Were Blu-Ray discs really necessary for PS3?

Pretty much this.

its just way more convenient.

Believe what rumor? You basically repeated what I just said, Stop making up bs no one even said.

Sure,why not.

No disk swapping for me this gen.

As has already been mentioned, the PS3's Blu-Ray capability was necessary for Sony to win the format war against HD-DVD. To Sony, that was the bigger priority, even if it meant sacrificing its video game market share. And as a result, Sony went on to dominate the home video market, although Blu-Ray is now facing competition from download/streaming services.

The rumor part of my comment wasn't directed towards you and I apologize for that. I'm pretty sure I quoted the wrong person.

Besides that, Blu-Ray was more flexible and has more capabilities then HD DVD did. This is why developers went for it. It was harder to work with because of compatibility problems that could arise but it could do everything that HD DVD could do and then some if the developer so wanted. Many people probably didn't see much of this because developers didn't take the time to do it. (at least I didn't see anything extra special) http://betanews.com/2008/01/09/blu-ray-goes-interactive-for-2008-but-will-consumers-bite/

I somewhat disagree with your statement. I disagree because the Blu-ray could do much more then HD DVD like I have said. With this in mind I think people would have gone to Blu-ray regardless if it was put into the PS3. What I'm saying is I believe Blu-Ray would have won even if it wasn't in the PS3 because it was superior, but that is just my believing and understanding of the technology. Did Blu-Ray win because it was implemented into a low costing system? (as compared to other Blu-Ray players at the time) Yes. No question about it. Parents had their HD movies, and their kids could play games.

My guess that we don't see much difference now between the two formats is because we adopted Blu-ray relatively early. At least early enough to give Blu-Ray developers no reason to really show off what the format could do.

All physical formats are in competition with download and almost even more so with streaming. Every company wanting to switch to cloud storage. I remember when Google wanted to release a phone that only used cloud storage.

Have you maybe forgotten about the VHS vs Betamax video-tape format war? (Assuming you're old enough to remember it?). If you do remember it, then you should know that technical superiority does not guarantee success... or even if you don't remember the tape format war, it's hardly that much different from the game console wars (where virtually every generation has been won by the technically inferior console). Sony's Betamax format was the technically superior format, yet it lost out to the technically inferior, yet cheaper, VHS format, which dominated the home video market up until the DVD came some two decades later. And it won because it gathered more support from the major movie (and porn) studios.

Sony learnt their lesson from their previous failure with the Betamax, and wanted to make sure that they do it right this time, in order to win against the similarly cheaper HD-DVD format. And with the PS2, Sony realized just how useful that was in making the DVD format a huge success, hence why they decided to market the PS3 as a cheap Blu-Ray player, just as they had marketed the PS2 as a cheap DVD player the generation before it. Without the PS3's help, it would have been far more difficult for Sony to convince the studios to support the Blu-Ray format over the cheaper HD-DVD format.

PS3 helped nudged me into the new format of video.

Was the XBox 360 really needed?

Nope.

Is the Xbone needed?

Nope.

I think the real question is are YOU needed...nope. Does SWs need to read a single post from you..nope. Now go away

There's pros and cons. The Xbox showcased that Bluray wasn't needed for the vast majority of the time.

@Jag85: VHS was cheaper and it had longer recording times. Sony made improvements on Betamax but by that time people had already decided on the VHS and improvements on the VHS had solidified its stance in the market. Blu-ray was preferred by developers so in some circles made it easier to work with, and it had more storage.

Uhh, play them until my console gives out? I don't think I have to have something until I die in order to have gotten my moneys worth from it.

All gen they couldn't sell me blu ray.

Streaming has become very convenient, and the quality will only improve.

I remember being quite annoyed with mandatory installations for MGS4, necessary due to the PS3's blu ray drive being of a low data transfer rate.

I left blu ray alone all gen and will continue to do so. It certainly wasn't necessary for me.

Nope. Helped cause Sony to lose over 5 billion dollars. And all the money they made on ps1 and ps2.

It wasn't necessary since only a tiny handful of games were too big for one DVD, and we're moving to digital anyways.

It was just a tool to help win the format war which I don't think will really matter soon. I don't even know people who buy movies anymore. Even my friends with PS3 just use Netflix for their movie needs.

Blu ray was a strategic choice by Sony. They weren't concentrating on gaming with it. They needed Blu ray to win and it did mainly because it was in the PS3.

It is amazing how they caught up though. TLOU made me jaw-drop:-)

Betamax isn't dead!

It was nice to have more data per disk not to mention a GREAT movie format.

Id argue it both hurt and helped the Playstation 3... Hurt it's price badly, which caused a more attractive xbox 360 to seize massive market share and also hurt it in the sense that games didn't need it... Also, and people forget this, but in 2006 the world was still largely SD... Rendering blu-ray a bloated feature for many... As the gen has gone on and we've become largely HD along with the slow death of the dvd, I'm loving the fact that I have a free blu-ray player in my ps3... It evolved from shit into gold for me

@treedoor: My response to that is Xbox 360. It sold more and it was easier to develop for. When developers made games they tailored it to work for and fit on a single DVD as compared to a Blu-Ray disc. If the PS3 had outsold the 360 then developers would have made games to work with that.

Some games did use the space like Uncharted 3 and Killzone 3.

It was definitely a good thing in my eyes. More space for games and the console could double as your blu-ray player.

No, and they were actually a hindrance.

blu ray is such a shytty game format that now even the x1 requires installs.

blu ray, screwing up 2 gens and counting.

thanks sony.

ps, grats on that massive format "win"

it only took an 800 million dollar deal with toshiba to kill off hd dvd and hand over cell production to a rival company.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/20/us-sony-toshiba-idUST28617520080220

lulz. this deal was announced and toshiba ending hd dvd production were announced within 7 days of each other.

winning!

The PS3 versus 360 was not just a console competition. It was also a format battle. Blu-ray would not be mainstream if not for Sony. I think making that technology so was necessary for the video game industry to meet the standards of innovation the world demands of it and really the electronics industry in its entirety. It is not as much of an upgrade as DVDs were from VHS, but it has become the standard of excellence along with 1080p. PC gaming maxing out at 1440p should not to be ignored when talking about display resolutions, but that is not as much of a focused on market as television-using technology.

hell yea, it serves as a game machine and a blu ray player.

Yes and no. Only applicable response.

The slow drive caused issues, but the larger space was a serious boon.