HD-DVD Doooomed! Doooomed I say

[rk47]

"I've heard of trimming the hedges, but you done scorched the earth"

but...what good is grass if u can't ...uh...eat it?

[Venkman]

I am lucky that the war between these formats and which ever wins is completely irrelevant to my life.    

Same

But I'm also surprised at the folks who picked up HD-DVD in 2007. I haven't really followed this as closely as some, but to me, almost since inception, the HD-DVD camp has had the disadvantage. Even the big studio that was backing them had been talking about dual-format players. Not a good sign.

But that's just me. Anyone here go the HD-DVD route and want to discuss why?

[Sky]

I could understand it, though I've stayed out. If you already have a 360, it's the cheapest way to get HD movies.

I called Bluray back when the PS3 was announced to have it in every unit, rather than an add-on.

[stray]

I don't think anyone could have really known early on. That was a big gamble Sony took.

[Roac]

I don't think anyone could have really known early on. That was a big gamble Sony took.

Not only that, but supposedly at the end some studios were trying to go HD only.  They switched because Sony offered a big pile of cash, which is a loss for the consumer.  Instead of having two formats that could be used to help keep costs down, everyone must play with Sony, who in turn is eager to make up the difference in the millions they forked out to the studios.

Either way, neither format is something I care about at all.  I'm hoping to get both a 360 and HDTV soon, but not the HD-DVD addon or a PS3.  I'll get a Blu-Ray player when I can't rent new stuff on DVD, so probably in ~3 years. 

[Sky]

Free installed base vs an addon, or the still high price of a standalone unit? The high console price might have been risky, but MS came out at the high price point first, without an HD movie player. Lots of people have HD sets thanks to walmart. I don't see how HD-DVD had a chance, really.

Personally, I'll be getting a Bluray burner when they get affordable.

[stray]

Now that it's all said and done though, I'd recommend anyone who already has an hdtv to get some kind of blu-ray player now. Might as well take advantage of that hd set, instead of relying on dvd's. There's a big difference.

[naum]

I am far from convinced about long range prospects of Blu-Ray, even with its assumed ascendance in the market…

Clicking a button and downloading is just so much more convenient… …and I have stacks upon stacks of DVDs (and VHS) that collect dust, except for a few select titles…

…sure the downloaded, compressed "HD" is not as fine as Blu-Ray. But it beats cable "HD" and other "low def high def" that's trotted out to the consumer as "HD"…

[Tebonas]

But that's just me. Anyone here go the HD-DVD route and want to discuss why?

I wanted something I can view in HD to use my TV set to its fullest and I already had to buy the Xbox for Mass Effect anyway. My local cable provider doesn't have HD channels yet.

I bought Children of Men, but was underwhelmed by the quality improvements to DVD. I would have been equally underwhelmed by Blueray, so I see no big loss there.

[stray]

I am far from convinced about long range prospects of Blu-Ray, even with its assumed ascendance in the market…

Clicking a button and downloading is just so much more convenient… …and I have stacks upon stacks of DVDs (and VHS) that collect dust, except for a few select titles…

…sure the downloaded, compressed "HD" is not as fine as Blu-Ray. But it beats cable "HD" and other "low def high def" that's trotted out to the consumer as "HD"…

I know it gets said all the time, but not many people are willing to just settle with virtual copies of their movies. I can safely say that I know not one person, outside of the internet, that likes the idea. And even at this place, which as about as fringe as it gets with the tech savvy crowd... I don't see many who like the idea here either. Whether it be downloaded movies or downloaded games. Tell them that their downloaded movie is inferior in quality, and that just settles the deal even more.

[naum]

I know it gets said all the time, but not many people are willing to just settle with virtual copies of their movies. I can safely say that I know not one person, outside of the internet, that likes the idea. And even at this place, which as about as fringe as it gets with the tech savvy crowd... I don't see many who like the idea here either. Whether it be downloaded movies or downloaded games. Tell them that their downloaded movie is inferior in quality, and that just settles the deal even more.

I think NetFlix and iTunes rentals are going to dominate, maybe later than sooner (with the adjusting of some terms and price reductions…) and Blu-Ray will be the domain of videophiles.

Look at music downloads — the "virtual" market far exceeds the physical medium market now and video is going to arrive at the same endgame.

And, even in the non-virtual realm, Blu-Ray is an improvement, but not significant unless you're viewing on a large screen display. Is everyone going to be sporting 60" TVs soon?

[stray]

It's an improvement on anything that is capable of a good, colorful, sharp picture. That could be a 20 inch lcd, for all I care. Just about any lcd, for that matter. Any plasma for sure.

[HaemishM]

Long-range, a physical media is just inefficient. It requires storage, it requires expensive shipping, it's just plain not an efficient way to have media delivered. Yes, 10 years out, we'll still have physical media. Hell, maybe 30 years out. But really, the future is in downloaded content that can be transported/stored on small, rewriteable media like flash drives. It's going to take time to get there, and Blu-Ray may be the bridge there, or there may be another technology. Most of the shit that comes with the physical copy (box, inserts) are superflouous anyway. So long as the rewriateable medium is reliable, eventually not enough people will give enough of a shit about having a box to make it worthwhile.

[Sky]

Fans of digital distribution are too close to see the forest.

[Morfiend]

Now that it's all said and done though, I'd recommend anyone who already has an hdtv to get some kind of blu-ray player now. Might as well take advantage of that hd set, instead of relying on dvd's. There's a big difference.

If you have a decent upconverter, there is hardly any difference. I have to say I have been completely underwhelmed with High Def formats in general.

[HaemishM]

Fans of digital distribution are too close to see the forest.

It's not even about fans of the methods, it's about the bean counters who decide how things get to you. Eventually, they just won't be able to justify physical media when the majority of their customers want some form of digital distribution. Hell, even if you had to go to a media store, order what you want and put it on a rewritable disk in the store as opposed to in your underwear at home, it's still going to be delivered digitally.

Why should a theater use film when they can just download the movie into their digital cameras? Why carry 10,000 CD's that can get stolen when you can carry a million CD's and sell them by the track without needing any physical inventory?

[stray]

Now that it's all said and done though, I'd recommend anyone who already has an hdtv to get some kind of blu-ray player now. Might as well take advantage of that hd set, instead of relying on dvd's. There's a big difference.

If you have a decent upconverter, there is hardly any difference. I have to say I have been completely underwhelmed with High Def formats in general.

I'm using the PS3 (which is pretty decent at upconverting actually). I see a difference. However, I think it all depends on the tv. Naturally, I haven't viewed every tv out there, but I think hd video can be pretty underwhelming on dlp's, for instance. They're just not as crisp. I view a bd movie on an lcd or plasma and I'll make the faces out of everyone in a crowded wide pan shot, backgrounds and foregrounds are contrasted in a way that it almost gives off a 3d effect, or I see facial details in closeups that aren't there on a dvd version of the same film.

[Jain Zar]

Long-range, a physical media is just inefficient. It requires storage, it requires expensive shipping, it's just plain not an efficient way to have media delivered. Yes, 10 years out, we'll still have physical media. Hell, maybe 30 years out. But really, the future is in downloaded content that can be transported/stored on small, rewriteable media like flash drives. It's going to take time to get there, and Blu-Ray may be the bridge there, or there may be another technology. Most of the shit that comes with the physical copy (box, inserts) are superflouous anyway. So long as the rewriateable medium is reliable, eventually not enough people will give enough of a shit about having a box to make it worthwhile.

I disagree with you.  Virtual = NOT REAL.  No ownership.  People like having collections of things.  Virtual has no sense of ownership, and only lasts as long as the drive or machine doesn't conk out.  And DRM on Xbox Live Arcade games proves how dick virtual copies of things really are.  Hell, Wii VC titles.  You can't lend or share or even show off a game.

The only reason its worked with music is songs are only a buck, most people don't want the whole album so its ala carte, its usually a little cheaper for the few that do, and you can burn it to a physical disk with no hassles. (And CDRs cost less than a buck.  Not to mention its more convenient to put it on an iPod to play, or play it off the computer as a super convenient media center.  For things like TV shows, books, or videogames its not as good, and current efforts prove it to in fact gargle enormous amounts of moose jizz.

I like having a big DVD and game collection.  I dread the day my PS2 finally craps out as I will need to buy another PS2 (especially given the PS3 backcompatibility bullshit) since I LIKE playing my older games.

PDFs don't replace books.  Sure, I can get and print out almost any D&D module ever made for around 10 bucks total (paper and ink guessed as part of the total cost), but its not the same at all.  (Which is why I have hunted ebay and retro stores for deals to get most of the modules I might like to run including the entire GDQ series in color cover versions.  Or the original White Box D&D.  Not to play..  Not just to read.  But to HAVE.  Same thing with Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader books.  I want the entire line.  I can get all the books off the net, but it doesn't count, and is not the same.)

For people who like disposable entertainment and enjoy paying almost the same price yet being treated like a thief (HI STEAM.  FUCK YOU.) it will be fine and dandy.

For the rest of us, its a nightmarish vision of hell.

[Falconeer]

Casino Royale Blu-Ray on a full HD 37" (the smallest full HD available as far as I know, still a 1000€ TV) converted all my skeptic friends. It's simply unbelievable.

No upconverting can prepare you for the opening title sequence or well.. the following 2 hours.

I was unimpressed with BluRay, until that. Now I understand.

[Mazakiel]

The Blu-Ray title that wowed me on first viewing was the Planet Earth documentary.  Simply stunning in HD. 

As to digital copy only distribution for movies...fuck that.  The few games I do that way are more of a matter of necessity than any other reason.  The only reason I do it for music is because overall, the music's cheap and I can fit everything onto my iPod now.  Having had a catastrophic computer failure in the past that wiped out alot of music that hadn't fit onto my old iPod, and that I couldn't re-download even though I had paid for it turned me off of ever investing a huge amount of money into something like that ever again.  At least with the few games I've purchased digitally, you're not limited to one download, ever, no matter what.  Not to mention the hoops you have to jump through for alot of iTunes stuff.  I don't want the way Apple does it to become the norm, because it's too tied up in that shit where you pay money for something but don't really own it.  I can live with it when I buy very little music overall compared to what I spend on games and music, but no way am I entrusting that much money to machine storage.  Especially considering how much storage I would need to be able to store all the games and music I  own. 

[stray]

Nice avatar, Maz.

[Mazakiel]

It's probably my favorite cover art/photo from his stuff, though not at the top of my list as far as the music went. 

[Venkman]

Look at music downloads — the "virtual" market far exceeds the physical medium market now and video is going to arrive at the same endgame.

I agree with you in general from a technophile standpoint, but this is not statistically correct. Virtual market is growing while hard media sales are declining, but hard media still makes up the vast majority of music sold. That will change, but not just net. The big problem has been that the studios thought downloads would complement hard media. They were wrong.

We're a long way off from worldwide digital distribution, but I don't think in the way most other people think of it. I think the idea of ownership of content is going to evolve out of society altogether to be replaced with on-demand content across everything. If you can get anything you want anytime you want it, why do you need to "own" the bits? We're already seeing this emerge across many entertainment sectors, but of course it'll be slowed by veteran consumers and established businesses (like those noted by Jain Zar). I'm not talking DiVX media of old, but rather a ubiquitous connection to your iTunes-like online account from which everything is streamed.

The internet is a two-way broadcast channel.

And the PS3 being a cheap Bluray player was fact last year. It is no longer the cheapest option, and was never really the sole reason people bought PS3 in the first place. No matter the marketing, it was a game console. People bought it because they liked the games (or hoped good ones would come) and then maybe because of Bluray. And at this point, the consortium can't afford for that even to be the message anymore.

The only way Bluray is going to matter at all as a mass market media is if that mass market picks it up. So the CE prices need to continue to drop (which they are) and content needs to become worth it (which is a longer way out). DVDs only really hit their stride 6 years ago.

[Abagadro]

But that's just me. Anyone here go the HD-DVD route and want to discuss why?

I had the 360 so the add-on unit was cheaper and it didn't cost me an extra HDMI connection which was important because my AV receiver was limited on those.

Bitten by the early adopter syndrome again.  Anyone want to buy a 3DO?

[Lt.Dan]

http://www.dtvforum.info/index.php?showtopic=61967&hl=

This is a well thought out discussion around what happens with no HD-DVD.  Yes, it's from a AV forum so take some of with a grain of salt but all in all a pretty good summary of these arguments;
- “If Blu-Ray Prevails Sony will Have a Monopoly”
- “If BD Becomes the Sole Format Prices Will Rise As They Screw the Consumer”
- “Two Formats can Co-exist and is beneficial to the consumer”
- Region Coding
- Disc Capacity/Bit Rate
- Market Share

[Jeff Kelly]

- “If Blu-Ray Prevails Sony will Have a Monopoly”

In the same way Philips has a monopoly on CDs? Oh wait...

- “If BD Becomes the Sole Format Prices Will Rise As They Screw the Consumer”

In the same way CD or DVD Prices have risen after it became the sole format? Oh wait...

- “Two Formats can Co-exist and is beneficial to the consumer”

No they can't and it is never beneficial to either the customer or the manufacturer.

If you have two formats, studios either have to release on both formats at once, which adds to the cost of manufacturing and screws over the stores which have to free twice the shelf space just so that you can buy the same film on either format or the movie you want is half of the time not released in that format that your player understands and you as a customer are screwed.

So manufacturers will start to sell dual-format devices so that people don't have to think about which format to buy which adds to the price of those players. Also if you need to buy dual format players just so that you can watch everything why not just agree on ONE format anyway.

Part of the lackluster sales of HD-Content and players stems from the fact that there were two competing formats. Customers don't want to do the Betamax vs. VHS choice all over again so they stayed with the "good-enough" technology already there.

Just look at HD-sales. After it was clear that HD-DVD was out, sales of BluRay Discs and players exploded. Ratatouille on BluRay was number one in the DVD(!) section of Amazaon last week (which means it was ordered more often than even the most popular DVD that week). Even PS3 sales are on a steady rise since the announcement.

People just waited it out. Two physical formats for the same content can't usually co-exist because people have to decide which player to buy to watch it/listen to it.

[Jeff Kelly]

BTW:

"Toshiba to drop HD DVD, sources say"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ib77125d96b22e86027d0bfb0c25aa58d

[Azazel]

(lots of words)

Jeff, you should have read the post on the other side of that link. You're basically agreeing with what the guy says on those arguments.

[Venkman]

Ya also gotta realize that:

• Sony does not manufacture all of the discs.
• Sony does not manufacture all of the players.
• Sony does not personally distribute all of either of these.
• Sony is not alone in the consortium.

They get to collect royalties based on which parts of the BD specification other companies follow. They don't control the end CD price.

This is just like DVD when they beat out DiVX (which unlike HD-DVD though was a dumb idea).

[stray]

The only way Bluray is going to matter at all as a mass market media is if that mass market picks it up. So the CE prices need to continue to drop (which they are) and content needs to become worth it (which is a longer way out). DVDs only really hit their stride 6 years ago.

It will eventually matter for the same reason DVD did: "Just because". It's not like any of us really made a conscious decision there. We all just started buying dvd's because they became so ubiquitous. Now that blu-ray's main competitor is out of the way, it'll probably be the same case there.

Digital distribution might be a viable competitor one day, but I don't think they're even the same type of product at this point. In terms of ownership, and in terms of quality. And no one sure as hell has the bandwidth to either deliver or receive movies that are hd-dvd/blu-ray quality on that large of a scale yet either (I believe the average movie size is around 20gb?).

Same goes for "on demand" networks.. Having a system like what you're talking about is a long, long way yet. Cable networks aren't capable of it at least. Just the little that is being done now is already taxing them as it is.

[Riggswolfe]

It will eventually matter for the same reason DVD did: "Just because". It's not like any of us really made a conscious decision there. We all just started buying dvd's because they became so ubiquitous. Now that blu-ray's main competitor is out of the way, it'll probably be the same case there.

Actually I converted because I saw a movie on DvD and was blown away by the difference between it and vhs. Combine that with better storage compared to tapes and I was sold. Same with most of my friends.

[stray]

Fair enough.

But you would have converted anyways. 

[Jeff Kelly]

Jeff, you should have read the post on the other side of that link. You're basically agreeing with what the guy says on those arguments.

Well I misunderstood the post. I thought that the summary of the post was what he listed there

[Mazakiel]

That had been my impression as well. 

[Riggswolfe]

Fair enough.

But you would have converted anyways. 

Probably. I like the few Blu Rays I have (all free because of my PS3 purchase) but I don't see as striking of a difference as I saw between VHS and DVD. I've been told it's because my DLP TV isn't good enough but really, if I have to upgrade to get a major difference I can wait.