Obviously it’s too early to declare the PS3-Blu-Ray bundle a winner over the XBox 360 + $200 HD-DVD one. But I will point out that the former strategy is clearly designed to get more BDROM into the home, the latter strategy is designed to sell more consoles.

It looks like Microsoft tried to do to Sony Blu-Ray what they did to IBM OS/2. This time they didn’t fall for it. Fallout for this will definitely be that Windows Media’s VC1 will be an unused part of the Blu-Ray standard. I predict everyone will be encoding on H.264 instead. Ouch!

One thing I hate about the article. Everyone portrays this as a reprise of Sony BetaMax vs. JVC VHS while ignoring the most salient fact: BetaMax tapes were limited to 60 minutes at the time: not enough for a full length movie.

The article is a riot. Did you know that Intel has a director of optical media standards and technologies? Neither did the optical media industry. And check out the analyst the quoted: who the fuck is “In-Stat”?

If games are DVD-only then the content is still limited relative to the PlayStation 3’s BD-ROM. Also it would only have value as a home entertainment console and Microsoft’s Xbox 360 home entertainment play sounds like something that will only work on paper.

If games will be available on HD-DVD then it fragments the market further and punishes heavily punishes the early adopters (something you don’t want to do—they are your fanatical base). Also, Sony should rethink Windows Media support in Blue-Ray. Plus it doesn’t deal with the fact that XBox doesn’t support the most useful thing to dump on an HD-DVD: 1080p video.

In any case, a comment like this, if true, means you should definitely not go buy an Xbox 360 until 6 months after launch.

the thing to remember that while we designed a no compromises game system, a huge percentage of our customers are not like the folks in this chat room. recognize that more than 75% of the folks on xbox have not played halo. by introducing the core system we are sending a signal to the market that we are committed to this part of the market just like with the xbox 360 premium bundle that we are committed to you.

Ignoring the irony of designing a “no compromises game system” and then compromising it on price. It sounds that Microsoft thinks market segmentation in the console market is a Good Thing. I wonder how their “Developers, Developers, Developers” feel about that? I’ll give Microsoft credit for having the cojones to go for two markets with one box.

Personally, I think 75% of the Xbox market has not played Halo because 50% of the population is female. I also wonder what the #1 selling title for the Playstation 2 or the Nintendo GameCube was. Methinks they sold less much less than 25% of the total installed base. If that is the case, then shouldn’t Microsoft be spending development efforts on making games that aren’t first person shooters and sports sims? It seems only one demographic would buy those. Granted that’s a coveted demographic, but those people also blow $3k on a tricked out PC for gaming, they probably will be buying a Microsoft Xbox 360, Sony Playstation 3, and a Nintendo Revolution without thinking.

(Finally, wouldn’t a “no compromises game system” at this point include built-in WiFi?)

The bastages! I’m going to have to come up with an article saying the exact opposite of this.

I would think that Sony would have to unbundle the hard drive. I wonder if the WiFi/Bluetooth is going to go to? Unlike Microsoft, Sony can merge chips again for increased cost savings down the road so maybe they don’t taking a loss on things like that as dangerous to their long-term prospects.

This reinforces my belief that there are two Xboxes. The first one at $300 and another Xbox at $400 + $250/5 years for online and multiplayer gaming.

Sony’s strategy seems to be to $300 for a core non-online multiplayer gaming experience + ?? for online/multiplayer games + ?? for a larger hard disk for convergence features. It makes sense because their MMO experience on consoles is record is pretty bad (despite having Square in the stable, despite having the #1 all-time title Everquest).

It seems that the Xbox 360 has too small/expensive hard drive for convergence and the Playstation 3 has relegated the hard drive to a high-end niche. Wow! that must suck for all the people who have sunk 10 years in that idea based on books like Innovator’s Dilemma.

Winner: Tivo?

In general, I like the idea of a removable/upgradable hard drive and I think the hard drive size might be a nice way to segment the market, but I think Microsoft is really squandering an advantage of the Xbox by not levering a hard drive with the 360.

George mentioned that he doesn’t think that the hard drive is a deal killer for the developer since it only affects Xbox Live and remote upgrades and some people who like MMORPGs. I guess we beg to differ since I feel as a consumer, hearing two prices (coupled with a lack of backward compatibility) makes me want to adopt a “wait-and-see” about which one the market is actually going to buy and I think a developer who is going to require a hard drive is going to be quite put out that they are taking on unnecessary risk: We can take it as given that Microsoft will find a way for the Xbox 360 to sell, even if that means losing a lot of money on it, but what if HD capable Xbox 360s don’t sell?