Insider info that you won\'t read anywhere else

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

[Living-In-Clip]

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

[clips]

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...

[Living-In-Clip]

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.

[Paul2]

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?