It looks as though retailers who want more stock of the next-gen PS3 will simply have to sell more PSP's and PS2's.
Kotaku went and found out more....
"Hardware allocation will NOT be based on existing pre-orders (or "deposits")."
that is fu(ked up. people will be so pissed if they have decided this...
damn, did sony recruit from enron or something?
So this article in no way undermines the goals of the ps3. And if it wasn't rumor, its nothing new. Sony utilized a similar strategy for selling the ps2, which was a huge success. Even microsoft adopted this method, hence the reason why BB,Wal-Mart recieved more 360's than other stores. The Ps3 will sell out not because of shortages but because of its popularity and the next gen experience it will provide for the world. And why are you worried about pre-orders, you've already stated numerous times that you're not getting one.
Actually it will sell out due to shortages becaue they took forever to get to manufacture with the PS3. And also this only affects Gamestop style stores. Best Buy will get plenty because Sony pays BB to have such a large display area and they want to keep them stocked. You will be here whining about shortages just like everyone else. Because some stores were accepting pre-orders back when the 360 launched with a TBD as the date and when i reserved my 360 I was asking about PS3 preorders almost 2 years ago. BUT the MAJOR reason companies like BB and Walmart get more is because they get Larger exposure to customers, due to the fact there isn't a Gamestop out in Smallville Kansas, Iowa, Illinois, Mississippi, North Dakota, or whatever those places be in the UK, Japan, Africa, or where ever.
FYI...there are plenty of Gamestops in Illinois...just throwing it out there :-P
Even Katrina didnt stop them.
Esp. for me seeing is how I have a 360 and was looking forward to getting a PS3 on launch, but my local EB Games has only sold about 10-15 PSP's, and i dont know how many Slim-line PS2's, but its not that many. So im looking at about a 5-10% chance of getting a PS3, seeing is how, if this is true, that all there'll be in my city for launch is about 10-20. (Have to add Best Buy and Future Shop)
i think thats a false rumour. everyone will get his ps3 on launch.
HAHAHAHHAA achira you really are a dillusional fool if you think everyone will get one. The list at the gamestop i goto is 60 people already they got exactly 20 360's at launch because here in San Diego area there are like 15 GameStops. They were camping at Best Buy for 20 boxes, and less at other places... some EBstores only getting 3 systems. I guess you really think that Kaz can pull them out of his ass. There will be shortages. Maybe you are too young to remember the PS2 debacle but i do. It was stupid. This one will be too because they are doing a worldwide launch this time also. I hope Sony does as well as Microsoft did ;) Believe me it is my sinceresy wish for you to get your PS3 on Nov 22 bro, it just is reality unless you are on the top 20 odff the preorderlist you better buy a sleeping bag and get your PSP charged up and find a Best Buy out in the middle of nowhere.
Believe me if Sony can ship 6 million before January it would be a major step to taking back the customer base they are losing with the price for it. And I stated 3 polls at gamefaqs, gamespot over the last 3 days that 50% of respondants said they are not getting a PS3. %60 said it was too expensive. and before you say anything those websites have a very heavy Nintendo fanbase with Zelda and Mario willing almost every poll they put up.
Ofcourse Achira. Everyone will get it's PS3 for launch. Damn your Crystal ball again?
Man. I know why everyone will get it's PS3 for launch!
It's because only you and Gametime have pre-ordered one!
Enjoy your massive brick for 600 dollars and a few games times 80 dollars a piece at least
Just to make you angry I will pre-ordered the second one! LOL
How impolite of me.....I will pre-order the 3rd one just for You!!!! LOL
If this is true, it emans there is a PS3 shortage in the books. It would mean they are trying to strategically allcoate scarce units to maximise the number sold.
It's a pity really. People on this site think all the flaming will stop once PS3 and Wii are out, but the fact is that some people on this site [withdrawn names to protect myself from possible assassination] will just continue to flame about the the particular consoles greatness because they are unbelievable losers and geeks...
Only a Loser or geek to you. You are doing the same think hiding behind your little computer and pointing and calling names. So I guess you can step into the loser and geek holding pen also.
You made it to easy by incriminating yourself.
I don't see the point, when you know you will sell the PS3 at launch in just about every store it is sold in. I would think this strategy works better when the sales have become stagnant and PS3's are stuck on the shelves and if the store is not selling it much then try to maximize your profits through big store brands.
This just means people will have to travel miles just to get a PS3 if your local stores don't sell much PSP's or PS2's or wait for next shipment.
Every major console (i.e ps2, xbox, xbox 360, psp) has had some shortage at launch. This is no indication of demand. Demand is judge 5 months later, psp was huge in the first few months then it just faded away.
Very true... the hardcore following will last those 5 months due to shortages. and after that it will be a truer indication of what the market on a whole is thinking toward it. Great post shotty.
Every EB and Gamestop i know sold a lot of psp hard ware. Shoot they barely have any used or pre own ps2. but they have a lot of xboxx/60 LOL LOL LOL
That is because all the ps2 traded in are broken, EB now tests consoles before they accept a trade.
Funny I was at like 8 Gamestops in the last 3 days for DS games and GBA games and one 2 had A used 360. But then again they all had PS2's and XBoxs for days. You must live in that alternate universe where superman is weak called the Bizarro world.
Don't Run that on me,This is a cry for help.
When PS2 Came out the never said sell more Psones to get the 2.This Whole story is Bullshit, Sony can't meet the launch day demand like with Ps2 so before this happens again they'll use damage control for its customers.
I was talking to a die-hard sony fanboy on a forum two days ago, i asked him why he was choosing PS3 when there is a cheaper and equallly powerful alternative. He replied, "I just love sony. They make brilliant quality consoles, and don't focus much on sequels. Sony are also trustworthy, so i know that the PS3 will be the BIG step forward, especially with the graphics i saw at E3 last year."
I couldn't actually believe how blind and stupid his response was.
Archmenu068 YOU HAVE BEEN NAMED AND SHAMED!
If it comes to 1080p component is only certified (assuming that TV accepts 1080p thru component ) at 24 or 30 frames/sec. That's max.
HDMI can do 60 frames/sec.
For watching movies there may be no need to go aver 30F/sec but for games, if there will be any at 1080p, HDMI is only choice.
For 720p or lover component cables will do fine
Also when you buying game console, it is investment for next 4 or 5 years. So what ever is enough today in 12-24 months may not be, especially when dev get familiar with hardware ans start pushing it to their limits.
I did the same person. I asked them why do you stick with the playstation line/why do you think the ps3 is better. Well the responce I got showed me that sony is heavy relied on the causal crowd to get the majority of sales. This was the responce I got. Reason #1- Cell, Reason #2- RSX Reason #3- Gameplay video for E3 2005 (CG). So I asked him what the cell was, reply was don't know, I asked what the RSX was, reply was don't know. So I was like, so why do you think they are positive aspects of the ps3, his responce was well sony lists it in their bullet points and says no other console has it.
So here I go to make him feel stupied; The cell is simply the name of the PS3 processor and the RSX is the name of the PS3 video card. I knew he felt dumb so I moved to another issue. The videos, the actual gameplay of the ps3 I showed him for E3 2006 left him feeling alittle angry since they were nothing like the video for E3 2005 and these games can be easily done on my xbox 360 which he played at my house on an HDTV. I then showed him the killzone 2 video (he really like it), I then showed him a video of a sony rep (I forget who I think it was Kaiz) that said the video was gameplay. I did this on purpose to see my cousins reaction he was so happy and felt smart. I then moved onto video number 3 that showed the developer of killzone 2 saying that the video was indeed CGI and that sony had asked them to make it and they refused so sony contracted a company to make the video. It took 6 months to make the video and sony advised the company to include a HUD and such in the CG video so people thought it was actual gameplay. I told him that sony wasn't the honest company that you think it is. Big lesson learned for him.
Also showed him a article that stated that sony asked developers to create CG videos of their games and that all expensives spent on the video will be reinbursed by sony.
DVI vs. HDMI vs. Component Video -- Which is Better?
----------------------------- ------------------------------- --------------------
As DVI and HDMI connections become more and more widely used, we are often asked: which is better, DVI (or HDMI) or component video? The answer, as it happens, is not cut-and-dried.
First, to clear away one element that can be confusing: DVI and HDMI are exactly the same as one another, image-quality-wise. The principal differences are that HDMI carries audio as well as video, and uses a different type of connector, but both use the same encoding scheme, and that's why a DVI source can be connected to an HDMI monitor, or vice versa, with a DVI/HDMI cable, with no intervening converter box.
The upshot of this article--in case you're not inclined to read all the details--is that it's very hard to predict whether a digital DVI or HDMI connection will produce a better or worse image than an analog component video connection. There will often be significant differences between the digital and the analog signals, but those differences are not inherent in the connection type and instead depend upon the characteristics of the source device (e.g., your DVD player) and the display device (e.g., your TV set). Why that is, however, requires a bit more discussion.
What are DVI, HDMI and Component Video?
DVI/HDMI and Component Video are all video standards which support a variety of resolutions, but which deliver the signal from the source to the display in very different ways. The principal important difference is that DVI/HDMI deliver the signal in a digital format, much the same way that a file is delivered from one computer to another along a network, while Component Video is an analog format, delivering the signal not as a bitstream, but as a set of continuously varying voltages representing (albeit indirectly, as we'll get to in a moment) the red, green and blue components of the signal.
Both DVI/HDMI and Component Video deliver signals as discrete red, green, and blue color components, together with sync information which allows the display to determine when a new line, or a new frame, begins. The DVI/HDMI standard delivers these along three data channels in a format called T.M.D.S., which stands for "Transmission Minimized Differential Signaling." Big words aside, the T.M.D.S. format basically involves a blue channel to which horizontal and vertical sync are added, and separate green and red channels.
Component Video is delivered, similarly, with the color information split up three ways. However, component video uses a "color-difference" type signal, which consists of Luminance (the "Y", or "green," channel, representing the total brightness of the image), Red Minus Luminance (the "Pr," or "Red," channel), and Blue Minus Luminance (the "Pb," or "Blue," channel). The sync pulses for both horizontal and vertical are delivered on the Y channel. The display calculates the values of red, green and blue from the Y, Pb, and Pr signals.
Both signal types, then, are fundamentally quite similar; they break up the image in similar ways, and deliver the same type of information to the display, albeit in different forms. How they differ, as we'll see, will depend to a great extent upon the particular characteristics of the source and display devices, and can depend upon cabling as well.
Isn't Digital Just Better?
It is often supposed by writers on this subject that "digital is better." Digital signal transfer, it is assumed, is error-free, while analog signals are always subject to some amount of degradation and information loss. There is an element of truth to this argument, but it tends to fly in the face of real-world considerations. First, there is no reason why any perceptible degradation of an analog component video signal should occur even over rather substantial distances; the maximum runs in home theater installations do not present a challenge for analog cabling built to professional standards. Second, it is a flawed assumption to suppose that digital signal handling is always error-free. DVI and HDMI signals aren't subject to error correction; once information is lost, it's lost for good. That is not a consideration with well-made cable over short distances, but can easily become a factor at distance.
So What Does Determine Image Quality?
Video doesn't just translate directly from source material to displays, for a variety of reasons. Very few displays operate at the native resolutions of common source material, so when you're viewing material in 480p, 720p, or 1080i, there is, of necessity, some scaling going on. Meanwhile, the signals representing colors have to be accurately rendered, which is dependent on black level and "delta," the relationship between signal level and actual as-rendered color level. Original signal formats don't correspond well to display hardware; for example, DVD recordings have 480 lines, but non-square pixels. What all of this means is that there is signal processing to go on along the signal chain.
The argument often made for the DVI or HDMI signal formats is the "pure digital" argument--that by taking a digital recording, such as a DVD or a digital satellite signal, and rendering it straight into digital form as a DVI or HDMI signal, and then delivering that digital signal straight to the display, there is a sort of a perfect no-loss-and-no-alteration-of-i nformation signal chain. If the display itself is a native digital display (e.g. an LCD or Plasma display), the argument goes, the signal never has to undergo digital-to-analog conversion and therefore is less altered along the way.
That might be true, were it not for the fact that digital signals are encoded in different ways and have to be converted, and that these signals have to be scaled and processed to be displayed. Consequently, there are always conversions going on, and these conversions aren't always easy going. "Digital to digital" conversion is no more a guarantee of signal quality than "digital to analog," and in practice may be substantially worse. Whether it's better or worse will depend upon the circuitry involved--and that is something which isn't usually practical to figure out. As a general rule, with consumer equipment, one simply doesn't know how signals are processed, and one doesn't know how that processing varies by input. Analog and digital inputs must either be scaled through separate circuits, or one must be converted to the other to use the same scaler. How is that done? In general, you won't find an answer to that anywhere in your instruction manual, and even if you did, it'd be hard to judge which is the better scaler without viewing the actual video output. It's fair to say, in general, that even in very high-end consumer gear, the quality of circuits for signal processing and scaling is quite variable.
Additionally, it's not uncommon to find that the display characteristics of different inputs have been set up differently. Black level, for example, may vary considerably from the digital to the analog inputs, and depending on how sophisticated your setup options on your display are, that may not be an easy thing to recalibrate.
The Role of Cable and Connection Quality
Cable quality, in general, should not be a significant factor in the DVI/HDMI versus Component Video comparison, as long as the cables in question are of high quality. There are, however, ways in which cable quality issues can come into play.
Analog component video is an extremely robust signal type; we have had our customers run analog component, without any need for boosters, relays or other special equipment, up to 200 feet without any signal quality issues at all. However, at long lengths, cable quality can be a consideration--in particular, impedance needs to be strictly controlled to a tight tolerance (ideally, 75 +/- 1.5 ohms) to prevent problems with signal reflection which can cause ghosting or ringing.
DVI and HDMI, unfortunately, are not so robust. The problem here is the same as the virtue of analog component: tight control over impedance. When the professional video industry went to digital signals, it settled upon a standard--SDI, serial digital video--which was designed to be run in coaxial cables, where impedance can be controlled very tightly, and consequently, uncompressed, full-blown HD signals can be run hundreds of feet with no loss of information in SDI. For reasons known only to the designers of the DVI and HDMI standards, this very sound design principle was ignored; instead of coaxial cable, the DVI and HDMI signals are run balanced, through twisted-pair cable. The best twisted pair cables control impedance to about +/- 10%. When a digital signal is run through a cable, the edges of the bits (represented by sudden transitions in voltage) round off, and the rounding increases dramatically with distance. Meanwhile, poor control over impedance results in signal reflections--portions of the signal bounce off of the display end of the line, propagate back down the cable, and return, interfering with later information in the same bitstream. At some point, the data become unrecoverable, and with no error correction available, there's no way to restore the lost information.
DVI and HDMI connections, for this reason, are subject to the "digital cliff" phenomenon. Up to some length, a DVI or HDMI cable will perform just fine; the rounding and reflections will not compromise the ability of the display device to reconstruct the original bitstream, and no information will be lost. As we make the cable longer and longer, the difficulty of reconstructing the bitstream increases. At some point, unrecoverable bit errors start to occur; these are colloquially described in the home theater community as "sparklies," because the bit errors manifest themselves as pixel dropouts which make the image sparkle. If we make the cable just a bit longer, so much information is lost that the display becomes unable to reconstitute enough information to even render an image; the bitstream has fallen off the digital cliff, so called because of the abruptness of the failure. A cable design that works perfectly at 20 feet may get "sparkly" at 25, and stop working entirely at 30.
In practice, it's very hard to say when a DVI or HDMI signal will fail. We have found well-made DVI cables to be quite reliable up to 50 feet, but HDMI cable, with its smaller profile, is a bit more of a puzzle. Because the ability to reconstitute the bitstream varies depending on the quality of the circuitry in the source and display devices, it's not uncommon for a cable to work fine at 30, 40, or 50 feet on one source/display combination, and not work at all on another.
The Upshot: It Depends
So, which is better, DVI or component? HDMI or component? The answer--unsatisfying, perhaps, but true--is that it depends. It depends upon your source and display devices, and there's no good way, in principle, to say in advance whether the digital or the analog connection will render a better picture. You may even find, say, that your DVD player looks better through its DVI or HDMI output, while your satellite or cable box looks better through its component output, on the same display. In this case, there's no real substitute for simply plugging it in and giving it a try both ways. MAN! AND I JUST BOUGHT TWO "HDMI" MONSTER 400 CABLES. SONY IS SELLING THIS BULLSHIT "HD" HYPE TO PEOPLE THAT WON'T HAVE THE DIVICE'S TO SQUEEZ THE SMALL DIFFERENCES THAT HDMI PROVIDES OVER COMPONET. LOL
i had digital cable at one time and for me, component wasn't fast enough to carry the video signals smoothly. for example, when watching an HD channel, whenever there's fast moving objects of any kind, the image would get pixelized.
so i switched over to my HDMI connection and what did you know? it got rid of the pixelization. i've read about component vs hdmi/dvi and more people seem to lean towards HDMI or DVI as being slighly better than Components.
as for Monster cables, THATS A MAJOR RIP-OFF! those things are overpriced. you can get hmdi or component cables for $10-$12 on ebay.
Ippon!!!!!!!!!!1 the point goes to prologic.
Dude should have took the green pill.
Sorry about being off topic but here's some good reads about the future of gaming. I tried to post it in both PS3 and 360 sides but the mods screwed it up. enjoy!!
Ray tracing soon to go real-time for 3D rendering: http://arstechnica.com/news... Heres one paper about raytracing on cell, it used single SPE to do all necessary calculations.
Hdmi seems to transfer data and images more smoothly and clearly. The ps3 has that right?
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.