PS3 possibly delayed until spring 07, format war not game over , but game on (1 Viewer)

[Roger_R]

Hmmm... The cost at launch of $800, not $900, when you add it yourself. I wouldn't trust someone who can't even add...

 

[Kyle_D]

There are a variety of cost estimates out there that all place the PS3 between $700 and $900, which is far above the cost of the premium 360.

Check out this article from CNET.

Sony's got a lot to prove at this E3. While I don't doubt that they'll get the console out this year at a competitive price point (remember all those folks who thought they would charge $350-$400 for the PSP?), the buzz on the PS3 has been quite negative for the past 3 months or so in pretty much every regard concerning gaming, predicted availability, cost, etc.

I said it a few weeks ago, I'll say it again: the rest of the BRDA has got to be ready to pick up the ball if Sony drops it or else they could be in for a much bloodier battle with HD-DVD than they had anticipated.

 

[Peter Overduin]

I had intended to use the PS3 as an interim BD player till pricing and specs would sort themselves out. One of my fears has to do with what will plague the initial Hi def players; specs that will not take full advantage of the format until the 2nd generation players emerge. Currently, it doesnt appear that either format is worthy of buying into..shame...bought the 05 Sony 60" Grand Wega for this very purpose.

What a freakin mess!. Too bad presidents and prime ministers arent HT buffs and members on this forum!...maybe they'd straighten all these jerks out and tell em to get their s*** together!

 

[DaViD Boulet]

People,

NONE OF THIS IS NEW.

Most of these costs for production prices have been floating around for a while (months ago it was already going around at AVS that the cost to produce a PS3 might be well above $800 dollars). It's always been known that Sony will be selling below cost to bring the PS3 in at the "expected" price of @$400-500....you know...like Toshiba is selling their HD DVD players at a loss which apparently doesn't bother anyone?

Until an actual price for the US market is announced, nothing will effectively have changed.

 

[Kyle_D]

I didn't claim that it was. I was merely clarifying that even though the ML report contained that addition error, it shouldn't be entirely discredited due to exising estimates that have been floating around for months.

I agree - Sony will bite the bullet and put PS3 out by the end of the year and sell it for $450 at the most, more likely $399. They need to unless they want to hand their US marketshare over to Microsoft and Sony knows this. (Shawn's right though. Unless you preorder, you're not going to be able to get on until at least March 2007.)

The bad buzz among gamers, though, has been generating due to a number of other factors: developer complaints, questions pertaining to how far along in development PS3 actually is, a lack of real news since last year's E3, the virtual no-show at CES, Sony's questionable ability to deliver an online service comparible to Xbox Live, concerns that PS3 development is focused on catering to Sony's other divisions instead of focusing on gaming, the new controller, etc. etc. etc. Sony's management didn't make it any easier for themselves when they maintained that they will launch PS3 this Spring in Japan, when the writing is on the wall that it's not going to happen. Long story short, Sony has created a lot of skeptics in the gaming community who are going to need to be won over at E3.

All I'm saying is that it seems to be the approach of the BRDA manufacturers that they can exclusively cater to the High-end market, selling players at extremely high margins, because Sony will get the mid-end market on the Blu-Ray bandwagon with the PS3. They might want to rethink that strategy. If Blu-ray can offer a standalone player at the ~$500 price point up against the Toshiba models, there's no way HD-DVD can win.

 

[Ryan-G]

This is a good point.

I suspect there's alot of truth to this, especially as I'm seeing ~500$ for the initial pricing of the first Blu-Ray computer drives being mentioned frequently. Which will obviously drop rapidly from there.

Economically, once PS3 releases, there's going to be a major impact on mid-range sales, and it doesn't make sense to invest in a product line with poor sales expectations near term.

I still suspect that HD-DVD has it's work cut out for it. Blu-Ray, even if PS3 hasn't released yet or has a bad release, has an advantage in name recognition through association.

I haven't seen any HDTV demographics, but if the data shows that HDTV's primary user base falls into the 18-35 range, then HD-DVD has a serious problem. That's the same demographic that'll be most familiar with consoles, and therefore more likely to know Blu-Ray's name because of PS3.

I just don't see any way for HD-DVD to win, smaller library, no clout with the Technophiles, low clout with the Early Adopters, and lacks the name recognition advantage it's competitor has.

 

[Kyle_D]

I agree with every qualifier you mentioned except the last one. HD-DVD as a name is self-explanatory to the general public. When I tell friends who aren't "in the know" about Blu-ray, they have no idea what I'm talking about. However, when I mention HD-DVD, they nod their heads in understanding. HD-DVD's name recognition is far higher than Blu-ray's, thanks to "HD" and "DVD". To early adopters and techophiles, this won't be a big deal, but it could turn into one if HD-DVD survives long enough to the point when general consumers start buying players.

 

[todd stone]

doesn't look good for Sony

 

[Kelly Grannell]

They can delay all they want now. I was only willing to wait until the end of May. If there is no Blu-ray, I'll get HD-DVD. My DVD player needs a replacement and I'm not going to spend another $300 for a decent interim player. I'd rather pay $500 for a player that happens to play HD DVD.

Forget Sony. That's another Betamax. I wanted it to win, but they can't get their act together. Bet you anything that soon enough (well, maybe 2007) even Sony will release their stuff on HD DVD (if they can't get their first player at $500 price point by no later than Spring 2006.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Kelly,

sorry to hear that your impatience to wait a few months tipped your personal choice. I'm sticking it out for Blu-ray along with most of the other early-adoptor-crowd.

 

[Benson R]

The early adopters are beyond impatient (I even bet many nay sayers here are tempted to try out hd-dvd assuming it rolls out soon as planned).

With 500 dollar players, and the possibility that bluray could be close to a year away will get many early adopters to give hd-dvd a try, imho. I mean even though it wasn't many people, people here did invest in d-theater and I bet most of those people didn't see any future in that format, they just wanted hidef content now.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Well, currently I have no decent DVD player at home. Mine broke recently. So, as mentioned, rather than spending another $300 on a DVD player AND spend another $1000 for a BD player when (and IF) it comes out, I'll settle for an HD DVD player.

I can wait 3 weeks for a DVD player (that happens to play HD DVD) but I can't wait indefinitely (regardless of the supposed May release date) AND spending $1,000 for a Samsung player.

Now, if BD will come out for $600 (not a Samsung) in early April, I may wait for it.

Besides, from what I've been reading, BD movies tend to be 30% higher than HD DVD movies. As a collector of 15oo DVDs, it's a difference between being able to aford 1000 titles or 1500 titles.

Last but not least. I will never have a screen larger than 50-ish inches (viewed from 6 feet away) -- husband wouldn't let me spend that much, especially after spending easily $5k every year on photography equipments so 1080i vs 1080p won't be such a great deal for me.

And yes, I've seen the difference between the two during my invitation to NHK TV station last year and IMHO it's not worth the extra dollars (if they are the same price, of course I'd take 1080p in a heartbeat just because I can.

 

[Rob_Walton]

If you're only willing to wait 3 weeks then you're screwed: HD-DVD isn't launching for 4 weeks. And even then it will be with the $800 player not the $500 version. The cheaper one will be "a few weeks later", which is appropriately vague.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Kelly,

BD and HD DVD prices will be about on par from reports so far.




Comments like that are the kind of mythic notions that don't make sense in the long term. Five years from today a 80" 1080P display might cost less than the TV you currently own. Never say never.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Really? I hadn't heard about this. Man, would that piss off all the folks who preordered the $500 model.

Pre-order Customer: So, let me get this straight. First, you took my preorder, then I find out the player won't even be fully featured at launch, I still can't order any titles, and now you're saying I have to wait a few more weeks or buy the higher-cost model that will also be missing features at launch?
Retailer: *refuses to look customer in the eyes* Um...yes?
Customer: *head explodes*

 

[Juan C]

Yes, Jesse, it was Cnet who broke the news. See this thread:

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htfo...hreadid=252546

Maybe this is worthy of independent discussion, but as I'm an HD DVD detractor, I don't want to look as bashing the format in a "HD DVD is doomed!!!11" kind of way.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Oppo is not available in Canada. After shipping and brokerage fee, it's still going to be close to $300 (yes, it's $50 brokerage fee via UPS) and I won't have a warranty.

Anything else below $300 in Canada is just utterly bad I might as well not watch any movie whatsoever. As far as upconversion goes, I can't say about Oppo, but I've tried Panasonic (severe macro blocking), Sony + Toshiba (can't see the difference), Samsung + LG (staircase like crazy).

So I'm left all 'alone' with buying a $300 Denon player or wait for a couplle more weeks for an HD-DVD player.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Kelly, you said in another thread that you paid about $300 for a Panasonic A100 DVD player nine years ago. Even its big brother model, the A300 which had an MSRP of $999 would be completely outperformed by today's average $50 DVD players, so why are you having so much trouble, nine years later finding a decent temporary player for less than $300?

Especially if as you say it is only a temporary player, even the Oppo would be over-kill for your needs. There are too many models to mention that can be bought for under $100 that will not only perform well, but far better than the A100 ever could have hoped to.

In fact, this is the primary reason why HD DVD (should it survive) and BD will remain niche products for a very long time, and perhaps all the way up to their eventual replacement. SD DVD players are cheap, they work great, and the content choice is vast, cheap, and for some, even free.

 

[Pete T C]

I'd be careful where you swing that "most" around. Right now I see momentum moving towards HD-DVD in a big way. I'm an early adopter and I'm going HD-DVD because I think its the best choice, even though I used to think Blu-Ray was.

Why? Because Blu-Ray does not offer anything HD-DVD can't offer and Blu-Ray costs twice as much.

1. Codecs - Blu-Ray launch titles are going to be MPEG2, so those titles need the extra space of Blu-Ray to match HD-DVD's MPEG4/VC-1 codecs. MPEG4/VC-1 can offer the same picture as MPEG2 while taking up half the space. Sure Blu-Ray can support MPEG4/VC-1, but they aren't out of the gate and the larger size of Blu-Ray discs is not necessary for those codecs anyway. Score one for HD-DVD: better looking, more efficient video codecs out of the gate that don't need larger disc sizes.

2. DRM - BD+ and Blu-Ray's DRM capabilities are more restrictive than HD-DVD. While this sounds good to a studio, for the consumer more DRM is actually a bad thing; more freedom for the consumer is better. Score two for HD-DVD: less restrictive DRM for consumers.

3. PS3 - Sure, PS3 will come with Blu-Ray. But by the time it will comes out, the Toshiba HD-A1 will likely be the same price or less and look much better than the PS3 does. Remember how terrible the PS2 looked for standard DVDs? And lets not forget that XBOX 360 will be coming out with an HD-DVD addon. Score three for HD-DVD: reasonably priced standalone players.

4. Studio support - Blu-Ray does have more studios on paper, however the quality and amount of titles coming from those studios does not seem to be greater than HD-DVD; in fact, it is easily arguable that the quality of HD-DVD movies announced surpasses that of Blu-Ray. Not to mention Disney just announced they are also going HD-DVD. Score four for HD-DVD: sufficient studio support.

5. 1080i vs. 1080p output - Sure, Blu-Ray players support 1080p output out of the gate... For over $1000. Since most people don't have 1080p sets - and those that do mostly have 1080i inputs - 1080p HDMI output is not worth the extra $500 for most folks. Being that actual movies are encoded at 1080p for HD-DVD, future HD-DVD players can and will be able to output 1080p native; it is just something not necessary now. Score five for HD-DVD: 1080p encoded movies on disc.

I can't really see anyone being obsessed with either format or thinking one or the other offers any significant quality increase at this stage in the game, knowing the facts. The only major difference I can see between the formats now is the price, and HD-DVD is the big winner in that category.

 

[Todd H]

Pete, that was quite possibly one of the greatest FUD posts I've ever read here. And that scoring system? A thing of beauty! Congrats!