Well, "One hundred percent of PSP owners say PSP was the first UMD player they owned..."

Just saying that the success of the console doesn't imply the success of the movie format.

Yea, PS3 has turned into Blu-rays Great White Hope. I'll be glad when they finally release the thing so that myth can die, too. Originally they said they'd have 10 million units in homes by end of year 2006. Now we know that they have not even started production yet and their new estimate is 2 million units worldwide by end of year 2006. Another fumble.

But I'm sure all of Sony's other promises about the PS3 will come true--

I noticed you failed to quote or comment on the second part of that quote, "93 percent of PS2 owners played DVD movies on their PS2s," which was the part I focused on. Care to comment on why you think PS3 will be different than this in some way?

Can you cite where you got that number from? A quick web search brings up articles mentioning Microsoft making claims of 10 million X-box units by the end of the year, not Sony.

At the time of the PlayStation 2's launch, DVD had 11.7 million units as home sets (in the US) and ~23 million DVD-ROM drives in the US. DVD had been established as a format for three and a half years.

2000 PS2's share of DVD (Players / Players and DVD-ROM): 0% / 0%

PlayStation 2 sales reached the 10MM mark (worldwide, or about ~5MM stateside) in about a year (Nov 2001). There is a strong possibility that the PS2 did affect home DVD sales. Sales in November 2000 were down about 400,000, or 33%, from the previous month. If this was indeed due to the PS2, the effect was short lived: by the next month, sales were almost double and never dropped again during the holidays. By November 2001, the installed base of DVD included 26.6 million players and 45 million DVD-ROM drives.

2001 PS2's share of DVD: 16% / 6.5%


By the end of November 2005, the PS2 had sold 40 million units in the US. DVD had sold 100 million players in the US and at least that many DVD-ROM drives (~125MM). The Xbox had sold about 10 million in the US.

2005 PS2's Share of DVD: 27% / 17%

That's all well and good. There's a lot more you can read into this.

Here is my point though.

Earlier we established that HD-DVD was selling about 3,500 units based on the little evidence we have. We know Blu-Ray outsold HD-DVD during that period but quickly trended down after the launch. Let's assume that Blu-Ray sells 20% better than DVD on it's release. A very high, probably impossible number. That's 375,000 units.

Sony plans to sell 4 million PS3s by the end of this year. Optimistically, half of those will come to the US. Let's say they also sell 200,000 BD-* drives.

2006 PS3's Estimated Share of Blu Ray: 87%

If Blu-Ray catches on at the same pace as DVD (again, not likely), we will see very similar numbers in 2007 as well, and probably 2008. If it catches on slower, that ratio increases. For better or for worse, the PS3 is going to be the main Blu-Ray playing device for a while.

"We are still on schedule to ship 2 million units for our mid-November 2006 launch and additional 2 million units by the end of the year for a total of 4 million units." - SCEA, 8/22/06

Well, I knew those numbers. I was looking for awmurray to cite where he got his numbers of Sony originally planning 10 million units, or even his claimed new Sony projection of 2 million by the end of the year. Either one, he's way off.

...because DVD benefits owners of HD displays and standard definition displays, whereas Blu-ray holds little-to-no appeal to people who don't own an HDTV. Even people who own both an HDTV and a PS3 may prefer to do their gaming on another display. Also, DVD didn't have the same penetration back in 1999 as it does now. The PS2 was likely many people's first exposure to an optical home video format, but now those same people probably have at least one dedicated DVD player and possibly even multiple players. DVD was revolutionary, whereas Blu-ray and HD DVD are evolutionary, so even people who can take advantage may not necessarily feel compelled to do so.

It's all baseless guesswork, but I would be surprised if more than a tiny percentage of PS3 owners use their console for movie viewing and own a library of more than 5-10 titles. Admittedly, tiny percentage multiplied by a large install base is still a lot of players, but I'm skeptical that the PS3 will be the mighty Trojan horse Sony has been touting.

The same is true of HD-DVD. The difference is that when PS3 owners eventually upgrade to HDTV, they'll already have something that can play BD in their house.

Luckily, the PS3 doesn't need to be bolted to the floor.

No, but VHS did. It's not like DVD suddenly allowed people to view movies at home when they hadn't been able to before.

DVD wasn't as "revolutionary" as you think, technology wise. LD already was capable of most that DVD could do, and VCD already existed as small disc video format. DVD was evolutionary in that it added more storage through a smaller laser, better compression codecs, and more interactivity, just like BD and HD-DVD.

Sony's probably overstating PS3's potential impact, but that's what companies do. What's surprising to me is how many people want to try and totally discount it from the equation. Probably because as you state, even a tiny percentage of PS3 owners is still a very large number at this stage in the game.

I'm not arguing otherwise.

No, but that hassle is a huge disincentive, and I wouldn't think too many people would be keen on constantly lugging a box from room to room, disconnecting and reconnecting cables, etc.

DVD offered a fundamentally different viewing experience. HD DVD and Blu-ray, in my opinion, do not.

As someone who picked up his first Laserdisc player twenty-two years ago, I'm familiar with the technology.

I still argue that VHS-to-DVD and DVD-to-Blu-ray is not an apples-to-apples comparison, and just because something happened a particular way seven years ago doesn't mean things must follow in a somewhat similar situation now. The transition from VHS-to-DVD and the impact the PS2 had on DVD are precisely why I don't think the same will hold true.

No, but considering its size, it might as well be.

99% of the public doesn't share that view with you. Laserdisc was cumbersome, needed to be flipped, and most importantly, was pricier than VHS, even years after its initial release. It did not have a widely adopted data equivalent. It did not have a widely adopted recordable equivalent. It sold poorly.

I think DVD to High Def is much more apples to apples with LD to DVD, personally.

From TheManRoom:

A new partner announcement, huh?

Foot, meet mouth.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/08/23/p...-for-cure-ps3/

Freaking bastards stole my name.

I really hope this is a big announcement. I hate when you hear about these things, and they really don't tell you anything except what has been around as rumor for the last 2 months.

Zing!

Blitz, your arguments don't often hold up until scrutiny, but this was funny.

There are already cures for cancer now if the drug companies would promote the cures...

Okay, that's hilarious.

Well, I wouldn't think that too many people would be buying a $500-600 gaming platform and hooking it up to something less than their best audio/video system. But given your widely improbable scenerio, I don't think my solution is too far fetched, especially considering that gamers wil go so far as to carry a system over to a friend's house to play. I already know someone who does something similar with his 360; he bought an extra set of cables for it.

Fundamentally, DVD removed having to rewind; that's the major difference from VHS. However, most the tech on DVD already existed on LD and VCD, so it wasn't the features that drove people to the format. The biggest advance DVD had over those formats was fitting 2 hours or more on one CD-sized disc.

I agree, although not for the reasons you cite. BD and HD-DVD are no less a technological jump over DVD than DVD was over LD or VCD. The major jump that DVD had was in public perception. Being able to fit a whole movie on one side of a CD-size disc was one major factor, as it appealed the public's favor for size and storage. For size, is it just a coincidence that DVD is the exact same size as a CD? Or that DVD cases are of similar height to VHS clamshells? As for storage, fitting on lot on one disc is important, as people hate change-overs for films. VHS succeeded over Beta at least partially because it held more.

However, one major factor wasn't even technological in nature. DVDs allowed people to buy a film several months in advance of it being released for retail on VHS. BD and HD-DVD won't have this advantage, since at best they are released day-and-date with DVD.

99% of the population probably doesn't even have an opinion about the technological differences between HD-DVD, BD, DVD, LD, and VCD.

These issues aren't specifically tied to the technology, especially the last one. In a vicious circle type way, high LD prices were caused by low demand, which was caused partially by high LD prices. The cumbersome size had been solved by VCD, which usually used two discs instead of flipping. DVD took the quality and extras of LD, the size and convenience of VCD, and added capacity. In that way it was "evolutionary" instead of "revolutionary." It's impact on the populace was huge, and the way it changed the video market may have been revolutionary, but the technology wasn't.

It did not have a widely adopted format period. As far as DVD's data and recordable formats go, those weren't even on the table during the early days of the format when the adoption was really taking off. So those weren't really factors in most people's purchasing, especially since they were mostly buying DVD players, and apparently still are mostly buying just DVD players.

Jay, I'm kind of confused as to what your point is. It sounds like all you're doing is arguing semantics.

It's anecdotal, but I've read on a number of gaming forums where people have an HDTV in their living room and their Xbox 360 hooked up to the SDTV in the bedroom.

...but if borderline-no one (in the U.S. at least) adopts a format like VCD, to consumers at large, a step forward like DVD is revolutionary rather than evolutionary.

Plenty of people don't hook up gaming systems to their best displays. I don't know why anyone would consider it widely improbable.

Sorry to interrupt this but...I found this interesting.

http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=...UserId=5380375

Why I am buying a 360 this November
Contrary to popular belief, editors of the Official PlayStation Magazine don't get free hardware for their own personal use. So I've been having an ongoing debate with myself about the PS3 since E3. After Kaz announced that the price would be $600, I found my enthusiasm sagging.

It's not that I find the concept of a $600 console insulting. Inflation happens, and it's natural that eventually inital prices will be higher than they used to be. But when I know that a console's direct competitors cost two-thirds or half of that price, it becomes harder for me to justify shelling out that kind of money--especially when I can probably get the Wii and the 360 combined for the cost of a PS3.

$600 might be worth it if there were several huge titles on the near horizon that were PS3-exclusive. But for the first year at least, there are very few big titles that are PS3 exclusive. GTA4 and Assassins will be available for the 360 at the same time. And most of the big guns--FFXIII, MGS4--won't be hitting for quite some time after the launch.

The other big reason for people to shell out $600, BluRay, is frankly something I don't care about. I have a crummy 12-year-old 21-inch very-non-hi-def TV sitting on my stand at home, and while we've been talking about upgrading it for the past three years, we always end up walking out of stores TV-less. And I don't buy movies; I rent non-BR discs from Netflix. Much like I've never been an audiophile--as long as I can hear it, I don't care if it's mono, stereo, 5.1, 7.1--I really don't care how high-res the picture is. My bottom line is that as long as it has color and is free from static, I'm good to go.

So ultimately, I can't justify it. $600 is a lot of money, especially when I can get what--for me at least--will be a very similar experience for $400. I would like to own a PS3, and I hope that the price drops soon so I can consider it. But until then, this Official PlayStation Magazine editor will have to join the dark side.

Yeah, we discussed this in the video game forum. Bottom line, I think she'll change her tune come launch. But it's nice to read this now, when even the OFFICIAL Playstation magazine is saying the PS3 isn't worth it.