POLL: What is Sony's main focus with the PS3?

BIZ: When you look at all the bad things associated with Blu-ray – the big cost it added to the PS3, the fact that it was mainly responsible for the initial shortage and delay to Europe, the slower disc read times – are you still happy with Sony's decision to go with this technology?

PH:It wasn't Sony's decision; it was our [SCE's] decision. We needed to have Blu-ray disc from a game design point of view. The chipsets in PS3 chew through data at such a rate that in order to build variety and detail and quality into the games, we need more than nine gigabytes. Now, the fact that we could also adopt the preeminent next generation movie format into PS3 was an added bonus, not an added cost.

obviously not games. I bet movie buffs love the PS3, can't say the same about gamers though...KrazyKenKutarag

Moovies. 'Nuff said.

For whatever it's worth,

BIZ: When you look at all the bad things associated with Blu-ray – the big cost it added to the PS3, the fact that it was mainly responsible for the initial shortage and delay to Europe, the slower disc read times – are you still happy with Sony's decision to go with this technology?

 

PH:It wasn't Sony's decision; it was our [SCE's] decision. We needed to have Blu-ray disc from a game design point of view. The chipsets in PS3 chew through data at such a rate that in order to build variety and detail and quality into the games, we need more than nine gigabytes. Now, the fact that we could also adopt the preeminent next generation movie format into PS3 was an added bonus, not an added cost.

From an interview http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15342.

And my guess is that it was for games at the beginning, and then they realized it would be smart for them to do that from a business kind of view point, and start advertising it aslo a a blu-ray player.

 

bustos86

I think that Sony's main focus is selling blu-ray players. And here is why: Sony took a movie format that they invented and slapped (or trojan horsed) it into their best selling brand. It's simple, penetrate the market with blu-ray, then sit back and enjoy the kickbacks that feed their TV, stereo, and motion picture divisions. It doesn't stop there, the choice of using the Cell processor has more to do with blu-ray than gaming. The Cell is good for imaging. The Cell can run a blu-ray player just fine. At the same time 3rd party developers have voiced that the Cell is a disaster for making games. What say you?bluebrad1974

Moovies. 'Nuff said.

NECR0CHILD313

BIZ: When you look at all the bad things associated with Blu-ray – the big cost it added to the PS3, the fact that it was mainly responsible for the initial shortage and delay to Europe, the slower disc read times – are you still happy with Sony's decision to go with this technology?

PH:It wasn't Sony's decision; it was our [SCE's] decision. We needed to have Blu-ray disc from a game design point of view. The chipsets in PS3 chew through data at such a rate that in order to build variety and detail and quality into the games, we need more than nine gigabytes. Now, the fact that we could also adopt the preeminent next generation movie format into PS3 was an added bonus, not an added cost.

[QUOTE="KrazyKenKutarag"][QUOTE="Flame1"][QUOTE="KrazyKenKutarag"][QUOTE="Flame1"]the ps1 was $300, the ps2 was $300, like all things eventually the ps3 would become more expensive regardless if it had a blu ray drive. everything rises in cost not just technology, just looke at the rise of car, food or gas prices from the past 20 years. the next generation of consoles will also be more expensive and people will bash on it then too.
Flame1

doesnt sony lose around $200 for each console they sell? its the games they make up the profit on. right now there isnt hardly any good games but this was the same boat the ps2 was in at the beginning of its life cycle and it did pretty well. Flame1

you cant compare ps3 to ps2

totally diffrent makert and pirce of a system.

dont go my history