The new arcade units do have HDMI ports on them. That used to be an elite exclusive feature, but now they all have it.
Wow, I didn't realize the slim couldn't use Linux. There is one more cool feature that Sony has unceremoniously dumped in an attempt to reduce the price of their system (one of the others having been backwards compatibility, which was done away with early on). Since its launch it has been like a ship jettisoning its cargo. Kind of sucks that the PS3 gets lamer as time goes on.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
C3PX said:
Kind of sucks that the PS3 gets lamer as time goes on.
That may be but it still plays the hell out of Blu-rays a lot better than stand alone players,I mean I have said this before,but the load times on the PS3 are almost non existent where stand alone players can take up to 3 friggin minutes.
but I bought a Sony stand alone player to take some of the wear and tear off my PS3.
The PS3 is a great system if your tastes go beyond Halo and Left for Dead. It has some of the best exclusives of this generation, and most of the big titles are now cross-platform anyway.
Sony ditching Linux support was a no-brainer; how is this a deciding factor for anyone looking to buy a game console? Cutting a few USB ports and flash drives...who cares? The only big hit is the removal of backwards compatibility, and talking with actual gamers, most never use it anyway.
I tend to think that those who bag on Sony's cost-cutting measures are completely glossing over the 360's horrible reliability record and umpteen versions that have caused nothing but confusion for anyone looking to buy one. Add in expensive hardware upgrades (having to buy proprietary hard drives that cost a fortune) and the need to buy a "premium" system just to get an HDMI port until recently, and you have one of the worst consoles, hardware wise, to ever grace the market. All models of the PS3 have allowed you to drop in just about any 2.5" hard drive as a replacement and they've all had HDMI from day one. And the slim provides heat reductions, reliability improvements, and functionality improvements on a system that was already built like a tank.
On top of all this, you get first-rate Blu-ray playback as a bonus.
If you care about the sheer number of games, a few exclusives (90% of the many 360 exclusives are garbage), and absolutely nothing else, then the 360 is for you. I've been a hardcore gamer all my life and the complete opposite of a Sony fanboy, but for me, the PS3 was the right choice.
MTFBWY…A
Jay said:
Sony ditching Linux support was a no-brainer; how is this a deciding factor for anyone looking to buy a game console?
I am pretty sure nobody ever said it was. I mentioned that it was a cool feature, and someone corrected me saying the feature was kaputt in the newer version.
Not exactly sure how kicking Linux support out was a no-brainer. If it was such a no-brainer, why have it in the first place? Why introduce this crap into your console, driving the price up, only to remove it later in order to drop the price? The answer is: they were up against it, the console wasn't selling, and they had to gut the thing and rush a cheaper model to market (PSOne and PS2 slimmed down versions both came out much further into their consoles lives, and both improved on the original, rather than taking steps back), removing everything they could do away with to save money and make it what people really wanted all along, something to play games on.
None of this is a slam against the thing, it just is. I think it tried to be far too much, when all it really needed to be was a gaming console, not the "ItOnlyDoesEverything!" machine they tried to make it into. I think that is where the PS3 fell short, and where its older brother the PS2 succeeded flawlessly.
Jay said:
I tend to think that those who bag on Sony's cost-cutting measures are completely glossing over the 360's horrible reliability record and umpteen versions that have caused nothing but confusion for anyone looking to buy one. Add in expensive hardware upgrades (having to buy proprietary hard drives that cost a fortune) and the need to buy a "premium" system just to get an HDMI port until recently, and you have one of the worst consoles, hardware wise, to ever grace the market.
I am definitely not trying to gloss over anything about the 360 or its pathetic history of crappiness. That console is an absolute joke as far as hardware failure goes. And Microsoft's nickel and diming its customers to death with things like wireless network adaptors at $99.99 and the hard drive thing are absolutely ridiculous. Fortunately, its positives far outweight its negatives. Its online gaming cannot be beat (which is the bit I care about the most), and it has a massive library of games (not that the PS3's library is anything to scoff at).
Jay said:
90% of the many 360 exclusives are garbage
90%? That is a pretty high statistic you are throwing around there. Is this based on anything other than your own personal tastes or assumptions? You may not care about games like Halo and Left 4 Dead (which is complete garbage if playing by yourself, but down right amazing with three buddies), but there are A LOT other exclusives out there that are pretty impressive that you very well might like, if they were given the chance.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
I bought my PS3 slim foremost as a bluray player for two reasons - firstly it was actually cheaper than any unit i could find [by almost 100 dollars] and secondly from fear that said units may have issue staying up to spec.
Now i could be wrong about this but I just don't know what the future holds so it seems to have been the safest option.
Add in expensive hardware upgrades (having to buy proprietary hard drives that cost a fortune) and the need to buy a "premium" system just to get an HDMI port until recently, and you have one of the worst consoles, hardware wise, to ever grace the market. All models of the PS3 have allowed you to drop in just about any 2.5" hard drive as a replacement and they've all had HDMI from day one.
Hold on, This can be a two way street. I just shelled out for a BD remote to the tune of $40. and about the same for HDMI and other cables.
My Xbox came boxed with a remote control, a headset and a rather long ethernet cable.
The PS3 is STILL a more expensive console even after slashing the pice by 1/3 [here in Australia]. If you want to talk about costs and values lets be fair.
Aside from that i'd like to just echo what C3PX said.
C3PX said:
Jay said:
Sony ditching Linux support was a no-brainer; how is this a deciding factor for anyone looking to buy a game console?
I am pretty sure nobody ever said it was. I mentioned that it was a cool feature, and someone corrected me saying the feature was kaputt in the newer version.
It's your description of how the PS3 "keeps getting lamer," as if it somehow started out lame and has only gotten worse. If the quality of the gaming experience is what matters, and none of these dropped features affect that, then the PS3 has actually gotten stronger as a console and a competitor, especially now that its game library is pretty amazing.
I think it tried to be far too much, when all it really needed to be was a gaming console, not the "ItOnlyDoesEverything!" machine they tried to make it into. I think that is where the PS3 fell short, and where its older brother the PS2 succeeded flawlessly.
I agree with this 100%, though the addition of Blu-ray has proved to be an asset when everyone was saying that it only added bloat and cost.
Johnny Ringo said:
Hold on, This can be a two way street. I just shelled out for a BD remote to the tune of $40. and about the same for HDMI and other cables.
It also came with one of the best Blu-ray players on the market. What dollar amount do you place on that?
My Xbox came boxed with a remote control
For what? Watching Netflix? Or DVDs that your PS3 will do a better job of upscaling?
a headset and a rather long ethernet cable.
About a dollar's worth of parts. Did it come with an HDMI cable? Does it even have an HDMI output?
The PS3 is STILL a more expensive console even after slashing the pice by 1/3 [here in Australia].
And it STILL implodes at a much lower rate than even the latest 360s. And you can upgrade the hard drive yourself cheaply. And it's a Profile 2.0 Blu-ray player that will be compatible with the new 3D standards with further updates.
What exactly do you expect for your money?
MTFBWY…A
Well, after browsing countless websites and looking round endless stores, it seems that the PS3 is the way to go.
It's £50 more than Xbox, and because of my laptops questionable blu-ray, I dcided I needed a decent player, so taking that into consideration, it seems the PS3 is the best way to go.
Also, on purely the gaming side, it's 50/50 so far on the gaming side of things....but, looks like PS3 is actually starting to utilise the power in it's little black box, so I think my mind is made up
Cheers guys....
Now all that's left is to update my TV...
...so
LCD or Plasma....which is better?? ;)
I can get the Sony 40W5500 at a discount price of £650....
For gaming, I'd say an LCD - plasma TVs are more vulnerable to screen burn.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
Moth3r said:
For gaming, I'd say an LCD - plasma TVs are more vulnerable to screen burn.
Ack! Don't perpetuate this myth :)
While it's true that older plasmas could burn easily if you displayed the wrong material for too long, newer plasmas have phosphors that age at the same rate as CRT phosphors. In other words, plasmas are no more likely to suffer from permanent burn-in than a good CRT is, so it's nothing you need to worry about. There might be some minor image retention when the panel is new (<1000 hours of use), but it lasts only seconds and fades once a different image appears onscreen.
I used to do 6-hour Fallout 3 marathon sessions on my previous 42" Panasonic plasma, and there was never a hint of burn-in after a year of such use. I game happily on my 50" Pioneer Kuro. No problems there either.
MTFBWY…A
It's not a myth - at least, it might not be a problem on a high end Kuro, but I assure you on my entry level Samsung panel (bought in 2008) I get traces of game score counters, or that bloody CBeebies channel logo, showing up even the next day.
The worry of permanent burn was enough to make me turn the contrast right down on the Wii input.
The manual for this panel has screen burn warnings on the front page, and a statement to say that screen burn is not covered in the warranty. The menu also has several options for avoiding or rectifying screen burn (a whitewash, a b/w scrolling pattern, options to pixel shift a PC display at periodic intervals, and for setting the brightness of the "windowbox" bars when displaying 4:3 material).
Conversely, my Hitachi LCD panel has none of these options. It mentions image retention briefly in the manual, and says it can easily be rectified by turning the display off.
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
Bah. New technology! Go with a CRT.
Anyone want my 30" CRT? Best offer wins, but must include a crane.
Moth3r said:
It's not a myth - at least, it might not be a problem on a high end Kuro, but I assure you on my entry level Samsung panel (bought in 2008) I get traces of game score counters, or that bloody CBeebies channel logo, showing up even the next day.
The worry of permanent burn was enough to make me turn the contrast right down on the Wii input.
The manual for this panel has screen burn warnings on the front page, and a statement to say that screen burn is not covered in the warranty. The menu also has several options for avoiding or rectifying screen burn (a whitewash, a b/w scrolling pattern, options to pixel shift a PC display at periodic intervals, and for setting the brightness of the "windowbox" bars when displaying 4:3 material).
Samsungs are notorious for image retention. The point is, if it's not permanent, it's not burn-in. I always recommend against Samsungs for anyone looking at plasma because their image retention problems cause people to freak out. There's something about their electronics or panels that causes them to have noticeable problems in this area.
Like I said, my Panasonic plasma, a 2008 model, never exhibited image retention beyond a few seconds in length in the year that I owned it--even after day-long gaming sessions--and it lessened as it aged. There are plasmas at every large retailer that run for 12 hours a day with no hint of burn-in. While LCDs don't have this problem, most are deficient in so many other areas that anyone interested in great image quality shouldn't bother with them.
I worked at Panasonic for years. The engineers deemed the plasma burn-in warnings unnecessary once phosphor half-life had reached the 60,000 hour point, but the legal team wouldn't let us remove it from the manual.
MTFBWY…A
That reminds me, I once saw the same Samsung model I have in a store - with a huge ugly store logo permanently burnt into the screen. Another reason I got worried about burn on mine.
Should have asked your advice before buying, I guess...
Anyway, revised advice to HotRod - don't get a Samsung plasma for gaming!
Guidelines for post content and general behaviour: read announcement here
Max. allowable image sizes in signatures: reminder here
I have not had any problems with my PS3 until just recently,I started playing Uncharted while waiting for Mass Effect 2 and the damn game froze on me 3 times already,once I could just press the ps button and quit game,the other 2 times I had to turn the power switch off on the back,this has never happened before and I used to play this thing for HOURS when playing Resident Evil 5,so I hope it was just a game issue,because I have one of the launch release 60 GB backward compatible models.
My Xbox 360 has never done anything like this at all(knocks on wood).
dark_jedi said:
I have not had any problems with my PS3 until just recently,I started playing Uncharted while waiting for Mass Effect 2 and the damn game froze on me 3 times already,once I could just press the ps button and quit game,the other 2 times I had to turn the power switch off on the back,this has never happened before and I used to play this thing for HOURS when playing Resident Evil 5,so I hope it was just a game issue,because I have one of the launch release 60 GB backward compatible models.
Are you running the latest firmware? I think there were some problems with Uncharted that started with a specific version of the firmware and were cleared up with a subsequent release.
MTFBWY…A
yes latest firmware v3.15,but this is still very strange,I have NEVER had a game freeze up like this on the PS3 before,I have since beaten Uncharted and now going to play Mass Effect 2,but after ME2 I am going back to the PS3 to play Uncharted 2 with hopefully no issues.
I had reliability problems with both Xbox 360 units I had, but none with the PS3. I would recommend you buy a PS3. You might not be interested in blu-ray now - I respect that - but I think having it would give you options in the future that the the 360 wouldn't give you. When blu-ray becomes the norm, which is admittedly a while off, it cannot hurt to have another player for your children to play movies on, especially if you ever want them out of your hair in another part of the house, while you're playing a blu-ray of your own. I think the PS3 is more "future proof".
This is pure personal opinion, and I'm not interested in debating the merits of either system. This is just another opinion for the original poster to weigh in the balance.
HotRod said:
Well, after browsing countless websites and looking round endless stores, it seems that the PS3 is the way to go.
Now all that's left is to update my TV...
...so
LCD or Plasma....which is better?? ;)
Good to hear you're going for the PS3 :) I have all 3 consoles and i refuse to pay the subscription fee for X-box live just to play online. And Sony aren't thinking of charging the PS3 owners for online access. It's just a rumour probably started by X-box fanboys. But i do play on all 3 equally and i am not a PS3 fanboy.
Now onto the TV's. Well I would never recommend a plasma to anyone. a decent LCD blows a plasma away. Most people see the TV's in a shop and funnily enough the one that usually looks the best is the one they are trying to promote. They never have the TV's set up correctly so plasmas look slightly better. but i have seen on so many plasmas what i can only describe as a dot effect on certain colours. It almost looks like the picture is a gif image. Some may not even notice this because they are used to their plasma, but its there. Watching HD looks better on a properly set up and good quality LCD too. I hate all the crap about plasma has better blacks. Well do you have prefect blacks when watching a movie at the cinema? no. But even the newer LCD's have solved that problem without causing crushed blacks. But...
Have you thought about the new LED TV's? Perfect black levels and the picture looks amazing. I saw the new LG 42" one at my local store and everything seemed so real it blew the picture on all the other sets away, including my 42" LG LCD. Fast moving objects didn't lose their sharpness in HD at all. And the TV is so ultra slim, LCD & plasmas just can't compete with this. I played about with the picture, turning off all the image enhancement stuff that is usually on by default and the picture became even better.
I would seriously think about getting one of these. It's going to make your PS3 image look so great :)
You can even replace the hard drive of your PS3. I wish I could get Ben Heck to make me a PS3 laptop.
"The other versions will disappear. Even the 35 million tapes of Star Wars out there won’t last more than 30 or 40 years. A hundred years from now, the only version of the movie that anyone will remember will be the DVD version [of the Special Edition], and you’ll be able to project it on a 20’ by 40’ screen with perfect quality. I think it’s the director’s prerogative, not the studio’s to go back and reinvent a movie." - George Lucas
<span> </span>
adywan said:
Now onto the TV's. Well I would never recommend a plasma to anyone. a decent LCD blows a plasma away. Most people see the TV's in a shop and funnily enough the one that usually looks the best is the one they are trying to promote. They never have the TV's set up correctly so plasmas look slightly better. but i have seen on so many plasmas what i can only describe as a dot effect on certain colours. It almost looks like the picture is a gif image. Some may not even notice this because they are used to their plasma, but its there. Watching HD looks better on a properly set up and good quality LCD too. I hate all the crap about plasma has better blacks. Well do you have prefect blacks when watching a movie at the cinema? no. But even the newer LCD's have solved that problem without causing crushed blacks. But...
I don't want to turn this into an LCD vs plasma thread because this all comes down to personal preference.
If you're using film as your reference, then LCD's character is hardly representative of what you see there, so calling out the lower black level on plasmas like it's some kind of negative is a bit odd. It's like saying CRTs are bad because they're too good. I also don't play games on film, and if I'd had to endure Fallout 3 on a nice milky LCD, I don't think the experience would've been the same.
It also sounds as if you're viewing these displays way too closely if you're picking up on dither patterns (the "gif image" you're referring to). The extent of this effect also comes down to the particular display and the processing.
The 3 plasmas I've owned--2 Panasonics and my current Pioneer--are the closest thing to CRT I've seen with none of the geometry problems or resolution limits. A modern plasma, properly calibrated, surpasses CRT in pretty much every conceivable way.
I love the dual 24" HP LCDs (H-IPS panels) hooked up to my Mac. They're perfect for work, and when I was unemployed (and sold my TV to pay the rent), I used them for PS3 and Blu-ray viewing. Absolutely fantastic displays--with the lights on. Once the lights go off, bright content still looks good. Mixed content and darker content...meh.
Have you thought about the new LED TV's? Perfect black levels and the picture looks amazing. I saw the new LG 42" one at my local store and everything seemed so real it blew the picture on all the other sets away, including my 42" LG LCD. Fast moving objects didn't lose their sharpness in HD at all. And the TV is so ultra slim, LCD & plasmas just can't compete with this. I played about with the picture, turning off all the image enhancement stuff that is usually on by default and the picture became even better.
I haven't seen the new LGs, but word on the street is that they're very nice. The blacks are decent because they employ local dimming LEDs that allow the display to darken or switch off individual backlights when portions of the screen go black. One complaint I've seen regarding the LGs is that they don't use enough LEDs, so bright objects in dark scenes sometimes have a milky halo around them; the LED grid isn't fine enough to trace the borders of the bright object. There are plenty of LED TVs that use traditional backlight techniques though, and the blacks/contrast on these are still crap. I think once they use enough LEDs to do local dimming without halo artifacts, they'll pretty much be the equal of a high-end plasma.
Also, LED TVs are LCDs. They just use a different backlighting method.
Ultimately, it takes a pretty expensive LED LCD to get close to a good plasma from Panasonic, and unless you want to spend a lot more for the same image quality, plasma is the way to go.
I still miss my projector though :)
MTFBWY…A
Bloody hell....now I'm all confused.
Plasma..or LCD......I just want the picture to look good....ha...and LED is a little out of my price range right now
Jay said:
The 3 plasmas I've owned--2 Panasonics and my current Pioneer--are the closest thing to CRT I've seen with none of the geometry problems or resolution limits.
By geometry, are you just referring to the physical size of the CRT?
Are you calling my CRT fat? (it is, of course)
HotRod said:
Plasma..or LCD......I just want the picture to look good....ha...and LED is a little out of my price range right now
Just get what looks good to you and make sure the store has a good return/exchange policy in case you're not happy.
TV's Frink said:
By geometry, are you just referring to the physical size of the CRT?
Are you calling my CRT fat? (it is, of course)
I'm referring to image distortion. CRTs, even when heavily tweaked, usually exhibit some level of distortion (pincushion, bowing, etc.). Flat panels, by their nature, are immune to these issues.
MTFBWY…A
adywan said:
Good to hear you're going for the PS3 :) I have all 3 consoles and i refuse to pay the subscription fee for X-box live just to play online. And Sony aren't thinking of charging the PS3 owners for online access. It's just a rumour probably started by X-box fanboys.
"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape
C3PX said:
Continue reading and you'll see this in the comments.
There's a big difference between adding new services that require a subscription and charging for online play, which is currently, and will remain, free.
MTFBWY…A