True, but I just power on/off the PS3 when I stick the disc in/take it out. I mean you have to get up sometime anyway. Stick the disc in, it powers on. Eject the disc, pick it up, andpower it down then. Minimal effort, same result.

I'm guessing Sony will drop the price on the PS3 right about the time they raise prices (again) on single Blu-ray movie releases.

I'm guessing $49.95 SRP for a day and date Blu-ray isn't too far off in the future.

Agreed. Not sure how that is a problem. When wanting to shut it down with the disc still in the unit the solution is the controller that came with the unit or the bluetooth remote.

You don't see how having an On/Off button on your remote is a problem??

I, like many others, do not want 2 remotes in our living rooms. Period.

I often do not go over to my TV to eject discs after I have finished watching discs. They sit in the player until I'm ready to watch another.

Is it the ideal situation? No...But, I'm not going to completely base ruling out the PS3 for a standalone because of it either. It's not the only problem with a PS3 (no possible bitstream output of the new codecs is my biggest gripe), but there are a lot of upsides, as well.

Some people need a reason for not buying a PS3. If it comes down to power button on a remote, so be it.

Unless they are tossing away the controller that comes in the package, they have two remotes, and one turns the unit off just fine.

You can be dismissive about those of us who choose not to buy a PS3 but that doesn't make our reasons invalid. Some reasons for not wanting to use a PS3 as a Blu-ray Disc player include:

• no six channel analog audio outputs (for lossless audio with older HT receivers).

• No bitstreaming of lossless audio codecs (for use with the latest HT receivers with on-board decoding).

• The PS3 is reported to be a huge power hog, compared to just about any other Blu-ray Disc player one cares to name. The Panasonic BD30 is rated at just 25 watts, for example.

• No IR remote compatibility (meaning that one can't use a universal remote). Also, one has to use the game controller as the remote or pay extra for a more conventional remote.

• Not wanting to have a video game machine in one's home theater setup.


Perhaps none of these reasons is important to you, but to dismiss them as not worthy of discussion strikes me as pretty arrogant.

I don't see anybody dismissing bullets 1-3, just 4 & 5 which IMO rank right up there with not liking a player because of the remote style or case color and having nothing to do with the abiltity and quality of the player.

I don't see a price drop in the horizon. At least not for a while. I jumped on the 80 gig when Walmart had that 10 free Blu-ray special. It was an awesome deal.. If it wasn't for that, I'd still be watching in 480.

These issues are personal preferences. The remote issue, in particular, has to do with convenience and utility. For me it wouldn't be of much importance because I make do with a pile of remotes, as opposed to using a universal. But I can sure see how it would annoy someone who used a universal remote. I also think that Sony's extra charge to buy a remote is pretty tacky, although it doesn't alter the "ability or quality" of the machine, as you say.

My point five is probably more of a generational thing. Those who have been posting in this forum from the beginning may remember that, early on, there was a poll by a student doing a project that asked the ages of the early adopters and I was the oldest. Not having grown up with video games I have no use for them and find them an utter waste of time (much as some of my friends and neighbors think my viewing a movie more than once is a waste of time). While this is surely an extreme minority view at DVD Talk, where teens, twenty- and thirty-somethings predominate, there are a few of us out there who do not like video games and the machines that play them.

They do this - I'm out!

Well, I for one don't want a gaming system in my home because I have children whom I don't care to have exposed to gaming (or the temptation) at this point in their young lives. It's a legitimate concern for parents, I think.

If those reasons are genuinely that important to you then my supposed arrogance should be easily dismissed. Besides, chanster used the remote-issue as the deal-breaker.



"Not wanting to have a video game machine in one's home theater setup."




Not a legitimate concern. Unless you are raising your children in a bubble, you home has many things that are for adults that pose temptations for them.

This post makes me wonder just how many people out there don't realize how little difference there is between a DVD player, game console, and even computer once they all started using optical media.

I also disagree that it's a legitimate concern. I assume you have a TV despite the fact there is a possiblity that the kids would want to watch something you would prefer they didn't.

Well I didn't say it is a deal breaker, I said it would be an added cost (i.e. a power on/off workaround) to the PS3 that I don't feel like paying...so I guess it is a deal breaker at this poitn.

So you add $50-$75 on top of the PS3 cost right now and you are looking at around a $475. Probably more if I bought the PS3 locally with tax.

Yeah I know the PS3 is the most future proof Blu Ray player out there, but I'm willing to wait a bit. I'm in no hurry when I know the Blu Ray standalones players will get better and cheaper.

I predict if I wanted to spend $475 on a Blu Ray player next year, I can get a close to top of the line 2.0 stand...I'm predicting the PS3 will drop $50 or so in time for the holidays at least, but you are still looking at $425 for the PS3 (and have to go the hassle of modding it and getting a PSP to enable the trick)

I know many of you scoff at the remote being a dealbreaker. So be it. I have a fiance who doesn't like having electronics all over the place. Two remotes becomes a problem for me, and I bet many others...I was so tired of multiple remotes and the Harmony has made it very easy for me and the fiance to operate our TV.

Well hide the controller and get a remote! Seriously, if kids wanna get into something, they're gonna. Kids drink and smoke underage EVERYWHERE. The key is to expose them to and educate them about things not try to keep them isolated from it. Especially videogames... how do you keep you kids from playing at a friend's house or borrowing someone's PSP to play for a bit on the school bus?

Believe it or not, I've met parents who put the fear of God (and Mom and Dad) into their kids such that if they ever don't leave a situation where somebody is playing a game or watching a show they are not allowed to be around, there will be hell to pay. I've seen those kids all actually break down in tears if people will not turn off the TV or game right away.

Once the PS3 is under $300, I will pick it up and be HD only from now on.

^_____^ that's very scary... what kind of parent is that? Whatever happen to human rights and democracy? Sounds like something i heard from my Chinese friends' childhood...

Price is everything guys/gals. When the PS3 is around $250-$300 (i would say by this summer or November), i don't think there will be video game issues... Just pretend it doesn't play video game and you're all set! Remember, the PS3 got a hdd, the standalone doesn't (okay, maybe some MBs), isn't that alone a better choice? I mean you can use it to play your media files like the ones from your camcorders? I guess people only use the machines to watch movies and nothing else (and home footages are not movies according to those people).

Parents who dont let their children get out much. The first example I saw was at a daycare where kids were playing their gameboys and the kid broke down because they would not stop because he could not be around kids playing video games. The parent freaked out and left the daycare because daycare director refused to ban video game play at the daycare. Even used the same "temptation" argument as well as games being an "evil" influence that rubs off them whether they play or not.

I think all of the offerers of child rearing tips need to take a step or two back and think about what they are suggesting. If this person does not want their children exposed to video games (and frankly, the PS3 slate is not really appropriate for children) and is taking steps to shield his child from them, how dare any of us tell him he is doing something bad? Where do we get off telling him how to be a parent?

Perhaps he sees the childhood obesity problem in the country. Perhaps he is worried about the exposure to themes too adult for the child's age. There are many reasons, and they are all valid, at the very least to him, and that is enough.

I applaud the poster for walking the walk he talks. Children learn from example.

Oyi, that's way too much fuss over nothing... the world doesn't revolve around those anal parents you know

I rather have my kids kept away from kids with dirty mouths (foul languages) and play rough games. I'm all for let the kids be kids... When will arguments like video games are bad for kids ever gonna end? Probably not, but those anal, idiotic, self centered, illogical, diabolical, selfish parents need to stop the blaming and start looking at themselves.

Anyway, please don't let the part about the PS3 plays game hinder your decision when purchasing a BD player. I don't get it, it's like not buying a can opener b/c the other end of the tool opens beer bottles too... Of course, if the can opener with the bottle opener on the other end cost $100 more than i'm willing to pay, then it's a different story.

Very well put, and I, too, applaud him for both his concern and consistency as a parent.

With that said (and not trying to take anything away from your post), is it possible on the PS3 to set a parental lock that prevents some games from being played, something analogous to the V-chip in TV programming? If that is possible, that might be a way to eliminate the temptation while still allowing Blu-ray playback.