- LOCK - Format War - HD DVD vs. Blu-Ray - LOCK -

Status
Not open for further replies.
[quote name='Chitown021']That's a pretty significant different when you consider longevity of the format. Larger storage space eliminates the need to use multiple discs to hold special features in movies or additional content in games thus eliminating the annoying switching of discs. Durability is huge as well. Who here hasn't run into issues with disc quality? Back in my Funcoland days I turned away thousands of trade in on PS1 discs because they were in such bad shape they looked like the customer had taken a Brillo pad to them.

Gizmo you're such a M$ fanboy I have to ask you how is Bill Gates colon? Is he doing ok? No signs of polyps or any other illnesses? You have your head so far up his ass the least you could do is give him a free lower G.I. screening.[/QUOTE]

20GB more has meant nothing so far. Toshiba has been working on bigger disc sizes as well, 51GB for instance. So when that comes out...what will be the main reason why Blu-ray is superior?

Its amazing how many Sony fans recently have been so angry. Maynard, Seanr, and now you over the whole Paramount/Dreamworks pretty much saying 'fuck you BDA' but directing the anger at me. Don't get pissed that they switched because of the lack of finalized code, expensive discs, and broken promises of the PS3. :lol: But hey, at least you have a quality game system with so many choices!
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Is that a Panasonic Plasma? Man, that looks nice. Does your TV automatically convert everything to 1.85:1 or do you do that by yourself?[/QUOTE]


I use the zoom function, essentially cutting off 20% of the picture from the sides. I'm in the small crowd that hates 2.35:1/2.4:1 aspect ratio, I love movies that take up the entire screen. I almost always zoom in on "widescreen-widescreen" movies to make use of the entire screen, and I really don't feel like I'm missing anything. With DVD I couldn't get away with it because of the quality loss, but with Blu-ray it looks amazing.


edit: Yes, it is a Panasonic plasma, I just got it I so I had to show it off. :)
 
[quote name='Chitown021']That's a pretty significant different when you consider longevity of the format. Larger storage space eliminates the need to use multiple discs to hold special features in movies or additional content in games thus eliminating the annoying switching of discs. Durability is huge as well. Who here hasn't run into issues with disc quality? Back in my Funcoland days I turned away thousands of trade in on PS1 discs because they were in such bad shape they looked like the customer had taken a Brillo pad to them.

Gizmo you're such a M$ fanboy I have to ask you how is Bill Gates colon? Is he doing ok? No signs of polyps or any other illnesses? You have your head so far up his ass the least you could do is give him a free lower G.I. screening.[/quote]

First off I have both formats thanks to the recent ps3 inventory clearace of the 60gb models. I don't think anytime in the near future we will have the need for a single movie to take up much more space then what is currently offered by HD DVD. I also don't think that the majority of dvd/hd dvd/blu ray users really pay all that much attention to the bonus features. Now you might have a point with games, even though I am sure compression software will continue to evolve, but this thread is about movies not games. Having the extra space on the disc is a nice feature, but currently and for the forseeable future it isn't really necessary. If what many belive is the future of the media, it will all be downloaded onto a big hard drive thus making this stupid was pointless and the extra space on the blu ray worthless. The only real benefit of the blue ray size capacity in the present is to store date for corporations. Not something that the avg consumer really needs at this present time.

As for the discs scratching problem you had as an employee of funcoland a lot has evolved in fixing scratches. Most likely if you can't fix the scratched disc with the liquid scratch remover stuff they have now, most likely the scratch is bad enough that the blu ray disc will scratched as well.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']20GB more has meant nothing so far. Toshiba has been working on bigger disc sizes as well, 51GB for instance. So when that comes out...what will be the main reason why Blu-ray is superior?

Its amazing how many Sony fans recently have been so angry. Maynard, Seanr, and now you over the whole Paramount/Dreamworks pretty much saying 'fuck you BDA' but directing the anger at me. Don't get pissed that they switched because of the lack of finalized code, expensive discs, and broken promises of the PS3. :lol: But hey, at least you have a quality game system with so many choices![/quote]

There's a large difference between a fan (myself) and an irrational fanboy (you). I have been a fan of Sony products for several years. I debated for quite some time as to whether to get the PS3 or 360. I finally settled on the PS3 and am happy with my choice. Are things perfect with the PS3? No, far from it, but the system launched less than a year ago. It's funny how the MS crowd seems to forget that the same things the PS3 is criticized for plagued their precious system at launch. I would say I am disappointed by the Paramount/Dreamworks decision but I'm not angry. I'm also not sitting here wearing the fanboy blinders either.
 
[quote name='Chitown021']There's a large difference between a fan (myself) and an irrational fanboy (you). I have been a fan of Sony products for several years. I debated for quite some time as to whether to get the PS3 or 360. I finally settled on the PS3 and am happy with my choice. Are things perfect with the PS3? No, far from it, but the system launched less than a year ago. It's funny how the MS crowd seems to forget that the same things the PS3 is criticized for plagued their precious system at launch. I would say I am disappointed by the Paramount/Dreamworks decision but I'm not angry. I'm also not sitting here wearing the fanboy blinders either.[/QUOTE]

I'm hardly a fanboy. I own a 360. I own a PS3. I own a Wii. I own a DS. I own a PSP. Fact is, PS3 lost a ton of exclusive games, and many are now going to be on both systems. The reason to actually own a PS3 over a 360 makes little to no sense. Sure, it may have some exclusive games on it, but the 360 has way more. The only reason I have one is because it pays Blu-Ray. Until the new players come out, or a cheap combo arrives, I'll keep it. I have yet to even game on it besides 1 hour of Full Auto 2. I have played several PS3 games at my friends house, but never thought of actually buying or renting them. Too many people are going nuts right now regarding Paramounts/Dreamworks deal. Sadly, I don't think Sony could even counter it (if it was for cash, still no proof :lol: ) as the PS3 is bleeding them dry. Billions dry. I'm sure Warner and Lionsgate are taking notice.

However, I did hear that Weinstein was going to release on both formats, which may make up for the loss of Paramount/Dreamworks. You have that box office hit Grindhouse to look forward too. Their sales on HD DVD are REALLY low so it wouldn't surprise me. It would be nice if they actually release movies on the format, and ones that come day and date with the DVD and not 2-3 months later.
 
as the PS3 is bleeding them dry. Billions dry. I'm sure Warner and Lionsgate are taking notice.
Click to expand...
The only company losing billions on their system is MS.

Of course they make up for it in their non-electronics divisions.
 
[quote name='Chitown021']There's a large difference between a fan (myself) and an irrational fanboy (you). I have been a fan of Sony products for several years. I debated for quite some time as to whether to get the PS3 or 360. I finally settled on the PS3 and am happy with my choice. Are things perfect with the PS3? No, far from it, but the system launched less than a year ago. It's funny how the MS crowd seems to forget that the same things the PS3 is criticized for plagued their precious system at launch. I would say I am disappointed by the Paramount/Dreamworks decision but I'm not angry. I'm also not sitting here wearing the fanboy blinders either.[/QUOTE]
umm not really...it was a couple of months, but in febuary the 360 had fight night, then march had ghost recon and oblivion. It was a long summer but at least the 360 had started rolling by now, as dead rising and saints row were both out just over a year ago. Yes the ps3 has fight night and oblivion, but I don't see as much chatter about those titles as I did when they hit the 360. I don't know maybe the 360 owners buy up whatever they can get and like roll from one title to another, maybe a decent amount of the USA ps3 sales are to people that already own a 360. I know I own both, and I have seen a few of the other posters in this thread talking in 360 and ps3 forums about both systems and the games they have for them.
 
[quote name='dallow']The only company losing billions on their system is MS.

Of course they make up for it in their non-electronics divisions.[/QUOTE]

Sony has spent somewhere in the realm of 2.25 Billion on PS3 subsidies.

I don't know if thats something Sony can make up in other divisions.
 
[quote name='Chris in Cali']I use the zoom function, essentially cutting off 20% of the picture from the sides. I'm in the small crowd that hates 2.35:1/2.4:1 aspect ratio, I love movies that take up the entire screen. I almost always zoom in on "widescreen-widescreen" movies to make use of the entire screen, and I really don't feel like I'm missing anything. With DVD I couldn't get away with it because of the quality loss, but with Blu-ray it looks amazing.


edit: Yes, it is a Panasonic plasma, I just got it I so I had to show it off. :)[/quote]

I hate 2.35/1 to one as well, if I buy a big screen TV I want all of that Screen used! Unfortunetly my TV doesn't have that feature either or I would use it. That is one reason why I absolutely love Apocalpyto, it's 1.85:1 and it looks awesome.

That TV is really nice, if it wasn't for LED LCD's coming out this year, I would consider getting a plasma in the future. :)
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']...thats it? 20GB more, that so far has meant nothing, and being scratch resistant?[/QUOTE]

What is sufficient now will always be sufficient.

Regardless of how small the advantage is, it still is an advantage. I can't really see any advantages of HD-DVD that would be specific to that format. It does have superior software and lower prices, but those can and will be applied BD too, so, in the long run, I don't see the advantage of HD.

[quote name='GizmoGC']20GB more has meant nothing so far. Toshiba has been working on bigger disc sizes as well, 51GB for instance. So when that comes out...what will be the main reason why Blu-ray is superior? [/QUOTE]

Indeed. I can't wait until HD-DVD catches up in storage space. It'll be so much better to wait for 51GB discs, rather than having them right now, at the consumer level. Not mention that BD will probably sit around doing nothing while HD discs are growing in size. BD has reached their size limit, while HD has a lot of room to grow.

Its amazing how many Sony fans recently have been so angry. Maynard, Seanr, and now you over the whole Paramount/Dreamworks pretty much saying 'fuck you BDA' but directing the anger at me. Don't get pissed that they switched because of the lack of finalized code, expensive discs, and broken promises of the PS3. :lol: But hey, at least you have a quality game system with so many choices!
Click to expand...

Paramount made the right choice, based on everything you listed above. The $150mill meant nothing, and they would've alienated the majority of their HD market regardless of that payment or not.
 
[quote name='dpatel']Indeed. I can't wait until HD-DVD catches up in storage space. It'll be so much better to wait for 51GB discs, rather than having them right now, at the consumer level. Not mention that BD will probably sit around doing nothing while HD discs are growing in size. BD has reached their size limit, while HD has a lot of room to grow.

Paramount made the right choice, based on everything you listed above. The $150mill meant nothing, and they would've alienated the majority of their HD market regardless of that payment or not.[/QUOTE]

Now your just being to cute.

Who cares if the BDA introduced the 50GB disc months after BR luanched, its still OK, because they have it now. Who cares that standalone players will be doorstops in the next few months, because they have an extra 20GB of useless space.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Now your just being to cute.

Who cares if the BDA introduced the 50GB disc months after BR luanched, its still OK, because they have it now.[/QUOTE]

Yep, just like you don't care that HD doesn't have 51GB now, remember?:
Toshiba has been working on bigger disc sizes as well, 51GB for instance. So when that comes out...what will be the main reason why Blu-ray is superior?

And, to answer the latter part of the sentence, I imagine BD won't just sit around while HD tries to catch up to them in storage space. I imagine, like HD, they are trying their hardest to advance the format.

Who cares that standalone players will be doorstops in the next few months, because they have an extra 20GB of useless space.
Click to expand...

Two completely unrelated arguments, but sure. If you're going to downplay extra storage space, I suggest you try a little harder than that. I'll admit this argument is SLIGHTLY better than your last about how the PS3 doesn't have any games, therefore BD is inferior. That one made no sense, whatsoever. This one, by comparison, is SLIGHTLY better.
 
I've asked this before, but I don't think I've ever received an answer: Is bookmarking not possible on current Blu-Ray hardware?

And feature-wise, what is the best disc Blu-Ray has to offer vs. HD-DVD and how do they compare?
 
[quote name='SteveMcQ']And feature-wise, what is the best disc Blu-Ray has to offer vs. HD-DVD and how do they compare?[/QUOTE]

Not sure about specific movies, but I believe, software-wise, HD-DVD has the advantage. Blu-ray has been slacking on releasing BD-J, and, as a result, they lag on the features.
 
[quote name='dpatel']What is sufficient now will always be sufficient.

Regardless of how small the advantage is, it still is an advantage. I can't really see any advantages of HD-DVD that would be specific to that format. It does have superior software and lower prices, but those can and will be applied BD too, so, in the long run, I don't see the advantage of HD.

Indeed. I can't wait until HD-DVD catches up in storage space. It'll be so much better to wait for 51GB discs, rather than having them right now, at the consumer level. Not mention that BD will probably sit around doing nothing while HD discs are growing in size. BD has reached their size limit, while HD has a lot of room to grow.[/QUOTE]

So you're saying that HD DVD will play catch-up in the storage capacity, while BD already has it now. HDi on HD DVD is finalized, while BD has to play catch-up with BD-J. It looks like HD DVD has an advantage. Small as it may be, it's still an advantage like you say. The same goes for the other advantages of HD DVD, price and software. They can be construed as small since time will only bring those to BD as well. But they are still advantages.

Being sufficient enough has no place in such a young format. Especially when there are two similar formats vying for being the dominant one. Each side has to beat the other. BD could have debuted at the same price or even lower than HD DVD, but it was "sufficient enough" for them to start at twice the price. BD could have gone and waited another year to debut, but it was "sufficient enough" to release to the market with unfinalized specs and bad encodes. HD DVD could have tried to increase the capacity of disc space, but it was "sufficient enough" to have a starting capacity that was only 60% of that of BD. HD DVD could have released later to work on bumping up the specs, but it was "sufficient enough" to provide HD at a lower price and before the competition.
 
[quote name='SteveMcQ']I've asked this before, but I don't think I've ever received an answer: Is bookmarking not possible on current Blu-Ray hardware?

And feature-wise, what is the best disc Blu-Ray has to offer vs. HD-DVD and how do they compare?[/QUOTE]

I've heard that bookmarking is supposed to be standard on certain BD players, but not all. With HD DVD, bookmarking is implemented on the software side, so it's up to studios to put it in. I know that not all Universal discs have it, but I think all WB discs do. I don't have a clue with Paramount though.
 
[quote name='orimental']So you're saying that HD DVD will play catch-up in the storage capacity, while BD already has it now. HDi on HD DVD is finalized, while BD has to play catch-up with BD-J. It looks like HD DVD has an advantage. Small as it may be, it's still an advantage like you say. The same goes for the other advantages of HD DVD, price and software. They can be construed as small since time will only bring those to BD as well. But they are still advantages.[/QUOTE]

That's exactly what I'm saying. However, with storage space, HD-DVD will always be behind, seeing as how HD can hold about 10GB less per layer when compared to BD. Things like Price and Software are not problems that are hindered by the actual medium. HD-DVD definitely does have advantages at this time, which I have pointed out, but, in the long run, I just can't see these as being a wise deciding factor. The format winner will inevitably go down in price, and will gain the superior codecs, software, etc. However, the winning format will not automatically gain an extra 10GB per layer, which is why I say BD would be wiser in the long run.

And that statement about "What is sufficient now will always be sufficient" was really just mocking Gizmogc's logic in regards to the extra space.
 
[quote name='geko29'] Thus far, my only disappointment is "Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow". I wanted to see it in the theater but never did, and figured it would look great in HD (it does, but is a tad soft). But the movie sucks, unfortunately.[/QUOTE]

The look of "Sky Captain" is intentionally soft so that has nothing to do with the transfer. I did enjoy it however. Fun goofy popcorn film that really isn't memorable by any means but nothing bad either.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Understandable, but your also quoting the price of a PS3 today...which may go up to $600 when the 60GB sells out. Not only that, PS3 has way less of a selection of games to play as well. That may mean people will choose the 360 + HD DVD over a PS3 w/ Blu-ray built in. The price of a premium w/HDMI and a HD DVD add-on is going to be the same as a PS3 w/ Blu-ray remote (does anyone actually use the controller? Ick!).[/QUOTE]

Which I already pointed out in my post - the idea of "value" varies. For some, $520 (if you insist upon the remote) is a better value for what it allows the hardware to do (use a BR-sized disc and HDD) than a piecemeal system that's $530, but does not allow those features. It's why the idea of "expensive" is overrated - I genuinely believe that word of mouth about the PS3/360 has done more to slow sales of the former system than any nonsense "it haz noe gamez! itz too expansive!"reality.
 
[quote name='dpatel']And that statement about "What is sufficient now will always be sufficient" was really just mocking Gizmogc's logic in regards to the extra space.[/QUOTE]

As of today, that extra 20GB of space the Blu camp touts as being 'superior' has not produced anything that goes 'WOW! Now I see why we need 20GB extra!'. Spider-Man 3 will be 2 discs. Both Pirates were 2 discs. Sorry, but until they actually make use of it, its useless. Paramount and Dreamworks seems to think the same thing to.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which I already pointed out in my post - the idea of "value" varies. For some, $520 (if you insist upon the remote) is a better value for what it allows the hardware to do (use a BR-sized disc and HDD) than a piecemeal system that's $530, but does not allow those features. It's why the idea of "expensive" is overrated - I genuinely believe that word of mouth about the PS3/360 has done more to slow sales of the former system than any nonsense "it haz noe gamez! itz too expansive!"reality.[/quote]

http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/learnmore/writings_tom.html

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/49414
 
Isn't it strange that with all the advantages of HD that everyone is talking about, it's still getting beat 2 to 1 in sales? Why? HD has took a good step forward with snatching Paramount/Dreamworks, now they need to spend another 150 mil to market their product.
I think everyone needs to get this straight Paramount/Dreamworks got 150 million reasons to choose sides period. If they hadn't been given that money they would still be supporting both formats. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, depends on how you see it.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']As of today, that extra 20GB of space the Blu camp touts as being 'superior' has not produced anything that goes 'WOW! Now I see why we need 20GB extra!'. Spider-Man 3 will be 2 discs. Both Pirates were 2 discs. Sorry, but until they actually make use of it, its useless. Paramount and Dreamworks seems to think the same thing to.[/QUOTE]

I'll agree that the 20GB has not been proved to be worthwhile yet. I never argued against that. I just don't see the point of waiting until it is a problem, which, we all know, is inevitable, to worry about it. If there was something to gain by forgoing the 20GB I could see your argument, but I really don't see anything to gain.

Also, citing movies that are being released shortly after the format debuted does not really help your argument. I imagine the winning format will be around longer than just a couple years, and I imagine the winning format will be used for more than just movies. Having said that, I imagine, at some point, the extra space will be quite handy, and, fortunately, BD does offer that without forgoing anything in the long run (as far as I can see).
 
[quote name='millrat1030']Isn't it strange that with all the advantages of HD that everyone is talking about, it's still getting beat 2 to 1 in sales? Why? HD has took a good step forward with snatching Paramount/Dreamworks, now they need to spend another 150 mil to market their product.
I think everyone needs to get this straight Paramount/Dreamworks got 150 million reasons to choose sides period. If they hadn't been given that money they would still be supporting both formats. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, depends on how you see it.[/QUOTE]

Isn't it strange that even with 5x as more Blu-ray players out there that the advantage is still only 2:1? Isn't even more strange that it used to be 3:1 and 4:1 before that? Why? Blu-ray is obviously being supported more through PS3 sales, now they need to spend even more to subsidize the price drops.

People focus on the Paramount/Dreamworks deal like it's some shady thing done under the table. I'm sure that Fox and Disney received some sort of incentive to become BD exclusive. It doesn't need to be straight up in check form, but subsidizing replication costs, aggressive marketing, free PS3's for the execs kids, whatever. When taking sides in such an immature format, it's going to take more than just "better specs" to take such a gamble. Nobody is lambasting the BDA for the rumored $20/25M and $50M given to Fox and Disney, respectively because it's all hearsay. But because of some words from a "Viacom exec who shall apparently remain nameless" and because of the forecast of the battle as it stood before the move, people automatically jump to the conclusion that they were paid $150M outright. Until we see the exact conditions of the contract, all we can do is speculate as to what went on. I'm not saying that they never got $150M (as it's more than likely what transpired), I'm just saying that we need to look beyond the old addage of "money talks". Maybe contracts with Blu-ray to remain neutral expired. They were HD DVD exclusive when it first debuted. We know that it was money that made Paramount neutral in the first place. Whether or not it was about catering to the entire HD crowd or even just a simple agreeement (with incentives) remains to be seen.
 
[quote name='millrat1030']Isn't it strange that with all the advantages of HD that everyone is talking about, it's still getting beat 2 to 1 in sales? Why? HD has took a good step forward with snatching Paramount/Dreamworks, now they need to spend another 150 mil to market their product.
I think everyone needs to get this straight Paramount/Dreamworks got 150 million reasons to choose sides period. If they hadn't been given that money they would still be supporting both formats. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, depends on how you see it.[/QUOTE]

Isn't it strange that even with 5x as more Blu-ray players out there that the advantage is still only 2:1? Isn't even more strange that it used to be 3:1 and 4:1 before that? Why? Blu-ray is obviously being supported more through PS3 sales, now they need to spend even more to subsidize the price drops.

People focus on the Paramount/Dreamworks deal like it's some shady thing done under the table. I'm sure that Fox and Disney received some sort of incentive to become BD exclusive. It doesn't need to be straight up in check form, but subsidizing replication costs, aggressive marketing, free PS3's for the execs kids, whatever. When taking sides in such an immature format, it's going to take more than just "better specs" to take such a gamble. Nobody is lambasting the BDA for the rumored $20/25M and $50M given to Fox and Disney, respectively because it's all hearsay. But because of some words from a "Viacom exec who shall apparently remain nameless" and because of the forecast of the battle as it stood before the move, people automatically jump to the conclusion that they were paid $150M outright. Until we see the exact conditions of the contract, all we can do is speculate as to what went on. I'm not saying that they never got $150M (as it's more than likely what transpired), I'm just saying that we need to look beyond the old addage of "money talks". Maybe contracts with Blu-ray to remain neutral expired. They were HD DVD exclusive when it first debuted. We know that it was money that made Paramount neutral in the first place. Whether or not it was about catering to the entire HD crowd or even just a simple agreeement (with incentives) remains to be seen.
 
[quote name='millrat1030']Isn't it strange that with all the advantages of HD that everyone is talking about, it's still getting beat 2 to 1 in sales? Why? HD has took a good step forward with snatching Paramount/Dreamworks, now they need to spend another 150 mil to market their product.
I think everyone needs to get this straight Paramount/Dreamworks got 150 million reasons to choose sides period. If they hadn't been given that money they would still be supporting both formats. I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, depends on how you see it.[/QUOTE]

Isn't it strange that Blu-ray is in 10x as many homes but only has a 1.5/1 sales lead? BR sales are at 2.2 Million and HD at 1.5. Wouldn't you think a format that is in MILLIONS of homes would be doing better then that? You know, up until last week, they had 7 out 8 of the major studios producing movies for them. That seems a bit odd to me.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I'll agree that the 20GB has not been proved to be worthwhile yet. I never argued against that. I just don't see the point of waiting until it is a problem, which, we all know, is inevitable, to worry about it. If there was something to gain by forgoing the 20GB I could see your argument, but I really don't see anything to gain.

Also, citing movies that are being released shortly after the format debuted does not really help your argument. I imagine the winning format will be around longer than just a couple years, and I imagine the winning format will be used for more than just movies. Having said that, I imagine, at some point, the extra space will be quite handy, and, fortunately, BD does offer that without forgoing anything in the long run (as far as I can see).[/QUOTE]

POTC came out 9 months after Blu-Ray launched, and Spider-Man 3 will be well over a year. If the Blu-ray fans didn't keep talking about how great and superior the 50GB disc is, then I wouldn't continue to talk about how useless it really is.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I'll never understand the "10x hardware is bad" argument.[/QUOTE]

Because us crazy HD DVD supporters seem to think having 10x the players on the market and only a 700k disc lead as a bad thing. The BDA loves to put "2:1 Sales advantage!" in every press release, so why can't we use ratio's as well?
 
[quote name='orimental']Isn't it strange that even with 5x as more Blu-ray players out there that the advantage is still only 2:1? Isn't even more strange that it used to be 3:1 and 4:1 before that? Why? Blu-ray is obviously being supported more through PS3 sales, now they need to spend even more to subsidize the price drops.

People focus on the Paramount/Dreamworks deal like it's some shady thing done under the table. I'm sure that Fox and Disney received some sort of incentive to become BD exclusive. It doesn't need to be straight up in check form, but subsidizing replication costs, aggressive marketing, free PS3's for the execs kids, whatever. When taking sides in such an immature format, it's going to take more than just "better specs" to take such a gamble. Nobody is lambasting the BDA for the rumored $20/25M and $50M given to Fox and Disney, respectively because it's all hearsay. But because of some words from a "Viacom exec who shall apparently remain nameless" and because of the forecast of the battle as it stood before the move, people automatically jump to the conclusion that they were paid $150M outright. Until we see the exact conditions of the contract, all we can do is speculate as to what went on. I'm not saying that they never got $150M (as it's more than likely what transpired), I'm just saying that we need to look beyond the old addage of "money talks". Maybe contracts with Blu-ray to remain neutral expired. They were HD DVD exclusive when it first debuted. We know that it was money that made Paramount neutral in the first place. Whether or not it was about catering to the entire HD crowd or even just a simple agreeement (with incentives) remains to be seen.[/quote]
Part of the reason Disney/Fox thing isn't looked to that much is they were BD from the beginning and never released a HD-DVD movie. However, Paramount, a Neutral studio, One week before Blades of Glory coming out on both formats and one week after announcing that Face-off would be one disc on Blu-ray but two on HD-DVD, 1 month after 300 selling twice as much on Blu-ray, decides to switch out of thin air. Plus, NY Times, a reputable source, reported it, not some website or blog.

Gizmo, Ratio's don't mean a damn thing, support does and Blu-ray has more support from the consumers with higher disc sales, that's we use them and Blu-ray boasts them to. If Oblivion has a higher attach rate on the PS3 than the 360, but it still sold more on the 360, you would be bashing the PS3 claiming about how nobody wants it, people prefer the 360, PS3 sucks, ps3's aren't selling well etc, etc, etc. And would 2k games care? No, because they sold more on the 360 than the PS3, attach rates or not. (And NO, I am not saying that this actually happened, just using it as an example.)
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']POTC came out 9 months after Blu-Ray launched, and Spider-Man 3 will be well over a year. If the Blu-ray fans didn't keep talking about how great and superior the 50GB disc is, then I wouldn't continue to talk about how useless it really is.[/QUOTE]

Oh, my mistake. I forgot the limits of a format were determined by movies a year after they launched. Well, BD had a good run, what new formats will be released next year, now that BD has reached its limits?

[quote name='GizmoGC']Because us crazy HD DVD supporters seem to think having 10x the players on the market and only a 700k disc lead as a bad thing. The BDA loves to put "2:1 Sales advantage!" in every press release, so why can't we use ratio's as well?[/QUOTE]

You can use ratios if you'd like, but, it still won't help the argument at all. Are you using the BDAs statements (the very ones you claim to be idiotic and BS) as justification for your statements? If you're going to complain about corporate spin, at least be consistent about it.
 
10x more isn't bad at all. In fact, it's great. But when you've got such a large user base that doesn't even match up to the software sales, it results in little growth, which isn't good for a format that is supposed to be the HD optical format of choice. The potential to grow and be relevant is what's really important. Both sides can tout disc sales, but in the end, if your hardware sales and software sales are nowhere near each other, then there's no growth. You've got the same number of consumers buying more discs, which amounts to being a niche format.
 
As for the Paramount ordeal, I don't know what was confirmed or not, but I believe there had to be have been some sort of monetary incentives. As far as I know, Paramount does not have a vested interest in HD-DVD, so I imagine they couldn't care less as to who wins. With that said, I'd imagine they would want to maximize profits until it became clear which format was going to win. At that point, the 'losing' format would probably not be financially worth it to support.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Part of the reason Disney/Fox thing isn't looked to that much is they were BD from the beginning and never released a HD-DVD movie. However, Paramount, a Neutral studio, One week before Blades of Glory coming out on both formats and one week after announcing that Face-off would be one disc on Blu-ray but two on HD-DVD, 1 month after 300 selling twice as much on Blu-ray, decides to switch out of thin air. Plus, NY Times, a reputable source, reported it, not some website or blog.[/QUOTE]

Like I said, Paramount was HD DVD exclusive when HD DVD first came out. They then became neutral not when BD debuted, but a few months after. It's not like they were always neutral. If they were, they would have announced support for both sides right from the start. So it's not entirely surprising that they chose to become HD DVD exclusive.

The whole "300 sold twice as much on Blu-ray" thing could be attributed more to retailer response than to consumer response. People have reported that both formats were sold out in many locations, so how can it be that one still sold twice as much as the other? Simple. Retailers didn't expect it to sell as well, so they ordered less. And those who were format neutral probably found copies of it on BD, so they bought it. It's not nearly as simple as just "black and white", that it's all about sales.
 
[quote name='orimental']10x more isn't bad at all. In fact, it's great. But when you've got such a large user base that doesn't even match up to the software sales, it results in little growth, which isn't good for a format that is supposed to be the HD optical format of choice. The potential to grow and be relevant is what's really important. Both sides can tout disc sales, but in the end, if your hardware sales and software sales are nowhere near each other, then there's no growth. You've got the same number of consumers buying more discs, which amounts to being a niche format.[/QUOTE]

I imagine those not buying BD movies, at this point, were apathetic about Hi-def to begin with and probably would've not adopted either format, had it not been for the PS3. However, since they were forced into the format, they now contribute to the hardware sales, and will, most likely, at some point, contribute to the software sales. We've known all along that the PS3 will act as a trojan horse for blu-ray, so it is no surprise that attach ratios are low. And, as the trojan horse, it is slowly working its way into homes and taking away from potential HD-DVD owners.
 
[quote name='orimental']The whole "300 sold twice as much on Blu-ray" thing could be attributed more to retailer response than to consumer response. People have reported that both formats were sold out in many locations, so how can it be that one still sold twice as much as the other? Simple. Retailers didn't expect it to sell as well, so they ordered less. And those who were format neutral probably found copies of it on BD, so they bought it. It's not nearly as simple as just "black and white", that it's all about sales.[/QUOTE]

I believe the 2:1 ratio is an overall trend, and not just specific to one movie. I don't believe all movies have had a problem with stock, yet the 2:1 ratio still seems to stay intact.

Either way, I don't see what the limited stock of the HD-DVD version of 300 has to do with Paramount going exclusive. Paramount went from BD+HD sales, to just HD, which, just doesn't make financial sense. They are alienating a majority of their fanbase.
 
[quote name='guyver2077']dont forget the price difference with 300[/quote]

It's amazing how all these HD-DVd supporters tout how much cheaper HD-DVd is compared to Blu-ray to manufacture and what not, and yet, we as the consumers see none of those benefits, in fact, in cases like 300, Blu-ray is actually cheaper. So, if HD-DVd is SOOO much cheaper to produce, why isn't it cheaper for us, the consumer to buy?
 
[quote name='dpatel']As for the Paramount ordeal, I don't know what was confirmed or not, but I believe there had to be have been some sort of monetary incentives. As far as I know, Paramount does not have a vested interest in HD-DVD, so I imagine they couldn't care less as to who wins. With that said, I'd imagine they would want to maximize profits until it became clear which format was going to win. At that point, the 'losing' format would probably not be financially worth it to support.[/QUOTE]

I think that even though software sales are greater with BD, HD DVD is just as profitable. HD DVD has lower replication costs. Couple that with the $5 markup on combos, you've got yourself a nice little chunk of change.
 
[quote name='guyver2077']dont forget the price difference with 300[/QUOTE]

True. It's strange how the 'advantage' of the combo disc seems to be doing the exact opposite. I really think HD should start offering combo and non-combo discs to consumers. Although, with the small amount of sales, I could see why they aren't.
 
[quote name='dpatel']I believe the 2:1 ratio is an overall trend, and not just specific to one movie. I don't believe all movies have had a problem with stock, yet the 2:1 ratio still seems to stay intact.

Either way, I don't see what the limited stock of the HD-DVD version of 300 has to do with Paramount going exclusive. Paramount went from BD+HD sales, to just HD, which, just doesn't make financial sense. They are alienating a majority of their fanbase.[/QUOTE]

I was just responding to H.Cornerstone's post about 300 selling twice as much on Blu-ray. And once again, I have to reiterate that Paramount actually went from just HD, to BD & HD, to just HD again. WB was also HD DVD exclusive at the beginning.
 
[quote name='orimental']I think that even though software sales are greater with BD, HD DVD is just as profitable. HD DVD has lower replication costs. Couple that with the $5 markup on combos, you've got yourself a nice little chunk of change.[/QUOTE]

Maybe so, but why eliminate one source of profit? It wasn't like they were choosing BD vs HD. They were choosing BD & HD vs HD.
 
No one really knows why they went exclusive. It could be anything. The BDA probably offered them only $149,999,999.99. Who knows? HDPG could have let them in on their holiday plans including HD player penetration.

You know, I tried rewriting the last sentence a few times, but it just comes out dirty everytime. ;)
 
tee hee, you said penetration.

But yea, that's all I was really getting at. While we don't know why they went exclusive, the only logical explanation seems to be that they were offered some monetary incentive. Anything else would've resulted in less profits for them, and, being business, just doesn't make sense.
 
[quote name='orimental']Like I said, Paramount was HD DVD exclusive when HD DVD first came out. They then became neutral not when BD debuted, but a few months after. It's not like they were always neutral. If they were, they would have announced support for both sides right from the start. So it's not entirely surprising that they chose to become HD DVD exclusive.

The whole "300 sold twice as much on Blu-ray" thing could be attributed more to retailer response than to consumer response. People have reported that both formats were sold out in many locations, so how can it be that one still sold twice as much as the other? Simple. Retailers didn't expect it to sell as well, so they ordered less. And those who were format neutral probably found copies of it on BD, so they bought it. It's not nearly as simple as just "black and white", that it's all about sales.[/QUOTE]

IIRC, Paramount and WB were neutral before HD DVD was actually released. They waited a little bit before releasing on Blu-ray (Blu-ray came out 2/3 months after HD DVD), but I don't recall them ever changing their mind in between the two launches. It was common for both studios to releases on HD DVD first, and then on Blu-ray. House of Wax and Aeon Flux come to mind. Warner released its first set of titles 2 weeks after Blu-ray launched.

1 week later and your still sour over it :lol:

Edit:
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/new...Def_DVD_with_Day-and-Date_Catalog_Releases/25
Warner announcing plans for both HD DVD and Blu-ray 2 months before HD DVD launched.

http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/new...ony/Studios_Announce_First_Blu-Ray_Assault/24
Paramount announcing their first plans for Blu-ray 2 months before HD DVD launched.
 
[quote name='orimental']So it happened before the launch of HD DVD. But, they were both HD DVD exclusive, then joined Blu-ray.

WB
WB Looks at Both and Chooses HD DVD

Paramount
Paramount and Others Endorse HD DVD

These were both in 2004, a year before they both went neutral, even though Blu-ray was already in the works for a few years. My point was that even though Blu-ray had their specs on the table, they went HD DVD exclusive before going neutral.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am not trying to argue that. However, they were neutral before either format launched, and the BDA promised them that 1.1 for Blu-ray would come in soon, and then June/July of 07 and now end of October. That did not happen. Now, with the only 1.1 player (Denon) being delayed until Q2 of 2008, it looks like 1.1 may be delayed even further. Thats not having 'all the specs' on the table. The HD group has so far been able to launch every HD DVD player with mandated specs from Day 1, yet Blu-ray, over a year into this war, has not. Hell, we havn't even gotten any word on 2.0, talk about even more stand alone bricks. This is an unfinished format, no doubt about it.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']POTC came out 9 months after Blu-Ray launched, and Spider-Man 3 will be well over a year.[/QUOTE]

Try about a full year for PotC (11 months after the 1st player actually, longer for the actual format launch).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top