This week's LB rumour

Harsh..! But some idiot will go around saying stuff like that...

 

Well anyway, obviously this rumor is false. A PS3 without blu-ray defeats the purpose of PS3's with blu-ray in the first place. And with movie studios citing PS3 specifically as an advantage, and with all Kutaragi's said about blu-ray's inclusion - I think it's a safe bet it's in there.

 

"'Tard Pack" is worse enough. But "Quad Pack" takes the cake!

 

If it isn't, then I would say that were a very serious blow, absolutely.

 

It'd make the HD format wrs more prolonged and interesting.

 

L-B your starting to enjoy hitting the hornets nest with the stichk aren't you?

 

There's talk about DVD and its successor bringing in hundreds of millions or billions a year in patent royalties. After getting all this studio support because of the prospect of Blu-Ray in every PS3, it would be stupid to segment the market. Not saying Sony absolutely won't do it but it would be stupid.

There would have to be a hell of a lot more than a HDD, unless that thing was over 200 GB, to justify a $100 price delta for the HDD SKU. And what are they going to do with that kind of storage on a game console? DVR? They should be chastened by the PSX experience.

L-B has to be loyal to B3D, as his 15k post count attests. But a cry for attention is not out of the question.

 

Isn't that the same exact argument that was used against MS's HDD-less X360 as well as MS's possible HD-DVD X360?

If MS somehow believes these things are possible or have value, why wouldn't Sony believe the same thing?

Also.. as far as quality/size of games go, what? Half (?) of the games next generation will be X360/PS3 ports. Are those cross-platform games going to be designed for BR and then "downsized" to DVD for the X360? Or is it more likely, they'll be designed around the storage capacity of the DVD to begin with?

So all you'd be losing in terms of game quality are the PS3 exclusives that might like the extra space of the BR. A loss, sure.. but not a console killer.

And I agree with Qroach.. Sure, Sony wants the PS3 to have BR for reasons we all know. But the argument has also been discussed that the timeline of the PS2/DVD isn't the same as the PS3/BR. BR isn't close to being in the same level of adoption as DVD was, the user base that can benefit from BR isn't close to being the same level as the user base that could benefit from the DVD in the PS2.

Maybe Sony has realized that including a BR in the PS3 isn't really a selling point, and will just make the console more expensive and delay its launch unacceptably.

He's also repeatedly said how expensive the PS3 has been and the reaction from gamers and analysts has been "No way.. it can't possibly be that expensive, it'll never sell!"

 

No it's not, as blu-ray is a format the larger SOny group is trying to push, and a good bit of their financial well being in the mid to long-term future could be affected by it's success or failure.

Again I don't think that the games themselves are where the blu-ray inclusion is important.

Well, you're certainly entitled to that opinion.

But that's just the thing - I feel blu-ray inclusion is a strong selling point. It is for me at least. Maybe we should do a B3D poll on the matter, to be voted on by individuals who are presently interested in the PS3.

Well, I'm one who believes it'll launch at around $400, so I can't take myself out of this situation and view it from your angle; IMO Kutaragi's just setting everyone up for the feeling of 'bargain!' when the price is finally announced.

If I'm wrong I'm wrong, but I'm willing to bet some $$$ on the blu-ray inclusion though.

 

I was referring to your statement that DVD versions of the PS3 would make the BR version useless.

You were talking in financial terms in that statement, meaning that nobody would then purchase the BR version of the PS3?

Which is a sad commentary, which is the exact reason that HD-DVD nor BR are in the X360, and is exactly why Sony might be considering removing it and it's costs especially if it leads to significant launch delays.

Do we need to do a poll? Can't we just look at HDTV sets sold in Japan, US and European markets for the past few years that included HDMI inputs and projections of those sales for the next 5 years and then compare those numbers to the numbers of PS2's sold and do an extrapolation?

So despite all the comments from Kutaragi and others that the PS3 is going to be expensive, and despite these rumors that are based around Sony offering multiple versions because of cost concerns, you still can't disconnect yourself from the situation enough to contemplate the plausibility of the possibility?

 

Ok, what statement did I make along those lines? I remember saying no such thing. Link me at will.

Refer to above - I don't know what you're talking about.

Sure - but I doubt it'll lead to delays.

The PS3 will be sold for roughly ten years, as will the PS2, as was the PS1. They've already stated 'relevence' down the line as a key design concern for them, and I doubt very highly with Sony's new push to target the high-end TV market primarily, that PS3 being ready for, ahem, the HD-Era isn't central to their thinking.

Hey, you may think me the fool here - that's fine.

I've already posted elsewhere in this forum why the chip costs to Sony this time around will be less than they were for the PS2. The *only* x-factor, as it were, is the blu-ray inclusion.

It'll be some time though before we know which one of us is right or wrong. Certainly, I'm voting for myself.

 

Yes, That was the argument I used, adamantly, about why I didn't believe X360 would drop the HDD.

By dropping making the HDD an add-on they would lose most of the benefit of the HDD in the first place since it could no longer be used for games. In addition, the HDD was the one Key advantage they had over the competition IMO.

But, they went ahead and dropped it anyways.

 

But people like you would gladly pay an extra $100 for the BR enabled PS3 right?

While anyone who didn't see BR as a major selling point (a large portion of the 80% of SDTV users, and the majority of the marketplace) could save $100.

This allows Sony to reach the HDTV audience that matters, i.e. the ones that will go out and buy BR movies. While still being able to meet demands and their launch schedule. If they went this way, they could probably do 80% dvd, 20% BR ps3's, because I honestly don't think there is a very large demand for BR playback outside of HDTV owners.

I'm not saying I believe this though, I would still put my money on a $400 BR PS3, one SKU.

 

Removing BR doesn't mean it will cheaper for us consumers.

 

Obviously if they were to sell 2 versions, the one without BR would be cheaper.

 

But why would they sell two versions (BR \ non BR) bec'se then they would be neither here nor there.

 

Just to chime in my opinion here (that is all these topics converge on in the end - opinion differences)...

Simple economics says it is in Sony's interest to get as many BR players out as possible even if they do cost in the inital stages. BR is a very extendable format (moreso than HDDVD) with potential for huge capacities over multi-layer disks and should last for a reasonably long time. As it gets royalties for the technology here (either every BR branded product pays a royalty or just players) it is ideal if it can establish a large market which will buy disks to soak up inital costs. Hardware costs go down, but royalties stay fixed over the product life cycle so Sony will make more and more as time passes. MS though are not going to get royalties from this and so putting a drive in would, although allow various things, not make a great deal of sense if the cost now is large as there is no chance of redemption via royalties.

Another seemingly amazing fact being brandished here is that "KK" said it would be expensive. Have any of you seen the announcement of this? As soon as he said it he was laughing indicating to take it lightly. Even then, all consoles are initally expensive - I remember people in the UK paying around $600 for a PS1 in the first year of release. Microsoft is the first one to try this multiple package option that allows for a cut-down cheaper edition, previously everything was 'in the box'. It makes good business sense to take the 'wait and see' approach which is what Phil (forget the name - Harrison?) said they would do. If consumers don't find it complex Sony said they would do it - all they were pointing out was that MS is following an untried model.

Oh and you guys seem to have massively missed the point as regards costs. As Sony has itself got all the patent libraries, controls royalty ownership, etc. etc. it is not going to charge itself double. A lot of the parts are standard commodity parts! Yes Cell etc. have had millions in R&D thrown at them but the R&D is expected to last and with Sony's chip fabrication capabilities (think how many Walkman's, TV's etc.) it will be cheap to produce. It will also be even cheaper (and this is a very neglected fact) because yields are almost irrelevant - if one SPU doesn't work fine, stick it in a set-top box to handle cable decoding, only got 1 SPU sell it as a DSP (this is not nuts go look at the FFT capabilities).