It's clear that Blu-ray is a very solid selling point for the PS3. As it's still the cheapest BD player on the market, many buy it just for this purpose. Should the Xbox 360 also include a BD player for the mere saking of shifting more units?

I say yes. But it shouldn't be built in (or you'll end up with installs like us), it should be an add-on and come free with PRO and ELITE models of the 360.

Anyone not buying either PRO or ELITE is not buying a 360 for its features.

A built-in one wouldn't necessarily mean installs. They could still release games on DVD (doing anything else would be suicide, since it'd cut off all previous customers) which would mean the same high speed for games, just with the added ability of BD playback. But yeah, keeping Arcade free from bloat might be wise.

I guess if you kept the games on DVD then you wouldn't have the single-speed drive issue, but still, save your lens!

If 360 had blu-ray it would be the best system to ever live. But it would probably cost like 150+.

It's rather expensive in the states and I do think you guys will be getting a price drop as well.. When I say baked into the price, I don't mean it'd cost a fucking fortune, I mean it'd be competitive compared to the PS3. Still slightly lower.

I say no, make it an add on or just wait til the 720 comes out in 2 years.

how do you know it will be called the 720? It could be called xbox black or xbox zero.

I don't think MS putting in a blu-ray drive would make too much of a difference tbh. I wouldn't want it.

Excuse me, sir, but your PS3 is in my 360. Please keep it away.

It probably won't be called 720, but that's the generally the most recognized way to talk about the next version.

Speaking of which, how long do you guys think it'll be til we start hearing things about the new generation of consoles? I mean, with the current gen they REALLY overdid themselves. PS3 and 360 are fucking monsters. They kinda went overboard and now it's really hard to improve on them while keeping costs, size and heat at an acceptable level. I think they have a lot more life in them than what is normal for a console generation.

For Microsoft I say four years. For Sony I'd say eight more years. I remember reading that some Microsoft exec said like three more years but I'm willing to add another. Also, right before the triple came out I can't remember who it was Hirai or someone said (concerning the PS3 price point) "Think of it as $50 a year for ten years" to make a $600 price point sound reasonable.

I think the PS3 will last all ten unless Microsoft answers with a much more powerful (which I doubt) in the next four or five years.

Let's be fair. Either one of these consoles could last the 10 year mark, they have the hardware power to do so, it's simply a matter of how long the company choses to keep the product alive. I would agree the PS3 will probably endure a longer lifetime than the 360, I mostly base that on past history.

That said, I would imagine, if at year 5 MS declared they had a new system coming out next year, Sony would follow suit. It's like the PS2, and PS3 situation. And that's the part many people are missing in those comments by Hirai. The PS3 will still be supported 10 years down the line, that does not however mean that it will be Sony's flagship platform.

They are commiting only to the lifetime, not the role.

Microsoft really won a lot by putting out the 360 this early. Sure, it's been plagued by rather serious hardware issues, but it's still the reason why it's more popular than the PS3. That, and the fact than PS3 sucked balls when it first came out.. I think they're gonna do the same for the next gen.