For me, I actually saved money buying the PS3 instead of the 360.
No, you didn't, because all of those components are EXTRAS and not necessary to play games.
If someone hands you a free 360 game the absolute least amount of money you can spend to play it is $299+tax. That alone will allow you to put the game in and play it on your TV. You may have limited functionality and comforts, but you are still able to play.
If someone hands you a free PS3 game the absolute least amount of money you can spend to play it is (now) $599+tax.
The "360 costs just as much if not more than the PS3 because of all of these items which I personally deem absolutely essential" arguement is inherrently flawed because now matter how you cut it it is still OPINION. Not everyone needs the same features in order to enjoy their console.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
True, which is why Sony are idiots for not having the 20gig without Blu-Ray
That actually would have been the most ideal solution I think. You could have the 60gig version which includes everything and then a more basic version for just gaming and watching (or listening) to downloads. This would also work well for Sony because most people would probably still vouch for the 60gig anyway, but the ones who did get this 20gig version would actually be getting a better deal here over the 20gig that was actually used because excluding Blu-Ray would bring the price even further from $499. Plus it would be competing just that much more closely with the 360 at its base price.
The thing that throws a wrench into the whole Blu-Ray exclusion argument though is that it is the format being used for not just movies, but games as well. So Sony would have to go out of their way to either make the disk something that would work on multiple formats (DVD, Blu-Ray), or they would have to release two versions for each game (Blu-Ray and DVD 9). If they didn't do this but you had a version of the PS3 that didn't have Blu-Ray then well, you would be fucked because you wouldn't be able to play games. Excluding it altogether is something I think they simply would never do though because they want the Playstation brand to help them push movie formats. Its a pretty valid strategy but has some major drawbacks when price is concerned.
True, which is why Sony are idiots for not having the 20gig without Blu-Ray, but they did inspire all of the beautiful analogies in this thread.
Nope. This is the equivalent of Microsoft using the HD-DVD drive for games. Splits the user base, and is therefore inadvisable.
Them putting in looks like it won them a format war, which means $$$$$$$$$. Even if it didn't you'll still see the benefits in games. Personally I didn't have a problem with it. CD --> DVD --> Blu-ray (hd-dvd), the model works, it just drives the price to $Texas for most folks. Which is why they'll need a price cut sooner rather then later.
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Personally I didn't have a problem with it. CD --> DVD --> Blu-ray (hd-dvd), the model works, it just drives the price to $Texas for most folks. Which is why they'll need a price cut sooner rather then later.
CD-->DVD did drive the price of the consoles to $Texas. Cartridge-->CD didn't either.
Them putting in looks like it won them a format war, which means $$$$$$$$$.
Not necessarily, it may just mean that the PS3 has a one-off media type for its games in a few years.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Jaffe's Blu-ray comments: Sensationalized by Game Trailers? Yesterday, Game Trailers ran a teaser for an interview in which God of War creator David Jaffe appeared to recommend dropping Blu-ray from the PS3. But is that what he really said? Our sources say no.
What a difference a day makes.
Yesterday, internet news sites like Digg.com and GameDaily.biz were on fire with a controversial story in which David Jaffe appeared to recommend dropping Blu-ray from the PlayStation 3. The sites included inflammatory headlines such as "Jaffe: I Would Not Have Included Blu-ray in PS3."
The only problem is, it's becoming increasingly clear that Jaffe didn't actually say this. A trusted source just told GamePro that "it looks like GameTrailers is trying to sensationalize this [controversy] by only using a snippet" of the interview, which is due to air in an upcoming segment.
"Jaffe actually answers that question by saying he thinks the PS3 is perfect the way it is," our source continues, "but in his personal opinion he would have removed Blu-ray to make it cheaper. He goes on to say that Sony is smarter than him when it comes to this stuff."
Sony also tells GamePro that "David Jaffe is an industry pioneer who has earned the right to speak his mind on anything he wants when it comes to videogames." Read the full story here.
Today's talking point: Game Trailers -- newsmakers or sensationalists? We'll have further analysis soon.
So I'm fairly certain he says it, yes, but it's not like he's saying "Sony lol." He's still firmly in the pocket.
Personally I didn't have a problem with it. CD --> DVD --> Blu-ray (hd-dvd), the model works, it just drives the price to $Texas for most folks. Which is why they'll need a price cut sooner rather then later.
CD-->DVD did drive the price of the consoles to $Texas. Cartridge-->CD didn't either.
When you go back to the first generation CD/DVD/whatever players, yes they did. We're still in the first generation of BD players, and the PS3, at launch, clocked in as a cheap option for either of the two formats. I don't doubt that we'll start seeing perfectly affordable BD/HDDVD players by Christmas, even coming down into the $300 range.
Hell, high-end DVD players still run up to nearly $4k, last time I checked. Early shit's always expensive, and this is no different. We'll be seeing $20 BD players stacked neck high in five years. I'd put money on it.
Personally I didn't have a problem with it. CD --> DVD --> Blu-ray (hd-dvd), the model works, it just drives the price to $Texas for most folks. Which is why they'll need a price cut sooner rather then later.
CD-->DVD did drive the price of the consoles to $Texas. Cartridge-->CD didn't either.
When you go back to the first generation CD/DVD/whatever players, yes they did. We're still in the first generation of BD players, and the PS3, at launch, clocked in as a cheap option for either of the two formats. I don't doubt that we'll start seeing perfectly affordable BD/HDDVD players by Christmas, even coming down into the $300 range.
Hell, high-end DVD players still run up to nearly $4k, last time I checked. Early shit's always expensive, and this is no different. We'll be seeing $20 BD players stacked neck high in five years. I'd put money on it.
I'm sure Hi Def players will go down in cost. The argument is that they included it too early for it to be enticing and/or economical.
For comparison, the PS2 came three years after the first DVD player hit the market, allowing the cost to include it to become much more manageable. However, the PS3 and the first BD player hit the market within the same year. Furthermore, there was no competing format to DVD. It was the clear successor. I'm sure even people that can afford it and want to play Hi Def movies are holding off their purchase because of the perceived format war. Hence why the former design choice (PS2) seems much wiser than the latter (PS3).
Personally I didn't have a problem with it. CD --> DVD --> Blu-ray (hd-dvd), the model works, it just drives the price to $Texas for most folks. Which is why they'll need a price cut sooner rather then later.
CD-->DVD did drive the price of the consoles to $Texas. Cartridge-->CD didn't either.
When you go back to the first generation CD/DVD/whatever players, yes they did. We're still in the first generation of BD players, and the PS3, at launch, clocked in as a cheap option for either of the two formats. I don't doubt that we'll start seeing perfectly affordable BD/HDDVD players by Christmas, even coming down into the $300 range.
Hell, high-end DVD players still run up to nearly $4k, last time I checked. Early shit's always expensive, and this is no different. We'll be seeing $20 BD players stacked neck high in five years. I'd put money on it.
I'm sure Hi Def players will go down in cost. The argument is that they included it too early for it to be enticing and/or economical.
For comparison, the PS2 came three years after the first DVD player hit the market, allowing the cost to include it to become much more manageable. However, the PS3 and the first BD player hit the market within the same year. Furthermore, there was no competing format to DVD. It was the clear successor. I'm sure even people that can afford it and want to play Hi Def movies are holding off their purchase because of the perceived format war. Hence why the former design choice (PS2) seems much wiser than the latter (PS3).
But there is the memory to storage ratio that they always talk about. And besides that, when you are trying to win something could net you billions, you use every advantage you have. The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
For me, I actually saved money buying the PS3 instead of the 360.
No, you didn't, because all of those components are EXTRAS and not necessary to play games.
Since this thread is all about car analogies, you also don't need a car or bike to get anywhere...but it sure is nice.
Ya you can play games on a tard pack, but it doesn't compare at all to what you could have if you actually got online with the 360.
I also wasn't saying those are essential for everyone, but they were very important for me, and if I had instead gone with the 360 and would have bought those things, I would have had to spend more money. So yes, I did save money.
he clearly says, "itll come back to bite me in the ass in 4 years...but idve taken out the blu-ray and sold it for cheaper." and he almost seemed begrudged.
i dont think its as inflammatory as everyones making it out to be though, as a gamer, thats a logical thing to say. people talking about splitting userbases...sony split their own userbase with the ps3. the ps2 was a gaming console first, and it enjoyed enormous success and still does. sony got greedy though, and decided to shoe-horn its newest proprietary medium into its console, hoping the brand would essentially monopolize again. so instead of a core base of gamers, their new focus seems entirely too focused on technophiles/av enthusiasts. a group which is a helluva lot smaller than they thought it was.
To go kinda off-topic (like this thread was ever going to stay on the rails):
What is the fucking deal with Jaffe anyway?
I hear Jaffe this and Jaffe that. Luke Smith on 1-up Yours sounds like he is head of the Jaffe fan club. Jaffe did Twisted Metal and God of War. While good games, they were not exactly mind-blowing.
Why do people put him up there with Molyneux (who is amazing if you don't treat him on recent output) and Wright? I really don't understand his fame. Is it just because he likes to mouth off and bite the hand that feeds?
As someone who has listened to 1UP Yours for the last few months or so, may I ask if you're retarded? I mean seriously, the guy only started playing GoW1 a month or so ago (still doesn't sound like he's finished it though), says it's good and suddenly he's in the Jaffe fan club?
Also, if you want to know why people like Jaffe, it's because he's very out-spoken and God of War was fantastic.
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point. Everywhere I read one group posts more sales to BD, others post more sales for HD-DVD, then one has more developers, then the other has more space. There is so much misinformation on both sides that it is impossible to tell who is going to come out on top 5 years down the road. And regardless of what Sony advocates may want to believe Blu-Ray is at the end of the day just a storage format. Blu-Ray itself does not increase video quality, sound quality, or make games or movies better. It simply stores the information that is put onto it. So if you put a 240x130 video on Blu-Ray it is still a 240x130 video, period.
Again, just because the PS3 has Blu-Ray does not mean that Blu-Ray will win the format war. It may just mean that going forward the PS3 with have it's games printed on Blu-Ray and not be able to play HD-DVDs. Sony made a gamble with Blu-Ray in the PS3, it may pay off for them, but declaring them the winner now is just not reasonable.
Also, I'd like to point that I'm not trying to personally insult anyone here, just argue from my side of the table. I hope no one interprets my posts as such and if they do I apologize.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
It may just be me being picky, but I don't like to use my consoles as DVD players. They lack the remote. Then you can buy the remote but you've still got the problem with it looking hideous.
THere's just some kind of barrier that prevents me from accepting a console as a media player.
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point.
I don't think it's even a "war" at this point. When did Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies become available in the US? There was an article today which gave total US sales since launch figures from Nielsen, which are:
708,600 HD DVDs
844,000 BDs
Now, to put that in perspective, there were 1.656 billion (that's 1,656,000,000) DVD movies sold in the US in 2005 (source.)
That's a very small sample size to be basing conclusions on.
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point.
I don't think it's even a "war" at this point. When did Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies become available in the US? There was an article today which gave total US sales since launch figures from Nielsen, which are:
708,600 HD DVDs
844,000 BDs
Now, to put that in perspective, there were 1.656 billion (that's 1,656,000,000) DVD movies sold in the US in 2005 (source.)
That's a very small sample size to be basing conclusions on.
Not to be an ass, but do those sales figures take into the account the people who later returned them because they didn't realize they needed a special player to play those BD/HD discs?
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point.
I don't think it's even a "war" at this point. When did Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies become available in the US? There was an article today which gave total US sales since launch figures from Nielsen, which are:
708,600 HD DVDs
844,000 BDs
Now, to put that in perspective, there were 1.656 billion (that's 1,656,000,000) DVD movies sold in the US in 2005 (source.)
That's a very small sample size to be basing conclusions on.
Not to be an ass, but do those sales figures take into the account the people who later returned them because they didn't realize they needed a special player to play those BD/HD discs?
I don't have a clue. Even if they did, it would only reinforce the point, which is that relative to number of DVDs that are being sold, the number of BDs and HD-DVD is miniscule.
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point.
I don't think it's even a "war" at this point. When did Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies become available in the US? There was an article today which gave total US sales since launch figures from Nielsen, which are:
708,600 HD DVDs
844,000 BDs
Now, to put that in perspective, there were 1.656 billion (that's 1,656,000,000) DVD movies sold in the US in 2005 (source.)
That's a very small sample size to be basing conclusions on.
Not to be an ass, but do those sales figures take into the account the people who later returned them because they didn't realize they needed a special player to play those BD/HD discs?
This is actually a good point. I interviewed some sales folks at Best Buy a while back, and they said they make it a point to ask EVERYONE who tries to buy a HD-DVD or Blu-ray disk if they had an HD or Blu-ray player.
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point. Everywhere I read one group posts more sales to BD, others post more sales for HD-DVD, then one has more developers, then the other has more space. There is so much misinformation on both sides that it is impossible to tell who is going to come out on top 5 years down the road. And regardless of what Sony advocates may want to believe Blu-Ray is at the end of the day just a storage format. Blu-Ray itself does not increase video quality, sound quality, or make games or movies better. It simply stores the information that is put onto it. So if you put a 240x130 video on Blu-Ray it is still a 240x130 video, period.
Again, just because the PS3 has Blu-Ray does not mean that Blu-Ray will win the format war. It may just mean that going forward the PS3 with have it's games printed on Blu-Ray and not be able to play HD-DVDs. Sony made a gamble with Blu-Ray in the PS3, it may pay off for them, but declaring them the winner now is just not reasonable.
Also, I'd like to point that I'm not trying to personally insult anyone here, just argue from my side of the table. I hope no one interprets my posts as such and if they do I apologize.
Where are these stats that say HDDVD is outselling BD? I haven't seen any, the only things I've seen are the 3:1 and 4.5:1 for BD. You can't argue against the fact that there are many, many times more BD players out there than HDDVD because of the PS3. I'm not saying that it was a good decision or anything, I'm just saying that the PS3 is why BD is taking a massive lead.
Yeah, in reality the HD format "war" hasn't even started yet. Whoever is winning right now doesn't mean a thing until either of them starts to hit the mainstream, i.e. the sales numbers come even remotely close to competing with DVDs.
While Blu-Ray may be "winning", I don't think sales of either format are anything to write home about. Via High Def Digest:
[pic]
lol HD formats
Sure, mass adoption of BD is a ways off. I'll say it again, though; look at the early DVD sales as compared to VHS. Only the hardcore AV-philes adopted it early on, but then the price came down on players and it became more reasonable for the public. I don't doubt that BD will go the same way, it'll just take time. You seriously have to completely lack foresight to think that HD penetration isn't going to ramp up over the next year or two, and the most prominent and successful HD format will take over.
While Blu-Ray may be "winning", I don't think sales of either format are anything to write home about. Via High Def Digest:
[pic]
lol HD formats
Sure, mass adoption of BD is a ways off. I'll say it again, though; look at the early DVD sales as compared to VHS. Only the hardcore AV-philes adopted it early on, but then the price came down on players and it became more reasonable for the public. I don't doubt that BD will go the same way, it'll just take time. You seriously have to completely lack foresight to think that HD penetration isn't going to ramp up over the next year or two, and the most prominent and successful HD format will take over.
While I agree with you, there is one thing that will slow it down. For DVD, you didn't need a new TV. For Blu-Ray, you do. And televisions aren't something you upgrade regularly..
You seriously have to completely lack foresight to think that HD penetration isn't going to ramp up over the next year or two, and the most prominent and successful HD format will take over.
I don't see it going up in leaps and bounds in the next year at all. The next 5 years? I'd say that's a definite, but one year is still too early for most consumers.
KNYTE on
The best defense is a good offense.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Yeah, in reality the HD format "war" hasn't even started yet. Whoever is winning right now doesn't mean a thing until either of them starts to hit the mainstream, i.e. the sales numbers come even remotely close to competing with DVDs.
Which they never will. I'm glad I got my Next Generation LaserDisc at half off!
While Blu-Ray may be "winning", I don't think sales of either format are anything to write home about. Via High Def Digest:
[pic]
lol HD formats
Sure, mass adoption of BD is a ways off. I'll say it again, though; look at the early DVD sales as compared to VHS. Only the hardcore AV-philes adopted it early on, but then the price came down on players and it became more reasonable for the public. I don't doubt that BD will go the same way, it'll just take time. You seriously have to completely lack foresight to think that HD penetration isn't going to ramp up over the next year or two, and the most prominent and successful HD format will take over.
While I agree with you, there is one thing that will slow it down. For DVD, you didn't need a new TV. For Blu-Ray, you do. And televisions aren't something you upgrade regularly..
There's also the fact that for DVD, you don't even need a TV. Any PC/Mac these days plays DVDs, including notebooks, which is important for college students. If you already have a DVD player you can take with you, why would you bother with a new format that requires a new TV, rebuying all your films, and you can't even take with you?
I think it's pretty clear the winner of the format war is still DVD. :P
Not a good argument. BD players are available right now. Also, I think the fact that DVD PC games never took off is a pretty good indication of how many DVD drives are in computers nowadays.
I think what's really interesting about all of this speculation is that people say the same sort of thing about technological progression all the time. What did Bill Gates say about RAM? You all seem to be underestimating the consumerist nature of the American population. Bigger and better is alluring merely because it is bigger and better. The SD->HD progression has just begun, and we'll be seeing higher rates of HD penetration as time goes on. Nobody's arguing that it will be immediate, it'll take time just like every other format change does, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
The real question is whether there will be another HD format being pushed out soon. HD penetration is going to scale pretty sharply when the FCC changes go into effect in what, 2009? (only 4 years later than original, hah). If it's still bluray/hd-dvd at that point, and one is leading the pack for whatever reason, I think it'll take off significantly.
The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point. Everywhere I read one group posts more sales to BD, others post more sales for HD-DVD, then one has more developers, then the other has more space. There is so much misinformation on both sides that it is impossible to tell who is going to come out on top 5 years down the road. And regardless of what Sony advocates may want to believe Blu-Ray is at the end of the day just a storage format. Blu-Ray itself does not increase video quality, sound quality, or make games or movies better. It simply stores the information that is put onto it. So if you put a 240x130 video on Blu-Ray it is still a 240x130 video, period.
Again, just because the PS3 has Blu-Ray does not mean that Blu-Ray will win the format war. It may just mean that going forward the PS3 with have it's games printed on Blu-Ray and not be able to play HD-DVDs. Sony made a gamble with Blu-Ray in the PS3, it may pay off for them, but declaring them the winner now is just not reasonable.
Also, I'd like to point that I'm not trying to personally insult anyone here, just argue from my side of the table. I hope no one interprets my posts as such and if they do I apologize.
I said "Looks like it's working", not "War over olol". The ratio is like 9 - 2 in favor of them. And I'm not sure what you've been reading, but Blu-ray has had the most support and storage. And it is a storage format, one that allows substantially greater amounts of content. This won't matter for a place like EA, but it will absolutely matter to people like Ueda and Kojima, it gives them more freedom.
Look at it like this: You could have a short, awesome game, or a long awesome game. What do you pick?
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Every time somebody brings up Ueda I'm reminded of the fact that, even though I pray every night that digital distribution will assassinate both HD disc formats before they can really take off, I'm reminded that it doesn't matter because one day I'm going to buy a Playstation 3 for the next Team ICO game.
The ironic part is that by the time I buy one, the price will have dropped and Blu-Ray probably won't affect my decision either way.
Not a good argument. BD players are available right now. Also, I think the fact that DVD PC games never took off is a pretty good indication of how many DVD drives are in computers nowadays.
I think what's really interesting about all of this speculation is that people say the same sort of thing about technological progression all the time. What did Bill Gates say about RAM? You all seem to be underestimating the consumerist nature of the American population. Bigger and better is alluring merely because it is bigger and better. The SD->HD progression has just begun, and we'll be seeing higher rates of HD penetration as time goes on. Nobody's arguing that it will be immediate, it'll take time just like every other format change does, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Didn't PC DVD games not take-off because Wal-Mart said "no" to selling DVD PC games?
Posts
Its like reading an Action Button review full of horrible analogies but actually be entertained.
(actually, KNYTE had a pretty good one about hybrid engines)
No, you didn't, because all of those components are EXTRAS and not necessary to play games.
If someone hands you a free 360 game the absolute least amount of money you can spend to play it is $299+tax. That alone will allow you to put the game in and play it on your TV. You may have limited functionality and comforts, but you are still able to play.
If someone hands you a free PS3 game the absolute least amount of money you can spend to play it is (now) $599+tax.
The "360 costs just as much if not more than the PS3 because of all of these items which I personally deem absolutely essential" arguement is inherrently flawed because now matter how you cut it it is still OPINION. Not everyone needs the same features in order to enjoy their console.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
That actually would have been the most ideal solution I think. You could have the 60gig version which includes everything and then a more basic version for just gaming and watching (or listening) to downloads. This would also work well for Sony because most people would probably still vouch for the 60gig anyway, but the ones who did get this 20gig version would actually be getting a better deal here over the 20gig that was actually used because excluding Blu-Ray would bring the price even further from $499. Plus it would be competing just that much more closely with the 360 at its base price.
The thing that throws a wrench into the whole Blu-Ray exclusion argument though is that it is the format being used for not just movies, but games as well. So Sony would have to go out of their way to either make the disk something that would work on multiple formats (DVD, Blu-Ray), or they would have to release two versions for each game (Blu-Ray and DVD 9). If they didn't do this but you had a version of the PS3 that didn't have Blu-Ray then well, you would be fucked because you wouldn't be able to play games. Excluding it altogether is something I think they simply would never do though because they want the Playstation brand to help them push movie formats. Its a pretty valid strategy but has some major drawbacks when price is concerned.
Nope. This is the equivalent of Microsoft using the HD-DVD drive for games. Splits the user base, and is therefore inadvisable.
Them putting in looks like it won them a format war, which means $$$$$$$$$. Even if it didn't you'll still see the benefits in games. Personally I didn't have a problem with it. CD --> DVD --> Blu-ray (hd-dvd), the model works, it just drives the price to $Texas for most folks. Which is why they'll need a price cut sooner rather then later.
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
CD-->DVD did drive the price of the consoles to $Texas. Cartridge-->CD didn't either.
Not necessarily, it may just mean that the PS3 has a one-off media type for its games in a few years.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Couldn't they just have a model with a Blu-Ray drive and a model without, and NOT use Blu-Ray for games?
http://gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=108709
So I'm fairly certain he says it, yes, but it's not like he's saying "Sony lol." He's still firmly in the pocket.
So, he did say he would not have included blu-ray.
He just sugar-coated the fuck out of it.
When you go back to the first generation CD/DVD/whatever players, yes they did. We're still in the first generation of BD players, and the PS3, at launch, clocked in as a cheap option for either of the two formats. I don't doubt that we'll start seeing perfectly affordable BD/HDDVD players by Christmas, even coming down into the $300 range.
Hell, high-end DVD players still run up to nearly $4k, last time I checked. Early shit's always expensive, and this is no different. We'll be seeing $20 BD players stacked neck high in five years. I'd put money on it.
I'm sure Hi Def players will go down in cost. The argument is that they included it too early for it to be enticing and/or economical.
For comparison, the PS2 came three years after the first DVD player hit the market, allowing the cost to include it to become much more manageable. However, the PS3 and the first BD player hit the market within the same year. Furthermore, there was no competing format to DVD. It was the clear successor. I'm sure even people that can afford it and want to play Hi Def movies are holding off their purchase because of the perceived format war. Hence why the former design choice (PS2) seems much wiser than the latter (PS3).
But there is the memory to storage ratio that they always talk about. And besides that, when you are trying to win something could net you billions, you use every advantage you have. The PS3 is a pretty big one, and it looks like it's working.
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Since this thread is all about car analogies, you also don't need a car or bike to get anywhere...but it sure is nice.
Ya you can play games on a tard pack, but it doesn't compare at all to what you could have if you actually got online with the 360.
I also wasn't saying those are essential for everyone, but they were very important for me, and if I had instead gone with the 360 and would have bought those things, I would have had to spend more money. So yes, I did save money.
Ah sorry, thought 360 wasn't able to do that for some weird reason.
it isnt sensationalized at all.
he clearly says, "itll come back to bite me in the ass in 4 years...but idve taken out the blu-ray and sold it for cheaper." and he almost seemed begrudged.
i dont think its as inflammatory as everyones making it out to be though, as a gamer, thats a logical thing to say. people talking about splitting userbases...sony split their own userbase with the ps3. the ps2 was a gaming console first, and it enjoyed enormous success and still does. sony got greedy though, and decided to shoe-horn its newest proprietary medium into its console, hoping the brand would essentially monopolize again. so instead of a core base of gamers, their new focus seems entirely too focused on technophiles/av enthusiasts. a group which is a helluva lot smaller than they thought it was.
360 Gamertag: Baronskatenbass Steam: BaronVonSnakPak HgL: AnsonLuap
As someone who has listened to 1UP Yours for the last few months or so, may I ask if you're retarded? I mean seriously, the guy only started playing GoW1 a month or so ago (still doesn't sound like he's finished it though), says it's good and suddenly he's in the Jaffe fan club?
Also, if you want to know why people like Jaffe, it's because he's very out-spoken and God of War was fantastic.
You keep making statements like "Because of the PS3 Sony has absolutely won the format war" but that is just not true at this point. Everywhere I read one group posts more sales to BD, others post more sales for HD-DVD, then one has more developers, then the other has more space. There is so much misinformation on both sides that it is impossible to tell who is going to come out on top 5 years down the road. And regardless of what Sony advocates may want to believe Blu-Ray is at the end of the day just a storage format. Blu-Ray itself does not increase video quality, sound quality, or make games or movies better. It simply stores the information that is put onto it. So if you put a 240x130 video on Blu-Ray it is still a 240x130 video, period.
Again, just because the PS3 has Blu-Ray does not mean that Blu-Ray will win the format war. It may just mean that going forward the PS3 with have it's games printed on Blu-Ray and not be able to play HD-DVDs. Sony made a gamble with Blu-Ray in the PS3, it may pay off for them, but declaring them the winner now is just not reasonable.
Also, I'd like to point that I'm not trying to personally insult anyone here, just argue from my side of the table. I hope no one interprets my posts as such and if they do I apologize.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
THere's just some kind of barrier that prevents me from accepting a console as a media player.
(EXcept the xbox)
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
I don't think it's even a "war" at this point. When did Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies become available in the US? There was an article today which gave total US sales since launch figures from Nielsen, which are:
708,600 HD DVDs
844,000 BDs
Now, to put that in perspective, there were 1.656 billion (that's 1,656,000,000) DVD movies sold in the US in 2005 (source.)
That's a very small sample size to be basing conclusions on.
Not to be an ass, but do those sales figures take into the account the people who later returned them because they didn't realize they needed a special player to play those BD/HD discs?
Enlist in Star Citizen! Citizenship must be earned!
I don't have a clue. Even if they did, it would only reinforce the point, which is that relative to number of DVDs that are being sold, the number of BDs and HD-DVD is miniscule.
Battle.net: Fireflash#1425
Steam Friend code: 45386507
This is actually a good point. I interviewed some sales folks at Best Buy a while back, and they said they make it a point to ask EVERYONE who tries to buy a HD-DVD or Blu-ray disk if they had an HD or Blu-ray player.
About half didn't.
Where are these stats that say HDDVD is outselling BD? I haven't seen any, the only things I've seen are the 3:1 and 4.5:1 for BD. You can't argue against the fact that there are many, many times more BD players out there than HDDVD because of the PS3. I'm not saying that it was a good decision or anything, I'm just saying that the PS3 is why BD is taking a massive lead.
lol HD formats
Sure, mass adoption of BD is a ways off. I'll say it again, though; look at the early DVD sales as compared to VHS. Only the hardcore AV-philes adopted it early on, but then the price came down on players and it became more reasonable for the public. I don't doubt that BD will go the same way, it'll just take time. You seriously have to completely lack foresight to think that HD penetration isn't going to ramp up over the next year or two, and the most prominent and successful HD format will take over.
While I agree with you, there is one thing that will slow it down. For DVD, you didn't need a new TV. For Blu-Ray, you do. And televisions aren't something you upgrade regularly..
I don't see it going up in leaps and bounds in the next year at all. The next 5 years? I'd say that's a definite, but one year is still too early for most consumers.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms, history shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own fall"
- Adolf Hitler, Edict of March 18, 1938.
Which they never will. I'm glad I got my Next Generation LaserDisc at half off!
There's also the fact that for DVD, you don't even need a TV. Any PC/Mac these days plays DVDs, including notebooks, which is important for college students. If you already have a DVD player you can take with you, why would you bother with a new format that requires a new TV, rebuying all your films, and you can't even take with you?
I think it's pretty clear the winner of the format war is still DVD. :P
Not a good argument. BD players are available right now. Also, I think the fact that DVD PC games never took off is a pretty good indication of how many DVD drives are in computers nowadays.
I think what's really interesting about all of this speculation is that people say the same sort of thing about technological progression all the time. What did Bill Gates say about RAM? You all seem to be underestimating the consumerist nature of the American population. Bigger and better is alluring merely because it is bigger and better. The SD->HD progression has just begun, and we'll be seeing higher rates of HD penetration as time goes on. Nobody's arguing that it will be immediate, it'll take time just like every other format change does, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
I said "Looks like it's working", not "War over olol". The ratio is like 9 - 2 in favor of them. And I'm not sure what you've been reading, but Blu-ray has had the most support and storage. And it is a storage format, one that allows substantially greater amounts of content. This won't matter for a place like EA, but it will absolutely matter to people like Ueda and Kojima, it gives them more freedom.
Look at it like this: You could have a short, awesome game, or a long awesome game. What do you pick?
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Every time somebody brings up Ueda I'm reminded of the fact that, even though I pray every night that digital distribution will assassinate both HD disc formats before they can really take off, I'm reminded that it doesn't matter because one day I'm going to buy a Playstation 3 for the next Team ICO game.
The ironic part is that by the time I buy one, the price will have dropped and Blu-Ray probably won't affect my decision either way.
Didn't PC DVD games not take-off because Wal-Mart said "no" to selling DVD PC games?