By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Bboid on 12 December 2008
Edit Thread
psychoBrew said:
Bboid said:
psychoBrew said:
Bboid said:
psychoBrew said:
oliist said:
Because Sony did all they could in the last few years to ruin their own nimbus that was build up in first two PlayStation eras.
And that is the result.

It's like they got scared of Microsoft and started focusing on the Xbox 360 instead of the PS1 and 2 fan base.  That, and as already stated, Blue Ray was a mistake for the console (though great for the format).

 

howso?

Blue Ray has a very limited fan base, caused delays, slowed down loading times, and greatly increased the cost of the PS3.  While Blue Ray on the PS3 was great for the movie format war, people that didn't care about HD movies would rather save money and buy the cheaper 360.  Blue Ray is an added expense with a limmited apeal and some negative aspects.  If everybody wanted a Blue Ray player, the story would have been different.

 

 

you should really look into the actual cost of the blu ray diode in the ps3 before you cite cost.  Part of the purpose of blu ray is for storage space to prevent multiple disc releases as they saw it as potentially problematic.  And slow load times?  Not any slower than disc read times on my 360.  Your entire reasoning is both opinion and BS.

Blue Ray has certainly come down in price, but it's still pricey and was a significant factor in the PS3's high intorductory price.  As of April this year, a Blue Ray player cost Microsoft about $100 where a DVD drive costs $20.  While the costs for Sony could be cheaper, divisions in large companies rarely give eachother price breaks (each division has goals to meet, and having worked at a few fortune 500 and fortune 100 companies, I know it's often cheaper to work with a third party than it is to work with other groups in the same company).  I don't think the actual cost for Blue Ray for the division that produces the Play Station would be much cheaper than what Microsft has to pay.  Blue Ray is still a factor.

You're right that I don't know exactly what the load times on the PS3 or 360 are.  I'm repeating information heard in this forum about installs on the PS3 being required due to the slow speed of Blue Ray where installs are not required on the Xbox.  I do think that Blue Ray will be much more practical on the next set of consoles.

 

 

Again you are lost for actual information.  At launch the Blu-ray drive in the ps3 cost $125 mostly due to the fact that Blu-ray diodes were scarce and roughly $50 alone.  Today the diodes cost $6 and the total drive cost is around $45(and has been since about May 08).  So for $25 more than the 360's optical drive you have a format that prevent's multiple disc releases (main intention) and the ability to deliver HD material to HDTV owners (beneficial secondary intention).  Cost benefit wise to both consumer and manufacturer, it is not a bad choice for the console.  A larger source of cost to the PS3 unit that doesn't exist in Xbox 360 production is bluetooth and other features that are not included in the Xbox 360 unit.  This acounts for over 50% of the current production difference between the 2 units and is the main reason for a higher price.  Both the PS3 and 360 are breaking even per unit sale.

So if you remove Blu-ray from the PS3 unit, you still have a unit that is at least $75 more than the 360 to produce.  Due to Sony's current financial situation they will not sell products at a high loss any further, so you still have a unit at retail that costs at least $75 more as well and you will lose the sales to individuals who bought a unit solely for blu-ray or because they saw a higher perceived value because of blu-ray.  Sales would remain low due to price since the competition is still largely cheaper in the current market.