PlayStation 3: $499 – Developers Speak

Developer gossip in LA LA Land points to high-end pricepoint

Posted by Staff
PlayStation 3: $499 – Developers Speak
Gossip doing the rounds amongst Californian developers seeks to peg the price of Sony's looming PlayStation 3, with the figure of $499 being bandied around quite actively in the last few days.

According to several sources, publisher-owned developers taking receipt of updated development kits have been briefed that the pricepoint is final. However, there are a few inconsistencies and therefore this news should be filed in your brain as grounded speculation, not confirmation.

The first is that not all the developers we spoke to had heard of the price, though some were adamant that SCEA had told them the price was final. The second is differing sources within SCEA purportedly offering the information to developers, explicit details of which we cannot elaborate upon for reasons of confidentiality.

Given the market has been set by Microsoft at $399 for a premium version (read complete), it is thought likely that Sony will have no trouble at all shifting its PlayStation 3 for a shade under $500, which in real-terms is still far less than UK gamers were asked to pay for a Sega Saturn at launch... The PlayStation 3 has been successfully positioned as a more powerful machine than that offered by the Redmond software house and therefore its perceived value should carry it through.

It's also worth bearing in mind that SCE has, from the outset, prepared consumers for console pricepoint that traditionally has thought unworkable. Speaking to assembled press in Tokyo last June, PlayStation development lead Ken Kutaragi stated, “I'm not going to reveal its price today. I'm going to only say that it'll be expensive,” the second expectation-setting comments within weeks.

Behind Sony's planning will be the reaction of its shareholders to the loss they must absorb as the PlayStation 3 fledges. As we reported in December, estimates put SCE in a $1 billion hole in the first year the PlayStation 3 goes on sale. From the article:

...these losses would normally be absorbed with ease by Sony as it has previously entered markets lacking any serious competition. This time however, it will put a new machine on sale, its most expensive to date, to consumers who, in the West, have shown eager acceptance of Microsoft's Xbox 360 and a worldwide audience showing interest in Nintendo's budget innovation machine. Analysts warn that should Microsoft cut the price of Xbox 360 when Sony launches, the entire project could backfire. Should consumers be tempted with a next-generation console at a budget price, complete with a significant library of high-quality software and the option to augment this with something new, as offered by Nintendo, Sony might find its space under televisions around the world, its own for more than a decade, has been usurped.


Of course, there is an outside chance that the PlayStation 3 will bring about the downfall of SCE, or at least relegate it to second place. Should production routines prove problematic, demand will massively outstrip supply, even at $499 per unit. This will leave publishers of launch and early life cycle software badly burned as it offered its most expensive (to develop) software to date to a non-existent audience, a problem which blighted firms backing Xbox 360 from day one.

This would lend more momentum to Xbox 360 development, with Nintendo happily mopping up the scraps from the giants' tables, offering publishers the cheapest development option and consumers an intriguing machine likely to launch at $150.
Companies:

Comments

Showing the 20 most recent comments. Read all 39.
TwoADay 6 Apr 2006 13:46
20/39
vault 13 wrote:
If you disagree, think how the Gamecube was hindered by the 1.5 max capacity of their discs and how they couldn't fit any cg movies or extras in their games. I welcome Sony's choice and I think it's going to do phenominally well. I will of course scrutinize the launch and hardware as severely as I did the 360. No special treatment for anyone, unlike some of you posters.


Actually, one of my favorite aspects of ToS was the lack of of CGI. I perfer to play, not watch, my games (message to all the FF games).
thane_jaw 6 Apr 2006 15:04
21/39
king skins wrote:
tg0006 wrote:
9 gb soon wont be enough for a game. anyone who has Half-life 2 for the pc knows that. the source engine itsself took up a ton of space. also, that was when the game is a 32 bit program that isnt next gen but not quite ps2/xbox gen (half-life 2 for xbox just isnt the same as the pc version). we dont know how big games will get in the future. i dont think it will get to 25 gb any time soon, maby not even on the PS3 but it WILL pass 9gb.


You having a laugh? The code is always the smallest part of any game. Game code and executables are always small and under 10Mb and probably a lot smaller than that.

The biggest part of any game is always the assets (models, art, textures, sound and videos)



Having more space on a format allows programmers to be lazy in coding, less space requires more efficient code and compression techniques. Given that compression techniques have been steadily improving and the average size of an xbox game didn't even fill half a DVD - even now towards the end of its life cycle there's no reason to assume we need more space.

this is a good article which addresses the issue sensibly. These are some stats from the article about the size of current 360 games:

* Condemned: 3.9 GB
* Madden 06 NFL: 3.3 GB
* Dead or Alive 4: 5 GB
* NBA 06: 4.5 GB

Hardly filled right up now.
more comments below our sponsor's message
fluffstardx 6 Apr 2006 15:08
22/39
Sony Europe say €600, or £420. So I'd say £450, as they have a profit black hole to fill.

People will pay it; people pay £2000 for HD Ready TVs out of a need to be alpha of the tech herd when HD TV is around the corner (HD TV is a seperate standard - HD Ready is 440k pixels, HD TV 2 million).

I'll stick with the 360, and consider Rev. Even Bob Ross got me excited, and yet FFXIII being on the cards just made me shrug. This PS3 thing's just not happening to me. I think it's the lack of proper, proven footage.
Earl 6 Apr 2006 16:25
23/39
Price is a very important issue to all the Moms and Dads that will be buying a next gen console for xmas 2006.

yes the spoilt brats will get there ps3's but the rest will be getting the 360's and Revolutions.

one of the other important factors which i have not seen anything on yet is the price point on the games. at 44- 49.99 360 seems to be ok, but people do complain at this price point, will ps3 game be even more as its new format ?
Happydwarf 6 Apr 2006 19:02
24/39
majin dboy wrote:
what about £s?


http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30820

Rough price will be between £380 and £430 in the uk if this rumor seems to be correct. Not a bad price if you consider that it has blu-ray, however hands up people who have the money for a HD screen. With current pricing in the UK of between £800-2500 your gonna need to be really into your games and movies to warrant spending that kinda money on a consoleand dvd player. I'm sticking with my PC thank ya very much for my HD gaming. I've got oblivion running at 1600x1200 on my 21" monitor and it looks saweeeet thank ya very much. And i agree with joji you might as well wait. Sony will only be rincing you for all the money that they can for at least the first 18 months of its life. Until the price of HD tvs come down substantially theres no point with the supposed next generation consoles, not when you can get a pc that'll run higher resolutions and actually has good games available now for the same price.
vault 13 7 Apr 2006 04:25
25/39
Let's, class, disect this post quote by quote shall we:

Elysium wrote:
Anyone who is a regular gamer would have noticed the trend of less cg being used in games, and more in-game engine cinematics.


That's just a matter of consoles being able to render more polygons in real time. It's only a matter of time before CG becomes as passé as FMV and FMV style games (I'm looking at you Phantasmagoria).

Elysium wrote:
I personally have never liked the inconsistent feel of games using cg animation for cut-scenes and the quality is often so much different to the engine generated graphics that it often destroys the submersion of the experience.


Point taken. Of course the quality is going to be different, that's the whole fricken point of CG movies! To show us something that the machine the game is on can't do in real time or can't find a mechanic to make that scene playable. If there's narration and story going why not have it in super high quality CG rather than a blurry, pointy polygonal mess. CG is the reason Final Fantasy is the most profitable RPG franchise and why Final Fantasy VII is one of the top 3 best selling games of all times. For better or worse.


Elysium wrote:
Anyone who honestly believes that 9GB of storage space is not enough room for games which are NOT heavily laden with vast amounts of pre-rendered animation are deluding themselves.


Well your wrong, how long it's going to take to need more space is debatable. Take PS2 launch titles as examples, all on regular blue bottom CDs. Then take MGS2: Sons of Liberty, released just two years after the system launch. Flip THAT disc over, gold bottom DVD. AND not to mention the Subsistence special edition which came with two discs meaning that the 6GB PS2 DVD discs could not contain everything also meaning that MGS 2 takes up the whole damn disc. What someone should look up is the space of Oblivion. Now THAT is a good measure of what space games are going to take to produce. Games are getting larger by the day, so we certainly do need more space.



Elysium wrote:
Let's state this simple and concisely:
Sony are giving their customers NO choice, and are forcing them to accept their proprietary format which may or may not become the accepted standard in distibuted high definition movie formats. Microsoft are providing a machine which is not susceptible to a negative outcome from this impending format war, and are not forcing their customers to subsidise the fight!


It's nice you omit that Microsoft all along wanted to have HD DVD playback. And now they are producing an HD DVD add-on. So then by your argument, if Sony makes a Blu-Ray add-on instead of including it rather than saving gamers' pockets and gamers' tv stand space, then Sony is giving gamers a choice. Sony is in no way not making you not be able to hook up an HD DVD player AS WELL. Obviously we are not buying this system because of the playback formats the PS3 supports, we're buying it for games. And by your next words...

Elysium wrote:
I really don't think a lot of you understand how little the average consumer cares about a high definition movie format.


well it means by Sony adding Blu-Ray capability and us gamers apparently not caring about HD movie formats, it's a nice feature if we decide to buy some high quailty movies. So Sony ISN'T pigeonholing us, because as you say, we gamers don't care.

Elysium wrote:
Without a high definition television, there is simply no appreciable difference between the next gen and current gen video formats. To think this is going to be a major sales feature is seriously underestimating the apathy of a vast percentage of the population.


That's funny! There's no difference??? How many HD or Blu-Ray DVDs have you seen? Well I know. NONE! Because there not out yet. The fact is this, HD DVDs and Blu-Ray DVDs will have MUCH LESS COMPRESSION (read: look better) than regular DVDs. Now, if next gen DVD players will output in 480i for proper playback on non-HD tvs has yet to be seen, but the simple matter is, that they are going to blow regular DVDs away. Just pick up any random DVD, and look closely at the shadows and color gradients and s**t. You'll see artifacting, pixelation, and blurryness.

Also to all of you who think HD isn't going to matter and no one cares. Graphics are the #1 reason people buy games, better graphics = better sales period. So HD tvs ARE appealing. Also roughly 2009, say goodbye to standard definition analog broadcast. I do believe that the PS3 and 360 will last well into 2009, so HD will be if not is now a big factor.

Oh and as for HDTVs being expensive, someone can get a Magnavox 27" HDTV for $400 in America. That's the price of an X-Box 360. NOT EXPENSIVE. Hell you can get a 23" Philips LCD HDTV for $700, the price of a 360 with three controllers, rechargable packs and a few games.
vault 13 7 Apr 2006 04:30
26/39
Happydwarf wrote:
Rough price will be between £380 and £430 in the uk if this rumor seems to be correct. Not a bad price if you consider that it has blu-ray, however hands up people who have the money for a HD screen. With current pricing in the UK of between £800-2500 your gonna need to be really into your games and movies to warrant spending that kinda money on a console and dvd player. I'm sticking with my PC thank ya very much for my HD gaming. I've got oblivion running at 1600x1200 on my 21" monitor and it looks saweeeet thank ya very much. And i agree with joji you might as well wait. Sony will only be rincing you for all the money that they can for at least the first 18 months of its life. Until the price of HD tvs come down substantially theres no point with the supposed next generation consoles, not when you can get a pc that'll run higher resolutions and actually has good games available now for the same price.


How much did you spend on your PC and display???
Looks like over $3,000 plus any upgrades you've made to it. Yeah, that's the price of an HDTV and console and proper cableing. So it's not really a big difference in price. Plus the cost of constantly upgrading to keep ahead of the PC curve will certainly drain one's pockets.

Sorry to double post so quick, but opinions needed to be spilled.
warbaby 7 Apr 2006 04:39
27/39
so whats the justification for loading more space on a single optical disk than the entire hard drive of my laptop?... CG movies? man, if i want to look at purrdy videos, ill go watch that final fantasy movie. CG is just an excuse to show something that the console cant render itself... if it cant be done, then dont do it... HL2, arguably one of the best games of all time managed to create an amazing story without the use of ANY cutscenese, the player never left mr. freemans eye ball.

If games like Civ4, HL2, Quake4, AOEIII and what not can be loaded onto a single dvd for my computer, than why is it needed to have a 25 gb media format. and its not because ps2 games have more content. tell me FEAR doesnt look a bit beefy at the midsection and ill slap you... better yet, sony needs a slap.

ive been mulling this over a bit... dual layer DVDs hold what... 9 gb... 8.4? fairly expensive at that to purchase yourself... 15 bucks for 3 or so.

blu-ray... 25 gb... even if not at retail, i cant imagine this stuff is cheap.

the prospect of forking out 70 bucks to get a gaming fix doesnt look like one i want to get caught up in.
ohms 7 Apr 2006 09:27
28/39
warbaby wrote:

the prospect of forking out 70 bucks to get a gaming fix doesnt look like one i want to get caught up in.


um, then don't.



config 7 Apr 2006 11:29
29/39
thane_jaw wrote:
Having more space on a format allows programmers to be lazy in coding, less space requires more efficient code and compression techniques. Given that compression techniques have been steadily improving and the average size of an xbox game didn't even fill half a DVD - even now towards the end of its life cycle there's no reason to assume we need more space.


Now you're having a laugh!

More available disk space = lazy coding?

It's already been stated that the code takes the smallest portion of space, well behind image, audio and geometry assets. You'd have to be a really lazy coder to make a dent on DVD size media.

As for your compression argument, I have two points;

1. Why use lossy compression for "HD era" <ick!> games, when there's plenty of disk space? The only reason I can think of is data transfer rates / load times.

2. Any smart (or lazy, if you want to look at it that way) developer would just license a third party compression library (MPEG, Softdec, RAD, etc).

No, I think the biggest cause of lazy coding in a vast increase in processor power. Just look at symetries between Windows and Intel. Every time a faster Intel chip is release, MS follows with a new, "improved" version of Windows "optimised" for that processor. Odd that is runs just as slow (or slower) that the previous version of Windows.

The conspiracy theorist in me suspects the delays in Vista as actually the Windows team just waiting for the processor manufacturers to "catch up". God forbid they should consider cutting the fat and <gasp> optimising Windows' code.
Joji 8 Apr 2006 01:41
30/39
I agree a lot with Elysiums comments, though I understand and respect others won't.

To some degree I kind of hope both Blu Ray and HD-DVD fail miserably. The only time they deserve to take off is with the recordable option (not because freaking PS3 has it and its being forced on us), and that ain't gonna come any time soon.

Bar PS2, normal hard drive based dvd recorders are what most of the masses are more likely to invest in than Blu Ray or HD-DVD, especially when the humble VHS is on its way to the big techno glue factory in the sky. Once VHS disappear how aare you going to record. It's either Tivo, Sky digital or DVD recorders with or without hard drives.

I'm sure all us happy gamers will love all this tech upgrading to a degree, but what of the real masses who aren't gamers. Will they give a rats arse about changing formats after just upgrading to dvd players in the last few years. HDTV perhaps a yes but until Blu Cheese and such can record it ain't shiznit to many people out there.

We'll see soon enough.

With regard to space on game dvds I do think the space can be taken advantage of and can hide some crap games. There's the plus side too. I know many will differ over the likes of the FF series use of CG but as far as games go SE make good use in enhancing the gaming experience to another level. I'll never forget playing FFVIII and playing and watching the Galbadian soldiers clash with my classmates. On the flip side LoZ OoT is a good example of how to do a game, lack of CG forced Nintendo to be more creative and the rest is gaming history.

Not long to go on the graphics front til the only way games can look prettier is to wear a bloddy dress and dance for you. CG or not, just don't forsake the game itself.

Agree or disagree, its interesting stuff all the same.
tyrion 8 Apr 2006 11:59
31/39
Joji wrote:
Will they give a rats arse about changing formats after just upgrading to dvd players in the last few years.

You know, I hear this argument over and over again on the Internets. "Why should I be forced to buy all my movies again?" The simple answer is that you aren't!

All the Blu-Ray and HD-DVD players will be able to play normal DVDs. All the HD televisions and projectors will be able to display SD resolutions. You won't have to re-buy a single movie unless you want the "HD experience".

Of all the issues with the new HD formats, re-buying your movie collections is such a non-issue it's laughable.

What about the oppressive DRM that prevents free (as in speech) software from being able to read the movies? It's still not legally possible to play DVDs under Linux with free software.

What about the flag that tells players to downscale to SD resolutions over non-HDCP enabled cables? Sure Sony say their Blu-Ray movies won't make use of that flag, but nothing is stopping the other movie studios from using it, or Sony using it in the future.

What about the AACS system that enables studios to revoke the ability to play future movies on a specific player model?

When it comes to movies on the new HD formats, there is much, much more of an issue with the erosion of fair use of copyrighted material than there is with the erosion of your bank balance.
TwoADay 8 Apr 2006 14:54
32/39
tyrion wrote:
When it comes to movies on the new HD formats, there is much, much more of an issue with the erosion of fair use of copyrighted material than there is with the erosion of your bank balance.


As someone who doesn't pay attention to HD right now (I live in an apartment, and I have a 4 year old TV that I'm happy with right now) I can see people waiting on the HD stuff.

Why? The standard APPEARS to change, as every year there's a new high-end (720 i to 720p to 1080 or whatever i and then to p)

So, to many people, when will it stop, so we know that the "high end" HD we end up getting won't be "mid level" in two years. Standard TVs are predictable, people know what they're about. Now, I think there's a concern by many "average" consumers that TVs may be getting too much like computers -- great for the first few months, then outdated, and in need of replacement.

I think many also are thinking the same thing about the DVD format. Remember, the VHS format was in wide distribution since the 80s. DVDs haven't really been on the market for 10 years (at least at a price worth considering).

These factors are generating the response of "What? another format / high end? when will the market settle, so we know that what we get will be viable for 10 years?"

Maybe not entirely realistic, but since when have people been rational and realistic? :/
warbaby 9 Apr 2006 04:02
33/39
Sony hasn't have much luck shoving new formats down our throat... just look at their past. The one time they did succeed, was with something called the DVD... but that wasn't a "Sony Only" deal. UMD's seem to follow the curve of what the past has dictated. Blu-ray may suit the needs of the PS3 fine in terms of games, but in terms of movies... The average person will go to buy a movie and see the DVD version for $15, and the blu-ray for $30. Unless they have a cutting edge home theatre with HDMI compliant devices and a Yamaha DLP projector with a 200 inch front projection TV, most people are more concerned with 'Why should I pay more?'.

People won't have to rebuy their collection, its not like we're moving from optical disks, to optical tubes. It's a matter of what format movies will be purchased on in the future. Sony the video game developer could care less whether or not blu-ray is a successful movie format. Sony Studios, the movie publishing sect, is concerned...

For those who need blu-ray it will be there, for those who don't, they can suck Sony's left nut, because they're giving it to you any way.
vault 13 9 Apr 2006 06:59
34/39
TwoADay wrote:
I can see people waiting on the HD stuff.

Why? The standard APPEARS to change, as every year there's a new high-end (720 i to 720p to 1080 or whatever i and then to p)

So, to many people, when will it stop, so we know that the "high end" HD we end up getting won't be "mid level" in two years. Standard TVs are predictable, people know what they're about. Now, I think there's a concern by many "average" consumers that TVs may be getting too much like computers -- great for the first few months, then outdated, and in need of replacement.

I think many also are thinking the same thing about the DVD format. Remember, the VHS format was in wide distribution since the 80s. DVDs haven't really been on the market for 10 years (at least at a price worth considering).


Well the variable your leaving out is how much faster we're churning out better technology. It's just a law of nature. Pretty soon we won't have formats but images that form from the particles in the air.

As for the whole my tv isn't the newest or the best, people just need to stop complaining and be happy. Be happy you have an HD set or be happy that you can afford. I sell tvs for a living and it's funny. Everybody is a cheapskate, except for a handfull, even rich people, and everyone always is looking for the best deal. They always want me to reassure them that the 42" $1000 tv is just as good as the 42" $10,000 tv. I laugh and crush their shred of hope. If people aren't willing to spend money, they won't get quality. Technology becomes obselete, electronics wear out, the latest and greatest becomes yesterday's slop.

I don't really think we're presenting any valid arguments. Well except for the not having to re-buy the dvds point.
TwoADay 9 Apr 2006 15:01
35/39
vault 13 wrote:
Well the variable your leaving out is how much faster we're churning out better technology. It's just a law of nature. Pretty soon we won't have formats but images that form from the particles in the air.

As for the whole my tv isn't the newest or the best, people just need to stop complaining and be happy. Be happy you have an HD set or be happy that you can afford. I sell tvs for a living and it's funny. Everybody is a cheapskate, except for a handfull, even rich people, and everyone always is looking for the best deal. They always want me to reassure them that the 42" $1000 tv is just as good as the 42" $10,000 tv. I laugh and crush their shred of hope. If people aren't willing to spend money, they won't get quality. Technology becomes obselete, electronics wear out, the latest and greatest becomes yesterday's slop.


Two points on this response (it's nice having someone that knows their HD stuff)

Like I said, I live in an apartment, and don't have room for an HD. I'm happy with my 27' Wega. But when people buy TVs, they generally expect for them to last 10 years or so, and they aren't sure if when you get one early (or now) that you won't be behind the standard in a few years.

I have an old 13 inch TV that's at least 8 years old. Its picture is fantastic. The curve seems to be changing, and that's not necessarilly good for either group (consumers or producers). People are more wary to adpot a format that might be way behind on 2 years from now if they adpot now (hope this makes sense, still waking up). New standards or high ends continually changing will make more people wait, or more people that already have HDTVs wait to adpot next time around, as they found that their 720p were outdated by the time the HD broadcasts really come out to everyone.

I'm all for HD, it sounds like it's pretty cool (haven't seen any examples yet) but I know I'll be a late adpoter. Cost and living arangement are two factors, lack of programming another, but I know that those 1020p will likely drop price by the time I could actually use one (based on the above two factors). Of course, what will be the high end by that point? I'm fine not having the high end, I just don't want the high end to be the standard, if you get me on this.
vault 13 10 Apr 2006 07:16
36/39
TwoADay wrote:
Cost and living arangement are two factors, lack of programming another, but I know that those 1020p will likely drop price by the time I could actually use one (based on the above two factors). Of course, what will be the high end by that point? I'm fine not having the high end, I just don't want the high end to be the standard, if you get me on this.


Well for one it's 1080p, but I digress. The thing is that for small apartments, the space saved by mounting an LCD or Plasma tv is amazing. Of course it'll set you back $4-5000 easy but it is sure worth it. You'll get about 6-10 years on Plasma and 10-15 years on LCD roughly dependent on usage.

Although I definitely agree that people should be cautious when buying into new technology. It has a strong negative, like a lack of HD content. But if no one is buying HD, no one will produce content for it. But if we adpot early then manufacturers are quick to develop new technology and better formats that we'll be buying into sooner.

It is indeed an odd situation.
TwoADay 10 Apr 2006 12:51
37/39
vault 13 wrote:
Well for one it's 1080p, but I digress. The thing is that for small apartments, the space saved by mounting an LCD or Plasma tv is amazing. Of course it'll set you back $4-5000 easy but it is sure worth it. You'll get about 6-10 years on Plasma and 10-15 years on LCD roughly dependent on usage.


4-5k for a TV, to me, is nothing short of a waste, especially for an apartment (here in the 'States, at least, where unless you're in NYC or other major city, you only rent the place). If I had a house with a space that could be used for a home theater, and had enough money to piss away on a TV (again, I'd rather just invest that cash for retirement. Yes, I'm rather boring) then I might consider the unit. But not likely.

Like I said, if I spend 4-5 grand on a TV, it had better be the high standard for a long time. Perhaps you can shed light on this -- will the current iteration of HD have an upper res limit of 1080p, or will we see yet higher resolution?

And of course, the higher res doesn't really make the programs you watch any better, right? It won't make me magically like "American Idol."
vault 13 10 Apr 2006 19:59
38/39
TwoADay wrote:
And of course, the higher res doesn't really make the programs you watch any better, right? It won't make me magically like "American Idol."


Well for one, LCDs and Plasmas have native resolutions and according to the experts,in theory when a program is not displayed in it's native resolution, it won't look as good. I know this to be true with my LCD computer monitor. Anything but 1024x768 looks fuzzy. Not so easy to tell with tvs though, with all the variables at hand. Cableing, any scaling (up or down converting to improve picture) used (either by internal components in the tv or dvd player or cable box or a separate piece of machinery), outside interference, etc. So as you can see, it's much harder to differientate.

As for the higher than 1080p, I haven't heard of any higher resolutions. I don't know if they will be able to fit better quailty over coaxial cable. That's one number I can't get a hold of. How much space and data coaxial cable can handle and how much compression you can use on a signal to send it through and how much the tv or decoder can decompress in a timely manner. Compression is also a big issue. Most tv programs are super compressed to save bandwidth, using an ariel antenna nets a much better picture. Which is why HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are going to be amazing, much less compression.

Does that solve everything?
config 11 Apr 2006 11:27
39/39
TwoADay wrote:
will the current iteration of HD have an upper res limit of 1080p, or will we see yet higher resolution?


Doubt they'll go any higher in the forseeable future given that HD-DVD and BluRay both cater to this spec.

And of course, the higher res doesn't really make the programs you watch any better, right? It won't make me magically like "American Idol."


Sadly, no. Actually, not sadly. There's enough of this dross going around without the ratings indicating a greater viewing audience.

Posting of new comments is now locked for this page.