The Next Xbox

[Easy Mac]

Hadn't seen this posted

hxxp://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000490042605

Its pretty fucking ugly in my opinion

Supposedly, it does HD-video, actually comes with a remote control, has some weird new button on the gamepad, optional 20 gb HD, has an "eye-toy" thing, wireless controllers and internet.

[Easy Mac]

More:

http://gaming.engadget.com/entry/1234000267042765/

[jeff061]

Those are some crazy good hardware specs. I'm all about PC gaming though.

[Critch]

Can't be long now til they release one that you plug straight into your head and play by thinking.

[Joe Canadian]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

Its pretty fucking ugly in my opinion

The PS2, and XBox aren't exactly the pretiest things on the market...

[MizzouRah]

I love it, and yes I'll have one the day it comes out. Ok, maybe a day or two.

Although I think it's about time I get a HD TV to go along with it.


Todd

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I love it, and yes I'll have one the day it comes out. Ok, maybe a day or two.

Although I think it's about time I get a HD TV to go along with it.


Todd

If you don't mind, could you grab one for me while you're out?

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by ice4277

If you don't mind, could you grab one for me while you're out?

I've been saving for my TV.. the Xbox 360? well, I'll have to work some OT for that puppy.


Todd

[sterlingice]

We're going to need an E3 thread next week.

SI

[Pyser]

when does the new xbox come out?

[dawgfan]

We'll should find out the official release date tomorrow night with the MTV unveiling, but it'll be out in time for Christmas this year.

[Pyser]

would they really do a tv special 6 months before the release?

my guess would be a june release.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Pyser

would they really do a tv special 6 months before the release?

my guess would be a june release.

Sure they would. The timing of the TV special is to get a jump on E3 which is next week.

I can tell you with a great degree of confidence that the release date is likely in the fall.

[MizzouRah]

I heard November.


Todd

[Ksyrup]

The original came out the second week of November, IIRC.

[Kodos]

I've read in a couple places that the PS3 is supposed to be considerably more powerful than Xbox 360.

[jeff061]

Don't believe anything til you see the specs.

Especially after the PS2, that thing was half as powerful as it was hyped to be.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I've read in a couple places that the PS3 is supposed to be considerably more powerful than Xbox 360.

See, this is one of the reasons why I question Microsoft's strategy of getting the jump on the PS3.

First, there's the lesson of the Dreamcast - much of the thunder of that console's release was diminished by the hype over the PS2 which was going to come out the following year.

Second, by coming out as much as a year ahead, the Xbox360 potentially loses much of what made the first Xbox appealing - unquestioned technological superiority. We have no idea at this point how much better technologically the PS3 will be compared to the Xbox360 - it might be minimal, it might be large - but with the difference in release dates you'd expect there to be some hardware advantage with the PS3.

Third, the install base for the PS2 is so huge that developers are not going to have much incentive to really maximize the hardware capacity of the Xbox360 in the year when it's the only next-gen console out there - why spend a lot of development money to uniquely tune the Xbox360 version of your game when you're still going to get the most potential bang for your development buck focusing on the PS2 version?

The Xbox360 is going to need some killer exclusive apps in that first year that really drive early adoption of the system. I suppose the thinking is that the superiority of Xbox Live as an online component is something that Microsoft is banking on to help the Xbox360 establish some headway in that first year. And if they do get a good initial jump on sales that first year, they will have the advantage of being in a position to use price war strategies to cut into Sony's profit margin.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Don't believe anything til you see the specs.

Especially after the PS2, that thing was half as powerful as it was hyped to be.

That's pretty much the case with any console - it's all hype and speculation until you see the actual specs.

That said, if the rumored specs on the Xbox360 are true, the games will look good enough that it will be that much tougher for the PS3 to really blow it away in terms of the end-users perception. Computer graphics are starting reach a point of diminishing returns in my opinion.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Second, by coming out as much as a year ahead, the Xbox360 potentially loses much of what made the first Xbox appealing - unquestioned technological superiority. We have no idea at this point how much better technologically the PS3 will be compared to the Xbox360 - it might be minimal, it might be large - but with the difference in release dates you'd expect there to be some hardware advantage with the PS3.

I think this is really a huge point towards the XBox and kindof baffles me why Microsoft is doing what they are doing.

SI

[jeff061]

They are being announced around the same time and will be released around the same time. There is no reason to think the PS3 will not be trumped. And you can't compare MS to Sega, they have nothing in common.

These specs are killer, far beyond what I was expecting. Compared to the Xbox and the PS2, both of whose specs were far below what I was expecting at the time. Hardware wise Sony is no shoe-in to be the winner.

[SackAttack]

Let me preface this by saying that I agree with you. That having been said, let me see if I can't play a little bit of devil's advocate here.

Originally Posted by dawgfan

See, this is one of the reasons why I question Microsoft's strategy of getting the jump on the PS3.

First, there's the lesson of the Dreamcast - much of the thunder of that console's release was diminished by the hype over the PS2 which was going to come out the following year.

There wasn't a lot of thunder to begin with, Sega not being in any position to properly promote the system. With EA publicly abstaining from the Dreamcast, some smaller studios trailing in EA's wake, and allegations of Sony strongarming retailers into reducing the visbility of Dreamcast in the run-up to PS2, you had kind of a perfect storm in 2000 that is unlikely to afflict Microsoft this go-round.

Second, by coming out as much as a year ahead, the Xbox360 potentially loses much of what made the first Xbox appealing - unquestioned technological superiority. We have no idea at this point how much better technologically the PS3 will be compared to the Xbox360 - it might be minimal, it might be large - but with the difference in release dates you'd expect there to be some hardware advantage with the PS3.

The N64 and Saturn were unquestionably technologically superior to the PlayStation, but ultimately that didn't matter. Why? Software. If Microsoft truly has the sort of software lineup planned that they've been hinting at, and they can deliver, having a system that's underpowered relative to the competition won't matter that much. Hell, the PS2 proved that.

Third, the install base for the PS2 is so huge that developers are not going to have much incentive to really maximize the hardware capacity of the Xbox360 in the year when it's the only next-gen console out there - why spend a lot of development money to uniquely tune the Xbox360 version of your game when you're still going to get the most potential bang for your development buck focusing on the PS2 version?

This is true, and becomes truer if PS3 maintains backwards compatibility while Xbox sacrifices it. It depends, though, on where the PS3 emerges as technologically superior. Will it do everything Xbox 360 does, only bigger and faster, or will it have some sort of killer app feature that puts it over the top, the way many Xbox owners say the hard drive did for them?

The Xbox360 is going to need some killer exclusive apps in that first year that really drive early adoption of the system.

This is true of any system, unless you've got the sort of marketing geniuses working for you that managed to drive Sony's early adoption rates despite a dearth of available launch software. If you don't have games to play, you're going to struggle to move units to anybody except for the tech geeks who have to have the latest and greatest to begin with, and the "hardcore" stalwarts who like to be able to say they were there from the first day.

I suppose the thinking is that the superiority of Xbox Live as an online component is something that Microsoft is banking on to help the Xbox360 establish some headway in that first year.

That's relevant only if it sees extensive use from the first day. Remember, every Dreamcast shipped with a 56k modem. It took a year for SegaNet to emerge. Ditto for the built-in ethernet port on Xbox and the Xbox Live service. If Microsoft has something to offer with Live immediately at launch, then they can make it a significant part of their strategy, particularly if, as rumor holds, there will be a free (if stripped-down) Xbox Live service available as well.

And if they do get a good initial jump on sales that first year, they will have the advantage of being in a position to use price war strategies to cut into Sony's profit margin.

It cuts into Microsoft's own margin too, though. Remember that even if Microsoft sells a million of these things in the first week, the economies of scale are still such that the *best* they can hope for is a break-even proposition on hardware sales. It's why you don't see significant price cuts until usually near the end of the 2nd, possibly the 3rd year of a system's lifespan. As the console ages, so does the technology, and then the cost of production comes down enough to make a price war feasible.

If you jump the gun on attacking the price structure, consumers will say "Why should I buy at $300? They just cut the price from $400 a year ago. If I wait another 6 months, maybe it will be down to $200." Net result? You sabotage Sony's business, and your own as well.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by jeff061

They are being announced around the same time and will be released around the same time.

Hmm, that's not my understanding, although I could be wrong. My impression was Sony wasn't going to have the PS3 ready until next year. Why wouldn't they wait - the PS2 is still selling well and by waiting they should be able to gain more time to ensure hardware superiority.

Originally Posted by jeff061

There is no reason to think the PS3 will not be trumped. And you can't compare MS to Sega, they have nothing in common.

I see no reason at this point to assume the PS3 will be trumped in terms of hardware specs. I'm not saying they won't, just that I see no compelling evidence at this point to assume that will be the case.

As for Microsoft and Sega, they are indeed very different companies. However, unless things have changed, the feeling is that Microsoft is targeting this upcoming generation of consoles as their make-or-break product cycle for the gaming console market. If enough people hold off buying an Xbox360 due to the specter of the upcoming PS3, and if there isn't enough compelling software available for the Xbox360 in the time it's the only one of the next-gen consoles on the market to really drive big sales, the Xbox360 may suffer the same diminished sales in comparison to the PS3 that will doom it to a distant 2nd place and convince Microsoft to abandon the gaming console market. Microsoft has billions of dollars, but they're not willing to subsidize a money-losing business forever.

[dawgfan]

Good points Sack. I'll address a couple of them that I would quibble most with:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

That's relevant only if it sees extensive use from the first day. Remember, every Dreamcast shipped with a 56k modem. It took a year for SegaNet to emerge. Ditto for the built-in ethernet port on Xbox and the Xbox Live service. If Microsoft has something to offer with Live immediately at launch, then they can make it a significant part of their strategy, particularly if, as rumor holds, there will be a free (if stripped-down) Xbox Live service available as well.

The problem with the built-in ethernet port in the Xbox was that there wasn't any service to support it right off the bat. With Xbox Live having been up and running now for a few years, Microsoft has had time to work out the kinks and get a better handle on how to go about online gaming. The Xbox360 will undoubtably have Xbox Live support from the get-go to support the ethernet port as well as games taking advantage of the Live capability. I expect the online component is something Microsoft is (rightfully) banking on as a big strength for the Xbox360 launch.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It cuts into Microsoft's own margin too, though. Remember that even if Microsoft sells a million of these things in the first week, the economies of scale are still such that the *best* they can hope for is a break-even proposition on hardware sales. It's why you don't see significant price cuts until usually near the end of the 2nd, possibly the 3rd year of a system's lifespan. As the console ages, so does the technology, and then the cost of production comes down enough to make a price war feasible.

If you jump the gun on attacking the price structure, consumers will say "Why should I buy at $300? They just cut the price from $400 a year ago. If I wait another 6 months, maybe it will be down to $200." Net result? You sabotage Sony's business, and your own as well.

It does, but just like with Sony and the PS2 in comparison to the Xbox, a year or so head start will likely mean that the Xbox360 will cost less to produce than the PS3 by the time it comes out, which will mean whenever Microsoft decides to start a price war, they theoretically should be in a better position to absorb any price reductions.

Another theoretical advantage for the Xbox360 is that this time around, unlike last time, Microsoft will have valuable experience in large-scale hardware production pipelines, and the cost of producing the units shouldn't be as expensive relative to the performance of the hardware as the first go-round. This was a big advantage for Sony previously - I don't think they were losing nearly as much money per unit as Microsoft was, because of their experience in hardware production.

In the end, you're probably right that the situation is different enough now in comparison to the Dreamcast/PS2 days that it's not necessarily a very good analogue. However, I don't think there's any question that Microsoft is fighting an uphill battle and Sony is in the driver's seat. Doesn't mean that Microsoft can't gain significant market share on Sony this time around, but it won't be easy.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I love it, and yes I'll have one the day it comes out. Ok, maybe a day or two.

Although I think it's about time I get a HD TV to go along with it.


Todd

I've never had a system when it first came out, but I think this will be the system that I pre-order and get when it comes out.

As far as the HD TV, that will have to wait a year or so until after we have our house.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

The problem with the built-in ethernet port in the Xbox was that there wasn't any service to support it right off the bat. With Xbox Live having been up and running now for a few years, Microsoft has had time to work out the kinks and get a better handle on how to go about online gaming. The Xbox360 will undoubtably have Xbox Live support from the get-go to support the ethernet port as well as games taking advantage of the Live capability. I expect the online component is something Microsoft is (rightfully) banking on as a big strength for the Xbox360 launch.

Yup, but you can have all the infrastructure you want, and if none of the launch games DO anything with it, what's the point? Particularly if your hardware lacks backwards compatibility - your user base will stick with their existing Xboxes and Xbox Live until the service has a significant presence on Xbox 360.

It does, but just like with Sony and the PS2 in comparison to the Xbox, a year or so head start will likely mean that the Xbox360 will cost less to produce than the PS3 by the time it comes out, which will mean whenever Microsoft decides to start a price war, they theoretically should be in a better position to absorb any price reductions.

During the PS2 lifecycle, Sony has been reactionary with price cuts with one notable exception: in 2003, they stole a march on Microsoft because one of the major retailers leaked news of the price cut. By announcing a price cut of their own, they made it look like Microsoft was responding to THEM, and dulled the impact.

Same deal with Microsoft. If they're aggressive in their pricing at the launch of PS3, they plant the seed of doubt about the viability of their market share. Sega did that with Dreamcast, cutting the price by $50 just prior to the PS2 launch. That alone didn't do much to hurt them, but it does show a measure of fear, of "We have to do this or else the competition is going to leave us sucking wind."

In fact, I would almost argue that Sony's strategy will be to FORCE Microsoft to become aggressive. History has proven that people will buy a Sony game console that's more expensive than the competition, and if Sony can unveil a lineup of killer launch titles and force Microsoft's hand, that's to their benefit.

Another theoretical advantage for the Xbox360 is that this time around, unlike last time, Microsoft will have valuable experience in large-scale hardware production pipelines, and the cost of producing the units shouldn't be as expensive relative to the performance of the hardware as the first go-round. This was a big advantage for Sony previously - I don't think they were losing nearly as much money per unit as Microsoft was, because of their experience in hardware production.

The thing that has helped Sony is that they've been able to redesign their hardware to fit a smaller footprint, and thus to reduce the cost of production below the curve you'd expect from aging technology. Sega did the same thing with the Genesis back in the day, and it helped them in their fight against Nintendo, at the time.

Microsoft is still selling the same bulky box they were selling in 2001, and that has meant that they're digging for savings not on the manufacturing end, but by renegotiating their supplier contracts basically down the barrel of a gun. They can't expect a repeat of that if they want to maintain strong relationships in the industry.

[Easy Mac]

Last I heard, Sony was going to get the jump on Microsoft by announcing the PS3 specs about an hour before the XBox 360 specs are officially unveiled. Of course, they'll still have to wait 1.5 years to release the damn thing. Of course, I'll get neither, since even bringing up the idea of a new Xbox almost caused my girl to kill me.

I think a major selling point will be the formats each system supports. Both seem to be offering the idea that their systems will be the future of media centers. The Xbox has improved sound, included remote, and a hard drive. What all it can be used for is currently unknown, but a few of the buttons on the dvd remote seems to suggest there are either media capabilities built in (possibly .avi, at least mp3's), although it may just be a media center extender of some sort. I'm sure Sony is planning on similar synergy.

That being said. The new Xbox seems dvd based (although it seems MS would include support for their HD-DVD format that seems to be making its way onto a few DVDs, I think Terminator 2 may be an example). Sony, however, is banking on their future blue-ray system I believe. I think its a dangerous strategy to build a system around an unfounded media. WHen the PS2 and Xbox came out, the DVD was fairly standard, or at least was coming close to being fully accepted. I really doubt that blue-ray or whatever will be entrenched. While it can play both DVD and blue ray, thats got to greatly drive up the price over normal DVD drives. I think MS should be very aggressive with pricing, as SOny is going to have a difficult time keeping up for a while. I think MS needs to do a huge price slash just before Sony releases their system.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I think its a dangerous strategy to build a system around an unfounded media. WHen the PS2 and Xbox came out, the DVD was fairly standard, or at least was coming close to being fully accepted.

Difference is...Sony has cracked the 100 million mark with each of their last two consoles. You don't think that having 20 million units in homes domestically would be a strong incentive for movie studios to adopt Blu-Ray, even if they also adhere to HD-DVD? Would YOU want to lock yourself out of the market?

This isn't like Betamax where Sony had to establish a new technology from the ground up with nothing to back it up. Blu-Ray has the force of the PlayStation brand behind it, and that's not something to scoff at.

[Easy Mac]

But if it knocks the price up an extra $100, its going to hurt its sales even more.

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Yup, but you can have all the infrastructure you want, and if none of the launch games DO anything with it, what's the point? Particularly if your hardware lacks backwards compatibility - your user base will stick with their existing Xboxes and Xbox Live until the service has a significant presence on Xbox 360.

Regardless of whether the Xbox360 is backwards compatible, I'd be shocked if most of the games released for it have Live support built-in from the get-go. There's no reason for the games not to have Live support since the infrastructure will be there from the start.

As for backwards compatibility, while I acknowledge that from a PR standpoint it may hurt Microsoft if it's not there, the numbers I saw showed that there was very little actual use of the backwards compatibility on the PS2 - most people that bought the PS2 bought new games right off the bat for it.

If Microsoft is smart, they'll have replacements for their best game franchises ready to go soon after the launch of Xbox360 to give gamers little reason to want to still play their old Xbox games. There's a delicate balance of course - you don't want all your best titles coming out at once (it hurts the sales of the software if there's too much competition) so you want some spacing between the big ones, but you also want to give people every reason to be early adopters of the Xbox360.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

During the PS2 lifecycle, Sony has been reactionary with price cuts with one notable exception: in 2003, they stole a march on Microsoft because one of the major retailers leaked news of the price cut. By announcing a price cut of their own, they made it look like Microsoft was responding to THEM, and dulled the impact.

Same deal with Microsoft. If they're aggressive in their pricing at the launch of PS3, they plant the seed of doubt about the viability of their market share. Sega did that with Dreamcast, cutting the price by $50 just prior to the PS2 launch. That alone didn't do much to hurt them, but it does show a measure of fear, of "We have to do this or else the competition is going to leave us sucking wind."

In fact, I would almost argue that Sony's strategy will be to FORCE Microsoft to become aggressive. History has proven that people will buy a Sony game console that's more expensive than the competition, and if Sony can unveil a lineup of killer launch titles and force Microsoft's hand, that's to their benefit.

True, but my point is this - theoretically given the probable 1-year head start of the Xbox360 the production costs for Microsoft should be lower per unit by the time time the PS3 is released on the assumption that the PS3 is using superior (and thus more expensive) hardware. Whether or not Sony or Microsoft initiates the price war, Microsoft should have a financial advantage. And if the PS3 isn't really superior from a technological standpoint, that also works to Microsoft's benefit.

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing that has helped Sony is that they've been able to redesign their hardware to fit a smaller footprint, and thus to reduce the cost of production below the curve you'd expect from aging technology. Sega did the same thing with the Genesis back in the day, and it helped them in their fight against Nintendo, at the time.

Microsoft is still selling the same bulky box they were selling in 2001, and that has meant that they're digging for savings not on the manufacturing end, but by renegotiating their supplier contracts basically down the barrel of a gun. They can't expect a repeat of that if they want to maintain strong relationships in the industry.

I'm not quite following - you're saying the newer design of the PS2, by being somewhat smaller is dropping the production costs? That may have an effect, but I would imagine factors like scale of economy and the normal decrease in the cost of goods as they become more outdated is a much bigger reason for the drop in production costs for Sony on the PS2 - factors that also have to work in Microsoft's advantage. I don't know the details of the contracts that Microsoft negotiated originally with nVidia and Intel for the graphics, audio and CPU chips, but one would expect in a normal situation the cost per unit of each of those components should drop dramatically over time given their outdated technology.

Now, maybe Microsoft negotiated very low initial rates on the promise they'd continue to pay a flat rate for them over time and then went back later to break that promise and negotiate even lower rates as time went by (wouldn't surprise me) but a predictable decline in cost of the components over the life of the console would be expected, thus lowering the cost of producing them.

I think we can both agree that it's Sony's battle to lose.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But if it knocks the price up an extra $100, its going to hurt its sales even more.

Prior to 1995, exactly one standalone game system had ever sold for more than $249 - the 3DO (which sold for something insane like $600). This was during the ascendance of the CD-ROM. When Sony announced that the launch price of PS1 would be $300, people wrote them off. Sony got the last laugh.

Consider a little bit of history there.

[Easy Mac]

But the CD was also established by the time the PS1 came out.

I don't know if there will be a $100 difference between the Xbox 360 and the PS3 in terms of gaming technology (and especially if HD-DVD/Blue Ray has barely started, let alone a full standard adopted, which they're still negotiating).

[dawgfan]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But if it knocks the price up an extra $100, its going to hurt its sales even more.

Recent history in the console market has shown that the magic number for game consoles is $300. Even with the enviable position Sony is in, I'm not sure they can afford to launch a console that's significantly higher than $300 without damaging their market share.

It would seem one of the big ways Microsoft is reducing their per unit cost this time around is making the hard drive optional. It will be interesting to see how this works out - the hard drive was a big advantage for Microsoft last time around, and history has shown that add-on peripherals for game consoles don't sell all that well, which provides little incentive for software companies to support those add-on features.

From a purely observational standpoint, this next generation of consoles is going to be very interesting to see play out, especially now that I have no particular rooting interest in any one brand.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

As for backwards compatibility, while I acknowledge that from a PR standpoint it may hurt Microsoft if it's not there, the numbers I saw showed that there was very little actual use of the backwards compatibility on the PS2 - most people that bought the PS2 bought new games right off the bat for it.

Right. My point is, if I have the choice between Xbox Live games on Xbox 1 that I'm spending tons of time with, or launch titles that look less than appealing, I'm probably going to stick with what I've got, and if Xbox 360 isn't backwards compatible, there's no reason for me to buy that hardware.

If the launch library is strong, backwards compatibility becomes less of an issue.

If Microsoft is smart, they'll have replacements for their best game franchises ready to go soon after the launch of Xbox360 to give gamers little reason to want to still play their old Xbox games. There's a delicate balance of course - you don't want all your best titles coming out at once (it hurts the sales of the software if there's too much competition) so you want some spacing between the big ones, but you also want to give people every reason to be early adopters of the Xbox360.

Agreed...but you run the risk of ruining the franchise if the new game is not a significant addition to the franchise. Who wants, for example, Halo 2.5 at $50 or $60?

True, but my point is this - theoretically given the probable 1-year head start of the Xbox360 the production costs for Microsoft should be lower per unit by the time time the PS3 is released on the assumption that the PS3 is using superior (and thus more expensive) hardware. Whether or not Sony or Microsoft initiates the price war, Microsoft should have a financial advantage. And if the PS3 isn't really superior from a technological standpoint, that also works to Microsoft's benefit.

Sure. It allows them to better absorb any move Sony makes, but I think aggressive pricing, rather than responsive pricing, would have an opposite effect from what would be intended.

I'm not quite following - you're saying the newer design of the PS2, by being somewhat smaller is dropping the production costs? That may have an effect, but I would imagine factors like scale of economy and the normal decrease in the cost of goods as they become more outdated is a much bigger reason for the drop in production costs for Sony on the PS2 - factors that also have to work in Microsoft's advantage.

It's a little bit of both. Aging technology does help, but the more you can reduce the number of parts - particularly moving parts - the more you can reduce your costs to manufacture. Likewise, with fewer moving parts, there's less to go wrong with the system from a defect perspective, and money the consumer might have had to spend on a repair may instead go towards games or accessories, where the profit margin for Sony is higher. It's all intertwined.

I don't know the details of the contracts that Microsoft negotiated originally with nVidia and Intel for the graphics, audio and CPU chips, but one would expect in a normal situation the cost per unit of each of those components should drop dramatically over time given their outdated technology.

Over time, yes. Microsoft's problem is they tried to jump-start that when they were hemorrhaging money early on.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But the CD was also established by the time the PS1 came out.

You're confusing music CDs with multimedia CD-ROMs. The Sega CD was released in 1994 at $300 (that's an add-on, though), because at that time, the technology was still very expensive. It was something less than a success.

Let's not forget, you can buy a CD player today for 10 bucks. I'd wager that a Discman, circa 1994 or 1995, was still around $100-$120.

[Easy Mac]

The argument I'm making is that Sony is banking on a format that they haven't even figured out what to do with. That alone will affect the price point far more than MS going with a straight DVD.

All I'm saying is, at this point, I don't imagine the PS3 will be immensly technologically advanced compare to the next Xbox. If MS is smart, it will put the pressure on Sony to cut their prices to where it doesn't make sense. I'd assume MS could start the Xbox 360 w/o the 20 gb HD at at least $250 (probably ~300 with it). THats if they're smart. At best, Sony will start no lower than $300 without a huge loss in money. By a year, MS would be smart to be at least $100 lower with their minimum setup by the time the PS3 hits. While that won't matter to the "got-to-have-its", it will to the parents of normal kids. Especially if there is a negligible difference in the quality of games.

I'm not saying the PS3 will crumble and die, but by the time developers are able to show off what it can do, the next Xbox "should" have a sizeable advantage over their counterpart.

[dubb93]

From what I've read....

The next Xbox will be in stores by this christmas....The next Playstation will be in stores next christmas. A year difference.

Microsoft is planning on releasing Halo 3 right when Sony launches the Playstation 3, same day? Not quite sure yet. The only problem is that it will cut the "normal" development cycle for Halo in half, from 4 years to 2.

Sony plans on jumping the gun and annoucing their specs prior to Microsoft. Sort of a "FU" and to dull the impact of the big M's announcement. From everything that I've heard, the PS3 is going to kill the next Xbox in terms of specs. Not sure this will really mean anything in terms of on screen action tho. I really can't tell the difference anymore.

According to the Q-Man in EGM many next gen Xbox games that were being developed by third party developers were moved to the PS3 as soon as they saw what the machine can do. That has to say something about the power difference between the two machines. Not sure what this means, but its in this months EGM, and he's usually dead on from what I can tell.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Right. My point is, if I have the choice between Xbox Live games on Xbox 1 that I'm spending tons of time with, or launch titles that look less than appealing, I'm probably going to stick with what I've got, and if Xbox 360 isn't backwards compatible, there's no reason for me to buy that hardware.

except that you're a fucking geek who ALWAYS has to have every system, so it doesn't really matter. you're gonna have all the systems, backwards compatibility be damned, so stop pretending you aren't a fucking nerd who can not have a new console.

[MizzouRah]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

I've never had a system when it first came out, but I think this will be the system that I pre-order and get when it comes out.

As far as the HD TV, that will have to wait a year or so until after we have our house.

I'm with you on the HD TV, we are getting a new house in the next 1-3 years and I'll have to wait.. but I have been saving.

I'll get the Xbox 360 and the big jump on Sony will put Microsoft on the map. The "next gen" games will have the new Xbox 360 flying off shelves.


Todd

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

It's a little bit of both. Aging technology does help, but the more you can reduce the number of parts - particularly moving parts - the more you can reduce your costs to manufacture. Likewise, with fewer moving parts, there's less to go wrong with the system from a defect perspective, and money the consumer might have had to spend on a repair may instead go towards games or accessories, where the profit margin for Sony is higher. It's all intertwined.

i hope you didn't go to school for that inside knowledge. for your case i hope you didn't pay for that piece of FUCKING COMMON SENSE. its ok, Sack, people know you have a lot of insight about the gaming industry, you don't need to hit us over the head in every thread regarding games with gems like if you drop an apple, gravity will make it fall.

wow, you're firing on all pistons tonite, aren't ya.

[Easy Mac]

uh oh, either HA's on a bender or Dean Houston's in jail again.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by MizzouRah

I'm with you on the HD TV, we are getting a new house in the next 1-3 years and I'll have to wait.. but I have been saving.

I'll get the Xbox 360 and the big jump on Sony will put Microsoft on the map. The "next gen" games will have the new Xbox 360 flying off shelves.


Todd

i'm going with XBox this time. all my friends were XBox junkies, i came from a PS2 background and i was more comfortable with the PS2 controller. whenever i played Madden on XBox i sucked cuz of that clunky weapon MS called a controller.

so now i'm just gonna go to the system all my friends will be on. i'm almost done with video games, so now i'm at the point where i'm not gonna buy both a console by Sony and one by MS. the only reason i'm getting a 360 is cuz i no longer have PS2 and my XBox is collecting dust, so i rather trade it in now, get a store credit and preoder a 360 so that i have something to goof around on.

[sterlingice]

I still can't believe that already three people in this thread know what next gen system they are going to buy when they haven't even seen any offerings from either.

Sure, next gen will be the most interesting to be sure. But if this gen is any indication, there's going to be more and more exclusive games as each system wants to get a leg up on killer aps. So there are going to be a lot of people going "why did I buy this system when it came out? it's just collecting dust now" just like I've seen a lot of owners of all three systems do this generation.

SI

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I still can't believe that already three people in this thread know what next gen system they are going to buy when they haven't even seen any offerings from either.

Sure, next gen will be the most interesting to be sure. But if this gen is any indication, there's going to be more and more exclusive games as each system wants to get a leg up on killer aps. So there are going to be a lot of people going "why did I buy this system when it came out? it's just collecting dust now" just like I've seen a lot of owners of all three systems do this generation.

SI

I brought a PS2 first and then eventually received an X-Box as a gift. I still play both. Generally, I play PS2 exclusives on the PS2, and all other console games on the X-Box.

I'm sure that I'll get both the 360 and the PS3 (although I probably won't be in a rush to get the PS3 at launch.) So, I'm not prematurely choosing one over the other. However, you could argue that I'm prematurely choosing to buy both, but I know that I'm going to want the improved graphics of next gen Madden for example.

[Joe Canadian]

Couple of things...

1) It's my understanding that all XBox 360 games will be at least "Live Aware", and with the exception of Single-Player only games all should have multiplayer support.

2) Since Sony & the HD-DVD guys have joined together, wouldn't this mean that PS3 isn't going to have Blu-Ray anymore but instead the new media? It wouldn't make much sence for the PS3 to be the only thing on earth using Blu-Ray technology.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

except that you're a fucking geek

Acknowledged.

who ALWAYS has to have every system, so it doesn't really matter. you're gonna have all the systems, backwards compatibility be damned, so stop pretending you aren't a fucking nerd who can not have a new console.

You're right about this much: in a perfect world, I'd be able to afford every console at launch. I'm a gaming junkie, and I freely admit it.

Unfortunately, the world hasn't seen fit to bless me with unlimited disposable income. While I'll get an Xbox 360 eventually, most likely, backwards compatibility may make the difference between jumping on board at launch and waiting 3-6 months (or more).

I hope you didn't go to school for that inside knowledge. for your case i hope you didn't pay for that piece of FUCKING COMMON SENSE.

There's a lot of things I'd expect to see accompany "FUCKING" in a post from Hell Atlantic. "COMMON SENSE" isn't one of them.

its ok, Sack, people know you have a lot of insight about the gaming industry, you don't need to hit us over the head in every thread regarding games with gems like if you drop an apple, gravity will make it fall.

I don't post to see myself speak, HA. That's one fundamental difference between the two of us. I post because I genuinely enjoy the discussion and debate with regards to my hobby.

So why don't you go start a sandwich fucking thread instead of crapping all over this one?

[Chubby]

of course if Sony outsells MS 1000-1 in Japan again (or whatever it is) it's not really going to matter what they do here in the states that much.

[Anthony]

i'm also supporting XBox cuz i don't want to buy foreign. i rather give Bill Gates more of my money than some foreign company, and one in Asia, no less.

i can make a premature decision about which console i'm going to buy because i'm going to get whichever console my friends get, which will most suredly be the 360. they all got better on XBox games cuz they were used to the controllers.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

i'm also supporting XBox cuz i don't want to buy foreign. i rather give Bill Gates more of my money than some foreign company, and one in Asia, no less.

i can make a premature decision about which console i'm going to buy because i'm going to get whichever console my friends get, which will most suredly be the 360. they all got better on XBox games cuz they were used to the controllers.

From what I remember of your record online in Madden PS2, it's not just the Xbox controller that's the problem for you.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Chubby

of course if Sony outsells MS 1000-1 in Japan again (or whatever it is) it's not really going to matter what they do here in the states that much.

Market's not nearly that big. The US Market is a lot bigger than the Japanese market. Tho, I do enjoy seeing numbers like this:

Japanese Console Hardware Chart
From: Apr 18 - 24, 2005

System	Sales this week	Total this year
Nintendo DS	96,191	675,310
PlayStation 2	33,080	788,353
PlayStation Portable	33,005	757,876
GameBoy Advance SP	10,820	265,512
GameCube	8,329	93,449
GameBoy Advance	422	9,146
Xbox	112	6,089

---

source: http://www.the-magicbox.com/topten.htm

Even funnier where the weeks when it was getting outsold by the Wonderswan in Japan. I'm guessing 95% of the people who read this post have no idea what the Wonderswan even is/was.

SI