PS3 Q&A Thread

[Sky]

BluRay is hot. If it wasn't time to build a new pc, I'd have all three consoles (and I dislike consoles in general). They all have cool features. Stop hatin', yo. Look, you guys made Dawkin all ghetto on yo asses.

[WindupAtheist]

All this HD crap can go blow.  I've stood in the store staring at the image on the display set, waiting to be impressed.  It didn't happen.  Wake me up when HD is equal to or cheaper than normal.

[stray]

You're still playing UO.

[HaemishM]

He's still right about HD.

[Sky]

He's still right about HD.

You're so completely an utterly wrong. Check out a good underwater documentary in HD vs SD. It's completely amazing. There are some concerts where I can follow not just chord shapes, but individual notes because of the clarity of my (middling resolution) 720p set. And I'm talking about the guitarist in the background, not when they zoom in on a soloist.

And if you can't see the difference between 480i and 720p/1080p in gaming, you are functionally retarded. Or the difference between a 20" monitor and a 61" monitor. But I'll assume you're not talking about gaming.

It's ok if you don't want to pony up the cash for HD. I admit it's still pretty expensive, especially if you're just looking at it as a tv set (not home theater, not gaming). But to say it's not better than SD? Please.

[Yegolev]

I thought virtually all TVs with HDMI input have an optical/digital audio output?

I don't use my TV speakers, nice as they might be, instead using my Denon receiver.  I don't have speakers littered about an apartment, my surround speakers are built into the frame of my house for the win.  It handles component and optical just fine (PS2 and Xbox use both, crappy Cube just uses RCA plugs for sound), but I'm not dropping the change on a new receiver just to get HDMI switching ability, especially if I have just dropped $600 on a PS3.  Neither am I buying a new TV which might have four component inputs and one or more HDMI for a PS3, only to end up using the TV speakers like a damned dirty ape.  I am using a stinking Pelican switch right now because I don't want to pay out for a new receiver with more ports, even though it wounds my soul to get off the couch when I want to change inputs.

Cutting-edge is great, but if you are trying to sell me a piece of equipment it had better fucking play nice with my existing A/V stuff.

[HaemishM]

Neither he nor I said HD wasn't better than SD. You are correct that that would be a retarded statement. He said he wasn't impressed. I'm not impressed enough to think it's worth paying premium prices for. Were the prices exactly the same, only a blind man would buy an SD over an HD. But they aren't the same, and they are still far enough away from SD prices that it isn't worth it to a lot of people.

Thus, HD can go blow.

[Yegolev]

I think they might be removing the PvP from HD soon.  Might give it a go then.

[murdoc]

I don't use my TV speakers, nice as they might be, instead using my Denon receiver.  I don't have speakers littered about an apartment, my surround speakers are built into the frame of my house for the win.  It handles component and optical just fine (PS2 and Xbox use both, crappy Cube just uses RCA plugs for sound), but I'm not dropping the change on a new receiver just to get HDMI switching ability, especially if I have just dropped $600 on a PS3.  Neither am I buying a new TV which might have four component inputs and one or more HDMI for a PS3, only to end up using the TV speakers like a damned dirty ape.  I am using a stinking Pelican switch right now because I don't want to pay out for a new receiver with more ports, even though it wounds my soul to get off the couch when I want to change inputs.

Cutting-edge is great, but if you are trying to sell me a piece of equipment it had better fucking play nice with my existing A/V stuff.

Can't you hook the HDMI up to your TV, then have the optical out go to your Denon? I thought that was the whole point of having an optical out on a TV?

I don't use mine, so I don't know for sure, but that's the way I thought it worked.

[Yegolev]

My TV has no optical either.  It does 1080i, 720p, 480p via component and sound via RCA plugs.  Right now I send all the consoles to the Pelican switch, then to the receiver, then TV and speakers.  I am sure I could rig up something using HDMI and optical, but I'd like as little ass when switching as possible.  I am sure the problems with the PS3 itself will be less of an issue later on.

[Miasma]

The New York Times doesn't seem to like the PS3.  I think most of his complaints will be fixed with patches to the system though.  Hopefully when I buy one in about six months it will be better.

What does the PS3 Dashboard (or whatever they are calling it) look like?

[schild]

It looks like the PSP dashboard, but cleaner.

[Riggswolfe]

I literally missed a PS3 in Walmart today by less than 30 seconds. Sadly I was mostly meh about it though I did have daydreams of Ebaying it and funding a Wii purchase plus Christmas presents for my relatives.

[Yegolev]

Speaking of PSP, the 3.0 PSP firmware enables PS3 connectivity.  Tried it yet?

[schild]

Neg. I'm on the fence about upgrading my PSP until they release the PS1 games for downroad in America. The list of PS1 games available on day 1 is phenomenal. It kinda makes the (wii) virtual console look sorta...weak.

Resident Evil Director's Cut
Konami Antics MSX Collection Vol. 1
Konami Antics MSX Collection Vol. 2
Bishi Bashi Special
Arc The Lad
Jumping Flash!
Everybody's Golf 2
Silent Bomber
Tekken 2

Each title should cost about $5. If Sony can pull this off, well. Yea. A 4GB Memory stick can be gotten for less than $60. I'd say they've made the PS1 the killer app for the PSP.

[Velorath]

The list of PS1 games available on day 1 is phenomenal. It kinda makes the (wii) virtual console look sorta...weak.

Uh, not really.  These games are still too recent to really play on gamers' sense of nostalgia, not to mention a lot of people who played them the first time around still have them (and thus can play them on their PS2/3).  People who missed these games the first time around weren't likely losing sleep at night wondering how they could get their hands on a copy of Jumping Flash or Silent Bomber.  Resident Evil Director's Cut is a particularly baffling choice as you can find it used for under $5 or pick up the Remake for GC or Deadly Silence for the DS.

Sony may have shot themselves in the foot a little bit by making the PS2 and PS3 backwards compatible.  Aside from some sought-after rare games, most people have long since tracked down any PS1 era games they really wanted to play.  Now they'll have to rely largely on compulsive buyers who just feel like buying a random game for $5, and people who want to play the games on their PSP.

The Wii VC lineup does look weak so far though from what I've read.  I did hear the Bonk's Adventure and Bomberman '93 were just added for $6 each.  I've always had an irrational amount of love for the TG-16 though.

[Sky]

Not to mention the GC remakes were phenomenal. The RE Remake is one of my very favoritist console games.

[Trippy]

Sony Retracts Statement of PS3 HD Scaling Fix

[schild]

Son of a dick. They need to make PS2 games look as good as they do on the PS2 at least. Cuz right now they look like dog shit.

[HaemishM]

Holy shit, it won't scale Blu-Ray movies either? Isn't that supposed to be one of the selling points, a cheap Blu-Ray player (that only supports 2 resolutions)? Has anyone been able to confirm there is no hardware scaler built onto the machine? I'm amazed that something that expensive does that.

[Trippy]

Son of a dick. They need to make PS2 games look as good as they do on the PS2 at least. Cuz right now they look like dog shit.

Are you sure that's not your TV that's making them look like ass? E.g. have you tried hooking up your PS3 using SVideo or component and comparing that output with your PS2's? I.e. maybe it's your TV's scaler that's making it look like crap. Even if it is the PS3's fault, "post processing" a video stream can cause delays in what you see on the screen and what the program thinks you are seeing (a problem already experience by many people trying to play console games on their HDTVs) so it's not trival to try to fix this after release.

[Trippy]

Holy shit, it won't scale Blu-Ray movies either? Isn't that supposed to be one of the selling points, a cheap Blu-Ray player (that only supports 2 resolutions)?

No it supports multiple resolutions -- it just won't upscale from one to another if the TV reports back that it doesn't support the resolution of the source material.

[schild]

My biggest problem is the PS2 stuff. My Blu-Ray stuff looks great at 1080i and 720p. Now, the PS2 stuff isn't aliased at all and doesn't have the filter the PS2 had. Basically, there's no post processing. My TVs scaler is not fucking stuff up.

[Trippy]

My biggest problem is the PS2 stuff. My Blu-Ray stuff looks great at 1080i and 720p. Now, the PS2 stuff isn't aliased at all and doesn't have the filter the PS2 had. Basically, there's no post processing. My TVs scaler is not fucking stuff up.

I think you meant "anti-aliased" and that sort of thing is typically handled by the GPU, not as some sort of CPU post-processing effect, so if that's really the case then the PS2 chip they stuck inside is gimped (i.e. it doesn't fully replicate the functionality of the PS2's GPU) and basically you are screwed.

[Miasma]

I didn't know the PS2 even did anti-aliasing, there are severe jaggies all over the place in the games I play.  I guess it would be way too difficult to somehow get a PS3 screen shot of what you are talking about, maybe even with another shot of what the game looks like on a PS2.

[Big Gulp]

I'm not impressed enough to think it's worth paying premium prices for.

Premium prices?  Around $1000 can buy you a pretty decent 1080i HDTV that's around 52" big.  That, to me, is not "premium", especially when you consider that I was willing to pay around half that for the XBox 360.  When I'll pay 1/5 of that price for a video card whose lifespan can be estimated at around 2 years, the price of an HDTV that I'll get years upon years of use out of and enjoy tremendously sounds very, very reasonable.

Now if things are tight and you don't have $1000 to just toss around on entertainment, that's fine.  But don't act like these are "premium" consumer electronics; they're not.  They're very comfortably in the reach of the lower middle class.

[Trippy]

I didn't know the PS2 even did anti-aliasing, there are severe jaggies all over the place in the games I play.  I guess it would be way too difficult to somehow get a PS3 screen shot of what you are talking about, maybe even with another shot of what the game looks like on a PS2.

The PS2 can do various forms of anti-aliasing however the built-in edge anti-aliasing routines are apparently very processor intensive. Anti-aliasing on the PS2 is more used to try and cut down on the "shimmering" effect you get where very thin lines pop in and out of existence because of resolution limitations (exacerbated by the nature of interlaced video).

After rereading schild's comments he may be complaining about the aliasing effects that stem from poor deinterlacing filters (or the lack of any filters) assuming he's trying to run at 480p. That could potentially be fixed through software/firmware since deinterlacing is a much simpler (and quicker) process than doing FSAA and the like. However if there's an issue with the PS2 GPU inside the PS3 where is isn't doing FSAA and other anti-aliasing routines as well or the same way that the original PS2 GPU did then that's a much bigger problem and probably not fixable barring a hardware update or a switch to software emulation.

[Quinton]

My biggest problem is the PS2 stuff. My Blu-Ray stuff looks great at 1080i and 720p. Now, the PS2 stuff isn't aliased at all and doesn't have the filter the PS2 had. Basically, there's no post processing. My TVs scaler is not fucking stuff up.

My original theory was that my TV was making more of a mess of the HDMI 480i (or 480p -- the TV's info overlay doesn't indicate interlacing or not so far as I can see)  than it does of component out from the PS2.  Then, I tried component out for the same PS2 game on both PS2 and PS3 and the PS3 looked significantly worse.

Of course I'd prefer that the PS3 actually do a bit of post-processing and upscaling so that PS2 content looks better on the HDTV with PS3 than on a PS2, but at a minimum I really wish it didn't look *worse*, which it currently does.

-Q

[HaemishM]

I'm not impressed enough to think it's worth paying premium prices for.

Premium prices?  Around $1000 can buy you a pretty decent 1080i HDTV that's around 52" big.  That, to me, is not "premium", especially when you consider that I was willing to pay around half that for the XBox 360.  When I'll pay 1/5 of that price for a video card whose lifespan can be estimated at around 2 years, the price of an HDTV that I'll get years upon years of use out of and enjoy tremendously sounds very, very reasonable.

Now if things are tight and you don't have $1000 to just toss around on entertainment, that's fine.  But don't act like these are "premium" consumer electronics; they're not.  They're very comfortably in the reach of the lower middle class.

No, they are not, not when the same size TV without HD is half the fucking cost. It isn't that I do or do not have the spare change to buy it (I don't for the record), it's that for the same size TV, I'm paying double. While yes, prices have gone down recently, they still aren't comparable. As for the lifespan of 2 years for the video card, the funny thing is how different TV's are handling the HD standard. I've heard at least 4 different resolutions tossed about that aren't all working with different things like the 360 or the PS3. So yes, that HD may well be obsolete or at least not completely compatible with what I want to use it for. That's a premium price to be on the bleeding edge of tech, a price I won't work an extra hour to pay for.

And I think the same thing about both the 360 and the PS3, because I think they are both priced at a premium, an undeserved premium at that. I'm sure by the end of 2007, they may be in the still pricey but no longer a premium price point, but right now, it IS a premium and isn't worth saving up for.

[schild]

I'm really sick and tired of the premium argument. It's being tossed around everywhere. Well guess what, You just paid $250 for a gamecube with a new fucking controller (when a used Gamecube is $50). Talk about a fucking premium. Also, have you seen the upcoming release list for the Wii?

BARREN.

FUCKING BARREN.

Why am I angry? Cuz I spent $250 ($400 if you count games and such) also.

[Quinton]

I'm confused by what meaning of premium we're talking about here...

3 : a high value or a value in excess of that normally or usually expected

Seems most likely, but I don't actually expect to pay hundreds of dollars less than BOM for hardware unless I'm giving up something in return (like a 1-2 year contract with some foul cellular carrier).  I guess if you expect that consoles are $200-300 items based on previous console prices it makes sense.

-Q

[schild]

Well, considering Sony is losing money on the PS3 and Microsoft has just recently started making money, there's no premium on those systems. Unless you're one of those "WHAT? I HAVE TO PAY FOR BLU-RAY? BUT I DON'T WANT BLU-RAY!" types, there's only one premium in gaming right now. And that's the Wii. Nintendo has been making money since day 1 and they passed the buck straight onto the consumer.

[Velorath]

I'm really sick and tired of the premium argument. It's being tossed around everywhere. Well guess what, You just paid $250 for a gamecube with a new fucking controller (when a used Gamecube is $50). Talk about a fucking premium. Also, have you seen the upcoming release list for the Wii?

BARREN.

FUCKING BARREN.

Why am I angry? Cuz I spent $250 ($400 if you count games and such) also.

So you're angry because you felt the need to drop $400 when you knew going into the transaction that you weren't satisfied with what you were getting?

[schild]

Actually, I thought I'd be satisfied when GS thought they'd be getting component cables the week of release. That still burns me more than anything. The PS3 may not be perfect, but at least I can play it the best possible way intended. I don't even have that option with the Wii at this point. They could've packed one of every type of cable into the Wii and still made a profit. The Wii may be fun and innovative, but it's also a ripoff. A Wiipoff. Whatever.

[Velorath]

Actually, I thought I'd be satisfied when GS thought they'd be getting component cables the week of release. That still burns me more than anything. The PS3 may not be perfect, but at least I can play it the best possible way intended. I don't even have that option with the Wii at this point. They could've packed one of every type of cable into the Wii and still made a profit. The Wii may be fun and innovative, but it's also a ripoff. A Wiipoff. Whatever.

I wouldn't say it's a ripoff.  Realistically I think it was pretty much the only way Nintendo could go if they wanted to stay in the console business.  I don't think they can really afford to take the kind of hit that MS and Sony take on the hardware (hell, Sony can't really even afford it).  Beyond that I think that we may even be a bit spoiled these days for expecting companies to take a loss on consoles, and while it might be good for us as consumers in the short term, it could really limit the number of companies that could compete in the console industry in the future (not that it wasn't a tough market to break into already).  How many companies out there could develop a console and sell it at a $300 loss.