Simple question... My friend and I were debating this the other day... For my answer, I would say no. Without the Blu-ray drive, the PS3 would've been on the same playing field as 360, and the 360 has games I like right now. Not saying the PS3 is a bad device, but there aren't many games I like on the platform right now.

Just curious to see how the AV enthusiasts feel about this lol

Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, but Dint

*facepalm*

No, I wouldn't have purchased a PS3 if not for Bluray. I knew I wanted a next gen gaming console but Bluray was the easiest way to convince my wife. Now that I have a PS3, I use it about 30% for gaming, 30% for Bluray, and about 40% as a media server. I am very happy with it and would buy it again in a heartbeat if I had it to do over. Having said that, if I were a die hard gamer I probably would have purchased a 360 though.

*facepalm*

Your post count makes me facepalm too...

Without blu-ray, the PS3 would basically just be a competitor with the 360 in brand name only. Sure, the processing architecture is different, but no one but developers cares about that.

Yes, provided the lack of BD was reflected in the price.

yes i would have. I did not know much about blu ray or even 1080p when i bought my ps3...i had a 1080i set and my ps3 is the reason I got so into Home Theater.....

I would have, bluray was just a HUGE!!! plus :) Got to give it to Sony they can read the market better that Crapsoft, I remember when Nintendo didn't think disc based games "were" not the fututure so they abandom ship with the console they were going to produce together and we all know what happen, Nintendo64 and Playstation 1 who won there.

Yes, provided the lack of BD was reflected in the price.

It still irks me a little that inclusion of BR has jacked the price out of the hands of many. I absolutely would have bought one without BR, because I believe it would have been priced about $200 cheaper than the initial price ($499/$599) had BR been dropped.

I understand the purpose of BR for HD movies and storage.. but I just feel like the PS3 concentrated on that more than it did games. Being as though every PS3 had a harddrive.. they simply could sold a DVD based PS3 and allowed you to install multiple discs titles to the harddrive if storage was a real concern.

Which oddly enough is what they do now, forcing you to install titles just to play them.. except with 50 gigs of disc storage space is no longer a concern.. but performance is. Mandatory installs.. something else to thank BR for everytime you have to erase data from the harddrive just to play a new game. Or buy a new harddrive.

As far as having the 'games'. The library was weak at first, but things have turned around now though. The games are definitely there.. its no doubt about it. And games are equal on both platforms. Unfortunately 2 years later.. you still have spend over $400 to experience the games. Twice the price of the competition.

Because of that high price, which is directly related to BR, only 1 of my friends has a bought a PS3 besides me. While pretty much the rest of them have jumped on the 360 bandwagon. And that only attracts more people to the platform, because for most people the console they choose is the one most of your friends have.

It was the exact opposite outcome last generation.. Everyone I knew had a PS2.. (some people even had 2 PS2's..) and only one of my friends had an Xbox.. which he eventually sold to me.

Yes, provided the lack of BD was reflected in the price.

Thats the thing. To answer that question is to ponder every what if situation. In essence it means to imagine a completely different piece of hardware in a completely different market niche. And if ps3 didn't have blu-ray then maybe HD-DVD won, then an Xbox would be more attractive gaining even more game IP's.

But without all that critical thinking and mental constipation I would have to say decisively maybe!

I probably would not have bought it, because I was into the Xbox last generation and would likely have continued there. I wasn't really a fan of the PS controller either, but I have grown to really like it now.

I don't think the price would have been $200 cheaper. $100 less would have been more realistic. The hardware isn't cheap, and there's a hard drive in every unit. I think built-in wifi, a larger hard drive, and the card reader would have been enough of a justification for a $500 unit. I suspect they might have thrown in an HDMI cable to sweeten the deal.

No

Of course not.

No. I bought it for the blu-ray. I probably would have gone xbox 360 because it had more games out. I am, however, very happy with the ps3.

Eventually but not in December 06 like I did.

Thats the thing. To answer that question is to ponder every what if situation. In essence it means to imagine a completely different piece of hardware in a completely different market niche. And if ps3 didn't have blu-ray then maybe HD-DVD won, then an Xbox would be more attractive gaining even more game IP's.

But without all that critical thinking and mental constipation I would have to say decisively maybe!


Bingo. Which would make it tough for some to give a definitive answer, without knowing the outcome of the other variables. Price point, hardware, and disc and/or hard drive storage. Would there have been more and better launch titles and better ports, in the first year? The ease for the developers and so on.

Myself, I still would answer the question with a definite yes but that's because I've always loved the Playstation brand. I grew up playing NES in the late 80's and early 90's. Soon after, Playstation emerged and it seemed like they pushed the market forward and at a faster pace. Their major strength has always been their 1st party exclusives which, again barring the unknown variables, would probably be strong regardless of the blu-ray drive on the PS3.

I felt that the original xbox had a few strong exclusives but only a handful, which was unfortunate. That has changed, this generation, and it's great to see awesome games coming from both sides. So I own both and still would regardless of Blu-Ray.

Simple question... My friend and I were debating this the other day... For my answer, I would say no. Without the Blu-ray drive, the PS3 would've been on the same playing field as 360, and the 360 has games I like right now. Not saying the PS3 is a bad device, but there aren't many games I like on the platform right now.

Just curious to see how the AV enthusiasts feel about this lol

I purchased my PS3 at launch for the future games the console would have but mainly for Blu ray support. :cool:

Ignoring the what-if's, it's hard to tell. If it were priced $100 less than an X360 elite then sure, because I like the PS brand. But with giving up a 1.5 year head start and a rash of good games, it would be tough to justify the PS3 without Blu-Ray and, more importantly for me at the time, BC. I bought my PS3 (technically it was a gift) largely because I was starting to have optics problems with my PS2 and thought it was just a matter of time before it needed replacement and I have a launch 60 with Emotion engine. So a better question might be would I have bothered upgrading if it didn't have full BC, which I can definitively anwer as no, I would have just bought a new slim PS2. Of course, I still have to play guitar Hero on the PS2, but luckily it has managed to still do that, even though it is at the point where it won't read DVDs.

nope, it was the only reason why I bought it..... getting into gaming has been a time consuming side effect :)

Yes, I would have bought it just so I wouldn't get flamed in the Sony section of AVS.

Actually, I would have bought but not as soon as I did. To be honest if it didn't I don't think would even have one yet. It was pretty much MGS that made me want a PS3 when I first heard about it. I picked it up so that I could use it as a BR player until that game came out.

If there wasn't a BluRay drive included I probably would not have bought it when I did (July, 2007). I have a 60gb model and backward compatibility support also played a big part in getting one when I did.

Outside of a few gems, there was and continues to be a dearth of quality exclusive games for the PS3, multi-platform games usually look and play better on the 360 and when it comes to games I just find the 360's controller far more comfortable.

If it weren't for the ability to watch BluRay movies I either wouldn't have a PS3 or at best it would be getting as much playtime as my Wii (which is to say, not very much).

This is what you and your friend sit around debating......Nerds....lol

Eventually,but it was Blu-ray that convinced me to buy one right away.Other then Metal Gear and Unchartered,most of my personal must-plays have been on 360,both first and third party games.

Also I bought mine when I did (60gb last August) because it had full BC and because I wanted to take advantage of the 5 free bluray movie promotion going on at the time.

Nope. Would have bought another xbox 360 and been done with it.

Definitely not. It was the main reason I purchased the PS3.

Definitely not. It was the main reason I purchased the PS3.

That and it Folds :)

No.

I wouldn't have initially as it was a major factor in my decision to buy one. Been the best piece of hardware in my HT though - outside of the projector.

No.

No for me. It just goes to show that Sony's decision to include blu-ray, which at first looked like a huge mistake, could ultimately save Sony from an utter failure.....

I likely would have purchased an xbox 360 instead as well.

Not at all. My primary goals were BluRay for my 1080p/24 capable TV and Rock Band. Everything else has been gravy. The BluRay, streaming capability and the rest of the gravy is why I bought a second PS3.

No.

I would still have gotten two, but probably not three.

Yes, I would have still bought one.

I would still have gotten two, but probably not three.

Agreed. I'm not a big fan of uneven numbers.

Picked mine up at launch in 06.

Previous generation, I had both a PS2 and an Xbox. I rarely played; my son played more often than I did. When it was time for me to decide between the 360 and the PS3, I looked at my shelf: ~30 PS2 titles, and 1 xbox title.

So yeah - I would have picked up a ps3 even without BR. But BR definitely sweetened the deal. I bought my big screen in January of 05, so had been waiting almost two years for nice high-def disc based content(never saw any future in HD-DVD to be honest).

I only bought it for BR and the occassional demo, so no, I wouldn't have bought it.

Yes! Because of MGS4,..Gran Turismo...The blu Ray was a extra at first and a very welcome one! ;)

No

No

Yes, assuming the lack of bluray would've made it cheaper. Sony simply has some of my favorite franchises locked up.

I picked the PS3 over 360 because of the following reasons:

1. MGS4
2. Free Online Multiplayer
3. Better reliability
4. Blu-ray
5. MGS4
6. MGS4
7. MGS4

If you take out blu-ray, I still would have picked the ps3 because of the other obvious reasons...and it would have been cheaper. So it really would have been a no brainer for me.

I'd say that Blu-ray is 60-70% of the reason I got the PS3.

No,

The premise of the question is flawed in and of itself because it leads to answers that are too presumptuous. The manifestation of which is people who assume it would still be released at the same time frame with the same game catalogue and near the same price.

The reality is that if there was no blu-ray inclusion, it would've been released much earlier and at a lower price point. Don't forget the reason for the delay was largely related to manufacturing of blu-ray diodes. If it's using trusty DVD, the lead time of the 360 is significantly cut down, or even eliminated altogether. The lead time was instrumental for the 360 in that it lead to it getting more developer support. The more developer support you get the more games you get. This leads to more buyers who feel it's now a legitimate competitor or even the leader in the industry, and the more buyers means more third party exclusives are now multi-platform, etc etc etc.

So on the positive side if it comes out sooner it's likely retaining more of it's 3rd party exclusives, and they likely come out sooner. It's likely cheaper and has a more diverse catalogue of games within 6 months of launch.

On the negative side, lack of differentiation in hardware may cause it to lose 3rd party exclusives in the long-run cycle of the console unless it dominates it's competition out of the box or has a lead time on the 360 again (which it could have because the original xbox's life cycle). Also the games aren't the same. The current exclusives that we know have to make concessions to fit on a DVD9. The life cycle of the console may not be as long as it would have been with a blu-ray drive and would more closely mirror that of the 360/Wii. And of course, no ability to watch HD movies other than a possible download service somewhere down the road.

My answer would be that I would've bought the PS3 at some point regardless because of the games. But there are way too many what-ifs to be considered to know exactly what we would've been getting anyway. Some will claim the blu-ray drive saved the PS3 from utter failure, but that is completely ignoring the domino effect that has on what the PS3 would ultimately be, when it would be released and how many games it would've kept/released soon in the life cycle. (That's why the question and some of these answers got a *facepalm* from cys).

IF it still would've come out in late 2006 with a small game catalogue, I wouldn't have bought it then. But because it had a blu-ray drive it was a no brainer for me as I was very interested in HD movies at the beginning of the format war. And knowing then that it had a good launch title (R:FoM) and now knowing it has the superior gaming platform is the payoff.

Brandon

I dont think I would have bought it so fast. I have 2 PS3's now. I bought one last year in April and anotehr a few months back. If it didnt have BR I would have probably bought 1 like I did a few months back.

I would have. My friends have the PS3......blu-ray was just a bonus to me.

The premise of the question is flawed in and of itself because it leads to answers that are too presumptuous. The manifestation of which is people who assume it would still be released at the same time frame with the same game catalogue and near the same price.


I totally disagree with this hypothesis. I don't think the release delay was due to the inclusion of BD, despite conventional wisdom.

Look at the launch titles. Look at how many were available. If the exclusion of BD would have jump-started the release by 6 to 12 months, what games would have been ready to go? Damned few.

NOPE!!!! no chance in hell!!!

The premise of the question is flawed in and of itself because it leads to answers that are too presumptuous. The manifestation of which is people who assume it would still be released at the same time frame with the same game catalogue and near the same price.

<he said a bunch of other Nerdy geeky stuff here>

Brandon

You're a Book worm..Nerd. and a Geek!:p:D

Not only no...but hell no.

Bought mine for Blu-Ray....additional games to go with my 360 are just another perk. Hell no.

I totally disagree with this hypothesis. I don't think the release delay was due to the inclusion of BD, despite conventional wisdom.

Look at the launch titles. Look at how many were available. If the exclusion of BD would have jump-started the release by 6 to 12 months, what games would have been ready to go? Damned few.

Then you're putting the cart before the horse. If you think there wouldn't be any games released because they put the PS3 out in 2005 instead of 2006 you're kidding yourself. The developers don't develop for ghost consoles. They didn't start developing the games in 2006/2007 because that's when they were ready to. They started then because that's when Sony's hardware was ready and accessible. It may not be the same game or the same franchises, but there would definitely be games ready. In fact, some of the current PS2 exclusives from 2006/2007/2008 that currently aren't coming out on the PS3 would've been on the PS3 instead.

I mean, your entire assumption kinda contradicts the fact that the 360 came out in that 6 to 12 month time frame that you think was impossible. And it started getting games at the same point in it's life cycle that the PS3 did in addition to having good games within 6 months of release. Note that the big-time release Gears of War came out almost exactly at the same time as Uncharted in the PS3's life cycle. Do you really believe that if the 360 is released in late 2006 that Gears of War is still released in Nov 2006? If the 360 isn't released til 2006 it's because all of the processes and procedures related to getting the console released are either done in a slower time frame or delayed by a full year. All of that affects the developers trying to develop for it.

Brandon

It was a no brainer to get a ps3 with bc and blu ray. I had a lot of ps2 titles that look great on the ps3. It connects to my ps2s for lan games. It has blu ray and great upscaling. I have 4 ps3 games. I play my 360 much more. But I love my ps3. I want more ps3 exclusives. I buy multi format on 360 for achievements and more online players.

Considering 90% of its use since getting it a year ago has been for gaming, 10% for BD, yes. I own a 360 too.

No.
I would not buy a gaming console for just gaming.

You're a Book worm..Nerd. and a Geek!:p:D

Hey, it pays the bills ;)

Brandon

No. Preference is to game on PC, then 360.

Yes but not at the full $600 original price. I probably would've waited until it became cheaper.

Absolutely!

No. The only scenario that would change my answer would be if 360 exclusive games were somehow ps3 exclusive instead.

I wouldn't have been able to convince the wife on the purchase without BR. Glad I did as it helped in the purchase of a new receiver as well. Now she loves the lossless AQ as well as the beauty PQ.

The premise of the question is flawed in and of itself because it leads to answers that are too presumptuous.

The reality is...


you just took my response and turned it into an essay with smart stuff. :o:)

i would not have bought a ps3 without a blu-ray drive... how else would it be able to read the games or play the movies?? :eek:;)

The only reason I bought a PS3 was for the BR drive. That being said, I use my PS3 for about 2% gaming, 4% br disc playback, and 94% media streaming.

On the other hand I have a 360 and I use that for 100% gaming.

No, I bought the PS3 for blu-ray. Getting back into gaming was just a side effect. But then I never got to play cuz my wife was always playing it, so we bought a second one.

If it wasn't for that we would still be rockin' a ps2 and would not have bought an Xbox360.

The premise of the question is flawed in and of itself because it leads to answers that are too presumptuous.

no it's not; it is very black and white.

I wanted a blu-ray player. The PS3 was the best option (for the money) considering I would get a gaming console IN ADDITION to a blu-ray player.

I don't play games very often, so if the PS3 didn't have a blu-ray player I would not have gotten it.

I use my PS3 PRIMARILY as a blu-ray player. It outputs DDTHD and DTS HD MA to my receiver which cannot decode it. A no brainer.

What for all the spectacular games?:rolleyes: Would have kept my 360. Wouldnt have got it at all if HDDVD had not gone the way of the dino. HDDVD looked as good and movies were cheaper, as well as better DVD upscaling. Also 360 used games are way less than PS3 used games. Hey wait a minute....what the hell did i get this thing for?:D

Of course, top of the line gaming system with lots of great games. I do love the fact that it is a great blu-ray player and does other things as well :D

No, I would have bought an Xbox 360 instead.

I already had a 360 when I bought my PS3, and for the most part I use it as a media player...Blu-ray, upconverted DVD, and streaming audio/video. The 360 can do both all of that but Blu-ray, but the PS3 is quieter and faster when using my NAS for streaming media (mostly in terms of listing the music tag info).

I have played three PS3 exclusive games--Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted, and (most of) MGS4--and have enjoyed those, but compared to how much time I spend gaming on the 360, the PS3 really is just a media hub for me, not a gaming platform.

Yes I would have but not for $600. Obviously without the bluray drive pricing would have been lower. Contrary to what many people are posting in this thread for every hour of gaming I do on the 360 I easily log 10 hours on the PS3.

Without BR, I probably would have delayed getting it a but longer.

This thread needs a Poll.

No +1

No. While there are some good exclusive titles there is no one game or even an group of games thats worth all the $$$ you need to spend on a PS3 when the 360 already had at the PS3's launch more great games than I could ever have the time to play. Thsi works in reverse. If someone has a PS3 at this point I would never recomend spending $400 to play 360 exclusives. At this point each has plenty of games to keep anyone busy.

no it's not; it is very black and white.

The question is asked in the gaming forum, thus it's in a gaming-related context at least partially. There is nothing black and white about the impact on gaming related issues and release schedules and developer relationships. For those that never cared about gaming or never planned to game on it, yes the question is very easy. But I would also wonder why they're in the gaming forum :confused:

Brandon

The question I have is...who cares. It did come with a blu-ray drive so it doesn't really matter now, does it...or is someone doing this for a school project :confused:

Meh

probably not. I'd say it's 80% for BD movie viewing and media streaming. I've got a buddy that works for Sony and sends me free games, but i rarely play them...and according to him, the non-gaming aspects of the system are going to get better over the next couple of years. He's been right on with everything else about PS3 to date so i tend to take his word for it!

I've got a buddy that works for Sony and sends me free games, but i rarely play them...

I'll take'em :p

No. While there are some good exclusive titles there is no one game or even an group of games thats worth all the $$$ you need to spend on a PS3 when the 360 already had at the PS3's launch more great games than I could ever have the time to play. Thsi works in reverse. If someone has a PS3 at this point I would never recomend spending $400 to play 360 exclusives. At this point each has plenty of games to keep anyone busy.

:eek:

that's it... everyone better hit their knees and get right with the Lord because the apocalypse is officially happening!
:D

Simple question... My friend and I were debating this the other day... For my answer, I would say no. Without the Blu-ray drive, the PS3 would've been on the same playing field as 360, and the 360 has games I like right now. Not saying the PS3 is a bad device, but there aren't many games I like on the platform right now.

Just curious to see how the AV enthusiasts feel about this lol

Simple answer... My friend and I were debating this the other day... For my answer, I would say yes. ..........................Not saying the Xbox360 is a bad device but there aren't many exclusive games I like on the platform right now.

The question I have is...who cares. It did come with a blu-ray drive so it doesn't really matter now, does it...or is someone doing this for a school project :confused:

Who cares that you don't care... Why'd you bother posting? And check the calendar... Isn't it a bit early for school projects? :rolleyes:

Who cares that you don't care... Why'd you bother posting? And check the calendar... Isn't it a bit early for school projects? :rolleyes:

My kids are already in school...started last week...and, Good For You (albeit in the other form ;)) .

The campus I work at started classes a week ago, too.

Who cares that you don't care... Why'd you bother posting? And check the calendar... Isn't it a bit early for school projects? :rolleyes:

I care that he doesn't care.

See what you get with silly threads? Silly responses :)

I care that he doesn't care.

See what you get with silly threads? Silly responses :)

Nobody cares that you care that he doesn't care.

And I don't care about that.

I think most of yall are answering this question as if the price would have been the same with or without bluray. First off they prolly would have launched side by side with the xbox if they would have used a regular dvd drive. Remember they had a hard time manufacturing the bluray drive so they delayed its release.

Also think people needs to remember the ps3 just passed 1 1/2 year mark in what may or June. The 360 really didn't have any killer games til Gears hit and that was at their one year mark, and then 5 months later Halo 3 right about the same amount of time it took Sony to get us Drakes Fortune and mgs4 for the ps3. So time frame is about right and when you throw in GTp5, Rfom, R&C:tod, MLB "The Show" and Hot Shots golf, I think they may even be ahead of the curve actually. Just Microsoft had time for some exclusives like GRAW because the ps3 just wasn't out yet just like Bioshock. All of those titles here on out will prolly be release now along side and with the ps3.

And don't forget about all of the 1st and 2nd party devs that are under the Sony lable, especially considering that most 3rd party devs are looking to be multiplat. So even without bluray Sony is a force to be reconned with.

And $200 difference? Think the new 60gb pro is still going for $349 and the arcade is being phased out. And the arcade wouldn't be a good console to have if wanting to play online especially when games like cod4 sends out new maps, and gta4 having dlc, so really to the hardcore or even to enthusiast the arcade wouldn't really be a consideration.

So my answer would be YES I would still have bought a ps3. :)

Yes, but I might not have purchased the 1080p TV or the HDMI receiver or the 7.1 surround sound setup.

Probably not.

Who cares that you don't care... Why'd you bother posting? And check the calendar... Isn't it a bit early for school projects? :rolleyes:

I care that he doesn't care.

See what you get with silly threads? Silly responses :)

Nobody cares that you care that he doesn't care.

And I don't care about that.

I think I care that you don't care about avarice caring about kek not caring.

Just thought I would share that. And sharing IS caring. :p

Caring is for Bears.

Do you see what I did there?!?

Brandon

No I didn't see what you did there. I read it. And Reading is Fundamental.

You catch my drift?!?

I probably would have eventually gotten one, but likely not when I did (a couple of months after launch). I had my heart set on the original Xbox, but with rumors of the 360 in place for a couple of years I patiently waited. I was into PC gaming big time and was not impressed with the console gaming as a whole. The whole reason to get the PS3 quickly was for Blu-ray movies and the fact that it is an excellent DVD upconverter.

Actually, now that I think about it even more, the longer the time from lauch, the more polarized people are as there are too many good games on each system, thus no need to play on both systems. I probably would not have gotten the PS3 afterall.

No.

Short and Sweet.

But I would have never purchased a Blu-Ray player were it not attached to a PS3 with a cell processor, full potential for 2.0 capability and with wireless
networking. Plus it plays Motorstorm...and surfs the web and plays SACD
and best of all it uses PCM so it dosen't trigger the ONKYO/Integra 8 series
DTS bomb or new Reon bomb.

What's not to love about it. :)

Props to SONY - best blu-ray player ever (so far that is)...

Healz yeah!!!!!:D:D:D

Nope love my xbox, but had to give in because the blu ray.

The 360 really didn't have any killer games til Gears hit and that was at their one year mark

Aren't you forgetting a few games?

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927725.asp?q=call%20of%20duty

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/927245.asp?q=project%20gotham%20racing

http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/930851.asp?q=geometry%20wars

The 360 launch is often slandard here but the facts are out there. The 360 launched with no less than three critically acclaimed very big sellers.

And $200 difference? Think the new 60gb pro is still going for $349 and the arcade is being phased out.

All of the 360s are dropping in price September 7th.

And the arcade isn't being phased out. It has been part of Microsoft's strategy to get to $199 all along. Why on earth would they phase it out as soon as they got to $199?

This is from July 2007:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Shane-Kim-Interview-Timing-A-Price-Cut-for-Xbox-360-59812.shtml

1UP – "What is the mass-market price, and when will Xbox 360 achieve that?"

Shane Kim – "If you look back in history -- again, it's not just going to follow what's in history -- in some cases, 75 to 80 percent of the business gets done $199 and below. So, we're not quite there yet. I think that number can change over time because of inflation, greater capabilities; what we can do what Xbox 360, even the core system, is far beyond what you could do before in previous generations. Who knows? Maybe $249 will be a mass-market price point -- but historically, $199 has been when you're talking a PlayStation 2-like install base. 80 percent of the business gets done at $199 and below. We're like the other guys, right?

We're trying to drive costs out of the system as much as possible so we can hit those price points. We're a little closer than Sony is with PlayStation 3, thankfully, but we're all trying to get that magic price point."


And this is Shane Kim from July 2008:
http://www.edge-online.com/blogs/shane-kim-writes-edge


But take a moment to think about the core system. The Xbox 360 Arcade is more successful than many people credit. We’ve seen it grow to be a meaningful part of the overall portfolio of sales and I believe as we drive towards more mass market pricing, as we add mass market mainstream consumer services, the Xbox 360 Arcade is going to continue to grow to be a bigger part in terms of our sales.

That doesn't sound like it is being phased out to me. :)

And to answer the OP, no, I wouldn't have purchased a PS3 if it didn't include a blu-ray player.

No. I would not have bought it if it did not have a Blu player. I bought it after the HD vs. Blu war was over. With the price of a Blu-ray player it only made since to spend $400-$500 on the PS3 vesus a stand alone player (plus I love the PS3 attributes. A computer as a Blu-ray player). I'm 95% movies 5% games on the PS3. At the time of the PS3 release I bought the 360. I liked the 360's first party games better and everything else is on both sytems.

No.

Only reason I did not buy a Xbox 360 was the HD DVD add on did not pass through uncompressed audio.

I am glad I got my 80 gig in Oct 07. Sony's strategy seems to take away features they praised so much about from the beginning with the 20/60gig to todays BC, card, and usb inputs.

The only reason I got it was for the exclusive games and then the movies. The majority of the time it is actually used for movies.

No I didn't see what you did there. I read it. And Reading is Fundamental.

You catch my drift?!?

Come on meta, we all know you're a big Care Bears fan.

Brandon

Then you're putting the cart before the horse. If you think there wouldn't be any games released because they put the PS3 out in 2005 instead of 2006 you're kidding yourself. The developers don't develop for ghost consoles. They didn't start developing the games in 2006/2007 because that's when they were ready to. They started then because that's when Sony's hardware was ready and accessible. It may not be the same game or the same franchises, but there would definitely be games ready. In fact, some of the current PS2 exclusives from 2006/2007/2008 that currently aren't coming out on the PS3 would've been on the PS3 instead.

Let us assume for the rest of the discussion that the ps3 did not have a BD drive. How would that have affected the launch date? 3 months? 6 months? 12 months?

Whatever figure you choose, I don't think it really matters. You are correct that the developers would have been waiting on the dev kits before making serious progress on ps3 game development. But if the ps3 has no BD drive, how are the dev kits impacted? Are they themselves delivered 3 months earlier? 6? etc etc. The fact is that we don't know. My uneducated guess is that the inclusion of a BD drive had little to impact on the delivery of the ps3 devkits.

If that guess is correct, then I stand by my statement: there would have been little to no games ready for an earlier launch.


I mean, your entire assumption kinda contradicts the fact that the 360 came out in that 6 to 12 month time frame that you think was impossible. And it started getting games at the same point in it's life cycle that the PS3 did in addition to having good games within 6 months of release. Note that the big-time release Gears of War came out almost exactly at the same time as Uncharted in the PS3's life cycle. Do you really believe that if the 360 is released in late 2006 that Gears of War is still released in Nov 2006? If the 360 isn't released til 2006 it's because all of the processes and procedures related to getting the console released are either done in a slower time frame or delayed by a full year. All of that affects the developers trying to develop for it.

Brandon

I don't think my assumption contradicts anything having to do with the 360. That's one benefit to the 360 architecture; it's enough like a PC that for the first batch of games at least, no serious rethinking in game architecture need take place. Another benefit is that developers could pretty much approximate a 360 devkit with off-the-shelf hardware. And with the friendliness of the MS api's, a 360 developer effectively enjoys a 6 to 12 month head-start over development on the ps3(at least that was the case 18 months ago).

Probably not, at least not at launch. If it were not for its Blu-ray playback (not to mention a really good one at that, only being trumped recently by the Denons) I would've waited until MGS4 released.

Whatever figure you choose, I don't think it really matters...

My uneducated guess is that the inclusion of a BD drive had little to impact on the delivery of the ps3 devkits.

If that guess is correct, then I stand by my statement: there would have been little to no games ready for an earlier launch.

Then we have nowhere else to go from here. Good day sir.

Brandon

I was very excited that I could get gaming and BD movie playback in one purchase.... but that being said I probably would of still bought the PS3 over the 360 because of the 360's quality control issues. Build quality is important to me when buying a piece of electronics and clearly the 360 had build quality issues...

Yes yes why? 360 3 red rings.

Nope, i jsut didint feel the online community can touch the xbox. I love the blue ray and Im going to be getting resistance and fallout. Those will be the first two major titles i buy.

Nope!

Nope!
I've had my PS3 only since the beginning of the year, but i've only played 3 games on it, Uncharted, Warhawk, and MGS4. I actually went through all of Uncharted (great game), but Warhawk and MGS4 i've only played a few times, just cant get into them. I find myself buying games for my 360 whenever they are on both platforms. Granted i've been through a few 360's since launch, but regardless its my favorite system. The PS3 is aweome though dont get me wrong, i just mainly use it for bluray and thats about it.

No chance.

No

I would have bought it. But then again, if it didn't have the Blu-Ray player it wouldn't have cost as much as it did.

Come on meta, we all know you're a big Care Bears fan.

Brandon

The care bears were ok, but pound puppies ruled!

no. simple as that

The care bears were ok, but pound puppies ruled!

Pound puppies were WAY overrated. They didn't even come out with any good dog collars at launch and had a substantial failure rate with seams coming un-stitched.

Pound puppies were WAY overrated. They didn't even come out with any good dog collars at launch and had a substantial failure rate with seams coming un-stitched.

Dude that's just being ignorant. And everybody knows gummi bears was the best fun bar-none, no matter what technical advantages the care bears had over them. Pound puppies were right behind them.

Brandon

Dude that's just being ignorant. And everybody knows gummi bears was the best fun bar-none, no matter what technical advantages the care bears had over them. Pound puppies were right behind them.

Brandon
I have to agree because gummi bears taste better.;)

If Teddy Ruxpin came with a blu-ray drive it would have been the best toy ever.

Dude that's just being ignorant. And everybody knows gummi bears was the best fun bar-none, no matter what technical advantages the care bears had over them. Pound puppies were right behind them.
Brandon

That was part of the problem as well,...and those things were supposed to be for kids :eek:...should have been called "get a room" puppies...

no. wait, what? yes...

and, the whooole lot of you are gonna get kicked out of here (you know who i'm talking to. troublemakers).

Cooper, please stay on topic :rolleyes:

Cooper, please stay on topic :rolleyes:

Agree. Coop, if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem. Please stop being a part of the problem....:mad:

If the PS3 didn't have bluray in it I would pass and just buy a standalone. After MGS4 no games I'm interested in but Fallout.

I would have for the exclusives the system would pump out. BD capabilities is just a major (and most used) bonus.

I bought a PS3 just for the Blu-Ray player. I LOVED by original Xbox and I want Halo 3 in a bad way, but I wanted to watch HD movies even more.

I thought an AppleTv would take care of my HD movie needs, but its audio quality is lousy.

The Blu-Ray drive was simply icing on the cake for me. I was definitely going to buy a PS3 regardless.

No, and correct me if I'm wrong, but; Wouldn't that mean that the unit would be a PS2 with a few upgrades like bluetooth technology?

No, and correct me if I'm wrong, but; Wouldn't that mean that the unit would be a PS2 with a few upgrades like bluetooth technology?

Umm, you are aware the significant improvement in game visuals over the PS2 has nothing to do with the BD drive and everything to do with the rest of the electronics in the PS3.

I wouldve bought it regardless, but at a much cheaper price, comparable to the Wii.

Umm, you are aware the significant improvement in game visuals over the PS2 has nothing to do with the BD drive and everything to do with the rest of the electronics in the PS3.

+1 and say it again! :cool:

I already had a blu-ray drive for my htpc. I bought PS3 solely as a gaming machine and have never used it once to watch a movie.

I'm confused.. Isn't a PS3 without Blu-ray just called an Xbox360?

I'm confused.. Isn't a PS3 without Blu-ray just called an Xbox360?

...that doesn't die.

...that doesn't die.

I suppose that is especially true because the Blu-Ray drive is what most often dies in PS3s. :)

Nope.

That was my primary reason for buying. Gaming was a bonus. And movies is still my primary use for the box.

But if I had just beening buy for gaming, at the time it would have made more sense to get the 360.

Why wasn't this setup as a poll?

Probably. When I bought mine I could have just as easily bought a 360 with an HD-DVD player. Back then I didn't know that blu would win. Even though the 360 had more good games available at the time, they were breaking down at an alarming rate. I hate having to return things over and over before they work right. The PS3 was the only choice for HD gaming. The Wii is not HD. Not even in the running for me.

I suppose that is especially true because the Blu-Ray drive is what most often dies in PS3s. :)

That is a very poignant and relevant observation. Very airtight analogy.

Brandon

I would not have bought without the BD at the price it was at. That was the only reason I was willing to fork out the big money. $200-250 less w/o a BD and I maybe would have bought it anyway.

I suppose that is especially true because the Blu-Ray drive is what most often dies in PS3s. :)

How often have BD drives died?

How often have BD drives died?

No idea. But it has happened to quite a few people on this forum.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=992845

Here's a poll:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1016831

nope.

But, it plays VOB and M2TS files as well and that's priceless. The PS3's video/audio playback, the iphone, and Pioneer Kuros are 3 things that I wish every home and mobile movie watcher could have.

when i do break down and buy a PS3, it will be for the BD player. I'm still looking for that one "appliance" (HTPC not included) that will play BD, SD, act as media server and media player (including Rhapsody and Pandora).
I'm close to pulling the trigger, but wife says a PS3 must replace an existing device - maybe the Roku Soundbridge.

would not have bought it right away. for some reason since the first PS I have not had the need to play PS games. Don't know how I survived without a PS2. Was happy with the DC and the OG Xbox.

No idea. But it has happened to quite a few people on this forum.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=992845

Here's a poll:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1016831

How does that 7.5% blu-ray drives bricked compare to RROD's 360's?

How does that 7.5% blu-ray drives bricked compare to RROD's 360's?

A lot less. Did you even have to ask that? :confused:

Someone said that the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive was just an XBox 360.

Someone else said that the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive was an XBox 360 that wouldn't die.

And I just said that since the Blu-Ray drive is what dies most often in a PS3 (and from posts in this forum, it is), it would definitely be more reliable. I thought I was just adding to the funny.

I did not say that PS3s fail a lot. I didn't even imply it.

My 360 got the RROD. I was pretty pissed. I'd be just as pissed if my PS3's Blu-Ray drive died. More so if it was after a year, actually.

Nope... And my friends PS3 is out for repair/replace because the Blu Ray drive went out.

Not at launch.

But when MGS4 came out I would have. But I still game on the 360 when given the choice between the two.

A lot less. Did you even have to ask that? :confused:

Someone said that the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive was just an XBox 360.

Someone else said that the PS3 without a Blu-Ray drive was an XBox 360 that wouldn't die.

And I just said that since the Blu-Ray drive is what dies most often in a PS3 (and from posts in this forum, it is), it would definitely be more reliable. I thought I was just adding to the funny.

I did not say that PS3s fail a lot. I didn't even imply it.

My 360 got the RROD. I was pretty pissed. I'd be just as pissed if my PS3's Blu-Ray drive died. More so if it was after a year, actually.

Aye, I was just joining in on the funny. Certainly didn't say you said any of that.

I agree as I'd be pissed as well. I've had the rrod as well (before the extension on warranty's but I bought a replacement plan) and Id hate dealing with hassle on any system.

Nope... And my friends PS3 is out for repair/replace because the Blu Ray drive went out.

Good point.

Brandon

Definitely not. It was the main reason I purchased the PS3.

Same here. Bought it to replace a first gen Samnung BR player.

Maybe. I was originally going to go with the 360 due to the game selection but the primary things which made me go PS3 were Blu-ray and the RROD problem. Even without Blu-ray the PS3 is still superior hardware but the lack of games (at the time) would have made me at least wait to buy. Same for the RROD problem, I would have waited for the smaller die-size 360 processors.

whats a bluray drive?

Absolutely not.

Despite what anyone says, the differences in gaming between the PS3 and X360 is minimal. They share 80% of the good titles, and the gap is so just way too close to call.

I bought an X360 first, in November 2007. I prefer PS3 controller and free PSN is nice, but most of my friends have X360. As soon as Warner made the announcement, I sold my X360 and bought a PS3.

If PS3 didn't have a Blu-Ray drive and/or if Blu-Ray didn't win the war, I would probably have kept my X360 instead.

Now that I have my PS3 I love it, but I must admit that I wanted a blu-ray player and that was my main motivation for purchasing a PS3. Like many here, I had the Xbox 360 first and would probably never have looked beyond it--except for Blu-Ray!

No.

Absolutely not.

Despite what anyone says, the differences in gaming between the PS3 and X360 is minimal. They share 80% of the good titles, and the gap is so just way too close to call.

I bought an X360 first, in November 2007. I prefer PS3 controller and free PSN is nice, but most of my friends have X360. As soon as Warner made the announcement, I sold my X360 and bought a PS3.

If PS3 didn't have a Blu-Ray drive and/or if Blu-Ray didn't win the war, I would probably have kept my X360 instead.

Why not keep both? Exclusives is what makes a console ownership worth it all.

Why not keep both? Exclusives is what makes a console ownership worth it all.

A $500 console (plus accessories) to play 5-6 noteworthy exclusives, when the two systems share about 20... "worth it all" isn't the term I have in mind. I already finished Mass Effect, Bioshock and Eternal Sonata. Sold the system + accessories/games for a good price. Got 80% of what I spent in total.

If I had kept the X360, it would have to be in lieu of something else: Having a crappier TV, no subwoofer, 30 less Blu-Rays, etc... Not worth it.

Nope. I already had a 360 and have always liked the xbox brand better.....since owning the PS3 I like it alot better than 360 and sold all my 360 stuff. I would even go so far as to say that the PS3 is one of the best pieces of electronic equipment ever (everything it can do, speed, etc).

Nope. I already had a 360 and have always liked the xbox brand better.....since owning the PS3 I like it alot better than 360 and sold all my 360 stuff. I would even go so far as to say that the PS3 is one of the best pieces of electronic equipment ever (everything it can do, speed, etc).

You're biased! (j/k)

Brandon

Who cares that you don't care... Why'd you bother posting? And check the calendar... Isn't it a bit early for school projects? :rolleyes:

I'm close to equating this thread to me going over to the XBOX forum and posting "Would you have bought a 360 if you knew the failure rate beforehand?" I'm at a loss on why the thread exists. Please explain.

No, I wouldn't have bought a PS3 if there was no Blu-Ray drive in it. I like gaming on my 360 BUT....and this is a very big BUT.....I do acknowledge and will agree with anyone that the PS3 is a much much better piece of electronics than the 360. I think Sony needs to catch up to the 360 in gaming while MS needs to catch up to the PS3 in quality hardware. I will put my money on the better/higher quality piece of equipment in the next console war.

I don't think the PS3 is behind the X360 in gaming. For every good exclusive on X360, there is a good exclusive on PS3.

Probably not. Already had 360.

If had nothing, not sure what I'd get. Might've leaned toward ps3 w/ built-in wireless, free online and MGS4. IMO, BD definitely gives the advantage to ps3. I would've missed Mass Effect, GOW & Bioshock, but would've survived. Gotta love competition/free markets.

Simple question... My friend and I were debating this the other day... For my answer, I would say no. Without the Blu-ray drive, the PS3 would've been on the same playing field as 360, and the 360 has games I like right now. Not saying the PS3 is a bad device, but there aren't many games I like on the platform right now.

Just curious to see how the AV enthusiasts feel about this lol

Yes I would have but you have to think about it like this. If Sony hadn't used BD the price would be on par with or below the 360 it would have come out much closer to the 360 and Sony would have had the funds to secure a ton of medicore exclusive games instead of focusing on a few killer 3rd party titles.

With the way things are now though I say the BD drive was a good idea it was a rough start but with game sizes growing by leaps and bounds and MGS4already filling an entire BD, and Blu Ray actually beating out HDDVD it seems like a no brainer.

MGS4 filled an entire BD because they tried to fill an entire BD with it, not because the game actually NEEDED that much space.

MGS4 filled an entire BD because they tried to fill an entire BD with it, not because the game actually NEEDED that much space.

That doesn't even make sense. The whole point of BD is to not compress audio and video.

MGS4 filled an entire BD because they tried to fill an entire BD with it, not because the game actually NEEDED that much space.

Link?

No I would not have bought it as a stand alone gaming machine.
I am glad I did end up purchasing it.
I got a 40GB model for $300 thanks to a Sony CC deal.
For that price most into home theater would be crazy not to buy one.
I own GTA IV and have downloaded a bunch of game demo's.

That doesn't even make sense. The whole point of BD is to not compress audio and video.

I was thinking more along the lines of cramming as many languages as possible onto one disc. Also, Sony has said the point of BD is bigger worlds and more extra features.

Link?

K. (http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2810/proofgg7.jpg)

K. (http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2810/proofgg7.jpg)

I think that link tells the whole story (couldn't have put it better myself :D).

Next :confused:

That doesn't even make sense. The whole point of BD is to not compress audio and video.

If it weren't for my horse I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

K. (http://img174.imageshack.us/img174/2810/proofgg7.jpg)

lol. and thank god for horses (how else would we get beverages):D

Yes I would have but you have to think about it like this. If Sony hadn't used BD the price would be on par with or below the 360 it would have come out much closer to the 360 and Sony would have had the funds to secure a ton of medicore exclusive games instead of focusing on a few killer 3rd party titles.

With the way things are now though I say the BD drive was a good idea it was a rough start but with game sizes growing by leaps and bounds and MGS4already filling an entire BD, and Blu Ray actually beating out HDDVD it seems like a no brainer.

This post is way too well thought out and logical to be in this forum. Consider it reported to the mods.

Brandon

Unequivocally, no. Not a chance. Regret buying it WITH a Blu-ray drive.

this post is way too well thought out and logical to be in this forum. Consider it reported to the mods.


lulz. :D

I think that link tells the whole story (couldn't have put it better myself :D).

Next :confused:

Okay, so I'm either not nerdy enough, smart enough or old enough to know why that picture is funny. I rebooted and googled it (proof gg7) and came up with nothing. Care to help me out?

Brandon

Okay, so I'm either not nerdy enough, smart enough or old enough to know why that picture is funny. I rebooted and googled it (proof gg7) and came up with nothing. Care to help me out?

Brandon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_(The_Legend_of_Zelda) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65I0HNvTDH4)

Good, so we are back on topic I see.


loiloi

Okay, so I'm either not nerdy enough, smart enough or old enough to know why that picture is funny. I rebooted and googled it (proof gg7) and came up with nothing. Care to help me out?

Brandon

BP, it's not funny. It's relevant. It's prudent. It's the equivalent of 42 in HHGTTG.

BP, it's not funny. It's relevant. It's prudent. It's the equivalent of 42 in HHGTTG.

that's what she sa... wait, what the hell are you talking about?:confused:

that's what she sa... wait, what the hell are you talking about?:confused:

Subject: Matzira
Man Card Status: REVOKED AGAIN

Yes - I purchased my PS3 purely for the Bluray player AND for the PlayTV feature, which is on it's way for consumers in Europe and Asia-Pacific:

http://uk.playstation.com/games-media/news/articles/detail/item115832/PlayTV-is-coming/

Yes, Sony exclusives, multi-plat games, Folding, cheaper price. I could get a Blu-ray player later on the cheap, upscaled DVDs are just fine.

Subject: Matzira
Man Card Status: REVOKED AGAIN

So confused :confused:

If it weren't for my horse I wouldn't have spent that year in college.

Don't, DON'T think about that sentence for more than 3 minutes, or blood will shoot out your nose.

In respects to the original topic, would I have bought the PS3 without the Blu-ray drive? Mostly likely no, at least not at the 4-500 price range.
Around the 300 smackaroos I might have, especially if it retained backwards compatibility.

The issue for me has been most of the games I really wanted to play generally have become available on the PC. My partiality towards PC gaming is because it is a given that I'll have a PC in my home and it seemed redundant to purchase a piece of hardware dedicated solely for gaming.

Also I belong to the Keyboard/Mouse crowd. Controllers are fun once I get the handle of them but my first love is K/M, just feels better for me.

Now again choosing between a 360 and a PS3 w/o BR, 360 would have to win. Simply, it has most of the games I'm generally interested in playing, frequently first, and it is also what my buddies normally play on as well.

Fortunately, or is it Un-? the PS3 did have BR and helped me justify the 500 price tag. I broke it down as 250 for still the best Blu-Ray player and 250 for an HD gaming system. Plus MGS4 is over all excellent and eased the pain for such a large expense of what is primarily a toy not a necessity.

Of course I love movies and it is one of my jobs so great BR player with HD gaming is a fun bonus.

Best Regards
KvE

So confused :confused:

*facepalms*

Brandon... Brandon... Brandon...

*sigh*

:rolleyes:

I just paid $399 CDN for one of the new 80gb PS3 models (potentially 65nm aka cooler aka quieter). The only reason I bought it was for the Blu Ray player as I have a Wii and an XBox.

I tried the XBox as an HD-DVD player and it was obnoxiously loud (not to mention the format is dead lol). It also sucked as an SD-DVD player.

The PS3 is an above average SD DVD player and an outstanding BD player imo. It has replaced my HTPC, which was just a huge pita to get working with Blu Ray imo. At $400 CDN the PS3 is an outstanding deal.

I just wish Sony would open the PS3 up a bit like the iPhone App Store as I believe the UI and capabilities for an extremely capable home media center are sorely untapped.

egg

I just wish Sony would open the PS3 up a bit like the iPhone App Store as I believe the UI and capabilities for an extremely capable home media center are sorely untapped.


Really good idea. They could vett through the apps for stuff they were leary of and allow them only through PSN, too. End to end control like the iPhone... course releasing an SDK could show where teh holes are like with the jailbreaking guys, which is what Sony doesn't want.