Quote
Originally posted by: ShreddersDojo
In the begining, I was all for Blue-Ray support because of the bigger storage...but when you think about it, who would want a 50GB Coaster disc to fail, let alone need that much storage? I also finally saw King Kong on HDDVD....even on an analog input it looked GREAT. I am now leaning toward the HD-DVD camp...but will give blue-ray it's chance when players hit the $299 mark...
Same here. I thought, logically, bigger=better. So I was hoping for Blu-Ray at first (that's without an E, just because we don't like it doesn't mean we shouldn't properly spell it). But I liked the name HD-DVD better.
There's no such thing as too big (in a few years terabytes will be the norm and before you know it, even a 100 GB disc isn't enough). But since the Blu-Ray is so closely associated with the garbage that is the PS3, and that for now no one can truly tell much difference between a Blu-Ray movie and an HD-DVD movie, and we aren't yet in despearate need for 50 GB discs, I say Blu-Ray can go ahead and bomb just like Sony's other failed formats.
I'm wondering, though. Despite the fact that the PS3 isn't selling as well as Sony hoped, it is still quite a boost, of just as many more Blu-Ray players thrust into the market. (If people in general aren't ready to make the switch to the next generation of discs, then there's no reason to believe that people will be buying up HD-DVD players just because they don't want a PS3.) So in that regard, isn't Blu-Ray now quite more popular (as in, in more homes) than HD-DVD, even if it is "by default"? A "victory" for Sony, even if the PS3s are struggling to sell?