Future 360 Games to Require Hard Drive

XF has learned that MS has plans for the 360 to do the very same thing. Games requiring the HDD will initially have a "HDD required" logo clearly viewable on the front of the case, as well being listed as requiring the HDD on the back info panel of the case.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TriggerHappy3917d ago

hmm, recently a lot of "not enough" space on disc, lacking hard drive articles have been popping up, could all of this be leading to something ?

CrazzyMan3917d ago (Edited 3917d ago )

yeah, it could be. =)
ps3 don`t have problems with space on disc and have HDD in all SKU - FACT.
it`s a perfect piece of hardware for NEXTGEN games - imo.

true, but people disagree, lol. =))

gta_cb3917d ago

true, but until the PS3 install base reaches the Xbox 360's its not going to be enough just having more space on the discs.

tehcellownu3917d ago

The 360 just have to many problems...most likely devlopers will lean towards the ps3 more because it will provide them everythin they need..and more games will always increase the ps3 install base..

DeadlyFire3917d ago

ARE YOU ALL BLIND????????????????????????? ???????????????

April 1st, 2007.....................

Its a joke.

iceice1233917d ago

It's not true =) true next gen is with the 360, you want games you buy a 360 :)) HDD or not, it's the superior console this gen all around :))

CrazzyMan3917d ago (Edited 3917d ago )

i don`t wanna start a flame..
but yeah i want GAMES.

and what i got today on x360?
my favourite genres are jrpgs, slashers, survival horrors, 3d platforms, strategies.
and all what x360 got, 1 game for each genre, and it`s after 20 months!
i know, what games coming to x360, but TODAY it can`t satisfy my tastes (so and ps3, but only after 8 months).

x360 superrior? in what way?
1) ps3 has Blu-ray
2) ps3 has HDD in all SKU
3) ps3 is RELIABLE
so.. in what way x360 is superrior?
maybe for you, and some x360 owners, but for me, today definately NOT, and in near future probably also NOT.

AngryTypingGuy3917d ago

@ Deadly Fire: Unless I missed something, it says Aug 1, 2007: today.

Thugbot1873917d ago

I think it is you that is blind. It says Aug 1st. Next use a bit of common sense it wouldn't get approved if it was that old. If you read the article it references events that have taken place recently.

Umbrella Corp3917d ago

if you remember Crazzyman the playstation 2 won the console war because of games if i were to follow you on your theory then xbox would have won and to let you know the xbox 360 has been having great games and my ps3 (yes i have one)is collecting dust.

JasonPC360PS3Wii3917d ago (Edited 3917d ago )

All I can say is hahaha you are a CrazzyMan, exclusives get lost because of one consoles popularity or because someone buys the rights and it just so happens that the 360 is more popular.

CrazzyMan3917d ago

5-7 years it was ok, for not having online, not having hdd. Games was enough as reason for wining console war.
you see, for wining in last generation for xbox, it should have a good brand, high japan developers support, good price, a lot AAA titles.

you are wrong, if you think, that several reason is enough for winning.
============================= =============================== ========
ok, my point.
ps2 - many AAA games, price, japan support, respectable brand.
xbox - hardware, online.
winner - ps2.

ps3 - hardware, many AAA games, japan support(just wait TGS07), respectable brand, (better price in future), free online.
x360 - online for money, lower price, capcom+sakaguchi and fŸcked brand with RROD.

i mean, several reasons is not enough for winning. All reasons make you a winner.
when price on PS3 goes down, it will be even better then ps2 in all ways.

nasim3917d ago

shame on MS??

rather than giving a HDD free to core owners MS are actually ripping them off with a 100% defective console

JsonHenry3916d ago

I think this has more to do with being able to use the HDD as a cache for information, not a limitation on disc size.

No one whined and cried when they had to switch discs ONCE while playing and of the Resident evil series games.

And of course lets not mention the fact that the fetch time for the PS3 Blu-ray players are slower than that of the 360's DVD player...

True Gamer King3916d ago (Edited 3916d ago )

I hope you are crazy or your just in denial the 360 is by far a superior console it has a ton more games and great lineup that crushes the PS3s lineup. And I would gladly pay money for a better and more experienced online service. And I don't give a crap about Blu-Ray that's the reason why the PS3 costs more money. Microsoft gives you a choice if you wan't an HD-DVD player, they don't force it on you and make you spend more money than you have to. And as for power or graphics I haven't seen any games on PS3 that look better than Gears of War and almost all the multi-ptatform games look better on the 360.

So you ask in what way is the 360 better, the answer is EVERY WAY.

You need to shut up and don't say things like shame on Microsoft or that there ripping people off. Microsoft is 5 times the company sony is.

And we don't know if this is true or the full details (just because they say they learned about this doesn't meen anything they could be full of crap or got wrong information, it happens all the time. And if it is true I'm sure Microsoft has a plan.) So no one talk trash about microsoft or the 360 until we do find out everything.

SteinigerGE3916d ago (Edited 3916d ago )

Console build quality and reliability.

I guess you can't win them all! You sure you want to stick with "EVERY WAY"?

True Gamer King3916d ago

I have had my 360 since the release and I just had my first problom a week ago. And my 360 didn't just break down and stop working it stilled worked my disk reader just burnt out because I play it to much and it's always on (so whenever I was on the dashboard and tried to click play disk it just said unplayable disk), and do you know why it's always being played and on, it's because of how many good games there are to play on the 360 and how much fun it is to play the 360. So Microsoft fixed the problem and are sending me back a new 360 free of charge. So if I have to send my 360 in every 3 years because of the fact that my 360 is being used to much because there are so many good games out. Then I would rather have that happen than not having enough games to play and having my console sit in the corner collecting dust like every sony fans PS3.

So to answer your question if I want to stick with what I said the asnwer is yep!

The 360 is better in "EVERY WAY!"

CrazzyMan3916d ago

Today blu-ray player included in PS3 for FREE - is a Really nice GIFT from Sony.


x360 premium 20GB - 400$.
ps3 60GB - 500$.

for additional 100$ you get + 40GB + wi-fi + card readers + free online gaming + some Big (MGS, FF, GT, GoW and etc.) AAA titles which will be only on PS3.
additional x360 20GB Hard Drive Disc itself cost 100$.

Blu-ray cost you NOTHING today.

Half year ago blu-ray cost for ps3 users 100$, for those who wanted cheap blu-ray player included in PS3, for those who wanted get Faster(FIRST) into HD 1080p movie. =)


1) 25-50GB disc will be more comfortable for gaming - fact.
2) it will be easier for developers create games and using HDD (just like in Oblivion) - fact.
3) cell power will provide amazing physics and AI - fact.
4) motion controler + nextgen vibration - fact.

<< And I would gladly pay money for a better and more experienced online service. And I don't give a crap about Blu-Ray that's the reason why the PS3 costs more money. Microsoft gives you a choice if you wan't an HD-DVD player >>
LOL, what choice?? when you get blu-ray for FREE! =))

btw Uncharted looks better. =)
GT5 the prettiest racing game. =)
Ratchet is like a pixar movie game. =)
so you better eat, then talk. =)))

there is nothing great about x360 today, only for fps and 3rd action games lovers, that`s all. =))
and it`s after 1,5 year! btw, ps3 outselling x360 in USA(europe and japan) with price 100$ more, when price get 400$, x360 will be humilated. =))

DeadlyFire3916d ago (Edited 3916d ago )

Apparently I am going Blind. I see Aug now. Must need new glasses I suppose. I see there are 2 stupid people that agreed with me on it being April. I suggest they go get some glasses as well. :P

This is still rumor and even if MS dropped their Core SKU they would still have about half their console owners without a HDD. Since most bought the Core model in 2005. If they were to force half their console owners to buy new consoles I would think they would rather jump ship than buy another SKU of the same console half way into its life because the games would require a HDD. I suppose they could just buy the HDD add on though. I still wouldn't suggest forcing console owners to go out and do this though.

True Gamer King3916d ago (Edited 3916d ago )

I guaranty you if there was no Blue-Ray it would cost $100 to $150 cheaper. Blu-Ray is not free if it was the PS3 would cost the same amount as the 360. And do you wan't to know why they dropped the price to $500 it's because no one was buying there console mainly because of the cost and the lack of good games. They were forced to drop the price. Your saying Blue-Ray is now free that's Bull Sh1t, the only thing that changed after the price cut is everything got a little cheaper, because sony was forced to drop the price. So now instead of paying $150 to $200 for a Blu-Ray player your paying $100 to $150. And if you think Sony would have dropped the price if they didn't have to your a complete idiot. Microsoft never had to make a price cut because they were actually selling consoles they still don't have to make a price cut because they will continue to sell more consoles than Sony. If they choose to make a price cut which they probably will, the PS3 will be in the same spot it was before, which was a console that cost a lot more than its competitors and wasn't as good (which basically means a waste of money.

Sony made a big mistake by including a Blu-Ray player. If they hadn't included it, the PS3 probably would have cost $400 to $450 which would have allowed them to sell a lot more consoles, they still wouldn't sell as many games as the 360, because of the PS3s lack of good games, but they would have still sold a lot more consoles, and that would have put them in a far better position and there would be no need in a price drop, where they are now not make as much money on each console as they were.

So by saying Sony is giving you a Blu-Ray player for free that is one of the stupidest things I have ever read. So you may want to wake up out of what dream your in and relize nothing is free in this world and nothing ever will be.

Oh and the 360 will never be humilated, it's the PS3 that should be humilated, the PS3s the one that was forced to make a $100 price cut in the first 9 mounths of its release. LOL how embarrassing LOL. :)

+ Show (16) more repliesLast reply 3916d ago
Salvadore3917d ago

If they had just drop the Core in the beginning, they wouldn't need this.

Vfor53916d ago

Amen brother. Microsoft just stuck their foot in their mouth. Sh1t, the 360 could have been such a great console if they wouldn't have rushed it. seriously. Don't get me wrong, I love the 360, but it could be the perfect console.

gta_cb3917d ago

most probadly, not a prob for me =D i mean seriously who on this website actually brought a core? i went straight for the Premium

Captain Tuttle3917d ago (Edited 3917d ago )

When my crappy Premium died 2 days before Gears of War was released. With the warranty extension I've now got 2 360's, much to the chagrin of my wife.

vidoardes3917d ago

Hmm... what's that... what's that smell? Ah yes, the impending scent of a flame war...

Nemesis3917d ago

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

Dread19813917d ago

Firebat in starcraft gotta love them :-))

AuburnTiger3917d ago

If MS was to do this, it would be a huge blow to anyone that bought a core 360. And then you gotta think about developers, are they going to make a game if it means to cut the userbase by a 1/3 (assuming that 1/3 of 360s sold was a core)

Nemesis3917d ago (Edited 3917d ago )

Could also have the opposite effect though, with developers now having the option of targeting HDD equipped 360's exclusively, should it prove necessary.

If I had my way, MS would just abolish the core system completely. I mean, how much can it really cost MS to include an HDD with the 360 when I can buy a 60 gig laptop HDD for £30. MS could probably get them for a third of that price and swallow the cost themselves without having to pass it onto the consumer.

I didn't disagree with you BTW.

Infernus3916d ago

Nemesis you're absolutely right. MS could get lots of HDD's cheap, especially when buying in bulk.

Auburn, the developers will indeed be missing a quite significant chunk of the 360 market by needing a HDD for their game(s). I dunno if you're right with the 1/3 of all 360's but it's probably not far off that much.

It just goes to show Sony look ahead more than 3 years when they make a console. MS just wanted cheap components to help push out a console faster than Sony and have ended up with the basic console being restricted after less than 2 years.

You can't rush out a games console if you want to make money and MS have pretty much proved that point already. MS have shot themselves in the foot with the Core imo and it's about to become all the more evident over the coming months on the road to 2008 - 'The year of BIG games'.

360 owners can't really argue that the Core owners will get ripped off when all the big games require a HDD and they can't play them. I hated not having enough room on my PS2 memory card and having to buy another one. I always saw Sony as this company that makes money on extras and peripherals you have to buy for the console like the memory cards and the multitaps and what not, but this gen they've included all that's necessary (You only really have to buy a HDMI cable and that's only if you own a HDTV), whereas MS have become what I saw Sony as before, they charge for the HD-DVD drive, online play, wireless adapter, etc etc and now we have this HDD issue too.

I dunno but MS are just playing their 360 owners around, saying the console is cheaper when overall it's just not. It's just that people are blindly buying the console then saying "Oh so I have to pay for that. Well that's fine because MS gave us a choice. Oh and I have to pay to play online, but that's fine because XBL has loads of downloadable content on it, oh wait I can't fit all that on my system as I don't have enough HDD space. Oh well at least they gave me the choice to buy a new HDD. Well I can still play Halo 3 so everything's fine."

I'm sorry to sound like the stereotypical PS3 fanboy but that's how I see this issue atm. That's why I have a problem with the 360, because of the MANY extra charges you have to pay to get close to the functionality of a PS3. When MS talk about choices, they're mentioning the things that should be standard in a next-gen console. The choices thing comes into play with the XBL and PSN content because you have the choice about whether or not to pay for that content (Except on XBL you have to pay an annual fee but you get my drift).

Vfor53916d ago

You should also be sorry that your fukcing post is longer than the bible. Damn boi.