Universal remotist finds fault with PS3, console lacks IR port
by James Ransom-Wiley 
{ Oct 11th 2006 at 5:50PM }
Opposable Thumbs highlights a little publicized PlayStation 3 detail that could bug universal remote users hoping to incorporate the console's Blu-ray player into their tidy home theatre setups: PS3 lacks an IR port.It's a small gripe at best, but one wonders why Sony made the curious decision to deviate from the infrared standard (the remote uses Bluetooth). Or maybe it's obvious: save money (albeit pennies) by cutting the IR port out of manufacturing costs, plus earn money by forcing consumers to buy the only PS3-compatible remote, yours. Then again, maybe this is simply Sony's bold attempt to phase out infrared; maybe it's part of the "next-gen begins when we say so" act. After all, third-party remotes will come, including a device that supports both infrared and Bluetooth (aka the "true-universal" remote). Now there's an idea ...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Eih'Beir @ Oct 11th 2006 5:53PM
Fanboy Comment Goes Here
Optimus Prime @ Oct 11th 2006 5:56PM
Whats your problem James? All console makers make gobs of money on accessories; if you cant understand that, then you have no business writing for a blog. Why dont you bring up the $100 WiFi adapter for the 360?
Ernie the Kitten @ Oct 11th 2006 5:58PM
Do both versions of the PS3 include a remote and headset or just the $600 version?
Proud to be a Wiitard @ Oct 11th 2006 5:57PM
"maybe it's part of the "next-gen begins when we say so" act"
hahaha, best post EVER.
SonyBlowsGoats @ Oct 11th 2006 5:58PM
Ha ha ha! Sony's lack of foresight strikes again!
They're as narrow-minded as their fanboys!
James Sorensen @ Oct 11th 2006 6:00PM
so an IR remote is better than a bluetooth remote....
sony fan or not i'd have to say teh BT remote is way better
darryl @ Oct 11th 2006 6:00PM
Joystiq, are you serious? You're joking, right?
Mmmmm... love me some of them ad dollars!
pete @ Oct 11th 2006 6:00PM
woot another 100 remote to replace the 100 remote i bought to replace all my other remotes. great....
Ethan @ Oct 11th 2006 6:00PM
Bluetooth is better anyway, it has a much farther reach, and can go through obstacles easily.
ktmracer @ Oct 11th 2006 6:01PM
I'm so ticked. I just bought a harmony 890. My $400 remote is now useless. Thanks Sony.
Lynx @ Oct 11th 2006 6:04PM
What?
Bluetooth is (almost) in every way superior to infared.
"Bluetooth has larger range, does not require line – of – sight, and is not prone to light interferences."
http://elfishbeauty.tripod.com/id4.html
Doesn't the Wii use bluetooth too? What a rather odd "Lets lash out at Sony" blog entry.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 11th 2006 6:03PM
Bluetooth may be better, but that doesn't change the fact that only the PS3 will have Bluetooth on it. The rest of your devices are still IR, and unless you're willing to throw away your current HDTV just to buy a Bluetooth one, then the PS3 remote is going to have only one function. This is assuming it actually is programmable to other Bluetooth devices.
David @ Oct 11th 2006 6:05PM
Assuming everyone is getting a PS3 for at least 1 game and not just movies the controller is wireless and bluetooth therefore making it a "remote".
Eric Von Shpeel @ Oct 11th 2006 6:06PM
THINK MCFLY, THINK
why add an inferior infared port when they already have bluetooth. duh!
Patrick @ Oct 11th 2006 6:08PM
James, you're probably the type who has a dozen remotes on his coffee table and has to write visitors an instruction manual to watch TV.
For you and Lynx, the reason this sucks is that you can't integrate this "home media/entertainment hub" into your existing HT with any available universal remotes. Dumb.
Optimus Prime @ Oct 11th 2006 6:07PM
LaughingTarget: why the fock would you throw away your HDTV? Thats just stupid.
This is just Joystiq do what they do best; stirring the pot to reel in the hits.
KAZ @ Oct 11th 2006 6:08PM
599 US DOLLA
CharlieX @ Oct 11th 2006 6:10PM
I have one of the earlier PS2 models that DIDN'T have an IR port. So one day I went to Target and bought that $30 remote so I could use it as my DVD player.... which, in their defense, had some obscure tiny print on the back about a certain serial range of PS2's that didn't have IR ports.
So I just bought another DVD player.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 11th 2006 6:11PM
Optimus Prime -
Just being a bit extreme. HDTVs by and large are IR devices, and Sony has just told us that IR is primitive and stupid, so that HDTV should be discarded immediately to find an elusive Bluetooth HDTV.
As it stands, the PS3 remote is going to be nothing more than a very expensive way to push the play button on a BluRay movie. Nothing else will be utilizing it. If you're just going to use it to navigate a BluRay disk, then it should come free in the box. Paying a little extra for it should result in it turning on your TV and starting your car as well.
djphatjive @ Oct 19th 2006 2:07PM
I can see that bluetooth playing havic in an apartment building with all bluetooth ps3's in there. Turning on someones ps3 2 apartments down and yours turning of every other min. Yea great tech indeed!
MosquitoControl @ Oct 11th 2006 6:12PM
1) Bluetooth is better, yes, but please, tell me how many times you've tried to use your tv remote and been either out of range or behind an obstacle. I can only think of it being under the covers. Having bluetooth in a remote is just overkill.
2) Optimus, yes, companies make a lot of money charging for accessories. But you're forgetting two things here. a) people don't like being fleeced. This is why alternate means of making the 360 wireless are popular. b) Sony is selling this as a piece of a home theater. Lots of people already have very, very, very expensive home theater remotes. If the PS3 can't play nicely with them it is useless to those people. Which makes the PS3 nothing more than a game console (which it always should have been.)
3) Does the 360 have IR? More importantly, will the HDDVD add-on have IR? Because, if not, it's as useless as the PS3 from the same perspective.
Keeko_ca @ Oct 11th 2006 6:13PM
F U Sony.
It's quite clear that the PS3 is a trojan horse for BlueTooth remotes.
Grant @ Oct 11th 2006 6:15PM
Yeah anyway Ethan!#7
7. Bluetooth is better anyway, it has a much farther
reach, and can go through obstacles easily.
Since I enjoy watching television through walls and floors, and I even occasionally watch tv on my sofa that sits 30 feet or so from my 40incher, this will be very beneficial.
riCKY @ Oct 11th 2006 6:14PM
Did anybody actually read the article? It says that this will hinder those hoping to incorporate the PS3 into their home theater setup. Nowhere does it say that IR is better (only more common).If somebody bought an expensive universal remote for their setup and it does not include bluetooth, then they're screwed. LaughingTarget hit on this as well and I'm sure more will be echoing this comment by the time it posts. Please pay attention before posting ignorant comments.
LaughingTarget @ Oct 11th 2006 6:15PM
MosquitoControl -
The 360 is IR. There is a little receiver on the lower left of the faceplate and the pack-in 360 remote doesn't work unless it is facing the 360.
CharlieX @ Oct 11th 2006 6:14PM
Also... what kind of battery life can you expect with a BT remote? Two AAA batteries in an IR remote last forever.
Mystic @ Oct 11th 2006 6:16PM
Just wait for the Sony USB IR Receiver. Don't worry, you'll get your IR port, it's just going to cost ya.
Doc P @ Oct 11th 2006 6:15PM
@2.
The 360 wifi adapter is not a good comparison here. 802.11 Wifi has much higher adoption rate than bluetooth and the 360 still has an ethernet port. Plus there are gobs of 3rd party wireless ethernet adapters that worked for the 360 when it was released
Oro @ Oct 11th 2006 6:16PM
Isn't it obvious? If the PS3 used IR, it would stop working if you left the window open and a little bit of sun got on it, just like the Wii. Duhhh!
Lynx @ Oct 11th 2006 6:19PM
#17
And this is something new with a Sony product?
jayntampa @ Oct 11th 2006 6:18PM
I love the "it goes through obstacles bit." Well, that's really nice and all, but since the TV picture DOESN'T go through objects, you still have to be looking at the TV to use it. Duh.
The fact is, Sony has sold the PS3 as a way to simplify things -- you don't simplify things by adding more remotes and clutter.
The smart thing to do, on Sony's side, would be to include IR on the remote to make the remote universal. That would serve the same purpose -- then it could run your TV and the PS3.
Rootbeer @ Oct 11th 2006 7:06PM
the controller is wireless and bluetooth therefore making it a "remote".
How do I use the Sixaxis controller to turn the volume down on my surround receiver, or change the channel on my cable box?
Scott @ Oct 11th 2006 6:20PM
This is where having a 1K Blu-Ray player comes to bite PS3 owners in the ass. The more loss that the console takes per sale, the higher and more overpriced the Accessories will be.
Lynx @ Oct 11th 2006 6:22PM
Oh, and perhaps we should have all just stuck with VHS, because DVD disks wouldn't fit into the cassette bays - what outrage! Now my VHS player is useless!
Technology moves forward. Deal with it.
(I should point out that i'm defending technological advance here, not Sony's ill-made decisions)
Josh Warner @ Oct 11th 2006 6:23PM
At $600, the PS3 is being touted as a Blu-Ray player. Whether you realize this or not, that is what is going on.
Some of you don't mind having 12 remotes hanging around your media room; but for those of us who do we want a standard where we can consolidate these remotes into a single unit that is capable of controlling all of our devices. These all-in-one universal remotes can have macros, touch screens, etc. (Google for them, there are several manufacturers) but are often quite expensive. Oh, and they use IR.
This is the point: for all of the audio/videophiles out there who have spent much time and effort setting up their myriad devices to work with one remote the PS3 choice just became a no-brainer. They- will- not- buy- one. Having a blocky, mid-90s remote sitting amid their pristine system is not an attractive option.
Sony just cut themselves out of an entire market with this move, and I'm not sorry to see them go.
David @ Oct 11th 2006 6:25PM
To those of you saying "The TV picture doesn't go through obstacles".
This remote isn't for your TV. It's for your PS3 which many people will have in entertainment centers which possibly have a blocked path for an IR signal or are even in a non-glass cabinet inside an entertainment center. The bluetooth remote allows you to place the PS3 basically anywhere in or near your entertainment center, and as I said before, the controller is a bluetooth remote... they aren't forcing you to buy anything.
Patrick @ Oct 11th 2006 6:26PM
Lynx, I'd love for you to find us a manufacturer that is planning any other future HT devices that are controllable via BT or a future universal BT remote.
nugget @ Oct 11th 2006 6:28PM
wait a second, if you can not intigrate it into your current remote, why buy a bluetooth remote when the controller itself is wireless? it would make sense for me to just use the controller but that is just me I guess. I don't even have a ps2 remote, neither do any one I know that has a PS2.
DBX00 @ Oct 11th 2006 6:32PM
1) They said the PS3 was upgradeable, so it would make sense that I could possibly add a USB IR receiver to the system for relatively cheap. Also, third party controllers will incorporate infared receivers or utilize bluetooth like the PS3 controller. I understand everyone wanting to use a universal controller but what benefit does that bring to Sony if you can easily go out and use a $10 controller.
2) Bluetooth remote is more useful because it doesn't only control the Blu Ray player but all media stored on the PS3 (ie. audio). I definitely would like to have the ability to change songs if I step out of the room or am moving around the house. You can theoretically have the system hooked up to your home speaker system and walk around controlling your music.
BklynKid @ Oct 11th 2006 6:32PM
I'm gonna appreciate browsing and playing songs with my **SONY** universal remote on my Xbox 360 even more now.
KAS @ Oct 11th 2006 6:31PM
PLAYSTATION 3D0 - PAY BEYOND(599 US DOLLA*)
*Now with Bluetooth-only PS3-only remote sold seperately.
Pierce @ Oct 11th 2006 6:31PM
@ 12
thats assuming you need a remote for the wii ...oh yeah it doesnt play dvds or blue ray super hi def blazing awesomeness. so no you dont. i can use my dvd player ...which is why i bought the damn dvd player back 10 years ago like everyone else.
you NEED a controller for the ps3 if you want to enjoy why your paying 1000 dollers for it. and your own controllers wont work. thats what this post is about.
But tbh half of these fanboys here probably want to own 5 sony made remotes that dont work together.
also i in sonys favor i do think BT is the way to go with remotes ...but yeah making it so you have to buy theirs is just adding to an already large sum you have to shell out to own the system in the first place.
flyNN @ Oct 11th 2006 6:35PM
OBVIOUSLY this is so you will buy their Remote Control add-on w/ IR dongle (ala PS2).
Cabrill @ Oct 11th 2006 6:36PM
Small gripe at best? There goes any last lingering thoughts I had about keeping one of my many preorders for myself. I control my entire home theater system with my Logitech 880, which will even control my Xbox 360. I had considered adding the PS3 as a Blu-Ray player for those movies not released on HD-DVD, but if I have to use a completely different remote for watching movies that idea is dead. This almost seems like a joke...are you sure this isn't like the time we thought the controllers wouldn't have rumble? Oh...wait.
KBeat @ Oct 11th 2006 6:42PM
If the PS3 is to be used as a primary Blu-Ray DVD system in an enthusiasts home theater setup, which Sony seems to intend, the fact that is is completely incompatible with all universal remotes is indeed a big deal no matter how the SDF spins it.
Lekko @ Oct 11th 2006 6:42PM
Drat, that just means universal remotes will have to incorporate bluetooth to remain universal.
I may have to wait 6 months for true 'nexgen' universal remotes. Big whoop.
m3mnoch @ Oct 11th 2006 6:45PM
there's really one key reason ir is better than bluetooth from a technology standpoint -- batteries.
with bluetooth, the wireless signal is on constantly. that means you need a power switch on your remote. (hopefully, they've got an auto-off thing. that could just suck otherwise.)
ir doesn't. it only draws power when you press a button.
otherwise, it's just inconvenient to have more than one remote. personally, i'm pissed the 360 remote doesn't have a code to punch in. lazy bastards like me have to train our universal remotes.
and as to not bashing the wii, it doesn't come with a remote. no dvds, remember?
m3mnoch.
brim4brim @ Oct 11th 2006 7:00PM
What the hell does the console not having an IR port have to do with it.
The remote just needs to be able to broadcast IR to your current devices and be programmable to TV's in order to be a universal remote. Linux already has this software written so assuming Sony want to they can do it if people want and update new tv's over the online system. They probably won't but they could.
josh @ Oct 11th 2006 6:54PM
"Doesn't the Wii use bluetooth too? What a rather odd "Lets lash out at Sony" blog entry."
yeah but the Wii doesn't play DVDs or have all the home entertainment hub features of a PS3, so what would you use a remote for on a Wii, anyway?
Does the PS3 remote also have IR, so it can turn on your TV and so forth? if not, that is a bit annoying, i guess. but i'm sure there will be 3rd party remotes that can do everything you need.
otakucode @ Oct 11th 2006 7:55PM
It could be that they're taking a stand since IR is a terrible technology to begin with. Having to point at the device you want to control? Ach. Especially with a universal remote, teaching someone where to point based upon what they want to do is hideous.