer motives have been hidden until now.

With movie houses releasing more and more content on the Web, we'll less $$ poored into disc-related content. Everything will be web-driven. This is the new business model of Web 2.0/3.0. It is coming, and MS plans on being there first greeting everyone with open arms.

I could be wrong.


RE: <no subject>
By loomis2 on 3/28/2007 9:55:20 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with your thinking, but MS has to get over the customers need to physically own things like DVD discs. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that when you buy a movie off of Live Marketplace, you own it, right? And if you delete it off your HDD for space reasons, or whatever, you can always download it again for free since MS has a record of your transaction which is linked to your Gamertag which is linked to your system. I know games and pictures and such are like that. I have yet to buy a movie off Marketplace since they take up so much room, but I may be wrong and they may be rental only, meaning they self-destruct after a few days or viewings. That has to change if that's the case. Either I have the movie at my disposal in some way digitally at all times, or I am going with HD discs.


RE: <no subject>
By herrdoktor330 on 3/28/2007 9:59:23 PM , Rating: 2
I concur. Once Microsoft can make a secure DRM scheme that will protect the content from most causual users, they can really focus on on-line distribution of content. Then they can parse that same technology to PC users and compete with all other services that allow streaming content of movies.

Hey... didn't I just read an article where the CEO of Netflix joined the Microsoft board of directors? Coincidence? I think not.

I'm going to drop a very taboo name for this thread. Does anyone remember "The Phantom"? It was a console that was supposed to be a "hard drive only" affair where you would download content from a group of servers. By increasing size of the xb360 hard drives, they could easily steal that model from the Phantom people. In a way, they already have bit the idea from the success of xbox live arcade offering gaming experiences without the need for a purchased disk medium.

This trend is growing too... Nintendo is hip to it... Valve's Steam has been doing it for years. Sony will probably jump on board too. This is a digital era, and disks of today will be tomorrow's 8-track. There's still lots of people out there who like to hold the product in their hand, but spending on download bandwidth and cutting out the retail chain can potentially pass the savings onto the customer... or more likely the profits directly to the distributor.

Anyway... that's my elaboration in this point.


RE: <no subject>
By OxBow on 3/29/2007 10:03:54 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure about online distribution yet. It's good for some content, but not for others. I don't mind downloading some content, but an HD movie takes over 8 hours to download on my dsl line. If I'm trying to do anything else online, everything slows to a crawl.

I think that this situation will improve as the network equipment is improved and expanded, etc. But it's mighty inconvenient now. Five years from now, things will be different. There are other conveniences to having the data on a disk rather than on a hard drive.

Sony has already said that online distribution is the future (following on MS coat tails). But that future isn't here now and Blue Ray is, so I'll enjoy my Blue Ray now.


RE: <no subject>
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 1:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes I have a 42" Samsung 720p HDTV.

I didn't say upconvert was as good as high def. I said it was nearly as good. Even Anandtech has said this and that waiting is the best thing to do right now with the high def formats.

I'll let you pay the premium for them and get it when the price comes down. I'd rather pay $15 for the movie.


RE: <no subject>
By SunAngel on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: <no subject>
By ObscureCaucasian on 3/28/2007 12:13:14 PM , Rating: 3
It may have more value to some, but a good chunk of that value is made up of BR player. Many people don't care too much about a Blu Ray player right now so now the 360 has a better value. Also as prices on Blu Ray and HD DVD players drop that will become an increasingly less valuable point for the PS3.

It seems Sony was tired of losing format battles and decided to force one of their formats upon us.


RE: <no subject>
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 2:00:05 PM , Rating: 1
If you care about high def DVDs it a good value. If you care about playing games, its not.


RE: <no subject>
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 2:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
And to add. I'm not saying I'll never own a PS3. I just won't be buying one any time soon. It'll be long after I get a 360.


RE: <no subject>
By darkpuppet on 3/28/2007 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
The PS3 has, what, 16 times the memory of the PS2 (read it from insomniac's blog)... and if the PS2's games filled up a DVD (and with mostly compressed data), I would rather have the storage medium to keep pace with the system RAM.

I think Microsoft is selling game content short by limited the game medium storage capacity.

BR was a smart move... and will definitely pay down the road.

I sometimes get the feeling that microsoft is trying to warm people up the PC-esque upgrade cycle that the console market typically eschews.

I find it interesting that people who are labelling one machine better over the other are typically doing it in tune with their own needs. Subjective analysis like this won't accurately predict the success or failure of the console,--as each one maintains advantages in certain areas that the other doesn't.

In the long run, the PS3's hardware may prove to be it's greatest selling point...and not necessarily the number of upgrades you can buy for it.


RE: <no subject>
By ObscureCaucasian on 3/28/2007 3:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
First off, keeping a ratio of optical storage to system memory is completely foolish. The only games that use close to a DVD 9 are the long games, so games that need access to a large amount of data over an extended period of time, not all at once. Basically a game that fills up 10 gigs will probably have the same memory footprint as a game that takes up 4, except the other one is probably longer.

Look at last generation though, the Xbox had superior hardware but still didn't do as hot because it didn't have the games the PS2 had.

I personally don't think that Blu Ray or HD DVD is going to be "essential" to this generation because games aren't that big for the most part. If games like Mass Effect, GoW, and Oblivion can fit onto 9 gigs then many games can. I've heard that Blue Dragon is multi disc, but it is the exception and not the rule.

Sony didn't add Blu ray for games, they added it to sell the format. Also


RE: <no subject>
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2007 1:01:58 AM , Rating: 1
Thank you. RPGs honestly are the only games I see ever having a space issue on the 360. And personally, I could care less about having to swap DVDs.


RE: <no subject>
By darkpuppet on 3/29/2007 1:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
why is it foolish?

because you say so?

put it this way... Ratchet and Clank, God of War, and Grand Theft Auto all clock in around 4Gb.. game engine and data take up very little of that space. The majority of the space is in the game's media assets. Sound, movies, textures, etc.

This content, needs to fit within 32 MB of shared memory at any given time. And with just a 32 MB memmory footprint, large, epic games not just limited to RPGs, take up 4Gb of space on disk -- obviously streaming from disk mind you.

Now you have 16 times more memory for content to display...on systems that display resolutions that are exponentially larger than previous gen. I liked the previous gen for how much content games could have. But making a Ratchet and Clank on the xbox360 with the highest possible resolution textures, means that you'd be running quite short with only 9Gb of storage.

I'm not saying that you can't still make compelling games on 9Gb, but with new high def gaming, you're going to have to recycle a lot of assets or keep your games short...

And in that regards, bluray opens up a lot of constraint developers will likely run into on the xbox360.


RE: <no subject>
By robertgu on 3/28/2007 2:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you keep saying $20 more for the blue-ray? If you are saying the entry level PS3 is only $20 more than the Elite. Then you are spreading incomplete information (common on the internet).

You keep quoting the $20 additional costs to get blu-ray from Sony, hence I am assuming you're comparing the Elite (120 gig) against the Sony (20 gig). This is obviously not an appropriate comparison. If you want to play HD Movies, you do not need the Elite, you can use the Core ($300) + HD-DVD drive (~$200) = $500. Which equals the price of the PS3 (20gig) system. Whether one system is better than the other on these price points is open to debate. If all you care about is gaming than the Elite gives double the HD storage as the PS3 60gig for ~$125 less (of course no HD Video drives @ this price point for the Xbox).

In my opinion I believe that for gamers, many do not see the value of Sony’s blu-ray because most do not use their console for their primary video entertainment system. Hence most gamers feel that Sony is pushing this onto them for the sole purpose of winning the format wars. They feel they are paying extra for technology they can care less about. The xbox strategy at least gives them the choice. Since most gamers seem to not care about HD Video at the moment, they can buy a lower priced machine to do what’s important to them: gaming. If later, say a year or so, they want to add HD Video they can buy whatever wins the format war if they choose (I’m assuming if Sony wins the format wars, Microsoft would release an external Blu-Ray drive al la the current HD-DVD drive.).

If you are the type that wants a large HD (60gig) and plan to use their console as their primary video entertainment system, the PS3 does present itself as a good value since it is usually cheaper than a standalone blu-ray device while having the gaming aspect basically for free.


RE: <no subject>
By Chaser on 3/28/2007 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
A majority of PS3 buyers are smart enough not the give a rat's ass about the meaningless dribble aka worthless comments about the PS3 from this forum.

But then again no one gave a damn about a DVD player either.

Take a bow Sony. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


RE: <no subject>
By RyanVM on 3/28/2007 1:25:07 PM , Rating: 1
moot*


RE: <no subject>
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 3/28/2007 1:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
I actually might've waited to buy one of these is MS didn't decide to deny any chance of the rumors in January being true. So, I decided to get a PS3 instead and I'm still glad that I did.

The games I've tried so far have been impressive, even though there isn't anything I feel like buying yet. But, the Blu Ray movies make the PS3 way worth owning.

I would much rather have a PS3 that can also play games than a stand alone player until sub $200 hybrid players are out (gonna be a couple years).

I have an upconverting DVD player, and it isn't even close to the same thing as Blu ray. And not just the picture, if you have a HDMI reciever, you wouldn't believe how much better uncompressed 5.1 / 7.1 PCM sounds than heavily compressed Dolby Digtal or DTS.

Believe it or not you don't have to buy every movie you watch. They have this new concept called "renting", you should look into it. I have the basic $10 Netflix account and it doesn't cost anything extra to get Blu Ray movies instead of DVDs. They have plenty of chocies already.


RE: <no subject>
By PrezWeezy on 3/28/2007 2:17:18 PM , Rating: 1
Not to mention the fact that HD-DVD is a better technology than Blu-Ray. And the ability to start buying HD content along with normal DVD playback makes it a much more interesting solution. Sorry, but I think Blu-Ray may end up going the way of the BetaMax. Gee, look at the similarities.


RE: <no subject>
By ilteow on 3/28/2007 3:15:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Not to mention the fact that HD-DVD is a better technology than Blu-Ray.


I'm not quite sure how you define "better". Larger storage capacity (which in turn leads to more total playback time), and faster data transfer are qualities of Blu-Ray, not HD-DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue-Ray#Blu-ray_Disc...

quote:
Sorry, but I think Blu-Ray may end up going the way of the BetaMax. Gee, look at the similarities.


Actually the fact that Blu-Ray is the superior technology would add to the similarities in comparing Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD to Betamax vs. VHS, since Betamax was the superior technology then too. The superiority of Betamax is shown by the survival of Betamax in niche markets (often those who sought better picture quality) until the proliferation of DVD, and that an extension of the Betamax technology, Betacam became a video production, presentation, and recording industry standard.


RE: <no subject>
By cheetah2k on 3/29/2007 4:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
I get sick of hearing people whine on about comparissons between Betamax vs VHS, and Blue Ray vs HD-DVD respectively, as the current competing formats are in a completely different battlefield.

Currently, both formats have had wide spread coverage in all countries all around the world. The internet is prevalent and informative on both media formats, enough such that people can make up their own minds, while fishing through all the propaganda that goes on. Costs are about the same for recorders, and both formats have the backing of some major backers, companies and industry acceptance.

Way back in the Betamax vs VHS days, there was a lot more emphasis on costs and availability, and it was obvious that consumer knowledge and strength weeded out the better quality and certainly less fortunate of the two formats of the time(that be Betamax). In addition, I also know for sure that in Australia, there was also that bad enigma about buying Japanese made tech (did someone say Toyota??)

Only time will tell with both BR & HD-DVD formats, and it will be world wide demand and acceptance that will judge the ultimate winnner - and the winner might not even be BR or HD-DVD... Did someone say holographic?


RE: <no subject>
By PrezWeezy on 3/30/2007 8:24:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see it in that Wiki article, however if I remember reading correctly, even though HD has a lower content/layer ratio, it allows for far more layers, giving up to 250GB per disc, where BluRay stopped around 200. I believe that is correct. I also have to say it again, I love the fact that on one disc you have DVD and HD-DVD. That makes it by far better; in my opinion anyway. I should have said that in my first post, in my opinion, HD-DVD is a better technology. Obviously Sony would disagree. And I could be wrong, because last I looked BluRay had far more corporate sponsorship than did HD-DVD. Either way, I have yet to buy an HD-TV, so neither matters to me except for the possibility of backup.


RE: <no subject>
By OxBow on 3/29/2007 9:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
I, for one, do give a crap about Blue Ray. I like my movies in HD and am really enjoying my Blue Ray selections from NetFlix.

As an RPG fan, I also am looking forward to all the hundreds of hours of goodness that Blue Ray will allow developers to fit onto future games. While some games don't require huge libraries, many of the ones I enjoy have been crashing against the DVD9 barrier for some time now.

$20 more for HD movies and no overheating. I think it's worth it.


RE: <no subject>
By gr8ezekiel on 3/28/2007 8:03:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even the new XBOX 360 Elite is still cheaper than the PS3.


I dont think i agrre with u there...

XBOX Elite - $480.00
HD-DVD - $199.00
Wireless Adapter - $99.00
XBOX Live Gold - $79.00
ALL THIS ADDS UP TO = $856.00

PS3 - $599.00
BD-DVD - Included
Bluetooth - Included
Online Play - FREE!!!
ALL THIS ADDS UP TO = $599.00

I'll have to say that the PS3 is cheaper. How is it a huge disappointment by the way? In Europe they have sold 600,000 units, you're right thats disappointing. I think M$ was better recalling all of the 360's and upgrading them.


RE: <no subject>
By gr8ezekiel on 3/28/2007 8:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
i think its funny that they guy under me said the same thing i did, or i said what he said when i never read the comments past the guy i replied to, thats hilarious!!! great minds see facts alike.


The Chasm
By gaigebacca on 3/28/2007 10:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
I dont know how many of you know alot about the introduction of new technology to the market... but if any of you have ever heard of the "Tornado" model... Sony is in the "chasm" right now... the first adopters, the geeks and techno-jocks have gotten their systems... and sales are flat... people in general are afraid of change, and are weary of new technology... after a certain amount of time, the technology is no longer "new and scary" but now mainstream... this will be when the PS3 will take off... and will be validated for having a BluRay included in the drive. Look at similar high priced electronics.. the iPod... when it very first came out.. high priced and little utility... play music on the go for $400... wow... but after enough time... the price dropped "some" and it overcame the chasm.. and now is the new fashion icon of the 21st century... People will pay $400 for something to play their music... and movies on a 2.5 inch screen... but complain about a $600 unit that does so much more than just simple gaming. Sony will probably be stuck in this "chasm" until after this next Christmas... I say that by the middle of next year, when the second and third gen of games are coming out... the PS3 will surpass the 360 in growth... and then a year later, surpass it in total sales.

Price comparison -

360 elite with 120gb hdd - 479
HD-DVD ad-on - 199
wifi ad-on - 99
year of XB Live - 54.99
total -834.96 +tax

PS3 60GB - 599
blu-ray - included
wifi - included
online - free
hitachi 160gb hdd - 129.99
total -728.99 +tax

seems like a pretty decent price point to me... and I own a 360.... so dont call me a fan boy because I can see the facts for what they are...




RE: The Chasm
By Scabies on 3/28/2007 11:45:35 AM , Rating: 2
careful, people here will be quick to point out that they dont want to be forced to buy a wifi adapter or forced to buy in to Blu-Ray technology, so will immediately knock off $200 from the '360 pricing model.

however, they feel that adding another 100gb to the Xbox Premium rig is an included bonus.. which baffles me.

Blu Ray: I dont want to buy what I'm never going to use
120gb: I dont want to buy what I'm never going to use


RE: The Chasm
By bohhad on 3/28/2007 12:44:38 PM , Rating: 2
you're shooting yourself in the foot. if you feel the 120gb hdd for the elite system is superflous, you garner even more savings by buying the core system


RE: The Chasm
By lufoxe on 3/28/2007 1:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
He's not shooting himself in the foot, his point is valid, If he doesn't want/need it why is he going to. To make the point easier for everyone, it's the whole wired vs. wireless controller. I honestly like a wired controller better, just b/c I'm lazy to get up to get batteries in the middle of a gaming session, I sit close enough to the TV normally to not have a necessity for wireless (3 ft away from a 26" TV), and I'm too cheap to buy 1) the wireless controller and 2) and charge 'n' play pack. Other prefer wireless b/c it gives them freedom from a wire.so there you have it, different strokes for different folks.


RE: The Chasm
By MrFluffo on 3/28/2007 11:55:28 AM , Rating: 2
Yea i know what you mean but people are going to argue that they are not being forced into buying it, as mentioned above. However the PS3, even at its "high" price, is selling better than what people originally thought. Throughout forums, especially Gamespots System Wars forums, people were all pulling for the xbox360 claiming the Wii will not sell at all nor will the PS3. Well we can see how well the Wii is doing. I also belive that the PS3 sales will pickup now that more titles are starting to come out.


RE: The Chasm
By Chaser on 3/28/2007 1:07:45 PM , Rating: 1
And there you have it. Nice post.


RE: The Chasm
By deeznuts on 3/28/2007 1:33:24 PM , Rating: 2
gaigebacca, don't forget, that with the PS3 if you upgrade to the 160GB you still have the 60GB you pulled out. You can put this in an external drive and use, or put into your laptop, etc.


RE: The Chasm
By Belard on 3/30/2007 7:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
But consider this...

The 20gb (13gb usable) is soooo tiny - that an upgrade was needed since the release of the XB360, especially with downloadable content.

The 60GB on the PS3 is far more usable... even if its replaced - it could be resold to someone else for their notebook (had 2 die on clients this week) or a PS3 owner with a 20GB.

Also, think about those with the 360-Prem that need to upgrade...
xbox 360 20gb hdd - 400
HD-DVD ad-on - 200 (+ cables, space, etc)
wifi ad-on - 100
XB Live - 55 per (So after 4 years = $220)
HD-120GB upgrade = $180
TOTAL = $880 for hardware (Still no HDMI for you)
+ $55 or $220 for 1/4 years of online service.

TOTAL = $1100

PS3 60GB = $600, after 4 years - still $600.
But if user wants a 120GB HD, add $80...
Final total $680

About half the price.


RE: The Chasm
By bozilla on 4/5/2007 11:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
wth are you talking about..you can't go by that logic..

first off, we've used our XBox consoles and enjoyed hard drives for over a year and a half now. Our machines have depreciated of course. But we did enjoy the console.

It is simply stupid to compare PS3 which was released 4 months ago and a console that's been on the market for a year and a half, especially in technology field.

Elite is the real measurement for pricing. If a user buys an XBox 360 now and if they buy an PS3 now what do they get. With XBox 360 they have several advantages, if you include all necessary things you need to buy for PS3 to run optimally and you compare what you get with XBox in accessories and as part of the package, not to mention the game support, XBox 360 blows PS3 any way you look at it.

Personally, I don't really care, but I'm telling you the way things are. I own both and I paid around $800 on PS3 to have same quality output and a few games as I did on XBox 360. The price is pretty much the same after all accessories and other crap.

But you see, my PS3 right now, is used only for God of War 2 and NOTHING else. It's collecting dust. No games (I have the only 3 that are worth something Resistance, Virtua Fighter 5, MotorStorm) and I have a few Blu-Ray movies.

The bottom line is, all technology aside, Xbox and HD-DVD are giving me much more pleasure for the same price and that's the only thing that should interest you as a consumer.


Microsoft IS playing catch up
By JimFear on 3/28/2007 1:05:43 PM , Rating: 3
Right, there are a few points to consider here. The PS3 (as expensive as it may be) is technologically superior, Sony have tried to cater for absolutely EVERYONE but don’t take this as fanboy talk, I’ll explain my reasoning.

Blu-Ray
They make High-def TV's and all sorts of fancy AV gear so they know how well this stuff is selling, they know more and more people are buying high def TV's and surround stuff to boot, therefore they've tried to cater for all these people as WELL as the standard def people, therefore they decided that from a technical point of view blu-ray would be best as not only is the option there for more game data (just think about FF13 for a second) but there is the option for high definition video from the box. Without requiring an additional accessory to do this they're keeping their inventory down and most likely costs (less packaging, less construction contracts, less items to ship, less things for retailers to worry about etc)

Wireless
By putting the wireless in the hardware it gives you the choice out of the box, not everyone has their wireless access point in the same room as the main TV (or in their kids bedroom) so for most its not going to be reasonable to start trailing cable everywhere, again out of the box you'll need an additional accessory to do this which for most people raises the cost, internet access is a must for this generation otherwise both consoles are heavily crippled. Once again an extra accessory means more packaging and more cost incurred for manufacturing.

3 Different versions
Lets face it, Microsoft should seriously can the Core, the memory cards are pathetic and the cost of a core with a hard drive (which is a must for the console to be useful) almost matches the cost of the Premium, plus you get a wireless controller! If they scrapped the Core they could streamline their manufacturing and potentially save money, the Core is only there for show i.e. "We have a next-gen console for £200" despite it being mostly useless for what’s on offer.

The lack of major accessories for the PS3 is good, it means less clutter for everyone. Converging all the features into one main SKU (let's face it the 20GB PS3 is dead in the water) means a good solid production line, the production line for the 360 is getting more and more cluttered as they haven't implemented all the features they could do into the console.

Microsoft are businessmen and software producers, they know how to make things appear cheap to the consumer and they also know how to make good software however they have no idea about hardware. Their UMPC project died a death and has failed to seat itself in the market, the original Xbox was a cobbled together PC, Zune isn't the hit they were expecting, the 360 is a step in the right direction but they're going about it in a messy fashion with all the extras, they finall have some good hardware but it still appears to be a messy console.

Sony are businessmen with mild dementia (hence the execs coming out with some of the biggest crap known to man) but they know their hardware, compare the craftsmanship of the PS3 to the 360 and you’ll see what I mean, the 360 looks amateur in comparison. Cell is a cutting edge bespoke chip along with RSX but they're tried to do too much, they've had all these fantastic idea's and put so much time in to making the individual parts that when they came to making them all work together they had some big issues. They've managed to get it to work but there is room for improvement. The PS3 has much better construction and has far more advanced hardware but without the software its nothing more than a shiny black box, the software is where Sony need to focus their attention now as the software will either make or break the PS3, the only advantage Sony have is making the PS3 semi open with the option to put Linux on it, for those of us with the PSP as well we can also use remote play and will eventually be able to use location free, the possibilities are there but they just need to be properly implemented by Sony.
Both consoles have big advantages and disadvantages but people, mainly us more technical inclined guys, need to stop assuming that everyone else is the same, people enjoy simplicity and having 3 different versions of a console with far too many accessories can and will be confusing for most and you can bet your bottom dollar/pound that those who go in to stores to buy their consoles (yes people still do this!) will be milked for all their worth with accessories, how many people do you reckon have gone in to a shop after a SCART cable and ended up coming out with an overpriced Monster SCART cable? Hopefully you’ll see my point there, people get milked for accessories, Sony are wise to not have a huge catalogue of extras as although the 360 looks cheap on paper, to get the features which most people need the cost will not be the base price which you see, another good example would be someone wanting to buy a 360 as they’ve just got a new HDTV, how many people do you reckon are duped in to buying a HD-DVD drive for the 360 at the same time?
To sum this up I am a happy owner of both a 360 and a PS3, being a gamer I enjoy playing the games regardless of platform. I don’t think it’s worth quibbling over the hardware at all as there are too many “yeah but...” points. They both offer a lot but Sony have the cleaner package in my opinion, Nintendo have proven big time that hardware doesn’t make the console so stop making such a damn fuss, if you like games then that should be all that matters.

Feel free to make comments regarding this but for the love of god at least try to keep it clean :)




RE: Microsoft IS playing catch up
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 2:19:11 PM , Rating: 2
When I do actually buy a PS3, I hope to god the 20GB model is still around because I:

a) don't need wireless,
b) don't need a memory card reader,
c) don't need a 60GB hard drive(if I want a bigger hard drive I'll put it in),
d) still won't feel like paying $600 for a gaming console.


RE: Microsoft IS playing catch up
By shiznit on 3/28/2007 2:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
amen. any serious gamer will piss on wireless, but i gotta admit the ability to replace the HD with a regular one is very tempting, damn MS wants to sell them at 3x street price.


RE: Microsoft IS playing catch up
By Malhavoc on 3/28/2007 7:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, I got rid of all my wireless devices for gaming on my PC. I learned a long time ago that if I want a consistently stable connection to an online game, scrap wireless router too.


RE: Microsoft IS playing catch up
By darkpaw on 3/28/2007 4:37:45 PM , Rating: 2
In complete agreement here, but I think the writing is already on the wall. Sony will kill the 20gb version due to "low consumer demand" when in reality the only thing low was the supply. I haven't seen a 20gb in stock anywhere since right after xmas.


RE: Microsoft IS playing catch up
By bozilla on 4/5/2007 11:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
I own both and trust me when I tell you that 20gb version of PS3 is discontinued now. You can't find it locally anywhere and there are a few places on the web that are trying to empty their supplies.

Sony is losing too much money as it is and 20gb was more of a marketing thing then anything else.

and if you look at what you need you might as well buy an XBox 360 with an HD-DVD. You get the same thing.

$299 + $160-$170 for HD-DVD = around $470 and you get a headset, remote, a possible game if you are lucky (depends where you buy it)

Your average cost for PS3 at this point would be around $700, including the right cables and one game as you don't get anything with the console itself.

Just fyi.


Wow
By samuraiBX on 3/28/2007 9:25:26 AM , Rating: 2
“The PlayStation 3 is the only elite gaming system on the market." And, it also has the "power of Cell".

I'm not sure, but shouldn't these comments at LEAST get prepped by their marketing department? I'd imagine after that entire find a ps3 on the shelves and I'll give you $10,000 thing they'd at least try and make semi-factual comments...




RE: Wow
By Ard on 3/28/2007 10:26:37 AM , Rating: 1
No matter how you slice it, they are both factual statements. Whether you look at the PS3 from a price perspective or just from the point of technology, it is the most elite console on the market. It also has the "power of Cell". There aren't any lies here unless you want to quibble with semantics.


RE: Wow
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 10:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
If by "most elite machine" you mean the biggest Sony tech pushing machine on the market, then yes the statement is valid. If by "most elite machine" you mean the best overall system for gamers playing games and developers making games, then its far from true.


RE: Wow
By zsouthboy on 3/28/2007 10:44:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think he meant that they were lies - just that they don't seem to have been prepped by Sony's marketing dept.

I agree, btw - the reply does seem a little.... not market-y enough.

Not that that's a bad thing. It's just strange.


RE: Wow
By ObscureCaucasian on 3/28/2007 12:17:18 PM , Rating: 2
Does Sony ever have a press release w/o a plug for the Cell or Blu Ray?


RE: Wow
By SunAngel on 3/28/2007 1:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nope. So long as the grass is green and the sky is blu, Sony will always love you. <Geez, I made a rhyme>.


Boo Hoo
By Trogdor on 3/28/2007 9:50:06 AM , Rating: 2
Oh boo hoo more whiney Execs and PR throwing around insults and more I'm better than you are garbage. It's like these guys never left elementary school.

If you really want to show your superiority Sony, prove it with sales.




RE: Boo Hoo
By UNCjigga on 3/28/2007 11:35:34 AM , Rating: 2
Haven't they proven it with sales? Xbox 360 is selling well now, but compared to initial 360 sales in its 3-month launch window between 2005/2006 the PS3 is doing better. When you factor in the PS3's higher price and the fact that the 360 didn't have to compete with Wii last year, the latest sales numbers aren't that bad.


RE: Boo Hoo
By Trogdor on 3/28/2007 11:58:38 AM , Rating: 3
Actually not at all. Sony had little to no supply constraints shortly after their console launched, it could be easily found everywhere within a few weeks or so. The 360 was severely supply constrained up until around April of 2006. It was almost impossible to find for around the first 6 months. The fact that PS3 is only matching the 360s sales during the launch period when availability is not an issue, while the 360s availability was a huge issue shows just how bad a position they are in right now. The 360 would have most likely sold a substantial amount more had there been adequate supply for the demand in the initial months. The PS3 demand is not nearly high enough especially in the first few months of availability when demand should still be high. As well going by current NPD data, the X360 is outselling the PS3 on a monthly basis, sometimes almost doubling their sales.

Take a look at the Wii as well. The demand is astounding, and is far outweighing the supply even now. Every single console they put out is sold almost instantly. It's still extremely difficult to find one. That shows demand for a product. PS3 has ample supply, yet its sales don't reflect a very high demand.


RE: Boo Hoo
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/28/2007 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
In selling these systems, never once did a xbox 360 system sit un-sold for more then 30 hours in the first 5 to 6 months...Since, PS3, have some sit for two weeks during the month of Feb.,
So, the only reason sale might be better for Sony is because they have more unit available to sell (made more or not selling fast enough). Xbox 360 could not get them to use fast enough...During first 3 months 50 come in one day, 50 sold that same day. This was not true for Sony 50 come in one day. Three or four days later maybe sold out. Of course not during first two months...nothing stays in stock during that time frame. Wii is just crazy, still can not keep them in stock but for a matter of a few hours...like maybe 2 hours.


RE: Boo Hoo
By saltypeanuts on 3/29/2007 4:13:58 AM , Rating: 2
So true! I work at the third largest (in sales volume) Costco in Arizona, Glendale #674 and we've got a pallet of 24 PS3's on the 16th. We've only sold 7 within that 13 day time period. The pallet of Wii's that came in that very same day sold out in a matter of hours. The 360's, last year, we could not keep them in stock.


How?
By BMFPitt on 3/28/2007 9:22:47 AM , Rating: 1
How does including HDMI now validate the PS3's choice to force blu-ray on customers? How will this affect the 80-90% of 360 owners without a need for HDMI?

Although I'd agree that the hard driveless Core system is an abomination - but at least you can upgrade it into a full system, unlike the 20GB PS3.




RE: How?
By Scabies on 3/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: How?
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2007 10:06:35 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
your core will never be a premium

I think you meant "Elite". The Core can upgrade to Premium/Pro no problem.

Also BD has nothing to do with games. It's just a further attempt by Sony to make BD mainstream. DVD9 is plenty sufficient for this gen. Even if HD-DVD won the format war, Xbox360 games would still be on DVD, allowing publishers and devs more profit and cheaper prices in the long run for gamers. I don't see how it is relevant. Since a lot of PS3 games are currently ports of Xbox360 games and will probably continue to be so, all that extra space is basically useless except for 1st party epics that feature 1080p FMV. That's a somewhat shallow view, but we have to be realistic. The PS3 ain't exactly the developer darling right now.


RE: How?
By BMFPitt on 3/28/2007 10:08:05 AM , Rating: 1
Even if you argue that gigabytes 9 through 25 on a given disc are needed to enhance my gaming experience in some way - which in the long term future may be a valid point, but certainly not right now - Sony's statements here still make no sense. How does Microsoft including HDMI now validate anything they have done?

What components of a Premium couldn't you add to a Core if you really wanted to?


RE: How?
By Ard on 3/28/2007 10:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sony means that MS has completely backtracked off their original statements. While Sony lauded the fact that the PS3 could do 1080p and had HDMI support for both SKUs, MS commented, numerous times, that both were completely unnecessary. That's what Sony means when they say MS has validated their strategy. By supporting HDMI now, and including 1080p support earlier, they've proven that Sony had it right from the start.


RE: How?
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2007 10:26:45 AM , Rating: 1
Therein lies the lie... Microsoft never said those things were useless, only that they would support them when the need arose. There isn't a backtrack at all. They have always said that their console would grow to adapt to the market. A greater number of 1080p sets along with a finalized version of HDMI (1.3) was all the justification Microsoft needed to offer it. Combating the hype caused by Sony and the ignorant masses only put a time table on the matter. Offering those things at launch would have been like offering component video with SEGA Genesis. I'm joking, but you get the point.

If anything, I would say the PS3 scaling issue shows how wrong Sony has been doing it from the start. At least the Xbox360 can scale anything to any resolution, regardless of cable.


RE: How?
By BMFPitt on 3/28/2007 10:36:51 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft said 1080p wasn't necessary for gaming, and to my knowledge has never backed off of those statements. They are now including an optional HD-DVD drive and are thus including the best connectivity option for it as part of a larger tech refresh. If they decided to build in the HD-DVD and discontinue all older models, then you would have a point.

As the owner of a non-1080p TV (as the vast majority are) it is still unnecessary for me.


RE: How?
By bkm32 on 3/28/2007 4:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
If only Sony would deliver games at the higher GB range of 9-25 (even 45-50 when it's available), this would provide Sony with quite an advantage, and would force MS to match it with either an HD-DVD or a BR-DVD accessory that plays games (or internal), which would jack up X360 costs.

This is where Sony is "dropping the ball". They aren't producing those First-party titles that truly separate the PS3 from the X360. The current crop of games and future releases don't take advantage of the Cell processor and BR-DVD extended storage format. The X360 technology while really good and totally "next-gen" is behind the PS3. In fact, IMHO, the PS3 is the only Future-gen machine on the market. Sony isn't selling it properly.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely dislike Sony as a game company and have despised the PS1 and PS2. I dislike the controllers and interface. Sony killed Sega as a console company (they had plenty of help from Sega), and I was a huge Sega-fan (because of the Phantasy Star franchise).

But I give credit where credit is due, the PS3 is an amazing piece of hardware. It has some interface issues and Sony misunderstood how the consumer would potentially use their device (you shouldn't have to turn the power off after playing a game to play a BR disc). All-in-all, it is a marvel of technology, and mad props to Sony for delivering it at a huge loss (a nod to the consumer that goes unremarked)

That being said, systems don't sell themselves, especailly at $500-600 bucks!


free advertising?
By arswihart on 3/28/2007 9:49:43 AM , Rating: 1
My only explanation for the torrent of press releases like this, as inappropriately arrogant as they may be, is just free advertising. At least it makes us remember that the PS3 exists when most of us have already forgotten.

Sony is finally getting taking payback from the videogame world for causing the failure of the Dreamcast back around 2001.




RE: free advertising?
By Ard on 3/28/2007 10:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
Please, come on, the DC was dead before Sony ever got a hold of it. Sega foolishly released some of its best software at the END of the console's life. Anyone whose been a gamer for more than 10 years knows that Sega was on their way out long before the DC.


RE: free advertising?
By Thorburn on 3/28/2007 11:52:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sega foolishly released some of its best software at the END of the console's life.


To be fair to SEGA I don't think that was really a planned thing, it just happened.

While the PS2 itself may have launched while the Dreamcast was already in its downwards spiral the original PlayStation could also be seen as part of the reason the Dreamcast died out as it was such a dominant force in the market.


RE: free advertising?
By darkpaw on 3/28/2007 4:35:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Dreamcast's biggest killer was the Saturn and nearly a decade of bad business decisions. Sega CD, 32x, whatever the battery hogging portable was called etc.. Sega got so far behind in the previous generation and a half, that they never had a chance (I owned every single one of them with the exception of the 32x).

Dropping hardware and going to software was the best possible solution for them, and I think its worked out pretty well in the long run.


RE: free advertising?
By bkm32 on 4/4/2007 10:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
As an admitted Segafan (I'm seeking help as we speak, er, type), I have to say that Sega made some great consoles (I still have my Mater System from 20 years ago and Phantasy Star to boot). However, their best software releases were always in the Arcade. And that's where they failed and continue to fail as a company. The DC was an awesome system and finally provided the muscle needed to convert most of Sega's Arcade library to home use. But did Sega do that? No. They instead insisted on creating new, untested content.

Arcade conversions was the only reason I purchased the DC (that and the promise of a Phantasy remake/compilation disc. That never happend, and the game community spoke with their wallets and spent $100 more to get the PS2, which had a built in DVD player.

Even today, look at what Sega has done to Shinobi, Afterburner, Outrun (although it's still really fun), and for goodness sakes Sonic. Poor Sonic. Sega used to love that little blue furball, but now they're killing him, too.

When I was a kid, Sega made up to 30-50% of arcade content at the local quarter-munch. That's what ppl will always remember about Sega--Great arcade games. They've lost that and need to regain it. Vitua Fighter can't be the only successful franchise they have left from the good 'ol days.

One more thing Sega (if you're reading this), How about releasing those Japanese remakes of Phantasy Star 1, 2, & 4 Stateside (PS III really sucked, though). Heck, even the originals would make great additions to the Wii VC or Xbox Live Arcade. While I'm ranting about PS, can we get a real PS sequel--one that takes place in the Algol Star System. How about a prequel to PS that shows the rise and fall of King Lassic, Alis's brother Nero, and his friends Odin and Myau, plus the need for the Espers. BTW, Sega I know its your franchise, but those are MY ideas. Call me.


I agree with Sony a little
By MrFluffo on 3/28/2007 9:30:48 AM , Rating: 3
I sort of agree with sony in the sense that it is inconvientient to launch 3 SKU's. I mean having 2 SKUs is fine but 3? Now its even more confusing for "casual gamers". Parents will be completly confused if they know nothing about the system. I know most will argue that "choice is good" and i can understand that but 3 SKU's is incovienient. They also mocked PS3's price point of $500-600 but now one of theres is $479.

It is also kind of annoying how microsoft says they dont need stuff but they will include it any way.
They said: 20GB storage space is enough and if people need more space buy another one, and that they dont need HDMI.




By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/28/2007 10:41:09 AM , Rating: 2
I have to disagree with Sony (I have learned after selling hundreds of Xbox, Xbox 360, PS2, and few PS3...PS3 just does not sell that well after the first release, wii still selling it's self). Having more then one model is a disservice to the customers. Most customers do not understand the difference and do not like to ask for help, some reason many people think only fools ask for help. I always had someone upgrade from the core system after explain they will spend over $200. more to match the equipment that can be bought for $100. more now (saving them about $120.). If there is only one model the economy of scales can be more effective saving the customer more money...and less thinking since they will have 3 systems to pick from instead of 6. However, if you (average consumer) have confusion grab the greatest resource on these systems, any kid between 6 and 9 years old seems to have a wealth of information on all the systems. Most of the time they do not know what they are saying, but they surely repeat what they heard quite well. They could drive you nuts by asking 50 or 60 questions all starting with, “Is it true you can…” They were the difficult customers to handle; parent, teens, single males or females no problem…


Sony PS3 hit by £10m in cancellations
By kattanna on 3/28/2007 10:06:05 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
LONDON - The long-awaited UK launch of Sony's PlayStation 3 (PS3) games console has been marred by the cancellation of more than £10m worth of orders from retailers and consumers.


http://www.brandrepublic.com/BrandRepublicNews/New...

this is a good read




RE: Sony PS3 hit by £10m in cancellations
By Goty on 3/28/2007 10:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, but what you fail to mention is that the PS3 sold 600,000 units at launch while the 360 sold less that 100,000.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6499841.stm


By shiznit on 3/28/2007 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
the 360 would have sold at least that much given the supply. 100,000 was probably all they could allocate at the time.


how m$ pimped 360 fanboy
By jackff on 3/28/2007 11:04:51 AM , Rating: 2
well now its time to realize ,microsoft did f!@# 360 fanboy ass.its n ot evenbeen 1+yrs,we have new 360 called elite.now if i want hd movies,i got to buy 200 shit add on.now for hdmi i need to buy elite.well do money grows on tree.so we harvest each month to buy 360(m$) new product.even after this shit we have some fanboy who still favour m$ .coz they hate sony for its price .ok its fine hate them,i used to hate too.but now ppl sud just used a simple math.
###$450(elite)+$200(hddvd)+$99(wirelessinternet)+ $50(internet fee)+god knows what=cheap xbox 360
###all above mentioned + free internet=$599 expensive sony.
**p.s we know we hate sony as much as we love microsoft.
i just liked to say 360 is my bitch and ps3 is my wife.




RE: how m$ pimped 360 fanboy
By rcc on 3/28/2007 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
i just liked to say 360 is my bitch and ps3 is my wife.


lol, so the 360 rocks your world, and the PS3 says "beige, I think we should paint the ceiling beige"??


Catch up?
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2007 9:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
If by "catch up", they mean stealing away exclusives and moving more hardware, software, and accessories per day than the PS3... yeah, I guess so. The only thing folks will gain with HDMI is uncompressed audio streams from HD-DVD. How many people have such an audio receiver? Show of hands?

*sigh*

As fun as it is to witness Sony and MS poking fun at one another, it sure does get old, and does nothing but distract from the point of videogames...




RE: Catch up?
By ArneBjarne on 4/5/2007 6:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
The XBox360 Elite cannot output uncompressed multichannel at all, so folks will not gain anything on that front even though the HDMI interface can handle it.


Catching up on what ?
By shady3005 on 3/28/2007 10:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
MS is catching up on :

number of games ?
number of units sold ?
downgrading hardware for european customer ?




RE: Catching up on what ?
By MrFluffo on 3/28/2007 11:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
MS has alot to catch up on. Even though they got the Xbox360 out first, who do u think has a larger fanbase: Xbox or Playstation? Look at the last gen, PS2 sold over 100 million compared to xbox's 20+ million. Which platform had more titles?

Also Sony didnt "downgrade" the hardware (also we'll be getting that version shortly most likely) Sony and microsoft are both companies whose goal is to make money. Microsofts X360 also doesnt have the old xbox chip, why dont you complain about that? This was part of sony's goal which will lower the cost for sony to make the PS3 ultimatly leading to a lower price point in the future for consumers.

MS also has a catchup in general in the gaming industry. They still have alot to learn. Still one of my favorite parts of the PS3 is how open it is.


Oh I dunno....
By Omega215D on 3/28/2007 11:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
What ever happened to just having good games and just plain having fun? Technical specs mean nothing if it's main purpose is lacking.




RE: Oh I dunno....
By MrFluffo on 3/28/2007 11:25:46 AM , Rating: 2
This is a new age of gaming, gaming is all about money and franchises now. Sadly i dont think gaming will ever be what it once was. I dont think i'll ever sell my old Nintendo and sega systems.


Sony Marketing
By sushisensei on 3/28/2007 11:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
When did Sony's Marketing Department start taking cues from the Iraqi Information Minister?




RE: Sony Marketing
By JDub02 on 3/28/2007 11:57:06 AM , Rating: 2
<sony bob> The streets will run with the blood of the Xbox360! </sony bob>


Just my opinion.
By vze4z7nx on 3/28/2007 4:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
Many of you guys are saying that the PS3 is more expensive than the xBox 360. Well here's my take:

PS3:
- HDMI
- OPTICAL AUDIO PORT
- BLURAY
- MOTION SENSITIVE CONTROLLER
- RECHARGEABLE BATTERY PACK INCLUDED
- FREE MULTIPLAYER
- 60 GB HARD DRIVE (easily upgrade)
- BETTER GRAPHICS
- MORE POTENTIAL

xBox 360:
- REGULAR DVD
- NO RECHARGEABLE BATTERY PACKS
- MULTIPLAYER COSTS MONEY
- 120 GB HARD DRIVE (not so easily upgradeable)
- RUMBLE FEATURE ON CONTROLLERS
- HDMI
- AVERAGE GRAPHICS

Just look at it this way, PS3 can play games at 1080p problem free. The highest the xBox 360 will go is 1080i. If you want to add the HDDVD drive to the xBox 360, that wil cost you $480 + $190 = $670. Now add multiplayer to that for one year and the price skyrockets to over $700. And add a rechargeable battery pack which makes it just around $730. And also, those graphics are worse than the PS3's. Don't go comparing a 6 month old system to a 2 year old console because that just not fair. We all know that the first xBox 360 games were nothing compared to today's games. Same thing will happen with the PS3, just give it another 18 months like you gave to the xBox 360.

That's my opinion.




RE: Just my opinion.
By vze4z7nx on 3/28/2007 4:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and did I mention wireless? You add another $80 to the xBox 360's price.


PS3 and nvidia
By Zark74 on 3/28/2007 12:04:11 PM , Rating: 1
Sony has there own R&D for ps3 hw, there effort is cell processor , sony is planning for long term as this CELL processor will involved in much more robust and power full in coming decade as Intel and AMD are planning for there own version in next decade.

While MS in other hand own nothing they used existing component and use customization for there needs, for next generation they have to lots of R&D as in decade we are going towards specialize processor than general purpose CPUs.

MS tends to monopolize every thing going with them will be costly for gamers for long run . as gamers are paying for money to get addons than PS3.

As far as graphics Nvidia is the best , there is no compression between nvidia and ati/amd with same generation of GPUs. Xbox 260 use ATI, PS3 use Nvidia.

Nvida is always step a head in current generation, there product is always better then ATI.




RE: PS3 and nvidia
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2007 2:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Where to begin...

Cell is a joint venture between Sony, IBM, and Toshiba (to name a few). You give Sony far too much credit. The Cell was designed as a multi-purpose CPU for all manner of devices, including the PS3, not for the PS3.

Microsoft's own hardware team, in collaboration with IBM and ATI, designed the hardware in the Xbox360. They didn't just take off-the-shelf CPUs and GPUs.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but to play videogames, it only costs $299 for the 360 where the PS3 is $499. All you have to do after that is buy games. How is the PS3 cheaper for a gamer?

As for NVIDIA vs ATI... wow. Whatever you conceptions are of the two companies in the PC market, they are moot. The Xbox360 and PS3 both feature GPUs significantly modified from the off-the-shelf parts we know and love. The 360's unified shader, massive bandwidth, eDRAM, and ring-bus allow for graphical achievements that the RSX will never realize with its neutered G71 core.


PS3 and nvidia
By Zark74 on 3/28/2007 12:08:52 PM , Rating: 1
Sony has there own R&D for ps3 hw, there effort result in the cell processor , sony is planning for long term as the CELL processor will evolved into much more robust and power full CPU in coming decade as Intel and AMD are planning for there own version.

While MS on other hand own nothing they used existing component and customize them for there needs, for next generation they have to do much R&D as in decade we are going towards specialize processor than general purpose CPUs.

MS tends to monopolize every thing going with them will be costly for gamers for long run. as gamers are paying for money to get addons than PS3.

As far as graphics Nvidia is the best , there is no compression between nvidia and ati/amd with same generation of GPUs. Xbox 360 use ATI, PS3 use Nvidia.

Nvida is always step a head in current generation, there product is always better then ATI.




RE: PS3 and nvidia
By shiznit on 3/28/2007 2:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
xbox 360 cpu > cell (except for maybe encoding/decoding, not game engines) and xbox 360 gpu > gimped g71.


Forget Hardware
By Cullinaire on 3/28/2007 9:59:02 AM , Rating: 2
The first company to come out with a pastel pink version of its console gets my money. (excepting the Wii - they will eventually anyway)




so...
By jay401 on 3/28/2007 11:04:09 AM , Rating: 2
So how exactly does Success catch up to Failure? ;)




PS3 & Xbox 360
By bulletstorm on 3/28/2007 11:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
I own the PS3 & 360 and I have a love/hate relationship with both. They are powerful consoles but both have kinks that have not been resolved yet. Microsoft, the 360 was full of kinks, from power supply overheating, to backwards compability, disc error messages, and now tray sticking. The only thing 360 has done well on is online gaming. Third party is slowly rising on its console. Sony, the PS3 had the same backwards compability problems, HD issues, sound & freezing issues they still have not resolved, & online is not the best, but it will improve (I hope). Microsoft needs to stick with the Elite version of the 360 at $400 and PS3 needs to drop its price.




"Future Proof"
By bunnyfubbles on 3/28/2007 1:02:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's all you had to read to know he's full of crap.




By Spinne on 3/28/2007 2:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Any half-way decent achromat and some Technical Pan will beat the crap off MS and Sony's console.Switch to 130mm Astro-Physics apo and nothing that Sony and MS can do comes close to this

http://www.astro-physics.com/gallery/astroph/jlodr...




think long term
By shiznit on 3/28/2007 2:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
By the time the ps3 picks up steam with great games and enough people get 1080p TV's, the Xbox 720 will be out. Many are forgetting the MS is committed to a 5 year cycle, and Sony with their massive R&D costs for PS3 are stuck with it for 10 years. The next xbox will have blue-ray or hd-dvd (which ever wins) included and the graphics will blow away the PS3 (xbox 360 is already better hardware wise, even though it came out a year earlier).




Is storage really the biggest issue?
By PolPot on 3/28/2007 9:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
Bias disclosure- I run a 360.

Call me old-fashioned, but why is everyone obsessed with storage on game consoles? Storage capacity is of less interest to me than MFLOPS, triangles per second, shaders, etc. I have yet to put my 360's 20GB to full use. The 360's marketplace is really just a sideshow as far as I'm concerned. I want to play games and I want them to be as graphically pleasing as possible. Yeah, it's nice to play DVDs on my 360, but I have yet to feel the need for HD-DVD or BR for movies. If it makes a serious difference in how my games look, I'll buy it. If it saves me from having to buy a bleeding-edge movie player for which 50 movies exist, well, that just reminds me of the bad old days of laserdisc.




this figures
By barryxb on 3/29/2007 7:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
yup this was only a matter of time before this happened. As for me give me a custom built pc, I can expand that all I want, all this technology comes from pc hardware manufacturers anyways.




Bring it on!
By Randum on 4/3/2007 3:17:50 PM , Rating: 2
Bring on the trash talking! Just benefits the consumers in the end!! w00t!




Apsurd
By bozilla on 4/5/2007 11:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
It's completely apsurd for Sony to say that MS is playing catch up, especially when you consider that MS's console has been out for a year and a half now. If anyone is playing catch-up, it's Sony.

The PS3 is done, gone, finished. With 82% drop in Europe and miserable sales in US, it's pretty much over. The only thing that can save them is if they give out a 46" flat panel TV with every console and even then it would be questionable.

But in all seriousness, the console is pretty much screwed unless they get more exlusive titles for it by the end of this year. But things are not looking bright on that front too. With MGS4 and a few others being released on XBox 360 as well, I would say Gran Tourismo and that other title with fighting and flying in the air are the only cards PS3 has and I'm not sure that's enough.

It's completely natural, they came out late, they forced the consumer to buy stuff they didn't need and all publishers are not seeing the PS3 as much of a money maker as Xbox 360.

Pretty much done deal I say.




By zepaly on 4/6/2007 12:21:45 AM , Rating: 2
I have a PS2 an Xbox and plan on getting a PS3. Math is the simple reason behind my decision between the PS3 and the 360. $599 + another $50 for a controller and games. Yes its a bit but, no LIVE subscription to think about, wired or wireless nothing extra to buy, 60gb hard drive that can be replaced with off the shelf standard drive for $50. Micro$oft on the other hand seems to be testing how much they can squeeze out of every gamer, just look at their plans to bring LIVE subscription to the pc side! AHH! $179 for a 120gb proprietary disk is highway robbery. $50 for the wireless adapter, Headsets on the PS3 are bluetooth so any will do, 360 you have to buy for any extra controller. I already pay $65 for my internet connection, dont need Micro$oft to pimp my online gaming. And have different levels of (dis)service for everything they do. What next Xbox 360 SUPER DUPPER that comes with the 65nm chip?!?!

I think thats it!




in thailand
By speed99 on 4/6/2007 2:21:55 PM , Rating: 2
in thailand like ps3
17,500 bath can play all coppy from modchip chaina,hongkog
------------------------------------------------- ---------
http://koh-tao07.blogspot.com




in thailand
By speed99 on 4/6/2007 2:32:36 PM , Rating: 2
in thailand like ps3
17,500 bath can play all coppy from modchip chaina,hongkog
------------------------------------------------- ---------
http://koh-tao07.blogspot.com




It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Solema on 3/28/2007 10:24:30 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, lately it hasn't been often we see the other side of the fanboy fence here. Those are pretty baseless generalizations you have there. 360 is every bit for "normal" people, too. That, or there are nearly 15 million geeks out there.

Actually, at this current time, I think exactly the opposite is true. Blu-Ray (and any new technology) is always adopted by the "geeks" first, then the mainstream later.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By BMFPitt on 3/28/2007 10:59:13 AM , Rating: 2
I agree that most people who buy stuff only for the "coolness" factor will look to the PS3 as something to hook up to their HDTV that has nothing but Monster cables attached to it (and no HD content because they don't know they have to order it.)

In the meantime, the Wii will dominate sales, and the 360 will still be the choice of traditional gamers.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/2007 12:51:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the 360 will still be the choice of traditional gamers.


You guys make this too easy.

The "traditional" aspect of the Xbox 360 is exactly what's wrong with it. In a 12-18 months you're going suddenly realize that DVD is no longer state of the art. God Of War 2 already uses 6.6GB so there's no question PS3 games will need larger discs and that they will be better because of it.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By robertgu on 3/28/2007 5:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
Here's my opinion about the required size for nex-gen titles. I remember reading a breakdown of the size breakdown of the PS3 Resistance game. A large part of the size usage was CG FMV. That's all well and good, but IMHO, with this generation of hardware; why are we still using CG FMV?

To me, the cutscenes should all be live rendered. Personally I've always hated seeing an ad on TV about a game and saw how damn good it looks, only to later realize that it the game play looks like crap and what I saw in the ad was a pre-rendered CG FMV cutscene.

Now hopefully someone can tell me if it true or not, but on Gears of War, the cutscenes appear to be live rendered (at least the cutscenes appear to have the same graphical quality as the game play). I believe all games should have their cutscenes live rendered. The hardware is capable enough, and it really takes the wind-out-of-the-sails for people saying that we need larger disk space for games, like the reasoning that Sony telling everyone for pushing Blu-Ray on the PS3.

It appears to me, that without pre-rendered FMV cutscenes, disk space requirements would be considerably less.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/28/2007 11:06:20 AM , Rating: 2
you might have a point if Sony made a HD gaming system, but they don't sooo...you have no point.
They make a Blu-ray system, to watch Blu-ray movies. Different then a HD system. Xbox makes a HD add on drive, for those who really feel the need to watch HD movies on they video gaming system.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/2007 12:31:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
you might have a point if Sony made a HD gaming system, but they don't


Blu-ray is HD.
PS3s have HDMI.
PS3 games are designed for HD.

DVD discs are about 6 times the size of CDs.
Blu-ray discs are about 5 times the size of DVDs.

Blu-ray games will use more than DVD games the same way DVD games use more than CD games.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/28/2007 12:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect..Blu-ray is Blu-ray, HD is HD...
Don't believe me go buy a Blu-ray player, then buy a HD DVD, they sell right next to the Blu-ray DVD's. Try playing your HD movie on your Blu-ray player...

I'll save you some money...It will not work, because they are different technologies. Now, there are companies out there working on a new machine that will play both Blu-ray and HD, but not on market yet...at least not in the PS3...

Now you were talking about HDTV's and I'll admit I did not pay attention to the TV part of your comments before..my bad. However, HD TV is a display device, Blu-ray and HD players are two different types of out put device that both can be shown on a HD TV....but do not get confussed Blu-ray and HD are different, just like Beta and VHS were different technologies.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Scabies on 3/28/2007 1:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
wow. stop now.
When things are defined as HD, the speaker is generally talking about image size/resolution and number of sound channels. Thus, anything that is 720p or better with 5.1 surround sound or better can be classified as HD.
(some of) What I get from Dish Network is HD. My computer desktop is HD. My PS3 is HD, as long as I am not playing PS2 games. Thus, Blu-Ray, being 1080p and surround, is definately HD. HD-DVD is HD as well.

Thank you for pointing out that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are not the same format or size, and are not interchangeable, I was confused about that.
*rollseyes*


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/2007 1:13:26 PM , Rating: 1
Bleecchh!!

Obviously, by HD I mean Hi-Def!!, NOT HD-DVD!!

I thought you guys were geeks? Disappointing...


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/28/2007 10:57:14 AM , Rating: 2
A lot you must learn...
Not every one wants to watch a movie on their gaming system.
So, blu-ray, HD DVD, will not matter until they really start writing programs in those formats. No, they do not now, current they played in those formats, not written, they maybe starting to write a game or two. Blu-ray is what makes the PS3 so terrible slow...pisses me off waiting so long to play a game, I will not buy one for this reason alone.
Oh and most important, for Sony to "win" they would have to sell more units then anyone else...right now, they are 3rd out of 3...they be fourth if anyone put a product out there to compete...The PS3 was more hype then cool product and normal people understand this a spend $200. less on the system by buying a Xbox 360 and use that $200. for games.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/2007 2:04:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A lot you must learn...
Not every one wants to watch a movie on their gaming system.


Something you trendy, smug, Sony bashers will never learn:

BLU-RAY IS FOR GAMES!!

DVD discs are about 6 times the size of CDs.
Blu-ray discs are about 5 times the size of DVDs.

Blu-ray games will use more than DVD games the same way DVD games use more than CD games. Saying Blu-ray is "just for movies" is as dumb as saying the PS2 uses DVD "just for movies" and that it should use CDs.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Link on 3/29/2007 2:57:03 AM , Rating: 2
Seemonkeycanfly, you got it all wrong. BR is there for PS3 in order to hold more data for HD gaming. Nothing needs to be written in a certain format. All you need is a player, PS3, that can read a BR disk which contains gaming data.
I don't know if 360 has the bus bandwidth to handle more data than a DVD disk can hold and feed. But if it could, and someone makes a game for 360 that needs more data than a DVD can hold, all MS needs to do is using a HD-DVD instead of a DVD for that game.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Trogdor on 3/28/2007 12:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well considering you don't seem to follow reality, I'll enlighten you a bit.

The high price is definitely affecting them, as the sales show it, contrary to what you are saying. The PS3 is selling slower than both the Wii and the X360. Monthly NPD data is showing X360 sometimes doubling sales of PS3 while Wii is leading the pack.

As of right now, Sony is getting an ample beating from both their competitors and it looks as if unless Sony does something soon, THEY are the ones with no chance.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Trogdor on 3/28/2007 12:48:40 PM , Rating: 3
No, MS is releasing a product at that price point because Sony screwed up and allowed them the room to do so. The Elite system is not for everyone. That is why they have the Core and Premium versions as well. $299, $399, $479, take your pick.

Sony has all but discontinued the 20GB version of the PS3 and all that remains is a $600 60GB at retail (as you can see from Best Buy etc. announcing they will no longer offer the 20GB). It is selling poorly. The 360 and Wii are outpacing it in sales from ranges of 2:1 to 3:1 at times.

You can already see the result of Sony pricing their system out of the market. The slow sales, the loss of 3rd party exclusives, and most game companies making their games with the x360 as their base platform. The longer Sony keeps the high price, the lower their install base compared to their rivals and the less likely developers will put their games on the system. They want a high install base to sell games and the X360 and Wii are where it's at.

Your ignorance is clouding your judgement. You can already see their sales slumping because of their price, the demand is nowhere near the supply. They should be flying off shelves right now, it's a new Playstation for gods sake and it's being outsold in substantial numbers by a console released a year earlier. That should not be the case, especially with something as high profile as a new Playstation.

And nowhere did I say HDTVs would fail, so stop pulling nonsense out of your ass and trying to make an argument out of it. They are completely different markets, apples and oranges bud.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't like Microsoft for anti-trust stuff you should hate Sony. Oh wait. You don't because Sony doesn't have the money that Microsoft does to sue for. Sony does far more to try and lock people into their crap than Microsoft.

"Develop a version of Windows for us without Media Player and IE which no one will buy because we say so. What we have the choice of whether or not to use it? Well...do it anyway."

"Give us complete documentation of your network protocols for others to use.....Thanks.....Now pay us money for not doing it fast enough."

"Give us a version of Vista that is less secure so our anti-virus companies will be better able to sell their products and we can bitch at you for your OS not being secure enough. We'll fine you for that too eventually."


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/2007 4:26:54 PM , Rating: 1
The reason you and many other Microsoft supporters resent Sony is because they succeeded in markets that aren't monopolized. When companies like Apple, Nintendo and Sony win in competitive markets they become popular. Since Microsoft has a monopoly they've never been popular and have never needed to be. That's why you're all jealous. Microsoft's products are widely used but nobody actually likes them or thinks they're cool.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By FITCamaro on 3/29/2007 12:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
I don't resent Sony because they succeed sometimes. I don't like them because they're often arrogant and have the opinion that their products are far superior to others and thus can charge a higher price for them. Are all their products crap? No. Most are not. But they often aren't any better than their competitors.

Apple I don't like because of their overpriced stuff as well. They have nothing I want as well. Don't care about their overpriced computers, don't need or want an iPod, the Apple TV only works with stuff from iTunes.

Nintendo I have no beefs with, I just don't feel like spending $250 + games for the 2-3 games on the Wii that I'd like to play right now. I also don't have the time to play them really.

I'm perfectly content with MCE 2005 and my Xbox is great to stream video to my TV to. Office works perfectly well albeit uses a good amount of system resources but is a well developed and designed product. Vista I'm still holding off on since DX10 isn't here yet but I'll eventually upgrade.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 2:23:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's selling more than any other high end consumer electronics device.....other than the Xbox 360, Nintendo Wii, PSP, Nintendo DS, and iPod. But it's not like anyone's counting.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Solema on 3/28/2007 3:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
The real problem here is how much the Wii's sales skew the industry trends and numbers. What you guys need to understand is that what the Wii is doing, sales-wise, is UNPRECEDENTED in console gaming. NO console has ever had the kind of launch success that Nintendo is having with their Wii.

Comparing current sales of a 5-month old system (PS3) to a year and a half-old and established system (360) is misguided enough. That's why Sony and most rational people are comparing LAUNCH sales trends of 360 vs PS3. They discount Nintendo because Nintendo is catering to a different market entirely, with a different kind of game system, so the data doesn't correlate correctly.

Nintendo doesn't market their system as "next gen" so if you compare the launch trends of the only two current "next gen" consoles on the market, the PS3 is actually selling in quantities ahead or at least even with what the Xbox 360 did in its first five months. For anyone to call that a failure shows that person's ignorance.

Also, as for this "Elite" version of the 360, I am having a hard time seeing how this compares well to PS3. It seems pretty clear to me that the 120GB of space and HDMI are directly aimed at people demanding more HD video download space and the best interface to experience that content. Am I wrong on this? In any scenario is 120GB necessary for gaming, even if you download a ton of maps and stuff for games? So, if the system is being marketed toward having the best HD video experience, then by nature it will be attracting the kinds of people who will see the value in having an HD optical medium included in their system like the PS3 does, no?


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By somegeek on 3/28/2007 4:59:36 PM , Rating: 1
High end for me is anything above $500. I don't know of any $500-$600 products that have sold as quickly as the PS3. The Xbox 360 Elite won't be able to match that.


By MisterChristopher on 3/28/2007 6:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
None of you people talking about how sony is losing and using sales figures to back your statements up are being even remotely realistic. Given that the PS3 is virtually bran new, and completely bran new in Europe, NOBODY knows anything yet.

You MIGHT be able to infer some things based on release statistics but, in reality, this is a whole new product intended for a different type of market and intended to change peoples perspectives on what a game system can do.

How people will react can only be judged by what actually happens.

Only speculations based on system qualities are lagitamate. Shut up, go away, and be patient. Just wait and see, you will stress your small brains far less.


RE: It's over: Sony has won.
By Hemipower on 3/29/2007 3:14:12 AM , Rating: 2
you forgot the ps2.


Keep trying Sony.
By Mitch101 on 3/28/07, Rating: -1
RE: Keep trying Sony.
By Solema on 3/28/2007 10:21:48 AM , Rating: 2
You ARE a fanboy. You are one of the new, popular breed of "Anti-Sony" fanboy. It's pretty clear from your post. Don't worry though, you have plenty of fellow club members.


RE: Keep trying Sony.
By Domicinator on 3/28/07, Rating: 0
RE: Keep trying Sony.
By Chaser on 3/28/2007 1:04:59 PM , Rating: 2
Is that right? I'm a happy PS3 owner. But that doesn't mean I'm drinking the koolaid losing sleep at night hoping for the PS3 to die because my mother won't pay $599.

I'd be very happy if they all did well. Imagine that?


RE: Keep trying Sony.
By FITCamaro on 3/28/2007 10:46:45 AM , Rating: 2
The 360 already had 1080p without HDMI. As many others have stated countless times, component is fully capable of 1080p. Regardless of the whether the TV supports it over component, the 360 was capable of it.


RE: Keep trying Sony.
By Scabies on 3/28/2007 11:04:38 AM , Rating: 2
my car can house a 3,000 watt stereo, but my alternator cant handle it. Also, I have unique mounting contacts, so I cant use normal speakers.

Translation: Good thing you have USB 1.1 ports for your USB 2.0 devices. Wait no.. 1080i component-inputs is what I meant to say.


RE: Keep trying Sony.
By therealnickdanger on 3/28/2007 11:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
That's the fault of TV manufacturers for using low-grade component inputs. You can't fault Microsoft for that, as much as you'd like to.


RE: Keep trying Sony.
By TimTheEnchanter25 on 3/28/2007 1:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
HDMI doesn't provide better video than componet cables. Unless this version of the 360 can output 5.1 / 7.1 PCM audio over HDMI (optical doesn't have enough bandwidth) like the PS3, then HDMI outputs are nothing for them to brag about.

Even if it can output 5.1 / 7.1 PCM, I doubt they will ever have games that use it, since they won't have room on a normal DVD.


RE: Keep trying Sony.
By zepaly on 4/6/2007 12:38:56 AM , Rating: 2
No room on a dvd??? You mean 360 right?


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki