Support NeoGAF

[ziran]

GamesIndustry.biz

...The PlayStation 3 was originally mooted to launch with a single (1X, 36Mbit per second) speed drive to run its optical media. But with the arrival of 2X (72Mbps) drives this autumn, it's hoped that by the time PS3 launches in Japan in spring 2006, faster formats will be readily available, with potential for the multimedia machine to run up to 4X, costs permitting...

more future proofing, i think.

i've always disliked [and often hated, yes original resident evil, i'm looking at you...] loading. it's something that still troubles consoles this gen, so anything sony does to reduce load times gets a big please from me.

 

[DCharlie]

what would the cost difference be between a 2x and a 4x speed drive?

and is it less than the cost of a 5gig hdd (which could be used for stuff like downloads/streaming etc)?

 

[AB 101]

Give me 4x bitches.

Well, 2x would not be bad.

 

[Ponn]

what would the cost difference be between a 2x and a 4x speed drive?

and is it less than the cost of a 5gig hdd (which could be used for stuff like downloads/streaming etc)?

I'd rather have something I can't upgrade later then something I could if I really wanted it.

 

[sonycowboy]

GamesIndustry.biz


more future proofing, i think.

i've always disliked [and often hated, yes original resident evil, i'm looking at you...] loading. it's something that still troubles consoles this gen, so anything sony does to reduce load times gets a big please from me.

They got this from IGN's story last night.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/638/638676p1.html

It's actually mistaken as well. 1x BD-ROM is 54Mbs, not 36Mbs, which is the transfer speed for the writable format. (http://www.blu-ray.com/faq/)

I'd sincerely hope that IGN got it wrong and not Mr Peterson from HP. He's one of the technological evangelist for the group, so I'd assume he knows what he's talking about. Perhaps it's actually a reference to the writable drives for the BD-R format as they should launch at the same time as standalone players, both for home electronics as well as computer drives.

In any case, I think 2x is the minimum the PS3 would launch with and I'm hoping for 4x, but I'm not holding my breath for that one.

 

[Myoclonic Jerk]

BEEF IT UP

I want PS3 to be the ULTIMATE GAMING CONSOLE

 

[heavy liquid]

There's no denying that PS2 helped speed up the adoption of the DVD format, so it makes sense that they'd try to do the same with Blu-ray. I say bring it on... it's like getting a Blu-ray player along with your gaming console.

 

[DCharlie]

"I'd rather have something I can't upgrade later then something I could if I really wanted it."

i guess - but surely it would benefit out of the box browsing, downloads etc if there was a HDD included? I mean, point i was getting at if you have a 2x speed drive and a small removable HDD packed in rather than no hard disk at all, then at least developers would have more options/could patch faults/could offer DLC/could have demos/a bigger store for MP3s etc...?

just wondering , that's all.

Saying that, load times on both X360/PS3 will be pretty shitty if they go off the Bluray/dvd drive alone right?

Bluray x1 is 54 Mbps transfer right? 6.75 MB per second.
512 MB of ram at x1 = 76 seconds
x2 = 37.5 seconds
x4 = 18 seconds

(for an unrealistic full 512MB no streaming game, fully loaded into memory)

18 seconds is still a pretty long time

I'm sure the X360 will be even more shitty if it doesn't use and caching from hdd.

 

[sonycowboy]

There's no denying that PS2 helped speed up the adoption of the DVD format, so it makes sense that they'd try to do the same with Blu-ray. I say bring it on... it's like getting a Blu-ray player along with your gaming console.

I was thinking about this last night and it struck me.

Presumably the PS3 will be the cheapest player available, and it will support many functions in addition to just movie play. On many occasions, most of us here have said that PS3 will push the Blu-Ray format wayyy beyond what standalone players will be able to do. 50M PS3's in the first 3 years would likely blow away anything close to what penetration the players would be able to do.

So, how can standalone players compete? And, effectively, will they?

It's possible that the PS3 could become synonymous with Blu-Ray and in fact, be the defacto terminology out there. People could use the PS3 synonymously with VCR, & DVD player.

They would say, I'm getting a movie for the PS3, because that's 90% of what the players out there would be.

That is a pretty serious advantage the the PS3 could have from a marketing and consumer mindset standpoint.

 

[Razoric]

I was thinking about this last night and it struck me.

Presumably the PS3 will be the cheapest player available, and it will support many functions in addition to just movie play. On many occasions, most of us here have said that PS3 will push the Blu-Ray format wayyy beyond what standalone players will be able to do. 50M PS3's in the first 3 years would likely blow away anything close to what penetration the players would be able to do.

So, how can standalone players compete? And, effectively, will they?

It's possible that the PS3 could become synonymous with Blu-Ray and in fact, be the defacto terminology out there. People could use the PS3 synonymously with VCR, & DVD player.

They would say, I'm getting a movie for the PS3, because that's 90% of what the players out there would be.

That is a pretty serious advantage the the PS3 could have from a marketing and consumer mindset standpoint.

That's true. They are already catching on in another market. Most commercials say "also available for PSP" not "available on UMD" and I've heard people talking in stores about getting some "PSP movies."

 

[sonycowboy]

i guess - but surely it would benefit out of the box browsing, downloads etc if there was a HDD included? I mean, point i was getting at if you have a 2x speed drive and a small removable HDD packed in rather than no hard disk at all, then at least developers would have more options/could patch faults/could offer DLC/could have demos/a bigger store for MP3s etc...?

just wondering , that's all.

Saying that, load times on both X360/PS3 will be pretty shitty if they go off the Bluray/dvd drive alone right?

Bluray x1 is 54 Mbps transfer right? 6.75 MB per second.
512 MB of ram at x1 = 76 seconds
x2 = 37.5 seconds
x4 = 18 seconds

(for an unrealistic full 512MB no streaming game, fully loaded into memory)

18 seconds is still a pretty long time

I'm sure the X360 will be even more shitty if it doesn't use and caching from hdd.

Actually, the 360's DVD 12x drive is faster than 2x BD-ROM, ~132Mbs vs 108Mbs. It's quite possible that the PS3 would have a relatively better (assuming they were the same speed) transfer capability, because the head has to move less to get to a given track on the disc as the data is packed 5 times tighter.

Of course, the PS3's DVD player capability should be at 12x as well.

 

[DCharlie]

"That is a pretty serious advantage the the PS3 could have from a marketing and consumer mindset standpoint."

ts a weird situation.

Infact one in which perhaps , ironically, HD-DVD might help the stand alone players. I'd assume that HD-DVD won't be playable on the PS3 - yet a lot of the stand alone player makers are talking about their players being able to play Bluray and HDDVD disks. That could be something that makes the standalone players more attractive.

However, whilst it's in all the players interest for Bluray to take off as a format, it seems amazing that they'd be happy going head to head with a heavily subsidised Sony product with their own players. Perhaps part of the deal is that the PS3 _wont_ be as subsidised as usual? perhaps theres other agreements made between the companies involved. Who knows? I guess Sony would theoretically be absorbing all the loss on getting X million units into homes, so perhaps the other partners don't care? Either way, it'll be interesting to watch.

 

[dark10x]

i guess - but surely it would benefit out of the box browsing, downloads etc if there was a HDD included? I mean, point i was getting at if you have a 2x speed drive and a small removable HDD packed in rather than no hard disk at all, then at least developers would have more options/could patch faults/could offer DLC/could have demos/a bigger store for MP3s etc...?

just wondering , that's all.

Saying that, load times on both X360/PS3 will be pretty shitty if they go off the Bluray/dvd drive alone right?

Bluray x1 is 54 Mbps transfer right? 6.75 MB per second.
512 MB of ram at x1 = 76 seconds
x2 = 37.5 seconds
x4 = 18 seconds

(for an unrealistic full 512MB no streaming game, fully loaded into memory)

18 seconds is still a pretty long time

I'm sure the X360 will be even more shitty if it doesn't use and caching from hdd.

There are ways around the loading, though, I'd say. Perhaps the comparison is not valid, but it seems to me that the PS2 demonstrates the differences between those developers who have a grasp on how to load data quickly and those that don't. There are plenty of PS2 titles with extremely quick load times (as well as those that completely hide them)...while, at the same time, there are other titles that take an eternity to load data into ram.

Rather than an HDD, I would like to see "flash memory cache" built into the machine. Certainly the cost could be kept low, right? Throw in 1-2gb of flash memory and allow this to act as cache in a similar fashion to the XBOX HDD. It would be quick and would not be prone to failure.

Regardless, I think they need to focus on adding the fastest possible Blu-ray optical drive first. A slow drive will plague the system throughout its life with no possibility of an upgrade. The UMD drive on PSP, for instance, is just so incredibly slow (though I'm sure part of the reason for its slow seek time is related to engineering for battery life). Thankfully, memory stick loaders are really taking off, so I can at least enjoy most of my PSP library from my memory stick. That wouldn't be possibly on PS3...

 

[Bebpo]

Of course, the PS3's DVD player capability should be at 12x as well.

Yeah, I think this is the main factor people are forgetting. The majority of games that don't need more than 9gigs will most likely be sticking to DVDs for PS3 games. And the read speed of PS3's dvd player is the same as X360's dvd read speed.

Blue-ray games will load slower than dvd games, so hopefully blue-ray games will use smart cache-methods.

 

[stone128]

I don't agree with the whole "PS2 made DVD mainstream!" conclusion. DVDs was mainstream long before the PS2 ever hit Europe. (America, that might be another story, I know to little about the PS2/DVD timeframe over there)

And literally every person I know owns a dvd player, can't say the same about the ps2. If anything, sony just benefited from chosing an already popular format for the PS2.

Blu-ray on the other hand, being pretty much new to the market...

 

[DCharlie]

"There are ways around the loading, though, I'd say. Perhaps the comparison is not valid, but it seems to me that the PS2 demonstrates the differences between those developers who have a grasp on how to load data quickly and those that don't. There are plenty of PS2 titles with extremely quick load times (as well as those that completely hide them)...while, at the same time, there are other titles that take an eternity to load data into ram."

indeed - hence why i mentioned that it was an unrealistic 512MB dump in one load in the original post - but yeah, i'd expect a load of clever ways to mask the load times / get data on the fly.

Flash memory might make sense given the PSP link up angle actually, but how much can devs do with 1 gig? At least the option is still there though.

 

[Ponn]

I don't agree with the whole "PS2 made DVD mainstream!" conclusion. DVDs was mainstream long before the PS2 ever hit Europe.

And literally every person I know owns a dvd player, can't say the same about the ps2. If anything, sony just benefited from chosing an already popular format for the PS2.

I don't know about Europe since they seem to be late getting everything but PS2 helped DVD become mainstream incredibly in America. DVD home players were still only about a couple years old and DVD players were still in the 300 dollar range. Read some history from this guy...

www.thedigitalbits.com

 

[dark10x]

Flash memory might make sense given the PSP link up angle actually, but how much can devs do with 1 gig? At least the option is still there though.

Well, for a given level, I'm sure 1 gig is plenty (especially if filled in a strategic fashion). XBOX games were given much less than that to work with, I believe.

 

[sonycowboy]

Yeah, I think this is the main factor people are forgetting. The majority of games that don't need more than 9gigs will most likely be sticking to DVDs for PS3 games. And the read speed of PS3's dvd player is the same as X360's dvd read speed.

Blue-ray games will load slower than dvd games, so hopefully blue-ray games will use smart cache-methods.

Well, not that much slower (assuming 2x BD vs 12x DVD). 108Mbs vs 132Mbs. It will also be interesting to find out how the access times are on BD. One would assume a bit lower as the data is much closer together, which as I stated earlier, should allow for lower seek times.

I don't know the ins-and-outs of disc loading, but I would assume that much of the time, the request from disc is for only a small fraction of the data that's there. Maybe just a track or two of data, which ~could allow for BD-ROM to actually be faster as seek and read time would be less.

Again, I don't know that we'll see any devs talk about this specific issue, but it seems possible.

 

[monkeymagic]

I don't agree with the whole "PS2 made DVD mainstream!" conclusion. DVDs was mainstream long before the PS2 ever hit Europe.

In Japan, where DVD players and movies were expensive in March 2000 (I used to buy Japanese DVDs for $40-$60 each) PS2 definitely helped in the adoption of DVD.

Of course by the time it was released in the US and Europe, DVD was already becoming popular in those regions so it would not have had the same impact.

So if PS2 had not existed would DVD have been as popular today? Definitely yes.

But if PS2 had used a different video format (MMCD) - would DVD have been as popular today? Tricky question. 90+M MMCD players would not have gone ignored.

That is essentially the difference in the markets - PS3 will be driving one of two competitng formats. Not the universally supported format PS2 pushed.

 

[RuGalz]

Well, for a given level, I'm sure 1 gig is plenty (especially if filled in a strategic fashion). XBOX games were given much less than that to work with, I believe.

Xbox had around 750M for caching for games. That said, I'm not too keen on having to sit through Tecmo's legal screen every other time I boot up DOA. It always annoy me when I am going through a few games at the same time because the cached data would become invalid every couple games. Having like a 1G flash memory for this kind of purpose would just mean every time you change a game it'd have to preload the data (assuming all games support caching). Having to sit through long load time to preload data to cache area between missions wouldn't be really that fun either. Stick to fastest drive would be the best unless they want to let me install the entire game to the HDD; in this case, I would want my system to come with a 300G HDD...

 

[dark10x]

Xbox had around 750M for caching for games. That said, I'm not too keen on having to sit through Tecmo's legal screen every other time I boot up DOA. It always annoy me when I am going through a few games at the same time because the cached data would become invalid every couple games.

Eh, didn't bother me...

The initial loadings required for Ninja Gaiden (quite long) were well worth it in the end, as the loading during normal gameplay is virtually nil. Same deal for PS2 games like Grand Theft Auto 3+ (though it is simply loading into ram everytime). I'd much rather deal with a longer startup if it means a nearly seamless in game experience. Half-Life 2 is the ultimate proof of why that is. Then again, the startup for HL2 wasn't short by any means...you just had to suffer throughout the game.

 

[Deg]

Even in Europe PS2 having a DVD player was a big selling point. I dont think it ever drove DVD sales but it sure was a popular dvd player. A big deal was made about it and many just watched movies on it.

Eh, didn't bother me...

The initial loadings required for Ninja Gaiden (quite long) were well worth it in the end, as the loading during normal gameplay is virtually nil. Same deal for PS2 games like Grand Theft Auto 3+ (though it is simply loading into ram everytime). I'd much rather deal with a longer startup if it means a nearly seamless in game experience. Half-Life 2 is the ultimate proof of why that is. Then again, the startup for HL2 wasn't short by any means...you just had to suffer throughout the game.

HL2 loading is a joke. :lol Gives me nightmares.

 

[Piepz]

BEEF IT UP

I want PS3 to be the ULTIMATE GAMING CONSOLE

Don't get your hopes up. You'll cry one day (probably somewhere in 2007) for sure

Even in Europe PS2 having a DVD player was a big selling point. I dont think it ever drove DVD sales but it sure was a popular dvd player. A big deal was made about it and many just watched movies on it.

The new movie format isn't BD, it might be HD-DVD aswell

 

[bycha]

I was thinking about this last night and it struck me.

Presumably the PS3 will be the cheapest player available, and it will support many functions in addition to just movie play. On many occasions, most of us here have said that PS3 will push the Blu-Ray format wayyy beyond what standalone players will be able to do. 50M PS3's in the first 3 years would likely blow away anything close to what penetration the players would be able to do.

So, how can standalone players compete? And, effectively, will they?

It's possible that the PS3 could become synonymous with Blu-Ray and in fact, be the defacto terminology out there. People could use the PS3 synonymously with VCR, & DVD player.

They would say, I'm getting a movie for the PS3, because that's 90% of what the players out there would be.

That is a pretty serious advantage the the PS3 could have from a marketing and consumer mindset standpoint.

Sony said 2 years ago that their ambition is to dominate home entertainment with a single product. Then they said that PS3 will incorporate Blu-ray. At that time it wasn't clear if Blu-ray will win format war. Now that it's clear your statement is obvious. I just don't know why you (not me) said it first )
PS3 is going to be huge. Even bigger than I expected before this statement.

I think, in the long run standalone players will sell more, because of price, interface, and technogeeks but PS3 definitely will be a player of choice for lotsa people, especially in the first years.

 

[KingV]

Well, not that much slower (assuming 2x BD vs 12x DVD). 108Mbs vs 132Mbs. It will also be interesting to find out how the access times are on BD. One would assume a bit lower as the data is much closer together, which as I stated earlier, should allow for lower seek times.

I don't know the ins-and-outs of disc loading, but I would assume that much of the time, the request from disc is for only a small fraction of the data that's there. Maybe just a track or two of data, which ~could allow for BD-ROM to actually be faster as seek and read time would be less.

Again, I don't know that we'll see any devs talk about this specific issue, but it seems possible.

I would have thought that blu ray would have longer access times because there' more data to sift through per unit area to find any given file. I want to say that DVD access times are longer than CD as well (though transfer rates are higher at the same disc speed), but I'm not certain.

 

[kaching]

So, how can standalone players compete? And, effectively, will they?

PS3 won't be the definitive BD experience if it houses a read-only drive. Recordability has been as much a part of the BD agenda from beginning as playback of pre-recorded HD content. And while PS3 might very well start out as one of the cheaper BD players out there, it's pricing won't likely depreciate as quickly as non-PS3 BD players will, because others won't be including things like Cell and RSX chips inside just to do AVC decoding.

 

[maharg]

That's true. They are already catching on in another market. Most commercials say "also available for PSP" not "available on UMD" and I've heard people talking in stores about getting some "PSP movies."

Uh... that's because there hasn't been and probably never will be another UMD player.

 

[Fafalada]

18 seconds is still a pretty long time

That's fine and all except that
a) none of these consoles will have 512MB available to them.
b) once you have the real free memory available to the application, you still need to substract non-loaded and program data from it as well
c) Generally any half-decent loader will use some simple lossless compression of the datasets loaded (yielding some 30-40% smaller files).

Accounting for all the above, you're unlikely to see a full load read more then 256MB of raw data from the disc, and quite possibly less then that. That said I don't expect a 4xBRD, I'd be ok with 2.4x for most part I guess.

On the flipside of the loading issue, we can also ask a very good question as to how many games approach optimum reading speeds of optical drives - to put it mildly, it's not a very high percentage of games out there.
Also remember we've had games this generation that spent 30sec-1minute reading as little as 10MB of data...

 

[RuGalz]

Eh, didn't bother me...

The initial loadings required for Ninja Gaiden (quite long) were well worth it in the end, as the loading during normal gameplay is virtually nil. Same deal for PS2 games like Grand Theft Auto 3+ (though it is simply loading into ram everytime). I'd much rather deal with a longer startup if it means a nearly seamless in game experience. Half-Life 2 is the ultimate proof of why that is. Then again, the startup for HL2 wasn't short by any means...you just had to suffer throughout the game.

It really depends on the game and how much data and how the game is structured and how you play games. Personally I play several games at once and switch between them, so long initial load time is the equivalent if not worse than HL2 like load time. Also if you look at games like Jade Empire, it doesn't matter if it's long initial load time or not... It's still way too long compared to playing it from the HDD. Having fastest possible drive will benefit every single game; having HDD for caching does not mean all devs have the time to put caching mechanism in games. Either way though, it's still up to devs to precompress data and decompress them to memory during load time in order to reduce load time.

 

[Pimpwerx]

Load times are still not an issue. I never understood why so much was made of them. From Nintendo fans to MS fans now. There are more PS1 and PS2 owners than like the whole history of the industry combined (not counting handhelds, and slightly exaggerated). The PS1 had ridiculous...absolutely ridiculous load times. The PS2 was better, but not by much. That one of the top-selling games this gen (Madden) had possibly the longest load times, says a lot. Even GTA took a long ass time to load up, but was pretty load-free after that. If you can't sit for 15-30 seconds to wait for a game, then find another hobby. Seriously. It's been alright the last two gens, and I see no reason why it'll change this gen. Every gen has seen fast-loading systems. The N64, GC and Xbox. And none of them made a dent in the PS brand. Load times are a non-issue...get the fuck over it. PEACE.

 

[maharg]

Just because people would prefer a lack of load times personally does not mean they want it because they think it gives some kind of marketing leg up against the competition.

 

[dark10x]

Load times are still not an issue. I never understood why so much was made of them.

You're talking in terms of sales, though. I couldn't care less about sales. I'm much more interested in receiving a good experience from the games. If people are willing to put up with lengthy load times, that's fine, but I don't want to deal with them.

 

[human5892]

I like the flash memory Xbox-style caching idea -- I've never really minded initial loads for the sake of having little or no loading later. A GTA3-style loading solution for most games would suit me fine.

 

[Razoric]

You're talking in terms of sales, though. I couldn't care less about sales. I'm much more interested in receiving a good experience from the games. If people are willing to put up with lengthy load times, that's fine, but I don't want to deal with them.

What appeals to you more, putting up with a few more seconds of load time or having to switch discs mid-game?

I'd take the loading time.

 

[dark10x]

What appeals to you more, putting up with a few more seconds of load time or having to switch discs mid-game?

I'd take the loading time.

Switching discs mid game...though I don't see what those two have to do with each other (other than loading the disc up with tons of duplicate data in order to allow for faster access).

I had this choice to make recently...

Killer 7 PS2 is on one disc, but loads a bit slower than the GC version which is on two discs. I went with the GC version.

 

[Bebpo]

What appeals to you more, putting up with a few more seconds of load time or having to switch discs mid-game?

I'd take the loading time.

^^;

You'd rather put up with something that will bother you throughout the entire game than the horrible hassle of having to get up one time in 20-50 hours and switch a disc?

Are you insane?

 

[dark10x]

^^;

You'd rather put up with something that will bother you throughout the entire game than the horrible hassle of having to get up one time in 20-50 hours and switch a disc?

Are you insane?

I think a lot of people do not understand good presentation and how much loading can destroy it.

 

[Razoric]

^^;

You'd rather put up with something that will bother you throughout the entire game than the horrible hassle of having to get up one time in 20-50 hours and switch a disc?

Are you insane?

Yes. And I'm not talking about Burnout 3 sub-quality loading here. I'm talking about the perceived difference between Blueray X1/X2 vs DVD9. I'd take Blueray.

 

[PC Gaijin]

I don't know about Europe since they seem to be late getting everything but PS2 helped DVD become mainstream incredibly in America. DVD home players were still only about a couple years old and DVD players were still in the 300 dollar range. Read some history from this guy...

www.thedigitalbits.com

Eh, no. The PS2 may have helped DVD adoption in Japan, but in the US DVD was already breaking through to the mainstream by the time the PS2 hit. There were DVD players in the $150 range in the spring of 2000, well before the PS2 launch.

 

[Ponn]

Eh, no. The PS2 may have helped DVD adoption in Japan, but in the US DVD was already breaking through to the mainstream by the time the PS2 hit. There were DVD players in the $150 range in the spring of 2000, well before the PS2 launch.

Review of a panasonic DVD player in April 2000

http://www.soundstage.com/video/revequip/panasonic_a320.htm

Although its current retail price is listed at $499.95, I managed to pick one up for $400 and I have even seen the DVD-A320 go for as little as $349.97.

And this is from Digital Bits

* 1997
o 349,000 DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (About 200,000 sold into homes.)
o 900 DVD-Video titles available in the U.S. Over 5 million copies shipped; about 2 million sold.
o Over 500,000 DVD-Video players shipped worldwide.
o Around 330,000 DVD-ROM drives shipped worldwide with about 1 million bundled DVD-ROM titles.
o 60 DVD-ROM titles (mostly bundled).
* 1998
o 1,089,000 DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 1,438,000.)
o 400 DVD-Video titles in Europe (135 movie and music titles).
o 3,000 DVD-Video titles in the U.S. (2000 movie and music titles).
o 7.2 million DVD-Video discs purchased.
* 1999
o 4,019,000 DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 5,457,000.)
o Over 6,300 DVD-Video titles in the U.S.
o About 26 million DVD-ROM drives worldwide.
o About 75 DVD-ROM titles available in the U.S.
* 2000
o 8.5 million DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 13,922,000.)
o About 46 million DVD-ROM drives worldwide.
o Over 10,000 DVD-Video titles available in the U.S.
o Belgium: 100 thousand installed base
o France: 1.2 million installed base
o Germany: 1.2 million installed base
o Italy: 360 thousand installed base
o Netherlands: 200 thousand installed base
o Spain: 300 thousand installed base
o Sweden: 120 thousand installed base
o Switzerland: 250 thousand installed base
o UK: 1 million installed base
* 2001
o 12.7 million DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 26,629,000.)
o Over 45 million DVD-ROM drives in the U.S.
o Over 90 million DVD-ROM drives worldwide.
o UK: 3 million installed base
* 2002
o 17 million DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 43,718,000.)
o Over 75 million DVD-ROM drives in the U.S.
o Over 140 million DVD-ROM drives worldwide.
* 2003 (fall)
o 16 million DVD-Video players shipped in the U.S. (Installed base of 73,300,000.)
o Over 27,000 DVD-Video titles available in the U.S.

Installed base of only 13 million by 2000, then a jump to 26.6 million in 2001 and then you start seeing the real numbers. I don't know why people insist on arguing that PS2 did not help DVD's along. Might be anecdotal but I worked at Blockbuster from 1999 to 2003 and I saw the progression of DVD firsthand. We never rented DVD players but we sure as hell rented the fuck out of PS2's and just about everyone coming in from 2000 to 2002 mostly owned PS2's. Hell some dvd's were even marked compatible with PS2. This is a non-argument. Hell even the guy from thedigitalbits.com is agreement on this and he literally wrote the book on DVD.

Digital Bits Insiders Guide to DVD

 

[monkeymagic]

Review of a panasonic DVD player in April 2000

http://www.soundstage.com/video/revequip/panasonic_a320.htm



And this is from Digital Bits



Installed base of only 13 million by 2000, then a jump to 26.6 million in 2001 and then you start seeing the real numbers. I don't know why people insist on arguing that PS2 did not help DVD's along. Might be anecdotal but I worked at Blockbuster from 1999 to 2003 and I saw the progression of DVD firsthand. We never rented DVD players but we sure as hell rented the fuck out of PS2's and just about everyone coming in from 2000 to 2002 mostly owned PS2's. Hell some dvd's were even marked compatible with PS2. This is a non-argument. Hell even the guy from thedigitalbits.com is agreement on this and he literally wrote the book on DVD.

Digital Bits Insiders Guide to DVD

Well the digital bits know what they're talking about

Of course they were one of the major reasons why we're all enjoying anamorphic DVDs today (anyone else remember that particular struggle )

 

[maharg]

Installed base of only 13 million by 2000, then a jump to 26.6 million in 2001 and then you start seeing the real numbers.[/URL]

Er, this jump is not as exceptional as you make out. Every year on that list saw a jump of more than double in DVD installed base. Also, the PS2 is not usually included in those figures. It's treated as a DVD-ROM drive afaik. Never mind that the PS2 installed base number at the end of 2001 would have been about the DVD installed base in 1998/1999.

The PS2 was a factor, but the writing was on the wall. DVD came at the right time with the right features. DVD growth was exceptional both before and after the PS2 came out.

 

[Ponn]

Er, this jump is not as exceptional as you make out. Every year on that list saw a jump of more than double in DVD installed base. Also, the PS2 is not usually included in those figures. It's treated as a DVD-ROM drive afaik. Never mind that the PS2 installed base number at the end of 2001 would have been about the DVD installed base in 1998/1999.

The PS2 was a factor, but the writing was on the wall. DVD came at the right time with the right features. DVD growth was exceptional both before and after the PS2 came out.

Growth from 1996/1997 to 2000

13.9 million

Growth from 2000 - 2003

53.4 million

And you want to say the jump after the PS2 hit the market was not exceptional and it was moving along fine before that? For a mass consumer product and four years 13 mill is a bit slow. I expect PSP to be at that within a year or two. Hell till the PS2 hit I was considered high class and fancy just because I had my second gen $400 Toshiba DVD player. And just look how many PS2's are installed in America compared to those DVD player numbers now? Which by the way if you keep tabs on that site have been on a deep decline late. Now they are DVD players are really competing with the PS2 and their new low prices. Ask yourself how many people you know use their PS2 as a DVD player both then and now.

DVD hitting it's stride and momentum soon after/around the same time PS2 hitting the market is little bit more then coincedence. Especially if you were in the market like I was. There were tons of meetings with managers and regional persons at Blockbuster and they didn't care about DVD till the PS2 hit and then DVD's started to become much more wanted in the stores. There were tons of parents wanting to "test" out that DVD feature on their kids PS2. Hell, DVD didn't even surpass wall space of videos till the end of 2001 beginning of 2002. It just irks me when people say the PS2 did not help DVD adoption in the U.S. And just be ready for a repeat with the BRD, those that don't think it being in the PS3 will help are going to be in for quite a jolt. Probably the same people that don't think PS2 helped DVD's and thought UMD was gonna flop.

Monkeymagic wrote:

Well the digital bits know what they're talking about

Of course they were one of the major reasons why we're all enjoying anamorphic DVDs today (anyone else remember that particular struggle )

Yea I remember that one. Also the widescreen debacle between them and Blockbuster (working at Blockbuster at the time I was trying my best to help them with that one from the inside) and also the whole damn DIVX fiasco.

 

[COCKLES]

I hope Fort Knox is well protected...because I imagine a rush of break-ins from potential PS3 purchasers.

Ken's vast and un-controlled ego = bye bye Sony dominance. Keep it going Ken!

 

[maharg]

Oh yeah, and $150 and even $99 DVD players in 2000. They were crap, no doubt about it, and they weren't Sony, Toshiba, or Panasonic, but they sure did exist.

 

[Ponn]

Keep reaching buddy :lol :lol Love the comments in your link. Actually I think I remember the Apex ones, they were going to be pulled quick because of their non-region locked but jumped in price because of it. They sucked though because they always defaulted to subtitles on. And yea, the Oritron's....whewww...yea..feel sorry for them people. You're right, crap does exist at 100 to 150 bucks.

 

[terrene]

what would the cost difference be between a 2x and a 4x speed drive?

and is it less than the cost of a 5gig hdd (which could be used for stuff like downloads/streaming etc)?

I like the way you think.

HARD DRIVE, sony. HARD DRIVE. *THAT* will reduce load times and do a lot more dope-ass-shit, you bitches! COME ON, don't make me a Microsoft fanboy!

 

[Deku]

DVD was well on its way to becoming a standard worldwide by the time the PS2 launched. The Matrix DVD was a major breakout hit for DVDs, i think holding the record for the most discs sold at the time, and it was released well before the PS2 was on the US market.

PS2 pushed DVDs into the mainstream in Japan, not in the US. And the hypothetical story about the PS2 supporting an alternate format for the movie would just mean its sales would suffer.

Strategically, the PS2 benefited from the network effects of the DVD market, especially in the west, where Sony basically did no promotion and let the movie studios promote their DVDs. Essentially, every PS2 player came ready to play an entire library of movies available to users. That's very appealing to the consumer.

A rival format would have hindred PS2 adoption and sales. But I understand the psychological need for some people to confirm this idea that the PS2 would have been just as successful had it used a different format, given the upcoming battle between HD and BR and its implicaitons for PS3's success.

PS3 might be a great console, but if the BR format goes out of favour in the end or the fight is stalemated for years, the PS3 won't benefit in the same way the PS2 benefited with the DVD compatability. With DVDs, Sony was catching the wave, with BR movies, they would be at the forefront of pushing it. Those are two completely different strategies and most consumers aren't even ready to switch formats, considering the expense of replacing their VHS library with DVDs.

 

[maharg]

Reaching :lol

Yes, because the $400 DVD player you bought in 2001 was entirely representative of reality. Wasn't reaching at all. Or claiming that DVD installed base doubling every year was bad in 1997-1999 but incredible in 2000-2001. I'm sorry, but if I'm reaching, I am certainly not the only one who is.