25 replies to this topic

[Gregory DG]

Still a rumor, but I can see this happening now with the death of HD-DVD...

MS to announce Blu-Ray 360.

Edited by Gregory DG, Sun Jun 8, 2008 2:45 PM.

[Nall3k]

If they built it in the console, then they have officially shot themselves in the foot. (Can we say alienating entire base right now?).

[Atarifever]

And I say again, who is this for? People with time machines? It's like adding a zip drive to Dell laptops. Oh good, I'll just plug this into the past where it mattered. Blu-Ray is a dead end.

[AtticGamer]

They should announce a 500GB cheap HDD because their HDDs are simply ridiculously expensive.
HDD>Blu-Ray.

[Atarifever]

They should certainly worry more about hard drives than media. Let's face it, they should be more concerned with becoming an early player in this race:
http://www.canada.co...t...486&k=34074
than in entering a market that will mostly die out with DVDs.

[Lord Helmet]

I might be interested if its an ad-on like the HDDVD player was...MIGHT.

I'm moving rapidly away from physical media, and more plastic disks and boxes is not what I want.

[swlovinist]

I replied to this on DP, where I feel that MS(if this rumor is true) is going in the wrong direction. I want my 360 to stop breaking, and to cost less...I dont need it to to do more shit. Is that too much to ask a console to cost less than $300? Cmon its been three years, and for what a $50 price drop? Between the PS3 and 360 trying to add more GB and have their systems do more they forget about what the public really wants....an affordable console.

[MCHufnagel]

Atarifever, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 8:22 AM, said:

They should certainly worry more about hard drives than media. Let's face it, they should be more concerned with becoming an early player in this race:
http://www.canada.co...t...486&k=34074
than in entering a market that will mostly die out with DVDs.

Interesting. Netflix had announced their own player for $99 a few weeks ago. Didn't know that they teamed up with LG. The funny thing is that for the longest time the rumor was Netflix would hook up with MS to have their system work through the Xbox 360 and XBL.

[Red_Queen]

dumb and just dumber. First off is there any games that supported the so called HD-DVD enhancement stuff?

Also right now it has to be super cheap just to make HD-Games and just include HD-Built in. So why not?

Quote

I might be interested if its an ad-on like the HDDVD player was...MIGHT

Then everyone would just camp-outside Walmart waiting for it to hit -20 dollars and we all would get a cheap Blu-ray reader.

Personally I am still using VCD and DVD is a joke.

[MCHufnagel]

Red_Queen, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 12:42 PM, said:

Then everyone would just camp-outside Walmart waiting for it to hit -20 dollars and we all would get a cheap Blu-ray reader.

Personally I am still using VCD and DVD is a joke.

While I do believe that adding Blu-Ray to the Xbox 360 is a bad idea. It will be some time before Blu-Ray players becomes bargin basement equipment. The fact that the PS3 uses Blu-Ray guarantees that.

And look at this thread:

http://www.next-gen....c...25&Itemid=2

Still doesn't look like MS will dive into Blu-Ray.

Oh Red Queen, if DVD is a joke, what does that make VCD? A bad joke?

[warmachine]

With internet bandwidth caps on the horizon, digital distribution of HD movies and large games
is starting to look like a pipe dream.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24509832/

http://www.memphisra...d=9990290121643

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=4147974

[Zeptari1]

Atari_kid, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:11 AM, said:

They should announce a 500GB cheap HDD because their HDDs are simply ridiculously expensive.
HDD>Blu-Ray.

Soooo true! $170 for a 120GB xbox 360 hard drive is WAY to much!

I think blue ray in newer models of 360's is fine. I don't see a problem.
might steer new owner's our way!

as long as a blue ray 360 still plays ALL 360 games!

I personal don't care if the 360 gets any kind of new high def dvd format in the future.
I just want it to play great games!

-rick

[moycon]

warmachine, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 4:43 PM, said:

With internet bandwidth caps on the horizon, digital distribution of HD movies and large games
is starting to look like a pipe dream.

Quote

One option is to cap the bandwidth usage at 250 gigabytes per month. If the 250 gigabytes is allotted for just downloads, that's enough to handle about 50 high-definition movies, 250 standard-definition movies or more than 6,000 songs every month.

If users exceed that cap, they could be charged $15 for every 10 gigabytes they go over.

I see what you mean, I don't know how I would be able to live with only having 50 HD movies a month.

[warmachine]

moycon, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 6:02 PM, said:

warmachine, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 4:43 PM, said:

With internet bandwidth caps on the horizon, digital distribution of HD movies and large games
is starting to look like a pipe dream.

Quote

One option is to cap the bandwidth usage at 250 gigabytes per month. If the 250 gigabytes is allotted for just downloads, that's enough to handle about 50 high-definition movies, 250 standard-definition movies or more than 6,000 songs every month.

If users exceed that cap, they could be charged $15 for every 10 gigabytes they go over.

I see what you mean, I don't know how I would be able to live with only having 50 HD movies a month.

According to the pricing scheme that comcast and time warner are now testing, that 200 GB of bandwidth
could cost $150.00 to $200.00 a month.
Not that it matters much, since the current high end plan only offers 40 GB a month at almost $55.00
and that covers both uploads and downloads.

[moycon]

warmachine, on Mon Jun 9, 2008 9:14 PM, said:

that 200 GB of bandwidth
could cost $150.00 to $200.00 a month.

I guess time will tell eh? In any case, you can download HD movies and full videogames as we speak so "pipe dream", that is......

a fantastic hope or plan that is generally regarded as being nearly impossible to achieve.

Is somewhat a confusing term to use in this case since it's happening.

Basically right now the ISPs are having to pay the increasing costs of bandwidth utilization. Every bit of data that goes from an ISP to a GSP is calculated and billed back to the ISP. Here's the thing, the ISPs want a piece of the digital download pie as well. Expect to see them try to discourage you from using say...Netflix, so you will use their super digital media package (which will just happen to include servers that reside on their network) or expect them to team up, but in any case, expect to see more of it.

[godslabrat]

The more market share we give to movie downloads, the less options will be offered to the consumer.

[Atarifever]

godslabrat, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 12:43 AM, said:

The more market share we give to movie downloads, the less options will be offered to the consumer.

"We" can't do anything about it. "We" are the past. Look at the kids today who cannot remember a time when there wasn't an internet. They can barely remember a time when they already weren't downloading movies illegally anyway, and they certainly can't remember buying other media, like CDs or film. They spend more time with low res. youtube videos than with their parent's high definition TVs. They use their cell phones to watch video clips. The battle is already over. Downloadable content sadly IS the future because the current generation is more concerned with instant experiences and choice at their fingertips, than they are with collecting boxes of media.

[MCHufnagel]

Atarifever, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 5:49 AM, said:

"We" can't do anything about it. "We" are the past. Look at the kids today who cannot remember a time when there wasn't an internet. They can barely remember a time when they already weren't downloading movies illegally anyway, and they certainly can't remember buying other media, like CDs or film. They spend more time with low res. youtube videos than with their parent's high definition TVs. They use their cell phones to watch video clips. The battle is already over. Downloadable content sadly IS the future because the current generation is more concerned with instant experiences and choice at their fingertips, than they are with collecting boxes of media.

Sad, but true. My two teenage sons are a perfect example with this trend. They would rather listen to MP3's or Yahoo music on the pc than put cd's into our home stereo system, while laughing at my vinyl LPs. And since I subscribe to Gametap, they play plenty of games without physical media. Although they still would rather watch DVD's on the big screen than youtube or Amazon Unbox videos.

[Lord Helmet]

Atarifever, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:49 AM, said:

Downloadable content sadly IS the future because the current generation is more concerned with instant experiences and choice at their fingertips, than they are with collecting boxes of media.

Why sadly? Digital downloads are superior in many ways. Cheaper, less clutter, etc. Why do I need more boxes?

[godslabrat]

Lord Helmet, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:14 AM, said:

Atarifever, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:49 AM, said:

Downloadable content sadly IS the future because the current generation is more concerned with instant experiences and choice at their fingertips, than they are with collecting boxes of media.

Why sadly? Digital downloads are superior in many ways. Cheaper, less clutter, etc. Why do I need more boxes?

Downloaded content gives more control to content providers. As someone who has purchased a movie, game, or song, I should have unlimited access to my media after the purchase. If I want to put it on my iPod, I should be able to. If I want to watch it six times, I should be able to. I should also be able to take it to a friend's house and have it play. If I put the thing in a closet and forget about it for ten years, I should be able to take it out and play it just like I did when it was first purchased. When I'm done with it, I should be able to resell it. And, I think it's best if I'm able to choose from more than just what's popular THIS WEEK.

Download-only media gives content providers the means to deprive us of ALL of these benefits we now enjoy. They already have the motive-- the MPAA and the RIAA have been trying to force us into a pay-per-play system for DECADES. The game industry isn't too far behind.

As for the "advantages" you listed, I don't find downloads to be appreciably cheaper than physical media, and while there is less clutter, I'm not sure that outweighs the risk of trusting your collection to a hard drive or server.

[Lord Helmet]

godslabrat, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:50 AM, said:

Lord Helmet, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:14 AM, said:

Atarifever, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 3:49 AM, said:

Downloadable content sadly IS the future because the current generation is more concerned with instant experiences and choice at their fingertips, than they are with collecting boxes of media.

Why sadly? Digital downloads are superior in many ways. Cheaper, less clutter, etc. Why do I need more boxes?

Downloaded content gives more control to content providers. As someone who has purchased a movie, game, or song, I should have unlimited access to my media after the purchase. If I want to put it on my iPod, I should be able to. If I want to watch it six times, I should be able to. I should also be able to take it to a friend's house and have it play. If I put the thing in a closet and forget about it for ten years, I should be able to take it out and play it just like I did when it was first purchased. When I'm done with it, I should be able to resell it. And, I think it's best if I'm able to choose from more than just what's popular THIS WEEK.

Download-only media gives content providers the means to deprive us of ALL of these benefits we now enjoy. They already have the motive-- the MPAA and the RIAA have been trying to force us into a pay-per-play system for DECADES. The game industry isn't too far behind.

As for the "advantages" you listed, I don't find downloads to be appreciably cheaper than physical media, and while there is less clutter, I'm not sure that outweighs the risk of trusting your collection to a hard drive or server.

So you're saying that it isn't digital downloads that are the problem...but DRM is...I'll agree 100% on that.

Digital downloads are a lot cheaper for content providers. More profitable because you only pay for bandwidth.

Edited by Lord Helmet, Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:20 AM.

[godslabrat]

Lord Helmet, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:20 AM, said:

So you're saying that it isn't digital downloads that are the problem...but DRM is...I'll agree 100% on that.

DRM is only part of the equation. There's still the fact that this gives providers the tools they need to pull or revise content any time they'd like. Even with physical media, they do that way too much as it is. I don't want Disney deciding I can only watch the "clean" version of Roger Rabbit or waking up one morning to find out that Rockstar made some subtle edits to GTA because Jack Thompson was having his period that week. If George Lucas wants every version of the "Han Shot First" Star Wars to be deleted, he simply chooses not to offer the movie in the first place. Without physical media, and secondhand sales of said media, too much power goes into the hands of the providers.

Then let's do the math on bandwidth. There's always going to be a push to get file sizes down as low as possible, and that's going to mean lower bitrates for audio and video, as well as "stripped" versions of games. Slap it on a disc, and it doesn't matter how much space it takes. The world is going HD, I want the best possible quality.

[Lord Helmet]

godslabrat, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:37 AM, said:

Lord Helmet, on Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:20 AM, said:

So you're saying that it isn't digital downloads that are the problem...but DRM is...I'll agree 100% on that.

DRM is only part of the equation. There's still the fact that this gives providers the tools they need to pull or revise content any time they'd like. Even with physical media, they do that way too much as it is. I don't want Disney deciding I can only watch the "clean" version of Roger Rabbit or waking up one morning to find out that Rockstar made some subtle edits to GTA because Jack Thompson was having his period that week. If George Lucas wants every version of the "Han Shot First" Star Wars to be deleted, he simply chooses not to offer the movie in the first place. Without physical media, and secondhand sales of said media, too much power goes into the hands of the providers.

Then let's do the math on bandwidth. There's always going to be a push to get file sizes down as low as possible, and that's going to mean lower bitrates for audio and video, as well as "stripped" versions of games. Slap it on a disc, and it doesn't matter how much space it takes. The world is going HD, I want the best possible quality.

To each his own I guess. I know I'm in the minority here...but then again, we all collect 30 year old cartridges

I'm done with all physical media if I can help it...other than a Drobo full of movies

[Atari5200]

i still can't possibly see this happening. Am I the only one that thinks this would be devastating to MS? Do they think that the millions upon millions of people that have a 360 now are going to run right out and buy a new one? I know I won't. And if the old 360's can't run new 360 software, I'll probably abandon the system for the PS3.

[Lord Helmet]

I still think an ad-on device would be acceptable.