Sony Soon to Force Gamers into Using HDMI

[qlum]

I actually use the av cable but only for audio as you can use it as a standard rca audio connector

[ahou]

The failure would be me getting hd cable/broadband internet and using sdtv and dial up.

What?


Your analogy is still flawed anyway. Paying for hd cable access for use with an sdtv does not offer anything at all, except a more expensive bill. A ps3 does tons of things, regardless of what tv it is plugged into. An hdtv is not required for any of the main features of a ps3.

besides i think hdmi might be going extinct in the future,there are already better options available ,though not in wide use like diplay port and mini display port ,and thunderbolt,

Thunderbolt cables cost far, far too much to be viable. A 2m cable cannot cost $50, when an alternative can be bought for under $2. Maybe if there was some massive difference in quality, but there's not. The quality is more or less the same. Display port may have a chance of overtaking hdmi, but since hdmi has been the standard for so long now, i just don't see it happening.

[Nickolodeo]

What?


Your analogy is still flawed anyway. Paying for hd cable access for use with an sdtv does not offer anything at all, except a more expensive bill. A ps3 does tons of things, regardless of what tv it is plugged into. An hdtv is not required for any of the main features of a ps3.
Thunderbolt cables cost far, far too much to be viable. A 2m cable cannot cost $50, when an alternative can be bought for under $2. Maybe if there was some massive difference in quality, but there's not. The quality is more or less the same. Display port may have a chance of overtaking hdmi, but since hdmi has been the standard for so long now, i just don't see it happening.

Ok I can see logic is in short supply here. Using a hdtv with hd cable, cable internet instead of dialup since they perform better. That's all we get here anyway, bill is moot. Why would I use inferior devices to use my available services? Logic, simple logic, dictates you wouldn't. SNES or similar graphics are fine on sd, hd games on sd not good. I hope that helps because there actually is a massive difference in quality between the examples in my analogies. Play a game on a sdtv, then play the same game on an hdtv. You're welcome, sorry i had to draw the picture out in so much detail. Guess the guys on ps3hax were right, the Nazi's done beat the sense out of this entire site. My bad for jumping in the kiddie pool, ban away Heinrich und Hitler.

[ahou]

Play a game on a sdtv, then play the same game on an hdtv.

Text would be easier to read. Other than that, i would never notice a difference.

Like many other people, i don't give a flying **** what it looks like. I play games because i enjoy playing games. As long as my ps3 games give me graphics at least as good as the snes, i'm happy. I don't really care much for anything worse than snes level graphics, but fortunately the last time i experienced that was back when i actually played my snes every day, at which time i was a little kid, and cared even less about graphics quality than i do now.

The bill is NOT moot. That is the entire issue. Personally, I get exactly zero* additional enjoyment from my games by playing them on an hdtv vs sdtv. None. At all. I don't care one bit whether i'm playing a game at 1600p, or 320i. It doesn't matter at all to me. So, given that i don't care, and thus an hdtv is NOT better than an sdtv (if it doesn't increase my enjoyment of the product, it is not better, for me), why would i spend a few hundred dollars, that i don't have for an hdtv? If i bought an hdtv, then i would not be able to buy something else. And that something, for me, is currently would give me at least a billion times more enjoyment per dollar, than an hdtv would.




*Actually, being able to read text easier is quite nice for some games, but since that would not be an issue if developers were not retarded douchebags who don't care about their customers enough to spend 5 minutes ensuring their games could be played on any tv, i would refuse to buy an hdtv just for that reason, even if i had the money for one, just out of principle.

[ktwister]

Yeah DRM protection has worked awesome for e-books. Cutting edge protection for computers that can't run some simple python scripts. Gooooooo SONY~!!! Hopefully the new PSLive will be as tight and secure.

DVI is identical to hdmi, without sound <.<

Actually.......the cords aren't identical. HDMI lacks analog VGA compatibility, but DVI has less color space. They both have their drawbacks, but are very similar.

[sallu]

all this hdmi is not a problem its another think for chinese to make soon you will see cheap hdmi to avi converter adaptors on ebay and everywere so i dont the problem

[SaveU]

Ohhhh the drama queens we have here.Those of you who are crying.....BUT I CANT AFFORD AN HDTVZorgz1111. Then this has no effect on you, as you can continue playing with your SDTV with the regular cables. There is no difference.The only difference is that those who have multiple HDMI units plugged into their tv, and have run out of ports on the back will no longer be able to run the HD signal thru the component to save a spot for the DVR and Stereo...ect..Those who are complaining about buying a cable..... I have several local electronic stores where I can get a quality HDMI cable 8ft for under $10 (NCIX.com - Buy Belkin 6FT HDMI Digital Video Cable M/M Black OEM - Belkin - F8V3311B06 - in Canada Here is one now.)

[ahou]

Ohhhh the drama queens we have here.Those of you who are crying.....BUT I CANT AFFORD AN HDTVZorgz1111. Then this has no effect on you, as you can continue playing with your SDTV with the regular cables. There is no difference.The only difference is that those who have multiple HDMI units plugged into their tv, and have run out of ports on the back will no longer be able to run the HD signal thru the component to save a spot for the DVR and Stereo...ect..Those who are complaining about buying a cable..... I have several local electronic stores where I can get a quality HDMI cable 8ft for under $10 (NCIX.com - Buy Belkin 6FT HDMI Digital Video Cable M/M Black OEM - Belkin - F8V3311B06 - in Canada Here is one now.)

No one who said they can't afford an hdtv has complained about this move. We know it doesn't affect us. And no one was crying about it. Fairly sure everyone in this thread who said they don't have an hdtv is fine with it.

And $10 for an hdmi cable is a ripoff. Amazon.com: HDMI Cable 2M (6 Feet): Electronics $2.20, with free shipping.

[richman33]

Text would be easier to read. Other than that, i would never notice a difference.

Like many other people, i don't give a flying **** what it looks like. I play games because i enjoy playing games. As long as my ps3 games give me graphics at least as good as the snes, i'm happy. I don't really care much for anything worse than snes level graphics, but fortunately the last time i experienced that was back when i actually played my snes every day, at which time i was a little kid, and cared even less about graphics quality than i do now.

The bill is NOT moot. That is the entire issue. Personally, I get exactly zero* additional enjoyment from my games by playing them on an hdtv vs sdtv. None. At all. I don't care one bit whether i'm playing a game at 1600p, or 320i. It doesn't matter at all to me. So, given that i don't care, and thus an hdtv is NOT better than an sdtv (if it doesn't increase my enjoyment of the product, it is not better, for me), why would i spend a few hundred dollars, that i don't have for an hdtv? If i bought an hdtv, then i would not be able to buy something else. And that something, for me, is currently would give me at least a billion times more enjoyment per dollar, than an hdtv would.

*Actually, being able to read text easier is quite nice for some games, but since that would not be an issue if developers were not retarded douchebags who don't care about their customers enough to spend 5 minutes ensuring their games could be played on any tv, i would refuse to buy an hdtv just for that reason, even if i had the money for one, just out of principle.

why anyone would use an sdtv to play or watch bluray movies/games is beyond me!! You can makeup all the nonsense bs you want if you can afford to buy a $300 bluray gaming system along with bluray games that cost $60 then you can afford an hdtv!! If all you want is snes graphics ill sell you my snes for $300 and ill make you a good deal games half the price of ps3 games!! Talk about flawed arguments yours is full of them. quit bitching about having to buy an hdtv cause it cost to much when a ps3 is just as expensive!! Both a ps3 and hdtv are luxury items so quit acting like something you need to live is being taken away!!

[ahou]

why anyone would use an sdtv to play or watch bluray movies/games is beyond me!! You can makeup all the nonsense bs you want if you can afford to buy a $300 bluray gaming system along with bluray games that cost $60 then you can afford an hdtv!! If all you want is snes graphics ill sell you my snes for $300 and ill make you a good deal games half the price of ps3 games!! Talk about flawed arguments yours is full of them. quit bitching about having to buy an hdtv cause it cost to much when a ps3 is just as expensive!! Both a ps3 and hdtv are luxury items so quit acting like something you need to live is being taken away!!

The obvious answer is that i don't pay for any games or movies.

But even if i did, then your logic is still faulty. It is certainly possible that a person could afford a $300 ps3, and $60 games, but then not be able to buy an hdtv. There are many people in a situation where they can afford one, but not the other. If i was in that situation, i would choose the system+games, every single time.

Also, as i said, i watch tv/movies on my computer.

When that snes plays ps3 games, lemme know, and i'll buy it. Wait, never mind, i already have a ps3, so no need.

[richman33]

The obvious answer is that i don't pay for any games or movies.

But even if i did, then your logic is still faulty. It is certainly possible that a person could afford a $300 ps3, and $60 games, but then not be able to buy an hdtv. There are many people in a situation where they can afford one, but not the other. If i was in that situation, i would choose the system+games, every single time.

Also, as i said, i watch tv/movies on my computer.

When that snes plays ps3 games, lemme know, and i'll buy it. Wait, never mind, i already have a ps3, so no need.

If you think hd does not make games better then you are just arguing to argue!! HD gaming is a million times better than sd gaming and that is only counting graphics not sound!!

[Lionheartwolf]

i think this probably has more to do with the problem of people refusing to change than anything else. you can probably rest assure that standard A/V cables will go the way of the dodo by the next gen systems arrival. if not those then eventually. the gaming companies are not going to waste dollars on putting dated technology that nobody uses in their machines. (except Nintendo since they are probably still behined :P) i mean you're not going to break the bank with a HDMI cable. I will say it is pretty bad that sony cant supply you with one. if its going to be a nessecary component to using your PS3 it should be in the box. period. even if its a crappy one that doesnt make it a year its still better than giving you cables that they pretty much stated are useless. it would be like selling a car without a steering wheel, but supplying you with a wrench so you can turn the steering shaft.as for people who somehow managed to make it almost 10 years without upgrading their TV your just going to have to suck it up and face the times. your old SD tv is worthless now it was going to happen eventually. HD technology is now cheap enough to afford. you cant very well say you refuse to buy a DVD player because your VHS tapes are still good. so i know you understand the concept of moving on. you can probably come up with 1000 excuses for why you shouldnt have to upgrade but you will when the next set of consoles come out and you want to play those games. you cant really say you cant afford it unless you got your ps3 on the day they rained from the sky (assuming you were outside that day. it was a very dangerous day after all) you really had no business buying a PS3 if you didnt have a TV that would handle it very well. in all honesty console gamers have it the easiest. all they have to do is update there hardware 1-2 times a decade, and upgrade their TV every quarter of a century. just suck it up. dont fault Sony for being the first because they wont be the last. Im not saying people shouldnt give them hell about not giving us a cheap HDMI cable. thats just being cheap.

[Lionheartwolf]

Bah >.< i guess when they say dont click the button twice there is probably a good reason why...

[ahou]

If you think hd does not make games better then you are just arguing to argue!! HD gaming is a million times better than sd gaming and that is only counting graphics not sound!!

Says you? HD is great for movies, but for games, it really doesn't matter. Games do not need to look good to be fun.

[RetroGameTech]

Wait, what!? They're removing a feature that benefits a large number of users? This is unheard of! Oh wait, sorry I forgot, PS3 is made by Sony .

I wonder what they'll disable/remove next? There's not really a whole lot left. I say remove the Blu-ray altogether! Or, how about completely removing all AV ports from the console. That'll show them pesky pirates!

[ahou]

as for people who somehow managed to make it almost 10 years without upgrading their TV your just going to have to suck it up and face the times. your old SD tv is worthless now it was going to happen eventually. HD technology is now cheap enough to afford. you cant very well say you refuse to buy a DVD player because your VHS tapes are still good. so i know you understand the concept of moving on. you can probably come up with 1000 excuses for why you shouldnt have to upgrade but you will when the next set of consoles come out and you want to play those games. you cant really say you cant afford it unless you got your ps3 on the day they rained from the sky (assuming you were outside that day. it was a very dangerous day after all) you really had no business buying a PS3 if you didnt have a TV that would handle it very well. in all honesty console gamers have it the easiest. all they have to do is update there hardware 1-2 times a decade, and upgrade their TV every quarter of a century. just suck it up. dont fault Sony for being the first because they wont be the last.

But i can't afford an hdtv. I've got $30 to my name, and no job. How did i get a ps3 you ask? Well good question. Actually, it doesn't matter, since i've had it since 2006 (if you must know, i did not pay for it). And even if i could afford one, that doesn't change the fact that buying one would serve no purpose, and simply be a waste of money.

Your vhs comparison is invalid. VHS is useless not because of the quality, but because nothing is released for it. Sure, vhs have awful quality, but dvds aren't really much better at 480p. Sdtvs on the other hand still work approximately as well as hdtvs. Any content that can be viewed on an hdtv can also be viewed on an sdtv.

I don't really understand why you guys think everyone MUST have an hdtv. What exactly do you think i am missing out on? We have already established that i only use my tv for gaming, and that i don't care one bit what resolution my games are running at, since i play games for the games, not for the pretty graphics. What then, do you think i, or anyone else in a similar situation, would get out of buying an hdtv?

[Lionheartwolf]

The obvious answer is that i don't pay for any games or movies.

But even if i did, then your logic is still faulty. It is certainly possible that a person could afford a $300 ps3, and $60 games, but then not be able to buy an hdtv. There are many people in a situation where they can afford one, but not the other. If i was in that situation, i would choose the system+games, every single time.

Also, as i said, i watch tv/movies on my computer.

When that snes plays ps3 games, lemme know, and i'll buy it. Wait, never mind, i already have a ps3, so no need.

actually that logic is even more faulty. if you can afford to buy one but not the other you really shouldnt be wasting your money on either till you can afford both. you can choose the system+games everytime, but that would be a terrible idea. buying a blu ray player when you just have an SDTV is a waste of money, so a console that plays blu rays and plays Hi def games is even more of a waste of money. You'll need that TV eventually, but the PS3 not so much especially in the next few years when the next set of consoles comes out. The life span of a TV is much longer than a gaming system. if you need proof just look at your SDTV and all the systems you could have played on it.

[Lionheartwolf]

But i can't afford an hdtv. I've got $30 to my name, and no job. How did i get a ps3 you ask? Well good question. Actually, it doesn't matter, since i've had it since 2006 (if you must know, i did not pay for it). And even if i could afford one, that doesn't change the fact that buying one would serve no purpose, and simply be a waste of money.

Your vhs comparison is invalid. VHS is useless not because of the quality, but because nothing is released for it. Sure, vhs have awful quality, but dvds aren't really much better at 480p. Sdtvs on the other hand still work approximately as well as hdtvs. Any content that can be viewed on an hdtv can also be viewed on an sdtv.

I don't really understand why you guys think everyone MUST have an hdtv. What exactly do you think i am missing out on? We have already established that i only use my tv for gaming, and that i don't care one bit what resolution my games are running at, since i play games for the games, not for the pretty graphics. What then, do you think i, or anyone else in a similar situation, would get out of buying an hdtv?

look im sure again you can defend this to tears, but the VHS thing is just as valid. we can look at TV's that dont have A/V hookups, and you have to buy an adapter so it plugs into your cable jack for example. They dont make anything for them anymore. you cant even watch free TV on them without buying a digital converter box. you can keep your SDTV as long as you like but if you honestly think its not going to be as useless as the VHS in the next few years you are being extremely naive. im not going to tell you what you need and what you dont need thats your call but you are going to leave yourself in the dark much sooner than i think you think

[iAmMasterF]

please $ony take away more features, we prefer a ps3 to be nothing but a blu ray player

[walkingby]

The amounts of lulz and butthurt in this thread are just epic GO SONY, GO!