I love my PS3
Surely the fact Final Fantasy will be on other consoles is a good thing though?
I don't think it is a bad thing for Sony, and it was only to be expected anyway.
Well, at a price tag of $600 the system NEEDS good exclusives. And at the same time, the developers has less of an incentive to develop exclusively for PS3 considering its lower market share compared to 360 (in Europe and America) and Wii (everywhere but especially Japan).
IMO, the PS3 is good for movie freaks (the blu ray player) with a side interest in Linux
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Linux is dog slow, though. Yellowdog clearly hasn't been optimised for the Cell CPU. It performs very similar to my 1.5ghz G4 running Linux (another PPC CPU) and is limited to 256mb ram as the GPU splits up the 512mb internal.
Haven't tried the Linux thing myself yet, but I think the main reason for the high price is the blu-ray player. Apart from that, the 360 and PS3 are pretty much the same thing. I don't think either console has "exclusive" games that make one better than the other. Sure 360 will have Halo 3, but PS3 will have MGS4. But apart from those, there are no games which make me want to buy one console over the other.
But yeh the reason I bought the PS3 is because I am a bit of a movie nut and a gamer - it's actually pretty cheap for a blu-ray player (blu-ray players alone are pretty expensive, so £500 for a blu-ray player and games console explains the price - just depends whether you want movies and games, or just games).
Sure, the PS3 could do with an exclusive like FF - but I doubt Sony will cry over it. I think that article is making a big deal over nothing really. I love both the PS3 and 360.
Who sees you playing on your wii? Are you being filmed? Do you really care what people think? Thats lame. The Wii really is aimed at everyone, not just geekies that sit playing on their OMG PS3 WAR AND RACING GAMES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE A THOUSAND TIMES BEFORE!!!
Wii's really do pwn based on original fun non-serious concepts, and you, like alot of others won't swallow your pride and admit it cute
I've never really played on a Wii, but I don't think i'd find the Wii fun at all - sure it'd be fun at first, but I just couldn't stand playing any of the games for more than an hour or so, most likely. WarioWare might be fun, Zelda could be okay. That's only my opinion though - I can see the Wii has a lot of fans and it has been more successful than I expected
wow, my brother's Irish friend is like you, played like two games and decided its not for you, really not giving it a chance in my opinion. Its like peeing on a pregnancy stick and waiting half the time to see if you're actually pregnant. Ive sat on my arse and played zelda for upto 4.5 hours sometimes, its really not hard to get hooked on that game.
Or to get a free TV if you were in London, which is racist for us Mancs and for people from Hull.
WarioWare and Zelda probably isn't the best representatives for the full spectrum of Wii games available. I haven't played either since the Virtual Console, Metal Slug, Excite Truck and Kororinpa. Still waiting for that UK Paper Mario release...
I really don't care about system specs and that bullshit. I want to play games, not the console. And since the Wii's got the games I want the most, that's probably what I'll be going for (as soon as I get the money for it). The PS3 is good for movie freaks? Who the hell pays that much to watch frickin movies on it?
"Plus I look like and idiot when playing on the Wii."
It's not the Wii's fault if you look like an idiot while playing it. You don't have to swing it around like those exaggerated fools you see in the adverts.
"Who the hell pays that much to watch frickin movies on it? "
I see what you mean - but the future of television is all this HD crap. And blu-ray is basically high-definition DVDs (although HD-DVD was already taken by another company, forgot who). So movie freaks like myself would rather watch a high definition movie rather than a blurry one. I have to say, at first I didn't think movies would be that much better in HD - but after watching Casino Royale on blu-ray, I think it's bloody amazing
I haven't been sold on HD yet. I have the TV's, the PS3 etc. But, like graphics and gameplay, you can't polish shit. It didn't make Casino Royale any better IMO (pacing, worst product placement ever). I just wish the whole switch to HD was done properly with prices not retardedly high and perhaps more films, rather than have it full of corporate BS and hype.
lol, James said Mancs and Hull Although Im two hours from Manchester, (which is closer than I am to London) I don't really have anything against different parts of UK. I know theres some weird thing between Northerners and Southerners, and even though Im classed as being in the north I really am in the middle . If I had to move I would probably go further down south.
"I just wish the whole switch to HD was done properly with prices not retardedly high and perhaps more films, rather than have it full of corporate BS and hype.
I see what you mean - but the future of television is all this HD crap. And blu-ray is basically high-definition DVDs (although HD-DVD was already taken by another company, forgot who).
That's the thing. There are Blu Ray AND HD-DVD. The PS3 only plays Blu Rays. If Blu Ray survives, then it's a good deal. If it fails, you're stuck with a player that you have no movies to play on. That's why a lot of people are waiting for HYBRID players. DVD, HD-DVD and Blu Ray on one machine.
Do you want to take a $600 gamble?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
It doesn't matter if it succeeds or fails - blu-ray movies are out NOW so I can just buy them and play them whenever I want and relax in my high-tech entertainment system - PLUS I get a gamings machine with it as well. And I'll probably be getting an Xbox 360 later this year which will just top everything off.
Blu-ray players alone cost £200 to £500. I spent £525 on my PS3, so in my eyes it is not a gamble. I don't buy consoles for the long-term, I buy them to entertain myself in the short-term and then I move on. I don't spend money on music, clothes and friends - just on stuff I actually want.
I certainly don't regret buying the PS3 and I think it is a shame that fan-boys of other consoles slag it off - I love the 360 and the PS3. Each has there own advantages and disadvantages, and the only thing that matters to me is that I have fun with them - which I am doing at the moment Sure that doesn't mean everyone else would find it fun, I'm just saying that I do
I'd say a 5 year lifetime is "long term" But I completely see what you mean. Right now BluRay isn't a gamble, but UMD wasn't a gamble at the start either. Infact, there was no disc based medium to compete against. They just get phased out due to lack of interest. HD-DVD and BluRay can easily co-exist as there is so much money going around. A flop can be funded and be kept alive (look at PSP, PS3 and 360, whilst not all flops they do lose their respective companies money, but they're still going fine in the market).
Anyroad. It's all way too soon. As evidenced by updates in HDMI ports and standards all the time. H.264 was the "big thing" a few years ago when these formats were kicking off. Soon Apple releases ProRes 422 along with it's new video editing suite which can provide uncompressed HD video at SD file sizes, if that isn't going to absolutely fuel a new, unified next gen video format or download service then I don't know what will. Just as these formats are kicking off they're already being replaced with formats that allow a full BluRay film to live on an 8.5gb DVD just with by using a different codec.
In terms of killer apps, all the consoles are really sucking.
Nintendo was to have Zelda/Mario/Metroid/Smash Brothers, but only 1 of those 4 is even out yet, despite all being promises as launch games. PS3 had Resistance, Metal Gear Solid, and Final Fantasy lined up, but Resistance was a bit more lackluster then expected and MGS/FF might not even be exclusives anymore. Xbox360 sales, of course, will spike when Halo 3 comes out.
Frankly, this whole generation of new systems is really blowing right now.
These gaming companies that are rejecting exclusives for the Playstation 3, are only destroying the Sony market for themselves, the reason the Playstation 3 isn't selling well, is because their aren't enough exclusives for the price of $600, well that's never going to happen, if companies are afraid to lose money over supporting Sony.
It's a lost cause if it keeps going down this path.
In most cases they'd be losing money even if they did entirely support sony. Console-moving exclusives have existed in the past, but the PS3 is particularly hard to sell and there's no reason they should make the financially retarded decision when there are two other perfectly good consoles out there.
It's been a lost cause since they first made demonstrating their contempt for consumers a design goal.
In most cases they'd be losing money even if they did entirely support sony. Console-moving exclusives have existed in the past, but the PS3 is particularly hard to sell and there's no reason they should make the financially retarded decision when there are two other perfectly good consoles out there.
Exactly, finally someone who understands.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Only reason I got one is because it was dirt cheap (£300) but with the lack of decent games on the horizon I'm thinking about flogging it. Hasn't been a good few years for Sony I tell ye that fer free.
I don't like Sony of America's ridiculous fear of 2D games that don't have the words "compilation" written on the front or "orchestrated" written on the back.
I've got a PS3, it's nothing mind blowing. But it's better (imho) than the Xbox. Not in online respect or anything, PS3 sucks online, but I think SONY made a more capable console, nobody's using that though.
As for the Wii, it's 100% fun, there aren't as many shooting games or anything one Wii (there are some though ) but that's part of the Nintendo charm. The Wii has fun the PS3 has all the latest stuff. Depends what you're after really, I'm saving up for a Wii btw...
If you read up on it you'll actually find the PS3 and 360 are virtually the same, the PS3 is better for certain things like physics, whereas the 360's Xenon can produce better AI (branch prediction and shit). The 360's GPU is more powerful than the PS3's. The 360 has more memory. BluRay can store more. PS3 (and Wii) uses bluetooth which lags more than RF.
Then there's the opinion and non-stats stuff like 360's break more and runs louder than PS3. 360 has miles better online play. XMB is BS. More readily available native games on 360.
Does anyone know if the Ethernet port on the PS3 is gigabit?
GameCube was more powerful than PS2 yes, but not as powerful as the Xbox. However, the GameCube had a more efficient design, it was very cheap to manufacture compared to the other consoles and considering its power.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
There will never be a clear line of comparison between the Xbox and Cube. One had a x86 CPU the other had a PPC. Which is why Xbox games have to be emulated on a 360 - the 360 has a PPC CPU.
Gigabit ethernet= network computing you short sighting chimp. The PS3 is hailed as a media centre and with Linux and VLC will stream anything. fuck if I'm streaming my 1080p videos down anything with less than a gigabit connection.
"GameCube was more powerful than PS2 yes, but not as powerful as the Xbox. However, the GameCube had a more efficient design, it was very cheap to manufacture compared to the other consoles and considering its power."
Funny, I liked GC since it felt like a successor to the Dreamcast in many ways. Oddly enough, it had a similar fate... DAMN YOU, CONSOLE FATE DECIDERS OF DECISION-MAKING!
I like the Wii's hardware, but I'm just not so hot on the controls. Then again, most wireless stuff just feels really loose to me.
Gigabit ethernet= network computing you short sighting chimp. The PS3 is hailed as a media centre and with Linux and VLC will stream anything. fuck if I'm streaming my 1080p videos down anything with less than a gigabit connection.
Stream from where? Do you have a gigabit ethernet card in your computer?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
They fired Ken, and there's talk of a pretty good price drop in the near future to spur sales. Notice that the PS2 is still selling fine however, so it's not all bad for Sony. However, I smell doom in the near future for the Psp.
I really do feel bad for the PS3 now. The GBA is actually outselling it. The now completely obsolete legacy-hardware GBA.
At the current pricepoint I'm not surprised. Is ANYONE surprised really? 360 gives you basically the same performance minus the blu ray player, and the PS3 is losing exclusives faster than a teenager is popping zits.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
No matter what anyone says, I'll always love my PSP and PS3. I'm not a fanboy or anything, I like the 360, just I like the PS3 more.
Sales have been poor recently, but after the Sony gamer's day - I've got a lot of confidence in the PS3 still. Things like Home, LittleBigPlanet and Pain are games that I really want. They're things that I could play over and over again, and they'll be on the PS Store so easy for me to get ahold of. Then we've got actual games from stores like Killzone, MGS4, Ratchet & Clank, Ninja Gaiden, SOCOM, Warhawk and all the others announced exclusively for the PS3. Just head over to gametrailers.com, go to the Sony Gamer's Day and see the trailers for the newly announced games - most are exclusive to the PS3, so to say they're losing all their exclusive games probably isn't true anymore.
I still think the 360 will make more sales, and I still think the 360 will have the most fans, but I still think that for it's price, the PS3 was worth it for me. Probably not for anyone else, but it was for me. I think the success of the PS3 will highly depend upon the battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, not between the gaming aspect of the PS3 and 360.
Also as for the PSP, I certainly don't think it is anywhere near dead. They just dropped the price which increased sales by something like 60% in the UK, and the Playstation Store will be released on it soon which will allow us to download and play PSOne titles - which will certainly increase sales too. Nintendo DS is making more sales I think, but Sony aren't really competing with the DS anyway.
Sorry if I sound biased towards Sony, I have honestly tried to give my honest opinion
All consoles have good and bad points, and I don't think any of the next-gen consoles is better than the other. But like I said, the success of the PS3 will probably depend on how people decide to watch movies, not play games.
I still think the 360 will make more sales, and I still think the 360 will have the most fans, but I still think that for it's price, the PS3 was worth it for me. Probably not for anyone else, but it was for me. I think the success of the PS3 will highly depend upon the battle between HD-DVD and Blu-ray, not between the gaming aspect of the PS3 and 360.
If Blu Ray succeeds, then the PS3 will be a cheap Blu Ray player. If Blu Ray fails, then the PS3 will be a ridiculously expensive video game console.
Also as for the PSP, I certainly don't think it is anywhere near dead. They just dropped the price which increased sales by something like 60% in the UK, and the Playstation Store will be released on it soon which will allow us to download and play PSOne titles - which will certainly increase sales too.
Yippee! PSOne titles! Now honestly... The Spyro games are good, but who in their right mind would pick Spyro before Super Mario 64? Lots of PSOne games were good for their time, but not many stands the test of time. Besides, lots of the most popular PSOne games have also gotten much improved versions for the newer systems and the PSOne versions feel aged, but without the cool nostalgia feeling of a NES or SNES game.
Phredreeke breaks the free Home vs. subscription-based Xbox Live argument in one sentence: The difference in price between the 360 and PS3 is the same as the cost of five years subscription to Xbox Live.
Sorry if I sound biased against Sony, I'm just trying to be honest. But when Flava says the success of the PS3 will probably depend on how people decide to watch movies, not play games. That makes it sound like a pretty lousy game console. On the other hand, it did work for the PS2...
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Yippee! PSOne titles! Now honestly... The Spyro games are good, but who in their right mind would pick Spyro before Super Mario 64? Lots of PSOne games were good for their time, but not many stands the test of time. Besides, lots of the most popular PSOne games have also gotten much improved versions for the newer systems and the PSOne versions feel aged, but without the cool nostalgia feeling of a NES or SNES game.
The PSP can play NES and SNES games, at least if you know how. You can play N64 games too, although at rather poor speeds at the moment. Plus the legal issues with using roms .etc
Can't complain about your comments on the PS3 though - you're pretty much right. I'd just rather pay the money for a video game console and blu-ray player, than buy a 360. That's just my opinion - although I do plan on buying a second hand 360 for when I go to uni, although just need to save up the cash for that as obviously, I'm a bit tight at the moment
And I don't think the PS3 is a lousy video games console - sure it doesn't have any games that are classics, but neither did the 360 when it first came out. There are a lot of games that I'm looking forward to playing on my PS3, and there are a lot of games for the 360 which hopefully I'll be playing, once I get my hands on a cheap 360.
I do however disagree completely with your PSOne comments - there are so many games for the PSOne which I love playing on my PSP:
- Metal gear solid
- Final fantasy 7, 8
- Gran turismo
- Syphon filter
- Crash bandicoot, Spyro
- Castlevania
And then theres so many more I can't even think about. Plus all the classic NES, SNES and genesis games I have for it. I certainly do not regret buying my PSP. With it's power completely unlocked, it was probably one of the best buys I've made yet.
I'm not talking about the PsOne funtionality. To me, that's essentially Sony saying "We need to do SOMETHING with the Psp". The fact that you need a Ps3 (Or a hacked Psp) to load the games onto the Psp isn't helping either.
Developers have already jumped the Psp ship, besides some token titles, the Psp lineup is looking like a parallel to the Gamecube lineup. The GC was a good system, but the support was never there. The Psp is a good system, and it HAD the support, but lost it; and it's going to be harder to get it back.
The homebrew doesn't really factor in to what my point here is (Being more corperate than consumer oriented; cause to be honest, the consumers can keep buying a "dead" console for years after it's death), but rest assured that homebrew will keep the Psp going; just not officially.
It's the difference between the Game Gear failure (Years of kicking and screaming) and the Neo-Geo Pocket (6 months later, POOF! It's gone!). The Psp is this genny's Game Gear. I was hoping that they would have gone ahead with the plans for the Psp2, but it seems like they want to stick with the Psp1 (with a redesign however) which I think is a massive mistake, because you can bet Nintendo's planning a DS successor already.
Can't answer this one. I've never been much into the Metal Gear series.
- Final fantasy 7, 8
You hit a sore spot there. I used to love RPGs. But I don't think the PSP is fit for a first play-through. Those games deserves to be played on a decent size tv. Sure the PSP has a large screen but still a far cry from a conventional tv set. For repeated plays though, sure
- Syphon filter
I have never played this one. I looked it up on wikipedia and there's a PSP game in the series available though.
- Gran turismo
This falls in the "has been surpassed" category.
- Crash bandicoot, Spyro
Crash Bandicoot is pretty mediocre in my eyes. I do love the Spyro games though, but they're hardly classics in the way Super Mario 64 and Banjo-Kazooie for the N64 were.
- Castlevania
See Metal Gear Solid.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Phreddy- It worked for the PS2 because there was no competition for DVD, and DVD was required. Unlike HD-DVD and BluRay, as HDTV owners are still a vast minority of the market.
The PS3 is doing comparatively bad compared to how the PS2 performed. Even the GC and 360 sold more than the PS3 in its first 6 months, though the Wii has destroyed everything as is outperforming the PS2. The Wii actually is the best selling console ever and it's still top dog after 6 months.
PS1 was brilliant. I'd rather have an N64 (OoT, F-Zero, Mario 64 and Goldeneye) but the PS1 is the only Sony system I have any respect for. Back before they were cloning B&O designs. But FF7, Tomb Raider, Castlevania. Classic games. But never in a blue moon would I pay £130 for a PSP to play just them (seeing there are no PSP games interesting me in the slightest).
What these big companies are forgetting is that games are toys. As pointed out by the 6 month sales chart - if there is cheaper competition it will sell. No mass public spent too much for a toy.
Next gen was a tough formula and it looks like only 1 company managed to grasp it.
Yeah, I agree. FF9 was great. Chrono Cross, Parasite Eve and Xenogears are three other great Squaresoft PSOne RPGs, although neither of those were released in Europe
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The PS3 is far from dead! If only I did not have a Xbox 360 I would have gotten a PS3. Until we see more first party games come into play and all systems, then I shall see what is the real contender here. In terms of games the PS3 is at the moment useless when you have a XBOX 360, and the Xbox360 is useless when you have the PS3. Right now I can't afford a PS3 at the moment, but I have been having fun with my Wii and 360 library.
I don't write with grammer I write with feeling...
The PS3 is far from dead! If only I did not have a Xbox 360 I would have gotten a PS3.
Considering that the PS3 and 360 has a pretty much equal game selection at the moment (actually no, the 360 selection is greater unless you count ps1 and ps2 games), and the 360 cost about half as much, would you pick the PS3?
Until we see more first party games come into play and all systems, then I shall see what is the real contender here.
First party games? How many decent games by Sony or Microsoft have you played? Halo? That's a second party title, developed by Bungie but PUBLISHED by Microsoft. Resistance: Fall of man? Developed by Insomniac and PUBLISHED by Sony. The only console manufacturer who also do games themselves is Nintendo.
In terms of games the PS3 is at the moment useless when you have a XBOX 360, and the Xbox360 is useless when you have the PS3.
The 360 has way more titles than the PS3 (unless you count PS1 and PS2 games)
Right now I can't afford a PS3 at the moment, but I have been having fun with my Wii and 360 library.
Will you buy a PS3 when you can afford it, or will you spend it on games for your other consoles instead? I know what I'd do.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
The PS3 has only been out for a few months, while the 360 has been out for like a year - so of course the PS3 will have less titles. Like I said, look at the games announced at the Sony gamer's day - I personally think that most of them look awesome. So there are loads of PS3 titles to come, as well as the 40+ games that are being developed especially for the playstation store/network. Like I said, I am one of the few people who have confidence in the PS3 - not confidence to succeed, but confidence to give me decent games that are entertaining.
I think it's a shame that people are writing off the PS3 already, even though it's only been in Europe for 8 weeks. If you have common sense, you have to give any console at least a year until you can judge it. The same went for the 360 - it's starting line up was poor and sales were not that good either - but after a year, the games for it are amazing (Crackdown, Gears of war, Lost planet - and Halo 3 beta looks pretty good too) and it's starting to kick off.
I'm a video game fanatic and am somebody who tries to get my hands on every console and every game that has the potential to be a classic. The only consoles I have never bought and won't buy are the Gamecube and the Wii. I don't have anything against nintendo (I owned a NES, NES, N64, gameboy .etc) - those consoles just didn't appeal to me. Maybe I'll add them to my collection in 1-2 years time.
I just can't describe how annoying I find people who are Sony and Microsoft fanboys, and slag off the PS3 or 360 and try persuading people to buy one over the other. Especially when they've not even owned or played on the console - they just assume it's crap. I think they should just leave people to make their own opinions and realise that both consoles are good.
Anyway who cares, the PC is better than every video games console put together
PC's win? On a power level yes. But srsly have you been into GAME and looked at the top 10 or whatever? There is so much recycled crap. I've got a fairly capable computer that runs Oblivion, FEAR etc at good speeds. The only PC game I play is HL2: Deathmatch. Nothing else interests me. at all.
Anyroad. The PS3 has been out for 6 months (along with the Wii) everywhere except Europe. And it's doing poorly there too. Even from a dev point of view - what's the point of programming for the PS3 now? Putting arguments about "being out longer" and "larger library already" aside, the 360 has the same power as a PS3, it costs less and is in more peoples homes. As an educated buyer that makes me think getting a PS3 is a little pointless as games are going multiplatform making a dual PS3/360 purchase even more pointless.
Flava you sort of lose credibility for being the console sympathiser when you say you don't have or want a Cube or Wii. Fair doos you might not like them but it does sort of put a bias sound on what you say. I know I'm not exactly enlightened myself but at least I gave the PS3 a shot and got my own. You should really give it a try, Wii Sports and Excite Truck are 2 of the best and most fresh feeling games I've played since they went 3D on the N64. Any video game fanatic would want something as interesting as the Wii. Please say you at least own a DS...
I did own a DS, but I sold it because there were no games that I liked. Although this was a year ago, and before the DS lite came out. The DS lite looks a lot better, and there are games like Wario Ware and Mario which I'd like to try. The only reason I can afford a PS3 and 360 is because I've saved up my Xmas and birthday money for the last year - plus I don't spend my earnings from my part time job. So I'll probably by a DS when I go to uni or something - they're only £70 now I think?
And regarding the developers for PS3 thing, even though people on blogs are saying that developers don't want to develop for the PS3, there are still lots of developers for the PS3. Like I always say, don't just a console on what is happening now - judge it when it's dead. Every console dies, either a success or a failure. Apart from my mega drive which is still living downstairs
I slightly agree and disagree with your comments regarding PC gaming, but I'm not going to give my opinion because I'll probably turn bias without realising and then get harassed and abused for the rest of my life
Lets just say I love any video games, whether it's on the NES, Wii, 360 or PS3. Which is true actually.
And Adam, they are a complete rip-off. But it doesn't matter for me because I'm loaded (I'm joking about the being loaded, but money doesn't really play a big part in my life - I'd rather have fun in a short period than just have a bank full of money in a long period).
Yeah dude, the PSX and PS2 were both $300 at Launch (Though the Ps2 might have been $250, it was a damned long time ago.)
I won't be buying a "next gen" console for a long time, I have no need for it; without HDTV all that extra power is essentially just doing nothing. I'll probably pick up another Wii once Metroid Prime 3 comes out and hopefully become the de-facto standard for the way FPS's should play on the Wii. But I'm talking at least 2-3 years before I even think about purchasing either the X360 or PS3. Why? Neither are worth the money. And if we pay these stupidly high prices this time; what's gonna happen next time? There are a few games for the Next Gen consoles I want to play (Armored Core 4, Resistance, Dead Rising), but I can't justify spending 2 months rent on a game console. The advantage to being a late adopted, of course, is lower prices all around. By the time I pick up either, they'll be a decent selection of Platinum Hits games (Like REAL Hits, not Perfect Dark Zero repackaged for the ten billionth time [Has anyone else laughed their asses off at Peter Moore's comments defending Rare? Hell, they're not even RARE anymore, more like half baked]) and all the damned little kinks and such should have been worked out by then (I say while staring at my 16th revision PS2...). Maybe I'll even own an HDTV by that point, but I doubt it.
HDTV is overrated. The compression and low quality MPEG artefacts are piss poor and a bad example of "the future". Half the HD films I've seen just show off how crappy the effects are, or how ugly the actors are.
Don't get a HDTV Shab. I'm with you on the protest front. But protest crappy HDTV sources too.
Anyroad. I think the Wii and DS have shown what the public want. Just look at the NDP's or Japan sales figures (Europes are a little hard to get hold of). Folk don't want all that power. They want fun at the lowest price possible. The public doesn't care for HDTV, they don't care for the super pricey HDTV sources either.
The bitch of it all is that pretty soon everyone in the US is going to broadcast on the HD signal, so in order to get free over the air tv, you'll need a converter box.
Course, you guys have to pay some tax to get over the air TV don't you?
Was it not cheaper than the Xbox?
No, both were $299 at their launches.
HDTV is overrated. The compression and low quality MPEG artefacts are piss poor and a bad example of "the future". Half the HD films I've seen just show off how crappy the effects are, or how ugly the actors are.
It shows that you need a good source! Overcompressing channels to get room for more gives you ugly results.
Don't get a HDTV Shab. I'm with you on the protest front.
Sure, if you're happy with your SDTV stay with it.
But protest crappy HDTV sources too.
That's the important part! Without good source material a HDTV won't look better than a good SDTV.
The bitch of it all is that pretty soon everyone in the US is going to broadcast on the HD signal, so in order to get free over the air tv, you'll need a converter box
Hey, it's exactly the same here, except we don't get it in HD. Just SDTV. And 60-70% of the digital OTA tv channels are pay channels.
Course, you guys have to pay some tax to get over the air TV don't you?
TV license yes... Had it been a tax the administration costs would be much lower.
Note: My two comments above applies to Sweden only. I know that the UK for example has a mostly free OTA digital service.
Edited by the Author.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Sure, if you're happy with your SDTV stay with it.
Happy enough not to go blow an outrageous amount on a new TV. I've bought 1 new TV in my life and it was a waste of money. It's far easier to buy a second hand TV for relatively nothing (32" for $50? Yes PLEASE.) It's going to be a long, long time before we see HDTV's get down to that price.
Of course, had they added a VGA out to either the PS3 or the X360 it would have solved that problem. I'm still kinda pissed that they dropped that feature from the Wii. Honestly, I've got at least 3 monitors sitting around doing nothing.
VGA out is the biggest piss up of the lot. Kudos for the 360 for having a VGA option. Though in my bitter old age I'm starting to wish companies would give you an option. Buy a console from a store and you get 1 free video out cable. My TV (basically a monitor with an EyeTV) has composite input but everything looks crap through that, then you have DVI (with HDCP) and VGA. If Nintendo gave the Wii a VGA option our house would have 2 Wii's instead of 1.
And to every European with an SDTV - get a RGB SCART cable for your console. I had no idea there was a difference between Composite and proper RGB Scart. But there is!
Ad ave liked to get a VGA cable, would have worked much better on my 2407WFP. But I heard that not all DC games work with the VGA cable so I sobbed and went for the RGB SCART instead.
You should have researched what games won't work with VGA The majority of games do work. Sometimes the PAL versions are incompatible while the NTSC versions of the same games are VGA compatible. There's also ways to force non-VGA games to display in VGA, with mixed results.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Flava:
- "I love my PS3
Surely the fact Final Fantasy will be on other consoles is a good thing though?
I don't think it is a bad thing for Sony, and it was only to be expected anyway."
On other consoles? it STARTED out on Nintendo's consol you know, then Square had a fight with nintendo and went to those bastards Sony.
It's a VERY good thing that Square has found it's roots again :]
And now with Sony not realeasing another consol for 10 years i will be VERY happy
I only care for handheld Final Fantasies. Square are only now porting Final Fantasy Tactics to the PSP (the GBA had a port a good couple of years ago) where they are making a full on Tactics sequel for the DS.
Square have also shifted the Dragon Quest series to the DS.
If the Wii and PS3 continue as they are you can pretty much be certain the main FF series will switch too. Square go where the public goes.
So, whats all this stuff about supporting the parent company behind your console purchases?
Then feeling the need to make up insults towards people that made other choices?
Please let me know why this is the way with so many internet types?
I'm supporting neither Microsoft nor Nintendo. I'm bashing Sony cause they've made an overpriced console that looks like a prop from a bad sci fi movie
"Anyway who cares, the PC is better than every video games console put together "
No. You have to install stuff.
I installed XBMC on my Xbox and I love it
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I'm supporting Nintendo this gen because I agree with their ideas. As an owner of a HDTV and a gaming-quality PC I don't want yet another overpriced console. I agree with what Nintendo are doing and am showing them this by support them via my wallet.
I'm not supporting Sony because of their content for me as a consumer. I'm not giving a penny to a company who tells me if I can't afford a PS3 I should "get 2 jobs".
I've no real opinion on the 360. It's an average gaming machine that feels more like a amalgamation of previous machines (previous being an important word here) which makes it seem a little recycled. But their hardware quality issues are friggin ridiculous. Though does follow the path of faulty MS products
I am very happy with my Wii. If you haven't tried Excite Truck, you should check it out. Really fun racing game. Sure, the multiplayer part was a bit slapped on. Only 2 players and no computer players to make the races more interesting. But a sequel is supposedly in the works, in which the multiplayer part will be fixed.
Sorry 'bout the OT, just needed to vent that.
Seriously, none of this gen's consoles is a bad choice. Although I as many others don't want to fling out 600$ for a console with almost no good games to date. Since Resident Evil 5 was announced coming to the 360 as well, there's only two games left that can make me wanna buy a PS3 (when the price drops to a comfortable low-ness of course). Namely, MGS4 and LittleBig Planet (that game looks sweet!)
I will get a 360 for RE5 and Fable 2, let's just see which one comes out first.
Mendokuse...
Deleted User
3rd June, 2007 at 15:08:17 -
I have a PS3 and it WORKS! I just put Linux on it, my sister's using it for homeworks.
I got another 360 today. My friend said it was broke so he sold it for £20 including a fully working wireless controller. Turns out it was just overheating so I just snagged another 360 so long as I can fix it I suppose.
I love my 360. The Wii is cool too, but I got bored with it after like half an hour. Definitely the best console for party games and hanging out with friends though.
In reference to the original post about FF, it was recently announced by one of the FF developers that the new FF was never in production for the 360, nor has it ever been planned to be in production. Although there is a different FF game for the Wii, as far as I am aware, FFXIII will be exclusive to the PS3.
I should be getting a 360 after my exams are finished - as well as getting my hands on the awesome PS3 and 360 games being released in the coming months. Going to be a lot of gaming to fit into my life. Heck I might even buy a Wii if I'm able to fit it in my room (they seem to be quite small in size anyway) - although apparently I already own a Wii..
Mario Smash Football is a whole world of fun. But I haven't played Ian Wright yet :*( infact... it might almost be as fun as Smash Bros Melee. Only not. But almost.
Yeh I heard gears of war is awesome, especially online play (and I mainly want video games for online play, although I can settle for single player too ).
@Andy - No Andy I don't own a Wii yet. No games have really gotten my attention, although the new Strikers charged game has gotten me interested, especially as I here there is online play. The sonic game looks a lot better than the sonic game for PS3/360 too so that could interest me. I'll probably end up buying a second hand Wii for cheaps or something - then all I need to do is buy some more plug sockets
I have recieved my Wii now and I uhhh *got* Mario Charged Strikers or whatever it is called. It's great fun actually and plays really well. It even works online with my backed up version. It's really easy and it doesn't really care about any rules, think Mario Kart but in football.
I have Zelda aswell and though it does look a bit blocky they manage to save the game with the story and gameplay as in most Zelda games.
What is the control scheme like in Mario strikers charged? Do you use the remote to move your players along the screen or what? Seen many videos of it and it does look like a pretty fun game.
@Flava: They are pretty easy, the tackle is very intuitive (done by shaking the wii remote) and you don't have to aim them pixel perfect at all. You can tackle players who don't have the ball but this gives the opposite team a power up. Power ups can also be gained by shooting powerballs at their goal.
You get into the game really fast and there are only like 3-4 buttons you use in total. The passing is automatic, just like in the old fifa games.
There's a super shot also were you can score up to 6 shots at once . The super shot isn't hard to use but it needs quite a bit of time to charge up and the opposite team sometimes manages to knock you out before you release it.
Anyway it would be cool if we could start a thread and change wii numbers so we can add each other in the adress book.
I remember watching a trailer for FFXII. I was really impressed by it. Then later I played the demo of it. The battle system was... I would say shit, but that would make shit look bad.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
You can't call the PS3 a disaster without any real evidence.
I mean, the sales for the PS3 have followed the same trend as those for the 360. I just hate how Sony-haters say the PS3 is failing, when it's hardly true at all.
The only thing I can think of you calling the PS3 a disaster is on sales - so if you think the PS3 is a disaster, you think the 360 is a disaster. Either that, or you think because the Wii is better than the 360 and PS3, so the 360 and PS3 are disasters.
I mean, the sales for the PS3 have followed the same trend as those for the 360.
But that was because of limited availabilty. Same thing with the Wii. The PS3 had lots of consoles available, people just didn't buy them.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
How can you say it's failed before it's even taken off? These things take time and you're not giving it any time. The same was with DVDs. The same is for ANY product. Sales start off low, then increase. The Xbox 360 and PS3 haven't even been out for a year - when HD finally kicks off, which it will, then the 360 and PS3 will probably gain more sales. You can't just say it's failed, because it hasn't failed at all.. Unless you can tell me in what way it has exactly failed.
You can say that HD is performing poorly, but you can't say it's failed and nobody will ever buy anything HD ever again.
lol settle down Flava, no offence but from what i have seen all the Consoles have some performance bottlenecks. PS3 has RAM issues and especially video ram speed, it cuts the bandwidth down a load compared to say a 8800 GTS. The 360 has less raw CPU power but with fast EDRAM acess and generally a nicer graphics system. Note the word nicer from an arhitectural point of view, becuase i am not too fully breifed up on the specs .
Theres one thing for sure i think PC's will generally still be the supreme machine.
PS1/N64 ~33 MHz/95 MHz, i had a pentium 1 200 MHz (the first one with MMX if memory serves me well)
PS2 ~330 MHz/GameCube ~500 MHz,Xbox 750 MHz - i had a Athlon 1.4 GHz if i remember.
If the trend continues with disregard to the specs they qoute, a high end PC should still be a very competent gaming machine. I seriously think two 8800 GTX in SLI could seriously pump some graphics out.
Because the mass public aren't keen on spending *that* much on a gaming console, and never have done? The first 6 months are very important. It's the period where the public interest is highest, it's where devs decide on going based on the most popular system. People don't want to wait around. I'm considering selling my PS3 since I've had it 6 months and literally nothing has come out for it. The longer I leave it the less I'll be able to make back off it.
And 360 has failed in a way. It just can't make it in Japan. Whereas the Wii has a stranglehold on every region (or in 2nd, if you count the DS).
Sony fans told us to wait till the system was launched. Then until the first big games came out. then until Euro launch. then another 3 months. I'm sick of waiting for something good to happen.
Heh I am calm - and I am not stupid, I can see the Wii is the most popular and everything. It's just claims like PS3/360/HD have failed, suck .etc are completely ridiculous and immature. I'm glad the Wii, which was probably the underdog before all these consoles were released, is performing so well. But that doesn't mean the others have failed - not by a long shot. It's only been 2-3 damn months since all of these consoles have been in the market together.#
And I respect your opinions James - but just because you don't like something, it doesn't mean it has failed. When the PS3, 360 and HD TV sets, movies .etc are discontinued, then you can tell me that they've failed. If you simply say "I think they will fail" - then I'd be fine with that. But to say they've already failed, just doesn't make any sense to me.
HD failed too. Of course it's going to be mainstream and in the majority of homes in a decade or so. I take it you know nothing about the standards issue that plagued early HD, or the still lack of decent HD sources in Britain (LOL a friend is paying through the teeth for Sky HD - idiot).
Ps. I see failed in reference to the original companies claims. If Sony said "we'll sell X many systems" and don't reach that figure (laughably so) then it's failed. The public wasn't buying. It's not dead. But it failed to reach targets. It's also failing to hold onto key developers and franchises.
All I'm saying is that you shouldn't call anything a failure, until it's dead and buried. If you say something failed, then you're saying it will never succeed. If you said, "HD has failed in the short-term" or "HD hasn't met it's expectations" - I could understand that. But it just sounds like your saying HD will never pick up (although I see now you've acknowledged that it may be mainstream in the future).
Anyway we obviously have different opinions; all we can do is wait and see what happens. But from now on, none of this PS3/360 sucks thing. Applies to the Wii also. If you think it sucks, give a valid reason. All this fanboy stuff happens on other forums I moderate and it completely annoys me. And really, James, I completely understand where you're coming from and why you think what you think.
And Adam stop with the immature posts please - because I'll just delete them if I have to.
PS1/N64 ~33 MHz/95 MHz, i had a pentium 1 200 MHz (the first one with MMX if memory serves me well)
PS2 ~330 MHz/GameCube ~500 MHz,Xbox 750 MHz - i had a Athlon 1.4 GHz if i remember.
But consoles always have a better performance, not because they're more powerful but because the developers won't have to assure compatibility with a wide range of hardware configurations. They just have to optimize it for one configuration.
Sony fans told us to wait till the system was launched. Then until the first big games came out. then until Euro launch. then another 3 months. I'm sick of waiting for something good to happen.
I foresee the Metal Gear Solid 4 launch... and the game sucks. Then a few months later a much superior Wii MGS game is released. Hey it happened to the Sonic games!
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I never said HD wouldn't pick up. I mean look, you live in the UK right? The government will be handing out vouchers for free Freeview boxes as they start shutting off the analogue signal. So many people, old or people who don't care, still bother with analogue TV. The majority of TV's still don't have Freeview as standard.
If we're that far behind with a cheap 20 quid box to plug into a TV, how long is it going to take for HDTV's to be a majority? Or until an OTA signal actually looks good on one?
All that and we *still* only get 512kbps broadband in the hills
Yeh I suppose you're right - I suppose it depends how long our current TVs last too. The majority of TV stores around my area only sell HD TVs (or HD ready) now - I'm not sure if that is the same around the rest of the country. I don't think my family will be buying a HD TV for the quality or anything - probably just will be the only TV we can buy once our current one goes bust.
PhreddySE i have a undergrad degree in Comp Science, and almost finished a Postgrad Degree so i know that but having twice the MHz under the hood and generally better graphics cards and oodles more ram leaves for some room for inefficiency.
Plus i cant remember any game looking better on my consoles (I have GC PS2 and Xbox) than on my PC. Higher Res, better textures, etc etc. My PC back then had a Geforce 4800ti . I dont run mediocre PC's...Better Efficiency Yes more raw processing power lols. Like a 1.6 litre engine versus a nice big big block V8 - although being highly inefficient, no chance .
But yeh the reason I bought the PS3 is because I am a bit of a movie nut and a gamer - it's actually pretty cheap for a blu-ray player (blu-ray players alone are pretty expensive, so £500 for a blu-ray player and games console explains the price - just depends whether you want movies and games, or just games).
I don't think either console has "exclusive" games that make one better than the other. Sure 360 will have Halo 3, but PS3 will have MGS4. But apart from those, there are no games which make me want to buy one console over the other.
I don't think my family will be buying a HD TV for the quality or anything - probably just will be the only TV we can buy once our current one goes bust.
Wait a min... Are you telling me you bought a PS3 for Blu Ray playback on a SDTV? Not only Blu Ray playback, but still that was a reason for picking it over the (half as expensive) 360?
Now this part confuse me...
I have to say, at first I didn't think movies would be that much better in HD - but after watching Casino Royale on blu-ray, I think it's bloody amazing
But you said you had a SDTV?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I don't have a HD-TV. But I watched Casino Royale at one of my friend's house one time (as I got the casino royale blu-ray disc for free with my PS3)
And yes I did buy it for the blu-ray (not solely the blu-ray obviously) - as I'm hoping to buy a cheap HD-TV for when I go to university in October. Not one of those big ass wide ones, just a small one. There was one at TJ Hughes only going for like £150 or something. And I'll be buying a 360 too, and maybe a Wii (depending on how big my desk is in uni)
If you're sat back any TV under 20" HD is negligable. I'm running dual high-res screens, downloaded a HD episode of Lost and compared the 2. There really is no difference. Large displays will have a benefit, of course.
Unless you're sat right infront of it...
Sony also dropped the price of their BluRay players recently to under that of a PS3. Just thought it should be said.
Hopefully much less than they do now. Looking through the HD film section in HMV and you have ridiculous prices. Cheapest film there was 17 quid, average seemed to be 25. DVD films were 7-9 quid.
No way daddio.
'course it'll be cheaper online. But online sales are still what, 4% of total retail?
£25 is alright if it's a real good film with decent extras. Not just your average Hollywood blockbusters. Like:
-The Star Wars films (as long as Lucas doesn't do more stupid changes)
-The Lord of the Rings trilogy (I have three different DVD sets of this already)
-The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (might be a surprising choice, but some scenes have very impressive scenery that I would love to see in HD, for example the cemetary at the end)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
If you spend any money on a next gen video at this stage you're a lemon. BluRay has the PS3 pushing it, HD-DVD has the porn industry behind it. WTF are you going to do if one you invested in dies? I mean you spent twice as much more than a DVD on these films.
Mr James my opinion exactly. And from what you have said HD is gonna win anyway haha.
Also the product lifecycles are getting shorter and shorter. VHS was around for ages, so was the NES and SNES, now the duration to the next big thing is getting shorter and shorter.
One of my trades, and hobbies is audio systems. I love high end analogue and any audio engineer worth their salt will tell you that nothing beats a high quality valve amplifier, say like a Leak TL12. White noise, Johnsons noise, Total Harmonic Distortion, Linearity are all superior on a valve amp. Transistors are inherently noisy devices...
What i'm basically saying is the next big digital thing is not always a smart move for economical reasons or in the world of Audio technological reasons.
Oh yea. A good valve amp from the 70's will easily surpass any digital receiver today.
But it's all over the industry. Vinyl has an incredible sound, CD loses the dynamics, MP3 even more so. Heck, the iTunes store (most popular internet music store) sells music at 128kbps! The industry is getting worse because people are spending more money on AV equipment without actually looking at quality. Public don't care. Public wants branding and advertising.
I still use vinyl, reel to reel tape (dont wont to wear my records out), and even semi pro quality cassette deck, triple head, Dolby S (Analogue) to get the emphasis right.
I have got a valve amp, and i build them as a hobby . Currently under work is a stereo ultra linear EL84 push pull output. Previous amp was a 6V6 Single Ended, Class A amp. I love class A amps to bits even if they are ~15% efficient if you are lucky!
I tested a freind of mine, a recording of Freebird on Cassette from a record, or the CD of the album.
He went for the Cassette sounding better haha .
Shame really i see freinds throwing out better sound systems than the ones they are buying . High bandwidth analogue will usually surpass any digital modulation scheme. Qoute a reknowned Comms Professor at my uni "If you think current digital TV is better than analogue you must be blind!". Its mainly becuase of cheapness, i.e. using less RF bandwidth.
Oh yea. A good valve amp from the 70's will easily surpass any digital receiver today. But it's all over the industry. Vinyl has an incredible sound, CD loses the dynamics, MP3 even more so. Heck, the iTunes store (most popular internet music store) sells music at 128kbps!
It's not the CD format that's the problem, the problem is that the audio dynamics are compressed to make them sound better on low-end setups.
Qoute a reknowned Comms Professor at my uni "If you think current digital TV is better than analogue you must be blind!". Its mainly becuase of cheapness, i.e. using less RF bandwidth.
At high enough bitrates, digital TV is better than analogue. Try this, set your resolution to a measly 640x480, then connect your computer to a tv using composite cable (s-video can be used too, but composite is closer to the quality of analog tv)
Now take a screenshot of your screen and paste in the image editing software of your choice. Save the file as a JPEG. Compare the saved JPEG to the TV screen. Which one looks better?
The problem is that the broadcasters wish to squeeze in as many tv channels as possible, which means that the channels are assigned less than sufficient bandwidth.
Edited by the Author.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I have an EyeTV that pushes the image resolution up to 576p 16:10 only using it because there is nothing else for a computer. The whole connection is digital which is nice. No matter how large the size of the monitor you don't get a picture anything near the terrible quality of LCD/Plasma with built in Freeview tuners.
Digital aint too hot. It's just able to store more in the bandwidth which means more money for big companies.
Oh, and there was an article recently that showed modern music (especially that of Lilly Allen and Oasis etc) remove audio dynamics in the post-processing AND up the amplification. New tech is shit. But folk seem happy paying for it.
After decoding the player has to interleave between horrible quantized steps of audio levels, which basically means "fill in the blanks" between these steps. Although the frequency content is roughly ok, data on the real shape of the audio signal will always get lost in a digital system regardless of the data rate, and ADC/DAC levels.
Imagine if i missed out a word every 10 words in a book, sometimes the brain can fill in the blanks, and sometimes it will get it wrong. This the CD system.
An analogue system will reproduce the signal much more accurate (providing it has the bandwidth) at the expense of noise. Noise can be controlled pretty well, and in comparison to digital, the DAC's produce their fair share of noise anyway!, i.e. Practical Digital implementations do produce noise too. People will say CD is a better system as it has a flat frequency response over a bigger range, just omitting the fact it makes a hash of qauntizing and rebuilding the signal shape.
That diagram is for a mere 10KHz signal drum beats, especially symbols give rise to sybilance/ringing sound, which can be heard even better in MP3's. DVD audio is better, but its still an approximation to signal shape at high frequencies.
digital TV
Oh and digital TV wise, digital can look better than current Analogue if it was uncoded/lossless compression (impossible lol), which it will never be, its too costly on spectrum.
Also remember analogue colour has been out a long time. A higher bandwidth analogue system, with more scan lines would still look better. High quality large bandwidth analogue will almost always win.
Unfortunately its costly. A typical PAL (i.e. UK) tv transmission takes approximately 7.5 MHz of bandwidth. Imagine if your phone line had this bandwidth, what data rate could you achieve?
For a rough guess lets use the Shannon hartley Equation, saying 35 dB
C = Blog(base 2)(1 + s/n), C = 7.5 x 10^6 log(1+10^(35/10))
C = 89.69 M Bits / second.
And the current systems have huge spectral efficiency...
Hmm i wonder how much compressed video would squeeze into one channel? Plus the governments all want to sell most of this spectra for billions, its purely cheapness.
After decoding the player has to interleave between horrible quantized steps of audio levels, which basically means "fill in the blanks" between these steps. Although the frequency content is roughly ok, data on the real shape of the audio signal will always get lost in a digital system regardless of the data rate, and ADC/DAC levels.
Yes, but the more important question is - is the difference audible? In theory analogue is better, but not always in practice.
Oh and digital TV wise, digital can look better than current Analogue if it was uncoded/lossless compression (impossible lol), which it will never be, its too costly on spectrum.
Also remember analogue colour has been out a long time. A higher bandwidth analogue system, with more scan lines would still look better. High quality large bandwidth analogue will almost always win.
Do you think analogue tv looks better than a good DVD? Not? Well guess what, DVD is compressed! And the bitrate never goes pasts 10 mbps, and most often stays in the range of 3-5 mbps. A digital tv transmitter (with the same bandwidth of an analog pal channel) holds about 20 mbps, twice the maximum of a DVD.
Digital tv is more bandwidth effeciant than analog tv. However the broadcasters have chosen quantity over quality. So instead of 4 above analog quality channels per transmitters, there's 6-8 lower quality channels. However, dynamic multiplexing distributes the bandwidth depending on how much each channel needs, so it's still not too bad. How do you think analog tv would look at 1 mhz per channel?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
What i was saying was given enough bandwidth analogue will always win in theory, and in sound practice too. Analogue is extremely bandwidth inefficent so in video its becoming a dying trend. I was basically saying a new analogue system with more bandwidth could easily beat digital , hmm buy more spectra or flog it off for billions? and give TV a tiny slice of spectra? hmm.
Analogue is also hampered by cheap LO's, mixers and other devices in standard TV sets. Watch a 70's B&O TV and the quality is very acceptable, they really worked hard on the circuitry. Plus never work on a 70s B&O TV, they are lethal, the HT rail dont collapse if you touch it .
Plus we have Sky Digital and Freeview, elsewhere in the house. If it rains heavy sky just completely falls flat on its behind, freeview stutters, and "blocks up" where as analogue might just have a tiny bit of "snow". Its a lot more resiliant technology, which is another benfit IMHO. I do not want to stop watching TV everytime we have a storm.
Give an anaolgue system a big enough bandwidth and SNR it will win for quality terms. It aint gonna happen though, just too dear in terms of spectra (the government) and costly equipment (the company's).
I can tell the difference between CD and Vinyl (Garrard Deck, hopefully Mr James knows my record deck ), and if you cant hear the difference between Vinyl and MP3 you must be tone deaf lol . I can also see compression artifacts on DVD's and especially digital TV.
Everyone in Electronics/Comms at Universities i have met (all Dr's/Prof's) all agree analogue as a means of perveying something is superior for quality but it sure as hell aint for efficiency!. P.S. this is my field at postgrad level, and possibly PhD level if i can bothered to continue.
What i was saying was given enough bandwidth analogue will always win in theory, and in sound practice too. Analogue is extremely bandwidth inefficent so in video its becoming a dying trend. I was basically saying a new analogue system with more bandwidth could easily beat digital
I don't see how comparing analog with one bandwidth and digital with a lower bandwidth is relevant. For a valid comparison the systems should be compared with the same bandwidth and s/n ratios.
Plus we have Sky Digital and Freeview, elsewhere in the house. If it rains heavy sky just completely falls flat on its behind, freeview stutters, and "blocks up" where as analogue might just have a tiny bit of "snow". Its a lot more resiliant technology, which is another benfit IMHO. I do not want to stop watching TV everytime we have a storm.
It might also have something to do with the digital transmitters using one 20th the power of analog transmitters! Bandwidth isn't the only factor. Why do digital transmitters use so little power? Because 1. under ordinary circumstances they get away with it, and 2. not to disturb the sensitive analog system!
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
"If you conclude that the "claim that switching to digital TV is an improvement in viewing quality is not substantiated" is quite correct. If you had prefect or near-perfect analogue reception, digital TV will decrease the picture quality. This is because digital TV provides more services using the same transmission frequency.
However, many people are unable to get PERFECT analogue reception, but will get PERFECT (uninterrupted bitstream) Freeview reception. For these people, the picture quality will improve."
Phreddy - BBC has the highest bitrate of all digital TV stations. Mpeg2, 720*576p 50/25 fps. Average is 4.5mbps. Channel 4 broadcasts an average of 3.5mbps. I don't know where you got the 20mbps figure from.
Audio is 192kbps. Which isn't too bad I suppose.
Phreddy - BBC has the highest bitrate of all digital TV stations. Mpeg2, 720*576p 50/25 fps. Average is 4.5mbps. Channel 4 broadcasts an average of 3.5mbps. I don't know where you got the 20mbps figure from.
~20mbps is for ALL channels on a mux (which is the same bandwidth as an analog channel) The exact bitrate varies depending on the modulation scheme. At 4.5mbps the quality should already match and surpass analog tv. Sports and other programming with much movement should have a higher bandwidth though.
"If you conclude that the "claim that switching to digital TV is an improvement in viewing quality is not substantiated" is quite correct. If you had prefect or near-perfect analogue reception, digital TV will decrease the picture quality. This is because digital TV provides more services using the same transmission frequency.
However, if the aim was to provide as high quality as possible instead of a larger number of channels, digital TV would be superior!
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I give up... You keep comparing the analog service to the current digital service, while I'm saying that if they cut back a few channels (say maybe 25% of them) the remaining ones would get a quality boost and far surpass the analog channels.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo should all join forces and create one supar console.
With super games.
That way there wouldn't be any competition.
But the games would be uber expensive.
And if the console sucked, there'd be no alternative (other than PC)
Oh well.
With all that money behind them I'd be suprised if they didnt make a good console.
My signature is never too big!!!
Deleted User
10th June, 2007 at 07:58:29 -
Very true. I get cable and it usually works nicely. Virgin fools recently went INSANE offering everything on demand, I don't really see how they have the bandwidth.
Nice idea Joe, the companies will never do that though . I miss the days of Nintendo and Sega to be honest.
I still play on my 64, SNES and NES more than i do my 3 last gen consoles. I got a Master System from back in the day, i should dig that out too...
Phizzy i assume they transmit all channels to a local branch, then send a channel to whoever asks for it - or something. Still a huge task...
n/a
Deleted User
10th June, 2007 at 10:10:06 -
But you can choose from a big library of programmes to watch, then fast forward and rewind and shit. And it doesn't just download to the box because mine's an old one from THE NINETIES.
If you don't have a PS3 you can't see him in HD.
You can't even if you have a PS3, because FFXII is a PS2 game and the PS3 doesn't have any upscaling (unlike the 360 ^^)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
I havn't posted here in ages! Anyways I want all 3 consoles and in a perfect world I would ahve them, however its hard to justify spending that much on a PS3 when you are buying a house, getting married and still building my stupid rx7 >:S
When the price of PS3 drops I'll be in for it, no point limiting yourself to one set of games you'll be the one to lose out!
On another note I got Forza 2 yesterday and its THE BEST GAME EVER MADE. I had to push FF7 and some other games down the list, Forza 2 is the pinnacle of gaming atm haha (Atleast if you like cars). I work at a racetrack all day everyday and still aren't bored of going home and racing on racetracks all night haha.
I havn't posted here in ages! Anyways I want all 3 consoles and in a perfect world I would ahve them
No, in the perfect world there'd be a console with the technical power of the 360 with the unique controls and sleek look of the Wii, and it would be called the Gamux, and it runs Linux as operating system and all the games are free!
YAY!
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by an Administrator.
cute 
FTW.
.
. High bandwidth analogue will usually surpass any digital modulation scheme. Qoute a reknowned Comms Professor at my uni "If you think current digital TV is better than analogue you must be blind!". Its mainly becuase of cheapness, i.e. using less RF bandwidth.
