ChrisHicks

hey, if it stops the "my format is better than yours" stuff I'll sling dead cats by the bundle...

Spiky

If that was really your beliefs, I certainly would. None of those have any respect for themselves, don't see why I should. Well, Buddhists are generally better than the others on this.

Wasn't this thread closed months ago? Still seems like a good idea. It's not like we haven't figured out what it's about. Doesn't seem like there's anything else constructive to say. Guess we could argue about religion til Adam blows a gasket.

Josh-da-man

It's way too early in the game to declare a winner. Or a loser.

The thing that surprised me the most about the article of the 'bits was that it didn't so much declare Blu-Ray the winner as they named HD-DVD the loser.

Blu-Ray's biggest liability is that the fortunes of the format are riding on the PS3.

I don't know what the actual numbers are, but I'm sure that the PS3 has outsold HD-DVD decks by a pretty wide margin, yet the breakdown of software sales generally runs about 60-40. Which, when you look at it that way, each HD-DVD owner is probably buying a lot more HD-DVD software than the typical PS3 owner. It would probably be useful to also see some hard numbers for existing HD-DVD players vs. PS3s vs. Blu-Ray players.

If Blu-Ray is tied too closely to the PS3, it runs the risk of being the next UMD. What if Blu-Ray's numbers are inflated by large numbers of casual buyers picking up a BRD or two to play on their PS3s? It doesn't bode particularly well for the Blu-Ray format if it's just a bunch of PS3 owners picking up select special effects vehicles to watch on their gaming consoles.

Whereas HD-DVD's biggest liability would appear to be in soft studio support. Sony, Fox, and Disney don't seem eager to support the HD-DVD format. Sony, of course, has a vested interest in pushing Blu-Ray to the bitter end, but Fox and Disney's interest seems to be more in the tighter DRM in the Blu-Ray spec. Be interesting to see if they cave if HD-DVD keeps going or starts gaining ground.

Th0r S1mpson

I think the thread has relevance since it's about one major site's support of a format over the other.

I am not a "HD-DVD ROCKS! BLU-RAY SUCKS!" person by any means. I am a HD-DVD owner instead of Blu-ray for one reason only: Price.

collven

I've been a daily reader of the Bits since I got my first DVD player back in '99, and to call them a shill for BD is just stupid. They've always done everything they can to further the industry. When DIVX tried to "compete" with DVD, they led the charge against it. The were also very vocal about anamorphic support for all movies, back when most studios didn't care about anamorphic. The studios didn't think anamorphic support was a big deal, but sites like the Bits made it a big issue.

Why are they choosing sides? Because the format war is hurting the industry and confusing consumers. No one likes this "war". Retailers hate it. They barely had enough shelf space for all the DVDs being released. Now they have to make space for 2 different HD formats? The studios hate it. The Matrix trilogy sold, what, a little under 50,000 in it's first week? The POTC movies sold about 80,000 combined? What do you think those numbers would be if there was only one format?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the DIVX format had taken off, and DVD had some real competition. Remember, DIVX had some exclusive studio support lined up in the beginning, Disney being the biggest that I can remember. Does anyone really think that DVD would have experienced the explosive growth that it did against real competition?

Also, some people claim that the "war" is good because it brings prices down. The may be true to some extent, but does anyone remember how quickly DVD players fell in price? That was with no competing format. The OEMs were competing with each other. There doesn't need to be a competing format for prices to drop quickly.

Bill Hunt realizes, as do most of us here, I think, that any HD disk based technology has a pretty small window to gain a real foothold in the market. The future is leaning more and more towards downloadable content. J6P has no clue what the deal is with HD-DVD and BD, which just slows down the adoption even more. There needs to be a winner, and soon, if either format is going to be anything more than a niche, like laserdisk. He chose BD for the reasons stated in his article, which, like it or not, are true. BD DOES have more studio support, and it DOES have more OEM support, not to mention more support in the pc market. Sure, these things might change in the future, and he did state in his article that if some of the studios that are exclusive to BD went neutral and if HD-DVD got more OEM support, that he might change his mind. But let's not kid ourselves, there needs to be a winner in this "war", and it needs to be soon.

QuePaso

Very well written. Also, matrix box sets hd-dvd (both combined) sold 13,900 copies. Pirates 1/2 + Apocalypto sold ~67,000 copies.

Grubert

Oh, so Samsung and Pioneer (among others) haven't released any Blu-ray players.

Using claims that are factually false weaken your case.

Sometimes I think that lying on this forum should be punishable.

jrutz

It's probably been said before, but I bet the Matrix movies if released separately would have outsold PotC. Hell, the first Matrix movie alone would have probably done about as good. It's just that people don't want to spend $80 or $100 on one good movie and two bad ones.

I really didn't get the comparison between the two sales figures.

Mr. Cinema

With over 1.5 million PS3s sold here in the US, the POTC movies only combined to sell 47,000 copies in week 1. Not to mention, Disney heavily promoted both films on Blu-ray and there were in-store promos at Best Buy. Shouldn't that number have been higher, considering those 2 films make up one of the largest franchises ever? And I think it's safe to say that the POTC movies are geared towards the PS3 crowd.

Shannon Nutt

Yes, and only 14,000 units of the Matrix (both the trilogy and ultimate sets combined) moved on HD DVD in the same time frame, and it was heavily promoted as well. So what's your point - other than the fact that perhaps most PS3 users are using their units for games rather than movies?

BTW, you can triple the Matrix number and it still doesn't match the POTC number, so those saying that a single edition of the Matrix would have sold better that POTC is a rather illogical assumption. The price of the two POTC movies combined isn't that much less (at most, $30, depending on where you shop) than the cheaper Trilogy boxed set. Regardless, the Matrix trilogy will be available on Blu-ray later in the year and we can evenly compare the Blu-ray sales with these HD DVD ones.

FantasticVSDoom

If thats the case, then doesnt that not bode well for BD as the next gen home movie format?

Im not arguing the point, as I own both but just wondering if the majority of PS3 owners arent buying that many movies (and I only have one PS3 game and 10 BD movies so its not true in my case), if that is going to be a big problem for them in the future.

Josh-da-man

But when you look at the figures...

Each POTC sold 23,500 copies to 1,500,000 Blu-Ray/PS3 owners while Matrix sold 13,900 boxed sets to 100,000 HD-DVD owners.* It doesn't really look that great for Blu-Ray, when you consider that Sony is relying on the PS3 to carry the format. Looking at it that way, 1 out of every 8/9 HD-DVD owners purchased the Matrix trilogy, while maybe 1 out of every 50 Blu-Ray owners purchased both Pirates movies.

I suspect a case could also be made that the third Pirates movie has drummed up even more interest for the previous two, while The Matrix is, essentially, a catlogue title.

You could also look at the numbers and say that Blu-Ray sold 47,000 Pirate movies while The Matrix sold 41,700 Matrix movies. And The Matrix was only available in a high-priced box set.

[*Assuming that 1.5 million figure in a previous post was accurate for PS3 units; HD-DVD hit the 100,000 mark in April.]

DVD Josh

oh Jesus. There's lying, and there's being mistaken. But in this case, I may not be the only one "lying", as at least one of the sony, panny, pio or sammy is a rebadge of the other. So I guess now *you* are "lying" too? What should your punishment be then?

Since most BD supporters, including the upper management of Sony and the BD forum frequently use "false facts", including sales and ownership numbers, how weak is their case?

This is why I support both formats. I am a movie fan, not a format fan, although I think that one is better, they are both better than DVD, and that's good enough for me.

Josh Z

Fox and Disney don't seem eager to support Blu-ray these days either.

Th0r S1mpson

I realize comparisons of Pirates and the Matrix set were a foregone conclusion, but the truth is, no matter how you spin the numbers it is a silly comparison be to making if you want to prove the strength of either format.

For what it's worth, I did not buy the Matrix because you had to buy it in a set and I also would not have purchased Pirates if I had a Blu Ray player. I already own all of these and there is no way I'm spending even more money on their B class sequels.

Grubert

So you made a mistake and totally forgot about several manufacturers but now suddenly remember specific details of their players, their specifications and even whether they are rebadges or not.

Priceless. Disingenuous but priceless.

Shannon Nutt

Yes, but this logic makes no sense. Blu-ray is outselling HD in terms of players by (according to your figures) a 15 to 1 margin; and outselling in terms of movies by a 3 to 1 margin. Who cares if Blu-ray movies aren't being bought by the majority of PS3 owners, they're still selling tons more players and movies than HD DVD. Whose boat would you rather be in?

I'm a HD DVD supporter, but sheesh...I don't see how you twist the HD DVD sales numbers and say they're in a better position right now that Blu-ray.

DVD Josh

Since two is now several, and some of these are actually the same machine, I'll just say to that. If you want to talk about manufacturers, since we can now include rebadgers, there's RCA and Microsoft, so I guess it's 4-3 now .

In any event, let's talk about the one vs. many. One has come out with FIVE different models, none of which have been crippled. The "many" are just reading their second generation player, which, surprise, is still unable to play BD-J or IME. Oops. Not to mention they are significantly more expensive.

Not to mention the "studio support". Warner and Universal have more movies in their libraries than all the rest of the BD studios combined. Hey, Disney and Fox are big timers, but Warner has been doing it for decades.

If you want to talk facts, we can talk facts, but don't hide behind some while ignoring others. I'll say it again, I am a fan of both formats, but I'm not a fan of naysayers.

Supermallet

I thought only the Sony was a rebadge of the Pioneer. That would still leave unique players by Samsung, Panasonic, and Sony (the PS3).

Qui Gon Jim

My head is spinning here. You are over and over comparing apples and oranges. PotC does not equal The Matrix.

If people cannot see that TDB has a bias, then maybe they need to look inwards methinks.

When I can get a BD deck for around $300, I will, and I'll be a dual supporter (unless HD DVD somehow sways Disney).

Anyone that doesn't think that low prices=more units moving=studio support is nuts. If I were BD, I would be thinking about ways to make my SOFTWARE cheaper, even by a few bucks to take the edge off a higher hardware price.

Jericho

I'm not convinced either side really wins this "war". Although sales are important, so few people are in on either format, that the numbers can't tell me that much. What I would be concerned with, is what the undecided people are going to do. Right now, 1% of precincts are reporting, what's that other 99% of the population going to do? It may be a while before we really find out.

I also wonder if the average consumer is going to upgrade to HD-DVD or Blu Ray. Another player is expensive, and to take advantage of all the benefits of these formats, you need a substantial outlay for other components (HDMI cables, speakers, a receiver, an HDTV with enough resolution). How many people would do that? I'd consider myself one, but my TV has no HDMI inputs (it's six years old), so even I can't fully take advantage of the benefits, even after buying a new receiver. And a good upscaling DVD player would allow many people to get nearly the same benefits at less cost.

The upgrade from VCRs to DVD was pretty easy. The benefits were substantial and obvious. And people generally hadn't invested much in their VCRs. Costs had fallen since the original release of VCRs and people either paid a lot of money a long time ago or a little bit of money more recently (and the high end market generally had shifted to laserdisc). The sunken costs to upgrade were not too harsh. Not to mention VCRs still had the ability to record, something DVDs did not have initially. So people saw the benefits outweighing the costs. I compare it to the upgrade from cassette tapes to CDs, a successful music format change.

So now people own thier nice DVD players, and another change is coming. But this time the upgrade is much more subtle. They already have a digital format with a nice widescreen, anamorphic picture. Better video and audio are there, but is the average person going to notice on his current hardware? Not too mention DVDs help launch the widespread idea of owning movies. Few people had many VHS movies, but a lot of people started buying DVDs. If you put a substantial amount of money in the software, will you really want to upgrade the hardware? Backwards compatability is nice and helps this effort, but I have doubts if people will be rushing out to change things anytime soon. The uncertainty of the format war only hurts people on the fence. It's a lot of money to spend on only minor benefits, some that people may not even be able to realize.

Eventually people will replace their DVD players as they need new ones and as others break down. And so new HD-DVDs/Blu Rays are sold. It seems like an inevitable conclusion. But when? Seems like a long way off. In the meantime, the two formats will plod along. The studio support for Blu Ray seems nice, but if people are content with having DVDs then it's not too important. And will consumers be informed enough to even know the facts? I have an inclination price is more important to most consumers. And the price factor favoring HD-DVD seems important, but will that price advantage still be there when the average American is ready to buy a player?

So I wonder if both formats just plod along for the time being without a real winner or loser.

DVD Josh

I think that's what's going to happen. HD-DVD could have made some real inroads if the 360 elite had hd-dvd built in, since 360 is so much stronger than ps3 right now.

I think that we might actually see the NEXT hi-def format before there are mass adopters of either HD-DVD or BD.

jiggawhat

I wouldn't say that about Disney considering they just released two of their biggest movies on BD. If they weren't so eager, they damn sure wouldn't have bothered to go all out like they did.

DthRdrX

I'm pretty sure he's talking about catalog titles. Disney was going to have a huge backlash by BR fans if they didn't realease POTC already. They only showed the cover to the first film almost two years back now.

Grubert

I did say "among others." So it seems that I now have to do your homework to your sloppy/mendacious post. Oh well

Sony has three players: the BDP-S1, the BDP-S300 and the PS3. The BDP-S1 is based on the Pioneer design, but is different (it lacks an Ethernet port and PlaysforSure support). The PS3 is a unique design.

Pioneer has two players: the BDP-HD1 and the BDP-94HD. All of them unique designs.

Samsung has the BD-P1000 and the BD-P1200. Both unique designs.

Panasonic has the DMP-BD10. Unique design.

LG has the BH100. Doesn't qualify as HD DVD player (partial support, no HDi, doesn't even have the HD DVD logo).

I'm not counting the Philips BDP9000 because that is a total Samsung rebadge.

So you said there were only two manufacturers, when in fact there were five. You forgot about three.

And "several" is three or more, but not many. So there you go.