PS3 sales

[DuckThor Evil]

Very good points Shifty. With the strong PS2 performance Sony probably wouldn't have released PS3 any sooner even without Blu-ray and thus there certainly is very strong possibility for the HD DVD drive and also if Sony didn't have Blu-ray they would most certainly be playing some part in the HD DVD camp.

 

[Moonblade]

Yeah and now I pay 2 euro's for a beer instead of 2 gulden. God im happy with the euro... Besides that you are forgetting that sony screwed europe with the ps2 because there wasnt any reason at all to launch at double the USA price in Europe. And you are still pay about 30% more for a ps3 in europa than in the states, the price only looks cheaper but we are still getting ripped of by whoever is causing the 30% price difference and the euro didnt do anything to help that.

Atm its 24% price difference, it should be zero for every next-gen console but like you said it's still better than a whooping PS2 launch 80% (or something like that) price difference. I remember many fans importing an NTSC PS2 after european launch. Something that's not an issue anymore since shipping costs almost completely nullify the price advantage.

 

[mrcorbo]

It's only because of the BRD-HD DVD conflict that people assume it's the only reason BRD was included. Until that's confirmed, and we know an alternative HD drive wouldn't have been included given the absence on a Sony format, I think people are jumping the gun saying Sony are forcing their standard on people and that's the only reason it was included.

I think it's a question of Sony putting what they want in the system vs Sony putting what the consumers want in the system. IF PS3 launches 1 year earlier @ $100 cheaper, do you think most consumers would have really cared that it didn't have a BR/HD DVD drive?

 

[Phil]

I think it's a question of Sony putting what they want in the system vs Sony putting what the consumers want in the system. IF PS3 launches 1 year earlier @ $100 cheaper, do you think most consumers would have really cared that it didn't have a BR/HD DVD drive?

I surely would have, for one. Then again, I see the inclusion of BR as a good thing, not necessarely because of its ability to play back movie content, but because I see the added space as an advantage that can effectively make a difference over the console's life cycle.

 

[Ginko]

Actually, though this is true, I'm not sure that changes Sony's choices or PS3's price. Imagine that they didn't develop BRD and there was only the HD DVD standard. Do you think Sony would have stuck with DVDs or included HD-DVD? I think they'd have done the latter because they believe storage is important, and want HD video playback in their system, and thus the price of PS3 would still be very high. That's the difference between forcing a standard on people and choosing the next storage format as a content delivery platform. It's only because of the BRD-HD DVD conflict that people assume it's the only reason BRD was included. Until that's confirmed, and we know an alternative HD drive wouldn't have been included given the absence on a Sony format, I think people are jumping the gun saying Sony are forcing their standard on people and that's the only reason it was included.

Sony invested billions of dollars in developing the cell and blu-ray technologies. They put them in the Playstation 3 as a trojan horse to quickly accomplish economies of scale. There were certainly more elegant game development architectures available to be invested in as developers still claim that the PS3 is...different, and not as game development friendly (familiar?) as its rivals. The storage issue has been brought up by a handful of developers. Developers are still going on about their 360 development and that should be a sign that a larger storage format wasn't necessary just yet.

 

[Ginko]

I surely would have, for one. Then again, I see the inclusion of BR as a good thing, not necessarely because of its ability to play back movie content, but because I see the added space as an advantage that can effectively make a difference over the console's life cycle.

Oh yeah, we're paying for potential. Gotcha.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think it's a question of Sony putting what they want in the system vs Sony putting what the consumers want in the system.

This is a matter of the product being what Sony wants or not. PlayStation is supposed to be the box that does all your entertainment. Playing movies is part of that, and going into the future, playing HD movies is part of that too. If they didn't support HD formats, in Sony's eyes I think they'd regard themselves as having missed the requirement of being the all-in-one entertainment solution. Thus HD playback is essential to the product image, I think. For all those who complain about PS3 having an HD drive as an unneccessary extra cost for a games console, that isn't PS3's remit and if that's excessive in your opinion, don't buy it! But saying Sony shouldn't add an HD drive is kinda like saying the McLaren F1 should have lost it's big engine and technical features and used a cheap and pokey 1.0 litre diesel motor with an extra 2 doors and more seating because that's what the public wants. Doing that may well make for a more popular vehicle, but it stops being a McLaren F1. The HD playback may not be popular, but it's what makes the system what it is. Just like Wii's waggle control may not be what some people want, but it's necessary to be the Wii.

Developers are still going on about their 360 development and that should be a sign that a larger storage format wasn't necessary just yet.

And there lies the rub. 'Just yet' is all very well and good, but the system you have Day 1 is the same system you have in 5-6 years time. If looking forward Sony felt an HD drive was necessary (and that's not just for more games assets which is often disputed. Things like all regional content being on one disc, support for 12 languages etc.) they have to put one in at the very beginning. Now of course with their own format, Sony will want to use that one and leverage PS3 as a Trojan Horse (though remember that the Trojan Horse was a surprise for the stupid Trojans, whereas with BRD in PS3, everyone knows it's there, that Sony are supporting this format, and that its adding to the price. Trojan Horse is the wrong word.) BUT if Sony didn't have their own format, PS3 would still likely be the pricy HD-movie playing console. The only difference would be the arguments against BRD's inclusion would be against HD DVD's inclusion (uneccesary HD format adding to cost and production difficulties), and the argument about Trojan formats might be dropped. Though I dare say people would say instead Sony are just trying to increase HD DVD adoption when most people are happy with DVD, just to further sales of the HDTVs!

 

[Ginko]

And there lies the rub. 'Just yet' is all very well and good, but the system you have Day 1 is the same system you have in 5-6 years time. If looking forward Sony felt an HD drive was necessary (and that's not just for more games assets which is often disputed. Things like all regional content being on one disc, support for 12 languages etc.) they have to put one in at the very beginning. Now of course with their own format, Sony will want to use that one and leverage PS3 as a Trojan Horse (though remember that the Trojan Horse was a surprise for the stupid Trojans, whereas with BRD in PS3, everyone knows it's there, that Sony are supporting this format, and that its adding to the price. Trojan Horse is the wrong word.) BUT if Sony didn't have their own format, PS3 would still likely be the pricy HD-movie playing console. The only difference would be the arguments against BRD's inclusion would be against HD DVD's inclusion (uneccesary HD format adding to cost and production difficulties), and the argument about Trojan formats might be dropped. Though I dare say people would say instead Sony are just trying to increase HD DVD adoption when most people are happy with DVD, just to further sales of the HDTVs!

I see what you're getting at, I just don't think it the case. I can't argue against it as there really isn't any substantiative evidence to do so, but, unless you were sitting in on the board meetings when the PS3 was being drawn up, I don't think you can assess for certain what Sony's motives were.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

is kinda like saying the McLaren F1 should have lost it's big engine and technical features and used a cheap and pokey 1.0 litre diesel motor with an extra 2 doors and more seating because that's what the public wants. Doing that may well make for a more popular vehicle, but it stops being a McLaren F1.

Imo, thats a very bad analogy, The McLAren F1 is a race car, so its expected to have a big engine etc.

The PS3 is a console, and how useful bluray is can be argued.. I mean, it would still play games without it, only real benefit of it is not swapping discs.

 

[inefficient]

only real benefit of it is not swapping discs.

Scratch resistant surface
Low RPM speed means very quiet drive compared to DVD-ROM
Cooler name!
And swapping discs not required

 

[rounin]

Does it not offer the potential of bigger, more varied continuous worlds due to the larger space?

Fixed.

 

[Ginko]

Does it not offer the potential of bigger, more varied continuous worlds due to the larger space?

fixed

 

[Moonblade]

Imo, thats a very bad analogy, The McLAren F1 is a race car, so its expected to have a big engine etc.

The PS3 is a console, and how useful bluray is can be argued.. I mean, it would still play games without it, only real benefit of it is not swapping discs.

It's difficult for me to say that the PS3 is a 'console', it's ... uhm a playstation.
Ofcourse, gaming is still the core of the system and it's important sony doesn't forget that but the era of 'pure consoles' ended with the gamecube. Sony and Microsoft keep putting new multimedia functionality inside their boxes.
As long as consumers see these extra possibilities as an advantage instead of a useless feature raising the price it's a positive evolution from a business perspective. The real challenge for hardware producers is to make sure that all that extra functionality doesn't cripple the core of their system or confuses the consumer, kind of like the ngage did. I think blu-ray technology is compatible because I can see the benefits for a high-definition gaming device inefficient posted. Both PS2 and Xbox proved DVD playback does matter.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I see what you're getting at, I just don't think it the case. I can't argue against it as there really isn't any substantiative evidence to do so, but, unless you were sitting in on the board meetings when the PS3 was being drawn up, I don't think you can assess for certain what Sony's motives were.

No-one can say for sure, but when you look at everything Kutaragi has said including the conception of PlayStation and it's very name, it seems highly probable that Sony would want their next PlayStation to incorporate the latest video playback format, no?

Imo, thats a very bad analogy, The McLAren F1 is a race car, so its expected to have a big engine etc.

The PS3 is a console.

No, it's not. At least, Sony have never called it a console. Unless Sony are wrong about what the machine they've designed and built is, it's not a games console. Any more than a McLaren F1 is a badly made People Carrier because everyone says it's a people carrier with too few seats and too few doors and too much power and overpriced, despite McLaren saying it's a race-car that they designed to race and not carry people!

 

[blakjedi]

From what I read not sure if it is true or not the saturn and ps1 were basically neck and neck in japan till FF7 hit and the PS1 took off. Iam not sure in the other territories but from what I can remember the saturn was a dud in north america after a surprise launch backfired and they never recovered.

almost exactly right... FFVII and Tombraider 2 were the big franchise catalysts for the ps1 in the us... transparencies were the rage back then...

 

[Phil]

Oh yeah, we're paying for potential. Gotcha.

Is that such a bad thing? As Shifty already correctly pointed out - what's in the box on day 1 is ultimately what you're stuck with for the next 6 years, if not longer. As a day 1 customer, I would sincerely hope that the product I'm buying has some kind of forsight into the future - it better have, because the console should remain to be an attractive buy even in 4 to 6 years from now. If the inclusion of BluRay can ensure this, why not?

Anything at this point on the spec list is a "potential". We don't know how well CELL will be utilized, we don't know if the larger storage of BR will be used effectively (though we already had some comments from devs that already support that's already being used one way or the other). We don't know if Sixaxis will be something useful in most games or if it'll be nothing but a mear gimmick. Welcome to today's market where products are sold based on their potential. Another potential everyone buys into, is if the console of your choice will have the games you like to play in the future.

I could understand this talk if Sony would be forcing us into using a more expensive medium without any real benefits. Since when is the potential for something good, a bad thing?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Does it not offer the potential of bigger, more varied continuous worlds due to the larger space?

Fixed.

I gues it also offers to potential to limit this as well due to lower transfer and seek speeds?

Disc Space is an issue, but comparing the inclusion of BR to a Mclaren F1 racer is beyond silly. It's a small added benefit, not some huge differentiating factor. The vast majority of games can workaround the storage limitations by using multiple discs.

Of course that's just my guess, the next 3 - 4 years of software for the respective systems will prove it one way or another. I don't expect to see any big difference in game quality for a very long time.

 

[London Geezer]

If anything, BD-ROM could be compared to a huge 18-wheeler...

 

[scooby_dooby]

I could understand this talk if Sony would be forcing us into using a more expensive medium without any real benefits. Since when is the potential for something good, a bad thing?

When it incurs relatively extreme costs? i.e. much higher price, multiple delayed launches, low number of units at launch, all a direct result of BR.

It's fair to say that, from and end users perspective, paying for BR down the road is a good investment in the console of choice. It's also fair to say that all the costs of BR are a negative for the consumer, as it will ultimately make the PS3 a less successful console than it could have been(just my guess). That means less games, less exclusives, and lower utilization of the hardware as dev's tailor their games to the market leader, which is now 360. Goes both ways really.

I think it's fairly certain that PS3 could have dominated this generation again if they had've launched with DVD in 2005, now they probably won't. So, it's a trade off of potentials, better technology down the road for possibly a handful of superior games, but at the expense of not knowing whether the console you bought will dominate the market, and get all the rewards that come with that domination.

 

[Phil]

When it incurs relatively extreme costs? i.e. much higher price, multiple delayed launches, low number of units at launch, all a direct result of BR.

I'll give you the low number of units at launch - the 'much higher price' though is not only due to the inclusion of BR, but because of what's included in the entire package and its perceived value on the market (that includes CELL, the HDMI interface, BluRay, the built-in HD etc). If anything, BR's inclusion helps differenciate their product over the competition. If they follow the competition and offer nothing but a different brandname, it's called copying, yet adding functions that could differenciate their product even further (though at a drawback of selling at a higher price) is a negative?

Besides, the higher price isn't all together because of BR in the first place - it's also partly because of their change in strategy in making less money on add-ons and making the PS3 a more open platform - something, that on the other side of the fence, Microsoft is making you pay for, by charging horrendous prices on accessories. I really don't see a big difference in paying more for a product initially, than paying less at first and making it up as you buy into accessories/upgrades or live content. Yes, PS3 ends up being slightly more expensive, but the difference levels out a bit once you look at the big picture and notice the two different approaches their taking.

As for multiple delayed launches:
I really don't think the delayed launch is a direct result of the inclusion of BluRay - when you look at the way PS2 is still slaughtering the competition, one year after the launch of the 'early' Xbox360, launching any sooner [Spring 2006] would have been a bad idea. Especially when key features such as a built in HD, HDMI ports and BR would have had to be canceled.

Also, the high price of BR is one that will come down quick as more are produced. Once prices come down, so will the price of the PS3. Assuming BR will remain the expensive feature throughout its lifecycle is not very accurate. The built-in HD will take that spot, for sure.