PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Black Samurai on August 11, 2006, 10:44:23 AM
-
My retail sources are telling me that more than a few MAJOR retailers are seriously considering pushing a "Wii60" bundle this holiday season. They will make more money by selling two systems(extended warranties) and they would be laying the ground work for people to come buy games for two different systems.
BTW, This isn\'t some "I have a friend at Best Buy" info. This is info that is being discussed on a regional and (I assume)national level.
When this info starts popping up in different places remember where you heard it first.
-
Interesting. They might be pricing the bundles way to high to be practical, though. But I guess they make the money on warranties, so who knows.
Very unusual.
-
Wii60 bundle?
Eh?
I\'m confused.
-
Wii60 bundle?
Eh?
I\'m confused.
I\'m assuming they are bundling the 360 and Wii together for a nice ripoff price with a crappy game ;) But hey, what do I know. Lets wait for the official report :)
-
Xb360+Wii bundles ? Hmm.. if priced aggressively, this might do quite some damage to PS3\'s launch...
-
Xb360+Wii bundles ? Hmm.. if priced aggressively, this might do quite some damage to PS3\'s launch...
I\'m sure the price difference with the bundle and the Wii and 360 seperately would probably be like 50 bucks and a free game. Wouldn\'t be that worth it. But I\'d rather pay less and get one console than pay over a grand for both and a game (or close to it). Besides, to get that bundle, you\'d really want to have both consoles and be committed to it for it to be worth it. I don\'t htink this bundle will sell that well. Like I want the Wii but not the 360. Someone may want the 360 and not the Wii. So this bundle is kind of a waste for a consumer like me.
-
Wii60 bundle?
Eh?
I\'m confused.
Wii + 360 + 1-2 games
It should be less than the PS3 bundles being thrown around.
-
If that is the case, I support it a 110% percent. I really doubt it happens, but I\'d love for it to.
And with alittle math.....
Let\'s assume..
Wii - $200
Game - $50
Xbox 360 - $400
Game - $ 50
(standard 360)
$650 - $700
PS3 (full vesrion) $600
Game - $ 50
Price
$650
If done during the holiday season, it could very well sell, if nothing else, it\'d stand a good chance of selling when the PS3 sells out during the intial launch / holiday craze. Buy two for the price of one. And that is assuming you can even buy a standalone PS3 console, if they do it with the 360 bundles, then expect to pay around $800 for a PS3 bundle or more.
=
-
xbox 360 and wii gamers are two seperate markets entirely
-
xbox 360 and wii gamers are two seperate markets entirely
Point?
-
Xb360+Wii bundles ? Hmm.. if priced aggressively, this might do quite some damage to PS3\'s launch...
Nice post! I can only hope that this is the case and makes Sony realize that I can\'t afford ludicrious prices for their systems!
-
theres no point in bundling the two IMO.
Id rather pay 600 for the good 360 and all the accessories than the wii bundle, which will probably add up to more with all the accessories. I mean..a second controller costs 50 bucks..shit adds up.
but..if they do do it, hopefully jumpman is right.
-
xbox 360 and wii gamers are two seperate markets entirely
Funny. I\'ll own both...
And then there\'s this: http://www.wii60.com/
No... no overlap. ;]
-
think your average halo!!!!!!!! wants to wave a wii controller around playing mario (insert sports title here)?
and that site makes me want to vomit, thanks
-
We\'ll see. I don\'t know who the average Xbox fan is anymore. I just know who I know and I\'m pretty sure Wii will be popular as well.
Dunno.
-
I\'ll own both, before I ever own a PS3. There is a market for this kind of package.
-
Xbox 360 gamer market = largely adults, some children.
Wii gamer market = "everyone."
Completely different, Mike?
-
I don\'t agree with consoles being "for adults". THere are quite a few 12 and 13 year olds on Live.
Kids like video games and they want what\'s cool. Xbox is cool so they want it and they get it.
I think PS3 may be the console that doesn\'t skew very young since if I were a parent there\'s no way in hell I\'d get that toy for little Johnny. Unless I wanted it for me, first.
-
If that is the case, I support it a 110% percent. I really doubt it happens, but I\'d love for it to.
And with alittle math.....
Let\'s assume..
Wii - $200
Game - $50
Xbox 360 - $400
Game - $ 50
(standard 360)
$650 - $700
PS3 (full vesrion) $600
Game - $ 50
Price
$650
If done during the holiday season, it could very well sell, if nothing else, it\'d stand a good chance of selling when the PS3 sells out during the intial launch / holiday craze. Buy two for the price of one. And that is assuming you can even buy a standalone PS3 console, if they do it with the 360 bundles, then expect to pay around $800 for a PS3 bundle or more.
=
Why are you excluding the possibility that most might want to get the cheaper PS3 when its available?
-
Why are you excluding the possibility that most might want to get the cheaper PS3 when its available?
Because common sense dictates that they will push the non-core version and the fact that even if you get the core, you may still be looking at expensive bundles.
-
If that is the case, I support it a 110% percent. I really doubt it happens, but I\'d love for it to.
And with alittle math.....
Let\'s assume..
Wii - $200
Game - $50
Xbox 360 - $400
Game - $ 50
(standard 360)
$650 - $700
PS3 (full vesrion) $600
Game - $ 50
Price
$650
If done during the holiday season, it could very well sell, if nothing else, it\'d stand a good chance of selling when the PS3 sells out during the intial launch / holiday craze. Buy two for the price of one. And that is assuming you can even buy a standalone PS3 console, if they do it with the 360 bundles, then expect to pay around $800 for a PS3 bundle or more.
=
Shouldn\'t you compare FULL to FULL or STANDARD to STANDARD - ie, 750-800 for the first set. The PS3 core is much less crippled than the 360 core compared to their respective full versions.
*EDIT*Damn, shoulda read those last couple posts.
In any event, this doesn\'t really interest me, I will try a Wii, and if it\'s as good as past Nintendo endeavors, I\'ll get one because it\'s cheap. I have no need for a 360, everything it has that I want is on (or coming to) PC or PS3. PS3, however, I do want for a couple of its exclusives.
The PS3 may have some shortages, but probably nowhere near the 360 launch\'s or even the PS2s, if you check out some of the production reports in the main forum.
-
Because common sense dictates that they will push the non-core version and the fact that even if you get the core, you may still be looking at expensive bundles.
No thats not common sense. Thats just your estimation. Also common sense says that (going by your other most commonly used logic) since people care mostly about games they will go for the standard version instead of the full one.
Decide because I see a contradiction
-
I\'ve been studying the Core version of the PS3.
It really isn\'t that bad of a deal. Sony has made the point that it didn\'t leave any vitals (*cough* HDD) out of the Core version, and I have to applaud that. Did any serious gamer really get the X360 Core by choice? :)
-
Shouldn\'t you compare FULL to FULL or STANDARD to STANDARD - ie, 750-800 for the first set. The PS3 core is much less crippled than the 360 core compared to their respective full versions.
*EDIT*Damn, shoulda read those last couple posts.
No, I shouldn\'t, because the chances are they won\'t include the non-core version fo the 360 in the package, it would just jack the price up.
And the problem with the PS3 "core" version is, it can\'t even output 1080p, which, is what Sony says is true high-def. Is it a bad deal? Not really. Is it stupid to have two versions? Yea, just as it was when the 360 launched.
-
And the problem with the PS3 "core" version is, it can\'t even output 1080p, which, is what Sony says is true high-def. Is it a bad deal? Not really. Is it stupid to have two versions? Yea, just as it was when the 360 launched.
That\'s where you are wrong. Both PS3 versions can output 1080p. Its just that the "core" version lacks the HDMI output, but the analog output like component video output does supports 1080p. That means you can playback videogames in 1080p via component video or HDMI. I am pretty sure the same could be said about PS3 outputting blu ray movies in 1080p via component video or HDMI.
Months ago, I remembered reading somewhere a long time ago that the RCA type cable like component video cable and maybe even RFU cable supports up to 3 GHz of bandwidth per cable where some guy tested its frequency response of a component video cable and the frequency response was flat up to 3 GHz which is great.
And component video connection comes in 3 cables for each Y, Pb, and Pr.
If you add each maximum bandwidth up, that\'s like 9 GHz total bandwidth there for component video. Almost the bandwidth of HDMI v1.3 speed of 10.2 Gbps...
1080p @ 60fps with 24 bits color require roughly 3 Gbps and there is plenty of bandwidth left on HDMI v1.3 or analog component for higher color bandwidth or refresh rate or framerate.
So, what\'s my point? Just because the "core" ps3 doesn\'t have HDMI, doesn\'t mean it couldn\'t output 1080p because component video cable can support 1080p.
XBOX360 can supports 1080p too if it wants too via component video cable, but they choose not to, probably to have room on the other areas of graphic beside resolution like texture, lighting, better framerate when output 720p instead of 1080p...
-
No, I shouldn\'t, because the chances are they won\'t include the non-core version fo the 360 in the package, it would just jack the price up.
And the problem with the PS3 "core" version is, it can\'t even output 1080p, which, is what Sony says is true high-def. Is it a bad deal? Not really. Is it stupid to have two versions? Yea, just as it was when the 360 launched.
Man you dont know what the hell you are talking about
I\'ve been studying the Core version of the PS3.
It really isn\'t that bad of a deal. Sony has made the point that it didn\'t leave any vitals (*cough* HDD) out of the Core version, and I have to applaud that. Did any serious gamer really get the X360 Core by choice? :)
I agree. And truth be told the core doesnt lack anything major. Actually it has more than a premium 360. Its just that the full PS3 has even more things than the core version (which should even be called a core).
-
The lack of HDMI is only important if anyone is ever bone-headed enough to trigger the switch that says hi-def is only available on this disc if you\'re using HDMI.
The main thing for me is loss of WiFi. WiFi is way better than the router to game adapter or ethernet cord route.
So if I ever go PS3, I\'ll get the really expensive one instead of the very expensive one.
Just like I got the pretty expensive Xbox 360 over the expensive core version.
Where\'s my affordable Wii already? :)
-
I don\'t care how you try to justify it, the price of the PS3 core or non-core version is outrageous. And when it comes down to it, if there was a package like this actually out, then the average person would most likely buy it over the PS3. It\'s the whole two for one idea.
-
Actually, LiC, I think I might be understanding Sony at this point.
I mean, $600 will net you a console that plays Blu-Ray out of the box. Full PS1/PS2 compatibility, unlike the X360\'s limited Xbox B/C. HDMI, WiFi, a XBLA-like online service, and much more. Nevermind the "high-end PC" performance of Sony\'s hardware.
Blu-Ray players alone are so overpriced this year and next that they justify the PS3 price by themselves.
-
Blu-Ray players alone are so overpriced this year and next that they justify the PS3 price by themselves.
No they don\'t. A year or two from now Blu-Ray will be just another failed format. If you REALLY believe that Blu-Ray will be the "next big thing", then I don\'t know what to tell you.
I really could go on and on about how badly Blu-Ray will fail but that is a matter for another thread.
-
I\'m trying to be cautious about my purchase of a Blu-Ray/HD-DVD player.
I mean, I would rather hear more about these new holographic discs that hold 1TB...
-
No, I shouldn\'t, because the chances are they won\'t include the non-core version fo the 360 in the package, it would just jack the price up.
And yet you assume they would bundle the premium PS3 in their Console+Game bundles and not worry about jacking up the price. I just don\'t see your logic, but whatever.
As for Blu-ray, I think it\'s got a better than 50% chance of beating HDDVD in the format war, but in any event, it\'ll be nice to have in a console (storage, initially affordable HD movie player). For about a year my PS2 was my DVD player until I finally bought a really high-end player.
-
I don\'t care how you try to justify it, the price of the PS3 core or non-core version is outrageous. And when it comes down to it, if there was a package like this actually out, then the average person would most likely buy it over the PS3. It\'s the whole two for one idea.
Outrageous or not that is based on each person\'s opinion.
For me I am still not sure if it is outrageous yet.Especially when certain exclusives are coming to it.
Also about the average person buying it over the PS3 is again your personal estimation because if the average person dont like Wii\'s offerings and see no reason to pay more just to get another device that ALSO plays games, he might actually pull back from buying that bandle because, the extra money to get a Wii will seem like an extra waste of money since one of his consoles will end up in a basement.
The same thing may count from the opposite direction. An everage person that wants to get Wii only, wont feel like paying an extra $450. Thats a huge extra price to pay for when you only want Wii.
On the other hand an average person who views a package as a whole, may prefer a PS3 alone. Not even a bandle, because he wont feel like paying $600 for two devices that BOTH play games, but one that costs around as much that plays games and have some very good extras and features.
There are various possibilities which are all as logical
-
No they don\'t. A year or two from now Blu-Ray will be just another failed format. If you REALLY believe that Blu-Ray will be the "next big thing", then I don\'t know what to tell you.
I really could go on and on about how badly Blu-Ray will fail but that is a matter for another thread.
This man speaks the truth.
Right now, HD-DVD is the best format, and I still don\'t believe either one will catch on in the mainstream.
-
I can see why Americans are crying so much over the price. :)
In the US PS2 was $300, PS3 will be $600 (or $500), that’s x2 in price increase.
When I got my PS2 i paid 4500SEK, for PS3 I will pay 6000SEK for the 60GB version, only a x1.3 increase in price, so the rape does not hurt that much for me. ;)
The game goes for 360 vs Xbox. Xbox retailed for 5000 when it came out here (however the price was quickly lowered to 4000-4500 because it wasn’t selling), 360 Premium was 3995, so actually less expensive!
Still we are getting raped, but we\'re so used to it buy now. ;P Still the price was less than most expected.
6000SEK is 833USD
4500SEK in todays currency is 624USD
-
No they don\'t. A year or two from now Blu-Ray will be just another failed format. If you REALLY believe that Blu-Ray will be the "next big thing", then I don\'t know what to tell you.
I really could go on and on about how badly Blu-Ray will fail but that is a matter for another thread.
and what crystal ball are you lookin\' thru miss cleo? i don\'t think anybody knows what the tru outcome of blu ray will be. it really depends who you talk to, some people say hd-dvd will dominate, some say blu-ray....we\'ll have to wait and see...
-
and what crystal ball are you lookin\' thru miss cleo? i don\'t think anybody knows what the tru outcome of blu ray will be. it really depends who you talk to, some people say hd-dvd will dominate, some say blu-ray....we\'ll have to wait and see...
UMD
Betmax
Sony formats...
No one needs a crystal ball, everyone says history repeats itself, so if we go by history, then we can say that Blu-Ray is doomed or at least doesn\'t stand a great chance.
-
lic, honestly.
no need to be an ass
unless you\'re trying to be funny, then it\'s failing.
-
Sony has had failed formats and formats that haven\'t failed, and the successes outnumber the failures.
A short list:
Reel-to-reel tape.
CDs (with Phillips).
Minidisc.
Hi8.
DV, MiniDV (with Panasonic), HDV.
SACD.
In any event, because of industry support, I think the blu-ray is starting this war with the advantage, and it\'ll be their victory to lose.
-
The question is... why not Blu-Ray? It\'s like DVD, but higher capacity.
Sure, it\'s not a quantum leap, but neither was CD to DVD.
-
Plus, it\'s a necessary storage jump if you want to take advantage of HDTVs and projectors, which are becoming more and more common as the prices come down.
-
i\'m not buying into either
films from the 50\'s can only look so good ~
-
it\'s depressing that technically inferior HD-DVD is looking better than BR. I saw a demo at the Sony Store in Tyson\'s and was less than impressed. Sony just needs to fire people who make the discs.
Currently, HD-DVD is dual-layer (30gb) using an advanced video codec for compression (VC-1). BR is doing single layer (25gb) while using a ~15 yr old inefficient codec (MPEG-2) which requires TWICE the bitrate of VC-1 & MPEG-4. It boggles the mind...
-
That part I\'ll give you... the idea to use an outdated codec just to avoid any conflict was foolish, and just about the only thing I like better about HD-DVD. Still most of the problems with the disks I\'ve seen so far have been more about the transfer themselves than a codec issue, it boggles the mind that any company\'s initial offerings would be transfers from anything other than pristine, clean masters.
-
Sony has had failed formats and formats that haven\'t failed, and the successes outnumber the failures.
A short list:
Reel-to-reel tape.
CDs (with Phillips).
Minidisc.
Hi8.
DV, MiniDV (with Panasonic), HDV.
SACD.
In any event, because of industry support, I think the blu-ray is starting this war with the advantage, and it\'ll be their victory to lose.
Don\'t misunderstand as I am going to point out something here.
I don\'t think Minidisc was popular in America, it sure was popular in Asia, but not in America. I don\'t like HDV format as they are heavily compressed format and they just coming out recently. So, who knows if it\'s a success format yet. Hope not since I don\'t like filming video with a compression ratio of about 30:1. If anything, I prefer higher bitrate at least 100 mbps for HD filming. HDV only uses 25 mbps, again very highly compress ratio there.
SACD is another format that I think shouldn\'t be invented as DVD-A is very good enough already. DVD-A uses the traditional PCM recording at 24 bits/ 96 kHz sampling which is awesome enough already. introducing SACD just splits up the market and confuse consumers more. Whereas SACD uses 1 bit DSD, sampling at 2.82 mHz frequency that\'s new and it also have problems of it own too. I can\'t understand why sony have to introduce SACD and 1 bit DSD as the traditional PCM that DVD-A uses is great already. Its not like SACD\'s DSD is better than PCM. In most cases, PCM is actually better than DSD. Sorry about the mumbling but neither SACD or DVD-A was popular in any countries at all.
So, your list have some failed formats, unless that\'s what your list meant to have both success and failed formats, then disregard what i just said. I thought you were listing formats that succeed. Or were you?
-
Blu-Ray may have uses for some people as a storage medium(even than an external hardrive is better). It\'s just not going to become the next major format for movies. It is not the leap that DVD was over VHS and that is going to keep Joe Q. Public from eventually hopping on board.
Sony is pushing a format shift not for the sake of technology but for the sake of security and that is why the format will ultimately fail. Think about it if you want to put a BluRay drive in your computer that actually played BluRay movies not only do you have to buy the expensive drive but you also have to get a new graphics card and (most likely)monitor. We are talking about spending almost $2000 to watch movies that don\'t look that much better than DVDs when you could just buy a DVD drive for $50.
The future of film and gaming is digital distribution. By the time the PS4/X360-2/Wii2 are preparing to drop we will have already been downloading movies and television shows on our hardrives for years. In fact on some cable providers you can already get HD content on demand. THAT is the next big thing.
-
Blu-Ray may have uses for some people as a storage medium(even than an external hardrive is better). It\'s just not going to become the next major format for movies. It is not the leap that DVD was over VHS and that is going to keep Joe Q. Public from eventually hopping on board.
I remember reading somewhere that some people said the same about DVD when it was first introduced. They asked, "Isn\'t VHS good enough already? Why DVD?"
And look what happened, in just a few years, especially after the launch of playstation 2 had help escalated the sales of DVD videos. Consumers who after watching some dvd videos and when they go back watching VHS tapes, they notice the difference in picture quality immediatedly. That DVD is superior. And the navigation is better too.
I can imagine PlayStation 3 will have similiar impact to Blu Ray as playstation 2 was to DVD.
Sony is pushing a format shift not for the sake of technology but for the sake of security and that is why the format will ultimately fail. Think about it if you want to put a BluRay drive in your computer that actually played BluRay movies not only do you have to buy the expensive drive but you also have to get a new graphics card and (most likely)monitor. We are talking about spending almost $2000 to watch movies that don\'t look that much better than DVDs when you could just buy a DVD drive for $50.
Agree to some extent. That Blu Ray drive is expensive now, but who\'s buying first generation blu ray players or drives? Not many. They will wait till the price comes down to a reasonable level before doing so. Many prefer watching High Definiton on big screen TV, so blu ray drives or wrtiers for pc is more mainly use for recording and data storage more than watching blu ray movies. So, in the coming few years, say in 2008 or 2009, you will see the price of blu ray drives coming down drastically, and the read speed greatly increase too. So are blu ray writers.
It\'s somewhat true that you may need a new graphic card to watch blu ray movies, but i believe many computer have adequate graphic cards to handle that. You don\'t need to buy a new monitor in order to view blu ray movies. You can still watch it on your existing pc monitor, its just that chances are the copy protection on the disc content will down sample the resolution to 960 x 540p instead of the full 1920 x 1080p. So, it\'s somewhat true that you do need a new pc monitor that have a digital video connection like DVI or HDMI with HDCP in order to playback full resolution of 1920 x 1080p. But seeing most computer monitor are under 21" big for viewable screen, I can see many consumers won\'t mind about it since most of them prefer watching the full 1080p detail on a much bigger screen, and not to mention widescreen tv too.
I don\'t think consumers have to spend nearly $2000 in order to watch blu ray movies when playstation 3 will charge between $500 and $600 respectively. I have the feeling that once consumers hook up their playstation 3 or a blu ray player to an hdtv. They will appreciate the fine detail of 1080p and they will have a hard time going back to dvd picture quality. I am not saying now since the price of blu ray players, drive, writers are expensive. i am saying in a couple or years and beyond from now. HDTV prices are going down and just last year we start to see more of 1080p hdtv display with a more reasonable price tag.
The future of film and gaming is digital distribution. By the time the PS4/X360-2/Wii2 are preparing to drop we will have already been downloading movies and television shows on our hardrives for years. In fact on some cable providers you can already get HD content on demand. THAT is the next big thing.
Not sure about that since I have a feeling PS4 will still uses optical disc as a standard and they will support the next generation disc format after blu ray which is holographic versatile disc and like the usual, will be backward compatible to blu ray, dvd, and cd formats to playback ps3, ps2, and ps1 games and video. I do agree that we will see more hd video being download more to hdd and i like the idea of it, but optical disc format are here to stay for some more time long before another format completely takes over it.
Just my thought and opinion.
-
In any event, because of industry support, I think the blu-ray is starting this war with the advantage, and it\'ll be their victory to lose.
Industry support? Most studio\'s are backtracking and now also giving HD-DVD support and reviews are favoring HD-DVD over Blu-Ray.
-
Blu-Ray may have uses for some people as a storage medium(even than an external hardrive is better). It\'s just not going to become the next major format for movies. It is not the leap that DVD was over VHS and that is going to keep Joe Q. Public from eventually hopping on board.
Sony is pushing a format shift not for the sake of technology but for the sake of security and that is why the format will ultimately fail. Think about it if you want to put a BluRay drive in your computer that actually played BluRay movies not only do you have to buy the expensive drive but you also have to get a new graphics card and (most likely)monitor. We are talking about spending almost $2000 to watch movies that don\'t look that much better than DVDs when you could just buy a DVD drive for $50.
The future of film and gaming is digital distribution. By the time the PS4/X360-2/Wii2 are preparing to drop we will have already been downloading movies and television shows on our hardrives for years. In fact on some cable providers you can already get HD content on demand. THAT is the next big thing.
That counts for HD-DVD as well but we know that a next gen format will prevail anyways.
-
Industry support? Most studio\'s are backtracking and now also giving HD-DVD support and reviews are favoring HD-DVD over Blu-Ray.
HD-DVD has only one exclusive major Hollywood studio backing it, and that’s Universal.
Blu-Ray has both Sony Pictures (Columbia Pictures, TriStar, MGM) and 20th Century Fox backing them exclusively. Also Warner is releasing exclusives movies for BD, eventhough they also support HD-DVD.
Also BR enjoys the support from 85% of the CE industry.
The current HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray debate has more to do with VC1 vs MPEG2, rather than the format (remember, both formats support the exact same codecs, MPEG2, MPEG4 AVC and VC1). Because BD IS superior on every level compared to HD-DVD, it has a faster transfer rate, supports higher bitrates etc.
The problem that we see with the early BD movies today has to do with a problem with the early authorizing software, which early on only supported MPEG2. However, rumours suggest Sony is moving on to MPEG4 AVC for BD25 dics and Warner is already coming out with their first VC1 encoded films for BD25.
Sometime in November-December the first BD50 (that’s dual layer movies, 50GB) movies are supposed to be released, and since people say HD-DVDs will remain at DL 30GB I don’t see them having the edge in any area any more.
While the early problems is embarrassing for the Blu-Ray Alliance the format is still in its infancy and I dont think it will have much impact later on. Remember the early poorly encoded DVD movies?
Also once the PS3 is released the format will probably get a major boost, going from less than 100 000 units to 2 million potential buyers within weeks. :)
-
Don\'t misunderstand as I am going to point out something here.
I don\'t think Minidisc was popular in America, it sure was popular in Asia, but not in America. I don\'t like HDV format as they are heavily compressed format and they just coming out recently. So, who knows if it\'s a success format yet. Hope not since I don\'t like filming video with a compression ratio of about 30:1. If anything, I prefer higher bitrate at least 100 mbps for HD filming. HDV only uses 25 mbps, again very highly compress ratio there.
SACD is another format that I think shouldn\'t be invented as DVD-A is very good enough already. DVD-A uses the traditional PCM recording at 24 bits/ 96 kHz sampling which is awesome enough already. introducing SACD just splits up the market and confuse consumers more. Whereas SACD uses 1 bit DSD, sampling at 2.82 mHz frequency that\'s new and it also have problems of it own too. I can\'t understand why sony have to introduce SACD and 1 bit DSD as the traditional PCM that DVD-A uses is great already. Its not like SACD\'s DSD is better than PCM. In most cases, PCM is actually better than DSD. Sorry about the mumbling but neither SACD or DVD-A was popular in any countries at all.
So, your list have some failed formats, unless that\'s what your list meant to have both success and failed formats, then disregard what i just said. I thought you were listing formats that succeed. Or were you?
Minidic - Gee, I was unaware that something had to be popular in America to be a success. Minidisc made Sony lots and lots of money and had massive sales through Asia, Europe, and South America.
HDV - Lots of people don\'t like it for the same reason you do, but it\'s been very popular in it\'s targeted market. The most inexpensive way to get a HD signal onto cheap/current technology there is. If you have more money to spend, there are better options. Little overhead required as it uses the same technology as DV/MiniDV.
SACD/DVD-A - Neither caught on as much as they could, however, looking at a list of dvd/media players online from futureshop/bestbuy and Philips (for Europe), I can see that most support SACD playback, whereas there\'s only one DVD-A capable player that I found at all, clearly SACD took that battle, and again, it was a cheap easy way to make money selling to the high-end of the audio market, no massive investment in R&D or infrastructure, so I bet Sony is already making money on that one.
LiC - faston listed most of the BR support, and there\'s one more KEY one that tends to decide video format wars... the adult movie industry which is squarely behind BR. It\'s an old discussion, but the BR technology is better in almost every regard to the HD-DVD technology.
-
I\'d wish sillicon would become alot cheaper ; then cartridge based consoles could rule the planet again. Seriously !
Quicker than quick accestimes. No physical moving components. Better than being stuck with an annual DL subscription. etc :thumb:
-
Btw, here are the specs, head to head.
BD/HD-DVD
Storage (single layer): 25GB / 15GB
Data rate for Video/Audio: 54Mbps / 36.55Mbps
Max res: 1080p for both
Max video bitrate: 40Mbps / 28Mbps
Video Codecs: Same Support
Audio Codecs: Same Support
Lets hope they get those BD50 out there fast enough so the video can do the format justice. Going with MPEG2 for BD25 discs was a horrible mistake which has dented the first impressions, however I believe these will quickly be forgotten once BDA gets out of first gear.
I\'d wish sillicon would become alot cheaper ; then cartridge based consoles could rule the planet again. Seriously !
Quicker than quick accestimes. No physical moving components. Better than being stuck with an annual DL subscription. etc :thumb:
Hear hear!
I hate everything that has moving parts! So yes.. cartridges with sufficient space would be more than welcome. :)
-
Minidic - Gee, I was unaware that something had to be popular in America to be a success. Minidisc made Sony lots and lots of money and had massive sales through Asia, Europe, and South America.
HDV - Lots of people don\'t like it for the same reason you do, but it\'s been very popular in it\'s targeted market. The most inexpensive way to get a HD signal onto cheap/current technology there is. If you have more money to spend, there are better options. Little overhead required as it uses the same technology as DV/MiniDV.
SACD/DVD-A - Neither caught on as much as they could, however, looking at a list of dvd/media players online from futureshop/bestbuy and Philips (for Europe), I can see that most support SACD playback, whereas there\'s only one DVD-A capable player that I found at all, clearly SACD took that battle, and again, it was a cheap easy way to make money selling to the high-end of the audio market, no massive investment in R&D or infrastructure, so I bet Sony is already making money on that one.
I think Paul\'s point is that unlike BR these formats succeeded at selling at a limited target market. They failed at becoming the next gen format which would replace CD\'s and VHS in everybody\'s home. DVD succeeded in that. BR is targeting a broader market just like DVD, the everyday consumer. BR has to succeed at that. . If BR sells like these formats it will fail, since its targeting to replace DVD\'s, not any of these formats
I dont think its wise to compare BR with these
-
I thought fatalxception were listing formats that succeed worldwide and popular throughout and I have to disagree with him on MiniDisc, HDV, and SACD. I didn\'t know MiniDisc were popular around other parts of the countries except America, so if that\'s the case, MiniDisc is quite popular. I guess Apple Ipod was the next success over MiniDisc and CD-A...
HDV just came out since like last year, and I don\'t think it was popular worldwide yet since its new. Not to mention its limited bandwidth specs and expensive price tags steers them away from video enthusiasts like me. Hopefully, this format will fail until there is a format that can record and playback the neccessary video bandwidth and i expect at least 100 mbps or higher.
SACD and DVD-A didn\'t get popular and both probably going to die out soon from the format wars and most consumers doesn\'t care about it since they prefer Apple Ipods more. the introduction of SACD format causes some problem with mastering it in pure DSD since this format is new and it have to be converted back to PCM for editing mastering, and playback too depending on the sacd players, and what\'s the point of using 1 bit DSD format if it converted back to PCM for these stuffs? That\'s why I think SACD shouldn\'t be introduce as DVD-A uses the traditional PCM format. Also the 1 bit DSD recording and playback method is said to have some sort of noises around 40 dB or something where PCM doesn\'t have that problem. Which means, DSD is somewhat inferior to PCM in many ways according to what I read from other forums and websites. Why introduce another format that\'s not better but possibly inferior than DVD-A to the consumers where they can get confuse easily? Again, another reason why I don\'t think SACD should be introduce.
So, hopefully Blu Ray will replace DVD as the next generation format and are being accepted worldwide like how DVD replace VHS tape. And hopefully Blu Ray be successful in replacing CD-A and DVD-A for lossless to uncompressed high def surround sound quality. With the storage capacity blu ray offer, I hope it can replace both DVD-Video, and CD-A and DVD-Audio too.
-
I remember reading somewhere that some people said the same about DVD when it was first introduced. They asked, "Isn\'t VHS good enough already? Why DVD?"
And look what happened, in just a few years, especially after the launch of playstation 2 had help escalated the sales of DVD videos. Consumers who after watching some dvd videos and when they go back watching VHS tapes, they notice the difference in picture quality immediatedly. That DVD is superior. And the navigation is better too.
I can imagine PlayStation 3 will have similiar impact to Blu Ray as playstation 2 was to DVD.
DVD was leaps and bounds above VHS. There really was no comparison. I worked at an electronics store in Atlanta in 99-00 and we sold DVD players by playing the Matrix side by side on VHS and DVD. When people saw the difference in quality and how they could skip to different parts of the movie like a CD they were hooked. There is no leap or bound from DVD to Blu-Ray. If you did the same thing with DVD and BR people would yawn. Blu-Ray brings nothing to the table that would cause a major shift in the market.
DVDs were ALREADY starting to sell really well before the PS2 launched. The PS2 just managed to put them over the top. No one is buying Blu-Ray players/movies now and no one will be buying them when the PS3 launches so it will not be a matter of pushing them over the top as it is a matter of making something from nothing.
List the benefits of DVD vs VHS and then compare that to benefits of BR vs DVD. It is a MUCH shorter list.Agree to some extent. That Blu Ray drive is expensive now, but who\'s buying first generation blu ray players or drives? Not many. They will wait till the price comes down to a reasonable level before doing so. Many prefer watching High Definiton on big screen TV, so blu ray drives or wrtiers for pc is more mainly use for recording and data storage more than watching blu ray movies. So, in the coming few years, say in 2008 or 2009, you will see the price of blu ray drives coming down drastically, and the read speed greatly increase too. So are blu ray writers.
It\'s somewhat true that you may need a new graphic card to watch blu ray movies, but i believe many computer have adequate graphic cards to handle that. You don\'t need to buy a new monitor in order to view blu ray movies. You can still watch it on your existing pc monitor, its just that chances are the copy protection on the disc content will down sample the resolution to 960 x 540p instead of the full 1920 x 1080p. So, it\'s somewhat true that you do need a new pc monitor that have a digital video connection like DVI or HDMI with HDCP in order to playback full resolution of 1920 x 1080p. But seeing most computer monitor are under 21" big for viewable screen, I can see many consumers won\'t mind about it since most of them prefer watching the full 1080p detail on a much bigger screen, and not to mention widescreen tv too.
I don\'t think consumers have to spend nearly $2000 in order to watch blu ray movies when playstation 3 will charge between $500 and $600 respectively. I have the feeling that once consumers hook up their playstation 3 or a blu ray player to an hdtv. They will appreciate the fine detail of 1080p and they will have a hard time going back to dvd picture quality. I am not saying now since the price of blu ray players, drive, writers are expensive. i am saying in a couple or years and beyond from now. HDTV prices are going down and just last year we start to see more of 1080p hdtv display with a more reasonable price tag.
It is not about having an adequate video card to play Blu-Ray movies. Quote from Sony:
"commercial content is encrypted with High-Bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP), which can only be decrypted using a HDCP-compliant graphics card that offers DVI or HDMI connections. Since there are currently no PCs for sale offering graphics chips that support HDCP, this isn\'t yet possible."
Basically if you want to watch Blu-Ray movies on your computer you would need a new video card or a software decryption solution that would slow access time to probably PSP levels.
Not sure about that since I have a feeling PS4 will still uses optical disc as a standard and they will support the next generation disc format after blu ray which is holographic versatile disc and like the usual, will be backward compatible to blu ray, dvd, and cd formats to playback ps3, ps2, and ps1 games and video. I do agree that we will see more hd video being download more to hdd and i like the idea of it, but optical disc format are here to stay for some more time long before another format completely takes over it.
If Blu-Ray is supposed to be the new standard why would Sony be putting out a NEW standard in 5-6 years. VHS was the main standard format for almost 30 years and DVD will be the main standard for almost 10 before we move on.
-
i skimmed untill i saw this nonsense
Basically if you want to watch Blu-Ray movies on your computer you would need a new video card or a software decryption solution
Blu-ray != HDCP
the studio controls that and who knows if it will ever come into effect
-
i skimmed untill i saw this nonsense
Blu-ray != HDCP
the studio controls that and who knows if it will ever come into effect
Yeah because the words of a message board troll hold much more weight than Sony employees talking about needing a HDCP compliant graphics card to watch commercial releases (http://www.cnet.com.au/desktops/dvdburners/0,39029405,40091720,00.htm). :rolleyes:
-
a commercial release with HDCP flagged content, which neither of you morons fail to mention.
HDCP does not physically encrypt a Blu-ray disc to make it unreadable in any kind of player
:rolleyes:
HDCP is a glorified version of macrovision
you really need to stop blindly posting links to obscure tech news sites and claim they\'re gospel cause some jackass wrote it.
-
:rolleyes:
-
Interesting that Blu Ray Drive won\'t play commercial dvd using exisiting graphic card due to lack of HDCP on the DVI/HDMI connection...i wonder how is this going to get resolve in the near future though...
-
Since when is cnet an obscure tech site? :rolleyes: FWIW, Damn near every tech site in existence had the same same story and quotes.
Blu-Ray is ALL about security. One of the main reasons behind the format is to try and curb the bootleg DVD market. Sony is heavily into content control and they have already said that commercial content will be encoded. If this is not the case point me to some sources that say HDCP will not be used for commercial content?
-
The link you want Black Samurai (http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/13251)
Because of the initial backlash against downscanning happening with watching movies with the ICT flag on, Sony, Universal, Paramount, Disney and Twentieth Century Fox, all have said no flag enabled until further notice. Warner bros is the only studio that will be using the flag, and only if the ICT flag is on do you need to have HDCP to watch in high res.
In ANY event, you will always be able to watch disks at 480p, just not full 720/1080 if the flag is on. When the flag is off, as it is in releases thus far, content plays in high def over \'unsecure\' connections.
-
*gasp*
but nooooooo! we haves to buy teh future harwares! :ohnoes:
-
Not sure about that since I have a feeling PS4 will still uses optical disc as a standard and they will support the next generation disc format after blu ray which is holographic versatile disc and like the usual, will be backward compatible to blu ray, dvd, and cd formats to playback ps3, ps2, and ps1 games and video. I do agree that we will see more hd video being download more to hdd and i like the idea of it, but optical disc format are here to stay for some more time long before another format completely takes over it.
Followup quote from Phil Harrison in a Wired (http://wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/nintendo.html) magazine article:
Digital distribution and ultrawideband Web connections have the potential to eliminate the need for discs entirely, yet console makers are still engaged in a disc format war – the PS3 will ship with a Blu-ray drive, and Microsoft is releasing an HD-DVD drive for the Xbox 360. Both companies are even touting the ability of these new discs to play movies in even higher hi-def. That struggle, however, is ultimately meaningless. “I’d be amazed if the PlayStation 4 has a physical disc drive,” Harrison says.
-
So the P in PS4 stands for Phantom?
-
http://wii.ign.com/articles/725/725674p1.html
-
cliff notes:
"blah, shit we already know, random fact, blah, propaganda"
-
cliff notes on mm\'s post:
he has a small wee wee
-
I actually worry about them getting away from physical content. Online downloads of content will be a heckova temptation for a monthly fee for ANY game that you want to \'continue to play\', since you won\'t own anything.
-
Followup quote from Phil Harrison in a
Digital distribution and ultrawideband Web connections have the potential to eliminate the need for discs entirely, yet console makers are still engaged in a disc format war – the PS3 will ship with a Blu-ray drive, and Microsoft is releasing an HD-DVD drive for the Xbox 360. Both companies are even touting the ability of these new discs to play movies in even higher hi-def. That struggle, however, is ultimately meaningless. “I’d be amazed if the PlayStation 4 has a physical disc drive,” Harrison says.
Well, that\'s just him. He will be amazed when in 7 or 8 years from now when he finds out PS4 will still support optical disc format and I can imagine the support of holographic versatile disc. Maybe PS5 won\'t use optical disc, but I am pretty sure PS4 still support them.
-
I\'ve been studying the Core version of the PS3.
It really isn\'t that bad of a deal. Sony has made the point that it didn\'t leave any vitals (*cough* HDD) out of the Core version, and I have to applaud that. Did any serious gamer really get the X360 Core by choice? :)
Since when is the market made up of only serious gamers?
-
My point was that serious gamers, by and large, bought the 360 Premium over the 360 Core.
-
My point was that serious gamers, by and large, bought the 360 Premium over the 360 Core.
That was fully expected, even by Microsoft, as early adopters are willing to shell out cash for the newest tech at whatever price. That\'s evident given the higher ratio of Premiums to Cores. However, early adopters, or serious gamers as you put it, don\'t make up the majority of gamers in this day and age. The casuals, who do mind their wallets, rule. I highly doubt they are going to care that there is a HDD in the PS3 and thus justify its hefty price tag. They did, afterall, keep buying HDDless PS2\'s at a staggering rate when the HDD equipped Xbox was released.
Also, since when is a HDD vital to a game console?
-
The interesting thing is I would guess it\'s the early adopters who are most likely to want to support HD-DVD. Why not adopt that tech early, too?
And at this point, they only need to put out $200 to do so, as opposed to at least $500 to jump on the Blu-Ray bandwagon with the core PS3.
Whatever.
-
The interesting thing is I would guess it\'s the early adopters who are most likely to want to support HD-DVD. Why not adopt that tech early, too?
And at this point, they only need to put out $200 to do so, as opposed to at least $500 to jump on the Blu-Ray bandwagon with the core PS3.
Whatever.
That or they can pick up a stand-alone HD-DVD player for less than $500. Last I checked, there was a $480 HD-DVD player through Circuit City. I wouldn\'t doubt the availability of an even cheaper player by the time PS3 launches. I wouldn\'t count out a 360/HD-DVD bundle either.
I have a feeling that Toshiba is going to push the 360 add-on pretty hard as their biggest threat comes from the blu-ray equipped PS3.