The PS3 will have a good BD player, my theory - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-28-2006, 08:40 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Analysts have said that PS3 is 700 dolars to produce (the 600 dollar version), but I say 600 for this example (the retailers need to make profit too of lets say 200 dolars for this example?). Another Analyst said Sony will make a 200 dollar loss with every PS3.

So, Sony will sell their PS3's for a price of 400 dollars to the retailers in this example. Retailers sell it for 150% of the original price, which makes 600 dollars, to the consumers. Stores make a profit of 200 dollars in this example.

Sony anounced their BR players to be 1000 dollars in stores. Stores make alot of profit, Sony will make profit too, to every BR player sold.

Stores usually sell there products for at least 175% of the price they bought it. But for this example I will say 150%. So the stores buy a BR player for 670 dollars, 330 dollars profit for the stores. Sony will make at least 150 dollars profit per BR-player.

So 1000-330-150=520. The mafucture costs for Sony's (as well as Samsung's) BR players is 520 (probably less in real life). 520 includes, chipsets, the BR-player (cradle) itslelf, and the manhours/manpower.

Because the PS3 has different chipsets and processor compared to standalone BR players. The PS3 uses only one part of the BR players (not counting input, ouput) and that is the BR player itself (the cradle, which has the laser in it). So this cradle only will probably be 200 or 150 dollars or less.

Probably a little less because Sony produces their own DVD players (cradles) them selves (so they'll probably produce BR players themselves to). If you look inside some of the B-brand DVD players, you'll see a Sony logo on it.

So if the PS3 production cost is 600, and the BR player/cradle is 200 or 150, that leaves 400 dollars for the rest of the PS3. And the price for manhours/power for PS3 will be lower than a standalone BR-player, because there will be more PS3 units produced than a particular BR-player model. Usually it is, the more production of one product, the less the manpower/manhours price per product.

These BR cradles are all probably the same, it is on the chipsets (processor) if the BR player will be good quality, and I think the PS3's chipset will be much better than any other BR player that will come out in the first year of Blu-ray format (except for a few, like for instance the Pioneer Elite?).

What I am trying to say is:
The PS3 will take more money to produce than any other BR-player.
The PS3 will have better chipsets etc. to support the BR player (the cell and RSX).

Thats why I think the BR-player of Sony will have above average quality.
I know my writing is crap, sorry about that.

When the PS2 first came out, the DVD player quality was average, compared to standalone DVD player.
Tekka is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 07-28-2006, 08:46 AM
 
PhdWho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any store making more than $10 on any availalbe console out there, let alone $200.

It's a reason stores sell bundles.

Sony needs, IMO, more than above average quality.
They have hyped the crap out of the PS3 and BluRay. It really needs to be perfect or they will get ripped again on it.

Average quality simply will not suffice at this point.
PhdWho is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 08:52 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhdWho
Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any store making more than $10 on any availalbe console out there, let alone $200.

It's a reason stores sell bundles.

Sony needs, IMO, more than above average quality.
They have hyped the crap out of the PS3 and BluRay. It really needs to be perfect or they will get ripped again on it.

Average quality simply will not suffice at this point.
I think, stores make alot of profit off of whatever they sell, it wont be different on the PS3 imo.

Because, stores have their own costs, like rent and such, stores dont care for the succes of the PS3, they only care to make money.

Now, Sony can sell the PS3 for a loss, because they can make profit out of games, but stores wont sell the PS3 unless they make profit. Stores have costs too, like rent and employees, etc. I said 200 dollar profit for stores per PS3, but if you count off all their costs, it is less than 200.

Well, I as a store keeper wouldnt do it, if I dont make profit. No matter how much of a PS3 fan I am.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 08:58 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
"Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any store making more than $10 on any availalbe console out there, let alone $200."


I have to agree. It's rare that any store makes more than the obligatory $5-$10 profit on game hardware. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Furthermore, let us not kid ourselves, do you honestly think that the PS3 is going to rival even a mid level standalone BD player, let alone flagship models such as the Pioneer? You are going to see mid-line playback at best for the PS3, which is futher evidenced by the two available models. What possible benefit could Sony have in including High-end BD playback in the model that doesn't even have an HDMI output? And they certainly won't be utilizing two separate drives for each of their two skus.

Just my two cents.
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lowell, MA
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I hope you're right! And we as consumers get another great deal on a piece of equipment, like we do with the A1. But I really think $600 for the unit is still too high! I had a tough enough time dropping $364 for the A1, and I surely won't spend $600 (actual cost may be in the $800 range if you consider the "real" cost (1 game, 2nd controller and tax)). So to be quite honest, it would take a $300 base pricetag to entice me. I think Sony really needs to consider cutting the price to this level if they want to be a serious contender with Blu-ray.
Mark0 is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:04 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphc
"Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any store making more than $10 on any availalbe console out there, let alone $200."


I have to agree. It's rare that any store makes more than the obligatory $5-$10 profit on game hardware. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Furthermore, let us not kid ourselves, do you honestly think that the PS3 is going to rival even a mid level standalone BD player, let alone flagship models such as the Pioneer? You are going to see mid-line playback at best for the PS3, which is futher evidenced by the two available models. What possible benefit could Sony have in including High-end BD playback in the model that doesn't even have an HDMI output? And they certainly won't be utilizing two separate drives for each of their two skus.

Just my two cents.
Sony does have HDMI output, my example was about the 600 dollar version, which has HDMI.

And if it is true, that stores make only 10 dollars profit, than it is only better, because, the PS3 costs more to produce, and that's why I think the quality will be high. Higher costs, better quality.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:07 AM
Moderator
 
CPanther95's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 23,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 73
With all the delays and the apparent difficulty in getting a sound design put together on the BD players, I find it hard to believe that they will simultaneously develop both a "high quality" BD design and a "low/mediocre quality" design for use exclusively by the PS3.

My guess would be that the PS3 will be of equal quality - intentionally de-featured. But JMO.
CPanther95 is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Lowell, MA
Posts: 1,588
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphc
"Well, you'd be hard pressed to find any store making more than $10 on any availalbe console out there, let alone $200."


I have to agree. It's rare that any store makes more than the obligatory $5-$10 profit on game hardware. It just doesn't work that way anymore. Furthermore, let us not kid ourselves, do you honestly think that the PS3 is going to rival even a mid level standalone BD player, let alone flagship models such as the Pioneer? You are going to see mid-line playback at best for the PS3, which is futher evidenced by the two available models. What possible benefit could Sony have in including High-end BD playback in the model that doesn't even have an HDMI output? And they certainly won't be utilizing two separate drives for each of their two skus.

Just my two cents.
I'd have to agree the more I think about it. What incentive does Sony have to make the PS3 the best player out there in terms of video quality??? They are already selling the PS3 at a loss. And the PS3 is not primarilly intended as a Blu-ray player. If it was, it'd cut into their Blu-ray player sales.
Also, Sony already anounced the $500 model would be a stripped down version without HDMI. So to be quite honest, I think the PS3 will be lower quality than the Sony Blu-ray players. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Mark0 is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:10 AM
Senior Member
 
cjr1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Struthers, OH
Posts: 330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekka
I think, stores make alot of profit off of whatever they sell, it wont be different on the PS3 imo.

Because, stores have their own costs, like rent and such, stores dont care for the succes of the PS3, they only care to make money.

Now, Sony can sell the PS3 for a loss, because they can make profit out of games, but stores wont sell the PS3 unless they make profit. Stores have costs too, like rent and employees, etc. I said 200 dollar profit for stores per PS3, but if you count off all their costs, it is less than 200.

Well, I as a store keeper wouldnt do it, if I dont make profit. No matter how much of a PS3 fan I am.

The stores make next to nothing off the consoles. I used to work for Gamestop and I think the profit was sometimes $1 for initial launches. As stated before, this is why they force bundles on you. Its where they make the money, with games and inflated prices on accessories. You would be more than happy, as a store owner, to sell a PS3 for a minute profit if you were making a nice profit on software and accessories and it is almost a sure thing that people will buy at least one game. Also every console you move out of the store is a potential return customer especially during the initial launch as games are usually thin and people will buy anything just for more new content.
cjr1 is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:13 AM
 
PhdWho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekka
And if it is true, that stores make only 10 dollars profit, than it is only better, because, the PS3 costs more to produce, and that's why I think the quality will be high. Higher costs, better quality.
Well, as far as quality, maybe. Sony, and it's very cool of them, are throwing a lot into the $600 PS3 beyond the BR stuff.

Backward compatibility, said to be including complete chips of former systems to emulate past games. Till at least they get there emualtor running correctly.

SD Card Inputs, a HDD, Ehternet, (wireless?? can't remember), and basically the next gen of video gaming to go along with BR playback. A new type of controller. Not too mention their online infrastructure is surely a part of the PS3 price.

Is it all high quality, or a lot of good/ok quality components?
PhdWho is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:14 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This whole story has just unfolded in such an odd way, it seems hard to believe. I was a staunch BD supporter from day one. Went out, nabbed a Samsung and about 8 titles. My approach was always "HD-DVD, just a temporary upgrade until BD arrives."

Now, with all this debate going on with whether the Samsung has a faulty chip, better thru comp. i have had a positive experience with the unit outputting thru HDMI. For me, the problems all lie within the software, not the hardware at this point in time. Maybe some are experiencing hardware related probelms, who knows, but I only see problems with the discs at this point.

The funnny thing is that it was only after getting BD did I go out and grab the A1. I think it is a fabulous piece and the offered quality of HD is spectacular. I do think BD can get things together, but it's going to take time. Bith formats will most likely coexist for quite some time as there is too much at stake from both sides and those that have vested interests in said formats.

I am ceratinly not bashing BD, but rather attempting to call a spade a spade. i am getting tired of reading other people's takes on what Sony "will" come up with. We will see 50G discs soon? Highly doubtful, and if at all, in the absolute smallest quantity possible.

Sony needs to really get it together here, because the PS3 with its high price tag and poor analyst forecasting, might just not be the ball out of the park many anticipated.
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:15 AM
Member
 
KNIL SOT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 67
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
tekka,

retailers never have and never will make money on a game system.

Big DLP
Small Room

Difficult takes a dayÂImpossible takes a weekÂ..S. Carter
KNIL SOT is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gosawx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: other side of MA
Posts: 1,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
also fanciful margins on the other electronics 150%?!? 175%?!?!? that's just plain silly
gosawx is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:18 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Tekka, I know that Sony is offering one model with an HDMI output. the whole point of my post was that if one model offers it and one doesn't, there is no financial incentive for Sony to include high-end playback on a model that cannot display 1080p and one that will likely be hampered with the image restraint token that has been discussed.
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:24 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhdWho
Well, as far as quality, maybe. Sony, and it's very cool of them, are throwing a lot into the $600 PS3 beyond the BR stuff.

Backward compatibility, said to be including complete chips of former systems to emulate past games. Till at least they get there emualtor running correctly.

SD Card Inputs, a HDD, Ehternet, (wireless?? can't remember), and basically the next gen of video gaming to go along with BR playback. A new type of controller. Not too mention their online infrastructure is surely a part of the PS3 price.

Is it all high quality, or a lot of good/ok quality components?
PS3's Blu-ray is being supported by a Cell processor and Nvidia GPU.
Ethernet and all that, doesnt matter for BD playback.
I must admit, I expect alot from the Cell processor and Nvidia GPU.

The online infrastucture, is software based, that's why the costs for that isnt included in the production cost of PS3.

It might be included in the (sell) price of the PS3 though.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:25 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I also think it's important to specify who this "high-end" is intended for as it is coimpletely relative. Is it high-end for the average boob who occasionally watches a movie but uses his game machine as a multi purpose tool? or is it a serious videophile who knows and appreciates great quality video?

I thought the PS2 playback was atrocious, not even okay. Just plain bad. The bottom line is that while Sony may be attempting to capture a certain audience with its "flagship" model PS3, it will most likely find a home in "Gamer's" rooms, not the high-end videophile's rack.
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:31 AM
Senior Member
 
ninjanki's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 238
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
My impression about Sony's stance on PS3 as a Blue-ray player is that it will be a good player. It will have software decoding(one thing that can actually use all those processors simultaneously) and hardware aid from the RSX, if nvidia kept the video processing parts from purevideo on it. Also, it could be more flexible and fixable than any other stand-alone player, if it has any problems at launch, because it's software based(usual stand alone players are hardware based decoding)

The second reason why I think they will make it as good as possible is because the PS3 is the market leverage BD needs to fight HD-DVD on a price war. Since none of the BD manufacturers have announced low price players, and Toshiba is still selling their HD-DVD at half the street price of the BD players, I'd say they are betting that the PS3 will take care of it. And costing only 100 more(HDMI version, I consider the 500 version an offense to consumers intelligence), it's essentialy in advantage given that it can play more things and do more stuff than the HD-DVD player(it does support SACD, Internet Brosing, Gaming, Video Playback, etc...) Only a very restricted consumer group will avoid it because it's a videogame, but then, this public is small and is as likelly to buy an expensive BD player or a HD-DVD player...

So, if everything else fails(on the gaming side), the PS3 will still be an early-adopter darling for BD support.(Unless Sony keeps his almost flawless record and screw this up too...)

Allan
ninjanki is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:31 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphc
Tekka, I know that Sony is offering one model with an HDMI output. the whole point of my post was that if one model offers it and one doesn't, there is no financial incentive for Sony to include high-end playback on a model that cannot display 1080p and one that will likely be hampered with the image restraint token that has been discussed.
What you just said here, has logic in it, but I still think the BD player of Sony will be average or above average. Because of the Cell and Nvidia GPU.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:33 AM
 
PhdWho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekka
The online infrastucture, isnt software based, that's why the costs for that isnt included in the production cost of PS3.

It might be included in the (sell) price of the PS3 though.
Actually, I am pretty sure the PS3 will have software built in for connecting to their Online Network, which will indeed be part of the price and will cost Sony in some regard to design and install in each PS3. It's like XBox's Dashboard, which was built into each XBox and used for game updates and online connections.

We can concentrate on playback, but the PS3 is multi-functional. Thus you can't count the cost to produce the PS3 as only in regards to BluRay playback. Thus why I question whether BluRay playback will be as High Quality as you are suggesting.

Though for Sony's sake, it really must be High Quality or they will get ripped on pretty hard.
PhdWho is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:40 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhdWho
Actually, I am pretty sure the PS3 will have software built in for connecting to their Online Network, which will indeed be part of the price and will cost Sony in some regard to design and install in each PS3. It's like XBox's Dashboard, which was built into each XBox and used for game updates and online connections.

We can concentrate on playback, but the PS3 is multi-functional. Thus you can't count the cost to produce the PS3 as only in regards to BluRay playback. Thus why I question whether BluRay playback will be as High Quality as you are suggesting.

Though for Sony's sake, it really must be High Quality or they will get ripped on pretty hard.
First, I want to apoligise, because I made a mistake in the post you quoted:
The online infrastucture, IS (instead of isnt) software based, that's why the costs for that isnt included in the production cost of PS3.

And yeah, the PS3 will have software, this will bring costs with it (which will be calculated in the costs of the PS3), this software isnt only used to go online with the PS3, but also to navigate through the PS3.

But I ment, the online content, that wont be calculated in the pruduction costs of the PS3. But it can however be calculated in the price of the PS3.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:41 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
But I can't imagine that there will be a huge change in how the discs are read and displayed because of the Cell and GPU. Look, this is really silly. Most people who buy the PS3 will think it looks great, but again how many people really know what good video is?

I have read these forums for about a year now and only recently joined (obviously, right) because of a lot of the ridiculous posts I see on these forums. People who b*tch and complain about HD quality or priase discs as "reference" when they don't have proper set-ups to view and evaluate on an educated level.

I think the key issue here is that we need to look at who the hardware is geared toward. The guy who loves games and watching movies, the guy who cringes at dropping $500, or the guy who needs to have the best possible video quality as can be accomodated.

As much as Sony wants to Position this as "THE" machine, it is after all just a console and not a "supercomputer" as the PS2 was once touted.
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 09:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphc
But I can't imagine that there will be a huge change in how the discs are read and displayed because of the Cell and GPU. Look, this is really silly. Most people who buy the PS3 will think it looks great, but again how many people really know what good video is?

I have read these forums for about a year now and only recently joined (obviously, right) because of a lot of the ridiculous posts I see on these forums. People who b*tch and complain about HD quality or priase discs as "reference" when they don't have proper set-ups to view and evaluate on an educated level.

I think the key issue here is that we need to look at who the hardware is geared toward. The guy who loves games and watching movies, the guy who cringes at dropping $500, or the guy who needs to have the best possible video quality as can be accomodated.

As much as Sony wants to Position this as "THE" machine, it is after all just a console and not a "supercomputer" as the PS2 was once touted.
Another reason that I came to my conclusion was, because I think that the actual Blu-ray player itself (you know the cradle inside the machines), will be exacly the same as Sony's upcoming BD-player. That it is only a matter of hardware supporting the BD player, the chipsets and such.

I have the feeling that the hardware supporting the PS3 BD player is better than the hardware supporting most of the BD-players. I think the PS3 as a BD-player will blow the Samsung out of the water.

And if the games are very good quality, than the BD movies should be very good quality as well (or even better, because movies require less processing power than games), because they are using the same format, same hardware (PS3).

On E3, the games, Assassins Creed and Metal Gear Solid trailers where really good quality, and these running on the PS3. Just not sure anymore if these were 1080p. Gran Turismo was 1080p, it was reported that it looked really good.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:06 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If you received a functional Samsung (like I did), brought it home to a proper test environment with high quality gear which was calibrated, you would not be so quick to bash the Samsung's performance. While the discs at this point pretty much blow, there are sections on EVERY one that displays a highly detailed HD picture. the problem is consistency here and seems very likely to be software issues of using MPEG2 under the constraints of tight disc space of 25G.

Way too many here have been brainwashed by Sony to constantly push the blame on someone elese. it has really reached new heights in the past few weeks. As a previous Sony whore, I fully understand the loyalty issue, but let's face it , Sony has "THUS FAR" dropped the ball. Too much talk, not enough real world delivery. And it is futhered by people who actually give a s*it which format wins. Buy both, or wait it out to see a clear victor (if that ever happens), but let me ask other than vested interests, who cares what the outcome is as long as we get great looking HD Video?

I think this whole "my side is better than yours" has gotten tired, doesn't everbody else?
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:08 AM
 
PhdWho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,223
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekka
And if the games are very good quality, than the BD movies should be very good quality as well (or even better, because movies require less processing power than games), because they are using the same format, same hardware (PS3). On E3, the games, Assassins Creed and Metal Gear Solid trailers where really good quality, and these running on the PS3. Just not sure anymore if these were 1080p.
I don't know if you can relate Good Quality BR Playback and good quality games.

Cause any and every console has a collection of horribly put together games, be it graphic, gameplay or both.

If you are simply referring to Quality as in Resolution, which you may be suggesting, I don't think that matters much. The XBox had a version of Dragons Lair in 1080i. The graphics though were still stuck from the 80s cartoon laser disc game. Thus even though you might have games in high resolution, it's really up to the dev to make good looking graphics, and graphics are only as good as the system or dev can make.
PhdWho is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:08 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolphc
If you received a functional Samsung (like I did), brought it home to a proper test environment with high quality gear which was calibrated, you would not be so quick to bash the Samsung's performance. While the discs at this point pretty much blow, there are sections on EVERY one that displays a highly detailed HD picture. the problem is consistency here and seems very likely to be software issues of using MPEG2 under the constraints of tight disc space of 25G.

Way too many here have been brainwashed by Sony to constantly push the blame on someone elese. it has really reached new heights in the past few weeks. As a previous Sony whore, I fully understand the loyalty issue, but let's face it , Sony has "THUS FAR" dropped the ball. Too much talk, not enough real world delivery. And it is futhered by people who actually give a s*it which format wins. Buy both, or wait it out to see a clear victor (if that ever happens), but let me ask other than vested interests, who cares what the outcome is as long as we get great looking HD Video?

I think this whole "my side is better than yours" has gotten tired, doesn't everbody else?
Sorry about bashing the Samsung in my post, it was a figure of speech. I dont own a Samsung and havent seen the quality, my opinion about the Samsung is based on other people's opinions and reviews.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 10:14 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Tekka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhdWho
I don't know if you can relate Good Quality BR Playback and good quality games.

Cause any and every console has a collection of horribly put together games, be it graphic, gameplay or both.

If you are simply referring to Quality as in Resolution, which you may be suggesting, I don't think that matters much. The XBox had a version of Dragons Lair in 1080i. The graphics though were still stuck from the 80s cartoon laser disc game. Thus even though you might have games in high resolution, it's really up to the dev to make good looking graphics, and graphics are only as good as the system or dev can make.
Yes the quality is up to the game devs and movie devs.

But I was saying, if the PS3 can make a game beautiful (if developed properly), than it should make a movie as beatiful as the game or even more beautiful (if developed properly by the movie studio's). Graphics I mean.
Tekka is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
trgraphics's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,065
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Games and movies are not the same type of medium. Most movies start with film, games are totally digital. You really need to do more research so far you've been wrong about every point you tried to make.

Just because a game looks good does not in any shape or form mean the films will look good. Just look at the PS2. Horrible dvd playback. If the PS3 is anything more than middle of the road for BR films I and many others will be very, very surprised. It would be nice however, if they did manage to pull it off.

Not that it matters. I don't play games and I sure as hell would not play movies on a game console.
trgraphics is online now  
Old 07-28-2006, 11:13 AM
Senior Member
 
Dolphc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I concur trgraphics. i have seen may a post staing that PS2 playback was good to very good and it plain out sucked! The probelm stems from mass herd not understanding what a reference player is capable of. i think tekka is just doing some wishful thinking about how PS3 will turn out, but as i have said before, who will really be using the PS3 as a BD player: the average consumer, and unfortunately, they don't seem to want to drop $500-$600 on a game machine.

Sorry.
Dolphc is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 11:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
c.kingsley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,665
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Retail stores make up to 5% profit on console hardware. The margin is higher on software, but not by much.
c.kingsley is offline  
Old 07-28-2006, 11:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
BillP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 13,732
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tekka
When the PS2 first came out, the DVD player quality was average, compared to standalone DVD player.
I actually disagree with you there. The PS2 was well below average compared with a stand-alone DVD player (especially a comparably priced player).
BillP is offline  
 
Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off