Blu-ray and ps3 owners

[Leedogg]

For all you people worried about $70 HDMI Cables, I suggest you go over to monoprice.com. I got my HDMI Cable 6ft for only 6 dollars!!! Its the same quality HDMI Cable as the excuse me. (Monster Expensive Crap cables)

Also the DVD upscaling problem, is not a problem for me. I'll just support Blu-Ray and buy my favorites movies over again. (And none of them are from Universal) Also Sony said, that if there is enough demand, they will put dvd upscaling in a future software upgrade.

[Bee]

Also the DVD upscaling problem, is not a problem for me. I'll just support Blu-Ray and buy my favorites movies over again. (And none of them are from Universal) Also Sony said, that if there is enough demand, they will put dvd upscaling in a future software upgrade.

Sony said? IF there is enough demand? I'm sorry I'm confused, the Senior VP of Marketing on Nov. 6 (two weeks ago) said it DOES upscale. What happened to that? I can't believe no one is held accountable when promising things like the following:

Q:So you're saying the PlayStation 3 will upscale DVDs to 1080p?

Sony VP:Yes. Oh, yes.

Q:Okay.

Sony VP: That's part and parcel of the Blu-ray technology. I thought you were questioning about the PlayStation game aspect.


http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/06/t...entertainment/

[HarakoMeshi]

What in all that he wrote is truth? The majority is assumptions and estimations which he comes up with himself to support his own arguments. Says in the same breath that stand alones are expensive because "you need quite a beefy PC to play 1080p movies at full speed" but at the same time he also says "The manufacturing cost to Sony of a BD drive is unlikely to be higher than $40". To put it simply, he is making up all the "facts" why he is right without any other support, and he's calling all other reports against Sony to be Microsoft Propaganda.

Just to clarify, the reason you need a stong PC is because they are not designed to play HD-DVD. Hardware decoders where their only job is to decode and output the image are much simpler and faster because they're designed to only play videos, not do all the other things computers do.

Sorry if I use that thing between my ears to point out the obvious. Maybe if my name was Carmack or whatever you would hang onto any word I said. Or maybe if I made an anonymous website like nexgenwars.com you would trust every number I posted. If you honestly think my reasoning is always wrong you are free to ignore me.

I think there was no logic problem when I said that the disc-drive is not what makes HD-DVD or BD players expensive. It seems quite congruent to me. Drives are cheap and decoders are expensive (esp 1080p decoding). That is not contradictory.

HD-DVD & BD are just enhanced versions of DVD technology. Pretty much the only change on the drives is in the laser unit.

Let me simplify the logic.

$299 Xbox + $199 add-on disc-drive = a near full featured HD-DVD player. That is about the same price as a stand alone player. Is it then reasonable to state that the disc-drive is not the most expensive part of a player?

Further is it then unreasonable that this $199 drive actually costs much less to manufacture? You have to figure in Microsoft's profit, the drive maker's profit, the retailer's profit, warranty reservation, plus packaging and shipping costs. If the raw hardware costs even $100 I'll eat yellow snow.

My argument is that the BD drive in the PS3 is going to cost Sony significantly less than $199. They don't need to count profits, packaging, retailer profit, shipping and everything on that drive because it is just another part of the console.

Also the console needed some form of drive anyway, could have been DVD or HD-DVD or something proprietary. Going BD doesn't add hundreds to Sony's cost and it doesn't add hundreds to your PS3 purchase. On the contrary it adds intrinsic value to Sony and it is a good value way to get a BD drive for consumers.

Xbox 360 Premium = $399. PS3 20GB = $499. For $100 you get the BD drive, HDMI port, Blu tooth, and the Cell plus quite a few popular game franchises. Are they not easily worth that?

For another $100 you get 40GB extra storage, WiFi and card readers. That also seems good when just the WiFi adaptor for 360 costs $99 by itself.

Also being a geek programmer myself I'm pretty excited of running whatever I want on the free PS3 Linux OS.

[Aodh]

Sorry if I use that thing between my ears to point out the obvious. Maybe if my name was Carmack or whatever you would hang onto any word I said. Or maybe if I made an anonymous website like nexgenwars.com you would trust every number I posted. If you honestly think my reasoning is always wrong you are free to ignore me.

My problem with what you say is you make up numbers which you assert as truth and use to support your opinion. It's just as valid as me saying BD Drives cost $3000 to make and have to be assembled by midgets in their underwear at the north pole, and that's why BD sucks. You even openly admitted the 'true' numbers you were quoting to be your estimates. If you're going to mass something off as fact, support it. That's my issue with you. Your other post on sales is the only recent thing indicating sales. I use nextgenwars because there is nothing published by most companies till month/period/quarter/year end and that's the only way you can get a glimps into what they may be between. I do take it with a grain of salt that they're estimates, but the general point of my arguments are still valid weither it be 4million, 5million or 10million units. XB360 offers the lowest cost buy-in to HD to the people who most likely already have HD and HD gaming.

On the retail note, if you actually start comparing features and prices, the end results come out pretty close with an advantage to PS3. Mainly because it was constructed this year so same parts last year would have cost more. The price differences you pointed out get eroded away when you take into account the remote, cables aren't included with the PS3 and are with the XB.

[HarakoMeshi]

On the retail note, if you actually start comparing features and prices, the end results come out pretty close with an advantage to PS3. Mainly because it was constructed this year so same parts last year would have cost more. The price differences you pointed out get eroded away when you take into account the remote, cables aren't included with the PS3 and are with the XB.

Sure I never disagreed with that. If you have a 360 already $200 is a no-brainer to upgrade to HD movies.

If you don't have a 360 already then the minimum prices are fairly similar for both to enter into HD games & HD movies.

Finally in terms of value for games, movies and overall I think PS3 wins. Some people use "choice" and "options" as ways to convince themselves that they made the right call buying a 360 and that's fine too.

[HarakoMeshi]

LOL! "There's nothing wrong with PS3, it's all a Microsoft conspiracy."

FYI I'm not the first or only person to redcard MS and guess what, they spent plenty of time in courts and lost for their strongarm business practices.

From looking at other forums there are plenty of people who got a PS3 and they are very happy with the console as a whole, and saying the BD playback is excellent and better than standalone players.

[J.Nomak]

Will it cut the resolution even further by adding bars on the left and right ?

Keeping the 4:3 aspect ratio will not cut the horizonal resolution. Even with visible bars on the sides, the image will still extend to the top and bottom of the screen.

[Blurry]

Even with visible bars on the sides, the image will still extend to the top and bottom of the screen.

Um, if a tv is displaying in 480p, you have 720 lines of horizontal resolution, however, in order to add the black bars to the left and right (which is only necessary if the aspect ratio is being switched to 4x3, part of my original question), you actually need to use those lines of resolution to do so. This cuts down your usable resolution significantly.

Even with visible bars on the sides, the image will still extend to the top and bottom of the screen.

Not sure what your point is, of course the image will extend from top to bottom, why would it do otherwise ? You only need to remove from the left and right to adapt a 4x3 image to a 16x9 screen.