Blu-Ray and Xbox 360? It's possible, says Moore

I'm thinking Blu-Ray's recents strides has made Microsoft sit up and take notice. Still, with Microsoft offering incentives to computer manufacturers to include HD-DVD drives, this fight is far from over.

heh. i like that peter moore agrees with me. i said it once in another thread, i'll say it again. i love being right.



http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/01/09/console-media-play-by-play-rundown/



m3mnoch.

Are these drives supposed to connect via the USB 2.0 ports? Are those ports fast enough? Perhaps the SATA connections inside, but are they easily accessable?

I think this is pretty obvious. Microsoft would have to support blu-ray, but they'll fight in the corner of HD-DVD before they give up.

So if joystiq's assumption is correct and 2-3 years down the line the 360 has a blu-ray drive able to play games the Xbox customer base will then be seperated by those with the Core model, those with a HDD, and those with a blu-ray drive. Does that sound crazy to anyone else?



If it takes 2-3 years for a next-gen drive to come out that plays games there will already be thousands of 360 owners. Only a fraction of the most hardcore owners would actually spend the money to buy the drive. Why on earth would developers make games that would only work with a new drive and limit themselves to such a small player base.



To me this just sounds like a way false way for Microsoft to look like it is equal to the PS3. This is yet another reason while I'll hold off buying a next-gen system until all 3 are out on the market.

This is what I was thinking about when PS3 advocates get all pro-bluray on 360 advocates.



Clearly, Microsoft is in the best position for the so-called "format wars". No matter which format gets popular (if either), they can produce an external drive for it. Currently, they are using "tried-and-true" DVD9 format, so they aren't in any type of trouble despite what the hardcore think. They are actually better off NOT having one of these drives out of the box.



Sony, however, is not in such a "safe" position. If HD-DVD were to win, then the PS3's Bluray abilities will be for not. Game publishers aren't likely to go for the expense to keep providing games on a dead format. They would likely go back to DVD9.



Personally, I hope both formats fail (for movies). DVDs aren't broken. They work great, and they don't have the pitfalls that its predecessor had. HD really isn't that exciting, so it's hard to see the need for these new formats for movies.



Data storage is another thing altogether. I would love to fit a hard drive's worth of data on one disc. But won't holographic discs make this entire war pointless in a few years?

Weasel, these external drives ARE NOT FOR GAMES. HD movies only. Microsoft won't split up their marketshare any more than the HDD with/withouts (the systems ARE the same otherwise, just the 3 accessories are different for the core: wired controller, standard AV cable, and no hard drive).

#2 m3mnoch - you may love being right but it also says on your site (with regards to BluRay)

'enjoy taking that $1000 loss on your console, Sony'

I'm not fussed if you hate Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo, but you seem to be forgetting Sony actually make the drives themselves, and therefore only have to pay about $30 for raw materials and labour. The development costs would be recouped by media sales (If BluRay wins) The most expensive component of the PS3 in real terms for Sony will probably be the RSX graphics chip (As they actually have to buy those) and/or the Cell processor development costs in the short run.

Microsoft have the cash to put HDDVD in every Xbox360. It wouldn't bankrupt them, and developers could program games larger than 8Gb. It wouldn't matter if HDDVD loses the format war - you could still play HDDVD games (SuicideNinja WTF? what does it matter to developers if the format doesn't take off for movies? It may be a dead format for standalone players but it would still be the only format for the console that used it! And if BluRay loses, developers could use DVD-9 on PS3 but why would they want to?)Microsoft could then provide an add on for the winning format if they wished.

Personally I fancy the Revolution and a standalone player when they get a bit cheaper, but don't kiss Microsoft's ass while they shaft yours.

i don't see the case of releasing a "next-gen" console that will need external drives in the next 2-3 years, that's just simply hilarious, if that's a next generation console then you can fly a nuclear missile with your tyco rc car controller.



in other words, 360 is an ordinary xbox with steroids and a backwards-non-compatible processor, not a gaming console, if you want to use it as a media center, it will do the trick if you are a 12 year old kid, but if you want some serious action and your console to remain unchanged and without any extra costly adapters in the near 10 years you better look out for a format that's flexible enough to hold any kind of data, just as blu-ray

Why do morons all of a sudden think that if they buy the PS3 or 360, they will have to throw away all there old standard dvd's & start the collection again.



These consoles will still play all your old dvd's. All these new formats are gonna do is bring recent films that were filmed with proper HD cameras onto the forefront.



Theres not much point in buying all the old arnie, aliens, die hardetc,etc, movies, as they are simply not in HD format. And they never can be, unless there remade & filmed with HD cameras.

Stop panicking & going on like 5yr olds. Just buy whichever console has the games your most interested in & be happy. I mean thats what it's all about, isn't it........The Games.

SuicideNinja - If your not a fan of HD...then I'm assuming you havn't seen it.

Its crystal clear clarity is great.

All TV shows in time will be HD...and how else are they going to sell tv seasons which were recorded in HD? Current dvd's just dont have the capacity.

A 2 hour HD movie takes up around 21gb...dvd's can only hold 8.5, and that Dual layered.

I'm a fan of HD-DVD, its discs will be 15gb, but 30gb dual layered...and if thats not enough, they are planning to have the capability to triple layer, which would be 45gb.

Blu-Ray is overkill, and I really dont like Sony's very strict copyright laws, If I buy something, I should be able to make a backup of it!



GO HD-DVD!!! ;)

the PS3 is going to have the same options as the xbox360- if HD-DVD creates the upset over Blu-Ray you can expect Sony to have an option for expandability for movies with their own version of a external drive.



Microsoft is going to totally piss off early adopters, especially if HD-DVD loses. Can you imagine paying 4billz for a system then paying 150 for an external drive(maybe more)...then having to pay for a blu-ray drive(if that format wins out)- And then Christmas 2007 you see in stores the Xbox360 Ultra Platinum Edition with Blu-Ray and the hard drive for the same 400.00 I would be MAD ANGRY

"Blu-Ray is overkill, and I really dont like Sony's very strict copyright laws, If I buy something, I should be able to make a backup of it!



GO HD-DVD!!! ;)"



Murc: You should check into Microsoft's plans for HD-DVD copy protection. They are far from lenient. They will allow you to make a rip of your movie, but only to certified windows media center devices.

suicideninja, since when has "tried and true" formats been the best way to go. The dreamcast used the "tried and true" cd format for their system but somehow I don't think it was the right choice. Not having a next-gen drive was a mistake caused by launching early. I have a 360 so I'm not exactly trying to sell the PS3, but my 360 will be facing disk capacity issues in time and Microsoft's seemingly concession to Sony sounds like things are going very much in favor of Blu-ray. (at least oblivion looks like a one-disker) thank god



Oh, and I hate the copy-protection crap of Sony too, so I guess I'd be happier if HD-DVD wins, but I don't expect them to.

"Theres not much point in buying all the old arnie, aliens, die hardetc,etc, movies, as they are simply not in HD format. And they never can be, unless there remade & filmed with HD cameras."



Kizza, you're mistaken here.



Film is higher definition than HD. Film scans I've worked with are typically 2K to 4K and sometimes 6K per frame.



The studios would simply rescan the films and create HD-DVD or Blu-Ray discs.

People too often forget that these are gigantic companies we're talking about. Of course if Blu-Ray wins, MS is going to support it in Windows - in fact, even if it doesn't win, they will. Just like Sony will continue to install Windows and Office on Vaio laptops, and include Windows drivers for their eReader device, MS will bundle drivers for Sony DVD burners... Of course MS will include an optional Blu-ray drive if it's popular.



These companies are so big that the mortal enemies of one arm are the strategic partners of another. Look at Sony and Toshiba, Sony and Panasonic, MS and IBM... Or even Sony and Sony, for the worst example (content producers vs. tech types... in the same company!)

Hi, not to take sides or argue about whatever format but BluRay allows for MMC(your own copy).



" The Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) today confirmed that Mandatory Managed Copy (MMC), which allows users to legally copy discs and transfer the digital files over a home network, will be supported by the Blu-ray Disc format."



And im guessing that this wont be limited to your windows media center PC lol...



Source:

www.BluRay.com

Kizza, you need to re-check your facts. Film is still of higher "resolution" than HD cameras. HD is close, but doesn't quite get there. Many videophiles will definitely want to have some of their favorite films converted to whichever HD format comes out on top because, on an HD screen, they will look much better than the same movie on DVD. For me this will mean buying another copy of Blade Runner to go with my LD and my DVD.

As for the decision by to not include a next-gen drive in the 360, I'm fine with it. The last I looked the majority of people that are after a 360 want the version with the hard drive. The hardcore 360 gamer (the guys that likely already have a 360, xbox live, an extra controller, and at least 4 games) will be able to enjoy the games that can be expanded via with the extra data going on their hard drives. Those are the guys that the game companies get their money from. My kids have had every major system since the Genesis (the Saturn does not count) and they are major fans of each version of the xbox. I think that the Playstation and the PS2 were good machines, but Sony jerked us around when we had trouble with the PS2 right after it first came out. Shipping plus $120? Please. We did have a problem with our xbox too, but Microsoft had a shipping box delivered to my house on a Monday, I had the shipper pick it up on Tuesday, and it was back by Thursday. Customer service counts for a lot.

Plain and simple, my 360 game dvd's may only hold 8 or so gigs of space. BUT! Developers can compress a lot of information to a disc of that size, allowing you to have a lot more space then you think is available. Im not sure on how well they can compress them now, but my guess is that they did some nice work with Oblivion and made it fit nicely on one disc. (Which they could and probably will do with a lot of other games if needed)

If blu ray win over hd dvd ps3 will sell like craaazy.

Remember, a piece of film can be rescanned or "transferred" at a higher resolution. What we see on our crappy tvs is a small fraction of the rez that's actually there.

I just have one question, how do they get the fruit inside the jello? The mind reels...

Lansing



The dreamcast used a GD-ROM, each disk held one gig.

HD technology for movies is great, but at this point of time, I don’t see it really worth investing the money into. The sharper resolutions are nice, but from what I’ve seen so far, I haven’t seen a significant difference when it comes to quality in movies . Maybe when I can experience 1080p on a large screen up close in its full glory, then I’d change my mind, but right now, seeing trailers at 720p on the Xbox 360 doesn’t seem significantly better than the quality of a standard DVD movie. I have no doubt that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will eventually become the standard, and as DVD phases out like VHS, I’m sure everyone will convert as well. But until they start making a larger selection for HD than standard DVD, I’m going to stick with the wide selection of movies that DVD currently offers me. When it comes to games though, HD makes a great difference, but still, I don’t think that HD-DVD or Blu-Ray is required for High Definition games. Even original Xbox and PS2 were capable of displaying High Definition in games on DVD format, just like the Xbox 360 does. Perhaps Nintendo had not decided to push HD to keep the cost of development down and frame rates up with their next generation console. I do think it’s a good move that PS3 and Xbox 360 makes it the standard for all games to be in HD because having sharp games in widescreen is a wonderful treat for people who have HD TVs.



The reason why I believe that Sony is really pushing Blu-Ray for the PS3 is not so much that it is an important factor in video gaming as it is an advancement in movie quality over the PS2 with a technology that had been created in house. Like the UMD, Sony had control in terms of manufacturing the physical media that all studios must use to release a movie that can only be played on hardware that is also manufactured by Sony. Because of this, Sony has the control to set the price of the technology and will simply undercut the price of any other competition that will try to manufacture a Blu-Ray player with a lower price for the PS3, supposedly making the PS3 the movie player of choice for the next generation with the added bonus to play next generation games. Even if the PS3 fails as a gaming console, it will succeed as a movie player, just as the PSP has. This is an excellent strategy to expand with and keep hold of their market share of the video game industry. Current PS2 fans will convert to PS3 because of Sony’s reputation in gaming consoles while Sony expands the popularity of the PS3 to movie enthusiasts by being the only affordable Blu-Ray player in the market.



Sony’s aim in next generation gaming is not so much in competition with the Xbox 360 as it is to differentiate itself as a significant upgrade over the PS2. After developing Blu-Ray technology, it is only logical for Sony to include this proprietary media, like the UMD, into their next gaming system. Movie studios will sign with Sony to create new media just as they did for the PSP. With new storage technology, High Definition movies, and the advanced graphics with the RSX chip, has lots to offer to the next generation of gaming over the PS2, and many Playstation fans, especially those in Japan, will definitely appreciate what Sony has to offer.



In terms of Microsoft offering a Blu-Ray drive as another option to an HD-DVD drive, I believe that it could happen. It really depends on how long the format war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray lasts. If HD-DVD and Blu-Ray end up battling over the HD format for years with Blu-Ray becoming the victor, then Microsoft may just decide to utilize a Blu-Ray drive in their next console system or skip Blu-Ray altogether with a Holographic disc drive. If that is the case, then Microsoft would never have to give in to developing on Sony’s media format, which I’m sure Microsoft would rather do, not only to discourage the competition’s format, but to advance above the competition in the next generation.

I wrote up a mini rumor thing for GamerAndy.com here:

http://www.gamerandy.com/archives/2006/01/xbox_360_hddvd_1.shtml



I was at the CES and had a chat with a Toshiba rep regarding their USB external HD-DVD drive. You can read a bit about my convo with him. He _hinted_ that this could be used instead of the Microsoft one.



What I am taking this further to believe is that essentially this may all be USB. What other ports are there to use? Why else would it be external? Microsoft may even use that exact same Toshiba HD-DVD drive (laptop sized one) they use in theirs, since they work with Toshiba (they showed the HD-DVD player from Toshiba in the keynote... for what reason?!)



So... maybe if it is USB, then heck, it'd be just as easy to hook up a USB Blu-Ray drive. There is also a lot to think about what the Toshiba rep told me about how the software "is already there", you just need to add the hardware...

to post #9- If i am still playing the ps3 in 10 years from its release, please shoot me. IMO a consoles life is only about four to five years (and i wish they would come out faster in some cases).

kizza, your lack of knowledge about film vs. HD hurt my eyes, and my stomach turns when I think of the amount of conviction you show while being totally wrong with what you state.



It's cool though, because for the last 10 years 'DIGITAL' has been marketed to us like it's the second coming of Christ, while we sit back and wonder why our digital cable boxes can only show us one channel every 5-6 seconds while channel surfing, and the compression and artifacting makes sporting events look WORSE than they used to on 'analog' cable... It's only recently that digital HD cable delivers on actually looking better than what it replaced so many years ago.



But film - well, it's a higher res that can be scanned in as high as you want it to be - even if you start to see the grainy nature of 35mm or 70mm film, an image not based on a digital x-y axis, it still holds up better than HD-shot movies blown-up.



Digital is only STARTING to get as nice as film. Wait until you see 2001: A Space Odyessey or Apocalypse Now hit HD, it will blow your mind how "olden-tymie filmed movin' picture shows" hold up to "today's movies shot on a proper HD camera."



I love gaming, but I also love movies - so I like the idea of one machine being able to handle both (one remote, same input on your TV, chat/messaging while watcing a movie like LIVE has on the 360) - playing movies back is such a low request of machines like the 360 or the PS3 that it would be LAME if they couldn't - Getting mad at such low-level convergence is like saying "I just want a simple mobie phone, I don't want a CLOCK on the phone's screen!"

I think Joystiq is wrong. There won't be any 2 or 3 years down the road. There will never be games on HD-DVD or BlueRay for the 360. The typical adoption of add on components is like 10%. i Think this will be lower. Some people will wait until they see a winner in the format war. Others will wait until the movie libraries are big enough to justify the purchase.



So of the percentage of 360 owners who have HD, I'm guessing that 60 or 70% max will by the add on.

Microsoft is just leaving the door open because if by some miracle 90% or 360 owners bought the HD-DVD drive, then they could maybe justify creating games for that format.

Also, movie companies have been making transfers beyond current high definition standards for years so they won't have to reimage their titles for the foreseeable future.

fishel: dude. what are you thinking?



"but you seem to be forgetting Sony actually make the drives themselves, and therefore only have to pay about $30 for raw materials and labour."



yeah. and you need to change the oil every 3,000 miles.



we're not talking about your grandmothers cadillac here. we're talking about a technology that's brand new. one that has a 42% smaller laser in it than has ever been produced.



there was no such thing as a manufacturing plant for it. manufacturing specs weren't that small yet. that's why 1 in 5 discs on their first big production run (charlie's angels, i think is what they were testing) was a damn coaster!



they can't even guarantee yet that every blu-ray disc will play in every blu-ray player!



so, no. i don't think they just pay 30 bucks for it.



maybe you read this:

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/archives/2005/12/18/bluray_royalties_30_per_pc_drive.html



and thought they meant the whole drive only costs $30. nope. that's how much of that $1800 sony gets for royalties. so, that pioneer stand-alone player would only cost sony $1770 -- since they don't have to pay royalties.



m3mnoch.

I don't know why the Japanese keep doing it all themselves when outsourcing the labour would make everything a lot cheaper.



Anyway, it's obvious that players for Sony are much cheaper than for other manufacturers, let alone non-manufacturers like Microsoft. If Microsoft had added an HD-DVD and toshiba would have refused to be proactive in the war (as in subsidizing the 360 HD-DVD or selling it very cheap to Microsoft), the 360 would have been a lot more expensive, perhaps even more expensive than a PS3.



If Samsung can sell Blu-ray players for 1000 dollars, including the mark-up price for wholesale and retailing, then just subtract the mark-up, most features except the HDMI out, the case and the labour, you get pretty much the price of the material and royalties paid to Sony and Sun. So the "100 dollars per blu-ray" cost predicted by Merrill Lynch doesn't sound like a ridiculous price; maybe even 150 dollars. To think that Sony is making a 400 dollar loss per console sold would be ridiculous. They'll make a loss comparable to that of Microsoft.



A 500 dollars PS3 could start selling itself in the more general consumer electronics market, not specifically on the videogames market (although for hardcore gamers, it will). Several High Definition, 1080p and Blu-ray enthusiasts will also follow, seeing how they get "more for less" with the PS3: The price of the cheapest HD-DVD for a Blu-ray that has more movies, which also happens to play games.



After those sales, several price cuts would/could follow for the PS3, and for the BD discs and players, as sony predicted "almost immediately to a competitive price". That's how the PS2 and the PSP sold themselves initially: No games, but it has several multimedia features and backwards compatibility in the PS2 case. After that, the price cut comes, and the "must-have" games come. Later, even cheaper or more sophisticated blu-rays could be coming out, crippling PS3 sales as a Blu-ray player, just as today consoles rarely if ever sell for their ability to play DVDs. Of course, this is a "more less" scenario, resembling what happened with the PS2, although when PS2 came out, DVD was the only movie format and also it was out long before.



PS3 might not sell 100 million like its predecessors, but it could as well set the standard for High definition movies to come. I'm not sure about the HD-DVD disc spec sheet, but most HD-DVD players seem to be suitable for todays HDTVs, while both the Blu-ray players and the discs are prepared for both actual and future HDTVs (that display 1080p).

how about that 100gb blu-ray disc aye? Looks good to me, anyone else check it out. its a prototype, but the 50gb was prototype not too long ago and companies were worried that it wouldn't be ready in time and now its specs are finalized....



If this is where blu-ray and sony are headed then it would sure be nice to have a ps3 with a blu-ray drive already attatched out of the box.



http://www.idm.net.au/story.asp?id=6913

Oops, check that: I meant solely the price of the player, but of course in the end the company is paying and selling you the labour in the price, duh.

bd:

if hp is balking at paying $30 for blu-ray royalties (and moving to hd-dvd because of it), i seriously doubt your $100 in royalties holds any water.



and, yes. they are going to lose more money than the xbox 360. they will lose $600-$800 per console if they sell it at a comparable $400 pricepoint. any higher, tho, and they risk losing their non-fanboy, non-hardcore audiences.



i tell you this, there aren't 60 million hardcores out there.



regardless, sony saving $30 because they don't have to pay themselves royalties doesn't cut it. samsung doesn't have to pay royalties either as a co-developer of the format and their stand alone player is still $1000.



don't you think that if they could sell it for less they would? especially in the wake of a super, super cheap (by comparison) blu-ray player like the ps3?



the problem is that consumer electronics manufacturers cannot take a loss on the hardware. they already work on 2-3% margins. (that's why you never see a substantial difference between wholesale prices and retail prices for electronics. trust me. i'm an importer. that's why i don't import electronics.) game consoles, however, can.



therein is the problem. i ask you, when in history has a game console introduced new optical media technology? meaning, something that's not just a fancier circuit board, but has actual moving parts. they haven't.



even crazy things like the umd discs or the gamecube drives still use the .60 process for their laser heads. meaning, new media format, not new technology.



blu-ray is an entirely new technology. ENTIRELY NEW. and if sony thinks they can introduce that to the market by taking a loss on the hardware and expect partners to release stand alone players that don't take a loss, not a one of them has had an economics class. ever.



it's the simultaneous launch of new technology for both the consumer electronics market and the game console market that is screwing them.



blu-ray, in itself, is a great technology. it just needs to mature before being stuck in a console. not because of the technology, because of market forces and the different business models.



m3mnoch.

oh, and to back up my $600-$800 loss estimate, i should provide some numbers:

http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/01/10/sony-blu-ray-mistake-faq/



m3mnoch.

m3mnoch

You don't know what you're talking about.



'blu-ray is an entirely new technology. ENTIRELY NEW'



Right. So how did Sony launch the BDZ-S77 back in 2003? Time Machine? And linking to your own deluded website doesn't give your reasoning any grounding. I would ask any budding economics lecturers to look at the article 'Blu-Ray of Damocles' on M3mnoch's site for the most hilarious mis-representation of Blu-Ray in the marketplace yet seen.

Blu-Ray is one of the cheapest components for Sony to put in the PS3, they have already taken the hit of development costs back in 2002/2003 and it makes sense if you own the format and a studio to profit from the format to put it in your games console; Less of a case for MS and Nintendo, as they would have to purchase the units themselves. If you are looking at expensive items Sony will make a loss on in the PS3 you should be looking at the RSX chip. The same goes for the ATI chip in the xbox360 which is, if anything, more bespoke than the RSX. So Microsoft taking the hit on it's ATI card isn't channel conflict in your opinion?? (Not that either are anyway)

The ridiculous thing is I'm ending up defending Sony when I wouldn't even consider buying any of their products any more. This is due to an xbox fanboy (age

Sure, maybe Sony did dev back in 2002/2003, but so what? The entire point of a business is to make $money$. Do you really believe that they've managed to make enough money to on blue-ray at this point to offset all of the development costs on the R&D (combining the concept stage with coming up with practical ways to actually make the disks and players)actual installation of production lines, and all of the money that they've poured into marketing the product to the big movie studios and game manufacturers? Doubtful. Just to be clear, I don't have any problem with the technology. From what I've heard I think that it will be superior in many ways to HD-DVD. Also, from what I've read, it will definitely be significantly more expensive to manufacture both the disks and the players. That's the difficulty. The companies that make the things, like most companies, want the largest return on investment. To ensure that they make their money back in a reasonable amount of time they will set initial prices on hardware and disks pretty high so that they can keep shareholders of their backs. After the bliss of buying a DVD for $20 there's no way I'm going to pay double that, HD or not. It's a guess, but I bet that there are a lot of other people out there that share that feeling. I'm not saying that blu-ray will fail, but that it will be a much more problematic contest that some of you seem to think.

mindspider

I completely agree with you, all I'm saying is Sony would be daft not to include BluRay in the PS3 as they've already paid for the r&d (and still need to pay off the debt). If they didn't put it in the new playstation, they wouldn't get their moneyback full stop; at least incorporating it at cost price ensures the BluRay user base extends to everyone who has a PS3.

fishel. no. i'm afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. it's actually kind of embarrassing for you too. in public even. my condolences, man.



first:

econ grads actually agree with me.

http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/01/10/actual-quote-from-blu-ray/#20



got any that agree with you?



second:

who one earth is talking about commercial equipment? a big, bulky, still-not-optimized-for-consumer-devices piece of equipment that doesn't yet have the 3 wavelength optical head?



it's like saying the apollo spacecraft is a fair representation of a space shuttle. yeah. they both go into space (have blue lasers) but the equipment is different (the bdz-s77 has 2 optical heads in it). please. in future posts, if you are going to talk about technology, please, know what you are talking about. it just makes you look like a fool.



third:

microsoft owns the ip on their ati graphics chip. they own the ip on the ibm processor. sony own the ip on the nvidia chip. sony owns the ip on the cell processor. sony (co)owns the ip for blu-ray. so, i have no idea what you are talking about here either.



fourth:

nobody is talking about subsidizing r&d efforts. we're talking about the difficulty in the manufacturing process of new technology. if you want to get into it, were i sony, i would rely on my movie production arm to subsidize the r&d costs of blu-ray as that's where they will make the most money from it. not a low-margin business like hardware.



m3mnoch.

oh. i almost forgot. (bd and his afterthoughts are rubbing off on me.... thanks bd!)



if blu-ray is so very cheap, why are the players announced at ces $1000+? why is the bdz-s77 $4000?



if it was cheap, you'd be able to pick them up on sale for $79.99 at your local target -- just like those little handheld dvd players!



cheapest part in there. heh. dork.



m3mnoch.

time's up!



the answer is aperture! yes. the more error prone aperture size is why they are more expensive to manufacture!

time's up!



the answer is aperture! yes. the more error prone aperture size is why they are more expensive to manufacture! (note that does not say r&d!)



let's look at what fishel has won!

-- nothing!



m3mnoch.



p.s. damn. had a less than sign in there and it cut off the rest.



p.p.s. okay. i'm done now. for real. this time.

m3mnoch

That Quote is regarding who 'MacAttack' thinks will win the console war, and that he thinks consumer BluRay devices will cost a lot. Fair enough. At no point does he mention anything about Blue Ray drives in PS3 costing Sony $1000's on each drive, because that's just retarded. The initial R&D cost them Millions - They now have to recoup that investment. It would be stupid not to put it in PS3, along with SACD support, so they can try to recoup their losses through media sales. The movie decoder in the PS3 will probably be like the movie decoder in the PS2 i.e get the job done but no more.

Sony made a (production ready!) triple wavelength laser in May 2004 (Google it), so they've had a year and a half to perfect the technology - It. Is. Not. Entirely. New.

WTF has intellectual property got to do with anything? I'm talking about real cost to the companies per unit. I bow to your greater judgement, but I was under the impression that ATI and Nvidia charged MS and Sony for the graphics cards. Blu Ray can be used and licensed by Sony in other products, and to other companies, in order to recoup the investment costs. Those Graphics cards were bought specifically for each machine from another company, and are one off costs MS and Sony have to absorb until the profits they make on the consoles outweigh the initial investments.

I'm only cracking down hard on you because your website is that of a 14year old fanboy (although very well presented, well done) and it's obvious you have some sort of anti Sony motive that you are trying to promote through your posts. I don't like Sony either (MS even less) but let the companies make or break on their true merits, and not by trying to show one of the possible plusses of a system as a negative because you will get shot down. It's a bit like somebody cussing the amount MS subsidise the graphics card in the 360, as if it was a bad thing for gamers/microsoft. It isn't (I know you agree with that)but the way you carry on we'll all end up with the next consoles barely able to play Pac-Man.

again. not r&d costs. one time capital expenditures are not what i'm talking about. i'm talking about ongoing costs. if it was just a one time cost we were talking about, it would be just fine to amortize that over the lifecycle of the hardware.



i'm talking about hard cost that scales with each product manufactured. -- for all of the companies.



so, let's see.... they started working on the ps3 hardware designs 3 years ago and, 1.5 years into it they finally finalized the triple wavelength laser?



yes. entirely. new. in fact, apparently "newer" than the ps3.



you don't have to appologize for "cracking down" on me. i could care less.



i'm not a fanboy of microsoft or sony or nintendo. the term gaming hobo pretty much applies to me. that, and i wish i was 14 again.... *sigh*



i wander from technology to technology and swap favorites at any particular time based on a number of things, a sustainable business model being one of those. i just enjoy cognitive analysis of technology trends. this happens to be one.



m3mnoch.

m3mnoch

Fair play, but I still disagree. I feel ongoing costs are more likely to be attributed to trying to cooling the Cell and packaging the tech in something the size of the E3 prototypes. And Blu Ray isn't new - when the PS2 came out most DVD drives couldn't read CD-R's (even finalized ones), an bit like the first Blu Ray player didn't have the full functionality of reading everything. Getting the lazer to operate at 3 wavelengths is just nice functionality.

Anyway, this question I've wanted to ask you (serious question, and not MS baiting): Given that Microsoft could easily afford to put HD-DVD (or Blu-Ray) in each xbox360, do you think they should have?

oh. and here's macattack aggreeing with me. i used that other link because that's where he publicly (not in an email) says he's an econ grad.



http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/01/10/sony-blu-ray-mistake-faq/#32



i could post his message asking to quote me, but, that's not the point. the point is: the economics of my argument may not be perfect, but they are soundly based. and certainly not "most hilarious mis-representation of Blu-Ray in the marketplace yet seen"



m3mnoch.

nope. i sure don't think they should have. that would have been a dumb move.



despite not being as spendy as blu-ray, they are still damned expensive compared to a standard dvd drive. yes they could have subsidized it, but, i'm glad they spent the extra money on other things developers wanted. that will translate into games people want to play. all of that adds up to microsoft actually making a profit on the console. that means lower console royalties. that means game developers get a bigger cut. that means, again, better games that people want to play.



there's absolutely no sense in pissing money away if you don't have to. especially if your competitor is pricing himself out of business and you have your resovoirs ready to kick in during a price war -- not to build the console initially.



games don't need the extra space -- only the movies. the percentage of hardcore (as it will be 0% of mainstreamers) movie buffs who will use or want the ability to play high def dvd's on their console is pretty low.



they're thinking perfect for an add-on. it's there if you want it, but, they're not forcing the 99.9% of their customers to pay for it. especially as they can go either way -- blu-ray or hd-dvd with an add-on.



accidentally or on purpose, it doesn't matter. that's where their strategy has ended up. and, from a technology and business perspective, that's exactly where they need to be.



the word of the day here, folks, is 'agile.'



m3mnoch.

Well again I disagree with that. Why would you buy an add on for the xbox and not a stand-alone HDDVD player? Why is there any need to launch an add-on?. And while you are correct that current games do not need anything more than DVD-9, the future 1080i texture size will munch Gigs for breakfast. Developers have already expressed concern about the space, and remember the more compression used the more processor clock cycles have to be spent decoding it. I myself would be pretty pi$$ed if Nintendo were doing HiDef and didn't include something better than DVD-9, Nintendo learnt the hard way that developers want storage space when they lost the Final Fantasy franchise.

And yes, PC games have been in Hidef for a while and still use DVD, but they have a HDD to uncompress all the data to.

OK, here's another question - I'm fine with MS not including HD DVD in the 360, but given that they have gone with DVD-9, I think the HDD should have been standard for the xbox360 - so the developers don't have to develop for the lowest common denominator (ie the non HDD core version), agree or disagree?

whew. just wrote a long, stupid comment addressing your question and comments. ended up being too long and retarded to put on here. seemed like good content anyway, so i moved it over to my site.



http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/01/12/dvd-9-is-not-too-small/



m3mnoch.

good lord. retarded-br-tag-line-feed-joystiq-comment-crap.



http://m3mnoch.wordpress.com/2006/01/12/dvd-9-is-not-too-small/



maybe this link will work. if not, just cut the crap off the end of the url after that trailing "/".



m3mnoch.