Base PS3 Lacks HDMI

[Groundbeef]

Just announced yesterday at the E3 show, Sony released pricing guidlines for it's upcoming console PS3. There will be 2 models w/different price points similar to the release of the Microsoft XBOX 360. The "base" model will be $499 and the high end model will be $599.

Those looking for a cheap Blu_Ray player will need to pony up the $599 as the lower price player lacks any HDMI outputs (Woochiefer, thats you). Also, it appears that the standard Sony has chosen is HDMI 1.3 A curious move as the industry standard is HDMI 1.1 Currently no TV on the market supports HDMI 1.3, and there is no indication that older models will be able to support 1.3 in the future.

See here : http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/03/24/gdc2006_ps3_no_hdmi/

Also check this out:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/08/technology/ps3_pricing/index.htm?cnn=yes

It is interesting to note that these differences were not made publicly during the E3 presentation. It is also interesting to note that Sony is refering its console as a "computer" and not a console.

Save your pennies folks if you want the Sony PS3.

On a similar note, Microsoft has released details on the upcoming HD-DVD player that can be added to the XBOX 360. It will connect via the USB connection. Speculation is that it will support HDMI and cost $100. These prices are purely speculation, although it could be justified as the actual decoding and other processes will be handled by the 360 main unit. The "player" will be simply that, read the data from the disc. So $100 is not unbeliveable as it will have nothing in the way of processing power.

[Woochifer]

Very disappointing to hear that Sony decided to emulate Microsoft's two-tiered approach and not include the HDMI connection with the base PS3. This could potentially create a compatibility issue with future HDTVs if the owners decide to use the PS3 as an entry level Blu-ray player, because the studios have the option of including a data tag that downconverts the analog video output on both HD-DVD and Blu-ray players. I have a feeling that Sony wanted to ensure that the PS3 not cannibalize the sales for standalone Blu-ray players, which go on sale in June and will carry list prices starting around $1,000. This isn't like the PS2 introduction where the DVD format had already been out for three years by the time the PS2 hit store shelves.

Then again with the high price point that they set, Sony shouldn't expect consumers (likely the majority) who just want a next-gen gaming console and don't care about the Blu-ray feature to shell out $600 for the full featured version. I'm just not sure how many people out there will want to shell out $500 for a gaming console that might not work properly with the next generation of HD hardware (they can already spend $400 on the X360 if they want that uncertainty), or $600 for a more futureproof unit that will cost at least $200 more than the X360.

Just so you know HDMI 1.3 will be the MANDATORY connection standard for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray, because HDMI 1.3 will be required in order to digitally output the new higher res audio formats (something that Toshiba's first HD-DVD players have screwed up because they were released before HDMI 1.3 was finalized). My understanding is that 1.3 will be backwards compatible with older HDMI display devices, just as HDMI 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 are interoperable currently. The latter versions simply support additional audio formats in the digital bitstream. The only issue I can see would be the connector because HDMI 1.3 will supposedly use a redesigned plug that's smaller and fits more securely than the current connector design. But, even there, I would assume that an adaptor will be available just there is for DVI devices.

I would not put too much stock in that TG Daily article that you posted because it relies on a lot of presumption and speculation. For instance, it talked about "audio noise" when connecting a HDMI 1.1 display to a HDMI 1.3 device. That's a load of crap because the HDMI 1.3 spec has not been finalized, and no products using the HDMI 1.3 spec have been released into the market. In the end, it might all turn out to be true, but for now what HDMI 1.3 devices was the author talking about when none are on the market?

[Groundbeef]

I was waiting for your reply.
I actually don't disagree with the 2 tier system release. However, MS got it right on the money (in my opinion) and Sony got it wrong. Here is why. With the 360 there is no native HD-DVD player. As you correctly pointed out in our earlier "debate" that the 360 does not offer HDMI support.

HOWEVER, with the lower priced PS3 there is NO chance for HDMI support down the road. I think you hit the nail on the head that Sony is trying to stave off a run for a "cheap" Blu-Ray player.
With the 360 HD-DVD add-on player both the lower (core) and higher (premium) can enjoy HDMI connection. Currently there is not confirmation as to HDMI support or not for the add-on player.

IF MS puts HDMI 'outs' on the stand alone player, it will be a winner. Still cheaper than the premium Sony, and offer HDMI that some people are looking for.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think at this point MS may have a lead, and if they can get the HD-DVD player out on time for the hoildays, it is a no-brainer buy for $100 (speculated)

Also the article that I referenced in the above article was pretty interesting. It does show that Sony is having some trouble. By now they should have had the HDMI connected, and running. Production will take at least 6 mo. to get adequte supplies to market. If they don't have it running by now, there are some problems. I think that was the gist of the article.

[Woochifer]

I was waiting for your reply.
I actually don't disagree with the 2 tier system release. However, MS got it right on the money (in my opinion) and Sony got it wrong. Here is why. With the 360 there is no native HD-DVD player. As you correctly pointed out in our earlier "debate" that the 360 does not offer HDMI support.

Well, I don't like either company's approach to this. The $300 base X360 is so stripped down that hardly anyone buys it from what I've heard, so realistically the X360 is a $400 gaming console. However, if they really want to make a play for market share, all they have to do is lower the price of the full featured unit to $300 right around the time that the PS3 gets introduced, and this has been speculated all over the place. It seems that the base PS3 is more functional than the base X360, but at $500, it had better be.


HOWEVER, with the lower priced PS3 there is NO chance for HDMI support down the road. I think you hit the nail on the head that Sony is trying to stave off a run for a "cheap" Blu-Ray player.

Well, that's pure speculation on both of our parts. I think that Sony's caught in rough spot because they're trying to launch two platforms at roughly the same time, with one (Blu-ray) trying to maintain a high profit margin at launch, and the other (PS3) willing to subsidize hardware costs to recoup market share.

Without knowing anything about how the player is connected or what outputs are provided, I'm not so sure that there's NO chance for a HDMI connection with the base PS3. If an add-on option is offered, I'm sure Sony will make it worth their while ($$$).


With the 360 HD-DVD add-on player both the lower (core) and higher (premium) can enjoy HDMI connection. Currently there is not confirmation as to HDMI support or not for the add-on player.

Frankly, it would be stupid of them not to include a HDMI connection with the HD-DVD player because those high res audio formats require the HDMI 1.3 connection in order to output the audio without a downconversion.


IF MS puts HDMI 'outs' on the stand alone player, it will be a winner. Still cheaper than the premium Sony, and offer HDMI that some people are looking for.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I think at this point MS may have a lead, and if they can get the HD-DVD player out on time for the hoildays, it is a no-brainer buy for $100 (speculated)

But, the problem is if the HD video from the gaming does not go through whatever HDMI output might be provided through an add-on player. Would this entail having to use two separate video outputs from the same player? Or would the output require a redundant analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion that degrades the video signal?

If the add-on is indeed $100, then it might be a good buy, that is if the HD-DVD format can maintain the limited studio support that it has garnered to this point. Blu-ray has much more extensive studio support (all the majors except Universal are on board), and that advantage very well might be the dealbreaker for HD-DVD. Plus, Blu-ray will support 1080p right away.


Also the article that I referenced in the above article was pretty interesting. It does show that Sony is having some trouble. By now they should have had the HDMI connected, and running. Production will take at least 6 mo. to get adequte supplies to market. If they don't have it running by now, there are some problems. I think that was the gist of the article.

I've read elsewhere that mass production will start up in late-summer, and that should allow plenty of time for the PS3 to include the final HDMI 1.3 specs. I'm pretty sure that there will be problems at the outset, just as there have been on the X360. That's why I don't plan to buy a PS3 right when they come out. There won't be a lot of PS3 games at that point anyway.

If anything, the wild card in all this very well might be the Nintendo Wii. Sony might have stolen some of Nintendo's thunder by also including a motion-sensitive controller, but the Wii seems to have a lot of buzz on its side because of that two-handed motion controller and the lower costs on both hardware and software development (about 1/3 what it costs to develop games on the PS3 and X360).

[Groundbeef]

I am not sure I understand your question/lack of understanding on the stand alone HD-DVD player for the 360. The way I understand all of the current writings, and statements from MS, is that it will be a stand-alone HD-DVD player. Basically, it will "strip" the info off the HD-DVD and it will be processed by the 360 console. As far as "output" goes, if they offer an HDMI connection it will be on the stand alone player. From what I can gather, it will be for Video ONLY. The stand alone player WILL NOT support the 360 game discs.

I think I am understanding you now, as I type this out. I bet you would need 2 connections from the player 1 for gaming, and 1 for playing HD-DVD. (in HDMI). If that is the case, so be it. Yes, it would be more convienient, but no less convienient than having a 360, and a stand alone HD-DVD player (set top box).

As far as the 360 goes, there really is NO difference between the cheap (core) and expensive (premium). The real difference is in how you are going to use it.
I have a premium, and use the HD (hard drive) all the time. I d/l demos, trailers, and watch pictures from my networked basement computer. If I remeber correctly, this didn't interest you, so the core would be fine. All it is lacking is the 20gig HD, and some fancy chrome finish. Thats it. No other components are changed or missing.

Thats the difference, with the Sony, there are some real differences, such as a missing Wi-Fi connection (360 doesn't have on either, but does have an ethernet card so you can plug in a lan line), or HDMI outputs. So there are some different costs with the Sony.

With the 360, spend $100, and you have the premium by adding the HD.

And production by the summer isn't going to cut it. You need 6 mo from production to shipping to have units in stores. Remeber, MS only sold like 500k units. Sony wants to sell 2 MILLION units on launch day. Just recently MS sold 3.2 Million, and its now 6 mos past launch. Sony better be making a sheetload to get them out on time.

[Geoffcin]

Why no HDMI?

"Of course, we were interested in why Sony did not run the units with HDMI. There may be an obvious explanation, but we received some surprising answers from Sony's staff. First, we were told that it isn't easy to get a hold of HDMI-equipped TVs. We found this to be very strange, because after all we were at the Sony booth and all the television sets had HDMI inputs. On the second try, we were told that the reason for not using HDMI was that Sony did not have any HDMI cables and that "they are difficult to find". Matt Butrovich, a former intern with Tom's Hardware and who walked the show floor with us, offered the staff to use one of the HDMI cables he actually had in his car and connect the PS3 with the TVs. Sony officials turned down the offer and we were left without seeing the demos in HD."

[Woochifer]

Why no HDMI?

"Of course, we were interested in why Sony did not run the units with HDMI. There may be an obvious explanation, but we received some surprising answers from Sony's staff. First, we were told that it isn't easy to get a hold of HDMI-equipped TVs. We found this to be very strange, because after all we were at the Sony booth and all the television sets had HDMI inputs. On the second try, we were told that the reason for not using HDMI was that Sony did not have any HDMI cables and that "they are difficult to find". Matt Butrovich, a former intern with Tom's Hardware and who walked the show floor with us, offered the staff to use one of the HDMI cables he actually had in his car and connect the PS3 with the TVs. Sony officials turned down the offer and we were left without seeing the demos in HD."

Like I said, I think there's a lot of speculation in that article. Keep in mind that it was written back in March, and at that point I think that Sony was doing very limited demos with their prototype units. The author was harping on the PS3's inclusion of HDMI 1.3 and the supposed incompatibilities that it would create with older HDMI displays, yet the HDMI 1.3 spec hasn't even been published yet. The more recent demos at E3 were all done in HD.

That Money article seems a bit more grounded in reality since it was written in conjunction with the E3 conference. The short of it is that Sony will include HDMI with the $600 full-featured model, and stick with component vid for the $500 model.

[Woochifer]

As far as the 360 goes, there really is NO difference between the cheap (core) and expensive (premium). The real difference is in how you are going to use it.
I have a premium, and use the HD (hard drive) all the time. I d/l demos, trailers, and watch pictures from my networked basement computer. If I remeber correctly, this didn't interest you, so the core would be fine. All it is lacking is the 20gig HD, and some fancy chrome finish. Thats it. No other components are changed or missing.

The core system also lacks backwards compatibility with Xbox games, because you need the hard drive in order to run the emulation profiles necessary to play the Xbox games on an X360.


Thats the difference, with the Sony, there are some real differences, such as a missing Wi-Fi connection (360 doesn't have on either, but does have an ethernet card so you can plug in a lan line), or HDMI outputs. So there are some different costs with the Sony.

With the 360, spend $100, and you have the premium by adding the HD.

And that would bring the X360 to the same $500 cost as the base PS3, provided that the HD-DVD add-on actually costs $100. Since the X360 also lacks wi-fi and HDMI, that would bring the feature set to a rough parity. But, then the base PS3 would still have more computing power and disc capacity, use the more widely supported Blu-ray format, and be backwards compatible with the PS2 and PSX games.


And production by the summer isn't going to cut it. You need 6 mo from production to shipping to have units in stores. Remeber, MS only sold like 500k units. Sony wants to sell 2 MILLION units on launch day. Just recently MS sold 3.2 Million, and its now 6 mos past launch. Sony better be making a sheetload to get them out on time.

And what do you know about Sony's production capacity, why do you say that they need 6 months? Unlike Microsoft, Sony has their own manufacturing capacity and does not need to rely entirely on outsource fabricators. I read that Sony plan to start mass production in late-summer. Whether or not that's soon enough to have the desired number of units available on launch day is pure speculation, and doesn't matter to me anyway because I don't plan to buy a PS3 on launch day (or anytime soon thereafter). I waited over a year before buying a PS2, and can easily wait at least that long before getting a PS3.

[Groundbeef]

The core system also lacks backwards compatibility with Xbox games, because you need the hard drive in order to run the emulation profiles necessary to play the Xbox games on an X360.

I will conceed that point. You do need the HD to play older games. However, that may or may not be a sticking point for some gamers. Regardless of the platform, you need Hi-Speed internet for playing older games. You will need an emulator for PS3 as well. So even if you have the PS3, if you don't have cable or DSL, your still SOL for playing your older games even with the hard-drive.

I am still looking for more sources, but read this:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/24/playstation-3-not-100-backwards-compatible/

"Unlike Microsoft, Sony has their own manufacturing capacity and does not need to rely entirely on outsource fabricators."

See this rather long winded article here:

http://www.ggl.com/news.php?NewsId=2616
The Cell processer, the "brains" of the unit are an IBM and Sony venture. I would venture to say if the processer production cannont get up to speed the launch #'s are going to be down. I guess you are right if they can get the rest of the unit together and ship without the CPU they should be right on target. And lets not forget unless Sony has cornered the market on Magic Faries, and Santa Clause, they still need to ship to stores. It takes about 3-4 weeks from exiting the plant to be delivered to port, shipped, unloaded, and trucked to various distribution points. So we are looking at about Oct 10-17 for this to be in the works. That gives them 5 months to get the show on the road. I think they will have FAR less than they are letting on.


"And that would bring the X360 to the same $500 cost as the base PS3, provided that the HD-DVD add-on actually costs $100. Since the X360 also lacks wi-fi and HDMI, that would bring the feature set to a rough parity."

No, not if the HD-DVD drive for MS comes with HDMI. Then your PS3 base unit is $100 more without a connection that you want.

[Woochifer]

I will conceed that point. You do need the HD to play older games. However, that may or may not be a sticking point for some gamers. Regardless of the platform, you need Hi-Speed internet for playing older games. You will need an emulator for PS3 as well. So even if you have the PS3, if you don't have cable or DSL, your still SOL for playing your older games even with the hard-drive.

I am still looking for more sources, but read this:
http://www.joystiq.com/2006/04/24/playstation-3-not-100-backwards-compatible/

No mention in the article though on whether individual emulation profiles need to be downloaded like they do with the Xbox games. It only says that the PS3 will use a software-based emulator to render the PS2 and PSX games, which can conceivably be preloaded onto the hard drive and work with most of the backcatalog.


http://www.ggl.com/news.php?NewsId=2616
The Cell processer, the "brains" of the unit are an IBM and Sony venture. I would venture to say if the processer production cannont get up to speed the launch #'s are going to be down. I guess you are right if they can get the rest of the unit together and ship without the CPU they should be right on target. And lets not forget unless Sony has cornered the market on Magic Faries, and Santa Clause, they still need to ship to stores. It takes about 3-4 weeks from exiting the plant to be delivered to port, shipped, unloaded, and trucked to various distribution points. So we are looking at about Oct 10-17 for this to be in the works. That gives them 5 months to get the show on the road. I think they will have FAR less than they are letting on.

Quite possibly they won't have as many on hand as they are projecting, but again that doesn't mean that Sony needs a full six months of lead time between the start of production and the launch date. Given the amount of interest in the PS3, there won't be enough units on hand even if they meet their production goals.


No, not if the HD-DVD drive for MS comes with HDMI. Then your PS3 base unit is $100 more without a connection that you want.

True, but I just read in the Digital Bits that the rumored price on the HD-DVD add-on is actually closer to $200, which would put the price of a HD-DVD enabled X360 right at $600. Actually would be a pretty good price compared to how much the HD-DVD players cost right now, but who knows what the price points will be by the time the HD-DVD add-on is introduced.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

[superpanavision70mm]

Am I the only one who could care less about gaming? To me a gaming system is a pathetic way to introduce someone to home theater and should be used as a gaming unit, not the driving force behind your home theater system. I suppose everyone wants the system to be HD ready so that the graphics look great, but I am an old-schooler who likes the crappy graphics from back in the day. I liked the games better when they were less realistic and more ...well, game-like.

[Woochifer]

Am I the only one who could care less about gaming? To me a gaming system is a pathetic way to introduce someone to home theater and should be used as a gaming unit, not the driving force behind your home theater system. I suppose everyone wants the system to be HD ready so that the graphics look great, but I am an old-schooler who likes the crappy graphics from back in the day. I liked the games better when they were less realistic and more ...well, game-like.

That why the Nintendo Wii's been getting a lot of buzz at the E3 conference, because they chose to design a less advanced system with a brand new motion sensing controller design that's supposed to create a better gaming experience.

The thing with the PS3 is that it very well might be the lowest priced Blu-ray player on the market when it comes out in November. Wouldn't be an introduction to home theater for a lot of buyers, but it might be a strong stimulus for Blu-ray, in much the same way that the original PS2 seeded the market for the DVD format. When the PS2 was introduced in 2000, it sold for $300 and most DVD players at that time were selling for around $250. For more than half of the first PS2 buyers, that gaming console was their first DVD player and to date more than 100 million PS2s have been sold worldwide. (By comparison, a total of about 115 million DVD players have been sold in North America since the format's inception)

[Groundbeef]

Am I the only one who could care less about gaming? To me a gaming system is a pathetic way to introduce someone to home theater and should be used as a gaming unit, not the driving force behind your home theater system. I suppose everyone wants the system to be HD ready so that the graphics look great, but I am an old-schooler who likes the crappy graphics from back in the day. I liked the games better when they were less realistic and more ...well, game-like.

Ok, I'm going to date myself here. I am 34 yrs old, and fondly remember the days of the "arcade" at the mall. I loved the games then. However, growing up with them doesn't mean that I am stuck in 1984. The games today offer a much more immrsive enviroment than was ever possible. Space invaders was cool, and Pac-Man was great, but only for about 15 minutes.

Todays games are more about interaction than single play. I have a great time with my friends beating the crap outta each other in Fight Night 3 ( In HD on a 37" Plasma) than I ever had playing Dig-Dug at the arcade. If I want that experience I pop in Midway Greatest Hits and relive the glory days.

As far as introducing people into home theater, whats wrong with that? Have you played Call of Duty, and had 40mm shells blasting out of 5.1 system? It'll make you crap your pants. Games are a driving force behind a lot of computer advancements. Not as many as porn, but still.

[Woochifer]

Ok, I'm going to date myself here. I am 34 yrs old, and fondly remember the days of the "arcade" at the mall. I loved the games then. However, growing up with them doesn't mean that I am stuck in 1984. The games today offer a much more immrsive enviroment than was ever possible. Space invaders was cool, and Pac-Man was great, but only for about 15 minutes.

Todays games are more about interaction than single play. I have a great time with my friends beating the crap outta each other in Fight Night 3 ( In HD on a 37" Plasma) than I ever had playing Dig-Dug at the arcade. If I want that experience I pop in Midway Greatest Hits and relive the glory days.

One of the nice things about having a gaming console nowadays is that you can get over 30 classic arcade games on one disc. I got the Midway collection a couple of years ago, and had almost forgotten how many quarters I'd dumped into games like SmashTV and Rampage! The only drawback is that the newer console controllers can't properly emulate how a lot of the coin-op game controls operated (e.g. the classic Atari game Tempest).


As far as introducing people into home theater, whats wrong with that? Have you played Call of Duty, and had 40mm shells blasting out of 5.1 system? It'll make you crap your pants. Games are a driving force behind a lot of computer advancements. Not as many as porn, but still.

I read an article a few days ago that cited how much influence porn had in the VHS v. Beta format war (at that time, most adult titles were VHS-only). It also indicated that Blu-ray is favored by most porn producers, and that might be a deciding factor in that format's favor.

[emorphien]

I think it's a big mistake, and I think the only console that I want to get is the Wiivolution if the price is right.