PS3 General Discussion

Sony's top of the range amp has a HDMI input/s link and I assume that is how SACD will be played out from the PS3. Or will it be via USB?
I already have a SACD player so it's no loss if i don't use the SACD on the PS3. Still, I'd like to know how the SACD works on the PS3, just in case I ever get round to getting another amp (I'm pretty happy with my Pioneer though).
 
Da Vinci Code on Blu-ray at PS3 launch
by Justin Pinter

Ron Howard's film adaption of the Da Vinci Code has been announced for the launch of the PlayStation 3 as a feature Blu-ray movie.

Nomura Securities, a finacial research company in Tokyo stated,

"Having a hit in-house movie could be a big factor behind Sony making its target of shipping six million PlayStation 3 consoles in the first year at a price of more than $540 each."

With the Da Vinci Code being out for only a week, the movie has already broken many records with a global box office of $238,502,532. This could be one of the key films that will help drive the sales in Blu-ray players, including the Sony PS3. If the Blu-ray format of this movie sells well it could lead to more companies moving supporting Blu-ray instead of the HD-DVD.

Unreal Tournament 2007: Details from E3

by Dusty Stokes

Midway and Epic Games put on quite a show at this year's E3, offering a glimpse of Unreal Tournament 2K7. Of the things shown, the new warfare game mode is one of the biggest announcements. This new mode will be a mix of assault and onslaught.

The newest Unreal game will be a battle between the Axon and the Necris. These battles will be faught with both infantry and vehiculur combat. On top of that, there is said to be many new maps and vehicles coming, you may have seen some of them from E3. One such vehicle is Axon's Leviathan, a huge tank with four turrets. Each turret will be individually manned and will have its own shield.

The new warfare mode was designed to put teamplay back in Unreal. The maps are asymmetrical, and both teams has very different objectives. Like the other modes, this game can be played with bots or other players, with a max of 32 players.

Another cool feature of UT2K7 was the hover board. A cool addition, this will help you get across the map when a vehicle isn't available. The only downside is that you cannot use your weapons while on the board.

There will be little difference between the PS3 and PC versions of the game. The biggest difference will be the controller vs the keyboard and mouse. Also, since the PS3 is so powerful, the game will be every bit as graphically impressive as the PC counterpart. The PS3 will not, however get the Aegia physics support, which is no biggie, since the game itself has an impressive physics engine on its own.

This game is looking great, and since it is not currently in development for the Xbox 360, this is going to be a must have for PS3 fans, and a great exclusive to add to Sony's vault. Keep checking back, as we'll update the site with more info as it becomes available.
www.ps3land.com
 
I just saw the teaser-trailer for the PS3 version of Spider man and it's laughable.

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/684/684224/vids_1.html

Spidey himself looks ok, but the is literally no environment. Just shadows and silouhettes. I'm actually surprised they released something so weak with all the other good PS3 media out there. Oh well...:indiff:
 
Is there any news on software bundles or case mods? Remember, in the beginning of this thread where we had posted all these different looking side panels for the ps3?
 
Here's a few questions that I found hard to answer.
a) Does the PS3 need to have Blu-ray?
b) Is the consumer being forced to buy into Blu-ray just because he wants to play PlayStation games?
c) Considering Blu-ray is adding $100+ onto the PS3, for those without HD tv's is it worth the extra $'s?

My rather simplistic answers would be.
a) No, but it's good that it does.
b) Yes.
c) No. Unless the extra space on the BD-Roms are well utilised by developers.

For sceptics of the PS3 these seem some of the most common points they make. Any better ways to try and make a counter arguement?
 
now THIS (using the enphatic bill walton this) is something that would really pissed me off. i´m still backing sony, even with all the bad news, but this rumor, now posted by gamespot, is really making me angry:grumpy:

take a look:

Sony pwning pre-owned PS3 games?

Source: The story first showed up on the screen Gamesradar, with countless others following.

The official story: Inquiries into the matter went unanswered as of press time by Sony.

What we heard: Anyone who has walked into an EB Games or GameStop to buy a new release has probably heard this from the clerk: "Would you like to buy a used copy? It'll save you some money." The deal is symbiotic--the gamer saves 10 bucks or so, and the aforementioned retailers take in a higher profit on the transaction.

Publishers, on the other hand, are the big losers in used games sales. First-party companies, in particular those who are launching a system that at $599 is still taking a loss (we won't mention any names--ok we will, Sony), are obviously particularly concerned over pre-owned games as those pennies slip through their fingers. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can all afford to take a financial beating on selling systems because they rely on sales of new copies of software--where the real money is.

If a report on Gamesradar is to be believed, gamers who wish to purchase Heavenly Sword or Resistance: Fall of Man will have only two options--pay full price or get the out of the store. The UK-based Web site claims that retail outlets in the country have been told by Sony that selling pre-owned PlayStation 3 games won't be possible because there won't be such a thing as pre-owned games.

Confused? According to the report, Sony is adopting a PC-like mentality and only selling the license to play the game, not actually own it. If a user did not agree to the license, they would be left with an expensive plastic coaster.

GameSpot News asked industry analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities for his take on the legalese. "There are only two ways to create a license: either the user has to agree to the license or the licensor has to copy protect its software," he said. "In the first case, the user (licensee) has to AFFIRMATIVELY agree to the license. You see this whenever you install software, and a box pops up requiring you to check "I AGREE" to a long boilerplate license agreement." (Emphasis in the original.) However, such a system would require that each PS3 be connected to the Internet--a lofty goal, even in today's Web-rich society.

The only other way a user license agreement would be viable would be to require the input of a code, just as publishers do in PC software (think Microsoft Office or Adobe products). To do so, Pachter says the PS3 would require a chip (or similar technology) that registers the disc to the console when first run. "I think it may be too late in the PS3 manufacturing process to include such a chip," he says, presuming one already isn't in the machine.

If this sounds a bit familiar, it's because we all went through this late last year. A rumor hit the 'Net about PS3s not being able to play used, rented, or borrowed PS3 games--i.e. each game could be used with only one console. Sony refuted those claims by saying, "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console."

That said, Sony is notorious for its draconian copyright protection schemes. Late last year, the company had to do major damage control in the wake of the now-infamous Rootkit controversy regarding digital rights management of its music CDs. More recently, it has come under fire for its Japan-only Portable TV service, which lets users download videos onto their PSPs. However many who pay money for the privilege have been horrified to learn that the videos are playable only for a certain time, after which even the free offerings reportedly erase themselves. Sony must be tempted to impose similar measures to try and impose similar measures to recoup the billions of dollars it has spent on the PS3 and its Blu-ray disc format.

Bogus or not bogus?: Say it isn't so, Sony! No? OK, how 'bout you, Pachter? "The rumor about Sony limiting the resale of used games sounds phony to me," said the analyst.

-----------------------

maybe it doesen´t matter to me because i´m getting a chipped PS3 (yes it will take me a while to get one) but still, not been able to play in a different PS3? wtf? please sony, don´t dig your own crave, be smart and live this alone. this is getting to far. you can´t stop piracy, only hope to contain, nintendo tried to stop by all means and only got Fu@#$. lets all hope its just a really stupid rumor
 
fasj6418
maybe it doesen´t matter to me because i´m getting a chipped PS3 (yes it will take me a while to get one) but still, not been able to play in a different PS3? wtf? please sony, don´t dig your own crave, be smart and live this alone. this is getting to far. you can´t stop piracy, only hope to contain, nintendo tried to stop by all means and only got Fu@#$. lets all hope its just a really stupid rumor

I don't think it will have an impact in Japan though. I don't buy used games & I don't sell my stuff...
 
That's an old, old story that has been discussed before more than once.

Sony already announced they wouldn't stop you from playing pre-owned games.
 
slackbladder
Here's a few questions that I found hard to answer.
a) Does the PS3 need to have Blu-ray?
b) Is the consumer being forced to buy into Blu-ray just because he wants to play PlayStation games?
c) Considering Blu-ray is adding $100+ onto the PS3, for those without HD tv's is it worth the extra $'s?
My answers would be yes it distances the console further from the XB360.
Yes, since all PS3 games will be on Blue-Ray disks.
Possibly, all TV's on sale will be HD soon, the PS3 is just part of this contrast. Will everyone benefit from it, no, does the PS3 need it to be futurproof, yes. It will be benefitting more people in 2-3 years time than at launch.
 
fasj6418
now THIS (using the enphatic bill walton this) is something that would really pissed me off. i´m still backing sony, even with all the bad news, but this rumor, now posted by gamespot, is really making me angry:grumpy:

take a look:

Sony pwning pre-owned PS3 games?

Source: The story first showed up on the screen Gamesradar, with countless others following.

The official story: Inquiries into the matter went unanswered as of press time by Sony.

What we heard: Anyone who has walked into an EB Games or GameStop to buy a new release has probably heard this from the clerk: "Would you like to buy a used copy? It'll save you some money." The deal is symbiotic--the gamer saves 10 bucks or so, and the aforementioned retailers take in a higher profit on the transaction.

Publishers, on the other hand, are the big losers in used games sales. First-party companies, in particular those who are launching a system that at $599 is still taking a loss (we won't mention any names--ok we will, Sony), are obviously particularly concerned over pre-owned games as those pennies slip through their fingers. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo can all afford to take a financial beating on selling systems because they rely on sales of new copies of software--where the real money is.

If a report on Gamesradar is to be believed, gamers who wish to purchase Heavenly Sword or Resistance: Fall of Man will have only two options--pay full price or get the out of the store. The UK-based Web site claims that retail outlets in the country have been told by Sony that selling pre-owned PlayStation 3 games won't be possible because there won't be such a thing as pre-owned games.

Confused? According to the report, Sony is adopting a PC-like mentality and only selling the license to play the game, not actually own it. If a user did not agree to the license, they would be left with an expensive plastic coaster.

GameSpot News asked industry analyst Michael Pachter of Wedbush Morgan Securities for his take on the legalese. "There are only two ways to create a license: either the user has to agree to the license or the licensor has to copy protect its software," he said. "In the first case, the user (licensee) has to AFFIRMATIVELY agree to the license. You see this whenever you install software, and a box pops up requiring you to check "I AGREE" to a long boilerplate license agreement." (Emphasis in the original.) However, such a system would require that each PS3 be connected to the Internet--a lofty goal, even in today's Web-rich society.

The only other way a user license agreement would be viable would be to require the input of a code, just as publishers do in PC software (think Microsoft Office or Adobe products). To do so, Pachter says the PS3 would require a chip (or similar technology) that registers the disc to the console when first run. "I think it may be too late in the PS3 manufacturing process to include such a chip," he says, presuming one already isn't in the machine.

If this sounds a bit familiar, it's because we all went through this late last year. A rumor hit the 'Net about PS3s not being able to play used, rented, or borrowed PS3 games--i.e. each game could be used with only one console. Sony refuted those claims by saying, "PlayStation 3 software will not be copy protected to a single machine but will be playable on any PlayStation 3 console."

That said, Sony is notorious for its draconian copyright protection schemes. Late last year, the company had to do major damage control in the wake of the now-infamous Rootkit controversy regarding digital rights management of its music CDs. More recently, it has come under fire for its Japan-only Portable TV service, which lets users download videos onto their PSPs. However many who pay money for the privilege have been horrified to learn that the videos are playable only for a certain time, after which even the free offerings reportedly erase themselves. Sony must be tempted to impose similar measures to try and impose similar measures to recoup the billions of dollars it has spent on the PS3 and its Blu-ray disc format.

Bogus or not bogus?: Say it isn't so, Sony! No? OK, how 'bout you, Pachter? "The rumor about Sony limiting the resale of used games sounds phony to me," said the analyst.

-----------------------

maybe it doesen´t matter to me because i´m getting a chipped PS3 (yes it will take me a while to get one) but still, not been able to play in a different PS3? wtf? please sony, don´t dig your own crave, be smart and live this alone. this is getting to far. you can´t stop piracy, only hope to contain, nintendo tried to stop by all means and only got Fu@#$. lets all hope its just a really stupid rumor

this is not true
http://www.engadget.com/2006/05/24/rumor-sony-to-disable-used-ps3-games-sony-nope/
 
thanks for the responses guys. altough it was an old story, gamespot, 1up and some other sites published yesterday, making me think that they were actually thinking about the idea. but after seeing sony´s PR comments, i´m glad this was just another example of how to make bad journalism, just based on gossip:grumpy:
 
code_kev
Soon...I very much doubt that.
Depends on your definition of soon, relative to the technoloy market in terms of TVs and visual broadcasting yes, all TV's within the next two years will be being manufacturerd as HD TVs. If not all then likely 80-90%.
 
live4speed
Depends on your definition of soon, relative to the technoloy market in terms of TVs and visual broadcasting yes, all TV's within the next two years will be being manufacturerd as HD TVs. If not all then likely 80-90%.

Then it's a just a matter of people switching over. And most people that aren't gamers or electronics enthusiasts don't buy a new TV until something is wrong with the old one. :)
 
code_kev
Possibly, all TV's on sale will be HD soon

Soon...I very much doubt that.

Would you like to debate this? I can change your mind :)


Here's a few questions that I found hard to answer.
a) Does the PS3 need to have Blu-ray?
b) Is the consumer being forced to buy into Blu-ray just because he wants to play PlayStation games?
c) Considering Blu-ray is adding $100+ onto the PS3, for those without HD tv's is it worth the extra $'s?

a) Yes, offering High Definition content and future proofing a console is a must. DVD growth was nearly 77% in game size in it's life span, continuing that growth means all games will use roughly 8-9GB's in the next 4 years, and given the current growth and evolution of games, it will not suffice.

b) Well, depends on your opinion, since that all that will answer that console. Users were mad that PS2 was outdated so quickly and left behind by Xbox, but now they complain that it's too advanced. Personally I welcome future proofing by all means.

C) By 2008 all signals will be broadcast in HD, and people without HD-TV will have to buy tuners to accept the signal, most people will opt to save up and buy a New TV. Also, SDTV's (Standard Definition TV) are going out at an increasingly quick rate. Sony, Toshiba, and Sanyo have dropped nearly 13 models (all together) in the last six months, and began replacing them with HDTV's. Weather or not people are willing to accept it, HDTV is on the way in full force, and complaining about cost is nothing more than showing your age. It's called inflation, and many people forget about it because they *remember* the "good ol days" when they bought such and such for so much. Thus is the trials of inflation.
 
Swift
Then it's a just a matter of people switching over. And most people that aren't gamers or electronics enthusiasts don't buy a new TV until something is wrong with the old one. :)

No, consumers will have to buy converters from cable providers in order to watch TV that is not in HD, or rent them. Most consumers will simply opt to buy an HD capable TV instead. You are all thinking big screen HDTV's, when there are many more. You can get a 27-32 inch HDTV for around $400+. The *type* of TV doesn't matter, simply that it's HD capable and the future is coming.
 
tha_con
No, consumers will have to buy converters from cable providers in order to watch TV that is not in HD, or rent them. Most consumers will simply opt to buy an HD capable TV instead. You are all thinking big screen HDTV's, when there are many more. You can get a 27-32 inch HDTV for around $400+. The *type* of TV doesn't matter, simply that it's HD capable and the future is coming.

Yep, but that doesn't mean many people won't keep their TV's just to do things like play PS2 and the like.
 
tha_con
C) By 2008 all signals will be broadcast in HD, and people without HD-TV will have to buy tuners to accept the signal, most people will opt to save up and buy a New TV. Also, SDTV's (Standard Definition TV) are going out at an increasingly quick rate. Sony, Toshiba, and Sanyo have dropped nearly 13 models (all together) in the last six months, and began replacing them with HDTV's. Weather or not people are willing to accept it, HDTV is on the way in full force, and complaining about cost is nothing more than showing your age. It's called inflation, and many people forget about it because they *remember* the "good ol days" when they bought such and such for so much. Thus is the trials of inflation.
Woh, the US is way ahead. The UK will only be going fully digital by 2012 (Starting at 2008)

It won't be till after the analogue signal has been switched off that the UK can even think of turning fully HD. But then that would mean everyone buying new set-top boxes all over again so they could accept HD broadcasts.

In Summary, I can't see a HD switchover in the UK for a while.
 
Swift
Yep, but that doesn't mean many people won't keep their TV's just to do things like play PS2 and the like.

Not the point, keeping your TV to play a console not capable of HD is not related.

Buying a new TV so you can watch your favorite TV show in it's great broadcast glory, however, is.

The estimated price right now for a converter is roughly $180. How many people do you know willining to pay $180 to *downgrade* their signal? Many people will just buy a new TV for the extra $200+.

Even then, cable providers will probably rent, at around $10 a month, on top of your cable bill, which comes out to a staggering $120 a year, and after a few years, you've already paid for your HDTV, yet you're watching it in SDTV.
 
I'll tell you why. Many people want cheap ass tvs and don't care about HD. That's why.

Edit:

2008? Meh what ever. I should be able to afford one then.
 
code_kev
I'll tell you why. Many people want cheap ass tvs and don't care about HD. That's why.

That's pretty much what I was going to say. It's not about logic, it's about money.
 
code_kev
I'll tell you why. Many people want cheap ass tvs and don't care about HD. That's why.

Edit:

2008? Meh what ever. I should be able to afford one then.
Analog TV broadcasts will end February 2009. After that, nothing will be broadcast ever again in analog.

Digital TV is all we'll have, either in Sub-standard Definition, Standard Definition or High Definition. The FCC's target is to get every show and broadcast in HD, but that wont happen for a long while. They say it will, by 2011 or 2012.

People will need a special digital tuner box to convert their old analog only TV into a TV that will display digital broadcasts. People who don't have Over-the-air (OTA) broadcasts will need to purchase or rent the digital converter box from their cable provider. There is talk that our Government should provide people with these boxes for free, and or receive money to purchase one. People with OTA will also need a digital tuner box. What it will do is receive the digital signal via the UHF portion of a TV antenna since that's the frequency digital TV travels. It converts the digital signal into an analog one, and sends that to the analog only TV set.

By law, TV sets that are over 13 inches will require a built in digital tuner, but it doesn't need to be HD. Just digital. However, going from a digital to a HD digital TV is not that big of a difference in cost, so I doubt we'll see many SD only digital tuner TV sets.
 
code_kev
I'll tell you why. Many people want cheap ass tvs and don't care about HD. That's why.

Edit:

2008? Meh what ever. I should be able to afford one then.

The price difference in buying a standard TV and a TV capable of HD (provided they are the same size) is not huge.

$500 will net you a 30" Widescreen HDTV capable of 480p, 720p, and 1080i.

That is *now*.

When all sets go digital, and digital broadcasts become more popular, more and more TV will be offered in HD. More HDTV's will be manufactured, prices will come down.

If a 30" HDTV now is $500, in a year it will be $399-$449, and by 2008 they will be $299-$349.

By the year 2010 HDTV's will have come down considerably in price, and will be extremely common place. I don't see TV's releasing in 2010 that doen't have HDTV capabilities. Keep in mind that is only 3 and a half years away.

Also note many TV's by then will support 1080p resolutions, for you to enjoy your Blu-Ray movies, and content on your PS3 that may be 1080p.
 
Swift this whole debate is directly related to PS3, as it was started by slackbladder.

He stated that he believed Sony was forcing Blu-Ray on us, and that it would not show advantages since "not many people have HDTV's".

I am simply giving him the information for a counter arguement, that PS3 is not in fact over-bundled with unnecessary technology, and that it IS in fact, future proofed and ready for the time when these things become common place. It's all a matter of relation, and this directly related to his questions.
 
Back