[Atomic Rooster]

Who will win?

BETA VS. VHS REDUX?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/11/11/spark.dvd/index.html

I think Blu-ray cuz it has a cool name. Even if HD DVD comes out ahead I think people will still call it Blu-ray.

Who are you betting on?

Sony or Toshiba?

[BasketofPuppies]

What about DVHS and EVD?

This poll is biased.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Blu-ray will be in the PS3. That pretty much means it wins.

The PS2 did a lot to push DVD's.

[BasketofPuppies]

Seriously, from a consumer's perspective, Blu-Ray appears to be superior in every way with the possible exception of price.

But it doesn't matter.

Blu-Ray discs and players may initially cost manufacturers more to make than HD-DVD, but competition will force them to sell them at the same prices to consumers.

HD-DVDs won't be able to hold as much data as Blu-Ray discs, but they'll still be able to hold more than enough. Besides, selling movies in two-disc packages could be seen as an advantage.

It all comes down to support. Whichever format gets more of it will win.

Unless the vast majority of players end up supporting both formats.

Assuming either format catches on. Consumers only recently switched to DVD after using VHS for twenty years. Expecting consumers to embrace another new format so soon could be difficult. (Though backward compatibility will help.)

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Blu-ray will be in the PS3. That pretty much means it wins.

The PS2 did a lot to push DVD's.

I don't understand how a console will push a format. Do that many people use the PS2 as a DVD player (or rather, did they when the PS2 first came out)?

[ManOfSteal]

Beta! Blu-ray! Beta! Blu-ray!

[TheBadgerHunter]

Blu-ray? Thats those new blue lasers?

I betting on Panasonic's (or was that Pioneer?) UV laser.

[BasketofPuppies]

Originally posted by Xeo:
I don't understand how a console will push a format. Do that many people use the PS2 as a DVD player (or rather, did they when the PS2 first came out)?

Yes.

Especially in Japan where DVD players were still expensive when the PS2 was released.

This wasn't quite the case in North America and Europe, but the PS2 is seen as helping push DVD Video into the mainstream. (You might remember third party game developers complaining that people buying PS2s were buying movies to go with them instead of games.)

I'm not convinced the same will hold true for Blu-Ray. The success of DVD Video was already a given by the time the PS2 was released. Will people be ready to switch to another video format so soon, especially when there are two mutually incompatible ones to choose from? I have my doubts.

Especially since the HD-DVD Association is pushing Microsoft to use HD-DVD for the Xbox Next.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Disgruntled Head of C-3PO:
Blu-ray will be in the PS3. That pretty much means it wins.

The PS2 did a lot to push DVD's.

No it didn't. DVD helped to push the PS2 (and Xbox).

[ajprice]

Blue Ray will be in Playstation 3, that gives a big plus to it, not so much from our side for people buying the discs, but for the maker and supplier side producing the discs. There will be an instant and big market for Blue Ray discs when the PS3 is launched, off the top of my head I don't know of any new hardware that will use HD DVD when it comes out.

[Disgruntled Head of C-3PO]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
No it didn't. DVD helped to push the PS2 (and Xbox).

I head the opposite many times. People wanted a DVD player but didn't want to get one till there was more titles. Studio's didn't want to put out tittles till there more players out there. When the PS2 came out people got a DVD player by default and ran out and started buying DVD's. The studio's saw that suddenly tons of more people had DVD players and wanted more titles.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

The DVD revolution was in full swing by the time the PS2 came out.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
The DVD revolution was in full swing by the time the PS2 came out.

Yup.

The PS2 and Xbox certainly didn't hurt the cause, but the reason they chose DVD was because the DVD revolution was in full swing already. Remember, the PS2 came out in 2000, and the Xbox came out in 2001. By 2000, DVD was already the fastest adopted consumer electronics format of all time. By 2000, just in the US, over 4 million DVD players had been sold. I still think it was strange that Nintendo chose their own custom DVD size. I think that did hurt GameCube sales.

Things could be different with HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray, but what happens with those is a completely different situation compared to DVD. Remember, DVD had essentially no competition in North America, except for DIVX, but DIVX doesn't really count since everyone hated it anyway.

BTW, I believe I got my first DVD player in 1998, for under $300 US. It still works too.

EDIT:

Here are the numbers just for the USA:

1997: 0.3 million
1998: 1.1 million
1999: 4.0 million <-- ie. 10 months before the release of PS/2 (2000/10/26)
2000: 8.5 million <-- ie. 11 months before the release of Xbox (2001/11/15)
2001: 12.7 million
2002: 17.1 million
2003: 22.0 million

So the Xbox and PS2 may have helped somewhat, but really, DVD sales had already been excellent by the time the PS2 was introduced. IOW, PS2/Xbox needed DVD much more than DVD needed PS2/Xbox.

[macaddict0001]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
I still think it was strange that Nintendo chose their own custom DVD size. I think that did hurt GameCube sales.

That's unlikely because soon after the gamecube was released the panasonic Q was released. Basicly nintendo licensed the gamecube to panasonic so they could make a gamecube and sell it, but panasonic added the funcionality to play cd's and dvd's and sold it for 400 about the same as the xbox at the time. Now admitedly it wasn't advertised or anything like that, but it did sell horribly, proving that people want a system that can only play games.

[the_glassman]

I'd like to see the holographic disk or blu-ray win out just because they offer more storage.
I'd like 125 GB on one disk please!

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by macaddict0001:
That's unlikely because soon after the gamecube was released the panasonic Q was released. Basicly nintendo licensed the gamecube to panasonic so they could make a gamecube and sell it, but panasonic added the funcionality to play cd's and dvd's and sold it for 400 about the same as the xbox at the time. Now admitedly it wasn't advertised or anything like that, but it did sell horribly, proving that people want a system that can only play games.

Around here, you could get the Panasonic machine just about nowhere. In fact, I didn't know it even existed until a year or so later. In fact, when I did finally hear about it, the only place I knew of to buy it was in Japan.

Also, one of the complaints I heard about the GameCube I repeatedly heard was that it did not play DVDs, despite the existence of the Panasonic. The GameCube did have many other problems, but no DVD support in the Nintendo version and non-existence of the Panasonic DVD version in North America made things worse.

[macaddict0001]

Yeah it was pretty rare, I just thought it ought to be pointed out.

For me its not an issue because I have as many dvd players as I do tv's(if you count computers and consoles)
and the money you save on the gamecube can be used to buy a dvd player with more features than the one on your console anyway. In the end it comes down to the type of games you like.

[macaddict0001]

double post

mods please delete.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
The DVD revolution was in full swing by the time the PS2 came out.

1998 Launch of DVD player.

2000 Launch of the PS2.

2002 Sales of DVD players overtake those of VHS recorders. Some 100m video recorders have been sold in Britain while 3m DVD players have been sold.

Not many people had DVD players till the PS2 and shortly after it came out VHS recorders went the way of the dinosaur.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
1998 Launch of DVD player.

2000 Launch of the PS2.

2002 Sales of DVD players overtake those of VHS recorders. Some 100m video recorders have been sold in Britain while 3m DVD players have been sold.

Not many people had DVD players till the PS2 and shortly after it came out VHS recorders went the way of the dinosaur.

Je repete:

Here are the numbers just for the USA:

1997: 0.3 million
1998: 1.1 million
1999: 4.0 million <-- ie. 10 months before the release of PS/2 (2000/10/26)
2000: 8.5 million <-- ie. 11 months before the release of Xbox (2001/11/15)
2001: 12.7 million
2002: 17.1 million
2003: 22.0 million

So the Xbox and PS2 may have helped somewhat, but really, DVD sales had already been excellent by the time the PS2 was introduced. IOW, PS2/Xbox needed DVD much more than DVD needed PS2/Xbox.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Je repete:

Here are the numbers just for the USA:

1997: 0.3 million
1998: 1.1 million
1999: 4.0 million <-- ie. 10 months before the release of PS/2 (2000/10/26)
2000: 8.5 million <-- ie. 11 months before the release of Xbox (2001/11/15)
2001: 12.7 million
2002: 17.1 million
2003: 22.0 million

So the Xbox and PS2 may have helped somewhat, but really, DVD sales had already been excellent by the time the PS2 was introduced. IOW, PS2/Xbox needed DVD much more than DVD needed PS2/Xbox.

So when the PS2 came out sales DOUBLED.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally posted by Severed Hand of Skywalker:
So when the PS2 came out sales DOUBLED.

In 1999 sales quadrupled vs. the previous year, with 2.9 million units more than the previous year.

In 2000, sales doubled vs. the previous year, but "only" 4.5 million units more than the previous year. ie. The growth in 2000 actually slowed dramatically compared to 1999, even though the PS2 came out in 2000. (However, this is expected, and the growth was still very good.) Also, the PS2 was only out for 2 months of 2000.

IOW, GoGoReggieXPowars is right. DVD sales growth was already excellent long before the PS2 came out. The PS2 may have helped a bit, but in reality the PS2 needed DVD much more than DVD need the PS2. Even without the PS2, DVD was still the fastest adopted format of all time.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
The PS2 may have helped a bit, but in reality the PS2 needed DVD much more than DVD need the PS2. Even without the PS2, DVD was still the fastest adopted format of all time.

"PS2 effect on DVD

Still, PS2 brings good news to the DVD industry. A conventional DVD player is priced between 20,000 and 30,000 yen. In contrast, a 39,800-yen (U.S. $370) PS2 seems like a good buy since it can use both DVDs and video games. In fact, PS2 has boosted DVD movie sales.

According to the Japan Video Software Association, domestic sales of DVDs topped that of conventional VHS videos for the first time in August. DVD sales were nearly four times higher than a year before, while VHS sales were down 13 percent.

Naoko Ueda, an association official in charge of research and public relations, said that DVD sales increased dramatically since PS2 was launched.

"PS2 has contributed a lot to the increase. Makers have been increasing the number of DVD titles since last year by pinning high hopes on PS2," Ueda said.

When PS2 hit the market, DVDs picked up momentum and become widely popular at home, Ueda said.

"It also helped drive down the price of conventional DVD players," she added."

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/co...n.playstation/

[Eug Wanker]

Like I said, the PS2 helped somewhat, but DVD would have done just fine without it. Remember, unlike VHS (and LD), DVD didn't have the major obstacle to adoption of high first release prices. DVD movies were cheap ($25) right off the bat, instead of costing $100 at release. OTOH, initial PS2 sales depended a lot on its ability to play DVD. If it didn't play DVD, it would have been a lot less popular.

Also, the impact of the PS2 in Japan may be different because of a couple of reasons, including the fact that the PS2 was the cheapest DVD player on the market there at the time (since it came out earlier than in the US). Also the initial Japanese PS2s were region freeable. I'm not sure if this was true in the US or not.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
Like I said, the PS2 helped somewhat, but DVD would have done just fine without it. Remember, unlike VHS (and LD), DVD didn't have the major obstacle to adoption of high first release prices. DVD movies were cheap ($25) right off the bat, instead of costing $100 at release. OTOH, initial PS2 sales depended a lot on its ability to play DVD. If it didn't play DVD, it would have been a lot less popular.

Hey nobody is saying DVD's would be around without the PS2. What I am saying (and the news stories) is that it helped push the format big time and probably helped make it become the fastest consumer adopted technology in well forever.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

HD DVD is already showing its SUCK to the industry and consumers.

First, the players will only output in HDMI. So anyone with a TV older than 6 months can't use it:
http://www.guidetohometheater.com/joelbrinkley/805jb/

Blu-ray might have to do the same but they aren't shipping for a year so more people may have it by then.

Secondly, Hollywood seems much more impressed by blu-rays encryption. HD DVD is on the ropes.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050810-5194.html


"The Journal also speculates that Toshiba will likely be the only company to bring a HD DVD player to market during the holiday season, and with an expected price circa US$1,000, it’s unclear how many will fly off shelves immediately. If the launch is only accompanied by 12 titles from NBC Universal, most people will play the waiting game."

[starman]

Answer: whichever one Star Wars is on.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by starman

Answer: whichever one Star Wars is on.

Is that sarcasm towards me?

Seriously though, I know they already mastered Star Wars for high Def, so it looks like we will have to buy it again.

Obviously I think the winner will be the media that has the most titles and with the cheapest players. So far it looks like Blu-ray.

Not to mention if the PS3 ships with one it will be ABOUT $400. That is a killer price for a high def player and game system.

[ReggieX]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Seriously though, I know they already mastered Star Wars for high Def, so it looks like we will have to buy it again..

You don't have to buy anything again. I'm sticking with my LDs, Lucas can suck it.

[starman]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

Is that sarcasm towards me?

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

HD-DVD looks even more screwed today:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050817-5218.html

Blu-ray will also support hybrid disks with a normal DVD on one side and Blu-ray on the other.

So what is so great about HD-DVD again?

[nforcer]

As much as I hate the Playstation, I want a format where I can back up a hard drive on only 1 or 2 discs. Blu-ray appears to be the winner in this regard.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by nforcer

As much as I hate the Playstation, I want a format where I can back up a hard drive on only 1 or 2 discs. Blu-ray appears to be the winner in this regard.

You can still hate the playstation for whatever reason cuz you can buy stand alone blu-ray players.

[Hawkeye_a]

My opinion:

Storage limit dosent determine the winning format. 5-8 years ago, DVD was supposed to be the end all movie format. Now that people can duplicate legitimate DVDs, rip movies and CDs for such a low price, the next format has to emerge. Once that gets into the hands of geeks, it's DRM will be cracked open, blank storage will be cheap-as (ala blank DVDs are now), and before you know it, the studious/tech-companies will try and push yet another format in 5-8 years. it's the way they keep it 'freah' and intrudce a hardware limitation to piracy. Therefore in my opinion, investing(as a company on R&D) into a format that'll last 20-30 years, is a waste.

What we need is:
-a fomat capable of storing around 3-3.5 hours worth of HD content
-cheaper the better

Therefore having a format that can store 5-6 hours worth of HD content and costs twice as much is not technically or economically 'elegant'.

But in the end, since it's the movies that will determine the sucess of a format it's kinda hard to tell at this point. (I dont know which studios support what). BUT...having said that, SONY has purchased the entire back catalogue of MGM. thats pretty significant.

It'll be interesting...cause if Nintendo and Microsoft(which supports HD-DVD now) include these drives in their respective consoles..... there's a change this fight will be dragged out for awhile. What does that mean ? adoption of media by companies and the public(which includes non gamers...surprise surprise) will be so slow, that any major impact wont be felt for awhile. I have yet to buy a TV that supports the AV features of DVDs (surround sound....720X480 resolution,etc) ....and im not about to jump into a new format with even more features, with no definate winner being visible right now.

Cheers

[olePigeon]

I think HD-DVD is the better choice given that standard DVDs can be printed on one side of the disc, with HD-DVD on the other. That way people can still buy HD-DVD movies and play them in their existing DVD players. Then when they're ready (and more likely when HD-DVD players are under $500 and at least somewhat affordable) you'll already have your HD-DVD movies to watch without having to rebuy everything.

Not only that, but everyone would have to have to have a Blu Ray DVD player to watch a Blu Ray DVD. People with either an HD-DVD player or standard DVD player can watch a HD-DVD (assuming the DVD is made with standard DVD on one of the layers.)

I think only the computer Geeks see "OMG! 20 more gigs! I can pirate more movies and pr0n! I'm getting Blu Ray!"

But it's more sensible to use HD-DVD since it's compatible with existing DVD players for standard content, then upgrading to a HD-DVD player and you'll get all the HD goodness.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

Seriously, from a consumer's perspective, Blu-Ray appears to be superior in every way with the possible exception of price.

What about compatibility? Blu-Ray only works with Blu-Ray, and then you can read older DVDs. But HD-DVD can have standard content on it that's readable by existing DVD players. So people who aren't ready to jump onto the HD-DVD bandwagon (or just flat out don't have the cash at the moment) can still build up a library of HD-DVD movies to watch in HD later on, but they can STILL watch them on their existing DVD player.

Originally Posted by BasketofPuppies

Unless the vast majority of players end up supporting both formats.)

I read about this in Popular Science. It's unlikely since they require completely different lasers and drive mechanisms. Although they do have VHS/DVD players. You could just make one with both in it... but it'd look really stupid.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

I think HD-DVD is the better choice given that standard DVDs can be printed on one side of the disc, with HD-DVD on the other. That way people can still buy HD-DVD movies and play them in their existing DVD players. Then when they're ready (and more likely when HD-DVD players are under $500 and at least somewhat affordable) you'll already have your HD-DVD movies to watch without having to rebuy everything.
.

it has been mentioned that blu-ray does the exact same thing. The ONLY advantage HD-DVD has is that manufactures can use existing plants to make them. I think in the end Blu-ray will have the exact same price to the consumer.

it has nothing to do with 20 more gigs for porn storage. It is the difference between 2 hours or 4 hours of HD footage.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What about compatibility? Blu-Ray only works with Blu-Ray, and then you can read older DVDs. But HD-DVD can have standard content on it that's readable by existing DVD players. So people who aren't ready to jump onto the HD-DVD bandwagon (or just flat out don't have the cash at the moment) can still build up a library of HD-DVD movies to watch in HD later on, but they can STILL watch them on their existing DVD player..

Yes, but the Standard Definition content will be limited to one 4.7 GB layer, so the compression will be greater than on today's 9.4 GB dual-layer Standard Definition discs... which, if the movie industry goes for HD-DVD might make people go for HD if the SD stuff is worse than it is now...

OTOH, with the additional copy protection schemes being proposed for Blu-Ray, and the higher number of studios supporting it, Blu-Ray might just end up winning.

In the end, it will be about the content. The format with the most content will win.

[residentEvil]

...and

what stores stock. what the consumer can go out and grab off the shelf will dictate what player/technology will win. it would be safe to say that stores will not devote shelf space to 3 formats (current DVD, blu-ray and HD-DVD). in fact, an article was posted on thedigitalbits to that very fact at the annual retailers convention; they simply won't devote the shelf space. they will pick one.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by residentEvil

...and

what stores stock. what the consumer can go out and grab off the shelf will dictate what player/technology will win. it would be safe to say that stores will not devote shelf space to 3 formats (current DVD, blu-ray and HD-DVD). in fact, an article was posted on thedigitalbits to that very fact at the annual retailers convention; they simply won't devote the shelf space. they will pick one.

They will carry standard DVDs for quite a while longer, especially if there will be a protracted format-war.

[residentEvil]

i meant the will pick only one of the new formats, not both.

[insha]

Which ever format the porn industry goes with will win.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Another problem for HD-DVD. it's advantage of coming out first might be delayed:
http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...technologyNews

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

it has nothing to do with 20 more gigs for porn storage. It is the difference between 2 hours or 4 hours of HD footage.

That's assuming all movies use MPEG2 compression, which isn't necessarily true. MPEG2, H.264, and Microsoft's VM9 compressions are all supported in both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. You can get a dual-layer DVD right now that can hold over 2 hours of HD compressed with VM9, so even a single-layer 15GB HD-DVD can hold more than 3 hours of HD.

[Scandalous Ion Cannon]

Originally Posted by MaxPower2k3

That's assuming all movies use MPEG2 compression, which isn't necessarily true. MPEG2, H.264, and Microsoft's VM9 compressions are all supported in both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. You can get a dual-layer DVD right now that can hold over 2 hours of HD compressed with VM9, so even a single-layer 15GB HD-DVD can hold more than 3 hours of HD.

So what is the advantage of having 20 gigs less?

Is this another case of "'640K should be enough for anybody!"?

[MaxPower2k3]

Originally Posted by Scandalous Ion Cannon

So what is the advantage of having 20 gigs less?

Is this another case of "'640K should be enough for anybody!"?

not saying there's any advantage at this point. we'll just have to see how the pricing and content of each changes things. That said, I also have a feeling Blu-Ray is gonna win this, if for no other reason than Sony's might and money. With 7+ hours of HD on a dual-layer HD-DVD, it's not exactly inadequate, but, like you say, why not (price permitting) have 12 or so hours on a Blu-Ray? hell, you could fit the whole Lord of the Rings trilogy on one disc.

[olePigeon]

Why can't they just throw WMV out the window. It does nothing to benefit consumers and everything to give Microsoft money. Of course, that's probably the point, but it'd be nice if people would see past that.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by olePigeon

Why can't they just throw WMV out the window. It does nothing to benefit consumers and everything to give Microsoft money. Of course, that's probably the point, but it'd be nice if people would see past that.

VC-1 is actually an excellent format. I do prefer H.264, but one should remember that H.264 also costs money. Open format ≠ free format. Furthermore, VC-1 is less processor intensive than H.264, which may be important in the near term.

In the meantime, Microsoft and and Intel have now officially endorsed HD-DVD.

Personally, I think that's great. Blu-Ray is a very nice technology, but thinking from a business prospective HD-DVD makes more sense to me. It's a heluvalot cheaper at launch, and that can only help the rapid adoption of the format.

The new "Managed Copy" idea is an added bonus too:

"A first for DVDs. Managed Copy is a guaranteed feature within HD DVD that gives consumers the freedom to make copies of their discs to a hard drive or home server, including Media Center PCs using Intel Viiv technology, and enjoy them in every room of the house over their home networks. HD DVD discs also will allow copies of the movie to be played on portable devices."

My preferred overall format however would be H.264 on HD-DVD.

[olePigeon]

They claim that one of the major reasons is the hybrid functionality of the HD-DVD, being able to put standard DVD content on a layer of the HD-DVD. That was the main reason I voted for HD-DVD. If I can't shell out the money for a new HD-DVD player, I'd still like to invest in some cool HD-DVD movies that I can still watch on my old DVD player. When I have the money, cool! I'll upgrade and have plenty of movies to watch.

[The Godfather]

If I remember correctly, in 2000/2001 DiVX discs were still strongly pushed by Circuit City. Remember those rental movie discs that expired in 7 days? The PS2 helped lean the market away from those cheaper (subsidized) players.