Sony had 'no choice' but to include Blu-ray in PS3

[tuoyo]

joeorc said:

tuoyo said:

joeorc said:

tuoyo said:

joeorc said:

WarmachineX said:
lol wow talk about denial. Blue ray killed the ps3 and if their games really do take up that much space on the disc it sure doesnt show it.

wow..DENIAL that's cute..Blu-Ray is not just about the PS3, you are already saying the PS3 is dead and this generation is not even over yet. I love the fact that people are and continue to be so negative about the life cycle of the PS3.since 2006 people have been saying something or other has "killed the PS3"

WHAT'S funny the demand is still high. because people sure bring up the PS3 alot in the MEDIA or forum's..if the ps3 did not matter and is already "killed"and was already dead, why even bring up the PS3 at all..

Slow down there.  Too many defensive posts in a row.  Are you the Sony defence leader?

 

 

no i am not."a sony leader" why is it when someone say's anything remotely + about the PS3 or Sony they are already viewed as a "fanboy" you did not say it but you implied it. as my post history i say good thing's about all the systems so i am far from being a "fanboy"

I am just pointing out people's myth's about the blu-ray format and why Sony did include it an pretty much had too..

and no Sony did not have a choice as a matter of fact because of a few reason's:

1) Sony like the majority of Optical drive manuf. have invested into "Blu-Ray" since well before "HD DVD" WAS EVEN IN THE DESIGN STAGE, and to top it off

IF your company spends money into R&D and building more production plant's so at the last min." well lets just drop this format and go with the new format that does about the same thing's but our format hold's more data per layer. and has already been on the market already "3 year's before even the first HD DVD prototype was even created" with a recordable function already where as HD DVD did not have that on the market but Blu-Ray already did. in 2003

2) HD DVD was released to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray , because the "BDA" chose Java over Microsoft's "IHD" control scheme for the software layer of Blu-Ray

yea spend all that money on a format that's an evolution of standard DVD alL Blu-Ray player's still play Standard DVD's . AN which 11 of the largest manuf. all agreed on in 2002 to support Blu-Ray except for Toshiba that is just so they can loose all that investment money on a format like HD DVD that had no recordable function for the market yet when the format was released.

yea that would be so smart.

But..but they could have just stuck with DVD..yea they could have but the same could have been said about HD DVD.Microsoft could have just ignored HD DVD and just stuck with DVD only. or Microsoft could have put HD DVD in from the get go if they felt that strong about the HD DVD format.

but but..its about choices yea maybe for the consumer it is. but for companies that invest million's of $$ into advancement of technology's that they have to plan for in year's ahead. there may be no other option because they already have spent their money for good or bad they have already went with the direction they did. In the case of Blu-Ray not just Sony but 11 of the other's did also in support of Blu-Ray.

since Blu-Ray is doing very well They made a good choice In my opinion.

Hell even Microsoft made a good choice to slow down Blu-Ray adoption i would have done the same thing it worked did it not?

did it stop Blu-Ray's adoption..? my opinion no but it did hurt Sony market wise so from Microsoft's stand point they did what they set out to do.

 

 

I think we have very different views of the meaning of the word choice.  Nothing you have said according to my definition nothing you have written means they did not have a choice but to include blu ray in PS3.  What you are saying seems to me to mean that they did not have any choice but to continue to support blu ray.  But that is different from having no choice but to include blu ray in the PS3.  I think most people who looked at the issue with objective eyes would say that if there was no competing format Sony would have released a non-blu ray PS3 for let's say $300 and a blu ray PS3 with all games being on DVD.  However, because of the threat of HD DVD they did not go for the non-blu ray PS3 so as to kill off that threat.  On that basis they clearly had a choice.  No one held a gun to the heads of all the executives who had authority to make the decision and said if you don't include blu ray in all PS3s we blow your head off.  Nor was it the case that the company would have collapsed if blu ray was missing from PS3 nor can I think of any other terribly adverse consequences.  So they clearly had a choice according to  my definition of choice.   

how is it any different..of "choice" when the company share holder's have already paid into it's development . Blu-Ray was already slated to be installed into the PS3 in 2004, why do you think they did not stop and just stick with DVD  optical drive,,because they had already spent the money . you could not expect Sony to pull Blu-Ray when they had already spent the money on the technology when it already passed Quality control, was already on the market for purchase for the consumer in 2003. people could already buy blu-ray before HD DVD even hit the market "3 year's later"

you are looking at it from a consumer point of view. an i can respect that but from Sony's point of view and the share holder's there was no choice

 

remember the fact that sony has been investing into Blu-Ray since 1997....you do not spend that kind of money on something that indeed works to just up and drop the format over a technology that was no where near as mature as Blu-Ray. to say they could still use DVD yea they could, but that's like saying Microsoft could have just ignored putting out An HD DVD optical drive in the first place. Microsoft said it was " a choice" was it? did Microsoft put out a Blu-Ray optical drive for the xbox360? no why not..It would have been "another choice" as you say.

it pure Opinion to view what is choice an what is not. to sony there was no choice, to you Sony had a choice.

 

I think if Sony shareholders were told that we will include things in the PS3 that will jack the production cost so high that it will swallow all the PS1 and PS2 profits and will result in us going from totally dominating the market to struggling to come out of last place, the shareholders would have unanimously voted against it, irrespective of how much R&D they had put into having blu ray in PS3.  And it is not like they had already started producing the PS3 with blu ray so I don't even see your point.  The R&D money would be lost if they abandoned blu ray altogether and not if they did not put blu ray in PS3  Truth of the matter is that the shareholders don't have a say in such things it's the board of directors that do.  Shareholders have a say in things like voting on an acquisition or sale of a company on the recommendation of the board.

In this case the board simply miscalculated.  They were so arrogant they thought the playstation brand was super mighty and people would buy the PS3 in huge numbers no matter what price it retailed for.