A retailer's comment on HD (1 Viewer)

[DaViD Boulet]

I stand corrected on the release date of the add-on. Though rest assured that many HD DVD enthusiasts already owning the X-Box 360 quickly purchased it as $200 solution to play HD DVD software!

Those numbers don't amount to the number of PS3 sales, but then again that just validates Sony's overall stragtegy to put a BD movie player in the hands of every PS3 owner.

 

[ppltd]

That is a mighty big leap. It could turn out that Sony was genius in their decision, but it is way to early to tell for sure. The current BD content sales don't bare this out yet. A year from now, when we have some real data to work with, we might be able to draw some legitimate conclusions.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

True.

the point I mean to communicate is that you can't have it both ways. If one criticizes the PS3 for offsetting the sale of BD software in BD's favor, then one is just *validating* Sony's strategy. Assuming the that PS3 offsets the numbers in favor of BD is implicity assuming that Sony's strategy that the PS3 would help with the adoption of BD was... well... correct!

(ps. that point was made regarding an early post not by you)

 

[Ryan-G]

I dunno here. I think you're not considering this fully. The 360 is a console, and it's primary function is to play games. Some very significant portion of that 10.5 million are young children, and it's probably unrealistic to expect their parents to be well enough informed to know there's an HD-DVD add-on.

I think it's best to take that number at face value, and consider the 125,000 not the 10.5 million. 125,000 people were interested enough in an HD Solution to plunk down $200 in the midst of a format war. What would happen if there were a $200 HD stand alone solution available on the market? What kind of sales would that stand to generate? IMO, it's significant that many people are willing to buy an HD-Solution, especially since the target market for 360's is fairly mainstream(Meaning not Home Theater Enthusiasts). I think it bodes well for the format(s).

I think the biggest overall thing to consider when looking at the numbers of console usage for HD media, and comparing it to console usage for DVD, is to keep in mind that when the PS2 and X-box released DVD had already made a fairly decent amount of penetration. Versus the HD scenario now where they're being used as launch vehicles and the hardware installed base of HDTV's is still relatively low.

In short, it's way to early to say HD media's a flop under any circumstances. Availability for cable provided HD-Media is very low, and the scenario between X-box/PS2 compared to 360/PS3 is very different. Nor do I see any way for Digital Downloads to succeed so long as P2P isn't reigned in.

 

[Edwin-S]

I don't agree. I think that the built in BD capability of the PS3 will result in far more casual use of the PS3 as a player. The XBOX 360 requires a concious decision to lay out more money to gain HD DVD capability. The PS3 doesn't. A gamer that buys a PS3 would have bought one with or without BD capability. Even if the system was bought primarily for games, the built in BD movie capability will result in the casual use of far more PS3s for BD movies than XBOX360s for HD DVD. Even hardcore gamers watch movies, so I would expect even hardcore gamers to use the readily available capabilities of their PS3s to watch both DVDs and BDs, because those capabilities do not require them to spend more cash.

I do not expect the results to be the same with XBOX360, because hardcore gamers would most likely buy a basic or premium system without the HD DVD drive. Since the primary focus of gamers is games, with only casual use of a system for movie watching, most hardcore gamers will not likely put out the extra cash for an HD DVD drive that is only useful for movies.

 

[ppltd]

The fact that BD is part of the PS3 does not translate into BD sales. The casual buyer may buy a disk to see what it is all about, but when it comes down to changing his buying habits, if movie viewing is not high in his life, it will be a hard sell for him to spend 25.00 to 30.00 dollars on a High-Def disk when he can buy same title in SD for 14.99.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

How many of us were always DVD/HD enthusiasts? Wasn't there a time (in our teens/early 20's?) where we got "turned on" to movies, or at least to buying movie software where previously we hadn't considered collecting a film library?

All it will take is LOTR on Blu ray and millions of here-to-fore PS3 gamers who wouldn't have considered themselves "movie collectors" my suddenly discover a new-found passion.

 

[ppltd]

LOTR has been out for years and it certainly did not magically convert the XBox and PS2 owners into movie collectors. The release in HD and BD are not going to magically convert these casual viewers into HD content buyers when they can get the SD releases for half of the price.

By the way, when did it ever become a fact that the old addage 'If you make it, they will come' became fact. What a silly notion. Almost nothing that is purchased today is ever fully utilized by the consumer. This is even more evident with electronic products. The average user will never know, or for that matter, want to know more than how to turn on their receiver or TV, adjust the volume, or change the channel.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Those consumers have had access to DVD players for years already, so DVD-playback of their gaming systems offered no new experience (nevertheless, I know of many people for whom LOTR on DVD was their introduction into the world of getting excited about movies on DVD).

For the guy with an HD monitor who happens to be enthusiastic about the picture quality it provides, seeing LOTR in HD on his PS3 could very easily be the gateway into collecting HD software.

Most HD consumers today got "turned on" by something they saw in HD that started a new trend in adopting an HD-collecting behavior, whereas up until that point they knew about HD but were content with DVD.

 

[MarkHastings]

I think HD cable is what will help the average consumer get into HD media. And in a bizarre way, I think the average consumer may be the leading force in HD sales...

Example:
One of my "non-tech" friends got a plasma TV with HD cable and he said "I can't even stand to watch anything that isn't HD".

Not that this will turn him into an HD media junkie, but if he ever were to get a new player, I bet he'd be interested in an HD player simply for the fact that he now understands the quality improvements.

This "Average consumer getting interested in HD because of HD cable" will be a great selling point:
WACTH HD MEDIA JUST LIKE YOU SEE THROUGH YOUR HD CABLE BOX.

That would definitely help HD sales. The average consumer would buy into it just for the hype alone. They'd be like "I love the HD channels off my cable box! So if this new HD player delivers the same results, I gotta get me one!"

As opposed to those of us here (including myself) who aren't going to be swayed by the "You HAVE to get an HD player because it's better than regular DVD." - I know it is, but I already have an enthusiasm for regular DVD which is where I will stay at until the HD war is over. It's like the LD lovers who didn't like the introduction of DVD. Some enthusiasts have a harder time being persuaded after investing tons of money and effort into what they currently own.

Those who were never really enthusiasts about standard DVD, might just be more easily persuaded to buy into HD.


...my 2 cents.

 

[Bob Engleman]

Ben,

I read your comment in complete surprise, as I didn't RANT, but merely stated my experience. In addition, my reference to Bill Hunt wasn't in any fashion meant as, nor do I understand how you made an interpretation of, an insult; that notwithstanding, you certainly did feel offended. Therefore, please accept my apology for the unintentional transgression in the use of verbiage unacceptable to any who read my post.

Bob Engleman

 

[ppltd]

Those HD consumer's of HD and BD are the consumer's that followed HD from it's inception. The other 95% of the buying public just don't care at this moment.

 

[Robin_B]

Probably about the same number of DVD's that were returned when J6P found it wouldn't fit into their VCR or even worse "it has black bars on it!!!"

It's stupid to assume that it's going to be "your average consumer" that is going to determine whether HD DVD survives or not. That wasn't the case for DVD and it won't be for HD either. When I first bought into DVD in 1996, nobody and I mean nobody I knew was the slightest bit interested in it. It took years before anyone I knew began to take interest, certainly enough interest to buy a player. Once the momentum had built up and the price of players began to drop it started to really take off. Sure it will take time for HD to make inroads into SD's territory but it will happen. Maybe not take over but at least build up enough support so it can sit alongside SD.

HD's biggest market is people like me, people who either want to wait for the format war to be over or people who can't afford the players and discs priced as they are at the moment. But I guarantee that I will be getting a HD player at some point.

And I can't see how people say there isn't that much difference between HD and SD DVD. I remember back in the days when I actually had HD cable and I would sit and watch a movie in HD and right after it was finished I would put a DVD on and I would always comment to my GF on how bad the DVD looked after watching HD, and that was compressed cable HD.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I've heard of PS3 owners not wanting to wear out their drives by playing a lot of BR discs on their PS3 (since it is a $500-$600 machine, and gamers are sort of frugal due to income levels). The HD DVD add-on for the XBox 360 alleviates the "wear out" issue by off-loading HD DVD playback to the add-on drive, and not the internal disc drive.

 

[MarkHastings]

I don't think anyone is really saying that. I think they are saying that the difference isn't enough to justify spending the money to get into HD content.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Actually, I'm pretty sure there are a lot of people that simply see the words, "Upconverts to near-HD quality' and take it as gospel. Additionally, I think HD on optical disc came out 'too early'. Not too early for me, or other HT enthusiasts mind you, but too early for JSP who was probably expecting DVDs to enjoy the 'top spot' in the home video food-chain for as long as VHS did.

 

[MarkHastings]

I guess it all depends on age and available money too.

With VHS, I only owned less than a dozen movies because I was young, and I never got into the LD craze because I couldn't afford to. The DVD craze was my first real "craze" that I bought into and now that I look back on it, I realize that I probably went WAY overbord in my spending. I'm trying not to let that happen with HD since the height of my DVD craze was less than 5 years ago. That's why I'm trying to hold off for now. Obviously I will get into it, but I'm still coming down from the DVD craze and now that I'm getting older, I am getting more into that "I really don't always need the latest and greatest right away" phase. I'll be glad to wait for the SD-DVD wheels to spin down first before jumping into yet another round of craze!

And definitely for the average consumer, I don't think it's fair to expect them to upgrade as much as a hard core enthusiast would.

 

[Brent M]

I seriously doubt it. If anything Star Wars is much more likely to have that kind of impact than LOTR, but even then I don't think a single film franchise will turn gamers into "movie collectors".

 

[Ryan-G]

I think the assumption you are making is a great deal larger than the one David does. The assumption that people do not care about image quality is a fairly huge one. If image quality didn't matter we wouldn't have the 360 or the PS3, because the driving force between both of them is image quality. If image quality didn't matter, Sony would be bankrupt, because image quality has always set them apart from the standard fare.

Image quality matters, it's one of the driving forces behind TV progression for many years. As I stated earlier, you're making a reach with your assumption about Cable and TV, considering the extremely small number of available channels. It's not like we're talking equivalent ratios, we're talking 1/10th or less the number of channels. As I said before, less than a dozen in my market. You can't make a broad statement like "People aren't interested in HD" when there isn't a significant quanitity of HD to obtain. It's like a store putting out 200 red shirts and 10 blue ones, selling all of them, then concluding that people are more interested in red shirts than blue. Actually it's more like putting out 200 red shirts, hiding 10 blue shirts underneath the counter, giving no indication that there are any blue shirts on sale, and concluding people prefer red ones. Because the providers don't try very hard to make HD Channels they do provide very visible.

I also think you're imposing your values upon others with the assessment of the stretched image. I'd venture to guess 99% of the people out there have no clue what OAR is, and know only that stretch fills the screen. This is nothing new, this was a battle being fought 10 years ago when DVD was first released.

I'd like to close with that for you to qualify that statement about people being fine with it, you first need to give them the ability to get HD channels as easily and in equal quanitites as SD, and display that they still prefer SD. Because as long as the ratio is 200+:11, 4 of which are pretty much useless, yes you're going to get results that favor SD.

 

[ppltd]

What you would like and what is reality are two different things. I and many others have posted links many times over showing sales, marketing and ratios. What you want to make of those numbers is entirely your choice. But it kind of surpises that you have no references or qualifications to the many assumptions you assert in this post. You only reference your own opinions, as we all do.