quote:
Petering:
Well good thing, Blu-Ray is the better format. Hell we wouldn't have had this format war at all if Microsoft didn't throw a hissy fit.
Blu-Ray is generally more expensive and has worse DRM. It has higher capacity, it's true, but that means jack shit for movies since 1080i will never look any better than 1080i always looks and you only need a couple gigs to do that for a three hour film plus extras.
1080p doesn't look better and if you believe it does, you're wrong. HD-DVD's also do 1080p anyway.
Anyway, this doesn't mean HD-DVD is dead, it just means that more people are buying blu-ray. Studios go where the sales are and very, very little can convince them to do otherwise. I mean, read the article:
quote:
Warner said it had opted for Blu-ray because 60% of its US high-definition sales last year had been in that format.
Publishing in both formats is inefficient, so they go where the most sales are in an effort to try and sink the other format and make life easier for everyone.
The Real Ultimate Power, as always, lies with the consumer.
quote:
Asha'maning:
The real ultimate power actually lies in the porn industry.
Who Sony has essentially barred from blu-ray publishing by locking them out of sony owned presses...
quote:
Maradon! got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
Who Sony has essentially barred from blu-ray publishing by locking them out of sony owned presses...
Pirates just came out on Blu-Ray.
Anyways, in regards to the news at hand - Warner's affiliates were told they could support whichever formats they choose, and so far New Line has followed Warner's lead and gone Blu-Ray only. HBO is expected to do the same.
There's also rumors that there's a drop-out clause in Paramount's exclusivity contract stating that if Warner pulls HD-DVD support, Paramount can back out of the contract and start producing Blu-Ray releases. I don't know if that's true or not.
Also think 10 years down the line when software will be distributed on Blu-ray. The extra 10 Gigs will be very useful then in extending the life of the product and all your players.
And finally the cost to produce is a fairly poor long term argument. In 4 years the cost to produce will be pretty much trivial just like dvds are now.
Lechium fucked around with this message on 01-09-2008 at 08:27 PM.
I didn't believe it until I saw my boss demonstrate this fact to me by whacking a PS3 game on the edge of a counter a couple times and showing me that nothing happened.
quote:
Lechium wrote this stupid crap:
Is Blu-Ray backwards compatible?
You can play standard DVD's on a Blu-Ray player, yes.
quote:
Naimah spewed forth this undeniable truth:
....Also think 10 years down the line when software will be distributed on Blu-ray. The extra 10 Gigs will be very useful then in extending the life of the product and all your players.
....
And at that point they will be trying to introduce some form of holographic media, 'cept I think it will be much slower to take off, I can't see a use for it outside of massive data storage. Peter fucked around with this message on 01-09-2008 at 10:33 PM.
quote:
Peter painfully thought these words up:
Well good thing, Blu-Ray is the better format. Hell we wouldn't have had this format war at all if Microsoft didn't throw a hissy fit.
Blu-Ray is only arguably better, depending on what you are looking at. Space restraints being the only real qualifier. As far as Microsoft throwing a hissy fit; they didn't really have anything to do with it beyond providing HDi (Which is much better for Windows based PCs) over Java. This, coincidentally, is why HD-DVD has better uniform interactivity than Blu-Ray (Right now). In fact beyond Bill Gates saying that Sony needed to change things to make the format more compatible with PC users, HP is the only company to throw a "hissy fit" because they actually DEMANDED that Blu-Ray change their format from Java to HDi for better compatibility. In fact you can even use HD-DVD tech to store HD content onto a regular red-laser DVDs.
Sony and Co. Did more bitching than anyone, and more often, over royaltie requirements. Pretty much like they did with Beta, oh so long ago.
quote:
Naimah thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
Buying TV shows on disc will be cheaper on Blu-ray. Being able to fit almost twice as many shows on a disc is sexy.
They can already put more shows per disc than they do now, but they don't. This is marketing, and marketing only. Money money money, and a good business model. Plus seasons will always be broken up into "Season" releases, by definition. So this point doesn't really apply. Except maybe for "Millennium" type editions or whatever.
quote:
Also think 10 years down the line when software will be distributed on Blu-ray. The extra 10 Gigs will be very useful then in extending the life of the product and all your players.
How does having 10 more gigs space on a disk extend the life of a product and its players? Once it's printed and bought, none of that extra space matters. If you are talking about being able to put more content on one disk initially, very few games at all have even capped the DVD Benchmark at this point; and production costs for game development is already through the roof without the addition of much "life extending" content in the first place. Just better looking/programmed content. Games are costing more and more, taking longer and longer to produce, and getting shorter and shorter. So I don't really see how this would apply, unless I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say.
Edit: Nevermind. You mean Players as In the "Hardware" not players as in gamers. 
Totally missed that one. I read Product as Games and Players as well Players of said games. XD
Although I still don't see how that would extend the life of anything once what's done is done, unless you mean in the very very long term. In which case it becomes minor and inconsequential.
quote:
And finally the cost to produce is a fairly poor long term argument. In 4 years the cost to produce will be pretty much trivial just like DVDs are now.
This is pretty much true.
Really I don't care whether HD of Blu-Ray wins, just as long as someone hurries it up so I know which one to pick.
quote:
Mr. Gainsborough had this to say about pies:
It's really really hard to scratch a Blu-Ray, I've found.I didn't believe it until I saw my boss demonstrate this fact to me by whacking a PS3 game on the edge of a counter a couple times and showing me that nothing happened.
That stuff is awesome! In actuality, Blu-Ray is far far easier to damage than a standard DVD or HD-DVD disk (Which are about the same), but their is a clearcoat layer on Blu-Ray DVD which makes them HIGHLY scratch resistant. It's mandatory for every Blu-Ray disk to have this (Because it is so easily damaged otherwise), HD-DVDs and Standard DVDs can now get it too, but it's still optional for pressers to use it since they are already more resilient.
Of course DVDs and HD-DVD's can also have both sides of the disk burned with content at full capacity without it (Which Blu-Ray can't do regardless) but I believe they lose this ability if they get it.
Personally considering how seldom anyone double sides a disk anymore I'd rather ALL my disks had that coating from now on. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 01-10-2008 at 01:14 AM.
quote:
Peter wrote this stupid crap:
And at that point they will be trying to introduce some form of holographic media, 'cept I think it will be much slower to take off, I can't see a use for it outside of massive data storage.
Dude, 4 terabytes of porn.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Greenlit said this:
Yeah I can't see any uses at all for mass storage. Who needs these big harddrives we have right now, anyway?
Well technically that argument for Blu-Ray is moot anyway since HD-DVD can have both sides set at full capacity where as a Blu-Ray disk cannot. 
So, essentially, an HD-DVD disk can have more storage than a Blu-Ray disk overall. If you are talking purely storage anyway.
It's also more readily backward capatible.
In the context you are trying to use it though, I don't think it applies anyway since neither HD-DVD or Blu-Ray are really suitable for constant accesible storage as Hard Drives are (Anymore than DVDs are now). Backup storage possibly though. And by the time anything software wise is released that is capable of taking advantage of EITHER formats massive storage space, we'll all have long moved on anyway.
Really neither format is much of a leap from current technology in regards to past advancements anyway.
quote:
Over the mountain, in between the ups and downs, I ran into Faelynn LeAndris who doth quote:
Well technically that argument for Blu-Ray is moot anyway since HD-DVD can have both sides set at full capacity where as a Blu-Ray disk cannot.So, essentially, an HD-DVD disk can have more storage than a Blu-Ray disk overall.
I think his point is that anyone who says "this extra capacity won't ever be useful" is always, always wrong. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 01-10-2008 at 07:25 AM.
quote:
Maradon! spewed forth this undeniable truth:I think his point is that anyone who says "this extra capacity won't ever be useful" is always, always wrong.
I don't think anyone said that extra capacity isn't usefull. At least not that I can see. Faelynn LeAndris fucked around with this message on 01-10-2008 at 08:15 AM.
quote:
Maradon! said:
I think his point is that anyone who says "this extra capacity won't ever be useful" is always, always wrong.
Quoting this.
I mean, hell, they might as well just fill the extra space with insanely high resolution textures. Local graphics card RAM is getting larger and faster with every generation of card, which allows it to handle bigger textures.
quote:
How.... Faelynn LeAndris.... uughhhhhh:
Really I don't care whether HD of Blu-Ray wins, just as long as someone hurries it up so I know which one to pick.
I just honestly cannot see how anyone can think HD-DVD has a chance anymore.
Blu-Ray enjoys exclusive support from MGM, Fox, Lionsgate, New Line, HBO, Warner, Disney, and Sony itself.
HD-DVD has Universal, Paramount, and Dreamworks.
I've been hearing left and right that Warner's decision to go Blu HAS triggered an opt-out clause with Paramount and Dreamworks' contracts. They probably will not go Blu-Ray Exclusive until HD-DVD dies, but it's quite likely that they'll adopt a dual-format stance until then.
I've been hearing that Universal's contract ends this month - just rumor, I have no solid evidence to the fact - but if true, then it's more than likely that Universal will adopt a dual-format stance as well.
There will be no reason for a consumer to purchase an HD-DVD player that can play some hi-def movies, when they could get a Blu-Ray player which can play ALL hi-def movies. There is no reason for any of the studios not to (at least) adopt a dual-format stance, and in fact they should all be wanting to - Warner stated they went Blu after they noted Blu-Ray sales were 60% higher than HD-DVD. It'd be even smarter for them to go Blu-Ray only and enjoy the increased sales without the overhead of producing both kinds of discs.
Retailers are still going to try to promote HD-DVD for a while - they want to avoid returns after the holidays. They're still pressuring the studios to all adopt Blu-Ray (They sell more of it, after all), but they won't be telling the customers to go Blu and stay there until the returns period is good and gone. Khyron fucked around with this message on 01-10-2008 at 10:09 AM.
Kegwen fucked around with this message on 01-10-2008 at 02:40 PM.
quote:
Mortious's account was hax0red to write:
Quoting this.I mean, hell, they might as well just fill the extra space with insanely high resolution textures. Local graphics card RAM is getting larger and faster with every generation of card, which allows it to handle bigger textures.
Throw on top of that the push to create separate physics processors either on the cpu or graphics card, or in another pci slot, and you're lookin at even more attention that can be focused on textures. 
quote:
This one time, at Blindy. camp:
Except in 5 years when that extra storage will be useful we'll have big enough pipes available to most of the country to get that data over the wire.
ha ha ha ha hahahaha
quote:
Asha'man said:
ha ha ha ha hahahaha
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Captain Planet:
Except in 5 years when that extra storage will be useful we'll have big enough pipes available to most of the country to get that data over the wire.
quote:
Demos's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
Besides, the majority of the major telecom lines were financed during the dot com boom, and then sold off in mass quantities when the companies laying the lines went under. There really isn't enough of a hype or boom to financially justify laying new major telecom lines; not with the huge expansion of the wireless market.
Not to mention the terribly low population density across America. It just wouldn't be profitable to lay down a high speed network backbone to every single household, let alone one fast enough to carry data at hard drive speeds. It could perhaps be done in highly populated areas like Japan or Europe, but even there, not within 5 years.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Tarquinn booooze lime pole over bench lick:
Intenet tubes will be clogged by 2010.
I've been reading these "internet will collapse under it's own weight" articles since I was in middle school in 1995.
quote:
Tarquinn had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Intenet tubes will be clogged by 2010.
ITS ALREADY HAPPENING! Anakha's Wii fucked around with this message on 01-11-2008 at 07:32 PM.
