PS3: What's The Deal? [Archive]

Phanto

07-23-2006, 11:40 PM

1up.com (http://www.1up.com/) have a very good article (http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3152329) from the Official PlayStation Magazine issue #106.

November 17 is the day. You know the price. You've seen the games--most of them anyway. You know what it can do. You've finally seen the controller. The only remaining question: Are you buying it? There's no question that the PlayStation 3 will help usher in the next generation of videogames with its ridiculously powerful processing capabilities and multimedia functions. Not to mention that the PlayStation 3's online capabilities are up to par with what people expect from a gaming console...But there's a whole different way to look at the PlayStation 3, and to prompt you to do that, we only have to ask one question: How much did you pay for that new digital camera?

True.. November 17 is the day that Sony will start running to try catch Microsoft, I really want to see how all of this will end..

Spigot

07-24-2006, 04:40 AM

SexualChoc

07-24-2006, 04:50 AM

Ok. Not to stir the pot or anything, but exactly what games are likely to ship at or around launch for the PS3? Assassin's Creed does look interesting, but it's not exclusive, is it? Other than that, the only other game for the system that has really grabbed my attention is MGS4 and that's not due out until sometime in 2007...

Just curious about what the early adopters will be playing come November 17.

Oh what I can remember, there isn't a killer ap on launch. There is a lot of good games, but nothing that is too good.

And yes, the 17th is when the Sony fanboys begin the war. It will only be the hardcore gamers with excess cash who will get it on launch, but good for them. I mean the 360 had plenty of good games now, and I think the PS3 will begin to pick up steam. Of course, there is this little Nintendo project coming out around the same time....

Reanimated

07-24-2006, 04:52 AM

OPM spinning like a top, lol.

Guy Mariano

07-24-2006, 04:53 AM

"We wanted to make sure that at any stage in the life cycle we're giving consumers the option and not forcing stuff on them that they don't even need"

:rolleyes:

Spigot

07-24-2006, 04:57 AM

Actually, FFXII is out around launch time, so that'll probably keep a lot of PS3 players busy.

"We wanted to make sure that at any stage in the life cycle we're giving consumers the option and not forcing stuff on them that they don't even need"
Must resist... must resist... ah! I can't!

"You mean, like the console itself?" :p

Actually, if they were REALLY being true about that statement, they'd have a bundle that came without a Blu-Ray player and actually cost a reasonable amount of cash.

Zeal

07-24-2006, 05:03 AM

The general public does not take videogames seriously enough to pay $600 for a toy.

Thank God.

Odyzen

07-24-2006, 05:04 AM

Actually, if they were REALLY being true about that statement, they'd have a bundle that came without a Blu-Ray player and actually cost a reasonable amount of cash.

Just a quick question that just popped into my head. Since the games has to support HD, will there be games put on a DVD disc even or will it all be bluray?

BleedTheFreak

07-24-2006, 05:37 AM

As I understand it the games are all on standard DVD still. Blue Ray won't enhance gaming whatsoever. As I understand it. It's just for watching high resolution movies.

RainOfTerror

07-24-2006, 05:40 AM

"Not to mention that the PlayStation 3's online capabilities are up to par with what people expect from a gaming console.."

Does anybody know what they are talking about? As far as I know, nobody knows about, or has seen, their online capabilities ..

sounds like a lot of spin indeed ...

Ix Quantum xI

07-24-2006, 05:55 AM

As I understand it the games are all on standard DVD still. Blue Ray won't enhance gaming whatsoever. As I understand it. It's just for watching high resolution movies.

It was confirmed a while ago that all games have to be on Blue Ray because of the increased copy protection on them. The biggest question right now for me is how much more the games are going to be over the 360's. I can see Sony eating the loss on the console but I think there is no way they can also sell the games on a more expensive format and eat the losses too.

jeffbax

07-24-2006, 05:58 AM

No - not buying it, I'll get Assassin's Creed on 360.

Sl1pstream

07-24-2006, 06:00 AM

The general public does not take videogames seriously enough to pay $600 for a toy.

Thank God.

They do when that same toy is called Playstation and has movies that look like you're actually in them, because that's how good Playstation 3 will make your movies look.

Nintendo makes toys, Sony is the only option for the next-gen gamer. Microsoft should just go and fix Windows before it crashes again.

But there's a whole different way to look at the PlayStation 3, and to prompt you to do that, we only have to ask one question: How much did you pay for that new digital camera?
We ripped you off then, we'll do it again, would you even notice it this time?

EDIT:: I still want that Afrika game they showed at their press conference. :(

bean19

07-24-2006, 06:04 AM

Actually, FFXII is out around launch time, so that'll probably keep a lot of PS3 players busy.

You are being ironic, yes? You understand that FFXII is made for the PS2?

Sl1pstream

07-24-2006, 06:06 AM

Maybe he meant FFXIII, typos and all.

What I don't get

But what does Incognito think? "We've been working on the technology for a while, but we weren't sure when it was going to show up in the controller," says Dylan Jobe, producer at Incognito. "We were internally hypothesizing that Sony was going to do something big, so it has to be this. We worked on our physics system to make sure it would be a seamless transition, and then Sony of Japan finally allowed us to be introduced to [the actual controller]. When we finally got our hands on it, there was only about a week and a half [until E3]. It was a really good marriage with Warhawk."
So they've been working on a tilt function in the hope that there would be something like it on the controller? They've added all this stuff from day 1 while they didn't even know about the controller until the last two weeks?

EvilBob46

07-24-2006, 06:06 AM

Actually, FFXII is out around launch time, so that'll probably keep a lot of PS3 players busy.

No one is going to be stupid enough to buy a $600 console to play a PS2 game. FFXIII will be hot, but that game won't be out for a long while.

Oh what I can remember, there isn't a killer ap on launch. There is a lot of good games, but nothing that is too good.

Those were my thoughts on the 360 launch line-up exactly.

As I understand it the games are all on standard DVD still. Blue Ray won't enhance gaming whatsoever. As I understand it. It's just for watching high resolution movies.

Mark Rein of Epic said Gears of War will be ~20 GB. It's going to be interesting to see how many disks the game is going to ship on, and then you'll know if truly next-gen games on the 360 will really need 3 disks or not (or a next-gen format).

bean19

07-24-2006, 06:09 AM

It was confirmed a while ago that all games have to be on Blue Ray because of the increased copy protection on them. The biggest question right now for me is how much more the games are going to be over the 360's. I can see Sony eating the loss on the console but I think there is no way they can also sell the games on a more expensive format and eat the losses too.

By more expensive format, I think they mean a matter of about $1 or $2 per copy. They can definitely "eat" that out of $60. Though it is publishers that must take that cost, not Sony. Sony will actually MAKE money from the use of Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray is a large storage device. It isn't really NEEDED for games yet. If someone made a game that was so obnoxiously huge that it actually took up more than 7 GB of space (after compression), then they'd simply ship it on two DVDs. However, the 2 DVD game will be extremely rare, if we ever see one.

So what the poster said about it being useless as a gaming format is right. If anything, it hurts gaming because the data transfer rate for a Blu-Rayx2 is so incredibly slow. It doesn't modulate like the DVDx12 in speed, but the Blu-Rayx2 is ALWAYS at the slowest that a DVDx12 can be. Hopefully, the PS3 is using it's hard-drive to pre-cache a lot of game files and thus lower load times significantly.

Mike Jones

07-24-2006, 06:17 AM

As I understand it the games are all on standard DVD still. Blue Ray won't enhance gaming whatsoever. As I understand it. It's just for watching high resolution movies.

Games are going to start to get big. As far as I know there won't be region coding on Blu-Ray so you can put all the languages on one disk which is impossible on DVD. Darkness devs already said they are having trouble fitting all the info on a DVD and Kojima says..not in exact words

http://www.wii60.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3028

No way it will fit on a DVD9. Wouldnt give me a number as how big the game will be. Said he couldnt do that, and nothing is been confirmed as how big the final game will be, cause "there still making it." But went on about how Sony is pushing HD content and in no way will it be possible to fit it on a normal DVD, and BD is totally necessary for MGS4.(he kept calling it BD) I brought up compression, but he didnt seem like he liked that idea. Forgot what he said. Basically they dont want to do that. I dunno. This lead into a question about resolution.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 06:37 AM

I paid about $350 for a Canon Elph with 7.1 megapixels. It is small enough to take with me everywhere and I use it several times a week.

I purchased a video camera once for more than $1000. I've used it exactly twice. It was a total waste.

TrackZero

07-24-2006, 06:39 AM

Actually, FFXII is out around launch time, so that'll probably keep a lot of PS3 players busy.

Errr, uh. Isn't that a PS2 title?

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 06:42 AM

...you can put all the languages on one disk which is impossible on DVD.
You could technically put all languages on a Bluray, but when a game is made it is made in one language first, and shipped to that location. Later, when the game is already selling in one location, it is localized into other languages. It isn't so much a matter of space on the disc, but what languages are available to the time of the production.

Also, with games, the audio files can be compressed using various methods. This keeps file sizes down to a respectable size. Each sound file need not have 5.1 channel information as the in-game engine mixes the spacial location.

Bluray is great for stuffing lots of pre-rendered video into video games.

TrackZero

07-24-2006, 06:49 AM

Choice quote:

"The most intriguing part of the PlayStation 3, to me, is the power. Sony seems to have built a racing machine with Blu-ray, Cell, and all of these things that are incredibly powerful. But even though it's powerful, there are games that will work well with the machine and games that won't. And going forward, that's something we have to think about-- what game works best for each system." - Atsushi Inaba, President of Clover Studio (Okami, Viewtiful Joe)

Anyone else catch the subtle message there? I'm reading that as him saying unless you've got a massive team for a massive game, there are better platforms to develop on. Ah well. </flame on>

Reanimated

07-24-2006, 06:52 AM

Yeah, I paid 250 bucks for my Fuji 5 megapixel camera, so I'm not exactly sure what point they're trying to make with that shit. VERY nice digital cameras can be found for less than 400 dollars.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 07:07 AM

As I understand it the games are all on standard DVD still. Blue Ray won't enhance gaming whatsoever. As I understand it. It's just for watching high resolution movies.
PS3 Games will all be on Bluray discs. Sony commands it.

And for anyone that thinks Bluray is good for movies, needs to read this (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm)!

TrackZero

07-24-2006, 07:28 AM

PS3 Games will all be on Bluray discs. Sony commands it.

And for anyone that thinks Bluray is good for movies, needs to read this (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm)!

You can nicely summarize that:

"deriving the same results from each test: the Blu-ray discs showed somewhat better contrast and detail over their DVD counterparts. But the difference was not nearly as dramatic as the comparisons between DVD and HD-DVD. Moreover, none of the Blu-ray discs matched the higher quality of the HD-DVDs."

;)

Watership

07-24-2006, 07:28 AM

Watership

07-24-2006, 07:35 AM

Mark Rein of Epic said Gears of War will be ~20 GB. It's going to be interesting to see how many disks the game is going to ship on, and then you'll know if truly next-gen games on the 360 will really need 3 disks or not (or a next-gen format).

I found it.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=125925

" Unreal Tournament was 6GB compressed. Next Generation games are going to be 20GB plus, and how we're going to fit them on DVD9's I don't know, they'll probably be a few of them. On the PS3, we're going to be using the majority of the space on those Blu-ray disks. So, online isn't really the best option in some instances."

Date: 20-Sep-2005

I don't know dude. He said this almost a year ago. Oblivion was 6 GB so a huge game with hundreds and thousands of textures... not so bad. Also that stuff about Sony filling up Blu-Ray? I wonder if Mark's talking out of his ass again.

SexualChoc

07-24-2006, 07:44 AM

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 07:50 AM

And for anyone that thinks Bluray is good for movies, needs to read this (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm)!
This is what that article boils down to:

(1) At this writing, HD-DVD image quality is clearly superior to Blu-ray, (2) HD-DVD player prices are half those of Blu-ray, and (3) HD-DVD has twice as many movie titles on the market as Blu-ray, and that ratio will hold through the end of this critical launch year.

But you come to the conclusion the Blu-ray isn't good for movies? PQ will vary on both Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies, and at the moment the released HD-DVD movies have better PQ. But then again, there aren't that many Blu-ray titles around yet, and of course the PQ will get better in time. On both formats. Compare the early DVD's with the released made today, and it's the same thing.

You can nicely summarize that:

"deriving the same results from each test: the Blu-ray discs showed somewhat better contrast and detail over their DVD counterparts. But the difference was not nearly as dramatic as the comparisons between DVD and HD-DVD. Moreover, none of the Blu-ray discs matched the higher quality of the HD-DVDs."

;)
But do you actually believe that the contrast and detail has anything to do with what kind of disc the movie is on?

BleedTheFreak

07-24-2006, 07:57 AM

You can nicely summarize that:

"deriving the same results from each test: the Blu-ray discs showed somewhat better contrast and detail over their DVD counterparts. But the difference was not nearly as dramatic as the comparisons between DVD and HD-DVD. Moreover, none of the Blu-ray discs matched the higher quality of the HD-DVDs."

;)

All I know is my Dad had captured an over the air broadcast of an HD movie, and it was STUNNING on my 50" Wega. Incredible. Compare that to a standard DVD movie (which looks amazing to begin with) and there WAS a difference in clarity and quality of the picture.

If I'm now to understand, Blu-Ray won't offer the clarity that the HD quality movie I saw had, then it can go fuck itself. Furthermore, if HD-DVD does deliver that, I know which format I'm rooting for, it looks like.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 07:59 AM

But you come to the conclusion the Blu-ray isn't good for movies?Sure. One could say that DVD is good for movies too, but so far, according to the people that have both HD-DVD and Bluray, Bluray is not AS GOOD for movies as the cheaper HD-DVD.

And if you look at my post, I never say Bluray is BAD for movies. It simply isn't as good as the less expensive HD-DVD option.

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 08:08 AM

And if you look at my post, I never say Bluray is BAD for movies. It simply isn't as good as the less expensive HD-DVD option.
Ok, but if someone says something's not good, and not adding anything, they usually mean it's bad. Or at least that's how I read your post. :)

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 08:16 AM

All I know is my Dad had captured an over the air broadcast of an HD movie, and it was STUNNING on my 50" Wega. Incredible. Compare that to a standard DVD movie (which looks amazing to begin with) and there WAS a difference in clarity and quality of the picture.

If I'm now to understand, Blu-Ray won't offer the clarity that the HD quality movie I saw had, then it can go fuck itself. Furthermore, if HD-DVD does deliver that, I know which format I'm rooting for, it looks like.
The thing is, that almost everyone seem to forget (or not know), both HD-DVD and Blu-ray can use the H.264 codec, and therefor obtain the EXACT same result. PQ has NOTHING to do with the the actual physical disc, it's all in the codec used and in the encoding. And of course the hardware used to view the movie.

Mike Jones

07-24-2006, 08:22 AM

PS3 Games will all be on Bluray discs. Sony commands it.

And for anyone that thinks Bluray is good for movies, needs to read this (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm)!

The Samsung Blu-Ray player is defective

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Hardware/Samsung/Sony/Did_Samsungs_Blu-ray_Player_Ship_with_Faulty_Chip/144

EvilBob46

07-24-2006, 08:23 AM

I don't know dude. He said this almost a year ago. Oblivion was 6 GB so a huge game with hundreds and thousands of textures... not so bad. Also that stuff about Sony filling up Blu-Ray? I wonder if Mark's talking out of his ass again.

Oblivion was 6 GB because it reuses a lot of its textures over and over again - for the landscape, for most caves and dungeons, etc., which is also why some of the landscape and dungeons seem a tad repetetive at times. Gears of War, on the other hand, is going to painstakingly detail and texture every fine detail in the world. Really, if they're going to make a heavy use of high-res textures and have many completely unique environments, 20GB doesn't sound like much a stretch.

needoptic

07-24-2006, 08:25 AM

They do when that same toy is called Playstation and has movies that look like you're actually in them, because that's how good Playstation 3 will make your movies look.

Nintendo makes toys, Sony is the only option for the next-gen gamer. Microsoft should just go and fix Windows before it crashes again.
:(

I think I have a hard time interpreting your post. You're saying that playstation will make your movies look like you're in them... and by that I assume you mean the Picture Quality. And while that is obviously something I don't even look for in a gaming console, the same PQ is available via HD-DVD's. ;) So... you don't really have a point there to argue.

I was somewhat Anti-Microsoft like you seem to be for no good reason apart from MS being a powerful monopoly... but after I personally experienced the product it changed my opinion. The Live service works really well, exceptionally well. Content delivery is swift and easy to access. Friends / chat / game invites all work with a press of a button.

Sony has no record with this and is still very shady about their online service. We all know there's no free lunch and that's exactly what sony's trying to spin now.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 08:25 AM

The Samsung Blu-Ray player is defective

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Hardware/Samsung/Sony/Did_Samsungs_Blu-ray_Player_Ship_with_Faulty_Chip/144
You should have READ the article. They debunk the myth the the inferior picture quality is due to the defect.

Rumors are circulating that the problem with Blu-ray is due to an alleged defect in the HDMI output of the Samsung player. Some have said that one needs only to switch from HDMI to component video output to solve the problem. There is a bit of truth to this. We do see marginally better images from the Samsung player on most discs when using component video. But the improvement is not dramatic. The resulting image still looks only incrementally better than DVD. So while the use of component video yields a somewhat better picture, it does not transform Blu-ray into a great deal for the money. Furthermore, it should be noted that the Blu-ray demo disc being used by many retailers at the moment plays just fine over the Samsung BD-P1000's HDMI interface. There is not the slightest hint of a defect in the player with this particular disc. So we are more inclined to suspect that this oddity is related to Blu-ray disc quality, and will reserve judgment until more is known.

Part of the reason for Blu-ray's present lackluster image quality may be attributed to a strange confluence of unfortunate events. First, they have not yet been able to successfully mass-produce dual-layer Blu-ray discs. That means the storage capacity on the first releases is limited to 25 GB rather than the 50 GB available with the dual-layer structure. Second, someone decided to use MPEG-2 on these initial releases. It appears that 25 GB is not sufficient storage space for high quality video at 1080p/24 resolution when compressed via MPEG-2. Somewhere along the line vital video information is not making it onto the Blu-ray discs, and it is visible on the screen.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 08:27 AM

...the same PQ is available via HD-DVD's.
HD-DVD's picture quality is, at this point, superior to Bluray's.

needoptic

07-24-2006, 08:29 AM

Oblivion was 6 GB because it reuses a lot of its textures over and over again - for the landscape, for most caves and dungeons, etc., which is also why some of the landscape and dungeons seem a tad repetetive at times. Gears of War, on the other hand, is going to painstakingly detail and texture every fine detail in the world. Really, if they're going to make a heavy use of high-res textures and have many completely unique environments, 20GB doesn't sound like much a stretch.

This is a good article to read:

http://gamesfirst.com/index.php?id=1132

And a particular quote I want to stress:

“Over the course of its life, the size of the average Xbox title increased by 77%. If the Xbox 360 size increases at the same rate, and the four 360 titles are representative of the whole, we can expect the average Xbox 360 title in 4 or 5 years to be around 7.40 gigs, and to occupy about 87% of the disc's capacity. If the largest game deviation is the same as the Xbox, with the largest game being 3 gigabytes larger than the 2005 average, then games will be exceeding the upper limit of what the medium is capable of.

However, if the proportions hold true between systems, such limitations will only effect about 3% of games made for the Xbox 360. Additionally, we'd guess that if you look at those 26 titles that exceed average size on the Xbox, you'd find that size is not an indicator of quality, either in graphical quality or storyline. No one would accuse Doom 3 of being worse looking than Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines, but it's almost 3 gigabytes smaller (Terminator 3: 5.67 gigs; Doom 3: 2.957 gigs). Half-life 2, for example, is only 2 gigabytes.”

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 08:29 AM

HD-DVD's picture quality is, at this point, superior to Bluray's.
And again, that has nothing to do with the movies being shipped on a HD-DVD disc or Blu-ray disc.

needoptic

07-24-2006, 08:30 AM

HD-DVD's picture quality is, at this point, superior to Bluray's.

Even better. :D

My cat was watching a Discovery HD special on some stupid birds the other night. She just sat there and stared at the screen with great fascination. :cool:

absolut taco

07-24-2006, 08:30 AM

PS3 Games will all be on Bluray discs. Sony commands it.

And for anyone that thinks Bluray is good for movies, needs to read this (http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm)!
Off-Topic:

What is with the goddamn loading times on these players?!?! 32 seconds BluRay / 60 seconds HD-DVD. Is it copy protection? First generation blues? My DVD player does the same thing in 5 seconds... And if Samsung fucked up on the HDMI port... man, what a fuckup. The player costs $1,000. It should be perfect.

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 08:32 AM

The player costs $1,000. It should be perfect.
First generation of everything is usually crap. :)

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 08:36 AM

And again, that has nothing to do with the movies being shipped on a HD-DVD disc or Blu-ray disc.
Right, it only has to do with the quality of movies available. Buy Bluray movies and they don't look as good as HD-DVD movies. There IS a way to make the Bluray movies look better, but nobody is doing it now. Instead, people pay more for an inferior picture quality.

absolut taco

07-24-2006, 08:38 AM

absolut taco

07-24-2006, 08:39 AM

First generation of everything is usually crap. :)
My first generation next-gen console is awesome ;)

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 08:41 AM

Right, it only has to do with the quality of movies available. Buy Bluray movies and they don't look as good as HD-DVD movies. There IS a way to make the Bluray movies look better, but nobody is doing it now. Instead, people pay more for an inferior picture quality.
With that I totally agree, but you came off sounding like the Blu-ray format per se is inferior to HD-DVD.

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 08:45 AM

My first generation next-gen console is awesome ;)
I feel the same way about my 360, but one of the buttons on the controller stopped working after just a few weeks. :( Same thing happened to a friend of mine.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 08:52 AM

With that I totally agree, but you came off sounding like the Blu-ray format per se is inferior to HD-DVD.
Not the format, just the movies; which kind of defeats the purpose.

needoptic

07-24-2006, 08:53 AM

I don't understand how anyone can bash xbox360 for being "power" inferior. I mean.. come on:

Edit: my own little pics from pgr3. :D
http://www.needoptic.com/img/temp/stang2.jpg

http://www.needoptic.com/img/temp/fer1.jpg

http://www.needoptic.com/img/temp/fer2.jpg

http://www.needoptic.com/img/temp/pors.jpg

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 08:54 AM

Here is the conslusion from the Bluray / HD-DVD article. I know it is a bit long, but I urge everyone to read it.

*************************
HD-DVD has proven itself to be an outstanding value for the money. Blu-ray has not. If Blu-ray is to survive it needs to drop the price of its entry level players to $500 and increase the quality of its discs. In essence, it needs to match the price/performance benchmark established by HD-DVD. Surely better Blu-ray discs will be forthcoming at some point. But from the looks of things it may already be too late. HD-DVD is solid, it delivers superb quality for a nominal price, and there are twice the number of HD-DVD titles on the market as BDs. The outlook for the holiday season is that there will be over 400 HD-DVD titles released, while Blu-ray will be lucky to have 200.

In addition to the strength of the HD-DVD release, the technology has a latent cost advantage in manufacturing. HD-DVD players can be built at lower cost, and that will translate into lower prices to the consumer. Faced with this challenge, Blu-ray will eventually need to deliver image quality that is superior to HD-DVD in order to justify premium player prices. It is certainly not doing that today, and we do not believe there is any realistic chance that it could happen in the future.

For these reasons, we enthusiastically endorse HD-DVD. If Blu-ray can ever demonstrate that it is able to deliver similar quality at similar prices, or even better quality at a premium price, we will be happy to endorse Blu-ray as well. But based on the less than stellar performance of Blu-ray coming out of the starting gates, we wonder whether it will survive in the home theater market.

Our message to consumers is this: Do not be concerned by the demands of the "Blu-ray only" film studios who ask that you pay top dollar for Blu-ray players to see their movies in HD. The HD-DVD launch has established that you do not need to spend $1000 or $1500 to see great HD films in your own home. If some studios don't want to accommodate you, buy from those who will. At the very least, the competition between HD-DVD and Blu-ray will ensure that prices of both formats become rapidly accessible to the maximum number of consumers.

On a final note, think about this: Your real objective should be to get the absolute best picture possible for the budget you are willing to spend. In order to meet that objective, you will be much better off buying HD-DVD and investing the incremental cash you would have spent on Blu-ray in a higher quality projector or flat screen HDTV instead. Once consumers begin to spend big money in pursuit of their own best interests, the studios will fall into line.

Edit: Crap this is difficult to read with these huge images blowing out the formatting. Can't you link to those instead?

needoptic

07-24-2006, 09:01 AM

Here is the conslusion from the Bluray / HD-DVD article. I know it is a bit long, but I urge everyone to read it.

Edit: Crap this is difficult to read with these huge images blowing out the formatting. Can't you link to those instead?

You're ok since your'e on the next page. :p

KidCactus

07-24-2006, 09:07 AM

I just find that conclusion a bit too early to come to, since both formats are new and the PQ on both will be the same in the long run. They also say this in the article (talking about MPEG-4 and VC-1):

But once either one of them shows up, we have little doubt that Blu-ray image quality will rise to the level of HD-DVD.

Metal Jesus

07-24-2006, 09:12 AM

The price of the PS3 will keep me away for quite a long time...

Plus, by that time the Xbox 360 games will be in full swing. My money will go towards all of those games for the forseeable future.

BleedTheFreak

07-24-2006, 09:16 AM

The price of the PS3 will keep me away for quite a long time...

Plus, by that time the Xbox 360 games will be in full swing. My money will go towards all of those games for the forseeable future.

There are a LOT of games coming out on the 360 between now and the end of this year, according to Gamespot.com's release pages. I made a list of all the titles I would be interesting in owning, from Saint's Row to Gears of War and I came up with 11 titles, which is crazy, that's going to have me buying 2 or 3 games a MONTH. I don't think I'll even have time for the Wii this year.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 09:21 AM

You're ok since your'e on the next page. :p
Ahh! I have my settings to display more posts per page. I see now.

Siraris

07-24-2006, 09:25 AM

What a shitty article. Most of the quotes are old, and Kaz does a great job of dancing around the issues of price. What's with him saying what a great job they did with PSP?

Confusing.

Evil Avnovice

07-24-2006, 09:37 AM

Even if this came from fanboy-driven PSM, my answer would still be no.

My favorite part of the article?

OPM: How are you going to convince consumers that $600 is the new magic price point?

KH: The basic approach we'll take is similar to the approach we took with the PlayStation Portable. That it does a lot of fun things, but we don't want to dilute the message. You'll confuse the consumer even more if you go out there and say if it's a multimedia platform. The first thing we need to say is that the PS3 is the best console out there for interactive games. This is the console to have. Behind that, look at all of the other things it can do. That's the way to approach it, and that's what we did with the PSP. Because having gone out there and said this is a great movie player, and by the way it also plays games, we have to ask ourselves: Who are we marketing this to? We have to make sure that we appeal to people who are interested in playing games...I'm not going to say core gamers, but people who want the cutting edge.

Which leads me to:

1) Wasn't one of the reasons Sony claimed that the PSP was superior to the Nintendo GBA and DS was because of its multimedia capabilities?

2) The PSP's "great movie player" was riddled wth some serious flaws.

3) I'm curious to know who you're marketing it to myself. We can cross out core gamers, which leaves us with rich people, gamers with cash to burn, techies, or those utopian PSP owners. You know, the beautiful people sitting on steps all day with their handhelds in hand or around their necks.

Official PlayStation Magazine July 2006
Issue 106
Page 18

Yeti2005

07-24-2006, 10:11 AM

I'm sure I'll want a PS3 when it comes out (I love videogames) but I'm not willing to drop that kind of cash until the price drops to about $400 for the 60gb version (got to have my HDMI and built in wireless :).

absolut taco

07-24-2006, 10:12 AM

I don't understand how anyone can bash xbox360 for being "power" inferior. I mean.. come on:

Edit: my own little pics from pgr3. :D
Great pics, especially the one with the racing F430 looking at the F355?, but please make them a smidge smaller, like 640 px wide, so that we don't have to scroll sideways. People have been threatened with the banhammer in the past for posting huge images.

Phanto

07-24-2006, 11:17 AM

Like I said before I will once again said it...lol
I'm going to wait a couples of years when they have released a slim PS3 and the price drop to $199 or less :)

needoptic

07-24-2006, 11:39 AM

Great pics, especially the one with the racing F430 looking at the F355?, but please make them a smidge smaller, like 640 px wide, so that we don't have to scroll sideways. People have been threatened with the banhammer in the past for posting huge images.

Oh, sorry, my bad. I'm spoiled with a widescreen monitor. :D

I'll link them.

And you're correct on the car, sir. :cool:

Spigot

07-24-2006, 01:18 PM

Errr, uh. Isn't that a PS2 title?You are being ironic, yes? You understand that FFXII is made for the PS2?Maybe he meant FFXIII, typos and all.
Sigh. Yes, FFXII is a PS2 title. No, I wasn't being ironic. No, there weren't any typos and I realize that FFXIII isn't out for quite some time.

I meant that FFXII is out right around the same time as the PS3 launch and it would give PS3 gamers something good (by my standards, at least) to play while they go through a dry spell akin to the launch of the 360. I'm not saying that people need to or even will want to go buy a PS3 in order to play FFXII. It's just going to be a pretty hot game that they will be able to use to keep the PS3 from gathering the usual layer of launch window dust.

Nintendo makes toys, Sony is the only option for the next-gen gamer. Microsoft should just go and fix Windows before it crashes again.
Yeesh, Slippy. I never realized just how big your fanboy boots were until this crazy statement. Let's deconstruct what is wrong with it.
Nintendo makes toys.
Thanks for pointing that out. So does Sony and so does Microsoft. As much as we may think that games are the be all and end all of existence, they are basically just that. Toys. Very fun, very involving toys, but toys nonetheless. Frankly, I want my game system to have games as a priority first and foremost. In this regard, I'm looking at the Wii as being the most fun toy of the lot, especially when it comes to getting other people who don't normally game on board. I've had many people at work who aren't gamers complain that they just can't wrap their heads around all the buttons and gizmos modern games require to play. When I explained how the Wii works and that I can just hand them a Wiimote and tell them to swing it like a bat, they are all over that.

Sony is the only option for the next-gen gamer.
Well, frankly, I don't want my game console to play movies in a format that hasn't even shown that it will be adopted as an industry standard yet. I'm among the vast majority of the population that hasn't been able to upgrade to an HDTV yet. And until they start showing me more niche games along the lines of Ico, Shadow Of The Colossus and Katamari as opposed to shinier, brighter versions of what has already been done to death, frankly, neither the 360 or the PS3 really has a lot of appeal to me, at least not at the current price point for the systems and attendant TV upgrades.

Microsoft should just go and fix Windows before it crashes again.
Where did this come from? Not only have I not had my XP rig crash in ages, thereby obviating THAT complaint (are you still running Win98? Yeesh) but it has nothing to do with the 360. Before you start complaining about all of the 360 overheating issues and various tech glitches, remember how touchy the PS2 is and how prone to defects Sony products, esp. first gen stuff, can be. And if it's just a general "*** suxors" rant, well, frankly, we're all tired of that. I'm no fan of Microsoft but even I, someone who doesn't have a 360 and who took a few years to be convinced to buy an Xbox, has to admit that they really did a good job with Live. If the PS3's mythical online service can even approach that of Live, that would be great. I just think that MS has really set a high bar for both Nintendo and Sony to try to overcome.

Don't take this as a ranty mcflamey post. I'm trying to be measured and not come off as a fanboy for any systems or as generic Sony basher #3890. I'm not saying that I'd never get a PS3. Heck, I love my PS2 to death and got it at launch. I'm just not really seeing anything about the PS3 to make me want to get it within a year or two of launch.

And your statement was just goofy :)

Mr.Condescension

07-24-2006, 02:23 PM

Mark Rein of Epic said Gears of War will be ~20 GB. It's going to be interesting to see how many disks the game is going to ship on, and then you'll know if truly next-gen games on the 360 will really need 3 disks or not (or a next-gen format).

I believe he was referring to UT2k7 as being likely over 20 Gigs. I don't think we'll see that on gears of war, since it will have alot less maps, character models, etc.

So what the poster said about it being useless as a gaming format is right. If anything, it hurts gaming because the data transfer rate for a Blu-Rayx2 is so incredibly slow. It doesn't modulate like the DVDx12 in speed, but the Blu-Rayx2 is ALWAYS at the slowest that a DVDx12 can be. Hopefully, the PS3 is using it's hard-drive to pre-cache a lot of game files and thus lower load times significantly.

I can't believe you're still peddling this bullshit. I thought you were done after our last epeen war on the subject. A 12x DVD is only faster than 2x Blu-Ray when playing single layer DVDs, which nothing ships on anymore. A DVD9 runs at 8x, which is much slower than 2x blu-ray.

bean19

07-24-2006, 02:32 PM

I can't believe you're still peddling this bullshit.

You peddled that from the PS3 message boards but your only source to show this was true was DVD-R read speeds, which I pointed out with another link is not valid.

We'll see how it works when the PS3 comes out. I won't revisit the whole subject with you here as you are a fucking lunatic fanboy and I am more interested in finding out the truth than defending a golden calf.

So let's revisit the subject after the PS3 is released. I think you are wrong. The sites I linked before show that you are wrong. However, this is my last response to you because you are fucking crazy.

Mr.Condescension

07-24-2006, 03:31 PM

You peddled that from the PS3 message boards but your only source to show this was true was DVD-R read speeds, which I pointed out with another link is not valid.

I posted numerous links to sites which listed read speeds on DVD-R and DVD seperately, and each and every one of them read DVD9 slower than DVD5. Every 12x DVD player reads DVD9 at 8x or slower. It's a fact...one which you couldn't find evidence against the first time.

Siraris

07-24-2006, 03:47 PM

You should have READ the article. They debunk the myth the the inferior picture quality is due to the defect.

I read the article, where did you get that quote from? It's not in the article Mike linked too.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 03:49 PM

Sorry about the confusion. I thought we were reading the same article.

Here is the one of which I was speaking.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm

Mr.Condescension

07-24-2006, 03:53 PM

Sorry about the confusion. I thought we were reading the same article.

Here is the one of which I was speaking.

http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm

I think a valid question would be whether the HD-DVD group is squandering this period of PQ dominance by not having product available on shelves in any large quantities, and not advertising whatsoever. I've at least seen blu-ray mentioned in home video trailers, but not once have I heard HD-DVD except on forums and internet shopping guides.

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 04:00 PM

I think a valid question would be whether the HD-DVD group is squandering this period of PQ dominance by not having product available on shelves in any large quantities, and not advertising whatsoever. I've at least seen blu-ray mentioned in home video trailers, but not once have I heard HD-DVD except on forums and internet shopping guides.
"The outlook for the holiday season is that there will be over 400 HD-DVD titles released, while Blu-ray will be lucky to have 200."

Maybe it will be like how Macs used to be. People go into the software store and see one isle in the back of a 12 isle store that has some old Mac software on it. Who'd buy that platform?

If people go to the store and see 400+ HD-DVD movies vs <200 Bluray flicks, which platform are they going to choose?

In all truthfulness, the advertising won't matter until the 2 months before Christmas.

In truthful truthfulness though, advertising SHUOLDN'T matter at all, people should be able to decide for themself without being told. Instead, you'll probably see m ore advertising for Bluray cause the movies look worse, so it will need more marketing to sell. It is, after all, the emperor's new clothes.

Mr.Condescension

07-24-2006, 04:10 PM

Maybe it will be like how Macs used to be. People go into the software store and see one isle in the back of a 12 isle store that has some old Mac software on it. Who'd buy that platform?

I get what you're saying, yet I have to question whether most people actually shop that way. I don't think most people go to the store without having at least some concept of what they (or the person who made the x-mas list) want. Most people who come to a store don't say they want "an MP3 player", but rather say they "want an iPod." That's because of marketing and word of mouth. It doesn't really matter if it's more expensive and less full-featured than other mp3 players.

I could be wrong, but I don't think most people will go to the store saying "I want a High Definition Video Player", much like they don't say "My son asked for a Next Gen Video Game Console". They say "I want Blu-Ray" and "I want an Xbox 360", etc. But there are always exceptions to the rule, like it being more common to hear "I want an HDTV" rather than "I want a Plasma" (although I think that too is an example of marketing...the marketing of HDTV as a concept, rather than specific technology). I just think marketing is more important than just about anything in today's consumer market.

Metal Jesus

07-24-2006, 04:19 PM

If people go to the store and see 400+ HD-DVD movies vs <200 Bluray flicks, which platform are they going to choose?

You have a point, except that Sony controls so many great movie franchises. If all the Spiderman movies, Casino Royale The Da Vinci Code , Hellboy, Black Hawk Down and the 380+ other movies that Sony owns only come out on Blu-Ray...you will be very tempted to buy their player. I know I would...cuz according to the link below, they made a lot of movies I enjoy owning.

http://www.imdb.com/company/co0047439/

Kamalot

07-24-2006, 04:35 PM

Personally, I like DVDs just fine. Even if they don't look as good, a good movie sucks me right in.

It does not mayyer how many pixels are on the screen, a bad movie is always a bad movie.

Spigot

07-24-2006, 04:49 PM

HD-VHS FTW!

TrackZero

07-24-2006, 04:54 PM

bean19

07-24-2006, 05:14 PM

I think a valid question would be whether the HD-DVD group is squandering this period of PQ dominance by not having product available on shelves in any large quantities, and not advertising whatsoever. I've at least seen blu-ray mentioned in home video trailers, but not once have I heard HD-DVD except on forums and internet shopping guides.

And I posted links that showed the oppossite, as you know. However, neither of us found 360 benchmarks or PS3 benchmarks, so I'll leave this alone until their is better data.

Unlike you, I don't have a vested interest in this. I FEAR that the Blu-Ray is going to suck at loading up games based on the information so far. However, I don't KNOW that it will suck. . . I didn't get to try a real one at E3, and the only people that know right now for sure are developers with fainl devkits (are they out yet?) and Sony.

However, I think that this is bullshit because my load times for my 360 are so fast compared to last-gen. I don't think I've ever waiting longer than 30-45 seconds on a load screen, and usually much less.

We'll see, but unless you've found benchmarks for the 360 and the PS3, shut the fuck up.

civil_dead

07-24-2006, 05:38 PM

Games are going to start to get big. As far as I know there won't be region coding on Blu-Ray so you can put all the languages on one disk which is impossible on DVD. Darkness devs already said they are having trouble fitting all the info on a DVD and Kojima says..not in exact words

http://www.wii60.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3028

No way it will fit on a DVD9. Wouldnt give me a number as how big the game will be. Said he couldnt do that, and nothing is been confirmed as how big the final game will be, cause "there still making it." But went on about how Sony is pushing HD content and in no way will it be possible to fit it on a normal DVD, and BD is totally necessary for MGS4.(he kept calling it BD) I brought up compression, but he didnt seem like he liked that idea. Forgot what he said. Basically they dont want to do that. I dunno. This lead into a question about resolution.

Actually, from Ozymandias (http://ozymandias.com/default.aspx?p=2):

In an interview with Jim Cardwell, president of Warner’s home video arm, he makes the following interesting statement about the Blu-ray specification:

"We wanted the player to be capable of playing back a [9GB] high-definition red-laser disc, which we call BD-9," says Cardwell. "[The disc] would have a high enough capacity for our movies, and it would have a lower cost than the [25GB] BD-25. The advantage would be lower costs to manufacture the disc, because it could be manufactured on existing [DVD production] lines. Certainly, most of our movies will fit on a BD-9. The issue will be how much enhanced content will we put on there. For basic movies, most will fit on BD-9.

Although the Blu-ray Disc Association has not formally announced the format, Cardwell reports that it has "been proposed and accepted by the BDA."

So, a BD-9 disc is nothing more than a dual-layer DVD with roughly 9 GB of capacity, manufactured on the same processes, and read by a red laser… but still called a Blu-ray disc (thanks to using a different codec to decode the content). Capacity-wise, the disc is basically the same as a dual-layer DVD-9 (at 8.5 GB), but is cheaper to manufacture thanks to being made on a well-known and tested manufacturing process.

It’ll be very interesting to look back at the game discs from the PS3 launch and see just how many actually were “real” Blu-ray discs (25 GB+), and how many are BD-9 discs (~8.5-9 GB, or basically identical in size to dual-layer DVD-9). My guess is that we'll see a lot of BD-9s, allowing Sony to claim a huge Blu-ray launch, bolster the Blu-ray momentum message, and at the same time mollify publishers who aren’t willing to subsidize Blu-ray manufacturing costs. Even if the majority of discs are BD-25 and above, the key will be to look back after launch and see just how many of those games actually needed more than 8.5 GB. (Note that I’m talking about the core game, and not filler “making of” HD videos or movie trailers designed to push the game's "content" over 25 GB.)

Civil