SCEF President gives a price range for the PS3

How so? Name me something that some other BR player can do that the PS3 won't be able to do (outside of using a remote or something like that)? I've already named several things that the PS3 can do that several other BR players can't, making it much more than a "minimal player." Hence, IMO (and in the opinion of several members at NeoGAF, B3D, and the AVS forums) the PS3 will at least be one of the best BR players, if not the best (definitely best for the price though).

edit: I'm actually a little surprised that people didn't know this BTW. The PS3 being one of the best BR players has been known since around CES, when several BR players were announced that didn't support 1080p.



What did I spin?

 

Wait, are we comparing the PS3 to Blu-ray players coming out much later than the PS3? I was comparing it to launch players (2006 or so). Sure, some BR player a couple years from now might be better, and probably even cheaper. Not sure how often HDMI specs get updated, but I suppose there could be a HDMI 1.4 that needs new hardware (which a new BR player could implement, but not the PS3…I don’t think). I'm sure there will be some sort of BR recorder that plays movies at 1080p, supports HDMI 1.3 (or later), and can burn HD video to a HDD or even BR discs; that would be a much better product than the PS3. I'm not disagreeing there. I'm just saying that for all of the initial BR players, the PS3 will be one of the, if not the, best players around. Anything I said that seemed to suggest otherwise I apologize for since that was not my intention.

BTW, I think I read that since the source for these new formats is digital, there may not be any differences in image quality between players; the same couldn't be said for earlier formats IIRC. I'll have to look into this some more probably since I can't remember all the specifics.

I normally go off of what some of the tech-guys (Kleegamefan, Gofreak, Pana, etc.) say over there when it comes to the technical aspects of the PS3, not someone like Marathon, Heian-kyo, or anyone like that. Besides, even if you don't trust their opinions, the same is being said at B3D and the AVS forums AFAIK.

Also, as for Sony not trying to put the best features into the PS3, I think Ken Kutaragi would say differently (SCE is building the machine, not Sony Electronics or whoever makes their players). This thing is going to last 10 years, while there will probably be newer, better BR players made by the BR manufacturers as time goes by. Besides, something like 1080p support and HDMI 1.3 isn't very hard to implement on the PS3, especially when it already supports 1080p for games. It would be stupid to have the PS3 display games in 1080p and not movies, especially since Cell is made for this kind of stuff. That said, in this particular case, that doesn't matter much since I believe the Sony BR player supports 1080p; the only thing it won't have (AFAIK) would be HDMI 1.3, which if it is coming out this summer, is understandable.

For those that don't want to wait (and fight) for the PS3, the Sony BR player (or some other BR player) would be more than fine, especially since PS3 supply won't meet demand for quite a while. If the only thing separating the PS3 and the Sony BD player to a home theater enthusiast is the HDMI 1.3 support, then he/she might as well get the stand alone player (assuming they don't want/need a player with a HDD, downloadable content, WiFi media hub capabilities, support for multiple storage devices, etc.).

I admit it does seem a little wacky, but I don't see any reason why they'd purposely limit the capabilities of the PS3 just to sell their BR players early on. In the case that either is sold, Sony gets a Blu-ray device inside a home. Plus, as the companies prepare to launch products aimed at the more mainstream consumer, they'll probably be able to offer players at prices lower than the PS3 (similar to how DVD players today cost considerably less than the PS2).

As I said earlier when responding to SamFisher's post, I'm sure there will be a better BR player than the PS3 after it comes out (or at least several comparable ones). Again, I think Panasonic is preparing a 1080p BR player for the fall with HDMI 1.3 support, among other things. Depending on when it launches, the PS3 may not even be the best player when it launches, let alone 6 months later. It will still be up there though since any of the BR players launched previously (probably) won't support HDMI 1.3, and a portion of those won't even support 1080p. Again, hardly a minimal player. And as I said earlier, throw in some of the things that are typically seen as the gaming features and perhaps the PS3 would be the best (EX: might be able to use the HDD to store a MMC of a BR movie, which you could distribute over your home network...through the PS3).

Again, I'm sorry if I made it seem like I was saying the PS3 would always be the best BR player available. That certainly wouldn't be the case.

Well sure, if the average Joe wants to join the HD world in 2006 by getting a new 1080p display and a BR player (like a PS3), then he'll have to spend a lot of money. Luckily for him, prices fall, especially on these devices that are originally aimed at home theater enthusiasts that would spend $20K on a DVD player. In few years, when Blu-ray and the HD world are ready to go mainstream, prices will be much more affordable. If there's already a 1080p display for $1500 MSRP (meaning it could be cheaper), how much do you think one would cost in say 2008? Perhaps even one that uses newer, cheaper tech, and maybe one not quite as big.

Note: I have some stuff I need to do later today, so I may not reply for a while in case I get any responses.

 

Yes and no. For 2006, 1080p is a non-issue. As I was saying earlier, some companies are just barely putting out their own 1080p displays, which won't be aimed at the average Joe. Still, they're dropping in price by quite a bit. IIRC, most of the 1080p sets I saw a year ago were like $6K-$10K, but now there are several under that (including the $1500 MSRP model I mentioned earlier). Still not exactly affordable to the average user, but it is a start. I imagine that in a few years, they'll drop even more in price. We'll also probably (or should I say hopefully) start seeing some new TV tech in a few years, like SED, OLED, and TVs that use carbon nanotubes (which are all cheaper and better display technologies).

As for games, I doubt we'll see 1080p used that much, except for maybe when a game looks terrible, so the developers will make it 1080p to add to the PR sheet (like Untold Legends). Perhaps maybe Polyphony Digital can work their magic and get it to work, but for most other developers, increasing the resolution to 1080p means being able to put less things on the screen (IOW, it takes up a lot of power that could be used for something else). It might become more of an issue later on, but I think most devs would rather add some more enemies or add some extra polygons to the environments than increasing the resolution. 720p/1080i will look good enough in most cases. I guess you could always get some "AA for free" by making it 1080p, but that's really about it. 1080p for games isn't necessarily a bad thing, and might even be nicely implemented late this generation, but it isn't something I'm really looking forward to, at least early on.

Of course, I've yet to see a game running in 1080p, so I guess things could change.