Was blu-ray really necessary for the PS3?

It was fatal for Sony to include blu-ray:Lost all the money they made during the PS2 era.Blu ray was the main reason for their losses.It didnt take off as well as it should have:DVDs are still dominant and online distrubution is making it even more difficult.

In hindsight if they didnt have blu ray then they would have won the gen easily and would still be market leader without a 599 console.It was a gamble that didnt pay off,especially considering that Sony has been losing money for 5 consecutive years.The company and the Playstation brand is burning to ashes.Playstation Vita is proving this currently and the PS3 got outsold this year by the kinect krapbox despite having better exclusives.In 10 years if we try to analyse why the Playstation brand did a Dreamcast then the blu ray fiasco will be talked about as the beginning of the the end.

You have to weigh how many units they'd have sold (which is only possible by estimation) had they not included Blu-ray. The fact it was included was a huge factor for me, plus at the time there was the format war between HD-DVD and Blu-ray and Sony was one of the biggest investors/supporters into the format. The kickbacks/royalties from winning that war definitely outweigh whatever marginal increase they'd get per PS3 (in my estimation).

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

[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.

PillyChickle

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.

[/QUOTE

haha im not part of the sony defence for if thats what your trying to imply just love taking out you nitwits with half a brain.

Sony's already moving to their LED tech aswell, considering they sold off their shares in S-LCD its a smart move as theres little to no profit in the LCD market due to how cheap and essentialyl they are a commodity, smart move by Kaz.

Blu-ray was only ever put in to push a format, its been good from certain angles (disk swapping) but that came with negatives (installs), if you watch films and wanted to take the plunge into HD PS3 for most of its lifespan was the cheapest blu-ray player aswell which much like the PS2 put it in a solid position, only downside is that the tech was still expensive at the start of this gen and sony's choice of processor and general components didnt help much when it came to price point ethe.

You'll probably blast over what im saying and claiming im defending sony but all im really doing is putting a pathetic little kid with a pathetic vendetta against a company in their place.

For gaming? nope.

For gaming? nope.

Fizzman

.

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

For gaming? nope.

gaming25

*mgs4*.

I win. :]

Of course they needed it!

How else are all those JRPG devs going to fit 1000's of hours of boring cutscenes?

Hell yes! Very necessary. Did you know that some 360 games come with 2 or 3 discs? In each generation, games are getting bigger, bigger and bigger because the files in the disc is bigger. Better textures = bigger files. Xbox 720 will be an instant failure if it comes with DVD again.

And the truth is that the 360 is holding the PS3 back by its DVD format.

The only thing I dislike about Blu-ray is reading/writing speeds.

[QUOTE="PillyChickle"]

[QUOTE="razgriz_101"]

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

razgriz_101

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.

haha im not part of the sony defence for if thats what your trying to imply just love taking out you nitwits with half a brain.

Sony's already moving to their LED tech aswell, considering they sold off their shares in S-LCD its a smart move as theres little to no profit in the LCD market due to how cheap and essentialyl they are a commodity, smart move by Kaz.

Blu-ray was only ever put in to push a format, its been good from certain angles (disk swapping) but that came with negatives (installs), if you watch films and wanted to take the plunge into HD PS3 for most of its lifespan was the cheapest blu-ray player aswell which much like the PS2 put it in a solid position, only downside is that the tech was still expensive at the start of this gen and sony's choice of processor and general components didnt help much when it came to price point ethe.

You'll probably blast over what im saying and claiming im defending sony but all im really doing is putting a pathetic little kid with a pathetic vendetta against a company in their place.

My bad, but your response to markop2003 was dumb enough to be on the level of a SDF member.

The market was just not ready for HD back in 05-06. Most console games aren't even 720p-native nevermind 1080p. Remember when DVD was first released in the mid-nineties? Everyone was still using VHS and CDs. It took five years for DVD to really take off with the PS2. Imagine if Sony put a DVD drive in the original PlayStation, it would've been ugly.

PS3 was the cheapest Blu-ray player, cheap for the consumers that is and not for Sony which were losing around $250 on every console even at the $600 price point and the sad thing is that $600 is still a ridiculous amount of money for most people hence the 2006 post-E3 backlash against Sony.

That's pathetic. You're the one who's clearly trying to put a positive spin on what was obviously a bad decision.

it was about setting a new format as a standard. Which, for games, will be true. The next MS console will (reportedly) be using blu-ray

[QUOTE="gaming25"]

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

For gaming? nope.

Stevo_the_gamer

*mgs4*.

I win. :]

Stevo did you really enjoy Badrim more then The Witcher 2?

Eddie-Vedder

Hell yes! Very necessary. Did you know that some 360 games come with 2 or 3 discs? In each generation, games are getting bigger, bigger and bigger because the files in the disc is bigger. Better textures = bigger files. Xbox 720 will be an instant failure if it comes with DVD again. And the truth is that the 360 is holding the PS3 back by its DVD format. The only thing I dislike about Blu-ray is reading/writing speeds.willzthegamer

i wanted the next Playstation system & i wanted a Blu-ray player too..

PS3 had both, surely it was quite expensive on release, but i dont regret it... been enjoying great games & watching bluray movies since 2007 :)

If not for the PS3 Blu Ray may have not won the format war, so for Sony it was definitely necessary

yes to succeed and make Blu-ray popular which they did. Was DVD necessary for PS2 yes it was games were getting bigger same with the bluray. They should have just make a 25GB DVD instead of a starting a new format the PS3 would cost less but most like would have sold more then the x360 by now since most people forgot that the PS3 got delayed in Euro cuz of the bluray which costed sony money

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]Stevo did you really enjoy Badrim more then The Witcher 2?

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Fizzman"]

For gaming? nope.

gaming25

.

END OF TOPIC !!!!!

Oh my god i've never laughed so much !!!

Because PS3 is a great media device. I was buying the PS3 on the grounds that I could also watch Blu-Ray movies. So it was great, and made the format more accessible.

No, in fact it holds PS3 back since it is so slow comparing to 360 DVD drive

Skyrim is 4GB, on a DVD9 you can fit 2 games like that, extra space is totally not needed

Only for videos, but having 1-2 more disks is not really a problem, in fact is not a problem at all

No, in fact it holds PS3 back since it is so slow comparing to 360 DVD drive

Skyrim is 4GB, on a DVD9 you can fit 2 games like that, extra space is totally not needed

Only for videos, but having 1-2 more disks is not really a problem, in fact is not a problem at all

loosingENDS

It's not holding it back at all. PS3 owners get to watch Blu-ray movies, even in 3D.

It's a huge advantage.

Whatever it may be it's still a good deal, PS3+Blu Ray for 250 is pretty good.gaming25

creating detailed graphics and longer gameplay takes space and dvd limits that where as bluray extends but due to xbox success and development process lrady taken place blu ray was ignored except for some developer who developed games.....

creating detailed graphics and longer gameplay takes space and dvd limits that where as bluray extends but due to xbox success and development process lrady taken place blu ray was ignored except for some developer who developed games.....

ddlcpc

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

No, in fact it holds PS3 back since it is so slow comparing to 360 DVD drive

Skyrim is 4GB, on a DVD9 you can fit 2 games like that, extra space is totally not needed

Only for videos, but having 1-2 more disks is not really a problem, in fact is not a problem at all

OB-47

It's not holding it back at all. PS3 owners get to watch Blu-ray movies, even in 3D.

It's a huge advantage.

Some people like to play games.

Having a blue-ray in it increased sales for those wanting a blue-ray. Plus xbox720 will be using blue-rays, sony put alot of investment into blu-ray devolopment and will most likely benefit from that.

lol at all the "blu ray won sony a format war so it's good" answers.

that's how far you guys are stuck up sonys ass, you are more concerned with sony making money than how games were hurt this gen by being on a crappy format for games.

i like hd movies and like i have said before i'm glad it came with bd since i doubt i would have got one if not for the ps3 but to sit here and watch you guys praise a format for being profitable instead of moving gaming forwards makes me think you are nothing but ignorant little consumer robot pukes.

and yes god bless the new rules that allow me to tell you that you are ignorant pukes stuck up sonys ass as opposed to having to hide those words in something saying the same thing but 4 paragraphs long.

the new sw is such a timesaver.

Necessary? Nah. But it sure is nice.

If XBox 360 don't need them this gen, then no it was not necessary for PS3.

If XBox 360 don't need them this gen, then no it was not necessary for PS3.

-DarthMaul-

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

[QUOTE="loosingENDS"]

No, in fact it holds PS3 back since it is so slow comparing to 360 DVD drive

Skyrim is 4GB, on a DVD9 you can fit 2 games like that, extra space is totally not needed

Only for videos, but having 1-2 more disks is not really a problem, in fact is not a problem at all

PillyChickle

It's not holding it back at all. PS3 owners get to watch Blu-ray movies, even in 3D.

It's a huge advantage.

Some people like to play games.

Some people like a media hub that can do more than just games.

[QUOTE="-DarthMaul-"]

If XBox 360 don't need them this gen, then no it was not necessary for PS3.

Riverwolf007

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="-DarthMaul-"]

If XBox 360 don't need them this gen, then no it was not necessary for PS3.

Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

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.

Frostbite24

-10 points for giving points without the authority to do so

[QUOTE="PillyChickle"]

[QUOTE="OB-47"]

It's not holding it back at all. PS3 owners get to watch Blu-ray movies, even in 3D.

It's a huge advantage.

OB-47

Some people like to play games.

Some people like a media hub that can do more than just games.

Like the Xbawks three-sixty?

Of course it was necessary, especially if you want to watch HD movies (lol @ Xbox and not being able to play HD movies unless you download, which are of inferior quality and sound compared to Blu Ray).

Plus Blu Ray allows games to be bigger, look at games like Uncharted and Killzone and MGS ect...even if thesegames weren't exclusives they wouldn't be possible on 360, it would be like 8 or 9 discs for some of them!

That's how outdated the 360 and it's inferior DVD format is, plus Blu Ray has other advantages like faster loading, better HD output and resolution, better sound, and it's more sturdy and won't scracth as easily.

Blu Ray became the industry standard the moment it hit the market, DVD is an outdated peice of crap now. I can't even watch DVD movies anymore because of how low quality it is, it's like watchinga VHS movie to me, which is the direction DVD is headed. Sony made the wise choice going with Blu Ray, MS did not.

Only depressed Lemmings diss Blu Ray because they are jealous, I would be too if I had to play my games and watch movies on such an outdated and inferior format.

Of course it was necessary, especially if you want to watch HD movies (lol @ Xbox and not being able to play HD movies unless you download, which are of inferior quality and sound compared to Blu Ray).

Plus Blu Ray allows games to be bigger, look at games like Uncharted and Killzone and MGS ect...even if thesegames weren't exclusives they wouldn't be possible on 360, it would be like 8 or 9 discs for some of them!

That's how outdated the 360 and it's inferior DVD format is, plus Blu Ray has other advantages like faster loading, better HD output and resolution, better sound, and it's more sturdy and won't scracth as easily.

Blu Ray became the industry standard the moment it hit the market, DVD is an outdated peice of crap now. I can't even watch DVD movies anymore because of how low quality it is, it's like watchinga VHS movie to me, which is the direction DVD is headed. Sony made the wise choice going with Blu Ray, MS did not.

Only depressed Lemmings diss Blu Ray because they are jealous, I would be too if I had to play my games and watch movies on such an outdated and inferior format.

ShadowMoses900

uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are long? o.O

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Of course it was necessary, especially if you want to watch HD movies (lol @ Xbox and not being able to play HD movies unless you download, which are of inferior quality and sound compared to Blu Ray).

Plus Blu Ray allows games to be bigger, look at games like Uncharted and Killzone and MGS ect...even if thesegames weren't exclusives they wouldn't be possible on 360, it would be like 8 or 9 discs for some of them!

That's how outdated the 360 and it's inferior DVD format is, plus Blu Ray has other advantages like faster loading, better HD output and resolution, better sound, and it's more sturdy and won't scracth as easily.

Blu Ray became the industry standard the moment it hit the market, DVD is an outdated peice of crap now. I can't even watch DVD movies anymore because of how low quality it is, it's like watchinga VHS movie to me, which is the direction DVD is headed. Sony made the wise choice going with Blu Ray, MS did not.

Only depressed Lemmings diss Blu Ray because they are jealous, I would be too if I had to play my games and watch movies on such an outdated and inferior format.

rilpas

uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are long? o.O

Bigger in terms of memory and content on disc, not in game size it'self. Uncharted 3 alone takes up 47 GB on a Blu Ray disc (not system or save memory, totally different things) DVD can only hold up to around 5 GB at most, even if it was called "compressed" for DVD it wouldn't matter, it's simply not possibl e on 360 in it's current form. It would have be dumbed down to get it to work.

Uncharted 3 would be about 8 discs on Xbox 360. That's not a joke or an overexaggeration either, that is the truth. That's how much MS shot themselves in the foot this gen by not getting Blu Ray.

[QUOTE="Frostbite24"][QUOTE="jimmypsn"]

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.

rilpas

-10 points for giving points without the authority to do so

Of course it was necessary, especially if you want to watch HD movies (lol @ Xbox and not being able to play HD movies unless you download, which are of inferior quality and sound compared to Blu Ray).

Plus Blu Ray allows games to be bigger, look at games like Uncharted and Killzone and MGS ect...even if thesegames weren't exclusives they wouldn't be possible on 360, it would be like 8 or 9 discs for some of them!

That's how outdated the 360 and it's inferior DVD format is, plus Blu Ray has other advantages like faster loading, better HD output and resolution, better sound, and it's more sturdy and won't scracth as easily.

Blu Ray became the industry standard the moment it hit the market, DVD is an outdated peice of crap now. I can't even watch DVD movies anymore because of how low quality it is, it's like watchinga VHS movie to me, which is the direction DVD is headed. Sony made the wise choice going with Blu Ray, MS did not.

Only depressed Lemmings diss Blu Ray because they are jealous, I would be too if I had to play my games and watch movies on such an outdated and inferior format.

ShadowMoses900

If PS3 didn't have blu-ray, HD DVD probably would have won the HD Format War. The PS3 was the cheapest Next-Gen movie player available in 2006, even at $600.

The PS3 single-handedly made Blu-ray mainstream.

[QUOTE="rilpas"]

[QUOTE="ShadowMoses900"]

Of course it was necessary, especially if you want to watch HD movies (lol @ Xbox and not being able to play HD movies unless you download, which are of inferior quality and sound compared to Blu Ray).

Plus Blu Ray allows games to be bigger, look at games like Uncharted and Killzone and MGS ect...even if thesegames weren't exclusives they wouldn't be possible on 360, it would be like 8 or 9 discs for some of them!

That's how outdated the 360 and it's inferior DVD format is, plus Blu Ray has other advantages like faster loading, better HD output and resolution, better sound, and it's more sturdy and won't scracth as easily.

Blu Ray became the industry standard the moment it hit the market, DVD is an outdated peice of crap now. I can't even watch DVD movies anymore because of how low quality it is, it's like watchinga VHS movie to me, which is the direction DVD is headed. Sony made the wise choice going with Blu Ray, MS did not.

Only depressed Lemmings diss Blu Ray because they are jealous, I would be too if I had to play my games and watch movies on such an outdated and inferior format.

ShadowMoses900

uncharted 2 and killzone 2 are long? o.O

Bigger in terms of memory and content on disc, not in game size it'self. Uncharted 3 alone takes up 47 GB on a Blu Ray disc (not system or save memory, totally different things) DVD can only hold up to around 5 GB at most, even if it was called "compressed" for DVD it wouldn't matter, it's simply not possibl e on 360 in it's current form. It would have be dumbed down to get it to work.

Uncharted 3 would be about 8 discs on Xbox 360. That's not a joke or an overexaggeration either, that is the truth. That's how much MS shot themselves in the foot this gen by not getting Blu Ray.

Let me answer a question with a question.

Was CD necessary for the PS1?

Was DVD necessary for the PS2?

Was a disc format even necessary at all?

It just matters how important it is to you, that's all it really comes down to.

Why didn't we just stick with CD? It worked for the Dreamcast, it worked for the PS1, why shouldn't we just continue to use CD format? I mean, the general consensus is that getting up to change discs isn't a burden, so what's the big deal?

A CD holds a maximum of 700MB of data.

A game like Final Fantasy XIII is 37.6GB in size.

So you have to ask yourself, would you mind having Final Fantasy XIII on 54 discs? You would only have to get up and change discs 54 times. That really doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me. I mean, afterall, you would be getting a little bit of exercise. The Wii gives you a little bit of exercise, and look how well that sold?

I can just see it now in my head, how successful the 360 and the PS3 would have been if they used a CD format. Can you imagine?

They could advertise it by saying, "The games come with almost 60 discs, you can get up 60 different times per game to change the disc, think of all the added exercise you will be getting while playing"?

That would have made the systems sell like hot cakes.

I think Blu Ray was a big mistake. They could have incorporated this whole workout thing directly correlated with getting up to change discs. It could have been a big hit!