Blu Ray.... hypey b.s. or worth the investment?

[Caseyelan]

dave and I got a HD DVD player and it was the tits.
But now that the format is dead, I had been waiting on looking into the blu ray investment.
We watch ALOT of films.
ALOT.
I waited and waited and watched the prices drop slowly.

SO BLU RAY PEEPS?

WHEN DO I GET IN?

Or should I still wait it out?

is it REALLY that much better?

[NYHCmikeX]

Stupid question, but do you guys have a HDTV?

If you do, it is a signifigant amount better than regular DVDs, but they are also still expensive. If I was you, I'd wait for price to drop even more (which I assume will happen) and get one. I use my PS3 pretty much exclusively as a blu-ray player now and enjoy it.

[Caseyelan]

Stupid question, but do you guys have a HDTV?

If you do, it is a signifigant amount better than regular DVDs, but they are also still expensive. If I was you, I'd wait for price to drop even more (which I assume will happen) and get one. I use my PS3 pretty much exclusively as a blu-ray player now and enjoy it.

yeah, we have a hdtv thingy.
My pops hooked it up for xmas last year.
It's nice looking... but breaks more then heinz has pickles.

Fuck westinghouse.

[donnie_darko]

are you waiting for the prices to go down further?

If you do get one make sure its firmware is upgradeable.

You might just want to wait till the ps3 price drop, which is rumored to be happening soon..

[paulisded]

Casey, you know me well enough that I have to have all the new electronic toys...including those that never really make it (lazerdisc, DAT, SACD, etc.). I love my blu-ray player, though. The jump in quality is close, but not quite, as dramatic as going from a regular digital cable channel to the hi-def version. Plus, it also upgrades the quality of your existing DVD's (although new DVD players now do the same).

I will say this, though. Unlike previous audio and video upgrades, I don't feel the need to re-purchase my entire library. I've done it with a few titles (Godfather box, Kill Bill, etc.) but for the first time ever I've shown some restraint. But I now pick the blu-ray version of anything that comes out in both formats.

[KnoxHarrington]

Another thing to keep in mind: a lot of the Blu-Ray players on the market are the old models, lacking support for "BD Live", which allows you to hook the player up to the Internet for things like live chats with the directors/stars of movies, etc. But the early attempts at BD-Live programming have been disappointing.

So you can probably get a player without it pretty damn cheap, and if you just want to watch movies, that's perfectly fine.

[EddieMoscone]

I am thinking about waiting for Blu-Ray player/Recorder to come out (and also wait for the subsequent price drop on them).

[MisterSmith]

Casey, you know me well enough that I have to have all the new electronic toys...including those that never really make it (lazerdisc, DAT, SACD, etc.). I love my blu-ray player, though. The jump in quality is close, but not quite, as dramatic as going from a regular digital cable channel to the hi-def version. Plus, it also upgrades the quality of your existing DVD's (although new DVD players now do the same).

I will say this, though. Unlike previous audio and video upgrades, I don't feel the need to re-purchase my entire library. I've done it with a few titles (Godfather box, Kill Bill, etc.) but for the first time ever I've shown some restraint. But I now pick the blu-ray version of anything that comes out in both formats.

I think that is probably the biggest advantage to Blu-Ray, that it is backwards compatible to regular DVD, improves the look of them, plus allows you to adopt the newest technology.

However, they are still pretty darn expensive. It is tough to find one worth its salt for less than $200. I am going to wait to pick one up myself.

[DolaMight]

If you're happy with the way HD-DVD looks then Blue-Ray will be exactly the same.

They're under 200$ now but you might as well spend 400$ to get a PS3. I don't think they're gonna drop the price for at least 4-6 months and it'll probably only be 350$. The PS3 will always be better video/audio quality than the under 500$ blue ray players because sony is constantly is updating it with the latest features. That and the fact the million other things it does, it's well worth the money even if you use it just for DVD's.

Plus Dave needs to find a new game other than mariocart.

[JimBeam]

My wife and I got one for Christmas but haven't hooked it up yet.

Outside of the free rentals we got w/ it I can see me using it as a " regular " DVD player for now.

Not gonna buy and of the discs at this point.

[furie]

yeah, we have a hdtv thingy.
My pops hooked it up for xmas last year.
It's nice looking... but breaks more then heinz has pickles.

Fuck westinghouse.

WESTINGHouse still makes tv's?!

[PanterA]

If you're going to get blu-ray you might as well get the Playstation 3.

[dryerdoor]

If you're going to get blu-ray you might as well get the Playstation 3.

Cheaper too.

[Contra]

Casey the blu ray is awsome. You will enjoy it since it seems you guys watch as many movies as me and my chick. The PS3 is the best option, I LOVE it! As its been mentioned, you don't have to repurchase all the DVDs you have because the PS3 upscales DVDs to near HD status. Plus the PS3 does all types of other things besides play movies and games. Just remember to get a HD connection wire to run between the PS3 and your HDTV, its the only thing not included, but they don't cost much.

[underdog]

Other than the amazing picture quality, my favorite thing about blu ray (and HD DVD) is the menus. I love the fact that you can pull up the menu while you're watching it, and you don't have to jump back to a home menu every time.

[TheMojoPin]

Hype-y bullshit.

If you have agood TV, yes, the picture is amazing, but it's basically a steroid-pumped version of a dying format. It would be like if a "super-quality" VHS tape had been introduced about 5 years before DVD's showed up and slaughtered the medium. Personally, I'm gonna save the money and keep bying regular DVD's and just get an upscaling player.

[paulisded]

Hype-y bullshit.

If you have agood TV, yes, the picture is amazing, but it's basically a steroid-pumped version of a dying format. It would be like if a "super-quality" VHS tape had been introduced about 5 years before DVD's showed up and slaughtered the medium. Personally, I'm gonna save the money and keep bying regular DVD's and just get an upscaling player.

The DVD player in my bedroom died, so I bought an upscaling player for $60 that looks fantastic.

[IMSlacker]

Don't listen to Mojo. Get a ps3. It's the shit.

[TheMojoPin]

The DVD player in my bedroom died, so I bought an upscaling player for $60 that looks fantastic.

Nice! That's exactly what I want to do.

[TheMojoPin]

Don't listen to Mojo. Get a ps3. It's the shit.

Or get a Wii and actually have fun playing video games again.

I love the success story of the Wii and the DS and how they trounce the other systems out there. The others might have stronger game engines and be more "extreme" or whatever, but Nintendo remebered what it was like to just have fun playing video games. Elegant simplicity. The PS3 isn't a good investment except for serious gamers who refuse to play anything that isn't ridiculously powerful graphics-wise and packed with carnage and cut scenes.

[instrument]

What does a wii have to do with playing bluray?

And if you paid attention to the show you'd know they already have a wi

[TheMojoPin]

What does a wii have to do with playing bluray?

Just saying, it seems silly to get a PS3 unless someone i really into the types of games it plays. To only get it for DVD's seems costly and redundant.

[psycho]

I think it's worth it to buy movies on Blu-Ray, but you have to be willing to accept that it might not be a permanent format because the sales are terrible and people might either stick with DVD or move to digital downloads next. I don't really care if it sticks around or not, the movies look great and nothing sticks forever anyways.

[IMSlacker]

Just saying, it seems silly to get a PS3 unless someone i really into the types of games it plays. To only get it for DVD's seems costly and redundant.

The PS3 is the same price or cheaper than a good stand-alone Blu-ray player. It has a wireless card, so you can connect it to your home network and get firm wear updated. I only have two games for my PS3. I mostly use it for watching DVD's, and streaming movies from Netflix and Hulu. We also load photos on there using the card reader that most other Blu-ray players don't come with. It has a cool slide show feature.

[HBox]

Just saying, it seems silly to get a PS3 unless someone i really into the types of games it plays. To only get it for DVD's seems costly and redundant.

Duh to the first part, and until recently the PS3 was the cheapest Blu-Ray player so that was why people bought. It's still one of the best Blu-Ray players out there as far as features and audio format support.

[TheMojoPin]

The PS3 is the same price or cheaper than a good stand-alone Blu-ray player. It has a wireless card, so you can connect it to your home network and get firm wear updated. I only have two games for my PS3. I mostly use it for watching DVD's, and streaming movies from Netflix and Hulu. We also load photos on there using the card reader that most other Blu-ray players don't come with. It has a cool slide show feature.

I like Paul's $60 upscaling player option better. Besides, the Blu-Ray market is like the regular DVD market...there's a variety of players out there for different price ranges. People often think they need to shell out more to get the job done well.

[HBox]

I like Paul's $60 upscaling player option better.

I see absolutely no difference between a standard and upscaled DVD.

[DolaMight]

enough with the upscaling dvd players and PS3's converting regular DVD's to near HD qual.

It's bullshit. If you have a HDTV, whatever low-def device you hook up to it, the TV upscales it to 720P or 1080p, whatever the native resolution of your tv is. that's how they're built.

Buying a player that "upscales" is just duplicating what your tv already does. If you people honestly thinks it looks anything like actual HD you're on marketing M.D. Placebo medication.

Keep telling yourself it looks HD and you'll eventually convince yourself.

Do you ever use digital zoom on your digital camera? no? why? same thing as upscaling. There's no such thing as a magic computer algorithm that guesses perfectly what each of the millions of missing HD pixels should have been.

[TheMojoPin]

Then screw it, I'm happy with regular old DVD. Looks fine to me. Blu-Ray does have a better image, but so what? It's not like I was watching a bad one on a regular DVD player with a non-HD TV. Blu-Ray and HD are just redundant variations. They scream "Laserdisc."

[IMSlacker]

I like Paul's $60 upscaling player option better. Besides, the Blu-Ray market is like the regular DVD market...there's a variety of players out there for different price ranges. People often think they need to shell out more to get the job done well.

Yeah, when I got my PS3 last year, there weren't any $200 Blu-ray players on the market. So, it was a pretty easy decision. I got a refurbished 60G one from Game Stop. I think it only cost me about $360.

edit: wow, what a liar I am. I just found the confirmation email. it was $450.

[underdog]

I like Paul's $60 upscaling player option better. Besides, the Blu-Ray market is like the regular DVD market...there's a variety of players out there for different price ranges. People often think they need to shell out more to get the job done well.

There really isn't that many "cheap" blu ray players in the market right now. That's why people say the PS3 is such a good value. It may seem expensive, but its still one of the cheapest blu ray players out there.

Then screw it, I'm happy with regular old DVD. Looks fine to me. Blu-Ray does have a better image, but so what? It's not like I was watching a bad one on a regular DVD player with a non-HD TV. Blu-Ray and HD are just redundant variations. They scream "Laserdisc."

The difference between regular DVD and blu ray on a large screen tv is astonishing. My wife says there's no difference, but she also has to wear corrective lenses because she can't see shit.

[TheMojoPin]

The difference between regular DVD and blu ray on a large screen tv is astonishing. My wife says there's no difference, but she also has to wear corrective lenses because she can't see shit.

I'm not saying there isn't difference...just that people might want to take into consideration the very finite nature of the medium and the extra cost of buying these films when they're on their way out.

[paulisded]

I'm not saying there isn't difference...just that people might want to take into consideration the very finite nature of the medium and the extra cost of buying these films when they're on their way out.

There's also the reality that for the majority of consumers such high quality is not important. Why do you think you can still find 8-tracks and cassettes in hayseed truck stops? For most people, a regular TV is good enough...and if you don't have a HD television there's no reason for a blu-ray.

BTW, even in high-def a shit movie is still shit...as I'm finding out right now while watching Wanted.

[underdog]

I'm not saying there isn't difference...just that people might want to take into consideration the very finite nature of the medium and the extra cost of buying these films when they're on their way out.

I don't think someone should go replace their whole library, but I buy every new movie I can on either HD DVD or blu ray, and will continue to do so. If blu ray dies, I'll still be able to watch those movies.

Also, blu ray sales keep rising.

[TheMojoPin]

I don't think someone should go replace their whole library, but I buy every new movie I can on either HD DVD or blu ray, and will continue to do so. If blu ray dies, I'll still be able to watch those movies.

Also, blu ray sales keep rising.

Maybe then the prices of the movies will drop. Until then, I'd rather spend around $10 for a regular DVD.

[DolaMight]

I'm not saying there isn't difference...just that people might want to take into consideration the very finite nature of the medium and the extra cost of buying these films when they're on their way out.

For HD there's a huge difference for sports and music concerts and some movies where they basically don't use any artificial lighting.

You're right if you noticed that any recent Hollywood movie doesn't look that much better than standard dvd.

The main reason is always the same. The lighting they use on set in movies evolved to perfection in a low def world to make the most out of the picture they're working with. They still film movies with a priority to make it look as good as it can on a low def screen as that's the majority of the market. Until HD is the only medium you won't see a huge difference between typical HD and LD movies for the most part. Driving Miss Daisy will look the same in both formats, but an animated movie with high contrast like Sin City will look spectacular in HD vs LD. It depends what you're watching.

Same goes for TV, the makeup they use for Conan was formulated in a LD world. The first time I saw him in HD I couldn't get over how old he was. Until then he still seemed 30 to me. It's gotten better since but TV producers are struggling trying to produce content for both LD and HD simultaneously.

Also take note that any Blue Ray movie made before 2002 probably isn't HD. Before then unless you're george lucas and you had the foresight to film the master copy in digital the best picture you can get is basically a perfect 1:1 copy of the master film reel. Sure rereleasing an old movie will look better but the source is still low def.

It's the same as scanning old family photographs, it can only look as good as the original, nowhere near the detail of your 12mp SLR digital camera.

[DolaMight]

The difference between regular DVD and blu ray on a large screen tv is astonishing. My wife says there's no difference, but she also has to wear corrective lenses because she can't see shit.

They say in regards to HD and Blue Ray discs unless you have a 40"+ sized TV you can't appreciate the enhanced detail of HD.

I only have a 61" 720p/1080i so I can't say if that's true or not but mathematically speaking it makes sense.

Scientifically speaking your wife needs new human eyeballs.

[HBox]

It's not only resolution. With a Blu-Ray player and a high-end HDTV you can watch films in their native frame rate. Most movies are filmed at 24 frames per second but TVs play video at 30 frames per second. It doesn't sound like a major difference and I can't describe the difference but it is just as stark a difference as going from SD to HD resolutions. A movie playing at 1080[ 24p is something to behold. If you go to a decently run electronics store you can see it. You will know the difference when you can see it.

I don't know how affordable those sets are, last time I checked it was harsh. But taking price out of if (because eventually it will come down) it's absolutely stunning.

[Dirtbag]

The biggest problem with Blu-Ray isn't even the cost of the hardware, its the cost of the movies. Why would you pay at least $30 for a Blu-Ray when you can get the same thing on DVD for $18? And that's just for new releases. If you want an older movie you can probably pick up the DVD for around $9 when the Blu-Ray is still the same as a brand new movie. I went with a PS3 over an XBox 360 just because of the Blu-Ray, and it is worth it, but I've only bought 3 movies for the thing.

[underdog]

Maybe then the prices of the movies will drop. Until then, I'd rather spend around $10 for a regular DVD.

They are rather pricey. That was one of the best things of the format war; prices stayed rather low just to compete. We've lost that now, and blu ray skyrocketed.

They say in regards to HD and Blue Ray discs unless you have a 40"+ sized TV you can't appreciate the enhanced detail of HD.

I only have a 61" 720p/1080i so I can't say if that's true or not but mathematically speaking it makes sense.

I also have a 61" tv, and the difference is staggering. When HD DVD hit it big, I had a 52" and I ran out and bought the player just because it was so much better looking.

Scientifically speaking your wife needs new human eyeballs.

She certainly does.

[DolaMight]

It's not only resolution. With a Blu-Ray player and a high-end HDTV you can watch films in their native frame rate. Most movies are filmed at 24 frames per second but TVs play video at 30 frames per second. It doesn't sound like a major difference and I can't describe the difference but it is just as stark a difference as going from SD to HD resolutions. A movie playing at 1080[ 24p is something to behold. If you go to a decently run electronics store you can see it. You will know the difference when you can see it.

I don't know how affordable those sets are, last time I checked it was harsh. But taking price out of if (because eventually it will come down) it's absolutely stunning.

1080p is actually the only standard they manufacture now. It's about time but but it's only a couple 100 bucks to get the equivalent 1080 vs 720 big screen if you still have a choice. 2 years ago it was 2000$ more to get the same TV in 1080p vs 720p/1080i.They want to have one HD standard just to bring manufacturing costs down.

The new gimmick is 120 hz vs 60hz. It's about 500$ more for the 120hz. Just for LCD tv's. Blue Rays have a refresh rate of 60 frames a second yet your tv refreshes at 120 times a second. They say the motion is more fluid but the source is still 60 frames. I'm not sold on the idea.

[disneyspy]

the only way i can tell the diff with my blu ray is on my projector,its set at 10' on the smaller 43" lcd i have there isnt a noticable difference tween it and the hdmi dvd player

[JustJon]

I've actually been doing research on bluray because it looks amazing.

Looking at comparisons, it goes in order of quality: Upscaled DVD, HD from Cable, Bluray.
Side by side, there is a very definite difference. If you aren't interested or don't have a tv that would support it, stick with upscaled dvd.

As far as players go, there are two things to know. There is serious load time to bluray discs and that features are constantly updated (2.0 vs 2.1, BD Live, etc.) because it was put out before the spec was finalized.

My research pretty much said that the PS3 was the best bluray player. Games not withstanding, Sony constantly pushes updates to the system, keeping the player up to date with the latest features, and the movies can cache to the system hard drive, causing the discs to load faster (a serious issue to me)


I know Dave and Casey are film buffs, and they say above that they have a good tv, so if they want a high quality film experience, get the cheapest ps3 (I know Dave likes to game anyway) and add Bluray discs to their netflix queue.

[The Jays]

Or get a Wii and actually have fun playing video games again.

I love the success story of the Wii and the DS and how they trounce the other systems out there. The others might have stronger game engines and be more "extreme" or whatever, but Nintendo remebered what it was like to just have fun playing video games. Elegant simplicity. The PS3 isn't a good investment except for serious gamers who refuse to play anything that isn't ridiculously powerful graphics-wise and packed with carnage and cut scenes.


While the success of Wii and DS is a wake up call to the industry, the online play sucks ass, which is what I like about gaming. Wii is way too family oriented... I went into Gamestop to find some games, and they had some game about raising kittens, another game about babies, one game for Top Chef, another game for Hell's Kitchen... Most of the games for the Wii suck ass unless they are a sports game or Wii Fit or Mario Kart. I wanted to play truly awesome games like Call of Duty or GTA, so I had to suck it up and get an Xbox 360, because Wii sucks at the real video games play aspects.

[HBox]

While the success of Wii and DS is a wake up call to the industry, the online play sucks ass, which is what I like about gaming. Wii is way too family oriented... I went into Gamestop to find some games, and they had some game about raising kittens, another game about babies, one game for Top Chef, another game for Hell's Kitchen... Most of the games for the Wii suck ass unless they are a sports game or Wii Fit or Mario Kart. I wanted to play truly awesome games like Call of Duty or GTA, so I had to suck it up and get an Xbox 360, because Wii sucks at the real video games play aspects.

The only Wii games I even consider anymore are made by Nintendo. They seem to be the only company even remotely interested in using the motion controls to push gameplay, and even they aren't doing much. Just about all of the reat are gimmicky mini-game collections or lousy racers.

And the online gaming is atrocious. I bought Super Smash Brothers way back when it came out in the Spring. I can count on one hand the amount of matches I've been able to play other than with my friends. It doesn't even count as bad. It would have to work first.

I was so thrilled when the Wii was announced thinking that it revolutionize the way we play games. Instead they make mini-games and crammed motion controls where they didn't belong and two years later they are still making the same exact games. The only game I'm waiting for on the Wii is Punch-Out, made by Nintendo of course.

It's not impossible, the DS has an incredible library with great titles in just about every genre you can think of. Everything from Contra 4 to Castlevania to Phoenix Wright to Nintendogs to Cooking Mama.

[HBox]

But to get off the tangent and back on track: To reiterate what was said earlier, if you found HD-DVD was worth it then you will find Blu-Ray worth it. As far as when you put the disc in the machine the experience will be no different.

The safest bet would be to get a PS3. If you don't care about the features like surround sound and audio codecs and you are just using your TVs speakers then you don't need the PS3; just get the cheapest one you can find. If you want surround sound and to use the internet-enabled features then it's either PS3 or doing some research to find what will exactly fill your needs.

[TheMojoPin]

While the success of Wii and DS is a wake up call to the industry, the online play sucks ass, which is what I like about gaming. Wii is way too family oriented... I went into Gamestop to find some games, and they had some game about raising kittens, another game about babies, one game for Top Chef, another game for Hell's Kitchen... Most of the games for the Wii suck ass unless they are a sports game or Wii Fit or Mario Kart. I wanted to play truly awesome games like Call of Duty or GTA, so I had to suck it up and get an Xbox 360, because Wii sucks at the real video games play aspects.

That's the thing though...it's not like video games were branching out ino the general marketplace in terms of audience appeal. The "niche" audience for video games has certainly gotten bigger as more and more kids grow up with video games, but stuff like GTA and CoD and their ilk, as they get more and more advanced and complicated, they're not drawing in "outsiders" (non-gamers) like the Wii has. The Wii is the first system to branch out as amazingly wide as it has in terms of audience appeal. I hope they don't shift focus to games like CoD and GTA and stick with the simplified stuff. These are, after all, video GAMES. The advanced stuff have their place, obviously, and aren't going anywhere, but I think Nintendo has shown how much more appeal simplier games that emphasize gaeplay and fun over technological achievement have.

On top of that, I wonder if they've just chosen to not work more on the online play. One of the biggest pros of the Wii is that it encourages live group play. Live multiplayer games on the other systems, with the advanced games, tend to really suck unless you have a gigantic TV. Why would Nintendo worry as much about online play when the Wii specializes in encouraging group play far more than the other systems?

I just think the Wii is a refreshing alternative and I hope it stays that way.

[MacVittie]

I'm sure a movie like Raiders of the Lost Ark is much better looking on blu ray as opposed to DVD, but I can't imagine something like Annie Hall being enhanced to much by blu ray as opposed to DVD.

Do blu-ray players play regular old DVDs?

[IMSlacker]

Do blu-ray players play regular old DVDs?

Yes.

[The Jays]

That's the thing though...it's not like video games were branching out ino the general marketplace in terms of audience appeal. The "niche" audience for video games has certainly gotten bigger as more and more kids grow up with video games, but stuff like GTA and CoD and their ilk, as they get more and more advanced and complicated, they're not drawing in "outsiders" (non-gamers) like the Wii has. The Wii is the first system to branch out as amazingly wide as it has in terms of audience appeal. I hope they don't shift focus to games like CoD and GTA and stick with the simplified stuff. These are, after all, video GAMES. The advanced stuff have their place, obviously, and aren't going anywhere, but I think Nintendo has shown how much more appeal simplier games that emphasize gaeplay and fun over technological achievement have.

On top of that, I wonder if they've just chosen to not work more on the online play. One of the biggest pros of the Wii is that it encourages live group play. Live multiplayer games on the other systems, with the advanced games, tend to really suck unless you have a gigantic TV. Why would Nintendo worry as much about online play when the Wii specializes in encouraging group play far more than the other systems?

I just think the Wii is a refreshing alternative and I hope it stays that way.

The Wii has succeeded in getting outsiders to play more video games. The con of that is that in order to make outsiders play more games, the games end up feeling like retards should be playing them. I got the Wii because Wii Sports was fun, and Mario Kart was enjoyable, and Wii Fit is fun too, but outside of those three games, the system sucks ass because they don't make real video games for the Wii, like I can't just have the Wii and expect to be able to play GTA or COD just like they do on other systems... I have to have either a 360 or PS3.

Wii is a refreshing alternative if you are used to not playing video games. If you are, then the three good games are like a mere flash-in-the-pan, and once you get tired of them, you're stuck with a shitty system that has no graphics engine, no online world, and is only good for entertaining 5 year olds and my parents, who btw now own a Wii, as do my aunt and uncle. That's a sure sign that the Wii sucks... if your parents enjoy it, you'll soon stop enjoying it.

It would be nice if a system could combine sick fully rendered multi-player gaming environments with the innovative gaming controls that the Wii has.

[The Jays]

BTW my girlfriend just yelled at me because I said I had to suck it up and get a 360... it was her hard-earned money that she used to surprise me with the awesome gift, combined with the fact that after having a near-death experience in a car, my family had decided that I was already dead in terms of Christmas because they were going to buy me awful gifts of sweaters and a velour tracksuit. I needed the 360 because I needed to be able to snipe bitches from 500 yards away or slice them with my knife, and my family doesn't understand that just because I am from Staten Island does not mean I need gifts from Ginnys R Us.

[LZMan1]

it's definitely worth the investment if you want to watch the godfather the coppola restoration. i have the PS3 and a stand alone blu-ray player. the PS3 is hooked up to a nice lil 7.1 surround system and the stand alone player is hooked up to an older 5.1 system.


the PS3 is hooked up to my onkyo 606 TX-SR606 which has 4 HDMI inputs and that in turn is hooked up to my 40" sony XBR
the stand alone one is hooked up to my yamaha reciever and an older sony 32" bravia. the 40" is 1080P and the 32 is 1080I

[Freakshow]

The Wii has succeeded in getting outsiders to play more video games. The con of that is that in order to make outsiders play more games, the games end up feeling like retards should be playing them. I got the Wii because Wii Sports was fun, and Mario Kart was enjoyable, and Wii Fit is fun too, but outside of those three games, the system sucks ass because they don't make real video games for the Wii, like I can't just have the Wii and expect to be able to play GTA or COD just like they do on other systems... I have to have either a 360 or PS3.

Wii is a refreshing alternative if you are used to not playing video games. If you are, then the three good games are like a mere flash-in-the-pan, and once you get tired of them, you're stuck with a shitty system that has no graphics engine, no online world, and is only good for entertaining 5 year olds and my parents, who btw now own a Wii, as do my aunt and uncle. That's a sure sign that the Wii sucks... if your parents enjoy it, you'll soon stop enjoying it.

It would be nice if a system could combine sick fully rendered multi-player gaming environments with the innovative gaming controls that the Wii has.


I've watched my roommate and his girlfriend play Mariocart for about an hour. I'm sick of it just from that.

Hey. Remember when Microsoft made a gaming console? Those were the days...

[angrymissy]

The Wii has succeeded in getting outsiders to play more video games. The con of that is that in order to make outsiders play more games, the games end up feeling like retards should be playing them. I got the Wii because Wii Sports was fun, and Mario Kart was enjoyable, and Wii Fit is fun too, but outside of those three games, the system sucks ass because they don't make real video games for the Wii, like I can't just have the Wii and expect to be able to play GTA or COD just like they do on other systems... I have to have either a 360 or PS3.

Wii is a refreshing alternative if you are used to not playing video games. If you are, then the three good games are like a mere flash-in-the-pan, and once you get tired of them, you're stuck with a shitty system that has no graphics engine, no online world, and is only good for entertaining 5 year olds and my parents, who btw now own a Wii, as do my aunt and uncle. That's a sure sign that the Wii sucks... if your parents enjoy it, you'll soon stop enjoying it.

It would be nice if a system could combine sick fully rendered multi-player gaming environments with the innovative gaming controls that the Wii has.

They need more stuff like this:

Delicious zombie headshots w/ wiimote
https://www.videogamesplus.ca/images/wii_resident-evil-4-wii-edition.jpg

[dryerdoor]

They need more stuff like this:

Delicious zombie headshots w/ wiimote
https://www.videogamesplus.ca/images/wii_resident-evil-4-wii-edition.jpg

You can, with Dead Rising: Horeshit Edition on the Wii.

[NewYorkDragons80]

They need more stuff like this:

Delicious zombie headshots w/ wiimote
https://www.videogamesplus.ca/images/wii_resident-evil-4-wii-edition.jpg

I thought Wii was supposed to be the family console that shunned violent video games. Apparently it was just a PR move to distance them from GTA

[celery]

Punch Out is about the only game I'm excited for in 2009. I've also heard good thing about MadWorld.

Given that Wii Sports is now the best selling game of all time (http://www.videogamer.com/news/05-01-2009-10276.html), we're going to see a lot more casual-gamer friendly games coming out on all systems.

[CountryBob]

i hate stupid casual friendly games. I want more adult themed and more survival horror in my gaming life!

[JustJon]

i hate stupid casual friendly games. I want more adult themed and more survival horror in my gaming life!

There's nothing wrong with casual friendly games. I like my violent video games, but I'm not going to break out GTA4 at a party, but Wii Sports is a great party game. Likewise, I've turned my 6 year old nephew into a gamer, but I can't play RE4 with him. I do have alot of fun playing Mario Kart and Mario Party with him on Wii.

That said, I'd like some more adult oriented games for Wii, preferably ones that aren't ports.

[Reephdweller]

Slickdeals.net advertises as Memorex BluRay player for $100 - cheapest I've seen it.

http://slickdeals.net/ (http://slickdeals.net/)

Nebraska Furniture Mart (http://slickdeals.net/?pno=17545&lno=1&afsrc=1) has Memorex Bluray Player for $100. Shipping depends on your location, and starts around $10. In-store pickup is available for those who leave near their stores in Omaha, NE or Kansas City, MO.

[drusilla]

BTW my girlfriend just yelled at me because I said I had to suck it up and get a 360... it was her hard-earned money that she used to surprise me with the awesome gift

i'm glad she called you on it, cause i was about to myself.


& the wii does have some other games aside from the family oriented ones. dr. dino's currently playing tomb raider on it.

[romanwarhelmet]

well work the investiment

i bought a ps3 just for the blue ray (and ended up playing some good games on it)
very happy with the awesomeness

[jafter]

The PS3 is the same price or cheaper than a good stand-alone Blu-ray player. It has a wireless card, so you can connect it to your home network and get firm wear updated. I only have two games for my PS3. I mostly use it for watching DVD's, and streaming movies from Netflix and Hulu. We also load photos on there using the card reader that most other Blu-ray players don't come with. It has a cool slide show feature.

When you stream from Netflix is there a lot of lagging or does it load the movie then play it. I am not sure how it works that is why I am asking. The Netflix option looks really cool pay about 10 bucks a month and get rid of HBO, Starz, and Showtime for 33 bucks a month.

[TjM]

I like it but you need a 1080p TV and SS to take advantage

[Freitag]

When you stream from Netflix is there a lot of lagging or does it load the movie then play it. I am not sure how it works that is why I am asking. The Netflix option looks really cool pay about 10 bucks a month and get rid of HBO, Starz, and Showtime for 33 bucks a month.

You can stream from NetFlix on a PS3?

[PhishHead]

You can stream from NetFlix on a PS3?

Not yet as far as netflix and sony have told people unless Slacker has an awesome hacked ps3 or something.

[Freitag]

When you stream from Netflix is there a lot of lagging or does it load the movie then play it. I am not sure how it works that is why I am asking. The Netflix option looks really cool pay about 10 bucks a month and get rid of HBO, Starz, and Showtime for 33 bucks a month.

BTW, who ARE you? I can't recall.

[Freitag]

Not yet as far as netflix and sony have told people unless Slacker has an awesome hacked ps3 or something.

I want to stream on my Xbox, it's just that I don't have live (subscription lapsed) and the idea of paying 50 bucks out is not very appealing.

[biggestmexi]

I want to stream on my Xbox, it's just that I don't have live (subscription lapsed) and the idea of paying 50 bucks out is not very appealing.

http://www.buy.com/prod/xbox-live-12-month-gold-subscription-card/q/loc/108/211086907.html

look around

[Freitag]

http://www.buy.com/prod/xbox-live-12-month-gold-subscription-card/q/loc/108/211086907.html

look around

Thanks for that. I've never used Buy. Are they trustworthy?

[biggestmexi]

Thanks for that. I've never used Buy. Are they trustworthy?

yes. and they have howie mandel on their front page usually. COME ON!!

hahaha

Ive never personally used them but they are like a smaller amazon. little bit overstock.

but they are not a site that will rip ya off.

[monkfish]

You can stream from NetFlix on a PS3?

Not directly (at least not that I'm aware of without running Linux on your PS3.)

You can use PlayOn, which uses your PC as a medium/media server as a go between NetFlix and the PS3. I've used it and it works great for Netflix streaming videos - no lag at all on my wired PS3 (I've not tried using it with my wireless PS3 across the house...I suspect that wouldn't work as smoothly.)