Optional "advanced" controller headed to the XB 360 at some point.

[expletive]

You've hit the nail on the head except I would view all of that as unfair singling out of Blu-ray just because it's a significant technology that its rival does not share. The things that will come in for most criticism in some quarters are the things that are potentially the greatest differentiators.

Its not a criticism, dont you think the reason why the PS3 costs more than the 360 is because of the BR drive? I dont follow your point here...

And the last sentence is nicely representative of the BS that gets thrown about regarding Blu-ray. How the heck can you say something as conclusive as "the BR drive has no value-add to the gaming experience" at this point? Again, people make points about these things that they might hope is true (kinda perversely), but in the end that's only something that will be knowable in the fullness of time. Not even MS seems clear on the issue looking at these recent reports.

You're right and my wording was poorly chosen there. A better way to have said it would be unproven rather than an absolute 'no' in terms of value add.

If we're to extend that kind of understanding to CPUs/GPUs etc. then it should be extended to BD etc. in PS3. Sony is losing money on those too!

Well we can play a shell game as to what Sony is paying for and what the consumer is paying for but in the end, if the PS3 didnt have a BR drive it wouldnt cost what it does, it would cost less. So consumers are being forced to pay for at least some portion of it in order to play PS3 games.

 

[Titanio]

Its not a criticism, dont you think the reason why the PS3 costs more than the 360 is because of the BR drive? I dont follow your point here...

It is one reason, for sure, but..

Well we can play a shell game as to what Sony is paying for and what the consumer is paying for but in the end, if the PS3 didnt have a BR drive it wouldnt cost what it does, it would cost less..

..it would cost less again if they had taken out other things also, and so on. Where do you draw the line? Where does the line fall? Forgive me if I'm a little less eager than some to accept that it falls neatly where MS drew it.

This isn't the same thing at all.

But it is. With a cheaper less powerful GPU you could get the same level of per-pixel power etc. But they've targetted HD, and that's that.

ANYONE no matter if you have a high def TV or not will see a benefit in the games from those improvements.

Yes, but you don't need all that extra GPU power that's pushing more pixels your TV can't display. You do get a IQ improvement from the downsampling, like I said, but that extra power is otherwise being completely wasted for you.

With PS3 you don't have a choice in the matter and you end up paying for it all.

And like I said before, Sony takes a risk with the cost of the system. But MS has taken a risk with the functional standard of theirs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Thats where the 'forced' part comes in with Sony because the BR drive has no value-add to the gaming experience, its clearly just a lynchpin in Sony's other strategies.

You're reasoning is right IMO, but this comment is iffy. It's unproven whether BRD brings anything more to the console beyond HD movies.

The idea of 'forced hardware' is always there, but it depends on your POV as to whether you think a box is unfairly priced for your requirements or not. eg. If I would prefer to play Kameo with less graphical fidelity, and a simpler, cheaper GPU could manage that, or a 2.5 GHz CPU, MS are 'forcing' on me a GPU or CPU that's beyond the performance level I care for and charging for it. Consoles aren't about users choosing individual components to suit their needs and budgets. Or at least, haven't been to date. There have always been peripherals to affect the experience one way or another. A console is a package deal of hardware and software, and everyone has a choice whether they want to buy into a console package or not. It's like a package holiday. The PC is like a 'do it yourself' holiday where pick the components piecemeal for your hardware and software requirements. That of course has the downsides inherent in system complexity and hardware being untapped.

It's been suggested XB could go with an open-model, providing hardware standards where users can buy the components they want to fit the price they are willing to pay. Sony have also talked about bespoke PS3's to adapt to user requirements. None is really set to be a custom created price/performance balance though. I don't think devs would appreciate that either. If consoles are to remain consoles and not variabe computers, where the games know exactly what hardware they are running on and it doesn't vary between units, you will always be being 'forced' to use that hardware when you buy into that product. Only of course you're not forced, because if you think the price is too high you don't buy. Just as I'm not forced to get hugely into debt to buy a Ferrari because Ferrari only produce expensive cars - even if I want one I choose not to buy one and pick a different car with a different set of features and price-point. I don't expect consoles to go the way of different models of cars, so you get XB720 2.0L, XB720 2.4L, XB720 Turbo Diesel and the like. There's issues with confusing the market. Still, 2 SKU's for both XB360 and PS3 shows a movement in that direction as these companies try to balance their desired hardware with price. Maybe next-gen will have a half dozen models ranked in price from $300 up to $1000?

Regardless, no-one forces anything as long as people have a choice to buy or not. Giving people options to buy components is just adding more choices, not adding some choices where before there were none.

 

[expletive]

It is one reason, for sure, but..



..it would cost less again if they had taken out other things also, and so on. Where do you draw the line? Where does the line fall? Forgive me if I'm a little less eager than some to accept that it falls neatly where MS drew it.

I understand your point around who decides what is the accepted feature set for this generation of consoles, and its a fair one.

If we can agree that the BR drive is responsible for the price, then it comes down to the fact that now the burden of proof is on Sony wrt gaming and this drive.

Until its obvious that the BR drive adds something significant/relevant to a gaming console i think its fair for people to think the drive was forced on them because of Sony's BR movie strategy. MS isnt the only one staying with DVD this generation and with all that Sony has to gain from the propagation of BR as a movie format, you have to admit it is a valid point.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the point Dave was making is that there's a difference between being forced to pay for a feature many don't care about (i.e those people looking for a games machine and not a high def BR player.) and having the option to get exactly what you want and still buy addons if you feel the need in the future. i don't think the Xbox 360 forces people to pay for anything they weren't looking for. You don't want the hard drive or care about online, buy the core version. You don't want Highdef DVD, don't buy the addon drive. With PS3 you don't have a choice in the matter and you end up paying for it all.

I want to play Blue Dragon. I want to play it on a $200 console. I am happy to play it at lower quality. Because MS only provide one level of hardware, one set of CPU and GPU, at one minimum price, they are 'forcing' me to have to pay more for hardware I don't really want to play the game I want. They are forcing a 3.2 GHz CPU and cutting edge GPU onto me where for the games I want at a quality I am happy with, I could be happy with half as much technology at a far more agreeable price.

It's like buying a pack of Skittles. Let's say you only like the red, orange and yellow Skittles and don't like the green and purple ones. Mars are 'forcing' you to buy two flavours you don't like. They should provide smaller bags of individual flavours for us to pick and choose from. Same with chocolates. Most people find chocolates they don't like in a collection. Chocolates should be sold individually so people only pick the ones they want.

Almost all products and services are a collection of features, and you don't have any option to select fewer features than the minimum. I am forced to pay for Word with VB scripting support despite never using it, because MS won't provide me with a pick and mix of features for their wordprocessor. The choice everyone has is over the whole collection, where it satisfies you or not.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

If we can agree that the BR drive is responsible for the price, then it comes down to the fact that now the burden of proof is on Sony wrt gaming and this drive.

To be more accurate, the burden of proof is wrt to added value, not just gaming. It has to be repeated that Sony weren't just producing a console just to play games, and isn't trying to sell to a market that only wants to play games. If the people that buy PS3 like the BRD being included, whether it's because of games or movies or entire SDTV series on single discs or some other use, then it was right for the system. If the included BRD drive doesn't add value enough that people are willing to buy PS3, and they don't buy PS3 because of the price increase caused by the tech inclusion, than Sony were wrong to include it in their base specs because they've limited their market appeal.

 

[Qroach]

But it is. With a cheaper less powerful GPU you could get the same level of per-pixel power etc. But they've targetted HD, and that's that.

Yes, but you don't need all that extra GPU power that's pushing more pixels your TV can't display. You do get a IQ improvement from the downsampling, like I said, but that extra power is otherwise being completely wasted for you.

And like I said before, Sony takes a risk with the cost of the system. But MS has taken a risk with the functional standard of theirs.

Again this isn't the same thing. MS didn't use a better GPU to push more pixels solely for the reason of high def, they used a more powerful GPU to push more pixels (period). Even people with SDTV's can see the benefit of improved graphics over the previous generation.It's all part of what you pay to for to get a games machine. now when you pay extra for features that aren't necessairly gaming related, that's a different story.

Sony is forcing BR drives down people throats with PS3, whether you like it or not. BR has nothing to do with any sort of gaming initative sony is pushing. The end consumer in many cases will pay for the feature (that is really designed for movie play back in high def) even if they don't want or need it.

You and everyone else already know the reason WHY sony included BR support in the Ps3, and that was to increase the installed base for the technology "they" want to become standard for HD movie playback. I don't see how that benefits those that just want a PS3 console for video games.

 

[expletive]

You're reasoning is right IMO, but this comment is iffy. It's unproven whether BRD brings anything more to the console beyond HD movies.

Yep i agree, corrected.

The idea of 'forced hardware' is always there, but it depends on your POV as to whether you think a box is unfairly priced for your requirements or not. eg. If I would prefer to play Kameo with less graphical fidelity, and a simpler, cheaper GPU could manage that, or a 2.5 GHz CPU, MS are 'forcing' on me a GPU or CPU that's beyond the performance level I care for and charging for it. Consoles aren't about users choosing individual components to suit their needs and budgets. Or at least, haven't been to date. There have always been peripherals to affect the experience one way or another. A console is a package deal of hardware and software, and everyone has a choice whether they want to buy into a console package or not. It's like a package holiday. The PC is like a 'do it yourself' holiday where pick the components piecemeal for your hardware and software requirements. That of course has the downsides inherent in system complexity and hardware being untapped.

It's been suggested XB could go with an open-model, providing hardware standards where users can buy the components they want to fit the price they are willing to pay. Sony have also talked about bespoke PS3's to adapt to user requirements. None is really set to be a custom created price/performance balance though. I don't think devs would appreciate that either. If consoles are to remain consoles and not variabe computers, where the games know exactly what hardware they are running on and it doesn't vary between units, you will always be being 'forced' to use that hardware when you buy into that product. Only of course you're not forced, because if you think the price is too high you don't buy. Just as I'm not forced to get hugely into debt to buy a Ferrari because Ferrari only produce expensive cars - even if I want one I choose not to buy one and pick a different car with a different set of features and price-point. I don't expect consoles to go the way of different models of cars, so you get XB720 2.0L, XB720 2.4L, XB720 Turbo Diesel and the like. There's issues with confusing the market. Still, 2 SKU's for both XB360 and PS3 shows a movement in that direction as these companies try to balance their desired hardware with price. Maybe next-gen will have a half dozen models ranked in price from $300 up to $1000?

Regardless, no-one forces anything as long as people have a choice to buy or not. Giving people options to buy components is just adding more choices, not adding some choices where before there were none.

Absolutely and i'm really the wrong person to argue this point as i think there is value in the PS3 and will buy one either at launch or shortly after. But yes in the end everyone is not entitled to a PS3 or a 360 at a price they can afford. (While it certainly does behoove Sony and MS to get it selling at a price that everyone could afford).

What I think it comes down to here is that people feel they could have just as easily played PS3 games on a DVD drive and theyre paying $100-$200 more than they NEEDED to in order to do so. That combined with the fact that $600 is a LOT of money for a lot of people. Some people are Sony fans and are upset that they cant afford the thing and are looking to place blame. Youve got an editor of OPM on 1up now buying a 360 because of the PS3s price and shes not thrilled by it but she's making a typical consumer decision.

http://opm.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=7344653&publicUserId=5380375

I see where she's coming from and can sympathize. I think she's really speaking for a lot of people and i think its a totally valid concern.

To be more accurate, the burden of proof is wrt to added value, not just gaming. It has to be repeated that Sony weren't just producing a console just to play games, and isn't trying to sell to a market that only wants to play games.

Sure but how many of the 100 million current PS2 owners only want to play games and dont feel like footing the bill for Sony's convergance strategy?

 

[Titanio]

If we can agree that the BR drive is responsible for the price, then it comes down to the fact that now the burden of proof is on Sony wrt gaming and this drive.

It's one thing responsible for the price.

The premium there is $100 for the most comparable versions of the system. That $100 is buying you a number of things that are more expensive than 360 has, one of which is Blu-ray. So from a naive customer point of view, you might think it's actually a minor contributory, being responsible for less than 20% of the system's cost.

Until its obvious that the BR drive adds something significant/relevant to a gaming console i think its fair for people to think the drive was forced on them because of Sony's BR movie strategy.

Sounds like you're talking about the appetite one has to invest in potential versus realised benefit, but in a console that is usually true of most components. Most consoles as a whole are more potential than anything else starting out. While Blu-ray is marked by virtue of being an unknown quantity, I think in many cases it has as much to do with what others do and don't include as standard.

MS isnt the only one staying with DVD this generation and with all that Sony has to gain from the propagation of BR as a movie format, you have to admit it is a valid point.

Well first of all, I don't think MS should take comfort in the hugely inequal company of Wii, technically, as far as disc choice is concerned. Regarding the movie business, obviously there's much for Sony to gain there, but that's not to suggest there won't be gain for games either or that it is not a worthy component of a games console. Maybe, just maybe, there's a convenient opportunity for a double-benefit there. We'll have to wait and see.

Again this isn't the same thing. MS didn't use a better GPU to push more pixels solely for the reason of high def, they used a more powerful GPU to push more pixels (period). Even people with SDTV's can see the benefit of improved graphics over the previous generation.

If developers were targetting SD resolutions and pushing better pixels for SD, you'd have a point. But as is, the same level of quality could be had with a cheaper GPU that didn't need to push as many pixels, just push a SD amount of the same quality. (sans downsampling benefits already mentioned).

Sony is forcing BR drives down people throats with PS3, whether you like it or not. BR has nothing to do with any sort of gaming initative sony is pushing.

Says..you? Again, BS ball-gazing. There's little yet to indicate what benefit Blu-ray will or won't have for PS3, purely as a games machine.

 

[Qroach]

I want to play Blue Dragon. I want to play it on a $200 console. I am happy to play it at lower quality. Because MS only provide one level of hardware, one set of CPU and GPU, at one minimum price, they are 'forcing' me to have to pay more for hardware I don't really want to play the game I want. They are forcing a 3.2 GHz CPU and cutting edge GPU onto me where for the games I want at a quality I am happy with, I could be happy with half as much technology at a far more agreeable price.

Again this isn't the same thing. If you want to play current gen games, then stick with a PS2. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a 360. if you want to play next gen games, YES, you have to buy the new next gen console. I think this much is obvious. Trying to blame MS for releasing a game on thier next gen console and saying how it forces you to buy it, is a completely out of wack way to look at the situation. That's also an argument not being argued here.

This discussion IMO is about people that already decided to purchase a next gen gaming console and the difference between being forced to pay for a feature outside of gaming and having the choice not to. As mentioend earlier, i don't think the 360 forces anyone to pay for anything they don't want or need, as just about everything on the console is optional. Sony and the PS3 on the other hand force you to pay a higer price for something not all gamers will want.

 

[expletive]

It's one thing responsible for the price.

The premium there is $100 for the most comparable versions of the system. That $100 is buying you a number of things that are more expensive than 360 has, one of which is Blu-ray. So from a naive customer point of view, you might think it's actually a minor contributory, being responsible for less than 20% of the system's cost.

What else is that $100 getting you over the 399 xbox other than BR?

Sounds like you're talking about the appetite one has to invest in potential versus realised benefit, but in a console that is usually true of most components. Most consoles as a whole are more potential than anything else starting out. While Blu-ray is marked by virtue of being an unknown quantity, I think in many cases it has as much to do with what others do and don't include as standard.

I disagree, i think most consoles ship with features that can be immediately utilized and the benefit of their inclusion realized.

Well first of all, I don't think MS should take comfort in the hugely inequal company of Wii, technically, as far as disc choice is concerned. Regarding the movie business, obviously there's much for Sony to gain there, but that's not to suggest there won't be gain for games either or that it is not a worthy component of a games console. Maybe, just maybe, there's a convenient opportunity for a double-benefit there. We'll have to wait and see..

Yep maybe which is why i said the burden of proof for this double-benefit rests squarely upon Sony and PS3 developers.

If developers were targetting SD resolutions and pushing better pixels for SD, you'd have a point. But as is, the same level of quality could be had with a cheaper GPU that didn't need to push as many pixels, just push a SD amount of the same quality. (sans downsampling benefits already mentioned).

To be fair, we cant say that Xenos doesnt provide benefits at SD resolutions over any less powerful GPU.

 

[Qroach]

If developers were targetting SD resolutions and pushing better pixels for SD, you'd have a point. But as is, the same level of quality could be had with a cheaper GPU that didn't need to push as many pixels, just push a SD amount of the same quality. (sans downsampling benefits already mentioned).

This doesn't really have anything to do with developers. we're talking about consumers paying for features they might not want or need. Also your making some serious assumptions I don't feel like getting into a discussion about as it's a total change of subject.

But as is, the same level of quality could be had with a cheaper GPU that didn't need to push as many pixels

To quote you "Says..you? Again, BS ball-gazing." You really don't know one way or the other. however at SD res 360 games pr even PS3 games won't look worse then the previous generations games (unless no effort was made to improve the look of a cross platform title), even with the downsampling.

Says..you? Again, BS ball-gazing.

say what you will, but if you can't admit the simple fact BR drives in PS3 do increase the cost passed onto the consumer, and that not all potential PS3 customers will want this feature, and obviously yet don't have a choice (you can't buy a Ps3 wthout BR0), what's the point of continuing the discussion?

 

[mckmas8808]

As far as I'm concerned, what the market wants has been shown for the last 4 generations in a row: An affordable game system with the largest amount of good games. Everything else is secondary.

So do you think the PS3 will be $500 forever? This next-gen might give gamers a reason to spend a few extra bucks to play.

 

[mckmas8808]

I If we can agree that the BR drive is responsible for the price, then it comes down to the fact that now the burden of proof is on Sony wrt gaming and this drive.

Expletive listen! There is a 40 GBs more space in the HDD, there's WiFi in the PS3, there's motion tech in the controller, there's a HDMI port, one more USB port, and then and only then is there also a Blu-ray drive.

So to say the increase cost only comes down to the BR drive is a straight out lie. And only a lie.

 

[Titanio]

What else is that $100 getting you over the 399 xbox other than BR?

It's a question of what's more expensive i.e. what can you 'blame' for the extra cost. The CPU is more expensive. Some of the memory is more expensive. The controller is possibly/probably more expensive. Even if you want to assign only a small amount of the premium to these other things, the extra cost assigned to the BD drive using such a comparison is <=20% of the cost of the whole system. Now that's a naive approach, sure, but that's the cost comparison the consumer sees.

I disagree, i think most consoles ship with features that can be immediately utilized and the benefit of their inclusion realized.

And you know, there are probably some low-hanging opportunities for benefit coming out of BD that you'll see pretty immediately too (i.e. audio, perhaps, most notably, should be an easy win).

To be fair, we cant say that Xenos doesnt provide benefits at SD resolutions over any less powerful GPU.

Not over any less powerful GPU, but given that a lot of power is being spent on 'more' pixels for HD displays rather than better pixels for SD displays, the same per-pixel quality could probably be achieved with a less powerful and cheaper GPU. And no QRoach, it's the exact same thing and not off-point. Technology a person may not need that they 'have' to pay for.

say what you will, but if you can't admit the simple fact BR drives in PS3 do increase the cost passed onto the consumer, and that not all potential PS3 customers will want this feature, and obviously yet don't have a choice (you can't buy a Ps3 wthout BR0), what's the point of continuing the discussion?

I think you've missed the point. I have not contested BD adds to the cost of the system. I have not contested that not all users may want it. I am contesting judgement passed at this very early stage on its relevance to PS3 as a gaming system, and the proportionately with which it is singled out (and the motivation behind that, which in many instances I think purely comes down on party lines so to speak).

 

[expletive]

Expletive listen! There is a 40 GBs more space in the HDD, there's WiFi in the PS3, there's motion tech in the controller, there's a HDMI port, one more USB port, and then and only then is there also a Blu-ray drive.

So to say the increase cost only comes down to the BR drive is a straight out lie. And only a lie.

We're talking about the $499 PS3 version vs the 360 premium (hence the $100 difference).

And the motion controller doesnt have any rumble hardware in it so if you can prove one costs more than the other, go for it.

 

[mckmas8808]

We're talking about the $499 PS3 version vs the 360 premium.

And the motion controller doesnt have any rumble hardware in it so if you can prove one casts more than the other, go for it.

Again 40 GBs more space in the HDD. WiFi that will cost 360 owners to pay $100. And a HDMI port. That's at least $100 worth to you right? Right?


Edit: Oh crap I'm thinking about the PS3 premy. My bad exp. Well I guess you are right the Blu-ray drive between those to does take up most of the extra cost.

 

[Titanio]

Again 40 GBs more space in the HDD. WiFi that will cost 360 owners to pay $100. And a HDMI port. That's at least $100 worth to you right? Right?

We're comparing the $500 PS3 to the $400 360. The more expensive components I outlined in my past post, excluding a couple of things (like maybe more USB ports, if we wanna really get down to it ). If you want to compare the $600, you can, but then the premium grows to $200. The point still holds there, though, perhaps better even, as you'd then have the extra space, the wifi, the hdmi etc. which by MS's standards would probably add up to a lot more than $100 in value

 

[expletive]

And you know, there are probably some low-hanging opportunities for benefit coming out of BD that you'll see pretty immediately too (i.e. audio, perhaps, most notably, should be an easy win).

I'm not convinced, but hopefully. We'll see.

What did you have mind, higher quality, more of it?

 

[Qroach]

Not over any less powerful GPU, but given that a lot of power is being spent on 'more' pixels for HD displays rather than better pixels for SD displays, the same per-pixel quality could probably be achieved with a less powerful and cheaper GPU. And no QRoach, it's the exact same thing and not off-point. Technology a person may not need that they 'have' to pay for.

More pixels, or more pixels passes are not a draw back regardless of the resoloution. You keep saying this could be achieved with a less powerful GPU. however that is purely your opinion. i'm willing to bet even with the more powerful GPU,s you could produce a picture that looks far better than what you can produce on a less powerful and cheaper GPU regardless of downsampling. anyway lets just say I don't agree with you on this point at all.

I think you've missed the point. I have not contested BD adds to the cost of the system. I have not contested that not all users may want it. I am contesting judgement passed at this very early stage on its relevance to PS3 as a gaming system, and the proportionately with which it is singled out (and the motivation behind that, which in many instances I think purely comes down on party lines so to speak).

Well look back at what you said:

Titanio said: 'But 360 is forcing most people to pay for things they don't need too!"

Again this statement isn't correct. IF you decided to buy a next gen console, IMO in contrast to buying a PS3, the 360 doesn't force you to pay for things you don't need. Dave called you out on that one, and I had to ask what are you being forced to pay for in 360 when compared to PS3? you started arguing things like (high def resoloutions over SD, the more powerful GPU, developers targetting high def, etc...)

You can admit it is you want, Sony has admitted what they want to do with BR and the PS3. it's pretty obvious when they admit what their plan is, but some will always argue. I really don't care about that to be honest. Your option will drastically differ from mine on that point. however, I will argue that 360 doesn't force you to pay for a feature you may not want if your interest is purely gaming. You can't buy a PS3 without blu ray, it adds to the cost of the system, therefore some people that don't care about the movie playback functionality will still end up paying for hardware they won't get a benefit from. You buy a 360 just to play games, even with a SDTV I don't see how you CAN'T get a benefit from the added/more powerful CPU GPU and RAM included in the games available (the exception being the multiplatform ports where they don't bother to target any new graphical features. Most activision games, etc... but again you aren't forced to buy those games.).