Sega Dreamcast History - PS3 to repeat PS2?

[Haoshiro]

I found this really interesting video (http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/sega-dreamcast-history#more-1441) on the Sega Dreamcast by G4.

It's really good and informative.

What I thought was especially interesting was the talk of how PS2 really took over japan because of DVD. DVD hadn't caught on yet and PS2 released as the cheapest DVD player available. Sounds like Sony might be trying to do the same thing with PS3 and Blu-ray, but will it work? Is the leep from DVD to BD really going to be as large as from VHS to DVD?

Anyway, a good watch! Love my Dreamcast still and it was by far the most exciting and fun console system launch I've ever experienced; and also the best launch line up I've ever seen.

[~Shard~]

All the PS3 sales (when they eventually happen) will definitely be helping out Blu Ray's position in its battle with HD-DVD. It's still too early to say what will happen though...

[yellow]

Sounds like Sony might be trying to do the same thing with PS3 and Blu-ray, but will it work? Is the leep from DVD to BD really going to be as large as from VHS to DVD?

Absolutely, and absolutely. And if not Blu-Ray, then HD-DVD. With the current proliferation of HD TVs in people's homes, it's time that home video caught up. Since broadband still isn't in everyone's home (is it even in the majority yet?), video on demand via internet still hasn't fully come to fruition. Not to mention integration between internet and one's HDTV is still rather rare, so even if you DID have the broadband with bandwidth capable of downloading a HiDef movie, you may not be able to get it to your TV. So until infrastructure gets to the point where that IS possible, HD-DVD or Blu-Ray will rule the roost (eventually).

[student_trap]

Love my Dreamcast still and it was by far the most exciting and fun console system launch I've ever experienced; and also the best launch line up I've ever seen.

ahh, i remember my dreamcast fondly...wonderful days

[Sdashiki]

here's hoping Blu and HDDVD both become "standards" (DVD took forever to become standardized up until about 2001 even when they were selling DVDs like mad, causing many compatibility problems and requiring firmware updates etc) and that every player on the market plays both. It would be up to the manufacturers, producers, studios etc to choose which to use.

There are pros and cons to both.

But there are WAAAAAYAAAAAAAYAAYAYAYAYAY more cons to having them duke it out like BetaMax.

We (consumers/manufacturers) are far too grown up for this MINES BETTER bull.

[Haoshiro]

So anyone actually watching/watched the video? Doesn't seem like it and you really should. :)

[Sdashiki]

watching right now buddy.

"If you dont have the software, the hardware will fail." - about the Saturn

[combatcolin]

Em, PS2 more powerful than the DC?

Still debatable.

[turbopants]

I love my Dreamcast as well, it's still a great system.

Sony is definitely hoping for Blu-Ray to take off with the PS3. That may be why they are waiting until the end of the year to release the PS3, people will be ready for HD movies around that time. I know many will buy the PS3 for the gaming system, but the new drive may get many others to pick it up as an HD movie player as well.

[ijimk]

I for one think the new console wars will be won because of online service. The hardware will be next in line to determine the winner. I like all 3 companies alot esp Nintendo but i gotta tell ya Xbox's Lives service is very very polished and i thinks that is a huge step for them. Not to mention they had the first next gen console on the market. Anyone who hasn't tried Xbox Live for the 360 really should its wonderful.

[~Shard~]

Em, PS2 more powerful than the DC?

Who cares about power - game selection is where it's at. :cool:

[2nyRiggz]

Putting Blu-Ray in the PS3 is a good move by Sony....only time will tell the outcome.


Bless

[combatcolin]

The Irony was that the hardware positions on the saturn and PS were reversed with the DC and PS2, the DC was easy to program for and was cheap to make while the PS2 was the opposite.

[greatdevourer]

Hehe, on the parallels thing, there was a funny one comparing the 360 to the Dreamcast. It even had things like "ugly black console replaced by sleek white console" and "famous rich bald guy turned up to release party" :p

[mwpeters8182]

Unfortunately, as it stands, Blu-ray discs are hell to manufacture. They cost a lot, and the yield isn't very high at the moment. I'm sure that this will improve over time, but there's definitely going to be some sort of format war. Sony's obviously pushing Blu-ray hard, but they're meeting resistance along the way.

[illegalprelude]

Unfortunately, as it stands, Blu-ray discs are hell to manufacture. They cost a lot, and the yield isn't very high at the moment. I'm sure that this will improve over time, but there's definitely going to be some sort of format war. Sony's obviously pushing Blu-ray hard, but they're meeting resistance along the way.

just wondering, was this based on the last movie you released on Blue-Ray or the game your developing use BR.

I think this is a very smart move for sony and a good push for consumers. I mean for how long have we been trying to kill off the analog signal in the US and convert the HD. I know many people who now own an HD set, thanks to the 360. So little steps like this to help consumers move into the next tech erra are appreciated

[MacRumorUser]

Very interesting video. Yep I will always remain skeptical of Sony's hyperbole..

As for.


HD-DVD & BluRay are still very much up in the air. I honestly put them in the same boat as Laserdisc. Offering far advanced technology for its time, but expensive retail cost and general buyer apathy left it in the dust, bar the techology geeks. (i was one I'll admit it).

I think both Hd-DVD & BluRay are a format too soon for the general masses and it with the format that comes from it or it converges into that will be the true successor to DVD.

Much like Philips DCC & Sony Mini disc battle to replace cassette tape both failed and it was a format a number of years later that caught on MP3.

Offering better quality does not mean average Joe Soap is going to rush out and purchase you. Convieance & Cheapness is more important than quality, as the level of legal MP3's sold on iTunes is testamount to. After all MP3 is a reduction in quality rather than improvement. It's the price and easy delievery system that makes it a winner.

BluRay & HD-DVD have too many ?? over them, and HDTV's wont be in the majority of households for a long time yet, more over here in Europe. Viewing either of those formats on anything other than HDTV is moribund.

Added to the fact that a lot of people who early adopted supposedly HDReady set are going to be in for a nice surprise when they realise that they dont have an HDCP - DVI or HDMI socket and hence their 12-18 month old very expensive TV set is now utterly redundant..

[takao]

Hehe, on the parallels thing, there was a funny one comparing the 360 to the Dreamcast. It even had things like "ugly black console replaced by sleek white console" and "famous rich bald guy turned up to release party" :p

yeah that one was from 1up.com
http://www.1up.com/do/feature?cId=3145154

quite funny

for hd-dvd vs. blu-ray
it might end up like SACD vs. DVD Audio ... both improvements over the CD but the advantage wasn't enough for most people
(personally i will very likely skip until the next format or go complete digital distribution.... for movies dvds are enough for me)

[MacRumorUser]

for hd-dvd vs. blu-ray
it might end up like SACD vs. DVD Audio ... both improvements over the CD but the advantage wasn't enough for most people
(personally i will very likely skip until the next format or go complete digital distribution.... for movies dvds are enough for me)

Exactly my point. :)

[combatcolin]

In a years time the market will be be mature.

I remember seeing the worlds (almost) 1st DVD player in an electrical shop, cost a packet and there was naff all released - still had that "wow" factor though.

[Eric5h5]

Seems to me that the biggest problem with BluRay is that HVD is apparently only about a couple of years behind it in terms of getting consumer versions out there. And HVD makes BluRay's storage advantage over HD-DVD look pretty trivial by comparison.

--Eric

[Haoshiro]

Perhaps I'm just not enough of a Videophile but BD/HD-DVD really don't interest me a great deal. I definitely do not want to re-buy the movies I have on DVD (as I did with VHS) and, while better quality does interest me, I am personally not willing to plunk down money for a new movie player.

I recall DVDs always being more expensive then VHS which of course is normal but the prices were not what I'm usually willing to pay. I don't watch the same movie 100 times, but if it is really good I like to own it. But $15 is about where I draw the line unless it's an amazing package (like LotR extended special editions). Paying $30 per movie, which is mere speculation as to what BD will cost, is something I'm not willing to do even if I did have a player. The quality difference would really have to be shattering!

Something tells me this is also the case with many many people. Perhaps BDs will hit for $20, perhaps. With the higher quality, more expensive production, etc... I just really doubt that.

After seeing the video it struck me that Sony wants to repeat history, kill off 360 like it did the Dreamcast. All the press so far feels eerily familiar to the days of DC. But does DVD really feel that "old" like VHS did? I don't think so, personally. The difference from watching DVD on an SD set to an HD set is already pretty good, I don't see most people really caring for more then that.

People will buy PS3, sure, but will they do that because of BD like I feel Sony is hoping? Not really, PS3 will release and the mass public won't even realize there were even plans to replace DVD... my guess is most consumers will be like "huh? really? why?"

[~Shard~]

Perhaps I'm just not enough of a Videophile but BD/HD-DVD really don't interest me a great deal. I definitely do not want to re-buy the movies I have on DVD (as I did with VHS) and, while better quality does interest me, I am personally not willing to plunk down money for a new movie player.

I recall DVDs always being more expensive then VHS which of course is normal but the prices were not what I'm usually willing to pay. I don't watch the same movie 100 times, but if it is really good I like to own it. But $15 is about where I draw the line unless it's an amazing package (like LotR extended special editions). Paying $30 per movie, which is mere speculation as to what BD will cost, is something I'm not willing to do even if I did have a player. The quality difference would really have to be shattering!

Something tells me this is also the case with many many people. Perhaps BDs will hit for $20, perhaps. With the higher quality, more expensive production, etc... I just really doubt that.

I'm kind of in the same boat - although higher quality would be nice for some movies, do I really care if I can buy Family Guy on Blu Ray? DVD quality is more than adequate, thanks. ;) Plus, I am going to need a Blu Ray player and a 1080p HDTV to fully realize the benefits, and that's no small amount of $$$, at least as it would stand for the next year or so until prices come down.

[MacRumorUser]

Theres also the added fact that in movies, so many filters and grain & bluring is added in post production that you dont really suddenly see everything in ultra sharpness. Of course HD looks fabulous on documentarys, but in movies nothing amazingly special at all.

[Dagless]

DVD is sufficient for me too. Much love I have for progressive scan DVD playing. Much love I do not have for rebuying what I own. I've only just started buying DVD's. not many still, I only buy what I *really* want so I have about 20 DVD's. It's taken me years to acquire them. I'm about to go out rebuying those discs but in a higher format.

At first I thought HD-DVD was going to succeed over BluRay. Primarily because they have Intel and Microsoft backing *big, big influences* and because of the lower price tag than what BluRay will cost. But more and more I'm thinking neither of these 2 are going to be in peoples homes over the next 5 years. They're both the next Minidisc, UMD, LaserDisc, BetaMax, SACD, DVD-A. Just a format that looks good on paper, but in a market that urges simplicity and cheapness - neither look likely. I say the next big thing will hit in 2010. It's 2006 and HDTV are still in the minority. The world simply isn't ready yet.

[~Shard~]

Theres also the added fact that in movies, so many filters and grain & bluring is added in post production that you dont really suddenly see everything in ultra sharpness. Of course HD looks fabulous on documentarys, but in movies nothing amazingly special at all.

Good point. Unless something has been filmed, edited, etc., in HD, from start to finish throughout the entire process, you're not seeing true HD content.

[Counterfit]

Good point. Unless something has been filmed, edited, etc., in HD, from start to finish throughout the entire process, you're not seeing true HD content.
Well, if you film it in film (:p), you can scan it in and have HD....

[~Shard~]

Well, if you film it in film (:p), you can scan it in and have HD....

Well, yes of course, that goes without saying... :p ;)

[mrgreen4242]

Theres also the added fact that in movies, so many filters and grain & bluring is added in post production that you dont really suddenly see everything in ultra sharpness. Of course HD looks fabulous on documentarys, but in movies nothing amazingly special at all.

Precisely. Movies on DVD (in 480p) looks just about as good as they do at 1080i... documentaries (especially underwater stuff) and sports look amazing in HD. Sports is what will drive the HD set sales, in my experience.

Maybe not enough stuff has ben produced with HD in mind? I remember seeing the second Matrix movie in an IMAX theatre and being both impressed and disapointed. Impressed in that they deifnately shot it with HD and IMAX presentation in mind, disapointed at how bad things can look in HD! When I saw Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkabahn in IMAX I remember thinking how terrible it looked, like they didn't plan to ever show it at that level of resolution.

[yellow]

I just moved from an S-Video cable between our satbox and our HDTV to an HDMI cable and MAN what a difference, now that I can get 1080i! The HD stuff looks better, but the regular digital chanels look WORLDS better!

[Haoshiro]

Batman Begins and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory looked amazing on IMAX, though!

[~Shard~]

Batman Begins and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory looked amazing on IMAX, though!

Batman Begins was almost too big on IMAX though, what with all of Nolan's quick cuts and close angles on the fight scenes... ;)

[mrgreen4242]

Batman Begins was almost too big on IMAX though, what with all of Nolan's quick cuts and close angles on the fight scenes... ;)

I absouletly agree with that. I had a lot of trouble telling what was going on it a few of the fight scenes because they were shot so close and the cuts were so fast. I enjoyed the movie more on my 30" CRT HDTV and progressive DVD over component cables than in the IMAX.

Although, I NEED to get a good surround sound system. That'll have to wait 'till this winter, after we buy (our first) house. Maybe my winter project can be building some speakers into the walls and running all the wire in the walls or ceiling or at least under the carpet...

[mrgreen4242]

I just moved from an S-Video cable between our satbox and our HDTV to an HDMI cable and MAN what a difference, now that I can get 1080i! The HD stuff looks better, but the regular digital chanels look WORLDS better!

Is that a sniper kitten?

[supremedesigner]

I just like to say the word "DVD" instead of BD or HD-DVD (too much pausing). WHY WHY WHY do we have to change the name?! I know most people say "DVD" and they will be like "what's BD?" (same thing happen back in 97' when they never heard of DVD lol). What do you think?:mad:

[yellow]

Is that a sniper kitten?

Sure is. :D

[yellow]

What do you think?:mad:

Until one (or the other) becomes the standard, it will have to be differentiated anyhow. And whatever the verbal differentiation is.. that will probably become the standard for the name.

[Abulia]

Perhaps I'm just not enough of a Videophile but BD/HD-DVD really don't interest me a great deal. I definitely do not want to re-buy the movies I have on DVD (as I did with VHS) and, while better quality does interest me, I am personally not willing to plunk down money for a new movie player.Don't worry, it's not just you.

I'm hard-core home theater videophile and hang out on forums full of early adoptors and let me tell you, the vast majority are in a "wait and see" pattern. They've already been burned by Beta, laser disc, SACD, DVD-Audio, etc.

As someone who has had DVD-Audio since it was released and nearly bought a car with DVD-Audio, let me tell you what a bust that technology (and SACD) have been: there's nearly nothing out there to listen to. You have the classic chicken-and-the-egg situation and a handful of releases that, frankly, aren't worth getting excited about. Sure, I can demo and wow my friends with 6 channel audio, but I've only got a handful of discs even worth listening too.

That's why, this time around, I don't think anyone is going to make a heavy investment in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray until it's clear who has the content. Of course, I'm speaking solely about home theater enthuasists like myself; gaming freaks who get the PS3 are already bought into one of the formats, so the risk is much less.

And it's leveraging this built-in customer base that's key to Sony's strategy with Blu-Ray and the PS3.

[yellow]

That's why, this time around, I don't think anyone is going to make a heavy investment in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray until it's clear who has the content. Of course, I'm speaking solely about home theater enthuasists like myself; gaming freaks who get the PS3 are already bought into one of the formats, so the risk is much less.

And it's leveraging this built-in customer base that's key to Sony's strategy with Blu-Ray and the PS3.

A fair assessment, IMO.

[illegalprelude]

Don't worry, it's not just you.

I'm hard-core home theater videophile and hang out on forums full of early adoptors and let me tell you, the vast majority are in a "wait and see" pattern. They've already been burned by Beta, laser disc, SACD, DVD-Audio, etc.

As someone who has had DVD-Audio since it was released and nearly bought a car with DVD-Audio, let me tell you what a bust that technology (and SACD) have been: there's nearly nothing out there to listen to. You have the classic chicken-and-the-egg situation and a handful of releases that, frankly, aren't worth getting excited about. Sure, I can demo and wow my friends with 6 channel audio, but I've only got a handful of discs even worth listening too.

That's why, this time around, I don't think anyone is going to make a heavy investment in HD-DVD or Blu-Ray until it's clear who has the content. Of course, I'm speaking solely about home theater enthuasists like myself; gaming freaks who get the PS3 are already bought into one of the formats, so the risk is much less.

And it's leveraging this built-in customer base that's key to Sony's strategy with Blu-Ray and the PS3.


I pretty much agree with that, being in the same catigory as you. Im a fairly early adopter and I love new stuff but like you said, both DVD-Audio and SACD sound amazing but unless everything is released on it, the Bob Marly album and Michael Jackson arent enough for me.

I think the battle of Blue-Ray and HD-DVD with be as harmless as the DVD-Audio and so forth. Honestly, not too many people bit into that. and the Industry is going to wait to see who has the clear upper hand before they start pumping major content out.

Sony needs to get that damn player up though so they can start pumping it into their Vaio series. Im wondering when Apple is planning on releasing theirs.

[mrgreen4242]

I think Walmart will decide who wins this one. I am sure they will carry both formats of discs, but the first player under $100 (or more likely $79.88) available at Walmart will win.

Looks like HDDVD might have the edge on price, so my money is on that format, but the PS3 may move enough units (if it ever comes out) to make a difference. Still, if you can get one of the formats player for ~$80 and the other is still significantly over $100, it's gonna swing the tide really fast.

[greatdevourer]

I think Walmart will decide who wins this one. I am sure they will carry both formats of discs, but the first player under $100 (or more likely $79.88) available at Walmart will win. I'd say this is a very big factor, and the fact that current DVD factories require few modifications to become HD-DVD, the significantly lower cost will be a good standing point. Not only is HD-DVD cheap, Blu-Ray is damned expensive, and HD-DVD is already out/coming very soon (the price of $35 a disc/box has already been said)

[MacRumorUser]

As someone who has had DVD-Audio since it was released and nearly bought a car with DVD-Audio, let me tell you what a bust that technology (and SACD) have been: there's nearly nothing out there to listen to. You have the classic chicken-and-the-egg situation and a handful of releases that, frankly, aren't worth getting excited about. Sure, I can demo and wow my friends with 6 channel audio, but I've only got a handful of discs even worth listening too.

Sounds like the miniDisc scenario too.

[illegalprelude]

I'd say this is a very big factor, and the fact that current DVD factories require few modifications to become HD-DVD, the significantly lower cost will be a good standing point. Not only is HD-DVD cheap, Blu-Ray is damned expensive, and HD-DVD is already out/coming very soon (the price of $35 a disc/box has already been said)

and the price of Blue-Ray has been said to be about $17 for a movie so once into the market, prolly $25-30 witch is with current DVD prices.

The biggest problem with HD-DVD right now is, its not a big enough leap and all computer makers see this, including Apple. HD-DVD is like 1.5 while Blue-Ray 2.0.

Same thing happened when DVD players came out. We had out PS2 for $299 while DVD players we got for our house was about $699. Look for DVD's are now. Completly the norm.

PS3 will be $399 (imho) and the Blue-Ray is right now priced about $999. Give it another year when the actuall battle starts, they will be about $700 bucks and come down dramaticly every year.

The prices right now are no different then when DVD 1st came out and I membe during very 1st launch, there were DVD players that were $1000 plus.

[Haoshiro]

and the price of Blue-Ray has been said to be about $17 for a movie so once into the market, prolly $25-30 witch is with current DVD prices.

Not where I am, not at large retail stores at least. Wal-Mart is pretty consistent on having new DVD releases be $14.95 for the first week it's out, then often it goes to $19.95. I recently saw a just released new special edition of Mission Impossible that is $13.95.

I've seen the $25-30 prices on movies at stores like Sam Goody, but they are simply overpriced in comparison.

The biggest problem with HD-DVD right now is, its not a big enough leap and all computer makers see this, including Apple. HD-DVD is like 1.5 while Blue-Ray 2.0.

I'm not sure why you say this... I've been keeping up with the formats as close as I can and the last bit of news I heard was that the initial size offerings of both formats was about the same, 30GB. Blu-ray had higher potential but for some reason the higher capacities were not getting good enough yields.

So if they both end up starting at 30GB, and that is enough to facilitate an HD movie + extras, then I don't see how they would actually differ that much.

To be honest, for quite some time I was convinced Blu-ray would win out, especially with PS3 including it. The more time goes on, and the more I think about it, the less I really think this will happen.

This puts me on the side that really doesn't think either format will do well in the main stream.

I really don't think HD sets are going to be that widespread by end of year, nor end of 2007. And many of those getting HD sets likely aren't going to have 1080p sets. Plus, if these are not gamers then I really don't see them caring all that much for HD. I mean, they will be impressed with the visual boost of their DVDs already, and they would have bought their HD set without having any HD movies.

I for one don't care all that much myself anymore, and I'm much more on the geek side then the average consumer. I still use CD-Rs more often then DVD-Rs, I definitely don't need 30GB discs... all of my 2,693 songs (that comprise 218.4 hours) take up all of ~12GB.

I think consumers in general are just going to say "why?" and not care.

[Sharpsk8101]

Average Joe will probably just use the PS3 (if he can afford one for a while) to play dvds if he wants to watch movies, since it is backwards compatable.

[illegalprelude]

Average Joe will probably just use the PS3 (if he can afford one for a while) to play dvds if he wants to watch movies, since it is backwards compatable.

thus how DVD's got so popular

[beachesandmusic]

I can see blu-ray eventually taking over DVD. It will be a slow transition, not fast like it was going from VHS to DVD. But it will eventually happen. With VHS, there was a real need to upgrade. The format was old, the quality was terrible. I'm sure I'm not the only one who got tired of renting eaten tapes either. But right now, DVD is more than enough for most people. A good progressive scan DVD player easily rivals, or beats, the image quality most people are getting from their overly compressed satellite or cable HD channels. So most people are entirely clueless as to what their HD set is truly capable of and will be in no hurry to rebuy their entire collection, again, so quickly.

I think it will be a slow transition. People will buy the PS3 for games. A lot of people will buy it after convincing their significant other that it's a good purchase because it takes care of movies and games ;) But people will buy it and generally use it for their games and DVD collection. Over time they'll realize the PS3 can play these new discs and start to get curious about them and buy them. But it will be a slow transition, because of the perceived notion of DVDs still being "good enough", the lower prices of DVD movies and players, and the fact that these new discs don't offer anything new in the "Ease of use" category.

DVD is also still new to many people. I know of many people who just finally moved to DVD in the last 2-3 years, so they're very unwilling to migrate to another format any time soon.

This transition is also different from the previous one in the sense that people have built up DVD libraries. Before DVDs, most people rented movies. I know I owned very few VHS tapes, my family and friends owned very few as well. But with DVD, just about everyone who owns a DVD player and watches movies regularly has built a library. So in this transition, you really do have to repurchase everything.

I do believe that blu-ray will eventually overtake DVD, though. The PS3 will definitely be the "Trojan Horse", like the PS2 was. But the prices of players and software will have to come down quite a bit before people will consider buying a second player and making blu-ray their primary movie purchases over DVD. The movie studios will have to be A LOT faster at releasing their movies to blu-ray than they were to DVD. Remember how long it took to get Star Wars over to DVD? Exactly. That won't fly this time around, if they want the format to replace DVD.

I don't see HD-DVD going anywhere either. The studio support for HD-DVD is practically non-existant. Best Buy has an ad this week for HD-DVD players.. with a total of 3 discs available to buy. Blu-ray also offers a bit more in the capacity category, and has real support from the studios. HD-DVD only offers 15GB single-layer and 30GB dual-layer. Blu-ray is 25 single, 50 dual, with TDK developing a 200GB blu-ray disc and 100GB discs already functional but not yet approved for the standard. All of the initial launch discs for blu-ray are 1080p as well, with a few of those movies being put on 50GB discs.

Blu-ray also has a HUGE advantage with it's anti-scratch coating. You'll finally be able to rent movies and games that still work more than 2 weeks after hitting the store shelf!

I don't see digital distribution going anywhere either yet. I know Leo of Twit/TechTV fame said on a recent podcast that he thinks digital distribution is the way to go. But the bandwidth just isn't there yet. Even downloading a below DVD quality movie from the current online stores takes far too long on most broadband connections. To get true DVD quality would take even longer. What's the point when you can drive to a local video store, get what you want, and be back in far less time than it takes to download even half the movie? HD movies would require even more bandwidth and more powerful computers. Theres also no way to burn the movie to DVD or another format to watch on your TV. You can connect your PC to your TV, but that's a hassle. The "On Demand" stuff the cable companies offer is a joke too. No 5.1 sound, no anamorphic widescreen, you only get to watch it one time, and it's more expensive than renting the DVD.

Blu-Ray will definitely beat HD-DVD. It will slowly, but surely, take over DVD at some point in the distant future. Digital distribution will go nowhere fast, unless the studios finally start offering up full DVD quality, 5.1 sound, and the ability to burn the disc to a DVD or blu-ray disc that is playable in a standard player. That's assuming people want to wait for the multi-gig file to download too.

[Sol]

I enjoyed the movie more on my 30" CRT HDTV and progressive DVD over component cables than in the IMAX.

Here in Australia there are not a lot of HD CRT sets in stores. I may have spotted only one. Are those HD televisions capable of resolutions up to 1920 X 1080 and what digital inputs does yours have?

[MacRumorUser]

thus how DVD's got so popular

This is fecking malnoma. Sony's PS2 helped DVD, but WAS NOT thte driving factor for DVD success. That's just fanboy nonsense :rolleyes:

I can see blu-ray eventually taking over DVD. It will be a slow transition, not fast like it was going from VHS to DVD. But it will eventually happen. With VHS, there was a real need to upgrade. The format was old, the quality was terrible. I'm sure I'm not the only one who got tired of renting eaten tapes either. But right now, DVD is more than enough for most people. A good progressive scan DVD player easily rivals, or beats, the image quality most people are getting from their overly compressed satellite or cable HD channels. So most people are entirely clueless as to what their HD set is truly capable of and will be in no hurry to rebuy their entire collection, again, so quickly.

Whereas conversley I think this is why BluRay will fail (as will HD-DVD) The general populace are content with DVD and the novelty of extra features is rapidly dying (after all who watches them?)

TIME is the factor that will Kill both formats, because if they dont take off within a couple of years, by the time we approach year 3 there is bound to be somthing in the short term horizon at that stage that will replace them and be more appealing to consumer...

Both formats BluRay/HD-DVD are too soon. Apart from early adoptee's I don't see either selling at the same level as DVD..

[illegalprelude]

This is fecking malnoma. Sony's PS2 helped DVD, but WAS NOT thte driving factor for DVD success. That's just fanboy
I dont know where you are in life but I can sight soooo many people when the PS2 launched, one of the biggest driving factors of convincing their parents to buy it for them was "but mom/dad, it has a DVD player and we can watch DVD's on it"

[kwajo.com]

Dreamcast is very underrated, I hate that it didn't take off better than it did. It has better specs than the PS2 in many ways and had a built in modem.

oh well, i'll just keep enjoying mine for the time being :)

[greatdevourer]

I dont know where you are in life but I can sight soooo many people when the PS2 launched, one of the biggest driving factors of convincing their parents to buy it for them was "but mom/dad, it has a DVD player and we can watch DVD's on it" I think the word you're looking for is cite ;) One of my many pet peeves about people never seeing a phrase written down, then mispelling it. The worst is "all who agree say I", when it should be "aye" (meaning "yes")

[illegalprelude]

I think the word you're looking for is cite ;) One of my many pet peeves about people never seeing a phrase written down, then mispelling it. The worst is "all who agree say I", when it should be "aye" (meaning "yes")

busted i am :eek: :D

[Dagless]

I dont know where you are in life but I can sight soooo many people when the PS2 launched, one of the biggest driving factors of convincing their parents to buy it for them was "but mom/dad, it has a DVD player and we can watch DVD's on it"

Not really. I'm with MacRumorUser on this one. It helped, but it was far, far from the driving force. The driving force was the introduction of better players than the PS2. From what I remember nobody liked the interface, at college a non-gamer lecturer tried to play a DVD on a PS2/Projector hook up. In the end he went into the back room and pulled out a regular DVD player. well, more like 60 seconds later. Especially in the UK; region free was ALL the rage in the early days. even more so with the hiked up prices of DVD's. Our first DVD player was an X-Wave machine, so far advanced at it's time. component output way back in 1999. Progressive Scan, 5.1, region free, read CD-R/RW. A lot of parents got an X-Wave from what I remember, because to watch DVD's it simply was a much better buy. £250 of bliss. But now it's sat ontop of a cupboard gathering dust.

[MacRumorUser]

Not really. I'm with MacRumorUser on this one. It helped, but it was far, far from the driving force. The driving force was the introduction of better players than the PS2. From what I remember nobody liked the interface, at college a non-gamer lecturer tried to play a DVD on a PS2/Projector hook up. In the end he went into the back room and pulled out a regular DVD player. well, more like 60 seconds later. Especially in the UK; region free was ALL the rage in the early days. even more so with the hiked up prices of DVD's. Our first DVD player was an X-Wave machine, so far advanced at it's time. component output way back in 1999. Progressive Scan, 5.1, region free, read CD-R/RW. A lot of parents got an X-Wave from what I remember, because to watch DVD's it simply was a much better buy. £250 of bliss. But now it's sat ontop of a cupboard gathering dust.


Exactly. The biggest factor of DVD success, was the timing. It landed at a precise moment when public were looking for somthing different. Widescreen TV's had been around but nothing took advantage of them for a long while. Most parents buying a PS2 for junior did so for their child to play in their bedroom on a 14". The fact that it had DVD probably helped junior pursuade their parents to spend their wages on it, but was and isnt the driving force in the DVD market.

[Haoshiro]

Agreed, it's almost like the adoption of DVD helped the PS2 - not the other way around. :)

[Sol]

Agreed, it's almost like the adoption of DVD helped the PS2 - not the other way around. :)

Being first to market with a lower price for its "DVD" SONY made competitors lower the price of their DVDs. The big difference between now and then is that those days SONY agreed to the DVD standard, today they agree to their own standard. Microsoft and Nintendo can and should support the HD DVD format to compete with SONY's format. They could do that because the lower price of Blue Ray players will also lower the price of HD DVDs. Nintendo could include the lasers (and remotes) needed in every Revolution and the HD functionality would be purchased as a cartridge.

[MacRumorUser]

The big difference between now and then is that those days SONY agreed to the DVD standard, today they agree to their own standard.

That 1 thing has always been the line between success and failure for sonys formats.

The successes have always been colaborations with philps/jvc et.all
It's failures have been when it's gone it alone and set it's own standard.

Doom I tell ya, it's doomed.... :D

(well it will always have data use, so in that sense it will alway's be around - like crappyUMD)

[~Shard~]

The successes have always been colaborations with philps/jvc et.all
It's failures have been when it's gone it alone and set it's own standard.

Exactly. Beta failed because at that time it was "Sony versus everyone else" -as you say, no collaborations. Now that Sony has so many people onside and supporting Blu Ray, from manufactuers to the movie studios, etc., there is a huge Blu Ray camp, so the technology will be more successful due to all of these collaborations. :cool:

[Abulia]

I don't see HD-DVD going anywhere either. The studio support for HD-DVD is practically non-existant. Best Buy has an ad this week for HD-DVD players.. with a total of 3 discs available to buy.Even so, that's 3 more movies for sale than Blu-Ray has out. Oh, and a player at half the price, too ($500 vs $1,000).

Both formats are going to be weak on content out the gate. The difference is that HD-DVD is available starting tomorrow. Blu-Ray notsomuch.

(I've no vested interest in either; I've no intent of wading into this format war. My Panny S97 upscales to 1080i all current DVDs just fine, thank you.) :)

[Abulia]

Agreed, it's almost like the adoption of DVD helped the PS2 - not the other way around. :)Yea. I was on my 3rd DVD player by the time the PS2 came out. The PS2 didn't drive DVD adoption, although it certainly benefitted from it.

[Foxer]

I don't know a single person who uses a PS2 as a DVD player. Also, DVD players were already priced at under $200 prior to the release of the PS2. I know this, because that was my price threshold, and bought it at Target in late summer of 1999, well before I got my PS2 on release day.

DVD's worked beacsue they were cheap, markedly better than the old standard, and many people had TV's that could make the improvement noticable. Also, DVDs are easier to use than videocassettes. Bluray and/or HD-DVD has none of these advatages over regular DVD. More expensive, no easier, and most people don't have TV's that will show off the difference.

Maybe in a few years, but not now.

[Dagless]

I don't know a single person who uses a PS2 as a DVD player. Also, DVD players were already priced at under $200 prior to the release of the PS2. I know this, because that was my price threshold, and bought it at Target in late summer of 1999, well before I got my PS2 on release day.

DVD's worked beacsue they were cheap, markedly better than the old standard, and many people had TV's that could make the improvement noticable. Also, DVDs are easier to use than videocassettes. Bluray and/or HD-DVD has none of these advatages over regular DVD. More expensive, no easier, and most people don't have TV's that will show off the difference.

Maybe in a few years, but not now.

Same here, though I was only 15 when the PS2 came out over here (IIRC). 2 people in our class had one, against 15 DC owners incidentally. They watched DVD's but they were kids. Relegated to their bedrooms. Everyone who was older bought a dedicated player instead. Perhaps because in the UK PS2's came out a lot later than DVD? Even now, I don't know anyone who uses their Xbox, 360 or even Q to watch films. At least out of the folks I know.

My own guess is that Blu-Ray, HD-DVD or whatever comes out after DVD will only succeed as soon as LCD/Plasma TV's are in the vast majority of homes. Not a moment sooner. The industry usually supports the most popular, the one which will make it more money. We're not going to see a popular next generation format until it gets cheap enough to warrant a risk.

[beachesandmusic]

Dreamcast is very underrated, I hate that it didn't take off better than it did. It has better specs than the PS2 in many ways and had a built in modem.

Better specs than the PS2? How so? Have you played any PS2 games, besides the launch titles?

I'd have to say the Dreamcast was entirely overrated. The reason it never took off was because it didn't have the games to support it. Not to mention people were still feeling burned from the Sega CD, 32x, and Saturn. EA made the right choice in not supporting the Dreamcast, because they knew that nobody wanted it. Sega ripped off their customers too many times, then released a system with only a handful of good games. Games that eventually ended up being ported to other systems.

Even so, that's 3 more movies for sale than Blu-Ray has out. Oh, and a player at half the price, too ($500 vs $1,000).

The difference is that HD-DVD is available starting tomorrow. Blu-Ray notsomuch.

That's the price of ONE blu-ray player. Not all of them. There has been no official word on prices from many manufacturers. Just because one player is expensive doesn't mean the rest will be.

Going by that, D-VHS has been available for a couple of years now and has many movies available. It should beat both HD optical discs. Right? Being the first to the market doesn't mean it will succeed. People didn't run out and buy D-VHS, and people certainly aren't going to run out and buy HD-DVD. Espicially those who would be truly interested in the format. They've done their research and seen that HD-DVD has very, very little studio support, and that blu-ray has support from many major hardware manufacturers, including Apple, and the support of all but one major movie studio. They're also probably using HTPCs, with TheaterTek or nVidia DVD decoders or WinDVD tweaked beyond belief. Their current DVD image quality probably rivals that of the lesser HD format (HD DVD) so they see no need to rush out and spend the money on something that is only as good as what they have now, and not as good as what will be available in the not so distant future.

Being first to market with a lower price for its "DVD" SONY made competitors lower the price of their DVDs. The big difference between now and then is that those days SONY agreed to the DVD standard, today they agree to their own standard. Microsoft and Nintendo can and should support the HD DVD format to compete with SONY's format. They could do that because the lower price of Blue Ray players will also lower the price of HD DVDs. Nintendo could include the lasers (and remotes) needed in every Revolution and the HD functionality would be purchased as a cartridge.

Blu-ray is not just "Sony's format." Blu-ray has support from every major hardware manufacturer, including Apple, and the support of all but one major movie studio. At this time, HD-DVD has full support from one major studio (the one that isn't supporting blu-ray), and is "kind of" being supported by one other studio. This time it's basically Toshiba and Microsoft vs. everyone else. HD-DVD has no support. I feel sorry for the people who buy it, because it will be a dead format in the near future. Just like the DivX (the Circuit City supported DVD format).

Whereas conversley I think this is why BluRay will fail (as will HD-DVD) The general populace are content with DVD and the novelty of extra features is rapidly dying (after all who watches them?)

TIME is the factor that will Kill both formats, because if they dont take off within a couple of years, by the time we approach year 3 there is bound to be somthing in the short term horizon at that stage that will replace them and be more appealing to consumer...

Both formats BluRay/HD-DVD are too soon. Apart from early adoptee's I don't see either selling at the same level as DVD..

I think HD-DVD will fail quite fast. It has no support. The support it has is even worse than the support DVD-Audio had at it's launch. It's terrible. But blu-ray is being supported by all but one major movie studio, and most all major hardware manufacturers, including Apple. I don't think blu-ray will take off in the way that DVD did. It will be a long time before it catches up. But it will get there one day. Just look how long Laserdisc was around before it was finally killed off by DVD.

There really isn't anything possible in the foreseeable future that could replace blu-ray. Unless the government finally tells the ISP's of the US to get off their butt and give us real broadband, and everyone gets more powerful computers that can play H.264. Digital distribution is the only true way DVD and blu-ray could be replaced. But not until it only takes 20 minutes or less to download a full quality movie, with very liberal DRM that allows people to burn copies to discs to play on their TV. As much as the cable and satellite companies want, people aren't going to spend $5 for an "On Demand" movie that they can only watch one time.

[Haoshiro]

Better specs than the PS2? How so? Have you played any PS2 games, besides the launch titles?

I'd have to say the Dreamcast was entirely overrated. The reason it never took off was because it didn't have the games to support it. Not to mention people were still feeling burned from the Sega CD, 32x, and Saturn. EA made the right choice in not supporting the Dreamcast, because they knew that nobody wanted it. Sega ripped off their customers too many times, then released a system with only a handful of good games. Games that eventually ended up being ported to other systems.

A few comments...

Firstly, did you watch the video linked in post #1? Some of your misinformation is taken care of right there.

As for better specs, I'll name one, but spare you detailed analysis: VRAM. DC = 8MB, PS2 = 4MB. Yes, that's used to store textures, etc. Many DC -> PS2 ports had to have the texture resolution lowered to accomodate this lower spec.

"The reason it never took off was because it didn't have the games to support it."

Spoken like a person who either did not play the system at all, or had very little exposure. This is also something that was covered in the video. Dreamcast had an amazing library and quite possibly the best launch lineup in videogame history. It was excellent and it far exceeded anything else available, the PS2 launch, in comparison, was horrid and laughable.

Yes, PS2 has progressed. But how could you actually draw a comparison? Comparing first-gen DC games with last-gen PS2 games is just... wrong. DC lived for about a single healthy year (in which it did very well), PS2 is in it's 5th year. It would have been interesting to compare 5th gen DC to 5th gen PS2; and that is the only way you can accurately compare.

So comparing DC launch to PS2 launch is quite valid.

[Abulia]

That's the price of ONE blu-ray player. Not all of them. There has been no official word on prices from many manufacturers. Just because one player is expensive doesn't mean the rest will be.And here with all your data it looked like you knew what you were talking about. Tsk, tsk! :)

Google is our friend:
The (Sony) BDP-S1 Blu-ray player is targeted to ship in July for about $1,000.
Pricing in the United States on the (Panasonic) DMP-BD10 has not been finalized, but will be less than $1,500.Wow, less than $1,500? So $1,499? What a steal! :DSamsung is rescheduling the US launch of their Blu-ray player from May 23 to June 25 in order to complete compatibility testing with several Blu-ray test discs that will become available from product manufacturers and content providers in late April. [snip] Samsung added that these new features will not change the expected $999 street price.
So there's three. Care to link to a sub-$1,000 Blu-Ray player that's been announced?

[beachesandmusic]

Firstly, did you watch the video linked in post #1? Some of your misinformation is taken care of right there.

Misinformation? Excuse me? What misinformation? And yes, I did watch the video. I usually don't watch what G4 has to say because tey're probably the worst television network out there, but I did watch it. It stated the obvious. Everything everybody who has been around for a few years already knew.

That doesn't change the fact that the Dreamcast failed because of the GAMES. As much as the Dreamcast fanboys like to make the excuse that the Dreamcast failed because of the Playstation2 hype, that is not the case. The Dreamcast failed because there were not enough good games. Chu Chu Rocket? Space Channel 5? Who wants to play that? I'll tell you who does.. nobody.

As for better specs, I'll name one, but spare you detailed analysis: VRAM. DC = 8MB, PS2 = 4MB. Yes, that's used to store textures, etc.

Spoken like a person who knows nothing about the PS2 architecture. The PS2 was designed for streaming, not loading everything into memory like the Dreamcast. The Playstation and Playstation2 were always designed around streaming the game off of the disc in real-time. Ever heard of Grand Theft Auto? That game would be impossible without streaming technology, espicially San Andreas. Final Fantasy? Another game that relies on streaming for all but the basic main character models and core mechanics. Look at the Jak games. Never a single loading screen, but a wide variety of environments and textures. The PS2 VRAM was nothing more than a frame buffer. Sony said this many times.

Many DC -> PS2 ports had to have the texture resolution lowered to accomodate this lower spec.

Due to incompetence on the part of the programmers, not the fault of the PS2.

Spoken like a person who either did not play the system at all, or had very little exposure. This is also something that was covered in the video. Dreamcast had an amazing library and quite possibly the best launch lineup in videogame history. It was excellent and it far exceeded anything else available, the PS2 launch, in comparison, was horrid and laughable.

The Dreamcast had an "amazing library"? May I ask.. where was this amazing library? Can I see it? Because I almost purchased a Dreamcast after launch in 1999. But thankfully, the store was backordered just after I placed my order, so I bought a DVD player instead. What library do you speak of though? San Francisco Rush 2049? Hydro Thunder? Sonic Adventure? Blue Stinger? Space Channel 5? Chu Chu Rocket? Soul Calibur? NFL 2K? What amazing library? Of all of those games listed, only Sonic Adventure and Soul Calibur were truly good titles. NFL 2K wasn't a good series until 2K5. But we all know what happened after that. The first Crazy Taxi was an awesome game, one I still enjoy on my PS2 from time to time. But the Dreamcast library is HIGHLY overrated. Espicially some of the games that are held so highly by the Dreamcast fanboys. Soul Calibur for instance. It's nothing but a button masher with swords. The only reason it is regarded as such a great game is because it was a Dreamcast game. Sonic Adventure was the ONLY good game available at the launch of the Dreamcast.

I remember wanting a Dreamcast a lot during the first year it was available. But passed Sonic Adventure and Crazy Taxi, there was simply no games worth buying. The other games, like Chu Chu Rocket and Space Channel 5, were just plain stupid.

Don't even get me started on how boring Shen-Mue was. That game was downright terrible. No wonder Shen-Mue 2 flopped on the Xbox.

The PS2 launch had a handful of good games at it's launch. It had Madden 2001, which was far superior to NFL 2K1 and remained that way until the 2005 editions. It also has Tekken Tag Tournament, which was definitely better than Soul Calibur, and even VF3. VF4 was the first good VF game, but it was far too complex for the average gamer to play. You also had Ridge Racer 5 and Unreal Tournament. The PS2 also took entire libraries of PSone games and enchanced their graphics and cut down on loading times.

The first year the PS2 was available also saw the release of Gran Turismo 3 and Final Fantasy X.

Yes, PS2 has progressed. But how could you actually draw a comparison? Comparing first-gen DC games with last-gen PS2 games is just... wrong.

Did I say anything about "last gen" games? No I didn't. Let's compare first generation games then, shall we? Look at Gran Turismo 3 versus any racer on the Dreamcast. GT3 looks and plays better. Final Fantasy X truly is a generation ahead of Shen-Mue in the graphics department. The worst looking character models in FFX were about on par with average looking character models in Shen-Mue. The best character models in FFX still stand up against the likes of, and even surpass some, character models in games like Oblivion. Theres many scenes in FFX where it's difficult to tell the CG apart from the real-time renders. It's that good.

So comparing DC launch to PS2 launch is quite valid.

However, the Dreamcast launch is entirely overrated. It's overrated even more than Zelda for the Nintendo64. The Dreamcast had very few good games in it's entire life-time, and the people who say the graphics on the Dreamcast were just as good, ore even better than the PS2 really need to go to Wal-Mart and get their eyes checked. Even that video you keep referring to clearly said that the PS2 was significantly more powerful than the Dreamcast.

Sorry to act like a fanboy here, but this whole Dreamcast thing is annoying. People who cling to the Dreamcast need to admit that the Dreamcast failed because it was a failure. It was not a good system by any means and it did not have the games to back it up. Just let it go. Supporting a game system or a videogame company will get you nowhere in life, and it's sad to see people still saying "the Dreamcast was the best ever!". It's a game system! Let it go.

So there's three. Care to link to a sub-$1,000 Blu-Ray player that's been announced?

Okay, so you list ONE officially announced blu-ray player at $1,000. What's your point? That HD-DVD is cheaper? So what? Shouldn't you be supporting Blu-Ray? Apple is. So is all but one major movie studio, several hardware manufacturers, etc. etc. Blu-ray has too much support to fail entirely. But it will not take off like DVD did. IT will be to DVD like Laserdisc was to VHS for quite some time before it finally takes over.

[~Shard~]

Shouldn't you be supporting Blu-Ray? Apple is.

Actually, just to correct you, Apple has publicly announced it is behind both standards and is not necessarily a "Blu Ray only" shop. :cool:

[beachesandmusic]

Actually, just to correct you, Apple has publicly announced it is behind both standards and is not necessarily a "Blu Ray only" shop. :cool:

What this means for Apple is unclear, but even when Apple joined the Blu-ray board earlier this year, it did so in a coy fashion. Apple has by no means thrown all its eggs into the Blu-ray basket, and could still easily support whichever format wins the fight.

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/09/27.5.shtml

I googled "Apple Computer Support HD-DVD" and that article right there is about as close as it gets to Apple saying they support HD-DVD.

Wouldn't make sense for Apple to fully support HD-DVD when they're part of the Blu-Ray Association.

[combatcolin]

Um, were we not going misty eyed over the Dreamcast? or has this thread gone off topic wildly?

[MacRumorUser]

Actually, just to correct you, Apple has publicly announced it is behind both standards and is not necessarily a "Blu Ray only" shop. :cool:

Agreed.

And on the subject of BluRay

Just because studios say they will release content for it does not ensure success in the mainstream. CDI, VCD, SCVD, LaserDisc, UMD, DVD Audio, SACD were all supported by the studios in their early stages.... Did that ensure success?

When will the likes of Sony learn that better quality doesnt guarantee success. It's more about cheapness and ease of customer use, if the studios follow kong and release movies for download at cheap prices at the same time as release them on DVD, so we had a scale like:-

$10 download, $25 DVD, $45 BluRay

The future isn't necesseraly higher quality but portability, as Apple will be hoping with it's ITUNE movie downloads and Video Ipod, that will drive indutry forward more than BluRay or HD-DVD ever will.....

[wide]

HD-DVD is going to win because it has "DVD" in its name. People will be more familiar with it when they see it in the store. Blu-ray is confusing. It sounds like a fish.

[combatcolin]

Agreed.

And on the subject of BluRay

Just because studios say they will release content for it does not ensure success in the mainstream. CDI, VCD, SCVD, LaserDisc, UMD, DVD Audio, SACD were all supported by the studios in their early stages.... Did that ensure success?



Of all these the oldest, Laserdisc was by far the most succesful and can not be describes as supported only in there "early stages".

a lifespan of over 20 years.

I should now, pround owner of the big silver platter player!

[Haoshiro]

That doesn't change the fact that the Dreamcast failed because of the GAMES. As much as the Dreamcast fanboys like to make the excuse that the Dreamcast failed because of the Playstation2 hype, that is not the case. The Dreamcast failed because there were not enough good games. Chu Chu Rocket? Space Channel 5? Who wants to play that? I'll tell you who does.. nobody.

Rather the continue this and push the thread even more off topic I've answered your GAMES inquiry in another thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2326645).

Enjoy...

[~Shard~]

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2005/09/27.5.shtml

I googled "Apple Computer Support HD-DVD" and that article right there is about as close as it gets to Apple saying they support HD-DVD.

Wouldn't make sense for Apple to fully support HD-DVD when they're part of the Blu-Ray Association.

Yep, Apple definitely is not going to put all of their eggs in one basket and be a 100% Blu Ray shop.

From another Google search, Apple said in a statement given to MacNewsWorld that the company "is committed to both emerging high-definition DVD standards. Apple is [also] an active member of the DVD Forum." "Apple did the right thing by picking a side and getting behind a standard," Jupiter Research Senior Analyst Joe Wilcox said. "However, that doesn't mean they won't support the other standard down the road."

Let's just say that if Apple did include Blu-ray drives in their upcoming machines but later switched to HD DVD, it wouldn't be the first time Apple made a format switch like this. :cool:

[Dagless]

*snip the big message*

Nobody played the games? Um. I hate when people insinuate and exaggerate. I bought the games, the games sold. Like I think I've said a million times, I never had a DC on launch day. Only picked one up in 2004. But I don't know, it's one of the best consoles I've ever played. It felt like a beefed up PS1. It had games like ChuChu Rocket etc, these little fun arcade games. It had miles after miles of Japanese fighting games, it had Sonic and other very fun games to it.

The DC didn't sell. I don't know why, it didn't even feel like that at my school (my form was 10 DC to 2 PS2) and this was up to just 6 months before the GC launch!
But frankly, I don't care if Jack or Jane didn't buy a DC. To me, it was the best 128 bit console. That means it provided, to me, more entertainment than the Xbox, PS2 and Cube.

[Dagless]

HD-DVD is going to win because it has "DVD" in its name. People will be more familiar with it when they see it in the store. Blu-ray is confusing. It sounds like a fish.

:D :D :D Very good! I agree too. If BluRay was anything it would be a fish. But I can't stand the name. Why not Blue Ray? Or something better? Really not a fan of the name.

Folk round my end have started calling HD-DVD just HDVD.

[Abulia]

Okay, so you list ONE officially announced blu-ray player at $1,000. What's your point?What's my point? What are you, bi-polar or schizophrenic? I listed those in response to your statment:That's the price of ONE blu-ray player. Not all of them. There has been no official word on prices from many manufacturers. Just because one player is expensive doesn't mean the rest will be.Hey, I even did you a favor and didn't bother to list the Pioneer that retails for $1,800!Shouldn't you be supporting Blu-Ray? Apple is.Comedy. Gold. :D

If you think I'm one of those lemmings that faithfully marches to the Apple beat you're sorely mistaken. :)

[beachesandmusic]

Just because studios say they will release content for it does not ensure success in the mainstream. CDI, VCD, SCVD, LaserDisc, UMD, DVD Audio, SACD were all supported by the studios in their early stages.... Did that ensure success?

Laserdisc was around for 20 years. It had good support. It lived from the late 70s all the way until DVD killed it in the late 90s.

The other formats had very poor support. UMD was pretty much viewed as a failure from the start. I don't know a single person who owns a PSP that bought UMDs. SACD, on the other hand, is still being supported.

When will the likes of Sony learn that better quality doesnt guarantee success. It's more about cheapness and ease of customer use, if the studios follow kong and release movies for download at cheap prices at the same time as release them on DVD, so we had a scale like:-

$10 download, $25 DVD, $45 BluRay

The future isn't necesseraly higher quality but portability, as Apple will be hoping with it's ITUNE movie downloads and Video Ipod, that will drive indutry forward more than BluRay or HD-DVD ever will.....

I don't really see portable movies becoming the standard. Most people these days have home theater systems and HDTVs are becoming more and more popular by the day. People want the theater experience at home. This is why DVD sales continue to skyrocket. People don't want to watch movies on small 2.5" or even 4" screens.

TV shows and music videos are another story. They're generally quick and disposable entertainment that you can watch quickly. But movies are much longer and have a much more involving storyline. The majority of people aren't going to be able to get drawn into that story by watching the movie on a 4" screen on some PMP with a pair of not-so-good headphones.

Most people don't even like portable DVD players. They're viewed as a way to keep kids in cars quiet, not a good way to really be entertained.

HDTVs and home theater systems are selling more and more by the day. The future is a high resolution format, not portability. I'll never watch a movie on a 4" or 2.5" screen. If I'm flying and need a movie, I'll generally have a few hours. That's what a nice big laptop screen is for. Not an iPod. Go ask some people in some stores if they would want portable movies or a nice home theater experience. I think you know what answer you'll get.

Digital distribution for movies will NEVER take off as long as people can't burn the movies to DVD or watch them on a TV in a manner that doesn't include connecting a computer to the TV. If Apple wants a movie store to take off, they're going to have offer FULL DVD quality, with 5.1 surround sound, in a format that can be burned to DVD or with an included iPod dock (included with the iPod that is) that has a digital audio output for 5.1 sound and even progressive scan output. They also need to work on the Windows port of Quicktime and get it up to snuff, because it's well behind the OS X version. It takes ridiculously powerful systems to run 480p H.264 video with Quicktime 7, but even moderately old systems can run the same clip in VLC with low CPU usage.

Yep, Apple definitely is not going to put all of their eggs in one basket and be a 100% Blu Ray shop.

From another Google search, Apple said in a statement given to MacNewsWorld that the company "is committed to both emerging high-definition DVD standards. Apple is [also] an active member of the DVD Forum." "Apple did the right thing by picking a side and getting behind a standard," Jupiter Research Senior Analyst Joe Wilcox said. "However, that doesn't mean they won't support the other standard down the road."

Let's just say that if Apple did include Blu-ray drives in their upcoming machines but later switched to HD DVD, it wouldn't be the first time Apple made a format switch like this.

The DVD Forum was created around a decade ago. Many of the companies that are now founding or active members of the Blu-Ray Association were founders of the DVD Forum. Apple joined the Blu-Ray Association AFTER the battle lines between the formats were drawn.

Apple seems to be hell bent on HD being the standard for everything. It would make sense for them to support the format that offers greater capacity for HD (some HD-DVD advocates are talking about bitrates as low as 8Mbps! That's lower than some DVDs!), as well as an all around stronger disc that can take more abuse.

Don M.

Your post.. makes no sense. Using a couple of pieces of hardware, with unconfirmed prices, as an example that ALL hardware will be expensive is just foolish. There were plenty of DVD players that cost several thousand dollars at one point in time. Didn't make the rest expensive, did it?

[Abulia]

Your post.. makes no sense. Using a couple of pieces of hardware, with unconfirmed prices, as an example that ALL hardware will be expensive is just foolish.Then link to me one sub-$1,000 (no, not $999) MSRP BluRay player.

Wait, you can't.

Meanwhile anyone can walk down to their local Best Buy and buy a HD-DVD player for $500. The only person in this forum who has yet to admit the very basic (and obvious) fact that BluRay players are expensive -- by a factor of two over HD-DVD -- is you.

You can keep beating that "BluRay is superior" drum all you want, but the only consumers that are not price sensitive are early adopters, and they don't represent a significant portion of a market to make any technology a commercial success. And this gets back to my point that before BluRay has any chance to succeed it has to get cheaper...fast. That means that HD-DVD will have a 1+ year lead on the "next gen HD" price point, in a best case BluRay scenario -- probably longer.

[Edit] And at this point we're talking past each other. I've directly quoted and refuted your claims but you seem to be beyond trying to have a discourse on this subject. So I'm done; the facts speak for themselves.

[Haoshiro]

Don, don't feel bad... he did the same thing on my spin-off "Shoot Out" thread. ** sigh **

But yes, I agree with you. I'm interested in hearing how HD-DVD is doing, I certaintly have no reason to get one.

[GFLPraxis]

Okay, so you list ONE officially announced blu-ray player at $1,000. What's your point? That HD-DVD is cheaper? So what? Shouldn't you be supporting Blu-Ray? Apple is.

Apple is a member of the DVD Forum, which SOLELY supports HD-DVD.

They recently announced support behind Blu-ray, which is what everyone notices, but they've always been part of the DVD Forum, supporting HD-DVD.

As for the $1k Blu-ray player; that's the cheapest Blu-ray player to have been announced.

[lil tiger]

Does anyone know if blu ray and or/ hd-dvd are planning to be backwards compatible with DVD's? It would be VERY wise of them to do this if it's possible! I know I for one, will not be buying it unless it is! (well if the studios start producing ONLY blu-ray/hd-dvd and NOT DVD, I guess I would have to then..)

[~Shard~]

Does anyone know if blu ray and or/ hd-dvd are planning to be backwards compatible with DVD's?

Yes. Both formats are backwards compatible with DVD. :cool:

[Haoshiro]

The only way I'll get a new HD format is if I get a console that includes it.

Microsoft was smart to avoid it, since nobody knows which will be dominant it would have cost them an incredible amount to put a new, unproven, media in there system.

That's what worries me about PS3... if Blu-ray DOESN'T catch on then the cost of drives will stay higher for longer... causing PS3 units to lose Sony even MORE money on each system. On the other hand, maybe it is win-win for Sony. Because if it doesn't win, they may be the only manufacturer of BR discs, so all PS3 games will be using the media they produce... could be profitable.

Still though, it's a gutsy move for PS3... this isn't the same as VHS vs DVD...

[~Shard~]

Perhaps Sony is feeling guilty about the delays and high prices of the PS3... ;) :cool:

PS2 Price Drop (http://www.personaltechpipeline.com/186500170;jsessionid=D4XEXBRMCVCSIQSNDBCCKHSCJUMEKJVN)

[flyfish29]

Putting Blu-Ray in the PS3 is a good move by Sony....only time will tell the outcome.


Bless

I do know this- I am going to buy a PS3 next year...when I do I will e tempted to buy blu-ray discs to play on it instead of regular dvd's. I still haven't bought a regular dvd player yet? (crazy I know) but between my Macs playing dvd's and my PS2 playing everything I need I don't have a need for a stand along dvd player. (except when my kids want to watch a dvd and I want to play PS2...but then I just set them up on the laptop and they are happy.

[sam10685]

So anyone actually watching/watched the video? Doesn't seem like it and you really should. :)

i am... so far so good! :D

[jadam]

Em, PS2 more powerful than the DC?

Still debatable.

I can't believe people like you still exist >_<

How in hell could you ever believe the DC to be more powerful then the PS2...

[LethalWolfe]

OT: I still play my DC from time to time, and a few years ago I probably bought 20 more games 'cause they were so inexpensive. If you think the DC failed because it didn't have enough good games and the looming PS2 launch was a non-issuse yer on crack.

The PS2/DVD player, PS3/Blu-ray player comparison isn't really that straight forward. When the PS2 launched DVDs were already the next hot thing and when the PS3 launches it will be a attempt to spearhead a new format into the market place. Those aren't really parallel situations.

Laserdisc was around for 20 years. It had good support. It lived from the late 70s all the way until DVD killed it in the late 90s.

The other formats had very poor support. UMD was pretty much viewed as a failure from the start. I don't know a single person who owns a PSP that bought UMDs. SACD, on the other hand, is still being supported.
Spin it all you can, but that won't change the fact that things like the LaserDisc, SACD, DVD-A are/were commercial flops.

I don't really see portable movies becoming the standard.
I think portable movies will become common. I don't think they'll be the dominant "format", but I think they'll become a viable option for video just as they have been for music. Portable/downloadable videos will change the landscape much in the same way TV did in the 50's and VCRs did in the 80's.

This is why DVD sales continue to skyrocket. People don't want to watch movies on small 2.5" or even 4" screens.
DVD sales have been leveling off for a while. Which is one reason why the industry is pushing HD as the greatest thing since sliced bread and the studios started downsizing about 12-18 months ago. Now, they hope next gen DVDs will take off just like DVDs did and people will replace their libraries of DVDs w/HiDef dics (just like they replaced their VHS tapes), but I don't see that happening on a broad scale. Besides better image quality next gen DVDs really don't have anything going for them, and "better a/v quality" isn't typically #1 on consumers priority lists.

The majority of people aren't going to be able to get drawn into that story by watching the movie on a 4" screen on some PMP with a pair of not-so-good headphones.
7 or 8 years ago how many people do you think dismissed MP3 players for similar reasons? "Good enough" wins the mainstream battle more often than not.

Most people don't even like portable DVD players. They're viewed as a way to keep kids in cars quiet, not a good way to really be entertained.
Portable DVD players aren't convenient because it's another device to carry around and it's narrow functionality typically isn't worth the effort. But what if similar functionality could be added to devices people already carry around w/them (cell phones, laptops, MP3 players, etc.,)? Hmm....

HDTVs and home theater systems are selling more and more by the day. The future is a high resolution format, not portability. I'll never watch a movie on a 4" or 2.5" screen.
Of course they are selling more and more 'cause non-HD sets are becoming harder and harder to come by. The electronics companies have been very good and delivering HDTV hype, too bad there's just not much actual consumer demand for it. The current state of HD is similar to when OS X first launched;
"Oh man, isn't this sexy and revolutionary"
"I guess. What can you do w/it?"
"Absolutely nothing."
;)

The future is multiple delivery systems. The days of, "You will watch what we want you to watch when we want you to watch it" died decades ago and aren't coming back.

Digital distribution for movies will NEVER take off as long as people can't burn the movies to DVD or watch them on a TV in a manner that doesn't include connecting a computer to the TV.
I agree consumers want to be able to have something physical, but I disagree In a few years connecting a modern computer to a modern TV or home stereo will be as simple as hooking up a DVD player.

Apple seems to be hell bent on HD being the standard for everything. It would make sense for them to support the format that offers greater capacity for HD (some HD-DVD advocates are talking about bitrates as low as 8Mbps! That's lower than some DVDs!), as well as an all around stronger disc that can take more abuse.
For data use obviously the more storage the better, but for the home entertainment use the line isn't as clear. Both formats have more than enough space for feature films + bonus content. I guess Blu-ray has an edge for things like TV box sets (but is having a box set of 4 discs vs one w/6 discs really that big a deal)? I think a key thing will be price. If Blu-ray is more expensive than HD-DVD what is the compelling reason for consumers to spend the extra money for what is basically the same product?


Lethal

[combatcolin]

I can't believe people like you still exist >_<

How in hell could you ever believe the DC to be more powerful then the PS2...

Because it simply isn't as powerful as Sony said it was.

Which is why hype surrounding new machines should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Dagless]

Because it simply isn't as powerful as Sony said it was.

Which is why hype surrounding new machines should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

Pinch? There isn't enough salt in the Wieliczka salt mines.

[Haoshiro]

Lethal: Well said.

[Haoshiro]

Then link to me one sub-$1,000 (no, not $999) MSRP BluRay player.

Does this count?

Panasonic Unveils First Blu-ray Burner (http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/panasonic-unveils-first-blu-ray-burner)

EDIT: $850

[Dagless]

Does this count?

Panasonic Unveils First Blu-ray Burner (http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/panasonic-unveils-first-blu-ray-burner)

EDIT: $850

... A blu-ray burner for less than a blu-ray player!? bye bye logic :confused: :confused: :confused:

[takao]

... A blu-ray burner for less than a blu-ray player!? bye bye logic :confused: :confused: :confused:


well it's not a standalone ... so it's pretty clear that it's cheaper...

[Haoshiro]

well it's not a standalone ... so it's pretty clear that it's cheaper...

Yet it is also a burner, whereas the standalone players are only players.

This seems pretty quick... didn't it take longer then this for DVD burners to follow players and weren't they more expensive then the players at first? Perhaps not...

[LethalWolfe]

... A blu-ray burner for less than a blu-ray player!? bye bye logic :confused: :confused: :confused:
Not just cheaper, but nearly half as much as Panasonic's announced player price. I wonder if there is something we're missing?


Lethal

[takao]

Yet it is also a burner, whereas the standalone players are only players.

This seems pretty quick... didn't it take longer then this for DVD burners to follow players and weren't they more expensive then the players at first? Perhaps not...


well one of the expensive things is the cpu of the stand alone players... the hd-dvd players released in japan are equipped with p3 or p4 celerons and need 45 seconds to boot ... those pc drives don't have any DSp for displaying the informations saved on the discs they just shovel the data to the pc/gpu whatever and from there to the display

HD needs a lot of processing power even on standalone palyers if everything liek encryption compression etc.

and compared to dvd they made it clear from the beginning that there will be burners and not 2-3 different DVD burning formats etc. ... at least on blu ray side don't know about hd-dvd

[Dagless]

I remember watching my first DVD. Was on my old Pentium 3 desktop machine. The Matrix :) remember the fancy box too, and trying to watch on a 17" CRT monitor with regular speakers. Also watched Snatch too.

Bout a month later during work experience at school, I was working at a computer shop. becoming mates with the people there. Pete (manager guy) showed me a home cinema that they can install for about £10k. Sweet lord. I even think it was 7.1. Put on some Batman DVD and I was blown away.
yea :)

[Abulia]

Does this count?

Panasonic Unveils First Blu-ray Burner (http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/panasonic-unveils-first-blu-ray-burner)

EDIT: $850No, it doesn't. :)

I was actually referring to HT stand alone systems; Joe Consumer isn't picking that up to show a Blu-Ray movie on this TV via his media PC. :)

[beachesandmusic]

Then link to me one sub-$1,000 (no, not $999) MSRP BluRay player.

When none are available yet...

Meanwhile anyone can walk down to their local Best Buy and buy a HD-DVD player for $500. The only person in this forum who has yet to admit the very basic (and obvious) fact that BluRay players are expensive -- by a factor of two over HD-DVD -- is you.

Again, none are available yet.

You can keep beating that "BluRay is superior" drum all you want, but the only consumers that are not price sensitive are early adopters, and they don't represent a significant portion of a market to make any technology a commercial success.

Early adopters are the only reason many pieces of technology succeed. DVDs rode on the early adopter train for almost two and a half years before a single movie sold a million units.

How can you say something so ridiculous? Early adopters are what drive the market. The people who HAVE to have bleeding edge technology determine what will fail or not. People buy these things then show them off to their friends and then their friends buy it. It's how it works. I can't even begin to count how many people bought DVD players because they came over to my place and watched their first DVD.

Same goes for the iPod. If the early adopters didn't snatch it up in big numbers, Apple would have had no reason to continue making it. The iPod didn't truly take off until USB 2.0 support was added. Before that it was basically all early adopters.

We wouldn't even be sitting here now if it weren't for those early adopters shelling out major amounts of money for personal computers or dealing with the early online services.

The point is that early adopters buy the products, show them off to their friends and their friends end up buying them to. The early adopters drive the market and they are the ones who will determine what fails or not.

And this gets back to my point that before BluRay has any chance to succeed it has to get cheaper...fast. That means that HD-DVD will have a 1+ year lead on the "next gen HD" price point, in a best case BluRay scenario -- probably longer.

The PS3. HD-DVD will only have a few months headstart on this.

And at this point we're talking past each other. I've directly quoted and refuted your claims but you seem to be beyond trying to have a discourse on this subject. So I'm done; the facts speak for themselves.

What facts? It's nonsense. You're trying to say that early adopters don't affect the market. That's so ridiculous that there isn't a word in any language that can convey just how ridiculous it is.

The early adopters, and the people who are truly interested in this technology, all know that HD-DVD is a flop from the start. The studio support is laughable and the storage capacity is half of what blu-ray offers, so the quality will not be as good. The initial hardware for HD-DVD is so absolutely terrible that nobody is going to deal with it. Who wants to buy a $500 player with a handful of movies that.. aren't very good? Nobody.

For the cost of an HD-DVD player you can build a nice HTPC that will do all kinds of neat little things to standard DVDs to make them look just as good as HD-DVD. Infact, WinDVD's "sharpening" mode really bumps up the image quality to beyond what you would think a standard DVD could look like.

UMD had more support than HD-DVD and a much larger installed base with arguably better hardware, and it failed. First to the market, and cheaper, doesn't not equal success.

Apple is a member of the DVD Forum, which SOLELY supports HD-DVD.

Apple was a member of the DVD Forum WELL BEFORE HD-DVD was chosen as the "Standard" by that forum. Sony is a member of the DVD Forum as well. So are a lot of the other hardware manufacturers that went on to form the Blu-Ray association.

Apple joined the Blu-Ray Association last year AFTER the battle lines were drawn.

They recently announced support behind Blu-ray, which is what everyone notices, but they've always been part of the DVD Forum, supporting HD-DVD.

They joined the Blu-Ray association a year ago. That's not "recently". The DVD Forum was formed about a decade ago. Again, many of the manufacturers that went on to form the Blu-Ray Association were and still are part of the DVD Forum. It does not matter at all that Apple is a part of the DVD Forum, because Sony is too.

Does anyone know if blu ray and or/ hd-dvd are planning to be backwards compatible with DVD's? It would be VERY wise of them to do this if it's possible! I know I for one, will not be buying it unless it is! (well if the studios start producing ONLY blu-ray/hd-dvd and NOT DVD, I guess I would have to then..)

Yes, and you can check out google for information on hybrid blu-ray discs that have a DVD and an HD layer that can be played in either a blu-ray player or a standard DVD player.

Microsoft was smart to avoid it, since nobody knows which will be dominant it would have cost them an incredible amount to put a new, unproven, media in there system.

That was a very bad move on Microsoft's part. Games are becoming huge and standard DVDs aren't enough. Most PS2 games are 3+GB, with a lot around the 4.38GB mark. Some games, like Gran Turismo 4, are on dual-layered DVDs with some games going as high as 6GB.

Even PC games are outrageously large, even with heavy amounts of compression. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is 3.94GB on the DVD, but over 5GB installed. Unreal Tournament 2004 takes 6GB or so of space too. And neither one of those games can even be considered close to what we'll see on the PS3 and Xbox360 in the future.

Heavy compression is not the answer either. Compressing textures a lot will eventually degrade the overall quality of the graphics, and compressing other data will slow down loading times while the data gets decompressed after being read off the disc.

Multi-platform games will suffer too. As time goes on, the Xbox360 version of the game will suffer compared to the PS3 version just because of storage limitations. It won't matter which system is more powerful when storage space becomes a limiting factor. You'll see features cut out of the Xbox360 version or the graphics watered down pretty heavily to fit everything on a single disc.

The Xbox360 will also reintroduce multi-disc games for consoles. That trend died with this last generation and it shouldn't be reborn. But if Microsoft wants the Xbox360 to be able to compete with the PS3 in terms of overall content and graphics, then you will see multi-disc games. Sure, the two systems might be relatively close in graphics at first.. but eventually, the capability to hold 50GB will help the PS3 take a huge lead over the Xbox360. Like I said, hardware power won't matter. It will be the ability to simply store more and do more as a result.

Microsoft sticking with DVDs is almost as bad as Nintendo sticking with cartridges for the N64. We all saw just how much better Playstation games were as a result of the massive storage space, in comparison to cartridges. We'll see it happen here too.

That's what worries me about PS3... if Blu-ray DOESN'T catch on then the cost of drives will stay higher for longer... causing PS3 units to lose Sony even MORE money on each system. On the other hand, maybe it is win-win for Sony. Because if it doesn't win, they may be the only manufacturer of BR discs, so all PS3 games will be using the media they produce... could be profitable.

If the PS3 even has half the success of the PS2, around 50 million in sales, then the cost of the drives will fall no matter what.

When the PS2 launched DVDs were already the next hot thing

But for 10 million people over the next year, the PS2 was their first DVD player. DVD had not taken off in Japan at all until the PS2 launched. Even in the US, DVD was still considered by many to be too expensive or out of reach. The PS2 helped people get into DVDs and helped convince people to buy DVDs who wouldn't have bought them otherwise. I remember seeing stickers on new movies at Best Buy that said "PS2 compatible". I know a handful of people who are still using their PS2 as their DVD player and even more who used it as a DVD player up until last year or so.

Spin it all you can, but that won't change the fact that things like the LaserDisc, SACD, DVD-A are/were commercial flops.

LaserDisc sold several million units, as did DVD-A and SACD capable DVD and CD players. LaserDisc moved several million in movie sales. If you look at the hardcore facts, SACD is in the same position CD players were at the same time period in their life time. SACD has about the same adoption rate as CDs did. You have to keep in mind that CDs didn't really take off until the 90s.

[beachesandmusic]

I think portable movies will become common. I don't think they'll be the dominant "format", but I think they'll become a viable option for video just as they have been for music. Portable/downloadable videos will change the landscape much in the same way TV did in the 50's and VCRs did in the 80's.

How? The reason portable music is so popular is because you listen to it. You can listen to it in the store, you can listen to it walking down the street, you can listen to it while you walk your dog or driving your car. Portable movies, however, require your full attention. You can't go shopping and watch a movie at the same time. You certainly can't watch a movie if you're the driver of a car.

You know, right now, I could get up and walk to the store and listen to my iPod on the way there. But I certainly can't fire up a movie and pay attention to it. Somebody just walked by the house with a portable CD player in hand. You don't see people walking around staring at portable DVD players. That's why portable music is successful and portable movies will not be.

Battery life of most portable movie players is too poor to even really consider right now.

Theres just no real market for portable video, outside of portable DVD players in cars to keep kids quiet and laptop DVD players.

DVD sales have been leveling off for a while. Which is one reason why the industry is pushing HD as the greatest thing since sliced bread and the studios started downsizing about 12-18 months ago. Now, they hope next gen DVDs will take off just like DVDs did and people will replace their libraries of DVDs w/HiDef dics (just like they replaced their VHS tapes), but I don't see that happening on a broad scale. Besides better image quality next gen DVDs really don't have anything going for them, and "better a/v quality" isn't typically #1 on consumers priority lists.

Nah, the movie studios are pushing for next generation discs because of the enhanced DRM.

I've heard of no movie studios "downsizing".

And movies just haven't been as good in the last year or so.

7 or 8 years ago how many people do you think dismissed MP3 players for similar reasons? "Good enough" wins the mainstream battle more often than not.

Uh.. what? Portable music is entirely different than portable video. How does this relate to ugly small screens with bad battery life? Nobody intelligent dismissed MP3 players for what they were. If they said something negative about them, it had to do with the fact that most of the first MP3 players couldn't even store a full album and they were expensive, but they were still good for music. But portable video? Like I said, you can't walk down the street or jog while watching a movie.

Portable DVD players aren't convenient because it's another device to carry around and it's narrow functionality typically isn't worth the effort. But what if similar functionality could be added to devices people already carry around w/them (cell phones, laptops, MP3 players, etc.,)? Hmm....

People just don't like portable DVD players because the screens are too small and the battery life isn't fantastic. It doesn't replicate the theater going experience. Why buy a $200 portable DVD player when you can buy a $200 DVD player with 5.1 sound system? I know they're not good, but thats how most people look at it.

Video playback on a cellphone is, honestly, stupid. Cellphone makers need to quit adding all of these useless features and worry about increasing CALL QUALITY.

But cellphone screens and MP3 player screens are too small. Battery life is too bad.

Most people don't use laptops for DVDs either because, again, it doesn't make sense to most people. The increased sales of home theater systems and HDTVs show what people want. Portable video isn't it.

Of course they are selling more and more 'cause non-HD sets are becoming harder and harder to come by. The electronics companies have been very good and delivering HDTV hype, too bad there's just not much actual consumer demand for it.

Go to Wal-Mart lately? A lot more non-HD sets than HD available there. Sadly, that's where most people do their shopping.

I agree consumers want to be able to have something physical, but I disagree In a few years connecting a modern computer to a modern TV or home stereo will be as simple as hooking up a DVD player.

But first, Apple and Microsoft will have to get rid of the notion that computers belong in the office and make GOOD entertainment devices. The ease of connectivity just isn't there yet, and won't be for a while. Media Center and Front Row aren't even close to being there yet.

If Blu-ray is more expensive than HD-DVD what is the compelling reason for consumers to spend the extra money for what is basically the same product?

Well, besides HD-DVD having very little studio support, theres always the fact that Blu-Ray has the capability to have better image and sound quality, as well as virtually scratchproof discs.


Because it simply isn't as powerful as Sony said it was.

Toy Story graphics? No. But far beyond what the Dreamcast was capable of? Definitely. All one needs to do is play the PS2 to see that.

The original Xbox surely wasn't capable of the 300 million polygons per second that Microsoft originally promised, then later secretly reduced by half.

If one has a Windows PC and GTA3, theres several tools available that will show you how many polygons per second the game was running. GTA3 surpassed 3 million per second in many cases, which put it well beyond what the Dreamcast was theoritically capable of. San Andreas definitely moved well beyond that mark.

[Dagless]

... How long are you spending writing these? I think people are past reading now.

[LethalWolfe]

beachesandmusic,

You obviously take a good amount of time to respond in all of your posts, but I think you need to read and analyze more and assume you are right less. You know enough about what you are talking about to be able to discuss it, but I don't think you know enough about it to really understand it.

You say you aren't aware of the studios downsizing. Well, it's happening. All you have to do is read about.

If you want to know the actual reason DVD sales are slowing (no, it's not 'cause of some batch of crappy movies) all you have to do is read up on the subject.

If you want to know why HD in the US isn't growing like wild fire, why VOOM failed, and why more and more video content keeps showing up at the iTMS, that's right, all you have to do is read about it.

If you want to discuss things based solely on your opinion and preconceived notions then, well, just keep doing what you are doing.

Yes, the move to HD in the US is imminent. Yes, the mainstream consumer will eventually embrace it. But, IMO, it's most likely going to stay slow, bumpy, and ugly because it's not being driven by consumer demand but by a government mandate and by companies that push incompatible, competing formats into the marketplace.


Lethal

[MacRumorUser]

beachesandmusic,

You obviously take a good amount of time to respond in all of your posts, but I think you need to read and analyze more and assume you are right less. You know enough about what you are talking about to be able to discuss it, but I don't think you know enough about it to really understand it.

You say you aren't aware of the studios downsizing. Well, it's happening. All you have to do is read about.

If you want to know the actual reason DVD sales are slowing (no, it's not 'cause of some batch of crappy movies) all you have to do is read up on the subject.

If you want to know why HD in the US isn't growing like wild fire, why VOOM failed, and why more and more video content keeps showing up at the iTMS, that's right, all you have to do is read about it.

If you want to discuss things based solely on your opinion and preconceived notions then, well, just keep doing what you are doing.

Yes, the move to HD in the US is imminent. Yes, the mainstream consumer will eventually embrace it. But, IMO, it's most likely going to stay slow, bumpy, and ugly because it's not being driven by consumer demand but by a government mandate and by companies that push incompatible, competing formats into the marketplace.


Lethal


hooray! Couldn't agree more.

[Haoshiro]

I second that, well said Lethal.

[Dagless]

Jolly well thirded.

[clayj]

Time for me to add my totally unnecessary 2&#162; to this conversation. (Yes, I've been absent of late.) This may ramble a bit.

When DVD was introduced back in 1997, there was only ONE format. (Yes, there was also that bastard child known as DIVX [not DivX], the pay-per-view format championed by Circuit City. Fortunately, it died. It was essentially compatible with regular DVD, though.) Early adopters like me embraced DVD without reservation, since we knew it was much better than VHS or LaserDisc, and there was virtually no chance of DVD being replaced with something better anytime soon. There was virtually no chance of a VHS vs. Betamax format war with DVD. (Again, DIVX looked to be a problem for a short time, but it died quickly.)

The problem THIS time is that there are TWO formats, and they both have a good chance of surviving in the long term (despite many early predictions that Blu-Ray was gonna wipe the floor with HD-DVD). Blu-Ray has the backing of almost all of the major movie studios, it's more advanced in terms of storage space (which is good, but irrelevant to many consumers) and a raft of hardware makers including Sony... but it's also going to be more expensive, it's not out YET, and there may be some problems getting the technology to work consistently (see also: why the PS3 STILL isn't out).

HD-DVD, on the other hand, is cheaper, it's out NOW, and there's even going to be an HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360 that will cost anywhere from $99-$120 (if you believe the rumors... and I do) and which will allow the format to hit millions of homes for a nominal cost. On the other hand, HD-DVD also seems to be having some problems right now. The Digital Bits reports that the new Toshiba HD-DVD players actually have BETTER video quality from their analog component outputs than they do from their digital, and HDCP-compliant, HDMI outputs. Not to mention, the player takes MINUTES to start up, and it freezes up occasionally and the sound gets unsynched from the picture. No one wants to buy a BUGGY movie player, but that's what we're seeing. Not good.

It's not the cost of a disc player that I'm really worried about, but I am not the average video consumer. I don't mind spending $1000 for a Blu-Ray player over $500 (or even $100) for an HD-DVD player as long as I know I'm getting my money's worth. No, my biggest fear is building up a library of titles in one format (say, HD-DVD) and then finding out that that format is going away. I want ONE format, and I'm pissed at the movie companies (and the hardware companies) for not being smart enough to settle on a single format, because now the HD disc market is saturated with uncertainty. No one knows which format will prevail, so many people are staying away.

I'll buy the Xbox 360's HD-DVD add-on for sure when it comes out; at the very least, it'll be a cheap way to watch a few movies in HD. Maybe I'll even start RENTING movies again, rather than building up a library of discs like I have now. And if it's not too expensive, I may even buy a PS3 just for Blu-Ray playback.

But until one of these formats goes the way of the dodo, my level of commitment to HD discs will remain minimal at best. My current-gen DVDs look just fine, and they work in ALL of my devices. The last thing I, or anyone else, want is a hodge-podge of incompatibility that makes life difficult.

[Sdashiki]

whoever said something to the effect of games for the PS3 being better because they have 50GB on a BluRay to play with is out of their mind.

WHAT THE HELL game could take up 50GB in your mind? Just what?

Perhaps a game with hours of FMV? I doubt it since in game cutscenes are far better, smaller, more consistent and easier on the console...

ive just seen other say the same thing about HD-DVD vs BluRay, and when it comes to DATA STORAGE AND MOVIES of course 50GB vs 37GB is better.

But when you pull GAMES into the ring, you cant eat up 37GB let alone 50GB with a single console game.

not now, and certainly not for a long while I am thinking.

how a game can balloon to that size is beyond me.

[clayj]

Oh, and beaches, a couple of statements you made, I wish to correct:

HD-DVD became available in April 2006. The PS3 doesn't even have a launch date yet, but I don't believe it'll be available earlier than November 2006. Fortunately for Sony, standalone Blu-Ray players will be available around August 15th (I've got the e-mail from Sony right here with the date). So that's a four month headstart for HD-DVD. On the gaming front, HD-DVD will also get a headstart over Blu-Ray because Microsoft's HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360 will be available in September, which is two months before I estimate the PS3 will even be launched.

And, the early adopters are staying away from HD-DVD and Blu-Ray right now. I bought a DVD player the first day they were available (March 24, 1997) and had to have DVDs FedExed from Seattle because they weren't even selling them here in Charlotte. But not I, nor any of my techie friends, have bought an HD-DVD player yet... and it ain't because we're all waiting for Blu-Ray. None of us are sold on either technology yet.

[ChrisK018]

I won't complain about long-winded replies. I need all the help I can get killing time at work.

My first DVD player was my PS2. My first blu-ray player will be the PS3. Eventually the price of a component Blu-ray player will become reasonable and I'll get one of those.

I have had HDTV for a few years now.

I suppose that makes me a middle adopter? I don't have that much disposable income to afford early high-end gear, but if it is cool enough I will try and pick it up.

With that in mind it seems to me like Blu-Ray has more potential. Regardless, I agree with Clayj: wait and see about the movies. In the meantime I'll pick up a PS3 and Revolution.

[Abulia]

But until one of these formats goes the way of the dodo, my level of commitment to HD discs will remain minimal at best. My current-gen DVDs look just fine, and they work in ALL of my devices. The last thing I, or anyone else, want is a hodge-podge of incompatibility that makes life difficult.Word. It's also worth pointing out that the money in this market isn't in the hardware, its in the movies.

Thus, until there's a clear winner -- not fanboys extolling the virtues of their favorite format -- the vast majority of consumers won't be buying the movies.

And that's where the money is.

[combatcolin]

Wow!

From he way this tread has gone the casual reader may assume that Sega are adding Blu-Ray or HD DVD support to the Dreamcast.

;)

[Abulia]

On the other hand, HD-DVD also seems to be having some problems right now. The Digital Bits reports that the new Toshiba HD-DVD players actually have BETTER video quality from their analog component outputs than they do from their digital, and HDCP-compliant, HDMI outputs. Not to mention, the player takes MINUTES to start up, and it freezes up occasionally and the sound gets unsynched from the picture. No one wants to buy a BUGGY movie player, but that's what we're seeing. Not good.Hey clayj, you know I like you but I gotta push you a bit on these.

I've been following the Digital Bits and the AVS Forums since the release. So far I've only seen one person who stated component output was better than HDMI (and he had some super-duper component cables vs the stock HDMI cable that comes with the player). Multiple people on the AVS Forums have noted no difference in picture quality when using HDMI.

Playing a HD-DVD takes 45 seconds, not minutes. :) It probably seems like minutes. ;)

In fact, I'm reading reports of pro-Blu-Ray HT fans "jumping ship" to HD-DVD. Again, that's probably just the hard core HT crowd.

One problem that has come up that looks pretty serious is the Toshiba's scaler: it apparently SUCKS. In fact, regardless of your display device's native resolution, the Toshiba's scaler is so bad that you should force it into 1080i and leave it there; your set will scale it better.

By and large opinions seem to be favorable.

[~Shard~]

WHAT THE HELL game could take up 50GB in your mind? Just what?

Funny, I remember saying the same thing when I used to play Ultima IV on a set of four 1.2 MB 5 1/4" floppy discs in the mid-80's:

"WHAT THE HELL game could take up 650 MB in your mind? Just what?"

Yeah, those CD-ROMs never took off... :rolleyes: :p :cool:

[clayj]

Hey clayj, you know I like you but I gotta push you a bit on these.

I've been following the Digital Bits and the AVS Forums since the release. So far I've only seen one person who stated component output was better than HDMI (and he had some super-duper component cables vs the stock HDMI cable that comes with the player). Multiple people on the AVS Forums have noted no difference in picture quality when using HDMI.Well, the one person I saw mention the component-is-seemingly-better-than-HDMI issue is Bill Hunt, who's only the guy who runs The Digital Bits. He makes a living reviewing DVDs and disc players. I trust him. (He's also the guy who gave the industry the most s*** about having a format war.)

Playing a HD-DVD takes 45 seconds, not minutes. :) It probably seems like minutes. ;)One minute to boot the player, and 45 seconds to boot a movie. Still way too long. And you didn't even mention the locking-up issue which apparently is occurring WAY more than it should on the new players. ;)

In fact, I'm reading reports of pro-Blu-Ray HT fans "jumping ship" to HD-DVD. Again, that's probably just the hard core HT crowd.Well, some people just have no patience. I myself am known for having no patience (see: Clay orders nano on Day One; Clay orders Video iPod on Day One; Clay orders Mac mini on Day One; and so on), but I'm making an exception this time because I hate format wars and I've not been real impressed with what I've seen so far... not to mention my natural apprehension at HDCP, since my HT lacks HDMI or DVI and I am unwilling to upgrade to a newer TV (if your TV cost $22K, you'd be hesitant to sell it at a huge loss, too).

One problem that has come up that looks pretty serious is the Toshiba's scaler: it apparently SUCKS. In fact, regardless of your display device's native resolution, the Toshiba's scaler is so bad that you should force it into 1080i and leave it there; your set will scale it better.Problems like this are really gonna slow down adoption of HD discs by early adopters.

By and large opinions seem to be favorable.But not where they should be.

[Chuckles]

Ehh... BS3.

That's NOT a type-o, btw.

[LethalWolfe]

clayj, thanks for bringing in a "cut myself on the bleeding edge of bloody technology" perspective. Personally I think you and your ilk are nuts, but hey, someone's gotta be first into the swimming pool. ;)

ChrisK018, just curious, is your "few years old" HDTV HDCP compliant? If not, are you gonna shell out for a new HDTV or are you gonna live w/the non-HD, analogue output from your Blu-ray player (PS3)?


Lethal

[ReanimationLP]

Oh, and beaches, a couple of statements you made, I wish to correct:

HD-DVD became available in April 2006. The PS3 doesn't even have a launch date yet, but I don't believe it'll be available earlier than November 2006. Fortunately for Sony, standalone Blu-Ray players will be available around August 15th (I've got the e-mail from Sony right here with the date). So that's a four month headstart for HD-DVD. On the gaming front, HD-DVD will also get a headstart over Blu-Ray because Microsoft's HD-DVD add-on for the Xbox 360 will be available in September, which is two months before I estimate the PS3 will even be launched.

And, the early adopters are staying away from HD-DVD and Blu-Ray right now. I bought a DVD player the first day they were available (March 24, 1997) and had to have DVDs FedExed from Seattle because they weren't even selling them here in Charlotte. But not I, nor any of my techie friends, have bought an HD-DVD player yet... and it ain't because we're all waiting for Blu-Ray. None of us are sold on either technology yet.

Technically, its already out in the stores. The players that is, I havent seen any discs, but I've seen a Toshiba HD-DVD player.

[MacRumorUser]

By and large opinions seem to be favorable.

Don? What's with the Abulia??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

[ChrisK018]

ChrisK018, just curious, is your "few years old" HDTV HDCP compliant? If not, are you gonna shell out for a new HDTV or are you gonna live w/the non-HD, analogue output from your Blu-ray player (PS3)?


->I have one DVI input on the back of my TV, so I guess I'm HDCP compliant from my quick google search.

I must say that it blows how only the top-of-the-line TVs and Home Theatre receivers seem to have multiple HDMI inputs and outputs.

Setting up a PS3, DVD and HD sat receiver is going to be a pain.

[takao]

I must say that it blows how only the top-of-the-line TVs and Home Theatre receivers seem to have multiple HDMI inputs and outputs.

Setting up a PS3, DVD and HD sat receiver is going to be a pain.

thinking about it... could the second hdmi port on the ps3 be more used for some sort of chaining dmi using devices ?

sure sony said they are going to output 2x 1080 but the absence of any pictures of such a setup and the performance needed for that i kinda doubt that ;) (i guess that explains why i can't find how big the frame buffer of the ps3 is since it would easily show that they are not going to output 2x 1080p)

[clayj]

I have one DVI input on the back of my TV, so I guess I'm HDCP compliant from my quick google search.Dangerous assumption. Not all DVI ports are HDCP-compliant. You should check further to make sure about yours.

HDCP is turning into a GIANT mess... not only does HDCP require ports (HDMI or compatible DVI) that many of us, especially us early adopters, do not have, but when I spoke to the tech support guy from Runco last week, he told me that a lot of HDMI devices won't even see each other... you can connect them with the right cable, but they won't handshake. There's a word for this (two, actually): Charlie Foxtrot.

Personally, my inclination is never to buy ANYTHING that includes technology that prevents me from using it in a legal, "fair use" fashion. I'm no video pirate, so I resent the fact that that the idiot movie studios see fit to apply technology that may force me to upgrade my entire home theatre for no other reason than to satisfy THEM. I especially don't like the fact that the new HD-DVD movies are being released WITHOUT HDCP in order to lure people in. I ain't buying a HD disc player and movies until I'm sure I will ALWAYS be able to play them without restriction.

[Abulia]

Dangerous assumption. Not all DVI ports are HDCP-compliant. You should check further to make sure about yours.Just want to "ditto" clayj's comment; not all DVI connection are HDCP-compliant. I'm, for example, fortunate that my set is. Not all are. You'll want to check.

HDMI, right now, is the only HDCP "safe" connector out there. Anything else and you're kinda up in the air if you're HDCP-compliant and can properly view HD video content, be it HD-DVD or Blu-Ray.
Don? What's with the Abulia???
Shhhh! I'm undercover!

"We've secretly switched aliases without informing the usual suspects. Let's see if GFLPraxis notices..."

:D

[zap2]

Sounds like Sony might be trying to do the same thing with PS3 and Blu-ray, but will it work? Is the leep from DVD to BD really going to be as large as from VHS to DVD?


Yup but i doubt it will work for many reason 1) DVD to VHS was such a big jump, as DVD works computers and VHS doesn't(maybe there is some way but nothing that is easyly done) and now blue-ray is just a upgrade of DVDs, not many people need 50Gb on one disk, few home user even use 50Gb of the computer harddrive, and also it is much more cash for the PS3 then it was for the PS2. 2) Also DVD did not have another format that it was fight for the market, HD-DVD is cheaper, people like cheap especially because both HD-DVD and blue-ray might be over-kill for so much of the market.


Edit-Sorry i was looking for DS thread, come upon this ,watched the video, posted and then looked at the dates..sry

[Haoshiro]

Yeah, I was quite surprised at the thread resurrection. But I do agree with you.

[GFLPraxis]

"We've secretly switched aliases without informing the usual suspects. Let's see if GFLPraxis notices..."


I noticed ages ago. Actually took me a week to notice the new name because I recognized the avatar, and the -Don in the sig ;)

[Mackilroy]

About games needing fifty gigabytes…

That's laughable. With procedural synthesis and advanced compression you can get games to fit on a DVD-9 with ease. The reason why the PS2's games take up so much space is because sloppy developing*– and it didn't have the same capabilities as the GC and Xbox for compression.

[MacRumorUser]

I noticed ages ago. Actually took me a week to notice the new name because I recognized the avatar, and the -Don in the sig ;)

LOL! It was the Avatar that tipped me off too.

Geez Don that took you long enough to respond to :D I posted that weeks ago it seems ;) :)

[sk1985]

for hd-dvd vs. blu-ray
it might end up like SACD vs. DVD Audio ... both improvements over the CD but the advantage wasn't enough for most people
(personally i will very likely skip until the next format or go complete digital distribution.... for movies dvds are enough for me)
Thats a whole different situation (video and music). Music CDs will be so dated in the next 4 to 5 years it won't be funny. I imagine in the next 4 to 5 years MP3 players and mp3s (or whatever dominate formate will be around) will surpass CD sales. Thats an inevitable truth. The market is changing to the point in which no one really wants music in a tangible form. The general public would rather get their music from the comfort of their homes (i.e streaming, downloading, or subscriptions). No one really expected this shift. Thats why in the last 2 to 3 years nearly every manufacturer on the market has been trying to get a Digital Music Player and an online music delivery service out. Basically the market had a shift in consumer preference and in some cases consumers are willing to buy an inferior product (compressed audio) over a CD which does sound nicer. Essentially no new audio medium will replace the CD. Digital information will fill in that void. I still think it's funny that people thought that iTunes and the iPod were going to be a flop. The only thing that need to push consumers in the direction I spoke of was a trendy cool product like the ipod. Apple got lucky with the iTunes + iPod venture, unfortunately I don't see Apple as a power player for very long. Music and video studios will bump iTunes out eventually. However, I do see the iPod still being a one of the most popular entertainment systems in the world. It's become the McDonald's of portable audio and visual equipment.

The simple truth is that HD video will catch on. LCD, Plasma, DLPs, ect... prices will plummet. It's kind of how color TV's costed an arm and a leg and now you can buy one at wall-mart in the sub 100 dollar range. HD-Video on the other hand will be contained in a tangible form mostly due to broadband restrictions and how large each file is and how small storage wise current hard-drives are. You can only put a handful of HD movies on current Gen hard-drives. So thats a barrier that most movie studios will face at least for now. Now in ten years time the internet will be drastically faster and a terabyte hard-drive will be dirt cheap (in reality we'll most likely be beyond terabytes). Also by then studios could deliver much better and less compressed versions of their movies over the internet. Another cool thing to think about is how all portable electronics will pluralize into one form (i.e. all in one device that is a cell phone, a music player, a computer, and a movie player).

On a side note (to keep on track) the only real setback the PS3 has in my eyes is it's price. I want one but that 500 and 600 dollar price tag really are turning me away.

[combatcolin]

A lot of people want to own a psyical copy of there music.

The music industry is more than just teenagers with MP3 players copying any thing they can get there hands on.

Anyway, DREAMCAST SEGA RALLY 2 RULES!!!

[Dagless]

Yup, I've never used the iTunes music store or any other online service because I like to own the physical original CD/Whatever. And I don't think I'm the only one out there.

[MacRumorUser]

Yup, I've never used the iTunes music store or any other online service because I like to own the physical original CD/Whatever. And I don't think I'm the only one out there.

I've used itunes to buy 2 albums. I buy around 60 a year. HATE itunes low 128kbps compression. If i'm paying good money I want 256 - 320 kbps

[Haoshiro]

I've used itunes to buy 2 albums. I buy around 60 a year. HATE itunes low 128kbps compression. If i'm paying good money I want 256 - 320 kbps

I for one finally got over the need for physical CDs. The music itself is not tangible, there is little cause for me to want plastics and paper I will never actually use (since I would be ripping it to my computer anyway).

Also, I have found the 128kbps AAC files to sound better then the VBR abd 192-320 mp3s I had. Sure, I use to pull that quality card too, but they sound great to me (especially with a good speaker set) and I am no audiophile, it would be pointless anyway... I definitely don't want 15K songs that are ~50MB each!

[Chrispy]

I wonder how well the PS3 will do. The price is going to be really high... especially compared to the Wii. I think Nintendo is setup to make a great come back. The DS Lite has proven people will buy Nintendo hardware/software as long as it is affordable and they have developer backing. It seems as if Square-Enix is thinking about going with the Wii for their next titles. Of course, I may be completely wrong. I think it would be nice to see Nintendo come back into the spotlight.

[madog]

I didn't have a chance to read all of the posts here, but personally I don't think we have to worry about BR or HD discs becomming a standard anytime soon. The fact that it is solely up to the movie industry to pick a standard that will determine what everyone buys in order to watch their movies. And since the only one doing that now is Sony Pictures [or whatever movie industry giant they own] it's not something that I'm going to worry about.

Simple fact, these companies might still release some movies on VHS even though DVD is the standard, but they will not release BR, HD, and DVD discs all at the same time because they won't make [as much] money.

I think one or two might convert to a BR/DVD or HD/DVD release system for their movies but they won't wholly invest in just one of the new technologies just because a few hundred thousand people own a PS3 [though it would be a nice start].

I mean, what would they gain by singling people out? They want everyone to have a chance to buy their overpriced media.

We've got plenty of time to see what happens. The launch of the PS3 will not be the sole determining factor in this switch.

Sony isn't the almighty technology wizard that spreads everything new and great. Just look at their PSP video format [whatever it's called].

Edit: Then again judging by current trends, it seems more and more are incorporating BR technology which might leave the HDDVD discs out of the picture which would ease the switch. But I still think it won't be for many years.

[Haoshiro]

Yes I agree, add to that there is very little consumer demand for an HD-movie format anyway. Sure there are the ht/pc technophiles that strive to have every last bit uncompressed and in high resolution, but the mass public doesn't care if they are watching Lost or Top Gear with higher fidelity, especially if it will require they but a new TV and equipment.

Consumers can kill a new technology, however great, just because they don't show a large interest when it is first introduced. I don't even think Hollywood and other movie producers want to spend the money needed to film in true HD, especially if only a fraction of movie buying people even care, why should they invest?

[ChrisK018]

Yes I agree, add to that there is very little consumer demand for an HD-movie format anyway. Sure there are the ht/pc technophiles that strive to have every last bit uncompressed and in high resolution, but the mass public doesn't care if they are watching Lost or Top Gear with higher fidelity, especially if it will require they but a new TV and equipment.

Consumers can kill a new technology, however great, just because they don't show a large interest when it is first introduced. I don't even think Hollywood and other movie producers want to spend the money needed to film in true HD, especially if only a fraction of movie buying people even care, why should they invest?

I don't understand some of the logic that the consumers may or may not have. Sure there is not much demand for HD movie stuff right now. It's too fricking expensive for most people but DVD sales are leveling off. That was a major cash cow for studios. If they invest in and push a new technology and create a new demand for HD resolution films that means that eventually people will start upgrading their collections again creating a whole new cash cow. TVs and DVD players don't last forever. I suspect that most people who need to get a new TV will at least consider an HD set. In a few years when that DVD player of yours tires out, the same process will happen.

DVD's are way better than VHS in terms of resolution and options. While BR/HD DVD will be an annoying battle, the technology is universally better. HDTV is amazingly better than regular tv.

If you can get HD sets at "regular consumer" stores like Best Buy there is clearly an interest in it and eventually you'll be able to get HD DVD and Blu Ray players there too. It's just a matter of time. If studios can make more money, then they will push it. I remember when a movies came out in Beta and VHS. VHS won out. This will happen for a while until the new format achieves critical mass with a wider audience.

DVD will die the same long slow death of the VHS. PS3 is the beginning. Maybe it will be another Dreamcast, but that WILL NOT be because of it having HD resolution.

[Haoshiro]

I don't understand some of the logic that the consumers may or may not have. Sure there is not much demand for HD movie stuff right now. It's too fricking expensive for most people but DVD sales are leveling off. That was a major cash cow for studios. If they invest in and push a new technology and create a new demand for HD resolution films that means that eventually people will start upgrading their collections again creating a whole new cash cow. TVs and DVD players don't last forever. I suspect that most people who need to get a new TV will at least consider an HD set. In a few years when that DVD player of yours tires out, the same process will happen.

DVD's are way better than VHS in terms of resolution and options. While BR/HD DVD will be an annoying battle, the technology is universally better. HDTV is amazingly better than regular tv.

If you can get HD sets at "regular consumer" stores like Best Buy there is clearly an interest in it and eventually you'll be able to get HD DVD and Blu Ray players there too. It's just a matter of time. If studios can make more money, then they will push it. I remember when a movies came out in Beta and VHS. VHS won out. This will happen for a while until the new format achieves critical mass with a wider audience.

DVD will die the same long slow death of the VHS. PS3 is the beginning. Maybe it will be another Dreamcast, but that WILL NOT be because of it having HD resolution.

What you have to consider here, is market penetration. Right now DVD is everywhere, and it really has only pentrated PCs enough to have games begin coming out on DVD (for PC games) within the last year or so. In fact, go to a gaming website (like GoGamer.com) and you'll see most PC games still come out on CD-ROM, even if they take multiple disks. Some of the newer games (like Titan's Quest) have alternate versions you can buy, CD-ROM or DVD-ROM.

The point is simply that CD-ROM pentration on PCs is still better then DVD is, even though DVD-ROM drives have been out for many, many years.

Apply that to movies, and you see that DVD has only recently flushed the majority of VHS out of retail (at least here in the USA). A month or so ago I noticed Wal-Mart had huge bins of VHS at discount pricing, they had finally decided to deprecate VHS offerings completely and were selling out the remaining stock. I know DVD has held the majority of shelf space for many years now, but only just recently was VHS sales low enough to justify halting sale of them completely.

Now enter BR/HD, yes they have higher resolution, more features, scratch/piracy resistance, etc... but this comes at a consumer and manufacturer cost. A publisher looks at the market, and what do they see? Probably 95% DVD pentration. Producing movies at DVD resolution is cheaper, manufacturing them is cheaper, consumer awareness is at 100%, and equipment is plenty - and cheap.

The same can't be said of BR/HD which means at best movies will be getting published on dual formats: BR+DVD, or HD+DVD. So when a normal consumer goes to a store and sees they can buy Spiderman 3 on DVD for $15, or on HD/BR for $25-30, which requires a $300-600 (or higher) player of which you will not benefit unless you by a $500+ TV... well... the cost of entry will seem very high.

The technologies are clearly better and chances of people upgrading to an HD-TV are pretty high. But the thing is, when they go from SDTV to HDTV they will probably notice a big upgrade in the visual quality of even there current DVDs... which will make them happy and even more content with their current DVD. And if they don't see a noticable visual upgrade? Well they will probably be even less likely to drop even more money on other new "better high resolution" equipment.

So I'm not suggesting we'll never move on to HD, just that it will take quite a long time for it to be important to the average consumer. People are playing Xbox 360 systems on SDTVs, even though it supposedly ushers in the "HD Era". I myself have been known to rent movies online occasionally, where the convenience of not having to leave the house wins out over my desire for superior visual quality. BR/HD provide no real added convenience to the consumer.

All of this is why so many people (and several on this forum) are inclined to think that adoption of BR/HD will take so long that, coupled with the format war, something new and better will come along before either format is established.

We'll get there, to that elusive "HD Era" one day... it's just going to be a slow road.