Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

July 12, 2011 -

According to a memo sent to GameStop and obtained by Kotaku, the newest PS3 systems will remove the ability to use component cables to get high definition signals. This will make it so that PS3 users will have to be using an HDMI cable to show an HD image. Since HDMI cables can retail for $60 or more, this is not necessarily a good thing for consumers who don't have a lot to spend.

"This means you will want to offer an HDMI cable with every new 'K' model PS3," the memo says.

Ars Technica speculates why Sony decided to take away the ability to view true HD images via a component cable. One reason, they say, is because some Sony Bravia televisions already require an HDMI connection to display video in the full 1080p resolution.

This move will give Sony more control over how the image is used, while limiting the possibilities for recording or duplication. Also, retailers can now make a few bucks selling HDMI cables alongside the system, according to Ars.

Sony has not commented publically about this story.

My advice? Be prepared to buy an HDMI if you are buying a new PS3.

Source: Ars Technica

Posted in

Comments

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

The latest I've heard on this is that games will still be fine through component. What you won't be able to do is watch Blu-Rays at their full resolution without HDMI. 

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

Not sure how that can pull that off since it's the same disc format.

 

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

HDMI over $60??? Poor idiots who are buying the 'Monster Brand' label stuff. Overpriced crap.

In Canada here and at Best Buy I can buy a normal one for $20- $30. No skin off my butt. Then again almost every tv from the last 4 years has 2+ HDMI ports. Now that I know on E-Bay or Amazon, you can get $5 and $10...ugh.

Isn't this what everything is leaning towards now? Why the hostility?

==============

James Fletcher, member of ECA Canada

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

I think everyone knows you can pick up a HDMI cable on the cheap.  I bought one for $5 at the Dollar Store.  The anger I think is coming from the fact that Sony is mutilating their console in a futile fight against pirates where the only people who really suffer are their customers who don't steal their shit.  Ugh.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

That or as soemone pointed out above it could be a thinly veiled attempt to try to force those who haven't gotten HDTVs yet.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

Sony continues to canabalize their system.  Maybe next they will disable the disc drive altogether.  Because if it can't play any discs, then it can't play pirated discs right?

Continuing to fuck over thei customer base because of a minor amount of pirates.  Pathetic.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

Do some research Pete. You can get a pack of three HDMI cables off of Amazon for 15 bucks.

This makes me glad I have a Ps3 with component abilities and glad I got an HD TV.

Also, if you're talking about the newest PS# systems, why did you picture a phatty?

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

That is an online retailer. Brick and Mortor retailers don't sell cheap cables. The cheapest HDMI cable I have ever seen in retail was $40. I bought mine for $2 on Monoprice. Most people will not think to look there.

E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

Bought my HDMI for $10 at the local Big Lots. Might not be as cheap as some Online, but the ones I found were the same price once S&H were added.

 

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Hunting the shadows of the troubled dreams.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

I also got $10 cables at Big Lots, and they've worked just fine for 3.5 years.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3


 

60$? I got my cable with 6€.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

ArsTechnica has an update on this story from Sony.

"The new CECH-3000 series PS3 requires HDMI only for BD movie output in HD, in compliance with AACS standards," Sony told Ars. "PS3 continues to support component output for HD gaming and streaming content."

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2011/07/sony-explains-new-ps3-hdmi-re...

The HDMI cable is only required for Blu-ray playback and not HD gaming. Still a crap move and goes against every anti-DRM bone in my body.

E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

To those claiming they are doing this for no good reason, they actually are.

By removing the option of component cables for HD output, they are able to force a DRM system that prevents 3rd party recording systems from operating on the resulting output.

Granted, this is really bad for gamers and especially people who like to record their play throughs for the purposes of tutorials and reporting and otehr such legal channels, but in Sony's mind it prevents Blu-ray pirates from ripping movie content. Not that it will actually do anything like that since Blu-ray pirates wouldn't be using such a convoluted process to rip high def video.

E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

HDMI cables can be dirt cheap. I think I got mine for £2-3 each on Amazon. The problem's not the extra cost (although this will be an excuse for unethical salesmen to hawk overpriced HDMI cables to unwary buyers), but as suggested in other comments above, the fact that Sony are removing a feature for no particularly good reason and essentially making PS3s incompatible with a good number of TV sets.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

Yeah, cable vendors have long sold good, quality cables for very low prices.  Buying A/V cables, even cheap ones, from big stores has always been a rip off. 

This does suck, but not because of the potential added cost.  It sucks because they're removing a feature for no good reason that many people (maybe not a majority but still) would like to have.  I use component hookups on my PS3 because it is plugged into a TV that doesn't have HDMI.  I guess Sony figures it is time I dump my old (but still good) TV just so I can have one of their shiny new Bravias.

Guess again Stringer. 

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

The PS3 doesn't care what brand your TV is. I mean if you want to get an HD then you can get a good for for how cheap CRTs were going for when they stopped selling them.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

"It sucks because they're removing a feature for no good reason that many people (maybe not a majority but still) would like to have."

This sounds rather familiar...

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

I got my HDMI (6 footer) for a nickle plus shipping of like 3 bucks.

Re: Report: Sony to Require HDMI Cable for HD Output on PS3

HDMI cables are only rediculously priced if you purchase them from Walmart, Best Buy, Target, Game Stop, and most other common retail stores.

If you want an HDMI cable that will do the job just as well as a cable from any of the aformentioned stores, just go to Five Below and purchase an HDMI cable for five dollars. Monoprice.com also has HDMI cables at affordable prices.

Any of these "cheap" hdmi cables will work just as well as the more expensive "premium" hdmi cables that will be found at the retailers. The ones and the zeroes transmitted through the cable you choose the same no matter what.

 

But shame on Sony for not including the necessary HDMI cable in the box for their system. 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_Skunkyou enjoy the benefits of working in a union environment. If working in a union is against your religious beliefs or just something you wholeheartedly object to, dues will still be deducted from your pay, but you can instruct that they be directed towards07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
Goth_SkunkBasically, if you are employed in a business where employees are represented by a union for the purposes of collective bargaining, whether or not you are a union member, you will have union dues deducted from your pay, since regardless of membership,07/07/2015 - 2:32pm
Goth_SkunkIt's something that has existed in Canada since 1946. You can read more on it here: http://ow.ly/PiHWR07/07/2015 - 2:27pm
Goth_SkunkSee, we have something similar in Canada, called a "Rand Employee." This is an employee who benefits from the collective bargaining efforts of a union, despite not wanting to be a part of it for whatever reason.07/07/2015 - 2:22pm
Matthew Wilson@info depends on the sector. for example, have you looked at how powerful unions are in the public sector? I will make the argument they have too much power in that sector.07/07/2015 - 12:39pm
InfophileIt's easy to worry about unions having too much power and causing harm. The odd thing is, why do people seem to worry about that more than the fact that business-owners can have too much power and do harm, particularly at a time when unions have no power?07/07/2015 - 12:31pm
Matthew Wilsonthe thing is unions earned their bad reputation in the US. the way unions oparate the better at your job you are, the likely you want to be in a union.07/07/2015 - 11:33am
InfophilePut that way, "right to work" seems to have BLEEP-all to do with gay rights. Thing is, union-negotiated contracts used to be one of the key ways to prevent employers from firing at will. Without union protection, nothing stops at-will firing.07/07/2015 - 11:06am
Infophilehas an incentive to pay dues if they're represented either way, so the union is starved for funds and dies, unless things are bad enough that people will pay dues anyway.07/07/2015 - 11:02am
InfophileFor those who don't know, "right to work" laws mean that it can't be a condition of an employment contract that you pay union dues. That is, the right to work without having to pay dues. Catch is, unions have to represent non-members as well, so no one...07/07/2015 - 11:01am
MechaCrashUnexpected? Seriously?07/07/2015 - 10:55am
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician