Xbox 360 Elite Officially Announced

It should come as no shock that Microsoft has finally announced an upgraded version of the Xbox 360: the 'Elite'. The worst-kept secret in the videogames industry is now official, offering a 120 GB HDD, an HDMI port, and a smooth black finish for $479. The new sku drops next month, and to fill up that new hard drive Microsoft has lined up seven new partners for their Xbox Live video distribution service. Outfits like Paramount and Warner Bros. are nice to hear about, but I'm equally excited about the likes of National Geographic and ADV Films. 1up has the market cornered on commentary at the moment, with reactions from the staff there, a comparison of the new 360's value vs. the PS3, and a few words from Sony's Dave Karraker. If you're looking for even more coverage, there are several links available below.

Comments

Worthless.

[Seumas]

What a worthless bundle. First of all as we already covered in a previous XBOX 360 Elite article, there is no benefit to using HDMI instead of a component-cable. Second, by using HDMI, you are actually submitting to HDCP (DRM, content control stuff).

So what you're really getting out of this product is a larger hard drive. Whether a bigger hard drive is worth an extra $80 to you is for you to decide. I fail, however, to understand how nothing more than a larger hard drive and a black paint job makes it elite.

I'm going to guess there will be a flood of idiots rushing out to buy it - even to replace their existing boxes - because they think HDMI is some nifty high-definition thingamajig and then they'll rush home and plug it in and convince themselves that they really do see a difference.

If you really want to make it elite, make it quieter, cooler and less prone to dying.

Re:Worthless.

[suv4x4]

So what you're really getting out of this product is a larger hard drive. Whether a bigger hard drive is worth an extra $80 to you is for you to decide. I fail, however, to understand how nothing more than a larger hard drive and a black paint job makes it elite.

I also wondered how *only* a black finish makes a MacBook $150 more expensive and "elite" but.. common sense isn't popular these days.

If enough companies do this, one morning I could wake up and really believe that black color is extremely expensive and worth the extra cost, who knows.

Re:Worthless.

[MikeBabcock]

I'm so sick of the anti-HDMI people.

HDMI does not require the use of HDCP. Being compatible with it does not mean turning on Copyright protection features.

HDMI can carry much higher bandwidth audio than optical or coax digital audio cables can right now, like TrueHD and uncompressed 7.1 PCM.

HDMI can share live display capability information (like that nice monitor detection you have on your VGA-based PC).

HDMI allows for better colour depth (higher bit per pixel values) and deeper blacks and brigther whites, combined with displays capable of these. This means displays can keep getting better and looking nicer and having richer colour because the capacity is already 'in the wire' so to speak.

Next troll?

Hardly elite

[fahrvergnugen]

I'm a huge believer in the XBox 360 as a platform, and I'm delighted to have owned one since launch day. Wii's anemic release schedule and PS3's pathetic lineup of 360 ports / shitty first-party content (Resistance excepted) means that it's the best system out there.

I'm one of those dorks that buys everything videogame-related, but I'm not motivated to upgrade at all. An HDMI port, quieter operation, and shiny black skin isn't enough to attract me, and I'm an enthusiast for their products. If they'd integrated the HD-DVD drive and the wireless adapter that would be one thing, but this is much too little, far too late.

I mean, the PS3 comes with Blu-ray and wireless built-in on the high-end model. Meanwhile, the 360 costs $100 extra for 802.11 (an adapter that has shit range, by the way, on a shelf next to my wii and ps3 the 360 can't pick up a signal), and $200 extra for a hi-def video drive.

So: Elite 360 + Wireless + HD-DVD = $780.
PS3, with built-in wireless and built-in Blu-ray: $600. Way to destroy your price advantage, Microsoft!

Obviously I'm not the target audience for this product, but I can't for the life of me figure out who is.

Where's the Wi-fi? Where's the HD-DVD?

[Rik Sweeney]

Not only is this new version missing two features the PS3 has and will end up costing more than the PS3 with them added...

IT CAN'T EVEN CURE CANCER

Seriously though, if I'd just bought an Xbox 360, I'd be *very* pissed off right now.

HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO

[appleguru]

That's right, audio. While HDMI clearly presents a slight improvement for video (analog vs digital...), its real benefit is next generation audio support. While HDMI is a true digital picture and will give us a slightly better image, this improvement is negligible for the vast majority of people. With HD DVD content sporting DD+/TrueHD, and DTS HD audio that currently can't be handled over optical, HDMI provides us with a way of supporting that... Not that there's a whole lot of receivers that support those yet, but they'll be more available soon enough. You may think your A52/AC3 5.1 dolby digital compressed surround sound is good, but uncompressed TrueHD/DTS HD BLOWS IT AWAY. With even a half decent sound system, movies spring to life with the new audio formats.. Once you watch a film with a TrueHD or DTS HD audio track enabled, you wont be able to go back to "crappy" compressed Dolby Digital. Obviously, it depends on the mixing and the original soundtrack for the film your watching, but from what I've heard so far it's a real improvement across the board.

And, as much as I hate DRM, ultimately the decision to flag HD DVDs to downconvert over component is up to the movie studios... And... should they go that route in the future (I don't see it happening, especially now that HD DVD is compromised...), M$ will be ready with HDCP compliant HDMI.

Re:HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO

[Kjella]

You may think your A52/AC3 5.1 dolby digital compressed surround sound is good, but uncompressed TrueHD/DTS HD BLOWS IT AWAY. With even a half decent sound system, movies spring to life with the new audio formats.. Once you watch a film with a TrueHD or DTS HD audio track enabled, you wont be able to go back to "crappy" compressed Dolby Digital.

Somehow I have a feeling I've heard this before, about MP3 vs CD or maybe even SACD and DVD-A. Extremely few people can tell the difference between CD and MP3 >256kbps, and even regular AC-3 DVDs have that + 192kbps to encode the rear channels and bass track. DTS goes much higher than that again, typically 768kbps+. Of course the new formats bring 7.1 to the table, but how many movies have 7.1 sound, are played in a 7.1 player to a 7.1 reciever with correctly placed 7.1 speakers? I doubt 95% of the people would be able to tell the difference, 4.9% wouldn't be "BLOWN AWAY" and the last 0.1% is you.

The only thing I'm still missing is the option to go past 24p. If you've ever seen sports or anything else fast-moving high action in 720p60 progressive, you'll wonder how you ever survived with 24p/30i. They can quote whatever artistic reasons they want but 60p would improve a lot of movies IMO.

Re:HDMI is most beneficial for AUDIO

[appleguru]

Perhaps your right. In fact, I'm sure I'm in the minority when it comes to being blown away by next generation audio (Though surely that minority is bigger than .1% ;)). Even so, the fact remains that having HDMI at least enables the xbox 360 to become a full blown HD DVD player, something it could only do with limited abilities in its non-hdmi version (if you play a truehd or dts hd track with the current generation xbox 360 it gets downconverted and encoded on the fly to dolby digital).

Now, 60p I'm not disagreeing with, framerate definitely makes a difference. But things shot on film look like there were.. well.. shot on film *because* of the 24fps frame rate.. and because of the film grain... And just like you (well, I can anyways...) distinguish when something was shot with a 1 ccd mini-dv cam, or a 3ccd mini-dv cam, or an HDV camera, or a DVC Pro camera... you can just TELL when something is shot on film. And to a lot of people, that's part of what makes a movie.. what it is.

Then again, there are some people that enjoyed the oh so cinematic experience of watching the blair witch project on the big screen... :P (That's not to say that movies shot digitally look like that piece of trash, merely making the point that you can tell the difference between film and digital).

Now, with all of the digital effects in movies today, and movies going directly to theater digitally to be played on DLP projectors the argument becomes a bit less cohesive... but there's definitely something about 24 frames per second that makes a movie a movie.. and not an NFL football game.