Does the PS3 really need a Blu-ray drive?
Was the PS3 really just a Trojan Horse for the format as suggested?
Editor’s Note: Community Gamer Gab is where OXCGN invites gamers to have their say and even get the chance to win prizes and be read worldwide. For more information please click HERE.
by aksobey
© 2010 Kent Sobey
When the Playstation 3 came out it was one of the cheapest Blu-ray players on the market, which I suspect had an enormous impact on the sales of the console.
Now, this is not the case anymore and you can pick a Blu-ray player up for much cheaper than the PS3.
So the question really becomes, does the PS3 really need a Blu-ray drive for games?
Do the developers really need that much space for the games or does this encourage lazy programming and cut-scene compression?
One could argue that the future delivery method for games will be PSN, Xbox Live and Steam thus rendering the disc completely irrelevant. Personally, I quite like owning a physical copy of a game, so it would take a fair bit of convincing to get me to change.
The DVD9 format which the Xbox 360 uses can hold 8.5 GB which at the moment seems to be plenty. In fact, some new games are not even using the full capacity of the disc. For example, Far cry 2 is 4.5GB, 2010 FIFA World Cup is 6.2GB, Alan wake is also 6.2GB, MW2 is 6.8GB, and Gears of War 2 6.3GB. All great titles, with space left on the disc.
If the DVD9 format had really become a limitation to developers, they simply would have created PS3 exclusive titles.
To me, it seems like the Blu-ray drive was added by Sony (who claimed it would be a necessity for games in the future) simply to help it win the format war. Sony has a vested interest in the success of Blu-ray and as such it was important for it to win the war.
[Ed: The PS2 was used as a vehicle to bring the DVD player to the market en-mass, especially in Japan, where in it's first year of sales, it was sold primarily as a DVD player with a very small % of game sale attached to it, and developers cried foul, as game sales did not match their expectation. In fact, it was less than 1:10 - Source: Opening The Xbox; Dean Takahashsi 2002]
Well, Blu-ray has won the format war now and yet games are still being released on both the Xbox and the PS3 and not even coming close to using the full capacity of the Blu-ray disc. Well will it be necessary like they claimed? Surely this would make it impossible (or incredibly difficult at best) to release the same titles on both consoles?
Blu-ray is also more expensive to produce. Now you may not think that this affects you directly as a PS3 owner because the cost of a PS3 game is normally roughly the same as an Xbox game which is not Blu-ray. You would in fact be wrong.
The higher the cost of the disc to produce the lower the margin will be in it for all parties involved (Sony included) thus significantly reducing the chances of developers creating exclusive PS3 games. This brings us back to the developers using the full potential of the Blu-ray disc. Why would they do this and exclude their game from being sold as an Xbox title?
The bottom line is that it is not worth it for developers to use the full potential of the Blu-ray disc without an exclusivity deal from Sony which would ensure them the revenue they would lose by not releasing a non-exclusive title. These days, the exclusive titles are often published or owned by Sony and Microsoft respectively.
In contrast, if a developer used the full potential of a DVD9 disc, this could be transferred onto a Blu-ray disc relatively easily and the developers and publisher would make more money because of the lower production costs.
In my opinion, the Bluray drive was a cheap trick by Sony to get initial sales of their console. They claimed it would be needed in the future… it’s not. It was the one of the cheapest Bluray players when it came out so people bought it… it’s not anymore.
What is its purpose now that cheaper Blu-ray players are better and very rarely is more than 8.5GB of space required for a game? Sony knew they would make more money by releasing the PS3 with a Blu-ray drive because people would buy it instead of one of the more expensive Blu-ray players on the market at the time. We were all convinced we would need it but as it turns out, we were lied to.
This article is not meant to push an Xbox fanboys’ agenda but rather to illustrate the point that I can’t understand Sony’s ‘bigger is better’ argument. They have added unnecessary technology for no other reason but to make more money at your expense.
I would be interested to hear other people’s thoughts on the subject. Has having a Blu-ray player in your PS3 really changed the way you play games or would you have preferred paying less for your console and not having it (keeping in mind that the games would most likely be the same)?
© 2010 Kent Sobey
xxxxxx
Like this:
Filed under: Blogbanter, Console gaming, GameBanter, PS3 Reviews Tagged: | 2010 FIFA World Cup, Blu-ray Disc, DVD, Microsoft, movie, Playstation 3, Sony, Xbox, Xbox 360
Remember, the PS3 is going to have a 10 year life cycle, so it will still be around in 2016, its not a short term console like the 360, the bluray disc is being used fully by some games, but imagine in another 3 years, games will get bigger, and the ps3 will be able to keep up with that demand for space, dual layer dvds wont, and for each additional dvd is more money out of the devs pocket
ALl 3 console will have a 10 yr ‘life cycle’ – they all have planned for that. But that does not mean that during that ‘life cycle’ there will not be changes in the overall style and component changes, as we’ve seen that already in both the PS3 and the X360, but within the next 2 yrs, by end of 2012 at the VERY latest, both Sony and Microsoft will have their ‘next-gen’ units on sale in stores.
This allows a 3 yrs period of overlap for the earlier iteration to come to its end, while the newer machines take over the top-tier of the market place.
Both Sony and MS have been working on their replacements for their ‘current’ units for several years now, with both of them starting development just prior to the release of their first ‘current-gen’ models in 2005/2006. So there will be a switch in priorities as the new machines come ‘online’ to the distribution of content via digital means much more than they are now.
HDD’s will reach much higher levels, with 1-3 terabites being the norm by that time in order to store and run HD movies, as a libray, stream media thathas files in excess of several gig and allow 7:1 and more sound capabilities to be experienced bythe end-users such as you and I, plus the millions of everyday ppl that will be using these machine as family entertainment units, NOT gaming consoles.
Like it – or not – our tie in the sun as the only faction to be using ‘gaming consoles’ is coming to an end, and much faster than we originally thought it would. It will no longer be the domain of just gamers, but the primary domain of the family home entertainment experience as a complete and unified unit throughout the home.
SO the need for a disc based delivery will shrink accordingly, so the major providers will look at ways of delivering the experience on a much more economical fashion. I think personally that MS will eventually have a permanent HD drive in their units, but their primary aim will be digital distribution.
SOny’s move to support EA, THQ, Ubisoft in making their own First Party Titles limited in some fashion, and requiring online downloading and unlocking to become the norm, thus reducing the need for larger drive types as we know them today. SOny have already given their support to this, and it’s documented just recently, showing that they can see the time when what is one a disc, and what is used online will be two different thigs, to combat reselling of their titles through secondhand stores and retailers.
Again, use google to find this out, it was announced several weeks ago very quietly. So we’re in for some interesting times, and times that gamers per-se are NOT going to like what takes place. But like the Ostrich, who live with their heads in the sand when threat appears, are too blind to see this coming, or simply do not want to see tha fact that they do NOT make up the bulk of the income for publishers – today.
okay the remark in the article about lazy programming makes no sense to me. There is no way just because there is more room on a disc programmers can write sloppy code.
Having more room will only help having more models, textures, and cut-scenes. The actual code of a game does not take up a whole lot of space in comparison. As for lazy programming in regard to having more space, i just do not get it. Are you saying they can write longer code? If so then that is the opposite. Lazy coding is more or less writing things in shorter lines or jumbling up statements when you can. Also its leaving out some code when your compiler just fills it in for you.
The only thing Blu-Ray discs help is visually. You can fit a lot more high res textures, HD videos, HQ sound, more detailed models and longer games on a single disc.
Will you ever see a multiplat game looking significantly better on the ps3…NO! using all of what the ps3 offer requires coding streaming data off the disc because of things like load times and memory limits. Games like God of War 3 and uncharted uses streaming as you can see high res textures all through the game that if it was all loaded on the system it would greatly exceed the memory limits of the ps3 and 360.
The reason why most developers do not do these things…well…
1. It takes time and they have deadlines to meet to be on schedule with the 360 version which is generally the lead platform.
2. If they do then they would have one version of the game significantly better…well at least better looking than the other. Who would want that? Then no one would buy the other version of the game and if it is AAA game people who own the other platform will just skip the game on their system if it is not that good.
Well all i have to say to end my rant is..show me a game that looks as good good as Uncharted 2 or God of war 3?
The only problem with Sony’s plan was that the PS3 and Blu-ray stand-alones failed to sell in the beginning on the levels Sony expected. They continued to sell the units at a loss for so long that while they won the format war, they lost a ton of money. And they almost killed themselves in the process. And all of the space Sony uses for some of their exclusives is not about a real need as it is about uncompressed video and audio. I remember the reports that Heavenly Sword used 10gigs for sound alone. Uncompressed sound is great. If you have the equipment to make a difference. Or are one of those rare people who can actually tell the difference.
From what i could recollect :
ps3 or no ps3: the bluray and HDMI format for HD movies and media was coming. The ps3 actually had to wait for the development of the new HDMI standard. Microsoft also wanted to jump on the bandwagon, but Sony prevented that. (The cause ,the start and the beginning of the format war)
That’s why Microsoft fasttracked the development of the xbox360 (Microsoft started LATER than Sony) and released the xbox360 a year earlier… (RROD was one of the outcome of this fast trackish behaviour )
The PS3 was just the best choice to introduce this new standard for Sony.
Sony had their own project : and it was microsoft who reacted on this situation.
Sony was thinking:
Media box for family
Microsoft was thinking:
Gamebox for gamers
Sony is never thinking cheap (the branche name would be hurt to much…just take a look at the quality difference between xbox and ps3 on hardware level…no scratching disks, lumbersum adaptors, RROD and cheap design)
Microsoft on the other hand: I rest my case
Do not het me wrong:
I loved what Microsoft has acomplished on game quality level’
But making people pay for multiplay and therefor pushing developers to create mutiplay overhyped games (HALO)
Halo’s story gameplay just degraded every time.
why ??…maybe bungie was pushed to spent more time in the multiplay aspect???…because that’s what generates more money???…
I get that…:
Microsoft is good at making money.
Sony isgood at linking its name to quality and media at a very high and confortable level.
Were does SONY fail me?:
Sony’s attachment to gamers is less (They care less than Microsoft about hardcore gamers)
Where does Microsoft fail me?:
They irritate me with their money,money, money $$$ approach and generally give lesser for every dollar you spent on Microsoft services and harware.
example:
Allthoug xboxlive services in Europe are less than the services in the states, you still pay MORE as European.
But all in All:
the xbox360 was built to fail:
Why:
No early attachment to future standards.
Shorter and chaotic development around the xbox360
(Sony allready had their blueprint of the ps3 cell processor months in advance with respect of the xbox360 )
Microsoft just needed to flud the market with the xbox360 before the ps3 would arrive.
You could argue back and forth why the PS3 should or shouldn’t have a Bluray drive, but in the end I’d definitely rather have a bluray drive than not have one. Whilst it’s true that some games don’t require a lot of space, there are now an ever increasing list of games coming to the 360 that require multiple discs. (Although I don’t expect Kinect games, to require a second disc any time soon).
You only have to look at up and coming games like Rage, which are having an increasingly difficult time being able to fit on DVD due to the large explorable locations, high def graphics, speech etc. in the game.
The next GTA imo would also be very difficult! Imagine having a city in GTA so large and detailed it spanned 2 DVD, and if you entered one part of town you had to change discs, and suddenly you forget something and have to go back you suddenly have to change disc again. I’m sure the developers wouldn’t let this kinda thing happen, but if it did, it would be infuriating to everyone that played it!
Compression will only help you so far, a larger capacity format like HDDVD or Bluray really was needed for 360, or failing that a hard drive should have been standard with every console, so games could be installed ala PC and multiple discs didn’t matter nearly as much.
I think you may well have hit the nail on the head with your last comment mate.
WHile yes, games are getting bigger by ‘some’ developers, others are finding excellent ways of getting even better visuals by creating unique textures and engines, requiring less room and less cpu/gpu work. All leading towards a time when digital downloading or streaming will become the basic norm.
Not replacing the disc, but carrying a huge % of games.\
But as you pointed out, the era of storing games on the hdd’s is heading faster, with the high likelihood of at least a 1 terabite hdd hitting the 360/ps3 very very soon, and they (Sony/MS are pushing for you to store your games on your HDD, rather than use the discs.
SO what exactly is that saying – just a thought, what do you (anyone) think.
Didn’t you hear of games that have come on multiple disks before and you install the game to a HDD and run it off a single disk.
I’m sure Microsoft will adopt this way until blu-ray drive is included in there next console, or another physical disk format will be released with the next gen consoles.
Mmmmm…
In my side and my opinion, blu-ray drive it give ps3 long stay on market but xbox 360 have problems dvd not service it too much i remember i read articale that one of studios have send massage to microsoft that the studio have problem to compress the games on dvd.
Final Fantasy XIII was for ps3 what ever square enix remove and replace things to make it in 3 dvd for xbox 360.
Metal Gear Solid 4 one on games that microsoft dreamed to get it on xbox 360 but it imposible even if they make it the resoulition lower than 720p
GT5 am waiting it to know the real car games on ps3 I mean full quality not multiplatform games
xbox 360 it FPS consle but it still big name that should respect it and respect who like it
Very unfair argument.
Blu-ray allows better quality games and the ability to watch blu-ray movies, therefore adding another great aspect for the entertainment side of things.
Yea, because Sony’s sole purpose in creating the PS3 was to beat HD DVD. Seriously, are you people daft? “Oh, the DVD9 format is still fine for gaming!” Sure, if you like lower resolution textures and highly compressed audio. And it’s great if you like stopping in the middle of your game to swap out discs. You’re right, as it stands right now there aren’t a lot of games that take up a full 8.5GB disc, but according to to both Microsoft and Sony we’re still half way into the console cycle, and we’re starting to see more games that are taking up more space. Who’s to say that the reason we aren’t seeing more games that require more space is because of Microsoft’s refusal to include a higher capacity disc drive in their console? Id already proved that there are games out there which have been reduced in size due to the Xbox. Instead of one massive area, or even the 5 large areas that they had initially planned, RAGE will get 2 large areas, and Xbox users will have to swap discs when going between the two. I personally hope there will be a lot of need to travel back and forth.
Regardless how you want to spin this, consoles need a higher storage capacity medium if they ever hope to compete with the PC for graphic quality. I guarantee you when the next console cycle rolls around Microsoft will be including a Blu-Ray drive, or whatever the new high capacity drive happens to be. And when that happens they will go on and on about how larger storage is a boon to the gaming community and how they are geniuses for including it in their console. But for now they have to play it down rather than admit they were wrong.
Seriously flawed argument. The fact I am here just goes to show how bored I must be.
Its easy pointing out 360 games that don’t need more space but you missed some crucial facts.
Like take for instance the 360 doesn’t even have 8.5GB available to it for its games.
Secondly, devs will work with what they are given, so of course they will build their games around the disc limitations of the 360.
Then of course lets look at things like dts surround sound, larger variation in textures, game size….etc and you will quickly begin to see why blu-ray is relevant.
In truth, a better argument would be how the 360 is holding the HD consoles back this gen. And its funny that you are forgetting to mention the increasing number of games that are coming on multiple discs on the 360 these days. And that number will continue to rise.
The saddest thing about your thesis though is this. For the same $300 you would spend on a 360 I would spend on a PS3, which comes with everything that said 360 has and then a bonus blu-ray player. Now tell me, if for the same amount of money you can get absolutely more value for your money; is it not somewhat stupid that anyone could think otherwise?
You journalists just can’t get off sony’s back can you? If games like uncharted 2, god of war 3, killzone2, metal gear solid 4, or little big planet aren’t enough justification for you to get behind blu-ray then yes you are guilty of bias.. I know you came right out there and stated this wasn’t intended to push an agenda but you completely dismissed the advantages that blu-ray brings to gaming.. Naughty dog even stated that without blu-ray uncharted 2 would not have been possible… You claim that the cost of blu-ray is a disadvantage to developers but what about games that require multiple dvd9′s on the 360 and whats worse is that microsoft requires a developer pay a royalty for every disc.. Not 1 royalty for the game but every disc.. So for games like final fantasy xIII it cost square 3 royalty fees for every copy of the game on the 360.. Sorry but to ignore this fact while calling out production costs of blu-ray belies either a bias or lack of knowledge on this subject. Either way its poor journalism and your integrity has been weakened in my eyes…
Yeah, these games sure use some amount of BluRay Discs, but both these games could be in more than one DVDs too. So, your argument is not valid.
I kinda agree and disagree with both the writer and the commenter’s. Does any console need blu-ray? the answer is both yes and no. Blu-ray allows for you to uncompress the information, thus spreading it out a bit on the disk, but its also been proven that you don’t really need it with several dual releases. Castlevania has proved that you can do things on 2 disks and it not effect the game, same can be said with Forza 3. By installing a portion of the game on the HDD, you cut out the need to swap and change disks (if done right). FFXIII could have been made as a full open world game and then had the same idea employed to it.
The problem with blu-ray is that it is still in its infancy, the drives are not really fast enough for games. This is why for the majority of games, you have to install a portion of it before playing. Sony knew this when they released the console, hence why they released it with a larger HDD than the xbox.
Most games don’t need to take up 25gb at all and its been proven that you can get some brilliant games that are a hell of a lot smaller. The excessive size wont mean as much this generation of consoles but definitely for the future generations I think. Also I believe 3 of the DVD disks that MS use are still cheaper than one blu-ray disk.
There are ways and means of getting around things, PC stuck with CD’s when DVD drives came out and that was never much of an issue. People just like to see the negative in both arguments. No blu-ray disks are not 100% necessary but they are handy for developers to have the extra space.
There is no wrong or right answer to this and anyone thinking there is really needs to keep their ideals to themselves. Sony may have won the format war but MS are proving that their console is still a force to be reckoned with.
The idea of having a blu ray player was to have an all in one entertainmet box. Thus the built in wireless adaptor, media card readers, upgradable non proprietary harddrive and bluetooth remote. Many of which other console owners seem to gladly forget. Does it need it? To achieve their goals yes. I sure feel I gotta a better value for my money compared to my 360. Specially if you look at it from a release day standpoint. Either way enjoy what you have.
True, but what will happen when (and it’s highly likely that it will) we see a much larger % of end users chosing DLC full games via PSN, XBLA and Steam (and others) as opposed to disc-based games.
We now have 2 generations of end users that do NOT like or want to hold onto actual discs, and this is showing up in retail outlets worldwide. GAME lost 16.8 British Pounds in the first half of their latest financial year, forcing them to look at closures of at least 85 stores and staff in the UK alone.
So, if game developers could reduce their file sizes, and fit into this digital delivery, then perhaps future consoles might not need the huge disc storage????
I hate not being able to lend/borrow PSN/XBOX Live games with friends (the old school way)? And good luck trying to download REAL games. The Internet Infrastructure for a Download Only approach is still years away.
The only way I could see the happening is thru a remote control service similar to the ones used on Computers like Terminal Services, VNC or LogmeIn.
I believe STEAM is moving in that direction.
Well the war was over and sony has won it… everyone knows that.. but is it useful?
may be.. There is a recent game (forgot the name) which looked better on PS3 because they had the freedom of blu-ray disc and they complained how they cannot publish more three DVD’s..
It may be not true for all the games but games are always known to grow in size. As a programmer every bit of memory and space are always welcome..
According to Naughty Dog Uncharted 2 filled the entire bluray disk
http://exophase.com/ps3/naughty-dog-uncharted-2-pushes-ps3-to-its-limit-not-possible-on-360-12440.htm
Also Final Fantasy XIII shipped on 3 DVDs for 360 while only 1 bluray disk for PS3
I also hear that Castlevania, Star Ocean and Rage are going to be multiple DVDs for 360.
So I do agree that Sony wanted to push the bluray format through the ps3 but I completely disagree that bluray is an unnecessary technology for games.
Your argument is flawed.
Only multiplatform games use 8.5gigs.
PS3 exclusives use a lot more than that. In fact some multiplatform games fit in one Blu-ray disc while on 360, they require 2 or 3 discs(such as FFXIII).
I agree,
Let’s say that games actually start to get bigger after KillZone 3 and Rage (id Software). BluRay will be great for storing large and detailed textues, but what are developers going to do about the 2x speed that PS3 bluray drives have? Currently XBOX 360 DVD drives read data faster and most large games on PS3 have to load huge amounts of data (4GB+ for Devil may Cry 4) just to reduce loading times. Blu-Ray on PS3 seems to be like a car with a Super Engine but 4 tiny wheels.
Sorry… I meant copy to HDD 4GB+ to improve loading times…
God of War 3, Uncharted 2, Motorstorm: Apocalypse, Metal Gear Solid 4, Killzone 2, Killzone 3, Final Fantasy XIII, (therefore, Final Fantasy Versus XIII will) say hi!
All those games use more that 16GB of space, and GOW3 even uses like 40gb.
So to answer your question, yes, PS3 needs Bluray. Because QUALITY games uses uncompressed sound, and uncompressed graphics.
One word Xbox360 doesn’t know: QUALITY
PS3 needs BluRay because of 8 games? No, it doesnt.
BluRay is there just to win the format war and nothing more. Live with it.
Haters are gona hate =D.
although i think you are rigth sony only wanted to win the format war (and he did).