Joystiq Poll: Blu-ray, yay or nay?
We'll admit it. When we read the results of Max PS3's recent poll asking readers "Should Blu-ray have been optional?" we did a double-take. 67% said it should not have been optional? Really? It's just that those numbers kind of seems at odds with the zeitgeist ...... so we thought we'd give you guys a shot. We did take umbrage with their wording, however, so we've decided to tweak it a bit. There are surely many people who might think that Blu-ray should have been optional without altering their intentions to purchase a PS3. We're more interested in whether or not the inclusion of Blu-ray will affect your decision to purchase a PS3. Basically, no Blu-ray = a cheaper PS3.
A plea from Joystiq: if you weren't going to purchase a PS3 regardless, you can choose the third option or simply refrain from voting, kay? Everyone else, have at it:
Technical mumbo jumbo: this is not a scientific or rigorous poll and is only intended to capture the general consensus of Joystiq readers. Results will be posted approximately one week after the poll is opened for votes. Sure, you probably could hack this poll if you worked at it, but it's more fun for everyone if poll results accurately reflect the opinions of all readers, so please refrain from tampering with poll results.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Dom @ Jun 15th 2006 11:34PM
This is a poorly formed poll. No, blueray doesn't influence my decision, because I wasn't planning on buying a PS3 in the first place. You're assuming that blueray is only a negative feature.
More, better worded choices please.
RobM @ Jun 15th 2006 11:34PM
Wii FTW! :P
Chris Clark @ Jun 15th 2006 11:35PM
How can you have a poll without the option for "Yes, it will because I want to buy a Blu-Ray player/I like the idea of the Blu-Ray player". Don't you think these poll questions are a bit loaded?
They should be as un-misleading as possible guys.
Stu @ Jun 15th 2006 11:39PM
I feel it's too early to change over to yet another disc format. The ps2 came out in...what? 2000? DVDs came into full swing around that time. I loosely say around, but the my point remains.
Anyway going for a new system? I mean most people are still, if not already, building a boastful DVD collection, and now we are going to have to change again? Most uncool. If the games are Blu-ray but movies stay with dvd, and the PS3 still plays DVDs, then that's all cool. But if they are forcing a change in format, I say it's too soon.
People may disagree with me, and that's fine, I still feel it's too soon. Maybe I'm just turning into a luddite or something.
WedgeTalon @ Jun 15th 2006 11:40PM
I don't really like the optinos you gave...
I voted C, because NO, it won't affect my decision, but it SHOULD have been optional. It won't affect my decision because I don't care about Blueray.
HD tvs are still too new. DVD still does fine. Honestly, I don't think this generation of discs should even have existed. IMO, the only truly viable "next disc format" would be one of those massive technologies that makes Bluray seem like a puny CD.
Chris Clark @ Jun 15th 2006 11:44PM
In other words, the only options you give are basically saying "Yes, Blu-Ray is bad" or "No, because I am going to buy it anyways but in this case it's part of the system".
Rare Hare @ Jun 15th 2006 11:44PM
Well, we all know how THIS is gonna turn out. I voted "no", because I do believe it's an important part of the system in several ways.
First of all, it's a CHEAP alternative to what's probably the hi-def media wave of the future. With the cost of Blu-Ray players predicted to be around 1000 bucks a pop, 600 dollars plus the next Sony PlayStation is a freakin' steal.
Secondly, it allows for so much more. We all know (or should know) that the content able to be held on these discs is not only limited things like length of the game, etc. So much more can be allowed with a storage device that large, because so much more can be allowed to happen at once.
Finally, I don't actually understand how this could truly affect one's decision to buy the console. It's not very much more money for the addition of Blu-Ray as opposed to the Xbox 360 (about 100 dollars. If you'd like to debate this statement, feel free to call me out on it and you can hear the facts). Also, we've known for a LONG time that the PS3 would contain a Blu-ray drive. Anyone who votes that its presence will affect their decision to buy the system probably never intended to buy it in the first place.
(Note: I am not a fanboy of anything but video games themselves. I own all three current-gen consoles, and intend on purchasing all three next-gen consoles. In fact, the PS3 is last on my list at this point. I'd rather give the console time to mature before picking it up.)
AssemblyLineHuman @ Jun 15th 2006 11:45PM
If I were going to buy the PS3, yes, I would be somewhat angry that I have to pay $600 because Sony is trying to force its format down my throat. But since I'm not planning on it anyway, I'll be nice and just vote Wii FTW!
Dan Choi @ Jun 15th 2006 11:48PM
How about the "I'll still buy it... begrudgingly" option where I don't really need Blu-ray, but will still lay down the cash to Ken Kutaragi for it (since it comes with the PS3)? I guess it didn't really affect my decision in that case... but still! =) I'd love the option to go without -- if it meant a cheaper console.
AssemblyLineHuman @ Jun 15th 2006 11:49PM
@Chris Clark: No, the options are basically saying.
-Yes, I do not want to have to pay for the addition of Blu-ray into the console. or
-No, I am glad Sony is including Blu-ray in the PS3 because "it's a fundamental part of the system"
Spiza @ Jun 15th 2006 11:50PM
Way to make a useless poll by wording it poorly. The choices don't represent valid answers to the question.
voice of reason @ Jun 15th 2006 11:51PM
think about this.... if blu-ray becomes the new standard, i will get a blu-ray player.... but not before it is completely taken advantage of. why would i want a device that does something that i cant use to its full potential? same sort of idea as getting a device of the distant future, today. you cant use it yet. by the time (if it does) blu-ray has been completely taken advantage of by producers and such. you will be able to purchase one for much cheaper than they cost now. [why would i want a dvd player in 1970 that costs $50000]. ill get the player when it makes sence to get it. i dont want to be forced to get it now at the highest price before i can fully use it.
C. Grant @ Jun 15th 2006 11:59PM
Dudes, don't answer it if you don't like the answers. It's not homework, it's not required.
Chris Clark @ Jun 16th 2006 12:01AM
Voice of Reason,
Good point made on Blu-Ray. This is how I feel about standalone players for either of the formats right now. Although, I feel it's not that big of a investment if it's only a $100 premium over the top line Xbox 360 to have the game playing features of a 360 + the Blu-Ray player.
In that case the blu-ray capability is only going to cost $100 extra. I don't really mind that too much. The only gamble there is paying $100 for something that may not win the format war.
Anyways, I still hold that the poll should have had a positive statement such as "Yes, because I like it" rather than "No, it is part of the system". Much can be said about the wording of the questions and how they can affect the results.
Exo @ Jun 16th 2006 12:01AM
Rare its not a question of what it will add in price to the system. Its a question of how much it will make games cost because its being forced on developers weather they need that much storage or not.
next gen game costs+price of an actual blu ray disc doesnt make a pretty picture.
Have you seen a pc game that even takes up 15GB? which is half of a single layer blu ray disc.
Blu ray is nice as a storage medium, but its not really usefull in a game console at this point in time. Im not trying to side with microsoft eitehr, but Hd-dvd is a better choice for games, it has enough extra storage, while not costing more then a dvd. I see hd-dvd movies for 20 bucks.
and really, id rather switch discs on a 360 game and pay 60 bucks, then have a ps3 game on blu ray and have it cost me 80
the deaf guy @ Jun 16th 2006 12:07AM
dang people are stingy as heck nowadays! and 11 is correct if you dont like it don't freaking answer. seriously people will find anything to gripe about. if griping was a professional job people would be wiping thier ass with money. stingy people suck but thats just my 2 cents.
TCM LEAVING @ Jun 16th 2006 12:20AM
Alas poor Joystiq, I used to respect thee....
But I've had as much pro 360, anti wii and anti ps3 propaganda as I can take. This bookmark is getting deleted. Lately it seems like they are just browsing kotaku and putting up the same articles but with a pro 360 slant(whenever possible).
This blog has gone downhill bigtime. Guess Microsoft bought some advertising space.
n3rrd @ Jun 16th 2006 12:21AM
Do people really not care about quality? Do you honestly think that the $600 PS3 will hold up, quality wise, as a blu-ray player against the more expensive counter parts? Especially in a few years when retail drives have dropped in price to what DVD players sell for.
Sure, you can buy a $99 DVD player, but the $300 models offer things like up-conversion, etc. and generally last longer.
siirsp @ Jun 16th 2006 12:23AM
why the hell did I have to pay for an expensive DVD drive in my PS2?
I mean honestly, CDs completely cut it.
(COUGHfor the first few monthsCOUGH)
and VHS is still pretty much how I watch my movies.
-----
I'm gonna bookmark this, and in a year come back and laugh my ass off at all the retarted comments.
Dave @ Jun 16th 2006 12:23AM
"Secondly, it allows for so much more. We all know (or should know) that the content able to be held on these discs is not only limited things like length of the game, etc. So much more can be allowed with a storage device that large, because so much more can be allowed to happen at once."
This is sarcasm, right? A bigger ROM device makes it so that "so much more can be allowed to happen at once." I want to hear how this theory pans out.
Yem @ Jun 16th 2006 12:24AM
May I be the first to say.. F**K THE ZEITGEIST.
So much ridiculous hyperbole and spleen venting for a console which is still 6 months away and bound to rock, exactly like the 360 does.
boots @ Jun 16th 2006 12:28AM
This poll is representative of Nintendo and Xbox fanboys opinions; just look at how all Joystiq polls have turned out (as opposed to 1up, Gamespot, and IGN where PS3 has fared much better than here).
Hell, for even something less hardcore, the people from California and New Jersey already said that they want PS3 for its technology, including Blu-ray; as opposed to Colorado of course, but who cares? They are 10% of the population of the other two states, states that presumably have more buying power.
http://www.gamedaily.com/features/?id=1024
It is *fundamental* for a next-gen system to have a next-gen format. It is expensive for a games console, but it's not just a games console, cut the BS already. Neither the Xbox 360 is just a games console, neither were PS2 nor Xbox 1 just games consoles. They were expensive for their time, and now Xbox 360 is even more expensive.
To me, prices come like this:
Games console 199 (Example: Gamecube, Wii)
Games console with SD movie capabilities (in 2000): 299
Games console with Hard Drive and SD movies: 399
Games console with near 100% Backwards compatibility, and both SD and HD movies: 499
Games console with all of the above plus HDMI plus WiFi out of the box plus a bigger hard drive, all: 599
And as wise non-gamers said: "Only hardcore gamers bitch about costs rising. If you don't want one, don't buy one".
Just wait till the first price drop. If you are still whining, chances are you weren't really getting a PS3 regardless of anything.
There are many benefits from Blu-ray to gaming. The console will last longer with it (and I don't want another 4 year console, hear me Microsoft!?). If you disagree, either you ignore the pros (because there are), or you are just biased against Sony. I'm willing to shell out *100 bucks* (are you really going to debate about 100 bucks *extra* spent on a timespan of 5-6 years?) more for more potential (on PS3), just as I would have shelled out 500 bucks on a 360 with HD-DVD out of the box.
I agree with Rare Hare.
RageOverdose @ Jun 16th 2006 12:29AM
I don't know about you guys, but its useless to me. Lacking an HDTV, I have NO REASON WHAT SO EVER to get it. I'd get the same quality with a regular DVD, without buying a Blu-Ray player. I guess, though, for games, it could be nice. No disc-swapping, but then again, I never cared about swapping. Really, I'm not that lazy. If that's the only thing its offering, leave me out. Of course, once I get an HDTV, things may change.
boots @ Jun 16th 2006 12:34AM
"Yes, I don't want it",
"No, I want Blu-ray!".
So, is this supposed to be an intuitively clear poll for everyone? *sigh*
hohoho @ Jun 16th 2006 12:44AM
I wonder what would happen if bdrom gets the nod (maybe since it can store more data per layer albeit pricier). Would game require more and more data?
here's a nice comparison. pay attention to lists of companies...
http://www.engadget.com/2005/09/19/blu-ray-vs-hd-dvd-state-of-the-s-union-s-division/
a bit dated, but I checked with official bd and hdsites.
http://www.hddvdprg.com/about/member.html
http://www.blu-raydisc.com/general_information/Section-14009/Index.html
that's why I'm guessing bd might get the nod. bd board of directors have both hardware AND content companies (warner, fox, disney and obviously sony). Some content guys (paramount, universal) seem to be on both sides as associate members. Given the fact that movie studios are notoriously picky and they are on bd board of directors....
EA is on bd so is Dolby (they're not on hd list). ATI and nvidia are both on bd. Apple bd as well :D
Can't help but concluding that there're more big guys on bd's bandwagon.
The key is, can the extra storage provides better (bigger?) gaming experience? Consumers always complain. Consumers will always unhappy about something here and there. Some wants to kill bill gates for making the lamepack of no default hdd and add-ons for hddvd while others want to decapitate kutaragi for pushing the expensive blueray down their throats.
Honestly, in 2/3 years, games on x360 and ps3 would look far far better than wii. I wonder then would everyone still love wii as much as it is now? Imagine, zelda looking as good as mgs4 (well, kojima hasn't done anything dodgy so... :D)? Metroid as pretty as gears of wars?
I'm sure it's fun playing virtual tennis with miyamoto, but can we do that for 30mins, 1 hours for 1-2 months and having fun? The challege of wii is not on getting games looks prettier or beefer, but getting the control scheme to work right might be trickier, which would cost less but may take about the same bloody amount of time. I'm guessing the end of day, most of nintendo games would get the control right, but only a handful of 3rd party, just as the quality of games of gba. But still, I'd get wii just for mario.
kilodelta @ Jun 16th 2006 12:45AM
blu-ray is awful just because of the name.
can you imagine talking with a co-worker and say "i rented some blu-rays last night."
how stupid does it sound to say that out loud?
Ethan @ Jun 16th 2006 12:47AM
alright, PS3 is the ONLY next gen console if you ask me. RD tvs will be obsolete by 2009, no more broadcasts in regular D folks, that means that TV's that dont support HD will no longer be able to display telvision. So why have a wii, that doesnt support HD. you will have to have two different TVs (one HD and one RD) so that you can have a good picture for your gaming, and also have a TV that can support TV. So its either playstation 3, or two TVs, which one is more expensive in your eyes.
a link from Joystiqs sister site, to back my knoweledge.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/02/analog-tv-shutdown-all-but-set-for-2009/
siirsp @ Jun 16th 2006 12:49AM
yo dude, I picked up some wicked Digital Versatile Discs last night.
they'll prolly end up getting called BDs or something.
and do you hate anything with a stupid name?
dare I?
*cough*360*cough*
Ethan @ Jun 16th 2006 12:55AM
And just to all the people saying that blu-ray discs are expensive, they're not, it is the same price as HD-DVD and just a little over DVD. get some knoweledge on the subject at hand before posting about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc
Imadogg99 @ Jun 16th 2006 12:59AM
360 FTW...
I'm only allowed to get one console per generation. Already have the 360, which was cheaper, so the PS3 definitely ain't comin my way anytime soon (or ever). I want to get the Wii though, but I don't think it's gonna happen.
siirsp @ Jun 16th 2006 1:01AM
thank you Ethan.
well. kinda.
"So why have a wii, that doesnt support HD."
ok you're a sack of dog crap.
PS3 is the only real next-gen console in hardware.
but it's ABOUT THE FRIGGIN' SOFTWARE.
I'll agree with you that this puts PS3 leagues ahead of 360 in pretty much every way, but the wii will have dozens and dozens of amazing game experiences, regardless to the wimpy hardware.
do you believe there's not point in getting a DS because PSP's harware is superior?? (ok, the load times and battery life make this a faulty metaphore)
-----
and the 2009 is complete BS.
VHS is just now becoming obsolete. (check your local rental place, they're just now clearing their stockpiles)
judging by current trends I'd say no earlier than 2020 before real obsolescence.
Dave @ Jun 16th 2006 1:02AM
"22. alright, PS3 is the ONLY next gen console if you ask me. RD tvs will be obsolete by 2009, no more broadcasts in regular D folks, that means that TV's that dont support HD will no longer be able to display telvision. So why have a wii, that doesnt support HD. you will have to have two different TVs (one HD and one RD) so that you can have a good picture for your gaming, and also have a TV that can support TV. So its either playstation 3, or two TVs, which one is more expensive in your eyes."
Though your post screams "I know what I'm talking about", you're just a wee bit off. *Analog* broadcasting is being stopped, not SD, as in "Standard Definition" (I'm not sure what this "RD" is you speak of). And this only affects over-the-air broadcasting, not the stuff being carried by your cable system. If if cable companies do shut down analog transmissions - which they will, realistically - you see that handy little digital cable box they loan you? Yeah, that'll pretty much handle giving your old, analog set what it needs.
And even if your doomsday scenario were to occur - SD and ED sets will no longer be able to "display telvision", it has nothing to do with consoles. But I do hate when my telvision can't display telvision.
siirsp @ Jun 16th 2006 1:09AM
haha, checked the link.
he changed analog to "regular definition" LOL.
I still don't buy the 2009 though.
Hotdrop @ Jun 16th 2006 1:26AM
Im just not a big fan of sony propriatry standards in general they have been a huge falure all around the world think memory sticks, Mini disk, and Beta max. Im sure in japan it will have market dominanace but in the US it will just be another format that only sony uses.
Sam @ Jun 16th 2006 1:27AM
Somewhat interesting poll: Anyone guessing/knowing which will dominate the home theatre market? Blu-Ray or HD-DVD?
#3, you need to watch some HD-TV. Standard DVD is very very very far from cutting it right now. I won't be buying any movies on DVD until the next wave hit (With the exception of older television shows).
Ethan @ Jun 16th 2006 1:27AM
Siirsp, 2009 is not bull crap, did you go to the link, I doubt it, did you actually do any searching whatsoever to back your statement, or are you just making it up as you go? And I said the only next gen console IF YOU ASK ME. Im not saying it is not next gen, with the controller, it is bound to have some next gen software, but in terms of HD, nope.
and to Dave, although your post is correct, it doesn't really make mine incorrect. Cable with SD(RD means REGULAR definition by the way) WILL also become obsolete, the cable companies are already switching to HD. so they will 99% most likely switch completely to HD by 2009. and lets see how much you like it when everyone else has HD TV and 1% of the population has a GVMT sent box to flip through stretched and compressed horrible resolution television. And yes, it will affect console, because you will have to play with your Wii on a completely diff TV than your HD one.
Ethan @ Jun 16th 2006 1:32AM
Dude, Siirsp do you know what a search engine is, if you do go to one right now (my favs are Google and Yahoo!) and type in HD standard in 2009. Its government issue, okay, its gonna happen.
Chris Clark @ Jun 16th 2006 1:37AM
Ethan,
In the link you provided, they (joystiq) clearly explains that it's analog signals that will be obsolete in 2009. More specifically, analog signals that are being broadcasted over the air. That only affects people who have old televisions so old as to not have any type of cable or satellite box and incapable of receiving over the air digital or HD signals.
Secondly, when this happens the government will subsidize these people by providing them with boxes, which aren't the greatest things in the world I'm sure, but it will fix the transitional problem.
Also, this does NOT mean that by 2009 everyone will need a HD set, just cable at the least or if you don't have cable a set that can at leastreceive digital or hd over the air signals.
Finally, your reasoning for it affecting gaming is false as well. If you had a HD television, you would still be able to connect standard definition devices to it such as the Wii. Most likely these things will have connections for RF units and component connections for game systems and (by then) old DVD players.
I think your interpretation of this is a little muddled. You should refrain from insulting people on this board as well, it's pointless and it makes you look foolish.
siirsp @ Jun 16th 2006 1:42AM
dude, ethan, you're a retard.
I don't even know where to get started on your retardation.
first of all, look up the definition of obsolete.
second of all: switching out of analog != switching out of SD TV
third of all:
"Its government issue, okay, its gonna happen."
yes, like SO MUCH ELSE the government does.
Ethan @ Jun 16th 2006 1:46AM
Chris Clark, you lok foolish by not actually reading all of my posts, however I will quote them and re-post them so that you dont have to scroll up.
"Cable with SD(RD means REGULAR definition by the way) WILL also become obsolete, the cable companies are already switching to HD. so they will 99% most likely switch completely to HD by 2009."
"stretched and compressed horrible resolution television. And yes, it will affect console, because you will have to play with your Wii on a completely diff TV than your HD one."
Ethan @ Jun 16th 2006 1:50AM
Alright, Im done for the night, Im tired of arguing with people whoose rebuttal is "you're a retard" when they don't know what they are talking about in the first place.
elmer @ Jun 16th 2006 1:52AM
Where's the option:
Yes, it will affect my purchasing decision, in a positive manner, I would not buy the PS3 without it.
Personally I think as well as being a bargain for blu-ray players, the extra data will add something the competition can't match in this day and age of high density and resolution textures, geometry and animation.
Chris Clark @ Jun 16th 2006 1:56AM
I read those, and you still don't make sense to me. Why do you have to play your Wii on a different television? It's going to be 480p, that's not going to look bad, and it will still connect to an HD source. If you really hate how it will look on your new HD set (which you swear up and down in your earlier post that everyone will definitely need, discrediting ANYONE with cable or televisions that receive over the air digital signals) then you could just play it on the television you have now.
Again, this only affects those who cannot afford cable and/or televisions that receive over the air signals of digital or better. Those people will be subsidized anyways.
Finally, if you have cable now and can afford it, by 2009 or whenever cable companies convert completely over to digital or better it's not going to cost you any different amount than you pay now most likely. Not like it would matter, since you do have the money to afford at least a Wii.
Chill out on the doomsday scenerio. If these things do happen, they will only happen alongside the proper planning to make sure that it doesn't turn out to be a complete disaster for customers and their business.
Finally, it's SD not RD or whatever you had.
GamerG @ Jun 16th 2006 1:57AM
its quite simple, in 3 years time it will be clear who has won HDDVD or Blue Ray, by this time players will be available for $100 - $150. That is when I will buy one.
Its all very well Sony saying "ahh but look Blue Ray players are normally $1000!" but that is because they are just out! I didn't buy a DVD player when they were $1000 either and that did not even have any competition!!!
DVD9 along with a harddrive for installs should be enougth for this generation of games and has the advantage over Blue ray in that load times are almost twice as fast!
n8dogg @ Jun 16th 2006 2:00AM
Wait, isn't the PS3 also capable of playing DVDs?
If a game doesn't need oodles and noodles of space, then couldn't they just press it onto a regular DVD?
I don't see what the problem is with the Blu-Ray player. It's a main feature of the PS3. If the inclusion of a BR player affected your decision to purchase a PS3, then I would just call your bullshit and say you never intended on getting one in the first place.
Mo Curious @ Jun 16th 2006 2:00AM
I'm not sure how the hell people went from a clear topic of blu-ray to analog shut down but I will clear up confusions.
Government says: No more analog broadcast by 2009.
NOWHERE does ANYONE state that the switch to ALL HIGH DEFINITION will EVER occur.
What the hell is wrong with you? All HD by 2009??? Do you have any idea how much HD sets STILL cost and will still cost? Do you have any idea how many people in this country would NOT be able to watch tv if everything was switched to HD?? LOOK IT UP!
To correct more confusion. If your TV is 30 years old, and you have been watching TV via Cable or Satelite, you need not worry about the conversion from analog to digital. Why? Because you would not be seeing a picture in that 30 year old TV if it wasn't already being converted from digital to analog via your cable box or whatever.
It only means, by by bunny ears...how I will miss them. With the pretty tin foil and everything...touching it while holding multiple hangers so I could catch a peek at some fuzzy porn...agh the good ol days.
Chris Clark @ Jun 16th 2006 2:04AM
N8dogg,
Unfortunately, I believe Sony has made it a requirement for all games for PS3 to be pressed on Blu-Ray encoded discs. It would be easier for us consumers to have them transition, or have smaller games be on DVD (which would mean cheaper too) and elaborate games to be on Blu-Ray (Oblivion style games).
The other side of the coin though is that having multiple formats playing for the games might be a little confusing, so it's better for them to drive home that these are Blu-Ray discs to encourage developers to do more with them, perhaps.
Chris Clark @ Jun 16th 2006 2:05AM
Mo Curious,
I tried to reason with him. Good luck on your attempts!
Cheers
siirsp @ Jun 16th 2006 2:11AM
"Dude, Siirsp do you know what a search engine is, if you do go to one right now (my favs are Google and Yahoo!) and type in HD standard in 2009."
this guy trusts search engines as his primary source of information. XD
It's best to just compeltely ignore him and his posts. XD
Lekko @ Jun 16th 2006 2:13AM
I'm just excited by more room for stuff. I mean, more space is more capability for things. Bigger canvas.
Frankly, I don't care what spec things come in, they can never be too high. And if you say otherwise, I'm sorry but you're an idiot. You're complaining about something being TOO BIG?
I've never heard anyone complaining about a CPU being too powerfull, an HDD being too big, or a connection running too fast. Ever.