A musing on the prices of consoles

[Diamond.G]

I disagree there. I've a friend who turned a PC into a MPC and it's very good and functional, yet looking forwards he's considering whether to go with the PS3 or not. HDD storage isn't an issue as you can connect any storage up. PS3 supports the standards. You can buy yourself a large NAT that PS3 can work with alongside your PC in the study.

PS3 serves all the functions of a media PC except recording - playback of your entire media library from one device, neatly catalogued and presented. Content can be beamed around the house. Quality is fantastic. Also integrates content purchasing online, so you can browse the web, hear internet radio, find a song you like, buy it and add it to your playlist, from one box that sits nicely in the living room. It's cheaper than a PC to do all those jobs. Add a TV tuner/capture peripheral and it'll manage everything, but even without that (which looks set to be the perogative of the cable companies. You have ot have their box anyway so it makes sense for them to integrate the recording with the delivery) it does most things media related. There's been nothing my friend's MPC has done that PS3 can't do, plus PS3 plays better games and is cheaper! I can't see much reason to pick a MPC over a PS3. It's more this market that Sony are gunning for. They need to be sure that anyone looking for a MPC picks a PS3 instead (direct support of iTunes would be a bonus here!)

The PS3 can server media to PC?? I didn't know that. How does one do that?


@quest
So if hd movies isn't important then Sony is back to relying on the videogame aspect of the PS3. It seems to me that most people would just wait for either a really good game to come out. Or a price drop.

 

[archangelmorph]

The problem with that IMO is that most people don't care about HD-movies right now. Most people don't have huge 50+ inch 1080P tvs were it would make a huge difference. Most people have the funky just past 720P 37" pannel from wallmart. On a tv like that most people will not see a big enough difference with hd-movie and upconverted DVDs to pay a premium

This is the fundamental problem with your arguement...

Most people according to who..?

HD uptake has been slow over here in the UK however everytime I go into town and into a comet or currys store you have a good number of people just stood staring through the window at the 40+" HDTVs running SkyHD channels showing nothing interesting other than footage of the countryside, a few flowers and a few birds..

Almost everyone i've spoken to regarding HDTVs have claimed that the visual quality is astounding when playing HD content and I have little evidence to believe that many would not consider jumping into HD as soon as it becomes more affordable (which it continues to do so at al almost violent pace..)

I have a hard time believing that the visual difference between HD content and DVD content is something that only hardcore tech enthusiasts can see because the difference is so fundamentally obvious to anyone who has a clear view..

I think alot of it also is in the phychological side where I'm pretty sure that if you tell your average Joe blogs he's looking at the next generation of digital content viewed on a crystal clear 720p high-definition television, he'll probably see the difference regardless of whether he understands what he is seeing or not.. I remember a few years ago I visited a friend who'd just bought a huge rear projection display and we sat down to play street fighter EX 3 on it (PS2)... I remember being astounded at how good the game looked and how amazing I thought the TV was.. I Remember going home and turning on my 20" only to realise that the picture quality on my TV was actually much better and alot of the "wow" factor I had for my friend's display was pretty much all in my head..

 

[-tkf-]

Do you think that Sony has gotten the cost of the system down far enough for any of the "Cable" providers to bite? It seemed as though those providers would be buying the hardware and providing it for the customers.

Nope

So you feel that positioning the PS3 as the best bluray player for the price in the market is a bad idea?

No i don´t think i said so either.

 

[-tkf-]

The problem with that IMO is that most people don't care about HD-movies right now. Most people don't have huge 50+ inch 1080P tvs were it would make a huge difference. Most people have the funky just past 720P 37" pannel from wallmart. On a tv like that most people will not see a big enough difference with hd-movie and upconverted DVDs to pay a premium. In my case I think up converted DVDs look just fine on my 720p 42 inch TV. I see no need to pay a premium for HD-movies right now. In the future when HD-movies drop in price and stand alone players get to a reasonable level 249 or less then I will take the plunge.

Lets be honest half the reason people buy HD-TVs is simply for the form factor. They want thin TVs they can mount on a wall or a tv that looks much nice in the living room compared to the old CRTs.

720p, 37 Inch TV, unless it sucks it should be able to display a very good HiDef picture, including a better picture than a upconverted soft DVD.

I´m not gonna spend another dime on DVD movies (if i can avoid it.. cue Twin Peaks Season 2 ) in 3 years the movies on my shelf will have set me back more money than my PS3, PJ and other hardware i may purchase. I would be stupid if i invested in SD material when i could get HD

 

[Diamond.G]

Nope



No i don´t think i said so either.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you did. I guess I was misunderstanding you. I really want every one to succeed. Sony offers the whole kitchen, MS provides most of the kitchen with the other parts as add-ons. Dunno, how to explain Nintendo though .

I will be picking up a PS3 after I finish smarting from buy two Macbooks. Hopefully by then either the 80 gig version will be out, or there would be a price drop...

 

[Sis]

Well if i buy a rechargeable kit for another console i at some point have to buy new batteries for that as well... ehmm what is your point?

I've made the point several times. Renewables shouldn't be counted in the cost of the system.

I was pointing out that you don´t need to buy a NEW sixaxis controller when the battery is dead but you can just replace the battery.

Then your point was orthogonal to the discussion.

 

[oli2]

HD uptake has been slow over here in the UK however everytime I go into town and into a comet or currys store you have a good number of people just stood staring through the window at the 40+" HDTVs running SkyHD channels showing nothing interesting other than footage of the countryside, a few flowers and a few birds..

Yeah ... I don't know how things happens in UK, but when the people ask what is the film, the vendor inform them this was digitally filmed and encoded (on purpose) and that there is no way their futures films (from cinema) look as good. Secondelly, they have just bellow dizains of LCDs showing HDDVD ans BR films which all look ugly and noised.

Almost everyone i've spoken to regarding HDTVs have claimed that the visual quality is astounding when playing HD content and I have little evidence to believe that many would not consider jumping into HD as soon as it becomes more affordable (which it continues to do so at al almost violent pace..)

Almost everyone i've spoken to regarding HDTVs have claimed that they see no difference between DVD and HD. So ?

I have a hard time believing that the visual difference between HD content and DVD content is something that only hardcore tech enthusiasts can see because the difference is so fundamentally obvious to anyone who has a clear view..

On digitally filmed videos you are right, but come back to earth and look how HDDVD and BR films ACTUALLY look like. IMO, on little displays, the differences are little.

 

[standing ovation]

I remember being astounded at how good the game looked and how amazing I thought the TV was.. I Remember going home and turning on my 20" only to realise that the picture quality on my TV was actually much better and alot of the "wow" factor I had for my friend's display was pretty much all in my head..

Exactly! I think visual quality is proportional to screen resolution and inversely proportional to its size. So to get the best picture you will need the smallest screen with the highest resolution, like an iPod at 1080p. :smile2:

 

[Shifty Geezer]

My first experience of HD was on a 24" LCD. It was a film clip, and we had the DVD to compare to. The difference was pretty much imperceptible. It was there if you looked for it, but it didn't scream out super-dooper clarity. HD needs big sets.

 

[LunchBox]

man...

looking at the total made me realize how much i've spent this gen

 

[archangelmorph]

My first experience of HD was on a 24" LCD. It was a film clip, and we had the DVD to compare to. The difference was pretty much imperceptible. It was there if you looked for it, but it didn't scream out super-dooper clarity. HD needs big sets.

I agree..

I'm pretty sure if you watched the same clip on a 42" HD set you'd set the difference..

The biggest selling point for HDTVs nowadays is value IMO..

2 yrs ago if I wanted to get a new TV set i'd be looking at upwards of a grand to get a 32" CRT SD TV..

Now if i'm looking for a new set I can get a 40+" HDTV for roughly the same price.. AND this set supports HDMI, Scart, VGA and a plethora of other inputs/outputs..

So your paying the same, getting much larger screen size, higher quality picture and overall it takes up ALOT less room in your house.. Heck you could even mount the bugger on your wall to take up no room at all!!

So the biggest thing to consider is that the general consumer's decision (at least in the UK where most people still have 2-4 yr old CRTs sittingin there living room) will probably not only be driven by the difference in picture quality but in a much larger number of factors..

And if your upgrading because your previous set went kapputt, why not upgrade to HD?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's worth adding that I haven't seen HD games yet, which shoul look far, far better. When you haven't got 'infinite AA' like real life, the better resolution should make an enormous difference - as every HD gamer is pretty much testament! But if these consoles came with huge SSAA, SD and HD wouldn't make a great deal of difference IMO. Something we kinda hoped from Nintendo when they said they weren't targetting HD

 

[archangelmorph]

It's worth adding that I haven't seen HD games yet, which shoul look far, far better. When you haven't got 'infinite AA' like real life, the better resolution should make an enormous difference - as every HD gamer is pretty much testament! But if these consoles came with huge SSAA, SD and HD wouldn't make a great deal of difference IMO. Something we kinda hoped from Nintendo when they said they weren't targetting HD

You haven't?

Aw Shifty!! You're truely missing out man!!

I'm looking forward to Gears when I pick up my 360 this month but I recently had the pleasure of enjoying a couple of sessions on Lost Planet and Motorstorm on the huge HDTV in one of the meeting rooms here at work and the visual quality is just so damn undescribable..

I couldn't imagine trying to play these games now on an SDTV..

That's why i'll be playing my 360 games in HD through VGA on my 19" monitor at least until i can afford a good HDTV set..

 

[Gubbi]

It's worth adding that I haven't seen HD games yet, which shoul look far, far better. When you haven't got 'infinite AA' like real life, the better resolution should make an enormous difference - as every HD gamer is pretty much testament! But if these consoles came with huge SSAA, SD and HD wouldn't make a great deal of difference IMO.

It depends on the viewing distance, no ?

Human vision can resolve to approximately one arc-minute in the fovea.

The watershed viewing distance is then related to the size of the TV by (for a 16x9 TV):
r= d * 16/sqrt(16*16*+9*9)/res_x / tan(1/60)

Where d is the length of the diagonal, res_x is horizontal resolution (assuming this is the lowest) and r is the viewing distance, thus for a
1. 32" SDTV (854x480) you'd have to sit closer than 2.85 meters to the screen to benefit directly from higher res
2. 42" SDTV (854x480) you'd have to sit closer than 3.74 meters to the screen to benefit directly from higher res

And for HDTVs:
3. 42" HDTV (1280x720): 2.49 meters
4. 50" HDTV (1280x720): 2.97 meters
5. 42" HDTV (1920x1080): 1.66 meters
6. 50" HDTV (1920x1080): 1.98 meters

Note: You'll still benefit from higher res in games because of the reduced aliasing.

So Shifty, if you sit a normal distance from your telly, discerning a HD from a good SD signal can indeed be hard.

Cheers

 

[archangelmorph]

It depends on the viewing distance, no ?

Human vision can resolve to approximately one arc-minute in the fovea.

The watershed viewing distance is then related to the size of the TV by (for a 16x9 TV):
r= d * 16/sqrt(16*16*+9*9)/res_x / tan(1/60)

Where d is the length of the diagonal, res_x is horizontal resolution (assuming this is the lowest) and r is the viewing distance, thus for a
1. 32" SDTV (854x480) you'd have to sit closer than 2.85 meters to the screen to benefit directly from higher res
2. 42" SDTV (854x480) you'd have to sit closer than 3.74 meters to the screen to benefit directly from higher res

And for HDTVs:
3. 42" HDTV (1280x720): 2.49 meters
4. 50" HDTV (1280x720): 2.97 meters
5. 42" HDTV (1920x1080): 1.66 meters
6. 50" HDTV (1920x1080): 1.98 meters

Note: You'll still benefit from higher res in games because of the reduced aliasing.

So Shifty, if you sit a normal distance from your telly, discerning a HD from a good SD signal can indeed be hard.

Cheers

What so you consider a "normal" viewing distance to be greater than 2-3 meters away from the set??



Geeez how big is your living room man!!

 

[Gubbi]

What so you consider a "normal" viewing distance to be greater than 2-3 meters away from the set??



Geeez how big is your living room man!!

Erh, 4.5x7 meters. I sit 3.5 - 4 meters from my TV.

Cheers