Funny, the same pointless questions came up with the PS2

"DVD is not needed, compression will be enough who cares about one or two 2 CD games"

*yawn*

Sony wanted to offer the most advanced tech with the Ps3. All the usual bashing "BluRay is not needed, its just for the movies, Sony is rippoff" stuff completly ignores the fact that if console companies would think like i.e. kowenicki we would still only have 16kb cartridges for the games, hey, compression and maybe multiple cartridges, sure. I understand that certain circles that are stuck with the same tech as last gen again hate progress, but all other Companies did UPGRADE their storage.

Nintendo went from mini-dvd in the gamecube at 1.5 GB max to DVD at 9 GB max
Sony went from DVD 9 GB max to BluRay at 50 GB max
Microsoft went from DVD 9 GB max to DVD 7.5 GB max (Xbox 360 uses part of the dvd space for the already hacked encryption)

Either the developers evolve, or they loose the touch and go under.
Sony did clearly NOT want to add the same Disk format they had on the PS2, as already the multidisk titles for the PS2 where getting more and more. Hardly any RPG with just one disk. Their solution was the inclusion of BluRay as the main format to move storage space to brighter pastures again, as with the PS1, as with the PS2.

Due to manufacturing issues the BluRay pickup was more expensive then the original plans accounted for, resulting in a delay that cost Sony dearly even today, as the competition fired off nearly a year ahead. Though that system was plagued by shabby manufacturing due to the rushing. Even in the release year Sony had to delay the EU launch from the planned day and date worldwide release.

The BluRay inclusion was a smart move that will serve gamers cause it offers developers all the space they need for their games without limiting lets say open world games to only one old DVD. Also it enabled customers of the gameconsole, like with the PS2, to experience the most up to date movie format without the need for another player.

Naturally Sony did not do all that cause they are so generous, but because they saw it as PERFECT business plan. You get the most advanced format into the system from all the systems on the market, you can promote your own movie format against the monopolistic HD-DVD Toshiba system, you can cross finance your console costs by movie licenses and ensure a healthy installbase for BluRay.

It was a clear win-win situation. The console market plans where shaken up by Nintendos old-tech, but fresh appeal Wii, selling like crazy due to a well planed marketing campaign and universal appeal for all ages.

Looking back the PS2 BC was MORE costly to Sony than the BluRay drive. Cause contrary to the PS2-chip, the BluRay pickup dropped from ~ $100 per piece to $6 a piece in less than 6 month after the release. It seems logical that Sony calculated with that prize instead the high first batch prize, but hindsight is always perfect.

In my opinion BluRay was the right decision for Sony and for the gamers. More space offers chances for more content. And allows gamers to experience the HD movies available now. I watch BluRay movies regularly, but the last time i put a PS2 game in my launch PS3 is more than a year ago, so in retrospective i guess the BluRay drive was the better decision than the BC, and the less expensive one, too.

This.

It's hard to say though. At the time, the Blu-Ray was probably more impoartaint. Sony knew their game line was strong so they used it to push Blu-Ray. They misinperpreted the market and now the system is struggling. Games are impoartaint to them, but with a multi entertainment company, money is the focus.

Slightly off-topic but i dont think kowenicki is trolling....he makes a good point. Was it blu-ray or the ps3 that sony have tried to push with this console. I feel they are serious about the ps3, but blu-ray looks like it will be their biggest benefit from this round of the console wars

kowenicki means sony is kicking ps3 owner's ass!!!

probably blu ray meant more! and if thats true, then Sony won.

but if PS3 still means more to them, then they better work harder.

If you were directly comparing licencing fees earned from DVD movies and players to thee licencing fees generated from home console based videogames I suspect videogames would have a slight edge because their licencing fee is similar to the sales price of many movies ... At the same time, I don't believe that licencing fees are the main reason why companies create a movie format or a home console.

The real money in either format is in selling the content related to that format, with videogames a large portion of that money is generated from creating new content whereas in movies it comes from converting older content to the new format. A single publisher (Nintendo) or a single movie studio can easily generate as much money from the sale of content as the licencing fees of a console or movie format.

Profit..... what else???

Ill say this the reason that i bought my PS2 was becuase of a ll the great games that it had( and it did have a ton of them). Thats why i buy a console becuase of the games...Thats why i bought a 360 this gen..

Now im sure there are some fans for sony and microsoft out there but the average person cares only about the games. AT least thats the way that i see it

i like the idea of sony forcing people into buying ps3.. breaking into your house at gun point, take your cash and leave a ps3

i wasnt saying someone did, i just thought it was a funny idea