XBOX360 premium vs. standard

[fantastic 7]

I just saw an episode of G4TV and they were disscusing the release of the 360. Apparently it will be released in a standard version($299 US) and a premium version($399 US). The premium will feature a hard drive, but the standard won't. The premium will also come with some other extra features. Some developers are ticked and think this will comprimise their games.

What other info do you have???

any thoughts??

[Killtacular]

It won't compromise their games because they are given the choice. If developers don't want to use the hard drive because it would put Core owners at a disadvantage, then it's their fault and all complaints should be addressed to them. However the hard drive was minimally used in the previous generation, where it was barely used for cacheing by a couple of games, and then used for downloading content by a couple of other games. That's about it.

Besides, it can still cache anyway. The 360 has 512 megabytes of ram which is the largest any system has had. Developers are very comfortable working with this amount. No more cramped levels or excessive loading times.

I was forced to get the Core system because every store in my area sold out of Premium pre-orders. Of course I'll get the HD and it'll still be $400 for me but I won't get the fancy media remote or the component cables. However the wired controller seems like a better deal to me anyway, because it's USB which means I can use it with my PC as well. The Premium package doesn't come with a means of charging your wireless controller so you'll be stuck buying batteries. Bahahahaha.

As J Allard explained, the Core system is for people that:

a) Aren't hardcore gamers
b) Don't have an HDTV or generally shop online
c) Want an affordable accessible machine that can outclass some of the top gaming rigs in the country
d) Are not fanboys or claim loyalty to another company
e) parents, babysitters, Halo gamers, kids, etc...

Giving gamers the choice may or may not hurt their profits.. there's really no way of knowing until November.. or, really, until Fall of 2006 when the PS3 launches.

[Romey]

It won't compromise their games because they are given the choice. If developers don't want to use the hard drive because it would put Core owners at a disadvantage, then it's their fault and all complaints should be addressed to them.Most developers will aim at the minimum specs. That's how developers consistantly behave, because that tends to be what satisfies the most consumers, thus maximizing the company's bottom line.

Therefore, I'd place more blame on Microsoft for the future under-utilization of the hard drive. It's an easily predictable outcome. Furthermore, the last Xbox isn't a good comparison for predicting this generation's hard drive usage, because a lot of the old approaches to engine design are changing.

Besides, it can still cache anyway. The 360 has 512 megabytes of ram which is the largest any system has had.New titles are going to need every last bit of those 512mb they can get just for what's being loaded into the current scene. :p

--Romey

[fantastic 7]

1.will not having the hard drive affect the performance at all other than not having the ability to download stuff?

2.On the original XBOX games are saved to the hard drive, so will the standard 360,that doesn't have one, require a memory card?

[Killtacular]

Therefore, I'd place more blame on Microsoft for the future under-utilization of the hard drive. It's an easily predictable outcome.
Yeah, but if Microsoft forced developers to use the hard drive, people would be complaining as well (and probably inserting dollar signs where the S should be, that's so HILARIOUS that people should just keep doing it!!). Since every game is going to be HD and Live-enabled I would assume most games will use the hard drive for something. Microsoft sure seems to want to push the Marketplace so I can see a ton of games having additional content being made available. And it all goes through Microsoft, meaning the only real step for developers is just making the levels or the new skins/models.

New titles are going to need every last bit of those 512mb they can get just for what's being loaded into the current scene. :p
Depends on the complexity. While games like Project Gotham Racing are pushing an absurd polycount, the simpler games and the smaller-scale first person shooters or platformers aren't going to be using all of that ram. You have to consider how much the Xbox was able to accomplish with it's incredibly tiny bottleneck of memory. People sometimes like to compare specs of consoles to PCs but it doesn't really work that way. 512 megs for a 360 will go a lot farther than 512 megs for a PC (which isn't even enough to really play a game like FAR CRY with any acceptable speed -- but Far Cry is being ported to the ORIGINAL Xbox as we speak, along with Half Life 2!!). I would expect the second or third generation of 360 titles to really max out the RAM, but not the launch window games.

1.will not having the hard drive affect the performance at all other than not having the ability to download stuff?
It won't. The system is enormously powerful and has plenty of RAM. The MTV2 footage was on alpha kits which were 1/4th the power of the final system, and the beta kits are only one half of the power, and most games are already running at full speed and detail on them (except for the SERIOUS polycrunchers like Project Gotham Racing 3), so when it's all finalized games will be beasts.

2.On the original XBOX games are saved to the hard drive, so will the standard 360,that doesn't have one, require a memory card?
Yeah. Although it's possible that you can use other USB storage devices. The PSP and iPod are considered 'storage devices' to the 360 so they may work as well. But I'm just guessing.

[Romey]

1.will not having the hard drive affect the performance at all other than not having the ability to download stuff?
Developers were told not to count on having a hard drive available, so no, I wouldn't expect any performance difference at all were you not to get the one with the hard drive.

--Romey

[Strollymonster]

...And I STILL don't care about any of that. Power is meaningless if you can't get some good games going for it, in my opinion. I'm still waiting to see a game that makes me want to buy ANY next-gen system, be it 360, PS3, or Rev.

[Romey]

Yeah, but if Microsoft forced developers to use the hard drive, people would be complaining as well (and probably inserting dollar signs where the S should be, that's so HILARIOUS that people should just keep doing it!!).
But it's not a binary option like that. Having a hard drive present on all systems doesn't force the developer to do anything, unless MS tacked on some stupid policy to the deal... which I couldn't put past them, I suppose...

Since every game is going to be HD and Live-enabled I would assume most games will use the hard drive for something.
Unfortunately, the hard drive usage would still have to be limited to "extra features" since its presence can't be counted on. It would still be financial stupidity to create any sort of game that requires massive storage, and you still can't rely on a hard drive to get some extra performance boosts. I don't think a non-standard hard drive is going to cripple the system, but I really believe it will hold back the system's future potential.

Depends on the complexity. While games like Project Gotham Racing are pushing an absurd polycount, the simpler games and the smaller-scale first person shooters or platrformers aren't going to be using all of that ram. You have to consider how much the Xbox was able to accomplish with it's incredibly tiny bottleneck of memory.
You may be thinking about next-gen memory usage the wrong way, though. The big memory hog isn't going to be polygons, rather it's texture usage. Last gen games didn't make that much use of multiple textures per surface, but this time around, there's word of developers using eight or more per surface. At the moment, I can't even think of what they're doing with most of those. Developers are talking about using hdr textures - large ones - and at 64 bits per pixel, those things take up space fast.

Honestly, though? I'm afraid that you're going to be right about "simpler games". I have nightmares featuring developers who have no clue about next gen production. We're already seeing things like Frame City Killer making horribly poor use of available technology. Ugh.

People sometimes like to compare specs of consoles to PCs but it doesn't really work that way. 512 megs for a 360 will go a lot farther than 512 megs for a PC (which isn't even enough to really play a game like FAR CRY with any acceptable speed -- but Far Cry is being ported to the ORIGINAL Xbox as we speak, along with Half Life 2!!).
Heheh, I'm more than aware of the difference, but those 512 megs will still be a tight squeeze for developers getting a taste of what's possible on this hardware.

...And I STILL don't care about any of that. Power is meaningless if you can't get some good games going for it, in my opinion. I'm still waiting to see a game that makes me want to buy ANY next-gen system, be it 360, PS3, or Rev.
While I agree that good games are the most important thing, I think it's foolish to be too quick to disparage the technology.

Hardware has been able to handle nearly any sort of gameplay imaginable since the days of the PS1. The only significant thing newer technology can really bring to the gameplay mechanics table at this point is physics and AI. When you consider that AI research is moving at a snail's pace, that leaves us with just improvements in physics... which we will be seeing in the next gen, oh yes indeed. However, if creative use of physics doesn't interest you, then all I can say is... go blame the publishers. :p

Software's where the real hope lives. I do hope that engines like Unreal Engine 3 can bring us some more creative gameplay, but again, that's all up to the publishers. There are plenty of developers with wonderful ideas, but without publisher support, that's never gonna happen.

--Romey

[Shnay]

As J Allard explained, the Core system is for people that:

a) Aren't hardcore gamers
b) Don't have an HDTV or generally shop online
c) Want an affordable accessible machine that can outclass some of the top gaming rigs in the country
d) Are not fanboys or claim loyalty to another company
e) parents, babysitters, Halo gamers, kids, etc...I've heard a lot of people say this, and I'm not sure I understand why. Here's what I understand the differences between the two to be, if anyone has any additional information or corrections, I'd be interested in hearing them.

-The HDTV cable which retails for $40. I don't have an HDTV now, but I guess people are predicting most households will switch within the next few years? At the moment, I'm not willing to shell out the cash for an HDTV, but if they become the standard (and drop in price) that would probably change. Are most Core System owners going to have to go out and buy an HD cable within the 360's lifetime?

-The hard drive. The memory card is estimated to be $40, too, so if the answer to the above question is yes, then the premium system would only be $20 more than the core system plus acccessories. So does the hard drive do anything more than store saved games, custom soundtracks, and downloadable content? I'm really not sure. There wasn't too much downloadable content in this generation that interested me, but I guess people are saying that the next generation will be very different in this regard. I'd love to see developers do more with downloadable content, with free/very cheap stuff like new maps or costumes, and more expensive stuff ($20-30) that would be the equivalent of an expansion pack for a PC game. But how sure are we that this is going to happen? I'd hate to invest in a hard drive only to find a handful of games offer a few new maps.

-Online stuff: ethernet cable, headset, Xbox Live Silver membership. With the exception of the second and third Splinter Cell games, there wasn't anything on Xbox that I really wanted to play online. There were some online games that looked interesting, like Crimson Skies or Mechassault, but I didn't want to play them online enough to pay for the Live subscription. I play a lot of PC games online, so the 360 games are really going to have to offer something unique and interesting for me to take an interest in playing them online. I didn't see that much in the Xbox, so I'm not sure what the 360 will do in this regard.

-Media remote, wireless controller, face plate. Eh, nice bonuses, but I don't really care.

It seems like the premium system could be better in the long run, but I've seen some people say that the core system is essentially worthless to those who play a lot of games, which I'm just not seeing. If you don't have an HDTV at the moment and prefer online PC games to online Xbox games, does the premium system offer that much more than the core system?

...Far Cry is being ported to the ORIGINAL Xbox as we speak, along with Half Life 2!!). Did the Doom 3 port end up looking pretty good on the Xbox? How did it compare to top of the line PCs?

[Romey]

Did the Doom 3 port end up looking pretty good on the Xbox? How did it compare to top of the line PCs?
It looked good... for being on a TV. If you took a top-of-the-line PC, hooked it to a TV, and compared the two, you wouldn't notice a huge difference. Yes, I've tried this, by the way.

However, there's just no comparison to playing Doom 3 on a computer at a high resolution with full-screen anti-aliasing and all settings on high. Although, Doom 3 on a big screen TV is an amazing experience in itself, despite the relative blurriness.

Romey
--Then again, I might wager that on the Xbox, Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay looked better than Doom 3 in a lot of ways.

[Killtacular]

It seems like the premium system could be better in the long run, but I've seen some people say that the core system is essentially worthless to those who play a lot of games, which I'm just not seeing. If you don't have an HDTV at the moment and prefer online PC games to online Xbox games, does the premium system offer that much more than the core system?
You're not really saying anything that contradicts what I said, so I don't know how you don't understand why, unless you read my paragraph wrong. The Core system is definitely for people who don't have an HDTV or prefer online gaming with the Xbox. The only reason someone like that would buy a Premium system otherwise is if they planned on utilizing custom soundtracks (which every game will support), don't own an original Xbox (backwards compatibility is only allowed with the hard drive) or didn't want to pay the somewhat outrageous prices on accessories. I'm hoping that by November the prices on accessories go down because some of them are just wildly inaccurate for their type.

So the $400 system, given what they give you, is actually a good bargain, but it won't give you a significantly better gaming experience than the $300 system, just a more extendable one. Both systems will let you play a game in its entirety from beginning to end with all its features and graphical goodness. But one will let you take the game beyond its original scope and the other will not.

To my knowledge, Final Fantasy XI is the only game for the 360 that actually REQUIRES a hard drive.

[Homesick_Alien]

Giving gamers the choice may or may not hurt their profits..
Well if you think about it. The people that are buying the 400 kit are the ones that MS is really loseing profit on. All the stuff that comes extra with the 400 kit that doesnt with the 300, costs more than that 100 dollar difference. Thats why in my oppinion they should just buy the 400 * if this sounds fanboyish i apologise* cause in all reality there kinda getting the short end of the deal with the 300. Just the fact that your getting more for your money with the 400 i think would push the "casual" gamer to wait a bit and get the extra 100 bucks and buy the more expensive one. But i dont know, im really tired right now but if you can gather what i mean by all of that then i think youll see what i mean.

-Homesick

[Shnay]

You're not really saying anything that contradicts what I said, so I don't know how you don't understand why, unless you read my paragraph wrong. I did read it wrong, it turns out. Still, I was slightly confused about the differences between the two as I've heard other people say that the core system is a joke, and I didn't see enough difference between the two to suggest that. Now I know that my perceptions about the two systems are correct, I'll assume that the comments about the core system being for house wives and little girls as coming from fanboys or Live enthusists.

I'm still considering the premium system (well, I'm still considering all the new systems) mainly because of the possibility of good downloadable content and the chance that I'll find myself with an HDTV in the future, though I don't plan on getting one at the moment. Does anyone know when HD is predicted to be the standard?

[Drachentöter]

All I want to know is this:

Would it be cheaper for me to get the core system and then buy XBOX Live Gold (the only service that actually lets me play online) and the media remote separately? Or would that be more than $400?

Actually, this is purely hypothetical, since I have nowhere near the cash to get this, unless I sold my practically new XBOX and semi-beat up PS2.

[Killtacular]

I'm still considering the premium system (well, I'm still considering all the new systems) mainly because of the possibility of good downloadable content and the chance that I'll find myself with an HDTV in the future, though I don't plan on getting one at the moment. Does anyone know when HD is predicted to be the standard?
The switch to digital cable is at the end of 2006 and I assume that most stores will be primarily stocking HDTVs by then. I don't think the market penetration will be as huge as broadband internet surged over the course of 2004 but there will still be a sizable amount of owners, and undoutedably a lot more HD-ready channels that what is available right now.

[fantastic 7]

The premium 360 is definently worth it; just look at the advantages it has:

1.detachable hard drive...estamated price=$99.99
2.wireless controller...estamated price=$49.99
3.headset...estamated price=19.99
4.HD-AV cable...estamated price=39.99
5.faceplate...????
6.media remote...???
7.silver membership...???

TOTAL PRICE=$210+++ if bought seperate

NOTE: the prices are from Microsoft's website

[guinaevere]

People sometimes like to compare specs of consoles to PCs but it doesn't really work that way. 512 megs for a 360 will go a lot farther than 512 megs for a PC (which isn't even enough to really play a game like FAR CRY with any acceptable speed -- but Far Cry is being ported to the ORIGINAL Xbox as we speak, along with Half Life 2!!). But you can't really compare Far Cry/HL2 original pc versions to the compressed ports, so that's not the best analogy either.

You may be thinking about next-gen memory usage the wrong way, though. The big memory hog isn't going to be polygons, rather it's texture usage. Last gen games didn't make that much use of multiple textures per surface, but this time around, there's word of developers using eight or more per surface. At the moment, I can't even think of what they're doing with most of those. Developers are talking about using hdr textures - large ones - and at 64 bits per pixel, those things take up space fast. It's this sort of thing that makes me all squishy inside. *sigh of contentment*

However, there's just no comparison to playing Doom 3 on a computer at a high resolution with full-screen anti-aliasing and all settings on high. Although, Doom 3 on a big screen TV is an amazing experience in itself, despite the relative blurriness. While I haven't (and won't) play Doom in any iteration (though I love id for what they're able to do technically), the comparison of pc to tv screen can be a tough call to make. With a nicer telly (720+), component cables and a console game that actually makes use of higher graphics, it's soooooooo nice to be able to sit further back and enjoy a large screen experience.

Yeah, there's definately a loss in quality but not as much as one would expect.

[Killtacular]

But you can't really compare Far Cry/HL2 original pc versions to the compressed ports, so that's not the best analogy either.
Far as I know the only difference between HL2 on PC and Xbox is the Xbox version is aliased and has smaller texture resolution (since it only outputs at 480p). Otherwise it's supposedly running at a consistent 30fps and is otherwise uncompromised.

As for Far Cry it's a completely new game but most places have said the engine is nearly identical to the PC version, only the HDR/bloom is cranked up extremely high for reasons I don't know.

They're far closer PC ports than, say, Deus Ex to the PS2 (which is sluggish and ugly like a PS1 game!!).

[guinaevere]

Far as I know the only difference between HL2 on PC and Xbox is the Xbox version is aliased and has smaller texture resolution (since it only outputs at 480p). The problem I have with the aliasing is similar to my complaints with the ps2 backwards ps1 running... it blurs the graphics too much to my liking (which is why I kept the original ps for the ps1 games).

And is it only 480p? I don't know what I was thinking. Brain lurch. Thought it was 720. No... that can't be right. Maybe I was thinking 720i? I need a brain upgrade. Either that, or it's time to shut down for the night.

As for Far Cry it's a completely new game but most places have said the engine is nearly identical to the PC version, only the HDR/bloom is cranked up extremely high for reasons I don't know. Same. The folks I've talked with had some explination but it was all drivel, imo.

They're far closer PC ports than, say, Deus Ex to the PS2 (which is sluggish and ugly like a PS1 game!!). Oh, absolutely. I wasn't saying they were. Just that they're still not a straight 1:1 comparison.

[Killtacular]

The problem I have with the aliasing is similar to my complaints with the ps2 backwards ps1 running... it blurs the graphics too much to my liking (which is why I kept the original ps for the ps1 games).
You're describing anti-aliasing.

And is it only 480p? I don't know what I was thinking. Brain lurch. Thought it was 720. No... that can't be right. Maybe I was thinking 720i? I need a brain upgrade. Either that, or it's time to shut down for the night.
If it's 720p, that's news to me. All the screenshots I've seen were 480p and only 9 or 10 games in the original Xbox's entire library go to 720 (and even less to 1080i).

[LordByronius]

I won't be buying a 360 until after this year's holiday blitz, pending an obscene amount of money raining from the sky and into my hands.

But, I'm getting the Premium package. Even if budget limitations forced me to buy the Core system, I'd end up buying the extras and upgrades at a later date anyway, and the hard drive alone is an extra 100 bucks. I'd rather forfeit short-term savings for long-term gain.

Reasons why:

1) I have access to an HDTV.
2) Wireless controllers make me happy. I don't mind battery upgrades. Keeping batteries around for toys reminds me of being a kid. I like that.
3) HARD DRIVE. Not specifically for the 360's games, but I *do* plan on utilizing whatever half-assed backwards compatability for the first Xbox Microsoft plans on delivering.

Speaking of backwards compatability, that's pretty much the main reason I'm forgoing a 360 on launch. Full Auto and Perfect Dark Zero look like awesome fun, and Kameo's shaping up pretty good - but those games are still pricey and after a 400 dollar console, I'd much rather rack up cheaper Xbox titles. Like, say, the SNK stable of games.

But, since Microsoft has this craaaaazy idea of making "top-selling" games compatible first, I'm pretty sure Metal Slug 3 won't be playable on the 360 for a while.

[atf487]

Its sort of annoying, because if they really wanted this to work, they should've priced the core cheaper. a hard drive, headset, xbl gold membership, wireless controller, cables etc is probably around 200 dollars. So for paying 100 more for the premium, you get 200 over the core. Now, if they charged 250 or so, they would win people over to the core, and it would split people in the middle, so not everyone would go for the premium. More people would probably mix and match with the alternate accessories too. Personally I think it also is terrible to make the hard drive optional because like it's been said, they're going to shoot for the common denominator.

Anyway, I cant afford this stuff. If a core is like 150 in 2 years I'll pick one up, but I don't need one. I only use my xbox for Xbox Media Center anyway.

[Romey]

The problem I have with the aliasing is similar to my complaints with the ps2 backwards ps1 running... it blurs the graphics too much to my liking (which is why I kept the original ps for the ps1 games).You're describing anti-aliasing.Because of the PS2 comments, it sounds more like she's describing texture filtering, to me, though I'm still somewhat confused. Doesn't the PS2 default to no enhancements on PS1 games? On mine, and for everyone else I know, you have to turn on PS1 texture filtering manually every time you restart the system.

The "blurring" should really only be an issue on low-res textures and images, anyway. However, I don't get why some people can't stand anti-aliasing. How can anyone prefer having ugly, garbled jagged edges everywhere? Computer scientists have long been searching for better ways to remove aliasing for a reason... right?

--Romey

[Matt-a-Tastic]

I'd defentlly get the premium one. xboxes take up a lot of space so it would be much better to have one console that plays both then have two consoles.

[guinaevere]

Because of the PS2 comments, it sounds more like she's describing texture filtering, to me, though I'm still somewhat confused. Doesn't the PS2 default to no enhancements on PS1 games? On mine, and for everyone else I know, you have to turn on PS1 texture filtering manually every time you restart the system. Bingo. And it's still not as clear as the original ps playing ps games. Hence, I keep the ps console and am happy ever-more.

However, I don't get why some people can't stand anti-aliasing. How can anyone prefer having ugly, garbled jagged edges everywhere? Hey, I LIKE staircasing and jaggies. Just keep 'em outta my cartoons.

If it's 720p, that's news to me. All the screenshots I've seen were 480p and only 9 or 10 games in the original Xbox's entire library go to 720 (and even less to 1080i). No you're right. My posting rights should have a last-call cut-off time. I get too groggy. http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/v76/guinaevere/smilies/loopy_toungue.gif

[Romey]

Hey, I LIKE staircasing and jaggies. Just keep 'em outta my cartoons.Truly baffling, I must say. :sweat:

--Romey

[guinaevere]

Oh, I was kidding. But there is a line between jaggies and blur. The PS(1) did a better job of managing it for its software than the PS2 does.

[Romey]

Oh, I was kidding. But there is a line between jaggies and blur. The PS(1) did a better job of managing it for its software than the PS2 does.Not fair to be kidding when I've actually seen people honestly defend jaggies. :p

As for the PS2, I never really noticed that huge a difference between it's unfiltered mode and the PS1, myself.

--Romey

[Phlibbit]

If it's 720p, that's news to me. All the screenshots I've seen were 480p and only 9 or 10 games in the original Xbox's entire library go to 720 (and even less to 1080i).


Actually, there's a bit more than 30 games that go to 720.

[Martianinvader]

I can only say what everyone else has. Microsoft did it this way so it could have its cake and eat it too. Us educated techno-types can have our tricked out console and the people who know nothing about games beyond Madden can have their value because they probably won't use all that extra stuff.

$400 is too much for me though. So's $300.

[Killtacular]

I can only say what everyone else has. Microsoft did it this way so it could have its cake and eat it too. Us educated techno-types can have our tricked out console and the people who know nothing about games beyond Madden can have their value because they probably won't use all that extra stuff.

$400 is too much for me though. So's $300.
Then wait for a year... seeing as you must be used to this process... seeing as consoles generally are released for the price of $299. You're lucky inflation hasn't touched gaming.

[guinaevere]

You're lucky inflation hasn't touched gaming. Eh, following the Consumer Price Index, inflation has been trending down (http://www.gpec.org/InfoCenter/Topics/Economy/USInfl4.gif) since the most recent high (1990).

Producers price index is also graphed on the chart, but that's cost of producing, not cost to consumer. PPI always fluctuates.

[Adam Tyner]

But, I'm getting the Premium package. Even if budget limitations forced me to buy the Core system, I'd end up buying the extras and upgrades at a later date anyway, and the hard drive alone is an extra 100 bucks.Think of it this way too -- you'd have to buy a memory card if you bought the core system. That's $40 right there. If you're spending $340, you might as well spend the extra little bit and get 320X the capacity of a single memory card, with the added bonus of wireless, etc.

I'm with you on all three of your reasons.

I'm planning on grabbing Perfect Dark Zero, Dead or Alive 4, and Project Gotham Racing 3 as soon as they're released. There are a slew of other titles I have my eye on, but I'd want to hear more about 'em before taking the plunge on something like Kameo.