February Console Sales Numbers

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Synovia

No Shit. We're no longer having after christmas sales. The prices for EVERYTHING raises this time of year.

So prices rise across the board on all items 15-25% because after-Christmas sales are over? Interesting economic viewpoint.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by cartman

So prices rise across the board on all items 15-25% because after-Christmas sales are over? Interesting economic viewpoint.

Look, Blu-ray players were in the 400 range before christmas. They dropped with sales. The sales are gone now, and they're back up to 400. The same thing that happened to TVs over the same time period. I paid $800 for my TV in late november (not black friday), and it was available at multiple places for within $50 (sears, costco, circuit city). It can't be found anywhere (as far as I can see) for less than $1099 right now. My dad payed $1299 for his Tv, and I can't find it anywhere right now for less than $1799.



Are you really all that surprised that there are sales right around christmas, and things return to their normal prices after the sales??

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cartman

So prices rise across the board on all items 15-25% because after-Christmas sales are over? Interesting economic viewpoint.

He phrased his point a bit incorrectly, but his premise is correct. What he should have said is that the products return to their normal MSRP level, while just about any electronics product can be found for 10-20% off retail in the two months before the Chrismas holiday if you spend any amount of time looking around for the deal. That doesn't happen much at all in the first three quarters of the year.

[gstelmack]

Hmm, my 32" Vizio is about $150 cheaper than it was in September of last year when I bought it...

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Hmm, my 32" Vizio is about $150 cheaper than it was in September of last year when I bought it...

There you go. It must not be true.

Of course a TV of that quality and price is going to go down 8 months later. 32" LCD's have been out a lot longer than BR players. They're going to see larger decreases in price as time moves along due to cheaper part costs. BR players are much earlier in the life cycle.

But you knew that and were trying to play devil's advocate. Understood.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Hmm, my 32" Vizio is about $150 cheaper than it was in September of last year when I bought it...

What did you pay? What model?


I paid $839 for my 42" GV42LF in November 2007. (not black friday). The lowest price froogle has is 1179, with a refurb going for 949. Sears is 1099, circuit city 1199.

[stevew]

Prices this year on similar new vs old model LCDs/Plasmas are quite a bit lower, at least retail wise-

But even with the newer models starting quite a bit cheaper, they still aren't nearly as cheap as last years ones hit around christmas.

Synovia-how is the performance on the gv42lf? Those coupons, plus sales prices events we were running at sears in oct/november were insane. Save 150 plus sale price, etc.

I would guess mediocre black levels on movies, SD is okay, HD pretty well amazing? Maybe a bit of trailing in stuff like basketball? IE pretty much the standard for most non-high end stuff? I can pretty much live with most of that stuff. I swore off vizio about a year ago, but now I'm really tempted to get a SV42l "black tie" edition later this year when it comes out. I am still a bit worried over the build quality on the V's, but I would assume each generation is better. I do like how you can totally detach the speakers on many of the vizio sets.

I dunno if the specs are finalized yet, but it the SV should be 120hz, 6500:1 contrast, reasonable response time, non-collasal bezel. Contrast isn't everything, so I'm hoping their idea of 6500:1 is more like Samsungs 15k:1, or thereabouts. I think it retails for 1199. I hope it's not one of those things where I hook it up and feel dissapointed.

[stevew]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

Hmm, my 32" Vizio is about $150 cheaper than it was in September of last year when I bought it...

Honestly the 32" vizio is the only set I've ever seen retail go UP on. It came out at 599 and then went up to 629. It's pretty much a dead model now, as it'll be replaced in the next few months.

[TroyF]

What I think a lot of you are missing is the combination of things that has to happen with Blu Ray players. With DVD players vs. VHS, what did you have to do? You switched the devices out. That's it. For doing that you got a better picture, saved space on storage and VHS tapes became harder and harder and harder to get. In five years, 50% of households had the DVD player. It just took over from there.

With Blu Ray? What do you have to do? Well, first off, you'd better damned well have a TV that can support it. The difference between Blu Ray and DVD on an old LCD? Ummm, that would be zilch. Are DVD's tough to get? Any Blu Ray exclusive movies out there? Not so much. Are Blu Ray discs cheaper? Ummm, no.

Eventually the price will come down, people will get better TV's that can show off the Blu Ray, there will be Blu Ray only discs. . . But I don't see that happening anytime soon. I don't see it happening nearly as fast as DVD took over VHS. I'd be stunned if 50% of all US households owned a Blu Ray player by 2011 or 2012. I don't think it's likely that it'll ever hit that level of saturation.

One other point. . . when DVD was taking over VHS, it was the next big thing and there wasn't anything new on the horizon. Nada. Now we can envision 3 or 4 different types of technology that could potentially put a dent in Blu Ray sales. From digital downloading to On Demand services to other types just being tested now, Blu Ray is going to have competition in the market place.

I own a Blu Ray because I own a PS3. I also own a 51" 1080P TV. I purchased Planet Earth for the Blu Ray. Yup, the picture is purrrrrty. Yet that's the only thing I've purchased for it to this point.

[Synovia]

My GV42LF isn't perfect. Its great for $800 though.


The black levels could be better, but its really only bugged me on one movie (Sunshine), and I'm not sure if it really was a black level issue, or that the movie is supposed to kind of have a "negative" look to parts of it. I've never seen anything like what I saw in that movie, so I'm not sure which is the issue (DVD on PS3 too, so theres a lot of place in the chain that things could have gone wrong).


Honestly, I think it does a much better job with motion than my dad's samsung, and seems to do a slightly better job upscaling SD content (either that, or my dad's SD cable sucks), but the samsung has slightly better color, and much better black levels.


I'm sure I'd be happier with one of the top of the line ones, but I'm not sure that there was anything that would be better for anything near the price.




As to HD being spectacular, yeah.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by TroyF

With Blu Ray? What do you have to do? Well, first off, you'd better damned well have a TV that can support it. The difference between Blu Ray and DVD on an old LCD? Ummm, that would be zilch. Are DVD's tough to get? Any Blu Ray exclusive movies out there? Not so much. Are Blu Ray discs cheaper? Ummm, no.

Thats not exactly true.

"The difference between Blu Ray and DVD on an old LCD?"

Blu-Ray has a wider color gamut than DVD, and even on older 720p TVs looks much better. DVD on older TVs didn't look much better than VHS, just better colors essentially. You only got a big difference when you went from the Tvs with 200 scanlines (composite only) to 400/480 scanlines (svideo, component etc. )


"Are DVD's tough to get?"

At the beginning, yes, they were much tougher to get than VHS.

"Any Blu Ray exclusive movies out there?"

I don't seem to remember any movies that were DVD exclusive at the beginning.

"Are Blu Ray discs cheaper?"

DVD was (and still IS) significantly more expensive than VHS.



I don't know why people think that all these same issues that DVD had no problem moving past will stop Blu-Ray.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by TroyF

One other point. . . when DVD was taking over VHS, it was the next big thing and there wasn't anything new on the horizon. Nada. Now we can envision 3 or 4 different types of technology that could potentially put a dent in Blu Ray sales. From digital downloading to On Demand services to other types just being tested now, Blu Ray is going to have competition in the market place.

This is seriously incorrect revisionist history.


Do you not remember Dtheater? 1080i in 1998? D-9HD? There was plenty of stuff on the horizon when DVD came out.


We'll need a whole lot more bandwith before digital HD downloads are a reality.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I don't know why people think that all these same issues that DVD had no problem moving past will stop Blu-Ray.

The upgrade from VHS to DVD was much, much larger than the upgrade from DVD to blu-ray is. The possibility of downloadable movies and video on-demand wasn't hanging over the head of DVD.

Blu-Ray may very well catch on like DVDs, but it has a much bigger hill to climb to get there.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The upgrade from VHS to DVD was much, much larger than the upgrade from DVD to blu-ray is.

I thoroughly disagree.


From VHS to today's DVD, yes, but thats more of improved compression algorithms. Go back and look at some of the DVDs printed in 1997. Then look at the VHS for the same movie.


I seriously think some of you people need to get your eyes checked if you don't think theres a significant difference between HD and SD.



VHS: 330 x 480 interlaced = 158,400 pixels /2
DVD: 720 x 480 interlaced = 345,600 pixels /2 (in the 275,000 /2 range for anamorphic)
1080p: 1920x1080 progres = 2,073,600 pixels



if you don't think theres an exteremly drastic difference btween blu-ray and dvd, theres something wrong with your tv, how its hooked up, or your eyes

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Do you not remember Dtheater? 1080i in 1998? D-9HD? There was plenty of stuff on the horizon when DVD came out.

I was an active electronics purchaser then (that was about when I jumped on the DirecTV bandwagon), and I don't remember anything being a serious competitor to DVD. I never heard of either of those two. Laserdisc was a bigger deal before then than DVD.

As opposed to nowadays where people are actually downloading stuff from Xbox Live and Netflix, CBS makes shows available for download the next day, and Youtube is king.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I thoroughly disagree.


From VHS to today's DVD, yes, but thats more of improved compression algorithms. Go back and look at some of the DVDs printed in 1997. Then look at the VHS for the same movie.


I seriously think some of you people need to get your eyes checked if you don't think theres a significant difference between HD and SD.

There is a signicant difference in picture, but the upgrade from VHS to DVD went well beyond picture.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Synovia

I thoroughly disagree.

From VHS to today's DVD, yes, but thats more of improved compression algorithms. Go back and look at some of the DVDs printed in 1997. Then look at the VHS for the same movie.

VHS suffered from Macrovision copy protection, which degraded the picture. There are no analog artifacts in even the earliest DVDs. No rewinding or fast-forwarding needed. I was one of the early DVD adopters in 1997. It was a night and day difference between VHS and DVD. There is definitely a difference between DVD and next gen (HD-DVD/Blu-Ray), but not nearly as dramatic as going from analog to digital as the last format shift was.

If all it took was a superior picture or sound for a new technology to accepted, then why aren't SACDs more widespread? It definitely sounds better than a regular CD.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by cartman

VHS suffered from Macrovision copy protection, which degraded the picture. There are no analog artifacts in even the earliest DVDs.

Are you fracking serious? Some of the early DVDs were essentially the VHS copy recorded onto DVD. No remastering at all.

[gstelmack]

Heck, I just liked the fact that my DVDs didn't get old and worn out and worse every time I played the movie (barring me scratching them...)

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Atocep

There is a signicant difference in picture, but the upgrade from VHS to DVD went well beyond picture.

As does DVD->HDDVD/Blu-ray.


We get full bandwith surround channels, we get lossless audio, we get much more physically sound disks, etc.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Are you fracking serious? Some of the early DVDs were essentially the VHS copy recorded onto DVD. No remastering at all.

A DVD is digital. VHS is analog. Does that fact escape you? When you play back a VHS tape, there is jitter and other anomalies due to the tape head. Remember having to adjust tracking? When you replay a DVD, it is the same experience each time, as it is a laser reading pits on the disc. Even if the DVD is mastered from the same exact source as the VHS was, the DVD picture is going to be consistently better due to the lack of the analog mechanisms in playback and degradation introduced by the Macrovision analog copy protections.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by cartman

If all it took was a superior picture or sound for a new technology to accepted, then why aren't SACDs more widespread? It definitely sounds better than a regular CD.

because video is much more important than sound to the average consumer. Couple that with the fact that a device needed to do direct DSD (which pretty much only sony products did) to not downsample SACDs, and you had a bad idea.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Synovia

As does DVD->HDDVD/Blu-ray.


We get full bandwith surround channels, we get lossless audio, we get much more physically sound disks, etc.

That stuff is still nowhere near as important as the increased storage space DVD had along with the improved ability to pause, fastforward, skip ahead, and the biggest was not having to worry about rewinds.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Synovia

We get full bandwith surround channels, we get lossless audio, we get much more physically sound disks, etc.

Originally Posted by Synovia

because video is much more important than sound to the average consumer.

lol

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by cartman

A DVD is digital. VHS is analog. Does that fact escape you? When you play back a VHS tape, there is jitter and other anomalies due to the tape head. When you replay a DVD, it is the same experience each time, as it is a laser reading pits on the disc. Even if the DVD is mastered from the same exact source as the VHS was, the DVD picture is going to be consistently better due to the lack of the analog mechanisms in playback and degradation introduced by the Macrovision analog copy protections.

"A DVD is digital. VHS is analog. Does that fact escape you?"

No, its just mostly irrelevant in properly functioning machines. I am saying that the quality of DVD releases in 1997 when the format was released were not significantly better than the VHS from that period. The masters used were of significantly low quality that the format was not the issue.

[Synovia]

Originally Posted by Atocep

That stuff is still nowhere near as important as the increased storage space DVD had along with the improved ability to pause, fastforward, skip ahead, and the biggest was not having to worry about rewinds.

you couldn't pause or fastforward on VHS?

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Synovia

Are you fracking serious? Some of the early DVDs were essentially the VHS copy recorded onto DVD. No remastering at all.

Some were, many weren't. Choosing the worst quality items to make your point seems disingenuous. You also ignore the enhanced convenience of no rewinding, smaller storage, better sound, new releases that were available for purchase months before they could be purchased on VHS, no degradation in quality with repeat viewings, bonus features and director commentaries (not all that useful but a good selling point). Lots of things changed with DVD. It was a paradigm shift. Blu-Ray is just a much enhanced edition of the same paradigm.

And can we please stop talking about how long it will take for downloadable HD content? Discounting downloadable DVD content is like saying that the Wii is not a next-generation console. Just because Blu-Ray is better quality than downloadable DVD content doesn't mean that downloadable movies can't be the successor to DVD.

[Daimyo]

VHS to DVD was certainly a much bigger leap then DVD to HDM. The picture quality was better (even though not all transfers were great), but the convenience was amazing. You didn't have to fast-forward through previews, the quality didn't degrade with each viewing, you could easily add/remove subtitles (or change languages), you could have special features, etc, etc. It was transformative.

Now with DVD to HDM you only get better picture quality. The improvement on paper is amazing, but in reality the returns diminish quickly. I have a 720p projector projector with 100"+ screen and a 13' viewing length. I can tell the difference between HDM and standard DVDs, but its really insignificant IMO. The leap from SDTV cable to HDTV cable is amazing IMO, but for DVD to HDM its really not worth the extra cost or loss of flexibility at this point. Maybe it will be when I get a 1080p project and a 150" screen? *shurg*

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Synovia

DVD was (and still IS) significantly more expensive than VHS.

This is completely wrong for new release movies. New VHS movies were in the $75-$125 range for about 2-3 months ("Rental_shop" entry on Wikipedia) so the rental companies could get the movies before home users did. A new DVD was $20-$25 at the same time (forgetting about good online deals).

[Daimyo]

...and my point earlier about Blu-Ray having a long way to go shouldn't be comforting to HDM supporters. If we look at the DVD timeline we're basically in 1998 right now with Blu-Ray. DVD didn't start to hit the mainstream until 2000 and didn't really take over until ~2002, five years into its lifecycle.

In 1998 DVD was only competing with VHS for on-demand video viewing... Blu-Ray has to compete with on-demand cable, DVR, download services, and DVD (a much more formidable opponent than VHS was!). Is it reasonable to expect BR to be the leading by 2012 given the additional competition? If its not mainstream by 2012 does it have any shot at all -- the competition is only going to get fiercer with time.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Synovia

LEAVE BLU-RAY ALONE!!!!!!

.

[Big Fo]

Things always seem to get so heated in the last few days before the new numbers come out.

That Don King Prizefighter game would have to be really good for me to buy a game with "Don King" in the title. I don't think it's ever going to come to that though.

[Cringer]

Maybe we are moving into an era where there is not one clear winner for this sort of thing, eh guys? Maybe there is a group of people who don't care for downloading movies and will adopt Blu-ray, while others go the download way. People with cable may choose whatever comes on the On-Demand service as the way for them. Maybe some people choose what is easier for them to take in their car for the kiddies.

I see it like car audio seems to be now. I have Sirius and that is all I listen to pretty much. Others may stick with their MP3 players, others will stay with regular radio and CDs.

There are new technologies, and with these things wanted in more then just the home, or just the car, or just the office or back yard, I think the lines are going to blur more and more types of media will continue to hang around longer then BETA or Laserdisk did.

My two cents, fresh from my rear end.

[Deattribution]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Things always seem to get so heated in the last few days before the new numbers come out.

That Don King Prizefighter game would have to be really good for me to buy a game with "Don King" in the title. I don't think it's ever going to come to that though.

I've thought that the whole Don King endorsement has been a waste since they announced it. It's like having 'Victor Conte presents MLB 2k9'. Don King is everything that is wrong with boxing, and nobody will buy it simply because he's associated with it.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

At the risk of putting this thread back on topic, it should be noted that the NPD numbers for March will be out today (April 17th). They should be out in the evening (I believe around 6:30 PM EDT).

Microsoft has released a pre-emptive press release for the third straight month one day before the NPD numbers come out. At least it's not a 'shortage' press release this time......

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news...ales-in-europe

The crux of the article in the below quote seems pretty impressive until you realize that the stats their citing prove little more than showing that the 360 has been out 15 months longer than either the Wii or PS3 in PAL territories. In month-over-month sales, they're getting beaten badly by both the PS3 and Wii. These overall numbers have been in a downward spiral for the 360 over the past 9 months in PAL territories.

“the Xbox 360 is the number one next-gen console in EMEA, owning 42% of the marketin terms of life to date revenue. Xbox 360 continues to enjoy the highest software attach rate of any game console in Europe with more than 7.0 games sold per console (PS3: 3.8; Wii 3.5) after 27 months on the market.”

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Haze receives a final final final release date after several delays. May 20th is the release date. Who knows what it will be like at this point. I think there might be an Ubisoft employee on this board somewhere. Interested to see if they chime in on how they feel about the game.

[Cringer]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Haze receives a final final final release date after several delays. May 20th is the release date. Who knows what it will be like at this point. I think there might be an Ubisoft employee on this board somewhere. Interested to see if they chime in on how they feel about the game.

I think there might be an Ubisoft employee in the game by this point. And not in the gameplay, I mean chopped up and in the game disks.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Cringer

I think there might be an Ubisoft employee in the game by this point. And not in the gameplay, I mean chopped up and in the game disks.

Tonight's special is Diced Ubisoft Employee. Enjoy your dinner!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Microsoft's Shane Kim tells gamers that console quality is MS's #1 priority.................

http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/fe...ane-kim/?biz=1

[Synovia]

Customers should be confident that we are applying the same focus and commitment to quality in our hardware as we are to our software and services.

I think thats exactly what customers are worried about.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

October - Heavy Rain, Playstation Home, Valkyria Chronicles, Resistance 2

So, hey.

If you were referring to October as being the 1.0 release, you can probably scratch that.

If you were talking about the open beta, I'm suddenly quite curious as to how you got an 8-day scoop on the news of the delay.

[Eaglesfan27]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

So, hey.

If you were referring to October as being the 1.0 release, you can probably scratch that.

If you were talking about the open beta, I'm suddenly quite curious as to how you got an 8-day scoop on the news of the delay.

Heh. Maybe what we've all been half-joking about is true

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Eaglesfan27

Heh. Maybe what we've all been half-joking about is true

Well, that was MY first thought. But, y'know, benefit of the doubt and all.

Wonder if he'll respond?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Well, that was MY first thought. But, y'know, benefit of the doubt and all.

Wonder if he'll respond?

It's like top-end espionage. I'm outed by your instincts and EF27, who is a 360 informant, pours gasoline on the fire while keeping his cover. I expect an Uwe Boll movie based on this true story any day now. It shouldn't lose more than $20M, which is better than most Boll movies have done.

[Kodos]

They should give him a crack at the Final Fantasy series.

[SackAttack]

Ping: MBBF

Resistance 2 ain't October, neither. Officially dated 2/09 today. This is fun!

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Ping: MBBF

Resistance 2 ain't October, neither. Officially dated 2/09 today. This is fun!

Incorrect. I believe you got your shooters crossed. Killzone 2 is the one that was bumped to February '09.

Ted Price at Sony Gamer Day earlier today said that Resistance would be on the shelves in 6 months. My guess is that they'll release it before Thanksgiving to have it available for the beginning of the holiday shopping season, including Black Friday.