Sony's PS3 gamble: should the optical revolution have been optional? @ Ars Technica

Linc

Ars Technica has published an editorial on Sony's decision to include Blu-ray in the PlayStation 3.
When consoles meet for battle, usually their weapons of choice are distinctly gaming-oriented in nature. This time around there's home video in the mix.

Sony wedded ('til death do they part) the PlayStation 3 to Blu-ray in 2004, long before it was certain when Blu-ray would hit the scene. Few were surprised, for Sony's central role in the development of Blu-ray and the company's interests in the film industry seemed like a perfect match. Since that announcement, it has been widely accepted that Blu-ray is a critical component of the PS3's total "value proposition," as it were, which is why few were surprised when another delay of the gaming console was blamed not on a gaming feature per se, but on Blu-ray alone. In Sony's eyes, this is a worthwhile trade-off because the PS3 will launch at a price point lower than most Blu-ray players on the market. They believe that the Blu-ray drive will spur not hamper sales.

Source: Ars Technica

drasnor

If you are in the market for a Blu-ray player, the PS3 is indeed worthy of consideration; it's certainly less expensive than other players. This is exactly what happened with the PS2. When it debuted in 2000, it was one of the least expensive DVD players on the market, especially in Japan.

A major selling point at the time for me. It played DVD's *and* PSX games with the expandability of playing decent PS2 games should any eventually be released (they were).

Seeing as I possess a HDCP-compliant 720p digital projector with HDMI inputs and a decent surround sound setup with digital decoder I'm only one component short of high definition on-demand content. I have HD movie and satellite channels and it is totally worth it.

-drasnor