Just like movies and music, when it comes to games, I really think it’s simply all about price!

As a gamer, I still prefer the idea of discs because of the ability to trade them in, sell them used or buy them used. Downloads are too restrictive. I buy the game, download it and then…that’s it! I’m stuck with it, cannot sell it to recoup any cost and if it’s only available via download, I cannot buy it used.

The thing is, if downloads were considerably less expensive than current retail prices for discs, then I’m all for it! I more or less refuse to pay more than $25 for most games, so I pretty much only buy used. Get the download prices down to that level though and I’d be fine with it.

Put the game on a disc, a cartridge a memory stick or let me download it – none of that really matters. What matters is the PRICE and discs simply offer more ways of finding a good deal – at least for the time being.

@Rob –
See that’s the part of this whole digital download thing I don’t get… why is selling your games such a big deal? I have NEVER sold a game/movie/CD to a store or traded it in on another purchase. Why? Because it’s almost an insult for what you get for them! It’s worth more to me in utility just to keep the damn thing! Let me trade six games in to buy one… no thanks. If anything I’ll unload all of them at once when I sell my console on ebay (I could do this with all the downloaded games too as long as they don’t tie games to a user… which they will). Plus, game manufacturers HATE the second hand market. If you think they’re going to concede because “I can’t sell my games :tear:” then you’re sorely mistaken… this is just another reason for them to make the move. More control!

I buy games on Steam for PC a lot. They have great weekend sales and even some pretty good pre-order deals that make things cheaper than buying the physical copies. That makes sense.

What’s going on on XBox Live is pretty lackluster at the moment. Old games for more money than you can find them on the shelves or at Amazon. I’m hoping they are just testing the system before putting prices on things that might sell a lot of copies, but I suspect this is really them trying to keep from angering retailers like Gamestop, which they still rely on to move hardware.

Will people accept this? I think they will. Steam and even the iphone platform are showing that if things are priced right and delivered in even a semi-competent manner to the client that you can move a lot of content. Both those services are convincing people that use them that this is OK and convenient, and those users will start buying downloadable software elsewhere over time.

I think long term that game downloads are the answer. On the PC it pretty much already is. It might be next console generation before it happens on consoles. It’s just taking the publishers awhile to figure it out.

Leif, if you sell games at Gamespot or their ilk, you will get nothing for them. I have sold a handful of things on either ebay or Amazon Marketplace, and it’s not quite as bad.

I’ll occasionally pick up a used copy of something, play it, and then resell it. Since it’s going used to used, it’s basically playing only the tranactional costs to play a game (shipping, etc). So it’s like a cheap rental on my own time clock.

I have only done that a handful of times, but it’s nice to know I can. Right now I’m thinking about unloading some B level single player games that I don’t have a big desire to ever play again.

But your point on publishers hating reselling is true and one of the reasons I think they’ll eventually come around to fully supporting downloads, retailers be damned.

I’ve been doing that too… I will only buy new those AAA titles that I have to have and will probably end up keeping for years on end… everything else I buy used or out of the clearance bin and then loan it out to whoever wants it.

On another note…

I think 3d is a gimmick and a fad right now. I really don’t see it having any staying power as it did before. It’s a cool thing to show some kids but as a movie/film watcher, I don’t think I could do it.

Disney and marvel? Look for an upcoming episode of Hanna Montana with special guest WOLVERINE!!! LOL Hell has definately frozen over and good ‘ol Stan Lee must have cashed out in a huge way. If you look at the last 10 years I think Marvel made a conscious effort to be built to sell.

Picking a receiver is tough these days. Receiver do SO much now, I can easily understand someone wanting to know what they ought to be looking for.

I start with the amplifier and power section quality. The number of Watts on the spec sheet doesn’t matter (that number can be manipulated, so it’s basically a worthless spec these days), but there are difference out there when it comes to distortion levels and linearity. Sony gets a big thumbs down from me, unless it’s their high end and high-priced ES models because their receivers frequently have non-linear output and audible distortion. Yamaha has also slipped in these departments lately – at least in their lower cost models.

After that, my “must have” feature is full support and processing of multi-channel PCM via HDMI input. I think this is a critical feature to have – mainly for Blu-ray (which everyone should be supporting not just for the HD video, but for the HD audio as well!). I also look for built-in Dolby Digital Plus decoding. I’m convinced that if and when downloads/streaming starts offering surround sound as the de facto audio track, DD+ will be the format of choice because it provides more efficient compression of the audio. DD+ is also going to be the standard for HDTV audio transmission in the future, so I think it’s important to have DD+ decoding in the receiver.

TrueHD and DTS-HD support are far less critical, IMO, because the Blu-ray player really ought to be handling the TrueHD/DTS-HD decoding and sending out multi-channel PCM. That’s the only way to always preserve full audio quality, even when secondary audio tracks are engaged.

After that, I look for good room correction. In my experience, Audyssey gives the best results. But I demand that it be possible to use the “Flat” setting rather than the “Audyssey” setting. I also look for the full “MultEQ XT” version so that the subwoofer is also EQ’d by the receiver.

I find it a great shame that Denon and Onkyo have only used the “XT” bass EQ function in their more costly receivers lately. I am also displeased with Onkyo for not including the “flat” setting in their Audyssey setup. Onkyo receivers that are THX certified have a work-around though. If you engage a THX listening mode, then the Audyssey room correction defaults to the “Flat” setting automatically. This is because THX sound modes employ “THX Re-EQ”, which has a similar sound “curve” to the “Audyssey” setting. But you can manually disengage “Re-EQ”, which leaves you with the “Flat” Audyssey room correction setting – which is what I want! It takes several button presses to make all of this happen, so it’s definitely only for a knowledgable person!

Total it all up and, these days, I pretty much only recommend Denon. And only models that are fairly high up their ladder because of the “XT” part of Audyssey.

“That’s the only way to always preserve full audio quality, even when secondary audio tracks are engaged.”

Honestly, this has been puzzling me. Why should there be anything stopping a Blu-Ray player (or any other source device) from switching from a bitstreamed True HD, Dolby Digital, etc stream to a stereo PCM stream automatically when no digital bitstream is available? Would that really be so hard? You could set up your device once to automatically favor digital audio formats in an ascending order. When the stream at the top of the list isn’t available for the track you select, it would just look for the next format on that list in descending order. Can’t most new receivers auto-detect digital stream type on the fly?

The argument for doing so would be to limit the end user’s investment. In a similar vein, why should he or she have to shell out multiple times for a device with high quality DACs or video scalers. A single substantial investment in an AV receiver should be sufficient. The purchase cost for adjacent source or display components would ideally not have to reflect these high end features. IE, why pay for a Blu-Ray AND CD player player with a high end DAC or a TV AND projector with a high end scaler?

Hey all…first post….quick question to Tom regarding the Panamax Battery Backup. You mentioned that it provides protection of the LAN (Cat5) line which the APC (which I have) doesn’t. But isn’t protection of this overly redundant? If you run the power line and the coax through the “protector” the LAN line should be automatically protected as there is no other way for a spike to enter the system….no?

Thanks.

-Clayton

A couple of my big AV receiver hangups are pre-amp outputs, so you can use an external amplifier if desired… and sophisticated Zone 2/3 functionality. With today’s RF remote controls, you really can do some amazing things with zones in even mid-fi A/V receivers. A powered Zone 2 and an unpowered Zone3 can do wonders for a second room and outdoors.

cynan – the “problem” with Blu-ray audio when it comes to secondary audio tracks is that the audio track does not “switch”. Instead, what is happening is that the same TrueHD/DTS-HD audio track is playing. If you engage a secondary audio track (like a director’s commentary or a picture-in-picture special feature with its own sound) then that secondary audio is literally a second audio stream that is “overlaid” on top of the movie’s primary TrueHD/DTS-HD soundtrack.

Receivers can only accept one audio stream at a time. They are not mixers. So if you use bitstream output, you can only listen to the primary audio OR the secondary audio. You cannot listen to the secondary audio on top of the primary audio. And in most cases, there isn’t even an option – you will only hear the primary audio and that’s it!

Now, there are many acceptions. For example, if you set your Panasonic Blu-ray player to output bitstream audio and then you engage a secondary audio feature, the Panasonic players will actually revert to a 640 kbps Dolby Digital audio mix. What is actually happening inside the player is that it will use the embedded regular DD or DTS primary audio track. It will decode that track and it will also decode the secondary audio track (if necessary). So inside the player – at this point – are two, seperate PCM audio tracks. The player will then mix those two PCM audio tracks together, run them through a real-time DD encoder and send a 640 kbps DD bitstream to your receiver.

BUT, if you select PCM output, then here is what happens: the player decodes the full quality TrueHD or DTS-HD primary audio track. The player also decodes the secondary audio track (if necessary). Once again, you wind up with two, seperate PCM audio tracks. But this time, the primary audio is the full quality TrueHD/DTS-HD, rather than the regular DD/DTS. The two PCM tracks get mixed together inside the player and output as a single PCM audio track to your receiver.

You cannot have full quality mixed audio with a bitstream output because the players do not contain real-time TrueHD or DTS-HD encoders. Those encoders would be necessary if you wanted a full quality bitstream output with secondary audio because – as I said – receivers can only accept one audio stream.

So your options for audio output with both primary and secondary audio are:

1) bitstream at regular DD or DTS quality

2) PCM with full quality

3) bitstream, but you only hear the primary audio if your player has this limitation.

So that is why using the PCM output is the best option – provided, of course, that your Blu-ray player has internal TrueHD/DTS-HD decoders 😉