360 one of Endgadget's "10 gadgets that defined the decade"

[Arwin]

We all know the X360's DVD drive isn't really near its claimed top speed either, so why should we expect the same from a BR drive? Optical storage is just too slow and it's about time to find a better alternative.

The 360's drive isn't a CLV, so it's fastest speed is on the outer rim of the disc, so sure it's slower as you get closer to the center, and there's a definite penalty to using multiple layers. But there don't apply to BD discs, so I think it's not really suitable to comparison to draw such conclusions from. And even then, I'm pretty sure a 12x BD drive is going to have a throughput that is at least 4x that of a 2x BD.

 

[Crossbar]

We all know the X360's DVD drive isn't really near its claimed top speed either, so why should we expect the same from a BR drive? Optical storage is just too slow and it's about time to find a better alternative.

Maybe because the BR drive in the PS3 is a first generation BR drive just like the DVD drive in the PS2 was a first generation DVD drive.

The DVD drive in the 360 is certainly not a first generation DVD drive.

I am all for other alternatives though, I think disk media will be the main media for quite some time, but I am not really keen on full HDD installs, some kind of Flash cache would be more appealing in my eyes, lightning fast loads even compared to HDDs.

Edit- Maybe I missunderstood your comparison between DVD and BR, but the generation rant is still relevant with regard to that the BRD has more room for improvement.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The 360's drive isn't a CLV, so it's fastest speed is on the outer rim of the disc, so sure it's slower as you get closer to the center, and there's a definite penalty to using multiple layers. But there don't apply to BD discs, so I think it's not really suitable to comparison to draw such conclusions from. And even then, I'm pretty sure a 12x BD drive is going to have a throughput that is at least 4x that of a 2x BD.

But it'll eb noisy! I think that's actually stronger reason to have compulsory HDD installs then a return ZX Spectrum type loading times, where at least you can get a cop of tea while you're waiting for the game to load!

Hmmm, checking the thread title, I dare say this thread has run it's course...

 

[Dregun]

I don't think next generation is going to move away from optical media just yet, main reason is that Flash isn't much faster then what BD will be (or actually is right now)

A Flash Drive has a typical Transfer rate of 34MB/s
A 16x DVD has a typical Transfer rate of 21.1MB/s
A 48x CD has a typical Transfer rate of 7MB/s
A 6X BD has a typical Transfer rate of 27MB/s

Therefore we can assume a 8x BD drive will transfer around 31.25MB/s, about equal to a flash drive. I would like to note that as far as I know they haven't cracked the 10,000RPM limit so effectively they are stuck at around 250Mbs (31.25MB/s) Granted this is just transfer speed and not the inherent seek time that is almost non-existant on Flash but the cost of a 25GB BD disc is 1/100 the cost of a 25GB Flash drive currently.

Also a console cannot come out in the future without some form of Disc Based media until all disc based media is moved onto another platform. Would you really buy a PS4 if it didn't have a Blu-Ray drive, couldn't play your library of DVD's..etc etc?

The PS4 is going to have BD standard, the question is will the next Xbox? Will they try to move to a digital distribution model when games continue to increase in size?

 

[specwarGP2]

I dont see how 360 is the gadget of the decade. Live existed with most of its current featureset on the original xbox, so it's hardly innovative (forget that most live features existed elsewhere before the orginal xobx too).

My vote for gadget of the decade goes to Logitech's Harmony line of remote control devices. Powerful, easy to program and use, and absolutely worth every penny. The Harmony One has got to be the best remote out there in terms of price/performance.

 

[eastmen]

For gaming console I'd have picked either PS2, which set up gaming as the huge industry it is now and is the greatest selling console of the decade by a large stretch, or Wii which has set a new standard for the future of gaming. Neither XB360 nor PS3 amount to much in the grand scheme of things, IMO.

edit : or DS as obonicus says. Much more gadgety than a console. I don't think CE goods really count in themselves, not by my definition of gadget anyhow.

But then these lists are always rather poopy. The Gadget Show's winner for 'best gadget' was a piece of software!

Gotta disagree. The ps2 was really stagnet when looking back at it . It was a better psone. In fact it can be blamed for holding back the video game market. After all even the dreamcast shipped with the ability to get online from day one and the sega saturn has about the same amount of online games as the ps2 did.

the 360 has really done alot of good things for gaming not just in features but in the fact that sony has finally gotten off their asses and are trying to catch up / innovate. If the 360 did not hit as many of the right notes as it did, I doubt we'd see the ps3 with anywhere near the online presence it has now nor nintendo with its basic online features.

 

[Rotmm]

Sorry for the delay in writing back to your points, Xmas and all that.

Not at all. EyeToy was an actual success in Europe, which is more than you can say for the Power Glove -- it established the existence of an untapped, underserved market. It also established the important point about marketing and success in the expanded marketplace.

Possibly yes. Or maybe they were even interested in what they had seen of the Platmote/PSWand/Whatever and felt that was a direction to look at.

Who knows where they got their main inspiration from. I remember, back what I had a Sinclair Spectrum, buying a joystick-like peripheral that was effectively a wagglestick (detected movement in 2D space).

One thing is certain, had Nintendo not released the Wii, this and the next generation of consoles would have seen some form of motion control anyway.

Before you accuse people of arguing in circles you really should address the points made earlier.

I'm not sure what points you are speaking of. As far as I'm aware, I have answered or covered all points asked.

Wrong. I had one. I do know what I'm talking about. It's not your favoritest console, but that doesn't mean you can rewrite history to favor the console you do like.

It's not about rewriting history, it's just a fact that the Live service on the original Xbox was on no way as robust, fully featured and, most importantly, Integrated as it is on the 360.

And here you don't address ShadowRunner's comment. Without the 360 we'd still be more or less at the same place, online-wise.

I have addressed, ShadowRunners comment time and time again in this thread. 360Live, and it's importance this generation, is not about being able to play online. Yes, the Dreamcast had online abilities. The PS2 had the option to go online. The Xbox also was online enabled.

Let me reiterate, it's NOT ABOUT BEING ABLE TO PLAY ONLINE.

Yes, it's true that if the 360 never happened, both the Wii and PS3 would have some form of online connectivity. I dispute your comment about how we'd be "more or less in the same place" online wise, as it's clear that Nintendo are ploughing their own narrow path, and Sony are still being driven by their fanbase to make PSN "as good as Live". Would they have made the improvements they have if not for the competition?

But the 360 and XBL is not just about going online and please read my previous posts where I go into that in great depth.

Oh, and for the record, I made a comment at the start of this post that stated we'd be at about the same place with regards motion control, whether the Wii existed or not. Would you care to dispute that?

 

[Arwin]

Since we're talking 'defined' the decade, I think the PS2 should get the title IF we think it is necessary to pick a console at all (I still don't feel that it's a gadget per se). However, particularly in the US, it is true that the Xbox was up and coming (Xbox1 was selling twice as well here as in the rest of the world and got much closer to the PS2's sales than many people realise), and it certainly had its influence - I just don't feel it is a defining one. I really think that even if only taking the second half of the decade in perspective, that title should be shared among the 360, PS3 and Wii equally, and if pressed, probably given to the Wii.

I would personally replace the 360 with the Nintendo DS. The success of a semi-gaming application like Brain Training and the host of new play-styles that the DS introduced, the new audience it brought in, and the wide global acceptance in general defined certainly the majority of the decade and is almost as much related to the iPhone as the Treo and Blackberry are. Blackberry being definitely also one that belongs in this decade, because it has been THE business (phone and) email solution for a very large number of companies for almost the full decade (technically starting in 1999, but really starting off big from 2002). In fact, in this list the Treo should probably be replaced with the Blackberry, imho.

Note that the DS and the Wii are two consoles I actually don't have, where I do have almost everything else (PSPs, PS2, Xbox1, PS3, Xbox 360), and I haven't generally enjoyed Nintendo games at all. I'm purely judging these two as cultural phenomenon, leaving out personal bias as much as I can.

And I did by the way watch the whole video podcast for this top 10, which was generally enjoyable. I just think it's a fairly weak list.

 

[obonicus]

It's not about rewriting history, it's just a fact that the Live service on the original Xbox was on no way as robust, fully featured and, most importantly, Integrated as it is on the 360.

No one's disputing that! What we're disputing is the place on this list. You're defining a very narrow window of functionality as being extremely influential, when there's no reason to believe that. You're talking about features that only the 360 has -- which means features no one else copied. 360's feature-set will undoubtedly affect the next generation of consoles... but those aren't coming out last decade.

I have addressed, ShadowRunners comment time and time again in this thread. 360Live, and it's importance this generation, is not about being able to play online. Yes, the Dreamcast had online abilities. The PS2 had the option to go online. The Xbox also was online enabled.

You're shifting goalposts. Live! is 90% about being able to play online with friends. There are a few other points, but they're all incidental to the whole experience.

Yes, it's true that if the 360 never happened, both the Wii and PS3 would have some form of online connectivity. I dispute your comment about how we'd be "more or less in the same place" online wise, as it's clear that Nintendo are ploughing their own narrow path, and Sony are still being driven by their fanbase to make PSN "as good as Live". Would they have made the improvements they have if not for the competition?

That's a different question. Competition is good for everybody. Even Live! has improved because of competition. I think that things would be mostly the same because, with or without the 360, we'd have the example of all the services that exist on PC, like xfire and vent. We'd eventually get in-game xmb, friend-messaging, maybe even game chat (the very existence of a store would convince Sony to try and keep people signed in). On a larger timescale, no doubt, and I bet we'd never see trophies.

Oh, and for the record, I made a comment at the start of this post that stated we'd be at about the same place with regards motion control, whether the Wii existed or not. Would you care to dispute that?

Why would I? The Wii's genius wasn't motion control, it was branding. The Wii just passed on the (wrong) message that 'dur, the way to the extended audience is by dumbing down the interface', which is what everyone was copying. Without the Wii, I don't think we'd see motion control being pushed that hard, but we'd see it show up as a gimmick here and there, maybe even becoming a moderate success like the EyeToy.

But then I don't think motion controls are much of a future.

 

[eastmen]

I don't think next generation is going to move away from optical media just yet, main reason is that Flash isn't much faster then what BD will be (or actually is right now)

A Flash Drive has a typical Transfer rate of 34MB/s
A 16x DVD has a typical Transfer rate of 21.1MB/s
A 48x CD has a typical Transfer rate of 7MB/s
A 6X BD has a typical Transfer rate of 27MB/s

Therefore we can assume a 8x BD drive will transfer around 31.25MB/s, about equal to a flash drive. I would like to note that as far as I know they haven't cracked the 10,000RPM limit so effectively they are stuck at around 250Mbs (31.25MB/s) Granted this is just transfer speed and not the inherent seek time that is almost non-existant on Flash but the cost of a 25GB BD disc is 1/100 the cost of a 25GB Flash drive currently.

Also a console cannot come out in the future without some form of Disc Based media until all disc based media is moved onto another platform. Would you really buy a PS4 if it didn't have a Blu-Ray drive, couldn't play your library of DVD's..etc etc?

The PS4 is going to have BD standard, the question is will the next Xbox? Will they try to move to a digital distribution model when games continue to increase in size?

put the flash drive in a raid packaging and now your at 68 , use 4 in raid packageand your at 136MB/s

Not to mention seek times and layer transfers being greatly reduced.

 

[Rotmm]

I'm going to shift your post around in my response to save repetition on my part:

You're shifting goalposts. Live! is 90% about being able to play online with friends. There are a few other points, but they're all incidental to the whole experience.

Sorry, but I am not the one shifting goalposts. Look at my very first post in this thread, where I go into great depth on how I believe the 360, with Live, has set the standard for online/offline integration. And no, Live is not 90% about being able to play online. Maybe that's how you use it, and therefore the experience has defined the very narrow goalposts you view it with.

But XBL has always been about seamless integration between being offline and online, with instant messaging, video browsing, music organisation, demo downloading, game playing, chat, game purchasing, etc all being available within the same easy to browse GUI.

No one's disputing that! What we're disputing is the place on this list. You're defining a very narrow window of functionality as being extremely influential, when there's no reason to believe that. You're talking about features that only the 360 has -- which means features no one else copied. 360's feature-set will undoubtedly affect the next generation of consoles... but those aren't coming out last decade.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with "narrow". As to if the 360 deserves a place in such a list, well it was the first console that had as much investment in terms of software (and backend) as hardware (possibly more so ) to create a system that was powerful enough to play the latest games, but that had an functionality and an interface that made it easy to game, chat, browse, message, purchase, rent, demo, compete simply.

As for the "no one else has copied", what exactly are you referring to.

But yes, you're right. The feature-set will certainly affect the way consoles are designed in the future, which is more than enough reason to include it in such a list.

I think that things would be mostly the same because, with or without the 360, we'd have the example of all the services that exist on PC, like xfire and vent. We'd eventually get in-game xmb, friend-messaging, maybe even game chat (the very existence of a store would convince Sony to try and keep people signed in). On a larger timescale, no doubt, and I bet we'd never see trophies.

Maybe we would get some of them, but in an integrated system? Probably not, but rather on a game by game service, aping the bad old days of non-integrated, complex PC gaming. But again, it's not just about the MP services, but everything else that goes with Live and, to a lesser extent, now with PSN.

The Wii's genius wasn't motion control, it was branding.

I said exactly the same in an earlier post. Genre-defining marketing, not genre-defining hardware.

 

[obonicus]

Sorry, but I am not the one shifting goalposts. Look at my very first post in this thread, where I go into great depth on how I believe the 360, with Live, has set the standard for online/offline integration. And no, Live is not 90% about being able to play online. Maybe that's how you use it, and therefore the experience has defined the very narrow goalposts you view it with.

But XBL has always been about seamless integration between being offline and online, with instant messaging, video browsing, music organisation, demo downloading, game playing, chat, game purchasing, etc all being available within the same easy to browse GUI.

I don't think we can agree on this point. Most of what you mention is useless without the online play; we can't even argue that most people use the non-online features, because most people don't even hook their 360s up to the internet. You're saying that the people who do hook it up to the internet don't do it for the online play, but because they can instant message or browse video? Online play is the reason to pay for Live and it's what the whole community you mention revolves around.

I'm not entirely sure that I agree with "narrow". As to if the 360 deserves a place in such a list, well it was the first console that had as much investment in terms of software (and backend) as hardware (possibly more so ) to create a system that was powerful enough to play the latest games, but that had an functionality and an interface that made it easy to game, chat, browse, message, purchase, rent, demo, compete simply.

The way MS invested in the console is irrelevant to this list, unless it in some way defined the decade. The idea of bringing a services structure to a console came with the original xbox. The 360 just improved the implementation (vastly).

As for the "no one else has copied", what exactly are you referring to.

A lot of the features you mention -- they're not on PS3. They're certainly not on Wii. On the other hand, the features the original xbox brought to the table are in the Wii and PS3.

But yes, you're right. The feature-set will certainly affect the way consoles are designed in the future, which is more than enough reason to include it in such a list.

Not for a list of gadgets that defined the years of 2000-2009, which is what the list is about. This list looks backwards, not forwards.

Maybe we would get some of them, but in an integrated system? Probably not, but rather on a game by game service, aping the bad old days of non-integrated, complex PC gaming. But again, it's not just about the MP services, but everything else that goes with Live and, to a lesser extent, now with PSN.

Again, we disagree. Cross-game services existed on PC for a while; there was a model to follow. The original xbox (well, with Halo 2) set a strong example for how online should function. Again, it'd be a longer time-scale. With no 360 there'd be no reason for the PS3 to compete, but you could just as easily say that without the PS3 the 360 wouldn't have many of the 'non-game' features you mention and you think are so crucial (since a lot of them weren't launch features).

I said exactly the same in an earlier post. Genre-defining marketing, not genre-defining hardware.

So why are you talking about motion-control? I'm not. Is this some sort of 'gotcha'?

 

[dobwal]

Its obvious from the list that innovation in of itself isn't the primary motivator of whether a product made the list. Its seems to me that the list is made up of products with features that may have been innovated by others but played a big hand in introducing those features to the general consumer.

The Iphone isn't the first touch screen phone (prada), the first mp3 cell phone (Samsung Uproar) nor the first cell phone compatible with itunes (Motorola ROKR). Most of products aren't on the list for introducing new innovative features but facillating and transitioning those innovations into general features.

Live went from 2 million subscribers on the xbox with a pretty bare feature set to 20 million subscribers on the 360 with a fully fleshed service that goes way beyond just online play. MS took Live using the 360 and turned it into the premier online console service of this generation. The online services from Sony and Nintendo aren't striving for more robust features because they are competing against a Live service that appeared on the xbox but the Live that while on the 360 is continually expanding its services on a console with a much bigger presence in the gaming market.

 

[obonicus]

Its obvious from the list that innovation in of itself isn't the primary motivator of whether a product made the list. Its seems to me that the list is made up of products with features that may have been innovated by others but played a big hand in introducing those features to the general consumer.

It's not so crystal clear; again, the DS (and several PS2 gadgets) did expanded audience far before the Wii, but the Wii definitely brought the idea of console gaming as a social thing into the forefront in a much bigger way than the 360 did with Live. The Wii's only an honorable mention, though, while the DS is nowhere to be seen. But it's a bit silly to talk about fixed criteria, since there is none. As Carl pointed out, this is just a list from some dude on engadget. Which is why I have no interest in discussing the list itself, but rather the title 'gadgets that defined the decade' (from a gaming perspective, considering what forum this is). Personally, I think the DS is the most deserving (besides enormous success, it set the model for the Wii, which no everyone else is copying), others argue for the 360.

Live went from 2 million subscribers on the xbox with a pretty bare feature set to 20 million subscribers on the 360 with a fully fleshed service that goes way beyond just online play. MS took Live using the 360 and turned it into the premier online console service of this generation. The online services from Sony and Nintendo aren't striving for more robust features because they are competing against a Live service that appeared on the xbox but the Live that while on the 360 is continually expanding its services on a console with a much bigger presence in the gaming market.

One caveat; Nintendo's not really striving for more robust online features. NSMBW has none. Which is part of my issue with rotmm's claim -- if the 360 were the leader this generation, I wouldn't say anything. But it's not; the leader (in sales, anyway) this generation has a set of online features that are the polar opposite of the 360's.

Between PS3 and 360, no doubt. The PS3 starts to feature-match the 360 and Live Gold's features increase with stuff like netflix and twitter as a form of value-add. MS makes a ton of money off Live, Sony's about to come out with their own premium service. But that's just competition. Again, my prediction if the 360 hadn't existed we'd have a unified service on the PS3 that would be a shadow of what we have today but would offer the same core features. It's just the way things were going. (Contrast that with the Wii, which definitely bucked the trend.)

 

[makattack]

One caveat; Nintendo's not really striving for more robust online features. NSMBW has none. Which is part of my issue with rotmm's claim -- if the 360 were the leader this generation, I wouldn't say anything. But it's not; the leader (in sales, anyway) this generation has a set of online features that are the polar opposite of the 360's.

...(Contrast that with the Wii, which definitely bucked the trend.)

I see it as Nintendo focused on the social aspects of "offline gaming" -- physical multiplayer on the same console.

MS & Sony focused on the "online gaming" aspect which I personally believe is still a rather "Hard Core" niche.

I think Nintendo may have actually also tried being purposely more conservative and obtuse in their online configuration in-line with their family gaming target: they want parents to be involved in setting up online play if their children wish to play online.

 

[dobwal]

It's not so crystal clear; again, the DS (and several PS2 gadgets) did expanded audience far before the Wii, but the Wii definitely brought the idea of console gaming as a social thing into the forefront in a much bigger way than the 360 did with Live. The Wii's only an honorable mention, though, while the DS is nowhere to be seen. But it's a bit silly to talk about fixed criteria, since there is none. As Carl pointed out, this is just a list from some dude on engadget. Which is why I have no interest in discussing the list itself, but rather the title 'gadgets that defined the decade' (from a gaming perspective, considering what forum this is). Personally, I think the DS is the most deserving (besides enormous success, it set the model for the Wii, which no everyone else is copying), others argue for the 360.

Its a bit silly to debate what should be on some imaginary list based around standards that vary from person to person depending on whats relevant to that individual.

Me personally, I think all three current gen consoles deserve a spot on my list because through different efforts by each individual console, the consoles acting in concert have pushed the gaming market forward in one giant step. All three have pushed a level of social interaction and digital entertainment thats beyond anything offered last gen while actually expanding the userbase beyond traditional demographics. In terms of consumer electronics, only the cell phone market has made a similarly big jump in capability and features.

One caveat; Nintendo's not really striving for more robust online features. NSMBW has none. Which is part of my issue with rotmm's claim -- if the 360 were the leader this generation, I wouldn't say anything. But it's not; the leader (in sales, anyway) this generation has a set of online features that are the polar opposite of the 360's.

Wii online service is alot more fleshed out than the GC or what was offered on the Xbox1. Whether or not any particular game takes advantage is the fault of the publisher or developer. The Wii (if I am not mistaken) is the only console capable of self generating a wireless Lan with other Wiis (games like Battalion Wars 2 can take advantage of such feature). The Wii also has the iplayer channel and some other social interaction based channels. The Wii's problem isn't capability but rather lack of gamers, pubs and devs (Nintendo included) taking advantage of what the Wii offers.

Between PS3 and 360, no doubt. The PS3 starts to feature-match the 360 and Live Gold's features increase with stuff like netflix and twitter as a form of value-add. MS makes a ton of money off Live, Sony's about to come out with their own premium service. But that's just competition. Again, my prediction if the 360 hadn't existed we'd have a unified service on the PS3 that would be a shadow of what we have today but would offer the same core features. It's just the way things were going. (Contrast that with the Wii, which definitely bucked the trend.)

Yeah, Sony would have basically a bare bones version of Live that existed on the Xbox1. Competition is one of the major components of the fuel that drives innovation. Live was created to be differentiator of the xbox and ps2 experience and the creation of most of the products of that Engadget list were strongly influenced by competition.

 

[obonicus]

Its a bit silly to debate what should be on some imaginary list based around standards that vary from person to person depending on whats relevant to that individual.

Granted, but this is a silly debate in the first place.

 

[BadTB25]

Granted, but this is a silly debate in the first place.

Agree.

It all really depends on ones point of view--I can see why they chose the X360, but I wouldn't have argued against them choosing the Wii or DS either. If the Dreamcast had succeeded, I could see them making the list as well.

 

[Nesh]

I have to disagree as well that it is the 360 that changed the industry. The online features that we have in consoles today have been in plans much earlier than most of us tend to believe.

Both Sony and MS have been waiting for the right time to add these features in a manner that it gives the maximum value to the consumers.

Sony has been talking about distribution, online gaming, movie and music management in PS2 since before its release. It was part of the "Computer Entertainment System" vision. It was only a matter of appropriate execution. And the PS2 did not seem like the best option to try and do all these meaningfully. Their plans found fruition in PS3

The XBOX did try to implement those ideas but it wasnt that well implemented either.

Sega showed that a good idea is the worst if not done at the right time. The same visions they expressed with their online plans for the Saturn and the DC are strikingly similar to what Sony and MS did this generation. But the technology at the time and costs meant a very impractical execution both business wise and consumer wise.

The console industry today is formed by a simultaneous/joint effort by both Sony and MS. Someone happened to release its product earlier. And despite who is or was having the best service and implementation, the industry would have changed to what we have today regardless because users for the first time could enjoy these features and services better and easy at lower costs n a PS3 and 360.

But Nintendo ALSO contributed in its own way. Because for the first time people care about motion control features and the industry is evolving towards incorporating hybrid motion sensing and traditional game controlling methods.

 

[Arwin]

But Nintendo ALSO contributed in its own way. Because for the first time people care about motion control features and the industry is evolving towards incorporating hybrid motion sensing and traditional game controlling methods.

To quote from Eurogamer and give more support for my claim that the DS (and a bit of Wii as well) defined the decade:

Iwata didn't announce specific figures for DS but said the handheld had likely broken 10m sales for 2009 in North America - a record for videogame hardware.

The Nintendo boss also praised the DS (and new arrival DSi) for not peaking after three years on the market, as is tradition, but selling strongest in its fifth (launched 2004 in the US) year on the shelf.

Yesterday Nintendo announced that the DS had sold 40 million units across Europe, which makes it the best-selling console ever. In home-console stakes - as in the ones under the telly - the Wii wins the prize, with 20m units shifted.