:D

Smart dude! I do rather ATI cards a tad more than Nvidia, but im glad the PS3 has a Nvidia GPU, and this dude has some very wise views on the PS3!

Hmmm

I can smell a tiny little bit conflict of interest, maybe he is not 100% impartial, but i could be wrong... ;)

:)

Jen-Hsun Huang, thank you.

Let's see

Finally, someone who understands Sony and actually understand the importance of Blu-Ray.

ahhhh

Wasn't it Microsoft who didn't pick NVidia and not the other way around. This guy seems a little bitter that M$ didn't choose them.

Poor Xbox..i'm sad

Them it......... I have to sell my xbox360 the sooner i can, to make money out off it. I knew it won last me 2 year because it's not futur proof.

you are a dumb@ss #1

nvidia is better than ati. nvidia is a gaming card, unlike ati it dosnt leave screwed up shadows and sucky framerates. and you would know this if you got your head out of your @ss. ask anyone

7

you know, thats a matter of personal opinioin. Ive used ati in all my computers because if you go with the right manufactuer brand, the cards seem to be much better than nvidia's. But when you see value cards of new graphics cards from manufactuers like MSI on an ati card, be wary. Just like alot of other things, cards made at home (ati) are better quality, stability, and durability. So maybe you should get your head out of your ass and do a proper comparison, ati made ati branded graphics card against a nvidia made-nvidia branded graphics card of equivilant power and release.

Well...

To #6 - The XBox 360 is designed for THIS generation, not for 10 years. It is almost as powerful as the PS3 (equal or slightly better GPU in the 360, Cell better for floating-point), therefore what you're saying is quite silly. To #7 - Stop being an idiot. Both NVidia and ATI produce excellent GPUs for PC gaming, and at any given time, one of the companies are in front of the other. Right now, NVidia seems to have the edge, but when both release their technology for DX10, it could be ATI with the edge (given their headstart with the 360 GPU). In otherwords, neither NVidia or ATI suck, since they create the best GPU

to no.7

i think you right. Lots of games have framerate problem on the xbox 360. i thought is only the first game but no. Enven the dashboard lag. I think it's the graphic card not the programmers.

I piss on ps3 but love Nvidia

Nvidia makes damn good cards but so does ati..the only problem is in linux ati doesnt make good drivers for linux platforms and nvidia does... but usually if you compare the newest nvidia with the newest ati your going to be hard pressed to tell the difference..ati has really improved in the last few years..hurray for competition...Why would ps3 be future proof??? that means that there will be upgrades. upgrades suck and no one buys them..isnt that the arguement that sony fanboys have against 360? and they like a machine that is going to have more upgrades? if sony wants to make the ps3 a computer they should.. but they are wasting so much time and money on bluray and cell that they have lost sight of what really matters. price and reliability which is 2 things that blu ray does not have.

yep I understand...

"Finally, someone who understands Sony and actually understand the importance of Blu-Ray." the importances of raising the price up by $200 for a little more disc space that will never be fully used.

to no.12

How do you know............ Kojima already said that is game can't fit on a DVD9 disc.

Vecha is 100 dollars more. Say it with me people P 360 + HDDVD = 499 PS3

And it's not just for a little space (You call 50GBs compared to 8GBs little? I pity you), it's also the ability to play HD movies add to that the 1080P support which doesn't buy you much but It's nice to have I would say it's definitely worth every bit of that 100 dollars. And I wont even get into the other media functionality, the quality of the library and the power of the machine. Nvidia actually rejected MS due to some contract issues and MS had no choice but to go with ATI. The problem was that Nvidia wanted a larger cut of the pie than what MS was willing to give. I believe it was because they didn't make out too good after the xbox and this time they wanted to make sure they were profitable. The PS3's GPU is not less powerful than the 360 one. The PS3 GPU is actually more powerful spec-wise. However, developers have pointed out that since ATI's GPU supports directX 10 (a MS product) it is better to work with. Don't confuse comfort with power.

About Blu-Ray

How can you say it will never be fully used? Before you jump to conclusions, you should do some research and see what the developers are saying... Yes, unbiased developers on PS3, 360, and PC. Here's some reading for you: http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=ps3media&message.id=4342

Jeez.

Just because a Blu-Ray PLAYER is $1000 doesn't mean that's much the drive costs. In stand-alone players, most of the money is spent on the board, I/O, Ram, and a very powerful CPU. Drives on the other hand are relatively cheap. I mean, for $100 more than a 360 you get Blu-ray, on top of a LOT of other things. The Blu-Ray drive is, at most, 10%-15% of the cost to produce a PS3 since Cell and RSX process and decode the HD video anyway (software decoding in PS3 vs. hardware decoding in standalone Blu-ray Players). Whether or not Sony had gone with Blu-ray, they would still be charging the same price. It's the Cell, RSX, XDR Ram, and Flex I/O technology that cost them a hell of a lot to put in. Blu-ray is there not only to further the Blu-ray market, but because it's superior to HD-DVD and assists developers. If HD-DVD was superior, they would have put that in instead. For Sony, it's all about superior technology; simple as that. Jen-Hsung makes a really intriguing remark about how nVidia didn't have the resources to make GPUs for multiple consoles, which makes sense. nVidia spent over 1500 man-years of work designing the RSX, so imagine the kind of resources they would need if they made the 360 and Wii GPUs. (btw, he personally stated that info at E3 05).

FINALLY SOMEONE HAD THE BALLS TO SAY IT!!

Even with its steep price, the Nvidia CEO believes that Sony's master stroke is the PS3, why? He says that "the moment we put those consoles together it's going to be very clear. If I'm going to buy a next-generation game console, I'm going to buy a console with next-generation media. It's going to last 10 years." He believes that the PS3 has that much staying power.

of course you can use 50gb for a game:S

one day sooner rather than later, developers will want to use more than 50gb on a game... look at that link from #15, even if it is from playstations message board it's good. One of the games I am longing most for is ut2007 this is what Mark Rein said: "Unreal Tournament was 6GB compressed. Next Generation games are going to be 20GB plus, and how we're going to fit them on DVD9's I don't know, they'll probably be a few of them. On the PS3, we're going to be using the majority of the space on those Blu-ray disks."

True, someday even 50Gb isn't going to be enough.

And thank goodness 4-layer and 8-layer Blu-ray discs are being worked on right now. 200Gb per disc is....just insane. And since all blu-ray drives have the same capabilities, the ability to read more than 2 layers only requires a simple firmware update (which can be achieved either through online or from a Blu-ray disc, just like how UMD games update the firmware on PSP). Pretty cool stuff. This will allow Sony to continue to use Blu-ray for PS4 and maybe even PS5. Playstation 5...that's such a wierd name. O well. We have like twelve years to get used to it. =P

@# 15

when citiing your sources, make sure they're un biased. ie...dont point to sony websites when trying to show the benefits of sony products. dont read the official xbox magazine to get good reviews on xbox games :)

2 or more discs

Personally I kind of like the fact of games that span across a few discs. Makes me fell even more accomplished once I have to open up the drive to put the next one in. Plus you know your going to see some nice cs and a rather long game. More bang for you buck as it were

eh?

"Whether or not Sony had gone with Blu-ray, they would still be charging the same price." Blu-ray is new technology, it IS more expensive than DVD (even for PC drives), therefore it would increase the cost of the console (and has done so). "Blu-ray is there not only to further the Blu-ray market, but because it's superior to HD-DVD and assists developers. If HD-DVD was superior, they would have put that in instead. For Sony, it's all about superior technology; simple as that." Eh? What are you talking about? It's the reverse of what you said. Sony are the leading developer of Blu-ray, which is one of the reasons why it is so important for Blu-ray to be in the PS3, since it offers a large user base in their fight against their rival HD-DVD, where Toshiba are the leading developer. Even if HD-DVD was superior, Sony would NOT be using the drive of their rival, they would be using Blu-ray!

More Sony ***** sucking.

Oh here we go again Professor. Some more Sony back door action. Comfort eh? I'm pretty sure you like that. My Xbox 360 is collecting dust. But do i care? Nope. Not a fanboy. Just a simple gamer. I'm pretty sure you'll say some $hit like "see what I mean? PS3 won't be collecting dust cuz of Blu Ray, real time weapon change, MGS4, Riiiiiidge Racerrrr!, real crab battles or something to that nature. An extra $100 is worth it? Do you even listen to yourself? People complain about gas prices at $3.10 a gallon. An extra $100? Phuck man. "Oh it's just another $100. Not a big deal." I can picture you saying that decked out in your favorite Star Wars gear or something related to Sony.

To #20

Um the fact that it is on the PlayStation forum has no correlation to it being biased. I simply put that link because I did not want to type it all out my self or leave a huge comment. Sony DID NOT make those comments... they were done by developers for games on variety of consoles. Be sure to give it another check and you'll even notice one of the links inside take you to teamxbox forums. Thanks for your insight though, genius.

#14

"The PS3's GPU is not less powerful than the 360 one. The PS3 GPU is actually more powerful spec-wise. However, developers have pointed out that since ATI's GPU supports directX 10 (a MS product) it is better to work with. Don't confuse comfort with power." Well... comments I've read from developer working with both consoles say the GPUs are about the same in terms of realworld performance (maybe someone has a link?). I haven't read any developer working with both who says the RSX is more powerful. I think it's to do with the unified shaders of the 360 GPU, which is suppose to be far more efficient than seperate pixel and vertex shaders, meaning you can get more out of the 360 GPU compared to RSX, resulting in similar performance overall for both.

#17

"Even with its steep price, the Nvidia CEO believes that Sony's master stroke is the PS3, why?" Gee, I wonder why too. It's not as if NVidia are contributing to the PS3 console in anyway. Oh, wait a minute... ;)

wow...how stupid...

this is the same guy that showed up at e305 saying the ps3 had a kickass gpu. no shiet hes gonna be saying the ps3 kickass since their company helped make the ps3's gpu. although nvidia graphics cards are still better than ati cards.=)(o yea the 360 uses ati) maybe what he means is by delaying the launch so far they were able to upgrade the gpu?

PS3 lovers please stand up!

It's in time like this i'am really happy to wait for the PS3. I don't buy a x360 because i knew they will put some stupid add-on like Sega did. What makes me more crazy is when you'll buy all those add-on to equal the PS3 it's going to cost you more. Even if M$ say no..... you'll see!

#28

Seems to be a part of your anatomy that is standing up. :p

.

Sony's part of the blu-ray association, not the leader. Yes, of course Blu-ray costs more (standalone dvd players are only 30 bucks now), but the actual drive that reads the discs doesn't cost that much to manufacture. There's a difference between what you pay and how much something actually costs to make. Right now, early adopters are mostly paying for research and development, not manufacturing costs. "Even if HD-DVD was superior, Sony would NOT be using the drive of their rival, they would be using Blu-ray!" This is flawed considering that their 'rival' Toshiba, makers of HD-DVD, were also involved in making Cell. It's not like they're out to destroy each other. What you should be questioning is why Microsoft chose NOT to put a blu-ray drive in their console, or even an HD-dvd drive as standard. Microsoft rushed ahead, and on top of that didn't want to spend much money on their console either in an attempt to quickly make up for their $4 billion deficit. They basically got what they paid for. Sony on the other hand is spending almost too much money on their game console, which is why it's being labeled as a computer (and rightly so, considering what it's capable of). If the PS3 was labeled as a Vaio, no one would be *****ing about the price. But since it's only supposed to be for games that's not going to happen anytime soon.

kk

Well its kinda obvious thats the CeO of NVIDIA is going to say sony has the lead if he said the oppisite hed be bad talking his own product. Space in games in reality is not THAT huge of a deal with newer compression methods, abilty to use in-game engine to display a "cut-scene" that 50 gigs seems to only make the life of the devs a bit easier, which im all for. Sony thought isnt all about making there system easy to dev for though. Sony likes big numbers when they show off the consoles. As for nvidia sayin ps3 will last 10 years, hes a just blowing smoke the games/hardware industry is VERY fast moving to using 10 year old hardware will seriously hinder there sales. I also believe that at launch of the ps3 i dont see most devs using blu-ray really at all similar to the dvd/cd begining of ps2. Either way it will be a cool system with (hopefully) some worthwhile launch titles i just suggest noone buy it the first 6 months because sony has a bad track record for sending a "bunk" first batch of machines.

to no. 29

Yes and you gonna cheeky IT!!! :)

ms for add ons

okay true that MS has some add ons coming and already here for the 360... but seriously who are we tring to fool here Sony does like the add on also and most likely will have a nice stock pile for the ps3 shortly after the release.

Well..

"Sony's part of the blu-ray association, not the leader." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu_Ray "The Blu-ray standard was jointly developed by a group of consumer electronics and PC companies called the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA), spearheaded by Sony." http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/sep2005/id20050914_100626.htm?chan=tc "For months there had been much talk of a possible compromise between the Sony-led Blu-ray camp and the Toshiba-led HD DVD group" Blu-ray is Sony's little baby, where others helped in it's conception. ;) "Yes, of course Blu-ray costs more (standalone dvd players are only 30 bucks now)...." Of course, but that doesn't change the fact that Blu-ray is currently much more expensive than DVD. "This is flawed considering that their 'rival' Toshiba, makers of HD-DVD, were also involved in making Cell." It is not flawed. Sony and Toshiba are partners when it comes to Cell, but they are rivals when it comes to Blu-ray and HD-DVD. This is common in business. Just because two companies are partners in one area, doesn't stop them being rivals in others. Cell and Blu-ray vs HD-DVD is a perfect example of this. Don't take my word for it, use a search engine and look for - Sony Toshiba Blu-ray HD-DVD - and read the links available. They will confirm the partner/rival relationship between Sony and Toshiba as mentioned. "What you should be questioning is why Microsoft chose NOT to put a blu-ray drive in their console, or even an HD-dvd drive as standard." MS are not a hardware manufacture and therefore chose the option which was best for them. DVD almost had the same split formats seen with Blu-ray and HD-DVD today, however agreements amoungst the companies resulted in a SINGLE format instead, hence avoiding a battle between rival formats. This format (DVD) was already established when MS began work on the orginal XBox, but this was not the case when work began on the 360, since the new formats wouldn't be established until years later.

>>#8

That is not a matter of opinion, it is a fact...Nvidia consistently runs better than ATI on high-end games: http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/24/vga_charts_vi/page3.html I used to be an ATI fanboy, but I just couldn't ignore the facts...the proof is in the numbers

QUote!

"the moment we put those consoles together it's going to be very clear. If I'm going to buy a next-generation game console, I'm going to buy a console with next-generation media. It's going to last 10 years." EXACTLY! Also number 35, Sony isn't the only force behind blu-ray but they're spearheading the effort and putting all their strength behind it along with some other huge names to bring the format to the consumer. Also you said "This format (DVD) was already established when MS began work on the orginal XBox, but this was not the case when work began on the 360, since the new formats wouldn't be established until years later." The format war has only just begun and it'll heat up very soon and yet MS has agreed to put a HD-DVD add-on out in an effort to support the HD-DVD format. The next format has still yet to be chosen and yet MS still chooses a side? I think you were just proven wrong, MS didn't exclude HD-DVD from their system because the format wasn't guarenteed success, they did it to cut cost and to make even more with the HD-DVD addon. In Sony's case, blu-ray is so much more then just the PS3. The PS3 will be a big shove for blu-ray, so it'll benefit Sony either way.

#36

NitrogenB, firstly that is from May 2005, but just the same, look again at the graphs. SLI = TWO Graphics cards, in this case, TWO 6800s in the PC! So of course it's going to be top of the list. Now look at the single graphics cards in the list, ATI are top. As I said earlier, both NVidia and ATI produce great graphics cards for gaming, but at any given time, either NVidia or ATI are going to be offering the best performance.

oh yeah...

When Ps3 will be release everybody will shut up and buy one. It's coming more and more clear. Today scoop ... Sony says : "To date we have shipped more than 10,000 development systems to 208 companies in 11 countries." More then xbox360 how curious?

Pro. say it with me. Choice.

Sony is not giving you a choice between HD movies( i want to play games not watch movies) I really wish Sony would have done a blu-ray accesory...that would have been alot better. I'll be getting a ps3. Maybe i'll be glad i do when the movies come out( i have two hdtvs). But right now...i don't like being forced to use a format....

#37

"Also number 35, Sony isn't the only force behind blu-ray but they're spearheading the effort and putting all their strength behind it along with some other huge names to bring the format to the consumer." Er, that's what I said! I didn't say they were the only force, I said they were the leaders. "...The next format has still yet to be chosen and yet MS still chooses a side? I think you were just proven wrong" Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo did not decide the format they were going to use in their consoles at the last minute. From the beginning of developement, Sony would have decided to use Blu-ray, Microsoft DVD and Nintendo their own proprietry DVD based format. I'm sure MS considered HD-DVD, and if it had launched on time (2005), perhaps the DVD drive would have been upgraded to HD-DVD. As it is, HD-DVD like Blu-ray wasn't 'fully' ready until this year, hence HD-DVD on the 360 is just an add-on! Also, isn't it obviously why Blu-ray wouldn't be the next-gen format of choice for Microsoft? "MS didn't exclude HD-DVD from their system because the format wasn't guarenteed success...", And there you have it. DVD was guarenteed success because it was already established and it had NO rivals. It was a no brainer for MS. HD-DVD and Blu-ray wasn't established, MS has no part to play in the hardware developement (but they do the software providing the superior VC-1 codex for both HD-DVD and Blu-ray). No-one could guarentee when HD-DVD and Blu-ray would be ready (they've had a number of delays), hence launch of the 360 would have depended on HD-DVD being ready. The 360 would have only JUST launched if it had HD-DVD as standard. "they did it to cut cost and to make even more with the HD-DVD addon." Yes, cost would be an important factor, as it always has been for consoles. The HD-DVD add-on is for movies only not games, so it's not as if gamers are being forced to purchased the HD-DVD add-on.

get serious.....

Well i don't know if i would want a game machine that last 10 years. think about it if blu-ray doesn't succeed then you have a useless blu-ray player in your machine not even old technology but dead technology. also in five years you know where technology will be. anyway you are supposed to upgrade your computers every five years just to stay current. plus how stupid can you be to think that any computer or console can be future proof.

Cmmon sense

Its common sense that Blu ray is more future proof than DVD. Its like comparing CD with DVD.

to 36

Why then ***** is the currently most powerful GPU made by ATI. The X1900 will smash any Nvidia card that is out today. Go away Sony fanboy. Besides, that article is over a year old, currently ATI is the best. Also if you are useing 4x AA then ATI cards get even better performance in comparison because everyone knows that Nvidia cards get a huge performance hit with AA enabled.

well duh

What did you people think he was going to say bad things about the PS3, come on this is pointless. It would be like interviewing ATI about the 360 and PS3. He is making the graphics card for the PS3 duh every thing he says will be posotive to sony. Another thing Blu-ray does not mean there will be no limitations on what they make it just alows the programmers to be messyer in their code. Blu-Ray=Pointless

actually, no

messier codes do not mean larger files. it means longer loadings, more lags, and more bugs. more space will actually mean: *ability to store same data in different part of disc to improve access speed *more data to store(cut scenes more stunning than pixar DVDs, new maps, new characters, etc) *less chance of multiple/changing disc(it still will, and HAS to happen someday in the Blu-Ray format's life) Anyway, enough of this bull*****. About PS3 being more expensive, please, we all know that. Just don't buy it yourself. WE on the other hand appreciate the features in the Actual console. -More Complex CPU -Next-Gen format -1080p -PSP connectivity -Backwards Compatibility -Exclusives -Linux(as in, more freedom with the console) -Motion Sensor and these are only compared to 360. Wii.....I don't even need to talk about it do I? I don't like people or companies sacrificing their products just to make themselves happy(HQ graphics).

extreeeem gamer

In sick of people complaining about the ps3 price. you are getting alot for your money. in order to make an xbox as good as ps3 you would endup spending alot more. for example, soon there will be free wifi in every city. xbox users will be mad when they have to spend about $100 to get the connetion. and blue ray is going to win, so xbox fans are going to have to buy the new drive hook up.thats going to be about $150. all together you've just spent $650 for the xbox and the connections. ps3 will come with all of that out of the box for 600. nVidia with cell is a killer team. ps3 will come out on top. and (dont watch tech tv's xplay or attack of the show) they really try to trash the ps3. I also think they are secretly advertising for microsoft. good luck to the ps3 bombs over 360

oh boy

Where to begin ...ATI and Nvidia both make good Pc Gpus and the 360s horrible framerate in some games is due to poor coding and lazy devs not because it has a Ati gpu lol. On paper Rsx does sound faster than Xenos in 360 ...but Xenos is alot more efficient than Rsx which actually puts it slightly above RSX. What good are all those numbers? when Rsx supposedly will only be able to reach around 73% max efficiency and Xenos can reach 90-95% efficiency. Yes PS3 has a slight edge on 360 where it comes to processing power, but if you honestly believe you're going to see CGI quality graphics in 1080p ..You are in for a rude awakening.. It's going to be more like ps2 quality with no anti-aliasing or anisotropic filtering upscaled to 1080p.

annie boy, DJ, vecha....

... i think you 3 peeps (along with Kura) are the only sensible peeps who use this blogging site. You all speak TRUTH without coming out with bullsh*t comments like no.46's "blu-ray = pointless" Its funny, because if blu-ray was "pointless" as you put it, then approx 90% of movie studios wouldn't be backing it, and i don't think a company the size of Sony wouldn't be pushing it either. Also, the "messier code", Kura is spot on. It allows, for games, developers to put in more CGI cutscenes, allows more content to be added (maps, secrets to unlock, making of videos, even for games like mortal kombat or metal gear solid, you could put the original ps1 games and before that all on one disc) and obviously it gives developers who are willing to work hard, the chance to make one big massive environment. Vecha your kinda right, and i do enjoy reading your comments because they are constructive. Being forced a format isnt everyones cup of tea and i can see the downside to this. Yet it has happened in the past. We as consumers where basically forced to have DVD, because it was "the future". I remember when people complained about moving from cartridge and floppy disc to CD, and look what happened there. Your not being forced as such to use blu-ray. The PS3 does still play DVD movies and games, so theres no reason why you still cant watch DVD. Everybody knows the reason that 360 didnt have HD-DVD was to do with cost and releasing the 360 early. All fanboys of 360 and Wii are always quick to point out PS3's high price. True, it is expensive machine, anything for £425 is, but its value for money. 360 fans forget that if they want movies in HD, they need the HD add on, which pushes the price on 360 on par with PS3. I have no doubt that if 360 launched with HD-DVD built in, then it would have been £100+ more and it would have only been released around this time this year. People who question the use of PS3 for over 10years. There are still millions out there who still use there PS1. The PS2 is 6 years old, and that is selling like crazy still, and sells more consoles than its far more powerful next-gen rival (360). The PS3 certainly does has the potential to last 10years. Why not? Its backwards compatible over 2 generations, so PS1 and PS2 fans will be happy. It has HDMI, which is supposidly "future proof", so you always get the highest quality of video output as possible. It has blu-ray, which, if it does sell better than rival formats, will certainly last 10years+. So the £425 for a 10year console seems like a decent deal (or £42.50 for a year of PS3, thats cheaper than what i pay for SKY TV in one month). Theres far too much negativity toward PS3 at the moment, and its without any real constructive analysis. One developer says its expensive, yet he doesn't explain WHY it is. Others say its a bargain and EXPLAIN why it is. And lets face it, alot of the critisism comes from fans of other consoles, either because they genuinly dislike Sony, or they're a little worried about what the PS3 can do (anyone who studied psychology to a great degree will know what i mean, a human reacts in a defensive way whenever it feels its being threatened by something greater than itself e.g fanboys attacking each other all the time)

Biased?

Uhm, ATI has had the performance crown in PC GPU's for quite some time now. With 7900 nvidia briefly led, but XTX1900 took away all doubts again. The only nVidia Setup faster than ATI is either an SLI setup (very expensive, 2 cards needed) or a 7950 Dual GPU card (again 2 gpu's needed to beat a single ATI GPU). That aside, all PS3 fanboys can scream blueray whatever they want, but in the meantime I have been enjoying Next-gen gaming on my 360 for nearly 8 months now, for less than the price of the cheapest PS3 that isn't even out yet, and with graphics on par with everything Sony has shown to date. Choke on your specs that never go any further than 'on paper' and 'theoretical'. Choke on your blueray format (if only the studios would have chosen a more efficient codec than Mpeg2 for their BR-movies, they wouldn't have needed a '20 dollar to produce' disk anyway). I couldn't care less if my games came on used thea-bags, as long as the game looks good. PC games have been in HD for years (in resolutions exceeding 1080p) and not ONE game has broken the 9gb storage barrier yet...

@Daz

You wrong there. I was a big Sony fan for years, having a PS1 at release, a PS2 at release and a PSP at release. The PS3 though is different. I didn't care about the PS1 having a CD-rom drive, since I already had a CD player in my house. I didn't care about the DVD in the PS2 since I already had a DVD-player. As for PS3, the ONLY big reason for Sony to bundle both assets (BlueRay and PS3) is because Sony has a very significant interest in both. It is a marketing move, in which they hope PS3 will save BR and consequently Sony as a company. It has nothing to do with what is best for gaming. Some of the best games have been on lesser (technically) systems. I shouldn't have to pay for another PC (that is what Sony calls it) or another DVD-player, just because I want to play console games (aren't they supposed to offer a cheap alternative to horrible expensive PC gaming solutions?). Sony has lost me as a faithfull follower, and the 360 is the first Xbox product I have bought. So far I am pleasantly suprised on a nearly basis with the power and funtionality of my 360, a far cry from the dissapointment upon dissapointment I had with Sony latest console, the PSP...

#50

Thanks daz, you're a good 'poster' too. :) I remember you because of another thread (blu-ray and hd-dvd?) where there was a great conversation between you and yaz (I even wondered if you two were the same person because of the similar names, hehehe). Anyway, I think yaz is a great poster here as well, always providing excellent info and comments in all the threads he participates in (although I haven't seen him here recently).

Blu-ray seems to be more serious then HD-DVD

Have anyone noticed that Blu-ray is backed by more companies then HD-DVD? I haven't even seen one HD-DVD commerical, but I have seen new releases also coming to Blu-ray on TV commercials. What I like about Blu-ray, is the fact that you can have all of the region codes, all of the languages you would release the game in, and include more than one game and features in new or re-released games (Like what they did with MGS3: Substance, where they had the PS1 versions of MGS and other contents on 4 DVDs instead of one). Most people here are saying Blu-ray sucks, just because its in the PS3 and Sony is the one that came up with it. You should see what the benfits this format will bring to gaming, not base your opinions on your fanboy opinions. Grow up will ya?!