Superman 720p was 7GB when I DL it. :smile:
Black XB360 120 Gig HDD + HDMI = $479
- Thread starter Brimstone
- Start date
- Status
Superman 720p was 7GB when I DL it. :smile:
Which is my point, they half bake their stargety by not adding a HDD to the entry model. Thus limmiting the size of the download.....If they were thinking hey, further down the line we want to set up a service where people can download to their hearts content but then lets choke those that buy our entry model, does'nt make sense....
Not everyone is interested in downloads or is even connected to the internet
, much less broadband. For these people they will not be wasting money on features they don't care about or can't use.
This can keep getting repeated over and over again, but it will not create a tear in the fabric of time causing all the games I've played in 720p on my high def 720p television to become unplayed. Nor will it have any affect on the HD DVD movies I've watched through the same device. Nor will it undo watching Poseiden in HD that I downloaded off Xbox Live, as much as I wish I could have those 2 hours back.
I think many people are missing the point that if MS had designed the XB360 for the "HD Era", they could have included a forward thinking design for digital display connectivity that would have supported a multitude of future display connectivity standards from DVI to HDMI1.0-1.3, even DisplayPort. For example, there is zero problem using anything from composite, to S-Video, to VGA, to Component, because the A/V port on the XB360 has all the signals neccessarily for a multitude of analog transports.
At the very least, MS could have created an interface so that future DVI, HDMI, et al dongles could have gotten access to digital framebuffer out. Then users of Core and Premium consoles could have atleast bought an expensive external dongle/cable to convert native digital signals to HDMI, even if it meant having an external TDMS/HDCP dongle. Even a $99 dongle is more convenient than replacing an entire console to get HDMI.
And again, this has zero to do with "HDMI hype", that's bogus strawman FUD. Like I said, anyone today could reasonably said over the last 2 years that GPUs don't need to support PCI-Express and that games work perfectly fine with AGP. Remember the flak NVidia took over the AGP->PCI-E Bridge? The reality is, it didn't make a bit of difference. But people still perceived that during the transition period, even as PCs shipped with both AGP and PCI-E support, that they would rather buy the GPU SKU that contains support for the non-legacy bus.
It's not about PQ, it's about supporting the standard. People buying new CE equipment today are buying equipment where the preferred connectivity is digital, and analog is the legacy connector. There is something annoying about buying something in 2006 which is still analog. And people with more complicated setups like HDMI/DVI switchers are going to be doubly annoyed that they must switch using potentially two different methods. (especially true if they bought an external dedicated HDMI switch)
How many of you who own LCD displays with both VGA and DVI inputs opt to connect their monitor to their PC using VGA cables? And if not, why not? DVI hype?
I don't see why the MS zealots can't get this simple fact. Did Sony fsck up as well? Yes. If they hadn't wasted so much time trying to do their own GPU, they may have contracted ATI or NVidia sooner, rather than the last-minute "opps, we need a GPU. Call up Nvidia and shoehorn a G70 onto the PS3". The PS Store may have been something other than an atrociously non-usable "we through together a website real quick" interface. (the browser paradigm is all wrong for using dual shocks to navigate). The redesign of the Euro version shows they were behind in EE emulation. They perhaps could have had a dedicated scaler as a requirement, ad nauseum.
I've got a very expensive HT setup. Nothing I've bought since 2004 has been non-HDMI. The X-Box360 is damned annoying for this, and I'll probably end up buying an Elite just to get HDMI and dispense with bulky inelegant composite cables and the annoyance of HDMI->Component switching.
The zealots just don't seem to want to admit that the original 360 design wasn't perfect, and with some forethought, and minor cost increases, they could have supported a future upgrade path to HDMI for users.
At the very least, MS could have created an interface so that future DVI, HDMI, et al dongles could have gotten access to digital framebuffer out. Then users of Core and Premium consoles could have atleast bought an expensive external dongle/cable to convert native digital signals to HDMI, even if it meant having an external TDMS/HDCP dongle. Even a $99 dongle is more convenient than replacing an entire console to get HDMI.
And again, this has zero to do with "HDMI hype", that's bogus strawman FUD. Like I said, anyone today could reasonably said over the last 2 years that GPUs don't need to support PCI-Express and that games work perfectly fine with AGP. Remember the flak NVidia took over the AGP->PCI-E Bridge? The reality is, it didn't make a bit of difference. But people still perceived that during the transition period, even as PCs shipped with both AGP and PCI-E support, that they would rather buy the GPU SKU that contains support for the non-legacy bus.
It's not about PQ, it's about supporting the standard. People buying new CE equipment today are buying equipment where the preferred connectivity is digital, and analog is the legacy connector. There is something annoying about buying something in 2006 which is still analog. And people with more complicated setups like HDMI/DVI switchers are going to be doubly annoyed that they must switch using potentially two different methods. (especially true if they bought an external dedicated HDMI switch)
How many of you who own LCD displays with both VGA and DVI inputs opt to connect their monitor to their PC using VGA cables? And if not, why not? DVI hype?
I don't see why the MS zealots can't get this simple fact. Did Sony fsck up as well? Yes. If they hadn't wasted so much time trying to do their own GPU, they may have contracted ATI or NVidia sooner, rather than the last-minute "opps, we need a GPU. Call up Nvidia and shoehorn a G70 onto the PS3". The PS Store may have been something other than an atrociously non-usable "we through together a website real quick" interface. (the browser paradigm is all wrong for using dual shocks to navigate). The redesign of the Euro version shows they were behind in EE emulation. They perhaps could have had a dedicated scaler as a requirement, ad nauseum.
I've got a very expensive HT setup. Nothing I've bought since 2004 has been non-HDMI. The X-Box360 is damned annoying for this, and I'll probably end up buying an Elite just to get HDMI and dispense with bulky inelegant composite cables and the annoyance of HDMI->Component switching.
The zealots just don't seem to want to admit that the original 360 design wasn't perfect, and with some forethought, and minor cost increases, they could have supported a future upgrade path to HDMI for users.
Not everyone is interested in downloads or is even connected to the internet
For these people they will not be wasting money on features they don't care about or can't use.
Those should be PS2 owners. I think "next gen" has some assumption about the system, which include HD and braodband.
"Xbox360tm Average" FTW
@ DemoCoder
Saying MS should have included HDMI as a standard and by them not doing so is MS not living up to HD standards is like saying ps3 should have included unified shaders in their GPU and by them not doing so they don't have real "nextgen" graphics.
Silly.
So people without internet/Broadband should not be allowed to have HDTV's or HD games?
DuckThor Evil
Legend
Yep I agree it should have had DVI-I or similar custom port with HDCP support, it would have been a trivial matter to upgrade that into HDMI port later on, I dunno maybe that part of the design was developed early on or something... I remember that I was shocked when I first heard about the lack of Digital output, but luckily the problem has been rather small in real life situations.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
Lets not forget here that MS built a games console, that "minor" cost increases are infact significant over millions of consoles (especailly when they promise no *actual* gain in popularity/profits/userbase/whatever) and that they designed the 360 to be easily modified to add a digitial output just as soon as it would have a positive impact for them.
Console sales are driven by games, not by output connectors. Also worthy of note is that the current 360 is more than capable of delivering all the services that the HDMI enabled system will be able to - and it certainly performs just as well as a games console.
MS have got their foot in the door, they've got their first 10 million sales, and sales of the none HDMI 360 are still outstripping sales of the HDMI enabled PS3. I would argue that any benefit to adding HDMI compatibility to the original 360 design would likely not have been worth it, however small the associated costs might have been.
Has anyone here wondered if the analog outputs could be part of the reason why content providers have given as much content as they have so quickly? Has anyone seen or heard of the movies on the 360's hard drive being copied to other medium? Curious, aside from BR how is Sony going to secure High Definition tv/movie downloads on to the hard disk (and still use h.264)?
"Next gen" is ultimately whatever the market decides should replace "last gen". And that will be primarily whatever gives it the games they want to play at a price they are prepared to pay and successfully lets people know this.
MS are hedging their bets with a Core system that they can drive down towards $150 when they need to, and HD enabled systems that they can more easily sell a greater range of content and services over. This is actually quite a shrewd strategy, and it'll pay off increasingly as the Core system gets cheaper.
Once again, if MS adds a Blu-ray add-on, it'll merely add to the perception (and reality) that its whole strategy has been short-sighted. Quick to launch-good in the short term, but in the long-term? I think it'll hurt them. Three SKU's, the lack of future-proofing and the expensive add-ons to effectively 'catch-up' with the competition.
Prediction: When xb360core hits below $200, it will outsell both Premium and Elite models (not combined
Really? Thats an interesting bet considering it has no HDD (which was a big blunder IMO).
My real problem with Elite is that in the UK, it will be £70 (!) more than Premium. I think it will sell well relative to the other SKU's, but that its introductuon will push more UK gamers to the PS3 (which now looks better value despite its heavy price.
Agreed on both counts.
It is an interesting bet considering the lack of hdd, but at this price it will become an appealing choice to many gamers that will not (for various reasons) buy a console (or buy one for others
) above this price point.Agreed on the analysis of the Elite. I think it was a mistake to introduce it at that price.
I think your assumption is suspect. To most customers, "next gen" means wireless controllers and widescreen games.
MS claims 60% of its X360 customers have connected to XBox Live [free or paid]. To me this is a fantastically high figure, and close to the best case scenario, given broadband availability worldwide.
That leaves a huge market segment who is better served by a cheaper but still "next gen" console. For these people, the expensive storage and connectivity can be made available as optional add-ons.
There's no such thing as "future proofing".
MS's "quick launch" strategy has been a big win for them and has, and will continue to, benefit them far more than delaying and offering HDMI on the system. What kind of "long term" advantage do you think throwing away their 10 million none-HDMI system advantage would gvie them? What kind of tremendous, industry development momentum shifting advantage would it gain them?
It'd have gained them nothing, but cost them a great deal.
Most people don't care about the HD-DVD add on and wouldn't care about a Blu Ray add on which will probably never appear. Most people don't care about HDMI 1.3 vs 1.2, about uncompressed audio in HI-Def movies they won't play because they don't want to pay for the HD-DVD add on, or about the fact that earlier systems than the one they're interested in buying didn't have the HDMI connector that they're actually free to use.
They do, however, care about which system has the games they want, how much the thing costs, and, perhaps in some small way, how good the graphics are.
DemoCoder said:
Mapping a digital signal to an external port that is then encrypted by a dongle? I'm quite sure you can't do that and get a HDCP license. At the very core, it is completely against what HDCP is about.
Unless you are talking HDMI w/o HDCP, which then wouldn't allow upconversion of DVD's, Providers would have a problem with providing HiDef content on Live, and HD/DVD would not be allowed at all.
- Status
Similar threads
