Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Blu-Ray Should Have Been Optional on PS3? 228

Posted by Zonk
from the signs-point-to-yes dept.
Ars Technica has a piece looking at reasons why Sony may have wanted to make the Blu-Ray player optional in their next-gen console. From the article: "By tying what is essentially a gaming device to a new optical disc format, Sony is hoping to kill two birds with one stone, but they're expecting consumers to pay for the stone as if it were a diamond. That is, in hoping that consumers will see the Blu-ray player as a good investment in the future, they're risking the fallout that comes when consumers realize that diamonds aren't investments at all. They're for show. And the way the PS3 is priced right now, bling appears to be the operative word. But bling sells, and when manufacturing costs come down, we can all look forward to this edition of Sony Style... at least so long as we're not satiated by a competing product."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Blu-Ray Should Have Been Optional on PS3?

Comments Filter:
  • 1080p Games? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by eldavojohn (898314) *
    I don't think this article is relevant.

    I was under the impression that Sony chose blu-ray because of the amount of data it can pack into a disc. The games are subsequently written and read by blu-ray technology making them capable of storing much more data on a disc. It was my understanding that having games that play in insane resolution (1080p) requires not only high processing but also high storage.

    So if they sell "blu-ray disabled" PS3s, how would it play the high quality games? If you ha
    • Re:1080p Games? (Score:5, Informative)

      by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @12:53PM (#15436617)
      It was my understanding that having games that play in insane resolution (1080p) requires not only high processing but also high storage.

      Yes, but PC games have been able to do these sorts of resolutions for years and they barely fill up a single DVD. And that's with the inclusion of several sets of textures geared for different amounts of VRAM. The only way I can see them using up the space on a BluRay disc is to have a bunch of full-HD FMV. And with most games, after you watch the cutscenes once or twice, you end up skipping them every time they come up anyways. Sure, it's nice that the space is there, but I highly doubt they'll use even a fraction of it for games.
      • Re:1080p Games? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by BenjyD (316700)
        I would hope that with the increased power of the PS3, Playstation developers finally stop relying on FMV and start using the in-game engine.
        • Wouldn't that actually cut down on the amount of storage space needed?
          • Yes; as processors become more sophisticated, data can be compressed more efficently. Blueray is a trojan horse that Sony wants to use to wage its format war. It has little added value for games over DVD.

            Will gamers buy it? Time will tell.

      • Yes, but PC games have been able to do these sorts of resolutions for years and they barely fill up a single DVD.

        Okay - lets pick a game which did come on DVD - say UT2k4 Special Edition. Right now on my hard disk with a few extra mods, the UT2k4 install is soaking up:

        user@machine:/usr/local/games$ du -ks ut2004/
        13563444 ut2004/

        and then with the user files and extra levels:

        user@machine:~$ du -ks .ut2004
        9185792 .ut2004

        So thats 22Gb of data for an older game, albeit with extra mods and levels.

        UT2

        • Yeah extra mods and levels that wouldnt be in the original game and which ups its size by nearly 17Gig.

          System Requirements make the install size 5.5Gig. Well within the size of DVD9.

          This is like me taking my Quake2 directory which is about 13gig in size due to mods and such and claiming DVD9 wasnt sufficient when Quake2 was released. Absolute nonsense.
      • They 'barely' fill up a single dvd, because the moment you flip to a second dvd your costs go way up. If games can ship on a bluray without compatibility worries, they'll quickly be made to fill exactly one bluray disc.

        Game devs have no problem churning out masses of content. They work hard to cram it down onto as little physical media as possible. When they don't have to cram so much, they won't.
        • "They 'barely' fill up a single dvd, because the moment you flip to a second dvd your costs go way up."

          Then explain the incredibly slow adoption of DVDs for PC gaming. What was the first year the majority of PC games were sold on DVD, 2004 at the earliest? You can't fall back on "compatability issues" since the DVD-ROM marketshare hit critical mass about the same time 32 MB was more than enough video RAM to play contemporary games.
          • I explain it primarily by compatibility and cost. DVD's were and are more expensive to press than cds, and if you look back prior to 2004, you'll see that many games were being pressed on multiple cd's ... if dvd's were a reasonably priced and compatible option why didn't such games get pressed to one DVD instead?
            • Then why do you believe the same will not be true between DVD and BluRay?
              • Because compatibility is a non-issue: you'll lose none of your audience moving to a blu-ray disc. It will be more expensive to press than a dvd, so certainly any game that can fit in a dvd will, and that will be the majority of them for the near future. But the cost to press 2 dvd's will probably be more expensive than 1 bluray (and that will certainly become true for any game that reaches 3 dvds worth of content because the packaging goes up a big notch in price there). At the same time, there will als
          • Because consoles -- and I suspect this will continue to be the case with the new models, even with harddrives standard, unlike PCs, don't rely on "installing" anything to the computer, but tend to play directly off the distribution media. Further, PCs are less standardized than consoles, so games sell better if designed for the least-common-denominator media. Plus, CDs are cheap.

            All those together give plenty of reason for companies distributing PC games to use CDs -- though the least-common-denominator one
          • Then explain the incredibly slow adoption of DVDs for PC gaming.

            A lot of PC gamers refused to buy DVD drives, even when they hit the $30 mark. I don't know why this was, but I saw post after post on publishers' forums about how they wouldn't buy a game that was on DVD-ROM.

            I couldn't figure out how people who could afford e.g. a $150-$250 video card couldn't find the cash to get a $20-$30 DVD-ROM drive, but apparently there were/are a lot of them. I even saw a post recently by someone who was complaining tha
      • Of course, Resident Evil games will use two discs anyway. Strictly out of princeple, though.
      • ...It's less than the size of a dvd and contains half-life 1, half-life 2, counterstrike, cs:s, dod, dod:s, garry's mod, and quite a few other things. That's a lot of gaming in the space of one dvd.
      • Yeah. 640K ought to be enough for anybody.
    • Re:1080p Games? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Simon Donkers (950228)
      Microsoft seems to be able to handle making games with a DVD player. While more space is useful for designers I expect that most big games will come out for both the 360 and the PS3. This means that you have a game which needs to be optimized for DVD format for the 360. So they either remake the game for Blu ray as well essentially redoing all video, gfx, sfx with far higher quality or just leave most of the disk empty.

      I very much doubt that most cross console games will fully use all the space. True, X
    • Re:1080p Games? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hal2814 (725639)
      "It was my understanding that having games that play in insane resolution (1080p) requires not only high processing but also high storage."

      Insane? I've been playing similar resolution games on my PC for quite some time now and we've managed to get by on DVD-ROM and CD-ROM discs. Only recently am I starting to see titles that span more than one DVD. Sure, having a lot of potential room for the games to grow is a good idea but this resolution argument is hogwash.
      • Only recently am I starting to see titles that span more than one DVD.

        We're already seeing two-disc DVD games, so with games getting bigger and bigger how much longer until Blu-ray (or HDDVD or whatever) becomes more practical than DVD? Back when the PS2 came out, few games even filled up one CD and some people argued against the PS2 needing DVD, yet obviously in hindsight it was a good move. The PS3 is going to last for 5 or 6 years (or 10 if you listen to their marketing hype). It's for the most part
        • We're already seeing two-disc DVD games,

          And there's no reason consoles couldn't use the same solution used for PC games -the hard drive. Seriously, kick the drive size up to 200 GB, go with a standard dual-layer DVD drive, and drop the price.

          Of course I'm one of those heretics who think I should just be able to install PC or console games on a hard drive and put the disk in the cupboard where its safe -but piracy concerns trumped the convenience of the consumer long ago.
          • "And there's no reason consoles couldn't use the same solution used for PC games -the hard drive. Seriously, kick the drive size up to 200 GB, go with a standard dual-layer DVD drive, and drop the price."

            Sure there is, creating hardware for the lowest common demoninator. I know people who've bought new memory cards because they filled one and didn't know how to erase the games. Obviously you could create a very simple interface to remove games from the HDD, but then again, how hard is it to delete memory
            • I understand what you're saying, but IMO the hard drive also has a couple more advantages. First, as the owner of a couple PS2's, I can say anything that increases the life of the optical drive is a good thing (but then I'd probably be complaining about short hard drive lives).

              Second, I don't remember where I read it, but the biggest complaint gamers have is the amount of time they spend watching the "Loading..." screen. A hard drive really helps there.

              Plus, if you've got kids, the constant shuffling of the
      • Insane? I've been playing similar resolution games on my PC for quite some time now and we've managed to get by on DVD-ROM and CD-ROM discs.

        Is it not possible that the reason so many games fit on a single DVD is that all we have on PC's are DVD drives?

        What you are not seeing is the work that goes into compressing textures so they all fit on that roomy DVD. If you don't nee dto compress as much you get better looking textures and possibly better load times.

        Only recently am I starting to see titles that span
      • Insane? I've been playing similar resolution games on my PC for quite some time now and we've managed to get by on DVD-ROM and CD-ROM discs. Only recently am I starting to see titles that span more than one DVD. Sure, having a lot of potential room for the games to grow is a good idea but this resolution argument is hogwash.

        Not really.

        First off, let me congratulate you on what must be an epic game rig; I don't play anything at 1920x1080 pixels. This does in fact strike me as quite a high resolution. M

    • That is what the PS3 is for, right? Playing video games.

      Wrong. It's for extending Sony's dominance.

  • Look at the PS2 - it greatly influenced the use of DVDs in the household. I know quite a few people who used their PS2 as a DVD player long before they got a specific DVD player. The PS2 was a great doorway for the DVD, as it was quite obvious the PS2 would sell and it brought DVD movies along with it.

    It may not be the best thing to say, but I find that it will most likely be true when David Reeves, the SCEE CEO said [1up.com]: "We have built up a certain brand equity over time since the launch of PlayStation in 19

    • Yeah, but DVD was the sole digital video disc platform of the era, and it had been available for 3 years when the PS2 launched as well, so it wasn't extremely expensive first generation stuff, it was merely a nice worthwhile bonus on a console that didn't really add any cost to the console hardware costs.

      BluRay is still not available, and Sony are practically launching BluRay with the PS3 given the delays in other players and media. They're hoping a first generation of a technology will not have problems (a
      • Yeah, but DVD was the sole digital video disc platform of the era,


        This isn't quite true. LD was still limping on its last legs (I think the last major-maker player was released in 2000 and disks were still being pressed in Japan until 2001). But, yeah, DVD was clearly the format of the immediate future, an advantage Blu-Ray doesn't have now.

        • Yeah, but DVD was the sole digital video disc platform of the era,

          This isn't quite true. LD was still limping on its last legs

          Uh, Laserdisc doesn't even have digital video, just digital audio, which comes in PCM or AC3 forms. And you're forgetting some other important formats [slashdot.org].

          • Uh, Laserdisc doesn't even have digital video, just digital audio, which comes in PCM or AC3 forms. And you're forgetting some other important formats.

            Doh! Forgot that about LD. (Though I think, from the user perspective, "digital", per se, wasn't the key issue.)

            And I'm not sure I'd characterize VCD and S-VCD as important formats, though they certainly existed and were relevant at the time. At any rate, the key point the upthread poster seems to have meant, that DVD was well-established as the new format-o

      • Yeah, but DVD was the sole digital video disc platform of the era

        Yeah, it was the only one! Well, except for Video CD and later, Super Video CD.

        Your statement is almost correct, but it requires some revision to actually be correct.

    • The problem is that DVD was a clearly superior alternative over VHS, whereas Blu-Ray is neither clearly superior (YMMV), and may still get trumped by DVD-HD or whatever the other next generation video disc format is.

      I suspect a lot of folks are going to wait until a clear winner is established in the next-gen video disc war; until then, telling them to pay extra to get a Blu-ray player in their game system is like telling them to drop an extra $200 and hope they made the right choice after the dust settles.
      • You mistakenly think most people that will buy a PS3 _know_ anything about the various competing future formats, let alone _care_.

        For most, it's a game console, period. Hardly ANYONE bought a PS2 _because_ it was a dvd player...that was an after-the-fact thing that turns out DID add value to the PS2 and DID help drive the dvd market, but it did NOT particularly drive the PS2 market.

        Bottom line is it certainly can't hurt sales if the PS3 is fully backwards compatible, plays dvd's still, AND allows sony to us
        • People WILL have a limit on how many times they will buy the exact same damned thing on a slightly different media.
          OTOH, media degrades, is damaged, is lost, etc. and there are a steady stream of new people entering the market each year that haven't bought anything on older media.
          • Yes, sorry, that is completely true.

            What I mean is that the wholesale conversion from VHS to DVD that occurred over the past 5 years or so is pretty much guaranteed not to happen again.

            Case in point, look at the music industry. Oh how they've tried to get everyone to re-purchase everything they've already paid for within the past 10 years. Some do. Some don't. Some will eventually. Some never will. Some still have stacks of vinyl kicking around.

            But yes, this is exactly why it does make sense for Sony to inc
            • What I mean is that the wholesale conversion from VHS to DVD that occurred over the past 5 years or so is pretty much guaranteed not to happen again.

              I'm not sure that's true. I'd say its almost guaranteed to happen again, but probably not until a new storage medium is developed that is fundamentally radically different from DVD (or for audio, CD) such that a player for both the old and the new media costs nearly as much as a new player plus an old player, rather than being easy to add and adding little cost

            • What I mean is that the wholesale conversion from VHS to DVD that occurred over the past 5 years or so is pretty much guaranteed not to happen again.

              Oh, it will happen again... eventually. Just not in the 2006-07 timeframe, and not with an incrementally evolved version of the same technology we currently use.

              Something big and revolutionary will come into common practice maybe 10 years from now, and then the market will adapt to it. But it's too early now to start deprecating DVDs and 480i television sets,
    • Wrong (Score:3, Informative)

      by Alaren (682568)

      "Look at the PS2 - it greatly influenced the use of DVDs in the household."

      Wrong--though the prevalence of DVDs probably did greatly infulence the adoption of the PS2.

      The first DVD player was available in the U.S. in early 1997. It came with virtually no competing technologies (a la HD-DVD). The Playstation 2 appeared over 3 years later, when DVDs were already widely available and it was obvious to everyone that DVDs were rapidly supplanting VHS in the home video market. The excuse I heard everyone

      • You hit the most important point here in this whole Blu-ray argument.

        When the PS2 came out as an inexpensive DVD player (comparitively to most at the time), DVD's had been out for years, and people were really wanting to start using them for all of their advantages.

        Now with the new format, Sony is starting from scratch, much like with the UMD. They're selling the system to create the market for Blu-Ray movies, they're not taking advantage of what's already there. A large percentage of consumers wanted DVD
    • yeah, but DVDs had already been on the market for over 3 years by the time the PS2 launched -- movies were being released on both formats and the "early adopters" had already given DVD the obvious boost. The PS2 certainly helped the DVD market, but given the very obvious advantages over VHS (which, to most consumers, was "never need to rewind"), it didn't "break the market wide open; it helped a new format reach more people faster. DVD players typically cost over $200, and many figured they would simply b
      • but given the very obvious advantages over VHS (which, to most consumers, was "never need to rewind")

        Don't forget the fact that only certain movies were available on VHS. Even then they ran $15, $20 if you got the widescreen version, and $99 if you wanted something that wasn't a blockbuster hit.
    • Look at the PS2 - it greatly influenced the use of DVDs in the household. I know quite a few people who used their PS2 as a DVD player long before they got a specific DVD player

      VHS tapes were worse than TV quality. If you recorded a show that was broadcast over the air onto VHS, and played it back, it was worse. Everyone could benefit from DVDs, because they showed an improvement on a normal television.

      Blu-ray, however, won't. It will show an improvement on HD TVs, but the market penetration of HDTVs is sti
      • You also forgot to mention that the PS2 was a terrible DVD player. It had huge compatibility problems reading DVDs. It's entirely possible the people who bought the PS2 as a DVD player (and then probably bought a real DVD player later) still remember the hassle of trying to use it.

        Yeah, I remember the hassle of trying to use it. There was no hassle. There was only a small handful of DVDs that would not play. The real issue with it for me was that the quality of output was absolutely horrible.

      • When the PS2 came out, people were thinking "man, I need a DVD player."

        Guilty. Actually when I got my ps2 I had probably 50 movies on DVD which I watched on my roomie's DVD player, didn't have one of my own. But I wasn't going to live there forever, and maybe now n' then I wanted to watch something in my room (he had a nice big 62" in the living room, so that's where the ps2 stayed) so I could take the ps2 to my room and watch there. So I got it for the games, but the DVD player was a very nice convenien
  • ...I don't think optional blu-ray is a good idea. Either the games work on Blu-ray and you will take advantage of that or it won't; in which case you shouldn't have it in their. I can quite easily see this price problem cripling sony - time will tell.
  • and when manufacturing costs come down, we can all look forward to this edition of Sony Style

    ...which is obviously the way they're playing it.

    Given the huge amount of anti-Sony hate when the price was announced, I did find myself wondering whether the main feeling was resentment from people who knew perfectly well they were going to buy the thing anyway.

    There's no way I'd buy a Blu-Ray player if it wasn't in a PS3. In that sense, Sony may yet have made the right call.
  • I'm not really interested in hidef movies right now (HD-DVD or BluRay), so why should I pay the BluRay tax? I would have preferred if the drive bay was swappable so I could eventually buy a BluRay (or even HD-DVD assuming they win the format war) drive and stick it in there. As for games needing BluRay, take a look at how big existing games are. Most are around 1-2 gigs in size. The only ones that span multiple disks are ones with lots of prerendered graphics which still don't need higher capacity if th
    • Actually, I work for a large game developer and publisher and every single one of our Xbox 360 titles have filled up a dual layer DVD (around 8 gigs) - we sometimes have to cut come graphic or sound content out at the end to make it fit.
      • The reason I ask is because I have never, ever, seen a computer game that even approaches that size (though I'm made to understand EQ2 does). For example World of Warcraft is only 3 CDs. Quake 4, F.E.A.R, etc all fit on a DVD with space to spare.

        Are 360 games truly packing in that much more content, or is there a technical reason why computers are capable of getting away with less storage?
        • Re:Why is that? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by p7 (245321)
          A few ideas... Most install disks ship with assets compressed. Console games likely would more closely reflect the size of an installed game. My WoW install, with the additional patched in content was in the 3-4 GB range. My EQ2 install from awhile back was 4-5 GB. Oblivion I think is around 4 GB. So it isn't a far stretch to see DVDs being filled. Especially since I am sure PC game designers probably are actually trying to keep installed size down. On the Console side of things, you know exactly ho
          • Still, that's a far cry from the 8.5GB available on a DLDVD. I mean EQ2 was MASSIVE in terms of textures and such, to the point it bogged down every system I saw it on. Didn't even run all that well on my friend's 6800 Ultra, which at the time was the best card money could buy. It's also a massive world, most normal games do NOT have the kind of assets a MMORPG does. Their world sizes are just huge. So all that, and it was still at least 3GB away from maxing a DVD.

            I guess I just don't see DVDs as a big limi
        • Re:Why is that? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Babbster (107076)
          The major technical reason PC games can get away with using CDs instead of DVDs is that they're installed onto the hard drive before play and thus can take advantage of heavy, CPU-intensive compression. The decompression happens only once and PC games don't have to stream data off the removable disc(s) later on down the road. Theoretically, most PC games could run on a system with a 1x speed CD-ROM if the rest of the system (CPU, graphics, etc.) is up-to-date. It would just mean waiting an extra couple o
          • Theoretically, most PC games could run on a system with a 1x speed CD-ROM if the rest of the system (CPU, graphics, etc.) is up-to-date. It would just mean waiting an extra couple of hours for the initial installation. :)

            Yeah, everyone knows that all data can be compressed even to a single bit if needed...
        • I would guess that it would have to do with the fact that you can get away with more compression, since you will be installing a game on pc and don't have to worry about de-compression in real time.
      • Per this ArsTechinca article http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/PS 3-gamble.ars [arstechnica.com] original X360 games are only using 3.2GB. What game exactly are you working on that takes 8 gigs? Even Oblivion fits on a single DVD.
    • "I would have preferred if the drive bay was swappable so I could eventually buy a BluRay (or even HD-DVD assuming they win the format war) drive and stick it in there."

      That's just not going to work. Having two similar-looking but significantly different types of media for a single game console is a nightmare waiting to happen. When you have people in stores trying to buy games labelled as PS3 games that do not play on their PS3, there will be heck to pay. This isn't the PC world where people check requi
      • I thought it was obvious I was saying that games would be on DVD format as I don't believe games need higher capacity (for 99% of the time).
        • It was far from obvious that you meant games should only be on DVD. You did mention that games don't currently need any higher capacity but neglected to mention that you thought games would never need that sort of capacity. Point taken. However, I am now confused on exactly why you would want the ability to swap a Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) drive into your PS3. Why not just have a Blu-Ray player and a PS3? Is your PS3 really going to be a better Blu-Ray player than a Blu-Ray player?
          • BluRay players are initially coming out at $1000. So for someone wanting a BluRay player (even if they don't play games), the PS3 is a cheap BluRay player. Personally, I would prefer to have a PS3 (sans BluRay) and dedicated BluRay player myself. I never used my PS2 or XBox as a DVD player.
  • Bling? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Kesch (943326)
    And the way the PS3 is priced right now, bling appears to be the operative word.

    Does this mean that I get a bunch of gold PS3 Emblems embedded in the good version, or does it come with an chain so I can wear it around my neck to impress my "boyz" and "hos"?

    I was thinking of getting my PS3 lowered with a new set of shocks, a few flame decals, some neon lighting on the undercarriage, leather grips for the controller, and a new set of subwoofers.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Blu-Ray should have been optional for very good reasons. Even the most advanced PC games to date have completely failed to exceed the capacity of a single layer of a DVD, only occasionally touching the second layer. Most games are still coming out on CD's! Even within the next six years this is unlikely to change, (apart from the move to DVD) with changes coming more incrementally and gradually as the technologies behind modern gaming solidify and standardize. There's less year to year revolution in game de
    • If there is going to be a need for Blu-Ray, it has to be standard. Addon hardware can't be relied on by game developers so, it is often ignored. I agree that Blu-Ray likely won't be fully utilized at launch, but it won't be long before we see games that won't fit on a DVD. As installed lots of the games I am playing, will not fit on a single layer of a DVD. We may not be filling Blu-Ray discs anytime soon, but the need for higher capacity comes when exceed the capacity of the DVD. An earlier reply to t
    • Even the most advanced PC games to date have completely failed to exceed the capacity of a single layer of a DVD, only occasionally touching the second layer. Most games are still coming out on CD's!

      Aren't you forgetting the issue of CPU heavy install time decompression of content on PC games?
  • The problem is some people are under the impression that using blu-ray is going to somehow enhance their gaming. I guess if you want your game full of HD FMV then sure, but that's not really a good thing.

    Developers have managed the same resolutions on the PC for a while now using DVD technology. Extra storage space gained from blu-ray discs is not really an issue.

    Don't kid yourselves. Sony is making you buy the Blu-Ray simply because they think they can have a repeat of the PS2/DVD success. It isn
  • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @01:38PM (#15437130) Homepage
    As someone who had a PS1, and now has a PS2, I'm not motivated to sink a bazillion dollars into a PS3. Nor am I likely to every buy one at this point.

    I don't have an HDTV. I don't want Blu Ray. I'm a casual gamer and not willing to pay that much for a console.

    My next purchase will probably be a current gen Nintendo, and just buy from their freaking huge library of availabel games.

    Sony, IMO, has totally missed the boat with the price point/forced bundling with an as-yet unproved/unadopted standard -- especially if I was to buy an HDTV I'd be saddled with more Sony DRM crap.

    Clearly, I don't speak for everyone. And a lot of people probably will buy PS3s, but they've completely lost the market segment that I fall into. Their expected price point is way outside of what I'd willing to pay for a toy.
  • by mgabrys_sf (951552) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @01:56PM (#15437302) Journal
    When Microsoft makes HD-DVD optional - it's a mistake.

    When Sony includes it - it's a mistake.

    This goes into the column - damned when do - damned when don't.
    • Doublethink is the same person holding two contradictory opinions.

      When two or more people hold contradictory opinions, that's just disagreement.
    • It's not really doublethink unless one person thinks both thoughts (slashdot, if that's who you're referring to, is a community composed of people who think about things in different ways), and even then it's not exactly the same since bluray and hddvd have significant differences. There are also temporal differences ... XBOX360 has now been out for 6 months, and the lack of hddvd hasn't killed it, perhaps some have revised their opinions based upon the 360's success.

  • The problem is sitting here and now (May 31, 2006) no one knows. It is clear that Sony is taking a gamble on doing the PS3 like this and like many gambles there is a possibility they will make out like bandits or like beggers. It is simply too early now to tell reguardless of what any analyst thinks.
  • by PhoenixOne (674466) on Wednesday May 31, 2006 @02:27PM (#15437611)
    Again, I think this generation of consoles has been rushed. In 2-4 years, BluRay and HD-DVD will be cheaper and more desirable to home consumers. By then, we will start seeing games bigger than 1 DVD in size, and new block-buster movies will be released in HD for the home. But, in 2006, BluRay is not worth the cost.

    So the question is, will the "HD Future" come in time to save the PS3 (2007-2008). Or will it arrive just in time for the "Next-Next Generation" (2009-2010)?

    • Again, I think this generation of consoles has been rushed. In 2-4 years, BluRay and HD-DVD will be cheaper and more desirable to home consumers. By then, we will start seeing games bigger than 1 DVD in size, and new block-buster movies will be released in HD for the home. But, in 2006, BluRay is not worth the cost.

      Its probably not worth the additional cost to the average consumer in the marketplace. OTOH, given the persistent launch shortages with almost every recent console, its pretty clear that almost

  • Consider this - by including a Blu-Ray drive with the PS3, most (if not all) PS3 games will be pressed on Blu-Ray discs.

    That means tens of millions of Blu-Ray discs pressed. Think then of how that lowers cost of said discs, even over a short period of time as factories quickly recoup sunk costs...

    Now wander over to HD-DVD and the 360. 360 games are pressed on normal DVD's, so there is no need to ramp up HD-DVD factories as quickly. HD-DVD players may be bought by a few hundred thousand (which is wildly o
  • He talks about the $399 XBox as being w/o an HD. That isn't true, though.
  • If Sony made it optional, no one would buy it. What use would it be? No developers would make games for it since only a small percentage of people would have it. What would be the point of buying an add-on that would only play movies if people could buy a separate player for about the same price. HD upconverting DVD players can be had for as little as $50, so one with Blu-ray would probably only add on the cost of the drive.

    By doing this, Sony is gambling that people will like the PS3 and games enough

Work expands to fill the time available. -- Cyril Northcote Parkinson, "The Economist", 1955

Working...