Playstation 3 Pricing Announced

krabby5

jdhdiggs wrote:

You need to drop the 360 from the Xbox, Cool info.

Are you sure PS1 sold that many units? I can't remember a single person I know ever having one....

I assume you aren't serious?

jdhdiggs

krabby5 wrote:

I assume you aren't serious?

Uh, yeah, I'm serious...

polksda

A big problem with both the PS3 ($499 version) and the Xbox 360 HD-DVD add-on is that they're analog output only for video, meaning that the studios can disable 1080i output by enabling the ICT on titles (none of the current HD-DVD titles have the ICT flag enabled, meaning you can get 1080i on HD-DVDs on component output, but that is no guarantee for future titles). Neither the PS3 nor the Xbox 360 will upconvert SD-DVD to 720p or 1080i over component video.

You need to buy the $599 version of the PS3 to get a digital video output (HDMI).

I think a lot of people are going to be confused by this, and I don't think that ultimately PS3 will be the savior of Blu-Ray that everyone thinks it will be...

cheddar

Yep,

First generation stuff is always confusing in electronics. But that's even more incentive to go with a solution that may be "good enough" for now with a major investment in a quality stand alone in a few years when all the dust is settled. I remember when I had to learn what "progressive-scan" dvd players were. :rolleyes: Do they even make non-480p dvd players anymore?

BTW, ICT with the flag on only down-rezes to 960 x 540. Not HD, but still 50% better than 720 x 480 SD. And the first generation stand alones aren't any less confusing. Toshiba's HD-DVD players won't do 1080p even with HDMI and neither format's 1st gen players (Toshiba, Sony, and Samsung) upconvert to component output (at least according to crutchfield). So if you were a 1st generation HDTV buyer without HDMI, you're out of luck.

polksda

cheddar wrote:

BTW, ICT with the flag on only down-rezes to 960 x 540. Not HD, but still 50% better than 720 x 480 SD. And the first generation stand alones aren't any less confusing. Toshiba's HD-DVD players won't do 1080p even with HDMI and neither format's 1st gen players (Toshiba, Sony, and Samsung) upconvert to component output (at least according to crutchfield). So if you were a 1st generation HDTV buyer without HDMI, you're out of luck.

Just a few comments:

1. The Toshiba HD-A1 and HD-XA1 won't do 1080p *right now*, but it's widely considered that this will be enabled via firmware at some point (it's not a hardware limitation). Of course there are no guarantees.

2. You're not limited to HDMI. If you have DVI input that is HDCP-compliant, all is well. My Mitsubishi WS-65613 does not have an HDMI input. I'm using an HDMI-DVI dongle, and it works just fine.

cheddar

polksda wrote:

Just a few comments:

1. The Toshiba HD-A1 and HD-XA1 won't do 1080p *right now*, but it's widely considered that this will be enabled via firmware at some point (it's not a hardware limitation). Of course there are no guarantees.

2. You're not limited to HDMI. If you have DVI input that is HDCP-compliant, all is well. My Mitsubishi WS-65613 does not have an HDMI input. I'm using an HDMI-DVI dongle, and it works just fine.

I wasn't trying to say anything bad about first movers. There's almost always work arounds, that's part of the fun *agony* of getting the 1st gen stuff. I was just saying that the confusion is more of a 1st gen thing and applies to all the stuff out in the first year .

michael_w

Yet another perfect reason to wait until they get settled down a little bit come out with a second generation. It'll be cheaper and hopefully have any known bugs patched already.

cheddar

Ya, I know. But my HDTV keeps sending out these vibes...

...uuuuuppppggrade. mmmmust fffeed mme HD. yyyou ggget tto ppplay PS3 as a bbbonus...:eek:

Kris Siegel

cheddar wrote:

Do they even make non-480p dvd players anymore?

When I worked at Circuit City 2 years ago they only sold 1 non-progressive DVD player for $14.99 and it was not manufactured anymore. They were selling $20 progressive scan DVD players so I'd assume they don't sell any non-progressive scan players anymore.

tommyboy

to me, hd is overrated. I love my 32" analog sony and won't buy a new tv until mine explodes;) . Audio though, in my opinion, is a different story. I know this sounds really stupid but one of the biggest reasons I bought an xbox is because the games are dolby digital. Sound is what puts you into movies/games, not a better picture.

I know most of you agrees don't agree but...

Sami

Both have their points, and we all have our preferences. I switch between my HT room and bedroom depending on the movie and the mood I'm in. HT has much better audio with great bass while bedroom has much better picture with 2.0 audio. I'm fixing that since the bedroom setup is new.

I can watch movies with big beautiful screen with poor audio, I did that with the TV's speakers before setting up the LSi15's in 2.0 setup. I still don't consired that a great audio setup but it does the job. Now, a 30" set, no, I can't do that no matter how great the audio is.

Demiurge

Just as long as you don't try to tell us that HD isn't better, because it clearly is (no pun intended).

I do know that I don't give a crap about 1080i, and 1080p, that's for sure. You're talking about small beans with that, but the difference between the old TVs and the HDTVs is astronomical.

Sound is great for some games (Splinter Cell type games, G.R.A.W., etc.), but for most it doesn't matter and just gets annoying -- besides at my house we're usually playing music while we're playing games anyhow.

In any event, as far as this discussion goes....I am not a fan of people reviewing stuff that have biases. I just want the best gaming experience for my buck, and I think that competition is good. I'd rather see Sony succeed than fail because it keeps prices down in the long run, but I am skeptical at this point.

tommyboy

Demiurge wrote:

Just as long as you don't try to tell us that HD isn't better, because it clearly is (no pun intended).

I do know that I don't give a crap about 1080i, and 1080p, that's for sure. You're talking about small beans with that, but the difference between the old TVs and the HDTVs is astronomical.

Sound is great for some games (Splinter Cell type games, G.R.A.W., etc.), but for most it doesn't matter and just gets annoying -- besides at my house we're usually playing music while we're playing games anyhow.

In any event, as far as this discussion goes....I am not a fan of people reviewing stuff that have biases. I just want the best gaming experience for my buck, and I think that competition is good. I'd rather see Sony succeed than fail because it keeps prices down in the long run, but I am skeptical at this point.

I'm definitely not saying analog looks better the hd, I worked at CC for two years, i know the difference. I just feel that in movie experience, in my opinion, the picture quality on my tv good enough for me. Before I quit, I was looking at the 34" sony xbr tube but decided i didn't need it right now.

Now, about the sound in video games, i would have to disagree with you. The sound even on my gamecube (only pro logic II) sounds awesome. Surround sound helps a lot in FPS knowing where enemies are. When I went to a friends house to play his xbox 360 on the 50 sony with no surroun sound, I was very dissapointed. The picture looked great but the tv speakers are just aweful. I would rather play the 360 with an analog tv with surround than play on a big screen with no surround. thats just me.

tommyboy

Demiurge

Like I said, sound is great for some games, like Splinter Cell, G.R.A.W. and games that use audio as an integral part of the game. I like games like that, however most games tend to get really repetitive with the audio that I just can't stand them. I wish more gaming companies would integrate good audio into their games.

As far as TVs, I'm weird, I would rather have a smaller TV with a sharper picture than a giant TV that doesn't look good. I'm very happy with my HDTV, and I have yet to see a better picture on a big screen. I paid as much as a big screen, but got a good picture.

krabby5

jdhdiggs wrote:

Uh, yeah, I'm serious...

I don't know anybody who DIDN'T have a playstation back in the day..those who were into video games, anyways..

their market share was crazy

tommyboy

Demiurge wrote:

Like I said, sound is great for some games, like Splinter Cell, G.R.A.W. and games that use audio as an integral part of the game. I like games like that, however most games tend to get really repetitive with the audio that I just can't stand them. I wish more gaming companies would integrate good audio into their games.
.

Yeah, I could understand that,some game companies put a lot more money into graphics and nothing on audio. Few games I love to play on Surround: Halo 2, resident evil 4, metroid prime 2, Brothers in arms. other than those (mostly FPS) surround isn't a must.

tommyboy

krabby5 wrote:

I don't know anybody who DIDN'T have a playstation back in the day..those who were into video games, anyways..

their market share was crazy

I was in middle school at the time and everyone had a PS1. I had one too but never liked the games (except for ff7 and twisted metal), I mostly used it for playing cds.

Demiurge

I gave a presentation in one of my technology classes back in high school using the PS1 with my project partner. I think we showcased the original Resident Evil. Eveyone was pretty amazing at the graphics....look how far we've come just since then. I bought that unit when it just came out, so I think it was new for most of those people too at the time.

cheddar

Don't forget that HD disk formats include minimum 7.1 high resolution sound formats. So if you've got the equipment, you win with both video and audio. I don't know how much of that will trickle down to the console games, but the PS3 is capable of 7.1 surround.

You guys might be interested in this:

http://www.gamespot.com/features/6147812/index.html