PS2 -> PS3 "It is not just a game console." Ken K.

[tongue_of_colicab]

Well do you know how much extra does it cost for PS3 or 360 to do those extra functions? XBOX could do lots of these without even being designed to do them. Only a slight mod was needed.

These functions are becoming less and less expensive to implement. The basic cost comes from things that are directly related to gaming.

Personally I bought the PS3 to play games, but I got lots of awesome bonuses with it. And they are brilliant. My PS3 is beginning to replace my DVD player as well as my PC for playing my media thanks to DLNA. I can access everything on the spot. Everyone watches movies and listens to music. I can change my entertainment at any moment on the same machine while I was originally doing something else. It is so convenient!

If the PS3 didnt have those extra features and were available on the 360 only I would have probably went to the 360 despite that the primary purpose I bought my console are games.

The consumer is starting to realize the benefits of that functionality. Some hardcore nintendo fans may be using this argument again and again (consoles are for playing games) but it doesnt matter. There is a great deal of other people that arent hardcore for a specific company and buy a console to have fun. All entertainment media are becoming a part of that fun and more consumers are starting to realize this.

I agree with that, I said that. If it comes for free its fine but me. But the reaction was in response to AW0l who was talking about how companies were figuring out how to have you fork out more cash for their media options. That, I do not want.

For those like tongue who are PC happy, fine. There are plenty of people, me included, who want a straight-forward, compact solution.

The problem is consoles are not a straight forward solution as they support way to little formats. The ps3 has divx now (and xvid?) which already makes things better but what is straight forward about having to convert everything to mp4 like at launch?

It's not the same experience as putting a DVD in a DVD player and watching.

Maybe he shouldnt use dodgy downloaded versions then. Obviously if you have a proper rip or the dvd it will run fine on your htpc.

A console offers that, and if you're going to buy the console anyway for games, why not add functions and extend the use you get from the hardware you've bought?

Thats fine. But its a bit like adding a shower to your car. Oh I can get up later in the morning because I can get a a shower on my way to work. Maybe add a kitchen too. But that obviously isnt the best way to go.

My point is, leave things like this up to a platform where the user can decide what he wants. With a console you'll always be dependant on what the company will allow you to play. Not to mention that you can toss your server/htpc somewhere in a closet, but 1+tb in it for 160 euro's or so, create a bunch of shared folders so the whole family can dump its media in there to play on all their machines in the house.

As a allround mediamachine a console just wont beat a pc. If you just want to watch a dvd/br movie than ofcourse a console is a better option as you dont really need anything for that.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The problem is consoles are not a straight forward solution as they support way to little formats.

That's only a problem if you already have lots of formats, in which case you already have a PC watching them. For most folk who don't already have a software library, a console is a straight-forward solution, where you use the codecs it provides and don't care about the millions of formats out there.

Maybe he shouldnt use dodgy downloaded versions then. Obviously if you have a proper rip or the dvd it will run fine on your htpc.

It was a DVD in the DVD drive...

Thats fine. But its a bit like adding a shower to your car. Oh I can get up later in the morning because I can get a a shower on my way to work. Maybe add a kitchen too. But that obviously isnt the best way to go.

More like why not add 4x4 and air-con. The services provided are related to consoles if you view consoles as a media and entertainment device, unlike your analogy which is putting non-motoring related functions into a car.

As a allround mediamachine a console just wont beat a pc. If you just want to watch a dvd/br movie than ofcourse a console is a better option as you dont really need anything for that.

Right. If you add the functionality, then it's down to the users what they want to use, console or PC. Which has to be a better option than having a box under your TV with all the hardware necessary to play games, movies, browse the internet etc., and yet not use those functions on it. That would be exactly the same as having a PC and only using it to play games and not use it for any other functions. That'd be a total waste of hardware, right?

Or putting it another way, what if the spec of PS3 or XB360 was a dual-core x86 with 1GB RAM, GPU, running a version of Windows. Would it make sense to isolate that hardware to just playing games, or would the owner be better off with a more flexible PC? If it's better to have the flexibility, that'll be true regardless of the underlying hardware.

 

[Arwin]

Let's see, we have two PCs, neither of which have HDMI out, are quiet enough (and in the latest Dutch C't, it's shown that even the quietest fan for just the dualcore CPU already produces as much noise as all of the PS3, which has that nice 15cm fan ...), are already in the living room anyway, etc. Am I really better off with another PC to have in the livingroom, when I want my PS3 there also anyway? Not really. Sure PCs are versatile, but the consoles are too now and I can just simply browse the other PCs that are connected to my network for shared media (and copy stuff I may want local, for instance from my laptop), which is great.

 

[patsu]

I agree with that, I said that. If it comes for free its fine but me. But the reaction was in response to AW0l who was talking about how companies were figuring out how to have you fork out more cash for their media options. That, I do not want.

Perhaps a better word would be 'finance'. The vendors need to figure out how to finance the additional features. They can charge the willing end users for some services (e.g., subscription fees, bundles), they can charge the businesses (e.g., advertising, royalties and dev kits), or both. It doesn't have to involve media alone. The new charging schemes may apply to both games and media.

I think they are still learning.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

That's only a problem if you already have lots of formats, in which case you already have a PC watching them. For most folk who don't already have a software library, a console is a straight-forward solution, where you use the codecs it provides and don't care about the millions of formats out there.

Like I said, only a straight forward solution if you want to play optical media. Even on a average person's pc you'll find all kinds of different formats from downloads, camcorders, phones etc. The whole mediaconsole idea is that you have one place to watch all your media from your nice comfy couch. Which wont work as it is now.

Or putting it another way, what if the spec of PS3 or XB360 was a dual-core x86 with 1GB RAM, GPU, running a version of Windows. Would it make sense to isolate that hardware to just playing games, or would the owner be better off with a more flexible PC? If it's better to have the flexibility, that'll be true regardless of the underlying hardware.

As far as media goes then yes because you'd be able to play everything you wanted.

The thing is, sony/ms tell you ''mediaconsole''. They want to make it the center of media etc. To me than that means it will play anything I want. Not that it will play a limited amount of formats. Than its not a mediahub but just a gaming machine with some halfassed media options. Which is perfectly fine with me, but dont act if you sell a mediahub then because you dont.

Let's see, we have two PCs, neither of which have HDMI out, are quiet enough (and in the latest Dutch C't, it's shown that even the quietest fan for just the dualcore CPU already produces as much noise as all of the PS3, which has that nice 15cm fan ...), are already in the living room anyway, etc. Am I really better off with another PC to have in the livingroom, when I want my PS3 there also anyway? Not really. Sure PCs are versatile, but the consoles are too now and I can just simply browse the other PCs that are connected to my network for shared media (and copy stuff I may want local, for instance from my laptop), which is great.

No because if you are smart you would buy a tv out cable for a couple of bucks and be done with it

 

[Arwin]

Like I said, only a straight forward solution if you want to play optical media. Even on a average person's pc you'll find all kinds of different formats from downloads, camcorders, phones etc. The whole mediaconsole idea is that you have one place to watch all your media from your nice comfy couch. Which wont work as it is now.

I can play pretty much all my media. Sure, when I download a movie, I'll more often now pick a format if I can that is supported by the PS3, but between AVC h.264, MPEG2, and VC-1 (WMV) being supported, that's not really hard these days. Maybe it helps that I never download commercial movies?

The thing is, sony/ms tell you ''mediaconsole''. They want to make it the center of media etc. To me than that means it will play anything I want. Not that it will play a limited amount of formats. Than its not a mediahub but just a gaming machine with some halfassed media options. Which is perfectly fine with me, but dont act if you sell a mediahub then because you dont.

So if I can find one type of media that only works on the Mac, but does not have a PC driver, the PC fails as a mediahub? I know for a fact that for most of my colleagues, the PS3 is sufficient. In the rare case that they do come across a file that doesn't work, they can transcode ... but that's pretty rare these days.

No because if you are smart you would buy a tv out cable for a couple of bucks and be done with it

A TV-Out cable? Are you serious?

 

[dobwal]

While the typical consumer may love these additional non-gaming features offered by the 360 and PS3.

What the market has shown is that these typical or average consumers aren't willing to pay that much of a premium for these features.

The PS3 has to sell at just $50 premium just to keep up or out do a non-BR console and both the 360 and PS3 lag behind the Wii, who revolutions are game based and not media based.

And if neither the 360 and PS3 were able to outclass the Wii in terms of graphics to justify the higher price tags both consoles probably would have been DOA.

 

[_phil_]

And if neither the 360 and PS3 were able to outclass the Wii in terms of graphics to justify the higher price tags both consoles probably would have been DOA.

Most people sitll don't have HDTV.When wii people will one day plug their console in a hdtv,some chasm will open wide.
Then , probably people will stop counting wii in the same market segment than the other consoles.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I can play pretty much all my media. Sure, when I download a movie, I'll more often now pick a format if I can that is supported by the PS3, but between AVC h.264, MPEG2, and VC-1 (WMV) being supported, that's not really hard these days. Maybe it helps that I never download commercial movies?

Dont know, I only watch movies that are on tv. But I heard from others that they have to convert all their anime and stuff like that.

So if I can find one type of media that only works on the Mac, but does not have a PC driver, the PC fails as a mediahub? I know for a fact that for most of my colleagues, the PS3 is sufficient. In the rare case that they do come across a file that doesn't work, they can transcode ... but that's pretty rare these days.

No, not based on one rarely used file. But as I said above, if you have to convert your anime, which probably is xvid or some other standard format I dont think you can call your system a mediahub.

A TV-Out cable? Are you serious?

A HDMI to vga/dvi then, same story. My mate has one and that looks fine. I dont have a HDtv so a normal elcheapo cable does it for me.

 

[_phil_]

But I heard from others that they have to convert all their anime and stuff like that.

Most anim stuff comes in MKV container.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Like I said, only a straight forward solution if you want to play optical media. Even on a average person's pc you'll find all kinds of different formats from downloads, camcorders, phones etc.

How many of those sources aren't supported by the consoles? If a codec is rare to the point of being obscure, does it really need to be included to be a media device? Or is it only needed to be a premier-videophile system? If we look at audio codecs, there are zillions, but 3 is probably all you'd need for 99% of the time, 100% of the time if you don't go abstract. MP3, WMA, and AAC or some other proprietary format if you're tied to a particular MP3 player. I had all my music encoded in OGG and when my I got my MP3 player and it didn't support OGG, I restarted with a common format, WMA. That's now a 'safe' format even if I change MP3 player or want to use a different media device.

My PC can't play most formats out there, because I don't need to. I don't have FLAC and don't care for it - it's quite a specialist codec. I don't have DivX installed. I get by with WMV and Flash for most of the stuff i watch, and a bit of QuickTime. If those codecs cover most activities, IMO that makes a system that supports the common codecs as a valid media device. By comparison, should a CD player be marketed as a music player if it doesn't support CD+, CD-, CDRWBBQ, SACD, and whatever other weird formats are out there? You have different tiers of performance and I don't think 'does absolutely everything' is a fair minimum tier

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

It has to support the most common stuff and the bit more uncommon stuff atleast. Ofcourse it doesnt have to support everything, but it does have to support the bulk of the media out there. So your porn/movie/anime/tv show downloaded from the net (will be the most likely source media other than from the disk) has to work. If it plays that than I will agree with you the ps3 is just as good as a option for most people because it will be if it plays all that. I dont know what the ps3 currently can play, thats why I asked if it also played xvid. I only remember that at launch it would only do mp4 which is just pathetic and useless.

 

[Npl]

Wondered that myself and googled this up : Xvid works.
Albeit apparently they are limited to 2GB files, what could mean they dont support the "new" (as since 1996) AVI Files that dont have this limitation (regardless if they are >2GB or not). I hate partially working solutions , the worst beeing the PSP - support for AVC, but only either 720x480 or smaller than 480x272, nothing between (no 640x480 is what really bugs me).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

So your porn/movie/anime/tv show downloaded from the net.

You need to convince me that most folks get material from these sources and would want to watch them on the consoles. IMO most media content will be ripped from discs, downloaded from services on the console, or streamed over the internet. Perhaps I'm wrong in that, but if I'm right, the range of formats that need to be supported are limited, excluding using the consoles as extenders of existing HTPC media servers.

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

I personally dont know anybody that rips his media from disk, all downloads. Certainly for anime, pron and tv shows as you cant even see it on tv here (or alot later, especially tv shows, most people I know all download things like Lost episodes instead of waiting untill they air here, they usually even have dutch subtiteld versions 1 or 2 days after the US release). I only know one that after that burns to disk to watch on his dvd player, the rest just streams or watches on their computerscreen.

 

[joker454]

You need to convince me that most folks get material from these sources and would want to watch them on the consoles.

Kids nowadays are fairly computer savvy, they get their videos from a million different sources, both legal and illegal. They tend to span the spectrum of codecs, hence making consoles mostly worthless as media players.

Most of us just want to be able to play all our media and don't have the patience to fight with a machine to get it to play along. Any device that doesn't seamlessly support all our media will get left unused. Plus, don't underestimate the need to support the more 'illegally used' formats, stuff like .mkv, >4gb video files, etc.

The PC remains the most trivial device to play everything on. Get a $400 dual core pc, install a single "codec pack" and you're all set, everything plays. No muss no fuss.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Kids nowadays are fairly computer savvy.

What about mums and dads, and grans, and Big Sisters and surfer-dude brothers, and all the folk who we tecchies end up running tech support for their PCs, AV setups, etc.? I know people who don't even know how to wire up and use a few TV attachments!

I also flatly disagree with the idea that a PC with a codec patch provides media playback no muss, no fuss. There are inevitably issues with bugged software, driver issues, codecs that aren't quite right, codecs that are still missing and you have to dig for them, etc. And of course, if you spend $400 on a PC to do that, you then have to spend another $300+ on a console to play the games that you were buying the console for anyway... Alternatively you buy a $300-400 console and have it handle media for you, no fuss, no muss (as long as you aren't wanting to access an existing PC library or less than popular formats, as I've mentioned).

 

[patsu]

Get a $400 dual core pc, install a single "codec pack" and you're all set, everything plays. No muss no fuss.

A PC is much more versatile at media playback, yes. But it can still be difficult to get everything play even on a Windows PC. I gave up on my XP laptop due to some mysterious conflict between media systems (Tried reinstalling WMP 11 and various codec packs but some movies still refuse to play).

Ripping movies is time consuming and occassionally error prone too.

Even though kids are savvy and brave enough to try. I believe many still couldn't get their media solution working. In my experience, there is no foolproof media playback solution for all media types today.

The vendors may have to focus on just a few well known sources to guarantee a pleasant and predictable experience.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

For the record, I don't think any solution is or probably ever will be ideal. The more versatility you introduce, you more complications you introduce. Every system is going to have hangups, and the consoles will have theirs. The point is that the consoles can serve a worthwhile role by extending the software to apply the same hardware used for gaming in other directions, providing a better experience for many of that console's owners and at no real extra cost. How can that be a bad thing?

 

[joker454]

What about mums and dads, and grans, and Big Sisters and surfer-dude brothers, and all the folk who we tecchies end up running tech support for their PCs, AV setups, etc.? I know people who don't even know how to wire up and use a few TV attachments!

The kids set all that up for them! I know I was the one that always took care of any a/v needs for my parents In any case, do you think non savvy parents will be able to setup a ps3 on their own and have it actually play their movies? What do they do when they try to play a >4gb movie file from their hdv video camera? What if they get a video from their niece that has an odd unsupported resolution? It takes very little frustration for the non savvy to abandon a product once they feel it doesn't work right. Consoles fall right into that category.

Lets face it, at this point, all media players are still for the savvy to setup. The consoles have woefully inadequate hard drive space to be considered real media players. Try asking someone with kids how many videos he has. A friend has just filled up his terabyte raid 1 setup with home movies of the kids and now needs to expand it. A 40gb harddrive is hopelessly inadequate to be a media machine, hence you still either need a pc somewhere in the house with mass storage, or some kind of raid device. Will someone non savvy be able to set all that up? Heck, I tried. We have three dlink dns-323 raid boxes. I tried getting the ps3 to see them and eventually gave up. Turns out after some research that the PS3 will not see those devices unless I buy some other software to install on each raid box. But how would a non savvy mum or dad (or surfer dude) ever know this?

I also flatly disagree with the idea that a PC with a codec patch provides media playback no muss, no fuss. There are inevitably issues with bugged software, driver issues, codecs that aren't quite right, codecs that are still missing and you have to dig for them, etc.

Not anymore. It's become trivial to setup a pc that plays everything. You hear about issues on forums, but thats because forum people are always striving for the "perfect setup", ie they will try something new because they hear is uses 2% less cpu, etc. Me? About a year ago I installled a codec pack on my closet pc, ran the hdmi cable to the tv, and bam, done. I haven't fiddled with that machine in ages, nor do I have any desire to. It just works. When we had family over we watched all kinds of media while chillin on the couch. The formats of the stuff I played back would have been impossible or at best a pain in the ass to play on consoles. Turns our I didn't have to care, the pc played it all without a hitch. This isn't a monster machine either. It's a basic core2duo with vista and 1gb of ram, that configuration is dirt cheap nowadays.

And of course, if you spend $400 on a PC to do that, you then have to spend another $300+ on a console to play the games that you were buying the console for anyway... Alternatively you buy a $300-400 console and have it handle media for you, no fuss, no muss (as long as you aren't wanting to access an existing PC library or less than popular formats, as I've mentioned).

Personally I think you are grossly underestimating how popular the "less than popular" formats are. They are everywhere, especially with the younger crowd. Consoles can't properly play any of them.

FYI, this isn't the first time a manufacturer has tried to shove limited codec support down our throats. You remember back in the day when Sony ruled the music player market. Then they brilliantly decided to not support mp3, instead supplying software that would convert them the atrac format which is all their music players supported back then. How well did that work for them?

Lack of codec support is a killer. At this point, I don't know anyone using a console successfully as their only media machine. I had a buddy claim they did, so I swung on by with a disc of videos in hand to prove him wrong. Turns out I didn't even have to bother, I was able to find lots of his own video files that wouldn't play properly! Our resident hard core sony fan at my last company has very much tried as well, but even he admits that it will sometimes fail, or that he has to reboot the pc with tversity on it sometime, or sometimes there are framerate issues or skips, or a host of other issues. No thanks.