[PS3] PlayStation 3 Discussion Thread

Okay, I'm basically done with online shit now. The next thing you'll tell me is that the GameGear was online and the NES had system link.

I know that the Dreamcast was online, but that's as far back as I know, save for PCs. As for whoever that mod is, I was a PC gamer for years before I even got online with any of my games, so with the exception of the later FPSs like Unreal Tournament and Battle.Net, I didn't think online gaming through a PC garnered a large crowd.

I'm so anti-Halo it's ridiculous, but playing games online through consoles other than the PC wasn't something that had really broken through until the Xbox and Halo. I'm aware that other consoles were capable of gaming online, but I don't think any of them drew very large a crowd. If they did, it wouldn't have taken this long for online gaming to really hit.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by SouthJag

I'm so anti-Halo it's ridiculous, but playing games online through consoles other than the PC wasn't something that had really broken through until the Xbox and Halo. I'm aware that other consoles were capable of gaming online, but I don't think any of them drew very large a crowd. If they did, it wouldn't have taken this long for online gaming to really hit.

Again, (and I'm sorry to keep picking at your posts like this, I really am) Halo isn't online.

Halo 2 is. However, Xbox Live took off way before Halo 2 ever came out. Crimson Skies, a few of the Tom Clancy games, MechAssault, etc...

Multi-player Halo 1 was played generally as a split-screen 4-player game. Some rich kids might have hooked a few consoles and screens up for LAN play, but it didn't have online play.

FELIPE NO

The only problem with that statistic is chronology. How long has Battle.net been around (and gone unopposed, for that matter) compared to Xbox Live?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I always thought Quakeworld made everyone go nuts about online play.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Considering this is a thread about a console and not a PC, you'd know that I've been trying to stay on track with console online gaming. Goddamnit, I don't even know how we got to this point now.

Xbox Live proved that consoles can do online gaming quite well and steadily gain popularity. Since, however, this is a thread about the Playstation 3 and I wanna get back on track with the thread, if the PS3 really does maintain a free online service, I imagine they'll surprass Xbox Live as long as they've got the games to garner the support.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

What are they lying about? They haven't lied about anything yet regarding the PS3's online service. And they never charged an additional fee for their online service for the PS2 either.

Edit: Left out a couple words. Sony has made abrupt changes to the PS3 itself, but they've thus far maintained their stance on free online play.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

They didn't have an online service on the PS2, you ass. Developers handling their own systems and servers is not a free online service on Sony's part.
Just like Microsoft doesn't/can't claim its Windows XP and the new Vista paltforms have a free online service.

I'd like to know if the PS3 actually has an actual online service this time around or will they again simply pretend they do and hope no one notices.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

What're you talking about? They had to have at least some form of online service to allow the games to get online in the first place. Sure they don't have a service like Xbox Live, but it was still there.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08..._online_plans/

http://www.gaming-age.com/news/2002/2/13-48

I was speaking idiomatically.

I'm sorry but a network adapter does not equal "online service". So maybe you want to explain just what the second link you provided even means.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The second article is basically a list of the ISPs Sony uses to allow gamers to get online. Those ISPs are providing Sony's online service in Japan.

FELIPE NO

SouthJag, even Nintendo fanboys have come to understand that Nintendo's online service is a joke. Why can't you come aroun on Sony's.

Sony has NO FUCKING CLUE what they are doing.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I'm getting the impression that you don't know how connecting to the internet works. And you don't understand how the Xbox Live service works or what it even is, so it would of course be difficult for you to understand what Sony's rip-off of XBLive service is like or how it works. There is no such thing as "Sony's PS2 Online Service", because Sony does not own and run dedicated servers to host gamers during online gameplay. In case you were wondering, servers cost money. Bandwidth for all of these gamers to use while connected to your servers cost money. Do you think that Sony will be willing to eat these costs? The problem is that they do not have the infrastructure already in place to provide this, meaning they would have to build it up from scratch. Not cheap. NCSoft/ArenaNet or whatever the company is that is running Guild Wars DOES have an already existing infrastructure, what with having several other MMO games that they provide service for, so they could handle making Guild Wars free because of the pre-existing infrastructure.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I have to agree that Sony is pretty much clueless when it comes to the online connectivity realm. You're going to get what you pay for with the Sony service. Unlike Microsoft, who uses the XBox Live fees to maintain, upgrade and add features to the Live network, Sony won't have this income. Don't expect anything but some sort of very basic connectivity features with the PS3.

How ya doing, buddy?

Maybe Sony will come out with some sort of two-tiered system for online gaming. A free one with absolute shit servers and one you pay $5 a month for in order to get better service.

Does anyone remember way back when Kali used to do a service like that? They were a pay to access battle.net style network that served an assload of games.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

Maybe Sony will come out with some sort of two-tiered system for online gaming. A free one with absolute shit servers and one you pay $5 a month for in order to get better service.

Does anyone remember way back when Kali used to do a service like that? They were a pay to access battle.net style network that served an assload of games.

Honestly so long as whatever they set up allows you to actually play your games online versus other actual human players, I'll be fine. All that extra online community, e-shop, score rankings, video/voice chat, myspace-esque stuff seems like extra fluff. They're certainly nice to have but not really needed.

Anyway, seems like the backlash just keeps on rolling...

and rolling...

and...rolling?

...?

How the hell will analog A/V or Component cables be able to display a full, HD, 1080p picture? I'll only believe this, when I see it.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Here's Wiki....

Quote:

(Under Playstation 3)
Video

* Supported screen sizes: 480p, 480i, 720p, 1080i, 1080p
* S/PDIF optical output for digital audio
* Multiple AV outputs
o Composite
o S-Video
o Component video (output up to 1080p)
o HDMI port (Digital video output; 60 GB model only)

Quote:

(Under Component Video)
Component video is capable of producing signals such as 480p, 720p, 1080i and 1080p, but digital connections such as DVI (video only) and HDMI (which can also include up to 8 channels of audio) give better results at the higher resolutions (up to 1080p).

While 1080p is possible with the Component Video, You're still gettin ripped from Sony somewhat because the HDMI outdoes it at higher resolutions.....

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Omnislash124

While 1080p is possible with the Component Video, You're still gettin ripped from Sony somewhat because the HDMI outdoes it at higher resolutions.....

Yeah all the "1080p" pictures that I've seen via Component cables have seemed kind of crippled when put right next TVs showing the same footage with DVI or HDMI cables...

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

1080p is downscaled to 540p.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Technophile

Honestly so long as whatever they set up allows you to actually play your games online versus other actual human players, I'll be fine. All that extra online community, e-shop, score rankings, video/voice chat, myspace-esque stuff seems like extra fluff. They're certainly nice to have but not really needed.

Anyway, seems like the backlash just keeps on rolling...

and rolling...

and...rolling?

...?

How the hell will analog A/V or Component cables be able to display a full, HD, 1080p picture? I'll only believe this, when I see it.

Uh a 1080p picture does not offer enough bandwidth to saturate a analog connection. 1080p pictures are only downscaled though non-HDMI connections if there is some type of ACSS protection on the data stream. This encryption is employed though the software, though it looks like movie companies don't even plan on making use of ACSS protection until at least 2010, if ever due to many HDTVs being sold today without HDMI inputs.

This HDMI issue is blow way out of perspective by people that don't even understand what HDMI is. HDMI does not offer higher resolutions compared to analog connections and the picture quality difference between component and HDMI is minimal to non-existent unless you are using a TV with really shit Digital-Analog converter circuitry.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Cetra

This HDMI issue is blow way out of perspective by people that don't even understand what HDMI is.

Good thing that happens to be about 60-70% of the Sony's target market, or else that would be crippling!

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I just read an artcile about HDCP compliance in DVD/Blu Ray players. Did they mention yet whether the PS3 will have HDCP compliance? If it does, and my HDTV doesn't, then I'll get screwed out of the full resolution.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Cetra

Uh a 1080p picture does not offer enough bandwidth to saturate a analog connection. 1080p pictures are only downscaled though non-HDMI connections if there is some type of ACSS protection on the data stream. This encryption is employed though the software, though it looks like movie companies don't even plan on making use of ACSS protection until at least 2010, if ever due to many HDTVs being sold today without HDMI inputs.

This HDMI issue is blow way out of perspective by people that don't even understand what HDMI is. HDMI does not offer higher resolutions compared to analog connections and the picture quality difference between component and HDMI is minimal to non-existent unless you are using a TV with really shit Digital-Analog converter circuitry.

Are you saying that, sans the ACSS/HDCP issue, both Component and HDMI cables will be able to truly display an identical 1080p picture? Because working at BestBuy, I've seen plenty of side by side comparisons on both high-end LCD and plasma TVs where that wasn't the case.

P.S.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here or challanging your statements. I'm genuinly asking because I've never seen an "HD" picture running through Component that truly looked as good as one off of HDMI.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by SOLDIER

I just read an artcile about HDCP compliance in DVD/Blu Ray players. Did they mention yet whether the PS3 will have HDCP compliance? If it does, and my HDTV doesn't, then I'll get screwed out of the full resolution.

I love using Wiki as a source....

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Type A HDMI is backward-compatible with the single-link Digital Visual Interface (DVI) used on modern computer monitors and graphics cards. This means that a DVI source can drive an HDMI monitor, or vice versa, by means of a suitable adapter or cable, but the audio and remote control features of HDMI will not be available. Additionally, without support for HDCP, the video quality and resolution may be artificially downgraded by the signal source to prevent the end user from viewing or especially copying restricted content. Type B HDMI is similarly backward-compatible with dual-link DVI.

Yeah, that might be it....so yeah, looks like you might be screwed....

EDIT: Additionally, Check out the Difference between the HDMI and the Component Below in the attachment. You can see how the Component input gives a range of colors from only light grey to dark grey as opposed to the greater contrast in the HDMI. So there is somewhat of a difference between the two, winner being the HDMI input...

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I also read that if your HDTV has an HDMI input, your TV is automatically HDCP certified, so it looks like I'm in the clear. Of course, HDMI is also the sole reason why I'll be forking an extra $100 for the $600 system, but that's the price I pay for true hi-def.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Technophile

Are you saying that, sans the ACSS/HDCP issue, both Component and HDMI cables will be able to truly display an identical 1080p picture? Because working at BestBuy, I've seen plenty of side by side comparisons on both high-end LCD and plasma TVs where that wasn't the case.

P.S.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here or challanging your statements. I'm genuinly asking because I've never seen an "HD" picture running through Component that truly looked as good as one off of HDMI.

With a decent DA converter, there would be minimal difference. HDMI will offer a sharper picture, but nothing as drastic as being described around here. The jump in quality between component to HDMI is actually less than the jump between S-video and component.

And this is all assuming Sony doesn't offer a DVI solution for the multi-out which is entirely possible and would result in picture quality identical to HDMI output. It would just lack the ability to decrypt a ACSS stream.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?