A dvr? A pc? Are you kidding me? Microsoft to release three versions of Xbox 2 http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19615 One of them will be like a PC By Wil Harris: Thursday 11 November 2004, 10:23 A SLIDE from a non disclosure agreement (NDA) presentation seen by the INQ points towards Microsoft launching three versions of the Xbox 2, one of which is a fully functioning PC. The presentation, understood to have been given to analysts and market researchers in the UK earlier this year, plots a timeline for the introduction of the systems. Xbox Next and Xbox Next HD are planned for Autumn 2005, whereas the Xbox Next PC is pencilled in for Autumn 2006. The standard Xbox Next will not include a hard drive, which will allow Microsoft to cut costs on this basic unit. Xbox Next HD, as you might imagine, does include a hard drive and will offer increased functionality based on this. Xbox Next PC is, according to the presentation, an entry-level PC that runs Windows and all standard PC software. It also includes CD Burner, Wireless keyboard, mouse and controller and will work best connected to a high-definition TV or PC monitor. Media Center functionality - like movies, music and photos - is also included. The device will also play most available PC games. System outline specifications note that internet browsing and instant messaging would be key applications, and that the entire unit will be smaller than the current Xbox, although it will not be possible to upgrade the shipping memory or processor. The year-long gap between the mooted introductions of the two standard Xboxes before the Xbox Next PC is an interesting decision, which suggests that Microsoft realises the time that the market needs to acclimatise to TV media functionality. Since the Vole expects to ship Xbox Next before the Sony PlayStation 3, two versions of the console allow it to get the first wave out before PS3, but to also spoil the launch of Sony's flagship by concurrently announcing the PC version.
This has been rumored for awhile as I saw it mentioned on XBox IGN. Will be interesting to see if its true.
I'm still trying to figure out what Microsoft is doing. As a gamer, I'd rather them stick to just consoles rather than trying to make a PC as well, although I don't like them, so it doesn't really matter. 1st off, I would like all next-gen consoles to come with a HD, not some upgradeable version. I realize that a HD would up the production costs in each console, but I'd really like them to become a standard, even if they weren't very big. What I like about a HD is that it provides something that developers can use to improve their games, such as speeding up load times (notice XBox load times compared to a PS2 load time). Unfortunately, not too many developers took advantage of the HD of the Xbox, but maybe they can do better next-gen. Imagine playing TES IV: Oblivion and downloading all the great mods for the game, similar to those found in Morrowind. The HD allows this to happen; however, if the userbase is split (say 65% with regular console, 35% with HD console) there may not be much effort put into using the HD, similarly to how much support their is for the PS2 HD. I also wonder how the PC version will affect the other big PC names. I'm sure Intel, AMD, etc., won't like having this new competitor in their market. No doubt, the PC version would definitly be appealing, at first anyways. Last I saw, the three dual-core Power chips running at 3+ Ghz along with the R500 ATI GPU for the Xbox 2 should make for a pretty awesome PC, but I wonder how it will do a year or two later since it will not be upgradeable. Additionally, in order to run some PC games, either this unit would need some modifications or developers will have to find a way to make their games work for it AND regular PC's. This would be an interesting move if true, and I'm wondering how it could turn out. Perhaps Mircrosoft will find a way to not only have piece of the console market but the PC market as well, along with their dominance in the OS market. Or maybe it could all fail, causing Microsoft big losses since they had to produce all these units but not get anything in return. Keep in mind that the PSX didn't really sell very well, possibly meaning that gamers only care about games while non-gamers do not want a console/media center hybrid. Additionally, I wonder if there would be a "4th" version as well, depending on what Microsoft decides to do for their disc format. I believe the last I heard, possibly sticking with DVD until either Blu-ray or HD-DVD prove themselves as winner may be the route Microsoft goes, but then that would just mean a few more versions for their console. By next-next-gen, maybe there will be 8 versions of Xbox 2 sitting at your local Wal-mart, and these don't include anything like different colored versions or slightly improved versions like the PS2.
it's a bogus rumor. Xbox2 will be amazing, but I think PS3 will just once again dominate, but this time the specs and performance will be superior to ANY machine MS or Nintendo
ive heard some rumours about ibm,that they have sold the sama type of processor to both sony and microsoft.... proberly just a silly rumour
I didn't really take it too seriously at first, considering it was from the Inquirer first IIRC, but I read from some people who I believe are working on next-gen projects that some of this would make sense, although they hadn't heard about this. I would lean against this happening, but then again, I'm not sure what Microsoft is planning. I'm thinking the PS3 should dominate again as well. The PS2 has done quite well performance wise, especially considering the difference in release dates compared to the other two consoles. This time, the other consoles won't have 1.5 years to work on something to figure something out. Also take into consideration how much is going into Cell and other technology going into the PS3 and I think it could be quite an amazing machine. All that said, I hope Sony can figure out something good for the GPU for the PS3. Xbox2 already has a major beast with the R500, so even without something like Cell, the graphics will look nice on that console. Whether Sony is able to modify Cell to work as a GPU as well as a CPU or if they can come up with something else to combat the R500, I don't know, but they need something good to work with the great power that should come from the CPU. I believe this is the case of the PS2, which has by far the best CPU in terms of power this gen, but the GPU can't quite keep up with it. With a good GPU, combined with the power that should come from Cell, there really can't be much Nintendo or Microsoft can do. Yeah, it didn't really make any sense at all. Either Sony wouldn't be using Cell for the PS3, which would seem strange considering how much they invested into it, or Microsoft would be using it and paying Sony, along with IBM and Toshiba, for it. Or it was just a stupid rumor that may be true in a way since both processors are the same type since they both use transistors.
I thought the new Nintendo was using the IBM chip, while Microsoft was sticking with Intel, and Sony was going with the homebrew chip that they were working with some other company.
Not quite. Sony is working together with Toshiba and IBM to bring Cell to the world...or something like that. They'll then use Cell for their own purposes with Sony putting it in the PS3. Microsoft, according to the details I've seen, is supposed to be going with the latest Power chips from IBM (Power 5 or 6? Can't remember) and I believe Nintendo is as well, but I'm not sure on that one. In fact, I know very little about Nintendo's console other than the fact that IBM and ATI are supposed to be working on the CPU and GPU.
Anyone know when the PS3 is rumoured to be coming out? I think Microsoft is taking the wrong road having three different versions of their "Console". I mean, if you want a PC you buy a PC. I know personally I buy consoles because you dont have to stuff around with upgrades and compatibility issues. Its a one off cost for the console and the rest goes of games. Having both a PS2 and XBox, I kind of felt like XBox was started to make some inroads in the console wars. I like what they did with XBox Live and while they dont have a huge amount of great games....there are a handfull of BRILLIANT titles and XBox. But it SOUNDS like Sony will have the most powerfull console this time around by a fair way. If they can make their online play a big feature and throw in atleast a small hard drive....they'd be hard to beat. Considering how dominant Sony is with what is now an old system...it could mean big problems for XBox.
It seems like no later than 6 months after Xbox2 is released, which, like mentioned, should be around the end of '05. I believe someone from EA said that and it does make some sense. It probably depends on how quickly Cell comes along as well as Blu-ray. So far, both seem to be doing ok. Of course, I'm assuming that release would be for Japan and we (non-Japanese) will have to wait a little longer. It should be worth the wait, plus they can make sure everything is going good in the Japanese market and fix any problems before moving on. Still, that will be a long wait. We should get some pretty good info from E3 next year, where all 3 consoles are supposed to have some sort of presentation. And actually, Xbox2 will probably be announced/shown/whatever at CES '05, which is coming up pretty quick (I think in January). Just a FYI, but supposedly Nintendo is watching Sony's plan of releasing when it comes to the release date for their next-gen console. I don't have a great Internet connection, so I don't play online, meaning I don't care about it much, but that is a huge part of gaming. Some people think that maybe Sony laid back on doing as Microsoft has done when it comes to online play in preparation for something even better down the road. Probably just hopeful thinking, but here's to hoping that hopeful thinking is more than hopeful thinking...or something like that. The hard drive, like I mentioned earlier, is definitly something I want in my next-gen console, although I'm not sure of how practical it may be. From what I previously read, Microsoft seemingly wants to step away from the hard drive, at least in the normal version (sort of like how this article mentions). Given the losses they've had partly on that choice this gen, I wouldn't blame them. I still would like it from Sony, but exactly how much can they put into a console, price it at ~$300 and still not get killed too much. Along with Cell and Blu-ray going in the console, both of which should take up a pretty good chunk of the production costs I'd imagine, the RAM (XDR I believe) going into the PS3 is supposed to be some of the fastest in the world. The controllers should get another twist, whether they be wireless or some other type of interesting idea (maybe included Eyetoy or something), not to mention the possibility of having 4 ports (although if online play continues to grow, 2 should be enough). A built-in network adapter may be part of the console as well (just guessing here). The PS3 will also have to be able to read both CD's (PS1) and DVD's (PS2), so that will add a little more to the Blu-ray part of the console. And they'll put all that into some sort of sleek looking box that just looks cool. That right there will most likely cost a lot. Now add a small HD. (not sure of the size; I read that sometimes, 40 GB HD's are cheaper than say a 10-20GB HD.) There's a possibility that I could be paying $400-450 for this baby or Sony would go bankrupt before reaching 10 million units sold. They should be able to drive down the costs of Cell, Blu-ray, and some other things they make themselves, but I believe HD's are not so friendly in this aspect, which makes sense given the problems with the Xbox. Perhaps they can figure out a way to do all of this, especially if they can increase the use of HD's in console games, making better games and better sales which would help pay for the HD's in every PS3.
Gee, that's a good idea. Margins are so high for PC manufacturers, that'll be a really profitable endeavor.
I don't understand something. Could someone please explain this to me? I'm old school (I started on an Oddysey 2, Atari 2600, Colecovision, etc.)... But I've had to give up on gaming. How can you people afford it? I mean, the base Xbox costs $150, but you gotta buy a bunch of extra crap to get it set up right. So lets say it's $225. Each game costs at least $20 and probably closer to $50 for the newest games. A decent Xbox system (I said decent, not great) with an OK selection of games must cost around $500, while a great system probably costs closer to $1000. How much have you guys spent on your systems, and how can you afford to do it? -- droxford
Umm.... Xbox - $170 (including tax) Comes with a controller I dont think you need any extra "crap". It comes with a harddrive and a controller. Spend another $75 on two games and $70 on Live and you have more then you need for right around $300.
I have had the same XBOX (given to me for Christmas) since right about the launch. I just bought a brand new one with Halo 2 and two wireless controllers for $300 (student loan check came in). I already owned the games I really wanted (including ESPN2k4) so I didn't need to upgrade. Honestly, I don't see myself getting an XBOX2 or PS3 until well after their prices have dropped...unless Bungie releases Halo 3 for the initial launch of XBOX2.
Secondhand game stores. Anyway, weren't Atari and other oldschool games priced comparitively back then? With today's technology, it's hard to imagine someone actually dropping fifty bucks on a lot of those really bad NES games.
What is worse is people spending 400+ dollars for a video card for their computer to play one or two video games that take advantage of the card. WTF.
2 words: Modded Xbox ... Highly, totally and completly illegal, though. True, the Xbox is $150 now, but I got mine around launch when it was $400! Xbox is the best system by far in my opinion for many reasons but the main one being because of Live. The service works great. ESPECIALLY with Halo 2. I can't get enough of Halo 2 on live.
