PS3 Gossip

[converge]

Re: PS3 Gossip

This would mean that the PS3 would also include cd/dvd(and possibly blu-ray) burning software. Not only that, but it would exclude the ability to play all previous titles.

If this is the case, its no wonder that the console is taking forever and a moon for Sony to get released. All standards in-fighting aside, the cost associated with fitting all units with one of these drives is going to put the console at a clear economic disadvantage for some time yet.

..but to that effect, Sony marketing is not stupid. Sony is positioning itself at the start of a handful of new technologies. Sure, the XBox beat it to the streets, so let it run its course and take the market back once Microsoft is at the wane of its release cycle. I suspect that if innovately interesting enough with the games to carry it, the wii or ps3 could easily send the XBox line packing for a while. Seriously.. aside from slightly newer hardware specs, the 360 is retarded.

[Ridirich]

Re: PS3 Gossip

You know, I was thinking. The console needs a minimum of what? 20 games before it is released?

It would stand to reason due to the newly alloted space that the game companies have the chance to make much more indepth and rich games. That would obviously take longer. It's possible some of these games are HUGE.

Standard CD: 747 Mb(give or take)
DVD: (Single Layer):4.7 Gigabytes (Dual Layer):8.5 Gigabytes
Blu-Ray: 200GB

Oh, and by the way, Sony is the one who funded Blu-Ray. It is my opinion it will be in PS3. The original Blu-Ray disk was 25 gig if I remember, but that was over a year ago at MIT. Obviously since then the technology on it's improved. With 200 GB why not put the entire collection of Jaws on one disk, for example?

[Voltage Spike]

Re: PS3 Gossip

Sony is the one who funded Blu-Ray. It is my opinion it will be in PS3.

Oh, it is definitely in there. There's not even a question on this point. A Blu-Ray burner (as was suggested earlier), on the other hand, is unlikely to happen.

The original Blu-Ray disk was 25 gig if I remember, but that was over a year ago at MIT. Obviously since then the technology on it's improved. With 200 GB why not put the entire collection of Jaws on one disk, for example?

Actually, the disks are still 25 gig ... probably because it already provides plenty of space. (Odd side question, why are all of the current Blu-Ray movies still using the "old-and-busted" MPEG-2 (including all accompanying artifacts)?) Considering the graphics card on the PS3, I don't think dual-layer (let alone six-layer) discs will be all that common.

As for converge thinking the 360 is retarded, I'd really like to hear his comments on this. Personally, I think Microsoft did everything right this time around for a game console (the original X-Box did not impress me at all). They provide an unprecedented level of support for large and small developers, they make gaming easy (and fun) for the gamers, they packed in plenty of power, and they did it without breaking the bank. It isn't hacker friendly, but it isn't like the other console developers are falling over each other to help us abuse their hardware.

[Ridirich]

Re: PS3 Gossip

1.5 How much data can you fit on a Blu-ray disc?

A single-layer disc can hold 25GB.
A dual-layer disc can hold 50GB.

To ensure that the Blu-ray Disc format is easily extendable (future-proof) it also includes support for multi-layer discs, which should allow the storage capacity to be increased to 100GB-200GB (25GB per layer) in the future simply by adding more layers to the discs.

Ref: http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_capacity_data

They have them, they just aren't marketing them yet. No one makes a promise like that without having the proven and used technology in place.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: PS3 Gossip

Ref: http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/#bluray_capacity_data

Oh, I know they exist. And while it may be true that the format can be extended, that doesn't necessarily mean the current crop of players support more than dual-layer disks. In other words, it wouldn't surprise me that a 3+ layer disk would require new hardware ... at which point a better technology may be available. Also, the 200 GB number thrown around refers to, I believe, an experimental setup with six ~33 GB layers. Can the current drives read 33 GB layers?

So, yes, Blu-Ray can hold a lot of data. Perhaps in the future it can hold more. My question is more one of practicality: is Blu-Ray an expensive overkill solution given their primary usage (e.g., video games and movies)?

[Ridirich]

Re: PS3 Gossip

I think as more Blu-Ray come out it will be less costly than DVD...which constantly become unusable due to scratches. You will notice Blu-Ray has a protective coating. I honestly believe that the hardware is currently available but they want to make alot of money off it so they are starting with the smaller stuff first.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: PS3 Gossip

I think as more Blu-Ray come out it will be less costly than DVD...

What leads you to believe this? Assuming Blu-Ray becomes the dominant standard for its market, it wouldn't surprise me if it became cost-competitive with DVD (while being technically superior). But cheaper? I'm pretty sure the costs of DVDs these days are pretty close to nil in the grand scheme of things ... as a consumer, you are paying almost exclusively for packaging, transportation, and content (none of which Blu-Ray actually imrpoves upon).

which constantly become unusable due to scratches. You will notice Blu-Ray has a protective coating.

If I remember correctly, you are a parent. As a non-parent, though, DVDs are extremely durable.

As for Durabis (the brand name of the Blu-Ray coating), I believe that it is being touted by the Blu-Ray group in response to the extreme fragility of early Blu-Ray discs. I'm not saying this is a bad thing (especially if it lives up to the claims), but I believe that there is no techical reason the process cannot be applied to most existing optical discs.

I honestly believe that the hardware is currently available but they want to make alot of money off it so they are starting with the smaller stuff first.

Higher margins are almost always the goal for such decisions. However, if all consumer drives are dual-layer for, say, the next five years, are the content industries really going to alienate the early adopters by releasing 3+ layer content? (Always assuming that the existing drives cannot read such discs. According to this article, though, the early drives fail to support even dual-layer.)

It should be clear by now that I'm rooting for HD DVDs to succeed. While technically inferior, the drives are cheaper, the switch from DVD to HD DVD is cheaper, the manufacturing of the discs is cheaper, and, to put it bluntly, the Blu-Ray camp can't seem to get its act together (questionable multi-layer support, failure to use the more advanced codecs, lack of support from the DVD Forum). Perhaps I'm biased, but Blu-Ray seems more like another attempt by Sony to sell a product based on promises rather than results.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if all of this discussion were merely academic. Most consumers are perfectly satisifed with existing DVDs and do not perceive a difference in quality.

The PS3 may be the wildcard, though. If Sony can trojan horse its way into the homes of millions of people through the sale of an unrelated product ... well, that could make things interesting. The fact that Sony has so many movie studios on its side is also promising for Blu-Ray.

[converge]

Re: PS3 Gossip

While technically inferior, the drives are cheaper, the switch from DVD to HD DVD is cheaper, the manufacturing of the discs is cheaper, and, to put it bluntly, the Blu-Ray camp can't seem to get its act together..

Two words:

beta.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if all of this discussion were merely academic. Most consumers are perfectly satisifed with existing DVDs and do not perceive a difference in quality.

This is actually interesting to note.. since the rush for HD videos etc has already started, but leaves me wondering.. why? I can't speak for all, but I have settled on a level of quality that is acceptable to me, as well as a level of quality that is abundently overkill to my media experience. Neither of these exceed 4GB in size. This is quite contrasting to the shift from the older tape-based medium. Sure, if I were using the video to reproduce I would want it in quality/size to be at maximum.. but as a consumer, there's only so much 'high defination' that the Wizard of Oz requires...

[Ridirich]

Re: PS3 Gossip

Well, I was helping take care of a close friend's kids and considered myself like a parent for that reason. You've got a good memory.

In my experiance companies have great ideas and market the basest ones (because they cost less) to see how it sells. Usually the highest grade technology for that product is in development or is in progress and they want to know how much more they should invest. Remember 'MiniDisk'?

I believe this product will cost less, not initially but over time. The better quality of the product the longer it lasts, and the less it costs in the long run. If you buy a quality mouse and say...pay 70 for it...and it lasts you 2 years then you did much better than a person who baught three 30 dollar mice in 2 years. Sure your initial investment is higher, but the longevity of the product actually saves you cash.

I think just like when DVD was new and VHS cost less, then it went down to 6 dollars a DVD in the Wal-Mart bin...that Blu-Ray will do pretty much the same.

Blu-Ray supports MP2-4 as well as 4 other formats I have seen so far.

Just like the SR-71 was in a locker for years before even being deployed, we have technology available right now to put these 'good things' into place.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: PS3 Gossip

Two words:

beta.

I'm not sure which way you are going here.

Studio support: VHS and Blu-Ray

Capacity: VHS and Blu-Ray (although this arguable isn't important in the current "war")

Vendor support: VHS and tied

Physical size: Betamax and tied

Price: VHS and HD DVD

Quality: Betamax (debatable) and tied

why? I can't speak for all, but I have settled on a level of quality that is acceptable to me, as well as a level of quality that is abundently overkill to my media experience.

For those who haven't seen it, the biological limitations on HD.

Well, I was helping take care of a close friend's kids and considered myself like a parent for that reason. You've got a good memory.

I was a little off. I just remember us having a little skirmish over child rearing.

In my experiance companies have great ideas and market the basest ones (because they cost less) to see how it sells. Usually the highest grade technology for that product is in development or is in progress and they want to know how much more they should invest. Remember 'MiniDisk'?

As with most things, it's a gamble. It takes money to develop something cool, but that doesn't mean the market is going to accept your product. You can also attempt to spend less money to develop incremental improvements, but then the market for your product is going to be even smaller.

I'm not really sure where you are going with the MiniDisc reference. I didn't follow the market too much, but from an outsider it seemed that an interesting product was severely crippled in an attempt to limit consumer freedom. These restrictions were slowly lifted over time in an attempt to regain lost market share, but by that point the consumers had moved on to more promising technologies.

The better quality of the product the longer it lasts, and the less it costs in the long run. If you buy a quality mouse and say...pay 70 for it...and it lasts you 2 years then you did much better than a person who baught three 30 dollar mice in 2 years. Sure your initial investment is higher, but the longevity of the product actually saves you cash.

I think just like when DVD was new and VHS cost less, then it went down to 6 dollars a DVD in the Wal-Mart bin...that Blu-Ray will do pretty much the same.

I see your point, but I'm still not sure it will be cheaper. DVDs are cheaper to manufacture, cheaper to ship, and ended up creating a larger market for videos (due largely to convenience) than ever existed with VHS. How can the next generation of formats hope to compete against that?

You may be suggesting that Blu-Ray is more future-proof than the competition, but the codecs, the resolutions, and the capabilities are all set in stone. When the only real difference is capacity, it is only future-proof against longer films (Peter Jackson, I'm looking at you ).

Blu-Ray supports MP2-4 as well as 4 other formats I have seen so far.

Both Blu-Ray and HD DVD support the same video codecs: MPEG-2 (like DVD), VC-1 (Windows Media Video 9), and H.264/AVC (an MPEG-4 codec). Blu-Ray players must also support Java applications, while HD DVD is more "web-like" (XML and JavaScript). Other than that, they are functionally identical.

As I hinted at earlier, though, all current Blu-Ray movie releases are single-layer (25 GB) MPEG-2 films. The current HD DVD releases are mostly dual-layer (30 GB) VC-1 films. This is the reason HD DVD, as it exists today, offers a much better picture.

Just like the SR-71 was in a locker for years before even being deployed, we have technology available right now to put these 'good things' into place.

Airplanes and consumer electronics are very different markets, though. There is a certain amount of intertia in the consumer world, and it becomes increasingly difficult to sell the "good things" with each "crippled" unit they sell. If the technology is here and works, it is in their best interest to push it out the door. There may be a substantial cost for this, but the longer they wait the less likely it becomes that the product will ever see the light of day.

[Ridirich]

Re: PS3 Gossip

I'd say at this point we can simply say 'wait and see'.

I do sort of want to know how 'Beta' is two words, though.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: PS3 Gossip

I'd say at this point we can simply say 'wait and see'.

True. As I said, any discussion at this point is merely academic. In the end, I think it will either be marketing or an industry push that results in a format migration. Still, it is fun to discuss the motivations and merits behind new technology.

A fun link about the original failure of DVDs. Sound familiar?

I do sort of want to know how 'Beta' is two words, though.

Well, it is actually Betamax but most people called it merely Beta. Maybe that is what he was referring to?

[converge]

Re: PS3 Gossip

Price: VHS and HD DVD

Well.. I suppose this can go a couple of ways, but here is what my brain thought when I initially posted: General understanding of the betamax demise can be oversimplified to market acceptance. This does have two angles and consumer vs industry can be argued as to which influences which the most, but from the consumer perspective a couple things are important: 1) availability 2) price.

For availability Sony may have their cake in the oven, but there have been HD movies at my local rental shop for over a month, iirc. I have seen 0 blueray media. This could be a locale issue, or a repeat of the VHS strategy. OTOH Sony is pushing blueray for their next console.. which could help blueray, or hurt their console .. that's their gamble and probably adequate since they probably stand to lose more by losing blueray then losing a round in the console battles. The question becomes whether or not their tactic will drive consumer acceptance; this I'm not convinced of.

For price, Sony is at a loss from the start. With the technology being comparable in quality this time, price is going to play a much larger factor. It will drive profit margins for those licensing software, video, audio, or whatever porn collections hit market on the medium. It will also define the initial audience affluent enough to afford these goods. retail 101. If Sony can overcome that problem, then they may be able to start tackling another reality: I have 25GB of data to backup. Do I spend x amount of money to accomplish this, or x+y to accomplish the same thing with a Sony disc. ok.. so this kinda wraps back to what I already said, since cost is something that both consumers and the industry will have common concern over. that probably means this post is concluded.

[skroo]

Re: PS3 Gossip

General understanding of the betamax demise can be oversimplified to market acceptance. This does have two angles and consumer vs industry can be argued as to which influences which the most, but from the consumer perspective a couple things are important: 1) availability 2) price.

Granted, and you are right. However, I think it's important to point out that a large part of Betamax' death came from Sony's unwillingness to licence production rights of the format to other manufacturers - JVC and Matsushita had no problems with doing this for VHS, and the rest is history.

Where this is a critical point is that it illustrates one of the main differences between the consumer software (specifically console video game) and entertainment market segments. Sony's refusal to licence Betamax is prescient of what was to follow in the video game industry, where proprietary formats were seen as a good thing by both the manufacturer and consumer - "Oh, you can only play this game on my console, not yours..." Music and movies have been traditionally viewed a lot differently, however, and people demand interoperable formats for them.

Anyway, something of an aside - but the way people perceive the differences between software and entertainment media dictates a lot of how these things are marketed.

[Voltage Spike]

Re: PS3 Gossip

Where this is a critical point is that it illustrates one of the main differences between the consumer software (specifically console video game) and entertainment market segments. Sony's refusal to licence Betamax is prescient of what was to follow in the video game industry, where proprietary formats were seen as a good thing by both the manufacturer and consumer - "Oh, you can only play this game on my console, not yours..."

I don't think consumers laud the fact that games are not multi-console. Would a console that played games from all platforms equally well be a failure in the market? Because of their closed nature, gamers may debate the merits of a console based on the media available for them. That shouldn't be confused with gamers being thrilled that they have to buy multiple consoles.

Rather, the difference between the home film and the gaming markets is largely one of maturity. The film industry is attempting to go from one, universal format to two marginally improved, equal formats. The gaming industry is moving from multiple platforms to multiple, greatly-improved platforms.

As for the Betamax failure, was it an issue of "consumers demanding interoperable formats" or was it the competition between VHS vendors resulting in better, cheaper, more available players that helped decide the winner? Unless I really hate Company X, do I, as Joe Consumer, really care who makes my player as long as it is cheap, does what I want, and has enough media? This is exactly why both the Blu-Ray and HD DVD licenses forbid hybrid support; such players would dominate the market and result in a net loss for everyone.