Blu-Ray's region codes are being used on some discs. I have a few Sony/CTS titles that at least say they are region coded on the package. There is at least one site that list tested region codes of Blu-Ray discs. Region coding doesn't matter much in the US, but outside the US, it's a much bigger concern for consumers. The last time I saw figures, 70% of DVD players in Europe were region free.
The people that seem to know say that BD-J documentation is quite expensive but HDi is much less so. Blu-Ray supposedly requires the use of a $2500 AACS key to produce a commercial disc, no matter the lot size, and HD DVD did not.
I don't know anything about the costs involved. Possibly newer disks are using encoding, I don't know.
I tend to agree, but the Wii is going to be hard to catch. They've already made their rep as the runaway hit of this console generation; meanwhile, Sony is going to have to fight to overcome their rep as an underachiever, thanks to the lackluster first year of the PS3.
Yes, the stars are starting to align the PS3's way: Blu-Ray won the format war, the PS3 price drop has helped (and no doubt there's more to come), Sony's online efforts are getting stronger, and they're finally due to starting to get some good games. All good in a conventional console war.
But the Wii isn't a conventional opponent, due to its ability to appeal to mainstream gamers, and even what were previously non-gamers.
When you see news stories about senior citizens happily playing Wii Bowling together in retirement homes, you know something's up in a paradigm-shifting way.
.
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well. The controller is nothing new, there have been controllers like that for computers before the Wii came out. I almost bought one. Both MS and Sony could come out with one if they wanted to.
There is no other current advantage to the Wii other than the lower price, which is becoming less and less.
But the PS3 can do more. For people who want to buy BD disks AND play games, while not spending too much, or who have little room, such as in a college dorm, or small apartment, the PS3 is a no brainer. It's also useful for movie downloads, network play, streaming video and music over the network, browsing the internet, AND you can install a Sony supported Linux distro, if you should want to play with that. And it does it all at 1080p.
What can the Wii do? Well, whatever it does do, which is much less, it does it at 480p widescreen.
The PS3 will catch up in a year to 18 months, maybe even surpass the Wii in that time. I've read that it's expected that in the long term, the PS3 is expected to become number one, but not buy as much as before.
I expect PS3 to surpass 360 within 12 months.
According to the chart on page 3 of this thread the 360 has sold 17M units and PS3 has sold 10M units. Considering the 360 has been out twice as long as the PS3 that means it's adoption rate is 17% faster than the 360. That doesn't include the Blu-ray laser production issues it first had or the recent dismissal of HD-DVD.
Anyone know if the 360 sales for its first 12 months without competition from new consoles from Nintendo or Sony?
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well. The controller is nothing new, there have been controllers like that for computers before the Wii came out. I almost bought one. Both MS and Sony could come out with one if they wanted to.
There is no other current advantage to the Wii other than the lower price, which is becoming less and less.
They can imitate the controllers, assuming there aren't patent issues in the way. But even if they ship controllers like that, they are at a disadvantage since those wouldn't be the standard controllers for the console and relatively few games would support them.
It's a HUGE advantage to have a feature as a standard part of the console, included with every box. In that case, every game supports it. Optional add-ons are always limited since there's a chicken/egg thing - people don't buy the add on because there's not enough game support, and devs don't support it because not enough consumers buy it.
Definitely, next time around MS and Sony will probably go with a controller that rips off the Wii. But in the meantime, that's definitely an advantage for Wii.
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well. The controller is nothing new, there have been controllers like that for computers before the Wii came out. I almost bought one. Both MS and Sony could come out with one if they wanted to.
There is no other current advantage to the Wii other than the lower price, which is becoming less and less.
But the PS3 can do more. For people who want to buy BD disks AND play games, while not spending too much, or who have little room, such as in a college dorm, or small apartment, the PS3 is a no brainer. It's also useful for movie downloads, network play, streaming video and music over the network, browsing the internet, AND you can install a Sony supported Linux distro, if you should want to play with that. And it does it all at 1080p.
What can the Wii do? Well, whatever it does do, which is much less, it does it at 480p widescreen.
You're kind of preaching to the converted Mel, considering that one of my prior jobs in the console gaming industry was working for Sony.
That said, while I admired a lot of what Sony did, I never quite drank all the Kool-aid. Regardless of whether or not the Wii's motion controller is truly new, it is perceived as such. And its caught on enough that Sony has ALREADY copied some (but not all) of its functionality, by including motion control in its new standard controller, the Sixaxis. Want to play one of the newer flying games on the PS3? Just tilt the controller to bank the plane, spaceship, dragon, whatever. It's cool, but its also Sony chasing Nintendo, in this console generation, anyway. And gamers have noticed.
And the Wii's lower price is not just an advantage, but a devastating advantage, given that the US is about to enter recession, and much of the rest of the rich world will slow down economically concurrently.
Finally, one can't forget that Nintendo has probably the best first-party development studio in the world. Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc. etc.... they just never seem to run out of hits.
Now, I'm very well aware of the PS3's advantages- much more emphasis on online gaming, much better graphics, Blu-Ray player inside, and of course Sony has its own hit games too. But I'm just not willing to count the Wii out. The games are just fun, even if they're not as big among the hardcore, and Nintendo just has seemed to get everything right with this product in order to maximize its appeal to a wider audience than what consoles have traditionally had.
To the hardcore, the PS3 is the obvious choice. To everyone else, it's a lot less clear. This video kind of sums it up:
They can imitate the controllers, assuming there aren't patent issues in the way. But even if they ship controllers like that, they are at a disadvantage since those wouldn't be the standard controllers for the console and relatively few games would support them.
It's a HUGE advantage to have a feature as a standard part of the console, included with every box. In that case, every game supports it. Optional add-ons are always limited since there's a chicken/egg thing - people don't buy the add on because there's not enough game support, and devs don't support it because not enough consumers buy it.
Definitely, next time around MS and Sony will probably go with a controller that rips off the Wii. But in the meantime, that's definitely an advantage for Wii.
That's very true, but not every game benefits from those controllers. Games like racing games that work best with wheels, etc, aren't packed with a console, but are bought by those who like them.
If we're talking about 10 to 20 million people a year buying each type of console, enough would buy the controller, if there was a game they wanted, that needed it.
My daughter has had two floor pads for DDR for years, replacing them as they wear out. That didn't come with the PS2, but are very popular, and new disks are still coming out.
You're kind of preaching to the converted Mel, considering that one of my prior jobs in the console gaming industry was working for Sony.
That said, while I admired a lot of what Sony did, I never quite drank all the Kool-aid. Regardless of whether or not the Wii's motion controller is truly new, it is perceived as such. And its caught on enough that Sony has ALREADY copied some (but not all) of its functionality, by including motion control in its new standard controller, the Sixaxis. Want to play one of the newer flying games on the PS3? Just tilt the controller to bank the plane, spaceship, dragon, whatever. It's cool, but its also Sony chasing Nintendo, in this console generation, anyway. And gamers have noticed.
And the Wii's lower price is not just an advantage, but a devastating advantage, given that the US is about to enter recession, and much of the rest of the rich world will slow down economically concurrently.
Finally, one can't forget that Nintendo has probably the best first-party development studio in the world. Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc. etc.... they just never seem to run out of hits.
Now, I'm very well aware of the PS3's advantages- much more emphasis on online gaming, much better graphics, Blu-Ray player inside, and of course Sony has its own hit games too. But I'm just not willing to count the Wii out. The games are just fun, even if they're not as big among the hardcore, and Nintendo just has seemed to get everything right with this product in order to maximize its appeal to a wider audience than what consoles have traditionally had.
To the hardcore, the PS3 is the obvious choice. To everyone else, it's a lot less clear. This video kind of sums it up:
Yeah, sorry. Sometimes when I post, knowing that others will read it, I post for a general reader as well as to the person I'm posting to.
I'm certainly not counting the Wii out. I just think that the PS3 hasn't hit its stride yet, while the Wii has. The Wii has no where to go from here. More of the same, while the PS3 is just getting started, and the price drops will be devastating to the competition. When there is but a $50 or even a $25 difference between the price of the PS3 and the Wii, what will happen?
How about "make a net profit selling at its retail price"; can a PS3 do that?
They're actually quite close right now. I believe each console costs ~$400 which is pretty good this early in its life cycle. They're still a ways off from the sort of profitability Nintendo's enjoying but the PS3 is a solid product that they seem to be managing well.
TBell, do you intentionally make your posts hard to read with tons of spelling, grammatical and factual errors? Proofread, spellcheck, edit and above all, check your facts, please. You keep telling people to do Google searches but never cite any websites that back your claims. Everybody knows you can't trust everything you read on the Web, but you don't give us any way to judge the sites you're using to back up your arguments. No reputable websites back your contention that Sony or the BDA paid off Fox or Warner. Your other points are just as shaky.
Besides, when all is said and done, you can rail and rant all you want that it wasn't a fair fight and Sony did this and Sony screwed up, but the simple, undeniable fact of the matter is Blu-ray won. You can type until your fingers are raw and it won't change a blessed thing.
First, this is America, I don't have to spell check. You want to read perfect spelling and grammar, go read the New York Times. Being that English is not my first language, I think I am doing OK. Moreover, if you want to criticize people, at least offer them corrections so they know what you are talking about. When you offer the corrections, please also provide sources since you seem to be into that.
No, you are correct. I am not making the argument that format turned people off of the PS3. I think people could care less, other then there is more Blue Ray content. Price is what turned people off.
Sony might have more room to drop prices. If analysts are correct, however, Sony currently is still taking a hefty loss on the sale of the players. Microsoft on the other hand is making a profit on the sale of the player. So is Nintendo. If Microsoft and Nintendo wanted to play hardball with Sony, they could more easily lower the cost of their units. If history is any indicator, Sony would have to follow suit. In doing so, Sony would even bleed more money, while Microsoft and Nintendo would suffer much less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Now that is a really specious argument. If you were to argue that the price of the PS3 was too high in the beginning, and part of that reason was the inclusion of the BD drive, it would make sense.
But please don't try to tell people that the PS3 didn't sell as well as it should have because of BD, the format, as you are implying!
Price, yes. Format, no. Now that the price has dropped to just $50 more than the 360, sales have jumped, and are actually higher than the 360. It's a far better value.
You do know that the BD player plays DVD and CD's as well, don't you? There is no reason for someone who knows what the unit is to not buy it because of it.
Jeez, the game mags, and sites, have explained this very well, ad infinitum.
Sony also has more room to drop prices than MS does, BECAUSE of the newer technology.
I never said that Toshiba decided for people. I said content providers and retailers decided for people. As far as the Warner and Fox claims go, I notice you haven't provided any sources debunking the pay off claims. If it has been debunked so many times, you could easily provide the sources.
It is true both formats have DRM capabilities. However, HD-DVD has the ability to shut it off. As a content provider you have to pay for the DRM licensing rights. That ultimately drives the cost of content up, even in the case of content providers who otherwise wouldn't use DRM if not required to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Your numbers are off. The ratio during most of the time up to the last quarter was 2 to 1, not 4 to 1.
But that bgan to change in the holiday season, as BD player sales increased more than Hd-DVD sales did. and that was after Toshiba paid Paramount to stop producing BD disks.
You might say that Toshiba ws the one trying to decide for us.
That BS about Fox and Warner has been debunked so many times already it's not worth mentioning it.
Your second to last paragraph is correct, but then you go and spoil it again with the silliness in the last one.
BD has the same DRM as HD-DVD. Look it up. Both have Managed Copy. that's all that matters. As though most people will want to pay more for extras.
[B]First, this is America, I don't have to spell check.
Indeed you don't have to. But it is advisable if you want people to pay attention, read your posts and take you seriously. If you don't want that to happen, why bother posting in a public forum?
That said, I think you're doing a very good job if English is not your native tongue. In fact, I must congratulate you on using "its" correctly! But since you asked, here are corrections (for your education) to some of the mistakes you made in your first long post to this thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Blue Ray ... Blueray
Both should be "Blu-Ray"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
far more HD players were sold as stand alone units then Blue Ray players
Should be "far more HD players were sold as stand alone units than Blue Ray players"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
stand alone
Should be "stand-alone"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
the DVD player build in the PS2
Should be "the DVD player built into the PS2"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
retailors
Is spelt "retailers"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
whatever format is hand feed to them
Should be "whatever format is hand-fed to them"
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix could care less
Should be "Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix couldn't care less" (sarcastic inversion isn't valid in written communication).
My only point is simple: consumers didn't decide the winner. Nowhere did I rail and rant that the fight wasn't fair.
What is this nonsense about consumers?
Consumers never fully make a choice. The Beta-VHS war was the only other time when there was a real choice. This is no different. Even so, companies make the final decisions, as they must.
Other than that, companies always make the choice. And that's how it should be. Consumers don't have access to the important technical and economic issues that the companies must deal with. After all, if they can't make money from it, they they can't produce it.
Did we have a choice with Edison cylinder? How about the various "78"s" that came out after? What about the RCA 45, and Columbia's 33 and a third?
How about tape? 15 ips 10.5"? 7.5 ips 7"? 3 3/4 ips?
8 track?
Cassette?
AM?
FM?
CD?
DVD?
What does the consumer get a choice in that results in a standard?
NTSC?
The lightbulb? AC vs DC?
Inventors, and companies, decide that. Sometimes the government must step in so that things don't get out of hand, such as the FCC.
Consumers get a chance to choose which products become popular after a standard is established.
In fact, the Beta-VHS and now the BD vs HD-DVD battles were the only major standards battle consumers ever had a say in at all.
Sony might have more room to drop prices. If analysts are correct, however, Sony currently is still taking a hefty loss on the sale of the players. Microsoft on the other hand is making a profit on the sale of the player. So is Nintendo. If Microsoft and Nintendo wanted to play hardball with Sony, they could more easily lower the cost of their units. If history is any indicator, Sony would have to follow suit. In doing so, Sony would even bleed more money, while Microsoft and Nintendo would suffer much less.
Actually, sony just declared a several hundred million dollar profit in their games division, while MS declared a few months ago that they were putting over $1.2 billion aside for warrantee repair of the 360. Estimates are that this loss could go very much higher, so they have NO profits in their game division, as warrantee costs must be accounted for in it. Operating profits aside, this cost is coming in as people send their consoles in for repair, sometimes, several times.
MS canr afford to lower prices much, the warrantee costs are killing them as it is.
Nintendo, can lower prices somewhat, as they are making profits on each machine. But, unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo is a one trick pony. All they are is a game company. They must make good profits on all their products.
Besides, Sony is the one lowering prices, not MS or Nintendo, so that spoils your argument. Sony is putting pressure on them, not the other way around. They may have to respond in kind, and they won't be happy about it.
I never said that Toshiba decided for people. I said content providers and retailers decided for people. As far as the Warner and Fox claims go, I notice you haven't provided any sources debunking the pay off claims. If it has been debunked so many times, you could easily provide the sources.
By paying Paramount, Toshiba attempted to sway the consumer. What else is new/ I didn't say you said they decided, but you may as well have said so, by you statements about everyone else, as it amounts to the same thing.
There is no source for the claim, just a rumor spread by him. No one has been able to verify it.
Warner, and others, would have to report the income, just as Paramount had to. You might notice that Paramount never denied the payoff, but both Warner and others have. Sony would also have to report the money, and they denied it as well. They cant do that without getting trouble with the FTc and other agencies if they lied.
By the way, Toshiba's maneuverings in the DVD trade association that led to their approving the HD-DVD amongst much protest may be looked at by the government.
Quote:
It is true both formats have DRM capabilities. However, HD-DVD has the ability to shut it off. As a content provider you have to pay for the DRM licensing rights. That ultimately drives the cost of content up, even in the case of content providers who otherwise wouldn't use DRM if not required to do so.
And just how does it do that? Where does it say that?
MS cant afford to lower prices much, the warrantee costs are killing them as it is.
Yep. Not to mention that, with all the money they're going to have to fork over to buy Yahoo (probably $50 billion, when all is said and done), Microsoft will actually have to stop throwing money at all their other problems for awhile.
Blu-Ray's region codes are being used on some discs. I have a few Sony/CTS titles that at least say they are region coded on the package. There is at least one site that list tested region codes of Blu-Ray discs. Region coding doesn't matter much in the US, but outside the US, it's a much bigger concern for consumers. The last time I saw figures, 70% of DVD players in Europe were region free.
The people that seem to know say that BD-J documentation is quite expensive but HDi is much less so. Blu-Ray supposedly requires the use of a $2500 AACS key to produce a commercial disc, no matter the lot size, and HD DVD did not.
not to mention ms was giving away free developer tools.
set up costs for B-R for authoring houses are astronomical, as well. i wouldn't expect many titles coming from outside the main studios for a while. java programmers will be in demand, especially for BR-i.
but then again, it wasn't so much different when dvd was new... but there was a lower cost alternative in HD-DVD.
If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing you do is not "shout" in a completely bolded message. Those who cannot win on the merits of their arguments resort to "shouting."
Secondly, that link is worthless. We will not do your research for you by sifting through Google searches. Link directly to a website. Surely, it can't be that hard to find just one or two reputable sites that state clearly there was a Blu-ray (and that is the correct spelling) payout. Find a report from the New York Times, USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. I'll even accept Home Media Magazine, PC World or TV Guide. The fact is none have because it was nothing but unsubstantiated rumor.
Comments
Blu-Ray's region codes are being used on some discs. I have a few Sony/CTS titles that at least say they are region coded on the package. There is at least one site that list tested region codes of Blu-Ray discs. Region coding doesn't matter much in the US, but outside the US, it's a much bigger concern for consumers. The last time I saw figures, 70% of DVD players in Europe were region free.
The people that seem to know say that BD-J documentation is quite expensive but HDi is much less so. Blu-Ray supposedly requires the use of a $2500 AACS key to produce a commercial disc, no matter the lot size, and HD DVD did not.
I don't know anything about the costs involved. Possibly newer disks are using encoding, I don't know.
I tend to agree, but the Wii is going to be hard to catch. They've already made their rep as the runaway hit of this console generation; meanwhile, Sony is going to have to fight to overcome their rep as an underachiever, thanks to the lackluster first year of the PS3.
Yes, the stars are starting to align the PS3's way: Blu-Ray won the format war, the PS3 price drop has helped (and no doubt there's more to come), Sony's online efforts are getting stronger, and they're finally due to starting to get some good games. All good in a conventional console war.
But the Wii isn't a conventional opponent, due to its ability to appeal to mainstream gamers, and even what were previously non-gamers.
When you see news stories about senior citizens happily playing Wii Bowling together in retirement homes, you know something's up in a paradigm-shifting way.
.
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well. The controller is nothing new, there have been controllers like that for computers before the Wii came out. I almost bought one. Both MS and Sony could come out with one if they wanted to.
There is no other current advantage to the Wii other than the lower price, which is becoming less and less.
But the PS3 can do more. For people who want to buy BD disks AND play games, while not spending too much, or who have little room, such as in a college dorm, or small apartment, the PS3 is a no brainer. It's also useful for movie downloads, network play, streaming video and music over the network, browsing the internet, AND you can install a Sony supported Linux distro, if you should want to play with that. And it does it all at 1080p.
What can the Wii do? Well, whatever it does do, which is much less, it does it at 480p widescreen.
The PS3 will catch up in a year to 18 months, maybe even surpass the Wii in that time. I've read that it's expected that in the long term, the PS3 is expected to become number one, but not buy as much as before.
I expect PS3 to surpass 360 within 12 months.
According to the chart on page 3 of this thread the 360 has sold 17M units and PS3 has sold 10M units. Considering the 360 has been out twice as long as the PS3 that means it's adoption rate is 17% faster than the 360. That doesn't include the Blu-ray laser production issues it first had or the recent dismissal of HD-DVD.
Anyone know if the 360 sales for its first 12 months without competition from new consoles from Nintendo or Sony?
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well. The controller is nothing new, there have been controllers like that for computers before the Wii came out. I almost bought one. Both MS and Sony could come out with one if they wanted to.
There is no other current advantage to the Wii other than the lower price, which is becoming less and less.
They can imitate the controllers, assuming there aren't patent issues in the way. But even if they ship controllers like that, they are at a disadvantage since those wouldn't be the standard controllers for the console and relatively few games would support them.
It's a HUGE advantage to have a feature as a standard part of the console, included with every box. In that case, every game supports it. Optional add-ons are always limited since there's a chicken/egg thing - people don't buy the add on because there's not enough game support, and devs don't support it because not enough consumers buy it.
Definitely, next time around MS and Sony will probably go with a controller that rips off the Wii. But in the meantime, that's definitely an advantage for Wii.
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well. The controller is nothing new, there have been controllers like that for computers before the Wii came out. I almost bought one. Both MS and Sony could come out with one if they wanted to.
There is no other current advantage to the Wii other than the lower price, which is becoming less and less.
But the PS3 can do more. For people who want to buy BD disks AND play games, while not spending too much, or who have little room, such as in a college dorm, or small apartment, the PS3 is a no brainer. It's also useful for movie downloads, network play, streaming video and music over the network, browsing the internet, AND you can install a Sony supported Linux distro, if you should want to play with that. And it does it all at 1080p.
What can the Wii do? Well, whatever it does do, which is much less, it does it at 480p widescreen.
You're kind of preaching to the converted Mel, considering that one of my prior jobs in the console gaming industry was working for Sony.
That said, while I admired a lot of what Sony did, I never quite drank all the Kool-aid. Regardless of whether or not the Wii's motion controller is truly new, it is perceived as such. And its caught on enough that Sony has ALREADY copied some (but not all) of its functionality, by including motion control in its new standard controller, the Sixaxis. Want to play one of the newer flying games on the PS3? Just tilt the controller to bank the plane, spaceship, dragon, whatever. It's cool, but its also Sony chasing Nintendo, in this console generation, anyway. And gamers have noticed.
And the Wii's lower price is not just an advantage, but a devastating advantage, given that the US is about to enter recession, and much of the rest of the rich world will slow down economically concurrently.
Finally, one can't forget that Nintendo has probably the best first-party development studio in the world. Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc. etc.... they just never seem to run out of hits.
Now, I'm very well aware of the PS3's advantages- much more emphasis on online gaming, much better graphics, Blu-Ray player inside, and of course Sony has its own hit games too. But I'm just not willing to count the Wii out. The games are just fun, even if they're not as big among the hardcore, and Nintendo just has seemed to get everything right with this product in order to maximize its appeal to a wider audience than what consoles have traditionally had.
To the hardcore, the PS3 is the obvious choice. To everyone else, it's a lot less clear. This video kind of sums it up:
'I'm a PS3, I'm a Wii' video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S8bngWtLDY
.
I don't think there's anything the Wii can do that the PS3 can't do as well.
How about "make a net profit selling at its retail price"; can a PS3 do that?
They can imitate the controllers, assuming there aren't patent issues in the way. But even if they ship controllers like that, they are at a disadvantage since those wouldn't be the standard controllers for the console and relatively few games would support them.
It's a HUGE advantage to have a feature as a standard part of the console, included with every box. In that case, every game supports it. Optional add-ons are always limited since there's a chicken/egg thing - people don't buy the add on because there's not enough game support, and devs don't support it because not enough consumers buy it.
Definitely, next time around MS and Sony will probably go with a controller that rips off the Wii. But in the meantime, that's definitely an advantage for Wii.
That's very true, but not every game benefits from those controllers. Games like racing games that work best with wheels, etc, aren't packed with a console, but are bought by those who like them.
If we're talking about 10 to 20 million people a year buying each type of console, enough would buy the controller, if there was a game they wanted, that needed it.
My daughter has had two floor pads for DDR for years, replacing them as they wear out. That didn't come with the PS2, but are very popular, and new disks are still coming out.
You're kind of preaching to the converted Mel, considering that one of my prior jobs in the console gaming industry was working for Sony.
That said, while I admired a lot of what Sony did, I never quite drank all the Kool-aid. Regardless of whether or not the Wii's motion controller is truly new, it is perceived as such. And its caught on enough that Sony has ALREADY copied some (but not all) of its functionality, by including motion control in its new standard controller, the Sixaxis. Want to play one of the newer flying games on the PS3? Just tilt the controller to bank the plane, spaceship, dragon, whatever. It's cool, but its also Sony chasing Nintendo, in this console generation, anyway. And gamers have noticed.
And the Wii's lower price is not just an advantage, but a devastating advantage, given that the US is about to enter recession, and much of the rest of the rich world will slow down economically concurrently.
Finally, one can't forget that Nintendo has probably the best first-party development studio in the world. Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros, etc. etc.... they just never seem to run out of hits.
Now, I'm very well aware of the PS3's advantages- much more emphasis on online gaming, much better graphics, Blu-Ray player inside, and of course Sony has its own hit games too. But I'm just not willing to count the Wii out. The games are just fun, even if they're not as big among the hardcore, and Nintendo just has seemed to get everything right with this product in order to maximize its appeal to a wider audience than what consoles have traditionally had.
To the hardcore, the PS3 is the obvious choice. To everyone else, it's a lot less clear. This video kind of sums it up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3S8bngWtLDY
.
Yeah, sorry. Sometimes when I post, knowing that others will read it, I post for a general reader as well as to the person I'm posting to.
I'm certainly not counting the Wii out. I just think that the PS3 hasn't hit its stride yet, while the Wii has. The Wii has no where to go from here. More of the same, while the PS3 is just getting started, and the price drops will be devastating to the competition. When there is but a $50 or even a $25 difference between the price of the PS3 and the Wii, what will happen?
How about "make a net profit selling at its retail price"; can a PS3 do that?
They're actually quite close right now. I believe each console costs ~$400 which is pretty good this early in its life cycle. They're still a ways off from the sort of profitability Nintendo's enjoying but the PS3 is a solid product that they seem to be managing well.
TBell, do you intentionally make your posts hard to read with tons of spelling, grammatical and factual errors? Proofread, spellcheck, edit and above all, check your facts, please. You keep telling people to do Google searches but never cite any websites that back your claims. Everybody knows you can't trust everything you read on the Web, but you don't give us any way to judge the sites you're using to back up your arguments. No reputable websites back your contention that Sony or the BDA paid off Fox or Warner. Your other points are just as shaky.
Besides, when all is said and done, you can rail and rant all you want that it wasn't a fair fight and Sony did this and Sony screwed up, but the simple, undeniable fact of the matter is Blu-ray won. You can type until your fingers are raw and it won't change a blessed thing.
First, this is America, I don't have to spell check. You want to read perfect spelling and grammar, go read the New York Times. Being that English is not my first language, I think I am doing OK. Moreover, if you want to criticize people, at least offer them corrections so they know what you are talking about. When you offer the corrections, please also provide sources since you seem to be into that.
As far as my sources go, here is the appropriate Google search for HD sales: http://www.google.com/views?q=hd+sta...=N&ct=infoview
You will notice that there are quite a few reputable sites that show up in the search.
Here is one for behind the scene deals that lead to Warner and Fox going with Blue Ray:
http://www.google.com/views?q=hd+sta...=N&ct=infoview
My only point is simple: consumers didn't decide the winner. Nowhere did I rail and rant that the fight wasn't fair.
When there is but a $50 or even a $25 difference between the price of the PS3 and the Wii, what will happen?
The PS3 will absolutely rock the house when the price delta becomes that low. But that day is still a couple of years away.
In the meanwhile, I see PS3 sales increasing, but more at the expense of the Xbox 360, not the Wii.
.
Sony might have more room to drop prices. If analysts are correct, however, Sony currently is still taking a hefty loss on the sale of the players. Microsoft on the other hand is making a profit on the sale of the player. So is Nintendo. If Microsoft and Nintendo wanted to play hardball with Sony, they could more easily lower the cost of their units. If history is any indicator, Sony would have to follow suit. In doing so, Sony would even bleed more money, while Microsoft and Nintendo would suffer much less.
Now that is a really specious argument. If you were to argue that the price of the PS3 was too high in the beginning, and part of that reason was the inclusion of the BD drive, it would make sense.
But please don't try to tell people that the PS3 didn't sell as well as it should have because of BD, the format, as you are implying!
Price, yes. Format, no. Now that the price has dropped to just $50 more than the 360, sales have jumped, and are actually higher than the 360. It's a far better value.
You do know that the BD player plays DVD and CD's as well, don't you? There is no reason for someone who knows what the unit is to not buy it because of it.
Jeez, the game mags, and sites, have explained this very well, ad infinitum.
Sony also has more room to drop prices than MS does, BECAUSE of the newer technology.
It is true both formats have DRM capabilities. However, HD-DVD has the ability to shut it off. As a content provider you have to pay for the DRM licensing rights. That ultimately drives the cost of content up, even in the case of content providers who otherwise wouldn't use DRM if not required to do so.
Your numbers are off. The ratio during most of the time up to the last quarter was 2 to 1, not 4 to 1.
But that bgan to change in the holiday season, as BD player sales increased more than Hd-DVD sales did. and that was after Toshiba paid Paramount to stop producing BD disks.
You might say that Toshiba ws the one trying to decide for us.
That BS about Fox and Warner has been debunked so many times already it's not worth mentioning it.
Your second to last paragraph is correct, but then you go and spoil it again with the silliness in the last one.
BD has the same DRM as HD-DVD. Look it up. Both have Managed Copy. that's all that matters. As though most people will want to pay more for extras.
[B]First, this is America, I don't have to spell check.
Indeed you don't have to. But it is advisable if you want people to pay attention, read your posts and take you seriously. If you don't want that to happen, why bother posting in a public forum?
That said, I think you're doing a very good job if English is not your native tongue. In fact, I must congratulate you on using "its" correctly! But since you asked, here are corrections (for your education) to some of the mistakes you made in your first long post to this thread:
Blue Ray ... Blueray
Both should be "Blu-Ray"
far more HD players were sold as stand alone units then Blue Ray players
Should be "far more HD players were sold as stand alone units than Blue Ray players"
stand alone
Should be "stand-alone"
the DVD player build in the PS2
Should be "the DVD player built into the PS2"
retailors
Is spelt "retailers"
whatever format is hand feed to them
Should be "whatever format is hand-fed to them"
Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix could care less
Should be "Companies like Best Buy, Walmart, Blockbuster, and Netflix couldn't care less" (sarcastic inversion isn't valid in written communication).
[B]
Here is one for behind the scene deals that lead to Warner and Fox going with Blue Ray:
http://www.google.com/views?q=hd+sta...=N&ct=infoview
That one has been debunked.
My only point is simple: consumers didn't decide the winner. Nowhere did I rail and rant that the fight wasn't fair.
What is this nonsense about consumers?
Consumers never fully make a choice. The Beta-VHS war was the only other time when there was a real choice. This is no different. Even so, companies make the final decisions, as they must.
Other than that, companies always make the choice. And that's how it should be. Consumers don't have access to the important technical and economic issues that the companies must deal with. After all, if they can't make money from it, they they can't produce it.
Did we have a choice with Edison cylinder? How about the various "78"s" that came out after? What about the RCA 45, and Columbia's 33 and a third?
How about tape? 15 ips 10.5"? 7.5 ips 7"? 3 3/4 ips?
8 track?
Cassette?
AM?
FM?
CD?
DVD?
What does the consumer get a choice in that results in a standard?
NTSC?
The lightbulb? AC vs DC?
Inventors, and companies, decide that. Sometimes the government must step in so that things don't get out of hand, such as the FCC.
Consumers get a chance to choose which products become popular after a standard is established.
In fact, the Beta-VHS and now the BD vs HD-DVD battles were the only major standards battle consumers ever had a say in at all.
Sony might have more room to drop prices. If analysts are correct, however, Sony currently is still taking a hefty loss on the sale of the players. Microsoft on the other hand is making a profit on the sale of the player. So is Nintendo. If Microsoft and Nintendo wanted to play hardball with Sony, they could more easily lower the cost of their units. If history is any indicator, Sony would have to follow suit. In doing so, Sony would even bleed more money, while Microsoft and Nintendo would suffer much less.
Actually, sony just declared a several hundred million dollar profit in their games division, while MS declared a few months ago that they were putting over $1.2 billion aside for warrantee repair of the 360. Estimates are that this loss could go very much higher, so they have NO profits in their game division, as warrantee costs must be accounted for in it. Operating profits aside, this cost is coming in as people send their consoles in for repair, sometimes, several times.
MS canr afford to lower prices much, the warrantee costs are killing them as it is.
Nintendo, can lower prices somewhat, as they are making profits on each machine. But, unlike MS and Sony, Nintendo is a one trick pony. All they are is a game company. They must make good profits on all their products.
Besides, Sony is the one lowering prices, not MS or Nintendo, so that spoils your argument. Sony is putting pressure on them, not the other way around. They may have to respond in kind, and they won't be happy about it.
I never said that Toshiba decided for people. I said content providers and retailers decided for people. As far as the Warner and Fox claims go, I notice you haven't provided any sources debunking the pay off claims. If it has been debunked so many times, you could easily provide the sources.
By paying Paramount, Toshiba attempted to sway the consumer. What else is new/ I didn't say you said they decided, but you may as well have said so, by you statements about everyone else, as it amounts to the same thing.
There is no source for the claim, just a rumor spread by him. No one has been able to verify it.
Warner, and others, would have to report the income, just as Paramount had to. You might notice that Paramount never denied the payoff, but both Warner and others have. Sony would also have to report the money, and they denied it as well. They cant do that without getting trouble with the FTc and other agencies if they lied.
By the way, Toshiba's maneuverings in the DVD trade association that led to their approving the HD-DVD amongst much protest may be looked at by the government.
It is true both formats have DRM capabilities. However, HD-DVD has the ability to shut it off. As a content provider you have to pay for the DRM licensing rights. That ultimately drives the cost of content up, even in the case of content providers who otherwise wouldn't use DRM if not required to do so.
And just how does it do that? Where does it say that?
MS cant afford to lower prices much, the warrantee costs are killing them as it is.
Yep. Not to mention that, with all the money they're going to have to fork over to buy Yahoo (probably $50 billion, when all is said and done), Microsoft will actually have to stop throwing money at all their other problems for awhile.
That will be fun to watch.
.
Blu-Ray's region codes are being used on some discs. I have a few Sony/CTS titles that at least say they are region coded on the package. There is at least one site that list tested region codes of Blu-Ray discs. Region coding doesn't matter much in the US, but outside the US, it's a much bigger concern for consumers. The last time I saw figures, 70% of DVD players in Europe were region free.
The people that seem to know say that BD-J documentation is quite expensive but HDi is much less so. Blu-Ray supposedly requires the use of a $2500 AACS key to produce a commercial disc, no matter the lot size, and HD DVD did not.
not to mention ms was giving away free developer tools.
set up costs for B-R for authoring houses are astronomical, as well. i wouldn't expect many titles coming from outside the main studios for a while. java programmers will be in demand, especially for BR-i.
but then again, it wasn't so much different when dvd was new... but there was a lower cost alternative in HD-DVD.
Here is one for behind the scene deals that lead to Warner and Fox going with Blue Ray:
http://www.google.com/views?q=hd+sta...=N&ct=infoview
If you want to be taken seriously, the first thing you do is not "shout" in a completely bolded message. Those who cannot win on the merits of their arguments resort to "shouting."
Secondly, that link is worthless. We will not do your research for you by sifting through Google searches. Link directly to a website. Surely, it can't be that hard to find just one or two reputable sites that state clearly there was a Blu-ray (and that is the correct spelling) payout. Find a report from the New York Times, USA Today or the Wall Street Journal. I'll even accept Home Media Magazine, PC World or TV Guide. The fact is none have because it was nothing but unsubstantiated rumor.