PDA

View Full Version : I guess Xbox Next Will SUCK...



Peepers
11-11-2004, 02:18 PM
http://www.xboxaddict.com/news/view.php?News_ID=5636

"The standard Xbox Next will not include a hard drive"

That's all I needed to hear. Way to take a big ****ing step backwards Microsoft!

The Golden Age of Xbox Live is now people. It won't be the same when DLC is rare and small.

LynxFX
11-11-2004, 03:22 PM
It is still too early to judge, but from the inq, they mention 3 versions. Only one without a hard drive.

What worries me the most of that news is not the harddrive but the mention of a cd-burner but no mention of either of the next HD DVD formats (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). PS3 is guaranteed to have Blu-ray which currently is the favorite to be the next standard video format. HD-DVD lost ground over the past year.

Another article, can't remember where, mentioned that IBM is providing both Sony and MS with the exact same processor. With slight differences in video chip tech, the systems will most like be near identicle in performance, so it will come down to features and games. MS seems to be on the right track with most of the features, just clarify what your disc format will be, so this could be an interesting battle. E3 2005 is going to be one heck of a show.

Sheeyt
11-11-2004, 03:26 PM
I would definately pick up the HD version if this article is true. Who wouldn't?

Nurb
11-11-2004, 03:31 PM
well think about how much most HD's go to waste, some people may have a lot of music, but developers seem to have forgotten that feature in their games. I've only used up a few meg for my games. To MS its probably too much money wasted on hardware.

Read on the memory devices, they are thinking of 250 meg to 1 gig flash cards I belive, or something similar, so HDs might not even be needed

Kyle Static
11-11-2004, 03:36 PM
If they had 50$ (CAD) memory chips of 1 gig or something, then I'd most likely go without the HD, but who knows. I guess I'll make the decision when the actual specs come out, I'm just hoping that MS's decision to come out earlier than the PS3 doesn't give us the outdated Hardware this time around *crosses fingers*

George89
11-11-2004, 06:10 PM
My opinion on this is the following, It'll cost much for for Microsoft to put hard drives in all the sytems rather than the alternative. With the higher cost, the system price would follow suite, and besides, not many people actually need THAT much memory

P-Rock
11-11-2004, 06:18 PM
My opinion on this is the following, It'll cost much for for Microsoft to put hard drives in all the sytems rather than the alternative. With the higher cost, the system price would follow suite, and besides, not many people actually need THAT much memory

I'd rather have that memory than no memory. I always thought that Sony's memory card technique was dumb.

I'm figuring that the Xbox Next, with a hard drive, and all of the rumored specs, would cost $500-$800. They're trying to make it affordable, without really downgrading anything that will hurt gameplay. I'm not sure how I feel about this yet. :(

Nurb
11-11-2004, 07:14 PM
what if one memory card holds whats on our HD now? I'd rather get a memory card than pay and extra 100-150 bucks

skorp
11-11-2004, 07:20 PM
That is reasonable... One system more simple and affordable... The other (HD) for people like me... And the Xbox PC for basic computer use w/ a little PC gaming for people who wants an Xbox and PC all-in-one...

Sounds awesome to me... :hail:


Xbox HD baby!!! :cheers:

CRAYMAN
11-11-2004, 07:42 PM
That is reasonable... One system more simple and affordable... The other (HD) for people like me... And the Xbox PC for basic computer use w/ a little PC gaming for people who wants an Xbox and PC all-in-one...

Sounds awesome to me... :hail:


Xbox HD baby!!! :cheers:

Yes!
I would be picking up the All-in-One PC/Xbox!!!


(HHHHHHEEEEEEEEEYYYYYYYYY, ONE THOUSAND POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) :cool:

l Maximus l
11-11-2004, 11:44 PM
well think about how much most HD's go to waste, some people may have a lot of music, but developers seem to have forgotten that feature in their games. I've only used up a few meg for my games. To MS its probably too much money wasted on hardware.

Read on the memory devices, they are thinking of 250 meg to 1 gig flash cards I belive, or something similar, so HDs might not even be needed

I think that Flash cards are the way of the future and hard-drives are one day going to be eventually old school. Good points, dude...

CMX Jedi
11-11-2004, 11:45 PM
wonder how much they would cost.

Cryogenic Pyro
11-12-2004, 12:08 AM
What worries me the most of that news is not the harddrive but the mention of a cd-burner but no mention of either of the next HD DVD formats (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray). PS3 is guaranteed to have Blu-ray which currently is the favorite to be the next standard video format. HD-DVD lost ground over the past year.
Bah. HD-DVD is obviously better.

On the hard drive issue though - I'd rather have a solid state hard drive than any other type of storage.

mattgame
11-12-2004, 12:12 AM
I want them to do everything in their power to destroy Sony. It seems like a step back to me.

LynxFX
11-12-2004, 01:32 AM
Bah. HD-DVD is obviously better.

In what way? Prior to Sony's approval of the same codecs that HD-DVD selected, I would have agreed with you as I was rooting for HD-DVD and the DVD Forum to knock Blu-ray out of contention. But now, Blu-ray can output 1080p using WM VC-1 or MPEG-4 AVC H.264 High Profile, and is full bitrate DTS-HD as manditory. With the bitrate Blu-ray is capable of you can have MLP running 8-10 discrete channels of LPCM at upwards of 24/192 resolution which would be mindblowing in the audio department. That coupled with the vastly larger disc space, Blu-ray has the edge. You also have a much larger section of the electronic industry backing Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. A 5 to 1 actually. Studios are also starting to choose sides. You have the obvious Sony Pictures, Columbia Tristar and the newly aquired MGM and their huge library. 20th Century Fox is on the fence but is leaning towards Blu-ray according to insiders. But most are waiting to see what consumers take to first. So that means who gets their drive in the most hands the fastest. With Dell, HP, and PS3 supporting Blu-ray you have millions of customers just waiting for the software. That is when the studios will deliver.

It would be wise for MS to either support Blu-ray or HD-DVD in the Xbox Next. They are already part of the Blu-ray spec so there would be no reason for them not to support the format. Nobody wants a format war and having the 2 largest (sorry Nintendo but you aren't in this equation anymore) console makers support one format, just like they did with DVD, will make it an easy choice for Studios and ultimately us the consumers.

So yes, in what way? :D

Cryogenic Pyro
11-12-2004, 03:38 AM
In what way? Prior to Sony's approval of the same codecs that HD-DVD selected, I would have agreed with you as I was rooting for HD-DVD and the DVD Forum to knock Blu-ray out of contention. But now, Blu-ray can output 1080p using WM VC-1 or MPEG-4 AVC H.264 High Profile, and is full bitrate DTS-HD as manditory. With the bitrate Blu-ray is capable of you can have MLP running 8-10 discrete channels of LPCM at upwards of 24/192 resolution which would be mindblowing in the audio department. That coupled with the vastly larger disc space, Blu-ray has the edge. You also have a much larger section of the electronic industry backing Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. A 5 to 1 actually. Studios are also starting to choose sides. You have the obvious Sony Pictures, Columbia Tristar and the newly aquired MGM and their huge library. 20th Century Fox is on the fence but is leaning towards Blu-ray according to insiders. But most are waiting to see what consumers take to first. So that means who gets their drive in the most hands the fastest. With Dell, HP, and PS3 supporting Blu-ray you have millions of customers just waiting for the software. That is when the studios will deliver.

It would be wise for MS to either support Blu-ray or HD-DVD in the Xbox Next. They are already part of the Blu-ray spec so there would be no reason for them not to support the format. Nobody wants a format war and having the 2 largest (sorry Nintendo but you aren't in this equation anymore) console makers support one format, just like they did with DVD, will make it an easy choice for Studios and ultimately us the consumers.

So yes, in what way? :D
Well, I hadn't realized that Blu-Ray supports everything that HD-DVD does and more. The last time I looked at Blu-Ray was when it was just a DVD with large storage.

Peepers
11-12-2004, 08:31 AM
The problem is that if even one verson of Xbox Next doens't have the HD dev's will have to develop for the bottom, which means that in the design of every game, they'll have to assume that there is no hard drive.


No hard drive=piece of **** console.

Lynx also made other excellent points.

Microsof better step it up or they will lose all the ground they've managed to take so far.

Spaztic
11-12-2004, 12:02 PM
I definatly want to have the Harddrive!!!

Salmonaitor
11-12-2004, 01:21 PM
In what way? Prior to Sony's approval of the same codecs that HD-DVD selected, I would have agreed with you as I was rooting for HD-DVD and the DVD Forum to knock Blu-ray out of contention. But now, Blu-ray can output 1080p using WM VC-1 or MPEG-4 AVC H.264 High Profile, and is full bitrate DTS-HD as manditory. With the bitrate Blu-ray is capable of you can have MLP running 8-10 discrete channels of LPCM at upwards of 24/192 resolution which would be mindblowing in the audio department. That coupled with the vastly larger disc space, Blu-ray has the edge. You also have a much larger section of the electronic industry backing Blu-ray vs. HD-DVD. A 5 to 1 actually. Studios are also starting to choose sides. You have the obvious Sony Pictures, Columbia Tristar and the newly aquired MGM and their huge library. 20th Century Fox is on the fence but is leaning towards Blu-ray according to insiders. But most are waiting to see what consumers take to first. So that means who gets their drive in the most hands the fastest. With Dell, HP, and PS3 supporting Blu-ray you have millions of customers just waiting for the software. That is when the studios will deliver.

It would be wise for MS to either support Blu-ray or HD-DVD in the Xbox Next. They are already part of the Blu-ray spec so there would be no reason for them not to support the format. Nobody wants a format war and having the 2 largest (sorry Nintendo but you aren't in this equation anymore) console makers support one format, just like they did with DVD, will make it an easy choice for Studios and ultimately us the consumers.

So yes, in what way? :D

What you said...









































my head. :D

Anthony4sho
11-12-2004, 09:45 PM
Bottom line is: If the next Xbox don't have harddrive or built in memory, there is no way in hell I am buying it. I'm not going back to memory cards.

stoopkid124
11-12-2004, 10:09 PM
Yeah, you would really think that a harddrive is an essential and microsoft out of anybody should know that since they introduced it to a console. Its like what makes the xbox...the xbox :cheers:

OC Noob
11-12-2004, 10:25 PM
This is the absolute best way to do things. They keep costs down for the 90% of console gamers who don't use more then 1 gig of storage, while offering the HD to anyone who wants it. Its sitting there for you to take, if you don't take it, its not MS's fault, its yours.

As for setting Xbox Next apart from the PS3, they'll probably do the same thing. They will definitly offer a PS3 (maybe THE PS3) with out a HD. Also, as someone pointed out developers aren't using it anyway. There are a few games with DL content, but most of that will fit on a 1 gig mem card with room for 100+ MP3s. Why force everyone else to spend extra money for the 1-5% of people who need more storage then that when they are offering a HD version?

Its like wiping your ass and then s**ting. It doesn't make sense.


Also, the HD drive version is suposed to have media functions that the cheaper version doesn't have, so you probably get stuff like DVR functionality for the extra dough too.

Its a win-win situation for every, with the exception of a few people who will make a non-issue into an issue. Like I said, the HD drive Xbox Next is sitting there, its your own fault if you don't get it.


Personally, I love the PC version of X-Next. Its like a little home theater PC for my someday (2 years & 6 months) DLP HDTV. For probably around $500 I will get an X-Next, a home theater DVR type thingy and a home theater PC complete with keyboard, mouse and the ability to play PC games on my HDTV.

I love that idea. I mean, I could build my own, but it wouldn't play X-Next games and wouldn't be this perfectly tweaked, small unit right out of the box (getting a PC just right is extremely time consuming when you are an anal overclocker like me). Its a beautiful thing.


Anyway, I don't think we will lose anything as far as game features are concerned and I don't think no HD is an issue since they are offering the model with a hard drive. I don't expect people who won't be using the HD to pay extra just because i want it and I don't see why any of you do.


ps Lynx the chips are both based off the apple CPU, but are very different. The Xbox will be closer to apple's architecture, while Cell (Sony's chip, also two other companies in on it) will be very different. You've heard about how they can (for the lack of a better term) daisy chain them right? They can use bunches of cores to share the work, unlike a normal CPU where you have to code specifically for the number of CPUs you are using. I'm not discribing it well, but PS3 will have a butt load of less powerful chips (not sure how much less powerful) while Xbox Next will have a few beefy chips.

LynxFX
11-12-2004, 11:02 PM
ps Lynx the chips are both based off the apple CPU, but are very different. The Xbox will be closer to apple's architecture, while Cell (Sony's chip, also two other companies in on it) will be very different.
I was basing my claim off of an insider's report from IBM that said they were selling the exact same chip to both MS and Sony for their consoles. The Cell chip idea was dropped from the PS3 a long time ago. They aren't there technologywise to mass produce them at a cheap cost. But hey, it could all just be internet BS. :cheers:

Bakeman
11-13-2004, 03:58 AM
I noticed a few peeps saying how developers aren't using the HD because there isn't much DLC.

But the HD isn't just used for that. Having the HD they can use it to cache things, thus helping with load times.

Not having some type of built-in interal storage seems like a bad idea. But maybe they know things we don't. Maybe the video chips will have enough memory of it's own or something.

Anthony has PS3 announced a built in HD? I personally haven't heard. But I'm assuming they wouldn't. So if PS3 and XboxNext doesn't have HD's you just are gonna stop console gaming? Bummer.

BananaMan
11-13-2004, 11:09 AM
i think regular computers will still own the xbox next PC in pc games. i know for one i def. would not get it because my new computer does fine as it is now.

but damn man if it's going to be 500-800 dollars, forget it. they should just stick with the 300 dollar price tag

BeyRevRa
11-13-2004, 02:11 PM
Well, it is my understanding that Microsoft patented the ability to include a hard drive internally in a consol system, therefor PS3 will definitely not include an internal HD. The XBOX PC, as far as I understand it, is not intended to replace a normal PC rig... as a matter of fact, I know it won't replace a PC rig. Consols simply don't have the ability to compete with computers long term. As for Microsoft deciding to not include an internal hard drive, have faith. This is Microsoft guys, they aren't going to make a decision like this if it was going to drastically effect game play. Perhaps they weighed their options and the performance gains of having a built-in HD were insignificant when compared to those of a more powerful GPU or faster processor. There will undoubtedly be downloadable content, it will just go on memory cards, as you guys stated above. Don't count Microsoft out yet.

Douchesforfun
11-13-2004, 04:53 PM
three versions... Im going for the one with the hdd. I think I speak for all gamers who dont worry about budget, just quality..

Peepers
11-13-2004, 05:37 PM
three versions... Im going for the one with the hdd. I think I speak for all gamers who dont worry about budget, just quality..

The problem is that if not all games have a hard drive, very few if any developers will make features that use a hard drive, and your HD will be practically useless.

Kortiz
11-13-2004, 05:42 PM
How do they utilize them now Peepers?

LynxFX
11-13-2004, 07:59 PM
Well, it is my understanding that Microsoft patented the ability to include a hard drive internally in a consol system, therefor PS3 will definitely not include an internal HD.
Nintendo holds a patent for a "home video game system with hard disk drive and Internet access capability". Sony already has a hard drive addon and MS has it built in, so there isn't anything that will keep any of the big 3 from including a harddrive, other than cost.

XhigginsX
11-14-2004, 07:05 PM
well i defintly dotn want the pc version, and i dont want the xbox next without the hard drive, so i guess il get the 1 with the hard drive, i dunno how much im gonan like 3 versions out, they are gonan get confused, and hackers will be high on the PC version, they need to just make 1 version, with the hard drive, and xbox live from your old xbox usable on the new x box.

Nameless
11-14-2004, 11:05 PM
Personally, if it'll save me a couple of hundred dollars, I'll go with the flash cards. I only have a few songs on my HD, that I use for a total of 3 games I own (only one of which I play, and thats almost never). I also don't have Xbox Live, or ever plan on gettin it since I'm not into online gaming. I have 0 use for a hard-drive.

Peepers
11-16-2004, 09:00 AM
How do they utilize them now Peepers?


Cache, massive DLC, huge save game files, custom sound tracks...

Echoes
11-16-2004, 09:09 AM
Time to buy an ipod for my music then :P

XhigginsX
11-16-2004, 09:48 AM
i only like the hard drive for a few reasons, i really only use it for saving data, i have 1 sound track which has 12 songs, and XBL, i think il check out teh one without the HD,if its alot cheapers and the memory unit is like a memory card, like PS2, where you get alot of space il consider going with that version, just to save some and buy a game, controller, ECT

AlphaRaptor
11-16-2004, 10:41 AM
It's still to early to make any real conclusions, but I don't see why MS can't stick in even a cheap 10gb HD in XB2.

BeyRevRa
11-16-2004, 08:18 PM
Time to buy an ipod for my music then :P
*envisions someone walking around with an xbox attatched to their belt and headphones in their ears*

OC Noob
11-23-2004, 02:11 PM
I was basing my claim off of an insider's report from IBM that said they were selling the exact same chip to both MS and Sony for their consoles. The Cell chip idea was dropped from the PS3 a long time ago. They aren't there technologywise to mass produce them at a cheap cost. But hey, it could all just be internet BS. :cheers:


Man, that would be a huge if Cell flopped. I don't believe it yet, but I also can't say its not true. Thanks for the info though, I'll be keeping an eye out for more information. That would be huge for Xbox and put PS3 back in developement quite a ways. :D


Well, it is my understanding that Microsoft patented the ability to include a hard drive internally in a consol system, therefor PS3 will definitely not include an internal HD. The XBOX PC, as far as I understand it, is not intended to replace a normal PC rig... as a matter of fact, I know it won't replace a PC rig. Consols simply don't have the ability to compete with computers long term. As for Microsoft deciding to not include an internal hard drive, have faith. This is Microsoft guys, they aren't going to make a decision like this if it was going to drastically effect game play. Perhaps they weighed their options and the performance gains of having a built-in HD were insignificant when compared to those of a more powerful GPU or faster processor. There will undoubtedly be downloadable content, it will just go on memory cards, as you guys stated above. Don't count Microsoft out yet.

Nintendo or Sony have a similar patent, it doesn't mean no other console maker can add a hard drive. You can't patent a technology someone else developed or stop another company from introducing technology patented by another company into their hardware.


As for replacing the PC, thats not the intent, this is meant to be hooked upto an HDTV and replace DVRs, Home Theater PCs and other entertainment devices attached to your TV and stereo, not a PC replacement. Of course, I could be wrong on this and it could be a PC replacement (its easy enough to hook up to a moniter), but it would only be a replacement for about 95% of home users, not the 5% who do intensive apps like video encoding, although its possible it can do a decent job at that.

It doesn't take much power to surf the net or do email, word or 99% of the things people do with a PC other then gaming, so MS could emulate windows and have an Xbox Next with 99.9% fuctionality for almost all users. Of course, the most intensive ap most users do is gaming and its a console so thats a given. It should do a decent job of PC gaming too, but I wouldn't expect anything earth shattering in that department, but I'd think it would be fine for PC games on an HDTV.

Most of this is educated guessing though, but It wouldn't be too hard for MS to make an Xbox Next that is a PC replacement for 99% of home users. There will always be the freak 1% (me) that it won't be a good substitute for, but like I said it will make one heck of a Home Theater PC (PC attached to your TV or whatever you use in your primary entertainment center).

adrenalin
11-26-2004, 01:12 PM
yes i as well am not going back to memory cards i hve xbox and ps2. that is one of the main reason why xbox is better than ps2

ShaDovV RyDer
11-26-2004, 01:57 PM
Depending on how much the PC version is compared to the other two I may wait the extra year for the PC version because my computer can't run any of these tight games coming out on the PC and it would make a whole lot more since to spend a bunch on a new PC/xbox2 that can run amazing xbox next and PC games than to get a $1000 video card. Plus I don't have my own PC...

BananaMan
11-26-2004, 04:46 PM
Depending on how much the PC version is compared to the other two I may wait the extra year for the PC version because my computer can't run any of these tight games coming out on the PC and it would make a whole lot more since to spend a bunch on a new PC/xbox2 that can run amazing xbox next and PC games than to get a $1000 video card. Plus I don't have my own PC...
you can get a top of the line video card for about 500-600.

Bakeman
11-26-2004, 07:40 PM
you can get a top of the line video card for about 500-600.


You don't even need to spend that much.. and I really don't think they are 600 dollars.


I have a 9700 PRO still and HL2 looks amazing!

BananaMan
11-27-2004, 03:57 AM
You don't even need to spend that much.. and I really don't think they are 600 dollars.


I have a 9700 PRO still and HL2 looks amazing!
i have a 6800 ultra. cheapest i found online was like 549.99

OC Noob
11-27-2004, 08:59 PM
i have a 6800 ultra. cheapest i found online was like 549.99

lol, yeah they do the 500% markup on top of the line cards. I bought a 9700 Pro a few weeks after they were released from ATI and it was $350 and tops was about $400 on them. Its pretty pathertic that these companies are charging upto $700 for hardware thats costing them well under $100 to produce. I thought it was bad at $400 its totally out of hand now.

I may just skip the PC video card and grab an Xbox Next PC if I can't get a very good card for around $250 that I can overclock the hell out of.

Heck, those cards aren't even THAT much better then my ($250) 9800 NP @ XT speeds are they? I run DIII at just under 1280 x 1024 with everything but AA turned all the way up and HL2 runs beautifully at those settings (much better then DIII) with no slowdown.

I don't see the benifit of $700 video cards. I know things are pretty crazy when a card first comes out, but the x800 and 6800 ultra have been out for a while haven't they?

Endromada
11-27-2004, 09:15 PM
as ppl above said, its prolyl to cut costs... im glad ill have a job by then...

John Keyes
11-28-2004, 08:02 PM
You people don't even know how much this is gonna affect Halo 3.....