Is it possible Sony used the PS3 to win the format war?

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

Jamisonia

yes, sony used the ps3 to trojan horse blu ray into success, but as a another poster pointed out, they weren't planning on it costing them this much in sales.

maybe looking back, sony wishes they hadn't tried to push blu ray and the cell processor into one generation. the two together made for one very expensive console. if they had it to go over again, i bet sony would save some money on lower performance to keep competitive on sales. ps2 didn't win on graphics, ps4 won't win on it either.

Pretty sure this is a no brainer. The PS3 was the trojan horse to get Blu Ray in people's homes. Imagine if Blu Ray lost... I'm not sure the PS3 woulda survived.carljohnson3456

[QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

Zero_epyon

This. Other companies have just as much at stake over the success of Blu-Ray as Sony does. I can't see the PS3 being a "sacrificial lamb" of sorts for the birth of a new video format. Too much money went into it to do so.

Not only possible but probable and umm, just is. :P IMO, It attributed to them losing their dominance in the VG industry.

PS3 was the Trojan horse to win the Formats war its obvious losing Formats war would have costed them alot more than what PS3 is making them lose right now.

I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.Panther501

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

bez2083

This. Other companies have just as much at stake over the success of Blu-Ray as Sony does. I can't see the PS3 being a "sacrificial lamb" of sorts for the birth of a new video format. Too much money went into it to do so.

I agree. Just because Sony gave the BDA a lot of money to support Blu-Ray doesn't mean that they own it. It's like saying that Sony owns DVD. Microsoft can definitely have a Blu-Ray player along with something like a 4x Blu-Ray disc drive inside their next gen console, & they won't have to worry about paying the BDA much, as the format's already becoming cheaper.

[QUOTE="Panther501"]I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.carljohnson3456

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Panther501"]I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.Panther501

no executive can accurately predict the future.

a good view of this would be to see sony's profitability over the last 5 years... one sec and ill get some numbers (the cowboys game is boring right now anyways).

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

Jamisonia

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"]Pretty sure this is a no brainer. The PS3 was the trojan horse to get Blu Ray in people's homes. Imagine if Blu Ray lost... I'm not sure the PS3 woulda survived.comeonthehoops

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

Jamisonia

[QUOTE="KukicAdo"]There's no doubt the PS3 played a major role in establishing Blu-Ray's dominance. NukePistols

No, DVD never engaged in a format war. It may have accelerate DVD's adoption over VHS, but DVD would've been adopted regardless of the PS2.

I didn't expect I would get such universal agreement on SW's about this topic.

Uhh yea.. because unlike microsoft, sony is interested in the BIG PICTURERenzokucant

Yes, but the big picture, in this case, is not good for gaming.

Yes, they took a gamble, it helped them win the format war but really took a big hit with their gaming market.

I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.Panther501

[QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

Zero_epyon

Ok, first off, all of you that are saying the PS3 was a trojan horse for Blu-Ray are wrong. Do a little reading. "A "Trojan Horse" has come to mean any trick that causes a target to invite a foe into a securely protected bastion or place, now often associated with "malware" computer programs presented as useful or harmless in order to induce the user to install and run them." There was no deception on Sony's part. They told anyone that would listen that the PS3 had a Blu-Ray drive, spent quite a bit of money advertising that fact and prominently depicted this on the packaging. That's even glossing over the fact that a Blu-Ray drive is in no way detrimental. Pick a new term.

But, yes, the HD battle was a factor, but not the most significant. Ken Kutaragi was a hardware guy, so of course he would want to put the most advanced optical drive in that he could at that time. Also, by making it standard in PS3's, an increase of production was warranted which would accelerate the economics of scale and help bring down the cost for all Blu-Ray manufacturing (from Sony's and others' drives to the disks themselves). It also fit nicely into Sony's overall plan to have a set-top box that everyone would get all of their digital entertainment through, expanding the digital content it could provide. So yes, it was a factor, but thinking it the main factor is oversimplifying things and underestimating Sony's ambitions.

I think Sony has stakes in lots of movie studios.

Compared to Toshiba, it was probably the defining factor.

I sort of miss HD-DVD, they got their hardware prices down so fast and we had DVD-priced movies on the spot. I'm sick of having to wait for these $25 release prices to come down, it's not worth it.

actually sony won the format war because quite a few studios were paid out.
warner brothers alone was paid 500 million and higher to go bluray exclusive.

And Microsoft/Nintendo wouldn't have to pay up on the liscense. There's tons of companies you can already call allies with Microsoft that are in the BDA.

Philips, Hitachi, Dell, HP, even Toshiba might join. But if Sony tried anything with it, then they're in the noose for Windows 7 liscenses.

and xbox was the trojan horse to get HD dvd into our homes? Brainkiller05

I really doubt it tbh.

2006 seemed like the year where the HDDVD/Blu-Ray even had its' take off. It was only natural for Microsoft to support the other format, since it began development of HDi. Which was a counterpart to Sun Microsystem's Java platform within blu-ray.

Also the HD-DVD ad-on couldn't play games, and judging from the steep price tag, Microsoft most likely knew where HD-DVD was headed, so they took heavy profit to prevent the heavy loss when they cut it to 50 bucks.

I'm speculating though. Either way, Microsoft was going to be stuck with DVD on games, and if they had HDDVD drives internally, they'd be in deep...you know.

Blu-ray was more important to them than making money on the ps3. Sony makes more money on movies than games.

Sony has a history of pushing their own formats. This was one they didn't want to lose.

[QUOTE="Brainkiller05"]and xbox was the trojan horse to get HD dvd into our homes? HavocV3

I really doubt it tbh.

2006 seemed like the year where the HDDVD/Blu-Ray even had its' take off. It was only natural for Microsoft to support the other format, since it began development of HDi. Which was a counterpart to Sun Microsystem's Java platform within blu-ray.

Also the HD-DVD ad-on couldn't play games, and judging from the steep price tag, Microsoft most likely knew where HD-DVD was headed, so they took heavy profit to prevent the heavy loss when they cut it to 50 bucks.

I'm speculating though. Either way, Microsoft was going to be stuck with DVD on games, and if they had HDDVD drives internally, they'd be in deep...you know.

The reason why MS used the DVD format is because it was the only choice if they wanted to release in 2005. Neither HD-DVD nor Blu-ray were fully specced at the time that the 360 released. Also, Neither Blu-ray nor HD-DVD were anywhere near ready in 2003 (let alone 2002). There were some Blu-ray-branded products in 2003, but they were recorders, ridiculously expensive, and incompatible with the current format.

Both formats were only specced in 2006, and even then, HD-DVD only released with a provisional spec. The reason why they didn't have the HD-DVD built inside the system is because they would have had to delay until March 2006 at the earliest (and, at the time that they would have needed to make that decision, March 2006 looked like being the PS3's release date). Adding HD-DVD to the system would also have increased the price by a large amount - probably close to US $100 - and would have meant extremely limited supplies of the system. You may remember that Sony had so many problems sourcing blue-violet laser heads that they delayed the European launch of the PS3 even after buying up nearly the entire planet's supply of such lasers - and that was in the months leading up to November 2006, 8 months after HD-DVD's launch. Imagine the supply problems Microsoft would have had getting any real amount of blue-violet lasers earlier in the year.

Microsoft's actual investment in HD-DVD would have been minimal. Their contribution to the format was the VC-1 codec (which in fact Blu-ray also uses), marketing the HD-DVD add-on (which Toshiba built - and probably Toshiba also subsided the marketing effort as well, minimal as it was), and writing the code that allowed the Xbox 360 to play HD-DVDs (which yes, probably was wasted effort).

In terms of resources, HD-DVD didn't cost Microsoft much - and most likely their real strategy was to delay Blu-ray's uptake (or if possible to defeat Blu-ray, but they must have considered this a long shot at best). As such they were moderately successful and probably don't regret the support they gave to HD-DVD.

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

Jamisonia

Yes they did. They didn't give a hoot about gamers, hence the huge price tage and arrogant 'it will sell without games' comments. They then realised that they needed the gamers FIRST as the early adopters of the tech and not the movie buffs who baulked at paying the prices.

It won them the format war and almost certainly lost them the console war. The upshot of all of this will be interesting to see but do not doubt Sony wanted to use gamers, not support gamers.

DVD won the last console war for Sony, by destroying the Dreamcast, MS' first console outing with Sega.

I imagine they hoped Blueray would win them out against the 'Dreamcast 360'.

It didn't work out that way.

The XBOX had pushed gaming in a more PC lite FPS direction, and carried huge momentum that the Dreamcast lacked, despite its early success.

Sony completely failed to predict (as many did) the disruption the Wii would cause.

And finally, even though Blueray is far better quality than streaming/download content it is no-where near as convenient. Especially for Rentals.

[QUOTE="Zero_epyon"][QUOTE="Jamisonia"]

I wanted to see what you guys thought of this. But is it possible that Sony Corporation (the parent company) used the PlayStation 3 primarily as a means to win the format war for Blu Ray, their propreitary techonology, against HD-DVD? This might explain why Sony Corp puts up with the PlayStation division losing money. They saw the bigger picture of Blu Ray becoming the next generation of medium, and all that goes with that such as royalities. Think about it, when ever blu ray drives become commonplace in computers every computer manufacturer will have to play Sony some money. If Microsoft or Nintendo begin using Blu Ray as a medium for games they'll have to pay Sony a fee to do that. Other companies that make Blu Ray players have to pay sony royalities to do that.

But what do you think SW?

bez2083

This. Other companies have just as much at stake over the success of Blu-Ray as Sony does. I can't see the PS3 being a "sacrificial lamb" of sorts for the birth of a new video format. Too much money went into it to do so.

[QUOTE="Panther501"]I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.dsmccracken

I agree.

Yes they did. They didn't give a hoot about gamers, hence the huge price tage and arrogant 'it will sell without games' comments. They then realised that they needed the gamers FIRST as the early adopters of the tech and not the movie buffs who baulked at paying the prices.

It won them the format war and almost certainly lost them the console war. The upshot of all of this will be interesting to see but do not doubt Sony wanted to use gamers, not support gamers.

1080pOnly

[QUOTE="carljohnson3456"][QUOTE="Panther501"]I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.Panther501

With all due respect, this is kind of ridiculous. You're suggesting that companies are infallible. Companies are just as capable as making bad decisions as people. In all likelyhood, Sony's previous success and resultant hubris blinded them to the potential problems of releasing a console at such a high price.

Yes they did. They didn't give a hoot about gamers, hence the huge price tage and arrogant 'it will sell without games' comments. They then realised that they needed the gamers FIRST as the early adopters of the tech and not the movie buffs who baulked at paying the prices.

It won them the format war and almost certainly lost them the console war. The upshot of all of this will be interesting to see but do not doubt Sony wanted to use gamers, not support gamers.

1080pOnly

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="Panther501"]I think Sony knew that they were going to take heavy losses in the game division with the PS3 when they added Blu-ray. I think they realized that they could make an even greater profit from getting Blu-ray onto the market and making a loss with the ps3 than not establishing blu-ray and taking less of a loss.Tragic_Kingdom7

I agree.

[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

Yes they did. They didn't give a hoot about gamers, hence the huge price tage and arrogant 'it will sell without games' comments. They then realised that they needed the gamers FIRST as the early adopters of the tech and not the movie buffs who baulked at paying the prices.

It won them the format war and almost certainly lost them the console war. The upshot of all of this will be interesting to see but do not doubt Sony wanted to use gamers, not support gamers.

EmperorSupreme

It's more likely that neither care about gamers as gamers, but rather care about gamers as potential consumers. I think it's a bit silly arguing about which monolithic corporation cares about gamers.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] I think that they certainly added Blu-Ray on purpose to trogan horse it into homes, but I don't for a second believe that they thought that it would cost them the gen, and dominant market position going into next gen, because of it.Javy03

I agree.

No. There is a real system war. These companies are competing with eachother. Not in a fanboy kind of way, but they definitely want to have the biggest amount of market share they can and they want to have more people buying their product than the other company.

Secondly, I think Sony did in fact expect to be first. I think they expected all their PS1/PS2 costumers to instantly upgrade. I think they were blinded by the power of their brand.

[QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

Yes they did. They didn't give a hoot about gamers, hence the huge price tage and arrogant 'it will sell without games' comments. They then realised that they needed the gamers FIRST as the early adopters of the tech and not the movie buffs who baulked at paying the prices.

It won them the format war and almost certainly lost them the console war. The upshot of all of this will be interesting to see but do not doubt Sony wanted to use gamers, not support gamers.

Javy03

No console has ever been that expensive. It was that expensive because of the Bluray drive. It was delayed because of the Bluray drive. It was designed to be a multimedia system first and a games machine second.

Sony realised the error and swiftly switched tack to try and regain share. You might be glad Sony gave you a reason to buy a PS3 at launch but millions of others voted with their wallets and left it languishing in third place.

[QUOTE="Javy03"][QUOTE="1080pOnly"]

Yes they did. They didn't give a hoot about gamers, hence the huge price tage and arrogant 'it will sell without games' comments. They then realised that they needed the gamers FIRST as the early adopters of the tech and not the movie buffs who baulked at paying the prices.

It won them the format war and almost certainly lost them the console war. The upshot of all of this will be interesting to see but do not doubt Sony wanted to use gamers, not support gamers.

1080pOnly

No console has ever been that expensive. It was that expensive because of the Bluray drive. It was delayed because of the Bluray drive. It was designed to be a multimedia system first and a games machine second.

Sony realised the error and swiftly switched tack to try and regain share. You might be glad Sony gave you a reason to buy a PS3 at launch but millions of others voted with their wallets and left it languishing in third place.

*cough**cough*