Should Sony have released a $399 PS3 1 year earlier, with a blu-ray add-on?

I honestly believe that Sony shot themselves in the foot majorly (in a way never before seen in the video game industry) by releasing the PS3 one full year after the XBOX 360. Microsoft is a very smart, energetic, competitive company with almost unlimited resources, and their main goal is to establish a major foothold into the multi-billion dollar video game industry. Sony seems to have underestimated Microsoft, and their motivation to be a major player. While Sony was delaying the PS3 for a FULL YEAR after the 360 launch, SOLELY due to the blu-ray diode shortage, Microsoft was putting out AAA games and shelling out the big bucks for wickedly awesome exclusives. Not to mention the ludicrous $600 pricetag on the PS3 at launch.

That said, should Sony have released a cheaper ($399) PS3 at the same time as the 360, but with a later blu-ray add-on? I really think that if they had, there would be no question of which console (not including the Wii) would be winning in sales and AAA exclusives. The playstation brand was a household name, and allowing the competition a year head start was brutal and a major reason for their legendary fall from grace/market share.

Even if the PS3 overtakes the 360 in sales, it will not be by much, and it will probably happen within a year or two of the next generation of consoles. Either way, Sony's former massive lead in market share will be reduced exponentially. In fact, Microsoft is doing a good job in making XBOX a household name- I see the 360 all the time on tv sitcoms, Southpark, movies, etc, and I pretty much never see the PS3 on tv.

And I say this as a guy who wants a PS3 to play MGS4, but I am not confident in the direction Sony decided to go. Maybe when I actually need a blu-ray player (which I do not right now), and it costs $200, I may bite.

Not if they wanted blu-ray to win the format war. HDDVD would have easily won if not for the PS3.mnvike

Well, if they wanted to win the video game war (which they easily could have), they should have released the PS3 earlier and for cheaper. Nice to know that Sony has their priorities straight for us gamers.

Its ironic, PS2 being out for so many year, you would of thought the PS3 would be out b4 the Next xbox, but nope, after 4 years ONLY..ms have the 360.

It should have been the other way round...then again, Sony always have a 6 year life span for there console, untill a new one.

A bluray-less PS3 launched a year earlier with a nice price tag, would have been a killer. yeah

There was nothing wrong with releasing the PS3 later once the bugs were worked out. If the PS3 was released with anything other than Blu-Ray then it wouldn't really be a PS3. If you look back in history you will see that each time Sony releases a new console it comes with the latest media disc drive built in.jimm895

so you are trying to tell me that when the next generation of consoles arrives in 2 years, Sony will use yet another next-gen format? Blu-ray will not be enough by then? Perhaps terabyte disks?

A bluray-less PS3 launched a year earlier with a nice price tag, would have been a killer. yeah

Forensic-Klown

thank you for agreeing with me. We are most certainly right.

No, releasing 1 year earlier is a silly gimmick, it's the price point that screwed them. I think if they released at the same time as they did, skiped blu-ray, and launched for $300, it would have been another playstation generation.DaBrainz

**agrees with you**

Well if they had launched earlier with cheaper models sans Blu-ray, I'd most likely own a PS3 instead of a 360 right now.

Unfortunately Sony's overpriced, underwhelming movie format was more important to them.

[QUOTE="jimm895"]There was nothing wrong with releasing the PS3 later once the bugs were worked out. If the PS3 was released with anything other than Blu-Ray then it wouldn't really be a PS3. If you look back in history you will see that each time Sony releases a new console it comes with the latest media disc drive built in.IDateWhiteChick

so you are trying to tell me that when the next generation of consoles arrives in 2 years, Sony will use yet another next-gen format? Blu-ray will not be enough by then? Perhaps terabyte disks?

There won't be a new PS console in 2 years. It will be several years before another PS console is released. The thing is Sony so far has never released a new console with the same disc media. The PS1 was released and used the CD media. The PS2 was released using DVD. And the PS3 wasn't released until Blu-Ray was ready and as many bugs as possible was worked out.

On the other hand M$ will push anything it can out the door and tries to sell it as the latest and greatest (which is far from the truth).

The release date was fine if they gave me everything I was pormised from the very beginning. And had their online service on par with XBL. Sony spokes-persons wrote checks that they couldn't cash.

mnvike is right. I think Sony's main concern the first year the PS3 was out was to get movie companies to buy into Bluray, and worry about the videogame market till the next year. You got to admit that in 07 it was all bluray this and bluray that. and just wait till 08. Sony was banking on a bunch of PS2 loyalist to jump on board the new PS3 express. It worked! It won them the HD format war, but by ignoring the videogame market it lost a lot of the market share to M$ and Nin.

No, the 600 dollar price tag was the killer.

Sony couldnt have ate anymore losses on the PS3 at launch though. I think they said they were losing like 200 on each console sold or something... anyway, Sony would have shot themselves in the foot not making Blu Ray standard. Just look at the 360, they didnt make the 20 GB HDD standard and are now paying for it.

nowraigth

why

[QUOTE="mnvike"]Not if they wanted blu-ray to win the format war. HDDVD would have easily won if not for the PS3.IDateWhiteChick

Well, if they wanted to win the video game war (which they easily could have), they should have released the PS3 earlier and for cheaper. Nice to know that Sony has their priorities straight for us gamers.

[QUOTE="IDateWhiteChick"]

[QUOTE="mnvike"]Not if they wanted blu-ray to win the format war. HDDVD would have easily won if not for the PS3.Terami

Well, if they wanted to win the video game war (which they easily could have), they should have released the PS3 earlier and for cheaper. Nice to know that Sony has their priorities straight for us gamers.

do you deny that Sony prioritized blu-ray as far more important than games?

[QUOTE="wraigth"]noIDateWhiteChick

why

because i like my built in Blu-ray drive, i'd rather not pay for a seperate one.

That would have caused chaos for the games that would be on the PS3. Some are one DVD9s, others are on Blu-Ray...I can't tell how much of deficit that would cause.Verge_6

probably not much, being that 90+% of PS3 games could fit on a DVD9. Compression could do the rest. Also, it could read the disk faster on a DVD9 and prevent having to have mandatory installs.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]That would have caused chaos for the games that would be on the PS3. Some are one DVD9s, others are on Blu-Ray...I can't tell how much of deficit that would cause.IDateWhiteChick

probably not much, being that 90+% of PS3 games could fit on a DVD9. Compression could do the rest. Also, it could read the disk faster on a DVD9 and prevent having to have mandatory installs.

There's also the disc laser and hardware capability issues that would pop-up.

[QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="IDateWhiteChick"]

[QUOTE="mnvike"]Not if they wanted blu-ray to win the format war. HDDVD would have easily won if not for the PS3.IDateWhiteChick

Well, if they wanted to win the video game war (which they easily could have), they should have released the PS3 earlier and for cheaper. Nice to know that Sony has their priorities straight for us gamers.

do you deny that Sony prioritized blu-ray as far more important than games?

[QUOTE="IDateWhiteChick"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="IDateWhiteChick"]

[QUOTE="mnvike"]Not if they wanted blu-ray to win the format war. HDDVD would have easily won if not for the PS3.Terami

Well, if they wanted to win the video game war (which they easily could have), they should have released the PS3 earlier and for cheaper. Nice to know that Sony has their priorities straight for us gamers.

do you deny that Sony prioritized blu-ray as far more important than games?

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

[QUOTE="IDateWhiteChick"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="IDateWhiteChick"]

[QUOTE="mnvike"]Not if they wanted blu-ray to win the format war. HDDVD would have easily won if not for the PS3.Terami

Well, if they wanted to win the video game war (which they easily could have), they should have released the PS3 earlier and for cheaper. Nice to know that Sony has their priorities straight for us gamers.

do you deny that Sony prioritized blu-ray as far more important than games?

Changing discs is not a big deal at all. I do it all the time when I change out my AAA, mandatory-installation-free games on my XBOX 360.

And it has been proven time and time again that a bigger medium is not yet needed. How many AAA devs need to say this? But I agree that one day it will be needed, but when that day occurs the drive will need to be able to read the format fast enough to not need mandatory installs. So, not in this generation. And blu-ray will not have been replaced by the time the next generation rolls around.

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

Verge_6

Some gamers, such as myself, didnt mind paying $599 on Day One. Because we like games, no matter what platform its on.

The debate of whether Blu-ray hurt the PS3 will continue on, because of the fact that even now, you need to install a good portion of the data on the HDD.

Not only that but, Sony is making a major push for Blu-ray to succeed DVD. I simply do not think that will happen unless, Movie Studios stop making DVD's.

You need an HDTV to take advantage of Blu-ray...without it, your just watching a normal DVD (resolution wise). HDTV adoption is growing, but in no means a significant share of the market.

One of the reasons DVD succeeded was an incredible leap in quality, along with applications (chapters, subtitles, extras), AND you could use it on the same TV you owned for 10+ years (with composite ready inputs).

But now, digital distribution is becoming more and more common, just look at services such as Xbox Live and iTunes, it makes getting HD media easier than ever.

Sony fanboys need to understand, the PS3 was simply a trojan horse for the blu-ray format, nothing more. They need to make peace with it, as I have. This was pretty clear when the execs were saying "its not a game machine". I mean its a freakin Playstation! It was synonomous with "Game Machine" for the better part of TWO WHOLE gaming generations.

Bottom line. The PS3 did not need blu-ray. It would have made much more sense to include it in the next generation of consoles, when HDTV adoption was much higher. and more and more consumers made the switch over.

But I guess well never know will we.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

Terami

Yes, and with compression techniques improving constantly, I don't see non cutscene-heavy games needing multiple discs for quite a while. Blu-Ray is currently being mostly filled with redundant an/or uncompressed data.

Changing discs is not a big deal at all. I do it all the time when I change out my AAA, mandatory-installation-free games on my XBOX 360.

And it has been proven time and time again that a bigger medium is not yet needed. How many AAA devs need to say this? But I agree that one day it will be needed, but when that day occurs the drive will need to be able to read the format fast enough to not need mandatory installs. So, not in this generation. And blu-ray will not have been replaced by the time the next generation rolls around.

IDateWhiteChick

[QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

Verge_6

Yes, and with compression techniques improving constantly, I don't see non cutscene-heavy games needing multiple discs for quite a while. Blu-Ray is currently being mostly filled with redundant an/or uncompressed data.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

Terami

Yes, and with compression techniques improving constantly, I don't see non cutscene-heavy games needing multiple discs for quite a while. Blu-Ray is currently being mostly filled with redundant an/or uncompressed data.

No, one CAN'T argue that because uncompressed data does NOT increase performance. :?

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

Terami

Yes, and with compression techniques improving constantly, I don't see non cutscene-heavy games needing multiple discs for quite a while. Blu-Ray is currently being mostly filled with redundant an/or uncompressed data.

Well if that was the case, the PS3 should have been destroying the 360 in every possible way. But it doesnt.

[QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

rappid_rabbit

Yes, and with compression techniques improving constantly, I don't see non cutscene-heavy games needing multiple discs for quite a while. Blu-Ray is currently being mostly filled with redundant an/or uncompressed data.

Well if that was the case, the PS3 should have been destroying the 360 in every possible way. But it doesnt.

So I guess you have stopped pretending to not be ban envading anymore huh TC? Truth-slayer

huh I never got banned stop being mean and stop the H8

[QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"]

A game that has hours and hours of CGI scenes isn't a fair example to use. If games like Crysis cans till fit on one DVD9 disc, then I think we're fine as far as size is concerned for a while.

Verge_6

Yes, and with compression techniques improving constantly, I don't see non cutscene-heavy games needing multiple discs for quite a while. Blu-Ray is currently being mostly filled with redundant an/or uncompressed data.

No, one CAN'T argue that because uncompressed data does NOT increase performance. :?

Well if they had launched earlier with cheaper models sans Blu-ray, I'd most likely own a PS3 instead of a 360 right now.

Unfortunately Sony's overpriced, underwhelming movie format was more important to them.

Corvin

I'm actually the opposite. I own both, but if not for the blu-ray, I wouldn't own a PS3.

When I speak of performance, I'm speaking of load times here.(for consoles where a lot of it is done through streaming due to the limited ram)Terami

Are >30 second load times really so important as to serve as a basis for Blu-Ray? So far, the load times for the vast majority of PS3 games are equal or near equal (by that I mean a few seconds of difference) to those of 360 games...after an HDD installation.

[QUOTE="Terami"]

When I speak of performance, I'm speaking of load times here.(for consoles where a lot of it is done through streaming due to the limited ram)Verge_6

Are >30 second load times really so important as to serve as a basis for Blu-Ray? So far, the load times for the vast majority of PS3 games are equal or near equal (by that I mean a few seconds of difference) to those of 360 games...after an HDD installation.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"]

When I speak of performance, I'm speaking of load times here.(for consoles where a lot of it is done through streaming due to the limited ram)Terami

Are >30 second load times really so important as to serve as a basis for Blu-Ray? So far, the load times for the vast majority of PS3 games are equal or near equal (by that I mean a few seconds of difference) to those of 360 games...after an HDD installation.

By a few seconds, and so far, there have hardly been, if any, PS3 multiplat games with faster loading times than the 360.

[QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"]

When I speak of performance, I'm speaking of load times here.(for consoles where a lot of it is done through streaming due to the limited ram)Verge_6

Are >30 second load times really so important as to serve as a basis for Blu-Ray? So far, the load times for the vast majority of PS3 games are equal or near equal (by that I mean a few seconds of difference) to those of 360 games...after an HDD installation.

By a few seconds, and so far, there have hardly been, if any, PS3 multiplat games with faster loading times than the 360.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Terami"]

When I speak of performance, I'm speaking of load times here.(for consoles where a lot of it is done through streaming due to the limited ram)Terami

Are >30 second load times really so important as to serve as a basis for Blu-Ray? So far, the load times for the vast majority of PS3 games are equal or near equal (by that I mean a few seconds of difference) to those of 360 games...after an HDD installation.

By a few seconds, and so far, there have hardly been, if any, PS3 multiplat games with faster loading times than the 360.

Oblivion I remember, but can I get links to statements that GTAIV and DMC4 load faster? From what I've heard, they are the exact same for both consoles, load times included.

they would still have a games, or lack there of crisis-GhostMLD-

If they released a year earlier, no they wouldn't have. Especially at that price tag.

What? What? What? The is no PS3 without BluRay! It was designed to be a next-gen gaming console, NOT a slapped together gimmick to make $$$$$$. DVD's are the past and while games are getting bigger, the inferior limited space of DVD's will cripple the lame systems that incorporate them.

Without bluray, the PS3 would just be an Xbox 360.aznfool07

I think you mean..........without Bluray, the PS3 would be a reliable Xbox360