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

[scooby_dooby]

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]

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]

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.

Jeeeeez man!!

Do you guys just like... Not care about voiding your warranties???

 

[Carl B]

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]

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.

 

[Carl B]

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]

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.

 

[Carl B]

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.

 

[-tkf-]

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]

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.

 

[one]

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]

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]

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

 

[dobwal]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Sis]

I quote my old comment
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=960601&postcount=138

First DVD player launched: November 1996 (source)
PS2 Launched: March, 2000 (source)
Months from DVD launch to PS2 launch: 41 months.

First Blu-ray player launched: June 2006 (source)
PS3 launched: November 2006 (source)
Months from Blu-ray launch to PS3 launch: 5 months.

 

[Vic]

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.

 

[Kryton]

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]

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.