Sony PS3 With No Blu-ray: Would you?
Filed under: Gaming, Sony Playstation 3 | By: Peter Chubb
Posted on: October 16, 2008 | 59 Comments
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?
CLICK HERE to keep updated with the latest news, share a comment or problems with products and services. Follow us on twitter or read more sony news.
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…