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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

$600 PS3 Ships Without HDMI Cable 416

Posted by Zonk
from the wow-they-really-know-how-to-impress dept.
Eurogamer reports that the $600 PS3, which comes available with an HDMI port, will not ship with the necessary cable to actually hook the machine up. From the article: "According to the specs page on the official US PS3 website, which notes: 'HDMI cable not included. Additional equipment may be required to use the HDMI connector.' Sony has long promoted the 60GB PS3's HDMI output as a key feature of the machine. The 20GB model, however, doesn't feature HDMI - and nor does the Xbox 360, as it goes, despite occasional rumours of a hardware revision in the offing." The machine will, of course, come with a composite cable.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$600 PS3 Ships Without HDMI Cable

Comments Filter:
  • Bastards! (Score:5, Funny)

    by wfberg (24378) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:39AM (#16044454)
    I heard they're not even including cables for the controllers on some of the new consoles!
  • by blueZhift (652272) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:39AM (#16044460) Homepage Journal
    It seems a cheap trick, but I understand why they'd choose not to ship with cable. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the sale of peripherals like this may significantly cut the money lost selling the console itself. I'm assuming that the peripherals are not sold at a loss.
    • by ronanbear (924575) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:46AM (#16044516)
      It would be a moot point if you got a HDMI cable with your HD TV.

      Many users don't have the right screen so a cable wouldn't be much use for them. They'll just have to buy a cable when they are buying their screen.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by skinfitz (564041)
        It would be a moot point if you got a HDMI cable with your HD TV.

        ...except it's Sony and therefore the cable will no doubt be proprietary at the PS3 end.
        • by faust2097 (137829) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @12:08PM (#16045235)
          Actually you're 100% wrong. It's a completely normal HDMI port, look at any picture of it [totalplaystation.com] and you'll see that. It also has a normal optical port so whether your taste runs to the $2 monoprice cable or the $6000 Nordost one you'll be able to connect it without giving Sony an extra dime.
          • by Danga (307709) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @01:40PM (#16046077)
            Actually you're 100% wrong. It's a completely normal HDMI port, look at any picture of it and you'll see that. It also has a normal optical port so whether your taste runs to the $2 monoprice cable or the $6000 Nordost one you'll be able to connect it without giving Sony an extra dime.

            You are correct, however while you and I and the rest of the Slashdot readers realize this is the case I would bet the average consumer for the PS3 is not aware that just any cable will work. If Sony releases a cable that is sold right next to the PS3's (I would be very surprised if they did not) then from my experience most people would end up getting that cable since it says Sony on it and appears it is special made for the PS3.

            They will probably end up charging a ridiculous price for this "extra" accessory that should be included with the base system and they will probably make a decent amount of money off of it. It is sad they decided not to include the cable that will give the user the best possible experience. Even if the user doesn't currently have a monitor with HDMI input it would still be nice to have the cable ready once a future upgrade is made.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by faust2097 (137829)
              I wouldn't be surprised if this is a "gift" to retailers who need ways to pad out their overpriced bundles and get some margin on something that's going to take up lots of space and cause lots of hassles. It seems like overall Sony is taking a far less aggressive accessories strategy than anyone has before. Sony employees have gone on the record saying that it's going to support USB mass storage [read and write unlike the 360] and third-party wireless adaptors and the HD is upgradeable with any old 2.5" lap
              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                by Danga (307709)
                Very interesting. I do have to say that while its nice that the PS3 may support any old USB mass storage device as well as wireless adapters, etc, this is a CABLE. Those other accessories actually deserve to be called accessories, but I do not think the HDMI cable, which is needed to get the absolute best experience possible, is an accessory. It is more of a necessity to anyone with a decent video setup and for the price of the PS3 I think a lot of people are going to be pissed off if the HDMI cable is n
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gEvil (beta) (945888)
      I'm assuming that the peripherals are not sold at a loss.

      No, they're not. Peripherals are typically sold at a ridiculous markup. I mean, why does an 8MB memory card for a PS2 still cost 25 bucks? I guarantee the HDMI cable will be sold for between 30 and 40 bucks.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Yvan256 (722131)
        I guarantee the HDMI cable will be sold for between 30 and 40 bucks.
        I had to pay 60$CAD for the components cable for my Gamecube. And the store had to go through a import-specialized reseller to get it as it's only available in Japan (for some unknow reason).

        You wouldn't believe how good Metroid Prime 2 looks in progressive mode via that component cable. On my Toshiba 36" CRT TV, anyway.
        • I thought about getting the GCN component cable, but I couldn't bring myself to spend the 40 bucks + 10 shipping for it this late in the cube's life. However, since the Wii will play GCN games and support component output, I'll only have to wait a few months more...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by steveo777 (183629)
      I'm thinking they finally realised that market penetration still isn't that high for 1080p TVs, or any other Hi-defs for that matter. Took a cue from Nintendo, probably. It would be a huge waste of money if you sold 3 million PS3's at an additional loss of the 6 bucks (18 million loss!) for the cable and maybe only 200,000 of those buyers can use them at release. So if they sell those 200,000 cables at a $15 profit, then that's 3 million back in their pockets (a buck for every system sold).

      More improtant

    • Running people down in the street and taking their wallets would significantly cut the money lost selling the console, but you don't see Sony doing that...

      Um, isn't this going to backfire? Spectacularly? I mean, it's a goddamned cord. This isn't like picking out a monitor or a hard drive. "Joe's cord" will likely be just as useful as the "Excelsior(r) brand high-quality director's cut cord". People will get annoyed it doesn't come with the system, go to the store, and pick the cheapest one (sold at a mod
    • It seems a cheap trick, but I understand why they'd choose not to ship with cable. Depending on whose numbers you believe, the sale of peripherals like this may significantly cut the money lost selling the console itself. I'm assuming that the peripherals are not sold at a loss.

      Not only that, but why stop at HDMI?

      They'd need to include component video, s-video, composite, AND HDMI in order to make the whole market happy.

      And in the grand scheme of things, most DVD players don't come with anything other than
  • This is not news. (Score:5, Informative)

    by casualsax3 (875131) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:41AM (#16044473)
    First, the PS2, Xbox, AND Gamecube all had HD cables sold as add ons. Second - why would Sony ship every PS3 which HDMI cables, when such a tiny percentage of homes even have HDMI ready TV's. HDMI cables are only going to run you $20 anyway: http://www.ramelectronics.net/html/DVI-hdmi_cables .html#std [ramelectronics.net]

    If you've got $600 to drop on a PS3, you've got another $20 for cables. Move along, nothing to see here.

    • Plus, I would imagine that a large percentage of PS3 purchasers would just leave that HD cable in the box anyways, unused forever. So it would be a waste of money for Sony to put it in there. If HD was prevelant in nearly every household, then it would be another story, but since it isn't, there is no reason for them to package it. I agree with the parent, this is not news.
    • Second - why would Sony ship every PS3 which HDMI cables, when such a tiny percentage of homes even have HDMI ready TV's

      But if so few people have HDMI capable TV's ... er, why support it in the first place? And if they are going to support it ... er, why not get the bulk discount on the cables and pass it on to buyers?

      It's like you're saying they should support HDMI, but not enough to ... support HDMI.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by ravenshrike (808508)
        Future compatibility. As the price comes down, more HDTVs with HDMI capability will be sold, thereby creating a market.
        • by 1lus10n (586635)
          Ding Ding Ding.

          Sony has a 5 year cycle. In the last quarter their were 24 million HD sets sold, in two years almost half the market will be HD compatible. They will not have to spend more money on a redesign, the other console makers will. They are not going to include 4 different types of cables, NO company will.
      • by mwvdlee (775178)
        why not get the bulk discount on the cables and pass it on to buyers

        And, while we're at it, why not sell the games at production cost too?

        I guess Sony is trying to minimize hardware costs in order to minimize loss on nicely rounded prices. $599.95 sounds so much better than $600.95
      • by badasscat (563442) <.moc.oohay. .ta. .57tedacssab.> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:16AM (#16044769)
        But if so few people have HDMI capable TV's ... er, why support it in the first place?

        For the same reason the PS1 and PS2 supported s-video.

        And btw, the PS1, PS2 and Xbox didn't come with s-video cables either, even though they supported it. The point is you put the cable in the box that's basically the lowest common denominator supported by all TV's, and then if someone wants to upgrade it, they can.

        There's also the obvious question of if you're going to pay $600 for a console, would you rather Sony put $600 worth of actual machine into the box, or $600 worth of add-on junk that a lot of people aren't even going to be able to use?

        But this is really nothing new, and I have no idea why it's become such a story the past couple days (it was on Joystiq too, and probably other sites) other than the fact that it's become de rigeur to bash the PS3 lately. Consoles never come with the best cable; they come with the cable supported by the most TV's.

        The bigger, more important thing to note is that the PS3 has a standard HDMI port, meaning you can buy any HDMI cable for it. Why no bashing of the Xbox 360 for requiring a proprietary, MS-licensed cable at an inflated price?

        btw, the PS3 will come with component cables, not just composite. Another sign of bias on the part of the submitter here...
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by LoverOfJoy (820058)
          I agree with what you're saying but did the PS1, PS2, and Xbox list s-video compatible as a major bullet point?

          I think people are upset because the two different PS3 models make the upper one feel like a bundle of some sort. That's mostly what gamers have had experience with when it comes to two different models of basically the same thing. You either buy the bare bones unit with one controller and no games, or you buy the one with two controllers, a game thrown in, etc. everything you need to really hav

    • by Tweekster (949766)
      because those were all last generation devices.

      the PS3 is trying to push HDTV and how great it will be for gaming. Shouldnt they make an attempt to make that a fact...
    • The difference is that the PS3 is supposed to output hi-def. Are they saying that composite video cabling is adequate for hi-def. It may be, but it's an interesting statement when coming from Sony.
    • by Garse Janacek (554329) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:03AM (#16044670)
      If you have $600 to drop on a PS3, you have another $20 for cables, true. But if they're advertising this as some sort of luxury sports car of the gaming world, and charging a huge amount for HD and Blu-ray, why assume by default that people won't be able to use them? If you're correct that such a "tiny percentage of homes have HDMI-ready TVs" that it is a negligible issue for prospective PS3 owners, then where's the damn $300 version of the console that doesn't include HDMI/Blu-ray support?
      • Re:This is not news. (Score:5, Informative)

        by casualsax3 (875131) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:34AM (#16044937)
        Apparently you've never taken a look at a luxury sports car. Let's take the Porsche Cayman for example: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yRs6oMlyfK8 [youtube.com]

        This is a review from Top Gear: it's a great clip, however for the point I'm trying to make is about one third of the way in - check out . Things you would consider essentials on a sports car - the sports chrono package (500 pounds), 19" wheels (1260 pounds), fade free carbon ceramic breaks (5350 pounds!), an adaptive dampers (1030 pounds), the SatNav is an extra 1800 pounds - even the rear windshield wiper is an extra 260 pounds. This, all on a car that's already over 50,000 pounds. Tell me again why people are getting bent out of shape here - it's a cheap $20 cable that 5% of PS3 owners are going to want/need - you can't even begin to compare that to a $400 rear windshield wiper that every single person who owned the car (especially in the UK) is going to want AND need.

        • by ArsonSmith (13997) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @12:19PM (#16045325) Journal
          That is a really freaking heavy car.

        • by Garse Janacek (554329) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @12:25PM (#16045387)

          Tell me again why people are getting bent out of shape here - it's a cheap $20 cable that 5% of PS3 owners are going to want/need

          But that's my entire point -- Sony's fundamental premise for this entire console is that most serious gamers will want/need HDMI and blu-ray support. If this is not true, and the percentage is closer to the 5% that you claim, then Sony's entire strategy for this generation is invalidated, and they should have made a $300-400 console instead. If you're already assuming that the vast majority even of the self-selected population that is actually willing to spend $600 on a PS3 is still not going to be able to use the most expensive part of the system, then what is that most expensive part for?

    • We sell gold plated six foot hdmi cables for $10.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by cdrudge (68377)

      HDMI cables are only going to run you $20 anyway

      Isn't it obvious why they aren't providing one? It's so that you can spend $60 on the official Sony branded HDMI cable [bestbuy.com]. Or better yet, if you want to keep it a "pure HD" signal, you probably should step up to the $199 Monster brand HDMI cable [circuitcity.com].

    • Two reasons (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770)
      1) HD is one of the big things that the PS3 is being billed for. Sony has been pimping that heavily. If it's such a fundamental part of the console, maybe you include the hookups out of box?

      2) For most people, the cable won't be that cheap. They probably won't know about online cable warehouses, and how much cheaper they are. So they'll pick up an HDMI cable at Best Buy or wherever they got the PS3. There, it's more like $60, not $20. Cables are the big money maker for places like that.

      I'm just saying at $6
      • 1) HD is one of the big things that the PS3 is being billed for. Sony has been pimping that heavily. If it's such a fundamental part of the console, maybe you include the hookups out of box?

        I'm in the alleged '5%'. I don't want the cable included. Why? Because it will be the wrong length. It doesnt matter what length it is, it will be just a bit too short or way to friggin long. Just as a cat is always on the wrong side of the door, the legth of OEM cables are always wrong. I'd end up buying a new cable to
  • by konigstein (966024) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:42AM (#16044480) Homepage
    You get a console.* *Some assembly required; batteries cables and other accessories including a TV, controllers, and in limited situations console not included; By purchasing this console you agree to indenture your first born to work in sony's sweatshops...
  • by MojoBox (985651) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:43AM (#16044487)
    Sony has also announced the 60Gig version comes with the -abytes sold seperately.
  • HDMI for HDCP (Score:3, Informative)

    by varunnangia (999363) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:43AM (#16044490) Homepage
    IIRC, HDMI cables are necessary if you need to view HDCP encrypted content - or you get a "low-quality" version of the image. Considering that most studios are not using the image constraint token till 2010 [slashdot.org], it seems that HDMI cable or no, no one's likely to need it for a while. Should it be included in a $600 package and is Sony cheaping out? Perhaps. But do you absolutely need it right now? No.
    • by chaboud (231590)
      Or if you want a digital HD signal going from your console to your display device. Considering that the display will take an analog signal and digitize it, an all-digital path is better.

      Still, if you have a home theater setup, would a supplied 6-foot cable be enough? How about 3-foot, or should we push to 8? You can see where you'd be wasting a lot of people's money by including a cable that the vast majority can't use. Even if it would fit your system, you'd be in the minority for having HDMI. Yes, it
  • I would guess they are doing this to please retail stores and cable manufacturers (*ahem* Monster), who sell HDMI cables at insane prices to people who think that paying $80 for a cable that passes a digital signal somehow gives them better picture quality than a $10 cable you can buy online.
  • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:44AM (#16044502)
    The PS3 is $600 for one reason, Sony pushing their Blu-Ray format.

    Now they have decided to release this ungodly expensive machine without an HDMI cable, which is required for playing Blu-Ray movies.

    So for $600 dollars you are buying something most people don't want or need (Blu-Ray) but still will not even have the ability to use it.
    • Re:Blu-Ray curse (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DrXym (126579) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:05AM (#16044687)
      $600 also buys you wi-fi, a 60 Gb harddrive, 512Mb, a multi-core processor all of which combine to give you a games console, multimedia and internet system that sits under your TV. The price isn't particularly outrageous for its features if you compare it to the Mac Mini for example.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by danpsmith (922127)
        $600 also buys you wi-fi, a 60 Gb harddrive, 512Mb, a multi-core processor all of which combine to give you a games console, multimedia and internet system that sits under your TV.

        Yep! And enough DRM to not use any of it properly!

    • by jonabbey (2498) *

      Reports coming out of the PS3 launch developers indicate that they actually are using the extra space available, above and beyond the 9 gigs that a DVD gets you, to store high resolution textures, more sound effects, etc.

      That PS3 is bringing a never-before-seen storage capability to console games does not mean that that extra space will never get used.

    • The PS3 is $600 for one reason, Sony pushing their Blu-Ray format.

      I think they probably want to sell some games as well.

      Now they have decided to release this ungodly expensive machine without an HDMI cable, which is required for playing Blu-Ray movies.

      Wrong. HD movies will be viewable via component cables.

      So for $600 dollars you are buying something most people don't want or need (Blu-Ray) but still will not even have the ability to use it.

      You sort of made their point - for many people, the HDMI ca

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Control Group (105494)
        All consoles to date have shipped this way; the composite cable is included and the HD cables are extras.
        Except, of course, the PS3's primary next-gen competitor, the 360, which comes with component cables included.
        • Except, of course, the PS3's primary next-gen competitor, the 360, which comes with component cables included.

          The core system does not include it, but yes, you are correct in saying the high-end X360 bundle does indeed include a component cable.

  • Wasn't the PS3 supposed to be a fantastic movie player which was a $1000 value for a $600 price? Without games. HDMI is being forced on the public because of the Image Constraint Token and Sony wants you to pay extra for the privilege. Maybe someone can post some positive PS3 articles in order to balance out the negative news. In fact, someone can just respond with a number of recent positive developments for the PS3. Oh and re-listing the PS3 stats over and over again doesn't count.
  • FWIW (Score:3, Insightful)

    by greysky (136732) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:48AM (#16044531)
    This is what they always do. If they ship with the HDMI cable, then they have to also include the composite, since that's the lowest common denominator. More people would have to buy a downgrade cable if it came with HDMI, than have to buy an upgrade if it ships with comp, so the decision is easy. It may sound like they're being cheap by not shipping with both, but no other console that I'm aware of has ever shipped with > 1 type of interface cable, and since the units already ship at a loss...
    • If most people would have to buy a downgrade cable, then why are they charging $600 for HDMI and Blu-ray support that most people will be unable to use? If you're going to charge this much money with the exclusive excuse that it's the best possible quality, then why assume by default that your users will not be able to take advantage of that quality? Doesn't that kind of blow the whole party line for why it's okay to charge $600?
    • by Guppy06 (410832)
      "This is what they always do. If they ship with the HDMI cable, then they have to also include the composite, since that's the lowest common denominator."

      This isn't the first time in this discussion the "HDMI isn't for the lowest common denominator" hand-wave has been brought up, but I'll respond to this one nonetheless.

      You're totally ignoring the fact that Sony is offering two models, and the $600 model in and of itself isn't supposed to be for the "lowest common denominator." If you don't want/don't need
    • The expensive Xbox 360 does include a dual use composite / component cable though, it would be nice if Sony inlcuded some kind of better cable than lowest common demoninator composite in the expensive PS3 as well.
  • by interiot (50685) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:48AM (#16044534) Homepage
    Several people have mentioned that you might be able to use a standard HDMI cable to connect the PS3? Is that really true? No console I'm aware of has ever had standard connections on the back.... they've always used a single proprietary connector, and forced you to buy a more expensive cable specific to the conections you wanted. eg. it's not going to be cheap.
    • FYI: the original version of the PS1 also used standard composite cables to connect to the TV. this was dropped in later revisions, as its a lot cheaper to just use a multi out.
  • by LoudMusic (199347) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @10:51AM (#16044564)
    How many USB devices do you know of that come with a cable? The problem, as I see it, is that first of all less than 10% of consumers are going to use HDMI anyway. Why make the other 90% pay for a $60 cable they're not going to use.

    And for the ones that do use it they probably have some notion that whatever come with the system isn't good enough and will buy a Monster cable anyway. Or the one it came with won't be long enough, or what-have-you.

    I have no problem with connecting cables not being included. It's a very customized component. No blame or ridicule here.
    • How many USB devices do you know of that come with a cable?

      Uh, all of them? With the exception of some that plug directly into the port (e.g. USB memory sticks), every USB device I've bought - wired and wireless network adaptors, hard disks, etc - has come with a USB cable.

      • by LoudMusic (199347)
        ... every USB device I've bought - wired and wireless network adaptors, hard disks, etc - has come with a USB cable.

        Now that I think about it, the trend has changed. But printers and scanners and such used to not include such cables. I suppose cameras, Mp3 players, and hard drives I've purchased recently all came with cables though.

        So I retract my USB statement, but I still think the HDMI cable doesn't need to be included with the PS3.
      • by interiot (50685)
        Not to mention that USB perhipherals use standard connectors, and don't require you to buy a separate proprietary cable from the manufacturer.
      • Printers rarely come with USB cables in my experience if they can instead come with a parallel. In fact, I'm pretty sure my printer didn't even come with a parallel as well. I guess they thought it was a wireless printer when they boxed it up.
    • by DrXym (126579)
      HDMI cables don't cost $60 unless you're mad enough to buy a super-duper gold plated shielded cables for no discernible difference in picture quality whatsoever. A $10 cable would do just fine. Sony could probably make / get them wholesale for $1.50. Even so, if composite is included and works at the highest resolutions then what's the big deal?
    • I *USED* to not get USB cables with anything, but now I get them with everything. And I buy a lot of stuff - printers, more printers, USB wireless networking setups, USB cameras, USB barcode scanners, label printers, scales, digital cameras, hell, even my MONITOR came with a USB cable.

      I think manufacturers caught o that the customer caught on that they had to include the cost of whateve rextra cables they eneded to buy in the price. By including the cable, they give you $20-$60 of value (depending on the
  • It's one thing to have no hdmi cable, but why not component video? Isn't there some degradation in the HDTV resolution signal when using composite video?
  • Whereas most people don't have HDTV's and this would be a waste, the PS3 seems to be a waste to begin with if you DONT have an HDTV.

    However, I think in most peoples cases, if they have the means to use HDMI, they probably already have an HDMI cable. Shops like monoprice.com sell HDMI cables for under $10, so that's not so big of a deal. Although, the majority of consumers won't know about this and will be forced to buy $75 ones off the shelf at best buy, probably more when they're conned into buying the M
  • by SQLz (564901) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:32AM (#16044923) Homepage Journal
    Buy it now!!
  • I know some people are trying to say that this is better for people, but I still think it will be very bad for Sony.

    If you drop $600 (or over £400 here) on a PS3 it will be because you really want the most amazing graphics and Blu-ray (which is pretty much all they seem to be marketing on at the moment... because its a blu-ray player). I doubt that many people who don't have a HDTV would get a PS3 because I can't really distinguish its advantages over the 360 other than offering a blu-ray player
  • I'm willing to put money on the fact that next week we'll find out the HDMI connector on the PS3 is non standardized, so you'd have to buy Sony's brand of cable only to use it. Of course that will only cost the consumer 99 dollars, similar to the Xbox's Wireless USB Adapter.

    I'd make fun of sony but it's just another in it's long line of "screw the consumer" moves. All I can do now is shake my head and wonder when they will start medicating the designers.
  • Oblig. Xbox 360 Note (Score:3, Informative)

    by Stonesand (922187) <sandstone@gmail.com> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @11:44AM (#16045019) Homepage
    FWIW, the Premium version of the 360 comes with the highest-end cable: it has component out, composite out, and optical out. A really great cable! :)
  • hmm... (Score:2, Funny)

    I'm more shocked that there are actually working models available. A few months back, a friend of mine who worked at EB Games informed me that every model of the PS3 that was tested exploded (or at least burned out in a spectacular fashion.) Perhaps this is just a PS2 with a fancier logo.
  • Oh noes! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by be-fan (61476) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @12:06PM (#16045221)
    Except every major console in history has shipped with a lowest-common-denominator cable.

    Does the 360 ship with a component cable? Did the dreamcast ship with a VGA cable?

    Will the Wii ship with a component cable, despite the fact that its required to enable progressive-scan mode? The GC didn't...
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Does the 360 ship with a component cable?"

      Yes it does, My Sony Fanboi. And its also $100 cheaper. Any more questions?
  • The #1 reason cables aren't included in most peripheral devices is because the user most likely already has a cable just like the one needed. You buy a new VCR, you don't need a new cable, you just unhook the old one, and attach the new one. And trust me, nobody is throwing in HDMI cables for free, for any HDMI-ready device.

    I see this as more of a case of "letting the consumer figure out their own way to getting things hooked up" than "we're trying to shaft you by making you pay extra for HDMI cables."

    And d
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by crabpeople (720852)
      "The #1 reason cables aren't included in most peripheral devices is because the user most likely already has a cable just like the one needed."

      Thats a good guess but your wrong. Having worked in retail computer sales, I can say with absolute certainty that with printers, scanners, etc... the store makes shit money markup wise (10-$30 most printers). Most cables COST less than $3. The stores mark them up 1000% or more. So you get a A-B usb cable costing $15, instead of the 50cents it costs the store to purch
  • 1080p (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ScaryFroMan (901163) <scaryfroman@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @12:34PM (#16045466)
    I think the main issue here is that despite all of Sony's posturing about 1080p being the future of gaming, they aren't letting people into that "future" without first, $100 more, and second, the cost of an HDMI cable, which is going to mean at least another $100 for most people, despite what you can find online.

    And this is especially true because although the component spec is capable of 1080p, the playstation won't do it.

  • by MooseTick (895855) on Tuesday September 05, 2006 @04:16PM (#16047185) Homepage
    As others have said, big whoop concerning a cable that a single digit % of users will need isn't included. I'm waiting for the day when the power adaptor isn't included and you have to pay $49.99 extra for the priviledge to be able to plug your game unit in the wall! I believe that day is coming.

"Our reruns are better than theirs." -- Nick at Nite

Working...