Monday, May 5th 2008

Microsoft Officially Denies Latest Xbox 360 Blu-Ray Reports

One more Xbox 360 Blu-Ray rumour goes down. Last week DigiTimes reported that Pegatron Technology has secured an order from Microsoft to manufacture Xbox 360 consoles with Blu-ray support for release this fall. Microsoft today officially denied the report.
As we have stated, we have no plans to introduce a Blu-ray drive for Xbox 360,
said a Microsoft official in an email to GamePro.
Games are what drive consumers to purchase game consoles, and we remain focused on providing the largest library of blockbuster games available.
End of statement.Source: GamePro
Add your own comment

55 Comments on Microsoft Officially Denies Latest Xbox 360 Blu-Ray Reports

#1
panchoman
Sold my stars!
not good for ms, if they put blue ray, they might do a lot better.
Posted on Reply
#2
jbunch07
bad move on MS.
they should have went blue ray...unless they waiting for the 720 or whatever the box will be
Posted on Reply
#3
erocker
Funny, I read a story today that says that not only is Xbox360 getting a blue-ray player, it's also getting a shrunken down, more powerful gpu come 3rd quarter this year?!
Posted on Reply
#4
Rodster
by: erocker
Funny, I read a story today that says that not only is Xbox360 getting a blue-ray player, it's also getting a shrunken down, more powerful gpu come 3rd quarter this year?!
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/05/05/xbox-360-overhaul-come-august

I call the article BS btw. :slap: Consoles are always locked in to their initial specs. The only thing that ever changes is the size of those parts which get smaller and less expensive over time.
Posted on Reply
#5
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
I'm just waiting for Microsoft to turn around and announce a Blu-Ray drive next week. Companies always deny information they don't want available to the public, even if it is true. If it was true they only wanted to focus on games, the HD-DVD driver would have never made it to the market.

The fact is that they knew the PS3 was going to play Blu-Ray movies and it was a threat, they needed to compete, so they went with an HD-DVD player to do it. Now that HD-DVD is gone, they have no other choice but to switch to Blu-Ray to continue to compete with the HD Movie features of the PS3.
Posted on Reply
#6
Davidelmo
I'm happy for them to stick with games.

I don't want my 360 as a BluRay player. I could buy a Blu-Ray drive for my PC if I wanted to do that. (I don't)

Besides, BluRay *still* has a TINY market share compared to just normal DVDs. I sure as hell wouldn't spend £200 on an add-on drive to watch movies that cost £20 each.

I really hope MS just stick to making the 360 an awesome gaming console and nothing else.
Posted on Reply
#7
Ravenas
If this is true, this is one of the dumbest moves by MS this year alone.
Posted on Reply
#8
newtekie1
Semi-Retired Folder
by: Davidelmo
I'm happy for them to stick with games.

I don't want my 360 as a BluRay player. I could buy a Blu-Ray drive for my PC if I wanted to do that. (I don't)

Besides, BluRay *still* has a TINY market share compared to just normal DVDs. I sure as hell wouldn't spend £200 on an add-on drive to watch movies that cost £20 each.

I really hope MS just stick to making the 360 an awesome gaming console and nothing else.
1.) Not everyone wants to watch their HD movies on their computer monitor. Most have HDTVs that are much bigger, in their living rooms, not connected to their computers, and have more comfortable seating(at least for groups of people). Plus, if pricing is similar tot he HD-DVD add-on it will be less expensive than a reader for the computer, or right around the same price.

2.) It does have a tiny market share compared to blu-ray movies. DVDs had a tiny market share compared to VHS tapes when they first came out, CDs had a tiny market share compared to cassettes when they first came out, and cars had a tiny market share compared to horses when they first came out. What is your point exactly?

3.) Amazon lists some blu-Ray movies for under £6(Spiderman 3 is just one of the, I'm not talking the cheap no name movies). They aren't really that expensive. Usually you can pick them up for $5-10 more than the DVD, which is well worth the picture qaulity, IMO. Though I understand there are some out there where it isn't, in that case a Blu-Ray drive would not be targetted at you. The drive would be marketted towards people that want a Blu-Ray player and don't want to spend insane amounts of money for a stand alone player.
Posted on Reply
#9
EastCoasthandle
I wish "they" stop spreading this fud. It's obvious MS is not interested. And, neither are most consumers. According to NPD, Blu-ray standalone players sales decreased by 40 percent starting January to February. Only to rise 2% from February to March. With no competition this is looking bad. It's no real "surprise" MS is not interested, they see that there is no market for them, along with other reasons. ;)
Source


Another reason...DVD's are simply "good enough"
But more likely is what NPD's high-def video analysts have been harping on for a while: that DVD is "good enough" for most consumers. And that the picture offered by a Blu-ray Disc and accompanying player doesn't appear so overwhelmingly better than a standard DVD and an upconverting player that many consumers can't justify the dramatically increased cost.

To that point, sales of significantly less expensive upconverting DVD players have actually increased 5 percent over the first quarter of 2008, compared with the same quarter a year ago. Standard DVD player sales dropped 39 percent over the same period.
Source

What's obvious is that MS has no need for BR. It is BR that has a need for MS and they are showing BR the door :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#10
Davidelmo
by: newtekie1
1.) Not everyone wants to watch their HD movies on their computer monitor. Most have HDTVs that are much bigger, in their living rooms, not connected to their computers, and have more comfortable seating(at least for groups of people). Plus, if pricing is similar tot he HD-DVD add-on it will be less expensive than a reader for the computer, or right around the same price.
True, but not many people want to watch HD movies anyway, lol. Either way, why can't a game console be just for games? I don't see any huge need for the 360 to have an add-on.
2.) It does have a tiny market share compared to blu-ray movies. DVDs had a tiny market share compared to VHS tapes when they first came out, CDs had a tiny market share compared to cassettes when they first came out, and cars had a tiny market share compared to horses when they first came out. What is your point exactly?
My point is that there is no need to jump on the bandwagon when it hasn't even taken off yet. The vast majority of people are still happy with DVDs (as evidenced from sales figures), so everyone saying this is a very stupid move, I just don't understand. It's not like they are missing out on anything now, or in the near future.
3.) Amazon lists some blu-Ray movies for under £6(Spiderman 3 is just one of the, I'm not talking the cheap no name movies). They aren't really that expensive. Usually you can pick them up for $5-10 more than the DVD, which is well worth the picture qaulity, IMO. Though I understand there are some out there where it isn't, in that case a Blu-Ray drive would not be targetted at you. The drive would be marketted towards people that want a Blu-Ray player and don't want to spend insane amounts of money for a stand alone player.
The movie price might have come down since the last time I looked :o

Either way, why does the stand alone player cost loads and an add-on drive is cheaper? Surely the actual hardware in the machine is exacly the same? All you need in the standalone is the software, right?

I'm not a HD-DVD fanboy, or a 360 fanboy or anti-sony or anything like that... I just don't see any desperate need for the 360 to have a blu-ray drive. The demand isn't there and frankly I would rather that MS put their time, effort and money into getting more great games to the 360, as well as finally sorting out its hardware problems :ohwell:
Posted on Reply
#11
Davidelmo
I would also agree that the difference between DVD and BluRay isn't huge - certainly not as big as VHS vs DVD, horse vs car etc.

With DVD you could have chapters, menus, subtitles, interactive sections, pause, frame-by-frame, alternate ending etc. Bluray brings nothing new and significant to the table apart from better picture quality.

Even that picture quality isn't particularly noticeable to an average person on an average sized TV. On a 40 inch TV at "across the room" distance, it certainly isn't worth the money IMO.
Posted on Reply
#13
EastCoasthandle
by: Davidelmo
I would also agree that the difference between DVD and BluRay isn't huge - certainly not as big as VHS vs DVD, horse vs car etc.

With DVD you could have chapters, menus, subtitles, interactive sections, pause, frame-by-frame, alternate ending etc. Bluray brings nothing new and significant to the table apart from better picture quality.

Even that picture quality isn't particularly noticeable to an average person on an average sized TV. On a 40 inch TV at "across the room" distance, it certainly isn't worth the money IMO.
Not only that, they are re-introducing mpeg2 codecs into their titles again. Something that wasn't suppose to happen. For example take Commando. Amazon sells it for over $25 and uses mpeg2 codec resulting in lower then average high def quality. When you can buy the same movie on DVD, $10+ cheaper. It's no surprise MS isn't interested...
Posted on Reply
#14
Ravenas
by: Davidelmo
I would also agree that the difference between DVD and BluRay isn't huge - certainly not as big as VHS vs DVD, horse vs car etc.

With DVD you could have chapters, menus, subtitles, interactive sections, pause, frame-by-frame, alternate ending etc. Bluray brings nothing new and significant to the table apart from better picture quality.

Even that picture quality isn't particularly noticeable to an average person on an average sized TV. On a 40 inch TV at "across the room" distance, it certainly isn't worth the money IMO.
Then you've never actually owned / seen a quality 1080p 40 inch hdtv from across the room. Furthermore the importance of blu-ray for the xbox 360 is STORAGE CAPACITY. DVD-9 is has a significantly smaller storage capacity than that of a blu-ray disc (and there is no comparison when you are using a dual layer blu-ray disc). I really suggest you do your research before coming in here and arguing points the way you are.
Posted on Reply
#15
Davidelmo
by: Ravenas
Then you've never actually owned / seen a quality 1080p 40 inch hdtv from across the room. Furthermore the importance of blu-ray for the xbox 360 is STORAGE CAPACITY. DVD-9 is has a significantly smaller storage capacity than that of a blu-ray disc (and there is no comparison when you are using a dual layer blu-ray disc). I really suggest you do your research before coming in here and arguing points the way you are.
What on earth are you on about?

Thank for putting words into my mouth :slap:

Viewing distance - yes I have seen it and it isn't hugely impressive. Thanks for your incorrect assumptions. Average people can barely tell the difference and they don't see anything wrong with DVD quality. See the attached diagram.

Yes, there *is* a difference in quality, but if people thought it was significant then BluRay would have caught on by now. Using the examples I mentioned earlier (40 inch TV, across the room distance (say 10-15 feet), the difference is barely noticeable. Certainly nothing like the VHS vs DVD comparison I used. VHS had tracking problems, grainyness, you couldn't pause it without horizontal lines. The tapes would wear and tear or just break, you had to fast-forward/rewind etc etc etc. VHS o DVD was a massive jump. BluRay brings a slightly better picture quality... big wow.

As for storage capacity - since when is that a major selling point for the general population? Do you think people care how many Gb of storage their movie disk has? If so, you are sadly mistaken. For a home audio/video setup people care about price, quality and features. Bluray is expensive, the quality difference is marginal in most peoples' home setups and the features are nothing new.

And what does storage capacity have to do with the 360? And wha benefit do you propose that it serves? They're not going to release any games on Bluray so extra storage capacity serves no benefit whatsoever. Hell, that extra storage space hasn't even really benefited the PS3. Plain old DVD has better compression techniques, and it hasn't held developers back yet.

If increased storage capacity is the best selling point that BluRay has, then I don't have high hopes for it, lol. As I said DVDs brought a *LOT* of new things to the table.. Bluray brings very little.

Dammit I wish I'd done my research :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Posted on Reply
#16
Exceededgoku
Why does MS need the X360 to have BluRay if it already has online movie capability?? I don't see the fact that the PS3 doesn't have this option being a problem for sony... Fact is that the 360 has many options that others don't offer without the need for a BD.
Posted on Reply
#17
Ravenas
by: Davidelmo
What on earth are you on about?

Thank for putting words into my mouth :slap:

Viewing distance - yes I have seen it and it isn't hugely impressive. Thanks for your incorrect assumptions. Average people can barely tell the difference and they don't see anything wrong with DVD quality. See the attached diagram.

Yes, there *is* a difference in quality, but if people thought it was significant then BluRay would have caught on by now. Using the examples I mentioned earlier (40 inch TV, across the room distance (say 10-15 feet), the difference is barely noticeable. Certainly nothing like the VHS vs DVD comparison I used. VHS had tracking problems, grainyness, you couldn't pause it without horizontal lines. The tapes would wear and tear or just break, you had to fast-forward/rewind etc etc etc. VHS o DVD was a massive jump. BluRay brings a slightly better picture quality... big wow.

As for storage capacity - since when is that a major selling point for the general population? Do you think people care how many Gb of storage their movie disk has? If so, you are sadly mistaken. For a home audio/video setup people care about price, quality and features. Bluray is expensive, the quality difference is marginal in most peoples' home setups and the features are nothing new.

And what does storage capacity have to do with the 360? And wha benefit do you propose that it serves? They're not going to release any games on Bluray so extra storage capacity serves no benefit whatsoever. Hell, that extra storage space hasn't even really benefited the PS3. Plain old DVD has better compression techniques, and it hasn't held developers back yet.

If increased storage capacity is the best selling point that BluRay has, then I don't have high hopes for it, lol. As I said DVDs brought a *LOT* of new things to the table.. Bluray brings very little.

Dammit I wish I'd done my research :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Lol, lots of opinion that could have been condensed...

In terms of HD equipment, the whole market isn't going to flood to HD right now just because there is something new out. It's simply to expensive. Right now it's the early adopters that are making up the market share. Furthermore, this is identical to the trends of VHS.

Were talking Blu-ray for a gaming console. Gaming consoles play games that require huge storage capacities, especially next gen games. Before you know it, you'll start getting 3 discs for an xbox game while the same won't hold true for the 360 counter part. The benefit is obvious in more ways than one. Textures will increase as will other graphical aspects of games in general. In terms of a game such as MGS4, there is 50GB of data on a dual layer (and kojima was disappointed with that because he wanted better textures.) Graphically intensive cross platform games are becoming shorter due in part to storage limitations on DVD-9.

In terms of movies, I don't think anything needs to be said here if you've actually done your research. Additionally nice picture there buddy, but that doesn't mean you've actually done your research because you can simply find a picture! (images.google.com)
Posted on Reply
#18
HP_dudeman
haha...

people are always like MY 360 PWNS UR PS3 BEEYOTCH! but i tell them ps3 is better for reasons:
1. i can throw ubuntu on it
2. i can use blu-ray
3. sony's online is free, whereas you gotta pay for xbl
Posted on Reply
#19
panchoman
Sold my stars!
we must not forget that blue ray allows games to use a signifcantly larger amount of space.. allowing the game to be packaged with more features and the like. also the sales of blu ray STANDALONE players is slow because loads of people have ps3s and ps3's come with blu ray. i have yet to know a person who bought a blu ray player.. i know loads of people that buy ps3s because they are almost the same price as a good blu ray player and ps3s come with gaming as well. now i wonder why ps3 sales are rising without that many games being released and why blu ray standalone players have never really sold well.
Posted on Reply
#20
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
by: newtekie1
cars had a tiny market share compared to horses when they first came out.
this made my day

now back on topic

saying that blu ray doesn't look any better is like saying my 65" 1080P mitsu DLP looks no better than my uncles 65" 1080i mitsu RP sure joe schmo can't tell but anyone with eyes will say hey 1080p is one hell of alot crisper looking than 1080i now lets apply that to DVD vs BR hmm 480P vs 1080P......i wonder which will be better looking? you know the people that say it looks no better probably sit 15ft back from there 40" 1st gen LCD sets that only do 720P :roll: nothing will look any different on those
Posted on Reply
#21
Davidelmo
by: Ravenas
Lol, lots of opinion that could have been condensed...
Felt that I had to repeat myself a bit because nothing seems to sink in with you. But I do feel I'm wasting my time with someone who is in the "PS3 clubhouse" and links a biased, anti-microsoft article in his sig that sounds like it was written by a high school student. :rolleyes:
In terms of HD equipment, the whole market isn't going to flood to HD right now just because there is something new out. It's simply to expensive. Right now it's the early adopters that are making up the market share. Furthermore, this is identical to the trends of VHS.
Something new? Bluray has been around for years now. And guess what - if more people bought it, the price would come down. Supply and demand.. ever heard of it? Guess why the price stays high?
Were talking Blu-ray for a gaming console. Gaming consoles play games that require huge storage capacities, especially next gen games. Before you know it, you'll start getting 3 discs for an xbox game while the same won't hold true for the 360 counter part. The benefit is obvious in more ways than one. Textures will increase as will other graphical aspects of games in general. In terms of a game such as MGS4, there is 50GB of data on a dual layer (and kojima was disappointed with that because he wanted better textures.) Graphically intensive cross platform games are becoming shorter due in part to storage limitations on DVD-9.
Bluray for a gaming console has had no benefit so far. Plus, compression techniques for DVD are better. GTA4 reportedly compressed over 20Gb onto a single DVD.

Besides, if the BluRay drive is an addon for the 360, microsoft aren't going to release games which use it. They won't even let companies use hard drives to install files (because not all 360 owners have hard drives)- they're certainly not going to condone BluRay games which only hit a small fraction of people who buy the addon. Therefore your point is completely irellevant - any BluRay addon for the 360 will be solely for waching movies and not playing games.
In terms of movies, I don't think anything needs to be said here if you've actually done your research. Additionally nice picture there buddy, but that doesn't mean you've actually done your research because you can simply find a picture! (images.google.com)
Shame you haven't (read - "can't") refute anything I said.

BluRay bring nothing new to the table. Consumers couldn't care less about storage capacity. Quality difference is negligible for most people on normal sized TVs in normal sized living rooms.
Posted on Reply
#22
HP_dudeman
Consumers couldn't care less about storage capacity
i care about capacity.
Posted on Reply
#23
Ravenas
by: Davidelmo

BluRay bring nothing new to the table. Consumers couldn't care less about storage capacity. Quality difference is negligible for most people on normal sized TVs in normal sized living rooms.
This sums up your ignorance, and I won't continue to argue with someone who pushes false ideas and believes what he/she wants to believe. Lol I would love to take some pictures for you of side by side TVs, but I just don't think that would do you justice.

In reality all you are arguing is opinion.
Posted on Reply
#24
Darren
by: HP_dudeman
haha...

people are always like MY 360 PWNS UR PS3 BEEYOTCH! but i tell them ps3 is better for reasons:
1. i can throw ubuntu on it
2. i can use blu-ray
3. sony's online is free, whereas you gotta pay for xbl
Thanks for confirming that your a fan boy, thanks.


by: panchoman
we must not forget that blue ray allows games to use a signifcantly larger amount of space.. allowing the game to be packaged with more features and the like.
Very true, however not many games on PS3 or 360 (if any) have needed the additional storage capacity that Blue Ray or HD DVD offers - We could go another few years using dual layer DVDs before the need for Blue Ray becomes a necessity.


by: panchoman
i have yet to know a person who bought a blu ray player.. i know loads of people that buy ps3s because they are almost the same price as a good blu ray player and ps3s come with gaming as well
Perhaps on PS3's initial launch however Blue-Ray players have since come down in price, it's actually cheaper currently (in the UK) to buy a separate Blue-Ray player and Xbox 360 than to buy a PS3.

by: HP_dudeman
i care about capacity.
Why do you care, are you a part of the development team, how does the capacity influence your enjoyment of the game/movie? I'm at a loss here. Do you find games more fun if their is an extra 20 GB of unused space? YAY this game is soo much fun because EA didn't fill up the disk.

by: Ravenas
Consumers do care about capacity when it comes to the future of burning music and video on blu-rays. Capacity is a key issue of DVD-9 and Blu-Ray blanks.

I really don't know what makes you people believe that consumers don't care about capacity.
Indeed in this situation capacity matters, I cant wait to back up my entire MP3 collection on a few discs, however for the average console gamer burning discs isn't a priority. Until PS3 or Xbox have capabilities of burning media this argument is exempt.
by: Ravenas
Yes, a current gen game such as MGS4 is said to take up 50GB of space on one dual layer blu-ray disc.
MGS4 is one game, do you think it's ethical to base an entire argument around MGS4. MGS4 isn't exactly the definition of gaming. Again do you think it's ethical to base an argument on a game which isn't out? If this is true it would mean that Blue-Ray would need to be replaced as soon as possible since 50 GB isn't enough to accommodate MGS4
Posted on Reply
#25
Davidelmo
by: HP_dudeman
haha...

people are always like MY 360 PWNS UR PS3 BEEYOTCH! but i tell them ps3 is better for reasons:
1. i can throw ubuntu on it
2. i can use blu-ray
3. sony's online is free, whereas you gotta pay for xbl
:slap:

Are you imagining things? Where did anyone say that?

[quote="HP_dudeman]
i care about capacity.[/quote]No, you don't. You care about what you get on the disk - i.e. better textures, higher quality video etc. Would it matter if somebody released a 1 Mb disk with incredible compression and could hold 50hrs of HD video? Consumers do NOT care about capacity.. it isn't a selling point by itself.

Nobody goes, "oh wow, this new bluray device has discs which store 50Gb... I MUST have one of those!!"

[QUOTE=cdawall, post: 780331"]this made my day

now back on topic

saying that blu ray doesn't look any better is like saying my 65" 1080P mitsu DLP looks no better than my uncles 65" 1080i mitsu RP sure joe schmo can't tell but anyone with eyes will say hey 1080p is one hell of alot crisper looking than 1080i now lets apply that to DVD vs BR hmm 480P vs 1080P......i wonder which will be better looking? you know the people that say it looks no better probably sit 15ft back from there 40" 1st gen LCD sets that only do 720P :roll: nothing will look any different on those[/quote]And guess what? That description represents almost all people who have a TV.
You even admit it yourself - "sure joe schmo can't tell"
Guess what - joe schmo *IS* the average consumer. You can laugh all you want, but joe schmo is the one whose buying habits will force the market.

I swear the literacy rate in this thread is appalling. I did not say there was no difference. I said:

once:
40 inch TV, across the room distance (say 10-15 feet), the difference is barely noticeable.
twice:
that picture quality isn't particularly noticeable to an average person on an average sized TV. On a 40 inch TV at "across the room" distance
No wonder I have to repeat myself so much.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment