I honestly don't understand why the Xbox gets billed as the entertainment console..

[Nitey]

Isn't the IGN app just video content you can play on the Xbox/ps3 through the Youtube app anyway? PS3 had crunchyroll first I think

anyway fuck these lists im outta here

[mynd]

Isn't the IGN app just video content you can play on the Xbox/ps3 through the Youtube app anyway? PS3 had crunchyroll first I think

anyway fuck these lists im outta here

I don't even know what crunchy roll is. But i see it there.
Its a little more organized than you tube, but yeah content is essentially the same as they post on there, just a bit easier to navigate.

[Shingo]

searching video in 50 video application to watch video? great library indeed....

[sainraja]

So why were people using TVersity? Etc, again you using extra software, I understand it was capable of it, we had people on here that did do, but it was extra software, I never denied that it could do it.



Oh please, Ive been on these forums as long as you have, and followed closely over the years what it did and didn't do.

I don't have to own a PS3 to remember the threads upon thread we had on here, nor do I have such a short memory as to forget the complete and utter fuck up that was the firmware that was launched with the PS3.

Some of it might have been only for a few months, but it doesn't negate the fact that it was not much of a media streamer when it first launched.

If it weren't for WMP11 (which the Xbox did not require), it wouldn't have been able to handle it very well at all.

How is extra software a negative? Sony does not create the Windows OS so they can't add default support to the OS. They can support software that the OS has (such as Windows Media Player 11 -- which actually isn't extra software, it ships with Windows PC's.)

TVersity wasn't the first to stream. There was another and it worked without a hitch -- you would know this if you OWNED a PS3 and tried it out for yourself.

WMP11 -- see my edit which you may have missed where I mentioned it, also worked without a hitch -- again you would know this if you had one.

Also, Xbox 360 had native support because it's backed up Microsoft who makes the Windows OS and Windows Media Center is "extra" software. It doesn't magically stream your content from Windows as far as I know. It does communicate with the PC somehow.

EDIT

I used WMP11 in 2007 to stream some of my content but if that isn't enough for ya -- here is a post which shows how:

Source
• http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/25652036
• http://community.us.playstation.com/.../td-p/20643190

Also, reading about something and actually trying to do it yourself isn't the same....mynd. People also talked about the PS3 being a grill and cooking food..

EDIT

I looked up PS3 Media Server which someone else mentioned earlier to which you responded with the following:

"Not talking about it being a server, quite the opposite.
Id hate to have any console as a server."

It doesn't convert the PS3 into a media server. It streams content to the PS3.

Source
http://www.ps3mediaserver.org/about/

You shouldn't believe everything you read, mynd. Ofcourse, I wouldn't have to find links and prove it to you if you actually had the thing.

[KillingSpree0]

I don't even know what crunchy roll is. But i see it there.
Its a little more organized than you tube, but yeah content is essentially the same as they post on there, just a bit easier to navigate.

Crunchyroll=Hd anime steaming mostly subbed, like Netflix just anime. Ps3 had it first, also Neon Alley was on ps3 first too, which is dubbed anime that runs like a tv channel

[sainraja]

This is a silly argument anyway. Both devices are capable of being used as a full entertainment center. Some of us use the PS3 and others the Xbox 360. Both are very capable of satisfying that need.

[mynd]

How is extra software a negative? Sony does not create the Windows OS so they can't add default support to the OS. They can support software that the OS has (such as Windows Media Player 11 -- which actually isn't extra software, it ships with Windows PC's.)

TVersity wasn't the first to stream. There was another and it worked without a hitch -- you would know this if you OWNED a PS3 and tried it out for yourself.

WMP11 -- see my edit which you may have missed where I mentioned it, also worked without a hitch -- again you would know this if you had one.

Also, Xbox 360 had native support because it's backed up Microsoft who makes the Windows OS and Windows Media Center is "extra" software. It doesn't magically stream your content from Windows as far as I know. It does communicate with the PC somehow.

EDIT

I used WMP11 in 2007 to stream some of my content but if that isn't enough for ya -- here is a post which shows how:

Source
• http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/25652036
• http://community.us.playstation.com/.../td-p/20643190

Also, reading about something and actually trying to do it yourself isn't the same....mynd. People also talked about the PS3 being a grill and cooking food..

EDIT

I looked up PS3 Media Server which someone else mentioned earlier to which you responded with the following:

"Not talking about it being a server, quite the opposite.
Id hate to have any console as a server."

It doesn't convert the PS3 into a media server. It streams content to the PS3.

Source
http://www.ps3mediaserver.org/about/

You shouldn't believe everything you read, mynd. Ofcourse, I wouldn't have to find links and prove it to you if you actually had the thing.

yeah, uh your being awfully defensive ya know, I didn't say it couldn't do it, it just didn't intergrate with windows like the 360 did at launch (which is understandable).

Err and he was talking about the PS3 being a server...
No one mentioned ps3mediaserver.

I bought my PS3 in 2007 and it was a perfectly good media server from day 1

What was a perfectly good server "it" (the PS3) was.
He's got a bit mixed up thats all, I'm sure he meant streamer.
Context is a wonderful thing.

[sainraja]

Maybe I was being defensive but let's not ignore the fact that what you were arguing earlier was that the PS3 wasn't able to stream content when it launched (not that it wasn't as integrated as the 360.)

Streaming content such as movies, pictures and music was supported through WMP11/PS3 streaming software in 2007 which isn't that far off from the launch window.

Minus the support it had through WMP11 (it wasn't specific to the PS3), the PS3 needed to use third-party software so not being integrated with the OS isn't really a negative against PS3 having the ability around launch. It did have the ability.

EDIT:

Netflix isn't integrated with the PS3 OS unlike how it is with the X360 and from my experience. It's better on the PS3. Integration isn't always an advantage.

Consistency is good (not denying that.) It's not always possible for various reasons (i.e. not being available from the same company.)

[mynd]

Maybe I was being defensive but let's not ignore the fact that what you were arguing earlier was that the PS3 wasn't able to stream content when it launched (not that it wasn't as integrated as the 360.)

Actually I'm pretty sure I did....

Meh, from 2005, you could stream pictures, movies, etc direct from you PC to the 360, without so much as doing anything than clicking a button.

These days, its about even, but back then, the PS3 didn't have these features.

I guess its a hang over from those days.

You used to have to jump through a lot of hoops back then to get the PS3 do stuff, TVersity etc ect

Streaming content such as movies, pictures and music was supported through WMP11/PS3 streaming software in 2007 which isn't that far off from the launch window.

Minus the support it had through WMP11 (it wasn't specific to the PS3), the PS3 needed to use third-party software so not being integrated with the OS isn't really a negative against PS3 having the ability around launch. It did have the ability.

EDIT:

Netflix isn't integrated with the PS3 OS unlike how it is with the X360 and from my experience. It's better on the PS3. Integration isn't always an advantage.

Consistency is good (not denying that.) It's not always possible for various reasons (i.e. not being available from the same company.)

I have no beef with the PS3' media capabilities BTW, I was never saying it was any better or worse.

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

Um the ps4 will do everything the ps3 did (even more) but the focus for Sony is still the gamers! Don't know much about ms's offering but from what Sony has shown, there stance is clear

Sent from my Note II

Unlike the PS1, PS2 and PS3...... the PS4 won't play CDs.

[Ghost-Rhayne]

Unlike the PS1, PS2 and PS3...... the PS4 won't play CDs.

I haven't ever used a CD in my PS3 . Having it omitted as an option is unfortunate, but on the other hand, the idea of playing CDs on such a cloud based and leading edge piece of hardware feels like trying to play a record on an MP3 player .

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

I haven't ever used a CD in my PS3 . Having it omitted as an option is unfortunate, but on the other hand, the idea of playing CDs on such a cloud based and leading edge piece of hardware feels like trying to play a record on an MP3 player .

CDs have a much better fidelity and bit rate then MP3s. That's why people still buy them. You are better off getting a CD and then convert the songs to MP3 if you must have them on your player. That way you still have the superior versions to play on a CD player.

PS4 would also be the first PS console to not have BC. If you can't pop in one of your old games, it ain't BC. Streaming old games off Gaikai doesn't make the PS4 BC technically cuz the BC processing is done on the server end and not on the console. Plus you must repurchase any old games you want or play them via a subscription based model.

[Old Man Gamer]

Guys, you seem to miss my original point. I'm not talking about back at the original launch. I'm talking about NOW, people are still billing 360 as better than the PS3 in the entertainment area..yet if I tally it up the PS3 definitely has more functions and some stuff for free that isn't on the 360.

Cost has absolutely nothing to do with it. I just don't see the PS3 having MORE functions (aside from blu-ray) than the 360. The 360 is without a doubt easier to navigate thus being more user friendly. Having used both the 360 is more user friendly.

[mickice]

I was under the impression that it was the 'entertainment' console because it doesn't really have the game library to carry it anymore, so more and more of it is being focused on other features it can do.

This. It started as a hardcore gamers console and now that the hardcore own one it is marketed as a media console as its secondary strength. All along the PS3 was a hardcore gamers console and a media player so thats why no one really mentions it, what they do say is the PS3 is now the new Wii casual gamers console with cheap as chips games, Move and Harry Potter.

A 5yo can navigate a PS3, can you?

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

This. It started as a hardcore gamers console and now that the hardcore own one it is marketed as a media console as its secondary strength. All along the PS3 was a hardcore gamers console and a media player so thats why no one really mentions it, what they do say is the PS3 is now the new Wii casual gamers console with cheap as chips games, Move and Harry Potter.

A 5yo can navigate a PS3, can you?

PS3 was not the hardcore gamer console to begin with. Half of at least it's 1st year sales were people getting it as a cheap Blu-Ray player when standalones were very expensive. Don't you remember the statements by game publishers and retailers scratching their heads that they had X-amount of PS console sales. but game sales didn't come even close to correlating with the sheer number of consoles sold? That's why they all came to the same conclusions. It's the exact same thing that happened with the PS2. People were buying it as a cheap DVD player when DVD players at the time were very expensive.

That's why DVD and Blu-Ray were both adopted so quickly. Sony's consoles were a cheap way to dive into the new formats in their infancy.

[TGO]

My livingroom Blu-ray player cost half of what I paid for my PS3 at the same time so I don't get the cheap Blu-ray player part
But theres a big difference between the 360 & PS3 when it comes to media and thats PS3 can do most of it natively, its in the hardware
Blu-ray, photos, mp3, videos, games, online play, internet Netflix, etc can done straight out of the box, you dont need to pay for any additional services to use your already additional services and you don't need another device to stream from but you can if you want, the PS3 is independent
Sounds like a better entertainment console to me imo


Sent via Codec

[PeanutButterMunky]

Sony's consoles were a cheap way to dive into the new formats in their infancy.

No, they weren't. The PS3 was $499.00 when it launched for the low storage version and the PS2 was $299.00. And DVD was already around for a while before the PS2 launched. Stating the PS3 was a cheap alternative is hardly accurate.

[GreatSpaceKoaster]

No, they weren't. The PS3 was $499.00 when it launched for the low storage version and the PS2 was $299.00. And DVD was already around for a while before the PS2 launched. Stating the PS3 was a cheap alternative is hardly accurate.

Yes DVD players were around, but they were still expensive. I suppose I could try and search for the articles back then, but it was over 10 years ago and I'm not sure what words will bring them up in Google. But I clearly remember online articles and magazines talking about how retailers and game publishers were reeling because they were selling a boatload of consoles, but hardly had sales of games at the time of the purchase and the 6-12 months following the console sales. Everyone at the time concluded they got it as a cheap DVD player. I think there was a little cheaper DVD player at the time, but people said for just a few bucks more I get a game console aspect as a bonus.

The same exact thing happened with the PS3. It was like Déjà vu. It seemed to only affect about the first year of the PS3 just like it did with the PS2. I remember heated threads on the net at the time. Hardcore Sony fans were beyond frustrated because the attach rates were so low compared to the Xbox 360's first year. Some even feared the PS3 would lose dev support if PS3 owners didn't step it up. As better Blu-Ray players dropped in price, new PS3 buyers were more and more just gamers and the attach rates rose.

I quickly found an article making light of my point, although I know there are older articles that make more of it then this one. I just gotta find them.

One of the biggest selling points for the PS3 is that Blu-ray player inside it. For a while there it seemed that was one of the only reasons anyone was picking up the system. So it should come as no surprise that according to Home Media Magazine 47 percent of people who watch Blu-rays do it on a PS3. However, that's actually a drop off for the system, as 45 percent of watches are now using stand-alone players where only six months ago the PS3 had a two-to-one advantage over players.

http://www.destructoid.com/ps3-losin...r-185515.phtml

That BOLD part was a reference to the earlier debate and dismay of the PS3 software attach rates amongst publishers and retailers. Xbox 360's first year software attach rates killed in comparison of the PS3's first year attach rates. That's why the consensus amongst the industry experts was that a lot of people were playing movies on them and not games. The attach rates told the story.

And a CNET article in 2006 making reference to the huge price differences.....

After a long wait, we're finally starting to get in a new wave of first-generation Blu-ray players. CNET will be posting full reviews for both the Panasonic DMP-BD10 and the Philips BDP9000 shortly, but I've already taken some long looks at each in terms of picture quality, and they've got a lot to be worried about. Not because they look worse than HD DVD; in fact, the picture-quality gap is almost gone between the two formats. And not because they're bad players; both of them put out a pristine Blu-ray image that blows DVD out of the water. The problem is that, excluding some very minor differences, all the Blu-ray players I've seen offer essentially the same picture quality. That's a problem because the 20GB PlayStation 3 retails for $500, which is $800 less than the Panasonic DMP-BD10 and around $400 less than the Philips BDP9000. Even with eBay inflation, we're seeing the 20GB PS3 go for $600.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9667998-1.html

I'll keep digging and when I hit paydirt, I'll post and link the references to it. Somebody that sees my post is bound to remember what I'm talking about. Like I said.... it was debated quite a bit back then on the net forums. I remember people saying that Sony was cannibalizing their own standalone players because the PS3 was cheaper then them. That's when it hit people that Sony was taking a deep loss on every PS3 because of the Blu-Ray player and cuz they wanted to speed up adoption and kill HD-DVD. It worked.

Oh... to TGO..... there may have been a cheaper Blu-Ray player once the PS3 launched in the UK in 2007, but when it launched in the states in 2006...I can't recall a cheaper one.

EDIT:

Sony Cuts Blu-ray Hardware Prices
Will a PlayStation 3 discount follow?
by Gerry Block
June 4, 2007

Sony has announced today that it will cut the price of its BDP-S300 stand-alone Blu-ray player by $100. The formerly $599 player will now carry a list price of $499. Sony representatives told the Associated Press the price drop was a response to declining manufacturing costs and increased demand for Blu-ray players.

The price cut may also be a response to the HD-DVD camp's summer offensive that also hinges upon a $100 price cut on Toshiba's primary consumer player, the HD-A2. HD-DVD representatives have trumpeted a very positive initial response to the new pricing, which pushes stand-alone HD-DVD hardware to the $299 sweet-spot for consumer electronics.

Sony, of course, is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy in establishing the Blu-ray format, pushing both dedicated stand-alone players and the more feature rich PlayStation 3. Though the PS3 is already being sold for a loss, most industry spectators believe Sony will aim to leverage lower production costs to drop the PS3's $599 to a more competitive price (in terms of both gaming consoles and next-gen DVD players) sometime this summer. The blue-laser diode drive assembly in the PS3, and all Blu-ray players, was known to be a major contributor to production costs in the early days of manufacturing. Now that efficiency of scale savings are being felt, Sony may have the option of cutting prices to stay competitive with HD-DVD and the competing gaming consoles.

It's also worth nothing that, for the first time, Sony is selling a dedicated Blu-ray player for less than the PlayStation 3. The company is very much in need of expanding the PS3 installation base, and cannibalizing the console's sales by offering a cheaper stand-alone player is probably not a great idea considering the fact that, in a season of traditionally slackened game sales, many will be considering the console primarily as a Blu-ray player.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2007/06/...ardware-prices

another reference to what I'm talking about.

[TGO]

Indeed BD players came out in full force early 2007 with both Samsung & Sony players
But it wasn't like the DVD era, DVD had been out for a while and players were expensive, the PS2 gave it a much needed kick up the arse
Theres no doubt PS3 helped Blu-ray, afterall for each PS3 sold there was a Blu-ray player sold. That alone was enough to kill HD-DVD
consoles sell faster then standalone players even if a console is selling slow, it a win win
But a cheap it wasn't, it was still an investment and it didn't stay cheap for long as cheaper players came quickly, but it was an attractive piece of kit the av guys for what it did and for it price

Sent via Codec

[mynd]

I remember buying a DVD player, it was a Hitachi, it cost me $1099 in 1999, we bought because my brother in law had one.
A friend of ours, who I raved about the DVD player with, was going to wait till the PS2. I said he was mad.

Anyway, in early 2001 he bought a PS2 for $999. It was region locked unlike my Hitachi, I also had my Hitachi for 21 months by the time he got his.

My point is, you could buy cheaper DVD players by then, but many people used as an added bonus. "look honey its a game system AND DVD". I think it largely worked, I knew people who's DVD player was a PS2.

My other point is, I'm a bit drunk.

As for the PS3, Blu-ray has never taken off, it really hasn't, and it never had the mass market appeal of DVD.

But the end result was SOny could stand up and tell the MPAA that there was more Blu-ray players than HD-DVD players 6 months after launch.
It was completely a stealth move that worked.

I would also like to point out, that at the time, like most things Sony seems to do, it was half baked and took a few years to mature.

[PeanutButterMunky]

snip

I'm not disagreeing with you that people purchased PS3 because it was a Blu-ray player that also played games... and it was an excuse to have both... I'm just saying it certainly wasn't cheap... but it was certainly a huge foot in the door for the Blu-ray format. Blu-ray players were effing expensive when PS3 debuted... as you pointed out.

You could get a DVD player for under 100 bucks by the time the PS2 launched. In 1997, they were almost 1000 bucks. The price dropped dramatically in that timeframe... otherwise the PS2 would've been ungodly expensive.

Now that I think about it... we used the PS2 as our main DVD player in the house, even though we had several other players... and the PS2 DVD remote control was pretty damn cool looking.

Sony seems pretty smart with this stuff. I'm very glad HD-DVD didn't win the format war... it was shit in comparison. I'll take lossless, please.

Thanks for all the article digging... I honestly barely remember any of that. You have made your point. *tips hat*

[mynd]

I'm not disagreeing with you that people purchased PS3 because it was a Blu-ray player that also played games... and it was an excuse to have both... I'm just saying it certainly wasn't cheap... but it was certainly a huge foot in the door for the Blu-ray format. Blu-ray players were effing expensive when PS3 debuted... as you pointed out.

They were non-existent, lets not beat around the bush, they were getting outsold 20:1 by HD-DVD at the time, I remember these things, because when IM drunk I rember shit from 7 years ago.

You could get a DVD player for under 100 bucks by the time the PS2 launched. In 1997, they were almost 1000 bucks. The price dropped dramatically in that timeframe... otherwise the PS2 would've been ungodly expensive.

97???

Now that I think about it... we used the PS2 as our main DVD player in the house, even though we had several other players... and the PS2 DVD remote control was pretty damn cool looking.

Sony seems pretty smart with this stuff. I'm very glad HD-DVD didn't win the format war... it was shit in comparison. I'll take lossless, please.

Thanks for all the article digging... I honestly barely remember any of that. You have made your point. *tips hat*

Are you fucking kidding me.. HD-DVD pissed...pissed all over Bluray (as it was at the time).

you don't know you history if you think at launch time BR was as good as HD-DVD, it just wasn't even close.

BR took about 18 months to finally be able to offer features the HD-DVD had had at launch.

[PeanutButterMunky]

They were non-existent, lets not beat around the bush, they were getting outsold 20:1 by HD-DVD at the time, I remember these things, because when IM drunk I rember shit from 7 years ago.

I'm sorry, but you're being fucking ridiculous. They weren't outselling them 20:1. Blu-ray launched in 2006 and HD-DVD was released first so it had the upper hand. It only took one year and with the help of PS3 to outsell HD-DVD 2:1 by 2007 and by 2008 HD-DVD production was discontinued.

97???

Yes, there were 1000 dollar DVD players in 1997.

Are you fucking kidding me.. HD-DVD pissed...pissed all over Bluray (as it was at the time).

you don't know you history if you think at launch time BR was as good as HD-DVD, it just wasn't even close.

BR took about 18 months to finally be able to offer features the HD-DVD had had at launch.

I don't remember Blu-ray ever sucking that bad... I had a launch PS3 and it seemed to work pretty damn fine to me. I can honestly say I never had an HD-DVD player because I thought it was unnecessary to have two high def players at the time. Well... more like it was too fucking expensive. Didn't start investing in Blu-ray movies until the format war was over.

[mynd]

I'm sorry, but you're being fucking ridiculous. They weren't outselling them 20:1. Blu-ray launched in 2006 and HD-DVD was released first so it had the upper hand. It only took one year and with the help of PS3 to outsell HD-DVD 2:1 by 2007 and by 2008 HD-DVD production was discontinued.

I'm referring to pre PS3 launch, and we all know if the PS3 hadn't come along, it probably would have stayed at that ratio.

The basis for dropping HD-DVD, was based entirely on BR figures of SONY PS3 units sold.

Yes, there were 1000 dollar DVD players in 1997.

Sorry I misread that.
Yes there was indeed, we had a Creative (sound blaster)DVD drive that we built up for a customer at that time.
We watched Batman 2 on it (I think it may have come with the Sound blaster pack).

I don't remember Blu-ray ever sucking that bad... I had a launch PS3 and it seemed to work pretty damn fine to me. I can honestly say I never had an HD-DVD player because I thought it was unnecessary to have two high def players at the time. Well... more like it was too fucking expensive. Didn't start investing in Blu-ray movies until the format war was over.

You need to look at the (lack of) features it has, it wasn't until the java update about 12 months after launch that it got some of the features HD-DVD could do natively.(eg chapter selection menus without interrupting the movie, the original BD-J made you go back to the root menu like DVD did.)

Also it didn't support MPG4 very well most of the early DVD were MPG-2 ans actually pretty bloody awful.

[PeanutButterMunky]

I'm referring to pre PS3 launch, and we all know if the PS3 hadn't come along, it probably would have stayed at that ratio.

The basis for dropping HD-DVD, was based entirely on BR figures of SONY PS3 units sold.

I'm 100% certain if the PS3 didn't have Blu-ray HD-DVD would have snuffed out Blu-ray entirely.

Sorry I misread that.
Yes there was indeed, we had a Creative (sound blaster)DVD drive that we built up for a customer at that time.
We watched Batman 2 on it (I think it may have come with the Sound blaster pack).

No worries.

You need to look at eh (lack of) features it has, it wasn't until the java update about 12 months after launch that it got some of the features HD-DVD could do natively.
M
Also it didn't support MPG4 very well most of the early DVD were MPG-2 ans actually pretty bloody awful.

I'll take your word for it... I have no experience with HD-DVD.