the psp will be able to be use as a contoller for ps3

Old news.

And this is a meaningful post how?

And teh rearview mirror!

gimmicks. that's all we need to know really.

Kinda Stupid.

Haven't you learned what spam is? Warned for meaningless post.

wow guys, way to make him feel welcome...

I'm sorry, but you just found this out now? I knew this before everybody else here. You watch yourself, there are a lot of idiot Nintendo fanboys here.

Shut up, [bleeped!]tard. You want to talk about gimmicks? How bout the Nintendo DS? The gamecube? And don't even get me started on the Wii and how [bleeped!]ed up that piece of [bleeped!] is.

HINT: Not a good way to start off just after getting back from your one-day suspension.

wo, calm down myscrnm. its just a forums.

they used to be able to hook up the gameboy advanced up to the gamecube(as you all know) and put it on the TV screen. Old news.

Don't you have to have a gameboy player for that though?

yeah, thats why it never cought on.

anyone know how much the ps3 will be?

It will be the most expensive of the three new systems at a whopping $600 dollars. There is no way I will be able to get one.

Well there's also the $500 version of the system, but even then the PS3 comes with the biggest price tag for the console itself.

But look at this! its awsome!

But what you people don't take into account is that the PlayStation 3 is like a Dyson - you only have to pay for it once. With the Wii and even stuff like the Xbox 360, you have to pay extra to actually make them anywhere near as good as the PlayStation 3.

That depends. If you mean by sheer power, the Wii with never be as powerful as the PlayStation 3. Of course, the gameplay of the Wii straight outta the box will be of much greater value than that of the PS3.

One time cost of $600 dollars with features I don't need. With the Wii, I get 170-250, and I get to pick and choose whatever the hell I want, and it'll never cost even close to the $600 smackers.

Blu-ray - You need this to watch the next generation of optical media.
802.11g - You need this to access the Internet from anywhere in the house.
20/60GB HDD - You need this to store game memory, videos, images, music, et cetera.
Memory card reader - You need this to have portable storage.
HDMI - You need this to have high-definition video output.

And so much more.

Blu-ray is already dead. Viva la HD-DVD.
I can already access the internet from anywhere in my house (and in quite the radius outside it).
As far as game memory goes, I'm quite content with 8-meg memory cards (havn't filled one yet), and my audio and visual entertainment has it's place in my stereo system, not my game console.
Every system since the 64, PS, (dreamcast?), era has had a memory card reader.
HDMI is useless if you cant shell out another grand for a new television.

And so much more of the "features" of the PS3 will be complete junk.

Blu-ray isn't dead, it's superior in almost every way to HD-DVD. First, the obvious one, it features 66 percent more storage space than HD-DVD. Second of all, it's backed by almost all the major hardware vendors and Hollywood studios. And third of all, within months, the price difference will be miniscule, thus Blu-ray will win.

But with the Wii? I'm talking about features that the PlayStation 3 has that the Wii doesn't have, dumbarse.

Also, it's been proven that PlayStation's actually have equal sound quality to many expensive sound systems.

No, HDMI is not useless because you need it to have high-definition video output from 1080i to 1080p.

Not junk, just stuff you don't understand.

As seen with UMD, the fact that a format may be decent, or even superior, it is not a very good indicator of it's success.
The wii will act as a WiFi router, effectivly giving internet access throughout one's home. That is not a feature exclusive the the PS3.
Will it play vinyl? 8-trac? Cassette? Nope. What's it got for audio out, RCA? Coax? Inferior to any stereo system compiled by any intelligent person.

It's useless if I dont have a screen that will take that input.

I understand it 100%. I just have absolutly no use for it.

Wrong. The UMD is not widespread because the only device it is currently used on commercially is the PSP, and it is limited to publishers. But with the Blu-ray disc, it will be used on numerous computers, even Macs, and other multimedia devices. Plus, it will be able to be end-user written. There's a big difference. The main reason a lot of people hate the Blu-ray format is cuz Sony was involved in it. But if you were actually smart enough to look past Sony's history of proprietary formats, you'd find the Blu-ray disc to be superior in almost every way to HD-DVD and nothing like the UMD.

Sorry, my mistake. I wasn't yet aware that the Wii featured integrated 802.11g.

Wrong. The PlayStation 3 doesn't use any of those, but for a very simple and good reason: it's two steps ahead. The PlayStation 3 has the ability of SACD playback. SACD has a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz. Compare this to DVD-Audio's 192KHz. A conventional CD uses 44.1KHz. So you can't really say its inferior when it's sampling rate is more than 15 times higher than DVD-Audio. Cassette? You're ridiculous. SACD has a higher sampling rate than all three of your given examples combined. lol, RCA? You've gotta be shitting me. The PlayStation 3 has Dolby TrueHD, an advanced lossless audio codec, DTS, and LPCM. Output is supplied by S/PDIF, which has up to 7.1 channels of audio. Sony is way ahead of you.

Wrong, cuz you don't need an HDTV to use the PlayStation 3. The PlayStation 3 is also capable of NTSC output. Plus, almost all new televisions as of now are being sold HD-Ready.

I'm not so sure that it does, and I never said that it did. It's really too bad that Nintendo is bothering to add router functionality at all, as it does nothing to enhance any console.
The fact that the PS3 will not allow for the use of Vinyl, Cassette, or 8-trac makes it not the system that I need. Audio that was recorded to said mediums will never be of greater quality than when played from said mediums, and sadly, many of the greatest tunes cannot be had on any other medium.

If you were concerned at all with audio quality and classic music you would understand the necessity that is upgradeable stereo equipment including turntables, disk changers, and cassette and 8-trac decks.

That's all fine and dandy, but I do not own a television that takes input from anything other than coax, and without an extra thousand dollars for a new television that supports HD (nevermind the $600 for the PS3 system alone), I have absolutly no use for a system that does.

Most of the end-market consumers don't care who made it, or care for it because Sony made it. Whether you know it or not, Sony is a popular company, but you make it like it's some unknown or shunned corporation.


Honestly now, we don't even need more than 192kHz. We can't even record sound at that quality, most things put at that sample rate are over sampled. Most people are even happy with 44.1kHz


Not everyone has money like you. Some can't even afford a good television.


Blu-ray - no one cares, with the head start of HD-DVD being cheaper, it'll grab it's hold sooner
802.11g - not exclusive
HDD - not exclusive
Memory card reader - not exclusive
HDMI - not exclusive

The thing is, I'm not saying it's unknown, but it is shunned. You should see how everyone talks about Sony, even the magazines. Everyone hates Sony, now that's a fact. For instance, I'm the only person here who even remotely supports Sony.

I'm saying that SACD has that capability because HerLoss was talking about how the PlayStation 3 was not capable of audiophile-level sound.

Like I said, that's why the PlayStation 3 also has the capability to display video at NTSC resolution, for people who still don't use HDTV.

Blu-ray - Wrong, you can talk about headstarts all you want, but that guarantees nothing, ask any market analyst. Sure, Nintendo magazines and Microsoft executives will tell you how the Xbox 360 will win cuz of its headstart and stuff, but the truth is, Blu-ray can still win even if it comes out later than HD-DVD.
802.11g - You're using old information, I've already admitted that I made one mistake.
HDD - It's a feature not present on the Wii, which was what I was talking about. See? You can't even read in context.
Memory card reader - I didn't say exclusive. But the PlayStation 3's memory card reader is superior to the Wii's in that it also supports CompactFlash and Memory Stick. Whereas the Wii only has SD.
HDMI - Yes, it's exclusive, even compared to the Xbox 360, look it up, it's a fact. You bash me for making one mistake and then you make half a dozen mistakes more, shameless.

That is such a load of bull. Sony isn't a frickin underdog, by far. And here's something for you: I ENJOY SOME OF SONY'S PRODUCTS. I own a PS2, have for years. I own a Sony compact cassette deck, which although isn't the highest quality, is all I got for portable cassette playability, and it frickin works. I'm on my FOURTH pair of Sony brand headphones. Why fourth? Because they're POS and break all to easily, but they're cheap and small, so I keep getting them.

HOWEVER. I do NOT believe Sony to create superior products in ANY market. As far as speaker and amplifier equipment goes, NO company has created the equivilent of a vintage set of KLH speakers. Sony makes absolute CRAP when it comes to stereo recievers, decks and turntables.

If you had read what I wrote earlier, and gave two sh**s about audio quality, you would understand how the PS3 is inferior as an audio system.


Great. So I paid extra basically for a system with HD functionality, when I have no use for HD. Honestly, I'd rather pay half, even a third the price, because I'm not paying for something that I cant use or have no use for.


It's not just Nintendo and Microsoft analysts making said predictions. Regular, unbiased tech publications are printing predictions of Blu-Ray's downfall.
He didn't say that the Wii had an HDD, only that it wasn't exclusive to the PS3, and if YOU were "reading in context" you would realize that your burden is explaining why the PS3 is any better than the 360, or ANY other console that may come into existance.
He didnt say you did. Only that it wasn't.
It may be "superior," but that doesnt make it exclusive. The 360 still has HDMI.

Here's an idea, you can make less mistakes by presenting factual information and not your retarded opinion.

Sony makes superior products in almost every market. It's computers have the best design and all of them use components of the highest quality (Samsung RAM, Fujitsu HDDs, et cetera). The camcorders produce the best video quality, everyone I know who's rich uses Sony camcorders, and my dad is going to get a Sony camcorder to replace our vintage JVC. The Walkmen are also the best DAPs on the market, made from the highest-quality components like brushed aluminum, and made in Japan. One of my uncles, who's a professional photographer and art professor at a university in Taiwan has used Sony cameras for the last three generations, from the DSC-F717 to the DSC R1. The simple truth is, there are admittedly companies that make some better products than Sony, but all around, Sony is still the best. btw, KLH is crap (well, not total crap, but not as good as Sony), anyone who knows about audio will tell you that Bang & Olufsen is the best.

No, you're the one who needs to read what I said. I'm going to say this again, and actually read it this time. The PlayStation 3 is capable of SACD playback, which means up to a sampling rate of 2.8224MHz, higher than any other consumer product on the market. It's unmatched, the only real contender is DVD-Audio, which is still only capable of 192KHz, 15 times less. Or maybe you just don't understand that a MHz is larger than a KHz.

Why can't you people listen?! What the [bleeped!] is wrong with you all? I've said this like twice already, THE PLAYSTATION 3 IS CAPABLE OF NTSC VIDEO OUTPUT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT NTSC IS? IT'S STANDARD DEFINITION TELEVISION.

Yeah, well these analysts are complete idiots. The Blu-ray format is backed by Apple Computer, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Hitachi, LG, Mitsubishi Electric, Panasonic, Pioneer, Philips, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TDK, and a bunch of other corporations. There's no possible way that Blu-ray can fail unless every consumer in the world suddenly turns into an idiot.

The Xbox 360 does not, and most likely never will, have HDMI. I've said this two times already, shut up about it.

I don't present opinion in here, everything is fact. You want proof? Fine.

SACD superiority - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacd#Overview
NTSC capability - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ps3#Interfaces
Blu-ray support - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc#...rting_Companies
No HDMI - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_360

And he's been trying to tell you for three times already that although it does support NTSC, the fact that it does support HDTV means that he's paying extra for a feature (this feature being HDTV-quality output) that he'll never use.

Eventually, everyone will use HDTV, just like how everyone now uses a minimum of NTSC or PAL resolution. And besides, without the HDTV capability, the PlayStation 3 still more than makes up for the high price with other features. Plus, since he wants to compare it with the Xbox 360 too, the Xbox 360 also has HDTV output, albeit lower HDTV, but I don't see him bashing the Xbox 360 for doing it. Like I said, it's discrimination.

I don't plan on owning an HDTV within ten years. My parents don't either. That's the projected lifespan of the PS3 by Sony.

The XBox 360 is different, it isn't 600 bucks.

Also, Sony is no underdog, it isn't hated by all. You just perceive it that way. If it were fact, then Sony would no longer exist.

Blah blah blah...
You're right, but I didnt say KLH. I said vintage KLH. KLH was the BEST when they were American made. Then they outsourced their labor, and it's just plain crap.

They are NOW. But they're still not better than american made KLH's.

No, I understand perfectly. I also understand that it CANT take a recording and play it at a sampling rate any higher than what it was recorded at.


What the hell is wrong with YOU? Why cant YOU listen to what I'M saying? I'M STILL PAYING FOR HD THAT I CAN'T FRICKIN USE!!


Isn't that how UMD failed?


And the PS3 doesnt even EXIST yet. Shut up about it.


None of that proves superiority.

KLH wasn't that good, I mean, decent, but not phenomenal. The best stuff is like Bang & Olufsen, Bose, JBL, harman/kardon, and Sony.

No, they're a lot better. They're handcrafted in Denmark.

So it can vary, but what matters is its capacity, because with any audio system, you can never control what sampling rate the audio was recorded at. That depends on the end user, but when you're talking about the equipment, the PlayStation 3 has SACD, which is the highest-end consumer format.

So? The Xbox 360 also has HDTV (to an extent). And with the Wii, are you really going to use every feature? The thing is, with all of these products, not just the PlayStation 3, they are trying to cater to the needs of every individual (some better than others), not just you. Your problem is that you're too self-centered, you think the world revolves around you, but it doesn't, and you have to face that sooner or later or you're just gonna mess up the rest of your life.

The PlayStation 3 does in fact exist, the production lines are going to be up and running within weeks. Plus, how do you think the engineers at SCEI made the PlayStation 3 without any dev kits? And besides, it's confirmed that the PlayStation 3 will have HDMI. And what I was trying to say is that the Xbox 360 doesn't have HDMI, which it doesn't, and I've shown you proof of that.

Fine, you don't want to believe me even when I've presented the fact? Fine. But at least I know that I'm right, and that's what matters, cuz that just makes you all the more stubborn and stupid.

[quote=myscrnnm,Aug 23 2006, 02:04 AM]
KLH wasn't that good, I mean, decent, but not phenomenal. The best stuff is like Bang & Olufsen, Bose, JBL, harman/kardon, and Sony.[/quote]
KLH was extremly good. You just dont understand the craftsmanship of American speaker-builders.
[quote]No, they're a lot better. They're handcrafted in Denmark.[/quote]
No they aren't. KLH speakers built before the work was outsourced, back when they were made in America, are better than any Denmark made speaker created today.
[quote]So it can vary, but what matters is its capacity, because with any audio system, you can never control what sampling rate the audio was recorded at. That depends on the end user, but when you're talking about the equipment, the PlayStation 3 has SACD, which is the highest-end consumer format.[/quote]
No audio was recorded with a sampling rate NEARLY as high as that of the output of the PS3. I'm not concerned with the system's sampling rate. I'm concerned with it's inability to maximise the sound quality of audio that was recorded with a lower sampling rate.
[quote]So? The Xbox 360 also has HDTV (to an extent). And with the Wii, are you really going to use every feature?[/quote] No, but I'm not buying a 360, and I'm not paying an extra $300 for features I wont use on the Wii. I'm paying for maybe $10. [quote]The thing is, with all of these products, not just the PlayStation 3, they are trying to cater to the needs of every individual (some better than others), not just you.[/quote]
Great, but the majority of gaming consumers aren't willing to pay an extra couple hundred dollars for the sake of better graphics of the system, and a couple extra thousand for output equipment.
[quote]Your problem is that you're too self-centered, you think the world revolves around you, but it doesn't, and you have to face that sooner or later or you're just gonna mess up the rest of your life.[/quote]
I'M self centered? YOU'RE self centered. Very few people can afford a top quality high definition television set. Very few people value graphics over gameplay. YOU are the minority here, and YOU are projecting your feelings onto the majority of others who DONT feel the same way.
[quote]The PlayStation 3 does in fact exist,[/quote] Then show me one. Show me a fully functional, end-user PS3. They dont exist yet.
[quote]the production lines are going to be up and running within weeks.[/quote]
GOING to be? If they havn't even set up to make them, how can the exist?
[quote]Plus, how do you think the engineers at SCEI made the PlayStation 3 without any dev kits?[/quote]
A dev kit ISN'T a console.
[quote]And besides, it's confirmed that the PlayStation 3 will have HDMI.[/quote]
Just because the company says it will, doesnt mean it absolutly will. The system hasn't entered the mass-production phase yet, and changes could still be made.
[quote]And what I was trying to say is that the Xbox 360 doesn't have HDMI, which it doesn't, and I've shown you proof of that.[/quote]
Great. So that explains why the 360 would be less of a waste of my money than the PS3. Oh joy, maybe I'll go buy one now.
[quote]Fine, you don't want to believe me even when I've presented the fact? Fine. But at least I know that I'm right, and that's what matters, cuz that just makes you all the more stubborn and stupid.[/quote]
You are not right. What you say is not fact, but opinion. It is your opinion that the PS3 will be superior to any other console in existance. Your opinion is based upon what you value in a console. What you value in a console is not what is valued by others in a console. I value gameplay, something that Microsoft and Sony have failed to improve in their games. Nintendo, however, has alwasy created games that are enjoyable to play.

In fact, the ONLY time at which I would enjoy playing a game that had nothing but realistic graphics would be while I were stoned, and I'm not in that mindset often enough to justify buying a PS3 or a 360.

Wow, it'll be a less waste of my money too! Time to grab me a 360.

Devs didn't even get the final dev-kits untill recently.

And you're the "lone" one around here, and everyone else sticks somewhat together.