Would the PS3 be more successful WITHOUT Blu-Ray?

Consider this - you get rid of the Blu-Ray support, knock $100 off the console price because of it, and sell it as-is...

Everything else stays the same - the Cell and the RSX are untouched. Only it uses DVD's, just like the Xbox 360.

Do you think the PS3 would be more successful without Blu-Ray support or less successful then it already is?

I'm wondering if current PS3 sales are based more on it's game's or it's Blu-Ray support. And I'm wondering if you remove the Blu-Ray to make the price more competitive with the 360, if it would enhance it's sales or hurt it.

Things to consider:

1. Cheaper console = more sales by the masses. Possibly more 3rd party developer interest as a result of larger installed-base.

2. No Blu-Ray = less sales by the High Definition/Home Theater crowd. Which also means less interest in buying HDTV's and/or receivers. (hurts other aspects of Sony's business)

probably, a lesser pricetag would make it more popular.

But you should not forget that the PS3s main purpose is to push the blu-ray format and hopefully ride the wave it creates with bluray too appeal consumers as a great choice to a normal bluray player and start too appeal a broader audiance.

Well no Blu ray would help it in the short run.. And might save it in the long run (if HD-DVD wins the format wars) but the bluray player will generate huge profits for sony if it wins the war.

Sony did a gamble, we will see if it pays of in the future.

Absolutely. If it had launched at roughly the same price the 360 did, it would have built a larger user base, attracted more developers, and the resulting games would have pulled in even more PS3 buyers.

Instead, middling sales means less users, which means developers place more priority on 360 exclusives and multiplats. (The developer unfriendliness of Cell didn't help either).

The sad thing is how much in denial cows are about the fact that Sony screwed them over in favor of a larger business strategy. They wanted to push Blu-ray, and they have, but at the expense of gamers and their fans. Personally, I think it's a shameful thing to have done, but I'm not surprised they did it; I've always felt Sony was capable of such tactics, even back in the days of the PS1. Stuff like the DRM scandal and this Blu-ray thing have just pushed it more into the light.

The Wii and the 360 are very successful without blu ray. So sure.

So maybe Sony would have done better to sell the Blu-Ray as an add-on drive? Similar to how the 360 has a HD-DVD add-on drive...

But then, would Blu-Ray as a PS3 accessory help or hurt Blu-Ray media sales?

IMO, Sony is only going to break even no matter what happens here. One market is indirectly going to hurt the other market reciprocally.

When the PS3 was first announced and they showed Blu-Ray as the game media, I, as a GAMER, drooled over the aspect of MASSIVE games filling up all that space on a Blu-Ray disc. But I never once gave Blu-Ray MOVIES a thought. We were told that Next-Gen games would not fit on standard DVD discs and that the Blu-Ray disc would be the perfect gateway for bigger, more vast gaming experiences...

I know it's not been out that long, but I haven't seen anything coming out for the PS3 that even remotely meets the vision I had. And with the realization of the Cell's complex architecture and the RXS's limitations comapred to more current Video chipsets in the PC market, well it seems like a lost dream...

Lack of Blu Ray would be easier games to produce, so I think it would match 360 with games.
Still, it is still successful. It sold 2 million in US alone.

When the PS3 was first announced and they showed Blu-Ray as the game media, I, as a GAMER, drooled over the aspect of MASSIVE games filling up all that space on a Blu-Ray disc. But I never once gave Blu-Ray MOVIES a thought. We were told that Next-Gen games would not fit on standard DVD discs and that the Blu-Ray disc would be the perfect gateway for bigger, more vast gaming experiences...Netherscourge

You and everyone else were basically lied to. The issue was never storage space; it's always been about performance. Clock speeds, pipelines, and memory bandwidth. What makes it worse is how Sony tried to push off prerendered videos as gameplay leading up to the PS3's launch.

The fact that people still use Blu-ray as an argument in favor of improved graphics or longer games or what have you makes me angry to this day; they bought into it, hook line and sinker.

High-density discs should have been next generation. I can't imagine anything this generation short of silly JRPGs filled with FMVs that would require more than two DVDs.

But Sony had an axe to grind and a format war to win.

i think if they had kept the blu-ray but increased bus speed/ram/and added a 2nd cell processor (like they originally planned) and had games on dvd while you had a blu-ray movie player built in, even at the same price it wouldn't have been too bad

really though, it's all about games, the ps3 could've been $100 at launch but there aren't any really original/exciting games then it'll still flop

people like to talk about hardware CONSTANTLY but really it's the software developers that are determining which console wins this gen

The ps3 needs the blu-ray drive because of the amaount of information that needs to be put on each disk. besides it's the cheapest blu-ray player on the market.

if you take that away from it you might as well rename the console ps2.5 because it would just be a ps2 with a few extra's.

it's sony's way of trying to win the HD movie war and TRY to hard to win this generation console war, besides we would have longer games and alot of disk swapping if they didn't use blu-ray.

Well, on one hand, yes, it would make it a lot cheaper and more successful if it used normal DVDs, but you have to remember, for a normal Blu Ray Player it's as cheap as they come. m00finman

That's true but how does that help the gaming aspect? Most (if not all) of the posters in this forum are gamers. And I'm sure alot of em are more interested in a great gaming experience than watching a movie.

The ps3 needs the blu-ray drive because of the amount of information that needs to be put on each disk. besides it's the cheapest blu-ray player on the market.

if you take that away from it you might as well rename the console ps2.5 because it would just be a ps2 with a few extra's.

it's sony's way of trying to win the HD movie war and TRY to hard to win this generation console war, besides we would have longer games and alot of disk swapping if they didn't use blu-ray.

The ps3 needs the blu-ray drive because of the amount of information that needs to be put on each disk. besides it's the cheapest blu-ray player on the market.

if you take that away from it you might as well rename the console ps2.5 because it would just be a ps2 with a few extra's.

it's sony's way of trying to win the HD movie war and TRY to hard to win this generation console war, besides we would have longer games and alot of disk swapping if they didn't use blu-ray.

pmay007

But if the information that needs to be on the disc is because Blu-Ray is so slow, does it really count?

Also, Blu-Ray has not lead to longer games and disc swapping hasn't been a big issue, except for Japanese RPGs.

The ps3 needs the blu-ray drive because of the amount of information that needs to be put on each disk. besides it's the cheapest blu-ray player on the market.

if you take that away from it you might as well rename the console ps2.5 because it would just be a ps2 with a few extra's.

it's sony's way of trying to win the HD movie war and TRY to hard to win this generation console war, besides we would have longer games and alot of disk swapping if they didn't use blu-ray.

pmay007

The 360 has been out for 2 full years... (well in a few days it will be), how many multi-disc games have they released?

The ps3 needs the blu-ray drive because of the amount of information that needs to be put on each disk. besides it's the cheapest blu-ray player on the market.

if you take that away from it you might as well rename the console ps2.5 because it would just be a ps2 with a few extra's.

it's sony's way of trying to win the HD movie war and TRY to hard to win this generation console war, besides we would have longer games and alot of disk swapping if they didn't use blu-ray.

pmay007

disk swapping isnt something that causes someone to choose one console over another, and the ps3 without bluray wouldnt be ps2.5. Sony needs to get those double layer Blu-Ray games out there, 50 gigs might prove to be an advantage though. After all, a game isnt going to be released on 8-10 discs.

The ps3 needs the blu-ray drive because of the amaount of information that needs to be put on each disk. besides it's the cheapest blu-ray player on the market.

if you take that away from it you might as well rename the console ps2.5 because it would just be a ps2 with a few extra's.

it's sony's way of trying to win the HD movie war and TRY to hard to win this generation console war, besides we would have longer games and alot of disk swapping if they didn't use blu-ray.

pmay007

I think games like ME, GeOW, Oblivion and Bioshock prove otherwise. BR was not needed and Sony new that. Theywere hopingpeople would buy the PS3 just because of the success the PS2 and PS1 had.

Sony included the BR for one reason and one reason only..........to win a MOVIE format war andnot to enhance game play.

Maybe, but not much. The PS3 is the cheapest BR player by far in some markets, by removing the BR player functionality from the PS3 Sony would not only lose those who bought the PS3 solely/mainly as a BR player, but it would also lose a major selling point. What would the majority of people here buy (assuming they're the same price) a 360 with Halo 3, Mass Effect, Bioshock, Gears of War etc. or a PS3 with Resistance, HS and Uncharted? One of the major selling points of the PS3 as a gaming system is its added BR functionality. When you buy a PS3, you're getting a PS3 and a "free" BR player! Without the BR player the PS3 is just a 360 with less games.

Of couse you also have to look at Sony's pricing scheme. Without the BR player the 40gig PS3 would likely still cost $400. The major differences between a premium 360 and a 40gig PS3 (minus the BR player) is the PS3's larger HDD and integrated Wi-Fi. Thats enough of an added value for Sony to keep the price $50 higher than the 360. It would also make the 80gig PS3 obsolete, seeing as how without the BR player its basically the equivalent of a 360 Elite with 40gigs less storage space and integrated Wi-Fi.

We can also look at the effects it would have on games. Sony fans preach how the 360 is running out of storage space on DVD9's till, well, the cows come home. Now Sony developers would be in the exact same situation. Say hello to MGS4 on 16 dvds! Seriously though, the PS3 loses a huge advantage game-wise without a BR drive. Suddenly they can't market the advangtage of having 25/50gigs of storage space vs. the 360's 9gigs. Sony's major games (like MGS and FF) tend to use a ton of CGI, so now the developer has to make a choice, make the game they want on 2+ DVDs, or cut it down so they can shoe horn it onto a DVD9.

Finally you have to look at how completely dominated Sony would be by HD-DVD. HD-DVD players have outsold standalone BR players, if it weren't for the millions of PS3's out there the format war would already be over. So now Sony is up **** creek without a paddle after another major disaster regarding their media formats. So while the PS3 may have sold better (and thats iffy) Sony as a whole could be in worse shape.

Alot of 360 games look on par (or better in some cases) than PS3 games.. And length, AI, Sound ect... don't seem to be hindered by the disc space. Infact a poster revealed that Mass Effect takes up less than 7 gigs of data and look how gorgeous that game is.. Gears, Bioshock, PGR4 ect... Those games look outstanding without bluray.. Personally I think it's all of front for Sony to control the next Media format. OhSnapitz

blu-ray isn't owned by sony

HD DVD is declining and is flopping. Blu-ray is thriving on the other hand. PS3 is the cheapest BR player around, well one of them and plus it can play games! Without the BR player it will sell even less lol.jangojay

Blu-Ray is thriving... Correction Blu-Ray is doing better than HD dvd thus far. They both are flopping.

If it didn't had Blu-ray, and it had the same games, it would probably do worse. What a console needs to be successful good are games. Which the PS3 has too little of.kentaro22

Are you guys kidding???? If the PS3 didn't have the BR player and was $399 at launch it would of killed the 360. Do you realize how many people DIDN'T buy it becaus of it's $600 price tag. Millions of Sony fanboys opted NOT to buy the PS3 just for that reason. It would have also released earlier. The amount of people that bought the PS3 just as a BR player pales in comparison to the amount of PS fans that would have bought the PS3 if not for the price.

HD DVD is declining and is flopping. Blu-ray is thriving on the other hand. PS3 is the cheapest BR player around, well one of them and plus it can play games! Without the BR player it will sell even less lol.jangojay

Guess you haven't been readin the news have you? HD-DVD is NOT declining and in fact has just had a nice boost do to the $100 player. Not to mention the release of The Transformers. Neither format is thriving right now.

Lack of Blu Ray would be easier games to produce..BlazeDragon132

The misinformation is strong in this one. BR doesnt make the games hard to develop. Sony's development API is to blame for that. Data is data regardless of where its stored.