Good post Trigger!

Chris

I have enjoyed my Xbox for 2 years now and paid full price for it back then. You can count me in the minority as one who would buy a new version if it is really a good upgrade. Backwards compatability is a nice concept but something I don't really care about using since I have never been one to hold on & continue to play old games.

I was burned by Sega before but back then I was a starving college student. As long as a system is DOA like the Sega CD, 32X & Saturn, then I don't care as long as I get a few years out of it.

I have no set loyalty to the Xbox so I would definitely weigh the all the differences between the PS3 & the Xbox 2 before buying one of them. I just want to see a significant improvement in technology for my money.

hmm... Trigger has been right before with this info. I remember when talk of GTA coming to the Xbox was the latest and greatest rumor, he was spot on with the prediction. At least, I think it was Trigger.

Everything he said makes sence except for Sony using nVidia.

it was me... and the sony thing didn't make sense to me either. I'll have to wrench more info about that.

Looks like it was made up by one of the sources for this story. According to the Reuters article, it was Richard Doherty, of Seaford, New York-based Envisioneering, a technology advisory company, who said Xbox 2 was coming out in 2004. After looking at his company Web site, it looks like this guy is probably a lame-ass source to use (their "metropolitan" Seattle office is located in Silverdale, WTF?).

I'll wait until Microsoft makes an official announcement before I get excited about anything.

According to The New York Times analysts are predicting a 2005 or 2006 release.

"I agree with you %100 it seems xbox owners have the most money to burn out of console owners. "

That makes no sense Topdawg. Working in a game store, I can flat out tell you PS2 owners have to have the most money to burn. Memory cards are $25 a pop (oh, wait, not needed on the Xbox, and the GC ones are cheaper), you have to buy a multitap for $35 (oh, wait, GC and Xbox do not need one), you need an adapter to go online (another $40 Xbox owners save), and last I checked Sony had a HD coming out at $100 (oh yeah, the Xbox has one of those as well).

Here's how it breaks down Xbox $179.99

PS2 $179.99 + $25 (mem card or $100 for upcoming hard drive) + $40 Broadband adapter + $35 for the multitap to play everyone's precious Madden in 4 player mode=$279.99 up to $364.99 just to do what the Xbox can out of the box. This isn't to start a system war or flames, but as someone who works in retail I just have to point out that your statement makes absolutely no sense.

I would agree with alot of these statements except the following:

I read funboy posts on Gamefaqs talking about the Sony/Nvidia thing right after Microsoft announce it was partnering with ATI. That whole rivalry crap heh. Sony has no reason at all to have Nvidia build the GPU for the next system.

I don't see how Microsofts next console will have superior hardware either. Every thing I have read states all the consoles will pretty much be close to equal next gen with no huge lead technology wise.

I also don't see how the gap between the PS2 and the Xbox will be *much* smaller either. Yes Microsoft will probably gain marketshare but not enough to make the difference between the two systems *small*.

I don't see why Nintendo will repeat it's numbers but Microsoft will gain, that's just goofy. If Nintendo comes out with an online plan next gen and puts their franchises on it, it wouldn't be good for Microsoft.

Memory Cards $25 PS2
Gamecubes are cheaper because they hold less data. Last time I checked Microsoft sells memory cards for the Xbox. You don't need them until you want to take a save with you to another xbox. But if you only play on your system I see the benefit.

PS2 Adapter 39.99

I don't see why your saying paying for the PS2 adapter costs more to get online than the Xbox. Xbox oweners save zilch when compared to the PS2 adapter. When you buy the adapter it's a one time fee and 99.9% of the games are free to play online. With the Xbox you get to pay a yearly $50 fee. So.. PS2 owners has the better deal between those two.

HD 99.99
The HD is being released because of FFXI no other reason. Most of the PS2 userbase won't bother buying the HD. The only game that requires the HD is FFXI at the moment and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Also technically the HD only costs $50 since it is pre-loaded with FFXI which would cost 49.99 normally at retail.

Both of these bundles below have the exact same functionality:

$179.99 Xbox System
$69.99 Xbox Live Starter Kit Version 3 ($49.99 annually)
$22.99 Xbox DVD playback kit *used at Gamespot(no reason to buy new)
$24.99 Memory card (don't see a 3rd party licensed one) (you'll need the memory card if you want to take your save to a friends house)
$89.97 x3 Microsoft Xbox Controller S

Total for Xbox after 6% sales tax: $411.21

Total with an extra 4 years of Xbox Live service:$623.16

$199.99 PS2 Online bundle
$19.99 PS2 Official Memory card (Nyko brand licensed by Sony)
$22.99 PS2 Multi Tap *used at Gamespot ( no reason to buy a new multi tap when a used one works exactly the same)(29.88 new at Wal-Mart)
$49.99 HD (half of the 99.99 price tag is the price of the pre-loaded FFXI game)
$59.97 x3 Official PS2 Controller (19.99 each)

Total for PS2 after 6% sales tax: $374.11

Total with the HD at $99.99 for the picky $427.11


Another thing is that Xbox live will be 49.99 all the time, it won't be discounted by Microsoft. PS2/Xbox Memory cards,PS2 multi tap and the Sony HD has or will have lower prices eventually.

Can you tell I have to much time on my hands?

*updated with new prices on PS2 controller price and Xbox live starter kit version 3.

You know, I'm going to agree with that as well. The Xbox has gotten so much hype about how much more powerful it is, but in reality, it is only as powerful as fanboys make it out to be. The PS2 can do more FLOPS and is only 300MHz. The Xbox does half as many flops at over twice the computing power. The great thing about Sony consoles is the learning curve. Recently, Jak II was released and was regarded by many reviewers as "the best looking platformer on any console." This isn't so much a jab at Xbox as it is GC (with numerous Mario platformers). Of course, with KillZone comes out, Microsoft might be wondering what happened to all their power.

So at launch, the Xbox2 may be considered the most powerful, but as soon as developers master the Cell, Sony will again have the most powerful system in the end. Of course, power doesn't mean anything without games.

"PS2 Adapter 39.99

I don't see why your saying paying for the PS2 adapter costs more to get online than the Xbox. Xbox oweners save zilch when compared to the PS2 adapter. When you buy the adapter it's a one time fee and 99.9% of the games are free to play online. With the Xbox you get to pay a yearly $50 fee. So.. PS2 owners has the better deal between those two."

Pay attention to press releases. AT E3, both Sony and EA announced by the end of 2004, gamers would be paying monthly fees for their games (with the exception of the original SOCOM according to Sony). Sony did not give any pricing ranges, but my stores Sony rep has confirmed they will begin charging sometime next year (they are deciding on a fee for all games or a game to game fee like what EA is looking at as well [EA did say a PER TITLE fee as they are losing over $3 million a year on free servers, this was confirmed again in another release where they were explaining why they were not supporting Live, and confirmed again by MS in a press release explaining why EA could go to hell]). The PS2 online may be cheaper now, but next year it will not be as you will be paying at least TWO different companies to go online with their games instead of just one (assuming more companies don't jump on the pay to play Bandwagon).

Don't forget for "collectors", FFXI will also sell seperately for $49.99, plus the monthly fee required for it. SOCOM II will also be using the HD (though it is not required), as well a GT4 (they haven't said if it is required or for optional features).

Also, the Xbox is coming with $70 worth of free games right now (something Sony still refuses to do for it's customers).

BTW Galanthas, it is nice to have an intelligent conversation like this with someone, you should see how some of our customers react if you say one negative thing about Sony in our store, it is scary (though depending on my mood, it can also be fun to piss them off and make them leave cursing).

Well said.

All prices taken from Best Buy

$180 -- Xbox w/ Star Wars: The Clone Wars/Tetris Worlds Online Edition
$80 -- Microsoft Xbox Live Starter Kit Version 3.0 (with MechAssault & Headset)
$30 -- Microsoft DVD Movie Playback Kit
$30 x 3 -- Microsoft Xbox Controller S
---------------------------
$380

$180 -- PS2 with Free DVD Remote
$40 -- Sony Network Adapter
$20 -- Sony PlayStation 2 8MB Memory Card - Black
$20 x 3 -- Sony DualShock 2 Analog Controller
$35 -- Sony Multitap
---------------------------
$335

*Memory Card is not figured in for Xbox as that it optional that not everyone buys or will buy. The same goes for the PS2 hard drive.


If you don't want online capability, both systems are fairly even, pricewise. Otherwise, the Xbox has a $45 higher initial cost than the PS2, but also includes 3 games, a headset, & a hard drive. Longterm costs include $50 per 12 months for Live, although actual figures will be around $50 every 14-18 months if you figure in free months that you get from buying games.

The PS2 has an ongoing cost of having to purchase additional memory cards. There is also cost for the headset if you're inclined for online games. Online pricing plans for the PS2 are unknown at the moment. Currently, online access for games is free, but that will likely change by the end of the year.

Well said. I'm hesitant to buy any of the next gen consoles as I don't thin we'll see any signficant improvments in technology.

I mean with current technology (and the systems are under development right now) they can't make the games look a whole lot better than what we have now. I mean we'll get better character models, better textures etc. But I don't think it's anything that will make our jaws drop like seeing 3D graphics on the N64/PSX after being used to 2D on the SNES/Genesis. Probably not even to the extent of seeing the smoother 3D graphics this gen after being used to the blurry/jaggy 3D graphics on the N64/PSX respectively.

I basically agree with what George Harrison from NOA said in the interview posted here. Next gen won't be one by technology. All three will probably be about the same, and not a drastic improvement from this generation. As he said, it will take more than graphics to get gamers (including myself) to shell out the $ for a next gen console. It will hopefully come down to having the most AAA quality exclusive games. In reality, it will probably just come down to name recognition, with Sony winning in a landslide again.

Maybe you should tack on 3 PS2 games to even that up a bit.

They are gonna sell FFXI without the HD for the PS2? Where did you hear that? The only place I see it listed by itself is www.ebgames.com and they are notorious for getting dates and other things wrong. All the previews/news I have read never had said it would be sold without the HD only that it would come pre-installed on it. It requires the HD so if that is true, that would be kinda misleading on SquareEnix's and Sony's part.

No chance what so ever of Gran Turismo 4 requiring the Hard drive, you can quote me.

I don't think it's a matter of Sony refusing to package $70 worth of software, just that they don't have to, to sell their console at the moment.

I'm talking right now and for the near future about no online fee's besides Everquest type games. Even if/when online fees come about we don't know what the prices will be.

I knew about EA thinking of charging in the future but this is the first time I have heard it about Sony regarding any game besides Everquest and it's type. Mind pointing me to a press release with Sony saying that so I can be better inform on that hehe.

Also I didn't mean to imply, that XBL is horrible just that I just don't think it's the right way to go about online for consoles. Just looking at what they did with XSN and Sega shows you it's not the right way to go about it for other publishers.

Sony's way is no where near perfect either though, I just happen to think it's the lesser of two evils between the two.

I have considered applying to Game stores on a number of occasions over the years but then I remember the dumb people that I always saw coming into a local EB I use to frequent. I would be fired within a week most likely because I would have went off on a couple of morons heh.

Just add $60 or so to his estimate, as all the free X-box games can be had for $20 or less.

what's so surprising?

Not being backwards compatible sucks too. My entertainment system is packed full now. No room for an X-box and an X-box 2 (or any of the other consoles and their sequels).

I thought the backwards compatability of the PS2 was important at first. Truthfully...I've played one ps1 game on my ps2. Shipwreckers of all things and only because my son loves pirates and it was a game he could do and enjoy.

I don't see backwards compatability being important to me at all next time.

Just depend whether you replay old games. I do, plus I don't like to pay full price, and as slow as MS is at dropping price on their good games (Halo is 2 friggin years old and still $50!) I'll probably have several I haven't picked up yet a year or two in to the X-box 2's lifespan.

Backwards capability will cause me to buy a PS3 since I can sell my PS2 for a small amount to reduce my buy in cost.

For me the lack of XBox2 backwards capability will mean nothing , although if I owned an XBox i would not be happy about this.

I have played a few PS1 games on my Ps2 and I know many who had younger children who used the PS1 library as a cheap game source.

I would loved to have seen PS1 capability on the PS3 although I suspect it would not have increased sales much versus the cost to Sony.

Yep, that's the other reason, besides having no more space in my entertainment center, and wanting to hold onto the current gen systems to pick up games I missed for next to nothing, that not having backwards compatibility sucks.

Maybe I'm nuts but why would switching to PowerPC automatically destroy any chance of backwards compatibility? Why couldn't they emulate the Xbox 1 in software and handle anything they can't emulate by including a miniaturized Xbox 1 chip inside the system a la the PS2 (which emulates most PSOne functions but has a mini-PSOne CPU inside)? Unless I'm mistaken x86 systems have been successfully emulated on PowerPCs before. (Hey, come to think of it, doesn't Microsoft own Connectix? Hmm....) The Ars Technica article is worthless, it just notes that the Xbox 2 will probably be using PowerPC and baldly asserts that this makes backwards compatibility "unlikely" without bothering to explain why.

Agreed.


Also, what is the current status of the DVD playing feature of the next generation? Is it assumed the the PS3 and Xbox2 will have it? And what of GC2? I think that was HUGE in getting people to grab a PS2 early, and it hurt Nintendo when it came out with the Xbox. It doesn't seem like the DVD thing would be much of a factor next gen, since we all have them now