|
|
Posted by Doug Jacobs on 01/23/07 00:47
In alt.video.dvd AceoHearts <bhoran@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> I really was planning on staying out of this, but I have to add my
> opinion. And it is my opinion as a consumer and an electronics technician.
> I have found that most "dual purpose" devices have one or more of several
> common problems. I will use TV / DVD combos as a perfect example. They are
> either a decent TV or DVD player with a substandard unit slapped onto it.
> The construction and connections between the units are usually not that
> good. And the main problem is if one of the two parts fails, you are left
> with only half of a working machine, or you are SOL while you are getting
> the unit fixed.
I won't argue that dual purpose devices don't have their problems.
Even as a DVD player, the PS2 wasn't rated very highly - however that
didn't stop it from selling well in Japan where dedciated DVD players cost
several hundred more at that time.
By the time the PS2 came to the US, dedicated players had dropped to $300
or just under (the initial price of the PS2). American customers weren't
buying the PS2 as their primary DVD player.
> So as far as the PS3 as a HD DVD player, who would buy it for only that
> reason? Most people are going to buy it as a gaming machine and use it to
> play DVD's as a secondary feature. No matter what the price is. Saying
> people are going to buy the PS3 only to watch movies is the same as saying
> that people were going to buy the PSP to watch UMD movies. And we have seen
> how well that format has caught on. Hardcore gamers want gaming machines,
> and movie buffs want movie players. You don't want a game machine that
> sacrifices power just so you can watch movies. Or a movie player that
> destroys quality so someone might get a better frame rate playing a game.
Again, Sony was obviously hoping to hook early adopters of Blu-Ray by
offering the PS3 as a cheap blu-ray player. At $600, the PS3 is indeed
the cheapest standalone blu-ray player on the market. The problem is,
does anyone care about blu-ray (or HD movies in general) in the first
place? I think we can look at the sales numbers and conclude "No, not
really."
Moreover, the PS3's launch library of games doesn't make it a very
attractive game console either.
Note that including blu-ray playback in the PS3 is totally separate from
its abilities as a gaming machine. It's not like you're playing both a
movie and a game at the same time. If anything, the PS3 as a standalone
blu-ray player is way overpowered due to its gaming hardware which isn't
really touched while playing movies.
Could Sony have saved some money by not going with a blu-ray drive, and
instead beef up the PS3's other specs? Possibly. It really remains to be
seen what the PS3 is truly capable of as a gaming machine, and if - as
Sony claims - blu-ray as a storage medium is "essential" for gaming.
--
Win cash and giftcards just for clicking your mouse!
http://www.netwinner.com/?signupCode=amuro98
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|