blueray 360? :s
- Thread starter stevenazari1
- Start date
AVC (H.264) is used a fair bit as well.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,697
- Location
- Surrey
heres a more recent one from ign 
tight? didn't the price difference alert you to the fact that they didn't just 'bundle it'
i guess there was that, but they also didnt bundle wireless internet connection, rechargable controllers, a decent sized HD or a reliable GPU
sorry rant over
I think that may have been the plan if HD had taken off. I think they know HD is a dead end and putting it on the elite would have made it expensive and obsolite by the end of the year.
I think they supported HD to prolong the war and stop either format taking a foot hold so MS can promote its own VOD service which it can patent and own (unlike HD and blue ray which belong to DVD Forum/BDA). Which it is starting to push with the xbox. In the future when there is high speed 100mg+ net and the xbox 480 with a 1TB disk is out why would you need disks ?
They've said from the beginning that they'll do a Blu-Ray add-on drive if (I'm using a lot of italics tonight 
) Blu-Ray looks to have won. This is their official rational for going with the external add-on drives, rather than building the console with an HD DVD drive built-in.
) Blu-Ray looks to have won. This is their official rational for going with the external add-on drives, rather than building the console with an HD DVD drive built-in.Apparently, Microsoft aren't considering a Blu Ray add-on drive.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,697
- Location
- Surrey
That just sounds like a we won't do it until HD DVD is actually dead, I didn't think it would happen until then anyway.
Hardly any people actually have HDTV's thus making the drive bundle pointless and a waste of money. It may seem on these forums that everyone has an HDTV, but the bigger picture is it's only a small percentage at the minute.
PS3 made the mistake of having a Blu-Ray drive which shot the cost up, which is why its not selling as well. Blu-Ray hasn't "won" because of the PS3, its just more film companies are using it.
The reason why Blu-ray has or will "win" is totally because of the PS3, the reason more film companies are behind it is because it's a part of the PS3, HD-DVD has been selling more stand alone players than Blu-ray for a while now yet Blu-ray software still outsells HD-DVD by 2-1 in America alone and by bigger margins in places like Europe, the reason for this is the people who want Blu-ray are buying PS3's because it's the best player out there, to say Blu-ray hasn't won because of the PS3 couldn't be more wrong.
Think the point that BD is doing better than HD DVD is to do with the PS3, more companies are using BD because of the 9 million PS3 sold already not including all the standalone players. Not every PS3 owner buys BD's but they are still all possible sales for BD, and as such are still part of the possible Hi Def Disk market, this makes it far more attractive than HD DVD. With regards to HDTV sales in august 2006 41% of all TVs sold in the US were HD models, in 2005 it was 22% so it is probably now well over half of all TV's sold are Hi def models. I would think the UK is possibly about the same, you go into any TV store its nearly all Hidef models for sale now.
Its true that the PS3 is probably the best Blu-Ray player out at the minute, but Sony should have released a version without a Blu-Ray player to reduce the cost.
It is mainly HDTV's in the shops now because its the latest technology. Shops always sell whats new, but the consumer at the minute does not have an HDTV which again is why Sony should have sold a PS3 without the Blu-Ray player to reduce the cost and come somewhere near the amount the 360 has sold. I think MS where right to sell the HD-DVD drive seperately because it is completely unneeded.
This is just my opinion btw, im sure the PS3 has contributed to the success of Blu-Ray, i probably shouldn't have said it so bluntly and didn't mean it in that way. I meant that its not the main reason why Blu-Ray is doing so well, but its because its more widely available than HD-DVD and has been marketed differently and better. Again just imo.
It is mainly HDTV's in the shops now because its the latest technology. Shops always sell whats new, but the consumer at the minute does not have an HDTV which again is why Sony should have sold a PS3 without the Blu-Ray player to reduce the cost and come somewhere near the amount the 360 has sold. I think MS where right to sell the HD-DVD drive seperately because it is completely unneeded.
This is just my opinion btw, im sure the PS3 has contributed to the success of Blu-Ray, i probably shouldn't have said it so bluntly and didn't mean it in that way. I meant that its not the main reason why Blu-Ray is doing so well, but its because its more widely available than HD-DVD and has been marketed differently and better. Again just imo.
Just how usefull would that be? All PS3 games are on BD-ROM.
And all of the games take up the 50GB space on the disk dont they?
No I don't think so, and most games have the data duplicated to lessen the read times, so the size is just bloated.
But agree they could not release a non BR version anyway.
Ah but the capacity is there though! Isn't that the reason why Blu-Ray is winning? Doesn't matter that it isn't being used
.Ah but the capacity is there though! Isn't that the reason why Blu-Ray is winning? Doesn't matter that it isn't being used
Yea i agree it would be stupid of Sony to release it now, but i think they should have anticapted the fact that not everyone will use the Blu-Ray player and should have stuck to normal DVD like the 360. The 360 is coping with DVD, so i don't see why the PS3 couldn't have. Coming from a 360 owner so im a bit biased
Just imagine if they had of released 2 versions one without Blu-ray and one with you would have 2 different versions of the same game for the same system on store shelves it would be mad
Well they could just have the games on DVD and have a Blu-Ray player for HiDef movies