Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies PlayStation (Games) Sony Youtube Games

PS3 To Gain Support For 3-D Movies On Blu-Ray and YouTube 199

Posted by Soulskill from the all-one-of-them dept.
An anonymous reader writes with news that Sony is planning a firmware update for the PS3 to enable 3-D playback from Blu-ray movies and YouTube. The update is scheduled for September, and support for 3-D photos will come later. Sony's Kaz Hirai spoke recently about how the PS3 was designed with these kinds of upgrades in mind. "Given how fast technology turns over now, we knew going in that we had to pack a lot of horsepower into the PS3. Four years ago — when you look at the console's power and its retail price — a lot of people were critical with the fact that there was so much packed under the hood. Now we're especially pleased to be introducing things like Move and 3-D gaming because we're able to show tangibly why we released the PS3 with the power it has, and why it makes so much sense to future proof a console." Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

PS3 To Gain Support For 3-D Movies On Blu-Ray and YouTube More

PS3 To Gain Support For 3-D Movies On Blu-Ray and YouTube

Comments Filter:

  • More 3-D madness. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Yamata no Orochi ( 1626135 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @07:56AM (#32898640)

    Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

    • Re:More 3-D madness. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @08:00AM (#32898694)
      At least they are trying to do something to make paying to see the movie worthwhile. They could just focus on bankrupting college students as a business, and not even bother to create an incentive to go to the theaters.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by SquarePixel ( 1851068 )

        And it was not stupid, just old and bad technology before. He is probably thinking the old red-blue glasses. 3D viewing has improved a lot in the recent years, and for example gives a totally new feeling with games. If you have tried Left 4 Dead with NVidia's 3D Vision Kit [nvidia.com] and a 120hz 3D capable monitor, you know what I'm talking about (it is a lot scarier too).

        It really gives a completely new feeling, when done right, and remember this is all along the path for technology that can render the environment co

        • It still gives me a headache. When I went to see Journey t the Center of the Earth, I had to put those stupid 3D shades over my regular glasses and everything looked distorted - like watching through a prism.

          I removed my glasses and just put the 3D shades on directly, and it still didn't look right. By the time the movie was over I didn't feel good at all - the same effect as reading a book nonstop for 16 hours, but the movie was only 2 hours long. I've never had that problem with the old red/blue techno

          • Re:More 3-D madness. (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Joe Tie. ( 567096 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @08:50AM (#32899492)
            It still gives me a headache.

            And putting pressure on the remains of my foot hurts. Congrats, like me you're a cripple. The main difference is that I don't begrudge people who can walk from enjoying it. Be glad it's such a minor disability, could be a whole lot worse than having some movies be unavailable.

            • Given I can see everything else perfectly, including the mosquitoes, macroblocking, and other digital artifacts that most people can not perceive, I doubt the problem is in my eyesight. More likely there's a flaw in the technology, or else just that one theater (not adjusted properly).

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by Anonymous Coward

                No, if it works for majority of the people, then the problem is in you.

              • There's a number of non-serious illnesses that can cause 3D to either not work for you, or give you adverse effects. Eye problems such as astigmatism or lazy eye can prevent you from being able to see 3D properly, or can give you extra eye strain.

                I can watch 3D on my new TV for several hours playing games and watching movies and I've have zero problems. It's not the technology, the tech works. It just doesn't work great for everyone, because of any number of medical issues.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Yvan256 ( 722131 )

          Why are people still hanging to 3D with glasses? Am I the only one who say those new 3D TVs which did NOT require any glasses?

          • The resolution and viewing angle is not nearly as good. The best 3D to date is with active shutter glasses.

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by TexVex ( 669445 )

              The best 3D to date is with active shutter glasses.

              No, the best 3D is with circularly polarized light (which works even if you tilt the glasses off vertical, unlike linearly polarized systems). The glasses are super cheap plastic. There is no need to blank each eye in turn for half of each frame, so there is a lot less flicker. (And flicker sensitivity isn't so much a matter of framerate but of how much of each frame is black; stereoscopic systems require 50% blankness.)

              I know LCD displays are all line

              • There is no need to blank each eye in turn for half of each frame, so there is a lot less flicker. (And flicker sensitivity isn't so much a matter of framerate but of how much of each frame is black; stereoscopic systems require 50% blankness.)

                I disagree. At 60Hz each eye (120Hz total), there is no perceivable flicker at all on active glasses. Your brain stitches everything together.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by h4rr4r ( 612664 )

                  Maybe for you, some of us see the flicker.

                  • You'll see flicker if you are not running at 120Hz, if the frame rate staggers on your display, or if you are lighting your room with 60Hz fluorescents or compact fluorescents. Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision.

                    It's like your phone system. Modern phones cram something like 10 simultaneous calls on a single line, which means what you are hearing is 90% silence - but your brain stitches it together so it seems continuous.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Khyber ( 864651 )

                      "Barring hardware problems you will see no flicker. Hate to break it to you but you do not have super vision. "

                      Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.

                    • Too bad you failed to realize human vision is around 72Hz and not 60Hz, so your entire above statement is pure bullshit, or you're the defective one.

                      Really? 24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then.

                      30Hz is the scientifically accepted threshold. Some people can detect 60Hz when there is another 60Hz source in the room (like a fluorescent light)., That is the *sole* reason CRTs moved above 60Hz.

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by Khyber ( 864651 )

                      "24Hz movie theaters must be unwatchable to you then. "

                      Absolutely unacceptable, in fact, and has been since I was a child.

                      And I can still see electron beam scanning refresh even on a 72hZ refresh on a CRT.

                    • Interesting. Since you've never seen a movie, Darth Vader is Luke's father.

                      I assume you can see the 60Hz LCD refresh rate too?

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by TheLink ( 130905 )
                      They're not unwatchable. But 24fps is really crappy. Especially when the scene changes a lot, either everything is blurred and smeared (if they motion-blur stuff), or you see stuff "rippling" down.

                      I'd like to see evidence of your "scientifically accepted threshold".

                      Try this: move your hand quickly in front of a 60Hz light source. Move your hand quickly in sunlight. Do you see a difference in the movement images? I do and I bet many others do too. Your hand just doesn't look like it's moving as smoothly when
                    • Well, Active Matrix LCD screens don't refresh the entire screen like that. There's a capacitor for each pixel which keeps the pixel lit or not lit or whatever. The refresh on an LCD is how quickly it can respond to changes in a pixel, as well as the input signal. LCD screens don't flicker.

                      However, I can't look at a CRT monitor at 60hz. It burns my brain. 72hz is fine. But, I don't notice any flicker with my 3d TV and glasses, and the flicker at the movies doesn't bother me. You're not watchin
                    • There's a difference between "detecting" and letting it bother you. I can see flicker at the movies, and I can see a tiny bit of flicker on my Plasma TV (incidentally, not when watching 3D stuff) but they just don't bother me. I can't stare at a 60hz CRT computer screen for long, but that's a foot away from your eyes.

                      So, I don't see what the problem is. 60hz is very smooth video, and the new 3D TV's are very good. If you want to reject such awesome things because you "notice" something, it's your lo
                • I'm not disagreeing with you - you can't see the flicker - IF you're looking at the TV. When my glasses are active, you can see a little bit of flicker if you look outside the window on a sunny day. Indoor lights, you don't see flicker.

                  So, unless someone is complaining about flicker when looking at things NOT on the TV screen, they're full of shit if they say they can see any flicker with a new 3D TV and shudder glasses.

              • I know movie theatre screens can reflect circularly polarized light without changing the polarization, so it can work with projection home theater.

                You actually need TWO projectors, each with a polarizing filter (90deg out of phase with the other). This makes such a system expensive and can only be used with projectors, not LCD or LED systems.

              • Zalman make 3D LCD displays that use circular polarization (using horizontal interlacing). You can use the same cheap light glasses that cinemas provide with them.

                I have one myself - http://www.zalman.com/ENG/product/Product_Read.asp?idx=384 [zalman.com] - and it works, but there are quite a few limitations. Obviously there's the consequences you'd expect from horizontal interlacing, less resolution to each eye. For PC gaming the Nvidia drivers are pretty good, but, they only work with the earlier Zalman monitor. Zalma

                • I just got a Samsung 63" Plasma TV that's 3D enabled (shudder based) for $3400 at Best Buy. I can't imagine Zalman's screens being any more reasonably priced than that, and this TV is HDMI 1.3 and detected as a 3D display. No hackery required. TV Switches into 3D mode automatically.
        • ...... and the new tech still suffers from the exact same problems as the old tech, motion sickness. You are forced into focussing into a single point in the image, at a specified depth, by the director / cinematographer. Now if you can show me 3D technology that tracks the motion of my eyes, focusses the images correctly at the point where my eyes are trying to look at, then maybe, just maybe, I wont vomit on the people in front of me next time I go to the cinema to watch a 3D film.....

      • 3D really does not contribute in any way to a movie being "worthwhile" after you get over the novelty. I used to watch every 3D movie that came out when they were all the decent 3D rendered Pixar types, but these days there are plenty of crappy dumb horror movies and 3D stadium experience type ones that I don't consider worth it. Especially since I have an "Unlimited" card where I can see as many movies as I want a month for a flat rate.. except for the 3D ones which I now have to pay extra per movie, even

        • ...I have an "Unlimited" card where I can see as many movies as I want a month for a flat rate.. except for the 3D ones which I now have to pay extra per movie, even if I bring my own glasses.. wtf?

          As a guy who worked in the business, it's because:

          • Movie prices are effectively set by the distributors, not the theater.
          • 3D is considered to be a "premium experience", and thus costs more than the standard 2D version of the same film, which you can still see for the standard price.
          • In order to display movies in 3D, movie theaters typically have to invest in new equipment that far exceeds the simple cost of 3D glasses. Even if every movie-goer brought their own glasses, the ticket price still has to reflect t

          • I'm aware of the last one, but still, cinema ticket prices have pretty much doubled in the last 10 years without any corresponding rise in value, and that's before you take into account the 3D tax.

      • They could just focus on bankrupting college students as a business, and not even bother to create an incentive to go to the theaters.

        Well, yeah, or they could, like, make decent movies.

        But I suppose that's too much to ask. Better to just make Dances with Wolves IN THREE DEE!

        • They do make some decent movies. But they also produce a ton of crap designed solely to make money. The problem isn't that they make it, it's that consumers continue to pay to see the terrible movies. If people quit watching terrible movies, there would be no money to be made in producing one. Every month or so we get another variation on the ( talking animal / animal is actually a secret agent / The Rock has a child and turns out to be a sweet guy after all ). You know why? Because kids see the ads and go
      • They could also try to release honest-to-goodness original, quality films, too. No gimmicks required.

    • Re:More 3-D madness. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @08:02AM (#32898722) Journal
      Electronic companies want to continue the economic boom they experienced with the analog/SDTV to digital/HDTV transition. Now that it's complete, they need a new carrot to dangle in front of consumers, and they think 3DTV is it.
      • A better carrot would be to increase the frame rate movies are recorded at. Ever seen video shot at 100 fps? It's like looking through a window. I'd pay for that. 3D is just a joke.
      • It's too soon and the technology is too shitty. You're not going to convince people to switch from good 40-60 inch flat screens that they just bought a few years ago (that they probably still haven't payed off, but that's another issue) to pseudo 3d screens where they have to wear special glasses and sit at one particular angle to get the right effect (assuming that the reality around them doesn't ruin it anyway). Then again, I can't see 3d anyway, so all it is to me is someone asking me to pay a fuckton mo

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by c0lo ( 1497653 )

      Now we're especially pleased... because we're able to show tangibly why we released the PS3 with the power it has

      Sony also updated its PS3 Terms of Service to warn against too much 3-D viewing

      Sort of saying: "We are sooo pleased we are now able to sell you something that will harm you, without investing any further", eh?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NoPantsJim ( 1149003 )
      I think at the very least part of it has to do with piracy. I remember years ago when hddvd and bluray were first hitting the shelves they were heralded as the end of piracy. The logic was no one would be able to pirate a movie that clocks in at 40-50 gigs. Of course, thanks to h.264 and other codecs, downloading 1080p copies of movies is pretty trivial.

      I suspect that studio execs are sitting around assuming no one will be able to figure out how to pirate 3-d movies. Of course, there are probably people

      • What exactly is there to "figure out" about copying a 3D blu-ray over a normal blu-ray?

        At least at first there probably won't be that many pirated 3D movies, because to get the equipment to view it you actually need to have money, and people who have money don't tend to mooch so much stuff as students and kids. When I was a student I downloaded a few movies, now I just buy everything.

        • "What exactly is there to "figure out" about copying a 3D blu-ray over a normal blu-ray?"

          I don't know. I'm not an expert in the field. That's why I made no assumptions about it being as easy as ripping a Blu-Ray movie.

          "When I was a student I downloaded a few movies, now I just buy everything."

          Same here, but I still like to buy my movies, and then rip them to a digital format for use with XBMC and the Boxee Box when it finally hits the shelves. I guess one of my big worries about the 3D BS is that m

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by pushing-robot ( 1037830 )

        3D video is nothing more than two 2D videos which alternate every other frame. It's trivial to create or decode; in fact, there are several ways you can do it:

        • Put the left and right frames next to each other into one big video frame, or...
        • Interleave the left and right frames into one stream with twice the frame rate, or...
        • Multiplex the two streams into one file, or...
        • Store the streams as two separate files.

        You can actually encode and watch 3D video today, if you have the hardware. The only reasons you're n

        • Thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like a speedbump, not an actual blockade.

          "But any studio execs who thought 3D video would somehow end piracy would have to be complete idiots."

          Who says they aren't complete idiots?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by TheSync ( 5291 )

          any studio execs who thought 3D video would somehow end piracy would have to be complete idiots.

          I think the theory is that it would end camcordering, which is true in the sense that a 2d camcorder cannot get a good recording of a 3D movie/TV show because of blurriness, nor could it possibly record a 3D image.

          Unfortunately, it was unexpected that there would be inexpensive stereoscopic consumer cameras on the market so soon, and yes, the interocular spacing of the lenses on one of those cameras allows you to

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by jagsta ( 1607283 )
      I'm assuming from your comment you haven't sampled what gaming in 3D looks and feels like? I've only been able to watch in game footage from a couple of the demo titles (Motorstorm, Super Stardust HD and WipeoutHD) so far, but I can say that for both of the racing type games the effect is excellent and for me at least really contributed to the level of immersion. I think sports titles, and FPS really will be enhanced by this. I personally am not so enthusiastic about the 3D TVs (casual viewing in 3D isn't r

    • Per prior /. story, some 10% of the population has trouble perceiving 3D.
      I'm wondering if that subset coincides with the subset which is so vehemently against 3D video.

      I find it well worth the minor extra cost. Video looks so ... flat ... without it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by bsDaemon ( 87307 )

        if i want to view things in 3D, why can't I just go do stuff in actual reality? I haven't ever really had trouble seeing 3D, as long as it was done well (stuff at Disney as opposed to crap on super bowl commercials i had to use cheapo glasses from a cereal box to see), I just don't really see what the big deal is. Then again, I barely watch "normal" TV, so that probably has a lot to do with it.

    • To truly enjoy one of my favorite films . . . "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension"

      Some please wake me up, when that firmware upgrade is announced.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by elrous0 ( 869638 ) *
      If (customersPayMore) Sony += money;

    • Normally, I'd joke that you're asking a rhetorical question, but in this case I have to agree. This makes no sense to me either. It made sense for movie theaters to push 3D, because they are in constant competition with home theaters to provide a "unique" experience that will convince you that you should leave your home for two hours to spend $12 to watch a movie while eating your $6 bag of popcorn and drink your $5 soda.

      It would also make sense if they had pushed 3D at the end of the blu-ray lifecycle beca

    • Because everyone who wants (and can reasonably afford, or has a credit card) an HDTV already has one.

      Sony, etc would like some more money and hence some reason for those people to buy a new TV.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Animaether ( 411575 )

      Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

      *shakes his cane*

      sonny, my computer only has two speakers attached to it - I don't know why you youngsters insisted on this, this.. surrounding sound.. it was a stupid novelty when I was a kid, and it's no less stupid now! Now get offa my lawn!

      Except... I can still watch the movie with either its included stereo track or the mix produced from the surround tracks. Why would I complain at all?

      So it is with

      • So it is with (stereoscopic) 3D as well - don't like it? Don't watch it - there's certainly zero -technical- reason you can't watch just the left view, just the right view, or a per-scene decision (not specced, afaik) of which view to take.

        No, but there are some serious artistic reasons why you wouldn't want to do that. The left and right video streams will be skewed to one side - rather than centred on the image that the original cinematographer was looking at through his/her viewfinder. I really don't see the merit in viewing an entire film that was shot correctly using the rule of thirds [wikipedia.org], for that to become a film adhering to a rule of four fiths.

    • Why this push for everything to be 3-D? It was a stupid novelty years ago, and its no less stupid now.

      Some gimmicks live longer than others. Some are undead monsters from the depths of Hell who, despite the attempts of the righteous, will always return, invincible. Some evils are less corrupting when embraced.

    • Because 3D is fucking awesome.

      The few PS3 games available in 3D look fucking awesome. The two movies I have look fucking awesome.

      We see everything in real life in 3D. We have two ears, so stereo was natural. We have two eyes, so 3D video is also natural. It's great!

      The only people I see complaining about it are A) Complainiacs that will never be happy with anything or B) Too poor to ever afford it.

  • But does it run Linux? (Score:5, Funny)

    by betterunixthanunix ( 980855 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @07:56AM (#32898644)
    It used to.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bfree ( 113420 )
      It still does as long as you didn't update the firmware from "Sony Fools" day onward. However if it runs Linux you can't use PSN, play new games, watch new blu-ray or see any of this 3d stuff.

      • I haven't applied the patch for this exact reason. So far, the only issue has been using the PSN. I haven't yet hit any games or movies that have had problems. I know it's only a matter of time of course but I'm still hoping that they get pressured into reversing the stance before that happens. I'm holding out on nuking my Linux partition until there is something that I really want that I can't get. Luckily, I don't use the Linux partition much, just to play some old emulators that I can do nearly as e

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

          I haven't applied the patch for this exact reason. So far, the only issue has been using the PSN. I haven't yet hit any games or movies that have had problems. I know it's only a matter of time of course but I'm still hoping that they get pressured into reversing the stance before that happens. I'm holding out on nuking my Linux partition until there is something that I really want that I can't get. Luckily, I don't use the Linux partition much, just to play some old emulators that I can do nearly as easily

    • You could always video yourself using linux. Convert the video to DVD and play it on the console.

      Not quite as useful as running it but I guess it's the only way Linux will be on the PS3 again

    • It only did everything!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DrXym ( 126579 )
      It used to and them someone announced a crack that exploited Linux. It's annoying they dumped support but completely understandable in the circumstances. Either they support the minuscule number of users who need Linux and psn and they leave the door wide open pirates or they don't. The choice they made was regrettable but a no brainer.
    • Imagine a cluster of that. Oh wait. Not anymore either...

  • force-retire the Father of the Playstation? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by commodore64_love ( 1445365 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @07:59AM (#32898682) Journal

    >>>"Given how fast technology turns over now, we knew going in that we had to pack a lot of horsepower into the PS3."

    So why did Sony force-retire the Father of the Playstation, Ken Kutaragi? It sounds like he was visionary enough to "pack a lot of horsepower" into the PS3 for future growth. But instead of rewarding him, you put him out to pasture. Seems rather cruel.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by bsDaemon ( 87307 )

      For retired race horses, being put out to stud is considered a great honor. Of course, the prospects probably aren't so good for 60-year-old engineers. Tough break, I guess.

  • warn too much 3-D viewing sounds like Virtual Boy and that failed relay bad.

  • Whoopy fucking do (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @08:20AM (#32898966)
    Whoopy fucking do. Booting foreign operating systems is out, 3D is in. Totally repositioned as a toy.

  • Does anyone know how is Sony supporting 3D BluRay on the PS3 when it requires HDMI 1.4? As I understand it, HDMI 1.4 is not a simple upgrade; it requires new generation transceivers on the source device which obviously can't apply to PS3s going back to 2006.

    • Well, the 3d is gimped a bit actually, and that's why they can do it with hdmi 1.3. The PS3 will just flicker the frames, so you won't be getting nice 120hz 3d, but more like 30hz 3d.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pnewhook ( 788591 )

      Does anyone know how is Sony supporting 3D BluRay on the PS3 when it requires HDMI 1.4? As I understand it, HDMI 1.4 is not a simple upgrade; it requires new generation transceivers on the source device which obviously can't apply to PS3s going back to 2006.

      Likely they are only implementing the 3D portion of the spec, not the other stuff like audio return, ethernet or 4k resolution. Changing to 3D would only require an update in the refresh rate to 120Hz which they could probably have planned for when they designed it.

  • Now your rootkit comes in 3 D I M E N S I O N S ! (Score:3, Funny)

    by elrous0 ( 869638 ) * on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @08:43AM (#32899344)

    See THE HORROR of Sony's control freaks in 3-D!
    Witness the heavy hand of DRM in its FULL GLORY!
    Experience the fear of another PS3 feature being pulled in ALL ITS DEPTH!
    Watch as the Japanese come RIGHT OUT IN THE THEATER to take over your console industry!

  • And this time, I believe, the cry fits. We all read previous stories about how 3D video games can serve to damage the visual perception of young children. This was identified long ago by a game console maker which then quietly halted pursuit of a 3D video gaming system. Now they want to try it again?

    I realize it's "for movies" but I think it makes little difference whether it will be video games or movies.

    • One specific type of 3D system was identified to have negative effects in the 90s yes - that doesn't mean all 3D systems will be bad. Besides, 2D screens are already pretty bad for you I thought?

      I think the problem with the system that you mention was probably to do with having the screens right in front of your eyes, but the system didn't actually track eye movement to change the display according to where you looked. That seems like it would mess with your brain-eye coordination and ability to focus corre

    • I have a Virtua Boy, and the 3D from that system is totally different than modern 3D systems. You can watch a whole 3D movie now with ease, but the Virtual Boy involved a lot more eyestrain - possibly in part because of the bright monochromatic red...

  • Awesome! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by zmollusc ( 763634 ) on Wednesday July 14, 2010 @08:45AM (#32899380)

    I shall rush out and buy a PS3 just as soon as I forgive Sony for the cd rootkit, and for removing linux option for PS3. This is assuming PS3 is still available, it may be the PS72 by then. And that is also assuming that Sony haven't pulled any more annoying stunts.

  • I'm okay with it as long as...

    - Its free and distributed by a patch/update.
    - It doesn't interfere if I don't have 3-D hardware hooked up.
    - Easy to enable/disable/configure if I do have 3-D hardware hooked up.

    If it is seemless and free and doesn't break anything then it is really a "value add" and I don't mind.

    • The update will be free, Sony 3D TV and 3D movies/games I suspect will not be quite so free..

      PS tis "seamless"

  • It'd be nice if they would actually get around to admitting the YLOD overheat problem with the older 40-60-80 gig units is a manufacturing error (its obvious upon disassembly that the thermal grease is improperly applied and of low quality) and fix them. Hell, even Microsoft admitted to and addressed the RROD problem, taking steps to properly assist those who suffered from it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man -- who has no gills. -- Ambrose Bierce

Close