Sony PS3 With No Blu-ray: Would you?
October 16, 2008 | Filed under Gaming, Sony Playstation 3
The Sony PS3 got off to a very slow start when it was first launched, a few price cuts later and things are looking better for the next-gen games console. Consumers have attacked Sony and asked that the price should be reduced even further: however Sony maintains that they already make a loss on the machine.
Gamers have argued that the price of the Sony PS3 should be more in line with the Xbox 360, but Sony have always said that they cannot do that as they make a loss on the PS3 as it is. The reason they say is because of the hardware inside, mainly the Blu-ray player.
So we have hit on a good point, if the PS3 did not have a Blu-ray player it would then be cheaper to purchase. Would having a PlayStation 3 with no Blu-ray player bother anyone. I have had a PS3 for 6 months now, and in that time i have only played a Blu-ray movie twice.
If you had the choice to have a cheaper PS3, and did not come with a Blu-ray player, would you buy that console?
Get the latest news in our RSS Feed, Newsletter or follow us on Twitter.
Silly question, given that games are also delivered on Blu Ray, and that several games (thinking about MGS4 in paricular) are dependant on that medium…
On the opposite, give us a PS3 with a smaller HDD (20-40Gb) at $299, and you got a winner in both worlds (Blu Ray player and game console).
you need a brain my friend
Blu-ray has cost Sony $billions, and they have zeor to show for it.
Great job Sony.
@greg
with the price of storage these days as low as they are, i dont think shrinking the hd space would actually return that much is cost savings. plus with mandatory installs it wouldnt justify it.
@MCM
sony has been always pushing the limits of new technology so having blu-ray in the machine shouldn’t be too surprising. they put a dvd player in their console before nintendo sega and microsoft, so i don’t mind them doing what they are doing, who knows maybe they will get desperate and drop the price of the xbox 360 twice in six months
**edit: i mean sony ps3
That’s a really odd question, seeing that those games you’ve been playing are made for HD discs - use the capacity - and have the quality unattainable on a regular DVD. I would not replace my PS3 with one without a BR player. That’s dumb.
blu ray is key its cutting edge technology if u dont like the price get a sh*T Box and pay damn near the price of a ps3 for a hddvd drive oh thats right hddvds are out blu rays are in blu ray is half the package not to mention the future of movies & gaming playstation did the right thing microsoft rushed there cheap sh*t out there and it flashed red for every one in two months sony is quality you get what u pay for!!!!!!!
Really, you seriously wasted your time posting this? Buying a PS3 without blu-ray would be… “Unpossible..” games already out like MGS4, DeadSpace, LBP, Socom would all have to be repressed as 3-10 DVD’s, and you’d need to start shipping the unit 500+gig HDDs so that you could pre load the incredible amount of (did someone say uncompressed?) data.
You my friend are silly, don’t leave your day job.
I wont lie PS3 i my console and i will have it anyday over the xbox 360, but main problem is the exclusive titles. Dont get me wrong, PS3 has more exclusives then on xbox 360, but PS3 exclusive are not as good as gears of war and halo 3. Resistance 2 and killzone to could be the halo killers, and littlebigplanet and pretty much own All the wii, lilttle kid games that no buddy plays but every talks about them. But PS3 is losing the exclusive the true playstation fans loved. Like whatever happend to HAveing Final fantasy, tekken, GTA, Spyro, crash, I no all those games were there even before xbox was made but still, if it would be PS3 exclusive, PS3 fans wont think sony is slapping them in the face buy letting it go to xbox. GTA 4 , assasins creed, infamous, Tekken, Final fantasy, and NOW i hear talks about MGS4 going to xbox, This shouldn’t happen, The more exclusives, the better. For example HAZE was great for keeping it exclusive, and MGS4 was crushing the xbox fanboys even though they wont admit it, and GTA being exclusive to xbox would have just devestated them and the only game they can talk about would be saints row which would also be on PS3. I no sony has many first party support and they have lots of 3rd party support to but they cant just let exclusive go and think game developers will just develop games on it exclusivly for free. MOst developers are just not loyal anymore, all they care about is money. And the few that are loyal usally get respect and make great games. SONY just take care of your exclusive and you will be fine. BLu- ray is great technology and i think developers just love having it.. But if consumers really want a cheap PS3, then try making a PS3 that is stripped to the MAX. ANd i mean, take out wifi, keep two USB prots, remove total B/C, even for PS1 games, remove harddrive and WARN the costomer that some games will not work on the console becasue there is no hardrive. and sell it for $250 or less. A bit harsh but when you have some costomers complaining about the drive, give them something that is cheap and eventaully they will realize that it was foolish to want it because it was so cheap. FOr example, people say xbox is so cheap and is almost $200 cheap then PS3. But then a month, later, they had just wasted even more money then as if they just gotten the PS3 in the first place. Sony you need advetise what the PS3 has and what is built in. To people, they are to lazy to do the math them selves. Kids tell there parents oo i want PS3, then they go to the store and see ps3 and xbox right beside it. They ask what PS3 is and what xbox the cheaper one is and see it. To them they dont see the diffrence and stores wont tell them either because they just trying to make money and just tell you about the console you want, not what better or cheaper in the long run. Let people no that HEY, this is the PS3 and it has everything you need built in as oppose to other consoles where you have to pay extra to enjoy all features. This too will also make sales better. I say thins because i am currently borrowing a PS3 from my cousin, as he is on vacation and will get my own this christmas. I also tried xbox 360 and it good when you ave everything but PS3 is just much better and is just a better experiece to me. I want people to get PS3, because i hate playing online with people i dont now and only now a few people becaus everyone else is on xbox live. This problem as become has gotten smaller and i am starting to know many more people having PS3 but the more the better. I love have friends and play PS3 and being able to go to school and laugh at my friend on how i owned him in a game or something funny that happened and i love just playing with people i know and just being able to talk to them when not even at school or on the computer.
I personally am pretty happy with the PS3 the way it is but, because of the XBOX 360’s limited capabilitys developers are only giving us what the 360 can do at max but not what the PS3 can do.
So in this case having Blu-ray in the PS3 has been a bit of a waste so far. I mean there is only one game that has used a 50GB Blu-ray disc and that was MGS4. Truth be told though I bet most of that space was used for the long ass cut-scenes. It was recently found out that Burnout Paradise was only like 3.5GB and that isn’t even a full DVD.
I personally think that if developers started to think about the PS3 first and use some of that space on a blu-ray for other things like for example adding…
- Full Soundtracks
- Wallpapers Associated with their game
- Theme’s Associated with their game
- Trailers
- Making of Video’s
- Artwork
- Access to all Cutscenes that you have viewed via a Cutscene Gallery
- Custom Avatars that you can use for your PSN ID
- and of course extra stuff the 360 version just shouldn’t be able to fit onto a DVD
of course i don’t think this will ever happen. Since Developers are in it for the $$$ they will probably never just give us access to the Soundtrack,Theme’s & Avatars without trying to charge us for it. I mean now the PS3 store has a Premium Theme section.When the PS3 music store comes they will charge you for the Soundtrack and I’m sure charging for Avatars is just around the corner.
As for all the other stuff I mentioned most of that stuff they just stick on the PS3 Store for free. I really think developers should make use of the 25GB Blu-ray disc and try to get as much of the stuff that is associated with their game on the disc.
It kinda shows how much they are really trying to make full use of the PS3’s capability’s. So as long as the 360 is around and developers focus on it we won’t see much better or extra from the PS3 unfortunatly.
of course i will buy it, i don’t need the blue ray player, i need a console to play games, not blue ray movies, damn it they will get rip off…
GEeezzyyyyyy… You my friend are an idiot. First off you said, “Dont get me wrong, PS3 has more exclusives then on xbox 360, but PS3 exclusive are not as good as gears of war and halo 3.” The first half of your statement is flat out wrong. “Given these rules, here are the latest scores as of March 2007. In the lead is the Xbox 360, with 80 titles, 33 released and 47 unreleased. Following this is the Nintendo Wii of 53 titles, 13 released and 38 unreleased, and finally, the PS3 with 39 titles, 9 released and 30 unreleased.” (http://ps3.qj.net/Exclusive-titles-count-at-the-next-gen-console-wars/pg/49/aid/85380) This means that XBOX is making more games than Sony, and has an upper hand when attracting gamers. The second half of your statement is very true however, and I thank you for admitting this. XBOX has in fact out sold PS3 when considering exclusive titles, and the titles tend to be considered better games.
Secondly, you ask anyone in the gaming department at Wal-Mart, and guess what, if you have internet they’ll suggest a HDD. Not only that but for those people who don’t have HDD for their XBOX, Mircosoft
has launched a program so that you can get a 20GB HDD for only $20. (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332515,00.asp) So that argument is invalid for the XBOX. You’re right though when you start to strip a console of backwards compatibility, you turn off customers. For example, I ‘was’ going to buy a PS3 very recently as I ran into some money, but then I discovered the PS3 no longer had B/C so I’m playing my XBOX again. XBOX clearly has way more features than the PS3 in every aspect.
Now no offense, but you really need to get out more. You “DON’T’ like to play with others? What’s wrong with you? Are some anti-social Emo kid or something? Grow a pair and stop worrying about what people think about your acne.
Now because you so kindly just ranted and raved, and never backed up any of your points, not to mention actually answered the writer’s question I will. Simply put, the only selling point the PS3 has is the Blu-Ray player. In fact, that’s the main thing my friends with do with their PS3. It’s the cheapest player, and that’s the only reason I wanted it other than to play ‘older’ PS games.
i personally would not care a bit because they cost too much money blue ray dics and i don’t have a hd tv but i don’t know about other people they should take a survey if they really want to take the blue ray out
That is a ridiculous question. The PS3 wouldn’t be the PS3 without the storage capacity offered by Blu-ray. I’ve had a PS3 since the start, and I use it equally for both games and Blu-ray movies. Being able to get a next gen disc player in my game console was a huge win / win for me.
I’m glad Sony stuck to their guns with this one. The PS3 is both a great gaming machine and a great HD movie machine. Beyond just the video improvements, the audio improvements offered by lossless audio tracks like Dolby True HD and DTS HD-MA are HUGE improvements over conventional lossy formats like Dolby Digital and regular DTS.
If you, the original writer, have only watched a couple of movies on Blu-ray, you either have a less than ideal setup or can’t see or appreciate the improvements offered by Blu-ray.
Xbox 360 60Gig $299.99
No wireless network +$ 82.99
1 Wireless controller +$ 0.00
Xbox Live +$ 38.99
= $419.97
PlayStation 3 80Gig $399.99
1 wireless network adapter $ 0.00
1 Wireless controller Dualshock3 $ 0.00
1 Playstation network $ 0.00
1 BluRay $ 0.00
= $399.99
Like for like PS3 in better value, what’s the problem.
Yes I agree Sony need to drop the price because they need to look at the WII and not the Xbox360.
People are way too cheap now. Back in the 80’s game consoles weren’t cheap and they weren’t anywhere near the quality and power of the PS3. If $400 is too much for you go buy a SNES or something, you can’t afford gaming as a hobby.
If there were no blu ray player, almost no game would be for the ps3. MGS4 can barely fit on a blu-ray disc. It is so compact. You would need around 10 dvd’s. Other games are like this too. Also, the blu-ray player in the ps3 is the cheapest around. So what your paying a little more money. You get HD graphics, a basically $200 blu-ray player because you get it with a massive harddrive and anything an xbox360 can do and all around better quality. It has such a better value. The 360 also doesn’t have as man exclusive titles. Ps3 has resistance 2, LittleBig Planet, MGS4, God of War and so many more. They need blu- ray to survive. Blu- ray provides what all of these games and so many more need. If you compare 360, wii and ps3 raphics together and most other components together, you’ll find the ps3 is better. It needs blu-ray. Sony wouldn’t bring blu-ray if theyy didn’t want the ultimate gaming system, the ps3!
this is to interactive…u do know that if ur lookin to play ps one games that EVERY ps3 will play them its just only the 20 gig, 60 gig, and older model 80 play ps2 games so if all ur lookin to play r old ps one games then ur in luck
Well what about if Sony makes a PS3 with like a terabyte of space and allows us to download the games to the hard drive.
Interactive, I am no idiot. If anything, you are. You are basing your information of results in march 2007. Its almost two years passed. ITs october 16 2008. (I live in America SO time zone is different.) According to http://boardsus.playstation.com/playstation/board/message?board.id=pslounge&thread.id=267865 PS3 has 65 titles released and 134 titles still to come.Dont forget about the new titles and the 30 games that arent confirmed for development but is expected to come. Theses results are still in working progress and has been last updated Aug 26 2008. Its pretty accurate but now more games on PS3 and xbox 360 has been released. According to -en.wikipedia.org/wiki/category:xbox_360-only_games - only 177 games are exclusive( most recent list i could find and it does tell what is released and wha coming soon.)EVEn so xbox 360 has been out longer the PS3 and PS3 has caught up very fast and should even beat the xbox 360 with even more exclusives. By the way i was talking about exclusive that are even worth be noted. for example, the games that make people buy xbox over PS3 would be HALO, Gears of war, fable and maybe they like PGR, forza and saints row, bioshock and lost planet when those games where exclusives. PS3 has Ratchet, heavenly sword, warhawk, resistance 1 and 2(HALO KILLERS), KILLZONE(ALSO WILL HELP KILL HALO), Uncharted drakes fortune, MGS4, Motorstorm,littlebigplanet, finalfantasy verses, a future rockstar game, SOME game named quantim (something like that) A game that looks similar to gears of war, Gran torismo , infamous, MAG, socom, even god of war and i can go on. PS3 will have more exclusive games then xbox 360 and it will have exclusives that have high expectations and with theses games there is more varity in games being made on PS3. WHat i meant buy the statment ,”Dont get me wrong, PS3 has more exclusives then on xbox 360, but PS3 exclusive are not as good as gears of war and halo 3.” was that PS3 has more exclusive that are good and not just games you will never hear, for example, Who care about that VIVA pianata game or whatever its called. Xbox has more of those exclusive you dont know or care about. It will only get attetion because of the fact it has the name exclusive. Meaning ps3 games are games people will play and it will move ps3s but non of those games made a huge impact as of how HALO 3 and gears of war did. MGS4 came close, but didnt do as much as halo 3. Hope you understand what im trying to say. PS3 does have the most exclusive but just non of them can stand up to halo or gears of war. Probably, the new PS3 titles like RESISTANCE and killzone, and littlebigplanet will do what halo did for the xbox and it should because they have allot of hype and resistance is know as the game that cant go wrong.
yes good idea make to ps3 one with and one with out a blue ray player i know i don’t care but one thing games use it like well all of them in fact it’s probly the main reasion why the ps3 graphics look a litlle bit better
This would actually be a terrible idea, imo.
There are three reasons why this would be just a dumb idea:
1) Blu-ray is the actual disc that the PS3 uses to store games on, just discontinuing it to lower costs would be absurd. Developers actually like not worrying about disc space when developing a game because it adds more freedom to it. Just look at Metal Gear Solid 4: that game took up an entire dual-layered Blu-ray disc, and releasing it on normal inferior dvd’s would result in 4-5 dvd’s, which is a pain in the ass. Not to mention the new games to be released after this idea (theoretically) would have to be realeased on both normal dvd and Blu-ray for those who still would want it on just 1 easy to use disc.
2) Sony (as well as other companies) invested billions of dollars into the development and research of Blu-ray, so just letting it die down is just an overall stupid idea.
3) Blu-ray won the HD movie format war for a reason; because it’s the superior movie format (and disc format, for that matter). There are some haters that would disagree with this saying “Oh man Blu-ray is way too expensive! DD all the way! It’s the future!” And i must disagree. Blu-ray in my eyes is the future, i mean who would turn down 50GB of space on 1 disc? To me that is the future. DD is just a cool gimmick, and there aren’t any internet connections fast enough for anyone to take full advantage of this feature (though there will be some disagreers with this statement regarding the future of internet connections, but that bridge will be crossed once it comes).
I hope i built up some valid points for this argument (even though some are personal points) and overall stupid idea of removing Blu-ray from the wonderful system known as the PS3. And for MCM, read points 1 and 3 of my argument.
Wow! Then how would it play games?
PS3 games are blu-ray.
First off, for the one who said it’s “Unpossible.” It’s “Impossible” ya tard!
Secondly, it’s not now. It’s BEFORE the PS3 was ever released. 1 in 3 posts pose this moronic question! Learn to read, reason, and then post!
Now for my arguement… It might have done Sony good to not include BluRay. Instead of Bluray, they should have put in a very large HD, an easily removable HD that can be upgraded with a newer one when prices go down for laptop HDs. (Not like 360s HD!!! NO!) Then have PS3 owners do like PC gamers have to do, install the game! Then it will only take one disc to play the game, regardless of the number of discs for isntallation.
Hell, we already have to wait for games to install because of the speed of BluRay.
So, cheap HDs from 3rd parties that can have games installed on them and removed at the users whim? That’s where Sony should have gone! It would easily be below the price of a Wii for a standard (no HD) PS3 if they went this route.
As for HD quality videos? Upscaling would have been a better choice. Heck! Unless you have a Flatscreen, you’re barely going to be able tell the difference between upscaling and HD quality! Until every house has an Flatscreen (LCD / Plasma), BluRay should be put on hold and refined.
So there you go. I’ve waisted my time attempting to educate people who can’t see the trees within the forest!!!
Yes a PS3 without a Blu Ray drive would be great. Now some people might like the Blu Ray functionality but when I buy a video games console I want a console mainly for playing games. I don’t need Blu Ray nor do I want it. There are hidden costs associated with the PS3 — when it first came out it cost $599 dollars approximately not counting the cost of buying games for PS3 or PS3 accessories not included with the system. Sony could have offered games for PS3 on the same format they did for PS2. Blu Ray mainly is about movies. Sony is pushing a highly DRM laden physical disc format for movie playback on PS3 buyers and mandating that PS3 games be on Blu Ray as well.
PS3 sadly is also lacking in a number of other areas — they still don’t have multi-player gaming functionality like in XBox Live. Sony has made a number of missteps with the PS3 and is now falling behind both Nintendo’s Wii and Microsoft’s XBox 360.
One thing I like about the Nintendo Wii is its focus on game play and it seems very user friendly — unlike Microsoft and Sony which have invested in expensive hardware to deliver high definition graphics in games and have both had losses from their console’s hardware sales as a result of those decisions, Nintendo which has used cheaper hardware is the only console developer to profit on both their consoles and games. Microsoft and Sony seek to make up for their losses in console sales through game sales and earn more market share — only game software for Microsoft and Sony consoles are profitable the consoles themselves though lose money — Nintendo though earns money from both their console and their games.
I know there are people who like high definition graphics in their games — I also like HD but I wouldn’t sacrifice game play for HD graphics. Having both would be great but if I had to choose I would select better game play. If you had the choice of getting a console with great graphics but lousy game play — with the purpose of a console being to play games its common sense — now XBox 360 and PS3 have their fans I’m just saying regardless of which console everyone likes sacrificing game play is a non starter. If a console developer can have both HD graphics and great game play that is terrific.
If not and I had to choose between HD graphics and lousy game play or better game play and no HD graphics I’d go with better game play.
That’s not the answer. I’m an Xbox gamer but i eventually want an ps3 but i don’t think the Racine is worth the money. for once, in Europa, (i don’t know for the rest of the world) only the 80gb version has hdmi now. the first machines had 2 hdmi standard, also with the 20gb but now only the 80 has. and i don’t see myself buy the 80gb version for €100 more than the 40gb version. cause i want to be able to put an 350gb drive in there cause of all those installs that have to be done to be able to play game now a days on the ps3. so sony has to make more offers like an ps3 with hdmi & wifi without an harddisk so they can make the goddamn thing cheaper and more appealing for me an a lot of people i know
This is a silly question.. Blu-ray means enough storage space for HD media.. The PS3 is a HD console therefore it needs the storage space. 360 is a decent console but its not in the same ballpark as the PS3. I would think that within the next couple of years Micro$oft will release a third Xbox so level the playing field.
thick f**k, you don’t own a PS3 otherwise you would know that the games are on blu ray as well.
Without Blu-ray? Never! I’ve got this great machine at launchtime in europe with bc and everything and I never cried because of the money I’ve spend. I even got a bigger HD for around 80,- Euros and pimped my console to a good, quiet and reliable mediacenter, so I don’t have to use any PC in my livingroom anymore. I can say: The PS3 is worth every dollar/euro…
Therefore IBM and Toshiba starting next year with the 45nm Cell, I believe that a PS3-slim will come ’till the end of next year and the price will fall. That will be around the time when Microsoft will sell their Arcade model for around 99 Dollar to all the people again who get redringed…
Just my thoughts from my crystalball…
Obviously the question is dumb, as you would only be able to play download games on it. But people who think the PS3 would have saved Sony money if they would have used the DVD format instead of Blu-ray for the console are wrong.
The reason is without Blu-ray it is highly likely Blu-ray would have lost the format war - this would have cost Sony MILLIONS (just look at Toshiba), not to mention the wasted R&D costs, the loss of shareholder confidence from another failed format and the effect on the Sony brand. Then you have to think of the royalities from movie studios using Blu-ray and of course the reduced production costs thanks to the Economies of Scale from producing millions of blu-ray disc games and blu-ray drives in the PS3.
Business isn’t as black and white as to say “this component is expensive, take it out and sell it cheaper”, you need to consider the knock on effects.
Sony’s biggest mistake with the PS3 was not stretching to a 4x Blu-ray drive, which would have made it considerably faster than a DVD. Unfortunately 2x Blu-ray is one of the factors leading to compulsory installs on some multiplat games.
If it’s possible, when Sony bring out the PS3 Slim, they should include a 4x or 6x Blu-ray drive and do some fancy firmware update that means if you have the new fast Blu-ray model it takes the data off the disc, if you have an older model it makes you perform a compulsory install. I would certainly consider exchanging my precious launch model for the ability to be free from compulsory installs…
Lol all versions of the ps3 have hdmi what a wanker
I would have bought it either way because I am a fan of the franchise games like MGS and Ratchet & Clank but I probably wouldn’t have invested in a blu-ray player as of yet if the PS3 did not include it. The new hd gaming system was great and the blu-ray was a nice little bonus.
The PS3 wouldn’t be possible with out Blu Ray because of the way the Cell processor works. The Cell needs a disc with massive storage because everything is coded to a particular thread and can’t be multi tasked like a normal gaming processor. A regular game that would take 9 gigs on a standard compressed DVD actually takes 13 to 20 gigs to work with the Cell.
People don’t get this but it’s true, Sony HAD to include Blu Ray.
Ps3 is a great product. having blu-ray is a real experience, it delivers much more than xbox360. developers just don’t use that for some reason. games like mgs4 used blurays full power, i mean they can do that with plenty of games. xbox360 has only two banging ass games that people love, thay are Gears of war and halo thats all they got. but i think killzone 2 and Ressistance 2 will boost the ps3 prices and take full advantage of the bluray technology. so ps3 not having blu-ray would be a lost of technology, when home comes out i bet it’s going to boost the ps3 price and we all will be happy with the ps3’s technology.
@GEeezzyyyyyy
I’m sorry but I couldn’t understand one thing you wrote. Do you really write like that? Please tell me English is not your first language. Sorry guys… I couldn’t help it.
not only do you not play blu-ray movies on your ps3, but apparently you don’t play ps3 games either. If you want to play playstation games without blu-ray, save ~$300 and buy a ps2 since those are the only games you’d be able to play on a ps3 without blu-ray anyway
Sony won the format war actually without the PS3s help. In recent months Sony has seen some improvement in PS3 sales but its still in last place. Last I checked Nintendo’s Wii was in first place, and Microsoft’s XBox 360 in second with the Sony PS3 dead last at third place. So to suggest Sony would have lost the format war without putting a Blu Ray drive in the PS3 sounds utterly ridiculous — Blu Ray won without the PS3’s help at all.
For what its worth as a consumer I championed HD DVD for its lower level of DRM. Also consider HD DVD was cheaper to manufacture and sold at cheaper prices which lead to a price war between the two formats and since Blu Ray is more expensive every time Sony has had to reduce the cost of the PS3 they take another loss. Granted Blu Ray did win unfortunately in my opinion for consumers — it is a bad thing, it did so without any help from the PS3. Contrary to the belief Sony had that adding Blu Ray to the PS3 would help the format it didn’t yet Blu Ray won and the reason it won was because more movie studios signed on to exclusively release content on Blu Ray versus HD DVD.
Consumers didn’t really affect the outcome of the format war — it would seem the studios decided in favor of Blu Ray and Blu Ray won. For consumers who were interested in HD DVD there was not enough selection of titles — HD DVD content was limited as more studios chose Blu Ray exclusively — instead of letting the consumer decide the format they wanted the studio dictated which format would get the best content.
It’s always a question of cost of dependent on what you want from your console.
I have a PS3 and I have an XBox call me greedy but I enjoy the fact that I never have to worry about exclusivity of games so the cost for me is worth it.
The question of cost between the consoles is also relative - sure my XBox cost half of what my PS3 did but then again my savings were quickly diminished by an addon Wireless adapter, and my subscription to xbox live and if I wanted a Hi Def player that’s another cost.
So it’s not the cost of the console we should compare but the inclusion of the hidden costs and then ask yourself - Is the PS3 that expensive. The cheapest Hi Definition future proof player on the market, a built in Wifi adapter and free Network - no contest really.
Jason - Great post. I don’t own a 360 and don’t want one but I think people need to look closely at the total cost of both consoles. Sure the PS3 is more money but the only thing you have to buy extra is an HDMI cable if you have an HDTV. I don’t yet and used my PS2 component cable. The PS3 is fine as is. Anyone complaining about the cost of the PS3 hasn’t been a gamer that long or hasn’t paid for their consoles. The cost hasn’t gone up much over the years. Why is that? I think as technology keeps getting better and better we’ll have to pay more. Either that or don’t bring out new consoles. You just can’t build new consoles with new technology and take a huge loss. If the new consoles don’t use new technology though we won’t get five or more years out of them. I’m all for paying more for a console in order to get more years from it. Would people rather buy a new console every three years or five years?
THE PS3 WOULD BE USELESS WITHOUT BLU-RAY. THE FRICKEN GAMES ARE BLU-RAY. IF YOU DIDNT HAVE A BLU-RAY DRIVE IN THE PS3, U COULDNT PLAY PS3 GAMES
@ Brian
Sorry to sound Sarcastic but when you say things like…
“Would people rather buy a new console every three or five years?”
It makes me think where have you been? I mean that was what it was like up until the Wii,PS3 & 360 of today. I mean Sony says the PS3 is going to last us 10 years but who really knows. I am hoping that it is true and they don’t start bringing out the PS4 until like year 8 of the PS3 but, since they are competing with the 360 they may bring out the PS4 sooner then initally planned if Microsoft brings out the 720 or whatever they will call it.
As for your statement of “The cost of the Console’s haven’t gone up over the years”
I find that to be false too, If you look at when the PS2 was brought out it cost $299.99 but when the PS3 came out it was 2x the cost of the PS2 @ $599.99. Most people gasped for breath when they heard the price of the console. The Hardcore purchased on day 1 but it was still to expensive for most..
Ya it has all the Bell’s and Whistles and I am quite happy with what it has to offer. The price is quite compareable with the 360 when you add all the extra’s to the 360 and even could be considered a deal since it comes with a Blu-ray drive.
Unfortunatly like I had said in my post further above the developer’s are not using all of the Blu-ray’s capability’s. They are just creating games thinking for the 360 and then copying it or porting it to the PS3. I hope this changes in the future and I am sure that the PS3 exclusive’s are using most of the Blu-ray’s capability’s but even games like MGS4 which ended up using a 50GB Dual Layered Blu-ray most likely used most of the space with the HD Cutscenes not so much with the Gameplay. I have heard of people beating that game in 5hrs if they skip all the cutscenes. What I am looking for is longer games. The Graphics are great but it is about the Gameplay not just the Graphics and when I pay $60 I expect to play the game for more then a couple of hours. That was what made games so much more worth it over movies. They took so much longer to beat then a straight 2hr experience. I mean what happened to the games that took 20-30hrs to beat and the RPG’s that took 50-80hrs to beat
All I really want are Developers to use Blu-ray to it Highest Capability. Check my above post for some of my idea’s.
I think that Microsoft’s XBox 360 is better in this regard that they offered consoles with and without the HD DVD drive — also am agreed with Jason’s post “It’s always a question of cost of dependent on what you want from your console. I have a PS3 and I have an XBox call me greedy but I enjoy the fact that I never have to worry about exclusivity of games so the cost for me is worth it.
The question of cost between the consoles is also relative - sure my XBox cost half of what my PS3 did but then again my savings were quickly diminished by an addon Wireless adapter, and my subscription to xbox live and if I wanted a Hi Def player that’s another cost.
So it’s not the cost of the console we should compare but the inclusion of the hidden costs and then ask yourself - Is the PS3 that expensive. The cheapest Hi Definition future proof player on the market, a built in Wifi adapter and free Network - no contest really.”
The point is for those who like Blu Ray good for $ony to include a Blu Ray player but forcing Blu Ray on PS3 buyers is bad. I used to like Sony but now their advocating more and more DRM and locking Blu Ray tightly — bad for consumers in my opinion. Their just as bad as Microsoft or worse. I don’t like Micro$oft either they have done a lot of dirty and under handed things over the years. PS3 prices were too high just because of Blu Ray. No way would I spend $599 for a console — I don’t care if it has Blu Ray. It shouldn’t be so expensive for HD I would prefer buying a standard DVD Player capable of out-putting to HD. A new DVD Player today can do so and sell for $20 to $30 dollars.
I used to like Sony but now I don’t trust them. I voted with my wallet and got a Nintendo Wii. Lastly, for the people though who think Nintendo consoles are just for kids — and I know there are some people who think that (haven’t read any such comments here) that is not entirely true. My entire family enjoys playing Wii especially the Wii Sports. I grew up actually on Nintendo and have been playing their games since I was a kid — now I’m an adult of 24 to 25 years of age and still enjoy Nintendo games. I would like the HD capabilities in the XBox 360 and PS3 but not going to give my money to un ethical anti-consumer corporations who treat their customers like criminals or bully other companies on the market who innovate to go out of business.
I keep thinking if it wasn’t for Microsoft maybe SEGA would have remained in the game console business and come out with the SEGA DreamCast 2 by now. That is a possible theory. I am not certain if its 100% accurate but is a good theory. Also Microsoft is pressuring companies like HP and Dell to stay out of consoles. The reason they entered even is because each new game console buyer has one less reason to buy a new PC running Windows.
Microsoft has done a better job this time around though in winning more customers than Sony than the last time with the first XBox compared to the PS2. Hence XBox 360 is ahead of PS3 even though Nintendo Wii in total market share has trumped both of them to date.
Wolf26pack - I’m 45 years old so I go back to the days of Pong. I can’t remember the exact number of years each console lasted but I’m sure none lasted just three years in the past. If you buy most consoles on day one you got around five years from it. Also, from what I remember weren’t gaming consoles back then several hundred dollars? I don’t care that much about the number of years issue. I care more about people saying the PS3 is too expensive. The PS2 would have been better than the Xbox if it had more RAM. If Sony spent a little more and charged a little more the PS2 could have had better graphics.
So you see, I don’t like talk about leaving features out to make it more affordable. I’m a real gamer who buys plenty of games and don’t mind spending on the console to make sure it has the power to last the next five years.
Is it me, or are 90% of the tards here dimwitted teenagers who don’t understand that this is a “HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION!”
i just noticed that like half the ppl posting comments on here arn’t very smart….i know its a hypothetical question but if it didnt have a blue ray player it would be pretty much like the 360…thats wut distinguishes the ps3 from everything else is its blu ray….like the wii has the motion controlers…but it is a hypothetical….but if it didn’t come with bluray then mgs4 woulda been on the 360 as well cause the ps3 version woulda been like 6 disc long too…..damn……
Lol - Yeah PS3 without BR would be awesome - shame most PS3 games wouldnt work on it anymore though
Buy it, dont buy it, who cares!
It seems like Sony or as I prefer to call them $ony have really screwed up on the PS3. Not only have they fallen behind Microsoft’s XBox 360 but the Nintendo Wii as well. The problem at first they didn’t have enough good exclusive games, no online game play either like XBox Live, they offered KillZone 2 in response to Halo 3 — a guy named Doc Adams responded by recording a pro XBox 360 song called “How Sony Killed Its Brand” that goes like this “Step one you made your console cost the most … boast … despite no good exclusive games make a bunch of ridiculous claims. Then ignore our need to play online. Don’t make it fun like XBox Live. Add Blu Ray which I don’t need and now your getting your ass kicked by the Wii. Sony you went wrong with your PS3. I’ll just keep playing my 360. Hope this song has helped you understand how you know how you killed your brand. You said you know what’s best … sure I can surf the net but I can’t find my gaming friends. Said Halo 3 don’t worry you. Instead you offer KillZone 2 but KillZone 1 sucked before so what made you think we wanted more. Sony you went wrong with your PS3. I’ll just keep playing my 360″ Later it goes on to have a segment with a Sony executive Phil Harrison being interviewed about the PS3 saying one of the things successful about the PS2 over the last several years are “Um um um, well we’re going to do things a little differently, um, um, um, um, um I have no comment to make.” Later he is asked about adding multi-player online gaming to make the PS3 not suck when going to play someone online and he answers “We know that’s a compelling feature for certain members of the audience but as to specific plans and features I have no comment to make.”
Personally, I’m a fan of the Nintendo Wii but the person who made this song/music video (there is a music video of it also) is an XBox 360 fan.
When I think of Sony’s PS3 and its Blu Ray capabilities movie playback comes to mind. Blu Ray is very expensive and without it the PS3 would have cost a lot less. I understand this is a theoretical question am just saying if PS3 could be offered without Blu Ray and its games were on say DVD just like PS2 then by all means I’d be more willing to get PS3 probably minus the DRM issue I mentioned earlier.
Also, Apple as of yet is to offer Blu Ray authoring and/or playback on their Macs and they have pointed out even from the licensing side Blu Ray is still too costly and has too many issues. Steve Jobs called it a bag of hurt. Sure Dell and other PC vendors like Hewlett Packard (HP) offer optional Blu Ray drives on their computers but they only work with Windows.
I’ll wait to see a Blu Ray drive on an Apple Mac working with OS X even (today’s Macs can also run Windows but Mac OS is the most important part of the Mac) and/or Blu Ray authoring/playback on PCs and Macs running Linux in any desktop flavor/distribution ranging from Ubuntu, to Kubuntu, Linspire etc that are consumer friendly before even considering an upgrade to Blu Ray. Also Blu Ray won without the PS3s help as the PS3 is dead last globally in console sales even though they are seeing some improvement in market share increases — they are still behind Nintendo and Microsoft. I rely on VGChartz.com for latest statistics on console sales and game sales.
Sorry for the double post but wanted to add Sony might have added moire exclusve games now but they didn;’t have enough when it first came out.
Whoever wrote this article is missing the whole point. The one major advantage the PS3 has over the XBOX360 is that the PS3 uses the Blu-ray NOT just for movies..but also for games. Heavenly Sword (for example) would not run on a PS3 without Blu-ray because that game DOES take advantage of the space — that’s why it was never going to be made for Xbox…the developers weren’t able to fit it on a simple DVD.
So think about that for a minute. In the future, with bigger soundtracks, bigger texture maps and more information for games…how is Xbox going to compete? Put it all on a bigger harddrive? Maybe, but how much more is that going to cost you. There is a need for Blu-ray for the gaming aspect that no one ever talks about. It’s not all about the movies. That’s just a secondary use for the PS3 although its touted as the main reason. Wake up people!
I would not say the PS3’s use of Blu Ray gives it an advantage over the XBox 360. Frankly, the Blu Ray drive is what turned me off from the PS3. I would rather have a PS3 without Blu Ray than with. I don’t care about Blu Ray being used for PS3 games and for hi-def movies. XBox 360 used HD DVD by the way but offered the HD DVD as an optional drive they didn’t force HD DVD on XBox 360 buyers. Score one for Microsoft!
Blu Ray’s restrictive DRM and the high cost of Blu Ray players especially in the current economy (even if they lower the price to $150 dollars it won’t be enough in a bad economy I can get a cheaper DVD player capable of up-sampling standard DVDs to hi-def.) are non starters for me. Also the fact that digital distribution for HD video is improving are not encouraging for Blu Ray.
Sorry for the double post but from the beginning HD DVD was cheaper than Blu Ray and more consumer friendly with lesser DRM (it had DRM but it also offered Managed Copying) Blu Ray is anti-consumer entirely with no provision for fair use rights and more costly. Blu Ray won by the studios choice — it wasn’t that Blu Ray was more popular among consumers it was that more studios exclusively made hi def releases on Blu Ray Disc only. When more content is exclusively on Blu Ray consumers wanting hi def content won’t have a choice in HD DVD.
Only a complete fool would leave out the blu-ray since without you would have a games console unable to play games. or if the discs were changed something like a ps2.5! Also whole cost isn’t the blu-ray a lot comes from the cell whic has 8 processers and is used to do particle physics since attaching 4 ps3s together is cheaper than a powerful computer to do the same maths
The Cell Processor is also part of the problem I have heard some negative things about it as well.
I would only buy a PS3 if I wanted a Blu Ray player to play movies on Blu Ray Disc. For me a video games console’s most important capability is game play features. I do not need or want a Blu Ray player. I need/want a video games console with gaming as the primary feature. That is why I would be more inclined to get an XBox 360 and/or Nintendo Wii — as a matter of fact I went for the Wii and have been a proud Wii owner since last year.
I would rather get a separate video games console and media extender box like Apple TV or Roku than an all-in one combo that costs more and focuses less on gaming.
The PS3 has hidden costs — the original cost was $599 because of Blu Ray and the Cell processor’s expense. Hardly anyone would buy it at that expensive price so they lowered it but in doing so are taking a loss on the console for market share. That $599 price is just for the console. You still have to buy games for it and/or third party accessories like Ethernet cables for connecting the PS3 to the Internet, a re-chargeable Dock to re-charge the PS3 controllers.
That adds to the cost. I would probably end up spending over $650 dollars total if the PS3’s price was still $599 to get the PS3, PS3 games, and accessories.
That is a waste of money especially in the current economic climate I’m not spending that much money unless I need to pay bills that amount like electricity, water, gasoline for a car, a house payment etc.
No, I wouldn’t have bought it. I bought the PS3 specifically to watch BluRay movies once HDDVD threw in the towel.
I already had a wii to play _fun_ games. I sure wouldn’t have bought a POS Xbox (all of my friends are on their 3rd or 4th xbox, not including returns for repair). If I wanted to play those boring FPS games, I’d just buy them for the PC which is far superior than an xbox.
The “ONLY” reason for the bluray and the hdmi crap is so they force everyone that has the player to keep them connected to the internet “even the none ps3 players” so they can monitor your activities 24/7 . And when They “think” your trying to watch a illegally burnt movie or connected to a recorder through the hdmi or certain dvi’s they can deactivate your player and/or tv hdmi port and stop it from working through their digital rights copy protection . GOOGLE it if you don’t believe it . The governments should force the company’s to Label and/or announce this to the public on player labels and/or disc covers and the rest of the DRM loving scum suckers in the media business should be out right ashamed for this secret slide of hand they are not informing the general uninformed public of . This is the real reason for all the updated firmwares . So im boycotting bluray and bluray players . dont forget the “you can only watch your disc in 1 player or yours gets diactivated that way too ” crap . I seriously upset after researching this for the last 9 hours . what would you do if you bought a ps3 and you watched a movie and in the middle of the film got a popup saying “you have a illegal action your system has been diactivated ” and your ps3 stops working , you call tech support and tell them they say you shouldn’t of pirated even if you didn’t . your just S.O.L. they will tell you to purchase a new ps3 if it hasnt disabled your tv’s dvi or hdmi port from accepting anymore players . Bill gates has alot to complain about so do the rest of you mindless zombies who have no true idea WTF you got yourself into .
I agree with FG’s statement about the negatives of Blu Ray. This is why I’ll never buy a PS3 or any Blu Ray player. I don’t want the highly restrictive DRM. I’ll just keep buying standard DVDs without copy protection and get a DVD Player capable of up-sampling them to near HD quality and/or use a TV Tuner to record my favorite programs to my computer and then burn to DVD and/or copy my existing DVDs to my computer.
Sometimes I might even record a program using my VCR as an analog video and convert it to DVD. No way am I buying Blu Ray!