What if Sony had released Playstation 3 without a Blu-Ray Player

[alpha_dk]

alephnull said:

alpha_dk said:

tuoyo said:

alpha_dk said:
I don't know why people are assuming HD-DVD would win. All it would have done would be to force more competition in the standalone realm; lower prices, more features and competition, and the formats battling on their own merits. Is everyone who is saying Blu-Ray would have lost also saying that Blu-Ray was worse than HD-DVD? Because even HD-DVD was too expensive for the mainstream at that point, so it would still have been a battle over the technophiles, which I am not so confident HD-DVD would have won...

I think many of the movie studios that were Blu Ray exclusive (if not all besides those that are owned by Sony) did so because Blu Ray was going to be in every PS3. They would have expected PS3 to sell very well and (like me) saw no way HD DVD could possibly win.

If Sony hadn't trojan horsed Blu Ray I sincerely doubt those companies would have been Blu Ray exclusive. This would have resulted in a very different format war.

HD DVD sold more standalone devices by a wide margin despite the fact that Universal was the only exclusive studio. The HD DVD players were much more advanced than the blu ray ones and was the device of choice for tech heads even with the more limited movie selection.

Blu Ray discs may be better due to capacity and scratch resistance but on a hardware level in terms of capability and price there was no contest. With level footing movie selection and no blu ray in PS3 I don't see how blu ray would have stood a chance. The war would still be on by now (and universal players would probably have meant the war never ended) but I think HD DVD would have been way ahead in sales.

It is a huge pity that the decision was taken out of the hands of consumers as a result of Sony having the most successful video game brand ever.

 

I mean, I agree that HD-DVD wouldn't have kicked the bucket, I just am not sure that it would have 'lost' yet, unless you define 'lost' as 'not won.' I think they would still be competing, and probably be getting smaller slices of a larger pie.

Personally, I preferred HD-DVD due to the lack of region coding, but Blu-Ray would have been a better choice in the data medium for PCs, etc. I am pretty sure there could have been a market for both to survive. I don't see the need for either of them to 'lose' if there had been no BR in the PS3 (or even optional BR in the PS3). Frankly, either solution would have lost to digital distribution sooner rather than later anyways, so it's a moot point IMO, but that's not a topic for this discussion.

All I am saying is there could have been a market for two separate optical disk-based high-capacity standards. DVD+R didn't die off because DVD-Rs existed, and vice-versa. They complemented each other in a way that HD-DVD and BR very easily could have done as well.

There are region-free blueray players just like there was for dvd. So the only real difference other than capacity became .Net versus Java.

As far as digital distribution goes, I personally digitally distribute 1080p mkvs, however they are a pain in my ass. And I don't see bandwidth getting a whole lot better in most of the US. Netflixing bluerays is easier. Sneaker-net may have poor latency, but it has high bandwidth.

 

Region free BR (as with DVD before it) players are illegal in the US and any other part of the world with anti-DRM circumvention laws.  The HD DVD spec did not include region codes.  Hence, it was entirely legal, unlike with BR.

As for digital distribution, like i said; not a topic for this discussion.