PS3 - Cost and release problems due to Blu-ray?

Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Raider said:
I think what they meant is that they have a near-final bd-rw player completed. Pioneer have just said that their first player will not appear till June, and I'm highly doubtful that we'll see any before that.

In terms of the age-old argument of Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD, it's definately 50/50 atm. Blu-ray may sound theortically better with the extra capacity etc., but HD-DVD is much easier to implement from a cost and player perspective, and the HD-DVD camp was first to demonstrate their dual-layer system, where as the Blu-Ray people struggled to do the same.

If it were up to me, i'd go with Blu-Ray, simply because of the extra capacity that's possible, but if it's a nightmare to manufacture players and discs, then what's the point?

They said it was nearly ready and would be shipping by the end of jan.
 
Associate
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
1,021
XPE said:
the rights to the DVD market is worth billions !!!, so just think how much the next gen one is worth, if sony win it they could easy get back what ever they lose on the ps3
hmm, but if they lose a conservative £200 per console and sell 50million (both extremely conservative estimates).....then that's £10,000,000,000 they'd lose just to get their machine out there! That's a rather imense amount that would probably be better spent on marketing.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,444
Location
Leamington Spa
Halo 3 on four DVDs? I really doubt it. Unless they decided to put 4 or 5 hours of pre-rendered video into the game there's no way it would take up that much space. If you ask me there is little need for pre-rendered video with graphics as good as they are on the 360. It would look just as good rendered in real time which would only use a very tiny fraction of the space. Use of FMV in games these days is usually due to laziness of the developers. In most cases the FMV isn't much better quality than in-game graphics and in some cases actually is in game graphics. For example the FMV in Serious Sam 2 is clearly recorded from within the game engine, so why didn't they just render it in real time?
 
Caporegime
Joined
1 Oct 2004
Posts
26,316
Location
Redcar
Because a video will look _that_ good on all PC's, where as a PC rendering something on a Pentium 3 wouldn't compare with one rendering on an Athlon64 FX-57.
A video eliminates this.

FMV as in _actual_ FMV isn't down to lazyness. Games like Final Fantasy really do benefit from FMV!
 
Soldato
Joined
29 Nov 2002
Posts
2,655
Location
Midlands. UK
Why are the bothering tho.. when this technology has been done for about 3 years now:

http://www.dntb.ro/users/frdbuc/hyper-cdrom/hyper.htm

Hyper-CD-Roms which can hold about 10terabytes per disc.. thats 10,000GB. And it only cost about $30 per disc, which although expensive would soon drop on a mass production basis.

Plus they say the same technology would see a 100 terabyte discwithin 3 years and require no new hardware.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
8,444
Location
Leamington Spa
NokkonWud said:
Because a video will look _that_ good on all PC's, where as a PC rendering something on a Pentium 3 wouldn't compare with one rendering on an Athlon64 FX-57.
A video eliminates this.

FMV as in _actual_ FMV isn't down to lazyness. Games like Final Fantasy really do benefit from FMV!
Yeah I'll admit FF is an exception because square-enix are incredibly good at CGI. Even with very good in-game graphics, the CGI in FF games is still considerably higher quality. But there are some games that do have proper FMV sequences that still aren't very good and in game graphics are arguably of similar quality.

I know that it will always look that good despite the hardware it's running on but does it really matter that much? If your playing a game in lower graphics then it won't put you off much if cut-scenes are of the same quality.

Plus on my PC the cut-scenes in SS2 look worse than in-game due to the poor quality encoding :p
 
Soldato
Joined
6 Jan 2006
Posts
4,663
Location
Newcastle
Psyk said:
Halo 3 on four DVDs? I really doubt it.


and i quote from games radar
GAMES RADAR said:
Rumours suggest one of Xbox 360's biggest titles is just too huge

[05/12/2005 12:24]

One particular 'highly anticipated' Xbox 360 title is currently taking up four 9GB DVDs, while many developers are reportedly struggling to fit their games on to just one disc.

So say fresh rumours that the extra storage demands of next-gen games are just too high, and 360's 'old' DVD reader is a technological bottleneck. A standard DVD holds 4.5GB, though dual layer discs can hold 9GB. By contrast, Sony's PS3 features new Blu-Ray discs which can store 54GB.

However, a game that took up four 9GB discs - 36GB - would be seven times bigger than today's average.

Current PC games, such as FEAR, Half-Life 2 or Call of Duty 2 come in at less than 5GB for a full install. The exact identity of the 'highly anticipated' game is yet to be revealed, though nothing is more anticipated than the next Halo.

Some suggest the game is actually Elder Scrolls: Oblivion, though even this is due for a single 9GB disc on PC, including one whole side of speech.

Even the extra demands of hi-res textures don't fully explain the leap in size, as current PC titles are designed to work at resolutions of anything up to 1600x1400. A TV running the current max of 720p equates to 1280x720.

Huge extra demands on storage are more likely to come from high-quality sound and video files.

We'll bring you more as soon as any new information emerges.


http://www.gamesradar.com/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=38259&subsectionid=2514
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Sep 2004
Posts
11,188
Location
The Ledge Beyond The Edge
i am just surprised they have halo 3 at a state when it is ready to be fit on disks :p
Knowing how rushed and bad Halo 2 was and also if it is that far along in a time line then i am surprised it wasnt at E3 with the 360.
But even then i still doubt it is 36 gig in size, MMORPGs dont take up that size.
I mean my EQ2 folder is under 6 gig and that is still got room for furtre hardware.
Also if it is 36 gig then it will still need two HD-DVD's haha m'on then.
 

XPE

XPE

Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Posts
5,530
t@xman said:
hmm, but if they lose a conservative £200 per console and sell 50million (both extremely conservative estimates).....then that's £10,000,000,000 they'd lose just to get their machine out there! That's a rather imense amount that would probably be better spent on marketing.

Microsoft lose $136 per xbox 360 and Microsoft hasn’t closed yet, so i think Sony can survive a $200 loss, also your guess was over 5 years of sales in which the price to construct the ps3 will come down, while prices remain the same and the lose will be no where near what you predicted, also think how many DVD's a sold a year now if that was blue ray and Sony makes say 5% for every one sold that will add up to a lot of money.


Also more people will buy Blue-ray players this will not be a lose to Sony and every Blue-ray disk sold with it will be pure profit to them.
 
Commissario
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
32,996
Location
Panting like a fiend
XPE, remember MS are massive, their profits in a year are something like 15 times what Sony get (over 10 billion, as opposed to 0.8 billion).

Microsoft can afford to lose $150 per unit sold, Sony on the other hand are likely to end up having to lose about $300 per unit sold if they sell the PS3 at the same price point as the 360, whilst production costs are that much higher.

Also, it's not just 1x $200 + you are talking of millions of $200+ losses, which if you assume that Sony are just about breaking even on the sales of their PS2 at it's current price could see their profits totally wiped out for a while (Sony have not been doing well as a company, and are scraping a profit as it is).

That $200+ loss per unit is going to require the buyer to get a lot of official accessories, or games to make up for it.


comparing DVD's to blu-ray doesn't work - not unless you compare DVD's as they were in 2000 to blu-ray, and in 2000 DVD players were expensivs and they hadn't taken off like they have today.

I honestly cannot see blu-ray or HD-DVD taking off seriously for at least a couple of years, as at the moment the hardware cost is very high, the production costs for replicating the disks is going to be high.
IIRC both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will cost more to make than even a duel layer, double sided DVD*, and blu-ray is going to require massive amounts of investment in replication machinery whilst HD-DVD abilities can be added to exising replication machinery.

The reason DVD became so popular so fast is because it showed an immediate massive improvement with existing consumer equipment, both HD-DVD and blu-ray won't show an improvement with normal TV's (still what most people have), and won't show a huge improvement in picture quality with a lot of material such as old TV shows.



*Which has a failure rate in production of something like 10X that of deul layer, or double layer disks.
 
Caporegime
Joined
26 Dec 2003
Posts
25,666
XPE said:
Microsoft lose $136 per xbox 360 and Microsoft hasn’t closed yet, so i think Sony can survive a $200 loss

where'd you get that figure from out of curiosity? I read they lose over $300 per console.
 

XPE

XPE

Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Posts
5,530
mmj_uk said:
where'd you get that figure from out of curiosity? I read they lose over $300 per console.

Gamespot had an article a few months ago about it. they may have been guessing but i havnt seen any thing better since
 

XPE

XPE

Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Posts
5,530
Werewolf said:
I honestly cannot see blu-ray or HD-DVD taking off seriously for at least a couple of years, as at the moment the hardware cost is very high, the production costs for replicating the disks is going to be high.
IIRC both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray will cost more to make than even a duel layer, double sided DVD*, and blu-ray is going to require massive amounts of investment in replication machinery whilst HD-DVD abilities can be added to exising replication machinery.

The reason DVD became so popular so fast is because it showed an immediate massive improvement with existing consumer equipment, both HD-DVD and blu-ray won't show an improvement with normal TV's (still what most people have), and won't show a huge improvement in picture quality with a lot of material such as old TV shows.



*Which has a failure rate in production of something like 10X that of deul layer, or double layer disks.


i happen to think the same way and dont fell the home cineima markets needs these disks just yet.

i was just thinking from sony point of view, cos lets face it, they r not doing this out of the goodess of there hearts.

also the blue-ray group is big and might have ethier forced sony into it or mayby some other company is healping bare the cost, like i said sony are doing this to make money, but they wouldnt be doing it if they were going to lose money in the long run.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
19 Jan 2003
Posts
12,645
Location
Warwickshire
I personally think it's too soon to be trying to push BD / HD DVDs, as I myself have a large collection of DVDs, that will work fine on a BD/HD DVD player, but I don't want to really go out and buy a lot of the re-release titles companies will bring out with that oh so slightly better picture quality.

I think they need to get more HD TVs out there before they worry about HD-DVD, as SD-TVs are really, really not going to show very much difference at all in quality. I personally want a better push for more sound, as I think decent surround Dolby Digital / DTS sound systems make games far more involving and improve the games vastly with a decent TV picture to go with them.

I'm really looking forward to finding out all the technical details of the PS3, especially all its capabilities, as with the theoretical cost of BD systems, I'm interested to see what it can and can't do, and if it will technically be a dissapointment, or a marvel of technology. At the moment I'm leaning to the latter, but there's always that slight chance it could flop in that department.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
12 Mar 2004
Posts
29,913
Location
England
Alpha178 said:
Why are the bothering tho.. when this technology has been done for about 3 years now:

http://www.dntb.ro/users/frdbuc/hyper-cdrom/hyper.htm

Hyper-CD-Roms which can hold about 10terabytes per disc.. thats 10,000GB. And it only cost about $30 per disc, which although expensive would soon drop on a mass production basis.

Plus they say the same technology would see a 100 terabyte discwithin 3 years and require no new hardware.

It doesnt appear to actualy exist though, and would you seriously want to be burning 100TB to a disk at 3Mbs? By my calculations that would take 10 years.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
14,041
Location
West Midlands
As I stated in a previous thread I am almost positive that Sony's choice of making the PS3 Blu-ray compatible from the off will cause problems beyond what they expect. Not to mention the cost issue, if BRD does make the big time and become the format of choice it will have paid Sony to have done this.

Even a May launch of the PS3 is looking optomistic now in Japan. If we see PS3 in Nov/Dec I'll be surprised.
 

XPE

XPE

Soldato
Joined
9 Jul 2005
Posts
5,530
Journey said:
As I stated in a previous thread I am almost positive that Sony's choice of making the PS3 Blu-ray compatible from the off will cause problems beyond what they expect. Not to mention the cost issue, if BRD does make the big time and become the format of choice it will have paid Sony to have done this.

Even a May launch of the PS3 is looking optomistic now in Japan. If we see PS3 in Nov/Dec I'll be surprised.



with what i have already said in this thread about the cell chip and with the problems with the BD-drive, i wouldnt expect to see the ps3 in the UK this year, remember all the problems they had with the psp, thats nothing compared to what they r trying to do with the ps3
 
Soldato
Joined
30 Sep 2003
Posts
15,875
Location
Norwich
I wouldn't worry, a friend of mine is certain that the PS3 will be out by May this year and will sell for £220.....

When I questioned him about this little nugget of useless information he said it must be true because he read it in "Nuts" :rolleyes:
 
Associate
Joined
21 Sep 2005
Posts
257
lordrobs said:
I wouldn't worry, a friend of mine is certain that the PS3 will be out by May this year and will sell for £220.....

When I questioned him about this little nugget of useless information he said it must be true because he read it in "Nuts" :rolleyes:

Nuts! If you're serious about gaming and technology you KNOW where to go! :p

I don't think everything is clear cut enough to go either way, M$ might get out early with the HD crowd but BD may offer better storage etc....

Anyone who buys a 360 or PS3 to put in an entertainment setup as a movie player needs a rethink, SONY will put the cheapest mass produced unit in there possible, its a fact of business. If I ever want HD/BD I'll buy a dedicated high quality unit like I have for my AV and current DVD player.
 
Back
Top Bottom