Re: Will the PS3 ever catch up? NY Times post says suggest probably not

On Aug 17, 8:37 pm, The King of Gaming <king.of.gam...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Aug 17, 6:10 pm, RMZ <Jeremy.De...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



No, you don't. Remember laser disc? There's an example of a technology
that lasted a few years and then got *** canned because DVD came
along. The truth is these damn format wars help no one. They stall
media formats and in spite of some people who claim "there is no
format war", there is and will continue to be until all major releases
are put out on both or one of them two dies of... The later will most
certainly happen first as Hollywood is pissed they have to manufacture
for two formats, it cost them more.

Laser disc wasn't progress, idiot. It had so many flaws it was
basically a wash whether it was even equal to VHS, much less
superior. It looked better but was huge and bulky and had less
playtime than a video cassette. While Joe Consumer may be too damn
stupid to tell the difference btween a 480p and 1080p picture, there's
no denying that HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are the evolution of the format,
with all of its strengths and none of its weaknesses.

Consumers can tell the difference between 480p and 1080p... it's just
not important enough to them to pay an arm and a leg to buy an HD-DVD
or Blu-Ray player and all the titles that go with it.

The mass consumer won't buy into one format or the other until the
players and more importantly the movies are cheaper than what DVD
costs now. I care about video quality so I'll buy Lord of the Rings
when it comes out on HD-DVD even though I own the collector's editions
on DVD.

"Joe Consumer" won't care to spend $30-40 to buy a movie they already
own. It just doesn't make any sense for someone who doesn't place so
much importance on the video quality.

snip nonsense <

What happend with SONY is they got greedy, they looked at the PS2
sales and someone up top decided, we don't need to focus on building
the best game console possible, instead we need to get Blu-Ray in the
box so that we can push it into homes and collect royalties off every
movie sold for the next ten years or so. That's what the greedy sons
of bitches were thinking and I for one am glad it's not working so
well for them.

It was a design decision, you brainless buffoon. The PS1 and PS2 each
lasted a long time and Sony decided to go with a new format for each
one's successor. I don't think it's that big of a stretch to think it
*could* be necessary to have more space going forward. I'm not so
delusional to think that Sony wasn't more than happy to further it's
Blu-Ray plans either. But you and your xbot brethren continue to act
like you have crystal balls and know what the future holds for game
development. All it takes is one game design or new genre that
requires the extra space and then you will be sitting there with your
Xbox looking like a dumb ass. But that's it... it's not rocket
science. If 5 years from now it turns out the space was wasted, then
you win... you were right. If not, you lose. But acting like you
know in < year one makes you look like the jackass you are.

You're absolutely right that it was a design decision - a design
decision to try to put their new proprietary movie format in homes.

It's not a stretch to think that Sony, who was pushing out the new
format and was looking to get a leg up on the competing HD-DVD format,
decided to force said format on the gamers who would buy their new
system.

You're absolutely right that there's a distinct possibility that that
much more space will prove necessary in the future, but right now at
this moment, it's not necessary for games. Right now, the only purpose
it truly serves is to play high-definition movies.

As has been stated on this newsgroup before, it's a known fact that
the Blu-Ray drive in the PS3 is slower than pretty much any DVD drive
out there. Since the extra capacity is not being used right now, a
year after the release of the system, the drive has actually been
detrimental to the PS3's gaming performance.

Sony could have just as easily put out a Playstation 3 with a DVD-9 or
similar drive for the first year or two, since it was obvious the
first year or two of games wouldn't really take advantage of the
format (Heavenly Sword will use up a nice chunk of storage space but
it's already been shown that it's actually the inclusion of all 11
languages for dialogue that bloated the size of the game to beyond DVD
capacity).

Eventually, they could have switched in a Blu-Ray drive when the cost
of the technology had come down so the consumers wouldn't have had to
dish out the extra $200 for the hardware. If Sony had taken this
route, the price of the system would have been comparable to the Xbox
360 and the brand name would have been enough to get gamers to flock
to the system even with a shortage of games.

Hell, Microsoft seems to be set on putting out a new configuration of
the Xbox 360 every year... Sony could have done the same thing.

It's pretty clear that the inclusion of the Blu-Ray drive in the
Playstation 3 right now benefits Sony a lot more than it benefits
gamers. Down the road, the situation could be very different but right
now, gamers aren't getting any benefits unless they're into hi-def
movies.

.