According to several sources, there are rumors that Microsoft has already built a blu-ray drive for its 360 console, and they could start releasing them as early as May.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/79989;_yl...N4RfZLjdo7xMJA5

Hmmm. two bluray systems going at it.. yet Wii is still doing great and doesn't even play CD's. Microsoft continues to mutate and change sides, even in the console business. As if windows upgrades every few years aren't enough.

If I were you I'd just get the Bluray burner/ HD DVD combo PC drive from LG instead of buying a PS3 or another 360. This saves anyone from getting stuff they don't need. There's no reason to have both.

I mean look at it like this- how many good console-only games are available for the blu ray systems? Most xbox/ps3 stuff is also on windows vista.

No I'm not a marketing specialist- I rely on common sense to tell me what to buy. The two blu ray "contenders" offer up nothing very new- Hell, GTA IV will probably end up on vista too.

If microsoft does start supporting bluray then those LG drives I mentioned will become cheaper and it will give windows vista games extra disc space and maximum flexibility- something they didn't have when they lobbied hd dvd. With vista about to get a new service pack to fix their bugs, why the hell does microsoft even need to be in the console business when its pc game fanbase is still going strong. There's FFXI, Elder Scrolls, Two Worlds, Call of Duty series, possibly GTA IV, etc. All of them are also on Windows.

Xbox Live is just as viable on a pc platform, yet everyone seems to overlook that. We have grown so used to seeing them stick their noses in the console business that there's this hidden notion that Xbox must exist or the system wars will be less interesting or some stupidass reason like that. I just think we can do without a Microsoft console because its platinum hits are either multi or already on vista. The pc library (which is almost infinite going back to DOS) outweighs and outnumbers all the xbox libraries combined. Microsoft has done well, but they won't meet their own expectations that they have created over a very long period of time with their lineup of different OSs and all its games for each of them.

As this relates to the topic- I personally would prerfer the pc drive because a blu box 360 will only play back movies and games but not let me play vista games, or compile, burn or make stuff from scratch like a drive w/nero 8+ will. This blu box thing makes me cynical.

Their just adding to their already bottomless pit of (@$h.

There are a few reasons why I won't go with a stand-alone blu-ray or a pc blu-ray and/or blu-ray/hd-dvd combo..

First, for stand-alone, PS3 is always going to have these specs/revision updates, because it has enough processing power to emulate any of the new profile/specs that come up.

Then again, if the xbox 360 has a blu-ray add-on, it too should be able to emulate any profile/specs being released, but the problem with many xbox 360s is that we don't have hdmi, and from what I hear, sony is downconverting many of the movies on blu-ray through component video. This means you'll have to have both one of the semi-newer xbox systems which have the hdmi output for 1080i/1080p, as well as a television which has hdmi too.

As far as PC, it requires a lot of processing power to do blu-ray from what I hear, somewhere around 3ghz. My new computer I bought less than a year ago is only 1.8ghz, w 2/gb ram and has a video card which does some hardware decoding of hd formats, and it can barely do HD-DVD. It plays HD-DVDs OK, but occasionally with hickups, and blu-ray is even more cpu-intensive.

That brings me to another point. I have a 360 hd-dvd drive which is also a pc hd-dvd drive. Even if I didn't, I don't care to watch movies on a PC. I've done the hooking up the PC to a TV thing a few times, including pci satellite cards, but the picture quality is never as good as stand-alone players.

At one point in time, I set up a pc to dedicate it as a TV gaming and media system. I had all kinds of emulators, dvd players, and games that I played on it all of the time. It was awesome to play thousands of atari, nes, arcade, etc games on one system, but then I found a little something called an XBOX mod chip, and it blew the PC thing out of the water. The xbox may not be able to emulate everything, because of the smaller cpu/ram, but it does a damn good job, and the picture quality is excellent. Of course, it also can't play hd-dvd or blu-ray.

-

Microsoft changing sides.........

Many people believe that Microsoft is suddenly changing sides if they move to blu-ray, but they've remained format neutral for awhile. When Microsoft changed their mind about introducing an hd-dvd integrated xbox 360, it was, I imagine, for two reasons. One, for what I already mentioned: to remain format neutral, and secondly, since MS and Apple have said the future was downloadable media, they wanted to keep in good standing with companies from both sides.

Microsoft also helped create vc-1 technology, for both formats. As far as I can tell, they also created HDi for both formats as well, until the BDA said "No, we're going to use BD-Java" instead.

Toshiba is the one that kept trying to get Microsoft to release an integrated hd-dvd drive in to the 360. Hell, the hd-dvd add-on drive wasn't even Microsoft's. It was Toshiba's drive.

If you search around, you'll actually see rumors and posts of Microsoft saying that they would consider adding blu-ray drives to their 360, probably as early as 2005. Between that time and as far as only a couple months ago, rumors have came up that MS was still going to release an HD-DVD integrated system, and MS always squashed these rumors.

Why would these rumors keep floating around? And why would Microsoft make every attempt to keep these specifically hushed up? I believe it's because Toshiba had put a lot of pressure on MS to release a 360 with hd-dvd, and it probably got to the point where Microsoft probably said something like "OK, we'll look into it," just to hush Toshiba up, and afterwards, Toshiba reps start spreading the rumors.

-

Sony even released a statement, saying that they would welcome microsoft jumping over to the blu-ray bandwagon and said they believed the blu-ray's success was because of PS3 sales.

It seems to me that Sony sacrificed their PS3 console completely to win the HD format war. Unfortunately, they seem to be selling more consoles lately, and they still don't have any games worth a flip.

If we're suddenly seeing AMD Quad Core Phenom processors for good prices and new PCs at affordable rates under $1000 at places like tigerdirect (awesome store), then I believe we can "handle" the power and speed bluray drives demand. Having such a drive would cover every format PC game makers can possibly throw at it-giving us gamers maximum satisfaction and potential for creators to make a killer library that would make Sony pretty damn jealous.

Console upgrades don't shield the fact that they still can't keep up with PCs. You can't teach an old dog (in this case a computer console) new tricks, and that goes for this stuff as well.

Not to mention cost- why would I buy a system with serious bc issues (both of them) that only plays discs and games for what I could use to buy a pc drive that lets me do that and WAY more?? Their capabilities are too limited for me to want either of them.

360 and PS3 are just out dated gaming pcs because the then-impressive specs are now ho hum and when specs, instead of games, are the main focus of marketing a console, that company will lose. TG 16, Sega CD, Saturn, Neo Geo, and Xbox outside the US all confirm that.

So why isn't Nintendo already gone from all this? Because Wii is a console!! Not a rehashed pc. And it doesn't have bc issues because unlike 360 it wasn't carelessly rushed to market in hopes of "beating" Sony (shoulda thought about that nvidia contract, huh?).

Anyway, the mother of all reasons is because of the games. Nearly all PS3 and 360 titles either:
1- just aren't that good (sports, Call of Duty, most war games)
2- are PC ports (Half Life expansions, Far Cry, Elder Scrolls, FF XI)
3- are multi platform anyway (Marvel, Gears of War, Viva Pinata, GTA IV)

It's pointless to own these two when their games are already available for Windows Vista.

Do what you like, man.

There will always be a war of Consoles VS PCs. It's a war that will not end any time soon. For me, I have owned and played both since the late 70s/early 80s, and even though the PC does, in a lot of cases, have better graphics and sometimes even a few more features, because of having a mouse and 128 keys, I still prefer a STB (set top box) as opposed to PC.

Personally, I try to stay off the PC as much as possible, because I spend too much time on it as is. Secondly, I like to get comfortable when playing games or movies. Sitting at a desk, in an uncomfortable desk chair, watching a 20" screen just isn't as enticing as being able to relax while watching movies or playing games on my 30" or 65" hdtvs.

Since I play non-fps RPGs mainly, I don't need a mouse, roller ball, steering wheel, or keyboard.....

Very true. But today's technology enables plenty of ways to accomodate PC gamers (like PS2- like control pads). Possibilities are literally limitless. My purpose in this thread was to make a sharp distinction between game systems and computers disguised as game systems. I believe I have done that, whether you all care or not. I respect your (and everyone else's ) preference of computer console gaming- I'm just fascinated by the limitless capabilities of PC- plus it's easier to make stuff for it anyway. (You mentioned TV tuners to put computer displays onto a HDTV, so that always helps.)

I still have my Wii and enjoy it nonetheless.

And yes, I know players that don't do much more than play stuff serve their own purposes.

Btw, you're over 35?? Just curious.

I guess people never outgrow games...

I was born in the late 70s but not quite 35.. What I meant was that I had an atari 2600 pretty much when I was born, and a ti/99 4a when it first came out, and ever since, I have owned most all of the consoles and non-pc/mac computers, like the tandy color, a few of the tandy b&w ones, w/built in monitor, atari 400, 600, 800, commodore vic-20, 64, c64, and who knows how many others....

-

Gaming for me isn't like it was when I was a young teen, and I go through phases where I won't play a game sometimes for months, but you're never too old to game. Even my father was playing atari until he was in his 60s.

I even had a friend that had a father who played and probably knew more about most of the NES games than his son back in those days.... He was in his mid 40s.... I imagine he probably still plays games too lol

It's just come to the point where systems and games seem to lack an identity like Mario, Sonic, Zelda, Metroid, Bonk, the Castlevania Belmonts, and those Contra dudes (whom for some reason the whole world is out to kill) all once had. I'm not lobbying for a return to dead formats, I just think we can do better than these new disposable titles that get released every week and do NOTHING at all to satisfy my need for a quality (note the word q-u-a-l-i-t-y) gaming experience. It's frustrating, and I'm, unusually, only 23 years old, but I don't buy into the modern day hype of stupid games bearing the GTA name (didn't care for the overhead view PS1 stuff either).

This is one reason I won't sign up for Rockstar and Xbox blogs. They serve no other purpose than for ignorant "gamers" to slam, flame, and bitch at each other over dumb sh**.

As this pertains to this thread, I don't really want a PS3 or 360 that badly, except to go to a friend's house and play Perfect Dark Zero, which has yet to be ported to PC.

I'm not going to argue with you about bad games, because I'm sure you can find many of my posts regarding systems lately just not having that many great games, including a system I own, the xbox 360. I agree with you there.

In the first year, the 360 seemed to be on a good course. They had several #1 hits, but afterwards, Microsoft changed course and instead of focusing on games, they started focusing on overhauling xbox live over and over again, as well as this rental/download services.

If Microsoft would have been smarter, they could have done both, just by adding another team for xbox live, instead of doing these job shifts. You know, changing your work force over from one job to the next. It could have also been that xbox had a good plan for the first year, as far as games go, but once that year was up, just didn't have any extended plan.

Halo wars may bring some spark back to the 360, but Halo as a series is never going to be another mario, zelda, or contra as you say. Afterwards, especially with this crap they call Halo 3 that came out, I don't think Halo will even matter on the new xbox (720, 1080 or whatever they're going to call it.) - I wouldn't even be surprised if they try to make a MMORPG out of halo.

This reminds me a lot of the GTA series, which you've mentioned in several of your posts. The new GTA game is suppose to come out any time now, and EA actually offered to buy the series for 2 billion dollars, which is actually way more than the franchise/name is worth. I don't know exactly how much it is worth, but the company that owns GTA said that EA's offer undervalued the company. This is the same thing yahoo said when MS offered to buy them out several weeks ago too.

GTA, just like halo, can't last forever. They should have taken the money and retired or even made some other type of franchise, although it would be a gamble.

-

PC vs consoles.......

When I got my first painting job at 17, one of the first things I did was build a new PC. I already had a few 486s but wanted a pentium or pentium-like system. It ended up being a cyrix 120mhz, and I thought it was awesome. Those little cyrix cpus were cheap and fast, but they did run hotter than other CPUs.

Anyway, I went to media play (if you remember that store) and bought about $300 worth of games. Guess how many I really enjoyed. Not even one of the games I liked. I ended up going back to old games like the ad&d collection, which was bought at wal-mart for like $10 and had games like pool of radiance, dark queen of krynn, etc. There was like 9 games in the collection, but as you probably knew, the games were old as the hills. They were all out on the commodore 64 and atari computers too.

Even today, you can go in to a store which sells computer games, and there can sometimes be so many choices. If you're looking for strategy, you can find hundreds if not thousands. Same with rpgs, fps, and just about any other genre out there.

All of the strategy games seem alike, and just about every thing else is a clone of every other thing out there. There are good PC games out there, including PC-Only games, but the PC reminds me so much of the PS2 system. Just released 2 million games, and eventually, you'll get some good #1 hits. I suppose this is why even though I have a PS2, me and the PS2 never really hit it off. It reminds me too much of a PC.

Even games that seemed to be pretty popular, like neverwinter nights and starcraft, I could not stand. I liked the original ultimas, dragon warriors, ad&ds, and might and magics, but those types of games are few and far between, if even made at all any more.

One of the reasons I liked the turbo graffix and sega cd so much is that many of their games are very much like the old dragon warriors, and at least one or two like the old might and magics. Actually, isles of terra was released on the sega mega cd and turbo duo, and another might and magic was released on the turbo duo in japan only. Isles of terra wasn't my favorite might and magic though.

I suppose, with the PC, it is just really easy to release games on it, with a little bit of coding skills and maybe a graphics artist, which means there is little in the way of quality control.