I had the same question as I had the feeling that many of the most enthusiastic posters were all talk and hadn't put their money where their mouth was.
I fully intend to buy Blu-ray. As soon as Apple offers BR burners on their Mac Pros, which may be as soon as January but certainly well before WWDC. I have no use for a gaming system as I'm not a gamer, not even on my Macs and PC, and no longer believe in buying dedicated players when computers can do all the same things.
I fully intend to buy Blu-ray. As soon as Apple offers BR burners on their Mac Pros, which may be as soon as January but certainly well before WWDC. I have no use for a gaming system as I'm not a gamer, not even on my Macs and PC, and no longer believe in buying dedicated players when computers can do all the same things.
Why would you want to watch HD movies on a computer monitor? The real benefit of HD is on larger screens. There is a reason for dedicated units, so people can hook them up to their large TVs and projectors. I guess, if you plan on hooking up your computer to your TV, but then you need to wait for Apple to also include an HDCP complaint video card...
Why would you want to watch HD movies on a computer monitor? The real benefit of HD is on larger screens. There is a reason for dedicated units, so people can hook them up to their large TVs and projectors. I guess, if you plan on hooking up your computer to your TV, but then you need to wait for Apple to also include an HDCP complaint video card...
Well... I use 37" LCD as a computer monitor/HDTV in my bedroom. So, I can definitely enjoy having HD-DVD play back on my computer monitor.
You just said you're getting a PS3. You're already "in" by then. Netlix will be your buddy if you want to rent movies. Both platforms will eventually be hybrid devices meaning you'll have the physical carrier but they will be network enabled to download new content.
I almost never watch movies (though they'll obviously be Blu-Ray or DVD if I do for the time being).
I'm definately holding out for buying any movies though until this thing gets sorted.
Why would you want to watch HD movies on a computer monitor? The real benefit of HD is on larger screens. There is a reason for dedicated units, so people can hook them up to their large TVs and projectors. I guess, if you plan on hooking up your computer to your TV, but then you need to wait for Apple to also include an HDCP complaint video card...
You've never seen my personal work area. 24" widescreen LCD, fully capable of displaying 1080 resolution. I'm seriously hankering for the 30" Dell LCD, which will be higher resolution than any HDTV, although I may wait for the next model with HDMI. I may be getting long in the tooth, but my close-up vision is still pretty good and I prefer images at close range, 24" or less. At that distance, a 24" LCD matches your big projectors for field of view and beats it for sharpness. Sorry, but no way any projected image at 10 feet is going to match a direct-view image for sharpness at 2 feet. Logitech Z-5500 surround sound system mounted around me. My zero-gravity chair beats any sofa for comfort. Who needs a home theater when I've got a personal theater?
You've never seen my personal work area. 24" widescreen LCD, fully capable of displaying 1080 resolution. I'm seriously hankering for the 30" Dell LCD, which will be higher resolution than any HDTV, although I may wait for the next model with HDMI. I may be getting long in the tooth, but my close-up vision is still pretty good and I prefer images at close range, 24" or less.
Hey, if that works for you, all the more power to you, but that's not going to be very satisfying for many people. First of all, it's harder to make a movie into a family or social experience when you're viewing a relatively small monitor from such a close distance, and second, even if your monitor's picture fills the same (or greater) visual angle in your field of vision, for most people there's an extra sense of drama to seeing something at a greater distance filling a large portion of their viewing field.
I know I'm not giving up my 70" HDTV (full 1920x1080 res, of course) any time soon in favor of a computer monitor.
Quote:
At that distance, a 24" LCD matches your big projectors for field of view and beats it for sharpness. Sorry, but no way any projected image at 10 feet is going to match a direct-view image for sharpness at 2 feet.
Personal visual problems like nearsightedness or farsightedness aside, sharpness will be a function of the visual angle of each pixel, regardless of viewing distance. Seated about 12' from my 70" display, each pixel on my TV is just a little below one arc minute (one sixtieth of one degree), with one arc minute generally being recognized as the limit of human visual acuity -- in other words, my TV, viewed comfortably from my sofa, is pretty much just as sharp as it possibly can be.
Your claim is not inherently true. It may or may not be true depending on specific distance, screen size, and resolution numbers thrown into the mix. Remember that ideally you want individual pixels to disappear -- if you can make out crisply defined individual pixels, that might create a certain illusion of sharpness, but that's not really a positive effect for picture quality.
The Xbox 360 is also outselling the PS3. The point is the PS3 sales are already beginning to level out so I don't really expect for there to be a huge influx of hungry movie fans.
What's going to give Blu-ray a boost is some better titles coming from exclusive studios.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
As far as that goes, the Wii is blowing them all away. So...yes, I've seen a console as popular as the PS3.
People who own PS2s are not guaranteed purchasers for the PS3. The PS2 offered DVD, which was a technology that showed immediate advantages even on older televisions. Blu-Ray is only advantageous if you've got a large HDTV to view it on, which means that the vast majority of consumers won't care.
Keep in mind that the PS2 also launched at half the price of the PS3, $299.
There's nothing guaranteed about Blu-Ray at this point. HD-DVD is simply at a better market position, with more affordable hardware and equivilant picture quality.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
Well... I'm not sure how closely you've been following the gaming console market, but Wii has been kicking PS3's butt since day one and the demand has gone up even higher. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, because PS3 isn't PS2. A simple reason is that PS2 wasn't selling at $499/$599 tag, and it doesn't matter what HiDef dvd format PS3 can play..... Basically, PS3 is too expensive as a gaming console, but a cheap BD player. What demographics of consumers can this product be matched to? Only those enthusiasts.... and they are numbered and so is PS3 sales.
Well... I'm not sure how closely you've been following the gaming console market, but Wii has been kicking PS3's butt since day one and the demand has gone up even higher. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, because PS3 isn't PS2. A simple reason is that PS2 wasn't selling at $499/$599 tag, and it doesn't matter what HiDef dvd format PS3 can play..... Basically, PS3 is too expensive as a gaming console, but a cheap BD player. What demographics of consumers can this product be matched to? Only those enthusiasts.... and they are numbered and so is PS3 sales.
That's the hype of Sony marketing. The Playstation 2 was a killer product. I'll admit that it make the Xbox look like the rookie product it was. However Microsoft has made much more improvements IMO opinion from this generation than Sony has thus far. Of course they had a headstart so I'm willing to give the PS3 time.
NPD numbers. Not wholly accurate but close enough to see a trend. The Wii and Xbox 360 are taking advantage of the fact that they aren't trying to stuff a Cell proc and Blue laser into a box.
I just spoke with a friend that bough a 42" LCD and Xbox 360 for Xmas. She said that she wants to order and Xbox HD DVD add on because its so cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
Actually i've seen bunches of reports stating that people are walking into stores and finding PS3 available. The demand is no longer there for ebay which means Sony has pretty much saturated the "gotta have it" maket. The PS3 is going to be important to the battle but this is a war that cannot be won and will not be won. Universal players will rule the day in a couple of years. What HD DVD fans are fighting for now is getting some studio support parity for the players that are delivered that won't be Universal.
Well... I'm not sure how closely you've been following the gaming console market, but Wii has been kicking PS3's butt since day one and the demand has gone up even higher. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, because PS3 isn't PS2. A simple reason is that PS2 wasn't selling at $499/$599 tag, and it doesn't matter what HiDef dvd format PS3 can play..... Basically, PS3 is too expensive as a gaming console, but a cheap BD player. What demographics of consumers can this product be matched to? Only those enthusiasts.... and they are numbered and so is PS3 sales.
Here we go again, what originally started as a video thread has strayed over into the relative merits of gaming machines. Somehow, the Wii has wandered in even though you can't watch HD movies on it.
Bite, you did get one thing half right when you mentioned only [video] enthusiasts are buying the PS3 as a BD player. The correct statement is only video enthusiasts are buying HD-DVD/Blue-Ray players. The average consumer sure isn't. This bodes ill for both formats for the forseeable future-- there's going to be a lot of red ink on companies' balance sheets.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
this guy is off by so much its not even funny.
did you just wake up recently? who cares what the ps2 did because if you mess up this console's generation bad enough people aren't going to hop on board. no gaming machine has been number 1 three generations in a row to let you know since you're so keen on history repeating.
the xbox was microsofts first attempt at producing a machine, you shouldn't' forget that. this gen is isn't like last time, publishers didn't really know what to expect from microsoft, leaving the xbox lacking games but this time almost every one has hopped on board (GTA, virtue fighter 5) just to name two huge titles that were once exlcusive to the Playstation brand.
Fourth: the xbox360 sold a lot more during its launch. if the ps3 continues to have manufacturing issues they may sell a lot less next year than the 360 did. remember the 360 launched in europe, japan, and the U.S all at the same time, sony hasn't even launched the ps3 in europe yet!
Here we go again, what originally started as a video thread has strayed over into the relative merits of gaming machines. Somehow, the Wii has wandered in even though you can't watch HD movies on it.
Bite, you did get one thing half right when you mentioned only [video] enthusiasts are buying the PS3 as a BD player. The correct statement is only video enthusiasts are buying HD-DVD/Blue-Ray players. The average consumer sure isn't. This bodes ill for both formats for the forseeable future-- there's going to be a lot of red ink on companies' balance sheets.
The reason to bring in the gaming console to the discussion is because many have been fantasizing PS3 as a trojan horse in the Hi-Def dvd hardware market as it was supposedly to be sold by gazillions to homes and all of the sudden turn every gamers into a HiDef movie enthusiasts. I was just making the point that PS3 is no where near being anything trojan at this points since it's not even winning the gaming console war and will not turn every gamers into a Hi-Def movie enthousiast at any means.
And you're right about Hi-Def format popularity only in the enthusiast community at this time, however, the potential of reaching the key price point to lure in consumers is more feasible with HD-DVD than BD. You can find standalone DVD players as low as $399, and will get even cheaper in the $299 within next 6 months. Anyway, alot of red inks from companies balance sheets will mostly come from BD hardware supporters since Sony is taking away everything from the standalone BD player market. I guess the PS3 is trojan horse to itself. Eitherway, HD-DVD has won the Hi-Def format war in 2006, even with the great trojan horse from Sony.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
Well stated. As you can see from the post above mine, some people here think the format war is all but over, but in reality, it has just begun.
Just to add to your sound logic, not only does the BDA have the bigge consortium, but also have the EXCLUSIVE power of Fox, Disney, MGM, and Lionsgate. Blu-ray definitely has a better chance in the studio side, the CE side, and the IT side. In summation, the industry in NOT on HD DVD's side.
Can anyone tell me why Blu Ray players are so much more expensive than HD DVD players? Is the basic mechanism more expensive because, perhaps, it's trickier to focus on data so near the disc surface? Are optics for HD DVD closer to standard DVD optics, and perhaps the overall price there benefits more from existing lower-priced tech? (Just wild guessing on my part -- please take that into account in your replies.)
Can anyone tell me why Blu Ray players are so much more expensive than HD DVD players? Is the basic mechanism more expensive because, perhaps, it's trickier to focus on data so near the disc surface? Are optics for HD DVD closer to standard DVD optics, and perhaps the overall price there benefits more from existing lower-priced tech? (Just wild guessing on my part -- please take that into account in your replies.)
That's just it, Blu-ray players are NOT so much more expensive, as cost of both HD DVD and Blu-ray players are the SAME--$499.
Can anyone tell me why Blu Ray players are so much more expensive than HD DVD players? Is the basic mechanism more expensive because, perhaps, it's trickier to focus on data so near the disc surface? Are optics for HD DVD closer to standard DVD optics, and perhaps the overall price there benefits more from existing lower-priced tech? (Just wild guessing on my part -- please take that into account in your replies.)
If you think the BD players are unfairly priced and higher, then buying BD movies would shock you once more. In average, BD movie titles cost more than the average HD-DVD movies. Of course, if you're buying a combo HD-DVD(which I hate supporting), which has DVD layer plus the HD-DVD layer on the flip side, would cost about the same as the BD movie prices, but most HD-DVD (dual layer) movies are cheaper.
Anyway, if you're comparing the street price of any of the Hi-Def players, then some of the online shops do offer $399 and lower prices which also includes 3 free HD-DVD's from toshiba promo.
BTW, here's a interesting read in PQ comparison of PS3 vs. xbox360 HD-DVD add on vs. SD-DVD. The reviewer gives the crown to xbox360 add on even it's only using analog vs. HDMI for PS3.
That's just it, Blu-ray players are NOT so much more expensive, as cost of both HD DVD and Blu-ray players are the SAME--$499.
Are you referring to the Samsung BD-P1000? I hadn't see a Blu-Ray player as cheap as that until just now. I wonder if Samsung makes money on their player at this price, is losing a little (like I heard Toshiba does on the A2), or losing more money?
I'm still of the opinion based on the spread of prices I've seen up until now that the basic Blu-Ray mechanism probably costs more to produce, and if that's true, I'm wondering why that might be so.
If you think the BD players are unfairly priced and higher, then buying BD movies would shock you once more...
As marzetta7 just pointed out, there is now the $499 Samsung option. Even then, I never said I thought BD was unfairly priced higher -- I was wondering if for technical reasons it costs more to make the basic BD playback mechanism. BD movies cost more for technical reasons -- more changes need to be made to adapt a disc pressing plant to make BD than for HD DVD, and BD requires a special spin-coat process to protect its otherwise dangerously fragile construction.
As marzetta7 just pointed out, there is now the $499 Samsung option. Even then, I never said I thought BD was unfairly priced higher -- I was wondering if for technical reasons it costs more to make the basic BD playback mechanism. BD movies cost more for technical reasons -- more changes need to be made to adapt a disc pressing plant to make BD than for HD DVD, and BD requires a special spin-coat process to protect its otherwise dangerously fragile construction.
The officially reduced price on Samsung BD player is $799, where recently released 2nd generation HD-DVD player is $499. However, the street price may be even lower, but at $499 Sammy is probably a refurb item which is readily available online. The brand new HD-A2 can be had for around $399 and will likely hit lower prices in next 6 months.
Anyway, when a product is priced higher but does not deliver at the level quality of the cheaper counter part, then the product is unfairly priced. Consumer pays for the new technology, but the new technology has no benefit in the field of application, then it's just waste of resources and cost.
Comments
I had the same question as I had the feeling that many of the most enthusiastic posters were all talk and hadn't put their money where their mouth was.
I fully intend to buy Blu-ray. As soon as Apple offers BR burners on their Mac Pros, which may be as soon as January but certainly well before WWDC. I have no use for a gaming system as I'm not a gamer, not even on my Macs and PC, and no longer believe in buying dedicated players when computers can do all the same things.
I fully intend to buy Blu-ray. As soon as Apple offers BR burners on their Mac Pros, which may be as soon as January but certainly well before WWDC. I have no use for a gaming system as I'm not a gamer, not even on my Macs and PC, and no longer believe in buying dedicated players when computers can do all the same things.
Why would you want to watch HD movies on a computer monitor? The real benefit of HD is on larger screens. There is a reason for dedicated units, so people can hook them up to their large TVs and projectors. I guess, if you plan on hooking up your computer to your TV, but then you need to wait for Apple to also include an HDCP complaint video card...
Why would you want to watch HD movies on a computer monitor? The real benefit of HD is on larger screens. There is a reason for dedicated units, so people can hook them up to their large TVs and projectors. I guess, if you plan on hooking up your computer to your TV, but then you need to wait for Apple to also include an HDCP complaint video card...
Well... I use 37" LCD as a computer monitor/HDTV in my bedroom. So, I can definitely enjoy having HD-DVD play back on my computer monitor.
You just said you're getting a PS3. You're already "in" by then. Netlix will be your buddy if you want to rent movies. Both platforms will eventually be hybrid devices meaning you'll have the physical carrier but they will be network enabled to download new content.
I almost never watch movies (though they'll obviously be Blu-Ray or DVD if I do for the time being).
I'm definately holding out for buying any movies though until this thing gets sorted.
Why would you want to watch HD movies on a computer monitor? The real benefit of HD is on larger screens. There is a reason for dedicated units, so people can hook them up to their large TVs and projectors. I guess, if you plan on hooking up your computer to your TV, but then you need to wait for Apple to also include an HDCP complaint video card...
You've never seen my personal work area. 24" widescreen LCD, fully capable of displaying 1080 resolution. I'm seriously hankering for the 30" Dell LCD, which will be higher resolution than any HDTV, although I may wait for the next model with HDMI. I may be getting long in the tooth, but my close-up vision is still pretty good and I prefer images at close range, 24" or less. At that distance, a 24" LCD matches your big projectors for field of view and beats it for sharpness. Sorry, but no way any projected image at 10 feet is going to match a direct-view image for sharpness at 2 feet. Logitech Z-5500 surround sound system mounted around me. My zero-gravity chair beats any sofa for comfort. Who needs a home theater when I've got a personal theater?
You've never seen my personal work area. 24" widescreen LCD, fully capable of displaying 1080 resolution. I'm seriously hankering for the 30" Dell LCD, which will be higher resolution than any HDTV, although I may wait for the next model with HDMI. I may be getting long in the tooth, but my close-up vision is still pretty good and I prefer images at close range, 24" or less.
Hey, if that works for you, all the more power to you, but that's not going to be very satisfying for many people. First of all, it's harder to make a movie into a family or social experience when you're viewing a relatively small monitor from such a close distance, and second, even if your monitor's picture fills the same (or greater) visual angle in your field of vision, for most people there's an extra sense of drama to seeing something at a greater distance filling a large portion of their viewing field.
I know I'm not giving up my 70" HDTV (full 1920x1080 res, of course) any time soon in favor of a computer monitor.
At that distance, a 24" LCD matches your big projectors for field of view and beats it for sharpness. Sorry, but no way any projected image at 10 feet is going to match a direct-view image for sharpness at 2 feet.
Personal visual problems like nearsightedness or farsightedness aside, sharpness will be a function of the visual angle of each pixel, regardless of viewing distance. Seated about 12' from my 70" display, each pixel on my TV is just a little below one arc minute (one sixtieth of one degree), with one arc minute generally being recognized as the limit of human visual acuity -- in other words, my TV, viewed comfortably from my sofa, is pretty much just as sharp as it possibly can be.
Your claim is not inherently true. It may or may not be true depending on specific distance, screen size, and resolution numbers thrown into the mix. Remember that ideally you want individual pixels to disappear -- if you can make out crisply defined individual pixels, that might create a certain illusion of sharpness, but that's not really a positive effect for picture quality.
The Xbox 360 is also outselling the PS3. The point is the PS3 sales are already beginning to level out so I don't really expect for there to be a huge influx of hungry movie fans.
What's going to give Blu-ray a boost is some better titles coming from exclusive studios.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
As far as that goes, the Wii is blowing them all away. So...yes, I've seen a console as popular as the PS3.
People who own PS2s are not guaranteed purchasers for the PS3. The PS2 offered DVD, which was a technology that showed immediate advantages even on older televisions. Blu-Ray is only advantageous if you've got a large HDTV to view it on, which means that the vast majority of consumers won't care.
Keep in mind that the PS2 also launched at half the price of the PS3, $299.
There's nothing guaranteed about Blu-Ray at this point. HD-DVD is simply at a better market position, with more affordable hardware and equivilant picture quality.
edit: spelling and corrections.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
Well... I'm not sure how closely you've been following the gaming console market, but Wii has been kicking PS3's butt since day one and the demand has gone up even higher. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, because PS3 isn't PS2. A simple reason is that PS2 wasn't selling at $499/$599 tag, and it doesn't matter what HiDef dvd format PS3 can play..... Basically, PS3 is too expensive as a gaming console, but a cheap BD player. What demographics of consumers can this product be matched to? Only those enthusiasts.... and they are numbered and so is PS3 sales.
Well... I'm not sure how closely you've been following the gaming console market, but Wii has been kicking PS3's butt since day one and the demand has gone up even higher. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, because PS3 isn't PS2. A simple reason is that PS2 wasn't selling at $499/$599 tag, and it doesn't matter what HiDef dvd format PS3 can play..... Basically, PS3 is too expensive as a gaming console, but a cheap BD player. What demographics of consumers can this product be matched to? Only those enthusiasts.... and they are numbered and so is PS3 sales.
That's the hype of Sony marketing. The Playstation 2 was a killer product. I'll admit that it make the Xbox look like the rookie product it was. However Microsoft has made much more improvements IMO opinion from this generation than Sony has thus far. Of course they had a headstart so I'm willing to give the PS3 time.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=158897930&play=1#
Wii - 1.8million
PS3 - 750k
360 - 2million
NPD numbers. Not wholly accurate but close enough to see a trend. The Wii and Xbox 360 are taking advantage of the fact that they aren't trying to stuff a Cell proc and Blue laser into a box.
I just spoke with a friend that bough a 42" LCD and Xbox 360 for Xmas. She said that she wants to order and Xbox HD DVD add on because its so cheap.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
Actually i've seen bunches of reports stating that people are walking into stores and finding PS3 available. The demand is no longer there for ebay which means Sony has pretty much saturated the "gotta have it" maket. The PS3 is going to be important to the battle but this is a war that cannot be won and will not be won. Universal players will rule the day in a couple of years. What HD DVD fans are fighting for now is getting some studio support parity for the players that are delivered that won't be Universal.
Well... I'm not sure how closely you've been following the gaming console market, but Wii has been kicking PS3's butt since day one and the demand has gone up even higher. People have to wake up and smell the coffee, because PS3 isn't PS2. A simple reason is that PS2 wasn't selling at $499/$599 tag, and it doesn't matter what HiDef dvd format PS3 can play..... Basically, PS3 is too expensive as a gaming console, but a cheap BD player. What demographics of consumers can this product be matched to? Only those enthusiasts.... and they are numbered and so is PS3 sales.
Here we go again, what originally started as a video thread has strayed over into the relative merits of gaming machines. Somehow, the Wii has wandered in even though you can't watch HD movies on it.
Bite, you did get one thing half right when you mentioned only [video] enthusiasts are buying the PS3 as a BD player. The correct statement is only video enthusiasts are buying HD-DVD/Blue-Ray players. The average consumer sure isn't. This bodes ill for both formats for the forseeable future-- there's going to be a lot of red ink on companies' balance sheets.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
this guy is off by so much its not even funny.
did you just wake up recently? who cares what the ps2 did because if you mess up this console's generation bad enough people aren't going to hop on board. no gaming machine has been number 1 three generations in a row to let you know since you're so keen on history repeating.
the xbox was microsofts first attempt at producing a machine, you shouldn't' forget that. this gen is isn't like last time, publishers didn't really know what to expect from microsoft, leaving the xbox lacking games but this time almost every one has hopped on board (GTA, virtue fighter 5) just to name two huge titles that were once exlcusive to the Playstation brand.
Fourth: the xbox360 sold a lot more during its launch. if the ps3 continues to have manufacturing issues they may sell a lot less next year than the 360 did. remember the 360 launched in europe, japan, and the U.S all at the same time, sony hasn't even launched the ps3 in europe yet!
Here we go again, what originally started as a video thread has strayed over into the relative merits of gaming machines. Somehow, the Wii has wandered in even though you can't watch HD movies on it.
Bite, you did get one thing half right when you mentioned only [video] enthusiasts are buying the PS3 as a BD player. The correct statement is only video enthusiasts are buying HD-DVD/Blue-Ray players. The average consumer sure isn't. This bodes ill for both formats for the forseeable future-- there's going to be a lot of red ink on companies' balance sheets.
The reason to bring in the gaming console to the discussion is because many have been fantasizing PS3 as a trojan horse in the Hi-Def dvd hardware market as it was supposedly to be sold by gazillions to homes and all of the sudden turn every gamers into a HiDef movie enthusiasts. I was just making the point that PS3 is no where near being anything trojan at this points since it's not even winning the gaming console war and will not turn every gamers into a Hi-Def movie enthousiast at any means.
And you're right about Hi-Def format popularity only in the enthusiast community at this time, however, the potential of reaching the key price point to lure in consumers is more feasible with HD-DVD than BD. You can find standalone DVD players as low as $399, and will get even cheaper in the $299 within next 6 months. Anyway, alot of red inks from companies balance sheets will mostly come from BD hardware supporters since Sony is taking away everything from the standalone BD player market. I guess the PS3 is trojan horse to itself. Eitherway, HD-DVD has won the Hi-Def format war in 2006, even with the great trojan horse from Sony.
OK, I've read through at least three of your HD-DVD cheerleading, Blu-Ray bashing posts. First, your post about not neccessarily shipping Blu-Ray products just because a company is on the board is off base. Look at your list...almost all of them do so.
Next: Any sales figures you could find for the PS3 would be totally invalid right now due stocking and distributing issues (they're not making enough). We have to wait for about a year to really see what's going on. So, your assertion of sales "leveling" is bogus.
Third: Playstation TWO positively obliterated the Xbox's sales numbers. Try 111 million to date versus 24 million to date. That means a much larger installed user base.
Fourth: In one month, Sony has sold 400,000 playstations compared the Xbox 360's 6 million in 15 months. And, Sony did it with extremely limited supply.
Fifth: Anecdotal evidence. Have you ever seen a console as popular as the PS3...with people lining up for days and prices on ebay that hit $5-10K at one point. Not since the Atari 2600 has their been such insanity. Sure, you can get them now for $50 over retail, but you still can't find one in a store. They can't make enough of them to meet demand, and that's with a price 35% higher than the xbox 360.
All of that said, no one knows who will "win" the format war. I would say Blu-Ray has a better chance, if not solely because of the PS3. They have a bigger consortium and the power of Sony Pictures behind them too.
Well stated. As you can see from the post above mine, some people here think the format war is all but over, but in reality, it has just begun.
Just to add to your sound logic, not only does the BDA have the bigge consortium, but also have the EXCLUSIVE power of Fox, Disney, MGM, and Lionsgate. Blu-ray definitely has a better chance in the studio side, the CE side, and the IT side. In summation, the industry in NOT on HD DVD's side.
Can anyone tell me why Blu Ray players are so much more expensive than HD DVD players? Is the basic mechanism more expensive because, perhaps, it's trickier to focus on data so near the disc surface? Are optics for HD DVD closer to standard DVD optics, and perhaps the overall price there benefits more from existing lower-priced tech? (Just wild guessing on my part -- please take that into account in your replies.)
That's just it, Blu-ray players are NOT so much more expensive, as cost of both HD DVD and Blu-ray players are the SAME--$499.
Can anyone tell me why Blu Ray players are so much more expensive than HD DVD players? Is the basic mechanism more expensive because, perhaps, it's trickier to focus on data so near the disc surface? Are optics for HD DVD closer to standard DVD optics, and perhaps the overall price there benefits more from existing lower-priced tech? (Just wild guessing on my part -- please take that into account in your replies.)
If you think the BD players are unfairly priced and higher, then buying BD movies would shock you once more. In average, BD movie titles cost more than the average HD-DVD movies. Of course, if you're buying a combo HD-DVD(which I hate supporting), which has DVD layer plus the HD-DVD layer on the flip side, would cost about the same as the BD movie prices, but most HD-DVD (dual layer) movies are cheaper.
Anyway, if you're comparing the street price of any of the Hi-Def players, then some of the online shops do offer $399 and lower prices which also includes 3 free HD-DVD's from toshiba promo.
BTW, here's a interesting read in PQ comparison of PS3 vs. xbox360 HD-DVD add on vs. SD-DVD. The reviewer gives the crown to xbox360 add on even it's only using analog vs. HDMI for PS3.
http://www.gamescentral.com/blogs/te...vd-vs-dvd.aspx
That's just it, Blu-ray players are NOT so much more expensive, as cost of both HD DVD and Blu-ray players are the SAME--$499.
Are you referring to the Samsung BD-P1000? I hadn't see a Blu-Ray player as cheap as that until just now. I wonder if Samsung makes money on their player at this price, is losing a little (like I heard Toshiba does on the A2), or losing more money?
I'm still of the opinion based on the spread of prices I've seen up until now that the basic Blu-Ray mechanism probably costs more to produce, and if that's true, I'm wondering why that might be so.
If you think the BD players are unfairly priced and higher, then buying BD movies would shock you once more...
As marzetta7 just pointed out, there is now the $499 Samsung option. Even then, I never said I thought BD was unfairly priced higher -- I was wondering if for technical reasons it costs more to make the basic BD playback mechanism. BD movies cost more for technical reasons -- more changes need to be made to adapt a disc pressing plant to make BD than for HD DVD, and BD requires a special spin-coat process to protect its otherwise dangerously fragile construction.
As marzetta7 just pointed out, there is now the $499 Samsung option. Even then, I never said I thought BD was unfairly priced higher -- I was wondering if for technical reasons it costs more to make the basic BD playback mechanism. BD movies cost more for technical reasons -- more changes need to be made to adapt a disc pressing plant to make BD than for HD DVD, and BD requires a special spin-coat process to protect its otherwise dangerously fragile construction.
The officially reduced price on Samsung BD player is $799, where recently released 2nd generation HD-DVD player is $499. However, the street price may be even lower, but at $499 Sammy is probably a refurb item which is readily available online. The brand new HD-A2 can be had for around $399 and will likely hit lower prices in next 6 months.
Anyway, when a product is priced higher but does not deliver at the level quality of the cheaper counter part, then the product is unfairly priced. Consumer pays for the new technology, but the new technology has no benefit in the field of application, then it's just waste of resources and cost.