Sony Announced 80% of Ps 3's will be $599 model for Launch

[8th lutz]

http://www.gameinformer.com/News/Story/200....1403.56205.htm. This for those who are wondering about the percentage of each ps 3 model for Launch.

[shadow460]

This might be good or bad. On the bad side, it forces people to spend $600 for the system.

On the good side, perhaps it will help to keep the PS3 user base unified with the premuim system, and reduce the number of folks who will miss features that were not on their basic model.

[Atariboy2600]

Is Sony trying to kill its gaming company?

[shadow460]

I doubt it--I think this is a weak shot at unifying their user base.

[jedijeff]

Since I have an HDTV set with an HDMI input I would definitely prefer the $599 model. That 80% estimate for the premium model is higher than I thought it would be. I'm still waiting to see how they will be distrubuted to stores and whether it will be better to preorder one or just go to a non-game store on release day.

[n8littlefield]

Personally, I think they should have just gone with only the $599. The PS3 is either something you'll buy or not - the cheaper model isn't going to change you mind or somehow make it that much better of a deal.

[Jess Ragan]

That doesn't surprise me. Sony knows that the early adopters will throw down the Benjamins for the real... er, deluxe console. This is likely Sony's ONLY chance to profit from the PS3; they've got to make the most of it.

 

JR

[sega saturn x]

What a suprise, since it's not like you can upgrade the system like with the 360 and no one is going to want the gimped version.

[ninjarabbit]

I'm in the camp that having two different models is a bad idea. It splits your userbase into two and you have to cater to both userbases. For example Microsoft has to make sure that their games work with and without the hard drive. I think SOny should just ditch the gimped $500 model all together since I don't think anyone who pays $500 for a system wants to feel like they bought the gimped version.

[JB]

I'm in the camp that having two different models is a bad idea. It splits your userbase into two and you have to cater to both userbases.

Same here.

 

For example Microsoft has to make sure that their games work with and without the hard drive.

Fortunately, the PS3 diffrences are less signifigant than that.

The basic system featureset is the same on both sides.

[Ze_ro]

The cheap model is a waste of time. It's basically just a ploy by Sony so they can claim a lower starting price. It was the same with Microsoft.

 

Honestly, if you're going to blow $500 on a console, you might as well just drop another $100 and get the "real" console instead of settling.

 

--Zero

[RickHarrisMaine]

I may be mistaken here, but doesn't the new PS3 have a Blu-Ray player in it?

 

And those by themselves are currently going for about a grand....

[Atari-Jess]

The good ol' days when you didn't just get two controllers, but also a game!

 

EGADS. Where have we gone.

[+ls650]

Anyone else think that $600 for a game console is just a wee bit pricey?

[GrandviewCoin]

Anyone else think that $600 for a game console is just a wee bit pricey?

 

 

Can anyone say 3DO or NEO GEO?? Both of those topped $600.00 didn't they when they came out?

[Curt Vendel]

See and this whole Blue-Ray crap is a big concern as we now have a modern version of the VHS vs Betamax format again, so do with go with HD-DVD which is already out or go with Sony's Blu-Ray and when Sony loses that battle like it did with Beta, then we all get stuck with unusable media? Its like their stupid Memory Sticks, if it ain't a Sony product they are useless, meanwhile everyone uses CF or now SD cards are the media of choice.

 

 

 

Curt

 

I may be mistaken here, but doesn't the new PS3 have a Blu-Ray player in it?

 

And those by themselves are currently going for about a grand....

[gdement]

That doesn't surprise me. Sony knows that the early adopters will throw down the Benjamins for the real... er, deluxe console. This is likely Sony's ONLY chance to profit from the PS3; they've got to make the most of it.

 

JR

I doubt it's profitable. If this weren't a game console, then they wouldn't be afraid to introduce it at $1000 or more. But when it comes to video games, these companies always like to impose price controls and create a mess. Gamers feel better knowing that the machine nobody can buy is only $600. If DVD players were introduced at that price, nobody would have been able to find them either.

[Atarifever]

Anyone else think that $600 for a game console is just a wee bit pricey?

 

 

Can anyone say 3DO or NEO GEO?? Both of those topped $600.00 didn't they when they came out?

Yep, and that's why they're such dominate market forces.

[mos6507]

Blu-ray won't sell the console. If the games don't look significantly better than the 360 then Sony is screwed. The Wii will take the budget/casual market and the 360 the hardcore market.

[Ze_ro]

I may be mistaken here, but doesn't the new PS3 have a Blu-Ray player in it?

 

And those by themselves are currently going for about a grand....

You're right, BUT there's a huge problem here that newcomers don't quite see...

 

The media companies that make movies realize that people had a really easy time just recording the output of a VCR or DVD player order to copy movies, so they don't want you to be able to do that anymore. To this effect, they have introduced HDCP and the Image Constraint Token (ICT, also called the "downsample flag").

 

Aside from being a slightly higher quality cable, HDMI is also capable of sending encrypted data from one HDCP-capable device to another. So, if you play a movie on your Blu-Ray player, it's not actually decrypted until it gets into your television (Assuming the television is HDCP-capable, not all of them are, even if they have HDMI inputs). If the device you're plugging into isn't HDCP-capable, it won't be able to read the encrypted signal, and therefor can't record it.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone has a TV with HDMI inputs, and some HDMI sets don't support HDCP, and the companies know this. They HAVE to provide component, composite, RF, and non-encrypted HDMI output so that anyone who buys the machine can actually use it. This is a problem though, as once again, someone could just plug one of these cables into their computer and record the movie, which the industry doesn't want you doing.

 

This is where the Image Constraint Token comes into play. Every Blu-Ray and HD-DVD disc has some data on the disc with information about the disc's region and manufacturer and other stuff... amung these is a single bit, the ICT. If the ICT is turned on, then the device playing the disc is required to only send encrypted HDMI. Anything else is required to be "downsampled" to a resolution of 960×540. This way, if you're trying to copy the movie using component cables, you'll get a version with inferior quality rather than the 1920x1080 resolution that Blu-Ray is capable of. This is meant to be a deterrant to anyone trying to copy high-definition movies, as the result will generally be equivalent to DVD quality.

 

The real problem here, is that if you DON'T have a TV that is HDCP-capable, then you will NOT get the full resolution out of a Blu-Ray movie. Instead, you'll get the downsampled version which is basically DVD quality. The machine will think you're trying to copy the movie and you will be punished simply because your TV isn't "up to specs". This also means that your cheap PS3, which doesn't have HDMI output can NEVER satisfy HDCP requirements, and thus any movie with the ICT enabled will NEVER be displayed at it's full resolution.

 

Now, Sony and many other companies have claimed that they will not enable the ICT on their movies, mostly because HDCP hasn't really caught on yet... but how long are they going to hold out? What if a year down the road, EVERYTHING has the ICT enabled? The thing is, no one really knows what will happen... I have a feeling when they finally do enable it, there will be a LOT of pissed off people who suddenly will have wished they had payed the extra $100 when they had the chance. The $600 PS3 certainly does look like it'll be a good alternative to dropping $1K on a Blu-Ray player, but be careful about considering the $500 PS3 to be a cheap Blu-Ray player, as you may be sorely disappointed.

 

(It really troubles me to see that very few people really understand what companies are doing with DRM these days. People are being led to believe that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are vastly superior, and maybe they are, but there's a lot of backdoor stuff that the companies aren't telling you that could really cause consumers headaches in the future.)

 

--Zero

[jedijeff]

It seems to me that the cheaper version is for people that aren't interested in the movie player part of the machine, they just want to play the games. And just because you 'think' the component output isn't capable of 1080p for games doesn't mean it isn't.

[jbanes]

The real problem here, is that if you DON'T have a TV that is HDCP-capable, then you will NOT get the full resolution out of a Blu-Ray movie. Instead, you'll get the downsampled version which is basically DVD quality. The machine will think you're trying to copy the movie and you will be punished simply because your TV isn't "up to specs". This also means that your cheap PS3, which doesn't have HDMI output can NEVER satisfy HDCP requirements, and thus any movie with the ICT enabled will NEVER be displayed at it's full resolution.

Personally, I think this is the key reason why it hasn't been turned on yet. If Sony (and the other large companies) fail to wait for HDCP to become ubiquitous, then the market will find a solution. The solution? Probably a special adapter that will decrypt an HDCP signal for your non-HDCP television. Which would leave the media companies right back where they started. Just plug the cable + adapter into your recording device...

[RickHarrisMaine]

I may be mistaken here, but doesn't the new PS3 have a Blu-Ray player in it?

 

And those by themselves are currently going for about a grand....

You're right, BUT there's a huge problem here that newcomers don't quite see...

 

The media companies that make movies realize that people had a really easy time just recording the output of a VCR or DVD player order to copy movies, so they don't want you to be able to do that anymore. To this effect, they have introduced HDCP and the Image Constraint Token (ICT, also called the "downsample flag").

 

Aside from being a slightly higher quality cable, HDMI is also capable of sending encrypted data from one HDCP-capable device to another. So, if you play a movie on your Blu-Ray player, it's not actually decrypted until it gets into your television (Assuming the television is HDCP-capable, not all of them are, even if they have HDMI inputs). If the device you're plugging into isn't HDCP-capable, it won't be able to read the encrypted signal, and therefor can't record it.

 

Unfortunately, not everyone has a TV with HDMI inputs, and some HDMI sets don't support HDCP, and the companies know this. They HAVE to provide component, composite, RF, and non-encrypted HDMI output so that anyone who buys the machine can actually use it. This is a problem though, as once again, someone could just plug one of these cables into their computer and record the movie, which the industry doesn't want you doing.

 

This is where the Image Constraint Token comes into play. Every Blu-Ray and HD-DVD disc has some data on the disc with information about the disc's region and manufacturer and other stuff... amung these is a single bit, the ICT. If the ICT is turned on, then the device playing the disc is required to only send encrypted HDMI. Anything else is required to be "downsampled" to a resolution of 960×540. This way, if you're trying to copy the movie using component cables, you'll get a version with inferior quality rather than the 1920x1080 resolution that Blu-Ray is capable of. This is meant to be a deterrant to anyone trying to copy high-definition movies, as the result will generally be equivalent to DVD quality.

 

The real problem here, is that if you DON'T have a TV that is HDCP-capable, then you will NOT get the full resolution out of a Blu-Ray movie. Instead, you'll get the downsampled version which is basically DVD quality. The machine will think you're trying to copy the movie and you will be punished simply because your TV isn't "up to specs". This also means that your cheap PS3, which doesn't have HDMI output can NEVER satisfy HDCP requirements, and thus any movie with the ICT enabled will NEVER be displayed at it's full resolution.

 

Now, Sony and many other companies have claimed that they will not enable the ICT on their movies, mostly because HDCP hasn't really caught on yet... but how long are they going to hold out? What if a year down the road, EVERYTHING has the ICT enabled? The thing is, no one really knows what will happen... I have a feeling when they finally do enable it, there will be a LOT of pissed off people who suddenly will have wished they had payed the extra $100 when they had the chance. The $600 PS3 certainly does look like it'll be a good alternative to dropping $1K on a Blu-Ray player, but be careful about considering the $500 PS3 to be a cheap Blu-Ray player, as you may be sorely disappointed.

 

(It really troubles me to see that very few people really understand what companies are doing with DRM these days. People are being led to believe that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are vastly superior, and maybe they are, but there's a lot of backdoor stuff that the companies aren't telling you that could really cause consumers headaches in the future.)

 

--Zero

 

Why doesn't this surprise me. Maybe its a better idea to wait a couple of years before taking the plunge to HD anyways.

[Ze_ro]

It seems to me that the cheaper version is for people that aren't interested in the movie player part of the machine, they just want to play the games. And just because you 'think' the component output isn't capable of 1080p for games doesn't mean it isn't.

I only said Blu-Ray movies would be downsampled. Games will still take display in full resolution regardless of what cables you use.

 

Also, I fully expect that hackers will eventually crack HDCP. It's only a matter of time.

 

--Zero

[Vic George 2K3]

'Tis the season for me to say -- WIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII...