Blu Ray delivers another blow to hd. (1 Viewer)

[Steve_Blazer]

Just to weigh in with my 0.02...

I have all 3 popular consoles and from a gaming point of view the Ps2 is pretty much gathering dust.

The Xbox gets alot more playtime as to be honest its a far superior console.
Its problem was always its lack of game choice.
Slowly thats getting fixed with MS having brought on board some of the better development houses.

Once Xbox360s are actually available to buy I'll probably splash for one.
In my view Sony are trying to push wayy too far ahead with the PS3.

Theyre using a brand new disc format that may or may not require a certain standard of TV and receiver equipment to get any benefit over existing HD game playing.
Its going to be expensive and expect more delays before its out.
Game developers are complaining its hard to work with the PS3 platform.
These two things DONT sound good and can only help MS in getting the xbox/360 more popular.


This could well show a big shift towards MS in the gaming console war. Regular folks who just laid out $500 for the 360 plus another couple of hundred for a few games arnt going to suddenly decide they *HAVE* to go out and lay out another 500 or more PLUS anything they need to make it 'work' just so they can have a PS3 and its Blu-Ray which
will play super-HD movies they have no way of viewing (I mean cmon ... how many TVs out there actually support 1080P native inputs???)

Its like putting the cart before the horse.


I dont care which format wins this war but I just wish they would figure it out before the consumer suffers.

Its not going to be clear cut by any means.

As for my expectations?

Xbox 360 takes the lead and Billy Gates rolls out HD-DVD drives on the 360 Mk2 right when alot more folks have HDMI capable HT equipment that supports 1080P natively.

Blu-Ray goes the way of the Laser Disc as the PS3 suffers delay after delay and the film companies switch back after getting fed up of waiting for the Blu-Ray to become popular.

Watch this space.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Right now , to me, it looks like HD-DVD & BD go the way of DVD-A & SA-CD, which is worse than LD.
Ugh!

 

[Jordan_E]

This may be true, but dang I love the DVDAs and SACDs I have in my collection right now!

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Hangs around for twenty-five years as the premium video delivery medium, building up a huge title catalogue, and is often available at a lower price than the more common format in day-and-date release?

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Are you saying LD was "often available at a lower price than" VHS?
Would you be speaking of the time VHS was priced for rental (not sell though)?
Even though Christopher, those are great arguments for how successful LD was, it can not change the fact which Steve inferred with his remark that for nearly a quarter of a century LD remanded a niche market.

Something I hope no one wishes HD on disc to become.

Although, many of us may feel HD on disc is going down the niche path, I don't think many of us will be happy about that in the long run.

Well... I do know one person who would be happy.
Do I HAVE to count him???

 

[TravisR]

The only reason I would care either way if HD is a niche product is because that means that catalog titles will be very slow in coming. They probably won't produce much content exclusive to an HD disc if it's just a niche product either.

The more people buying HD, the more the studios will release older stuff and have 'better' extras. The less people buy HD, the slower releases will be and they'll have the same (or less) features than their SD counterpart.

 

[ChristopherDAC]

Yes, I was referring to the "window" in which LD was often made available, at its normal price point, while the VHS was still at a price point elevated to get the most revenue from rental outlets. My intention was simply to point out, in a humorous manner, that to use "LaserDisc" as a synonym for "failed product" is terribly mistaken. Certainly LD had Special Features and Special Editions when VHS had none — in fact it had widescreen when VHS had none, and it had stereo from the beginning [and Surround Sound in the form of Dolby Stereo Surround on movies mixed that way] which VHS did not, and later on digital audio which VHS never did [not to mention picture quality, which VHS also never had…]. It surely wasn't the most spectacular success of a consumer product ever, but the video companies came to understand that they had a very special market of people who appreciated and cared about films. If the HD formats do become a niche, at least we can say that there will probably be more extras &c rather than less — as with the Frighteners LaserDisc special edition which set the standard for all DVD special editions, I would expect that, if there were two format "tiers," things like the Lord of the Rings Extended Editions would only be released in the upper-tier format.

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Hey, if you want HD on disc to be as successful as LD, then so be it. (I know. I know, your just saying LD was OK)
I wanted HD on disc to have been as successful as DVD. That was many moons ago. It seems like every single day HD-DVD/BD pokes a sharp stick in the eye of the consumer. To the point I see a three year (for me the clock started ticking CES '06 or if I really want to be cruel CES '05 or down right resentful CES '04), "so what" launch for the two combating formats.
I am still into it, just the fun is gone. It's just about money now, my money!
(Kind of like voting, where you just vote for the lesser of two evils)

 

[BrettGallman]

Well, I doubt that the PS3 is going to be delayed by anything that happens to Blu-Ray. And the X-Box 360 required a lot of people to go out and upgrade to HD sets just to get the full resolution. So both systems are pretty much equal in that regard. I know this discussion doesn't really belong here, but I can't see this HD format war affecting this generation of consoles that dramatically. If anything, Blu-Ray may still positvely affect the PS3. Games will still be on Blu-Ray discs, which offer more storage capability than 360 games on SD discs.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

Since the PS3 is all-about Blu-ray, anything that delays the BD spec or disc manufacture (or movie playback) will delay the PS3 as well...

 

[Brent M]

I'd always been under the impression that the PS3 would be out in the fall or right before Christmas, but there was a video game expert on CNBC the other night talking about how the PS3 release date could very well be pushed back to early 2007.

 

[BrettGallman]

I meant that the performance of Blu-Ray in the market in the few months preceding the PS3's release wouldn't affect the PS3. As far as I know, the PS3 is still going to be out this fall. I don't think Sony wants to miss out on the Christmas season. Everything will be known for sure at E3.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

got it.

 

[Kyle_D]

I don't think anybody expected it to. Blu-Ray is far less important to the success of PS3 than PS3 is to the success of Blu-Ray.

 

[BrettGallman]

I was responding to this on the last page. I took that the original poster meant that the PS3 could possibly be delayed by Blu-Ray "going the way of the Laser Disc." But I suppose he may have been saying that the PS3 is just going to be delayed on its own, which would affect Blu-Ray's performance. I appologize if I mis-interpreted.

At any rate, I agree with the statement that PS3 is more integral to Blu-Ray's success than vice versa; I've said as much in another thread. This isn't like the PS2 and DVD because in that situation, DVD was already a proven format and it made sense as a selling point for the PS2. Sony's situation is exactly the opposite in this case because Blu-Ray will not be an established format, and I wouldn't be surprised to see the average consumer wonder what exactly "Blu-Ray" compatibility means come next year when the system is more readibly available.

 

[FrancisP]

DVD was not established as a format when PS2 was launched. It had been around as a niche but had not been mainstreamed. The PS2 was sold in stores as diverse as BB and Walmart. Even though Walmart and Target sold PS2, these retailers did not start stocking DVD movies. That was years down the road. Getting dvds into stores like Walmart and Target are
the reason that dvds took off since they have such a large customer base. I also don't remember Sony ever pushing the dvd angle that much.

As far as the general public is concerned, there are parallels between PS2 and PS3. Dvd movies were largely unknown to average customers and blu-ray is largely unknown to the public. PS2 did not push dvd into the public consciousness. Mass-marketers like Walmart and Target did that. While PS3 could provide BR with a slight advantage, it is unlikely to be a KO.

 

[Kyle_D]

You remember incorrectly. Sony made DVD one of PS2's main selling points.

 

[FrancisP]

Discounters like Walmart and Target sold PS2 but did not sell dvd movies for some time after PS2 was introduced. PS2
did not put any pressure on Walmart and Target to stock
dvds.

Look at portable devices. Walmart started selling ipods much sooner after their debut than they did with dvd. They stocked UMD movies much quicker than they did with dvd.

I would suspect that most of the general public did not know that PS2 played dvds. The early adopter/tech knew it could play dvds.

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Sounds to me like Walmart doesn't want to make the same mistake as they did with DVD's.

 

[BrettGallman]

I bought my first DVD from a Wal-Mart in 1998, so they were selling them before the PS2. Maybe they weren't selling them as much as they do now, but they definately were. And by established, I meant exactly what Kyle said. It's not like everyone had a DVD player like they do now, but people were aware of and knew what DVD was all about. It had been around for a while at that point. Blu-Ray will be a few months old at the PS3's launch; therefore, touting Blu-Ray capability won't have the same effect that DVD capability had with the PS2. And many people knew that the PS2 had the capability. I remember DVD's that had stickers advertising its compatibility with the PS2.