Was blu-ray really necessary for the PS3?

I can't help but think of the reasons why Sony is failing at the moment. One of the issues is blu-ray. If Sony could have saved a hundred bucks or so per machine by just releasing the games on dvd only, should they have made this choice? The only benefit is not swapping out discs. And it only affected like a handful of games this gen.

it wasn't about disc swapping. It was about establishing a new disc format at homes like sony did the previous gen with DvDsDiviniuz

Yeah this I understand as well. I really don't know how well the blu-ray market is doing. I don't own any blurays. I mainly use netflix and on demand downloads these days. But was it worth it. It makes more sense for blu-ray for next gen though.

I can't help but think of the reasons why Sony is failing at the moment. One of the issues is blu-ray. If Sony could have saved a hundred bucks or so per machine by just releasing the games on dvd only, should they have made this choice? The only benefit is not swapping out discs. And it only affected like a handful of games this gen.

jimmypsn

I did game on all three sony consoles and the PSP and to be honest, it really doesn't matter what the disc format is for a system.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]it wasn't about disc swapping. It was about establishing a new disc format at homes like sony did the previous gen with DvDsjimmypsn

Yeah this I understand it as well. I really don't know how well the blu-ray market is. I don't own any blurays. I mainly use netflix and on demand downloads these days. But was it worth it. It makes more sense for blu-ray for next gen though.

it wasn't about disc swapping. It was about establishing a new disc format at homes like sony did the previous gen with DvDsDiviniuz

No need to hold developers back with 15 year old discs, let them be free with Blu Ray.

No, it wasn't. Only Sony and their cows would say otherwise. The PS3 Blu-ray drive is ridiculously slow for gaming too.

No, but it is better than regualr disc

90% of all the sh*t the human race has invented over the years is not really necessary.

All you REALLY need is food, water and someplace warm (like a cave).

Anyway blu ray might not be necessary but it sure is nice.

Well like someone said above they were simply gambling to do the same thing they did last gen with DVD's but it didn't turn out like that time, s*** happens.

Yes and it likely saved Sony a lot of money by putting people off piracy (who wants to download a PS3 sized game let alone pay out for a BR burner). Plenty of games have benefited from the extra space and its a great feature to have in a console either way.

Disc-swapping doesn't works for me. So yes, it was necessary.

No

its only been good for pre-rendered cutscenes, Uncharted and God of War 3 for example

considering I watch more blur ray then I play on other systems ... yes.

Of course it was needed. Had the PS3 not launched with a Blu-Ray player, I don't the format even takes off. It gave the format a huge install base to build from, and now the rest is history.

Blu-Ray is the main reason I chose PS3 over the 360. Why the **** would I pay $400 for a console that only plays DVD's?

Why the **** would I pay $400 for a console that only plays DVD's?

xxxLUGZxxx

It was part of my reason for getting one at launch. Its fair to say it effected the reasons to own one, and so increased the numbers sold. It also ensured that the format war was won by Bluray. So yes, it kinda was really, just not for gaming reasons. BibiMaghoo

"PS3 is not a games machine"

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]It was part of my reason for getting one at launch. Its fair to say it effected the reasons to own one, and so increased the numbers sold. It also ensured that the format war was won by Bluray. So yes, it kinda was really, just not for gaming reasons. PillyChickle

"PS3 is not a games machine"

I have to put the argument in context. Had the PS3 been as much or almost as much of a success as the previous Playstations, then we'd probably see a LOT more games utilize BluRay. It was a gamble. Sony came into this generation thinking that victory would be handed to them. In that context, yes, the PS3 could have really used BluRay to it's advantage and put both Nintendo and Microsoft on the back-foot earlier on in the generation.

That's obviously not how things pannned out and very few developers outside of first party studios have used BluRay as an advantage in their games production. It's no less valid a question that, say, did Microsoft have to back HD-DVD when the gen began? All those HD-DVD players that were still-born on shelves across the world used up perfectly good blue laser diodes that artificially made the cost of PS3 skyrocket as well.

This gen, the consumer lost bigtime. 360 fans thought they were going to have the ultimate hardcore console and have ended up with KinectBox. Nintendo fans thought they reinvented gaming but the next Nintendo machine was the first to be announced. Sony fans thought they'd be getting a whole lot more out of their games tyhan developers have been willing to put the time and effort into due to the immense amount of loss of marketshare.

More of a hindrance than a necessity. Stevo_the_gamer

In terms of games? It was a minor hindrance at worst due to the slow read speeds, most developers worked around that no problem. But that minor hindrance was offeset by NUMEROUS minor benefits (7.1 uncompressed sound, more extensive language tracks, higher bitrate video/cutscenes, no disc swapping, games with more bonus content actually on disc) . Honestly, developers COULD have made it a bigger plus than they did. But basically it was Sony's own developers that made use of the format, very few 3rd parties did (i.e. Final Fantasy XIII with it's higher res cutscenes, Dead Space 2 fitting on 1 disc PLUS including Dead Space Extraction, etc).

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]More of a hindrance than a necessity. 2Chalupas

In terms of games? It was a minor hindrance at worst due to the slow read speeds, most developers worked around that no problem. But that minor hindrance was offeset by NUMEROUS minor benefits (7.1 uncompressed sound, more extensive language tracks, higher bitrate video/cutscenes, no disc swapping, games with more bonus content actually on disc) . Honestly, developers COULD have made it a bigger plus than they did. But basically it was Sony's own developers that made use of the format, very few 3rd parties did (i.e. Final Fantasy XIII with it's higher res cutscenes, Dead Space 2 fitting on 1 disc PLUS including Dead Space Extraction, etc).

[QUOTE="PillyChickle"]

[QUOTE="BibiMaghoo"]It was part of my reason for getting one at launch. Its fair to say it effected the reasons to own one, and so increased the numbers sold. It also ensured that the format war was won by Bluray. So yes, it kinda was really, just not for gaming reasons. BibiMaghoo

"PS3 is not a games machine"

No, Sony said it.

Was the 360 really necessary? Nope.

I can't help but think of the reasons why Sony is failing at the moment. One of the issues is blu-ray. If Sony could have saved a hundred bucks or so per machine by just releasing the games on dvd only, should they have made this choice? The only benefit is not swapping out discs. And it only affected like a handful of games this gen.

jimmypsn

Sony probably makes enough money off of bluray royalties, the extra markup on its media products and other blu ray players to cover the additional costs with the PS3. Remember Sony makes a lot more than games consoles.

EDIT: I forgot about HDTVs, the ammount of profit they've made off them due to the popularity of bluray will dwarf the PS3 costs.

Sony probably makes enough money off of bluray royalties, the extra markup on its media products and other blu ray players to cover the additional costs with the PS3. Remember Sony makes a lot more than games consoles.

EDIT: I forgot about HDTVs, the ammount of profit they've made off them due to the popularity of bluray will dwarf the PS3 costs.

markop2003

the sony doom squad's coming for you, better have a flameshield ready.

But think of all the people who bought the PS3 as a blu ray player only. If they hadn't implemented it in they would have lost all those sales.Frostbite24

They loose money on every hardware sale so selling more PS3s by itself is not a benefit.

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]it wasn't about disc swapping. It was about establishing a new disc format at homes like sony did the previous gen with DvDsjimmypsn

Yeah this I understand as well. I really don't know how well the blu-ray market is doing. I don't own any blurays. I mainly use netflix and on demand downloads these days. But was it worth it. It makes more sense for blu-ray for next gen though.

Say goodbye to DVD's within the next 5 years.

And as far as TC's original statement, Blu Ray is the only reason I bought the PS3. If it was a game only system I would have passed on it.

[QUOTE="2Chalupas"]

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"]More of a hindrance than a necessity. Stevo_the_gamer

In terms of games? It was a minor hindrance at worst due to the slow read speeds, most developers worked around that no problem. But that minor hindrance was offeset by NUMEROUS minor benefits (7.1 uncompressed sound, more extensive language tracks, higher bitrate video/cutscenes, no disc swapping, games with more bonus content actually on disc) . Honestly, developers COULD have made it a bigger plus than they did. But basically it was Sony's own developers that made use of the format, very few 3rd parties did (i.e. Final Fantasy XIII with it's higher res cutscenes, Dead Space 2 fitting on 1 disc PLUS including Dead Space Extraction, etc).

Blu-Ray players without games were $600-800 then. :o

That being said I didn't want to buy either platform until it hit $299. $600 for PS3 was too much, just as $400 for the 360 was too much. I usually try to avoid being an early adapter, I usually wait a year or two. When both of the consoles hit $299 the choice was pretty clear, not only did the 360 not even have blu-ray, at that point it didn't even have Wi-fi.

Yes because ps3 won the hd war. If sony did not do it hd dvd would have won. Hd dvd has only 30gbswhile blu ray has 50. So it would be a shame if hd dvd won over blu ray as we would have lower quality format for our hd movies.

Nope

It's a shame, Blu Ray means we could have bigger games on one disc, more content and longer games. Yet most of the space is just filled up with less compressed data instead of longer games and extra content. Occasionally a full game will be on the disc (Medal of Honor Frontlines) or multiple games will be on one disc (GTA IV Complete Edition). But as far as content goes, most of Sony's big franchises actually have less content than others (Halo has a lot more content than Killzone for example).

So it's a shame it isn't utilized for more as it could be.

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

[QUOTE="Diviniuz"]it wasn't about disc swapping. It was about establishing a new disc format at homes like sony did the previous gen with DvDsJohnny_Rock

Yeah this I understand as well. I really don't know how well the blu-ray market is doing. I don't own any blurays. I mainly use netflix and on demand downloads these days. But was it worth it. It makes more sense for blu-ray for next gen though.

Say goodbye to DVD's within the next 5 years.

And as far as TC's original statement, Blu Ray is the only reason I bought the PS3. If it was a game only system I would have passed on it.

I don't know about that. DVD is basically the format that will not die. A big part of the reason blu-ray isn't quite "taking off" like DVD did, is lots of people say to themselves that DVD is "good enough", just like for some people streaming is good enough. Those options are still side by side competing with blu-ray, even though on a technical level blu-ray is by far the best available option. I like the convenience of streaming, especially just for watching random old b-movies or TV series. But when I'm actually seeking out movies to watch, I usually seek out the blu-ray since that is by far the optimal version available to watch on a 55" HDTV. When I'm streaming Netflix I see all kinds of compression artificats, and at best even the so called "HD" sources look like upconverted DVD. Even with blu-ray, when I get real close to the screen I can still see some aliasing and unnatural looking artificats (i.e. not "film grain"), but with Netflix I can see problems sitting all the way back on my couch. I would assume that 4K will make the picture even more perfect looking even if you get up close to it.

I don't think it was necessary at all. The PS3 would have been fine with dvd drive. MercenaryMafia

it was not. if you are going to have mandatory installs the games could have been on cassette tape for all the difference it made.

bluray actually hurt games and sony this gen when you look at how they required installations taking up to 30 mins (dmc4 i'm looking at you) ) and the slower load times for ps3 games and the added cost that put the ps3 in last place this gen.

i am still glad it was in there though, i love it for movies and doubt i would have ever bought a bd player if it was not in the ps3.

[QUOTE="markop2003"]

Sony probably makes enough money off of bluray royalties, the extra markup on its media products and other blu ray players to cover the additional costs with the PS3. Remember Sony makes a lot more than games consoles.

EDIT: I forgot about HDTVs, the ammount of profit they've made off them due to the popularity of bluray will dwarf the PS3 costs.

razgriz_101

the sony doom squad's coming for you, better have a flameshield ready.

The Sony Defence Force are clearly pessimistic. ;)

@markop2003

Sony makes alot of things, and of those things there is no profit. PS3 was a financial disaster for Sony.

Sony making a profit from HDTVs? :lol:

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only people who would say that Blu-ray was good for the PS3 are cows and Sony employees themselves.