Post by: Smash_Brother on June 05, 2006, 10:55:47 AM
So far, they've:
1. Bet all the marbles on Blu-Ray as a media format when it's likely to fail
If you don't know, Sony has had 3 failed media formats in the past (Betamax, Minidisc and UMD). Blu-Ray will be their forth attempt to push a proprietary media format into the world and collect "phat lewtz" off of licensing fees. Problem is, HD-DVD is being supported by far more powerful studios, such as Universal and Time Warner, who intend to do everything they can to stamp out Blu-Ray like a misfired bottle rocket. These studios intend to release such giant movies as Lord of the Rings and King Kong in HD on the same day Sony releases Blu-Ray players. Now, they're trying to launch BR players at around $900. If you don't remember, VHS killed Betamax for one reason: because it was CHEAPER. If Sony truly wants to push BR as a format, they need to make it affordable to everyone and they are doing the exact opposite.
2. Severely overestimated the selling power of the Playstation name
It has long been true that PS is the most profitable venue for Sony. Only trouble is, this has very little to do with Sony's own efforts but is instead thanks to the efforts of 3rd party developers who brought games with large fanbases (Final Fantasy) or huge controversy (GTA) to their console.
In this coming gen, Sony doesn't have the year-long lead on its competition, nor does it have the necessary 3rd party support to push PS3s. With the 360 sharing over 50% of its titles already, reasons to buy a PS3 can be counted on one hand (mainly, MGS4 and FF13).
3. Overpriced the PS3 by a long-shot
Many were shocked when Kutaragi (or whoever it was) insisted with a straight face that, at $600, the PS3 was "too cheap". The truth is, the people at Sony might actually BELIEVE this because, in Sony's eyes, the PS3 is both the successor to it's Playstation line AND a "cheap" Blu-Ray player.
Problem is, I've seen little evidence that consumers will want EITHER, with HDDVD appealing at a lower pricetag and with more popular movies and more movies in general and with the PS3 having few "killer apps", the logic that people will pay $600 because they want both a PS3 and a Blu-Ray player rapidly evaporates.
4. Tried to make a media format succeed via piggybacking it on another product, likely dooming both
The PS3 is Sony's only hope for Blu-Ray and thus, it was their decision to push the PS3 out into the world as a combo unit much like they did with the PS2. The DVD playback on PS2 was highly successful in pushing the console as a cheaper alternative to current DVD players, which were as expensive if not more so.
This would work again with the PS3...were it not being saddled with Sony's proprietary media instead of the format which will very likely be the dominant next generation media format.
As near as I can tell, Sony is setting themselves up for a huge failure. Every Sony fanboy I know has actually come out and repented because they too are appalled at what Sony is doing as of late. If the PS3 was going to launch with its premium package at a competitive $300-400, then I could definitely see them as a contender and as a valid vessel which might carry Blu-Ray into the realm of success.
But at $600, the PS3 becomes a luxury item, and with Nintendo and MS on the gaming front and Universal and Time Warner on the movie front, Sony is being attacked from both sides and their only hope for survival, the PS3, is so badly overpriced that even Sony's fanbase is abandoning them.
Unless Sony decides to drop the price, likely taking an even bigger loss on every console sold, then I cannot see them having any degree of success in the coming console war. If the PSP is any indication, Sony products are PERFECTLY capable of failing, most likely because of the $250 price tag and proprietary media format for movies which makes the console pale in comparison to portable DVD players which can go for as little as $70 and will use existing DVDs which the customer already owns.
So, in a nutshell, I think that Sony can either drop the price of the PS3 or they're royally f*cked. I wouldn't be surprised if MGS4 and FF13 were quickly announced as coming to other consoles shortly after being released on the PS3 due to very poor sales, leaving Sony with little to nothing to speak of in terms of exclusive titles.
MS has already made it blatantly clear that they intend to attack Sony full on this gen, having laid claim to many titles which would have otherwise been PS3 exclusive. With the Wii coming in as a seriously strong contender, Sony will have to convince players somehow that, despite the fact that its competitors are cheaper and offering similar game libraries to the PS3, the PS3 is worth paying $600 for.
Frankly, I don't see it happening.
Post by: Frozen Atlantic on June 05, 2006, 10:58:02 AM
When's the next NR episode, dude?
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 05, 2006, 11:11:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Frozen Atlantic When's the next NR episode, dude?
Soon.
I've been too busy to record one for far too long. Had a wedding to go to this past week and a whole bunch of other stuff in the way.
Post by: Arbok on June 05, 2006, 11:30:14 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 05, 2006, 11:44:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok
Some good points I must say, although personally I don't see HD-DVD or Blue Ray taking off in any large way, with the best either of them could hope for being a reception similar to that of Laserdisc during the VHS era.
Yeah, I can see that, but in terms of support, HDDVD has MUCH more backing than BR any day of the week.
I forgot to mention that HDDVD and Blu-Ray are competing for a market which is likely to be shrinking and dying off soon in lieu of online media distribution. You download the movie for a fee online, burn it to your OWN HDDVD and keep it forever that way.
But this is what's killing Sony in the here and now, whereas that is an issue which they'll likely encounter further down the road.
Post by: JonLeung on June 05, 2006, 11:49:03 AM
Now Sony with their PS3 is trying to sell an all-new unproven format in the face of another...that's going to be a tough sell. And people won't be in a hurry to adopt it, as most people are content with DVDs. As far as I know, HD-DVDs and Blu-Rays are just like DVDs - just with more space...so there won't be new content, just more of it at higher quality. It's not like the switch from VHS to DVD...menus and elimination of rewinding, etc....
And the games. Sheesh.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 05, 2006, 11:59:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
The thing is, DVDs were already around for a few years before the PS2 was launched...I think PS2s gave DVDs a decent push but I think it was already on its way to being a standard beforehand. Though I could be wrong. Blu-Ray is clearly another story, though.
Yeah, I didn't mention that because both HDDVD and Blu-Ray face that same hurdle, just that, if either format succeeds, it'll very likely be HDDVD.
Post by: Arbok on June 05, 2006, 12:18:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I forgot to mention that HDDVD and Blu-Ray are competing for a market which is likely to be shrinking and dying off soon in lieu of online media distribution. You download the movie for a fee online, burn it to your OWN HDDVD and keep it forever that way.
I highly doubt that. It sounds like the same logic that was being tossed around before the dot com bust, when everyone thought that traditional stores would be dead within years as everyone would order online... seems people forget that most consumers like to buy tangible things, and prefer holding the item themself before forking over cash for it in most cases.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on June 05, 2006, 12:30:32 PM
Now, Blur-Ayd-Isc via PS3 is aiming to provide a jump over DVD. It already fails on the "physical media" front, cuz it's just another disc. It also fails on the "compatibility" front, because the advantages of BRD are only apparent when you've got the hundreds-to-thousands of $$$ of audio components with an HD monitor to play it on.
Pushing the format and a game system at the same time, with a hybrid outrageous price, will make one of the two suffer; at worst (or best =D ) both will suffer.
Post by: ThePerm on June 05, 2006, 01:21:22 PM
Post by: Louieturkey on June 05, 2006, 02:18:16 PM
No studio has any thought of releasing HD quality content online at this point. They are way too afraid of piracy to do this. Only dvd quality is being offered and most of these downloads have many more restrictions than dvd ever had, let alone none of them being HD like Bluray.
The rest of the arguments I can agree with on some level, but these two are blatantly wrong.
ThePerm: I'm hoping you are being sarcastic here. HD-DVD and Bluray cases are exactly the same, except one is red and the other blue. It's the new 2.0 version of Red vs. Blue I guess. :P
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 05, 2006, 02:30:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok I highly doubt that. It sounds like the same logic that was being tossed around before the dot com bust, when everyone thought that traditional stores would be dead within years as everyone would order online... seems people forget that most consumers like to buy tangible things, and prefer holding the item themself before forking over cash for it in most cases.
This is ALREADY happening via Digital Cable which allows you to "rent" movies from their servers and record them with a DVR as you watch them. Even my 50+ year old parents figured out how to do this so it ain't that hard.
It's already happening, just like mp3s. The real question is who will be the first to make it legal and start officially selling movies over Digital Cable.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 05, 2006, 02:42:38 PM
Star Wars? Are you kidding me? It took Lucas years to release Star Wars on DVD and then a few years more to release the original cuts. You ain't going to see Star Wars on either of these new formats any time soon.
I think the point is moot anyway. The general public is quite satisfied with DVDs and isn't going to abandon a format so soon. It took years for VHS to be replaced and it wasn't until there was a huge jump in picture quality on standard run-of-the-mill TVs. I can go to Wal-Mart and buy the cheapest TV there and the difference between VHS and DVD is still blatantly noticable. I can't do that with HD-DVD or Bluray and I think that pretty much dooms the chances of either format taking over anytime soon.
Even if Bluray takes off it's FAR too early for Sony to gain an advantage by having it with the PS3. When the PS2 came out DVDs were already accepted. Stores were full of them and the general idea was that that was the new standard, a lot of us just hadn't upgraded yet. In comparison I've never seen a physical Bluray disc in my life and only saw an HD-DVD for the first time yesterday. The situation now and the situation in 2000 aren't even comparible.
Post by: ThePerm on June 05, 2006, 03:02:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Louieturkey
ThePerm: I'm hoping you are being sarcastic here. HD-DVD and Bluray cases are exactly the same, except one is red and the other blue. It's the new 2.0 version of Red vs. Blue I guess. :P
actually little things like boxart can go a long way towards a purchase. People judge books by their covers i guess.
Post by: Louieturkey on June 05, 2006, 03:36:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ThePermQuote
Originally posted by: Louieturkey
ThePerm: I'm hoping you are being sarcastic here. HD-DVD and Bluray cases are exactly the same, except one is red and the other blue. It's the new 2.0 version of Red vs. Blue I guess. :P
actually little things like boxart can go a long way towards a purchase. People judge books by their covers i guess.
That is true. But in this case, it's a choice between two colors. That is all. Each side has exactly the same dimensions, same exact look and same exact verbage.
Post by: capamerica on June 05, 2006, 03:51:50 PM
Also IF WB was actually supporting Blu-Ray why would they combat the release of the Blu-Ray player and first wave of Blu-Ray movies with the release of Lord of the Rings and King Kong? Don't you think they would want Blu-Ray to take off? Also neither WB and Paramount have plans to release any movies in the first wave of Blu-Ray movies, strange since they have all those HD-DVD movies already in HD format all they would have to do is burn them to Blu-Ray discs.
What you are see is just smoke and mirrors done by the Blu-Ray group to make you think Blu-Ray has more support then it really does. Its a classic trick done by Sony. Just look at what they have done with the PSP. No Sale Figures, just Shipped figures. Flooding the PSP section with movies to make up for the lack of games. You would believe that the PSP has a lot of support listing to Sony and then looking at the PSP section at your local BestBuy or Wal-Mart.
For a sec lets look at a nice quote from them:
Quote
The Blu-ray format has received broad support from the major movie studios as a successor to today's DVD format. Seven of the eight major movie studios (Warner, Paramount, Fox, Disney, Sony, MGM and Lionsgate) have already announced titles for Blu-ray, whereas HD-DVD only has support from three major movie studios (Warner, Paramount and Universal)
First: Sony OWNS MGM so what choice do they have? They added MGM to the list just to make it look like they have more support then they really do. They might as well add Columbia TriStar Pictures, United Artists and GSN.
Second: Disney has announced that they will be supporting both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, yet they make it sound like Disney will not be. According to Variety.com, Bob Iger said during the firm's annual meeting with shareholders that they will be supporting both formats.
Third: Sony and Lionsgate are the only two studios that have actually announced any real content for Blu-Ray and have actual release dates. Studios can do all the talking they want about movies coming to different formats but until you see them they are just vaporware.
Also one other thing, Just because FOX is supporting Blu-Ray does NOT mean that StarWars will show up on Blu-Ray. George Lucas owns the StarWars movies and will decide where they go. And last I knew he was more supportive of HD-DVD then Blu-Ray. But has stated that StarWars will not show up on either format until both formats have matured. So we won't know which format StarWars will show up on untill 2009/2010.
The whole Blu-Ray/HD-DVD thing is very messy and unless you spend hours apond hours reading evey signal press release your never going to get the whole picture. I recomend just holding off until all the dust settles in a year or two and see where your favioret movies are then, there is no reason to jump on the next-gen video format on day one when your old DVDs are still alive and kicking. Or do what I'm doing and hold out for the next format which will most likely be announced some time next year. Holo-Discs here I come!
One other thing. The whole Format war is going to fail just due to the fact that no one is going to know which format their favioret movies are on. And no one is going to want to own two players to watch movies they already own on DVD.
Post by: SixthAngel on June 05, 2006, 03:54:20 PM
To the average joe HDDVD sounds like the natural choice
I would say DVD was the standard when the ps2 came out. The playstation was a deal because people were already planning on buying a DVD player and there was no talk of any other player. I don't even know if DVD actually had competition. Unlike then has anyone who is not on videogame sites even heard of bluray?
Post by: Arbok on June 05, 2006, 04:09:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
It's already happening, just like mp3s. The real question is who will be the first to make it legal and start officially selling movies over Digital Cable.
Exactly, but last time I checked stores were still stocked full of CDs. Just because online retail of something is viable, doesn't mean it will stomp out the old means. MP3s are the best example, and considering how much easier it is to transfer those over full length films do you really think they will kill the DVD market when MP3s have yet to do that to CDs?
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Star Wars? Are you kidding me? It took Lucas years to release Star Wars on DVD and then a few years more to release the original cuts. You ain't going to see Star Wars on either of these new formats any time soon.
My thoughts exactly. Lucas was not quick to jump onto DVD for the original films, and he sure won't be with HDDVD or Blu-Ray considering that you have two different formats fighting it out.
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
Even if Bluray takes off it's FAR too early for Sony to gain an advantage by having it with the PS3.
I think what we are seeing here is that Sony is so desperate to claim a popular media format for themself that they are willing to jeopordize the Playstation brand name if needed just to win the war with Toshiba.
Post by: capamerica on June 05, 2006, 04:17:33 PM
I also remeber bitching up a storm with my friends when the Dreamcast launched and it didn't have a DVD player. I just felt at the time it would have been a very smart move to suport DVDs. Sony was going to do it, the movies were fairly cheap, I think they were only like $10 more then the VHS versions and they had all these new features that we had never seen before with VHS.
DVD first hit the market in 1996 and it wasn't untill 1999 that they started showing up in Wal-Mart. The PS2 showed up in 2000.
Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are not having the same effect as DVD, besides a better picture what else do they bring to the table?
Post by: ThePerm on June 05, 2006, 04:38:16 PM
Post by: Arbok on June 05, 2006, 04:57:20 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
DVD was the standard when the PS2 came out, Infact DVD players were coming down in price at that point cause I remeber getting a DVD player for xmas the same year X-Men came out on DVD which if I'm not mistaken was the same year the PS2 hit the market.
DVDs became standard relatively quick. I bought a new PC in 1998, and it came with a DVD drive and was fairly inexpensive considering and that was when the tech was first gaining mainstream appeal. The draw for me was getting to watch these films in different languages (a huge plus for a fan of Japanese cinema) and in widescreen.
Like others have mentioned, these new formats only real draw is better picutre, which takes a more expensive TV set to even enjoy, and a larger medium to fit things on.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on June 05, 2006, 07:46:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
With all the Playstation brand name talk I haven't seen anyone mention of the DVD brandname unless I missed it.
To the average joe HDDVD sounds like the natural choice
I would say DVD was the standard when the ps2 came out. The playstation was a deal because people were already planning on buying a DVD player and there was no talk of any other player. I don't even know if DVD actually had competition. Unlike then has anyone who is not on videogame sites even heard of bluray?
That has been one of my points when it comes to the war, HDDVD does sound like the best choice for a consumer since they are familiar with DVD players. If you tell someone that MS has an HD-DVD player people may wonder what the HD stands for and that will be it, but tell them "Blu-ray" they will have no idea what it is. Chances are you are going to say that it is a HD DVD player in the long run.
Post by: Grant10k on June 05, 2006, 07:55:53 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
With all the Playstation brand name talk I haven't seen anyone mention of the DVD brandname unless I missed it.
To the average joe HDDVD sounds like the natural choice
I would say DVD was the standard when the ps2 came out. The playstation was a deal because people were already planning on buying a DVD player and there was no talk of any other player. I don't even know if DVD actually had competition. Unlike then has anyone who is not on videogame sites even heard of bluray?
I think that someone was developing competition for DVD's but didn't want a format war so they backed down. If you look at the logo for SD cards (memory cards) you'll notice that the 'D' in SD looks much more like a disk than a square. It's my understanding that that would have been the logo for the competing format but they recycled it into SD cards.
Post by: Louieturkey on June 05, 2006, 08:04:59 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
WB and Paramount support for Blu-Ray can be very misleading. All they did was cover their butts incase HD-DVD tanked. Hell even Microsoft did the same thing with Blu-Ray when they joined the Blu-Ray board. They just wanted a fall back plan incase HD-DVD failed and Blu-Ray did take off. If you were unaware WB and Paramount has not shown any relay support for the Blu-Ray format all they did was say we might release these movies to Blu-Ray. Until you hear them actually come out and say yes we are going to be releasing these movies to Blu-Ray don't count them on that side, Again Even Microsoft said that there MIGHT be a Blu-Ray add-on for the Xbox360. Might is a powerful word you can say it all you want and its easy to use with out really committing.
Second: Disney has announced that they will be supporting both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, yet they make it sound like Disney will not be. According to Variety.com, Bob Iger said during the firm's annual meeting with shareholders that they will be supporting both formats.
You don't need to spin like this. You say one thing about WB and Paramount, yet say something completely different about Disney. Yet Disney announced Bluray discs at CES, but have not announced any HDDVD titles. WB on the other hand, has stated they are going to release Goblet of Fire on Bluray along with others, just they are supporting HDDVD first and the Bluray discs come either late this year or sometime next year. Here's a list of currently announced Bluray titles.
Quote
First: Sony OWNS MGM so what choice do they have? They added MGM to the list just to make it look like they have more support then they really do. They might as well add Columbia TriStar Pictures, United Artists and GSN.
Actually they just were distributing the discs and now they do not do this. 20th Century Fox is taking over this duty. Check digitalbits.com for more info.
Post by: capamerica on June 05, 2006, 09:12:27 PM
based on that list looks like WB has missed their release dates for Blu-Ray movies. Maybe they are holding off until the first consumer Blu-Ray player hits the market, who knows, we'll have to wait and see. I just know that WB has announced that when Blu-Ray hits the market that they will be releasing Lord of the Rings and King Kong on HD-DVD, which to me at least doesn't sound like something a company who supports both formats would do.
Sony bought MGM back in September 2004 for $5 billion. Sony and MGM are one in the same. Their is no arguing it.
I like how that site you linked lists WB and Paramount as "TBA (considered likely based on CES HD-DVD announcements in January 2005)" Also nothing really announced but they assume that it will be the same as HD-DVD.
I'm amused that they have not update Disney to say "Expected to support HD-DVD, but no announced titles at this time."
I wouldn't hold your breath on much if any support form WB and Paramount when it comes to Blu-Ray.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 06, 2006, 01:17:02 AM
We don't know for sure until the generation is well in progress and the PS3 failing. For all we know the public is a bunch of gullible idiots that will gobble up everything Sony is throwing their way. This will really test the old saying "noone ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the buying public" (yes I know that was worded slightly different).
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 06, 2006, 08:00:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k We don't know for sure until the generation is well in progress and the PS3 failing. For all we know the public is a bunch of gullible idiots that will gobble up everything Sony is throwing their way. This will really test the old saying "noone ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the buying public" (yes I know that was worded slightly different).
I largely mean in conjunction with the $600 price tag as I know for a fact that that is stopping even the most dedicated fans in many cases.
Like I said, if Sony dropped the price to $300-400, they could still be a contender in this war. As of now, I just don't see that happening as even the very dumbest of customers tend to not have $600 in spending cash just lying about.
Post by: Arbok on June 06, 2006, 09:27:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: capamerica
Sony bought MGM back in September 2004 for $5 billion. Sony and MGM are one in the same. Their is no arguing it.
They bought a commanding share size, they didn't buy the company, which is why Fox is now releasing their films on home video and Sony is taking up the theatrical releases (place it in line with what happened to Square before the Enix merge if it helps).
EDIT:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-05-31#film1
Post by: couchmonkey on June 06, 2006, 11:32:19 AM
Quote
In this coming gen, Sony doesn't have the year-long lead on its competition, nor does it have the necessary 3rd party support to push PS3s. With the 360 sharing over 50% of its titles already, reasons to buy a PS3 can be counted on one hand (mainly, MGS4 and FF13).
I disagree on this, you're admitting up front that Sony has got MGS and Final Fantasy, and chances are good that Sony will have DragonQuest, Devil May Cry, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Ridge Racer, and a vast majority of Japanese RPGs on its side as well. Some of those may change if PS3 is a huge failure, but up front I think a lot of publishers will support PS3 just because Sony is the incumbent. Especially in Japan where PS2 leads by a huge margin, and Xbox 360 has proven to be even less popular than the original.
Quote
3. Overpriced the PS3 by a long-shot
Many were shocked when Kutaragi (or whoever it was) insisted with a straight face that, at $600, the PS3 was "too cheap". The truth is, the people at Sony might actually BELIEVE this because, in Sony's eyes, the PS3 is both the successor to it's Playstation line AND a "cheap" Blu-Ray player.
I agree Sony's attitude about pricing is arrogant, but I'm not convinced the price is going to kill the system by any means. Looking at other consumer electronics when they were new: iPod, Video Cameras, HDTVs, Digital Cameras, DVD, DVD R, I think iPod is the only one that might have been cheaper than the PS3 - and it was still "up there", at least in Canada they were running $400 two years ago.
Sony will sell out at launch, I'm quite sure. Look at what people were paying for Xbox 360 on Ebay last Christmas. And as crazy as that was, I vaguely remember PS2 going for even more, maybe as much as $2000 US. After launch fever wears off and the holidays pass, I think Sony's sales will cool off due to the price, but key game releases (Final Fantasy and MGS) will probably reignite it. I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd have a hard time resisting the latest Zelda and Mario games, even if the system was going to cost me $600.
The Blu-Ray playback is interesting...I think it might take off in the end, but Sony is going to have a hard time. Looking at UMDs, they didn't sell and now some publishers are backing out. The same thing could very easily happen to PS3, especially early on when few people will have HDTVs. The device is not a bad deal if you want it for Blu-Ray playback, for sure, but does anyone want it for that? Blu-Ray is a double-edged sword. The price it adds could crush Sony, the benefit it adds could save it. Who knows? I am leaning towards hurting more than helping.
Post by: Louieturkey on June 06, 2006, 06:39:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkeyQuote
The Blu-Ray playback is interesting...I think it might take off in the end, but Sony is going to have a hard time. Looking at UMDs, they didn't sell and now some publishers are backing out. The same thing could very easily happen to PS3, especially early on when few people will have HDTVs. The device is not a bad deal if you want it for Blu-Ray playback, for sure, but does anyone want it for that? Blu-Ray is a double-edged sword. The price it adds could crush Sony, the benefit it adds could save it. Who knows? I am leaning towards hurting more than helping.
Actually, you really can't look at the UMD format as a parallel at all because the PSP is the
only hardware to support it. Bluray will be getting a bunch of standalone players dedicated to it only. In fact, Pioneer is expecting to completely move away from selling its high end elite dvd players and only sell Bluray with that label. Bluray will get a lot more support as well. Sony is trying to take over dvd as the main stay in home video, they will push the format a lot harder than they did with UMD.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 06, 2006, 07:33:16 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey
I disagree on this, you're admitting up front that Sony has got MGS and Final Fantasy, and chances are good that Sony will have DragonQuest, Devil May Cry, Tekken, Virtua Fighter, Ridge Racer, and a vast majority of Japanese RPGs on its side as well. Some of those may change if PS3 is a huge failure, but up front I think a lot of publishers will support PS3 just because Sony is the incumbent. Especially in Japan where PS2 leads by a huge margin, and Xbox 360 has proven to be even less popular than the original.
Thing is, I'll take "actually confirmed" over "chances are" any day, like how the Wii has Dragon Quest and FF:CC CONFIRMED on the system, both with launch dates, if I'm not mistaken.
Besides, if these other games (potential killer apps that they are) were actually in development, why did Sony not show them at E3 but instead gave a wholly lackluster E3 keynote?
I think Nintendo has Japan in the bag. If the DS vs. PSP fight showed us anything (especially in Japan), it's that the Sony brand name doesn't make up for a lack of games and a horrible price. I give Japan to Nintendo unless Sony pulls a lower price and a pile of exclusives out of their arse. FF and MGS aren't launch titles, either, which leaves the launch looking pretty goddamn awful.
Also, one of the main reasons people cite the Xbox as having failed in Japan is that it's huge in a country where space is hard to come by and is considered a valuable commodity. The iPod is also an American product and yet the Japanese friggin' love the thing.
For as big as the Xbox was, the PS3 will be even bigger. The Wii will be tiny and convenient. That, and the Wii will supposedly launch in Japan with a Dragon Quest game, the same franchise which the government demanded that it only have games released on weekends because far too many people would skip school and work to go buy the game otherwise.
Like I said, I think Nintendo has Japan in the BAG.
Quote
I agree Sony's attitude about pricing is arrogant, but I'm not convinced the price is going to kill the system by any means. Looking at other consumer electronics when they were new: iPod, Video Cameras, HDTVs, Digital Cameras, DVD, DVD R, I think iPod is the only one that might have been cheaper than the PS3 - and it was still "up there", at least in Canada they were running $400 two years ago.
I think you're comparing apples to oranges. The iPod didn't have competition in that other mp3 players could play a different set of songs. Entertainment mediums are different in that they have exclusive titles and those are what make or break the system. The PS2 did so incredibly well because it had these big and often controversial games which made it sell. At the beginning of the new gen, everyone starts from zero. A lot of the exclusive titles which made the PS2 will be on other consoles and will not be a reason to own a PS3.
Quote
Sony will sell out at launch, I'm quite sure. Look at what people were paying for Xbox 360 on Ebay last Christmas. And as crazy as that was, I vaguely remember PS2 going for even more, maybe as much as $2000 US. After launch fever wears off and the holidays pass, I think Sony's sales will cool off due to the price, but key game releases (Final Fantasy and MGS) will probably reignite it. I know that if the shoe was on the other foot, I'd have a hard time resisting the latest Zelda and Mario games, even if the system was going to cost me $600.
They'll sell out because they'll pull the same crap as they did with the PSP: ship an inadequate amount of units and then declare that it's sold out, and then maybe buy back their own stock, like I suspect they're doing with the PSP. It sounds crazy, but if they've really sold more than 10 million units and almost less than that in software, something is amiss.
You'll always have the hardcore early adopters, but I think that, by the time MGS4 and FF13 have launch dates, the PS3's failure will very likely be apparent and it might be time for Square and Konami to consider porting those games elsewhere.
Quote
The Blu-Ray playback is interesting...I think it might take off in the end, but Sony is going to have a hard time. Looking at UMDs, they didn't sell and now some publishers are backing out. The same thing could very easily happen to PS3, especially early on when few people will have HDTVs. The device is not a bad deal if you want it for Blu-Ray playback, for sure, but does anyone want it for that? Blu-Ray is a double-edged sword. The price it adds could crush Sony, the benefit it adds could save it. Who knows? I am leaning towards hurting more than helping.
I'm leaning toward hurting as well, since, like many have said here, the whole HDDVD vs. BluRay might very well be a war which is being fought over a VERY small piece of the pie. DVDs brought many advantages over VHS, including DRASTICALLY better picture on your existing TV. HDVD and BR are likely fighting for a market which won't even exist for another 5-7 years when HDTVs have become a real standard.
I think Sony should release a version of the PS3 for $300 which has no BluRay playback, or scrap whatever it is which is making the system so expensive. The price point will make a great amount of difference in this coming console war, and I expect people will simply pass on the console and its exclusives when the price is $500.
There are different levels of fandom. Yes, there are the people who will buy whatever console has their favorite franchise for whatever price, but there are far, far more people who would like to play a specific game but aren't willing to shell out $500 to play it.
If anything, Sony's plan is the exact opposite of Nintendo's: appeal ONLY to the hardcore via hardcore franchises and make the system VERY unattractive to non-gamers.
Post by: Jin-X on June 06, 2006, 07:38:38 PM
Digital distribution of movies won't take over as the main distribution of movies, it will have it's mostly niche market.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 06, 2006, 08:05:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X
The download comparisons of movies to music are completely useless, music is like 5MBs or less per song (at a lower quality than CDs), movies are huge files. A 2 disc set would be like 17+ GBs (2 dual-layered discs), and if you compress it to make it smaller I'll give a huge Go F yourself if you're gonna reduce the picture quality. Dual-layered HD-DVDs are 30 GBs, so how the hell are you gonna download a full High-Def movie? Where are you gonna store it, and all those bunch of movies? What happens if your terabyte drive that you will need for this crashes? And you're crazy think that downloading movies to then be burned on a disc will be mainstream as opposed to just buying it and putting it on the player.
It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but it'll definitely happen some day.
As digital rights distribution continues to get better, publishers will jump on the notion of being able to sell movies without having to spend millions on packaging and printing of discs.
Internet connections are getting faster all the time as well. In many cities, you can get fiber connections (link) and those will allow a 17 GB DVD data file to be downloaded in roughly 25 minutes: that's less time than it'll take you to go to the store to buy/rent a DVD.
Or, you could rent it using digital cable and burn it using a DVR like my parents do, and they're over 50. If senior citizens can figure out how to steal movies with this system, then I'm quite certain that the rest of the world can do it as well.
Post by: couchmonkey on June 07, 2006, 09:11:04 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Louieturkey
Actually, you really can't look at the UMD format as a parallel at all because the PSP is the only hardware to support it. Bluray will be getting a bunch of standalone players dedicated to it only.
You're right that it's not the same situation as UMD, but my point is still valid: Bluray could fail or it could take several years for it to become popular. If that's the case, then you can't justify a PS3 purchase with, "It plays Bluray". Sony may push the format harder than UMD, but if people really don't want it, that won't help.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
Thing is, I'll take "actually confirmed" over "chances are" any day, like how the Wii has Dragon Quest and FF:CC CONFIRMED on the system, both with launch dates, if I'm not mistaken.
But if they both turn out to be so-so spin-offs, like the original Crystal Chronicles, then nobody will care. Dragon Quest Yangus sold moderately well in Japan, but it was nowhere near Dragon Quest VIII sales. SquareEnix still seems to be reserving the "real" games in each series for Sony. I might be wrong when it comes to Dragon Quest, but we already know this to be true for Final Fantasy.
Quote
I think Nintendo has Japan in the bag. If the DS vs. PSP fight showed us anything (especially in Japan), it's that the Sony brand name doesn't make up for a lack of games and a horrible price.
DS vs, PSP...Nintendo has been the leader in handhelds for years, it's not exactly the same, but you're right about lack of games and a bad price. I think Nintendo will do very well in Japan, but Sony will remain competitive. Unless Nintendo can make Wii the only system anybody wants to own over there, I think PS3 could become the "luxury" system, with people buying both in many cases. I don't consider Xbox 360 a factor. It could turn around, but it's off to such a horrible start, it has no momentum.
Quote
Entertainment mediums are different in that they have exclusive titles and those are what make or break the system. The PS2 did so incredibly well because it had these big and often controversial games which made it sell. At the beginning of the new gen, everyone starts from zero. A lot of the exclusive titles which made the PS2 will be on other consoles and will not be a reason to own a PS3.
I remember thinking similar things at the beginning of the previous generation. Resident Evil went to Nintendo, Odddworld and Metal Gear went to Microsoft, Crash, Spyro and Tomb Raider went everywhere...and it didn't hurt Sony one bit. Losing Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest would be a bigger blow, and the fact that Grand Theft Auto is no longer exclusive has to hurt Sony, but Sony came back from those previous losses with hardly any trouble at all. PS2 also got away with a horrible launch lineup, but I'll admit it had only Sega for competition.
I still don't think the price is a huge deal, if the games are there. Of course, they aren't yet, which is a problem. I think PS3's success depends a lot on what games it gets out in the next year. I'm working under the assumption that MGS and FF will come out in 2007. If that's wrong, then yes, Sony is in a lot of trouble.
Post by: Kairon on June 07, 2006, 09:28:10 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 07, 2006, 10:42:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey I still don't think the price is a huge deal, if the games are there. Of course, they aren't yet, which is a problem. I think PS3's success depends a lot on what games it gets out in the next year. I'm working under the assumption that MGS and FF will come out in 2007. If that's wrong, then yes, Sony is in a lot of trouble.
I see the same combination as the PSP in the PS3: media format no one wants or needs, few worthwhile games and even worthwhile games don't sell many systems (ala GTA: Liberty City Stories), overpriced, better hardware than the competition, too damn big, lost to a system with inferior graphics but more innovation and different control scheme, etc.
Even a MGS game at launch or near launch didn't save the PSP (Acid). I think if it's horribly overpriced and has only a few gems for games, it won't do well, and I know this because the PSP is a prime example of it.
Post by: capamerica on June 07, 2006, 01:26:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ArbokQuote
Originally posted by: capamerica
Sony bought MGM back in September 2004 for $5 billion. Sony and MGM are one in the same. Their is no arguing it.
They bought a commanding share size, they didn't buy the company, which is why Fox is now releasing their films on home video and Sony is taking up the theatrical releases (place it in line with what happened to Square before the Enix merge if it helps).
EDIT:
http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/2006-05-31#film1
Sony didn't own Sqaure, they just had a large stock holding in them. MGM on the other hand they partly own.
"MGM is owned by an investor consortium comprised of Sony Corporation of America, Providence Equity Partners, Texas Pacific Group, Comcast Corporation and DLJ Merchant Banking Partners."
-MGM.com
http://www.mgm.com/corp_news_releases.do?id=426
Post by: Jin-X on June 07, 2006, 03:08:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Jin-X
The download comparisons of movies to music are completely useless, music is like 5MBs or less per song (at a lower quality than CDs), movies are huge files. A 2 disc set would be like 17+ GBs (2 dual-layered discs), and if you compress it to make it smaller I'll give a huge Go F yourself if you're gonna reduce the picture quality. Dual-layered HD-DVDs are 30 GBs, so how the hell are you gonna download a full High-Def movie? Where are you gonna store it, and all those bunch of movies? What happens if your terabyte drive that you will need for this crashes? And you're crazy think that downloading movies to then be burned on a disc will be mainstream as opposed to just buying it and putting it on the player.
It isn't going to happen tomorrow, but it'll definitely happen some day.
As digital rights distribution continues to get better, publishers will jump on the notion of being able to sell movies without having to spend millions on packaging and printing of discs.
Internet connections are getting faster all the time as well. In many cities, you can get fiber connections (link) and those will allow a 17 GB DVD data file to be downloaded in roughly 25 minutes: that's less time than it'll take you to go to the store to buy/rent a DVD.
Or, you could rent it using digital cable and burn it using a DVR like my parents do, and they're over 50. If senior citizens can figure out how to steal movies with this system, then I'm quite certain that the rest of the world can do it as well.
You still haven't provided where are you gonna store a ton of movies and the fact that storing movies from cable comes nowhere near the quality of current DVDs and HD-DVDs. Cable and Satellite shows are heavily compressed for space and usually "formatted to fit your screen".
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 07, 2006, 07:30:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X You still haven't provided where are you gonna store a ton of movies and the fact that storing movies from cable comes nowhere near the quality of current DVDs and HD-DVDs. Cable and Satellite shows are heavily compressed for space and usually "formatted to fit your screen".
They can be burned to DVDs and stored that way, just like my 'rents do it, and I have news for you: Digital Cable quality is identical to DVD, especially if it's HDDVD movies (which are already supported by some networks and will be supported by Digital Cable at some point).
And for computer storage, what about a 300 GB HD for $180, included in an external dual USB AND Ethernet enclosure? (I think I just found my Wii memory card...).
Five years ago, someone would have said, "How are you going to store your entire music collection on a HD when HDs are so small and mp3 quality is so bad?"
Now, we have HDs which can store literally MONTHS worth of music, connections which can acquire an mp3 in mere seconds, and audio formats which preserve CD quality sound.
We had none of that 5 years ago.
The question is not "how?". The question is "when?".
Post by: ThePerm on June 07, 2006, 09:26:06 PM
Post by: King of Twitch on June 08, 2006, 12:11:00 AM
It also says it gives Toshiba's HD-DVD players (which came out in Japan in April) an advantage
Wiki says they came out the last day of March, and April in the US. HMM. Sooo High Dollar-DVD will have maybe a 7-month advantage over bluuuray instead of 3. It's still pretty early in the game.
Post by: capamerica on June 08, 2006, 03:35:37 AM
http://www.gamestop.com/search.asp?sortby=default&searchtype=quicksearch&searchcount=12&Keyword=&platform=36&find.x=32&find.y=9&find=Search
Post by: couchmonkey on June 08, 2006, 07:34:56 AM
Comparisons between PSP and PS3 are interesting, and I'm sure a lot of people are making those comparisons, but don't forget that PSP was entering a brand-new market, one that Playstation players weren't necessarily interested in. Also, I haven't heard reliable hardware sales numbers for North America or Europe for the handhelds. DS is slaughtering PSP in Japan, but what about everywhere else?
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 08, 2006, 09:00:07 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: couchmonkey Comparisons between PSP and PS3 are interesting, and I'm sure a lot of people are making those comparisons, but don't forget that PSP was entering a brand-new market, one that Playstation players weren't necessarily interested in. Also, I haven't heard reliable hardware sales numbers for North America or Europe for the handhelds. DS is slaughtering PSP in Japan, but what about everywhere else?
The key message in the comparison is that Sony isn't invincible. Many people assumed that, since Sony was entering the handheld market, Nintendo was doomed and was about to have their cash cow stolen from the barn. That proved to be entirely not the case.
As for reliable numbers, I believe only Sony knows that, as I don't think Sony has ever said "We've SOLD _____ PSPs." but instead used the elusive sidestep of "We've SHIPPED ______ PSPs." refusing to cite exact sales numbers.
Even Nintendo, at their press conference, could only say that the DS has sold "millions more" than the PSP because Sony is trying hard to cover their failure by not releasing any sales figures.
I fully expect this hoopla with the PS3. Sony is the company who invented a critic to give rave reviews to their crappy movies. I completely expect that they'll doctor their shipping records in an attempt to improve sales figures so that developers will feel more confident in creating games for the console.
When games like Death Jr. (which everyone was calling the PSP's "killer app" before it tanked) are being ported to the DS and GTA:LCS is being ported to the PS2, then software sales are clearly so terrible that I question if the estimated 10 million PSPs shipped is actually true at all.
Every failure of the PSP can be seen clear as day in the PS3's current plans: horrible price, terrible launch, no promise of long term software aside from a select few games, too damn big, focuses too heavily on features OTHER than gaming, attempts to push a new media format for movies and its competition is cheaper and has innovation and a better gaming library on its side.
I don't think the Sony brand name is going to push this console out into the world. If the price was $300, then I'm sure people would buy it just because it's a PS3, but with a $500 price tag, I suspect most people will stop and check to see what games the console offers before they drop the cash for it. Not only that, but they'll take a good, hard look at the competition and given that the 360 has many, MANY games in common and the Wii is, well, the Wii, they'll likely buy one or both instead of a PS3.
Post by: Gamebasher on June 08, 2006, 10:54:38 AM
THANKS for your excellent topic on Sony´s obvious flaws and near total lack of appeal!
I couldn´t have put it better myself. It is GREAT to see a topic which so well hammers Sony down where they belong. They never deserved the topspot in the industry anyway, but it is only now where Nintendo finally deliver the long-awaited hardware and software hammerblow, which we all knew they were capable of, that the contrast between them and Sony stands out so clearly. May Nintendo soon claim the topspot for eternity, so that the industry will be full of creativity and progress benefitting all both young and old who love to play games.
Here´s a small poem:
It takes a great amount to create something perfect
But it takes only a small amount to make something imperfect
It´s all in the amount of love and dedication, or lack of same, put into what is created
The one who invests much effort and passion into his endeavour all of the time creates great things overall
The one who invests little effort and has little passion into his endeavour creates insignificant things overall
For lack of anything great, the insignificant may be chosen for a while
And in order to maintain his hold on his position, he will carry on as usual
But when the great one returns, the insignificant one will be deselected
For now he is seen as just that: insignificant in the comparison
Only one remains great all the time: the one who practises ceaslessly, learning from mistakes faster than any other.
Eliminating faster than less productive counterparts the flaws inherent in all learning beings, making his triumphant and unstoppable re-entry into leadership
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 08, 2006, 01:35:08 PM
It was a fluke because GTA came along at just the right time to REALLY push the PS2 into the market.
It was frustration because, when it came time to choose between Sony and Nintendo support, I don't think 3rd parties would have left Nintendo so easily if Yamauchi had been more of a diplomat.
However, now that Nintendo has gone into FULL diplomacy mode, there's nothing stopping them from earning tons of 3rd party support and the DS proves this in full.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 08, 2006, 02:00:42 PM
I'd say they deserved it, by default if anything. Nintendo sure as hell didn't deserve to continue being market leader with the N64 and Sega didn't deserve it either with the Saturn. I don't think Sony really did anything exceptional but the Playstation was at the very least competant while the competing consoles were serverly flawed in such a way that neither of them suited the needs of consumers or developers. It was largely a fluke victory as they were merely doing things correctly while everyone else f*cked up. So they still deserved it since they won their position by providing a better product.
The PS2 however was a total coastjob and they just got by on reputation. Not that they were particularly bad but they didn't address any of their own problems (faulty hardware) and misused their power a bit (no 2D game restrictions). Based on effort and pleasing their customers I would say the MS deserved to win last gen but didn't because the PS2 was just too big and Japan doesn't like American games.
Post by: Gamebasher on June 08, 2006, 04:31:43 PM
by saying they didn´t deserve the topspot, I meant that on the basis of what games they had on their platform, the level of gaming perfection in them and the value to the gamers who played them VS what was found on Sony´s platform (rubbish in my view). I know that this is very much a matter of personal taste, but if you look at all the prizes Nintendo has received from all kinds of places applauding, rewarding, worshipping and what not them for their excellent games, it certainly says a thing or two about who is the very best in terms of sheer gamesquality. So strictly platforming-wise, I maintain that Nintendo deserved the topspot anyway, because despite Yamauchi´s lack of diplomacy and following consequences Nintendo remained unbeatable in terms of dedication to games and perfected games as a result. I´d say that earned them the topspot, which they didn´t get because there wasn´t enough of them (games) in those days.
But, now where they are about to become far more popular than at any time since the NES and SNES days, it is clear that they are the best in terms of gaming innovation and perfection. Just looking at The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess makes me once again say to myself what they say themselves about themselves: nobody can make games like Nintendo can!
Post by: please let me in, please on June 08, 2006, 04:44:05 PM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 08, 2006, 06:32:43 PM
I agree with Ian that it was problems with Nintendo and Sega which allowed Sony to take the lead. You have to admit it: at the end of the SNES era, Nintendo had a HUGE ego.
On the other hand, I KNOW Sony didn't deserve it. All they did was drop into the market, money hat the necessary developers and temp others away with the offer of more storage space and to be free of Yamauchi. I think that if Yamauchi hadn't been such a prick to 3rd parties, they wouldn't have been so quick to leave Nintendo for Sony.
In the end, it was Nintendo who beat themselves.
Post by: wandering on June 08, 2006, 08:10:41 PM
Quote
Every failure of the PSP can be seen clear as day in the PS3's current plans: horrible price, terrible launch, no promise of long term software aside from a select few games, too damn big, focuses too heavily on features OTHER than gaming, attempts to push a new media format for movies and its competition is cheaper and has innovation and a better gaming library on its side.
There is one big difference: the psp was a crappy portable gaming system. Load times were too long, most games were watered down ports of already released console games with crappy controls, battery life was too short, etc.
THe PS3, on the other hand, isn't really a crappy home console system. When you sit down to play Metal Gear Solid 4, it's not like it's going to think it's a bad play experience well, maybe when you're approaching the second hour of a cut-scene. The problem with the ps3 is purely a monetary one: it's about $100 too expensive.
...although I suppose that's been enough to kill game consoles in the past.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 08, 2006, 08:57:39 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: wandering
THe PS3, on the other hand, isn't really a crappy home console system. When you sit down to play Metal Gear Solid 4, it's not like it's going to think it's a bad play experience well, maybe when you're approaching the second hour of a cut-scene. The problem with the ps3 is purely a monetary one: it's about $100 too expensive.
Actually, since the 360 has roughly half of the PS3's titles, including a number of games which were supposed to be PS3 exclusive, I think the software issue will be a problem as well.
The PSP has a bunch of shovelware games and ports (ie games which can be played on other systems for cheaper) and a few gems here and there and it's not doing so well. The PS3 seems to have a few gems but also has far too many games which are shared by the 360's library, thus reducing reason to own one.
It just looks like it's working out to be nearly the same situation as the PSP.
Post by: Gamebasher on June 09, 2006, 03:30:12 AM
PSP bears living testimony to what Nintendo has said all along: bigger and better graphics is the wrong path to follow, gameplay is king! But you really can´t blame Sony for it. Afterall, they are a consumer electronics manufacturer, so they will always strive to go in the direction they are going. And that is where the battle is decided, or, has already been decided! In Nintendo´s favour!
Post by: couchmonkey on June 09, 2006, 05:40:52 AM
Luckily Nintendo's attitude seems to be a bit more aggressive. I'm just hoping we'll see that trend continue as Nintendo announces pricing and launch dates.
Overall, I agree Sony has become too cocky for it's own good, and I see PS3 losing a lot of marketshare. But will it tank? I doubt it, I wouldn't even bet that it's going to come in third (unless someone gave me really good odds
) Mostly, I don' t want to see Nintendo, or its fans, getting overconfident just because Sony is.
Post by: Kairon on June 09, 2006, 08:01:49 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Jin-X on June 09, 2006, 02:51:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_BrotherQuote
Originally posted by: Jin-X You still haven't provided where are you gonna store a ton of movies and the fact that storing movies from cable comes nowhere near the quality of current DVDs and HD-DVDs. Cable and Satellite shows are heavily compressed for space and usually "formatted to fit your screen".
They can be burned to DVDs and stored that way, just like my 'rents do it, and I have news for you: Digital Cable quality is identical to DVD, especially if it's HDDVD movies (which are already supported by some networks and will be supported by Digital Cable at some point).
And for computer storage, what about a 300 GB HD for $180, included in an external dual USB AND Ethernet enclosure? (I think I just found my Wii memory card...).
Five years ago, someone would have said, "How are you going to store your entire music collection on a HD when HDs are so small and mp3 quality is so bad?"
Now, we have HDs which can store literally MONTHS worth of music, connections which can acquire an mp3 in mere seconds, and audio formats which preserve CD quality sound.
We had none of that 5 years ago.
The question is not "how?". The question is "when?".
Not to be an a-hole, but you couldn't be more wrong. Digital Cable is not as good as DVD, do you have it conected trough composite or maybe u need to check your eyes but you couldn't be more wrong. Are u trying to tell me that Batman Begins and Star Wars on HBO is as good as on DVD? That's crazy talk. And it's the same thing with HD. Programs through Sat/Cable are compressed a lot more due to bandwith limitations (not to mention the abomination that is formatting/cropping movies to make them fit your tv instead of watching them how they were filmed). Movies on disc are (usually) made in a way to maximize picture quality and sound quality by using all the space available for higher bitrates and less compression.
And MP3s are not as good as CD, but that's a lot harder to tell and more subjective than looking at a screen and saying that looks better than the other one, and also an argument for another time.
Post by: Arbok on June 09, 2006, 06:01:36 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X
And MP3s are not as good as CD, but that's a lot harder to tell and more subjective than looking at a screen and saying that looks better than the other one, and also an argument for another time.
Yep, Mp3s are compressed anyway you slice it, and can't be as good as the source material that they were created from, period. Also, as mentioned, if relatively small files like mp3s haven't killed off the traditional CD market, why do digital movies stand a chance of killing off the traditional home market for movies, especially considering you have things like extras, chapters, different language tracks, etc to contend with?
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 09, 2006, 07:37:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Jin-X
Not to be an a-hole, but you couldn't be more wrong. Digital Cable is not as good as DVD, do you have it conected trough composite or maybe u need to check your eyes but you couldn't be more wrong. Are u trying to tell me that Batman Begins and Star Wars on HBO is as good as on DVD? That's crazy talk. And it's the same thing with HD. Programs through Sat/Cable are compressed a lot more due to bandwith limitations (not to mention the abomination that is formatting/cropping movies to make them fit your tv instead of watching them how they were filmed). Movies on disc are (usually) made in a way to maximize picture quality and sound quality by using all the space available for higher bitrates and less compression.
Are we talking HDDVD or regular DVD? If we mean regular, than no, I cannot tell the difference between their picture qualities.
But that's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if one guy with bad eyes can't tell because we're not talking about the current media infrastructure anyway.
I'm talking about what these networks will have in place in 5-7 years when HDTV is widespread enough that releasing a media format which will only benefit from an HDTV makes SENSE.
HDDVD and BluRay are, without question, putting the horse before the wagon. At some point in the future, you'll be able to download these movies and watch them in HD quality. It might be in 5 years, it might be 20, but one day people will look back and laugh about how utterly retarded it was to leave your house to go pick up a disc which contains something you could have downloaded over the internet in a matter of minutes.
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok why do digital movies stand a chance of killing off the traditional home market for movies, especially considering you have things like extras, chapters, different language tracks, etc to contend with?
Because they're the same thing.
I know many people who frequently download movies, mp3s, games, etc. off the internet, burn them to CD/DVD and they don't seem to suffer from some detached notion of consumerism because the disc they burn doesn't have an official label.
Downloading a DVD data image will keep all the menus intact when you burn it to another DVD.
Download it, burn it, label it, it's yours, and you didn't even have to leave your seat and spend gas money to go get it. People love the convenience of being able to get the music you want in a matter of minutes off the internet in the form of mp3s. When connections become fast enough that movies are feasible, it WILL happen.
Post by: oohhboy on June 09, 2006, 11:05:35 PM
Give me something phyiscal any day.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 09, 2006, 11:11:51 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
Dude, who pays for the bandwidth? Most of the world still has a monthly data cap. After that they either slow you down or make you pay in blood.
Give me something phyiscal any day.
I sell bandwidth for a living. Bandwidth doesn't cost today what it cost 5 years ago.
Also, cable services don't have monthly data caps (at least Comcast sure doesn't).
And you have something physical: the HDDVD you burned the image file to which you now own. Unless you're a stickler and demand accurate product packaging, you can tolerate paying $5-7 less for the movie which you'd likely have to pay if you bought it from a store or ordered it online.
Post by: oohhboy on June 10, 2006, 12:32:18 AM
When unlimited bandwidth comes at a cheap price then we can talk. Till then Hollywood can keep smoking thier pipe.
Post by: KDR_11k on June 10, 2006, 06:59:43 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 10, 2006, 09:17:51 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: oohhboy
I SAID THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT IS NOT THE U.S. OF A. or North America.
Actually, you said "Most of the world".
But I'm talking about some point in the future when bandwidth will be cheaper worldwide. I don't know where you live, but if bandwidth still costs the same today as it did 5 years ago, it's time for a revolution (not that the US doesn't need one, just for different reasons).
Post by: Athrun Zala on June 10, 2006, 09:25:18 AM
here, the one I got doesn't do 1 and 2, but is really expensive (around $50 a month for a 512/128 connection....which is an improvement, last year it was 256/64....)
the other options offer different combinations of the three
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 10, 2006, 09:27:10 AM
I'm sure it'll be the natural progression in other parts of the world as well.
Post by: SixthAngel on June 10, 2006, 12:34:05 PM
Bandwidth is getting cheaper and if big consumer countries like the U.S. begin to move in a download oriented direction expect others to follow. This seems to be the future. Bandwidth may be capped now but smash brother is talking about the future. Not long ago pc's first caught on. Computer and internet industries move faster then anyone expects.
Post by: Arbok on June 10, 2006, 04:07:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
... one day people will look back and laugh about how utterly retarded it was to leave your house to go pick up a disc which contains something you could have downloaded over the internet in a matter of minutes.
Man, you sound like you just stepped fresh out of the "dot com boom". I highly suggest you take a look at why it crashed. At how, for some reason (although there is a simple answer from psychological perspective) people did not stick to shopping online, but still prefered the old "birck and mortier" approach.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I know many people who frequently download movies, mp3s, games, etc. off the internet, burn them to CD/DVD and they don't seem to suffer from some detached notion of consumerism because the disc they burn doesn't have an official label.
Here is your problem. You are treating a group that you know personally as a representive group for consumers as a whole. Online shopping will always have a niche crowd, and even more niche for people who buy digitial things like mp3s, but to assume it will conquer traditional mediums is a pretty rash notion. Especially considering that the people you are talking about are likely illegally downloading them for free, which would of course be why there is no sense of a "detached notion" if they never paid for them.
Also, as "oohhboy" said, give me something physical anyday over just a digital copy. Something that I can give to a friend without feeling tacky about it.
Post by: Grant10k on June 10, 2006, 09:50:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
Oh yes, I remember that thread on Slashdot. What was it, 500MB/month in NZ?
Wow. I downloaded 6x that amount yesterday morning before breakfast (well, i started before breakfast, it took until lunch to finish)
I think it will go the same route as letting customers fill their own fountain drinks. It doesn't cost a lot to provide, and it makes customers a whole lot happier.
Post by: oohhboy on June 10, 2006, 11:47:14 PM
We are going to unbundle the local loop, but that is going to take about a year. Even then I can't envision "Unlimited" bandwidth happening anytime soon.
Even if I had unlimited bandwidth I wouldn't pay to get something when I can get it for free.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 12, 2006, 06:07:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok Man, you sound like you just stepped fresh out of the "dot com boom". I highly suggest you take a look at why it crashed. At how, for some reason (although there is a simple answer from psychological perspective) people did not stick to shopping online, but still prefered the old "birck and mortier" approach.
These are completely different subjects. The dot com boom was a result of people investing millions into companies with no actual revenue source but might have promised to have some kind of revenue source in the future. Moreover, it was a result of the investor market getting too far ahead of itself. They badly overestimated the speed at which the internet would catch on and thus no one was working with accurate predictions.
But today, we have companies like Apple making a goddamn killing from selling bits of data over the internet and many other companies have followed suit.
In terms of online media, the only reason music and movies are different is because movies are bigger. That's it. They both require a playback device, they're both typically sold on discs and, today, they both largely suck (but that's not relevant to the discussion).
The only reason we still have CDs in stores is because we have record label hold-outs who refuse to sell the music online because it will lessen their cut of the action and because not everyone is on the internet yet.
In the future, both of these will change.
Quote
Here is your problem. You are treating a group that you know personally as a representive group for consumers as a whole. Online shopping will always have a niche crowd, and even more niche for people who buy digitial things like mp3s, but to assume it will conquer traditional mediums is a pretty rash notion. Especially considering that the people you are talking about are likely illegally downloading them for free, which would of course be why there is no sense of a "detached notion" if they never paid for them.
They exist. That's all I need to prove. Most of these people are the new generation up and coming. In fact, every additional generation of kids which are born become more and more comfortable with technology as they grow up with more and more of it around them.
Who knows more about the technology of today and how to operate it? You, or your parents? If it's your parents, you're a rarity.
At some point, an up and coming generation of kids will not be afraid to purchase media in an entirely online format. Given enough time, it WILL happen.
Post by: Arbok on June 12, 2006, 03:46:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
These are completely different subjects. The dot com boom was a result of people investing millions into companies with no actual revenue source but might have promised to have some kind of revenue source in the future. Moreover, it was a result of the investor market getting too far ahead of itself. They badly overestimated the speed at which the internet would catch on and thus no one was working with accurate predictions.
And yet here we are in the middle of the next decade and the internet has still done little to kill the old "birck and mortier" stores.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
In terms of online media, the only reason music and movies are different is because movies are bigger.
Movies are bigger AND compression is far more noticeable then it is on music on account of dealing with a visual medium as well.
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
That's it. They both require a playback device, they're both typically sold on discs and, today, they both largely suck (but that's not relevant to the discussion).
Even though you say it's not relevant to this discussion, did it occur to you that perhaps you are trying to project your own hopes for where movies and music might go into what might actually occur?
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
They exist. That's all I need to prove. ... Who knows more about the technology of today and how to operate it? You, or your parents?
They exist, as, like I said, there is a niche market for this, although I don't see signs of it destroying the traditional means of music and movie distribution for the home market.
Your example in particular was pretty flawed too considering you are talking about piracy and not people buying online.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 12, 2006, 04:21:58 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Arbok And yet here we are in the middle of the next decade and the internet has still done little to kill the old "birck and mortier" stores.
Is that why the music industry whines to no end about how mp3s are killing their sales?
I don't expect them to bulldoze Wal-marts because CD sales decrease but I'm quite certain music only stores are seeing a drop in sales due to the presence and availability of mp3s, legal or otherwise.
Quote
Movies are bigger AND compression is far more noticeable then it is on music on account of dealing with a visual medium as well.
...Which results in a bigger file which would still be eaten through in less than a half hour with a 100 Mb/s connection and when watched on a TV looks identical to a DVD because it IS a DVD rip.
Quote
Even though you say it's not relevant to this discussion, did it occur to you that perhaps you are trying to project your own hopes for where movies and music might go into what might actually occur?
I accept that, by the time the internet has replaced stores, I might be dead or won't care...likely dead.
Quote
They exist, as, like I said, there is a niche market for this, although I don't see signs of it destroying the traditional means of music and movie distribution for the home market.
Your example in particular was pretty flawed too considering you are talking about piracy and not people buying online.
I also know plenty of people who buy mp3s off of iTunes or similar services. Happy now?
And what's a niche today will be commonplace tomorrow. Anime fans in the US used to be a niche market and NOW look at it.
As the generations pass, the children will get more and more used to the idea of buying media through virtual venues until one day you'll only be able to buy DVDs in stores as a specialty item.
Why don't most stores sell records anymore? It's because they were replaced with a higher quality and more convenient media format.
Downloading media online is the most efficient and convenient means of transferring it. The space it occupies can be rewritten, it does not need to be shipped, and it can be acquired faster than it would take to go to a store to acquire it in most cases.
It may be 2-3 generations from now, but it WILL happen.
Post by: Arbok on June 12, 2006, 06:13:56 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
I accept that, by the time the internet has replaced stores, I might be dead or won't care...likely dead.
And that's where I'm just going to stop. If we are talking this far away then there really is no point, as it's all wild conjecture what might happen at that time and not reflective at all of current trends.
People who have attempted to gauge things this far off also often have a way of getting idealistic in what might happen as well, which is why I always tend to look to the more immediate future... and this is getting increasingly away from the whole concept of Blu-Ray vs. digitial purchasing, as we have now swung the spectrum down to possibly almost a century later.
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 12, 2006, 06:51:10 PM
BluRay and HDDVD likely won't be hurt by digital purchasing: they'll be hurt by the fact that people need to buy an expensive TV in a poor economy in order to use them.
Post by: Ian Sane on June 13, 2006, 07:07:37 AM
I don't expect them to bulldoze Wal-marts because CD sales decrease but I'm quite certain music only stores are seeing a drop in sales due to the presence and availability of mp3s, legal or otherwise."
I suspect that music sales are down because for nearly ten years now popular music has been complete horsesh!t. I don't download many MP3s and I still buy CDs. But I find myself buying less and less because the music is all targeted towards 12 year olds. When sh!t like American Idol is popular it's no surprise that music sales are down. The only market they're going after right now is the disposable pop market that only likes things on a fad basis. Real music lovers have been shut out and I think that is going to have a huge affect on the market more than anything else.
Post by: please let me in, please on June 13, 2006, 07:16:13 AM
... 
Post by: Smash_Brother on June 13, 2006, 07:34:22 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane I suspect that music sales are down because for nearly ten years now popular music has been complete horsesh!t. I don't download many MP3s and I still buy CDs. But I find myself buying less and less because the music is all targeted towards 12 year olds. When sh!t like American Idol is popular it's no surprise that music sales are down. The only market they're going after right now is the disposable pop market that only likes things on a fad basis. Real music lovers have been shut out and I think that is going to have a huge affect on the market more than anything else.
You SHOULD download mp3s.
The barrier to entry for new and likely better bands is much lower if it comes down to putting their music on the internet. Every CD had to get the approval of some record label executive assh*le before it made it to a shelf.
Post by: Ceric on June 14, 2006, 07:19:59 AM
I have no delusion right know that the PS3 line will have to sell well for at least a year or more to recoop it's developement cost. I wouldn't be surprised if the system cost is really somewhere around $1000. Sony's on a slippery slope. They are the same place Nintendo was after the SNES. Nintendo took two generations to become somewhat humble. What do you think it will take Sony? Especially since it has a different dynamic. The fact of the matter is that out of the console providers the only one that wouldn't get two big headed after 2 generations at the top would probably be MS and that's simply because people love to pick on MS like people love to pick on the government. No matter what MS does its not good enough. Yes I believe that overall it's a race between the PS3 or the Wii. Here in the States the 360 is a good contender. From what I hear it's not the same the rest of the world, I'm really blurry on Europe and Aus. Now to Digital Content.
Cable providers are really leaning for you to buy something and stream it from the server when you want to watch it. It makes sound sense for them. Though in the end most of us like having Physical Medium that's only real protection is that it's on Physical medium. Meaning that even if it's stolen there is only 1 owner at any given time. Companies like that idea. To Physical Format.
Let's face it. VHS to Disc was a huge physical form factor change. That's probably one of the biggest reasons TV Series sell well on DVD and not on VHS. They just took to much real estate before. Until we see a change to a different better form factor then there won't be a mass move as with DVD. People like the backward compatibility that the Disc physical format gives. Now if Blu-Ray or HD-DVD was say the size of an SD card and had the same amount of storage that be something else. The only medium known right now that holds that sort of promise is Holographic and it's been in developement for longer then I've been around it seems. To the Wrap Up.
People like backward compatibility. People like things there familiar with. Unless there are overwhelming advantages people don't like change. DVD Provided those. Each console provides those. These new standards do not.
