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

Status
Not open for further replies.
:lol: The GPS goes from $150 to $160 after noon, but the HDA3 goes from $170 to $300 at noon. Looks like a loss leader on Sears end rather than Toshiba, for a change.
 
[quote name='guyver2077']it should as i believe all 3rd gen players come with them..

ill keep an eye on this deal.. good thing it looks like online will be an option[/quote]

if thats the case then i might have to sell the add-on i just brought and pick one of these up, unless BB or CC has a better deal
 
[quote name='Jedi1979']if thats the case then i might have to sell the add-on i just brought and pick one of these up, unless BB or CC has a better deal[/QUOTE]

I imagine Wal-Mart will have the A2 for $99 or $149...but the A3 is a bit better and comes with 2 movies in the box.
 
http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/594/spiderman_trilogy.html
Sony has mastered all three films in 1080p/AVC MPEG-4 video, with each getting their own BD-50 dual-layer disc (note that 'Spider-Man 3' does have some extras, though they are largely audio material and thus don't eat up too much space). 'Spider-Man' is of course the oldest of the three, and at times shows it. In particular, I didn't find colors to be quite as bold in the first film as they are in the later installments, and saturation can be quite intense, to the point where colors occasionally smear ever-so-slightly. The second and third flicks are much more solid, although as I wrote in my full-length review of the stand-alone 'Spider-Man 3' release (note that the disc contents are identical to the box set, including the transfer), all three films have a "hot" look, with whites blowing out, which dulls colors somewhat. This is most evident again on the first film, which looks a bit blander than the other two.
In general, all three transfers deliver a level of depth and detail that is usually stellar. There are definitely sequences throughout the trilogy that can easily serve as demo material. Given my personal distaste for high-contrast transfers, I was most impressed by darker scenes in each film, which tend to feature more pleasing colors for a smoother, natural image. Shadow delineation is also excellent across all three films, with an impressive level of detail visible in even the dimmest interiors. Perhaps the most interesting visual distinction between the films is the gradual improvement in CGI effects. By far, the most distracting element of the first 'Spider-Man' for me is its over-reliance on "motion blur," which sometimes gives character movements (particularly in the action scenes) a very soft, unfocused quality.
Having said all that, I don't want to give the impression that the first film (or the second) are necessarily bad presentations. Quite the contrary. The differences in color, contrast and sharpness are fairly subtle, and taken as a whole, this is an excellent set of transfers. I definitely feel that Raimi and company perfected the already impressive visual palette they introduced in the first film by the time they finished off the trilogy, so most of my nitpicks come down to the original source for each film. All in all, I think fans will be more than pleased with this set.
(Note that 'Spider-Man 2' is presented in two versions -- the original theatrical cut, and an extended edition dubbed 'Spider-Man 2.1.' The option to select your preferred version appears on the disc's start-up menu, and the quality of each is absolutely consistent. I also noticed no lag in access times with the branching footage in the '2.1' version, so the end result is seamless.)
Click to expand...

He pretty much says what everyone has been saying, Spider-man 3 is hte best transfer with 2 2nd and 1 the worst, however he does say that the first one is still a solid transfer. This puts all my fears about the first movie being a bad transfer to rest.
 
That's good to hear. The DVDTalk review was none too flattering of the first film, giving it a 2/5 for picture quality, as opposed to the 4 and 4.5 that episodes 2 and 3 got:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=31070
Spider-Man: Having not seen the first film in a few years, I was shocked to discover that it's framed at 1.85:1. I had to double check that this wasn't some kind of mistake, but no, that's how it was shot and exhibited, and that's what we get here. And the fact that it's in OAR is about the best thing I can say about it. This is the worst high-profile transfer I've seen since the early days of Blu-ray. The brightness in dark scenes have been jacked up, turning the blacks into murky blues. I often saw stray flashes of colors where they weren't supposed to be, perhaps breaking up the solid color of a wall or girder. Detail is extremely low, to the point where I felt like I was watching a DVD, and maybe not even an upconverted one. 2 Stars
Click to expand...

I'm pretty much buying this for my wife for christmas regardless, but it'll be nice if a few more positive reviews such as the HighDefDigest one come out.
 
Yeah, HighdefDigest is very unbiased as well, in fact I would say they are even pro-HD-DVD so to hear them give it a good review is reassuring.

Also, interesting article: http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/which-studio-in-hollywood-is-telling-a-big-ass-fat-stupid-lie/
So I contacted bigwigs at Paramount and DreamWorks and received a flurry of responses from on high. Execs claimed to have checked and double-checked their figures and "everything we said is 100% accurate," I was told. But a top Par exec just told me this by way of explanation for the discrepancies: "What they're saying to you is factually correct that the top 3 accounts sold 74,000 units. No disputing that. The mistake they're making is they're underestimating the units sold by nontraditional retailers like Amazon.com, Netflix, and Blockbuster Online."
Click to expand...

So essentially, The three largest disc sellers sold 74,000 units, which equal 62.5% of sales, and if you go by paramounts numbers that means Amazon, netflix and blockbuster online would have had to sold 116,000 units of HD-DVD. Now even to get to the 115,000 number the other 38% would have had to sell 41,000, which is possible, but not likely. Looks like we caught Paramount in a big fat lie.
 
I don't follow your logic. Not saying you're wrong, just not making the same coneections you are. Are you now doubting the 115k reported by Nielsen, or is it the 74k in question when related to that 115k? I don't see how 41k is "possible, but not likely", when 38% of 115k is 43.7k. Seems to line up rather nicely, actually.

What am I missing?
 
Oh, I thought this was something new. :) Here's an example of how both reports could be (relatively) accurate:

Nielsen captures approximately 80% of the market. Final Nielsen VideoScan numbers I believe are adjusted to compensate for this, but the numbers us heathens track the war by are Nielsen FirstAlert, which are not compensated. So 115k captured ~144k actually sold. But that still leaves ~46k unaccounted for.

Paramount's claim was 100k on the first day, 90k over the following 6. Nielsen runs Sunday-Saturday, so only 4 of those 6 days were covered. At an average of 15k/day (90/6), this leaves a final discrepancy of ~16k (8%)

Of course, I could be completely off base here. But it does seem (based on the above logic) that you can get pretty close to making the numbers line up.
 
[quote name='geko29']Oh, I thought this was something new. :) Here's an example of how both reports could be (relatively) accurate:

Nielsen captures approximately 80% of the market. Final Nielsen VideoScan numbers I believe are adjusted to compensate for this, but the numbers us heathens track the war by are Nielsen FirstAlert, which are not compensated. So 115k captured ~144k actually sold. But that still leaves ~46k unaccounted for.

Paramount's claim was 100k on the first day, 90k over the following 6. Nielsen runs Sunday-Saturday, so only 4 of those 6 days were covered. At an average of 15k/day (90/6), this leaves a final discrepancy of ~16k (8%)

Of course, I could be completely off base here. But it does seem (based on the above logic) that you can get pretty close to making the numbers line up.[/quote]
Geko, the whole point of my post was that there was no way in hell Paramount sold 190,000. And if the three largest sold 74,000, which is 62.5% of the the market, getting to 115,000 would have been difficult.

And Geko, according to that article, the Neilson Video Scan was only 89,000, and therefore the 115,000 would have been their final number.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Geko, the whole point of my post was that there was no way in hell Paramount sold 190,000. And if the three largest sold 74,000, which is 62.5% of the the market, getting to 115,000 would have been difficult.

And Geko, according to that article, the Neilson Video Scan was only 89,000, and therefore the 115,000 would have been their final number.[/quote]
Fair enough on the second part. You'll get no quarter from me on that. Nor on the 190k, based on that assessment. It's apparent that the 190k is inaccurate.

But the first part you're still wrong on. If 62.5% of the market was 74,000, the other 37.5% would be expected to be 44.4k, on total sales of 118.4k. It's simple math. To say that 74k(62.5%) + XX(37.5%) cannot equal 115k is ludicrous.
 
hda2amazongi2.png

Oh fuck! The onslaught continues.

This, coupled with rumors of Warner going HD DVD exclusive this week...well, this will be a pretty interesting week!
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']
hda2amazongi2.png

Oh fuck! The onslaught continues.

This, coupled with rumors of Warner going HD DVD exclusive this week...well, this will be a pretty interesting week![/quote]

Like the Warner Rumors of them going Blu-ray?
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Like the Warner Rumors of them going Blu-ray?[/QUOTE]

Nope, HD DVD exclusive. Warner has yet to renwew their membership which is $50,000. Aside from that, you have 300 inside of every A3x model, Warner being fairly prominent on all HD DVD materials, a suspicious quote from a Warner exec, and a press conference they plan to host later this week. Hell, they may just re-iterate that they are neutral, they may not do anything. Rumors are running like mad out there!

I would say HD DVD having a sub $200 player flying off the shelves helps (as well as getting Wal-Mart to carry 60k minimum for the first shipment) and with the apparent delay of Profile 1.1...this week is going to rock.

HD DVD has been closing the gap all year long, Blu-ray ratios are dropping (not even 2:1 advantage over HD DVD with 10x the players on the market)...maybe they finally see that a "gamer" market will not sustain a format.
 
[quote name='dallow']Hehe, attach ratios again.

Doesn't the PS3 have a higher attach ratio than the Wii?

Wii am doomed.[/QUOTE]

Yeah...its crazy how companies care how many movies are being sold to 600k players vs 4 million. When the difference between that is a million movies, and half were only sold because they were "free" or "half off", well, companies tend to take notice.

As for the PS3/Wii, I have no idea. But neither is going for the sole domination in the category of gaming as none of the big 3 are going anywhere obviously, while HD/BR is.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Nope, HD DVD exclusive. Warner has yet to renwew their membership which is $50,000. Aside from that, you have 300 inside of every A3x model, Warner being fairly prominent on all HD DVD materials, a suspicious quote from a Warner exec, and a press conference they plan to host later this week. Hell, they may just re-iterate that they are neutral, they may not do anything. Rumors are running like mad out there!

I would say HD DVD having a sub $200 player flying off the shelves helps (as well as getting Wal-Mart to carry 60k minimum for the first shipment) and with the apparent delay of Profile 1.1...this week is going to rock.

HD DVD has been closing the gap all year long, Blu-ray ratios are dropping (not even 2:1 advantage over HD DVD with 10x the players on the market)...maybe they finally see that a "gamer" market will not sustain a format.[/quote]
Last I Checked, Blu-ray was still outselling HD-DVD this year 65-35, and total sales are 2.25 mil to 1.5 mil since inception, Warner has movies with the 5 free blu-ray deals. I don't see Warner going HD-DVD exclusive with their high sales on Blu-ray, the fact that New-Line cinema is releasing Blu-ray movies first. And how well is the HD-DVD player selling? I haven't heard anything that they are flying off the shelves. And there are many Profile 1.1 players coming out and with the 400$ Blu-ray coming out, I see PS3 sales really picking up.

And I have a sneaky suspicion that sony will be smart enough to release a cheap blu-ray player.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Last I Checked, Blu-ray was still outselling HD-DVD this year 65-35, and total sales are 2.25 mil to 1.5 mil since inception, Warner has movies with the 5 free blu-ray deals. I don't see Warner going HD-DVD exclusive with their high sales on Blu-ray, the fact that New-Line cinema is releasing Blu-ray movies first. And how well is the HD-DVD player selling? I haven't heard anything that they are flying off the shelves. And there are many Profile 1.1 players coming out and with the 400$ Blu-ray coming out, I see PS3 sales really picking up.[/QUOTE]

Too many questions there...

Yes, Blu-ray has outsold HD DVD for the year. Check the ratios per quarter and HD DVD is catching up each and every quarter and yes, closing the gap between them.

Warner has 300 for FREE inside every A3x player...can't say the same for Blu-ray. Just because they offer them for free in the "5 free" mean shit as Paramount was as well.

Newline is only releasing on Blu-ray first because HD DVD is not region coded. The movies still need to be released in theaters overseas before an HD DVD can come out.

Please check various forums and numerous people have been buying A2s since they dropped. I imagine the A2 will rise once again on Amazon. My local Wal-Mart sold 10 of them in the past 4 days.

As of TODAY, there is not a single Profile 1.1 player coming out this year. Samsungs dual player will be, however the 1.1 update will not happen until the end of January due to Profile 1.1 being delayed.

As for Sony, they did release a cheaper Blu-ray player, its called the 20GB PS3. Samsung just days ago dropped there 1400 to $499.99 to try and "compete". Sharp has a player out for $399.99. Keep in mind ALL of these stand alones will be obsolete as they can not do Profile 1.1 . So far 2 exclusive BR CE's have left to become neutral...whats next?
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Last I Checked, Blu-ray was still outselling HD-DVD this year 65-35, and total sales are 2.25 mil to 1.5 mil since inception, Warner has movies with the 5 free blu-ray deals. I don't see Warner going HD-DVD exclusive with their high sales on Blu-ray, the fact that New-Line cinema is releasing Blu-ray movies first. And how well is the HD-DVD player selling? I haven't heard anything that they are flying off the shelves. And there are many Profile 1.1 players coming out and with the 400$ Blu-ray coming out, I see PS3 sales really picking up.[/quote]
You had me till the last sentence. Aside from the Samsung combo, what 1.1 players have been announced with even a vague street date? And how will $400 BR players help sell PS3s?
 
[quote name='geko29']You had me till the last sentence. Aside from the Samsung combo, what 1.1 players have been announced with even a vague street date? And how will $400 BR players help sell PS3s?[/QUOTE]

0. Not a single Profile 1.1 player has been announced with a street date.

I didn't say $400 PS3s will help at all. But they are the cheapest and according to Sony will be in "limited" supply.
He was asking if Sony could release a cheaper Blu-ray player, and my answer was the 20GB, as currently the BDP-1 and 300 are still $499.99, though I imagine those will drop soon, especially at Target since they now need to compete with the $200 A2 that is available almost everything now. I wonder how Target feels about losing all those potential sales so they can have a non-functioning $500 player sitting on its shelf?
 
[quote name='geko29']You had me till the last sentence. Aside from the Samsung combo, what 1.1 players have been announced with even a vague street date? And how will $400 BR players help sell PS3s?[/quote]
Sorry, I messed up, I meant the 400$ PS3 will help sell Blu-ray. Didn't LG have a combo player that was 1.1 compliant then?

And my point was, if Toshiba can release a bare bone player on the cheap, why can't a company release a blu-ray one that is the same thing?

And New Line's Parent is Warner,that was my point on that one.
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']And I have a sneaky suspicion that sony will be smart enough to release a cheap blu-ray player.[/quote]
If what they did with the 40GB PS3 is any indication, they'll probably take out SD DVD playback to cut costs.

[quote name='H.Cornerstone']And my point was, if Toshiba can release a bare bone player on the cheap, why can't a company release a blu-ray one that is the same thing?
[/quote]
Because Blu-ray would no longer be "Beyond HD". They would really have something on their hands though if they had one that could compete with the A2/A3 twins.
 
[quote name='orimental']If what they did with the 40GB PS3 is any indication, they'll probably take out SD DVD playback to cut costs.


Because Blu-ray would no longer be "Beyond HD". They would really have something on their hands though if they had one that could compete with the A2/A3 twins.[/quote]

Well techinically they would because it would still look better than HD cable. :)
 
[quote name='H.Cornerstone']Sorry, I messed up, I meant the 400$ PS3 will help sell Blu-ray. Didn't LG have a combo player that was 1.1 compliant then?

And my point was, if Toshiba can release a bare bone player on the cheap, why can't a company release a blu-ray one that is the same thing?

And New Line's Parent is Warner,that was my point on that one.[/QUOTE]

40GB PS3 will help PS3 sales, I don't think it will push Blu-ray sales THAT much. Sub $400 players have been available for months in refurbished/open boxed (Samsung 1200 only $225 at Best Buy...tempting...). LGs new dual player WILL be 1.1 compliant, as will Samsungs Dual player. Interesting...eh? LGs is OUT (Best Buy has it), but not for sale yet.

HD DVD players are cheaper to make then Blu-ray players, simple as that. Someone like geko can into the specifications for that one, lol.

The New Line issue sucks right now for HD DVD only people, but I'm willing to miss out on Hairspray, Rush Hour 3, and Mr WoodCock to be able to possibly watch 50-60+ movies on HD DVD that are not available on either format in the USA. I am SO glad I have The Graduate on HD DVD. Superb transfer. A big fuck you to MGM for delayed it on Blu-ray back in April.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Yeah...its crazy how companies care how many movies are being sold to 600k players vs 4 million. When the difference between that is a million movies, and half were only sold because they were "free" or "half off", well, companies tend to take notice.[/QUOTE]

What gave you this idea? To me, that doesn't make too much sense. Companies would still make more money on the format with the lower attach rate. Market penetration might not be as high, but, last time I checked, they benefit more from total sales, rather than market penetration. I've noticed you bring this point up a lot, so I am wondering what exactly brought you to this conclusion.
 
Gizmo, some dude in my CIS class said he was going to get a 400$ ps3 just to watch blu-ray, Geko bought a PS3 to watch blu-ray when it dropped in price,and I think there will be a lot more who follow suit. And MGM is the WORST company when it comes to hi-def releases, if it wasn't for them having the rights to the bond movies and other classics, I could care less about them being on our side.

And I never understood why Blu-ray players are THAT Much more expensive, the only difference i am aware of is the numerical aperture. They both use Blu-violet laser diodes.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']The New Line issue sucks right now for HD DVD only people, but I'm willing to miss out on Hairspray, Rush Hour 3, and Mr WoodCock to be able to possibly watch 50-60+ movies on HD DVD that are not available on either format in the USA. I am SO glad I have The Graduate on HD DVD. Superb transfer. A big fuck you to MGM for delayed it on Blu-ray back in April.[/QUOTE]

Also you have to remember Pan's Labyrinth is coming so New Line's catalog releases (mainly everything worth a damn from them) are going to be day and date.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']HD DVD players are cheaper to make then Blu-ray players, simple as that. Someone like geko can into the specifications for that one, lol.[/QUOTE]

True, but I can't see them being 1/2 as cheap, especially when the PS3 is able to offer a lot more in the same package for the same price as standalones. I realize the PS3 is selling at a loss, but I believe losses are not nearly as substantial as they were at launch (and those were speculated to be about $100--$150, I believe).
 
Love this new article. Just shows how childish the BDA is.

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm
The gloves are off. Backers of the high-definition Blu-ray Disc format are staging a two-day offensive in Hollywood this week, touting their triumphs and offering previews of upcoming releases such as Cars, Ratatouille, the “Die Hard” movies, Dirty Dancing and Spider-Man 3 to a crowd of more than 50 influential print and online journalists.

The event, which concludes Tuesday, could be seen as a guns-blazing pre-emptive strike against the rival HD DVD camp, which almost simultaneously got a boost from Wal-Mart and other retailers, which reportedly began selling HD DVD players for just less than $200. That is expected to give the HD DVD format a significant boost, particularly in the wake of Paramount Home Entertainment’s defection several weeks ago from the Blu-ray side.

The so-called “Blu-ray Festival” coincides with the launch of a new branding and consumer education campaign, with the tagline “I Do Blu,” that premiered Oct. 28 during the final game of the World Series.

Both the campaign and the festival, the latter orchestrated by Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment, underscore growing sentiments, backed by research, that consumers are largely indifferent to high-definition discs and turned off even more by the presence of two incompatible formats.

To combat this, Blu-ray backers are stepping up the rhetoric and courting the press, particularly the new vanguard of online Web sites, bloggers and discussion boards that cater to the early adopters who historically have set trends the masses have followed.

“It’s a great idea,” said Ron Epstein, a founder of the Home Theater Forum, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary. “The early adopters are all on the Internet — that’s where they find their information. And there’s a certain brand new, just happened element.”

“These are the people who are regularly covering technological advances in home entertainment,” said Steve Feldstein, SVP of marketing and corporate communications for 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. “They are at the forefront of the format, as are their readers.”

Representatives of all the Blu-ray-exclusive studios — Lionsgate, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment and Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment — were in attendance at the Monday morning opening breakfast, as were key executives with supporting consumer electronics manufacturers such as Sony, Philips and Panasonic.

Also there was Dan Silverberg, VP of high-definition media for Warner Home Video, which since Paramount’s move to the HD DVD camp is the only studio to support both next-generation formats.

That may not be for long, Silverberg said. “One thing that may be changing is our strategy,” he said. “When both formats launched and hardware prices were high, we made a decision to support both formats and let the consumer decide. But now that hardware pricing is affordable for both Blu-ray and HD DVD, it appears consumers no longer want to decide — so the notion of staying in two formats for the duration is something we are re-evaluating now that we are in the fourth quarter.”

Silverberg noted that Warner has the top-selling Blu-ray title of all time with 300 and is consistently No. 1 or No. 2 in both Blu-ray sales market share and in number of Blu-ray titles in the market.

“We can definitely talk Blu-ray,” he said. “We are committed to the format.” At the Monday morning kickoff, the featured speaker was David Berman, director of Home Theater Specialists of America (HTSA), a buying consortium of 62 dealers and 800 installers with combined revenue of more than half a billion dollars a year. He said the HTSA supports Blu-ray because a member survey found 92% favoring Blu-ray over HD DVD.

The press was given a fact sheet of more statistics and Blu-ray milestones, including the fact that even in a week in which Transformers came out on HD DVD and with no comparable title in its lineup, Blu-ray Discs still managed to outsell discs in the rival format. So far this year, Blu-ray titles have outsold HD DVD titles by a 2-to-1 margin. Since inception, Blu-ray software sales have accounted for 61% of high-def disc software sales. And 17 of the 20 top-selling high-definition disc titles are available on Blu-ray.

There also were indications that the Blu-ray camp is done playing nice. At the entrance to the opening breakfast, at the Hollywood and Highland complex, was a huge blowup of a Deadline Hollywood article by renegade online columnist Nikki Finke. The article raised questions about Paramount Home Entertainment’s claim that it sold 190,000 copies of Transformers on HD DVD in a single week.

Later in the day, on the 20th Century Fox lot, 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment president Mike Dunn blasted Paramount for its defection, accusing the studio of “taking the bait,” referring to a reported $50 million payout to drop its support of Blu-ray Disc and release titles exclusively in HD DVD.

Dunn also intimated that the format war is being perpetuated by Microsoft in the hopes of confusing consumers so much they don’t support either format and ultimately buy their entertainment online. He didn’t name the computer giant by name, but blasted “the orchestrated campaigns of confusion and anti-consumerism fueled by an 800-pound gorilla that would prefer to force us all into the practice of paying tolls for the right to exchange information and enjoy entertainment.”

Fox also previewed several Blu-ray Disc titles still in development, including I, Robot, Independence Day and Sunshine, which will be released early next year and boast picture-in-picture, audio mixing and other groundbreaking interactive features.
Click to expand...

Love the mis-quote from the Warner rep which will spur "see! Warner is going to go blu!!!!", and the fact that there is NO mention about Profile 1.1 or if Warner has paid their gym membership fee to the BDA.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Love the mis-quote from the Warner rep which will spur "see! Warner is going to go blu!!!!"[/QUOTE]

Would that be a different mis-quote than the "no comment" y'all have been using to FUD your way into suggesting that WB will settle for 33% of the profit they've made in hidef sales for the year when they announce they're going HD exclusive this Wednesday?

;)

and :lol: at you calling anyone childish.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Yeah...its crazy how companies care how many movies are being sold to 600k players vs 4 million. When the difference between that is a million movies, and half were only sold because they were "free" or "half off", well, companies tend to take notice.[/QUOTE]

What gave you this idea? To me, that doesn't make too much sense. Companies would still make more money on the format with the lower attach rate. Market penetration might not be as high, but, last time I checked, they benefit more from total sales, rather than market penetration. I've noticed you bring this point up a lot, so I am wondering what exactly brought you to this conclusion.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Would that be a different mis-quote than the "no comment" y'all have been using to FUD your way into suggesting that WB will settle for 33% of the profit they've made in hidef sales for the year when they announce they're going HD exclusive this Wednesday?[/QUOTE]

I would take 33% of the profit anyday, as long as attach rates are through the roof :roll:
 
[quote name='dpatel']I would take 33% of the profit anyday, as long as attach rates are through the roof :roll:[/QUOTE]

I'm sure Warner and other stuido's know what their doing. I doubt any studio wants to buy the fate of the next movie format in the hands of gamers. Warner made mention of this weeks ago.

Blu guys gotta have something to say to counter all these reports of of these awesome $200 HD players.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']I'm sure Warner and other stuido's know what their doing. I doubt any studio wants to buy the fate of the next movie format in the hands of gamers. Warner made mention of this weeks ago.[/QUOTE]

As a business, they would want to maximize profit (I doubt they care where the profit is coming from, even if it is 'gamers'). Currently, the best way to do that is to be neutral, but if they were to be exclusive (without any other incentives) Blu-ray would currently yield the most profit. Which is why I asked why you keep bringing up attach rates.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']Blu guys gotta have something to say to counter all these reports of of these awesome $200 HD players.[/QUOTE]

Wow. Just...wow.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']I'm sure Warner and other stuido's know what their doing. I doubt any studio wants to buy the fate of the next movie format in the hands of gamers. Warner made mention of this weeks ago.[/QUOTE]

As a business, they would want to maximize profit (I doubt they care where the profit is coming from, even if it is 'gamers'). Currently, the best way to do that is to be neutral, but if they were to be exclusive (without any other incentives) Blu-ray would currently yield the most profit. Which is why I asked why you keep bringing up attach rates.

So, is there something, about attach rates, that I am missing? Or should I just continue to blindly take your word that they are more important than total sales, and that, any day now, studios will be making decisions based on the fact that HD-DVD has a significantly higher attach rate.
 
[quote name='dpatel']As a business, they would want to maximize profit (I doubt they care where the profit is coming from, even if it is 'gamers'). Currently, the best way to do that is to be neutral, but if they were to be exclusive (without any other incentives) Blu-ray would currently yield the most profit. Which is why I asked why you keep bringing up attach rates.

So, is there something, about attach rates, that I am missing? Or should I just continue to blindly take your word that they are more important than total sales, and that, any day now, studios will be making decisions based on the fact that HD-DVD has a significantly higher attach rate.[/quote]
Dpatel, stop using logic, he is just upset that HD-DVD with transformers still couldn't beat Blu-ray and that is why he is brining up attach rates again.

and I would be upset to a MS if they did something to help HD-DVD, THEY ARE HIS ENEMY and they have no business sticking their nose in this format war as they have nothing to gain from it.

And don't make start blasting out Economics theory about maximizing profit, I hate Microeconimics and don't want to think about it.

"Since inception, Blu-ray software sales have accounted for 61% of high-def disc software sales. And 17 of the 20 top-selling high-definition disc titles are available on Blu-ray."

And to me Gizmo, that is the most important thing about Blu-ray.
 
[quote name='GizmoGC']40GB PS3 will help PS3 sales, I don't think it will push Blu-ray sales THAT much.[/quote] [quote name='H.Cornerstone']Gizmo, some dude in my CIS class said he was going to get a 400$ ps3 just to watch blu-ray, Geko bought a PS3 to watch blu-ray when it dropped in price,and I think there will be a lot more who follow suit.[/quote] I actually think 40GB PS3 sales will push Blu-Ray--ironically for the exact opposite reason that I bought my 60GB. The 40GB strips EVERYTHING out of the PS3 except for: 1) PS3 gaming, and 2) Blu-Ray playback. Those who are interested solely in one or the other (or both) of those things will be more tempted by a $400 price than by a $500 one. Whether that's enough to jump is up to the individual, but a 20% cost reduction for the same perceived functionality is never a losing proposition.

However, I would like to stress that I did not buy my 60GB because of the price drop. If that were the case, I would have gotten it months ago when it dropped from $599 to $499. The reason I jumped when I did was twofold: I had BB gift cards to burn (and my wife and I don't trust BB enough to hang on to said gift cards), and I see the 40GB as a sign of the passing of backwards compatibility, which is important to me. If the 40GB had still been BC, I probably would have looked at a SAL Blu-Ray player or combo player instead, because there would be no worry that should I later decide to get a PS3 that it would be crippled. So, in kind of a rounadabout way, my choice in blu-ray player was precipitated on my being an old-school gamer. In that manner of speaking, Sony's scare tactics worked on me.

[quote name='GizmoGC']Sub $400 players have been available for months in refurbished/open boxed (Samsung 1200 only $225 at Best Buy...tempting...).[/quote] If I had seen a BD-P1200 for $225, I would have been dual format a LONG time ago. Especially considering how long it took to get my 905 (THREE MONTHS!!!), it would have been worth it solely for the reon SD DVD upscaling (blu-ray notwithstanding) in the interim.

I don't believe it's fair to claim the existence of widespread sub-$400 Blu-Ray players predicated on returns/open box. If you're going to draw conclusions from that, then you have to reciprocally conclude that sub-$200 prices for HD DVD players is meaningless as well, since clearance/open box HD-A1s have been available for $130-170 for nearly a year now. And I vehemently disagree with that assertion--I think $200 is a major milestone, and have been saying as much since I got into this thing over a year ago.

[quote name='GizmoGC'] HD DVD players are cheaper to make then Blu-ray players, simple as that. Someone like geko can into the specifications for that one, lol.[/quote] [quote name='H.Cornerstone']And I never understood why Blu-ray players are THAT Much more expensive, the only difference i am aware of is the numerical aperture. They both use Blu-violet laser diodes.[/quote] I don't have (and am too lazy to search out right now:)) hard facts, but my understanding of the situation is this:

The diode for a Blu-Ray player is slightly more expensive than that for an HD DVD player due to the closer focus and narrower angle required to read the smaller and shallower pits on the disc. That said, we know that earlier this year Sony was producing Blu-Ray diodes for ~$8/ea. wholesale cost. Absolute worst case this results in a final assembled retail cost (in a player) of $40 for the part, but likely more like half that. HD DVD diodes can't be THAT much less expensive. It's not $3 vs. $40, I'll say that much straight out. My guess is somewhere in the $32-34 worst case retail range (vs. $40), which amounts to $16-17 more likely retail range (vs. $20), and ~$6 wholesale (vs. $8). So nearly, but not totally, irrelevant.

Then you have the other related hardware. The Broadcom and Sigma Designs SOCs used in HD DVD and Blu-Ray players are more or less identical. Both platforms require Dolby and DTS licenses, so no differences there. HD DVD requires the addition of Ethernet, which is negligible. All Blu-Ray players thus far are 1080p, and the additional processing for that is likewise negligible (and cancels out the cost of the ethernet). HD DVD requires HDi, while Blu-Ray requires BD-J. Those licensing costs along with the DVD Forum/BDA licensing costs are the only real unknowns. But it would honestly surprise me to find out that they're different in any significant fashion.

What it boils down to (IMO, naturally) is it costs SLIGHTLY more to build a Blu-Ray player than an HD DVD player. But not twice as much--not by a long shot. There's more profit built into a typical Blu-Ray player than a typical HD DVD player, at this point in the game. Of that there can be no question. If an HD DVD player can be sold profitably for
 
[quote name='geko29']

The diode for a Blu-Ray player is slightly more expensive than that for an HD DVD player due to the closer focus and narrower angle required to read the smaller and shallower pits on the disc. That said, we know that earlier this year Sony was producing Blu-Ray diodes for ~$8/ea. wholesale cost. Absolute worst case this results in a final assembled retail cost (in a player) of $40 for the part, but likely more like half that. HD DVD diodes can't be THAT much less expensive. It's not $3 vs. $40, I'll say that much straight out. My guess is somewhere in the $32-34 worst case retail range (vs. $40), which amounts to $16-17 more likely retail range (vs. $20), and ~$6 wholesale (vs. $8). So nearly, but not totally, irrelevant.

Then you have the other related hardware. The Broadcom and Sigma Designs SOCs used in HD DVD and Blu-Ray players are more or less identical. Both platforms require Dolby and DTS licenses, so no differences there. HD DVD requires the addition of Ethernet, which is negligible. All Blu-Ray players thus far are 1080p, and the additional processing for that is likewise negligible (and cancels out the cost of the ethernet). HD DVD requires HDi, while Blu-Ray requires BD-J. Those licensing costs along with the DVD Forum/BDA licensing costs are the only real unknowns. But it would honestly surprise me to find out that they're different in any significant fashion.

What it boils down to (IMO, naturally) is it costs SLIGHTLY more to build a Blu-Ray player than an HD DVD player. But not twice as much--not by a long shot. There's more profit built into a typical Blu-Ray player than a typical HD DVD player, at this point in the game. Of that there can be no question. If an HD DVD player can be sold profitably for
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
bread's done
Back
Top