Not to mention the PS3 which can be had for $500 or $600.
It really is ridiculous to suggest Blu-Ray cost as much when clearly they don't. I also think that any price discrepancy between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players has little to do with what goes in the box. Both formats have almost identical technical requirements. Perhaps Toshiba has just been subsidzing the HD-DVD format more, or conversely perhaps Sony et al have just been inflating their price.
Irrespective I think it's rather silly to claim that these players will change things. Even if Walmart dumped $300 players on the market by Christmas or next year, the chances are that the Blu-Ray camp will simply reciprocate and deliver the coup de grace.
and if they properly emulated their own hardware they wouldnt have that problem.
You don't get it. Every game hits the hardware in different ways. Some games won't touch certain APIs at all. Other games might use an API extensively. Others might run through middleware like Renderware or Unreal. Microsoft does not have the source code to the majority of these games and can only figure out what each game uses by profiling it. Making an emulator which supports all games in existence out of the gate is virtually impossible.
Clearly MS targetted a handful of games (perhaps aided by game source) and made them work first. Then they wash rinse and repeat. At each stage they target certain featuresets and disparate games that use the same features all suddenly work.
Even Sony which has put considerably more effort into BC than MS only has 75% compatibility in the EU version. And that's with hardware assistance. While I don't think MS has made much effort with their BC, it is clearly a non trivial exercise.
please explain to me how you make an xbox emulator that doesn't play every xbox game?
Because every game is hitting the system in different ways, on top of which they have emulate the XBox hardware architecture. I expect it's non-trivial.
I doubt its anything to do with the time it takes to play homebrew. After all, it takes an hour to install YDL on a PS3 and you CAN'T play PS3 games while running Linux. But there's your answer if you want to write homebrew.
Does it have 3D hardware access? Nope, but somebody could and should write a Cell powered driver for Mesa. Hook up Mesa to a couple of SPUs to do rapid transforms and other 3D operations. It would probably be comparable to most IGP offerings and would suffice for most homebrew games.
Actually the pitch appears to be "it plays games, dvds, cd, blu ray, mp3s, aacs, pictures, video clips, browses the web etc.". Some people appear to have latched onto blu ray as if its a bad thing that it plays hd content.
The PS3 isn't just a console though, it's an entertainment system. Sony have lots of potential for revenue - sales of the system, games, downloadable games, DVDs, music, memory sticks + other accessories, blu-ray discs and of course HD sets. In the future they're bound to also sell music, films and TV shows through the system too. And users have lots of justification for spending more because it plays blu-ray, dvds, cds, games etc.
I have no idea if Sony are doing the right thing, but people who thing the PS3 is just a games console aren't seeing things from Sony's perspective. Games are an important part of the lineup, but they're not the only one.
Arguably being the key word here. I haven't seen any developer familiar with the PS3 actually complain about the amount of memory available to them. Obviously, Linux performance suffers a bit under the hypervisor, but that's because Sony is hiding the graphics chip, not because there isn't enough RAM available. The claims of lack of memory came out of the revelation that Oblivion was caching to the hard drive to improve load times, I believe, but Bethesda said that the same thing was done on the 360 as well.
I haven't either. I've seen lots of XBox 360 fanboys complain though. Fact is that the PS3 has 512Mb, it's just segmented into video and main memory. Additionally some memory is reserved for the OS, but the amount is quite conservative and probably anticipates what Sony *might* need for the OS not what they actually use. They may loosen the reserved memory TRC for future games as it becomes clear what functionality to expose through it. It certainly hasn't stopped the PS3 from already having games which have massive levels - games like Motorstorm & Resistance have some enormous areas in that wouldn't often see in PC titles let alone in a console. And like you say Oblivion works just fine despite what the naysayers would have people say before release. I expect in time we'll also see all the Oblivion expansions appear too including Shivering Isles.
We know that the PS3 over in Europe already lost its PS2 hardware in favor of a software emulator for PS2 game backwards compatibility. It's only a matter of time before that change shows up in PS3s elsewhere.
It works quite well so I wouldn't sweat the change. I agree you should pick up the hardware BC model if you have an obscure and large collection of titles that you still play. Otherwise software BC works very well. I've seen some minor texture glitches in some of the games I've tried for the most part they play exactly like they do on the PS2 - better in fact since you get 576p. Most major titles are supported and even demanding ones like God of War appear to work very well. I expect that subsequent firmware updates as well as introduction to the US & Japanese regions will make the BC even better.
Sony are rumoured to be going to an 80Gb model which is hardly a great leap. Who knows why they have a new model but probably because they're getting the 80Gb drives at the same prices as they used to get the 60Gb models for so they're switching. Perhaps some other OEM is providing the drives. How is that bad for the consumer if you get an extra 20Gb for the same price?
That's a commendable attitude which I'm sure you'll spend many hours explaining to police officers when someone uses your system to download kiddie porn or something equally illegal.
That's my point. I can easilt rip a DVD and produce a perfectly acceptable single or dual layer DVD+R with about 90 minutes work. I don't see any point at all in Sony or anybody else attempting to copy protect DVDs or CDs since the measures are trivial to circumvent. So what if it prevents bit-for-bit copies? I expect the first thing most pirates would do is run the disc through DVD decryptor or similar first to strip out macrovision, region encoding etc. anyway.
What's to stop me whipping out DVD Decrypter and just stripping this copy protection? If need be, I could then fire up Nero Recode and do my own menus too. How does any copy protection scheme work on a format that doesn't expect one or have any way for a player to enforce it?
Seriously I wonder if Sony HQ shouldn't muzzle Sony BMG and tell them to forget about retro DRM schemes because it seems to be fuckups all the way. The whole company is getting a bad reputation because of one small part - a part which in truth should be subservient to the rest, and not the other way around as it seems to be at the moment.
Put a normal alarm where you can't reach it, such as by the door. Thus you have to get out of bed to reach it. Then spend the $50 you saved on a pointless gadget on something useful like beer.
He got away with it *both* times because the law emasculates the citizen from carrying a weapon at all times. If there were no restrictions on concealed carry, more people would carry. If V. Tech (like may schools) didn't ban firearms on its grounds, it's probable that some people in either group would have been armed and could have defended themselves.
Yeah, a genius idea. Students would be shooting at each other in the hysteria. Not to mention that the number of fatalities in isolated incidents of an armed populace would undoubtedly be higher tha one-offs like this.
JT's immediate bandwagon jumping, shows him for the c**t that he really is. There is no other explanation. The guy is a scumbag, a slimey, bottom feeding piece of trash ready to exploit any tragedy for his own personal agenda.
I also really, really, really hate the attempted "synergy." If you want the PS3, you need to pay for Blu-ray. Everything you buy will use MemoryStick, and where possible, use proprietary cables, plugs, and formats to try to lock you in to buy other Sony products, and not work well with non-Sony products.
I agree with you except for the PS3. The PS3 is a quality piece of kit and is by far the most open of any console. It uses industry or open standards such as HDMI, CF, MS, SD, USB, bluetooth, 801.11g, MP3, AAC, H264, AVC etc. I had absolutely no trouble using it with my Freecom bluetooth keyboard or a Motorola headset or an external USB drive. Hell, you can even swap out the hard disk too through a convenient hatch and replace it for any other 2.5" SATA drive. If you want to see proprietary, take a look at the 360 where the cost of a hard disk or memory card is more than double what it should be thanks to proprietary casings.
As for Blu-Ray, yes I expect it does add $100 to the price at least and in some ways it is a trojan horse. But it is useful for games and games can and do use the extra capacity. And lots of people do want to watch HD content so its useful in that capacity too. Blu-Ray sales are rocketing so it's hard to deny that the PS3 isn't mostly responsible for that.
I think the PS3 actually represents the the sort of synergy that Sony should be looking for. While the console is very standards based and you are not compelled to use any other Sony gear, it obviously drives sales of Bravia TVs (esp. 1080p models) and Blu-Ray discs, and conversely sales of Bravia TVs drive sales of PS3s. And given that Blu-Ray appears to be winning against HD-DVD I'd say the PS3 has been very successful way of seeding the market. Seems like Sony are doing something right.
I think other Sony gear runs the spectrum from crap to good. I really have loyalty or interest in their stuff aside from Playstation. I think the best approach for most consumer electronics gear is to pick the best of breed whichever company produces it.
Ack, I used a less than sign in the sentence and it mangled my submission. It should have read - "4Gb HD version using AVC or similar and a sub-1Gb version using H264 SP or similar for portable devices. Trying to produce a single file that plays good on both is not going to satisfy either. Not that any of this has anything to do with the fundamental clunkiness of the Apple TV."
Hm. Laptops? Remote Desktop? Why would I walk back to my desk? People turn off their PCs? Almost everyone I know leaves their computer up 24/7. We have various reasons. One of my machines is a streaming server, so if I turned it off I wouldn't have access to my stuff anyway. Also, I do not want to have to wait for my machines to boot when I get home, so let them run I say.
Apple are aiming Apple TV at a handful of geeks running computers 24/7? Great way to slash the target audience. Expecting people to use a laptop to partially workaround a problem in Apple TV is pretty back-asswards too. The thing is a PC at heart so why doesn't it run iTMS locally?
Except this is how all media streamers work. Whether from Linksys or an XP MCE Extender. Apple didn't really revolutionize much with the Apple TV, but they did help reduce issues with lag of regular streaming. Also, the fact iTMS stuff is portable, since it goes on your iPod easily, sort of makes it a better solution then Xbox360 movies.
Decent streaming demands high capacity wifi or dedicated LAN. Another requirement that reduces the target audience even more. Besides, while I think it's nice that Apple store movies are portable I don't see it as being that much of an advantage. One size should not and does not fit all. I would prefer to see two versions being covered by your purchase - a 3-4Gb HD version using AVC or similar and a
Not that any of this has anything to do with the fundamental clunkiness of the Apple TV.
Your fascination with the 360 is wonderful. You talk about the additional cost of the Apple TV, but doesn't it require an Xbox360 to get and play movies? Remind me what one of those costs? Oh, and you even admit the drive is small. So, they are going to start selling you a $480 version. Smooth ain't it? The feeling of Microsoft bending you over. Tell me, do they kiss you when they are done or just quietly walk out of the room?
I don't even own a 360 so I don't know why think you're pushing my buttons. Simply put the 360 has a better model for movie downloads that the Apple TV and that's all there is to it. It's up to Apple to fix their box because their model is broken. They should integrate their iTMS service into the box. Until then their offering sucks.
It is also ridiculous to argue that the Apple TV represents good value because it's $100 less than a 360 when it REQUIRES a PC causing it to cost way much more and to be a considerable extra bother to use. And when the 360 is also a kickass games console, plays DVDs, CDs etc. too. I'm sure also that the 360 Elite's price will sink once the XBox Core stock is cleared out.
It's interesting that you even quibble about that cost when you say you run your PCs 24/7. How many hundreds of dollars extra is that?
I could see the point of a dual player if both formats had a future. But its looking increasingly likely that HD-DVD would be lucky to see the new year the way things are going. Given that, why would someone bother to buy a dual player, especially since the cost is likely to be substantially higher than a player that just played one format.
My understanding of the Apple TV device is that it employs a 40Gb HDD as a cache, but it must sync this cache with an iTunes that is running on a PC or Mac on your local network. So in order to buy a movie, you must first walk to wherever your PC or Mac is, turn it on, wait for it to boot, log into iTMS, order a movie, wait for the movie to download, walk back to your TV, wait for Apple TV to sync with iTunes and then play the movie. Oh and turn off your PC or Mac again afterwards. Once you have the movie in the cache you can play it whenever you like but the initial process is a pain.
As I said it's completely back-asswards. I think Apple TV would work fairly well if you could download movies DIRECT to the box, but it's completely stupid to have to download them to a PC first. I can understand why they might have done this given the effort of implementing iTMS & iTunes on a TV device but it still doesn't excuse how stupid the set up is.
By contrast the process for an XBox 360 is fairly straightforward - navigate to the movie you want in the menu, click buy, wait for it to download and start playing. That's the way that video on demand should work. The 360 is hobbled by a small hard disk, but I expect the IPTV / movie download service is a driving reason for moving to 120Gb and HDMI.
Yes I've heard of Apple TV. It's an additional $300 that still requires you download movies to a computer, and then sync them in order to watch them on your TV. It's a pretty stupid back-asswards way of doing things. I imagine in time that Apple will integrate iTMS into Apple TV but until they do, the system is a very clunky and convoluted way to deliver movies to a TV. Not like Apple at all.
By contrast, ordering movies on an XBox 360 for example is as easy as choosing the movie and just clicking on it assuming you have the points. I'm sure the experience will be fairly similar when Sony pull their finger out and offer their own service.
The problem with Apple TV is that it assumes that you are an iTMS customer with a PC or Mac, that you may own an iPod, a home LAN network (preferably wifi) and that you're prepared to pay an additional $300 to watch meh quality movies on your TV. $300 is treading perilously close to the XBox 360 price point which does far more than an Apple TV, including deliver higher quality movies for less than they cost on iTMS. I think Apple could have a problem from Microsoft, Sony, TIVO and virtually every digital satellite service is bound to follow suit in their own time.
The problem for Apple is that they are no longer special or unique. Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, AOL and a dozen or more other companies will also likely offer movies and probably for the same price. In some ways Apple is at a distinct disadvantage since in the case of Microsoft (and likely Sony), their service will deliver straight to the console by your TV rather than expecting you to download to a computer and then screw around synchronizing with secondary devices to watch it.
Wolfenstein: ET and Doom are OpenGL games. We all know that Vista has pushed OpenGL over DirectX which means lower performance. What I want to know is how Cedega does on the large number of games which use DirectX and NOT OpenGL. My guess is that you would see the opposite result since now Cedega is forced to translate DirectX calls onto OpenGL equivalents.
Slashdot Mirror
It really is ridiculous to suggest Blu-Ray cost as much when clearly they don't. I also think that any price discrepancy between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray players has little to do with what goes in the box. Both formats have almost identical technical requirements. Perhaps Toshiba has just been subsidzing the HD-DVD format more, or conversely perhaps Sony et al have just been inflating their price.
Irrespective I think it's rather silly to claim that these players will change things. Even if Walmart dumped $300 players on the market by Christmas or next year, the chances are that the Blu-Ray camp will simply reciprocate and deliver the coup de grace.
You don't get it. Every game hits the hardware in different ways. Some games won't touch certain APIs at all. Other games might use an API extensively. Others might run through middleware like Renderware or Unreal. Microsoft does not have the source code to the majority of these games and can only figure out what each game uses by profiling it. Making an emulator which supports all games in existence out of the gate is virtually impossible.
Clearly MS targetted a handful of games (perhaps aided by game source) and made them work first. Then they wash rinse and repeat. At each stage they target certain featuresets and disparate games that use the same features all suddenly work.
Even Sony which has put considerably more effort into BC than MS only has 75% compatibility in the EU version. And that's with hardware assistance. While I don't think MS has made much effort with their BC, it is clearly a non trivial exercise.
Because every game is hitting the system in different ways, on top of which they have emulate the XBox hardware architecture. I expect it's non-trivial.
Does it have 3D hardware access? Nope, but somebody could and should write a Cell powered driver for Mesa. Hook up Mesa to a couple of SPUs to do rapid transforms and other 3D operations. It would probably be comparable to most IGP offerings and would suffice for most homebrew games.
Actually the pitch appears to be "it plays games, dvds, cd, blu ray, mp3s, aacs, pictures, video clips, browses the web etc.". Some people appear to have latched onto blu ray as if its a bad thing that it plays hd content.
And of course God of War II plays well on the PS3 so whether you have a PS2 or PS3, it's still an amazing title.
I have no idea if Sony are doing the right thing, but people who thing the PS3 is just a games console aren't seeing things from Sony's perspective. Games are an important part of the lineup, but they're not the only one.
I haven't either. I've seen lots of XBox 360 fanboys complain though. Fact is that the PS3 has 512Mb, it's just segmented into video and main memory. Additionally some memory is reserved for the OS, but the amount is quite conservative and probably anticipates what Sony *might* need for the OS not what they actually use. They may loosen the reserved memory TRC for future games as it becomes clear what functionality to expose through it. It certainly hasn't stopped the PS3 from already having games which have massive levels - games like Motorstorm & Resistance have some enormous areas in that wouldn't often see in PC titles let alone in a console. And like you say Oblivion works just fine despite what the naysayers would have people say before release. I expect in time we'll also see all the Oblivion expansions appear too including Shivering Isles.
It works quite well so I wouldn't sweat the change. I agree you should pick up the hardware BC model if you have an obscure and large collection of titles that you still play. Otherwise software BC works very well. I've seen some minor texture glitches in some of the games I've tried for the most part they play exactly like they do on the PS2 - better in fact since you get 576p. Most major titles are supported and even demanding ones like God of War appear to work very well. I expect that subsequent firmware updates as well as introduction to the US & Japanese regions will make the BC even better.
Sony are rumoured to be going to an 80Gb model which is hardly a great leap. Who knows why they have a new model but probably because they're getting the 80Gb drives at the same prices as they used to get the 60Gb models for so they're switching. Perhaps some other OEM is providing the drives. How is that bad for the consumer if you get an extra 20Gb for the same price?
That's a commendable attitude which I'm sure you'll spend many hours explaining to police officers when someone uses your system to download kiddie porn or something equally illegal.
That's my point. I can easilt rip a DVD and produce a perfectly acceptable single or dual layer DVD+R with about 90 minutes work. I don't see any point at all in Sony or anybody else attempting to copy protect DVDs or CDs since the measures are trivial to circumvent. So what if it prevents bit-for-bit copies? I expect the first thing most pirates would do is run the disc through DVD decryptor or similar first to strip out macrovision, region encoding etc. anyway.
What's to stop me whipping out DVD Decrypter and just stripping this copy protection? If need be, I could then fire up Nero Recode and do my own menus too. How does any copy protection scheme work on a format that doesn't expect one or have any way for a player to enforce it? Seriously I wonder if Sony HQ shouldn't muzzle Sony BMG and tell them to forget about retro DRM schemes because it seems to be fuckups all the way. The whole company is getting a bad reputation because of one small part - a part which in truth should be subservient to the rest, and not the other way around as it seems to be at the moment.
Put a normal alarm where you can't reach it, such as by the door. Thus you have to get out of bed to reach it. Then spend the $50 you saved on a pointless gadget on something useful like beer.
Yeah, a genius idea. Students would be shooting at each other in the hysteria. Not to mention that the number of fatalities in isolated incidents of an armed populace would undoubtedly be higher tha one-offs like this.
JT's immediate bandwagon jumping, shows him for the c**t that he really is. There is no other explanation. The guy is a scumbag, a slimey, bottom feeding piece of trash ready to exploit any tragedy for his own personal agenda.
I agree with you except for the PS3. The PS3 is a quality piece of kit and is by far the most open of any console. It uses industry or open standards such as HDMI, CF, MS, SD, USB, bluetooth, 801.11g, MP3, AAC, H264, AVC etc. I had absolutely no trouble using it with my Freecom bluetooth keyboard or a Motorola headset or an external USB drive. Hell, you can even swap out the hard disk too through a convenient hatch and replace it for any other 2.5" SATA drive. If you want to see proprietary, take a look at the 360 where the cost of a hard disk or memory card is more than double what it should be thanks to proprietary casings.
As for Blu-Ray, yes I expect it does add $100 to the price at least and in some ways it is a trojan horse. But it is useful for games and games can and do use the extra capacity. And lots of people do want to watch HD content so its useful in that capacity too. Blu-Ray sales are rocketing so it's hard to deny that the PS3 isn't mostly responsible for that.
I think the PS3 actually represents the the sort of synergy that Sony should be looking for. While the console is very standards based and you are not compelled to use any other Sony gear, it obviously drives sales of Bravia TVs (esp. 1080p models) and Blu-Ray discs, and conversely sales of Bravia TVs drive sales of PS3s. And given that Blu-Ray appears to be winning against HD-DVD I'd say the PS3 has been very successful way of seeding the market. Seems like Sony are doing something right.
I think other Sony gear runs the spectrum from crap to good. I really have loyalty or interest in their stuff aside from Playstation. I think the best approach for most consumer electronics gear is to pick the best of breed whichever company produces it.
Ack, I used a less than sign in the sentence and it mangled my submission. It should have read - "4Gb HD version using AVC or similar and a sub-1Gb version using H264 SP or similar for portable devices. Trying to produce a single file that plays good on both is not going to satisfy either. Not that any of this has anything to do with the fundamental clunkiness of the Apple TV."
Apple are aiming Apple TV at a handful of geeks running computers 24/7? Great way to slash the target audience. Expecting people to use a laptop to partially workaround a problem in Apple TV is pretty back-asswards too. The thing is a PC at heart so why doesn't it run iTMS locally?
Except this is how all media streamers work. Whether from Linksys or an XP MCE Extender. Apple didn't really revolutionize much with the Apple TV, but they did help reduce issues with lag of regular streaming. Also, the fact iTMS stuff is portable, since it goes on your iPod easily, sort of makes it a better solution then Xbox360 movies.
Decent streaming demands high capacity wifi or dedicated LAN. Another requirement that reduces the target audience even more. Besides, while I think it's nice that Apple store movies are portable I don't see it as being that much of an advantage. One size should not and does not fit all. I would prefer to see two versions being covered by your purchase - a 3-4Gb HD version using AVC or similar and a Not that any of this has anything to do with the fundamental clunkiness of the Apple TV.
Your fascination with the 360 is wonderful. You talk about the additional cost of the Apple TV, but doesn't it require an Xbox360 to get and play movies? Remind me what one of those costs? Oh, and you even admit the drive is small. So, they are going to start selling you a $480 version. Smooth ain't it? The feeling of Microsoft bending you over. Tell me, do they kiss you when they are done or just quietly walk out of the room?
I don't even own a 360 so I don't know why think you're pushing my buttons. Simply put the 360 has a better model for movie downloads that the Apple TV and that's all there is to it. It's up to Apple to fix their box because their model is broken. They should integrate their iTMS service into the box. Until then their offering sucks.
It is also ridiculous to argue that the Apple TV represents good value because it's $100 less than a 360 when it REQUIRES a PC causing it to cost way much more and to be a considerable extra bother to use. And when the 360 is also a kickass games console, plays DVDs, CDs etc. too. I'm sure also that the 360 Elite's price will sink once the XBox Core stock is cleared out.
It's interesting that you even quibble about that cost when you say you run your PCs 24/7. How many hundreds of dollars extra is that?
I could see the point of a dual player if both formats had a future. But its looking increasingly likely that HD-DVD would be lucky to see the new year the way things are going. Given that, why would someone bother to buy a dual player, especially since the cost is likely to be substantially higher than a player that just played one format.
As I said it's completely back-asswards. I think Apple TV would work fairly well if you could download movies DIRECT to the box, but it's completely stupid to have to download them to a PC first. I can understand why they might have done this given the effort of implementing iTMS & iTunes on a TV device but it still doesn't excuse how stupid the set up is.
By contrast the process for an XBox 360 is fairly straightforward - navigate to the movie you want in the menu, click buy, wait for it to download and start playing. That's the way that video on demand should work. The 360 is hobbled by a small hard disk, but I expect the IPTV / movie download service is a driving reason for moving to 120Gb and HDMI.
By contrast, ordering movies on an XBox 360 for example is as easy as choosing the movie and just clicking on it assuming you have the points. I'm sure the experience will be fairly similar when Sony pull their finger out and offer their own service.
The problem with Apple TV is that it assumes that you are an iTMS customer with a PC or Mac, that you may own an iPod, a home LAN network (preferably wifi) and that you're prepared to pay an additional $300 to watch meh quality movies on your TV. $300 is treading perilously close to the XBox 360 price point which does far more than an Apple TV, including deliver higher quality movies for less than they cost on iTMS. I think Apple could have a problem from Microsoft, Sony, TIVO and virtually every digital satellite service is bound to follow suit in their own time.
The problem for Apple is that they are no longer special or unique. Microsoft, Sony, Amazon, AOL and a dozen or more other companies will also likely offer movies and probably for the same price. In some ways Apple is at a distinct disadvantage since in the case of Microsoft (and likely Sony), their service will deliver straight to the console by your TV rather than expecting you to download to a computer and then screw around synchronizing with secondary devices to watch it.
Wolfenstein: ET and Doom are OpenGL games. We all know that Vista has pushed OpenGL over DirectX which means lower performance. What I want to know is how Cedega does on the large number of games which use DirectX and NOT OpenGL. My guess is that you would see the opposite result since now Cedega is forced to translate DirectX calls onto OpenGL equivalents.