Which CONSOLE!?

[JB0]

That'd be awesome if someone sold HDMI plugs, and someone soldered the HDMI pins to a bank of RCA jacks and used a metric buttload of 20-year-old rusty RCA cables for their HDMI signals.

And the stupid peole that cared would have a heart attack while the intelligent people that cared just laughed and the populace as a whole just scratched heir heads in confusion.

[David Hingtgen]

*There's some confusion about the Cell architecture. There's 1 processor. Only one. It has 7 math coprocessors("vector processing units") attached to it, but it's still just 1 processor.

I think they downgraded the PS3 to 5 active coprocessors due to yield issues. They're still making the 7-coproc chips, but this way 2 of them can have defects without the chip failing. Was easier than redesigning the chip to actually remove 2 VPUs.

I haven't read anything about the Cell in a while, but last I recall it was designed with 8 coprocessors, with the PS3 originally designed to use/require 7, as they knew they'd have a very low yield of chips with 8 working ones. Those chips with only 5 or 6 functioning ones would go into other products. (And I'm guessing the few 8's they got would go to PS3 development kits or something)

So it's been downgraded from that? Recently? Still, only getting 5/8 when they were expecting 7/8 seems like a big drop.

[mikeszekely]

I believe the main earlier argument for DVD was not that we will never need the space, but it was, the cost of the console...360 will be so and so, and PS3 will be loads more expensive. Which is true to a point but the cost diminishes every day. If PS3 launches at $499, it would be cheaper than a 360 with an HD DVD add on.

Which would be totally true, except your making a few assumptions. The reason Sony went with Blu-Ray is to push Blu-Ray. The reason Microsoft went with DVD is both because the tech wasn't ready, and to avoid picking the wrong side in a format war. (Peter Moore already conceded that if Blu-Ray should win the format war, then a Blu-Ray add-on could be made for the 360). DVDs should be fine for gaming, even into the next generation, but Sony jumped on the chance to criticize the competition for not being "next-gen" enough. Cost of the console wasn't a motivating decision for Microsoft... although it might be for the consumer.

But again, you're assuming that the the PS3 launches at $499, which might not be an unreasonable guess, and that the 360 HD-DVD add-on will be, what, more than $200? Because, if all you care about is HD movies, you could in theory buy a core system for $300, so an add-on would have to be at least $200. But what if it's not? What if Microsoft works it out to be $100? What if the PS3 launches at the $800 that's been floating around at retail?

HDMI cables aren't expensive if you know where to look...try one from ebay at $10-$14 a pop and you'll change your tune...they aren't like analog cables...it's a digital signal and I've yet to see a "poor" HDMI cable.

That's true about the digital thing. That's why, when I saw a 4' DVI to HDMI cable at Wal-Mart for just $40, I snatched it up. But I don't do eBay.

Unlike HD DVD in which...the average person won't go out and buy an HD DVD player at $500 nor would they at $300, nor $250, nor $199 if they have their $39 DVD player from China that's basically a drive in a plastic box.

But tell them they get a new High Definition disc player in addition to the game console they just bought included that they can use if they get an HDTV? That is the way to win over the public.

I don't think the 2 new formats would ever take off like DVD did, but one has a way of becoming the new format in a way the other wishes it could. Stand alones and add ons for something the average joe won't see as a major step up from DVD? Nope. Trojan horse it into something average Joe is gonna buy anyways? Yep.

More assumptions.

You're assuming that Joe Walmart won't shell out, say, $200 for a new stand alone player, but he will shell out whatever obscene price that Sony asks for the PS3. Nevermind that there are a lot of Joe Walmarts who are just getting around to buying a PS2 because "they're too expensive." But then you also have to assume that Joe Walmart is going to buy movies on Blu-Ray simply because, if he owns a PS3, he could play them back. Nevermind the fact that, unless he has an HDTV, he's not going ot really benefit from Blu-Ray over just picking up the same movie out of a bargain bin on DVD. So, should we assume that Joe Walmart has an HDTV? And assume that Joe Walmart can blow money on an HDTV and a PS3, but is too cheap to buy a stand alone player?

Let's be realistic. Joe Walmart isn't going to buy any of it, at least not for the time being. And again, just because the PS3 can play Blu-Ray movies doesn't mean it's going to move Blu-Ray movies. People caught on with DVDs because they had the audio cassette to CD model to look at. People are going to ask what the difference is between a DVD and a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, find out that HD is the only difference, and buy the DVD because they don't have an HDTV and plain jane DVDs will be cheaper.

Even if we did allow that the PS3 could move some Blu-Rays... hell, lets assume that everyone who owns a PS2 buys a PS3, and all PS3 owners buy Blu-Ray movies... you still only have a fraction of the potential market. Remember, there's like 250,000,000 people in America alone, and Sony's only sold maybe 30,000,000 PS2s worldwide.

Blu-Ray can't count on the boost that the PS2 gave to DVDs unless HDTVs really take off in the next year. In that sense, both formats have a fighting chance.

Although, I think someone on another message board said it best whenever they said "whoever allows component out wins the format war."

[JB0]

*There's some confusion about the Cell architecture. There's 1 processor. Only one. It has 7 math coprocessors("vector processing units") attached to it, but it's still just 1 processor.

I think they downgraded the PS3 to 5 active coprocessors due to yield issues. They're still making the 7-coproc chips, but this way 2 of them can have defects without the chip failing. Was easier than redesigning the chip to actually remove 2 VPUs.

I haven't read anything about the Cell in a while, but last I recall it was designed with 8 coprocessors, with the PS3 originally designed to use/require 7, as they knew they'd have a very low yield of chips with 8 working ones. Those chips with only 5 or 6 functioning ones would go into other products. (And I'm guessing the few 8's they got would go to PS3 development kits or something)

So it's been downgraded from that? Recently? Still, only getting 5/8 when they were expecting 7/8 seems like a big drop.

359110[/snapback]

As I uinderstand things, it was originally 7 VPUs plus the CPU core. The gaming media reported this as "8 processars zomg!111"

Bah, I was wrong. It WAS 8 VPUs originally.

Either way... they had to downgrade the design goal a little due to yield issues. The current PS3 specs allow for either 2 dead VPUs or 3. I'm really not sure anymore, and I can't find hte article where they announced the downgrade.

Anyways, they can only get away with this because the architecture design is loose about the VPUs. It doesn't actually care WHICH VPUs are active, as long as there's enough of 'em available.

A defect in the main core is still a dead chip, though. There's no redundancy there.

Anyways... They took a gamble by making the Cell a rather large piece of silicon.

They expected chip fabrication techniques to advance faster than they have, which would have reduced the errors and and kept the fully-functional yield up.

But they haven't, and they can't get enough fully-functional Cells.

...

Gods, I wish Nintendo had named their processor Goku.

Edited January 11, 2006 by JB0

[Zentrandude]

goku as a name? so would you call overclocking super sayan?

Edited January 11, 2006 by Zentrandude

[JB0]

goku as a name? so would you call overclocking super sayan? 

359136[/snapback]

Only if when overclocked, my Rev shot fireballs at my PS3.

[Gaijin]

But again, you're assuming that the the PS3 launches at $499, which might not be an unreasonable guess, and that the 360 HD-DVD add-on will be, what, more than $200?  Because, if all you care about is HD movies, you could in theory buy a core system for $300, so an add-on would have to be at least $200.  But what if it's not?  What if Microsoft works it out to be $100?  What if the PS3 launches at the $800 that's been floating around at retail?

Difference is my "assumptions" are based in much more plausible situations than yours. You're arguing against BD why? Because it's in the PS3? I'll even give you that if the 360 launched a $99 HD DVD add on, it will not sell anywhere near a $499 PS3. People are lemmings. The difference is that Joe six pack will shell out for something he believes is new like people did for 360's. If the 360's had HD DVD drives (no need to "explain" to me why MS chose not to...I know a bit more about the optical disc wars than you'd believe in fact, I sat more with HD DVD until studio support changed which was done long before the "unification" talks were over) then they and you included would be quite happy to have one of those "new High Def" players. Most of J6P prob won't even have the means to display it but they'll like it if it's in something they bought already just like backwards compatibility. My argument is that HD DVD, will not penetrate as quickly, as BD will because as you mentioned, Avg Joe doesn't want to shell out extra for something they think they already have..but if they get it with something they probably already want? Win for BD.

You're assuming that Joe Walmart won't shell out, say, $200 for a new stand alone player, but he will shell out whatever obscene price that Sony asks for the PS3.  Nevermind that there are a lot of Joe Walmarts who are just getting around to buying a PS2 because "they're too expensive."  But then you also have to assume that Joe Walmart is going to buy movies on Blu-Ray simply because, if he owns a PS3, he could play them back.  Nevermind the fact that, unless he has an HDTV, he's not going ot really benefit from Blu-Ray over just picking up the same movie out of a bargain bin on DVD.  So, should we assume that Joe Walmart has an HDTV?  And assume that Joe Walmart can blow money on an HDTV and a PS3, but is too cheap to buy a stand alone player?

Yes. Look at UMD's. It's overpriced and sorta stupid but the public is buying them in droves.

Let's be realistic.  Joe Walmart isn't going to buy any of it, at least not for the time being.  And again, just because the PS3 can play Blu-Ray movies doesn't mean it's going to move Blu-Ray movies.  People caught on with DVDs because they had the audio cassette to CD model to look at.  People are going to ask what the difference is between a DVD and a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD, find out that HD is the only difference, and buy the DVD because they don't have an HDTV and plain jane DVDs will be cheaper.

Even if we did allow that the PS3 could move some Blu-Rays... hell, lets assume that  everyone who owns a PS2 buys a PS3, and all PS3 owners buy Blu-Ray movies... you still only have a fraction of the potential market.  Remember, there's like 250,000,000 people in America alone, and Sony's only sold maybe 30,000,000 PS2s worldwide.

Blu-Ray can't count on the boost that the PS2 gave to DVDs unless HDTVs really take off in the next year.  In that sense, both formats have a fighting chance.

Although, I think someone on another message board said it best whenever they said "whoever allows component out wins the format war."

They aren't counting on the same numbers...but IMO, it's better numbers than stand alone HD DVD players, add on Drives, and less and less support from the studios and companies. Joe doesn't have to "buy into it". It will be included in a product that will have a large installed user base very quickly. It makes sense actually if you think about it. And that is the main reason companies are banking on the PS3 and BD. Are they going to sell a whole lotta BD discs? Maybe not...but they'll sell more BD movies than if a $199 HD DVD player showed up tomorrow would sell HD DVD discs.

I am being realistic. I even said neither will take off like DVD. But of the two, one has a much stronger chance of infiltrating homes.

Neither "format" has a real "choice" in allowing HD over component since AACS licensing looks against it. In fact, that was a lot of the reason behind the licensing delays...some studios want to allow HD over component, others want it downres to 480i/p. Guess which companies want which? The ironic factor in your closing statement is that the big 2 of the Hollywood studios that support BD want to allow it, while the ones that don't are your friends at the DVD forum(HD DVD).

If you want to bring in the porn argument (since that's the other famous whoever has it wins), even though Sony actively discouraged it, the porn companies are looking to Bluray for it's releases and it's BD-J interactive layers rather than HD DVD's IHD( I never saw the articles but I guess the porn people are excited about the new "interactive" features. Again, look at what happened to UMD's and porn. Maybe MS's Amir Majidimehr will go to the porn companies next, trying to buy them off with Vista and iHD deals like HP and convince them they need MMC too.

I'm just saying, future of HD DVD not looking too shiny right now. Look in the right places (not googling whatever press releases you can find) and you'll see the same.

One more thing: if a PS3 at $499 is an "insane" price than what is a 360 at $399 with a $99 Add on HD DVD drive? Genius?

$800 PS3? That would be insanity I agree....(do you honestly believe they'd do that? seriously...do you? Because if that's your argument your Gamestop memos second week of May or so will be pretty darn interesting)...then I'll say that Sony just commited harakiri in front of the world to see. Remember, the BD players you see at CES are all high end units hardly indicative of a game console's builds. The $499 Toshiba at CES was a very "bare bones" one. Plus...the HD DVD demo of it STILL crashed during CES. So did iHD on Vista (which is HD DVD's interactive layer).

And HDTV's took off big time this year, and are expected to of course take off more next year. Check the sales ( I was surprised too, since somehow, people everywhere are shelling out $2-3K for large screen HDTV's and not just lil 30" LCD's).

EDIT: Final thing: Though it may appear I'm BluRay pro to the extreme (and yes, I have "vested interests" in it), I admit there are a lot of things wrong with it that still need to be taken care of. But come this summer, it should be clear.

Edited January 11, 2006 by Gaijin

[JB0]

I know it's not directed at me, but....

One more thing: if a PS3 at $499 is an "insane" price than what is a 360 at $399 with a $99 Add on HD DVD drive?  Genius?

Personally,I though the 360 at 400 was insane.

But I'm not a consumer whore that buys into the hype about having the newest game machine increases your penis size, makes the ladies thrust themselves upon it, and siphons funds from around the world into your wallet while you sleep, or whatever absurd notions had people paying 2 grand on eBay for a system with under a dozen games(none of which were worth the price tag).

$800 PS3?  That would be insanity I agree....(do you honestly believe they'd do that? seriously...do you? 

I honestly believe Kutaragi would do it.

Fortunately, Kutaragi seems quite well-insulated from the actual decision-making process.

[mikeszekely]

Difference is my "assumptions" are based in much more plausible situations than yours.

Your assumption is based on Blu-Ray adoption via PS3. I think I've already explained why many PS3 users won't give a rat's ass, and why even if they did, they're still going to be a market minority. Does the PS3 give Blu-Ray some advantage? Sure. Does it give Blu-Ray the win? Not yet.

You're arguing against BD why? Because it's in the PS3?

Not at all. In fact, I'm not even arguing against Blu-Ray... if the BRG announce that they will allow HD signals over component video, then Blu-Ray actually has my vote, since HD-DVD already said they're only outputting HD via HDMI. What I am arguing against is calling the race before it's finished, especially if the PS3 is your best argument. If HD-DVD was as beaten as you seem to think, they would have thrown in the towel by now.

If the 360's had HD DVD drives... then they and you included would be quite happy to have one of those "new High Def" players.

I wouldn't be, and I doubt they would be either. Joe Walmart might not know jack about a decent home theater set up, but it won't take him long to figure out that those new "high def" discs don't look any better on his standard def TV than a DVD. And as for me, I'd be criticizing Microsoft for jumping the gun while waiting for the format war to have a definative victor before going out to buy a decent stand alone player. Didn't do DVD on my PS2, and I'm not looking at a game console to make up my mind about HD players, either.

My argument is that HD DVD, will not penetrate as quickly, as BD will because as you mentioned, Avg Joe doesn't want to shell out extra for something they think they already have..but if they get it with something they probably already want? Win for BD.

And my argument is that Average Joe isn't going to shell out extra for something new when he realizes he doesn't have to. Because even if Joe really is too stupid to figure out you need an HDTV to watch an HD movie (although if he's that thick, he might not even realize that the PS3 plays something other than DVDs), it'll only take one Blu-Ray movie on a standard definintion TV for him to figure that DVDs were fine for him. And the win is still inconclusive.

Look at UMD's. It's overpriced and sorta stupid but the public is buying them in droves.

Comparing UMDs to DVD/next-gen DVD is like comparing your living room furniture to your lawn furniture. Going back to average Joe, he knows UMD is different because it's portable. But he's not going to go for a more expensive couch when the cheaper one looks the same in his living room.

And besides, the success of UMDs is relative. UMD movies sold better than expected. UMDs outsell PSP games. But UMD sales don't even touch on DVD sales.

Maybe not...but they'll sell more BD movies than if a $199 HD DVD player showed up tomorrow would sell HD DVD discs.

I disagree. Because I don't think the PS3 will have the impact you expect it to. I don't think the format war will be decided by Joe Walmarts buying up PS3 for all the reasons I've already stated. It'll be decided by people with enough tech knowledge to have invested in a good HDTV and home theater set up. And while some of them might be gamers, some of them won't be. And even some of the gamers, like myself, will prefer a dedicated stand alone unit, be it Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

The ironic factor in your closing statement is that the big 2 of the Hollywood studios that support BD want to allow it, while the ones that don't are your friends at the DVD forum(HD DVD).

It's only ironic if you think I'm arguing for HD-DVD. If you read everything I've written again, you can see that I'm not... I'm just arguing that the matter isn't settled yet. Like I said, if Blu-Ray allows HD over component, then I'm all for Blu-Ray.

One more thing: if a PS3 at $499 is an "insane" price than what is a 360 at $399 with a $99 Add on HD DVD drive? Genius?

Did I ever say that $499 was an insane price? No, I said that the PS3 MIGHT launch at an insane price. $499 was your number, not mine. And did I ever say that I was interested in the HD DVD add on? Not once. I applauded Microsoft's decision to keep the software on DVD-9s, and left it at that. I would love to see how awesome a movie in HD will look on my 52" DLP... but 360 or PS3, I'm not looking at a game console for the solution. I'm serious about waiting for the format war to be settled first, and then buying a stand alone player.

$800 PS3? That would be insanity I agree....(do you honestly believe they'd do that? seriously...do you?

I have no idea what Sony is thinking at this point. I would like to believe that, reguardless of Ken Kutaragi's comments about how the PS3 will be "expensive," "not for home use," and that he wants "people to think, 'I will work extra hours to buy that,'" that somebody at SCEI realizes the need to keep the PS3 priced competetively. But at the same time, you have to consider the facts. Microsoft loses tons of money from the Xbox division; they make it back from Windows. Sony loses tons of money of their consumer electronics; they make it back from PlayStation. Sony may be confident enough to take a hit on the PS3, but they simply cannot afford to lose the kind of money on it that Microsoft throws away on the Xbox family. I would like to see Sony launch the PS3 under $500, but the numbers floating around in the industry weren't pulled out of a hat. Honestly, the PS3 could launch anywhere from $400-$600 and not suprise me. Anything lower strikes me as a pipe dream, and anything higher is insanity.

But then, this is Kutaragi's division we're talking about...

[JB0]

Joe Walmart might not know jack about a decent home theater set up, but it won't take him long to figure out that those new "high def" discs don't look any better on his standard def TV than a DVD. 

You'd be surprised.

A lot of people think UMDs are superior to DVD, despite the screen being lower resolution than their TV at home.

Same goes for LCD TVs and monitors. The early ones looked like poo(a problem that's largely fixed now). But they were told that they were better than what they had, and they looked cool.

Average Joe has actually screwed CDs up entirely.

They equated loud with good, resulting in a pursuit of music that's been cranked up until it clipped in the mastering process, and then had the volume range reduced as far as possible without flattening the waveform completely to get the lows louder.

Same for TVs. They're intentionally sold with the brightness and color saturation cranked way the hell up, and red overdriven massively because AJ walks into the store, looks at the wall of screens being fed a composite(ore even RF!) signal that's been split 70 diffrent ways, squints through the glare off the screen from the bad lighting, and goes "Whoa, look at how much more red is in that picture! And there's so much light! That one's the best!"

And my argument is that Average Joe isn't going to shell out extra for something new when he realizes he doesn't have to.  Because even if Joe really is too stupid to figure out you need an HDTV to watch an HD movie (although if he's that thick, he might not even realize that the PS3 plays something other than DVDs), it'll only take one Blu-Ray movie on a standard definintion TV for him to figure that DVDs were fine for him.  And the win is still inconclusive.

Joe will imagine a diffrence on his standard-def TV because the ad guys told him it would kick ass.

And won't understand he's not even getting high-definition.

Comparing UMDs to DVD/next-gen DVD is like comparing your living room furniture to your lawn furniture.  Going back to average Joe, he knows UMD is different because it's portable.  But he's not going to go for a more expensive couch when the cheaper one looks the same in his living room.

Actually, as I said before, a lot of AJs genuinely believe the UMD IS better. There's a signifigant portion of the PSP userbase clamoring for home UMD players precisely BECAUSE UMD is "better than DVD."

I disagree.  Because I don't think the PS3 will have the impact you expect it to.  I don't think the format war will be decided by Joe Walmarts buying up PS3 for all the reasons I've already stated.  It'll be decided by people with enough tech knowledge to have invested in a good HDTV and home theater set up. 

That's so cute!

Beta ring a bell? How about SuperVHS? LaserDisk? DVHS? What they all have in common is they were technically superior to VHS, and failed to beat it in the market place.

Technical superiority doesn't win format wars. Whichever platform gets the ignorant masses backing it is the winner.

[David Hingtgen]

Thus the reason Sony TV's have the most over-driven red of all. It sells. Redder+brighter=better (to the masses), and even service mode adjustments can't get the red down to "normal" on most Sony TV's. I remember years ago it took forever to convince my dad to get a Toshiba TV, and not the reddest one in the store. (This was back when Toshiba and Sony alternated every few months as to who had the best tube TV's). And he was very much set on the absolute reddest one they had (a Hitachi I think), with about 1/2 inch visible bleed of red into all surrounding colors because it was SO bright.

Edited January 11, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Gaijin]

Mike, you are wise to have a wait and see attitude, though your posts before come across sounding like otherwise.

As I stated, it isn't up to "HD DVD" or "Blu Ray" to really decide on the HD over component..it's AACS actually and even if the final AACS licensing allows HD over component (allowing either HD DVD or Blu Ray players to do it), the studios get the final say if they are given the go ahead to do so. The early announcement specs over Toshiba's players doing only HDMI HD output is based on the fact that they prob won't allow it (and a foolish one since if it does allow it, no one will want those players).

And if you speak to anyone in the industry who actually knows things (retail level game stores doesn't count yet, I'm sorry), Toshiba knew they lost...what gives them hope is the fact that MS wants the war....people wonder why MS "all of a sudden" decided to start convincing HP that they should support HD DVD and it's because MS will do anything to prevent the delay of the PS3...since BD is crucial to PS3, MS convinced HP (which sits on the BDA) to propose BDA should have MMC and iHD. They got MC but a big no on iHD. MS actually could care less if they got it or not, what they did was postpone the BDA a bit which is their intentions. They also approached Dell to do the same but got a "take a hike" attitude.

The optical war would have been over before it started but yes, Microsoft is behind the HD DVD scenes just to fuel it enough to make things hard for Sony. And that is my real beef with the format war. The unification talks actually almost went over well back last year, however Toshiba's pride was hurt in that everyone wanted BD's technologies. They responded by cutting off their heads in trying to get China to make HD DVD players off the bat for the Wal Mart specials. Eating the loss on a product you spent years and billions on is one thing....throwing it to the lowest priced manufacturers out the gate has NEVER worked(don't confuse cheap assembly or labor with licensing the tech out to crap manufacturers as the way to launch a new product). The war should be over but Toshiba limps along and MS sees the whole optical disc war as a way to try and stop Sony if only to postpone Blu Ray thus delaying PS3. They actually don't want ANY optical discs but instead want to stream HD content through Media Center PC's and 360's. Fine and dandy but, it's not going to happen for the mass market yet and that infrastructure isn't feasible yet. We'll go through one at least more generation of discs before that becomes a reality for everyone.

Then there is the fact that every film studio except Universal (rumored to be just waiting until after King Kong is released in homes since they have the obligation to Toshiba with the promotional tie ins) is backing BD and only half HD DVD. While this could change if PS3 tanks and stand alone HD DVD players take off in droves (which is pretty darn unlikely that both of these 2 will happen), it's almost certain that this is the road we'll be going down.

Toshiba would be wise to concentrate on their SED line up of TV's(they are onto something here) instead of prolonging a war that everyone in the industry doesn't want, and will ultimately lose confusing consumers in the meantime. The pride is the reason they are continuing and MS is using that pride to their advantage. Everyone in the industry said Toshiba should have gave it up many months ago.

Edit: But since you will wait and see and buy whatever wins you'll have no problems anyways. Out of curiosity, I know you mentioned a DLP 52" with HDMI...what are you using the HDMI port for? Since you want HD over component I was curious, or is it just a matter of principal thing (like me).

Edited January 11, 2006 by Gaijin

[MrDisco]

i just saw the tech demo for the ps3. WOW. then my buddy sent me the link to the Killzone 2 tech demo for the ps3. HOLY @#$. if that doens't convince someone to buy a ps3 i dont know what will (the FF demo was kind of lame though).

[emajnthis]

just for clarification of some people's views on HD and how people don't have it. The FCC has already fledged full support for HD (and other digital media) and within the next 10-15 years want to see HD in the main stream (all local channels, movies, cable/satellite, etc.) they have already written up and passed a set of regulations to make sure that audio/video manufacturers comply with these terms, making it so all TV's are in the least digitally compatible. Also so local channels (fox,abc,nbc,etc) in the next 10-15 years can close down their analog frequencies and only use digital and HD frequencies, allowing the FCC to reallocate the analog frequencies for other uses (extra cell phone coverage, radios).

Whether or not people want Digital or HD in the next ten years, they really have no choice, as the local channels are going to be the first to shut down their analog doors, with cable and satellite soon to follow. Which is the biggest reason why you see these gaming systems moving to the new standard early, as not to be stuck behind the visual standard loop later.

Whether or not that has any affect on BD or HDDVD is totally up to who has more money to push the technology. When DVD was making the push over LD and VHS, a lot of the big movie studios were the ones that had to push DVD releases before the other companies decided it was safe to join in. I'm going to assume that's how the decision process will filter itself out with BD and HDDVD. Sony in that sense already has an advantage (sony pictures) and can push all of its titles out on this format, and pray that other companies follow suit. Then again MS has enough money to just throw it at whoever to get HDDVD on the go just to ensure market success.

I guess in the long run only time will tell.

Edited January 11, 2006 by emajnthis

[mikeszekely]

But since you will wait and see and buy whatever wins you'll have no problems anyways. Out of curiosity, I know you mentioned a DLP 52" with HDMI...what are you using the HDMI port for? Since you want HD over component I was curious, or is it just a matter of principal thing (like me).

Yeah, like I said, if the Blu-Ray can get HD over component, I actually prefer it. There's a couple of reasons. I only have one HDMI port, and it's for my PC (a 52" widescreen monitor makes PC games fun again!). I have two component ports, currently for my DVD player and my Xbox 360 but component ports are easily expandible. As a matter of fact, our store won a contest that will net me $100... I planned on spending it on a six input component selector with digital audio. Of course, HDMI switchers will start turning up sooner or later...

It's also about principle, on two levels. One part of it is that I'm tired of industries getting together and agreeing to limit consumer options so that they can artificially inflate demand. The music industry is a prime example... with blatant disregard for basic economics, they were pushing the prices of CDs up near $20 a pop, while shoveling out the most generic, basic, pop crap they could (hell, they even have shows like American Idol to help them mass produce their crap). Law of supply and demand tells you that you don't maximize profit by over-charging for inferior goods. But rather than focus on quality or on pricing CDs more attractively, what do they do? Sue their customers for file sharing.

The other level, is, of course, that the component is analog, therefore easier to pirate argument is probably the worst I've ever heard. Like I already said, people are going to find a way to pirate HD-DVD and Blu-Ray just fine digitally without the actual player involved.

if that doens't convince someone to buy a ps3 i dont know what will

Oh, I don't know... maybe some actual gameplay footage?

I'm skeptical that these tech demos, even the Metal Gear trailer that was rendered in real time, are what the actual games will look like. I mean, remember that awesome tech demo that EA showed of Madden during the Super Bowl? Guess what? Madden 06 on the 360 doesn't even come close. And when a new Killzone game is released on the PS3, I highly doubt it'll look like those concept videos, either.

[mikeszekely]

Whether or not people want Digital or HD in the next ten years

But in the next 10 years, the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have come and gone, and their successors will be in their twilight, the Blu-Ray HD-DVD format will have been decided and possibly will be on their way to being phased out for a higher-definition, higher capacity storage medium, and a lot more people will have been on their way to buying HDTVs, especially as the prices for smaller CRT and RP LCD units will come down. Very likely, my "antique" 52" DLP will have been replaced with a something like a shiny 64" 4th-gen LCoS with a native 1080p resolution.

In other words, what happens in the next 10 years doesn't have much bearing on what manufacturers should be doing with first-gen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players, the PS3, or the Xbox 360. (And certainly not the Revolution. Kudos to Nintendo for really going off and doing their own thing).

And even at that, that 10-15 year estimate still assumes that the FCC doesn't delay the rollout of mandatory digital, HD broadcasting as it has two or three times already.

[emajnthis]

mandatory HD and digital is already in force. If you put an HD antennae on your roof right now you can get all of your local channels in HD for free (so long as your TV can handle it).

and it's not so much that the XBOX 360/PS3 will have been outdated by its newer mandates but more that it will still comply with future standards. I don't know about you, but i still own an NES and SNES and actually enjoy playing classic games on those more than any new system that have been released. So in 10 years when your eyes are used to HD, you will still be able to play what will then be considered "classic" games in modern format.

Edited January 11, 2006 by emajnthis

[JB0]

mandatory HD and digital is already in force.  If you put an HD antennae on your roof right now you can get all of your local channels in HD for free (so long as your TV can handle it).

and it's not so much that the XBOX 360/PS3 will have been outdated by its newer mandates but more that it will still comply with future standards. I don't know about you, but i still own an NES and SNES and actually enjoy playing classic games on those more than any new system that have been released.  So in 10 years when your eyes are used to HD, you will still be able to play what will then be considered "classic" games in modern format.

359344[/snapback]

I'm not worried about my NES and later. Composite's easy enough to support(what with it carrying the same signals as s-video and component, it's just a comb filter or 2 to split them back out and reconstitute the original component video signal), and I don't see it going anywhere for a while.

I'm worried about my pre-NES stuff.

My Ataris and INTV are RF-only. As soon as NTSC tuners disappear, they're dead.

There's AV mod possibilities for the VCS and the 5200(though the fact that I have a 4-port makes that a pain in the rectum), but there's no good solution for the INTV.

Thank god the Vectrex has an integrated display. ... Well, until something breaks in it.

Edited January 11, 2006 by JB0

[emajnthis]

aw crap, i forgot about that, i have an Atari too, though my wife plays it more than i do as ironic as that is.

[JB0]

aw crap, i forgot about that, i have an Atari too, though my wife plays it more than i do as ironic as that is.

359350[/snapback]

Yeah. I'm a borderline collector. Odds are good I'll wind up with a 7800 and some of those other systems eventually.

I've actually got a Studio 2 around here somewhere, though I've never used it. Not exactly missing anything great from what I know of the system, but I really SHOULD fire it up some day just to see how bad it is for myself.

[emajnthis]

i also have some old collectibles like a Comodore 64, and a Turbo Graphics 16. The SNES is the only one i really play, (Metal Warriors, Final Fantasy, few other great games) which is why i'll probably be purchasing both a revolution and PS3. Revolution for some classic nostalgic fun, and the PS3 for the cutting edge moods.

[JB0]

Mmmm... some goodies there.

I need to get me a PCEngine/TurboGrafx some time.

Both systems have native AV solutions, though the TG16/PCE depends on what model you own, and accessories if you have an RF-only model.

I play a little of everything.

Only hit anything very often when I get a new game for it usually.

[Gaijin]

I'm sure you can keep a nice 20" SD TV for that around. I do.

[JB0]

I'm sure you can keep a nice 20" SD TV for that around.  I do.

359393[/snapback]

Until it breaks.

Can piggyback VCRs and DVD-recorders too, and use AV out to feed their NTSC tuner on channel 3 to a modern set.

There's still an upper limit to how long NTSC equipment can be scrounged.

[Apollo Leader]

PS3 pedicted to run $399 - $699.

I am going to predict that whatever the final price of the PS3 is (either as a "core" pack or a "premium" pack), the equivilant Xbox packages will be marked down at least $150 less then the equivilant PS3 packages. If the PS3 "premium" launches at $499, the Xbox Premium package will be marked down to $349 maybe even $299 undercutting Sony by $200.

With the future of the DVD format up in the air, the new drives just being introduced to the market, and with their higher initial costs, I have to say that Microsoft was wise in sticking with traditional DVD's... the format still has a lot of life left in it.

[Gaijin]

Whether or not people want Digital or HD in the next ten years

But in the next 10 years, the Xbox 360 and PS3 will have come and gone, and their successors will be in their twilight, the Blu-Ray HD-DVD format will have been decided and possibly will be on their way to being phased out for a higher-definition, higher capacity storage medium, and a lot more people will have been on their way to buying HDTVs, especially as the prices for smaller CRT and RP LCD units will come down. Very likely, my "antique" 52" DLP will have been replaced with a something like a shiny 64" 4th-gen LCoS with a native 1080p resolution.

In other words, what happens in the next 10 years doesn't have much bearing on what manufacturers should be doing with first-gen Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players, the PS3, or the Xbox 360. (And certainly not the Revolution. Kudos to Nintendo for really going off and doing their own thing).

And even at that, that 10-15 year estimate still assumes that the FCC doesn't delay the rollout of mandatory digital, HD broadcasting as it has two or three times already.

359334[/snapback]

Actually, in 10 years, we'll prob see Ultra High Def with again higher res displays. There are already 1080p displays reaching the markets now to take advantage of the upcoming programming that will support 1080p as well as Blu Ray players which allow 1080p as well. Yes, the first BD discs are 1080p and can be used with the sets that support 1080p now. The myth that there are no 1080p displays is gone as the new sets appearing are 1080p capable and in a couple of years, every single new HDTV will be which is about right for the masses to start purchasing.

HD DVD can provide 1080p as well, but has not chosen to do so in their first batch of players(which is yet another reason many in the home theater community are scratching their heads as 1080p sets are already reality...it's similar to DVD in that the first few players didn't provide 480p output for a couple of years). While the cry there was small, this time around, since more people know what they should be getting right off the bat, no 1080p from HD DVD is disappointing. One can argue very few people have those new sets but, if they do, why shouldn't they get 1080p from their brand spanking new future players if it's possible already?

The FCC regs only refer to digital signals and have nothing to do with HD...no HD is or will be mandatory. Whether the stations broadcast digitally in HD or ED is up to them. They just can't do it over analog when it goes into effect.

What happens in the next 10 years matters greatly to the 360, PS3, and the High Def players. Not at the end, but how the world and industry moves along during those years. MS wants High Def streaming and downloading to your living room in a couple years...nice plan but most people don't have the bandwith nor storage to do that. Sony wants BD in your living room to tide you over and the PS3 in a few years will do that for them. Toshiba wants DVD all over again but is in the worst position to sell that to people.

[JB0]

PS3 pedicted to run $399 - $699.

I am going to predict that whatever the final price of the PS3 is (either as a "core" pack or a "premium" pack), the equivilant Xbox packages will be marked down at least $150 less then the equivilant PS3 packages.  If the PS3 "premium" launches at $499, the Xbox Premium package will be marked down to $349 maybe even $299 undercutting Sony by $200.

I'm betting a 50$ diffrence if the PS3 comes in close to the 360. A 150 price differential is rather ... excessive.

Of course, the PS3 isn't looking like it'l come in diffrent classes of console. So if they undercut by 50 with the REAL 360, the gutted version DOES wind up with a 150 undercut.

[Gaijin]

I'm sure you can keep a nice 20" SD TV for that around.  I do.

359393[/snapback]

Until it breaks.

Can piggyback VCRs and DVD-recorders too, and use AV out to feed their NTSC tuner on channel 3 to a modern set.

There's still an upper limit to how long NTSC equipment can be scrounged.

359398[/snapback]

Even the modern sets have NTSC tuners still btw. You'll be safe for another decade or so.

[JB0]

I'm sure you can keep a nice 20" SD TV for that around.  I do.

359393[/snapback]

Until it breaks.

Can piggyback VCRs and DVD-recorders too, and use AV out to feed their NTSC tuner on channel 3 to a modern set.

There's still an upper limit to how long NTSC equipment can be scrounged.

359398[/snapback]

Even the modern sets have NTSC tuners still btw. You'll be safe for another decade or so.

359408[/snapback]

I know. I'm thinking a bit more long-term. As long as we're expressing concerns about composite video falling by the wayside...

[Zentrandude]

Thus the reason Sony TV's have the most over-driven red of all.  It sells.  Redder+brighter=better (to the masses), and even service mode adjustments can't get the red down to "normal" on most Sony TV's.  I remember years ago it took forever to convince my dad to get a Toshiba TV, and not the reddest one in the store.  (This was back when Toshiba and Sony alternated every few months as to who had the best tube TV's).  And he was very much set on the absolute reddest one they had (a Hitachi I think), with about 1/2 inch visible bleed of red into all surrounding colors because it was SO bright.

359227[/snapback]

I know what you mean by that. when I was younger back in the 80/90s I taught california must be realy sunny becuase all the actors looked sunburnt being all red.

[Wes]

LUDRICOUS SPEED GO!

120FPS? Does anyone really believe this?

[Gaijin]

LUDRICOUS SPEED GO!

120FPS?  Does anyone really believe this?

359611[/snapback]

Most of the articles there seem to be based on really old news. Not to mention much of their CES 2006 "news articles" are full of mis-information.

Edited January 12, 2006 by Gaijin

[Zentrandude]

120fps with a single cube on a black background

[Fort Max]

LUDRICOUS SPEED GO!

120FPS?  Does anyone really believe this?

359611[/snapback]

What it really means is that Sonys goal is for PS3 to have a 120 First Person Shooters.

[Gunbuster]

LUDRICOUS SPEED GO!

120FPS?  Does anyone really believe this?

359611[/snapback]

Talked about written by a fanboy