HD-DVD Doooomed! Doooomed I say

[Jeff Kelly]

As a side note:

Microsoft doesn't seem to be surprised by Toshiba's move:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/18/xbox-360-blu-ray-player-rumor-returns-right-on-cue/

"A built-in 360 with Blu-ray is also being worked on although the possibility of moving it out to retail is less clear with HD downloads on the horizon."

[HaemishM]

Anyways, I'm not sure why anyone is even bothering to argue in defense of hypotheticals and "things not here"... Just because umm... Wait.. Why is it that some of you guys are against physical mediums again?

I'm not against physical mediums. I just think they aren't efficient and leave a lot of environmental waste and their "permanence" is illusory. Not to mention the fact that physical media can't be easily format shifted. All those laserdics I bought? I have to rebuy them on DVD if I want to watch them now, and then on Blu-Ray when I upgrade that player and on and on and on. But if I have the digital file, it's portable between formats.

I'm not saying we should remove all physical media from the retail chains, I'm just saying it should be the long-range plan of all media companies to shift away from them as the primary form of distribution.

[Merusk]

Plus it's funny watching a bunch of, educated urban professionals argue for the removal of a medium that they don't care about, without consideration of the other segments of the population.

[HaemishM]

No one lives outside the cities anymore. That's why we have protective domes around them. 

[Jain Zar]

I've never lived in a city, and my total time spent in them combined equals less than a week.
Then again, according to most tabletop gamers I don't matter because I have never been to Gen Con or Origins even though I have a disgustingly huge amount of gaming goodies.

People have a tendency to only look at their perspective and consider it the true one.  (Hopefully I have not done so in this thread.)

But as to illusion of permanence.

Well, my Turbo Duo and NES still work.  Outside of some battery backup games I can still play Ninja Gaiden 1-3 all I want.

My VHS tapes still work.  I had Macross Plus the Movie version on a couple weeks back during gamenight. 

Hell, I listened to Def Leppard on my car's tape deck this weekend!

The problem with virtual products is being charged REAL prices for it.  I mean, Phantasy Star 2 has 3 recent hardcopy releases.  All of which came with lots of other games.
It just got released today for the Wii VC (which if you have no other way to play it, should mean YOU ARE BUYING RIGHT NOW BITCHES) for around TWICE the effective price any of the other editions have.  And its totally virtual.  No manuals to read, no cover art to look at, nothing.

8 bucks for a game that was released in 1989 and whose data size is 3/4ths of a megabyte.  About a minute of an MP3 and they are charging 8 bucks for it.  And you can't lend it to a friend, you can't play it on any machine but the one you DLed it to, you can't display it on a shelf or anything else.

Hell, you can't even play it off a fucking SD card in your own machine.

And that is what virtual ownership is.  It will only get WORSE.

[Murgos]

People have a tendency to only look at their perspective and consider it the true one.  (Hopefully I have not done so in this thread.)

I don't know about the rest of the thread but you certainly did in that post.

[Riggswolfe]

The problem with virtual products is being charged REAL prices for it.  I mean, Phantasy Star 2 has 3 recent hardcopy releases.  All of which came with lots of other games.

Not to derail but is this game any good? Was it an early Sega game? I can go try to find a review for it if it was. I think I may have played it on the Sega CD back in the day.

Ok, back to arguing about virtual formats vs phyiscal formats.

[Riggswolfe]

BTW, I side with the physical people. I can download a pdf of a book to my laptop if I want but I would rather pay more to have the physical book in my hands. I think the same holds true of most other mediums for your average person. I think it's psychological. Like the "comfort rings" in your phone. There is no reason for you to hear a ringing sound when you call someone, but your phone makes one for you so you know your call is going through.

[HaemishM]

Well, my Turbo Duo and NES still work.  Outside of some battery backup games I can still play Ninja Gaiden 1-3 all I want.

My VHS tapes still work.  I had Macross Plus the Movie version on a couple weeks back during gamenight. 

Hell, I listened to Def Leppard on my car's tape deck this weekend!

Old shit does sometimes work. But you better keep your old systems too. Not everyone wants to, not everyone has the room to keep those things around. My laserdisc player died a few years ago, and I'm not going to find a replacement for that without shelling out some bucks on Ebay.

The problem with virtual products is being charged REAL prices for it. 

I will agree with you on that. I think there ought to be a discount for virtual goods that don't come with physical media like manuals and such, and don't need to be physically shipped. The people with control over such things probably won't agree with me.

I mean, Phantasy Star 2 ... Wii VC ... for around TWICE the effective price any of the other editions have.  And its totally virtual.  No manuals to read, no cover art to look at, nothing.

The price of the convenience of not having to dig up a Genesis (for those who don't have one anymore) and not having to search Ebay for an old cart or slum the depths of the ROM world and hope you don't get teh COMPUTER AIDS. You are incorrect about the manual by the way, VC games tend to come with instructions, you just have to read those on the screen.

8 bucks for a game that was released in 1989 and whose data size is 3/4ths of a megabyte.  About a minute of an MP3 and they are charging 8 bucks for it.  And you can't lend it to a friend, you can't play it on any machine but the one you DLed it to, you can't display it on a shelf or anything else.

...

And that is what virtual ownership is.  It will only get WORSE.

The original game cost $50, while the whole CD of the song you download in MP3 format costs around $15. Apples to oranges price wise. $8 bucks is the price of convenience. The no sharing thing is a bit onerous, but completely understandable, IMO, though I wouldn't mind being able to backup my games to an SD card.

Like I said, I have no problems with virtual property distribution, especially if it's at a discount and has format flexibility and I can redownload the property if I ever lose it (a la Steam). But there will always be physical media for those who want it.

[Jain Zar]

Actually PS2 cost 75 when it first came out.  (Came with a full color hintbook.)

But the same game has been available on the GBA, Dreamcast, and Playstation 2 for much less in the latter 2 cases.

6 megabits in 1990 on a cart is different than around a minute's download time.

[Venkman]

I agree it'd be great if virtual products cost less than their real world counterparts. And it'd make sense in a pure apple to apple comparison sense.

Unfortunately, it's not apples to apples

I don't have exact numbers, but the difference between hard media sales and equivalent experience downloads is ginormous. A 20$ retail purchase is going to command a much higher volume than a 5$ digital download of the exact same experience. This is why brick & mortar continues to exist. Digital distribution is considered an additional channel for the big media and other publishers, not the replacement that it is considered by some indies. It's great that it enables the latter group, because having any distribution at all is a good thing. But we're nowhere near the point where an Ubi or an EA can expect to get as much volume through Steam as they do through Walmart.

So when all elements are factored in, not getting a huge discount by having removed the middlemen process of trucks and boxes and planograms and RMO makes a lot of sense.

Having said that, digital distribution has created different ways of consuming media. Individual song sales has radically changes how things are done, for example. Expansion packs for games can continue to make money for that game whereas previously it was fire and forget box sales alone. Streaming episodes allow for more advertisement potential than just the timeslot a network would give you during the first broadcast, reruns and syndication.

But it's not an all or nothing thing.

For another few years anyway

[Sky]

There's only so much to the human ear can hear in audio files. The sampling rate of cd quality audio is 44.1 hz for example -- but the human ear typically can only hear in the 20hz range. And chances are, most people's speakers are shit anyways, not capable of outputting to either range.

Point being though, there's a lot of stuff you can sacrifice in audio without people noticing.

Eyes work differently. There's no point in comparing the two.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem

"The sample value is a number equal to the signal amplitude at the sampling instant. The frequency response of the digital audio file is exactly half the sampling rate (Nyquist Theorem)."

I forgot the name of the theorum when this originally came up and stumbled across it when looking for info on analog to digital transfer (still trying to hunt down a reputable place to digitize my old master reel of my band's old demo). Basically, you sample at twice what humans can perceive.

[Jeff Kelly]

44.1 hz for example -- but the human ear typically can only hear in the 20hz range.

As mentioned in Sky's post you have to scan signals with at least twice the frequency of the input signal to get a good reproduction. Also its kHz not Hz. Sorry, just nitpicking

[Lt.Dan]

Sampling frequency is how often the sampler coverts the original signal into a bunch of bits.

Signal frequency measures the frequency of the audio signal.

Two different things.

[Phildo]

The idea behind Nyquist's Theorum is that you need to have two sample points on a waveform for each full cycle of the waveform.  More specifically, it should be twice the highest frequency you want to record, hence going just a little beyond a normal human's range of hearing.  However, there's a lot of debate in the audio world on how inaubidle frequencies affect and color the audible ones, so HD recordings got from 96 - 192kHz in some cases.

If I remember later, I'll also throw up a sample of what a standerd 128 MP3 actually removes from the song because it's funny.

Sampling: digital reproduction of analog waveform.

[Sky]

A simple way to think about it is trying to trace a curve in an image manipulation program. The more points you use, the more true the resulting form.

And I fall way over on the side of inaudible spectra affecting sound, especially on the low end.

[Polysorbate80]

Bah, enough about audio.  Just finished a 90-hour week at our annual four-day jazz festival, and for the next few days I will *not* be listening to any music of any genre.

However, to relax yesterday I picked up a blu-ray this weekend.  It's only the Sony 300 model (there was nothing else in town, and I didn't want to wait a couple weeks to get a better unit) but it still made Order of the Phoenix and Ratatouille damn pretty.

Now to get back to the store and pick up a few more.  I bought the aforementioned discs for the wife and kid, now I need something violent and explosion-y for me 

[stray]

There really aren't a lot of explosion-y action films being made these days. Lots of choices from the past, but as a new blu-ray owner, I wouldn't recommend them as "demo" type of movies, if you know what I mean. None of them were filmed with any of this in mind (that being said, they still look good).

There's like one option: Live Free or Die Hard. I love this flick myself. Comes with some decent extras too, even a little Java game (still pretty rare).

Casino Royale is tame on the explosions, but still a good one to have. Pretty slim on the extras.

Pan's Labyrinth... Not typical action either, but you should get it. It's a good disc overall.

[Polysorbate80]

I understand what you mean; the HD transfer of the original Die Hard doesn't add much--mediocre film stock to start with, probably.  Ratatouille makes a good "demo"; the CG animated stuff flows particularly well with the 120hz panel on my LCD.

Speaking of the "Die Hard" series, I have Live Free on SD, I like it I'm not sure yet whether I want to buy the HD version.  Maybe from the used section.

Pan's Labyrinth I've seen but don't have, I'm not sure I'd watch it enough to be worth buying.  Probably just rent it again.

Casino Royale I'm sure I'll buy; my wife didn't think much of Craig as Bond, but I liked it and she doesn't have to watch it if she doesn't want anyways.

[Venkman]

Riiiise!

Here's something scary for the 'winning' format:

In 2008 about 85 percent of the Blu-ray players in the market will be found in PS3s

That "won" the format war? A bunch of Playstation diehards buying a console on a dream is almost total installed base for the next gen format?

Thread wants to be changed to MEDIA Doooomed! Doooomed I say (well, he didn't say, but I say  )

[stray]

Gotta start somewhere, I guess. Every format does.

Not sure why people who own a playstation have to be "diehards" though. I'm a gamer, but yet, I use the PS3 as a blu-ray player more than I do for games. I'm sure I'm not alone on that. Addtionally, some people simply bought it as a blu-ray player. i.e. they're not gamers.

Neither of those two categories of playstation owner are "diehard".


Also, people need to stop mentioning upscaled dvd's in these articles.

[schild]

DVD didn't get popular til the PS2 and The Matrix.

Why does the PS3 driving the format shock ANYBODY?

The PS3 is also the _only_ futureproof blu-ray player. Helps that the 40GB PS3 is the cheapest BD player on the market (for the hardware).

[Merusk]

^^ What he said about the cheap part.

People will buy the cheapest solution out there.  The majority of people also see no fucking reason to buy ALL of their movies AGAIN (probably for a 3rd time in most cases.) since DVD "is just fine."  It's only early adopters, videophiles and hardcore geeks right now, and for the next 3-5 years.

Fuck, the majority have only JUST started getting around to buying an HDTV in the last year, and you still have a good portion of people who haven't yet or won't ever buy one. Particularly not with the cost of food and gas being more important than "Oh, my TV isn't new enough."

[Sky]

That "won" the format war? A bunch of Playstation diehards buying a console on a dream is almost total installed base for the next gen format?

I'm no geldon, listen to me when I doomcast. The format war was basically over when MS announced HD-DVD as an add-on. If they had put HD-DVD drives in the 360, look at the massive install base they'd have. Meanwhile, not only does everyone who has a PS3 because they're playstation fans have a bluray player (whether or not they have an hdtv!), it's a relatively cheap entry point.

[stray]

But then... If MS had included a hd-dvd player, then it would have been just as expensive as the ps3 (and possibly more expensive, and for a longer time, since they didn't have any competition to adjust their prices against). So it make sense why they didn't do it. It was crazy enough that Sony did.

[Oban]

I just bought a PS3 to use as a bluray player.  Sales guy wanted to know what games or movies I wanted.  When I told him none, he looked at me like I had two heads.

Thank god for Zip.ca.

No HDMI cable in the box though, wtf.  Had to buy one on bluejeanscable.com, now I get to wait for the postman...

[Sky]

But then... If MS had included a hd-dvd player, then it would have been just as expensive as the ps3 (and possibly more expensive, and for a longer time, since they didn't have any competition to adjust their prices against). So it make sense why they didn't do it. It was crazy enough that Sony did.

Well, there's MS's involvement with HD-DVD format vs Sony with BluRay.

I'm not talking about the console war, I'm talking about the format war. MS may have gained the early lead in the console war, but their move handed the format war to Sony.

[Lantyssa]

And in the long run, maybe the second place for console war since a dual-use device is more attractive than single-use.

[Sky]

The xbox was my DVD player for a couple years.

[sidereal]

Mine still is.

It turns out having a hard drive lets you do some pretty awesome things as a DVD player. . like, say, remembering where you were even if you take the disc out.

[stray]

But then... If MS had included a hd-dvd player, then it would have been just as expensive as the ps3 (and possibly more expensive, and for a longer time, since they didn't have any competition to adjust their prices against). So it make sense why they didn't do it. It was crazy enough that Sony did.

Well, there's MS's involvement with HD-DVD format vs Sony with BluRay.

I'm not talking about the console war, I'm talking about the format war. MS may have gained the early lead in the console war, but their move handed the format war to Sony.

Hmm, where to start!

I know you're talking about the format war, but Microsoft is absolutely determined to win the console war even more. So it has to be mentioned. Their strategy of not including hd-dvd drives makes plenty sense to me in that light.

That isn't to say that they don't care about a format war. Microsoft is in it...Or at least, wants to be in it. Just in a different way. They might have been partners in the development of HD-DVD, but really, they never gave a shit. They never really pushed it or tried to market it. And as stated above, didn't care about it enough to push it through the X-Box. It was more of a partnership of convenience. A convenience that at the very least held off PS3 adoption for a bit, and frustrated the high definition media market for a while as well (i.e. blu-ray vs hd-dvd). They actually managed to bullshit people into thinking that hd-dvd was ever competitive. Good enough investment for them.

But... As I said, they're still interested in the format war. But it's through IP-TV. Even Bill Gates comes out of his shell to talk about it...Something which he never really did much with hd-dvd. So that shows where the real interest was all along.

Umm.. Maybe I'm getting a little convoluted here. The point I'm trying to make though is that 1) they didn't give a shit about hd-dvd and 2) the little effort they did put into it was merely to frustrate it's competition. Just having the presence of hd-dvd out there (even if it wasn't tied into the xbox) was probably worth the investment to them just because it stymied blu-ray adoption a bit (and helped them sell more x-boxes, by virtue of them being released earlier, and being cheaper).

They didn't care to win any kind of format war between the two from the get-go. What they do want to win is a console war, and through that, setting up a foundation for iptv down the road.

[edit] Of course, this is all assuming that Bill Gates is still the evil mastermind genius that he used to be.

Plans within plans.

Our true enemy has yet to reveal himself.

[Merusk]

TLDR version:

Microsoft is still in the format war.  However; the format is Physical vs Digital, not something as mundane as HD-DVD vs BluRay.

[stray]

Thank you, sir. 

[schild]

Microsoft will never win the console war. Despite me talking about Japan not being anywhere near as important as they were before, Squeenix, Konami, and Capcom are still Japanese companies first. And if push comes to shove and Microsoft starts making demands - even with moneyz - they'll choose Sony over them as the next-gen competitor every time.

And in the end, those 3 companies still have the best selling games over there and are making huge inroads in Europe and America (specifically speaking to MGS, FF, RE, DQ, and Monster Hunter).

[stray]

Well... I certainly don't want to see them win, as you know. I think it's still too early to tell though. A year ago, I would have said yeah. Now I don't know. Not to say that Sony is kicking ass or anything, but they're doing better than I thought they would. That blu-ray is finally the "thing" to get helps too. I see more and more people talking about that as a big selling point.

As for the iptv thing, it works like on demand. People love that shit. On the flipside, a lot of people don't even know about that shit. Not unless it's staring them right in the face.

Additionally... On Demand works well as a side feature to regular broadcasting. IPTV is a total paradigm shift. Programming is entirely centered around the idea. Not sure if people would really be down with that or not. Also, the bandwidth requirements for it to ever deliver the quality of a blu-ray disc are not going to be available to consumers on a large scale anytime soon -- so, it's not going to be as a feature rich as well.

"TLDR" version: They still have their work cut out for them as far as consoles go. Even for their next iteration of the X-Box (which, I imagine, will be competing against the PS3 as well). Secondly, IPTV has more things going against it than for it.