osamanobama said:
Chrizum said:
osamanobama said:
Chrizum said:
osamanobama said:
Chrizum said:
Also, if you're deadset on taking CNet's side: check out this comparison chart: PS3 doesn't do too well on it.
|
your own link shows the ps3 won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CNET ratings |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design |
6 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
|
8 |
|
Peach color indicates |
|
|
Features |
9 |
9 |
9 |
8 |
6 |
6 |
|
9 |
|
reference players |
|
|
Performance |
7 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
|
9 |
|
|
|
|
|
Overall |
7.6 |
8.0 |
8.4 |
7.8 |
6.0 |
5.2 |
|
8.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Price (as of 5/5) |
$210 |
$160 |
$155 |
$155 |
$140 |
$165 |
$500 |
$300 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You missed the point of the comparison. PS3 won on design and features, but when you look closer at the Blu-ray specific tests, PS3 is not doing too well in comparison to the other Blu-ray players.
|
no, it also won performance.
and it faired very well in most things. features, visuals, audio, etc.
face it, your wrong. your own link show you that you wrong. cnets word> your word
|
LOL, again, I understand your brand loyalty, and I'm not saying the PS3 is a bad Blu-ray player (it's not bad at all) but it's NOT a high-end blu-ray player anno 2011 anymore. Do some research...
|
wow, great comeback. Do some research? what, really?
i have thankyou, and when you did some of your own, you proved me right. your own link said so.
this has nothing to do with brand loyalty (there are tons of sony bluray players out there, that arent as good as other players, and i dont care) this has everything to do with facts.
you caim in here saying, saying people would watch it on a better bluray player, i said the ps3 is the better bluray player because it is, and unless you want to spend $600 or so bucks, it is the best.
it is you sir, that needs to do their research, the ps3 was a high end bluray player back in 2006, and still is in 2011.
|