No HD cable with PS3?
 

High-end PS3 shipping without HDMI cable

Posted Sep 3rd 2006 10:55PM by Robert Summa
Filed under: Sony PlayStation 3, Peripherals, Business

The über version of the PlayStation 3 evidently isn't shipping with the HDMI cable needed to take advantage of 1080p Blu-ray sweetness that has been promised by Sony ever since the PS3's high-def qualities have been hyped up. According to a recently updated FAQ on the official PS3 site, it says the following: "Copy-protected Blu-ray video discs can only output at 1080p using an HDMI cable connected to a device that is compatible with the HDCP standard."

The only problem is that the HDMI cable needed to do this won't be included with your $600 PS3. That means, according to prices on places like Amazon, you'll have to shell out an extra $40 or more for the needed HD hook up. While it certainly may not be a big deal for someone who has the dough to spend $600 on a game console in the first place, for those who have been fillin' up the ol' piggy bank a penny at a time to buy this thing, it could just add to the stress and anger that's been building ever since the price was announced in May.

Sony said the $600 PS3 would play our content in 1080p. Maybe they should have made it clear we'd need an extra cable not included in the box to do so.

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/09/03/hi...ut-hdmi-cable/

So fucking what? My $600 21 inch widescreen LCD didn't come with one either. Heck didn't even come with a basic DVI cable. How many people have TVs that can support 1080p? If you have one you can afford $40. There isn't even 1080p programming out there and I'm 100% posistive that the first PS3 games won't even be geared toward 1080p. All the hollywood studios have already stated they will not require HDMI for HD-DVD/Blu-ray DVDs for YEARS.

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/about.html

Click "What is HDMI". It says pretty clearly "HDMI cable not included"

Also says here that it's not included.

http://www.us.playstation.com/PS3/specs.html

hahaha oh how did i know you would be first to post...

let me get this straight... you pay $600 for a console then you have to pay ANOTHER $40 just to view HD content...

blah blah if you can't afford $40... i'm sure ALOT of parents will be cheesed when their kids start crying over the fact they didn't get some cable...


are your favourite games FPS?

i didn't write the article... plus please do click the link that i posted... maybe it's better to read before you post :(

No. HDMI is NOT neccesary to watch HD content.

yes because kids have HDTVs

Kids do have parents you know?

So? Why should I read a stupid article? I gave you links to the ACTUAL WEBSITE that states it's not included.

So????????

the article states what you wrote...

lol... maybe thats a GOOD reason...

Kids leech money from parents? How many 12 year olds do you know that work?

yes and you act like it's some SHOCK that the HDMI in not included. So what. there is not ONE THING that needs HDMI at this point and won't for YEARS. Why isn't the atricle bashing the companies that made HDTVd for not providing these cables? Or how about the makers of HD-DVDs or Blu-ray players?

A 12 year old that is lazy doesn't deserve a PS3. Also the livingroom may have a HDTV I doubt a kid's room does. And I'm sure it isn't capable of 1080p.

Well considering XBOX 360 has already been released and the WII doesn't offer HD support the article informs people...

Do you work for Sony or something? You sure are upset about it...

So you're saying when you were a kid your parents never bought you an Atari, NES, SEGA, SNES... blah blah?

Cause you weren't "deserving"...

No, but I'm tired of PS3 bashers that haven't even played the damn thing and XBOX fanboys. You only put this thread out there to bash the 360. Otherwise why bring it up?

Hell the 360 isn't even capable of using HDM and doesn't come with ANY kind of HD player. Though they will sell one this Christmas. I'm assuming it'll be $200-$300 or more. So do the math on that one.

The Wii is a pice of shit and Nintendo has already stated it's not a "next gen" gaming machine. Well them why fucking buy it? Wii graphics only slightly better than XBOX or PS2 so why not buy on of those for $100 less and grab some games?

Actually when I was 13 I bought myself a ColecoVison with money I had earned mowing lawns that summer.

I find it ironic you stated... haven't even played the damn thing yet you bag the wii? Do you play games because of good graphics? Who cares about gameplay right?

I mean who really cares that Nintendo has thought up new ways to play games... Lets just look at pretty things instead... :(

Yes because every kid in the world who mows lawns will have $640+another 300 for games... :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

At least it has a HDMI output ... something Xbox 360 and Wii don't appear to have.

Ron

$200 for a ColecoVison is 1982=about $600 in today's money by the way.

Also what is the big deal about the $40 cable. IT IS NOT NEEDED. Show me ANYTHING just ONE THING that needs a HDMI cable in order to work. HDTV work without a HDMI cable. HD-DVD players and Blu-ray players work without them. The PS3 will work without them. Hell a PS3 and XBOX 360 will work with a regular tv. 1080p is useless on anything under 50 inches anyways. You won't see a difference. Any parent that can afford to give a child a 50+ in HDTV that is capable of 1080p can afford $40 or an HDMI cable that won't be needed for 4-5 years.

i'd rather have revolutionary gameplay then just a bunch of games with good graphics...and i laugh my ass off every time people bash nintendo based on "graphic quality". If pac man came out in hi-def today (which the wii cant do), I'll still take super smash bros melee, and resident evil 4 over a shitty game with graphics that come through crisper anyday...why? because nintendo doesnt sell their integrity to a bunch of third party developers who only care about making money (at least as often and its a fact that the playstation is the ultimate whore in terms of third party development)...just my two cents. but still halo rules all and the ps3 just isnt that impressive to me.

Oh sure I'm dying to pay $250 to play Pokemon and yet another Mario spinoff. if "pretty" graphics don't matter how come people aren't still using the Atari 2600, or the ColecoVison or the NES?

So let me get this right..

We are supposed to whine at spending $40 on a cable after spending £2000 on a TV and then a possible $600 on a PS3..

Why dont you just buy a nintendo DS for $100

HAHAHAHA!!! Let me guess Mario has always been shit? I mean Super Mario 3, Super Mario World, Mario 64... OMG they're all shit :(

Funny you say that... Have you noticed the Wii and XBOX have released Virtual Console/Arcades of classic games... So you can play NES, SNES, Sega, Turbo GFX... Go figure :(

Are you being obtuse on purpose or are you naturally that way?

Well you mentioned people should play NES and Atari... Didn't you?