Slashdot Mirror
PS3 Problems Parried
Via Joystiq, an article on Gaming Horizon defending the PS3 from its detractors. The article looks at a number of the biggest concerns about the system (price, HD, rumble, blu-ray), and attempts to explain why most of these problems are nothing to worry about. From the article: "As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade. There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to 'replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up), but it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle, and for those of us that have been blessed by the high-def gods, it's another reason to take advantage of the highest-quality visual equipment available."
Zonk posted a positive article about the PS3!
In other news, The Weather Channel reports a cold front descending on Hell.
I thought I was at a fencing match.
Defend it all you want. That doesn't change the fact it's still gonna cost $600, which I don't have.
Future ruler of a small Asian-Pacific island
It's a TRAP!
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
The author must be having a dot-com bubble flashback about the rate of technology adoption. Nearly 1/3 of all active internet users in the US are still on dialup (http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0604/). If that's "all but eliminated" I'll be happy to play poker with you.
Whoa! Zonk + positive PS3 submission? There is something going on here and I don't like it, not one bit.
But if you've been "blessed by the hi-def gods", $600 is likely a rounding error.
whether the PS3 rocks or not, it's still going to be niche. the niche being people with much more disposable income.
$600 for the system, $50 or so for a game, and $2000 for an HDTV if you want to get the most out of the system. thats quite a bit, even for me, and i have a lot of disposable income. the pricetag will turn off a lot of gamers who have control of their own fincances and find that they are too tight to splurge that much cash on a new game system.
Yawn!!! 500,000 units should be more than enough for the PS/3 launch. This time last year most of my gamer friends where debating pre-orders of the Xbox360 versus standing in line for the initial release. Fast forward to now--only one of my friends is contemplating picking up a PS/3--and he has no plans to pre-order. Personally, I'll be waiting until the PS/3 has proven to be a must have.
it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle
That's all well and good, but if that's the case, why do we need to buy the console now? Why not just wait until we can afford HDTVs as well? Surely the price will be lower on the PS3 itself by then.
I'm less worried about consumers taking the plunge. I'm more worried about game publishers worrying if consumers will take the plunge, and even with continued statement of Square's support of the console, it really still looks like 3rd parties are very tenative about the PS3, which means you get the whole chicken-and-egg problem.
The Wii is coming out with a launch library that beats, hands-down, anything in Nintendo's history (though I'd give you Tetris with the Game Boy if you insisted), and I still don't really know what's launching with the PS3, other than a game where a girl has an IGN logo on her breasts. With the Wii, people are talking about Wii Sports and Virtual Console and Red Steel and Twilight Princess and Metroid Prime 3. I couldn't tell you what's launching on the PS3 other than Untold Legend and presumably Ridge Racer.
The games that everyone trots out for the PS3 whenever they feel their fandom being infringed upon are Metal Gear Solid 4, Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 5, and Final Fantasy XIII. We all know FF13 won't be here for at least a year, and none of the other games are going to be anywhere close to the launch window either. Ordinarily that'd be fine, as it's been the same with most consoles other than the Dreamcast and Xbox, but with a set of $600 boxes in the store on launch day, I don't think retailers are going to give Sony long to prove their message. Sure, it's Sony, and that's why they're selling it now, because there's a very proven track record...but that faith and history will only carry you so far.
"Mod, mod, mod...and another troll bites the dust."
But if you are spending $500 in the first place, you must be doing so because you believe in Sony's vision of Blu-Ray and HD as the future even if it's more expensive than we've seen in the past. Once sold on the $500 system, the $600 one seems more future-proof with HDMI and a bigger hard drive. Sure, you can upgrade the $500 one in some ways, but you'll never get HDMI and the cost (and trouble) of the upgrade narrows the price difference anyway.
I have seen the future, and it is inconvenient.
The mods will most assuredly mod me down again but I don't care. I'm still rather torqued about the Rootkit bullshit that Sony pulled. They could drop the price down to $50/unit and I still wouldn't buy it.
Oh god, that woman is John Romero!
Holy crap they must be joking. Their points are all rediculous and terrible and actually bring up even more of the problems with the PS3.
On the plus side they do discourage people from stupidly buying the 360 like they did.
Blu-Ray is a non starter $600 is absurd, I don't care about inflation, they could choose their feature set and try and keep the price down, instead they decided to leverage their interests and build their tech base and launch at a price that doesn't appeal to consumers.
2 Models, Just to confuse you? No... It's stupid it differentiates the biggest advantage of consoles...
I hate how I see more and more people these days discussing the upgrade from 'Standard Definition' DVD's to HD-DVD (and the ilk) as being comparable to the upgrade from dialup to broadband, audio tape to CD or VHS to DVD.
The HD-DVD format doesn't bring many other new features to the table other than higher quality audio and video.
A more accurate comparison would push from VHS to SVHS (link). The SVHS medium did not offer many new features other than an increase in quality.
If anything, that only proved that consumers do not see value in a simple increase in quality.
Off topic, but it needed to be said.
And then people learn that unless they need HDMI they are getting a PS3 that does everything they need for 499.
Gosh, $499 is such a bargain compared to $599, you've completely changed my mind about buying a PS3.
"...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
the PlayStation 3 will be releasing in just a few months
Well I guess that depends where you live.
Spin, hype, hate, and fanboy adoration are quite typical in this business
True, but how often do you see such a large percentage of previous fanboys switch to being haters before the product even launches?
Decided to stop there because the rest of the article is very contradictory and they "point - counterpoint" themselves without my help. Example:
When defending the PS3 price they say well its got extra stuff like HDMI.
When defending why the base system won't support HDMI they say because people don't really need it.
Summarizing there a bit but thats how the rest of the article comes off.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
We bought a CRT-32" Toshiba Cinema Series tv about 6 years ago. Cost was $1300.
We replaced it with a 40" Daytek LCD about 2 weeks ago. Cost was $1800. I could have gotten a 42" plasma (Hitachi, I think) for about $1500.
Include inflation, and I'm sure it's even closer.
And those are Canadian dollars. Divide by 1.2 to get your US dollar cost.
PS3 Problems Parried
PS3 = Daigo
The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
Well, if you don't want to run Cat-5 cable all over your house to connect your 360 to the internet you'll need the $100 wireless adapter (or a 3rd party wireless bridge, they all cost between $70-$100).
That's probably why Sony decided not to include an HDMI cord, because people who use HDMI are quality freaks and they'll NEVER use stock out-of-box cables and they probably have a bunch laying around anyway.
So Microsoft was dumb for leaving out a wireless adapter to save money. But Sony made the right move by leaving out the HDMI cable to save money. Come on, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit there.
I mean i own a 360, and enjoy it, but I realize the PS3 is going to great too. I don't need to rip one to make the other look better. They each fill their tiny niche space well enough.
As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade.
Sony Computer Entertainment make the PS3. Sony Electronics make the HDTVs. They're both part of Sony, but typically in large companies such as this, the different divisions have as nothing to do with each other. They certainly wouldn't consider fringe benefits to another division as part of their business plan.
Every answer to the question reads as such: "People who don't want to pay $600 don't care about HD, and are stupid and poor anyway, so who cares, while people who care about HD already spent a jillion dollars on their TV, so they don't mind spending $600 on a gaming console and they're the only people Sony cares about because they have lots of money." Complete with the run-on sentences.
If at first you don't succeed, redefine 'success'.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I'll stand by my original statement; I don't think 42 inches is a "blessing" in the hi-def world.
If those were HD with built-in tuners, that's a pretty good price from what I've seen.
Still, you're talking about nearly $2,000 for a PS3 and the screen to make it worthwhile. No, thanks.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
You obviously missed it, but with 80% of produced PS3s being the $600 version, most people buying a PS3 will be spending at least $600, simply because the vast majority of PS3s available will cost $600. So, yes, saying the PS3 costs $600 is basically true.
Yep, for an extra $100, you can upgrade your $500 PS3 into a $600 PS3 minus the HDMI port! What a bargin!
No, really. Assume that a wireless adapter costs $20 and that most USB wireless adapters will work with the PS3. (As TiVo Series 2 owners know, fat chance on that happening.) Assume you get a card reader that costs $20. That leaves us with $60 for the hard drive, which is about the cheapest you can expect to spend.
The only reason to stick with the $500 version is if you don't need wireless, don't need the card reader, and don't need the HDMI port. Don't forget that if you want to grab your save games and head over to a friend's house, you'll need a card reader. Upgrading individual components is barely worth the money saved, epecially with PS3 games expected to cost $60-$100.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I won't dispute this statement, but it's not enough. Just because an HDTV is affordable doesn't mean that a person is going to buy it. If a person needs to buy a new TV in 1-2 years, he will probably find that HDTV's are affordable. But very few people find themselves in this situation. Even when all OTA signals are DTV, he'll probably buy a converter box instead of a new TV. With the exception of my first TV, all of my home electronic purchases have been upgrades, and I only bought them because I had the extra cash. Very few people will ditch their regular TV just for a PS3.
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
You obviously 'missed it' - there is no 80/20 split other than in the imagination of a reporter you a parroting.
Launch 499/599 PS3 allocation is being determined on a region by region basis and that allocation has nothing to do with the longer term breakdown of versions of the PS3.
"epecially with PS3 games expected to cost $60-$100."
Oh give it a rest!
Yeah, but his point still stands. The new 40" HDTV generation costs pretty much exactly as much as the 32" widescreen SDTV generation it replaces used to cost a few years ago, and those TVs in turn cost pretty much exactly as much as the 28" fullscreen SDTV generation it replaced used to cost a few years before that.
In Sweden, you can get a HD plasma or LCD for 10,000-15,000 kr, I bought a 32" CRT five years ago for 11,000 kr. In 1996, when I bought my first TV, a new 28" CRT cost 10,000 kr, but I was a poor student in those days and bought a crappy old 26" for a dime.
I suspect that all the whining about expensive HDTV sets comes from people who bought a 32" CRT two years ago and are pissed that they could get a brand new tv for almost the same money today.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
No one give a fuck what you buy dipshit.
Give the user what they need, not what they might need. Have accessories and let those who need them buy them. Everyone else gets a lower sticker price, instead of a bunch of features they will never use, but paid for anyway.
*Note, I'm not a Nintendo Fanboy, but I do have a bias towards the Wii*
Dude 1: Look at your game shelf, odds are you have 10-12 mediocre games there which total up to as much a PS3. Which would you rather have?
Me: A bit of misdirection since it doesn't factor in the extra 10-12 mediocre titles I'm eventually gonna end up with for the PS3
Dude 2: The 360 is only $400, but the PS3 is better with stuff like WiFi plus it's cheaper than any other BluRay player and then there's the cost of Xbox Live.
Me: I'll partly concede. The PS3 is a cheap BluRay drive, but I'm not sure I want a BR drive. I also don't feel that the PS3 will provide a $200 better gaming experience.
Dude 3: Consumer Electronics are getting more expensive, people are used to paying more for advanced technology such as the latest HiDef video camera.
Me: Ya, but that doesn't excuse Sony from having to justify costing more than its two competitors.
Me: This point and resulting counterpoints are lame, I'm skipping it.
Me: Another semi-lame point. It is true that High Def is not an important feature for many people without the sets for it. I also believe that gameplay is always better than graphics. But I do not think that it is bad to start pushing HD on consoles. I think that HD saturation will become more common as the console's lifetime progresses. It's not like Regular Def TVs are left out (Unless you want to read the text in Dead Rising).
Them: Not really in their control due to patent issues, tilt sensing is a shameless Wii rip off but it could be half decent, and Force Feedback is gimmicky anyways.
Me: I see them both as minor features, I don't think this is a huge issue. That said, the Wii gets movement sensing AND rumble.
Them: Console launches have never had 'enough' units. Plus, it's the units shipped by end of year that really matters. Also, supply shortages have been over dramatized before to create demand
Me: Fair point. Although I fo think that Sony might face a problem if supply is too short and people go in to pick up a Christmas present and end up walking out with a shiny new Wii since the 5 PS3's the store recieved have already been sold.
Them: People said this about the PS2 and DVDs
Me: I'm not getting into a HD-DVD vs BluRay vs Good Old DVD debate.
Dude 1: They said this about the PS2 Emotion Engine. Game developers should get used to the Cell and later PS3 games should look really good.
Me: Well, duh, they're going to get better at it if they use it a lot, but I don't see that doesn't mean its a good architecture.
Dude 2: Launch titles are gonna suck anyways, they'll get better at it, and programmers are whiny.
No comment
Dude 3: Off the record, I have heard of problems from developers. However, a hard architecture means great exclusives, buggy ports.
Me: Great exclusives are always nice, but I don't see Madden 0X running with less bugs on the XBox as a PS3 bonus.
Dude 4: On the flip side the XBox development kit could be to simple or "ametuer" plus the guys working on Full Auto 2 really like
If this signature is witty enough, maybe somebody will like me.
No, they complain about the cost of four PCs. If you have one console, you can play a four-player game. For example, in Bomberman or WWE, where all players are in one playfield and a single window shows all of the players at once. Tetris is split, but the playfield's aspect ratio is such that splitting the screen does not bother the players. On the other hand, virtually all four-player games for PC require four PCs.
The new 40" HDTV generation costs pretty much exactly as much as the 32" widescreen SDTV generation it replaces used to cost a few years ago, and those TVs in turn cost pretty much exactly as much as the 28" fullscreen SDTV generation it replaced used to cost a few years before that.
Point taken, and then thrown in the wastebin because it's irrelevant.
The pricepoint for the TV models mentioned above is substantially above $0.00. If I don't have or don't want to spend that kind of money, then no amount of rationalization about what value for cost is going to convince me to buy one.
Unless you already own a USB storage device such as a thumbdrive, hard drive, or iPod music player, which AFAIK the PS3 Core System is be compatible with. Or unless you already own a card reader, as is the case for a lot of photographers and people who play homebrew on a Nintendo or GPH handheld system. In fact, many popular digital cameras have a USB Mass Storage card reader built in. And I seem to remember natrium42.com selling budget card readers for only 4 USD. Am I right?
Oh yeah, let's ignore those annoying facts where Sony announced the 80/20 split. Unless you have actual proof that Sony never announced this, of course.
You're right, that is wrong. It should be $70-$100.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
I bought a 32" CRT SDTV less than a year ago. I paid $125 for it.
The cheapest 32" HD at the time was $400, and that had no tuner.
I don't worship at the altar of television, so I have no desire to spend $1,000+ on a TV.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Now that I think about it, I use to get more excited about consoles and games before I got online and started posting. Being online is addictive yet it ruins the hype because of all the negative comments about each system. Everybody that post on these sites are hardcore gamers(Even if you don't play games 24/7). We take the time out of our day to debate about the success and failure of video games. We all have a passion. It really don't matter what system wins because we will be back the next day. So we all are fanboy's of video games. We make up about 10% or less of the consumers buying these consoles when they come out. The other 90% buy the consoles with the lack of knowledge and because of the design, cost, games and its what their friends have. My uncle has a PS2 & GC and I could never convince him to buy a Xbox because of his stubborn ignorances. I try to tell him about how the PS3 is having major problems with a high price tag and to buy a 360 this generation yet he doesn't care because of the BRAND NAME SONY. Alot of people are the same way.
Those are some flawed arguments. I cant even convine my brother in law to get high speed internet even thought the price difference is only about $5 a month. I would think most concider vastly improved access to information far more valuable than the ability to see the pimples on Jessica Simpsons forehead. If you cant convince over 1/3rd of the country to go to something that is actually more than just visually improved in over 10 years or so how long do you really think its going to take for true penetration of HDTV by the majority. One big difference is the upfront costs, Internet accounts are paid for monthly and as a recurring expense it easier to move about when desired. HDTV is a large upfront expense that doesnt make alot of sense to joe sixpack who's TV is working fine already. You can of course make the same argument about both Blu-Ray and HDDVD but only one of them is being forced on you. But then I guess im just surrounded by bumpkins and hillbillies since the "majority" gladly spend a grand upgrading their entertainment center all the time and I dont know anyone who does.
I have a feeling the PS3 is going to be remembered as the NeoGeo of the current generation consoles. I remember when I was a teenager drooling over the Neogeo, I wanted one sooo bad but it was too expensive for my parents to be willing to buy it and all my attempts to save enough ended up in me spending it on something that I found I wanted more. Moms and Dads at christmas with more money than sense will buy junior a ps3 but I will bet the majority will be looking hard at the Wii. Regardless of your view of nintendo their price point is going to make it hard for parents shopping for a new console to reason the cost of the PS3 and probably even the Xbox 360.
A LOT of people don't replace their TVs very often. Many people who bought a tv 5 years ago probably won't buy another (big screen for the living room) tv for another 5. Considering inflation it may be that cars cost less than they did 3 years ago but not everyone buys a new car every 3 years even if that's what they'd need to do to get the latest/greatest sound system installed in their car.
Almost every one of their 'counter points' is just a canned fanboy response that doesn't make much sense. After reading this article I actually have less faith in the PS3 succeeding.
"Much as the inclusion of the DVD format may have pushed many gamers over the edge to purchase the PS2 ("Hey mom, it can play movies too!"), if Blu-Ray ends up edging-out the HD-DVD format, it's another quality that'll make the system more versatile, which is never a bad thing."
Comparing the DVD/PS2 upgrade to BlueRay/PS3 is completely different. DVD was a proven technology, provided MANY immediate consumer benefits (no rewinding, much higher resolution, much better sound, no media degridation, smaller format), and had no competing technology.
Sony really should of delayed BluRay, only around 10-20% of US households have a HDTV and even less care about HD gaming. With the advent of DVRs and media streaming just around the corner, I wouldn't be surprised if both HDDVD and BlueRay never take off. Media streaming provides the next immediate consumer benefit (no media to physically move around).
Sony putting BluRay in the PS3 will probably turn out to be the worst decision ever made in the companies history.
... this won't have any bearing on the PS3's success once it goes commercial, right?
8==8 Bones 8==8
There is one and only one reason for a $499 SKU. It's not intended for anyone to buy it. Its only purpose is so that Sony's marketing crew and other staff can say the PS3 is "under $500". This fact makes any discussions regarding what hardware is or is not in the $499 version totally moot.
"Ryan (TUS): Consumer electronics today have begun to cost more and more, and considering what comes included with the $599 PS3 super-package, I'm honestly surprised that it isn't more expensive." The cost appropriateness of the PS3 aside, does anyone believe the first part of this statement to be true? It seems to me, that by their very nature consumer electronics go down in price over time. Currently even high end PCs are considerably less expensive than low end PCs a decade ago. Even "new" entries into the market are less expensive than similar forrunners. When DVRs started to emerge they were less expensive than the original VCRs and the cost of even moderately sized HDTVs are less than the very first (black & white) consumer televisions. I know that people believe that prices increase over time, and that is true for many things, but I can think of very few cases where this is true in the consumer electronics market, especially for already existing markets.
Most of those comparisons are flawed, it's true: switching from tape to optical media is a significant difference with an obvious difference in features.
But when it comes to dial-up vs. broadband, I'm not so sure. Broadband is just like dial-up, only faster. I guess there's the "always-on" feature, but you could have that if you paid for an extra land line (which is frequently just as expensive as broadband).
Now, you might say: "But with broadband comes all these crazy features that you could never have squeezed down a 56.6 baud pipe!" Yeah, well, the BR/HD folks say the same thing about their new formats: you can cram all kinds of crazy stuff into the dozens of GB these disks can offer. Not to mention that Blu-ray supports a full Java stack, blah blah blah.
And, despite the fact that broadband hasn't universally replaced dial-up, I'd suspect (without evidence) that this is mostly due to limited availablity of broadband in many parts of the US and the world.
When I moderate, I only use "-1, Overrated". That way, I never get meta-moderated!
I read this, and I said, "WHA?! He wants it to cost MORE?!" The emphasis here should be placed on several hundred dollars, of which the PS3 is not. It is not several. It is a BUNDLE of hundred dollars. It is a multitude, or a plethora of hundreds of dollars, spent on a single item that demands other hundreds of dollars to be spent on upgrading the rest of one's entertainment system, to make the whole ordeal worthwhile. A video camera doesn't demand you upgrade your television, and upgrading your entertainment system usually gets you a whole lot more than a PS3.
Excuse me? I'm not a gamer because I don't happen to have 600 dollars lying around that I can throw at a game system when it launches? I'm not a gamer because I'm a college student, or perhaps I'm on a tight income? This disgusts me. It's a slap in the face.
Again, a sort of slap in the face, implying that anyone who liked the rumble feature is stupid. Also, way to sidestep the fact that the Wii gets you the response to direct actions on TOP of vibration. Must... resist... urge... to strangle... Sony fanboy...
Question sidestepped, and point completely missed. Every PS3 sold is a PS3 Sony hasn't made money on. If there's a shortage on launch day, Sony is not, somehow, making imaginary money on these systems not sold. The fact that the Wii will be releasing at the same time or earlier makes the whole thing even more dangerous. If someone can't get a PS3, what's to stop them from buying an 360 AND a Wii instead? Launch is vital. Plus, if Sony can't get their act together for launch, what's to say they can pull off their projected end of the year quotes anyway?
Really now? That's one I've never heard. DVD did well because of the PS2. If that's not the most fanboyish thing I've ever heard... next they'll be telling me that the PS2 contributed to the polio vaccine. DVDs succeeded because they were better than VHSes. They are more compact, last longer, easier to use (does anyone even remember having to rewind VHS tapes anymore?), cheaper... not because they happened to be compatible with the PS2.
HOW INTERESTING! All Launch games suck? So, Super Mario 64 sucked? You're going to tell me that Legend of Zelda:
No, Mr. Green. Communism is just a red herring.
Not only that, but there may be other limiting factors involved as well. We will never be able to have anything other than a 4:3 CRT, 32" or less, in our living room. Why? Because that's the only form factor our entertainment hutch will accept, and the hutch is built into the wall (and hence can't be removed without taking out the entire wall). We'd love to have a widescreen TV, and we have more than enough disposable income to afford one, but we have no place to put it.
First rule of trauma: Bleeding always stops.
I love it when people respond to the GP kind of posts. Even if it's a pissant AC. No one cares? Aparently the person whos saying that cares heavily or they'd never have said a word.
The *only* real issue is the price, and that will come down. Here in NZ, the PS2 launched at over NZ$1000, it's now a couple of hundred bucks. The same will happen for the PS3. The PS2 was a huge success and the PS3 will be as well.
*I* certainly won't buy one at launch prices, but I know that plenty of other people will, and eventually the price will drop to where I can afford it.
That didn't debunk anything, or anything like that. It was pretty much just "Well, it's because..." I don't care why, if there are problems, it still sucks.
How about buying a projector and a pulldown canvas? You could use the space used by the TV for a fishtank or a bookshelf. You'd be surprised how much nicer a room looks without a huge TV in the middle.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
Sure, there are lots of valid reasons for not buying a HDTV. Lack of interest, lack of money, etc.. The OP and a lot of other people claim that they are too expensive. I'm just saying that a HDTV today costs no more than an average TV used to cost five or ten years ago.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
oh, wait, they still cost thousands of dollars and the PS3 still costs much more than a Wii or xBox360 does ...
never mind - gonna use that to pay for the gas on my H3.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
1. It's not here. I repeat, it's not here and it'll miss the Christmas season (for me). That means Sony plans to sell zero of the potential units they could have sold during the Christmas season in Europe. If I remember anything about being a kid, it was two major gift showers, my birthday and Christmas. Only one of them is at the same time for everyone. Whoever missed getting a console last Christmas probably will this Christmas.
2. It's 600$ alone, and it requires expensive games, accessories (they're expensive for every console tho) and if you want to have any use of the HDTV capability, an HDTV set. It's not a matter of whether it's value for the money or "is there a market for Porsche?" but rather "You're telling me everyone will be driving Porches?". At that price, it's bling-bling for upper-class kids, make no mistake about it.
3. Blu-Ray is a complete non-seller.
a) It is not needed for games. Seriously, my "The 7th Guest" on 2CDs played on 1x CD-ROM is around here somewhere, since then everything got smaller because computers render, and don't just run long pre-rendered movies. Even with ultra-HD textures 9GB is plenty, it's a few MB of shader code which does magic.
b) For movies, Blu-Ray is not compelling over well upscaled DVD unless you have a 1080p native set. Forget 720p or 768p, with the downscaling you won't notice. Plus, you just lost any option to send the kids to play on your second TV (if you have a 1080p TV, you have a second TV) because dad wants to see a movie. Whether it's HDMI or not is just clouding the issue.
My conclusion (most other things being very fuzzy):
People will see this as a very expensive car. Yes, it's flashy and got this fancy features here and stuff there, but in the end it doesn't do its core function significantly better than an average car. They might find a market there, but for they market they say they're aiming for, it's a miss. If the Wii can pull off some "must-have" launch title and make people give it a try because it's so cheap, thinking it'll be their second console (not that unlikly if you're considering a full PS3 setup cost) it might never get off the ground.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I get standard definition 16:9 programming in 360i all the time and my family doesn't even have digital cable. For one thing, movie commercials are most often broadcast as 16:9 in 360i. So are a lot of shows on the documentary channels (History, Discovery Health, TLC, etc).
For families with children, yes. What will $600 buy you in a PC vs. what will $2400 buy you in consoles and accessories? And if you're talking bring your own computer, did you mean "bring your dad's computer"? I've never known of a play date where a minor was allowed to carry the family PC out of the house.
Even if you're obligated to babysit someone?
Even with handicapping turned on?
"As Sony is a company that manufactures HD-TVs, it's in their interest to add that compatibility to give consumers another reason to upgrade."
This ignores whether or not consumers want to upgrade. Trying to charge consumers more in an effort to get them to upgrade is putting the cart before the horse.
"There's various numbers about how long it'll take for HD to 'replace' standard-feed televisions (just as broadband has all but eliminated dial-up),"
Bad metaphor. Broadband had a killer app, and its name was Napster. Broadband enabled you to get content (music, video, etc.) that was, realisticly, unavailable on dial-up. HDTV offers only the same content (i. e. car dealership ads) only with a sharper image.
The only hope HDTV has of finding a kiler app at this point is console gaming; it should be gaming side of the PS3 that Sony should be focusing on to sell HDTVs, not the movie-playing side.
"but it's conceivable that HD televisions will become affordable during the PS3's lifecycle,"
HDTVs, perhaps, but HDTV+PS3 doesn't sound like it will be "affordable" before the end of the decade.
"and for those of us that have been blessed by the high-def gods, it's another reason to take advantage of the highest-quality visual equipment available."
But how many people have been "blessed" by a maxed out credit card? Is it realistic to believe these early adopters are numerous enough to drive PS3 sales? Wouldn't these people also have driven Xbox 360 sales?
I agree. I work in the repair part of a technology store and I can't tell you how many times I've had customers balk at the idea that they could buy a new system for the price of a single expensive part on their old machine. (This is especially true with laptop screens.) I hear people all the time complaining, "But I paid $UNGODLY_AMOUNT for this thing!"
PS3 price = mortgage payment
Have you seen mortgage prices lately? I'm house hunting, and I'd *love* to have a mortgage payment that was a mere 600 bucks.*
*does not constitute disagreement with the undeniable fact that, yes, modern board and shelter should cost more than a freaking overpriced videogame console
Uhm... You're missing the point. The "impressive hardware" is precisely why it's "just another playstation." The PS2's claim to fame was the same (emotion engine or whatever). Faster hardware is not innovation. Faster hardware is evolution.
Up up down down left right left right B A?
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
In all of the flame wars about the competing HD movie formats, one thing I've not seen discussed much is that neither the Xbox 360 nor the PS3 are likely to be any good as movie players.
I've got an Xbox 360. Due to the cooling required it is far too loud to be seriously considered as a movie player. It's bad enough when playing games.
Obviously the PS3 isn't yet available, so we can't yet judge how noisy it will be. However, given the power requirements, it's unlikely to be any better than the 360.
Also (and I know this isn't directly applicable to the PS3 situation), remember that despite being sold as such, the PS2 was a really dreadful DVD player.
In 1993 I interviewed with 3DO (several of my former coworkers and friends were working there). They offered me a serious raise to move out there; the work was cool; the coworkers were great; the environment and perks rocked. Trip Hawkins himself interviewed me and gave me the hard sell. Later I described Trip Hawkins as having a "reality-distortion field" surrounding him. I left there convinced, but I'd told myself I wouldn't say yes or no until I had a chance to think.
After getting home, I realized that I didn't buy Trip Hawkins explanation why they could sell a videogame system (in 1993) for $700, and he didn't seem to be that interested in driving the price down quickly. I should have been one of the target early-adopters (enough money, lifelong gamer, single, male, 31) - and I wouldn't pay that. I turned them down.
A few days later, on a Saturday, I got a call from Trip himself, asking why I'd turned them down, and trying to convince me a) that it could sell, and b) to change my mind. Obviously, he wasn't successful.
So, while $600 (after inflation) is considerably lower than $700 in 1993, it's still high. The big catch is that it's also a blue-ray player which (to those with HD displays) adds some definite value, and may help persuade the non-game-players in the household.
$500 buys quite a few things. Including TWO Wii machines.
HD isn't that special- yet.
So far, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray's showing up to be another VHS vs. Betamax war. You all know how that ended up.
(And we won't go into what lackluster offerings we're seeing from the media companies in those formats...)
Just because the DVD player in the console worked for Sony and Microsoft at the beginnings means little;
the price point was justified and it sold quite a few units because it was cheaper to buy the console
than to get a console and a DVD player- and the DVD format was already entrenched and everyone wanted
a DVD player at that time. This meant that they could get away with pricing the consoles at the ~$300
mark and they'd sell in a time when $150-200 was what they were normally selling for. The same can't be
said for HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. They made this play waaay too soon and it is going to cost Sony and to a lesser
extent Microsoft sales- especially if the Wii comes on as strong as it's looking to be.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Consumers aren't drawn to relatively minor improvements in quality for moderately large price increases.
SVHS is nicer. No doubt about it. If it'd offered the quality jump that DVDs offered, it'd been
an easier sell and DVD would have had harder issues getting into the marketplace- IF the pricing
wasn't compelling along with the nifty new features like effectively full random access to the
movie, makings of, etc. that they throw into the DVDs these days when they come out.
It's all about what do you get for the price increases. If they gave HD-DVD quality for SVHS pricing
at the time the format came out, don't doubt for a moment that it'd gotten more traction.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
are worth money? The question isn't how many dial up customers are there, it's how many are there you can sell crap to.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Millions of people in the US cannot get broadband. In fact, there are nearly as many dialup users in the US as there are broadband. 45% of Internet users still use dialup... them's numbers to be aware of.
Now, it is very true that dialup users browse the Internet less, and are online less, than broadband users... so the number of visitors to any particular website are closer to 75% broadband. But in absolute numbers, dialup is far from dead.
The ISP I work for has 5000 dialup users, and 500 broadband users. In most of our service area, dialup is all that is available... and there is little we can do about it. Trees and hills block wireless, DSL is too short range, satellite is mediocre and expensive, cable doesn't reach...
Dialup won't die until broadband can reach rural areas at a price point under $20 per month.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.