Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Xbox 360 20 GB Price Cut "While Supplies Last"

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the fire-sale dept.

XBox (Games) 92

Erik J sends word that the rumored price cut on the 20-GB Xbox 360 is true, sort of. The Seattle PI's coverage says: "But the reduction isn't exactly what it might have appeared. In reality, it's more like a clearance sale, designed to empty the shelves for a new Xbox 360 with three times the digital storage, at the same price as before... As widely reported in advance, Microsoft is dropping the price of the 20-gigabyte Xbox 360 to $299.99. The unexpected twist: Sales of that model will end when current supplies run out."

cancel ×

92 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WTB Link (5, Insightful)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 6 years ago | (#24174875)

Hard to RTFA without a link to TFA...

Re:WTB Link (5, Informative)

D'Sphitz (699604) | more than 6 years ago | (#24174945)

Re:WTB Link (3, Informative)

peipas (809350) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175779)

This link [nwsource.com] will remain valid after it's no longer the latest post.

Re:WTB Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24176123)

Link: http://snagwiremedia.com/xbox-360-20-gb-price-cut-while/

Re:WTB Link (3, Funny)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 6 years ago | (#24174951)

Link to the article? You must be new here...

Re:WTB Link (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175127)

It's not immediately obvious, but the link is present in the poster's URL name. I don't believe it is possible to submit an article without submitting a link. The editors should have at least made it more obvious.

Re:WTB Link (1)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175983)

I haven't submitted anything without a link in a long time, but I know it was possible, though a little nag deal would recommend adding a link.

First Post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24174965)

Can I haz first post?

Re:First Post (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24175101)

Bad news: you didn't get first post. Even worse news: you're a retard.

Re:First Post (1)

professional_troll (1178701) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176863)

Bad news: Your name isn't Captain Obvious. Even worse news: I slept with your wife.

Core (3, Interesting)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24174987)

I have a first gen unit... That produces insane amounts of heat but no RROD, there is also abnormal wear on the top sides of discs inserted into it, and a crazy grinding sound phone reps keep telling me is due to expansion from the DVD drive heating up. Hah, I'll take my next big ticket gaming purchase straight to newegg.com and replace my aging Radeon x1800 xt video card. The right video card for the right person can easily be in use as long as a good console would. Aside from a fan there are no moving parts to break and if it's going to overheat at least I can check it's temperature. Something I thought should of been added to the 360 dashboard at launch.

Re:Core (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175011)

The right video card for the right person can easily be in use as long as a good console would.

Yah, but the quantity of major games fall. While you can play more PC games with a good graphics card, you still can't play any of the major console games, such as Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda, etc. That you can on a console.

Re:Core (2, Insightful)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175085)

Yeah, but console games sometimes suffer from what I like to call, "console vision." The game worlds are limited and confining, possibly due to shoehorning PC genres into a console control scheme.

Case in point: compare battlefield 1942 with battlefront. And compare either of them to Tribes or Tribes 2.

I know those are old examples, but they're representative ones. The "way of thinking" problems are not related to the display hardware: the original tribes ran decently on a P-II 300 mhz machine, yet had over 100 km^2 maps.

Re:Core (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175343)

Case in point: compare battlefield 1942 with battlefront.

Poor example, considering Battlefront was also a PC game. If you had issues with the game, then it's far more likely that they were due to bad game design in general, not bad console game design.

Re:Core (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175621)

I picked it specifically because it is a PC port of a console game. And because the console game borrows gameplay concepts heavily from the battlefield franchise, making them easier to compare.

Re:Core (1)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175705)

No it isn't, though. It was simultaneously developed for the PC and the console. Which brings me back to my original point: did the fact that it was on a console influence its design? Possibly, but it's far more likely that its design would have been largely the same if there were no console version.

Re:Core (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24177119)

No, its FAR FAR FAR more likely that there were concessions on map size, map resources, player count, etc due to the fact that it was developed for consoles as well. Consoles which at the time had about 1/4 to 1/2 the system resources that could be found on the average pc.

Re:Core (2, Interesting)

azuredrake (1069906) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177649)

Odds are the compromises were actually made on content design during the planning phase.

Look at Deus Ex vs. Deus Ex 2: Invisible War. Though DX1 came out years beforehand, it had much larger maps and many more hours of gameplay than DX2. The reason? The xBox couldn't support the DX1-style map sizes, and it was simultaneously developed for both.

Re:Core (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178511)

It probably could have handled them with DX1 graphics but DX2 had more details and those eat memory.

Re:Core (1)

wolf12886 (1206182) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175485)

These days, I often see the reverse happening, ie, console games being made into crappy PC ports, look at Gears of War (the king of quick and dirty PC ports) and Mass Effect, for instance.

With the exception of COD4, the PC version of which is actually pretty slick, most of the modern console ports I've played on PC have been rough at best.

Re:Core (1)

Wooloomooloo (902011) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175571)

You forgot Bioshock. Seems that no one playtested that game with a keyboard and mouse until after people started complaining about the controls.

Re:Core (3, Informative)

azuredrake (1069906) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177661)

The Mass Effect PC port added a whole ton of new features that the 360 version didn't have. In the 360 version, you could not command your squadmates directly, you could just tell them whom to attack. In the PC version, you could directly control your characters, completely changing the feel of the game.

Re:Core (1)

TheLoneDanger (611268) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175601)

Yeah, but console games sometimes suffer from what I like to call, "console vision." The game worlds are limited and confining, possibly due to shoehorning PC genres into a console control scheme.

The ultimate example of this imo is Deus Ex. The first one was an absolute classic, with tons of options and actions, allowing for some truly interesting emergent playstyles. The second one reduced ALL ammo to one generic pool of ammo points, character mods switchable at any time and a much less flexible gear and inventory system to suit console gamers. Oh yeah, and tiny, tiny zones to fit the limited ram of the Xbox. The result was the gutting of what could have been a fantastic gaming franchise.

Re:Core (3, Interesting)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176457)

Deus Ex is also an example the other way. The original if you remember, was ported to the PS2, which made very few changes to gameplay. You could even play with keyboard and mouse if you wanted to.

So don't say "console vision" because it's quite possible to do a PC to console port that keeps the gameplay but makes a few tweaks to the control scheme. Say developer vision instead. It was wrong minded developers who didn't even try hard.

Re:Core (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178519)

Those issues came from the rest of the dev team overruling Warren Spector's oppinion, not the console development model.

Re:Core (1)

Fallingcow (213461) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176349)

Or Resident Evil IV, or Metroid Prime (ooh, gonna step on some shoes there).

Jesus, those games suck. I mean suck, suck suck. HARD. And no, I'm not just bitching about the controls; these games would suck on a PC too, though they'd at least be a bit less painful to slog through.

Halo, too, for that matter.

They're some of the stars of console FPS (OK, REIV is an "action shooter" or whatever, but close enough), yet they're on par with mid-level fan-created mods in the PC world. DATED mid-level fan-created mods, at that (Metroid reminds me of The Gunman Chronicles, big time--talk about a blast from the past).

I hadn't realized till I started getting back in to console gaming again recently that the standards for a "blockbuster" FPS or shooter are so low there. Ick.

OTOH, yeah, Zelda kicks ass, and wouldn't be the same on a PC :)

Re:Core (1)

morari (1080535) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176393)

Resident Evil 4 does suck on the PC, but largely because it was a horribly cheap port that doesn't actually support the mouse in the manner it should. Overall, Resident Evil 4 was a pretty good experience on the GameCube and Wii, despite being dumbed down from previous installments (no risk of running low on ammo, no puzzles to solve, etc).

I can't say anything about Metroid Prime, as I don't play first person shooters on consoles. Gamepads just don't work for that genre, period.

Halo, as you mention, is crap regardless. If you can stomach console controls and have never played any FPS before in your life, then perhaps you could find it entertaining. Overall however, it was ugly and uninteresting at best.

Let's be fair though. The PC side of things hasn't been very good lately either. I think the last truly fun FPS I played was Unreal Tournament 2004. This decline in quality does tie in heavily with the fact that most games are planned to be released on consoles as well. Sad.

Re:Core (1)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178529)

Metroid Prime's controls aren't designed for FPS gameplay, they act kinda like Zelda. It works fine, especially since it plays a lot like Zelda, too (just that you shoot stuff instead of whacking it with a sword).

Re:Core (2, Insightful)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176935)

RE4 sucks on PC. The Gamecube RE4 was actually quite good, handled well.

Your issue seems to be you expect RE4 and Metroid Prime to be FPS games... news flash they aint. Metroid has never been a first person shooter, its just a Metroid game with a first person view. RE4 is a 3rd person action game.

Halo's claim to fame are 2 things 1) The rebounding health meter and 2) making it simple for non-hardcore gamers to pretend to be hardcore gamers. Goldeneye set the standard for console shooters, Halo raised the bar (simplicity).

Consoles and PC's give different experiences and you just judge that if a game doesn't give you the PC experience it therefore sucks... you should be modded flamebait.

Fail

Re:Core (2, Interesting)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178069)

Yeah, but back before Xbox came out, Halo's planned claim to faim was going to be a lot of evolutionary realism improvements that add up to a revolutanary change.

On the list were:

vehicles: not only playable vehicles, but ones with realistic suspensions.

General graphics improvements.

smooth envierment transitions (IIRC, you weren't supposed to *ever* see a "loading" screen, even going from outdoors to indoors) ..Vast playable world. IIRC, the entire ring was supposed to be playable. I don't remember if it was supposed to be mostly dynamically generated procedural content or not, but that seems likely given the area of the ring exceeds the area of an entire earth by a significant margin.

Some of those improvements made it into the final game, but the vastness was gone. As was the FPS-ness, and much of the graphical candy.

Re:Core (1)

yomegaman (516565) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177341)

Metroid Prime is not an FPS, it is a 3D platformer and exploration game. As evidence I offer the fact that I actually finished it, while I am utterly beyond pathetic at real FPS games where you have to aim the gun yourself.

Re:Core (1)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177721)

Metroid Prime is definitely not an FPS, like the sibling poster I suck at FPSs but Metroid Prime was a blast and pretty easy. It's more of an action-adventure game. I was going to say your tastes suck, but then you said Zelda kicks ass, so now I'm confused. I always saw Metroid Prime as a futuristic version of Zelda.

Re:Core (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#24179203)

Or Resident Evil IV, or Metroid Prime (ooh, gonna step on some shoes there).

Jesus, those games suck. I mean suck, suck suck. HARD. And no, I'm not just bitching about the controls; these games would suck on a PC too, though they'd at least be a bit less painful to slog through.

Halo, too, for that matter.

I have played RE 1V on the PS2 and the BC PS3 and the difference is amazing since the PS3 does enhance the graphics. The game play of RE4 is different compared to other RE games even though I actually liked them all since they actually were different. Personally I liked two and three the best.

Personally I thought Metroid for the Gamecube was fairly innovative and really fun and vastly different to the NES and SNES side-scrolling platform versions however I lost interest after that. The same with Zelda. I liked Zelda I and Zelda II (IMHO it was significantly different) while Zelda on the SNES was sort of like Zelda I (I still liked it though, but to me something was missing) then came the first Zelda for the Gamecube which IMHO reinvented Zelda but releases after that while different where not that much different. Don't get me started on Mario.

I have played the PC version of Halo and IMHO it was an adrenaline rush for the first hour but I rapidly lost interest after that. That is normally my attitude to most FPS games however if you like them then fine.

The point I am trying to make here is many games suffer from too much milking with the fist game normally being the best, however I suppose the attitude of the gaming house is if games one, two and three sell well then four, five and six ... etc will really rake in the money and yes Nintendo I am looking at you although to be fair many gaming house do this. Still until people stop buying the latest rehashed game then we are going to have to put up with these clones.

Re:Core (1)

CronoCloud (590650) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176445)

Perhaps instead of comparing PC Battlefield to console Battlefront, you should be comparing PC Battlefield to console Battlefield. Not as much of a difference

Re:Core (0, Redundant)

i.of.the.storm (907783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177709)

Crap, misclicked the moderation. Now I have to post to undo that. Filller text.

Re:Core (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#24179049)

Yeah, but console games sometimes suffer from what I like to call, "console vision." The game worlds are limited and confining, possibly due to shoehorning PC genres into a console control scheme.

With the Xbox 360 and the PS3 the line between console gaming and PC gaming is blurring significantly however it really comes down to the individual gamer and their tastes in games. Personally I think the PC still excels in first person shooters, strategy and massively multi-player on-line RPG's while the console is excellent for action adventure, sport, racing and Japanese RPG's to name a few.

While PC games can display at a much higher resolution than a console game which can only go to 1920 x 1080 since that is the maximum HDTV standard. It is not that common to see PC monitors much over 22" while HDTV can easily exceed 55" although the average HDTV would be around 40". For the PC user to get incredible resolution they normally requires a decent (read expensive) graphics card and a game that can output that resolution. In addition a console gamer will normally play two to four meters (read yards for those in the US) from the screen while a PC gamer plays with a meter or yard of the screen.

To sum up if you are a PC gamer then great and if you are a console game then great.

Mods (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175099)

you still can't play any of the major console games, such as Final Fantasy, Mario, Zelda, etc. That you can on a console.

Nor can you play the partial or total conversions [wikipedia.org] on a console that you can play on a PC.

Re:Core (2)

wild_quinine (998562) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175231)

I'll take my next big ticket gaming purchase straight to newegg.com and replace my aging Radeon x1800 xt video card.

Why? The x1800xt will play any game on the market.

If you want games with the latest pretties, whilst the PC is still the most capable machine in the gaming arena (by a country mile) there's been a real drop off in graphics-itensive development for the PC since that 'aging' card of yours was new.

I bought a hot-rod DX10 card a year and half ago, and frankly I've never used it for anything that my previous X1900XT wouldn't have dealt with at least adequately.

Maybe it's my fault for not caring enough about Crysis, but I'm putting it on CryTek's boring gameplay mechanic, since there wasn't a lot else on the landscape, and I still didn't care... Since most of the world's gaming dev time on graphically superior games now lies with the warring consoles, the smart investment is not on a PC super-rig. The PC is firmly in MMO territory, and bi-annual releases of interest, if you ask me.

Re:Core (1)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175285)

Why? The x1800xt will play any game on the market.

Yeah, I know :) That's why I said my next gaming purchase. I still have easily another year out of this one, and the old Geforce 6600 it replaced is still, 3 years later chugging along quite nicely in my girlfriends rig. Once she gets some new kit with PCIE she'll probably get this radeon, as I'm sick of looking at an SLI motherboard with one (1) ATI card in it, lol.

Re:Core (1)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177641)

Your girlfriend's rig? This is slashdot, that is a giveaway to show you are lying.

Ya know.. (4, Insightful)

d_jedi (773213) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175005)

Ideally, MS should get out of this ridiculous business of charging insanely inflated prices for storage and just open it up to use 2.5" hdd's like Sony has (not that I'm a Sony fan - but in this case, they're clearly superior).

I don't see digital purchases of movies/games/etc. for the 360 really taking off when people are limited to 20GB..

Re:Ya know.. (-1)

philspear (1142299) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175095)

MS makes you buy their overpriced hard drive - if you want storage, but sony makes you buy a blu-ray player reguardless of what model you buy. I have no desire to shell out hundreds of dollars more for a player for a media format I don't have and don't want in the first place. Both consoles sell you more than you want.

Kinda reminds me of some elections: you can't vote based off of "are they good people" because they're both politicians, you have to pick which marketing strategy you prefer. You can't choose a console based off of which company scrooges you over: they're both trying to, you have to choose based on games.

(By the way, I have no delusions that there can be a company that charitably sells me exactly what I want for a fair price and that will stay in buisness for longer than a week, so don't call me naive.)

Re:Ya know.. (3, Insightful)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175277)

You wouldn't see any significant discount on the PS3 by removing the Blu-ray video functionality; you couldn't lose the Blu-ray drive because games are using the extra space, so you'd only lose the video decoding/output.

Re:Ya know.. (1, Insightful)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178549)

Well, the Wii has neither a harddrive nor a Blu-Ray drive...

Re:Ya know.. (1)

steveo777 (183629) | more than 6 years ago | (#24182777)

To be perfectly fair, if you were to buy a PS3 you would be buying a media format that you would indeed be using. PS3 games are put on Blu-Ray discs. Plain and simple. Much in the same way as back in cartridge days. You make a choice to buy a system with whatever media storage you want... provided it is available.

So, while your argument most definitely stands about M$ making you buy ludicrously overpriced storage, Sony does not make you buy anything 'unnecessary'. Overpriced? Perhaps... But it certainly is required to have a Blu-Ray drive on a PS3. Saying they 'make' you buy a Blu-Ray player is akin to saying they 'make' you buy the power adapter, or the Cell Processor it contains.

And if you think the HDD on the 360 are bad, check out their memory cards [ebgames.com] . At that price you'd have to spend $2000 for the same space as the 20GB HDD. Compare that with 8GB SD memory [amazon.com] prices. At current flash memory rates you would need only spend about $60 for 20GB. How's that for getting shafted?!

Re:Ya know.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24175163)

There is that 120 gb version.......

Re:Ya know.. (1)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175197)

... that is ridiculously overpriced. GP wins :)

Re:Ya know.. (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175897)

When I can get a 500GB drive for $69 and the 'upgrade' to a 120GB external drive costs $180, you know they're making a killing on capacity.

Re:Ya know.. (1)

JSBiff (87824) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176741)

To give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt. . .

Is it *possible* that the price difference, at least in part, is because Microsoft is buying higher-quality drives which will last longer, so that they don't have to deal with replacing customer hard drives? Maybe they are doing rigorous quality control and throwing away 1/3 or 1/2 of the hard drives which don't meet the standards (although, ideally, the manufacturer of the HDD should be eating that cost - which they probably are only able to afford by charging more for the drives in the first place).

I mean, I don't know, but my experience with 69 dollar hard drives is they often don't last more than 2 or 3 years. Often they are refurbs. Granted, it's been 3 or 4 years since I actually bought a hard drive, but back then the 69 dollar jobs were the refurbs. I still bought some of them, with the idea that they are cheap, I'd buy the 20 dollar 5-year replacement warranty, make sure I back up regularly, and when they die, just get another drive through warranty.

But, Microsoft can't afford to take such a casual attitude, I would think, as servicing millions of consoles to replace failing hard drives would be expensive, and quite probably a PR nightmare.

Re:Ya know.. (4, Insightful)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176993)

Hard drives have come down in the past few years massivly, yes quality ones too. Microsoft is just overcharging because they are the only supplier of 360 hard drives rather than making them more open like Sony do. I am sure if the actual drive makers (Segate, Maxtor, Western Digital) were able to, they would be releasing 500Gb Drives for $75. This is a case of corporate greed an nothing more.

Oh and if Microsoft seriously did rigorous quality testing and cared about up front quality we wouldn't have had the RRoD plauging every 360 owner I know.

Re:Ya know.. (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178567)

Do you realize you're supporting SONY for being OPEN at this point? Of all the things that Microsoft has screwed up their hardware is generally not one of them. The XBox has some issues but, really, they make some damned fine hardware when they want to. Their hardware's not up to Apple's quality generally but it is still really REALLY good in my opinion and I do use a lot of their peripherals.

Re:Ya know.. (2, Interesting)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 6 years ago | (#24180115)

Do you realize you're supporting SONY for being OPEN at this point?

Sony is more open on this ONE point. They allow you to use third party drives and MicroSoft does not.

The XBox has some issues but, really, they make some damned fine hardware when they want to.

Hmmm... I guess they just didn't want to when it came to the 360. However, I'll agree that their peripherals generally work well.

Re:Ya know.. (2, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181661)

One?

Real USB. Standard DLNA servers. Multiple memory card formats. Third-party codecs. A button to install third-party operating systems (including linux) in the default UI...

Sure... One...

Re:Ya know.. (1)

ShadowsHawk (916454) | more than 6 years ago | (#24194723)

I shouldn't have capitalized 'one'. I was trying to convey that the PS3 was more open. Given my lack of first hand experience with either system, I didn't want to jump in over my head on tech specs.

Re:Ya know.. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177185)

Eh, that $69 drive is a Seagate 7200.10 with a 5 year warranty, other than their SCSI/SAS line it doesn't get better than that wrt reliability.

Re:Ya know.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24177191)

I mean, I don't know, but my experience with 69 dollar hard drives is they often don't last more than 2 or 3 years. Often they are refurbs. Granted, it's been 3 or 4 years since I actually bought a hard drive, but back then the 69 dollar jobs were the refurbs.

That's the price of a top quality hard drive [newegg.com] . You can get the Enterprise version with a longer warranty for $10 more, but it's pretty much the same hardware, except with a few features designed for servers' constant random access.

Western Digital is around the same price and same quality. Between Seagate and WD, they've battled back and forth for the best drive in that capacity, according to many reviews. You can't expect any hard drive to last more than 5 years.

Now if this were an iPod size drive, or smaller, they might have some justification for the high price. As it stands, it's a complete ripoff.

Re:Ya know.. (1)

MojoStan (776183) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178393)

When I can get a 500GB drive for $69

Not a 2.5" hard drive, which is the kind of hard drive the PS3 and Xbox 360 uses. Try finding a price for a 500GB 2.5" hard drive. (They've only recently been announced.)

and the 'upgrade' to a 120GB external drive costs $180, you know they're making a killing on capacity.

A quick Newegg check of 120GB 2.5" hard drives show prices starting at $60, so MS is "making a killing," but it's not nearly as bad as you imply with your comparisons to 3.5" desktop hard drives.

Re:Ya know.. (1)

afidel (530433) | more than 6 years ago | (#24180089)

Wait, 300% markup isn't a killing?!?! Uh, most industries are thrilled to see a 40% profit margin. Oh and that's comparing to retail costs, I'm sure MS is getting a little better deal than newegg is and newegg is already making a profit.

Re:Ya know.. (1)

yanos (633109) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181523)

To be fair, you cannot find a 2.5 inch 500Gb drive for 69$, witch is the type the xbox uses.

Why is the twist unexpected? (2, Informative)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175015)

Clearly they want to get rid of these machines and make room for the ones with more storage. How is that unexpected?

Re:Why is the twist unexpected? (1)

sadgoblin (1269500) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175053)

Well, knowing Microsoft I bet the unexpected part is when they actually reduce the price.

Link to more info (3, Informative)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175243)

As posted [engadget.com] on Engadget, they are clearing out the 20GB model to be replaced by a 60GB model.

As if 20GBs are easier to make (2, Interesting)

atari2600 (545988) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175257)

They (aka MS) clearly didn't learn from their 8GB fiasco with the original Xbox. Some of the latter Xbox models had 20GB formatted to show 8GB space (lolcatz). I am all about giving choice to the consumer but 20GB, no HDD models of the Xbox 360 are ridiculous. It's easier to get a steady supply of bigger HDDs than it is to get 20GB drives.

This is where Sony shines with the smallest disk drive on their machines being 40GB aside from the user having the ability to upgrade the 2.5" drives fairly easily. (I have both the 360 Elite and the PS3).

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175291)

It was not a fiasco, and it was only a 10 GB hard drive, not 20 GB. You might be thinking of some other 10GB hard drive issue.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (1)

Wooloomooloo (902011) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175617)

So, what's the hard disk used for in the 360? I've been considering getting this console, but the Elite version seems overpriced.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (2, Informative)

icegreentea (974342) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175657)

Downloadable content. Patches, extra maps, gameplay types, movies, games from arcade, music. Really, whatever you can pull off Xbox Live.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (2, Informative)

FinchWorld (845331) | more than 6 years ago | (#24175773)

Hmmm, you do realise that no cpu/ram/HDD/generally any electronic device are rarely made to specifically be a substandard device?

For example AMD undoubtidly make all there CPUs with the intention of them being the top of the line CPU technology currently allows for, however alot are unstable, but run stable at a lower speed. So when they put an 8GB drive in the original xbox, it was likely a much higher value that failed to meet the grade and was sold off cheaply, as a year or two, passed HDD manufacturing techniques would have been improved, so were a "Failed" cheap HDD might have once ended up at 8GB, it was now 10, or 20 GB. M$ simply partitioned them smaller as to 8GB to simplify the process of installing them, no point rebuilding software/firmware to handle a higher capacity when there isn't any real benefit (To those who ran them unmodded of course:)).

The current 20GB hard drives were likely the cheap failed end of sata drives when they first started mass production of the 360, likely now no HDD makers go that small (cheaply) so the new line of "failed" HDDs are 80GB or whatever they are going to bundle. As for not letting you use your own, well M$ want you to buy there stuff, and only theres, why else should someone else get payed, its the same with memory cards, controllers, etc. on the 360, unlike the various 3rd party stuff for the original. M$==Vendor lock in.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24177019)

What hard drive makers are making millions of defective hard drives that are functional at lower capacity? I don't think any maker out there is going to have a fail rate high enough to supply microsoft with cheap hdds.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (1, Insightful)

pthor1231 (885423) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177475)

M$==Vendor lock in.

Right, because no other company ever makes lock in. Nope, I'm just imagining memory sticks, atrac audio codec, minidiscs, UMDs and all that jazz.

As far as your comment on running something at a lower spec than it was manufactured, downbinning, is pretty much limited to cpus AFAIK. If the hard drive platter loses so much space that they have to remove gigs of space from the drive, the manufacturer is doing something severely wrong.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (2, Informative)

donaldm (919619) | more than 6 years ago | (#24179373)

Right, because no other company ever makes lock in. Nope, I'm just imagining memory sticks, atrac audio codec, minidiscs, UMDs and all that jazz.

The memory stick and the Minidisk is not just made by Sony it is licensed to other manufacturers as well. Many PC's have SD, Memory Stick and CF adaptors. ATRAC is a Sony proprietary codec and if you care to look there are many other proprietary codecs that have patents on them including some by Microsoft. Basically all vendors try to lock the consumer to their product and Microsoft is IMHO one of the worst for doing this.

As for UMD that is a proprietary Sony format however it is mainly used for the PSP since people could not see the point of buying movies on this disk. UMD has done surprisingly well since it is relatively cheap to produce and stores approx 1.8GB which is fine for the PSP. Of course you could put a game on a memory card (now) but this would still add significantly to the cost to the game.

Re:As if 20GBs are easier to make (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24180445)

This is where Sony shines with the smallest disk drive on their machines being 40GB aside from the user having the ability to upgrade the 2.5" drives fairly easily. (I have both the 360 Elite and the PS3).

Keep in mind, the PS3 has mandatory HDD installs, so that 40GB won't last very long if you're downloading demos, games (GT5P, Warhawk, Pain) and add-ons. Yes, you can upgrade the drive easily, but I don't think most users of the PS3 see themselves as "competent" enough for that.

FWIW, I too have both the 360 Elite and PS3.

Glad I got mine this week (1)

MistrBlank (1183469) | more than 6 years ago | (#24176669)

Glad I did. I don't intend on putting much more than saves and having the drive for games that take advantage of the cache. Got it on thursday at Best Buy, they refunded me the difference earlier today.

Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (2, Interesting)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177013)

It isn't even worth the $299, because I can easily get a much more powerful PC with better graphics and audio and more RAM and a much bigger hard drive for the same amount of memory with a faster CPU to boot.

What I don't like is that new games like Civilization Revolutions are being released for game consoles only and not the PC anymore. Way to go 2K, tick off all of the loyal PC users who bought Civ 4, Civ 4: Warlords, and Civ 4: Beyond the Sword, only to be shut out of the new Civilization game in favor of the XBox 360, Nintendo DS, and Playstation 3. Civilization is better played on a keyboard and mouse not a game pad. It is a thinking game of strategy and tactics, not some "shoot 'em up" high action game console video game.

So now if I want to play Civilization Revolution, the next in the Civilization series, I have to buy a more expensive game console, and when Civilization 5 comes out, no doubt I'll also be forced to buy a brand new PC with better graphics, more RAM, and a faster CPU just to be able to run it.

Thanks for the buggy bloated video games, that are basically the same game with more features added to it as the old game that played on the older systems, only now at a higher price on a new game console that also costs at least $299 to play it on for a $60 game.

It really makes me want to use Freeciv instead, even if it is only 2D graphics and doesn't have all the bells and whistles and fancy animation of the commercial version.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

mckniffen (983873) | more than 6 years ago | (#24177177)

what pc is it that you plan to build for $299 that can outclass the xbox360 in graphics.
Not that I support the xbox or anything, but even if you assume no operating system or monitor, hell lets say you already have a case, cd drives, sound card and hard drive. The motherboard, gpu, cpu, and ram are going to cost you more than $300. Sorry.

Also the reason that many developers are going console only, is because of piracy.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24180543)

For $299 after rebate you can buy a name brand PC (Compaq, Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway, Acer, etc) with at least a 256M NVidia GForce 7000 graphics card.

Civilization series uses SecureROM for copy protection and always asks for that damn DVD in order to play the game.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

badboy_tw2002 (524611) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181801)

A 360 would shred that system. The PS3 would go even further. But I do agree with you, Civ belongs on a PC!

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24177255)

What a Sommelier's dream! Would you like some cheese to go with that?

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24178547)

No, you can build a PC for $299 but not one more powerful than the 360. Same goes for the PS3 at it's price point but ironically, perhaps not the Wii.

Besides, it's irrelevant, they're not the same, the only similarity is that they can both play games. You hit on the more important fact, that although sometimes they play the same games, sometimes they play different games. If you want to play those different games then buy the console but don't suggest you can build a PC that's equivalent then complain that it doesn't have the games you want.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

dissolved (887190) | more than 6 years ago | (#24178663)

Perhaps it's because Civilization Revolutions is specifically tailored to the console market, if you were playing it on a PC you'd probably feel a bit short-changed.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

anomnomnomymous (1321267) | more than 6 years ago | (#24179091)

It isn't even worth the $299, because I can easily get a much more powerful PC with better graphics and audio and more RAM and a much bigger hard drive for the same amount of memory with a faster CPU to boot.

Put your money where your mouth is: Show me a computer that's the equivalent of an Xbox360 for that price.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24180879)

here is one [geeks.com] it has way more features than a XBox. I can build one cheaper here [ascendtech.us] .

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

88NoSoup4U88 (721233) | more than 6 years ago | (#24182483)

Those videocards would not produce the same graphical quality an Xbox360 would bring. I have to give it to you though; it comes very close to 300 bucks.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24184641)

Come on the XBox 360 graphic system Xenos isn't even as great as a Radeon 9000 series. You've been sold a bill of goods. It is such a crappy chipset that it has over-heating problems that cause the red ring of death. Even a NVidia 6000 series is way better than the ATI Xenos chipset in the XBox 360 and it comes standard on sub300 systems now.

One thing a PC can do that an XBox can't, is swap in a PCI Express Video Card and get even better graphics.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

Brigade (974884) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181079)

What I don't like is that new games like Civilization Revolutions are being released for game consoles only and not the PC anymore. Way to go 2K, tick off all of the loyal PC users who bought Civ 4, Civ 4: Warlords, and Civ 4: Beyond the Sword, only to be shut out of the new Civilization game in favor of the XBox 360, Nintendo DS, and Playstation 3. Civilization is better played on a keyboard and mouse not a game pad. It is a thinking game of strategy and tactics, not some "shoot 'em up" high action game console video game

The chief reason is dollars. Developers are having a hard time making back even initial investments on games due to piracy on both sides of the deal. Either the games they release get pirated (and they don't get the cash from sales), or they spend money on DRM that only ends up breaking the majority of the time (and they lose cash from potential sales). Also take into account the install base for your target audience (i.e. High-End graphics cards sold vs. Console bought) and the math argues for itself.

Console gaming has really (in essence) surpassed PC gaming for the first time. The only chief difference is control scheme (no keyboard/mouse), and ease of use/installation (throw the disk in and your done). The latest-generation consoles pretty regularly push graphics and gameplay almost as well as top-end gaming rigs. As far as I am aware, the only PC-centric houses to make any money are the ones like Id that make a game to show off their new engine, sell some copies on top of that, then later sell the rights to other developers (who usually end up making console titles with it).

The cycle used to be release a game on PC, then dumb it down for console play. Now the course has been reversed, you release a hit on a console (Halo, Gears of War, Bioshock), make tons of money (between sales as well as exclusivity), then add a little icing to the cake by throwing it out to PC gamers.

Congrats PC gamers, you just became the Mac Gamers that we used to make fun of.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181601)

Gee it seems as if they didn't do DRM, lower the price of the game, they would sell more copies of it and earn more money.

But no, make it for game consoles, due to piracy, because it isn't like a mod-chip [modchip.com] exists for game consoles and already file sharing networks are sharing over a million copies of the XBox 360 ISO files [google.com] already, right? Game developers won't lose a lot of money on the game console version, will they? :)

Yeah PC gamers just became Mac gamers, and the Mac is now an Intel PC. :)

Ah well, I can still play the Civ 4 series for now. Wait until they fix all of the bugs and memory leaks in the game console version, and then the PC and Mac versions will be better debugged.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

christ, jesus H (1317921) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181987)

You dont want Civ Revolutions on the PC. Its Civilization made for a console, its just a simpler more "kiddie" friendly version of the game, ported to use a controller. The console is the reason it exists, porting it to PC would be silly and redundant.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

Orion Blastar (457579) | more than 6 years ago | (#24184767)

I wonder if Cid Meier learned his lesson from the Super Nintendo version of Civilization I [gamespot.com] that flopped and failed so much his company almost went under?

I have a son and nephews who like Civ 4 on my son's PC, but wish it were easier for them to play. Civ Revolutions would be a good program to install on my son's PC so I don't have to keep giving them advice on how to play the game.

Looks like the real reason to go XBox 360 instead of PC or Mac, is to force people to buy a new gaming console for $299 and then the $59 Civ Revolutions DVD, instead of just buying the $59 Civ Revolutions DVD for the PC or Mac.

What I am upset over is that the Civ Revolutions commercial didn't state that it was only available for game consoles and not the PC or Mac. I had to take my son to the game store, only to find out that it didn't exist for his PC, and I have to buy him an XBox 360 because his Playstation 2 doesn't play it nor does his XP PC.

Just a gimmick to get more money from us, by shutting out the PC and Mac versions and forcing us to buy an XBox 360 to play those games.

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (1)

christ, jesus H (1317921) | more than 6 years ago | (#24186163)

Its a good game, the best strategy game I have ever played on a console, but its still a long way from the "full blown" Civilization experience (and it doesnt "really" do anything new). Personally I am primarily still a PC gamer, but I am less interested in where I play my games then I am in what experience I have playing them. I find consoles (I own 360s) still too limiting and controlled an experience (still feels heavily slanted "for children"). They are still more like training wheels for gamers who will eventually move up to PC (especially in terms of the XBOXLive experience), then true substantial experiences of thier own (although they are getting close).

Re:Bah let me know when the XBox 360 breaks $200- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24200557)

Most makers shy away from the PC because of the massive pirating that occurs, which cuts deeply into their profit margins. Consoles have a tighter lock on that market, with straight out bans on consoles who break the ToS, they can't really do that with a PC...they can try IP bans and such but those are fairly useless tools.

I saw mention of this on the CNN crawl today (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#24177995)

But they misreported the capacity of the new version as 600GB.

Darn. I would have been first in line for that one.

Is the 360 still relevent (1)

christ, jesus H (1317921) | more than 6 years ago | (#24181829)

I own two 360s and have had at least one since January of 2006, so I am not a "hater" or anything. I just wonder how relevent the console really is at this point in its lifecycle. The PS3 is coming on hard with free online play, media options that are improving with nearly every patch and a game library that is finally becoming interesting. Microsoft have entered "cash in" mode on the 360 and dont seem to be interested in doing much to improve the experience any more, while SONY seems to be finally hitting thier stride. I just dont see who is still buying 360s, or why they would buy one now?

Re:Is the 360 still relevent (1)

Funks (661017) | more than 6 years ago | (#24188353)

stride. I just dont see who is still buying 360s, or why they would buy one now?

I haven't bought either PS3, or XBOX360 yet - I do like the exclusives in the 360 though (Ninja Gaiden 2, Gears of War, Halo) - then, there are some games coming out for the PS3's that are exlusive. I also want a Blue Ray drive. So I'm torn between the two machines, so far - the XBOX 360 has more interesting games IMHO.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>