I agree. I'd like to see the reasoning for calling it crippled. Not having a port that will be important for future televisions is way more crippled than a wired controller and no hard drive.

In all fairness, at least some version of the PS3 has this port. Core or Premium, there's no option to get that on the 360. So if it truly does become important in the future, there'll be a problem with 360 owners.

I imagine that it won't be an issue this generation anyway and if Sony really is trying to get 10+ years out of the PS3, they'll probably be in a for a world of hurt when the next Xbox comes out in 4 or 5 years. Even the next Nintendo could catch up with the PS3 hardware-wise with its next iteration.

As I understand, the HDMI port is only critically important concerning some kind of copy-protection on Blu-Ray movie discs.

True. As of now HD-DVD is 1080i only which will work with component video. When/if this new copy protection kicks in for Blu-Ray the component out will only produce DVD quality (480i). The only way to get any high-def format out of it at that point will be HDMI. This will make the cheaper PS3 useless for Blu-Ray playback. This is still years away and it still hasn't been finalized so who knows how things will turn out. Hopefully they'll have it worked out by the time PS3 is launched so people can choose the right one.

I agree with her. I held out on the 360 because I was waiting to get a PS3. But with the price so high and finding out that all the titles I want will be released on both platforms at the same time, I finally caved. And this is from someone who never owned the original Xbox and defends the PSP on many occasions.

Just finished listening to Major Nelson's podcast and he brought this up. He said he sent her a year subscription card to Xbox Live and offered some Marketplace points out of his pocket to welcome her over. :lol:

That's a sweet move.

Exactly what I was getting at. The 360 doesn't tout HD-DVD. The $500 PS3 will not play copy protected BluRay movies when they start popping up. As a BluRay player it essentially is worthless.

But as a strictly gaming machine, the $500 PS3 doesn't really have any less functionality, right (besides wireless internets)?

Isn't Microsoft doing the exact same thing with the HD-DVD player add-on? It doesn't have HDMI, it passes the decoding to the main 360 unit which also doesn't have it. Maybe I missed something, but doesn't HD-DVD have the same future concern with HDCP that Blu-Ray does?

I'll head this off now ;) I agree that there's a difference between the PS3's Blu-Ray capabilities vs the 360's add-on. The add-on was engineered that way to be a cheap alternative to those that want that feature instead of jamming it down everyone's throat. But the argument still holds true. They're going to call it a cheap HD-DVD player, but only because you've already bought a 360. If the HDCP thing takes off, it'll be crippled just like the $500 PS3, but it will have cost you $600.

It's such a mess that either one of them are mingling this format war crap in an already heated console war.

If MS doesn't come out with a way to put on an HDMI adapter, I think it is a worthless add-on. Actually, I think it is no matter what, but that's because I think those that appreciate HD movies will buy a stand alone player. Those that plan to use the PS3 or the 360 as a player would probably be better off just buying the upconverting Oppo, imo.

I don't forget. $500 is still way to fucking much for a game console for someone like me that games a couple of hours a week.

$199.99 is the most I've ever paid, and I hope to keep it that way for a long while.

What I find interesting about the OPM editor is that she states that "Assassins" is going to be on the 360. I have not read any concrete evidence that this is in fact going to happen.

I think, if anything, the $499 PS3 and the non-HDMI Xbox 360 add-on mean that ICT is going to be dead in the water. There's 3 million HDTVs without HDMI on the market. Hell, I have two HDTVs, one old, one semi-recent, and they don't have HDMI.

Yes, but you don't think there are insiders in the know? It was heavily rumored at E3 and the company took a no comment stance, vs. denial. Everyone assumes it will be, so her letting something like that slip wouldn't be unheard of. Everyone will shrug it off anyway as further rumors.

That would be nice.

Actually, between the two, the 360 core can be upgraded to everything the premium has. The core PS3 cannot. So which one is crippled?

Actually, HDMI allows for a lossless digital image to be passed from the system to the TV. So even on video games you would, in theory, be losing some PQ.

Hmm, that is completely not a given for the majority of PS2 or Xbox owners.

You had free online play with the PS2 and look what you got: pure crap. Sure, Sony is saying their new system is better, but they also said Blu-ray was going to be better than HD DVD.

This is the first thing you said that I agree with.

A lot of stuff to go over here.

1. Most TVs do NOT accept a 1080p signal over component.
2. Most 1080p TVs will upconvert a 1080i signal to 1080p. And since most don't accept a 1080p signal over component, if you have a PS3, it's going to take the 1080p signal, convert it to 1080i, then back to 1080p. And it will convert the 360 1080i signal to 1080p anyway. So no advantage there. Like the imaginary "Blu-ray is better because it does 1080p" argument. And that's not even mentioning that most games will be at 720p, as most developers have said that's the video gaming HD sweet spot. It takes a lot more power to run a game at true 1080p, processing power that would take away from things like physics, so most games will be 720p and your system will upconvert it to 1080p.
3. Again, there is no indication that the free online play will result in a better online experience.
4. Blu-ray is the reason the core version is $500 instead of $300. And it sucks ass right now, and you can't even get its full functionality with the core system, because AFAIK, the PS3 doesn't have 6 analog sound outputs. So, if you get a Blu-ray player, it's an even shittier one than you could buy already, and the one that's out is pretty damn shitty.


Well, if you're set on trying Blu-ray, good luck to you.

Wow, that's not true at all. You could easily do a multi-disc set for longer games. One of the most popular games of all time, Final Fantasy VII, is on four discs, and nobody complained about that. Now you can get an amazing game like Oblivion on one DVD. Blu-ray for gaming is unecessary and is driving up the price on the system for no good reason. Also, considering the development prices of PS3/360 games, you're going to find most developers will not make PS3 exclusives anymore, which means that, in most cases, they will make the base game for the 360, since that system is less powerful, and then they'll make a few adjustments for the PS3. But, in general, you'll get the same experience, graphically and gaming-wise. Except that the PS3 won't have rumble.

Good luck to you. I'll be warm at home playing Gears of War and Super Smash Brothers Brawl.

:toast: excellent post

And how much will those upgrades cost. I called it crippled because it is missing a major component, the hard drive, which is $99.99 by itself. Sure, you can buy it seperately, but you may as well buy the premium version in the first place. Not to mention that game developers have to program for the lowest common denominator. Due to the fact that there is a version without a hard drive, that might prevent developers from adding in more options to use the hard drive in the game. The missing HDMI port has no effect on gameplay.



My tv doesn't even have an HDMI port, so that's a moot point. There are a lot of early adopters out there with no HDMI port, so component is fine.




Ok, if they didn't have a wireless adaptor, that's $100 for the Microsoft adaptor, same total price as base PS3. If I didn't already have a wireless adaptor, I would probably go ahead and get the premium PS3.




Because Sony didn't have a unified platform. This time, they will. For free. I don't like the thought of having to pay $50 a year to play against a friend of mine online. Also, it's way too early to say which one is better in the HD DVD vs BluRay wars. The first players for both formats have had problems which have been ironed out via firmware updates or other means.




Most early 1080p tvs don't accept 1080p over HDMI either. Almost all of them downcovert to 1080i and back to 1080p.



I didn't say it would be better. But I don't think it will take long to be comparable, and it's FREE.



It still gives me the option of having a basic BR player until I can afford a standalone unit a couple of years down the line. Without BR, I figure the PS3 would have been, at most, $100 cheaper due to all the other technology included, namely the cell processor. I don't mind spending $100 to get a fully integrated basic BR player.




If game developers are smart, which I think most of them are, they can think of lots of things to do with BR. One of the big things that I think has been underreported is that, with the space available and no region lockouts, they can put all versions on 1 disc. No more multiple pressings for different regions. Plus, lets say you are an RPG fan but would rather play the new Final Fantasy game in the original Japanese, you can have that option since they can have the Japanese version on the disc.

Look, I'm not saying I wasn't disappointed with the price when it was announced. I'm just saying that, if you compare the $400 360 to the $500 PS3, it's not that outrageous, in my opinion, of course.

I honestly hope for the sake of everyone buying a PS3 that they do a decent job with their unified platform for Live but Sony has a hell of a lot of catching up to do. The difference between Live on the Xbox and Live on the 360 is honestly night and day different they have improved it so much. Paying 50$ a year for the experience is nothing in my book as long as hardly any games tack on monthly fees on top of that (I'm looking at you FF XI). I also think making it a pay service helps cut down slightly on the jackasses online because even if a few are banned they are at least out a little money for their service.

It does look like Sony is at least copying Live in as many ways as they can and hopefully it works out for them. I just have my doubts they will be able to pull off the smooth service MS has developed over several years right off the bat - let alone do it without the cash incentive MS is getting through the yearly fees.

This does sound like a great idea in theory, but I don't think it will end up being used. Final Fantasy 12 is available in Japan NOW. They're still translating the English version. If they would have waited until ALL language versions are complete before they released any, then it would have been delayed (big time). Maybe that's not a big deal for Square, but surely smaller companies use Japan sales as a barameter of how widely they should translate their product?

I would have to say that for me, the $300 360 is more of a tard pack than the $500 PS3.

Wireless controllers are a must for me, I won't buy another console without them. So buying a wireless controller offsets the $100 savings over the premimum. Additionally, not having an hard drive further offsets the $100 savings by requiring an expensive memory card.

The lack of WiFi isn't a big deal since I don't do online gaming. Similarly, lack of HDMI on the cheaper PS3 isn't a big deal as I won't have an HDTV any time soon.

So I guess in the end, while I won't be buying either, the $500 PS3 isn't really lacking anything I'd want, while the $300 360 is lacking a couple accessories that are pretty crucial for me--ability to save out of the box and wireless controller.

that is not really true. there is no such thing as a lossless image. what a digital connection such as HDMI or DVI allows you to do is skip a cycle of digital to analog and analog to digital conversion by keeping the data in the digital realm the whole time.

Older article, but ICT may not appear until 2012.