Last-Gen Console Discussions (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii)

Originally posted by dirkdirden
I'm sorry I forgot that because YOU don't care about blu-ray the rest of the world also doesn't care about blu-ray all because you don’t care about it. And also sorry because if blu-ray becomes the next DVD it won't increase ps3's sales in both games and console so it is completely unrelated. No this isn’t sarcasm I am serious.

He's not speaking about his personal opinion, the fact is the format war is far from over...and how the majority of people would rather have HD-DVD.

Both facts.

Originally posted by Puzzle
He's not speaking about his personal opinion, the fact is the format war is far from over

Agreed, but Blue Ray is winning by almost 40%.

Both Facts.

Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: \ˈfakt\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action
2archaic : performance, doing
3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact : in truth

Seems to me that your English teacher did a bad job. Majority of people would rather have a HDDVD? And after that, you say "Both Facts"?
Thats not a fact. Saying that is a totale piece of crap that can only come from an Xbox 360 fan who just heard that the PS3 is beating it at something.

Saying "Majority of people would rather have Blue-Ray" IS a fact, and can be proven by a statement or information. The same statement that dirk posted not a long time ago, showing that more people buy Blue Ray then HDVD.

Hmmm... Now lets think, why would someone buy Blue-Ray over HDDVD.... It can't be because they have PS3's with Blue-Ray players because PS3's cost too much and very little people have them... Hmm.. Oh yeah! I know! It's because the majority of people would rather get a Blue-Ray disc

The only reason people are buying blu-ray at all is because of the PS3. Only something like 6% of blu-ray players sold are NOT PS3s. However, ALL HD-DVD players sold are stand-alone players.

And considering the fact that only a very tiny part of the population owns, let alone cares, about blu-ray or HD-DVD it is not even CLOSE to being a 'majority of people'. It's an incredibly small fraction of people.

However, once the price lowers i'm sure in a couple of years the world will completely switch to new formats.

Not that much people have PS3's, and ALOT of people have Xbox's. However, only a small fraction of XBOX 360 buyers bought the version with the HDDVD in them. But I am sure that the tiny fraction of Xbox 360's giant sales charts have bought the one with the HDDVD, and that fraction can preety much rival the total PS3 sales.

PS3's? What do you mean? Like games? Theres barely any games for the PS3, so that would be unsensible.

Sony made a daring move with the PS3 by adding a Blue-Ray function to it without the approval of the customer. An XBOX 360 with an HDVD player costs 650$ 😕

However, Sony made the daring move for something. IF Blue-Ray dominates the war and pwns HDDVD, Sony is going to preety much get all the fame 😉

However, if it turns out that the majority of the population just doesn't care (which is what I've predicted from the beginning and which still holds true) then Microsoft's move is the more sensible.

This isn't like video cassettes to DVDs was a few years ago when DVDs caught on. Then, there was a clear and visible difference in quality: most peoples' cassettes had been deteriorating for years, and depending on the owner were almost completely unwatchable thanks to wear and tear. DVD allowed everything to be "digitally remastered" in a format that would not deteriorate anywhere near as fast.

And apart from the movies themselves, DVDs had other advantages over cassettes. You could immediately skip over previews. You didn't have to wait for a DVD to rewind. And best of all, the special features. You could access "making of" videos, deleted scenes, all sorts of add-ons at your leisure. All these differences made even the non-tech-savvy see how DVDs were far superior to cassettes.

Nowadays... the only thing that makes HD-DVD/Blu-Ray superior to DVD (in the public eye) is the visual quality. There may be more storage area, but this is not something that the general populace is going to immediately understand or definitely care about. And whereas there was a distinctly visible jump between cassette picture quality and DVD picture quality, the gap between DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray is not nearly so large. Plus, most people will have to buy a new TV just to see what little visible difference there is anyway.

Which brings us back to Sony and Microsoft. If hi-def formats don't catch on, then the PS3 suffers by having a proprietary format that most do not care for. (sounds like another recent move by Sony to push a mandatory new format...) The 360, however, does not suffer, because HD-DVD is merely an add-on for it, not a mandatory format change.

Nope, there's a huge gap between DVD's and HDVD's, Blue Ray.
Look at this:

You pay 30$ for a season of "Family Guy"
Or
You pay 30$ for a 3 seasons of "Family Guy" with a better visual quality. (Not that that poorly animated cartoon will have any better visual quality, but just take any cool movie or series, or whatever)

It's the same thing with games, almost the same price but much better quality and more content, which means better graphics, and sound.

I'm afraid that I've not seen any such deal. And since that would lose money on the part of the creators, you know as well as I do that it would cost far more. Considering that it'd be $90 normally, then probably around $80, just enough lower to intrigue people into buying the set. After all, that's standard procedure with such serial collections now.

And again, as I've already said, the major populace does not necessarily understand about more space. The most likely thing to grab the public's attention is better visual quality, and there's not enough of a visual jump for that to be a deciding factor this time around.

Let's use your example, even with your silly identical price idea to show how the average consumer thinks:

"Hmm... I can get three DVDs of Family Guy for $90. Oh, but look! This one has all three seasons, and it's only $30! Wait... Blu-Ray? That's that new format, right? Okay, let's see, Blu-Ray players, Blu-Ray players... here we go... $1000?! Good God, no way. How stupid is spending $1000 to save $60? I guess I'll go with these regular DVDs."

Originally posted by General Kaliero
I'm afraid that I've not seen any such deal. And since that would lose money on the part of the creators, you know as well as I do that it would cost far more. Considering that it'd be $90 normally, then probably around $80, just enough lower to intrigue people into buying the set. After all, that's standard procedure with such serial collections now.

And again, as I've already said, the major populace does not necessarily understand about more space. The most likely thing to grab the public's attention is better visual quality, and there's not enough of a visual jump for that to be a deciding factor this time around.

Let's use your example, even with your silly identical price idea to show how the average consumer thinks:

"Hmm... I can get three DVDs of Family Guy for $90. Oh, but look! This one has all three seasons, and it's only $30! Wait... Blu-Ray? That's that new format, right? Okay, let's see, Blu-Ray players, Blu-Ray players... here we go... $1000?! Good God, no way. How stupid is spending $1000 to save $60? I guess I'll go with these regular DVDs."

I totally agree with this post... I myself cannot see the difference between DVD and HDDVD/BluRay. Plus I do not think 3 seasons being on 1 BluRay disc will meret a $30 value in this time when the format is still new.

You guys are silly. I'm just going to wait this one out and come back and quote myself many months down the road.

If you think people don't care about blu-ray you are either very uninformed on the world around you or you base the world upon how you see it and not how it is.

you'll see my previous post in a few months.

Originally posted by LinixCobra
I totally agree with this post... I myself cannot see the difference between DVD and HDDVD/BluRay. Plus I do not think 3 seasons being on 1 BluRay disc will meret a $30 value in this time when the format is still new.

How much did cassetes cost and how much did DVD's cost?

Blue Ray offers even more space difference with blue ray-> DVD then the cassete->DVD gap. Maybe not the quality, but it is still visible since Blue Ray offers very detailed High Definition images.

Not really 😬

I've looked at the exact same movie on both Blu-Ray and DVD, and I saw virtually no difference.

Originally posted by Blaxican
Not really 😬

I've looked at the exact same movie on both Blu-Ray and DVD, and I saw virtually no difference.

Are you talking about a movie that wasn't in HD on either formats?

Or are you suggesting there's no difference between HD and standard definition?

Originally posted by H. S. 6
Are you talking about a movie that wasn't in HD on either formats?

Or are you suggesting there's no difference between HD and standard definition?

There is a difference, but compared to the gap between cassettes and DVDs it's rather small.

And really, you can already see skin pores on standard definition DVD quality. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray can what, make those skin pores easier to see? There's a point when better quality picture is viable, but for practical purposes, pointless.

Totally agree with GK posts.

To add to it, considering alot of people in the past 3 years have finally purchased DVD players, and how the VHS has finally been shot to death, I cannot personally see those people (pretty much the majority of consumers) spending over $500 bucks for a new player, plus rebuying their whole collection and to top it off, buy the cables and the HDTV to play those movies JUST for HD quality images.
I recently got HD movie network from my cable company and the only reason I watch the movies in HD (all two channels worth) is because it automatically goes into widescreen. That's the only reason.

HD is good for videogames and especially good for sports, but from watching all the shows in HD, I do not see the reason of buying an new player for over $500 when I can get an perfectly capable DVD player for $50.

And really, who really thinks the "amount of space" will determine the format wars. Whoever thinks that people will get whole season one disc and only expect to pay for $30 for that one disc is out of thier mind. In reality, they probalby make you pay more than the DVD version because its in HD rather than less expansive. DVD aint going anywhere for the next 10 years, and I'm glad, I really dont want to buy another system and redo my whole collection.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
You guys are silly. I'm just going to wait this one out and come back and quote myself many months down the road.

If you think people don't care about blu-ray you are either very uninformed on the world around you or you base the world upon how you see it and not how it is.

you'll see my previous post in a few months.

Im not saying people dont care about BluRay but you did bring up sales to which have no direct connection to this thread title... so again I ask you what was your point in posting those numbers?

If there is an arguement its that you keep saying PS3 will win the console/format war based on BluRay sales.

Originally posted by Spidervlad
How much did cassetes cost and how much did DVD's cost?

Blue Ray offers even more space difference with blue ray-> DVD then the cassete->DVD gap. Maybe not the quality, but it is still visible since Blue Ray offers very detailed High Definition images.

I worked at Best Buy as a computer sales rep, out of all the customers that came up to me and ask for advice only 1 mentioned BluRay and HDDVD to which he said "whats that all about?". Not that many people know it can hold more data, not that many people know they need an HDTV to be able to view the movies.... but again this comes back to what DIRk posted to which I keep askin what this has to do with Wii,XBOX360 and PS3 in terms of gaming.

The same thing DVD did for the PS2. IT SOLD THE SISTEM. If blu-ray sells the ps3 like hot cakes then the PS3 will sell more games because more people will own it. If a console is selling more games it is making more money. If the console is making more money and selling more games then more developers will flock to the console. So it directly affects everything in terms of "gaming".

Both my dad and grampa have HDtv's and they know what HDtv is, and they don't even know how to use a computer. Some people in the world may live in caves but most don't. Even if you don't care about HDtv it's going to be force upon the world because tv stations are being required to use it, and very few tv's are made without it. You all just maybe too young because to the buying population HDtv's are a must have and the buying population doesn't really include people making under 60,000 a year because they don’t have any money to buy things.

There is a huge difference between watching a DVD on a 62" HD tv and a blu-ray disc. You may be too dense to see the difference but its there, if it wasn't there no one would be buying blu-ray but the sells are doing great because people can see and hear the difference.

It seems like none of you really know what you are talking about it might do some good to step into a form were people older like 30 or 40 you will be more enlightened to what they buying population thinks and wants.

For the LAST TIME.

TV stations are NOT being required to use HD. Digital does NOT automatically mean HD. HD is digital, yes, but digital is not necessarily HD. There are very, very few HD channels and it'll be a very long time, if ever, before it's switched over to HD entirely.

And again - blu-ray sales are NOT huge. Only a very small fraction of people are buying blu-ray OR HD-DVD.

"If blu-ray sells the ps3 like hot cakes then the PS3 will sell more games because more people will own it."

Not that that logic is necessarily wrong, but nor is it necessarily certain- similar logic completely failed with the PSP.

Originally posted by dirkdirden
The same thing DVD did for the PS2. IT SOLD THE SISTEM. If blu-ray sells the ps3 like hot cakes then the PS3 will sell more games because more people will own it. If a console is selling more games it is making more money. If the console is making more money and selling more games then more developers will flock to the console. So it directly affects everything in terms of "gaming".

Try reading my last couple of posts. Blu-Ray's situation is not anywhere near the same as DVD's was.

Both my dad and grampa have HDtv's and they know what HDtv is, and they don't even know how to use a computer. Some people in the world may live in caves but most don't. Even if you don't care about HDtv it's going to be force upon the world because tv stations are being required to use it, and very few tv's are made without it. You all just maybe too young because to the buying population HDtv's are a must have and the buying population doesn't really include people making under 60,000 a year because they don’t have any money to buy things.

I find it ironic that you accuse other people of being too young to understand the situation when we have no problem revealing our ages and you do. HDTV sales are still comparatively low, so obviously even if HDTVs are a "must have," they are certainly not a "must buy." There's a difference.

Oh, and congratulations on insulting tens of thousands of people. Saying that they don't belong in the buying population? Yeah, real smooth.

There is a huge difference between watching a DVD on a 62" HD tv and a blu-ray disc. You may be too dense to see the difference but its there, if it wasn't there no one would be buying blu-ray but the sells are doing great because people can see and hear the difference.

So a 62" TV is what's required to see the difference? That's $3000. Plus $1000 for the player. Plus another $40 for the cables and such. Plus $60 for two movies.

So you have to pay $4100 just so you can see those lovely skin pores so much better?

By the way? Calling people dense is an insult. Play nice, now. *waggles finger*

And compared to normal DVDs, no, for the last time, Blu-Ray is not selling that well.

It seems like none of you really know what you are talking about it might do some good to step into a form were people older like 30 or 40 you will be more enlightened to what they buying population thinks and wants.

Actually, whenever I discuss anything I do my research. Unlike Draco and Spidervlad, I take my price figures from actual sources. And as my wallet can definitely attest to me being a part of your supposedly exclusive "buying population," and Lana has a job selling said disc-based media, yes, we actually do know what we're talking about.

Also, on the age thing...can I just point out that the core demographic that just about EVERYTHING is marketed towards (in the US, at least) is between the ages of 18 and 35? That's the main 'buying population' everyone tries to capture.