File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hay guyz, what movie is the guards thing from?
>> Anonymous
Jackie Chan's version of Around the World in 80 days.
>> Anonymous
If it actually plays blu-ray movies properly, $599 is almost a good deal considering that the standalone blu-ray players are $1000. If it plays blu-ray movies poorly then it's not worth it.
>> Anonymous
>>326672
by the time it reaches the states, blue-ray will either be dead, or the systems will be below $300...
>> Anonymous
Blue ray will be obsolite in 2 years. They are already in the works with fine tuning green ray.
>> Anonymous
>>326700
Not likely.
>> Zodd
Blue-Ray is gonna die just like HD DVDs. I can't believe idiots don't see this yet. These two formats are useless, nobody wants them, and the public could care less, as they are perfectly content with DVD. Remember all the failure formats that tried to overtake VHS and failed miserably? Laserdisc, VCD, Beta, etc. Well, guess what, HD DVDs and Blu-ray fall right into that category. Just like Laserdisc, Beta and VCD were technically superior to VHS, HD DVD and Blu-ray are technically superior to DVD. But it doesn't matter, becuase they are expensive, pointless, make no SIGNIFICANT improvements that warrant a new format, and have no appeal to the general public, which is perfectly content with just wathcing DVDs. DVDs suceeded becuase it had been a long time since there was a new format, widely-popular, made a very noticable improvement over VHS, and they were sensible for the average viewer. Blu-ray and HD have none of this, and will end up failing like laserdisc, VCD and Beta, and DVD will ultimately stick around for a long time. And becuase of this, the Blu-ray compatibility of PS3 won't matter.
>> Anonymous
Yes, at the moment Blu-Ray is too expensive to become mainstream.
>> Anonymous
>>326727
i do hope you know that blu-ray isnt just for the fact that it can play movies, but that the discs can hold an absolutely massive amount of info compared to dvds and other media.
>> Anonymous
>>326736
YEAH IT CAN HOLD 50 GIGS, SO FOR THE PRICE OF 1000$ YOU CAN HOLD FIFTY GIGS, FUCK DUDE, JUST GET HD DVD IT HOLDS 25 GIGS LESS, AND IS SEVERAL TIME CHEAPER
>> Anonymous
>>326700
After this will be developed yellow and purp0l lazerz which are more suited for frikkin' cool looking light sabers. For Jedis on the motherfucking academy.
>> Anonymous
>>326672
what kind of retard would try to sell bluray as a movie player? first off movies are just noiw getting ready to move to the download market like music, second, who the fuck would want to pay 40 bucks for a movie, 3) a human couldn't tell the quality difference if he wanted to anyway, so what's the point.
>> Anonymous
>>326727

Actually, Blu-ray and HD-DVD do not have the same shortcomings as the formats you mentioned.
Beta: Failed because the tapes held less than 2 hrs of video and the quality difference wasn't significant enough to warrant having to pay double price to stick one movie on two videotapes.
VCD: Failed because it provided picture and sound quality that wasn't as good as VHS. It had no market backing by any of the studios in the US and no one wanted to manufacture the players until DVD was widely available.
Laserdisc: Failed because it required a clean room to press the discs, causing them to cost way more that the average consumer was willing to pay for a video. It also lacked any possibility of being recordable.

DVD suceeded because it was portable, inexpensive, and offered much higher quality picture and sound compared to videotape. The format was bolstered by the release of DVD-R and DVD recorders.

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD have only one major problem. They jumped the gun and started releasing the discs before the TVs and computer monitors that can actually support the improved resolution are widely available. The problem is that by the time 1080p-capable HDTVs are affordable to the mass public, there will probably be someone who manages to crack the formats and rip the videos. Besides that, when either one of the groups behind the formats decides to release recordable media, the other will be forced to follow suit in order to keep up.
>> Anonymous
It's useless. There exists no software or movie at the moment that only fits on a fucking 50GB disc. So why the need for such a medium?
>> Anonymous
>>326745
actually, the compression is lower, leading to less artifacting, which is more noticeable on the HDTVs, the color depth is higher which takes up more space, and the videos can run at a true 60-fps speed at 1080 resolution, if the source permits, which takes up double the storage space for the video but makes the video look truely amazing.
>> Firek
Ahh, you also underestimate the simple man's need to have the new "thing". If magazines, TV etc will advertise Blue Ray as the "next big thing", a lot of people will be all over it to brag and be cool in front of their, equally simple and materialistic, friends. :)

Personally I'm quite content with good old DVDs. Then again, in the early months of DivX media I was all like "OMFG is this even possible?!" when I saw an anime episode endoded in DivX (Vandread, I think it was). Today I get similar quality on Google Videos. ;) Hence, in a few years, having a full anime series on a few DVDs instead of, say, one Blue-Ray disc, will seem as outdated as keeping them on CDs is now. :)

In time, as commonly available Internet connections grow faster and faster and video files will be able to afford less compression (=larger), new storage media will become a must-have, like DVD-Rs nowadays. But for now, it will probably be all about hype. :)
>> Anonymous
gb2/g/, all of you.
>> Anonymous
I was happy with DVD until i saw lord of the rings extended collectors edition split up on two DVDs. That's annoying. However i'm not going to replace my DVDs so the new players better play DVDs too or i'll just save my money until the next Media format change. I still don't have a real DVD player, just a PS2 and it's DVDplayer is a luxury i could do without just fine.
>> Anonymous
>>326743
40 bucks for a movie
.....
http://www.amazon.com/House-Flying-Daggers-Blu-ray-Anita/dp/B000EZ7ZYK/sr=8-11/qid=1159831916/ref=pd
_bbs_11/002-0427952-4180864?ie=UTF8&s=dvd
>> Anonymous
>>326743
Or maybe just you cant.
>> Anonymous
I think we can all agree the majority of people posting anti-PS3 comments here are poor idiots that bitch about how they can't afford something when in the back of their mind they would kill to have one.

You're all so pathetic
>> Anonymous
>>326856
as a "hard working" internetS citizen, i just want the most bang for my buck, How about you try to convince a whole nation to justify
a $599.00 purchase of consumer electronics that does only two things well...play video games and watch movies?
>> Anonymous
Yeah, FUCK poor people!

But no, seriously. I'd spend two grand on a Wii, and I'm broke as hell. I just think the PS3 is totally gay.
>> Anonymous
>>327013
I've seen more people pay more for things that just do one thing well. This seriously isnt that astounding. PS3 will still be a good system for people willing to put out the cash.

>>327016
Of course you would, because you're the type that feels the need to call everything 'gay'. I know that's not a very good argument, but it seems you already crossed over into bat country with your remark, so moot point.
>> Dmuerto
Dude who was asking what the guards part is from-
Around THe World In 80 Days with Jackie Chan-
And for people bitching about the PS3-if you can afford it buy it if you wish but if you cant just like me, im waiting till next year to buy it- because i have to upgrade my machine(computer)to get ready for Assasin's Creed.
>> Anonymous
There was no argument over the PS3's quality in the first place. I don't need to say what's wrong with the PS3 until Sony says what's right with it.
>> Anonymous
I am bummed at the delay in Australia but the PS2 was $750AU the PS3 in $999AU not a great difference. Being the best of the bunch due to shear backing in titles