[QUOTE="myke2010"]I personally don't know why people choose Blu-Ray over HD-DVD myself. For one thing a Blu-Ray player costs slightly more then twice as much as an HD-DVD player, yet he picture quality is almost identical. But, for whatever reason, people are choosing Blu-Ray more then HD-DVD. My personal opinion is the PS3 is skewing the sales of the discs. Let's face it, how many people do you know who actually have a standalone Blu-Ray or HD-DVD player. I can't name a single one. Now how many people can you name who own a PS3. Probably at least one out of 4 people reading this. Now what about people with an HD-DVD player? If you know somebody who has one they most likely own it as an addon to their 360, but since it doesn't come with the 360 maybe only a quarter, if that, of 360 owners have one. So what does all this mean? Well in short you're not seeing the masses flock to Blu-Ray over HD-DVD, you're seeing the small number of PS3 owners buy more discs then the even smaller number of HD-DVD 360 addon owners buy HD-DVD discs. If you were to look at the number of actual standalone players sold you'd find the numbers don't scale equally with the number of discs sold. Simply put, though bundling a Blu-Ray player with every PS3 may have made the PS3 cost too much to do anything other then hang on to 3rd place, by doing so they provided their Blu-Ray discs with an installed user base. The irony of this is they're winning the next gen media format war before the average consumer ever gets involved. So the next time you mock Sony for putting their stupid Blu-Ray player into the overpriced PS3, just remember that they'll be laughing all the way to the bank when they make back their losses 20 times over because Blu-Ray owns the market. This is why the PS3 won't go the way of the dreamcast, because even if it's never profitable for Sony, it will help them win a market that absolutely dwarfs the console system wars.Primevil702
So you really think PS3 will remain in 3rd place? It's something like 6 million consoles behind 360, and it's been on the market a year less. Also, just so you know - the cost of the Blu-Ray diodes has decreased substantially, and prices for PS3 will continue to fall - especially with Sony constantly streamlining and removing non-essential components from the PS3(ie. EE removed from the 80gb version).
Including Blu-Ray in the PS3 was a risky decision, but, I personally think it will pay off in spades. For one, next-gen games are getting freaking huge, with all the HD sound, video, high-res textures etc - it all takes up a lot of space. Look at any of the newer PS3 games coming out - most developers are saying the same thing, it wouldn't be possibly without Blu-Ray. Heck, look at MGS4, I'm willing to bet that game will weight in at 30gb+ when released. And nows lets consider the fact that Blu-Ray will most than likely win the format war - once that's over, PS3 will be the only out of the box Next-Gen compatible console.
Umm yes, I do think that, that's why I wrote it. Yes the PS3 is only 6 million consoles behind, however that's rougly half of the number of 360s sold and the 360 is still outselling the PS3. That means the PS3 is still losing ground. And while Blu-Ray will keep getting cheaper so will HD-DVD. Seeing how a standalone HD-DVD player is already less then half the cost of a stand alone Blu-Ray player I don't know what there is to brag about. I couldn't care less what Blu-Ray does for games. Games won't decide which format movie studios will go with, the number of movies sold will. What the hell does a movie studio need with that many gigs anyways, it won't take up half that space for a movie, that's a selling point for software programs, it doesn't mean crap here. I stand by my original statement. The PS3 will benefit Sony in the media wars far more then it ever will in the console wars. Last, many of the game manufacturers who have claimed to fill up a Blu-Ray disks with code have already admitted long ago that it is with NON-COMPRESSED data. Stop and think about this one. Are you telling me that computer programs, which require more code due to the requirements it ships with everything from the ground up, take up less space then console disks, that require less code since more of the weight is carried by the console? That doesn't even make any sense. The reason for this is computer programs come on compressed disks. PS3 game designers don't have to compress their data because Blu-Ray provides so much space. If they did compress their data it would fit neatly onto an HD-DVD, thus the supposed rumors about the allegedly 30gig MGS4 coming to 360. Konami knows damn well if compressed it would fit onto one HD-DVD, but they won't announce that during Sony's E3 speech cause it would make them look bad. 
Log in to comment