The message you selected is no longer available for viewing.

This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Looking back at it from today ,was adding Bluray a smart move by sony?

#1private400Posted 1/24/2013 12:50:27 PM
Sure ,it was very expensive back in 2006 and it was a very big risk since it did not become standard yet ( was still competing with HD- DVD's) and it was a big contributor to that 599$ price tag.

but looking at it from today , did it pay off?
---
you don't really know a woman 'til you've had a strong drink and a fistfight with her. - nord wisdom from utgherd the unbroken
#2SDFan18Posted 1/24/2013 12:52:24 PM(edited)
That aspect paid off, yes. Sony's tied into the film industry, so I knew HD DVD wouldn't take over as the secondary format to DVD.
---
"Welcome to nowhere and finding out where it is."
PSN ID: BBFaNaTiC86
#3PHEEliNUXPosted 1/24/2013 12:52:01 PM
If PS3 couldn't play Blu-ray it couldn't play games
---
PSN:PHEEliNUX
#4regsantotomasPosted 1/24/2013 12:55:05 PM
Did it pay off for consumers? yes. Having competing formats was beneficial to nobody. PS3 blu-ray players were a key aspect to driving that format over HD-DVD.

For Sony, it seems to be a more marginal victory. Blu-ray didn't become the de facto format used by consumers that replaced DVD with regards to critical mass consumption and delivery.
---
the bitter truth is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. ~ Anton Ego
#5EoinPosted 1/24/2013 1:03:43 PM
Purely when considered from a gaming perspective, not really. It's allowed a few games to have higher-quality pre-recorded video and audio, and it's saved us from having to swap discs a few times. These are not massive advantages. It's also added greatly to the durability of the discs, which is definitely good. On the other side, it's slowed down loading times and necessitated mandatory installs of many games, plus, of course, adding significantly to the cost of the PS3 initially (and is probably what has kept the cost of the PS3 above that of the Xbox 360).

So for this generation, purely for games, Sony could have gone with DVD again and it wouldn't really have made much of a difference. (Next generation Blu-ray is the only sensible choice for an optical disc format, of course).

From a more rounded overall media perspective, I'd say it was worth it. Initially the ability to play Blu-ray movies was a big selling point for the PS3, and helped (and to some extent continues to help) distinguish it from the Xbox 360. In a generation where most of a console's non-gaming capabilities are software and network based and can therefore be replicated fairly easily by a competitor, Blu-ray gave PS3 an advantage that the 360 couldn't copy (at least not elegantly, as the HD DVD add-on proved).

Not only that, but the PS3's Blu-ray support was the biggest deciding factor in the format war between Blu-ray and HD DVD. It was a factor behind some of Blu-ray's studio support, and it was the driving force behind Blu-ray sales for a long time - until the PS3 appeared, HD DVD outsold Blu-ray 2:1 weekly in the US, both hardware and software, and PS3 flipped that around within a matter of weeks. That was an important boost for Sony, as they had failed with many other recent formats - MinDisc just didn't take off, SACD did worse, they were forced to compromise on a Toshiba-led format for DVD, UMD didn't work for anything but games, Memory Stick was only really kept alive by the PSP and Sony's other equipement. They needed a clear unambiguous win with an open format, and Blu-ray provided that.
#6este914Posted 1/24/2013 1:04:29 PM
PHEEliNUX posted...
If PS3 couldn't play Blu-ray it couldn't play games


It would just be some other format then
---
--> [ este914 ] <--
The One & Only !
#7Dave4202Posted 1/24/2013 1:05:07 PM
If it couldn't play blu-rays, GoW3 and MGS4 would have been 4-5 discs.
---
http://social.bioware.com/n7hq/home/overview/?name=KingGuy420&platform=ps3
#8PHEEliNUXPosted 1/24/2013 1:05:26 PM
este914 posted...
PHEEliNUX posted...
If PS3 couldn't play Blu-ray it couldn't play games


It would just be some other format then



Make 2 Models i guess then, Movies are for boring people
---
PSN:PHEEliNUX
#9JoveHackPosted 1/24/2013 1:06:09 PM
regsantotomas posted...
Did it pay off for consumers? yes. Having competing formats was beneficial to nobody. PS3 blu-ray players were a key aspect to driving that format over HD-DVD.

For Sony, it seems to be a more marginal victory. Blu-ray didn't become the de facto format used by consumers that replaced DVD with regards to critical mass consumption and delivery.


It's worse than that. BluRay and DVD sales stopped increasing and started dropping.

As far as I understand it, Sony doesn't own BluRay. So by using it to beat HD-DVD Sony won a battle for the companies that do own it. With no big reward for their efforts that I can see.

The PS3 was too expensive to use as a BluRay player, imho. When I got my PS2 many years back I played DVDs on it without fear, because it was cheap enough to replace. In fact, I'd partly gotten it to replace a DVD player that went bad.

So of all the mistakes that Sony made with the PS3, it was the manufacturing costs and price that killed them. If the PS3 had come out at no more than $350, and if Sony had made money at that price, then the snowballing success of the PS2 would have been theirs once again.

Cheaper price + profit = more sales = more profit directly, and indirectly due to economies of scale. A bigger installed base = more sales for game developers = more games = more reason to buy a PS3.

Nintendo happily took the path abandoned by both M$ and Sony, and rode the Wii to profitability. Meanwhile both the XBox 360 and the PS3 are overall money losers.

---
Jove the Sleep Depraved
http://primal.wikia.com
#10EoinPosted 1/24/2013 1:06:31 PM
Dave4202 posted...
If it couldn't play blu-rays, GoW3 and MGS4 would have been 4-5 discs.

Or they'd have compressed things more and gotten them down to one disc, or two at the most.