The PS3 sucks too much power for me to be part of any @Home program. Since I've had my PS3 hooked up (November) I've let it idly on at times, and other times turned off. That's how I've operated my frequently played video game systems my whole life. If I've just finished a game of basketball, maybe I want to leave it on the screen where I can come back later and have a rematch, or maybe I want to pause my game when I get to a boss and pick it up the next day... Well, treating my PS3 like this has resulted in a $15-$20 spike in my electricity bill. In the last month I've been more mindful of keeping my PS3 turned off when not in use, and magically that huge spike disappeared. It's run quietly which is great, but it sucks power like a it's another desktop pc left on 24/7. I don't even want imagine how much it would cost me per month if I let the CPU crunch numbers for some @Home project the whole month.
Not to get to technical about hypothetical time travel, but Professor of Physics at the Univ. of Conn., Dr. Ron Mallett is one the leading physicists actually dealing with the plausibility of time travel. According to his work (and coincidentally John Titor as well) we can't actually go back or forward into our same time lines. We can go back to 1800 AD, but it we'd do so by side-stepping to a parallel 1800 AD, not ours own. We cannot traverse time in a reverse fashion, but rather step outside of it then step back in.
There would be discrepancies in the timelines for that reason. John Titor, for example, couldn't know exactly what would happen in our timeline but can only relate his own timeline which is basically an approximation of ours.
The actual root of this story is a someones blog entry. True story. And now the story has been repeated and repeated and repeated and now it's apparently become a fact without context. The only fact is, is that the PS3's power adapter runs has a peak power of 380W. It doesn't require that power at all times. To compare the PS3's max power consumption to max power of a single Core Duo CPU seems disingenuous at best. Remember, the PS3 is an entire system, Cell Processor, Video Card, and HDD... So it has the components of a computer and it consumes at computer-esque amount of power. Maybe I am the only person who doesn't see this power consumption as relevant. I get that it will increase my power bill by few dollars every month, maybe even a few more dollars that Xbox 360, but that's ok.
And this an irrelevant fact, but I'd be curious to see the power consumption levels or a non-core Xbox 360 powering a HDD, and also requiring another outlet for it's HD-DVD add-on. I'd be suprised if we didn't see that 200W's for a core system creeping up into the +300W range as well.
At any rate, this story seems like a non-story to me.
1080p upscaling is not the same as a true 1080p output. The image you'll be getting will be blown up 720p image. It's not worth purchasing a 1080p television for this.
The attenuation in component cables make transferring a 1080p/30, 1080i/60 extrememly difficult. You require high quality cabling of no more than a 2 feet in length.
Much in the same way, it is virtually impossible to transmit 1080p/60fps over component cables.
Because of this two well known facts, 1080p television sets only support a 1080p input through either their HDMI or VGA inputs.
Currently the Xbox 360 only supports output via component cables. Since no TV's don't support 1080p via component (nor do the cables really themselves) the whole idea out outputting a 1080p signal from the 360 is meaningless.
As an aside, the PS3 supports the HDMI 1.3 spec while allows for a full 1080p/60fps signal to be transferred. The PS3 also has a digital VGA port on it that will output 1080p/60fps. While one can agrue points against the PS3, you can't say that the machine isn't 'future' proof for gaming in terms output and storage capacity.
But back to the point at hand... Considering the Xbox 360 is currently incompetent from a technical standpoint when it comes to displaying 1080p, I think this can only lead to one of two conclusions:
A) Microsoft will be releasing a full blown HDMI compatible output cable in the near future.
B) Microsoft is just playing a 1080p public relations game, preying on the ignorant and gullible masses.
HD-DVD pretty much requires a dual-layer disc (15 GB x 2 = 30 GB) to store a feature length 1080p movie (especially when the 50 GB Blu-Ray discs launch in November, HD-DVD will need all the capacity possible). By the same token, a dual-layer DVD disc (DVD9) is required to store a feature length movie on DVD. Yet, there are only offering 3 layers.
This limits the configurations to the following:
Feature length HD-DVD movie, and half the movie on DVD (at normal DVD quality)
Feature length DVD movie, and half the movie on HD-DVD (at normal HD-DVD quality)
Both version are feature length, but one of the version will have to have it's bitrate cut virtually in half to fit in half the space.
It's not really that great of a solution. Once they can get 4 layers (2 hd-dvd & 2 dvd) then we'll be cooking with gas. Or even better (for me) successfully manufacture a 3 or 4 layer disc and use all layers for HD-DVD. Either way, if I have an HD-DVD player I don't have a compelling reason to by a hybrid disc. If I have DVD player and plan on upgrading to HD-DVD, the hybrid discs could be more enticing. But at what cost? Does the average consumer really think that far ahead? I'd tend to assume not.
I'm unclear as what they mean by "Full" HD. To me, that means that we will not be allowed to run 1080p video, but perhaps could still run 720p on our computers.
"How many of you have a DVD player that you know can output a proper 1080 line non-interlaced?"
That choice of wording leads to believe that he is just talking about 1080p. But then previous to that he states:
"The media companies asked us to do this and said they don't want any of their high definition content to play in x32 at all..."
Any high definition content sounds like it eliminates 720p from the equation as well. And if that's the case, this is a horrible move (imo). Vista, as an operating system, is actually making me angry. I don't want to stop using Windows, but I might just to spite them. And all of a sudden we need a 64 bit processor as well? My single-core Centrino 1.8 Ghz processor running XP can churn out 1080p right now... so why would I spend more money to do the same thing?
With my life, i'm at my peak right now. I make a decent amount of money, good looking guy (let me believe it), lots of friends, energy to burn, my brain still works, my body still works. As I get older, I'm guessing that everyone of those things (except for the money) will decrease the older I get. These are -my- _years_ right now. I certainly would never entertain the idea of working two jobs at this point in my life just so that I could retire early.
I'd be essentially passing up my young excellent sexy life so that I can go full steam into a mid-life crisis as soon as I retire... at 40.
I'd imagine there are a lot more 50 years olds that wish they were 20, then 20 year olds who wish they were 50.
There will only ever be one Big Blue. If IBM wants to solve a problem, IBM finds a way to solve the problem. When HP builds a computer can beat a Grand Master at chess, then they can be the Big P.
And HP would probably have do it with relabeled IBM hardware... seeing as how printers, scanners, and fax machines can't do that kind of stuff. Or help smash atoms. Or help decode the human Genome. Comparing HP to IBM is like comparing IBM to Lockheed Martin. A little similair, but not so much. I wonder when Slashdot will let us mod an entire story as "huh?"
While I don't think what Sony is saying is a particularly good idea, it doesn't ruin the console or its compatibility/simplicity as is being implied in this thread.
It was said that even with these upgrades, developers would still be making games for the baseline PS3 (512MB memory, 1 Cell, 1 RSX) but they could add other features similair to the way PC games work. Except in this case, with the set configurations the games would auto-detect and adjust accordingly making them decidedly un-PC like.
The beauty of the Cell processor is that its made to have other Cell processors work with it. As production costs decrease, the Cell will become increasingly economical. Come 2010, the _PS4_ could simply consist of 10-16 Cell processors. Transparent distributed computing is one of things the Cell was designed for. While it might sound ludicrous, it's a technically sound thing to do as far as the PS3s technology goes.
On some fairly advanced game, perhaps they could only be rendered at 720p or run at 30 FPS on a standard PS3. Then we'll have the 2008 model of a PS3 with 2 Cell processor, and it could render the same game at 1080p at 60 fps. It's interesting idea. Not one the is particularly consumer friendly, but the PS3 is the first system that has technology to accomodate it.
I personally hope that when the PS4 comes out it's powered by 10-16 Cell processors. Save the graphics card, it would be almost entirely backwards compatible with the PS3 and developers would have a near ZERO learning curve jumping into the new system. While I'm not a huge fan of having a PS 3.0, PS 3.1, PS 3.2 etc the idea of increasing computing power while developing for baseline PS3 specs is an interesting idea. Froma consumer standpoint, I'd far prefer that route (while maintaining compatibility) to have Microsoft artificially shorten console lifecycles be releasing a new system every 3.5 years.
When we launched Playstation in 1994 we introduced the concept of real-time computer-generated 3-D-graphics for the first time. When Nintendo released the N64 in 1996 and they had real-time CG 3-D-graphics, did you hear us say, "Nintendo, you've stolen our idea?" Of course not. These innovations are things that become possible because of a combination of technology, price and manufacturing capability.
What you say !! Does Starfox ring a bell? What about Battlezone? Not only are they denying that they obviously based they idea off of Nintendo's, but they're taking credit for 3D graphics... Do these people even listen to themselves?
I'm not sure why so many people lack lucidity when it comes to all the rhetoric relating to the upcoming consoles.
Sony never said they invented 3D graphics. But what the did do, was create the first system that was based completely around 3D graphics. Sony beat the Saturn because Sega did anticipate that. The Saturn was originally going to launch with only one Hitachi SH-2 processor with the intention of making it sprite busting 2D powerhouse. When they releazing that Sony was going 3D (something they didn't anticipate) they simply slammed a second Hitachi SH-2 processor on board to increase the Saturn's raw computational power. However, these two chips were not created to work in a dual architecture and the chips sorrily lacked in floating point calculations. It caused developers headaches having to negotiate cycles between the two CPUs and two video processors (the 2nd VDP slapped on last minute ala the 2nd CPU). Half way through the Saturns life cycle new tools were released that made it easier for developers to use the hardware for 3D graphics (see Virtua Figher 2), but it was too late.
Because Sony developed the first 3D console from scratch, developers didn't have this problem. And yes, 2 years later Nintendo came out with a 3D console of their own. And Sony didn't say that Nintendo copied them, because well, it would've been foolish for Nintendo to release anything but a 3D system. 3D graphics were already established in homes and arcades as the new king. 3D graphics were around for a very long time (Star Wars Arcade), Sony was just the first company to _BASE A CONSOLE_ around them.
Jump to present day. Motion sensing technology has been used in failed PC controllers, the failed Nintendo Power Glove, and who knows what else. Nintendo however is the first company to apply the motion sensing technology to a _CONSOLE ITSELF_. They included as part of the console basic method of control. They also showed us potentially new ways motion sensing technology in games, much in the same way that Playstation showed us new types of games that would be possible in 3D.
Sony didn't invent 3D graphics (they never said they did) and Nintendo didn't invent motion-sensing controllers (they never said they did). But Sony hastily implements motion-sensing controls in its console after Nintendo announces this ability. After the 3D-based Playstation launches, Nintendo releases its own 3D-based system.
I think that's the gist of Phil Harrison's comments. No one says Nintendo stole 3D graphics from Sony because that would be ridiculous. Sony didn't invent 3D graphics (they just based a console on them first). Likewise, from Harrison's perspective, it's ridiculous to say that Sony stole from Nintendo because Nintendo didn't invent motion sensing technologies (they were just the first ones to base a console on it.)
People just need to calm down about all of this stuff. Fanboyism is so rampant on the net right now that's virtually impossible to find any insightful comments about any console related news.
...keep the old look? I thought Slashdot (the current look) was just converted into CSS a few months back; So why can't there be an option to just change the Slashdot.org to the stylesheet or our choosing like at: http://www.csszengarden.com/ ? It just take a few lines of JavaScript.
Headline: Nintendo Announces Japanese Wii Price "Nintendo has revealed to Famitsu.com, at the company's recent press conference unveiling its financial results, that Wii would arrive in Japanese stores with a maximum price tag of 25,000 yen"
So they didn't annouce the price, they just told us what the max price would be. In all likelyhood, they'll announce a price under their "max price" to seem even more heroic to their fanbase... When in actuality its just clever pr posturing.
And inspite of Nintendo's cheaper price, they won't be losing money on the console due its lack of technology. So if they really wanted to be friends to the consumer, how about they take a loss on their console like everybody else:)
The result is that publishers that do want to take part in the PS3 launch will have to release games that don't fully take advantage of the power of the Cell processor, added Jeffrey."
Last time I checked, games at launch never make full use of the system. Just look at PSone, N64, Gamecube or the PS2. The graphics in games have always improved dramatically over time. It would be hard to believe that "God of War" (an amazingly beautiful/awesome game) could even be possible on the PS2 when you compare it to a launch title like "Street Fighter EX3". You'd guess it was two completely different systems.
Even looking at the Xbox 360 launch, we better hope that it's games aren't making full use of it's processors. 3/4 the games just look like 720p ports of PS2/Xbox games (anyone seen King Kong, Fight Night, NHL, Madden?). Call Of Duty is just a basic HD port of a PC game. It's not looking like developers spent much time on most those games either... Because they didn't have time to come to grips with the hardware either.
That's the charm of consoles. As developers learn to use the hardware better, your games continue to get better and better. Consoles age well. Contrast this to a PC, where your games only get better, if you upgrade your hardware to play them.
"PS3 is doomed, thanks to Sony's ignorant attitude."
Does anyone think for a -second- that the PS3 isn't going to sellout when it's launched? Check the current Slashdot poll, amongst slashdotters PS3, inspite of everything, still has more people wanting the PS3 than (want or have) the Xbox 360.
Believe it or not, almost no one knows about the PS3's "lack luster" performance at E3. We do, but the majority of people who play video games aren't glued to the net during E3 and all the magazines are going to relate to people is the pretty PS3 pictures and hype. Now one really cares that the system is bigger than previously thought, or that it was one less HDMI & ethernet port. Most people don't even know what an HDMI is!
And yes, I'm talking about gamers. Not computer geeks like us on slashdot, but all my friends who come over to my house for Winning Eleven Soccer tournaments or to play NHL 06. Trust me, they don't even know what E3 is (most people don't). But they sure know what the PS3 is, all the fun they had on the PS2, and what they -hope- the PS3 will be.
Don't you think it's a little early to say the PS3 is failure? If nothing else it willll fly off the shelves in Japan (unlike the 360) and for that reason alone it will be a success. Have you guys never heard of Final Fantasy??:)
One other point I'd like to address. People seem to be comparing the $599 PS3 to the $399 Xbox 360 when a far more apropos comparison is the $499 PS3 to the $399 Xbox 360. They have the same size of HDD, both lack HDMI out, both lack native wireless networking. The $499 PS3 plays Blu-Ray discs, the $399 360 plays DVDs. If we're lucky as consumers, MS will sell the the HD-DVD add-on for $100 (i doubt that cheap though).
With this scenario totals, we now have two systems with similar functionality at hypothetically the same price point.
For those who don't want to pay for the Blu-Ray player, hence don't like the $499 PS3 price point... I know it's a $100 extra for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, but it's not something I could see someone regretting having purchased 2 or 3 years down the road.
Oh, and I almost forget to mention Sony's PS3 Linux where they're basically giving us full permissions to homebrew our faces off (mame, snes, genesis, n64!). I think that alone will sell a fair number tech-savvy people on the PS3s.
I'm all for healthy debate, but it just seems to me like people are losing perspective on the facts of PS3 v. Xbox 360 and they just keep on regurgitating the same sound bites (Dollar wise, Xbox 360 + Wii == PS3) in these threads without actually looking at what each potentially offers.
Maybe Sony saw something they liked and paid for it to become an (at least temporarily) exclusive title. Seems to sound like it could've been worth it. And from the impressions I read at GameSpot an IGN they were both watching (though not playing) an actual real-time game, complete with buggy AI and framerate drops. I got this impression, because they were marvelling at how the game looked (not a press reel) and specifically mentioned the AI and framerate issues.
Whatever system it comes out for, I hope it's a hell of a game.
Nintendo Wii has its virtual console where classic Nintendo, Sega, and Turbographix 16 games can be played. Xbox 360 has Xbox Live Arcade where users can download classic games and play them on their console. And what does PS3 have? Homebrew. With homebrew will come access to everything availabe on Nintendo's Virtual Console and the 360's Live Arcade and much more. Documentation is freely available on how to code for the Cell, and it bet it would take all of 6 months to have MAME, Snes9x, Reailty64, FCE Ultra (NES), Gens and everything else up and running on it. Underhanded? Sure is. But you know it will happen. And I for one will be thrilled about it.
Other points:
- I think Sony also realizes that by allowing homebrews on Linux, they'll due themselves a favor by stifling people trying to hack the system. Most system hacks come from hackers who want to run homebrew apps on a system (case and point, the 360 has been hacked, but since the hack can only be used to pirate games, they've not released the source code). So by giving people the ability to run homebrews outright, they'll immediately cut down on hacking and (i think) in dear themselves to a lot of users.
- PS2 linux failed because (as mentioned in these comments) was not a very serious nor technically mature effort by Sony. It was more of a proof of concept than anything. Sony barely talked about, and they certainly never bragged about it. They released it in 2002 and discontinued it 2003. With only 32MB of RAM (not to mention the processing power) there was limited use for the system as much more of a gimmick. Not many of you would've actively been running a poorly optimized version of linux on a slow pc with only 32MB of memory, so I mean, you can't blame Sony for not sticking with it long term as supporting it. The product had limited use. Like a car that could only drive 30 miles at a time.
- Fast forward to 2006, and Sony has publicly stated the PS3's intent to run Linux (and potentialy Mac OS X- . Sony & Apple have talked about teaming up, and with OS X on PS3 they could both stick it nemesis Microsoft). The PS3 has a total of 512MB of RAM, more than enough to run Linux properly, and in additional to that it has a processor that easily twice as fast (probably more) than the fastest PC desktop processor available. IBM already has a Linux kernel compiled and running on the Cell, so this notion of PS3+LINUX is -today- far more reality than fiction. With its built-in hdd (once, maybe still, rumored to ship -with- linux preinstalled) the PS3 could be a fully functional, very useful computer.
- When you look at it (or at least when I do) for $500-$600 you would have seriously powerful PC, Console, and Blu-Ray disc player. I realize that's more than some people want, but it's everything I'd like to see in the system.
Sony has stated previoulsy that the PS3 will be able to run Linux and even Mac OS X from it's HDD. Plug in your USB keyboard and mouse, and although it doesn't have 1 or 2 gigs of ram like a modern PC, it has a processor that power wise crushes most modern PCs. I remember reading earlier tests from IBM that it had running at something comparable to 4 x 3.4 GHz Pentium 4s.
So if this dream does come true, the PS3 will be a _powerful_ open-source console/pc for $600. He's a link to an article, but it's in turn referencing an official Sony PDF that was released last year.
I'm completely willing to pay Sony's asking price for the PS3. People knew it was going to be expensive, and what do you know, it is expensive.
In Canada with our once devalued dollar, the PS2 would launch at $299 USD and we'd be paying $499 CDN for it. But thanks to the poor American dollars, and the rising Canadian dollar, as PS3 launched at $499 USD is now only $549 CDN. So really for Canadian, the PS3 isn't expensive at all. It's only $50 more than the PS2 was at launch!
The PS3's price hype has worked tripley against Sony:
1) It seems to have stifled the PS3's momentum 2) It has drawn attention away from a -completely- underwhelming showing of the Xbox 360. (In terms of future games, I'm very disappointed in what's coming out for the 360.) 3) Its taken attention away from PS3 games that at least truly appear to distance the PS3's technical abilities from the Xbox 360 (MGS4, Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed, a handful of tech demos)
Ultimately though, I think people -want- the PS3. They're underwhelmed by the 360, and they want the PS3 to be spectacular. They've been waiting for it forever. It will be flying off the shelf when it launches whether Sony deserves it or not.
I'm confused as to whether I'm trading in my Playstation 2 for a Playstation 3, or just trading my PS2 in for a newer PS2.
When I looked at these three designs, no offence at all to the people who are doing them, but they look like what a client would be presented if they have a agreed upon a basic layout, and wouldn't a few different "looks" to choose from.
I actually think there is some pride and a lot usability in Slashdot's current look. It's not fancy, but it doesn't need to be (at all!).
I think Slashdot is wasting peoples time if we're just putting a new coat of paint on the car. We don't care how ugly you are Slashdot, we love your personality!
I think you're over estimating the ease that such a process can occur at. Displays that natively progressive scan (except for plasma) have a difficult time telecining images as you an few others have implied. By your theory, looking at a TV with a 60hz interlaced signal and a TV with a 30fps progressive scan signal should look indentical. They don't. It is a very processor intensive process to de-interlace video, sequence your key framnes properly, and combine your two seperate fields back into the one full field required for progressive scan.
You can buy deinterlacers that you speak of for home theater system (or whatever), but they vary in price from $500 (not very good) to thousands of dollars.
In theory, I see why so many people think this possible but in actuality I believe it's not what current TV's do. What natively progressive scan TVs do currently is take the first half the interlaced image and double the lines. Then when they second half of the image comes they double those lines and replace the image. In essence, you're getting half the picture twice as often.
This is most easily evident when you're playing an interlaced video game on a natively progressive scan TV and all of sudden the image stops being refreshed. Once this happens, your once mildly fuzzy picture becomes obviously more pixelated. This is because the screen was just essentially switching at 60hz between two screen doubled images.
Seriously.:) I know what's you're saying sounds practical, but I'm 99% sure it's not that simple. I could be wrong, but... ??? I don't think I am:)
The Toshiba DVD players do not support the dual-link HDMI-B specification required for true 1080p output.
I'd just like to add as a qualifier to my above comment...
The dual-link HDMI-B does not carry any bearing at all on 1080p output. In reading an interview with an HD-DVD rep, he alluded to HDMI-B support and 1080p support arriving together, which along with other comments I had read earlier, led me to be believe that the two were related.
They're not.
But my point still stands. 1080p is not supported by this first generation of HD-DVD players but will be supported "in the future." The movies are 1080p, the players are not. It's ridiculous to spend any money on HD-DVD at this point.
Type B is intended for resolutions higher than 1080p and for the future when we'll receive multiple streams of data simultaneously. I mistook the a quote from a HD DVD "rep" from Microsoft where he said that 1080p support would come along with dual-link type B HDMI support. I assumed too much.
But none the less, this first generation of HD DVD players do not support 1080p outputs and is to be added "at some point in the future". That was my point, sorry to have incorrectly commented on the relevance of hdmi-b. No point in buying 720p HD DVD player. And these things enfore DHCP don't they?
Slashdot Mirror
The PS3 sucks too much power for me to be part of any @Home program. Since I've had my PS3 hooked up (November) I've let it idly on at times, and other times turned off. That's how I've operated my frequently played video game systems my whole life. If I've just finished a game of basketball, maybe I want to leave it on the screen where I can come back later and have a rematch, or maybe I want to pause my game when I get to a boss and pick it up the next day... Well, treating my PS3 like this has resulted in a $15-$20 spike in my electricity bill. In the last month I've been more mindful of keeping my PS3 turned off when not in use, and magically that huge spike disappeared. It's run quietly which is great, but it sucks power like a it's another desktop pc left on 24/7. I don't even want imagine how much it would cost me per month if I let the CPU crunch numbers for some @Home project the whole month.
I'll pass.
Not to get to technical about hypothetical time travel, but Professor of Physics at the Univ. of Conn., Dr. Ron Mallett is one the leading physicists actually dealing with the plausibility of time travel. According to his work (and coincidentally John Titor as well) we can't actually go back or forward into our same time lines. We can go back to 1800 AD, but it we'd do so by side-stepping to a parallel 1800 AD, not ours own. We cannot traverse time in a reverse fashion, but rather step outside of it then step back in.
There would be discrepancies in the timelines for that reason. John Titor, for example, couldn't know exactly what would happen in our timeline but can only relate his own timeline which is basically an approximation of ours.
The actual root of this story is a someones blog entry. True story. And now the story has been repeated and repeated and repeated and now it's apparently become a fact without context. The only fact is, is that the PS3's power adapter runs has a peak power of 380W. It doesn't require that power at all times. To compare the PS3's max power consumption to max power of a single Core Duo CPU seems disingenuous at best. Remember, the PS3 is an entire system, Cell Processor, Video Card, and HDD... So it has the components of a computer and it consumes at computer-esque amount of power. Maybe I am the only person who doesn't see this power consumption as relevant. I get that it will increase my power bill by few dollars every month, maybe even a few more dollars that Xbox 360, but that's ok.
And this an irrelevant fact, but I'd be curious to see the power consumption levels or a non-core Xbox 360 powering a HDD, and also requiring another outlet for it's HD-DVD add-on. I'd be suprised if we didn't see that 200W's for a core system creeping up into the +300W range as well.
At any rate, this story seems like a non-story to me.
As an aside, the PS3 supports the HDMI 1.3 spec while allows for a full 1080p/60fps signal to be transferred. The PS3 also has a digital VGA port on it that will output 1080p/60fps. While one can agrue points against the PS3, you can't say that the machine isn't 'future' proof for gaming in terms output and storage capacity.
But back to the point at hand... Considering the Xbox 360 is currently incompetent from a technical standpoint when it comes to displaying 1080p, I think this can only lead to one of two conclusions:
HD-DVD pretty much requires a dual-layer disc (15 GB x 2 = 30 GB) to store a feature length 1080p movie (especially when the 50 GB Blu-Ray discs launch in November, HD-DVD will need all the capacity possible). By the same token, a dual-layer DVD disc (DVD9) is required to store a feature length movie on DVD. Yet, there are only offering 3 layers.
This limits the configurations to the following:
It's not really that great of a solution. Once they can get 4 layers (2 hd-dvd & 2 dvd) then we'll be cooking with gas. Or even better (for me) successfully manufacture a 3 or 4 layer disc and use all layers for HD-DVD. Either way, if I have an HD-DVD player I don't have a compelling reason to by a hybrid disc. If I have DVD player and plan on upgrading to HD-DVD, the hybrid discs could be more enticing. But at what cost? Does the average consumer really think that far ahead? I'd tend to assume not.
I'm unclear as what they mean by "Full" HD. To me, that means that we will not be allowed to run 1080p video, but perhaps could still run 720p on our computers.
That choice of wording leads to believe that he is just talking about 1080p. But then previous to that he states:
Any high definition content sounds like it eliminates 720p from the equation as well. And if that's the case, this is a horrible move (imo). Vista, as an operating system, is actually making me angry. I don't want to stop using Windows, but I might just to spite them. And all of a sudden we need a 64 bit processor as well? My single-core Centrino 1.8 Ghz processor running XP can churn out 1080p right now... so why would I spend more money to do the same thing?
With my life, i'm at my peak right now. I make a decent amount of money, good looking guy (let me believe it), lots of friends, energy to burn, my brain still works, my body still works. As I get older, I'm guessing that everyone of those things (except for the money) will decrease the older I get. These are -my- _years_ right now. I certainly would never entertain the idea of working two jobs at this point in my life just so that I could retire early.
I'd be essentially passing up my young excellent sexy life so that I can go full steam into a mid-life crisis as soon as I retire... at 40.
I'd imagine there are a lot more 50 years olds that wish they were 20, then 20 year olds who wish they were 50.
There will only ever be one Big Blue. If IBM wants to solve a problem, IBM finds a way to solve the problem. When HP builds a computer can beat a Grand Master at chess, then they can be the Big P.
And HP would probably have do it with relabeled IBM hardware... seeing as how printers, scanners, and fax machines can't do that kind of stuff. Or help smash atoms. Or help decode the human Genome. Comparing HP to IBM is like comparing IBM to Lockheed Martin. A little similair, but not so much. I wonder when Slashdot will let us mod an entire story as "huh?"
...before commenting.
While I don't think what Sony is saying is a particularly good idea, it doesn't ruin the console or its compatibility/simplicity as is being implied in this thread.
It was said that even with these upgrades, developers would still be making games for the baseline PS3 (512MB memory, 1 Cell, 1 RSX) but they could add other features similair to the way PC games work. Except in this case, with the set configurations the games would auto-detect and adjust accordingly making them decidedly un-PC like.
The beauty of the Cell processor is that its made to have other Cell processors work with it. As production costs decrease, the Cell will become increasingly economical. Come 2010, the _PS4_ could simply consist of 10-16 Cell processors. Transparent distributed computing is one of things the Cell was designed for. While it might sound ludicrous, it's a technically sound thing to do as far as the PS3s technology goes.
On some fairly advanced game, perhaps they could only be rendered at 720p or run at 30 FPS on a standard PS3. Then we'll have the 2008 model of a PS3 with 2 Cell processor, and it could render the same game at 1080p at 60 fps. It's interesting idea. Not one the is particularly consumer friendly, but the PS3 is the first system that has technology to accomodate it.
I personally hope that when the PS4 comes out it's powered by 10-16 Cell processors. Save the graphics card, it would be almost entirely backwards compatible with the PS3 and developers would have a near ZERO learning curve jumping into the new system. While I'm not a huge fan of having a PS 3.0, PS 3.1, PS 3.2 etc the idea of increasing computing power while developing for baseline PS3 specs is an interesting idea. Froma consumer standpoint, I'd far prefer that route (while maintaining compatibility) to have Microsoft artificially shorten console lifecycles be releasing a new system every 3.5 years.
Who knows.
Sounds like a excellent write rebuttal.
And here's one for the ages:
When we launched Playstation in 1994 we introduced the concept of real-time computer-generated 3-D-graphics for the first time. When Nintendo released the N64 in 1996 and they had real-time CG 3-D-graphics, did you hear us say, "Nintendo, you've stolen our idea?" Of course not. These innovations are things that become possible because of a combination of technology, price and manufacturing capability.
What you say !! Does Starfox ring a bell? What about Battlezone? Not only are they denying that they obviously based they idea off of Nintendo's, but they're taking credit for 3D graphics... Do these people even listen to themselves?
I'm not sure why so many people lack lucidity when it comes to all the rhetoric relating to the upcoming consoles.
Sony never said they invented 3D graphics. But what the did do, was create the first system that was based completely around 3D graphics. Sony beat the Saturn because Sega did anticipate that. The Saturn was originally going to launch with only one Hitachi SH-2 processor with the intention of making it sprite busting 2D powerhouse. When they releazing that Sony was going 3D (something they didn't anticipate) they simply slammed a second Hitachi SH-2 processor on board to increase the Saturn's raw computational power. However, these two chips were not created to work in a dual architecture and the chips sorrily lacked in floating point calculations. It caused developers headaches having to negotiate cycles between the two CPUs and two video processors (the 2nd VDP slapped on last minute ala the 2nd CPU). Half way through the Saturns life cycle new tools were released that made it easier for developers to use the hardware for 3D graphics (see Virtua Figher 2), but it was too late.
Because Sony developed the first 3D console from scratch, developers didn't have this problem. And yes, 2 years later Nintendo came out with a 3D console of their own. And Sony didn't say that Nintendo copied them, because well, it would've been foolish for Nintendo to release anything but a 3D system. 3D graphics were already established in homes and arcades as the new king. 3D graphics were around for a very long time (Star Wars Arcade), Sony was just the first company to _BASE A CONSOLE_ around them.
Jump to present day. Motion sensing technology has been used in failed PC controllers, the failed Nintendo Power Glove, and who knows what else. Nintendo however is the first company to apply the motion sensing technology to a _CONSOLE ITSELF_. They included as part of the console basic method of control. They also showed us potentially new ways motion sensing technology in games, much in the same way that Playstation showed us new types of games that would be possible in 3D.
Sony didn't invent 3D graphics (they never said they did) and Nintendo didn't invent motion-sensing controllers (they never said they did). But Sony hastily implements motion-sensing controls in its console after Nintendo announces this ability. After the 3D-based Playstation launches, Nintendo releases its own 3D-based system.
I think that's the gist of Phil Harrison's comments. No one says Nintendo stole 3D graphics from Sony because that would be ridiculous. Sony didn't invent 3D graphics (they just based a console on them first). Likewise, from Harrison's perspective, it's ridiculous to say that Sony stole from Nintendo because Nintendo didn't invent motion sensing technologies (they were just the first ones to base a console on it.)
People just need to calm down about all of this stuff. Fanboyism is so rampant on the net right now that's virtually impossible to find any insightful comments about any console related news.
...keep the old look? I thought Slashdot (the current look) was just converted into CSS a few months back; So why can't there be an option to just change the Slashdot.org to the stylesheet or our choosing like at: http://www.csszengarden.com/ ? It just take a few lines of JavaScript.
Headline: Nintendo Announces Japanese Wii Price
:)
"Nintendo has revealed to Famitsu.com, at the company's recent press conference unveiling its financial results, that Wii would arrive in Japanese stores with a maximum price tag of 25,000 yen"
So they didn't annouce the price, they just told us what the max price would be. In all likelyhood, they'll announce a price under their "max price" to seem even more heroic to their fanbase... When in actuality its just clever pr posturing.
And inspite of Nintendo's cheaper price, they won't be losing money on the console due its lack of technology. So if they really wanted to be friends to the consumer, how about they take a loss on their console like everybody else
The result is that publishers that do want to take part in the PS3 launch will have to release games that don't fully take advantage of the power of the Cell processor, added Jeffrey."
Last time I checked, games at launch never make full use of the system. Just look at PSone, N64, Gamecube or the PS2. The graphics in games have always improved dramatically over time. It would be hard to believe that "God of War" (an amazingly beautiful/awesome game) could even be possible on the PS2 when you compare it to a launch title like "Street Fighter EX3". You'd guess it was two completely different systems.
Even looking at the Xbox 360 launch, we better hope that it's games aren't making full use of it's processors. 3/4 the games just look like 720p ports of PS2/Xbox games (anyone seen King Kong, Fight Night, NHL, Madden?). Call Of Duty is just a basic HD port of a PC game. It's not looking like developers spent much time on most those games either... Because they didn't have time to come to grips with the hardware either.
That's the charm of consoles. As developers learn to use the hardware better, your games continue to get better and better. Consoles age well. Contrast this to a PC, where your games only get better, if you upgrade your hardware to play them.
"PS3 is doomed, thanks to Sony's ignorant attitude."
:)
Does anyone think for a -second- that the PS3 isn't going to sellout when it's launched? Check the current Slashdot poll, amongst slashdotters PS3, inspite of everything, still has more people wanting the PS3 than (want or have) the Xbox 360.
Believe it or not, almost no one knows about the PS3's "lack luster" performance at E3. We do, but the majority of people who play video games aren't glued to the net during E3 and all the magazines are going to relate to people is the pretty PS3 pictures and hype. Now one really cares that the system is bigger than previously thought, or that it was one less HDMI & ethernet port. Most people don't even know what an HDMI is!
And yes, I'm talking about gamers. Not computer geeks like us on slashdot, but all my friends who come over to my house for Winning Eleven Soccer tournaments or to play NHL 06. Trust me, they don't even know what E3 is (most people don't). But they sure know what the PS3 is, all the fun they had on the PS2, and what they -hope- the PS3 will be.
Don't you think it's a little early to say the PS3 is failure? If nothing else it willll fly off the shelves in Japan (unlike the 360) and for that reason alone it will be a success. Have you guys never heard of Final Fantasy??
One other point I'd like to address. People seem to be comparing the $599 PS3 to the $399 Xbox 360 when a far more apropos comparison is the $499 PS3 to the $399 Xbox 360. They have the same size of HDD, both lack HDMI out, both lack native wireless networking. The $499 PS3 plays Blu-Ray discs, the $399 360 plays DVDs. If we're lucky as consumers, MS will sell the the HD-DVD add-on for $100 (i doubt that cheap though).
With this scenario totals, we now have two systems with similar functionality at hypothetically the same price point.
For those who don't want to pay for the Blu-Ray player, hence don't like the $499 PS3 price point... I know it's a $100 extra for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, but it's not something I could see someone regretting having purchased 2 or 3 years down the road.
Oh, and I almost forget to mention Sony's PS3 Linux where they're basically giving us full permissions to homebrew our faces off (mame, snes, genesis, n64!). I think that alone will sell a fair number tech-savvy people on the PS3s.
I'm all for healthy debate, but it just seems to me like people are losing perspective on the facts of PS3 v. Xbox 360 and they just keep on regurgitating the same sound bites (Dollar wise, Xbox 360 + Wii == PS3) in these threads without actually looking at what each potentially offers.
UbiSoft sure doesn't seem to think it's coming out for the 360, at least not anytime soon.
http://assassinscreed.uk.ubi.com/ (only a ps3 logo)
Maybe Sony saw something they liked and paid for it to become an (at least temporarily) exclusive title. Seems to sound like it could've been worth it. And from the impressions I read at GameSpot an IGN they were both watching (though not playing) an actual real-time game, complete with buggy AI and framerate drops. I got this impression, because they were marvelling at how the game looked (not a press reel) and specifically mentioned the AI and framerate issues.
Whatever system it comes out for, I hope it's a hell of a game.
Main point:
Nintendo Wii has its virtual console where classic Nintendo, Sega, and Turbographix 16 games can be played. Xbox 360 has Xbox Live Arcade where users can download classic games and play them on their console. And what does PS3 have? Homebrew. With homebrew will come access to everything availabe on Nintendo's Virtual Console and the 360's Live Arcade and much more. Documentation is freely available on how to code for the Cell, and it bet it would take all of 6 months to have MAME, Snes9x, Reailty64, FCE Ultra (NES), Gens and everything else up and running on it. Underhanded? Sure is. But you know it will happen. And I for one will be thrilled about it.
Other points:
- I think Sony also realizes that by allowing homebrews on Linux, they'll due themselves a favor by stifling people trying to hack the system. Most system hacks come from hackers who want to run homebrew apps on a system (case and point, the 360 has been hacked, but since the hack can only be used to pirate games, they've not released the source code). So by giving people the ability to run homebrews outright, they'll immediately cut down on hacking and (i think) in dear themselves to a lot of users.
- PS2 linux failed because (as mentioned in these comments) was not a very serious nor technically mature effort by Sony. It was more of a proof of concept than anything. Sony barely talked about, and they certainly never bragged about it. They released it in 2002 and discontinued it 2003. With only 32MB of RAM (not to mention the processing power) there was limited use for the system as much more of a gimmick. Not many of you would've actively been running a poorly optimized version of linux on a slow pc with only 32MB of memory, so I mean, you can't blame Sony for not sticking with it long term as supporting it. The product had limited use. Like a car that could only drive 30 miles at a time.
- Fast forward to 2006, and Sony has publicly stated the PS3's intent to run Linux (and potentialy Mac OS X- . Sony & Apple have talked about teaming up, and with OS X on PS3 they could both stick it nemesis Microsoft). The PS3 has a total of 512MB of RAM, more than enough to run Linux properly, and in additional to that it has a processor that easily twice as fast (probably more) than the fastest PC desktop processor available. IBM already has a Linux kernel compiled and running on the Cell, so this notion of PS3+LINUX is -today- far more reality than fiction. With its built-in hdd (once, maybe still, rumored to ship -with- linux preinstalled) the PS3 could be a fully functional, very useful computer.
- When you look at it (or at least when I do) for $500-$600 you would have seriously powerful PC, Console, and Blu-Ray disc player. I realize that's more than some people want, but it's everything I'd like to see in the system.
Sony has stated previoulsy that the PS3 will be able to run Linux and even Mac OS X from it's HDD. Plug in your USB keyboard and mouse, and although it doesn't have 1 or 2 gigs of ram like a modern PC, it has a processor that power wise crushes most modern PCs. I remember reading earlier tests from IBM that it had running at something comparable to 4 x 3.4 GHz Pentium 4s.
i ger.compatible// 1820217i cle=1121156666920
:)
So if this dream does come true, the PS3 will be a _powerful_ open-source console/pc for $600. He's a link to an article, but it's in turn referencing an official Sony PDF that was released last year.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/05/08/04/sony.cpu.t
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/06
http://www.sony.co.uk/view/ShowArticle.action?art
Now wouldn't that be cool?
Sony has stated that Mac OS X or Linux will be able to run on the PS3 via it's HDD. To me, _if_ it pans out, that's worth something.
I'm completely willing to pay Sony's asking price for the PS3. People knew it was going to be expensive, and what do you know, it is expensive.
In Canada with our once devalued dollar, the PS2 would launch at $299 USD and we'd be paying $499 CDN for it. But thanks to the poor American dollars, and the rising Canadian dollar, as PS3 launched at $499 USD is now only $549 CDN. So really for Canadian, the PS3 isn't expensive at all. It's only $50 more than the PS2 was at launch!
The PS3's price hype has worked tripley against Sony:
1) It seems to have stifled the PS3's momentum
2) It has drawn attention away from a -completely- underwhelming showing of the Xbox 360. (In terms of future games, I'm very disappointed in what's coming out for the 360.)
3) Its taken attention away from PS3 games that at least truly appear to distance the PS3's technical abilities from the Xbox 360 (MGS4, Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed, a handful of tech demos)
Ultimately though, I think people -want- the PS3. They're underwhelmed by the 360, and they want the PS3 to be spectacular. They've been waiting for it forever. It will be flying off the shelf when it launches whether Sony deserves it or not.
I'm confused as to whether I'm trading in my Playstation 2 for a Playstation 3, or just trading my PS2 in for a newer PS2.
When I looked at these three designs, no offence at all to the people who are doing them, but they look like what a client would be presented if they have a agreed upon a basic layout, and wouldn't a few different "looks" to choose from.
I actually think there is some pride and a lot usability in Slashdot's current look. It's not fancy, but it doesn't need to be (at all!).
I think Slashdot is wasting peoples time if we're just putting a new coat of paint on the car. We don't care how ugly you are Slashdot, we love your personality!
I think you're over estimating the ease that such a process can occur at. Displays that natively progressive scan (except for plasma) have a difficult time telecining images as you an few others have implied. By your theory, looking at a TV with a 60hz interlaced signal and a TV with a 30fps progressive scan signal should look indentical. They don't. It is a very processor intensive process to de-interlace video, sequence your key framnes properly, and combine your two seperate fields back into the one full field required for progressive scan.
:) I know what's you're saying sounds practical, but I'm 99% sure it's not that simple. I could be wrong, but... ??? I don't think I am :)
You can buy deinterlacers that you speak of for home theater system (or whatever), but they vary in price from $500 (not very good) to thousands of dollars.
In theory, I see why so many people think this possible but in actuality I believe it's not what current TV's do. What natively progressive scan TVs do currently is take the first half the interlaced image and double the lines. Then when they second half of the image comes they double those lines and replace the image. In essence, you're getting half the picture twice as often.
This is most easily evident when you're playing an interlaced video game on a natively progressive scan TV and all of sudden the image stops being refreshed. Once this happens, your once mildly fuzzy picture becomes obviously more pixelated. This is because the screen was just essentially switching at 60hz between two screen doubled images.
Seriously.
Good points none the less.
The Toshiba DVD players do not support the dual-link HDMI-B specification required for true 1080p output.
I'd just like to add as a qualifier to my above comment...
The dual-link HDMI-B does not carry any bearing at all on 1080p output. In reading an interview with an HD-DVD rep, he alluded to HDMI-B support and 1080p support arriving together, which along with other comments I had read earlier, led me to be believe that the two were related.
They're not.
But my point still stands. 1080p is not supported by this first generation of HD-DVD players but will be supported "in the future." The movies are 1080p, the players are not. It's ridiculous to spend any money on HD-DVD at this point.
Save your money.
I'm not exactly sure what you're issue with DRM, but Sony has announced that Blu-Ray discs will be region free. That's a step in the right direction.
You're right. My bad. :)
Type B is intended for resolutions higher than 1080p and for the future when we'll receive multiple streams of data simultaneously. I mistook the a quote from a HD DVD "rep" from Microsoft where he said that 1080p support would come along with dual-link type B HDMI support. I assumed too much.
But none the less, this first generation of HD DVD players do not support 1080p outputs and is to be added "at some point in the future". That was my point, sorry to have incorrectly commented on the relevance of hdmi-b. No point in buying 720p HD DVD player. And these things enfore DHCP don't they?