Xbox 360: 512MB Memory or HDD

Problem is not whether MS actually includes HDD as standard or not..I am sure not including HDD is FAR BETTER option in terms of price scaling in later part of console's life..they will be able to make Xbox360 lot cheaper than they were able to with Xbox. It sucks in terms of consumer's standpoint, but as MS no longer wants situation like Xbox, the choice was inevitable. I would take extra memory anytime over HDD...simply because memory scales lot better in terms of pricing.
But the problem comes from the fact that MS held the position like HDD was going to be standard on every Xbox360 available and everyone(and I do mean everyone) believed that 20GB harddrive is going to be attached on every Xbox360..even their official spec indicated that(although they were subject to without notice, but with something significant like HDD, they should've have put some kind of asterisk beside it)

 

One thing we must realize folks. There will NEVER be another console like the Xbox. It was to good to be true. Lost $4 Billion. It's just not going to happen. Appreciate what we got, accept it, and move on.

 

That would be wrong, since (regardless of what is actually happening) initial adopters would be expecting games to be making use of the harddrive and they would feel as though something was taken away or they were duped in the first place once they realise that HDD was not a requirement and not being used as expected. Announcing the Core system without HDD now sets the expectation level so everyone knows what they are getting into / getting from the system. The core system is nominally what the games will be coded to, anything else is just gravy.

 

I would have preferred a Pic'n'Mix system. Have an HDD Console unit at say $300 (or $250 if MS want to bite the bullet and go for penetration) and then sell all the extras at sensible prices.
Wired controller $20, Wireless $35 (off my head figures, may be too much??). Wifi network $50, Headset $30, Memory Card $25, cheap plastic front plate $150...

Then provide packin bundles, maybe with no money off but with all the items needed.

Entry level
Console + 1 wired controller = $270-320

Wireless Live! ready pack
Console + 1 wireless controller+Wifi Network = $335-385

Deluxe Pack
Console + 1 wireless controller + Wifi network + Headset + FREE cheap plastic front plate = $365-415 and SAVE $150 which makes it a bargain everyone will buy.

MS have talked of giving consumers choice. The dev responses we've heard have, in part, complimented the choice available. But as is you get stuff you don't want or you get stung by overpriced extras. I'd rely on lots of consumer goodwill to support promotion of the real money making content market.

 

Good point Dave - I disagree with this part of your reply though:

Developers are going to develop for what makes sense. There are fundamentally four ways you can develop for the XBox360 right now, HD-wise:
- Use the HD as a memory card, exclusively for savegames.
- Also support HD streaming for loadtimes, code it as a hack over the normal system.
- Support HD streaming and code no-HD support over that as a hack.
- Assume the HD is present and don't allow gameplay without it.

Right now, I suspect most games will be developped with that second option. The exception would be MMORPGs which would most likely be developped with the fourth option or (?!) the third. With 3 SKUs, I would assume that the third option is used more, making HD usage a more imfile:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Administrateur/Application%20Data/Microsoft/Internet%20Explorer/Quick%20Launch/Show%20Desktop.scfportant part of the design; the low-end SKU might have been seen as a "you get what you pay for, but hey, it works" kind of thing. Better for the guys paying for the premium package, worse for others. Not that they're in a good position to change much now, so this is kind of pointless.

I think most developers would try to strangle anyone proposing 256MB+HDD though


Uttar

 

My take:
Only ONE box set @ 350€ with : 512MB RAM, 20GB HDD, 1 Wireless pad.

Standard HDD = online games which need to update themselves can find a market on the XBox360.
(Or the other way around : the console can grab the online games needing update, potential of more money in.)

 

With development times and cost rising, developers are going to take the path of least resitance - in otherwords they are going to code for the base platform if there isn't any fundamental benefits to them; coding a streaming HD path is both extra effort that isn't really likely to equate to a whole hill of beans in terms of cash (and its probably not going to be the difference between a 70% to an 80% in a game review - and reviews are what are going to really influence game sales). If PS3 doesn't support a HD as standard then the best we are likely to see in the majority of cases is the HDD used for saved games, IMO.

 

1. Hit a mainstream price target => $300 is pretty much it. You HARDCORE gamers can argue $360 would sell, but if $360 sells $300 sells better... and a HDD does not scale well, so that added cost (lets say $40) is STILL $40 in 4 years. That is the difference between a $99 console and a $139 console in 4 years or a $149 console and $199 console in 2 years. To say, "$360 will sell" is REALLY short sighted from a market perspective.

I don't think $300 is pretty much it at all. It was in 1999 with the PS2, that was 6 years ago. In addition the PS3 is more than likely going to be well above $299 at launch, and it will set a new pricepoint for consoels IMO.

No I really do't think you have to be "hardcore" to buy a $360 game console at launch. We're talking about a day and age with $250 handhelds, $400 cell phones, and $300 ipods. $360 is a very reasonable price in todays market.

2. Have a cost analysis for the launch AND long term => You must weight your losses NOW and your long term profitability. The console platform, at some point, MUST turn a profit. Your competition, Sony and Nintendo, will be aggressively hitting price points. Having expensive hardware that does not scale in price means the normal early losses that are typical but ALSO means losses down the road if you remain on a competitive price schedule. Xbox1 anyone?

It's not comporable to the XBOX 1 in that they own the IP to their silicon this time around, in addition, when the time comes for a $99 pricepoint it will be 2009-2010, surely we will have some sort of 10-20GB memory storage they can embed in a slim version by 2010.
If not, a $129.99 pricepoint is in that $30 range that most consumers could convince themselves to buy it, especially if the x360 has an extremely compelling library which it should.

The fact a HDD is a money loser can be seen with the Xbox1 and the fact Sony did not put one standard in the PS2 or PS3--even though Sony knew MS would have one standard. And MS had already, from the beginning, noted that games should work w/o the HDD.

How much of MS's 20million wide userbase do they owe to the fact that they have a HDD? It may be a money loser, but at the same time, it is what helped differentiate xbox from PS, and it was a huge driver for people looking to switch consoles. How can those "losses" be measured?

MS lost money on xbox1 for many reasons, HDD just one of them, with the other major problems fixed they should be able to include the HDD and still easily turn a profit.

 

They can be measured in Lost Revenue! If MS are releasing a console to make them money, and if their previous effort, with 20 million users all attracted to the system because it had an HDD, lost them money, then logically they will make more money than last time by going without an HDD even if that means 20 million less customers.

 

I had to LOL at a post from another forum referring to this fiasco and the core system idea as "Xbox 180" in that it's a complete flip for MS to not deliver on their promises of standard features with every console.

 

Last week, it was solid conventional wisdom that any console debuting (sp?) in America had to be $300 or it would fail. For some reason, this wisdom has gone completely out the window and no one's even acting like it ever existed.

MS felt the strong need to have a $300 offering. They could offer 512 MB of RAM, 20 GB HDD or both. The first two were feasible for loss at $300, the third was not. How do I know? The Xbox proved that much.

So either you pay now, or later, or MS kills the Xbox because it isn't turning a profit. MS chose now. I think that's reasonable. Do I think the pricing is reasonable? No. But I'm not averse to paying for what I get.

 

ooohh..low blow...lol

I'm not saying a hardware compnent will ever sell as many consoles as the games, just that the HDD does sell consoles, indirectly by the fact it allows for better games, (i.e. without a HDD halo would not have had seamless levels, which was one thing that made it such an engrossing experience to play) and indirectly for the the simple fact that users don't need to spend money on a memory stick, that alone can convince some people to choose brand a over b.

At the very least it has as much sway on the typical user as say..an embedded blu-ray drive might....

I just feel the upsides to the HDD, and the potential for MS to exploit it, i.e. really really get Live! out to the masses, has a mucher greater upside than the potential downside of having to include a $20 HDD in your console on year 3 or year 4.

The just totally bungled it IMO, their strategy is to broaden their consumer base, but every single "feature" they were planning on capturing casual gamers with, is only available on the "hardcore" system. It just makes no sense. All this velocity girl and beatmixer crap goes out the window, as these people will only want the base model, that does nothing except play games. It just makes no sense.

it's like they changed their entire strategy 3 months before launch.

 

Easy, choose the memory. More useful for a wider variety of games right off the bat.

To get more out of the HDD than simply cache, you have to game design that uses the ability to write to it.

Cost scales down greatly over time completely unlike the HDD (which is reportedly what killed MS on the first Xbox; the minimum cost factor for the built-in HDD).

 

An HDD would be an expensive media for supplying content when a BRD can fit 2x as much as XB360's HDD

 

I thought that Live was important in MS strategy.
If true then they should accept to lose what ? $25-$30 per console in order to push Live.
I mean,the customers would have to buy a $40 to buy a memory card so why not slighty increase the price of the console to avoid them to buy a memory card and to enable them to easily take advantage of Live ?

Really ?
What about the Intel CPU and the Nvidia GPU ?
Last time i check MS is unable to reduce cost on any of these components.
Really the problem with XBox cost is partially due to Microsoft rushing the product and ending with problems they haven't foreseen.
For the XBox 360, MS has all the time to design the product correcly and take the right decisions.
Alas for some obscure reasons they have chosen to rush it again and ended up making some other strategic errors.
Despite i planned to buy the XBox 360 at launch,i consider it a weaker console(hardware wise) than the PS3.
However it had games and an advantage(the hdd) which made me want it more than the PS3.
Now that this advantage is gone (and that games that which could take advantage of it would either been cancelled or tuned down),i have no more real incentitative to buy one at launch if at all.
I really wish that MS took their time to release the XBox 360 and gave it a hardware at least as powerful as the PS3(built-in Wifi,next gen DVD drive,etc...),with a clear hardware advantage(standard hdd) and more likely released in November 2006.

 

Several games this generation supports streaming off an optical drive on PS2 and GC (Metroids, Jak&Dak, God of War etc). It's likely this practice will continue even in next gen, because while 512MB memory sure beats 32MB, it isn't that much more really and maybe even less, considering the higher definition art future games will use. Also, some of that 512MB memory on x360 will be consumed by screen buffers etc.

So streaming looks like it'll still be present IMO. Yet streaming from a HDD is obviously much faster and easier to program for than streaming off a terribly slow optical drive, and it doesn't even have to require any extra programming effort either really. MS probably allows the same function calls to be useable to access either storage device.

 

Several? Think you will find it was much much more than that (and just as much on xbox). Streaming off dvd is very easy and very wide spread. Also easy to optionally use HDD but why bother.