Sony: Blu-Ray on PS3 has "nothing to do with movies"

Eurogamer recently spoke with Sony president Phil Harrison about the PS3's controversial Blu-Ray adoption. While responding to criticisms of the storage technology being used primarily to push Sony's movie format war, Harrison defended: "It's got nothing to do with movies ... we need Blu-Ray to supply the kind of data that PS3 games use." Nothing to do with movies? We were under the impression your employer spearheaded the technology's acceptance? C'mon, Phil. Can't you budge just a little?

[EasilyTheBest]

Yep... nothing to do with movies nothing at all. Why not have it not play the things then..
Youve got to laugh havent you... Why dont they say. Yes it is to push the next generation movie carrier as well as the next generation of games... We will all be happy and im sure we can accept that, and itll be nice to know for once we are being told the TRUTH!!!!

[D3acon]

Honestly, this is ridiculous. Cartridges, cds, dvds, blu-ray or Hd-dvd. As each system progressed it needed more storage to cope with graphical and programing storage. Were is the storage in a dvd when you're adding HD to your games? Please people get off the short bus its unbecoming to those that don't have a few extra chromosomes.

So what other options are there? We have blu-ray disks, hey they can also play movies too. We can put game content on the disk and add a blu-ray player to play movies. This is a great opportunity for our movie industry and our game industry, I almost forgot we were a business for a moment.

Harrison already answered this question in another interview not to long ago. He stated the same thing and that the costs for the blu-ray player in the ps3 was negligible. The reason for the minimal cost for the player is because the cell and RSX were capable of perfomring many of the tasks the other blu-ray players perfomred. That came from Phil Harrioson's mouth.

If you don't like blu-ray the ps3 can still play dvds, so lets stop this bickering on what Sony is trying to shove down whos throat. The argument is pointless and asinine and doesn't merrit discussion.

[BIadestarX]

"As each system progressed it needed more storage to cope with graphical and programing storage" you are right. And in your statement is where the problem is. When PS added CD, it was obvious that games needed more space, when the PS1 games where releasing games in 3-4 CDs it was obvious that games needed more space, but today it's not. Why do you think people are split about bringing a new format?
It's because it's not obvious. The fact is that the new space that Sony is saying is required has nothing to do with games or at least as game play is concern. It may benefit CGI in games. Like Metal Gear Solid which is probably more CGI then game play. But not every game developer wants to be or was a movie director like kojima and therefore having extra space for the sake of having more space and getting more loading time and having to purchace the console $200-$300 more expensive does not sound logical. Name how many games for any console take more than 1 DVD. Also, no one argues that the 360 can produce games on HD, so, why can the PS3 do the same? How come games like gears of war fit in a single disk and yet have plenty of room left but the PS3 "Resistance" would need 2-3 DVD9 to work; yet some argue that gears of war looks better?
It makes you wonder, if the PS3 sucks so bad that what the Xbox 360 can do on a single DVD9 can't be done in 3 DVD9.

[D3acon]

As a gamer what difference does it make that it uses Dvd or blu-ray if the costs are the same? The difference for me is that there is potential for growth with the extra storage for blu-ray.

Why wait untill you start filling up the disk when you have a affordable alternative already? Do you think the xbox 720 will still be using dvd9 in four years?

The Ps3 has a lot of potential with extra storage. It may not be apparent now but it will in the future. When Microsoft hits their limit on there platform, Sony will still be producing. There is nothing wrong with extra storage.

The quality will not be worse than microsoft, that has already been apparent, you must admit that the 1st generation games are either on par or surpass Microsoft 2nd generation games.

The disk read speed has been negligible as there are no long load times, videos have proven that as well as developer and news statements.

As I stated Sony is a business and seizing opportunity is part of the business. Its a 2 for 1 deal with blu-ray, games and movies.

Honestly Sony must be doing something right because microsoft is following suit. They are releasing a hddvd player, its only purpose is to play movies. But not to the best quality because of no HDMI. They are upscaling their games to 1080i, the ps2 can now do the same. However, I digress, It is not just CGI taking up space, its a assortment of things; Content for additional regions,High definition, 7.1 sound(also for different lanuguages). They can produce one disk for all the regions which will save them money.

Personally I believe we won't see the potential until late next year, but for now I am a believer in what the ps3 is capable of.

[BIadestarX]

Did you read the technical specs on the blu-ray drive? fact: blu-ray loads/reads slower than DV9, no one argues that. So, it is logical loading time will be more than the 360, and if you consider this fact with the fact that PS3 games are 20GB+ what does that tell you about loading time? " Do you think the xbox 720 will still be using dvd9 in four years" actually no. It will not have a drive. As matter of fact even Sony stated that the PS4 will not have a drive. So, your argument about blu-ray as the future format is dropped by Sony themselves.

[Silverwolf]

how whenever there’s an article about the storage capacity of both BR and H-DVD. There's always another article talking about some new advanced compression technology. Making the argument about storage capacity null. Sony themselves stated that the next playstation would not have a drive that it will be done thru digital distribution. Now if you think that you're going to download 22GB of game content you're out of your f@cking mind. That content will be compressed down to a small file suitable for download. BR is all about the movies you can look at it however you want but if this wasn’t true. Why go for digital distribution on the next console cycle?

[mephixto]

When you compress something you need to decompress it to use it and that require CPU time and power that can be use for other things. Remember compression of files have limit and remeber other thing the capacity of disk are always growing from the 5"1/2 of 720kb to 3"1/2 1.44 MB to CD-ROMS 700MB to DVD 8.5GB to HD disk of 25GB. You can't stop that man. The only thing you can reduce is maybe the size of the storage disk.

With the limit bandwidth of today you can't downaload something of 22Gb but it will be possible in ten years or less. Remember Ten years ago the Dial up connections were the fatest.

You talk like my granpa, he thinks that his black and white tv is the best way to see tv.

[BIadestarX]

You only mention compression. Don't forget about encoding. i.e. HD-DVD uses MPG4 and blu-ray uses MPG2. MPG4 it's more effitient and produces smaller files. Also, don't forget to mention that it may be faster to compress/uncompress data in memory and using the CPU than having uncompressed data on a disk which in term has to be read by the drive. So, your point it's not 100% accurate. Also, lets not forget that files are also getting smaller, en codecs and compression systems are being developed, and processors capable of compressing and uncompressing this. Take the xbox 360 cores. Most games on the 360 are using only 1 core, one can be be used for this and you wouldn't have any impact on the system's performance.

[Boink]

how many times do sony execs needs to be told to shut up.

[RuffRyder]

Well said bro!!

[mephixto]

Some people want to twist what somebody said to his favor. Phil Harrison explains that blue ray capacity in the PS3 is for games not for the pourpose of only play HD movies. YOU CAN VIEW MOVIES ON THE PS3 BUT THE MAIN REASON AND JUSTIFICATION OF BLUE-RAY IN PS3 IS BECAUESE GAMES NEED IT!!!!!. Read carefully please before post any stupid fanboy comment like "OMG the PS3 can't play movies Sony suck"

[Aramis001]

We read the artice (at least I assume we did), and we're not fabricating what he said. We're just saying that what he said is horsesh!t.

[mephixto]

1. Compression requires cost(a lot) it's not free

2. Why you compress a file?? BECAUSE YOU HAVE ISSUES WITH NOT ENOUGH SPACE IN YOUR DISK!!!

3. When you install a game in your computer you are not only copying files als decompress it and that require time.

4. Why some games have a long Loading time? Because they have to decompress his data.

[UrbanJabroni]

Let's wait and compare loading times of BluRay, direct-to-memory uncompressed, and dvd loading with decompression before we continue this absurd argument.

Loading larger assets from a slower optical format is going to take cpu cycles while the data streams from memory.

Meanwile, loading smaller assets (compressed) from a faster optical format takes far less CPU cycles, while additional cycles will need to be spent doing decompression.

At the end of the day, the two will be within milliseconds of one another IF a game actually required >DVD space for textures, models and game geometry.

People are clinging to BluRay vs. DVD as some sort of proof of one consoles superiority and "future proof" status. At the end of the day, with actual development asset size (not video) and compression advances tied with media load speeds, there is going to be NO difference between 360 and Ps3 games.

I know we need to have a flame war to keep things interesting, but this has to end at some point. Every non-biased developer has said the exact same thing repeatedly...the two systems are almost IDENTICAL at the end of the day. Games are going to look THE SAME (not because of ports, but because of damn near identical real-world power).

The console wars this round are absurd. It basically comes down to whether or not you want a BluRay player for movies and a decision amongst the FIRST PARTY games (as these will inevitable be the only true exclusives).

[Sphinx]

...wave the BS flag? Just admit it and move on! It's a perk to owning a PS3, not a curse.

[Silverwolf]

"When you compress something you need to decompress it to use it and that require CPU time and power that can be use for other things."

Well DUH! And why is this a problem? The xbox360 and PS3 have mutiple cores and threads so you're really not making a point here.

"With the limit bandwidth of today you can't downaload something of 22Gb but it will be possible in ten years or less."

So in ten years you'll able to download 22GB of uncompressed data. I wonder how much time that will take + the HD storage capacity you'll need to have. That's not including the cost of such service. DSL is just now taking off! Dude you need to listen to your grandfather and stay in school.

[Aflac]

sorry, im just allergic to bull sh!t. Thats just the truth, but im still considering getting the system next Christmas, but i still have mixed feelings, il only get it if my friends get some, but thats only 2 outta many friends, the rest are still saving for 360s, but i wanna b able t play online with everyone, so idk for sure yet.

[Dancryer]

Only reason this info is now being pushed is a fear of the blu-ray movies format war failure, well they have to think of some excuse dont they ? People will consider the prospect of Blu-ray losing when buying a PS3 so this BS is just a cover.

[Marriot VP]

Considering the only way Sony's gonna benefit from the PS3 is from movies in that BR becomes the next format. But it's gonna take 2 years ATLEAST to determine that.

No one, unless their a fanboy, is gonna believe that statement. No one in the industry or reporters is gonna believe this blatant lie/exaggeration.

[power of Green]

Blu-ray's for games/PS3 and the mass push with HollyWood and all the other BR-players are just a few unexpected bonuses.

[power of Green]

I read PS3 and the 360 will have almost the same loading times. The speed of the PS3 will be at a constant slower speed with the 360 being faster but slowing down towards the end of the process and in the end will almost take the same amount of time. Could of been a lieing Sonyfanboy that wrote the artical.