PC, Xbox 360 or PS3?

[drothgery]

However, there's also the issue of the future of the formats. Neither HD-DVD nor Blu-Ray are setting the world on fire and even their "Big-Hits" don't even sell a tenth the number that the DVD release of the same movies do. There's some talk about '08 being the year the format war gets decided, but I'm not holding out much hope for that and fully expect that neither format is going to "win". I strongly suspect that some sort of download service/format/device is going to nip in and kill both formats, much as iTunes did with DVD-Audio and SACD in the audio realm.

It's not going to happen. DVD quality movies take too long to download unless you're very patient or schedule them to run overnight at the 5 Mbps or so that cable and DSL typically top out at, and HD movies are several times longer.

 

[Rackhir]

It's not going to happen. DVD quality movies take too long to download unless you're very patient or schedule them to run overnight at the 5 Mbps or so that cable and DSL typically top out at, and HD movies are several times longer.

DSL at speeds up to 100 mbps is widely available in many countries around the world, right now. Verizon's FIOS service hits 30 mbps right now and the next gen of Cable modems due to be hitting in the later part of this year can do up to 100 mbps. The US is currently lagging badly compared to a lot of countries overseas in terms of the speed of our available internet connections.

Not to mention the ever increasing efficiency of video compression codecs, which are continuing to rapidly increase picture quality and reduce file sizes. Then there's technology like Bittorents which make it possible to download a 1080p tv program in at most a handful of hours right now. I know a number of people who watch a substantial number of shows from overseas this way right now.

So it IS coming and it's going to be here sooner than a lot of people might expect and certainly a lot faster than Hollywood and the TV Networks would like. I'm not saying it's going to happen tomorrow or even this year, but it will be here long before a lot of people expect.

 

[John Crichton]

That's one of the reasons why I tend to favor Blu-Ray, IF you want a high def media now. Since Sony is likely to continue to support the format and/or be playable longer. If only because that's the format for the PS3 game disks.

I've skewed towards BR from the start for this same reason. I think that this year should be a good one for HD in general. Between all the extra channels rolling out from satellite and cable providers, HD hardware dropping in price and the upcoming federal change in 2009 to HD, public awareness should continue to rise.

DVD is still king and rightfully so. To afford a decent HD setup or even want one requires an investment many people still aren't going to make until they have to. I do expect TV manufacturers to take advantage of the federal mandate and get many people into new TVs ASAP. Even though they won't really have to people will probably still upgrade, it's just a matter of how many.

It does make me feel good to wander through Best Buy and have heavy traffic in the HDTV section, tho.

 

[Steel_Wind]

You think Sony is in for the long haul and Microsoft isn't? I have to disagree on that one.

The whole Blu-Ray vs. HD DVD is a disaster for the industry. Worse, unlike VHS vs. Beta, this fight is tied up in larger issues and ultimately comes down to Xbox 360 vs. PS3; Microsoft vs. Sony.

And since neither of those formats or companies is going to fold their hand in this game of poker, this conflict is on for the forseeable future. There isn't going to BE a resolution.

The ideal solution, imo, from the consumer's perspective, would be for DVD's to ship encoded for both DVD on one side and HD DVD on the other side.

If there had been a single High Def standard, this would have satisfied everybody.

I guess a dual HD DVD/ Blu-Ray flip disc would secure the same benefits, albeit at a much higher cost. They will bilk the High Def crowd for more dollars per disc, I'm sure.

If the 360 decides to change its format on the internal drive that ships standard with the 360 as opposed to simply requiring an add-on HD DVD player for the 360 system (an announcement which is expected to emerge at CES 2008 next week) then we may finally see some pressure from the studios, who may decide to follow Warner's lead and prefer to dual brand their discs for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

That's really the only thing that is likely to settle this - a dual branded disc.

It's a shame as pissing contests like this assist nobody.

 

[GlassJaw]

The problem I have with Blu-Ray is that it's a Sony format whereas HD-DVD is "open". That means if Blu-Ray "wins", Sony gets a piece of every Blu-Ray disc sold because of licensing. Historically, licensed vs. open formats aren't very consumer-friendly.

 

[Rackhir]

You think Sony is in for the long haul and Microsoft isn't? I have to disagree on that one.

Which format wins isn't really that important to Microsoft. While they are firmly in the HD-DVD camp, they haven't bet their existence on it like Sony has with Blu-Ray. By making Blu-Ray disks the format for the PS3, Sony has committed themselves to the format for at least the length of the PS3's life. Microsoft has made no similar commitment to HD-DVD and if it vanished right this instance I don't see how it would significantly hurt the company.

The ideal solution, imo, from the consumer's perspective, would be for DVD's to ship encoded for both DVD on one side and HD DVD on the other side.

This already exists and has made no impact in the market. They cost significantly more to make than either a plain DVD or a HD-DVD disk (since you are essentially making and gluing two disks together). Are priced the same as HD-DVD disks and so as far as I can tell from sales numbers, are not selling at all to people who don't already have HD-DVD player. This renders the whole point of the combo disk irrelevant. They might as well just be plain HD-DVD disks. Then there's the compatability issues and other problems they've had (not major but they've been there). It's essentially a solution without a purpose. IF the disks were sold for the same price as regular DVDs, they might make a difference, but they aren't and thus they won't.

I guess a dual HD DVD/ Blu-Ray flip disc would secure the same benefits, albeit at a much higher cost. They will bilk the High Def crowd for more dollars per disc, I'm sure.

See above, except that you don't even have the vague hope of attracting attention from a market (DVDs) that dwarfs the two high-def formats put together.

If the 360 decides to change its format on the internal drive that ships standard with the 360 as opposed to simply requiring an add-on HD DVD player for the 360 system (an announcement which is expected to emerge at CES 2008 next week) then we may finally see some pressure from the studios, who may decide to follow Warner's lead and prefer to dual brand their discs for both Blu-Ray and HD DVD.

While I am quite certain that they will release a 360 with an internal HD-DVD drive at some point. It won't change a critical difference between the PS3 and the 360, that the games will NOT come on the high def format disk. Requiring add-ons for a console, especially expensive add-ons has been a failure every time it's been tried.

First off you're going to have a year and a half's worth of 360s shipped without one. Then you're boosting the price of the unit to the same or more than the PS3 and the lower price has been a significant selling point for the 360. So most likely, MS will continue to sell models that don't include it. Which means that game makers are not going to ship their products with a disk that the majority of the user base will not be able to use.

That's really the only thing that is likely to settle this - a dual branded disc.

Nope, wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Rackhir]

The problem I have with Blu-Ray is that it's a Sony format whereas HD-DVD is "open". That means if Blu-Ray "wins", Sony gets a piece of every Blu-Ray disc sold because of licensing. Historically, licensed vs. open formats aren't very consumer-friendly.

Neither format is "open" in the sense that Linux or other similar projects are or even in the sense that x86 computers are "open". Both involve licensing fees and permission to use patented technology. The wildly successful DVD format is no different from either HD format in this regard as well.

I have heard nothing to the effect that those fees are any higher for Blu-Ray than they are for HD-DVD and given the market completion it would be suicidal for Sony to make them so. Even if Sony did manage to somehow corner the market, competition from DVDs and downloads would likely prevent them from jacking prices up significantly.

HD-DVD disks are somewhat less expensive to manufacture as are the players, but it's not a major edge and both blu-ray/hd-dvd have been dropping rapidly in price.

Though it is worth noting that one of the major hopes of the manufactures and content providers for the HD formats, has been that they might be able to raise prices. Since the DVD market in both hardware and software has been extremely cutthroat and competitive on price, this has driven down profits for everyone on them.

In short, the only real difference between the two is who sells the licenses and who owns the patents and thus who profits from them.

 

[drothgery]

While I am quite certain that they will release a 360 with an internal HD-DVD drive at some point. It won't change a critical difference between the PS3 and the 360, that the games will NOT come on the high def format disk.

While MS might launch a 'super-Elite' 360 (internal HD-DVD, built-in wireless, and possibly even larger hard drive and some DVR functionality), or, as current rumors have it, allow Toshiba to make an HD-DVD player/DVR/Xbox 360 combo device under license, I'm not so sure. Certainly I wouldn't launch an MS-branded 'super-Elite' without dropping at least one SKU; three SKUs is really too many. And they'll be launching an all-new console in 2010 or 2011 anyway, so why not put off bundling an HD player until then?

 

[Vocenoctum]

Problem with the 360 is that the accessories really add up fast. $450 Elite, $180, $50 one year Xbox Live and then you go from there with battery packs, the recharging kit and such. Oddly enough, it turns out that the $500 PS3 is a cheaper investment. You really only need an extra controller.

I think that was always the issue with the PS3, not so much that it wasn't a value for what you get, but that you get a lot of stuff that most of the market didn't care about.

Of the stuff there, only Live is a big thing for me. Now that other services have come up, I think it's time for Live to go free.

 

[John Crichton]

I think that was always the issue with the PS3, not so much that it wasn't a value for what you get, but that you get a lot of stuff that most of the market didn't care about.

I think you are right. They were shooting for a niche market of big HD spenders early on. That coupled with crappy game selection gives it the current stigma of being a bad console, which it is not.

Of the stuff there, only Live is a big thing for me. Now that other services have come up, I think it's time for Live to go free.

Agreed. But as long as people still pay for it, they'll keep charging.