David Jaffe: I Would Not Have Included Blu-ray in PS3

[Shifty Geezer]

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
Part 2

 

[Arwin]

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]

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.

 

[NIB]

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.

 

[Arwin]

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.

 

[-tkf-]

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.

 

[Arwin]

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.

 

[Nesh]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Vic]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Carl B]

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.

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]

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]

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.

 

[Carl B]

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.

 

[one]

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.

 

[nelg]

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.