PS3 HDD REQUIRED to Play Games but is NOT Standard?

[supervegeta]

Because that is horrible idea ,horrible...

It would surely be smaller than the xbox360 power unit.

Not to mention that 2.5" hd are slower, have a shorter life , and with the same price of a 60gb you can get a 250 gb one.

 

[kyleb]

To everyone takeing this news to mean the PS3 won't play games out of the box; anyone want to bet a PS3 on it?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

To everyone takeing this news to mean the PS3 won't play games out of the box; anyone want to bet a PS3 on it?

Well I think right now the situation is this

"Kutaragi also made it clear that the hard drive will be necessary to play games--Sony is telling developers to make games assuming every PS3 has a hard drive installed. "We view the hard drive to be mandatory for the PS3," he said. "Rather than have developers create games for the PS3 with or without the HDD, we will be asking them to develop games as though all PS3s have the HDD installed."

However, Kutaragi revealed that Sony had not decided whether or not the PlayStation 3 would come with the hard-drive preinstalled. "We might end up installing it in all PS3s, though that depends on the market," he said. This raises the possibility that the PS3 could be sold without a piece of hardware needed to play PS3 games--in effect forcing consumers to buy a peripheral for basic functionality."

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6145972.html

So either it has HDD included in the package, or you have to buy it separately to play games and that Sony hasn't yet decided what they are going to do, or won't say it just yet.

 

[DigitalSoul]

If its needed to play games, that it would only make sense that the systems comes with. If it isn't need, then of course you are going to probably need to do all those things they listed(Online and such).

 

[Mythos]

Let me offer an interpretation.....

Possiblely what KK is saying about "developing as if there is an HDD included" is a stragety on the PS3 platform. Because ALL developers will be using the BD-ROM format that stores up to 50gigs. That way what ever extra comes with the game will be included...thus allowing the PS3 platform to have more extra features than other console platforms; by default the PS3 platform becomes that added extra feature console for those cross plaform games and distigushes the PS3 format as the premuimum console with the premier games.

 

[Titanio]

Did Sony provide a proper release date in November, or did they simply list November as the "Target Window"?

I think they used some Japanese term which specifies it as being before or by Nov 11, I think.

I guess it makes sense.

Sony has stated that the PS3 will not be UNDER $425.

That was just a rumour, I think. There was no mention of any price, even as a minimum bar.

Sony has also confirmed that ALL PS3 games will come on blue Ray discs ( and not some on Blue Ray and some on DVD as was previosly thought ).

Does this point to the possibility of a rather slow Blue Ray Drive in the PS3? 1.5X ( mnimum for Blue Ray Move Playback ) to 2X?

I think 2x is the slowest in existance, and it likely will be that. It shouldn't be extraordinarily slow, but if HDDs are required, obviously that would help.

if all games come on bluray does that mean that an HDMI connection is required to play games?

No. You're thinking of blu-ray movies, and even then not all of them will require hdmi/hdcp.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Let me offer an interpretation.....

Possiblely what KK is saying about "developing as if there is an HDD included" is a stragety on the PS3 platform. Because ALL developers will be using the BD-ROM format that stores up to 50gigs. That way what ever extra comes with the game will be included...thus allowing the PS3 platform to have more extra features than other console platforms; by default the PS3 platform becomes that added extra feature console for those cross plaform games and distigushes the PS3 format as the premuimum console with the premier games.

I'm sorry but that is the most far fetched interpretation I have ever heard. That's not what he meant believe me.

 

[Inane_Dork]

if all games come on bluray does that mean that an HDMI connection is required to play games?

Without HDMI, the games will downscale to 480p for output.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Isn't it possible to connect via component to older analog HDTV's, and still get the full resolution.
I think the lates information says so, why would it be different on PS3 and Blu-ray games?

Sony decides against downsampling on analog HDTV
"We have no plan to implement the Image Constraint Token. All of Sony's titles will come out of the analog output at full definition"
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060314-6377.html

 

[Titanio]

Oh God, people, Inane was joking

Games will offer full resolution over analog or digital. There's no "content" as such there to protect, no one wants a recording of you playing your game

edit - rabid, if we're talking about movies again, yes, some studios won't use ICT, thus you'll get full res over analog for their titles. Sony is one, we'll see who else follows suit.

 

[ROG27]

This is what I envision as the most likely scenario:

Like the PSP, all of the initial PS3 units will be bundled with a 60 GB 5200 RPM 2.5" removable HDD in the Value-Pack fashion Sony has been doing as of lately. I will make an educated guestimate that this "Value-Pack PS3" will retail for $450.00 USD. 1 SKU....initially--->in line with Sony's publically stated plans as not to divide or confuse their consumer-base.

Then, like PSP is just doing right now, a year or so after the launch...Sony will offer more options with multiple SKUs. At this time, you will be able to purchase a "core system" stripped of a HDD for signifacantly less. This will allow the user to have more options with larger HDDs that are likely to come out down the pipeline. The "Core Pack" is likely to debut in the $350.00 to $400.00 USD price range, while the "Value-Pack" will maintain its price of $450.00 USD

If this pricing scheme is indeed adopted by Sony, remember this post, as you heard it here first.

 

[scooby_dooby]

HE MEANS THAT DEVELOPERS WILL BE 'REQUIRED' TO SUPPORT IT

Anything else makes abolsutely no sense, and the common sense bells should be going off right now. Will they make it standard? No it's too hard to cost reduce. Will they force all users to buy a 60GB hDD? No, it adds too much cost to an already prohibitive price. There you have it, it can't be 'required', sony is alot smarter than that.

This basically says that all PS3 games are required to support the HDD, they are telling developers to develop as if the HDD is there but with that said, of course games will work without the HDD, come on now...use your heads guys.

This simply means they will 'require' HDD-support from developers to help drive HDD sales so it doesn't become the old catch 22 that plagues most peripherals(no support = no sales = no support etc).

 

[dukmahsik]

I am wondering if MS made the right deal now with the core system. core system is mainly used for a price battle.

 

[Titanio]

Will they make it standard? No it's too hard to cost reduce. Will they force all users to buy a 60GB hDD? No, it adds too much cost to an already prohibitive price.

None of these things are certain, at all.

I think it's as easy to read Kutaragi's comments as reflecting a requirement on the part of the customer to have the HDD as it is to read it simply as a reflection of a requirement on the part of developers to support it (particularly when they're telling them they don't have to support systems without HDDs, basically, as I read his comment).

I think we should just wait for clarification. Harrison's GDC keynote, if he references the HDD, should hopefully make this clear.

 

[ROG27]

HE MEANS THAT DEVELOPERS WILL BE 'REQUIRED' TO SUPPORT IT

Anything else makes abolsutely no sense, and the common sense bells should be going off right now. Will they make it standard? No it's too hard to cost reduce. Will they force all users to buy a 60GB hDD? No, it adds too much cost to an already prohibitive price.

This basically says that all PS3 games are required to support the HDD, they are telling developers to develop as if the HDD is there but with that said, of course games will work without the HDD, come on now...use your heads guys.

This simply means they will 'require' HDD-support from developers to help drive HDD sales so it doesn't become the old catch 22 that plagues most peripherals(no support = no sales = no support etc).

I agree common sense would say that Sony is enforcing 'support' for a harddrive. That is a completely separate issue from whether or not it will be included in a SKU or not. Someone with a dev. friend on GAF (I don't know how trustworthy) says Sony plans on "bundling" a 60 GB HDD...he even went so far as to say it would specifically be a 5200 RPM HDD. He also claimed the Bluray drive would be a 2x, as well. That would be in-line with the "upgradable" comment, as well as the "required" comment.

And the prohibitive cost floor issue with hard drives in no longer a factor here because the harddrive in the next-gen systems are REMOVABLE...meaning they do not have to be physically included at all in future SKUs if Sony feels it has enough alternate options out there for its customers.

And that's why my theory makes sense (but, of course, doesn't necessarily have to happen).

 

[valioso]

I guess it depends on what "supporting the drive" means.

 

[thatdude90210]

I am wondering if MS made the right deal now with the core system. core system is mainly used for a price battle.

Interesting line of thought. And maybe Sony won't enter the PS3 into this price battle. They could just use the PS3 at the high end, and keep the PS2 to fight at the low end (vs the 360 core, and the Rev).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

HE MEANS THAT DEVELOPERS WILL BE 'REQUIRED' TO SUPPORT IT

Anything else makes abolsutely no sense, and the common sense bells should be going off right now. Will they make it standard? No it's too hard to cost reduce. Will they force all users to buy a 60GB hDD? No, it adds too much cost to an already prohibitive price. There you have it, it can't be 'required', sony is alot smarter than that.

That's logical, but defeats the logic of Developers should develop assuming HDD is there. That means as a developer, I can write a game assuming there's an HDD present so I'll create a huge living world saved on HDD, only to find PS3 launches without HDD and my game doesn't run. If the HDD isn't going to be there, you need to say 'don't assume there's an HDD', same as MS did.

Either way, there was a grammatical error someone along the line that's obscured the real meaning. Now a PS3 dev on this board should be ab le to say 'we're developing assuming an HDD is present' or some such, to confirm that they are writing to support an HDD, seeing as Sony have publicly made this statement.

 

[scooby_dooby]

That's logical, but defeats the logic of Developers should develop assuming HDD is there. That means as a developer, I can write a game assuming there's an HDD present so I'll create a huge living world saved on HDD, only to find PS3 launches without HDD and my game doesn't run. If the HDD isn't going to be there, you need to say 'don't assume there's an HDD', same as MS did.

Well, they never said to 'assume a HDD is there', simply that they are asking developers to code as if the system has a HDD, I see that as a big distinction. To assume it's there, would mean you could make your game dependant on the HDD, if you're simply asked to code as if the HDD is present then you may dedicate some extra resources to utilizing the HDD (which you normally wouldn't do until the install base is larger)

Also this wasn't directed at developers, it was directed at the general public and investors.

I see this as a public statement, that they inted to require HDD support, but I'm pretty sure that Developers are not making their decisions based on a slide that reads "HDD Required",

They must already have directions as to whether or not they can assume a HDD in 100% of all PS3's, and since Sony is not dumb, and won't risk being unable to cost-reduce, we know it's not going to be standard, take that one step further and we know that Dev MUST have been told that it wil not be on 100% of the systems.

Of course anything's possible, but why would sony do such a risk? They don't need to, it would be extremely stupid to bundle a HDD, or require it as a peripheral, and Sony's not stupid.

 

[valioso]

Well, they never said to 'assume a HDD is there', simply that they are asking developers to code as if the system has a HDD, .

That makes no sense whatsoever...