Xbox 360 Elite Officially Announced 264
It should come as no shock that Microsoft has finally announced an upgraded version of the Xbox 360: the 'Elite'. The worst-kept secret in the videogames industry is now official, offering a 120 GB HDD, an HDMI port, and a smooth black finish for $479. The new sku drops next month, and to fill up that new hard drive Microsoft has lined up seven new partners for their Xbox Live video distribution service. Outfits like Paramount and Warner Bros. are nice to hear about, but I'm equally excited about the likes of National Geographic and ADV Films. 1up has the market cornered on commentary at the moment, with reactions from the staff there, a comparison of the new 360's value vs. the PS3, and a few words from Sony's Dave Karraker. If you're looking for even more coverage, there are several links available below.
Worthless. (Score:5, Interesting)
So what you're really getting out of this product is a larger hard drive. Whether a bigger hard drive is worth an extra $80 to you is for you to decide. I fail, however, to understand how nothing more than a larger hard drive and a black paint job makes it elite.
I'm going to guess there will be a flood of idiots rushing out to buy it - even to replace their existing boxes - because they think HDMI is some nifty high-definition thingamajig and then they'll rush home and plug it in and convince themselves that they really do see a difference.
If you really want to make it elite, make it quieter, cooler and less prone to dying.
Interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, you haven't lived till you've played a real NES on 62" screen tv or a >100" projected screen
Hardly elite (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm one of those dorks that buys everything videogame-related, but I'm not motivated to upgrade at all. An HDMI port, quieter operation, and shiny black skin isn't enough to attract me, and I'm an enthusiast for their products. If they'd integrated the HD-DVD drive and the wireless adapter that would be one thing, but this is much too little, far too late.
I mean, the PS3 comes with Blu-ray and wireless built-in on the high-end model. Meanwhile, the 360 costs $100 extra for 802.11 (an adapter that has shit range, by the way, on a shelf next to my wii and ps3 the 360 can't pick up a signal), and $200 extra for a hi-def video drive.
So: Elite 360 + Wireless + HD-DVD = $780.
PS3, with built-in wireless and built-in Blu-ray: $600. Way to destroy your price advantage, Microsoft!
Obviously I'm not the target audience for this product, but I can't for the life of me figure out who is.
Slot loading drive (Score:2, Interesting)
Where's the Wi-fi? Where's the HD-DVD? (Score:5, Interesting)
IT CAN'T EVEN CURE CANCER
Seriously though, if I'd just bought an Xbox 360, I'd be *very* pissed off right now.
HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO (Score:5, Interesting)
And, as much as I hate DRM, ultimately the decision to flag HD DVDs to downconvert over component is up to the movie studios... And... should they go that route in the future (I don't see it happening, especially now that HD DVD is compromised...), M$ will be ready with HDCP compliant HDMI.
This sucks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hardly elite CONTROLLER (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Worthless. (Score:3, Interesting)
But I think the comparison isn't fair.
First, the price for paying online is for one single year on XBox360 side, while it's free (except communication costs...) on Sony's side.
Also you can buy cheaper parts to get the same functionnality for Sony, while to lower the price of the XBox360, you need to choose to lose some functionality.
Also, adding an external hard drive to get the same capacity costs a lot
It's a pity that the article gives all the info to see that PS3 is cheaper while at the same time somehow chooses to advertise the opposite
Re:HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow I have a feeling I've heard this before, about MP3 vs CD or maybe even SACD and DVD-A. Extremely few people can tell the difference between CD and MP3 >256kbps, and even regular AC-3 DVDs have that + 192kbps to encode the rear channels and bass track. DTS goes much higher than that again, typically 768kbps+. Of course the new formats bring 7.1 to the table, but how many movies have 7.1 sound, are played in a 7.1 player to a 7.1 reciever with correctly placed 7.1 speakers? I doubt 95% of the people would be able to tell the difference, 4.9% wouldn't be "BLOWN AWAY" and the last 0.1% is you.
The only thing I'm still missing is the option to go past 24p. If you've ever seen sports or anything else fast-moving high action in 720p60 progressive, you'll wonder how you ever survived with 24p/30i. They can quote whatever artistic reasons they want but 60p would improve a lot of movies IMO.
Re:HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, 60p I'm not disagreeing with, framerate definitely makes a difference. But things shot on film look like there were.. well.. shot on film *because* of the 24fps frame rate.. and because of the film grain... And just like you (well, I can anyways...) distinguish when something was shot with a 1 ccd mini-dv cam, or a 3ccd mini-dv cam, or an HDV camera, or a DVC Pro camera... you can just TELL when something is shot on film. And to a lot of people, that's part of what makes a movie.. what it is.
Then again, there are some people that enjoyed the oh so cinematic experience of watching the blair witch project on the big screen...
Now, with all of the digital effects in movies today, and movies going directly to theater digitally to be played on DLP projectors the argument becomes a bit less cohesive... but there's definitely something about 24 frames per second that makes a movie a movie.. and not an NFL football game.
Re:HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the audio wiring within an HDMI cable electrically identical to an S/PDIF coaxial link?
re: PS3 content (Score:4, Interesting)
I did, however, buy a PS3 - because the hardware is different. A Blue-Ray drive is something I didn't own yet on any of my hardware, for one thing. And the PowerPC cell architecture is sufficiently different from any PC or Mac I own to make me feel like I'm not just buying the same old thing again, repackaged in a different shell.
I agree that PS3 content is sorely lacking right now - but it sounds like Sony is taking a pretty long-term view for the PS3 consoles. The last line of their quote in the original article commented on the "value" of buying a PS3 that you'd keep "for the next 10 years". Sure, some of that is just marketing-speak, but it also indicates they envision the PS3 as hardware that will be around for a while.
I wouldn't say the ports of XBox games for PS3 are "pathetic" though. NHL Hockey '07 was highly rated in every online review I saw. I bought it and I'm impressed with it too. Same with Tiger Woods golf. You're certainly not seeing evidence that it's a "poor" port. Runs every bit as well as the 360 version.
Can record from HDMI (Score:3, Interesting)
Check out the Blackmagic Design BHDINT Intensity board ($249).
Re: PS3 content (Score:4, Interesting)
Is it because playing some games on a console is more fun? If so, then what is the difference between a PS3 and an XBox 360 again?
Of course the PS3 will be around in ten years, it'll just be two hardware cycles behind the PS5.