Ken Kutaragi Calls the Xbox 360 the "Xbox 1.5"

[quote name='Skylander7']Personally, I don't think many people have the money to dish out a monitor capable of 1080i. Sony is trying to force next generation home electronics down the consumer's throat. Do you want to replace your DVD collection with new Blu-Ray movies? I don't. Neither does the average consumer. Is the PS3 a moster machine? Yeah, without a doubt. Games consoles keep moving more and more to a centralized object of home entertainment, and I don't like that. Sony knows that by pushing consumers to purchase higher end electronics, they stand to profit being that they manufacture those goods (HD TV, being one of the creators of the new Blu_Ray, etc). Xbox is just as guilty, trying to integrate Media Center into the Xbox to centralize everything with a Windows flair.

Of course Revolution perks my interest, because it's possibly something new and unseen. I want fresh air to be breathed into this hobby.

Maybe I just feel old, seeing how I grew up with this hobby and seeing it go from something fun into more of a serious business. I just don't feel like I'm seeing the same degree of originality and fun as I did in my old games growing up.

Who gives a rats ass about how powerful any of the consoles are (Although I love a few of the games on it, Saturn is a much more powerful machine than the PS1. It was the PS1's multitude of good games that kept it alive and the Saturn's lack thereof that decided the fate of those two consoles). I want to know if the profitability of this business is going to spark increases in price points. I want to know if the unnacceptability of the majority consumer base for unique titles is going to make developers lazy and just push out mundane easy-selling sequels in franchises..

Flame me if you want, but in the past few years, I've been seeing a few disturbing trends starting to take shape.[/QUOTE]

Holy Shit!!! This is what I have been trying to say all along! I agree with 100%!!! Yes costs of TV and Monitors are constantly going down but it still doesn't make me want to go out and buy a high end TV. When it comes down to it I don't need it. I don't want to replace my DVD's either. I don't think the general public will rush either. I have also mentioned not liking Sony's and Microsoft's idea of the multimedia machine and got flamed for it. The truth is those functions even though mostly cheap to add and a nice extra don't help what the sytem itself is....a fucking gaming machine.

I'm personally getting tired of seeing new FPS games, racing games, sports games so on and so forth that are all from the same mold. Give me something original.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I totally disagree. HDTV is the future. Once you get used to it you just can't go back. Progress doesn't happen quick enough IMO. I don't want to replace my DVD collection - but who says I have to? If I don't I'm going to be watching those movies in 480p anyway. I'd rather have the option for something better. More advanced visuals, while not the be all end all to a better game, sure do help a lot. I'll never play Resident Evil for PS1 ever again because the GCN version is far superior or take Madden 95 compared to Madden 2005. Both are great for their times but I'm not digging out my Genesis any time soon to get a football fix. Bring on the new technology.[/QUOTE]

yea man HD is the way to go I cringe when a game isnt atleast 480p ( I kno its not HI def but its better than 480i ) .
 
I personally wish there was more 720p support for games. It makes a world of difference ;) I think going to 1080p is a bit overkill, sure it's welcome but I don't expect to own one of those for a good number of years. I'm sure as hell not buying a flat panel tv every 1-2 years.
 
[quote name='epobirs']Nonsense. CPU architecture can make a huge difference if you have specific goals in mind.[/QUOTE]
I know all about what the mystical magical Cell chip can do, I assure you. But you fail to comprehend the angle I'm looking at it from.

Let's hypothetically say that I know nothing about technology; not a bit from a byte, completely illiterate. To such a person, the way in which the processor is performing it's tasks means nothing. No matter how the processor does it's job, the end product is still nothing but a bunch of pixils, sounds, and behind-the-scenes math.

I'll continue to stand by the stance that the way you play and interact with a game (i.e., new control methods and the like) is far more important than how the processor does it's calculations. Cause it's just plain true.

When I have the choice of Console A, with unique new interactivity, that is powered by Processor X, and Console B, which is the same old stuff, but is powered by SUPER Processor X...sorry, I'm going with Console A.
 
[quote name='javeryh']Anyone who's played God of War in progressive scan 16:9 should be drooling over the next gen systems...[/QUOTE]

hehe trust me 480p aint nothing compared to 720p ;)

I'm not sure if the transition to 1080i or 1080p will be as noticeable though
 
[quote name='CheapyD']After playing many (if not all) the playable 360 titles at E3...i have to admit, he isn't wrong.
Then again, its probably too early to tell.[/QUOTE]

You have to realize that not one single one of the 360 demos was running on the Xbox 360. During the Kameo presentation the announcer said that the game running on the dev kit was just running at 40% of the actual Xbox 360 power if I remember correctly. I would have to say Need 4 Speed demoing on the 360 dev kit was my favorite. Like you say tho, it is just too early to tell.
 
[quote name='Skylander7']Personally, I don't think many people have the money to dish out a monitor capable of 1080i. Sony is trying to force next generation home electronics down the consumer's throat. Do you want to replace your DVD collection with new Blu-Ray movies? I don't. [/QUOTE] (1) The FCC is the one who is forcing consumers to adopt HDTV (and by extension HDTV-capable DVD). Don't blame Sony, when it's the FCC - aka your own government - that's making the laws.



(2) You can buy a 1080i monitor right now for
 
[quote name='CoffeeEdge']I know all about what the mystical magical Cell chip can do, I assure you. But you fail to comprehend the angle I'm looking at it from.

Let's hypothetically say that I know nothing about technology; not a bit from a byte, completely illiterate. To such a person, the way in which the processor is performing it's tasks means nothing. No matter how the processor does it's job, the end product is still nothing but a bunch of pixils, sounds, and behind-the-scenes math.

I'll continue to stand by the stance that the way you play and interact with a game (i.e., new control methods and the like) is far more important than how the processor does it's calculations. Cause it's just plain true.

When I have the choice of Console A, with unique new interactivity, that is powered by Processor X, and Console B, which is the same old stuff, but is powered by SUPER Processor X...sorry, I'm going with Console A.[/QUOTE]

Oh please, get real. Greater functionality has always led to new interactivity. By your rationale a Atari VCS could produce a good version of RE4. We'd make it like the old Temple of Apshai games. Every room has a number that corresponds to a page in the lengthy accompanying manual. On that page the room and its inhabitants are explained in detailed text descriptions. Actions are chosen from a multiple choice menu. It's a blast to play.

Long ago, there was a company called Infocom, that specialized in text adventures. For years they had the only parser that allowed commands to be entered in a manner resembling written English rather than stilted verb-object sets. Rather than having the occasional illustration in that era's extremely limited graphics they went in for quality of writing long passages that let the player's imagination do what the computers of the day could not remotely attempt. Their advertising was centered on this concept. One memorable ad had a picture of a human brain with a label declaring it the most powerful graphics system of all.

It was a great campaign for that era. No capable writer with confidence in his abilities could get very excited by what 8-bit systems offered when the game wasn't about moving sprites around. (One illustrated adventure game product line of the era tried to make much of adapting famous novels from authors like Roger Zelazny but most of them were painfully bad.) When Douglas Adams was approached to do games based on 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' the only company he gave any serious consideration to was Infocom. They offered the only environment that could really convey his ideas without making the player impatiently wait to look at yet another mediocre picture. Thus one of the greatest adventure games ever came to be.

Then a few years went by. The typical processor went from 8-bit to 16-bit and then 32-bit. The typical system had a hard drive and a CD-ROM drive. SVGA and better monitors were common as well as video hardware to drive those resolutions at 16-bit and greater color depth. An avid Mac user, Adams decided things were good enough to create a game with more than just text. now he could hire favorite performers to provide characters voices, such as Terry Jones as a mad parrot. The result was Starhip Titanic. Not a huge success but it did well enough. Meanwhile, the pure text adventure had entirely died out except a nostalgia collection from Activision and some shareware items. The market for text games just didn't exist anymore. The value of good writing was still important but there was no excuse for not offering visual and auditory embodiment of the writing as well.

This applies to all sorts of things. People have complained about poor AI since the beginning of electronic games. At first this was ridiculous as there wasn't enough memory and processing time for anything more than simple repeating patterns. Later it was possible to give each foe simple rules and enough processor time so that those enemies reacted to what the player did, if only in a limited sense. As well more and more objects could have real consequence in the game and be more than lumpish scenery.

Increasingly developers didn't have to choose between lot of enemies or smart enemies. But then someone had the idea to have hugely more enemies and a new genre arose. The enemies got stupid again but that was only temporary. As long as more power was given to developers more ways would be found to use it. How that was done took many forms. Sometimes it meant bringing a $2500 arcade game into the home for $50 on a machine that cost less than $300. Sometimes it was taking a good concept that lacked a wide audience previously and made it work with a more engaging environment. Sometimes it just meant taking something tried and true and making it more spectacular than before. All that mattered was that it pleased enough people to make it pay for those doing the work.

It didn't matter how much of the audience understood why this was happening now instead of before, any more than it matter whether an audience understands why special effects technolgy has enabled movie makers to do things they could only previously imagine. All they need to know is they find it interesting enough to pay to see it or play it.
 
[quote name='jkam']Holy Shit!!! This is what I have been trying to say all along! I agree with 100%!!! Yes costs of TV and Monitors are constantly going down but it still doesn't make me want to go out and buy a high end TV. When it comes down to it I don't need it. I don't want to replace my DVD's either. I don't think the general public will rush either. I have also mentioned not liking Sony's and Microsoft's idea of the multimedia machine and got flamed for it. The truth is those functions even though mostly cheap to add and a nice extra don't help what the sytem itself is....a fucking gaming machine.

I'm personally getting tired of seeing new FPS games, racing games, sports games so on and so forth that are all from the same mold. Give me something original.[/QUOTE]

but how do you define a high end TV? It's a moving target. The 30" Toshiba I paid about $900 for in the mid-90's is now matched by an equivalent set with more features for under $400. Leaving out the added difference of inflation that is still a big difference. What was high end then is now cheap and run of the mill.

What are you using for a monitor to read this post? Did it seem reasonably priced when you bought it? How much more would the same thing have set you back five years earlier? Would you have been able to justify the purchase then?

My first web access was on a 486SX/33 laptop with a 256 color 640x480 display connecting by a 14,400 modem. Seemed great at the time but it would take a dire need to make me use it again today. And that was low priced system for the era when I bought it. Things have moved ahead so far that I couldn't buy a new system like it new for the most minor price. It just doesn't exist anymore as a viable product. (The same can be said for the newer unit I'm typing on right now but it's convenient for using around the house while my serious laptop is in it's case redy to travel at short notice.) The entry level price for a minimal laptop has dropped to a third of that era but is far better equipped. The same will happen over time with NTSC color TVs as it did with B&W TVs.

Consider the cost of the first color TV model in 1954.
http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/rose_parade.html

$1,000 or nearly $7,000 in 2005 dollars. Sound familiar?

They didn't sell very well at first. Most movies were still produced in B&W and TV studios were slow to make the equipment investment to produce new color content. But within a decade nearly all TV production and live broadcasts were in color. (I can remember as a child watching a B&W set seeing the lead-in announcing the following show was in glorious color, except for you poor suffering bastards lacking a decent set. Kind of like the HD overlays seen during the beginning of shows today. Eventually those go away when what they're promoting becomes the rule rather than the excpetion.) Over time B&W sets became less and less common as the viable markets disappeared. The cost of a color set was just too low for most sizes to bother with anything less. Remember when computers users could save money by settling for a monochrome display?

It's just a matter of time. As the old joke goes, we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price.
 
[quote name='Skylander7']Personally, I don't think many people have the money to dish out a monitor capable of 1080i. Sony is trying to force next generation home electronics down the consumer's throat. Do you want to replace your DVD collection with new Blu-Ray movies? I don't. [/QUOTE] (1) The FCC is the one who is forcing consumers to adopt HDTV (and by extension HDTV-capable DVD). Don't blame Sony, when it's the FCC - aka your own government - that's making the laws.



(2) You can buy a 1080i monitor right now for
 
[quote name='epobirs']but how do you define a high end TV? It's a moving target. The 30" Toshiba I paid about $900 for in the mid-90's is now matched by an equivalent set with more features for under $400. Leaving out the added difference of inflation that is still a big difference. What was high end then is now cheap and run of the mill.

What are you using for a monitor to read this post? Did it seem reasonably priced when you bought it? How much more would the same thing have set you back five years earlier? Would you have been able to justify the purchase then?

My first web access was on a 486SX/33 laptop with a 256 color 640x480 display connecting by a 14,400 modem. Seemed great at the time but it would take a dire need to make me use it again today. And that was low priced system for the era when I bought it. Things have moved ahead so far that I couldn't buy a new system like it new for the most minor price. It just doesn't exist anymore as a viable product. (The same can be said for the newer unit I'm typing on right now but it's convenient for using around the house while my serious laptop is in it's case redy to travel at short notice.) The entry level price for a minimal laptop has dropped to a third of that era but is far better equipped. The same will happen over time with NTSC color TVs as it did with B&W TVs.

Consider the cost of the first color TV model in 1954.
http://www.novia.net/~ereitan/rose_parade.html

$1,000 or nearly $7,000 in 2005 dollars. Sound familiar?

They didn't sell very well at first. Most movies were still produced in B&W and TV studios were slow to make the equipment investment to produce new color content. But within a decade nearly all TV production and live broadcasts were in color. (I can remember as a child watching a B&W set seeing the lead-in announcing the following show was in glorious color, except for you poor suffering bastards lacking a decent set. Kind of like the HD overlays seen during the beginning of shows today. Eventually those go away when what they're promoting becomes the rule rather than the excpetion.) Over time B&W sets became less and less common as the viable markets disappeared. The cost of a color set was just too low for most sizes to bother with anything less. Remember when computers users could save money by settling for a monochrome display?

It's just a matter of time. As the old joke goes, we've established what you are, now we're just haggling over the price.[/QUOTE]

Your'e missing the point completely. My point is I don't care about a high end TV or any new TV for that matter mainly because the one I have works. Why would I spend $300 bucks on something I don't need? Is the clearer picture going to enrich my life that much?

The computer monitor I am using is a Dell 17" Flat Panel LCD Monitor that I got for free so yeah I would say the price is pretty damn good. Would I be able to live with my self posting on a bulky CRT monitor? Sure. Heck the computer I'm running is only 500MHZ but for what I'm using it for it works just fine.

I like having new electronics but I don't need to have the latest greatest of everything and just as you posted things move so fast that they don't really exist anymore because when you buy something it is obsolete in a short amount of time.

Even in video games its all flashy new tech woohoo....but I've read a shit-ton of posts where people claim the SNES as the greatest console ever. To each his own I guess.
 
[quote name='jkam']Your'e missing the point completely. My point is I don't care about a high end TV or any new TV for that matter mainly because the one I have works. Why would I spend $300 bucks on something I don't need? Is the clearer picture going to enrich my life that much?

The computer monitor I am using is a Dell 17" Flat Panel LCD Monitor that I got for free so yeah I would say the price is pretty damn good. Would I be able to live with my self posting on a bulky CRT monitor? Sure. Heck the computer I'm running is only 500MHZ but for what I'm using it for it works just fine.

I like having new electronics but I don't need to have the latest greatest of everything and just as you posted things move so fast that they don't really exist anymore because when you buy something it is obsolete in a short amount of time.

Even in video games its all flashy new tech woohoo....but I've read a shit-ton of posts where people claim the SNES as the greatest console ever. To each his own I guess.[/QUOTE]

I think you are in the minority on this one. Once the cost of a brand new HDTV equals the cost of a similar sized "regular" TV it's over. No one will buy the lesser TVs. Are you telling me the next TV you buy you will seek to avoid HD? So you don't need a new TV right now - you will soon enough. I'd say 10 years is a very good life cycle for a television so sooner or later the need will arise to get a new one. If you can live with the crappier picture for now then so be it but for those of us who already have HD sets the PS3 and 360 are both sounding pretty sweet.

I used to think the same way until I bought my plasma TV - I didn't know what I was missing. Ignorance truely is bliss (if only I could go back). Now I'm so spoiled I can barely stomach the non-HD channels. I find myself watching DiscoveryHD or PBSHD because the picture really is that good. Sunday fooball is a completely different experience and every TV drama (CSI, Without a Trace, Lost) is like watching a mini movie. I spent almost $8,000 tricking out my living room with electronics and furniture (foregoing vacation and a new car for the next 2 years) and I don't have a single second of buyer's remorse. I absolutely LOVE it.
 
[quote name='BIG5']Kutaragi argued that the PS3 "is not a game machine", saying that the company has "never once called it a game machine".[/QUOTE]


The thing is called PLAYSTATION
 
[quote name='javeryh']I think you are in the minority on this one. Once the cost of a brand new HDTV equals the cost of a similar sized "regular" TV it's over. No one will buy the lesser TVs. Are you telling me the next TV you buy you will seek to avoid HD? So you don't need a new TV right now - you will soon enough. I'd say 10 years is a very good life cycle for a television so sooner or later the need will arise to get a new one. If you can live with the crappier picture for now then so be it but for those of us who already have HD sets the PS3 and 360 are both sounding pretty sweet.

I used to think the same way until I bought my plasma TV - I didn't know what I was missing. Ignorance truely is bliss (if only I could go back). Now I'm so spoiled I can barely stomach the non-HD channels. I find myself watching DiscoveryHD or PBSHD because the picture really is that good. Sunday fooball is a completely different experience and every TV drama (CSI, Without a Trace, Lost) is like watching a mini movie. I spent almost $8,000 tricking out my living room with electronics and furniture (foregoing vacation and a new car for the next 2 years) and I don't have a single second of buyer's remorse. I absolutely LOVE it.[/QUOTE]

I reluctantly have to agree here; I'm always drooling over the $359 Samsung 26" (or is it 30"?) refurbished HDTV when I see it floating in the forums. If I buy anything larger than that, I might go the projector route, but that's beside the point.

I agree that I'd buy one of those up in a heartbeat if I had the expendable income to do just that; as it stands, I will not make such a purchase on a credit card (that's another argument for another day, though).

myke.
...is it pretty evident that, at the same time I'm saying "I can wait," that I'm still trying to convince myself of that?
 
[quote name='jkam']Your'e missing the point completely. My point is I don't care about a high end TV or any new TV for that matter mainly because the one I have works. Why would I spend $300 bucks on something I don't need? Is the clearer picture going to enrich my life that much?

The computer monitor I am using is a Dell 17" Flat Panel LCD Monitor that I got for free so yeah I would say the price is pretty damn good. Would I be able to live with my self posting on a bulky CRT monitor? Sure. Heck the computer I'm running is only 500MHZ but for what I'm using it for it works just fine.

I like having new electronics but I don't need to have the latest greatest of everything and just as you posted things move so fast that they don't really exist anymore because when you buy something it is obsolete in a short amount of time.

Even in video games its all flashy new tech woohoo....but I've read a shit-ton of posts where people claim the SNES as the greatest console ever. To each his own I guess.[/QUOTE]

OK. Your TV dies irreparably. Are you really going to claim that you'll buy the cheapest thing in the store to use for all your gaming and other viewing? Or are you going to set a price point and see how nice of a set you can get for that amount? If you're willing to settle for the most minimal display I really have to wonder why you own any game consoles produced in the last decade.

You say you're fine with a bulky CRT but that is only part of the issue. Your LCD screen is destroyed by a rabid badger that invades your home and leaves, doing no other damage. Would you live with a free screen showing 800x600 at 15" if you can pick up a 17" giving a better resolution for under $100? At what point do you cross from cheapness to self-denial? For myself, I hold out for bargains I know will arise in a short time frame (games) so I can afford to spend properly on those things that will be in use for many years and affects all of that cheap software.

My only PC LCD screens are on portables but the next desktop monitor I buy when the need arises will almost certainly be an LCD. Not just because it will be in my price range but also because CRTs will have become nearly non-existent at retail. Price parity between the two display technologies will cause the bulk and power requirements of CRTs to make them unviable for continued production outside of specialty applications. How many LCD monitor owners will at some point in their past have declared they'd never own one of those overpriced things because the advantages just weren't worth the cost?

In 1984, after leaving a theater showing 'The Last Starfighter,' if I'd been told I'd someday buy a little game box that would produce far better graphics in realtime and cost me less than two days' wages, I'd not be convinced. But that was before I'd seen so many products based on digital electronics go from toys for the very wealthy to the shelves of places like TRU. There will come a time not that terribly long from now when kids will be surprised that people once had to settle for NTSC like an earlier generation settled for B&W.

At some point the things you use need to be bought, either for the first time or as a replacement for one that failed. Is price your only criterion or do features complicate the decision?
 
[quote name='javeryh']I think you are in the minority on this one. Once the cost of a brand new HDTV equals the cost of a similar sized "regular" TV it's over. No one will buy the lesser TVs. Are you telling me the next TV you buy you will seek to avoid HD? So you don't need a new TV right now - you will soon enough. I'd say 10 years is a very good life cycle for a television so sooner or later the need will arise to get a new one. If you can live with the crappier picture for now then so be it but for those of us who already have HD sets the PS3 and 360 are both sounding pretty sweet.

I used to think the same way until I bought my plasma TV - I didn't know what I was missing. Ignorance truely is bliss (if only I could go back). Now I'm so spoiled I can barely stomach the non-HD channels. I find myself watching DiscoveryHD or PBSHD because the picture really is that good. Sunday fooball is a completely different experience and every TV drama (CSI, Without a Trace, Lost) is like watching a mini movie. I spent almost $8,000 tricking out my living room with electronics and furniture (foregoing vacation and a new car for the next 2 years) and I don't have a single second of buyer's remorse. I absolutely LOVE it.[/QUOTE]

I agree I probably am among the minority. I don't even understand why people buy massive size TVs at insane prices. I just don't see the WOW in owning a massive TV. I didn't say I wouldn't buy an HD TV but I will wait until my TV now craps out before buying a new one. Don't get me wrong I spend plenty of money on electronics myself but I don't think I would skip a vacation to buy a home theater system. With work, my band, exercising, studying, and all the other things I have to do I don't really have enough time to watch TV as it is. Don't get me wrong I can appreciate an HD TV and a game running in 720p but it just isn't on my list of priorities. Like I said to each his own.
 
Yeah, I wish televisions had a 10 year lifespan.

Maybe the next generation will, but a TV is like a lightbulb. They can make one that lasts forever, but then they would never have repeat customers.
 
[quote name='jkam']I agree I probably am among the minority. I don't even understand why people buy massive size TVs at insane prices. I just don't see the WOW in owning a massive TV. I didn't say I wouldn't buy an HD TV but I will wait until my TV now craps out before buying a new one. Don't get me wrong I spend plenty of money on electronics myself but I don't think I would skip a vacation to buy a home theater system. With work, my band, exercising, studying, and all the other things I have to do I don't really have enough time to watch TV as it is. Don't get me wrong I can appreciate an HD TV and a game running in 720p but it just isn't on my list of priorities. Like I said to each his own.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough. Everyone has their priorities. I only get about an hour a day during the week to either watch TV or play video games so I figured I might as well really really enjoy that hour (thank god for my dual tuner DVR or I would never get to watch anything). With a new baby, vacation was already out of the picture for the next few years anyway and with no current monthly car payment to speak of I figured what the hell. I got 0% financing for 2 years and I'm on track to easily pay it off by the end of the year. It's only $300 a month... worth every penny. :D
 
[quote name='howlinmad']Yeah, but if I want something above 30 inch?[/QUOTE]Stick with your old NTSC tv then. The PS3 *is* backwards-compatible.



[quote name='jkam']Your'e missing the point completely. My point is I don't care about a high end TV or any new TV for that matter mainly because the one I have works. Why would I spend $300 bucks on something I don't need? [/QUOTE]

STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. No one's forcing you to trash your old TV. The old TV broadcasts will continue until circa 2015, and your old TV is still good.

You're having a fit about being "forced to trash your old TV" when nobody is doing that. Go ahead. Keep playing on your old analog screen. The PS3 *is* backwards-compatible, and will work just fine with your old equipment.

troy
 
[quote name='epobirs']OK. Your TV dies irreparably. Are you really going to claim that you'll buy the cheapest thing in the store to use for all your gaming and other viewing? Or are you going to set a price point and see how nice of a set you can get for that amount? If you're willing to settle for the most minimal display I really have to wonder why you own any game consoles produced in the last decade.

You say you're fine with a bulky CRT but that is only part of the issue. Your LCD screen is destroyed by a rabid badger that invades your home and leaves, doing no other damage. Would you live with a free screen showing 800x600 at 15" if you can pick up a 17" giving a better resolution for under $100? At what point do you cross from cheapness to self-denial? For myself, I hold out for bargains I know will arise in a short time frame (games) so I can afford to spend properly on those things that will be in use for many years and affects all of that cheap software.

My only PC LCD screens are on portables but the next desktop monitor I buy when the need arises will almost certainly be an LCD. Not just because it will be in my price range but also because CRTs will have become nearly non-existent at retail. Price parity between the two display technologies will cause the bulk and power requirements of CRTs to make them unviable for continued production outside of specialty applications. How many LCD monitor owners will at some point in their past have declared they'd never own one of those overpriced things because the advantages just weren't worth the cost?

In 1984, after leaving a theater showing 'The Last Starfighter,' if I'd been told I'd someday buy a little game box that would produce far better graphics in realtime and cost me less than two days' wages, I'd not be convinced. But that was before I'd seen so many products based on digital electronics go from toys for the very wealthy to the shelves of places like TRU. There will come a time not that terribly long from now when kids will be surprised that people once had to settle for NTSC like an earlier generation settled for B&W.

At some point the things you use need to be bought, either for the first time or as a replacement for one that failed. Is price your only criterion or do features complicate the decision?[/QUOTE]

No if my TV dies then I'll buy a new one. I might spend say $500 if I felt it was worth it. I'm saying if within the next year after buying the $500 dollar TV a better set came out for $350 I wouldn't buy it because I have a working TV at home. I'm not saying that when the time comes (my TV dies) I would be cheap and buy the worst TV in the place.

As for the CRT monitor yeah I would probably take the 15inch at 800x600. While I can appreciate a nice new screen with a good resolution I guess I am missing that gene that tells me I must have the slightly better screen. It just never really affects me. As long as I can use it to view what I need to and do what I need to I could care less. Although I am happy to have the LCD screen it hasn't changed my life in any significant way. If I had to go out and buy a new monitor than I would most likely get an LCD because I can get one now at a reasonable price.

Like I said I know I am among a minority but like I said to each his own. A lot of people like to spend a lot of money on certain things. It's all good. I see a ton of kids tricking out there cars with super sound systems, rims, and a bunch of other stuff. That doesn't mean I give a shit to do it to my car.

The Last Starfighter! I love that movie!
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']Yeah, I wish televisions had a 10 year lifespan.

Maybe the next generation will, but a TV is like a lightbulb. They can make one that lasts forever, but then they would never have repeat customers.[/QUOTE]

See "obsolesence, planned"
 
[quote name='jkam']I don't care about a high end TV, because the one I have works. Why would I spend $300 bucks on something I don't need? [/QUOTE]STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. No one's forcing you to trash your old TV. The old TV broadcasts will continue until circa 2015, and your old TV is still good.

You're having a fit about being "forced to spend $300" when nobody is doing that. Go ahead. Keep playing on your old analog screen. The PS3 *is* backwards-compatible, and will work just fine with your old equipment.




BTW, I'm like you. I'm still using the old analog "stuff". I've got a 5-yr-old 27" NTSC that looks great with DVDs. And my VCR is *Super* VHS whcih records DVD quality. So I have not yet upgraded.

On the other hand, I'm not having a hissy fiit either. When the time comes, I will upgrade to 1080i digital, and I'll be thrilled with it. It's stupid to try to stop progress.

I'm especially looking forward to seeing Ben Hur in true widescreen. It will rock!

troy
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Stick with your old NTSC tv then. The PS3 *is* backwards-compatible.





STRAWMAN ARGUMENT. No one's forcing you to trash your old TV. The old TV broadcasts will continue until circa 2015, and your old TV is still good.

You're having a fit about being "forced to trash your old TV" when nobody is doing that. Go ahead. Keep playing on your old analog screen. The PS3 *is* backwards-compatible, and will work just fine with your old equipment.



BTW, I'm like you. I'm still using the old analog "stuff". I've got a 5-yr-old 27" NTSC that looks great with DVDs. And my VCR is Super VHS whcih records beautifully. So I have not yet upgraded.

On the other hand, I'm not having a hissy fiit either. When the time comes, I will upgrade to 1080i digital, and I'll be thrilled with it. It's stupid to try to stop progress.

I'm especially looking forward to seeing Ben Hur in true widescreen. It will rock!

troy[/QUOTE]

I'm not really having a hissy fit I'm just explaining to people my reasoning. I don't feel as if I am being forced to throw out my TV. It's just some people really enjoy state of the art electronics....which I can appreciate but aren't a priority for me to own. I'm not trying to slow down progress if that is what everyone thought I was getting at.
 
Okay then. Just keep you old analog TV. Play the PS3 in 480i.

And when the TV dies 5-6 years from now, you can upgrade to 1080i, and enjoy your PS3 with triple the resolution!

:)

troy
 
[quote name='BIG5']Kutaragi argued that the PS3 "is not a game machine", saying that the company has "never once called it a game machine".

He's right, it's not a game machine, it's a grill and a boomerang; perfect for a day at the beach![/QUOTE]

The controller is pretty fugly.
 
(1) The FCC is the one who is forcing consumers to adopt HDTV (and by extension HDTV-capable DVD). Don't blame Sony, when it's the FCC - aka your own government - that's making the laws.
Click to expand...

HDTVs aren't a problem to me. They are clearly the new standard, just like DVD was a few years ago. Rich people are buying them up now so that the price will drop for everyone else later...but It's this proprietary Blu-ray media that gets me-- it's overkill and no customer is in a position to give a crap about it yet. Maybe in about 5 years.

See "obsolesence, planned"
Click to expand...

There's a picture of an old model PS2 next to it...Interesting ;-)
 
There's a picture of EVERY electronic device next to it, it's the way od the industry.

Bluray offers several things in sony's eyes, besides the obvious wealth of storage it's also useful for blocking piracy attempts, sure a pirate can still burn a blu ray disk but at what cost? and will it be economical to sell it for 10 bucks on a street corner? I'm not convinced DVDs are going anywhere soon just like the audio casset and even the VHS tape still have their uses but to never even try a new format is completly counter to the electronics industry, someone has to try this stuff and sony just likes to be first.
 
[quote name='Apossum']but It's this proprietary Blu-ray media that gets me[/QUOTE]

How is it proprietary? Both Sony and Toshiba are woking on it, and it is planned to replace the DVD.

And most Blu-Ray players (including PS3) will be compatable with DVDs.

And HDTVs will still accept standard VGA and analog input in addition to composite video and HDTV.
 
[quote name='javeryh']I used to think the same way until I bought my plasma TV - I didn't know what I was missing.[/QUOTE]

Hmmmm, sounds expensive. Big screen LCD and plasma televisions are nice, but for the several thousand dollars one of these would cost me, I could buy 10-15 of the 32-inch Sharp tube sets I already own. Is your new plasma tv really 10-15 times better than my tube set?

I too will own an LCD or plasma tv one day when the asking prices are a bit more reasonable. $2000+ for a tv is a luxury I simply cannot justify today.
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi2']Hmmmm, sounds expensive. Big screen LCD and plasma televisions are nice, but for the several thousand dollars one of these would cost me, I could buy 10-15 of the 32-inch Sharp tube sets I already own. Is your new plasma tv really 10-15 times better than my tube set?

I too will own an LCD or plasma tv one day when the asking prices are a bit more reasonable. $2000+ for a tv is a luxury I simply cannot justify today.[/QUOTE]

Ill get one as soon as they say those tvs have surpassed CRTs in picture quality , wonder when thats gonna be .
 
[quote name='MaxBiaggi2']Is your new plasma tv really 10-15 times better than my tube set? [/QUOTE]

Yes, I assure you it is not even close. Plus, it hangs right on the wall and takes up next to no room at all. It's perfect because my TV room is only 7.5 ft. wide.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']How is it proprietary? Both Sony and Toshiba are woking on it, and it is planned to replace the DVD.

And most Blu-Ray players (including PS3) will be compatable with DVDs.

And HDTVs will still accept standard VGA and analog input in addition to composite video and HDTV.[/QUOTE]

Being a collaboration of more than one company doesm't stop it from being proprietary. Cell is unquestionably a proprietary product of a three-company collaboration. It's a question of ownership and who collects and controls the licensing and fees involved. Sony decided early on they wanted to own as much as possible of this. They tried for that last time in the battle that resulted in DVD. THe patent pool for that ended up including a considerable number of companies and left Sony with and unsatisfactorily small piece of the pie. They want a situation more like Betamax, with no VHS to harsh their buzz.
 
[quote name='Quackzilla']How is it proprietary? Both Sony and Toshiba are woking on it, and it is planned to replace the DVD.

And most Blu-Ray players (including PS3) will be compatable with DVDs.

And HDTVs will still accept standard VGA and analog input in addition to composite video and HDTV.[/QUOTE]

Oh, right. Whatever, it was Sony's idea :p
I don't care if they will be DVD compatible, it doesn't make them any more relevant to what we have going on today. Sony is just using the PS3 to force blu-ray on to the market and it's gonna make the system and games crazy expensive($400 or higher for a system.) There's a rhythm to new formats-- blu-ray in 2006 is completely out of sync.

And I like HDTVs, that's why I said they're the obvious next step and I think their time has come...

There's a picture of EVERY electronic device next to it, it's the way od the industry.

Bluray offers several things in sony's eyes, besides the obvious wealth of storage it's also useful for blocking piracy attempts, sure a pirate can still burn a blu ray disk but at what cost? and will it be economical to sell it for 10 bucks on a street corner? I'm not convinced DVDs are going anywhere soon just like the audio casset and even the VHS tape still have their uses but to never even try a new format is completly counter to the electronics industry, someone has to try this stuff and sony just likes to be first.
Click to expand...

Dude, up till I bought the PS2, I'd had a couple of cheap ass, no name stereos eat tapes or get jammed on me. I take good care of my electronics-- most of what I've had, I've resold when I've upgraded cause it was still "like new." TVs from the 70s, first gen CD players, computers, etc.

I've never had an old model PS2 last more than a year without doing anything to it. Those things are totally fragile.
 
not to be an ass, but I am on Ken's viewpoint on this one... first time I saw XBOX 360 games in action... all it felt like was Xbox 1.5.... as for the PS3... people say alot of the tech demos don't really show the power of the system... true, but I think most people are so jaded by the power of the system they are in disbelief. I think the only systems that will break ground, in both tchnical and gaming levels, will be the revolution and PS3... I really think M$ is not handling their side of the market the right way if they want to stick around for long.
 
[quote name='Apossum']Dude, up till I bought the PS2, I'd had a couple of cheap ass, no name stereos eat tapes or get jammed on me. I take good care of my electronics-- most of what I've had, I've resold when I've upgraded cause it was still "like new." TVs from the 70s, first gen CD players, computers, etc.

I've never had an old model PS2 last more than a year without it giving me DRE. It's fixable, but it shouldn't happen in the first place Those things are totally fragile.[/QUOTE]

The fact that you've had stereos last years means nothing. I've had Brand name stereos and panasonic radios that lasted five years and suddenly started chewing tapes, I've had a Sony portable CD player that still works today dispite the fact that it was made back when they used 4 AA batteriest and lasted 2 hours, I've had VCRs that lasted 3 years at most and some that lasted 6 My last Mitsubishi VCR just snapped one day after working perfectly for 5 years with no hint that it was going to go bad, My Playstation lasted 4 years before the FMV problem and the PS2 I've had since LAUNCH.

The fact that you UPGRADED is the point. Things just get out dated, they arent meant to last forever, if they last more that 3 years without being replaced by a newer model it's abnormal.
 
[quote name='Apossum']HDTVs aren't a problem to me. Rich people are buying them up now so that the price will drop for everyone else later...but It's this proprietary Blu-ray media that gets me-- it's overkill and no customer is in a position to give a crap about it yet.[/QUOTE]

The rich people who own HDTVs also want to buy HDTV-quality movies. You can't do that with DVD. You need either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

That need is here *now*. HDTV and Blu-ray (or HD-DVD) complement one another. HDTV is the display & Blu-Ray is the storage method.




(By the way, HD-DVD is *also* a proprietary standard... just like Beta or VHS. Whichever wins, Blue-Ray or HD-DVD, you'll be using a proprietary standard. Get used to it.)

troy
 
I'm pleased to see actual thought occuring on this subject (on both sides). I agree with the earlier post that the Blu Ray is overkill; actually, it was one of the main points of my previous post.

And in the other post about the FCC trying to phase out regular televisions.. it's absolutely true. Everybody knows that Blu-Ray is what Sony wants to shove down the consumer's throat. I could state things on this all day (Anybody know that the guy that created SSL is the one putting the copy protection into place for Blu-Ray??). It's a harder medium to crack and conterfeit, it will protect the profits of electronics producers and game/movie studios, and will of course make Toshiba and Sony tons of cash if it becomes an accepted medium. Oh yeah... and don't forget that the next cheapest Blu-Ray player next to the PS3 will be well over a grand.

On to this HD thing... hell, I like HD TV too. My PS2 is on Component for my DVD's, and Xbox & Gamecube on S-Video. But I'm not the average consumer, for I take my home entertainment fairly seriously. Couple that with a fair understanding of economics, and you can follow the money and foul play on this one.

In 1996, Congress and the FCC passed a 10 year 80 billion dollar deal to spark development in the HD-TV market (yep, your tax dough went to TV's). Ohhhh boy I'm going to get flamed for this, but remember that I see interest groups and lobyists as a large cancer that has much larger influence on our government than the Constitution.

A new FCC rule is trying to force TV manufacturers to include an HDTV tuner (for receiving digital picture) by July 2007. Broadcasters must offer digital signal only, and free up use of analog signal. Basically, if your TV doesn't receive digital signal, the analog signal will be gone. So if you want all of those channels, you have to have HDTV. What's this? Government trying to force HDTV down people's throats? Say it isn't so??!!!!

Most people haven't bought an HDTV yet because there's little reason to do so. Yeah, Discovery channel looks really pretty and all, but how many channels really carry HD signal? Granted the number of channels carrying the signal has greatly increased over the past few years, but many smaller cable companies transmit that signal in analog because they simply can't afford to transmit HD signal (it's not cost effective).

Of course broadcasters hate it, because this means they'll have to carry both digital and analog signals, making it expensive as hell. Part of this UCC mandate is that most companies will also have to transmit in an analog signal until 85% of the population in that area have an HDTV. That means they have to transmit via both analog and digital signals, which is just plain expensive as hell (hey, I think cable companies are just as evil as you do, but I don't like expense costs being passed off to the consumer) If you'll notice, there aren't all that many channels offering HD programming. That's one of the reasons.

But as my good ole Micro Econ professor used to say, "follow the money". Why would government spend millions of dollars on legislation to mandate HD into the household? Why is Congress and the FCC so determined to give every American a crystal clear picture? Never underestimate the lobbyist.. especially when they may work for a major electronics corporation.

Of course the cost of HD is going down as quantity output increases. And if the government forces the public to own HDTV, that's even more. But if all of America starts buying the damn things, of course manifacturers stand to profit.

So there's my two cents on the HD TV argument. Flame on, I know it's coming. Please feel free to google some research on this, I've written a couple of papers over the semester about it. I have all three consoles.. I could care less who makes more money off of me (as long as I like the game I bought for it). But the games industry isn't the one of yesteryear. Besides Nintendo, the bread and butter for these companies is NOT video games. It's other products. They have reasons for serving their self interests and integrating other media services or products into game consoles.. it's a way of selling other resources that they produce (a great big bundle package of profit).
 
[quote name='electrictroy']The rich people who own HDTVs also want to buy HDTV-quality movies. You can't do that with DVD. You need either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD.

That need is here *now*. HDTV and Blu-ray (or HD-DVD) complement one another. HDTV is the display & Blu-Ray is the storage method.




(By the way, HD-DVD is *also* a proprietary standard... just like Beta or VHS. Whichever wins, Blue-Ray or HD-DVD, you'll be using a proprietary standard. Get used to it.)

troy[/QUOTE]

Yes, one of these days, like say, in 2008, people will start caring about HD-standard media. I don't know one person who knows what HD-Standard media even is. I say, for now, let the total geeks with tons of disposable income start buying it up through speciaty catalogs and keep that shit away from the game industry. But we're a little OT--

I never wanna hear the words "Trojan Horse" and "Xbox" in the same sentence again.

Sony is totally whoring out the Playstation name, which originally belonged to a video game system, to fight a movie format war. Consequently, gamers will have to pay out the ass for a system and it's Blu-Ray games, which are totally not necessary. How many PS2 games even used up a full dual-layer disc? Zero. How many games required one? Maybe 5, probably less.

Everything about the PS3 is sketchy, it's also been proven that the video we saw at E3 was all rendered, since the chip isn't even done.

Ken Kutaragi just sounds like a real dumbass trying to talk trash that he can't even come close to backing up.
 
But the games industry isn't the one of yesteryear.
Click to expand...

guess that sums it up.

*gives games industry the middle finger and runs away*

:lol:
 
[quote name='Skylander7']

So there's my two cents on the HD TV argument. Flame on, I know it's coming. Please feel free to google some research on this, I've written a couple of papers over the semester about it. I have all three consoles.. I could care less who makes more money off of me (as long as I like the game I bought for it). But the games industry isn't the one of yesteryear. Besides Nintendo, the bread and butter for these companies is NOT video games. It's other products. They have reasons for serving their self interests and integrating other media services or products into game consoles.. it's a way of selling other resources that they produce (a great big bundle package of profit).[/QUOTE]

Actually, after all the division revnues are added up, video games have on several occasions been Sony's bread and butter. Since the original Playstation became dominant there have been many quarterly earnings reports showing the video games business to be their sole source of net revenue. The movie business comes in second but that is feast or famine. The games operation has been consistently profitable except for those periods when there was a major capital outlay for bringing a new product like the PS2 to market.

If it weren't for the video game business Sony as a company might have been broken up and sold off in parts by now. Many of their traditional businesses have been on life support for years. Things like HD have been very important since they believe they can be a dominant supplier in a market with good margins if they're well positioned when the time comes.
 
Lobbying by an industry that was by then composed almost entirely of non-US companies played a huge role in pushing HDDTV on the legislative front but so it is with lobbying. The number of industries seeking to have tax dollars spent for their benefit is endless. Which is all the more reason to limit the reach of the federal government.

Forcing adoption through broadcating rules was a remarkably hamfisted approach. In many ways the opposite of how a console launch works. Console companies must foot the entire bill and line up all of the elements for making the product viable through their own employees or in partnership with businesses that roles in different areas of the business. Third party software publishers, tool developers, technical publications for evangelizing and consumer publications for PR, and so on.

Can you imagine the disaster if the federal government decided game consoles had a critical role in political campaigns and thus should be standardized by a federal agency? That is what has happened with TV. Businesses looking to drive a massive upgrade of their core platform should be entirely responsible for the cost of making the market accept this product and migrating of their own free choice. If they cannot put together the coordinated array of products in a way that reaches a critical mass of support, then tough shit. The time isn't ripe yet.

It is one thing for a federal agency to act as neutral party in testing equipment to insure it conforms to a standard when that standard has far reaching economic potential but the federal role should end there. The feds should have involvement at all in picking winners or losers nor in forcing adoption on businesses or the public when they can simply vote with their wallets.

The really stupid part of this is that so much of the regulation is mired in ancient history. How many people do you know who are likely early adopters of an item like HDTV are dependent on RF broadcasting for their normal TV reception. Many HDTV owners under the age of 35 are dealing with antennas for the first time in their lives because of their search for content. Broadcast should have been the last factor, not the first. In recent years the big driving factor in the rise of progressive scan screens has been DVD players supporting that mode. It may be dismaying to those seeking to wield political power but the availability of a reasonably priced playback system for HDTV content, in the form of movies and interactivity on a cheap delivery medium like optical disc, is going to be far, far more influential on the adoption of better displays. THat bothers some of the control freaks in the world because it means the public, the invisible hand holding an invisible remote, gets to pick the winning standard.
 
If you guys were in charge, the PS2 would still be using CDs. You would have decided, in 1999, that DVDs were "too expensive" and picked the 0.7 gig CD..... thereby destroying the PS2's potential (FF10 & Xenosaga & Syphon Filter would have been impossible).

DVD is to PS2 ---as--- High-Capacity-DVD is to PS3

- DVD was brand-new in 1999, with very few consumers, but now it's commonplace. The same will be true with High-Capacity-DVD in 2011.



[quote name='Apossum']HDTVs aren't a problem to me. Rich people are buying them up now so that the price will drop for everyone else later...but It's this proprietary Blu-ray media that gets me-- it's overkill and no customer is in a position to give a crap about it yet.[/QUOTE]The rich people who own HDTVs also want to buy HDTV-quality movies (like Star Wars in 1600x1080 resolution). You can't do that with DVD. You need *High-Capacity* DVD that can hold 50-100 gigabytes.

That need is here *now*. HDTV and High-Capacity-DVD complement one another. HDTV is the display & High-Capacity-DVD is the storage method.




(By the way, HD-DVD is *also* a proprietary standard... just like Beta or VHS. Whichever wins, Blue-Ray or HD-DVD, you'll be using a proprietary standard. Get used to it.)

troy
 
I have to see some real games from each side before I make my decision. I believe they'll be similar in power myself, cause I'm calling BS on the Nvidia GPU being twice as powerful as a 6800 ultra, as well as the mysterious Cell processor which isn't even complete yet. That being said, I'm going to refrain from making a decision based upon numbers and tech demos.
 
Why do people assume you have to be rich to own an HDTV? I'm far from rich (I do OK) and I've had one for almost a year and a half. I paid an assload for it but it's higher on my priority list than say a new car or redoing the bathroom...
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Question answered.[/QUOTE]

Paying a lot for something has nothing to do with being rich. It was an expensive purchase but was still only about 1/4 what the average person would pay for a new car. I'm pretty sure just because you can afford a new car does not make you rich by any stretch of the imagination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top