MS shows off 360 external HD DVD drive
by Ross Miller 
{ Aug 8th 2006 at 4:25PM }
On Monday, Microsoft showed off its HD DVD drive to attendees of the DVD Forum in Los Angeles. While playing The Phantom of the Opera, Senior Program Manager Kevin Collins demonstrated the navigation menus. Microsoft's John Porcaro recently revealed what the "open tray" dashboard interface looks like (tentatively, not final) with the HD DVD drive attached."All the audio and video processing is done inside the Xbox," Collins said.
Collins would not give a firm price, but declared the external HD-DVD drive would be one of the least expensive of the HD DVD players to reach market. In May, Games Industry reported rumblings from retail outlets that Microsoft conveyed a price such that the HD DVD drive and Xbox 360 combined would cost less than a PlayStation 3.
The HD DVD / Blu-ray debate still rages on. High-Def Digest recently ran their first two Blu-ray vs. HD DVD reviews, declaring HD DVD as the winner in both trials (Training Day and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang). However, the site does note that Blu-ray's troubles could be the result of the player itself, and not the format.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
MDB @ Aug 8th 2006 4:32PM
spelling error towards the end...
not--note
icemorebutts @ Aug 8th 2006 4:32PM
However, the site does not that Blu-ray's troubles could be the result of the player itself, and not the format.
*Changes not to note*
*Raises hand* Professor joystiq, I found a spelling error can I have a gold star?
Also this is good news, a cheap hd dvd drive is just what I wanted.
Darth Pixel @ Aug 8th 2006 4:33PM
The drive is in the add-on box, the laser is in the add-on box, the add-on box is connected to the 360 via USB, all video and audio decoding is done using software in the 360...
Good luck with that.
How much? $400? $300?
The ZeroCorpse @ Aug 8th 2006 4:34PM
Before the Blu-Ray fans come in here and spout stats at us, I'd like to direct them to Major Nelson's page to listen to his podcast entitled "The One About HD-DVD" before making themselves look like fools in this thread.
And now, I'd like to offer a YTMND I found that seems relevant to the upcoming (inevitable) flame war:
http://chunkps3.ytmnd.com/
Enjoy!
fagaymer @ Aug 8th 2006 4:34PM
Yes, but...With the PS3 it's all in one elegant package. With this you have two individual ugly monstrosities. I'd rather have the PS3. I don't want the disk drive to be an afterthought. It's best to get something that was well thoughtout in advance. Microsoft screwed this one up badly.
Player1 @ Aug 8th 2006 4:37PM
It looks like the 360, but at the same time does not go with it at all.
tactics @ Aug 8th 2006 4:37PM
goooooooo hd-dvd!!!
-"superfan" tactics.
The ZeroCorpse @ Aug 8th 2006 4:37PM
I'd rather have the choice to NOT have a new media format forced on me than have the cost built into the console, especially if all I want is to play games.
EnderAl @ Aug 8th 2006 4:37PM
My only complaint about this HD-DVD solution is that it won't allow for the next-gen audio formats (from what I've read), only Dolby Digital 5.1. I wish it would at least be able to play the 6.1 DTS audio tracks.
Other than that, I think MS did the right thing with the external drive. Offer people an HD solution without forcing them to pay for it. Lack of HDMI is sad, but not a dealbreaker to me because I doubt I can tell the difference between component and HDMI without really scrutinizing in a side-by-side test. Of course if the image constraint token is used, then yeah... lack of HDMI really really sucks.
I plan on buying a straight-up HD-DVD player with HDMI and full audio capabilities in a year or so if the format is still alive, but if this external comes out at $100 or perhaps even $150, then I'd be very tempted to buy.
KilgoreTrout XL @ Aug 8th 2006 4:39PM
The Blu-ray player may have been a reason that HD-DVD triumped in that test, but the fact that HD-DVD used the VC-1 codec was almost definitely one.
KawF @ Aug 8th 2006 4:41PM
360 Core + HDDVD = $598?
Or would it be 360 Premium + HDDVD = $498?
With the 360 you can create so many fun combinations.
It's actually a shame that Sony didn't use the same tactic as Microsoft, making the console seem to be cheaper by offering a base pack that few will buy, and those that do, are basically forced later on to upgrade it with peripherals to make it perform well enough with newer games, backwards comatability etc.
A cheap HDDVD-drive? Sure, it is. Would be nice to be able to use it standalone in order to classify it as such. Otherwise it requires the non-expensive Xbox 360 Peripheral @ $399.
jc @ Aug 8th 2006 4:44PM
I am totally with you, EnderAl... I will either be picking up a full featured HD player for around $300 when the prices drop, or the MS add-on if it is aroung $150.
Jason B @ Aug 8th 2006 4:47PM
Everything I'm hearing leads me to believe that it won't be an option. That is a bad thing IMO. As for the add-on being one of the least expensive HD-DVD devices I would say that it best be THE least expensive HD-DVD device if they plan to sell it. After all, it is only the optical part of an HD-DVD player for the most part. Finally with regard to Blu-Ray's woes, though it is possible that the player itself is the problem, most reviewers I have read point to a higher likelihood that it is the compression method (MPEG2), which is 10 yrs old, that is the real culprit. This argument has been substantiated by those who have seen the Samsung player with the Blu-Ray technology demo disk being played. In those cases the images from the demo disk have been reported as exceptional. Not until "real" studio movies are watched are the "softness" issues noted. Again, this would be due to the encoding of the content using MPEG2.
-jasonb
funkonaut @ Aug 8th 2006 4:47PM
Damn that thing's ugly.
The 360 is looking pretty ugly now, especially with all these snazzy looking products out (e.g. DS Lite, Macbook, iPod, etc.).
Microsoft really screwed this one up. Two optical drives? Terribly disappointing. It's like the Sega 32X all over again!
portorikan @ Aug 8th 2006 4:49PM
I think the box doesn't look too bad. I've also heard that HD-DVD is of better quality than Blu-Ray as well, and after having seen blu-ray playing in a Sony store, I was left really underwhelmed with their technology (The Shops at La Cantera in San Antonio, Texas). I have yet to see HD-DVD in action though. The different in quality though probably has something to do with their compression technology. Blu-Ray is using old mpeg2, which takes up more space, versus HD-DVD using H.264, if I'm not mistaken, newer and more effecient compression technology. Sort of like AAC vs mp3. AAC is smaller size and higher quality, mp3 is older and less effecient.
For me, I have never had an interest in playing DVDs from my game console, so I like what Microsoft has done. I don't have an HDTV nor do I plan on getting one any time soon, so it's a moot point for me to have such a drive included in a VIDEO GAME console when it will have no direct impact on the quality of gameplay. That may be different in 5 or 6 years though.
Scott @ Aug 8th 2006 4:50PM
Also worth nothing that even after the problem the Blu-Ray player had been 'fixed', some videophiles are reporting that the Blu-Ray 1080p picture is still inferior to the HD-DVD 1080i picture.
As others have mentioned, this is likely because Blu-Ray is using MPEG-2 and not VC-1.
JimmyHACK @ Aug 8th 2006 4:51PM
i like how they actlike it will be the least expensive player on market. They kinda decline to add the $400 for teh required 360 first heh... so in the end it will end up as expensive (prollly more) than ps3, with 2 boxy seperate units..
I do however like they at least provide the option... stats being different i could care less.. problem is without with no hdmi its still an analog signal with components as to where teh hdmi is truly digital.. (can anyone tell the difference with their eyes, well i prolly cant)
i'll stick to the ps3, prolly not watch many movies but buy a standalone player down the road when they are cheaper and maybe someone won the format war.
Todd H. @ Aug 8th 2006 4:53PM
I'll stick to my plain old DVD player, it was only $50 bucks and it plays everything I burn on to DVD-R or DVD+R.
Todd
http://www.proxbox360.com
JimmyHACK @ Aug 8th 2006 4:53PM
current reviews of movies being different or inferior is no doubt due to bad transfers.... cause there is no reason teh studios cannot provide identical versions on both formats
Scott @ Aug 8th 2006 4:53PM
#14 - No, it is not like Sega 32X. The HD-DVD player is not needed to play games. It is merely an add-on so people can add HD-DVD movie playing functionality to the 360 if they wish.
My only complaint is that they should have the face of the HD-DVD drive match the face of the 360. Doesn't look right when they are so different.
Jason B @ Aug 8th 2006 4:54PM
Woa! Half of my original post got chopped off.
It should have started with me asking if anything was said about an HDMI cabling option.
Dizzy the Egg @ Aug 8th 2006 4:54PM
Blu Ray is using MPEG2 and this means with every DVD that sells they get to keep more money, if they use the VC-1 codec they will blow HD-DVD out of the water, but of course they will have to pay a small amount to Microsoft (the owner of the codec) for every Blu Ray sold. More than likely Blu Ray will continue to use MPEG2 and make more money for the owning companies, but at the first sign that HD-DVD is pulling too far ahead, Blu Ray will switch codecs and sacrifice the small loss of income to have the superior product.
Scott @ Aug 8th 2006 4:55PM
#18 - Sites have been doing side-by-side comparisons of the same movies on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray looked worse on every movie.
BMWM3P @ Aug 8th 2006 4:58PM
That thing is bigger than the wii, when will ms learn to do things the right way. Either make the drive internal or don't make it all. That thing is hideous and I'll bet is as reliable as it looks. It probably has its own powerbrick and together with the 360 will they will meltdown any stand you put them on.
The ZeroCorpse
Who give's a shit about what that ms bitch has to say. Major Nelson works for ms what do you expect him to say.
Orangecoke @ Aug 8th 2006 4:58PM
As someone who'd prefer to use my console for gaming, and a standalone HD DVD player, I think MS's offering is far superior to the Sony's. It gives you options.
Scott @ Aug 8th 2006 4:58PM
#20 - Since the 360 can not output digitally, it is unlikely you'll see an HDMI cable.
That said, it really isn't an issue since the movie publishers are said to not be supporting ICT until sometime after 2010...possibly 2012. The 360 will have lived out its life by then.
hohoho @ Aug 8th 2006 5:01PM
major nelson is the chap working for microsoft no? I don't recall sony ever hire pdiddy pointing a gun to one's head to buy ps3 or die? if anyone doesn't like blueray on ps3, well don't buy it, I'm sure 360 or wii would be nice options. If you enjoy the blueness, knock yourself out.
the movie studios are the usual kingmakers in any homevideo format wars. They don't care about the specs and #layers you can squeeze. They care about drm, end of story.
Jason B @ Aug 8th 2006 5:02PM
The 360 CANNOT output digitally or DOES NOT output digitally?
-jasonb
KawF @ Aug 8th 2006 5:03PM
About MPEG2 being the culprit behind why "BluRay", yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't see how people come to that conclusion... It is what is used to transfer HD-Movies and TV "over the air" to your TVs. The age of the codec is not the problem. The problem would be if any bad compressor software or simply human error. It could quite possibly also be related to the player hardware itself. What the newer codecs such as VC1 and h264/AVC brings to the table is "the same picture quality at a lower bitrate, but at a higher cost of decompression". That is, the picture should be comparable, but could have less detail, but should require less transfer and read-speed from the hardware. It is however countered with decoding the VC1/h264-stream requires a freaking massive ammount of processing power. Especially at higher resolutions such as 1080p.
Any true comparsions will only be possible when both HD-DVD and BluRay drives are available on PC so both can be compared on identical hardware, possibly even with identical software.
*START SPECULATION*
Here my guess on why MPEG2 is used on these early BluRay movies: someone wanted the players to actually be able to handle outputting the video at 1080p and thusly chose MPEG2 which requires less processing power, but could potentially be hindered by early BluRay drives having potentially too low read-speeds to handle the higher bit-rate required to play such a highresolution movie. (As in the stand-alone boxes.)
HDDVD does not have this problem at current since no HDDVD players to the best of my knowledge can output a 1080p picture. They simply bet on that higher res movies will be handled by coming generations of players and therefore already used a codec which would require more processing power, if it was done at the same 1080p resolution.
Of course, when both the HDDVD addon and the PS3 comes out, the hardware should have no problem whatsoever of handling the decoding of the higher compressed streams. A pure speculation would be that the processors in each should handle decoding of at least two such high-def streams at once in 1080p.
*END SPECULATION*
Ubersnuber @ Aug 8th 2006 5:09PM
lol, its the same thing everytime:D
complains about the price (when the truth is you are too biased to buy it anyway)
and that fuckin "choise", enough allready! ppl are fallin asleep because of your repeated whining about that.why dont you start screaming bout Sony copying Ms and Ninty too? we have NEVER heard that "argument" before..
that hd-dvd doesnt fit in a living room, even xbox fanboys can see that...or?
jabbertrack @ Aug 8th 2006 5:10PM
"The drive is in the add-on box, the laser is in the add-on box, the add-on box is connected to the 360 via USB, all video and audio decoding is done using software in the 360...
Good luck with that."
are you from the past?
because they have already built the thing
it works and USB 2 is more than enough bandwidth to shove compressed data to the 360 for decompression and processing
All I hear is "low cost player" (if you already own a 360) and that is a VALUE ADD for me.
HDMI has issues, it's very hard to standardize a signal that will work with it and look good on everything so you can understand why MS wants to stick with componant.
Enzo @ Aug 8th 2006 5:13PM
"that hd-dvd doesnt fit in a living room, even xbox fanboys can see that...or?"
What does that even mean? If it's a shot as the 360s size, I'd like you to consider looking at a PS3
FamousAchilles @ Aug 8th 2006 5:15PM
I wish microsoft would of choosen to make the top of the player(as seen in the picture above) the front tho! it would been like a wii60!!
Jason B @ Aug 8th 2006 5:18PM
KawF
Here is why MPEG-2 is a problem for Blu-Ray at the preseent.
Currently Blu-Ray disks are single layer resulting in them having only 25GB of avaialble storage space as opposed to HD-DVD's dual layers at 30GB. Why does MPEG-2 cause an issue here? Because MPEG-2 has a lower compression ratio than does VC-1 or other newer technologies. So when you try to digitally encode a high-def source onto a disk using old technology your transfer requires much more space than does, oh, say the same HD-DVD movie encoded using VC-1. Effectively, you have to sacrafice source detail in order to fit the "high-def" content onto the currently undersized Blu-ray disks. That is why MPEG-2 is inferior. As for
""the same picture quality at a lower bitrate, but at a higher cost of decompression". That is, the picture should be comparable, but could have less detail"
that is just plain wrong. The advantage of newer compression technologies such as VC-1 is that the same detail is possible in spite of much lower/smaller storage requirements.
-jasonb
sputnik @ Aug 8th 2006 5:19PM
#21 What are you smoking? What exactly would make Blu-Ray more superior if it used VC-1? I think that would just make them equal wouldn't it?
If this thing sells for $150 I guarantee you it will be all sold out this Christmas. There will be nearly a market of 10 Million Xbox 360 owners to sell these to this Christmas.
And the beauty of it is that I'm not forced to get one. It will be my sole and humble choice to do so. Otherwise I can gladly keep playing games on my 360 and using Media Center extender features to watch movies, TV and photos and stream Music through the 360.
fagaymer @ Aug 8th 2006 5:21PM
How can anyone say the PS3 is big after seeing these 2 giant things together. I'd rather have one nice device with all the goodies inside. Besides, the games can't benefit from the MS drive. It's only for playing movies. Sony's will actually make the games better because programmers can take advantage of the space...It's funny how these fanboys try and spin a negative into a positive. Too bad for you that most people aren't stupid enough to fall for that bs.
Vanders @ Aug 8th 2006 5:21PM
I'm excited to be able to ge an affordable HDDVD palyer, but it's so ugly. To quote a podcast interview on majornelson.com, "it has the same exhale design", but it has that design when it's turned sideways! If you look at the images here http://news.com.com/2300-1041_3-6103208-3.html?tag=ne.gall.pg you can see that the side looks similar to the faceplate design. Why on earth would they do this? It's just so ugly. Maybe I will get a stand alone player, but they are ugly right now too...they look like old beta machines. Oh, well...what ja gonna do?
Paul P. @ Aug 8th 2006 5:21PM
Hm, I think aesthetically it actually looks pretty nice.
Felix Andrews @ Aug 8th 2006 5:24PM
Both HD-DVD and BluRay are being pushed out too soon for the massmarket. I'm perfectly happy with my DVD frankly, as far as media goes.
And it goes for games, too. Xbox 360 and current PC titles seem to be sticking some pretty epic games onto single DVDs, most not even using the dual-layered variety. Unless PS3 is going to be home to a next gen version of Night Trap, the 25GB offered by a single-layer BluRay disc is utterly excessive, and given what sprang to my mind, not all that encouraging.
I'd put money on it that, much like smaller PS2 and Xbox games are put onto CDs, most first-wave PS3 titles will be on DVD. You mark my words...
Vanders @ Aug 8th 2006 5:24PM
Sorry, meant inhale.
Jerm @ Aug 8th 2006 5:25PM
Why are people acting like MS screwed up on this? An external drive is a great way to go. It doesn't force anyone to "have" to buy it. It's a good buy for people who care (where most people in America don't care because they don't even own a HDTV), and it allows MS to support either format on a whim, and still come in cheaper then it's rival.
Also, VC-1 has been proven to be better the MPEG-2 in every single test there is. The compression technology has nothing to do with human error, it's an old compression technology that was never ment to be used as the next generation of DVD's came out. Blu-Ray is the better format, but if you don't use the right tech, then what's the use. MP3 is a far better format then tape, but I've heard some MP3's that are compressed badly (96KBPS and lower) that sound worst then any tape out there.
How many people would buy iPOD if it only allowed you to listen to tracks bought from iTUNES? Or how many people would buy a Sony DVD player if it only allowed you to play Sony movies? Force-Feeding a format on someone makes no sense.
MarxMarvelous37 @ Aug 8th 2006 5:39PM
@Kawf
"About MPEG2 being the culprit behind why "BluRay", yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't see how people come to that conclusion... "
You should start hanging around with the A/V experts on avsforum. The simple fact is that VC-1 results in a better picture *regardless* of bitrate (size) savings. For example, it allows a higher range of color into the output (think HDR) than MPEG-2 *ever* will.
It is an accepted fact (even among Blu-Ray advocates) that VC-1 is the reason for HD-DVD's current large advantage in picture quality over Blu-Ray.
Ethan @ Aug 8th 2006 5:43PM
jerm, because since it is not standard, developers will not be able to utilize that aspect in creating longer, better games, that just happen to take up more space. And may I add, WOW IS THAT THING HUGE!!!!
hey alex @ Aug 8th 2006 5:47PM
Because Sony is using MPEG2 for compression instead of VC1, they're only able to store about 2 hours of HD content on a 25GB Blu-Ray disc compared to 4/8 hours of content being stored on a single/dual layer HD DVD disc.
Apparently Sony has a lot of patents on MPEG2, and they don't have to pay additional licensing fees if VC1 is not used. This seems odd introducing a new format, only to utilize and older compression technology.
There's also been reports that the transfers have been less than satisfactory, brightness is low, and the ends of the picture are cropped. That latter two have been blammed on the only shipping Blu-Ray player. The menus are also slow.
Ubersnuber @ Aug 8th 2006 5:49PM
So if i understand those who dont appreciate the extra space on a br right:
If you were goin to buy a flat, would you buy the one with 2 bedrooms or the flat with just 1?
Ofcourse you would buy the flat with just 1 ("logic"), cuz if you suddenly became a father you could just place a barrack in the garden..easy!
jabbertrack @ Aug 8th 2006 5:50PM
oh no... it's enormous size will probably force me to buy a PS3 and switch to BLURAY because I'm a consumer whore!
Miniboss @ Aug 8th 2006 5:52PM
@Ethan
Well, developers can't use it to put games on anyways. Microsoft has already made that clear. This add-on is ONLY for playing movies. And if you want an HD-DVD player, this is a really great alternative because it will probably be extremely cheap (compared to other players).
And it isn't being forced upon the consumer. While Sony likes to spin that more storage will increase the quality of the game, I think that any developer worth his salt could make a great game with a lot less room. This is simply a way to force their storage medium out into the public eye, because they couldn't possibly win the format wars any other way.
josh @ Aug 8th 2006 5:55PM
who cares about HD-DVD or Blu Ray, for movies, at this point? There are only like 20 movies out on HD/BR now... and few of them are 'big' movies, mostly minor hits or bombs.
i doubt this thing will sell well, at first, mainly because the library of movies just isn't there yet, and doesn't look primed to be much better by christmas. maybe by NEXT christmas, sure.
personally, in a year or so, when either HD or BR has won, i plan to buy a stand-alone player. i hate using my game console as a movie player, none so far are as good as just buying a decent DVD player.
as far as the PS3 goes, having BR isn't as cool as having DVD was for the PS2 (for movies). when the PS2 came out, basically every recent movie (and a lot of the classics) were on DVD, so you could really get some use out of that feature... but the Blu-Ray is so new, it IS kind of irksome to be paying more for that feature... which might not even be a feature if Blu-Ray doesn't succeed. (of course, you will still have blu-ray discs for games either way)
Miniboss @ Aug 8th 2006 5:58PM
"So if i understand those who dont appreciate the extra space on a br right:
If you were goin to buy a flat, would you buy the one with 2 bedrooms or the flat with just 1?
Ofcourse you would buy the flat with just 1 ("logic"), cuz if you suddenly became a father you could just place a barrack in the garden..easy!"
Yes, but the 1 bedroom flat costs $6000 where as the 2 bedroom costs less or the same. And if you didn't need both bedrooms, you could rent out (or not purchase) one of the rooms.
I tried. It was a flawed analogy to begin with.
KawF @ Aug 8th 2006 5:59PM
@Jason B
I have to repeat that MPEG2 does not in any way have worse picture quality than VC1/h264. It does require more pace to get the same quality as a video compressed in VC1/h264. It is therefore in my opinion at least the storeage media that is the problem. If they use MPEG2 on a too small space, thusly getting a too low bitrate to handle a proper 1080p picture, than they would need larger discspace in order to still use MPEG2.
Again though: MPEG2 IS what is used to transfer HD content over sattelite and digital (antennae) TV media. It apparently works.
Regarding the last bit, what you arrive at is exactly what I said. Since you get the same quality picture, at less of a bitrate, you can theoretically increrase the bitrate and possibly get a better quality picture.
That does of course come with the problem that it would take EVEN MORE processsing power to decode. You people really have to understand that these codecs [VC1/h264] are not something magical that requires no processing power or sophisticated hardware.
Try viewing a 1080p stream from http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/ and see how your computer reacts. Now imagine that on a piece of hardware that is supposed to not cost as much as your $2500 PC.
The ammount of processing required is directly related to the bitrate and encoding used.
It would be interresting to know at what bitrate the VC1-encoded HDDVD video is stored at. The same for the MPEG2 compressed current BluRay discs.
And again: both video disc formats support the exact same codecs, the exact same protection schemes, and pretty much everything else except for how the menues are handled. Why MPEG2 possibly was chosen for the current batch of BluRay-videos was chose, I stated in my previous post. The exact reason, I would be quite interrested in finding out.
If anyone feels compelled to find out the following, I'd be happy:
1. Bitrate of the VC1-video on current HDDVD's
2. Bitrate of the MPEG2-video on current BluRay Discs
3. Why exactly MPEG2 was chosen for the current batch of BluRay-discs, and who made the decision.
Again to repeat, both video-disc-formats support the exact same features in regards to vido compression and video content protection. Nowhere in the spec of either format, is it decided that "this specific compression technique is what you have to use".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluray#Codecs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hddvd#Overview