What happened to the Two HDMI outputs?

[quote name='gokou36']I know what the point of this thread is about and I know why it was even created. This is all business/marketing ploy, nothing was *guaranteed*. Like I said, its not wise to leave functions in that won't be used when you can cut corners to make them cheaper. Put yourself in *their* position and i'm sure you would have done the same thing. I can't explain the cheaper version without HDMI , maybe we'll get more explanation. E3 seems to unleash the fanboys from their cages. I bet the people that are whining don't even have 1 HDTV, let alone 2.[/QUOTE]I understand Sony's position 100%. I'm an Electrical Engineer in college, and for my Senior Design, I originally had an idea with tons and tons of features. Later on, I kept removing feature after feature, because of cost, difficulty, realizing it just wasn't needed, etc. And my final presentation, I was told to only talk about what I had, not mentioning about anything I originally was going to have, so that's what I did. I see Sony doing the same thing, which is what I was taught. So, I do respect Sony for their decision.

Also, did anyone else note that at E3 2005, Sony said on the pictures "This is not the final hardware, stuff could change", so there was never a guarntee all of that was going to be in the PS3 in the first place. People here just love to attack Sony, because there are too many Nintendo and MS fanboys around who are pissed because they're forced to go next generation, or be left in the dust, while Sony still plans to give the PS2 tons of support, even with PS3 out. Yeah, even if Sony left PS3 as it was (not made any changes to the console), people would be complaining about it costing $800 or more. Even if Sony didn't have a blu-ray player in a PS3, and it was the same price as the Xbox 360, people would still downplay the console right now, just as much.
 
[quote name='Samurai T'] Even if Sony didn't have a blu-ray player in a PS3, and it was the same price as the Xbox 360, people would still downplay the console right now, just as much.[/QUOTE]

There are really four reasons gamers are going after the PS3. Most if not all of us own a PS2 and think it's a great system. The PS3 has got so much negative hype because.

1. It's 500-600 dollars. If it didn't have a Blu-Ray player, that probably wouldn't be the case. There is no demand from anyone besides techies who want a cheap disposable format for high amounts of storage and gadget geeks for an upgrade from DVD. While most of us are gamers here, the vast majority of us aren't willing to drop more then 40 bucks on a game.

2. Ken Kutaragi and Kazou Hirai are pissing a lot of people off by making promises that Sony as a company can't fufill, and then refusing to acknowledge his failures. For example, remember when the PS2 was just as powerful as the Xbox and you could download music, movies, and even games for it! That's what was said in 1999 which got enough people to hold off on the Dreamcast. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us.

3. Sony's first generation hardware is almost always crap at launch. The PS1 had serious overheating problems. The PS2 had all of the DVD drive problems with the launch in Japan. The PSP had tons of dead pixels (not saying that the DS didn't). The PS3 will probably have some of the same problems that the 360 had at launch.

4. We haven't played any of the games. We've just heard about how awesome they are. Looking at the first gen PS2 and 360 titles, we're getting a tad fed up with all game makers selling us on a new console only because of marginal improvements in the graphics.
 
[quote name='Buster Rod G']Honestly, did anyone plan on using the dual HDMI output? I'd imagine if it was still included about 99% of the people buying the PS3 would never make any use of it.[/QUOTE]
If they had games to support it, I'd have used it. Spilt screen is lame and playing online on consoles seems silly to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top