Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Media PlayStation (Games)

Jaffe Would Have Ditched Blu-Ray 125

Posted by Zonk from the make-it-cheaper dept.
GameDaily is reporting on comments made by God of War designer David Jaffe. In an interview with Geoff Keighley, Jaffe has stated that he believes Blue-ray should have been removed from the PS3 so that the console could be sold at a lower price point. "Jaffe didn't outright label it a mistake either, but he's the first Sony employee (to this editor's knowledge) to even question the need for Blu-ray. SCE Worldiwide Studios President Phil Harrison and other Sony executives have repeatedly stressed the importance of the Blu-ray format, not just as a next-gen movie format, but as a game disc format that provides game developers with plenty of storage space to build highly detailed game worlds without the need for multiple discs."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jaffe Would Have Ditched Blu-Ray More

Jaffe Would Have Ditched Blu-Ray

Comments Filter:
  • .. oh, Jaffe. Never mind. But working in a UK electronics store as I do I can confirm that whereas the 360 and the Wiis were damn hard to get hold of for the first few months after launch, we have loads and loads of PS3s in stock. One store, W H Smiths, is even discounting the console to £399.99. Not a good sign.

    • Re:I'm not taking tech advice from an evil vizier. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      If they were discounting them to 399.99 pounds, they were overpriced in the first place. Oh forgot you guys spend pounds like we spend dollars. 4 pounds for a pint, 4 dollars for a pint in the US of the same size. Granted, the beer is better in the UK so I guess it does even out don't it?
      • Not unless you're at a really shitty overpriced club. Beer is, on average, £2.50 a pint at most. But yes, we do get screwed on everything electronics related to the tune of one dollar = one pound.
        • Why is that? The price of electronics in GB appalls me and I'm a yank.

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by VJ42 ( 860241 ) *
            Well, as a Brit; I'm happy to use the current $->£ exchange rate to my advantage; even with shipping, it's often cheaper to buy goods from the USA; for example, I recently bought a "DS ONE" Supercard to run homebrew on my DS lite; importing it was significantly cheaper than buying it from the UK ("DS ONE" with 500mg Micro SD from US =~£37.00, the same from the UK without the Micro SD card was over £39.00). But at almost $2 to £1 that's to be expected.

            It's not just electronic good

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by ciw42 ( 820892 )
              But you'll have to pay VAT on your purchases. Maybe you've managed to avoid this so far, but companies like DHL will send you a bill and I think these days keep hold of the goods until you pay it.

              Once you pay this, there's often very little difference in the cost of electronic goods. I, and many other I know have found this out to their cost.

              Yes, some products do still work out cheaper, but not by a big margin, especially when you consider the higher shipping costs and longer wait. OK, so I've had goods arr

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by senatorpjt ( 709879 )
            Maybe you should be more concerned about how worthless your money is becoming in general..

      • The seventies called...

        English beer is swill. 'Watney's Red Barrel' is easily a match for Bud for its gag inducing quality.

        Granted they don't have anything as lame a Spoors light, but who drinks that?

        Give me a nice fresh local copy of 'Pilsner Urquel'.

  • Of course he would (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JanusFury ( 452699 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .ddag.nivek.> on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:22PM (#18706791) Homepage Journal
    He's an actual game developer, so he knows that more space doesn't necessarily translate into better games.
    There are two ways to use more space:
    1) Fill it with content
    2) Fill it with useless garbage (like, say, badly compressed cinematics...)
    And, as most people know these days, content is EXPENSIVE.

    In the interview he talks about (I'm summarizing here, so I'm probably off a little bit) his general distaste for large scale game development now because of how much time and money goes into creating all the content a game requires, and why he's decided he wants to work on smaller games. For someone like him that's aware of how expensive and time-consuming it is to use the amount of space provided by a format like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, it's not remotely suprising that he thinks putting it in the PS3 was a bad idea.

    In comparison, it's quite easy for Sony execs to ramble on about the promise of Blu-Ray and how it enables developers to make games, because if you don't understand something it's easy to lie about it and still look sincere.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pope ( 17780 )
      But with Blu-Ray, the cinematics are barely compressed!
    • because if you don't understand something it's easy to lie about it and still look sincere.

      If you don't understand, you're not a liar but ignorant.

      And I'm sure games would be a lot cheaper to produce if the developers have to look for every space optimization possible. If they felt 4GB as tight, wait until they got to make games for the next gen in the same space, this time with more detailed textures, bump maps, etc. The HD intro and ending would probably eat half the disc.
    • We have no way of knowing if Sony would subsidize the ps3 as much as it is now without the blu-ray. At release the components themselves for the system alone was $300 over retail (search isuppli's data on next-gen.biz). Add in packing, controller, cables, manuals, etc it was probably closer to $350 over. They priced the ps3 at $499 and $599 because that is what they believed the limit would be for consumers to except such a system. How do we know sony would still take such a hit without blu-ray. They m

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by ClamIAm ( 926466 )
        At release the components themselves for the system alone was $300 over retail (search isuppli's data on next-gen.biz). Add in packing, controller, cables, manuals, etc it was probably closer to $350 over.

        Why do people insist on citing these bullshit "analyst" reports? I say "bullshit" for several reasons.

        The first is that consoles often have custom parts. Yet none of these price-estimate report (teardown or not) ever explain how they calculated the cost of these custom parts. And I'm just supposed to be
        • I chose isuppli's data because they get component costs pretty accurate and often from suppliers for the components themselves. And no sony does NOT make everything in house. They maybe a large electronics manufacturer but they are outsourcing a lot of chip production and motherboard assembly. During release Sony had asustek make a lot of the PS3 boards. I believe they've added another OEM since then but I don't recall which one.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bodrius ( 191265 )
        Leaving the accuracy of the numbers aside...

        Even if Sony decided to keep the same price and pocket the difference as profit (or reduced losses), ditching the Blu-Ray and its cost would give them a lot of flexibility which they do not have right now.

        Sure, they could still have charged 500-600 bucks per system.
        But they would ALSO have the option to lower the prices and/or upgrade their bundles to be more competitive, at any point, without dipping so much into the red ink.

        Even as a time-limited offer, a 100 bu

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by zoftie ( 195518 )
      I think Blu ray is needed because cinematics at 1080p are quite expensive in terms of space. But then it should be cached to the harddrive anyway,so i don't see a problem with multiple dvd discs. blue ray discs carry 25GB of information, so roughly each disc is replacement for 2 dual layer dvds. I am not sure if it is worth the value. I am not sure if 50 G discs are playable and/or deliverable by content houses anyway.
    • Why is compression a good thing?

      • Why is compression a good thing?
        Because decompression algorithms are fast enough that's games load faster. It varies but in general it's faster to transfer compressed data from a disc and decompress it, then it does to transfer from the disc raw. I'm sure there's a point of diminishing returns but the transfer rates of optical discs are probably the biggest bottleneck in modern consoles.

  • ATTN Dave (Score:4, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:27PM (#18706869) Homepage Journal
    Dave, please see me in my office ASAP.

    Also, do you have any empty cardboard boxes near your desk? If so, don't throw them away just yet. They may come in handy.

    -- Phil H.
    • Nice. ;) Your joke gave me food for thought.

      Is that how it would really go down? While it would appear that Jaffe is speaking in a manner that is against the grain with his employer, I think what we're seeing here is really symptomatic of a bigger problem within Sony's ranks:

      http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.02/sony_pr.h tml [wired.com]

      So basically the two factions of this company have formed a yin-yang of suck so powerful, that it's becomming it's own worst enemy. One day, it'll have to choose between ripping i
      • I Remember a Video game Company like that...

        Why, this company was split into factions by country. The two factions didn't get along, and didn't consult with each other on major, company affecting projects. Eventually, the company died. The whole sordid story is here:

        Project Mars: Anatomy of a Failure [eidolons-inn.net]

  • movies (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PrvtBurrito ( 557287 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @02:27PM (#18706881)
    A Blu-Ray win is probably more valuable to Sony than a gaming console win, the market for movies is simply bigger and if high def DVD movies take over the DVD market a win here is very important to Sony. Since the bundling of the PS3 and Blu-Ray are doing really well for Blu-Ray (so far), I would think that Sony got this one right. We'll see if time will tell, but I think the developers opinion is pretty much irrelevant for the moment and the PS3 price will eventually come down.

    • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )

      A Blu-Ray win is probably more valuable to Sony than a gaming console win

      How will they win with Blu-Ray by losing on the vehicle for it? If nobody buys your PS3, you haven't make Blu-Ray more widespread.

      Sony could end up making neither the PS3 nor Blu-Ray popular. I certainly plan on owning neither.

      Cheers
      • Who is this "nobody" who keeps buying up all the PS3s then? I don't care how many are on your store shelves, go look at the sales figures. The PS3 isn't exactly failing to sell.

        Have a nice day now, don't feed your fellow trolls.

        • Who is this "nobody" who keeps buying up all the PS3s then? I don't care how many are on your store shelves, go look at the sales figures. The PS3 isn't exactly failing to sell.

          I'm not saying nobody is buying them (OK, I actually said that, but I guess I didn't literally mean zero, my bad) -- but, they sold more PS2s than PS3s -- that can't be good. And, a lot of people have cast doubt on their sales figures as being a little inflated. Certainly I hear a lot of expressed lack of enthusiasm for the PS3.

          My

          • Re: (Score:1)

            by adona1 ( 1078711 )
            they sold more PS2s than PS3s

            True, but there's a reason for that...cheap latecomers to the party like me ;) PS2s dropping to AUD$166 and cheap PS2 games are a pretty good incentive to buy...not to mention the fact that since they've been out a while, it's easy to find out what is good and what is dross. It'd be much more painful to find out that your spanking new PS3 game is a steaming pile when you've dropped $100-130 on it.
          • Actually, selling the PS2 in parallel to the PS3 (and making a killing on PS2 sales) is probably one of the smarter things Sony carried over from the PS2/PSONE days. Selling a cheaper smaller system capable of playing all the existing titles for a profit is just brilliant compared to Microsoft's "Xbox? What Xbox, get a 360!" My brother in law never played console games and I convinced him to pick up a PS2 to play several of the games that were already on the market because its very reasonably priced. It

    • the market for movies is simply bigger

      Wanna bet?

      • Wanna bet?

        Sure, lets bet. Unfortunately I'm lazy and only found numbers for WorldWide sales in 2004.

        Video / DVD Sales [edwardjayepstein.com] - $20.9 billion
        Portable / Console game sales [pcvsconsole.com] - $18 billion

        I didn't include hardware or accessories. So... I dunno is $20 fair?

        • Re: (Score:1, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Note the numbers for video games don't include subscription based games like sony's evercrack series or digital distrobution of games like valve's steam system, only hard physical copies.
          • Yup, good point. No subscriptions, no hardware, no accessories. For either the consoles or the videos (players, cables, etc). And I have to admit that data is 2 years old... its close enough that the numbers could have shifted the other direction in 06.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Maxwell ( 13985 )
            note the DVD market doesn't include rentals which dwarf any online game revenues. And yes the studios get a cut of rentals from the major chains. And the OP said "movie market" which technically should include theaters, another 7.4B

            Sony wants BOTH and blur-ray is the way to do it.

            Even if blu-ray fails for movies, why can't it be a game machine format? Have you ever seen a movie off a N64 Cartrdige? Why didn't we all mock Ninentdo for making a 'propietary' cartridge back then? Is the DS lite cartridge forma
            • I fail to see how ticket sales and rental fees factor into blu-ray being a success. While rental discs might end up on blu-ray the cut of the profit goes to the studio that made the movie not the company that owns the disc format (though they'll get pittance for each disc the rental place buys to rent). Similarly the money Sony makes from ticket sales, rentals, and letting the moves go on network TV wont change if BluRay wins or not. BluRay only matters for BluRay disc sales. On the other end of the Spectr

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by therealking ( 223121 )
      Considering the developers are the ones who will make or break the console, I think thier opinion is super important. SONY needs these guys on board 100% or the PS3 will go the way of the Saturn.
    • A Blu-Ray win is probably more valuable to Sony than a gaming console win, the market for movies is simply bigger and if high def DVD movies take over the DVD market a win here is very important to Sony. Since the bundling of the PS3 and Blu-Ray are doing really well for Blu-Ray (so far), I would think that Sony got this one right. We'll see if time will tell, but I think the developers opinion is pretty much irrelevant for the moment and the PS3 price will eventually come down.

      The game division of sony has
    • Problem is... there will not be a Blu-ray win, or loss. Just like nobody cares if a DVD is -R or +R, we will all use hybrid drives that can play both formats, so people will not even care what format a movie comes in.

  • And he's right (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Zebra_X ( 13249 ) *
    "but as a game disc format that provides game developers with plenty of storage space to build highly detailed game worlds without the need for multiple discs."

    This is total garbage. Swapping disks isn't that difficult and happens infrequently if done correctly.

    Everytime we get a larger format, we get a slower drive. The PS2 when it came out wasn't as fast as it's CD counter parts. And the blue-ray and hd drives are not as fast as DVD drives now.

    It's all a gimmick - Sony wants to push their format. Unfortun

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "This is total garbage. Swapping disks isn't that difficult and happens infrequently if done correctly."

      Just like swapping floppy discs, eh? At one time, people moaned about CDs and how it didn't matter if you had to swap several floppies - afterall, who needed CDs? Just like memory, processing speeds, you name it - the list goes on.

      More than a decade later, here we have the same tired arguments regarding another new technology, in this case, Blu-ray. And FWIW, Blu-ray (not "Blue-ray") isn't a proprietar

    • Disc swapping is a design constraint (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:44PM (#18708349)
      This is total garbage. Swapping disks isn't that difficult and happens infrequently if done correctly.

      I have played games with multiple discs. What "happens infrequently" translates to, is that there is some event in the game world that cannot be reversed or recovered from, that you play first all on one disc, and then on the second one until the game is done.

      You can minimize disc swapping, but it comes at the expense of non-linearity. A game does not have to be non-linear to be fun (plenty of very linear games are great) but it does mean sandbox games have to suffer the constraint of space instead of allowing them a broader range of content to roam in without swapping.

      Furthermore, what you are not factoring in is the per-unit costs that multiple discs entail - you are doubling pressing costs, and also increasing case costs as well (though that is more minimal). Since that is a physical per-unit cost it means you have even more units to sell before you break even, so studios would far rather cut content or increase compression than go to a two-disc solution - not to mention the design costs of deciding you need two discs mid-stream and the extra work that takes.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by trdrstv ( 986999 )
        Furthermore, what you are not factoring in is the per-unit costs that multiple discs entail - you are doubling pressing costs, and also increasing case costs as well (though that is more minimal). Since that is a physical per-unit cost it means you have even more units to sell before you break even...

        If a Blu-Ray disk and a DVD9 cost the same to produce that might be true, but it isn't. Currently it's cheaper to press 2 DVD9 disks than 1 Blu-Ray disk, but either way it's immaterial. Since consoles moved

        • Every extra penny you spend is one less penny in profits, per unit. It's not like other costs that spread out the more units you sell.

          As for pressing costs, I'm not so sure you can press two DVD's for the price of one Blu-Ray anymore - thanks to the PS3 and movie sales, there have been a fair number of discs pressed and the pressing costs are going down pretty rapidly. Eventually they are predicted to reach DVD pressing prices, and then my point stands - which is important as I am talking about long-term

    • No, he's not right! (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Everytime we get a larger format, we get a slower drive. The PS2 when it came out wasn't as fast as it's CD counter parts. And the blue-ray and hd drives are not as fast as DVD drives now.Okay, we've had a medium that could hold ~30GB this whole time. It's called tape. They are slow as all hell, but they get the job done reliably. Blu-ray is much faster than that.

      Moreover, the major CD counterparts to the PS2 were:
      Sega Saturn (previous gen)
      PSX (previous gen)
      PC (not a console)
      Sega Dreamcast (I don't want

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by toriver ( 11308 )
        Sega Dreamcast (I don't want to get into whether or not CD killed it)

        Lack of DVD playback (the PS2 sold a lot in Japan first and foremost as a cheaper DVD player) and lack of backward compatibility (preceding Sega consoles - except the Mega CD - were cartridge-based) killed the Dreamcast.

        PS2 as cheap DVD player when DVDs were starting to come into the marketplace == PS3 as cheap Blu-ray player when Blu-ray is starting to come into the marketplace. "But, Blu-ray has HD-DVD as competition, DVD did not have co
        • Except for that DVD was initially available to consumers in 1997 and by the time the PS2 was released DVD players were not that expensive (~$400 for a name brand or $200 for Apex Digital), Blockbuster (and most rental places) were carying new DVD movies to rent, and consumer interest was very high for DVD movies. Right now Blu-Ray is brand new, most people don't own a HDTV to take advantage of the format, Blockbuster doesn't carry copies of movies at most of their stores, and most consuers don't know what a

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by toriver ( 11308 )
      This is total garbage. Swapping disks isn't that difficult and happens infrequently if done correctly.

      If it was total garbage, then there would be more multi-disk console games than the scant examples that actually exist, no? Disk swapping IS a chore when you are sitting comfortably in your couch, five feet away from the console, instead of right next to the drive bay like PC users do. As another poster pointed out, in order to make disk swaps rare you need to complete one disk worth of game before proceedi
      • Also: Sony makes consoles for an 8-10 year lifespan, not the short lifespans of Microsoft's consoles. Already, Microsoft has run into problems with their "last-gen" tech choices and has announced the Elite version of the 360 for later this year, which will have a much larger hard drive than the 20 GB og today's Premium, and also a HDMI port for digital video. Exactly. And if they expect 256 MB RAM and the inferior graphics capabilities to stand up for 10 years they are in trouble. Another Xbox will come
  • The PS3 is a great BD player for the price. I own one and rarely play games on it. But boy, with netflix already renting out BD films, it's been a great time to watch movies!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by roccor ( 1087669 )
      I agree. If you want a High Definition format for your movies this is the cheapest way to go. If Sony does win its format war it will be in big part due to the PS3.
      • I'll avoid the entire thing. I'm tired of the 'format wars'. They're not exciting and they certainly do not help the consumer. We'll all be better off when we finally have the capability to stream highdef media.

  • Something to consider (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alzheimers ( 467217 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @03:22PM (#18707893)
    One thing to keep in mind is that these are the comments of the content *Producer*. Jaffe and crew don't see a dime in the success of Blu-Ray so he don't have to give a damn which media format wins. What he does have to be concerned with is the target console's market penetration -- not many devices to read his content in the homes, not much content gets sold.

    When the things on the top-10 lists of the new formats are barely pushing 1000 units a week, what's the incentive to produce content on them? If I were selling something I'd made, I'd want to hit the biggest market possible. Right now, the prohibitive costs that the blu-ray format incurs on the PS3 console are limiting that market, so content producers are going to be understandably pissed. Unless Sony's subsidizing development costs for exclusive titles, which I doubt they'd do if they're already taking a hit on the consoles *and* taking licensing fees on the back end.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by ADRA ( 37398 )
      If Sony and other media co's were smart with their advertising, they'd release their BluRay / HD-DVD versions of movies 2 weeks before the DVD counterparts. Consumers would get pissed, but in the end if they cared enough they'd go out and buy a player just to be able to rent something the first week its out.
  • as far as games go. Size will matter less as downloadable games become more of a focus.

    This is funny, as I remember saying a similar thing 10 years ago, as I thought PC development should concentrate on making games that could be easily downloaded over a 14.4k modem for ease of distribution. Doom did well out of that idea.

  • I don't own a PS3 and don't plan to buy one, but I took note of his comments on Calling All Cars, where he said that since it wasn't going to sell to Soccer Moms anyways, they should have made it edgier. I don't think alienating people who aren't in your target demographic is the same as improving the product for your target demographic.
    Then again, I'm a mid-20s male anime fan who can hardly watch anime targeted at the mid-20s male anime fan anymore because of the preponderance of moé. Maybe I'm an o

  • We'll find a good use for the space (Score:3, Insightful)

    by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Thursday April 12, 2007 @04:15PM (#18708951)
    Honestly, why wouldn't we use the space? If we're suddenly going from the average TV set having a 480i resolution to 720p, 1080i, or 1080p, we're going to want better textures. The only way that we can fit more textures in game is to increase storage capacity, either via disk or hard drive. How many games would it take to fill up a 60GB hard drive? How long does it take to install a game? The answers are "too quickly" followed by "not fast enough." When people buy a game, they don't want to have to wait to install it, they want to play right away. Plus, if they have many games, it doesn't take much effort to fill up 60GB. Just look at how much space Half Life 2, along with CS:source, DOD:source, Doom 3, et al use up. Consumers would complain like crazy if they had to uninstall one game to play another. Moreover, you aren't burdened to excessive downloads to retrieve more data. By having the storage media be removable, this is bypassed by longer loading times.

    Sure, we won't use it right away, but the idea is to futureproof the damn thing. Did we originally have all of the PS2 games on DVD's? I seem to remember the earlier Madden games for PS2's still being on CD's....
    • One thing you haven't taken into consideration is that you can compress textures to reduce their size. Back in 2000 (when the PS2 was released) there was no hardware-supported texture formats so most developers simply put uncompressed textures on their disc; the Gamecube (in comparison) had texture compression supported in hardware which meant that their 1.5GB disc was not an issue for any single-layered DVD game that was released for the PS2. On a side note, texture compression is also one of the main reas

  • Funny... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by axia777 ( 1060818 )
    ....that Hideo Kojima is already complaining of needing more space. He like the fact that Blu Ray is in the PS3. It is one of the reasons reason that MGS4 is not going to be on 360. I like Jaffe as a game dev, but Kojima kicks his ass. I would go with Kojima's opinion before Jaffe. That is just my 2 cents adjusted for inflation.
  • I don't know where this came from, but please stop using "price point." This is worthless business speak that has gone mainstream. Just use price. Saying "price point" does not make the consumer forget that something costs money.
  • that they need the amount of space Blu-Ray provides.
    To my knowledge there aren't any 2 disk 360 games (or even any DVD based games that immediately spring to mind). Two reasons spring to mind, 9gig is enough for a game and/or publishers don't want you to be able to give a disk to your mate when you've gone passed half way. Oh and whilst on the subject, I was under the impression that PS3 cached to the HD as the transfer speed on Blu-Ray wasn't quite up to it (I seem to remember reading somewhere that you c
    • <quote>
      To my knowledge there aren't any 2 disk 360 games (or even any DVD based games that immediately spring to mind).</quote>

      What about Blue Dragon?

    • No 2 dick games? Well Blue Dragon takes up 3 DVD9 discs. Yup, THREE. 18 GB of compresses data. Rumor was that uncompressed it took up 35 GB is space. But that is a moot point I guess as they compressed it.
    • that they need the amount of space Blu-Ray provides.
      To my knowledge there aren't any 2 disk 360 games (or even any DVD based games that immediately spring to mind). Two reasons spring to mind, 9gig is enough for a game and/or publishers don't want you to be able to give a disk to your mate when you've gone passed half way. Oh and whilst on the subject, I was under the impression that PS3 cached to the HD as the transfer speed on Blu-Ray wasn't quite up to it (I seem to remember reading somewhere that you co
    • that cached any data like that to the hard drive was Oblivion. And Bethesda said they did that in the 360 version too. Those are pretty much lies.

      And have you ever thought that the reason people stick to the 9 gigs on Sony ports is because they really don't want to pay to produce the extra content? I would probably argue that the 360 is limiting the space to 9 gigs before I argued that the BluRay is way too big to be filled. The same thing has been said about CDs and DVDs. It's moot to try and even arg
  • How would I see my troll's bloodshot eyes sparkle as he squeezes the puss from his face?
  • The thing is if PS3 does'nt have Blu-Ray there will be tons of letters condemning PS3 as no better than a 360. What Blu-Ray provides the PS3 is product differentiation. Face it, (given time) anything that the 360 can do, so will the PS3. The online experience, the games, the graphic will improve. But one thing that the 360 can't have is all that extra gigabytes space that Blu-Ray provides. By the 2007 Christmas, Spider-Man 3 and Pirates Of The Carribbean 3 will help sell a few millions unit of PS3. By 2008

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close