Not that anyone here cares cause all we want to do is dick on the Ps3 [/sarcasm] but f*ck me:
http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/sony/no-hdmi-...-ps3-198348.php

Ill probably just go for a basic version but I will oddly be able to afford it sooner........ (although by that time I doubt cables would be THAT expensive....... i hope.....)

1080p will mostly be used for Bluray movies, and games support won't come for awhile. To add to that, most TV's are 1080i anyways. By the time 1080p TV's are more common, the price for these cables will drop. HDMI is still relatively new and uncommonly used.

Lots of people use HDMI, and HDMI cables are pretty cheap... i dont see why this is such a big deal that PS3 doesnt come with one.

lots of people that has an hdtv that is. Most users are still on Standard Def. The majority of consumers are still just upgrading to either Flat-Screen 480i capable TV's, or going affordable HDtv.

the article said that hdmi cables range from $50- $300, thats quite a bit for a cable despite it being high quality, i would complain

You can get HDMI cables for a couple of quid. There is no signal degredation either as it's all ones and zeros. You pay for the name when you buy an HDMI cable for that price.

I heartily agree - people just don't understand that with a digital connection there is no grey area. Either the signal reaches the destination or it doesn't. Of course, with extra long cables you just have to ensure it adheres with the standard it operates on. The same argument arose when Digital Coax was first released and people were paying silly money for a phono cable, whereas a standard RCA would do exactly the same job. Those who *did* pay the extra spend their time convincing others the sound was clearer - how, I still have no idea.

Ebuyer do very affordable HDMI for a few quid, as maxlifo has already stated.

yeah i seen some HDMI cable at my local shop, on average they are around £40+

i thought they are "digital"...so why does it matter on quality of the cables (oxygen free, gold plated etc.)

anyways, $600 PS3 is cheap compared to the Xbox 360 if you add up all the other stuff (minus HDMI), not like "everyone" will use HDMI, specially in Europe. Maybe Sony should make a multi AV cable similar to X360's.

That's the point - the OFC/gold plated stuff doesn't make any difference, unless you are running the cable near other items which emit electrical interference.

The costing argument of a PS3 over the 360 is only applicable if you intend to purchase all the 'other stuff' as you so put it.

I have no need for a Wi-fi connection, a 20GB HDD is large enough for me and I have no intention of entering the HD DVD/BluRay battle as I get HD content from other sources. To have this forced upon you and be made to adopt BluRay could well be the PS3's downfall unless the movies start improving. At the moment, HD-DVD is still better quality.

i thought it said $90 to $300. But in anycase, if you can get one on the cheap thats ideal. Its a little unfair then to not include a cheap hdmi cable along with the standard cable for the $600 version. Otherwise alot of users are going to be conned into buying some expensive shit by w*nkers at Virgin (for example).

If I end up waiting say till the begining of 2008 to get a ps3 ill probably get the top model and get a 1080p tv. If I get tempted sometime in 2007, ill probably get the lower end version, wait to upgrade my tv and accept 1080i when i do. I would get one sooner if that damn controller was changed (and before I get attacked, Im almost as pissed about the 360 Dpad - although I love fps, so.....) - resistance looks v nice in terms of numbers on screen and speed of gameplay, I just HATE those analogues (Its been pissing me off all weekend on Proevo) and Im not 100% on a console keyboard and mouse (I assume it would be wireless?)

Then again with the £2000 worth of travelling debt I will have by next jan, I doubt either will be an option for at least a year.....

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. There is signal degradation in all cables.

The major difference between digital and analog, when dealing with a display signal, is that with an analog signal you can see the affects of that signal degradation (example: blurry image and ghosting) up to the point where the signal is no longer usable. With a digital signal you don't see any difference as the signal deteriorates until the point where the signal no longer works.


Back on topic:

I think it is crazy that Sony will not be including the HDMI cable. If somebody buys the premium package they should get the HDMI cable so that they can use the HDMI port. I could understand maybe not including it in the value package (if it had a HDMI port).

My interest in the PS3 has gone from willing to stand in line for 24 hours to get one to now where I will not be buying one until they drop the price to $300 for the HDMI model. All because Sony keeps making decisions that, IMHO, are screwing over hardcore gamers like myself. It is a shame since I was really looking forward to having all three of the next-gen consoles connected to my LCD this x-mas and playing FFXII on my PS3.

all because you can't spend some extra money for HDMI cables? Btw, its stuff like including Bluray and jacking up the cost of the PS3 that are pissing off gamers, and you're pissed off because they made the package CHEAPER? It seems like whatever they do it's a bad move. The 360 core didn't include Component (which is the one I wanted to start with) so was that move bad for MS? No. The 360 premium didn't include HDMI at all, so did that have any effect of "screwing over" gamers? No. 720p and 1080i are plenty enough for me. If it works with analog, I have no issue.

So, kind of back on topic, would if make a difference if I bought monster component cables compared to the 14.99 ps2/xbox ones I have now? I thought it didnt, a former acquaintence had bought a monster cable for his HDTV and I brought mine over and we couldn't see any differences. I haven't tried it on my 480i crt though, but I imagine the differences wouldn't be that extreme.

Technically then he's still correct - you will either get a signal/picture, or you won't. There's no in-between ie degredation.

Agree with the HDMI cable comment - exactly how expensive can they be to manufacture? I think a lot of people will wait until the price drop, by which time we'll all be a little more clued up as to which HD format is dominant.

If you can shell out $600 for a PS3, $2-3k+ for a tv with HDMI, then you sure as hell can pay $20 for an HDMI cable: http://www.monoprice.com/products/product....at=2&style=

I can easily afford the cost of a HDMI cable. That is not the point. The point is that Sony is not supplying what it takes to support that HDMI port out of the box. I buy a LCD with a DVI port I get a DVI cable. I buy a DVD player with a DVI port I get a DVI cable. If I did not get that cable I would feel ripped off.



Jacking up the price is the main reason IMHO. Showing CGI movies and then saying they are game play movies. Delaying the PS3. Cutting features they promised. Lowering the clock speed of the GPU. Saying people are lucky to get the PS3 at $600. Those are just some of the other reasons.



That should read: "It seems like they are making all the wrong moves."





Your example using the 360 is flawed big time. The Premium 360 package did not come with a HDMI cable. Know why? Because it did not support it nor did MS ever say it would. The premium 360 package came with the best possible connection that the 360 supported. People paid a premium for the best version of the 360 and got the best parts (IE wireless controller and component cable). According to this news the premium PS3 package will not come the best possible connect that it supports.

720p and 1080i may be plenty for you but I have a 1080p LCD TV that has a DVI port waiting for the PS3 to use. Since you obviously don't care about, or can't currently use, the HDMI your opinion is that of somebody that this does not affect. If I did not have a TV that could support this then I would not care either.

It's not that I don't care, I do. I'm a technology buff and when I shop I try to buy the best possible stuff I can, especially video. Either it's 1080p or no. But anyways, there's a good reason that you might have overlooked about HDMI. More people have analog inputs than HDMI. If you think about it, theres SD sets out there such as my Wega that maxes out at 480i with analog component. Then there are 1st generation HDTV's that only feature 1080i and analog component w/ no HDMI. Next is 2nd generation with 720p support as well as 1080i, but with no HDMI. Then we have current generation that supports 720p, 1080i, with HDMI, as well as higher priced units that support 1080p through HDMI. If you look at the penetration of those with analog inputs than those with digital inputs, those with analog inputs clearly dwarf those with digital. Let me add that there's an addition depth concerning CRT HDTV's and LCD/Plasma/DLP HDTV's that each have brought different configurations and settings depending on generation. For this reason (so many people have analog), is why the 360 was designed around the analog input system.

Who cares if it comes with an HDMI cable, I never thought it would anyway . I mean I had to buy optical cables seprarate to get surround sound on my current gen systems!

yeah, it is cheap if you want a wireless adapter, hd-dvd drive, and a bigger harddrive. But also, this is saying that its cheaper right now. By the time the PS3 comes out, i would bet that microsoft lowers the prices of their accessories. Plus its choice, someone who doesn't have a wireless router or a high definition tv will be paying for alot of unused merchandise on a PS3 ($500 or $600)

I doubt the 500 would have unused merchandise. HD support is for all games so its 20gb would be used. Bluray is of course the standard media drive. There's no WiFi and only standard network input, and users can still play on 480i with analog input. If one were to buy a 500 unit, then you'd only need a game, which would be 59.99 standard set by MS. I doubt that games would cost even more than that, they wouldn't sell if it were the case.

If they did they wouldn't make much profit. Before the 360 came out alot of ppl were thinking games wouldn't cost $60 either. There is no way blu ray games are gonna cost the same as DVD games. Its that simple.

I'm sure the same argument was used for the console itself when compared to the 360, yet there seem to be plenty of fools willing to pay a shedload of money for it....

No it's not that simple and propaganda and bias is leading you to believe that way. MS set the 59.99 standard and Sony is most likely going to follow that route. It's already been proven by Nintendo 64 that games 70+ don't profit, and THAT is simple. 60 is damn near border line, and people barely accept that! MS made that a little easier for us since some 1st party titles are 49 and they're planning a price drop for the launch titles. We'll see though.

I'm looking forward to seeing how much sony charges for their proprietary HDMI cable. If the mark-up is as much as all their other proprietary stuff I won't be surprised.

http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/deals/hdmi-...ging-180281.php

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,121777-page,1/article.html

rock on, i plan to get the ps3 and the Wii, but keep in mind people, i definately put the foot down about more about the gui and games, forget the hardware, as long as it does what its been shown to do (which i love), then i will be very happy.

now lets wait and see if the damn thing comes with component cables....LMAO ill bet Kira it doesnt


does no one remember $ony already stating games WILL be $70-$100?? such short term memory's and im the one who smokes the chronic......

nope cant say i do. got a link?

Are you serious about that bet? Because I'll take it that the Premium 600 PS3 will come with component cables. If you lose, you buy me a free Xbox 360. If I lose, I buy you a console of your choice.

I'm suprised at the lot of you people. Here your kind are, harping about how much PS3 games will cost, fabricating fake prices due to word of mouth (which people rely heavily around here) and can't even produce a link to your own argument that you supossedly feel so strongly that you're right. Even WITH the link, you can't produce anything concrete enough to justify confirming a higher pricepoint.

This is where people got the idea that games could be 70 bucks
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=9901

but let me break this down to make it easier and more logical to understand.



1. He said that it would be pretty farfetched (meaning highly unlikely, not probable) that the price of games would just double. So that means you can pretty much count on games not being 100.

2. Kaz did not specifically say what price the games will be. But he said that general consumer expectation is between 39 for low end, and 59 for high end. He already hinted that 99 is highly unlikely, so that leaves it to 59-89. Kaz was careful in his words because remember that Sony doesn't set the 3rd party prices, 3rd parties do. This means that it COULD be higher than 59, not that it's DEFINITE that it would be.



1. This quote shows that Kaz is trying to tell you that they are going to do the best they can to keep it within consumer expectation, and use data from the past 12 years to set a price that follows consumer and industry trend.



This is reiterating that he doesn't have control over game prices other than their own in-house productions. But he also reassures that companies aren't going to pull a fast one on us and start releasing games for 100.

Here's ANOTHER article, that brings more understanding to the 70 dollar PP rumor for games.
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3143306

Since I'm a heavy importer, I know FULL WELL that import games naturally cost MORE than it does in the US. Thats because of the fluctuating currency value. A game that costs 49.99 here in the US, cost 59.99 USD in Japan. A 59.99 game here in the us, cost 69.99 in Japan. Thus, 70 dollars. But this is for JAPAN reigon and NOT for the US reigon. You can't use JPN pricing as the same as US pricing just like how Mexico and Canada pricing don't convert *exactly* to market value in the US. I could take 5 dollars to Asia, and spend a whole day with good food at good restaurants and still have enough money leftover in the pocket. Here in the US, you're lucky if you can get 1 meal at a fast food place.

^^ dare I say it - here in Europe the question is not what, but when.......
V. good point Foe.

Kira, this is why some people are a little disgruntled with Sony's behaviour. I will buy a PS3, but only when they prove they're worth it. Im sure they will be, but Id still like to see or experience the evidence first; frankly, however, I can understand why there is a little less blind faith in Sony now. I also might not shell out $600, but this does not make me a fanboy.
On the other hand I did not need much pursuasion to purchase a 360: i had played oblivion, COD2 and it would be a year '+' until I could get a rival console (and even then @ a price I would not be willing to spend on ANY console). Whats more microsoft provided a great service with live on the 1st xbox, so the infrastructure was still in place. Sony just requires the release of a couple of killer apps and a price drop to get my money. This is a perfectly rational decision.

If you were in the uk and had watched the BBC reports on the delay, you would have seen Sony fans who are actually quite pissed about being made to wait longer. It'll be a year since it was due; so why do you have such a problem with those who think Sony may have lost some consumer confidence?

at first i only assumed that the ps3 would not ship with HDMI cables, which is fine and was expected to be honest. however i just read this and if im understanding it right, it would seem that the ps3 (both versions) are not shipping with ANY HD cables including component.....



http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6157113....13&tag=nl.e513

can anyone shed some light on this?

Ouch - good find KAGE.

That's pretty damning if it's true.

First of all... the bickering needs to stop... If this forum doesn't clean up it's act real soon I'll have to start hard moderating again... meaning in this topic alone I would have handed out 5 or 6 suspensions EASY.

I don't care if you think so and so is a fanboy, even if you're right I don't want to hear it... I don't want to hear you calling them an idiot or a moron, I don't want to hear you making masturbation jokes or homosexual suggestions about other members.

The next person to step out of line gets slapped with a suspension...

Be respectful of the other members of the site, if you can't do that add them to your ignore list or go some place else.

THAT IS ALL.

-----------------------------------------------
As for the discussion

Personally I never expected the HDMI cable to come with the console, the reason is that no console that has included a native port on the back of the console has come with cables for that port. The NES included RCA hookups with no cables, the PS2 included an optical port with no cables, the Xbox included an optical port with no cable, the gamecube included a Japanese D connector with no cable, and Xbox 360 includes an optical ports with no cable.

On the other hand, the argument that the HDMI enabled version is a fully featured premium version of the console might lead you to debate that it SHOULD include such a cable. Regardless of the prices quote in the article HDMI cables can be found at reasonable prices if you look around. Monoprice as already been mentioned and I've purchased HDMI cables (quad shielded, oxygen free, with gold connectors) for as little as $10. Just because Best Buy likes to rip people off selling them for $110 a pop doesn't mean that's how much their worth or that how much they'd cost.

The price could help the argument either way, on the one hand it's cheap so it's not that big a deal to buy one... on the other hand it's cheap so it shouldn't be that big a deal to include one....

As for Game pricing... I think Kira's break down of the pricing interview was a good one... A lot of people have blown that out of proportion and when it comes down to it all we know is that the games wont be as high as $100, which basically means we still don't know anything.

One thing Kira was incorrect on was:
"...ou'd only need a game, which would be 59.99 standard set by MS..."
"MS set the 59.99 standard and Sony is most likely going to follow that route."

MS did NOT set the standard at $60... MS set the standard at $50 and the 3rd parties decided to charge $60. Every 1st party 360 game has an MSRP at at the exact same price platform that Xbox 1 games had for an MSRP: $50 for regular editions and $60 for limited/special Editions
Kameo - Elements of Power: Released at $49.99
Perfect Dark Zero: Released at $49.99
Perfect Dark Zero Limited Edition: Released at $59.99
Project Gotham Racing 3: Released at $49.99
Ninety-Nine Nights: Released at $49.99

You obviously know that the console maker doesn't have any say over what 3rd parties decide to charge... you said yourself "Sony doesn't set the 3rd party prices, 3rd parties do." The same follows true for MS and Nintendo... MS decided that $50 was still enough, and 3rd parties decided that the price should be higher. If Sony wants to follow MS's lead in game pricing they'll place their 1st party titles at $49.99

either somethings wrong with the page, or Im losing it - Im sure there were two posts after twisted's a second ago - did you take a screen shot deftech ?

Ya I think Twisted deleted it. Cause I rememeber eveyrting that was on this page.

nothing gets deleted on X-S NOTHING, it's all still there, regular members just can't see it... I'd encourage you to stay on with the topic of HDMI cables as opposed to the moderating of this forum.

Actually, that's completely wrong. There is no difference in quality of the pictures between Blu-ray and HD-DVD, the only major difference is capacity; which Blu-ray far out-weighs HD-DVD in. And do you really think that Sony would gamble their whole next-gen system on a format (Blu-ray) if they weren't 100% sure it would succeed? Besides, Sony has a production company, they have a very large presence in Hollywood. Blu-ray will win.

Actually the previous poster may be correct. Bluray may not yet use the intended codec (vc-1) and so the image quality isn't quite what it should be, therefore it isn't quite on par with HD-DVD. As far as I know it's currently using a modified version of mp4.

Actually...



Pruf:Here

EDIT: More added below.



Proof:Here

Pretty much...
Blu-ray supporters


HD-DVD Supporters

I know all of what you are saying.

If you re-read my post you will notice I used the word 'yet'. As in 'not yet but some time in the future'.

You will also notice that I didn't say that this was necassarily the case but I do know that as recent as a few months ago Sony had not yet implemented VC-1.

I repeat. I know that Bluray will use VC-1 but currently it may not be in use. Also if you download any of the Bluray samples on PS Network they are all in MP4 at the moment.

Oh. Sorry man. I guess I was kinda looking like an asshole. No hard feelings?

yeah....you a member over at AVS? Because a guy was using those in his sig and there are quite a number of errors in those banners.

I'm not going to get in to the debate, but there are plenty of dual owners at AVS that say both are great and capable formats.

yeah, the thing does go a bit overboard, i.e. they're counting sony and sony vaio as two different companies. regardless of what is says, Blu-ray will overcome.