Topic: My Sony Rant, Consolidated

[wandering]

Quote
Every failure of the PSP can be seen clear as day in the PS3's current plans: horrible price, terrible launch, no promise of long term software aside from a select few games, too damn big, focuses too heavily on features OTHER than gaming, attempts to push a new media format for movies and its competition is cheaper and has innovation and a better gaming library on its side.

There is one big difference: the psp was a crappy portable gaming system. Load times were too long, most games were watered down ports of already released console games with crappy controls, battery life was too short, etc.

THe PS3, on the other hand, isn't really a crappy home console system. When you sit down to play Metal Gear Solid 4, it's not like it's going to think it's a bad play experience well, maybe when you're approaching the second hour of a cut-scene. The problem with the ps3 is purely a monetary one: it's about $100 too expensive.

...although I suppose that's been enough to kill game consoles in the past.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
THe PS3, on the other hand, isn't really a crappy home console system. When you sit down to play Metal Gear Solid 4, it's not like it's going to think it's a bad play experience well, maybe when you're approaching the second hour of a cut-scene. The problem with the ps3 is purely a monetary one: it's about $100 too expensive.

Actually, since the 360 has roughly half of the PS3's titles, including a number of games which were supposed to be PS3 exclusive, I think the software issue will be a problem as well.

The PSP has a bunch of shovelware games and ports (ie games which can be played on other systems for cheaper) and a few gems here and there and it's not doing so well. The PS3 seems to have a few gems but also has far too many games which are shared by the 360's library, thus reducing reason to own one.

It just looks like it's working out to be nearly the same situation as the PSP.

[Gamebasher]

I couldn´t agree more!

PSP bears living testimony to what Nintendo has said all along: bigger and better graphics is the wrong path to follow, gameplay is king! But you really can´t blame Sony for it. Afterall, they are a consumer electronics manufacturer, so they will always strive to go in the direction they are going. And that is where the battle is decided, or, has already been decided! In Nintendo´s favour!

[couchmonkey]

Well, overall I think people are being too cocky about Sony, Playstation 3 isn't finished yet, and when I hear Peter Moore claiming the high price of PS3 is equivalent to a price drop for Xbox 360, I think Sony may still pull a rabbit out of it's hat if the competition has that kind of attitude.

Luckily Nintendo's attitude seems to be a bit more aggressive. I'm just hoping we'll see that trend continue as Nintendo announces pricing and launch dates.

Overall, I agree Sony has become too cocky for it's own good, and I see PS3 losing a lot of marketshare.  But will it tank?  I doubt it, I wouldn't even bet that it's going to come in third (unless someone gave me really good odds )  Mostly, I don' t want to see Nintendo, or its fans, getting overconfident just because Sony is.

[Kairon]

Maybe the PS3 will have something like Gamecube or N64 level of success?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Jin-X]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother

Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X You still haven't provided where are you gonna store a ton of movies and the fact that storing movies from cable comes nowhere near the quality of current DVDs and HD-DVDs. Cable and Satellite shows are heavily compressed for space and usually "formatted to fit your screen".

They can be burned to DVDs and stored that way, just like my 'rents do it, and I have news for you: Digital Cable quality is identical to DVD, especially if it's HDDVD movies (which are already supported by some networks and will be supported by Digital Cable at some point).

And for computer storage, what about a 300 GB HD for $180, included in an external dual USB AND Ethernet enclosure? (I think I just found my Wii memory card...).

Five years ago, someone would have said, "How are you going to store your entire music collection on a HD when HDs are so small and mp3 quality is so bad?"

Now, we have HDs which can store literally MONTHS worth of music, connections which can acquire an mp3 in mere seconds, and audio formats which preserve CD quality sound.

We had none of that 5 years ago.

The question is not "how?". The question is "when?".

Not to be an a-hole, but you couldn't be more wrong. Digital Cable is not as good as DVD, do you have it conected trough composite or maybe u need to check your eyes but you couldn't be more wrong. Are u trying to tell me that Batman Begins and Star Wars on HBO is as good as on DVD? That's crazy talk. And it's the same thing with HD. Programs through Sat/Cable are compressed a lot more due to bandwith limitations (not to mention the abomination that is formatting/cropping movies to make them fit your tv instead of watching them how they were filmed). Movies on disc are (usually) made in a way to maximize picture quality and sound quality by using all the space available for higher bitrates and less compression.

And MP3s are not as good as CD, but that's a lot harder to tell and more subjective than looking at a screen and saying that looks better than the other one, and also an argument for another time.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X
And MP3s are not as good as CD, but that's a lot harder to tell and more subjective than looking at a screen and saying that looks better than the other one, and also an argument for another time.

Yep, Mp3s are compressed anyway you slice it, and can't be as good as the source material that they were created from, period. Also, as mentioned, if relatively small files like mp3s haven't killed off the traditional CD market, why do digital movies stand a chance of killing off the traditional home market for movies, especially considering you have things like extras, chapters, different language tracks, etc to contend with?  

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X
Not to be an a-hole, but you couldn't be more wrong. Digital Cable is not as good as DVD, do you have it conected trough composite or maybe u need to check your eyes but you couldn't be more wrong. Are u trying to tell me that Batman Begins and Star Wars on HBO is as good as on DVD? That's crazy talk. And it's the same thing with HD. Programs through Sat/Cable are compressed a lot more due to bandwith limitations (not to mention the abomination that is formatting/cropping movies to make them fit your tv instead of watching them how they were filmed). Movies on disc are (usually) made in a way to maximize picture quality and sound quality by using all the space available for higher bitrates and less compression.

Are we talking HDDVD or regular DVD? If we mean regular, than no, I cannot tell the difference between their picture qualities.

But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if one guy with bad eyes can't tell because we're not talking about the current media infrastructure anyway.

I'm talking about what these networks will have in place in 5-7 years when HDTV is widespread enough that releasing a media format which will only benefit from an HDTV makes SENSE.

HDDVD and BluRay are, without question, putting the horse before the wagon. At some point in the future, you'll be able to download these movies and watch them in HD quality. It might be in 5 years, it might be 20, but one day people will look back and laugh about how utterly retarded it was to leave your house to go pick up a disc which contains something you could have downloaded over the internet in a matter of minutes.

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok why do digital movies stand a chance of killing off the traditional home market for movies, especially considering you have things like extras, chapters, different language tracks, etc to contend with?

Because they're the same thing.

I know many people who frequently download movies, mp3s, games, etc. off the internet, burn them to CD/DVD and they don't seem to suffer from some detached notion of consumerism because the disc they burn doesn't have an official label.

Downloading a DVD data image will keep all the menus intact when you burn it to another DVD.

Download it, burn it, label it, it's yours, and you didn't even have to leave your seat and spend gas money to go get it. People love the convenience of being able to get the music you want in a matter of minutes off the internet in the form of mp3s. When connections become fast enough that movies are feasible, it WILL happen.

[oohhboy]

Dude, who pays for the bandwidth? Most of the world still has a monthly data cap. After that they either slow you down or make you pay in blood.

Give me something phyiscal any day.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
Dude, who pays for the bandwidth? Most of the world still has a monthly data cap. After that they either slow you down or make you pay in blood.

Give me something phyiscal any day.

I sell bandwidth for a living. Bandwidth doesn't cost today what it cost 5 years ago.

Also, cable services don't have monthly data caps (at least Comcast sure doesn't).

And you have something physical: the HDDVD you burned the image file to which you now own. Unless you're a stickler and demand accurate product packaging, you can tolerate paying $5-7 less for the movie which you'd likely have to pay if you bought it from a store or ordered it online.

[oohhboy]

I SAID THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT IS NOT THE U.S. OF A. or North America.

When unlimited bandwidth comes at a cheap price then we can talk. Till then Hollywood can keep smoking thier pipe.

[KDR_11k]

Oh yes, I remember that thread on Slashdot. What was it, 500MB/month in NZ?

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
I SAID THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT IS NOT THE U.S. OF A. or North America.

Actually, you said "Most of the world".

But I'm talking about some point in the future when bandwidth will be cheaper worldwide. I don't know where you live, but if bandwidth still costs the same today as it did 5 years ago, it's time for a revolution (not that the US doesn't need one, just for different reasons).

[Athrun Zala]

the thing is, in most of the world (USA notwithstanding) the connections get capped, ports blacklisted, or simply expensive...

here, the one I got doesn't do 1 and 2, but is really expensive (around $50 a month for a 512/128 connection....which is an improvement, last year it was 256/64....)
the other options offer different combinations of the three

[Smash_Brother]

Connections used to be capped in the US but most providers have moved on from that.

I'm sure it'll be the natural progression in other parts of the world as well.

[SixthAngel]

The rest of the world is too broad a statement.  I don't see most of the world getting an internet connection in the coming years but most of the world is not the market they are going for.  (I assume you live in Australia or Europe though)

Bandwidth is getting cheaper and if big consumer countries like the U.S. begin to move in a download oriented direction expect others to follow.  This seems to be the future.  Bandwidth may be capped now but smash brother is talking about the future.  Not long ago pc's first caught on.  Computer and internet industries move faster then anyone expects.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
... one day people will look back and laugh about how utterly retarded it was to leave your house to go pick up a disc which contains something you could have downloaded over the internet in a matter of minutes.

Man, you sound like you just stepped fresh out of the "dot com boom". I highly suggest you take a look at why it crashed. At how, for some reason (although there is a simple answer from psychological perspective) people did not stick to shopping online, but still prefered the old "birck and mortier" approach.

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I know many people who frequently download movies, mp3s, games, etc. off the internet, burn them to CD/DVD and they don't seem to suffer from some detached notion of consumerism because the disc they burn doesn't have an official label.

Here is your problem. You are treating a group that you know personally as a representive group for consumers as a whole. Online shopping will always have a niche crowd, and even more niche for people who buy digitial things like mp3s, but to assume it will conquer traditional mediums is a pretty rash notion. Especially considering that the people you are talking about are likely illegally downloading them for free, which would of course be why there is no sense of a "detached notion" if they never paid for them.

Also, as "oohhboy" said, give me something physical anyday over just a digital copy. Something that I can give to a friend without feeling tacky about it.    

[Grant10k]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Oh yes, I remember that thread on Slashdot. What was it, 500MB/month in NZ?

Wow. I downloaded 6x that amount yesterday morning before breakfast (well, i started before breakfast, it took until lunch to finish)
I think it will go the same route as letting customers fill their own fountain drinks. It doesn't cost a lot to provide, and it makes customers a whole lot happier.

[oohhboy]

The Data caps in NZ are better now. I am on a 5 GB cap, can go 10 GB but the extra expense is barely worth it right now.

We are going to unbundle the local loop, but that is going to take about a year. Even then I can't envision "Unlimited" bandwidth happening anytime soon.

Even if I had unlimited bandwidth I wouldn't pay to get something when I can get it for free.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok Man, you sound like you just stepped fresh out of the "dot com boom". I highly suggest you take a look at why it crashed. At how, for some reason (although there is a simple answer from psychological perspective) people did not stick to shopping online, but still prefered the old "birck and mortier" approach.

These are completely different subjects. The dot com boom was a result of people investing millions into companies with no actual revenue source but might have promised to have some kind of revenue source in the future. Moreover, it was a result of the investor market getting too far ahead of itself. They badly overestimated the speed at which the internet would catch on and thus no one was working with accurate predictions.

But today, we have companies like Apple making a goddamn killing from selling bits of data over the internet and many other companies have followed suit.

In terms of online media, the only reason music and movies are different is because movies are bigger. That's it. They both require a playback device, they're both typically sold on discs and, today, they both largely suck (but that's not relevant to the discussion).

The only reason we still have CDs in stores is because we have record label hold-outs who refuse to sell the music online because it will lessen their cut of the action and because not everyone is on the internet yet.

In the future, both of these will change.

Quote
Here is your problem. You are treating a group that you know personally as a representive group for consumers as a whole. Online shopping will always have a niche crowd, and even more niche for people who buy digitial things like mp3s, but to assume it will conquer traditional mediums is a pretty rash notion. Especially considering that the people you are talking about are likely illegally downloading them for free, which would of course be why there is no sense of a "detached notion" if they never paid for them.

They exist. That's all I need to prove. Most of these people are the new generation up and coming. In fact, every additional generation of kids which are born become more and more comfortable with technology as they grow up with more and more of it around them.

Who knows more about the technology of today and how to operate it? You, or your parents? If it's your parents, you're a rarity.

At some point, an up and coming generation of kids will not be afraid to purchase media in an entirely online format. Given enough time, it WILL happen.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
These are completely different subjects. The dot com boom was a result of people investing millions into companies with no actual revenue source but might have promised to have some kind of revenue source in the future. Moreover, it was a result of the investor market getting too far ahead of itself. They badly overestimated the speed at which the internet would catch on and thus no one was working with accurate predictions.

And yet here we are in the middle of the next decade and the internet has still done little to kill the old "birck and mortier" stores.

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
In terms of online media, the only reason music and movies are different is because movies are bigger.

Movies are bigger AND compression is far more noticeable then it is on music on account of dealing with a visual medium as well.

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
That's it. They both require a playback device, they're both typically sold on discs and, today, they both largely suck (but that's not relevant to the discussion).

Even though you say it's not relevant to this discussion, did it occur to you that perhaps you are trying to project your own hopes for where movies and music might go into what might actually occur?

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
They exist. That's all I need to prove. ... Who knows more about the technology of today and how to operate it? You, or your parents?

They exist, as, like I said, there is a niche market for this, although I don't see signs of it destroying the traditional means of music and movie distribution for the home market.

Your example in particular was pretty flawed too considering you are talking about piracy and not people buying online.

[Smash_Brother]

Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok And yet here we are in the middle of the next decade and the internet has still done little to kill the old "birck and mortier" stores.

Is that why the music industry whines to no end about how mp3s are killing their sales?

I don't expect them to bulldoze Wal-marts because CD sales decrease but I'm quite certain music only stores are seeing a drop in sales due to the presence and availability of mp3s, legal or otherwise.

Quote
Movies are bigger AND compression is far more noticeable then it is on music on account of dealing with a visual medium as well.

...Which results in a bigger file which would still be eaten through in less than a half hour with a 100 Mb/s connection and when watched on a TV looks identical to a DVD because it IS a DVD rip.

Quote
Even though you say it's not relevant to this discussion, did it occur to you that perhaps you are trying to project your own hopes for where movies and music might go into what might actually occur?

I accept that, by the time the internet has replaced stores, I might be dead or won't care...likely dead.

Quote
They exist, as, like I said, there is a niche market for this, although I don't see signs of it destroying the traditional means of music and movie distribution for the home market.

Your example in particular was pretty flawed too considering you are talking about piracy and not people buying online.

I also know plenty of people who buy mp3s off of iTunes or similar services. Happy now?

And what's a niche today will be commonplace tomorrow. Anime fans in the US used to be a niche market and NOW look at it.

As the generations pass, the children will get more and more used to the idea of buying media through virtual venues until one day you'll only be able to buy DVDs in stores as a specialty item.

Why don't most stores sell records anymore? It's because they were replaced with a higher quality and more convenient media format.

Downloading media online is the most efficient and convenient means of transferring it. The space it occupies can be rewritten, it does not need to be shipped, and it can be acquired faster than it would take to go to a store to acquire it in most cases.

It may be 2-3 generations from now, but it WILL happen.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I accept that, by the time the internet has replaced stores, I might be dead or won't care...likely dead.

And that's where I'm just going to stop. If we are talking this far away then there really is no point, as it's all wild conjecture what might happen at that time and not reflective at all of current trends.

People who have attempted to gauge things this far off also often have a way of getting idealistic in what might happen as well, which is why I always tend to look to the more immediate future... and this is getting increasingly away from the whole concept of Blu-Ray vs. digitial purchasing, as we have now swung the spectrum down to possibly almost a century later.

[Smash_Brother]

I don't plan on living another 5 years.

BluRay and HDDVD likely won't be hurt by digital purchasing: they'll be hurt by the fact that people need to buy an expensive TV in a poor economy in order to use them.

[Ian Sane]

"Is that why the music industry whines to no end about how mp3s are killing their sales?

I don't expect them to bulldoze Wal-marts because CD sales decrease but I'm quite certain music only stores are seeing a drop in sales due to the presence and availability of mp3s, legal or otherwise."

I suspect that music sales are down because for nearly ten years now popular music has been complete horsesh!t.  I don't download many MP3s and I still buy CDs.  But I find myself buying less and less because the music is all targeted towards 12 year olds.  When sh!t like American Idol is popular it's no surprise that music sales are down.  The only market they're going after right now is the disposable pop market that only likes things on a fad basis.  Real music lovers have been shut out and I think that is going to have a huge affect on the market more than anything else.