PS3 not to play used games?

[Azazel]

If the Revolution plays SNES, NES and N64 games that you can download I won't be dissapointed even if the Rev itself never has a single game.

I mean I could spend a couple months just playing through the SNES and the 2 N64 Zeldas. Ninja Gaiden Trilogy, here I come!

Now this makes absolutely no sense to me.. You don't still have your SNES or N64 in a cupboard somewhere? And if you don't, the consoles themselves are dirt cheap on the secondhand market, as are all the games you can eat.. backwards compatable/retrogaming and all is nice and all that, but if those games are your gaming sweet spot, you should be playing them right now instead of salivating over a future, expensive console's probably ability to play them..

I expect the Rev to have a few really cool games. That's enough for me because I don't own that many games for any system anyway. If you need to get 3 or 4 games a month it's probably not going to be the system for you though.

This makes more sense, but, you know, Zelda 64 1 and 2 are already released for that other Nintendo console.. and customised to that specif controller pretty well, as well.

[Margalis]

I don't have the room or inclination to have 7 systems hooked up to my TV. Sure, I could have an NES, SNES, N64, GC, PS2, XBox and Rev all sitting together, but I'd rather not. In addition there are a lot of games that I would like to play that I don't own anymore. Half of it is just convenience.

I find using emulators on the computer less than satisfying. Tearing issues with the graphics, resolution issues, etc.

[Azazel]

Sure, but it depends on your reason for buying it.. If you're really jonesing to play the Zelda 64 games, then just hook up the 64 as a temorary measure and you can play them right now, not in 6 months or so when they release. I understand what you're saying about not owning some of them anymore, but it'll really be dependant on N's pricing schedule for those games on the Rev, whether they go for the "bulk buy" that we're seeing with the Midway/Capcom?Taito discs, of if they're going to charge a lot more for them individually..

[Rodent]

If the latest rumors/statements about the Revolution are true I'm psyched about the machine that will finally let me legally own Earthbound, and I'm sure there's quite a few other great titles that never made it over to Europe that I haven't even heard about.

[Merusk]

Sure, but it depends on your reason for buying it.. If you're really jonesing to play the Zelda 64 games, then just hook up the 64 as a temporary measure and you can play them right now, not in 6 months or so when they release. I understand what you're saying about not owning some of them anymore, but it'll really be dependant on N's pricing schedule for those games on the Rev, whether they go for the "bulk buy" that we're seeing with the Midway/Capcom?Taito discs, of if they're going to charge a lot more for them individually..

Everyone has their own 'sweet spot' that sales tools tickle.  This one happens to be mine -and a few others' as well. One thing to understand is this feature is not being aimed at anyone below the age of about 26.  You think most of the teens and young 20's give a rats ass about original Zelda, or even Majora's Mask?  "Gen X" is becoming the nostalgia market these days, and you're seeing more stuff aimed at us through our kids.

Yes, I sold/ gave away my old Nintendo, Playstation, and SNES and I never owned an N64. When you're married w/ 2 kids space becomes a premium and old consoles are less important than other things you want to keep around.  With this, I can play the old games I miss, and the ones I didn't get a chance to play all in one unit.  I don't have to have 6 consoles hooked-into my TV along with the VCR, Cable, and DVD player.

  Also, I get the ability through the purchase of a console I'm planning on purchasing anyway.  I don't have to spend the $60 to buy those 3 old units and some games, and use it somewhere else. Even at $3 a game for the old titles, that'd get me 20 games.. far more than I'd want to get or have the time to play-through.

[OcellotJenkins]

Even in 2010 you can bet there will be a significant portion of the populace that will be pissed then they non-HD signals are turned off and all of the sudden they can't watch televsion.

The old TV's will still work fine at that point, people will just need to purchase a relatively inexpensive converter box.  It's not going to be a big deal.

That would be "they can't watch Television."  Yes, I know they can buy converter boxes.  However, you have to do it for every tv in your home... and "reletivly inexpensive" is variable to each homeowner.  The info I found listed them at $300 or so apiece.  You have to purchase one for every TV.. in my household that's about $1,000.  Uh. No, not going to happen, and we make above the median national income, and are below the median house & car payments.

Now, prices are likely to drop as more people are forced to buy them, but it's still going to fuck over more folks than not.

The info you found was wrong.  When I say relatively inexpensive, I mean less than 2 quarter pounder with cheese value meals:

 Excerpted from Broadcasting & Cable

DTV Subsidy Covers All Analog-Only Sets

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said Wednesday that the DTV transition bill being marked up Thursday would set aside $3 billion for a digital-to-analog set-top subsidy to cover all analog-only TV sets that need one after the DTV transition.

The idea is to have a $10 co-pay per set for boxes costing roughly $50 dollars. The converters will be necessary for analog-only sets when broadcasters pull the plug on analog, scheduled for April 7, 2009.

There had been debate over whether to have a means test or to cover all sets.

A second bill is in the works that will deal with labeling of digital sets, a digital tuner mandate, unlicensed spectrum, likely multicast must-carry, and a host of DTV issues that could not be included on the Thursday bill, which has to be confined to money for the treasury.


A full transcript of Stevens remarks to the Free Enterprise Fund Telecommunications Reform Symposium in Washington and a brief follow-up Q&A, can be found at Broadcasting & Cable:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/ar...s&referral=SUPP

Billy Bob Strubeck in shit-water kentucky isn't going to have to live without his Jerry Springer and Dukes of Hazzard re-runs.

[Sky]

Most games on the XBox were high def enabled.  And the difference between non-high def and high-def is roughly equivalent to the difference of playing at 800x600 and 1280x1024.  Night and day for the reasons that Schild said.

Most games on the xbox were progressive scan. Most games were 480p. And yes, it's a BIG difference. More like the difference between 640x480 and 1024x768.

The only sets worth a damn are the CRT ones which have the problem of being heavier and more expensive.

Heh. That's humorous.

Can someone provide a link about this HD standard? The only standard being pushed that I was aware of is digital distribution, I don't remember anything about the resolution being a part of that. They want to kill analog cable, but requiring HD is silly when the sets are still 10x as expensive as SD sets. I call bullshit.

[Merusk]

Even in 2010 you can bet there will be a significant portion of the populace that will be pissed then they non-HD signals are turned off and all of the sudden they can't watch televsion.

The old TV's will still work fine at that point, people will just need to purchase a relatively inexpensive converter box.  It's not going to be a big deal.

That would be "they can't watch Television."  Yes, I know they can buy converter boxes.  However, you have to do it for every tv in your home... and "reletivly inexpensive" is variable to each homeowner.  The info I found listed them at $300 or so apiece.  You have to purchase one for every TV.. in my household that's about $1,000.  Uh. No, not going to happen, and we make above the median national income, and are below the median house & car payments.

Now, prices are likely to drop as more people are forced to buy them, but it's still going to fuck over more folks than not.

The info you found was wrong.  When I say relatively inexpensive, I mean less than 2 quarter pounder with cheese value meals:

Creative googling got me the Full Article

That's a subsidy so folks can buy the units that are ANTICIPATED to cost $50 by then. They don't say what happens if, "oh shit, the boxes didn't drop to $50 like we hoped." in the next 4 years. (Since the "hard date" is April 7, 2009)  Yes, the government is likely to make it available because they're pushing the DTV "revolution" not the consumer.  If they didn't, they'd all be finding new jobs when the switch was finally flipped.

 The whole thing is a clusterfuck, because nothing the government handles these days isn't.  "Digital" on a TV doesn't even mean "Digital-Ready" yet, and that means TVs being sold right now will be useless in 4 years.  Like I said, I have no confidence that things will work for everyone in 2009 or that the date won't be pushed and REALLY cause some problems. (Since, as you can see in the article, some folks are trying to move the date Forward.)

[Sky]

Why did I have digital cable channels on my crappy old analog tv 3 years ago before I bought the hd set? Are we just yelling for fun?

[HaemishM]

It will be sad when we all buy Revolutions the next generation of consoles and are ultimately dissapointed.

Fixed that for you. It's much more accurate my way.

[stray]

My plans are still to just get a PS3 and Rev. Both will rack up a couple dozen good exclusive titles, while the 360 will probably have half of that. Plus, it's Microsoft. I always have an irrational hate for anything they release at first...Sometimes I succumb, sometimes I don't.

[ahoythematey]

I'd call it more of a learned instinctual-reflex than irrational reaction.

[OcellotJenkins]

Even in 2010 you can bet there will be a significant portion of the populace that will be pissed then they non-HD signals are turned off and all of the sudden they can't watch televsion.

The old TV's will still work fine at that point, people will just need to purchase a relatively inexpensive converter box.  It's not going to be a big deal.

That would be "they can't watch Television."  Yes, I know they can buy converter boxes.  However, you have to do it for every tv in your home... and "reletivly inexpensive" is variable to each homeowner.  The info I found listed them at $300 or so apiece.  You have to purchase one for every TV.. in my household that's about $1,000.  Uh. No, not going to happen, and we make above the median national income, and are below the median house & car payments.

Now, prices are likely to drop as more people are forced to buy them, but it's still going to fuck over more folks than not.

The info you found was wrong.  When I say relatively inexpensive, I mean less than 2 quarter pounder with cheese value meals:

"Digital" on a TV doesn't even mean "Digital-Ready" yet, and that means TVs being sold right now will be useless in 4 years.

Umm... you do realize that anyone who currently has cable or satellite service is 100% unaffected by this change right?  All cable and satellite boxes, that I'm aware of, have SD outputs on them.  The only one's potentially affected are those people currently recieving free analog programming over the airwaves.

[Margalis]

Stray, you spelled "rational" wrong.

[Yegolev]

Have fun playing your games in stretched wide screen.

I already do, because I am usually too lazy to just hit the button on my remote that toggles 4:3/16:9.  However, since 16:9 != HD, I have some games that compensate for the stretch anyway, like some junk on the PS2.  Radiata Stories will do prog scan and 16:9, but I don't think the two are linked in any way.  In fact, some say they do widescreen but still produce ovals, like San Andreas' radar map.  Maybe I was doing it wrong.  When I switched to the 4:3, though, it looked like they took off the PanaFlex since I am accustomed to the fatness, so I just leave it wide all the time.  Not something I am going to fly into a face-beating rage over.

The irritating thing is that 16:9 wasn't enforced as a standard on the god-damned Xbox, leading to Knights of the Old Fatass.

[OcellotJenkins]

In addition to the regular stretch, some TVs have a "justify" mode that scretches the center less and the sides more in an attempt to reduce "fat head" with varying results. 

[Azazel]

Umm... you do realize that anyone who currently has cable or satellite service is 100% unaffected by this change right?  All cable and satellite boxes, that I'm aware of, have SD outputs on them.  The only one's potentially affected are those people currently recieving free analog programming over the airwaves.

I realise I'm in a different country, but not all of the cable boxes here have SD outputs on them. Mine doesn't, though they are starting to try to push Digital cable now.. Having said that, the US has a shitton more population that we do, so I can only assume that some cable boxes in the US don't have the SD outputs.

As a reply to Mersk's post above, I know we can get digital TV converter-set-top-boxes here, and they were going for AU$150-200 (US$110-150) or less last Christmas, so I can only assume that by the time they're pushed out the door en masse by being mandatory, that there will be absolutely tons of them out there as cheap as chips. Think cheap-ass chinese DVD players....

 

[OcellotJenkins]

Umm... you do realize that anyone who currently has cable or satellite service is 100% unaffected by this change right?  All cable and satellite boxes, that I'm aware of, have SD outputs on them.  The only one's potentially affected are those people currently recieving free analog programming over the airwaves.

I realise I'm in a different country, but not all of the cable boxes here have SD outputs on them. Mine doesn't, though they are starting to try to push Digital cable now.. Having said that, the US has a shitton more population that we do, so I can only assume that some cable boxes in the US don't have the SD outputs.

As a reply to Mersk's post above, I know we can get digital TV converter-set-top-boxes here, and they were going for AU$150-200 (US$110-150) or less last Christmas, so I can only assume that by the time they're pushed out the door en masse by being mandatory, that there will be absolutely tons of them out there as cheap as chips. Think cheap-ass chinese DVD players....

 

You cable box has a coax output though, right? 

[Merusk]

Like I quoted way-back.. only about 70% of US households have Cable/Satellite TV.  I'm done with this conversation, however.

[Sky]

And just to digital cable != high definition.

Way to confuse the public, industry. Actually, I have to admit it's kinda fun listening to Alliteration Electronics employees spew misinformation.

[HaemishM]

TV is in a fucking muddled mess right now. I'm an intelligent, fairly well-informed guy and I know just about fuckall to do with HDTV's. That's one of the reasons when I had to buy a new larger TV for my living room, I didn't bother spending the extra money on an HDTV. There's little in the way of standards, and every cocksucking cable or satellite company wants to bend me over the barrel just to bring me the HD programming. Seriously, as a DirecTV customer, if I want the HD package with DVR, I have to pay like 5 or 6 times more for the HD DVR box than the regular, PLUS I have to pay more for receiving HD. And I have to replace all of my current boxes as well.

Fuck you. No. Save that shit for the bleeding edge suckers. I'll prefer to be a happier sucker in 2 or 3 years when some of this shit has become more standard and I don't have to listen to ill-informed Asswipe Sales Guy #347 tell me what I NEED to buy, and how I need to pay the 2x extra surcharge for being on the crest of the wave. Lick my balls, beauty school dropout, my declining eyesight won't appreciate the difference that my wallet will feel.