Sony Lost Over $3 Billion To PS3 Cost, Pricing Imbalance

Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
revealed today.

Sony's fiscal 2008 annual report delineated potential risk factors to
its investors, outlining that "the large-scale investment required
during the development and introductory period of a new gaming
platform may not be fully recovered." The loss figures were provided
as an example of the "significant negative impact" introducing a new
platform can cause at first.

"In the past, large-scale investment relating to capital expenditures
and research and development for the manufacture of key components,
including semiconductors supplied for [PlayStation 3] was also
recorded within the Electronics segment," the company said.

In order to stay competitive, said Sony, it had to invest large
amounts of money in research and development to introduce the
PlayStation 3 into the market, and these sorts of expenditures don't
always get recouped, especially if a platform "fail[s] to achieve such
favorable market penetration... resulting in a significant negative
impact on Sony's profitability."

Even if it can recoup its investment, Sony said, it's still possible
to have lost large amounts of money on the platform's introductory
period, and even a successful PS3 might take a while to replace what
it cost to produce. These possible outcomes are currently a risk for
the company, Sony said.

http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-331-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-imbalance

"AirRaid"  wrote in message 
news:cf97db4e-06ce-4dfa-9821-39df679c0d3f@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sony Lost Over $3 Billion To PS3 Cost, Pricing Imbalance
>
> Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
> lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
> revealed today.
>
> Sony's fiscal 2008 annual report delineated potential risk factors to
> its investors, outlining that "the large-scale investment required
> during the development and introductory period of a new gaming
> platform may not be fully recovered." The loss figures were provided
> as an example of the "significant negative impact" introducing a new
> platform can cause at first.
>
> "In the past, large-scale investment relating to capital expenditures
> and research and development for the manufacture of key components,
> including semiconductors supplied for [PlayStation 3] was also
> recorded within the Electronics segment," the company said.
>
> In order to stay competitive, said Sony, it had to invest large
> amounts of money in research and development to introduce the
> PlayStation 3 into the market, and these sorts of expenditures don't
> always get recouped, especially if a platform "fail[s] to achieve such
> favorable market penetration... resulting in a significant negative
> impact on Sony's profitability."
>
> Even if it can recoup its investment, Sony said, it's still possible
> to have lost large amounts of money on the platform's introductory
> period, and even a successful PS3 might take a while to replace what
> it cost to produce. These possible outcomes are currently a risk for
> the company, Sony said.
>
> http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-331-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-imbalance
>

Yay!  That affects my Xbox much in the same way M$ setting aside all that 
money for RROD repairs affected my PS3 you cross-posting twat.

On Jun 23, 1:43 pm, AirRaid  wrote:

> Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
> lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
> revealed today.

This is why I've been telling the trolls that Sony took out that $700
million loan, spinning off their profitable divisions, sold off their
cell chip fab plants, etc. They're bleeding themselves dry.

That's a way bigger hit than, say, the RROD write off that Microsoft
did.

- Jordan

On Jun 23, 9:45 pm, Jordan  wrote:
> On Jun 23, 1:43 pm, AirRaid  wrote:
>
> > Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
> > lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
> > revealed today.
>
> This is why I've been telling the trolls that Sony took out that $700
> million loan, spinning off their profitable divisions, sold off their
> cell chip fab plants, etc. They're bleeding themselves dry.
>
> That's a way bigger hit than, say, the RROD write off that Microsoft
> did.

That RROD write-off, say, doesn't help my 360's fried graphics card.

> That RROD write-off, say, doesn't help my 360's fried graphics card.

My 360 is still going strong after over two years of constant use. :)

On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, AirRaid  wrote:
> Sony Lost Over $3 Billion To PS3 Cost, Pricing Imbalance
>
> Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
> lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
> revealed today.
>
> Sony's fiscal 2008 annual report delineated potential risk factors to
> its investors, outlining that "the large-scale investment required
> during the development and introductory period of a new gaming
> platform may not be fully recovered." The loss figures were provided
> as an example of the "significant negative impact" introducing a new
> platform can cause at first.
>
> "In the past, large-scale investment relating to capital expenditures
> and research and development for the manufacture of key components,
> including semiconductors supplied for [PlayStation 3] was also
> recorded within the Electronics segment," the company said.
>
> In order to stay competitive, said Sony, it had to invest large
> amounts of money in research and development to introduce the
> PlayStation 3 into the market, and these sorts of expenditures don't
> always get recouped, especially if a platform "fail[s] to achieve such
> favorable market penetration... resulting in a significant negative
> impact on Sony's profitability."
>
> Even if it can recoup its investment, Sony said, it's still possible
> to have lost large amounts of money on the platform's introductory
> period, and even a successful PS3 might take a while to replace what
> it cost to produce. These possible outcomes are currently a risk for
> the company, Sony said.
>
> http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-331-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-i...

But that's just the 'electronics' division.  Sony, as a whole, has
greatly benefited from the PS3 because of its role in making Bluray
the next media standard.  Basically, Sony Electronics 'took one for
the team'

On Jun 24, 8:40 am, terryfied  wrote:
> > That RROD write-off, say, doesn't help my 360's fried graphics card.
>
> My 360 is still going strong after over two years of constant use. :)

Consider yourself lucky.  I used to say that until my first one died
after 1.5 yrs...then the refurb's graphics card died after 4
months. .no RROD warranty for that!

I guess you could say I'm just a 'statistic' :)

On Jun 24, 6:09 am, Wolfing  wrote:
> On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, AirRaid  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Sony Lost Over $3 Billion To PS3 Cost, Pricing Imbalance
>
> > Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
> > lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
> > revealed today.
>
> > Sony's fiscal 2008 annual report delineated potential risk factors to
> > its investors, outlining that "the large-scale investment required
> > during the development and introductory period of a new gaming
> > platform may not be fully recovered." The loss figures were provided
> > as an example of the "significant negative impact" introducing a new
> > platform can cause at first.
>
> > "In the past, large-scale investment relating to capital expenditures
> > and research and development for the manufacture of key components,
> > including semiconductors supplied for [PlayStation 3] was also
> > recorded within the Electronics segment," the company said.
>
> > In order to stay competitive, said Sony, it had to invest large
> > amounts of money in research and development to introduce the
> > PlayStation 3 into the market, and these sorts of expenditures don't
> > always get recouped, especially if a platform "fail[s] to achieve such
> > favorable market penetration... resulting in a significant negative
> > impact on Sony's profitability."
>
> > Even if it can recoup its investment, Sony said, it's still possible
> > to have lost large amounts of money on the platform's introductory
> > period, and even a successful PS3 might take a while to replace what
> > it cost to produce. These possible outcomes are currently a risk for
> > the company, Sony said.
>
> >http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-331-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-i...


> But that's just the 'electronics' division.  Sony, as a whole, has
> greatly benefited from the PS3 because of its role in making Bluray
> the next media standard.  Basically, Sony Electronics 'took one for
> the team'-

Not quite.

Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Japan's Sony corporation said today that its annual net profit almost
tripled to hit a record high as brisk sales of digital cameras and
laptop computers offset continued losses from the PlayStation 3.
http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0514/sony.html

Digital cameras and laptop computers have absolutely nothing to do
with Blu-ray.

How stupid is this plus why do the xflop fanbitches constantly lie to
attack Sony and the PS3?

It is just a simple matter of historical fact that Sony has had
negative balance years with the introduction of every new console they
come out with, starting with the PS1. These are not losses since Sony
has a plan to turn profits after a couple of negative balance years,
while Micro$kank does not.

The PS2 had two negative balance years, then went on to be a positive
balance in the 3rd year, with profits increasing meteorically after
that. The PS2 is still turning profits although those are now tapering
off.  The investment cost of the PS3 has been higher but so was the
investment cost of the PS2 compared to the PS1.

The PS3 reached break-even between manufacturing cost and selling
price earlier this year. The manufacturing costs will go down with
continual re-engineering and the economics of volume. This last report
was for the fiscal year that ended in March 2008, which also brings up
the question why is this a news item now, except look at the source
Kraptaku, and no doubt at Micro$hit prompting. The balance for FY08
ending March 2009 will be a positive balance with profits in 2010 and
2011.

This is something Micro$tupid is never, --ever-- going to understand.

"Blig Merk"  wrote in message 
news:8c551946-ade6-4e07-839c-365ef7e36a59@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

>
> The PS3 reached break-even between manufacturing cost and selling
> price earlier this year. The manufacturing costs will go down with
> continual re-engineering and the economics of volume.

Got a link, from what I have read recently, they are still losing about 
$150/console average.

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/playstation-3-s-cost-to-Sony-so-far-3-32-billion/

"Having sold the system at price lower than the manufacturing cost, the 
PlayStation 3 was a $2.16 billion endeavor in 2007, with another $1.16 
billion being lost in 2008."

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2008/05/14/is_sony_losing_260_on_every_ps3_it_ships.html

"Sony losing $260 on every PS3 it ships?
Sony's gaming arm lost around $1.2 billion last year - an impovement from 
the $2.2bn loss the year before. But is Sony losing $260 per PS3?

May 14, 2008 5:59 PM

Well, according to the latest Sony financials they could well be. The 
technology blog has been looking at the figures which show Sony's gaming arm 
lost around $1.2 billion last year - an improvement from the $2.2bn loss the 
year before. Of course, console manufacturers, though generally not 
Nintendo, often suffer losses - caused by high costs/low install base - 
early on in a console's lifespan. Microsoft certainly did and it appears 
Sony are continuing the trend. Jack Schofield crunches the numbers.


"On Sony's own figures, the games division made a loss of $130 for each 
PlayStation 3 shipped. Let's assume that it's making pots of money on the 
PSP and the PlayStation 2: the PS2 is now hugely profitable and still sells 
more games than anything else. These two platforms could easily have made a 
profit of $1.2bn in the year. In that case, the total PS3 loss would have 
been $2.4bn shared between 9.24m PS3 consoles, or $260 per PS3 -- including 
any attached Sony games." "

You are really proving to be another one of the dumbest xflop
fanbitches, taking the exact same position those idiot cunts were
taking in the second year of the PS2, claiming the exact same, stupid
thing. All this while the PS2 achieved break-even cost and went on to
be the most successful console -- EVAR!

The latest financial report from Sony is for FY 2007, meaning the
balance over March 2007 to March 2008. During 2007, the PS3 was
costing more to manufacture than it was selling for, accounting for
the negative balance. It was announced early in 2008 that Sony
achieved break-even manufacturing cost to selling price. Breaking even
on the manufacturing cost and eventually starting to turn a profit on
each console sold is not going to show up on the balance sheet until
March 2009. What is it, or lack of it, in your thick skull that you
are incapable of understanding this? This is from Business Week, not
some stupid, ignorant blog site with question marks after every so-
called statement:

"Nikko Citigroup's Kota Ezawa estimates the games division will lose
$1.4 billion this fiscal year, following last year's $2.1 billion
loss. And while he doesn't expect the business to be prosperous until
late 2009, Ezawa applauds Sony's efforts to shrink the PS3's chips and
tweak its design. Already such changes have cut the cost per machine
to around $400 now, from above $800 just before it went on sale in
November, 2006, he says."

http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_681920.htm

Tom wrote:
> "Blig Merk"  wrote in message
> news:8c551946-ade6-4e07-839c-365ef7e36a59@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >
> > The PS3 reached break-even between manufacturing cost and selling
> > price earlier this year. The manufacturing costs will go down with
> > continual re-engineering and the economics of volume.
>
> Got a link, from what I have read recently, they are still losing about
> $150/console average.
>
> http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/playstation-3-s-cost-to-Sony-so-far-3-32-billion/
>
> "Having sold the system at price lower than the manufacturing cost, the
> PlayStation 3 was a $2.16 billion endeavor in 2007, with another $1.16
> billion being lost in 2008."
>
> http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2008/05/14/is_sony_losing_260_on_every_ps3_it_ships.html
>
> "Sony losing $260 on every PS3 it ships?
> Sony's gaming arm lost around $1.2 billion last year - an impovement from
> the $2.2bn loss the year before. But is Sony losing $260 per PS3?
>
> May 14, 2008 5:59 PM
>
> Well, according to the latest Sony financials they could well be. The
> technology blog has been looking at the figures which show Sony's gaming arm
> lost around $1.2 billion last year - an improvement from the $2.2bn loss the
> year before. Of course, console manufacturers, though generally not
> Nintendo, often suffer losses - caused by high costs/low install base -
> early on in a console's lifespan. Microsoft certainly did and it appears
> Sony are continuing the trend. Jack Schofield crunches the numbers.
>
>
> "On Sony's own figures, the games division made a loss of $130 for each
> PlayStation 3 shipped. Let's assume that it's making pots of money on the
> PSP and the PlayStation 2: the PS2 is now hugely profitable and still sells
> more games than anything else. These two platforms could easily have made a
> profit of $1.2bn in the year. In that case, the total PS3 loss would have
> been $2.4bn shared between 9.24m PS3 consoles, or $260 per PS3 -- including
> any attached Sony games." "

LOL, your reading comprehension escapes you, and yet you stated in the
post before this, that the PS3 is already breaking even. I showed you
this, and you reply with the typical xflop fanbitch reply. Yet in your
own update from Newsweek, it shows that the PS3 is still losing money,
you dope!

It says it still cost $400 to make, but Sony has to absorb that cost
for the material, you stupid fuckstain, don't you get it, they sell
it, but have to pay for the cost anyway, they are still losing money,
overall. It is all but a dead topic if you're going to say they will
make a profit, no different than saying it will rain again someday.

On Jun 25, 12:04 am, Blig Merk  wrote:
> You are really proving to be another one of the dumbest xflop
> fanbitches, taking the exact same position those idiot cunts were
> taking in the second year of the PS2, claiming the exact same, stupid
> thing. All this while the PS2 achieved break-even cost and went on to
> be the most successful console -- EVAR!
>
> The latest financial report from Sony is for FY 2007, meaning the
> balance over March 2007 to March 2008. During 2007, the PS3 was
> costing more to manufacture than it was selling for, accounting for
> the negative balance. It was announced early in 2008 that Sony
> achieved break-even manufacturing cost to selling price. Breaking even
> on the manufacturing cost and eventually starting to turn a profit on
> each console sold is not going to show up on the balance sheet until
> March 2009. What is it, or lack of it, in your thick skull that you
> are incapable of understanding this? This is from Business Week, not
> some stupid, ignorant blog site with question marks after every so-
> called statement:
>
> "Nikko Citigroup's Kota Ezawa estimates the games division will lose
> $1.4 billion this fiscal year, following last year's $2.1 billion
> loss. And while he doesn't expect the business to be prosperous until
> late 2009, Ezawa applauds Sony's efforts to shrink the PS3's chips and
> tweak its design. Already such changes have cut the cost per machine
> to around $400 now, from above $800 just before it went on sale in
> November, 2006, he says."
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_68192...
>
> Tom wrote:
> > "Blig Merk"  wrote in message
> >news:8c551946-ade6-4e07-839c-365ef7e36a59@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > The PS3 reached break-even between manufacturing cost and selling
> > > price earlier this year. The manufacturing costs will go down with
> > > continual re-engineering and the economics of volume.
>
> > Got a link, from what I have read recently, they are still losing about
> > $150/console average.
>
> >http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/playstation-3-s-cost-to-Sony-so-far...
>
> > "Having sold the system at price lower than the manufacturing cost, the
> > PlayStation 3 was a $2.16 billion endeavor in 2007, with another $1.16
> > billion being lost in 2008."
>
> >http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2008/05/14/is_sony_losing_...
>
> > "Sony losing $260 on every PS3 it ships?
> > Sony's gaming arm lost around $1.2 billion last year - an impovement from
> > the $2.2bn loss the year before. But is Sony losing $260 per PS3?
>
> > May 14, 2008 5:59 PM
>
> > Well, according to the latest Sony financials they could well be. The
> > technology blog has been looking at the figures which show Sony's gaming arm
> > lost around $1.2 billion last year - an improvement from the $2.2bn loss the
> > year before. Of course, console manufacturers, though generally not
> > Nintendo, often suffer losses - caused by high costs/low install base -
> > early on in a console's lifespan. Microsoft certainly did and it appears
> > Sony are continuing the trend. Jack Schofield crunches the numbers.
>
> > "On Sony's own figures, the games division made a loss of $130 for each
> > PlayStation 3 shipped. Let's assume that it's making pots of money on the
> > PSP and the PlayStation 2: the PS2 is now hugely profitable and still sells
> > more games than anything else. These two platforms could easily have made a
> > profit of $1.2bn in the year. In that case, the total PS3 loss would have
> > been $2.4bn shared between 9.24m PS3 consoles, or $260 per PS3 -- including
> > any attached Sony games." "

Bull.

The standard warranty of 1-year and the 3-year RROD warranty resets on all 
replacement consoles provided by Microsoft.

If they're not honoring that then keep calling them.

"zood"  wrote in message 
news:e8546139-8585-478d-a515-23aa16b94899@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 24, 8:40 am, terryfied  wrote:
>> > That RROD write-off, say, doesn't help my 360's fried graphics card.
>>
>> My 360 is still going strong after over two years of constant use. :)
>
> Consider yourself lucky.  I used to say that until my first one died
> after 1.5 yrs...then the refurb's graphics card died after 4
> months. .no RROD warranty for that!
>
> I guess you could say I'm just a 'statistic' :)

You are really proving to be one of the most foul-mouthed, unintelligent 
people I've ever read a comment from on the internet.

Congratulations on acting like a child.

"Blig Merk"  wrote in message 
news:a67c69a8-ed42-44b9-80be-9a1f31c7a6b9@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> You are really proving to be another one of the dumbest xflop
> fanbitches, taking the exact same position those idiot cunts were
> taking in the second year of the PS2, claiming the exact same, stupid
> thing. All this while the PS2 achieved break-even cost and went on to
> be the most successful console -- EVAR!
>
> The latest financial report from Sony is for FY 2007, meaning the
> balance over March 2007 to March 2008. During 2007, the PS3 was
> costing more to manufacture than it was selling for, accounting for
> the negative balance. It was announced early in 2008 that Sony
> achieved break-even manufacturing cost to selling price. Breaking even
> on the manufacturing cost and eventually starting to turn a profit on
> each console sold is not going to show up on the balance sheet until
> March 2009. What is it, or lack of it, in your thick skull that you
> are incapable of understanding this? This is from Business Week, not
> some stupid, ignorant blog site with question marks after every so-
> called statement:
>
> "Nikko Citigroup's Kota Ezawa estimates the games division will lose
> $1.4 billion this fiscal year, following last year's $2.1 billion
> loss. And while he doesn't expect the business to be prosperous until
> late 2009, Ezawa applauds Sony's efforts to shrink the PS3's chips and
> tweak its design. Already such changes have cut the cost per machine
> to around $400 now, from above $800 just before it went on sale in
> November, 2006, he says."
>
> http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/jan2008/gb2008018_681920.htm
>
> Tom wrote:
>> "Blig Merk"  wrote in message
>> news:8c551946-ade6-4e07-839c-365ef7e36a59@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >
>> > The PS3 reached break-even between manufacturing cost and selling
>> > price earlier this year. The manufacturing costs will go down with
>> > continual re-engineering and the economics of volume.
>>
>> Got a link, from what I have read recently, they are still losing about
>> $150/console average.
>>
>> http://www.joystiq.com/2008/06/24/playstation-3-s-cost-to-Sony-so-far-3-32-billion/
>>
>> "Having sold the system at price lower than the manufacturing cost, the
>> PlayStation 3 was a $2.16 billion endeavor in 2007, with another $1.16
>> billion being lost in 2008."
>>
>> http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/games/archives/2008/05/14/is_sony_losing_260_on_every_ps3_it_ships.html
>>
>> "Sony losing $260 on every PS3 it ships?
>> Sony's gaming arm lost around $1.2 billion last year - an impovement from
>> the $2.2bn loss the year before. But is Sony losing $260 per PS3?
>>
>> May 14, 2008 5:59 PM
>>
>> Well, according to the latest Sony financials they could well be. The
>> technology blog has been looking at the figures which show Sony's gaming 
>> arm
>> lost around $1.2 billion last year - an improvement from the $2.2bn loss 
>> the
>> year before. Of course, console manufacturers, though generally not
>> Nintendo, often suffer losses - caused by high costs/low install base -
>> early on in a console's lifespan. Microsoft certainly did and it appears
>> Sony are continuing the trend. Jack Schofield crunches the numbers.
>>
>>
>> "On Sony's own figures, the games division made a loss of $130 for each
>> PlayStation 3 shipped. Let's assume that it's making pots of money on the
>> PSP and the PlayStation 2: the PS2 is now hugely profitable and still 
>> sells
>> more games than anything else. These two platforms could easily have made 
>> a
>> profit of $1.2bn in the year. In that case, the total PS3 loss would have
>> been $2.4bn shared between 9.24m PS3 consoles, or $260 per PS3 --  
>> including
>> any attached Sony games." "

On Jun 24, 9:42 am, mordacpreven...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Jun 24, 6:09 am, Wolfing  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jun 23, 4:43 pm, AirRaid  wrote:
>
> > > Sony Lost Over $3 Billion To PS3 Cost, Pricing Imbalance
>
> > > Pricing the PlayStation 3 below its production cost caused Sony to
> > > lose $2.16 billion in 2007 and $1.16 billion in 2008, the company
> > > revealed today.
>
> > > Sony's fiscal 2008 annual report delineated potential risk factors to
> > > its investors, outlining that "the large-scale investment required
> > > during the development and introductory period of a new gaming
> > > platform may not be fully recovered." The loss figures were provided
> > > as an example of the "significant negative impact" introducing a new
> > > platform can cause at first.
>
> > > "In the past, large-scale investment relating to capital expenditures
> > > and research and development for the manufacture of key components,
> > > including semiconductors supplied for [PlayStation 3] was also
> > > recorded within the Electronics segment," the company said.
>
> > > In order to stay competitive, said Sony, it had to invest large
> > > amounts of money in research and development to introduce the
> > > PlayStation 3 into the market, and these sorts of expenditures don't
> > > always get recouped, especially if a platform "fail[s] to achieve such
> > > favorable market penetration... resulting in a significant negative
> > > impact on Sony's profitability."
>
> > > Even if it can recoup its investment, Sony said, it's still possible
> > > to have lost large amounts of money on the platform's introductory
> > > period, and even a successful PS3 might take a while to replace what
> > > it cost to produce. These possible outcomes are currently a risk for
> > > the company, Sony said.
>
> > >http://kotaku.com/5018899/sony-lost-331-billion-to-ps3-cost-pricing-i.> > But that's just the 'electronics' division.  Sony, as a whole, has
> > greatly benefited from the PS3 because of its role in making Bluray
> > the next media standard.  Basically, Sony Electronics 'took one for
> > the team'-
>
> Not quite.
>
> Wednesday, 14 May 2008
> Japan's Sony corporation said today that its annual net profit almost
> tripled to hit a record high as brisk sales of digital cameras and
> laptop computers offset continued losses from the PlayStation 3.http://www.rte.ie/business/2008/0514/sony.html
>
> Digital cameras and laptop computers have absolutely nothing to do
> with Blu-ray.

I didn't say the benefits would show today.  Benefits of having Bluray
be the standard will come for the next 10 years or so.

Blig Merk wrote:
> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
> that.

Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything 
other than /fall/.

-- 
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

On Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:37:55 +0100, Gareth Robert Halfacree
 wrote:

>Blig Merk wrote:
>> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
>> that.
>
>Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything 
>other than /fall/.

because they're idiots.
-- 

http://bykerblog.wordpress.com/ - My thrilling new blog
XBL Tag: Chrisflynnuk

"Gareth Robert Halfacree"  wrote in message 
news:6cf01kF3gm69dU1@mid.individual.net...
> Blig Merk wrote:
>> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
>> that.
>
> Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything 
> other than /fall/.
>

But he didn't say "meteor" as in a 'noun' . In this case, 'meteorically' , 
is an adverb and denotes 'speed' and the sentence is a metaphor. It is a 
common usage to denote a rise or swiftness in action. On a side note though, 
I found this:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html

I think the point that he was making though was that meteors only gain speed 
due to falling though, not rising.

So something that is meteoric may be fast, but only on the downslope.

"Tom"  wrote in message 
news:5rGdncM9tbxOT__VnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@insightbb.com...
>
> "Gareth Robert Halfacree"  wrote in message 
> news:6cf01kF3gm69dU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Blig Merk wrote:
>>> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
>>> that.
>>
>> Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything 
>> other than /fall/.
>>
>
> But he didn't say "meteor" as in a 'noun' . In this case, 'meteorically' , 
> is an adverb and denotes 'speed' and the sentence is a metaphor. It is a 
> common usage to denote a rise or swiftness in action. On a side note 
> though, I found this:
> http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html

Then if that was the point, he'd be equally wrong as meteors actually
lose velocity as they progress through the atmosphere, and they break
apart. Still though, the usage of "meteroical rise" is very common as
a metaphor, look it up.

On Jun 26, 3:31 am, "Shane Nokes" <sh...@hotwiredpc.nospam.cXoXm>
wrote:
> I think the point that he was making though was that meteors only gain speed
> due to falling though, not rising.
>
> So something that is meteoric may be fast, but only on the downslope.
>
> "Tom"  wrote in message
>
> news:5rGdncM9tbxOT__VnZ2dnUVZ_rPinZ2d@insightbb.com...
>
>
>
> > "Gareth Robert Halfacree"  wrote in message
> >news:6cf01kF3gm69dU1@mid.individual.net...
> >> Blig Merk wrote:
> >>> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
> >>> that.
>
> >> Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything
> >> other than /fall/.
>
> > But he didn't say "meteor" as in a 'noun' . In this case, 'meteorically' ,
> > is an adverb and denotes 'speed' and the sentence is a metaphor. It is a
> > common usage to denote a rise or swiftness in action. On a side note
> > though, I found this:
> >http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html

Tom wrote:
> Still though, the usage of "meteroical rise" is very common as
> a metaphor, look it up.

I didn't say it /wasn't/ common.  I merely said it was /wrong/.

-- 
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

On Jun 26, 4:02 am, Gareth Robert Halfacree 
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > Still though, the usage of "meteroical rise" is very common as
> > a metaphor, look it up.
>
> I didn't say it /wasn't/ common.  I merely said it was /wrong/.
>
> --
> Gareth Halfacreehttp://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

But, it isn't wrong in the context blig implied. You're placing into a
totally different context.

Tom wrote:
> But, it isn't wrong in the context blig implied. You're placing into a
> totally different context.

It /is/ wrong.  Just because enough people have made the same mistake 
for it to become common doesn't mean it's right.

Put it another way - are you suggesting that the noun and the adverb are 
completely unrelated?  That they do not come from the same root, and 
that their similarity in spelling is a coincidence?

"Eat shit - ten billion flies can't be wrong."

-- 
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

On Jun 26, 4:38 am, Gareth Robert Halfacree 
wrote:
> Tom wrote:
> > But, it isn't wrong in the context blig implied. You're placing into a
> > totally different context.
>
> It /is/ wrong.  Just because enough people have made the same mistake
> for it to become common doesn't mean it's right.
>
> Put it another way - are you suggesting that the noun and the adverb are
> completely unrelated?  That they do not come from the same root, and
> that their similarity in spelling is a coincidence?
>
> "Eat shit - ten billion flies can't be wrong."
>
> --
> Gareth Halfacreehttp://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

You're being a pedant. I guess we should do away with synonyms while
we're at it. The fact that we have abstract thought makes it very
clear to me what he meant, and metaphors are one good way of acting
the superlative. Since you refuse to even go out and search that this
is a used as such and proper as well, then the fault is yours.

By the way, there are numerous cleaning solutions available fr your
home, for relief from those 10 billion flies.

Tom wrote:
> You're being a pedant.

Yes.  Yes I am.

> Since you refuse to even go out and search that this
> is a used as such and proper as well, then the fault is yours.

Why would I need to search for something which I have already admitted 
knowledge of?  Being common, as I have mentioned, does not equal being 
right.

-- 
Gareth Halfacree
http://gareth.halfacree.co.uk

> > My 360 is still going strong after over two years of constant use. :)
>
> Consider yourself lucky.  I used to say that until my first one died
> after 1.5 yrs...then the refurb's graphics card died after 4
> months. .no RROD warranty for that!

As I'm in the majory of 360 owners, I'm not lucky, you're unlucky.

On Jun 24, 9:17 pm, Blig Merk  wrote:
> How stupid is this plus why do the xflop fanbitches constantly lie to
> attack Sony and the PS3?

Only in your world do facts = lies.

> It is just a simple matter of historical fact that Sony has had
> negative balance years with the introduction of every new console they
> come out with, starting with the PS1.

Which has what to do with the Playstation 3? Each console is a
different beast - you can't just look at the previous 2 consoles and
say with any certainty that the same thing will happen. If that was
how history worked, the U.S. should have decimated the Viet Cong.

Every console is different and the circumstances surrounding the PS3
thus far have made it very distinct from its two older siblings.

> These are not losses since Sony
> has a plan to turn profits after a couple of negative balance years,
> while Micro$kank does not.

RIIIGGGGHHHHHTTTTT

So Sony has a goal to turn profits in a year or so whereas Microsoft
never planned for that? Give me a fucking break you retarded fuck.
Sony's plan has thus far not been doing jack shit for them. They are
still losing money hand over fist and there is no relief in sight for
them. You keep trying to relate this console with the previous ones
yet this console has only now just introduced a "must have" game and
no solid games for less hardcore gamers for the Sony masses whereas
the previous ones had many "must have" games and games to attract the
less hardcore gamers by this point in life.

> The PS2 had two negative balance years, then went on to be a positive
> balance in the 3rd year, with profits increasing meteorically after
> that. The PS2 is still turning profits although those are now tapering
> off.  The investment cost of the PS3 has been higher but so was the
> investment cost of the PS2 compared to the PS1.
>
> The PS3 reached break-even between manufacturing cost and selling
> price earlier this year.

At which point the PS3 still sold at a loss because that break-even
didn't include salaries of any employees involved with the production
of the console, didn't include costs of marketing/advertising, didn't
include costs of distribution, etc.

> The manufacturing costs will go down with
> continual re-engineering and the economics of volume.

Wow, two correct statements in a row. You're on a roll.

> This last report
> was for the fiscal year that ended in March 2008, which also brings up
> the question why is this a news item now, except look at the source
> Kraptaku, and no doubt at Micro$hit prompting. The balance for FY08
> ending March 2009 will be a positive balance with profits in 2010 and
> 2011.

2010 and 2011, maybe. 2009? Doubtful.

> This is something Micro$tupid is never, --ever-- going to understand.

Nobody with any modicum of intelligence understands any of the crap
you pull out of your well-pounded ass.

On Jun 25, 7:20 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
> "Gareth Robert Halfacree"  wrote in messagenews:6cf01kF3gm69dU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> > Blig Merk wrote:
> >> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
> >> that.
>
> > Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything
> > other than /fall/.
>
> But he didn't say "meteor" as in a 'noun' . In this case, 'meteorically' ,
> is an adverb and denotes 'speed' and the sentence is a metaphor. It is a
> common usage to denote a rise or swiftness in action. On a side note though,
> I found this:http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html

Ironic metaphor/simile... in order to highlight the characteristic,
you use something that is exactly opposite as a comparison.

The problem is that most ppl don't care about BR since most ppl still
don't have HDTV. And when they do get HDTV, the HD offerrings from
cable, satelite, IPTV, free OTA TV, etc are fine for most ppl. At best
BR is doomed to be a niche product..

On Jun 24, 8:09 am, Wolfing  wrote:
> But that's just the 'electronics' division.  Sony, as a whole, has
> greatly benefited from the PS3 because of its role in making Bluray
> the next media standard.  Basically, Sony Electronics 'took one for
> the team'- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"TheGame"  wrote in message 
news:7fe104c5-66b6-412d-8107-3aaa59e81a23@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
The problem is that most ppl don't care about BR since most ppl still
don't have HDTV. And when they do get HDTV, the HD offerrings from
cable, satelite, IPTV, free OTA TV, etc are fine for most ppl. At best
BR is doomed to be a niche product..


***********************************************************************************

Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that 
rationale.  Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an HDTV. 
They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so you 
point will be even less valid than it is now.

On Jun 24, 8:09 am, Wolfing  wrote:
> But that's just the 'electronics' division. Sony, as a whole, has
> greatly benefited from the PS3 because of its role in making Bluray
> the next media standard. Basically, Sony Electronics 'took one for
> the team'- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

No they are suspending pure analog signals next year, not standard-def.

Standard-def will still be around for a bit

"Mattinglyfan"  wrote in message 
news:4_CdncG-TLPgaP7VnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "TheGame"  wrote in message 
> news:7fe104c5-66b6-412d-8107-3aaa59e81a23@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> The problem is that most ppl don't care about BR since most ppl still
> don't have HDTV. And when they do get HDTV, the HD offerrings from
> cable, satelite, IPTV, free OTA TV, etc are fine for most ppl. At best
> BR is doomed to be a niche product..
>
>
> ***********************************************************************************
>
> Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that 
> rationale.  Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an HDTV. 
> They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so you 
> point will be even less valid than it is now.
>
> On Jun 24, 8:09 am, Wolfing  wrote:
>> But that's just the 'electronics' division. Sony, as a whole, has
>> greatly benefited from the PS3 because of its role in making Bluray
>> the next media standard. Basically, Sony Electronics 'took one for
>> the team'- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

On Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:00:20 -0600, "Mattinglyfan"
 wrote:

>
>"TheGame"  wrote in message 
>news:7fe104c5-66b6-412d-8107-3aaa59e81a23@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>The problem is that most ppl don't care about BR since most ppl still
>don't have HDTV. And when they do get HDTV, the HD offerrings from
>cable, satelite, IPTV, free OTA TV, etc are fine for most ppl. At best
>BR is doomed to be a niche product..
>
>
>***********************************************************************************
>
>Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that 
>rationale.  Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an HDTV. 
>They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so you 
>point will be even less valid than it is now.
>
people may have HDTV's, but how many of them are content to just watch
their existing DVDs on them?

i'd say that would probably be the vast majority of the market,
especially if their new tv has a decent scaler in it.
-- 

http://bykerblog.wordpress.com/ - My thrilling new blog
XBL Tag: Chrisflynnuk

"The alMIGHTY N"  wrote in message 
news:6e54fead-6c86-4b58-a52c-eb6f4bab6f7e@x19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 25, 7:20 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
>> "Gareth Robert Halfacree"  wrote in 
>> messagenews:6cf01kF3gm69dU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> > Blig Merk wrote:
>> >> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
>> >> that.
>>
>> > Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do 
>> > anything
>> > other than /fall/.
>>
>> But he didn't say "meteor" as in a 'noun' . In this case, 'meteorically' 
>> ,
>> is an adverb and denotes 'speed' and the sentence is a metaphor. It is a
>> common usage to denote a rise or swiftness in action. On a side note 
>> though,
>> I found this:http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html
>
> Ironic metaphor/simile... in order to highlight the characteristic,
> you use something that is exactly opposite as a comparison.

I did no such such thing, I said it it as it was stated. The sentence is a 
metaphor and  'meteorically' characterized as an adverb as was stated by 
blig. I don't know what you meant by metaphor/simile, but they are not the 
same.

"Mattinglyfan"  wrote in message 
news:4_CdncG-TLPgaP7VnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "TheGame"  wrote in message 
> news:7fe104c5-66b6-412d-8107-3aaa59e81a23@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> The problem is that most ppl don't care about BR since most ppl still
> don't have HDTV. And when they do get HDTV, the HD offerrings from
> cable, satelite, IPTV, free OTA TV, etc are fine for most ppl. At best
> BR is doomed to be a niche product..

Why?
DVDs allow people to buy and play back films and TV shows , and once people 
have a HD tv they will want to do the same in HD which for the forseeable 
future means BR
>
> ***********************************************************************************
>
> Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that 
> rationale.

Not really , as the large majority have older sets that are SD-Only and 
haven't yet upgraded.

 Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an HDTV.
> They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so you 
> point will be even less valid than it is now.
>
In which country is that?



-- 
Alex

"I laugh in the face of danger , then I hide until it goes away"

www.drzoidberg.co.uk

So pray tell, what statistics does this "everyone who wants to buy a
new tv nowadays will have an HDTV"? :D With the current state of the
economy, ppl are not rushing out buying HDTVs now pal. Besides, next
Feb you can still watch digital programs from an analog tv, you will
just need cable, satellite, or one of those "free" converter box (I
think the first one is free or heavily subsidized. So my point is
still valid: most U$ households do not have HDTV...

On Jun 26, 3:00 pm, "Mattinglyfan"  wrote:
> Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that
> rationale.  Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an HDTV.
> They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so you
> point will be even less valid than it is now.

Typical contradictory cunt xflop fanbitches. Spend post after post
defending the completely wrong interpretation of the word "troll",
using the non-related noun version to connotate the verb version, and
rationalize it as an example of a word used wrong enough, often
enough, gains adoption. Then take a popular expression such as
"meteoric rise" and split ass hairs over how it is used improperly. Of
course, the xflop fanbitches are experts at nitpicking the splitting
of their own ass hairs. In the case of "meteoric rise", it is well
understood to be a metaphor for something *LIKE* a meteor, not a
meteor in itself. That is, bright and quick. Anybody that has watched
a meteor in the night sky sees it flying across the sky, unlike most
movie depictions that show it flying into the ground at a steep angle.
There are also many meteors that glance through the Earth's atmosphere
and skip out into space, so not all meteors become meteorites. How
stupidly literal to imply the expression "meteroic rise" is a meteor.
American Heritage Dictionary:
3. Similar to a meteor in speed, brilliance, or brevity: a meteoric
rise to fame.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jun 25, 7:20 pm, "Tom"  wrote:
> > "Gareth Robert Halfacree"  wrote in messagenews:6cf01kF3gm69dU1@mid.individual.net...
> >
> > > Blig Merk wrote:
> > >> [...] with profits increasing meteorically after
> > >> that.
> >
> > > Why do people use this phrase?  I've never heard of a meteor do anything
> > > other than /fall/.
> >
> > But he didn't say "meteor" as in a 'noun' . In this case, 'meteorically' ,
> > is an adverb and denotes 'speed' and the sentence is a metaphor. It is a
> > common usage to denote a rise or swiftness in action. On a side note though,
> > I found this:http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/meteoric.html
>
> Ironic metaphor/simile... in order to highlight the characteristic,
> you use something that is exactly opposite as a comparison.

In article <963e7a59-819d-44d1-a485-
04548ac41c2f@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>, blig_murk@yahoo.com says...
> There are also many meteors that glance through the Earth's atmosphere
> and skip out into space, so not all meteors become meteorites. How
> stupidly literal to imply the expression "meteroic rise" is a meteor.
> American Heritage Dictionary:
> 3. Similar to a meteor in speed, brilliance, or brevity: a meteoric
> rise to fame.
> 
Since when has an American dictionary been an authority on the English 
language?

"Shane Nokes" <shane@hotwiredpc.nospam.cXoXm> wrote in message
news:25DE11CE-5305-46B8-A63C-EA7803964DB8@microsoft.com...
> No they are suspending pure analog signals next year, not standard-def.
>
> Standard-def will still be around for a bit

What's this?  The "spanish teacher" not knowing what it's talking about?
Whoda thunk it?

> "Mattinglyfan"  wrote in message
> news:4_CdncG-TLPgaP7VnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com...
> >
> > Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that
> > rationale.  Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an
HDTV.
> > They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so
you
> > point will be even less valid than it is now.

Wrong again, perkoffag.  All over-the-air broadcasts will be DIGITAL, NOT
HD.

http://www.dtv.gov/

"Captain Jack Harkness"  wrote in message 
news:Esydnc2xVJWvlfvVnZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Shane Nokes" <shane@hotwiredpc.nospam.cXoXm> wrote in message
> news:25DE11CE-5305-46B8-A63C-EA7803964DB8@microsoft.com...
>> No they are suspending pure analog signals next year, not standard-def.
>>
>> Standard-def will still be around for a bit
>
> What's this?  The "spanish teacher" not knowing what it's talking about?
> Whoda thunk it?
>

Poor Richter.  Shouldn't you be posting a lame repetitive response to Blig 
or Perkoff.

>> "Mattinglyfan"  wrote in message
>> news:4_CdncG-TLPgaP7VnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >
>> > Most Stores don't even sell non HDTV's any more so there goes that
>> > rationale.  Everyone who wants to buy a new tv nowadays will have an
> HDTV.
>> > They are suspending standard definition TV broadcasts next february so
> you
>> > point will be even less valid than it is now.
>
> Wrong again, perkoffag.  All over-the-air broadcasts will be DIGITAL, NOT
> HD.
>
> http://www.dtv.gov/
>
>

On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD prices
> >> > are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps everything else with
> >> > regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD DVD) especially in this
> >> > economy.
>
> >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to be in
> >> that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down until demand
> >> goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest is obvious).
>
> >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
> >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it seems
> >> likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will drop
> >> accordingly.
>
> >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might be,
> >> after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba A30 HD
> >> DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
> >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could have
> >> returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war to be
> >> resolved and then figured if it was good enough for Microsoft it
> >> would probably be a good decision. My only saving grace is that
> >> years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max, even though it was a superior
> >> format, 'cause I wanted to stack my stuff.
>
> > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a crapload
> > off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead and bought an Xbox
> > 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded - $40 for a portable player
> > that I could hook up to my PC wasn't at all bad.
>
> Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out) but I managed
> to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so now I can play Blu-Ray
> discs. The output looks a little, um, "vivid" in a stylized sort of way, but
> I think I can set the Picture settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's
> almost like the edge enhancement is way too high or something.

It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you have
to look to your hardware settings.

> I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s) with the
> PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game called Hexen that's
> pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can *do* something with the damn
> thing right out of the box. Oh yeah, the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to
> my network for updates, is that a recommended action?

I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the PS3 to
the internet to get the updates.

You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but you
should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.

There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again, Hexen
only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on PSN.

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> > >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD
> > >> > prices are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps
> > >> > everything else with regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD
> > >> > DVD) especially in this economy.
> >
> > >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to be
> > >> in that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down until
> > >> demand goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest is
> > >> obvious).
> >
> > >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
> > >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it seems
> > >> likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will drop
> > >> accordingly.
> >
> > >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might
> > >> be, after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba
> > >> A30 HD DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
> > >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could
> > >> have returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war to
> > >> be resolved and then figured if it was good enough for
> > >> Microsoft it would probably be a good decision. My only saving
> > >> grace is that years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max, even though
> > >> it was a superior format, 'cause I wanted to stack my stuff.
> >
> > > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a
> > > crapload off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead and
> > > bought an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded - $40 for
> > > a portable player that I could hook up to my PC wasn't at all
> > > bad.
> >
> > Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out) but
> > I managed to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so now I
> > can play Blu-Ray discs. The output looks a little, um, "vivid" in
> > a stylized sort of way, but I think I can set the Picture
> > settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's almost like the
> > edge enhancement is way too high or something.
>
> It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
> enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you
> have to look to your hardware settings.
>
> > I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s)
> > with the PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game
> > called Hexen that's pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can
> > *do* something with the damn thing right out of the box. Oh yeah,
> > the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to my network for updates, is
> > that a recommended action?
>
> I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the PS3
> to the internet to get the updates.
>
> You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but you
> should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.

Ok, will do.

> There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again, Hexen
> only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on PSN.

Yeah, I get that, it's just that it'd be nice if after you set the thing up 
and got it on and displayed you could *do* something with it. It's a lot of 
dough to just stare at a black screen. Like I indicated, I only got it to 
play Blu-Ray discs so I didn't really care, but if I had bought it thinking 
I was gonna have a good time after setting it up I'd have been kinda 
disappointed.

-- 
dvus

On Jul 7, 5:13 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > > > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> > > >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > > >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD
> > > >> > prices are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps
> > > >> > everything else with regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD
> > > >> > DVD) especially in this economy.
>
> > > >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to be
> > > >> in that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down until
> > > >> demand goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest is
> > > >> obvious).
>
> > > >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
> > > >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it seems
> > > >> likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will drop
> > > >> accordingly.
>
> > > >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might
> > > >> be, after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba
> > > >> A30 HD DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
> > > >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could
> > > >> have returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war to
> > > >> be resolved and then figured if it was good enough for
> > > >> Microsoft it would probably be a good decision. My only saving
> > > >> grace is that years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max, even though
> > > >> it was a superior format, 'cause I wanted to stack my stuff.
>
> > > > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a
> > > > crapload off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead and
> > > > bought an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded - $40 for
> > > > a portable player that I could hook up to my PC wasn't at all
> > > > bad.
>
> > > Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out) but
> > > I managed to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so now I
> > > can play Blu-Ray discs. The output looks a little, um, "vivid" in
> > > a stylized sort of way, but I think I can set the Picture
> > > settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's almost like the
> > > edge enhancement is way too high or something.
>
> > It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
> > enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you
> > have to look to your hardware settings.
>
> > > I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s)
> > > with the PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game
> > > called Hexen that's pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can
> > > *do* something with the damn thing right out of the box. Oh yeah,
> > > the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to my network for updates, is
> > > that a recommended action?
>
> > I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the PS3
> > to the internet to get the updates.
>
> > You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but you
> > should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.
>
> Ok, will do.
>
> > There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again, Hexen
> > only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on PSN.
>
> Yeah, I get that, it's just that it'd be nice if after you set the thing up
> and got it on and displayed you could *do* something with it.

That's nitpicking just a little bit considering how few people will
buy a console without buying a game to go with it.

In reality, if you don't buy any games for either system, there's a
lot more you can do with the Playstation 3.

> It's a lot of
> dough to just stare at a black screen. Like I indicated, I only got it to
> play Blu-Ray discs so I didn't really care, but if I had bought it thinking
> I was gonna have a good time after setting it up I'd have been kinda
> disappointed.

Hexen is a $400 good time for you? :-D

seriouisly, when was the last time a console came with a game? and i am not 
talking about the ones that come later in a consoles life. so if you are not 
going to buy a console because it does not come with a game, then you are 
not going to buy most consoles. the only reason the wii came with one was 
because it was a completely different idea and needed to give people a 
reason to buy it. speaking of that, when was the last time a console even 
game with more than one controller?


"The alMIGHTY N"  wrote in message 
news:9204685e-ca6d-4abd-83c7-3631030d8df7@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 7, 5:13 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > > > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > > >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD
>> > > >> > prices are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps
>> > > >> > everything else with regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD
>> > > >> > DVD) especially in this economy.
>>
>> > > >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to be
>> > > >> in that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down until
>> > > >> demand goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest is
>> > > >> obvious).
>>
>> > > >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
>> > > >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it seems
>> > > >> likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will drop
>> > > >> accordingly.
>>
>> > > >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might
>> > > >> be, after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba
>> > > >> A30 HD DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
>> > > >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could
>> > > >> have returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war to
>> > > >> be resolved and then figured if it was good enough for
>> > > >> Microsoft it would probably be a good decision. My only saving
>> > > >> grace is that years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max, even though
>> > > >> it was a superior format, 'cause I wanted to stack my stuff.
>>
>> > > > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a
>> > > > crapload off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead and
>> > > > bought an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded - $40 for
>> > > > a portable player that I could hook up to my PC wasn't at all
>> > > > bad.
>>
>> > > Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out) but
>> > > I managed to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so now I
>> > > can play Blu-Ray discs. The output looks a little, um, "vivid" in
>> > > a stylized sort of way, but I think I can set the Picture
>> > > settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's almost like the
>> > > edge enhancement is way too high or something.
>>
>> > It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
>> > enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you
>> > have to look to your hardware settings.
>>
>> > > I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s)
>> > > with the PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game
>> > > called Hexen that's pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can
>> > > *do* something with the damn thing right out of the box. Oh yeah,
>> > > the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to my network for updates, is
>> > > that a recommended action?
>>
>> > I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the PS3
>> > to the internet to get the updates.
>>
>> > You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but you
>> > should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.
>>
>> Ok, will do.
>>
>> > There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again, Hexen
>> > only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on PSN.
>>
>> Yeah, I get that, it's just that it'd be nice if after you set the thing 
>> up
>> and got it on and displayed you could *do* something with it.
>
> That's nitpicking just a little bit considering how few people will
> buy a console without buying a game to go with it.
>
> In reality, if you don't buy any games for either system, there's a
> lot more you can do with the Playstation 3.
>
>> It's a lot of
>> dough to just stare at a black screen. Like I indicated, I only got it to
>> play Blu-Ray discs so I didn't really care, but if I had bought it 
>> thinking
>> I was gonna have a good time after setting it up I'd have been kinda
>> disappointed.
>
> Hexen is a $400 good time for you? :-D

The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> On Jul 7, 5:13 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > > > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> > > >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> > > >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD
>> > > >> > prices are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps
>> > > >> > everything else with regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD
>> > > >> > DVD) especially in this economy.
>>
>> > > >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to
>> > > >> be in that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down
>> > > >> until demand goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest
>> > > >> is obvious).
>>
>> > > >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
>> > > >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it
>> > > >> seems likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will
>> > > >> drop accordingly.
>>
>> > > >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might
>> > > >> be, after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba
>> > > >> A30 HD DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
>> > > >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could
>> > > >> have returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war
>> > > >> to be resolved and then figured if it was good enough for
>> > > >> Microsoft it would probably be a good decision. My only
>> > > >> saving grace is that years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max,
>> > > >> even though it was a superior format, 'cause I wanted to
>> > > >> stack my stuff.
>>
>> > > > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a
>> > > > crapload off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead
>> > > > and bought an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded -
>> > > > $40 for a portable player that I could hook up to my PC
>> > > > wasn't at all bad.
>>
>> > > Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out)
>> > > but I managed to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so
>> > > now I can play Blu-Ray discs. The output looks a little, um,
>> > > "vivid" in a stylized sort of way, but I think I can set the
>> > > Picture settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's almost
>> > > like the edge enhancement is way too high or something.
>>
>> > It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
>> > enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you
>> > have to look to your hardware settings.
>>
>> > > I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s)
>> > > with the PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game
>> > > called Hexen that's pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can
>> > > *do* something with the damn thing right out of the box. Oh
>> > > yeah, the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to my network for
>> > > updates, is that a recommended action?
>>
>> > I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the
>> > PS3 to the internet to get the updates.
>>
>> > You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but
>> > you should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.
>>
>> Ok, will do.
>>
>> > There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again,
>> > Hexen only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on
>> > PSN.
>>
>> Yeah, I get that, it's just that it'd be nice if after you set the
>> thing up and got it on and displayed you could *do* something with
>> it.
>
> That's nitpicking just a little bit considering how few people will
> buy a console without buying a game to go with it.

I suppose. I bought it second-hand, so it's a little different.

> In reality, if you don't buy any games for either system, there's a
> lot more you can do with the Playstation 3.

Oh? Like what? All I get is a sort of menu similar in form to the Windows 
Media Center menu. Nothing seems to lead to much of anything without any 
games installed.

>> It's a lot of
>> dough to just stare at a black screen. Like I indicated, I only
>> got it to play Blu-Ray discs so I didn't really care, but if I had
>> bought it thinking I was gonna have a good time after setting it
>> up I'd have been kinda disappointed.
>
> Hexen is a $400 good time for you? :-D

Heh, I'm easily amused, I guess. I still haven't gotten all the super-pearls 
or whatever, so it still poses a challenge. Besides, I *did* go out and get 
some FPS games for the XBox. (Oh, and it didn't cost me anything, my son 
bought it for me because he wanted to play Far-Cry together.)

-- 
dvus

Marc wrote:

> seriouisly, when was the last time a console came with a game? and
> i am not talking about the ones that come later in a consoles life.
> so if you are not going to buy a console because it does not come
> with a game, then you are not going to buy most consoles. the only
> reason the wii came with one was because it was a completely
> different idea and needed to give people a reason to buy it.
> speaking of that, when was the last time a console even game with
> more than one controller? 

I dunno, I seem to remember "Pong" came with a game...

-- 
dvus

"dvus" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6dikmtF2nmipU1@mid.individual.net...
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>> On Jul 7, 5:13 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>> > On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> > > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>> > > > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>>> > > >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
>>> > > >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD
>>> > > >> > prices are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps
>>> > > >> > everything else with regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD
>>> > > >> > DVD) especially in this economy.
>>>
>>> > > >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to
>>> > > >> be in that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down
>>> > > >> until demand goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest
>>> > > >> is obvious).
>>>
>>> > > >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
>>> > > >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it
>>> > > >> seems likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will
>>> > > >> drop accordingly.
>>>
>>> > > >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might
>>> > > >> be, after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba
>>> > > >> A30 HD DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
>>> > > >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could
>>> > > >> have returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war
>>> > > >> to be resolved and then figured if it was good enough for
>>> > > >> Microsoft it would probably be a good decision. My only
>>> > > >> saving grace is that years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max,
>>> > > >> even though it was a superior format, 'cause I wanted to
>>> > > >> stack my stuff.
>>>
>>> > > > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a
>>> > > > crapload off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead
>>> > > > and bought an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded -
>>> > > > $40 for a portable player that I could hook up to my PC
>>> > > > wasn't at all bad.
>>>
>>> > > Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out)
>>> > > but I managed to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so
>>> > > now I can play Blu-Ray discs. The output looks a little, um,
>>> > > "vivid" in a stylized sort of way, but I think I can set the
>>> > > Picture settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's almost
>>> > > like the edge enhancement is way too high or something.
>>>
>>> > It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
>>> > enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you
>>> > have to look to your hardware settings.
>>>
>>> > > I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s)
>>> > > with the PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game
>>> > > called Hexen that's pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can
>>> > > *do* something with the damn thing right out of the box. Oh
>>> > > yeah, the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to my network for
>>> > > updates, is that a recommended action?
>>>
>>> > I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the
>>> > PS3 to the internet to get the updates.
>>>
>>> > You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but
>>> > you should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.
>>>
>>> Ok, will do.
>>>
>>> > There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again,
>>> > Hexen only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on
>>> > PSN.
>>>
>>> Yeah, I get that, it's just that it'd be nice if after you set the
>>> thing up and got it on and displayed you could *do* something with
>>> it.
>>
>> That's nitpicking just a little bit considering how few people will
>> buy a console without buying a game to go with it.
>
> I suppose. I bought it second-hand, so it's a little different.
>
>> In reality, if you don't buy any games for either system, there's a
>> lot more you can do with the Playstation 3.
>
> Oh? Like what? All I get is a sort of menu similar in form to the Windows 
> Media Center menu. Nothing seems to lead to much of anything without any 
> games installed.
>

Do you have a PSP?
>>> It's a lot of
>>> dough to just stare at a black screen. Like I indicated, I only
>>> got it to play Blu-Ray discs so I didn't really care, but if I had
>>> bought it thinking I was gonna have a good time after setting it
>>> up I'd have been kinda disappointed.
>>
>> Hexen is a $400 good time for you? :-D
>
> Heh, I'm easily amused, I guess. I still haven't gotten all the 
> super-pearls or whatever, so it still poses a challenge. Besides, I *did* 
> go out and get some FPS games for the XBox. (Oh, and it didn't cost me 
> anything, my son bought it for me because he wanted to play Far-Cry 
> together.)
>
> -- 
> dvus

Mattinglyfan wrote:
> "dvus" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote in message

>> Oh? Like what? All I get is a sort of menu similar in form to the
>> Windows Media Center menu. Nothing seems to lead to much of
>> anything without any games installed.
>
> Do you have a PSP?

I don't know, wait 'till I Google that........

Ah, Playstation Portable. No, I don't have that. Don't really need one, I'm 
home most of the time these days. Woulda been nice when I used to work out 
of town for weeks at a time, though.

-- 
dvus

"dvus" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6dmfqdF377rtU1@mid.individual.net...
> Mattinglyfan wrote:
>> "dvus" <doug@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote in message
>
>>> Oh? Like what? All I get is a sort of menu similar in form to the
>>> Windows Media Center menu. Nothing seems to lead to much of
>>> anything without any games installed.
>>
>> Do you have a PSP?
>
> I don't know, wait 'till I Google that........
>
> Ah, Playstation Portable. No, I don't have that. Don't really need one, 
> I'm home most of the time these days. Woulda been nice when I used to work 
> out of town for weeks at a time, though.
>
> -- 
> dvus

There is no doubt that the PS3/PSP combo is where the setup truly shines.

On Jul 8, 10:04 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 5:13 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> > On Jul 3, 6:22 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> > > > On Jul 2, 7:49 pm, "dvus" <d...@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
> >> > > >> The alMIGHTY N wrote:
> >> > > >> > DVD is perfectly fine for most people and will be until HD
> >> > > >> > prices are way, way down. Price pretty much trumps
> >> > > >> > everything else with regards to Blu-Ray (and formerly HD
> >> > > >> > DVD) especially in this economy.
>
> >> > > >> I have to reluctantly agree, reluctantly because we seem to
> >> > > >> be in that inevitable catch-22 where prices won't go down
> >> > > >> until demand goes up and demand won't... (I think the rest
> >> > > >> is obvious).
>
> >> > > >> As long as many folks out there are of the opinion that they
> >> > > >> "can't really see much difference" between SD and HD it
> >> > > >> seems likely sales will rise fairly slowly and prices will
> >> > > >> drop accordingly.
>
> >> > > >> I don't know what the best way to overcome the problem might
> >> > > >> be, after all, I'm one of those dummies who bought a Toshiba
> >> > > >> A30 HD DVD player five weeks before they announced they were
> >> > > >> discontinuing them. If I'd have waited one more week I could
> >> > > >> have returned it. I waited a year or so for the format war
> >> > > >> to be resolved and then figured if it was good enough for
> >> > > >> Microsoft it would probably be a good decision. My only
> >> > > >> saving grace is that years ago I didn't buy a Beta-Max,
> >> > > >> even though it was a superior format, 'cause I wanted to
> >> > > >> stack my stuff.
>
> >> > > > There are still plenty of HD DVDs to be had. I purchased a
> >> > > > crapload off iNetVideo.com on the cheap. I even went ahead
> >> > > > and bought an Xbox 360 HD DVD add-on after HD DVD folded -
> >> > > > $40 for a portable player that I could hook up to my PC
> >> > > > wasn't at all bad.
>
> >> > > Well, I appreciate the iNetVideo tip, (and I'll check it out)
> >> > > but I managed to pick up a used PS3 the other day for $150, so
> >> > > now I can play Blu-Ray discs. The output looks a little, um,
> >> > > "vivid" in a stylized sort of way, but I think I can set the
> >> > > Picture settings on my HDTV to accommodate that. It's almost
> >> > > like the edge enhancement is way too high or something.
>
> >> > It all depends on the movie. Some movies have very obvious edge
> >> > enhancement problems. If you see this with every movie, then you
> >> > have to look to your hardware settings.
>
> >> > > I notice that unlike the XBox 360, theres no "included" game(s)
> >> > > with the PS3. I mean, with the XBox you get a goofy little game
> >> > > called Hexen that's pretty simple but a lot of fun and you can
> >> > > *do* something with the damn thing right out of the box. Oh
> >> > > yeah, the PS3 keeps asking me to hook it to my network for
> >> > > updates, is that a recommended action?
>
> >> > I think anyone here would highly recommend that you connect the
> >> > PS3 to the internet to get the updates.
>
> >> > You don't necessarily need to have it connected all the time but
> >> > you should at least upgrade to the latest and greatest.
>
> >> Ok, will do.
>
> >> > There aren't any included games with the PS3 but then again,
> >> > Hexen only cost like $10. You can buy a lot of games for $10 on
> >> > PSN.
>
> >> Yeah, I get that, it's just that it'd be nice if after you set the
> >> thing up and got it on and displayed you could *do* something with
> >> it.
>
> > That's nitpicking just a little bit considering how few people will
> > buy a console without buying a game to go with it.
>
> I suppose. I bought it second-hand, so it's a little different.
>
> > In reality, if you don't buy any games for either system, there's a
> > lot more you can do with the Playstation 3.
>
> Oh? Like what? All I get is a sort of menu similar in form to the Windows
> Media Center menu. Nothing seems to lead to much of anything without any
> games installed.

You can watch more types of video files on a PS3 than you can on an
Xbox 360... and they look better on the PS3.

You can view photos with better quality on the PS3.

You can browse the web if you're inclined to use the crappy browser.
We're just talking about what you *can* do here, technically. This is
not an endorsement of the activity.

You can watch Blu-Ray movies.

In fact, I can't really think of anything that you can do out of the
box with no games involved on the Xbox 360 that you CAN'T do on the
PS3.

> >> It's a lot of
> >> dough to just stare at a black screen. Like I indicated, I only
> >> got it to play Blu-Ray discs so I didn't really care, but if I had
> >> bought it thinking I was gonna have a good time after setting it
> >> up I'd have been kinda di