I'd probably sound like a hater. But, here it goes. Would Blu-ray have a leg to stand on if it wasn't for the PS3? Probably not. Although I do own a 60gig PS3 for which I paid $500, I still think it's a great deal and a bargain for all the things that it's capable of. But, I'm talking about Blu-ray as video content disc. I have always been with the argument that it's a disturbing thing that a video disc format was won in great part by a gaming console. That the best HD player is a gaming console. And, that the best HD player costs you $400. Low Rank me all you want, I'm just uncomfortable with those results. The HD format should've been won by a stand alone unit, not a gaming console. I don't care if it was HD-DVD or Blu-ray. A gaming console should've never been the major contributor. Yes, I did keep track of all the stats during the so called "format war." But, anyone knows that stats can be manipulated in any way one wants them to go.
this is like saying that because Bo Jackson (who?) was a good baseball player, it was somehow unfair that he also be a good football player. In fact, there are a billion analogies for proving how ridiculous this argument is (why I chose this one, I have no idea.)
Shirley, you can't be serious?
I rarely post on this site, because I am really only interested in Chris' thoughts, but man, how can I resist?
P.S. I almost pulled out the Bill Clinton Sax Player vs. President analogy, but despite the humor, it would have weakened my point.
I'm not going to talk about Bo Jackson because I don't follow sports. But his "Bo Knows ..." was very popular back in the 80's. I'm also going to avoid your introduction of politics and Bubba's sax playing talents. Although I think Zoot was a better player
My point is that a video disc format should've been decided by a stand alone unit and not a gaming console. After all, the average consumer will never fall for a gaming console to watch their movies. And we're seeing that by the low demand for Blu-ray from the average Joe Six Pack.
Again, the PS3 is great, and I'd buy a second one if I could afford it. But, it's not the best strategy for replacing the DVD format.
@ Dominic: I understand that consoles are playing a bigger role on our entertainment choices. However, they're not the best choice for non-gamers or any age group. Most of us here have no problem using them for that. But, try explaining it to parents or your grandparents. It just won't work. A gaming console is the worst route to take.
You seem to be too hung up about the PS3 being a gaming console. Why should it matter? Overall it's a format were talkning about, not the device that delivers that format. It's $400 for all that it does, so the price is justifiable as a media device, not a BD player.
Anyhow, until very recently, the PS3 was the cheapest BD player and did way more than the standalones going for $600. How quickly things have changed in a couple of months. YOu can now get a standalone for
Rob: Hands down, PS3 'is' the best choice currently for any age and even those who are non-gamers. I'm not saying it's a 100% sale right now, but quite frankly you get the best bang for the buck. You get a game console, a media center, and a blu-ray player. And grandparents and parents may not need that, but those conservative buyers adopting to new tech. still say "once you buy it it becomes a dinosaur" as annoying as that sounds, I still hear it from my elders... this gives them headroom adding more value to their blu-ray player expanding it with firmware updates to keep it up to date.
A year or two from now, it won't matter as prices will drop and blu-ray will take more of the marketshare (even tho DVD is not ever going away as it seems).
Right now, I'd have to disagree with you... PS3 FTW
"But, try explaining it to parents or your grandparents. It just won't work. A gaming console is the worst route to take."
Don't have to, my parents have a PS3 and use it all the time for movies.. and I don't think they've ever turned on a game, even for the grandkids. They love the thing as a movie player and love the quality of blu-ray movies. They use the remote vs a controller and it's just like any player for them.
They saw mine and wanted one.. the fact that I was also buying a lot of new releases on blu ray (and the whole family borrows from me) was a big part of the reason, and they asked me if it made sense and I said yes due to it's ability to update via firmware over time.
I don't see how it matters or not if a "console" won the war for blu ray. If it helped seed the market with players then it was obviously a smart thing to do for Sony. Its also pretty derogatory to call it just a console when even now, in this very news article it is still considered one of the best players out there. That's pretty impressive if you ask me and testament to the quality of the system.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I'd probably sound like a hater. But, here it goes. Would Blu-ray have a leg to stand on if it wasn't for the PS3? Probably not. Although I do own a 60gig PS3 for which I paid $500, I still think it's a great deal and a bargain for all the things that it's capable of. But, I'm talking about Blu-ray as video content disc. I have always been with the argument that it's a disturbing thing that a video disc format was won in great part by a gaming console. That the best HD player is a gaming console. And, that the best HD player costs you $400. Low Rank me all you want, I'm just uncomfortable with those results. The HD format should've been won by a stand alone unit, not a gaming console. I don't care if it was HD-DVD or Blu-ray. A gaming console should've never been the major contributor. Yes, I did keep track of all the stats during the so called "format war." But, anyone knows that stats can be manipulated in any way one wants them to go.
this is like saying that because Bo Jackson (who?) was a good baseball player, it was somehow unfair that he also be a good football player. In fact, there are a billion analogies for proving how ridiculous this argument is (why I chose this one, I have no idea.)
Shirley, you can't be serious?
I rarely post on this site, because I am really only interested in Chris' thoughts, but man, how can I resist?
P.S. I almost pulled out the Bill Clinton Sax Player vs. President analogy, but despite the humor, it would have weakened my point.
I'm not going to talk about Bo Jackson because I don't follow sports. But his "Bo Knows ..." was very popular back in the 80's. I'm also going to avoid your introduction of politics and Bubba's sax playing talents. Although I think Zoot was a better player
My point is that a video disc format should've been decided by a stand alone unit and not a gaming console. After all, the average consumer will never fall for a gaming console to watch their movies. And we're seeing that by the low demand for Blu-ray from the average Joe Six Pack.
Again, the PS3 is great, and I'd buy a second one if I could afford it. But, it's not the best strategy for replacing the DVD format.
Rob:
Thanks to PS3 being a contributing factor, the war ended sooner than a standalone only war.
We live in a new era where gaming consoles are more than what they use to be.
@ Dominic:
I understand that consoles are playing a bigger role on our entertainment choices. However, they're not the best choice for non-gamers or any age group. Most of us here have no problem using them for that. But, try explaining it to parents or your grandparents. It just won't work. A gaming console is the worst route to take.
You seem to be too hung up about the PS3 being a gaming console. Why should it matter? Overall it's a format were talkning about, not the device that delivers that format. It's $400 for all that it does, so the price is justifiable as a media device, not a BD player.
Anyhow, until very recently, the PS3 was the cheapest BD player and did way more than the standalones going for $600. How quickly things have changed in a couple of months. YOu can now get a standalone for
Rob:
Hands down, PS3 'is' the best choice currently for any age and even those who are non-gamers. I'm not saying it's a 100% sale right now, but quite frankly you get the best bang for the buck. You get a game console, a media center, and a blu-ray player. And grandparents and parents may not need that, but those conservative buyers adopting to new tech. still say "once you buy it it becomes a dinosaur" as annoying as that sounds, I still hear it from my elders... this gives them headroom adding more value to their blu-ray player expanding it with firmware updates to keep it up to date.
A year or two from now, it won't matter as prices will drop and blu-ray will take more of the marketshare (even tho DVD is not ever going away as it seems).
Right now, I'd have to disagree with you... PS3 FTW
"But, try explaining it to parents or your grandparents. It just won't work. A gaming console is the worst route to take."
Don't have to, my parents have a PS3 and use it all the time for movies.. and I don't think they've ever turned on a game, even for the grandkids. They love the thing as a movie player and love the quality of blu-ray movies. They use the remote vs a controller and it's just like any player for them.
They saw mine and wanted one.. the fact that I was also buying a lot of new releases on blu ray (and the whole family borrows from me) was a big part of the reason, and they asked me if it made sense and I said yes due to it's ability to update via firmware over time.
...Funny how just a year or so ago, many like-minded individuals including myself were being trolled to death for suggesting the same.
I don't see how it matters or not if a "console" won the war for blu ray. If it helped seed the market with players then it was obviously a smart thing to do for Sony. Its also pretty derogatory to call it just a console when even now, in this very news article it is still considered one of the best players out there. That's pretty impressive if you ask me and testament to the quality of the system.