[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

The other twist though is that in Q1 there were almost no HD DVD releases. Thus, the slow sales is not unexpected in that context.

That is true. Looking at the historical release data for HD-DVD and Blu-ray shows that while they have had a comparable number of releases up to now (my quick Excel-assisted count shows 222 for Blu-ray and 191 for HD-DVD), there were more than twice as many titles released on Blu-ray in the first quarter. Still, since the overwhelming majority of releases on both sides so far are catalog titles, I wonder if having fewer releases actually has that much of an effect. After all, the movies are there on both sides, if people want to buy them. Do people really get all excited about buying something like Apollo 13 or Fantastic Four on the release date?

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

I don't see the difference between two for movies but for games Blu-ray is considerably slow due to 2X read speed.

I hear the "Blu-ray is slow for games" thing bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to notice any abnormally long load times on the PS3. In fact, Oblivion loads noticeably faster, since the developers used the extra capacity on the disc to "cache" repeated copies of the game data (remember that Oblivion was originally developed to fit on a normal DVD).

Of course, HD-DVD is not used in games, so it's not possible to do a direct comparison.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Do people really get all excited about buying something like Apollo 13 or Fantastic Four on the release date?

Strangely enough, yes, at least when the releases are so few to begin with.

P.S. The video on Planet Earth BBC is frickin' awesome. (I just got it today.)



This is a definitely an excellent series to demo HD. I'm told the BD version is the same VC-1 encode BTW.

[Adam Betts]

Originally Posted by icruise 

I hear the "Blu-ray is slow for games" thing bandied about quite a bit, but I have yet to notice any abnormally long load times on the PS3. In fact, Oblivion loads noticeably faster, since the developers used the extra capacity on the disc to "cache" repeated copies of the game data (remember that Oblivion was originally developed to fit on a normal DVD).

It is clearly slow to me. Even a simple game like Go Sudoku! have loading time which is absurd. I would be more than glad to record a video of how long it took Motorstorm to load various stuffs such as individual vehicle, track, etc if you think "Blu-ray is slow for games" is greatly exaggerated.

Of course I know that developer can take advantage of hard drive caching in PS3 but it's not enabled by default for all games. Very few games currently take advantage of it.

See this video of loading time comparison for THP8 on Xbox360/PS3:
GameTrailers.com - User Movie: PS3 vs. XBox 360 Loading Times by facetheglue

I love both Resistance and Motorstorm games but PS3's general loading time is really putting me off.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

Even a simple game like Go Sudoku! have loading time which is absurd.

Go Sudoku! is a download, and is running off of the hard disk, so I don't see how it's relevant. My point is simply that in my opinion, talk of extremely long loading time on the PS3 (and the PSP) is exaggerated. Sure, you can find some examples of sloppily coded or ported games, but even those don't really affect the overall experience.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Adam Betts 

I love both Resistance and Motorstorm games but PS3's general loading time is really putting me off.

You can tell Motostorms problem is with bad programming.
It really only feels slow when choosing vehicles because the developers load the model each time you pull up your car and don't cash or preload anything.

Other than that Motostorm and Resistance don't load levels noticeably slower than Xbox games.

[Kenneth]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Strangely enough, yes, at least when the releases are so few to begin with.

P.S. The video on Planet Earth BBC is frickin' awesome. (I just got it today.)



This is a definitely an excellent series to demo HD. I'm told the BD version is the same VC-1 encode BTW.

I'm eyeing for the Blu-ray version. Meanwhile, where did you buy yours at?

Blu-ray - BD25 single layer disc
HD-DVD - HD-DVD 30 dual layer disc

[aristotles]

I have to say it again, I hate the Warnerbros BD releases. They are quick ports from their HD-DVD versions with the same limitations no doubt as their HD-DVD version.

I bought Superman II (the special directors version) and it had no main menu again and they only offered Dolby Digital 5.1. It was also encoded in VC-1. Those bastards are too lazy to do a proper BD title.

If I wanted half-assed DVD to High-Def conversions, I would have opted for an HD-DVD player.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

I'm just renting Planet Earth.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by aristotles 

I have to say it again, I hate the Warnerbros BD releases. They are quick ports from their HD-DVD versions with the same limitations no doubt as their HD-DVD version.

I bought Superman II (the special directors version) and it had no main menu again and they only offered Dolby Digital 5.1. It was also encoded in VC-1. Those bastards are too lazy to do a proper BD title.

If I wanted half-assed DVD to High-Def conversions, I would have opted for an HD-DVD player.

That shows your ignorance of the subject.

1) Warner Bros. VC-1 encodes have been stellar. In fact because the quality is so good, many of their VC-1 titles have been used as examples to bash the initial BD-only MPEG2 titles.

2) Interactivity limitations on Blu-ray can be blamed on Blu-ray's lack of proper support of interactivity at this time. For example, the Blu-ray versions are missing stuff like picture-in-picture commentaries, because current Blu-ray players can't support it. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

3) Lack of next gen audio is due to Blu-ray's limitation again. TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus aren't used on most Blu-Ray titles because it's an optional format on Blu-ray. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

The reason why so many BDs are half-assed is because the first version of the Blu-ray spec is half-assed. This changes to a certain extent as of October 31, 2007, but that doesn't help 1st generation Blu-ray owners. In fact, it may not help 2nd generation Blu-ray owners either, because studios will want to release discs that still work on 1st generation Blu-ray players.

Ironically, HD DVD owners are complaining about Blu-ray's half-assed implementation, because a few format neutral releases may have been held up somewhat on HD DVD since the studio initially wanted to release them on Blu-ray with the exact same features as HD DVD, but couldn't because Blu-ray's implementation of advanced features is still incomplete. Fortunately, it seems Warner may have reconsidered that. The Matrix is coming first to HD DVD in May, complete with picture-in-picture support.

P.S. I think it's foolish to buy a Blu-ray player now unless it supports or can be updated to support the October 31, 2007 requirements. Unfortunately, most existing Blu-ray players will never be able to support this profile. ie. Most first gen Blu-ray players are obsolete as of fall of this year.

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

I'm eyeing for the Blu-ray version. Meanwhile, where did you buy yours at?

Blu-ray - BD25 single layer disc
HD-DVD - HD-DVD 30 dual layer disc

Amazon.com.

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I'm just renting Planet Earth.

From where?

[exca1ibur]

I think, he was referring to having a menu at all. If so, that is pretty half-ass on their part, as you can do that on a standard DVD.

They audio seems to be an issue with them using a Bluray 25 so they went with the lowest common denominator on the audio.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

From where?

www.zip.ca

Got lots of BR tracks from them that I am damn glad I just rented. Like Flyboys. Prettiest damn movie you'll ever see but incredibly sucky everything else.

[icruise]

Do you really need a main menu? In general I prefer the pop-up menus anyway. In any case, it's not as if the lack of a menu is somehow a fault of Blu-ray itself. It's just a design decision.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Do you really need a main menu? In general I prefer the pop-up menus anyway. In any case, it's not as if the lack of a menu is somehow a fault of Blu-ray itself. It's just a design decision.

Well, not if there is nothing to select because they only offer one audio track but if they did offer more than one track, it would be nice to be presented with a menu. I don't consider it a design decision. Rather, it is reminiscent of those crappy DVD's that came on cereal boxes.

It give a cheap feel to the disks.

[aristotles]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That shows your ignorance of the subject.

1) Warner Bros. VC-1 encodes have been stellar. In fact because the quality is so good, many of their VC-1 titles have been used as examples to bash the initial BD-only MPEG2 titles.

The two titles that look muddy are the two Warner bros titles with VC-1. All of the rest of my titles are either higher bitrate AVC or MPEG2.

2) Interactivity limitations on Blu-ray can be blamed on Blu-ray's lack of proper support of interactivity at this time. For example, the Blu-ray versions are missing stuff like picture-in-picture commentaries, because current Blu-ray players can't support it. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

More FUD. Titles such as Crank for BD have picture in picture video commentaries. Are we going to talk facts here or not? I have not tried out the other titles special features yet.

3) Lack of next gen audio is due to Blu-ray's limitation again. TrueHD and Dolby Digital Plus aren't used on most Blu-Ray titles because it's an optional format on Blu-ray. (Such support is mandatory on HD DVD.)

FUD FUD FUD FUD FUD. Go to any AV forum and they will tell you that Uncompressed PCM offers equal or superior quality on a wide range of receivers whereas you have to downmix to Linear PCM on HDDVD player anyway as very little, if any equipment supports those formats.

The reason why so many BDs are half-assed is because the first version of the Blu-ray spec is half-assed. This changes to a certain extent as of October 31, 2007, but that doesn't help 1st generation Blu-ray owners. In fact, it may not help 2nd generation Blu-ray owners either, because studios will want to release discs that still work on 1st generation Blu-ray players.

Your FUD is half-assed. I already called and owned you on the FUD about interactive PinP features. The PS3 playback software has been updated and several titles required Samsung standalone player owners upgrade their firmware before playing the titles back.

All of the Warner brother titles are half-assed because they are doing quick ports from HD-DVD. All of my other titles from the other studios have either Uncompressed PCM or DTS HD as options.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital...m#DTS_variants

Ironically, HD DVD owners are complaining about Blu-ray's half-assed implementation, because a few format neutral releases may have been held up somewhat on HD DVD since the studio initially wanted to release them on Blu-ray with the exact same features as HD DVD, but couldn't because Blu-ray's implementation of advanced features is still incomplete. Fortunately, it seems Warner may have reconsidered that. The Matrix is coming first to HD DVD in May, complete with picture-in-picture support.

Right. How about sticking to the facts?

[Eug]

More FUD. Titles such as Crank for BD have picture in picture video commentaries. Are we going to talk facts here or not? I have not tried out the other titles special features yet.

Crank has two separate copies of the movie on the disc, one with a video commentary hard-coded into the stream, and one without. Talk about a complete waste of space.

The Blu-ray update in October requires dual-decoders (something present in HD DVD right from the start), in order to overlay a 2nd video stream in a PiP window over the primary video stream. Unfortunately, this feature will be unusable in most 1st-gen Blu-ray players.

I think you need to do a bit of reading and research before posting.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Crank has two separate copies of the movie on the disc, one with a video commentary hard-coded into the stream, and one without. Talk about a complete waste of space.

And not surprisingly watching Crank is a complete waste of time. I thought I'd like the overboard-ness since I liked Transporter 1 and 2, but it was just absolutely awful.

[Eug]

To give you an idea just how much the disc sales numbers can fluctuate... For the week ending April 22, in the US:

Blu-ray: 43304 units
HD DVD: 39973 units

Basically a single fanboy-coordinated HD DVD buy was almost enough to even out the numbers, with that week's sales having an advantage of 1.08:1 in favour of Blu-ray.

For the month of April, until April 22, the overall ratio is approximately 1.39:1 Blu-ray:HD DVD.

This is despite the fact that there approximately 9 times as many Blu-ray players out there as HD DVD players. I wonder if even Sony predicted internally that the disc sales for the PS3 could be this low.

[alligator]

I was an HD-DVD fan, but when I went to buy a player, my wife nixed the idea and wanted a Blu-Ray player instead. Guess which one we got? I guess the format wars will be decided by what player your wife will let you buy! She liked the movies available in Blu-Ray best.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by alligator 

I was an HD-DVD fan, but when I went to buy a player, my wife nixed the idea and wanted a Blu-Ray player instead. Guess which one we got? I guess the format wars will be decided by what player your wife will let you buy! She liked the movies available in Blu-Ray best.

Consider yourself lucky. Most would just tell you that you don't need an HD player at all at this time.

Actually, there may be some merit to that. The number of available releases on both formats is woefully inadequate, and most of the players are relatively expensive. Q4 2007 might be a different story though, at least for hardware pricing.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

To give you an idea just how much the disc sales numbers can fluctuate... For the week ending April 22, in the US:

Blu-ray: 43304 units
HD DVD: 39973 units

I still don't get how WEEKLY sales shows anything. I mean there are plenty of weeks where there are ZERO new releases for one format when a big movie comes out for the other. Of course there will be a huge gap that week.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

I still don't get how WEEKLY sales shows anything. I mean there are plenty of weeks where there are ZERO new releases for one format when a big movie comes out for the other. Of course there will be a huge gap that week.

You basically just repeated the point of what I said, which was that weekly sales illustrate just how huge the fluctuations can be... because the total sales numbers are so low in the first place.

[Eug]

Hmmm... It seems the CED newsletter states that full BD-Live support won't appear until 2008.

So, essentially that means that basic functionality found in HD DVD in 2006 won't appear in Blu-ray until 2 years later. Furthermore, most current Blu-ray standalones won't be able to support it either.

Ouch. That means that many Blu-ray players sold at Xmas 2007 may just be obsolete a few months later. The good news though is that the PS3 might be able to be firmware updated to support it.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

You basically just repeated the point of what I said, which was that weekly sales illustrate just how huge the fluctuations can be... because the total sales numbers are so low in the first place.

My question is more of a "What the hell did you post if for if you admit it is pointless" post.

Overall numbers are important and they also show that the PS3 made a bigger impact on BR sales than you or anyone thought. I mean BR did not come out in November it came out months before but until the PS3 it wasn't jumping off the shelved (and for good reason as you would have been stupid to buy it).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

My question is more of a "What the hell did you post if for if you admit it is pointless" post.

Overall numbers are important and they also show that the PS3 made a bigger impact on BR sales than you or anyone thought. I mean BR did not come out in November it came out months before but until the PS3 it wasn't jumping off the shelved (and for good reason as you would have been stupid to buy it).

Actually, the PS3 made an impact similar to what we expected.

We predicted that the only way the PS3 would ensure a win for Blu-ray was if it sold like Sony said it would. Less than what Sony was claiming would mean that Blu-ray would have a long battle ahead of it. It turns out we were right. Instead of selling 6 million by the end of the year, Sony has only managed to sell something 3 million up until now. That works out to less than 1 Blu-ray disc sold per PS3, which is an extremely low movie disc attachment rate... as we predicted.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Actually, the PS3 made an impact similar to what we expected.....We predicted .... It turns out we were right....... as we predicted.....

Who's "we"???

[icruise]

Didn't you know? Eug is the screen name of the Queen of England!

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

That works out to less than 1 Blu-ray disc sold per PS3, which is an extremely low movie disc attachment rate... as we predicted.

By the way, I still think you're too quick in dismissing the effect of the PS3. Just because every PS3 owner isn't buying lots of movies right now (when the Blu-ray library consists of 230 movies that are mostly catalog titles) doesn't say anything about what they will do in the next year or two when the big name titles start coming out. Having such a huge installed base really will make a difference. Most people who have Blu-ray players are going to be buying the Blu-ray versions of newly released movies, assuming the price difference isn't too huge and they're available at the same time.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

By the way, I still think you're too quick in dismissing the effect of the PS3. Just because every PS3 owner isn't buying lots of movies right now (when the Blu-ray library consists of 230 movies that are mostly catalog titles) doesn't say anything about what they will do in the next year or two when the big name titles start coming out. Having such a huge installed base really will make a difference. Most people who have Blu-ray players are going to be buying the Blu-ray versions of newly released movies, assuming the price difference isn't too huge and they're available at the same time.

Why would only PS3 owners buy more next year? Why not everyone who owns an HD player?

The bottom line is that many in this thread predicted that PS3 buyers would be less likely than standalone buyers to buy movies. Nothing so far has contradicted that prediction.

[icruise]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Why would only PS3 owners buy more next year? Why not everyone who owns an HD player?

Of course, everyone who owns an HD player will buy more when there is more available. But in particular, I see a split between owners of standalone players (who at this point are mostly AV buffs and the like) and PS3 owners, who tend to be a lot more mainstream. These people are not too likely to be buying up dozens of catalog titles (especially relatively unimpressive ones like both HD formats have been getting). But when we start to see more big new releases coming out simultaneously with DVD, you're going to have a lot of people opting for the Blu-ray version.

Even I, a pretty big movie fan with maybe 750 DVDs, only have 11 Blu-ray movies. And I only have those because some rebates made them very cheap. I fully intend to buy a lot more Blu-ray movies when there are better titles available, but for now I'm just waiting. I think there are a lot of people like me -- people who don't care enough about HD to buy a standalone player or to rebuy a bunch of stale catalog titles, but who will buy the HD version of new releases (and blockbuster catalog titles) since they already have the player.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by mrtew 

Who's "we"???

I also predicted the PS3 wouldn't have much impact on Bluray.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Salon.com Technology | Don't buy that PlayStation

[goMac]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Salon.com Technology | Don't buy that PlayStation

Sony doesn't have a supply crunch this time around.

[icruise]

Oh my god. If I didn't know better, I'd think that was a satire written about the current situation.

[mrtew]

Originally Posted by analogue SPRINKLES 

Salon.com Technology | Don't buy that PlayStation

Wait till the Dreamcast2 hits the market... then the PS3, the Wii and the X360 will pay! Muwahahahahahhaaaaaa!!!

[Eug]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I also predicted the PS3 wouldn't have much impact on Bluray.

Well, to be fair, I predicted the PS3 would have a large impact on Blu-ray, out of sheer brute force. 3 million PS3s is nothing to sneeze at.

I just predicted that if Sony failed to meet its overly optimistic targets, it would likely not win the war outright early on. And indeed that is what has happened.

Had Sony sold those 6 million or whatever PS3s in 2006 like they said they would, we wouldn't be having this conversation. HD DVD either would already be dead, or would be on life support. However, that didn't happen, and the two formats are fighting it out quite fiercely, with the added twist of HD DVD's even cheaper players coming out in Q4 2007. This is at a time where Blu-ray will likely have no price competitors to match it, and at the same time Blu-ray will still be selling players with a lower spec feature set, since BD Live won't be out until 2008.

[icruise]

Did Sony actually predict selling 6 million PS3s in 2006? That seems very unrealistic, considering that it launched in November with extremely constrained supplies.

[starman]

It's a shame that these formats can't get off the ground like they should Where the HELL is Spider-Man in HD? It should have been released a year ago. Now the Disney and Fox titles are delayed, making BR owners very nervous about the format. Nothing new has been released on HD-DVD (except Planet Earth which is awesome) which makes me wonder what the plan was all along by these numbskulls.

See, I can't go back to regular DVD. I'm spoiled now, and there's no new content being released.

Bastards.

[- - e r i k - -]

Meanwhile, level-headed people like myself are still split between being amused and annoyed that this stupid war is allowed to continue towards a mind-numbing stalemate.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

Did Sony actually predict selling 6 million PS3s in 2006? That seems very unrealistic, considering that it launched in November with extremely constrained supplies.

Yes, early in 2006, Sony was predicting 6 million for calendar 2006. Later in the year, that dropped to a prediction of 4 million, but they failed to meet that target too.

Sony on Wednesday confirmed that it's pushing back the worldwide release date for the game console to early November. The company cited delays in finalizing copyright-protection specifications in the Blu-ray standard, which will be the underlying high-definition DVD format for the PS3.

Even with the delay, Sony hopes to ship 6 million units around the globe by the end of the year, Ken Kutaragi, CEO of Sony Computer Entertainment, said at a press briefing in Tokyo. The company plans to bolster its manufacturing capacity so that it can produce 1 million units per month, he said.

Originally Posted by starman 

It's a shame that these formats can't get off the ground like they should Where the HELL is Spider-Man in HD? It should have been released a year ago. Now the Disney and Fox titles are delayed, making BR owners very nervous about the format. Nothing new has been released on HD-DVD (except Planet Earth which is awesome) which makes me wonder what the plan was all along by these numbskulls.

I would have expected Spider-Man on Blu-ray to be released in the fall, if/when Spider-Man 3 is released. They stand to make more money that way, than releasing Spider-Man on its own, in isolation, esp. when the format is so young.

[icruise]

So to be clear, Sony thought they might sell that many before they had all the production issues that limited their launch numbers. We knew even before the PS3's launch that they couldn't sell nearly that many even if people had wanted to buy them, since they had extremely limited supply right at the start. I do sort of wonder what might have happened if they had enough consoles to go around at launch (something like the Wii). As it was, the launch hype had worn off by the time people could buy them in stores.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by icruise 

So to be clear, Sony thought they might sell that many before they had all the production issues that limited their launch numbers. We knew even before the PS3's launch that they couldn't sell nearly that many even if people had wanted to buy them, since they had extremely limited supply right at the start. I do sort of wonder what might have happened if they had enough consoles to go around at launch (something like the Wii). As it was, the launch hype had worn off by the time people could buy them in stores.

Yeah, price is another issue. It's hard to keep the hype up for the masses on such an expensive unit.

I do think though that Sony had marketed to the studios the 6 million number. Furthermore, I don't think it was entirely clear to the studios in 2005 what the pricing of the PS3 would be either. Even Howard Stringer says he was sideswiped by Kutaragi on the PS3's pricing.

I think if Sony had the high end model for $499 in March, with 6 million units shipped (of both models) in 2006, then it would have been a very different landscape in the HD world right now.

But... It didn't happen. When it came close to the time of the PS3's release late 2006, a number of us predicted that the PS3's impact on Blu-ray would be much less and wouldn't be enough to knock off HD DVD. That was not a hard prediction to make, given that it had become obvious that Sony had been massively overestimating the numbers.

[Kenneth]

So my timeline... bought a PS3 in Dec '06 and then a DELL 24-inch LCD monitor in March '07. At this moment, I own 3 BR movie titles and constantly rent BR titles from Netflix. My original plan for buying a PS3 wasn't mainly for BR, but now BR and folding.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by Eug 

I think if Sony had the high end model for $499 in March, with 6 million units shipped (of both models) in 2006, then it would have been a very different landscape in the HD world right now.

If anyone should have done anything the XBOX 360 Elite should have a built in HD-DVD drive, especially for its price.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

So my timeline... bought a PS3 in Dec '06 and then a DELL 24-inch LCD monitor in March '07. At this moment, I own 3 BR movie titles and constantly rent BR titles from Netflix. My original plan for buying a PS3 wasn't mainly for BR, but now BR and folding.

A $600 movie player that you own three titles for and a …screensaver? Now that's money well spent!

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

A $600 movie player that you own three titles for and a …screensaver? Now that's money well spent!

He said he rents lots of BR movies not to mention he didn't say he doesn't use it for gaming or a DVD player.

[- - e r i k - -]

Exaggeration and sarcasm. Humour. Three topics to look up next time you are near a dictionary.

[analogue SPRINKLES]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Exaggeration and sarcasm. Humour. Three topics to look up next time you are near a dictionary.

Grab yours and lookup smartass.

[icruise]

Be nice.

[Eug]

Heise.de: Pioneer claims Universal going format neutral (German)

The article claims that Pioneer says Universal is backing out of HD DVD exclusivity, but so far Toshiba claims to know nothing about this, and Universal hasn't made any comment on this yet.