Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom Previews

[bapenguin]

Some previews have been popping up for Sony's flagship next-gen title, Untold Legends: Dark Kingdom. Along with the text comes some hi-def vids and screens.

IGN (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/711/711533p1.html) has the first.The thing that's most obviously come the longest way since we first saw the game in March is the game's art style. We got our first glimpse of the vastly-improved warrior character at E3, but our look at the game today gave us even greater insight into just how quickly the team works. There looks to be more detail on the characters, especially the monsters, via better use of bump mapping and improved pro-pixel leatherization diffusion on their clothes and armor. The game, or at least the section that we saw, also looks to have darker and more contrasted lighting than we'd seen previously, giving the game a grittier, more realistic (in a comic book way) look. In other words, the game is looking better and better every time we see it.

Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/rpg/untoldlegendsdarkkingdom/news.html?sid=6152380&mode=recent) has the second.The visuals in the game have been tightened up some since E3. Most of the improvements are incremental enhancements to animation and detail. The warrior's moves were a bit more fluid and the environment sported more polish. The work-in-progress game was still missing assorted effects and, though the frame rate has been improved, the action did bog down quite a bit.

The game looks pretty smooth in motion. It looks like it could be fun, just not $60 fun.

Thanks Mike Jones for the links.

[Reanimated]

What about $600 fun?

And did you just call this the "flagship" next-gen title for Sony? Cus man, if that's true, they're REALLY in trouble.

[Guy Mariano]

What about $600 fun?

And did you just call this the "flagship" next-gen title for Sony? Cus man, if that's true, they're REALLY in trouble.

There is a $500 PS3 genius but I did find the "flagship" part very amusing :D

[KidCactus]

It looks like it could be fun, just not $60 fun.
*waits for the $600 comments*

Edit: Wow, didn't even manage to post before it showed up.

[direwolf]

I guess none of you tards pay taxes?
$500 + $60 + tax > $600 for me.

[Borys]

What about $600 fun?


It's $500.


And did you just call this the "flagship" next-gen title for Sony? Cus man, if that's true, they're REALLY in trouble.

Flagship as in first party.

[bapenguin]

I said flagship because it was the first PS3 game that has "real" screens shown.

Also I said it to be a wise ass.

[Guy Mariano]

I guess none of you tards pay taxes?
$500 + $60 + tax > $600 for me.

My state has no taxes...lucky me

[direwolf]

My state has no taxes...lucky me

So, I guess you are expecting the game to ship with the PS3 too eh?

I want to live where you live, no tax, and free games for everybody.

[Reanimated]

Oh sorry, yes, it's 500 for the gimp-pack-for-twits.

So 600 for those without brain disorders.

[Reanimated]

Also I said it to be a wise ass.




I KNEW it! :p

[Guy Mariano]

Oh sorry, yes, it's 500 for the gimp-pack-for-twits.

So 600 for those without brain disorders.

Yeah if the gimp pack means everything the Premium 360 can do + Blue Ray and Free online.

PS3 gimp pack $500 blu ray free online
360 premium $400 $50 online

yep a whopping $50 dollar difference. Now if you want to talk a gimp pack talk about the 360 core cuz that's a freaking joke and incomparable to the PS3 "gimp" pack, no wireless controller, no HD, can't save games, can't dowload content etc....

[Reanimated]

I never said the 360 gimp pack was awesome, genius.

I'm 100% anti-gimp.

And you guys keep touting this "free online", but when has sony ever stated that PLAYING games online is going to be free? What they've said is that their BASIC online service will be free. Sounds a lot like Xbox Live Silver to me - also free.

[Mr.Condescension]

What about $600 fun?

And did you just call this the "flagship" next-gen title for Sony? Cus man, if that's true, they're REALLY in trouble.

The "$600 fun" comments are beyond retarded. I currently plan on buying a 360 and a PS3, and *no* game alone is worth $600 or $400 or $200. Is the game worth $60 is the only correct question.

[Mr.Condescension]

I said flagship because it was the first PS3 game that has "real" screens shown.

Also I said it to be a wise ass.

I could have sworn that Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, and Resistance had "real" screens shown at E3.

[Mr.Condescension]

Oh sorry, yes, it's 500 for the gimp-pack-for-twits.

So 600 for those without brain disorders.

Considering that the PS3 "tard-pack" has every feature the Xbox360 Deluxe has in terms of hardware and cabling that means by your standards you'd be a tard for getting an Xbox360, right? Please...

[Reanimated]

Considering that the PS3 "tard-pack" has every feature the Xbox360 Deluxe has in terms of hardware and cabling that means by your standards you'd be a tard for getting an Xbox360, right? Please...




For 100 dollars more, yeah, that WOULD be pretty retarded.

[bapenguin]

I could have sworn that Warhawk, Heavenly Sword, and Resistance had "real" screens shown at E3.

These screens came out back in January...if not before.

[Guy Mariano]

I never said the 360 gimp pack was awesome, genius.

I'm 100% anti-gimp.

And you guys keep touting this "free online", but when has sony ever stated that PLAYING games online is going to be free? What they've said is that their BASIC online service will be free. Sounds a lot like Xbox Live Silver to me - also free.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/23/region-free-ps3-free-online-multiplayer-confirmed/


During a Q&A session with media over lunch after yesterday's GDC keynote, Sony's Phil Harrison confirmed that PS3 software will be region free and that multiplayer gaming will also be free

So again $500 VS $450 for the same functinality but with a Blu-Ray player :rolleyes:

[Mr.Condescension]

For 100 dollars more, yeah, that WOULD be pretty retarded.

Wow, someone finally admits that the PS3 is really only $100 more than the Xbox 360. Progress. I like it.

[Reanimated]

That's just another news site interpreting what sony has said about "free online". Until I see a direct quote stating categorically that PLAYING GAMES ONLINE is absolutely free on the PS3, and that publishers are also barred from charging you, then it's not free.

I mean why would they be talking about a "basic" service if a premium service didn't exist? Why bother making that distinction if it's all free?

[Reanimated]

Wow, someone finally admits that the PS3 is really only $100 more than the Xbox 360. Progress. I like it.




No, sorry, it's 200 dollars more. Like I said - I'm 100% anti-gimp. Gimp packs should not exist. It's a stupid marketing ploy to fool the weak minded. You know, people like you. ;)

[Guy Mariano]

That's just another news site interpreting what sony has said about "free online". Until I see a direct quote stating categorically that PLAYING GAMES ONLINE is absolutely free on the PS3, and that publishers are also barred from charging you, then it's not free.

I mean why would they be talking about a "basic" service if a premium service didn't exist? Why bother making that distinction if it's all free?


This isn't interpeting anything .

During a Q&A session with media over lunch after yesterday's GDC keynote, Sony's Phil Harrison confirmed that PS3 software will be region free and that multiplayer gaming will also be free

P.S. YOUR PATHETIC

[RainOfTerror]

to get back on top .. I saw this game in action yesterday, played it and such ..

and it's weak .. plain and simple. It's a hack and slasher, but there was totally nothing next-gen about it, nothing we haven't seen yet.

Luckily there was food, or I'd have fallen asleep :)

on top of that .. the dev kit they were using was HUGE, as in 4 retail X360s big (lack of a better measuring standard), and heavy as shit ...

[Reanimated]

Riiiiiight, so about that quote... Also, you seem to have ignored the question of the basic service.

P.S. YOU'RE DELUSIONAL

ALSO NOTE MY PROPER USE OF AN APOSTROPHE

[oldjadedgamer]

No, sorry, it's 200 dollars more. Like I said - I'm 100% anti-gimp. Gimp packs should not exist. It's a stupid marketing ploy to fool the weak minded. You know, people like you. ;)

I have to agree, anyone that buys either gimped pack is a fool.

[absolut taco]

I have to agree, anyone that buys either gimped pack is a fool.
I'm not so sure...
With the 360, absolutely, the Premium is the way to go.

With the PS3, I think the gimp is the way to go. The gimp has everything you need to play games. The extras don't really matter.

[Mr.Condescension]

No, sorry, it's 200 dollars more. Like I said - I'm 100% anti-gimp. Gimp packs should not exist. It's a stupid marketing ploy to fool the weak minded. You know, people like you. ;)

I think you don't understand the meaning of the word gimp. It means a cripple, specifically. If there was no $600 PS3 version and you just had the $500 version, would you still consider it "crippled"? Considering that version can do everything an Xbox 360 "Deluxe" version can do, you either can't consider it crippled, or you must therefore consider the Xbox 360 system in total to also be "gimp". Pick one. You can't have it both ways, logically speaking.

[Mr.Condescension]

to get back on top .. I saw this game in action yesterday, played it and such ..

and it's weak .. plain and simple. It's a hack and slasher, but there was totally nothing next-gen about it, nothing we haven't seen yet.

Luckily there was food, or I'd have fallen asleep :)

on top of that .. the dev kit they were using was HUGE, as in 4 retail X360s big (lack of a better measuring standard), and heavy as shit ...

I have to say, it does look fairly lackluster for any system. I don't think anyone is really thinking it will be a system seller. Maybe it'll be fun enough for the used section.

[Reanimated]

I'm not so sure...
With the 360, absolutely, the Premium is the way to go.

With the PS3, I think the gimp is the way to go. The gimp has everything you need to play games. The extras don't really matter.




See, to me, buying the gimp pack totally defeats the purpose of having to drop the extra cash for the privelege of having blu ray shoved down your throat. The lack of HDMI is a real downer there. Not having it really kind of defeats the purpose of having "best-in-class" DVD playback. It's an automatic downgrade to image quality that is supposed to be absolutely top-notch.

Then again, I don't get the logic behind buying a PS3 for blu ray playback either. For a videophile, it's not an option. People who drive Lexus don't run out to buy a Yugo because it's cheaper. True videophiles are going to want the top quality playback that the 1000+ dollar players provide - you know, the ones with a gig of RAM. They're certainly not going to go for something that lacks a digital connection.

[Reanimated]

I think you don't understand the meaning of the word gimp. It means a cripple, specifically. If there was no $600 PS3 version and you just had the $500 version, would you still consider it "crippled"? Considering that version can do everything an Xbox 360 "Deluxe" version can do, you either can't consider it crippled, or you must therefore consider the Xbox 360 system in total to also be "gimp". Pick one. You can't have it both ways, logically speaking.



What fucking fantasy camp did you come from, chief? The existence of the 600 dollar system MAKES the 500 dollar system a gimp. Obviously if it didn't exist, then it would just be THE SYSTEM. The lack of HDMI would suck for a blu ray player, but hell, PS3 isn't in the same quality league as stand-alone blu ray players anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference, I guess.

Also, PS3 doesn't do everything the 360 does. It doesn't connect to XP/WMC, Media Center, or Vista for streaming content. Not to mention that their Live clone isn't a reality yet, so I'll believe that one when I see it.

[Mr.Condescension]

What fucking fantasy camp did you come from, chief? The existence of the 600 dollar system MAKES the 500 dollar system a gimp.

So, by your logic if there is someone who can run faster than you, then you're a gimp. If you own a 2005 Ferrari and they make a 2006 Ferrari with 10 more horsepower, yours is now gimped? That makes no sense at all.

The lack of HDMI would suck for a blu ray player, but hell, PS3 isn't in the same quality league as stand-alone blu ray players anyway, so it wouldn't make much difference, I guess.


First off, you don't know what quality the PS3 blu ray player is going to be since no one has ever had one to test or benchmark. It could be just as good as stand alone players. You assume way too much.

Secondly, the Xbox 360 doesn't have HDMI either, so the Xbox system is in the same boat for HD movies as well. Since you believe a stand-alone player is better anyway, you wouldn't care about the HDMI out anyway, so your point is moot.

That leaves us with only one valid comparison for a games platform...$400 Xbox360 vs. $500 PS3. If you choose the $600 model you are apparently planning on playing HD movies, which means you would have to compare it to a $400 Xbox 360 with a stand-alone HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player (Xbox 360 doesn't have HDMI, remember?)

[Reanimated]

Jesus christ, you're really full of bullshit spin, aren't you? Bill O'Reilley could take spin doctoring lessons from you. No, sorry, there are no comparisons to be made. The PS3 is 600 dollars and the 360 is 400. This is if you want the best there is on offer of each console instead of a marketing gimmick package put together for fuckwits like yourself. Period. Doesn't matter how you spin doctor it.

Your gimp analogies don't work either. If Ferrari were to make two of the SAME CAR, except one came with square wheels, well I'm afraid the square wheels car would be a gimped piece of shit. If I had a CLONE with only one foot, then he's the gimped version of me. Just because Bob is faster than me doesn't make me a gimped version of Bob. I'm not Bob. Get it, genius?

As for the blu ray crap, I'm only repeating what Pioneer has said - http://www.i4u.com/article5721.html

You simply can't expect that a 500 dollar system with an OEM drive in it is going to have the same quality playback as 1500 dollar systems with a gig of RAM in them. You're seriously deluded if you believe that. If you're buying into that, then you need to enter your Fiat in the next Indy 500.

As for HDMI who says I'm not interested? My 360 is hooked up via VGA because it's a higher quality connection than component. I absolutely am interested in having the highest possible quality connection for my HD games, and I hope that MS puts out an HDMI cable for the 360 at some point (360's output is actually equivalent to DVI-I). I'm certainly not going to drop the cash on a non-upgradable system when there's an HDMI version on offer. That's pretty idiotic.

Not to mention that the 360 has the WMC features that PS3 can't match, so there's really no direct comparison to be made on technology. Especially given the fact that I have yet to see a PS3 game that looks better than Gears of War or Mass Effect. There are differences all around, but one simple fact remains - the price of ownership for the best of each console system itself is 400 and 600 dollars. Period. You can use whatever fuzzy math you like, but that's the bottom line.

[Mike Jones]

Jesus christ, you're really full of bullshit spin, aren't you? Bill O'Reilley could take spin doctoring lessons from you. No, sorry, there are no comparisons to be made. The PS3 is 600 dollars and the 360 is 400. This is if you want the best there is on offer of each console instead of a marketing gimmick package put together for fuckwits like yourself. Period. Doesn't matter how you spin doctor it.

Your gimp analogies don't work either. If Ferrari were to make two of the SAME CAR, except one came with square wheels, well I'm afraid the square wheels car would be a gimped piece of shit. If I had a CLONE with only one foot, then he's the gimped version of me. Just because Bob is faster than me doesn't make me a gimped version of Bob. I'm not Bob. Get it, genius?

As for the blu ray crap, I'm only repeating what Pioneer has said - http://www.i4u.com/article5721.html

You simply can't expect that a 500 dollar system with an OEM drive in it is going to have the same quality playback as 1500 dollar systems with a gig of RAM in them. You're seriously deluded if you believe that. If you're buying into that, then you need to enter your Fiat in the next Indy 500.

As for HDMI who says I'm not interested? My 360 is hooked up via VGA because it's a higher quality connection than component. I absolutely am interested in having the highest possible quality connection for my HD games, and I hope that MS puts out an HDMI cable for the 360 at some point (360's output is actually equivalent to DVI-I). I'm certainly not going to drop the cash on a non-upgradable system when there's an HDMI version on offer. That's pretty idiotic.

Not to mention that the 360 has the WMC features that PS3 can't match, so there's really no direct comparison to be made on technology. Especially given the fact that I have yet to see a PS3 game that looks better than Gears of War or Mass Effect. There are differences all around, but one simple fact remains - the price of ownership for the best of each console system itself is 400 and 600 dollars. Period. You can use whatever fuzzy math you like, but that's the bottom line.

Apparently you like the gimp premium version of the 360 since the PS3 gimp core version does everything and more than the "premium" 360 :D

[Reanimated]

"more" being that it has budget quality blu ray playback which is worthless to me? Wow, I'm sold. But it doesn't connect up to WMC/Vista for streaming content, so... less? Guess that would depend on what you're more interested in.

[Mr.Condescension]

Your gimp analogies don't work either. If Ferrari were to make two of the SAME CAR, except one came with square wheels, well I'm afraid the square wheels car would be a gimped piece of shit. If I had a CLONE with only one foot, then he's the gimped version of me. Just because Bob is faster than me doesn't make me a gimped version of Bob. I'm not Bob. Get it, genius?.

The problem with your version of the analogy is that a car with square wheels or a man with one leg doesn't work for the intended purpose at all, and is therefore gimped. A PS3 without HDMI still plays games at full speed and full 720p or 1080p resolution, so if you're buying it to play games, it is fully functional, and therefore not gimped. (the dictionary's definition, not mine)


As for the blu ray crap, I'm only repeating what Pioneer has said - http://www.i4u.com/article5721.html

You simply can't expect that a 500 dollar system with an OEM drive in it is going to have the same quality playback as 1500 dollar systems with a gig of RAM in them.


Pioneer has never even seen a PS3 dev kit or the blu-ray player in the PS3. Pioneer's blu-ray players will be in direct competition with Sony's, so of course they are going to claim a difference. They have to combat the notion that the PS3 is just as good as their product at a lower price. If you think Pioneer has nothing to gain from claiming their more expensive product is better you're plenty naive. Will the PS3 blu-ray player be as good as the $1000 Pioneer one? I don't know....and neither do you. And neither does Pioneer.

And btw, you obviously don't know what OEM means. It means "Original Equipment Manufacturer". All blu-ray drives in blu-ray players will be OEM. A non-OEM drive would be a drive you buy to replace a blu-ray players drive, or to install in your existing PC, etc. You probably shouldn't be using things you know nothing about as a basis for your arguments.


Not to mention that the 360 has the WMC features that PS3 can't match, so there's really no direct comparison to be made on technology. Especially given the fact that I have yet to see a PS3 game that looks better than Gears of War or Mass Effect. There are differences all around, but one simple fact remains - the price of ownership for the best of each console system itself is 400 and 600 dollars. Period. You can use whatever fuzzy math you like, but that's the bottom line.

It's interesting how you choose to compare the features of the two systems when you think it benefits your argument only. The plain fact is that with the introduction of Linux on the PS3 it will have all the multimedia functionality that the Xbox has, with the additional cabilities that Bluetooth functionality add. Sony is already talking about allowing you to add usb or bluetooth HDD, keyboard, mouse, TV Tuner for High Def DVR, etc. As for Gears and Mass Effect (two games unreleased at this point) they may look good, but so does Heavenly Sword at this point. No developer has stated that the Xbox has more power or potential than the PS3, so there is no indication that in a year the games won't be considered equal, better, or worse on the PS3.

It's true that the "best of each console" is $400 and $600, but what you fail to admit is that the best of the options on the PS3 aren't on offer for the Xbox 360. Comparing the Xbox 360 at $400 to the PS3 at $600 dollars is an apples to oranges comparison. The PS3 in terms of hardware offers everything the $400 xbox does at the $500 price point. If you're going to do an apples to apples comparison the only sensible place to start is there, where the options are equivalent.

[greenapple]

Man, Reanimated needs to take a DEEP BREATH. Here's Mr. Condescension's argument dumbed down:

Gimped IS NOT a relative measure. It's an objective measure. Something is NOT gimped simply because a more feature-rich version exists. I.e. the simple existence of something better doesn't make the less-featured version gimped.

So, if something isn't objectively gimped (i.e. it works well) it doesn't suddenly become gimped when version 2.0 comes out. The fact that version 1.0 and 2.0 become available at the same time doesn't change that either. Some rapper's diamond-studded version of the same cell phone that I have doesn't magically make my same-model cell phone gimped as a phone. My phone may be gimped as a fashion accessory, but that's a different story.

That's infaliible logic, not spin. Or it's at least proper use of the highly technical and precise term "gimp".

[BenN1ce]

Man, Reanimated needs to take a DEEP BREATH. Here's Mr. Condescension's argument dumbed down:

Gimped IS NOT a relative measure. It's an objective measure. Something is NOT gimped simply because a more feature-rich version exists. I.e. the simple existence of something better doesn't make the less-featured version gimped.

So, if something isn't objectively gimped (i.e. it works well) it doesn't suddenly become gimped when version 2.0 comes out. The fact that version 1.0 and 2.0 become available at the same time doesn't change that either. Some rapper's diamond-studded version of the same cell phone that I have doesn't magically make my same-model cell phone gimped as a phone. My phone may be gimped as a fashion accessory, but that's a different story.

That's infaliible logic, not spin. Or it's at least proper use of the highly technical and precise term "gimp".

I thought a gimp was a sex slave dressed in leather like in Pulp Fiction.

[Reanimated]

The problem with your version of the analogy is that a car with square wheels or a man with one leg doesn't work for the intended purpose at all, and is therefore gimped. A PS3 without HDMI still plays games at full speed and full 720p or 1080p resolution, so if you're buying it to play games, it is fully functional, and therefore not gimped. (the dictionary's definition, not mine)




But, in reality, it's NOT the same functionality, because the FACT of the matter is that a component video connection simply does not deliver the same quality as an HDMI connection. Period. Analog vs digital. A pure digital connection is ESPECIALLY needed at a resolution as high as 1080p. Not to mention the fact that if blu ray movies ever start coming out with the DRM flags, then people without the HDMI ports are fucked.





Pioneer has never even seen a PS3 dev kit or the blu-ray player in the PS3. Pioneer's blu-ray players will be in direct competition with Sony's, so of course they are going to claim a difference. They have to combat the notion that the PS3 is just as good as their product at a lower price. If you think Pioneer has nothing to gain from claiming their more expensive product is better you're plenty naive. Will the PS3 blu-ray player be as good as the $1000 Pioneer one? I don't know....and neither do you. And neither does Pioneer.

And btw, you obviously don't know what OEM means. It means "Original Equipment Manufacturer". All blu-ray drives in blu-ray players will be OEM. A non-OEM drive would be a drive you buy to replace a blu-ray players drive, or to install in your existing PC, etc. You probably shouldn't be using things you know nothing about as a basis for your arguments.





I used OEM to mean a stand-alone drive that doesn't have the normal parts attached. All stand-alone blu ray players have a GB of RAM. PS3 has no such thing. I find it seriously doubtful that such a cheap machine (compared to top-quality blu ray players) is going to be capable of the same quality output. I mean get real here pal. You don't get a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai.





It's interesting how you choose to compare the features of the two systems when you think it benefits your argument only. The plain fact is that with the introduction of Linux on the PS3 it will have all the multimedia functionality that the Xbox has





Oh, you mean just like how the PS2 Linux kit did all of that? Oh wait...

Also, Phil Harrison has SAID that the PS3 won't do that stuff - hell the story is right here on evav, so I'm not sure where you're pulling that shit from.





, with the additional cabilities that Bluetooth functionality add. Sony is already talking about allowing you to add usb or bluetooth HDD, keyboard, mouse, TV Tuner for High Def DVR, etc. As for Gears and Mass Effect (two games unreleased at this point) they may look good, but so does Heavenly Sword at this point. No developer has stated that the Xbox has more power or potential than the PS3, so there is no indication that in a year the games won't be considered equal, better, or worse on the PS3.

It's true that the "best of each console" is $400 and $600, but what you fail to admit is that the best of the options on the PS3 aren't on offer for the Xbox 360. Comparing the Xbox 360 at $400 to the PS3 at $600 dollars is an apples to oranges comparison. The PS3 in terms of hardware offers everything the $400 xbox does at the $500 price point. If you're going to do an apples to apples comparison the only sensible place to start is there, where the options are equivalent.



The only comparison is Premium 360 = 400 vs Premium PS3 = 600. Everything else is spin-doctoring. The gimp packs for both systems are worthless. I'm not going to buy a lesser version of something (especially when it's not upgradable) just because it kinda sorta matches up with something else, but not really. That's idiotic. I'm out to buy the best possible version of whatever it is I'm looking at.

In any event, 99% of all the features talk is irrelevant since the point of gaming systems is GAMES, and right now the games look better on 360.

[Reanimated]

Man, Reanimated needs to take a DEEP BREATH. Here's Mr. Condescension's argument dumbed down:

Gimped IS NOT a relative measure. It's an objective measure. Something is NOT gimped simply because a more feature-rich version exists. I.e. the simple existence of something better doesn't make the less-featured version gimped.

So, if something isn't objectively gimped (i.e. it works well) it doesn't suddenly become gimped when version 2.0 comes out. The fact that version 1.0 and 2.0 become available at the same time doesn't change that either. Some rapper's diamond-studded version of the same cell phone that I have doesn't magically make my same-model cell phone gimped as a phone. My phone may be gimped as a fashion accessory, but that's a different story.

That's infaliible logic, not spin. Or it's at least proper use of the highly technical and precise term "gimp".




Jesus fucking christ in a semantics handbasket.

From now on, I will call the PS3 "COMPARATIVELY GIMPED".

[greenapple]

But, in reality, it's NOT the same functionality, because the FACT of the matter is that a component video connection simply does not deliver the same quality as an HDMI connection. Period. Analog vs digital. A pure digital connection is ESPECIALLY needed at a resolution as high as 1080p. Not to mention the fact that if blu ray movies ever start coming out with the DRM flags, then people without the HDMI ports are fucked.

See this article: http://www.bluejeanscable.com/articles/dvihdmicomponent.htm

Isn't Digital Just Better?
It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance.

Your HDMI/DVI is just as capable of losing that digital data as an analog cable is. There is no real world difference between component and HDMI cables of similiar quality in transmitting video data. HDMI will, of course, save you the bother of seperate audio cables. But that really doesn't impact gameplay in my book.

You are of course, correct about 1080P, as I believe component is not capable of carrying that much data. But that's the same situation the Xbox360 is in, so what's gimped now? Rather, it seems that the $600 PS3 is superior, rather than the entire baseline being gimped.

Basically, I think it's silly to call the $500 PS3 a gimped game console simply because Sony is putting out a $600 version. It makes no sense that the very same $500 PS3 would not have been gimped if they never announced or made the $600.

Finally, whether the PS3 is gimped as a game console or not is yet to be seen. But, based on the current specs being so similiarly for the aspects that matter to gaming, either both versions will be gimped or neither will.

[Kamalot]

Yeah if the gimp pack means everything the Premium 360 can do + Blue Ray and Free online.The gimp pack can't play 360 games or use Live.

[Reanimated]

Information loss has nothing to do with how video information is split, anyway. Whether or not something is lossy is irrelevent, since they're right, niether is likely to be terribly lossy unless you're using garbage cables. The main difference in the image quality is how the signal is split (YGB + HV info) and then reassembled at the set. This is why VGA is superior to component and HDMI is superior to all. There's a major difference in how the image information is handled. I think you'll find that if you ask around the a/v boards, you'll find that almost everyone will confirm a noticable difference in image quality.

As for the PS3 - it's comparatively gimped. If no premium version existed, it would still be too fucking expensive, but at least it would be the best version available.

[Mike Jones]

The only comparison is Premium 360 = 400 vs Premium PS3 = 600. Everything else is spin-doctoring. The gimp packs for both systems are worthless. I'm not going to buy a lesser version of something (especially when it's not upgradable) just because it kinda sorta matches up with something else, but not really. That's idiotic. I'm out to buy the best possible version of whatever it is I'm looking at.

In any event, 99% of all the features talk is irrelevant since the point of gaming systems is GAMES, and right now the games look better on 360.

Hmm 360 tard pack vs PS3 tard pack


It's not remotely the same. If you want to save your games, you have to buy the Xbox 360 memory card which is 49.99 for 64 megs of memory. You can't do online, or download DLC, or updates, of play any Xbox games... without buying the hard drive seperately which is 100 dollars. You don't get a wireless controller with the low end Xbox 360.

PS3 tard Pack aka everything the 360 Premium does : You can play online, save games, store content, Download DLC, it will be BC with the PS2+1 and if you want to be able to transfer over your save files from say the PS2, you can probably either hook up via USB or buy the memory card reader. You do get a wireless controller with the low end PS3.


Yeah I know what one is gimped it's called the 360 core by a landslide while the PS3 core and 360 premium are equivalent. You're just a moron apparently.

[greenapple]

I'm out to buy the best possible version of whatever it is I'm looking at.

Clearly, Reanimated is the pimp'ed out rapper with the diamond-studded cell phone I spoke of in my earlier post. 'Cause anything less is gimped.

[Kamalot]

It's not remotely the same. If you want to save your games, you have to buy the Xbox 360 memory card which is 49.99 for 64 megs of memory. You can't do online, or download DLC, or updates, of play any Xbox games... without buying the hard drive seperately which is 100 dollars. You don't get a wireless controller with the low end Xbox 360.

PS3 tard Pack aka everything the 360 Premium does : You can play online, save games, store content, Download DLC, it will be BC with the PS2+1 and if you want to be able to transfer over your save files from say the PS2, you can probably either hook up via USB or buy the memory card reader. You do get a wireless controller with the low end PS3.


Yeah I know what one is gimped it's called the 360 core by a landslide while the PS3 core and 360 premium are equivalent. You're just a moron apparently.
Well GAWD! I should hope the gimped PS3 is a little better than the gimped 360. It SHOULD be, it is freaking $200 more!

The least they can do is throw in a freaking wireless controller.

As of yet, nobody knows if you can plug PS2 memory cards into the gimped PS3.

Oh, and on the gimped PS3 (or even the non-gimped PS3) you can't play this list of exclusive 360 games (http://www.360insider.net/articles/07-17-2005/ps3-and-xbox-360-exclusive-games/).

Also, just so you know, lots of people still aren't online with their consoles. For them, a 360 + memory card will be just fine and allow them to play the list of exclusives.

[greenapple]

Oh, and on the gimped PS3 (or even the non-gimped PS3) you can't play this list of exclusive 360 games (http://www.360insider.net/articles/07-17-2005/ps3-and-xbox-360-exclusive-games/).

Eh? If exclusivity determines whether a game console is or isn't gimped, then every friggin' console is gimped. What kind of bizzarro argument is that? Talk about x-box colored glasses.

[Mr.Condescension]

But, in reality, it's NOT the same functionality, because the FACT of the matter is that a component video connection simply does not deliver the same quality as an HDMI connection. Period. Analog vs digital. A pure digital connection is ESPECIALLY needed at a resolution as high as 1080p. Not to mention the fact that if blu ray movies ever start coming out with the DRM flags, then people without the HDMI ports are fucked.


I highly doubt you've ever even seen a native 1080p signal over component or HDMI because sets that could do that are just currently coming off the assembly line into stores and any place you can buy one of them is feeding a 720p image over component that is upsampled to 1080p by the TV. And the digital vs. analog is not necessarily a good vs. bad argument. There are still reasons why people buy records over CDs (think DJs). And I must also point out that Xbox 360 doesn't have high-def movie playback at this point, nor HDMI, so it can't really be used as an argument for the PS3 $500 unit being gimped, unless you contend that the Xbox 360 is gimped for the same reason.


I used OEM to mean a stand-alone drive that doesn't have the normal parts attached. All stand-alone blu ray players have a GB of RAM. PS3 has no such thing. I find it seriously doubtful that such a cheap machine (compared to top-quality blu ray players) is going to be capable of the same quality output. I mean get real here pal.


It doesn't matter how you *meant* to use it. You used it incorrectly and still are using it incorrectly. On top of that, what you find seriously doubtful is not important to anyone but you. What on earth makes you think that a GB of RAM is necessary or even helpful for blu-ray playback? We have no reason to think that, nor any evidence to prove it, since there are no blu-ray players on the market.


You don't get a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai.


Oh, so now you think the $600 PS3 is better than a $400 Xbox 360 because it's more expensive. I see. I wish you would make up your mind. Perhaps you're right, you do get what you pay for?




Oh, you mean just like how the PS2 Linux kit did all of that? Oh wait...

Also, Phil Harrison has SAID that the PS3 won't do that stuff - hell the story is right here on evav, so I'm not sure where you're pulling that shit from.


The Linux kit was not standard and was an after thought. You can't base the PS3's support for Linux as a standard operating system on an unsupported upgrade. Again you have no information to base this concept on.

I would be glad to see what Phil said if you would please link it here. Did it ever occur to you that Phil might be referring to the fact that the PS3 will not do any of those things without requiring additional hardware and software? (batteries not included anyone?) I'd have to see that interview myself to judge if what you say is true.


The only comparison is Premium 360 = 400 vs Premium PS3 = 600. Everything else is spin-doctoring. The gimp packs for both systems are worthless. I'm not going to buy a lesser version of something (especially when it's not upgradable) just because it kinda sorta matches up with something else, but not really. That's idiotic. I'm out to buy the best possible version of whatever it is I'm looking at.

In any event, 99% of all the features talk is irrelevant since the point of gaming systems is GAMES, and right now the games look better on 360.

You have already heard people other than myself (in this very thread) question whether the PS3's $500 option is indeed a "gimp-pack". That is your opinion based on who knows what. Perhaps it's convenient for you. That way you can use it as ammunition in arguments against the PS3.

You say you're out to buy the best possible version of whatever it is you're looking at, but many others won't feel the same way. Many people want to find the best *value* proposition. Labeling something gimped because it's not the most expensive version of a product does not make it a less valuable product, and many would argue that buying the most expensive product will get you the least value for your dollar.

As for games right now looking better on the 360, of course they do! There are no games currently out for the PS3, so how could they look good or bad? If you're talking about unfinished games that aren't out for both systems, that's unfortunate, because not everyone agrees with you, and many would argue that comparing two partially complete products is rarely a good way to judge final quality.

[Kamalot]

Eh? If exclusivity determines whether a game console is or isn't gimped, then every friggin' console is gimped. What kind of bizzarro argument is that? Talk about x-box colored glasses.
I didn't say its inability to play Xbox 360 games MAKES it gimped., it just makes it sucky.

I think the glasses may be, you know, green.

[Mr.Condescension]

[QUOTE=greenapple]You are of course, correct about 1080P, as I believe component is not capable of carrying that much data. But that's the same situation the Xbox360 is in, so what's gimped now? Rather, it seems that the $600 PS3 is superior, rather than the entire baseline being gimped.
QUOTE]

Component cable can and does carry 1080p perfectly fine. I'll try to drum up a link.

[Kamalot]

I mean get real here pal. You don't get a Ferrari for the price of a Hyundai.
Right.

In a recent study, Hundai was found to be one of the top-three cars with the fewest defects, along with Porche and Lexus.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-060706quality,0,7894117.story?coll=la-story-footer

So you may not get a fabulous sports car, but you may end up with a reliable, affortable, practical and fun vehicle for a tiny fraction of the price.

What kind of car do you drive?

If ther number of people who end up with a PSP is proportional to the number of people who drive Ferrari, the world won't have many PS3s in it.

Edit: Now everyone is going to accuse me of working for Hundai. :rolleyes:

[Reanimated]

I'm not doing anymore quoting, because I really don't have the time or energy to continue marking up your spin doctoring. First off, let me just say - you're an idiot. hhgregg has had 1080p sony sets on their show floors for over 6 months now. Those sets are NOT just now rolling off of the assembly line. You need to get your facts straight - I'm sure that comes as a shock to no one.

On the BRD issue - they're built with 1GB of RAM for a reason, and that reason isn't for kicks. It's necessary for the quality of playback they need to achieve.

On the 600 dollar PS3 - it's a budget blu ray player that happens to have controllers attached. The game visuals it produces are not equal to what we've seen shown for Xbox 360 thus far, so no, I don't think it's better. I think it's a worthless trojan horse for a stillborn format in the league of VCD and Laser Disc.

Phil Harrison interview - do a search. It's in the evav news stories. I'm not your personal version of google, or your librarian. The onus is on you to get your own facts straight.

As to the gimp pack - it's gimped compared to the Playstation product that it will ship along side it. I'm also interested to even see if you'll be able to find a PS3 gimp pack. If it's anything like the 360 gimp pack - that is to say a marketing ploy and a complete farce - then you won't even be able to find one. I'm guessing the production ratios will be similar. What happens when you can't find a PS3 twit pack?

As for whether or not the PS3 gimp pack is better than the 360 Premium, I guess that would depend on your definition of "better". If worse looking games and the ability to play the next beta max is "better"...

[Reanimated]

What kind of car do you drive?



BMW. Which would smoke any non-modified Hundai on the road. :p

[Mr.Condescension]

Component cable can and does carry 1080p perfectly fine. I'll try to drum up a link.

HP Pavilion MD5880n 58-inch 1080p Microdisplay TV (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?product_code=L1798A%23ABA&tab=detailed_specs&storeName=storefronts&landing=storefronts&category=flat_panel_tvs&subcat1=&catLevel=2&a1=Type&v1=MDTV#defaultAnchor)

Component Input 1 & 2 (YPbPr) : 1080p/1080i/720p/480p/480i HDMI : 1080p/1080i/720p/480p/480i analog cable/antenna input

There you have it....1080p natively over component. Something the Xbox 360 is incapable of doing, since it can't output 1080p. (I assume they can update with firmware?)

[Reanimated]

HP Pavilion MD5880n 58-inch 1080p Microdisplay TV (http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_detail.do?product_code=L1798A%23ABA&tab=detailed_specs&storeName=storefronts&landing=storefronts&category=flat_panel_tvs&subcat1=&catLevel=2&a1=Type&v1=MDTV#defaultAnchor)



There you have it....1080p natively over component. Something the Xbox 360 is incapable of doing, since it can't output 1080p. (I assume they can update with firmware?)



Sorry chief, but Richard Huddy at ATI has said on multiple occasions that the 360 is perfectly capable of outputting a 1080p signal. It's simply a matter of whether or not MS will enable the system to do that. I don't personally see a need for it. I won't be getting a 1080p set until 2nd gen SEDs are out.

I could go into a whole thing about 1080p/30 vs 1080i/60 vs 720p/60 and why 1080p is marketing bunk, but I really don't feel like getting into that. There are some articles out there if you want to look. In any event, it has little to do with what I'm talking about in terms of how different cables/outputs handle video signals and the quality differences in each.

[Mr.Condescension]

I'm not doing anymore quoting, because I really don't have the time or energy to continue marking up your spin doctoring. First off, let me just say - you're an idiot. hhgregg has had 1080p sony sets on their show floors for over 6 months now. Those sets are NOT just now rolling off of the assembly line. You need to get your facts straight - I'm sure that comes as a shock to no one.

Sorry to break it to you, buddy, but all of those 1080p sets until just recently displayed at 1080p but didn't accept 1080p connections. Any 1080p source sent to them would be converted to 1080i and then converted again to 1080p for display, effectively losing half the source information. 1080p sets that accept native 1080p are just coming out now.

On the BRD issue - they're built with 1GB of RAM for a reason, and that reason isn't for kicks. It's necessary for the quality of playback they need to achieve.

Oh, so you work for a company that makes blu-ray players? Cool! Do you get a discount? You must for you to have any clue about what you're talking about.

On the 600 dollar PS3 - it's a budget blu ray player that happens to have controllers attached. The game visuals it produces are not equal to what we've seen shown for Xbox 360 thus far, so no, I don't think it's better. I think it's a worthless trojan horse for a stillborn format in the league of VCD and Laser Disc.

Oh, I thought it was a gaming machine with budget blu-ray capabilities attached. Silly me. Oh, and I didn't know you had a PS3 to set beside your Xbox 360 to compare the games side by side. Tell, me, how does FFXIII play? You must know that to. Your opinions about the PS3 are clear to everyone listening, but in fact you know very little about the system or its technology. You are free to have your own opinion, but pawning them off as facts is not going to work.

As to the gimp pack - it's gimped compared to the Playstation product that it will ship along side it. I'm also interested to even see if you'll be able to find a PS3 gimp pack. If it's anything like the 360 gimp pack - that is to say a marketing ploy and a complete farce - then you won't even be able to find one. I'm guessing the production ratios will be similar. What happens when you can't find a PS3 twit pack?

Actually, one article already has mentioned that one possible reason they have the lower priced model is because they will lose less money on those units compared to the $600 model. If that is the case, then they'd naturally want to produce a sizable quantity of them.

[Mr.Condescension]

Sorry chief, but Richard Huddy at ATI has said on multiple occasions that the 360 is perfectly capable of outputting a 1080p signal. It's simply a matter of whether or not MS will enable the system to do that. I don't personally see a need for it. I won't be getting a 1080p set until 2nd gen SEDs are out.


I'm glad you agree with me that the Xbox 360 right now does not output 1080p and that Microsoft would have to enable the system to do so. The PS3, conversely, will output 1080p out of the box, which is actually a really big deal to the *huge majority* of people who don't have LIVE accounts and never plan to connect their gaming machine to the internet.

[Cubfan]

Edit: Now everyone is going to accuse me of working for Hundai. :rolleyes:

No because if you worked for the company you'd likely know how to spell its name. :D

[Reanimated]

I'm glad you agree with me that the Xbox 360 right now does not output 1080p and that Microsoft would have to enable the system to do so. The PS3, conversely, will output 1080p out of the box, which is actually a really big deal to the *huge majority* of people who don't have LIVE accounts and never plan to connect their gaming machine to the internet.




According to Peter Moore at E3, over 60% of Xbox 360 owners are connected to Live with either a silver or gold account. Do you even bother TRYING to be accurate, or are you just utterly full of shit?

Judging by the BS content of your posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe the latter is true. I guess the question would be - does sony pay you as much as they pay Ken Kuturagi to be full of shit?

[Mr.Condescension]

According to Peter Moore at E3, over 60% of Xbox 360 owners are connected to Live with either a silver or gold account. Do you even bother TRYING to be accurate, or are you just utterly full of shit?

Judging by the BS content of your posts to this point, I'm inclined to believe the latter is true. I guess the question would be - does sony pay you as much to be full of shit as they pay Ken Kuturagi to do the same?

What, 60% of all Xbox 360 users? That's what....2.1 million people as of the end of the April? Add that to the installed LIVE user base for the Xbox and you get a rediculously small percentage. People who have bought the Xbox 360 already are not your average user, or anything close to it. It's a well known fact that a very small percentage of gamers actually do their gaming online. That you don't already know that as well is quite surprising.

I was wondering when you would pull the schill card. That usually happens when someone is losing an argument. I appreciate the compliment.

[Reanimated]

Losing? Sorry, but you LOST about 20 posts ago when you couldn't get any of your facts straight.

And just what does the original Xbox have to do with anything? lol, I'm not sure, but I don't think we'll ever be seeing a 1080p update for that machine, so I really fail to see how it would be a "big deal" to those people. Don't try to spin your idiotic argument now that you've lost on the facts.

[Mr.Condescension]

Losing? Sorry, but you LOST about 20 posts ago when you couldn't get any of your facts straight.

And just what does the original Xbox have to do with anything? lol, I'm not sure, but I don't think we'll ever be seeing a 1080p update for that machine, so I really fail to see how it would be a "big deal" to those people. Don't try to spin your idiotic argument now that you've lost on the facts.

Unfortunately you lost the concept of your own post. The % of people that own an Xbox 360 and are on Live is not a representative sample of the entirety of console gamers. If you take the numbers of console gamers who play games on Live for the xbox 360 AND the xbox and compare it to the system sales for both consoles you will come up with a teeny tiny %. Add to that all the PS2 and Gamecube gamers who don't ever play online and you'll start to see that your 60% number is probably closer to 10%. You're trying to take a tiny sample of hard core early adopters, the ones who wait in line for hours to get the newest system, and apply it to console gaming as a whole. It just doesn't work with real math.

The simple fact is the vast majority of people who buy the PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 will never, ever go online. In fact, the 60% number you are mentioning is a product of Microsoft forcing LIVE on people who purchase the system. 60% is actually a telling number, considering that means that 40% of all xbox 360 users were *given* a live silver account for FREE but elected not to go use it. Please...you're making this too easy.

[Reanimated]

Seriously, could you possibly be more full of shit? Do you have some proof to back up your numbers? I suppose you have the data that shows the silver-gold account conversion rate? I didn't think so.

In any event, none of that horse shit you just spewed has anything to do with the ability of 360 owners to get a 1080p update.

[Skizott]

This thread is awesome.

[Mr.Condescension]

Seriously, could you possibly be more full of shit? Do you have some proof to back up your numbers? I suppose you have the data that shows the silver-gold account conversion rate? I didn't think so.

In any event, none of that horse shit you just spewed has anything to do with the ability of 360 owners to get a 1080p update.

http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/06/1546235

The article linked from slashdot is gone, but someone in the comments quoted the relevant section:


David Cole, president of DFC Intelligence, a video game market research firm, estimates that less than 5 percent of console owners now connect for online play on a regular basis. He said that number could hit 10 percent in the next two years as next-generation units debut.

90% of console owners not being online does mean they won't be able to update their firmware, which means they won't output at 1080p. It's not like microsoft will have a trade-in or firmware update section at best-buy.

[Reanimated]

Hey genius, 60% of 360 owners currently ARE online. Are you fucking brain damaged, or have you just spun so much in this thread that all of the blood has gone out of your brain? Maybe the brain damage is a result of years of spinning? Either way, you need some reading comprehension skills.

Also, any firmware updates that MS does get incorporated into new boxes coming off the line. What, you think they just do these updates and leave them on the shelf? Could you be more dense?

As for those people who have old boxes, well since they don't even have the internet, I really doubt that they're going to be terribly concerned about 1080p.

[Mr.Condescension]

Hey genius, 60% of 360 owners currently ARE online. Are you fucking brain damaged, or have you just spun so much in this thread that all of the blood has gone out of your brain? Maybe the brain damage is a result of years of spinning? Either way, you need some reading comprehension skills.

Also, any firmware updates that MS does get incorporated into new boxes coming off the line. What, you think they just do these updates and leave them on the shelf? Could you be more dense?

Yes, 60% of 360 owners have accounts, but that is because the vast majority of current 360 owners are gaming enthusiasts, not your average consumer. The average consumer does not pre-order a system, wait in lines, or play online. The average consumer will buy their xbox 360, and hook it up to a TV without even thinking about going online with it. Early adopters are never a barometer for future consumer activity. For god's sake, 40% of all early adopters have never gone online even though it's free! Wow.

Also, as of this point there are no announced plans to ever support 1080p on the xbox 360, so they aren't exactly flashing the units now, are they? So you're telling me that future xbox 360s will be functionally better for the average consumer than the current ones on the market? Is that good policy?

Btw, I like the name calling in all of your responses. Very mature :D

[atariv8]

Couldn't the firmware update come on a disc? AOL sends out millions of discs a year because they're cheap to make. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't have a problem sending out disc to users who don't subscribe to Live or Official Xbox Magazine...they'll probably release the update around PS3 launch time. Hell a game programed for 1080p could carry the update. That doesn't change the fact hardly anyone will program for 1080p anyway. I switch between 720p and 1080p day after day in my edit suite and anyone would be hard pressed to tell me which they're watching. (It's a Sony plasma by the way)

[Mr.Condescension]

Couldn't the firmware update come on a disc? AOL sends out millions of discs a year because they're cheap to make. I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't have a problem sending out disc to users who don't subscribe to Live or Official Xbox Magazine...they'll probably release the update around PS3 launch time. Hell a game programed for 1080p could carry the update. That doesn't change the fact hardly anyone will program for 1080p anyway. I switch between 720p and 1080p day after day in my edit suite and anyone would be hard pressed to tell me which they're watching. (It's a Sony plasma by the way)

Well, they could do that, and that would be great if they did. Most likely, though, since they give you the silver account for free, they'll just assume everyone will sign on to live won't they? I just don't see them spending the additional money to send out the discs.

On the 720p vs 1080p, you can't tell anything on a plasma, since no plasma on the planet can display 1920x1080 in progressive that I'm aware of. <50" run at 720p and >50" run at 768p usually. They haven't figured out how to fabricate the plasma components small enough, I guess. 1080p LCDs are just starting to trickle into production, so there's that option eventually. At any rate, I don't think the proper comparison would be switching from one res to the other on one tv. I think looking at two tvs side by side would be a better measure. I've seen both side by side and could tell the difference, but your mileage may vary.

Frankly, the only reason I'm continuing on with the always cheerful Reanimated is that I'm sick of looking in PS3 threads for news and just seeing trolls shitting in them, and to make matters worse the people interested in the PS3 barely even fight back when there is, in fact, ammunition with which to do so. That's it for me until tomorrow, though. :p

[Kamalot]

BMW. Which would smoke any non-modified Hundai on the road. :p
The same study cited BMW as having a lot of defects.

I thought you'd drive a Ferrari.

[Kamalot]

No because if you worked for the company you'd likely know how to spell its name. :D
Touche! :D

[Kamalot]

The PS3, conversely, will output 1080p out of the box, which is actually a really big deal to the *huge majority* of people who ...have 1080p TVs? Yeah. That's a WHOLE lot, ain't it?

Your argument hat someone need be online to download an update to play the 360 in 1080p is crazy-talk. Who can afford a 1080p TV without affording high-speed Internet access? :eek:

[bone_matrix]

Why don't they just put the firmware update on a game disc? Like the PSP. That would work. Or put free discs at Best Buy with some demos and the update. That would work too.

And, I have to ask, Mr.Condenscension, why would Pioneer put a gig of Ram into their Blu-Ray players if it didn't help the picture out? I don't think they are out to put more money into a product than they have too. It just makes sense. It helps the picture quality/playback. The PS3 doesn't have as much RAM, so its safe to say the quality won't be the same. Plus the PS2 DVD player was crappy compared to a standalone.

edit: spelling FTW!

[Reanimated]

Frankly, the only reason I'm continuing on with the always cheerful Reanimated is that I'm sick of looking in PS3 threads for news and just seeing trolls shitting in them, and to make matters worse the people interested in the PS3 barely even fight back when there is, in fact, ammunition with which to do so. That's it for me until tomorrow, though. :p




I guess it's just too bad that the only "ammunition" you've used in this thread so far has been pure stupidity and utter bullshit.

[greenapple]

I guess it's just too bad that the only "ammunition" you've used in this thread so far has been pure stupidity and utter bullshit.

Seriously, do you notice that you are the ONLY one making ad hominem attacks, constantly? Every counter, whether you agreed with it or not, has been based on your statements.

Not a very convincing way of making your point.

And really, PS3 fanboism has little to do with this. Whether the PS3 will suck or not is yet to be seen, it may very well be. But judging a given version as crappy because a more pricey version exists is the worse kind of logic. So is knocking certain features of a system (component output) while conviently ignoring or apologizing for it in another system is similiarly inane.

Really, there's simply no support for comparing the $300 xbox360 to the $500 PS3. Clearly, the comparison feature-wise must be made between the $400 xbox360 and the $500 PS3.

[RMan]

I'm 100% anti-gimp.
Just to save you guys some time, he means Sony, not gimp. I doubt it matters what they're selling or how.

[Mike Jones]

Just to save you guys some time, he means Sony, not gimp. I doubt it matters what they're selling or how.

Well that's rather obvious :D

[Mr.Condescension]

And, I have to ask, Mr.Condenscension, why would Pioneer put a gig of Ram into their Blu-Ray players if it didn't help the picture out? I don't think they are out to put more money into a product than they have too. It just makes sense. It helps the picture quality/playback. The PS3 doesn't have as much RAM, so its safe to say the quality won't be the same.

Well, I don't think it's necessarily safe to say that at all. Working in the computer business, I have to say that there are generally two ways around things. One is to suit the application to the environment you have decided on and the other is to suit the environment to the application you have decided on. I have my opinion as a professional about what way works best. It could very well be that Pioneer has added RAM to their Blu-Ray player to make up for things they haven't overcome with their programming. I honestly can't say for sure. What I can say for sure is that more horsepower in a machine does not necessarily equal better performance.

Yes, the PS2 was a sub-par DVD player, but you assume that means that the PS3 will be a sub-par Blu-Ray player. We really have no basis to assume that. I'm sure at one time Sony made a poor Television too, but the trinitron technology that all CRTs used in the late 90s until now was developed by Sony. I don't believe that anyone is able to make quality suppositions at this point with no hardware available.

[Mr.Condescension]

...have 1080p TVs? Yeah. That's a WHOLE lot, ain't it?

Your argument hat someone need be online to download an update to play the 360 in 1080p is crazy-talk. Who can afford a 1080p TV without affording high-speed Internet access? :eek:

Perhaps your experience with videofiles has been limited only to those in your social group. I assume this must be the case, since I personally know many, many people who have hi-def sets and no intention of hooking a video game console to their internet access. Frankly, I'm one of them.

I have 2 computers at my home right now hooked up to the internet and I am a network administrator by profession, yet I don't play FPS's anymore, and have no interest whatsoever in taking any console online. What would make you think that just because someone is into high-def graphics that they feel a need to take a console online?

In addition, you're only taking into account the high-def technology of yesterday, where most sets out there are 720p only, but let's be clear: high def is changing even now. Right now I have my sights set on a Samsung DLP with 1080p input and output. More and more HDTVs are becoming 1080p native, starting with projectors and DLPs, LCD projection sets, etc. This week I even saw, in person, a new 1080p LCD running Advent Children upscaled through an upscaling DVD player.

1080p is among us, and to those who still cling to the belief that 720p is and will be the future of high-def tv, movies, and gaming, I apologize: 1080p is already here, and it is only going to get bigger and bigger.

And here is the crux of the problem...people always want what you tell them they can't have. As of a month ago, maybe you're right, but in 3 years you couldn't be more wrong, because that's exactly where the manufacturers are headed.

[Mr.Condescension]

...have 1080p TVs? Yeah. That's a WHOLE lot, ain't it?

Your argument hat someone need be online to download an update to play the 360 in 1080p is crazy-talk. Who can afford a 1080p TV without affording high-speed Internet access? :eek:

I apologize for the multitude of postings in a row, but I want to make one point that I think is very noteworthy.

The reason for there being such a low % of online console gamers (5-10% as per the article quoted earlier) seems less to do with their having or not having an internet/broadband connection and more to do with their not wanting to play the types of games that benefit from online play. Most people are perfectly happy to play their splinter cells, halo 2s, fifa 2006s, nba live 2006s, etc, etc, etc. at home alone, or with a friend on their couch. More than 25% of homes have an HDTV, and many more than that have internet access, yet very very few connect their gaming console to the internet.

Perhaps it is true that people with 1080p sets are more likely to have internet connections, but assuming that those same people want to connect their consoles to their internet connection is rediculous, based on the numbers. The best you could imply, based on the numbers we have to work with, is that since less than 10% of people with consoles want to play games online, less than 10% with consoles and 1080p TVs want to play games online.

To assume that people with 1080p TVs naturally would play games online doesn't make any sense.

[Reanimated]

Really, there's simply no support for comparing the $300 xbox360 to the $500 PS3. Clearly, the comparison feature-wise must be made between the $400 xbox360 and the $500 PS3.




No, really the comparison must be made between the 400 dollar 360 and the 600 dollar PS3, especially since we've yet to see what production quantities are going to be. Like I said, if it's like the 360, then the gimp pack simply will not exist at retail. It's a marketing ploy for dipshits to run with.

The only differences in these systems is that sony forces you to buy a bunch of garbage that really should be optional. Not the least of which is blu ray.

Anyone else notice a bunch of sony viral marketers showing up this week?

[Mike Jones]

No, really the comparison must be made between the 400 dollar 360 and the 600 dollar PS3, especially since we've yet to see what production quantities are going to be. Like I said, if it's like the 360, then the gimp pack simply will not exist at retail. It's a marketing ploy for dipshits to run with.

The only differences in these systems is that sony forces you to buy a bunch of garbage that really should be optional. Not the least of which is blu ray.

Anyone else notice a bunch of sony viral marketers showing up this week?


You ever think that the 360 core doesn't exist because it's useless compared to the premium. The PS3 core isn't. You are an idiot :D

[Reanimated]

Oh, so you have the PS3 allocation numbers on hand? Do tell. I imagine it's going to be tough for them to find the right balance of systems to produce.

You are an idiot. No really. Utter mental defect. The world can only hope that you're sterile and are thusly unable to spread your mental defective seed.

[atariv8]

Interesting stuff:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/wp-mobile.php?p=6836&more=1

By the time I can afford a true 1080p display the PS3 should be around $250. By the time the general population would actually want one we'll be well on our way to the next xbox and PS4. Has anyone ever looked at progressive shot material on a 1080i display? It looks the same in 1080p and 1080i. (Using true broadcast HDTV monitors not the client plasmas I metioned earlier) I'm curious to know what a 1080p signal from a PS3 would look like scaled to 1080i...would there really be a difference? Trust me, 1080i source material looks very different than 1080p source material. But when progressive sources are displayed in different formats, it always holds it's "look". It would be interesting the see the exact same 1080p game diplayed at 1080i and at 1080p to see what the difference would be. My experience with the 1080i material is that it looks more "real" and the progressive stuff looks more like film. How that translates into the game world would be an interesting experiment. BTW, at NAB this year NHK was showing HDTV 3D...IT ROCKED. The same booth was showing Ultra HD (7,680x4,320)...what console can claim that!

[thegameguru]

Its irrelevent that you can output 1080P via component.. there is no way in hell Sony would face the wrath of their CE partners by allowing the PS3 to output 1080P via analog.. simply will not be an option when the PS3 detects an analog connection.. 1080i will be the highest it will allow out.

I'm not talking upscanning..once it leaves the PS3 then whatever happens after that is a different story over Analog.

[Reanimated]

Interesting stuff:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/wp-mobile.php?p=6836&more=1

By the time I can afford a true 1080p display the PS3 should be around $250. By the time the general population would actually want one we'll be well on our way to the next xbox and PS4. Has anyone ever looked at progressive shot material on a 1080i display? It looks the same in 1080p and 1080i. (Using true broadcast HDTV monitors not the client plasmas I metioned earlier) I'm curious to know what a 1080p signal from a PS3 would look like scaled to 1080i...would there really be a difference? Trust me, 1080i source material looks very different than 1080p source material. But when progressive sources are displayed in different formats, it always holds it's "look". It would be interesting the see the exact same 1080p game diplayed at 1080i and at 1080p to see what the difference would be. My experience with the 1080i material is that it looks more "real" and the progressive stuff looks more like film. How that translates into the game world would be an interesting experiment. BTW, at NAB this year NHK was showing HDTV 3D...IT ROCKED. The same booth was showing Ultra HD (7,680x4,320)...what console can claim that!



Yeah, I'm waiting for the 2nd gen SED sets to drop before I do an upgrade to 1080p. By that time, I'll be looking forward to Xbox 720, so I just really don't see myself buying a PS3 at all. MIGHT happen, but I doubt it.

[Kefkataran]

What about $600 fun?

And did you just call this the "flagship" next-gen title for Sony? Cus man, if that's true, they're REALLY in trouble.

Funny. Wasn't there just a 360 game someone was talking about not being worth $400 in another thread, and you rebutted them for that? :rolleyes:

[Reanimated]

No, I agreed by saying that it probably wasn't worth 400 bucks. Your reading comprehension fails you yet again, padawan.

[Kefkataran]

No, I agreed by saying that it probably wasn't worth 400 bucks. Your reading comprehension fails you yet again, padawan.

And the same point holds here. This SINGLE GAME isn't worth $600. Good thing we were talking about the ONE GAME and not the whole system.

[Reanimated]

Well, this game coupled with every other game they've shown isn't worth 600 dollars either, IMO.

The point of me asking the question is simply this - where's the killer app? Is THIS GAME the killer app that makes someone drop 700 dollars?

[Kamalot]

Well, this game coupled with every other game they've shown isn't worth 600 dollars either, IMO.

The point of me asking the question is simply this - where's the killer app? Is THIS GAME the killer app that makes someone drop 700 dollars?
Quoted for Truth.

If Sony wants me to buy a PS3, they better give me $600+ of great reasons to pick one up. So far, they aren't doing that. All they are doing is making themself look bad.

[Kefkataran]

The point of me asking the question is simply this - where's the killer app? Is THIS GAME the killer app that makes someone drop 700 dollars?

Where's the killer app on 360? I own one and love it, but I'm not alone in the thought that there isn't yet. Gears of War might achieve that, but remains to be seen.

[Kamalot]

Where's the killer app on 360? I own one and love it, but I'm not alone in the thought that there isn't yet. Gears of War might achieve that, but remains to be seen.Oblivion is the killer app for the 360, at least for me. I know you can get Oblivion for PC, but my laptop is small, portable and perfect for work. It also would die if I tried to run Oblivion on it.
I can't justify getting a brand-new, larger, heavier, more powerful laptop just to play Oblivion. It made more sense for me to get a 360 instead.

Once I had the 360, it makes sense to pick up cross-platform games on it since they look better than their PS2/Xbox cousins.

And Geometry Wars is TOTALLY worth $400! ;)

[Mr.Condescension]

Interesting stuff:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/wp-mobile.php?p=6836&more=1

By the time I can afford a true 1080p display the PS3 should be around $250. By the time the general population would actually want one we'll be well on our way to the next xbox and PS4. Has anyone ever looked at progressive shot material on a 1080i display? It looks the same in 1080p and 1080i. (Using true broadcast HDTV monitors not the client plasmas I metioned earlier) I'm curious to know what a 1080p signal from a PS3 would look like scaled to 1080i...would there really be a difference? Trust me, 1080i source material looks very different than 1080p source material. But when progressive sources are displayed in different formats, it always holds it's "look". It would be interesting the see the exact same 1080p game diplayed at 1080i and at 1080p to see what the difference would be. My experience with the 1080i material is that it looks more "real" and the progressive stuff looks more like film. How that translates into the game world would be an interesting experiment. BTW, at NAB this year NHK was showing HDTV 3D...IT ROCKED. The same booth was showing Ultra HD (7,680x4,320)...what console can claim that!

Well, that article is from 2004, which is pretty old. As of now, assuming you don't want a wall mounted TV, 1080p DLPs are about the same price as plasmas that are 10" smaller. For instance, a new samsung 60" 1080p DLP and a new philips ambilight 50" (this one has a really good picture) are about the same price. If you can't afford one of those, I can't blame you, though.

As for whether 1080p will be better than 1080i for games, I can't say for sure yet, since the 360 can't output it, so no one is testing it. I personally can see motion artifacts on interlaced content but much less on progressive content, so I would have to go with 1080p being better, personally. I think, though, that it's similar to mp3s in that audiophiles can't stand an mp3 sampled at less than 320cbr but your average person is very happy with 192CBR or sometimes less. Some people can tell the difference, and some can't.

The main thing is that people don't like to be told that they can't do something. If you have a salesman standing next to two hd movie players, for instance, and is asked "what's the difference" he might tell them "this one can output 1080p, and this one can't." Alot of people will not want the one that can't. That's my opinion, though. I want 1080p, personally, because I can indeed see the difference.

[Kamalot]

is 1080p running at 60fps or 30 fps?

720p can run at 60fps, which is why it is used for sports. This makes it especially valuable for games.

[absolut taco]

Yeah, I'm waiting for the 2nd gen SED sets to drop before I do an upgrade to 1080p. By that time, I'll be looking forward to Xbox 720, so I just really don't see myself buying a PS3 at all. MIGHT happen, but I doubt it.
STFU, moron. I had no idea all this would happen because I said the $500 PS3 is good enough to game with, but I'm glad. Anyone who reads your arguments will either laugh or cry at your lack of logic. But what really takes the cake, after seeing you troll in every PS3 hardware/software thread, is that now you might actually buy one!

[Mr.Condescension]

Its irrelevent that you can output 1080P via component.. there is no way in hell Sony would face the wrath of their CE partners by allowing the PS3 to output 1080P via analog.. simply will not be an option when the PS3 detects an analog connection.. 1080i will be the highest it will allow out.

I'm not talking upscanning..once it leaves the PS3 then whatever happens after that is a different story over Analog.

That makes absolutely no sense. The image constraint token in the blu-ray player is only activated when viewing hd movies. Sony and all the reputable media outlets I know of have all unanimously stated that the ICT will not effect gaming over 1080p at all, so component will work just fine for that purpose.

[absolut taco]

is 1080p running at 60fps or 30 fps?

720p can run at 60fps, which is why it is used for sports. This makes it especially valuable for games.
Are you talking TV or video games? If TV, then it's 30fps. If video games, whatever frame rate the console can pump out.

[Mr.Condescension]

Oblivion is the killer app for the 360, at least for me. I know you can get Oblivion for PC, but my laptop is small, portable and perfect for work. It also would die if I tried to run Oblivion on it.
I can't justify getting a brand-new, larger, heavier, more powerful laptop just to play Oblivion. It made more sense for me to get a 360 instead.

Once I had the 360, it makes sense to pick up cross-platform games on it since they look better than their PS2/Xbox cousins.

And Geometry Wars is TOTALLY worth $400! ;)

I don't know if a game available on two platforms can be considered a "killer app". HALO is a killer app because it's exclusive, but GTA obviously can't be considered a killer app anymore for Sony because it isn't exclusive. I very much doubt that the xbox 360 version of oblivion even outsold the pc version.

[Mr.Condescension]

is 1080p running at 60fps or 30 fps?

720p can run at 60fps, which is why it is used for sports. This makes it especially valuable for games.

The Gran Turismo HD version running at the Sony press conference was 1080p at 60fps by all accounts. It was also playable on the floor at that frame rate, supposedly. I can't speak for all the games shown at 1080p, though (of which there were several at E3).

[Kamalot]

I'd be much more interested in the technical limitations of 1080p rather than what Sony says. Sony also told me Killzone 2 was played in real-time.

[Kamalot]

STFU...
Whatever you were about to say was invalidated by your rude opening remark.

[absolut taco]

Whatever you were about to say was invalidated by your rude opening remark.
Sometimes, to reach certain people, you need to stoop to their level. You shouldn't care, since it wasn't directed at you. But next time, I might use kinder, gentler language, if it makes you happy.

[Kamalot]

Sometimes, to reach certain people, you need to stoop to their level. You shouldn't care, since it wasn't directed at you.
You and I will have to agree to disagree about stooping. The only reason I cared is that you may have made a good point in that post, but it was instantly nullified by your opening remark.

I'm not trying to make a judgement call about you. I am just letting you know, to make a point that people will really read, it probably shouldn't be opened with vulgarities. If the post was intended for an individual, perhaps a PM would suffice.

[Mr.Condescension]

I'd be much more interested in the technical limitations of 1080p rather than what Sony says. Sony also told me Killzone 2 was played in real-time.

I would be interested in that as well. Resistance fall of man was reportedly silky smooth at 720p in 32-player matches, and they say their target is 1080p. So, they seem to think it's possible. It'll be interesting to see if Insomniac can pull it off.

[Kamalot]

According to the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p), TVs are just now starting to come out that can reproduce 1080p at 60 FPS. I suppose it will be a long time before games take advantage of that.

If you think about the amount of extra processing power it takes to run a 1080p 30fps game, and then double it, you'll see that few (if any) games will produce 1080p 60fps this generation.

On second thought, it may be possible that games could run at 1080p 60fps, if they were PS2-quality games with the resolution cranked up. That does not sound like a very good use of a 1080p set though. What good is all of that extra resolution to play already junky-looking games in higher fidelity?

Hmmm

[Mr.Condescension]

According to the Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p), TVs are just now starting to come out that can reproduce 1080p at 60 FPS. I suppose it will be a long time before games take advantage of that.

If you think about the amount of extra processing power it takes to run a 1080p 30fps game, and then double it, you'll see that few (if any) games will produce 1080p 60fps this generation.

On second thought, it may be possible that games could run at 1080p 60fps, if they were PS2-quality games with the resolution cranked up. That does not sound like a very good use of a 1080p set though. What good is all of that extra resolution to play already junky-looking games in higher fidelity?

Hmmm

We'll really just have to wait and see what the hardware is really capable of in the long run. Insomniac, and other PS3 developers, seem enthusiastic about 1080p and are setting it as their target, so maybe it isn't as big a pipe dream as some would suggest.

[Kefkataran]

Oblivion is the killer app for the 360, at least for me. I know you can get Oblivion for PC, but my laptop is small, portable and perfect for work. It also would die if I tried to run Oblivion on it.
I can't justify getting a brand-new, larger, heavier, more powerful laptop just to play Oblivion. It made more sense for me to get a 360 instead.

I dig Oblivion a lot, and I totally respect people who prefer to play it on 360 over PC, but in order to call something a killer app, IMO, it needs to be exclusive to that platform. You've got a point about Geometry Wars, though. :p

[Kamalot]

I dig Oblivion a lot, and I totally respect people who prefer to play it on 360 over PC, but in order to call something a killer app, IMO, it needs to be exclusive to that platform. You've got a point about Geometry Wars, though. :p
Well, Oblivion was a killer app for me. That's why I predicated the Oblivion info with my laptop story. I am sure everyone has their own killer app.

[Kamalot]

We'll really just have to wait and see what the hardware is really capable of in the long run. Insomniac, and other PS3 developers, seem enthusiastic about 1080p and are setting it as their target, so maybe it isn't as big a pipe dream as some would suggest.

There is a great article up on Gizmodo today about 1080p TVs. Apparently, many TVs sold as 1080p can accept a 1080p signal, but downsample the video before it is sent to the display. What is eventually displayed on screen is 720p! :eek:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/hdtv-1080p-may-not-be-what-it-seems-179395.php

[Mr.Condescension]

There is a great article up on Gizmodo today about 1080p TVs. Apparently, many TVs sold as 1080p can accept a 1080p signal, but downsample the video before it is sent to the display. What is eventually displayed on screen is 720p! :eek:

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/hdtv-1080p-may-not-be-what-it-seems-179395.php

That article is 100% correct, since it is referring to fixed pixel displays that claim to accept 1080p signals but have only 720 or 768 vertical lines. For instance, there are no 1080p native plasmas, but plasmas will happily accept the 1080p signal and downsample it to their fixed amount of pixels.

The only true 1080p sets that accept and natively display 1920x1080 pixels in progressive scan are DLPs and SXRDs (and other types of microdisplays), projectors, and some very new and expensive LCDs. Sorting through all the jargon and misinformation can indeed be difficult, but man, those DLPs and SXRDs do look really sweet in person.

[Kamalot]

I bet a lot of people who ponied up cash for 1080p displays really have 720p displays.

[Mr.Condescension]

I bet a lot of people who ponied up cash for 1080p displays really have 720p displays.

Quite possibly. It's important to verify 3 things when buying a TV, what is the actual fixed pixel resolution....1366x768 (768p), 1280x720 (720p), 1920x1080 (1080p), what resolutions do the inputs support, and does it have HDCP on the HDMI inputs. Response time can also be helpful to gamers, but that's a whole other thread.

[Kamalot]

Is 768 a real resolution? I've never seen anything presented in it. No broadcasts come pixel-fo-pixel in that resolution, do they?

[Mr.Condescension]

Is 768 a real resolution? I've never seen anything presented in it. No broadcasts come pixel-fo-pixel in that resolution, do they?

It's not a standard resolution, no. It is, unfortunately the fixed pixel resolution of nearly ever LCD flat screen over 30" and nearly every Plasma over 42". What that means is that all those sets actually upsample 720p and downsample 1080p. So, tragically, all of those TVs have to resample EVERY source you give them.

[Kamalot]

It's not a standard resolution, no. It is, unfortunately the fixed pixel resolution of nearly ever LCD flat screen over 30" and nearly every Plasma over 42". What that means is that all those sets actually upsample 720p and downsample 1080p. So, tragically, all of those TVs have to resample EVERY source you give them.
And Mr.Condescension gets a gold star for the safety tip of the day. Remember kids, always check for actual fixed pixel resolution and look for 720 or 1080. :)