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

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

tuoyo on 16 June 2009
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.   



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

Around the Network
joeorc on 16 June 2009
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 AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

tuoyo on 16 June 2009
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.



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

joeorc on 16 June 2009
tuoyo said:
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.

"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."

and you know what that was just PR...what did you want them to say.....do not buy our product because it's expensive....?

because someone in the PR department make's a statement like that people tend to think it's an insult..god if that was the case people would have no backbone at all.

o'l come on to think the share holder's did not know that Sony was investing in blu-ray since 1997, and that somehow they just sprung "blu-ray " on them and that the share holder's did not know that the PS3 was going to contain Blu-Ray from the get go..since Blu-ray was already on the Market since 2003. come on man that is reaching. no matter what you still loose the money..for instance you can have a production plant build as much product as you want an toss it in the bottom of the lake..it still does not matter it's still lost, the only thing you can do it recoup the loss, to say Sony would not be obligated to those share holder's to recoup those losses as fast as they can. would be worse than not doing anything at all. I love how people continue to blame the price hike on blu-ray based on people's guess on how much blu-ray increased the cost of the PS3. no one know's what it cost's sony to make a ps3 but sony and guess what they are not telling.

so you can continue to blame Blu-Ray as for the sole reason for the price increase of the PS3 but it does not mean your right.

and it does not mean Sony had a choice to not put blu-ray in , you may not like it but they had to do what they had to do.you can say what you want it does not mean your 100% right.

 

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

Dno on 16 June 2009
CDiablo said:
Umm, well it did help it win the format war which can help the BR group(which includes sony) make some bank if the tech really catches on, especially if it gets to the level of DVD market saturation.

As a gamer/gaming machine, I dont really think it has done anything yet. 7.1 surround is something only the most refined listener can really appreciate. Most people dont even own a standalone 5.1 system, much less 7.1. The 7.1 sound takes up a majority of the space in these games being released. I dont care for Blu Ray as I dont see any difference between movies and their upscaled DVD counterparts save for computer animated films. Thus far the size limitation between DVD and BR is not an issue, but that may change as the gen moves on. Few last gen games were bigger than 2 gigs and Dual Layer DVDs werent really needed for 95%. Of course you cannot compare how game are created today compared to 5 years ago.


LMAO everytime i see someone say this i laugh everytime lol.

 

 



Around the Network
WheelStriker on 16 June 2009

Of course they had no choice. Putting bluray in a next gen gaming console is a no brainer. As technology advances, more storage space is needed.



tuoyo on 16 June 2009
joeorc said:

"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."

and you know what that was just PR...what did you want them to say.....do not buy our product because it's expensive....?

because someone in the PR department make's a statement like that people tend to think it's an insult..god if that was the case people would have no backbone at all.

o'l come on to think the share holder's did not know that Sony was investing in blu-ray since 1997, and that somehow they just sprung "blu-ray " on them and that the share holder's did not know that the PS3 was going to contain Blu-Ray from the get go..since Blu-ray was already on the Market since 2003. come on man that is reaching. no matter what you still loose the money..for instance you can have a production plant build as much product as you want an toss it in the bottom of the lake..it still does not matter it's still lost, the only thing you can do it recoup the loss, to say Sony would not be obligated to those share holder's to recoup those losses as fast as they can. would be worse than not doing anything at all. I love how people continue to blame the price hike on blu-ray based on people's guess on how much blu-ray increased the cost of the PS3. no one know's what it cost's sony to make a ps3 but sony and guess what they are not telling.

so you can continue to blame Blu-Ray as for the sole reason for the price increase of the PS3 but it does not mean your right.

and it does not mean Sony had a choice to not put blu-ray in , you may not like it but they had to do what they had to do.you can say what you want it does not mean your 100% right.

 

 

When I wrote the part you have quoted I did not even say it in reference to what any person said.  I was stating my view on the reason for releasing a $600 console as a follow up to the most successful console of all time. 

And I think you are seriously mistaking on the role shareholders play.  There is absolutely no way on earth that shareholders could have had any say on whether PS3 included blu ray.  That is like suggesting Nintendo shareholders could have voted against wii remote as opposed to regular controller.  Those things are for management.  They are not decisions of shareholders. 

As for these losses you keep refering to I don't get it.  Sony spent money on R&D for blu ray.  That does not somehow equate to having to include it in PS3.  What if there was no PS3?  Or what of the other members of the blu ray group that don't have consoles.  Didn't they also spend money on R&D?  Did they lose that money because they don't have a console to release with a blu ray drive?



Biggest Pikmin Fan on VGChartz I was chosen by default due to voting irregularities

Super Smash Brawl Code 1762-4158-5677 Send me a message if you want to receive a beat down

 

S.T.A.G.E. on 16 June 2009

The PS3 saved Blu Ray plain and simple. Kaz Hirai is quick on the draw vocally and I wouldn't believe him for a second.



joeorc on 16 June 2009
tuoyo said:
joeorc said:

"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."

and you know what that was just PR...what did you want them to say.....do not buy our product because it's expensive....?

because someone in the PR department make's a statement like that people tend to think it's an insult..god if that was the case people would have no backbone at all.

o'l come on to think the share holder's did not know that Sony was investing in blu-ray since 1997, and that somehow they just sprung "blu-ray " on them and that the share holder's did not know that the PS3 was going to contain Blu-Ray from the get go..since Blu-ray was already on the Market since 2003. come on man that is reaching. no matter what you still loose the money..for instance you can have a production plant build as much product as you want an toss it in the bottom of the lake..it still does not matter it's still lost, the only thing you can do it recoup the loss, to say Sony would not be obligated to those share holder's to recoup those losses as fast as they can. would be worse than not doing anything at all. I love how people continue to blame the price hike on blu-ray based on people's guess on how much blu-ray increased the cost of the PS3. no one know's what it cost's sony to make a ps3 but sony and guess what they are not telling.

so you can continue to blame Blu-Ray as for the sole reason for the price increase of the PS3 but it does not mean your right.

and it does not mean Sony had a choice to not put blu-ray in , you may not like it but they had to do what they had to do.you can say what you want it does not mean your 100% right.

 

 

When I wrote the part you have quoted I did not even say it in reference to what any person said.  I was stating my view on the reason for releasing a $600 console as a follow up to the most successful console of all time. 

And I think you are seriously mistaking on the role shareholders play.  There is absolutely no way on earth that shareholders could have had any say on whether PS3 included blu ray.  That is like suggesting Nintendo shareholders could have voted against wii remote as opposed to regular controller.  Those things are for management.  They are not decisions of shareholders. 

As for these losses you keep refering to I don't get it.  Sony spent money on R&D for blu ray.  That does not somehow equate to having to include it in PS3.  What if there was no PS3?  Or what of the other members of the blu ray group that don't have consoles.  Didn't they also spend money on R&D?  Did they lose that money because they don't have a console to release with a blu ray drive?

come on man that's like saying that shareholder's do not have a say on the board of director's..which they do look at what happend to GM share holder's do have quite a bit of say the share holder put their faith in management. shareholder's can vote on thing's if they deem so because if they do have share's then can sure as hell vote.

look i am not saying your opinion is not VALID for "YOU"

i am saying if such corperation makes a long term investment into a technology the share holder's who may have share's could indeed pressure sony to pull the plug...the BDA all spent money to advance the technology. as a example Sharp invested into Blue laser Diode's to further bring down the cost per diode. you cannot say that if you spent all that money in development to just at the last min. stop production and pull the plug without some valid reason. these are made well in advance Sony made the choice good or bad. the production line's for Blu-Ray were already built. telling the share holder's that sorry were not even going to try to recoup those losses. is BS.

you keep saying their choice was they could have left it out of the PS3..when dis SONY start production of the PS3 exactly when was the proto type built. how many design's did the ps3 go through. it's not something you can say but..but the ps2 was $299.00 and yea the ps2 did not have a processor like the Cell, it did not use an advanced EIB like the PS3..SONY releases a $500.00 an $600.00 playstation 3 at launch..do you think sony thought their market share was going to be anything like the ps2's market share right off the bat.barring PR speak...come on

there was no way.Sony had too because HD DVD was released to bite into the sale of Blu-Ray not because Microsoft wanted to back HD DVD because they wanted to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray down.

11 to 1 you think those 11 companies are going to let the 1 company keep production of HD DVD optical drives and let all their investment go to waste? that's the point. sit still and let the investment go to waste, or use it. they already spent the share holder's money it would be a crime not to try to get that investment back.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

joeorc on 16 June 2009
S.T.A.G.E. said:
The PS3 saved Blu Ray plain and simple. Kaz Hirai is quick on the draw vocally and I wouldn't believe him for a second.

your going to stick with that statement...you sure..?

because what saved Blu-ray was not on just the PS3 no what saved Blu-ray is many thing's

1) 11 to 1 optical drive manuf. chose Blu-ray back in 2002..they already made up their mind.

2) the price..Toshiba priced HD DVD so low none of the other manuf. could make any money.

3) last but not least Blu-ray was already an established format well before HD DVD was even in in the market Blu-Ray already had a 3 year lead on HD DVD

and People expect Sony and the BDA to roll over because Toshiba releases a format that is not even better than Blu-Ray, not even as mature of a format and did not have as much backing in the Industry as Blu-ray already did. so let in the case of sony all that investment $$ since 1997 that Sony put in to Blu-Ray was to be let to  go all to waste

 

Riight. come on people man this is just getting silly



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.