By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Alternate history: What if PS3 launched without Cell or Blu-Ray at $399?

Doctor_MG said:
DonFerrari said:

Sure PS1, 2 and 3 had a good media solution that on the case of Nintendo competitor made several 3rd party go exclusive to them (besides Nintendo relationship being bad at the time). But the buy of the console for the use to hear CD or buy DVD and BD were minimal.

Haven't said no one bought PS2 or PS3 for those reasons, but that was a very minimal quantity that nowhere would really change the quantity of consoles sold.

How can you say that with any amount of confidence though? At launch the system was constantly praised for it's Blu-Ray capabilities. It was the CHEAPEST Blu-Ray player on the market at launch, and for a good time afterward. Not to mention it was the only Blu-Ray player at the time that could also get bonus content from the internet. 

This was all when HD TV's were starting to pick up sales, and before streaming. Anyone who decided to upgrade to an HD TV was going to get another HD companion device, and Blu-Ray handily beat HD DVD. If someone was looking for a Blu-Ray player and noticed that the PS3 was $400 cheaper with MORE features than the competition you bet they'd be choosing that device. Especially since many people were stating that the quality of playback surpassed those of other Blu-Ray players on the market at the time. So: cheaper, more features, AND better quality?

Less people purchased the PS1 as a CD player (though it was a great CD player at the time too), but a lot of people did actually purchase the PS2 and PS3 for their multimedia capabilities.

Being on VGC for a long time and looking at all the discussions over it and evidence.

I just gave you a very strong thing to look at. PS2 sold 150M+ consoles and 1.5B+ SW tie ratio of 10:1, PS3 sold 87M consoles and 1B SW tie ratio of 11.5:1 . Those aren't that much different from the average on the gen they were into.

So even though there were people that bought PS2 for DVD and PS3 for BD that isn't on a quantity that would really have changed much the totals. Do you have evidence for this "lot of people"?

Just look at how many bought the HD-DVD for Xbox (not many), or how the BD adoption rate was slow because there was a war format (at the time it ended BD players were already much cheaper than PS3). Considering most outlets claim the war was won because of PS3 having the BD, and at that time PS3 was below 20M or so (go check how much DVD players were sold before the war started, or how many BD players sold after it became the standard) and you'll see that this amount is very little (and sure that most of that 20M were diehard fans of Sony).

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/sony_cuts_price_of_blu-ray_player/

Price of the BD players dropped quite fast after the format war finished. So PS3 wasn't the cheapest player for more than some months.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Being on VGC for a long time and looking at all the discussions over it and evidence.

I just gave you a very strong thing to look at. PS2 sold 150M+ consoles and 1.5B+ SW tie ratio of 10:1, PS3 sold 87M consoles and 1B SW tie ratio of 11.5:1 . Those aren't that much different from the average on the gen they were into.

So even though there were people that bought PS2 for DVD and PS3 for BD that isn't on a quantity that would really have changed much the totals. Do you have evidence for this "lot of people"?

Just look at how many bought the HD-DVD for Xbox (not many), or how the BD adoption rate was slow because there was a war format (at the time it ended BD players were already much cheaper than PS3). Considering most outlets claim the war was won because of PS3 having the BD, and at that time PS3 was below 20M or so (go check how much DVD players were sold before the war started, or how many BD players sold after it became the standard) and you'll see that this amount is very little (and sure that most of that 20M were diehard fans of Sony).

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/05/sony_cuts_price_of_blu-ray_player/

Price of the BD players dropped quite fast after the format war finished. So PS3 wasn't the cheapest player for more than some months.

"Sony has cut $100 (£50/€74) off the recommended retail price of its new next-generation DVD player in an attempt to forge ahead in the Format Wars. The BDP-S300 now costs $499 (£250/€370) - half what the company's first dedicated Blu-ray player cost when it was launched six months ago"

At this point in time (June 2007) Sony had cut the price of it's 60GB variant to $499. Just a few months later they introduced a new model that was 40GB for $399. This source proves nothing aside from dramatically dropping costs of Blu-Ray hardware which was already well documented. PS3 was still a very cheap Blu-Ray player and still had more features. It wasn't until after 2008 that PS3 was no longer had a majority of the market for Blu-Ray players.

From what I found, in January of 2008 Toshiba announced that only 1M HD-DVD players were sold. HD-DVD was barely part of the format war, and every single sale of PS3 counted towards Blu-Ray sales. By the end of 2007 19.25M Blu-Ray players were sold. Which, at this time, there were 12.85M PS3's sold. PS3's took a significant portion of the Blu-Ray sales market and absolutely helped push that format as the winner.



After everything, the PS4 and PS3 manage to be misunderstood by a lot of people

Not to mention that the Wii outsold the PS3 and X360 despite being an overclocked gamecube



DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

So the general consensus seems to be that Cell/Blu Ray were a mistake, and that the system would've been better off without them?

The Cell/Bluray themselves weren't mistake but what they brought, high cost and difficult to develop made a big negative impact to PS3.

So if they resulted in a big negative impact, does that not make them a mistake?



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

In this scenario I think PS3 would have faired better against the XBox360.  Perhaps take 1/3 of 360 sales and give it to the PS3.  But the two consoles, combined, would be the same even on a YoY basis.  Those first few years of Generation 7 belonged to the Wii and a cheaper PS3 wouldn't have changed that.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

So the general consensus seems to be that Cell/Blu Ray were a mistake, and that the system would've been better off without them?

Blu-ray might've not been good at first, since it increased the cost of the console. In the long run, it was good for the console. PS3 is very much a multimedia machine, and without the emerging Blu-ray format it would lose some of that status.

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the Cell processor was a good thing. It was costly, and hard to develop for. It's still baffling that Sony went with it. It also made it extremely difficult for backwards compatibility. As such, there's no true backwards compatibility on the PS4. I don't see any future PlayStation console having PS3 backwards compatibility because the effort would not be worth it.



Lifetime Sales Predictions 

Switch: 125 million (was 73, then 96, then 113 million)

PS5: 105 million Xbox Series S/X: 60 million

PS4: 122 mil (was 100 then 130 million) Xbox One: 50 mil (was 50 then 55 mil)

3DS: 75.5 mil (was 73, then 77 million)

"Let go your earthly tether, enter the void, empty and become wind." - Guru Laghima

Wman1996 said:

I don't think I've seen anyone argue that the Cell processor was a good thing. It was costly, and hard to develop for. It's still baffling that Sony went with it. It also made it extremely difficult for backwards compatibility. As such, there's no true backwards compatibility on the PS4. I don't see any future PlayStation console having PS3 backwards compatibility because the effort would not be worth it.

Well, not any more; I remember some folks last generation defending the Cell and insisting it was justified by the performance of games like Uncharted 2 and God of War 3.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Charlesalb87 said:
well we could have a high end PS4 in this gen

the problem is that modern consoles are holding back gaming, because gamers want to save money, just look at this downgrade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX_WePhiYHE, thats why i spent $599 in the PS3

Consoles gamers about PS3: Its overpriced
Sony: Alright, we gonna fix that with the PS4

PC gamers about PS4: Its underpowered
Sony: WTF!!!!

This is why I am thinking build a PC instead of next gen consoles, I will save money in the long run with cheaper games, free online and cheaper to upgrade in the future (don't need to buy the whole machine again just some parts). But mostly because I can sell my MacBook and that alone can pay for my PC.

Then it will be great to have such a huge library of games automatically enhanced. Imagine going back and play 20 year old games in much better graphics, even emulators. And then PCs run all media you could have, all codecs, my ps4 doesn't even run HEVC for example.

Also if you want VR, PC is way ahead.

With PC I have the option to pay more for better specs, I am not forced to whatever console makers decide. Best of all, I can invest in a good cooling system, because I struggle hard this generation with loud consoles, I replaced the ps4 several times because of that. 

The best of PC is being able to chose settings, I'd rather have good AA over resolution, which for me AA gives me a better image at 1080p, than no AA at 4K.

With PC I have the option, all monitors these days have HDMI, and all PCs these days accept a controller, so I can just use the same pro ps4 controller I already have.

Tired of all these remasters, remakes, ports and so on, I'd like to buy the games and never have to rebuy them, automatic enhancements when I buy a better graphics card.



Ill be more interested in knowing what would have been the case if the XB1 came out the gate without Kinect Bundled and without the bad PR and DRM? Because it had some great early titles like Killer Instinct, Forza 5, Titanfall, Ori and the Blind Forest and Dead Rising 3 just to name afew.



victor83fernandes said:
Charlesalb87 said:
well we could have a high end PS4 in this gen

the problem is that modern consoles are holding back gaming, because gamers want to save money, just look at this downgrade: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bX_WePhiYHE, thats why i spent $599 in the PS3

Consoles gamers about PS3: Its overpriced
Sony: Alright, we gonna fix that with the PS4

PC gamers about PS4: Its underpowered
Sony: WTF!!!!

This is why I am thinking build a PC instead of next gen consoles, I will save money in the long run with cheaper games, free online and cheaper to upgrade in the future (don't need to buy the whole machine again just some parts). But mostly because I can sell my MacBook and that alone can pay for my PC.

Then it will be great to have such a huge library of games automatically enhanced. Imagine going back and play 20 year old games in much better graphics, even emulators. And then PCs run all media you could have, all codecs, my ps4 doesn't even run HEVC for example.

Also if you want VR, PC is way ahead.

With PC I have the option to pay more for better specs, I am not forced to whatever console makers decide. Best of all, I can invest in a good cooling system, because I struggle hard this generation with loud consoles, I replaced the ps4 several times because of that. 

The best of PC is being able to chose settings, I'd rather have good AA over resolution, which for me AA gives me a better image at 1080p, than no AA at 4K.

With PC I have the option, all monitors these days have HDMI, and all PCs these days accept a controller, so I can just use the same pro ps4 controller I already have.

Tired of all these remasters, remakes, ports and so on, I'd like to buy the games and never have to rebuy them, automatic enhancements when I buy a better graphics card.


whatever you say, but dont do criticism for downgrades in this gen, like i said before: "The Wii outsold the PS3 and X360, despite being an overclocked Gamecube"

which the Wii proved that people dont care about specs and another reason why the PS4 is underpowered