Gamestop/EB and X360 Bundles.

Flagg · Post by **Flagg** » 2005-08-25 01:14pm

I haven't made up my mind on the XBox 360 yet, while I'm definately getting a PS3. I sure as hell won't be buying a bundle, though.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-08-25 02:02pm

Unless Sony can sell the PS3 WITH a Hard drive and for the same price as the $399 version of Xbox 360 I won't even consider it, Xbox 360 has all the games and entertainment capability I could ever need out of a console and in terms of graphics power it is more or less the same as PS3 whats been shown so far.

As it is, with the Blu Ray drive, wirless out of the box, bluetooth and various other flashy trinkets the PS3 is supposedly going to come with I highly doubt it will be under $399 and could very likely sell for more than that.

As for these bundles, I wouldnt bother, the $399 xbox set with one or two games to start off with is all I need.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-25 03:11pm

Icehawk wrote:Unless Sony can sell the PS3 WITH a Hard drive and for the same price as the $399 version of Xbox 360 I won't even consider it, Xbox 360 has all the games and entertainment capability I could ever need out of a console and in terms of graphics power it is more or less the same as PS3 whats been shown so far.

As it is, with the Blu Ray drive, wirless out of the box, bluetooth and various other flashy trinkets the PS3 is supposedly going to come with I highly doubt it will be under $399 and could very likely sell for more than that.

As for these bundles, I wouldnt bother, the $399 xbox set with one or two games to start off with is all I need.

Sony already said it will be more expensive.

I'm expecting the PS3 to be $399.

If you don't care about games coming on multiple disks, and don't want wireless, and do want a hard drive, sure the X360 is good. But when you consider that it costs $99 to add wireless (bumping the XBox 360 to $499) the PS3 looks a lot better. And when you consider that the PS3 uses CF and SD cards while the XBox 360 charges $40 for a 64 MB card...and that Microsoft is not allowing third party controllers and charges $40 for a wired one... and Sony may not charge for online.

The PS3's up front may be higher, but overall, we'll see.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-08-25 09:28pm

Ultra fucking Super Monkey Double eXTREME Supreme Bundle eh?

To bad my money tree died last year otherwise I would so hop on the thousand doller bandwagon.
But then I don't shop in Gamespots, don't vist the website. Myself and that coperation have come to an agreement not to speak to each other or acknowledge each other's existances.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-08-25 10:02pm

Praxis wrote:
Sony already said it will be more expensive.

I'm expecting the PS3 to be $399.

If you don't care about games coming on multiple disks, and don't want wireless, and do want a hard drive, sure the X360 is good. But when you consider that it costs $99 to add wireless (bumping the XBox 360 to $499) the PS3 looks a lot better. And when you consider that the PS3 uses CF and SD cards while the XBox 360 charges $40 for a 64 MB card...and that Microsoft is not allowing third party controllers and charges $40 for a wired one... and Sony may not charge for online.

The PS3's up front may be higher, but overall, we'll see.

Yes we will see. As it is I have a hard time believing that PS3 will only be 399 with all the jazzy features its supposed to have out of the box but whatever.

However, whats this nonsense about Xbox 360 not accepting third party controllers? Microsoft is allowing third party controllers and peripherals but they just need to be officially sanctioned and the companies need to pay MS a royalty fee. Also I also thought PS3 will only be able to use Sony Memory sticks and not SD flash cards for save game files.

In regards to online play, PS3 does not have a stable widespread gaming network/community like Live, only certain specific games have online capability and I doubt the server stability and quality is the same as on Live. IIRC, EVERY Xbox 360 game will be capable of playing on Live in a multiplayer format. For 50 bucks a year, Live is a fine deal for what you get and the shear number of games you can play.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-26 02:44am

Icehawk wrote:
Praxis wrote:
Sony already said it will be more expensive.

I'm expecting the PS3 to be $399.

If you don't care about games coming on multiple disks, and don't want wireless, and do want a hard drive, sure the X360 is good. But when you consider that it costs $99 to add wireless (bumping the XBox 360 to $499) the PS3 looks a lot better. And when you consider that the PS3 uses CF and SD cards while the XBox 360 charges $40 for a 64 MB card...and that Microsoft is not allowing third party controllers and charges $40 for a wired one... and Sony may not charge for online.

The PS3's up front may be higher, but overall, we'll see.

Yes we will see. As it is I have a hard time believing that PS3 will only be 399 with all the jazzy features its supposed to have out of the box but whatever.

Well, the way I look at it:
WiFi costs what, $20, for the manufacturer?

Sony is swapping Bluetooth instead of RF or whatever the XBox 360 uses for the controllers.

A Blu-ray reader, likely 1x or 2x, will probably not cost more than $100 by mid-2006. At least I really hope.

The rest are just ports, like the dual monitor output.

So I expect the PS3 to cost $399 for the 'core system'.

However, whats this nonsense about Xbox 360 not accepting third party controllers? Microsoft is allowing third party controllers and peripherals but they just need to be officially sanctioned and the companies need to pay MS a royalty fee.

Microsoft is charging for 3rd party accessories, however I remember hearing on G4 during their coverage of something that there would be no third party controllers until 2007.

Google reveals:

http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.ph ... ge=1&pp=15

MS will own the exclusive rights to the wireless controller until December 2007, no third party wireless controllers will be available until then, only wired controllers.

Also I also thought PS3 will only be able to use Sony Memory sticks and not SD flash cards for save game files.

Um...thats what the card slots are there fore.

In regards to online play, PS3 does not have a stable widespread gaming network/community like Live, only certain specific games have online capability and I doubt the server stability and quality is the same as on Live. IIRC, EVERY Xbox 360 game will be capable of playing on Live in a multiplayer format. For 50 bucks a year, Live is a fine deal for what you get and the shear number of games you can play.

WILD assumption. The PS2 did not have a stable widespread gaming network. Nintendo didn't have one PERIOD. Well, now this generation Nintendo has a big stable widespread network; if Sony wants to keep up they'll do the same.

Icehawk · Post by **Icehawk** » 2005-08-26 03:12am

Well, the way I look at it:
WiFi costs what, $20, for the manufacturer?

Sony is swapping Bluetooth instead of RF or whatever the XBox 360 uses for the controllers.

A Blu-ray reader, likely 1x or 2x, will probably not cost more than $100 by mid-2006. At least I really hope.

The rest are just ports, like the dual monitor output.

So I expect the PS3 to cost $399 for the 'core system'.

Thats the real hard part is hoping that Blu Ray will be cheap enough to manufacture in such a quantity that Sony needs for its system as well as for standard non-PS3 players. The whole technology is in its infancy and not even really available over here yet. It'll be cool if they manage to pull it off as I would really like to see Blu Ray drives taken as the true replacement for standard DVD's but we really have no idea yet just which way its going to swing.

Microsoft is charging for 3rd party accessories, however I remember hearing on G4 during their coverage of something that there would be no third party controllers until 2007.

Google reveals: Quote:

MS will own the exclusive rights to the wireless controller until December 2007, no third party wireless controllers will be available until then, only wired controllers.

I see you conveniently misread the quote. Notice how it says their will in fact be third party controllers available and only the wireless ones will be held under exclusive rights to MS. You were specifically saying "controllers" and neglected the fact that it is only the WIRELESS controllers that are exclusive, which in all honesty is a good idea since third party controllers are generally less quality anyways and theirs no point in shelling out for a third party wireless controller that could have compatibility or quality issues.

WILD assumption. The PS2 did not have a stable widespread gaming network. Nintendo didn't have one PERIOD. Well, now this generation Nintendo has a big stable widespread network; if Sony wants to keep up they'll do the same.

Thats true they could, but MS has had several years to refine and perfect their networks and build up a solid library of quality online titles as well as a ton of subscribers and will have many more on the way. One of Microsofts ultimate goals is to have the largest and most successfull online user base. Both Nintendo and Sony are basically having to start from scratch in this field and it could be difficult and costly for them to try and match it in time. If they do go with a setup that is as widespread and capable as Live I cannot see it as being completely free.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-26 11:07am

Icehawk wrote:
Well, the way I look at it:
WiFi costs what, $20, for the manufacturer?

Sony is swapping Bluetooth instead of RF or whatever the XBox 360 uses for the controllers.

A Blu-ray reader, likely 1x or 2x, will probably not cost more than $100 by mid-2006. At least I really hope.

The rest are just ports, like the dual monitor output.

So I expect the PS3 to cost $399 for the 'core system'.
Thats the real hard part is hoping that Blu Ray will be cheap enough to manufacture in such a quantity that Sony needs for its system as well as for standard non-PS3 players. The whole technology is in its infancy and not even really available over here yet. It'll be cool if they manage to pull it off as I would really like to see Blu Ray drives taken as the true replacement for standard DVD's but we really have no idea yet just which way its going to swing.

Yeah, it's hard to tell there.

Microsoft is charging for 3rd party accessories, however I remember hearing on G4 during their coverage of something that there would be no third party controllers until 2007.

Google reveals: Quote:

MS will own the exclusive rights to the wireless controller until December 2007, no third party wireless controllers will be available until then, only wired controllers.
I see you conveniently misread the quote. Notice how it says their will in fact be third party controllers available and only the wireless ones will be held under exclusive rights to MS. You were specifically saying "controllers" and neglected the fact that it is only the WIRELESS controllers that are exclusive, which in all honesty is a good idea since third party controllers are generally less quality anyways and theirs no point in shelling out for a third party wireless controller that could have compatibility or quality issues.

You are correct. G4TV just said no third party controllers period, which is what lead to the misunderstanding.

WILD assumption. The PS2 did not have a stable widespread gaming network. Nintendo didn't have one PERIOD. Well, now this generation Nintendo has a big stable widespread network; if Sony wants to keep up they'll do the same.
Thats true they could, but MS has had several years to refine and perfect their networks and build up a solid library of quality online titles as well as a ton of subscribers and will have many more on the way. One of Microsofts ultimate goals is to have the largest and most successfull online user base. Both Nintendo and Sony are basically having to start from scratch in this field and it could be difficult and costly for them to try and match it in time. If they do go with a setup that is as widespread and capable as Live I cannot see it as being completely free.

Again, we'll see...

Nintendo isn't quite starting from scratch, considering they're pretty much just buying their servers from GameSpy and writing a new interface to keep up with Live. Sony may do something similar or develop their own.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2005-08-26 11:29am

Would the sony bundle come with a hdd at 399?

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-26 05:43pm

Doubt it. My estimate is $399 for the base model with Blu-ray (12 times the disk space), WiFi, dual screen output, etc. But hopefully they won't charge $100 for a 20 GB hard drive. Sony said they want to have an 80 GB drive on the market and are apparently the first console maker to actually be supporting homebrew.

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-08-26 08:48pm

FYI, I got some information from someone who works at Hitachi. He said that a big reason for the $299 version is because Microsoft didn't even have a deal inked for the final hard-drive purchases down, yet, when it was time to finalize the system. The differing versions of the 360 are just a way of covering up their ineptitude by allowing them to change the system beyond the date at which they thought they would have everything down.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-08-26 09:04pm

Master of Ossus wrote:FYI, I got some information from someone who works at Hitachi. He said that a big reason for the $299 version is because Microsoft didn't even have a deal inked for the final hard-drive purchases down, yet, when it was time to finalize the system. The differing versions of the 360 are just a way of covering up their ineptitude by allowing them to change the system beyond the date at which they thought they would have everything down.

That's pretty hilarious. But hey, gotta be first to market!

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-27 02:55am

SirNitram wrote:
Master of Ossus wrote:FYI, I got some information from someone who works at Hitachi. He said that a big reason for the $299 version is because Microsoft didn't even have a deal inked for the final hard-drive purchases down, yet, when it was time to finalize the system. The differing versions of the 360 are just a way of covering up their ineptitude by allowing them to change the system beyond the date at which they thought they would have everything down.
That's pretty hilarious. But hey, gotta be first to market!

That's nothing, when Microsoft was set to release the Xbox 1, they didn't even have a function sound chip until a couple of weeks before the release. They got lucky as hell that nVidia was able to chase down the bug and fix it or they would have had to postpone.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-27 02:59am

Praxis wrote:Doubt it. My estimate is $399 for the base model with Blu-ray (12 times the disk space), WiFi, dual screen output, etc. But hopefully they won't charge $100 for a 20 GB hard drive. Sony said they want to have an 80 GB drive on the market and are apparently the first console maker to actually be supporting homebrew.

I'll agree with the $399 price point, Blu-Ray may be new, but Sony is manufacturing it so they should be able to shove some of the costs off for a while. In order to do that though, they'll probably have to disable the more advanced functions of the player, or at least limit it in a noticeable way or else Sony's electronics division will be screaming for their heads. I can't imagine the sort of board meetings that went on between the two sides, I imagine it was the biggest internal power struggle in the history of Sony given how ideological both parts of the company are.

As for charging $100 for a 20GB drive, well it is a laptop drive which adds to the cost. Really though, who is going to purchase a $299 X360 and then upgrade? Anyone who wants the hard drive will purchase the $399 model and get the superior value.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-27 03:03am

Praxis wrote: Again, we'll see...

Nintendo isn't quite starting from scratch, considering they're pretty much just buying their servers from GameSpy and writing a new interface to keep up with Live. Sony may do something similar or develop their own.

Nintendo and Sony can probably come up with a decent online community, but let's be realistic here. Live is a mature environment with 4 years of development and refinement and online services are Microsoft's bread and butter. Neither Sony nor Nintendo have the sort of experience Microsoft does and Microsoft has a huge lead. Online is likely to remain a strength of Microsoft for at least the next generation.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-27 04:05am

The Kernel wrote:
Praxis wrote: Again, we'll see...

Nintendo isn't quite starting from scratch, considering they're pretty much just buying their servers from GameSpy and writing a new interface to keep up with Live. Sony may do something similar or develop their own.
Nintendo and Sony can probably come up with a decent online community, but let's be realistic here. Live is a mature environment with 4 years of development and refinement and online services are Microsoft's bread and butter. Neither Sony nor Nintendo have the sort of experience Microsoft does and Microsoft has a huge lead. Online is likely to remain a strength of Microsoft for at least the next generation.

Agreed, but my dispute was with the poster who claimed that the PS3 did not have a stable widespread network because the PS2 didn't. I figure Sony and Nintendo will try to copy Live and at least get the features Live had this last generation.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-27 04:07am

The Kernel wrote: As for charging $100 for a 20GB drive, well it is a laptop drive which adds to the cost. Really though, who is going to purchase a $299 X360 and then upgrade? Anyone who wants the hard drive will purchase the $399 model and get the superior value.

Well, since Sony intends to offer a 120 GB PS3 hard drive would that not negate it being a laptop drive?

Max · Post by **Max** » 2005-08-27 04:12pm

Guys...brace yourselves, for the pre-order INSANITY isn't over yet...

Gamestop's X360 Omega Bundle (Two...thousand...mother...****in'...dollars)

It includes everything that the Ultimate Bundle includes as well as...

Amped 3
Frame City Killer
Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter
NBA 2K6
Need For Speed: Most Wanted
NHL 2K6
Ridge Racer 6
Tiger Woods PGA Tour 06
Top Spin 2
Two more wireless controllers
A wireless adapter
A memory card
An extra faceplate ("Fuego")
A 12-month subscription card for XBL Gold

So that makes for a total of 20 games (which cost $1,200 alone if you bought them separately), 4 controllers, 2,064 megabytes of storage data, and basically a boatload of crap for two grand...

...no comment.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-08-27 04:45pm

Ok, guys. I've looked over all the bundles offered, looked over all the games.

NOTHING in them interests me. I don't like any of those genres, and I don't do online gaming.

So, I'll save my money and see if the PS3 has better games coming out with it. And if I say no, Nitram's not getting it either.

Although, if it offers a Monster Rancher 5 or the new Final Fantasy, it's mine no matter what price.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-08-27 07:49pm

LadyTevar wrote:
Although, if it offers a Monster Rancher 5 or the new Final Fantasy, it's mine no matter what price.

Microsoft has danagled quite alot of money infront of Square-Enix to get FFXI and possibley get a FFXII port and first release FFXIII.

And you know the amount of money MS more that most countries GDP's so sooner or later its going to work on the right exec's if its not already.
Hell it already was a trump of their's to get every single Japanese devolper to sign on board, they might stand a good chance this time around for domination or at least equality.

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-08-28 05:45pm

Mr Bean wrote:
LadyTevar wrote:
Although, if it offers a Monster Rancher 5 or the new Final Fantasy, it's mine no matter what price.
Microsoft has danagled quite alot of money infront of Square-Enix to get FFXI and possibley get a FFXII port and first release FFXIII.

And you know the amount of money MS more that most countries GDP's so sooner or later its going to work on the right exec's if its not already.
Hell it already was a trump of their's to get every single Japanese devolper to sign on board, they might stand a good chance this time around for domination or at least equality.

We'll just have to wait and see. IIRC, Square left Nintendo for the PS because of the advantages offered by CDs and the PS's better processing power. If anything makes Square-Enix jump ship it will be to whichever platform offers the best graffics, processor power, and most efficent media and memory. Right now, BD-DVD seems to be the shit, so I think M$ is wasting its time.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-29 04:55am

LadyTevar wrote: We'll just have to wait and see. IIRC, Square left Nintendo for the PS because of the advantages offered by CDs and the PS's better processing power. If anything makes Square-Enix jump ship it will be to whichever platform offers the best graffics, processor power, and most efficent media and memory. Right now, BD-DVD seems to be the shit, so I think M$ is wasting its time.

Ummm...what? The PS3's Blu-Ray BD-ROM drive is virtually useless for games. Sure, it offers more space, but todays games aren't exponentially increasing in disc space the way they are in graphics power; most of the next gen games are probably going to fit fine on one DVD with two for big content games. Hell, PC's still use CD's and get along just fine. The PS3 has some advantages over the X360 in games, but the Blu-Ray player is more of a bonus for hi-def movies, not games.

Besides, the PS2 didn't have nearly the power of the Xbox and Square didn't jump ship. It wasn't just the Playstation's superior CD and graphics that made Square abandon Nintendo, it was more of a political disagreement about the types of games Square wanted to make. Nintendo heavily censored Square's games (particularly in the US) while Square wanted to release more adult titles. It ended with a bunch of harsh words exchanged between executives of both companies and Square walked away in a huff.

Praxis · Post by **Praxis** » 2005-08-29 11:29am

The Kernel wrote:
Ummm...what? The PS3's Blu-Ray BD-ROM drive is virtually useless for games. Sure, it offers more space, but todays games aren't exponentially increasing in disc space the way they are in graphics power; most of the next gen games are probably going to fit fine on one DVD with two for big content games. Hell, PC's still use CD's and get along just fine. The PS3 has some advantages over the X360 in games, but the Blu-Ray player is more of a bonus for hi-def movies, not games.

While I think Blu-ray is massive overkill and HD-DVD is a better solution; I think DVD is too little. There are already games on the XBox THIS GENERATION shipping on two DVD's. And the HD games on these systems achieve this by up-sampling. With much more detailed textures (being HD) and far higher poly counts and games being designed for 512 MB of RAM instead of 64 MB of RAM and much more expansive worlds...personally, I'm expecting within a few years MOST games will come on multiple DVD's.

Besides, you know how Square Enix LOVES cutscenes. On the PS3 they can do 1080p cutscenes. On the XBox they'd have to ship a second DVD with cutscenes.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2005-08-29 11:30am

The Kernel wrote:
LadyTevar wrote: We'll just have to wait and see. IIRC, Square left Nintendo for the PS because of the advantages offered by CDs and the PS's better processing power. If anything makes Square-Enix jump ship it will be to whichever platform offers the best graffics, processor power, and most efficent media and memory. Right now, BD-DVD seems to be the shit, so I think M$ is wasting its time.
Ummm...what? The PS3's Blu-Ray BD-ROM drive is virtually useless for games. Sure, it offers more space, but todays games aren't exponentially increasing in disc space the way they are in graphics power; most of the next gen games are probably going to fit fine on one DVD with two for big content games. Hell, PC's still use CD's and get along just fine. The PS3 has some advantages over the X360 in games, but the Blu-Ray player is more of a bonus for hi-def movies, not games.

This is always a hilarious argument to hear. I'm sorry, I was hearing the same when the CD-ROM was developed. And then I heard the same when the DVD-ROM was made. And yet, for example, FFX nearly filled it's disc with all the crap they put in there.

Any sort of computer project is a gas. They will fill the availiable space.

Also to the point is the data-retreival speed, which is in the hundreds of megs/second... Just a bit handy for folks not wanting loading times.

Besides, the PS2 didn't have nearly the power of the Xbox and Square didn't jump ship. It wasn't just the Playstation's superior CD and graphics that made Square abandon Nintendo, it was more of a political disagreement about the types of games Square wanted to make. Nintendo heavily censored Square's games (particularly in the US) while Square wanted to release more adult titles. It ended with a bunch of harsh words exchanged between executives of both companies and Square walked away in a huff.

Even with this considered, there's one huge factor that will keep Square away from Microsoft: Microsoft simply isn't that badass in Japan. They know their core audience, and it isn't the American market, no matter how much we toss down for our regular doses of FF Crack.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2005-08-29 11:47am

SirNitram wrote: This is always a hilarious argument to hear. I'm sorry, I was hearing the same when the CD-ROM was developed. And then I heard the same when the DVD-ROM was made. And yet, for example, FFX nearly filled it's disc with all the crap they put in there.

I'm not saying that the space needs of a video game will never surpass DVD. What I'm saying is that the space needs of game do not scale at the rate of other computing needs. Notice that in the Playstation days, discs were constantly surpassing the needs of the CD, with large games taking up as much as four discs. During the DVD generation, seldom did games surpass a single disc and two was the most ever needed.

A Blu-Ray player would be nice on a current console, but given the costs associated with the technology, I'd say the money would be better spent elsewhere considering that games are unlikely to surpass two DVD-9's, even in this generation.

BTW, most of the time DVD-9 games only exceed a single disc when FMV is used (which is extremely space intensive), something that is becoming less and less common as in game cinematics become better.

Any sort of computer project is a gas. They will fill the availiable space.

Not really, many early Playstation 2 games didn't even use the DVD-9 format and shipped on CD's (that's the difference between the purple discs and the silver ones) and very few ever used two discs, and certainly not four like the Playstation would use. You can only use so much disc space.

Also to the point is the data-retreival speed, which is in the hundreds of megs/second... Just a bit handy for folks not wanting loading times.

True, but load times are dictated by many factors and if Sony really wanted to reduce load times, they would have gone with a standard hard drive. It would have cost them less, and would have provided a superior reduction in load times since not only is a hard drive faster, but the seek times are much lower (something that isn't going to improve much with Blu-Ray). Raw transfer rate is not often the bottleneck in load times.

Even with this considered, there's one huge factor that will keep Square away from Microsoft: Microsoft simply isn't that badass in Japan. They know their core audience, and it isn't the American market, no matter how much we toss down for our regular doses of FF Crack.

True, but don't forget that America has become a bigger market lately, even for Square. Granted, as far as total market share goes, Sony has the angle, even if you assume Microsoft creams them in the US next generation, however it's not like Square isn't going to lose money going cross platform. They don't need to do exclusives after all.

Really though, I think this is about nationalistic pride. Square is a Japanese company and doesn't like the idea of giving into a foreign console maker. The Japanese are funny about this, and they don't see business as a mass heap of globalization like the rest of the world.

Case in point: both Nintendo and Square came into Microsoft's radar during the early days of the Xbox. Nintendo would have been a perfect aquisition taget, both companies had strengths where the other was weak (Microsoft had the platform, the support structure and the money and Nintendo had the games plus the built in Japanese audience), but Nintendo's CEO said in no uncertain terms that there was no way in hell that he would sell out to an American company.

Square was a bit different, according to rumor, they did actually make a proposal to Microsoft, but aparently it was ridiculously high (something on the order of five times their market cap) so it was rejected.