Warner drops HD DVD.

[Figment]

BlueRay won when the PORN Industry backed them in my opinion lol

thats the very reason why BETA lost, they refused to support teh pronz

 

[Elemmire]

I forgot about the mini disc

 

[Kurgon]

IMO with the advent of the internet, porn has very little to do with the "format war".

 

[Bajaratt]

That's a pretty strong statement to make having very little logic behind it. There are over 8 million PS3s out there,

Where are you getting 8 million PS3's? Last I heard was around 6 million sold by the end November, and even with the massive Wii shortage, they wouldn't be able to push 2 million units based on need. Hell, I can't even find the current sales figures or their estimates; so where exactly are you getting this "information?"

if half the the sales are for just blu-ray players, then there are essentially 4 million standalone blu-ray players. Obviously this isn't true. As has been pointed out, there are cheaper stand-alones out there right now, though they don't have all the media capabilities of the PS3, still you'd assume the majority of people buying for a Blu-ray are at this venture going to elect for a standalone to save themselves $100.

A good attempt at absorbing the argument, but still wrong. It wasn't until about a month or so ago that stand-alone players were cheaper than the PS3; a few months before that they were the same price, and the year before that they were much more expensive. During that 8-9 months, most of the consoles sold weren't because of the games(because the exclusives all blew except for resistance) but were because people wanted a cheaper blu-ray player.

Rather what you've got here is overlapping markets. A person who buys video games is highly likely to buy movies as well. A person who likes to buy movies is not so highly likely to buy video games. It's merely statistics here, the movie market is larger, and therefore people are more likely to watch movies than play games. So if you give a random movie watcher a game system with their movie player, they aren't likely to get any value out of it.

Which is why blu-ray sales are as high as they are, they bought the console so they'll grab a movie or two. You're completely ignoring a huge chunk of the sales which are not part of that overlapping market. It's also completely irrelevant because it just points out the obvious that people who play games also tend to watch movies.

Another ridiculous statement. A more accurate would be it isn't going to affect every gamer, but it is certainly going to affect some.

No, it's not ridiculous at all. This isn't going to have any profound effects on the total sales. There were no gamers who were saying "I want to buy a PS3, but I'll only get it if I'm sure blu-ray will win the format war." They want the console for the games, this result isn't going to make gamers suddenly like the PS3 games more, it's only going to make them buy more movies when they get down to a reasonable price.

This result will make those who were going to buy a PS3 happier with their purchase, or those who were going to buy a stand alone player happier with their purchase; but it will not impact the sales of the PS3 in any meaningful way.

All functions have value. Added value is added likelihood of purchase. Yes, later this year you'll probably be able to buy a Blu-ray standalone for $200. That just means the PS3 saves you... $200. Or maybe $100 for you, you bought the HD DVD player at $100 and it wasn't even 1080P... or the stronger format. Now there's going to be more content, more value. Maybe one day for you it's a $300 PS3 or a $100 Blu-ray standalone. The point is that whatever value you'd be willing to pay for the blu-ray player, you can effectively subtract that out of the cost of the PS3 when considering purchasing it. For most people, that value just increased because Blu-ray is now the format war victor.

But unless you're a gamer, those extra functions have no value; and therefore they're not going to pay that extra bit.

Semantics. It's an electronic device that performs an unbelievable amount of functions. Call it a game machine, call it a movie player, call it a multimedia box... it's all those things. Just because it does one doesn't mean it doesn't do the others incredibly well. If you only value one of the functions, you have to base your purchase on that function alone, however that's not all it does. Just like you can use your computer to play games, surf the internet, type up a spreadsheet, watch a movie or touch up a picture, the PS3 can do many things. The thing it does of the greatest value, is play video games, so eventually only gamers will buy it as there are better alternatives for people who don't... but for a gamer, the added value of the movies is great.

The PS3 is a gaming console, it's primary purpose is gaming, everything else is secondary. Sony just had to change their description of the console's purpose because they were getting spanked so hard in the gaming market, just like they did with the PSP. There's no reason for the massive amounts of power in the PS3 if gaming wasn't it's primary purpose.

Your analogy is flawed because the computer was initially designed to be a multi-purpose machine. There are models which are all but incapable of playing games, watching movies, or using the internet. There are no PS3's incapable of playing games, because that's what the machine was designed for.

Nobody wants people to buy PS3s just to use a blu-ray player. Sony doesn't want to sell game systems to people who aren't going to buy games, and wants to sell its movie players as does the other manufacturer for profit. The PS3 was never intended to be a long term leader for blu-ray, just a game system that could use blu-ray's capacity for games, play high def movies and kill HD DVD. It accomplished it.

So now the PS3 has moved from being a mutlimedia super giant to just being a gaming console, great consistency.:thumbsup:

Which has been happening ever since May of last year and looks to continue as PS3 has the widely recognized best catalog coming in 2008.

Where is this "widely recognized" outside of something like playstation magazine? Outside of MGS4, there's nothing really awing(and it's just a yawn from me) out there. although I guess the PS3 could have the best library since all of their major games were delayed until 2008 and completely gave up on 2007.

You'll have to define "long term." As long as a blu-ray player aren't free, this will be significant. As they get cheaper and cheaper, it will be less and less. Even now, the PS2 is a DVD player and that adds some value to it. You aren't going to buy a PS2 just because it's a DVD player, but if you're considering buying it as a game system, you might say, "I also want a DVD player in my room where I'll be playing it."

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, it should be obvious.

Again a wrong analogy. There were already DVD players on the market before the PS2 came out, and they were already cheaper than the PS2 was, so of course only the gamers bought the PS2. Non-gamers bought the PS3 because it was the cheapest blu-ray option available, something which is just now changing.

As far as "long term" goes, I'd guess no more than a month or two. The prices of the blu-ray players has been dropping every few months, so by then the prices should be down to a level where non gamers aren't going to buy the PS3 anymore. Although it will be difficult to gauge the effect of this decision if a major PS3 game comes out then to boost the sales, but then I'd still be right.

 

[Firestreak]

Where are you getting 8 million PS3's? Last I heard was around 6 million sold by the end November, and even with the massive Wii shortage, they wouldn't be able to push 2 million units based on need. Hell, I can't even find the current sales figures or their estimates; so where exactly are you getting this "information?"

For the month of December...


DS 6,474,403
Wii 3,869,926
PS3 2,081,432
PSP 2,399,757
PS2 1,958,444
Xbox360 1,894,335
GBA 309,755

PS3's current install base: 8.92M

So you are claiming that 4.5 of those are sold to people to use them as dedicated blu-ray players?

Or rather, you are claiming there are 6 million PS3s and 3 million were sold as Blu-ray players.

There are around 500,000 dedicated HD DVD players, a content advantage of about 15%, and you predict with 3 million PS3s used as dedicated players, and then another 300,000 or so stand alones, there is effectively a 2-1 sales advantage only? Blu-ray would be outselling HD DVD 6:1 assuming that the other 3 million PS3s bought NO Blu-rays at all.

I think you need to rethink everything, starting right there.

A more believable theory would be that with 200,000 or so PS3s bought as dedicated blu-ray players, the standalones stand around equal, and the 8 million+ PS3s sold to gamers are also resulting in movie sales. I've bought about 50 or so blu-rays myself. Does that make me a non-gamer? Assuredly more than most people with dedicated blu-ray players for movies.

A good attempt at absorbing the argument, but still wrong. It wasn't until about a month or so ago that stand-alone players were cheaper than the PS3; a few months before that they were the same price, and the year before that they were much more expensive. During that 8-9 months, most of the consoles sold weren't because of the games(because the exclusives all blew except for resistance) but were because people wanted a cheaper blu-ray player.

Still pushing the idea that 3 million PS3s are for dedicated blu-ray watching.

It's actually quite humorous. During the format war, HD DVD fanboys screamed that PS3 was for gamers, and that the only install base that mattered was standalones.

Now that it's over, Xbox fanboys are going to start saying that all PS3s were sold as movie players to try and artificially deflate the install base?

Which is why blu-ray sales are as high as they are, they bought the console so they'll grab a movie or two. You're completely ignoring a huge chunk of the sales which are not part of that overlapping market. It's also completely irrelevant because it just points out the obvious that people who play games also tend to watch movies.

It doesn't point out the obvious, because this isn't really sinking in. VIDEO GAMERS... WATCH MOVIES. Let me say it again, so you hear me. VIDEO GAMERS, WATCH MOVIES. Hence, you can sell a BLU RAY PLAYER TO A VIDEO GAMER... and they will BUY MOVIES.

No, it's not ridiculous at all. This isn't going to have any profound effects on the total sales. There were no gamers who were saying "I want to buy a PS3, but I'll only get it if I'm sure blu-ray will win the format war." They want the console for the games, this result isn't going to make gamers suddenly like the PS3 games more, it's only going to make them buy more movies when they get down to a reasonable price.

No there are gamers who say, "Is the PS3 worth $400? Well.. it does have a BLU RAY PLAYER which I'd like AND THOSE COST $300!(or $200, or $100 eventually)"

You don't look at a product and consider what you're buying it for. You look at the price and consider what you want from it, and if it's worth it.

This result will make those who were going to buy a PS3 happier with their purchase, or those who were going to buy a stand alone player happier with their purchase; but it will not impact the sales of the PS3 in any meaningful way.

It increases the value of the format. This increases the value of the standalone players and the PS3.

But unless you're a gamer, those extra functions have no value; and therefore they're not going to pay that extra bit.

Non-gamers are not going to buy the PS3, yes. I've said this already. It's not Sony's goal to put PS3s in the homes of non-gamers, who won't buy games anyway and is no benefit to anyone.

The PS3 is a gaming console, it's primary purpose is gaming, everything else is secondary. Sony just had to change their description of the console's purpose because they were getting spanked so hard in the gaming market, just like they did with the PSP. There's no reason for the massive amounts of power in the PS3 if gaming wasn't it's primary purpose.

The PS3 is an electronic device that plays video games. Yes. And their spanking, puts them with what, 9 million PS3s in homes right now? The 360 had 10 million last year. Who knows the real number thanks to all the channel stuffing Microsoft did. I recall the first 4 months of 2007, not a single 360 was "sold" until the estimates finally had to shift from sold to retailers to customers.

Your analogy is flawed because the computer was initially designed to be a multi-purpose machine. There are models which are all but incapable of playing games, watching movies, or using the internet. There are no PS3's incapable of playing games, because that's what the machine was designed for.

It's a value assessment, not a marketing one. My PC has high end components that were primarily marketed to gamers, and as a result, it plays games well. I knew when I bought them, however, they would also speed up the loading of windows and various applications within. I knew when I bought my PS3, I was also buying a high def movie player. If I wasn't a gamer, I wouldn't have bought the PS3. I'd have bought a blu-ray player at probably around $200. However, that meant as a gamer, I could factor in the $200 I would pay for a Blu-ray player when buying the PS3. Does that mean that the PS3 isn't worth it without Blu-ray playback? It's worth it to me. Does that mean that it isn't worth it as a dedicated player? I wouldn't have paid more than $200 for a dedicated player. But considering I'd have bought it for a gaming console alone, $200 off = great value.

So now the PS3 has moved from being a mutlimedia super giant to just being a gaming console, great consistency.:thumbsup:

I've always stated that to me, it's both my gaming console and my blu-ray player, both of which it does great. Since when did added value become a bad thing? Does the Xbox 360 play Gears of War or does it play Halo? Pick one, it can't do both! Are they buying it for Halo or for Gears? They can't possibly decide to buy it so they can play both games. Or maybe so they can play Mass Affect?

Maybe entertainment is just entertainment, and to some people, both playing games and watching movies is entertainment, who would have guessed it? So I can be happy a Blu-ray movie I want gets released and when a game I want gets released. I can see value in a video playback on a "gaming device." What's your point? Argue semantics? Slap a name on it based on a primary function so you can deny all day long its other functions have value?

Where is this "widely recognized" outside of something like playstation magazine? Outside of MGS4, there's nothing really awing(and it's just a yawn from me) out there. although I guess the PS3 could have the best library since all of their major games were delayed until 2008 and completely gave up on 2007.


Again a wrong analogy. There were already DVD players on the market before the PS2 came out, and they were already cheaper than the PS2 was, so of course only the gamers bought the PS2. Non-gamers bought the PS3 because it was the cheapest blu-ray option available, something which is just now changing.

As far as "long term" goes, I'd guess no more than a month or two. The prices of the blu-ray players has been dropping every few months, so by then the prices should be down to a level where non gamers aren't going to buy the PS3 anymore. Although it will be difficult to gauge the effect of this decision if a major PS3 game comes out then to boost the sales, but then I'd still be right.

Yeah, 2007 was hell.

I only got Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, Virtua Fighter 5, Rock Band, Uncharted, Call of Duty 4, Motorstorm, Unreal Tournament 3, NHL 08, MLB 07, Ratchet and Clank, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Assassin's Creed, Lego Star Wars, Time Crisis, Eye of Judgement, Folklore, Ninja Gaiden, Elder Scrolls of Oblivian, Folklore and the Orange Box. Fuck, however did I pass the time without Halo???

 

[Cort]

Yeah, 2007 was hell.

I only got Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, Virtua Fighter 5, Rock Band, Uncharted, Call of Duty 4, Motorstorm, Unreal Tournament 3, NHL 08, MLB 07, Ratchet and Clank, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Assassin's Creed, Lego Star Wars, Time Crisis, Eye of Judgement, Folklore, Ninja Gaiden, Elder Scrolls of Oblivian, Folklore and the Orange Box. Fuck, however did I pass the time without Halo???

Heavenly Sword (Sucked)
Warhawk(Sucked)
Virtua Fighter 5 (...)
Rock Band(other systems),
Uncharted(looks stupid)
Call of Duty 4(Way better on PC)
Motorstorm(Crap)
Unreal Tournament 3(Crap, plus better on PC)
NHL 08(lolhockey)
MLB 07(lolbaseball)
Ratchet and Clank(Fucking rules)
Rainbow 6 Vegas(Other systems)
Assassin's Creed(Other systems),
Lego Star Wars(been out for awhile on other systems)
Time Crisis(shit)
Eye of Judgement(WTF?)
Folklore(huh?)
Ninja Gaiden(other system)
Elder Scrolls of Oblivian(better on PC)
Folklore(already said it)
and the Orange Box(vastly superior on the PC)
Fuck, however did I pass the time without Halo??? (Halo blows)

Lord, 2007 did suck.

(P.S. I only will be getting a PS3 once MGS4/FFXIII come out )
(P.P.S Before you get your Sony printed panties in a massive bunch, no, I'm not a 360 fanboy. I'm a PC fanboy.)

 

[Firestreak]

You know, I can list off Xbox 360 games and put "Other systems" or "sucked" next to each of them too. There are some games I bought I didn't list. I sold them off, the games I have are the ones I enjoy. The Darkness, Spiderman 3, Genji for example. The fact remains, on exclusive front, I've got 11 retail PS3 games. For the 360 I've got 2, 1 of which I'll probably sell back(Mass Affect), and one multiplatform I'll be buying(Eternal Sonata). In 2008 I'm looking forward to Ninja Gaiden 2 and Lost Odyssey(if it doesn't suck like Blue Dragon), the main reason I bought the system.

So yet again, PS3's 2007... pretty damn good. Was Xbox 360's better? Maybe for some people. Not for me. Of course it's easy to call games crap you've probably never even tried.

 

[Bajaratt]

For the month of December...


DS 6,474,403
Wii 3,869,926
PS3 2,081,432
PSP 2,399,757
PS2 1,958,444
Xbox360 1,894,335
GBA 309,755

PS3's current install base: 8.92M

Got a source? Because I can't find any december numbers anywhere.

So you are claiming that 4.5 of those are sold to people to use them as dedicated blu-ray players?

Or rather, you are claiming there are 6 million PS3s and 3 million were sold as Blu-ray players.

Since I could only find numbers stating 6 million PS3's out there and now that there are cheaper blu-ray players fewer non-gamers are buying them obviously it's the later.

A more believable theory would be that with 200,000 or so PS3s bought as dedicated blu-ray players, the standalones stand around equal, and the 8 million+ PS3s sold to gamers are also resulting in movie sales.

I'm amazed how badly you continue to over-exaggerate numbers. The direction depends on which side is being discussed, but I'm not surprised that you're that delusional.

It doesn't point out the obvious, because this isn't really sinking in. VIDEO GAMERS... WATCH MOVIES. Let me say it again, so you hear me. VIDEO GAMERS, WATCH MOVIES. Hence, you can sell a BLU RAY PLAYER TO A VIDEO GAMER... and they will BUY MOVIES.

No shit they'd buy some movies, but the entire point is completely irrelevant. Although, you're the idiot who thinks that almost no one bought a PS3 to use as a blu-ray player when it was $200 cheaper than a stand alone, so I'm not surprised that you can't understand.

No there are gamers who say, "Is the PS3 worth $400? Well.. it does have a BLU RAY PLAYER which I'd like AND THOSE COST $300!(or $200, or $100 eventually)"

You don't look at a product and consider what you're buying it for. You look at the price and consider what you want from it, and if it's worth it.

The only one I've ever heard of who's saying that is you. Everyone else is saying "I want the games, but I can use the player too."

If you're going to spend your money without considering what you're going to do with it, you're an idiot; plain and simple.

I have nothing relevant or even worthwhile to say, so I'll just keep talking about how the PS3 is such a great value even though it's completely outside the current discussion.

Yeah, you get a lot for the price of the PS3, that's not the point though. The point was that the PS3 was the cheapest blu-ray around for almost a year, and that a lot of non-gamers bought them for that exact reason. They wanted a blu-ray player, but didn't want to spend an extra $200 for a stand-alone; so they bought the PS3.

Yeah, 2007 was hell.

I only got Heavenly Sword, Warhawk, Virtua Fighter 5, Rock Band, Uncharted, Call of Duty 4, Motorstorm, Unreal Tournament 3, NHL 08, MLB 07, Ratchet and Clank, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Assassin's Creed, Lego Star Wars, Time Crisis, Eye of Judgement, Folklore, Ninja Gaiden, Elder Scrolls of Oblivian, Folklore and the Orange Box. Fuck, however did I pass the time without Halo???

Most are multi-platform, most of the rest aren't worth actually buying because of their short play times or lack of replay. We all know you love your PS3, but when the majority of the console's best titles are multi-platform, the console does not have a lot going for it. 2008 it'll finally get some exclusives that are(hopefully) actually worth the money; until then it's library is fairly weak compared to 360's. When all of the "best" exclusives titles are only worth the price of a rental, you can't seriously consider the system strong.

And before you even start with it, yeah I know you don't like the 360 games and you spooge on your PS3 every night. And before Elemmire has to chime in with the fucking obvious, yes it's an opinion, but the PS3 crawled in comparison to the Wii/360 this year. Next year might be different, but saying it's "widely recognized" that the PS3 has the best coming year when it's only 5 days in, and then only when it's recognized by biased sources, is asinine.

 

[Firestreak]

Got a source? Because I can't find any december numbers anywhere.

VGCharts.

Since I could only find numbers stating 6 million PS3's out there and now that there are cheaper blu-ray players fewer non-gamers are buying them obviously it's the later.

This wasn't a question, rather a clarification. You say that 50% of PS3s are dedicated Blu-ray players, I say that we can estimate how many PS3s are out there as Blu-ray players based on movie sales, and therefore the amount of PS3s matters. You being off on the PS3's install base is worth clarification to the thought process.

I'm amazed how badly you continue to over-exaggerate numbers. The direction depends on which side is being discussed, but I'm not surprised that you're that delusional.

You tell me there are 3 million PS3s bought only to watch Blu-ray movies and then call me delusional. I can you a fucking idiot.

No shit they'd buy some movies, but the entire point is completely irrelevant. Although, you're the idiot who thinks that almost no one bought a PS3 to use as a blu-ray player when it was $200 cheaper than a stand alone, so I'm not surprised that you can't understand.

Yes, people buying Blu-ray players picked PS3 as one of their players. Your logic is however... quite bad. The entire point of your argument, that nobody disagrees with, is that people are long term not going to be buying PS3 if they aren't gamers. Why is this? Because it'll be MORE EXPENSIVE. Why is that? Because GAME SYSTEMS COST MORE THAN MOVIE PLAYERS. Why can they? Because, besides actually costing more to make, PEOPLE WILL PAY MORE FOR A GAME SYSTEM.

Now let's take this same logic here to everything that's happened so far.

People in the millions have bought PS3s and 360s are $400+. HD players are a small fraction in hardware sales. Do you really believe that 3 million people were willing to pay $400-$600 for PS3 to use a Blu-ray player? If so, why aren't $300 blu-ray standalones sold out all over the country?

Well, because you're wrong. People buying high def players at $400+ are a very small market, which is why the percentage of people buying PS3 just to watch movies alone is small enough to disregard. A few hundred thousand, yeah. But are 3 million people willing to pay $400 for movie players alone... no...

The only one I've ever heard of who's saying that is you. Everyone else is saying "I want the games, but I can use the player too."

Apparently you've heard 3 million people say something else.

If you're going to spend your money without considering what you're going to do with it, you're an idiot; plain and simple.

Says the guy who bought an HD DVD player. Zing! What are you expecting to do with that? Crush walnuts? You know your 360 could have upscaled DVDs.

Yeah, you get a lot for the price of the PS3, that's not the point though. The point was that the PS3 was the cheapest blu-ray around for almost a year, and that a lot of non-gamers bought them for that exact reason. They wanted a blu-ray player, but didn't want to spend an extra $200 for a stand-alone; so they bought the PS3.

Correct, which would lead to hundreds of thousands of PS3s bought as Blu-ray players. How you're getting millions is beyond me.

Most are multi-platform, most of the rest aren't worth actually buying because of their short play times or lack of replay. We all know you love your PS3, but when the majority of the console's best titles are multi-platform, the console does not have a lot going for it. 2008 it'll finally get some exclusives that are(hopefully) actually worth the money; until then it's library is fairly weak compared to 360's. When all of the "best" exclusives titles are only worth the price of a rental, you can't seriously consider the system strong.

I can consider whatever I want. You're stepping out of the realm of numbers and into the realm of opinion. The difference is I've actually played the games I have opinions on and you... have not.

And before you even start with it, yeah I know you don't like the 360 games and you spooge on your PS3 every night. And before Elemmire has to chime in with the fucking obvious, yes it's an opinion, but the PS3 crawled in comparison to the Wii/360 this year. Next year might be different, but saying it's "widely recognized" that the PS3 has the best coming year when it's only 5 days in, and then only when it's recognized by biased sources, is asinine.

The general consensus has been that all the PS3 heavy hitters are 2008. This has been the opinion of just about everyone since 2006. I myself, disagree, and thought that 2007 was great, and 2008 is lacking. Unfortunately, 2008 is worse even for Xbox 360. PS3 wins because nobody else is playing. 360's hopes have been pinned on rumors of PS3 games going multiplatform.

 

[Tyrath]

Figures, one side has finally won and now you guys are gonna go back and forth about whether this helps the PS3 or not.

Sheesh, so much for letting things play out eh?

BlueRay won when the PORN Industry backed them in my opinion lol

lol

 

[Elemmire]

lol@Cort's list...

 

[Xalioniaf]

I just took a good look at our blu ray player.
Holy shit. It's a PS3.

 

[Bajaratt]

VGCharts.

According to the main page it hasn't been updated in 6 months.

This wasn't a question, rather a clarification. You say that 50% of PS3s are dedicated Blu-ray players, I say that we can estimate how many PS3s are out there as Blu-ray players based on movie sales, and therefore the amount of PS3s matters. You being off on the PS3's install base is worth clarification to the thought process.

Except there's absolutely nothing that you can extrapolate based on the movie sales, since both groups buy movies. All you've proven is that people with PS3's buy blue ray movies, which was never in question. You're completely out of touch with reality if you think hardly no non-gamers bought a PS3 rather than spend the $200 more for a stand-alone player.

You don't seem to have any concept of time either, when for most of a year, stand-alone players were more expensive than a PS3; so the most affordable option if you just wanted to watch blu-rays was to buy a PS3. So yes, you're delusional because now you think that stand-alone players were always cheaper than a PS3.

You tell me there are 3 million PS3s bought only to watch Blu-ray movies and then call me delusional. I can you a fucking idiot.

I call you delusional with your habit of over exaggerating figures and thinking that any numbers you pull out of your ass are gospel.

Yes, people buying Blu-ray players picked PS3 as one of their players. Your logic is however... quite bad. The entire point of your argument, that nobody disagrees with, is that people are long term not going to be buying PS3 if they aren't gamers.

No one, except for you. Apparently if I say something about the PS3, it's wrong, but if you say the exact same thing it's right? Great double standard.

People in the millions have bought PS3s and 360s are $400+. HD players are a small fraction in hardware sales. Do you really believe that 3 million people were willing to pay $400-$600 for PS3 to use a Blu-ray player? If so, why aren't $300 blu-ray standalones sold out all over the country?

3 reasons:

1) They only recently fell below the price of the PS3, and not everyone prices things every week waiting for a price drop.

2) A lot of the cheaper units were only offered over the internet, and not nearly as many people shop on the internet as they do in the stores. Plus, #1 plays a part here too, not everyone browses the internet looking for deals all the time, so they might not have known about the price change.

3) They most likely are sold out all over the place. At Fry's we ran a sale on a samsung blu-ray player for $300 one weekend two months ago, and we had maybe 30 people come up just on the first day asking if we had any left in stock.

Also, the non-gamers weren't buying the $600 units, they were buying the cheapest one, because all they wanted was the player. With all your talk about the "value" of the PS3, you really think a few million people bought a unit with such inferior value if they were mainly interested in the games?

Well, because you're wrong. People buying high def players at $400+ are a very small market, which is why the percentage of people buying PS3 just to watch movies alone is small enough to disregard. A few hundred thousand, yeah. But are 3 million people willing to pay $400 for movie players alone... no...

Obviously it's not a very small market, since according to you most/all of the PS3 owners bought a PS3 not just because it plays games, but also because of the movies and they all paid at least $400. Using your own questionable numbers, there's apparently almost 9 million people willing to spend $400+ on a blu-ray player.

Says the guy who bought an HD DVD player. Zing! What are you expecting to do with that? Crush walnuts? You know your 360 could have upscaled DVDs.

And you're just getting dumber... Now you're saying that I bought an HD-DVD player for some reason other than to watch HD-DVD's and because it was a hell of a deal? I paid the same price for my HD-DVD player as you'd pay for a good upscaling DVD player; but I can play more movies on it. That sale was the deal of the year, period. The fact that I won't be able to buy more HD-DVD's in a few years makes no difference to me since I don't obsess over having everything in HD like you do. If nothing else, I still have an upscaling DVD player for the hundreds of SD movies I already own or have access too.

I also don't have a 360, but good try.

I can consider whatever I want. You're stepping out of the realm of numbers and into the realm of opinion. The difference is I've actually played the games I have opinions on and you... have not.

If you can call failing at the game/demo for 10 minutes, then deciding it's shit actually playing. I lent my dad Zelda for the Wii he got for christmas, he figured out that "impossible" puzzle in the training town in about 5 minutes and the last time he played a game it was when Majora's Mask was new. Yeah, your opinion is real worthwhile when you can't pass the training area without a guide.

The general consensus has been that all the PS3 heavy hitters are 2008. This has been the opinion of just about everyone since 2006. I myself, disagree, and thought that 2007 was great, and 2008 is lacking. Unfortunately, 2008 is worse even for Xbox 360. PS3 wins because nobody else is playing. 360's hopes have been pinned on rumors of PS3 games going multiplatform.

This I'll agree on, but the PS3 would win the "best new library of 2008" award by default, since no one else is even playing. Not really much to brag about; "hurray I won because I was unopposed!"

Figures, one side has finally won and now you guys are gonna go back and forth about whether this helps the PS3 or not.

Sheesh, so much for letting things play out eh?

Honestly it wasn't a big deal but Firestreak just gets a whole beach full of sand in his vagina whenever anyone says anything even remotely negative about his precious PS3.

 

[Firestreak]

According to the main page it hasn't been updated in 6 months.

VGCharts is updated weekly.

Except there's absolutely nothing that you can extrapolate based on the movie sales, since both groups buy movies. All you've proven is that people with PS3's buy blue ray movies, which was never in question. You're completely out of touch with reality if you think hardly no non-gamers bought a PS3 rather than spend the $200 more for a stand-alone player.

It's all relative. Lots of people bought PS3 as a blu-ray player... RELATIVE to standalones. Not relative to people buying it primarily because they're gamers.

All we can guess is based on movie sales, because in the end nobody knows what each individual sale was for.

You don't seem to have any concept of time either, when for most of a year, stand-alone players were more expensive than a PS3; so the most affordable option if you just wanted to watch blu-rays was to buy a PS3. So yes, you're delusional because now you think that stand-alone players were always cheaper than a PS3.

I never said standalones were cheaper than the PS3 all along, rather that the PS3 was never at a low enough price for millions of people to buy it as a blu-ray player only. We're talking about A/V enthusiasts here, with the $6000 plasmas and 7.1 sound systems. We're talking about a few hundred thousand people. This is the crux of your argument, and I think you know you're wrong here.

I call you delusional with your habit of over exaggerating figures and thinking that any numbers you pull out of your ass are gospel.

I'm pulling figures out of my ass? Using VGCharts for console sales and NPD tracking for movie sales. You base your assumptions on guesses. Go to any forum for A/V enthusists and put forth your theory that 3 million PS3s are dedicated blu-ray players. You'll get laughed at because you're an idiot.

No one, except for you. Apparently if I say something about the PS3, it's wrong, but if you say the exact same thing it's right? Great double standard.

What I disagree with is your assertion that without people buying PS3s as dedicated Blu-ray players that there sales will "plummet." Yes, some people buy PS3s as Blu-ray players. And yes it's a significant amount in the perspective of the format war. It's a number that's been speculated at every since the PS3 hit the market. The argument would be from HD DVD fans stating it's somewhere in the range of 0 and Blu-ray fans stating it's somewhere in the range of... 200,000.

1) They only recently fell below the price of the PS3, and not everyone prices things every week waiting for a price drop.

Since November I think... or earlier with some Panasonics possibly.

2) A lot of the cheaper units were only offered over the internet, and not nearly as many people shop on the internet as they do in the stores. Plus, #1 plays a part here too, not everyone browses the internet looking for deals all the time, so they might not have known about the price change.

Then I guess those same people will not know about price changes and continue to buy the PS3 as price drops on standalones?

3) They most likely are sold out all over the place. At Fry's we ran a sale on a samsung blu-ray player for $300 one weekend two months ago, and we had maybe 30 people come up just on the first day asking if we had any left in stock.

Good, I hope so.

Also, the non-gamers weren't buying the $600 units, they were buying the cheapest one, because all they wanted was the player. With all your talk about the "value" of the PS3, you really think a few million people bought a unit with such inferior value if they were mainly interested in the games?

Not enough people to keep the 20 gig in production. I remember around launch time, 20 gigs were the only thing you could find in stores.

Obviously it's not a very small market, since according to you most/all of the PS3 owners bought a PS3 not just because it plays games, but also because of the movies and they all paid at least $400. Using your own questionable numbers, there's apparently almost 9 million people willing to spend $400+ on a blu-ray player.

No, my opinion is that almost 9 million people bought a PS3 for whatever reason. I'm sure a lot of them have no interest at all in Blu-ray, and a small fraction of them have no interest at all in PS3 games. I assume the most satisfied customers are very interested in both Blu-ray and PS3 games, there are some interested mostly in games but will buy a few movies, and a few mostly interested in movies that will buy a few games. Nobody has any clue what the break down is, except that most assuredly, 3 million people did not buy the PS3 with no interest in games.

I would guess, if you want to predict doom and gloom for the PS3, as you always do, that the most likely argument is that people in the column of "mostly interested in a movie player, but might buy a few games," will less often buy a PS3 with a cheap Blu-ray player in competition.

And you're just getting dumber... Now you're saying that I bought an HD-DVD player for some reason other than to watch HD-DVD's and because it was a hell of a deal? I paid the same price for my HD-DVD player as you'd pay for a good upscaling DVD player; but I can play more movies on it. That sale was the deal of the year, period. The fact that I won't be able to buy more HD-DVD's in a few years makes no difference to me since I don't obsess over having everything in HD like you do. If nothing else, I still have an upscaling DVD player for the hundreds of SD movies I already own or have access too.

I also don't have a 360, but good try.

I'd say from my standpoint, you probably would have been better off sticking with a standard def TV. Do you even have an HD receiver to watch TV on? From my point of view, I'd just assume watch standard def on a standard def TV rather than upscaled on a high def TV. You notice a big jump when you upscale because standard def on a high def looks terrible, much worse than on a standard def TV. Just upscaling, without the added detail is not worth the TV in the first place. Upscaling is a safety measure, to allow high def owners to continue watching their standard def inputs without wanting to kill themselves. It's not the purpose of high def TVs.

If you can call failing at the game/demo for 10 minutes, then deciding it's shit actually playing. I lent my dad Zelda for the Wii he got for christmas, he figured out that "impossible" puzzle in the training town in about 5 minutes and the last time he played a game it was when Majora's Mask was new. Yeah, your opinion is real worthwhile when you can't pass the training area without a guide.

Poorly designed section of a game. No skin off my back really, but you look pretty weak to jump on that still a year later. But yeah, my opinion means something. I talk about games I've played. I own a PS3, 360, Wii, PSP and a high end PC. You criticize games you haven't actually tried, because you are backed into a corner and there's nothing much else you can do.

This I'll agree on, but the PS3 would win the "best new library of 2008" award by default, since no one else is even playing. Not really much to brag about; "hurray I won because I was unopposed!"

Didn't sound to me like I was bragging.

 

[Elemmire]

http://www.vgchartz.com/

this?

 

[Bajaratt]

http://www.vgchartz.com/

this?

Ah, I went to www.vgcharts.com which on the front page the latest update is listed as 06/09/07. I didn't think they'd spell charts with a Z, especially not since Firestreak spelled it with an S.

I'd say from my standpoint, you probably would have been better off sticking with a standard def TV. Do you even have an HD receiver to watch TV on? From my point of view, I'd just assume watch standard def on a standard def TV rather than upscaled on a high def TV. You notice a big jump when you upscale because standard def on a high def looks terrible, much worse than on a standard def TV. Just upscaling, without the added detail is not worth the TV in the first place. Upscaling is a safety measure, to allow high def owners to continue watching their standard def inputs without wanting to kill themselves. It's not the purpose of high def TVs.

Yes, I have an HD receiver. All of the cable boxes and satilite boxes in the last 7+ months are HD ready via HDMI.

Standard TV looks fine to me, no worse than it did on the 60" projection TV I had before I bought my new TV. The only time I've noticed something looking "worse" is when I was playing an old PS2 game and I could see where they cheaped out on the models. Normal TV looks fine, even the non-HD channels. Upscaling looks great too, something must be wrong with your eyes, but I'm thinking it's probably your brain too.

Poorly designed section of a game. No skin off my back really, but you look pretty weak to jump on that still a year later.

Actually you're only continuing to prove my point. You're the only person who failed at such an easy puzzle at the beginning of the game; but it's not a personal failure, it's a problem with the game. You're still maintaining the game was wrong rather than yourself is just more proof of how little weight your opinion actually caries. Hell, in another thread(or this one, I forget) you based your entire decision on blue dragon based on a few minutes in a demo; a demo which is known to be a really shitty representation of the actual game. You're not really playing a bunch of the games before making a decision; and that decision is prematurely biased just because the game doesn't say Blu-ray on the disc.

I talk about games I've played. I own a PS3, 360, Wii, PSP and a high end PC. You criticize games you haven't actually tried, because you are backed into a corner and there's nothing much else you can do.

Yay for blind and idiotic assumptions. I'm not the only person in the world, I'm definitely not the only gamer in the area; so why is it impossible that I might have actually played a game for a system I don't own? Especially when I've already said in the past that two of my friends have PS3's. Guess what? One of them bought it only to play movies on.

But go ahead, keep jacking off to your PS3, thinking that anything that's not 1080p looks like total shit; and that you're the only one in the world who can give worthy comments on video games.

 

[Firestreak]

Standard TV looks fine to me, no worse than it did on the 60" projection TV I had before I bought my new TV. The only time I've noticed something looking "worse" is when I was playing an old PS2 game and I could see where they cheaped out on the models. Normal TV looks fine, even the non-HD channels. Upscaling looks great too, something must be wrong with your eyes, but I'm thinking it's probably your brain too.

Anyone who thinks standard definition looks fine on their high def TV without being upscaled... has an up scaler built into their TV and doesn't even know it. When you put a low resolution image onto a high resolution display, you get blocks. It looks horrible. The fact that you love your upscaling is proof enough of this. It doesn't add any detail to the film, all it does it smooth it out artificially. The image looked smooth on your old 60 inch standard def, it just wasn't capable of the detail.

Actually you're only continuing to prove my point. You're the only person who failed at such an easy puzzle at the beginning of the game; but it's not a personal failure, it's a problem with the game. You're still maintaining the game was wrong rather than yourself is just more proof of how little weight your opinion actually caries. Hell, in another thread(or this one, I forget) you based your entire decision on blue dragon based on a few minutes in a demo; a demo which is known to be a really shitty representation of the actual game. You're not really playing a bunch of the games before making a decision; and that decision is prematurely biased just because the game doesn't say Blu-ray on the disc.

I'm basing my decision of a game on a demo of that game. What a terrible process to be using. I don't make the demos, I just play them. If you've got a complaint, file it with Mistwalker. I am not buying a game that's demo I couldn't stand based on the advise of others.

 

[Xalioniaf]

I'm basing my decision of a game on a demo of that game. What a terrible process to be using. I don't make the demos, I just play them. If you've got a complaint, file it with Mistwalker. I am not buying a game that's demo I couldn't stand based on the advise of others.

Pretty sure most demos come with a huge disclaimer at the beginning that it does NOT represent a final copy of the game. So yeah, basing your opinion on the FULL GAME based on the demo is a pretty stupid idea.

 

[Firestreak]

I didn't think anythone could do it, but you've said something dumber than my old Skaw quote. Congrats at making my signature.

 

[Skaw]

one multiplatform I'll be buying(Eternal Sonata).

I wouldn't buy the PS3 version either, if I had the choice. The two exclusive characters, unless they alter the story, you wouldn't get until the very, very end of the game anyway. The only point in time where I can see how they'd work them in to the party is exactly at the start of the final chapter.

Just an example of how late that is: You start to get final weapons about 30 minutes after that point. And the final boss about an hour, unless you do the last available sidequest, which takes quite a while.

And I highly doubt that

Spoiler:

Crescendo and Serenade

would be even worth having without making the game extremely trivial. Most of the characters already are pretty broken until you do Encore mode. The only time I actually had to use items in the game my first play through were the Final Boss, and the temple in Baroque, since a returning character replaced my healer for the fight.

The only other bonus is purely a cosmetic one, changing costumes. Wow, so totally worth paying $30 more!

Ofcourse, Tri-Crescendo could also just simply release a $10-15 content update on Xbox Live, and it'd still be a better option to get the 360 verison.