J. Allard interview by Hiroshige Goto pt.2

[London Geezer]

Don't know, it seems Sony wants to push their own standards on one side (MS, MS DUO and Blueray etc), then now they want to make PS3 this Electronics Expo kind of machine, with everything thrown in to please everyone, when really, one single user will only use a very very small percentage of what's there.

Personally, and i'm quite geeky, i will only use the MS slot (i have a Sony camera so i will tend to buy MemStick DUOs), i will only use one ethernet port (online) and one video port (normal TV gaming). I will definately TRY all the niftly things like dual screen, but in the end i'll only want to play the gorgeous games. And you only need a controller and a TV for that.

99% of the people out there only have 1 camera, which uses only one kind of removable memory stick thing. So 99% of the people will only ever use one out of all the memory slots on PS3. The people with more types of memory cards will be the ones that are very much into technology and will already have a PC equipped with whatever they need.

Unless they find a REAL reason to hook up 2 or more PS3s, i really don't see how many of us will use all the Ethernet ports.

Dual HDMI... Well same story really, though i might have more uses for that, eventually i WILL have 2 HDMI-compatible TVs so you never know... In the meantime one HDMI and one analog makes more sense.

They made all those features that should be add-ons (3 slots, 3 ethernet, 6 usb2 - they could have made "PS3 hubs" for all of those, all USB compatible, apart from the Ethernet really) standard, and made the one feature that really should be standard (The Hard Drive) an Add-on... Strange...

 

[archie4oz]

Personally, and i'm quite geeky, i will only use the MS slot (i have a Sony camera so i will tend to buy MemStick DUOs), i will only use one ethernet port (online) and one video port (normal TV gaming).

See, me personally I use a lot of CF and MS media (trying to avoid getting sucked into SD), so the CF support along with MS appeals to me.

99% of the people out there only have 1 camera, which uses only one kind of removable memory stick thing. So 99% of the people will only ever use one out of all the memory slots on PS3. The people with more types of memory cards will be the ones that are very much into technology and will already have a PC equipped with whatever they need.

Chances are, unless you use a MS camera, you're going to need two forms of flash as I doubt game saves and any financial transactions will likely want to be stored on hardware encryption media. That leaves MS and SD, and while I don't think supporting both would be a huge undertaking, I wouldn't bank on it.

You're also forgetting flash media is showing up a lot more in other devices as well... If you've got a CF (or SD) camera, and a PSP then you're already dealing with 2 medias. Or perhaps an SD mp3 player? SD or CF camera or video phone? Using SD in your camcorder? CF or SD on your PDA?

Dual HDMI... Well same story really, though i might have more uses for that, eventually i WILL have 2 HDMI-compatible TVs so you never know... In the meantime one HDMI and one analog makes more sense.

Your forgetting regular DVI-D LCD monitors... College dorms...

They made all those features that should be add-ons (3 slots, 3 ethernet, 6 usb2 - they could have made "PS3 hubs" for all of those, all USB compatible, apart from the Ethernet really)

Ick! No... I already want at least 3 USB ports in my PS2 to avoid having to swap devices on it...

For starters, nothing is "free" or "essentially free", a second output is a second cost that is being passed onto the consumer.

No, but the cost can be negligible. Also it's not guaranteed that it gets passed on to the consumer, and instead simply just factored into the profit loss window...

Point is, Gig is not for there for the internet.

Don't rely on your little world to make that assumption... I have several friend's and old coworkers in Japan who have 100Mbps FTTH, and there's already several carriers offering 1Gbps FTTH...

 

[twotonfld]

I forgot about Japanese FTTH - that's a good point.

The fricken US sucks with BB.

 

[Inane_Dork]

The most likely reason that the cost is "free" for the second output is that the RSX is little different than a PC card. Since it was already in the design, it would have cost more money to take it out than to manufacture it.


Sony should rename the PS3 to the Kitchen Sink.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

No, but the cost can be negligible. Also it's not guaranteed that it gets passed on to the consumer, and instead simply just factored into the profit loss window...

can be negligible? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Can't we all agree on a few simple premises?

1) Sony isn't offering the HDD standard as a way to save costs.

Can we agree on that?

2) Every component/option included in the PS3 costs money.

Can we agree on that?

If we can all agree on those two very simple items, then it's clear that every option that has been included in the PS3 as standard has been included in the PS3 at the expense of the HDD.

Whether its the memory ports, the dual HDMI outs, the dual gig Ethernet, or the BR drive, they all cost money and Sony decided to include all those things standard while deciding to not include the HDD as standard.

And the vast majority of the things they have decided to include will have little to no impact on game play for the vast majority of consumers. Conversely, the thing they decided not to include (the HDD), would have a huge impact on game play and would be used by the vast majority of consumers.

That's the issue. Sure, you can say it's "nice" that the PS3 has all these extra features that some small minority might use, and you can argue that simply replacing the BR with a simple DVD wouldn't be enough cost savings to add a HDD, or that dual HDMI are "free" so it doesn't matter, etc.. But all these things, that very few people will ever use, all add up to additional costs that are prohibiting Sony from including a HDD.

 

[London Geezer]

Archie, i understand what you're saying, but really, i think i'm closer to Mr Joe Average than you. I mean, i never worked for Square afterall, for a start.


Secondly, my main point was that Sony made all these little nifty features standards, when they could very well have been add-ons, and left the one feature that should really be made standard (the hard drive) and add-on.


Makes little sense to me, and i think everyone knows i'm quite the Sony guy around here. Unless i'm missing something big, it makes little sense to do that to me.

Those nifty slots and features will cetainly make PS3 a very interesting device, but i would have thought a HDD would take priority over them, since it can enhance games, while they can't, at least not straight away for everyone.

Even you making the point that your mates have 100Mbps internet connections and shortly will see the 1Gbit ones... Again, let's talk about what 99.999999999999% of the people will have access to (that is, the <1Mb people). Things are getting better, i'm getting a free automatic upgrade to 8Mb in 2 weeks time (from 4Mb), but before we see those kinda of speeds being "normal" - or even on the same level of acceptance as 8Mb is not - we'll have PS4. For 3 years or so.

 

[Tsmit42]

Why does everyone blame Sony for "Developers" being lazy? If the HDD is attached the developer can cache to it, if not then they would read from the disk. People that have the HDD would benefit, and people who didn't buy it would wait a bit longer. I personally don't think that would take a lot of time to implement from a dev point of view, and the people that are a bit more patient could save a few bucks.

 

[Acert93]

Again, let's talk about what 99.999999999999% of the people will have access to.

I agree LB. But this may all hing on philosophies. Sony is aiming at an Entertainment Device that plays games. In a couple interviews they have been VERY quick to say, "It is not a game console... games will be the killer app, but it is an Entertainment Device".

That is great for some people, and not for others. Personally I would prefer a HDD for gaming. But Sony's vision is more of an entertainment device, so maybe the dual HDMI ports and media ports and multiple Gbit land ports are part of that different vision.

Obviously as a hardcore gamer who wants a console for killer games I question that vision. A HDD is more valuable to me and I hate the idea of sacrificing some game-centric features for useless media feature I personally will never use. But Sony cannot make EVERYONE happy. They have to build to their vision. And part of that may be that they are duplicating some of the functions and features of the PC. I am not sure that is a good strategy, but it may be part of their thinking.

Maybe Sony's online service will come bundled with a HDD?

 

[BlueTsunami]

As far as the multiple ethernet ports go, do you think that a device could be daisy chained from the PS3? So lets say you run a ethernet cable to the PS3 and you have another device in the area, you could run a wire out from the PS3 into the other device. I would find that pretty usefull....

The dual HDMI ports isn't negligible I believe....have any of you seen these Halo parties? I know that way of the future is Online gaming, but recently I went to this party my cousin was throwing and he had 3 regular TVs hooked up to three different PS2's (We had a Madden 2005 and Nascar 2005 tournament....I came in third on Maddena and Second on Nascar with Mark Martin ). The point is....it would be really cool to have on PS3 connected to two TVs that are back to back and you have a player on each side. This would be really cool for Madden AND Nascar (as well as various other games).

HDTV's are also getting smaller and cheaper....so who knows, if we'll get flatpanel HDTV's that are cheap and lightweight.....when that happens setting up multiple TV's won't be that much of an issue.....

The Multiple Card ports I see as them really going through with this Media HUB aspect. As a poster already stated if you have a PSP and some other Device (Camera, Video Camer) + A Memory card for the PS3....you probably WILL be utilizing more card ports than you think....

Finally....I am kinda dissapointed that the Harddisk is going to be a addon, Like L-B said....thats one of the things that should have been a mandatory piece of hardware......

EDIT: I just read Acert's post...and he brought up a good point.....the point that Sony's Online Package could bundle a HDD....imagine getting a small sized HDD (with the package thats good enough for general online gaming) and being able to upgrade to larger ones depending on your needs. This allows Developers to not worry about the HDD with Online PS3 users because if they got Sony's Online Package (which will be the only legal way to get online with the PS3)...they get an HDD with the Package..

 

[London Geezer]

Again, let's talk about what 99.999999999999% of the people will have access to.

I agree LB. But this may all hing on philosophies. Sony is aiming at an Entertainment Device that plays games. In a couple interviews they have been VERY quick to say, "It is not a game console... games will be the killer app, but it is an Entertainment Device".

That is great for some people, and not for others. Personally I would prefer a HDD for gaming. But Sony's vision is more of an entertainment device, so maybe the dual HDMI ports and media ports and multiple Gbit land ports are part of that different vision.

Obviously as a hardcore gamer who wants a console for killer games I question that vision. A HDD is more valuable to me and I hate the idea of sacrificing some game-centric features for useless media feature I personally will never use. But Sony cannot make EVERYONE happy. They have to build to their vision. And part of that may be that they are duplicating some of the functions and features of the PC. I am not sure that is a good strategy, but it may be part of their thinking.

Maybe Sony's online service will come bundled with a HDD?

I just think that even as an "entertainment hub", a HDD would just fit in perfectly and allow much more.
They either go full on and put everything in, or get their priorities straight. A HDD would make it a perfect machine. But it needs to be standard or the developers just won't care about it, like with PS2.

Personally i don't care, i'll get one as soon as i can put my hands on one (u know, in 2008 here in the UK), but as it stands, it seems they just don't have their priorities straight. Again, unless i'm missing something....

 

[Fafalada]

can be negligible? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Why should it be so ridiculous?
Take dual HDMI for instance - they likely cost no more then the plastic&metal used to construct the ports.
The actual video out on the chip is negligible - even CRT controller in PS2 has dual video outputs, they just never bothered to hook two ports to them.

 

[koldfuzion1]

Rancid, I wasn't suggesting that there is any kind of "free" lunch here, but I believe Inane is correct--from what I recall, the video card's initial design has two ports built on it (being a derivative of a PC card) and changing it to make only one output is more trouble than it's worth, so it is "free" in the sense that there is actually an incremental cost to *removing* the second port, and no incremental cost to leaving the thing alone. Yes, there must be a slight cost to the port itself, but in the grand scheme of things, it is relatively negligable, as compared to having one port. I don't have a source, but that is my sense of the situation.

Otherwise, I am in agreement that, the base model should include an HDD, namely a small (10gig) HDD, with optional upgrades to improve load times and to provide additional online support functions.

Even if this results in a 30-40 dollar hit to the base price it's worth it, the marketing downside for *not* including it is pretty high. I think part of that discussion re 'I'm not sure we will include HDD' was a trial balloon to see if folks would go ballistic if Sony suggested taking the HDD out, and from the boards I've looked at, well, many people have done just that. Despite online users/hardcore gamers comprising a very small percentage of the fan base, this is 1) also their most hardcore and important market at launch and by implication 2) these gamers are the early adopters that will pay the full $299-450 price tag, so Sony BETTER make them happy so they can recoup the upfront production costs early on when producing this box is far more costly. Of course an idiot like me would go out and buy the HDD peripheral anyway, but the negative buzz about it would be pretty damaging. Maybe Sony figures, "well they'll buy the damn thing anyway and the add-ons too" but if you want to generate positive buzz for the balance of the market, (and keep kicking M$ in the balls) that strikes me as penny-wise and pound foolish. I can just see the idiots on G4 snickering about the absence of an HDD now: "Dude, it's cool, but no Hard drive? Like whut's up with that??? At least 360 I can, like, save my infooo." "Yeah, totally man, it's like PS 2.1, it blows. Next gen, my butt." Not a pretty picture for SCEA marketing guys. Though the "Dude, PS3 is like such a ripoff!" conversation wouldn't look much better... Tough call, but I think an HDD is critical.

I'd be very surprised if Sony dropped HDD altogether for the base box. However, I don't think at this point that many bells and whistles, ports etc. will come off the machine regardless of (dis)utility--now that they put them all on. (e.g. I think hell would freeze over before BRD or the unified format whatever it winds up being, is not included in the box). Sony would look stupid/incompetent to downsize features after the fact--unfortunately the base price is probably just going to go up.

 

[goonergaz]

No, but the cost can be negligible. Also it's not guaranteed that it gets passed on to the consumer, and instead simply just factored into the profit loss window...

can be negligible? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

No offence mate, but obviously you havent' worked at the level where costs for 'extra this and that' come in...esp. when talking about 20M (plus) units.

I used to work for a monitor manufacturer, and we'd order, say 1000 units of a TFT screen - well the unit with sound - that's sound board, speakers (in the bezel), audio socket etc cost (and I kid you not) A FEW PENCE!!

For that few pence to us, we had a monitor that offered a niche market something that very few offered. It made total buisness sense to include it.

I might also add (going back to PS3) that you don't HAVE to have a HD TV to display an output.

I'm sure this is all Sony is doing 'an extra feature for nothing'. A HDD however would cost a substantial amount (in comparison)

 

[scooby_dooby]

No, but the cost can be negligible. Also it's not guaranteed that it gets passed on to the consumer, and instead simply just factored into the profit loss window...

can be negligible? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

No offence mate, but obviously you havent' worked at the level where costs for 'extra this and that' come in...esp. when talking about 20M (plus) units.

I used to work for a monitor manufacturer, and we'd order, say 1000 units of a TFT screen - well the unit with sound - that's sound board, speakers (in the bezel), audio socket etc cost (and I kid you not) A FEW PENCE!!

For that few pence to us, we had a monitor that offered a niche market something that very few offered. It made total buisness sense to include it.

I might also add (going back to PS3) that you don't HAVE to have a HD TV to display an output.

I'm sure this is all Sony is doing 'an extra feature for nothing'. A HDD however would cost a substantial amount (in comparison)

His point is there's a reason why PS3 may not include a harddrive while the 360 will. The PS3 is mroe expensive. His point is that, when you look at WHY it's more expensive it doesn't make sense. Almost everything that is adding to the cost is essentially useless for gaming!

It's not the cost of each individual component on it's own, but the sum of them all that eventually makes the machine so much more expensive than the 360.

It's like they have their priorities in the wrong order. Wasting money on things that don't do anything for gameplay, while not supporting the one thing that is truly needed in a "next=gen" console. They should make building the best game console their priority, instead they're using Blu-Ray and CELL because advancing Sony Corp as a whole is more important to them. You don't see MS using 360 as a crutch to help the company survive.

With no HD all of Sony's wordsabout a media centre, and "more than a gaming" machine are all a load of crap. With no HD, you have no software. You can't install anything. That's so many possibilities that won't exist.

If it's an add-on the software support will be terrible. Just look at the PS2 software scene vs the XBOX software scene. Since the XBOX came with a HDD there's everything from media centres, dvd players, emulators, ftp servers etc, PS2 no software depsite having an "optional" harddrive.

No HD = extremely limited possiblities IMO

 

[archie4oz]

Archie, i understand what you're saying, but really, i think i'm closer to Mr Joe Average than you. I mean, i never worked for Square afterall, for a start.

I'm not sure what Square has to do with this... And you're just as far from Joe average as I am...

Secondly, my main point was that Sony made all these little nifty features standards, when they could very well have been add-ons, and left the one feature that should really be made standard (the hard drive) and add-on.

I'm not so certain a built-in HDD is something that *should* (vs. other features) be made standard (don't get me wrong I like the idea of an HDD, and am probably one of the small amount of PS2 devs who ever got to do much of anything with it)

Those nifty slots and features will cetainly make PS3 a very interesting device, but i would have thought a HDD would take priority over them, since it can enhance games, while they can't, at least not straight away for everyone.

That's all nice and dandy except that HDDs are orders of the magnitude more costly than a few ports...

Even you making the point that your mates have 100Mbps internet connections and shortly will see the 1Gbit ones... Again, let's talk about what 99.999999999999% of the people will have access to (that is, the <1Mb people). Things are getting better, i'm getting a free automatic upgrade to 8Mb in 2 weeks time (from 4Mb), but before we see those kinda of speeds being "normal" - or even on the same level of acceptance as 8Mb is not - we'll have PS4. For 3 years or so.

What does a few mates have to do with it? 12-25Mbps DSL is pretty common in Japan and Korea, and FTTH 100Mbps is pretty easy to get as well. We're talking about a *Region* of availability that's expanding (not to mention S. Korea is right behind in terms of quality of broadband and much further along in per-capita penetration, as well as small but densly populated HK and Singapore)... Remember nevermind individuals, customs and usage patterns can vary quite noticebly from region to region...

can be negligible? This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Can't we all agree on a few simple premises?

1) Sony isn't offering the HDD standard as a way to save costs.

Can we agree on that?

2) Every component/option included in the PS3 costs money.

Can we agree on that?

No it's not ridiculous... It's ridiculous to believe that a half dozen ports are going to offset the cost of an HDD...

Otherwise, I am in agreement that, the base model should include an HDD, namely a small (10gig) HDD, with optional upgrades to improve load times and to provide additional online support functions.

10GB? Screw that! At least 20GB if not more (I'd prefer 40-60GB, but that's really expensive... The real problem is that 2.5" drives expected for both platforms (and those cost twice as much if not more per/MB than 3.5" drives do). Ultimately you want to be slightly ahead of the optimal price/MB ratio in order to get the best ratio thoughout the lifespan of the product (of course a lot depends on the laptop market and the behaviors there...)

 

[London Geezer]

One word.

Do we want disappearing corpses in videogames, for lack of RAM, like in the PS1/2 days, in 2006? Kill someone, go to the next level, go back and find the guy's body is either not there or he's alive again? Just an example.

A HDD is not just a big place to save games and download new outfits, it can totally make the gaming experience better.

 

[AlNom]

One word.

Do we want disappearing corpses in videogames, for lack of RAM, like in the PS1/2 days, in 2006? Kill someone, go to the next level, go back and find the guy's body is either not there or he's alive again? Just an example.

A HDD is not just a big place to save games and download new outfits, it can totally make the gaming experience better.

Bungie should have done this for Halo:CE, especially for legendary.

 

[BlueTsunami]

I've been wondering....could someone put together a list of benefits (no negatives) of having a HDD in a console? I already know what some of the most obvious are but I would like to see a complete list of what people think and see if HDDs are as important as they say they are and are worth the price thats fixed no matter what...

 

[London Geezer]

I'm not so certain a built-in HDD is something that *should* (vs. other features) be made standard (don't get me wrong I like the idea of an HDD, and am probably one of the small amount of PS2 devs who ever got to do much of anything with it)

Well i wasn't so certain either, hence the "unless i'm missing something"

What does a few mates have to do with it? 12-25Mbps DSL is pretty common in Japan and Korea, and FTTH 100Mbps is pretty easy to get as well. We're talking about a *Region* of availability that's expanding (not to mention S. Korea is right behind in terms of quality of broadband and much further along in per-capita penetration, as well as small but densly populated HK and Singapore)... Remember nevermind individuals, customs and usage patterns can vary quite noticebly from region to region...

Well i'm pretty sure that the US and Europe are nowhere near that level.

That's all nice and dandy except that HDDs are orders of the magnitude more costly than a few ports...
No it's not ridiculous... It's ridiculous to believe that a half dozen ports are going to offset the cost of an HDD...

If you're saying that in the end the cost of the 3 different slots, 6 USB2, 3 Gigabit Etherent ports are nothing compared to the cost of a hard drive - even a cheapo one, then that must be what i've been missing...

 

[BlueTsunami]

Well we have to remember here...where talking about a billion dollar company. Why would they add so many components if it would gouge any profit short or longterm? If this really that bad of a move....why didn't they pick it up and dump all the ports? I also see that even thought the HDD failed for the PS2 (somp people have varying opinions...but I only see the HDD being useful for FFXI), that they see the HDD as an addon as being better then built stock with the PS3. If the user wants to throwdown $50-$100 beans for a HDD, so be it. It aslo allows Sony to inflate the price of the HDD so they can aslo make a profit off it....