You don't own a PS3. Why?

[djskribbles]

For those looking at price there's a big difference between $99 & $199, which is what those are still going for new(not refurbished) here in the states. It might not be the best investment due it not being a Profile 2.0 player, but for some people BD-Live might not be needed or wanted. I think I'll still hold out a little while longer for the prices to drop more. And I have no plans to buy another different game console. Rather buy a 2nd 360 for the bedroom to watch Netflix & Hulu.

Tommy McClain

Not only features, but build quality and speed. Paying $50-$100 more for a much better player is a small price to pay. And I'm just informing people that the PS3 is a very good player that will be constantly updated, and even if you don't plan on playing games, it's only a bonus if it can.

Anyway, I think this whole discussion on alternatives to the PS3 is OT TBH.

 

[LeeC22]

Hmmm

That's a rather naive comment. You could ask the same thing about Live versus PSN, couldn't you?

Actually, no, Live and PSN are not digital mediums, they are online services.

If you're going down the "you pay for Live and PSN is free and just as good", then I think this is the wrong place for that argument. Especially as we are dealing with services that don't have truly comparable features. Highlighted partly by the fact that Live's marketplace is an integrated feature and The Playstation Store looks like you've jumped out to a badly organised online shop.

As for the original topic (which almost seems like a distant memory now). I have a PS3, and pretty much any other console that plays games. I bought it at launch, like pretty much every console that has been released. Of all the consoles I have ever bought though, the PS3 is the only one where I wish I could go back to launch day and not buy one. After all that time, I have 6 games and all I play on it, is SSHD or HSG5. A £600 launch pack to play £6 games.

I think a lot of gamers didn't buy into it because the end result didn't turn out to be what we were promised. After being told to "work longer to pay for the twin-HDMI, TrueHD, 120 fps gaming/entertainment/computer", we got something just like the competition had released, only more expensive.

As a gamer, I didn't give two hoots about BR. I have 8 BR films and haven't watched one. And if I was going to watch films, I wouldn't use a games console to watch them on, just like I wouldn't use it to listen to music on. I didn't care about WiFi because my router is 10 feet away. I didn't care about SD card readers because I can just stream pictures from my PC, that and I can't find the PS3 version of Photoshop anywhere. I kinda like online occasionally but it appears Sony decided that, because their online chat was so poor, there was no point giving people a headset... then again, I didn't get a set of HD cables with my TrueHD console, makes you think.

I didn't care about all those things but I had to pay for them. I didn't get the 1080p native gaming I was promised, but I got lots of things I don't care about. I've never bought a console before where the majority of the cost was on things I don't use. I've never bought one where the makers declared a feature (rumble) "last-gen" and "unwanted", and then later charged people £40 for the benefit of getting that "unwanted last-gen" feature. I've never bought a console before and regretted it, but this time, I actually did.

And just one final point, I keep hearing this the 360 should have Wifi, especially from PC gamers. So I just want to ask... how many of those top of the range, £150+ motherboards come with inbuilt WiFi? Go to the Alienware site, look at the desktop PCs starting from £2,648 and tell me what Wifi connection it has as standard... I'll tell you, to save you looking... none!, it's got 2 wired Gigabit network ports, to connect to that 2Mb internet connection a lot of us have in the UK. By the the time we get Gigabit Internet, that motherboard will be long gone, so why have it?

People expect a £100 gaming console to have inbuilt Wifi, yet it's okay for a £2,000+ desktop PC to not have it?

 

[RobertR1]

Not only features, but build quality and speed. Paying $50-$100 more for a much better player is a small price to pay. And I'm just informing people that the PS3 is a very good player that will be constantly updated, and even if you don't plan on playing games, it's only a bonus if it can.

Anyway, I think this whole discussion on alternatives to the PS3 is OT TBH.

It's really not that off topic. For years, the PS3 was *the* BR player to get due to the spec mess and a poor job by manufacturers. Not to mention that the player prices were as high or higher than the PS3.

Thus for many looking for BR, the PS3 was the game in town. Fast forward to present day and a few factors have changed. The players have come down in price dramatically. The players are Profile 2.0/BD Live spec compliant, fast, IR, analog outs, bitstream output, aesthetics, less noise,
etc...

Just last week a friend of mine who had recently got done overhauling his A/V setup asked me about BR players. I showed him the AVS BR players forum and answered any questions I could. He ended up with a Panasonic BD60 for $200. For him, IR was a must for his home automation. The other being noise. The Panasonic is dead quiet compared to my PS3. For someone looking for BR playback, I still can't wrap my head around why anyone would pass up something like his Panasonic and opt for a PS3. For many years, the mindset was the opposite.

So what was once a strong selling point for the PS3 might no longer be the case. It's definitely worth discussing and seeing it effects on selling points and people's perception of the PS3 in relation to it's biggest feature draw: BR playback.

 

[djskribbles]

My conversation with AzBat goes further back. My point was, there are better alternatives to the aforementioned Magnavox player.

I think by now, most people know you can get players that are at least as good as the PS3 for less money. If you're strictly looking for a BR player, then there's no point in buying a PS3 which is why I think this is not only OT, but were discussing something that most people know already.

The main draw for the PS3 now isn't that it's a good BR player, but it's the fact that it's a BR player that can play games. I know by reading your posts that you greatly prefer the 360 for gaming, but for a lot of people, the PS3 is not only good enough as a gaming machine, but their preferred system. Has the drop in price of standalones slowed down PS3 sales? Quite possibly. But discussing alternatives to the PS3 is a whole different (and pointless) discussion IMO.

 

[2real4tv]

As a gamer, I didn't give two hoots about BR. I have 8 BR films and haven't watched one. And if I was going to watch films, I wouldn't use a games console to watch them on, just like I wouldn't use it to listen to music on. I didn't care about WiFi because my router is 10 feet away. I didn't care about SD card readers because I can just stream pictures from my PC, that and I can't find the PS3 version of Photoshop anywhere. I kinda like online occasionally but it appears Sony decided that, because their online chat was so poor, there was no point giving people a headset... then again, I didn't get a set of HD cables with my TrueHD console, makes you think.

Isn't that a contradictive statement.

As for WiFi it is a necessary feature for me. Example I just brought a house and my son games on the 360 and me on the ps3. I can move my ps3 all around the house as for the 360 not so. Now Iam running a cable about 20ft through my hallway to be online. I've heard their are cheap wireless solutions for the 360 but haven't seen anything cheap.

 

[-tkf-]

I still can't wrap my head around why anyone would pass up something like his Panasonic and opt for a PS3. For many years, the mindset was the opposite.

Wireless would be enough for many on this example and the PS3 still seems to be faster.

 

[AzBat]

Sorry, i guess i got you wrong with this line:


If they only considered it for Blu-Ray it must be because they know it´s one of the best and fastest players out there since there is plenty of standalone alternatives.

Personally I had no idea how good or cheap the PS3 compared to all the current standalones. I just figured they were all pretty much the same technically and only differed slightly with regard to build quality, non-necessary features & branding. So when I initially saw a sub $100 player I could see how somebody who has a 360(like myself) might see that as appealing. Looking into it further I realized it might not be such a good choice, which is why I mentioned I was going to wait for prices to drop even more or buy a 2nd 360 instead.

Tommy McClain

 

[fallguy]

PS3 can also be updated via firmware (already has had big updates), where as others cannot. The PS3 is the best Bluray player out.

 

[RobertR1]

PS3 can also be updated via firmware (already has had big updates), where as others cannot. The PS3 is the best Bluray player out.

Plenty of players have firmware updates for them. The landscape is quite different our there now vs when the PS3 actually was the best option.

 

[RobertR1]

Personally I had no idea how good or cheap the PS3 compared to all the current standalones. I just figured they were all pretty much the same technically and only differed slightly with regard to build quality, non-necessary features & branding. So when I initially saw a sub $100 player I could see how somebody who has a 360(like myself) might see that as appealing. Looking into it further I realized it might not be such a good choice, which is why I mentioned I was going to wait for prices to drop even more or buy a 2nd 360 instead.

Tommy McClain

The Panasonic BD60 I mentioned earlier is a fantastic BR player and can be had for $200. By the holidays it will likely be $150 or lower. It's the way to go for a standalone right now.

 

[patsu]

The PS3 remains the most versatile player because of its absurdly high specs and fully software driven player. At the moment, it is believed to be the only one that can support Blu-ray Mandatory Copy (Future proof !). The other players are said to be incompatible even with firmware updates. In the end, personally, it may work out to be cheaper to own one PS3 that can play games and Blu-ray movies, compared to multiple obsoleted SA players.

In addition, the content developers will always test their work against the PS3 due to its large market share. For complex titles, I reckon the PS3 will continue to offer the best playback experience simply due to more testing done on it. That's why I won't be getting any standalone Blu-ray player any time soon. If Sony lowers the PS3 price and the power consumption, then it will be more worthwhile to more people.

They need to improve the controller UI for Blu-ray player though (Use the motion sensing controller !).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

PS3 can also be updated via firmware (already has had big updates), where as others cannot. The PS3 is the best Bluray player out.

PS3 BRD playback is noisy and lacks three-dimensionality

 

[patsu]

... lacks three-dimensionality

...and 3D Blu-ray is coming, so people said

EDIT: The big difference between Blu-ray and other old storage formats is that Blu-ray is a standardized software stack in addition to the storage scheme. We should see more software breakthrough in the fuiture. Sony just don't know how to pitch PS3. They have failed to articulate the benefits of the system.

 

[manux]

...and 3D Blu-ray is coming, so people said

Blu-ray 3d is aimed for late 2010 if ratification of standard and needed hw(hdmi 1.4) and tv's/projectors come out in time. Pessimistic might say they will slip to 2011.

I wouldn't say ps3 is the best blu-ray player anymore. There are other players being better in some features(i.e. lg loads regular movies faster than ps3 but not java movies). Standalone players might have more complete set of outputs(analog 5.1, 7.1 output). I think it's a matter of need for features deciding which is the best player now. Everyone has to decide it for themselves if they want a blu-ray player and if so then which one. For me the choice is still easy and I'm in market for a second ps3 which is of region A. If the slim ps3 happens this fall I will most certainly bring one back from my trip to states.

PS3 is the only player that has hw power to decode 3d blu-ray movies, other players have too slow/hardcoded decoders. The problem would be displaying the 2 separate images. I read 2 separate images could be transferred as 1080x60p image having two interlaced fields(to get 2*1080*30p images). I wouldn't wage on that happening... It's a kludge at best and needs special sw to tv's displaying image. There were also some talk about smarter tricks to achieve 2 separate images with hdmi1.3a.

I would say there is a slight chance for ps3 displaying 3d movies whereas other current players most certainly will not. This is something I wouldn't be betting on though. In regards to equipment needed for 3d movies I would expect in 2011 to pay a big money for good quality 50" or larger 3d-display(5000$+) and to buy a new player(500$) and new amplifier to take advantage of hdmi 1.4 features(1000$). Blu-ray player price is just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't really matter in the big picture. Current lg 47" 3d display is around 30000$ and is in my opinon too small. One needs considerably bigger screen to conserver immersion for 3d movies than for 2d movies.

edit. One thing I wish for is that they would also specify 100GB discs and yuv-444 while adding 3d to blu-ray spec and mandate support for them for players from 2010 even though manufacturing them is going to be insanely difficult for long time... But the support would be there then once the discs are possible to manufacture in large quantities in future. At that time they could also detail which old players are compatible with 100GB discs, I would expect some of them are... But I think this won't happen, they will most likely create a new blu-ray based format around 2016 and resell stuff to those who are willing to buy.

 

[patsu]

Blu-ray 3d is aimed for late 2010 if ratification of standard and needed hw(hdmi 1.4) and tv's/projectors come out in time. Pessimistic might say they will slip to 2011.

I wouldn't say ps3 is the best blu-ray player anymore. There are other players being better in some features(i.e. lg loads regular movies faster than ps3 but not java movies). Standalone players might have more complete set of outputs(analog 5.1, 7.1 output). I think it's a matter of need for features deciding which is the best player now. Everyone has to decide it for themselves if they want a blu-ray player and if so then which one. For me the choice is still easy and I'm in market for a second ps3 which is of region A. If the slim ps3 happens this fall I will most certainly bring one back from my trip to states.

Are you referring to the LG390 ? The list price is as much as a PS3 though. The latter can still do something better, and it can do more than Blu-ray playback. But you're right, it depends on personal needs and preferences.

PS3 is the only player that has hw power to decode 3d blu-ray movies, other players have too slow/hardcoded decoders. The problem would be displaying the 2 separate images. I read 2 separate images could be transferred as 1080x60p image having two interlaced fields(to get 2*1080*30p images). I wouldn't wage on that happening... It's a kludge at best and needs special sw to tv's displaying image. There were also some talk about smarter tricks to achieve 2 separate images with hdmi1.3a.

I would say there is a slight chance for ps3 displaying 3d movies whereas other current players most certainly will not. This is something I wouldn't be betting on though. In regards to equipment needed for 3d movies I would expect in 2011 to pay a big money for good quality 50" or larger 3d-display(5000$+) and to buy a new player(500$) and new amplifier to take advantage of hdmi 1.4 features(1000$). Blu-ray player price is just the tip of the iceberg and doesn't really matter in the big picture. Current lg 47" 3d display is around 30000$ and is in my opinon too small. One needs considerably bigger screen to conserver immersion for 3d movies than for 2d movies.

edit. One thing I wish for is that they would also specify 100GB discs and yuv-444 while adding 3d to blu-ray spec and mandate support for them for players from 2010 even though manufacturing them is going to be insanely difficult for long time... But the support would be there then once the discs are possible to manufacture in large quantities in future. At that time they could also detail which old players are compatible with 100GB discs, I would expect some of them are... But I think this won't happen, they will most likely create a new blu-ray based format around 2016 and resell stuff to those who are willing to buy.

Cool ! Save me time to look up 3D Blu-ray info.

 

[manux]

Are you referring to the LG390 ? The list price is as much as a PS3 though. The latter can still do something better, and it can do more than Blu-ray playback. But you're right, it depends on personal needs and preferences..

LG370. It's ok:ish and even has .mkv support natively which in some circles is a big thing

 

[specwarGP2]

For someone looking for BR playback, I still can't wrap my head around why anyone would pass up something like his Panasonic and opt for a PS3.

The only thing that's a knock against PS3 is that it's loud. There are workarounds that will give you most or complete IR functionality. PS3 also has robust media support and can playback divx and xvid files. It's also one of the fastest, most responsive, and future proof BD players as well.

 

[manux]

The only thing that's a knock against PS3 is that it's loud. There are workarounds that will give you most or complete IR functionality. PS3 also has robust media support and can playback divx and xvid files. It's also one of the fastest, most responsive, and future proof BD players as well.

Loudness really depends on luck and ambient temperature and the placement of ps3. I have seen(heard) practically silent ps3's. Ps3's will get more silent in future once cooler and cooler chips are put inside it... I agree some people really want/need passively cooled players but there is plenty of people that will be happy with current ps3 level of noise... Just compare to xbox360, if the noise was an issue to everybody not a single xbox360 would have ever been sold.

Edit. I think xbox360 noise is relevant comparison as people use netflix and videoservices for xbox360. Hence same mediaplayer/living room noise standard can be applied to xbo360 as ps3.

 

[JPT]

My PS3 is quite loud in my opinion, but when I had the X360 next to it, I couldn't hear the PS3. But that said my friends X360 and PS3's are much quieter than mine.
Then again, I pick noise before being cold any day ,)

 

[hoho]

I live together with my GF and we already have XB. She spends a ton of money each month for games for XB, we are not getting PS3 mainly because she'll start spending even more then.

It works both ways though, had we got PS3 we wouldn't probably get XB.