Upper class sounds more reasonable. Even middle class, that's still a lot of money to drop on a TV.
Nah. Most all of the upper class that wants one has one, I'd bet. They're really falling in price.
And you do know that the Upper Middle class is a minority right? So 50% of the UMC owning a HDTV would be a small amount.
However, I do believe some people below that fianacial class owns a HDTV. Still my original point is, most people don't own a HDTV yet and don't care for the HD formats, which as I said could be a factor why so many people are appethetic towards the PS3 other than the price.
Off-topic, and regarding HD formats and not the consoles that use them, I'd just also like to clarify that "Satellite TV broadcasts HD signal" doesn't mean "UK TV has easy access to HDTV Stations!!!"
As far as I'm aware (and I have a full package deal) there are about 6 HD channels out of 700 stations, only Sky One and Sky Movies 9/10 worth watching.
The main problem I have with HDTV is that it's just a slightly crisper (good) and darker (NO!!!! FOR HEAVENS SAKE YOU DAMN STUPID TECHIE MORONS, DARK IS BAD!!! BAD! I DON'T WANT BROWN AND BLACK, I WANT BRIGHT AND COLOURFUL!) picture. It took me 15 years to manage to move from full screen to widescreen.
...Yes, people are only just getting their heads around widescreen TVs in this country...
The main way to even take advantage of it is to spend another 500-1000 on a Blu-Ray or HDDVD format player, and what does that do? Make things slightly better picture? Maybe better sound too, if you have the sound system for it.
The VHS-DVD switch was kind of hard for alot of people, I recall arguing extensively with someone when they were expensive about why it's worth rebuying your collection.
The difference of course is that VHS had like 20 years, DVD barely has 10. VHS>DVD had ALOT of benefits, quick loading, small storage space, still screen, extra features, subtitles, alternate languages... you know. It was a worthwhile investment.
DVD>HD/BR ...better picture?
Unless HD/BR actually REPLACES cinema, as in there is no longer a cinema and you get HD/BR format 6 months before DVD, I see no reason at all to upgrade and spend 1500 on it.
What I hate most about the whole PS3 philosophy and such is it's absoloute DEMAND that people upgrade or die. I'd like to die, as they're moving the tide too fast. It's the same reason I don't play PC games. I hugely despise the idea of being forced to constantly keep up with progress.
On a regular TV, what would be the difference between Blu-Ray and regular DVD?
Also the vhs->dvd switch was much easier as it didn't require the need to purchase a new television to get the benefit of dvd video. As by 1999 (when dvd started to appear in euroland) most teles already had scart or av connections by then.
The main problem I have with HDTV is that it's just a slightly crisper (good) and darker (NO!!!! FOR HEAVENS SAKE YOU DAMN STUPID TECHIE MORONS, DARK IS BAD!!! BAD! I DON'T WANT BROWN AND BLACK, I WANT BRIGHT AND COLOURFUL!) picture.
This isn't true. HD has six times the resolution of SD, and on a properly configured setup, it really shows. It's not just slightly crisper. It's significantly better in every way -- better colour saturation, sharper image, higher contrast -- than regular cable, or even a DVD, in just about every way. Picture-wise, it's a bigger jump than VHS to DVD for sure.
On a regular TV, what would be the difference between Blu-Ray and regular DVD?
Virtually none, but that's not what Blu-ray/HDDVD is for. Blu-ray/HDDVD is needed because DVDs look like ass on HDTVs.
Craig, a lot of fancier models of LCD and Plasma TVs have a little thing they like to call a "brightness control."
Oh wait. Don't most all TVs have that?
wtf is one of those 
As I've said before, HD isn't "darker" more than SD is just "brighter" - look at the sky in the pictures of THS's link. One is almost white, yet the other is a clear, light blue.
Look at the sky on a sunny day (if those exist in your area). Is it white or is it blue?
Curse technology and its interference in the way I view my favorite movies. 
I wonder will they re-release DvDs of the past to Blu-Ray. I mean, they'd pretty much have to eventually. But by then, there'd be another upgrade beyond HD or whatever the hell we're on now. "This is Madness!" =P
Yeah, they're already doing that, DPG. I might buy Black Hawk Down on Blu-Ray because that movie was amazing and our DVD is all scratched to hell (#2 best Blu-Ray feature: damn near impossible to scratch to the point of major interference - they've survived a wire brush before, look on YouTube.)
Wire-brush. Sweetness. lol I just need some money. If things go according to plan, i'll possess a PS3 in the year 2010. =)
...Oh. Interesting; I was definitely not expecting this. This raises a further question, then: is this trend going to continue, or are the sales figures going to peter out after the first few weeks?
Whilst I'm here, I suppose I should say this; my PS3 pros and cons:
Pros
1) Despite the high price tag, the equipment under the hood is well worth the cost of investment on paper
2) The PS3 has in-built support for other operating systems (here's looking at you GNU/Linux), helping the PS3 to fully embody its intended image of entertainment device as opposed to a gaming hub
3) Excellent HD support on paper; we need great games now to put it into practice
Cons
1) That whole rootkit fiasco ages ago made it clear to me that Sony doesn't really care about its customers, which makes me wary of buying anything under their jurisdiction
2) Without an HDTV I can't justify buying a PS3, especially when I never got a PS2 and right now could get a lot more out of that
3) Getting an HDTV will be nigh-on impossible for me for ages; not enough
4) None of the PS3's games have caught my attention yet, just like the PS2 up until the last six months
Admittedly though I've had my head buried in the sand when it comes to PlayStations for a long time now, so I haven't paid much attention to the PS3 either and I felt it pointless to say anything in topics like these when I knew next-to-nothing about the issue.
To reiterate what I said initially - totally thrown back by this announcement.
I wonder how many were sold on eBay. :-.
On ebay they are actually selling below retail price (also sellers lose 9% in final value fees + 3.25% through paypal). Still I'm quite surprised at chart-track (normally they give an exact selling figure instead of rounding) data. Especially since most large retail stores have only shifted less than 25% of stock (see argos instore stock check systems).
Bloomberg is reporting on the hippest trend in publishing, no longer sitting on your ass when it comes to Wii development. After many publishers and developers chose the PLAYSTATION 3 to be the lead horse in the console race, it seems that everyone and their parent corporation is shifting priorities to get Wii product out the door.
Seriously. No one watched the DS, generally considered a gimmick device before launch, selling to every man, woman, and child capable of holding a stylus?
According to Bloomberg, a lack of EA games for the Wii launch "contributed to a 25 percent drop in sales in February from a year earlier." That's a lot of billions of dollars.
But it's not just EA. Activision, Take-Two and especially Ubisoft are all on board and in full waggle mode. I guess this really does mean no Gamecube-like drought. Let's just hope these aren't "fourth string" teams porting the next great Wii game.
XD! Well thats some news.
Official PS3 Thread (Post Good Wii News Only Plz)
Actually, I have to agree. That article makes more sense being posted in the official Wii thread. It serves no real purpose here but to discourage PS3 owners, which I figure runs pretty close to flamebaiting.
It wouldn't be the first time.
Aww SX come on now. We're just having some fun because we all hate you for owning a $600+ piece of equipment that will be gaining ground come this holiday season. <---No sarcasm at all. Seriously. It kinda sounds like it though.
Seriously SX, if you're so confident in the superiority of the PS3, why do you let good news about the Wii bother you? I mean, it's obvious that the PS3 will win out in the end, right?
I'm not really sure why this is the case. You'd think the CHEAPER console would be more popular, especially in the case of the PS3 where the differences between the two units are negligible other than disk size (as opposed to the 360, where the Core pack is pretty much a gimped Premium pack).
Either way, I guess this makes deciding on a PS3 easier, since now you only have one kind of unit to go for.
Well now...that is odd. Seems I have to get the one I was planning on getitng now. Cool...
Obviously people will buy the system that more stuff in it which is the 60GB. Also Shadow Hog you forgot that the 60GB version has built-in Wi-Fi and added storage media slots that the 20GB doesn't have.
In a fair world, Sony would drop the weaker PS3 and lower the price of the superior version to match it. Respectability would be up across the board, even if most still can't afford it.
In a fair world.
The 20GB PS3 sucks. Noone bought it. End.
I don't have any polite comment to Argent's sarcasm.
And in a fair world, a lot of things would be different. In a fair world, people wouldn't be criticized for pointing out when people break rules on staying on-topic. 
Quote:
The 20GB PS3 sucks. Noone bought it. End.
Not end. I can accept that a lack of Wifi sucks, but the other features seem negligible. Also, I've heard many a story of people looking for the 20GB PS3 but being completely unable to find one, and being generally miffed to find out that now they HAVE to shell out the extra $100 for the higher-end system, or otherwise just not have a PS3. All because they couldn't find the "sucky" one anywhere. Thus I'm not convinced that people didn't buy it because "[it] sucks"...
Crappy HDD size, few features, no wifi (Doesn't that affect PSP connectivity?).
Anyway, if you're in the market to buy a PS3, $100 isn't that much. At least, that's what you and others have continuously implied, that all PS3 owners are too rich to care for such a price...
100 dollars is quite a lot considering the principal customers for the Playstation. I would have gone for the much cheaper PS3...if I wasn't you know saving up for a car or something important...
Quote:
The 20GB PS3 sucks. Noone bought it. End.
On the contrary, people did buy it, only it was fewer in supply than the 60GB. Plus, with a sizable price drop of two of the 20GB, more people could have had a chance to own a PS3 earlier than later. Some folks were counting on that.
I guess this is a sign that we won't be seeing a price drop this year. Though even if it was to drop $100, $499 is still too much for the vast majority of people for a gaming console.
Maybe the sales weren't strong enough to continue making the 20GB anyway. "a few people" isn't enough. They wanted to get rid of one, so they got rid of the poorer one.
Or maybe Sony just wants people to buy the more expensive unit. Doesn't Sony make more profit (aka, lose less money) on the more expensive units?
And no, I'm not trying to flame Sony with this reply... hell, Nintendo refused to switch to CD for the N64 in part because of the $$$ they made for each cartridge sold.
That's also possible, Hiro.
Bat, I stopped reading when I looked at the URL, then looked down at "Sony...cheap attempt..."
And for the record, now that Sony's making one, motion sensing controls as a main source of input for a game FTFW.
Anyway, a lot of people patent a lot of things. Do you know how many patents there are on mind control devices, 'practical' hovering cars, or personal jetpacks?
Practical hovering cars..like the Moller M400? or M200? I want an M400. 
Quote:
And for the record, now that Sony's making one, motion sensing controls as a main source of input for a game FTFW.
All things considered, I doubt that it's going to be all that much more involving than the Wii's titles are. Just because Sony's doing it doesn't mean it's automatically better (which isn't really what you were saying, but let's cover that base anyway). Plus, if it were for the PS3, I have the nagging feeling that it would become another EyeToy, or PS2 HDD - a nice feature, but since it's not standard for all games, most developers would just ignore its existence.
Unless, of course, Sony explicitly says that it IS mandatory, and forces everyone to develop for it. Which I wouldn't rule out.
I have to say, if this thing has built-in force feedback to the point where it can simulate a gun trigger realistically using resistance, I'll shell out the $700 for a PS3.
...SH, I'm really, really surprised that you didn't notice my sarcasm.
But it's okay, I guess sarcasm doesn't read as clearly in text. So, I'll say it simpler: FFS, Sony.
Sony patent is old news, and unlilely to mean much.
Look like FFXIII has may no longer be PS3 exclusive.
Quote:
Motomu Toriyama of Square Enix has come out and made the confirmation that other consoles will be receiving Final Fantasy XIII on top of the PlayStation 3.
Obvioulsy the 360 will get FFXIII and FFVIII Versus( I doubt SE will make a new game for the 360) while DS might get a new one.
Edit- Interview with Motomu Toriyama, Director of SE, confirming it.
I think people are reading too much into that quote. I think he's talking about spin-offs, myself, since nowhere did he explicitly state "Final Fantasy XIII, the main title currently only announced for PS3, will make an appearance on another console - not just a spin-off, but the game itself". He just said "Final Fantasy XIII is not limited to the PS3 and cell phones", which isn't saying the same thing at all. I mean, think of it this way: "Final Fantasy VII is not limited to the PS1 and PC." And that's correct - PS2's Dirge of Cerberus, PSP's Crisis Core, mobile's Before Crisis, etc. etc. What's to say that that's not what he's getting at?
Yeah, I think you are reading too far into that story. It's been said multiple times that FF XIII will consist of multiple games on multiple fronts... I would seriously be shocked if Sony lost this exclusive.
Squenix isn't exclusive to Sony...why else would Revenant Wings be appearing on the DS?
Yea maybe some of us are reading too far into it, but you know i'm thinking Sony this generation may get a taste of their own medicine from last gen. The Dreamcast barely had any third party support[outside of their arcade ports] and Sony got all the new EA, Ubisoft, Midway, etc games. Now the tables have turned. MUHAHA!! Sega gets their revenge! At last! *blasted til he is nothing more than antimatter*
Either way, that's still a morally devastating blow to the PS3, no matter how you look at it.
My main resources still list it as a PS3 exclusive.
As they should, until something more concrete comes our way (assuming it ever does).
Quote:
Either way, that's still a morally devastating blow to the PS3, no matter how you look at it.
No. A devestating blow would be if FFXIII proper came to the 360 also--not spin-offs.
Contrary to popular opinion, there are people who do not care to play Final Fantasy titles. I don't think FFXIII is going to make or break the PS3. o_o
