So, we're talking about a triple layer HD-DVD that has a single gig up on a dual layer Blu-Ray disc, and isn't supported by any HD-DVD players on the market?
Cool, they have a triple layer HD-DVD. They also have triple layer BDs.
I'm confused... What is the point of this thread?
You should, I dunno, read it and find out. Crazy idea, huh?
I'm confused about the hubbub going on about a triple layer HD-DVD. No one can use it, and it's barely more expansive than the dual layer BD that is actually useable by consumers.
So, there will be triple layer HD-DVD capable drives in the future? There will be triple layer BD drives in the future, at 75GB capacity.
I could see people being excited if current gen HD-DVD players were triple layer capable (since they're generally cheaper than BD players), but by the time triple layer discs become standard, the price difference probably won't exist at all. Hell, one of the formats might not even exist at all (in terms of movies).
So, my question is, why are people getting excited about a disc that isn't usable, and by the time it is, the competition will have it outclassed... and more than likely at a comparitive price point?
You should, I dunno, read the thread and find out. Crazy idea, huh?
What the fuck are you asking for here, a summary of the thread? Instead of "wondering" what the hubbub is about, read the thread.
If they try to cram too many layers into a HD disc of either format, isn't there a danger that it will become fragile and shatter/explode in the drive, with the potential to injure one of the six people who actually own a player?
If they try to cram too many layers into a HD disc of either format, isn't there a danger that it will become fragile and shatter/explode in the drive, with the potential to injure the six people who actually own a player?
Actually, a lot of people have HD-DVD and Blu Ray players now. Not a "fuckton" or a "shitload" but a "decent amount," I'd say.
Anyway, yeah, I'd worry about data integrity of a one-terabyte twenty-layer optical disc, personally. Integrity seems to improve with each new optical technology, though, so I dunno. I feel pretty secure in the data I've burned to DVD+R DL discs, much more so than my old CD-Rs or DVD-Rs.
What the fuck are you asking for here, a summary of the thread? Instead of "wondering" what the hubbub is about, read the thread.
I've read the thread. You're not answering my question.
This is a disc that is unusable in any current HD-DVD drive. This is a disc that, by the time it is usable, will probably be competing with triple layer Blu-Ray discs. This is a disc that, by the time it is accepted as the new standard, will have a competing standard that will probably be around the same price, and with the PS3 it will also have a shitload of market penetration.
So, I'm asking again, what exactly is all the hubbub about?
What the fuck are you asking for here, a summary of the thread? Instead of "wondering" what the hubbub is about, read the thread.
I've read the thread. You're not answering my question.
This is a disc that is unusable in any current HD-DVD drive. This is a disc that, by the time it is usable, will probably be competing with triple layer Blu-Ray discs. This is a disc that, by the time it is accepted as the new standard, will have a competing standard that will probably be around the same price, and with the PS3 it will also have a shitload of market penetration.
So, I'm asking again, what exactly is all the hubbub about?
Other than HD-DVD diehards clutching at straws?
Then perhaps you should word your future posts better, because coming into a thread near the bottom of page two asking "what's the point of this thread?" is simply obnoxious.
Now, if you understand the point of the thread and you simply disagree with it, I can respond to that, certainly. But I've exhausted myself now in explaining why your post here was asinine, so I'll let someone else do it.
This is turning into a Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD pissing contest fast. Detour!
So, how about that HD-DVD, I here it has three layers.
[spoiler:6142476296]lame, I know.[/spoiler:6142476296]
victor_c26 on
It's been so long since I've posted here, I've removed my signature since most of what I had here were broken links. Shows over, you can carry on to the next post.
Does anyone know the differences (other than the obvious) of a triple layer HD-DVD/BD and a quad layer HD-DVD/BD? As in, do you think manufacturers would go a head and greenlight a triple layer compatible drive/discs, or just wait a while and give it quad-layer compatibility?
Also, if triple layer compatible drives weren't released until the end of this year, that would fuck over everyone who bought a drive for the first year. That's a lot of people.
In terms of data storage for games and regular old data... storage, I think that triple and quad layer discs will be very important, but I doubt that we'll see any significant changes to the dual layer formats used by movies, since consumers haven't complained too much about two discs DVD releases, so I doubt they'd do so for two disc HD-DVD or BD releases.
1080p content can only get so large, and if a release needs more than 2 HD-DVDs, it's probably not a movie. It's probably a box set or a season of a TV show, so no one would complain if there were three or four discs in there. And I'm not sure how many episodes of a TV show you would need to fill up two dual layer BDs, but it's probably a lot.
So, basically, in terms of movies, a triple layer HD-DVD disc becoming the standard would be completely unneeded (since I doubt any HD-DVD movie is going to need more than one dual layer disc for the movie and one for special features), and would only alienate the early adopters who bought drives that top out at dual layer.
Einhander, I'm not going to squabble with you about this. You obviously thought it was clever, 40 posts into this thread, to ask "what's the point?" A question easily answered by the content of the thread
I was just calling you out on it. You weren't being clever, you were being a tool. I understand what your rhetoric implied. I understand what "what's the point of this thread?" means as a rhetorical question. But if you're going to sit here and play little word games, so am I.
As far as I'm concerned, your quip about HD-DVD adopters "clutching at straws" sums up your philosophy on this perfectly, and I don't see any reason to discuss this with you at all. Beyond your faux-blind rhetoric, many points actually were made in this thread as to why triple-layer HD-DVD adoption is feasible, and why a reasonable comparison to sextuple-layer Blu Ray discs is not. You can re-imagine the argument any way you personally like, but it doesn't actually have any bearing on this actual thread.
So, I will just answer your question matter-of-factly: the point of this thread is to discuss the viability of a triple-layer HD-DVD standard and to compare it to the likely Blu Ray standard once the dust settles. You may have a personal opinion on what that is going to be, but please don't pretend that your opinion is Gospel. You may be right - both formats may see a triple-layer standard in the future, but you damn well may be wrong, too.
I feel uneasy about going from collecting Evangelion on eight DVDs to, say, buying a single $100 Blu Ray disc with the entire 26-episode series on it.
And that's the other problem. People aren't going to pay $100 dollars for a single disc, no matter what. So even if you could cram 20 movies onto one 333 gig decuple-layer Blu Ray disc, you're not going to find much of a market for a disc with all that extra content anyway.
Drez... You got mad because you seemed to be the only one who couldn't understand my post? I'll use smaller words next time for your benefit. Dry your eyes, Muffin, it'll be all right.
I think the consumer in general might have some issues with a single disc costing as much as multiple disc collections have in the past, but that might change as people accept the new technology. I doubt it, though. I saw the entire run of M.A.S.H. on a ~19 DVD collection (or something ludicrous like that) for around $180 in a store the other day. I don't know how Joe Sixpack would feel paying $180 for a three BD set of the same material. But if they have to stretch HD-DVD and BD content to multiple discs (for TV show seasons or box sets) to appeal to the average consumer who doesn't have a grasp on technology like most of the people on this forum, they'll do it.
But for the average movie (what probably makes up the majority of media purchases between the two), two discs should be fine, they've been the norm for a while now with regular DVDs. People are used to them.
So, if two dual layer HD-DVDs would probably be fine for the amount of data required for a high def movie and some high def special features, why is there a push to move to triple layer discs and make an entire generation of very, very expensive players obsolete? And if the average consumer (the ones that fuel the industry) has an issue with price against product, why would they want to make the percieved value smaller by adding more content on a smaller amount of discs per package?
No, I got mad because I'm the only one that actually understood what you were trying to say. It was very thinly veiled.
Moving on, though, I think the problem is that, right now, people associate cost with the technology, not the content. A three-hour Spielberg film on standard DVD costs the same 20 bucks that a 72-minute comedy does. And I think this is tolerable because the DVD consortium and corporations like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and other such retailers, have made the connection between DVD technology and price for consumers. This is somewhat different for CDs, and you can see the difference plain as day; a five-track album might have an MSRP of $5.99-$7.99, and a full 10-14 track album usually has an MSRP of $11.99-$17.99. Of course this is related to how the MPAA works and all that, but still, people associate the amount of content on a CD with the price, but NOT with DVDs except in rare "Collector's Edition DVD!" situations. Multiple-disc sets are priced commiserate with the number of discs as well, usually, with rare exceptions.
And HD-DVD and Blu Ray studios, as well as Best Buy and other retailers, are now doing the same thing in associating the technology with cost. Granted, I'm not sure any HD-DVD or Blu Ray boxed sets exist yet, but all the movies that are out fall into the 25-30 dollar price range regardless of movie length or amount of additional content. Even dual-discs (HD-DVD on one side, DVD on the other) are being priced the same as any other HD-DVD film).
So, people are going to have a really big problem when they see Saving Private Ryan (Blu Ray) for $29.99, Little Man (Blu Ray) for $24.99, and then Desperate Housewives Season One (Blu Ray) for $79.99-$99.99 all in a row together, with the same amount of Blu Ray discs (one) and the same packaging.
That is regrettable. But that's how consumer philosophy is, and it really isn't their fault. It is going to be hard, I predict, to break them out of that pattern.
Bam! Exactly. But I think that if people react poorly to a single disc with a ton of episodes (percieving it as being worth less than the $79.99-$99.99 pricetag) in general, then the content will be split up, so you'll see something like Desperate Housewives Season One on three discs with the amount of extra content "forcefully advertised" (I can't really think of a way to describe strongly pushing the amount of content) on the outside of the box. And I wouldn't be surprised if the box they came in was a bit bigger than three BD or HD-DVD cases stacked back to back.
But then again, consumers at large will have a higher perception of value toward a DVD that has a cardboard casing around the plastic with a gold label on the top then they will with the same exact film in a regular DVD case, so who knows how their reaction to multiple disc media on BD or HD-DVD will be. But if it's bad, I think they'll just split the content up with both formats, or advertise the extra features afforded by the increased storage space much more stongly on the packaging.
Bam! Exactly. But I think that if people react poorly to a single disc with a ton of episodes (percieving it as being worth less than the $79.99-$99.99 pricetag) in general, then the content will be split up, so you'll see something like Desperate Housewives Season One on three discs with the amount of extra content "forcefully advertised" (I can't really think of a way to describe strongly pushing the amount of content) on the outside of the box. And I wouldn't be surprised if the box they came in was a bit bigger than three BD or HD-DVD cases stacked back to back.
But then again, consumers at large will have a higher perception of value toward a DVD that has a cardboard casing around the plastic with a gold label on the top then they will with the same exact film in a regular DVD case, so who knows how their reaction to multiple disc media on BD or HD-DVD will be. But if it's bad, I think they'll just split the content up with both formats, or advertise the extra features afforded by the increased storage space much more stongly on the packaging.
But to extend my point, I also see that as a reason against adopting media with more than two or three layers. I don't see it happening. I can, however, see HD-DVD adopting a three-layer, 17-gig-per-layer format just to match Blu Ray, but I don't really see Blu Ray going for three or more layers because of (a) general Blu Ray cost, (b) the fact that the PS3 is probably the "primary" Blu Ray player out there and won't read anything beyond two layers, and (c) the extra room for content, at least for movies, is not necessary because it won't really help them sell movies. It is still too early to tell if what I said holds water, but if it IS true, then it isn't important to necessary to have 66, 75, or 99 gig Blu Ray discs on the video-consumer market. Additional bitrate isn't really necessary as far as I can tell, and if consumers are merely going to reject highly-priced single or double-disc compilation sets, then the cost of triple-layer Blu Ray production would probably not be worthwhile.
I don't know this for a fact, but isn't HD-DVD a little cheaper? I could see HD-DVD going to a triple-layer standard just to get up to a comparable capacity, and then both sides letting the matter drop. It might cost them a bit in the beginning, and it would require people to upgrade/replace/throw away their current HD-DVD players, but these are the reasons why I think a triple-layer, 51 gig HD-DVD is more important than the fact that they passed some arbitrary threshhold. I don't think it will prove cost-effective for either format to exceed 50 gigs for the video market (and, let's be honest, PC data storage is important too, but it's the video market that is going to pull the rope one way or another in this format tug of war). I do think it may be in the DVD Consortium's best interest to hit that 51 gig mark, but I don't necessarily think it will be in Sony/Blu Ray's best interest to go over that, in practice.
But I'm really fuzzy on the whole cost thing, so I don't know that for a fact.
edit: I mean, I really don't see Sony even allowing anything beyond what their PS3 can currently handle to become the standard. They are hinging a lot of the Blu Ray player as a consumer selling point for the PS3.
...the fact that the PS3 is probably the "primary" Blu Ray player out there and won't read anything beyond two layers
I heard a dirty rumor that the PS3 might be able to read triple or quad layer discs with a firmware update, but that might have been some fanboy spouting bullshit. It would be nice to know if that was possible, though, because it would future-proof the macine a little more.
the extra room for content, at least for movies, is not necessary because it won't really help them sell movies.
I think that the consumer is going to be looking for a hell of a lot of extra content to justify paying ten bucks more per movie than they used to for DVDs. And once the prices drop for the movies themselves, having a ton of extra content will help consumers rebuy their collections on BD or HD-DVD. Which won't happen on a large scale anywhere outside of a studio's dreamworld, but there will be people who will buy their favorite movies in high definition with added features to replace their DVD copies.
Additional bitrate isn't really necessary as far as I can tell
For a single movie running an hour and a half to two hours, I (could be wrong but I) don't think that anything more than dual layer HD-DVD will be required, since the extra features could be slapped in a separate disc. Which is why I think that moving up to a 51GB triple layer disc at the expense of consumer loyalty (and splitting an already split format) is a terrible idea.
Blu-Ray is a big part of the ad push on the PS3, but they're mainly pushing the use for games as opposed to movies. Movie playback is a selling point, but when people assume that Sony is trying to push "their new format betamax betamax lol", they seem to forget that there are quite a few studios backing Blu-Ray (the majority of Hollywood), and it's not a Sony product.
It's late and I'm going to go watch some Sonny Chiba movies.
Edit: I think that the majority of the players are cheaper on the HD-DVD side (there are more available at differing quality, you can buy "entry level" HD-DVD players, but BD players are a bit more expensive). I think that the cost difference will close before long. And players from both formats should be affordable by the end of the year. And hopefully dual format players will emerge from licensing hell and come out at an attractive price point.
Other than a PS3, I wouldn't buy a standalone player. I'd play wait and see until dual format players hit the scene.
They wouldn't have a problem selling entire seasons on one disc. First of all, Smallville is already availible on HD-DVD (but not Blu-ray, as a point of interest). It is also on multiple discs, not because of the concept of multiple discs is necessary, but because the length of video content alone would require 3 discs minimum, and that's not counting extra audio features (surround, commentary), extra special features (deleted scenes, interactive trivia, visual commentary), or interactive menus. The three discs minimum estimate is also assuming 2 hours of HD content fills 8GB (which are HD-DVD's official numbers), and an action based show like Smallville is bound to use more. Smallville on HD-DVD comes on 5 discs.
Even if they did put an entire season on one disc, which is entirely possible (or even likely) with SD content, they could still charge roughly the same price. Not as much obviously, as there are fewer manufacturing fees associated, as well as smaller packaging allowing for fewer costs in shipping and so on. But a way of increasing the value is to up the special features, and non-disc bonus stuff. For example, Unbreakable on DVD comes with a small post card sized thing with Alex Ross paintings of the two characters. It's awesome. Could be very alluring.
One last thought: HD-DVD players will pretty much always have the lead in price point. At least that is if Microsoft's plan to make an entire HD-DVD chipset on one chip (mass produced, economy of scale and all) comes to fruition.
and an action based show like Smallville is bound to use more.
I wish I could live in a world where the amount of action packed into an episode of my favorite show translated into more "Mega-action-bytes" but I'm pretty sure that action =/= memory space required.
So, we're talking about a triple layer HD-DVD that has a single gig up on a dual layer Blu-Ray disc, and isn't supported by any HD-DVD players on the market?
Seriously. I thought there'd be some remotely worthwhile news to see here.
Terrorbyte on
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
and an action based show like Smallville is bound to use more.
I wish I could live in a world where the amount of action packed into an episode of my favorite show translated into more "Mega-action-bytes" but I'm pretty sure that action =/= memory space required.
You would be wrong.
The more movement on screen, the more Mbps are needed to convey it.
In the same fashion... a 640x480 .jpg of a large red square will be less than 1k.
A 640x480 jpg of a Gears of War screenshot will be much larger.
Detail, Color Saturation, Vibrance of Colors, and motion all affect bitrates. Thats why the best HD codes (like VC1) use VBR.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Man, someone mentioned Holodiscs again and I suddenly thought "fuck this generation".
In practice, that isn't entirely true, I'll buy it eventually but it'll take a while. One thing I do want to say though is that CD went through a number of uncompatible format changes when things like CD-RW were introduced, and they're but faint memories now, because everyone's got new drives.
So yeah, the fact 3 layer discs of incompatible really doesn't matter right now, since the technology isn't very widespread. If those with a stake (Microsoft) react quickly to sell new drives, it's possible this will slip right under the radar...
Which is not what will happen for Sony necessarily. They've built their drives into the PS3. While they certainly can happily try and put new drives in new models, that will not go down well with consumers who are being sold the machine on the basis of it being a cheap Blu-Ray player. Marketing triple-layer Blu-Ray discs will be somewhat more difficult since the basis of your installed consumer base is dual layer drives.
I would rather pay the same and get 8 regular DVDs. Feels as though I am getting more value for money and there isnt any risk of breaking all 8 at the same time.
No, I got mad because I'm the only one that actually understood what you were trying to say. It was very thinly veiled.
Moving on, though, I think the problem is that, right now, people associate cost with the technology, not the content. A three-hour Spielberg film on standard DVD costs the same 20 bucks that a 72-minute comedy does. And I think this is tolerable because the DVD consortium and corporations like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and other such retailers, have made the connection between DVD technology and price for consumers. This is somewhat different for CDs, and you can see the difference plain as day; a five-track album might have an MSRP of $5.99-$7.99, and a full 10-14 track album usually has an MSRP of $11.99-$17.99. Of course this is related to how the MPAA works and all that, but still, people associate the amount of content on a CD with the price, but NOT with DVDs except in rare "Collector's Edition DVD!" situations. Multiple-disc sets are priced commiserate with the number of discs as well, usually, with rare exceptions.
And HD-DVD and Blu Ray studios, as well as Best Buy and other retailers, are now doing the same thing in associating the technology with cost. Granted, I'm not sure any HD-DVD or Blu Ray boxed sets exist yet, but all the movies that are out fall into the 25-30 dollar price range regardless of movie length or amount of additional content. Even dual-discs (HD-DVD on one side, DVD on the other) are being priced the same as any other HD-DVD film).
So, people are going to have a really big problem when they see Saving Private Ryan (Blu Ray) for $29.99, Little Man (Blu Ray) for $24.99, and then Desperate Housewives Season One (Blu Ray) for $79.99-$99.99 all in a row together, with the same amount of Blu Ray discs (one) and the same packaging.
That is regrettable. But that's how consumer philosophy is, and it really isn't their fault. It is going to be hard, I predict, to break them out of that pattern.
The World Trade Center HD DVD is 2 discs and MSRPs for 39.99. I don't know if they really need the second disc or not, but all the extra features are in HD as well. So I think you're right that more discs = higher cost, but I think they'll just add more discs to the set whether they are needed or not, to boost the price.
But then again, consumers at large will have a higher perception of value toward a DVD that has a cardboard casing around the plastic with a gold label on the top then they will with the same exact film in a regular DVD case, so who knows how their reaction to multiple disc media on BD or HD-DVD will be. But if it's bad, I think they'll just split the content up with both formats, or advertise the extra features afforded by the increased storage space much more stongly on the packaging.
What's strange about the WTC HD DVD is that it says "2-Disc Commemorative Edition" in a white font on a silver background in small letters, where you can barely read it. The special features are listed in a small box on the back.
skippydumptruck on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I would rather pay the same and get 8 regular DVDs. Feels as though I am getting more value for money and there isnt any risk of breaking all 8 at the same time.
assuming 2 hours of HD content fills 8GB (which are HD-DVD's official numbers)
Um, if this is true, then why the fuck do we need new disc formats for HD content? Most movies are <2hrs. 8GB of data will fit on a standard dual-layer DVD.
...the fact that the PS3 is probably the "primary" Blu Ray player out there and won't read anything beyond two layers
I heard a dirty rumor that the PS3 might be able to read triple or quad layer discs with a firmware update, but that might have been some fanboy spouting bullshit. It would be nice to know if that was possible, though, because it would future-proof the macine a little more.
yeah, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for that one, unless firmware updates have suddenly become magically capable of performing major hardware modifications to the Blu-Ray drive's laser.
Then again, Sony could have put some ultra-high-focus blue laser in there with the capacity to real triple and quad layer discs and just not told anyone about it yet.
How come recordable DVD players never became reality? The recordable drives are cheap as hell for PCs. Why am I never trying to set the timer on my DVD player to record "What Not To Wear" while I'm at work? Is it just some of that Macromedia copywrite bullshit, or did TiVo just kill it before it existed?
I'd love my shows and what have you on one disc. Why do people like having multiple discs where there could be one? It's easier and saves a lot of space. There's also less disc swapping. And wouldn't one disc, technically, bring down the cost? Not that that will ever happen, since they know they can get away with higher prices.
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
assuming 2 hours of HD content fills 8GB (which are HD-DVD's official numbers)
Um, if this is true, then why the fuck do we need new disc formats for HD content? Most movies are <2hrs. 8GB of data will fit on a standard dual-layer DVD.
Because that's fairly compressed, and doesn't give you much of an option to muck around with extras or menus or multiple audio tracks, and a great many films are more than 2 hours. It's not stopping China I think trying to enter the HD market with the HD-FVD which is pretty much just a DVD (something like 5gb per layer).
The more interesting point is why do we need 51gb vs 30gb. And the answer is I think, you don't. The idea that the triple layer will make in impact on the home market is a bit daft. Maybe future consoles and certainly PCs might have some benefits from this.
I'd love my shows and what have you on one disc. Why do people like having multiple discs where there could be one? It's easier and saves a lot of space. There's also less disc swapping. And wouldn't one disc, technically, bring down the cost? Not that that will ever happen, since they know they can get away with higher prices.
Multilayers tend to be more expensive to make, so the cost doesn't really drop.
How come recordable DVD players never became reality? The recordable drives are cheap as hell for PCs. Why am I never trying to set the timer on my DVD player to record "What Not To Wear" while I'm at work? Is it just some of that Macromedia copywrite bullshit, or did TiVo just kill it before it existed?
Pretty much the TiVo thing, there were lots of recordible DVD players on the market in the UK so I assume the same is true in the US. But outside of camcorders really what's the point. An 80gb hdd is going to give you so much more storage space, and there's no arsing around with new blank discs etc.
I'd love my shows and what have you on one disc. Why do people like having multiple discs where there could be one? It's easier and saves a lot of space. There's also less disc swapping. And wouldn't one disc, technically, bring down the cost? Not that that will ever happen, since they know they can get away with higher prices.
It's all about perception of value and ease of use.
Keep in mind the main selling point behind DVD's was not all the extras and how much you could hold on the disk, or the better image/sound quality. It was the fact that you didn't have to rewind it, and they didn't break in the player (as much).
By shoving everything on one disk all you gain is not having to swap the disk out if you plan on sitting down through an entire season of some show, (and how many do that on a regular basis). Add in the hassle of having to navigate through potentially more menues to get where you want. Then top it off with the fact that if you coaster the disk via a scratch, or normal abuse you could lose hundreds of dollars in media. And the giant disk-o-shows seems a lot less appealing. This is further compounded with the draconian DRM on both formats to prevent copying them. you can bet if I have a disk with close to 200 bucks of media I'm going to want to back it up.
There is also the issue with convincing the average person that a single disk is worth $180 vs a 9 disk set being worth that much.
The high deff content is the only selling point, but even then who cares? I love HD content and picked out my TV very carefully, but I'm a tech head. Most people want a TV they can hang on the wall and could care less about the rest. And they think it's HD, well because.
The only point of these massive storage capacities is for backing up files. But it fails even there because optical storage is still not as dependable as tape. If any optical storage is going to work for mass back-ups it will be holo.
crash5s on
0
AbsoluteZeroThe new film by Quentin KoopantinoRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
I hope Holographic storage comes out soon and puts an end to this format war.
I'd love my shows and what have you on one disc. Why do people like having multiple discs where there could be one? It's easier and saves a lot of space. There's also less disc swapping. And wouldn't one disc, technically, bring down the cost? Not that that will ever happen, since they know they can get away with higher prices.
It won't really bring down the cost, and I'll explain why.
Consumer perception is that TECHNOLOGY drives retail cost. They believe that one DVD is one DVD no matter how many hours of content is on it: if you see a single DVD on the shelf, it should normally cost 20-25 dollars. The same is true with HD-DVDs and Blu Ray discs. The consumer expectation is that the releases cost 20-30 dollars apiece. Consumers believe that is the standard price point for any HD-DVD or Blu Ray single-disc release.
However, consumer perception is wrong, even though it is perpetuated by the retail business. The technology (specifically, the media) has very little to do with the MSRP of a release. Rather, the CONTENT (and licensing) actually drives the cost. I will go on record as saying there is a 0.0000001% likelihood of seeing Neon Genesis Evangelion Complete on a single Blu Ray disc for $29.99. ADV/whoever would never agree to that. The content (and its demand) is what really drives the price, not the technology itself...not too much, anyway. It certainly sets the base price. You're not going to see $10 bargain bin HD-DVDs or Blu Ray discs any time soon either.
A four-disc twenty-movie James Bond Blu Ray Collection is going to cost the same as or more than the current twenty+-disc standard DVD collection because it is the licensing and content that drives the MSRP, not the technology. Same goes with a two-/three-disc Evangelion set. The cost is going to be the same as or more than an eight-disc standard DVD set.
Now, if they could cram this into ONE decuple-layer Blu Ray disc, the price is going to either stay the same or go up even further. And people are going to have a problem with that due to their preconceptions.
I'd love my shows and what have you on one disc. Why do people like having multiple discs where there could be one? It's easier and saves a lot of space. There's also less disc swapping. And wouldn't one disc, technically, bring down the cost? Not that that will ever happen, since they know they can get away with higher prices.
It's all about perception of value and ease of use.
Keep in mind the main selling point behind DVD's was not all the extras and how much you could hold on the disk, or the better image/sound quality. It was the fact that you didn't have to rewind it, and they didn't break in the player (as much).
By shoving everything on one disk all you gain is not having to swap the disk out if you plan on sitting down through an entire season of some show, (and how many do that on a regular basis). Add in the hassle of having to navigate through potentially more menues to get where you want. Then top it off with the fact that if you coaster the disk via a scratch, or normal abuse you could lose hundreds of dollars in media. And the giant disk-o-shows seems a lot less appealing. This is further compounded with the draconian DRM on both formats to prevent copying them. you can bet if I have a disk with close to 200 bucks of media I'm going to want to back it up.
There is also the issue with convincing the average person that a single disk is worth $180 vs a 9 disk set being worth that much.
The high deff content is the only selling point, but even then who cares? I love HD content and picked out my TV very carefully, but I'm a tech head. Most people want a TV they can hang on the wall and could care less about the rest. And they think it's HD, well because.
The only point of these massive storage capacities is for backing up files. But it fails even there because optical storage is still not as dependable as tape. If any optical storage is going to work for mass back-ups it will be holo.
You make some valid points but I disagree with your points on the multi-disc part. I for one HATE with a passion having to switch discs for anything. So having everything on one disc is very convenient for me and well worth it.
Lets say you have a box set for some tv show and that same amount of content on one blu-ray disc. Now on the subject of scratches as you mentioned if one disc in the set gets scratched and ends up making it un-usable, then that is just as useless as the one blu-ray full of the same content is if it got scratched and became un-readable because I bought the whole set either way to watch all of it. See my point?
Also your making a mountain out of a mole hill on the subject of navigation even in regards to a tv series, if anything having all the content of a season lets say on one disc would make it quicker top find what it is you want to watch because it is altogether.
I'd love my shows and what have you on one disc. Why do people like having multiple discs where there could be one? It's easier and saves a lot of space. There's also less disc swapping. And wouldn't one disc, technically, bring down the cost? Not that that will ever happen, since they know they can get away with higher prices.
It won't really bring down the cost, and I'll explain why.
Consumer perception is that TECHNOLOGY drives retail cost. They believe that one DVD is one DVD no matter how many hours of content is on it: if you see a single DVD on the shelf, it should normally cost 20-25 dollars. The same is true with HD-DVDs and Blu Ray discs. The consumer expectation is that the releases cost 20-30 dollars apiece. Consumers believe that is the standard price point for any HD-DVD or Blu Ray single-disc release.
However, consumer perception is wrong, even though it is perpetuated by the retail business. The technology (specifically, the media) has very little to do with the MSRP of a release. Rather, the CONTENT (and licensing) actually drives the cost. I will go on record as saying there is a 0.0000001% likelihood of seeing Neon Genesis Evangelion Complete on a single Blu Ray disc for $29.99. ADV/whoever would never agree to that. The content (and its demand) is what really drives the price, not the technology itself...not too much, anyway. It certainly sets the base price. You're not going to see $10 bargain bin HD-DVDs or Blu Ray discs any time soon either.
A four-disc twenty-movie James Bond Blu Ray Collection is going to cost the same as or more than the current twenty+-disc standard DVD collection because it is the licensing and content that drives the MSRP, not the technology. Same goes with a two-/three-disc Evangelion set. The cost is going to be the same as or more than an eight-disc standard DVD set.
Now, if they could cram this into ONE decuple-layer Blu Ray disc, the price is going to either stay the same or go up even further. And people are going to have a problem with that due to their preconceptions.
Exactly. Even though it's possible and arguably better to have 20 James Bond movies on a single disk for $200, people would feel they're getting more value for their money if the movies were spread over eight disks for the same price. Customer behavior isn't always based on cold hard logic.
I want HD movies... I fucking WANT HD movies and this format war is slowing everything the fuck down.
I have an HD-DVD add-on... it was cheap, and it saves my 360's laser and drive when I play DVDs because it's my primary player.
If Blu Ray is going to win then let it fucking win so I can buy Star Wars YET AGAIN (because I'm a whore).... same with HD-DVD. This shit about format wars is scaring studios and everyone is acting like each title release is a nail in some other coffin... fuck this whole fucking mess.
Sorry for the language but someone needs to figure this shit out already.
There is also the issue with convincing the average person that a single disk is worth $180 vs a 9 disk set being worth that much.
I know we like to think that people by and large are fucking retarded, and they are, but c'mon. Your average person knows he/she is not paying for the disc. They know the disc itself is worthless. They see the spindles of blank DVD/Rs on the shelf for relatively low prices. They see the DVD movies for $1 next to the register. As stupid as people are, they know they are paying for content.
People aren't stupid but there's no denying that people like putting large attractive boxes on their shelves and and grinning at their complete Simpson's collection... and by people... I mean me.
I would rather pay the same and get 8 regular DVDs. Feels as though I am getting more value for money and there isnt any risk of breaking all 8 at the same time.
You're presumably getting the same value for your money though.
Were you this against it when CDs replaced floppies? Like would you refuse to buy a game on CD cause it's just a single disc, when you can buy Tie Fighter on 8 floppies and feel like you're getting more value for your money?
Posts
You should, I dunno, read the thread and find out. Crazy idea, huh?
What the fuck are you asking for here, a summary of the thread? Instead of "wondering" what the hubbub is about, read the thread.
Actually, a lot of people have HD-DVD and Blu Ray players now. Not a "fuckton" or a "shitload" but a "decent amount," I'd say.
Anyway, yeah, I'd worry about data integrity of a one-terabyte twenty-layer optical disc, personally. Integrity seems to improve with each new optical technology, though, so I dunno. I feel pretty secure in the data I've burned to DVD+R DL discs, much more so than my old CD-Rs or DVD-Rs.
I've read the thread. You're not answering my question.
This is a disc that is unusable in any current HD-DVD drive. This is a disc that, by the time it is usable, will probably be competing with triple layer Blu-Ray discs. This is a disc that, by the time it is accepted as the new standard, will have a competing standard that will probably be around the same price, and with the PS3 it will also have a shitload of market penetration.
So, I'm asking again, what exactly is all the hubbub about?
Other than HD-DVD diehards clutching at straws?
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Then perhaps you should word your future posts better, because coming into a thread near the bottom of page two asking "what's the point of this thread?" is simply obnoxious.
Now, if you understand the point of the thread and you simply disagree with it, I can respond to that, certainly. But I've exhausted myself now in explaining why your post here was asinine, so I'll let someone else do it.
So, how about that HD-DVD, I here it has three layers.
[spoiler:6142476296]lame, I know.[/spoiler:6142476296]
I'll see your three layers and raise you p0rn.
Does anyone know the differences (other than the obvious) of a triple layer HD-DVD/BD and a quad layer HD-DVD/BD? As in, do you think manufacturers would go a head and greenlight a triple layer compatible drive/discs, or just wait a while and give it quad-layer compatibility?
Also, if triple layer compatible drives weren't released until the end of this year, that would fuck over everyone who bought a drive for the first year. That's a lot of people.
In terms of data storage for games and regular old data... storage, I think that triple and quad layer discs will be very important, but I doubt that we'll see any significant changes to the dual layer formats used by movies, since consumers haven't complained too much about two discs DVD releases, so I doubt they'd do so for two disc HD-DVD or BD releases.
1080p content can only get so large, and if a release needs more than 2 HD-DVDs, it's probably not a movie. It's probably a box set or a season of a TV show, so no one would complain if there were three or four discs in there. And I'm not sure how many episodes of a TV show you would need to fill up two dual layer BDs, but it's probably a lot.
So, basically, in terms of movies, a triple layer HD-DVD disc becoming the standard would be completely unneeded (since I doubt any HD-DVD movie is going to need more than one dual layer disc for the movie and one for special features), and would only alienate the early adopters who bought drives that top out at dual layer.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
I was just calling you out on it. You weren't being clever, you were being a tool. I understand what your rhetoric implied. I understand what "what's the point of this thread?" means as a rhetorical question. But if you're going to sit here and play little word games, so am I.
As far as I'm concerned, your quip about HD-DVD adopters "clutching at straws" sums up your philosophy on this perfectly, and I don't see any reason to discuss this with you at all. Beyond your faux-blind rhetoric, many points actually were made in this thread as to why triple-layer HD-DVD adoption is feasible, and why a reasonable comparison to sextuple-layer Blu Ray discs is not. You can re-imagine the argument any way you personally like, but it doesn't actually have any bearing on this actual thread.
So, I will just answer your question matter-of-factly: the point of this thread is to discuss the viability of a triple-layer HD-DVD standard and to compare it to the likely Blu Ray standard once the dust settles. You may have a personal opinion on what that is going to be, but please don't pretend that your opinion is Gospel. You may be right - both formats may see a triple-layer standard in the future, but you damn well may be wrong, too.
I feel uneasy about going from collecting Evangelion on eight DVDs to, say, buying a single $100 Blu Ray disc with the entire 26-episode series on it.
And that's the other problem. People aren't going to pay $100 dollars for a single disc, no matter what. So even if you could cram 20 movies onto one 333 gig decuple-layer Blu Ray disc, you're not going to find much of a market for a disc with all that extra content anyway.
I think the consumer in general might have some issues with a single disc costing as much as multiple disc collections have in the past, but that might change as people accept the new technology. I doubt it, though. I saw the entire run of M.A.S.H. on a ~19 DVD collection (or something ludicrous like that) for around $180 in a store the other day. I don't know how Joe Sixpack would feel paying $180 for a three BD set of the same material. But if they have to stretch HD-DVD and BD content to multiple discs (for TV show seasons or box sets) to appeal to the average consumer who doesn't have a grasp on technology like most of the people on this forum, they'll do it.
But for the average movie (what probably makes up the majority of media purchases between the two), two discs should be fine, they've been the norm for a while now with regular DVDs. People are used to them.
So, if two dual layer HD-DVDs would probably be fine for the amount of data required for a high def movie and some high def special features, why is there a push to move to triple layer discs and make an entire generation of very, very expensive players obsolete? And if the average consumer (the ones that fuel the industry) has an issue with price against product, why would they want to make the percieved value smaller by adding more content on a smaller amount of discs per package?
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Moving on, though, I think the problem is that, right now, people associate cost with the technology, not the content. A three-hour Spielberg film on standard DVD costs the same 20 bucks that a 72-minute comedy does. And I think this is tolerable because the DVD consortium and corporations like Wal-Mart, Best Buy, and other such retailers, have made the connection between DVD technology and price for consumers. This is somewhat different for CDs, and you can see the difference plain as day; a five-track album might have an MSRP of $5.99-$7.99, and a full 10-14 track album usually has an MSRP of $11.99-$17.99. Of course this is related to how the MPAA works and all that, but still, people associate the amount of content on a CD with the price, but NOT with DVDs except in rare "Collector's Edition DVD!" situations. Multiple-disc sets are priced commiserate with the number of discs as well, usually, with rare exceptions.
And HD-DVD and Blu Ray studios, as well as Best Buy and other retailers, are now doing the same thing in associating the technology with cost. Granted, I'm not sure any HD-DVD or Blu Ray boxed sets exist yet, but all the movies that are out fall into the 25-30 dollar price range regardless of movie length or amount of additional content. Even dual-discs (HD-DVD on one side, DVD on the other) are being priced the same as any other HD-DVD film).
So, people are going to have a really big problem when they see Saving Private Ryan (Blu Ray) for $29.99, Little Man (Blu Ray) for $24.99, and then Desperate Housewives Season One (Blu Ray) for $79.99-$99.99 all in a row together, with the same amount of Blu Ray discs (one) and the same packaging.
That is regrettable. But that's how consumer philosophy is, and it really isn't their fault. It is going to be hard, I predict, to break them out of that pattern.
But then again, consumers at large will have a higher perception of value toward a DVD that has a cardboard casing around the plastic with a gold label on the top then they will with the same exact film in a regular DVD case, so who knows how their reaction to multiple disc media on BD or HD-DVD will be. But if it's bad, I think they'll just split the content up with both formats, or advertise the extra features afforded by the increased storage space much more stongly on the packaging.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
But to extend my point, I also see that as a reason against adopting media with more than two or three layers. I don't see it happening. I can, however, see HD-DVD adopting a three-layer, 17-gig-per-layer format just to match Blu Ray, but I don't really see Blu Ray going for three or more layers because of (a) general Blu Ray cost, (b) the fact that the PS3 is probably the "primary" Blu Ray player out there and won't read anything beyond two layers, and (c) the extra room for content, at least for movies, is not necessary because it won't really help them sell movies. It is still too early to tell if what I said holds water, but if it IS true, then it isn't important to necessary to have 66, 75, or 99 gig Blu Ray discs on the video-consumer market. Additional bitrate isn't really necessary as far as I can tell, and if consumers are merely going to reject highly-priced single or double-disc compilation sets, then the cost of triple-layer Blu Ray production would probably not be worthwhile.
I don't know this for a fact, but isn't HD-DVD a little cheaper? I could see HD-DVD going to a triple-layer standard just to get up to a comparable capacity, and then both sides letting the matter drop. It might cost them a bit in the beginning, and it would require people to upgrade/replace/throw away their current HD-DVD players, but these are the reasons why I think a triple-layer, 51 gig HD-DVD is more important than the fact that they passed some arbitrary threshhold. I don't think it will prove cost-effective for either format to exceed 50 gigs for the video market (and, let's be honest, PC data storage is important too, but it's the video market that is going to pull the rope one way or another in this format tug of war). I do think it may be in the DVD Consortium's best interest to hit that 51 gig mark, but I don't necessarily think it will be in Sony/Blu Ray's best interest to go over that, in practice.
But I'm really fuzzy on the whole cost thing, so I don't know that for a fact.
edit: I mean, I really don't see Sony even allowing anything beyond what their PS3 can currently handle to become the standard. They are hinging a lot of the Blu Ray player as a consumer selling point for the PS3.
I heard a dirty rumor that the PS3 might be able to read triple or quad layer discs with a firmware update, but that might have been some fanboy spouting bullshit. It would be nice to know if that was possible, though, because it would future-proof the macine a little more.
I think that the consumer is going to be looking for a hell of a lot of extra content to justify paying ten bucks more per movie than they used to for DVDs. And once the prices drop for the movies themselves, having a ton of extra content will help consumers rebuy their collections on BD or HD-DVD. Which won't happen on a large scale anywhere outside of a studio's dreamworld, but there will be people who will buy their favorite movies in high definition with added features to replace their DVD copies.
For a single movie running an hour and a half to two hours, I (could be wrong but I) don't think that anything more than dual layer HD-DVD will be required, since the extra features could be slapped in a separate disc. Which is why I think that moving up to a 51GB triple layer disc at the expense of consumer loyalty (and splitting an already split format) is a terrible idea.
Blu-Ray is a big part of the ad push on the PS3, but they're mainly pushing the use for games as opposed to movies. Movie playback is a selling point, but when people assume that Sony is trying to push "their new format betamax betamax lol", they seem to forget that there are quite a few studios backing Blu-Ray (the majority of Hollywood), and it's not a Sony product.
It's late and I'm going to go watch some Sonny Chiba movies.
Edit: I think that the majority of the players are cheaper on the HD-DVD side (there are more available at differing quality, you can buy "entry level" HD-DVD players, but BD players are a bit more expensive). I think that the cost difference will close before long. And players from both formats should be affordable by the end of the year. And hopefully dual format players will emerge from licensing hell and come out at an attractive price point.
Other than a PS3, I wouldn't buy a standalone player. I'd play wait and see until dual format players hit the scene.
Steam / Bus Blog / Goozex Referral
Even if they did put an entire season on one disc, which is entirely possible (or even likely) with SD content, they could still charge roughly the same price. Not as much obviously, as there are fewer manufacturing fees associated, as well as smaller packaging allowing for fewer costs in shipping and so on. But a way of increasing the value is to up the special features, and non-disc bonus stuff. For example, Unbreakable on DVD comes with a small post card sized thing with Alex Ross paintings of the two characters. It's awesome. Could be very alluring.
One last thought: HD-DVD players will pretty much always have the lead in price point. At least that is if Microsoft's plan to make an entire HD-DVD chipset on one chip (mass produced, economy of scale and all) comes to fruition.
I wish I could live in a world where the amount of action packed into an episode of my favorite show translated into more "Mega-action-bytes" but I'm pretty sure that action =/= memory space required.
Seriously. I thought there'd be some remotely worthwhile news to see here.
The more movement on screen, the more Mbps are needed to convey it.
In the same fashion... a 640x480 .jpg of a large red square will be less than 1k.
A 640x480 jpg of a Gears of War screenshot will be much larger.
Detail, Color Saturation, Vibrance of Colors, and motion all affect bitrates. Thats why the best HD codes (like VC1) use VBR.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Lets use 24 as an analogy.
In practice, that isn't entirely true, I'll buy it eventually but it'll take a while. One thing I do want to say though is that CD went through a number of uncompatible format changes when things like CD-RW were introduced, and they're but faint memories now, because everyone's got new drives.
So yeah, the fact 3 layer discs of incompatible really doesn't matter right now, since the technology isn't very widespread. If those with a stake (Microsoft) react quickly to sell new drives, it's possible this will slip right under the radar...
Which is not what will happen for Sony necessarily. They've built their drives into the PS3. While they certainly can happily try and put new drives in new models, that will not go down well with consumers who are being sold the machine on the basis of it being a cheap Blu-Ray player. Marketing triple-layer Blu-Ray discs will be somewhat more difficult since the basis of your installed consumer base is dual layer drives.
Ever.
I would rather pay the same and get 8 regular DVDs. Feels as though I am getting more value for money and there isnt any risk of breaking all 8 at the same time.
The World Trade Center HD DVD is 2 discs and MSRPs for 39.99. I don't know if they really need the second disc or not, but all the extra features are in HD as well. So I think you're right that more discs = higher cost, but I think they'll just add more discs to the set whether they are needed or not, to boost the price.
What's strange about the WTC HD DVD is that it says "2-Disc Commemorative Edition" in a white font on a silver background in small letters, where you can barely read it. The special features are listed in a small box on the back.
Yes, that is their point.
Um, if this is true, then why the fuck do we need new disc formats for HD content? Most movies are <2hrs. 8GB of data will fit on a standard dual-layer DVD.
yeah, I wouldn't hold out too much hope for that one, unless firmware updates have suddenly become magically capable of performing major hardware modifications to the Blu-Ray drive's laser.
Then again, Sony could have put some ultra-high-focus blue laser in there with the capacity to real triple and quad layer discs and just not told anyone about it yet.
Because that's fairly compressed, and doesn't give you much of an option to muck around with extras or menus or multiple audio tracks, and a great many films are more than 2 hours. It's not stopping China I think trying to enter the HD market with the HD-FVD which is pretty much just a DVD (something like 5gb per layer).
The more interesting point is why do we need 51gb vs 30gb. And the answer is I think, you don't. The idea that the triple layer will make in impact on the home market is a bit daft. Maybe future consoles and certainly PCs might have some benefits from this.
Multilayers tend to be more expensive to make, so the cost doesn't really drop.
Pretty much the TiVo thing, there were lots of recordible DVD players on the market in the UK so I assume the same is true in the US. But outside of camcorders really what's the point. An 80gb hdd is going to give you so much more storage space, and there's no arsing around with new blank discs etc.
It's all about perception of value and ease of use.
Keep in mind the main selling point behind DVD's was not all the extras and how much you could hold on the disk, or the better image/sound quality. It was the fact that you didn't have to rewind it, and they didn't break in the player (as much).
By shoving everything on one disk all you gain is not having to swap the disk out if you plan on sitting down through an entire season of some show, (and how many do that on a regular basis). Add in the hassle of having to navigate through potentially more menues to get where you want. Then top it off with the fact that if you coaster the disk via a scratch, or normal abuse you could lose hundreds of dollars in media. And the giant disk-o-shows seems a lot less appealing. This is further compounded with the draconian DRM on both formats to prevent copying them. you can bet if I have a disk with close to 200 bucks of media I'm going to want to back it up.
There is also the issue with convincing the average person that a single disk is worth $180 vs a 9 disk set being worth that much.
The high deff content is the only selling point, but even then who cares? I love HD content and picked out my TV very carefully, but I'm a tech head. Most people want a TV they can hang on the wall and could care less about the rest. And they think it's HD, well because.
The only point of these massive storage capacities is for backing up files. But it fails even there because optical storage is still not as dependable as tape. If any optical storage is going to work for mass back-ups it will be holo.
It won't really bring down the cost, and I'll explain why.
Consumer perception is that TECHNOLOGY drives retail cost. They believe that one DVD is one DVD no matter how many hours of content is on it: if you see a single DVD on the shelf, it should normally cost 20-25 dollars. The same is true with HD-DVDs and Blu Ray discs. The consumer expectation is that the releases cost 20-30 dollars apiece. Consumers believe that is the standard price point for any HD-DVD or Blu Ray single-disc release.
However, consumer perception is wrong, even though it is perpetuated by the retail business. The technology (specifically, the media) has very little to do with the MSRP of a release. Rather, the CONTENT (and licensing) actually drives the cost. I will go on record as saying there is a 0.0000001% likelihood of seeing Neon Genesis Evangelion Complete on a single Blu Ray disc for $29.99. ADV/whoever would never agree to that. The content (and its demand) is what really drives the price, not the technology itself...not too much, anyway. It certainly sets the base price. You're not going to see $10 bargain bin HD-DVDs or Blu Ray discs any time soon either.
A four-disc twenty-movie James Bond Blu Ray Collection is going to cost the same as or more than the current twenty+-disc standard DVD collection because it is the licensing and content that drives the MSRP, not the technology. Same goes with a two-/three-disc Evangelion set. The cost is going to be the same as or more than an eight-disc standard DVD set.
Now, if they could cram this into ONE decuple-layer Blu Ray disc, the price is going to either stay the same or go up even further. And people are going to have a problem with that due to their preconceptions.
You make some valid points but I disagree with your points on the multi-disc part. I for one HATE with a passion having to switch discs for anything. So having everything on one disc is very convenient for me and well worth it.
Lets say you have a box set for some tv show and that same amount of content on one blu-ray disc. Now on the subject of scratches as you mentioned if one disc in the set gets scratched and ends up making it un-usable, then that is just as useless as the one blu-ray full of the same content is if it got scratched and became un-readable because I bought the whole set either way to watch all of it. See my point?
Also your making a mountain out of a mole hill on the subject of navigation even in regards to a tv series, if anything having all the content of a season lets say on one disc would make it quicker top find what it is you want to watch because it is altogether.
Exactly. Even though it's possible and arguably better to have 20 James Bond movies on a single disk for $200, people would feel they're getting more value for their money if the movies were spread over eight disks for the same price. Customer behavior isn't always based on cold hard logic.
I want HD movies... I fucking WANT HD movies and this format war is slowing everything the fuck down.
I have an HD-DVD add-on... it was cheap, and it saves my 360's laser and drive when I play DVDs because it's my primary player.
If Blu Ray is going to win then let it fucking win so I can buy Star Wars YET AGAIN (because I'm a whore).... same with HD-DVD. This shit about format wars is scaring studios and everyone is acting like each title release is a nail in some other coffin... fuck this whole fucking mess.
Sorry for the language but someone needs to figure this shit out already.
You're presumably getting the same value for your money though.
Were you this against it when CDs replaced floppies? Like would you refuse to buy a game on CD cause it's just a single disc, when you can buy Tie Fighter on 8 floppies and feel like you're getting more value for your money?
SSBB: 2921-8745-1438
Diamond: 2320-2615-4086