*** Official HTF HD Formats Comparison Thread *See Post 957, p. 32* (1 Viewer)

[John Berggren]

To be fair, 3 of the titles are HD-DVD only, which only COULD have outsold 2:1.

 

[DaViD Boulet]

And Casino Royale COULD have sold half as many discs on HD DVD...



I would think that given the very consistent 2:1 ratio for dual-format titles, we *could* avoid debate on that projection.

 

[Averry]

So at my local best buy today, the Toshiba HD-DVD player and TV were on an endcap display, with the Blu-Ray display shoved in the back.


And then to add insult to injury, the "next generation DVD" display was located with the HD-DVD right next to each other, and there was a big pillar RIGHT in front of the Blu Ray. I mean you have reach around just look at what was behind the pillar.

I took pictures on my phone, because I'm that much of nerd. It was funny I guess, because obviously Blu Ray IS outselling HD-DVD.


Question.


Because of this format war, do you sometimes feel more obligated to buy releases to support the hardware you invested in? (and by invest, you definately invested in more ways than one).

 

[Ryan-G]

The PS3's primary issue is that it's extremely difficult to program for, making it a poor choice for a title intended to be multi-ported, and more difficult to program for. A quick google search will turn up a number of Dev's who've stated this. Costs are so huge that unless a title's a guaranteed blockbuster, Dev's want to multi-platform to maximize income, and PS3 is so different from the other platforms it makes porting a diminishing returns issue as it requires significant rewrites. If you're running 8 threads for PS3's SPU's, you've got a problem when you want to go to the 360's 6(?) threads or the PC's Single->Quad core configuration.

The pricing was just the final nail, it was already an unattractive platform for development when compared to the 360 that migrates over to the PC market readily. So readily in fact, that the XNA suite does double duty without any significant changes to coding practices.

 

[Brendon]

Not quite sure how to take the question. If you've bought into one format but not the other, you're confined to buying what is released on that platform. if that happens to be a title you want, great. If the title you want is on the other platform, then for the moment it's too bad.

The only scenario I can see where this isn't the case is if you have the hardware to playback both formats, and the title is from either Warner or Paramount. What do you do then? Personally speaking, my personal choice of BluRay player has a superior picture quality on slow pans etc to trump my personal choice of HDDVD player. Everyone else's mileage is likely to vary.

Originally I'd only bought into BR - whilst there were/are several titles that were a no brainer purchase, I wouldn't consider buying a title that didn't appeal to me as a film just because it was on 'my' format. No amount of superior presentation will make me purchase a film I didn't previously enjoy, merely to support 'my' choice of format.

 

[Averry]

I've bought five movies in the week since I bought my player.

Normally I buy maybe five movies in a year. I dont' really know why either, I love movies, I just never buy them.

There are multiple reasons for why I am buying more movies, but one of them is definately the fact that I do want to buy movies for the hardware I bought, in sort of an effort to ensure the survival of my hardware.

 

[Romier S]

It's readily apparent that third party titles have suffered due to thier transition from 360 to PS3. There is no arguing that. It's also apparent that these issues are helped/alleviated by developers building thier titles specifically on the Playstation 3 platform first and then moving it to other desired platforms as they see fit. We're seeing this with third parties like Pandemic and Criterion who are developing games like Burnout Paradise and Mercenaries 2 with the Playstation 3 SKU as thier primary SKU. Interestingly enough this situation mirrors the release of the Playstation 2 which was notorious for how difficult it was to program for. The difference being the PS2 immediately had a one up on its competitiors by releasing a year earlier and building a strong install base. But then that's the issue isn't it? The roles have been reversed. The install base isn't there to warrant third parties to commit thier titles to the Playstation 3 off the bat. Why is the install base not there? We come back to price which is far more important than you are giving it credit for....

Your average gamer that walks into an EB/Gamestop to pick up a system isn't concerned with the development woes of the platform. They are, however, concerned when they see a $499/$599 sticker price sitting underneath a Playstation 3 box. As much as Sony touts BD in the PS3 package thier marketing message with this system has been muddled from the outset. It's trying to be everything for everyone and that's just not working with your typical guy that goes into EB to pick up Madden '08 (and can get that experience cheaper and with a better selection of titles on Microsoft's console).

With that said, I do feel that Sony needs to be seriously proactive in getting that price down QUICKLY and effectively if they want to make the PS3 a success. The difference is that I'm just not willing to write them off after only nine months of the platforms existence as so many others seem eager to do.

 

[ppltd]

As they have for a year now.

 

[ppltd]

Actually they can both be classified as same player/media storage device/media center.

 

[ppltd]

And if Disney were neutral they could have moved another 20k of each POC film the first week of it's release. All exclusive studion are losing revenue. When the numbers of sales start hitting the level of 300 as a norm, all of the studios are going to have to seriouly look at their exclusive stance and determine if exclusivity is worth the loss of revenue.

 

[Norman Matthews]

That's an odd way to look at it.

The fact is, each of those HD DVDs in the top five outsold every BD on the market save two. We can debate whether total HDM sales are insignificant or not, but to try to write off titles in the top 10 as insignificant in the context of the current HDM market is just bizarre.

 

[MarekM]

odd way ? if we have neutral title and BD version of that tiles is outlselling HD-DVD version of same title almost 2:1, that's the odd way for comparing formats ?

how else you want to compare those titles ? neutral titles is one of the possible way to see wich is doing better on same title....

few examples...

original posted by darinp2 on other forums :

7/24: The Host 2.36:1
7/31: 300 1.91:1
7/31: Shooter 1.71:1
7/31: Blue Planet 2.03:1

 

[John Berggren]

Actually apart from other reasons Disney has chosen to go BD only, one of the reasons is that they know that based on these ratios, the -other- format won't survive forever. Those 20k sales will end up happening when HD-DVD only people buy their first BD player.

Further, I wonder how many HD-DVD proponents also own a BD player as compared to BD proponents (or as I call us, single format proponents) owning an HD-DVD deck.

 

[ppltd]

Since there are no numbers posted on the cross-over, and no way of telling, we will never know. But with more BD players on the market, it is likely more BD proponents own HD players then the other way around.

 

[ppltd]

Yes it could have, and added 50% to the profit that Sony had on the title.

 

[Norman Matthews]

No, the odd way of looking at it is to focus only on the fact that the BD version of the title outsold the HD version and discount the fact that the HD version, in the case of 300, outsold everything else on the market besides its own BD version.

When Disney releases a big title that claims the top spot on the list, they could also take the #2 spot.

 

[Norman Matthews]

I'm not sure about "proponents," but I'll tell you one thing for sure: The number of HD DVD owners who also own a BD player is exactly the same as the number of BD owners who also own an HD DVD player. And if you own both, you're a proponent of both in the way that matters most - with your wallet.

 

[Jari K]

I would also think so.

 

[Edwin-S]

How do you guys calculate that? The vast majority of BD players are PS3s. The vast majority of owners of those units would see no reasom to own another format. So how can a conclusion be drawn that more BD owners own HD DVD players as well. The majority of duel format owners are probably people who own standalones. Since HD DVD leads in that department it stands to reason that more people who bought an HD DVD player first also went out and bought a BD player; therefore, it is more likely that the number HD DVD owners who bought a BD player outstrips the number of BD owners who went out and bought an HD DVD player after their initial BD purchase. Not that it really matters, since a person who goes neutral is mow another subset of the HD market. As Mr. Matthews pointed out the number of people who owm both formats is exactly equal, so the only question that arises is in which order the purchases came. I would posit that most dual format owners owned an HD DVD player first.

 

[John Berggren]

But not if they have to create a dual format release. That eats into the profit margin. Thus creating a situation with single format support only, and then a single hi def media format allows the studios to reach all consumers with a single cost release.

Did we need 2 formats with DVD for some reason?