Playstation 3: Hardware Info and Price

[JarrodKing]

From-

http://forum.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/34579/122868.html

"So, which is better, DVI or component? HDMI or component? The answer--unsatisfying, perhaps, but true--is that it depends. It depends upon your source and display devices, and there's no good way, in principle, to say in advance whether the digital or the analog connection will render a better picture. You may even find, say, that your DVD player looks better through its DVI or HDMI output, while your satellite or cable box looks better through its component output, on the same display. In this case, there's no real substitute for simply plugging it in and giving it a try both ways."


I would wholeheartedly agree with that assessment. Comparing component vs. HDMI inputs, our Dish Network HD satellite receiver looked MUCH better over component and our DirecTV HD receiver looks much better using HDMI.

 

[scooby_dooby]

let me get this straight, people are saying it's better to convert a digital source (DVD Blu-ray HD-DVD) to analog to pass over componant than it is to keep the signal digital.

you can mention vinyl but it doesn't matter since that is an analog source so keeping it analog would be best.

less conversions the better. you only get the weaknesses of both transmission systems with conversion.

In theory. In the realworld it all depends on the TV.

 

[Gubbi]

In theory. In the realworld it all depends on the TV.

With digital content, digital all the way is best. The advantage of digital data is that the signal-to-noise ratio is fixed no matter how many hops the signal has to travel through.

Once you convert it to analog you'll add noise at every hop (and from cables)

Cheers

 

[scooby_dooby]

With digital content, digital all the way is best.

Tell that to my analogue CRT.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

Thanks for the clarification eVo.
Rather ironic that if they had released a combination SACD/BD player for $599 audio/videophiles would be shocked into disbelief by the value. Instead, by adding a hard-drive and the ability to play what look to be some tremendous games to that package popular opinion is branding them as lunatics.

 

[ERP]

Thanks for the clarification eVo.
Rather ironic that if they had released a combination SACD/BD player for $599 audio/videophiles would be shocked into disbelief by the value. Instead, by adding a hard-drive and the ability to play what look to be some tremendous games to that package popular opinion is branding them as lunatics.

They'd actually have to ship more SACD content for most to care.
I really like the way SACD sounds and I own a player, but software is a bit thin on the ground.

 

[Sindre]

I'm sorry to interupt in this digitized analog conversaton, but I just wanted shed some more light on PS3 SingStar;-)

C&VG is reporting of a totally new mic "silver and slimline and feature increased sensitivity compared to the current model" (actually a standard usb wired one and a Bluetooth one) to arrive at lauch alongside the new version of the game, and one might not find new themed packages of extra songs in the shops anymore. Instead the only way of getting more songs might be to buy them yourselves in the new iTunes-like-song catalogue...

Personally, I think the possibillities with broadcasting your performance sounded quite cool

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=139847

 

[wco81]

What is Singstar, some kind of karaoke application? Is that really that popular in Europe?

The demo they showed suggested they wanted you to buy songs through it, iike iTunes but with fancier UI to browse through the music.

They may sell regular music, not just the music adapted to work with the game.

 

[Tars Tarkus]

They'd actually have to ship more SACD content for most to care.

Too true. Eno's Music for Airports but not Another Green World; Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon but not Meddle; the Stones Let it Bleed but not Sticky Fingers. Hopefully they fill out their catalog as players become more widespread.
This being E3 though and my discussion veering off topic I'd best stop now before I get banned

 

[Phil]

From the PS3 + HD price speculation thread I started back in March:

$299  =  0%
$349  =  2%
$399  = 22%
$449  = 31%
$499  = 27%
$549  =  7%
$599  =  7%
$599+ =  1%

150 voters in total

Perhaps to put some perspective from an ex PC gamer that has turned me into a PlayStation supporter after 2 generations of console gaming:

I, among others, predicted $449 and so I must say I am quite surprised (a little shocked) to see Sony charging $150 more for the full PS3 experience. IMO, as much as the price hurts, it doesn't really make the Xbox360 (or Wii for that matter) any better or more attractive to me and so I will probably end up dishing out the price for one anyway. I'm sure there are many other PlayStation supporters out there that think the same, even though they are bitter about the price. Can't blame them, I am too. Since the console is initially bought by loyal platform supporters and hardcore gamers, I think it is clear they will get away with that price tag. I would expect them to lower the price after a year of release though once the numbers start falling and they may want to make things more attractive for the average consumer outthere. I think come November and the following months, we'll all see how important mindshare and brand-recognition is. PlayStation is synonymous with gaming for many people that don't play games already and despite the price tag, I'm confident that will also show in sales.

 

[Gubbi]

I think come November and the following months, we'll all see how important mindshare and brand-recognition is. PlayStation is synonymous with gaming for many people that don't play games already and despite the price tag, I'm confident that will also show in sales.

I don't think you can read anyting out of sales numbers this november. The PS3 will sell out and I'm guessing it would be virtually impossible to obtain the first 3-6 months.

While I agree with you that brand recognition is extremely important, what ultimately sells consoles are the games.

The Playstation brand last gen had some really heavy duty franchises to help it: FF (jRPG), MGS (sneaky sneaky stealth action), GTA (big immersive gangster world) and GT (Racing sim). Come next gen the advantage is severly watered down.

GTA is no longer exclusive. And there are other franchises in the above genres that are as good or really close. Splintercell is catching up to MGS in production values while being at least on par technically. Forza is every bit as good as GT (fewer tracks but a vastly superior car lineup). There'll be a lot less jRPGs for X360, but there'll be a lot more Bioware style RPGs (Kotor etc.)

So consumer perception that they'll need a Playstation to play these games is going to be weaker. This combined with the $150 price differential is likely to affect sales somehow. Come november 2007 and the mom and pops of the world go christmas shopping and they have the choice of a PS3 + one game or a X360 with 3 games they might just go for the latter.

Cheers

 

[Qroach]

I agree with gubbi on those comments. MGS isn't the same sales hit it was when the first version arrived on PS2. GT is still extremly popular. However the catch is finding the next big exclusive title that will convince people to buy a console. By being on teh market first you have mor etime to see what could be a potential system seller

MS already has halo, 3 and that will sell consoles, but they also have gears of war that I think will convince alot of people.

Sony has GT, MGS and the final fantasy games, but for how long? it's going to be pretty hard to justify a PS3 only game outside of japan to a publisher if the competing console has sold close to 10 million units.

The big system seller title is still up for grabs. I just think it's easier to find a system seller when the console is priced cheaper.

 

[wco81]

From the I would expect them to lower the price after a year of release though once the numbers start falling and they may want to make things more attractive for the average consumer outthere. I think come November and the following months, we'll all see how important mindshare and brand-recognition is. PlayStation is synonymous with gaming for many people that don't play games already and despite the price tag, I'm confident that will also show in sales.

I wonder about cutting the price within one year of launch. Has Sony ever done it? Did MS do the first price cut within a year? If they did, they probably had no choice.

By fall 2007, there should be some big games coming out.

Same thing with MS, with GTA and Halo3. Of course, they will probably be in a position to reduce their costs. But if sales are still doing well and they anticipate a big Holiday season because of their AAA titles, what would be the incentive?

By that time, some of the bigger PS3 titles may be coming out as well. Unless a price war starts, they may try to make it through 2007 at these prices.

 

[Gubbi]

Same thing with MS, with GTA and Halo3. Of course, they will probably be in a position to reduce their costs. But if sales are still doing well and they anticipate a big Holiday season because of their AAA titles, what would be the incentive?

The incentive would be market share.

There's a positive feedback cycle here. With a bigger market share more developers will support the platform (together with more exclusives) -> more and better games makes the platform more attractive to consumers and hence more will buy -> bigger market share. Bigger hardware sales also gives you a per unit cost advantage (economy of scales)

They only reason MS wouldn't continually put price pressure on Sony is if they are supply limited.

Cheers

 

[wco81]

Someone at AVS posted that CED (Consumer Electronics Daily, supposedly an industry insider newsletter) is reporting that the X360 HD-DVD won't have HDMI. Albert Penello of MS is quoted as saying less than half of the sets have HDMI in the market (although more than 50% have HDCP) and that 720p/1080i is the sweet spot in the market.

The $500 SKU of the PS3 will be limited to 1080i for both games and movies. Apparently a different video output chipset or maybe just impaired. Also audio will be 5.1 lossy whereas HDMI has the capability to use 7.1 lossless formats (whether game developers and studios use them remain to be seen -- assuming the PS3 will decode them).

The studios apparently were not amused to learn about the $500 SKU.

KK reportedly said the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is to offer more storage, not spread the Blu-Ray standard.

Hmm, I wonder what Blu-Ray movie releases are going to look like a year from now.

 

[RobertR1]

KK reportedly said the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is to offer more storage, not spread the Blu-Ray standard.

I sense an excuse for crappy playback brewing.......

 

[Fox5]

I sense an excuse for crappy playback brewing.......

I sense an excuse for the cost now.

Blu-ray isn't going to offer a noticably better gaming experience over dual layer dvds, yet is probably largely responsible for the cost increase.

 

[msia2k75]

I sense an excuse for the cost now.

Blu-ray isn't going to offer a noticably better gaming experience over dual layer dvds, yet is probably largely responsible for the cost increase.

This and HDD is certainly not helping PS3 price, that's for sure...

 

[slider]

The point Sony have kind of hammered is that for totally immerive worlds (or something) the games on the PS3 need that storage. What peoples take on that is I have no idea.

This movie comment sounds a bit political to me. But I struggle to see how...

"KK reportedly said the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is to offer more storage, not spread the Blu-Ray standard."

Can fly as a valid point. That might not be BR's primary goal but it certainly won't hurt having it included in the PS3. Other BR models are likely to be waaay more expensive perhaps?

 

[!eVo!-X Ant UK]

Here's the actual finished product running ( it was playing Warhawk at the time )