Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war discussion thread.......

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Travis

I am curious to see over the next 2-3 years what the percentage of HD compatible TV's to non HD units sold will be. Even without a forced turnover, I can't imagine that a lot of first or second tv's (living room/bedroom) in homes won't be HD ready (guessing the smaller kitchen type tv's will be the last to see a significant changeover, though even prices there appear to be getting better). Still a rapidly expanding market that should only accelerate.

I think the vast majority of TV's next year and going forward will be HDTV. The SDTV's will remain in the market just because people won't get rid of them. By next year, the prices on these HDTV's are going to be pretty affordable to the point where they will be the choice of most consumers.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wii. It has no relevance to the HD format war.

I stumbled into the thread high on muscatine wine. What do I know?

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, but penetration of the players has to be your primary focus as a company. Without players, no one is going to buy the discs. Eventually, as with any other product, the larger your installed base is, the more discs you sell.

Oh I agree with that.

As far as it being a good strategy though, I think the book is still out on that one. It all depends on how much money Sony can recoup from having BluRay adopted as a standard. In the meantime, they're taking a bath with the PS3 ... and there's at least one ex-Sony executive who would probably say it wasn't the best strategy.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by moriarty

Oh I agree with that.

As far as it being a good strategy though, I think the book is still out on that one. It all depends on how much money Sony can recoup from having BluRay adopted as a standard. In the meantime, they're taking a bath with the PS3 ... and there's at least one ex-Sony executive who would probably say it wasn't the best strategy.

Certainly, it's a risk that hasn't panned out initially. Sony's going to lose a lot of money over this first year.

I would disagree with your assertion that the ex-Sony executive is the one who thinks it wasn't the best strategy. Assuming you're talking about Crazy Ken K., he's likely the only one who still thinks it WAS a good strategy. Hence the reason that he was moved to a different division and then decided to 'retire'.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I stumbled into the thread high on muscatine wine. What do I know?

Mmmmmmmmmm........wine.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Certainly, it's a risk that hasn't panned out initially. Sony's going to lose a lot of money over this first year.

I would disagree with your assertion that the ex-Sony executive is the one who thinks it wasn't the best strategy. Assuming you're talking about Crazy Ken K., he's likely the only one who still thinks it WAS a good strategy. Hence the reason that he was moved to a different division and then decided to 'retire'.

If you think he voluntarily "retired" I've got a bridge to sell you, as I think we can agree he was forced out due to the disaster that is the PS3. But my point (tongue in cheek) was that the strategy cost him his job, so while I no doubt believe that he thought it was a good strategy, he might be rethinking it due to the shame (and loss of job) that it created.

[Tyrith]

If stand alone Blu-ray players are going to be 300 bucks by Christmas...and the PS3 is going to be 500 dollars...then doesn't the PS3 lose a lot of the pricing power that would have potentially made it a better option for people just looking to buy movie players and not gaming systems? AT that point the PS3 is so much more expensive than a standalone player that it becomes prohibitive. Directly or indirectly most of the PS3's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's too expensive.

[moriarty]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

If stand alone Blu-ray players are going to be 300 bucks by Christmas...and the PS3 is going to be 500 dollars...then doesn't the PS3 lose a lot of the pricing power that would have potentially made it a better option for people just looking to buy movie players and not gaming systems? AT that point the PS3 is so much more expensive than a standalone player that it becomes prohibitive. Directly or indirectly most of the PS3's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's too expensive.

I think the thinking goes is that the PS3 (Sony) essentially gave away Blu Ray players to help them get the highest penetration and win the format wars. Since Sony owns (at least some part) of the Blu-Ray technology they can collect licensing fees for years to come if the technology takes off.

As far as other blu-ray players undercutting the PS3, it really is irrelevant for Sony if (and I dont' think it's been decided yet) they win the format war. The PS3 sales is a separate problem for them.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Tyrith

If stand alone Blu-ray players are going to be 300 bucks by Christmas...and the PS3 is going to be 500 dollars...then doesn't the PS3 lose a lot of the pricing power that would have potentially made it a better option for people just looking to buy movie players and not gaming systems? AT that point the PS3 is so much more expensive than a standalone player that it becomes prohibitive. Directly or indirectly most of the PS3's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's too expensive.

It's too expensive for a gaming system right now, but it's the best deal available for a Blu-ray player. The pricing of the player isn't going to affect much. If you don't want a gaming system and you're looking for a player, the stand along is a relatively good deal at $300. If you're a gamer and you want a Blu-ray player, there's no reason you shouldn't get the PS3 for only $200 more.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by Travis

I am curious to see over the next 2-3 years what the percentage of HD compatible TV's to non HD units sold will be. Even without a forced turnover, I can't imagine that a lot of first or second tv's (living room/bedroom) in homes won't be HD ready (guessing the smaller kitchen type tv's will be the last to see a significant changeover, though even prices there appear to be getting better). Still a rapidly expanding market that should only accelerate.

26" "bedroom" type TV's are way too expensive at this point, and would need to significantly drop in price if people are going to get them in droves. You're still near a grand on those....ideally the "better" brands would need to get into the 400 dollar range for a 26" before most people would consider getting one. We rarely sell anything smaller than 32" at work(primarly 40-42" range), occasionally a few off brand 20" sets when they go on significant sale.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

"Since cable and satellite TV services use a different method to distribute their programming, you will not see any change if you get all of your TV from those sources."

That's kind of a half-truth. It's correct that you will be able to watch the channels still off your cable or satellite feeds on your standard TV's. The problem is that most of the channels on those two types of providers will be digital channels. So if you have a standard TV, you'll be watching a distinctly smaller picture due to the black bars that will constantly be at the top and bottom of your TV screen. So while you may have a 20" SDTV, the image size will likely be a few inches smaller than 20".

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

That's kind of a half-truth. It's correct that you will be able to watch the channels still off your cable or satellite feeds on your standard TV's. The problem is that most of the channels on those two types of providers will be digital channels. So if you have a standard TV, you'll be watching a distinctly smaller picture due to the black bars that will constantly be at the top and bottom of your TV screen. So while you may have a 20" SDTV, the image size will likely be a few inches smaller than 20".

Um... you do realize that digital channels can come in 4:3 resolution right? Digital channels will not have the "black bars" on them on a standard definition TV. They didn't when I had a SDTV and digital cable.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Um... you do realize that digital channels can come in 4:3 resolution right? Digital channels will not have the "black bars" on them on a standard definition TV. They didn't when I had a SDTV and digital cable.

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

[twothree]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

[dawgfan]

I'm curious on the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD disk sales numbers - first off, how many sales are we talking about compared to regular DVD's. Secondly, wasn't a copy of "Casino Royale" being included with PS3 purchases for a while, and if so, how many of those count against those Blu-Ray disk sales numbers?

[14ers]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Interesting. I have no idea why that would be the case. Do you have a link to the article?

It was an article about the porn industy. They did not like blu-ray format because of its initial cost to make a disc and how hard it was to copy blu-ray discs.


I wonder if Microsoft has the balls to give the finger to every 360 owner that has purchased a HD-DVD player and come out with a blu-ray addon for the 360?


Also, I was a person who based some of the deciosion to buy a PS3 player on the fact that it had a built in blu-ray player, and I could rent blu-ray movies from NetFlix. Anyone who is trying to tell you they can't see a difference between the old DVD format and blu-ray should be immediately sent to an eye doctor.

[spleen1015]

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I'm curious on the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD disk sales numbers - first off, how many sales are we talking about compared to regular DVD's. Secondly, wasn't a copy of "Casino Royale" being included with PS3 purchases for a while, and if so, how many of those count against those Blu-Ray disk sales numbers?

You can bet every one of them.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

Err.. no.

The digital channels I get (Comcast, but I believe all cable companies do it similar), EXCEPT for the High Def channels, are ALL broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. ONLY the High Def channels are broadcast in 16:9.

So, if I watch Fox Soccer Channel (digital channel), its broadcast in 4:3, and I'm not losing any of the picture if I'm on an SD TV.

[Daimyo]

This is a small battle won for Blu-Ray, but its still a drop in the bucket. If Wal-Mart announces tomorrow they will exclusively sell HD-DVD, the war would be over in one swoop. Its still way too early to call this one.

[Pyser]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

digital does not equal high definition. 90% of "digital" is in native 4:3. only high def is true 16:9. just admit you dont know what youre talking about.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by 14ers

I wonder if Microsoft has the balls to give the finger to every 360 owner that has purchased a HD-DVD player and come out with a blu-ray addon for the 360?

Microsoft has said all along in several interviews that if Blu-Ray won, they were prepared to come out with a Blu-Ray addon.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Pyser

digital does not equal high definition. 90% of "digital" is in native 4:3. only high def is true 16:9. just admit you dont know what youre talking about.

I understand perfectly well that digital is not the same as HD. Digital has to do with the signal while HD has to do with the definition (i.e. pixels) on the screen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

This is a small battle won for Blu-Ray, but its still a drop in the bucket. If Wal-Mart announces tomorrow they will exclusively sell HD-DVD, the war would be over in one swoop. Its still way too early to call this one.

To follow through on your thought.........

Why would Wal-Mart (or any other retailer) go exclusively to a medium that doesn't offer a relatively large portion of the new releases currently hitting the market?

The only reason it's too early to call the format war is because it's only a rumor at this point. If/when they announce that Universal will be on Blu-ray, it's over. The HD-DVD would have no competitve advantage at that point and would quickly lose shelf space. The installed base at this point is so lopsided that retail outlets would pretty quickly convert to Blu-ray only.

[stevew]

Talking about shelf space anyways, I don't think I see BR's or HDDVD's anywhere right now on the shelfs. We have a few of each at work, but they are mainly there to get stolen.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

Talking about shelf space anyways, I don't think I see BR's or HDDVD's anywhere right now on the shelfs. We have a few of each at work, but they are mainly there to get stolen.

Yeah, it's pretty small at this point. Best Buy has a shelf section 6-7 shelves high and about 8 feet wide for Blu-ray and the same for HD-DVD at this point. Most people simply aren't buying them in those places due to the high price point. Amazon has 50% off on Blu-ray movies here and there. That's the best way to buy them. Also, I have 4 friends with the PS3. All of us use our PS3 to watch BR movies, but we rent them. It's a much cheaper way to get all the quality of the HD movies at a much lower price.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Ouch. Another tough blow for the HD-DVD format. Multiple sites are reporting that Star Wars Trilogy HD movies will be Blu-ray only. These are one of the few movies that a lot of people will rebuy on the new format.

Here's the links for the movies on Amazon......

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tril...8799361&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tril...8799361&sr=8-1

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I guess I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wii. It has no relevance to the HD format war.

He wasn't referring to the HD format war there. He was referring to your comment that the more installed base you have, the more discs you sell. Meaning that the more Wii's and 360's there are than the PS3, the more gaming discs those two consoles will sell.

I think Blu-Ray wins the format war but I don't think it makes a bit of difference for a couple of years. By the time it does make a difference, Blu-Ray players will be a lot cheaper than they are now. The PS3 improved the install base of Blu-Ray and maybe it did win the format war for Sony.

But they alienated a lot of their fans (not all obviously) and got their asses handed to them hard in the first few months of the gaming battle to do that. If they recover and start dominating in a couple of years with the PS3, all is forgiven and they were right. If the Wii and 360 continue to obliterate them, it was a horrific decision for their gaming line, allowing not one but two competitors to leapfrog them and taking something they OWNED and making it a battle.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by TroyF

But they alienated a lot of their fans (not all obviously) and got their asses handed to them hard in the first few months of the gaming battle to do that. If they recover and start dominating in a couple of years with the PS3, all is forgiven and they were right. If the Wii and 360 continue to obliterate them, it was a horrific decision for their gaming line, allowing not one but two competitors to leapfrog them and taking something they OWNED and making it a battle.

Yes, but here's the thing. If BR becomes the market standard, the amount of money they make on that media alone will make Sony VERY wealthy. You don't have to look any further than the stock market yesterday to realize what impact the investors believe this announcement had for Sony. The stock jumped roughly 2% higher after the rumors of Universal dropping the exclusive agreement hit the web. For Sony as a whole, this would be huge.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, but here's the thing. If BR becomes the market standard, the amount of money they make on that media alone will make Sony VERY wealthy. You don't have to look any further than the stock market yesterday to realize what impact the investors believe this announcement had for Sony. The stock jumped roughly 2% higher after the rumors of Universal dropping the exclusive agreement hit the web. For Sony as a whole, this would be huge.

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

[stevew]

I'd have to do the math on it, but to "win" the BR war would probably net a ton more profit than they would ever make on a console, assuming that BR replaces DVD's within a few years.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

The million dollar question... I think, looking at everything that has happened, that Blu-Ray would have won regardless of the PS3.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by stevew

I'd have to do the math on it, but to "win" the BR war would probably net a ton more profit than they would ever make on a console, assuming that BR replaces DVD's within a few years.

Yes, that would be the logical next step to this argument. The profit that Sony will make on BR if it becomes the HD standard would make video game profits look like crumbs on the ground. It's not even close.

Then the argument become 'Did Sony use the PS3 to win the format war without concern for the overall success of the console?'. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, however, the statement could also be made that the long-term success of the PS3 likely hinges on them winning the HD format war. The PS3 has its competitive advantage significantly reduced if BR does not become the HD stardard.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I understand perfectly well that digital is not the same as HD. Digital has to do with the signal while HD has to do with the definition (i.e. pixels) on the screen.

You may understand the difference, but your posts sure make it look like you don't.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

I think it's too soon to say what wins or how much impact the PS3 will have in the end, but looking at the numbers I think it's hard to discount the impact the PS3 has had so far. The last numbers I saw had total number of sales pretty even, but the BR discs have been outselling HD-DVD discs by about 2:1 since the PS3 release. That's a pretty significant push to catch up that BR got from what appears to be the PS3 release and they've now taken the lead. I think for that to change the HD-DVD backers are going to need a major push (like the Wal-Mart rumor that came out a month or so ago that was never confirmed).

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

The million dollar question... I think, looking at everything that has happened, that Blu-Ray would have won regardless of the PS3.

Bingo. This isn't a question of are they going to make millioins off the Blu-Ray market. The question is did they need to sacrifice the PS3 to do it.

I don't think they willingly did sacrifice the PS3, I think they just made a monster miscalculation. They assumed the success of the PS2 would mean they could do anything they wanted. It didn't work out and rather than alter their strategy, they made PR mistake after PR mistake to try and cover up that they'd made a blunder.

So if you feel they couldn't have won the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle without the PS3, then they made a good decision. If you feel they didn't need the PS3's help to win that war, they made a horrible decision that'll have long term consequences for a very profitable arm of the company.

If they recover and win the console war a couple of years from now, they win either way.

I don't think they needed the PS3 to win the format war and I don't think they have a chance in hell of winning the console war now, so I think they made a mistake. Just my opinion, nothing more.

[Bee]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Yes, that would be the logical next step to this argument. The profit that Sony will make on BR if it becomes the HD standard would make video game profits look like crumbs on the ground. It's not even close.

Then the argument become 'Did Sony use the PS3 to win the format war without concern for the overall success of the console?'. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, however, the statement could also be made that the long-term success of the PS3 likely hinges on them winning the HD format war. The PS3 has its competitive advantage significantly reduced if BR does not become the HD stardard.

That's assuming either of the formats become mainstream. I've read several articles that have proposed neither will become mainstream and on-demand PPV type of distribution of HD movies will be what ends up winning out. I don't know if that will happen, but I can see it as a possibility.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Bee

That's assuming either of the formats become mainstream. I've read several articles that have proposed neither will become mainstream and on-demand PPV type of distribution of HD movies will be what ends up winning out. I don't know if that will happen, but I can see it as a possibility.

I doubt that will happen quite yet. I do think that PPV distribution will have some of the market, but there are going to be just as many people that want large media disks that they can use to store movies. Blu-ray has plenty of room for HD format movies, so it will still play a major factor, whether it will be in the form of a disk from a movie company or a disk that the person burns copies of their movies on for later use. Sony makes money in either case.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Looks like Universal is denying the rumor.

Craig Kornblau, the President of Universal Studios Home Entertainment contacted Engadget saying that the report from Heise is "totally false."

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

Pioneer USA has officially announced the availability of the BDC-2202, a combo drive which will read Blu-ray discs (including movies) as well as read/write DVDs and CDs. The drive, which will be the first Blu-ray drive to not have burn capability, will retail for the ultra low cost of $299 when it hits store shelves in June, making it the cheapest Blu-ray drive on the market by a few hundred dollars.



The drive can read single layer Blu-ray media at up to 5X, and dual layer media at up to 2X. It will also come with all software necessary for the playback of Blu-ray material and writing of DVD/CD material. This drive is targeted at savvy computer users looking to easily increase the capability of their machines, as well as HTPC owners looking to jump into Blu-ray without paying for unused burning capability.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Evidently, Sony plans to launch a major marketing push emphasizing the capabilities of the PS3 as a HD movie device.......

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6439199.html

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

That is impressive. I had been leaning towards asking for a PS3 for Christmas, primarily because of the Blu-Ray capabilities. However, if stand alone players of quality are available for 300 and under, I'm just going to ask for one of those unless the PS3 really steps up with some exclusive games that I want or has a significant price drop.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

Yes. The price on the non-burning BR drive has come down quite a bit due to cost reduction. Sony isn't losing nearly as much now as they were at launch on the PS3 as they would like you to believe. Their cost point is dropping. By that same token, waiting to buy a PS3 until the holiday season (or even next spring) would probably be a good move if you don't have one at this point. Not only will the monster titles begin to come out (FF, MGS, GT, etc.), but you may have a price drop to $499 or an improved version of the PS3 at the $599 price (larger hard drive).

[Daimyo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

That doesn't sound like a standalone player, but a drive for a PC. In which case it won't have much if any impact on the consumer market, but I might buy one.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, confirmed that it is an internal drive for a PC and not a standalone Blu-Ray player.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article12887.html

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Daimyo

DOLA, confirmed that it is an internal drive for a PC and not a standalone Blu-Ray player.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article12887.html

With that said, if that drive can sell for $300 (which is over $400 cheaper than the previous units), some very cheap stand-alones can't be far away. We already know that sub-$300 players are expected by November. Perhaps they may be on the way even sooner than that given that the drive prices are literally being cut in half by removing the burning option.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I have a confession to make, and I figure that this thread is a good place in which to do it.

I've seen standard definition TV, and I've seen high definition TV, and the difference isn't nearly enough to make me want to go with HD yet. I just don't see what the big deal is, and I was even watching sports in HD, and it didn't do much for me. With that said, this whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray deal doesn't do anything for me either.

I just had to get that off my chest. I know I'm an idiot.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

I have a confession to make, and I figure that this thread is a good place in which to do it.

I've seen standard definition TV, and I've seen high definition TV, and the difference isn't nearly enough to make me want to go with HD yet. I just don't see what the big deal is, and I was even watching sports in HD, and it didn't do much for me. With that said, this whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray deal doesn't do anything for me either.

I just had to get that off my chest. I know I'm an idiot.

Dude, if you can seriously watch a 720P Widescreen Football (or even better Hockey, Hockey was MADE for HD) game and watch the same game in 480i narrow and tell me you can't see what the big deal is, it's time to visit the Optometrist...

Heck, I can finally tell who is carrying the ball / has the puck as I can actually read the numbers on their jersey now (and often the names). Plus you can see far more of the field or ice and follow what's going on easier.

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Heck, I can finally tell who is carrying the ball / has the puck as I can actually read the numbers on their jersey now (and often the names). Plus you can see far more of the field or ice and follow what's going on easier.

I never had a problem with this on a SD TV. HD doesn't really let you see anything you couldn't see before, it just makes the picture more pretty.

Having said that, the difference between HD and non-HD TV signals (cable, DirecTV) is MUCH bigger than the difference between a DVD and a HD-DVD.