What is Digg?Sponsored by IGN
I Shoot People and Take Their Cars view!
ign.com - We all have our reasons -- tell the world why you play
252 Comments
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -44/+77What a bunch of consumer-robbing *****. "Connectivity"? Who on earth gives a rat's ass? The article mentions such things as extra scenes being downloaded, but this is laughably unlikely. Connectivity is for just one thing: Shoving ads down your throat. "Click here to play the on-line Transformers game!" which takes you to nothing but one giant "interactive" advertisement. Wow, I can participate in my own rip-off, using my own equipment over the Internet connection that I PAY FOR, instigated by a disc I BOUGHT and on which I was FORCED TO WATCH AN ANTI-PIRACY WARNING despite it being crippled with DRM.
And after you add all that up, you still have a disc with ***** capacity. Higher capacity = potentially lower compression = better picture. PERIOD. Not to mention the usefulness of the format as a writable device (if that's ever truly worked out). But quality just does not factor in anymore. Consumers are too ignorant to demand it or even to recognize it anymore, and vendors sure as hell don't care.
This entire next-gen-format debacle proves that people just aren't getting any smarter, and the consumer is getting screwed harder every year. The CD looks like opulent luxury in retrospect: UNCOMPRESSED, and widely agreed upon despite then-high manufacturing costs.
Look at this *****:
"in his estimation, HD DVD's specifications are more suited for the current market."
The CURRENT market? Hello? This is the NEXT-GEN format we're supposed to be selecting here, *****.
Forget it, folks. We're quickly headed for a world of download-only, DRM-saddled, self-destructing, compressed-into-oblivion low-def ***** that looks all the worse on our 50-inch TVs. You bought all this gear, and guess what: There's nothing worth playing on it. - sancho, on 10/10/2007, -8/+31Even if you don't believe that these are his reasons, you can't overlook what he brings up. Bluray IS horribly inconsistent right now. Some players don't support the new copy protection mechanism--and these players aren't even much more than a year or two old! They were probably purchased for $800, and there will soon be discs that they won't be able to play. How's that for screwing the customers?
And face it. The next generation is here. With HD-DVD players coming down in price drastically ($200 was the sweet spot for DVD, and it's probably going to be the sweet spot for HD-DVD/Bluray, too) and more people buying big HDTVs, the fight to bring customers HD content is going to get more and more heated. The coming year will probably be the year of HD, assuming the market doesn't completely tank. Even if Bluray has lots of advantages, marketing is what's going to count. - byronm, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20Its nice to be oblivious isn't it? BD 1.1 will have Online capabilities as well. It has nothing to do with ads being shoved down your face (this isn't tivo here) it has everything to do with online features and capabilities to enhance the movie. Movie sales would DIE if they did what you propose and what you suggest is inevitable on both platforms since
BD is changing spec to include online features as well.
The issue at hand is:
1. HD DVD was a better spec from the getgo. Firmware issues early on, but thats nothing new. BD is changing, TWICE and the ONLY player that will be supported through the next gens is the PS3
2. HD DVD is cheaper to re-tool for mastering. If you have 2,000 movies to publish, that is pretty important.
3. HD DVD is plenty large enough. The "DVD Forum" is working on certifying 17gig/34 gig disks and 51gb disks.. The technology will always increase if need be.
4. HD DVD players can be found for 200 bucks
These i'd like to add for my own personal justification above and beyond what paramount states:
5. BD+ is insanely DRM ladden compared to HD DVD - it can disable your player
6. BDA will never be uncompressed
7. Both formats have "lab" disks upwards of 100+gb already
Getting back to the article at hand (which is a ***** one i might add) the reasons Paramount switched were completely ignored and this article simply feeds ones agenda and not the truth of the matter - byronm, on 10/10/2007, -8/+23Personally I like HD DVD better. I can import (no region encoding), It plays great on my 360 and my PC and I just want the war over. I also like online features and capability and would rather have the AACS key issue rather than a disabling BD+ issue. Paramount made the right decision of experience. It wasn't like they didn't try BluRay out.
Its laughable at best that people are dissing the online features, they enhance the experience. Its like saying its pointless for the PS3 or Xbox to be online in single player games - everything should be "on disk". Hate to break it to you, but getting updates, news, online info, trailers and connectivity goes beyond what anyone can put on disk.
More power to Paramount. I guess everyone will ditch BluRay when Gen2 1.1 players come out with connectivity as well. - sancho, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18Not strictly better. It had a lower recording time. Many movies which fit on a single VHS tape required two Betamax tapes. Never underestimate the power of laziness.
- GodjustGod, on 10/10/2007, -10/+24Space doesn't = better picture. The original mastering for the disc does. Right now HD-DVD is marginally better picturewise, especially on fast moving scenes where blu-ray tears. (300 is a great example of this), It's more than just ONLINE content though. Managed copy will be a coup. Especially when you have kids. Also the manufacturing process and consumer equipment is cheaper. This is the main selling point. Both types are about equal in terns if quality, in the end though the pricing to the consumer is what will drive the market.
- sbob420, on 10/10/2007, -11/+24"30GB is more than enough space to be useful"
Reminds me of another quote i have heard
"640K ought to be enough for anybody."
lol - eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16Did anyone read any of these articles? The point Paramount made was pretty obvious I thought.
To make HDDVD movies they required only some artists and some basic computer tools. To make blu-ray discs required them to hire actual coders (with some very specific, and therefore expensive, skills) so the java stuff could be coded.
ie: They don't want to be in the business of "coding" media. It costs them more, requires more time, and introduces the possibility of them releasing buggy discs.
Despite everything else (money and all the media coverage) this reason made tons of sense to me, and I don't see why everyone is so bothered by it. - hokie47, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15Lets end this stupid format war. Get the two major players together and have them do rock paper scissors, best out of 3, and get this ***** over with. I could care less who really wins, I just want HD content.
- jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Not to mention that HD DVD is region free! That's awesome for film fans, they can import obscure films from Asia or Europe with worrying about region coding, that's hugely awesome. I can't imagine why a film fan would support BD.
Also, the new bigger HD DVD discs will be compatible with the very first HD DVD players. When we have bigger HD discs than BD, what will the BDA say then? - bjkrautk, on 10/10/2007, -20/+31...so Paramount wants 'connectivity' as a standard so it can try to sell consumers even more film memorabilia, and to add features that should have been included on the disc? I don't want to have to patch my DVDs!
Bottom line, AFAIK, is that Paramount & Dreamworks think they'll make more money taking the $150 mil now and (potentially) releasing their content on Blu-Ray in 2 years than they think they could get just selling Blu-Ray and HD-DVD right now. - oldhick, on 10/10/2007, -1/+12What's not too get? This thread is about the fact that Paramount gave a decent list of technical reasons for their switch to HD-DVD. A comment is made to the effect "screw DRM and on-line connectivity" and "but blu ray has more space". TechMuffinman adds a comment saying here are some other points to consider and correctly points out that Blu ray and HD DVD use the same codecs for compression...
- SirDiggalot, on 10/10/2007, -8/+18Dude, linking to some B.S. jpeg with absolutely no context doesn't really help your argument.
- Vegiemaster, on 10/10/2007, -11/+21Betamax was a better quality format too... :-/
- DanGleesacks, on 10/10/2007, -9/+18Meow...
Now, now ladies! Its only a piece of shiny plastic! - Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14When I talk of space differences, I don't care for 1) a speculative future (both sides have been bragging about that anyway, so who cares until they hit the market), or 2) retail discs with movies. I care for recordable discs. And I don't see any HD-DVD-R's that today record 45 GB's. I do see them storing 15 GB though, with the Blu-ray at 25 GB for +67% more space, for pretty much the same prices. So for data archival support, I do prefer Blu-ray's.
- jmdajr, on 10/10/2007, -8/+17Besides space (thats not even needed), Blu-ray offers NO ADVANTAGE for current Hi-DEf movies.. If SONY wasn't brainwashing people about their expected glorious sales of PS3, and pushing their movie studios, no one would have chose it. Someone has to take a stand to promote the right format.
- sancho, on 10/10/2007, -4/+13Actually, 150 Mil is probably about how much they expect to make (in profits, not gross) over three years by also supporting Bluray. By taking the payout now, they not only get a lot of capital with which to promote HD-DVD, but they're taking a stand and helping to increase the likelihood that one format will come out on top. Two competing formats doesn't really help the consumer, and it doesn't really help the studios who are trying to support both.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Jeez chill down... Why should one bother looking up an article you don't even link to... It's you who're supposed to push your argument, not we to help you with it.
- bourkie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Anyone trying to purport that the PlayStation console is a major factor in a format war is deluded:
Several recent independent studies have shown that at most 15% of console owners make use of the multimedia functionality of their consoles.
Of that 15% even less use it for disc-based multimedia.
Of that 10%-odd even less would use it for high-definition video.
So even if more than 10 million PS3s are sold in the next year (unlikely) - that will only equate to well under 1 million customers buying Blur-ray Disc videos. - fuzzynyanko, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8If the dude has only a standard def TV, there won't be much difference.
- leo78, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13"Connectivity is also important because of so-called "transactional offerings" that Paramount and other studios have planned. Interactive features could reach out over the 'Net to commercial sites selling items related to a movie, for instance."
This just sold me on Blu-Ray. When I bought my home theater, I wasn't building a billboard in my living room. I'm not a Sony fan, but at least they know that making a network connection mandatory on a movie player is just dumb. - fmcivic16si, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Porn will do nothing for the format wars. Porn is all over the net and more accessible then it was during the VHS/BETA wars.
- unrealmp3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Forget it, folks. We're quickly headed for a world of download-only, DRM-saddled, self-destructing, compressed-into-oblivion low-def ***** that looks all the worse on our 50-inch TVs. You bought all this gear, and guess what: There's nothing worth playing on it."
As far as I know, BD+ is a DRM, so your point is irrelevant. Also, take note that the HD-DVD and Blu-Ray use the same codec compression.
Stop bitching and start reading. - Ndiggnation, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9MS's gaming division in the black this fiscal year? Laughable. Especially considering the warranty extension.
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=129788
And whether or not they tossed 150 mil Paramount's way doesn't matter when they've tossed much more at the 360 issues.
"In a monumental move for Xbox 360 owners everywhere, Microsoft has expanded its warranty coverage to three years, and will take a $1.05 billion to $1.15 billion charge to earnings for anticipated repair costs on the malfunctioning consoles."
http://www.gamepro.com/news.cfm?article_id=129788 - TehMuffinman, on 10/10/2007, -44/+50Oh, hey, Willynilly, I'd just like to hand you this here reward for being an absolute idiot.
Screw whether you think it's going to be used or not, the fact that the connectivity and the features are there is a plus to the format, no matter what your opinion is. Oh, how about that extra space of the Blu-Ray disc? OH GOD, EXTRA SPACE!? THAT MEANS MORE ROOM FOR ADVERTISEMENTS, CLEARLY ANY FEATURE WILL BE USED FOR ADVERTISEMENTS, BAWWWW
***** capacity? HD-DVD's have a 30GB disc capacity, how the hell is that *****? It's 3x the disc capacity of current formats.
And Newsflash for you: http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2007/02/BH1.jpg
Why, what's this? HD-DVD, despite being so 'limited' to you, apparently has superior video quality, superior SD features, and superior HD features. Gee-golly-gosh Batman, what DOES Blu-ray best it in? Well, it's more expensive for one! But, atleast it has Audio...and space!
And since when do we need 50GB anyway? Don't we already have DVDs with "12 hours of extra footage!" in the standard size now? What, do you want 100 hours of extra footage in every disc that you're not going to watch? 30GB is more than enough space to be useful, and the integration and immersing features of the HD-DVD format blow Blu-Ray's extra space out of the water
"The current market" means the current people who are buying DVDs and buying into the entertainment industry, numbnuts, we're not developing technology for people who aren't alive yet.
I love the "compressed low-def *****" comment, because it shows you clear lack of knowledge of what the ***** you're talking about, considering the difference in video/audio quality between the two formats is near illegible, and the HD-DVD's accessibility for studios to provide HD and SD features is more advanced than Blu-Ray. How advanced your TV and audio set-up is, is more of a definitive factor in the quality experience you're getting as apposed to what disc you're using - jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8In other words, Bluray interactivity is no better than DVD? Checkout 300 or Heroes on HD DVD to see what true next-gen extras are about. PiP extra features are awesome, and Bluray can't do them, period.
- jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7And Sony hasn't learned from past mistakes, I am not surprised
- crackah, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16So ***** what?
Its business baby. - scottykempf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8How about...oh I dont know.....a machine that plays the movies you want to see, a really good picture at a decent price.
- whisperedlie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I can't tell if you are just anti-HD-DVD/pro-Blu-ray, or just bitching about HD formats in general. In general, yes, I agree that consumers are getting the ***** end of the stick regardless of which format they go with.
However, get your facts straight. BOTH are DRM'ed. While I would say that Blu-ray has the upper hand as a more utilitarian media when it comes to capacity (using it for storage), HD-DVD's smaller size doesn't directly affect the quality of the movie it may contain. Blu-ray and HD-DVD have the same codecs available to them, and one isn't necessarily more "compressed-into-oblivion" than the other. There is more than enough space on an HD-DVD disc to comfortably contain a movie of equal visual quality to Blu-ray.
I have both the HD-DVD player for my Xbox, and a PS3. I couldn't tell you the difference between Blu-ray and HD-DVD movies on my 46" LCD, and they both look damned good. I really don't give a flying ***** about whether or not you think I wasted my money. - vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8My dad's 8 year old DVD player won't play cds or burned DVDs.
Pity the early adopters. - jmdajr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Codecs will get better, so I will have to disagree.
- eviltandem, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6So your argument is that the people who only sell media, have some sort of motivation for the hardware? Are they making Paramount HDDVD players and I missed it? Were there Paramount DVR's that I missed? I see 2 companies here (Sony and Paramount). One wants to sell content, one wants to do both. Why should I trust anything the guy says who is trying to sell me on his particular format? Why should I trust him over the guy who is only trying to sell me media?
Paramount is in the business of selling content. Their motivations are simple: sell to as many people as possible, at the highest rate possible (ie make as much money as possible). How does limiting their offerings help them achieve this goal? The only reason I can see is in line with what they say. It's too much work for the reward. HDDVD is less work for them, and they see it as having acceptable reward.
Why would Paramount care who wins? - NeoTechni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yes, they will work on old players as they support firmware updates
- byronm, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14Can you explain yourself in what you mean "should have been included on disk". You're obviously talking out of your ass with no idea the capability at question here. HD DVD players have ethernet and 150 megs of persistent storage. The online access is to keep the movie "alive" and not on your shelf with enhancements you simply can't get by keeping it on disk.
Are you also trying to say single player video games shouldn't have online features? Are you going to stop supporting BluRay when BD 1.1 comes out with ethernet and a large persistent storage as well?
And as far as the money quote comes from, i don't buy that either. Perhaps toshiba is saying they will invest 150 mill in marketing, but the rumor of Microsoft assistance is pure rubbish. The microsoft consumer entertainment division is the same division that holds the 360 and they said they will be in the black this fiscal year - that is terribly hard to do if your tossing 150 million bucks to something that doesn't really matter. Microsoft developed the software that BOTH formats use for encoding & publishing and will make out either way. - Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5"Microsoft doesn't have 150 million to give out. You see the Xbox division is in the consumer entertainment division and Microsoft promised they would be in the black this year,"
That's your answer right there. Microsoft != Xbox division != Consumer entertainment division. They just sneezed out $1BN to pay for 360 repairs, and it didn't really cause any concern. There's plenty of money that can be slushed around to cover a piddling $150M expense. - sancho, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8I dugg you up, even though you were a little inflammatory. Your statements, in general, were dead on.
What people forget is that you can't apply standard scale to comparisons between DVD and HD-DVD/Bluray. HD-DVD video can be compressed with far superior codecs than DVD. The compression is better with no perceptible loss in quality. In other words, the same data encoded to the same quality standards using H.264 will require much less space than MPEG2. The space issue is almost completely irrelevant. - superkendall, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6If you'd compared real HD content with upscaled DVD, you'd know why that doesn't make any sense for a lot of titles.
- AllYourBase3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10I'd be happier if they finally just agreed on one format before I rebuy my dvd collection
- Araxen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Dugg for "Beta-Ray" comment
- CarolinaHeel23, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4and sony hasnt been buying people off?
- thebaron2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4It's not just that they have to actually code for BD either. The alarming thing in the article for me was that there are no standards for BD players - features available on Disc A when played through my BD player may not be available on YOUR BD player.
That sounds like a logistical nightmare. It'd be very costly to make the discs redundant enough that all features would be available on all players when there aren't any standards. - akkibaba, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5God damn it man, where did I mention Sony? I'm merely saying that corporations throw out a lot of spin, and we as consumers need to be vigilant. Get some help, you seem to have a persecution complex.
- aliguana, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If I buy a HD-DVD/Blu-ray, its going to be plugged into my TV, not the internet. No way I'm downloading "extra content", games, etc. Sorry, I buy a movie for the movie (directors cut/extra scenes a bonus). It'll end up being another Windows Media Player, you buy the disk then download the key to watch it. Oh, with added ads.
Thank god that you can rip it, remove the ads and other crap, and just have a nice HQ movie. Thats all I want, why can't the studios understand that? - Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5You could always just not plug it into the network...
- Wiseblood, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Actually believe it or not, connectivity is STILL not required with Blu-ray 1.1. Not until 2.0. The only announced 1.1 player so far is Denon's $2000 machine and it doesn't even have a network port.
- vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I would support HD-DVD for $105M.
I come cheap. - Tippis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It only makes sense, really... Unlike Blu-Ray, the chose not to go with region encoding (which has been proved beyond any doubt not to work), and instead go with a bit more dynamic solution that might conceivable kind of almost work against a small subset of cases.
If I were a DRM zealot, I'd probably choose "kind of works" over "never ever works, and I can prove it" any day... - Pirius, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"i'm wondering why Sony wasn't part of the ring of companies that developed HD-DVD...Why did they decide to go and make proprietary format which just happens to be PS3's disk format?"
Blu-ray was supported by more manufacturers and studios from the beginning, and still is today. The question is, why did Toshiba decide to go and make a proprietary format? -
Show 51 - 100 of 252 discussions
