backtop


Print 61 comment(s) - last by S3anister.. on Aug 14 at 8:32 PM

Did you know that the PS3 can play Blu-ray movies? Most gamers don’t

Much of the credit for Blu-ray Discs’ rapid surge in sales beginning in 2007 is given to the launch of the PlayStation 3. Sony’s newest console brought to the market an incredible value for the high-definition home theater enthusiast.

The PlayStation 3 remains one of the market’s cheapest, but most capable Blu-ray Disc movie players – but oddly enough, that fact isn’t as well known as one may believe. In fact, research results released by NPD Group suggest that the majority of gamers, including owners of Xbox 360 or PlayStation 3 consoles, are oblivious to their machine’s high-definition capabilities.

Amazingly, the report finds that only 40 percent of PlayStation 3 owners knew that the games machine was fully capable of playing Blu-ray Disc movies. And of those who knew about the Blu-ray feature, only half had used it to play a movie during the last 10 times they used the console. The remaining half who knew about the movie player capabilities do not take advantage of the feature.

While movies may not be on every gamer’s agenda, only 30 percent of Xbox 360 owners knew of the machine’s high-definition gaming output capabilities, with the number rising to 50 percent in the case of PS3 owners. This suggests that the majority of current generation gaming still takes place on standard-definition televisions.

"The industry is still in its infancy with regard to this "next-gen" and all the expanded capabilities of the systems," said NPD analyst Anita Frazier to 1UP. "Gameplay is still king, and it may take awhile for the awareness and usage of the additional features to really take hold with consumers."

Those with HDTVs may be wishing for a high-definition Wii, but given the NPD Group’s findings, it’s easy to understand why Nintendo isn’t yet interested.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: I'm Not Suprised
By Murst on 8/13/2007 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry man, but its quite easy to get a decent setup at home if you budget properly and have a decent job. Right now I am supporting my fiancee, son, and I spent quite a bit more on my 50" 1080P Panasonic that fits in my 4bdr house.

Your assumptions are wrong.


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 4:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
And you make how much? do you even know what the average salary in the states is? $36,764, which for most people is not enough to support yourself, let alone others. Most people in this range of salary live paycheck to paycheck and can not afford these luxury items without going on a payment plan or borrowing money.

So to make a one dementional statement such as my assumptions are wrong, is quite stupid as you compare yourself, probably making atleast 50k as you have a house and support two people, to someone living on the edge of poverty.

You may be part of a small group of people that consider a 50inch TV as neccessity but for a family or person making 36k, there are many better things their money can be spent on.

At least my assumptions are based on something, unlike your one dementional assumptions based on your personal experiances. Just the fact of how many americans dont own an HDTV supports my theory, and until analogue shutdown in 2009, most people will not have a reason to switch either.


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By BMFPitt on 8/13/2007 4:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just the fact of how many americans dont own an HDTV supports my theory, and until analogue shutdown in 2009, most people will not have a reason to switch either.
What will be the reason for those people to upgrade after they stop broadcasting in analog?


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By seeker353 on 8/13/2007 10:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Because their old SD TV's won't work any more without a digital to analog converter.


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By BMFPitt on 8/14/2007 1:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
Which will cost approximately $0 after government coupon. But let's assume that cost is nonzero, why would they (who have lived with an analog-only TV for decades and only get an OTA signal) buy an HDTV?


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By Murst on 8/13/2007 4:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
When I stated that your assumptions were wrong, I was referring to the following:

1. You assumed that people who have a 1080p TV are single.
2. You assumed that people who have a 1080p TV live with a roommate.
3. You assumed that most people in the USA do not have money for a HDTV. Walmart sells them for under $500, and that is pretty much in range of the majority of the american public for a main TV in the house. http://www.walmart.com/catalog/catalog.gsp?cat=538...
4. You assumed that more people in the USA live at or below poverty line than above it. In fact, that is incorrect. Only about 13% of people in the USA are at or below the level defined as poverty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United...

Also, please keep in mind that the median family income (which is most likely a much better measure than average) in the USA is $59k a year - basically, half of the families in the USA make more than that. I'll agree with you that although a family that makes 36k a year should not be buying an HDTV, the majority of families in the USA make much more than that.


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By Maetryx on 8/13/2007 6:04:37 PM , Rating: 2
There are some fine points and counterpoints in this discussion, which is nice to see and unexpected. :) According to Wikipedia, the median family income in the USA in 2005 was about $46k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_t...


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By seeker353 on 8/13/2007 10:42:19 PM , Rating: 2
Median family income in 2005 was $46k, median individual income in 2005 was $25k (also according to Wikipedia). I think that the $36k was a GDP per capita figure.


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By Murst on 8/14/2007 10:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
Wikipedia is great for some things, but for statistics on the economy and such, I much prefer going to the government.

http://www.hud.gov/local/shared/working/r10/emas/m...


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By Murst on 8/14/2007 10:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
BTW, I realize that I just contradicted myself on the poverty statistic, but at least it was close... according to the census bureau, it is about 12.4 :). The wikipedia median family income just seems way off.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/poverty05/p...


RE: I'm Not Suprised
By Frank M on 8/14/2007 10:23:18 AM , Rating: 2
Your proof via anecdote is wrong.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki