PS3 HDD REQUIRED to Play Games but is NOT Standard?

[ROG27]

Even with your translation I don't see how the final outcome (system with HDD) is different for Sony or Microsoft. The arguments for or against a game that will not work unless you have the drive are still the same. If anything MS's message may have been more of a bone throwing to those with the core system. I would like to see the reaction of people when (and if) there are games that won't work without a harddisk (for either system).

Oh games will work without a harddrive...the slide didn't say "Enable gameplay" ... it said "Enhance gameplay". But just because core gameplay will work without a harddrive, how could the consumer not want the full gaming experience by being able to do the following things (only with the HDD):

-Save Game enabling (carry over from proprietary memory card days)
-Enhanced gameplay (caching for faster load times....larger worlds, etc.)
-Full Online Capability
-Custom Tracks
-Level Editing
-Etc.

Ask yourself this question, "Would I play the PS2 without a memory card? I mean I could, but would I?" Your answer would probably be "NO way!".

If by chance they decide to not include the HDD in a SKU in a particular market...they will market the HDD like the memory card...so that, like the conclusion of my theoretical question above, every consumer will most definitely purchase a HDD. In line with that thinking, if the HDD isn't included in the SKU, the harddrive will be priced very reasonably (around the price of 1 game ~$50.00 USD).

Sony know how to market a peripheral to make them a "standard"*...just use the INCENTIVE system.

*aside from the not so well thought out harddrive in the PS2

 

[scooby_dooby]

Oh games will work without a harddrive...the slide didn't say "Enable gameplay" ... it said "Enhance gameplay". But just because core gameplay will work without a harddrive, how could the consumer not want the full gaming experience by being able to do the following things (only with the HDD):

-Save Game enabling (carry over from proprietary memory card days)
-Enhanced gameplay (caching for faster load times....larger worlds, etc.)
-Full Online Capability
-Custom Tracks
-Level Editing
-Etc.

Exactly. Just like Xbox 360. The exact same idea.

What will be most interesting is to see if Sony bundles a HDD... and if they don't, will consumers buy it? It depends on what extra's they can offer, video downloads, music downloads, games...they definately have the potential to make the HDD very attractive, but will they execute?

It's one thing for KK to plead for HDD support, but developers are going to need that install base. If he really wants HDD as part of the system they should do what MS did and use 2 SKU's making the HDD version far more attractive OR if he won't do 2 SKU's bite the bullet and include it in every PS3. We'll see.

Either way though, its no more requiered than it is for 360, the only question now is who will have the higher attach rate.

 

[valioso]

Exactly. Just like Xbox 360. The exact same idea..

Then why make the quotes so friggin obscure that can lead to misanderstanding.. somethings should not be so complicated

 

[ROG27]

Exactly. Just like Xbox 360. The exact same idea.

What will be most interesting is to see if Sony bundles a HDD... and if they don't, will consumers buy it? It depends on what extra's they can offer, video downloads, music downloads, games...they definately have the potential to make the HDD very attractive, but will they execute?

It's one thing for KK to plead for HDD support, but developers are going to need that install base. If he really wants HDD as part of the system they should do what MS did and use 2 SKU's making the HDD version far more attractive OR if he won't do 2 SKU's bite the bullet and include it in every PS3. We'll see.

Either way though, its no more requiered than it is for 360, the only question now is who will have the higher attach rate.

This is why there will be a one SKU PS3 Value Pack (including 'bundled' HDD) when PS3 launches...mark my words.

Sony's later iteration of the PS3 SKU may or may not have the HDD 'bundled'...but you can bet the intial one will. The inclusion of such a peripheral makes otherwise expensive hardware seem attractive. It will also lower the demand slightly to keep the limited initial supply in-line with demand, until production can be ramped up to a level where the cost savings can be passed on to the consumer. It is a marketing tactic that worked well with the PSP...Sony will do the same with the PS3.

 

[scooby_dooby]

This is why there will be a one SKU PS3 Value Pack (including 'bundled' HDD) when PS3 launches...mark my words.

Marked

I'm not disputing that possibility, I just think that it's extremely remote given the cost challenges already facing the PS3. And like I said, even if they do, it's no different than MS shipping 100% premiums.

 

[ROG27]

I think the issue with splitting the user-base is only an issue when there is a divide in the beginning. That's establishing two separate, independently growing user-bases. If for the first year or two, every user who purchases a PS3 is forced to pick up the 'bundled' harddrive, the precedent will be set by the one userbase that every PS3 will have a harddrive...even though, technically, Sony could introduce another SKU (or revise the one SKU) without a harddrive to allow user's more flexibility with harddrive choices as they are introduced and to cut costs on their end. The precedent of an installed user base all having a harddrive is what's important...not the fact that a harddrive is or isn't included with the system over the entire life of the system.

I believe we should look to what Sony did with the PSP with the 32 MB memory stick they included to set a precedent and to mask the high price of the hardware initially.

This works because say they want to compare to XBOX360's Premium Pack in perceived market value. They know they can't price the hardware below $425.00USD though. So, what do they do? They tack $25.00 onto the sticker price ($450.00) and break even on including that harddrive which is likely costing them $25.00 in the huge quantities they will order.

 

[Diamond.G]

I'm chalking it up to, in the end, a chicken and the egg type of experience. Just like it is on the 360. I don't think anyone would like to own a game that is crippled because of a missing peice of hardware. There is another rub of sorts, all of the things Sony has mentioned the PS3 doing with a HDD MS has practically done so as well. Now all we can do is leave it up to the developers to choose how to support these ideas.

 

[manux]

Well, how about just connecting the ps3 to a computer via. ethernet. And then simple software to enable use of pc's harddrive as massmemory for ps3 ? Shouldn't be too hard for just storing data, latency ofcourse is whole another thing... Or what about using cf/memorystick/usb based massmemories for data storage.

In practice one could think that even with latency problem games would work. It's just that they would work better with native and fast hard drives. This would be unfortunate for average guy who get's bad performance without knowing why. But for many it would be enough, no need to by memory card, everything works and if one wants performance buy the damn hard drive.

 

[ROG27]

I'm chalking it up to, in the end, a chicken and the egg type of experience. Just like it is on the 360. I don't think anyone would like to own a game that is crippled because of a missing peice of hardware. There is another rub of sorts, all of the things Sony has mentioned the PS3 doing with a HDD MS has practically done so as well. Now all we can do is leave it up to the developers to choose how to support these ideas.

That may just be the thing...and I wonder if any devs could help clear this up...Could Sony mandate that every title make use of the harddrive in some fashion?

 

[one]

At least in EU they'll sell all PS3 with HDD (w/ Linux) to escape the videogame tax.

 

[AzBat]

Oh games will work without a harddrive...the slide didn't say "Enable gameplay" ... it said "Enhance gameplay". But just because core gameplay will work without a harddrive, how could the consumer not want the full gaming experience by being able to do the following things (only with the HDD):

-Save Game enabling (carry over from proprietary memory card days)
-Enhanced gameplay (caching for faster load times....larger worlds, etc.)
-Full Online Capability
-Custom Tracks
-Level Editing
-Etc.

Ask yourself this question, "Would I play the PS2 without a memory card? I mean I could, but would I?" Your answer would probably be "NO way!".

I agree the way it reads to me is that the hard drive is the new memory card and that memory cards(and slots) will not be available for the PS3. No more PS1/PS2 memory card slots. Some have theorized that Sony will allow for saving games to CompactFlash, SD or MemoryStick slots, but I'm starting to think that may no longer be the case. Those may only be used for media(kinda like connecting USB storage to the 360). Sony makes a boat load money on memory cards. So there's no incentive for them to allow saving onto a piece of hardware that they possibly won't see any revenues from. As for the PSP, I know it has a MemoryStick slot for saving games, but since any brand of MemoryStick can be used they're probably not making much money off it. Good thing it's a portable device with lots of proprietary accessories like batteries, etc. That's where they make their big money, not on the memory cards.

If by chance they decide to not include the HDD in a SKU in a particular market...they will market the HDD like the memory card...so that, like the conclusion of my theoretical question above, every consumer will most definitely purchase a HDD. In line with that thinking, if the HDD isn't included in the SKU, the harddrive will be priced very reasonably (around the price of 1 game ~$50.00 USD).

Sony know how to market a peripheral to make them a "standard"*...just use the INCENTIVE system.

*aside from the not so well thought out harddrive in the PS2

BINGO!

I do agree that if they use the incentive that a hard drive is required for saving games instead of using a memory card, then it's definitely going to work. People will have no other choice but to buy one.

To me it looks like they're going the route of the Xbox1, but they're making the decision to not subsidizing the cost of the drive into every SKU. I can only see this working if and only if the cost of the drive is $50 or less for the base model.

Tommy McClain

 

[Diamond.G]

I wonder, if Sony sells their HDD for around 50 dollars will that prompt MS to reduce the price of their HDD to match...

 

[seismologist]

Exactly. Just like Xbox 360. The exact same idea.

It sounds like the opposite of Xbox 360 if you ask me.

Microsoft - "Dont assume there will be a hard drive"

Sony - "Make games with the assumption there is a hard drive"


Seems pretty different philosophy. Now I expect Sony to launch the PS3 bundled with HDD. Maybe later down the road release a core package giving people the option to buy whatever size HD you want seperately.
i.e. if you want you can buy the core PS3 and a $30 10 gig HD
Not much different from buying a memory card with the PS2 today.
But it's still required.

 

[pakotlar]

I personally think that MS made a bad decision with regards to its HDD guidlines ("assume HDD is NOT there"). That being said, it seems that many Xbox360 developers are programming their games to take advantage of the main advantage a HDD offers - local streaming. I believe that the Xbox360 vs PS3 HDD debate will be concluded by the content released for each platform. I wonder if any dev teams will shy away from Xbox360 based on the lack of standardized HDD. Although, we have to ask ourselves, would Microsoft really have created a Core SKU without good reason? I wonder what they learned from Xbox1 sales/dev support that we aren't seeing.

 

[Phil]

That being said, it seems that many Xbox360 developers are programming their games to take advantage of the main advantage a HDD offers - local streaming.

That's where I disagree. A HD used to its full potential is much more than simply "local streaming". A HD can expand gameplay where you'd be storing more (dynamic) information than RAM limitations allow. I am aware that Xbox had this advantage, but that it wasn't effectively used. I also think there are few developers on Xbox that really ever pushed its potential since most games were geared towards being portable friendly with 2 other consoles that lacked a HD. If PS3 developers will use this advantage, that only time will show however.

 

[Platon]

It sounds like the opposite of Xbox 360 if you ask me.

Microsoft - "Dont assume there will be a hard drive"

Sony - "Make games with the assumption there is a hard drive"


Seems pretty different philosophy. Now I expect Sony to launch the PS3 bundled with HDD. Maybe later down the road release a core package giving people the option to buy whatever size HD you want seperately.
i.e. if you want you can buy the core PS3 and a $30 10 gig HD
Not much different from buying a memory card with the PS2 today.
But it's still required.

Yes and no. It might sound different but in the end be the same. You have to concider where they are coming from. MS has had a HD in all the consoles and now tells the developers that there will not be an HD in every one and they should see to it that the game runs without a HDD as well. Sony on the other hand did not have a HDD and thereofre wants to make sure that devs are actually going to be using the one that they will now promote in one way or the other. Sony doesn't say that games will not be owrking without a HDD, just as MS doesn't say that the developers should not be taking advantage of HDD if it exists in the SKU.

But I still have difficulty seeing Sony selling a console which needs a HDD and that will not be included. Sure, by not including the price for the PS3 looks lower, but will not consulers see through that, when they pay $425 for the console and $50-100 for the HDD which they need. With that money they can get a premium and a game...

 

[Platon]

That's where I disagree. A HD used to its full potential is much more than simply "local streaming". A HD can expand gameplay where you'd be storing more (dynamic) information than RAM limitations allow. I am aware that Xbox had this advantage, but that it wasn't effectively used. I also think there are few developers on Xbox that really ever pushed its potential since most games were geared towards being portable friendly with 2 other consoles that lacked a HD. If PS3 developers will use this advantage, that only time will show however.

Sure, you could have games like Blinx, where you record your game and pause it and rewind and what ever, I do wonder though if there are any other applications where a HDD is absolutely essential for a game. And then there is always the thing about something being really nice and novel and usefull but then you always also have the risk of developers comming up with a gimmick that faids away quite fast, but sure no doubt it would have been better if everyone had a HDD...

 

[Titanio]

FWIW

http://uk.videogames.games.yahoo.com/25/news/ps3-will-have-hard-drive-as-standard-3c0925.html

Our Sony representative has confirmed this morning that PlayStation 3 will come with a 60GB HDD as standard, but that can be upgraded if preferred.

Some of the larger US websites have been speculating that PlayStation 3 would be shipping with an optional 60GB hard disc drive. However we can confirm this morning that all PS3 consoles will be sold with the HDD out of the box.

I'd prefer a direct quote, there are so many subtleties that can work there way into stuff like this (just look at Kutaragi's comments about it). Someone at Yahoo or SCEE could be getting their wires crossed also. I also don't really buy it, because Kutaragi himself said they weren't sure yet if they'd include it in the box or not.

 

[ROG27]

Titanio....I think my idea is what they are shooting for:

The initial PS3 SKU will come 'bundled' with a 60 GB harddrive...for a premium price (think PSP Value Pack).

A year or two down the line, when a solid customer base has been established, Sony will offer a revised SKU less HDD for a substantially lower price. By this time, Sony will be offering a number of different sized HDD options (ie 40 GB, 60 GB, 100 GB, etc.) to be purchased separately. The customer will be able to choose at this time which option is best for them...but the precedent (and incentives attached to the precedent--enable full feature set of game) that there is always a hdd present to play games will have been established by this time, thus avoiding the splitting of the userbase while allowing Sony to control costs on their end (so that they don't hit a cost floor with the HDDs like MS did in XBOX1).

A much better solution than the 2 SKUs sold by Microsoft.

 

[Sis]

It sounds like the opposite of Xbox 360 if you ask me.

Microsoft - "Dont assume there will be a hard drive"

Sony - "Make games with the assumption there is a hard drive"

Microsoft's stated position is that a game should not expect a hard drive to always be attached. This is about making sure games handle that scenario gracefully.

Sony will be in the same position with their hard drive solution. Games will have to expect that one might not be there. Again, using the HDD is not the same as a memory card, since the actual execution of the game may rely on the HDD, whereas only game saves/loads rely on the memory card.