Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

First, let's assume that Sony can get the PS3 out this christmas.
Also, let's assume that (as will likely be the case) they take a large loss on each piece of hardware in order to get the price into the sub $600 range, or whatever it needs to be to not scare everyone but the hardcore away.

Now, why would any other manufacturers make Blu Ray players? I wouldn't think that other manufacturers would be able to compete with the PS3 in terms of price or features. I know that players should be available soon, and I understand beating the PS3 to the market with an actual Blu ray player will move some units, but why would they even try to compete with a machine that is going to be hundreds of dollars cheaper and have so much more to offer?

I understand that the PS2 sold well because of its DVD player, and that there were other DVD players available cheaper at launch, but this is the exact opposite situation now. The PS3 is going to be the cheapest Blu Ray player and have more features. Why would anyone else even try to compete with Sony's monster machine?

What makes you think the PS3 will have more Blu-Ray features then stand-alone players? If you recall the DVD playback method of the PS2... using a controller instead of a remote and having a very lackluster feature-set.. it was quite the "poor-man's" DVD player. I'd imagine much will be the same with Blu-Ray players versus the PS3.

Also, if I was to pick up a hi-def player this year, I'd most likely look into one of the dual-format players so as not to end up with an unsupported brick within a few years.

People who don't want a game system won't really even bother with the PS3. And if they're scared off by the price tag of a regular Blu-Ray player, I don't think they'll bite on a $500 or whatever price for the PS3 when they will only use a fraction of its capabilities. They'd just wait with the rest of us till Blu-Ray gets cheap enough or it dies with or because of HD-DVD.

Not to mention the PS3 hardly looks like your usual DVD player. Most non-gamers wouldn't likely want that thing sitting in their living room.

Sony's plan is to use the PS3 to get Blu-Ray into people's homes, I really don't think they are going to do that with a "poor-man's" DVD player. Having the DVD drive helped sell the PS2, but Blu-Ray is Sony's baby and there is no way they aren't going to make it with lackluster features.

And the 360 shipped with a remote, I got $10 here saying the the PS3 will do the same. Even if it doesn't, the wireless controllers will serve the need well, I'm sure.

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb What makes you think the PS3 will have more Blu-Ray features then stand-alone players? If you recall the DVD playback method of the PS2... using a controller instead of a remote and having a very lackluster feature-set.. it was quite the "poor-man's" DVD player. I'd imagine much will be the same with Blu-Ray players versus the PS3. Also, if I was to pick up a hi-def player this year, I'd most likely look into one of the dual-format players so as not to end up with an unsupported brick within a few years.

my question is i heard blue ray will on be able to plug into HDTV's with a special port my TV being a few years old doesn't have this. So will the PS3 utalize this port or not and if they don't than according to chater that would make this the only blu ray device that doesn't require theport rt? making it the only divice people w/slightly older TV's will be able to use for blue ray.....

Originally Posted by auralia my question is i heard blue ray will on be able to plug into HDTV's with a special port my TV being a few years old doesn't have this. So will the PS3 utalize this port or not and if they don't than according to chater that would make this the only blu ray device that doesn't require theport rt? making it the only divice people w/slightly older TV's will be able to use for blue ray.....

AFAIK, you'll still be able to use blue ray players without an HDMI port, they just don't play at their max resolution so you're no better off really than with a DVD.

Originally Posted by SpazX AFAIK, you'll still be able to use blue ray players without an HDMI port, they just don't play at their max resolution so you're no better off really than with a DVD.

Actually they nixed that rumor just today... (atleast for the first round of releases)

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...rticle_id=1324

said that Sony's initial Blu-ray discs — and all of its Blu-ray titles for the forseeable future — will be free of the "Image Constraint Token" that's built into the Blu-ray and HD DVD standards. This controversial digital flag instructs the player to down-res the video signal from its analog component-video outputs to a standard-definition image to prevent high-resolution recordings — but at the same time prevents viewing of HDTV images on any TV or device not equipped with a copyright-protected HDMI digital input. That would eliminate any gain in image quality for HDTV early-adopters who bought displays prior to two or three years ago, when DVI and HDMI digital inputs were introduced

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb Actually they nixed that rumor just today... (atleast for the first round of releases) http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...rticle_id=1324

Awesome news!!

Originally Posted by Cornfedwb Actually they nixed that rumor just today... (atleast for the first round of releases) http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/art...rticle_id=1324

The way I read this is that "Sony" will not put it on "Sony" discs. I read before that most other studios will use this.

So back to the point of my thread, would anyone want to be in the business of manufacturing Blu-Ray DVD players right now?

There is always a market for higher end products with better components and greater feature sets.

There will be a certain portion of the affluent market that will own both a high-end Blu-ray player and a PS3. In those cases if there is a choice of PS3 models the one bought will be the more expensive.

Not all DVD players are created equally. I'm sure the PS3 player won't be as good as a high end stand alone player, just as the xbox and ps2 weren't great dvd players.

agreed, there will be better BRD players than the ps3, especially by the time the ps3 is released. also, you have to figure one of the reasons for the delay is cost, so you would think that by the time the ps3 is released other BRD players would go down in price too.

I never understood the "poor mans DVD" argument.

I put in a movie, press play. Movie is over I hit eject.

I guess I'm just not interested in anything beyond straight playback. Why do I need anything special for that? I watch widescreen 480p movies on a 42" Grand Wega and besides the letterbox I think it looks incredible.

Best thing about the PS3 and Blu Ray movies are going to be that they're full screen. To me, that's the best thing and only thing I care about. However I get that with DirecTV movies.

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark Best thing about the PS3 and Blu Ray movies are going to be that they're full screen. To me, that's the best thing and only thing I care about. However I get that with DirecTV movies.

Do you mean full screen as in 4:3? So no letterbox, just cut off the sides to it fits the TV?

You can buy DVDs like that usually and change settings on the DVD player to play widescreen DVDs full screen (so it just zooms in and cuts off the sides).

If that's not what you mean then my bad .

Originally Posted by PittsburghAfterDark I never understood the "poor mans DVD" argument. I put in a movie, press play. Movie is over I hit eject.

I think the biggest reason for that is because the PS2 can only read data at 4x or 8x which means it can't read as much data as higher end DVD players. Lower drive speed means less data per second read- or that the PS2 cannot read higher bitrates (which equal better quality). Of course, this doesn't matter as even 4x is a TON of data read, that's over 5MB/s which almost no DVD movie even comes close to.

But I get what you're saying, it's not the most convenient player (i.e., no remote out of the box) but the PS2 plays DVDs perfectly fine even today. I doubt the PS3 will be any different.

The thing that bothers me is that... back in the day, most DVD players and the PS2 were about the same price, around $300. But if a stand alone Blu-Ray player will cost about $1000, then can the PS3 be far off? I know that's the price of a third party product, who had to pay Sony lisencing fees, but that's still a lot. Add in that processor and GPU (with dual HDMI!!) and you'll rack up quite a bit of money.

I think alot of people will buy BRD players just cause they dont give a shit about videogames, there are alot more people watching movies than playing games

Yeah, I never thought the PS2 did a bad job playing DVD's. When my girlfriend didn't have a DVD player, I brought over my PS2 and watched movies at her place. It didn't have a problem playing DVD-R's either. My Panasonic stand alone player from 98 plays them fine too. I've run into some newer players that gave issues with "episode" dvds. Funny how that is.

Back to the topic though, the system may look unconventional, but that didn't stop people from buying Imac's. It got more people into computers acutally. The same may happen for Blue Ray and that's what Sony is hoping for. A cheaper blue ray player plus you get the bonus of playing games. Hip grandparents can get a great player while getting a game system for the grandkids all for one price.

Originally Posted by Vinny I think the biggest reason for that is because the PS2 can only read data at 4x or 8x which means it can't read as much data as higher end DVD players. Lower drive speed means less data per second read- or that the PS2 cannot read higher bitrates (which equal better quality). Of course, this doesn't matter as even 4x is a TON of data read, that's over 5MB/s which almost no DVD movie even comes close to. But I get what you're saying, it's not the most convenient player (i.e., no remote out of the box) but the PS2 plays DVDs perfectly fine even today. I doubt the PS3 will be any different. The thing that bothers me is that... back in the day, most DVD players and the PS2 were about the same price, around $300. But if a stand alone Blu-Ray player will cost about $1000, then can the PS3 be far off? I know that's the price of a third party product, who had to pay Sony lisencing fees, but that's still a lot. Add in that processor and GPU (with dual HDMI!!) and you'll rack up quite a bit of money.

I think you misunderstand what the X represents.

When CD audio players first appeared the read rate was about 150K per second. Since there was no advantage in reading the data faster than the playback speed for the recording the mechanical and data transfer rate of the drive was not at issue. Later, when CD-ROM appeared, 150K per second was painfully slow for a lot of stuff. It was a big deal when the first 2X drives (from NEC IIRC) appeared and double the speed to a whopping 300K per second!

Thus the X designation became standard with 1X representing the speed required for the base function of the drive. For CD it was audio playback. For DVD it was video and audio. The average speed of DVD playback is around 5 megabit with a maximum of 9.8 megabits per second. Thus the 9.8 megabits per second is the 1X of DVD drives.

No DVD movie exceeds that rate since it is the specified limit of the DVD video standard. Superbit discs have a much higher averager rate but never exceed the spec. Some early decks have trouble playing demanding movies but this is due to the codec hardware rather than the drives.

Which brings us to the original DVD launch pricing. At the time of launch the lowest priced DVD deck was an RCA unit that cost $500 and was complete garbage. Any serious action scenes would produce full screen glitches. The player that was the most sought after of the launch units was the Sony Something-7000. (I forget the exact name but remember the 7000 part.) This $1,000 unit was regarded as the reference platform for DVD players for quite a while. So the launch price for Blu-ray decks is in line with past Sony offering for a new video format.

Keep in mind when the PS2 launched in Japan DVD players were priced a good deal higher there than in the US. This happens a lot. Stuff aimed at high end consumers in Japan is targeted at semi-pros in the US and priced terribly higher, to use an example from edit decks and video cams. So the initial price of the PS2 seemed like a bargain compared to dedicated DVD decks in Japan and with the added incentive of gaming (for those consumer not sold already by the gaming aspect) helped get the languishing DVD format moving in that market.

Despite being more expensive to make than a regular mid-range DVD deck the PS2 price was heavily subsidized to build a market for the lurative software sales. The same thing is happening with the PS3. At first the subsidy per unit will be painfully high but this will improve over time as chip yields improve and new engineering reduces component cost. It's worth shouldering the debt to Sony for the prize of having both a major gaming and the major video delivery formats. Every Blu-ray movie made will put a few pennies in Sony's pocket whether it is used on a PS3, third party Blu-ray player, or a Blu-ray drive equipped PC. The PS3 doesn't need to actually be the player of choice so long as it makes the format dominant.

the ps2 always did a great job playing dvd's for me. the fact that it had component and digital audio outs was a big plus too since alot of other players didn't. as long as the firmware for the dvd player is up to date, you shouldn't have any problems playing anything on it. i also liked using the controller instead of a remote. i can use the controller with ease in the dark since the buttons are memorized(not so with a remote).