Were Blu-Ray discs really necessary for PS3?

  • 75 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by drekula2 (1880 posts) -

Agree that some Xbox 360 games needed two discs (I think LA Noire needed 4). But only one game, to my knowledge, was a Sony exclusive solely because of the disc size: Metal Gear Solid 4. It does happen to be one of my all time favorites, but it was probably the only game this gen that truly needed a blu-ray disc, rather than being an overall trend.

Clearly dual-layered discs are a necessity for next gen, but Sony's $600 promise wasn't well vindicated here.

#2 Posted by cain006 (8625 posts) -

No but ultimately it was a good thing for the consumer. You got a blu ray player and all your games were on one disc.

#3 Edited by DarkLink77 (31683 posts) -

It wasn't necessary, per se, but it was a nice addition, and it did have to happen eventually. It will have a far bigger impact this gen than it did last gen.

#4 Posted by drekula2 (1880 posts) -

and thats how the 360 won in the US. blu ray was pricy. since ps3 was subsized, $600 is much better for a blu ray player than 900, but most people i bet never watch blu ray on it.

#5 Posted by jayd02 (778 posts) -

Its not just space, but what Blu-Ray technology it able to do. Also Sony had a big hand in the development of the technology and they had to support it.

#6 Posted by navyguy21 (12689 posts) -

Necessary to win the format war...........and a detriment to PS3s marketshare

#7 Posted by kingtito (4732 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

and thats how the 360 won in the US. blu ray was pricy. since ps3 was subsized, $600 is much better for a blu ray player than 900, but most people i bet never watch blu ray on it.

You got that backwards. It was probably used exclusively for the BR player aspect. It was evident with the poor game sales at the beginning of the gen.

MGS4 was not exclusive because it needed BR. BR had nothing to do with it going exclusive. The game disc was filled with tons and tons of uncompressed video, audio and redundant data thanks to the slow speeds of the BR drive. Not to mention the game has massive installs, so no BR wasn't needed.

#8 Posted by jayd02 (778 posts) -

Not really. If you do some research, the Blu-Ray disc was bound to win regardless. The technology behind the disc was much better and easier to work with as compared to HD DVD. On top of the fact that it had backing from most of the major technology companies at the time. Then it was also being backed by movie companies as well.

Some icing on the cake, Microsoft is welcome to join BDA (blu ray association) but they won't join.

#9 Edited by nicecall (428 posts) -

at the time of the ps3 release blu-ray players were still kinda expensive so it was a good selling point and set the ps3 apart from the 360. smart move by sony if u ask me

#10 Edited by Gue1 (9124 posts) -

the entire gen was held back by the Xbox 360 but that's not gonna happen next gen since the Sony Domination is ensured.

#11 Edited by inb4uall (5131 posts) -

Personally I think we need to return to flash carts or move to digital. Disks are a thing of the past.

#12 Posted by kingtito (4732 posts) -

@Gue1:

You have any idea how asinine that sounds? So if the 360 held PS3 why wouldn't the XOne hold the PS4 back again? So if you believe the PS3 was held back then you must believe it was more powerful. If it was more powerful, why didn't it dominate the 7th gen? You're claiming the PS4 is going to dominate based purely on it's power so what's going to change?

#13 Posted by John_Matherson (2031 posts) -
#14 Edited by Couth_ (9916 posts) -

Not really thanks to the HDDs. They really saved the Xbox 360's lack of disc space and the PS3's slow blu ray read speed.

#15 Posted by iampenguin (223 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

Agree that some Xbox 360 games needed two discs (I think LA Noire needed 4). But only one game, to my knowledge, was a Sony exclusive solely because of the disc size: Metal Gear Solid 4. It does happen to be one of my all time favorites, but it was probably the only game this gen that truly needed a blu-ray disc, rather than being an overall trend.

Clearly dual-layered discs are a necessity for next gen, but Sony's $600 promise wasn't well vindicated here.

But that's only viewing it from the perspective that Blueray is only wanted/needed for large games but many people used thier console as an entertainment centre to watch Bluray movies on.

#16 Posted by ELJUDEZ (7386 posts) -
#17 Edited by danten81 (129 posts) -

My 7.1 audio system says yes.

#18 Posted by _Matt_ (8762 posts) -

It was nice to get really good compromised audio in PS3 games this gen. More importantly though, it got me a super cheap blu ray player, so as a film lover I am very glad the PS3 used Blu Ray.

#19 Posted by k2theswiss (16598 posts) -

that ps3 was rocking that 2x speed drive

#20 Posted by Martin_G_N (1682 posts) -

The BD disc and drive is alot better tech than the old DVD drive with the high failure rates. Thanks to BD discs, all my PS3 games are still scratch free and they work. BluRay also did great things for the movie business.

I think alot of multiplats would have had more content on disc, better audio, better graphics, and bigger and more varied gameworlds if they had more space to work with. Games really got more advanced when MS allowed mandatory install on the X360. MS really screwed up by not having HDD's with every X360's sold.

#21 Posted by Gaming-Planet (13704 posts) -

It left room for better textures for first party devs.

#22 Posted by iampenguin (223 posts) -

Fact is if PS3 didn't have Bluray many people would have bought a Bluray player that then would be obsolete to them as bought the next gen consoles that do have an has multiple uses.

#23 Posted by _Matt_ (8762 posts) -

that ps3 was rocking that 2x speed drive

Yup. It is a shame it was only a 2x drive, i am glad next gen is 6x.

#24 Edited by WilliamRLBaker (28309 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

Not really. If you do some research, the Blu-Ray disc was bound to win regardless. The technology behind the disc was much better and easier to work with as compared to HD DVD. On top of the fact that it had backing from most of the major technology companies at the time. Then it was also being backed by movie companies as well.

Some icing on the cake, Microsoft is welcome to join BDA (blu ray association) but they won't join.

quite alot of bullshit right there.

bluray won because Sony employed the Money hat, they paid off quite a few studios to either go hd dvd+bluray or paid them millions to go bluray exclusive, fox received 120m, and warner 400 million, along with all the other studios they paid off.

There ways literally no real difference between the 2 formats except hd dvd not needed new pressing plants and the durabus coating which can be applied to any disc medium anyways, and is required on blurays unless you want your disc destroyed by even the smallest of small scratches.

#25 Edited by WilliamRLBaker (28309 posts) -
@Gue1 said:

the entire gen was held back by the Xbox 360 but that's not gonna happen next gen since the Sony Domination is ensured.

lol so much idiocy.

@Gaming-Planet said:

It left room for better textures for first party devs.

which no 1st party devs used.

I remember the days when sheens guaranteed that Infamous would have unique textures everywhere, every building could be entered, the city size would be bigger than gta 4, and every npc would be unique.

#26 Edited by cain006 (8625 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

Not really. If you do some research, the Blu-Ray disc was bound to win regardless. The technology behind the disc was much better and easier to work with as compared to HD DVD. On top of the fact that it had backing from most of the major technology companies at the time. Then it was also being backed by movie companies as well.

Some icing on the cake, Microsoft is welcome to join BDA (blu ray association) but they won't join.

quite alot of bullshit right there.

bluray won because Sony employed the Money hat, they paid off quite a few studios to either go hd dvd+bluray or paid them millions to go bluray exclusive, fox received 120m, and warner 400 million, along with all the other studios they paid off.

There ways literally no real difference between the 2 formats except hd dvd not needed new pressing plants and the durabus coating which can be applied to any disc medium anyways, and is required on blurays unless you want your disc destroyed by even the smallest of small scratches.

HD-DVD was basically DVD except with some fancy stuff going on to make it more efficient right? Blu ray just decreased the wavelength of the light so that you could cram more data on the disc. Blu ray seems like the better solution to me.

#27 Posted by nini200 (9383 posts) -

Nope. Hardly anything used it as far as gaming. Just another marketing gimmick used to jack up the price of the PS3.

#28 Posted by LegatoSkyheart (24242 posts) -

Bluray was pretty essential. While during the Generation most Xbox 360 games only had one disc, later on it became 2, 3, or even 4 discs for just one game, while Sony maintained the 1.

Though it did cost the PS3 with load times, but Having the entire game in one disc was worth it.

#29 Posted by RR360DD (11414 posts) -

Nope totally unnecessary. If they had've stuck with DVD and shipped at $100 - $150 cheaper at launch, they would've beat 360 last gen.

#30 Edited by littlestreakier (2846 posts) -

It wasn't necessary, per se, but it was a nice addition, and it did have to happen eventually. It will have a far bigger impact this gen than it did last gen.

^^agreed^^

#31 Posted by j_assassin (878 posts) -

wasnt necessary, but it was a good thing, ps3 pretty much introduced bluray disc and now its the standard format for next gen, everything has to start somewhere..

#32 Edited by Demonkillua (96 posts) -
@drekula2 said:

Agree that some Xbox 360 games needed two discs (I think LA Noire needed 4). But only one game, to my knowledge, was a Sony exclusive solely because of the disc size: Metal Gear Solid 4. It does happen to be one of my all time favorites, but it was probably the only game this gen that truly needed a blu-ray disc, rather than being an overall trend.

Clearly dual-layered discs are a necessity for next gen, but Sony's $600 promise wasn't well vindicated here.

There were a great deal of games that required a larger data container for games this gen. Some were split between disc at the loss of few details, but Blu-Ray was able to hold together these games on a single disc. MGS4 is just one of the few example of massive sized games that took advantage of it. L.A. Noir, Final Fantasy XIII, and Dragon Age Ultimate Edition are just a few examples. Many of the Sony Exclusive titles including the ones that were originally going to be Sony exclusive, were going to take advantage of the sheer size of the disc and lastly HD collections made it onto a single disc almost every time. It may have not been entirely necessary this gen, but I do think it was worth it.

#33 Edited by cainetao11 (15841 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

Agree that some Xbox 360 games needed two discs (I think LA Noire needed 4). But only one game, to my knowledge, was a Sony exclusive solely because of the disc size: Metal Gear Solid 4. It does happen to be one of my all time favorites, but it was probably the only game this gen that truly needed a blu-ray disc, rather than being an overall trend.

Clearly dual-layered discs are a necessity for next gen, but Sony's $600 promise wasn't well vindicated here.

No, guy, MGS 4 didn't NEED blu ray. Tons of uncompressed video and audio shows it could have been much smaller. Lost Odyssey was on 4 discs and I don't care. It's a cry baby, fanboy complaint, that can be killed by digital download. See, NO DISCS, tah dahhh!!

#34 Posted by ProjectPat187 (1965 posts) -

@jayd02 said:

Not really. If you do some research, the Blu-Ray disc was bound to win regardless. The technology behind the disc was much better and easier to work with as compared to HD DVD. On top of the fact that it had backing from most of the major technology companies at the time. Then it was also being backed by movie companies as well.

Some icing on the cake, Microsoft is welcome to join BDA (blu ray association) but they won't join.

Disagree, the ONLY thing Blu-ray had on HD-DVD was space, nothing more. When Warner went with Blu-ray then that was the turning point of the format war.

#35 Posted by ptflea1 (122 posts) -

blu ray was made by sony so it doesnt make sence to sell ps3 with hd dvd tech from another company. also blu ray was a reason to buy a ps3 over xbox because you can play movies in hd as well without buying a blu ray player.

#36 Posted by Cyberdot (3510 posts) -

Considering the fact that some Xbox 360 games come with more than 1 disc, I would say yes.

#37 Posted by fadersdream (3153 posts) -
#38 Edited by cainetao11 (15841 posts) -

@Cyberdot said:

Considering the fact that some Xbox 360 games come with more than 1 disc, I would say yes.

Ok, then why not go digital download 100%? See NO DISCS at all. What a joke of a complaint

#39 Edited by Demonkillua (96 posts) -

@Cyberdot said:

Considering the fact that some Xbox 360 games come with more than 1 disc, I would say yes.

Ok, then why not go digital download 100%? See NO DISCS at all. What a joke of a complaint

Considering the many problems with Digital Only, it's a lot better to have a disc then none at all. It's also more convenient to have one disc then more. While at times the answer is yes to digital, to go full out digital is a huge mistake. lose internet or have poor bandwidth and your HDD fails/formats there goes everything, and that's just one example.

#40 Edited by cainetao11 (15841 posts) -

@Demonkillua said:

@cainetao11 said:

@Cyberdot said:

Considering the fact that some Xbox 360 games come with more than 1 disc, I would say yes.

Ok, then why not go digital download 100%? See NO DISCS at all. What a joke of a complaint

Considering the many problems with Digital Only, it's a lot better to have a disc then none at all. It's also more convenient to have one disc then more. While at times the answer is yes to digital, to go full out digital is a huge mistake. lose internet or have poor bandwidth and your HDD fails/formats there goes everything, and that's just one example.

And yet, I have over 40 games on my PS3 and 360 HDD. If I buy another PS3/360 because I had to, all my purchase info is in my PSN or Live account, so just download again. I have had no problem getting off my a$$ to change a disc, or with my digital library. I have had problems with space in my barracks room that games are taking up though. My point, if changing a disc is a problem, then your problems are solved by never having to use any discs. But lets be real, that isn't the problem if getting up bothers a person is it?

#41 Posted by Demonkillua (96 posts) -

And yet, I have over 40 games on my PS3 and 360 HDD. If I buy another PS3/360 because I had to, all my purchase info is in my PSN or Live account, so just download again. I have had no problem getting off my a$$ to change a disc, or with my digital library. I have had problems with space in my barracks room that games are taking up though. My point, if changing a disc is a problem, then your problems are solved by never having to use any discs. But lets be real, that isn't the problem if getting up bothers a person is it?

Anddd... what will you do when those services go away? The current PSN and Xbox Live won't be there forever. I've got over 100 games on my HDD, but the majority of games that I actually play are on disc. I see the point you were making, and my point is that it would be a bad idea in the long run to go full digital is all.

#42 Edited by Boddicker (2272 posts) -

It basically established the medium of Blu-ray at the cost of the PS3's remaining the king of the hill.

I'm really kind of glad they did it to be honest.

#43 Posted by shellcase86 (1934 posts) -

Needed? No. Useful? Yep. As a consumer that was a strong selling point. Glad they included it.

#44 Edited by blackace (19732 posts) -

@Gue1 said:

the entire gen was held back by the Xbox 360 but that's not gonna happen next gen since the Sony Domination is ensured.

LMAO!! No. Gotta love bias fanboys. They are entertaining.

#45 Posted by Fizzman (9869 posts) -

No.

#47 Edited by jayd02 (778 posts) -

@ProjectPat187:

http://www.blueboard.com/bluray/

People also liked to write in Java. People admitted that it was easier to write on HD DVD's but the Blu-rays had more capabilities so that is the format they decided to work with. Companies picked Blu-ray mainly because of its space, not because somebody payed them off. If you believe that rumor you're a fool.

#48 Edited by DocSanchez (1396 posts) -

It was a complimentary 3D blu ray player. Can't argue with that. Dredd looks amazing on my TV.

#49 Posted by ButDuuude (392 posts) -

There's no comparison, blu-ray all the way.

#50 Posted by GunSmith1_basic (9719 posts) -

it was good for Sony to push Bluray but was a very bad thing for the ps3 as a game console. Bluray was the main cause that the ps3's price was always so high early on. Installing games meant that it also had little advantage over DVDs from a practical gaming standpoint. You can't underestimate the importance of keeping the cost to the consumer down. It is really amazing that the ps3 managed to come as close to the 360 as it did in terms of userbase considering that Sony was using the PS3 to push other Sony tech.