Positive effect for PS3 if Blu-Ray wins format war? - Page 6  

I will tell you my story: My sister even does not know how to use TV 's remote control...but she learned to switch to HDMI and use PS3 in a few days. For her the controller is easier to understand than the remote. Now she can play Blu-ray, browse the internet and play games. The pain in the rear is more of a mind issue than a design issue.

Blu-ray winning will definitely help PS3 in the short run (I've already seen some stores started to push the Blu-ray/PS3 sales), until standard player's price falls down to an more affordable level.

I thought you can set PS3 to play the disc automatically when it's inserted ?

You're overcomplicating things. Just set the PS3 to autoplay and all she'll have to do is insert the disc. To power down she could just use the power button on the PS3. The only time she'd even need to touch the controller is to press X to play at the main menu, which you'd have to do with the remote for any DVD player.

Yes you can, I think by default it's off (opposite to the PSP!!), problem is you can't say; yes auto start for Movie: no auto for games.

That would be a nice feature to have. Sony?

I agree that it's too hard to turn the PS3 off from the controller and BD remote. And holding down the PS while in the XMB doesn't feel right. It should respond immediately, just like it does in-game. Having the PS3 behave one way in-game and another in the XMB really bothers me.

he's (mtrolljigga) bitter and heart broken his favorite format is going to lose.

Ding ding ding!!! We have a winner!

As soon as standalone players fall to a price range where the ps3 is no longer a "no brainer" decision, A/V enthusiast Jim (as so's your face says) isn't going to buy the ps3 anymore. And neither is average Joe, unless Joe wants to play games too!

I actually like having NO auto features at all. I would rather have full control over everything. Since there are other things you can be doing with the system (PS store, web browser, settings, etc), it is nice to be able to pop in a disc without being booted out of whatever you were doing. But I can definitely see where that feature would be useful, and alot of people would like to use it.

The Devil's advocate might ask why you would want auto on one and not the other.... the idea being that if you are putting a movie in, it is assumed you are going to watch it, and same with a game. Why would you want to autoplay one but not the other?

Doesn't the autoplay kick in when you switch the PS3 on? I have had it switched off since it was installed via an update!!

I see what you mean about one and not the other but as the OP was talking about his wife using his PS3 to watch movies it may make sense for the less technical to just pop it in and then have it play where as the hubby who knows the features can do what he wants when he puts a game in.

CC is already selling stand alones for less than the PS3; $100 dollars less.

The cheapest one there is $350, and it is obsolete. No 1.1 profile.

You are right about the price. I could have sworn I saw 299, but I guess I was wrong.

About the 1.1 profile...do you REALLY think the average consumer cares? To be quite honest with you, I don't know what version my PS3 is. It could be 0.9 for all I know.

Your PS3 is 1.1 compliant as of the 2.0, or 2.10 firmware update. I forget which one.

With over 300 hrs into Warhawk, count me as one who plays games more than watching BD movies. And this is coming from a guy who has been on the AVSforum since 2001, but only started visiting the gaming sub forum after the PS3 was announced to have a BD drive.

That's odd when I have stated before I don't care who wins this war and I have also stated that nothing is for certain. Everyone expected this to drag out for a couple of years and now that has changed and if BR becomes the standard for high def disc it still needs to overcome DVD which is what the real battle comes down too.

Next time don't make blatant statements with nothing to back up what you say. Do a qoute or somthing to that affect so nobody is confused.

Oh wait my bad IMHO

Live with that delusion if you must, but the facts are:

1) the PS2 absolutely sucked as a DVD player, likely the poorest player on the market.

2) The PS2's NA launch was October 2000........Divix was dead a buried a year earlier.


Sure they did.............just not very many. The beauty of numbers small % of a large(er) number = better sales than your competitor.


As opposed to the format that relies on the craptastic software known as JAVA - no issues there The day I see a SA player that's as fast as the PS3 loading JAVA based discs I'll feel better - until then there is no "winner" (they both may go niche)

I think the difference needs to be more significant. Like when standalone players are "decent" quality and ring in at ~$150. At only $100 more, people are inclined to get the machine that can do "so much more"...


Never thought of it that way.. That actually makes sense...

I agree it is more of a mind issue, the problem is getting the minds (or the other mind in my house) to be willing to take those few extra steps.

IMHO, the bottom line is when BR sales will probably have their best chance to takeoff (Christmas 2008), there will be a selection of much lower price, single task machines. At that point maybe a small number of people will opt for the game player/BR combo player that is the PS3, but I don't think enough to make a major impact on sales. Time and sales numbers will tell.

The problem is accurate reporting (unless Sony or an outside firm conducts polling). We won't know whether increased PS3 sales are due to the BR or the fact that more quality games will be available and the console will be hitting its sweet spot.

Deuce

I agree. It matters little to me what disk I play . I just want HD. I just rent disks from netflix. I also want more games. Will blu rays increase help games? I doubt it. I want games, not movies.

right, that's why you felt it was necessary to come in here and make your usual fanboyish post. you do care very deeply and it's tearing your itty bitty heart apart. if you really didn't care, you would've ignored my post about you.

you want to believe the real battle is between dvd, but the truth is within two to three years, a hi def platform will replace the aging dvd. like how dvd replaced vhs and how cd's replaced cassettes, it's going to happen. let me guess, digital distribution will be in full swing from no other than our friends at microsoft and will make blu obsolete by then right?

Actually.. its true DVD did replace VHS.. and CD's did replace cassettes..

But the higher quality (and more expensive) SACD and DVD-Audio formats never replaced CD's.. instead the popularity of MP3's and digital downloads soared and are whats currently replacing CD's.

By examining what has occured in the audio industry.. and how the video industry has mimicked that since its inception.. what do you think would be naturally next for the video industry.

Digital downloads.

What works for music does not necessarily correlate to what works for movies. I listen to music in my car, on the train, on the bus, when I cut the grass, etc.

I watch movies in HD on my couch on my 50" TV. I live in Atlanta and whenever I get HD On Demand from Comcast, I have to accept that any fast motion will have serious compression artifacts.

To say that a 20-40GB movie can be compared to a 4MB song, or even a 50MB album is really reaching, IMHO. I liken it to the people who said that porn would decide the fate of HD discs simply because it had a bearing 25 years ago on VHS vs Beta. It works if you only look at one piece of information, but the argument completely falls apart when you put it in the real world.

Heck, I know people who have to use satellite for internet because they can only get dial up. What kind of HD download do you envision for those folks?

No dumbass it is a forum we discuss things regardless if we are in agreement and I explained what you need to do next time you want to challenge my post or what I say you need provide some proof.
Now you see how it works. This is what you should have just asked me in the first place and I am happy to reply with my own opinion because no one is for certain how things will be in the near future.


Says who? The analyst? They have been wrong before it may take longer than 3 years. Or people might just accept the other options they have had or services they already use which of course is based on their lifestyle. Alot really do not care for BR or HD-DVD when they have Hi-def cable or Sat to get the same movies. Not arguing the quality is going to be better(we know it won't be) But the average person is not oh so desperate to have 7.1 lossless and special features that they didn't care or wish for in DVD.


Is that what you are saying? Because I know you didn't qoute that from me. By the way how is SACD and DVD-Audio doing. Ever heard of MP3?
MS is already in full swing with digital distribution. Did you know Sony plans to do the same thing with HOME? Offer the same features MS is offering. Sony didn't offer this when the PS3 launch for the same reasons they didn't allow you to upconvert dvd movies because as some people will say they don't see THAT much difference in PQ with Hi def movies as they do from VHS to DVD. It has been in both companies interest to do just that. MS has been very aggressive and not shy about telling consumers this has been their plans. In some ways Sony has made the same statements before Blu-Ray or HD-DVD was even heard of. Because what we have seen in the last 2 years is not the same scenario we saw with DVD/VHS. DVD had no real competition(DIVX shouldn't even have been considered competition at the time) except with VHS and it was clear why it was a huge advantage to go with DVD over VHS tapes(just like tapes/CD's).

Digital Distribution(DD) will continue to be an option or a standard for customers. It already is either or with people now. You have your consumers who enjoy not spending money on a disc they may not watch again anytime in the future and find out about DD

You have your Blockbuster/Netflix customers who see the option with their 360s to simply download the movie they want to watch rather than waiting or driving for their order or the hope that the movie they want is in stock.

You have your consumers that like some movies to keep on DVD and use DD service on occasion because they like that they have options to do so.

You have your consumers that are completly fine with Sat or Cable for their HD service and don't care if BR or HD-DVD give you the best picture in Hi-Def(or can't see that much of a difference)

Both companies are on the same page, but they are tacking it in different ways.

Now if you don't like what I said then simply ignore it or respond about my comments. Otherwise respectfully shut the hell up with this troll or fanboy comments.

Streaming HD is a nonstarter, at least for the next 4 or 5 years, despite what Microsoft and many (like myself) who have no problem paying gobs of money for very fast high speed internet. People seem to forget that the US has one of the worst broadband penetration rates in the developed world. Additionally, our definition of broadband is less than most any country out there.

The millions living in areas with telcos like CenturyTel and cablecos like Cebridge are still stuck at around 3Mbps max. DSL from the biggest telco in the US still tops out at 6Mbps.

There is only one thing working for it, and that's how most people don't care that much about macroblocking and banding, so they might be able to get away with calling an 8Mbps average 1024x720 file HD. Most people just don't know any better unless they've seen Blu-Ray or HD-DVD in action.

I think the largest part of it is that people like ourselves who spend much of our time on the Internet browsing forums often forget how the other half lives.

Of course, I don't understand what on earth people see in downloading HD (legally). It's as if people expect it not to have the crap DRMed out of it, locked to a single player and all that.

That's a misguided comparison. Most people, aside from audiophiles, don't have sound systems or listening conditions even capable of reproducing the extra bits in SACD and DVD-Audio. It's a testament to the design that went into the CD standard. They decided how much space they'd need to reproduce the audio faithfully and built a disc and player capable of storing an album's worth of music at that bit rate. The only advantage is the ability to do surround sound. Unfortunately, people have completely forgotten about surround sound music since the days of quadraphonic records. (I haven't, I had a quadraphonic tube amp and a set of quadraphonic headphones up until the cans got broken and the amp caught on fire)

In my car and on my iPod (well, I don't have an iPod anymore, it broke and I haven't replaced the drive), the only places I regularly listen to music, I can hardly tell the difference between a 128Kbps MP3 and a 192 or 320Kbps MP3 or AAC file.

Many people have televisions capable of making the difference between DVD and HDM plainly obvious to anyone who cares to look. That number is growing daily. Even the completely nontechnical people I know are looking to upgrade to an HDTV in the next year. Even those who don't know about the analog OTA cutoff.

Also, see my other post about bandwidth issues. People download music because even on slow connections it doesn't take much time. And you're not going to see CDs go anywhere despite the downloads, at least not for a long time. Video files are much, much bigger, especially at HD or near HD resolutions.

I'm not sure that streaming HD content is completely out of the question... My cable provider offers a pretty good selection of streaming HD content (old movies, new releases, etc) currently and it has been growing pretty consistently.

I don't like to, but I can and do deal with the macroblocking/banding/etc when my cable "on demand" offers a new movie I want to see in "HD" for $3.99. The price is right, and so is the convenience. Unless it's a title that I must see in the highest definition possible (3d animation movies, spiderman, great action movies, etc), I'll deal with the macroblocking and other problems. But, it has been getting on my nerves lately, even in dramas and other movies I don't/didn't consider "must see in BD titles." I've been trying to get off my lazy butt and get to a rental place to pick up more blu-ray content, but their selection isn't all that great, and availability sucks. And I don't want to buy a $30 movie I haven't seen and/or have no interest in owning.

Until the local stores up their selection and availability, it's going to be hard to compete with the cable company, who, although a week later than actual release, offers the "HD" version of just about every new movie. The quality isn't as good, but it is better than alot of other options.

What are you all doing to see the latest releases in high definition? Do your local places have great selection and availability? Are you dealing with netflix? Just buying every title you want to see? Or just not watching the majority of your movies in BD (or HD-DVD if you have that option) ?

Movie Downloads are giving me a similar feeling as eBooks.

Yes, it will get more popular, more people will buy in that format, but replacing the old format (real books) as the market lead will either be taking a extremely long time or nearly impossible. Otherwise, nobody will run out on 12am to buy those Harry Potter books...

On the other hand, another issue currently exists and can be very hard to get rid of: illegal HD downloads. If you can download the same HD content without spending money, provided the download speed and the resolution is the same, I don't see why people would want to pay for it. For musics at least they can split the album and minimize the difference, but for movies they can only charge by the entire piece.

This is something they have to tackle before the services can start effective numbers against physical format.

Going Off topic in THIS forum.