Blu-Ray Should Have Been Optional on PS3?

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."

Re:1080p Games?

[gEvil (beta)]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Sick of this FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sick and tired of the number of articles on Slashdot regarding what screw ups Sony may or may not have made. This is all recycled opinion, and the sheer magnitude of articles that make it onto Slashdot is staggering. This is the same as the Poseidon, we already have 13 movies based on it, just let the freaking ship sink!

Disclaimer: I couldn't be bothered to read TFA; I support Sony, or at least enough that I know to wait until a month or so before launch for some real facts!

Re:Why is that?

[Babbster]

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 of hours for the initial installation. :)

That said, compression routines and disc speeds continue to improve, so, in a way, there's more effective space available on an Xbox 360 DVD-ROM than there was on an Xbox disc or a PS2 disc.

I have no doubt that Blu-Ray will offer more to developers like Square and others who really like to do games with long, involved FMV cutscenes. But, to my way of thinking, that isn't worth the much higher cost of the PS3. I'll get one eventually, but it's at least $200 [less] down the line.

Which games? Avg is 3.2 GB

[xswl0931]

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.