Joystiq Poll: Blu-ray, yay or nay?

you made me press the wrong button, you did a trick putting the yes and no in the beginning of the questions, you riggged this poll to reflect what YOU WANT to see imho. Your probably getting free stuff from xBox or toshiba HD-DVD so youre biased. I used to have so much respect for this blog all that is down the toilet now.

Another article stating that PS3 games will be on Blu-Ray only...

Look at update 10

http://www.joystiq.com/2006/03/15/ps3-press-conference-it-begins/

Didn't ken say that Blu-Ray readers cost about the same as DVD readers? I know the disks cost more, but the PS3 already has the power why not?

The amount of people who still think that Blu-ray is a proprietary Sony format really need to read some information before posting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray

The section that is important: "The Blu-ray standard was jointly developed by a group of consumer electronics and PC companies called the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA)"

And: "The BDA has more than 90 members." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc_Association

HD-DVD is far more proprietary for Toshiba. http://www.hddvdprg.com/about/member.html

The sheer amount of companies supporting Blu-ray technology means it is likely to win the format wars. Microsoft supported HD-DVD not because it's better for their customers, (as a content provider wouldn't more storage be better?) but because it helps them in their console war against Sony. If HD-DVD was better wouldn't Dell and Apple have supported that as well?

A big reason for BD players in the PS3 is cutsceen movies. If a single layer disc can fit about 2 hours of HD content. Thats a severe limitation on the amount of ingame movies you can have. Alot of games this won't matter much as a HD opening movie may only be a minute long. But for longer games such as RPGs the movies need to be in HD as well.

Now alot of games will just use the in game graphics engine, but some companies will still go the movie route. there was an interview with Tomonobu Itagaki of Team Ninja where he stated the one thing he was dissapointed with the 360 was that it didn't have a next-gen disc drive in it. And that it would be hard to fit the kind of HD movies they wanted to onto standard DVDs.

David,
>>Fight NIght is a perfect example of repetitive commentary (although they still could've done a better job with DVD9).

Repetitive commentary has nothing to do with lack of storage and everything to do with lack of recording time. A regular 4.7GB DVD can already hold over 7 hours of CD-quality audio, and with compression that can be taken to over 50 hours.

>>We could get an RPG with a fully orchestrated soundtrack during gameplay and not some MIDI crap (this would apply to all genres not just RPGs).
Star Ocean: Till the End of Time did that. (The Japanese release was 1 DVD.)
The American release of Dragon Quest VIII did it. (Also 1 DVD).
So did Xenosaga (also 1 DVD).
Heck, CastleVania: Symphony of the Night did that, and it was one singe 660 MB CD.
If the game has CGi cutscenes it would be nice for them to be at the same definition than the actual game. You could also put in lots of extra features like making of and that sort of thing which you could watch when you are bored or something.

Yes, because I would not pay $600 for a video game console, but I would pay $600 for a video game console and Blu-ray video player (which go for $1000 on their own).

I think thats kind of a loaded question.
I do think that more disk space for games is a big thing. DVD has been around ages before the consumers picked it up.

You know that 100-300 can easily be attributed to all the security and all the film related bs to please Sonys grasp and the MPAA.
The question for me is:
Would people pay the extra 200 for all the video related aspects.
If sony pushed blueray pureley as a gaming medium(like a new cartrege basically) and cut costs of the film related aspects.

Magus,

It's only a $100 premium. The high end 360 is comparable to the low-end PS3. Meaning, you pay a $100 premium for the Blu-Ray player.

"100. Yes, because I would not pay $600 for a video game console, but I would pay $600 for a video game console and Blu-ray video player (which go for $1000 on their own)."

But wouldn't you rather pay $400 for a great game console, and $200 for a HD video add-on if you feel like that's something you want? This is the trade-off we're talking about, not a $600 PS3 vs. a $1000 BR player. Remebering that BR adds close to nothing to the games, save for, as mentioned above, the ability to insert more HD pre-rendered videos into the "game".

Everybody will justify their decisions their own way. For those that think a $600 PS3 is an awesome deal because it doesn't cost as much as a standalone BR player (may as well compare the price to that of a car, it would be about as accurate), cool. From my perspective - a person who bought an HD ready set in 2000 and currently owns three in various sizes, and enjoys the hell out of HD content and gadgets - it doesn't make sense. I want a PS3 to play HD games, I don't want to buy a PS3 and cheap (and most likely, though I don't know this for a fact, low quality) BR player bundle. I want a PS3, and down the line I'll put $200 into a HD video player if I deem that to be appropriate. Unfortunately, I don't get that option, so I'll pass on the PS3 for the near term, and possibly all together.

Much like the PS2's poor quality DVD playback (which is still poor even in the PS2mini), the PS3 will have poor BD quality, maybe even worse given it is a new technology.

Jumping right into the first generation is generally foolish. Even at $600, BluRay is really a bad idea until the kinks have been worked out and the quality has reached a point where you can feel safe it will last a few years before burning out. A good chunk of those $1,000 early DVD players died within a year, while a $50 one you can pick up at WalMart just may last a decade.

Now, the idea of placing this new technology, accentuated by Sony's poor product quality over the past 10 years, is a recipe for disaster. A $600 product that conveniently breaks after the 3 month warranty is up (which then Sony will tell you to buy a new one or pay them $400 to fix it) is a major issue. BluRay will have problems, and because of this, the PS3 will have problems. That cheap BluRay player will suddenly become very expensive, anywhere from $1,000-$1,200 depending if you pay Sony's astronomical repair fees or pay their astronomical price to buy a new one.

All for a unit that will have a low quality first generation drive throughout the life of the product, while stand alone players constantly drop in price and raise in quality.

Yes, the inclusion of the BluRay in the PS3 was a bad idea and for the more rational consumer. It would have been more prudent to use the DVD9 (Oblivion clocked in at 5 gigs, and it is a huge game) in this generation and use a more established and solid BluRay in the next. Sony has basically told its consumers, "For an extra $200, we're going to triple your defect rates over our industry worst records...but it is cheaper than the high failure rate of the $1,000 players."

I have a better idea. I just won't buy your product.

Why do you guys keep comparing the premium 360 with the high end PS3? The comparison should be between the premium 360 and the low-end PS3. Those two consoles offer the same features in terms of hardware. The only difference being the possibility to play blu-ray movies on the ps3 and having games on blu-ray discs. Both consoles offer the same features: 20gig HDD, wireless controllers and component video outputs. So you are basically paying $100 more for the Blu-Ray. Most of you already said that you would buy a stand alone BR player for $150 or the HD-DVD add on for $150-$200.

So really what's the deal? If you ae willing to pay for an add-on that doesn't offer any sort of possibities for gaming or a stand alone player you shouldn't really be arguing about the extra $100 you'll pay for the ps3.

Ooooh, what a shock that a bunch of 360 fanboys with no intention of buying a PS3 would vote "we don't want it and don't want to pay for it", what with their console crippled by not having a hi-def disc and all.

Making it INCLUDED is crucial, just like making the HD included was a huge advantage of the x-box over the PS2 (which only had it as an option). Because when developers KNOW it's going to be there they will actually DEVELOP for it. So the PS3 will have tons of games taking advantage of Blu-Ray while NOBODY will ever support M$ HD-DVD drive option.

You people are so stupid...

LaughingTarget
You weren't going to buy one anyway, you probably can't afford it.

Movie playback is a bonus, I mostly buy the PS3 for its games and having the latest storage medium its a must for games to evolve. Oblivion is not really that good of a game and it's not doing much graphically eventhough it's a huge game is really not pushing next gen foward, it's just a mediocre game hyped up because there isn't much to play on the 360. With the much larger storage on the PS3 developers are going to push games to a real next gen. All that crap about reliability of a product that is not even on sale is just dumb. Sooner or later all of you saying crap about the PS3, will be jumping on board for the true next gen console the PS3.

Hi Joystiq- Sorry bout that'I guess my server was having a loose caboose for a few hours and my goodstuff couldn't get thru! oh well...next time! Thanx, dik

#108

"Making it INCLUDED is crucial, just like making the HD included was a huge advantage of the x-box over the PS2 (which only had it as an option). Because when developers KNOW it's going to be there they will actually DEVELOP for it. So the PS3 will have tons of games taking advantage of Blu-Ray while NOBODY will ever support M$ HD-DVD drive option."

Jesus Christ, EXACTLY. Blu-Ray in essence IS the PS3. Without it, it wouldn't be any different from the 360 and they would lose a major selling point.

The PS3 uses Blu-Ray. Everyone who develops for the PS3 will use Blu-Ray. Making Blu-Ray optional would destroy that for Sony, basically creating the need for multiple SKUs in their software.

That's just suicide.

Oh, and am I the only one who wishes that Pedro would shut the fuck up? He's making the smarter and more reasonable PS3 supporters look really bad.

Smarter, no way. Eres un maricon, come pinga lo unico que tienes bueno es que te gusta el PS3. Reasonable maybe and by the way bitch why don't you shut me the fuck up. I'll give you my address. Cabron infeliz.

Pedro -

I could buy 20 of them without sweating it, 75 if I chose not to return my bond earnings this year back into the account.

If BluRay takes off, then ya, I will get one, but only after the first few generations and suckers who are early adopters work out the bugs for me.

@112

This is America and this is electronics.
If it doesn't work, you return it to the store and ask them to give you a new one.
You don't have to wait. I never did. I never will.

Key statistic: If it still works after 14 days, it is as likely to break after 2 years whether you buy it at launch or 1 year after launch.

114 -

That is assuming you're dealing with an established technology. New technology tends to fall apart rather quickly, and you can't just return it to the store. I've been through 5 PS2's afterall, 3 of them falling apart at 6 months. My early adopted DVD player in 1997 died after 10 months. I've learned my lesson. Never get new tech until it has been around long enough for the bugs to be fixed. Just because I can buy it, doesn't mean I'm dumb enough to do so. Folks don't get financially sound by being stupid and throwing money around.

the wording was so bad i voted the wrong answer. damnit

@115

You need to buy from Costco. That's financially sound. :)

My Xbox died after 2 years. I didn't replace it. I gave it to a friend. He took it to Costco with my receipt and got a replacement.

The PS3 is a Blu Ray player first and foremost. Do not think of it as a game machine with Blu Ray and media capabilities tacked on. It is a Blu Ray media player, and in that media section comes movies, music- oh, and games! Of course, Sony have made a giant mistake; calling it a Playstation. Playstation is only for the marketing, don't think of this as the Playstation you knew and loved. Sony are trying to do everything to make this thing perfect.

At that, I don't have a HD-TV, nor do I really want one at the moment, so I'm going option 3.

To Rafi (#118)

Well if you're sticking with a SDTV, I'd just stick with your PS2. There's no need to go next-gen console when you are stuck on last-gen display. And unlike Microsoft, Sony will continue to support the PS2 for years and years, so you can keep gaming on your SDTV until you feel compelled to spend the money to join the HDTV revolution. Also, I never understand why people say "I'm building my DVD collection, so why would I want a Blu-Ray player?" Well, because you can PLAY all your DVD's on it AS WELL AS buy any new movie that comes out in HI DEF should you find that movie worthy of the HDTV treatment (the Spiderman movies will be an easy purchase in HDTV for me). Any Peter Jackson movie might look pretty nice in HDTV too.

Sorry, just a tad off-topic...

I decided to perform a very basic integrity test of the poll results so far. I ran a small program that casts votes via anonymous proxies. The test has yet to complete, however the results so far are not what I expected. Of 3,758 proxy votes cast, 62 were accepted. The remainder were previously cast (and are suspect?). A little less than half of the votes cast are likely fraudulent.

Stating the obvious, sorry... thought it was interesting.

This is really ridiculously stupid.

No one said, "Gah, I don't want a stupid cartridge system with my N64. Give me floppy disks, they are a current format." No one said, "Eew -- Compact Disc? Screw that, Playstation One." And I haven't heard anyone criticize Sony for putting their games on the UMD, a proprietary forma. (GAMES, not the silly concept of movies on UMD. Everyone complained about the $20 UMD movies).

PS3 games have to go on a format. They are going to need more space than DVD9's provide. Why can't Sony decide what format to use? They aren't forcing anything -- the fact that it will play future HD titles (if the market sides with them) is fine and dandy -- but as much as Microsoft and Sony pretend otherwise, this gen is not about media centers. It's about a system that plays games.

Sony made a decision to go with the highest disk-space optical format out there -- they also happened to be pushing it for the next gen DVD format -- and it sky rocketed the price. You can't say Sony should have made it optional anymore than you can complain about the GameBoy using proprietary cartridges -- they would have had to come up with something portable that provides a ton of space -- BluRay will provide ultimately 200 gigs. (Eight layer Blu-Rays, for the flamer's not keeping up.)

I love ya Joystiq, but this poll is bass-ackward.

Need more choices... if asked "Will the inclusion of Blu-Ray affect my decision?" I would have voted for:

Yes, without a Blu-Ray player I would not be buying a PS3.

Its Worth it, I mean u could be paying 1000 for a blu ray
player. Remember The DVD Player?