24% of PS3 owners have 7+ speaker surround, which is much larger than the 360 (15%). This suggests to me that about 10% of PS3 owners in the USA are using it mainly or solely as a Blu Ray player.

Don't know if anyone else has mentioned it.

HD just isnt worth it to the majority of people you pay a premium for the TV a premium for the support (HD channels) you pay a premium cablesm, u pay for the real experience with many speakers and in the end of everything it isnt an enormous difference than SD yes it looks better but is it really worth the min 5k USD spent on it? Plus the tech isnt all there yet.

I laugh at those that bought a HDtv for the Wii, as for the others who just happen to have their wii connected to a HDtv apart from their other HD equipment such as PS3/360/HD DVD/Blu-ray, their cool.

But on a serious note, the HD penetration for the PS3 is pretty much expected seeing as it plays bothe high def movies and games out of the box, for the 360 the penetration is as expected just like the PS3 seeing as it also HD gaming, but what really surprised me was the wii and how many play it on a HDtv.

rudyrsr8 said: HD just isnt worth it to the majority of people you pay a premium for the TV a premium for the support (HD channels) you pay a premium cablesm, u pay for the real experience with many speakers and in the end of everything it isnt an enormous difference than SD yes it looks better but is it really worth the min 5k USD spent on it? Plus the tech isnt all there yet

 

5K? Are you crazy? I bought a real surround system with jbl studio s36 bookshelf speakers, a center channel,  a 12'' 500w subwoofer, an Onkyo receiver and a 36 inch HDTV seven years ago for 3.5K. Seven years ago!

Equivalent speakers haven't really dropped in price much, but a modern receiver is cheaper, and TVs are much cheaper.

 

I think the audio difference is significantly larger than the video. I can definitely notice the difference in resolution, but it's not that big of a deal to me compared to the theater-like audio. 

I don't care about those things. This is a gaming forum, and the data is about gamers, and I don't pretend that it generalizes to anything else. I don't know how people are watching their TBS and Spike TV, but the data on gamers playing games says that the majority are doing it on HDTVs using HD connections. I think that's pretty significant in itself.


Nothing wrong with that. Between 480p resolution, 16:9 widescreen, and superior color from component cables (assuming your old SDTV isn't one of the rare ones with component input), there's a lot to take advantage of with Wii on an HDTV. It's not true HD, but on any TV with a decent scaler it'll still look better than on an SDTV. It's worth it just to be able to see your half of the court in split-screen Wii Tennis.

I'm pretty sure that the implication in this thread is that this shows that HD is already adopted by gamers and that this favors the PS3/360. Or at least, I'm assuming so, since most of the people pushing this thread along are PS3 supporters.

And I think that's odd, because my immediate reaction was: "If HDTVs are already this heavily adopted among gaming enthusiasts, and the Wii is still outselling the PS3 and 360,  that means that HD isn't that big a deal to most people." Am I missing something here? Because if people who own gaming consoles already have HDTVs, then Sony/Microsoft can't count on later HDTV adoption to boost their sales. 

I think some people were counting on HDTV adoption to improve the HD console marketshare, but it now looks like that's unlikely to occur.  

Griffin said: HDTV's are are too shitty for the price they charge, they provide very little increase in the quality of the TV/movies/games that are played on it. A nice SDTV is better then 90% of the HDTV's that you can buy. And yes i have seen them played using HDMI. The numbers listed are just pulled out of their ass, under 20% of Gamers have an HDTV. Go ahead and ask players when you are online in a game, the same goes for Surround sound.

I've heard you say some ridiculous things in the past but this takes the cake. If you see very little difference between a properly done HD setup and an SD setup, you should seriously consider an eye exam.

Griffin said: dgm6780 said: Yeah Griffin, you are right, and EVERYONE else is wrong. Cant even tell a diff between HD and SD!! no diff in quality for games?? or movies? are you joking??? I think you are more then likely a bitter f*ck that cant afford a HDTV like the Jones.  I never said their was no difference, i said there was little difference for the cost.  I would also bet my SDTV looks comparable to any HDTV that is not top of the line.  Maybe you went from a 10 yearold 19" RCA to a 27" crap HDTV from wal-mart that looks better but most people have something better.

Um, no. I spent a whopping $700 on a 50" Toshiba DLP and if you think your SD looks nearly as good, you're insane. This is also my second HDTV, my father owns two more (including a 1080p Aquos), almost every one of my friends own one (everything from a Vizio to Sony SXRDs), and I did over four months of research on the subject before settling for a DLP (no reason to spend $1500 at this point when I'm perfectly comfortable replacing this set in three to four years).

Like I said, I don't know whose HDTV you've watched in the past but there is absolutely no comparison between a properly set up HDTV and an SDTV. 

rocketpig said: Griffin said: HDTV's are are too shitty for the price they charge, they provide very little increase in the quality of the TV/movies/games that are played on it. A nice SDTV is better then 90% of the HDTV's that you can buy. And yes i have seen them played using HDMI. The numbers listed are just pulled out of their ass, under 20% of Gamers have an HDTV. Go ahead and ask players when you are online in a game, the same goes for Surround sound. I've heard you say some ridiculous things in the past but this takes the cake. If you see very little difference between a properly done HD setup and an SD setup, you should seriously consider an eye exam.

It's not as ridiculous as it may seem, Rocket. It isn't that it's literally impercievable, it's that some people just don't care. My mom can't tell the difference between an N64 and a PS3 game. My Dad can, but doesn't really care. 

You know how some people think all Classical or Rap music sounds the same? It depends on your personal preferences, and is really just a result of not knowing or caring much about the field. We happen to be involved in a particularly visually/computer intensive hobby, so visual/computer enhancements seem like a particularly big deal to us. For the Classical music fans? They can't tell the difference.  

Bodhesatva said: I'm pretty sure that the implication in this thread is that this shows that HD is already adopted by gamers and that this favors the PS3/360. Or at least, I'm assuming so, since most of the people pushing this thread along are PS3 supporters. And I think that's odd, because my immediate reaction was: "If HDTVs are already this heavily adopted among gaming enthusiasts, and the Wii is still outselling the PS3 and 360,  that means that HD isn't that big a deal to most people." Am I missing something here? Because if people who own gaming consoles already have HDTVs, then Sony/Microsoft can't count on later HDTV adoption to boost their sales.  I think some people were counting on HDTV adoption to improve the HD console marketshare, but it now looks like that's unlikely to occur.

A lot of people around here count on a lot of inconsequential factors that they believe will boost X360/PS3 sales to Wii levels.

This is just another case of those people being wrong. HDTV sales might boost HD console sales a little in the future but overall, I expect there to be little to no effect. Price and library are far more important.