3 ms·

> Sony had established the PS3 would use Blu-Rays a year before the Xbox 360 was even publicly announced. How is it related? We all knew Sony would use Blu-ray

by 0x457 2y ago

> Sony had established the PS3 would use Blu-Rays a year before the Xbox 360 was even publicly announced. How is it related? We all knew Sony would use Blu-rays, but if HD-DVD won the battle, then PS3 suddenly loses a big chunk of its value - it's a good, "cheap" Blu-ray player. > Xbox 360, but HD-DVD or Halo wouldn't have been any of those things. HD-DVD sure, but it's unrelated to what I'm saying. Halo - not so sure because it only really took off after the second installment IIRC. There were a few titles that were supposed to compete with Halo at launch of PS3, but Halo won.

vel0city 2y ago
Halo: CE was a big title on the Xbox even when it launched. It was probably one of the reasons to get the original Xbox. It was one of the fastest games to hit 1M units sold of the generation. Gamespot's review pretty much argued Halo alone was reason enough to get an Xbox. And even if you're saying it was the second installment of Halo that had the franchise really take off, well, that was a whole year before the Xbox 360 was released and two years before the PlayStation 3. Halo 2 was an original Xbox title, not a 360 title. And as others mentioned, the HD-DVD playback of the 360 being some big challenger to the PlayStation Blu-Ray is pretty overhyped. It was an expensive add-on. It was another $199 to have an external drive that came out a year after. So $598 for an Xbox 360 with an external drive that can play a few dozen movies in the end, or $499 for a PlayStation with a built-in Blu-Ray drive. I imagine the PlayStation 3 could have come out 6 months later and it probably wouldn't have made much difference in the format war. > Surprised 360 had any sales at all then The 360 launched a year before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD existed. There were no other real off the shelf options. > If you want to play new Halo with friends - you need an Xbox 360 No, the "new Halo" when the Playstation 3 came out was an Xbox release title. You didn't need a 360 to play the latest Halo until almost a whole year after the PS3 release.

by 0x457 2y ago

vel0city 2y ago

Halo: CE was a big title on the Xbox even when it launched. It was probably one of the reasons to get the original Xbox. It was one of the fastest games to hit 1M units sold of the generation. Gamespot's review pretty much argued Halo alone was reason enough to get an Xbox. And even if you're saying it was the second installment of Halo that had the franchise really take off, well, that was a whole year before the Xbox 360 was released and two years before the PlayStation 3. Halo 2 was an original Xbox title, not a 360 title. And as others mentioned, the HD-DVD playback of the 360 being some big challenger to the PlayStation Blu-Ray is pretty overhyped. It was an expensive add-on. It was another $199 to have an external drive that came out a year after. So $598 for an Xbox 360 with an external drive that can play a few dozen movies in the end, or $499 for a PlayStation with a built-in Blu-Ray drive. I imagine the PlayStation 3 could have come out 6 months later and it probably wouldn't have made much difference in the format war. > Surprised 360 had any sales at all then The 360 launched a year before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD existed. There were no other real off the shelf options. > If you want to play new Halo with friends - you need an Xbox 360 No, the "new Halo" when the Playstation 3 came out was an Xbox release title. You didn't need a 360 to play the latest Halo until almost a whole year after the PS3 release.