Next Gen Buying Plans as of May 2005
- Thread starter wco81
- Start date
That is meaningless. Both the PS3 and Revolution could be equally "agile" at adopting the dominant HD media later on, but anyone who doesn't come with it out of the game is going to fragment developers, publishers, and gamers later on if it's desired/applied to a gaming purpose. (Remember we had long discussions about this WAY back when talking about the possibility of multiple models for the PS3, BR-less and not.)
The ONLY advantages to not including it right at launch are if it will make a monetary difference to the consumer (at which point they'll cost-analyze it the same way they've done with the GameCube and other systems) or if it's more prone to overall technical failure.
If you're talking about it from a gaming-adoption standpoint, however, there is no excuse. All the players could have the same "possible future additions" depending on what eventually happens concerning Hollywood and HD media, and it will pretty much ONLY affect that end of matters. (And other possible uses such as recordability, PVR-use, and so on. But that will depend entirely on what any player does, how well, and how much they charge compared both to each other and to other dedicated set-top devices.)
But from a gaming standpoint...? Nuh-uh. One option is clearly superior technically (confirmed by Ballmer's comment itself)--and we don't yet know if it will come at a price. (As well, we don't know what price the 360's future adoption would be either, to put it ALL in perspective.)
Granted we also don't know how any system will USE their optical drives yet (which steam faster, which have better compression tech, etc.), but those factors are known and were not being commented on by Ballmer. And not being used as reasons the PS3's approach is "wrong-headed." Right now he's only talking about the drive itself and the hazy future of HD media--even though he expressed the publisher's desire for "much more storage" regardless.
The ONLY advantages to not including it right at launch are if it will make a monetary difference to the consumer (at which point they'll cost-analyze it the same way they've done with the GameCube and other systems) or if it's more prone to overall technical failure.
If you're talking about it from a gaming-adoption standpoint, however, there is no excuse. All the players could have the same "possible future additions" depending on what eventually happens concerning Hollywood and HD media, and it will pretty much ONLY affect that end of matters. (And other possible uses such as recordability, PVR-use, and so on. But that will depend entirely on what any player does, how well, and how much they charge compared both to each other and to other dedicated set-top devices.)
But from a gaming standpoint...? Nuh-uh. One option is clearly superior technically (confirmed by Ballmer's comment itself)--and we don't yet know if it will come at a price. (As well, we don't know what price the 360's future adoption would be either, to put it ALL in perspective.)
Granted we also don't know how any system will USE their optical drives yet (which steam faster, which have better compression tech, etc.), but those factors are known and were not being commented on by Ballmer. And not being used as reasons the PS3's approach is "wrong-headed." Right now he's only talking about the drive itself and the hazy future of HD media--even though he expressed the publisher's desire for "much more storage" regardless.
How will they adjust?
Engadget asked them whether they would use downloads for distribution and Ballmer said packaged media is still the best way.
I don't see how they add more storage without changing the hardware. The HDD is detatchable but the optical disc is not. So they will either have to come out with a peripheral (maybe through the USB) or with a new SKU which has some kind of blue-laser drive.
Either way, you have the problem of fragmenting your installed base and alienating some launch buyers.
Engadget asked them whether they would use downloads for distribution and Ballmer said packaged media is still the best way.
I don't see how they add more storage without changing the hardware. The HDD is detatchable but the optical disc is not. So they will either have to come out with a peripheral (maybe through the USB) or with a new SKU which has some kind of blue-laser drive.
Either way, you have the problem of fragmenting your installed base and alienating some launch buyers.
cthellis42 said:
If the PS3 has BR, then it wont be as agile. The second a single game ships on a BR drive they MUST support it. They cannot switch to HD-DVD, but would need a combo drive.
MS can easily incorperate a BR / HD-DVD drive later for *movies* as both will be able to read the game media. MS is in no way fragmenting their market. For larger games they will just have to use mutliple DVDs. 2x 8.5GB DVS is larger than 1 HD DVD single layer disk. And at this point, as has been lamented before (want a link?) you cannot compare the previous generation needs as a linear progression of needs. To say the least the biggest problem facing developers right now is the $$$ to even fill a single 4.7GB DVD.
Basically MS can choose whatever HD format they wish in the future for movies; Sony is stuck with BR no matter the outcome.
That is not the only advantage. If BR fails or if a merged new format appears after Xbox 360 launches they will have invested in an expensive losing battle. Why support BR, or HD DVD, if it will be relegated as a side note?
Now that would be more expensive.
Actually, 2 options are superior technically to the DVD drive. HD-DVD and BR. The selection of a HD optical drive is only obvious if you can look into the future and SEE what the outcome will be.
But seeing as none of us know what format will win, if MS chose the wrong format it would cost them a lot of money. First by endorsing an expensive dead format, second by not getting the benefit of massive of the losing format reducing price significantly based on economics of scale, and thirdly by having a dead format that wont push sales with other media tie ins. And then they have the task of getting an expensive dual format drive if they wish to keep that edge.
I could really care less honestly. I think BR is a better technology on the surface, but it is all about the support. But I do know one thing: As discussed before, HD movies is not in the same position DVDs were, and there are a lot more dissadvantages then you mention. I am buying a game machine personally, and with a format war looming I would rather my game console NOT be used as a trojan.
Let the dust settle and then move forward. I think if MS offers a "media" edition Xbox 360 later on with BR + large HDD that would be a great idea. I see no need right now for the base unit to endorse any platform until more is known.
wco81 said:
How does offering a HD optical format in a 2nd SKU fragment your install base for gaming? As long as all the games ship on DVD discs this would never be an issue.
As for alienating customers, offering a HD Optical drive and a 300GB HDD Digital VCR SKU hardly alienates anyone if it is a more expensive "media edition".
What can fragment an installed base is the PS3 HDD. They said it had a slot, but no mention of a drive. Having some systems with HDD and others without will cause problems, unless they make a HDD standard with online or something or other. I see that as a much bigger dilemma personally. I am hoping the PS3 ships with a HDD standard.
What? How on earth is that a valid complaint? You mean dev/pubs were doing nothing but tearing their hair out in frustration that they had to support their proprietary format? And oh horrors, we didn't see an dual- or tri-platform games because of it!Acert93 said:
If a publisher wanted to support the GameCube then they HAD to use the GameCube's ROM format. In the PS3's case it's much easier, as there is no MUST. They CAN support DVD across the whole spectrum of systems if their game doesn't call for more, but they also CAN support BR in every PS3--not through a new model two years later and not through an add-on enhancement (we all know how well THOSE work in console land)--if their game indeed does call for "much more storage."
We have no idea what ANY of the players will be bringing out in a few years time, how, and for how much, but we do know that an add-on or new-model WILL splinter the gaming base WILL be more expensive and WILL be a harder sell. While a publisher may lament needing to keep a PS3 line open to make games only for the PS3 (as if this has ever stopped anyone from making console games for any system down the past few decades) if BR doesn't pan out commonly on the marketplace, at least they know they won't have to spend more on coding, keep multiple lines open to make the SAME game, confuse the public, or have to suck up and deal with selling to a smaller subset of of that console-owning market.
...unless you're suggesting Microsoft will mail an HD drive to everyone who owns a 360 for free or allow everyone to trade in their old model for a new one?
Ballmer announced no more "agility" than Sony or Nintendo could announce as well if they want to. Meanwhile, the "options" and "capabilities" side are strictly in the PS3's favor right now. We don't know how to put it in the full picture yet, but--again--that's not any detail we KNOW, nor anything Ballmer mentioned.
Again, are you telling me that they will upgrade every 360 owner's console for free? If not, there is no way they are NOT fragmenting the game market. Publishers may like being able to use one HD-DVD disk instead of two, but they MUST release their game on multiple DVD's as well to be able to sell said game to everyone who owns the old model or chooses to not buy an HD expansion drive. And that still encourages the tendency to only aim for single DVD's, as well as having to keep multiple ROM lines producing the same game, different mastering, more complicated shipment and tracking, the harder ability to keep stores stocked with the right game boxes, public confusion on the matter...
From a gaming standpoint, would being able to choose the HD format of their choice later on actually BE a cost-savings for game publishers, or would it actually be more detrimental?
Riddle me this: Why? Is Nintendo also stuck being unable to use what they want later on because they haven't talked about it yet? Now if you want to compare what Sony is LIKELY to do, then certainly they're likely to keep pushing BR until they have no choices left, but is there a fundamental inability for them to--in exactly the same way--upgrade the PS3 to whatever HD-ROM format wins out with either a separate model or an expansion? ...but more to the point, would game publishers WANT to bring on the same kind of division, or use the format--proprietary or not--they've had access to from the beginning and that they know will reach all PS3 owners?
You're somehow reaching the same illogical thought process as Ballmer. How can ANYONE talking about upgrading to a capacity they do not have say their opponents CANNOT do the same thing? If it were a lack of proper I/O they might have a point, but would HD-DVD (or whatever) be unable to be used through USB2.0? Unable to be a replacement drive for a separate console model?
Why have any consoles EVER suppported a format that was not a publicly-used one of the media marketplace? Just what in tarnation was Sega thinking with the GD-ROM? How dare Nintendo use their own disks in the GameCube!
Where in the PS3's drive does it lack launch capabilities of the 360's? That would be where an actual difference lies. Otherwise, how is Microsoft "more agile" conceptually than Sony, Nintendo, or hell--any device with a fast USB port?
No. The BR and HD-DVD drive will STILL be technically superior to the DVD drive. One simply MAY not be able to play future Hollywood media if it unifies behind a single, incompatible standard for playing those movies. (And in the meanwhile, both will be able to play SOME media and have interoperation with the tech that already exists and will exist until such a time as an incompatible unification is reached.) The BR or HD-DVD drive does not magically hold less data, transfer data slower, or lose the ability to play what exists for it alone.
You're right--it could cost THEM financially, but since when is that something that concerns other publishers, developers, or more to the point--us? Seems to me gamers, and most everyone from this board, is quite happy to play games on Microsoft's cost-leading Xbox, enjoy the extra capabilities it has and the more powerful graphics, without caring on whit since to US it costs the same as the PS2. (People looking at the GameCube, meanwhile, balance its cost and featureset against both of the others and decide if they care about playing DVD's enough, etc, to go another way instead.)
Microsoft is indeed making a VERY smart move--financially--for themselves. But that doesn't necessitate that ANY of the cost, convenience, or any side-concern will be to our advantage or any other developer or publisher's. All of THOSE details will only be able to be put in perspective when we know what the costs are now and in the future.
But technically speaking and gaming-wise, just looking at the drives (as they've been specced so far), all go all the way in one direction (CD/DVD), but only one provides capabilities beyond it.
...which is why all my comments addressed the problems from a gaming perspective. Games would simply NOT use whatever HD format is out there.Acert93 said:
For movie-playing, meanwhile, or whatever "multi-media" device they want to pursue, they CAN pursue it however they will. As PC-Engine already said, a combo drive would be a logical choice to upgrade to, and if a unified standard is reached or HD-DVD alone survives, Sony could add that just the same. (It might cost more to them than HD-DVD alone would cost to MS, but whatever. We don't know the cost to us.) Or they could make an external drive expansion available simply for movies/media they way Microsoft could, and we'll be back to what we always do--compare price and tech implementation.
From a gaming perspective, however, it would be relatively ignored because the immediately causes said splintering. If they want, however, they can use BR to bring whatever gaming experiences they want to PS3 owners, using whatever capacity they can draw from it.
From a gaming perspective there is one option we can see as offering more capacity. For movie-playing, we don't know what and how much ANYONE will offer yet. And while we don't know the full picture gaming-wise either, that's not what Ballmer was referring to.
Is the 360 shipping with its detachable and upgradable hard drive from launch? At the moment, we don't know for sure if any machine will. I'm putting my money on neither (as they both know what the expense of including HDD's will be), but both pushing their capabilities more. They won't have the same adoption as if they're included, but they'll be assisting each other as a more common expansion option that's more easily available/installable, and the extra proliferation of online gaming will make developers more likely to add features for it as well.
But yes, that comparison has to wait for final launch details as well.
Why ? Because early adopters will be stuck with the bluray only drives and thus have a limited viewing experiance for movies .
If hd-dvd launches this year and gets a huge lead and sony launches and still trys to make bluray a success but fails then anyone who bought the ps3 would be screwed .
Its also bad because they wll have to continue to support bluray and if they want to offer a thriving hd format they will have to add a dual drive. Which means $$$
ON the other hand ms isn't tied to anything . Dvd is not going anywhere for at least 5 years if not longer. There are to many movies out and coming out and to big of a installed base to quit . Vhs is still not dead to give you an idea and its been a good 10 years .
So ms can keep the nible cost effective x360 with a dvd drive at a 100$ diffrence from the ps3 or more and then put out a x360 with a bigger hardrive and hd-dvd and price it the same as the ps3 or even under cut it . That way ms can take losses on the cheaper one and really hurt ms
If bluray wins ms can still support this in a future model and have a second cheaper model out with out the bluray feature .
See how it works ?
How would they split it . single layer hd-dvds are 15gigs . that is basicly two dvds . So any game that would require a hd-dvd could be done on two dvds which are so cheap its not even funny and wont be a big deal .
They can keep the hd-dvd drive or bluray as movie only .
With sony once someone uses a bluray disc for a game they are stuck with it .
You don't have to use a hd format for games . dvds offer enough space for games and two dvds may be cheaper than 1 bluray disc .
However ms can allways move foward from a dvd drive to offer hd-dvd movies on a hd-dvd or bluray drive . Sony is stuck .Once a game comes out on bluray there is only one way to go and that is to adpot a dual drive which costs $$$
If no games come out sony will still be in a bad spot . ALl those who bought bluray discs and are now stuck with only being able to play them on a ps3 (and only older models if they don't do a dual drive) will be pretty pissed off .
With ms everyone has dvd players and everyone wont be throwing away thier tittles . hd-dvd and bluray are backwards compatible with dvd . So it doesn't matter to ms which one they pick in the future .
Nintendo has nothing to do with what we are talking about
if nintendo goes thier own format they aren't going to be shoving hd mvoies down your throat . They will keep that format stickly games . It seems though by comments that you can play dvds on it . So it seems like they are going with a normal dvd player . Which means in the future they can adopt bluray or hd-dvd and don't have to provide a dual drive .
The problem is the very benfit of bluray will be gone and reversed. Bluray is there for movies . Don't buy into the hype that they need that much room. NO one is going to need 30 gigs unless they fill it up with fmv and cgi .
Sony is banking on you buying bluray movies and some will . If bluray fails they can't switch to hd-dvd because they will alienate alot of fans that bought bluray movies .
If a game came out on bluray then they will allways have to support bluray .
Once again they were both offering no mvoie playback support . sony is pushing it (Even at the e3 show ) as a next generation movie player . If the movie player part changes they are going to destroy thier customer base and thier name .
There are many positives to bluray and there are many negatives
cthellis42 said:
You need to go back and read what I wrote C. I never said anything about upgrading current SKUs. Hard to reply to your post when you go off on a tangent and ignore one of my very first points.
How about I make this easy from MS perspective:
Givens:
A. HD format war ahead, no decided winner
B. BR and HD DVD are not available right now
C. HD DVD and BR are a lot more expensive than DVD at the moment
D. If they adopt the losing brand they will not benefit from the "economy of scale" factor
E. The GCN drives were not significantly more expensive than DVD drives, BR / HD DVD drives are at this point
F. MS is aiming for MILLIONS of consoles out this fall; they cannot put their eggs into the HD optical market and risk huge shortfalls
G. Unlike DVD that was well established before the PS2 launch, HD players are not even to market in the US and nor is there any media at this point
H. Based on the needs of high end PC games--which are HD remember--there seems no immediate need for more than a 4.7GB DVD, let alone an 8.5GB DVD. There will be games eventually that require MORE space, but 2 8.5GB DVDs will suffice in those situations.
I. While size is great, the fact is no one has the time/money/resources/artists/tools to fill a 50GB disk. $40M projects like HL2 that have GREAT art and hi res textures are still under 4.7GB.
(I posted a link where we went over some of these details in the other thread).
With those givens and based on common sense and the interview, I think it is pretty easy to see MS plan.
1. Launch Xbox 360 with DVD drive; all games use DVD9 format
2. In 2006/2007 MS launches Xbox 360 Media edition; it includes a BR drive and PVR functions with a 300GB HDD; games still are released on DVD9 format
3. Games (probably a handful during the entire generation) that need more than 8.5GB of space use two discs
No need for upgrades, NO FRAGMENTED console base. MS would be simply upselling Digital VCR functions. The new SKU would have no impact on games & it would give the main features BR is meant for: MOVIES.
There is no mailing people upgrades or any such nonsense as I already stated. Fragmented user base is a made up thing. Fragmenting a user base is when you release games that USE a feature. Like the HDD dive Sony released and then dropped support for in the PStwo. THAT fragments a userbase and kills an addon. A BR/PVR addon is a feature upgrade for MEDIA, not gaming.
And to restate my point from my OTHER thread, Sony has every reason to ship a console with BR. It helps with market penetration for BR devices and could be the swing factor in the format war. Because of the uncertainty of the format war, Nintendo and MS have very little reason to bet on a losing format and get stuck with an expensive drive that is not supported.
Further, it is not all fun and games for Sony. If the PS3 has a BR drive and sells for $300, what does that do to their $200-$500 stand alone BR players? Second, while 80M PS3's with BR drives will help swing a battle how many gamers will use the drive? HD TV install base becomes an issue (remember the outcry on the forums when MS targeted HD? I do... links can follow). Finally, what happens to Sony if people pick up PS3 JUST for BR players? If they sell at $300 and cost $400 to make, they are losing money for a player some people wont buy software for. Unlike DVD players that were 1. a unified format and 2. were already dropping in prices, BR is no where near that position.
This is a tough subject all around for all sides.
Honest to Eru, how are people getting stuck on this?! At launch, the 360 will have a much MORE limited viewing experience for movies, having no HD drive at ALL.jvd said:
Both the future HD format(s) and the date/cost/implementation of sticking a unified standard (however long it may take to reach one) drive into/attached-to a console are all up in the air, so that is for FUTURE CONCERN. But in the meanwhile, there is NOTHING that gets in the way of Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony, or ANYONE ELSE from adding it to their particular devices. If Dell/HP or someone else ships computers with BR drives before a unified standard is reached, do they magically become UNABLE to ship a combo drive later? Will external expansion drives be unable to work on their computers?
Sony's future business plan is up to Sony, while Nintendo's is up to Nintendo, and Microsoft's is up to Microsoft. While I'll certainly be willing to say that Sony will drag their heels more than Microsoft would if they feel they can still leverage the PS3 to support Blu-Ray, can anyone--ANYONE--tell me what technical issue gets in their way that would "stick" them with BR only? Will combo drives--talked about constantly--be unable to be created in any form? Would HD-DVD and Hollywood giggle and work out some way that would forbid any of their drives from hooking up to a PS3?
Now since it's still all up in the air, no one can say anything definitively about ANYTHING. Will they unify? Will HD-DVD prevail? Blu-Ray? Will Sony decide to keep pushing BR as much as they can even if it gets past "lost cause?" Will they consider it worth adding to the PS3, or would they instead just make a cheap-enough set-top device since they're in the business of that as well? What format will Microsoft ultimately decide on? Will they create a new model? Would it be an add-on device? How much will any implementation cost?
It is ALL up in the air, but ultimately the same thing will matter to us when it comes about: just how is it done, and what will it cost us? We certainly don't care what it costs Sony, or Microsoft, or any other player. And it certainly won't matter to Hollywood publishers, as they're already covering both individual standards WHILE trying to work on a way to make it simpler for them.
And if you're only trying to judge it from a movie-playing perspective, then not one STITCH of this matters from a gaming perspective. Which is what I was talking about in the beginning, and what Ballmer seems to allude to gaming publishers telling HIM.
No. They will simply be unable to play movies on their launch-state console in exactly the same way the 360 owners cannot. (And we all know both HD-DVD and BR will be getting SOME support before a unified standard can be reached. Both balls are still rolling.)
No. It means that Sony would have to spend a bit more to use a combo drive that works, or expand to the HD format in exactly the same way Microsoft will. What they WILL do is one thing... What they CAN do is another. And what they CAN to is "exactly the same thing." ("What they'll charge us" is ALSO another matter, but I've made that abundantly clear.
)You're right. They haven't tied themselves--or any gaming publisher--to any form of accessable HD format for games. Meanwhile, the PS3 could be the eventual winner, could be compatible with an undetermined unified format with a firmware update, and could offer the exact same update the exact same way for the exact same price (to us) as Microsoft will do later.
Everyone's business plans are entirely up in the air right now.
Oh, I'm forgetting you know what each console will cost at launch, what price it will cost a few years down, how they will implement what future HD upgrade (as necessary) and how much THAT will cost...?
Think you could pick out a few lottery numbers for me?
Also bear in mind that this is the relevant comparison I mentioned when comparing each system's implementation. We do not, however, know what they will be to MAKE said comparisons yet. And, as I said and Ballmer did not, that was not the REASON he provided for saying Sony's approach is "wrong-headed." It is a valid comparison--THE valid comparison, really--but he was certainly not going to tie the 360 to one specific price point now when they don't know just where their competition will be.
And as has been proven time and again, WE do not care how much THEIR bottom line is hurt.
(Unless a company will bankrupt themselves because of it. That's kinda inconvenient. But I don't see that happening either, do you?)If Blu-Ray "wins", Sony will already HAVE this built into their console with no extra cost, it will be accessable to all gamers, ALL publishers and ALL developers with no added complications... and Sony will be very happy indeed.
If HD-DVD or an incompatible unified format wins out, then Sony can expand/alter the PS3 the same exact way, but would--yes--have to suck some of the extra expense on themselves which they may or may not pass on to us.See how this works?
What ARE the costs involved right now? We don't know. How does this differ from the media choice Nintendo made with the GameCube? it doesn't. The main difference we ALSO have is that not only do we not know what price difference there is, but we also don't know what that price difference's "added value" will be on the Hollywood side. It's an added question mark on one's buying decision, but for certain it will not have "no value," and for CERTAIN that has no bearing on its gaming capabilities which will be there regardless. (How much "value" THAT will add will depend on that game developers and publishers, as it always has with EVERY system so far.)
Again, it basically keeps game publishers off the format. We KNOW it will, or we KNOW it will cause fragmentation. We don't KNOW what the costs of DVD in relation to HD-DVD in relation to BR, will be later, or how they'll change if and when when or the other becomes the "standard" down the line, but we do know that game developers will be able to look at all they can draw out of one over the other and how that can enhance our gaming experience. It's not only a matter of "do two DVD's cost about as much as one HD-DVD or one BR-ROM?" unless that's all you think an optical drive provides. (And end-users will certainly be impacted in more ways than "do I have to switch a disk or not?" Heh.)
Yes they can. They all can.
No, they can use CD, DVD, BR, or whatever they feel like as their game demands. (One hopes we won't be seeing any more CD games next gen, though.
) Tell me, is this better or worse than being "stuck" with DVD alone for games?You're right, you don't have to. However, is cost the only consideration? Is storage the ONLY technical advantage BR provides over DVD? And tell me again, is this better or wose than being "stuck" with DVD alone for games?
How on frickin' earth are people ever "throwing away their titles?" If a Dreamcast game was made on GD-ROM as opposed to CD-ROM, what did it matter? You could only play the title on Dreamcast anyway!
"Sony is stuck" continuing with BR support for itself, sure, but will it affect the consumer one iota? Games for other systems would likely only be coming out on DVD anyway, so would a drive upgrade affect their gaming at all?
Sony may hurt their bottom line with this, but they know they're taking a risk. It might hurt them, and it might pan out for them amazingly; that's pretty much the nature of the business. In the end, though, how will Microsoft's future adoption of and HD drive a few years down the line affect our gaming, and how might Sony's inclusion of it as baseline affect our GAMING through the whole generation?
A console's future media use is up in the air. The PSX wasn't precisely adopted with open arms, so will a PSX2? A 360-X? That's entirely up in the air as well, and will depend on how they implement it and what it costs. Conceptually, however, they're all on equal footing. How it may affect their bottom line and their consumer pricing is another matter, but wouldn't it make more sense to wait for there to BE an implementation and a price first?
Certainly, but this doesn't impact how their ROM drive is use FOR THEIR GAMING at all. Consumers had the same ability to judge whether they considered the cheaper Cube worth it even if it couldn't play CD's or DVD's from a media standpoint, and they'll be able to make the same choices regarding the PS3 and its competiton--whatever they offer--whenever they offer it--and how much they charge for it. This IS the business environment.
And yet for gaming, it makes not a difference whatsoever. People judged the Cube's drive capabilities within the whole system and how THAT compared to the Xbox and PS2, and we saw nary a price difference with virtually ANY game using ANY disk format regardless of if they offered one disk or two. That game price is rarely a concern for us, but the capacities of the drive and what game developers and publishers want to do with it affect what the game IS to us.
Meanwhile, just when does Sony become a dick? The formats are split right now, still in talks, still at the mercy of Hollywood pressure, but still following their individual gameplans right now. If they split the market 50/50, is Sony out of line by continuing to push Blu-Ray? Seemingly not. What about 60/40? 75/25? At what point, despite the potential of lots of availability for both formats, are they being unreasonable if they and HD-DVD, and Hollywood itself, cannot reach a concensus?
...and in what way would that matter one bit to its gaming use?
Heck, I'M not even hyping it. One of my main points is that Ballmer himself said "some publishers have told him that within two years, they will need "massively more storage." You think he was just talking about Hollywood movies? Certainly not. (And looking at the article, definitely not.)
He's referring to actual games, actual publishers (albeit in a weird fashion), and how the HD-DVD capacity ties directly into that, which brings us right into the gaming concerns that have been expressed so far and those who are shrugging them off saying "that's not what it's about." According to Ballmer, that is indeed a factor in his equation this generation.
Well then Sony can continue to release its own content however it wants, but the whole point is that there well only BE a unified standard when one is decided, will only BE one "winner" in the consumer marketplace when it's had long enough to pan out, and there will not be any reason to concern themselves over it if it's gone through the whole process.
Meanwhile, it will not affect the fact that their games will still be on BR while others will only be concerned with DVD, it does not stop anyone from still releasing content for BR specifically for PS3 owners (just as it doesn't stop them from releasing content aimed specifically at GBA, DS, PSP, or any other device with a proprietary [or at least "overwhelming number"] format), and it does not necessitate that BR will disappear completely as a format EVERYWHERE immediately, as the concerns of Hollywood are different from computers are different from game publishers specifically... And the existing capacities one CAN take advantage of if one chooses do not disappear if there is a format change in one end of the spectrum.
...or are DVD recorders made useless if they don't support all formats or a new one is picked up my a competitor's product?
People may get annoyed, but will they weep into their coffee, or treat it like just about any other tech change? How many JAZ drives have you seen lately? Hell, what about the ZIP drives that drove them out? What about [RECITENEEDLESSLYLONGLISTHERE[/url].
You're right. But that has yet to be decided. Meanwhile they have a drive that can support next generation movie playback in some way, and does not lack anything their competitors' do. They will not "destroy" anything, they will simply have to "add the capability" in exactly the same way their competitors would if things do not turn out in their favor. And it might annoy people on the "losing side" but they're the ones who through their purchases are DECIDING who wins out if Hollywood, HD-DVD/BR, and such cannot come to a concensus. But they do this all the time in basically every tech arena, so... <shrugs> Same as usual, wouldn't you say? Sirius owners will certainly be miffed if XM thrashes them, MMORPG players hate it if their favorite game trails off into nothingness, people who tried DivX sulk, they'll grumble at the new Napster if they eventually find they don't like the restrictions...
Why are we making more of this than what there is?
There are positives and negatives to basically ANY tech, any business plan, and specific implementation, any console, any company... Yet somehow we all find the will to go on despite being surrounded by so much confusion.
Yes. Seemingly you've been bringing up many irrelevant points while I've been talking about the tech from a gaming perspective and Ballmer's comments have been referring to their possible gaming implementations this generation as well.Acert93 said:
Givens:
A. HD format war ahead, no decided winner
Correct, so no "given" right or wrong we can possible determine right now.
B. BR and HD DVD are not available right now
Incorrect. Some of the technology is out there, has limited use while it's low in adoption, it will be out there when the consoles hit the market, and doesn't matter at all for its adoption as gaming media. What is not out there right now are Hollywood movies released on the format.
C. HD DVD and BR are a lot more expensive than DVD at the moment
Yes, but that is also not a point. What will each cost in relation to each other when the 360 is released? When the PS3 is released? How will BR be affected by mass adoption for game releases (if it is to start, naturally), and how much by the slow ramping of movie titles at that point? When Microsoft is preparing to release its new edition at said indeterminate point in the future on said indeterminate format?
D. If they adopt the losing brand they will not benefit from the "economy of scale" factor
...concerning Hollywood publishers and their movies, with carry-over affects to the PC market, recordable media markets, and then to game publishers themselves--the top notch of which are always more driven by what they can make a format do than what the stamping costs are. Will the costs of HD/BR/DVD be a SIGNIFICANTLY huge factor for them to really take up arms?
E. The GCN drives were not significantly more expensive than DVD drives, BR / HD DVD drives are at this point
Again, what will they be costing when each system is released, and whenever the unknown update may occur? We all know Sony and Microsoft are happy losing money now if it works to their advantage later.
F. MS is aiming for MILLIONS of consoles out this fall; they cannot put their eggs into the HD optical market and risk huge shortfalls
...and yet that does not make a DVD drive more or less capable than a BR drive for gaming purposes in their consoles, and it will not make Microsoft a player in determining which format is more likely to be adopted. I know why THEY don't want to/aren't able to put it in now, but that was not Ballmer's point and has not been by point.
G. Unlike DVD that was well established before the PS2 launch, HD players are not even to market in the US and nor is there any media at this point
...and so therefore the adoption of it in a device that will sell millions right at the beginning of a format's lifespan stands more chance of influencing the future of said format, yes? And yet STILL has no bearing on the technical comparison of one piece of hardware to another for gaming purposes through a consoles lifespan. If Revolution stuck in HVD--which has NO chance of being adopted by Hollywood as a HD movie format--I would be ticked pink to see what it could do for my GAMES. HD movie-playing would simply not be a factor for it, much as it is not a factor for the 360 at release. There seems to be only one player to which has ANY factor right off the bat, hmmm?
H. Based on the needs of high end PC games--which are HD remember--there seems no immediate need for more than a 4.7GB DVD, let alone an 8.5GB DVD. There will be games eventually that require MORE space, but 2 8.5GB DVDs will suffice in those situations.
Capacity is the only advantage DVD offers over CD in gaming, then? Cost and capacity are the only considerations anyone ever has?
I. While size is great, the fact is no one has the time/money/resources/artists/tools to fill a 50GB disk. $40M projects like HL2 that have GREAT art and hi res textures are still under 4.7GB.
...a game which in no way cares about FMV and similar things the way console games have, and does not jump 6-12x the resolution at double the framerate for most games the way console games are about to. Offhand, I'm pretty sure console developers have been doing things a bit differently down the years, and are just not getting a giant kick in the head.
Meanwhile, I'll ask again--is capacity the only advantage DVD offers over CD? What are their transfer rates going to be? Which will be able to stream better? How will loading the outer rim with most-accessed data improve one format over the other, and how much data will they be able to store there?
I'm sure cost analysis is a big factor as always, but how much will affect the way our games play?
...and so NO AFFECT on gaming, and NO AFFECT on who/how Sony, Nintendo, or anyone else can choose to support next generation's media, release their own conglomerated devices, external expansions, etc.
We're right back examining the merits of DVD vs BR alone in games, how they will be implemented in their systems, and--as I stated from the very beginning as the only real factor--what that will cost us.
Ballmer, however, is discussing the the merits and flaws of their approach to Engadget, paraphrasing game publishers, while the only thing the extensive arguement has shown so far is that what it will not affect is gaming! My concerns have been gaming-related, my desire to compare disk formats technically game-related, and no one has actually approached me saying THAT is wrong.
I know why Microsoft is doing it, and seemingly you all do as well and know that any future upgrade will also not affect the gaming direction, so just what the heck is the arguement ABOUT? Sony will have some woes if BR does not win out. MS will have have some woes if it does. And we ALL don't know just what either of their approaches will cost us and when we'll get it.
But that has never been the point. Mainly, I just found Ballmer's comments amusing and a bit contradictory, not mentioning the fundamental reasons we all see (it makes the most monetary sense to them), and we don't yet have the details from ANYONE to make comparisons on more than one point right now.
...and offered as a correction to one of my earlier comments, I finally ran across a place that confirmed the 360's drive would be included with the machine. (I was still assuming a "bundle" of some sort, and separate purchase.) We'll have to see what Sony does with the PS3's...
But that's a different arguement altogether.
But that's a different arguement altogether.
Not at all.
At launch of the x360 there is no hd format or at the most a hd-dvd drive with under a 100 movies to choose from vs the thousands of dvds .
Only a fool doesn't look at all possible outcomes before making a choice .
For ms the best choice is dvd .
For sony who has a big stake in bluray that choice is bluray
You don't read do you ?
Look I'm going to skip everything your saying because you haven't read a thing I wrote . I'm going to put it in simple terms
1) If ms has a dvd drive. In the future they can upgrade to the format that wins the war or is winning the war . Offer it in a more expensive sku (media center with big hardrive for tivo type stuff )
2) If sony puts in a bluray drive and 1 game is released on bluray sony must allways support bluray .
3) Knowing what we know in 2 then we know that the only way sony can do this is with a dual drive . We know using our brains that a dual laser drive will be more expensive than a single laser drive .
4) Knowing this ms has more options in the future to move with the tech than sony does . If hd-dvd comes up the winner it will hurt sony in the pocket
5) Why does it hurt sony in the pocket ? Because sony has to produce a dual drive and offer it in the standard sku which will compete with ms's standard sku
6) They can keep a bluray only drive but it will not scale in cost like it would if it was the standard
7) If this happens ps4 can not be backwards compatible with the ps3 or they will have to exclude any title put on bluray or once again support bluray in the future system .
These are the cons to putting in bluray
The pros would be that sony will have a trojan for the next gen format war . IF it wins they will have a hd format and that will attract customers .
If you would take a second at look at other points of view you would see these things that have been said as true and are a fair assesment of if bluray fails . Ms on the other hand has a proven standard that will be supported well into the future most likely longer than the x360 is produced and can go to any of the future standards for movie playback because they both support dvd playback .
Do you understand where I am coming from
Ah, of course. And we all know it's best for consumers when machines are designed only for "what's out when they launch" and not keep future growth in mind. (Interestingly enough I could swear this has been used as a complaint before! In fact, it may even have affected companies from time to time!) So are you telling me that by the time the end of the PS3's lifetime there will not be a single scrap of anything released on BR? Uh-huh. So at launch state, there would appear to be only one machine that has any built-in capacity to do so, and everyone else would have the same ability to include the "final outcome" later if they choose as well.jvd said:
...and mind you I addressed all of my initial comments to the drive's use on the consoles from a gaming perspective. I will answer YOUR media-focused comments, but that's not what any of this started about anyway.
And for movies, it may be that MS's "best choice" is wrong and Sony's choice is better, or it may be that both choices are moot and they'll each have to adopt something else. But for games there is only one choice that matters, and that's the one the console launches with.
One choice is more "fiscally responsible" from a movie-perspective and one a "financial gamble," but that is neither here nor there in regards to their gaming uses.
That is a seriously funny comment, all things considering.
<ponders just how many of your replies were talking about their gaming uses, since that is the angle I addressed all my initial comments from and the particular phrases I picked on Ballmer for in his large interview>...which doesn't affect gaming.
...which also doesn't affect their gaming, nor does it stop them from releasing support for any other format later on if they choose. (Though we all know they'll hold out longer.)
...aaaaaaaand how much will this cost us? That, as I said, being the only really important factor.
..aaaaaaaand will this affect me or just Sony? Please tell me how many people care how much Sony lost on the PS2 to start, how much Microsoft continues to lose on Xbox hardware now, and who really ever cares about a company's profit margins if there's no difference to us?
...aaaaaaand why do I care? I don't know how much it would cost them, and more importantly, I have no idea what it will cost ME. And unless it costs ME something, overall, it is by all rights invisible.
It will scale by their own support to it for the machine regardless, since BR support will indeed have to be in there forever. It may not scale the way DVD has or this elusive "winning" or "unified" format will, but I still don't care about that, do I? Considering the sales Sony expects to make with the machine, I assume they'll remain dedicated to lowering its costs regardless, just as they did with the PS2-only (for all intents and purposes) hardware.
True. Just as Revolution needs a more expensive drive to both play and load/eject GameCube's disks. This still in the end is invisible to us unless it makes a monetary difference.
These are Sony's cons (and "possible cons" at that). How are they our cons?
Well, honestly, it will attract people regardless. It just might attract people who will be miffed to have movies that can only play on their PS3 or certain other limited and dead-end pieces of hardware if it doesn't pan out.
Then again, I'm pretty sure you're not willing to place the exact same complaints on any HD-DVD device manufactured and movie made if that is the direction that is ultimately incompatible. Because, you know... you'd have to. (And in the PS3's case, you'd be out a lot less hardware cost.
)They are, and yet we have no idea if that will ultimately cost us anything meaningful, anything at all, or if we'd ultimately want to use ANY console-attached drive for movie-playing over a dedicated set-top machine. If it's built-in it's convenience. If it's anything else, it's competing on a MUCH larger market and will probably be shrugged off anyway.
For the love of GOD, will you address ANY of my comments from a gaming standpoint before you you POSSIBLY make such a snide and foolishly-ironic comment like that?
I already said the one thing that matters in the ENTIRE direction you're talking about: price. What will it cost us? (And "how will it be implemented" matters as well, but both are big unknowns right now.) We all know Microsoft has picked a fiscally sound move for them, and it's unknown if Sony's move from a movie-playing perspective will pan out for us, but all of that doesn't make shit difference for gaming. You know, the thing I was talking about, and what Ballmer was alluding to with that comment.
And ultimately I give not a single crap about any console's future possible expansion possibilities. I care about a console's standards at launch, and anything else will be put in perspective in the whole market when it actually matters.
Similar threads
- Poll
