LA, CA Blu-ray versus HD-DVD, finally, it's over!

I think the math speaks for itself. 2.56 million PS3 = 2.56 Bluray players in the market. 4.62 million XBox 360s on the market = 0 HD DVD players in the market. If Microsoft would have made an all-in-one model with an integrated HD-DVD player, HD-DVD could have at least been competitive in the software market. The demos I saw at Sony didn't look any different to me. I own HD-DVD and Bluray players and there is no distinguishable difference in 1080p playback of video or Dolby True HD or DTS HD audio.

My problem with the PS3 and XBox's HD-DVD player is that neither of them will playback back the Dolby True HD or DTS HD multi-channel audio (on titles that offer them). So immediately you were behind the ball in the movies category. Now that a "winner" has emerged, the industry can finally focus their energies on improving an exploring the possibilities this optical format has to offer (at least until the 4k red-ray laser format comes around).

I guess my question is: is XBox considering a stand-alone Bluray player for their system? [Not that XBox needs to prove anything since they have the superior Gaming Console and online infrastructure]

 

How the heck did I become a Sony fan?! I didn't say I was a Sony fan, I said Blu-ray is the better format, which it is. If nothing else just because it can hold more data. That alone makes it better, all other things being equal.

Second, 2.56 million PS3s? Where the heck did you get your data? PS3 has sold more than 10 million systems!!! Check your numbers buddy.

Worldwide sales figures courtesy of Wikipedia, which is correct as these numbers are verifiable through numerous other sources:
Wii: 20.13 million, as of December 31, 2007
Xbox 360: 18 million, as of February 22, 2008
PlayStation 3: 10.49 million, as of December 31, 2007

You must be referring to U.S.-only system sales, in which case that is probably correct but I don't see how that's really a relevant statistic as this is a worldwide economy and nobody cares if PS3 sells only 5 systems in the U.S. if it sold 100 million in Europe and Asia, lol. At least be clear when citing sources

And PS3 has been gaining on Xbox 360 fast, which will continue to be the case because PS3 is the superior system in every respect. Now as for the games, that is not an issue of the system itself. Xbox 360 has more great games on it now than PS3 does. That's mostly because it's been out almost twice as long. But that won't be the case for long, either.

Just like PS2, PS3 will destroy Xbox 360 over the long run.

 

. . and you dragged this up why? Are you actually attempting to sway people? Do you think anybody here even cares about this topic anymore? If 'the war' is over, what in the blue hell is the point?

 

It is impossible to argue when a persons point of view is based on the "bigger=better" or "more expensive=better quality" point of view. This use of judgmental heuristics is often just a short cut, or simplified point of view, where we as a consumer base our uneducated purchasing power on the price tag of a product. There is no reason in arguing or trying to prove a point through facts. The mechanical impulse is ingrained in those who make this costly mistake by society and unfortunately parents who generally have the finances to afford making those mistakes.

Time will only tell.

 

And there's no point in arguing with someone who has no clue about the technology they're even talking about -- why do you think The Digital Bits, one of the leading DVD supporters and organizations since 1997, supported Blu-ray if not for the fact that it is the superior format? And yes, bigger is better. They both can show 1080p movies, they both have excellent quality sound, and most people could absolutely never claim to say that either one looks better or sounds better than the other. On that level they are certainly "equal" for all intents and purposes. But one has the potential to hold 200 gigs per disc in 8-layered format, the other has a pitiful 30 gig max for dual layer. Even now, Blu-ray is 50 gigs and HD-DVD is 30 gigs. Of course that matters. That means there is a lot more space for extra features and that's a huge benefit to the consumer. I love great movies with a ton of cool bonus features, it really enriches the DVD experience. If you just care about the movie I guess the argument is moot anyway, except to say that Blu-ray won and there's a lot more movie content on Blu-ray than there is on HD-DVD, so yet again clearly Blu-ray is the superior format from the consumer perspective because there is simply a lot more content on it.

Whatever costs more is not automatically better. Blu-ray has been more expensive because the manufacturing techniques are more expensive, you have to have a completely new DVD replication system not just an upgrade of traditional DVD manufacturing, which was the case for HD-DVD. Also, we all know an HD-DVD player costs a lot more than $200 to manufacture right now, including the cost of marketing, R&D, etc. etc. But Toshiba slashed those prices only at the very end to try to seize the market in one last, desperate gasp. That happens with any sort of consumer war, eventually one organization starts undercutting to try to seize control of the market. It rarely works. Look at Reel.com, if you guys were around back in the day we (DVD enthusiasts) got some of the sweetest deals from Reel.com, I loved that site, and they always had better prices than Amazon.com. There was also 800.com, where I got The Matrix brand new when it came out for $11 plus free popcorn and free shipping, best deal on the Internet. But neither company survived because ultimately they weren't hitting their margins and while Amazon had less competitive pricing they were the larger company and had better brand recognition.

There is not one single argument as to why HD-DVD IS better. There is the argument that when Blu-ray came out, it wasn't fully feature-enabled, and HD-DVD was, but that's not an issue anymore because Blu-ray is fully functional now and build 2.0 can be upgraded to from the PS3 no problem. But that's a prime reason I didn't buy a Blu-ray player in the first place, because I wanted to wait until 1) the technology got cheaper, 2) there was a clear winner in the HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray battle, and 3) the technology got better and was more widely tested. Not to mention the cost of discs is still prohibitive for most people, myself included. I rarely like to pay even $20 for a movie -- I prefer to buy my movies on Netflix used or find them somewhere or sometime after they have been out a while at a cheaper rate. $20 is awfully expensive for a single movie, 1.5 to 2 hours of entertainment. I'd rather pay $45 for a TV show with 15 hours of entertainment.

 

Bigger is not better when the studios ask what they are going to do with all the space.

Your mansion mentality is retarded and illogical on so many levels it is not worth trying to discuss it further.

Why do you need 40 gigs of space for 10 gigs of data? Yes true several seasons of TV shows could be put on one disk, but do you think the studios, seller will make the cost any less because it is one disk? What is the over head on 3 HD DVDs compared to one disk on the level of a mass produced item like an HD DVD or Blu-ray disk?

The question is not bigger is better, the question is what are they going to do with all the space. I don't have the patience to look up the articles I have read indicating that your average movie title which makes up 90% or more of the current DVD market will never use the 40 gigs of space you cherish. It has nothing to do with what the consumer wants, it all depeneds on what the studios can cost effectively add to a DVD or blu-ray. Your mentality and the mentality of all the other sheepol in America we, the informed consumer, will pay more for a blu-ray disk and player.

So yes, enjoy the bigger is better mentality and the logic behind what you believe.