Why MS needs Blu-ray or doesn't need it... *Spin-off

[silhouette]

The goal is to make money not make Sony lose more. Blu-ray add-on = money loser. I don't have time to play all the games on one platform, I certainly don't need to own both just for a few more.

What if blu-ray add on = revenue w/o any profit, but not loss. Each customer they share with Sony is equal to sharing their revenue from 3rd party games with Sony. If you are going to buy a multi-platform game and have both platforms at home, you are going to choose one of them, right?

 

[RobertR1]

What if blu-ray add on = revenue w/o any profit, but not loss. Each customer they share with Sony is equal to sharing their revenue from 3rd party games with Sony. If you are going to buy a multi-platform game and have both platforms at home, you are going to choose one of them, right?

They'd have to do a fair bit of r&d to get the software spec implemented on the 360. Then people would cry that the 360 only does 2ch PCM out over HDMI thus they'd need to redo the hardware for 5+ ch PCM out over HDMI. By the time this is all done, you'll have cheap standalone players on the market. The attach rate would be pitiful. You'd have more people yelling "MS is doing a me too! LOLZ!" than actually buying the add on.

 

[AlphaWolf]

What if blu-ray add on = revenue w/o any profit, but not loss. Each customer they share with Sony is equal to sharing their revenue from 3rd party games with Sony. If you are going to buy a multi-platform game and have both platforms at home, you are going to choose one of them, right?

The problem is the number of people that want such an add-on is fairly limited. How much resources do you suppose they should use to support a platform that is competing with their ultimate goal of digital downloaded content?

You can't guarantee them they'll do break even or better on any add on due to the start up costs of the venture. I don't see how its worth the risk for them. It would make a small number of consumers fairly happy, but I think most people don't care.

 

[silhouette]

HDMI 1.2 already supports upto 8 channel/192 khz/24 bit audio. As long as the software decodes it, there is no reason to update the hardware (+we do not know if they updated the HANA chip in the new models).

In terms of software, they already have all the necessary video codecs + the mandatory audio codecs + the code for PIP. The only missing part is Bd-J, but I am not sure how hard it is to implement that as well. The R&D cost might not be that prohibitive to come up with a profile 1.1 compliant Bluray player.

However, you have a point on the time-to-market. Unless, they release it before shopping season this year, it does not make much sense.. 150$ add-on make sense at the end of this year, but not the next year.

 

[silhouette]

I am going to de-rail the topic a little bit, but it is NPD tread, so I guess it is still ok..

Let's fast forward to two-three years ahead and assume a Bluray drive costs very close a DVD one. There are two consoles side by side at the retailer with almost equivalent price tags. The amount of games, their quality are almost equal on both of them. The biggest difference is one can play Bluray movies while other can not. Put a side any of your platform preference, which one would you buy? Let me make it a little bit more fun: For some reason, MS decides to put a Bluray drive in 360, while Sony decides to replace it with a DVD drive in PS3. Will you go with PS3 or 360? [Please do not forget, this is a hypothetical game. I am assuming none of the companies offering anything different other than the bluray capability]

 

[AlphaWolf]

If blu-ray is that cheap 2 years from now, you'll be able to buy standalone players for $39 right?

 

[Scott_Arm]

I am going to de-rail the topic a little bit, but it is NPD tread, so I guess it is still ok..

Let's fast forward to two-three years ahead and assume a Bluray drive costs very close a DVD one. There are two consoles side by side at the retailer with almost equivalent price tags. The amount of games, their quality are almost equal on both of them. The biggest difference is one can play Bluray movies while other can not. Put a side any of your platform preference, which one would you buy? Let me make it a little bit more fun: For some reason, MS decides to put a Bluray drive in 360, while Sony decides to replace it with a DVD drive in PS3. Will you go with PS3 or 360? [Please do not forget, this is a hypothetical game. I am assuming none of the companies offering anything different other than the bluray capability]

For me, it's purely games. If the machine with the bluray player has the games I want, that's the one I'd buy. If not, I'd buy the other machine + a standalone player when they were dirt cheap. I expect to have a Blu-ray drive in my PC at some point as well.

 

[silhouette]

But this is not my question, you are there to get a console. One of them plays, the other don't.

Having said that, you are right I guess. Even though it is at 100$, most casual gamers will still own a stand-alone player first, because they do not care much about games. When they want a console, having a Bluray drive will not be a deciding factor by then. I guess I answered my own question

 

[eastmen]

But this is not my question, you are there to get a console. One of them plays, the other don't.

Having said that, you are right I guess. Even though it is at 100$, most casual gamers will still own a stand-alone player first, because they do not care much about games. When they want a console, having a Bluray drive will not be a deciding factor by then. I guess I answered my own question

all the consoles have diffrent features . Some might say how can nintendo sell a non hd console without pluray for only $150 less than the ps3 .

Some can say how can sony sell a console for more than the xbox 360 without its robust library of games , lack of the same quality online play , lack of netflix support and untill recently lack of on online rental/ purchase hd service .

 

[Barbarian]

If blu-ray is that cheap 2 years from now, you'll be able to buy standalone players for $39 right?

And that would mean PS3 would have lost their advantage as a "cheap" Blu-ray player.

Honestly, there is no reason for Microsoft to ever put a Blu-ray player in Xbox360. This action would seem reactive and would make them only appear "equal" to PS3. There is no point spending tons of money just to be "equal" with the competition. Look at the current HDD "race" that's going on.

 

[DrJay24]

Some can say how can sony sell a console for more than the xbox 360 without its robust library of games , lack of the same quality online play , lack of netflix support and untill recently lack of on online rental/ purchase hd service .

As far as I know I cannot watch Netflix on either console right now and that online play on the 360 cost $50/year. Nice try MN.

 

[eastmen]

As far as I know I cannot watch Netflix on either console right now and that online play on the 360 cost $50/year. Nice try MN.

costs me $30 bucks a year and its a much better vaule to me than bluray can ever be. Remeber bluray costs me 20-40 $ per title I want to view .

 

[AzBat]

Btw, are you using Netflix? Because, with your gold subscription, you may already be covering the cost of the development of that feature evenif you are not planning to use

I don't subscribe to Netflix or any other video rental service. I don't even have cable or satellite TV service either.

Tommy McClain

 

[DrJay24]

costs me $30 bucks a year and its a much better vaule to me than bluray can ever be. Remeber bluray costs me 20-40 $ per title I want to view .

You are not even coherent, maybe you should edit your response for clarity.

 

[eastmen]

You are not even coherent, maybe you should edit your response for clarity.

you said live costs $50 a year which it doesn't , you can buy 13 months of live for as low as $30 .

You also forgot to mention that just having a bluray drive doesn't get you movies , you either have to rent them or buy them which costs alot more than xbox live does per unit of time played.

You neglected all of these things because it makes your original comparison moot .

 

[DrJay24]

you said live costs $50 a year which it doesn't , you can buy 13 months of live for as low as $30 .

You also forgot to mention that just having a bluray drive doesn't get you movies , you either have to rent them or buy them which costs alot more than xbox live does per unit of time played.

You neglected all of these things because it makes your original comparison moot .

Netflix, the same one you bragged about for the 360, also rents BDs - for the same price! Who want's to pay $6 per movie for 720P and DD5.1?

Live auto-renews at $50/year, sure you can find deals, but the average consumer won't.

 

[-tkf-]

costs me $30 bucks a year and its a much better vaule to me than bluray can ever be. Remeber bluray costs me 20-40 $ per title I want to view .

That you want to buy, not view, unless rentals are through the roof.

I like how the Blu-Ray effect is still being totally ignored by some. Any sales person worth his pay (okay i already messed up there) would make a point in saying that:

yes the PS3 is $50 more but it does include Blu-Ray, wifi and no online fee, and just the Blu-Ray support is worth $350

 

[PARANOiA]

That you want to buy, not view, unless rentals are through the roof.

I like how the Blu-Ray effect is still being totally ignored by some. Any sales person worth his pay (okay i already messed up there) would make a point in saying that:

You can keep telling people it's "worth it" however the market speaks louder than anything. If that's the case, why only now barely keeping toe to toe with the 360? And why is it getting spanked by the Wii by a lot? Because "worth" isn't a checklist... it's far bigger and more complex. Telling people what they want vs giving people is going to make the big difference here.

 

[StefanS]

I am giving this argument the benefit of a doubt, but my patience runs pretty thin (especially since the majority of this thread consists of the usual bickering). So depending on the next few posts I might lock this in a heartbeat.

 

[-tkf-]

HDMI 1.2 already supports upto 8 channel/192 khz/24 bit audio. As long as the software decodes it, there is no reason to update the hardware (+we do not know if they updated the HANA chip in the new models).

In terms of software, they already have all the necessary video codecs + the mandatory audio codecs + the code for PIP. The only missing part is Bd-J, but I am not sure how hard it is to implement that as well. The R&D cost might not be that prohibitive to come up with a profile 1.1 compliant Bluray player.

However, you have a point on the time-to-market. Unless, they release it before shopping season this year, it does not make much sense.. 150$ add-on make sense at the end of this year, but not the next year.

You would still have millions of 360´s that only supports 2 channel PCM in the wild.