Why Blu-ray may not boost the PS3

A big jump in PlayStation 3 sales has been forecast for this year, based on Blu-ray emergence as the dominant format in the high-definition war. If you are after a new player, the PS3 a relatively cheap option, given that it's also a powerful games machine.

This argument raises the question of whether the HD battle was really about disc formats. Personally, I don't own a high-definition TV and I am currently perfectly happy with DVD quality films. By the time I decide to upgrade my TV set, probably in the next year or two, I'm not sure that I'll be looking for a new type of disc to replace my DVDs. What I'll probably want is HD downloads. I already convert a lot of my kids' DVDs to .avi format so that when we go on holiday I can take my laptop and hook it up to a hotel TV, saving the hassle of carrying around a load of discs that won't work in DVD players in other contries.

In the same way that Real, Windows Media Player and Quicktime were all were busy fighting over online video formats while the now-ubiquitous Flash player crept up behind them, Blu-ray may well end up being a format that gets killed off by downloads before it takes hold.

The real boost to the Playstation 3 is more likely to come from the upcoming release of the much-anticipated exclusive, Metal Gear Solid 4, but with other top titles such as Mario Kart and Grand Theft Auto coming out on the other consoles, Sony won't have it all their own way. As for me, I have my Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii so I don't see the need for a Playstation 3.

Comments

[seekew]

The sooner these companies realise that content is king and technology is simply a delivery method, we'll all be better off.

FLV has prevailed because the sites that use it have good content. Having said that. The other reason that it does well is because it's used by those who don't need to worry about protecting intellectual properties. All the content is someone else's. Be it user generated or stolen!

[sondun2001]

FLV prevailed because quality of compressed videos are higher than other formats, while still maintaining a low file size. Also, Flash provides a way for programmers to script anything they would like to interact with the video (custom players, ads, etc..)

Technology does make a difference. Downloaded movies are a lot more compressed than Blu-Ray, therefore even though the resolution may be HD, it does not mean that its High Quality. I don't think the majority of people will be downloading 50 GIG (size of blu-ray discs) movies as a standard anytime soon....

[Harald]

What I find pretty interestin is that everybody goes on about HD-downloads as if its going to be around next year when there isn't even a standard definition download available yet.

I do believe that downloads are the future - I just don't believe that's going to happen so soon as everybody implies. Given that Blu-Ray has a minumum transfer rate of 30 Mbit/s but the fast currently to regular users available broadband connection in the UK has 20 Mbit/s (theoretically) this would mean starting to download way in advance. And if you and your neighbours and their neighbours do that - I don't believe that the networks will cope well with it. Some day yes. Not tomorrow, not next year. :-)

[Leonard]

HD Downloads would be awesome but there is a lot of factors that you need to account for.

Firstly to get a movie the same quality as a blu-ray your looking around around 22gb for 90 minutes (size based on blu-ray images of Ice Age 2). On the current average connection speed this will take just short of 24 hours to download and the UK broadband network is really lagging behind in the global stakes.

Secondly backing up several 22gb files is going to take a lot of storage space and time to backup which will put a lot of people off. Hard drives are going to need to be huge and cheap, but I don't think to the extent that will be practical in the next couple of years.

The very biggest problem I can foresee though is the ISPs themselves. ISPs like demon cap data downloads to 50gb over a 30 day rolling period. If your going to want to download more then two films your going to have to fork out for a connection with no FUP (Fair Usage Policy).

There is just too many things that need sorting out and catching up. ISPs need a better system, the broadband network needs to be better and HD compression needs to be better. By the time its all caught up we'll all have a nice stack of Blu-Rays.

[Adam]

GTA IV is not a 360 exclusive, it is on the PS3 also.

[Aneesh Sharma]

I personally hate the PS3 (I am a PC Gamer) but at the same time, can argue that Blu-Ray disks will be instantly more popular because of the sheer file size of blu-ray films in 1080p HD, it is near 30GB for Casino Royale, and based on the inconvience, I can safely say that Blu-Ray and the disk is here to stay, but the PS3 has to deal wiht being double the price of a Blu-Ray player, and not offering much more than a 360 apart from Blu-Ray, and the Sony Online feature sucks compared to XBox Live. The only future proof and here to stay system I see is the PC (albeit a £3000 custom gaming PC) that is future proof and will only need minor tweaks!

[DekuScrubby]

It's clear the PS3 has had a horrendously rocky life so far. Poor sales, few decent exclusive games, high cost, and Blu-ray isn't going to save it.

[Luke Thomas]

This really will be the year of the PS3, digital downloads are fine but they are no replacement for a hard copy. Add to that the fact the GTA IV is also coming out on the PS3, Xbox 360 failures are very common & the fact the the PS3 is near silent; it's a clear winner now.

[simon mackie]

the comments above are correct. I am currently runnig a home next work of 4 computers with over 2.5 terra bites of storage. with the availability of tv for down load and a dvd collection of over 800 movies my system is now nearing capacity and none of this is HD quality though its all watched on 4 HD 1080p TV. Until computers come with 20TB or more in capacity at prices we can all afford then the PS3, which by the way is fantastic will lead the way.

The only reason to convert our DVDs has been the ease with which you can watch them just a click of the mouse in any room. in transfering to the MPEG4 format however and in order to keep the file size down some quality is lost amd features such as dolby EX 6.1/7.1 are not available without over whelming the system.

The gent who says PCs are the way forward has never tried the Mac and that is definatly the way to go rather than windohs.

[T Axne]

I think that the author of this article is very ignorant and biased. I remember not long back when HD-DVD was around when everybody was bashing Blu-Ray for its DRM.
Does anyone honestly believe that the movie distributors will let anyone download movies and play them anywhere they want at any time?

Of course not and to say otherwise then you really don't know anything about the movie industry.

Take the movies with you? Only if you use the exact same laptop to transport them every time.

Play them more than once or after 30 days from payment? Please pay twice for the privilege.

Long gone will be the days where you took a disc to friend's house to watch the new movie you bought.

Also, good luck convincing you 40 year old aunt that she will need to buy a second computer for the living room...

Something tells me that downloads will arrive in 3-5 years and stored on the new 20GB DRM protected USB drives, or just be an expensive mess that will drive more people to piracy, or if done correctly, the next best thing, but not before 50 MBit+ connections in every house in developed countries...

[The biggest monkey]

I watch alot of my movies on my iPod ripped from DVDs with handbrake. Not in full HD vision? Who cares? The difference between VHS and DVD was worth upgrading for but not DVD to Blu-ray. The films are way too expensive and unless/even if you are viewing it on an HD tv it's just not worth it. Give me mobile technology, not HD.

[K Robinson]

The idea that because Blu-ray is 30gig for a film that all future downloads or otherwise will also be 30gig is crazy logic. Wav to MP3 anyone?

T Axne has the stupid belief that the film companies hold all the power and will tell the consumer how to watch their films. If the film companies don't provide the films in the way people want them then people will simply pirate them. The Blu-ray DRM has already been broken and if you can watch or listen to it then there will always be a way of copying it. Hopefully the film companies will have learnt from the music industries ignorance and realise it's the consumer, not the companies that hold the power. Film companies need to make the legal version of films the best, easiest and most reliable way to get the films, then many people will follow the legal route to watching them. DRM does not work, it just harms the legal users.

[Niall]

"By the time I decide to upgrade my TV set, probably in the next year or two, I'm not sure that I'll be looking for a new type of disc to replace my DVDs. "

you might be surprised David at how good regular DVD's can look on an HD capale TV

I recently went from old CRT TV to a 42" plasma and was sure that I was bound to need an HD disc player or an upscaling player at least

I was amazed at how good regular DVDs look when played on a normal - non-upscaling dvd player

it turns out that the TV does a great job of upscaling SD content

I too thought I'd be in a hurry to get HD content player - most likely a PS3 - but it turns out that I'm more than happy to wait for the cost of the PS3 to drop - and even then I won't be paying over the top prices for films on blu-ray when regular DVDs look so good even on a 42" screen

[Richard]

Interesting that the author is a designer and does not own an HD TV. Tut tut. So maybe not much else in the article worth commenting on.
HD and media centres are what this is all about. Blu Ray is just part of the delivery package.
As to games, well no doubt some people only rate PS3 et al for this but again it is only part of the package.
Sony have my vote. The Times does not for this article.

[Les-Bos]

haha, xbox's are good but not they are jealeous te PS3 has blu ray dvd player for the same over inflated price they bought theirs for. 70% price crash for teh xbox over the past 6 months. PS3 is just starting to warm up and will dominate the market again.

[Alex T]

Anyone who is seriously arguing against a 50Gb size limit on the grounds that they like to watch movies on an iPod is missing the point on an almost cosmic scale.

Some of us LIKE movies, and like to be able to see every detail on a screen slightly too big to go into our pockets.

If you want to watch cartoons on the bus I'm afraid you have nothing to offer this discussion.

Download times and storage issues have created a market for BluRay already that the PS3 is poised to exploit this year - the issue is canny consumers who know there's no point seeing an 80-year-old print transferred to BR, but who cream their jeans at 1080p renderings of HD-captured content (parts of Blue Planet, as an example). Watch that on the bus *rolls eyes*

[Chuck L]

I personally bought a Sony KDL46XBR4 and a Sony PS3 last week because the format war was over on the disc front. I don't see downloading movies to be a major thing since 64% of internet users have broadband and we all know that includes slow DSL connections. Lets not forget the desire to hold what you buy and with Blu-rays starting to offer downloadable versions with the purchase of the disc for free makes it even more attractive than just a download.

[Trevor]

Why do you have an Xbox 360 if you don't have an HDTV? There is pretty much no point in owning a next generation system if you don't have an HDTV since that is main improvement they provide over the PS2 and Xbox.

[Patrick]

ahh yes but what we have to remember with a ps3 is that a blu ray holds approx 50GB of sapce and that would

a) take ages to download
b) you would need one of the $10000 1TB HD's to hold about 10 games
c) no gamer has the patience to wait, thats why we complain about every set back so imigane the uproar if we had to wait aout a week to download a game instead of going into a shop to buy it straight away

[The Judge]

"Personally, I don't own a high-definition TV and I am currently perfectly happy with DVD quality films"

Well that really removes any weight from your comments.

[The Judge]

Adam Writes:

"The only future proof and here to stay system I see is the PC (albeit a £3000 custom gaming PC) that is future proof and will only need minor tweaks!"

Adam you are completely wrong. A PC gaming system is out of date the day you get it home from the shops as you can be sure that the developers working on the "next game" have a better PC than you. Have you not noticed that as you get new games your PC gradually seems slower - it's because the baseline for PC games increases meaning your PC gets left behind. For consoles however it's exactly the opposite. Because the hardware is fixed, the developers have to improve their game engies to keep ahead, meaning that games actually improve over time, We still haven't seen the best PS3 games yet, but you can bet that my PS3 will still be going when you've consigned your current £500 graphics card to the bin.

[Ross Liversidge]

Blu Ray on PS3 certainly won't hurt the system's performance, and I for one enjoy using it to watch a few choice films that benefit from Blu Ray performance. BUt Blu Ray alone won't shift the PS3, it's simply a nice extra to an already damn fine games machine. The next couple of years should really see the console shine.

[Tim Granger]

Patrick: "b) you would need one of the $10000 1TB HD's to hold about 10 games"

Internal 1TB hard drives are around £150 at the moment.

K Robinson: "The idea that because Blu-ray is 30gig for a film that all future downloads or otherwise will also be 30gig is crazy logic. Wav to MP3 anyone?"

The movies on Blu-ray are already compressed, they are not in raw format. A raw 1080p24 90min video stream is around 380GB. (1080p frame is around 2mpixel = 3mbytes, 90min has 130k frames). So it's already compressed at around 13:1, even not including audio.

[Randy]

How can someone write an objective article without even having any of the items their writing about. The writer is obviously still living in an SD world. Come back around when you catch up to the rest of us.

[Chris]

Talking as an intruder on the geek landscape here, but still more 'target market' than 90% of commenters above, I have a basic, unreliable broadband connection PC that takes days to download a normal film. Contrast that with the convenience of renting a Blu-Ray and whacking it in the PS3 to watch. If I buy it, even better, I can watch it whenever. I'm not even going to go into gaming, as a guy who has an XBox360 without an HD TV has a downright nerve to even think about passing judgements. I'm pig-ignorant and lazy but I am the market and a PS£ seems a helluva lot better option than downloading films.

[Rob]

One other issue I don't see being touched on is that the downloads will be rentals only.

Want to watch the same film twice with more than a couple of weeks between viewings? You'll have to download the entire file again.

Personally I prefer to have access to a top quality copy of the film which I can watch whenever and how many times I want for a single charge.

HD movie downloads are at least 10 years away imo...

[DANNY B]

I keep reading about how HD download films are coming soon to iTunes and Amazon and Xbox are already offering HD downloads from Xbox Live so why do loads of the comments say HD dowloads are years away? Am I missing something?

How dare David write an article using his opinion and not hard facts on a blog. that's not what blogs are for...

[Chris Haupt]

What the hell are you doing writing for the technology segment of The Times?
"I don't own a high-definition TV and I am currently perfectly happy with DVD quality films".
Perhaps you would be better suited as a columnist in Which? magazine as you clearly have very little understanding of the technology market.

[Travis Batt]

I think PS3 is doing alright, sales are not slower as many people are suggesting, it hit 10 million units quicker from its launch than the x-box 360 did and is still gaining ground(sorry 360 users, its true). Look it up. Plus I will always want a hard copy of my purchased movies or music, downloadable movies for rent already exist and will continue to grow but no way will electronic transfers of movies ever take over from physical media.

[Sanelli]

sorry, but i think your article is crap. blu ray IS the ONLY reason the PS3 has done so well. and now that SKYPE will offer their services as a chat client i think the PS3 will be a force to reckon with. never underestimate the frugality of the consumer. a blu ray player AND a next gen gaming console AND free access to its network AND a way to talk to people all over the world for free?

this box will be the best selling box ever...

[l Newland]

Well, lets see, PS3's are junk and downloads are the future, interesting. First thing I know is that Hollywood's depiction of how the future is going to be is generally always wrong. We always get the perspective that all people will use one method to communicate or view content. Never will that be the case. No matter how much we may like an iPhone/iTouch on the bus, it won't replace the desire to have a big, crisp picture on my HDTV. I will certainly never trade in watching Transformers on a computer screen or handheld over my plasma. My PS3 is great, for the few movies that I know I will watch more then once, I buy it on blu-ray, everything else is nicely viewed in upscaled mode. Downloads are ok, if I want to pay over $5 for a rental and is at the quality of an upscaled DVD...I think I'll stick with $12 a month for next day delivery from Netflix. Blu-ray won't be replaced for some time, it's the work horse, downloads will just annoy since there is no instant gratification. Just like e-books will never replace Barnes and Nobles, for book lovers enjoy the process of walking through the rows and picking up the book and flipping through the pages, hard copies of high end media won't be replaced by lesser quality media for the sake of the future.

I, also, have to disagree with David on this one.

The main reason is that here, in the USA, our television standard is NTSC which is 525. In most of Europe, PAL is the standard which is 625. (High Def is 1080 so the improvement is more apparent here in the States then where PAL is.)

Currently in the USA, the cheapest Blu-Ray player is around $350 American dollars while a PlayStation 3 (40GB) can be found for $399, thus the reason the PS3's are flying off the shelves.

I was one of the ones waiting for the war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray to settle before I invested in HD technology. (Satellite, DVD player)

Now that Blu-Ray is the winner, I'm anxious to see the prices start coming down as the production steps up and BR is embraced more and more.

(And the PS3 games are incredible...I have Call of Duty 4 and Assassines Creed and they are very impressive.)

[Muzzy]

He even forgets that demo which is coming out at the end of march, erm GT5p. Come on a Technology reported shouldn't be happy with the present, he should want the future. Lets face it whether u like sony or not the ps3 is the machine for the massess but it needs more quality games, if not it will only take a Blue-ray 360 to put it back again.

[Mike]

HD Downloadable Video content already has a foothold on the consoles. With many internet providers not providing nearly high enough bandwidths its probably quicker to walk to your town center and buy the disk.

Maybe I am just old fashioned but I much prefer having a disk with a case. not only is it nicer to look at and use but if you're computer breaks and you lose a Hard Drive with all you're videos you've just lost everything you have downloaded and paid for.

That said if a steam (www.steampowered.com) style program emerged that kept a library and record of all you're videos so you could simple re-download all you're videos in the event of a computer crash, then I would use it to get those cheapy films that I'm not overly fussed about.

Still to my knowledge nothing like that exists now and if you'd like a pretty damn good entertainment unit that is future proofed further than the others on the market go for the PS3

[Joe Hilarious]

The guy writing this article is obviously a "xbox 360 is better" guy. He needs to get a life. I know three different people that have recently bought the ps3 for the blue ray features. Two of them also bought a sony HD tv at the same time. This is a home run for sony who owns the HDTV market. The people I know were not into the gaming, but bought the ps3 with the HD technology because of the blue ray. I think the author is wrong on his outlook. He needs to not quit his day job

[David Young]

If you don't have an HDTV or think DVDs are "good enough", why are you writing for the technology section? DVDs are good enough if you own an SDTV, I suppose, but that's not the point. We want HD and we want it now. I could buy a $100 player for a soon-to-be-defunct medium (read:HD-DVD), or spend less than $400 and get a kick-a*s video game system plus awesome Blu-Ray player. I did the latter for my 65" DLP HDTV, and even with an upscaling player, DVDs are not good enough on most movies. I rarely go to the movies anymore, because I can spend the same amount and OWN the movie, watch it in my house, and the picture often looks better than it would have on the silver screen. Will everyone drop $400 on a PS3? Probably not. But the cheapest Blu-Ray player at Wal-Mart is only $12 less than a PS3. Only someone who doesn't care at all about gaming would choose that player. Also, by many accounts, the Blu-Ray player in the PS3 is better than most standalone players. Over the next few years, I anticipate that the PS3 will likely have similar sales figures as the Xbox 360. BTW, I know several XBox owners that are already kicking themselves for not buying a PS3, now that the format war is over. I predict that these folks may give in yet.

[Jeff]

Yeah.

Another article written by some Anorak that doesn't even own an HDTV. Downloaded content at a massively compressed 9MB/sec will outsell owning a 50GB copy. Sure it will. Maybe we can socialize broadband to make that a reality?

Why not write another article on how licensed pay-per-play will be the death of downloaded movies? Not quite the same, is it?

Resolution and audio fidelity is no concern to you and your iPod toting brethren. Too busy thinking you can cram 90 hours of highly compressed rubbish onto some little chit instead of actually hearing music.

[DAVID HUTCHINSON]

Hmmm... Interesting responses. It appears the techie folk that browse the Times Online Tech & Web section are also an angry bunch.

The question I am asking in the article is whether Blu-ray is a good enough reason to buy a PS3. I don't hate the PS3 or think the 360 is a better machine. The point is, if I own a 360 is Blu-ray reason enough to get a PS3 as well. There needs to be more exclusive games that will sell the machine. I know GTA4 is out on both the PS3 and the 360 but this means it's not an exclusive and doesn't make the PS3 particularly more desireable than the 360. If I owned a PS3 is Xbox Live a good enough reason to get a 360 as well? Probably not.

As I see it, the next big product that will sell a console is Wii Fitness. I can't see any standout products on the other consoles that are going to make people choose one over the other. Blu-ray is a pull but so is Xbox Live but neither is a 'must have' feature as Blu-ray disks are still overly expensive and the PS3 also has online play.

Finally, why don't I have an HD TV? I watch movies on my computer as it has a lovely 24" wide screen glossy display and I rarely watch TV. Any series I want to watch I get from LoveFilm (the same as NetFlix in the US) and watch on my computer. My day to day job is design, so any spare cash I have I tend to put towards computer stuff rather than TV as I only use the TV for playing games. Would I like an HD TV? Sure, I just don't have the spare cash.

I think I will write my next article about Mac Vs PCs and see if I can up the angry comments stakes.

[Tom]

Hahaha, dumb, ignorant little people..

"a) take ages to download
b) you would need one of the $10000 1TB HD's to hold about 10 games"

http://www.shop.bt.com/productview.aspx?quicklinx=4XZQ

There, 1Tb on a smallish HDD, for under $300.

[James]

We're basically talking about convergence again, aren't we?

I think we miss the point of convergence when we get caught up in the oppositional value of various technology products. For example, the Xbox 360 will upscale DVDs nicely on HD televisions, while the PS3 offers a cheap BluRay solution (if you find some movies that are worth owning in this format like Casino Royale or Blade Runner: The Final Cut). Now, I would argue that the next generation of gaming consoles benefits immensely from a HD presentation but, again, we're talking about convergence; we're talking about a user finding the optimal way for them to view a movie. It might be to play it in the ways I've suggested, or it might be to convert DVDs into avi.files and watch them via a laptop. The permutations are surely part of the fun?

I own all three, a PC, an Xbox 360 and a PS3. While I game on the latter two I download and stream films on my PC. I'm somebody who would rather own great films in nice formats or pay to watch films that genuinely interest me (I like going to cinemas, I like reading books).

I just think convergence is really exciting when you think of it as being plug and play in its purest form. Yeah, it's an outlay to get the pieces in place to play with, but when you do it's fun. I never dreamt I'd be running two gaming consoles side by side through a component socket and HDMI but I am, and it's cool and the experiences are varied and exciting. I think they will remain so for a good few years.

[gm]

ps3 owners do realise you can buy a blu ray player for under 90 english pounds ,do you? ,it also burns to high def ,the ps3 does not have rumble feedback, 360 does (important to me ,lack of rumble is appalling on a console imo)another year at least untill a proper (FULL)granturismo,
However in its favour the ps3 is a lot quieter than the 360 (more should be made of this by ps3 fans...)the 360 being appallingly loud...and hi def fanboys need to realise pc and mac gamers have been hi def for years ,and hi def tv are only as good as the tv content ,most actuall tyv is rubbish imo and doesnt benefit at all from hi def unless it has been made to the highest production and art standards .....rubbish in ....rubbish out...