Sony Aims Higher Than The Gaming Market

Next Generation tries to take a look at what Sony is up to with the PS3, without going off on a rumour-filled tangent. Their thought? Sony is after something much bigger than the gaming market. From the article: "The big play is for the high definition DVD market, and in this context, an early launch, with small hardware numbers and threadbare games software support might just be a good move. This play potentially represents Sony's most important move in its entire history. Imagine; a royalty for Sony on every single DVD sold between 2006 and 2012 or thereabouts. No wonder Bill Gates hates Blu-ray."

Comments

Oblig.

[tradiuz]

But will the blu-ray DVD's have a root kit?

Re:Oblig.

[naringas]

the root kit won't be needed because DRM will be built into the PS3

royalties

[gEvil (beta)]

Imagine; a royalty for Sony on every single DVD sold between 2006 and 2012 or thereabouts. No wonder Bill Gates hates Blu-ray.

You mean like what happened with the CD? (Sony and Philips receive royalty payments for CD-based media)

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me get a HDTV set and a surround sound system first...

In the meantime, DVDs are good enough. They'll be good enough when BluRay is around as well, BluRay will end up being 'high end media' like laserdisc was.

VHS was barely good, hence when DVD came along it was replaced fairly quickly (as in it took about 8 years, and you can still buy them new).

DVD media does last longer, when properly cared for. It doesn't degrade. If isn't a totally rubbish resolution.

In the long run people's $50 DVD players will die of course, and many will plump for something that does more simply because it will be $50 by that time. Maybe in 2010 there'll be a decent ownership of players and TVs and hifi systems that can handle all the benefits that BluRay can bring.

The vast majority of people don't really care about the quality though, if it is good enough.

Re:Meh

[shoptroll]

DVDs finally hit market saturation not long ago. For most people DVD is still relatviely new. Both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are way off in thinking that they're going to be easily accepted. No one wants to buy a better video player when they just got one a few years ago. Even less so for the media.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

It doesn't matter either way

[casualsax3]

Unless companies are somehow *forced* to stop producing DVD's, Blu-Ray AND HD-DVD are going to become the video equivalents of SuperAudio and DVD Audio. DVD, like the audio CD, is here to stay whether we like it or not. The current generation of media ain't broke, so consumers aren't going to adopt the fix.

Re:It doesn't matter either way

[LilBlackDemon]

It's not that the electronics companies are going to be forced to stop producing DVDs, it's that "Big Content" wants them to stop producing DVDs. The electronics companies will happily go along for the ride, knowing that if the right amount of content is there, customers may very well follow, and they will enjoy a success similar to the one they had when people were switching from VHS to DVD (and like the RIAA had during the switch from audio cassette to CD).

The thing everyone has to worry about is market acceptance. Like someone mentioned earlier, the general public cares only about stuff working, not about the best quality possible (unless they have HDTVs, which is probably a sign that they're not in the general public anymore). HDTV penetration is very low in the US, which is seen as the most important market for consumer electronics (this is debatable, but that's how companies seem to act sometimes), to the point where almost ten years after introduction the market is still well below 10% HD.

As things progress, and prices continue to fall to the point where plasma and LCD screens are as expensive as normal CRT TVs are now, HD will have higher market penetration, but people may not feel the need to update from DVDs. I've seen a DVD on an HD set, and there isn't enough distortion to warrant buying all new movies & players.

That last part was the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Re:It doesn't matter either way

[SetupWeasel]

My vision was just checked on Friday.

I personally almost feel ill watching even 480p images.

I used to watch TV on an old black and white set. I didn't feel ill. Maybe this is the beginning of a new Psychological disorder! Hold on, I'll come up with a good name for it. How about anachronistiphobia? Or maybe obsoletiphobia? How about Hypephile?

Seriously, I can see a difference, but I'm not impressed. IMAX impresses me. HD ain't no IMAX.

Re:Sony's clueless about the media market

[casualsax3]

BetaMax saw HUGE success in the commercial world, MiniDisc is still incredibly strong in Japan with very high adoption rates, and UMD movies have been selling better than DVD movies first did, having the support of a number of major movie studios.

Mod parent up

[noc007]

I have to agree with this assessment. I've noticed most people aren't all that concerned if it's good enough. Not to mention most people don't generally get to see the difference in quality the higher end stuff can produce. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Videophiles and audiophiles are the ones striving for the best that technology can offer and a good portion have the funds to do it.

Also, most people aren't offered a good demo of the better technology. Going down to the local BestBuy to check out what the hubbub is over these HDTVs isn't going to be a good demo. The video they show is a bit degraded from the splitter used and they're showing original 4:3 content stretched on a 16:9 screen. Some places will do it right and will show you the difference between the old analogue broadcast and the HDTV broadcast.

Also like the parent said, I don't feel that people are going to go for something better if what they have now is good enough. My current TV produces a superior picture quality in comparison to most of the TVs in its day and today. People that come over to my house won't notice the difference unless you really point it out or do a side by side comparison. I don't even notice the difference when watching on another TV unless I actually think about it. There just isn't enough noticeable difference for the average joe to make someone want to strive for that better TV with the ______ technology in it.

This is why Sony pisses me off

[Strell]

This is the GAMING market. If you want to do something else, DO SOMETHING ELSE. I don't know how many great games the PS3 is going to get anymore than I know if the Revolution is going to be implemented well, but if I goddamn want to play MGS4, I don't want to have to be subjected to paying a huge price for technology I don't have the capability to use.

All I want is the GAME and the system's GAME capabilities. I don't have the cash on me to get a huge HDTV, a killer surround sound system, a nice receiver, and hi-def signals. I DO NOT. And I'm a fresh college graduate male - I'm YOUR demographic. Living on my own in an apartment, paying off college loans, looking for a job in this miserable market, and attempting to think "gee, I can buy FOOD today."

What the fuck is up with everyone's "BIGGER IS BETTER" attitude? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH DVD. There is nothing wrong with even "low quality" inputs like S-video. Everyone struts around like "oh shit, you know they will have 3 billion resolution, I can't watch my old tv anymore." When the hell did the industry have to be dissolved between elitist fucks and those of us that just want to run Snake around oldmanstyle?

Shit, let's segment the industry further. It's bad enough we have Microsoft running around with HDless 360s, I can't wait to see Sony pushing for shit like "We feel you cannot enjoy this game unless you have a 55" HDTV," and subsequently make that a gaming requirement. SHIT, why not fuck us more and say it HAS to be a Sony brand? WITH A MEMORY STICK SLOT?

Make GAME machines for god's sake. PLEASE. I could not care less about useless graphics in a game, like dimples on a football or sweat on their fingers. How about optimize your power and make the system last twice as long? Then I might actually feel a little more justified by letting my poor wallet getting raped in the ass. We're all creating solutions for problems that don't exist and adding power in the form of increased costs, and for what?

Oh, right. Rendered cheerleaders on the sidelines. Fuck that.

Re:This is why Sony pisses me off

[psu_whammy]

Don't you know?

Sony doesn't simply make good, reliable electronics anymore.

They make electronics that serve as lock-ins to their media content now.

Which means that people will buy the console because it has Madden, and Sony will think that nothing is wrong, but for many normal people, Sony is beginning to represent the worst of the music industry, the movie industry, the gaming industry and the technology industry all at the same time.

Freaking convergence nonsense...

[Godeke]

I have an XBox, two PS2s and a game cube connected to my home LAN. Last round definately went to the PS2, with the XBox having superior technology (and Live was a great idea) but not as many games that I care about and the Nintendo having the best family/party games. (Checking my games, I have 34 PS2, 15 XBox and 12 Cube games on the shelf. I know I have traded in many more PS2 games than either of the others...)

This round I can't find interest in *any* of the new machines. The 360 is lacking a killer app: I'm not into the FPS on consoles (say hello to my mouse and keyboard noobs) and the rest of the offerings are pretty much nothing to write home about. The PS3 has backwards compatibility, which makes it more likely (screw you Microsoft for your choices of emulated games... my library of XBox games hates you) and the Revolution at least is *trying* to do something interesting while keeping costs down *and* including backward compatibility. I will probably pick up the Revolution when it comes out, wait for the PS3 to develop a library and flip Microsoft the bird since I will have to hang onto the massive box to finish up the games I have in the queue anyway.

WMD?

[Big Nothing]

"Sony is after something much bigger than the gaming market with the PS3."

Yes, I think it's safe to assume that the PS3 will be used for WMD's.

Re:Really flawed argument

[trimsyndicate]

Well that's exactly what happened in Japan when the PS2 came out. It was the cheapest DVD player on the market, and people bought them in droves for that very reason. They'd like nothing more than to repeat that success, this time in a bigger video markeet (the US). The big wild card is whether consumers will actually care enough about Blu-ray for this angle to make a difference.

Re:Who cares? MS and Nintendo already won

[Sylver Dragon]

Sony's media can hold more than 8.4GB of data. I have no idea why any videogame would ever require more than 8.4GB of data, but if it really did, you could always - gasp - split it onto two discs.

Riiiight, and I'm never going to fill the 10MB hard-drive in my 8088. Games get bigger and, usually, better. And while shuffling disks works ok when you only have a few disks; eventually, you will reach a point where it becomes a royal pain in the ass. Go back about 10-15 years and you'll see what I mean. When I got King's Quest V the damn thing came on 10 1.44MB floppies. Installing it was annoying. I was only too happy to get a CD-ROM drive to stop that sillyness. Evenatully our games will outgrow DVD's. Yes, a lot of the reason will be graphics, that's ok. We'll probably also see a lot more voice acting and content stuffed in there too. As it is, I'm starting to see games come on 2-3 DVD's pretty regularly. This is still below the threashold of absolute annoyance, but it's getting close. By the time it hits 5 disks a game, give me something new.
Of course, the obvious point here is that neither Blu-Ray nor HD-DVD offer a substantial enough improvement to matter. So, it will probably be neither of these which supplant DVD's, but it will happen.