J. Allard interview by Hiroshige Goto pt.2

why not pull on second screen interfaces menus ,video-chat window,basically all that the Ds does ,++ manny other possibilities ?

 

I just realised the comment about 3 outputs!?

That's textbook fanb0y speak IMHO. Surely 2 is better than 1?! Nope, 3 is, but 2 isn't?!

 

Well, skywolf is thinking that 3 screens would allow for panoramic gaming (like the Sega Ferrari arcade cabinet), which would be cool.

But that's excluding all the other things one could do with 2 screens.

 

but you could still have an option to do that in 2 screen mode, it might sound a bad idea...but it might actually be fine once you 'adjust'.

Also the comments about the link up cable are nulled by the fact that you only need one console this time, last time you needed 2 TVs AND 2 consoles, which was why it didn't take off.

 

My understanding is that the extra port is free, so Sony figured, why not? (Noob here, all feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). As noted you can configure it any way you want--2 HDTVs, or 1 monitor, 1 LDTV etc. Will many use it? Doubtful. But it's there, it didn't cost anything so who cares? That said, it may very well come in handy if anyone gets creative. I think the general thought is: if you are playing online, on your coffee table, you would have your flat screen computer monitor (almost every geek has at least one of those by now) with IM up and/or a videoconference of your opponent together with all the online menus and whatnot and then, up on the CRT or HD TV, (whatever you are lucky enough to have) would be the primary game action. This setup could be especially handy for a multiplayer version of that eyetoy game with the babes -- Eyedentify. I think it could be most useful for this type of format, and not just for the obvious solution playing GT4 in B spec with the stats on one screen and the road on the other. Picture in picture could be much simpler, but that has its own problems, not least of which is your opponent's big head is going to hog up space on your TV screen.

BTW, does anyone know if you will be able to hook up a QWERTY keyboard through the USB? Would come in handy for turn-based games.

Anyhoo, while it does still sound like a minor pain to set up two monitors, it sounds easy enough to at least *try* it, the issue, which was raised, is whether game designers will take advantage of it or not. Much like the HDD debate, they probably can't assume everyone has two monitors. (Which is why I'm all for including a small HDD, to improve load times, if nothing else).

Anyway, IMHO the dual output set up is an experiment, a cheap one at that. I'm sure Sony/Toshiba would love to sell you two cell based TVs while they are at it too. Huge selling point? Of course not. But, unlike an HDD, it's a freebie, so it's a nice little touch to pitch as a minor selling point to hardcore gamers that might go through the trouble of a dual monitor set up. Frankly I can't understand what all the hubbub is about, it's almost as dumb as the handwringing about 7 controllers instead of 8. Anyway, if anyone can tell me that the dual output option costs more than $.50 per unit, I'll be happy to change my mind, but as far as I know, it doesn't cost squat.

 

Uhhh, from a gaming perspective 1080p might be significant; but in the aggregate, it's quite insignificant at this point. Yes, 1080p displays are starting to come to market; but it will be another 3-4 years before they're even close to being considered mainstream; and even then, they'll be at the bottom of the HD totem pole.

The problem is, very, very few people will buy a 1080p display to play a game. There is no 1080p content from Hollywood, and none of the broadcasters would even think about it, considering they've been dragged kicking and screaming into 720p and 1080i.

Yes, some of the hardcore will buy a 1080p display just for gaming; but outside of that, the effect will be very limited. What's encouraging is that when 1080p displays hit en masse, you can expect bigger price drops on the 720p and 1080i sets.

 

Give me 5 good reasons any dev should spend the extra development and testing time for a feature that a foolishly small portion of the market will be capable of utilizing? How much time it would be is unknown, it depends on how PS3 handles something like this.

There's a very valid argument that the overwhelming majority of people won't have two TV's side by side, let alone two Tv's each with DVI ports side by side. If you can afford that you might as well set up a network and buy two PS3's.

 

Yeah, unless there is a mandatory graphics target like Xbox360, I dunno how they could automate dual monitor compliance. And there just won't be a demand for developers to bother imo.

If the PS3 actually ships with the second video out, I wouldn't be suprised to see a hardware revision scrap it to save costs.

 

Well it all depends on how hard it is to tell the software "don't do split screen, just send two different outputs to the two different ports you have as standard right here".

The games that might offer a better experience will have it, like a very few games had support for PS2 link-up or the Logitech Wheel, or whatever else.

What's the big deal? If the second port is cheap to put in, and i'm pretty sure it is since NVIDIA GPUs already have dual outputs, why the hell not?!

God, now people are starting to complain because there is TOO MUCH stuff, not too little.

If anything, they should cut other crap out of the PS3 and make the HDD as standard (the 3 different removable storage slots - who's gonna use them all 3!? The 3 ethernet ports - who's gonna use them all 3?! the 6 USB ports - who's gonna use them all 6?!), but the double HDMI is hardly something that will drive the cost up.

 

More like, people are complaining about an extra feature that has limited uses, and yes the consumer ends up paying for it. nobody is saying it won't have some use, just that it's limited to a segment of the market that's foolishly small.

Let make a wager then. I'm willing to bet that only a few games made by sony will make use of this feature and that it is dropped by the time they make the first or second price drop. you game?

 

I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm just saying that before they drop that, PERSONALLY i think they should drop other things first.
Multiple video ports have more uses than 3 different removable storage slots on one machine or 3 ethernet ports to me.

 

Sorry for having a Brain....this aint the DS, for single player games there's absolutelly no sense in having 2 Displays!

For Multiplayer its cool however, say CP, its a good thing for that...But how many people will have 2 HDtv's displays, or other Tv with Hdmi input? Its even worse than say system Link.

Regarding the 3 outputs i mentioned, well i think it would be awesome for Racing games and FPS, hook up 3 PC monitors or something like that, it would be cool.

2 Outputs simply dont make any sense, and having all those USB and whatnot slots also dont make sense, its there just for show, and then to Top it all the chances are no HDD. Cm'on....HDD standard would make sense, not 2 Hdmi outputs, i mean WTF!?

Sorry but it doesnt make sense.

 

I've also heard what koldfuzion heard in that the second output is actually pretty much a free feature. Thus, it doesn't really hurt for it to be there.

I'm most surprised that they decided to go with GigE considering that the majority of people will either be wireless or will not have an up or down connection over 10 - nevemind 100 MBps - and forget 1000MBps.

 

Heh, even 100Mbps is still "normal" ethernet... GigE is 1000Mbps

But i guess, when linking up 2 or more PS3s, you need some good speed.

Again, how many people are going to link up 2 or more PS3s? And to do what exactly?

 

L-B - that's what I was saying - people still can't hit normal Enet speeds in most cases - never mind gig.

I realize how my wording would imply that though (considering my job I better know the difference, lol). Wording fixed.

 

Point is, Gig is not for there for the internet.

 

For starters, nothing is "free" or "essentially free", a second output is a second cost that is being passed onto the consumer.

As far as LB's questions go, I think most agree with all of those points you're making as well.

There's a bunch of garbage in the PS3 that should be cut out in order to reduce costs so they can add a HDD that consumers actually want and will actually improve game play.

But we're talking about a J Allard interview here, he mentioned how silly the twin 1080p outputs are, and somebody was SHOCKED and AMAZED that he couldn't see the value.

Point is there is no value, or so little value it's insiginifcant to 99% of the market, which is why J Allard mentioned it. It was an example of how silly Sony is in throwing every last thing they can think of into the PS3 and how none of those things will actually improve the game experience for the vast majority of people. (While at the same time, making their console more expensive.)

I agree, LB, who needs twenty-five thousand types of storage slots? Nobody. One fixed, and one portable is good for just about everybody.
So remove them and add a HDD!

 

I guess if you're going to expand LAN features to do more than Internet features - but I think that is still overkill - unless you're transmitting HD video for videoconferencing.

 

rancid - adding something that looks like a huge feature, costs you a quarter and at most is probably costing the end user a dollar is probably worth the marketing money saved by having a clear advantage over your competitor in some very visible way - be it nebulous or not in usability.

I would agree that the ports do cost more though. I think Sony should've included a mem-stick port/mem card port and made an add on USB card reader. I think they could've toned down the net ports as well - nix the hub and just support Ad-Hoc wi-fi.