Arstechnica Reviews the PS3

I am yet to play a file from the PS3 XMB in surround, is it actually possible?

 

yes, it works fine. It should output ac3, aac, etc but compatibility might depend on the container of the file.

The main issue I have with the ps3 video player is that the scaling isn't as good as the Sigma players I've used. It isn't bad but it could be better.

With 720p movies I would recommend changing the display resolution of the ps3 from 1080p to 720p (assuming a 1080p tv) so it's not upscaling to get the best picture. Upscaled lower res movies look worse than they do on a sigma based player (such as Popcorn Hour) and the ps3 sometimes crops a bit of the picture when it shouldn't, but it's otherwise pretty good. Fastforward/skipping is smoother than the 360, and much better than barely functional ff/rw/skip on sigma players so there's no perfect non htpc out there yet.

One of the major outstanding issues for people who watch foreign movies is that subtitles aren't supported in mkv converted to vob like they are in divx (xvid) files, and hard subbing is required (encoding it onto the video)

 

I use my PS3 to playback DIVX/XVID content all the time. Out of several hundred DVDs, so far I've had only one the PS3 couldn't read (first season of Chappelle's Show).

 

Cover your valuables!

I concur, I believe a re-review is helpful for future purchasers - and should reflect on the current situation. A website that's out of date and has changed its mind, should have the right to re-evaluate.

 

It's just like any continuous review process, every computer magazine survives on re-reviewing software and hardware. Whether it's only a tiny incremental update or a whole new revision. The continual firmware updates on the PS3 have made the console I have today very different from the one I bought 19 months ago. Even just from a BD player perspective.

 

Even if they were going to do a re-review of PlayStation 3, you'd have to admit that their timing is suspect. I mean, why now? Isn't the best time to provide a year's review near the end of the year?

Besides, barring a significant change (like a Slimline PS3), a hardware "re-review" is not the way to do it. It undermines your credibility. And this is precisely what Ars Technica ended up doing when they opined a very different opinion of the PlayStation 3 based on a pinch of Bluray and firmware evolution.

When it was originally published, the second assessment gave PS3 a 9 out of 10 (the original scored it a 6).

"…it's clear that PS3 will become an even greater machine in the future. Ars Technica's re-review of PS3 gives it a score far more befitting of it -- a 9/10. Who knows? In 19 more months, it may finally become a 10." – PS3 Fanboy​

Since then the article has been *ehum* edited. It is no longer a hardware review as much as it is an aggregation of information. And this is what it should have been all along.

 

Perhaps instead of looking for an ulterior motive you should look at the fact that Sony has made *tremendous* strides with recent firmware updates. It really is like a whole different system. I bought my 80GB model on Dec. 1st last year, and even in just the 7 months I've had it my PS3 has changed so much! I can now playback more varied types of media files, the PSN store's interface has been vastly improved, F@H has seen several improvements in the areas of graphics, sound (can now play songs from your media library while folding), performance, and stability. Even the XMB looks better. Let alone all the user-transparent improvements such as reduction in the OS's memory footprint (which allows game developers to extract more performance and/or improve graphics/sound/physics/AI/etc).

 

I'm far from the most observant type when it comes to graphically detail, but I thought its looked the same since day 1? At least, to my eye. What visual improvements have you noted for the XMB? Not trying to debate it, just curious.

 

A review just i time for the XMAS would have been perfect PR for Sony at least, what ars gains from this other than having updated articles/reviews on their website is beyond me.
.
And why not be positive about Blu-Ray, it´s the only HiDef standard still standing, it delivers and the best part is that the PS3 went from being the best Blu-Ray player to still being the best with just a "pinch" of firmware. Afaik Ars was a HD-DVD backer (i still hate them for that) i was a little surprise to see them being this positive about the machine that killed HD-DVD.

 

Themes would be a good start

 

Ah! That occurred to me, but I thought he might be referring to something entirely different. Perhaps some subtle changes to the icons, increased responsiveness, or something like that.

 

The standard icons did get more "funky" a while back I think, but like everyone else now I use themes so wouldn't swear to it.

 

What do Sony's financials have to do with the topic? Has the user experience on the PS3 changed since launch? The answer is obviously yes.

 

Why? Reviews don't come down from the almighty, carved in stone. If a product changes significantly, why shouldn't its evaluation?

But that's the thing: it's a significantly improved product. What a buyer got in late 2006 is very different from what a buyer gets in the middle of 2008. Hell, I got my PS3 in october last year and already there have been significant changes. You seem to forget the real purpose of reviews: they're to help consumers make educated decisions as what to buy. They're not to make you feel good (or bad) about products you have already bought.

In fact, I'd like it if more outlets did this: reevaluated long-lived products, if they have been significantly improved, as Shifty mentioned Eurogamer does for MMOs.

As for timing: with apparently trustworthy sources claiming that in-game XMB is coming very very soon, you could argue that if they had waited until the end of the month they'd have given the PS3 an even better evaluation. They didn't, and so the PS3 loses to the 360 in 'online capability'. (It might still lose with in-game XMB, naturally.)

 

I don't think a re-review is wrong. As it's been said I think it's good from the point of view of a consumer, the package, or rather the functionality has changed.

It's not really different, imo at least, from a student submitting a draft of a paper (i say draft because it's been know for a long time the PS3 could be updated to improve functionality) having it graded, and then handing in a more up-to-date or final paper and expecting it to get re-graded.

 

When I was on an exchange with the University of Stockholm, I admired that you always had to rewrite your paper, regardless of what grade you got, making it better whether you already had an A or a D.

 

Let's face it: a subscription model is nice, but in all likelihood an advertising model is what pays the bills. This reality makes advertisers your primary clients, not readers. Now if your business depends on products endorsed by advertisers and you review a multi-billion dollar flagship unfavorably ... well, you do the math.

"It used to be game companies would pull advertising if they wanted to punish a magazine for unfavorable coverage. In more recent times, they're pulling the coverage as well. It's an interesting setup: Don't let us see the games, and we can't write anything bad about them. But don't let us see the games, and we can't write anything good about them, either.

What do we do now? Nothing. We won't treat these products or companies any differently, and we'll just cover them to the best of our own abilities, with or without their support. Because, after all, we're writing for you, the reader -- not them." - Dan "Shoe" Hsu​

Fast forward a couple of months and we find this former EGM Editor-in-Chief jobless.

I suspect Ars Technica may have been in a similar predicament, given their out of the blue "re-review" of PlayStation 3 hardware.

 

I don't quite understand how that works for Ars, standing ovation? You think they have been pushed into 'fixing' their six review??

 

I used it to drive home my point. Even from a financial perspective, PlayStation 3 hardware has not changed enough to warrant another hardware review, particularly one written for the audience at large.

You're right. The PS3 experience has changed. THAT is inarguable. But what is happening is that software is beginning to add value. And what I'm saying is that you do not go back and expunge your first impression of the hardware just because the software is getting better. PS3 hardware got a mediocre review because it wasn't being utilized anywhere near its full potential -- a point that, arguably, hasn't changed much today.

 

Always the conspiracy for some people

Why is it so hard to believe they just thought it would be fair to review it again as there has been a quite astonishing improvement since launch.

I'm sure if the 360 wasn't pretty much feature complete when it was launched they would've done the same there too