What is Digg?156 Comments
- Stonedonkey, on 10/12/2007, -13/+55I think they underestimated HD-DVD demand. The damn thing is sold out everywhere I look.
- razor150, on 10/12/2007, -8/+41"How do you figure it is the cheapest "by far"? The HD-DVD unit requires the XBOX 360. So that makes it at least $500."
Actually it doesn't require a 360 at all, you can use it on your PC. You just need to get Power HD-DVD or a program like it to play on your computer. So it is cheapest HD drive by far. - EGO822, on 10/12/2007, -20/+53I agree. The article seems biased towards PS3. There is a big difference between the two formats. For the most part, PS3 owners are not choosing blu-ray, it is being shoved down their throats. On the other hand there are 42,000 people who chose to get an hd-dvd player.
- thanakar, on 10/12/2007, -9/+38@coheedcollapse
I have to agree with you, my boss wants a PS3, NOT for the gaming but for the Blue Ray DVD player since its the only one he can find that is remotely affordable. - hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -17/+39@coheedcollapse
This is Digg and you are supporting the PS3. Watch what happens. - Denver80203, on 10/12/2007, -11/+25'The damn thing is sold out everywhere I look.'
wow where are you? There must be 15 or 20 of them in each of the best buys I have been to here. - Ub3rg33k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16You are incorrect, gingernut. Displaying a still 1280x720 image on a screen is vastly different than being able to decode and display 720p video without a hitch. Although there are a lot of computers that can play vc-1 and h264 videos @ 720p, "As long as a computer has HD resolution eg. minimum 1280 x 720, then it can play HD content" is a patently false statement.
- TheXeno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13453k PS3 units sold? Compared to 42k HDDVD units sold? Uh, honestly, that's a really hard swallow to think less than 42,000 PS3 owners plan on using the Blu-ray to watch movies, and 411,000 PS3 users could care less. With around 30% (roughly, I just did a quick google search) of consumers owning HDTVs in the U.S. Odds are, statistically, in blu-ray's favor.
The real determiner however, in the so called format wars will be movie sales. - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17"It doesn't really matter if people are buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray player or it's being "shoved down their throats" - it seems highly unlikely that they'll also buy an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies. If a PS3 owner is at the local video store and sees a good new movie out on Blu Ray disc, they're not going to skip it just because they didn't buy their PS3 for watching movies."
Congratulations. You've just summed up nearly every Sony CEO meeting when they were discussing the REAL reason whether they should add Blu-ray in the PS3 or not. - Stunn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Digg needs well-thought-out responses like coheedcollapse's. It's too bad that everyone digs him down because he was saying things people didn't want to hear. He was polite, it was a thought out comment, and he had very valid points. I think the only reason I don't come to Digg often is because there isn't enough posts like that one. Too much pointless one-liners being dug up.
The Playstation 3 has a great deal on Blu-Ray. Sure, the system costs a lot, but a stand-alone Blu-Ray player costs a lot more. The PS3 is a deal because you can get a gaming system and a Blu-Ray system in one package. When I waited in line for the PS3, I was with a 40 year old man who wanted the system just for the Blu-Ray player. He was telling me that the cheapest he's seen a Blu-Ray player was for about $800. I usually see systems at the $1000 to $1200 price range. The only thing that really made me mad was that the PS3 didn't come with a HDMI cable like the stand alone players would have. - ILoveBoobies, on 10/12/2007, -21/+32HD-DVD will win.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13BluRay is the main reason I bought a PS3 already.
Honestly, it's not for the lousy lineup of games out there right now. I know I'd end up buying a PS3 before any price drop, so why not now? At least I can start watching movies in HD already.
I stopped buying DVDs two years ago when I got my HD-TiVo and started watching movies off HBO/Showtime and TV shows (for free!) in HD. Why would I pay money to own something in 720x480 when I first saw it (on TV in the case of shows or on the big screen in the case of movies) in much higher resolution?
Now that there is a viable HD disc format, I can start buying discs again (and renting them too). I just hope I picked the right one.
(I also own an Xbox 360 and like it a lot. I do not own the HD-DVD add on, but a friend does.) - TheXeno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Blu-ray is the reason I will be buying the PS3.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Yes, multiple disc games are a problem, for one reason. It restricts the flow of the game.
In an RPG or adventure game it's not much of a problem. You start on disc 1 and progress to disc 3 (Blue Dragon is 3 discs). But try to do a multi-disc GTA (sandbox) game. Every time I cross through Starfish island to the other side it says "insert disk 1" or "insert disk 2"?
For multiple disc games to be workable, you have to have a game flow where you don't retreat. Putting that restriction on developers is not something I wish to do.
Additionally, 3 dual-layer DVDs (25.2G) cost more to make and ship than 1 single layer (25G) BluRay disc and probably costs more than 1 dual-layer (30G) HD-DVD disc.
Slice it however you want, theres no actual upside to having only 8.4GB of storage.
PS2 launched with DVD capability, but games were on CD for almost a year. Since then, there have been virtually no CD-based games released. How would PS2 look at the end of its lifecycle if it had a 700MB per-disc limit? It would have changed everything.
Using DVD in PS2 was the right move, for sure. I believe using BluRay in PS3 is the right move. We'll just have to wait and find out to really know though. - chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+19I love the idea of people saying Blu-Ray was "forced on them" - nobody is forcing you to plunk down your money. If you want to play HD movies with your gaming console, the PS3 is the cheaper alternative or at least equal in price (I don't know if you need the 360 HDD to run the HD-DVD player).
But, unless you are using it on your PC, it is not a $200 HD-DVD player - it is a $500 or $600 player since you need a core/premium system to make it go. So enough of the BS. If you want comparable gaming/movie systems (HD player, HDD, etc.) the 20GB PS3 is actually cheaper than a 360 premium system with the HD-DVD player.
Sorry to post some actual facts. - Mufflegrump, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@Gignermut:
Wow, logic just isn't your strong suit is it? :) - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9The MPEG-2 movies don't look worse, they just take more space.
The early MPEG-2 movies looked worse because the transfers sucked, not because there's any problem with MPEG-2. Early DVDs looked like crap, and yet later ones look great, despite still using MPEG-2.
There's absolutely no problem with using MPEG-2 on BluRay, as long as you don't have anything better to do with the extra space it consumes. It isn't like making a half-full disc costs less than a full one. - wingzman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Hardware DRM? Great idea! (sarcasm) So I can't watch my purchased movie on my HTPC? That's something people will embrace.
- HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Ub3:
There are plenty of games that couldn't be broken into multiple discs, like the GTA games (didn't I mention that already?).
There is currently none that exceed the size of one DVD though, that I know of.
But again, I as I pointed out over and over about PS2. PS2 didn't need DVD on day 1, but it would have been severely hurt if it didn't have it in year 3. You never would have had GTA3, Vice City or San Andreas to play if it only could take CDs. Saying that PS3 shouldn't have BluRay because games don't need it today is very shortsighted. - Nobi-Wan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17"Sure it drove the price up a little, but I'd definitely rather get it at the startup instead of paying the extra money down the road to get another big box to set next to my original console."
Driving up the price "a little" would be maybe 1-5% over the competition, NOT more than 30% which the PS3 is. It's just nice to have an option because I don't have an HDTV so I don't need it. Therefore I'm saving $200 and still playing more or less the same games as a person with a PS3. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10i hate fanboys...
- LowFuel, on 10/12/2007, -11/+19It doesn't really matter if people are buying the PS3 for the Blu-Ray player or it's being "shoved down their throats" - it seems highly unlikely that they'll also buy an HD-DVD player to watch HD movies. If a PS3 owner is at the local video store and sees a good new movie out on Blu Ray disc, they're not going to skip it just because they didn't buy their PS3 for watching movies.
- ZenMojo, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Every 12-year-old on the planet knows what Blu-Ray is. Name recognition is a hypothetical, it's not the reality. (And please stop quoting that ***** hack site Cym-phoney.)
- pidge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9There are plenty of HD-DVD drives at the CC near where I live. The article said "technically" which is true. I think you would be surprised how many of the PS3 customers bought it for its ability to double as a blu-ray player. If they are forking over $500-$600 for a PS3, I think there is a big chance that they will have an HDTV which means it is very likely they will use it as a blu-ray player. I know I do. I am actually surprised at the GBA install base. I really don't know anyone who has a GBA. I am 30 years old so the people I know don't generally game on the go. If I was a teenager, I guess that would be different.
- chriskzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Listen to the interview with the Insomniac guys on All Games Radio. It's not just about FMV, it's about being able to put in every conceivable sound you want as well as different model, etc. They even said that with the last Ratchet game they were almost to the point where they would have to cut things out - and that was on the PS2.
- ZeroG52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"Name one game that couldn't be moved to multiple discs on a console."
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas - teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14Your numbers are a little off there buddy...
360- 8.5 million
Wiii- 1.7 million
PS3- 453k
www.nexgenwars.com - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9nexgenwars.com is run by an 18 year old kid whose numbers are based on a linear graph. He is woefully inaccurate, and the numbers conflict with all released data by several million units.
Although this site also has some accuracy issues, it is FAR more accurate and is based on actual numbers released by sales tracking companies:
http://www.vgcharts.org/ngwars.php
Note that some of the numbers on this site are up-to-date, while others are maybe a month old. That still beats guessing, doesn't it? - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Doesn't matter if it CAN play games. As long as the number of people who have Xbox 360s+Hd-DVD drives is 1/1000th as big as the number of people who have Xbox 360s, no developer would make a game that uses the HD-DVD drive.
Unless the attach rate of the HD-DVD drive rises to over 20%, no game will be made for it. And the attach rate will never rise to over 20%. This is why add-on devices are almost always failures, no developer wants to restrict their customer base to only those that have the add-on. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Your example stinks. The number of standalone players is on the order of 20,000 for each format.
So you can't just write off 42,000 add-on players or 197,000 PS3s (both as of end of November), as they represent a 300% expansion of the number of HD-DVD players and a 1000% expansion of the number of BluRay players in the field. - brianb722, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11"The damn thing is sold out everywhere I look."
Where are you looking? Every store I go into has plenty. - ministewy, on 10/12/2007, -15/+21"ps3 rules. 360 is *****. Wii is for babies. Macs blow. Linux is doomed. Dreamcast sucks donkey nuts. People should NEVER haved whined about the Sony rootkit. Sony should do whatever they want. And digg users LOVE the red thumbs. digg me dowwwn bitches!"
...real mature - jacksons98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Comparing consoles to PC's is not a good argument. The reason why they still offer CD's is because there are millions of older computers that just have CD-rom drives on them. Developers don't want to lose the opportunity to sell to them by only offering DVDs.
- stappawho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5That is why I'm still trying to decide between a 360 and a PS3.
- inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But why.. the xbox 360 is only using Component cable not HDMI this is useless IMHO
- stappawho, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10If Sony removed Blu-ray you would be looking at $400-$500 for a PS3. It's only $100 premium that you pay for have Blu-ray 'forced' on you.
There is no reason to think that a PS3 would be cheaper than an Xbox 360. So the 20 gig version would line up with the 20 gig Xbox. $100 more for wireless, bigger HDD etc...
Anyways, where Blu-ray hurt them the most was the ability to produce enough units. - stappawho, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@pEEpiNgtoM
"You also have to consider even those with an HDTV wont support an unadopted format"
Um, wouldn't that be the case for both formats?
That and your numbers are way off. - LowFuel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6netflix.
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9The advantage of the blu-ray down the road is not as a movie player as those will get cheap pretty quick. The advantage is game makers can produce larger games without going to multiple disks.
- drakino, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"For starters the only games that come anywhere near 9 gigs are ones that use TONS of CG movies"
I don't remember tons of CG movies in Gears of War, and it comes out to 6.43 gigs compressed. And thats from a game that isn't all that long game play wise. Double the length of the game with new levels, and you already max out a single dual layer DVD (8.5 gigs). Well, unless they use the Halo 1 trick of just using the exact same assets over and over and over and over again to try and draw out game length.
Simply put, it is a limiter that Microsoft put out, because they wanted to be first in this current generation of consoles. So that means last generation storage (it's the first console to not increase single disc/cartridge space over the previous version), and rushed design work leading to the loudest console ever.
I do enjoy my 360 for games, but it will never be a movie player for me due to the noise. So even with the "only $200" price tag on HD-DVD, it's not tempting. - aywwts4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5And how do independent content creators create their own (Next DVD disk) to be played on a television?
All media distribution should be just in the hands of huge companies with giant factories in the interests of stemming piracy? ***** that. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"but how many PS3 users got a PS3 for the Blu-ray? More than 42K? I doubt it."
was that REALLY necessarily? - gbarger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9Grow up. What's with the kiddie "ZOMG" Crap. I don't own a PS3, but I also remember when the PS2 came out. No one was complaining that Sony was "pushing" DVD on consumers when they could have used CD's and the DVD definately added cost because it was still a fairly new technology. I liked it and used it as a DVD player, and I might buy a PS3 if blu ray wins. It's not looking like it will, but I'm not going to complain about Sony trying a tactic that was so effective previously. This time they just have more competition. ...in short...read the beginning...grow up.
BTW...how is HD-DVD better? Blu-Ray typically runs MPEG2, but can also run the exact same format that HDDVD's use...and it has more storage...I think there's a very clear tech winner, and I hope ultimately blu-ray does win. - staticneuron, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"I wonder how many PS3's would have been sold even if it didn't have the Blu-ray player..."
Without a doubt...... the same amount. - inkubux, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8I'm seriously tired to hear that bogus name argument. If something it will confuse people more than helping. A lot of product succeed without actually have a good name, simply because they are better technology. I don't understand why when it comes to technology like this everybody praise a format backed by Microsoft and when it comes to Operating system everybody is ***** on Microsoft. Digg users are just not constant in their in their affirmation.
Again I say both format will win like DVD-R and DVD+R, yes I know there is a patent, but for us consumer this war is stupid.
I'm not a fan of any format I just want the best possible picture on my HDTV that's all
digged down in 3.2.1.0... - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9That article is just wrong.
Yes, it allows developers to be lazy, that's true.
But on the other hand, people say 360 is the next-gen platform of choice for developers because it is easy for them to develop for.
If it's easier for developers to develop for (i.e. they can be lazier), then you get more games. And given that game story/play quality isn't directly related to how industrious a developer is, some of those games coded by lazy developers can be quite enjoyable.
And again, as to the idea that you'll be able to wavelet compress textures 100:1, it's a myth. You can synthesize some textures from minute amounts of data (think of how a TrueType font can be rendered at 1,000 point from a tiny bit of outline data), doesn't mean that you can generically take textures and compress them that much.
Making developers do more work means more expensive games and longer development times. I also can mean they just don't bother and instead leave content out. I don't see these as good things.
There's no reason to think that artifically restricting the size of games makes them better. - gwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Once I factored in the cost of the included movie and the remote it seemed like a good experiment. It works far better than I expected.
If you allready have an Xbox 360 and an HDTV it's a really easy decision. - thelelander, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The Xbox HD-DVD player also plugs right into a PC (with some effort), so that's a big selling point too.
Don't know about best-buy/target, but Amazon is totally sold out. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5If physical media has already had its day, then so has any semblence of fair use. Digital downloads mean pay-per-view. Even with all the crazy DRM, you still own an HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc and you won't have to pay a fee every time you watch. That kind of freedom won't exist with an online distribution model.
This format war is only stupid in the sense that the two formats are so evenly matched in terms of support and resources that it will be years before a victor is declared, which will slow adoption considerably compared to DVD.
As for the X360 figures, I'm pretty sure there's a major supply issue with the HD-DVD drive. At least, I hope so, because more than 0.005% of the X360 base needs to pick up the attachment in order to have any appreciable affect on Sony. - stappawho, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Nobi-Wan
Where do you get $200+ for the cost of Blu-ray.
Do you really think the 20 gig PS3 would sell for less than the 20 gig 360 if it came with only DVD? It is only $100.
For anyone with an HDTV that is a killer deal. And the HDTV adoption rate is going up exponentially. Got to target or wal-mart and see all the sub $1000 HDTV's for sale. By next Christmas (1 year into the PS3's life cycle) you'll easily be able to walk into one of the aforementioned stores and pick up a 40"+ HDTV for $500. Obviously if you don't have an HDTV then the Blu-ray premium you have to pay will probably be a heavy deterrent. But in 3 years that may not be the case.
As for the Blu-ray/HD-DVD war, I don't see that ending any time soon. I'm guessing in 2-3 years we'll see hybrid players, but the discs will continue to be produced for a long time.
All I do know is that haveing 3-4M Blu-ray players in homes by next March is going to make it awfully hard for a studio to not support it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is