View Post

mrstickball said: Also, buying an SDTV is still a decent idea. Why? I can get a TV with twice the size for half the price. I'm not saying I'd want that, but if I didn't have the cash, I would. Thats kind of like saying "the PS3 has more power, you should buy it merely based on power" when some consumers don't really care. HDTV penetration at the rate of purchase has just finally overtaken SDTV sales. This shows that HDTV is only now slightly ready for the mainstream marketplace - and won't truely get to the point it needs to until a 32" HDTV is under $449 readily available. might not be the thing every system has in 5 years, but its a very important part nontheless.
In fact even if you have the money it is not as easy to advice against an SDTV. Especially cheaper HD Displays have sometimes very bad scalers that somketimes don't even even interpolate correctly from interlaced to progressive images, and their scalers... leave a lot to be desired. And their color space is rather limited compared to the good old CRTs. And even when you switch to HD Displays (better CRTs simply vanished from the market) I am not really sure if all plays for HD. I don't really think, that the DVD really won due to its better quality alone. It simply had a lot of convenient features and this package was one of its reasons (together with the ability of the playeras to play VCD, SVCD and later DivX). I am not sure if the HD DVD or BluRay will really win the market. I am not even sure if the movie industry really want to kill the DVD anymore. The copy protection of the HD DEiscs has its limits while the price of DVDs is so low that it has no longer such a big need for a strong copy protection. It is simplyx more convenient. There would be a very strong reason for expensive HD Discs (if HD DVD or BluRay does not matter) for enthusiasts and cheaper DVDs for the normal market. Together they will probably earn more money than a HD format with lower prices to reach more customers. Although Toshiba and Sony wouldn't like it I think that this scenario would have its advantages for the industy and customers. And for the console markte: The Wii has its market. And while Microsoft Managers might kick themselves that they missed such a good oportunity I don't even think that the Xbox 360 and Wii are very hard competitors. I think the Xbox 360 was mainly designed to catch PC drop outs. People who don't want to upgrade their PCs all the time. The Xbox has it advantage with better images and perhaps the possibility to still play with their friends online that have a a PC. The Wii on the other hand is cheaper and much more convenient when you play with other people in your room. But the concept of the PS-3 bothers me a bit. A console simply has no chance to win against a PC in the long run if you look at processor power. In the first 2 years they can compete with PCs but then they fall behind. A console is mainly cheaper ad programs can be better adapted to the hardware (for a PC impossible). I think the reason for the cell has less to do with a big concept, but other factors. In a way its concept looks a bit like the the idea behind the Emotiuon Engine of the PS-2 and it's pure benchmark power is overwhelming. And BluRay: I don't know who gave Sony the impression that the PS-2 established the DVD. In the USA and Europe the format was already running when the PS-2 reached the market and later cheaper players with VCD and SVCD capabilities gave it the push for the normal market. If you don't watch many DVDs a PS-2 is sufficient but I don't know anybody who bought a PS-2 to watch movies! But I know several people who only bought a PS-3 simply as a BluRay player while at least in my opinion a Wii might be better suited for their taste in games.. I don't have problems with people who don't agree with me but I don't really get the idea behind the PS-3.