Blu-ray will not matter...

[Sis]

PS3 uptake will be much quicker than HD-DVD (especially since many analysts consider it will have a "soft" launch). HDTV owners are more likely to want to buy a PS3 (and be able to cough up +-$400) than most people. Someone who has a HDTV, and a PS3, is going to be buying Blu-ray movies. Why wouldn't they?
Even people without HDTVs will be more likely to buy BR movies because when they do upgrade, they'll have high-definition content, and until then they can watch slick 480i/p content on their PS3.

The cycle works thus:

HDTV owners: Drives Stand-alone/PS3 adoption, Blu-ray movie purchasing.
PS3: Drives HDTV adoption, Blu-ray movie purchasing.
Blu-ray: Drives Standalone/PS3 player adoption as well as HDTV adoption.

Its a three-pronged attack.

No, your reasoning is flawed. People may buy the PS3 for games, movies, or both. People who buy and HD-DVD will be buying it solely for movies. The movie attach rate should be vastly different between the PS3 and a stand-alone player (this goes for a blu-ray player as well).

.Sis

 

[mckmas8808]

No, your reasoning is flawed. People may buy the PS3 for games, movies, or both. People who buy and HD-DVD will be buying it solely for movies. The movie attach rate should be vastly different between the PS3 and a stand-alone player (this goes for a blu-ray player as well).

.Sis

That's correct. But the main question should be how many HD-DVD players will be sold? We know the first player will probably be sold between the prices of $600-$1000. How many people compared PS3 owners with an HDTV set will buy a HD-DVD player next year?

That's an important question.

 

[London Geezer]

No, your reasoning is flawed. People may buy the PS3 for games, movies, or both. People who buy and HD-DVD will be buying it solely for movies. The movie attach rate should be vastly different between the PS3 and a stand-alone player (this goes for a blu-ray player as well).

.Sis

How cares about "movie attach rate"??

If there are 10 million PS3 out there and 100,000 HDDVD players out there, Sony can afford to have a movie attach ratio 10 times smaller than HDDVD players and still be on par. And we all know that won't be the case, seen how Panasonic, Philips, Samsung will all release Bluray players too, on top of the huge sales PS3 will have.

This discussion has been done so many times, and by now it's so useless to keep talking about this it's just ridiculous some people still try to find a way to put Bluray down... "Movie attach rate"... Give me a break!!

 

[eDoshin]

When I buy a PS3, I sure as heck would choose the HD version of any new movies that come out. The only other format I would consider are older dvd movies in the bargain bin. I don't see why any person with an HD television and a PS3 would choose to do otherwise. To say that HD-DVD owners will be the only ones buying movies is to assume that PS3 owners do not watch movies. Besides, there will be standalone BR players also, so the standalone point is moot. If I was a consumer who had no interest in PS3, and I had to choose between an HD-DVD player and a BR player, my choice would not be so difficult. BR players will already be millions of homes via PS3, and every major studio supports BR, while HD-DVD is missing some vital studios.

 

[Sis]

How cares about "movie attach rate"??

If there are 10 million PS3 out there and 100,000 HDDVD players out there, Sony can afford to have a movie attach ratio 10 times smaller than HDDVD players and still be on par. And we all know that won't be the case, seen how Panasonic, Philips, Samsung will all release Bluray players too, on top of the huge sales PS3 will have.

This discussion has been done so many times, and by now it's so useless to keep talking about this it's just ridiculous some people still try to find a way to put Bluray down... "Movie attach rate"... Give me a break!!

I didn't realize I was "putting down" bluray with stating that the PS3 will not have an equatible attach rate as a stand alone player.

I like how you can pull numbers out of your ass, though, and pretend they're meaningful. "Sony can afford to have a movie attach ratio of 10 times smaller than HDDVD players" is only interesting if that's an actual statistic. But I can pull things out of my ass too (I'm popular at parties!): what if the attach rate is 20 times better on HDDVD? 50 times?

What if it's 1 MILLION times better than PS3?

The bottom line is that I was responding to Nicked's post that assumes the PS3 will equate to sales of blu-ray discs by virtue of "why wouldn't they". My response is that A) people will buy the PS3 for games and B) may or may not have a HD set. Those who buy a standalone player will have a HD set and will be using it for the explicit purpose of buying movies.

It's a simple point. Otherwise, we're once again at the argument that "blu-ray is ineveitable! PS3 FTW!"

I just don't buy it.

.Sis

 

[Sis]

When I buy a PS3, I sure as heck would choose the HD version of any new movies that come out. The only other format I would consider are older dvd movies in the bargain bin. I don't see why any person with an HD television and a PS3 would choose to do otherwise. To say that HD-DVD owners will be the only ones buying movies is to assume that PS3 owners do not watch movies. Besides, there will be standalone BR players also, so the standalone point is moot. If I was a consumer who had no interest in PS3, and I had to choose between an HD-DVD player and a BR player, my choice would not be so difficult. BR players will already be millions of homes via PS3, and every major studio supports BR, while HD-DVD is missing some vital studios.

If you buy a PS3, I understand you may very well buy new movies on Blu-ray. I do buy the "why not" argument, since I've bought a few UMD movies simply because "why not".

In my mind, the question is: Who is more likely to replace their whole library of DVDs? A consumer who buys a PS3 to play games? Or a consumer who buys a standalone player with the specific intent of watching HD movies?

.Sis

 

[eDoshin]

If you buy a PS3, I understand you may very well buy new movies on Blu-ray. I do buy the "why not" argument, since I've bought a few UMD movies simply because "why not".

In my mind, the question is: Who is more likely to replace their whole library of DVDs? A consumer who buys a PS3 to play games? Or a consumer who buys a standalone player with the specific intent of watching HD movies?

.Sis

Sure .. but I do believe that the first wave of PS3 owners are the more dedicated technophiles, and have just as much of a passion if not more than any early adopters of HD-DVD.

 

[London Geezer]

I didn't realize I was "putting down" bluray with stating that the PS3 will not have an equatible attach rate as a stand alone player.

I like how you can pull numbers out of your ass, though, and pretend they're meaningful. "Sony can afford to have a movie attach ratio of 10 times smaller than HDDVD players" is only interesting if that's an actual statistic. But I can pull things out of my ass too (I'm popular at parties!): what if the attach rate is 20 times better on HDDVD? 50 times?

What if it's 1 MILLION times better than PS3?

The bottom line is that I was responding to Nicked's post that assumes the PS3 will equate to sales of blu-ray discs by virtue of "why wouldn't they". My response is that A) people will buy the PS3 for games and B) may or may not have a HD set. Those who buy a standalone player will have a HD set and will be using it for the explicit purpose of buying movies.

It's a simple point. Otherwise, we're once again at the argument that "blu-ray is ineveitable! PS3 FTW!"

I just don't buy it.

.Sis

Well, throwing numbers around only works so far. Obviously there won't be an attach ratio 1 million times bigger cause that means that one person buys 1 million HDDVDs more than the average Bluray buyer, which is ridiculous.

It's obvious there will be a lot less HDDVD players out there than Bluray players, including PS3.

Not only that, but seen how things have turned out, there will also be more movies on Bluray than on HDDVD!

What exactly don't you buy? That early adopters of PS3 will be mostly guys with lots of cash who will most certainly buy it to play Bluray movies? That the fact that pretty much every movie will potentially be on Bluray one day and only 50% of the total movie production will ever make it to HDDVD matters a lot?

It's not about "might as well". It's about the fact that the Bluray playback on PS3 is a major feature, not an optional, and lots of people will buy PS3 to play Bluray movies. Obviously some people won't have HDTVs and therefore are less likely to buy Bluray movies, but those same people won't buy HDDVD players either.

What's there not to buy?

 

[mckmas8808]

In my mind, the question is: Who is more likely to replace their whole library of DVDs? A consumer who buys a PS3 to play games? Or a consumer who buys a standalone player with the specific intent of watching HD movies?

.Sis

I think you are right. The average HD-DVD player owner will probably buy more HD movies than the average PS3 owners. But if they're more average PS3 owners than HD-DVD owners then it may cancel that advantage out.

 

[Sis]

What exactly don't you buy?

lots of people will buy PS3 to play Bluray movies.

I think people will buy Blu-ray movies when they get a PS3. This is not the same as people will buy a PS3 to play Blu-ray movies.

Since I believe this is true, I also believe that the PS3 coming equipped with a Blu-ray drive does not necessarily equal success for the Blu-ray movie format nor do I believe it adds significant value to the PS3. However, I have also stated in this thread that Sony has made this bet before and has been hugely successful in this regards--which is my way of saying that, obviously, I could be wrong. But to me, Blu-ray is not the DVD of this generation.

.Sis

 

[wco81]

I think Blu-Ray will matter and the HDTV adoption curve will averge triple digits or high double-digits in the next 5 years.

However, the number of BD movies bought by PS3 owners will depend on the selection and pricing of those movies.

Studios have indicated they plan to charge a premium for BD and HD-DVD releases.

HD-DVD supporters would like to throw FUD around saying BD discs will be priced way higher than HD-DVD because of manufacturing and IP royalty costs.

We shall see. If Blu-Ray movies and players are priced like the old LaserDiscs($40-150 discs, $600-1000 players), it will never be a mass-market success like DVD.

You know, high-definition movies (regardless of which format) could be a much bigger deal than just in the video market. It will cause people to upgrade OSes, video cards, maybe whole systems, displays, surround sound systems, receivers, etc. It may also convert the market towards 1080p. The first wave of 1080p displays hit this year and they are the high-end. But in subsequent years, we should see cheaper and better displays(1080p HDMI or now UDI inputs) and/or new technologies like SED. Blu-ray (or HD-DVD, which is the underdog at the moment) will precipitate these upgrade/adoption cycles.

So how anyone can say it won't matter is incomprehensible.

 

[Sis]

So how anyone can say it won't matter is incomprehensible.

Because we have examples throughout history that show that just because a technology might be good, it doesn't mean it will be a success.

On the other hand, I find it incomprehensible that people think it's inevitable that a high def movie format, in it's current incarnation of blu-ray or HD-DVD, is going to be a huge success.

Perhaps someone can explain why DVD-A and SACD are not taking the world by storm? (This is an honest question, as to me I see many parrallels between high def audio and high def video but perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture.)

.Sis

 

[mckmas8808]

I think Blu-Ray will matter and the HDTV adoption curve will averge triple digits or high double-digits in the next 5 years.

However, the number of BD movies bought by PS3 owners will depend on the selection and pricing of those movies.

Studios have indicated they plan to charge a premium for BD and HD-DVD releases.

Yeah I don't expect BDs prices to be that much higher than HD-DVD prices. But I think UMDs have shown that people will pay a premium for something they demand.

 

[mckmas8808]

Perhaps someone can explain why DVD-A and SACD are not taking the world by storm? (This is an honest question, as to me I see many parrallels between high def audio and high def video but perhaps I'm missing the bigger picture.)

.Sis

I still till this day don't see DVD-A or SACD players in stores. And if they are there I never seen them being marketed to me. As a HUGE tech head even I didn't understand why I should want to hear Nas or Jay-Z or clearly in my radio.

Blu-ray or even HD-DVD on the other hand comes free (sort of) in the PS3 and I understand the reason to upgrade to it.

 

[Bobbler]

I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that CD audio is already hitting the threshhold of most peoples hearing and definately past most peoples audio equipment -- humans are just generally more visually atune.

The difference between SD and HD is quite a bit bigger than the difference between CD and SACD. Considering HDTV prices will likely plummet in the coming few years the cost of taking advantage of BR vs SACD (and even with high end audio equip most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference).

Most people I know care more about picture quality than audio qaulity -- I know a lot of people with HDTVs that have mediocre sound systems or just the speakers on the TV. It's a bit of a different situation -- now, if after BR we get another format that gives us a ~6kx3k picture I might be inclined to agree that it'd be akin to the situation with SACD/DVDA.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think people will buy Blu-ray movies when they get a PS3. This is not the same as people will buy a PS3 to play Blu-ray movies.

Since I believe this is true, I also believe that the PS3 coming equipped with a Blu-ray drive does not necessarily equal success for the Blu-ray movie format nor do I believe it adds significant value to the PS3.

Doesn't this theory somewhat assume that people wanting an HD movie player on it's own will buy an $m hundred HDDVD player over a $n hundred PS3? Yes, everyone who buys an HDDVD player will be buying HD movies for it, but that has negligable bearing on why people will choose between HDDVD and BluRay, which is a matter of cost of players, availibility of players, and availibility of content.

 

[DemoCoder]

HD-DVD players are not likely to cost less than the PS3 in the first round, and they are likely to have less content available. Sony is subsidizing BR purchases effectively.

Why SACD/DVDA not taking off? Simple: Portability, Cost, and Choice -- MP3 (and AAC) The additional benefit of SACD/DVDA and even CD quality doesn't justify the added cost and restriction of those formats, when people can pay $0.99 and download music, or pirate it.

We all know that MP3 sounds crappy compared to a real CD, but carrying your CD collection can't compare to carrying around a USB drive or iPOD.

The music format revolution arrived, only it wasn't optical media, it was solid state and HD.

 

[MoeStooge]

A lot of people still don't have HD televsions out there.
A lot of people with HD televisions don't have them calibrated properly.
A lot of people with HD televisions don't really have true HD televisions.
A lot of people with HD televisions sit so far back compared to the screen size that they probably won't notice the difference between HD and SD.


There is definitely a potential for a slow adoption of Bluray or HDDVD. Throw in some consumer confusion due to both camps marketing and you have a situation where failure might even be possible.

I'll buy whatever player allows me to watch Lord of the Rings in HD first.....and then if that technology doesn't catch on I'll buy the winner.

 

[seismologist]

A lot of people still don't have HD televsions out there.
A lot of people with HD televisions don't have them calibrated properly.
A lot of people with HD televisions don't really have true HD televisions.
A lot of people with HD televisions sit so far back compared to the screen size that they probably won't notice the difference between HD and SD.

Unfortunately alot of that is true. Which is why, at least at first, the majority of the customers for Hi-def movies will be gamers who own a PS3.

 

[wco81]

Unlike SACD or whatever, HD movie discs are associated with something that's a certainty.

Digital TVs, most of them HDTV-capable, will replace analog TVs. Just a question of when. It could be closer to 2015 or even 2020 rather than 2010 but it will happen.

So what's the killer app. for DTV and HDTVs? Currently it's probably sports. But eventually, people will want access to more content. While most prime-time programming is already in HDTV, people will want HDTV movies to complement all this other HDTV programming.

There's going to be big promotion around the Winter Olympics, then World Cup in 2006. Plus every year, the SuperBowl moves a lot of big-screen TVs, which in the US is now almost-exclusively digital (some uninformed people are buying EDTVs and XGA displays thinking they're high-def but most are getting at least 720p-capable displays).

This Xmas, at least in the US, the hottest items people are buying are consumer electronics. No more Furby, Cabbage Patch or whatever. People are into the habit of electronics and we are seeing probably an even greater upgrade cycle than vinyl to CD and tape to DVD as we replace old analog TVs.

That's happening slower in other regions but they're coming along too.

People say one of the appeals of DVD is convenience (deriving from form factor and random access) rather than picture quality. Even if high-def movies fail to appeal due to PQ, the studios will migrate away from DVD for copy-protection/DRM reasons alone. So DVDs will be replaced, just as people will replace current consoles with next-gen.

To question the transitiont to high-definition in general and high-def packaged media specifically is incomprehensible.