|
|
Posted by Mr. X on 01/12/06 06:36
"Joshua Zyber" <jzyber@mind-NOSPAM-spring.com> wrote in message
news:6Kbwf.4638$%W1.2417@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> "jolt" <ergoacess@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8rSdneuqh-YFi13eRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>> The PS3 if sold at 399.00 with 1080p support will be a must have and a
>> large number will never see gameing use.
>
> You're dreaming if you think the PS3 will live up to those expectations.
> Has everyone forgotten what a crappy DVD player the PS2 is? Why would we
> expect differently from the PS3? This thing is a video game console first,
> movie playback a distant second priority.
>
> If Sony intends to sell a 1080p-capable, fully-functional, excellent
> quality Blu-Ray/video game device all for $399, how will Samsung, Pioneer,
> and the other manufacturers (including Sony themselves) ever sell a single
> dedicated Blu-Ray player at twice to 5 times the price? Why would those
> other manufacturers ever join the Blu-Ray consortium if they knew that
> Sony was going to swoop in and slaughter them at retail? What is in it for
> them?
>
> Either the PS3 is going to be much more expensive than people are
> speculating, or it's going to be a functionally-disabled, lousy quality
> Blu-Ray device just like the PS2 is for DVDs.
>
> You can't have it both ways. It isn't feasible.
Sure you can. The PS3 will work as a player but it will look like a toy.
Style concious people will pay more for a "professional" looking unit and
"videophiles" will pay 3x as much for a unit with "oxygen free copper
interconnects" even if the motherboard is actually the same.
X
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|