Xbox 360 - Up Close & Personal with Live, the Console and the Wireless Controller
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 20, 2005 12:57 AM EST- Posted in
- Trade Shows
The Xbox 360 Wireless Controller
All of the controllers at the show floor were wired models. We originally thought so because they were connected to dev kits rather than Xbox 360s, but it turns out that the 2.4GHz RF controllers do work with the dev kits just fine - Microsoft was probably just worried about eager E3ers making off with a precious Xbox 360 controller.
Upstairs in Microsoft's booth, we were given some play time with the new wireless controller, and once again we were quite impressed. Even with batteries in the unit, the new wireless controller is still smaller and lighter than the current S Controller, which admittedly is a bit on the heavy side.
The new controller doesn't feel heavy at all, and was a very natural fit for our hands. Other than the battery pack, the wireless controller is no different than the wired version we played with earlier during the show.
The battery pack is visible in the picture below on the underside of the controller:
The round 1/8" connector is for the Xbox Live mic/headset, while Microsoft isn't officially stating what the two connectors on the left and right are for, we figure it is related to charging the controller.
The top of the controller also features a new connector, once again one that Microsoft is being very quiet about. The button to the right of the connector is a wireless connect button, used to sync up the controller to the Xbox 360.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
33 Comments
View All Comments
milomnderbnder21 - Sunday, May 22, 2005 - link
http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/617/617951p1.htmlThere's a link, as proof I guess...
milomnderbnder21 - Sunday, May 22, 2005 - link
That critique/comparison is actually straight from Microsoft, some department or something. It was posted recently on IGN360, they said it was emailed to them or something from Microsoft.Obviously, that makes it biased, but there's no denying that it brings up a couple of interesting points. I would expect the PS3 to be more powerful though. The article underestimates the Cell.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Sunday, May 22, 2005 - link
golemiteIt was real, not running at full speed, but the only working 360 shown to the public at E3.
Take care,
Anand
golemite - Saturday, May 21, 2005 - link
so was the 360 at the ATI booth an actual prototype or not? from what i was told, it was one of the first working test units.Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, May 21, 2005 - link
flatblastardI don't get the impression that Nintendo will be able to compete, specification-wise, with Microsoft and Sony. That doesn't mean that their console won't be competitive because, after all, it is the games that matter. But without strongly competitive specs, it wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to reveal anything at E3 from a PR standpoint.
barnett25
I'm not one to critique other peoples' work, but there are a number of factual errors presented in that link.
Remember that the Xbox 360's 256GB/s of bandwidth is a figure for on-die bandwidth between the 192 FPUs and the embedded DRAM on the daughter die. Including that figure in a system bandwidth comparison is like me telling you how much bandwidth exists between the Pentium 4's Trace Cache and its Decoder and then comparing that to the Athlon 64's main memory bandwidth. It's not a valid comparison.
Comparing the number of general purpose cores between the two CPUs (cell and xbox 360) and using that as a benchmark is also a highly invalid comparison. If I published an article where I said that the dual core Pentium D 840 offered twice the general purpose performance as a single core Athlon 64 4000+...well, you guys wouldn't buy that would you :) So why would that sort of a comparison work for the PS3 vs. Xbox 360?
I wouldn't put much faith in those types of claims, if you go back and read any of our articles about CPU architecture (including the Cell article) you will realize that a number of these types of claims are quite easily debunked.
As I mentioned before, I'm not one to criticize other peoples' work, but if you have any specific questions about whether or not a particular claim is true (or makes sense) ask it and I'll do my best to answer it.
Take care,
Anand
Staples - Saturday, May 21, 2005 - link
Very neat. Seems like the PS3 is almost a faster PS2 and that is about all. MS certainly has the upperhand as far as interface goes.barnett25 - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
Anand: I'd like to see what you have to say about the PS3, Xbox comparison at http://www.majornelson.com.flatblastard - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
Anand #19I do appreciate your effort in at least making an attempt to get into the press conference. How did it go...."Fink? We've never heard of you." I guess the old saying that, It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know, is still true. The big N has a history of doing this, so I'm not really surprised. I guess I was just expecting more from our great reviewer but if there was nothing to report, then there's nothing to report. duh
tfranzese - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
#24, sorry if you don't like me actually looking forward to the big N's next console. I actually enjoy my Gamecube along side my Xbox, so I will probably be buying two consoles again.As long as Nintendo makes their 1st party titles, that's enough reason for me to buy their system. I don't buy it so I can play EA's 20th rendition of Madden, Live, NFS, or any other 3rd party title. I'll have an Xbox for that junk. I've been more than satisfied with the quality and quantity of titles Nintendo has put on the Gamecube, and I have more to look forward to.
shaw - Friday, May 20, 2005 - link
#20 Look at how much nostalgia helps Sega. :pPeople used to think the world was flat once, get over it, move on.