+Warwagon MVC Posted January 3, 2009 MVC Share Posted January 3, 2009 i'm surprised their hasn't been a tool released online that lets you format a regular hard drive so its compatible with a 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skyfrog Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 Every 360 should have had a hard drive as standard, if even a small cheap one like 10GB. This wouldn't be a problem though if Microsoft hadn't forced everyone to use their proprietary and insanely overpriced drives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 3, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 3, 2009 i'm surprised their hasn't been a tool released online that lets you format a regular hard drive so its compatible with a 360. There is :p You just need to buy a specific model of hard drive, and be prepared to do a little DIY work with the 360 hard drive shell casing. It seems MS use the same firmware flash with all the hard drives they use, so they shouldn't ever be able to ban consoles for running modded hard drives (so to speak...). Definitely saves you a buck or two, only limitation is you can't put anything larger than a 120GB drive in, as the 360 drive firmwares max out at that currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted January 3, 2009 Global Moderator Share Posted January 3, 2009 I think the Arcade was originally set for parents / family to purchase a cheap console for someone else in the family, just to increase sales. We all know the Arcade is almost useless without the hard drive, making people spend more, when they could of got a better deal with the premium. You got to read the fine print, and do your research when buying technology these days, or you'll find yourself spending more then you bargained for Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn00pie Posted January 3, 2009 Share Posted January 3, 2009 I'm sorry it came out as a PSN vs XBL argument post, that was not my intention :/ I don't have an unlimited supply in my bank account, but the way I see it is if you don't have $400 bucks in your account, you probably have other priorities then a console. I dislike Microsofts decision on having a barebone model (that's really what the Arcade is) on sale to basically lure and trap customers who are really un-aware of what they're buying. Buyers see the $199 price tag and see the Xbox 360, and they pick it up. Once they open it at home, that's when they realize that their missing half of what they need. The Pro model for $239 (boxing day price) is a much more attractive package for the price. It's obvious that the $199 Arcade is basically just a way for Microsoft to see large unit sales, which is really disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted January 3, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 3, 2009 Oh I do love Sony fans who go completely against everything they ever argued about with the PS2 being better. Lets see, did the PS2 ever include in its box.. 1) hard drive....nope 2) memory card...nope, at least not when I bought it. You can't justify $40 or w/e for XBL for 12 months premium service, but can justify $20+ for 15mb? LAWL gtfo 3) network capabilites, again no, not for at least 5/6 years into its life until the Slim came out. So yes the Arcade is a cheap entry model for people to buy into the 360 brand, they are trying to make money just like any other business. At the same time they are giving consumers choice and making gaming affordable to each of their needs. How can that be a bad thing? You make the Pro and Arcade sound worlds apart, the only difference is the hard drive. A trap? What country do you live in dude. Ever heard of a return policy before? You're arguements reak of ignorance and trolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 (edited) It's obvious that the $199 Arcade is basically just a way for Microsoft to see large unit sales, which is really disappointing. Yeah, really? It's not disappointing at all, it's just giving everyone a choice of what to buy. $199 is way cheaper than the ?200 I paid for the crappy PS2 deal back in the day, with wired controllers, no memory card at all, no choice of online play. Edited January 4, 2009 by Brad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 4, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 4, 2009 sn00pie is posting some nonsense, but why on earth are you guys comparing the PS2 with the Arcade? :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 edit: and solid state HDD's will have the EXACT same issue as HDD's do now anyway in regards to cost related issues. I''m sure the next console will have mass storage and MS will just have to take the cost of that on the chin. Whether it's solid state or a hard disk it doesn't really matter, the cost is still there. No they wont. Yes, they're expensive now because they're a brand new technology, but the same can be said for almost all new technologies. The difference between a Solid State Drive and a Magnetic Hard Drive is that a magnetic hard drive is mostly composed of the same innner parts no matter how big or small it is. The head, the shell, the components, pretty much everything except the platters themselves are always going to be needed. This is why as HDD's get bigger, the price difference between smaller drives gets smaller and smaller. Say a 500Gb drive costs $50, then in theory a 200GB drive should cost $20 and a 10Gb drive should cost $1, but in reality that 200Gb drive probably costs closer to $40 and a 1Gb drive (if anyone decided to make one) would cost like $25. Solid State Drives don't have this problem, they're literally little more than memory chips soldered onto a board with a SATA connection attached to the end. As the manufacturing process becomes more refined, they'll be able to squeeze more chips out of the same amount of Silicon (or whatever material they're using at the time) and the prices will fall. Look at Flash Memory today, such as SD cards and such. A few years ago, I remember buying a 256Mb SD card for ?30, I've seen them today for less than ?1 and 8Gb SDHC cards costing less than ?10. Magnetic Disks can't benefit from this because the only thing that gets smaller (And thus cheaper) is the platter (Although rather than make them smaller, they just make their capacity bigger). Rock Band/Rock Band 2Guitar Hero III/World Tour Bioshock Little Big Planet Mirror's Edge Burnout Paradise Midnight Club: LA Dead Space Buzz! Quiz TV Every PSN title created Not all, but let's look at who it's aimed towards: the same people that would buy the Best Buy video game console installation. Im not saying that's all that would buy an Arcade, I'm saying that's the market for it -- casual gamer. You missed what I was asking. Pretty much all those games do NOT use the Hard Drive for the game itself, they only use it as storage space (for which a memory card would suffice - LBP may be the only exception there). They may use DLC, but as I pointed out the Arcade is designed for those who are not interested in or are not capable of playing on Live. So DLC doesn't come into it, I'm asking PURELY which games NEED a hard drive to RUN. Dead Space? Works on the 360 without a Hard drive. Mirrors Edge is the same. Guitar Hero and Rock band are the same (they work on the PS2/Wii ffs), pretty sure Bioshock works without one as well. Burnout Paradise needs a HDD....for online play. Once again, doesn't count. So, my point again for those who missed it - if you don't connect to live, do you need a HDD? I think the answer is a resounding "no" so far. i'm surprised their hasn't been a tool released online that lets you format a regular hard drive so its compatible with a 360. There is, actually, it only works with certain Western Digital Drives because that's all the author had at the time, but in theory it'd be possible to do it with any drive. Every 360 should have had a hard drive as standard, if even a small cheap one like 10GB. This wouldn't be a problem though if Microsoft hadn't forced everyone to use their proprietary and insanely overpriced drives. Except it IS a problem. As I already explained, most of the components in a Hard Drive do NOT get cheaper over time. They're Mechanical, not electronic, so you can't just bump up a manufacturing process to make them cheaper, the best you can do is streamline and automate a process more, but materials and such are still going to come into it. At the end of the original Xbox's life, literally half the cost of the console was on the "cheap" 8GB (I think it was 8, might be less) Hard Drive inside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn00pie Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 sn00pie is posting some nonsense, but why on earth are you guys comparing the PS2 with the Arcade? :blink: I think random blabbering is a better way to put it :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted January 4, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 4, 2009 sn00pie is posting some nonsense, but why on earth are you guys comparing the PS2 with the Arcade? :blink: Because it was MS's intention to market and sell the Arcade exactly the same way Sony did with the PS2. Where there wasn't any high costing components which they could cut the price on and under cut the competitions prices. Which is exactly what they've done. (this is also where Sony's stupid PR comment about MS aiming for the PS2, and them forgetting about the PS3, originated from). Sn00pie is talking BS because he is happy when Sony didn't include a memory card / hard drive or a network expansion for the PS2, yet when MS do it they are of course the "big evil capitalist money making devils", "it's a trap!!1!" blah blah blah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sn00pie Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Sn00pie is talking BS because he is happy when Sony didn't include a memory card / hard drive or a network expansion for the PS2, yet when MS do it they are of course the "big evil capitalist money making devils", "it's a trap!!1!" blah blah blah. Well to be honest, back when I bought my PS2, online play was unheard of. Paying $20 bucks for a memory card that held a significant amount of game save data (at those times) at that time was not bad. Especially considering I only had to buy one and infact I still use it with my PS2 today..to play GT4 of course. I never said I supported Sony forcing you to buy a memory card with the PS2, your just putting words in my mouth. I do agree with you that that was wrong, but it is no different then what Microsoft has done with the X360, which you seem to justify. It's quite funny how your really the PS2 with the X360. That is sad, especially considering the PS2 was a whole generation ago, costs were different, the technology was different. I believe I paid something like $600 for my PS2, yeah with OMG wired controllers. Wireless controllers have only become expected this generation of consoles, so its really pointless to even bring them into the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 Wireless controllers have only become expected this generation of consoles, so its really pointless to even bring them into the argument. I mentioned wired controllers as sarcasm. I just don't see why people can say the Arcade is a ''waste'' or ''pointless''. It really isn't and people do get a decent gaming console for their money, a much better console that they would have got 5+ years ago. Decrease in costs and production aside, that's the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smigit Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 No they wont. Yes, they're expensive now because they're a brand new technology, but the same can be said for almost all new technologies. The difference between a Solid State Drive and a Magnetic Hard Drive is that a magnetic hard drive is mostly composed of the same innner parts no matter how big or small it is. The head, the shell, the components, pretty much everything except the platters themselves are always going to be needed. This is why as HDD's get bigger, the price difference between smaller drives gets smaller and smaller. Say a 500Gb drive costs $50, then in theory a 200GB drive should cost $20 and a 10Gb drive should cost $1, but in reality that 200Gb drive probably costs closer to $40 and a 1Gb drive (if anyone decided to make one) would cost like $25.Solid State Drives don't have this problem, they're literally little more than memory chips soldered onto a board with a SATA connection attached to the end. As the manufacturing process becomes more refined, they'll be able to squeeze more chips out of the same amount of Silicon (or whatever material they're using at the time) and the prices will fall. Look at Flash Memory today, such as SD cards and such. A few years ago, I remember buying a 256Mb SD card for ?30, I've seen them today for less than ?1 and 8Gb SDHC cards costing less than ?10. Magnetic Disks can't benefit from this because the only thing that gets smaller (And thus cheaper) is the platter (Although rather than make them smaller, they just make their capacity bigger). Yes but SSD's are still a cost. If MS's motive behind removing the HDD from the 360 was cost related then SSD's will still have that cost factor. In 2 - 3 years when we will likely see a new XBox, 64 - 128GB HDD's likely still won't be all that cheap relative to how much they could just get a standard hard drive. I agree it's a route they will eventually go but I doubt the next XBox will ship with one (SSD). The costs are too high and theres really no reason to push SSD's in a console right now. If they make the HDD removeable then they can swap them over 7 years or so from now but at the time they launch the console I'm sure ecenomically it will be best to use a mechanical drive. I think part of the issue that will force that decision is I firmly believe in 2 - 3 years from now Live will be offering digital distribution of new titles. It won't replace physical sales but it will go in conjunction with them similar to steam. With some games already having 11gig downloads on steam I'd also go on to believe that the 360 would need to have storage to hold a number of blu ray discs in full meaning they would need to be looking at closer to 240 or 320 gig drives if not larger as opposed to 120gigs or whatever which are capacities SSD's havent hit yet and will likely still be expensive at the next consoles launch. Every 360 should have had a hard drive as standard, if even a small cheap one like 10GB. I'd say 20Gig was a better min. The Xbox takes about 6 gigs of the HDD to store other data as seen in the 20gig where users get about 13 gigs made available to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrunknMunky Veteran Posted January 4, 2009 Veteran Share Posted January 4, 2009 Well to be honest, back when I bought my PS2, online play was unheard of. Paying $20 bucks for a memory card that held a significant amount of game save data (at those times) at that time was not bad. Especially considering I only had to buy one and infact I still use it with my PS2 today..to play GT4 of course. And you can do the exact same thing with the 360 MU's. I never said I supported Sony forcing you to buy a memory card with the PS2, your just putting words in my mouth. I do agree with you that that was wrong, but it is no different then what Microsoft has done with the X360, which you seem to justify. No you didn't say you supported Sony doing it, but you're hanging MS out to dry over it though. Basically only picking and choosing when its a "problem" to support your arguement. It's quite funny how your really the PS2 with the X360. That is sad, especially considering the PS2 was a whole generation ago, costs were different, the technology was different. I believe I paid something like $600 for my PS2, yeah with OMG wired controllers. Wireless controllers have only become expected this generation of consoles, so its really pointless to even bring them into the argument. I never said anything about wired/wireless controllers :huh:? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 Yes but SSD's are still a cost. If MS's motive behind removing the HDD from the 360 was cost related then SSD's will still have that cost factor. In 2 - 3 years when we will likely see a new XBox, 64 - 128GB HDD's likely still won't be all that cheap relative to how much they could just get a standard hard drive. I agree it's a route they will eventually go but I doubt the next XBox will ship with one (SSD). The costs are too high and theres really no reason to push SSD's in a console right now. If they make the HDD removeable then they can swap them over 7 years or so from now but at the time they launch the console I'm sure ecenomically it will be best to use a mechanical drive. I think part of the issue that will force that decision is I firmly believe in 2 - 3 years from now Live will be offering digital distribution of new titles. It won't replace physical sales but it will go in conjunction with them similar to steam. With some games already having 11gig downloads on steam I'd also go on to believe that the 360 would need to have storage to hold a number of blu ray discs in full meaning they would need to be looking at closer to 240 or 320 gig drives if not larger as opposed to 120gigs or whatever which are capacities SSD's havent hit yet and will likely still be expensive at the next consoles launch. I'd say 20Gig was a better min. The Xbox takes about 6 gigs of the HDD to store other data as seen in the 20gig where users get about 13 gigs made available to them. No no no no no, I never said the decision not to include a Hard Drive in the Arcade was purely to reduce the cost of the console at that point, what I said (or rather, what I meant to say) was that it was decided so that the cost of the console could more easily be reduced over time. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all design their hardware in such a way that the cost of producing it can be lowered as quickly as possible (Sony's probably a better example of this, looking at how quickly they were able to cut the cost of the PS3, but it's still noticeably expensive). Mechanical Hard drives are always going to reach a point where the cost simply cannot be reduced any further (due to the mechanical parts), which potentially means that a few years from now, literally half the price of the console will be the Hard Drive. Obviously, for live and all that it offers, a Hard Drive is pretty important so they decided to hit a balance between hacving a hard drive and not having a hard drive - do both. It comes down to cost/benefit. There are benefits to having a Hard Drive, that's obvious, but the benefits of them are vastly overstated for quite a large number of console owners. Really, they only became a staple in consoles once online became more important, starting with the original Xbox and what I'm trying to say is if your console never goes online, the Hard Drive is little more than a glorified Memory Card. I feel that Microsoft could definitely explain this better, they should have called the Premium/Pro the "live" edition or something and had a leaflet inside the Arcade to say "Want to get the most from your Console? Pick up a Live Starter Kit and get the most from Live" or something to that end (maybe they do, I don't know, I don't own an Arcade), but I certainly don't think it's a "scam". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I never said anything about wired/wireless controllers :huh:? I did ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Pumpkin Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 I can't actually reply to this topic any longer without being absolutely enraged. How can it be a waste of time when people buy them. 2 years ago when I was 16 my parents bought me a Core *readies myself for having rotten fruit thrown at* for Xmas, I was absolutely over the moon, I got Gears of War too off of my girlfriend at the time. Now I was sat there playing my Core system in SD on a portable TV/DVD with a wired controller and no way of saving (Cores didnt have an MU). BUT, I was still over the moon! Would MS have made that sale if there was no Core? No. Would I have ever gotten into the 360 if there was no Core? no. And because I got a Core, I have since sopent loads of dosh on games, controllers, I bought a second hand hard drive, I bought a wired headset. BUT the thing is I bought these things as I needed them. Which was a lot more cost effective for me, personally. NOW how can you people who clearly have never been in a situation where you would have been restricted to only buying a Core or an Arcade (because you argue their uselessness) say that they are a waste of time. When I have gotten so much enjoyment out of it. and MS have made so much money out of me. I love my 360, and I would never have gotten into it if there was no lowest cost option. IMO, this topic is now over, I can't imagine a valid comeback to this post, if anyone actually reads it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GadgetFreak Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 It's pretty simple.. you get to play all next gen games on a $199 console. Don't see what's a waste of time there? It's modular so in case you get more money later you can add accessories. If anything it's great device that gives you choices to expand but does it's primary purpose great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad. Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 -snip- You, Pumpkin, are a perfect example of what a few of us have been saying. Thank you for posting that xD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Pumpkin Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 You, Pumpkin, are a perfect example of what a few of us have been saying. Thank you for posting that xD :wub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kushan Posted January 4, 2009 Author Share Posted January 4, 2009 I can't actually reply to this topic any longer without being absolutely enraged.How can it be a waste of time when people buy them. 2 years ago when I was 16 my parents bought me a Core *readies myself for having rotten fruit thrown at* for Xmas, I was absolutely over the moon, I got Gears of War too off of my girlfriend at the time. Now I was sat there playing my Core system in SD on a portable TV/DVD with a wired controller and no way of saving (Cores didnt have an MU). BUT, I was still over the moon! Would MS have made that sale if there was no Core? No. Would I have ever gotten into the 360 if there was no Core? no. And because I got a Core, I have since sopent loads of dosh on games, controllers, I bought a second hand hard drive, I bought a wired headset. BUT the thing is I bought these things as I needed them. Which was a lot more cost effective for me, personally. NOW how can you people who clearly have never been in a situation where you would have been restricted to only buying a Core or an Arcade (because you argue their uselessness) say that they are a waste of time. When I have gotten so much enjoyment out of it. and MS have made so much money out of me. I love my 360, and I would never have gotten into it if there was no lowest cost option. IMO, this topic is now over, I can't imagine a valid comeback to this post, if anyone actually reads it! That is pretty much IT! The Hard drive is always going to be a (relatively) expensive component. When the 360 first came out, the Bill of Parts probably would have placed the HDD fairly low down, but over time it'll end up being the most expensive thing in the console. So Microsoft decided to give people an option - HDD or no HDD. HDD is obviously better, but for some people, like SP here, it would have just been TOO expensive. At least this way, for those who ARE interested in Live, they can still get the console and play some Kickass games, then when they're ready and able to afford the extra bit of cost, go for it. It's like getting the Console a Year Earlier and just missing out on Live for a few months as opposed to having to wait until Next Christmas when the price of the HDD-equipped version was cheaper. Of course, that doesn't mean they wont Capitalise on this a little bit, all corporations do that (And contrary to what people may think, I'm not supporting that here). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 4, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 4, 2009 That is pretty much IT! The Hard drive is always going to be a (relatively) expensive component. When the 360 first came out, the Bill of Parts probably would have placed the HDD fairly low down, but over time it'll end up being the most expensive thing in the console. So Microsoft decided to give people an option - HDD or no HDD. HDD is obviously better, but for some people, like SP here, it would have just been TOO expensive. At least this way, for those who ARE interested in Live, they can still get the console and play some Kickass games, then when they're ready and able to afford the extra bit of cost, go for it. It's like getting the Console a Year Earlier and just missing out on Live for a few months as opposed to having to wait until Next Christmas when the price of the HDD-equipped version was cheaper.Of course, that doesn't mean they wont Capitalise on this a little bit, all corporations do that (And contrary to what people may think, I'm not supporting that here). Well they could've shipped every 360 with a hard drive casing (in the cores case have no hard drive in it), and allowed you to use your own 3rd party hard drives. That would've solved things if hard drives are really the most expensive component, and made upgrading easy, but that's a whole other argument we'll just need to sweep under... Of course, that doesn't mean they wont Capitalise on this a little bit, all corporations do that :p Thank goodness we can mod our own hard drives in though (Y) Arcade owners with some basic computer skills when they want to upgrade should just snatch a 20GB for cheap, then buy a 120GB drive. I helped my friend put a 120GB in his 360 after I done it to mine, worked fine. I just hope MS never find a way to ban consoles for modded hard drives :laugh: Don't think it's possible though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Pumpkin Posted January 4, 2009 Share Posted January 4, 2009 If I was sure that MS would never ban consoles, I would mod my own 120GB HDD in, and I'm a Core owner! And I'm not stupid! :o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Audioboxer Subscriber² Posted January 4, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted January 4, 2009 If I was sure that MS would never ban consoles, I would mod my own 120GB HDD in, and I'm a Core owner! And I'm not stupid! :o They ban consoles for modification of the DVD firmware. While modding a hard drive into your 360 isn't as badly looked upon as using custom firmware (seeing as it's only use is for pirated games), it's still modification of MS hardware which they can ban your console for under the EULA I believe. However as I said, I don't think it should ever be possible to trace modded hard drives, nor do I think they'd care that much, even although it's eating into their profits a little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts