View Full Version : David Jaffe: I Would Not Have Included Blu-ray in PS3
"Nerve-Damage"
11-Apr-2007, 23:42
David Jaffe: I Would Not Have Included Blu-ray in PS3 (http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=15762)
When asked what he would change about the PlayStation 3, he responded, "I probably would have taken the Blu-ray out and sold it for less money." Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but Sony certainly doesn't seem to view the inclusion of Blu-ray as a mistake. Jaffe didn't outright label it a mistake either, but he's the first Sony employee (to this editor's knowledge) to even question the need for Blu-ray.
Any developers (board members) want to chime in?
Interestingly, when Jaffe was asked about the possibility of one day starting his own independent studio, he seemed to embrace the idea as one he's already given much thought to. "I think it's a great idea and it's an idea that I've explored and will continue to explore," he said. "You never really know – Sony's been a great home for a long time and whether or not it's with an independent studio or staying within the walls of Sony, I always want to be able to contribute to Sony's [camp], but the specific way to get to that destination is under discussion right now. So whether or not that becomes a full fledged company or it becomes a more focused role within Sony, which is sort of all about these [smaller] games is sort of TBD at the moment."
Sounds like his bucking/prodding for a raise and probably top position over at the Sony Santa Monica Studio. :wink:
almighty
11-Apr-2007, 23:54
I honestly think he'll be eating those words in the next coming years when games are in there 3rd or 4th generation. Tell that to Koj who wants a 5oGB Blu-Ray disk for MGS4 :wink:
I think he'll be eating those words 2/3 days into the dev cycle of God of War 3 ;)
Still he is entitled to his opinion, and it's pleasing to see Sony are allowing him to express it.
NovemberMike
12-Apr-2007, 00:00
I think he'll be eating those words 2/3 days into the dev cycle of God of War 3 ;)
Still he is entitled to his opinion, and it's pleasing to see Sony are allowing him to express it.
I don't think he is doing GoW3.
"Nerve-Damage"
12-Apr-2007, 00:04
I don't think he is doing GoW3.
From all indications he is…
The 2nd disc packed with GOW:2 (kind-of) hinted that he will be heading that up.
NovemberMike
12-Apr-2007, 00:12
For Jaffe, it's not just a matter of his enjoying creating smaller titles, but it also comes down to his realization during the God of War development period that he just can't do those big, epic titles anymore. "God of War was an eye-opener for me; all I did was live at that studio," he revealed.
From the interview.
I honestly think he'll be eating those words in the next coming years when games are in there 3rd or 4th generation. Tell that to Koj who wants a 5oGB Blu-Ray disk for MGS4 :wink:
What would be told to Koj? I didn't think Jaffe said anything in regards to the necessity or benefit of having a Blu-ray drive included on the PS3; rather, I think he was making an observation about the price point.
In other words, if the price didn't have to go up with the inclusion of Blu-ray, I don't think Jaffe would have made the comment. I tend to agree with his reasoning, even though the Blu-ray drive is what led me to buying my PS3. I'm full of contradictions :grin:
scooby_dooby
12-Apr-2007, 00:33
I think he'll be eating those words 2/3 days into the dev cycle of God of War 3 ;)
Why? A linear game like that he can just slap on 2 discs...
RobertR1
12-Apr-2007, 00:39
What the hell does Kojima asking for more space have to do with the financial impact of Blu Ray in the price of the PS3?
He's discussing from a financial standpoint, not a technical one. I swear, some people are just waiting at their keyboards with itchy fingers waiting to pounce on anyone who says a thing bad about their beloved console.
When asked what he would change about the PlayStation 3, he responded, "I probably would have taken the Blu-ray out and sold it for less money."I don't think he meant Blu-Ray is useless for gaming , he just want cheaper PS3 , IMO ... He's complaining about price of PS3 and all of us know that removing Blu-Ray from PS3 will drop its price dramatically ...
BTW, its suprised me to see a dev did not respond to "What would you change about the PlayStation 3 ? " question like " Hell , CELL ", I'm used to it ...
Since every generation has an upgraded media format, you can't really fault Sony for including it. In hindsight, it may have been smarter to use some sort of super-DVD, maybe a triple layer version like FVD, which has 15GB per disk.
Anyways, this is just moot. Blu-ray is in there and likely won't be a hassle 1 or 2 years down the road.
Rainbow Man
12-Apr-2007, 02:01
Any developers (board members) want to chime in?
Yes.
I like bluray. It makes for a nice and quiet console (similar transfer speeds require a tornado DVDROM drive like the 360's) and room for games to grow.
And I get to watch high-res movies too when decent titles appear.
It's not everyoen's cup of tea I guess but then again what the hell is?
peace.
LogisticX
12-Apr-2007, 02:13
Though I'm not a developer I agree with RainbowMan. The BluRay is a nice little addition which unfortunately ended up making the PS3 pricier than maybe it needed to be. Despite this, I would say that the good things outweigh the bad.
The biggest problem right now is the somewhat poor reception its been getting w.r.t sales... I think the concern PS3 owners should have is that once again Sony has a uniquely designed architecture that makes development costs go up but unlike the PS2, there are 2 other competitors selling more and better which could cause developers to opt into simply moving projects to other platforms. They may simply use the PS3 as a port machine thereby eliminating any real potential for games to get better like we've seen with the PS2.
To add to that, if barely anybody bothers to code specifically for PS3, the addition of BluRay really will be essentially useless for gaming purposes.
SugarCoat
12-Apr-2007, 02:16
Why? A linear game like that he can just slap on 2 discs...
it...is...alive! :runaway:
For an extra $50 over the cost of 360 Premium,I'm very happy they included it.
quest55720
12-Apr-2007, 04:38
For an extra $50 over the cost of 360 Premium,I'm very happy they included it.
Since there is no more 20 gig SKU it is 200 dollar difference for blue ray once again. I would of much rather sony have a 299/399 SKUs with out blue ray. Oh well atleast the customers in 2 markets rejected sony's outlandish pricing all in the name of using gamers to win a movie format war.
crystalcube
12-Apr-2007, 04:54
Oh well atleast the customers in 2 markets rejected sony's outlandish pricing all in the name of using gamers to win a movie format war. Blu-Ray is not a movie format but media.
PS3 is expensive compared to the competition and it lacks a good library at the moment. Many people are going to buy PS3 even at current prices once the library start to build up.
In 2-3 years time when PS3 price is reduced the same Blu-ray will appear as good decision. Yes there are too many what-if scenarios, but someone has to take the first plunge ( including high storage media). Sony did it and also paid the price of slow initial sale. But with current library how good the sale could have been even with DVD ?
quest55720
12-Apr-2007, 05:02
Blu-Ray is not a movie format but media.
PS3 is expensive compared to the competition and it lacks a good library at the moment. Many people are going to buy PS3 even at current prices once the library start to build up.
In 2-3 years time when PS3 price is reduced the same Blu-ray will appear as good decision. Yes there are too many what-if scenarios, but someone has to take the first plunge ( including high storage media). Sony did it and also paid the price of slow initial sale. But with current library how good the sale could have been even with DVD ?
Not possible they had the market completely locked up 70%+ market share. The PS3 will be lucky to pass the 360 in 2 years time let alone get any where near the monster Wii. Also by the time the PS3 sells it the 360 will be the default platform for 3rd partys. Which means no special treatment for blue ray or the cell. The PS3 will essentially become a portstation with good first party games. The cost of blue ray alone cost them this generation. A 299/399 PS3 wipes the floor with every one but the Wii in japan.
The PS2 and PS1 had a much crappier library of games 6 months in but that did not stop them from selling. The PS3 had a good library for 6 months in it is price alone keeping people away.
But with current library how good the sale could have been even with DVD ?The question is rhetorical, but I have to say: given the PS2 as an example, the sales would have been great. The PS2 launch had arguably even a worse launch library, but it had brand name and price point going for it. The PS3 only has brand name.
Rangers
12-Apr-2007, 05:13
For Jaffe, it's not just a matter of his enjoying creating smaller titles, but it also comes down to his realization during the God of War development period that he just can't do those big, epic titles anymore. "God of War was an eye-opener for me; all I did was live at that studio," he revealed.
Cue lazy developer comments.
Anyways, I suspect Jaffe just sees that on a personal selfish level, the high price has really limited PS3's market penetration and install base, and may continue to do so, and therefore, how many games he can sell into the base.
Nobody thinks Blu-Ray is a bad thing..if it was free. It's not, though.
Shifty Geezer
12-Apr-2007, 09:36
Has anyone watched the bonus-round footage? The mention of BRD was in a trailer for next-week's part 3. Thus we have no context for it yet. People are discussing a sound-bite! Let the interview come out before disucssing it, to see exactly what his opinion is.
And before you discuss the rest of this article, go watch the interviews themselves.
Part 1 (http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=4&pt=1)
Part 2 (http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=4&pt=2)
David Jaffe is a very focussed guy. Right now he's focussed on making small games, and for those to be sold all he needs is a PS3 with Internet Access and some kind of storage media. The cheaper that combination can be made, the more downloadable games he can sell. So from his current perspective, that's what's best.
rabidrabbit
12-Apr-2007, 10:00
Which one is correct:
David Jaffe: I Would Not Have Included Blu-ray in PS3
or
I probably would have taken the Blu-ray out and sold it for less money
yea, I just hate when a quote is slightly modified just to make a thread title more sensationalist.
I simply dont understand some people. Wouldnt you rather have ps3 a year earlier and 200$ cheaper? Imagine if ps3 launched at the same time as xbox 360 and 200$ cheaper. By now, ps3 would have gotten a lot more and better games and it would have been A LOT cheaper.
Wasnt blueray the main reason that ps3 was delayed? I mean, rsx and cell were ready a long time ago. If anything, rsx became almost obsolete by the time ps3 hit the shelves.
I am sorry but any gamer who supports blueray on ps3 is either a sony fanboy or has too much money/patience. Blueray has no job inside ps3 and the only reason it was forced into the ps3, was because sony wanted to establish it as the new HD standard.
Games dont need the damn blueray. Even if a game doesnt fit inside 1dvd, you can have it in 2 or 3dvd. It is hardly a hassle to swap dvds, especially since you will only do it like once. Hell, since ps3 has a hard disk, you could also have some kind of "installation" to the hard disk, so that dvd swapping wouldnt be needed at all.
And sony could have released a blueray addon for the ps3 later on. Sony screwed gamers in order to promote their own agenda. It's that simple.
It's that simple.
Is it also more simple than using a search button, or more simple than imagining that the intelligent people on this board might have had this discussion several times before?
You make me think of this scientific report which indicated that the best test of whether or not a child will be successful in life is not measuring its IQ, but putting it in front of a piece of candy, and offering it a second piece if it can resist eating it for an hour. The more patience and self-control children show in eating that first piece of candy, the more successful they are later in life.
Wouldnt you rather have ps3 a year earlier and 200$ cheaper?
no thanks.
Wasnt blueray the main reason that ps3 was delayed? I mean, rsx and cell were ready a long time ago. If anything, rsx became almost obsolete by the time ps3 hit the shelves.
Who knows besides sony, bluray was a part of it but i don´t think it´s the whole story. Nothing i have seen shows RSX as being old btw.
I am sorry but any gamer who supports blueray on ps3 is either a sony fanboy or has too much money/patience.
Thanks for telling me the "truth".
Blueray has no job inside ps3 and the only reason it was forced into the ps3, was because sony wanted to establish it as the new HD standard.
This has been discussed, find a thread and we can go a few thousand rounds.
Games dont need the damn blueray. Even if a game doesnt fit inside 1dvd, you can have it in 2 or 3dvd.
Games don´t need DVD´s CD-ROM´s or Floppy disks, they can be on a paper.
It is hardly a hassle to swap dvds, especially since you will only do it like once. Hell, since ps3 has a hard disk, you could also have some kind of "installation" to the hard disk, so that dvd swapping wouldnt be needed at all. Swapping discs is one option, if the game type supports it, compressing textures, sound and other assests to the max is another option. Both are compromises.
By the way, how much HDD room did Stalker eat up again? ;)
I'll repeat my post at the end of the previous page - it sucks to be the last post on a page, we need some kind of solution for that.
It's that simple.
Is it also more simple than using a search button, or more simple than imagining that the intelligent people on this board might have had this discussion several times before?
You make me think of this scientific report which indicated that the best test of whether or not a child will be successful in life is not measuring its IQ, but putting it in front of a piece of candy, and offering it a second piece if it can resist eating it for an hour. The more patience and self-control children show in eating that first piece of candy, the more successful they are later in life.
That:
When asked what he would change about the PlayStation 3, he responded, "I probably would have taken the Blu-ray out and sold it for less money."
doesnt necessarilly question the need of Blu Ray as suggested by the article here:
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, but Sony certainly doesn't seem to view the inclusion of Blu-ray as a mistake. Jaffe didn't outright label it a mistake either, but he's the first Sony employee (to this editor's knowledge) to even question the need for Blu-ray.
Unless he explained the reasons why he would have taken it out.
Rainbow Man
12-Apr-2007, 13:56
Wouldnt you rather have ps3 a year earlier and 200$ cheaper?
No.
Imagine if ps3 launched at the same time as xbox 360 and 200$ cheaper.
You assume it could have launched when 360 launched at a price $200 cheaper. You could very well be mistaken.
Cell production probably wasn't high enough then to sustain a launch. XDR memory might not have been available in large quantities etc. And same with RSX and GDDR3.
I'm sure you remember talk from around 360 launch time that GDDR was in short supply. A PS3 launch right then would not have helped.
Wasnt blueray the main reason that ps3 was delayed?
Was it?
We cna speculate but it won't do us much good I think.
In any case a PS3 without bluray would just have been a "me too" console. Nothing that really distinguished it.
I am sorry but any gamer who supports blueray on ps3 is either a sony fanboy or has too much money/patience. Blueray has no job inside ps3
Your opinions - no matter how believable they seem to you - are not universal truths I assure you. :cool:
Sony screwed gamers in order to promote their own agenda. It's that simple.
Nonsense.
Besides why do you care?
If you don't like bluray you probably shouldn't buy a PS3. No need to get so worked up about it.
Peace.
Jesus2006
12-Apr-2007, 14:29
Im really glad PS3 launched with Blu-ray. The annoying sound of a 12x (or higher) DVD drive just plain sucks. This was one major reason for me to get rid of my Xbox 360 and get a PS3 asap.
Also, i think that the mechanics are quiet stressed with such a high RPM drive as many reports (and returns) about read errors and defective drives on Xbox 360 drives show. So i definately think going with a new tech which does mechanically "better" (=slower) was the right decision, not only for capacity reasons.
tongue_of_colicab
12-Apr-2007, 14:39
Was it?
We cna speculate but it won't do us much good I think.
In any case a PS3 without bluray would just have been a "me too" console. Nothing that really distinguished it.
One of the reasons I think. Even short before the launch there were problems producing enough diodes so BR probably had a decent part in the ps3 launch being late. Along with maybe cell production issues and games not being ready.
If BR really made ps3 200 euro's more expensive and a year late I wouldnt mind BR being dropped at all. Because lets be honest, as far as gaming goes 200 euro's for BR isnt a good deal as BR doesnt really do much if anything at all to make a game better. I want to play games on a console so I really dont feel like paying 200 extra for something I will rarely use at best.
As far as ps3 sales go sony would probably have had a big advantage too launching a year ago for 400 euro. Put x360 againt ps3 at the same price at the same time and you can bet most people will buy ps3 without thinking. But Sony probably thaught pushing BR was more important than selling ps3.
I wasnt too pleased when I saw the PS3 price over here, (£425) but increasingly Blu-ray looks like being the HD standard for the next few years, and PS3 looks more like a potential bargain. The fact that the Blu-ray playback is said to be very good, (better than the 2nd gen Samsung) added to lots of potential firmware upgrades, and the processing power of Cell means that the PS3 has immense potential as a HD player. Introducing an add-on later would have been more expensive for the consumer anyway.
I think that labelling everyone that considers a Blu-ray a good thing, as a fanboy is ignorant and naive. Not everybody has the same needs as yourself, and convergence of technological devices is becoming more common in recent years. Many people have HDTV's and would prefer not to have to splash out on a standalone when the prices are exorbitant.
pegisys
12-Apr-2007, 14:44
Im really glad PS3 launched with Blu-ray. The annoying sound of a 12x (or higher) DVD drive just plain sucks. This was one major reason for me to get rid of my Xbox 360 and get a PS3 asap.
yeah the xbobx360 had/has a loud drive but I can barely hear the 16X drive I have in my computer be it installing a game copying files or watching a DVD. That has more to do with the type of drive MS decided to use.
I feel that Sony has pretty much given up their market dominance to ship the PS3 with BluRay, or maybe a combination of BluRay and wanting to have the most powerful hardware, if they would have came out a year earlier and cheaper I think there would be no question about how well the PS3 may do. They had already came out on top twice with weaker hardware and better pricing(mostly) then the competition why change up a winning strategy
inefficient
12-Apr-2007, 14:53
Right now I have 5 BD movies and only 4 BD PS3 games. And I expect my BD movie collection to continue growing a lot faster than the games collection. So from my perspective, I am getting a very sweet deal with the BD player packed in.
But there is no doubt the BD drive contributes quite a bit to the price of the console. Just look at how much chippery there is on the underside of that thing. There is a lot of room to cut costs on that board alone.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3430/img2497vp4.jpg
But there is no doubt the BD drive contributes quite a bit to the price of the console. Just look at how much chippery there is on the underside of that thing. There is a lot of room to cut costs on that board alone.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3430/img2497vp4.jpg
Agreed, and that doesn't even take into account the OPU.
That said, I like many actual PS3 owners am glad for the inclusion - and clearly for those that don't own it yet, for a lot of them the price premium is part of the reason. Whether it was the smart thing for Sony to do or not is something we won't be able to analyze in retrospect for a couple more years.
Johnny Awesome
12-Apr-2007, 16:09
Cue lazy developer comments.
Anyways, I suspect Jaffe just sees that on a personal selfish level, the high price has really limited PS3's market penetration and install base, and may continue to do so, and therefore, how many games he can sell into the base.
Nobody thinks Blu-Ray is a bad thing..if it was free. It's not, though.
Exactly. The question isn't whether or not BR is great, but rather whether or not it was worth the cost. IMO it wasn't. It pretty much guaranteed Sony would not dominate this generation.
Acert93
12-Apr-2007, 17:16
Agreed, and that doesn't even take into account the OPU.
That said, I like many actual PS3 owners am glad for the inclusion - and clearly for those that don't own it yet, for a lot of them the price premium is part of the reason. Whether it was the smart thing for Sony to do or not is something we won't be able to analyze in retrospect for a couple more years.
While the conclusion of the issue will take some time as you note, I think the point is that some even at Sony are wondering that forgoing the BDR route and going with a lower pricepoint may have been better for the platform.
The PS3 isn't selling as well as initially expected. And one has to question whether abandoning the route that generated over 200M console sales in the last 10 years was the right move. It may have if BDR is pivitol to Sony's future financial bottomline. In a couple years we can compare/contrast the benefit of BDR market leadership against the results of PS1/PS2 market leadership and how it positions the company for the future. It is too early to do such right now, but it is fair to say from a developers perspective, like Jaffe's, that it is important from a game development/publishing perspective to get your games out to as many consumers as possible. While BDR may allow Sony to reap a significant windfall in the future it currently has resulted in a much higher MSRP and a significant delay.
And sandwiched between all the press quips and enthusiest debates is the shortterm and longterm reaction by the 100M PS2 owners. We recognize that the typical gamer does NOT own 26+ games as the average console owner at B3D does. Putting your product out of reach for a large percentage of your past customers is very risky and can generate negativity. Delivering your product late to the market relative to the software flow also can be an issue.
Jaffe's comment is by no means an absolute, "We should NOT have included BDR". But he is engaging the very point many of us have suggested for a long time (release earlier, cheaper => Destroy the Competition, Developers/Publishers reap the rewards) and validating them as points worthy of at least some consideration. Many of us believe(d) that if Sony had delivered something comparable to the 360 in the same time frame, even with a small premium ($50 or so), Sony could be in the position to repeat the PS2 success and even push MS from the market.
Whether solidifying the home console future market / repeat of the PS2's success or establishing BDR was the best move for Sony as a company is yet to be seen. But I think it is fair to say from a publisher/developer perspective, as Jaffe is considering, that releasing games on a much cheaper and earlier launched console (the results of no BDR) may have been the better choice in the opinions of some in the industry as well as consumers. It will be hard to argue that if the PS3 continues to trend lower than PS2 sales that Sony made certain videogame marketshare concessions to include BDR because I see no reason why a 2005 launch at a competitive pricepoint would not have destroyed the 360 and set the Wii in a 1 year hole and diminished the price point disparity.
While the conclusion of the issue will take some time as you note, I think the point is that some even at Sony are wondering that forgoing the BDR route and going with a lower pricepoint may have been better for the platform.
Well, I don't think Jaffe is wondering about the reasoning behind Sony's move, but whether it was the smarter of two moves. I highlight 'reasoning' because when Sony originally planned to put BD into PS3, they had no reason to believe it would trn into the nightmare it did - back then in projection land everythign was looking good.
So as time went on, and the picture looked bleaker... without knowing exactly how bleak things would get, the question then became at this point do we toss Blu-ray? What about now? And what about now? See, since Blu-ray was factored into the consoel design erly on, the decision became an opt-out rather than opt-in decision in the console's design. At the same time that this was happening, with the HD DVD and BD war starting to heat up with every BD-related delay in PS3-land... the need to include BD in the PS3 actually grew in importance if Sony was to fight for the format.
So I think that Jaffe in the abstract feels that for gaming, gamers, the install base, etc etc... DVD may have been better, but at the same time I think he realizes that after a certain point, there was never really an option, and its inclusion was forgone.
The PS3 isn't selling as well as initially expected. And one has to question whether abandoning the route that generated over 200M console sales in the last 10 years was the right move.
Well, for the record Sony feels that format pioneering with each generation has been a part of this formula. But, I mean obviously that's brought a lot of baggage with it this gen.
Many of us believe(d) that if Sony had delivered something comparable to the 360 in the same time frame, even with a small premium ($50 or so), Sony could be in the position to repeat the PS2 success and even push MS from the market.
Sure, but only in the theoretical situation in which they could have launched such a console. The BD hardware delays aside, unfortunately another place where they experienced lag was in getting the dev tools to where they needed to be; I mean save for some ports, if the PS3 *had* launched a year earlier, would there have been any console specific software for it? And I think the answer we need to come to terms with, is that potentially no, there would not have.
November 2006 was not what Sony originally wanted, but it happened, and for more than one singular reason alone. Obviously the expense of the console is more BD-related though.
Isn't this just a Kojima-like comment that brags about his ability to make a great game no matter what kind of poor environment he's in? Not many people are loving games like him. As I wrote in another thread somewhere, to reach a larger demographic a non-game application like Blu-ray playback is required, which is the realist point of view unlike that of Jaffe. And before someone writes Blu-ray is useless for games, Blu-ray is not required for SD games but accelerates games.
The BD hardware delays aside, unfortunately another place where they experienced lag was in getting the dev tools to where they needed to be; I mean save for some ports, if the PS3 *had* launched a year earlier, would there have been any console specific software for it? And I think the answer we need to come to terms with, is that potentially no, there would not have.
A very pertinent point that should not be overlooked!
What success could be expected by launching the PS3 earlier when the OS and Games are 6-12 months away? So the only real issue here should be price.
scooby_dooby
12-Apr-2007, 18:47
to reach a larger demographic a non-game application like Blu-ray playback is required,
I don't think this has even been proven at all. Wii is arguably reaching a wider demographic than any console since the NES. Also, these machines are capable of doing a wide variety of non-game related functions, that do not require HD movie playback.
I think Jaffe's comments are inline with a Developers viewpoint. For a developer, expecially an exclusive developer, BR has meant a lower install base, and less money. Sure it makes life easier on the technical side, but the trade off is basically making less money on your products, at least in the first couple years of the console.
Also, anyone concerned with the success of PS3, rather than the success of Sony itself, should be against BR imo. It has had so many negative effects, it's extremely hard to argue it was worth it. The exclusive game library alone has suffered a huge blow due to BR.
Shifty Geezer
12-Apr-2007, 18:55
While the conclusion of the issue will take some time as you note, I think the point is that some even at Sony are wondering that forgoing the BDR route and going with a lower pricepoint may have been better for the platform.That's to be expected though. Companies are made up of individuals all with their own individual opinions. I can't imagine many large organisations where 100% of its employees are 100% in agreement with every management decision! You'll probably find some people who lament choices made MS in their console, and other Nintendo employees critical of choices Nintendo have made. They're probably just not as outspoken as Jaffe!
archangelmorph
12-Apr-2007, 18:59
Right now I have 5 BD movies and only 4 BD PS3 games. And I expect my BD movie collection to continue growing a lot faster than the games collection. So from my perspective, I am getting a very sweet deal with the BD player packed in.
But there is no doubt the BD drive contributes quite a bit to the price of the console. Just look at how much chippery there is on the underside of that thing. There is a lot of room to cut costs on that board alone.
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/3430/img2497vp4.jpg
:shock: :shock: :shock:
Jeeeeez man!!
Do you guys just like... Not care about voiding your warranties???
:sad:
For a developer, expecially an exclusive developer, BR has meant a lower install base, and less money. Sure it makes life easier on the technical side, but the trade off is basically making less money on your products, at least in the first couple years of the console.
Well just to be clear, Jaffe makes what he makes regardless of how many units Sony sells of his games. This is a first-party studio afterall, owned by Sony. If Sony is going to lose first-party game sales due to the media they put their discs on, that's not something that's going to filter down (in a direct way at least) to the creators of said games financially.
Jeeeeez man!!
Do you guys just like... Not care about voiding your warranties???
Get it together Archangel, that pic is from PC-Watch, not Inefficient's own PS3. ;)
TheChefO
12-Apr-2007, 19:02
Well, I don't think Jaffe is wondering about the reasoning behind Sony's move, but whether it was the smarter of two moves. I highlight 'reasoning' because when Sony originally planned to put BD into PS3, they had no reason to believe it would trn into the nightmare it did - back then in projection land everythign was looking good.
Agreed - it was an original design spec and as issues popped up they may have continually evaluated the situation to see if they were better off going DVD w/ ps3.
My take on the situation is simple (and old):
Sony should have produced their initial games on DVD.
Such a simple move would force no change at all to the original design or plans. However, by doing so, they would leave the door open for a plan B: DVD based PS3.
This would enable a much cheaper pricepoint and the ability to "have their cake and eat it too". Strangle the HD format market initially and then introduce this DVD version if sales were lacking in comparison to their competition (as is happening currently).
I wonder if they wouldn't still contemplate this plan. They only have a handfull of BR games on the market currently. If I were in their shoes I'd bite the bullet and do it.
BR will likely win anyway due to support and they are losing VG marketshare by the day.
Sony should have produced their initial games on DVD.
Probably.
BR will likely win anyway due to support and they are losing VG marketshare by the day.
Probably not; PS3 has been fundamental in BD's gains over HD DVD.
TheChefO
12-Apr-2007, 19:12
PS3 has been fundamental in BD's gains over HD DVD.
Indeed.
However, This plan would have had no bearing on this support level. It would merely be a contingency plan for lacking sales.
If they introduced this cheaper dvd based ps3 today I don't think the studios would pull their support at this point. They would still have the BR enabled ps3 on the market and the intitial x million ps3 owners with BR in their console regardless how this same model sells from this point forth.
However, This plan would have had no bearing on this support level. It would merely be a contingency plan for lacking sales.
If they introduced this cheaper dvd based ps3 today I don't think the studios would pull their support at this point. They would still have the BR enabled ps3 on the market and the intitial x million ps3 owners with BR in their console regardless how this same model sells from this point forth.
Yeah, it would have been a potential escape path for them to do it as you're suggesting, and there would have been something to be said for that. I understand why they put all games on BD - there is an argument to be made for it from the BD replication and game security standpoint - but I agree if ever there was going to be a bit of bet hedging on Sony's part, that likely would have been a smart form for it to take.
Sony should have produced their initial games on DVD.
That would play right in to the "hate sony for forcing BluRay on us" as well as the other reasons xbd mentioned.
tongue_of_colicab
12-Apr-2007, 20:58
to reach a larger demographic a non-game application like Blu-ray playback is required, which is the realist point of view unlike that of Jaffe. And before someone writes Blu-ray is useless for games, Blu-ray is not required for SD games but accelerates games.
You wont reach a much larger demographic by including BR and pricing your product at 600 euro. Thats just to high for the normal person to jump on.
You wont reach a much larger demographic by including BR and pricing your product at 600 euro. Thats just to high for the normal person to jump on.I quote my old comment
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=960601&postcount=138
PS2 was released in the year 3 of DVD, but PS3 was released in the year 1 of Blu-ray.
infinity4
12-Apr-2007, 21:55
the only reason why i prefer blu ray over DVD9 is because blu ray is quiet and 360 running DVDs at 12x speed felt like aeroplane next to me. if devs have space problems, its their problem, it shouldn't be consumers' concerns ;)
blakjedi
12-Apr-2007, 22:10
David Jaffe had a lot of good things to say about xb360 on the g4tv with kevin pereira. Among my favorite "I love my 360 except i just god those f-cking three rings of death" LOL
I quote my old comment
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=960601&postcount=138
DVD in the PS2 and BR in the PS3 is two totally different situations.
DVD was a more mature product whos inclusion still allowed the PS2 to arrive earlier than its competition and be priced comparable to the xbox and only $100.00 more expensive than the GC. DVD was also a technology who potential market included almost all TV users from it outset.
BluRay is a less mature product whos inclusion forced the PS3 to arrive a year after the 360 and at the same time as the Wii with a $100.00 premium over the 360 and a $250.00 over the Wii. BluRay is an technology who potential market is all current and future HDTV owners.
A major difference is that the current and the potential market for BluRay in the near future is a couple of magnitudes smaller the potential market for DVD at its outset. Almost anyone with a TV could take advantage of a DVD player. HDTVs are just a fraction of the overall TVs in homes and it will be some time before you get 50% penetration nevermind anything close to 100%. Going from a VHS player to a DVD player is not the same as going from DVD to BluRay. One doesn't required an upgrade from SDTVs to HDTVs. All these differing variables means that BluRay adoption will be alot slower than DVD adoption.
scooby_dooby
12-Apr-2007, 22:42
Going from a VHS player to a DVD player is not the same as going from DVD to BluRay.
This is a point that gets glossed over alot. The DVD in the PS2 was a great 'mom-seller', it appealed to everyone, you could use it to con your mom/wife/gf into letting you have one. HD movie playback is a completely different, less universal attraction. No improved form factor, no signifigant improved functionaly, just an improved picture.
Really the two are not comparable at all.
quest55720
12-Apr-2007, 22:56
This is a point that gets glossed over alot. The DVD in the PS2 was a great 'mom-seller', it appealed to everyone, you could use it to con your mom/wife/gf into letting you have one. HD movie playback is a completely different, less universal attraction. No improved form factor, no signifigant improved functionaly, just an improved picture.
Really the two are not comparable at all.
That and it did not cost the consumer anything it was a freebie. If the PS3 could of launched at 299/399 like the 360 with blue ray no one would say anything. It would be getting a freebie it would of been a great selling point.
I still think both HD formats are going to have major issues appealing to the masses. Blue ray may win but what it is really going to win? A niche market for a long long time. Most people are not ready to upgrade from dvd which many just went main stream around 5 years ago. For most people there is not a big enough difference between dvd and hd movies to warrent paying a premium for the players and media.
In the end it is the movie studios who are acting stupid in all this. They should be throwing money sony and toshibas way to get these formats established to curb piracy. They are the ones who should be subsidising the movie player and selling the software near dvd prices to speed up adoption.
I quote my old comment
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=960601&postcount=138
First DVD player launched: November 1996 (source (http://museum.toshiba.co.jp/history/1goki/1998dvd.html))
PS2 Launched: March, 2000 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS2))
Months from DVD launch to PS2 launch: 41 months.
First Blu-ray player launched: June 2006 (source (http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20060615_0000263736))
PS3 launched: November 2006 (source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS3))
Months from Blu-ray launch to PS3 launch: 5 months.
That and it did not cost the consumer anything it was a freebie. If the PS3 could of launched at 299/399 like the 360 with blue ray no one would say anything. It would be getting a freebie it would of been a great selling point.
I still think both HD formats are going to have major issues appealing to the masses. Blue ray may win but what it is really going to win? A niche market for a long long time. Most people are not ready to upgrade from dvd which many just went main stream around 5 years ago. For most people there is not a big enough difference between dvd and hd movies to warrent paying a premium for the players and media. In the end it is the movie studios who are acting stupid in all this. They should be throwing money sony and toshibas way to get these formats established to curb piracy. They are the ones who should be subsidising the movie player and selling the software near dvd prices to speed up adoption.
The price of HD players are falling all the time. I also hate it when people act like HD versions of films are way more expensive than the DVD equivalent, when the difference is often £2 or £3. Hardly going to break the bank is it? And the difference in picture quality is massive on a good HDTV.
This is a point that gets glossed over alot. The DVD in the PS2 was a great 'mom-seller', it appealed to everyone, you could use it to con your mom/wife/gf into letting you have one. HD movie playback is a completely different, less universal attraction. No improved form factor, no signifigant improved functionaly, just an improved picture.
Really the two are not comparable at all.
Yeah, we really should have stuck with VHS because the quality difference was insignificant. At launch, DVD was extremely limited, you couldn't even record on to it.
Seriously. HDTV is the future i.e. when Mom's TV breaks it'll be an HDTV that is bought (even if at the time it is equivalent to SD now). PS3 has built BluRay in to ensure it dominates this market, the HD-DVD add-on just seems like a way to avoid the whole area, especially with the Elite. Why? Because MS won't benefit significantly with a disk format - they want online. Online isn't here yet though, look at the European PSN statistics and also look at the American broadband statistics. Disk formats rule for now.
NovemberMike
12-Apr-2007, 23:39
This is a point that gets glossed over alot. The DVD in the PS2 was a great 'mom-seller', it appealed to everyone, you could use it to con your mom/wife/gf into letting you have one. HD movie playback is a completely different, less universal attraction. No improved form factor, no signifigant improved functionaly, just an improved picture.
Really the two are not comparable at all.
It isn't really a comparable jump either. There was a game in 95 that came out on 7 CDs (Phantasmagoria or something). Pretty much every RPG came out on multiple disks, and even some adventure games (MGS) came out on multiple CDs. I don't think anything maxed out a DVD9 last gen (Xenosaga was DVD5 I think). Really, I see DVD this gen being like the CD of the PS1 gen, 90% of games will use one disk, and a few games will have multiple disks.
I still think both HD formats are going to have major issues appealing to the masses. Blue ray may win but what it is really going to win? A niche market for a long long time. Most people are not ready to upgrade from dvd which many just went main stream around 5 years ago. For most people there is not a big enough difference between dvd and hd movies to warrent paying a premium for the players and media.
Worse than that, there's an alternative coming on the scene that offers *a lot* of compelling reasons for both consumers and content providers to ignore both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - online distribution. Going from VHS to DVD was evolutionary, it was a better version of what we had. Going from watching TV to Tivo is revolutionary. BR and HD-DVD are both evolutionary, they're better versions of what we have now. Online distribution will be revolutionary, it'll change how we watch and what we watch.
The one advantage physical media has right now is storage, HD takes up a lot of space, but time isn't on their side. The main hurdle to doing it right now is bandwidth, most people don't have the speed to do anything even close to instant start watching, so they'd probably need to do something more like a Netflix type arrangement at first - set up a queue of the movies you want to see and they'll download in the background.
Don't feel too sorry for MS and Sony they're both perfectly capable of taking advantage of online distribution with their consoles. It's probably the only reason for the $480 version of the 360 to exist. Sony is in a harder position, they're the chief advocate of Blu-Ray, but they're setting themselves up for a repeat of the iPod situation. The difference this time is I think the transition will happen even faster because the model has already been accepted by the public.
Rangers
13-Apr-2007, 00:03
Isn't this just a Kojima-like comment that brags about his ability to make a great game no matter what kind of poor environment he's in? Not many people are loving games like him. As I wrote in another thread somewhere, to reach a larger demographic a non-game application like Blu-ray playback is required, which is the realist point of view unlike that of Jaffe. And before someone writes Blu-ray is useless for games, Blu-ray is not required for SD games but accelerates games.
Except I am not sure how much movie playback has ever really mattered in consoles.
I mean, is Blu-Ray playback a big factor in why people purchase PS3's now? How about in the future?
First we have to assume the purchaser is interested in playing movies on the machine. It seems Blu Ray in PS3 has a very low takeup rate in that respect. According to one survey I've read just 22% of PS3 owners use it for movies. To me, looking at the sales of stand alone HDDVD players, then PS3 sales, then actual movie sales on each format, it's stunning to me that Blu-Ray is not dominating much more than it is. I mean, since launch in the USA PS3 has sold 1.1 million consoles in four months. I dont know stand alone HDDVD sales, but <20,000 a month seems to be a reasonable guess. So you can see PS3 absolutly swamps HDDVD in volume, yet in disc sales, it seems to be 3-1 for Blu-Ray, 2-1 for Blu-Ray, a much lower level of domination than the PS3 sales suggest. I think the value of each stand alone player sold is mutiples higher than each player sold in a console, because the buyer of a stand alone, is someone who is targeting the format to play movies. In this way I see the X360 add on making sense. Only people who are actively interested in HDDVD's will buy this. This is why I'm sure the "attach rate" on HDDVD hardware is much higher than on Blu-Ray if you count PS3.
I look back to DVD sales. I'm not sure how much DVD playback ever helped the PS2. Of course as of today, it's irrelevant, mostly. There was a small window in time when a PS2 maybe had some added value as a DVD player, before DVD penetration became ubiquitous, but the price of the PS2 was necessarily pretty high at that point ($299).
I think Blu-Ray in PS3 will be fighting that same small window of relevancy, before Blu-Ray/HDDVD prices plummet. As of now the price of PS3 is very high, so I dont think it's wildly attractive as a Blu-Ray player. Meanwhile, HDDVD stand alone prices are dropping like a rock, should be a $199 player by this fall. You could say the same for Blu-Ray, I even wonder is Sony holding up the price of Blu-Ray stand alone's to make PS3 more attractive? Overall that would be a very poor move for the format if so.
The other thing that I think will work against PS3 Blu_Ray to a point, is HDTV adoption. There's going to be some percent of PS3 owners who simply dont own HDTV's, and to them Blu-Ray movies are useless.
We can also look at UMD, which kind of probably stigmatized the entire Sony console trying to establish a format thing for retailers in the near past.
Personally, I've never liked playing movies on my consoles, because I worry it'll wear out the drive faster. For example, I dont really use my 360 as a DVD player for that reason. I suspect that's more my own oddity though, and not anything the vaunted casuals would would ever think about.
Worse than that, there's an alternative coming on the scene that offers *a lot* of compelling reasons for both consumers and content providers to ignore both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD - online distribution. Going from VHS to DVD was evolutionary, it was a better version of what we had. Going from watching TV to Tivo is revolutionary. BR and HD-DVD are both evolutionary, they're better versions of what we have now. Online distribution will be revolutionary, it'll change how we watch and what we watch.
The one advantage physical media has right now is storage, HD takes up a lot of space, but time isn't on their side. The main hurdle to doing it right now is bandwidth, most people don't have the speed to do anything even close to instant start watching, so they'd probably need to do something more like a Netflix type arrangement at first - set up a queue of the movies you want to see and they'll download in the background.
Don't feel too sorry for MS and Sony they're both perfectly capable of taking advantage of online distribution with their consoles. It's probably the only reason for the $480 version of the 360 to exist. Sony is in a harder position, they're the chief advocate of Blu-Ray, but they're setting themselves up for a repeat of the iPod situation. The difference this time is I think the transition will happen even faster because the model has already been accepted by the public.
Bandwidth is a huge obstacle. And what about when HDD's or Flash memory become corrupted or need to be reformatted? Will all consumers be happy purely with online distribution?
TheChefO
13-Apr-2007, 00:12
... the difference in picture quality is massive on a good, large HDTV.
There was a study done discussing resolution and ability to visibly see the difference between different resolutions.
Long story short: unless your TV is HD (720p+) and Large, BR/HD-DVD will do little for you.
I'll see if I can find it.
here's one (http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision)
Having said that, I'll gladly rebuy my Superbowl DVD in HD format if they release one. :razz:
quest55720
13-Apr-2007, 00:21
The price of HD players are falling all the time. I also hate it when people act like HD versions of films are way more expensive than the DVD equivalent, when the difference is often £2 or £3. Hardly going to break the bank is it? And the difference in picture quality is massive on a good HDTV.
Just looking at a local ad for pricing. New dvds go for around 14.99-17.99 the cheapest hd-dvds are 24.99. The week after release dvds go to 19.99 hd-dvd 29.99-34.99 according to the ad. If I am buying 2 or 3 movies a week which can happen for me especially around x-mass time where I will purchase many many movies as gifts to the family. The extra cost can really add up in a hurry.
That is the thing how many people have good HD-TVs? Most are going to have the 899-1299 cheap hd-tv from walmart. Which will be 37-42 inches which is not that big. On a tv like that the difference is just not going to warent the premium. Also if you are either going to have to buy a second hd-movie player, move the player room to room or buy the dvd also as most people have several rooms in the house they watch movies on. Like me I watch movies in the living room but I also watch them in my bedroom. I don't want to move a player room to room to much of a pain and hassle. I also don't want to buy movies 2x once dvd once hd. My other option would be to buy 2 players and right now that is crazy expensive.
TheChefO
13-Apr-2007, 00:32
That would play right in to the "hate sony for forcing BluRay on us" as well as the other reasons xbd mentioned.
Well, as it is I wouldn't call it much better...
At least with the option of plan B they could salvage their lead in the console space.
There was a study done discussing resolution and ability to visibly see the difference between different resolutions.
Long story short: unless your TV is HD (720p+) and Large, BR/HD-DVD will do little for you.
I'll see if I can find it.
here's one (http://www.audioholics.com/education/display-formats-technology/1080p-and-the-acuity-of-human-vision)
Having said that, I'll gladly rebuy my Superbowl DVD in HD format if they release one. :razz:
http://www.hdforindies.com/uploaded_images/resolution_chart-790251.jpg
More accurate.
Sigh.
About BluRay delaying the PS3's launch. What exactly gave you the impression that Sony would have been ready a year earlier if they wouldn't have had the diode problem?
The diode problem is responsible for not having enough units at launch for the U.S., and for delaying the E.U. launch. But hadn't those shortages existed, Sony wouldn't have been able to launch even within a year of the 360 anyway. Note that:
- no console ships with no software whatsoever, and they barely had games ready for the U.S. launch as it is, let alone if they had launched even just half a year sooner
- the SDKs for the Sixaxis only came in June
- the final devkit around that same time
- basics for online not even clear to third party developers after launch (witness VT3 with no online support because Sega didn't get information / sdk in time, games like Motorstorm and even Resistance patched afterwards to support universal Buddy lists, etc.)
The only advantage is that they could have produced more units and for a lower price. However, the downsides of this:
- Space. Yes, really. PS2 games did in fact use a lot of DVD space. Think MGS2, at 6GB (MGS3 on two discs), or Champions of Norrath, filling a 9GB dual layer disc completely. And lots of games in fact fill up a single side and limited themselves to a single side, because there were issues with authoring dual layer DVDs as well as some consoles not playing dual layer discs very well.
Maybe some clever people here didn't, but most (like me) expected the 360 to come with a HD DVD player. That Microsoft didn't could have been clever strategy that will pay them off handsomely, or it could have been a sacrifice for getting the 360 out a year before the PS3, because HD DVD wasn't ready in time after having been delayed several times. But history shows a clear progression in how much space is needed for each new generation, and it is up to Microsoft, not Sony, to prove this trend can and should be broken. And no, they can't prove this in just the first one or two years.
In the meantime, even on the PC we are getting games that break the mold (10GB HDD install for Stalker, anyone?) and this won't stop. Sure, you can do a HDD install on the 360 too, at least on some of the models, but the 20GB model fills up rather fast if you do even one 10GB HDD install.
I'm sure you will see soon enough how a second generation Insomniac game like Ratchet & Clank with streaming and therefore more high-res textures will expand the 12GB that Resistance really needed, to something much bigger. Never mind a next Final Fantasy. There will be big games. And you can say what you will, but if Final Fantasy chooses to have a layout where you can access any previous area at any time, or MGS4 has an online option that allows you to use any war-theatre as an online map, then swapping discs is going to suck. Sure, game developers can program around it, but you don't want them to have to.
- Speed and authoring complexity. There is a penalty for using Dual Layers on DVD, as switching sides takes a long time. So you have to treat the sides as two separate entities to make use of the DVD speed optimally. Additionally, you have to be more careful with using the space, as you don't have much to spare. Multiple discs means increasing your development complexity (burning test-discs, adding logic for switching discs and so on). BluRay, while suffering from this problem initially, got small burners early in its life (about a year ago) and they are now widely available: 700 euro for a PC OEM version in our local stores, anyway, last time I checked), and getting up to speed; slow burning speeds for 22GB were one reason why Insomniac chose to attempt - and succeed - at reducing their disc-size 16GB, though obviously there was room for further improvement this time (to, say, 12GB, which is still more than 4GB larger than what I understand the 360 will hold using Dual Layer, which is apparently limited to 7.4GB?).
- Price. Before you know it, BluRay may actually save you money even for gaming. Think for instance of the recently announced BluRay cover disc for the Official UK Playstation Magazine, which will contain game demos and trailers, that you then don't have to (re)download, install to HDD and/or backup for later use should you want to. These discs can save you up to 50GB of space (though probably they'll start with 25GB) and downloading, allowing you to go longer with your internet fair use limitations, hard disc space, backup tools and so on.
All of that is still basically game related. In terms of media, movies that have less than HD DVD or BluRay compression levels and bitrates have been compromised and deliver a less optimal HD experience. Sure, it may be good enough for you, but they may not be just as well, and this will start showing more and more as we move on to 1080p - but even at 720p, some people can tell the difference already. Authoring and recording quality, in the meantime, is just getting better and better. With all the extra features that a HD quality disc provides, downloading a similar experience is going to mean you'll need a lot of space on your HDD, and while that's not entirely expensive, right now Microsoft isn't making it exactly free either. If I download a 100 movie collection, I'm going to need to have it backed up somehow eventually anyway. There's a long discussion to be had about streaming and re-downloading and so on, and there's definitely a place for that, but it won't be ready overnight - the internet, for one, couldn't handle even handle the extra strain yet right now.
In the meantime, the combination of profits from BluRay, and the reduction in cost of the BluRay hardware in the PS3, both highly accellerated if BluRay becomes the new standard, will allow it to become cost-effective soon enough.
And finally, if you compare the transition from VHS to DVD with the transition from DVD to BluRay, then don't forget that the BluRay player still plays DVDs, unlike DVD players, which didn't play VHS tapes and hence invalidated your whole existing VHS collection. The transition from CD-ROM to DVD was much smoother and faster, for the simple reason that getting a DVD player was a simple way of future proofing, getting better features, without having to throw away anyting or keep a CD-ROM player inside your PC as well.
The transition to BluRay can and will be just as smooth, and will happen in the PC space as well.
I'm not saying that Microsoft's strategy is invalid, or that Sony will have an easy victory. But let's not understate the advantages of having BluRay in a console too much, ok? ;)
If I were in Sony PR bunny shoes, I'd see if a press release could be issued that highlights mass production ramp-up of *cough* certain Blu-ray-related components, and more or less accidentally drops the exact BOM contribution of the Blu-ray drive choice for PS3.
It would end a lot of people's arguments immediately. And giving a progress report to shareholders, on an area of company-wide interest to boot, is an entirely legit thing. Beats argumentative racketeering any day.
quest55720
13-Apr-2007, 02:05
Sigh.
Maybe some clever people here didn't, but most (like me) expected the 360 to come with a HD DVD player. That Microsoft didn't could have been clever strategy that will pay them off handsomely, or it could have been a sacrifice for getting the 360 out a year before the PS3, because HD DVD wasn't ready in time after having been delayed several times. But history shows a clear progression in how much space is needed for each new generation, and it is up to Microsoft, not Sony, to prove this trend can and should be broken. And no, they can't prove this in just the first one or two years.
Actually it is sony has to prove that the 200 dollar premium for blue ray is worth it. MS has nothing to prove right now as they have a larger user base and outselling the PS3 badly in NA. Sony is the one the one this time around who has to do the proving. MS has so far passed every test and put a ton of money in a lot of developers pockets thanks to a user base who buys games like crazy.
HD-DVD was never an option for MS even if it was ready no way bill would eat billions to help a movie format. Sony is willing to eat billions for a movie format because it can help the bottom line overall. MS eating billions for HD-DVD gains the company nothing. The only way a hd-dvd player was going into the 360 is if toshiba sold them drives at the same price as DVD roms. That was not going to happen.
function
13-Apr-2007, 02:42
Maybe some clever people here didn't, but most (like me) expected the 360 to come with a HD DVD player. That Microsoft didn't could have been clever strategy that will pay them off handsomely, or it could have been a sacrifice for getting the 360 out a year before the PS3, because HD DVD wasn't ready in time after having been delayed several times. But history shows a clear progression in how much space is needed for each new generation, and it is up to Microsoft, not Sony, to prove this trend can and should be broken. And no, they can't prove this in just the first one or two years.
It's actually up to Sony to show that the retail price of the PS3 is worth it to gamers. Currently, it is not doing this.
Also, history doesn't show a clear progression as to how much space is needed for each new generation, as demonstrated by CD's use in 8-bit, 16-bit, 32-bit, and "128-bit" consoles, the success of the N64 compared to the Saturn and the Nintendo DS wiping the floor with the PSP. And the Wii and 360 outselling the PS3, of course.
What history actually does show is the imporatance of content in selling a platform. That content is not necessarily directly related to the storage capacity of the media on which it is provided.
TheChefO
13-Apr-2007, 02:50
What history actually does show is the imporatance of content in selling a platform. That content is not necessarily directly related to the storage capacity of the media on which it is provided.
...and price. :wink:
Actually it is sony has to prove that the 200 dollar premium for blue ray is worth it.What math do you use to arrive at 200$?
quest55720
13-Apr-2007, 04:09
What math do you use to arrive at 200$?
Since the 20gig PS3 is officially discontinued it is the 599 vs 399 right now. That is 200 dollar difference. Sony had to prove to gamers that the blue ray and PS3 is worth a 200 dollar premium. Heck in the worst case sony has to prove the PS3 is worth a 350 dollar premium vs the Wii.
Since the 20gig PS3 is officially discontinued it is the 599 vs 399 right now. That is 200 dollar difference. Sony had to prove to gamers that the blue ray and PS3 is worth a 200 dollar premium. Heck in the worst case sony has to prove the PS3 is worth a 350 dollar premium vs the Wii.Ah, those 200$. But you don't pay all of that for the blue laser diode and the plastic lens with the slightly different numeric aperture. You pay about 100$ for a machine that doesn't destroy itself, doesn't make you deaf and accepts industry-standard storage and accessories. 30$ for more processor throughput, 30$ for playing a couple thousand PS2 games, 10$ for good looks, leaving 30$ for Blu-ray. And I'm being generous.
It needs more games. And it will get them.
quest55720
13-Apr-2007, 04:25
Ah, those 200$. But you don't pay all of that for the blue laser diode and the plastic lens with the slightly different numeric aperture. You pay about 100$ for a machine that doesn't destroy itself, doesn't make you deaf and accepts industry-standard storage and accessories. 30$ for more processor throughput, 30$ for playing a couple thousand PS2 games, 10$ for good looks, leaving 30$ for Blu-ray. And I'm being generous.
It needs more games. And it will get them.
It has more and better games than the PS2 did at this time. It is not the games it is the price that is keeping people away.
pakotlar
13-Apr-2007, 04:41
Ah, those 200$. But you don't pay all of that for the blue laser diode and the plastic lens with the slightly different numeric aperture. You pay about 100$ for a machine that doesn't destroy itself, doesn't make you deaf and accepts industry-standard storage and accessories. 30$ for more processor throughput, 30$ for playing a couple thousand PS2 games, 10$ for good looks, leaving 30$ for Blu-ray. And I'm being generous.
It needs more games. And it will get them.
Well I agree that the X360 fails way more than is necessary/should be allowable. I recently forgoed my Microcenter extend warranty option, and that makes me nervous, as my xbox has given me disc read errors a few times, and crashed a few times. However, so far no rings of death (fingers crossed). Given that microsoft has a sick warranty policy now, and renewing and extending your warranty is possible, I don't think this will be much of an issue.
The x360 is worth more than 400 to me (got it as a gift neway) because of the online integration services it provides, xbla (I play UMK3 more than any other game, just plain fun for 20-40 minutes a day), as well as the great game selection it has. PS3 may be worth it if you are a big movie fan, but the game selection isn't great so far.
As far as the x360 making you deaf, I sit 1.5-2 feet from my x360 (right below the monitor) and even with the drive going full speed it doesn't bother me unless I have the volume all the way down. Sure I would enjoy a quieter system, but it doesn't break it for me. I know down the road, when newer revisions come out, I will just get my system replaced under my warranty plan.
And reliability issues will improve. Saying that a ps3 is worth it because the x360 has a higher than acceptable failure rate, is like saying the x360 is worth it because PS3 games look subpar. Both need time.
pakotlar
13-Apr-2007, 05:02
It has more and better games than the PS2 did at this time. It is not the games it is the price that is keeping people away.
I disagree. Dead Or Alive 2 Hardcore, Tekken Tag Tournament, Ridge Racer V, SSX, a Madden, Timesplitters were the notable games that PS2 launched with. Most of the games it launched with were either ports of Dreamcast games or extremely rushed titles. It had a little more bite because EA wasn't messing with Sega at the time. PS2's launch was awful, and the only reason it did so well was because the machine was marketed under such an aura of sex/power that no one wanted to get anything else, even if all they could do was watch the sweet PS logo pop up at bootup (and play with cubes). It was for the POTENTIAL of the system that people bought it.
A quote from IGN: "DOA2, TTT, and SUMMONER (emphasis here), three of the better launch titles" That's back from 99. Any launch that includes Summoner as a premiere launch title is awful.
PS3 on the other hand, launched with a few quality games, and even though it really only has 3 exclusives (now with VF5) they are all high AA to AAA quality, and the online service that the PS3 launched with is now seeing some DLC that is both exclusive and great (Tekken 5:DR, MK2, more).
I'd say that PS3 had a much stronger launch, but unfortunately, this time around they are dealing with a kickass console like X360 which most of the time provides a better experience for multiplatform titles, already has several exclusive killer apps, has tons of dev support, a fantastic online experience, and is $200 cheaper. Not to mention it is backed by the most financially stable company in the world, which no one doubts will back the console to fruition and beyond.
please excuse the awful grammar. i'm tired :D
joker454
13-Apr-2007, 06:29
The price is hurting PS3 worse than people think. At work, only me and one other guy have PS3's even though we're all gamers. Asking around, the reason becomes clear. Most can't afford one, plain and simple. Even around this very forum, how often do you read posts from people who speak highly of PS3, but will then write how they don't have one yet because they are waiting for the price to drop? Factoring in the additional cost of one game and taxes, the $700+ cost of entry is too much for most when viewing it as a games machine.
Having said that, to me the PS3 was an absolute bargain since I bought it as an HD movie player. My first HiFi VCR was $1000 in '82, first CD player in '85 was $570, first DVD player in '97 was $550. Now, my first HD movie player was $500 in '07 (PS3) which as a side benefit can also play games. I understand that it's still a chunk of change, but when you see what it can do, the PS3 really is quite cheap relatively speaking!
Well I agree that the X360 fails way more than is necessary/should be allowable. I recently forgoed my Microcenter extend warranty option, and that makes me nervous, as my xbox has given me disc read errors a few times, and crashed a few times. However, so far no rings of death (fingers crossed). Given that microsoft has a sick warranty policy now, and renewing and extending your warranty is possible, I don't think this will be much of an issue.
The x360 is worth more than 400 to me (got it as a gift neway) because of the online integration services it provides, xbla (I play UMK3 more than any other game, just plain fun for 20-40 minutes a day), as well as the great game selection it has. PS3 may be worth it if you are a big movie fan, but the game selection isn't great so far.
As far as the x360 making you deaf, I sit 1.5-2 feet from my x360 (right below the monitor) and even with the drive going full speed it doesn't bother me unless I have the volume all the way down. Sure I would enjoy a quieter system, but it doesn't break it for me. I know down the road, when newer revisions come out, I will just get my system replaced under my warranty plan.
And reliability issues will improve. Saying that a ps3 is worth it because the x360 has a higher than acceptable failure rate, is like saying the x360 is worth it because PS3 games look subpar. Both need time.It was a bit pointed and perhaps inaccurate to fight fire with fire.
I'm not against a more differentiated view on things generally, but I have started considering it offensive when someone posts the same old "Blu-ray made the PS3 200$ more expensive" regurgitated MN sound-bite. Everyone who actually cares about such details can easily find out just how wrong that line is, and not just since today. If someone really doesn't want to know but still engages in the fun of bringing the least informed version of the point up in debate, I invoke the classic troll definition and withdraw all sympathy.
Actually it is sony has to prove that the 200 dollar premium for blue ray is worth it. MS has nothing to prove right now as they have a larger user base and outselling the PS3 badly in NA. Sony is the one the one this time around who has to do the proving. MS has so far passed every test and put a ton of money in a lot of developers pockets thanks to a user base who buys games like crazy.
I'm going to repeat myself:
And no, they [Microsoft] can't prove this in just the first one or two years.
On the other hand, I do agree with you that it is now up to Sony to prove the advantage of BluRay for gaming by this Christmas (and I think they will, or Insomniac will, or SquareEnix, or some other party).
Again, nothing in my post is saying that Microsoft is doing a lousy job. I think they're definitely bringing their A-game, and are doing a good job. But sacrifices have been made, and Sony needs to make them visible. I think economics of scale will bring the cost of a BluRay drive and a DVD drive together pretty soon.
Except I am not sure how much movie playback has ever really mattered in consoles.
I mean, is Blu-Ray playback a big factor in why people purchase PS3's now? How about in the future?
First we have to assume the purchaser is interested in playing movies on the machine. It seems Blu Ray in PS3 has a very low takeup rate in that respect. According to one survey I've read just 22% of PS3 owners use it for movies. To me, looking at the sales of stand alone HDDVD players, then PS3 sales, then actual movie sales on each format, it's stunning to me that Blu-Ray is not dominating much more than it is. I mean, since launch in the USA PS3 has sold 1.1 million consoles in four months. I dont know stand alone HDDVD sales, but <20,000 a month seems to be a reasonable guess. So you can see PS3 absolutly swamps HDDVD in volume, yet in disc sales, it seems to be 3-1 for Blu-Ray, 2-1 for Blu-Ray, a much lower level of domination than the PS3 sales suggest. I think the value of each stand alone player sold is mutiples higher than each player sold in a console, because the buyer of a stand alone, is someone who is targeting the format to play movies. In this way I see the X360 add on making sense. Only people who are actively interested in HDDVD's will buy this. This is why I'm sure the "attach rate" on HDDVD hardware is much higher than on Blu-Ray if you count PS3.
I look back to DVD sales. I'm not sure how much DVD playback ever helped the PS2. Of course as of today, it's irrelevant, mostly. There was a small window in time when a PS2 maybe had some added value as a DVD player, before DVD penetration became ubiquitous, but the price of the PS2 was necessarily pretty high at that point ($299).
I think Blu-Ray in PS3 will be fighting that same small window of relevancy, before Blu-Ray/HDDVD prices plummet. As of now the price of PS3 is very high, so I dont think it's wildly attractive as a Blu-Ray player. Meanwhile, HDDVD stand alone prices are dropping like a rock, should be a $199 player by this fall. You could say the same for Blu-Ray, I even wonder is Sony holding up the price of Blu-Ray stand alone's to make PS3 more attractive? Overall that would be a very poor move for the format if so.
The other thing that I think will work against PS3 Blu_Ray to a point, is HDTV adoption. There's going to be some percent of PS3 owners who simply dont own HDTV's, and to them Blu-Ray movies are useless.
We can also look at UMD, which kind of probably stigmatized the entire Sony console trying to establish a format thing for retailers in the near past.
Personally, I've never liked playing movies on my consoles, because I worry it'll wear out the drive faster. For example, I dont really use my 360 as a DVD player for that reason. I suspect that's more my own oddity though, and not anything the vaunted casuals would would ever think about.Wow you made the same mistake that quest55720 made in the comment I responded to in this old thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=960601&postcount=138)! It demonstrates how circular this argument is.
Ah, those 200$. But you don't pay all of that for the blue laser diode and the plastic lens with the slightly different numeric aperture. You pay about 100$ for a machine that doesn't destroy itself, doesn't make you deaf and accepts industry-standard storage and accessories. 30$ for more processor throughput, 30$ for playing a couple thousand PS2 games, 10$ for good looks, leaving 30$ for Blu-ray. And I'm being generous.
It needs more games. And it will get them.
That post will be jumped on, but I have to agree to a large extent. One thing putting me off buying a 360 is the build quality. Its laughable. Yet its the most important thing when buying hardware. The pricing of the accessories is another thing stopping me, as I know I'll end up spending close to the price of PS3, and I'd rather have Blu-ray.
Wow you made the same mistake that quest55720 made in the comment I responded to in this old thread (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=960601&postcount=138)! It demonstrates how circular this argument is.
If i exclude UMD part of your discussion (Rangers and One), on which i think it is irrelevant, i don't get what "you prove" except giving "wishful thinking".
Could you reformulate, please ?
If i had to resume how i see things for now for the mainstream : 600 € a console is far too expensive. Many say it needs AAA titiles (obvious), and that 's all. I am not so sure this is enough.
600 € for a BR player is too expensive, too ! You can say that standalone players are far more expensive, and this is true, but casual buyers don't analyse things that way.
One interesting discussion is what will be the price of Xbox360 and standalone BR players, when PS3 will reach the 400 € price ?
archangelmorph
13-Apr-2007, 12:12
That post will be jumped on, but I have to agree to a large extent. One thing putting me off buying a 360 is the build quality. Its laughable. Yet its the most important thing when buying hardware. The pricing of the accessories is another thing stopping me, as I know I'll end up spending close to the price of PS3, and I'd rather have Blu-ray.
Does anyone know whether the build quality of the 360 has improved by now (specifically in the UK)..?
I'm looking to purchase one in about two weeks time and I don't want to have to deal with it breaking down a (few) month(s) later... Especially when, for how much i'm planning to spend to start off with, I could also get a PS3 instead (However i'm not sure if I wwould yet considering i'll be HD gaming on one of my PC monitors at least until i get my own place and a HDTV along with it)..
Any help/purchase advice would be much appreciated! (you can PM me if you like so as to not derail this thread..)
Thanks! :smile:
http://www.hdforindies.com/uploaded_images/resolution_chart-790251.jpg
More accurate.
More wrong :-)
This is the best thing i have read on eye res so far:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Based on the above data for the resolution of the human eye, let's try a "small" example first. Consider a view in front of you that is 90 degrees by 90 degrees, like looking through an open window at a scene. The number of pixels would be
90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels (324 megapixels).
At any one moment, you actually do not perceive that many pixels, but your eye moves around the scene to see all the detail you want. But the human eye really sees a larger field of view, close to 180 degrees. Let's be conservative and use 120 degrees for the field of view. Then we would see
120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.
You don´t have to be able to see one pixel to benefit from a higher resolution. The guy got some examples on printers as well.
If i exclude UMD part of your discussion (Rangers and One), on which i think it is irrelevant, i don't get what "you prove" except giving "wishful thinking".
Could you reformulate, please ?
If i had to resume how i see things for now for the mainstream : 600 € a console is far too expensive. Many say it needs AAA titiles (obvious), and that 's all. I am not so sure this is enough.
600 € for a BR player is too expensive, too ! You can say that standalone players are far more expensive, and this is true, but casual buyers don't analyse things that way.If you call it wishful thinking then what Jaffe claims is wishful thinking too. The fact is Resistance would have been a 2-disc or 3-disc game if PS3 didn't have BD. Another fact is, PS2 is more profitable than PS3 for now. PS3 is a long-term project, or longer-term to be precise. The point is, you are arguing against a straw man.
One interesting discussion is what will be the price of Xbox360 and standalone BR players, when PS3 will reach the 400 € price ?Now that looks like a comparison between Dreamcast that cannot play DVD and PS2 that can.
Does anyone know whether the build quality of the 360 has improved by now (specifically in the UK)..?
Thanks! :smile:
I have a PAL console made in september 06 and bought in november 06. It's a bit quiter than older consoles and I haven't had a single freeze - works really stable. The only problem I had is that it scratches discs in vertical position.
As for BRD, it's definitely nice to have it in console... but majority of consoles sold right now are NDS, Wii and PS2 - which shows that majority of people don't care about high-end technology.
one - I'm pretty sure Resistance would fit on a DVD if Insomniac wanted to. Motorstorm is the same it has only 1 environment and 8 tracks, yet it exceeds 8GB, but Project Gotham Racing 4 will have 10 environments and it will fit on a DVD...
archangelmorph
13-Apr-2007, 12:43
I have a PAL console made in september 06 and bought in november 06. It's a bit quiter than older consoles and I haven't had a single freeze - works really stable. The only problem I had is that it scratches discs in vertical position.
Seems to be a recurring theme around here.. I'll bare that in mind thanx! :wink:
one - I'm pretty sure Resistance would fit on a DVD if Insomniac wanted to. Motorstorm is the same it has only 1 environment and 8 tracks, yet it exceeds 8GB, but Project Gotham Racing 4 will have 10 environments and it will fit on a DVD...
I'm confused as to why you would provide such a comparison which so blatantly assumes that your "environment" is consistent in both file size, mesh complexity, texture detail, compression ratio & capacity of material/shader & physical/collision information across the two games when it's highly unlikely that this would ever be the case.. :???:
one - I'm pretty sure Resistance would fit on a DVD if Insomniac wanted to. Motorstorm is the same it has only 1 environment and 8 tracks, yet it exceeds 8GB, but Project Gotham Racing 4 will have 10 environments and it will fit on a DVD...Resistance in DVD is a different game from Resistance in BD. Not to mention the drive noise of 12x DVD.
I'm confused as to why you would provide such a comparison which so blatantly assumes that your "environment" is consistent in both file size, mesh complexity, texture detail, compression ratio & capacity of material/shader & physical/collision information across the two games when it's highly unlikely that this would ever be the case.. :???:
Well, having played PGR3 and Motorstorm I think it's fair to say that Motorstorm doesn't have more detailed tracks and better textures and I doubt PGR4 will be inferior to PGR3 in that regard. I also don't think Physical/collision data takes so much space.
Resistance in DVD is a different game from Resistance in BD. Not to mention the drive noise of 12x DVD.
Yes, you wouldn't have optional languages and Insomniac would be forced to make real-time cut-scenes. Other than that it would be the same game.
I'm not saying BRD exctra space will not be useful. I think that initial PS3 games weren't just games that showed that BRD was all that necessary.
More wrong :-)
This is the best thing i have read on eye res so far:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
You don´t have to be able to see one pixel to benefit from a higher resolution. The guy got some examples on printers as well.
It's an extremely flawed analysis though. Firstly, the eye has a fovea centralis which has lots of receptors (that analysis treats the entire fovea as having the same density). It also assumes you view the image at the minimum focal length i.e. as close as is possible. With a large TV sat a long way away, you don't do this.
Yes, you wouldn't have optional languages and Insomniac would be forced to make real-time cut-scenes. Other than that it would be the same game.
It would have meant they'd probably have needed different discs for different regions, which adds considerable cost. Making the cut-scenes real-time also would have been more expensive. Also, they'd have had to be more careful from day one, limiting their options.
More importantly though, Resistance is only Insomniac's first generation title. Let's see what Ratchet & Clank 4 will need, with the new version of the engine that supports streaming textures. I think 3 needed 4.16GB on the PS2.
It would have meant they'd probably have needed different discs for different regions, which adds considerable cost.
You also forgot to add that bluray discs are 3 times cheaper than DVDs... Oh wait.
More importantly though, Resistance is only Insomniac's first generation title. Let's see what Ratchet & Clank 4 will need, with the new version of the engine that supports streaming textures. I think 3 needed 4.16GB on the PS2.
Well, 360 has more RAM [available to games] and is in 2nd generation of games and so far DVD capacity didn't affect games' length scale, graphics, production values or anything else (maybe sound). Developers can also split a game on two discs. I think DVD's capacity will hinder game design in relatively few games.
function
13-Apr-2007, 13:23
Resistance in DVD is a different game from Resistance in BD.
Different in any way that matters? It's safe to say no. Except that it would probably have sold a lot better on DVD for a cheaper, DVD based console.
(Blue Dragon on 1 BR disk would be a "different" game too btw.)
This 14GB (or whatever) for Resistance is really being used as a smoke screen by both sides of the increasingly heated PS3/BR fan/hater battle. It simultaneously proves that DVDs are already absolete with BR being used to provide games you couldn't do without them, whilst also proving that BR is completely unnecessary and only being used for GB of needless video, audio and laziness.
I know I've said it before, but this is all so reminiscent of the Saturn/PS and MD/SNES days. Right down to arguments like this one going on now. People (and consoles) grow old, but the world stays the same - or something like that.
It seems when it comes to BR vs. DVD discussions it ALWAYS is the same people saying the same thing with different words.
over and over and over...
Personally, I like BRD. :grin:
This 14GB (or whatever) for Resistance is really being used as a smoke screen by both sides of the increasingly heated PS3/BR fan/hater battle. It simultaneously proves that DVDs are already absolete with BR being used to provide games you couldn't do without them, whilst also proving that BR is completely unnecessary and only being used for GB of needless video, audio and laziness.I'd say you're too quick to write BD off just 5 months after the launch of PS3 with only a couple of 1st party titles out there. I remember DeanoC's comment about the size of Heavenly Sword...
You also forgot to add that bluray discs are 3 times cheaper than DVDs... Oh wait.
No, BluRay discs are more expensive. But how do these costs stack up? Is it $1 difference per disc? These differences are going to become smaller and smaller. In the meantime, how much does authoring and testing different discs cost? Different production runs? How much advantage do you have by being able to distribute your discs to any region that needs them? Etc. Would be nice to see some decent bit of analysis of this. They will probably vary depending on how many games you sell and so on, so it's a complex matter.
Well, 360 has more RAM [available to games] and is in 2nd generation of games and so far DVD capacity didn't affect games' length scale, graphics, production values or anything else (maybe sound). Developers can also split a game on two discs. I think DVD's capacity will hinder game design in relatively few games.
You don't know this *at all*. In fact, DVD capacity may even be limiting a large number of cross-platform games length, scale, graphics, and production values. So far, game developers simply have had to make do with DVD.
As for the PS3 price:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=apxJ8MoSy6No&refer=japan
Sony Shares Rise on Report Profit to Exceed Estimates (Update3)
By Masaki Kondo and Yoshinori Eki
April 13 (Bloomberg) -- Shares of Sony Corp., the world's second-largest consumer electronics maker, rose to a two-month high after the Nikkei reported operating profit this fiscal year will beat analysts' estimates on Bravia television sales.
...
Chief Executive Officer Howard Stringer targets an operating profit margin of 5 percent by March 2008, about double the current margin. Tokyo-based Sony confirmed today that it will only sell a more expensive version of its PlayStation 3 game console in North America, a strategy it adopted for the European market to bolster margins.
``Profit margin will probably exceed 5 percent if Sony doesn't lower the price of PlayStation 3,'' Hitoshi Kuriyama, an analyst at Merrill Lynch & Co. wrote in a report dated yesterday. He rates the stock a ``buy.''
You don't know this *at all*. In fact, DVD capacity may even be limiting a large number of cross-platform games length, scale, graphics, and production values. So far, game developers simply have had to make do with DVD.
Of course everything I write is only my assumptions.
I don't know why you wrote about multiplatform games - DVD is also affecting 360's exclusives. I could also write that PS3's architecture is limiting cross-platform games (of 360 erchitecture), if you want to spin it that way.
No, BluRay discs are more expensive. But how do these costs stack up? Is it $1 difference per disc? These differences are going to become smaller and smaller. In the meantime, how much does authoring and testing different discs cost? Different production runs? How much advantage do you have by being able to distribute your discs to any region that needs them? Etc. Would be nice to see some decent bit of analysis of this. They will probably vary depending on how many games you sell and so on, so it's a complex matter.
I think PS3 games have different certifications in different regions despite being region-free. FWIW there are multilanguage free-region 360 games, too (Viva Pinata).
function
13-Apr-2007, 14:18
I'd say you're too quick to write BD off just 5 months after the launch of PS3 with only a couple of 1st party titles out there. I remember DeanoC's comment about the size of Heavenly Sword...
Perhaps I didn't communicate my point too well. I didn't write off BR (I think it's a cool technology to have in a console). I was trying to write off much of the debate surrounding the size (in GBs) of Resistance - it's a rallying point for both "sides" if you will, and it doesn't deserve to be.
I don't think BR will have a significant impact on games this generation, simply because while filling a DVD is really, really easy, filling a DVD (or multiple DVDs) with high quality assets is really, really expensive.
Anyway, if you've got the space you might as well use it. That doesn't mean you actually need (as in, require, with no alternative) that space to deliver the game. PS3 developers would have to be mad not to make use of BR's space, even if it's just to make life easier, speed up loading, or not clean up their build so thoroughly before release (etc).
Of course everything I write is only my assumptions.
I don't know why you wrote about multiplatform games - DVD is also affecting 360's exclusives. I could also write that PS3's architecture is limiting cross-platform games (of 360 erchitecture), if you want to spin it that way.
I'm not spinning anything, I'm pointing something out to you. If you are going to make a multi-platform game for 360, PS3, and who knows even PC, you're going to have a much easier time designing it to be able to work with DVD, especially while the PS3 market is still small and not that competitive in terms of sales. Multiplatform games similarly favor the 360 right now because they can target both 360 and PC, and those combined are still much larger than the PS3 market. It is therefore understandable that Microsoft pushes the Games For Windows, at least for a while, not just for Vista.
Eventually though PS3 exclusive games appear that use the platform's strength more fully, and multi-platform games will have to step up to be able to keep up with PS3 exclusives. And multi-platform game publishers targeting the same demographic and genres, will start competing with each other by better using their platform's features.
I think PS3 games have different certifications in different regions despite being region-free. FWIW there are multilanguage free-region 360 games, too (Viva Pinata).
We were discussing the advantages for Resistance, where there was (at least in theory) a choice between having more than one DVD and/or multiple regionalisation masters and press runs, or BluRay all-in-one. Viva Pinata just illustrates that this advantage exists even within the context of the DVD platform.
I'm not spinning anything, I'm pointing something out to you. If you are going to make a multi-platform game for 360, PS3, and who knows even PC, you're going to have a much easier time designing it to be able to work with DVD, especially while the PS3 market is still small and not that competitive in terms of sales. Multiplatform games similarly favor the 360 right now because they can target both 360 and PC, and those combined are still much larger than the PS3 market. It is therefore understandable that Microsoft pushes the Games For Windows, at least for a while, not just for Vista.
Eventually though PS3 exclusive games appear that use the platform's strength more fully, and multi-platform games will have to step up to be able to keep up with PS3 exclusives. And multi-platform game publishers targeting the same demographic and genres, will start competing with each other by better using their platform's features.
The thing is, games can still be splitted into 2 or more discs. Splitting games is of course time and resource consuming, but it can be done. I don't remember anyone complaining on RE4 on GC or writing how it was inferior to PS2 version because of having to switch discs. That's why DVD isn't really hindering games' design IMO.
In general I absolutely agree with function.
We were discussing the advantages for Resistance, where there was (at least in theory) a choice between having more than one DVD and/or multiple regionalisation masters and press runs, or BluRay all-in-one. Viva Pinata just illustrates that this advantage exists even within the context of the DVD platform.
I still think Viva Pinata came through certification in every region it was published and I think it is the case with PS3 games, too (logistics and law reasons).
archangelmorph
13-Apr-2007, 15:12
The arguement of Blu-ray vs DVD can be long-winded and pointless when left un-tamed..
You want my take..?
(Tough, you'll get it anyway..)
Blu-ray is an "advantage" to games in terms of the technical & production benefits (faster read speeds, no need for multi-disc file organsitation, all-in-one localisation) as well as a possible benefit to game design (i'm sure some wacky dev could dream up a game which is fundamentally based around what Blu-ray has to offer.. Whether they would bother is another matter..)
Blu-ray is by no means "a necessity" for games at the moment but depending on how the scope and scale of specific game genres evolve (or spring up anew) in the future then (relative to that specific genre) it very well could be..
Sure you could argue that this may not happen due to the cost of filling up all that space, but developers grow more and more ambitious with each passing year and eventually some will reach a point where the scope and scale of there games won't translate well to DVD disc capacity (maybe this gen, maybe the next)..
However as long as there are markets for certain genre's of games which technically (and traditionally) don't require masses of disc storage due to the nature of the scope and scale of the game (I say traditionally because these genre's may change in the future also..) then there will always be titles which don't justify high density storage such as Blu-ray and thus, will continue to provide a counter arguement for those who don't feel that the cost of Blu-ray in the PS3 is a valid/significant/appreciated one..
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 15:15
I'm going to repeat myself:
You're wrong here. Had the PS2 launched with CD, it would've been evident within the first year that the medium was clearly inadequate.
Fact is, games on 360 look damn good, MS has proven that disc space is not a major barrier to creating great looking next generation games.
Now, whether that will change in 3-4 years is debateable, but at that point it will be too late in any big swings for either console, so the advantage of BR is somewhat negated. In order to have a meaningful impact on the success of the console, BR would need to show a tangible quality difference in the first couple of years.
You're vastly overstating the advantages of BR. Your arguments would've been a little more plausible in 2005, but this is 2007 and we're seeing things play out before our eyes. BR is providing no large advantage, DVD is not proving to be a big disadvantage, and the pricetag is being rejected by consumers and 3rd party developers are jumping ship.
BR may end up being PS3's saving grace, but it's also the very thing that has placed it in this situation.
Gradthrawn
13-Apr-2007, 15:32
You're wrong here. Had the PS2 launched with CD, it would've been evident within the first year that the medium was clearly inadequate.
Considering that, for the first year, many games launched on CD with the PS2 I think you overestimate how quickly any so called "inadequacy" with the medium would have shown.
Fact is, games on 360 look damn good, MS has proven that disc space is not a major barrier to creating great looking next generation games.
Several games on the DC "looked damn good," and they weren't on a DVD. So, Sega has proven that disc space was not a major barrier to creating great looking games for that generation. Yet, you clearly state that a CD would have been quickly proven inadequate on the PS2.
And we go around and around... :P
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 15:51
Several games on the DC "looked damn good," and they weren't on a DVD. So, Sega has proven that disc space was not a major barrier to creating great looking games for that generation. Yet, you clearly state that a CD would have been quickly proven inadequate on the PS2.
Well, believe whatever you want dude. 360 has what, 120+ games now? The 2007 lineup looks every bit as good as the competitor, so I think it's safe to say that on these consoles, with only 512mb of RAM, it's becoming obvious disc space is not a signifigant barrier. We're not talking 'several' games here, we're talking hundreds.
Despite all the endless arguing to the contrary over the last couple of years. It seems to me people are clinging to this argument while it's being proven wrong right before their eyes.
Jesus2006
13-Apr-2007, 16:25
Well, believe whatever you want dude. 360 has what, 120+ games now? The 2007 lineup looks every bit as good as the competitor, so I think it's safe to say that on these consoles, with only 512mb of RAM, it's becoming obvious disc space is not a signifigant barrier. We're not talking 'several' games here, we're talking hundreds.
Well looking at how small many 360 games actually are, i think it's save to say that discspace is or will become a limiting factor (see Gears for example).
Btw. of those 120 games i can only count about 5 which really interested me, the rest isn't worth mentioning IMO. Quantity doesn't mean quality and is also not a hint that DVD might suffice this generation, since a huge amount of those games were ports or mulitplatform (polished "last-gen engine") games which did not really stress the DVD.
You're wrong here. Had the PS2 launched with CD, it would've been evident within the first year that the medium was clearly inadequate.
Fact is, games on 360 look damn good, MS has proven that disc space is not a major barrier to creating great looking next generation games.
Now, whether that will change in 3-4 years is debateable, but at that point it will be too late in any big swings for either console, so the advantage of BR is somewhat negated. In order to have a meaningful impact on the success of the console, BR would need to show a tangible quality difference in the first couple of years.
You're vastly overstating the advantages of BR. Your arguments would've been a little more plausible in 2005, but this is 2007 and we're seeing things play out before our eyes. BR is providing no large advantage, DVD is not proving to be a big disadvantage, and the pricetag is being rejected by consumers and 3rd party developers are jumping ship.
BR may end up being PS3's saving grace, but it's also the very thing that has placed it in this situation.
Dont you think you're overstating this a bit? Sure Sony would have sold more if PS3 was cheaper, but its still outsold 360 despite its higher price. And developers jumping ship? 360 came out first, and therefore is getting more mulitplatform titles. Hardly rocket science. However, by way of first and second party developers, Sony has more games in development than MS and Nintendo. And this is where Sony can do its damage. If PS3 first-party games start to look bigger and better than their 360 equivalents, then the pendulum will swing their way. Certainly in terms of their bottom line, Blu-ray is helping Sony a lot, while MS has gone down the peripheral route. The question is, does the periperhal/accessories route have as much potential as Blu-ray to rake in the cash for MS? Even when Blu-ray becomes cheap, Sony will be able to justify PS3's higher price in comparison to 360, so its margins should be better than MS's.
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 16:36
Dont you think you're overstating this a bit? Sure Sony would have sold more if PS3 was cheaper, but its still outsold 360 despite its higher price.
Actually it never once outsold 360 in the same month, which is the only meaningful comparison.
In terms of the bottom line it should help Sony alot, which is why I clearly made the distinction between the succes of PS3, and the success of Sony as a company. BR seems a good move for the company, but no way has it turned out to be a good move for the system.
Totally agreed on the 1st party front, Sony has many more IP's, and should have many more games in development, though frankly, when you look at the actual lineups announced, MS is leading the pack. I guess we'll have to wait until 2008 for Sony to pull out the big guns.
PS3 should be right in my price range by then!
Well, believe whatever you want dude. 360 has what, 120+ games now? The 2007 lineup looks every bit as good as the competitor, so I think it's safe to say that on these consoles, with only 512mb of RAM, it's becoming obvious disc space is not a signifigant barrier. We're not talking 'several' games here, we're talking hundreds.
Come now, how is any of this even remotely relevant? There are thousands of games on the PS2, with only 32mb of RAM. You could compare this with the PS2 vs the Xbox, with the latter having a built in HDD. The latter could be used for caching and improve the games considerably, but that was hardly done. Then again, that one game was Halo 2, without which Xbox would have had, well, probably a visibly smaller install-base than GameCube.
The PS3 is what will have to show whether or not BluRay actually makes games look better and/or allow them to be larger, or are enhanced over games on the 360 in any way. The PS3 is only just out, and however well the 360 might be doing, you'll have to allow for at the very least one year for the PS3 to come up with BluRay validating games. It only takes a few important games to show why it matters, and there are a fair number of candidates. God of War 2 already maxed out its first disc for just the game, for instance, and Heavenly Sword being a similar game will probably be pretty large.
Again, yes, sure, you could do it on multiple DVDs. But what if Heavenly Sword is a success and the sequal takes up 50GB? 7 discs? And what if it were a game where you could go back to all the different levels looking for bonus items you missed, stuff like that. Swap-mania?
Despite all the endless arguing to the contrary over the last couple of years. It seems to me people are clinging to this argument while it's being proven wrong right before their eyes.
That's the thing. The Wii shows that you can sell a console with last-gen hardware features plus one innovative controller. God of War 2 on PS2 shows that you can get pretty amazing graphics even out of a last-gen console. It all proves very little.
The only thing I will be able to agree with you on, is that it does take one or two great BluRay only or BluRay enhanced titles, or PS3 games being cheaper on BluRay, or whatever, to validate the claim that BluRay enhances gaming. Probably if Sony isn't able to show this at least in one or two games before 2008, it will become less and less important. But they definitely do at least have until then to prove this point.
Ben-Nice
13-Apr-2007, 16:56
In terms of the bottom line it should help Sony alot, which is why I clearly made the distinction between the succes of PS3, and the success of Sony as a company. BR seems a good move for the company, but no way has it turned out to be a good move for the system.
Yep. It might be a good business decision for them but from a strictly gaming perspective all it did was raise the price of the console. Sometimes I wonder what would have happen if they would have dropped BR drive and instead added 256 MB more ram to the console.
pegisys
13-Apr-2007, 17:06
If PS3 first-party games start to look bigger and better than their 360 equivalents, then the pendulum will swing their way
I don't think that will actually do much to help, if most of the games people want to play ends up on the 360. The xbox had many games(1st and 3rd party) that looked better then the PS2 counterpart but people never jumped ship because the PS2 had more games people wanted to play overall
another thing is that BluRay will probably not do much to make 1st party games look better because I'm sure MS will have many 1st party games that will be just as polished and built around the limit of DVD. PS3 games may be longer or have more content, but I doubt they end up looking to much better if at all.
Diamond.G
13-Apr-2007, 17:23
Is Sony still one of the major BR replicator owners? Why not stop subsidizing BR movie replication fee's? It seems like Sony stands to make more money from BR for movies than they would from games. Show ppl that They want both to succeed. Drop the price.
BR as a format needed PS3 to include it. Check old post at AVS about how everyone should wait for the PS3, BR is gonna take off when the PS3 comes out, etc. Then Sony gets put in an interesting situation. Now they can't drop the price too low too fast cause the PS3 is a BR player (in the eyes of all thier competitors and shareholders). It is an interesting pricing game to be played. One that we all get a part of.
...
Despite all the endless arguing to the contrary over the last couple of years. It seems to me people are clinging to this argument while it's being proven wrong right before their eyes.
Well since PS3 games are not looking or playing better than 360, since online is not yet as robust, since the price is higher and monthly (NA) sales are lagging behind 360 (and Wii WW by a mile), there really is not much more to "cling to" than Blu Ray at the moment.
hopefully, when the price drops on PS3, the games start looking at least as good on multiplatform and perhaps even better on 1st party, big name games are released and sales improve, we can stop having this silly argument as there will be more valid reasons to defend the PS3.
OTOH, some people are married to Blu Ray as a movie format and just want it to defeat HD DVD. (which is strange enough that someone wants a format to beat up another format). :wink:
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 17:52
Come now, how is any of this even remotely relevant? There are thousands of games on the PS2, with only 32mb of RAM. You could compare this with the PS2 vs the Xbox, with the latter having a built in HDD. The latter could be used for caching and improve the games considerably, but that was hardly done. Then again, that one game was Halo 2, without which Xbox would have had, well, probably a visibly smaller install-base than GameCube.
The PS3 is what will have to show whether or not BluRay actually makes games look better and/or allow them to be larger, or are enhanced over games on the 360 in any way. The PS3 is only just out, and however well the 360 might be doing, you'll have to allow for at the very least one year for the PS3 to come up with BluRay validating games. It only takes a few important games to show why it matters, and there are a fair number of candidates. God of War 2 already maxed out its first disc for just the game, for instance, and Heavenly Sword being a similar game will probably be pretty large.
Ok, granted we have to wait a while to see if BR will pay off in games, it's too early to say. But, I do think 360 games are pushing the HW extremely hard off of DVD, and that at least proves that it is not a limiting factor in pushing these consoles to their limit.
Again, yes, sure, you could do it on multiple DVDs. But what if Heavenly Sword is a success and the sequal takes up 50GB? 7 discs? And what if it were a game where you could go back to all the different levels looking for bonus items you missed, stuff like that. Swap-mania?
You can always make extreme 'what if' scenarios, but are they realistic? 50gb for a game on a console with 512mb of ram? Be realistic man. Silicon Knights is stating Too Human is the largest game they've ever made by far, it looks amazing, and they're doing it in < 7gb. It shows what can be done with a little(alot?) effort. GTA4, also coming in at < 7gb. Developers are proving daily they can make it work on DVD.
That's the thing. The Wii shows that you can sell a console with last-gen hardware features plus one innovative controller. God of War 2 on PS2 shows that you can get pretty amazing graphics even out of a last-gen console. It all proves very little.
The only thing I will be able to agree with you on, is that it does take one or two great BluRay only or BluRay enhanced titles, or PS3 games being cheaper on BluRay, or whatever, to validate the claim that BluRay enhances gaming. Probably if Sony isn't able to show this at least in one or two games before 2008, it will become less and less important. But they definitely do at least have until then to prove this point.
Wii has shown you can sell last gen tech for 6months, 6-10 years? We'll have to wait and see.
And on your last point, I already agree BR can 'enhance gaming', I would never argue otherwise, obviously more space is a good thing and opens some doors for developers, this doesn't have to be proven. My point is, a handful of 'enhanced' games is going to do jack for the success of the console, especially if they come out 3 years down the road. In the end BR will have a net negative impact on the success of the console because of all the problems it caused in the first couple of years.
Sony really should've added some additional RAM imo, would've been money much better spent. But, it wouldn't have benefitted the company as a whole nearly as much.
Actually it never once outsold 360 in the same month, which is the only meaningful comparison.
In terms of the bottom line it should help Sony alot, which is why I clearly made the distinction between the succes of PS3, and the success of Sony as a company. BR seems a good move for the company, but no way has it turned out to be a good move for the system.
Totally agreed on the 1st party front, Sony has many more IP's, and should have many more games in development, though frankly, when you look at the actual lineups announced, MS is leading the pack. I guess we'll have to wait until 2008 for Sony to pull out the big guns.
PS3 should be right in my price range by then!
Err...what I said was that it had outsold it to date, which is the most important factor.
And I would suggest that 2007 will be pretty even. PGR 4, Halo and Bioshock look nice, but I cant see why there's all the hype surrounding Too Human (which so far look shite in concept and graphics) and Mass Effect (which probably wont even sell because its on Xbox). PS3 has GT5, Heavenly Sword, Uncharted, R&C and MGS4.
I think people underestimate the speed at which technology moves. Compression only gets you so far, and 7GB just isnt a lot of space. MS's big blunder was the no-HDD Core pack. If they had included one, media format would be less of an issue. As it is, MS has a problem to solve. Another SKU...?:lol:
Well since PS3 games are not looking or playing better than 360, since online is not yet as robust, since the price is higher and monthly (NA) sales are lagging behind 360 (and Wii WW by a mile), there really is not much more to "cling to" than Blu Ray at the moment.
hopefully, when the price drops on PS3, the games start looking at least as good on multiplatform and perhaps even better on 1st party, big name games are released and sales improve, we can stop having this silly argument as there will be more valid reasons to defend the PS3.
OTOH, some people are married to Blu Ray as a movie format and just want it to defeat HD DVD. (which is strange enough that someone wants a format to beat up another format). :wink:
So you would prefer a 10-year format war? :roll:
Surely if one has a PS3, he/she is likely to want Blu-ray to win over HD DVD? Though I would suggest that you are hoping the other side wins...
Jesus2006
13-Apr-2007, 18:01
Well since PS3 games are not looking or playing better than 360, since online is not yet as robust, since the price is higher and monthly (NA) sales are lagging behind 360 (and Wii WW by a mile), there really is not much more to "cling to" than Blu Ray at the moment.
Games looking better are already out, see Motorstorm. EU Launch numbers overtook both Wii and Xbox 360 launches (see other threads). And PS3 sold more than 3 million consoles WW in just about 4 month (and only 2 areas, EU just started), 360 took 1,5 years to just reach the 10th million, so im looking forward to a quite bright future ;)
hopefully, when the price drops on PS3, the games start looking at least as good on multiplatform and perhaps even better on 1st party, big name games are released and sales improve, we can stop having this silly argument as there will be more valid reasons to defend the PS3.
Also multiplatformers looking "much better" (quote from Gametrailers HD review for Oblivion on PS3) or better (FN3 and others) are already out, it just depends on the developers to put enough efforts in it to make them shine (though much more look worse currently because of bad porting).
...Though I would suggest that you are hoping the other side wins...
Wrong.
I couldn't give two chits who wins the stupid HD format. I'm just a consumer I have no vested interest in that crap. Personally I'm leaning toward digital distribution as I do not care for physical media.
...
yea, you keep clinging to that
Jesus2006
13-Apr-2007, 18:06
...
What about argueing instead of quoting me out of nothing? There's not one wrong sentence in what i wrote.
Wrong.
I couldn't give two chits who wins the stupid HD format. I'm just a consumer I have no vested interest in that crap. Personally I'm leaning toward digital distribution as I do not care for physical media.
yea, you keep clinging to that
Lol, thats at leats 5 years away from becoming anywhere near mainstream.
And I would suggest HD physical media will be more important to you the next time you get a tv, especially seeing as how the prices of HD players are falling quicker than DVD players were 10 years ago.
A... I guess we'll have to wait until 2008 for Sony to pull out the big guns.
PS3 should be right in my price range by then!
This reflects my own feeling.
Arwin, you may argue all the day long about BR and what it will eventually bring to PS3 games, this will never make that an "instant buy" for loads of people.
Many here are speaking of the future of this console to explain the reasons why people should buy it . So why urging to buy it now and not wait until next year ? Oh wait : those who say that already bought it.
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 18:19
Err...what I said was that it had outsold it to date, which is the most important factor.:lol:
How in the world is that the most important factor?
The 360 continues to increase it's lead daily, and somehow, it's sales in 2005 when it was supply limited is the most important factor?? :???:
I'm gonna need some explanation of that logic!
Now that looks like a comparison between Dreamcast that cannot play DVD and PS2 that can.
Nope,
I was just saying two things :
- 600 € a BR player is certainly not worth the price for the majority of people, today.
- When the PS3 will reach 400 € price, what will be the price of a standalone player (for the BR movie side)? What will be the Xbox360 price (for the console side) ?
I can continue : what do you expect as prices of standalone BR and HD-DVD ones for this christmas ?
Now, do you think the future of the PS3 is so bright, now ?
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 18:22
What about argueing instead of quoting me out of nothing? There's not one wrong sentence in what i wrote.
Just very poor arguments. We've always had short games, Halo 2 anyone? 360 games are not any shorter than games in the past, it's a weak argument.
Lol, thats at leats 5 years away from becoming anywhere near mainstream.
well good thing I'm a patient man. :wink:
Not to mention I can already DL HD media (movies, TV shows, specials) off of Xbox live and you can get On Demand from my cable provider.
How in the world is that the most important factor?
The 360 continues to increase it's lead daily, and somehow, it's sales in 2005 when it was supply limited is the most important factor?? :???:
I'm gonna need some explanation of that logic!
exactly.
it's just spinning numbers to reflect a positive outlook IMO. The reality is 360 is outselling it in NA and not too far behind in Europe and BOTH are insignificant currently in Japan.
Nope,
I was just saying two things :
- 600 € a BR player is certainly not worth the price for the majority of people, today.
- When the PS3 will reach 400 € price, what will be the price of a standalone player (for the BR movie side)? What will be the Xbox360 price (for the console side) ?
I can continue : what do you expect as prices of standalone BR and HD-DVD ones for this christmas ?
Now, do you think the future of the PS3 is so bright, now ?
-PS3 isnt just a 600 euro BR player
-See above and depends when
How in the world is that the most important factor?
The 360 continues to increase it's lead daily, and somehow, it's sales in 2005 when it was supply limited is the most important factor?? :???:
I'm gonna need some explanation of that logic!
Supply constrained after 5 months? DuH...I guess because in these five months, very few big PS3 games have been released. Further, the European launch was delayed, and the PS3 was very US-centric in terms of the type of games released. Only recently have games that will appeal to Japanese gamers be released, (Gundam and VF5) and bigger ones are still to come. But the platform still managed to slightly exceed 360 sales in this period. As soon as 360's average sales in Europe and the rest of the world are brought up, people instantly spout crap about supply constraints for a whole year apparently. MS reduced its sales targets for 2007...there is one reason for that, sales have disappointing outside of the US.
Once the big games on PS3 come out, I would expect that gap to decline, possibly be reversed, because PS3 is selling aswell a 360 with few AAA games and a high price tag. Certainly GT5 (the biggest franchise in the world) will greatly increase PS3 sales throughout every continent. (unlike Halo, which is only massive in the US)
well good thing I'm a patient man. :wink:
Not to mention I can already DL HD media (movies, TV shows, specials) off of Xbox live and you can get On Demand from my cable provider.
So I take you'll be getting the $180 120GB HDD? I wonder how long that will last...I would rather just use my PC. Easier and cheaper.
...I would rather just use my PC. Easier and cheaper.
well there you go then! Digital distribution for the win! :lol:
PatrickL
13-Apr-2007, 18:51
Supply constrained after 5 months? DuH...I guess because in these five months, very few big PS3 games have been released. Further, the European launch was delayed, and the PS3 was very US-centric in terms of the type of games released. Only recently have games that will appeal to Japanese gamers be released, (Gundam and VF5) and bigger ones are still to come. But the platform still managed to slightly exceed 360 sales in this period. As soon as 360's average sales in Europe and the rest of the world are brought up, people instantly spout crap about supply constraints for a whole year apparently. MS reduced its sales targets for 2007...there is one reason for that, sales have disappointing outside of the US.
Once the big games on PS3 come out, I would expect that gap to decline, possibly be reversed, because PS3 is selling aswell a 360 with few AAA games and a high price tag. Certainly GT5 (the biggest franchise in the world) will greatly increase PS3 sales throughout every continent. (unlike Halo, which is only massive in the US)
You are overestimating the impact that most games have on sales
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f64/donny2112/Sales%20Numbers/JPNConsoles-6.png
(From gaf)
When you consider that the PS3 is already cheap in Japan, the solution is maybe not as simple as a few games....
well there you go then! Digital distribution for the win! :lol:
Lol, but I was referring to 350/700mb AVI files.
You are overestimating the impact that most games have on sales
When you consider that the PS3 is already cheap in Japan, the solution is maybe not as simple as a few games....
Nice graph, but it was clear that the launch was US focused. Handhelds seem to be the trend over there for whatever reason, but I'm sure when GT5, Heavenly Sword, White Night Story and FF XIII come out, sales will be fine.
Btw, that first line is absurd. So people buy a console so they look at it? Just because the Wii only has one good game, doesnt mean sales will keep up if nothing good is released. At the moment, its selling on potential and gimmick value.
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 19:01
Supply constrained after 5 months? DuH...I guess because in these five months, very few big PS3 games have been released. Further, the European launch was delayed, and the PS3 was very US-centric in terms of the type of games released. Only recently have games that will appeal to Japanese gamers be released, (Gundam and VF5) and bigger ones are still to come. But the platform still managed to slightly exceed 360 sales in this period. As soon as 360's average sales in Europe and the rest of the world are brought up, people instantly spout crap about supply constraints for a whole year apparently. MS reduced its sales targets for 2007...there is one reason for that, sales have disappointing outside of the US.
Once the big games on PS3 come out, I would expect that gap to decline, possibly be reversed, because PS3 is selling aswell a 360 with few AAA games and a high price tag. Certainly GT5 (the biggest franchise in the world) will greatly increase PS3 sales throughout every continent. (unlike Halo, which is only massive in the US)
First of all, 360 was supply constrained during Nov/Dec, which represent 6 months worth of sales during the rest of the year. PS3 was not, making all LTD comparisons invalid.
Secondly, you still haven't explained WHY it's important at all. PS3 is not selling as well as 360, in fact it's selling far worse.
360 never dropped below 50k/week once the supply was there, PS3 is selling more like 30k/week in the US. That's the real picture.
Comparing LTD's, and ignoring 360's supply constraints during holiday is pure spin, and completely irrelevant.
because PS3 is selling aswell a 360
This is false. It's selling worse than the 360 was at this point last year, and is currently being outsold nearly 2:1 by 360 in the US.
-PS3 isnt just a 600 euro BR player
I know !
But some people are changing the rules during discussion : we deal about global offer then to one aspect, then to another, then back to global.
If not enough, we go from present to future, to present.
All in all, it seems that present offer is not worth for most people, and the future is not so cool because be it on the console front, or the HD media playtback, there are different competitors that won't just sit back and await for Sony ...
First of all, 360 was supply constrained during Nov/Dec, which represent 6 months worth of sales during the rest of the year. PS3 was not, making all LTD comparisons invalid.
Secondly, you still haven't explained WHY it's important at all. PS3 is not selling as well as 360, in fact it's selling far worse.
360 never dropped below 50k/week once the supply was there, PS3 is selling more like 30k/week in the US. That's the real picture.
Comparing LTD's, and ignoring 360's supply constraints during holiday is pure spin, and completely irrelevant.
This is false. It's selling worse than the 360 was at this point last year, and is currently being outsold nearly 2:1 by 360 in the US.
??PS3 was constrained in two months aswell, so I guess it makes it even-making a comparison somewhat more valid. Spin? I'm just typing the facts, no matter how badly you want to use cover-ups.
2:1? I havent seen those numbers. I do know that PS3 is closing the gap in Japan and Europe however. Btw, if you read the previous post properly, you'll that I mentioned that 360 was selling well in the US, just that it wasnt selling particularly well anywhere else.
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 19:21
??PS3 was constrained in two months aswell, so I guess it makes it even-making a comparison somewhat more valid. Spin? I'm just typing the facts, no matter how badly you want to use cover-ups.
2:1? I havent seen those numbers. I do know that PS3 is closing the gap in Japan and Europe however. Btw, if you read the previous post properly, you'll that I mentioned that 360 was selling well in the US, just that it wasnt selling particularly well anywhere else.
PS3 still had far more supply during the holiday months than 360, and was not supply contrained through April. But, I'll just leave you to your version of the facts.
As for 2:1, NPD in Feb was 228k:127k. That is not sellin 'as well' sorry.
No-one has numbers for EU. According to MS they've sold 10.4million units, only 5-6million went to NA. ~4million units went to EU. If you have other numbers lets see em!
2:1? I havent seen those numbers. I do know that PS3 is closing the gap in Japan and Europe however. Btw, if you read the previous post properly, you'll that I mentioned that 360 was selling well in the US, just that it wasnt selling particularly well anywhere else.
UK last week (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=24120)
17,000 PlayStation 3
11,000 Xbox 360
NPD Feb '07 (NA)
228,000 Xbox 360
127,000 PlayStation 3
Japan last week
14,520 PS3
2,963 Xbox360
and Wii ... 52,583 for perspective on Japan.
edit: beaten on npd by Scooby ;)
PS3 still had far more supply during the holiday months than 360, and was not supply contrained through April. But, I'll just leave you to your version of the facts.
As for 2:1, NPD in Feb was 228k:127k. That is not sellin 'as well' sorry.
No-one has numbers for EU. According to MS they've sold 10.4million units, only 5-6million went to NA. ~4million units went to EU. If you have other numbers lets see em!
Far more supply? but no proof...
The only numbers I have are, just about 10m for MS, and over 3m for PS3. I think that speaks for itself.
Given PS3's price, lack of games at this moment in time, and delayed European launch, I dont think its the doomsday scenario you paint. In fact, I think its FUD. I mean what kind of statement is "consumers are rejecting PS3 based on price", based on it not selling aswell as you thought it would?
...
The only numbers I have are, just about 10m for MS, and over 3m for PS3. I think that speaks for itself.
...
well launch sales to the early adopters (who waited a long time) is one thing and it's a fine start... but take another look at the weekly/monthly numbers and the lead for 360 will only widen at the current rate.
PatrickL
13-Apr-2007, 19:41
It is pretty easy to see that the PS3 was not supply limited, and that very fast after launch. If you dig a little you should find a PR from sony with 1 million PS3 shipped to japan by December 31. We know that early april that million is still not sold, so no chance that it was supply limited in december.
We will get NPD numbers next thursday so things will be a bit more clear for US.
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 19:53
Far more supply? but no proof...
The only 4months where the 360 did not sell at least 50k/week were from Jan-March. Hmmm...wonder what in the world caused that!
The only numbers I have are, just about 10m for MS, and over 3m for PS3. I think that speaks for itself.
Numbers are bogus, since PS3 is actually around 2million. And the 10m for MS is 4 months old...
I dont think its the doomsday scenario you paint.
:roll: What doomsday scenario am I painting exactly? Show me what post you're referring too.
It is pretty easy to see that the PS3 was not supply limited, and that very fast after launch. If you dig a little you should find a PR from sony with 1 million PS3 shipped to japan by December 31. We know that early april that million is still not sold, so no chance that it was supply limited in december.
We will get NPD numbers next thursday so things will be a bit more clear for US.
The statement was 1m to the US. Please get your "facts" straight.
The only 4months where the 360 did not sell at least 50k/week were from Jan-March. Hmmm...wonder what in the world caused that!
Numbers are bogus, since PS3 is actually around 2million. And the 10m for MS is 4 months old...
2m?? Logic has just gone out the window. I dont think its even worth the effort.
MS had only shipped 10.4m up until a few weeks ago, and sales have been slow recently, but if you want to play the MS cheerleader...
Numbers are bogus, since PS3 is actually around 2million. And the 10m for MS is 4 months old...
Microsoft shipped 10,4M 360s by the end of 06. They probably still haven't sold all of them.
Since the thread is no longer about Blu-Ray drive, my suggestion is to close it.
Microsoft shipped 10,4M 360s by the end of 06. They probably still haven't sold all of them.
Since the thread is no longer about Blu-Ray drive, my suggestion is to close it.
This is a solid discussion and probably belongs in the huge npd financial thread-ama-thingy.
MS had only shipped 10.4m up until a few weeks ago,
yea, if you're still living in January '07. :lol:
...sales have been slow recently,
compared to what? did you even see the numbers posted above?
but if you want to play the MS cheerleader...
yea, that's helpful
PatrickL
13-Apr-2007, 20:22
The statement was 1m to the US. Please get your "facts" straight.
As I said, dig around fot the PR. I did it : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16648162/
The 1 million mark was tounted for January 15, we are 3 months later and still not sold.
Yes, you wouldn't have optional languages and Insomniac would be forced to make real-time cut-scenes. Other than that it would be the same game.Spend just one hour with Resistance online matchmaking and find out how wrong you are. Hints: the game assets don't fit on a DVD. Nobody wants to juggle DVDs between 15-minute online matches.
I'm not saying BRD exctra space will not be useful. I think that initial PS3 games weren't just games that showed that BRD was all that necessary.It can't be allowed to be.
The only 4months where the 360 did not sell at least 50k/week were from Jan-March. Hmmm...wonder what in the world caused that!Poor games line-up. I remember those as the months where Xbox 360 owners played nothing but PGR3 and Geometry Wars.
Then came Graw and Oblivion, and the situation improved.
Poor games line-up. I remember those as the months where Xbox 360 owners played nothing but PGR3 and Geometry Wars.
Then came Graw and Oblivion, and the situation improved.
you forgot CoD2, Madden, Prefect Dark at launch... all eventual million sellers.
it was supply constrained due to memory chip fab until April.... common knowledge.
scooby_dooby
13-Apr-2007, 21:00
2m?? Logic has just gone out the window. I dont think its even worth the effort.
Well you sure aren't making much of an effort to provide sources for your claims. 1.1 mil in the US, you think they've sold an additonal 2million WW?
Rolf - Come on now, it was extremely hard to find a 360 in North America until April 06, this is common knowledge. And the game library was very solid, Madden, Kameo, COD2, PD0, Condemned, Fight Night 3 and more. No reason to play these games.
yea, if you're still living in January '07. :lol:
compared to what? did you even see the numbers posted above?
yea, that's helpful
Exactly, shipped. From January, has the 360 sold in massive quantities? Nope. I'd be surprised if they've even sold 10.4m.
Well you sure aren't making much of an effort to provide sources for your claims. 1.1 mil in the US, you think they've sold an additonal 2million WW?
Rolf - Come on now, it was extremely hard to find a 360 in North America until April 06, this is common knowledge. And the game library was very solid, Madden, Kameo, COD2, PD0, Condemned, Fight Night 3 and more. No reason to play these games.
You've offered nothing except convoluted theories. Even nextgenwars has it 2.8m and VGCharts at over 3m. Neither is 100% accurate, but they sure as hell are more accurate than your guestimates.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.