OPM editor doesn't even want a PS3 ... yet

Sweet merciful crap these comments have gotten SERIOUSLY off topic! It started with some editor on OPM saying she is going to get a 360 instead of a PS3 (for the time being), and it has turned into this huge debate about HDMI, 1080p, and a whole lot of other silly, and for the most part irrelevent, crap.

Back on topic, I find it rather hilarious that an editor on Official Playstation Magazine is going for a 360 this holiday season instead of a PS3. Whether or not OPM is really offliated with Sony is irrelevent, it just plain looks bad. When the editor of OFFICIAL FREAKING PLAYSTATION MAGAZINE says the PS3 is not worth the current price, that looks very, very bad. In fact, MS could even use this to their advantage. "Even OPM Editors agree, the 360 is the must have system of holiday 2006!"

Quite frankly though, I don't blame her. Her arguments are perfectly justified.

1) $600 might be worth it if there were several huge titles on the near horizon that were PS3-exclusive. But for the first year at least, there are very few big titles that are PS3 exclusive
2) The other big reason for people to shell out $600, BluRay, is frankly something I don't care about. So ultimately, I can't justify it.

I'm definitely not going to buy a PS3 at $600, or even $500. It is not just that the PS3 costs half a freakin' grand, it is also that there are no good games coming for it. And don't even say Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid, those games are even more overrated than Halo. I could care less about single franchises like that. I want a console with a lot of different games, not just a couple overrated series. I didn't buy my 360 for Halo, I bought it because there were several games on it already that I wanted to play (DOA4, Call of Duty 2, Perfect Dark Zero, etc.), and there were several games coming out that I knew I'd want to play (Dead Rising, Gears of War, and yes Halo 3, even if the series is overrated). I didn't buy the system for one game or one game series. In my humble opinion, buying a system for one, single game or 'killer ap' is just retarded. Do you really want to pay $700 or more (considering console, game, and tax) just to play Metal Gear Solid 4?

If you said yes to that question, then thats fine. Thats your thing. But personally, I have student loans to pay off, so I can't afford expensive steak dinners.

its ok KawF if you want to support sony,

they got a great track record going anyway. im sure its ok for u to get shafted

betamax, MemoryStick, MiniDisk, UDF, UMD etc.

have fun with ur obsolute blu-ray player

AK, until proven otherwise, you may just as well by your argument, claim that a leprechaun stuffed inside that box is what makes the PS3 tick. Noone has ever seen the internals, so why not!

"Quit saying that the $499 PS3 can display 1080P." - AK

There, a better qoute which does however leave out the part where you claim that only HDMI and DVI are capable of 1080p output.

Again, how does "no TV's of today can take 1080p input over component" translat into "no device can output 1080p over component"?

Your logic is flawed.

kawf higher priced hd-dvd are outselling blunder ray is positive for sony how? DAMN you are commited to the cause. you really are sonys best asset.

I'll say it one last time, and that's it.

NO TV OR MONITOR CAN ACCEPT A 1080P SIGNAL OVER COMPONENT.

Maybe the ps3 can output 1080P over component, maybe maybe it can't.
We don't know because

NO TV CAN ACCEPT A 1080P SIGNAL OVER COMPONENT.

Whatever happened to finding a television that could?
Did you give up on that?

It's like telling a retard he is retarded.

One more time,

NO TV CAN ACCEPT A 1080P OVER COMPONENT.
Sony knows this, because THEY MAKE TV'S!

Just accept it buddy. Good luck with your 1080P over component.

@Gianni:

It was 400 dollars in Japan, yes. And the PS3 there is over 600 dollars basic model; approx. 728 dollars full configuration (going by Rakuten's approximate asking price; other vendors will likely follow).

Going by 2000 vs. 2006, 300 dollars -- the MSRP of the PS2 when it came out -- is now $353.48.

KawF the guy known as ak is correct you cannot play a true 1080p signal over component and expect to see a true 1080p signal.Component even in itself downgrades fella'.

Honestly if you look at the facts you are just going by what sony says, and at this time no hdtv can accept a 1080p signal over component at this time thats a fact.That westinghouse model does not allow 1080p over component only dvi or hdmi.Both are digital signals.Now how can something be justified if you cant use it?Also to the guys talking about broadband and online play, you can buy whatever you want that doesnt make it sane.Because the real gist of this is that the world is moving towards broadband at a higher rate than 1080p hdtv conversion.You want proof?How many companies offer shows in 1080p hd?How many of you guys have broadband?I mean honestly you dont have to take advantage of something to enjoy it, and that goes for the ps3 as well, but if sony is gonna tout it and enforce it then thats the difference."The next generation doesnt start until we say so"?Really?Because of blu ray? over component its 1080i or 720p the same as the competition.Its a marketing trick used by sony for the naive.

Also you are not being charged by m$ significantly to enjoy online play 49.99 will get you a year subscription.And to tell you the truth you will spend that money on xbox live even more than the extra 200 for the ps3, but look at the time frame thats what helps.I mean honestly I have a 360 and 6 games with 4 joysticks etc.I also got the premium, but I will tell you now that I wouldnt and didnt buy all that t launch, not to mention xbla titles.


The chick may not be a true hardcore gamer, but the true hardcore gamers dont buy 100 million systems either, the casual buy more and thats a proven fact.The casual dont habg outside at launch day, they dont buy 400$ or 600$ consoles.They buy after price drop.Look at the ps2 and you will see how long it took to buy 10 million, but after that the casual caught on (after a price drop) and the rest is history.


This ends my rant, I am not coming down on anyone, I frequent this site alot, but rarely comment hence my long post.Theres a reason that sony is getting all this negative comment the same way the 360 got that negativity when they launched.And it wasnt because of fanboys.Sony is fucking up.

@Kawf
there's a saying I love. "There are none as blind as those who dont want to see". AK is saying, and I'm sure you get this, that even if the PS3 can Output 1080 P over component, no TV's can recieve it, SO IT IS IRRELEVANT.
Sheeeeesh!

I seriously laughed out loud when I read the summer job comment because I work at EB (unfortunately true) and I see this stuff all the time. I'll tell these little kids how much a ps3 is and they'll go "wow thats not that much I'm gonna get one for christmas" and then I look at their dad or mom who almost always immediately responds to their kids in furious exclamation "NOt THAT MUCH? THEN YOU PAY FOR IT."

FawF, lets assume that you are 100% right that the $499 PS3 can output 1080p through component. So there, you are right. You win. But as it stands since no TV can input 1080p through component doesnt it make that feature... rather... useless? I mean that is except besides the point of arguing.

@Kn1ves

All I'm saying is: Get your facts straight.

Would you for example claim that the HD-DVD drives when they come out without playback software "incapable of playing HD-DVD movies"?

Do you understand how a PC works?

The CD/DVD/HDDVD/BD unit is used to read raw data off the disc. This is processed by software (the actual playback part) and then turned into a series of images which are transfered to the graphics card, or processed on the graphics card and internally turned into a series of images, which are then output over a medium such as DVI, HDMI, VGA or whatever floats your boat.

To claim that the drive itself is incapable of playback is ludicrous and a result of media not having any technical competence and thus misinterpret the whole deal, slap a sensationalistic headline on it, and hey presto: Fanvoys bananza!



And cap-n-crunch:
What? Wasn't the high price of BluRay movies what would make it fail? But highly priced HD-DVD movies will not fail? Logic? Sure... In bizarro land.


And AK:
Why are you still going on about no TV's accepting 1080p over component? I've already agreed with that 30 postings earlier and ever since!

The big question is: Why do you still claim that it cannot output 1080p over component? You don't need a TV to prove it.

Answers these two questions:
1) Component Cables support 1080p (true/false)
2) Since Component Cables can support 1080p (hah, proven already) why can't the PS3 then support 1080 OUTPUT over said medium?

Provide some ACTUAL argument for your cause except for your mantra: "there is no TV's with 1080p INPUT".

And about 1080p over component being irrelevant because possibly no TV's today accept it as INPUT... yeah... sorry... but that is not his argument.

And even if it was? Why is it irrelevant simply because it does not exist today? They might start making such TV's tomorrow, the day after, in a month from now, or a year from now. Is it still irrelevant?

Are HDTV's irrelevant because a minority have them? Is the Xbox 360 or the PS3 irrelevant because they can output HD-quality video?

I would say no. They are both very much relevant and so are HDTV's.

@socrates:

The PS2 sold well inititally because DVD's were becoming more and more popular, and it was cheap enough so that anyone could afford to have a DVD player. That's how it crushed the Dreamcast in Japan from day one -- Movies. It sure as hell wasn't the game lineup, which, for its first year, was anemic, with only GT3 A-Spec standing out in the pre-MGS2, pre-GTA3, pre-FFX (since they all came out at once in a short span of time) library.

Here's the thing with Sony's reliance on Blu-Ray now... the DVD medium had some time to grow before the PS2 came out -- about two years of being on the market, I believe? Whereas Blu-Ray Disc has only recently hit the market. DVD was a huge jump in quality from VHS, whereas BD-ROM is not as drastic.

Will most average consumers -- the ones without HD televisions, perhaps not even 5.1 surround sound systems (such as myself) -- be so willing to latch onto the PS3? The second-year game blitzkrieg of the PS2 isn't happening this time, and Blu-Ray's image quality won't matter to those using standard TV's. And, there's a chance that it will fail to woo even that tiny minority of HDTV owners, if HD-DVD happens to be successful. What then? You're left with a 500 to 600 dollar system whose main appeal -- the games, namely exclusive ones that can't be found for the same price or less on X360, Wii, or PS2 -- aren't coming out at a fast enough pace; and its secondary appeal, BD movie playback, is crushed by HD-DVD or, heaven forbid, plain old DVD.

And cap-n-crunch:
What? Wasn't the high price of BluRay movies what would make it fail? But highly priced HD-DVD movies will not fail? Logic? Sure... In bizarro land.

I never argued why blunderray would win or lose to hddvd. I just think it was a piss poor selling point for buying a video game system. I think we are seeing more and more evidence why.

and no i am not planning on buying hd player any time soon.

"And even if it was? Why is it irrelevant simply because it does not exist today? They might start making such TV's tomorrow, the day after, in a month from now, or a year from now. Is it still irrelevant?"

I would say the same argument is very valid for the ICT as well. It might not be here today, but it's coming. The only difference is that the ICT is going to come pretty much guarenteed, and that 1080p over component is more of something that we can hope for.

I'm absolutely loving how many fanboys must be crying over this.. what a waste of money the PS3 is.. And, to think all the fanboys will starve themselves to pay for it and a couple of absolute crap launch games.. Wow... I wouldn't touch that beast until the best of the best exclusives are out for it.. Too bad that'll take 2 years or so..

#95 JJ

I don't have a 360, and I don't think I plan on getting one. With that argument, you fail to realize that the system is still capable of broadband access. I would never think about getting the $500 PS3, why? Because you can't fully upgrade it to the $600 PS3, and getting it almost identical to it without the HDMI would cost you more than $100. Just like if you buy the Core version of the 360, and get everything that comes with the Premium system for it, will cost you more than the $100 difference.

I won't get either at the lower-priced package deals, and I also won't get either until they get enough good games to justify the prices of their systems.

would the sony fanboys liek to know why there is so much anti-sony on joystiq?

BECAUSE YOUR SYSTEM IS DOING ASS IN THE GAMING INDUSTRY! AND IS LOOKING MORE LIKE A POS EVERY DAY TO PUT IT FRANK. DONT SHOOT THE MESSENGER JUST BECAUSE SONY ISNT DOIGN WELL RIGHT NOW.
STFU AND SUCK IT UP. THEY WILL DO BETTER LATER.

Yes, the ICT is coming. I have agreed on that, but if we are to trust these sources that have claimed that there is an arrangement that it will not be used for at least another 4 years, then you are very much safe to buy a PS3 without HDMI support for the time being, if your primary or even a high secondary purpose is to view BluRay movies in HighDef.

You will still get games at maximum quality and resolution. ICT does not affect that. And gaming should be your primary purpose if you do buy that version of PS3. Any BluRay playback att full resolution should be considered a nice bonus, as I've stated before. What is always possible is to resell your PS3 and buy one with HDMI if ever:
1) ICT is put in use earlier than expected.
2) You feel that you need HDMI because you want to "future-proof" a purchase of an HDTV.

There will always be people with a Standard Defenition TV or a HDTV, that want a PS3, that don't have as a primary purpose to play BluRay movies, or Movies on their console, or even at all. These could certainly want to buy a PS3 in two or three years for $299 or simmilar.

By then, a second hand PS3 with HDMI should not cost you much in an "upgrade", even a retail-new one should not cost too much.

******************************************************

None of the below is substantiated by fact, and is only what I believe based on history as I know it of new technology and how this new gen of media tech is being marketed:


It is my belief that both HD-DVD and BluRay will drastically drop in price over the next one to two years. BluRay will see the largest drop however, possibly with HD-DVD supporting companies following suit. This simply based on the very high number of PS3's being manufactured and yes, even sold.

It would not be unreasonable to thing that at least 75% of all PS3's advertised as being available for retail and end user purchase (at 6 million units worldwide by what was it, next march or something?), will have been put into consumer hands. That would be 4.5mln units with BluRay movie playback support in consumer homes very, very soon. Unless Microsoft or Toshiba market HD-DVD fiercefully, then the sheer number of available units will drive the price of the hardware down and down.

That does not at all guarantee that BluRay will win, but 4.5mln is sure a lot more than what, a few hundered thousand units of HD-DVD players in consumer homes by the same time? Or will HD-DVD have an exponential adoption rate? What would drive that?

The largest driving force I can see today for HDDVD is the Microsoft HD-DVD "initiative" and the simple reliance on "brand fammiliarity".

And KawF, it hurts your argument to say that the PS3 is able to output 1080p over component. Since you can't actually use that feature, then it's just another thing Sony put on their console to make it seem more powerful, but actually make it overpriced.

#126 arch

The PS3 "isn't doing well" in the gaming industry for one simple fact: It isn't in the market yet.

I think i've shatted prettier shit than the PS3.

one time i shat so hard i had to use a leaf blower to help flush it.

Sony really is planning for the long run with this thing, and why not? They're still making a profit on the whole as a company even in the midst of all the research and development taking place. They have such a huge following from all the Devil May Cry and Metal Gear Solid and Final Fantasy and Gran Turismo and God of War franchises. I work at a game store and I get ten different people a day coming up and asking me when we're finally going to start taking pre-orders on the PS3. The average consumer isn't caught up in all these flame wars on the net. They want an upgraded version of what they loved so much last generation. Sony will most definitely win again this time around, even if it takes an extra year to do so.

I agree with you Soma, for every customer that i have seen for every 2 customers that are put off by the price, there's 5 that keep asking to put money down or have their names added to the list.

Even in my small town up here in school the list for the PS3 is 4x longer than the one for the 360. now of course this isn't a the general rule everywhere but for a 500/600 dollar system the amount of interest and want is staggering. I think once people get over the initial price shock (which it is, dont doubt that) They'll still want one because they'll justify it that it "isn't that much more than the 360". Or heck they'll just end up buying both =)

@ AK and KawF

Jeez, you two really need to calm down. I don't even know what the hell you two are arguing about anymore. This can't possibly be about the argument anymore anyway. By now you're both just stroking your egos.

The 1080p argument is worthless anyway. The supposed difference between 1080p and 1080i is so small it is virtually indistinguishable. The only way you'll likely tell the difference is by sticking your face right in front of the TV. And if you're gonna pay big bucks on a bigscreen HDTV, why would you smash your face up in front of it?

Sony was obviously just touting 1080p because it is one of the few distinguishing factors of the PS3 (and when your console is more expensive, you have to show the reasons why), and because it is one of the only distinguishing factors of BluRay vs. HDDVD. Also, Sony has been playing the "you can do it I can do it better" game since the 360 came out. 'Sure, the 360 has HD, but we have TRUE HD!' 'Sure, the 360 has next generation graphics, but our graphics will be next generationer!' 'Sure, the 360 has an extensive online system, but ours will be completely %100 FREE (some of it anyway)!' 'Sure, the 360 has a comfortable controller, but our controllers all have Kirby's Tilt n' Tumble built inside to sense gyroscopic movements!' etc. etc. etc.

In conclusion, if you two are going to argue about something, at least argue about something with any relevence. The PS3 displaying at a resolution most HDTVs don't even support is hardly worth talking about, let alone whether you can do it via component or if you have to use HDMI. Jeez, talk about technicalities!

soma; must be your locality. My local GAME shop displays numbers of people interested in the Wii or PS3 (before the preorders appear)... The PS3 has just such little interest in the 2 major British cities I visit (Manchester and London). The Guardian have published an article about how bad the system is which has had a huge knock on effect around England, outside of the blogosphere and internet. The only other console news they have covered was the 360/HD-DVD add on.

The average consumer DOES know. Heck, there are signs in GameStation's all over the country saying "The PS3 is coming - £450" and "The Wii is coming - £150" (with little *'s saying that prices are estimates and depend on SKU etcetcetc). It's hilarious, even shops are touting the huge price difference and passers by are laughing royally.

like i said before kafwk, the more u defend ur system the worse you look.

btw, read the article that i linked on the top of this page, it talks about how sony hasnt even decided on a DRM for their Blu-Ray driver hence it wont playback commercial movies, only home videos. with that in mind, the movies coming out for Sony will be crippled by DRM again just like the PSP. Welcome homebrew

So was the article about how poorly designed hte system is or a rant on the price being out of the range of the general public Jay?
How much is the 360 over there by the way? Just curious?

Because if it just came down to price then the Wii should royally thrash the 360 and PS3, by that matter the GC should have done so as well.

Luckily more third party support for Ninty this go around thank goodness

The compression artifacts on current Blu-Ray movies are far more significant than the signal noise and analog/digital conversion error of component video. HDMI on the PS3 only means that we can see all the errors in Sony's crappy encodings!

Also, most HDTVs cannot handle 1080P using HDMI. HDMI does not have quite enough bandwidth to transmit 1080P according to specs! In order to transmit 1080P, some of the normal timing signals and sync pauses must be stripped out of the signal in order to squeeze in the image into the available bandwidth. In other words, 1080P over HDMI is really just a widely-accepted "hack" onto a standard that was never designed to support it. And that's part of the reason 1080P is problematic and most HDTVs cannot handle 1080P over HDMI. (FYI, HDMI "Type B" officially supports 1080P, but it uses a different plug with more pins, and has not been adopted by manufacturers.)

Supporting 1080P is not a valid argument for HDMI over component. Many PC video cards support up to 2560x1600 over analog VGA. I have a 24" LCD Dell monitor connected to VGA at 1920x1200, and it looks perfect. If analog VGA can support that kind of resolution, and do it well, there's no technical reason component video can't do 1080P.

Knives dont you get it though the more someone defends the system and the more someone else tries to attack them for it... doesn't make them look any better either, just desperate to discredit the "king of the hill" Sony, so to speak.

The fact of hte matter is NONE of us will know the outcome for years to come, we'll be able to form some general opinion based on the facts once the new systems DO come out, but until then all were doing here is heresay and happenstance.

It could be that the Wii is the next coming of nintendo and shatter all records OR it could flop, same with PS3 and 360 as it hasn't had any competition yet in the next gen. ALl 3 systems could flourish or fall flat on their faces.
Even a year from now it will still be hard to garner the facts overall as the Wii and Ps3 will probably just be hitting their stride come fall 07.

I think sony's problem is that they're the market leader so they have the most room to fall and their the ones under the most scrutiny. i just hope they can kick it up a notch (or drop prices quick enough) though because i'd like to see some good games from all companies involved this gen and if it ends with a closer match between systems sold.. that'll just be good news for us gamers.

Competition=awesome games and more competitive companies.

Sony fanboys = pwned. I think I'll go back to Dead Rising now...

If you listen to RadiOPM, you would know the editors there are not crazy about any Playstation platforms. If I remember correctly, Dana got her PS2 an year ago, so her statement about not buy a PS3 is really nothing. I mean some editors are not hardcore gamers so they are going to wait for a few price drops.

xbox360 with hdd+ $100 wireless adapter + hd-dvd= ps3
with double the power of 360

If that's true sino...that does kinda betray her occupation doesn't it?
I wonder why it took her so long to get one...because of the lack of games perhaps? =)

Also... did she ever say what games are making her buy a 360? Because i have to wonder of she cant justify 500/600 on a PS3 what games make her want to spend 400 on a 360?

I dont think she mentioned that

Yeah Jay I suppose it could be my locality. Seems most American consumers want the biggest and baddest, and will purchase whatever that is even if it means holding off for one more paycheck. I doubt that mindset is shared in the UK. Sure, anything cheaper sounds better if you only advertise the cost.

I think the Wii will end up coming in second this generation, one step behind the PS3. I was very hyped for the new controller and the '1.5x' graphics until I saw the footage from E3. That controller looks like a nightmare with FPS games and I couldn't stand that goofy little star cursor used in Mario Galaxy. The rest of Mario looked awesome and very reminiscent of SM64, but I couldn't get over how gimmicky the controller was for that game. Probably the second most anticipated title for the Wii (first being Zelda:TP which only uses the Wii controller as an after-the-fact add-on) won't even use the new controller. The only way for that controller to be used effectively in a FPS game is to have the cursor be centered on the screen at all times. It makes perfect sense.

I'm no fanboy, but I love ignorant statements like Andy made just above. If you think Sony and their fanboys are going to get 'pwned' this generation, you have no clue.

Sweet...this really broke down into name calling and LOLing at each other! Now, in the Elder Tradition of Flame Wars, I summon HIM! I say HIS Unholy, Eternally Damned Name thrice: Derek Smart! Derek Smart! Derek Smart!

;)

@ 144: So, I take it you have not seen how CoD 3 uses the Wii controller? You probably should take a look at that. Changes how you play the game entirely...for the better. http://wii.ign.com/articles/717/717777p1.html

"NO TV CAN ACCEPT A 1080P SIGNAL OVER COMPONENT."

Wow I do not believe that I am seeing this. HDTV's on the market do not accept 1080p.... that was a manufacturing choice. By the start of 2007, do not be suprised whne you see new models of the TV's that can accept it. It is not a technical impossibilty the support was left out by design. Considering Sony TV's do not accept 1080p over component either maybe this is a choice that they are making because they "know" that the companies (mainly thier partners) are going to implement this feature.

"Also, most HDTVs cannot handle 1080P using HDMI. HDMI does not have quite enough bandwidth to transmit 1080P according to specs! In order to transmit 1080P, some of the normal timing signals and sync pauses must be stripped out of the signal in order to squeeze in the image into the available bandwidth. In other words, 1080P over HDMI is really just a widely-accepted "hack" onto a standard that was never designed to support it."

Explains why the PS3 is going to be the first system to incorperate HDMI 1.3.

Please. No amount of Wii control will save that game. It looks so poor in comparison to the 360 and PS3 versions. Graphics aren't everything, but the game looks gorgeous on the 360/PS3 and I'm guessing online multiplayer will be played much more on those systems. Then again, I'm sure its safe to bet the Wii won't allow for 24-player matches (with vehicles thrown in as well).

Gianni Gotti: Can I borrow your crystal ball when you're done with it?

Pulled off the avsforum from special member Robert D
They have plenty other good reading to enlighten yourself on the marvels of "1080P output", and they are a little more knowledgable than the kids who troll joystiq and think they know everything.

"http://www.projectorcentral.com/blu-ray_2.htm

"At this point we should address what can only be characterized as a hoax—the notion that Blu-ray must be technically superior to HD-DVD because the Samsung player outputs 1080p, whereas the Toshiba player is "only 1080i." One high-end home theater retailer told me last weekend that the reason you pay $1000 for the Blu-ray player is for the "higher resolution 1080p output." This is absolute baloney. If you encounter any retail sales rep feeding you this line, keep your wallet in your pocket and leave the store.

The truth is this: The Toshiba HD-DVD player outputs 1080i, and the Samsung Blu-ray player outputs both 1080i and 1080p. What they fail to mention is that it makes absolutely no difference which transmission format you use—feeding 1080i or 1080p into your projector or HDTV will give you the exact same picture. Why? Both disc formats encode film material in progressive scan 1080p at 24 frames per second. It does not matter whether you output this data in 1080i or 1080p since all 1080 lines of information on the disc are fed into your video display either way. The only difference is the order in which they are transmitted. If they are fed in progressive order (1080p), the video display will process them in that order. If they are fed in interlaced format (1080i), the video display simply reassembles them into their original progressive scan order. Either way all 1080 lines per frame that are on the disc make it into the projector or TV. The fact is, if you happen to have the Samsung Blu-ray player and a video display that takes both 1080i and 1080p, you can switch the player back and forth between 1080i and 1080p output and see absolutely no difference in the picture. So this notion that the Blu-ray player is worth more money due to 1080p output is nonsense."

The xbox fanboys letting out here have no intention of picking up a PS3, ever, in their lifetime. So, their comments are irrelevant.

Enjoy the limelite, 360 will be pwned come November.

Ladies and Gentlemen; Hell Freezing Over.

y'know AK.... it funny how when you do the research on 1080p most TV's do not accept 1080p over component , dvi or hdmi (because of frequency issues), and it's true that there are no OTA 1080p signals. So in one hand you tried to prove (succesfully I would like to add) that current televisions do not have the means to input 1080p and then you turn around and bring up articles about how people cannot see the difference between 1080i and 1080p on these HDTV's. I find that humorous.

Every time something gets posted here on the high price of PS3 and whether or not it will make a diffrence, I feel compelled to reiterate over and over again just to say in a year "I told you so" Here it goes:

The price is high, but not too high.
Gaming blogs and internet buzz mean nothing.
Playstation brand is everything-PS3 could be a turd in the box and it will still sell like hotcakes.
If the PS3 is going to lose, who's winning? The 360?? (I own one, btw)

#151; I have no intention of ever shooting myself in the foot. Therefore, my advice to not do it means nothing.

Staticneuron,
Just saying, tv's cant accept 1080P over component input, and it's not all its cracked up to be anyways.

I couldn't agree more with her. I REALLY want a PS3, but I see it happening for me unless the price drops. I couldn't care less about an internal Blu-Ray drive, and that appears to be the main factor that's jacking the price up so damn high.

Assassin's Creed and GTA 4 will both be coming to the Xbox 360, and none of the other PS3 games I'd be even slightly interested in are coming any time soon.

By the time the price drops on the PS3, enough people will have purchased an Xbox 360 who don't have any desire to own two consoles. Only the hardcore tend to own more than one current-gen console at a time. If Sony would just drop the internal Blu-Ray drive (and the price, accordingly), they would have a great chance of maintaining their dominant market share with the PlayStation brand.

AS it stands now, though, (I've said this before, and I'm sure I'll say it again), the Xbox 360 is the PlayStation 2 of this generation.

let me clear some things up on the 1080p thru component issue.. in order to achieve this you need a D5 input on the back of your tv... im sure once the ps3 drops sony's tv's ands maybe a few others will support it... so just CHILL............. SKY