Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hands On with PlayStation 3: Sony Makes Third Generational Leap But Is It Worth

Last response: in Video Games
Share
November 16, 2006 6:20:50 PM

We've been hands-on with a PS3 retail unit for the past week, examining everything from the Blu-ray player and sleek console design to the SIXAXIS motion-sensor controller. Is the hype surrounding Sony's new machine justified? And just what do you get for the best part of $600?
November 16, 2006 9:33:00 PM

I'm not particularly blown away... i'm still working my way through all the genesis games and counter strike/guildwars fill my need for online play.... without huge overhead.

I'll do what I did with the ps2 and wait a couple of years before I buy one. Hopefully by then the price will go down and there will be a few games that I need.
November 17, 2006 8:11:29 AM

I'll do the same with this one as I did with the PS2, wait till the first Final Fantasy game is released then buy it then. Although I might just wait till the new MGS comes out as that series seems to be getting a lot more interesting recently.
November 17, 2006 11:43:22 AM

Its all content. Even though its more powerful than the xbox360, I wouldn't buy it. There are no games avalible that would make me consider it. I'm not into MGS or FF ( or RPGs in general), so I can't justify blowing 600 on a system to play virtua fighter 5.

Like all systems, it'll come down to the games. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I really haven't picked up many new games in the past 2 years besides quake 4. Inovative content will win when the dust settles. Until then, we'll watch rich kids ask thier parents for this one for Christmas since they probably got the 360 last year.

I am curious to see which hacking community (PS3 or Xbox360) will deliver better mods for each system. I originally bought an xbox for halo 1 way back in the day, but after modding it, I realized just how much I can do with it. Its a better protable media center than a laptop b/c everyone can use it and its not windows based. :D  I guess I'll just have to wait and see.
November 17, 2006 12:40:05 PM

This system is definitely not worth it. There are few games worth playing that will be released anytime soon and from the game play I've seen, the graphics don't even appear to be significantly better that the 360. IMO, Gears of War looks as good as anything I've seen on the PS3 and there are many more games available for the 360 and better games. I guess the PS3 needs a 1080p TV to get a better image than the competition, but I still don't think it's worth it.

Also, no I'm not an Xbox fan or anything; I don't even own a 360, I'm just making a comparison point between the two.

Sony has burned many bridges with game developers and I don't think developers are going to want to make games for the PS3 like they did for the PS2. I'm just not seeing the system as a worth it as a gaming machine. I haven't really priced what Blu-Ray players cost, but I doubt it's even worth it for a movie player either.

I will be buying the Nintendo REVOLUTION (aka Wii) however. I think that will be a fun, fair priced system.
November 17, 2006 1:43:20 PM

Thing is I have had a 360 for about 8 or 9 months now and I could still say there is really not many games worth playing at the moment either. If it were not for my PS2 and PC I would be suffering from withdrawal symptoms from the lack of gaming.

At the end of the day the consol that sells the best is always the ones with the best games and from what we have seen from history the Japanese manufacturers always have it. Don’t get me wrong though I do like western games but a lot of them lack the substance of Eastern made games and the majority of people in the western world agree to that making games like Final Fantasy, Metal Gear and Resident Evil among the most popular games ever created.
November 17, 2006 2:35:33 PM

I would have to agree there.

I have been looking for different games on teh PS2, but browsing on the PS3 and 360 while in the stores and I really do not see much that they have to offer!

The graphics are INCREDIBLE, agreed, but when you only have 2 or 3 games per genre that are worth playing, do you really want to drop not only $300->$600 on a system, but $60 frigging dollars on a single game?

This is not like the PC here. Hacking the games and getting copies is not as easy on a system you have to physically mod to get to work and most non-techies do not have a Chinatown in their area that they can egt to that would be able to do it for them.

So why the $60 pricetag? My bet is licensing. $30+ probably goes directly to sony for even saying "I like PS3". This does not leave a hell of a lot of room for the developers to make their money, and leaves us footing the bill.


I think the major selling points on this system should be, the incorporation of things such as TeamSpeak into their operating system (with 3rd parties setting up the servers needed to utilize this and relieving the burden from Sony). Better internet interoperability (The best browser/game search engine I have seen so far was with Tribes 2. Gamespy et all suck in comparison), and general usage of the internet community as a major selling point.

You get a single player game, it is not only safer to hack (noone else will be comparing serial numbers and not allowing you to join a game), but you only get one person to buy it. They finish it and lend it, sell it, or use it as a coaster.

You get a good MP, like all teh FPS out there, and you get a community that wants to play the game long after the single player scenario is done. You make a co-op Oblivion, FEAR, Crysis, or any otehr, and you have people wanting more, and with the HD available, MAKING MODS FOR YOUR PROGGIE!!!

You also get at least two people buying the program so they can play it against each other (or with each other).

The one thing that I think might save Sony with this is backards compatibility in combination with its online store. They have to look at the prices that games are available for online, or in used bins at stores, and offer them at that, or lower prices. Offer bundles, like the "EA bundle" for PS1 for $50 (all EA games, etc). They need to offer the PS2 "classic" or whatever (teh red top collection)for $10 a shot DL. They need to offer even things liek the new PS2 games for less than shelf price and they stand to get many people buying titles they always wanted to try, but did not want to spend $20-$50 on.....

I hope they get these messages, I hope they do right by this, and I hope they enable new and better things for this system in the future.....
November 17, 2006 3:13:32 PM

This kind of reaction to the PS3 makes me smile :)  One article headline says: "Sony Playstation 3... Sony Makes Third Generational Leap But Is It Worth $600?" and the next line down: "Sony Playstation 3: $15,000 bids on ebay" I'm not trying to make any statement about the PS3, I just thought it was a little ironic :) 
November 17, 2006 6:15:52 PM

I've never heard the hard drive in the 360 make any noise what-so-ever. Sure the fans are audible, but the hard drive is totally silent.

Also, the 360 pre-loads games on the hard drive too. It just does it without user needed to tell it to do that. Repeated play of games is sped up considerably by doing this. The old Xbox did this too. So how is the PS3 better if you have to actually tell it to do this rather than it happening automatically?

Who in their right mind is going to use the PS3 for web browsing? Seriously. That'd be like using a WAP phone for web, or worse the PSP. They suck as web browsers.

And, all the 360 games are playable at 1080p. What's the B.S. about 720p only games? I haven't seen a one that's 720p only. That'd be like saying that PC games don't change resolution. The screen res is independent of the games on both the 360 and PS3.

Plus, movies and games are watchable at 1080p via VGA cable, which many say is better than HDMI. You can even get 1080i on the component cables, which I understand you can't do with the PS3.

People need to keep in mind the PS3 was designed for the market over 1 year ago. It's already outdated hardware as it finally hits the store shelves. Definately not Sony's first mistake, and not their last.
November 18, 2006 3:11:38 PM

Hi, thanks for the review. I found the following statement in the review confusing:

but unfortunately it's only possible to have one audio signal emitted at any given time, which means that TV-and-surround sound system combos are out of the question - it's a case of one or the other.

With HDMI out why wouldn't one just plug an A/V receiver (with appropriate surround sound format support) in between the PS3 and the TV? I have other components with HDMI out where my receiver serves as an HDMI switcher and I have both TV and surround sound (I'm not even sure how I'd do it *without* the receiver absent an incredible jumble of cables I'd constantly be plugging/unplugging) working flawlessly. Is there something unique (i.e. - nonstandard) about the PS3 HDMI-out that prevents this rather normal usage?
November 19, 2006 12:18:31 AM

"The PS3's Internet browser is generally quick"

It is a known fact that the browser is actually slow and unreliable. Other sites have also made note of this. The xbox360 hard drive doesn't make THAT much noise, its almost inaudible. I find this article quite biased towards the ps3 really, maybe its just the excitement of getting a new toy.
November 19, 2006 1:44:25 AM

interesting, but as "groundbreaking" as its graphics are, its already being surpassed on the pc side. and as the price goes down in 3-4 years, it just won't be amazing anymore by then.
November 19, 2006 8:59:23 PM

Quote:
I've never heard the hard drive in the 360 make any noise what-so-ever. Sure the fans are audible, but the hard drive is totally silent.

Also, the 360 pre-loads games on the hard drive too. It just does it without user needed to tell it to do that. Repeated play of games is sped up considerably by doing this. The old Xbox did this too. So how is the PS3 better if you have to actually tell it to do this rather than it happening automatically?

Who in their right mind is going to use the PS3 for web browsing? Seriously. That'd be like using a WAP phone for web, or worse the PSP. They suck as web browsers.

And, all the 360 games are playable at 1080p. What's the B.S. about 720p only games? I haven't seen a one that's 720p only. That'd be like saying that PC games don't change resolution. The screen res is independent of the games on both the 360 and PS3.

Plus, movies and games are watchable at 1080p via VGA cable, which many say is better than HDMI. You can even get 1080i on the component cables, which I understand you can't do with the PS3.

People need to keep in mind the PS3 was designed for the market over 1 year ago. It's already outdated hardware as it finally hits the store shelves. Definately not Sony's first mistake, and not their last.


For the most part I agree with you, but I want to clear a few things up:

- The 360 doesn't support 1080p; only 1080i. Progressive-scan is all BS anyway.

- Some old XBOX games wouldn't render at 720p. The 360 makes it a requirement that all games render @ 1080i.

- DVI isn't better than HDMI. DVI is HDMI, only HDMI has integrated sound.


The PS3 has a better gfx core, but the processor isn't anything to gawk at. The 360 has 3 cores @ 3.2 GHz, threaded to 6 cores. The cell has 7 cores @ 3.2GHz and a MUCH more complex architecture. The cell will push out a higher FP rate, but real-world GAMING performance shouldn't be that much greater than the 360.

I just want to note that this article read a lot like an advertisement... it was full of a lot of the marketing fluff I've already seen... Generally very biased. Typical THG, though.

I bought the PS3 JUST to resell it, and even then I'm dissapointed. I'm only making like $100 bucks on e-bay.

The Wii is going to slaughter it for one reason only: Nintendo was smart enough to realize that you need good GAMES at launch time. Good hardware might get you hard, but it won't get you off. Sony's selling you a hover-car with no roads to drive it on.
November 19, 2006 9:13:03 PM

Quote:
Progressive-scan is all BS anyway.


How do you figure? I'd take progressive over interlaced any day of the week.
November 19, 2006 11:59:35 PM


Who in their right mind is going to use the PS3 for web browsing? Seriously. That'd be like using a WAP phone for web, or worse the PSP. They suck as web browsers.


yup, someone that can afford a 2k+ hdtv + 600 dollars ps3 + $60 games + more $$ accessories etc can afford a lousy computer. probably several pc's by now..and laptops etc. web browsing on a tv is not going to be common at all.
November 20, 2006 3:06:54 AM

Quote:
Progressive-scan is all BS anyway.


How do you figure? I'd take progressive over interlaced any day of the week.

Interlaced means every other line is drawn per frame. Progressive means every line is drawn per frame.

Unless I'm missing something (and feel free to correct me), progressive scan is more framerate than anything. Even then, you're still getting all of the frames.
November 20, 2006 3:59:48 AM

The problem with interlaced comes from the fact that it draws the even lines in one pass followed by the odd. The motion between passes is different (you don't have one full image drawn in pieces, it's actually two separate half resolution images from slightly different moments in time) so you end up getting line 'twitter' on high frequency detail. It's not as bad on HD TVs but on SD tv's its horrible. In fact, DVDs are given a vertical blur so that they don't twitter too much when played on interlaced displays. Too bad really as that drops you're already limited resolution down even farther.

Other than improved movement (no twitter etc) it also affects percieved resolution. On a 1080i display you're really only seeing 540 vertical lines every pass. On a progressive display this is bumped up to the full 1080 so it appears sharper.

It's actually rather amusing that so many companies market 1080i displays as 'higher resolution' than 720p displays but this isn't really true. Yes, the TV has 1080 vertical lines but it can only display 540 at once unlike a 720p display which can display 720!

In the end it's probably not a huge deal. I'm partially biased though because I work with video a lot and interlacing is one of those relics I wish would simply die for the good of all humanity.
November 20, 2006 7:20:56 AM

The biggest forces behind whether a console makes it or not, regardless of how powerful it is in comparison to the rival consoles, is the number of developers, which developers and how how hard they work at a title. Simple, easy, short.
If you have a great design team working on a title for a given console, you will have the very best results, its playability results in game/console sales. Great graphics DO NOT equal good sales, or a successful title for that matter, and who wants ot own 10 games for their favorite console, when they all suck, or fail to impress. The biggest winning point on the console purchase debate lies in the Sony ranks, sorry folks, regardless of how good/bad/expensive the PS3 is, if you have all the top developers eyeing to create a title on a console brand with proven success in the past, sales will tend dictate which console to develope for
Sheer market domination on the part of Sony saw the rapid demise of the Saturn, and with the release of the PS2, Dreamcast's death. Look at the facts, Sony dominates the Console world, and agreed, the Xbox360 is gaining support fast, but to topple the tables? No. You want the longest life out of your console? You want the largest list of titles? Go PS3, Ps2 titles are still being churned out, even though the PS3 is on our doorsteps.. Remember the big Killer here, B-A-C-K-W-A-R-D-S C-O-M-P-A-T-I-B-L-E.
those that never owned a PS2, can now go out and buy many of the older titles compatible with the PS3, once again, Massive market reseller support.

To finalise, I was actaully saving pennies for the XBox, but after realising the longevity of PS3 I have changed my mind, even if the Xbox is better technically, or that the Wii looks cuter, if the PS3, and this is my preditction, gets the majority developer support, they will be pressed to create better and better titles for the console pushing the other consoles out....How many PS1's & Ps2's are in homes today, what will the parents do? It's a proven fact people go with that which they know: Mommy and daddy have bought Ps1 and Ps2, well now.....Sonny-boy was happy with those two, lets get him a PS3...
November 20, 2006 11:30:24 AM

Thanks for the replies :) 

Don't forget that 1080i is more than vertical resolution. 1080i is 1920x1080, and 720p is 1280x720. That's 2.1M and 920K, respectively. Even if interlaced is 1/2 the vertial resolution, 1920x540 is still 1M, which is a little over 100k sharper than 720p.

According to wiki, interlaced is about 60% as sharp as progressive (I'm still skeptical, but just citing legit sources). So 1920x640 'perceived' resolution would put 1080i at 1,244,160 pixels and 720p at 921,600.

Either way, I'm sure you're still right about 1080p being better than 1080i, but I think until I see it I'll still be skeptical. Thanks for the insight :) 

@nomad440: A lot of my disdain towards the PS3 is probably more personal than technical. I don't see why the PS3 needs to bleed my bank account to give me great games. I think they invested in a risky new technology (that still may flop: the cell processor), and they're using the PS3 to create blu-ray dominance in the HD media market. Rather than creating industry-standards for HD media, they want to dominate the market, and they're using corporate 'brute-force' to do it, at the expense of the consumer. Let's face it: sony had a lot of choices for HD media, but they went with blue-ray. It's overly-expensive to develop and produce. The diodes are expensive, that hardware is expensive, the media is expensive, and it's expensive to WRITE to the media. All of this expense falls upon the consumer, JUST so sony can collect royalties on blu-ray for the next 10 years. Pfft.

I'm also not a big fan of the 'longevity' argument. Technological advancemens are not only progressing, but accelerating. With nano-technology on the horizon for semi-conductors and holographic technology on the horizon with optical media, the PS3 will be obsolete in 5 years. I think it's an investment I'm forced to make, and would rather not because I don't see the PS3 as a long-term solution to my technology needs.

Also note that Sony flipped out when they saw the Wii. The full-motion controller sent Sony into a frenzy, and they quickly developed the SIXAXIS controller. Where the Wii games use this as the foundation of gameplay (Very successfully even), it's just another underutilized feature on the PS3.

One thing I DO like about the PS3 is the 'home super-computer' argument, with support for Linux. I'm a Microsoft man myself, but I use Linux and if I ever get a PS3, I'll be putting linux on it if I ever need the power. I think official support for Linux was a great idea, and we'll see great PS3 mods on Linux in the near future.

The only thing I want to disagree on is the DreamCast statement. DC died because it was hacked BEFORE it was released. This is because it ran on Windows CE. Now before you get into, "F*cking windows. It Figures," windows CE has great developer support, and it's that support that allowed people to poke around in memory. There were experts on the system long before it came out. WinCE also has a lot of the same code-base as windows, so it was REALLY easy to port software already running on windows to the DC (Such as emulators, CRC and ecryption cracking, codecs, etc). This let people download and hack games with ease, which killed sales, and we all know console gaming is ALL about game sales.

Also, developer support for Sony has been dropping as of late, thanks to the PS3. It's all over the internet.

Ultimately, I think hardware was the selling point with consoles last generation. I think we'll see gameplay and online content dominate this generation. From that perspective, PS3 is in dead last versus the Wii and Xbox.
November 20, 2006 11:46:41 AM

Just a side note on the technology & longevity:

In 5 years, Intel will be at a 22nm process, and they expect to have a processor with 80 cores.

(http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/27/idf_fall_2006/pa...)

The 22nm process Intel will be at will allow chips to use far less power and clock at higher rates. A 22nm process will produce a chip that's 6% the size of the same chip made with a 90nm process. That's not even bleeding-edge. That's a solid roadmap based upon known, proven metrics.

AMD just released news of a 'stream' processor that's expected to hit ~360 gigaflops. That crushes the cell processor, and it's X86. Imagine what they'll have 5 years from now...
November 21, 2006 7:27:30 AM

A very valid point, but consoles tend to get more months of usage than the parts inside a computer, the whole console path has begun to appeal to me, knowing that if you buy a title, it will run on the console, Guaranteed. PC's, althought they are becoming much more powerful, do not offer the ease-of-use that consoles offer. I have been playing PC games for over 13 years now, and the number one frustration is, and always will be, how long is it going to be before I have to upgrade, its a tiresome excercise. Having a PC in a constant state of upgrade! Even though PC's get more powerful, their programmers get lazier, Compare FFVII to FFVIII on PS1, the games were worlds apart, there as a major improvement in the graphics of the latter game, yet they ran on the same hardware! Limited resources force programmers and developes to develope better and better ways to create their titles, refine code and push hardware to the limit. Developers receive ceraint requirements when making a console title and programmers have to go over their code to meet them, on a PC, many sequels tend to require higher H/W specs, and not just by a bit, it's usually a 2x requirement increase, and many times the result of the extra $$$ is less than spectacular. Over here on our shores (RSA), PC parts are nowhere as cheap as the rest of the world, consoles tend to pull more interest.
November 21, 2006 7:36:34 AM

For the benefit of anyone wondering why the Xbox 360 doesn't have a plethora of great games (particularly exclusive 360 ones), it's because Microsoft used the past year to ship 7 million Xbox 360's in time for the other two entering the market. Gamers who clawed one another's eyes out for 360's at launch really were idiotic – Microsoft wasn't going to start releasing the Gears of War of this world until its competition was in the water.
November 21, 2006 8:07:01 AM

That makes no sense at all, you speak of Microsoft like it’s one big entity that can only concentrate on one task. So by saying that Microsoft were using all their resources to make and sell the 360’s that they also had the people who design games in the manufacturing and boxing plants too?

The reason that the Xbox360 does not have any good games out just now is because the consol was rushed to release, far before any half decent projects were in a state of heavy development. Thinking about it the only games I have that are 360 exclusives are Saints Row and Dead Rising. Although they are not bad games they are very simplistic in design, with Saints Row only being on the scale of GTA3 if not smaller and Dead Rising being a computer generated brainless zombie fest with about 3 – 4 hours of story in the game.

What games do you think will be exclusive to the PS3 after it has had a year to blossom? I would place money that it would have a lot more than the Xbox 360 has at this stage, hell it may even have more good exclusives than the 360 in total this time next year.
November 21, 2006 8:09:00 AM

Whizzard9992,

Yeah, you're correct about the Dreamcast (completely forgot about that part, I dug out an old mag to refresh), but to raise a point, although you are correct about the advancement of hardware, the PS2 has hung in for 6 years (since Mar. 2000), whether the PS3 will have same luck, I am not sure, but in the last 6 years I have spent the the same amount of money on PC upgrades (they're pretty damn pricey here) to have bought a PS3, Xbox360 and a Wii, this is NO joke. So to save myself the frustration this time round, I have bought a Rotel mixer, and will be buying all 3 consoles!!! THAT should be fun! My game collection does not run into hundreds of titles, but due to a lack of sanity, I posess a stupifying ability to purchase a system for a game I want to play, even if it is the only game I buy for that console, I simply don't care who makes it or whose system it must run on, if i want to play it...make it so..!! The wife will leave me for sure :roll: but then I shall be king and posess every console since the Atari!!! :twisted:
November 21, 2006 8:55:34 AM

Cafuddled,

We can only hope that your guess is right, one thing we can all agree on, is the fact that this is going to be one interesting year for the consoles! it has been a while since some much competition has existed amongst the console makers. The result is going to be a whole bunch of great titles for every console, soaked in beautiful, rich graphics and hopefully, absorbing plots. The price tags seems to be the cause of the debates, and yet, why? It escapes me. One day, faaaaaar into the gaming future (months, maybe years :wink: ), PS3 owners will carry their units to their 360 counterparts and invite their Wii supporters over with their consoles, spend 10 days playing the crap out of each other's consoles and walk away stunned, drunkenly aware of the fact that they have experienced the best there is, PGR3 was awsome,amazingly realistic, FFXIII was beyond reality at 1080p and they can't remeber what the Wii title was because they are still recovering from the shock! Gaming Nirvana! It's not about which console has the higher specs, or what games are exclusive to who, the question is: Will you enjoy playing the games on your console of choice? So what if Game A was better on the 360 than the PS3, Game B on the PS3 was the ultimate! You don't play games and buy consoles to impress others, you do it for yourself...
November 22, 2006 12:37:28 PM

Yeah I agree with you 100%. Console games appeal to the consumer as much as they do developers. With computers, not only do you have to develop support for a wide range of hardware, but you're in a constant state of learning. Once you develop one title, your next project uses a whole set of new technology. As far back as I can remember, game frameworks have been changing. At one point, I would have said, "Glide will dominate everything. Eventually, nVidia will have to license glide." I would have made similar statements about OpenGL and D3D taking a dive. Until recently, physics were a 'nice-to-have'. I'm sure we'll see physics technology bounce around for a couple of years until something gains dominance, all at the expense of developers.

I see your point with regards to the PS2, and a good example is Final Fantasy 12 (Why this wasn't released on PS3 is beyond me. It would have been a clutch release title). FFXII is a great looking game for 5 year old hardware. Console hardware usually isn't fully utilized until the 4th or 5th generation games, and by then you have a new console out. From that perspective, I guess Sony is on the right track. M$ is on the other spectrum of that, where rumors have it a new system will debut soon (3-5) with a M$ graphics chipset. Hardware expertise leads to better games at reduced development costs.

As exciting as the Wii is, one can't help but wonder in what state the Wii will be in 3 years, let alone 5 or 10. The Wii has built its foundation on 'developer ease based on existing technology'.

What's nice is with all of this risk abound in the Console Wars, a lot will be learned as a result. Ultimately, I hope Sony loses because I don't want future-generations of consoles to push this far into my expendible income. If sony comes out on top, I fear game consoles will remain at or even surpass the price of the television on which they are played.
November 22, 2006 2:06:01 PM

I don’t think there will be a winner or a looser in regards to the consoles. They both have their merits, where the X360 is rigged up to the more casual lightweight gamer that likes cheap thrills and shorter game session. The PS3 is really something someone can take more pride in, someone that is more in to there games than just a casual play. The wii seems to be a consol that will be used for party’s or when you have mates round, but just like the cube it will seldom have a game that will grip you and immerse for hours on end. Because it seems most Nintendo games nowadays seems to be geared towards the younger generation.

“Tales of Symphonia, why not just hold my hand and speak to me in baby talk”

People complain about the price but it’s not like the price is going up, I paid about £400 for my Play Station back in 1995ish and I would be more than happy to pay that for a PS3. Hell if you take inflation since then the consol should be more like £550, it’s not like your not getting what you pay for is it? Who knows maybe we won’t get ripped off for the games further down the road like is happening for the X360, £50 for 6 hours of entertainment… I could hire a hooker for less!!!
November 23, 2006 3:55:46 AM

You know what, I agree about Sony falling to it's knees for a while, however, i feel it wont shake the foundations too much, my guess is that after the first price drop of the PS3, people will flock to the stores, wilth the whole "I-told-you-so" attitude, and buy the thing anyway. Sony's biggest risk, concerns their developers, it is not as easy to create PS3 games compared to the others. a game than runs on the xbox and is well programmed will beat some mishapen attempt on the PS3, then the PS3 gets a bad rap and the developer looks bad. Sony must watch out for this one, it's one thing making a killer console, its quite another making it too hard to create a game on it. not everybody is EA,SQUARE etc
November 24, 2006 11:12:33 AM

Quote:
We've been hands-on with a PS3 retail unit for the past week, examining everything from the Blu-ray player and sleek console design to the SIXAXIS motion-sensor controller. Is the hype surrounding Sony's new machine justified? And just what do you get for the best part of $600?


In any event console looks nice. :) 
November 26, 2006 2:28:19 AM

Whizzard9992,

Sorry for not getting to this sooner!

1080i/p definitely has more horizontal resolution than 720p but I don't give that much weight because 1) the human visual system is weighted to the vertical rather than horizontal (we're much more perceptive of vertical resolution) and 2) ALL recording formats for 1080p/i are subsampled. They're all recorded to tape/hard drive at 1280/1440x1080.

There is also the fact that very, very, very few cameras can actually resolve detail in 1080p material beyond what is available in 720p. Pretty much only the highest end cameras like the Cinealta (which was used on Starwars) have glass which is good enough to make use of that many pixels. Also, all of these cameras use pixel-shifting to achieve higher resolutions which doesn't always provide resolution up to spec.

In short, there's very, very little material (other than perhaps HD-DVD or Blu-Ray movies and even then it's questionable depending on the process used to get the footage off of the film) that makes a 1080p/i display worthwhile. I'm all for 720p in the mean time and I would like to see 1080i die in preference of 1080p simply because the technology is prone to fewer artifacts and is simply better all around.

One thing not taken into account here as well is viewing distance which further negates any possible benefit of 1080p/i.
November 27, 2006 9:26:17 AM

I used to have a friend that had a 50” HDTV that we used to play 360 games on and watch his HD sky on. On TV it’s not so noticeable as it does look impressive and the pixilation is hard to see. But when playing games on the 360 even though it used 2X AA minimum on all games you can still notice the pixilation to an extent that it is always on the back of your mind.

I normally play games on my 20” 1680X1050 monitor and you can still notice pixilation on that too so as far as gaming is concerned unless you use a very high level of Anti Aliasing then you will always get this effect but it is defiantly less noticeable on 1080p of course.

Oh a little side not, you can pick up a 1080p 50” DLP TV for about $1300 now so I see no reason to go 720p unless you want a small TV.
!