Washington Post - Is Sony's PS3 Really a Sinking Ship?

""Blu-ray at even 720p (1280 x 720) with all its other commensurate upticks in sample rates and color quality is shockingly better than the visuals output of the average DVD."" Shockingly better? yeah right lol 720p is not that much better then 480i/p for that matter when are people gonna learn HD is not this dramatic increase that will cure all our woes? its just another resolution increase that says hey you gotta purchase a new tv every couple of years man. Nah I think ill stay with my mostly SD content thank you very much the only reason i got the HDTV i have is because it was super cheap.WilliamRLBaker

....and Merry Christmas my friend, there's your problem.

Cheap hdtvs are cheap.

Believe it or not the more you pay for your TV the better it is, just like...you know, everything else on earth from cars to computers.

[QUOTE="RuinedMachine"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] right, so compare it to the 360, title for title, use a chart. show me that it is equal to the 360 library. c'mon :) do it.we're not talking opinions here, i'm talking average review scores, number of games, diversity of titles.3picuri3

Everybody knows the 360 has more games and more highly rated games than the PS3.

Doesn't mean the PS3's library is mediocre though.

No way in hell is PS3's library mediocre compared to 360's. Read the link I gave you above.

I have actually done the homework, something probably no one else here has done.

I have a 37 inch LG Scarlet 120mhz in my entertainment room and a PS3. I BOUGHT Dark Knight on Blu Ray and RENTED it on DVD at Blockbuster with my movie pass membership.

I ran the DVD in my PS3 and then the Blu Ray. The DVD looked great. The Blu Ray looks 3D and like you can reach through the TV. The difference was unbelievable.

THEN I put the blu ray in the PS3 and the dvd in my 360 (I have two HDMI hookups so I can move between the two platforms) and the difference was even more noticable.

Too many people who claim there is little difference have a poor TV, a crappy blu ray player, no HDMI or many other number of things. The simple fact is if you have the HDMI, a nice blu ray player and a good tv, the difference is not only noticeable but significant, even on a 37 inch.

Xalaten

[QUOTE="RuinedMachine"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] right, so compare it to the 360, title for title, use a chart. show me that it is equal to the 360 library. c'mon :) do it.we're not talking opinions here, i'm talking average review scores, number of games, diversity of titles.3picuri3

Everybody knows the 360 has more games and more highly rated games than the PS3.

Doesn't mean the PS3's library is mediocre though.

When you use the term mediocre library it is can only be refering to quality. If you were talking about sales performance you might say, "The PS3 has a games library that has failed to achieve much commercial success." You wouldn't say it has a mediocre library, that would be bad use of English. Besides, the PS3 has a library that is pratically the same as the Xbox 360, I find it hard to belive that anyone can honestly call it medicore when most of the titles on both are shared multiplatforms.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="RuinedMachine"]

Everybody knows the 360 has more games and more highly rated games than the PS3.

Doesn't mean the PS3's library is mediocre though.

WasntAvailable

When you use the term mediocre library it is can only be refering to quality. If you were talking about sales performance you might say, "The PS3 has a games library that has failed to achieve much commercial success." You wouldn't say it has a mediocre library, that would be bad use of English. Besides, the PS3 has a library that is pratically the same as the Xbox 360, I find it hard to belive that anyone can honestly call it medicore when most of the titles on both are shared multiplatforms.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="RuinedMachine"]

Everybody knows the 360 has more games and more highly rated games than the PS3.

Doesn't mean the PS3's library is mediocre though.

TheGrat1

No way in hell is PS3's library mediocre compared to 360's. Read the link I gave you above.

[QUOTE="Xalaten"]

I have actually done the homework, something probably no one else here has done.

I have a 37 inch LG Scarlet 120mhz in my entertainment room and a PS3. I BOUGHT Dark Knight on Blu Ray and RENTED it on DVD at Blockbuster with my movie pass membership.

I ran the DVD in my PS3 and then the Blu Ray. The DVD looked great. The Blu Ray looks 3D and like you can reach through the TV. The difference was unbelievable.

THEN I put the blu ray in the PS3 and the dvd in my 360 (I have two HDMI hookups so I can move between the two platforms) and the difference was even more noticable.

Too many people who claim there is little difference have a poor TV, a crappy blu ray player, no HDMI or many other number of things. The simple fact is if you have the HDMI, a nice blu ray player and a good tv, the difference is not only noticeable but significant, even on a 37 inch.

HuusAsking

Reading is fundamental. He said he ran it in his PS3, which upscales all video to whatever setting you choose. Then he said he played it in his 360 and it looked worse there. -_-

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] um. you do realize mediocre is a comparative term right? relative to the 360 catalog is is mediocre, and remember - those articles were about SALES, not quality. but i think theres an argument for both ;) 3picuri3

No way in hell is PS3's library mediocre compared to 360's. Read the link I gave you above.

Oh, you like aggregate scores do you? Read link.

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]

I have actually done the homework, something probably no one else here has done.

I have a 37 inch LG Scarlet 120mhz in my entertainment room and a PS3. I BOUGHT Dark Knight on Blu Ray and RENTED it on DVD at Blockbuster with my movie pass membership.

I ran the DVD in my PS3 and then the Blu Ray. The DVD looked great. The Blu Ray looks 3D and like you can reach through the TV. The difference was unbelievable.

THEN I put the blu ray in the PS3 and the dvd in my 360 (I have two HDMI hookups so I can move between the two platforms) and the difference was even more noticable.

Too many people who claim there is little difference have a poor TV, a crappy blu ray player, no HDMI or many other number of things. The simple fact is if you have the HDMI, a nice blu ray player and a good tv, the difference is not only noticeable but significant, even on a 37 inch.

TheGrat1

Reading is fundamental. He said he ran it in his PS3, which upscales all video to whatever setting you choose. Then he said he played it in his 360 and it looked worse there. -_-

[QUOTE="Xalaten"]

I have actually done the homework, something probably no one else here has done.

I have a 37 inch LG Scarlet 120mhz in my entertainment room and a PS3. I BOUGHT Dark Knight on Blu Ray and RENTED it on DVD at Blockbuster with my movie pass membership.

I ran the DVD in my PS3 and then the Blu Ray. The DVD looked great. The Blu Ray looks 3D and like you can reach through the TV. The difference was unbelievable.

THEN I put the blu ray in the PS3 and the dvd in my 360 (I have two HDMI hookups so I can move between the two platforms) and the difference was even more noticable.

Too many people who claim there is little difference have a poor TV, a crappy blu ray player, no HDMI or many other number of things. The simple fact is if you have the HDMI, a nice blu ray player and a good tv, the difference is not only noticeable but significant, even on a 37 inch.

HuusAsking

I used the PS3 and Xbox 360 DVD player. I said so in the post. You must have missed that important part. Both systems upscale their dvds.

The simple fact you said "who said blu ray looks better in SD" means you don't even understand the technology you are trying to argue against. You CAN'T use a blu ray on an SD tv. It won't work. Blu Ray MUST use HDMI to get a full blu ray picture in 1080P. That's a simple fact.

I would urge everyone to ignore everything they have seen on the internet (unless you go to an actual audio/video forum where people know what they're talking about) and instead see for yourself at a friend's house. If you can't do that go to a store and mess around with the tvs hooked up to blu ray. You WILL see the difference. It is IMPOSSIBLE not to unless you have a cheap no name hdtv.

I know this because my first hdtv was a Symphonic from Walmart. The difference on that one which is now in my bedroom is barely noticeable. However, my 37 inch LG and 42 inch Vizio that can both handle 1080P and have all the bells and whistles CAN handle the difference and it's night and day.

As a matter of fact sometimes Blu Ray on a 120mhz tv is spooky. It almost looks like a soap opera where you could climb right into the tv. For some this is TOO realistic and jarring. I personally love it.

[QUOTE="WasntAvailable"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] um. you do realize mediocre is a comparative term right? relative to the 360 catalog is is mediocre, and remember - those articles were about SALES, not quality. but i think theres an argument for both ;) 3picuri3

When you use the term mediocre library it is can only be refering to quality. If you were talking about sales performance you might say, "The PS3 has a games library that has failed to achieve much commercial success." You wouldn't say it has a mediocre library, that would be bad use of English. Besides, the PS3 has a library that is pratically the same as the Xbox 360, I find it hard to belive that anyone can honestly call it medicore when most of the titles on both are shared multiplatforms.

No, it's nothing to do with that, it would just be bad use of English. It's obviously not what they meant, because the guy who wrote the article must have been fairly well educated. He clearly meant it was refering to quality, not sales. This applies to all situations, in and out of System Wars. Though you do realise the hypocrisy of saying only in System Wars, and then going on to talk about the quality of the consoles libraries as if they matter outisde of System Wars? (Which they do not. See Nintendo Wii.)

[QUOTE="TheGrat1"][QUOTE="HuusAsking"]What was the model of DVD player you used? Can it perform upscaling? And who said BluRay looks better than DVD even in SD? Any proof?HuusAsking

Reading is fundamental. He said he ran it in his PS3, which upscales all video to whatever setting you choose. Then he said he played it in his 360 and it looked worse there. -_-

Where did the Blu-ray in SD > DVD in SD argument come from? Why my own personal observations of course. :)

hehe, i love it when people say things like 'bluray looks 3D'... it's such a minor increase in visual fidelity that the majority of consumers don't see any difference... there are consumer studies to back this up. something ridiculous like 8 of 10 couldn't see a difference between upscaled 1080p DVD and bluray --- lemme see if i can find the study ;)3picuri3

They need to use better TVS then becuase as I said I have done it side by side and this wasn't the first time. I did it with both Iron Man and Wanted for some friends and they were just as shocked. As a matter of fact I have had people say they DON'T like watching my LG with Tru Motion and a blu ray disc in combination becuase it's jarring and looks freaky, like a soap opera.

You see, you say it's becuase people are trying justify their purchases. I say it's the exact opposite. I say it's non-adopters who are conciously or subconsciously denying there is a difference so that they can justify the desire to NOT purchase new technology and spend the extra money.

hehe, i love it when people say things like 'bluray looks 3D'... it's such a minor increase in visual fidelity that the majority of consumers don't see any difference... there are consumer studies to back this up. something ridiculous like 8 of 10 couldn't see a difference between upscaled 1080p DVD and bluray --- lemme see if i can find the study ;)3picuri3

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

I bet if you reversed the order, told them you were showing a DVD when showing a BluRay and a BluRay when showing a DVD (in a PS3 of course), half would be convinced the DVD was better.Jandurin

Unless they know ahead of time what my HDMI 2 and HDMI 3 are connected to they'd have no idea which was the PS3 blu ray and xbox 360 DVD.

I bet if you reversed the order, told them you were showing a DVD when showing a BluRay and a BluRay when showing a DVD (in a PS3 of course), half would be convinced the DVD was better.Jandurin

EDIT: I apologize. I assumed you were talking in a general sense about Sony or some other marke research team. I now know your statement was directed at Xalaten. :P

[QUOTE="Jandurin"]I bet if you reversed the order, told them you were showing a DVD when showing a BluRay and a BluRay when showing a DVD (in a PS3 of course), half would be convinced the DVD was better.TheGrat1

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="WasntAvailable"]

When you use the term mediocre library it is can only be refering to quality. If you were talking about sales performance you might say, "The PS3 has a games library that has failed to achieve much commercial success." You wouldn't say it has a mediocre library, that would be bad use of English. Besides, the PS3 has a library that is pratically the same as the Xbox 360, I find it hard to belive that anyone can honestly call it medicore when most of the titles on both are shared multiplatforms.

WasntAvailable

No, it's nothing to do with that, it would just be bad use of English. It's obviously not what they meant, because the guy who wrote the article must have been fairly well educated. He clearly meant it was refering to quality, not sales. This applies to all situations, in and out of System Wars. Though you do realise the hypocrisy of saying only in System Wars, and then going on to talk about the quality of the consoles libraries as if they matter outisde of System Wars? (Which they do not. See Nintendo Wii.)

lmao, no it's not. the term mediocre can apply to sales, it can apply to quality, it can apply to weather, it can apply to textiles. you just use it the same way we do in SW, which isn't how CNN was using it ;).

- it was an article on CNN Money

- it was about sales

- it was about the NPD reports

- wasntavailable says its about the quality, like they're trashing the system

- profit??????!?

You see, you say it's becuase people are trying justify their purchases. I say it's the exact opposite. I say it's non-adopters who are conciously or subconsciously denying there is a difference so that they can justify the desire to NOT purchase new technology and spend the extra money.

Xalaten

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]hehe, i love it when people say things like 'bluray looks 3D'... it's such a minor increase in visual fidelity that the majority of consumers don't see any difference... there are consumer studies to back this up. something ridiculous like 8 of 10 couldn't see a difference between upscaled 1080p DVD and bluray --- lemme see if i can find the study ;)Xalaten

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

hehe, i love it when people say things like 'bluray looks 3D'... it's such a minor increase in visual fidelity that the majority of consumers don't see any difference... there are consumer studies to back this up. something ridiculous like 8 of 10 couldn't see a difference between upscaled 1080p DVD and bluray --- lemme see if i can find the study ;)3picuri3

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

KingTuttle

This article is not taking everything in to account. CNN are not a bunch of fanboys they are simply reporting the truth.

[QUOTE="Xalaten"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]hehe, i love it when people say things like 'bluray looks 3D'... it's such a minor increase in visual fidelity that the majority of consumers don't see any difference... there are consumer studies to back this up. something ridiculous like 8 of 10 couldn't see a difference between upscaled 1080p DVD and bluray --- lemme see if i can find the study ;)3picuri3

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

Most? Now wait a minute, I can't remember where but I'm pretty sure I've read or heard a few times now that the majority of consumers now have LCDs or plasma in their homes. I mean, you can't even find tube tvs anymore in stores (at least I can't...or there might be one or two small ones). So to say most don't have them is just plain wrong. I think the majority does indeed have flat screens now.

Also, think about how long it took dvds to become the lion's share over VHS. It was a good 5 years before that happened and blu ray has only been out just over two years. There are some people who STILL have VCRs.

So lets not assume just because blu ray hasn't take over the world yet that it won't be standard in the next 2 or 3 years.

Also, this is something I CAN speak as factual on. I get my blu rays from blockbuster or Hollywood video near me. EVERY Tuesday if you're not IN LINE outside before the store opens you're not geting new releases on blu ray. They're all gone within minutes. I wanted the Mummy movie this morning and missed it because of this. I actually got into a conversation about it with the blockbuster lady and she said corportate has a plan to increase blu ray space significantly because the demand is so high now. No matter when you go the blu ray movies are gone but dvd has tons on the shelf. Yes, the dvd has 10 times more dvds easily but this says something. It says the demand is growing for blu ray which is why they are expanding.

Hell, Wall E and Wanted have been out three weeks now and you STILL can't get them in blu ray in EITHER store unless you're incredibly lucky.

Thats some mighty fine ownage done by The Washington Post, nice to see a much more leveled fair analysis then that crap CNN was talking about especially the game part, I felt like that part was written by an angry fanboy.

Bravo Post Bravo

XturnalS

Agreed.

[QUOTE="Xalaten"]

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]hehe, i love it when people say things like 'bluray looks 3D'... it's such a minor increase in visual fidelity that the majority of consumers don't see any difference... there are consumer studies to back this up. something ridiculous like 8 of 10 couldn't see a difference between upscaled 1080p DVD and bluray --- lemme see if i can find the study ;)3picuri3

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

And those audiophiles would be right. Just because the idiot masses don't know what's good compared to people who are educated and/or trained in the field doesn't mean the significance in quality isn't there.

Do you own a HDTV?

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]

One more note. I don't trust other people's eyes. Only my own. My father is 80 years old and when I go over to see him and my mother half the time she's complaining because he has the tv on an SD channel when they have the same station in HD. When we turn it it is significantly different but he says he can't tell the difference and both look good.

I trust my own unbiased eyes. I was not a believer until I saw hd on a friend's LG Scarlet. That's why I bought mine.

Xalaten

Most? Now wait a minute, I can't remember where but I'm pretty sure I've read or heard a few times now that the majority of consumers now have LCDs or plasma in their homes. I mean, you can't even find tube tvs anymore in stores (at least I can't...or there might be one or two small ones). So to say most don't have them is just plain wrong. I think the majority does indeed have flat screens now.

Also, think about how long it took dvds to become the lion's share over VHS. It was a good 5 years before that happened and blu ray has only been out just over two years. There are some people who STILL have VCRs.

So lets not assume just because blu ray hasn't take over the world yet that it won't be standard in the next 2 or 3 years.

Also, this is something I CAN speak as factual on. I get my blu rays from blockbuster or Hollywood video near me. EVERY Tuesday if you're not IN LINE outside before the store opens you're not geting new releases on blu ray. They're all gone within minutes. I wanted the Mummy movie this morning and missed it because of this. I actually got into a conversation about it with the blockbuster lady and she said corportate has a plan to increase blu ray space significantly because the demand is so high now. No matter when you go the blu ray movies are gone but dvd has tons on the shelf. Yes, the dvd has 10 times more dvds easily but this says something. It says the demand is growing for blu ray which is why they are expanding.

Hell, Wall E and Wanted have been out three weeks now and you STILL can't get them in blu ray in EITHER store unless you're incredibly lucky.

and again, another point you have that works agains the argument is VHS vs DVD. it was a MARKED visual increase - a HUGE improvement in media (tape vs optical) and it still took a long time to adopt. doesn't bode well for bluray.

[QUOTE="Xalaten"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] you can trust whatever you like. audiophiles swear they hear a difference with fancy cables - to some it just doesn't matter. my grandparents are happy with the 30 year old TV set they have - it doesn't stop them from 'getting' the movie, or seeing and understanding things. to me BR and HDTVs are decadent. they offer only a minor visual bump in fidelity, they are incredibly overpriced when compared to PC monitors using similar tech and resolutions that have been out for over a decade, the BR disks are incredibly overpriced for new titles, the players aren't cheap. so great, you think it looks better. question is - is it worth spending well over 1000$ for player + TV then movies for the difference? in my opinion, and the opinion of most consumers - it's an emphatic NO. to each their own though.3picuri3

Most? Now wait a minute, I can't remember where but I'm pretty sure I've read or heard a few times now that the majority of consumers now have LCDs or plasma in their homes. I mean, you can't even find tube tvs anymore in stores (at least I can't...or there might be one or two small ones). So to say most don't have them is just plain wrong. I think the majority does indeed have flat screens now.

Also, think about how long it took dvds to become the lion's share over VHS. It was a good 5 years before that happened and blu ray has only been out just over two years. There are some people who STILL have VCRs.

So lets not assume just because blu ray hasn't take over the world yet that it won't be standard in the next 2 or 3 years.

Also, this is something I CAN speak as factual on. I get my blu rays from blockbuster or Hollywood video near me. EVERY Tuesday if you're not IN LINE outside before the store opens you're not geting new releases on blu ray. They're all gone within minutes. I wanted the Mummy movie this morning and missed it because of this. I actually got into a conversation about it with the blockbuster lady and she said corportate has a plan to increase blu ray space significantly because the demand is so high now. No matter when you go the blu ray movies are gone but dvd has tons on the shelf. Yes, the dvd has 10 times more dvds easily but this says something. It says the demand is growing for blu ray which is why they are expanding.

Hell, Wall E and Wanted have been out three weeks now and you STILL can't get them in blu ray in EITHER store unless you're incredibly lucky.

and again, another point you have that works agains the argument is VHS vs DVD. it was a MARKED visual increase - a HUGE improvement in media (tape vs optical) and it still took a long time to adopt. doesn't bode well for bluray.

The biggest movie right now, Dark Knight, is 8 dollars more at Best Buy than the dvd version and has more content including all the Imax scenes. If you do some searching you can find it for cheaper.

I'm not sure how 27.99 is so incredibly expensive.

Also, maybe things are different in Canada? In the US it's nearly impossible to find non hd tvs in stores. This includes Walmart, Target, Circuit City, Best Buy...the list goes on and on. When you DO find them, they're small, 27 inch or smaller generally.

So the people who haven't adopted yet are simply watching TV on old tv sets which they will need to replace soon. Pictures tubes burn out, after all, and are insanely expensive to replace.

So maybe you're right. Maybe there are a bunch of people who still have 10 year old Zenith tube tvs. I'd be willing to bet, however, that most of them live in the boondocks. Seriously, I have quite a few friends and family members and off the top of my head I think only one of them, an aunt and uncle, have a tube TV. Even my 80 year old parents have an LCD. Granted I bought it for them last year but still.

The biggest movie right now, Dark Knight, is 8 dollars more at Best Buy than the dvd version and has more content including all the Imax scenes. If you do some searching you can find it for cheaper.

I'm not sure how 27.99 is so incredibly expensive.

Also, maybe things are different in Canada? In the US it's nearly impossible to find non hd tvs in stores. This includes Walmart, Target, Circuit City, Best Buy...the list goes on and on. When you DO find them, they're small, 27 inch or smaller generally.

So the people who haven't adopted yet are simply watching TV on old tv sets which they will need to replace soon. Pictures tubes burn out, after all, and are insanely expensive to replace.

So maybe you're right. Maybe there are a bunch of people who still have 10 year old Zenith tube tvs. I'd be willing to bet, however, that most of them live in the boondocks. Seriously, I have quite a few friends and family members and off the top of my head I think only one of them, an aunt and uncle, have a tube TV. Even my 80 year old parents have an LCD. Granted I bought it for them last year but still.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Xalaten"]

Most? Now wait a minute, I can't remember where but I'm pretty sure I've read or heard a few times now that the majority of consumers now have LCDs or plasma in their homes. I mean, you can't even find tube tvs anymore in stores (at least I can't...or there might be one or two small ones). So to say most don't have them is just plain wrong. I think the majority does indeed have flat screens now.

Also, think about how long it took dvds to become the lion's share over VHS. It was a good 5 years before that happened and blu ray has only been out just over two years. There are some people who STILL have VCRs.

So lets not assume just because blu ray hasn't take over the world yet that it won't be standard in the next 2 or 3 years.

Also, this is something I CAN speak as factual on. I get my blu rays from blockbuster or Hollywood video near me. EVERY Tuesday if you're not IN LINE outside before the store opens you're not geting new releases on blu ray. They're all gone within minutes. I wanted the Mummy movie this morning and missed it because of this. I actually got into a conversation about it with the blockbuster lady and she said corportate has a plan to increase blu ray space significantly because the demand is so high now. No matter when you go the blu ray movies are gone but dvd has tons on the shelf. Yes, the dvd has 10 times more dvds easily but this says something. It says the demand is growing for blu ray which is why they are expanding.

Hell, Wall E and Wanted have been out three weeks now and you STILL can't get them in blu ray in EITHER store unless you're incredibly lucky.

Xalaten

and again, another point you have that works agains the argument is VHS vs DVD. it was a MARKED visual increase - a HUGE improvement in media (tape vs optical) and it still took a long time to adopt. doesn't bode well for bluray.

The biggest movie right now, Dark Knight, is 8 dollars more at Best Buy than the dvd version and has more content including all the Imax scenes. If you do some searching you can find it for cheaper.

I'm not sure how 27.99 is so incredibly expensive.

Also, maybe things are different in Canada? In the US it's nearly impossible to find non hd tvs in stores. This includes Walmart, Target, Circuit City, Best Buy...the list goes on and on. When you DO find them, they're small, 27 inch or smaller generally.

So the people who haven't adopted yet are simply watching TV on old tv sets which they will need to replace soon. Pictures tubes burn out, after all, and are insanely expensive to replace.

So maybe you're right. Maybe there are a bunch of people who still have 10 year old Zenith tube tvs. I'd be willing to bet, however, that most of them live in the boondocks. Seriously, I have quite a few friends and family members and off the top of my head I think only one of them, an aunt and uncle, have a tube TV. Even my 80 year old parents have an LCD. Granted I bought it for them last year but still.

not true. grandparents using a 35 year old TV / Record player wooden set. uncle still has his 20+ year old sony black plastic CRT. many many many people have TVs that will last a lot longer than you'd think.

HDTV adoption rates are relatively low. 28% as of last year, 18% of that 28% bought it for gaming. that means only 1 in 10 adult households, or family households without HD gaming machines have HDTV. do the math based on total population of the developed world and it's quite crazy how slow it's been. Gaming has helped, but very few are switching over for movies alone - i.e. bluray. majority of br sales are from PS3 owners.

i guess that's why people here in SW adamantly deny that adoption is slow. because as gamers on PS3 / 360 most of them have HDTVs. but when put in to perspective in the outside world it's not a popular thing by any stretch of the imagination.

90% of household without HD Gaming units have no HDTV. think about that for a minute. they say this year it might go down to 86-7%. at this rate it will be about 20 years before the world outside of gaming matches the gaming world for HDTV adoption ;). what we need is a MASSIVE price drop for HDTV sets.

The biggest movie right now, Dark Knight, is 8 dollars more at Best Buy than the dvd version and has more content including all the Imax scenes. If you do some searching you can find it for cheaper.

I'm not sure how 27.99 is so incredibly expensive.

Also, maybe things are different in Canada? In the US it's nearly impossible to find non hd tvs in stores. This includes Walmart, Target, Circuit City, Best Buy...the list goes on and on. When you DO find them, they're small, 27 inch or smaller generally.

So the people who haven't adopted yet are simply watching TV on old tv sets which they will need to replace soon. Pictures tubes burn out, after all, and are insanely expensive to replace.

So maybe you're right. Maybe there are a bunch of people who still have 10 year old Zenith tube tvs. I'd be willing to bet, however, that most of them live in the boondocks. Seriously, I have quite a few friends and family members and off the top of my head I think only one of them, an aunt and uncle, have a tube TV. Even my 80 year old parents have an LCD. Granted I bought it for them last year but still.

KingTuttle

I think $20 is expensive for a movie (which is why I rent or wait until its on HBO etc.)...I wasted sooo much money replacing all my VHS tapes to move to DVDs just to realize that there were like only a handful of movies that I actually watched more than once. Maybe I'm old but I am more leaning towards the whole format changing events being old...and tiring. I do agree though about your HDTV comments...Especially since anyone who has moved a big ol' tube tv 2-3 times knows...it sucks. That's worth $2000 in my mind.

and again, another point you have that works agains the argument is VHS vs DVD. it was a MARKED visual increase - a HUGE improvement in media (tape vs optical) and it still took a long time to adopt. doesn't bode well for bluray.

3picuri3

I don't buy as much movies as I once did. I actually rent movies more then when VHS was the big thing. There are some titles that I must buy and if they are worth buying then I'm gonna buy it on the best media out there.

HDTVs are the standard now. Blu-ray is not... yet!

But the fact remains that there is no other solid HD-media format out there that is on the same level as Blu-ray.

To say that "I don't know what will be better then blu-ray in the future but there will be something" is just silly.

I can't wait for LotR on Blu-ray :cry:

[QUOTE="delta3074"]the ps3 is not a sinking ship, but it will come last this gen unless SONY take a big hit to bring the price downHuusAsking

[QUOTE="HuusAsking"][QUOTE="delta3074"]the ps3 is not a sinking ship, but it will come last this gen unless SONY take a big hit to bring the price downnervmeister

CNN>>>WPtupapi006

My opinion / My experience > The View > CNN :lol:

I takes a real slave to the system to just eat up what the media gives you as fact.

If I believed the media I would toss my PC/360/PS3 out the window and buy a Wii.

The Washington Post were actually agreeing on what CNN reported but just had explanations.

lol people take this article serious? Please, when they have to use "Playstation brand, including PSP and PS2" to justify it outselling JUST the 360, how can anyone take it serious? Oh wait, cause cows do the same thing, no wonder they agree with someone using 3 systems against 1. Nice try but that article is a joke.hopesfall2own

you do know that the psp alone has sold over 40 mil right? :|

[QUOTE="hopesfall2own"]lol people take this article serious? Please, when they have to use "Playstation brand, including PSP and PS2" to justify it outselling JUST the 360, how can anyone take it serious? Oh wait, cause cows do the same thing, no wonder they agree with someone using 3 systems against 1. Nice try but that article is a joke.FragTycoon

you do know that the psp alone has sold over 40 mil right? :|

[QUOTE="GreyFoXX4"][QUOTE="htekemerald"]

You sure this isnt a sony defence force article? I mean I seriosuly started souding like one when they started using PS2 and PSP number to say the PS3 was better than the 360.

HarlockJC

You can still say that there will be a PS4 and that the PS3 is a failure. In the same way that the GC was a failure even though it made money and the Wii is not.

In the business world to not be a failure the current model would need to make more money that a previous model. A company does not want their sales and shares of a marketplace to go down not up. Until the PS3 makes more money for Sony than the PS2 than it is technically a failure even if it does make a profit.