Hey Sony PS3 Fanboys... Defend this!

Bolding mine, which is right. I always thought the idea of putting a DVD playing into a game console was pretty fucking stupid since by the time Xbox and PS2 came out with this feature, just about everyone could afford a pretty decent DVD player. The fact that we had to pay even more for another remote for the DVD player just chapped my ass thinking about it, and I've never played my brother's Xbox

The game selection for the Wii is shit, to be blunt, but the controller more than makes up for that. I've got Guitar Hero, DDR (which the hand marker feature for the Wiimote pisses me off, but I can turn that off) and as of tomorrow, SSBB, so I'll be pretty set for a good long while.

Actually, when the PS2 came out, it was The First DVD Player for a lot of people. It was actually kind of innovative at the time, especially since DVD really was a quantum leap ahead of VHS.

Sony attempted to capture lightning in a bottle again with the PS3 and Blu-Ray, and while BR did win in the end, it really didn't have the same effect on console sales as it did for the PS2, and I think it's because, for most people, the jump in quality and features from DVD to Blu-Ray was more like stepping over a puddle rather than the leap over the ocean that VHS to DVD was.

Microsoft actually did the smart thing here and shunted HD video playback to a peripheral. That way, only people who *wanted* HD discs would have to shell out for it. I'd *really* like to see a swappable drive in future consoles, so that if someone decides they want to upgrade, they can do so without having an extra box sitting around. But I'd imagine another format shift is probably a couple generations away (NO. They've been saying we'd get consumer holographic storage media for like a decade now. It's not happening anytime soon).

^^^ The big benefit of having the Blu-Ray player in the PS3 (IMHP) is more storage space available for game data, which if utilized correctly could result in even larger, more immersive worlds than ever before for RPGs, for example. Not possible for the Xbox 360, because no games are going to be released on an HD format disc.

Multiple discs, the added cost of multiple discs is small compared to the extra cost of creating all that content in the first place.

True for Xbox but not PS2. When PS2 rolled out, very few people had DVD players. Most of my friends had the PS2 as their first DVD player. At the time, DVD players were commonly 130 bucks.

But when Xbox rolled out a bit more than a year later, most everybody already had a DVD player (and they were down to 80 bucks or so by this time), so it was really a pretty retarded feature.


Oh and as far as the storage issue, Bailey is right. Most games out there don't even use double-layer DVDs. No console can hope to deal with more than a DVD's capacity of data at any given time, so swapping as you progress through the game really works as well as just having a huge disc to begin with.

That was the smart thing for MS, but really it was driven by wanting to release early more than any other strategy.

Sony also did the smart thing.

Yes, you are correct that a cheaper console would sell more. However, the PS3 is easily the largest reason that Blu-ray won over HD-DVD. Since Sony owns Blu-ray, it was actually an incredibly smart (even if easy) decision to roll a Blu-ray player into the PS3.

Also, down the road, it will help to boost PS3 sales as more and more people start wanting in on Blu-ray.

It was a HUGE gamble for $ony to put Blu Ray into their PS3. It's probably going to pay off eventually, as people will want a cheap BR player, and HD direct downloads are still quite a ways off.

Anyways, the article I linked to seems to be getting a lot of play recently. Yahoo put it on their front page yesterday:

Sony put Blu-Ray in the PS3 and made it the cheapest Blu-Ray player for two reasons:

1. To increase the adoption of Blu-Ray.
2. To increase sales of the PS3.

Well, it got #1 down, but utterly failed on #2. Why? Because while it was a very cheap Blu-Ray player, it was a very expensive console.

Thus, an easy decision for people who wanted Blu-Ray, but a more difficult decision for someone who just wanted a console. I think the sales alone showed that the added value argument didn't really pan out.

Eh, by that point, I'd expect standalone Blu-Ray players to hopefully have come down beneath PS3s (though with good ol' Sony products, who knows?). In that case, then you'd once again only really get people who wanted both a console and a player.

And that's a real shame, because it's a poorly written article, in this case resulting in it being pretty deceptive. Really, it's a good example of why one should research a little when it comes to the media and their reporting on products.

That time has already come.

Do a search on Amazon.com for "Blu-ray player" and you will find several under $350.

Ok, so I finally got my PS3.

Found the 60GB model on craigslist for $550 with eight games.

I'm lovin' it!