Why MS needs Blu-ray or doesn't need it... *Spin-off

[-tkf-]

huh? A DVD title is going to look exactly the same in a few (or twenty) years as it does now. I think the studios are probably going to disappointed with the re-release results of their back catalog. I certainly have no plans to repurchase thousands of movies. Not even in 108000p.

And nobody is forcing you to, if you have thousand of movies you must be a movie fan though?

But you must realize that many said the exact same thing when they had thousand of movies on VHS tapes, it would look the same so no reason to buy the DVD. And DVD was and is perfect for the SD world but compared to HiDef it´s VHS all over again (imho). My plan is to buy the new stuff that i don´t have on DVD and a few select titles, but i must admit that the only DVD´s i had in the machine since i got my PS3 is mostly concert stuff which in many cases will never get a hidef release because the masters are SD. And a few children titles.. but i didn´t watch those

 

[Nesh]

Simply put , it doesn't support wireless N . Its a new standard thats much more powerfull (speed and range ) over previous wireless signals . I run a wireless n network in my house . So the ps3 to me doesn't have wireless support .

Wait a second. Are you trying to tell me and everyone else who uses wireless on their PS3 that it doesnt "exist" simply because for you at the very personal level it doesnt have that latest wireless n" you are talking about?

What about the complete absence of it from the 360`s?

Its catching up with new releases , bargin games are no where close yet . When you buy a system the price of the system is just one part of it . On the 360 I can get myself a bunch of value priced games (20-40 bucks ) that are tripple a games , the only tripple a game on the ps3 platform that i know of under $40 bucks right now is resistance and that just droped to $30 bucks .

I find many PS3 games at cheaper prices than they initially were at 2/3 the original price, including Uncharted, Motorstorm, Heavenly Sword etc. At play.com even MGS4 had a price drop which is a new game.

As for online , if you haven't used live then don't bother comparing them , its like night and day. While playing dragon ball z online with a friend my other friends have to invite me and i have to leave the game (that has no voice chat ) to read the message they sent . Its really not elegent and its actually really hard to jump into games . If I do except an invite while in another game it basicly disconnects me and doesn't connect me to the new game . The 360 will prompt you for the disc of the new game . There are a ton of other problems also that is best for another thread.

um yea , when you post on b3d do you constantly worry about your internet bill ? With xbox live ist something to worry about once a year .

You dont get it. I dont have to pay for something extra beyond what I have to pay already to have an internet access. But that wasnt where I was alluding to.

The fact that it is free, it makes it much more userfriendly and convenient. You do not have to worry about subcriptions. I only plug it on whenever I want and I play online without having to keep in mind which months I paid for or if I dont get my money's worth back because my schedule becomes dense and cant play as often. In other words my schedule and paid subscription are completely free and independent. Simply because subsciption is not there.

Yes and they are more expensive unless your able to spend your day viewing amazon and setting up a buying schedual of new releases as some on this forum have sugested. That is hardly a casual thing .

Is that why in terms of sales it does very well and as good as DVDs used to do in their early live cycle? Blu Ray prices will fall and it will become a casual thing in time. Ever seen a "product live cycle curve"? We are still at the very beginning.

The point is bluray needs the 360 and its not the other way around.

Care to explain this? I cant see the logic.

 

[Nesh]

You haven't upgraded the firmware to 2.41?

I suspect that he doesnt have a PS3. You arent allowed to go online until you update once a new firmware is available

 

[joker454]

I dont think it needs it. But it wont be that bad if MS releases an add on for movies. I mean....they did it with HD-DVD. Why not with Blu Ray?

A few things come to mind...

It could make them look bad. The PS3 as a movie player is very polished now, having had lots of time to refine the firmware. It makes the standalone players look like crap in comparison (except of course to the typical Sony haters on avsforum). I can't imagine that a rev-1 360 blu-ray player would work all that well. It would inevitably be compared to the PS3, and it would most likely lose the comparison.

It could add confusion. Right now their strategy is well defined. It plays your existing dvd collection, and it can stream new movies as well in both SD and HD. Would adding blu-ray capability to the mix really help the common user, or just make things more confusing?

Supporting blu-ray movie playback also means supporting 'evil' as far as Microsoft is concerned, because they would have to put money in Sony's pocket, they would have to support Java, and ultimately they would indirectly be supporting the PS3's standard inclusion of blu-ray. Blu-ray movies will need mass acceptance for Microsoft to buckle on the above points.

There also still is a general lack of interest. It turns out that many who buy these flat panel tv's don't buy them for the better picture quality, they buy them because that's the only way their spouse will let them buy a large tv, because it looks cool, because it's a status symbol, etc... I can't count how many times I've been somewhere only to see a lcd/plasma tv hooked up with composite or rf cables (it's mind boggling). And as much as I love blu-ray movies, just about everyone else I've worked with in geek central (video game development) just doesn't really care that much. Dvd's seem to be good enough to them, or they would prefer to just download/rent them. I personally don't get it, but I stopped watching SD ages ago so maybe I'm just out of touch with the masses.

 

[AlphaWolf]

And nobody is forcing you to, if you have thousand of movies you must by a movie fan though?

Sure, but I'm not an idiot about it. I bought the bulk of my collection at discounted rates (most under $10, many at $4 or $5). I buy very few movies at release prices ($15-20).

But you must realize that many said the exact same thing when they had thousand of movies on VHS tapes, it would look the same so no reason to buy the DVD. And DVD was and is perfect for the SD world but compared to HiDef it´s VHS all over again (imho). My plan is to buy the new stuff that i don´t have on DVD and a few select titles, but i must admit that the only DVD´s i had in the machine since i got my PS3 is mostly concert stuff which in many cases will never get a hidef release because the masters are SD. And a few children titles.. but i didn´t watch those

VHS is a completely different form factor (chapters, vs ff/rw, tapes take up 5x the space of dvds). They also have limited replayability, because they wear down. A DVD should last you a life time if you take care of it. As for quality, I'd say there's diminishing returns and most people are mostly happy with DVD. I'm sure most people would have no problem telling you that HD looks better than DVD, but ask them if they care enough to pay extra for it.

The only VHS movie I ever bought was the Star Wars Trilogy, and I still haven't bought them on DVD.

 

[obonicus]

There also still is a general lack of interest. It turns out that many who buy these flat panel tv's don't buy them for the better picture quality, they buy them because that's the only way their spouse will let them buy a large tv, because it looks cool, because it's a status symbol, etc... I can't count how many times I've been somewhere only to see a lcd/plasma tv hooked up with composite or rf cables (it's mind boggling). And as much as I love blu-ray movies, just about everyone else I've worked with in geek central (video game development) just doesn't really care that much. Dvd's seem to be good enough to them, or they would prefer to just download/rent them. I personally don't get it, but I stopped watching SD ages ago so maybe I'm just out of touch with the masses.

I wonder how much of this isn't lack of information, though. I didn't care about Bluray quality much until I bought my first movie on a whim, now I'm not really interested in DVDs anymore.

My mother, who is definitely not a tech-head, was likewise astounded by the quality when she saw the movie playing, and she's even mentioned it to other people.

 

[zed]

To be honest though, most DVDs look like crap on todays 1080P >= 46" tvs.

in 10years time (based on the last 10years trend in screensize(*)) 46" is gonna be small, screens will be measured in meters, + honestly DVDs or blu-ray wont cut it

(*)does anyone have any info on how the tv screensize has change over the years, I know until ~15years ago 26" was absolutely largest u could get

 

[Shifty Geezer]

CRT technology limited the size. Now that the tech isn't the limiting factor, with future technologies, and even current projector tech, allowing any size you want, the limiting factor is actually what suits the room. It would be nice to see worldwide average screen sizes, because I know in the UK, a 40" set is big, whereas from the sounds of it in the US that's small-fry! I find it hard to imagine screens measured in metres. That'd just look totally out of place anywhere but a mini basement theatre. Except for total movie buffs, I would expect most people, at least in the UK, would choose a smaller size, topping out at 40". That may be why few larger sets are sold here, because practically no-one buys them.

 

[rbushner]

(*)does anyone have any info on how the tv screensize has change over the years, I know until ~15years ago 26" was absolutely largest u could get

There were CRT projector based TVs (50-60") at least 30 years ago. 15 years ago big screens were fairly common in people's homes.

On topic: Xbox does not need Blu-Ray, Microsoft would be better served concentrating on their strengths (online, price, games), than try to out-feature the swiss army knife of consoles.

 

[obonicus]

CRT technology limited the size. Now that the tech isn't the limiting factor, with future technologies, and even current projector tech, allowing any size you want, the limiting factor is actually what suits the room. It would be nice to see worldwide average screen sizes, because I know in the UK, a 40" set is big, whereas from the sounds of it in the US that's small-fry! I find it hard to imagine screens measured in metres. That'd just look totally out of place anywhere but a mini basement theatre. Except for total movie buffs, I would expect most people, at least in the UK, would choose a smaller size, topping out at 40". That may be why few larger sets are sold here, because practically no-one buys them.

Well, there's always the Fahrenheit 451 approach.

 

[-tkf-]

Sure, but I'm not an idiot about it. I bought the bulk of my collection at discounted rates (most under $10, many at $4 or $5). I buy very few movies at release prices ($15-20).



VHS is a completely different form factor (chapters, vs ff/rw, tapes take up 5x the space of dvds). They also have limited replayability, because they wear down. A DVD should last you a life time if you take care of it. As for quality, I'd say there's diminishing returns and most people are mostly happy with DVD. I'm sure most people would have no problem telling you that HD looks better than DVD, but ask them if they care enough to pay extra for it.

The only VHS movie I ever bought was the Star Wars Trilogy, and I still haven't bought them on DVD.

My point was that there were plenty who said the exact same things about VHS or Laserdiscs for that matter. Yet DVD ended up killing those formats.

Maybe the 360 should offer a recorder option, that would be cool and be nice leverage in Japan:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...disc_rapidly_gaining_popularity_in_japan.html

 

[-tkf-]

in 10years time (based on the last 10years trend in screensize(*)) 46" is gonna be small, screens will be measured in meters, + honestly DVDs or blu-ray wont cut it

(*)does anyone have any info on how the tv screensize has change over the years, I know until ~15years ago 26" was absolutely largest u could get

"Honestly" i have a 3 meter wide wall, Blu-Ray cuts it nicely.

 

[AlphaWolf]

My point was that there were plenty who said the exact same things about VHS or Laserdiscs for that matter. Yet DVD ended up killing those formats.

Anyone who said that vhs to dvd is the same as dvd to blu-ray was wrong. Form factor and durability were huge issues for VHS, add in some extra PQ, cheaper production costs and chapters and VHS never had a chance.

The only real advantage blu-ray offers is PQ.

 

[-tkf-]

Anyone who said that vhs to dvd is the same as dvd to blu-ray was wrong. Form factor and durability were huge issues for VHS, add in some extra PQ, cheaper production costs and chapters and VHS never had a chance.

The only real advantage blu-ray offers is PQ.

My point was that the exact same thing you say has been said by VHS and Laserdisc owners.

Sorry for repeating myself.

 

[AlphaWolf]

My point was that the exact same thing you say has been said by VHS and Laserdisc owners.

They said the exact same thing? How the hell could they? it wasn't the same thing.

Sorry for repeating myself.

If you don't have a proper response, don't reply.

 

[-tkf-]

They said the exact same thing? How the hell could they? it wasn't the same thing.


If you don't have a proper response, don't reply.

My response was alright, you said that:

huh? A DVD title is going to look exactly the same in a few (or twenty) years as it does now. I think the studios are probably going to disappointed with the re-release results of their back catalog. I certainly have no plans to repurchase thousands of movies. Not even in 108000p.

And i said that VHS owners and Laserdisc said the exact same thing about their VHS collections.

I don´t argue that VHS is better than DVD, it isn´t. Never was, but i feel the exact same way about DVD today that i did about my VHS and Laserdisc, totally worthless and only when the options are used up i fall back to DVD. And i don´t think i am the only one that will end up having that idea.

 

[AlphaWolf]

No your response totally ignores the bulk of the argument. But that's typical. I'm done with you.

 

[PARANOiA]

That is one way to look at it, the other way is that it´s finally keeping up with the 360, even if barely when it used to be beaten and looked pretty bad.

I am not saying that Blu-Ray is the killer application for everyone, but i personally think that anyone ignoring the effect is ... ignorant
It´s one of those things that helps and will help the PS3 keep it´s momentum. Hell even this forum has it´s fair share of Blu-Ray/PS3 buyers just because they wanted PS3/Blu-Ray.

Oh I agree that there's a large portion of people who want a PS3 for BR. I know lots of multiple console owners that bought a PS3 and don't want or like any of the games out on it, so they stick to the 360's awesome library and Wii for the "group experience".

My disagreement comes from people in this thread putting together bullet point lists on what the 360 needs to make it as good "value" as the PS3. Those same people were telling us that the PS3 was good value at $599. My point was the market will have the ultimate say on what "value" is... you can go and tell me you need Wifi so that's a bullet point, and Live is $50 / year so that's another bullet point, but at the end of the day you're completely ignoring reality.

If this is the approach Sony takes - and they largely did for the first 6 months of the machines life - they won't penetrate any significant portion of the market. Thankfully, they're trying to meet it in the areas that most of the market for a games machine want - games and fun! That's largely why the Wii is kicking ass, because the market loves what it offers. That's why the 360 kicked butt over the PS3 in 2007, and 2008 is much closer (certainly it's not a "win" for either the PS3 or 360, though Wii owners may chuckle at that).

Anyway, it's not some funk new idea. Look at Iriver or Creative and Sony's MP3 players, offering more functionality early on in their life (video before Gen 5.5 Ipods), games, customisation, all sorts of stuff. But the Ipod reigned supreme.

Does the 360 "need" BR? In my mind, no, of course not, so long as it continues to offer and expand its huge library of top notch games - and by all objective measures, that's where it's still on top. My concern for the 360 (somewhat alleviated over E3) is that it will lose focus on this and start with the bullet-point lists. Thankfully, as a 360-only owner, I still have more games to play than time to play them, so I'm comfortable with what's there.

 

[Vic]

The PS3's library is nearly as good as the 360's now, and Sony looks like it has the edge in terms of christmas exclusives, but I'm not sure a Blu-ray drive at around $150 is worth it for MS.

 

[-tkf-]

Somewhat related:

He added retailers are expanding their Blu-ray shelves without eliminating standard DVD inventory and noted that market has widened 5% in the last year over the same period the prior 12 months. Indeed, Dunn’s estimates ring true as Blu-ray sales (discs) generated more than $200 million in the first half of this year - a 300% increase over this point in 2007.

http://www.electronichouse.com/article/blu_ray_sales_up_300