You're out of touch with reality. Maybe those idiots who bought a PS3 without a HDTV have good reasons. But then who cares about those poor ****ers who could not drop $1300 for next gen gaming. The 360/PS3 have tremendous hardware advancements from their predecessors that makes certain games released for the consoles impossible to make on the PS2. The PS3's blu-ray drive works even when a HDTV isn't plugged in. Developers are able to create games that go beyond the 9 gig limit of the PS2 DVD drive and can make games up to 50 gigs if they wanted (But I don't think there has been a game that has come close to that number) If you think that the only difference between games on the PS2,Xbox and the PS3/360 You are really missing out.
He's just baiting you, like the other notorious xbot. I know your a passionate gamer like a few others here, but it's not worth arguing with people w/ hidden agendas.
No but they do come with wifi abillities. Also PS3 has free online play (so does Wii, only Microsoft is greedy in this respect). As far as should they come with wireless router, I think that's a bit of stretch, when I bought the PS3, I totally realized things like a HDTV and wireless router were something that a consumer is responsible for.
Sony is already losing a lot of money per PS3 unit I'm fine with them not including HDMI cables... however, I definitely think they should have included component cables. those are cheap
I didn't mean to sound like a snob (I'm broke ***** !..... or atleast have to tighten my belt A LOT with the recent PS3 purchase) and certainly wouldn't be one if I'm complaining about having to purchase HDMI cables. I just believe that in the order of priorities, a HDTV should come before a next gen system. Because as far as pure gameplay, I don't believe there are that many games that are currently on the PS3 (or even XBOX 360 though the library is slightly better if you like first person shooters) that is that much superior than the what's on the other systems. The Nintendo DS games (and to some of the extent the Wii) are the only system that provide refreshng gaming experiences with superior gameplay. Other games are more or less a re-hash of the kind of games that are still available (and even available in the bargain bin). If you're willing to buy new games for a PS3 (at $60 a pop) and a PS3 right now (or before the price drop), then it just seem ironic that a HDTV is something you would forgo (especially since a TV is equivalent to ~ 5 - 6 games these days). My point was that the cost to incremental enjoyment ratio from PS3 games over PS2 games is not worth it for the most part unless you're wanting graphical improvments. As of right now, there are very few games that are superior in terms of gameplay (or atleast enough of improvement to warrant the $400+ investment in the system + $60 for the game) to the current gen alternatives. I apologize if I sounded insulting, didn't mean it in anyway. Is it possible to ask which games on the PS3 made you want to make that purchase (just so I can know what games to look and save up for). Admittedly, the PS3 purchase was also some what of a impulse purchase (well that and the fact that Nov 2nd was the price drop and since I do see my self buying the system even if it's just for one of the cheapest Blu-ray player available before it's likely drop price again, I felt the enjoyment I would get out of the system exceeded what ever return on investment I would get for $400. Thus, Nov 2nd was the most correct day to buy a PS3 since it would maximize entertainment value; Atleast, that's I told myself in order make that impulse purchase ). I basically skipped the last gen for the most part until they started selling the units for $130 a pop. There just wasn't really anything out there that made me want to run out and just get a new system (though not being able to play FFX while it was popular kind of sucked) and there really wasn't any game out there that was that much superior than anything a average PC can support (and by average I meant Emachines ) .
Whether or not you can get a cheap cable doesn't really matter. If you look around, you see research/surveys that teach us a large number of people have no idea how HD works. Large numbers don't even understand much of the basics of how you connect a TV to a source that gives you the best picture. Hell, I understand that much and I haven't even really bothered to look into the high def media question yet. I think there's even a poll out there where people bought an HDTV and have it connected to an SD source - they thought the only point of it was to give you a bigger picture. My point is if you want the HD world to flourish and thrive - particularly when your product depends on it, like the new gen consoles do - you have to guide these folks. You have to make it easier for them to make the transition. Otherwise it's that much longer that a format war that a small percentage cares about drags on, or a system with a high def player built-in lags in sales or a considerably cheaper add-on to make your system a high def player collects dust on the shelf. This should be common sense, but too many loyalists would rather play the 'INSERTIDIOTICSUBJECTHERE Wars' and defend decisions that don't make things better for everyone.
Speaking of PS3: My PS3 switches back to 720 when I play 2K8. It starts at 1080 but then goes blank for a bit then plays at 720. I have a Sony HD w/ HDMI.
I'm not sure, but I think 720p is the second option behind 1080p for the PS3. Try unselecting 720p from available resolutions in the display settings and it might go to 1080i instead.
Your TV changes to the resolution that the game was designed for. I'm guessing 2K was designed for 720. Don't uncheck it as a resolution. You will find a lot of games use 720. One advantage is that is uses progressive scanning as oppose to interlace (like 1080i). There there is 1080p but a small % of HD owners have that resolution.
