Network now...NEWS
Why Microsoft Still Rejects Blu-ray
By Kris Graft
January 9, 2009
See also:
Related Articles:
"...OK, let me get this straight: I’m going to add something to the product that’s going to raise the cost, which means the price goes up, consumers aren’t asking for it, and by the way, my game developers can’t use it."
Months after the smoldering end of the high-def format war, Microsoft still isn't buying into Blu-ray.
In an interview with TechFlash.com, Microsoft's president of Entertainment & Devices Division Robbie Bach laid out exactly why.
"It’s not a feature we get a ton of requests for. We really don’t," he stated regarding the tech that is currently found in Xbox 360 rival PS3.
He added, "...From a technical perspective, it doesn’t help us in the core of what Xbox does, which is in gaming." Bach noted that there are 28 million Xbox 360s on the planet that do not have Blu-ray, so Microsoft would be extremely unwise to alienate that crowd with mid-cycle Blu-ray games support.
Lastly, he said Blu-ray "costs a lot of money," a fact that Sony's gaming division can attest to. In all, Bach claimed that Blu-ray is "a little bit of a technology looking for an answer."
As for high-def movie playback, the exec noted Xbox 360's movie download service and streaming Netflix support.
Bach flatly said Blu-ray doesn't fit in with Microsoft's current strategy, commenting rather derisively, "...OK, let me get this straight: I’m going to add something to the product that’s going to raise the cost, which means the price goes up, consumers aren’t asking for it, and by the way, my game developers can’t use it."
Contact Us / About Us / Advertise With Us / BeltwayBlips / TechBlips / MassiveBlips / GamerBlips / FAQ
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Subscribe To Edge Magazine / Corrections / Terms & Conditions / Privacy Policy
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW
England and Wales company registration number 2008885
Its Sonys poor format foresight...
Need I mention UMD's?
I'm sorry but what other high definition disc is still in production? The only poor foresight here was made by the company who gambled on HD DVD.
People are ready to kill each other for the piece of hardware, is this were the Scientology church is getting their members?
DVD sales represent over 97% of the market...And Blu-ray is NOT what makes up all 3% of the remaining market.
That just goes to show how much of a failure Blu-ray has been.
Blu-ray will never replace DVD the way that DVD replaced VHS...Blu-ray will me more like the Laserdisc format that hung around for a while before eventually being replaced by DVD...It will be like that with Blu-ray eventually being replaced by On-Demand video downloads from services like NetFlix.
The fact that DVD discs can be upconverted all the way to 1080p is one of the main things that really killed off Blu-ray. Now, people don't need to repurchase their entire collection of DVD discs with those over-priced Blu-ray discs.
When a DVD is upconverted to 1080p and you adjust the sharpness on your HDTV, it looks virtually identical to a Blu-ray disc -- and sometimes looks better than the Blu-ray disc, because most Blu-ray discs have not been digitally remastered, which means that the high-resolution ends up explosing lots of poor looking "Digital Noise."
Blu-ray ended up being a format that failed to live up to its supposed potential. We now know that Sony told us nothing but lies when they were talking about Blu-ray.
Examples include:
* Space - Sony claimed that Blu-ray had the advantage of "space" over HD-DVD because Blu-ray stored 25GB per layer, while HD-DVD stored 15GB per layer.
Sadly, we now know that it was HD-DVD that had the advantage of "space" over the Blu-ray. The "standard" sized disc used by HD-DVD movie discs was 30GB in size, because the disc was dual-layer. The "standard" sized disc used by Blu-ray movie discs is only 25GB, because the movies use only single-layer discs, because of the fact that the dual-layer discs have such a high defect ratio that they are very expensive. This gives standard HD-DVD movies discs a 5GB advantage in the area of "space."
This is the reason why HD-DVD movies often included an extra sound format that wasn't found on the Blu-ray version. The HD-DVD had 5GB of extra space, so that is how they used it.
* Hybrid discs - Toshiba said from the beginning that HD-DVD would use hybrid discs where one side was an HD-DVD and the other side was a standard DVD. This was 100% true. I own many of the hybrid discs.
Sadly, Sony decided to tell more of their lies by saying that Blu-ray would do the same...Blu-ray has been on the market for several years now, yet it still does not have any hybrid discs. This isn't an accident, Sony doesn't want hybrid discs used, because then they would have to pay DVD royalties. Sony knew this was a lie all along, just like when they said they were going to launch the PS3 in the spring of 2006 simultaneously worldwide with 2 HDMI outputs...
In my opinion, it is a very good thing that people have become aware of the fact that Sony makes inferior products that are very disappointing, and then tries to sell that at prices that are far too high.
The fact that DVD discs can be upconverted all the way to 1080p is one of the main things that really killed off Blu-ray. Now, people don't need to repurchase their entire collection of DVD discs with those over-priced Blu-ray discs.
WRONG if u upscale a dvd to 1080p you will get about 20mins of footage on it if that and am sure u will agree last thing i want to do is watch a full hd film and i hav to keep changing the discs evry 20 mins
Space - Sony claimed that Blu-ray had the advantage of "space" over HD-DVD because Blu-ray stored 25GB per layer, while HD-DVD stored 15GB per layer.
Sadly, we now know that it was HD-DVD that had the advantage of "space" over the Blu-ray. The "standard" sized disc used by HD-DVD movie discs was 30GB in size, because the disc was dual-layer. The "standard" sized disc used by Blu-ray movie discs is only 25GB, because the movies use only single-layer discs, because of the fact that the dual-layer discs have such a high defect ratio that they are very expensive. This gives standard HD-DVD movies discs a 5GB advantage in the area of "space."
more bull crap blu ray single has 25gb but hd dvd has 15gb a double sided blu ray has 50gb while hd dvd only 30gb and now the blu ray disc can get upto 400gb of space on
http://www.engadget.com/2008/07/07/pioneers-blu-ray-disc-hits-400gb/
Sadly, Sony decided to tell more of their lies by saying that Blu-ray would do the same...Blu-ray has been on the market for several years now, yet it still does not have any hybrid discs.
my bullcrap i have casino royale on blu and its a hybrid but its not dvd on the other side its the extras which in my opinion is a lot better
so in my opinion you should go back to your cave you little xbox fanboy and learn what your talking about befor you start typing aload of shit
oh and its funny how blu ray is still going unlike the so called better one hd dvd which is a big fail which xbox fanboys cant handle
If an upscaled DVD does not look better than a BluRay, then it's because the BluRay is only an upscaled DVD, upscaled 720p version if you are lucky. If the source material is really 1080p to begin with, then you'd have to be blind to believe the upscaled DVD looked better. Sure, many movies will expose the weakness of their special effects at that 1080p, but that also does not mean DVD is better. Quite the contrary is true.
Uuummm... you'd better clean this up a little as you misunderstood what is meant by up-scaling. I'm embarrassed for you.
If nothing else, I believe this article may have generated the most comments of any Edge article to date! :)
It might not be part of their strategy for 360, but thats not stopping the latest PC's being launched with a Blu Ray drive as standard.
Agreed. Even though Apple hasn't been shipping any systems with BR yet, they are part of the original BR association (along with Disney, Matsushita, Sony [obviously], and Samsung among others). I'm sure we can expect them soon.
I think it's quite simple really (Enough with the fanbois). Microsoft simply stated that it doesn't fit their business model. That's entirely their decision, as they feel it's simply not a viable solution for their company and their profit model. Obviously, Sony thought otherwise, which is why the PS3 is supporting the format. Two different companies, two different agendas. I fail to see how one 'better' than the other. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they're in it to make money, and we're in it to reap the benefits. This really ought to be a win-win situation for both sides. Hell, Nintendo doesn't even support movie playback and look what happened to them.
@sid57
spot on comment !
but you can rephrase that a 100x , fanboys always feel the need to say that eventually the xbox360 needs a BR drive ! ?
They simply cannot sense why somebody can be different .
They simply cannot accept what is being said by other parties.
To cut the chase : They stand for there own universal world that rules everything.
Why, oh why, does every 360 or PS3 related article on this site have to turn into some 'who has the biggest balls' competition. Seriously, this is all getting very silly!
Very true Nolim, as everyone should already know I have the biggest balls. C'mon! ^^
NickgamertagO1 said:
as everyone should already know I have the biggest balls. C'mon! ^^
True, Nick haunts this place like that fart from my arse!
Whatevs, I've been backin off this beast lately, you guys have all been going at it on this site more than I can keep up with! (And that's sayin a lot).
Sounds like there's some serious wanking going on over this side.
Not that it matters, but: I'll buy a PS3 when I want a Blu-ray player (fairly soon, I should imagine) AND when the PS3 becomes the stock standard lead platform for developers. A Blu-ray add on for 360 wouldn't interest me, so I've got no beef with MS 'ignoring' it.
And as for Digital Distibution? No way will I accept that in Australia, where internet costs are pretty insane for the value ($80AU per month for 1500/256 ADSL and 25gb download limit [there are cheaper deals, but not significantly]) so while I marvel at the fact that there's still no video marketplace in Australia, it doesn't bother me since I wouldn't dare attempt streaming HD video with my internet capabilities, let alone downloading full 360 or (God forbid) PS3 games.
Long live hard-copy.
There is no need for slo-ray on 360 right now.
And, even when the time comes when more and more games absolutely require more than a DVD worth for content, then I think I would probably prefer one disc swap per play through rather than have 4 x 15 minute installs per play through, as was the case with MGS 4.
It was 4 x 2 minutes per ACTS, not "4 x 15 minute installs per play through".
Seriously, why don't you check your 'facts' before you come here or anywhere flaming yourself?
4 x 2 minutes per ACTS???! What does that even mean??
Speak clearly next time you want to take a snipe.
Regardless if Im right or wrong on the times, swapping discs beats HDD eating installs any day.
"ACTS???! What does that even mean??"
Next time do your homework before you comment on anything.
EDIT: forgot to answer to your second point.
"swapping discs beats HDD eating installs any day"
Yes, on the 360, but not on the PS3, no way. I have a 300GB HDD in the Big Black Coffin of Lol, and I don't care about installs anymore. You do on your 360, as I see.
I'd prefer to just install the games on the 360's HDD because it’s an entire install that you just have to do once and it takes anywhere between 5-10 minutes. You don't have to swap discs or worry about install times mid-game. Best of both worlds (and it keeps your console much cooler and quieter).
I think that the MS reasoning is all wrong.
HELLO!! Why not make an add-in so Xbox owners can play BR movies?
The reason why MS doesn't want to use BR on the XBox, is because if they do that, they would be giving the reason to Sony that added the BR in the first place. Now how that would look like in the picture?
I believe that more than giving Sony the reason of using the BR player from the beginning is that Br players have dropped considerably in cost. Before when the format was was raging on a HD-DVD add-on fro $199 was a great deal to jump into the HD bandwagon (provided you already owned a 360 for a while and your wallet had recovered.
Now you can fin BR players for around $200, not the best BR player of course but still. If Microsoft wanted to release a BR add-on it has to sell it for at least $150 to make it enticing enough. But that wont happen cause 1)The BR players are still quite expensive and a $150 price will be too hard to achieve and 2) If you are MS and are constantly promoting the NXE and its deal with Nextflix for downloading HD movies, how will releasing a BR add-on will look like to you costumers and the public perception? To me will look like 90's flashback with Sega releasing the 32X just as the Saturn is ready to launch.
Hmmm... I think XBOX owners can buy one at the closest electronics retail shop. The reason MS doesn't want to make one is because there is no point in it.
1 - They can't make BR games as there's is no BR player in XBOX360.
2 - BR while better then DVD for obvious reason is still slower and that's why you have to install games on your HDD some times. And as we know not every XOBX has HDD as a standard in it.
3 - Even if they make one it will take them some time and by then you can buy one for 150 euro which is about as much as MS's one will cost when released.
No point in it what so ever.
Reason #2 is not exactly true. The blu-ray drive will always spin at a constant rate and developers can expect their data to be read at the same speed anywhere on the disc. The 360's drive is variable speed meaning it has a low and peak read speeds. The average speed of a 360 drive is the same as blu-ray. With that said, games on the PS3 that requires installs are the developers fault. They either have no intention for data management or have no budget and time to look at it. Instead they force you to dump the data on your drive. There have been many games released that have no installs and perform great.
While i can't disagree with you on the technical part, it's still good too see some kind of technical data sheet on the average reading speed of 360 DVD drive. On the second though the key sentence of your post is 'Not exactly true' which means that if there were no speed limitation problems at all then the installation on the HDD wasn't necessary either. So even if the problem isn't as bad as they say, it's still there in one way or another.
With best regards,
Jevgeni.
lets assume for sake of argument each 1 gig of game costs 1 million dollars to produce. So you get a DVD9 and max it out, the dev wants 9 Million for services rendered. Now you want to fill a 50 gig Blu Ray with game, who is picking up the 50 million dollar bill?
And as is beyond doubt now, (fanboys aside) Blu Ray is a niche product, a stop gap before the DVD crowd moves over to movies delivered to hard drive via satellite, cable or broadband so you have smaller audience from which to recover costs. That is before we even get to the lackluster data transfer speeds of the format.
"for sake of argument"
Let's assume that the cost is not 1 million per 1GB data. LittleBigPlanet uses way too much space to fit in one (or two, or three) DVD9s, and guess how many people worked on it until its final phase. (FYI 22.)
I hardly think that a game like LBP costs so much to produce, it still eats up a Blu-Ray disc. I think there will be many games in the near future with these kind of production costs on Blu-Rays (or several DVDs), with huge textures, uncompressed audio and such. I don't want to download those monsters via satellite, cable or broadband, do you?
"ittleBigPlanet uses way too much space to fit in one (or two, or three) DVD9s,"
no it doesn't, there is no ps3 game that couldn't be done using a dvd9
You mean couldn't be done using SEVERAL DVD9s right?
About LBP, you definitely want to check your facts before you say that. LittleBigPlanet took up 25GB space on a single layer disc. The GAME could fit in a DVD9, probably, the engine I mean. But that wouldn't be the same without the hi-res textures, the audio, the tutorials with Stephen Fry, and all the bells and whistles.
Btw have you seen the game in motion on a HD setup? It looks better than most of the CGI stuff from Pixar.
Yet again jb1, another mis-informed post. Well done!
I just sold my PS3 to buy a standalone bluray player (Panasonic BD35) since I was hardly ever playing games on it, and given the trouncing they got by the Wii and the 360 over the holidays they will lower the price when I eventually buy another one.
I think the trojan horse advantage is being reduced as we see more sub-$199 players. Hence, even less need for the 360 to have one. I wasn't happy with the PS3 as a BR player (ANNOYING remote, if you hit STOP on some titles it exits all the way out to the PS3 menu and you have to sit through the FBI warning and so forth before you can try to find where the hell you were in the film (GRRR!). The fan is too loud if the system is placed inside my entertainment center, etc.
I know this is a cliche, but it isn't the size of the storage, it is how you use it. And, while there may be a few games that have gone beyond what a single DVD-9 can handle (I don't want 1h 40 min cutscenes in my games btw) there still has not been a single, truly AAA, system-selling game for the PS3. Hell, LBP was outsold globally by Tomb Raider Underworld, Motorstorm barely charted, and Resistance 2 largely disappeared. MGS4 did sell well but it was still more of preaching to the choir than a breakout hit.
Food for thought: The most powerful console has NEVER won a hardware generation. SNES vs. Genesis was more of a tie and the Amiga did win over the ST.
Hmmm... strange. My PS3 makes a lot less noise than the 360 at any point (discs/HD or just idle).
If I have both my PS3 and 360 INSIDE my enterainment unit, with the door closed, then the PS3 is much louder. I guess because it tries to cool.
If I open the door and let some air circulate the PS3 gets quieter and quieter in 2 minute steps.
For the 360 it doesnt really make any difference. Noise level wise it pretty consistent(ly loud!!).
Ive recently moved the Ps3 outside the unit and it is much quieter. I think this gen more than any previous, has the loudest hardware.
Then, my friend, you will kill both consoles in no time. Moving outside the PS3 was a wise move, though. These devices weren't made to use in an enclosed space. As a PS3 owner and a former 360 owner, I can tell there's an enormous difference to the former's advantage.
My wife's 360 (mine now that I commandeered it from her and gave her my jet engine launch elite) is silent especially now that I install my games to the HDD the thing never makes a peep. My elite on the other hand...thank god for removable HDDs. I have no idea what a PS3 sounds like, but if it’s quieter than silent, well, my hat’s off to it.
"I can tell there's an enormous difference to the former's advantage."
Who are you? The Riddler?
Then I presume that makes you the Joker.
Just pointing out something on games regardless of the console its on and more about quantity versus quality. Someone mentioned Uncharted, Resistance and MotorStorm as games with over 20 GB in size.
In the end when compared to other games Uncharted received less score than the original Gears of War (not to mention Gears 2), Resistance with all their 32 multiplayer can't compare according to magazines and websites reviews to Halo 3 and finally the better of the bunch and a personal favorite in my opinion MotorStorm got a smaller score than say BurnOut Paradise (which is multiplatform so fanboys take it easy) or even the HDless Wii Sports.
My point, double layer Blu-ray discs and 15, 20 or even 50 GB games count for nothing when a smaller 3GB game like BurnOut Paradise is out getting the better score and more importantly entertainment the hell out of the people who bought it.
Just play the games and if they are good talk about that, the memory size argument was cool when Street Fighter 2 came out on the Super NES with its "massive" 16 Megs of memory but now its just boring.
MS can release the 720 (or whatever it's called) with Blu-ray all they want. They've lost a customer here for good because after my 3rd 360 died (which i got repaired and sold) i'd never buy another system from them again.
"MS can release the 720 (or whatever it's called) with Blu-ray all they want. They've lost a customer here for good because after my 3rd 360 died (which i got repaired and sold) i'd never buy another system from them again."
Wow. The Microsoft execs are scrambling. I heard one even got called back from vacation after they read your post. The joke's on them though, cuz I'll bet you already used the money to buy a Dreamcast.
A7MAN said:
Wow. The Microsoft execs are scrambling. I heard one even got called back from vacation after they read your post. The joke's on them though, cuz I'll bet you already used the money to buy a Dreamcast.
Don't be a dick!
things like this may not neccessarily effect them immediately, but what if next gen sony tries a different approach and the people bu(wii for example)burned by the 360 hardware failures wont take the chance with the new microsoft system, thats future costumers they've lost, to either nintendo or sony. Granted sony has its share of losing costumers, but on such an epic scale,...yet at least.
This is something sony is good at setting themselves up for the future...it may not be this generation there after. Microsoft isnt as good in this category
They haven't rejected it at all. They're just unable to make it an integral part of the machine the same way Sony have, so are acting as if it were their plan all along.
We'll see it in Xbox 720 though, oh yes.
@gyak
indeed , you're a troll !
@mkis007
recycled boring comment , always the same argument. The one exception that justifies br gaming ? BR is excellent for movies ,no futher comment...
Kojima his studio has to cut costs, and be more profitable. w'ill see if he makes a game for 360. My assumption will be that he will. He needs the money.
Gyak a troll? Really? Don't think so.
its boring but its informed. Its the same argument because... (drum roll please) ...its true.
Oh and by the way. its much easier to pirate a 360 GAME or a downloaded GAME than a blu ray ps3 GAME
Im not even sure you can pirate them (yet at least) I mean i heard the story of gears 2 and fable 2 pirated before release. How much loss on pirating are companies going to want to take before they shut their mouth and move to something more secure. World of goo has drm and a 90% piracy rate for example.
i say emphasize on GAME becuase blu ray MOVIES are able to be pirated and played back.. While games wont play back.
i probably forgot to say something again, but ill no doubt remember (there's a lot to say)
@mkis and his friends
a whole lot of comment that could be considered as On topic ?
From RROd to piracy ?
Can anyone explain me the corrolation ?
however to mention ; BR piracy will eventually happen ,price will become lower , its a matter of time.