News

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 10, 2006 22:55)

You couldn't think at all bud. Why don't you tell me why Blu-ray seems "fucked up."

Comment by: JoeyCool (Jan 11, 2006 00:27)

What advantages are you saying that HDDVD has over Blu-ray? I don't believe there is any. Isn't it all about storage capacity and doesn't the Blu-ray disc excel?

Comment by: Ofnir1 (Jan 11, 2006 01:44)

I'm not the expert at the new formats, what I'm about to say is just something I've noticed. Ever had a DVD with the option to select the wide screen size and the full screen size on the same disc? HD-DVD uses 2 layers, one for High Definition and the other not so HD. I can't remember how much both layers combine up to, but it isn't the same as a single layer for Blu-ray, which is 25GB. Wouldn't it be cost effective (if it is) to just have both movies on one layer with the option to choose HD or non-HD on the same layer, and with more space?

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 11, 2006 07:32)

you got a point by the end of my last post my mind died *L*

BLu ray has the DRM whitch I dont care for,as much as I hate M$ at least HD DVD dosent have a messed up copy protrestion scheme altho it might have soemthign as bad *L*

I wodner if theres a HDvrsBR on tomshardware guide...mmmm I need more info..altho..it might just roll out the other ear ;_;

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 11, 2006 09:55)

Content studios required unified DRM standards for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray. They both suffer from the top 4-5 five pain in the ass DRM methods. AACS, HDCP, PVP-OPM and PVP-UAB.

Only a someone who hates Sony becaus they can't afford the better products pull out DRM.

Comment by: danielmid (Jan 11, 2006 10:32)

Just a point from a couple posts ago, original xbox games did not fill up dvds, the biggest one ive seen was about 5 gigs. In comparison, ive seen some movies get up in the 8-9 range, and Gates himself has said that developers are fine with the DVD-9 disks for now. In 2 or 3 years once the potential of 360 is realized, it might make more sense to start making the switch to HD-DVD. By then the cost of the drive will have gone down too. But if you make a game only on HD-DVD, you alienate the owners of 360s who dont have the add-on drive. Dilemma.

Daniel

GT: danielmid

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 11, 2006 11:07)

I know they should have waited 6-8 months and just had the HD DVD in the 360 at the start.....

Comment by: JoeyCool (Jan 11, 2006 11:20)

@ danielmid

Although I have never owned an old xbox myself, I was under the assumption that the games were a little bigger in size than their PS2 counterparts ( which usually go about 3 or 4 Gigs). You obviously know more on that. Hopefully when the HD-Dvd Games start to come out, microsoft will use the same strategy as Vid Game companies use for their consoles, selling the HD-DVD drive at a loss to give more users access to more games and increasing their profit in the long run.

Comment by: danielmid (Jan 11, 2006 12:40)

@ joeycool

I am sorry if I came across rude, I wasn't trying to. Just inform and participate.

That will probably be the case, and due to the length of time till the drive comes out, then till games start coming out (which gates said isn't the purpose, its for movies) the cost per unit should be pretty low to m$, so it will be reasonable for us to buy. Plus, they didnt say it would be backwards compatible for dvds. We can assume it will be, but no official word, so building a 360 with the player inside might not be possible. It might be just for movies, as they said.

Daniel

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 11, 2006 12:52)

danielmid

you have a point sicne games size's havent gotten much bigger than 9GB if that.its the size of the aera on screen thats limited more than "space on disc".

Comment by: danielmid (Jan 11, 2006 12:58)

Well, sort of. Plus, as with the xbox, the hard drive plays a major part in holding and caching data. And with the enhanced online features of the 360, it wouldnt surprise me to have a bigger hard drive released soon. After all, it is just a laptop drive in that huge chunk of plastic. And then the next step would be downloading new parts of games and stuff. Kinda like Halo 2, but more expansive.

Daniel

GT: danielmid

aim: danielmid84

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 11, 2006 17:10)

Hello? [Echo], empty empty evidence. Where do you gather that XBox 360 has space to spare on a DVD?? Hmm?

Because in the Dec issue of GI, they reported on the gaming show X05, just after the release of the Xbox 360. The big talk of the show was all the developers complaining about having to struggle to fit launch games on one disc for Microsoft. And there is currently, according to a dev from the same issue (It's too bad the articles aren't put online, but I guess that's what make syou pay for the subscription.) said that a game still under developement was 36GB in size.

Do a quick net search for Xbox 360 4 DVD game and I'm sur eth enews is spread. I however prefer my info come in print from somethign that has to maintain journalistic creds.

Besides that, put a 360 game in a DVD drive and use a UDF file system compatibl edisc analyzer to look, and see for yourself if the disc is full or not. If you just pop in th edisc an dlook it will say 7MB, that's just the partition that says to put it in a 360 if you try play it like a DVD.

These discs are full people, full, f-u-l-l, and four disc games are already on their way. It'll be like PS1 and FF games on four five discs.

Xbox 360 was rushed and is faulty in the hardware dept ave of 3% of the time, generates far too much heat, and is so featureless for next gen hardware and consumer goods. I own one, and sold my second, they generate far too much heat, has no thermal efficiency and has no features that haven't existed for years. A DVD drive? Wow that's next gen, oooh lets sell them the HD-DVD drive for big profit though!! Even though HD-DVD is already legacy in any professional's mind.

Comment by: kaosX (Jan 11, 2006 19:59)

Quote:

---

You have any Idea how fucked over I feel by Microsoft after I purchased two Xbox 360 Premiums on Nov. 22nd???

I am never buying shit from them again, because you have to be retarded to buy all this BS.

---

so dont buy it... there are currently no plans for it to support games

Comment by: kaosX (Jan 11, 2006 20:00)

and to above post.. it could be anything.. USB, wireless, or who knows... and yes wireless has the capabilies to transfer HD content... proof? wireless connection from xbox to PC can stream HD content using windows media PCs

Comment by: kaosX (Jan 11, 2006 20:01)

.... capabilities*

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 12, 2006 00:31)

There aren't currently plans for it to be used fo rth egames, no. But they are already crunched for content space, launch games were trimed and currently developing games ar eupwards of 36GB.

What does the connection have to do with anything?

Nothing

Everyoen talks up the price diff of 360 and PS3, at leats PS3 has a BD-R drive built in, wireless adaptor buil tin, unlike 360.

And stopposting one after another, posting a ton and getting a member deal by your name doesn't mean jack. You could be a moderator and fanboy will still be wirtten all over you...

Comment by: danielmid (Jan 12, 2006 09:53)

Do you honestly think with all the time that will be between the launch of the 360 and the launch of ps3 that sony would let it be inferior? Sure, in some ways it will, things that sony has to much invested to change. But obviously ps3 will be better at some if not most things. It would be bad marketing, no make that EXTREME STUPIDITY on sony's part. Thats just plain logic.

But then again, the 360 is out, and both companies have been known to lie a lot. But it's harder to lie about a product already in the market.

Daniel

Comment by: JoeyCool (Jan 12, 2006 10:05)

Huh?

Comment by: ZippyDSM (Jan 12, 2006 12:26)

Hes saying sony can added enough stuff to the PS3 to make it look better than the 360 becuse the 360 came out frist,it gives sony enough time to give the PS3 more bells and whistels the basic form of the PS3 might not change but they can add enough extra to make it alot better than the 360.

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 12, 2006 13:06)

Wow, I'm surprised, danielmid, good call, I htought you were going flame out your rear for the 360 side.

It's obvious that Sony will put out a better system, because they have 360's to tear apart, work on and compare.

Do you see what I mean with price though? Sure, the Xbox 360 is $300, but it doesn't have a next gen drive ($100 to manufacture for Sony) and it has next to no connectivity built in. The PS3 will have wireless and 5 memory stick compatibility with almost double the USB ports of the 360, and a nice 2.5" HDD bay. Of course it's going to be more expensive, but it's worth it, that doens't even include the better hardware.

So form here on out, no one shoudl touch the price issue, what's $400 instead of $300? Nothing when your getting hardware like either.

Comment by: danielmid (Jan 12, 2006 16:31)

I dont flame often, I think it makes people sound unintelligent, and it makes for bad forums.

I like you have a 360 and am not totally impressed like I expected to be. Granted, most of the features they were excited about (media stuff) I could already do on my chipped xbox. Plus more.

I will be buying a ps3, if for nothing else, just to make a fair comparison. I have plenty of non-gamers in the house that I can ask which looks better.

I also haven't been impressed with the 360 games. I hope the next round of games are better developed. Im sure they will be, they have time now.

The ps3 teasers ive seen all look really good, but they aren't rendered on actual hardware or so ive been reading. AKAIK, and IIRC

Daniel

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 12, 2006 16:50)

The two best games for Xbox 360 right now are direct PC ports, Quake 4 and Call Of Duty 2. Those are my two favorites though, and the only games I care to play. I bought PGR3 and felt really ripped off, same with PDZ.

Comment by: danielmid (Jan 12, 2006 20:23)

I own pgr3 and cod2. I beat cod2 after 2 days, and as posted before, the multiplayer sucks. I played the quake 4 demo, i understand its not the full game, but being a halo 2 fan, it felt like a BAD imitation. I played the demo for condemned and it looked pretty awesome. I have not been able to play pdz yet. Honestly the game I play the most is halo 2. By far. And I have not experienced the overheating or lockups others have described. Even in my 9 hour playing sessions, then leaving it on to charge the controller. No problems.

Comment by: Reasons? (Jan 12, 2006 23:07)

COD2 takes plenty of skill and determination on Veteran mode. I beat it on Medium in no time, and now in Veteran mode it's insanely fun adn realistic.

Halo is a rip off of Quake if anything bud, Quake and it's same basic principals, concepts, and mothod of mission and multiplayer play have been around longer than Xbox. Never blaspheme the Quake franchise like that.

Quake is a little bit out of Halo's league if you ask any long term adult gamer, sure they screwed up with the multi-playe rhti stim earound for the XBox 360, but that's it. Quake 4 played on PC is one of the best, combining beautiful gameplay with team immersion and some good scare factor (PC version alone, at 2am).

I have never liked Halo, just so you know :)

Comment by: Ofnir1 (Jan 13, 2006 00:57)

I thought it was fun, just not what it was cracked up to be.