For the price tag that's on it, it better damn well be reliable.

But can you honestly tell the difference between a really good upscaling DVD player hooked to an HDTV with really good video processing and standard HD-DVD at 720p? At 1080p I'd believe it. But 720p? I doubt it. And if you can, you must have a very large television and must be sitting very close to it.

IMO, there's a "good enough" level of visual quality that exists at this point in time. Sure, the sharpness of 1080p is a major improvement over NTSC, but over 720p? You would really have to look to notice it. For casual TV watching, it's not noticable. If you're a serious home theater junkie, then by all means.

Also, the winner of the upcoming battle will most likely be the format that can deliver movies in volume at the lower price. For movie watching, I don't think people will care that HD-DVD holds 20GB less, so long as it's cheaper. The reverse also applies. As much as I'd like for Blu-ray to succeed, if only due to archival, backup, and data storage purposes, the cheaper media and players will win out.

As for companies ripping features from others, it's not that big of a deal when neither company has actually released the product commercially. Although I have no interest in consoles anymore, the 360 has had the advantage of the first to be released, and the Wii might be able to retain the public's attention with their unique controller and relatively low price. The high price for the PS3 will be Sony's biggest problem in competition.

Regardless...

.

Microsoft has had motion sensitive gamepads for the PC for YEARS.

They will if a movie comes out in one disc instead of on 3, or if a boxed set comes out on...one disc instead of on 12 (200gb discs ftw). It may cost more, sure, but still, it's convenience factor.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]yet another quote fruitlessly trying to get his point across[/QUOTE]
Stop it--nobody can say that anybody copied anyone. Until there's a press release of an internal memo from Sony that shows they "stole" the idea from Nintendo, you're calling your speculation fact. Not only that, but they obviously didn't use Nintendo's patented version, so either way...

Who cares?

God, it's so disgusting how much of a fanboy everyone is. "OMG SONY STOLE FROM NINTENDO!"

Well guess what. "OMG NINTENDO STOLE FROM LOGITECH!"

Again, I raise the point of the analog sticks on controllers. No one *****ed about Nintendo or MS using them on their controllers even though Sony had them first. Same goes for rumble paks.

I know this is going to be very difficult for some people to understand, but it is possible for two companies to be developing very similar technology completely indpendently.

But it's much more possible (and more common) for a rival company to take an idea and develop their own in the spirit of competition.

But I don't really care. Sony and MS can burn in hell for their prices.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]But it's much more possible (and more common) for a rival company to take an idea and develop their own in the spirit of competition.

But I don't really care. Sony and MS can burn in hell for their prices.[/QUOTE]
Sony maybe I could understand, but the 360 really isn't that badly priced. 400? Seriously.

It's a personal thing, Yoshi. I simply don't have that much money which is why I don't have many games per console that I've gotten.

And did they ever fix all that crashing stuff with 360? I read that Sony was having problems with the PS3 cell chip which could either lead to a later release or a series of embarassing issues after launch like the 360 had.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]It's a personal thing, Yoshi. I simply don't have that much money which is why I don't have many games per console that I've gotten.

And did they ever fix all that crashing stuff with 360? I read that Sony was having problems with the PS3 cell chip which could either lead to a later release or a series of embarassing issues after launch like the 360 had.[/QUOTE]
They're having problems with production, the actual functionality of the chip is fine.

The 360 still has problems, yes.

The PlayStation 3 lettering on the console is of the same font as the Spiderman movie. The original PlayStation logo looked sweet, the PS2 logo looked sweet. The PlayStation 3 one is disappointing.

My Spidey sense is tingling
My PS3 sense is tinkling

I saw that too..no one else I knew did.

Almost everyone on massassi said something about it.

Apparently I wasn't frequenting the forums during that week or something. No one I knew PERSONALLY noticed it.

You probably shouldn't use the analog stick as an example.

Why? Some one used it first then all the competitors started using it. Granted, it's not nearly as advanced as motion sensing controllers, but it's the same principal, and it was a big deal when they first hit the market.

This is why...



Sony didn't have them first. Atari did. Nintendo had them first in the 3D era, followed by Sega, and THEN Sony.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]This is why...



Sony didn't have them first. Atari did. Nintendo had them first in the 3D era, followed by Sega, and THEN Sony.[/QUOTE]
Actually, Sony had them first in the 3D era. The PS1 was released a full year and a half before the 64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64

The first PS controllers didn't have the analog I don't think. I don't remember.


[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Sony didn't have them first. Atari did. Nintendo had them first in the 3D era, followed by Sega, and THEN Sony.[/QUOTE]

Regardless of who had them first, someone had them first and other companies started using them afterwards. That sets a precedent for this sort of thing to happen in the videogame industry. It's happned with plenty of other invations in the gaming industry. No one really seems to have cried "industrial espionage" in the past.

I didn't have time to read all of this, but to anyone who said $600 is reasonable:

HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT!? The Gamecube debuted at.. what? $200? The X-Box was $250, I think.

For 600 smackers that thing better have a hole where I can put my eggs, so after a decent round of gaming I can have a plate of scrambled eggs and bacon. For $600, this thing needs to be able to cook my dinner, feed my dog, and possibly change my underware.

$600 is reasonable for a computer. Not for a gaming console. Maybe for a complete gaming console setup, including the system, games, controllers, a small television, and a puppy. But not just a console.

I don't know who has $600 laying around to drop on a console, but I think Nintendo is going to win this round almost solely for the pricing. Kids are going to say "I want a PS3!" Parents are going to say "Fine! You come up with $600" And they buy the kid a nintendo.

Some people will drop 600 for it, sure. But not nearly as many as if it were 2, 300.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Actually, Sony had them first in the 3D era. The PS1 was released a full year and a half before the 64.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playstation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_64[/QUOTE]

As said before, the Playstation didn't have analog controllers when it was first brought out. The first analog playstation controller was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Analog_Controller

Which was released in 1997, over 6 months after the N64 release.

You should read the articles you link to. :p

There are plenty of people who will buy it, just like there were lots of people who bought the $360. There are fanatical people out there.

gamecube was $200 xbox was $300


[QUOTE=Cool Matty]As said before, the Playstation didn't have analog controllers when it was first brought out. The first analog playstation controller was this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Analog_Controller

Which was released in 1997, over 6 months after the N64 release.

You should read the articles you link to. :p[/QUOTE]

actually the dual analog was november 96 the dual shock wasn't until late 97

Alright. This is where you prove yourself wrong.

NTSC resolution is 720x480 interlaced. 720p, on the other hand is 1280x720.... and progressive, which means single frames as opposed to interlaced frames. That's like trying to tell me you can't tell much of a difference between 640x480 and 1280x1024 on a pc. It's just ignorant. You don't have much of an idea what you're talking about because it seems like you think there isn't a noticable difference, and there most definately is.

For the record, I have a 52 inch high def LG with Texas Instruments DLP2. And hey, guess what, I have a high end up-convert dvd player. I can put in a superbit dvd, which is unquestionably the pinnacle of dvd quality, and the quality isn't really that amazing.

Now, for the reason why you're wrong. That signal is still technically NTSC, since it comes from an NTSC source. Fox HD broadcasts at 720p. CBS HD broadcasts at 720p. ABC HD broadcasts at 1080i. I watch these channels religiously every night of the week simply for the video quality. The difference between Fox, CBS, (720p) and ABC (1080i) is minimal, but the difference between any of those three channels and any NTSC signal (including a boosted one from an HDMI DVD player) is huge.

The fact is, by saying there isn't a noticable difference between 720p and NTSC is stupid. Plain and simple.

<3 Bill

600 is reasonable for me. Something faster than even a 2000 dolllar computer, that has the promise of many good franchises, along with being a Blu-Ray player?

If you just get a console to play games, sure. But I know I'm not going to have room for a Blu-Ray player, a console or two, a VHS player (just in case), a cable box, etc etc etc.

Just because YOU can't justify it doesn't mean that it's not easily justified elsewhere.

i think DVDs are cool, like the wii

Seriously.

I can't even play 1080p video.

WII IT IS.

WHO IS WIITH US?

WII ACCEPT YOU.
WII ACCEPT YOU.

ONE OF US. ONE OF US.

Hell I'm getting a Wii. Why not at sub-$200?

Don't know about that.

They pretty much did away with the $250 rumor.

But still haven't given a definite price.

I still hope like hell it's going to be like $150. But I'll still pay upto $300 for the system itself. I'll probably end up spending over $400 release day, becuase I want alot of stuff to play. The release line-up looks freaking AWESOME.

Pretty much the same for me. And I don't need a blue-ray player right this second, nor can actually use the freakin' tech the ps3 advertises. By the time I actually can use the features, the prices of the blue ray player will have went down, and it wouldn't be that great of a bargain anyway.

The ps3 is a PC, but with less freedom of what you can do with it. There was a line between a game console and a PC, and PS3 crosses it.

I just wonder what Joe T. Consumer will think. The average one, not ones that actually understand what all those new-fangled numbers and gadgets are. Then again, maybe I give the average consumer too little credit.

it still seems like a boring console to me

whereas the wii looks awesome, it can do things that makes wizards blush.

The Wii is going to cause a sharp increase in health, and a sharp decrease in school attendance.

now all it needs is a work sim, where you mine coal for 8 hours a day using the wiimote.

What about a pimp sim. A REAL pimp sim?

Where you smack *****es for not bring in enough money.

And stab people with your swordpimpcane!

VIRTUAL HEROIN SHOOTING.

USE THE WIIMOTE TO PLUNGE LIQUID AWESOME INTO YOUR VEINS.

The possible joys of wii boxing...

Wii has Havok physics too.

The possible joys of punching someone in the face with your wii, and watching them go ragdoll at the force of your wii.