*Circus of Value* Spin-off

[djskribbles]

I think a lot of difference comes from flat-panels as well. DVD on LCD tends to look rubbish with compression artefacts, but DVD on CRT looks great. So from DVD on LCD to BRD on LCD, there's a far more noticeable improvement than from CRT DVD to LCD BRD.

depends on the LCD, which player you have, the movie, and how well your TV is calibrated.

playing DVD's on my PS3 with my calibrated LN46A650 Samsung LCD, they look pretty damn good. but i agree... generally DVD's don't look great on LCD's.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Chalk me up as somebody who just doesn't care about BR. I have a collection of DVDs that I never watch, and if I want HD content, I get it On Demand or on HD channels or Live! Rentals.

So those 720p and 1080i HD movies aren't as good as the 1080p BR? Don't care. They look just fine on my 48 inch DLP, a definite improvement over DVD and that's good enough for me.

There's simply no motivation for me to buy a piece of hardware that will necessitate the re-purchasing of my movie collection, or purchasing/renting physical media in the future rather than streaming digital content.

Then again, I don't rent DVDs any more and the only time I buy them is if they're on sale in the bargain bin. $6 is about the upper limit I'm going to spend on a DVD these days. I'll spend the extra money to "rent" HD digital streams instead of SD digital streams. But buying a new player and a new catalog of movies?

No thanks.

And this is coming from somebody who loves HD and constantly pays extra to subscribe to HD channels.

I think the segment of the market that cares about BR is very, very small. Because it's not even a segment of the population. It's a segment of the segment of the population that even cares about HD to begin with.

 

[joker454]

I still think the PS3 is the best value even now.

If you want an HD movie player, then it's clearly the value of the decade. If you want to play particular exclusive games, then you will have probably already made your choice on console irregardless of what others say.

However, if you just want to play games, then the PS3 is impossible to recommend. How can I in good conscience recommend to friends, family or whomever, that they spend twice as much on a console to play games that almost always look and run worse (multi-platform games)? Yes, the occasional blind and/or 'on the payroll' reviewer will try to imply otherwise, but the reality is that multi platform parity is still uncommon. Likewise, while exclusive games like Uncharted on this forum represent The Pinnacle Of Rendering Performance Of All Time (tm), to typical gamers there are other games out there that look just as good.

This matters because the average gamer does not ignore all games and patiently wait for years for Killzone 2 or Resistance 2, biding their time by talking about screen shots and tech on forums. Attach numbers show they actually buy 7+ games a year. That attach number ensures that the average gamer will be playing worse versions of games if they have PS3.

How can I possibly recommend that to someone? When a cousin asked me long time ago what stand alone hd movie player to get, either hddvd or blu-ray, I told him none, get a PS3 (which he did). When my brother in law recently asked me what games machine to get, I told him get a 360. Unlike the forum folk here, where a game instantly loses 82% street cred once it's found out to be also available on 360, my brother in law could care less about brand loyalty and exclusives. He wants to play games, simple as that. $400 to play worse versions, or $200 to play better versions. Easy choice.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's certainly how I see it. My brother bought an XB360 despite pressure from work to get a PS3. But it's the better choice for him, price wise and regards the games he'll play. XB360 is the better games machine when it comes to cross-platform titles (90% of the games). The only reasons to recommend a PS3 over an XB360, especially at the current prices, are :

1) Library, which is very subjective
2) HD media, where it's a no brainer
3) Possible ancillary functions like being a part of the PS community if all your mates have PS3's. Ignoring LBP, I would hate to be on an XB360 when my friends were all playing on PS3, or vice versa.

If someone is looking to play FIFA, some-online-shooter-or-other, a racing game, and get something for the kids, the economy of XB360, plus the fact it plays games better on average, makes it a very strong offering.

 

[Arwin]

However, if you just want to play games, then the PS3 is impossible to recommend. How can I in good conscience recommend to friends, family or whomever, that they spend twice as much on a console to play games that almost always look and run worse (multi-platform games)? Yes, the occasional blind and/or 'on the payroll' reviewer will try to imply otherwise, but the reality is that multi platform parity is still uncommon. Likewise, while exclusive games like Uncharted on this forum represent The Pinnacle Of Rendering Performance Of All Time (tm), to typical gamers there are other games out there that look just as good.

That's assuming they will play offline games only, to start with, no wifi, etc. Otherwise, you'll have some very expensive cross-game invites and chat functionality in your 360, and/or you'll have to assume they use the 360 3 years or less (I'm assuming one year free - personally, I've spent 300 euros on Live fees alone by now since I bought the original Xbox, and in hindsight by far the most of those months I definitely wasn't using Live enough to justify it).

He wants to play games, simple as that. $400 to play worse versions, or $200 to play better versions. Easy choice.

Note that there typically hasn't been a lot of analysis of games running on the Arcade done, in terms of load-times etc. Also, noise shouldn't be a factor, and again, he'll not want to play online games or use wifi. But once all that's factored in, sure, as I've said before, there will be a fair number of people, especially in the U.S. (the E.U. doesn't have a lot of stuff like netflix of the video download features, and Live is comparatively more expensive I think too), for whom the 360 is a better option. It's still not a no-brainer to me which one to choose because the 360 has a lot of hidden costs, but for many people it will be a much simpler choice and I respect that strongly. This is also why I would want Sony to go to 299, because that would help make that machine more of a no-brainer to most people again.

 

[obonicus]

How can I possibly recommend that to someone? When a cousin asked me long time ago what stand alone hd movie player to get, either hddvd or blu-ray, I told him none, get a PS3 (which he did). When my brother in law recently asked me what games machine to get, I told him get a 360. Unlike the forum folk here, where a game instantly loses 82% street cred once it's found out to be also available on 360, my brother in law could care less about brand loyalty and exclusives. He wants to play games, simple as that. $400 to play worse versions, or $200 to play better versions. Easy choice.

Nice stealthy way to call everyone a Sony fanboy. What you already know, though, is that the average consumer (who you ostensibly are speaking for) doesn't care about the picture quality differences. From your viewpoint, yeah, you can't suggest one over the other, but to the average consumer? To them, GTA4 looks better on the PS3 because orange is a more cinematic color. Side by side they'll spot a difference, but no one beside gaffers and people here will even do that.

 

[patsu]

However, if you just want to play games, then the PS3 is impossible to recommend. How can I in good conscience recommend to friends, family or whomever, that they spend twice as much on a console to play games that almost always look and run worse (multi-platform games)?

It actually depends on what games they like. Friends asked me gaming questions frequently.

* I recommended Wii if they are casual and wants to play with family. They are happy. Actually, most come to me asking whether Wii is a good choice.

* I let them choose between PS3 and 360 with full disclosure. e.g., More games on 360. Cross platform games look slightly better on 360. Need subscription for online gaming and peripherals are more expensive. PS3 has a built-in Blu-ray player but is $399 (vs $199-$299).

Some asked me what I have. Told them I have a PS3 because I like the exclusive first party game library better.

In the end, 1 bought 360, 2 bought PS3 (1 of them switched to Wii because wife was concerned that their kid will spend too much time gaming), the rest went for Wii Truth to be told, most of these people can't tell the differences between 360 and PS3 graphics (or the differences are not deal breaking to them, as they don't mind Wii).

 

[Cheezdoodles]

To them, GTA4 looks better on the PS3 because orange is a more cinematic color. Side by side they'll spot a difference, but no one beside gaffers and people here will even do that.

BS. You have no evidence what so ever suggesting this.


Just because reviewers claimed that GTA4 on the PS3 looked better doesn't mean that the average person would think the PS3 is better graphically.

In fact many of my friends that are casual gamers, have commented on that the PS3 version in my house looks less sharp than their X360 version. Just like they notice that that Fifa 08 was much better on the X360.

This is just anecdotal evidence of course, but i dont believe for a second that "casual" player aren't able to spot differences. They might not care about the differences but they definately are able to see them. They are not retarded or blind.

 

[patsu]

This is just anecdotal evidence of course, but i dont believe for a second that "casual" player aren't able to spot differences. They might not care about the differences but they definately are able to see them. They are not retarded or blind.

It depends on their TV. And also whether they have a reference to compare to.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

It depends on their TV. And also whether they have a reference to compare to.

(i have the best TV by far)

Of course they have to have a reference to be able to compare them, so do we!!!
But if they do they are able to spot differences just like we do, they might not know what antialiasing is, but they certainly see that one picture looks "smoother" or not.

Saying that they dont is ridiculous, we do not have better eyes then they do. They see differences just like we do.

They notice different framerates (Fifa 08 X360 vs PS3) etc etc.

I dont really have any geeky friends, yet all of them are able to spot differences if they look for it. Hell, a friend of me that does not own a x360 nor ps3 even manages to spot differences cross platform.

Saying that casuals cannot spot the differences is arrogant, i think a better statement is that they might not care about the differences between PS3\X360 graphically. They definately manage to see them if they bother to look.

 

[patsu]

Saying that casuals cannot spot the differences is arrogant, i think a better statement is that they might not care about the differences between PS3\X360 graphically. They definately manage to see them if they bother to look.

I understand what you're saying. I think there are differences that they can see, and problems that they can't see. But I agree that in most cases, they don't care as much as the people here, especially when there is no reference to compare to once they bought a system. I showed them a few PS3 games, they all said the games look great/good enough (They wanted to find out how "bad" the cross-platform games look).

They also wanted to know more about number of games, the types of games, how much, etc.

In the context of recommending buy, I have a case where the parents prefer to keep gaming to a SD TV in the kids' room. In those cases, the graphics (and Blu-ray) are not going to matter much.

 

[obonicus]

Just because reviewers claimed that GTA4 on the PS3 looked better doesn't mean that the average person would think the PS3 is better graphically.

I'm saying the average person can't identify the difference. Reviewers are the average person for the most part. Just read the reviews; one or two did say that the 360 looked sharper, but many saw the fuzziness and still thought it was a better effect, they even said the PS3 version had better AA (despite a ridiculous amount of jaggies)! At the same time, you had people seeing the 360's texturing bug and boiling shadows and guessing that it was an artistic effect! Now, if you want to buy into joker's 'on the take' conspiracy theory that'd explain it, but I think it's saner to use Occam's Razor and just come to the conclusion that reviewers (like your average gamer) just can't identify the differences, even if they can see them. (Just consider that most places gave the game a 10 for graphics and a very very small number of people were going 'why is this a 10 exactly?')

Many just echoed what Dan Houser said! Maybe it was a placebo effect, but that's the point, isn't it? Fueled by hype people will see stuff that's not there, or refuse to see things that are.

The essence of it is that people don't know what the hell they're looking at. At the same time the average moron (not the average player, mind you) also looked at parity games like Burnout Paradise or CoD4 and were finding differences that weren't even there.

This is just anecdotal evidence of course, but i dont believe for a second that "casual" player aren't able to spot differences. They might not care about the differences but they definately are able to see them. They are not retarded or blind.

I agree, I think they can see them, but they can't really tell what they are. Is it upscaled graphics or some fancy blur filter? Is orange light or is it a more advanced lighting engine? Is it a texturing bug or is it an attempt to emulate pointilism? And in the end they don't care. It's not the deciding factor unless the differences are terribly pronounced. Hell, people have a hard time pinpointing FPS trouble unless it's extremely pronounced, and that's a lot more obvious.

I'm sorry to use GTA4 so much for an example, I just think the whole set of phenomena involving its launch made clear a ton of stuff that was just implied before.

 

[Vic]

If the PS3 had launched with a standard DVD like the 360 and the Wii, they'd still have lost money due to the investment in Cell, but they'd have been able to launch sooner and the 360 would have lost a number of its 'exclusives'.

I don't really see what point is being argued here. Sony banked everything on the fact that their tech would be superior. BR and Cell. To date, we've seen nothing to demonstrate that the Sony console with BR and Cell are more powerful than the MS console with DVD and PowerPC tech.
Investments only work if you get a return. And the only way to get a return is to demonstrate worth. The PS3 has failed to do that.

I agree, that without BR the PS3 would be selling even worse, and would probably be completely out of the game at this point. BR is what is giving the PS3 legs (not in gaming necessarily). But it's also what is holding their price at a point that only a small percentage of the gamer population can afford.

Was Blu-ray put in the PS3 to make the PS3 more powerful? How do you know how much money Sony has made from Blu-ray films at this point?

How is $400 or £300 more than most gamers can afford? I can understand how people complain about the price of the PS3 relative to the competition, but people are going on like it costs a king ransom.

 

[PARANOiA]

However, if you just want to play games, then the PS3 is impossible to recommend. How can I in good conscience recommend to friends, family or whomever, that they spend twice as much on a console to play games that almost always look and run worse (multi-platform games)? Yes, the occasional blind and/or 'on the payroll' reviewer will try to imply otherwise, but the reality is that multi platform parity is still uncommon. Likewise, while exclusive games like Uncharted on this forum represent The Pinnacle Of Rendering Performance Of All Time (tm), to typical gamers there are other games out there that look just as good.

This matters because the average gamer does not ignore all games and patiently wait for years for Killzone 2 or Resistance 2, biding their time by talking about screen shots and tech on forums. Attach numbers show they actually buy 7+ games a year. That attach number ensures that the average gamer will be playing worse versions of games if they have PS3.

How can I possibly recommend that to someone? When a cousin asked me long time ago what stand alone hd movie player to get, either hddvd or blu-ray, I told him none, get a PS3 (which he did). When my brother in law recently asked me what games machine to get, I told him get a 360. Unlike the forum folk here, where a game instantly loses 82% street cred once it's found out to be also available on 360, my brother in law could care less about brand loyalty and exclusives. He wants to play games, simple as that. $400 to play worse versions, or $200 to play better versions. Easy choice.

I concur. Of my group of friends at work, I'm the only one with a 360. Two of the guys have PS3's, and one has a Wii. When we talk about games, it's funny, because the PS3 guys all bought when it was priced at the launch window ($1000AUD!)... and the only games they've bought since they've worked with me (12 months) were Guitar Hero 3, Assassin's Creed and GTA4. When I asked if they played any of the games people on B3D ogle over regularly (Uncharted, R+C, Resistance) no one was really interested - it's all 3rd party stuff.

When I asked why they bought a PS3 - more than twice the price over here - they both said "why wouldn't you buy a Playstation?" When I said pretty much all the games they liked looked better on 360, and the actual games are much cheaper over here, too, ignoring the actual console price, they looked at me like I was crazy.

But when people in general ask what games machine they should get, I ask what they want. If they say they want to play anything Wii related, that's easy. If they say anything exclusive (eg. "I want to play Ratchet" or "Halo is the best") that's easy too. When they list 3rd party games, which is 90% of the time, that's a total no-brainer for me, though... 360 versions look better, and is far better value. The easy way to put it is, if they buy a PS3 and Guitar Hero, for example, they could have had a 360, Guitar Hero, and five other brand new games for the same price. Or a dozen other cheaper titles from the huge back catalogue.

I appreciate some of you out there appreciate the non-gaming side of the PS3 (BR, out of the box wifi for your home network if you have that set up, upgrading your HDD by yourself, installing Linux, etc) as part of the value prop. What I think a big part of B3D misses though is that most of the market (of those I've spoken to) doesn't value most of that - all this "added value" case that's put forward simply becomes baggage that has to justify the massive price difference. That gap is the decider between "want it but can't afford it" and "nice to have but I'd rather the cash in my pocket."

 

[patsu]

I appreciate some of you out there appreciate the non-gaming side of the PS3 (BR, out of the box wifi for your home network if you have that set up, upgrading your HDD by yourself, installing Linux, etc) as part of the value prop. What I think a big part of B3D misses though is that most of the market (of those I've spoken to) doesn't value most of that - all this "added value" case that's put forward simply becomes baggage that has to justify the massive price difference. That gap is the decider between "want it but can't afford it" and "nice to have but I'd rather the cash in my pocket."

This is very true and is the main reason why 360 is gaining more traction than PS3 in sales. However it is also true that some of these extras (e.g., Blu-ray, wireless), together with first party games are why PS3 can still differentiate itself. Even if Sony stripped PS3 to its core initially, MS can always throw more money than Sony in a price war or price bidding. The impetus is on Sony to innovate. I think they are on the right path. People are just not familiar with the strategy in the console market.

the only games they've bought since they've worked with me (12 months) were Guitar Hero 3, Assassin's Creed and GTA4. When I asked if they played any of the games people on B3D ogle over regularly (Uncharted, R+C, Resistance) no one was really interested - it's all 3rd party stuff.

The PS3 launch games are new to PS2 folks and not promoted heavily. In the first year, they were still fighting the negative PR. I expect Sony first parties to do better and better over time. However it is a long road and I expect ups and downs due to execution issues (e.g, all games cramped into fall 2008). Also, how come no MGS4 ? Your friends are missing out a lot.

 

[betan]

Poor ports from big studios or small ones? I seem to recall joker mentioning the leverage that a publisher like EA has.

Nah. EA' port quality has been way above avarage save for last year's sports titles.
The latest embarrassing example joker was so kind to point out was Fracture from Day 1 Studios (published by Lucas Arts).

Besides, if you isolate away big publishers (EA, Activision, Take 2, Ubisoft), I don't think much is left to matter.

 

[assen]

Ok, sorry for straying away from the console pricing theme. I was just venting my frustration with the blatant, boneheaded, by-default Sony fanboism of the average European consumer (OK, correction, the people around me). I recently had the following conversation with an longtime friend of mine, advanced computer user, works in film/CG, he used to play games on his PC when we were both in school, now doesn't:

Me: (raving on and on about Guitar Hero) You should come to my place to see it, I'm getting an Xbox 360 next week.
He: What's an Xbox 360?
Me: A game console.
He: *blank stare*
Me: You know, like Playstation...
He: Oh. Why don't you just get a Playstation?
Me: (taking a deep breath) This one is cheaper, and plays most of the same games, and slightly better at that.
He: (deep disbelief) But I read that the PS3 is very powerful.

 

[eastmen]

It actually depends on what games they like. Friends asked me gaming questions frequently.

* I recommended Wii if they are casual and wants to play with family. They are happy. Actually, most come to me asking whether Wii is a good choice.

* I let them choose between PS3 and 360 with full disclosure. e.g., More games on 360. Cross platform games look slightly better on 360. Need subscription for online gaming and peripherals are more expensive. PS3 has a built-in Blu-ray player but is $399 (vs $199-$299).

Some asked me what I have. Told them I have a PS3 because I like the exclusive first party game library better.

In the end, 1 bought 360, 2 bought PS3 (1 of them switched to Wii because wife was concerned that their kid will spend too much time gaming), the rest went for Wii Truth to be told, most of these people can't tell the differences between 360 and PS3 graphics (or the differences are not deal breaking to them, as they don't mind Wii).

Have you let them know that at retail and sometimes online that bluray movies are normaly twice as expensive as standard dvds. Also that with the price diffrence between one bluray title and the dvd version you can buy 2-3 months of live ?

I was at bestbuy yesterday and they wanted $30 for can't hardly wait. On dvd they want $10. That extra $20 bucks can buy you 6 months of live.

 

[patsu]

Have you let them know that at retail and sometimes online that bluray movies are normaly twice as expensive as standard dvds. Also that with the price diffrence between one bluray title and the dvd version you can buy 2-3 months of live ?

Blu-ray seldom comes up as a topic (It's not part of their decision making). If it does, it usually means that they are already relatively well versed in the HDM war chronicles. e.g., The guy who switched to Wii bought a 60" HD TV and naturally wanted a HD movie player. He ended up getting a standalone player and Wii. The other guy bought it for "future proof" and got some free Blu-ray movies anyway.

I was at bestbuy yesterday and they wanted $30 for can't hardly wait. On dvd they want $10. That extra $20 bucks can buy you 6 months of live.

Check the latest Blu-ray pricing. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Both Warner and Sony Pictures have begun to lower their price. I believe Fox also reduced the price of old Blu-ray titles. The studios are starting to experiment with new movie price too. e.g., Ironman BD is only a couple of dollars more than the DVD version.

Most Blu-ray consumers buy only when there's a promo (e.g., buy 2 get 1 free) or from Amazon (high $10 to low-mid $20). Some of them come with free portable version too. In essence, the price premium is justified via additional content and better quality.

 

[eastmen]

Blu-ray seldom comes up as a topic (It's not part of their decision making). If it does, it usually means that they are already relatively well versed in the HDM war chronicles. e.g., The guy who switched to Wii bought a 60" HD TV and naturally wanted a HD movie player. He ended up getting a standalone player and Wii. The other guy bought it for "future proof" and got some free Blu-ray movies anyway.

you listed it as a part of the ps3 benfits and put live as a negative .

Check the latest Blu-ray pricing. I think you'd be pleasantly surprised. Both Warner and Sony Pictures have begun to lower their price. I believe Fox also reduced the price of old Blu-ray titles. The studios are starting to experiment with new movie price too. e.g., Ironman BD is only a couple of dollars more than the DVD version.

I bought the new indiana jones last week at best buy. It was $25 bucks vs $15 bucks on dvd. That $10 is more than the cost of 2 months of live. Iron Man cost me $30 vs the $15 the dvd was going for. Thats more than 3 months of live. older titles have an even larger price diffrence.

Prices are getting lower and thats good. The fact remains that we can wait around for sales on everything. I was able to get the newest smallville series on dvd for $28 bucks bluray the lowest its gone is $54. Amazon is an option but not everyone uses it . Waiting for bogos and what not is great but sometimes its hard to find multiple titles you want and still buying 2 blurays at a place like bestbuy could still cost you a good 40 or 50 and you'd end up paying more for them.

You say the quulity and additional content makes up for the price premium . Isn't it the same with xbox live . Doesn't the quality and additional content make up for the extra $30-40 a year your spending.