3.5 million Blu-ray players sold to date, 3 million of those are PS3's

[Zeus]

The Blu-ray disc association has confirmed that around 3.5 million Blu-ray players have been sold up until now. Out of the respective figure, 3 million are PS3's which means that the remaining 500,000 are stand-alone Blu-ray players. Moreover, the BDA hopes to have a total installed based of 10 million Blu-ray players by the end of the year.



At a CES 2008-held press conference in Las Vegas this week, spokespersons for the Blu-ray Disc Association confirmed that approximately 3.5 million Blu-ray players have been sold to date (500,000 of which were standalone players; the remaining three million were PS3). Furthermore, the Association projects a significant increase in Blu-ray player sales in 2008 -- specifically, a total installed-base of 10 million Blu-ray players by the end of the year.

On another note, reps for the Blu-ray Disc Association implied that the format war with HD DVD is drawing to an end, stating that going forward the BDA would focus on messages designed to convert high-definition hold-outs, and not on messages promoting Blu-ray superiority over HD DVD.


News Source: <a href="http://gear.ign.com/articles/844/844492p1.html" target="_blank">IGN</a>

[majin]

WTF!

are they smokin' crack?

Sony sold far more PS3's than 3.000.000

In december alone they sold over 2.000.000 units.

[jiminton]

According to Sony they have sold more than 5½ million PS3s.
http://www.scei.co.jp/corporate/data/bizdataps3_sale_e.html

Wow, and that wasn't counting the last 6 months. I think both Sony and this article are full of ****.

[daps83777]

nothing we didn't know already. PS3's are practically the only blu-ray players selling. standalones aren't hardly selling at all. its scary to think about how many PS3 owners actually own them for blu-ray movies almost exclusively. which is probably one of the reasons alot of PS3 games don't have super great sales.

[*StoneCold*]

WTF!

are they smokin' crack?

Sony sold far more PS3's than 3.000.000

In december alone they sold over 2.000.000 units.

They are talking about America alone, not worldwide.

[onyxx]

like I said before it was a good tactic for a format war.

[modojojo]

Well, we all new Sony did the trojan horse gamble for there new format and they practically won the disc media side of the next-gen battle.

[blade47167]

nothing we didn't know already. PS3's are practically the only blu-ray players selling. standalones aren't hardly selling at all. its scary to think about how many PS3 owners actually own them for blu-ray movies almost exclusively. which is probably one of the reasons alot of PS3 games don't have super great sales.

I own probably 40+ Blu-ray movies and I've owned over 20 PS3 games. Down to ~12 right now not including 4 PSN titles. Some people buy both lol.

[totaleclipse_05]

I have 15 Blu-Ray movies and 4 PS3 games currently. Just traded in 4 yesterday so I could buy a PSP though.

[0 morgan 0]

I own probably 40+ Blu-ray movies and I've owned over 20 PS3 games. Down to ~12 right now not including 4 PSN titles. Some people buy both lol.

You seem to have a lot more disposable income than most. Most people wouldn't buy in to a new format so quickly by buying 40 titles, so i'm assuming you have a bit more money than "most" people. Either that or your parents do.

[sigma8]

nothing we didn't know already. PS3's are practically the only blu-ray players selling. standalones aren't hardly selling at all. its scary to think about how many PS3 owners actually own them for blu-ray movies almost exclusively. which is probably one of the reasons alot of PS3 games don't have super great sales.

Yeah, chalk me up as another with both. I have over 20 bluray discs (haven't taken inventory...it could be even double that), and I buy games as well. I like how everyone criticized the Wii for not having a DVD player--back before its runaway success.

For some reason, people figured then that gaming consoles needed DVD playback. Now a console has movie playback, and the "new wave critics" think people only do one or the other? Make up your mind.

[aic007]

Well I have about 1k dvd's and 40 360 games, all it proves is that the majority of the people bought the system for the BD playback which was Sony's main concern. They get the winning format, the make more on movies which sell more volume and have a higher profit margin and makes them more money.

Always said the PS3 was the BD trojan horse and I was right.

[cardboardbox]

Always said the PS3 was the BD trojan horse and I was right.you sir, are a true master of the obvious. Any more so-obvious-it hurts analysis?

[GazP]

Well it was the sales against HD DVD and the $500,000 bribe that helped BR win against HD DVD. That's in the bag and the rest is history.

Now that fight is out of the way and we have one format rather than 2 fighting it out Sony need to concentrate on pushing the PS3 as a games console first and foremost rather than banging on about it having BR. As that is what it is afterall.

[sigma8]

Well I have about 1k dvd's and 40 360 games, all it proves is that the majority of the people bought the system for the BD playback which was Sony's main concern. They get the winning format, the make more on movies which sell more volume and have a higher profit margin and makes them more money.

Always said the PS3 was the BD trojan horse and I was right.

The games are selling just fine, FYI.. Take a look at Call of Duty 4

3.54 million PS3's, 713,067 copies of CoD4 sold = 1 copy sold per 5 PS3's
10.44 million 360's, 2,028,749 copies sold = 1 copy per 5.1 360's

Attach rates are almost the same. These figures are "America" only (per vgchartz' definition of it).

[daps83777]

The games are selling just fine, FYI.. Take a look at Call of Duty 4

3.54 million PS3's, 713,067 copies of CoD4 sold = 1 copy sold per 5 PS3's
10.44 million 360's, 2,028,749 copies sold = 1 copy per 5.1 360's

Attach rates are almost the same. These figures are "America" only (per vgchartz' definition of it).

well big multiplatform games could be the same, but it seems the ones getting hurt right now sales wise are the triple A titles that are exclusive to the PS3. none of them seem to be huge sellers even if they are triple A titles.

[sigma8]

Some more sales math.. Console install-bases being 10.44 million Xbox360's and 3.54 million PS3's. Figures are for "America" via vgchartz.. 8.54 million for wii's, in the couple they appear in. 46.77 million ps2's in america.

Remember, lower number is better. If 1 copy is sold for every 5 consoles, that means 20% of the whole install base bought the game. 1 copy sold per 2 consoles would be 50% of everyone.. Obviously, 1 for 1 is 100% (*cough*wiisports*cough*)..

OK: I'll place my analysis up top, and you can look below for the supporting info if you want..

My conclusion is that people certainly are buying PS3 software. Heavenly Sword, as badly as it may have sold, had an attach rate nearly as strong as Bioshock or Dead Rising. Resistance compares very closely to Gears of War, in terms of attach rate. Ditto for Uncharted and Mass Effect. Many recent multiplatform releases are "attaching" on the PS3 at roughly the same attach rate as the 360, sometimes a bit lower--something a bit higher.

So, um, yeah, PS3 owners are buying games. As many games? Probably not, the library is smaller and younger...but the rate of uptake with recent titles is about the same as with 360.

----------------------------------------------------------
Supporting Data (presenting evidence??? god forbid!)
----------------------------------------------------------


Assassins Creed -- higher attach rate on PS3
1,483,932 on xb360: 1 copy per 7 consoles
602,667 on ps3: 1 copy per 5.9 consoles

Fifa 08 -- much higher attach rate on PS3
189,564 on 360: 1 per 55.1 consoles
126,687 on ps3: 1 per 28 consoles

ok, how I'm doing the math should be obvious--I'll cut straight to the numbers.

Rock Band -- higher attach rate on 360
360: 15.5
ps3: 19.7

Guitar Hero 3 -- higher attach rate on 360
360: 7.3
ps3: 8.4
wii: 7.8
ps2: 21.7

Stranglehold -- much higher attach on ps3
360: 51.6
ps3: 33.3
note: game has been out 20 weeks on 360, 10 weeks on ps3

GRAW2 -- attach rate much higher on 360
360: 13.3
ps3: 23.6
note: GRAW2 has been out 44 weeks on 360, only 20 weeks on ps3 (6 month gap)

Now to mix things up a bit..

Resistance: FOM vs. Gears of War -- slightly higher attaches on 360
Both FPS games, out for 60 and 61 weeks respectively
360: 3.3
ps3: 3.5

Uncharted vs Mass Effect -- higher on 360
both "big" games, out for 8 and 7 weeks respectively
360: 11.8
ps3: 13.1

Wii doesn't compare easily, so here's some random wii attach rates:

1st party:
3.8 : Zelda: Twilight Princess
12.7 : Metroid: Corruption
3.7 : Mario Galaxy

3rd party:
12 : Rayman: Raving Rabbids
37.7 : Trauma Center 1
79.3 : Trauma Center 2
13 : Resident Evil 4
93.6 : Zack & Wiki
237.7 : Geometry Wars
19 : Red Steel
19.8 : Big Brain Academy
53 : Elebits

And of course, some more xbox exclusives
Halo1: unavailable :(
Halo2: 2.4
Halo3: 2.3
Bioshock: 11.8
Forza 2: 4.4
Dead Rising: 10.4

PS3-only games:
Motorstorm: 2.8
Heavenly Sword: 12.5
Warhawk: 15.8

[sigma8]

well big multiplatform games could be the same, but it seems the ones getting hurt right now sales wise are the triple A titles that are exclusive to the PS3. none of them seem to be huge sellers even if they are triple A titles.

see above.

[cardboardbox]

eeek, facts!? How will Dapsy argue against the PS3 this time?!

[sigma8]

eeek, facts!? How will Dapsy argue against the PS3 this time?!
To be fair, the 360 is generally enjoying a higher attach rate--and has more games to boot. But I think the notion that people are only using it for blu-ray movies is pretty silly.. The motorstorm and resistance attach rates are very high.. And many of the recent exclusives have done nearly as well as 360's Mass Effect and Bioshock--two big titles. Halo3 I don't really count...that's like the Mario of Xboxes.

So while maybe movie-watching may put a dent in PS3 game sales, it looks pretty slight to me. People are still buying games.

I also find it funny (and unsurprising) the difference between Wii 1st and 3rd party attach rates. Obviously, I don't have EVERYTHING in there, but it appears to me that if you're a 3rd party and you want to sell a Wii game, you better be:
a) Released during the Wii's launch window, or
b) Resident Evil

[daps83777]

see above.

well the attachment rate might be close as far as percentage, thats not what worries me. its the fact that these PS3 game developers are spending alot of money on these games, and while for the amount of owners the percentage might be good, it does not mean that the developers are making their money back. which could lead them to go multiplatform or go to the 360 or something else.

wo while attachment rate per game per console might be good, it might not be giving the money back to the devs they need. so even with the percentages that high, they in essence need them to be way higher because its about money spent and coming back in, rather than how many people made the purchase per console.

[aic007]

The games are selling just fine, FYI.. Take a look at Call of Duty 4

3.54 million PS3's, 713,067 copies of CoD4 sold = 1 copy sold per 5 PS3's
10.44 million 360's, 2,028,749 copies sold = 1 copy per 5.1 360's

Attach rates are almost the same. These figures are "America" only (per vgchartz' definition of it).

Thats one game, look at the overall picture, there are maybe 4-5 million seller games on the PS3 where there are over a dozen on the 360. Oblivion has sold almost 4x as many copies. Assassins Creed almost 2x as many copies, Madden 07 almost 4x as many.

The 360 has record attache rates, so regardless of what the console numbers are between the 3, the 360 is making the most for the developers which makes them happy and keeps the 360 chock full of games.

[aic007]

To be fair, the 360 is generally enjoying a higher attach rate--and has more games to boot. But I think the notion that people are only using it for blu-ray movies is pretty silly.. The motorstorm and resistance attach rates are very high.. And many of the recent exclusives have done nearly as well as 360's Mass Effect and Bioshock--two big titles. Halo3 I don't really count...that's like the Mario of Xboxes.

Do they count the Motorstorm pack ins in the sales? for that matter do they count the ultimate alliance and forza as well. From looking at the chart it doesn't seem to.

Gears sold over 5 million, on top of that there was all the dlc that was sold on xbl. Do you think that the developers of Motorstorm made the same amount as epic did since the ratios are about 2:1? Even without the DLC, your talking close to 300 million in sales for Gears. MS paid for alot of the marketing so Epic got a huge return on the game.

If UT sells boatloads on the 360 and continues to flounder on the PS3, I don't think Epic will be so enthusiastic to bring anymore games to the PS3. Same goes for other devs.

[Mikeyy]

well the attachment rate might be close as far as percentage, thats not what worries me. its the fact that these PS3 game developers are spending alot of money on these games, and while for the amount of owners the percentage might be good, it does not mean that the developers are making their money back. which could lead them to go multiplatform or go to the 360 or something else.

wo while attachment rate per game per console might be good, it might not be giving the money back to the devs they need. so even with the percentages that high, they in essence need them to be way higher because its about money spent and coming back in, rather than how many people made the purchase per console.

But the console is contantly selling, there profits can only go up.

The PS3 had an incredible holiday season. Developer worries should have been extinguished over the last 3 months.

Epic was not worried about sales when they released GOW @ 5 million 360s, why should developers be afraid of 9 million PS3s?

Also games go on to sell for years, Why must all the money be made this instant? Developers should never expect Halo 3 sales, they should take the Ninty attitude with Mario Galaxy, It sells when it sells, and It will sell, because it cannot, not sell. It could only sell!

release the game, and over time, it will line your pockets with gold.

Also developers are going to have to manage there funds themselves, putting everything on the 360 is not the answer. 360 owners are only interested in certain genres. Putting mario galaxy on 360 wont guarentee 10 million sales...

[aic007]

you sir, are a true master of the obvious. Any more so-obvious-it hurts analysis?

Yeah the PS3 is currently getting its ass whupped by a game cube with a remote control.

[cardboardbox]

Yeah the PS3 is currently getting its ass whupped by a game cube with a remote control.PS3 has some company in that category.

[Mikeyy]

Yeah the PS3 is currently getting its ass whupped by a game cube with a remote control.

are you trying to be funny, or are you just stupid?

I try everyday to figuer out the mentality of 360 owners...

I have freinds who own the 360 and there just don't act retarded like the people here...

help me, help you.

[aic007]

are you trying to be funny, or are you just stupid?

I try everyday to figuer out the mentality of 360 owners...

I have freinds who own the 360 and there just don't act retarded like the people here...

help me, help you.


Its was in response to his earlier question, I have no problems with the Wii as I own one, mainly for the first party games.

You talk about 360 fans yet any mention of a 360 in these forums is followed by a dozen RROD, GAYBOXZZZ or XBOTZ, posts.

God forbid anyone cracks a joke at the PS3's expense people get all touchy.

[cardboardbox]

are you trying to be funny, or are you just stupid?

I try everyday to figuer out the mentality of 360 owners...

I have freinds who own the 360 and there just don't act retarded like the people here...

help me, help you.I've got all three and like them all so I'll never understand the flaming fanboy mentality. I think the Wii is the weakest of the bunch but I'm not going to insult it because of that.

[sigma8]

well the attachment rate might be close as far as percentage, thats not what worries me. its the fact that these PS3 game developers are spending alot of money on these games, and while for the amount of owners the percentage might be good, it does not mean that the developers are making their money back. which could lead them to go multiplatform or go to the 360 or something else.

wo while attachment rate per game per console might be good, it might not be giving the money back to the devs they need.Well this is a different issue entirely. The original assertion was that PS3's had bad game sales because too many people used them for blu-ray players only. While the sales may be inadequate, it doesn't seem to be related to attach rates, because attach rates are pretty good. It seems to be a simple install-base problem.

As far as making money on a game, that depends on on a lot of factors. A couple hundred thousand copies can usually pay for itself pretty quickly.. Even priced at $35, if you sell a hundred thousand copies of game, that's 3.5 million dollars right there. I'm not sure what wholesale is, but if it's like CD's, I'd guess the publisher/developers are getting at least half the retail price as revenue.

Selling 600k of Assassin's Creed might not be as much as the Xbox version...but at $36 million in gross sales (before everyone takes their cut), it's probably more than enough to justify the development costs for it.

[daps83777]

But the console is contantly selling, there profits can only go up.

The PS3 had an incredible holiday season. Developer worries should have been extinguished over the last 3 months.

Epic was not worried about sales when they released GOW @ 5 million 360s, why should developers be afraid of 9 million PS3s?

Also games go on to sell for years, Why must all the money be made this instant? Developers should never expect Halo 3 sales, they should take the Ninty attitude with Mario Galaxy, It sells when it sells, and It will sell, because it cannot, not sell. It could only sell!

release the game, and over time, it will line your pockets with gold.

Also developers are going to have to manage there funds themselves, putting everything on the 360 is not the answer. 360 owners are only interested in certain genres. Putting mario galaxy on 360 wont guarentee 10 million sales...

well profits for sony right now are based on game sales because they are still losing money on the PS3 last time i heard. and while consoles are selling question is how many are buying the PS3 for blu-ray, because a majority of the sales of games make it appear either alot of owners don't buy alot of games or they are using the console mainly for blu-ray movies.

games can sell over time, however, they do production runs for games so if they don't sell well right off the bat, its unlikely there will be multiple runs of the game after that. so they can sell up until the point that the last ones can be found from the initital production runs. atlus games for instance only usually do one run for each game, thus why even months after one of there games comes out you will see them on ebay for more than they cost retail months before. other companies over produce and eventually those games get marked down because there are to many. so its a balancing act of sorts.

[sigma8]

Also games go on to sell for years, Why must all the money be made this instant? Developers should never expect Halo 3 sales, they should take the Ninty attitude with Mario Galaxy, It sells when it sells, and It will sell, because it cannot, not sell. It could only sell!
Actually, during my little investigation above, I was surprised to learn that Mario Galaxy has already sold like quadruple the amount of Metroid 3.. And it's been out only a fraction of the time. That would lead me to believe that Mario Galaxy is more of a "Halo3" type game, with a big launch and then ever-dwindling sales. Pretty much any game is like that. There are few exceptions. Guitar Hero (the original) is probably an exception.

On vgchartz you can look at game sales for any game and check "weekly" to see non-cumulative weekly totals.. Pretty much all games have the same curve..giant spike at launch, then usually a little mini-spike during a shopping period.. and then any spikes after that is insignificant.

[sigma8]

well profits for sony right now are based on game sales because they are still losing money on the PS3 last time i heard. and while consoles are selling question is how many are buying the PS3 for blu-ray, because a majority of the sales of games make it appear either alot of owners don't buy alot of games or they are using the console mainly for blu-ray movies.

WTF ok so now you are drifting back.. This is what you initially claimed: that sales indicated people are buying the PS3 for blu-ray...and that's precisely what I tried to disprove, and then you agreed with me and then just said that your concern was not sales proportionate to the user base, but just sheer volume. But now you are going back on your agreeing and just reiterating the same (imo incorrect) statement you made on page 1 ... what gives?

Given the install base, game sales look good. Can you can disprove that? I think actual game developers genuinely do look at the numbers, and not base it off of their gut...which is probably why they are continuing to make games for it. They know PS3 owners are game consumers too.

[Cyclone57]

No ****. Sony Blu-Ray player: £700. Plays Blu-Ray discs, DVD's, CD's...
PS3: Minimum £300. Plays games, accesses the internet, does online gaming, displays photos and downloaded videos, connects to numerous USB devices... oh yeah, and it plays Blu-Ray discs. :D

[sigma8]

Thats one game, look at the overall picture, there are maybe 4-5 million seller games on the PS3 where there are over a dozen on the 360. Oblivion has sold almost 4x as many copies. Assassins Creed almost 2x as many copies, Madden 07 almost 4x as many.

The 360 has record attache rates, so regardless of what the console numbers are between the 3, the 360 is making the most for the developers which makes them happy and keeps the 360 chock full of games.

Assassin's Creed SHOULD have MORE than twice as many sold...since the 360's install base in America is over twice that of the PS3. Assassin's Creed has a higher sale rate on the PS3 than the 360. That's not the example you wanted to use.

Madden 07 came out during launch for the PS3, sucked, and even if you wanted it, supply was low of PS3's at the time...and god forbid you wanted to play anything besides a sucky Madden, it had no other games for months. So props to the 360 for being able to sell so many more.. That's like saying you sold more lollipops than turdsicles. FOUR TIMES more! Woohoo!

The 360 has 31 games that have sold over a million copies versus the PS3's 5. I think that's probably about right, though. They had a 1-year head start, and have a larger install-base, so of course pure volume of sales should be higher. How many million+ selling games did the Xbox360 have a year ago? I'll admit, probably more than 5. Certainly Gears sold tons, immediately.. But what else? You look at other "big" 360 titles from their first year when there was no PS3 around...like Dead Rising and Perfect Dark.. Most of them never got anywhere near 2 million units sold.. That's after almost 2.5 years. An ongoing trickle of sales as console sales pick up will pretty much bump all the PS3 games right now that are in the .6 to .8 million zone right now to be over 1.0 million in another year. That will give them a total of 14 games over a million plus whatever games they come out with this year. They need to come out with another 16 games this year that sell over a million to keep pace with the 360.

So yeah, the 360 is certainly in a better position.. But I think the PS3 is definitely looking healthy.

[daps83777]

WTF ok so now you are drifting back.. This is what you initially claimed: that sales indicated people are buying the PS3 for blu-ray...and that's precisely what I tried to disprove, and then you agreed with me and then just said that your concern was not sales proportionate to the user base, but just sheer volume. But now you are going back on your agreeing and just reiterating the same (imo incorrect) statement you made on page 1 ... what gives?

Given the install base, game sales look good. Can you can disprove that? I think actual game developers genuinely do look at the numbers, and not base it off of their gut...which is probably why they are continuing to make games for it. They know PS3 owners are game consumers too.

i agreed that attachment rate was good, that does equal good sales for amount of consoles out, however it does not mean that the games are selling good in proportion to other games, or selling enough to make up the money it costs to develop them for the PS3.

[sigma8]

i agreed that attachment rate was good, that does equal good sales for amount of consoles out, however it does not mean that the games are selling good in proportion to other games, or selling enough to make up the money it costs to develop them for the PS3.

There seems to be these two theories people have:
#1 people buy the PS3 only to play blu-ray movies
(this one is held by people criticizing the ps3's viability as a games machine)
#2 people buy the PS3 and don't use it to watch movies
(the HD-DVD camp generally says this)

The irony is that both #1 and #2 tend to be on the same "team", yet are completely contradicting each other.

I blame the Wii for this.. Before the Wii came out, everyone insisted that gaming consoles HAD to have movie-playing capability. Because before the Wii was a runaway movie-less smash-success, apparently everyone watched movies on their gaming consoles (ps2, xbox).. Now that the Wii went nuts with cash earnings, and everyone loves it, suddenly it's faddish to have your console only do one thing...and apparently to project that fad onto actual human behavior.

I think it's pretty clear that Xbox attachment rates are a better overall. Not by an alarming amount, but it's definitely something Sony probably would like to improve. However, blaming blu-ray is pretty haphazard. Why not blame the lack of killer games? Wouldn't that be a bigger factor? Where is the PS3's Halo3?

The best multiplayer games on the Xbox360 are also excellent single-player games, and vice versa. Why is it, that on the PS3, the best multiplayer game is MP-only, and the best single player game is SP-only? I think there are a lot of other issues that need obvious addressing, and I don't see how blu-ray really fits in.

Do you think people who play videogames NEVER watch movies? Because it's not like blu-ray is some additional time-block that gets stolen out of your life. A PS3 owner just watches blu-rays INSTEAD of dvd's.. He's probably not losing more time to movies than he ever did.

[daps83777]

There seems to be these two theories people have:
#1 people buy the PS3 only to play blu-ray movies
(this one is held by people criticizing the ps3's viability as a games machine)
#2 people buy the PS3 and don't use it to watch movies
(the HD-DVD camp generally says this)

The irony is that both #1 and #2 tend to be on the same "team", yet are completely contradicting each other.

I blame the Wii for this.. Before the Wii came out, everyone insisted that gaming consoles HAD to have movie-playing capability. Because before the Wii was a runaway movie-less smash-success, apparently everyone watched movies on their gaming consoles (ps2, xbox).. Now that the Wii went nuts with cash earnings, and everyone loves it, suddenly it's faddish to have your console only do one thing...and apparently to project that fad onto actual human behavior.

I think it's pretty clear that Xbox attachment rates are a better overall. Not by an alarming amount, but it's definitely something Sony probably would like to improve. However, blaming blu-ray is pretty haphazard. Why not blame the lack of killer games? Wouldn't that be a bigger factor? Where is the PS3's Halo3?

The best multiplayer games on the Xbox360 are also excellent single-player games, and vice versa. Why is it, that on the PS3, the best multiplayer game is MP-only, and the best single player game is SP-only? I think there are a lot of other issues that need obvious addressing, and I don't see how blu-ray really fits in.

Do you think people who play videogames NEVER watch movies? Because it's not like blu-ray is some additional time-block that gets stolen out of your life. A PS3 owner just watches blu-rays INSTEAD of dvd's.. He's probably not losing more time to movies than he ever did.

i can see the appeal of watching blu-ray movies on the PS3, because i once liked watching movies on my gaming consoles. but after all the drive problems i had with my psone's and my PS2's i decided against it. the xbox with thompson drives experience similiar problems. but as time went on they both struggled with compatability with playback and what not. anyways, i don't like wasting the lasers on my drives on my consoles any more for movies. as well as the fact that standalone dvd players wipe the floor with the xbox and PS2 dvd drives.

when i got my launch PS2 i got it for the games, but dvd playback was appealing to me, but i don't watch a ton of movies. i don't care about 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound. i would rather buy a good 2.1 setup than miss with the hassle of a more advanced setup.

i'm not really blaming blu-ray all the way, though i think blu-ray can be blamed for the price of the PS3 as sony themselves said that it raised the sticker price over $200 when the PS3 first came out. so it seems they could have sold the PS3, even with two sku's, with the most expensive one being $399, if what they said was true.

the attachment rate percentage wise is good so far. it will be interesting to see if the percentage goes up at the same pace as the PS3 sales. it seems though that the high price of the PS3 has made it to expensive for the more casual gamers, the backbone of the PS2 sales. and alot of people on this site in the past have claimed they own PS3's for no other reason than blu-ray playback. but the price of the PS3 has lead to fewer gamers purchasing the console leading to slower sales of games because the PS3 is in last place. it seems there is a good attachment rate from current owners of PS3's but the problem is there just aren't enough of them buying games.

konami said didn't they that mgs4 would have to sale 1 million copies to break even? which of course is possible, but the mgs series sales did split in half for mgs3 compared to mgs2. so what will they do for mgs4 is anyone's guess. but what i was trying to get at, is a game like that, even it the attachment rate is high, could still not make a whole lot of money if the sales aren't high, rather than the attachment rate.

[sigma8]

i can see the appeal of watching blu-ray movies on the PS3, because i once liked watching movies on my gaming consoles. but after all the drive problems i had with my psone's and my PS2's i decided against it.
I'm not going to tell you how to treat your lasers.. clearly.. I've never had those problems.. I know motors do eventually die, but I figure if it dies due to sheer usage, it should stand up to enough use that by the time it breaks, replacements will be cheap. Anyway, if you don't watch many movies, movies will probably not be the straw that breaks its back.



i'm not really blaming blu-ray all the way, though i think blu-ray can be blamed for the price of the PS3 as sony themselves said that it raised the sticker price over $200 when the PS3 first came out. so it seems they could have sold the PS3, even with two sku's, with the most expensive one being $399, if what they said was true. Yeah, of course it was an initial factor with the high price. It still managed to sell as well as the 360 over the same period, although that can be chalked up to its international sales, as US sales were lackluster compared to PS2 or the 360 over the same period.


the attachment rate percentage wise is good so far. it will be interesting to see if the percentage goes up at the same pace as the PS3 sales. it seems though that the high price of the PS3 has made it to expensive for the more casual gamers, the backbone of the PS2 sales. and alot of people on this site in the past have claimed they own PS3's for no other reason than blu-ray playback. but the price of the PS3 has lead to fewer gamers purchasing the console leading to slower sales of games because the PS3 is in last place. it seems there is a good attachment rate from current owners of PS3's but the problem is there just aren't enough of them buying games.
Well, we're not going to have another console hit PS2-like success until they are $150 or cheaper. The PS3 has, according to a story I just read on Joystiq, halved its production costs over a year. I know a big part of this was blue, as the once-coveted "blue laser diodes" that allegedly kept the PS3 in short supply at launch went from like $100+ to $2 or something like that. A massive reduction. So while blu-ray added a lot to the cost initially, that cost is quickly disappearing. Since blu-ray was pretty much brand new, it had a lot of room for cost-reduction.. Optimizations hadn't really been done yet, unlike with its competitor, HD-DVD, which was similar to DVD and thus many production optimizations were already in place, leaving it less room for further reductions.


konami said didn't they that mgs4 would have to sale 1 million copies to break even? which of course is possible,
Well, PS3 Assassin's Creed looks like it's on track to sell a million copies, so I'm sure MGS4 will manage it. That game has the clout, and by all reports, it will deliver and then some. Of course, they want to MAKE money.. I think they'll do it. They probably will be a bit envious of that 360 market, though.

[daps83777]

The PS3 has, according to a story I just read on Joystiq, halved its production costs over a year. I know a big part of this was blue, as the once-coveted "blue laser diodes" that allegedly kept the PS3 in short supply at launch went from like $100+ to $2 or something like that. A massive reduction. So while blu-ray added a lot to the cost initially, that cost is quickly disappearing. Since blu-ray was pretty much brand new, it had a lot of room for cost-reduction.. Optimizations hadn't really been done yet, unlike with its competitor, HD-DVD, which was similar to DVD and thus many production optimizations were already in place, leaving it less room for further reductions.

well that appears to just be an analyst guessing that PS3 production costs has been halved. which is just a guy guessing. it would be interesting to see if it was indeed true. even with blu-ray costs down spliting the costs in half would be pretty crazy. because alot of things could have gotten cheaper to produce but that doesn't mean that they got that cheaper. even though the cpu and gpu have gone to a smaller process and have gotten cheaper, doing so usually is but usually not in a way that would cut costs into a third or half withing a years time.

[sigma8]

well that appears to just be an analyst guessing that PS3 production costs has been halved. which is just a guy guessing. it would be interesting to see if it was indeed true. even with blu-ray costs down spliting the costs in half would be pretty crazy. because alot of things could have gotten cheaper to produce but that doesn't mean that they got that cheaper. even though the cpu and gpu have gone to a smaller process and have gotten cheaper, doing so usually is but usually not in a way that would cut costs into a third or half withing a years time.Um, calling it a guess is a little ridiculous. Analysts "estimate".. Sure, he doesn't know how much Sony is actually paying, but unlike the fools here who actually do guess, an analyst (a good one, anyway), will examine the list of components in a device, and then research market prices for those components, and then cobble together a figure that should be an accurate representation of roughly what Sony (or whoever) would need to pay. So it's not really some wild guess.

They already announced bluray diode price reduction..hm..was it before summer? That shaves off $100 right there. That's probably the single biggest reduction. Then you've got the (irritating) removal of chips, like the emo engine and the ps2 gpu.. They're using smaller hard drives (and a SINGLE hard drive, which means they can reduce costs via increased volume purchases). Also, general reductions in components are ongoing. That 512 megs of ram doesn't get more expensive every day.

The 360 price started high as well, I think around $700 IIRC? And it's probably down to at least $500 or $400, so they've enjoyed a similar price reduction for similar reasons. I do think the bluray diode thing is a big "freebie" for sony though, as the 360 didn't get a big reduction in the cost of its DVD drives. Maybe those went from $15 per drive to $10 per drive, but big deal.. I mean, any savings is great when you consider millions of units.. But even still, $5 saved per unit is nothing next to $100 savings per unit.

[daps83777]

Um, calling it a guess is a little ridiculous. Analysts "estimate".. Sure, he doesn't know how much Sony is actually paying, but unlike the fools here who actually do guess, an analyst (a good one, anyway), will examine the list of components in a device, and then research market prices for those components, and then cobble together a figure that should be an accurate representation of roughly what Sony (or whoever) would need to pay. So it's not really some wild guess.

They already announced bluray diode price reduction..hm..was it before summer? That shaves off $100 right there. That's probably the single biggest reduction. Then you've got the (irritating) removal of chips, like the emo engine and the ps2 gpu.. They're using smaller hard drives (and a SINGLE hard drive, which means they can reduce costs via increased volume purchases). Also, general reductions in components are ongoing. That 512 megs of ram doesn't get more expensive every day.

The 360 price started high as well, I think around $700 IIRC? And it's probably down to at least $500 or $400, so they've enjoyed a similar price reduction for similar reasons. I do think the bluray diode thing is a big "freebie" for sony though, as the 360 didn't get a big reduction in the cost of its DVD drives. Maybe those went from $15 per drive to $10 per drive, but big deal.. I mean, any savings is great when you consider millions of units.. But even still, $5 saved per unit is nothing next to $100 savings per unit.

yes to an extent. however i think doing research on alot of the PS3 components are probably lot harder because they use alot of unique components. the cell for instance. plus the costs of the PS3 that original numbers where based on also had costs of research and development etc in them. i highly doubt sony has made up all the cost of r&d as well as the facilities they used, because i believe they purcahsed some facilities for some of the tech. all that goes into the price. those things take alot of time to make back.

as far as things like memory goes, it is gotten very cheap, but memory fluctuates, and analyst, seeing as we are talking about them, have said that memory has gotten to cheap and will go way back up in price. and sometimes memory depending on what exactly it is can be more expensive as newer techs come around. for instance regular ddr 3200 for 1gb is about the same price that i can get a 4gb kit of ddr2 800 right now. i can get a 4gb kit for between $73 and $85 depending on where i order it from. so it fluctuates.

but its an analyst that can only guess. he can do research to an extent, but can't really guess on things like the motherboard or cpu or other unique kinds of things. i think the cell could be guessed at a little, but not super accurately.