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:
Printable View
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:
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.
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by OC Noob
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.
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
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stripwire
How do they utilize them now Peepers?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyRevRa
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kortiz
Cache, massive DLC, huge save game files, custom sound tracks...
Time to buy an ipod for my music then :P
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
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.
*envisions someone walking around with an xbox attatched to their belt and headphones in their ears*Quote:
Originally Posted by Echoes
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynxFX-XBA
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeyRevRa
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).
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
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...