Xbox "720" "Durango" Rumored to Have No Disc Drive

[d8v1d]

No disc drive... that't retarded! How are you going to play movies (besides Netflix). I feel like they should upgrade to a Blue-ray drive. I'm sure future releases will take up way more space, some games on the PS3 are 20GB. Your going to need one massive hard drive to store all those games. Btw I'm not a PS3 fanboy, I own both consoles; play mostly on Xbox except for few PS3 only releases. My PS3 is used mostly for 3D Blue-ray movies.

They should add and SSD or have a HDD but allow for your own upgrades. The feature on the Xbox to save an entire game on the hard drive is amazing. Saving some games (not all) at your discretion with a SSD would dramatically reduce load times. A SSD will also improve overall system performance. Saving games on your HDD should be and Option, a games on DISCs and DISC Drive should be required.

 

[p05esto]

Makes sense to me. I've thought games should be on some kind of flash cartridge for a while now. MUCH faster loading times and MUCH more durable. My kids still wreck countless games by throwing the discs around.... I HATE discs.

 

[p05esto]

Makes sense to me. I've thought games should be on some kind of flash cartridge for a while now. MUCH faster loading times and MUCH more durable. My kids still wreck countless games by throwing the discs around.... I HATE discs.

 

[walter87]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]it's not the speed of the internet that will hinder home video game console...it's the limited bandwidth...remember...many ISP have 250GB bandwidth limit for BOTH download AND upload...if you account for all the streaming media a person uses every month on top of all the regular internet traffic AND already available downloaded games, you're going to hit that limit even faster if video game consoles need CONSTANT online connections for their games...[/citation]

Your lucky, In Canada Rogers and Bell are awful. $50/month for 60GB with 18Mbps down 512kpbs up.

(They literally are the only providers in my area and its robbery!)

 

[d8v1d]

@p05esto

Do you know who much it would cost to have every single game on a Flash storage, very expensive, when you could massive produce them on a Blue-ray disc. Those disc are like $25 for like 50, they probably get them cheaper wholesale.

 

[nforce4max]

[citation][nom]omega21xx[/nom]I feel like we are going back to the atari/NES days of cartridges. lol Of course this isn't the same, but moving away from optical discs back to a solid storage seems pointless. Especially when SSD's are expensive ($1/GB) and SD cards are much the same ($0.75-1/GB)making that a more expensive solution than discs. $100 for games? nah, I'm sure they are just going to use some sort of SSD for the system storage and move to download only.[/citation]

If you really want something expensive but not out of everyone's reach then try compact flash. Far better than crappy SD cards that later fail but at the same time offer a large amount of bandwidth.

 

[technogiant]

Internet connection problems?......just have stores replace their xbox360 game shelf area with a download point running at +100Mbps....down load to your cartridge and Bob's your auntie.

 

[freggo]

Yet another attempt to 'lock down' a system and it's content.
Thanks, but I rather play a game or two on a nicely powered PC.

 

[drwho1]

I don't own a 360, neither will I ever buy a 720 or whatever is the final official name.
But I can say that if Sony for instance would go this route (no optical drive) I wouldn't buy it either.

I like to OWN my media, if something "goes wrong" I can simply installed again, if something worst like the console die... again, as long as I own the disk I can install it on another hard drive or SSD, no need to download again something that I already PAID FOR, no need to remember where did I wrote down that code to unlock again my download... etc...

No optical drive to me means.... No buy.

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]Anonymous[/nom]No disc drive... that't retarded! How are you going to play movies (besides Netflix). I feel like they should upgrade to a Blue-ray drive. I'm sure future releases will take up way more space, some games on the PS3 are 20GB. Your going to need one massive hard drive to store all those games. Btw I'm not a PS3 fanboy, I own both consoles; play mostly on Xbox except for few PS3 only releases. My PS3 is used mostly for 3D Blue-ray movies.They should add and SSD or have a HDD but allow for your own upgrades. The feature on the Xbox to save an entire game on the hard drive is amazing. Saving some games (not all) at your discretion with a SSD would dramatically reduce load times. A SSD will also improve overall system performance.[/citation]
On the contrary, it makes perfect sense. Optical media is slow and annoying, where as flash-based media is much quicker and (depending on the type) much less likely to get corrupted due to physical wear and tear (like scratches). If you want to watch optical media then I am sure they will have a $50-100 external USB-style drive for purchase... but if you want to play your old games then be prepared to purchase them on their web store. Besides, it is hard to promise backwards compatibility anyways, especially if they change CPU manufacturers.

 

[technogiant]

Just how is your Own media better than cloud storage, have you never lost your activation code, broken a disc, reinstalled it too many times and fallen foul of securom, been burgled and lost your disc's......seriously the cloud is far superior....people need to move on.....this console will last till 2019 forget the sentiment for punch hole ticker tape.

 

[omega21xx]

[citation][nom]nforce4max[/nom]If you really want something expensive but not out of everyone's reach then try compact flash. Far better than crappy SD cards that later fail but at the same time offer a large amount of bandwidth.[/citation]
Compact flash is even more unrealistic choice than SSD's to carry games on. lol
Not complaining, but just pointing out that looking at any source of storage outside DVD/Bluray right now is impossible. Even if they some how made a deal with a company and got the SSD/SD/CF storage for half the cost in bulk, it'd still increase game cost by at least 50% over traditional Bluray/DVD.
Then again, games still cost $60 in some cases on the internet even though it's download and doesn't have to cover physical storage costs. (game prices increased from $50 to $60 supposedly because Bluray was more expensive to produce, including extra development time for games) Realistically, if they go to download only, standard price needs to drop to $50 again.

 

[kcorp2003]

the only people who's thumbing down here at the ones with limited bandwidth. I'm sure Microsoft is considering that too. But Optical media is too slow for the next graphics jump in games. there has to be an alternative and thats up to them to decide weather its flash base storage or download.

 

[A Bad Day]

SD cards are a lot more expensive per gigabyte than DVD or Blu-ray. If we have to download the stuff, there's going to be a problem because significant portion of the US are restricted to broadband connections of less than 1 Mb/s, assuming they even have broadbamd.

 

[macpeteo]

It's the same old game again, trying to figure out how to screw (take advantage of) user base of your product! I have no doubt that they are working (thinking) really hard of how to best take advantage of all the would be 720 buyers and maximize profits. In the long run, thinking like that just raises prices and forces (brings about) new competition/products that don't have the same disadvantages.

MS should learn from all their previous mistakes (and of others) of trying to screw their customers.
Anyone remember MS's deal with the big Music names to have Media player be a big DRM machine and control content? And of course, MS was making money for being the center of control.

Apple Comp. is very controlling and some folks like it and some don't
, do we want our all our content to be locked down and more or less owned by big companies (while we pay full price and give ourselves the illusion of ownership).

 

[aoneone]

when the cartridges/ sd cards dont work for the 720 in the future, dont forget to place it under your shirt and blow into it. i cant wait!

 

[hannibal]

Well, we will see, but some how this brings memories from atari cartridges... But as many have said... they are not actually cheap.
If I am not remembering incorrectly they are developing some new form of drm that covers usb sticks and similar... who knows... You can go to store and bring your own usb stick and download content to it. And usb stick is so reliable... Only 3-4 have failed me so far.

 

[omega21xx]

[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]the only people who's thumbing down here at the ones with limited bandwidth. I'm sure Microsoft is considering that too. But Optical media is too slow for the next graphics jump in games. there has to be an alternative and thats up to them to decide weather its flash base storage or download.[/citation]

Most games today install the important, constant accessed data, to the HDD. Moving to an SSD does not provide a advantage in game performance or graphics aside from load times. (and in some cases where ram is short and random seek for files and objects cause popping textures ect. that's mostly just Rage though ) so even today your games are rarely limited by the HDD or DVD (most ps3 and 360 games read from both at the same time while you play)

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]icepick314[/nom]it's not the speed of the internet that will hinder home video game console...it's the limited bandwidth...remember...many ISP have 250GB bandwidth limit for BOTH download AND upload...[/citation]

Depends on where you live mate, in Sweden i have 100 mbit (up and down) and NO limits for a mere 12€. US Internet have really regressed backwards due to the greed of the major companies involved - They try to sell it as if it were a rare commodity and not what it is - A service!

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]omega21xx[/nom]I feel like we are going back to the atari/NES days of cartridges. lol Of course this isn't the same, but moving away from optical discs back to a solid storage seems pointless. Especially when SSD's are expensive ($1/GB) and SD cards are much the same ($0.75-1/GB)making that a more expensive solution than discs. $100 for games? nah, I'm sure they are just going to use some sort of SSD for the system storage and move to download only.[/citation]

i thought the same thing... but than think of it in terms of the 360... most games are less than 8gb in size... a decent sd card could get a 20-30mb read, not as fast as a bluray can go (76mb) but fast enough and without noise at all.

now most games being under 8gb, and many under 6gb, if you can accept texture sizes that arent 100% good, this would be a fairly decent option... not to mention you could require 2 cards and have them kind of working in a raid like method.

you would pay an extra 8$ a game... about... but with the 360 and how loud it is and how easy that thing can eat a disc... its a fair trade...

and for games that are bigger, id say download the rest to a hdd.

they could also offer digital only, and set up a station in wall marts to transfer games to a portable media device, and sell you the key, either buy the games at home, and download em, or buy em in wall mart and bring your 32-64gb thumb drive.

im all for pure digital... it would bring game prices down quite a bit... because of shelf space wallmart asks 7-12$ per game, but if that becomes a computer and no shelf space required at all... well... they could ask for significantly less, especially if microsoft threaten to just pull in store all together. it would also cut costs on manufacturing and shipping. we could realistically see a 40$ AAA game, sony needing 60$ a new game, or microsoft selling 30-50$ new games... could be a MAJOR selling point...

not to mention used games would be dead (unless microsoft makes a key transferring system) so you bet publishers and developers would be behind it 100% even if they only reach 1/4 the people they do now.