Microsoft HD-DVD 360 player and console for $900??

The Article

This is completely unconfirmed stuff right now, but the gist is that the HD-DVD player addon for the 360 will be 500 USD (right in line with other HD-DVD players on the market right now), 900 USD bundled.  Now, I can\'t possibly see Microsoft doing that after all the guff Sony has taken for a console that\'s 500 or 600 dollars with a BR player in it, but wouldn\'t it be amusing if it turned out even close to the truth?  Boy, the MS boys would have to eat some crow then, eh?

I don\'t know if they\'d eat crow, but I\'d expect them not to buy the add-on.

If it was priced at exactly $200 and also worked with a PC, I\'d consider it a good deal, personally, though I won\'t be getting any kind of high def DVD player until prices drop and a standard is picked.

This is the first I\'d heard of it being so expensive, and it just sounds ridiculous. I don\'t know what consumer these guys are targeting, but it\'s definitely not me.

it will probably be 200$, and an utter failure.

http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20060814A5023.html

This is my point. I have no desire to have my movies play in my game system. They can charge 900 for the player itself. I don\'t give a rat\'s ass. Blue Ray in my PS3? Pfft!

I give a rats ass when it\'s part of my console than just an add on that might cost an extra 200 or 900. Besides I know BR wont be used just for movies

I think they should stick with running games. If it\'s a plus that it run a movie fine but don\'t be charging me because ya think I need to have a movie player built in to my game system.

[Living-In-Clip]

As soon as the next generation became nothing more than a means for a company to get their new HI-DEF format as the standard, I lost interest. Thus the reason I am only truly supporting one console, the one that does not play movie\'s and has no stake in this stupid hi-def format war.

Holy boneheaded batman

Microsoft is saying there will be NO games that require HD-DVD addon for this holiday season, but there may be in the future.  Gawd, that\'s even worse than them saying there would be no games requiring the HDD period (Football Manager anyone?).

I can only assume Microsoft will do everything in their power to discourage this, for the simple piss-off factor it would inspire in their defenders.

An interesting article here though
There are plans for accessories that would adapt the wireless controllers to PC, so if they\'re willing to do that they might be willing to do that for the HD drive addon (Eik).  Interesting note in this article too, they said they\'ve played around this year researching \'motion sensitive\' controllers like the Wii, but gave up because for high motion games people complained of fatigue too quickly (read that section, it\'s like deja vu, 50-50 split, fatigue worries, precision)....

[Jumpman]

As soon as the next generation became nothing more than a means for a company to get their new HI-DEF format as the standard, I lost interest. Thus the reason I am only truly supporting one console, the one that does not play movie\'s and has no stake in this stupid hi-def format war.

Word.

And I really like Zelda and Mario games.

[clips]

As soon as the next generation became nothing more than a means for a company to get their new HI-DEF format as the standard, I lost interest. Thus the reason I am only truly supporting one console, the one that does not play movie\'s and has no stake in this stupid hi-def format war.

tru..no doubt...i mean i didn\'t mind the fact that ps2 could play movies and such,..but now it seems that microsoft and sony are pushing their technology first then games second,..as if to say "hey you\'re getting a blu-ray player or hd-dvd player, that ALSO plays games".....like the games were an afterthought......no-matter how strong and how fan based these companies seemed to be in the beginning, they always get caught up in their own arrogant please the stockholders first attitude,...while nintendo continues to focus on it\'s base(the consumer) and make games FIRST and worry about the tech later...

[Paul2]

clips,

I still play super mario all stars on super nintendo such as super mario 3, super mario 2, and even super mario world.  They are awesome 2-D sidescrolling games back in the day and I still play them to this day with my nephew and nieces whenever I am bored.  They are still addicted as they are simple and the gameplay is fun.

Had Nintendo use a CD-ROM base for Nintendo 64, they probably would have beaten Sony PlayStation back in the days and Squaresoft wouldn\'t have left them.  Nintendo do make great 2-D side scrolling games like Mario, but nintendo can be quite stuck up and strict, like sticking up with using cartridges instead of optical disc for storage, and 2nd is not allowing developers to make violent games with blood, gore, and stuff.  Because of their stuck up using cartridges is the reason why Square ditch them and go for Sony PlayStation.

I find that PlayStation consoles more versatile than Nintendo game systems as PlayStation 2 is the first console in history that is backward with PlayStation One games, and the first console in history to include a DVD-ROM drive.

I have the feeling that PlayStation 3 will be the winner in this generation as they still have the most 3rd parties support than Nintendo, and of course, including a Blu Ray drive shouldn\'t hurt either as it should helps in the long run.  Look at Sega Dreamcast, it was the first cheapest console last generation, and by the time ps2 comes out, Dreamcast was selling at half the price tag of ps2 and looks what happened to DC.  DC starts to have poor 3rd party supports, and even a $50 price tag couldn\'t save it either.  How about Nintendo gamecube?  Well, they cost $100 less than playstation 2 when launched, but it didn\'t help bring Nintendo back to #1 position either.

So, I do agree PS3 with a $500 to $600 is expensive.  Mostly have to do with Blu ray drive, but I don\'t think that will stop it from being number 1 again.  Only financially secure and hardcore gamers buy first generation consoles, as by the time 2nd or 3rd generation roll out, the price of ps3 will be drop to a reasonable level for many of those like me who won\'t get one until a price drop and more library of games.  The only downside to that is waiting.

The $200 HD-DVD drive will only play games it seems.

I\'m seeing lots of speculation about our upcoming HD DVD Player, and whether we have plans to publish HD DVD games. The answer is no.
Since announcing the Xbox 360 HD DVD Player accessory at E3 2006, we\'ve been clear that it is designed exclusively for playing HD DVD movies. It will not play games on HD DVD.

At this point, we haven\'t seen anything to suggest that next-gen DVD formats offer a better game experience than current DVD. What we do know is that these formats will bring added cost to game developers, disc manufacturing, and could even result in added costs and longer load times for the consumer, which would negatively impact the game experience. We are focused on making great HD games available to consumers now, and games like "The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion" clearly show that beautiful high def graphics and huge, immersive worlds to explore are possible on the DVD9 format.

http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2006/08/16/536859.aspx

They should still get a HDMI cable out though. What happens when movie studios decide they want that pesky flag on - you\'d be stuck with a useless $200 drive?

Left hand - right hand saying different things.  Of course, what if some other publisher wants to release an HD-DVD game, will microsoft say no?  What if it\'s an AAA title, and the company said well then we develop for PS3 for the space....?  Personally, I think it\'s only a matter of time before a game comes out in HD-DVD, just like with the \'no HDD\' thing.

I find that PlayStation consoles more versatile than Nintendo game systems as PlayStation 2 is the first console in history that is backward with PlayStation One games

Uhhhh...

I would hope PS2 would be the one to be backwards compatible, as opposed to say DC, XBox, or GC...

If you meant first console to be backwards compatible, in general, then you are behind by about 20 years...

Ever hear of Atari 7800?

Before your time?

How about Genesis? Game Gear? SNES?

All could play their predecessors\' games...

[Paul2]

good point about Atari 7800 backward compatible to 5800 and 2600.  It was before my time.  So, I didn\'t realize that.

I don\'t think Super Nintendo was backward to Nintendo, neither was Sega Genesis backward compatible to Sega Master System...

So, I will take that back that PS2 was not the first console to be backward compatible to its predecessor\'s console.  It seems like Atari was.  But during the Sony PlayStation\'s time, it seems like Sony was the only console backward compatible to its previous system while Sega Dreamcast wasn\'t backward compatible with Saturn or Sega CD nor was Nintendo 64 backward to any previous Nintendo systems...and GameCube uses MiniDVD...so, that leave that out of the question...