Can we all admit now that Blu Ray was a terrible idea for the PS3 to begin with?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="dr_octagon"]yeah but it's still the minority, and it is only that minority (around 35%) who would even notice any sort of difference with Blu Ray so you're starting off with a third of the market before you've sold one movie player
[QUOTE="dr_octagon"]
Yeah, I guess you weren't there when everyone was waiting for their favorite movies to be put on DVD like 8 years ago. That took a long time...funny I don't see you bringing that up.
MarloStanfield
Blu Ray sales currently account for around 4% of the disc based sales in the USA, PS3 is the worst selling current gen console in the USA. Explain to me how and why Blu Ray support is going to reach DVD like levels within 8 years. Especially given the failure of the PS3 and the rise of digital distribution
Whatever dude. Have fun with the puny 480p limit of the DVD format. Anyone who buys upscaling technology is paying more money to sit on the fence because they're too stupid to get with the times.dr_octagon
and what would you call someone who puts their faith in a useless, unpopular movie format because they're in love with a Japanese electronics company?
POINT 1: Why would anyone without an HDTV buy a Blu Ray player? 35% and growing, dude. People have to replace an appliance sometime. My bet says their not going to buy another CRT television, becasue stores aren't even going to be selling them in 2 years - their bulky, have a crappy picture and it's outdated technology.
POINT 2: Your saying exactly what someone said about DVDs 9 years ago.How about you explain to me what percentage of people even use digital distribution. Try explaining digital distribution to a soccer mom.
POINT 3: Okay, you didn't even address my point, nor did you make one. I don't even own a PS3. Only a blind person would not be able to tell the difference between 480p and even 720p. Of course, you'd have to have an HDTV. Get with the times.
The Blue-Ray ability is 90% of my desire to eventually pruchase a PS3. I have an HD-TV and would eventually liketo buy movies to fully utilize it. I'm not going to spend $250 on a player when the PS3 will be $300 by March.
And anybody who pays $30 for a BR movie doesn't know where to look.
[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] that's find and dandy, but it's an argument from false pretense. we aren't in an ideal world where all 3 consoles are competing on a level playing field.3picuri3I think it can work and its been proven to work in cases. Unless every dev wants to just make the 360 version and release it first, which isn't happening. it has worked in the past, it has made multiplats better --- BUT --- those multiplats sold really poorly on the PS3 (as most do) so the cost of development becomes a bigger issue going forward in a business sense. i don't see it happening much more in the future - once bitten, twice shy.. and all that jazz. Multiplats selling worse on PS3 doesn't make the development process less efficient.
http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/04/ea-focus-on-ps3-as-lead-platform-for-game-development/
In the end. This process is better for devs and great for gamers. I'm not knocking any of your arguments, but is there evidence of this route having an negative effect on costs and/or time?
it has worked in the past, it has made multiplats better --- BUT --- those multiplats sold really poorly on the PS3 (as most do) so the cost of development becomes a bigger issue going forward in a business sense. i don't see it happening much more in the future - once bitten, twice shy.. and all that jazz. Multiplats selling worse on PS3 doesn't make the development process less efficient.[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Episode_Eve"] I think it can work and its been proven to work in cases. Unless every dev wants to just make the 360 version and release it first, which isn't happening.Episode_Eve
http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/04/ea-focus-on-ps3-as-lead-platform-for-game-development/
In the end. This process is better for devs and great for gamers. I'm not knocking any of your arguments, but is there evidence of this route having an negative effect on costs and/or time?
no, it's not better for devs when your multiplat that was lead developed on the PS3 gets outsold 4 or 5:1 on the 360. again, you don't think of the business side. devs aren't here to be 'good to gamers' they're here to make money. that article is also old, back when things weren't as dim for the PS3... just think of it this way. lead develop on PS3, then port to 360. lets for arguments sake say the split is 60:40 (60% lead, 40% of resources to port). that means 60% of your overhead went to lead on the PS3 - 40% to port to 360. when accounting for costs post development this will be taken in to account. say the PS3 version sells 1 for every 4,5 copies that sell on the 360 (fair comparison, look at multiplat sales charts) - it basically boils down to a disproportionate amount of development costs being attributed to the console that only gives you 20% of your revenue at best. it basically means you're doing a massive favor to Sony... this is why we've seen some PS3 multiplats get cancelled lately - and why devs are shifting back to 360 first development. your idea is a great strategy had the PS3 maintained any sort of momentum. it hasn't. there is no logic is devoting 60% of resources to a title that gets you 20% in terms of total revenue. none. it's what you'd call 'red' development - or appeasing a console manufacturer. it's not a sound practice - not during this economic downturn.keep in mind it's been proven PS3 owners don't buy the same amount of games that 360 owners do. many attribute this to the PS3 being sold as a BR player to people that don't care so much about games. regardless, it's a major factor when making development decisions these days.
[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"]Multiplats selling worse on PS3 doesn't make the development process less efficient.[QUOTE="3picuri3"] it has worked in the past, it has made multiplats better --- BUT --- those multiplats sold really poorly on the PS3 (as most do) so the cost of development becomes a bigger issue going forward in a business sense. i don't see it happening much more in the future - once bitten, twice shy.. and all that jazz.3picuri3
http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/04/ea-focus-on-ps3-as-lead-platform-for-game-development/
In the end. This process is better for devs and great for gamers. I'm not knocking any of your arguments, but is there evidence of this route having an negative effect on costs and/or time?
no, it's not better for devs when your multiplat that was lead developed on the PS3 gets outsold 4 or 5:1 on the 360. again, you don't think of the business side. devs aren't here to be 'good to gamers' they're here to make money. that article is also old, back when things weren't as dim for the PS3... just think of it this way. lead develop on PS3, then port to 360. lets for arguments sake say the split is 60:40 (60% lead, 40% of resources to port). that means 60% of your overhead went to lead on the PS3 - 40% to port to 360. when accounting for costs post development this will be taken in to account. say the PS3 version sells 1 for every 4,5 copies that sell on the 360 (fair comparison, look at multiplat sales charts) - it basically boils down to a disproportionate amount of development costs being attributed to the console that only gives you 20% of your revenue at best. it basically means you're doing a massive favor to Sony... this is why we've seen some PS3 multiplats get cancelled lately - and why devs are shifting back to 360 first development. your idea is a great strategy had the PS3 maintained any sort of momentum. it hasn't. there is no logic is devoting 60% of resources to a title that gets you 20% in terms of total revenue. none. it's what you'd call 'red' development - or appeasing a console manufacturer. it's not a sound practice - not during this economic downturn. But I have been considering the business side, and this isn't simply being "good to gamers", but it's more efficient. I just don't see how this process will hurt the sales of either SKU. If EA is still selling the same amount of games on both platforms as they did before, and still making the same amount of money, it's good for everyone. Unless this process is costing them more...which I can't find evidence of that. BTW, the article is 4 months old. I don't think development trends move that fast.[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="Episode_Eve"] Multiplats selling worse on PS3 doesn't make the development process less efficient.no, it's not better for devs when your multiplat that was lead developed on the PS3 gets outsold 4 or 5:1 on the 360. again, you don't think of the business side. devs aren't here to be 'good to gamers' they're here to make money. that article is also old, back when things weren't as dim for the PS3... just think of it this way. lead develop on PS3, then port to 360. lets for arguments sake say the split is 60:40 (60% lead, 40% of resources to port). that means 60% of your overhead went to lead on the PS3 - 40% to port to 360. when accounting for costs post development this will be taken in to account. say the PS3 version sells 1 for every 4,5 copies that sell on the 360 (fair comparison, look at multiplat sales charts) - it basically boils down to a disproportionate amount of development costs being attributed to the console that only gives you 20% of your revenue at best. it basically means you're doing a massive favor to Sony... this is why we've seen some PS3 multiplats get cancelled lately - and why devs are shifting back to 360 first development. your idea is a great strategy had the PS3 maintained any sort of momentum. it hasn't. there is no logic is devoting 60% of resources to a title that gets you 20% in terms of total revenue. none. it's what you'd call 'red' development - or appeasing a console manufacturer. it's not a sound practice - not during this economic downturn. But I have been considering the business side, and this isn't simply being "good to gamers", but it's more efficient. I just don't see how this process will hurt the sales of either SKU. If EA is still selling the same amount of games on both platforms as they did before, and still making the same amount of money, it's good for everyone. Unless this process is costing them more...which I can't find evidence of that. BTW, the article is 4 months old. I don't think development trends move that fast. you can't use the word efficient and claim to have read what i wrote. it's the opposite of efficiency. it's 'red' development...http://gamer.blorge.com/2008/08/04/ea-focus-on-ps3-as-lead-platform-for-game-development/
In the end. This process is better for devs and great for gamers. I'm not knocking any of your arguments, but is there evidence of this route having an negative effect on costs and/or time?
Episode_Eve
[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] no, it's not better for devs when your multiplat that was lead developed on the PS3 gets outsold 4 or 5:1 on the 360. again, you don't think of the business side. devs aren't here to be 'good to gamers' they're here to make money. that article is also old, back when things weren't as dim for the PS3... just think of it this way. lead develop on PS3, then port to 360. lets for arguments sake say the split is 60:40 (60% lead, 40% of resources to port). that means 60% of your overhead went to lead on the PS3 - 40% to port to 360. when accounting for costs post development this will be taken in to account. say the PS3 version sells 1 for every 4,5 copies that sell on the 360 (fair comparison, look at multiplat sales charts) - it basically boils down to a disproportionate amount of development costs being attributed to the console that only gives you 20% of your revenue at best. it basically means you're doing a massive favor to Sony... this is why we've seen some PS3 multiplats get cancelled lately - and why devs are shifting back to 360 first development. your idea is a great strategy had the PS3 maintained any sort of momentum. it hasn't. there is no logic is devoting 60% of resources to a title that gets you 20% in terms of total revenue. none. it's what you'd call 'red' development - or appeasing a console manufacturer. it's not a sound practice - not during this economic downturn.3picuri3But I have been considering the business side, and this isn't simply being "good to gamers", but it's more efficient. I just don't see how this process will hurt the sales of either SKU. If EA is still selling the same amount of games on both platforms as they did before, and still making the same amount of money, it's good for everyone. Unless this process is costing them more...which I can't find evidence of that. BTW, the article is 4 months old. I don't think development trends move that fast. you can't use the word efficient and claim to have read what i wrote. it's the opposite of efficiency. it's 'red' development... My point is. Is there proof that developers like EA are loosing anymore money than they were before the adoption of this process? Their games still sale the same on either platform right? Until a dev says, "Switching to the PS3 as lead platform has lost us more money than before", I'll fairly assume that "smoother" and "more efficient" equals less trouble/time/money. If the outcome is the same or better, then I see them sticking with it as it's a smoother development process.
I have to disagree with the original poster. I enjoy watching blu-ray movies & I probably would've had a hard time choosing which format to go with during the format wars. I'm glad Sony got that out of the way. Plus, I'd rather pay $399 for the PS3 which includes everything instead of a gimped out $199 console which does NOT include a Hard Drive, WiFi & so on.
From a consumer point of view, the Playstation 3 is a bit more sophisticated, more mature/adult oriented while the Xbox 360's $199 is basically for Parents/Family Members who need to buy a present for lil Timmy without breaking the bank.
The Playstation 1 played games via CD. The Playstation 2 played games via DVD. The Playstation 3 plays games via blu-ray. It's call innovation, technological advancement & evolution in gaming so to speak. Current gen console with next gen ideas.
The Xbox played games via DVD. The Xbox 360 plays games via DVD. Nothing next gen about it.... It's just a beefier hardware with the RROD.
[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] DD is here today. TIVO. Digital Cable boxes. both do HD recording / storing for TV / Movies. both have been shown to be the largest media growth opportunities as well. both are selling better than Bluray players / PS3.Steppy_76It's here, but what about being able to download an HD quality movie from your couch straight to your television. That's the element of DD that I'm referring to that is far into the future.Hmm, I've been able to do that for years now with on-demand HD services from my cable box, AND from XBL marketplace. same here - for roughly 3 years we've had the ability to download HD movies and TV to our HD Digital Cable box ;) this is why i never hit up Blockbuster anymore, heh.
maybe canada is ahead of the curve for this? do you not have this in the US?
Honestly, I don't care if it was a right move or a wrong move. It's a good thing for us who already have a PS3. I'm a movie buff and I know it's the new supported HD-format and I'm pretty sure nothing will come out and just overtake it suddenly. If Sony is losing money, it doesn't affect me so much. I know more movies and games will be put out in bluray format in the future.
In general, Sony losing money over bluray in PS3s doesn't mean I'm losing anything.
[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] DD is here today. TIVO. Digital Cable boxes. both do HD recording / storing for TV / Movies. both have been shown to be the largest media growth opportunities as well. both are selling better than Bluray players / PS3.Steppy_76It's here, but what about being able to download an HD quality movie from your couch straight to your television. That's the element of DD that I'm referring to that is far into the future.Hmm, I've been able to do that for years now with on-demand HD services from my cable box, AND from XBL marketplace. Is it mainstream? No. Being able to d/l a movie and store it to a HDD, while on your couch. This as a standard for majority of housholds is many years away. That's what I'm saying. Especially to see it take over DVD sales it will take even more years. I think think will coexist.
It was a horrible move.
It's practically worthless for games, it was not an established format at the time of the PS3's release and it still is very expensive.
With PS1 and PS2, their formats were already established and used by the public in a significant amount to warrant including it.
Sony sacrificed their games division for their movies division and that is why I'm not buying a PS3 at least right now, because the most important thing was forgotten: games. I don't want a multimedia computer, I want a games console that plays DVD movies and CD music because it's rather basic and inexpensive, that's all.
[QUOTE="Steppy_76"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"] It's here, but what about being able to download an HD quality movie from your couch straight to your television. That's the element of DD that I'm referring to that is far into the future.TREAL_SinceHmm, I've been able to do that for years now with on-demand HD services from my cable box, AND from XBL marketplace. Is it mainstream? No. Being able to d/l a movie and store it to a HDD, while on your couch. This as a standard for majority of housholds is many years away. That's what I'm saying. Especially to see it take over DVD sales it will take even more years. I think think will coexist. not in Canada mate. most cable owners had a Digital box now, so we're enjoying it on a pretty massive scale, for about 3 years now. think there's a reason video stores are closing up shop across Canada :)
i've had a digital HD box w/ 200gig HDD from Rogers for 4 years now actually. 2005, Jan.
Sorry but you must be quite mis-informed, as I know of lots of people that still use vcr tapes for recording things and watching them on old tvs. I mean lots of people that don't care or know about hdtvs, current game systems, mp3 players, etc. Heck some of them don't even own a computer.This has already been settled, HD-DVD lost to Blu-Ray, so Sony made the RIGHT choice and MS made the WRONG choice.
HDTV's are becoming more and more commonplace, everybody has them now, but there's no sense in having one unless you can watch HD movies on them, that's where the genious of Sony really is, they knew before the hype that Blu-Ray would win the format battle.
p2250
It's sad I know but it's true, some people just don't follow or care about technology. I bet there are millions of people around the world just like that.
I guess, but I like that it plays Blu-Ray, and I wanted a lot of games anyway, so I guess business wise, but as a consumer, I'm a happy camper, they might have lost exclusives, but it was mostly titles going multi-plat, so I don't really care.110millionGood point....as a console and blu ray player, its a damn steal and blu ray will soldier on....its been out for 2 years, while it took DVD 5 years to get on the market
[QUOTE="110million"]I guess, but I like that it plays Blu-Ray, and I wanted a lot of games anyway, so I guess business wise, but as a consumer, I'm a happy camper, they might have lost exclusives, but it was mostly titles going multi-plat, so I don't really care.WWIABGood point....as a console and blu ray player, its a damn steal and blu ray will soldier on....its been out for 2 years, while it took DVD 5 years to get on the market might wanna check your old calendar there mate. and no, DVD didn't take 5 years. it had been out 4 when it was included in the PS2... at that point it was nearly fully adopted. i used to work in a VHS video store, i think i know ;)
and all these articles out today slamming the ps3 mention sony's mistake including bluray. game sales indicate that the PS3 is being bought more as a bluray player only than people thought before.
Good point....as a console and blu ray player, its a damn steal and blu ray will soldier on....its been out for 2 years, while it took DVD 5 years to get on the market might wanna check your old calendar there mate. and no, DVD didn't take 5 years. it had been out 4 when it was included in the PS2... at that point it was nearly fully adopted. i used to work in a VHS video store, i think i know ;)[QUOTE="WWIAB"][QUOTE="110million"]I guess, but I like that it plays Blu-Ray, and I wanted a lot of games anyway, so I guess business wise, but as a consumer, I'm a happy camper, they might have lost exclusives, but it was mostly titles going multi-plat, so I don't really care.3picuri3
and all these articles out today slamming the ps3 mention sony's mistake including bluray. game sales indicate that the PS3 is being bought more as a bluray player only than people thought before.
DVD was hardly a mainstream consumer product in 2000, many shops in 2000 had a extremely small collection of DVD's and players for sale, when I first bought a DVD player, there was a choice of about 20 dvds at my local woolworths, the PS2 helped with its introduction into the main marketGood point....as a console and blu ray player, its a damn steal and blu ray will soldier on....its been out for 2 years, while it took DVD 5 years to get on the market might wanna check your old calendar there mate. and no, DVD didn't take 5 years. it had been out 4 when it was included in the PS2... at that point it was nearly fully adopted. i used to work in a VHS video store, i think i know ;)[QUOTE="WWIAB"][QUOTE="110million"]I guess, but I like that it plays Blu-Ray, and I wanted a lot of games anyway, so I guess business wise, but as a consumer, I'm a happy camper, they might have lost exclusives, but it was mostly titles going multi-plat, so I don't really care.3picuri3
and all these articles out today slamming the ps3 mention sony's mistake including bluray. game sales indicate that the PS3 is being bought more as a bluray player only than people thought before.
The PS2 was my family's first DVD player. As many others. I remember reading reports that it helped usher in the format and contributed to the market penetration. It wasn't really commonplace at the time.Is it mainstream? No. Being able to d/l a movie and store it to a HDD, while on your couch. This as a standard for majority of housholds is many years away. That's what I'm saying. Especially to see it take over DVD sales it will take even more years. I think think will coexist.TREAL_Since
yep just like Blu Ray . Like I said earlier TREAL there is no way in hell that Blu Ray will ever replace DVDs
other than the things i've already mentoned (HD penetration, lack of titles, lack of players in homes, price) there's also the failure of the PS3 to contend with. It's at 4% of disc based sales in the USA , it's not going to jump to 51% especially with Digital Distro on its heels
Even in Japan where everyone has a HDTV Blu Ray is far from the standard
[QUOTE="3picuri3"]might wanna check your old calendar there mate. and no, DVD didn't take 5 years. it had been out 4 when it was included in the PS2... at that point it was nearly fully adopted. i used to work in a VHS video store, i think i know ;)[QUOTE="WWIAB"] Good point....as a console and blu ray player, its a damn steal and blu ray will soldier on....its been out for 2 years, while it took DVD 5 years to get on the marketEpisode_Eve
and all these articles out today slamming the ps3 mention sony's mistake including bluray. game sales indicate that the PS3 is being bought more as a bluray player only than people thought before.
The PS2 was my family's first DVD player. As many others. I remember reading reports that it helped usher in the format and contributed to the market penetration. It wasn't really commonplace at the time. i don't care what was your first DVD player. i know DVD were renting and selling well before PS2 because I pushed them at a bloody video store. i had one i think 2 years before PS2 came out... it's so ridiculous when people compare DVD to BluRay. DVD didn't require a new HDTV. DVD replaced a crappy tape system prone to quality issues. DVD replaced VCRs that frequently got the tape caught up in them (again, i know how many failed given i used to place VCR repair orders for clients, lol. it was big business). it's NOTHING AT ALL LIKE BLURAY.[QUOTE="3picuri3"]might wanna check your old calendar there mate. and no, DVD didn't take 5 years. it had been out 4 when it was included in the PS2... at that point it was nearly fully adopted. i used to work in a VHS video store, i think i know ;)[QUOTE="WWIAB"] Good point....as a console and blu ray player, its a damn steal and blu ray will soldier on....its been out for 2 years, while it took DVD 5 years to get on the marketWWIAB
and all these articles out today slamming the ps3 mention sony's mistake including bluray. game sales indicate that the PS3 is being bought more as a bluray player only than people thought before.
DVD was hardly a mainstream consumer product in 2000, many shops in 2000 had a extremely small collection of DVD's and players for sale, when I first bought a DVD player, there was a choice of about 20 dvds at my local woolworths, the PS2 helped with its introduction into the main market in 2000 we had a full DVD section in our independent video store.Sony is loosing so much money that they can't have a price cut for the PS3, so as a result it's getting murdered by the competition this holiday season. It's games are not selling very well either. People seem to think of it primarily as a Blu Ray player based on BR disc sales vs. PS3 game sales.If the PS3 would have just stuck with plain ole dvds from the start like Nintendo and Microsoft this gen they could have started off on a good foot at say $400. By now they would be selling PS3s at $299 or less and be competitive or even on top right about now.
Does anyone still think Blu Ray was the right move for the PS3?
Bigboi500
No, not really its more so the economy hurting them. A mega-corporation like Microsoft will be able to weather the storm but Sony is smaller and will have more trouble.
With the extreme lack of consistent games though, I think Blu Ray has probably been helpful. A lot of people who bought the PS3 bought it for cheap blu-ray capabilities, though it would've definitely been better if the technology had been perfected enough that the PS3 could've at least been its current price at launch. Those people are still a small amount, but its probably higher than the amount of people who bought it based on the current game selection.
No....
I think it was the best idea that it was a requirement when it launched. However, today, as someone who doesn't own a PS3... I'm looking to pick one up in a month or two mainly because it has a bluray player.
Whats funny? I signed up for Netflix after getting introduced to it via the NXE update for 360... however after getting DVDs in the mail, and realizing DVD quality is not good enough, I'm going to be getting a PS3 so I can order Bluray movies.
Funny, eh? :P
[QUOTE="Episode_Eve"][QUOTE="3picuri3"] might wanna check your old calendar there mate. and no, DVD didn't take 5 years. it had been out 4 when it was included in the PS2... at that point it was nearly fully adopted. i used to work in a VHS video store, i think i know ;)The PS2 was my family's first DVD player. As many others. I remember reading reports that it helped usher in the format and contributed to the market penetration. It wasn't really commonplace at the time. i don't care what was your first DVD player. i know DVD were renting and selling well before PS2 because I pushed them at a bloody video store. i had one i think 2 years before PS2 came out... it's so ridiculous when people compare DVD to BluRay. DVD didn't require a new HDTV. DVD replaced a crappy tape system prone to quality issues. DVD replaced VCRs that frequently got the tape caught up in them (again, i know how many failed given i used to place VCR repair orders for clients, lol. it was big business). it's NOTHING AT ALL LIKE BLURAY. Oh I know the differences between DVD and Blu-ray...I didn't mention them. I was talking about the similarities in adoption though. I'm a former Blockbuster manager. Throughout the years of working there, my store manager (14 year experience) and my district manager (10+ years experience) mentioned the phase of of VHS to DVD. During 2000 when the PS2 launched DVD was far from the standard, wast still expensive and the store was about 80-90% VHS (like it is now withe DVD and Bluray).and all these articles out today slamming the ps3 mention sony's mistake including bluray. game sales indicate that the PS3 is being bought more as a bluray player only than people thought before.
3picuri3
We had discussions (one of them was a gamer) of the PS2 actually aiding the penetration of the DVD format (from conference calls/meetings etc.). Couple that with reports, my own family/friends experience, and this remarks you can see where I'm coming from. And you're in Canada right? I worked in Georgia. Just like you guys have standard DD boxes and we don't. You shouldn't expect trends to be identical in every region.
EDIT: I'd like to add that my former store has a Blu-ray kiosk (as does every store in America), a fast growing BR section, growing BR rentals/sales, and they even sell BR players LMAO (and not DVDs). Sony and BB have a history of partnering, it's continuing.
Sorry to bust your bubble but the SONY is actually turning a small profit now and because of the blu-ray player the system will eventually make them alot of money. blu-ray is the future of at least the next 10 years.Sony is loosing so much money that they can't have a price cut for the PS3, so as a result it's getting murdered by the competition this holiday season. It's games are not selling very well either. People seem to think of it primarily as a Blu Ray player based on BR disc sales vs. PS3 game sales.
If the PS3 would have just stuck with plain ole dvds from the start like Nintendo and Microsoft this gen they could have started off on a good foot at say $400. By now they would be selling PS3s at $299 or less and be competitive or even on top right about now.
Does anyone still think Blu Ray was the right move for the PS3?
Bigboi500
[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]Sorry to bust your bubble but the SONY is actually turning a small profit now and because of the blu-ray player the system will eventually make them alot of money. blu-ray is the future of at least the next 10 years.Umm...how exactly are you "busting my bubble"? :?Sony is loosing so much money that they can't have a price cut for the PS3, so as a result it's getting murdered by the competition this holiday season. It's games are not selling very well either. People seem to think of it primarily as a Blu Ray player based on BR disc sales vs. PS3 game sales.
If the PS3 would have just stuck with plain ole dvds from the start like Nintendo and Microsoft this gen they could have started off on a good foot at say $400. By now they would be selling PS3s at $299 or less and be competitive or even on top right about now.
Does anyone still think Blu Ray was the right move for the PS3?
djsifer01
Is it mainstream? No. Being able to d/l a movie and store it to a HDD, while on your couch. This as a standard for majority of housholds is many years away. That's what I'm saying. Especially to see it take over DVD sales it will take even more years. I think think will coexist. not in Canada mate. most cable owners had a Digital box now, so we're enjoying it on a pretty massive scale, for about 3 years now. think there's a reason video stores are closing up shop across Canada :)[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Hmm, I've been able to do that for years now with on-demand HD services from my cable box, AND from XBL marketplace.3picuri3
i've had a digital HD box w/ 200gig HDD from Rogers for 4 years now actually. 2005, Jan.
Not to mention that pay TV subscribers comprise 80% of US households...PAY TV is mainstream, over the air TV is the minority.Sony is loosing so much money that they can't have a price cut for the PS3, so as a result it's getting murdered by the competition this holiday season. It's games are not selling very well either. People seem to think of it primarily as a Blu Ray player based on BR disc sales vs. PS3 game sales.
If the PS3 would have just stuck with plain ole dvds from the start like Nintendo and Microsoft this gen they could have started off on a good foot at say $400. By now they would be selling PS3s at $299 or less and be competitive or even on top right about now.
Does anyone still think Blu Ray was the right move for the PS3?
Bigboi500
First,, sony isn't losing money on each PS3 sold anymore.
Second, blu-ray movies are cheaper than PS3 games.
And for the record, I do think blu-ray was a wise move. I really, really like it as a format. Know who else agrees with me?
The movie companies.
Meh. I could go either way.
On one hand, Blu Ray movies look fantastic on my HDTV (especially The Dark Knight) and it allows developers more freedom when it comes to making exclusive titles.
On the other, it made my purchase more expensive than it would've been otherwise (I highly doubt the 60 GB PS3 would've been $500 when I bought it if it weren't for Blu Ray), it necessitates the need for HDD space eating installs in the majority of titles on the market (as far as I know) due to the PS3's slow read speeds, Blu Ray movies are better than their DVD counterparts if you have an HDTV but the added cost may be a deal breaker seeing as DVD movies typically look great upscaled and it's killing Sony on the business side of things due to relatively slow adoption rates versus DVD and high production costs that kill the chances of a price drop any time soon.
When I weigh the pros and cons, I think the PS3 would've be alright with just a DVD drive this generation. Slow Blu Ray adoption has all but proven that the market isn't ready for the format (remember, HDTV penetration is still relatively low at this time and Blu Ray is reliant on that to show a real advantage over DVD). I could deal with an upscaled version of The Dark Knight in that hypothetical situation, especially since the DVD release is ten bucks cheaper.
Maybe it is just bad timing with the economy, I actually like having a blu-ray player. Although it hardly serves a purpose for gaming atm.Grady420and it never will, the hdd is just so much better for gaming with a sustained transfer rate well over 3 time that of the fasted speed any optical drive could ever dream of and burst rates of around 7 time that of optical. Optical drives were never made for gaming and they don't go the distance, just look at ps2's problem with dre, that's because optical drives were out much faster. you would never get a optical drive that is warrantied for 5 years like all seagate hdds are. The next consoles should have a optical drive there simply for loading game off and games should run off desktop hard drives (not the slow tiny expensive notebooks ones they use now)
WTF its not a terrible idea. With Blu ray you're getting HD movies and Unmatchable graphics with exclusive(uncharted 2, Killzone 2). Just recently they made a PS3 Compatible 400Gb that will be commercially ready in 2010. Exclusives will be ridiculous on a 200-400GB disc. With a PS3 you're investing in the future not the past and DVD are becoming a thing of the past whether you like it or not.G-T-A---M-A-Dwow 400gb wonder how much that costs consider this a 1tb hard drive is about the same price as the cheap brand blu ray drives and its much faster and quieter. for a 400gb br disk to even be useful you will need a 2000% increase in transfer rates which isn't going to happen and ps3 used the slow 2x br drive which is going to mean it will take forever to read a whole 400gb if br is so useful then why are the best looking game under 7 gb? crysis, world in conflict, farcry 2 (a whole 3.16gb only needs a single layer dvd yet few games look better)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment