View Full Version : Nintendo know something MS and Sony do not know?
ihamoitc2005
12-Jun-2006, 06:42
I work at Target store and we have new shipment of Xbox360 for 2-3 weeks and we sell only 1. Why? Today I talk to one customer who says he is waiting for Nintendo Wii. Also new DS lite has big demand. Today morning one 45-50 years age man bought DS Lite and then in afternoon his wife makes call and says she has played with it also and wants to buy one tommorrow and has asked for "hold" for one DS Lite. She likes to play wireless network games with husband. They are not young players like PS2 or Xbox360 buyer. They are older age buyers.
Also, even before DS Lite we have many older buyers like old Nintendo DS for long trip entertainment. Wireless strategy for Nintendo also is very good for all age users. I wonder maybe Wii will have most sales for next gen in holiday season. I think it will have most fun and easy games. Also, most software sales we have at the store is for Nintendo software maybe because it is fun and easy. Young players and old players do not like hard games.
Sony has Hi-def advantage for HD technology marketing. So this is weakness for Wii. Wii is not HD, only SD. Because we have more and more HDTV sales I think HD console will have more demand for holiday season.
sonyps35
12-Jun-2006, 07:51
Latest NPD sales month of May-Xbox 360=221k sold, DS 147k sold.
DS is a smashing success..but so far only in Japan. We'll see if DS lite changes that..
Also NPD's have shown PSP and DS sales neck and neck the last several months in USA, usually PSP a little ahead, for what it's worth.
But as to your broader point I really dont know. I wouldn't speculate on Wii's sales at this point. Six months ago I would have said for sure it would be a disaster. Now I have no idea..
I will still be stunned if a console with markedly inferior graphics outsells ones with better graphics over the long haul. I'll say that much. (not talkling about handhelds so dont bring up DS).
Sometimes I think Wii will almost be like a toy, instead of a traditional console sales cycle. AKA it may be the hot toy for one or two seasons and sell loads, but last only one or two years. Like Tickle Me Elmo , or something like that of the hot toys of the past. Yet in those two years, they may sell unheard of amounts of consoles for a given time frame as well.
I dunno, just throwing an idea out there. Really dont know.
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 09:34
Latest NPD sales month of May-Xbox 360=221k sold, DS 147k sold.
don't you think the proximity of the 6/11 DS lite release could affect may sales of nintendo DS ?
Also NPD's have shown PSP and DS sales neck and neck the last several months in USA, usually PSP a little ahead, for what it's worth.
and what is the picture if you take software sales into account ?
the purspose of selling consoles is to sell software for it, it's what matters.
I will still be stunned if a console with markedly inferior graphics outsells ones with better graphics over the long haul. I'll say that much.
it happened before: PS2 vs xbox. and still happening PS2 vs xbox360.
(not talkling about handhelds so dont bring up DS).
why shouldn't we bring up DS ? DS vs PSP is a fine example.
also: gameboy vs gamegear/turboexpress/lynx
Sometimes I think Wii will almost be like a toy
Wii IS a toy.
each console nintendo ever released was a toy.
a console is essentially a toy, isn't it ?
while others promise movies, HD and polygons, nintendo is teasing our appetite for fun.
it's the same-thing-all-over-again-only-with-better-graphics vs a new world of interaction.
i think the fondamentalist (console=toy) approach of nintendo is the key of their success.
sonyps35
12-Jun-2006, 09:55
don't you think the proximity of the 6/11 DS lite release could affect may sales of nintendo DS ?
The past five months have been roughly the same sales for DS. For instance in April it sold 138,000.
and what is the picture if you take software sales into account ?
the purspose of selling consoles is to sell software for it, it's what matters.
From what I gather on good information in USA PSP software total life to date sales are even or a little ahead of DS.
Again, this is not referring to Japan, where DS is killing PSP.
it happened before: PS2 vs xbox. and still happening PS2 vs xbox360.
You are talking about a aging economy priced console versus a newcomer. That always happens in that case at the beginning. The real question is what do you think would happen if Sony leaves PS2 alone to combat 360 and never brings out PS3? Who would win
in the long haul? That is more to the relevance of my point.
why shouldn't we bring up DS ? DS vs PSP is a fine example.
also: gameboy vs gamegear/turboexpress/lynx
Because I dont think handhelds play by the same rules, that's why. Graphics aren't as much king in handhelds. Handhelds will never have the best overall graphics anyway (PSP is not as strong even as a PS2) so if you want the best graphics handhelds are not where you go (not too the graphics cannot be fully enjoyed on a tiny screen). Price plays a much larger role in handhelds. Etc. Just imo, it's simply different markets with different rules.
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 10:13
From what I gather on good information in USA PSP software total life to date sales are even or a little ahead of DS.
could you share with us the good information you gathered ? what are the numbers ?
You are talking about a aging economy priced console versus a newcomer.
at the same pricepoint or evern being more exepensive, the PS2 outsold the xbox, its inferior graphics. doesn't that contradict your proposition ?
That always happens in that case at the beginning. The real question is what do you think would happen if Sony leaves PS2 alone to combat 360 and never brings out PS3? Who would win
in the long haul? That is more to the relevance of my point.
i think the real question is will the wii enjoy success, not what would happen in some alternate universe.
Because I dont think handhelds play by the same rules, that's why.
If we restrain the debate to ideas that conform to you opinion, i think the issue is predictable.
sonyps35
12-Jun-2006, 11:21
could you share with us the good information you gathered ? what are the numbers ?
They come from an in the know source.
at the same pricepoint or evern being more exepensive, the PS2 outsold the xbox, its inferior graphics. doesn't that contradict your proposition ?
Judging by the number of 60 FPS games on PS2, I'd argue it had the better graphics.
i think the real question is will the wii enjoy success, not what would happen in some alternate universe.
I was just explaining my point.
If we restrain the debate to ideas that conform to you opinion, i think the issue is predictable.
See above.
Sometimes I think Wii will almost be like a toy,
God I hope the Wii is like a toy. A toy that is fun fun fun :)
why shouldn't we bring up DS ? DS vs PSP is a fine example.
Different target audience, different use for the product. Not a good comparison IMHO.
EDIT: also, I think the Wii being like a toy is the best thing possible. I never felt the urge to buy a console (I played often, but never actually bought one myself) until now - because of the "toy-fun-factor" of the Wii
Oboro Shogun
12-Jun-2006, 14:32
Judging by the number of 60 FPS games on PS2, I'd argue it had the better graphics.
Be realistic here. The PS2's visuals were nowhere near the xbox's. Don't mix up art style with actual rendering power either.
Knowing a lot of people that the prymary reason why they dont play much is because it is to hard, I think it easly can have potential, that more low prices (HW+SW) and second console potential it is probable that it will have sucess.
Sometimes I think Wii will almost be like a toy
There's no question it will be like a toy, it is a toy, just like every other console. No amount of processing power, side features or Sony/MS advertising will change the fact that all consoles are specifically made for playing games.
london-boy
12-Jun-2006, 15:05
I think that's almost the main issue here.
What happenes in the last decade, and largely because of Sony, is that console had to get an image change in order to become more "mainstream". No longer they would be toys, because 30 year olds don't buy toys, they buy "Computer Entertainment System". Whether this was a good thing or a bad thing, it worked very well, and console gaming was made "cool", and sold a LOT both in hardware and in software.
The problem is that if you leave something to stagnate long enough, it gets boring, so now even the "cool" console gaming is just a byproduct of that mentality, the graphics-before-gameplay mentality.
A good idea can surely become a boring idea if there is no change, and i think this is what happening, and what Nintendo is trying to tackle, what Sony is trying to copy from Nintendo, and what MS is trying to monopolise. (ok that last bit just sounded REALLY good in my head so i had to write it, but it's not really what i think!)
I think its easy to miss the point with sony's strategy, even when ken kutaragi himself have told it, in some of the interviews posted lately here.
Sony have a home entertainment computer, and, in later internet age, it mean, its a open ended free platform.
Who mean, they cannon take profit from selling a console with LOSS, and earn it by selling content(since, many could buy one for other purposes).
So, now, sony use a different model to earn money, and sell the PS3 with PROFIT, since sony cannot be shure if it will sell much, and devlop, in some ways who dont exist, maybe , as a "home media center" or something who currently dont is a really huge marked, or become a center for free content.
blakjedi
12-Jun-2006, 16:45
A good idea can surely become a boring idea if there is no change, and i think this is what happening, and what Nintendo is trying to tackle, what Sony is trying to copy from Nintendo, and what MS is trying to monopolise. (ok that last bit just sounded REALLY good in my head so i had to write it, but it's not really what i think!)
Good point and well said! :grin:
I think its easy to miss the point with sony's strategy, even when ken kutaragi himself have told it, in some of the interviews posted lately here.
Sony have a home entertainment computer, and, in later internet age, it mean, its a open ended free platform.
Who mean, they cannon take profit from selling a console with LOSS, and earn it by selling content(since, many could buy one for other purposes).
So, now, sony use a different model to earn money, and sell the PS3 with PROFIT, since sony cannot be shure if it will sell much, and devlop, in some ways who dont exist, maybe , as a "home media center" or something who currently dont is a really huge marked, or become a center for free content.
That's right. This is why I follow Playstation news more intensely than Xbox 360. It seems that Sony is trying to redefine the "rules", but they may get burnt in the process though. :(
Johnny Awesome
12-Jun-2006, 17:46
Annecdotal evidence from biased f anboys mean nothing. We'll see what happens this Fall.
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 17:47
are xbox360, PSP and PS3 toys that are ashamed of being toy ?
and wii/DS toys who assume their toyality.
maybe we should assume the fact we are grown-ups who like to play with toys.
TheChefO
12-Jun-2006, 17:52
interesting point -
In some ways I agree but in other instances, I 100% disagree. It really depends on the software. Is a computer a toy? What about tv? Dvd player?
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 17:56
i think it depends of how you use it, if you only play games with it a computer is a toy.
if you have several kind of uses with it it's like a swiss knife: sometimes it's a productivity tool, sometime a toy, sometimes a development platform..
you don't play with a tv or dvd player, they aren't toys.
TheChefO
12-Jun-2006, 17:59
i think it depends of how you use it, if you only play games with it a computer is a toy.
if you have several kind of uses with it it's like a swiss knife: sometimes it's a productivity tool, sometime a toy, sometimes a development platform..
you don't play with a tv or dvd player, they aren't toys.
By "toy" you reference "play" - so if you are "playing" then it must be a "toy".
What about simlators? Where is the line drawn?
maybe we should assume the fact we are grown-ups who like to play with toys.
That is big truth, console=playing, some consoles does more than just playing but they are made to be console and sold as that, if they only wanted the rest they would probably be able to da a much better job for that than a PS3/360 so they do sell a console and we buy a console.
TheChefO
12-Jun-2006, 18:10
That is big truth, console=playing, some consoles does more than just playing but they are made to be console and sold as that, if they only wanted the rest they would probably be able to da a much better job for that than a PS3/360 so they do sell a console and we buy a console.
Interesting thought based on the "cool" factor that Sony brought to the market from the begining...
What if that is part of the growing of the market that Sony is attempting with ps3? Example:
Joe 6pak is intrigued with games in commercials etc but doesn't want to be rediculed for having a "games" system. with ps3 being marketed as a computer the price is justifiable and it doubles as a bluray player. The machine "just so happens to play games" ... Joe6pak says to his buddy/wife/family "I thought I might as well see what all the fuss was about with these games so I picked up Killzone".
Basicly Sony selling the concept of masking your gaming desires with other devices which are typicaly expensive and the machine is therefore a great value anyone outside of the games abilities which help to sell the device to your peers.
scooby_dooby
12-Jun-2006, 18:33
Come on, we're WAY past the stage where you have to hide the fact you play video games, the biggest "joe 6packs" i know almost all play games.
Associating it with a PC makes it far more 'geeky' in the eyes of these people, so if the goal is to raise the cool factor of the machine, making it perform PC-like functions is NOT going to serve that purpose.
I really have no idea who the target market is for this PC-console, honestly I don't think it will be much of a PC-console at all, it's just KK dreaming again, it will just be a console with some digital media distribution built in. It will be cool cause it's PS3, that's all it needs, and they'll have to drop the price quickly to hit the target audience.
TheChefO
12-Jun-2006, 18:39
Come on, we're WAY past the stage where you have to hide the fact you play video games, the biggest "joe 6packs" i know almost all play games.
Associating it with a PC makes it far more 'geeky' in the eyes of these people, so if the goal is to raise the cool factor of the machine, making it perform PC-like functions is NOT going to serve that purpose.
I really have no idea who the target market is for this PC-console, honestly I don't think it will be much of a PC-console at all, it's just KK dreaming again, it will just be a console with some digital media distribution built in. It will be cool cause it's PS3, that's all it needs, and they'll have to drop the price quickly to hit the target audience.
Not necessarily - I know of many 30-40 somethings who would consider a game console a kids toy. To be able to reach out to these people and give them a way to buy-in without buying-in would be beneficial. In their eyes even if they never used the gaming functions, the box would still have a use.
Basicly by reversing the value proposition and including the game system for free they might encourage those who may be curious about gaming to actually try it. (in the comfort and privacy of their own homes of course)
Knowing a lot of people that the prymary reason why they dont play much is because it is to hard
If by "too hard" you mean "the game requires to to do really many useless unoriginal things in order to achieve some goal which is just as unoriginal and annoying, since you saw/did it all in 10000 better games already and it adds nothing to the experience", then yes, count me in ;)
blakjedi
12-Jun-2006, 19:09
If either console were designed like a professional rackmount black-lacquered, AV component, no one would consider it a toy... Its more about design than function.
are xbox360, PSP and PS3 toys that are ashamed of being toy ?.
They're not. They're just selling you a transformer car/animal/humanoid robot running on fusion energy which allows you to play games, surf the net and enjoy all kinds of media content on- or offline, all that while cooking dinner and giving you a back massage ;)
Now seriously, the PS3 is meant to be the mother of all the wet dreams of set-top box designers. Assuming: great gaming, great media capabilities with great connectivity and possibilites for easy online distribution of content and probably a web browser of some kind (Opera in disguise maybe?).
Even stuff for the geeks - it might be capable of some kind of distributed computing as well.
An easy to use, instant-on device which will do all the entertainment related stuff possible (and get you online as easy nd good as a PC too), what's wrong with that?
Of course, all this assuming they pull it off properly :)
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 21:08
By "toy" you reference "play" - so if you are "playing" then it must be a "toy".
it's not just me, it's the primary definition of toy:
"something meant to be played with, especially by children"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861721193
What about simlators? Where is the line drawn?
arcade-oriented simulators = definitively toy
if you use a reality-oriented simulator, are you doing something serious ? couldn't it be like a grown-up variation of play role games of our childhood ? hey look ! i'm a pilot !
the same simulator can be a toy or a professional training tool, it depends of the intent.
TheChefO
12-Jun-2006, 21:31
it's not just me, it's the primary definition of toy:
"something meant to be played with, especially by children"
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861721193
arcade-oriented simulators = definitively toy
if you use a reality-oriented simulator, are you doing something serious ? couldn't it be like a grown-up variation of play role games of our childhood ? hey look ! i'm a pilot !
the same simulator can be a toy or a professional training tool, it depends of the intent.
Yes that's the definition of "toy", but play!=toy.
"go play with your brother" - does that mean your brother is a toy?
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 21:39
Now seriously, the PS3 is meant to be the mother of all the wet dreams of set-top box designers. :)
the set-top box from my adsl provider brings HD, hdmi connection, TV, VoD, Internet, multimedia extender (MIMO), VoIP and i think we'll soon have videogames (!) and PVR (integrated HDD) within the same box.
console-makers won't be able to compete service-wise with the access provider, as they are not at the same level network-wise.
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 21:45
Yes that's the definition of "toy", but play!=toy.
"go play with your brother" - does that mean your brother is a toy?
a toy is *something* to be played with, which implies that a toy is an object.
a so-said intelligent carbon entity can't qualify as a toy.
i think i just have guessed you next question:
"i'm playing with a part of me" does that mean par of me is a toy ?
TheChefO
12-Jun-2006, 22:09
a toy is *something* to be played with, which implies that a toy is an object.
a so-said intelligent carbon entity can't qualify as a toy.
i think i just have guessed you next question:
lol - so is the internet a toy?
If by "too hard" you mean "the game requires to to do really many useless unoriginal things in order to achieve some goal which is just as unoriginal and annoying, since you saw/did it all in 10000 better games already and it adds nothing to the experience", then yes, count me in ;)
That too but even on original games (eg FSW) that is way to hard, even I find hard.
But if you think in those how only play games from times to times (or never played) I know a lot of people that like to play but they do find hard to play even somewhat symple games like Halo (actually some of them did better in the GoldenEye/PD) those can be easly be atracted by Wii (what is easier than point?).
Magnum PI
12-Jun-2006, 23:53
think about us ageing gamers, we don't have the same reflex as before and not as much time to play..
in metroid prime i didn't beat the last boss, in MP2 i stopped with the boss where you morph into the ball .. and worse the last savepoint is far from these bosses.
PoP there is there is the elevator stage where we are attacked.. i finished stopped playing this game too.
when its too difficult it ends in frustration, I won't replay a level dozens of times, I want to relax from my work when I play, not stress myself too much..
i have to be able to play for short sessions, and these can be interrupted, this mean i don't want 30 minutes b/w two savepoints
gamers are ageing, when doing so they are becoming a different audience with differents needs, please don't forget us.
scooby_dooby
13-Jun-2006, 02:46
think about us ageing gamers, we don't have the same reflex as before and not as much time to play..
in metroid prime i didn't beat the last boss, in MP2 i stopped with the boss where you morph into the ball .. and worse the last savepoint is far from these bosses.
PoP there is there is the elevator stage where we are attacked.. i finished stopped playing this game too.
when its too difficult it ends in frustration, I won't replay a level dozens of times, I want to relax from my work when I play, not stress myself too much..
i have to be able to play for short sessions, and these can be interrupted, this mean i don't want 30 minutes b/w two savepoints
gamers are ageing, when doing so they are becoming a different audience with differents needs, please don't forget us.
Difficulty creates a feeling of accomplishment, satisfaction, this is key to the gaming experience for many peope. If something is easy, there's no sense of achievement when you pass it. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it though, for example Halo never puts you further than 5minutes back, which alleviates much of the frustration you speak of.
Why don't you just play your games on easy?
Magnum PI
13-Jun-2006, 07:16
there isn't always the option to choose the difficulty level. and even in easy sometimes there is something too hard.
I should be able to change the difficulty level during a game, to skip a boss, or go into god mode when i want, Ã* la quake
the thing we know as a cheat mode, it should openly and systematically be present in each game and should be documented.
someone who sucks at gaming should be able to enjoy it anyway.
StefanS
13-Jun-2006, 07:28
Difficulty creates a feeling of accomplishment, satisfaction, this is key to the gaming experience for many peope. If something is easy, there's no sense of achievement when you pass it. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it though, for example Halo never puts you further than 5minutes back, which alleviates much of the frustration you speak of.
See there's the problem, in Metroid Prime the last save point is about 10 min away from the last boss, and there's annoying platform jumping before. Now, the last boss isn't that hard, but still it requires probably 5 tries. So instead of replaying the boss battle, you spend most of your time hopping around just because the designers were too stupid to put a freaking savepoint right before the final boss. Boy, that was really annoying.
the set-top box from my adsl provider brings HD, hdmi connection, TV, VoD, Internet, multimedia extender (MIMO), VoIP and i think we'll soon have videogames (!) and PVR (integrated HDD) within the same box.
console-makers won't be able to compete service-wise with the access provider, as they are not at the same level network-wise.
Well, your set-top box still won't give you Heavenly Sword etc, right? ;) Add to that the "cool" factor for the PS3 too. And if there's enough demand for the better service, it'll eventually improve.
I'm not saying it'll work out that way, I just think that's what Sony targeted.
That too but even on original games (eg FSW) that is way to hard, even I find hard.
But if you think in those how only play games from times to times (or never played) I know a lot of people that like to play but they do find hard to play even somewhat symple games like Halo (actually some of them did better in the GoldenEye/PD) those can be easly be atracted by Wii (what is easier than point?).
Let me put it this way, if the game requires you to do so much hard stuff that it feels like work, the fun's over.
Difficulty creates a feeling of accomplishment, satisfaction, this is key to the gaming experience for many peope. If something is easy, there's no sense of achievement when you pass it. There's a right way and a wrong way to do it though, for example Halo never puts you further than 5minutes back, which alleviates much of the frustration you speak of.
Why don't you just play your games on easy?
It's not really about difficulty as such, it's that it's difficult in wrong places. Say, an fps full of jump&run crap like JediKnight2 for example. I really liked the game, but I really hated the fact that you have these jump&run sections in there just as oftenas you have to fight/shoot. That spoils the fun completely because it's a misplaced gimmick just to prolong the game artificially instead of with more content.
the set-top box from my adsl provider brings HD, hdmi connection, TV, VoD, Internet, multimedia extender (MIMO), VoIP and i think we'll soon have videogames (!) and PVR (integrated HDD) within the same box.
console-makers won't be able to compete service-wise with the access provider, as they are not at the same level network-wise.
Interesting. Do you have to pay a higher ADSL subscription fee every month for access to the value added services and content ? On top of that, do you need to pay per "view" ? What is the DRM restrictions for the bought content ? Sony may adopt a different model, just like Apple.
Magnum PI
13-Jun-2006, 10:15
Interesting. Do you have to pay a higher ADSL subscription fee every month for access to the value added services and content ? On top of that, do you need to pay per "view" ? What is the DRM restrictions for the bought content ? Sony may adopt a different model, just like Apple.
i pay 30 € for the phone line + ADSL 2+ at the highest speed that my line can attain + about 100 tv channels + VoIP (free calls to fixed national lines and fixed lines of more than ten countries)
some optional channels and package of channels are available too.
for the VoD i pay to have the movie at my disposal for 4 or 24 hours, i can do anything i would do with a dvd, the price is according to the length of the rent and the age of the content, from 1.99 € to 3.99 €
i do not know about DRM restriction, the content is streamed to the set-top-box which is plugged on my tv using the scart interface, didn't try to record it.
i don't see how sony could do VoD like this, except if they have partnerships with ISPs.
Sorry... I lost you along the way. :P What is "4 ou 24 hours" ?
The package seems very compelling. Is the movie selection large and current ?
Other than ISP, VoD can also be done in partnership with a streaming infrastructure provider like advection.net (If I remember their name correctly).
EDIT: Ok, I see that you have corrected the typo to "4 or 24 hours". I'm still unsure what it means exactly. Is there extra charge for 4 hour or 24 hour ?
Magnum PI
13-Jun-2006, 10:57
Sorry... I lost you along the way. :P What is "4 ou 24 hours" ?
"ou" is the french word for "or"
The package seems very compelling. Is the movie selection large and current ?
for now more than 600 movies, some pretty recent, available around the same time as they're released on DVD. the service is pretty recent, it was launched december of 2005
Other than ISP, VoD can also be done in partnership with a streaming infrastructure provider like advection.net (If I remember their name correctly).
i think if any entity is provide such a VoD thing, it implies a guaranteed service level from the source to the client.
i think that at least the ISP must be cooperating with the VoD provider. what will do sony if ISPs don't cooperate with it for VoD and prefer to provide VoD using their set-top-box and other partners ?
without that of course you can do a VoD service where you a download the entire movie to HD for later viewing, with DRM.
if your are interested in the company: http://www.iliad.fr/en/
TheChefO
13-Jun-2006, 12:57
think about us ageing gamers, we don't have the same reflex as before and not as much time to play..
in metroid prime i didn't beat the last boss, in MP2 i stopped with the boss where you morph into the ball .. and worse the last savepoint is far from these bosses.
PoP there is there is the elevator stage where we are attacked.. i finished stopped playing this game too.
when its too difficult it ends in frustration, I won't replay a level dozens of times, I want to relax from my work when I play, not stress myself too much..
i have to be able to play for short sessions, and these can be interrupted, this mean i don't want 30 minutes b/w two savepoints
gamers are ageing, when doing so they are becoming a different audience with differents needs, please don't forget us.
Agreed - another thing to add to this list of requests:
- Save Summary -
The time between gaming can also vary, sometimes I'll go a week between sessions where I don't have the time to game or switch games in between. By the time I get back to the original game I'm lost and don't know what I'm supposed to do. A summary as they do on popular weekly tv shows would be great.
mckmas8808
14-Jun-2006, 18:17
"without that of course you can do a VoD service where you a download the entire movie to HD for later viewing, with DRM.
if your are interested in the company: http://www.iliad.fr/en/
So do you see more people downloading 25 to 50 GB movies than actually buying a disc?
Magnum PI
14-Jun-2006, 19:03
So do you see more people downloading 25 to 50 GB movies than actually buying a disc?
i don't think downloading 20 GB to 50 GB si really an attractive option.
somebody would call it VoD but it isn't, it's just that you download a DRM file for a given price. a commercial download service.
i think VoD has to be as useable as your DVD player: you choose the movie on your set-top box, and you can watch it immediately. you can pause, you can rewind etc... but it is streamed to you on your demand, it's not stored on the set-top box. if you paid for 4 hours, you have 4 hours from when you began to watch it to when it can't be streamed to you.
it's the service my ISP offers.
i guess that with their HDD MS or Sony may sell a download service, but i doubt it would possible for them to make a VoD service which can work from any hi-speed internet access.
mckmas8808
14-Jun-2006, 19:05
i don't think downloading 20 GB to 50 GB si really an attractive option.
somebody would call it VoD but it isn't, it's just that you download a DRM file for a given price. a commercial download service.
i think VoD has to be as useable as your DVD player: you choose the movie on your set-top box, and you can watch it immediately. you can pause, you can rewind etc... but it is streamed to you on your demand, it's not stored on the set-top box. if you paid for 4 hours, you have 4 hours from when you began to watch it to when it can't be streamed to you.
it's the service my ISP offers.
i guess that with their HDD MS or Sony may sell a download service, but i doubt it would possible for them to make a VoD service which can work from any hi-speed internet access.
That doesn't sound bad at all. But I can't see something like that killing off high def media disc. Do you?
TheChefO
14-Jun-2006, 19:11
So do you see more people downloading 25 to 50 GB movies than actually buying a disc?
Not anytime soon in my neck of the woods. Standard "broadband" here is 1-2mb/sec. Needless to say, patience is a virtue, but nobody I know is that patient. ;)
Inane_Dork
14-Jun-2006, 21:10
Not anytime soon in my neck of the woods. Standard "broadband" here is 1-2mb/sec. Needless to say, patience is a virtue, but nobody I know is that patient. ;)Considering that HD movies need not be even half of 25 GB and the popularity of online purchasing/renting which presumes a few days (or more) between purchase and delivery, I think you overestimate the patience required. Not that I think mass market broadband delivery is upon us, of course. I'm just saying the odds aren't so heavily stacked against it.
TheChefO
14-Jun-2006, 21:26
Considering that HD movies need not be even half of 25 GB and the popularity of online purchasing/renting which presumes a few days (or more) between purchase and delivery, I think you overestimate the patience required. Not that I think mass market broadband delivery is upon us, of course. I'm just saying the odds aren't so heavily stacked against it.
The tech is coming - they're installing VIOS all over the area here but its coverage is still sporadic and the price is still premium (>$60/mo).
When coverage is more widespread and costs come down to around $30/mo, this seriously broadband format should enable these services realisticly but we're still a few years away.
Magnum PI
14-Jun-2006, 21:32
That doesn't sound bad at all. But I can't see something like that killing off high def media disc. Do you?
Of course I don't.
I like to have my DVDs. Even given the possibility of a perpetual licence I'd rather buy a DVD, better own the thing rather than a only a viewing right.
I think it isn't meant to replace media discs
More than competing with DVD sales, it is competing with the traditionnal rental bizness. If a movie is in the VoD catalog and isn't overpriced I don't see how I would prefer to rent it in DVD. Except if I want to rip it.
Magnum PI
14-Jun-2006, 21:34
Considering that HD movies need not be even half of 25 GB
9 GB isn't too much to store a SD movie, I would think 12.5 GB to be rather problematic for HD movie if you want adequate quality.
Powderkeg
14-Jun-2006, 22:33
9 GB isn't too much to store a SD movie, I would think 12.5 GB to be rather problematic for HD movie if you want adequate quality.
Rough estimates:
720p = 48mb per minute
1080p = 60MB per minute
So, a typical hour and a half film would only be about 4.4GB at 720p and 5.5GB at 1080p based on MS's VC-1 codec. If you want you can go to MS's web site and order a 1080p version of Terminator 2 on a single DVD-9 disk.
mckmas8808
15-Jun-2006, 00:07
Of course I don't.
I like to have my DVDs. Even given the possibility of a perpetual licence I'd rather buy a DVD, better own the thing rather than a only a viewing right.
I think it isn't meant to replace media discs
More than competing with DVD sales, it is competing with the traditionnal rental bizness. If a movie is in the VoD catalog and isn't overpriced I don't see how I would prefer to rent it in DVD. Except if I want to rip it.
Oh okay. Me and you are totally on the same page then. I completly agree with you on your VoD observation.
Inane_Dork
15-Jun-2006, 05:01
9 GB isn't too much to store a SD movie, I would think 12.5 GB to be rather problematic for HD movie if you want adequate quality.10 Mbps is a pretty decent bitrate for MPEG4 or VC1 encoded HD video. That gets you about 9 GB for 2 hours. You can add the special features as separate downloads.
I'm sure there are people who disagree with my position about 10 Mbps being a decent bitrate, but eh. If most people can't tell or don't care about the difference between crappy MP3's and CD quality audio, 10 Mbps will likely be plenty. 720p could probably get away with 8 Mbps.
Remember, there's nothing stopping us from offering highly compressed HD at the beginning and then changing to more reasonably compressed HD later.
10 Mbps is a pretty decent bitrate for MPEG4 or VC1 encoded HD video. That gets you about 9 GB for 2 hours. You can add the special features as separate downloads.
I'm sure there are people who disagree with my position about 10 Mbps being a decent bitrate, but eh. If most people can't tell or don't care about the difference between crappy MP3's and CD quality audio, 10 Mbps will likely be plenty. 720p could probably get away with 8 Mbps.
Remember, there's nothing stopping us from offering highly compressed HD at the beginning and then changing to more reasonably compressed HD later.
10mbit at SD is ok, i would prefer (and HD-DVD seems to agree with me) that 15-18mbit average is the needed bitrate.
Shifty Geezer
15-Jun-2006, 09:39
I'm sure there are people who disagree with my position about 10 Mbps being a decent bitrate, but eh. If most people can't tell or don't care about the difference between crappy MP3's and CD quality audio, 10 Mbps will likely be plenty. 720p could probably get away with 8 Mbps.Ithink the visual compression artefacts on movies are far worse than the compression artefacts on low quality compressed audio. In most situations the audio compression artefacts aren't apparent, you have high detail audio, but it gets very bad in some situations. In low quality video compression, the whole thing is bad losing definiton and creating large areas of blocking, colour bleeding and smudging. At 4 times the resolution of DVD, I'd want at least 4x the bitrate to give the same compression, and I really want far better than that! DVD has serious problems at times. I don't see the point in going HiDef in resolution if you're going to stay LowDef in every other aspect. Uncompressed 7.1 audio and big blocky blobs in dark scenes? Doesn't really go, does it!
At 4 times the resolution of DVD, I'd want at least 4x the bitrate to give the same compression
This is a wrong assumption. At 4 times the resolution of DVD there isn't 4 times the amount of information. You need the same number of DCT coefficients to represent the same patch of smooth color gradient, e.g. sky or out-of-focus background, even if it's gone from 8x8 pixels to 16x16 pixels. Even if the movie is shot in HD, you won't get the screen filled with a solid mess of Angelina Jolie's pores :-)
This is a wrong assumption. At 4 times the resolution of DVD there isn't 4 times the amount of information. You need the same number of DCT coefficients to represent the same patch of smooth color gradient, e.g. sky or out-of-focus background, even if it's gone from 8x8 pixels to 16x16 pixels. Even if the movie is shot in HD, you won't get the screen filled with a solid mess of Angelina Jolie's pores :-)
Remember though, MPEG isn't just about the DCT in the reference i-frames, the p/b-frames are very important (this is the area where loads of optimisations have occured giving increased compression ratios at expense of compression time lately).
Remember though, MPEG isn't just about the DCT in the reference i-frames, the p/b-frames are very important (this is the area where loads of optimisations have occured giving increased compression ratios at expense of compression time lately).
Sure, this doesn't contradict my point: that a high-resolution "real-world" image isn't likely to contain as much more information (in the information theory, how-much-can-we-compress-it- sense) as it contains more pixels. So, e.g. a 4x increase in pixel count should lead to only a 3x increase in data rate.
fearsomepirate
15-Jun-2006, 12:14
There's way more information in an image than you might think. The problem is extracting it quickly and accurately.
Inane_Dork
15-Jun-2006, 18:20
10mbit at SD is ok, i would prefer (and HD-DVD seems to agree with me) that 15-18mbit average is the needed bitrate.10 Mbps for 480p is total overkill unless you're (inexplicably) still using MPEG2.
Ithink the visual compression artefacts on movies are far worse than the compression artefacts on low quality compressed audio.The real question is not over what you think or I think but rather over what most people think. Given that most people aren't even aware that video on DVD is compressed, DVD quality is plenty for the mass market. I'm fairly sure that 720p encoded at 10 Mbps with VC1 offers at least DVD quality (per resolution, that is).
At 4 times the resolution of DVD, I'd want at least 4x the bitrate to give the same compression...You shouldn't directly compare MPEG2 bitrates to MPEG4 bitrates.
Shifty Geezer
15-Jun-2006, 19:31
The real question is not over what you think or I think but rather over what most people think. Given that most people aren't even aware that video on DVD is compressed, DVD quality is plenty for the mass market. I'm fairly sure that 720p encoded at 10 Mbps with VC1 offers at least DVD quality (per resolution, that is).I think the question is whether Joe Public will notice the difference at the store demos. Maybe they wouldn't notice the compression if there was nothing to compare it too, but when you see DVD next to HD optical, if the compression is less noticeable, will Mr. Public notice the difference and care? If it's the sort of difference I saw at Harrods, no-one could see that and not be impressed.
You shouldn't directly compare MPEG2 bitrates to MPEG4 bitrates.Okay. I didn't mean hard bitrates. Just more a case of if you're going to up the resolution, you're going to need to increase the sampling rate. You're going to waste the potential of HDTVs if you don't increase quality markedly over DVD, and even with better codecs you're not going to get that at a marginal increase in storage capacity.
From my personal POV, DVD quality at highres isn't really good enough. I want a better experience. Maybe Mr. Public would have been happy with just an upping of the resolution and more 'smearage' of the picture, but we do actually have large storage optical disks that are going to provide crisper images, and we will get to see if people notice the difference and are willing to shell out for it.
Ventresca
15-Jun-2006, 20:20
10 Mbps is a pretty decent bitrate for MPEG4 or VC1 encoded HD video. That gets you about 9 GB for 2 hours. You can add the special features as separate downloads.
I'm sure there are people who disagree with my position about 10 Mbps being a decent bitrate, but eh. If most people can't tell or don't care about the difference between crappy MP3's and CD quality audio, 10 Mbps will likely be plenty. 720p could probably get away with 8 Mbps..
It sure is not enough for me to see a big jump in quality over dvd , i can't see why the mass market would want to buy very expansive players and more expansive movies where you have not a big improvement over upscaled dvd.
Inane_Dork
16-Jun-2006, 00:28
Shifty: If we're going to talk about how stores mercilessly butcher video signals, display them with entirely different contrast/brightness/color settings and then suggest the biggest, most expensive TVs to you, I kinda doubt we'll arrive at any intuitive conclusion.
It sure is not enough for me to see a big jump in quality over dvd , i can't see why the mass market would want to buy very expansive players and more expansive movies where you have not a big improvement over upscaled dvd.In case you were not adequately following this subconversation, we're talking about downloading movies. Hence, there are no expensive players in the equation. As for how expensive the movies would be, who knows?
And if we're talking about 720p video encoded at 10 Mbps with VC1, that looks significantly superior to upscaled DVD to me. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who see little to no difference between the two but see a big difference between DVD & HD-DVD.
Shifty Geezer
16-Jun-2006, 09:15
Shifty: If we're going to talk about how stores mercilessly butcher video signals, display them with entirely different contrast/brightness/color settings and then suggest the biggest, most expensive TVs to you, I kinda doubt we'll arrive at any intuitive conclusion.On the contrary, we will arrive at an intuitive conclusion - the butchered sets will not sell so well. And if the demo points show HD optical looks far better than the alternatives, it'll sell too, regardless of the technical merits of any platform.
As for low megabit HD movies, the few I've seen have had obvious compression artefacts, like any movie seen on computer, like DVD on a flat-panel display. Even if it is better than DVD, it's not as good as HD optical disks should be. Is it good enough for Joe Public, and they'll choose downloaded low-bitrate over purchasable high-bitrate? I don't know, but then neither does anyone here and no-one can argue what will happen. They can only present different viewpoints, and then wait and see which pans out. All I ca say, from my meagre experiences, is that there is a notceable difference between real HD optical sources and restricted HD sources, that makes for a far better picture and which is far more preferrable if I had to choose one format ofver the other.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.