PS3: A smokescreen for Blu-ray? |
Ó
Is the Sony PlayStation 3 a game console with a built-in Blu-ray bundled in or is it in fact a Blu-ray player masquerading as a game console? The Guardian website in the UK thinks it's the latter.The Guardian interviewed Sony Europe VP Matt Brown and read between the lines to conclude that Sony is propagating the storage format using the PS3 as the Trojan horse to carry the drive that will help win the war against the HD DVD.
"The PS3 is going to help us do the job," says Brown. He explained that by selling the PS3, they bring the number of Blu-ray owners up. That way, even if consumers actually prefer the HD-DVD format, they'll have a Blu-ray drive by default and that gives them a compelling reason to use it and buy Blu-ray discs with games and movies in them.
Evidence for this strategy, the Guardian says, is the fact that the high-end PS3 is priced lower than most Blu-ray players. Thus, the wiser thing to do in this case would be to buy the PS3 and forget the player. The move is reminiscent of how Microsoft won its browser war against Netscape by bundling the Internet Explorer with the Windows operating system.
Ultimately, the article said that even if the console war is won or lost on Sony's end, its Blu-ray master plan will rake back the megabucks. Research firm Understanding & Solutions say that it's likely that Europe will have four million Blu-ray players, PS3s and PC drives using the format by 2008.
A bold interpretation of the status quo indeed. To read the full article published in the Guardian, click the read URL.
Via The Guardian
41 Jumps PSP homebrew - PSP live TV v0.3
21 Jumps PSP homebrew - PSP Live TV v0.4
17 Jumps Buy two, get one free at Best Buy
10 Jumps PSP homebrew - QMixer v1.0
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
According to The Inquirer, even if I preferred hd dvd, I'm stuck with blu ray because I bought a ps3. Dumbasses! Why, first of all would I prefer hd dvd in the first place? If I wanted hd dvd, I'd buy an hd dvd player. But the problem with this biased and slanted article is that blu ray has far and away more support than does hd dvd.
Now buying a ps3 is taking away choices. Sometimes I think these game reporters really think they're journalists of some sort. The Inquirer needs to stick with printing press releases as game reviews.
Wow - That article is like someone read my mind and then had the sense to jot it all down for other to read. Yes, of course the PS3 is a trojan horse - games don't really need 50GB of space and developers have to develop a 360 version simultaniously to fit on a 9GB disc.
Blu Ray certainly wasn't my choice of High Def DVD, but due to the fact that Sony have the majority backing of film studio's, it makes sense that BD (Why is Blu Ray abbreviated to BD anyway?) will have more choice for the consumer.
I personally wanted a HDDVD format player, but looked at the PS3 and thought - hey that's a cheap Blu Ray player and not OUCH - that's an expensive games console.
On a related matter PS3 games will only be as good as the 360 allows them to be. This is not my opinion, but a fact that will be shown as true over the coming years that developers release games for both formats.
DUR............
"games don't really need 50GB of space"
Just like people wouldn't need any more than 50mb of HDD storage space in 1990. Just like people wouldn't need any more than 1GB of RAM in 2002.
Get the picture?!
"On a related matter PS3 games will only be as good as the 360 allows them to be."
The only advantage the PS3 has is storage, so much storage the only way to use it all is to be wasteful. Yeah a PS3 game could need 25 or 50gb, but it would be redundant data to speed load times or wasteful uncompressed audio and video. RPGs are about the only game that would ever need more than a 9gb DVD9.
I don't think we'll ever see this supposed power of the cell, because the PS2 never could do what was promised originally either. Sony has always had the weakest hardware, and they would this round too if Nintendo was also going for a top notch HD system. Developers such as Bethesda had an extra year to develop Oblivion, and the graphical improvments are minimal, so minimal I couldn't even notice them. Motorstorm was developed for like 2 years and while the graphics are good, they didn't have time to work on anything else. The PS3's limitations are already showing and overcoming them will take time.
The reason PS3's games suck so bad is a combination of the cell and limited memory bandwith. Developers are having a bi*ch of a time overcoming these limitations. The blu ray read speed is slower so they have to cache more data to the hard drive.
It's a good thing the XBOX 360 has far more exclusives because it seems the PS3 is holding back the 360's multiplatform games. But hey, the PS3 isn't a game machine, just a blu ray player with added frills.
Also, HD-DVD has better picture quality, and some people prefer that over an all in one blu ray dontation system.
Sure, Blueray has come from behind, and overtaken HD-DVD with the launch of the PS3.
But it doesnt change the fact that.
1. There are estiamted 2 million PS3 blueray players and only about 200,000 HD-DVD players (Half stand alone) and blueray only has a 2:1 sales lead. It should be 10:1.
2. Fox has stopped they blueray release shedule becasue AACS was cracked, they are waiting for BD+ to be finsihed.
3. Blueray isnt even finsihed yet, BDJ support hasnot been implemented and all previous standalone players will be obsolite after october.
4. HD-A1 can be bought for under $300, and chinese players will hit the magic $200 price point this summer.
5. Universal has announced an amzing release shedule for HD-DVD this year.
6. WArner anounces the MAtrix trillogy for a may release, no release sheduled for blu-ray.
7. Hd-DVDs are still better video and audio quality then the majority of BLu-ray titles.
8. No one is buying standalone Blu-ray players, only 30K sold.
9. HD-Xa2 top selling HD player on amazon.
10. Many dont like being forced to buy, and have read all the bad press about Sony (Inst the internet grand)
11. Blu-ray side is way to arogent, spreading lots of fud, and all out lies.
12. Bluray players dont upconvert old media, becasue they want to out DVD, and force us all to buy new media.
HD-DVD isnt going anywhere for along time, and both formats have a chance of becoming the next laserdisk.
Im HD-DVD till the bitter end.
"because the PS2 never could do what was promised originally either"
Ever heard of God of War for PS2?
Oh well, the world needs its idiots.
There he goes again spewing bs about Sony products AS USUAL.....you really are a sad person Mr. No Sense. You have to be a paid MS employee to do what you do on a DAILY basis.
And it looks like it will be bitter for you.....
You don't know what developers are saying about the PS3 any more than the rest of us. Of course some developers are scared to make games for the new standard but the ones who are going to be successful are the ones who embrace change and aren't afraid of paradigms. Your a fool if you can't except change and see the potential that is strengthening on this side.
fine, less movies for you then.
this article is BS - PS2 was in the same situation as the PS3; really bad press about crappy games etc. the PS2 was one of the earliest machines to have a dvd drive..much like the ps3 with BD now (oh to the above guy - BD means bluray disc) nobody back in 2000 was complaining that the ps2 had a dvd drive...people need to stop making up crap to try and harm sony, you just make yourself look stupid.
While blu ray is definately in the short term lead, this battle is just beginning.
HD-DVD players will soon have the price advantage and be much cheaper than a PS3 for those who want HD movies. Since the HD-DVD discs are cheaper to manufacture, hopefully the savings will be passed on. Combo DVD/HD-DVD discs are possible, meaning new movies you buy can still be played in another room on the regular DVD player.
The big HD-DVD releases will begin soon, while blu ray has been releasing any crap movie they can find just to up the number of movies available.
I'm still sticking with DVD for now, and I may get a HD-DVD when the big releases start coming and I can get a player for $300 or MS lowers their add on's price.
In the stores around my home, the selection of blu ray and HD-DVD is about even, so that's how I judge who's winning (neither at this point.)
PS3 plays DVD, HD-DVD, Super Audio CD, and miniDVD (I think). PS3 is not a trojan horse to propel blu-ray.
Why wasn't this same argument around years ago when DVD was standard in both PS2 and Xbox? There's no valid point by getting your feathers ruffled because the format is incredibe.
Like I said, DVD's were only to be used for videos anyway, not games. Sony found a proprietory media format that can hold 50GB both for games and movies. Blu-ray's main purpose was for storage space for games; movies DON'T take up the WHOLE blu-ray, but they can if NEEDED.
Metal Gear 4 will take up to 20GB of that blu-ray disc, if more. Kojima knows that can't be done with HD-DVD so some content would be comprimised for another platform. You can't make different versions of MGS4 on different consoles; then it's not MGS4 but a bunch of spin-offs.
See my point: PS3 still plays DVD's. SO what if it has a blu-ray player. You still have the choice to buy a DVD or a Blu-Ray disc. The "sony is forcing blu-ray down my throat" claim is bs. You have the choice of what media YOU want to purchase for the player.
Please stop with the pointless arguments.....
Somehow my post got up here instead of below on Mr. No Common Sense
Fantard huh? You need to look in the mirror there guy. You come to a place to spew bs about a console YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE! I will just repost something I said earlier...
Look it is 100% obvious you are ONLY here to discredit ANYTHING Sony which is amazing since why would 1 person do so much and go out of their way to talk about something they dislike. Makes people wonder? And you STILL haven't answered the question by people here and myself.
Are you a paid MS employee? Funny how it has been asked at least 20 times now and you haven't answered; not even once. At this point even if you answer "no" nobody would believe you since your track record of posting bs lies is right here in black and white to confirm.
You state facts...yeah sure and the Zune is a great seller (sarcasm). You consistently spew YOUR own views and #'s that have NO basis about a console you don't even own! How could you be un-biased if you don't even own one to compare? Are yo man enough to admit that? Probably not.
Seriously this is way too easy, your own words show what you are really about and it just helps to prove your "so called" agenda (so you think). At least I can show I have some REPUTABLE credentials online with quite some years of help and service to the public.
Go to Afterdawn.com and go to the console section. I helped grow that whole section and today it has over 750,000 posts in all. I have been in the scene for MANY years and given back by Tutorials, Answers, Direction and more. What have you done? Besides come to QJ and speak negatively, hell the ONLY thing I really ever said bad about the 360 is that they have a PROVEN record of hardware failure issues. NOT that the 360 sucks graphically (since it doesn't), NOT that 360 OR PS3 is going to win, NOT that 360 games are really bad or anything truly negative about the 360....and you know why? I am a true gamer and a true gamers will play ANYTHING on ANY system and give credit where credit is due. Unlike you and your one sided closed mind.
Need I say more? Should I go on and break it down some more as to your TOTAL inappropriate, biased, self-centered, "MS is the best" clouded judgments? Say whatever you will but I am sure MANY people will read this and do some research as to what you have said and they can see it for themselves.
The only thing you have done here is show YOU truly are just a Fanboy. The pure 100% definition of one. You are not a gamer and you are not fooling anyone.
I keep hearing of these PS3 exclusive developers working to exploit the power of the cell, and Motorstorm was supposed to be doing that, but the results have been less than spectacular. With at least 2 years development time, they should have been able to turn out a better (and full featured) game than that. Just 2 months before the release of Motorstorm, Phil Harrison said it was going to be 1080p at 60fps, and it turned out to be 720p at 30fps, despite delays. Even then the framerate dips drastically at times. So yes, I would say developers are having a rough time. Is that somehow an incorrect assumption?
I don't make stuff up.
Looks like I still don't get an answer....makes you think huh?
do you just make this sh*t up as you go?
"Even then the framerate dips drastically at times"
I have beaten the game and played countless online matches of motorstorm and never seen the framerate drop. Have you even played the game?
is not putting a HD DVD drive on the Elite tells consumers one thing, HD DVD is dead. And for all you people screaming that HD DVD players are cheaper do the math, PS3 20 gig is 499.99!!! Thats the price of a freaking HD DVD player that will not support 1080p!!!! Besides SONY is coming out with a player in may for 499. Fox did not push back release dates because some one cracked the coding for Blue Ray, that crap was debunked months back! You people come up with more lies to support fan boyism!
" PS3 plays DVD, HD-DVD, Super Audio CD, and miniDVD (I think)"
--PS3 doesnt play HD-DVD.
all these people are saying that a game doesnt need 50 gb... more storage space means better lighting, better audio, more ways to do things in stead of having the repetitiveness that we see in games. the 7 spu's can be used for different things. resistance: fall of man could never be run on an xbox 3*****ty, lighting is run on 2, physics run on 3, they can have 50 enemies onscreen at once with bullets zipping by every which way and planes soaring overhead, and dead bodies left everywhere, and bulletshells and blood litttering the floor, birds roosting on things... its insane how much the ps3 is capable of.
the hd-dvd player for the three-*****ty costs an extra 200-250 bucks and it is among the worst players out there, blu-ray had better picture quality and the PS3 runs 2 1/2 times faster than a 360, so get your info right.
ive realized that alot of the multiplatform games on ps3 suck because they have had to limit the game so that it could also be on xbox. the loading times in def jam: icon suck. the only games im getting for ps3 are the exclusives, except for the darkness and army of two because those still look pretty badass. if you have played motorstorm, the graphics look as real as a game ever could, just look at the clouds, they look exactly as if they would if you looked up at the sky, i showed my stepbrother the live footage that the developers took of the canyon that the game takes place. he said "thats not real footage, it looks just like the game graphics..." i said , "exactly, thats how good the graphics are." ;)
xbox 360 and hd-dvd suckssssss. that is all. no argument, no foul. that's the truth. get over it.
What are you talking about? HD-DVD players support 1080P, even the 360 addon one supports 1080P. Considering Sony have just about discontinued the 20GB PS3 you can't use the 499 argument. That's like me saying Walmart had a sale on premium 360s last week for $299 so the 60GB PS3 is $300 more expensive.
Incredible! They figured out that Sony wants to use the PS3 to establish Bluray as the leading HD format! I'd NEVER have thought of that!! Some people are just sooooo smart!
Really, this article is a new all-time-low. Isn't it perfectly openly clear to every sane person that Sony is doing this, and why, anyway? Even though installing a new game console platform is important to them as well (seeing that the Playstation products were responsible for the majority of Sony's income for quite some time).
They could just as well post the "news" that Microsoft released the new Xbox model in order to gain more market share... how surprising...
Why do people say I work for MS?
No this is just my hobby. I know I'm probably not going to change anybody's mind, but I like giving you another point of view. I used to be behind sony 100% but if they care about pushing another one of their stupid media formats more than giving gamers what they want (like good games to play) then they can go to hell. If there was only one HD movie format and a movie player was included in the PS3, it wouldn't be a problem. That's why it worked with the PS2, DVD was the only movie format so I liked having it included.
I don't like buying products that try to sell me things I don't want.
So how is buying something that has old gen technology (360) a Next Gen Console? It isn't plain and simple. You come here and consistently put down ANYTHING Sony so how are you being "objective" when there has not been 1 single thing in support?
The truth is technology grows and Sony is the ONLY company that HAS offered more to the public. Not half assed efforts like other console makers, and yes this includes the Wii but that is a different story/special case as the Wii is still Next Gen for having something that was not available previously.
See this is how I look at it, I work hard for the money I make and I WANT the best tech out there. Which is why I own a Widescreen HDTV with the best possible connection HDMI so I can enjoy the money I spent on it. Now I have a 360 BUT it doesn't cover all the bases like a PS3 for the price.
MS 360 - $399
MS HD-DVD - $200
MS WiFi - $100
MS Live - $70 + $50 for each additional year I decide to pay for
SO although this does not apply to everyone that doesn't matter as that is what matters to me and I would guess to say most people who have similar setups fall in this category. You want 100% games ONLY then get a 360, you want some innovation on the cheap go Wii; but if you want and all around solution it is PS3. Now all of this is my opinion BUT I can see the potential of which the PS3 can offer in the near future unlike you who 100% NO MATTER WHAT IS SAID just will not have an unbiased view.
For christs sake the PS3 has only been out for what 4 months now and it (in your opinion) is a 100% failure. If you actually believe that then there is no point in anyone taking you seriously.
Give me a break people! There are problems with both systems due to the intense pressure on Microsoft and Sony to get a player into the public's hands as soon as possible.
Microsoft got the edge the same way they were able to pop out an x-box in such a short time... the XBox360 is little more than a PC that has been locked into one final configuration. This makes it easy to develop software and those developers are eager to do so because that software is eaily ported to the PC platform once any exclusivity clauses from microsoft have been satisfied. It also makes it easy to add stand-alone hardware that was made for PCs... like the HD add-on which will work with any computer with a USB 2.0 port and the Toshiba drivers. HD DVD being a mature technology with little room to grow, but hey MS will just build a new stand-alone when the next thing comes out (big arguement why the HD drive will never come built -in).
Sony on the other hand developed the PS3 from the ground up leaving plenty of room for developers to find out on their on time just what kind of engine it has under the hood. Going by history, this means that the release games will generally be the worst games for the system and the games will only improve as the developers get more used to the system. Sony also developed the BD player alongside this system. Again they took the fresh air route by starting from scratch. This path hurt them in the short term as the development time for BD has been long and torturous and there are still problems with play-back of VC-1 encoded movies on some players that have made Sony encourage studios to release their Blu-Ray movies using the old Mpeg 2 codec (at least for now) which is clearly an inferior compression standard.
Which is better?
MS - In your face with all the goodies RIGHT NOW!
or
Sony - pretty good now with the potential to blow away everbody in the market, just waiting to be tapped.
Finally you are dropping the insults and attempting an inteligent debate. Maybe there's hope for you yet Oner001.
For being "old gen technology," the XBOX 360 is sure giving the "true next gen" PS3 a run for its money. I'm still waiting for a truly impressive game on the PS3. The XBOX 360 had some really good games after 4 months like Oblivion and Ghost Recon. I'm not saying the PS3 is not capable of having a good graphically impressive game, but it takes a lot of loyalty and effort for a developer to do it. There is less money to be made making games for the PS3 than the 360 because of the smaller user base. That's why there will not be as many good games for the PS3 as the 360.
It's like the PS2 and XBOX were, just reversed this time.
I'm really tired of these price comparisons. Everything you want is not the same as what I want. If I decide I want something later, I can add it on later. The things I want are cheaper with an XBOX 360. Yes, I just want a good HD game console with features that don't add to the price. I am also considering a Wii because it's focus is also on games. Games are what put Playstation on the map on the first place. It was stupid of sony to drastically change the PS2's winning formula.
PS3 isn't a 100% failure and I never said that. The crap sony does just pisses me of sometimes. I have at least $3,000 invested in PSP and PS2 systems (2 of each), games, and accessories, and I feel cheated they're trying to use me to push their stupid media formats, and forgetting gamers like me made their systems a sucess in the first place.
That is why I am here, do you understand yet. Microsoft isn't perfect either, but they don't lie to me and treat me like a dumb consumer.
Like Ken Kutaragi saying "people will pay $600 because it's a playstation." In other words, "the idiots will buy it because we said so."
Wow you truly are a fanboy who doesn't have an open mind. That's okay because there WILL be a time when you WILL get a PS3 and even though you won't admit it here you will know you where totally wrong.
Hey, Common Sense, not that I'm trying to get into a flame war, but if Sony's really just interested in promoting their media format, what's the deal with FFIIX? God of War 2? Rouge Galaxy? Some of Sony's best games now are coming out for the PS2, even though the PS3's already out...
If they were really only interested in their BD format, wouldn't they make their old console obsolete ASAP and force all their best games to come out as PS3 exclusives?
Usually, I don't try to start flame wars either.
The PS2 has always been a true game console that can play DVDs. It wasn't built around a DVD player. The PS2 still sells well and so do games, so why would sony stop selling them?
The PS3 is basically a blu ray player that can play games. Even the cell processor was designed for blu ray playback, and that's why it isn't the best choice for gaming. A 25 or 50 gb disc can never be filled 100% with game data, at least this generation.
It's like when CD rom drives first came out for PCs. At the time most games were maybe up to 10 floppy discs or 14mb. With 650mb of space, CDs were totally unnecessary. There was a lot of shi*ty games out that were more like interactive movies. Even when playstation and saturn came along it was almost more space than was needed, and a lot of speech and video were used in games just because they could. Of course then the video looked much better than cutscenes rendered in game. Nintendo 64 had some of the best games that generation, and they got by with cartridges that only held 16mb. Now in game rendered cutscenes look so realistic, full motion HD video isn't needed.
Sony has made quite a few announcments on how blu ray is needed for next gen games, and that simply isn't true.
Nice post
I like all the goodies RIGHT NOW