Is PS3 Still The Best Blu-ray Player??

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by richieb1971

But the PS3 pad is just so easy to hold and figure out because as a gamer you know where all the buttons are and what they do. It takes literally 3 minutes to figure 90% of it out and even in perfect dark, you can feel your way around it without backlighting.

But that only applies if you're a gamer. I think just about everyone has agreed that the PS3 is the best Blu-ray player choice if you're already a gamer.

However, if you're a home theater enthusiast with no interest in or history with gaming, the PS3 controller is awful for Blu-ray playback compared to other options.

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

Here's a good example of what's wrong with many standalone BD players. A married couple I know needed help updating the firmware on their Panasonic BD-60K player. The player was not connected to the Internet and they were not interested in connecting it to the Internet (by way of running CAT-5 cable or buying a Wi-Fi game adapter). I downloaded the firmware from the Panasonic web site to a notebook computer. Despite the BD player having USB ports and a SD card slot the player wouldn't accept firmware via flash memory media. I had to burn the firmware to an ISO-9660 CD instead. What a pain. It would seem pretty silly to buy a Playstation 3 and not connect it to the Internet -especially with the Wi-Fi and Ethernet options the PS3 provides. Yet it is still do-able. You can update the PS3 via USB attached flash memory sticks or even back up the system to a USB memory stick if you want to swap the hard drive for an even bigger one.

I do agree that ease of firmware updates is one area where the PS3 is superior to many standalones (but not all).

Most people are looking for the best value for their buck. When it comes to Blu-ray players there is no disputing the PS3 by far provides the most bang for your buck.

Sure there is. A consumer that doesn't care about media center capabilities, but just wants great Blu-ray playback and easy firmware updates would get a better bang for their buck with the Sony BDP-S560 or the Panasonic DMP-BD85 which both have Wi-fi built-in and can be had for $200 or less. The PS3 is only the best value for consumers that want/need a media center that includes Blu-ray playback.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by kefrank

But that only applies if you're a gamer. I think just about everyone has agreed that the PS3 is the best Blu-ray player choice if you're already a gamer.

However, if you're a home theater enthusiast with no interest in or history with gaming, the PS3 controller is awful for Blu-ray playback compared to other options.

It really isn't hard to use. I've shown a few non-gamers. If a person has much difficuly using one then they probably have bigger problems when it comes to home theater.

[phatrat1982]

I completely disagree with about 99% of the stuff you said. I would never in my life buy a 99 dollar blu ray player for my HT, i want the best there is. If thats the case just go buy any HD tv, HD is HD right NOOOO. There quality buddy please understand that little fact.

That was EXACTLY MY POINT HOW THE HELL DID YOU MISS IT? I never said the PS3 is not PERFECT for YOU I said it is not FOR ME! God why is that so hard to understand. NO S**T I want the best I can get, HOWEVER I DO NOT HAVE JOB right now, the last job I had I went from working 4 days a week to working 2 days a week and now that job is gone. If you are on a TIGHT budget you make sacrifices numb nuts! Maybe YOU have never been poor ok so maybe you don't GET IT. I have very little money PERIOD. I have NO CHOICE but to buy the cheapest anything I can. I think I have said that IN EVER POST. You still pretend to act like everyone is made of money.


When I bought my Blu Ray player I still had a job and while it was a tight budget I made a choice to buy a blu ray player to go with my HDTV, and **** YOU if you think your better then me because YOU can afford a better TV than me, god it is JUST TV. Yes I like quality that is why I got a full 1080p HD set, at the largest screen we could afford, which is 46" I would LOVE to get a bigger set, a better set but I CAN NOT afford it.

Even buying that $100 player set me back I had to let some things fall behind just to do that. Granted my monthly expenditures is down to the bare minimum right now, because my income is GONE. And I am struggling, have you EVER struggled in your life? No I don't think so if you think that everyone should buy a 100" set or they are beneath you or whatever your attitude is but I don't give a s**t I just want you to ACCEPT that FOR MY NEEDS a PS3 is TOO MUCH money and TOO MUCH of a WASTE. I do not NEED the extras I already pointred that out and you continue to argue, I don't get it?

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

I completely disagree with about 99% of the stuff you said. I would never in my life buy a 99 dollar blu ray player for my HT, i want the best there is. If thats the case just go buy any HD tv, HD is HD right NOOOO. There quality buddy please understand that little fact.

Put your magnavox against any PS3 and you will fall short in every category. Ill be 30 mins into the movie while your player is still loading and trying its hardest to decode lossless audio.

Not in blu-ray PQ and upconverting.
The PS3 is about average in that department.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by kefrank

I do agree that ease of firmware updates is one area where the PS3 is superior to many standalones (but not all).


Sure there is. A consumer that doesn't care about media center capabilities, but just wants great Blu-ray playback and easy firmware updates would get a better bang for their buck with the Sony BDP-S560 or the Panasonic DMP-BD85 which both have Wi-fi built-in and can be had for $200 or less. The PS3 is only the best value for consumers that want/need a media center that includes Blu-ray playback.

**** the easy FW update s**t!

The studio's need to stop with the DMR and other crap that requires FW dates. They need to stop or blu-ray will for ever be niche and fade away.
I'm sure the latest Avatar notices at Best Buy that a FW update is needed was not welcomed by those thinking about getting blu-ray players.
$50 for a FW update !!! I'm sure people are glad they don't own a blu-ray player with crap like that.
At this point in adoption, players should not require FW updates and play every damn disk inserted in to them.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

the argument it is the "best bang for the buck' or the best deal or whatever is CRAP! Here is why, if ALL YOU want is to watch movies, then the BEST DEAL is the cheapest player that will play, MOVIES.

If you DO NOT GAME then paying extra money for a player that DOES is a WASTE of money.

If you use your Computer for all the streaming and online content then that defeats the need to have that feature so again you are paying money for something you do not need, a WASTE of money.


If you are POOR and do not make a lot of money and your power bill is already high, you certainly do not want to get anything that is going to increase it by too much. If in fact the PS3 does use even twice the power of a different player well again more money WASTED.

I also forgot to mention that with PS3 you have to spend even more money to buy a remote which your non-PS3 player came with and most even give you 2 batteries for free to get you started.

If you have no need or use for Bluetooth well again more money WASTED.



The thing is if you do NOT need the extra features and it is a WASTE of money to buy the player then it is NOT a bargain it is OVERKILL.


I bought a $99 Magnavox player and that was an upgrade from a used HD-DVD player I had to buy because that was all I could afford. As a gamer I am Nintendo all the way so nothing Sony ever makes will get my money as video games go. That being said I have NO use for the extra "features" when I can do EVERYTHING else the PS3 does ON MY PC which I am on most of the time so it would NOT make sense to buy a machine that would waste electricity NOT being used because as it stand I watch 1 Blu Ray movie a week, that is the only time I have to watch movies and I would not want a machine plugged in that is sucking the juice all day long.

FOR ME and MY NEEDS the PS3 is FAR FROM a bargain so accept that and stop saying that it is the best bargain because it is not. IF I would use the other features I would have no problem paying for them but I even bought a Bonus View player because for one I wanted the cheapest I could buy and for 2, I know I do not care for the extra features so PS3 or not the other point is even an Oppo would not be a bargain for me because it does things I do not need and will never use, again wasted money.

So there is not such thing as a 1 size fits all player that is the best for everyone. If you like the PS3 fine I do not hate it but for me it is a COMPLETE waste of money as the ONLY thing it does I would use it for is Blu Ray. I watch all my DVD's on my HD-DVD player because it upscales better than my blu ray player so again a feature I would not need from the PS3.

The thread is "Is the PS3 still the best Blu Ray player" and the INDISPUTABLE answer is NOT FOR EVERYONE. For you it may very well be but for OTHERS it is not so the CORRECT and ONLY answer is no it is not the best for everyone.


Not to mention that the PS3 does not come with a remote you have to once again pay more money for something. I don't know about the PS3 remote but my player not only came with a decent remote it also came with free batteries.

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

um I already have a device that does that, I think I mentioned that it is called my PC, like I said FOR ME it is extra money for features I do not need.



And DO NOT tell me the PS3 controller "works fine" um hell no it does, I have friends who have PS3's and THEY ALL spent the extra money on the remote, as do most sensible people because the remote SUCKS and they recognize that. Sure once you have gotten used to it you get comfortable with it but a regular remote there is no getting used to the play button ALWAYS plays the movie the STOP button ALWAYS stops the movie, it has been that way since the late 70's, PS3 changed the button layout from the PS2's DVD capabilities, which was also a pain in the ass but not half as bad as PS3's set up.

And to the guy who said the electric bill as a talking point, shut up, it was already brought up and I agreed I aid "IF that is true" as in I didn't claim it was or a factor but if it is true then YES it is a deal to ME I am out of work right now, and Blu Ray is not a HOBBY for me, I buy movies when I can, the last one I bought was AVATAR I got that day one, last movie I bought before that, was 2 months prior. Money is a BIG DEAL to me because I do not have a whole lot. Also I leave my air conditioner off to save money and turn the lights off when I do not use them and buy those light bulbs that use less power TO SAVE MONEY, if I am swapping out my light bulbs to save money and using my PC as my main media device, which means the TV and Blu Ray, HD-DVD, and cable box are not on when the PC is, that should tell you it matters to me.

Why are you even arguing damn I gave good valid points and you took one little thing out of my post and threw my whole argument away because of ONE little issue you had with it? Grow up or get a life or just get over it you are WRONG if you continue to think that my needs are met by the PS3, they are not I explained why and I gave GOOD indisputable reasons and you DISPUTE them anyways. Look what the hell does it matter to you? Are you bumbed out you won't get to play me on PSN or whatever? That would never happen anyways I don't play online gaming ever I play games locally with my real friends I go online to look up information about stuff that interests me, I tend to spend pop in here once or twice a day but as you can see I do not spend too much money on Blu Ray movies and I do not spent too much time on the forum so saying this is my hobby is very inaccurate.


Not that it matters but all of my real hobbies are FREE so you lose anyways.

Originally Posted by kefrank

While it's possible to use the PS3 remote for Blu-ray playback, it is a truly awful substitute for a real remote and no self-respecting home theater should settle ever for it. The official PS3 BD remote or an adapter for your universal remote is essential for anyone using their PS3 primarily as a Blu-ray player.

#1. phatrat1982 needs to take a serious chill pill. He has come in here looking to make things personal. It's a point/counterpoint discussion and you have decided to fly off the handle.

#2. About the controller/remote arguement. I've met a TON of people who got the remote too. HOWEVER, they also never gave the controller a chance. And, by a chance I mean LITERALLY 10 seconds to learn the buttons. I've had at least 3 dozen COUPLES tell me, after a 10 second tutorial, that THEY WASTED MONEY ON THE REMOTE. Most people don't even bother with the controller and just go straight to the remote. It's definitely not a "getting use to it" situation. It's a "take 10 seconds to learn something new" situation.

#3. phatrat1982, you mentioned somewhere in this thread that you were "A Nintendo gamer all the way and would never buy anything Sony anyways." With that statement combined with the attitude you have been displaying, it seems as though your entire arguement in this thread gets dismissed as fanboy drivel. I'm sorry, but you are the weakest link in the arguement against the PS3 being a quality BD player.

[prerich]

Originally Posted by lDlisturb3d

Better yet holla at me when you find a BD player that can take a massive firmware update that allows a 2-D blu ray player be 3-D. That alone should open you eyes to the PS3's potential in multimedia.

HOLLLA!!!!! There is another one....it's called a PC Arcsoft Sim3D (however it is 19.99). You don't need a 120hz monitor though - can the PS3 do that? Not trying to incite a riot - I just want to know if the PS3 can output 2D to 3D with a normal 60hz mointor because I really don't know

[Monkey]

If you are on a TIGHT budget you make sacrifices numb nuts!

Sounds dirty to me.. Maybe it is just me though

If you are on a TIGHT budget you make sacrifices numb nuts!

In that case, spend the 10 seconds to learn the buttons on the PS3 controller instead of wasting another $10-$20 on the PS3 remote. Being ultra lazy can cost you

[prerich]

I'm with Petra as far as the attitude of this entire thread....on both sides. If this continues I will be moved to lock the thread and close it. We can be in unitiy without having to conform. I have a friend who has a magnavox bd player and it has played every BD he has thrown at it. I have friends that own the PS3 and they enjoy it as well as friends that own standalones and PCs. To each his own. Let's just enjoy our differences shall we?

[Canada]

The Oppo BD 83 is the best Blu ray player so far, period.

[hvid]

I like using the PS3 BD remote. It doesn't cost that much and it has an advantage: if you lose it or break it, you can just get another one easily. Same if you prefer using the regular controller.

Another PS3 advantage is its big base of customers. A company may discontinue support for a SA after several years but the PS3 will have decades of support.

[lDlisturb3d]

Im done with this point less argument, i chose to spend almost a 1,000 bucks on PS3's knowing its capabilities, my next door buddy has a oppo, and its not what everyone makes it to be for the price they charge.

Just know that in lDlisturb3d's house you will find an a2-300 sub and 3 ps3's cream of the crop in my territory.

[phatrat1982]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

#1. phatrat1982 needs to take a serious chill pill. He has come in here looking to make things personal. It's a point/counterpoint discussion and you have decided to fly off the handle.

#2. About the controller/remote arguement. I've met a TON of people who got the remote too. HOWEVER, they also never gave the controller a chance. And, by a chance I mean LITERALLY 10 seconds to learn the buttons. I've had at least 3 dozen COUPLES tell me, after a 10 second tutorial, that THEY WASTED MONEY ON THE REMOTE. Most people don't even bother with the controller and just go straight to the remote. It's definitely not a "getting use to it" situation. It's a "take 10 seconds to learn something new" situation.

#3. phatrat1982, you mentioned somewhere in this thread that you were "A Nintendo gamer all the way and would never buy anything Sony anyways." With that statement combined with the attitude you have been displaying, it seems as though your entire arguement in this thread gets dismissed as fanboy drivel. I'm sorry, but you are the weakest link in the arguement against the PS3 being a quality BD player.

No it was not personal at all and it is not fanboy arguments ok and I am calm now I just want you to recognize that it is NOT for everyone I gave you reasons why it is NOT for me, I am SOMEONE am I not> You gave reasons why it is for you yes you are also someone, for you it is the best for me it is not ALL I ever asked was you AGREE that it is not for everyone! I am not at all. trying to say it is crap or worthless or people are stupid for wanting one.



I will say it again using a list.


It plays videos games.

YES it plays SOME video games ,so does my Atari 2600 so does my PC, so does my CELL PHONE, however just because it plays video games does not mean it plays EVERY video game or that every one who plays video games will enjoy the games it plays. That to me is a LAME argument, because the games do not interest me. This is not a Buy a Wii don't buy a PS3 thread it is a discussion about WHY the PS3 is NOT the BEST for EVERYONE. As a gamer who does not enjoy the types of games playstation offers which I am entiteld to that am I not? By saying my points are invalid BECAUSE I do not like their games is insane. I do not have to like Playstations games just like you have every right to like them.

The bit about the remote

It costs extra money simple as that. OK you say it tales 10 seconds to learn, and fine for you, however I had a hard time with it. I already hated the PS controller from back in 95 it never got better. I did take the time to learn it, with PS2 cuz my friends all had those instead of DVD players back then. It sucked it did not make sense and it was confusing. PLUS a remote is already familiar why should someone HAVE to learn something new.

Having said that, the PS3 took the controlls from PS2 and switched things around! They got you familiar with a layout and then decided nope that worked for PS2 not good enough for PS3 though.



The it has a hard drive


So does my PC, so does my WDTV player so once again that is not a valid selling point to me because I have NO NEED for that.


It streams media


See above above. if i already have a means to do this why would I spend more money on a device to do something I already can do?

It upconverts DVD,


ok so does my HD-DVD player, my upconverting DVD player, My TV, and my blu ray player.


the ONLY thing that interests me about PS3 is it plays Blu Rays, and so far my Blu Ray player I bought for 1/3 the price does that too.

The firmware is upgradeable/

so, i have YET to need to upgrade thefirmware on my player how many times have you HAD to upgrade yours? That is not a selling point that is an DISTRACTION and I can not begin to figure out how that is a GOOD thing.

It has USB ports,


so? If I am never going to use them or if the devices i would use them on i already have other means of doing so why would I care, My wii had usb ports also I never claimed it was better than my Blu Ray player because of that.

maybe would i dont know use it to charge my ipod if I lost my charger.

I am not arguing it is NOT a good player, get that through your head first all I am saying is it is NOT the best for everyone, can you at least concede to that? That is all I asked I gave GOOD reasons and you dismissed them because of preference. i was not making it personal I was just saying that it is NOT the best FOR EVERYONe and you continue to argue i was stupid for thinking that.


You took my comments as I was arguing that PS3 is garbage hence your comments about me being the weakest link in the argument, except I was not saying that I was saying that it does nothing for me the extras it does are, for me, a waste of money.


But I am sorry if I came off rude I just hate how all i did was say why it was not for me and I got attacked and am the bad guy I guess.

[Bobby Henderson]

I honestly have to wonder if the people crying about the PS3 remote are people who have never touched a PS3 at all in their lives. What a crock.


First of all, the gaming controller works just fine as a remote. Actually you can do some interesting jog/shuttle stuff none of the goofy standalone player remotes seem to be able to do.

Additionally, there absolutely is nothing wrong at all with the PS3 Bluetooth remote. And I really won't be made to care about its lack of traditional infrared functions. Boo hoo, so you have to have more than one remote on the coffee table or in the salad bowl. Sniff. Whine. The Bluetooth remote has every remote function you need for a Blu-ray player. It doesn't cost very much either. The folks whining about its extra cost don't mention what the remote actually costs (around $20). I wonder why. Do they want to imply that it costs another $100 (like a Wi-Fi game adapter one would need for wireless connection to so many standalone BD players)? Or do they want to not come across as cheapskates. It's just $20. Geez.

Originally Posted by Kefrank

I think just about everyone has agreed that the PS3 is the best Blu-ray player choice if you're already a gamer.

I disagree. My first PS3 system (a 80GB Motorstorm bundle model) was stolen in a burglary after 2 years of use. I replaced it with a PS3 slim. I have only a handful of games and don't play them very often. I still chose the PS3 for its ability to handle music from a variety of attached and networked sources, multimedia capability, ease of use, reliability, future-proof factors and general speed and quality on handling Blu-ray media. Only the highest end players, such as a couple Oppo models offered any sort of competition, but they still fell short in areas that had nothing to do with gaming.

The PS3 is more than just a gaming toy. The people who dismiss it as that merely show their ignorance when doing so.

Originally Posted by Kefrank

I do agree that ease of firmware updates is one area where the PS3 is superior to many standalones (but not all).

Please name a specific Blu-ray player that is easier to firmware update and be specific about why it is easier. Until I see true proof, I'll continue to call the PS3 the easiest to update BD player on the market. It's very straight-forward to update via the Internet. It's very easy to update via the "sneaker network." It has a built in, standard 2.5" SATA hard drive that is easy to replace and upgrade. Sony has done nothing less than an excellent job in making the PS3 easy to use and easy to manage.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by phatrat1982

No it was not personal at all and it is not fanboy arguments ok and I am calm now I just want you to recognize that it is NOT for everyone I gave you reasons why it is NOT for me, I am SOMEONE am I not> You gave reasons why it is for you yes you are also someone, for you it is the best for me it is not ALL I ever asked was you AGREE that it is not for everyone! I am not at all. trying to say it is crap or worthless or people are stupid for wanting one.



I will say it again using a list.


It plays videos games.

YES it plays SOME video games ,so does my Atari 2600 so does my PC, so does my CELL PHONE, however just because it plays video games does not mean it plays EVERY video game or that every one who plays video games will enjoy the games it plays. That to me is a LAME argument, because the games do not interest me. This is not a Buy a Wii don't buy a PS3 thread it is a discussion about WHY the PS3 is NOT the BEST for EVERYONE. As a gamer who does not enjoy the types of games playstation offers which I am entiteld to that am I not? By saying my points are invalid BECAUSE I do not like their games is insane. I do not have to like Playstations games just like you have every right to like them.

The bit about the remote

It costs extra money simple as that. OK you say it tales 10 seconds to learn, and fine for you, however I had a hard time with it. I already hated the PS controller from back in 95 it never got better. I did take the time to learn it, with PS2 cuz my friends all had those instead of DVD players back then. It sucked it did not make sense and it was confusing. PLUS a remote is already familiar why should someone HAVE to learn something new.

Having said that, the PS3 took the controlls from PS2 and switched things around! They got you familiar with a layout and then decided nope that worked for PS2 not good enough for PS3 though.



The it has a hard drive


So does my PC, so does my WDTV player so once again that is not a valid selling point to me because I have NO NEED for that.


It streams media


See above above. if i already have a means to do this why would I spend more money on a device to do something I already can do?

It upconverts DVD,


ok so does my HD-DVD player, my upconverting DVD player, My TV, and my blu ray player.


the ONLY thing that interests me about PS3 is it plays Blu Rays, and so far my Blu Ray player I bought for 1/3 the price does that too.

The firmware is upgradeable/

so, i have YET to need to upgrade thefirmware on my player how many times have you HAD to upgrade yours? That is not a selling point that is an DISTRACTION and I can not begin to figure out how that is a GOOD thing.

It has USB ports,


so? If I am never going to use them or if the devices i would use them on i already have other means of doing so why would I care, My wii had usb ports also I never claimed it was better than my Blu Ray player because of that.

maybe would i dont know use it to charge my ipod if I lost my charger.

I am not arguing it is NOT a good player, get that through your head first all I am saying is it is NOT the best for everyone, can you at least concede to that? That is all I asked I gave GOOD reasons and you dismissed them because of preference. i was not making it personal I was just saying that it is NOT the best FOR EVERYONe and you continue to argue i was stupid for thinking that.


You took my comments as I was arguing that PS3 is garbage hence your comments about me being the weakest link in the argument, except I was not saying that I was saying that it does nothing for me the extras it does are, for me, a waste of money.


But I am sorry if I came off rude I just hate how all i did was say why it was not for me and I got attacked and am the bad guy I guess.

Well, bottom line is that this thread is titled, "Is PS3 Still The Best Blu-ray Player??" It is not titled, "Is PS3 An Electronic Device For Everyone?" So, on that basis, you are technically off topic. Based solely on home hard disk media capabilities, it is still clearly at the head of the class. And everything else about it is sheer bonus. Most BD players that cost less than $150 will eventually be put up against a wall that they cannot overcome, thus forcing the user to spend another $100 or more in the future for a new player. Suddenly, that $300 price for a BD player that is guaranteed to be able to bound over every technical hurdle put in its path with brilliant ease doesn't seem so bad to anyone who likes to think long term with regards to electonic purchases.

So, regardless of anything else other than the BD capabilities and futureproof nature of said capabilities, the PS3 reigns supreme.

[HDPlasma]

Originally Posted by Canada

The Oppo BD 83 is the best Blu ray player so far, period.

At $500 = FAIL when a $99 player can do the EXACT same thing in regards to blu-ray playback.
*Playing DVDA and other formats is not a blu-ray player requirement.

[amarster]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I honestly have to wonder if the people crying about the PS3 remote are people who have never touched a PS3 at all in their lives. What a crock.
.

why don't they just use the controller then, so simple to use as a remote i can do it behind my back
never understood why people buy the remote, but to each his own

[kefrank]

Originally Posted by Bobby Henderson

I honestly have to wonder if the people crying about the PS3 remote are people who have never touched a PS3 at all in their lives. What a crock.

Two quick things:
1. None of my posts about the controller indicate "crying" and your misrepresentation here (and later with all of the "boo hoo" and "whining" comments) treads closer to phatrat1982's irrationality than to productive discussion.
2. I've owned a PS3 for over two years. I've used both the controller and the PS3 BD remote for Blu-ray playback and my assessment of the controller as awful is based on that direct experience. The BD remote is MUCH better for BD playback, in my opinion.

And I really won't be made to care about its lack of traditional infrared functions.

While you won't be made to care, many home theater enthusiasts already do care and as such, the PS3 may not be the best choice for them.

The folks whining about its extra cost don't mention what the remote actually costs (around $20). I wonder why. Do they want to imply that it costs another $100 (like a Wi-Fi game adapter one would need for wireless connection to so many standalone BD players)? Or do they want to not come across as cheapskates. It's just $20. Geez.

I can't speak for anyone else, but at $299, the PS3 is already more expensive than many standalones that offer excellent Blu-ray playback and have Wi-fi included. The fact that a decent remote for Blu-ray playback adds an additional $20 makes it an even worse value, in comparison.

I disagree. My first PS3 system (a 80GB Motorstorm bundle model) was stolen in a burglary after 2 years of use. I replaced it with a PS3 slim. I have only a handful of games and don't play them very often. I still chose the PS3 for its ability to handle music from a variety of attached and networked sources, multimedia capability, ease of use, reliability, future-proof factors and general speed and quality on handling Blu-ray media. Only the highest end players, such as a couple Oppo models offered any sort of competition, but they still fell short in areas that had nothing to do with gaming.

The PS3 is more than just a gaming toy. The people who dismiss it as that merely show their ignorance when doing so.

You're disagreeing with something I never said. I merely said, "The PS3 is the best choice of Blu-ray player for gamers." I didn't say, "The PS3 is the best Blu-ray player only for gamers." I've repeatedly stated that for anyone looking for a Blu-ray player that also acts as a media center, the PS3 is by far the best choice. But not everyone needs the media center capability and for those people, there are better choices than the PS3, particularly given the previously stated reliability problems with the hardware.

Please name a specific Blu-ray player that is easier to firmware update and be specific about why it is easier. Until I see true proof, I'll continue to call the PS3 the easiest to update BD player on the market.

I feel like you're reading the words I wrote and then processing them in your mind as something else entirely. I never said that other Blu-ray players were easier to update. I simply said the PS3 is superior to most, but not all players in that area. In other words, some standalones are just as easy to update as the PS3 thanks to built-in Wi-fi. I've already listed two models to that effect.

[BDestroyer8418]

Originally Posted by amarster

why don't they just use the controller then, so simple to use as a remote i can do it behind my back
never understood why people buy the remote, but to each his own

I hate the PS3 remote I bought it when it 1st came out what a waste of money. That thing does more harm than good. The controller is hands down the best remote.

It's so much easier to navigate through XMB with the controller and stuff.

For what you can get the PS3 now at bestbuy after Bing it's a steal.