Why do people blame Blu-Ray for the high price of the ps3?

I already posted this in System Wars, but I figured it was relevent here as well:

Prior to the launch of the ps3, a Blu-Ray drive cost about $125 to make. A 60GB ps3 cost about $840 for Sony to manufacture, and without the BD-rom drive, the ps3 would've cost around $725 to manufacture.

Also, since launch, the price of Blu-Ray diodes has been dropping drastically, and should've hit $8 a piece by June, according EngadgetHD.

Is it not worth a mere $8 for the advantages that Blu-Ray provides? Personally, I think that Blu-Ray was worth it even at $125, let alone $8.

The ps3 is expensive because of all of the high tech hardware inside, such as the Cell, the XDR ram, etc. Don't blame this all on Blu-Ray, "The Trojan Horse", w/e.

Edited: GS needs to fix the damn space glitches.

good post, but blue-ray is an experamental technology, it has never been mass produced like this. It is expensive, nothing will change that. blue -ray contributes its fair share to the overall price but we all no thats not all that is in there. Blue-ray is better then HD-DVD, just like there is better then blue-ray, a lot better, but the stuff better then blue-ray is even more.

what im saying is blue-ray is more expensive then you think, it is brand new and cost a lot to be manufactured and prduced.

Development costs also get passed on to the consumer.jmper4

Yes, but they are selling ps3s at a loss. The R&D of Blu-Ray technology is being payed off by Sony's inital $1000 standalone Blu-Ray players, and the royalties they get from the sales of Blu-Ray discs.

Oh don't get me wrong, this is a well presented post.

They are selling at a loss but why sell at 'more of a loss' than 'less of a loss'. I am sure that Sony finance guys thought out what type of loss they should sell at and what initial projections for sells might be.

Not that I know for sure since it is a lot on conjecture on my part but hey, just my 2 cents lol.

I'm just saying that Blu-Ray wasn't the primary reason the ps3 costs $600.

I'm constantly hearing things like "Blu-Ray isn't worth $200" or "they should've left out Blu-Ray drive and charged $400" when this is not the case. Taking out the Blu-Ray drive would've changed the price by maybe $100, at most, and it wouldn't be worth it given the advantages that the drive provides.

Blu-Ray isn't just for movies it's also the media format for PS3 games. With a substantial amount of storage capacity, thats another reason why Sony uses it. And why it should be a part of the PS3, and is worth it.warbmxjohn

Well I do not think the use of it was really in debate here, it is just how much additional cost it added to the price tag.

Well regular blu ray players cost more than a PS3... Even though the drive costs only $125 to make?! Weird.wallpaper42

Because people are idiots and dont have the brain cells required to know that Blu-Ray and HD are the standars, the norms of tomorrow.

Also, people who cant afford a PS3 need something to blame so they can make themselves feel better, its not that they do this on purpose. Its just a cognitive instinct.

Just to quickly reply to the original post. So say the blu-ray drive was $120 or something. Now if they used DVD, which would be about $20 or less, then the could have literally dropped the price $100. That would have made the 20gb model $400, the same price as the premium 360 with 20gb HDD, just about equal pricing and features. The more expensive 60gb model would have been $500, easily acceptable since that added 40gbs, memory cards, and wireless, which to make the 360 wireless was a $100 add-on alone.

So in a way, you can say the blu-ray drive did make the PS3 that just bit more expensive over the competition, as it was not like the 360 wasn't losing money at it's price too. But of course I'm glad they made it blu-ray so I'd have a HD movie player.

All I know is, the Xbox cost two hundred less and has equal if not better graphics at this point. Also has more games and better online. Sure, the PS3 has more room for growth and will be amazing in the future. Right now it just aint worth it, and 5 crappy movies wont change that.

600 is just too much, the GBA is outselling PS3's right now. Blu Ray or not, Sony needs to do something.

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]Blu-Ray isn't just for movies it's also the media format for PS3 games. With a substantial amount of storage capacity, thats another reason why Sony uses it. And why it should be a part of the PS3, and is worth it.jmper4

Well I do not think the use of it was really in debate here, it is just how much additional cost it added to the price tag.

I was only attempting to assert the fact that why complain about the PS3 using blu-ray, when it is an advantageous decision on more than one level.

Just to quickly reply to the original post. So say the blu-ray drive was $120 or something. Now if they used DVD, which would be about $20 or less, then the could have literally dropped the price $100. That would have made the 20gb model $400, the same price as the premium 360 with 20gb HDD, just about equal pricing and features. The more expensive 60gb model would have been $500, easily acceptable since that added 40gbs, memory cards, and wireless, which to make the 360 wireless was a $100 add-on alone.

So in a way, you can say the blu-ray drive did make the PS3 that just bit more expensive over the competition, as it was not like the 360 wasn't losing money at it's price too. But of course I'm glad they made it blu-ray so I'd have a HD movie player.

TimothyB

It would've cost $100 les ONLY if they were still willing to eat the $250 on every ps3 they sold. I don't think they would've, and they would've dropped the price by $50 at most. They would've inevitably discontinued the 20GB machine anyway, as they already have done, to make way for their download services (like they launched an 80GB ps3 in Korea).

[QUOTE="TimothyB"]

Just to quickly reply to the original post. So say the blu-ray drive was $120 or something. Now if they used DVD, which would be about $20 or less, then the could have literally dropped the price $100. That would have made the 20gb model $400, the same price as the premium 360 with 20gb HDD, just about equal pricing and features. The more expensive 60gb model would have been $500, easily acceptable since that added 40gbs, memory cards, and wireless, which to make the 360 wireless was a $100 add-on alone.

So in a way, you can say the blu-ray drive did make the PS3 that just bit more expensive over the competition, as it was not like the 360 wasn't losing money at it's price too. But of course I'm glad they made it blu-ray so I'd have a HD movie player.

makingmusic476

It would've cost $100 les ONLY if they were still willing to eat the $250 on every ps3 they sold. I don't think they would've, and they would've dropped the price by $50 at most. They would've inevitably discontinued the 20GB machine anyway, as they already have done, to make way for their download services (like they launched an 80GB ps3 in Korea).

Yes, I guess who knows what they would have decided was worth the cost if it wasn't going to be a big push for their new HD format. But as your main point, out of all the parts, unless you covered something earlier, it's the only noticeable feature that could have been omitted which added to the console's cost, be it a $100 or $50. Thus the blame I guess. I consider it a bonus still.

Also, strangely, I recall that they were technically losing more money on the 20gb model, right? Maybe if they only did one model, the 60gb one and got it down to $500 wtihout blu-ray, but then I guess it was still more so the current plan worked out best.

Too add to my post. While I like the advantage of paying a little bit more for a console with blu-ray for HD movies, I guess for thos that don't care about the movies the extra costs can be annoying. Especially as it's unclear how much of an advantage it will have for gaming. It's only more storage, not like the PS3 can load more at any given instance to take advantage of higher res textures and larger levels. While it can make the game longer and different areas recycle less textures, for more unique areas, but even thatt might be difficult to even support as it seems a ton of games are on both consoles this gen so then that means the DVD drive in the 360 probably sets the limit, as you are only strong as your weakest link type thing. And games usually have a trend of being shorter now-a-days, so much for longer games. Here's to hoping there are more and more exclusive games that know how to take advantage of more space.
TimothyB

Actually, Blu-Ray provides many advantages for devs. Uncharted, for example, streams everything, from audio, to textures, everything from the Blu-Ray disc so that there aren't any loading screens throughout the enitre game. It's just one large free roam island with stunning visuals.

When you stream content straight from the disc, it has to be stored in larger file sizes, and thus takes up far more space rather than decompressing fileson the HDD before you play the game (Oblivion requires a lot of HDD space, for example). A DVD would not be large enough for this, and you would not be able to stretch the game to two DVDs because you coulld not stream from both simultaneosly.

So far, the only 360 that has used streaming has been Gears, and it only streamed the textures (though Insomniac said that R&C5 will incorporate texture streaming as well).

I already posted this in System Wars, but I figured it was relevent here as well:

Prior to the launch of the ps3, a Blu-Ray drive cost about $125 to make. A 60GB ps3 cost about $840 for Sony to manufacture, and without the BD-rom drive, the ps3 would've cost around $725 to manufacture.

Also, since launch, the price of Blu-Ray diodes has been dropping drastically, and should've hit $8 a piece by June, according EngadgetHD.

Is it not worth a mere $8 for the advantages that Blu-Ray provides? Personally, I think that Blu-Ray was worth it even at $125, let alone $8.

The ps3 is expensive because of all of the high tech hardware inside, such as the Cell, the XDR ram, etc. Don't blame this all on Blu-Ray, "The Trojan Horse", w/e.

Edited: GS needs to fix the damn space glitches.

makingmusic476

The BD drive could still posibly be the single most expensive part in the PS3. Merryl Lynch estimated that RSX cost half the amount of what Isuppli estimated.

Merryl Lynch also estimated the BD drive cost twice as much as ISuppli estimated..Who knows really?! Let's meet half way and say it cost $150, Sony could have sold the PS3 anywhere between $400-$450, and taken a smaller loss per console at the same time.

Well, assumingthat production processes have caused a 20% drop in component costs, which is reasoable, and that the bluray costs have dropped by 70%, and that the Cell costs will drop by another 25% when 65 nm processing comes out...

The PS3 will make money this time next year.

Well, assumingthat production processes have caused a 20% drop in component costs, which is reasoable, and that the bluray costs have dropped by 70%, and that the Cell costs will drop by another 25% when 65 nm processing comes out...

The PS3 will make money this time next year.

osirisomeomi

If Blu-ray costs have dropped by 70% why did the price of the just released Sony BDS300 only drop by 19%? And yes, the reason the BDS300 dropped $100 in price right before release is because Blu-ray is cheaper to manufactur now.