Rumor: Xbox 360 Blu-ray player could be out by May
We've heard over and over and over how a Blu-ray movie player add-on for the Xbox 360 was a distinct possibility if the HD DVD format ended up losing out. Well, now that the Microsoft-supported format seems just one step away from dead, we're hearing rumblings of just how possible that Blu-ray player possibility is.Citing "insiders at Microsoft in the USA," Australia's Smarthouse says Microsoft's Blu-ray add-on is already fully designed, and could be on the market within three months, "subject to internal marketing and sales approvals." Smarthouse also repeated the rumors of a built-in high-def drive for the system, although now that rumored drive plays Blu-ray discs instead of an HD DVDs. Regardless, the tech site seems to think Microsoft will focus on digital movie downloads for those who don't want an add-on.
As for Sony, they couldn't be happier that Microsoft is considering jumping over to the "winning" side of this HD disc battle. "We would welcome Microsoft to the Blu-ray stable," SCE Managing Director Michael Ephraim told Smarthouse. "In fact it is quite logical for them as the PS3 has been very successful in driving consumers to Blu-ray. In fact we believe that it has done more to win the format war than traditional Blu-ray player." Hey, they just won a format war ... they can afford to be a little smug.
[Via Megatonik]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
jsn @ Feb 18th 2008 9:48AM
awesome, way to go MS if this is true.
Kizzle @ Feb 18th 2008 10:37AM
I agree. While HD DVD has struck me as the superior format in actual execution (Blu's larger storage space and slightly higher bandwidth doesn't mean much when the results are identical in execution and your hardware spec isn't finished), I'd buy a cheap Blu-Ray add-on to hold me over until high quality standalone players become reasonably priced. And I could build a small library in the meantime.
Weird. Suddenly the 360 could leapfrog the PS3 again as the best multimedia machine...HD DVD, Blu-Ray, WMV and DivX streaming capabilities. Sure, you have to pay more, but paying an extra 150 bucks here and there every other year isn't worth bitching about...unless you're a pissy Sony fanboy who thinks OMGZ MS IS RIPING U OFF all the time.
Zoesch @ Feb 18th 2008 11:19AM
Leapfrog? Both are pretty much even, differences being price and reliability.
CM @ Feb 18th 2008 3:07PM
@Kizzle
Hardware spec wasn't finished with HDDVD players as well ... new versions, "A2", kept coming out. Same can be said about DVD (progressive scan, upscaling). If a hardware doesn't evolve, then it becomes obsolete more quickly.
PS3 has Divx crapability.
Good thing about the PS3 is that it is updated to get the latest bluray features (PiP) without having buy new hardware. PSN will have Digital distribution and Netflix just like XBL.
I'm not sure any "leap frogging" will take place. Besides, are you saying that XBox is "behind" the PS3 frog? Waa waa wee wow.
Next time, please don't obscure the facts. Present them all.
MarchHare @ Feb 27th 2008 2:46PM
This is very solid news BUT:
Blu Ray only plays at 1080p via HDMI. Right? Or will it work via the PC attachment?
Many 360's, including mine, don't have HDMI.
ncxcstud @ Feb 18th 2008 9:50AM
i wonder, if this is true, how much it'll cost. Still think it would be awesome if they could continue to 'undercut' the PS3's price point of 499.99 with it. Maybe keep start it at 149.99
PSN: KillaKornbread @ Feb 18th 2008 10:04AM
you can get in on the PS3 Blu-ray experience at $399, you dont have to get the $499 one unless you want BC.
Hyams @ Feb 18th 2008 10:57AM
Why have people voted down KKB?
XanthouS @ Feb 18th 2008 11:06AM
Because he speaks the truth...
and THEY CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
deaftly @ Feb 18th 2008 11:21AM
Because if people already have a 360 and they just want a bluray player why should they buy a ps3 when they could just buy the much cheaper addon drive. captain obvious to the rescue!
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 9:50AM
I gotta say, I do loves me some BluRay...
I stopped buying concert DVDs and now buy them on BluRay...
deaftly @ Feb 18th 2008 10:44AM
yeah man, i rented the nine inch nails concert on hddvd, it was absolutely amazing.
Matt B @ Feb 18th 2008 9:51AM
It will be interesting to see how much this will cost. knowing MS, it will be $180 or more.
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Feb 18th 2008 10:26AM
I think they will try to make it competitive with PS3 which has BR built-in.
If cheapest Xbox360 (Arcade?) costs $280, then I guess they should make it about ... $120. But that seems to be unrealistic.
As many here think, expected price would be about $180. But at that price, I do not think unit would be too competitive.
But if MSFT managed to get a deal on cheap BR units (what to me is more of a reason for them to release such unit at all) then they probably can (and should) go with lowest possible price. After all, the add-on would provide additional features, what would serve as great promotional material. (On other side, Xboxen are sold out, so just like in case of Nintendo, they do not need to rush to lower price right now.)
kbomb1upc @ Feb 18th 2008 10:52AM
I don't see Microsoft selling the the Blu-Ray add-on the less than $180. Blu-Ray technology is much more expensive than HD-DVD. Just look at the cost differences before the massive clearance. It would be at to much of a lost for them to produce a Blu-Ray add-on for cheap. But if Microsoft sell it for too much, like $200, they might do more damage than good. So it might be best for them to stay out of this or wait until the technology becomes a tad bit cheaper.until the technology becomes a tad bit cheaper.
Arnie @ Feb 18th 2008 9:51AM
You think there will be a trade in program for the Blu-Ray drive??
Lol as much as I like my 360 I doubt it.
Obie @ Feb 18th 2008 9:58AM
I know right? SURELY M$ will gracefully exchange the HD-DVD drive they hocked to me last Xmas.
Cesaria @ Feb 18th 2008 11:46AM
Lol, no one put a gun to your head and forced you to buy it.
Arnie @ Feb 18th 2008 11:50AM
Come on, you cant fault me for being a human and regretting a little. I held out for so long and when I finally got a HDTV and had a 360 the add-on seemed natural(this was before Warner). I was thinking of getting a PS3 but if M$ can give me a add-on then I would be glad to save the money(provided they keep it under 150$)
JayVe @ Feb 18th 2008 9:53AM
Sony is right. The PS3 has done more to win the Bluray war than standalone Bluray players. Unfortunately, Bluray is also the cause for 22 min game installs on the PS3, the delay of the PS3, the high cost of the PS3 and pretty much singlehandedly caused the PS3 to end up in last place this generation.
Yet I'm sure Sony did some cost benefit analysis to determine that the sacrifice of the PS3 to the Movie Format Gods was worthwhile.
But won't someone think about the gamers, and not the movie buffs?
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 10:02AM
DEVELOPERS are responsible for the installs, not Sony. If Uncharted can run completely from BluRay, why can't DMC4?
ViagraFiend @ Feb 18th 2008 10:02AM
22 min game installs?
Have you played any games on PS3 besides Devil May Cry 4?
copa @ Feb 18th 2008 10:12AM
"DEVELOPERS are responsible for the installs, not Sony."
It's 2008, sheppy. We've really gotten past the whole argument of "Problems with PS3 games are entirely the fault of lazy developers, even though those same developers suddenly become a lot less lazy when they are working on the XBox 360."
JayVe @ Feb 18th 2008 10:28AM
"DEVELOPERS are responsible for the installs, not Sony."
I keep hearing the fault of all the PS3's game delays, install times and other problems being laid at the feet of Developers. At what point do we point to Sony and say, "Hey you built a box that's a bitch to program for, and put in a slow-loading drive and not enough memory?"
Developers are a very hard-working lot of good people that are making the games. You'd think that most gamers would be appreciative of that fact and stop trying to blame all of the PS3's problems on them. Developers are the answer, not the problem.
The Bluray drive still caused the PS3's delay and huge price. It prevented the machine from being widely adopted right away. It also had put up a number of roadblocks that developers need to work around. None of that is healthy for gaming.
As a movie player, the PS3 has been a big help for Sony. Yet the focus on the PS3's movie playback has hampered the device for GAME developers, and is now paying the price in the gaming marketplace. What was once thought to be a system to recreate the success of the PS1 and PS2, the PS3 instead turns out to be the GameCube this generation. Or even a Sega Saturn.
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 10:28AM
You'd have something there, copa, if the mandatory install was commonplace. Especially in regards to the install time. After all, the only two install games I know of are VF5 and DMC4. VF5 was under three minutes to install 3.1GB. Meanwhile, Ridge Racer 7 was a 5.4GB install (optional FTW) which took ~5. Makes me wonder how Capcom made a 5GB install last 22 minutes when no other game could accomplish that.
But no, it's the problem with the hardware obviously...
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Feb 18th 2008 10:31AM
I do not think that PS3 has added anything to battle - except to mangle statistics.
Exclusive deals behind the scene with movie studios on other side were what really made BD a winner.
From that prospective, BD was set to win, since Sony (unlike Toshiba) is in movie business by themselves.
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 10:46AM
JayVe... ima drop a long post then go away for a while because I have mucho work to do today...
"I keep hearing the fault of all the PS3's game delays, install times and other problems being laid at the feet of Developers. At what point do we point to Sony and say, "Hey you built a box that's a bitch to program for, and put in a slow-loading drive and not enough memory?"
Myth = PS3 is a bitch to program for. Depending upon the studio and the programmers, it's actually been stated as easier. PS3 is unconventional to program for. Straight porting from 360 simply doesn't work (read: FEAR). And besides, since when is programming easy?
Myth = PS3 has a slower loading drive. Depends, actually. Based upon where the data being loaded off the disc is coming from. Seek times on the inner sections are faster than 360 whereas outer sections are slower. Of course this is knowledge western developers have all pretty much turned into a science.
Partial Myth = PS3 has less memory. 360 features 512 RAM, PS3 features 512 RAM. Just PS3 is is seperated in and odd way. It is possible to load typical assets onto the other 256 RAM, just you have to know your way around doing that. Amazingly enough these techniques have been known since last GDC and released as Playstation Tools. The most common practice is loading universal assets onto the RAM ad Naughty Dog did with Uncharted while using the main 256 for the swapping assets.
"Developers are a very hard-working lot of good people that are making the games. You'd think that most gamers would be appreciative of that fact and stop trying to blame all of the PS3's problems on them. Developers are the answer, not the problem."
Actually, I don't blame all their problems on the developers but let's put it this way, when Gabe Newell pulls a donut from that gaping maw long enough to scream "FUCK PS3!" and preceeds to farm out Orange Box to a developer not even in the same country, can we truly say the developer is faultless? I mean, Valve obviously could get the game running on 360... but Valve had limited hands on with the PS3 version.
"The Bluray drive still caused the PS3's delay and huge price. It prevented the machine from being widely adopted right away. It also had put up a number of roadblocks that developers need to work around. None of that is healthy for gaming."
Every system has roadblocks. You know what doesn't? Not a single goddam system. Not even PC is immune from pain in the ass aspects. Example? Our game engine takes a massive performance hit with ATI cards... the coder is working on that. NVidia runs like a dream, just ATI bogs our engine down.
"PS3 instead turns out to be the GameCube this generation. Or even a Sega Saturn"
Do some research. Any research. At least Sony of America knew the PS3 was even coming out...
xFenixKnightx @ Feb 18th 2008 11:01AM
Fidlious aka Sheppy aka Sheppy 2.0
My brotha...as much as you love and defend Sony and PS3 SO MUCH, I dont see you on it (Playstation 3 & PSN) too much. You spend more time on Joystiq defending it rather than playing it.
WHATS UP WITH THAT???
JayVe @ Feb 18th 2008 11:05AM
"Actually, I don't blame all their problems on the developers but let's put it this way, when Gabe Newell pulls a donut from that gaping maw long enough to scream "FUCK PS3!" and preceeds to farm out Orange Box to a developer not even in the same country, can we truly say the developer is faultless? I mean, Valve obviously could get the game running on 360... but Valve had limited hands on with the PS3 version."
You bring up a very good point. Valve had limited hands-on time during the development of the PS3 version of the Orange Box. Why? Because the PS3 is such a bitch to develop for that it was deemed not to be a worthwhile *business investment*. If developers can't make money making games for the platform, they either won't, or it will be farmed out.
You'll find that the publisher, Electronic Arts, took care of the PS3 version by shipping it off to another developer. Why was the other developer unable to port the already complete game with a sufficient level of quality? Maybe the PS3 being a bitch to develop for had something to do with it.
Look, this isn't rocket science. Having a great game appear on the PS3 is the exception rather than the norm. More often that not, PS3 games are delayed, or come out inferior on Sony's box. Yes, it is POSSIBLE to make excellent games on the PS3, but the norm across the board is one of delays and problems, even from very high-quality developers such as Rockstar, Ubisoft, and Valve.
If you read the latest issue of Game Developer, Insomniac games stated one of the reasons of their success was due to their 1st party status. They got development kits and assistance faster than other developers. Perhaps Sony needs to extend this kind of support to other developers to help ensure that the highest level quality games appear on the PS3. It pays off for Insomniac and I'd like to see developers bring their ideas to fruition more quickly, so they can take bigger chances on bigger ideas.
Also, making fat jokes about Gabe Newell does not help lend any evidence to your article. Gabe may be heavy, but I'd trust his professional opinion about game development more than yours.
xFenixKnightx @ Feb 18th 2008 11:10AM
I think since I got my PS3 (3 months now) Ive seen you logged on about 2 times. Maybe you should do a reassesment on your console that you defend so much buddy. =)
FidliousWong @ Feb 18th 2008 11:16AM
Fenix, when are you usually on? Because I've rarely seen you as well. Most of the time, I'm playing with the guys from CGtalk. That is, when I have time to play. Frankly, I'm busy as hell right now. I have my job, three freelance gigs, my own game, and now Dominance War.
So let me know when you're usually on and I'll try to accomidate you. But right now I'm spending more time playtesting a couple of my maps on UT3 than anything else.
copa @ Feb 18th 2008 11:19AM
Sheppy, you sometimes seem bewildered when people recognize you as a fanboy. It's because you make such ridiculously spurious arguments.
"Myth = PS3 is a bitch to program for... PS3 is unconventional to program for."
Unconventional and non-standard = a bitch. Never mind that multithreaded programming is inherently more difficult when working with real-time applications like gaming. And PS3 requires more multithreaded programming.
"And besides, since when is programming easy?"
Jesus Christ. Because programming in general is challenging, therefore all programming is equally challenging? You're getting desperate.
"Myth = PS3 has a slower loading drive. Depends, actually"
I've already posted the links here before, but that is a very disingenuous argument. The 360 has your fastest maximum access speeds, even if the average access speeds are similar.. 90% of your loading bottlenecks are going to occur on 10% of the data. Putting that 10% data on the fastest part of the disc yields much better access times on the 360, regardless of what the average access speeds are. You know this, sheppy, you are just trying to confuse the issue.
"Partial Myth = PS3 has less memory."
Sheppy, I don't have to dumb this down for you, but let's pretend that I do. Let's say I give the PS3 a $100 Barnes and Noble gift card, a $100 Bed, Bath, and Beyond gift card, and a $100 Starbucks gift card. Then I give the XBox 360 $300 cash. Who has more purchasing power? Your inane argument is that both machines basically have $300. In the real world, however, cash is more effective than gift cards. General purpose RAM is more effective than RAM on specialized chips. You know this, sheppy.
"let's put it this way, when Gabe Newell pulls a donut from that gaping maw long enough to..."
All right, that's enough. We get it. Gabe Newell is fat, EA is stupid, Capcom has an ugly mother, Ubisoft drank paint thinner when they were a kid. For each and every developer that has trouble getting their games to release on time or running well on the PS3 there is a perfectly good excuse why they can develop just fine for the 360 but not the PS3. Once a pattern emerges, however, we start to figure out that developers don't suddenly become lazy or stupid when they work on the PS3. There are inherent challenges to the platform.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 18th 2008 11:21AM
JayVe:
Uncharted works fine with no install.
Burnout: Paradise works fine with no install.
Assassin's Creed works fine with no install.
I'm not saying the BluRay drive is a dream. But this problem does fall to developers. You say Sony could improve things, that's true. But if developers don't want to put the time in to optimize their game for optical drive use, there's nothing Sony can do to force them into it except perhaps prevent them using the hard drive completely, which wouldn't be a plus for us gamers.
Mike @ Feb 18th 2008 11:25AM
High cost of the PS3? Have you forgotten what it would cost to get a 360 up to the same specs as a PS3? Now you need yet another add-on to get blu-ray which the PS3 has in the box. Granted you're forced to get these features in a PS3, but overall it will cost you a lot less in the long run. BTW, I have both a PS3 and a 360, so I'm not some kind of fanboy.
JayVe @ Feb 18th 2008 11:35AM
"High cost of the PS3? Have you forgotten what it would cost to get a 360 up to the same specs as a PS3?"
If you want to compare specs, it would cost a lot more to add in all the little bits and bobbles to a 360 to get it to play HD movies (off of a disc, not downloaded). But the core gaming experience is cheaper on the 360, and I'm a gamer.
Also, there are things that the 360 does out of the box that the PS3 does not do, even with added costs. So comparing the two based on how much you CAN add into them is pointless.
Out of the box, in order to be playing games, the 360 is cheaper. Also, the 360 didn't launch at the stigma-inducing $600 price tag that the PS3 was introduced for. Half of the problem is overcoming the stigma that "PS3 is too expensive". That was introduced by making the machine more movie player than game machine.
Hey, I'm happy with my PS3. But for the vast majority of gamers out there, I can't recommend it. If someone wants a game system, I tell them to look into a 360 or a Wii. If someone wants a Bluray player, I tell them to look into the PS3.
xFenixKnightx @ Feb 18th 2008 11:41AM
@ Copa
THAT, was B-E-A-utiful!!! +1
Good stuff.
Oh and funny too =)
"Capcom has an ugly mother, we get it"
LMAO!!!!
CassilineKnight @ Feb 18th 2008 11:43AM
Wow that was quite a long ass mini thread to read thru...
Just wanted to be a part of it!
Mike @ Feb 18th 2008 11:53AM
Not sure how you can't compare the two when we're talking about each console being a blu-ray player. I agree that to either the uninformed or gaming system only consumer the PS3 is not the better value and the initial sticker shock was a killer for Sony. But today, if you're in the market for a player/gaming console...well actually the 360 still wins regardless of the cost difference and fan noise. As a gamer the PS3 is so far behind in quality exclusive games and online service. I bought it as a blu-ray player when Paramount did their thing, but now I can also play MGS4 when it drops.
xFenixKnightx @ Feb 18th 2008 12:14PM
Fidlious, Im on my PS3 maybe 4 days outta the 7 day week. My kids are on it just about all the time. I have to get it up and running for them of course =)
Since we are droppin info on our "life" I have a life as well. 6:45am to 4:15pm I'm here at work at the #1 Cancer Hospital in the world here in Houston, TX ;) Then I go home to my wife and 3 kids and take care of all my adult lol responsibilities, but I make at least 1 hour a day if any to play videogames because I WANT to play. Maybe your PS3 just doesnt grab your attention as much as it should. Maybe when Metal Gear or FF or LBP, yada yada yada come out??
Hell, Ive gotten in arguments with the wifey over all-nighters and gaming too much on 360. Thats how much my 360 has gotten me back in love with vg's ;) COD2, Gears of War, Halo3, Bioshock, Mass Effect, Assassins Creed, XBLA, LIVE, the list goes on....
Im only on Joystiq while Im at work on slow time. Id definately rather be playing games. You might see 1 maybe 2 comments from me on the weekend but thats rare. Anyhow yeah I do get on my PS3 usually late anywhere from 8-9 or 9-10 sometimes 10-11. Holler! =)
Zeus the God @ Feb 18th 2008 1:00PM
idk man statistically the ps3 is moving at the same pace as the 360 was since it came out. i see no problem in actually putting an option in the ps3 that actually works. if the ps3s adoption rate is so slow explain to me the 360s problem in its first year in half. your talking like the 360 is that much better than the PS3. i laugh at your 22min hdd dowload comment because playing Uncharted a game that came out before DMC4 i dont get it. graphically drake looks superior in every sense and it has almost no loading screens. Cap is at fault here paying less attention to the PS3 and going multi platform with DMC4, if the 360 kept dead rising why not cap? the ps3 version is selling more any way. devs have already said that if the PS3 is the leading platform multiplat games come out with better quality. The PS3 is not hard to code for its just learning something new not everyone is gonna understand it right away. devs are getting stuff on par with 360 while not actually knowing what there doing that says a lot for what the ps3 will and can do.
xFenixKnightx @ Feb 18th 2008 1:32PM
Zues of Clueless
"The PS3 is not hard to code for"
"the ps3 version is selling more any way" -DMC4
"idk"
Stay out of growups convo's, K? From your post I can tell you dont know JACKSHIT!!
CassilineKnight @ Feb 18th 2008 9:56AM
Oh sony...
They should thank God that they had so much studio support and a majority of companies backing them. If not for those other companies I'd refuse to touch bluray.
As it is I plan on buying any other companies Bluray Player before I buy anything from sony in terms of hardware.
Their movies on the othe hand are unavoidable.
PSN: KillaKornbread @ Feb 18th 2008 10:07AM
why no Sony hardware? just curious. i buy Microsoft stuff all the time, just not the Xbox stuff.
Mike @ Feb 18th 2008 11:33AM
Wow, not close minded. I don't understand people like this. Of all of the blu-ray players the PS3 (as far as I know) is the only one that allows for firmware upgrades. You'll be kicking yourself and your v1.2 firmware player when vX.X is released.
deaftly @ Feb 18th 2008 12:03PM
That was the beauty of HD-DVD, EVERY player had an ethernet port for upgrading firmware so they would never be obsolete.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 18th 2008 12:16PM
All BluRay players are firmware upgradeable, just for some you have to burn a CD and put it in the drive.
Despite this, some players became outmoded because profile 1.1 requires adding another $25 worth of video decoding hardware that some devices just don't have in there. They're not obsolete, unless you want to watch PiP commentary.
I've actually watched PiP commentary (in Sunshine), and I wouldn't pay a goddamn nickle for it. For free, yeah, I guess. But I won't to have to pay extra so a P.A. can tell me about induction heating ranges with both video and audio.
All BluRays are playable in profile 1.0 (non-PiP) players. You just don't get the PiP.
Chris @ Feb 18th 2008 9:56AM
I hope Microsoft's pride doesn't get in the way.
Do the right thing and give your customers what they want.
jsn @ Feb 18th 2008 9:59AM
They've said all along that while they supported HD-DVD, which I personally think was the right thing to do, it was about consumer choice and if BD won, they would support it for their customers. I think they will and sooner than later. They would sell a ton of blu-ray addons!
copa @ Feb 18th 2008 10:10AM
"They've said all along that... if BD won, they would support it for their customers."
Yeah, but the funny part was that every time they said it, their PR would issue a half-assed retraction the next day.
Then they gave a boilerplate statement about how Microsoft was committed to seeing HD-DVD win the format wars. Like how Mike Huckabee gives stump speeches talking about what he's going to do when he wins the presidency.
deaftly @ Feb 18th 2008 10:16AM
It has nothing to do with pride, MS already makes money off Blu-ray because it uses their VC1 codec. One thing Sony fanboys always tend to forget about their format heh.