backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 173 comment(s) - last by phazers.. on Dec 23 at 3:39 PM

The console war is far from over according to the Washington Post

Although the PlayStation 3 has been outsold by its competitors these past few months, Matt Peckham argues via the Washington Post that the situation is not as grim as may seem. The Washington Post article refutes a story from CNN Money that completely writes off the PlayStation 3 as a failure.

Compared to November 2007, PS3 sales are down this year from 466,000 units sold to 378,000 units sold. In contrast, Microsoft and Nintendo products sold very well in November. Twice as many Xbox 360s were sold and five times as many Nintendo Wiis were sold.

Despite comparatively poor sales numbers, Peckham points out overall PS3 sales grew by 60% year-to-date. For much of 2008 the PS3 had been catching up to the Xbox 360 due to momentum gained from events such as the end of the high definition disc war.

Peckham also discusses how the combined sales of the PS3, the PS2, and the PSP exceeded one million units. This number tops the 836,000 Xbox 360s that were sold. He states if the profit margins on the PS2 and PSP are assumed to be much better than the PS3 it becomes less clear which company made more money off of hardware sales.

The CNN article states the differences between Blu-ray and DVD are hard to see on a TV less than 50" minimizing the benefit of having a Blu-Ray player included in the PS3. Peckham refutes this claim stating “Blu-ray at even 720p (1280 x 720) with all its other commensurate upticks in sample rates and color quality is shockingly better than the visuals output of the average DVD”.

Finally, the CNN articles mentions a lack of quality exclusive titles on the PS3 to which Peckham lists off a variety of PS3 exclusives such as Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet & Clank Future, Wipeout HD, Valkyria Chronicles, the original Resistance: Fall of Man, and MLB 08: The Show.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Is this guy blind?
By bighairycamel on 12/18/2008 9:36:01 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The CNN article states the differences between Blu-ray and DVD are hard to see on a TV less than 50" minimizing the benefit of having a Blu-Ray player included in the PS3.

Is this guy totally blind? Maybe... MAYBE I could agree if using a decent upscaling DVD player on a TV less than 40", but anything over that is a huge difference in video quality. I'm not even a videophile and I can tell the difference.

While I have a 52", my sister has a 42" and the quality is distinguishable on hers to, so his comment about "less than 50" is rediculous and reaks of anti-sony bias.




RE: Is this guy blind?
By cochy on 12/18/2008 9:46:15 AM , Rating: 3
Ya that's pretty absurd. I bought Troy on Blu-ray when I got my PS3. I also have it on DVD. My TV is 37'' and only 720p. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is night and day.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Lord 666 on 12/18/2008 12:31:55 PM , Rating: 5
Do you like Gladiator movies?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Sahkuhnder on 12/18/2008 5:42:13 PM , Rating: 4
Joey, have you ever been in a Turkish prison?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By quiksilvr on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By ShaolinSoccer on 12/18/2008 8:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
you can get $149 off the purchase price of a PS3 if you use a sonystyle credit card. offer is good until 1-31-09. sounds like a good deal. I don't know the specifics, though:

http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet...


RE: Is this guy blind?
By whirabomber on 12/23/2008 12:04:12 PM , Rating: 1
You'll need that $150 to repair the PS3 when it dies on you less than a year after you get it repaired in warenty. I've just put in a repair order on my 60GB because it won't play blurays (cleaned, tried other disks, games, etc), just dvds. After taxes it came to $160. I just checked my repair (read swap-out) on it and it was 02/08. I purchased the ps3 on 02/07. To make me happy with the PS3, Sony should go for a 2-3 year warrenty.

A few months ago, I preferred the PS3 because the graphics just look better (clearer, more vibrant) than the 360. The games played the same on the PS3 so naturally I just peferred it. However, I don't see paying $150+ a year to play the thing as a positive.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By tjr508 on 12/22/2008 3:41:15 PM , Rating: 4
It is not that people can't see the difference, it's just that they're not looking for it. Most people can enjoy films for what they are and a few less speckles here and there don't really change their viewing experience.

On the other hand, the primary reason BD owners claim to see far more difference than non-owners is the human instinct to justify a purchase. It's no different than an Escalade driver talking smack on a Tahoe. It's just sad that people have to get all OCD about movie watching just to feel good about their hundreds of dollars spent to see a few silly dots here and there.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By phazers on 12/23/2008 3:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
Ya that's pretty absurd. I bought Troy on Blu-ray when I got my PS3. I also have it on DVD. My TV is 37'' and only 720p. The difference between DVD and Blu-ray is night and day.

The difference between VHS and DVD was far more dramatic than between Bluray and DVD, and yes I have a 46" Sony XBR4 LCD as well as a 52" Sony LCD, with upscaling DVD and Bluray players connected to them.

Not that I'm knocking Bluray - saw The Dark Knight a few days ago and my wife and I were commenting on the beautifully crisp, sharp picture, especially the gorgeous colors in the sunlight office scenes as well as the night scenes in Hong Kong. Clearly the digital conversion to Bluray was outstanding.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By SkeptiCoder on 12/18/2008 9:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
Hell, I have a 24" 1920x1200 monitor (Gateway FP2401), and I can see the difference between DVD and BDR easily . It's not even close. Even after resizing the resolution down to closer to 720p it is apparent, so unless people are really blind, I can't see how they can't spot the difference.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Lugaidster on 12/18/2008 9:53:58 AM , Rating: 4
I do have to disagree with you on that comparison. People are usually closer to a monitor than to a TV. That's why they have always had more pixel density than TVs. Now, that guy is still wrong, he either is blind or he thinks that people are more stupid than they really are (something that is happening a lot these days).


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Mitch101 on 12/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is this guy blind?
By Mitch101 on 12/18/2008 12:00:31 PM , Rating: 5
Come to think of it could be a technical issue also. I wonder how many people out there will use thier SVHS connection from a BLU-RAY player to thier TV instead of the HDMI or DVI cable.

That might explain why people don't see a difference. Heck a lot of HD players downsample on the Component outputs to supposedly prevent piracy so it may just be that they are comparing 480P to 480P/480i.

After all most people don't understand the whole switch to Digital and how many think DTV is HDTV?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Lugaidster on 12/18/2008 2:06:09 PM , Rating: 3
Vision is not in question here. And the fact that you have better than normal vision reinforces that guy's point. Standing at 40 cm from a really high resolution screen is different than sitting 2-3 meters away from a high resolution screen. Do the math, there's just no comparison.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By notolerance on 12/18/2008 7:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
I've done the math and my calculations indicate that, yes indeed, his eyes are painted on!


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Regs on 12/23/2008 2:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
Something related but obviously nothing to do with blue-ray quality.....

Comcast hooked my TV up with component cables. Likely because they know the signal they shoot out to me won't look any better on DVI or HDMI cables. Though I would think that one female and male HDMI cable would be a lot easier than 6 or so component cables for visual and sound.

Do Verizon Fios customers get the component cables as well?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By achintya on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By karielash on 12/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is this guy blind?
By FITCamaro on 12/18/2008 10:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly I think my DVDs played on my 42" 720p DLP look great. I play them through both my 360 and my PS3. Now the Blu-rays look great too. But honestly I don't really notice all the little details if they're there. The biggest place I notice a quality difference on is between standard def and high def cable.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2008 11:15:00 AM , Rating: 4
So you see a bigger difference between SD-cable and HD-cable than you see with DVD and Blu-Ray? Either your SD-cable is really crappy or something between your Blu-Ray player and display isn't set up properly. Have you calibrated it (either ISF or do-it-yourself DVE)? I'm not calling BS on you or anything, I just think there's something legitimately wrong with your setup.

I've got both HD-cable and Blu-Ray set up on a couple TVs in the house (720p 32" LCD and 1080p 60" plasma) and I can see a dramatic difference between even HD-cable and Blu-Ray on both sets. ComcastHD can't hold a candle to Blu-Ray on either set. Don't even get me started on audio. OMG.

One of the first high-def movies I bought was "The Fugitive" and I remember being really upset with it. It wasn't until later that I discovered that Warner Bros. basically just upscaled the DVD version of the film and called it "HD". This happened with a lot of early HD/BD releases (Troy and The Fifth Element were also disappointing for different reasons). To date, I have yet to see (or hear) better demo material than Pixar's "Cars". It's also just a great movie. I've got the DVD (which is one of the best DVD transfers ever) and Blu-Ray of that and the Blu-Ray version offers an awesome upgrade in color detail and sharpness, but the uncompressed PCM audio is the icing on the cake. All the neighborhood dogs wet themselves when I crank it.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By mcnabney on 12/18/2008 12:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't you read?

He has a 720p TV. Going from 480p DVDs to a 720p display is not much scaling. A BD will have to downscale even more to get from 1080p content to 720p. And the cable comparison might be analog cable to digital HD cable.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/2008 2:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
The question is did you read? One of my sets is also a 720p display, on which I see a big difference between upscaled content and high-def content, which I why I expressed concern about his setup.

quote:
Going from 480p DVDs to a 720p display is not much scaling. A BD will have to downscale even more to get from 1080p content to 720p

What exactly are you suggesting? That scaling low-resolution video to a higher resolution looks better than scaling high-resolution video to a lower one? (hopefully rhetorical)

Your logic is strange. Going from 480p to 720p is a resolution increase of nearly three-fold. Going from 1080p to 720p is a reduction of nearly two-thirds, but the source is 6X better than DVD. No matter what scaler you use, upscaling a DVD is like polishing a turd: even at its best, it still won't match a native 720p signal in clarity or color depth, let alone a downsampled 1080p signal.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By adiposity on 12/22/2008 4:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
No matter what scaler you use, upscaling a DVD is like polishing a turd: even at its best, it still won't match a native 720p signal in clarity or color depth, let alone a downsampled 1080p signal.


I agree with you, but your last phrase seems to imply a 1080p downsampled to 720p would be preferred to native 720p. From what I know of scaling, and resampling, it is highly unlikely to be the case. Since blu-ray is not rendered at 720p, we would expect a lower quality than professionally rendered 720p...not that you can actually find that on disc in the USA.

-Dan


RE: Is this guy blind?
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 3:09:19 PM , Rating: 1
The BD player is doing the scaling, there is no quality degradation between 1080p and 720p if that is what you are implying. Its also a night and day difference between DVD and a BD at 720p. I even have one of the better upscaling DVD players on the market and there is still no comparison.

You say that theres little difference between 720p and 480p, i beg to differ.

720x480= 345600 pixels
1280x720 = 921600 pixels

Thats almost 3 times more pixels in a BD movie at 720P.

While many people may not see the benefit of upgrading their 720p set to a 1080p set just for BD's (i agree, wait for your TV to die to upgrade) I feel the most noticeable difference is from 480p to 720p.

The only time I would say that a 720p and 480p video are comparable is when you are sitting 20+ feet from your television , at that point your eyes cannot perceive the difference, that is until your focus on a single spot of the screen. (assuming your vision is 20/20, the worse you vision is, the less distance you have to stand back before your eyes cannot perceive the difference)


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Morphine06 on 12/18/2008 1:13:01 PM , Rating: 1
A PS3 was hooked up to high quality HDTV playing Cars at Fry's. I was sold on BD tech at that moment. Having two small boys, I've watched that movie many times on my 1080i 51" RP. The difference was shocking. My TV is not as high quality and interlaced instead of progressive, yet I can see a difference similar to how I saw VHS vs DVD.

But...my wife can't see much a difference at all other than color depth. I have 15/20 vision due to lasik surgery. She needs glasses to drive legally....

The experience is relative.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By VitalyTheUnknown on 12/18/2008 11:18:55 AM , Rating: 1
You can't spot the difference between dvd and blu-ray yet the difference between SD television and HD television is visible for you. You contradict yourself there.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By The0ne on 12/18/2008 12:59:40 PM , Rating: 2
I say he's full of it myself but meh :) There will be the few but the key is to find the right tv, right player, right video source (dvd, BD, etc) and then find the RIGHT DISTANCE that the picture will look the best for you :)

Maybe these people able to tell between BD and DVD on a 24" monitor has superman vision. Or maybe it's just that the colors are richer, picture is brighter or what have you :)

Trust about the difference between SD video and HD video on cable is like referring to SD as crap and HD as a tasy sesame chicken salad :P Of course this is minimized if you compare it on a smaller screen size monitor. On my 73" you don't even want to watch SD.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By rykerabel on 12/18/2008 1:27:33 PM , Rating: 2
answer:
HDCP is downscaling his BR movies to 480p because he's not using hdmi so its the same picture as the DVD.

:P


RE: Is this guy blind?
By therealnickdanger on 12/19/2008 8:56:26 AM , Rating: 2
In the course of a week, I helped my next door neighbor (62 years old) and my friend's dad (65 years old) set up their new 60" plasmas and Blu-Ray systems. They were both clever enough to buy them off Amazon to get the best prices, but I was shocked to see that companies still ship Blu-Ray players with standard composite (not even component) RCA cables! WTF? They are just begging customers to return their products!

I got them both hooked up with HDMI cables and now they are in high-def heaven. A lot of the confusion regarding high-def quality is partly the fault of the manufacturers themselves. Unless they pay for a kiosk or endcap that is properly set up, people are going to walk into Wal-Mart and see the Blu-Ray display connected with composite cables and wonder what all the fuss is about.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By The0ne on 12/19/2008 12:13:47 PM , Rating: 2
And as someone already stated, some BD movies just weren't encoded properly to give you the best/true quality. This is especially true of older movies and movies that didn't do so well in theaters I guess :) But movies like Star Wars, Iron Man look amazing :)


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Lord 666 on 12/18/2008 12:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
My wife's first words were "wow" when I showed her the difference between "I am Legend" on BR then DVD. Thats playing it on a 46" Samsung 630 1080p with the Samsung 1500 BR player (definitely not the best upscaler or BR player.) Same thing for the movie Cars.

But Comcast HD cable looks like crap while watching NFL. The commercials on the same channel look better than the game. FiOS is in my town, but not my specific neighborhood yet. Can't wait to dump Comcast.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By The0ne on 12/19/2008 12:10:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But Comcast HD cable looks like crap while watching NFL. The commercials on the same channel look better than the game. FiOS is in my town, but not my specific neighborhood yet. Can't wait to dump Comcast.


This is bad, or would be if I can actually see it instead of imagining it. Complain?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By killerroach on 12/18/2008 10:18:17 AM , Rating: 2
Did an informal test to show a friend the other day... I have a 46" Vizio 1080p LCD, an Xbox 360, and a PS3 (both connected via HDMI). There's a couple of movies I own on both DVD and Blu-Ray, and chose to use one of them (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) for a comparison test. Started playback at pretty much identical times, then would switch between the 360 and the PS3 at will to show the difference. Needless to say, they were quite startled.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By theapparition on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By plonk420 on 12/18/2008 5:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
seems that your opinion is in the minority. GJ pointing out that you're different! terseness may be a blessing in this case...


RE: Is this guy blind?
By bighairycamel on 12/18/2008 10:20:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sorry your claim of anti-sony bias is ridiculous and reeks of Sony fanboi'ism.

Really does it now? It craks me up when people think that can see through the internet and judge people for what they are.... guess what, I have an XBox 360. OMG, can you smell my Sony fanboyism??!?!?!

I am just saying this guy was apparently looking for rediculous things to explain why Sony's system is doing poorly, when clearly his comment is absurd.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Treripica on 12/18/2008 9:49:52 AM , Rating: 2
I hooked up my PS3 to our old 20" and could tell a significant difference between LOST Season 3 on BD and Season 2 on DVD.

Now we have a Samsung 46" A650 and there's a marked difference between DVD and BD quality, especially with LOST season 3. According to the beginning of disc 1, they used less compression than what's on the HD Broadcast and were able to get a better picture. LOST looks great on BluRay :)


RE: Is this guy blind?
By mcnabney on 12/18/2008 9:58:05 AM , Rating: 4
Please compare an Oppo DVD player with HDMI versus a BluRay. You should at least compare apples and apples.

By the way, I play everything on my HTPC and once FFDshow setting are tweaked I often have a hard time telling the difference between DVD and BD on a 61" screen. The jump to 1080p using BD is only a small step in resolution (but a big one in audio - those uncompressed formats blow DD and DTS away!).

I am waiting for 4K and 100GB media....


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Spivonious on 12/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is this guy blind?
By therealnickdanger on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By DEVGRU on 12/18/2008 11:06:27 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah, sorry...

Cheapo BR player = cheapo image quality/functionality.

I too, have an Oppo DVD player and there is no way I'm going to waste my money on a BR player and discs for a marginal quality improvement (and thats on my new 50" Samsung 6-series plamsa).

The initial cost of a BR player is not the issue. Its the massive amounts of money I'd waste just attempting to replace all of my DVD's with their BR equivalents (even if I could, which I can't). Granted, I could just do that going forward, but as DT is awash with technologies that completely eclipse BR in quality, storage amount, etc. BlueRay is simply not worth the cost/benefit ratio, especially in an economy like this.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By afkrotch on 12/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is this guy blind?
By mcnabney on 12/18/2008 12:07:37 PM , Rating: 5
The jump from VHS to DVD was huge. The jump from DVD to BR for video is not so huge.

Anyway, maybe you are the sucker that Hollywood dreams of. Did you re-buy a lot of your VHS collection when moving to DVD and are you doing the same with BR?

Ultimately, 4K will be the settling stanrdard since that is essentially the resolution of the film used to shoot the movies for the past 50-80 years. Even though I have BD I purchase very few BD movies since the price is so high unless you catch a promotion. When 4K comes out I think that will be a long term standard. They could do it now on 100GB BD disks, but the industry wants to milk the suckers for all they are worth...


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By Spivonious on 12/18/2008 12:46:46 PM , Rating: 4
VHS - film quality picture but degrades with every use, analog sound, no chapter skipping

DVD - 480p, picture doesn't degrade, digital sound, chapter skipping, multiple audio tracks for same video track

BR - 1080p

Please explain to me why you think BR is huge leap.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is this guy blind?
By hduser on 12/18/2008 2:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot to add better compression, color depth and audio fidelity, for BR to your list. While not earth shattering, still worth mentioning.

Also, the greatest feature of DVD over VHS was never having to rewind tape at the end of the movie.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By Spivonious on 12/18/2008 2:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and MPEG-4 isn't compression? Give me a break.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 2:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. blu-ray uses mpeg-2, mpeg-4, or vc-1 compression.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Sivar on 12/21/2008 1:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
Blu-Ray video is still compressed.

Uncompressed sound (PCM) is an option, but Dolby and DTS offer better choices (compressed but lossless).

The other Blu-Ray sound options (which include those for DVD) are compressed and lossy.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By BansheeX on 12/18/2008 6:23:30 PM , Rating: 1
Screw explanations, why don't you see for yourself...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=10...

DVD is a joke compared to 1080p MPEG4.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By wempa on 12/18/2008 12:59:59 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, DVD was huge jump over VHS. It's not just about resolution .... the ability to jump to different scenes, not having to rewind and the difference in picture quality is pretty big . Resolution and quality are 2 different things. Magnetic tape just doesn't compare to an optical disc. While I agree that HD looks very nice, I am quite satisfied with DVD quality. Now, the super compressed SD cable broadcasts are a different story altogether. They look like CRAP !


RE: Is this guy blind?
By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 2:11:50 PM , Rating: 2
I have bought some of my favorite movies that have been released on blu-ray. Mainly cause I never owned it on dvd and I barely owned any vhs tapes, minus porn.

Majority of my dvd collection is anime and there's almost no anime on blu-ray. Lest I buy them directly from Japan. If you think $25 is a lot, you'd hate their $70 price.

Blu-ray was expensive when it first came out. $35 bucks a pop, then it started dropping. Now, I'm paying at most, $25. Pretty much the same price as dvds when they first came out.

If companies started putting tv series on blu-ray, but at the same quality of a dvd, I'd buy them. That'd be a full season of whatever on a single disc. I take extremely good care of my dvds/blu-ray/games/etc, so I'm not all that worried about scratching or breaking them.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Dreifort on 12/19/2008 2:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
how soon until movies are released in 3D for BluRay or another new platform DV3D?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By mydogfarted on 12/18/2008 12:30:25 PM , Rating: 4
"Its the massive amounts of money I'd waste just attempting to replace all of my DVD's with their BR equivalents (even if I could, which I can't). "

God that argument makes me want to scream.
#1 - you don't have to replace your existing collection with BR. Most older movies aren't worth replacing because the initial quality is not there.
#2 - the cheap player/cheap picture argument is BS. The biggest problem with cheap players is they tend to be loud.

If you want to wait for the next gen is and then decide, fine... just don't make BS excuses.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By DEVGRU on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 2:18:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dunno, how about the quality of the upconversion chip, oh wait, nothing to do with cost there.


You are buying a Bluray player to upconvert?

quote:
I won't even mention possible failure rates of various components or the number and diversity of connections, etc. from a $150 player to something a tad more.


Pretty good chance the parts came from the same bin.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By mydogfarted on 12/18/2008 2:59:42 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing proves your point better than name calling. Awesome. Internet tough guys FTW.

More expensive = better is also a fabulous argument. That's always so true with electronics. For example: Dell WFP LCDs vs Apple's Cinema displays - same parts, same quality, significantly different prices.

I bet you believe you need to spend $100/ft on speaker wire for optimum sound too.

quote:
Pretty good chance the parts came from the same bin.

Exactly. Perhaps the soldering on the boards isn't as clean on a $200 player vs. a $1000+ player, but chances are you're spending most of the money on a fancier case, a big name and some bells and whistles that you'll never actually use.

From PCWorld (http://www.pcworld.com/article/147209-4/the_best_b...
quote:
Sharp BD-HP20U Blu-ray Disc Player

Sharp's first Blu-ray Disc player, the BD-HP20U, is a winner on all counts.

Turn on the BD-HP20U ($400 as of June 2008) and the unit is powered up and ready to receive a disc in under 6 seconds. That's less than a third of the time that any other player PC World tested took for that chore.

True, once on, it's slower than many others at starting to play, but the combined startup time of 41 seconds was still faster than that of any other player, and almost twice as fast as the Pioneer Elite BDP-95FD.

But it's what you see (and hear) when you have it going that counts. The Sharp simply surpassed every other player on almost all criteria. Our jury rated it number one in our tests of detail, color quality, brightness and contrast, and audio.


The Elite sells for $1200. Yup, pricer is better.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/18/2008 5:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
^^
Win


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Moishe on 12/19/2008 12:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
I have both and I can tell you that any average BR player has a high quality image. This isn't first-gen. Hi-def beats regular DVD all day long. Listen to the folks who live with HD daily. I have both HD-DVD and BR and DVD.

HD IS better, by a long shot.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By wallijonn on 12/18/2008 12:23:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Blu-Ray really isn't expensive.


The going rate is a $10 premium over standard def DVDs. If BDs 'on sale' is compared to DVDs 'on sale,' the BDs usually go for ~$15 while the DVDs usually go for $5. It's still the same $10. Then there are the Disney films which command a $15 differential... 'Wall.E' day-of-release price was $15 for DVD and $30 for BD. Both prices have since gone up $5. Do you really believe that there is a market for $35 BDs?

To me, down-loadable content is a non issue - the quality is not there. The same goes for Dish and Cable - the quality is inferior to BD.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By therealnickdanger on 12/19/2008 9:46:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
'Wall.E' day-of-release price was $15 for DVD and $30 for BD.

Shop fail.

I bought Wall-E (3-disc Blu-Ray with Digital Copy) the day it came out from Amazon for $23.99. Best Buy was selling it for $29.99. I got the same exact deal on The Dark Knight (3-disc Blu-Ray with Digital Copy), except Best Buy was selling it for $23.99. The Blu-Ray versions without the Digital Copy were even less. The DVD versions were over $15. The DVD versions with Digital Copy were $22. I also just bought Total Recall on Blu-Ray for $8.99. That third boob has never looked so awesome. Several years ago I bought Band of Brothers on DVD for something like $120. I just bought the Blu-Ray version... $43. The improvements over DVD are astounding. I also recently bought the Harry Potter collection (years 1-5 Blu-Ray) for $65.

When comparing only new titles, I think it's fair to pay 50% (the difference is usually less) more to get 6X the video resolution and uncompressed (or lossless) audio. I have a relatively strict policy about buying movies in general, but for Blu-Ray:

- it needs to be a movie I like to watch a lot
- it should be a "spectacle" type movie (visual/aural feast)
- it needs to be a quality transfer (as rated by AVS or HDD)
- never over $25 (triologies or packs need to be under $20/film)

For everything else, I have Netflix. I have also converted most of my DVD collection to video files for streaming over my home network.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 10:57:47 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
HDTV is only slightly better than a good digital SD broadcast, so I can't imagine BD is that much better than DVD. Especially not for a $300 player and $30 discs.


Either you have poor vision, or your TV is crap.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Spivonious on 12/18/2008 12:52:48 PM , Rating: 2
And you've obviously never seen a good digital SD broadcast. Obviously it's not as sharp as HD, but the colors and sound are there and it's much clearer than an analog SD broadcast. The extra sharpness is really only a benefit while watching sports, and even there if I had to choose between 16:9 SD and 4:3 HD, I'd choose 16:9 every time.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 12:57:13 PM , Rating: 2
I will take that as "I have a crappy TV". Fair enough.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Spivonious on 12/18/2008 2:40:25 PM , Rating: 3
And I'll take that as "I have no life and therefore must argue with everyone on DT." Because that's all I've ever seen you do.

Forgive me Gzus!! I have sinned and not spent $3000 on a TV!!


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 2:43:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And I'll take that as "I have no life and therefore must argue with everyone on DT." Because that's all I've ever seen you do.


I love how you have to resort to the personal attack, classic.

Anyway, I don't care what TV you have, but don't say "I can't see the difference" when your TV sucks. Expect to be hammered on it.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Spivonious on 12/18/2008 2:56:15 PM , Rating: 3
You ignored my last reply and instead assumed that my TV was not up to par. Believe me, the HD looks great. All I'm trying to say is that a good SD digital broadcast looks very good, and for most programs, going to HD doesn't make a huge difference.

If you can't agree with that, then I have to say that your TV signal sucks.

I have yet to see a "must-have" feature that will cause me to get a Blu-Ray player. Having you constantly argue with me and everyone else on here who thinks Blu-Ray is overrated and overpriced is not going to change my mind.

I would much rather spend my money on something worth spending it on, like a guitar, some books, going to Europe, going out on a nice date with my wife, etc.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 3:03:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
HDTV is only slightly better than a good digital SD broadcast, so I can't imagine BD is that much better than DVD. Especially not for a $300 player and $30 discs.


You can't imagine, how technical of you. I would venture your imagination sucks, that is what I was arguing with in the first place. If you can't imagine it looking better, chances are your TV blows, add in the fact that you haven't even seen BD on your TV and your whole post was just to try to downplay something you don't have.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Maharajamd on 12/18/2008 4:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
Dude you need to calm down. All you have done here in try to vindicate yourself or your beliefs by knocking other people down. Grow up and come back later. No one wants you or your "internet flaming hard boy attitude" around here.

I believe there was a MUCH bigger "quality" or should I say "satisfaction in quality" jump from VHS to DVD. Sure I understand the math, yes I have a VERY nice 1080P tv, but the difference between DVD and BR on my VISUALLY isn't as impactful as the vhs to dvd was.

Audio however is a completely different story.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/18/2008 5:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
Ok I'm staying out of the "techincal" aspect of this argument.

But I just have to ask, Gzus666, do you think you are a better person then somebody because you have Blu Ray or something man ??

If you used that insolent tone with me.. well I would just tell you to go Blu yourself and be done with you. Now go buy another Monster Cable and masterbate at how awesome you are. I know you want to.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By robinthakur on 12/19/2008 5:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
Gzus, you lost all my respect when you claimed erroneously that video on Bluray is not compressed, so please don't attempt to lecture people on technology you do not fully appreciate. So Spivonious can't afford a $3000 TV and is happy with his SD picture and sound, that's fine. He's not claiming its better than BD, and you yourself watch a 1080p *MPEG-4 compressed* picture, presumably on equipment where you can tell the difference between that and DVD. Everybody's happy. I dare say that if he were to see a bluray presentation on decent equipment, he might change his mind, but your unhelpful tone will not cause him to like Bluray.

I watch my Blu-Ray on a large 1080p tv and 1080p projector, with onkyo amp and KEF reference speakers. I spent that money because I could appreciate the difference from a purist perspective, which justified the outlay. Most non-technical people might notice slightly sharper images with more pop and louder sound. The functionality is pretty much identical to DVD (bar all the "live" dross) and they simply don't really care that much that the colour depth is greatly improved or that the resolution is roughly double that of DVD or even that the sound is occasionally uncompressed. I understand that and would be perfectly happy watching a dvd upscaled or blu-ray because its the content which matters most, not these superficial matters.

The whole HD subject is rife with complexity for the average buyer and the deliberately DRM hobbled connections certainly do not help. The fact that anyone might unintentionally hook up their BR player using S-Video makes me shudder...but it does happen.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By tdawg on 12/18/2008 9:51:09 AM , Rating: 2
I can tell a difference on my 24" screen!


RE: Is this guy blind?
By AnnihilatorX on 12/18/2008 9:53:08 AM , Rating: 2
If yours is a PC screen then sure


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Moishe on 12/18/2008 9:53:23 AM , Rating: 2
I have a 120" 720p display and Hi-Def is clearly better without a doubt. I'm always surprised when someone says that HD is not worth it.

At my size, 1080p will be an even greater difference when I finally upgrade.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Chaser on 12/18/2008 10:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
Is it outdoors? I'll drive my car up and watch a movie :)


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Hiawa23 on 12/18/2008 12:04:26 PM , Rating: 2
Peckham also discusses how the combined sales of the PS3, the PS2, and the PSP exceeded one million units. This number tops the 836,000 Xbox 360s that were sold.

Ridiculous. Why is he comparing sales of the Playstation line compared to the 360? I own both consoles, & honestly I hate I spent $1000 on the PS3 back in 06 plus the cables, games, & honestly I reallty hate I bought it, as I only buy the exclusives for it & donot buy consoles to watch movies. The 360 has been an amazing console for me, RROd aside, but Sony really has some serious issues, but I guess you can look at the glass as being 1/2 full instead of 1/2 empty, no matter what excuses you want to use those Ps3 numbers aren't good.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 12:22:15 PM , Rating: 1
Because PS2 is still selling and the PSP is selling as well, that is money for their games division. The fact that you spent $1000 to get the PS3 when it came out leads me to believe you are a moron. I had a launch unit a few days after Christmas and I got it for $599 with free shipping off Ebay.

If the exclusive games didn't appeal to you, why did you buy it? A large portion of them were announced to begin with. I would easily say 360 and PS3 have a comparable number of good exclusives. Sounds like idiot's remorse cause you overpaid for something and expected the world because of it.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Hiawa23 on 12/18/2008 1:18:45 PM , Rating: 1
Because PS2 is still selling and the PSP is selling as well, that is money for their games division. The fact that you spent $1000 to get the PS3 when it came out leads me to believe you are a moron. I had a launch unit a few days after Christmas and I got it for $599 with free shipping off Ebay.

I said it costed about $1000 when you add $599 plus the games & cables, extended warranty, & there is no point to call names. We are adults here.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Hiawa23 on 12/18/2008 1:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
If the exclusive games didn't appeal to you, why did you buy it? A large portion of them were announced to begin with. I would easily say 360 and PS3 have a comparable number of good exclusives. Sounds like idiot's remorse cause you overpaid for something and expected the world because of it.

again, looks like you misunderstood yet again. I said I bought the PS3 exclusives which is why I bought the console. All multiplatform games I buy on the 360, this buyers remorse nonsense you came up is crazy. I have enjoyed to console, but am totally fine with the 360. I was only saying that to me when is comes to gaming & online play the PS3 hasn't differentiated itself from the 360, as most of the multiplatform games are better on the supposed inferior console, & Live is still unmatched by PSN as far as my tastes go.

Comparing 360 sales to the PS2 PSP PS3 combined to me is a cop out, cause the PS3 directly competes with the 360, & part of the reason the PS3 had a bad month was it costs alot more & in this economy most are looking to save as much as possible & now even the Sony branded standalone Blu ray drives ar $200. Seems like alot of PS3 owners bought the console for movie playback & not games, & now that the drives are cheaper sales are suffering.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 2:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate I spent $1000 on the PS3 back in 06 plus the cables, games, & honestly I reallty hate I bought it


That is what you said. You stated that the PS3 was $1000, PLUS the cables, games and you stated you really hate you bought it. I go by what you say, I can't read your mind if you meant something else.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By foolsgambit11 on 12/18/2008 8:05:01 PM , Rating: 1
Depends on how you parse his statement. 'back in 06' is an independent clause, and can be popped out, leaving that he 'spent $1000 on the PS3 plus the cables, games...' I agree, he could have put the independent clause elsewhere to make his intended point clearer, as he could have meant either that the cables and games were included in the $1000 or that they weren't. And that his placement of 'back in 06' favors the latter. But to say that he stated that the PS3 he bought was $1000 is inaccurate. To say that he was unclear and possibly misleading would be more accurate.

For what it's worth, I immediately assumed he meant that the $1000 included accessories.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By BansheeX on 12/18/2008 7:34:00 PM , Rating: 5
The reason he is pointing that out is not in contention of 360 vs PS3 november sales, but the CNN article's bogus assertion that Sony is a sinking ship from that statistic. The PS3 outsold the 360 in 2008 at a 2x higher shelf price. And it has the PSP and PS2 sales to backstop it. That makes it pretty clear that the CNN "analyst" is an idiot, and the entire community is dumber for having listened to him. If it weren't for the fact that these articles influence uneducated consumers, people who bought one wouldn't be pissed. It's time for analysts to stop ignoring the massive value disparity between medium and high end configurations where the PS3 is clearly king.

Take a look at this. Let's say someone wants blu-ray, a hard drive, wireless, and four years of netplay.

360 Arcade ($200)
Four years of netplay ($200)
Stand-alone blu-ray player ($200)
60gb hard drive ($100)
Wireless adapter ($100)
-----------------
$800 total

PS3 ($400)
----------
$400 total

It's time for analysts to stop ignoring the massive value disparity between medium and high end configurations where the PS3 is clearly king. I concede that people who don't want any of these see a better value at $200 for an arcade 360. But there are people who do, and if analysts stopped ignoring them, they wouldn't have such a hard time figuring out why their doomsday predictions before the system was even launched turned out dead wrong.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Aloonatic on 12/18/2008 5:32:05 PM , Rating: 2
I tend to think you are are right. The difference is there, if you want to look for it and care.

From my own personal experience, most people who have seen a a BD film on a 40" 1080p LCD don't really see what all the fuss is about.

How many times have you been to a friend or relatives house and they have not set their set top box to 16:9 even though they have a wide screen TV now so it's a stretched 4:3 display? Or the have the colour, brightness and contrast settings set at the default which is often set-up to look good in a shop display room but looks awful at home, with flesh tones that look orangey red?

It's not that the extra detail isn't there or anything, it simply seems to be that most people just don't notice a HUGE difference in quality, so just don't care.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By mikeblas on 12/18/2008 7:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Does it reek of anti-Sony bias, or is it just that you happen to disagree with it? In other words, is there a way for you to make your point without overstating it, and relying on rhetoric?


RE: Is this guy blind?
By Flunk on 12/19/2008 4:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
I think it would be more accurate to say that most people don't care about the difference in quality on televisions less than 50". I certainly don't care enough to buy a new player and rebuy movies just for bluray. And yes I do own an HDTV but it's a 32".


RE: Is this guy blind?
By aBott on 12/19/2008 8:03:38 AM , Rating: 2
Really, it's resolution that matters. I can tell a huge difference between DVD quality and HD on my computer monitor. It's only a 24", which is small compared to those tv's, but it runs at 1920x1200. I think most people are content with their DVD quality video and don't realize how much better HD content is.
On the other hand...
If you're happy where you are, is it really worth upgrading? Personally, I think so, but that doesn't mean that it's worth while to everyone.


RE: Is this guy blind?
By walk2k on 12/22/2008 4:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
God not this again. This article was already de-bunked.

The reason NOV sales were down over last year is THIS NOV ONLY INCLUDED 2 DAYS AFTER THE HOLIDAY WHILE LAST YEAR IT WAS 8 DAYS !

Gee ya think they will sell less in 2 days vs 8?? Durrr.

Yes Xbox sold well after the price drop, duh. PS3 is still leading FOR THE YEAR and has been nearly all year (2008).

Anyway, does anyone really care about "X outselling Y" arguements anymore? This is so 2006. Get a life already.


By Bateluer on 12/18/2008 9:40:58 AM , Rating: 4
The 360 hasn't had anything but Halo and GoW clones, which have always stank.

The PS3's haven't been much better. The only half way decent one on the list was MGS4, the rest were meh.

I'm primarily a PC gamer, though, and used to a higher standard. :)




By Screwballl on 12/18/2008 9:46:29 AM , Rating: 4
Exactly. I keep a Wii in the house for the wife and daughter but when you can play a game at 1440x900/1280x1024 or higher, the PC has been the ultimate HD gaming platform for many years, long before even the original Xbox or Playstation.


By icanhascpu on 12/18/2008 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
Considering most games on consoles made today are indeed NOT HD, that is very true.

Even many many games with HD on the packaging do NOT play at HD resolutions. Halo 3 is one of the bigger ones. I believe it doesnt even reach 720i! Its in the 600s somewhere.

Pretty fucked up if you ask me.


By CuiBono on 12/19/2008 3:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's funny to hear exclusive PC-gamers claiming superiority of PC over any single console. Funny to hear that PC is a "platform"! :O Who are you, fellas, kidding?! The term 'PC' is soooo vague in nature (they all use different components and could be awfully cheap & crappy or extremely expensive and fast) that it is an absurdity to hear someone compare [vague specs&pricing] PC to a [very much closed system and definitively priced] console!!! So, c'mon, like they say - compare apple to apples, -alright? I own and play all of'em. As far as PS3 vs. XBox360, - I say value & quality is in Sony's camp hands down. XBox360 is a cheap entry ticket into the current-gen gaming and that is why it's outselling PS3. Put'em at the same price point and you'd see that PS3 would DEFINITELY outsell XBox360 no problem. Would any of you argue this point? Exclusives? Both of'em have good ones (that is why I own both).


By BrgMx5 on 12/18/2008 10:33:38 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm primarily a PC gamer, though, and used to a higher standard. :)


Well, i used to be a PC Gamer, but i just got tired of the effects the higher standard had on my bank account.

I bought an xbox 360 because i just want to turn it on, play, turn it off.

No update driver, reinstall everything bull.

And when i want to buy a game, i don't have to play it at a crappy resolution because my PC is 1 year old.

I'm 32, i have better things to do than fiddle with the PC the better part of the day.


By joemoedee on 12/18/2008 11:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like fiddle with other things? Or play games? Yea you are Mr. Important, no time for fiddling. Just say you don't want to, your time is not that valuable that you always have better things to do.


Taking the comment to the extreme much?

Console gaming is much easier than PC gaming, period. If I buy whatever game for my particular console, it's going to work. Drop it in and go. Can't get much easier than that.

If I buy a new PC game, the chance of it not working properly is much higher. Two year old PC? It may not play that new game at all, and if it does, the settings may have to be turned way down. The patching system sucks for PC games as well.

The experience on the console is very similar to PC now. The visual differences between the two are smaller than ever, more variety of games to be had on consoles than PCs, and the on-line experience on Consoles is equal if not better than PCs. Plus, the price of admission is lower.


By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 1:13:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Console gaming is much easier than PC gaming, period. If I buy whatever game for my particular console, it's going to work. Drop it in and go. Can't get much easier than that.


No real difference in PC games. Like a console game, you'll check to make sure it works with your system (check system requirements), and if your system matches, you pick it up.

Once home, you drop in the disc, install, and go. For consoles, you may or may not skip the install process.

quote:
If I buy a new PC game, the chance of it not working properly is much higher. Two year old PC? It may not play that new game at all, and if it does, the settings may have to be turned way down. The patching system sucks for PC games as well.


Huh? You can buy the latest game and play it on a 5 year old PC. Now...I mean right now. Yes, you'll have to turn down the eye candy, but it'll play.

A 5 year old PC. That'd be what? 3.8 ghz P4, 6800 Ultra, 2 gigs of memory, a couple 36.7 gig Raptors, and so on.

Turn down the settings, so what? Look at the difference between a new PC game now on the latest hardware and a new console game on a 360/PS3. The console game looks like crap in comparison. Maybe cause the PC is now 4-5 times faster than the console is.

quote:
The experience on the console is very similar to PC now. The visual differences between the two are smaller than ever, more variety of games to be had on consoles than PCs, and the on-line experience on Consoles is equal if not better than PCs. Plus, the price of admission is lower.


Oh dear god, you must have a PC that is similiar in spec to a console still. Check out Fallout 3 on console and on PC. Huge difference.

More game variety on consoles? How many MMOs are on consoles? How many RTS are on consoles? How many FPS are on console? How many sim games? How many mini-games? Free mini-games? There are simply more games available on PC, not to mention the sheer amount of backwards compatibility. I also am not stuck buying 3 different PCs to play all the latest PC games. Nor am I stuck having to keep around an old PC to play all my old PC games.

Look at just one console. How much variety is on that one console compared to a PC? Cause we all know that consoles also have exclusives and to get that exclusive, you need that console.

I also priced out a computer on Newegg. $490. Costs more than a console, but I also didn't go lowest specs possible either. C2D 2.66 ghz, Geforce 9800 GT, 2 gig mem, WinXP Media, 80 gig hdd, etc. No monitor, as consoles don't come with a free TV either. Free online play (minus MMOs) and ability to use it like a computer. The PS3 can run Linux, but it's pretty limited to what can be connected to it, cause it's a PS3.

Also what's the cost to buy all 3 consoles? You'd have to do that to play all the latest console games. There's pros and cons to whatever you decide to do.


By BrgMx5 on 12/18/2008 11:40:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Oh and it is surely a nightmare occasionally having to work on a computer, my god! I have to mess with mine once a year maybe when I upgrade or download a driver once


Once a year??? It's more like:

Bought a new game. hummm has artifacts/ doesn't load. uninstall driver, go to video driver version crap0002.

New game works, old one doesn't, go to driver version crap0003.

WOW now i can't watch videos, go to driver version crap0004.

Reboot, repeat.

Once a year, that would be nice.


By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 11:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
I have yet to have a problem with a game in well over a year since I have built my new PC. Short of Crysis, I have had well over 60fps on high at my full resolution without issue.

You are doing something stupid it sounds like. If you want high resolution in depth games, PC is where it is at. Take the good with the bad.


By BrgMx5 on 12/18/2008 12:00:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, i just posted to make my point on why i moved from PC gaming to console (xbox 360).

If things improved, great.

And i should say that online play on Live is an experience that just isn´t possible with a PC cough*cheaters*cough.

The only thing that i miss is comunity development with great mods, maps, etc. (downside being the above said cheating brats)


By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 2:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And i should say that online play on Live is an experience that just isn´t possible with a PC cough*cheaters*cough.


cough*happensonXboxlive*cough


By KernD on 12/18/2008 3:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
No cheat on XBox360... right... but we have Punk Buster on PC, so no cheats where I play.
There are far less cheaters on PC than people think.
Mostly because too many people are stupid and think that anyone that's much better than the average player in a game is a cheat.

We've all heard horror stories about playing on xbox live and having to mute many people... so XBox live isn't any better than normal net games.


By Alpha4 on 12/18/2008 12:37:22 PM , Rating: 5
My friend, you should count your blessings. I had an awesome time getting GTA IV to work last week:

Step 0.5) Pray you have administrative access in Vista.

Step 1) Install MS .Net Framework 3.5.
"Really? For a game? Okay..."

Step 2) .Net Framework download requires Windows Genuine Advantage validation. Install plugin in firefox.

Step 3) Install .Net Framework 3.5 service pack 1
"Wtf? I didn't know that existed..."

REBOOT

Step 4) Uninstall Nvidia 178.76 Forcewares

REBOOT

Step 5) Wait for Vista's useless Auto-update feature to discover unknown VGA device and install even older legacy Nvidia drivers.

Step 6) Uninstall those drivers and temporarily disable auto-update.

REBOOT

Step 7) Install Nvidia 180.48 Forcewares and say goodbye to any chance of enjoying a stable starcraft session.

REBOOT

Step 8) Proceed with 13 minute installation process, despite the 3.46ghz Intel Q9450 & 3x Sata HDD Striped RAID.

Step 9) Install DRM Rapeware

Step 10) Launch GTAIV.exe and encounter "D3DD003X.dll" error and furiously google the error.

Step 11) Drop Resolution down from 1920x1200 to 1680x1050 then re-launch GTAIV.exe.

Step 12) Discover that your 4 month old $500 Nvidia Geforce GTX 280 Can't handle maximum detail and your 1024MB framebuffer can only display 50% view distance...

Step 13) Encounter crash 6 minutes into gameplay.

Step 14) Explore Google and discover Nvidia 180.84 Beta Forceware drivers the following day, which expressly state they address GTAIV stability and performance issues. Proceed with download and isntallation.

REBOOT

Step 15) Find out that Windows Vista only allows WHQL certified drivers to be installed by default, but only AFTER restarting.

--> Enable permission to install non-WHQL certified drivers in Windows Vista.

Step 16) Reinstall drivers

And Thats It, You're Ready To Play The Game!


By DPigs on 12/18/2008 1:49:41 PM , Rating: 2
Lol! That's the best post I've read in a while. It's funny because its true. +1


By Alpha4 on 12/18/2008 2:07:03 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks! I was actually one of the fortunate ones, because apparently the DRM forced a lot of users to disable any virtual drives they had on or even update their optical disc drive firmware. The game wouldn't launch with the disc in my LG bluray drive, I had to use a samsung external DVD writer.


By Spivonious on 12/18/2008 3:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, if that's normal then I'm glad I went with ATI.

1. Buy new game, find out that it runs fine.
2. Decide to update drivers for fun.
3. Download and install new drivers.

There's not even a reboot required. I'm running Vista x64.


By Heero on 12/18/2008 6:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
Lol that is tragically funny, I remember having somewhat of the same trouble with GTA III with my ATI Rage Fury Maxx video card, back in the day.

On another note, I'm glad that they are doing Dual GPUs on one card again, becuase that Rage Fury Maxx was great except for what I said above.


By BansheeX on 12/18/2008 6:57:38 PM , Rating: 1
Awesome post, this is the kind of effort and documentation it takes to make people realize how far PC gaming has fallen, and how annoying Vista can be. I totally share your frustration, dude.


By Alpha4 on 12/19/2008 9:32:04 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks man. I realize a lot of these hassles are one-time events, at least. But it did give me an idea for Windows 7 or other future iterations;
I was thinking Microsoft could include an "experienced mode" installation for more savvy customers. With this enabled the install could omit more commonly disabled features like User Access Control, WHQL-Verification, Readyboost and maybe Windows Firewall/Defender.

In any case I just want to go on record saying I still love my PC gaming. ;)


By Obsoleet on 12/20/2008 7:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's why people have opened computer stores, so you don't have to fiddle all day.

I'm a mere 26, but I'm as busy as the next guy (university graduate with a fulltime job). When I'm busy, but there's something serious wrong with my computer, I drop it off at a computer store that I trust. They fix it cheaply and I pick it up.

I had a business trip to Europe for 5 weeks this year and had to do just that, because I was too busy. Certainly you're not managing a house, working overseas with a time consuming job AND fiddling are you? When I can't find the time to play a fiddle I utilize a local computer shop.

There's no shame in having a real life, but you have to spread out the responsibility if you truly are that busy.


By walk2k on 12/22/2008 4:12:07 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly.

What games are even exclusive to PC? Talking major titles here, not indie small-potatos. None, they call come out for console.


By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 12:03:39 PM , Rating: 2
All the problems you see with console games are the exact same problems you see on PC games. Just, they have higher resolutions.

The only thing that PC games have over console games is better graphics, MMOs, and larger selection of games (which usually suck anyways).

I'm mainly a PC gamer. I prefer my keyboard and mouse. I of course have consoles too, as certain games play better on a gamepad. I have a USB PS2 controller converter, but they suck. There's the 360 controller thing, but I'm not really a fan of the 360 controller.


By drzoo2 on 12/18/2008 12:51:59 PM , Rating: 2
I just bought Lego Batman for my son and needed an extra controller to play with him. (Definitely not a keyboard game.) I modded my original xbox controller along with a driver located from Source Forge. I don't know why I didn't do this sooner. I prefer the xbox controller over the ps2-like Logitech pc controller I own. The xbox controller seems to built for larger hands. My son can use his mini xbox controller he owns also with the mod. Highly recomended if you are in need of a controller for your PC.
z


By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
I use a standard PS2 controller. Just using the PS2 usb connector convertor thing. I just bought it for fighting games like Melty Blood. Got sick of it and just ordered the PS2 versions of the game.

I just went with the PC version, cause they were easy to pirate.


Sony is trying to mislead us
By Lugaidster on 12/18/2008 9:49:33 AM , Rating: 3
I'd say I agree with the guy on almost everything, specially on the games topic, since I do believe there are a quite a few good exclusive PS3 games. But the question here isn't if Sony outsells Microsoft, but rather if the PS3 outsells the Xbox 360. If the PS3 can't compete in its own category then it clearly is the least desirable product here.

Don't get me wrong, if I had the money I'd go for a PS3 but I don't. Sony needs to make it cheaper, fast.

I don't know what happened to Sony, PS1 was supposed to be cheap and easy to program, and it won mostly because of it. The PS2 was a bit of that path but with time it still won due to the lack of competitors.

If it wasn't for the fact that the PS3 is pushing other agendas aside from the console wars (those being bluray and Cell microprocessor), it would've gone out of the market a long time ago. I bet they could've made it quite a bit cheaper if they hadn't used rambus tech.




RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 10:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Don't get me wrong, if I had the money I'd go for a PS3 but I don't. Sony needs to make it cheaper, fast.


It would appear you don't understand what desirable means. I desire a Porsche 911 GT2, oddly enough I can't afford one. Does that mean that vehicle is the least desired? Or do you think maybe it is desired but not afforded by many?


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By tallcool1 on 12/18/2008 11:53:20 AM , Rating: 1
People just don't seem to understand that your comparing apples to oranges when talking 360 vs PS3.

You cannot say that because one is selling less than the other, its a failure. They are selling to slightly different groups of people. It is the same with the Wii vs 360. Would you say the 360 is a failure because it cannot even come close to the sales the Wii? We have different hardware, therefore different price brackets, therefore different consumers and different sales as a result.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Lugaidster on 12/18/2008 12:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
You perhaps didn't understand what I wanted to say. When I speak of desirability it is in relative terms. I may want to have a Lambo and a Ferrari, yet desire one more than the other because "a", "b" and/or "c". Maybe I should've used "demanded" instead of "desired" but you should get the point.

Like it or not, both Microsoft and Sony want to sell the consoles to mostly the same people, though I admit there are slight market differences. And they are those that like pretty games with cool graphics more than gameplay. The Xbox 360, for the people that'd like to have both but can't, is a more desirable product hence the difference in sales.

When I said that I wanted to have a PS3 it was because, if money didn't mean anything, that is what I'd get. But then again, I'd also get a Mac, an Ipod and a GTX280. Now, because money does matter I have a PC, a mp3 player and a 4870. And I won't be getting any of the other things until I have spare money (unlikely in the short term) or they lower their prices to the point where they equal the value I give them (an entirely subjective thing).


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 12:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
You've effectively just reinforced what I was saying.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Lugaidster on 12/18/2008 1:34:53 PM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing you don't understand what relative means and how it differs from absolute.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By adiposity on 12/22/2008 4:39:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like it or not, both Microsoft and Sony want to sell the consoles to mostly the same people, though I admit there are slight market differences. And they are those that like pretty games with cool graphics more than gameplay. The Xbox 360, for the people that'd like to have both but can't, is a more desirable product hence the difference in sales.


The 360 pro (and elite) and the PS3 are going after the same general market: hard-core console gamers. The arcade is clearly going after the casual gamer market: it is cheaper (than the Wii, even), and doesn't have support for any of the hard-drive based features. For a long time, it barely had room for a few save files. If pros are compared to PS3s, the picture is much closer.

Sony has a contender in the casual market: the PS2. And that is why it makes sense to include it. Clearly, Nintendo dominates this market. But their lack of software sales reveals the market for what it is: casual.

Microsoft's strategy is genius, though. They go after both markets with the same hardware line. On top of that, software is compatible between the two (only somewhat true for the PS3, and even then, only in one direction). This encourages developers to use their platform, as more total "xbox" consoles are out there, even if half of them are garbage arcades, and even if they are getting murdered by Nintendo in that market.

This translates to a big disadvantage for Sony. Their hardware is clearly a better value, IMO, even ignoring blu-ray. But modular is usually an advantage, and it is here for Microsoft. Especially since their hard drive is so overpriced. I'd gladly have bought my PS3 for $100 less without a harddrive, but then Sony wasn't overcharging for their hdd. And Sony can hardly drop the blu-ray component now. In order to compete for casual gamers with the PS3, they have to devalue their entire product line. It just won't work. It is priced about right, at the same price as an elite xbox.

If Sony can get software on the PS3 without having to sell a dirt-cheap version, then there's no reason to drop the price. Considering all the exclusives they get, and that most 3rd party are cross-platform, it doesn't seem to be a problem. Why would they want to lose more money on every console? Total PS3s sold may be less than Xboxes, but what exactly does that represent? Those arcade owners aren't on Xbox live much, I'd wager.

-Dan


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 1:54:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I desire a Porsche 911 GT2, oddly enough I can't afford one. Does that mean that vehicle is the least desired?
Yes, yes it does... price is a variable of desirability. The Porsche being more expensive than say a corvette, even though the features are very comparable will make it less desirable to the demographic in which price is an issue.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 2:10:32 PM , Rating: 2
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desire

Please show me in the definition where it says that. If you want to make up definitions for words, specify before hand.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 2:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
You are taking this out of context. You blast me for not giving you a definition, yet that link does not even cover your Porsche example.

Meanwhile.. if I search for a comparison in a similar field, we can come up with other examples of price affecting desirability.

http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2008/06/02/are-minin...

In this example, Netbooks raising in price have 'priced themselves out of desirability?'. To whom? Low end laptops.

Once again, cost IS a variable of desirability, but it all depends on the situation.

I think that the PS3 vs the 360 fits that bill.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 2:54:23 PM , Rating: 2
PS. http://www.yourdictionary.com/desirability

desirable Definition

de·sir·able (di zir'? b?l)

adjective

1. worth wanting or having ; worthwhile, beneficial, expedient, etc.
2. arousing desire; pleasing, attractive, etc.

desirability Synonyms
desirability

n.

worth, advantage, usefulness; see value 3.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 2:59:13 PM , Rating: 2
Cost is a factor of attainability, not desire. You are playing games to try to twist this into your favor. Just say you misconstrued desire and move on. I desire to fly like a bird and shoot lasers from my eyes. The issue is not cost, it is I cannot have them.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 3:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
Worth is a synonym of desirability, you asked for my supporting definition, I gave it to you.

Do you need more definitions?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/desirability

desirability
noun worth , value , benefit, profit, advantage, merit, usefulness

I also don't see how I am playing games, you gave a vague definition that didnt even support your own theory.

You are being very closed minded, there are countless meanings of desire/desirability, you are just pinning yourself to one of them.

Even articles about the PS3 and its price say that if they lowered its price, it would be more disirable.

http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/news/200...


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 3:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
scratch the last part, I misread the article and meant to remove it from the post.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 3:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/desirable?vie...

That will teach me for using the garbage dictionaries, overly broad and inaccurate. There is a reason more linguists hate US dictionaries. Oxford Dictionary tends to be right on the money.

• adjective 1 wished for as being attractive, useful, or necessary.

Better?

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/desire?view=u...

There is the proper for desire as well.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 3:50:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a compact dictionary it only contains 145,000 words... with limited definitions.

and you were the one that linked dictionary.com..

Now.. lets look at a full definition via Oxford university Press, which is the publishing house of Oxford.

http://www.oup.com/oald-bin/web_getald7index1a.pl

de•sir•able /d{I}'za{I}{shwa}r{shwa}bl/ adj.
1 (formal) ~ (that) ...| ~ (for sb) (to do sth) that you would like to have or do; worth having or doing: (BrE) It is desirable that interest rates should be reduced. * (NAmE) It is desirable that interest rates be reduced. * highly desirable * The house has many desirable features. * It is no longer desirable for adult children to live with their parents. * She chatted for a few minutes about the qualities she considered desirable in a secretary. * Such measures are desirable, if not essential. opp undesirable
2 (of a person) causing other people to feel sexual desire: She suddenly saw herself as a desirable young woman.
* de•sir•abil•ity /d{I}'za{I}{shwa}r{shwa}'b{I}l{shwa}ti/ noun [U] (formal): No one questions the desirability of cheaper fares.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 4:40:22 PM , Rating: 2
Well, time to write this off as FUD. The Oxford University press says the compact is merely a smaller font version of their full size without as many examples. Odd part is Meriam Webster shows the same definition as the Oxford Compact. Short of the examples, the one on the compact is actually longer for the definition, so clearly space wasn't the issue in regards to the definition. I hate dictionaries...


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 5:04:46 PM , Rating: 2
Lets just agree to disagree ;)


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Lugaidster on 12/19/2008 12:13:57 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/desire?view=u...

According to that link which you provided, to desire something is to want something. And IIRC from my economics classes, price affects how much you want something, hence how much you desire something. Now, you could add the word "strongly" from the definition to that and it'd still wouldn't change the outcome. The fact still is that the price of something affects its desirability.

To put it this way, many people like luxury items because not may can afford them. If suddenly they dropped their prices to the point where they no longer were a luxury, they would become less desirable to this people. You can't argue that. Thus, you are wrong.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Lugaidster on 12/19/2008 12:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
I forgot to mention one thing. The price can affect desirability both ways. Which is what is being contested here. Making a Porsche more desirable because of it's price to some is the same as saying that it is less desirable to others.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By superflex on 12/22/2008 12:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, take your meds. Maybe then you wont have to argue with every post in this thread.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Lugaidster on 12/18/2008 2:22:11 PM , Rating: 2
Although not exactly my point, I completely agree. My point was that relatively speaking the corvette would be more desirable than the porsche (though there are people that would rather have a porsche). Unless we were talking of inelastic goods, price does affect the desirability of a product, it's simple economics. The Xbox 360 is an alternative to the PS3 to many people so it is an elastic good (how much, I don't know).


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Gzus666 on 12/18/2008 2:28:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
My point was that relatively speaking the corvette would be more desirable than the porsche (though there are people that would rather have a porsche).


Huh? Go ask 100 people what they would prefer to have, a Porsche or a Corvette, pretty much all will say Porsche. That is desire.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/desire

Read the actual definition, if you want to make crap up, specify beforehand.


RE: Sony is trying to mislead us
By Aloonatic on 12/18/2008 5:17:20 PM , Rating: 4
Nurse, would you get Gzus666's medication for me? He's at it again.

Come with me Gzus666. Take a seat over here in this dark, quiet room. Everything is going to be OK, just take a few deep breaths.

Yes yes, everyone on the internet is a moron and you know everything. One day they will all understand and see your brilliance.

Thank you nurse.

Now, could you be a big boy and take these pretty coloured pills for me? Everything will be OK.

Shhhh, don't struggle... that's it.. easy now.

It's OK everyone, I think he's asleep.

You can all go back to discussing the article again along with your opinions and ideas. Rather than arguing about dictionary references, writing styles, spellings and grammatical errors etc etc etc.....


Sony vs Microsoft
By Moishe on 12/18/2008 9:51:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Peckham also discusses how the combined sales of the PS3, the PS2, and the PSP exceeded one million units.


If this is purely about the PS3 not doing well, then I don't want to hear Sony touting sales of PS2s.

With quotes like this, what this comes down to is a competition between Sony and Microsoft, NOT a competition between consoles.

Sony as a company is doing fine. Same with MS. The PS3 is apparently being trounced by the XB360 and both are being killed by the Wii. The numbers speak for themselves.




RE: Sony vs Microsoft
By Chaser on 12/18/2008 10:19:30 AM , Rating: 3
The 360 has how many different versions and price points now? They created a $199 version for Christmas. This sales numbers pitch which is only one part of the puzzle.

How about the difference in sales numbers of Wii vs 360s? What does that project? That grim prediction doesn't seem to be much of a topic on here. But if we use the same rationale is the 360 doomed? No way!

Sony's PS3 is now the most expensive console of the three. I have earth shattering news for you: It's going to sell less. Just like the 360 has sold far less than the Wii. We have a $200 console, a stripped down $200.00 -to get in the door- console, and a $399.00 console that has more standard features then the rest.

The PS3 has millions of units sold worldwide and Blue Ray is still in its relative infancy. As Blue ray becomes more common in households, digital TV replaces analog, flat screens become common place and manufacturing costs continue to fall for the PS3 it will do well.


RE: Sony vs Microsoft
By Hiawa23 on 12/18/2008 1:46:23 PM , Rating: 2
I am sorry but I really can't compare the Wii to the 360 or PS3 as it's clearly geared more towards casuals gamers, or non gamers, & I also own the console along with the PS3 & 360, but really has had no appeal to me other than playing with my daughter.

Bringing up PSP & PS2 sales & comparing them to the 360 to me is just trying to put a positive spin on things. The 360 directly competes with the PS3, not the PSP or PS2 which has sold well over 100mill units & is last gen, so regardless of what some say, Sony should be concerned about this, & it isn't our fault that if Sony's claims are correct, they have lost more money on the PS3 than they made on the PS2. This trojan horse that Sony banked everything on might have not been such a great decision, & I don't where some of you are getting your numbers from, but I recently read mostly all of Sony's division were down considerably, they were closing factories, & I am not sure they can even afford to lower the price of the PS3 at this time, & take an even larger loss per console.


RE: Sony vs Microsoft
By BansheeX on 12/18/2008 7:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am not sure they can even afford to lower the price of the PS3 at this time, & take an even larger loss per console.


A price cut is coming in 2009, remember, price cuts don't necessarily mean they're selling at a greater loss. As a console matures, its cost to manufacture declines with die shrinks, improved yields, and smaller power supplies begotten by those. So those savings naturally get passed on to the consumer through a lower price as companies compete for their purchase.

Sony is not in danger of bankruptcy, they have lots of different tentacles that they can sacrifice before their gaming division.


RE: Sony vs Microsoft
By robinthakur on 12/19/2008 6:24:44 AM , Rating: 2
You're right, you can't compare Nintendo's console presence to Sony or Microsoft's. Nintendo wipes the floor with both of them in terms of profitability on hardware, software and sales figures. The difference is between catering to the general rather than the niche, or those who are wowed by eye-candy. I also own the PS3 and 360, but am under no illusions that Nintendo has completely changed the playing field this generation for generations to come (debatably for the worse).

-Casual pick up and play games have risen to be the dominant earnings force in gaming today. Nintendo's Apple-like miniature design on the Wii and lifestyle advertising sells itself as an appliance.
-Video games are now seen as more physically interactive (as they have been for a while in Japan) rather than holding a complex oypad, which marks you out as 'hardcore' or old school depending on how you look at it...
-The old arms race mentality concentrating on more complex graphics and edging towards entertainment media centre in a box idea have been shown to be a much harder sell than an approach which concentrates on the games, and the time to profitablity might make this strategy unsustainable in the long term. Its also riven with potential problems such as overheating defects, time to market of both consoles and games, cost of game development and the chief fact that users at that purist level have far higher expectations. The simplicity of the Wii is one of its biggest selling points, and that plays well with people who wouldn't be caught dead playing GTAIV and its ilk. The success of Nintendo's approach will lead to a different perspective from the big three in the next generation, as you are already seeing on the Xbox avatars and things like Lips, Rock Band etc.

Trust me, I'm a gamer first and foremost, but I can't deny that Nintendo's master stroke this generation was in daring to try something different (as they have traditionally done), producing a profitable console which seemed more revolutionary than its competitors at a far cheaper price-point, whilst making the horse-power argument, which dogged the Gamecube, irrelevent. Nintendo gambled and in the end, they won. It was worth it for me just to get to play Super Mario Galaxy too, which is a gamers game, and hence the score on Metacritic...The other two are just battling for last place at this point.


RE: Sony vs Microsoft
By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 1:59:58 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Sony as a company is doing fine. Same with MS. The PS3 is apparently being trounced by the XB360 and both are being killed by the Wii. The numbers speak for themselves.


Those numbers don't really speak for themselves though. Consoles make their money off games and accessories, not the actual console sales figures.

Now more consoles in the wild would probably mean more sales of accessories and games. I simply don't see the Wii beating the 360 in that category.


Bad numbers
By wallijonn on 12/18/2008 10:54:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
the combined sales of the PS3, the PS2, and the PSP exceeded one million units. This number tops the 836,000 Xbox 360s that were sold.


Remove the PSP, because MS doesn't have a portable, and what numbers do you get? The numbers quoted must be strictly related to this year, 2008, in which case citing the PS2 numbers is disingenuous.

As far as the HD-DVD vs BD wars, once BD won the prices of BD movies soared and most have settled at the $29.99 price point (WalMart prices.) Most people are not willing to pay $30 for a movie therefore there is much less reason to buy a PS3 or BD player. As far as HD vs DVD quality goes - it depends on the movie, some DVDs have excellent visual quality (last Star Wars movie for example) and many do not; the fact that there are some BD movies which are merely re-scans doesn't help the BD cause.




RE: Bad numbers
By foolsgambit11 on 12/18/2008 8:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remove the PSP, because MS doesn't have a portable, and what numbers do you get? The numbers quoted must be strictly related to this year, 2008, in which case citing the PS2 numbers is disingenuous.

It may be disingenuous, but it does make sense, to some extent. They include the entire console lineup of both companies. They would include xBox (original) numbers, if MS was still selling that platform. But the xBox was discontinued. They didn't have much of a reason to keep it going, considering the backwards compatibility of the 360 and what the relative pricing of the two consoles would be. And when you consider the fact that PS2 sales are mostly from the developing world, and MS has never had good sales outside of America, there is no reason to keep the old platform around.

So it makes sense to compare 360 sales to both the PS2 and PS3, since, being (mostly) backwards compatible, it competes with both generations. But throwing in the PSP is a little, odd, I'll admit. And either way, using a total console sales figure to defend the PS3 is ineffective to the critical reader. It's like saying, "I shot a great round of golf yesterday! Me, Tiger Woods, and Vijay Singh shot a combined 12 under!"


RE: Bad numbers
By sleepeeg3 on 12/22/2008 10:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
So lets throw in the Wii, DS and Gameboy Advance figures in there and see how they compare! The comparison is ridiculous PR spin, no matter how you want to look at it.


RE: Bad numbers
By walk2k on 12/22/2008 4:03:45 PM , Rating: 2
What Blu-ray movie is a "re scan" of the DVD? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.


Sony is a sinking ship
By mfed3 on 12/18/2008 10:17:36 AM , Rating: 5
Things are definitely grim for Sony, their last financial report showed terrible losses in the electronics division once again following their $2 billion loss last report. Not only that, but their film business is floundering as well, which is normally their savior.

Sony can spin any NPD news report however they want when they tell their investors, but any intelligent human being can see that they are getting killed out here. Most stocks are down in the last 6 months, obviously. Microsoft is down 30%, Nintendo 28%. However, there is a huge difference here when you see Sony is down 60%.

Wake up people, Sony has been making piss poor business decisions for a long time and they are definitely catching up to them and sinking their ship. The extremely risky and expensive PS3 / Bluray trojan horse endeavour was the final nail in the coffin.




RE: Sony is a sinking ship
By mookins on 12/18/2008 11:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree Sony has taken a pretty big blow...you're making it sound as if they're finished for good and blowing things completely out of proportion. What Sony needs to do is have a reorganization of their management and handle their business better. Once they do that, they will be fine in the long run.

Every company has their ups and downs in terms of business. Why should Sony be treated any differently?

And where exactly did you get this 60% from?


RE: Sony is a sinking ship
By phu5ion on 12/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sony is a sinking ship
By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 1:53:23 PM , Rating: 1
He's just trying to make Sony look bad. Nintendo 6 months ago was around 60,000 yen a share and now they are at 35,000 yen a share. Nice 42% drop.

Microsoft was around $29 a share 6 months ago. Now they're at $19. 35% there.

Sony was at 5000 yen. Now at 2000 yen. That's 60%.

FYI, got the info off of reuters.

Sony is a large company, so they have quite a bit more crap that can lose money. Either way, not sure what share prices has to do with anything, aside from confidence of investors in the company. It's not like Sony has lost any money.

Also if you look at the stocks further out then a measily little 6 months, Sony was at it's highest near the beginning of 2008. Around July 2008 was when the big constant drop started happening. Can you guess what the cause of that was? Possibly the economic recession?


failure
By omnicronx on 12/18/2008 1:39:37 PM , Rating: 2
No offense to the PS3, I own one and I think its a great console, but when you consider that the PS2 has sold 120+ million consoles, the PS3 is an utter failure in comparison. Its not during its lifetime going to come ever close to that number, even though the console market has expanded far beyond that of 8 years ago.

The fact is, the PS3 is dead last in sales, and the only thing it had good going for it (sales per year, it still is beating the 360 in that respect) is starting to fade, and will probably be the lowest in that respect within a year.




RE: failure
By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 3:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
I say the main problem is price, games, and word of mouth. Now this problem is for both consoles. PS3 is having problems breaking into the US. 360 is having problems breaking into Japan.

Think only once has the PS3 beaten the 360 in the US and think only once has the 360 beaten the PS3 in Japan.


RE: failure
By mmntech on 12/18/2008 4:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't call the PS3 a failure if we're going to look at it from a historical standpoint. It has sold 16.8 million units globally in two years. The original Xbox sold 24 million units over its lifetime of five years and I would hardly call it a failure. For a console to fail in my opinion, it has to sell under 10 million units over its entire life or have a complete lack of software support. The PS3 has neither of this issues.

However, Sony has made a lot of mistakes with the PS3. It's biggest problems being an unwillingness to lower the price of the base model to make it comparable to the 360 Elite, and poor marketing. Sony has to lower the price if they want it to sell more.


RE: failure
By robinthakur on 12/19/2008 5:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
I would call the Xbox 1 a failure actually. It was unceremoniously dumped the day after the 360 went on sale by Microsoft and very few titles came out afterwards. It was a curiosity during its short lifetime, and the modding scene was the only thing which made the big ugly box interesting. Very few games for it, bar Jet set radio future and Panzer Dragoon Orta ever appealed (to me). Maybe it was more successful in the US. The Dreamcast also sold over 10 million, I might add.

I think MS has marketed the specifics of the 360 very well, whilst Sony has only marketed the vaguest mention of the actual games available on PS3. Even now, every game advert I see apart from LBP says "available on Xbox" Its really disappointing. From Sony's pedigree with the PS2 and Psx (original) the PS3 is a big upset and a massive flop. It has cost billions to develop, arrived underpowered, late, is complex to program for and stubbornly overpriced. Sony is now discovering, as Nintendo did during the mid 90's, just how fickle the industry can be to arrogant market ex-leaders.

The fact that they haven't walked all over MS after the RROD PR-disaster should tell you how weak Sony are at the moment, and speaks to their lack of a quality games line up. Have you seen the sales numbers for LBP? I own all major consoles of the last 10 years, including the PS3 so don't think i'm biased here.


CAN YOU SEE THIS DIFFERENCE?
By Sungpooz on 12/18/2008 11:44:59 AM , Rating: 5
|4804804804804804|720720720720720720|10801080108010 801080p|
|4804804804804804|720720720720720720|108010801080 10801080p|
|4804804804804804|720720720720720720|108010801080 10801080p|
|4804804804804804|720720720720720720|108010801080 10801080p|
|4804804804804804|720720720720720720|108010801080 10801080p|
|4804804804804804|720720720720720720|108010801080 10801080p|
|72072072072072072072072072072072072|108010801080 10801080||
|72072072072072072072072072072072072|108010801080 10801080||
|72072072072072072072072072072072072|108010801080 10801080||
|72072072072072072072072072072072072|108010801080 10801080||
|108010801080108010801080108010801080108010801080 10801080|
|108010801080108010801080108010801080108010801080 10801080|
|108010801080108010801080108010801080108010801080 10801080|
|108010801080108010801080108010801080108010801080 10801080|
|108010801080108010801080108010801080108010801080 10801080|

Wow that's a big difference I like.

That's what she said.




RE: CAN YOU SEE THIS DIFFERENCE?
By Dreifort on 12/18/2008 2:02:49 PM , Rating: 2
you have some interlace with your non-interlace in your example.


By SpaceJumper on 12/18/2008 12:20:04 PM , Rating: 4
The new PS3s are no longer have the memory cards reader, no longer compatible with the PS2 games, and two less USB ports.




By afkrotch on 12/18/2008 2:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 60 gig PS3. I never use the memory card reader, I at most, use 2 USB ports. I have full backwards PS2 compatibility which I do use.

The 80 gigs were when the EEs were taken out and all that was left was the software BC.


a PS3 article and NO PlaystationThree posts???
By SpaceRanger on 12/18/2008 10:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
*braces for massive surge of negative votes*




By TheSpaniard on 12/18/2008 11:46:34 AM , Rating: 3
where is that crazy bastard so we can downrate him to oblivion again?


PSP + PS3 features often overlooked
By Treripica on 12/18/2008 9:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
The PSP was meant to have a more intimate relationship with the PS3, but hasn't been fully developed.

What you can do with both is streaming video from any machine on your network. Through TVersity, WMC, WME, etc, you can stream to the PS3. Great, but also, your PSP can remote into the PS3 and watch the same video from there as well. With the proper firewall permissions, this can also be done outside the home network as well(ymmv). This works best if your PS3 is connected to the network via ethernet. Also, certain PS3 games(Lego franchise, Pixel Junkies) can be played on the PSP remotely. In all, something that no other system is currently offering.




By tirminyl on 12/18/2008 10:13:48 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention the Ad-Hoc party app that allows you to play online PSP games using your PS3 Wifi connection.


Thank you Stephen
By Chaser on 12/18/2008 9:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
I guess.




By MickKelleher on 12/18/2008 10:21:29 AM , Rating: 2
Comparing all Playstation models vs the 360, has little to do with a reason why the PS3 is in trouble.

It just shows that Sony has 2 other gaming devices which are doing reasonably well.

There is still a possibility that the PS3 will remain uncompetitive while it remains at that price point. It's likely they will continue to lose sales in this climate to their competitors until they drop their price.




Don't forget the sound!
By dondino on 12/18/2008 11:45:17 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget the lossless sound from the HD audio formats are far superior than the lossy DVD audio tracks. I've always been impressed by some dvd soundtracks but when I moved to BR, I was well, blown away.




Sound
By PitbulI on 12/18/2008 1:15:40 PM , Rating: 2
I can see the difference between bluray and DVD but I find the real difference is when you have a high quality receiver. I can definately hear the difference in sound, particularily how surround sound is handled.




Ps3 cost more money THan xbox360
By xyz456 on 12/19/2008 12:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ps3 costs more money than xbox 360 because its better than xbox 360 thats why Ps3 isn't making the money they should make




CNN vs. WP
By Wererat on 12/19/2008 12:49:56 PM , Rating: 2
These articles just show that journalists have fallen to the same standards as internet forums; they're not even trying to present an objective view but only writing provocative (fanboi) pieces.




DVD movies are not 480p
By skyofavalon on 12/20/2008 10:13:50 AM , Rating: 2
every DVD movie is 480i not 480p.So the jump to Blu ray is 480i to 1080p.

I dont know about Blu Ray, but some of the early HD-DVD concerts were 1080i not 1080p.




well done sony...
By Cygus on 12/19/2008 2:18:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Peckham also discusses how the combined sales of the PS3, the PS2, and the PSP exceeded one million units. This number tops the 836,000 Xbox 360s that were sold.


So all of sony's gaming systems combined barely sold more than the xbox 360...well done :P




By fibreoptik on 12/22/2008 8:59:18 AM , Rating: 1
That is the biggest pile of horse shit I ever heard. If you can honestly watch the standard def version of Reservoir Dogs, 300, Dark Knight, Iron Man and Planet Earth - then watch them all at 1080p on my 46" Toshiba LCD - and tell me that you see NO DIFFERENCE... sorry but that means you either need glasses or a new, stronger prescription.




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments












botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki