Options

Paramount and Dreamworks Go HD DVD Exclusive

135

Posts

  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Resident FF7R hater Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    "The Look And Sound Of Perfect"? Does it say that on the actual cases you'd buy or is it just a promo thing? Because that would be seriously off-putting.

    That's what it says. I really don't like the branding that both formats have gone through.

    Ooh goody. Nothing I like better than my own property advertising at me.

    How often do you look at the front of the case anyway? I have mine on a DVD rack, and all I see is the movie title.

    I've spent more time looking at the case of Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society than I have done watching the actual film :/

    I guess it's one of those things like album art, sometimes they do it really well even if most of the time they don't.

    Oh man... You gave me goosebumps by saying that. Ghost in the Shell is so simply amazing... and the cover art is enough to prove it.

    urahonky on
  • Options
    BrueBrue Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Eh. This is just a sign that the format war will go on and on and on until people are so annoyed they ignore both. VHS succeeded over Beta for two reasons:

    1: There was no technology anywhere near like video tapes at that point, and people really really wanted them.
    2.: VHS had a killer advantage over Beta, namely the fact that it was cheaper and omnipresent (as opposed to the more expensive, more limited Beta).

    In this case, people aren't exactly clamoring for the tech (as said before, it's not as "ooooh, shiny" as DVD, and many average people can't tell a difference), it's too soon/similar to DVD, and neither side really has the killer advantage. And without that, people are going to be more inclined to say "eh, fuck it."

    Actually the real reason VHS succeeded over Beta was the fact that Beta would NOT allow porn to be on it. Whereas VHS embraced porn, its kind of funny when you think about it how important porn is throughout everyday life. I mean the internets primary purpose is porn, I foresee HD DVD winning because porn is always the deciding factor (although seeing some of those porn stars in HD could really be traumatizing).

    Brue on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Rook wrote: »
    I've spent more time looking at the case of Ghost in the Shell: Solid State Society than I have done watching the actual film :/

    I guess it's one of those things like album art, sometimes they do it really well even if most of the time they don't.

    Yeah seriously, I love cover art, but mostly before something comes out. Just gets me more hyped for it.

    DVD cover arts that have gotten me hyped in the past:

    The Star Wars Trilogy
    The Star Wars Trilogy...again
    Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
    Superman Returns (two-disc cover, not the shitty single-disc cover)
    Batman Begins (both editions)
    Clerks (tenth anniversary edition, it looked so simple and elegant...I had to have it)

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    khain wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    I'm not so sure about that. SDTV's are getting harder and harder to find at retail outlets, and regular DVDs look considerably worse on HDTV's than SD's.

    Plus, about the price...they're new formats. Remember when DVDs came out? Wal-Mart had that shit behind a glass case. Everything's expensive when it first premieres.

    And also, once the price comes down, it won't be that big of a pain in the ass to switch formats. It really wasn't a pain in the ass to switch from VCR to DVD.

    But WHY are people going to switch?

    First off, people keep TVs for a while, so even his stores only had HDTVs, that doesn't mean everyone has one now.

    And, let's be honest, these discs are basically DVDs with more storage space. Well, folks have DVD players already, and dvd collections. Why would they want to spend all the cash to replace everything when they're getting very little in in return?

    You don't replace everything. If you have a decent upconverting DVD player or your TV has one then a DVD will look better on a HDTV than a SDTV and then you just buy new stuff in a HDTV format. Also to your previous post about downloading movies, people keep saying this, but I really see no evidence of it happening. Downloading games isn't even mainstream yet and that crowd is far more tech savvy than the average person who watches movies.

    I didn't say that direct downloads were going to hit tomorrow.

    I compared this whole thing to laser discs. You have technology that is superior to what is the current standard, but it just isn't catching on, and you have something that is likely to catch on in a bigger way coming up farther (but not too far) on the horizon.



    Broadband internet is spreading out across the country. Already many companies are promoting direct download services for at the very least episodes of TV shows. Other companies are pushing streamed content, to replace video store rentals. You have cable companies offering "on demand" services.



    Companies like this, because the only costs they have are marketing; manufacturing costs are out the window. Consumers like it because it is convenient.

    The draw back it faces is an aprehention that many consumers have about not recieving a physical item for their purchase (but just look at itunes, and you'll see that this aprehension can be overcome with time.)



    There are, of course, a few other obstacles, but the fact is that direct downloads are insanely cheap for companies, and will probably end up being cheaper for consumers as well. Chances are good that even if one of the HD formats is able to establish itself, it won't have a full life-span before direct downloads come in (I'm guessing by 2015~2020) and replace it.

    Evander on
  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Resident FF7R hater Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Brue wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Eh. This is just a sign that the format war will go on and on and on until people are so annoyed they ignore both. VHS succeeded over Beta for two reasons:

    1: There was no technology anywhere near like video tapes at that point, and people really really wanted them.
    2.: VHS had a killer advantage over Beta, namely the fact that it was cheaper and omnipresent (as opposed to the more expensive, more limited Beta).

    In this case, people aren't exactly clamoring for the tech (as said before, it's not as "ooooh, shiny" as DVD, and many average people can't tell a difference), it's too soon/similar to DVD, and neither side really has the killer advantage. And without that, people are going to be more inclined to say "eh, fuck it."

    Actually the real reason VHS succeeded over Beta was the fact that Beta would NOT allow porn to be on it. Whereas VHS embraced porn, its kind of funny when you think about it how important porn is throughout everyday lifestyle. I mean the internets primary purpose is porn, I foresee HD DVD winning because porn is always the deciding factor (although seeing some of those porn stars in HD could really be traumatizing).

    HD porn is amazing.

    But I have to say: I don't think porn will be the deciding factor. Why? You said it yourself: Internets.

    The internet has so much free porn, that it's generally enough for one person to handle. No reason to pay $25 for a DVD if you can search the web and find plenty of clips for free.

    But I might be one of those logical people. :)

    urahonky on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    urahonky wrote: »
    Evander, we know you don't see the big deal with HD. But most people do. :)

    WHo are these "most people"?

    If "most people do", then why is it that a majority of people DON'T own HDTVs?



    Personally, I like HD. It doesn't give me a boner like some folks here, but I prefer it to lower definition televisions, and my next "large" purchase that I plan on is a 20-25 inch HD model that I can stick in the corner of my room.



    You can't deny the fact that the general consumer just doesn't seem to be embracing HD, though, at least not as much as the industry wants them to. There is a definite reluctance there.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    urahonky wrote: »
    Brue wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Eh. This is just a sign that the format war will go on and on and on until people are so annoyed they ignore both. VHS succeeded over Beta for two reasons:

    1: There was no technology anywhere near like video tapes at that point, and people really really wanted them.
    2.: VHS had a killer advantage over Beta, namely the fact that it was cheaper and omnipresent (as opposed to the more expensive, more limited Beta).

    In this case, people aren't exactly clamoring for the tech (as said before, it's not as "ooooh, shiny" as DVD, and many average people can't tell a difference), it's too soon/similar to DVD, and neither side really has the killer advantage. And without that, people are going to be more inclined to say "eh, fuck it."

    Actually the real reason VHS succeeded over Beta was the fact that Beta would NOT allow porn to be on it. Whereas VHS embraced porn, its kind of funny when you think about it how important porn is throughout everyday lifestyle. I mean the internets primary purpose is porn, I foresee HD DVD winning because porn is always the deciding factor (although seeing some of those porn stars in HD could really be traumatizing).

    HD porn is amazing.

    But I have to say: I don't think porn will be the deciding factor. Why? You said it yourself: Internets.

    The internet has so much free porn, that it's generally enough for one person to handle. No reason to pay $25 for a DVD if you can search the web and find plenty of clips for free.

    But I might be one of those logical people. :)

    If this were true, though, this wouldn't be something that affects HD formats, but something that affects ALL non-internet formats.

    But looking at what sales are currently, that isn't the case. We don't have horrible drops in porn DVD sales, nor are porn mags going out of business in droves.



    Folks still like to "enjoy themselves" in places other than the computer room.

    Evander on
  • Options
    UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    And I'm sure that within the first ten years of television coming out, everyone owned one.

    Get real, dude. HDTV sales are increasing at alarming rates.

    UnbreakableVow on
  • Options
    corin7corin7 San Diego, CARegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Evander, we know you don't see the big deal with HD. But most people do. :)

    WHo are these "most people"?

    If "most people do", then why is it that a majority of people DON'T own HDTVs?



    Personally, I like HD. It doesn't give me a boner like some folks here, but I prefer it to lower definition televisions, and my next "large" purchase that I plan on is a 20-25 inch HD model that I can stick in the corner of my room.



    You can't deny the fact that the general consumer just doesn't seem to be embracing HD, though, at least not as much as the industry wants them to. There is a definite reluctance there.

    I think that people see the difference. I think people do like HD. But liking it and deciding to spend a chunk of cash on it that is a different thing.

    corin7 on
  • Options
    DigDug2000DigDug2000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    urahonky wrote: »
    Brue wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Eh. This is just a sign that the format war will go on and on and on until people are so annoyed they ignore both. VHS succeeded over Beta for two reasons:

    1: There was no technology anywhere near like video tapes at that point, and people really really wanted them.
    2.: VHS had a killer advantage over Beta, namely the fact that it was cheaper and omnipresent (as opposed to the more expensive, more limited Beta).

    In this case, people aren't exactly clamoring for the tech (as said before, it's not as "ooooh, shiny" as DVD, and many average people can't tell a difference), it's too soon/similar to DVD, and neither side really has the killer advantage. And without that, people are going to be more inclined to say "eh, fuck it."

    Actually the real reason VHS succeeded over Beta was the fact that Beta would NOT allow porn to be on it. Whereas VHS embraced porn, its kind of funny when you think about it how important porn is throughout everyday lifestyle. I mean the internets primary purpose is porn, I foresee HD DVD winning because porn is always the deciding factor (although seeing some of those porn stars in HD could really be traumatizing).
    HD porn is amazing.

    But I have to say: I don't think porn will be the deciding factor. Why? You said it yourself: Internets.

    The internet has so much free porn, that it's generally enough for one person to handle. No reason to pay $25 for a DVD if you can search the web and find plenty of clips for free.

    But I might be one of those logical people. :)
    I don't think anyone who actually knows anything about the VHS/Beta format wars believes this anyway (Beta did have porn on it, as will Blueray). Its an urban legend. You're right though. The porn industry on the web is much much larger than the porn dvd industry is.

    DigDug2000 on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    DigDug2000 wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Brue wrote: »
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    Eh. This is just a sign that the format war will go on and on and on until people are so annoyed they ignore both. VHS succeeded over Beta for two reasons:

    1: There was no technology anywhere near like video tapes at that point, and people really really wanted them.
    2.: VHS had a killer advantage over Beta, namely the fact that it was cheaper and omnipresent (as opposed to the more expensive, more limited Beta).

    In this case, people aren't exactly clamoring for the tech (as said before, it's not as "ooooh, shiny" as DVD, and many average people can't tell a difference), it's too soon/similar to DVD, and neither side really has the killer advantage. And without that, people are going to be more inclined to say "eh, fuck it."

    Actually the real reason VHS succeeded over Beta was the fact that Beta would NOT allow porn to be on it. Whereas VHS embraced porn, its kind of funny when you think about it how important porn is throughout everyday lifestyle. I mean the internets primary purpose is porn, I foresee HD DVD winning because porn is always the deciding factor (although seeing some of those porn stars in HD could really be traumatizing).
    HD porn is amazing.

    But I have to say: I don't think porn will be the deciding factor. Why? You said it yourself: Internets.

    The internet has so much free porn, that it's generally enough for one person to handle. No reason to pay $25 for a DVD if you can search the web and find plenty of clips for free.

    But I might be one of those logical people. :)
    I don't think anyone who actually knows anything about the VHS/Beta format wars believes this anyway (Beta did have porn on it, as will Blueray). Its an urban legend. You're right though. The porn industry on the web is much much larger than the porn dvd industry is.

    Actually, VHS DID win because of porn.

    Not because they were the only format with porn, but because the Porn indutry themselves decided to use VHS as THEIR standard, likely because it was cheaper.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    corin7 wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    Evander, we know you don't see the big deal with HD. But most people do. :)

    WHo are these "most people"?

    If "most people do", then why is it that a majority of people DON'T own HDTVs?



    Personally, I like HD. It doesn't give me a boner like some folks here, but I prefer it to lower definition televisions, and my next "large" purchase that I plan on is a 20-25 inch HD model that I can stick in the corner of my room.



    You can't deny the fact that the general consumer just doesn't seem to be embracing HD, though, at least not as much as the industry wants them to. There is a definite reluctance there.

    I think that people see the difference. I think people do like HD. But liking it and deciding to spend a chunk of cash on it that is a different thing.

    Sorry, I tend to think in terms of demand curves.

    If demand isn't high enough to reach the current price, then that demand isn't worth anything, except to say that with a lower price, people would be getting it.



    Current demand, at the current price, just isn't high enough.

    Meanwhile, at this high price, the market is flooding with suply.



    Eventually this overabundance of suply will likely drive price down far enough to where they'll cross the treshhold for demand, but until then, HDTV just isn't going to catch on in the way that you all seem to think that everyone could go out and buy one tomorrow.

    Evander on
  • Options
    JihadJesusJihadJesus Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    corin7 wrote: »
    I think that people see the difference. I think people do like HD. But liking it and deciding to spend a chunk of cash on it that is a different thing.
    I could not possibly agree more with this statement. Buying an HDTV when your old set bites it and you need a new one anyway? Not a tough sell. Replacing your fully functional three year old flat display SD set a full decade before it dies? Yeah, that's a bit tougher to swallow.

    It also kind of irks me that HD has jacked up the price of TVs/size in general. It used to be you could grab a 27-32 inch set for $250 - $350. Now? Try doubling that, at least - probably more if you want your new HD set to not suck nuts.

    I'm not terribly surprised that most new TVs sold are HD. I also wouldn't be surprised to hear that HDTV's yearly sales aren't much different than the sales figures of SDTV sets back before HD hit the market.

    JihadJesus on
  • Options
    ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I kinda like this as the "war" will force prices down into the affordable range for the majority of consumers, and hopefully, by that time, there will be only one format. I don't really have a preference as to the final format, but a little part of me hopes it's HDDVD only because Sony is idiotic when it comes to their proprietary formats.

    As far as the adoption of HD, I figure I'm the average joe consumer.
    I have a 32" SDTV and it died last year. Rather than go out and spend $1000+ on a nice 32" LCD HDTV (1080p, not the fake 720p junk) I paid $150 and got it fixed. Was I ticked that it broke after only a few years? Yes, but it was a LOT cheaper than upgrading and still even somewhat cheaper than buying new ($250-300).

    Even if it were to break today for the same $150, that same 32" LCD HDTV will still run me over $1000. That's not yet worth it. I don't want to get a smaller size, and I don't have the space for a projection. So I'm not going to upgrade.

    I didn't get a DVD player in my parents house until players hit the $100-150 range. I figure I'll wait about the same time for a HD player, whichever format hits that range first. By that time the formats will be finalized and there won't be any 300 discrepancy crap and hopefully we will have decided on a better format by then as well.

    I hate format issues ever since the whole DVDR + or - issue that STILL hasn't been consolidated into a single format. Every burner just accepts both now, and that's just stupid. It's one thing for a writable medium, but for movies? We shouldn't have to deal with this.

    ArcSyn on
    4dm3dwuxq302.png
  • Options
    ToyDToyD Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    At the high prices HDTV was originally introduced at, yes, it was too much of a high-end item to become widespread. However, there are some things that are helping speed along the adoption and it's only going to get faster.

    First, the cost to produce is cheaper. It's nearing the point now that people will seriously consider an HDTV when replacing their current TV if they need.

    However, I don't believe the cost is at a point where someone will just up and upgrade their TV. You are also seeing a lot of additional brands of HDTV brought to market.

    However, SD TVs are still cheaper and still throwing features out there to sharpen up their picture with signal processing and the ability to take composite inputs from HDTV sources and display it (and even branding it as HDTV sometimes).

    Also, let's not forget that in 2009 (if not delayed again) the analog broadcasts will be discontinued in the US.

    ToyD on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    xtaxta Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    this has probably been mentioned, but hd-dvd is *really* tacky if every hd-dvd box front has the bottom dedicated to their cheesy line of "look and sound of perfect"

    xta on
  • Options
    RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Are people really preferring Blu-Ray, or are they just buying/renting out of convenience because their PS3 came with a player, and a 360 didn't? If Microsoft had decided to ship 360s with HD-DVD, this format war might never have even gotten to this point. I think MS dropped the ball on this one, and is paying for it. I've got an HD set, and now matter how good the transfer on a regular DVD, it will never look as good as true-HD, just because of their native resolutions/upscaling/all that shit. It can come close. Episode III, and 300 both look near HD, with propper settings.

    I think the paramount/dreamworks decision has given me a little more confidence in HD-DVD. I might give them a try.

    RocketSauce on
  • Options
    LotharsLothars Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Are people really preferring Blu-Ray, or are they just buying/renting out of convenience because their PS3 came with a player, and a 360 didn't? If Microsoft had decided to ship 360s with HD-DVD, this format war might never have even gotten to this point. I think MS dropped the ball on this one, and is paying for it. I've got an HD set, and now matter how good the transfer on a regular DVD, it will never look as good as true-HD, just because of their native resolutions/upscaling/all that shit. It can come close. Episode III, and 300 both look near HD, with propper settings.

    I think the paramount/dreamworks decision has given me a little more confidence in HD-DVD. I might give them a try.



    Honestly I wish that both companies would have made just one format and been good, I don't have a preference and I will be buying the HD-DVD drive for the 360 but I would like to see one winner, though in a sense I want Blu-ray to win mainly for the size factor because it seems they are pretty much identical.

    Lothars on
  • Options
    slurpeepoopslurpeepoop Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    For all of you guys saying that online downloading isn't a threat to the whole Blu-ray/HDDVD bullshit, think about this for a minute.

    The Blu-ray community celebrated its 1 millionth sale a few months back. Not for a certain movie. For all discs, total.

    According to Microsoft (and Kokatu....and Arstechnica...and everyone else), they've sold at least 7 million tv shows/movies on XBL, and made $125 million doing it. That's just off XBL, so that's just from people with 360s.

    Netflix has started the whole downloading movies thing. Blockbuster is even getting in on it.

    Without even looking at pay-per-view numbers, I'd say the whole "next gen HD format war" isn't doing the numbers of anyone in the downloading business, especially when compared to the likes of iTunes.

    slurpeepoop on
  • Options
    RocketSauceRocketSauce Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Lothars wrote: »
    Are people really preferring Blu-Ray, or are they just buying/renting out of convenience because their PS3 came with a player, and a 360 didn't? If Microsoft had decided to ship 360s with HD-DVD, this format war might never have even gotten to this point. I think MS dropped the ball on this one, and is paying for it. I've got an HD set, and now matter how good the transfer on a regular DVD, it will never look as good as true-HD, just because of their native resolutions/upscaling/all that shit. It can come close. Episode III, and 300 both look near HD, with propper settings.

    I think the paramount/dreamworks decision has given me a little more confidence in HD-DVD. I might give them a try.



    Honestly I wish that both companies would have made just one format and been good, I don't have a preference and I will be buying the HD-DVD drive for the 360 but I would like to see one winner, though in a sense I want Blu-ray to win mainly for the size factor because it seems they are pretty much identical.


    I think both of them learned from their mistakes of the past having to pay DVD an amount for each unit they put in one of their consoles. So both MS and Sony were like, "We'll just make our own!" Which, in the end, might cost one/either of them more than it would've to have a standard HD format. Microsoft isn't going anywhere if it loses out to Blu-Ray as it is only small fraction of it's profits, however I think Sony will be screwed if Blu-Ray doesn't take off, because they're losing a lot more with their consoles. My gut tells me Blu-Ray will win out, albeit taking a year or two, just because the majority of people using Blu-Ray are doing so with their PS3, and that is their advantage. It's going to be hard for MS to compete with that.

    RocketSauce on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    And I'm sure that within the first ten years of television coming out, everyone owned one.

    Get real, dude. HDTV sales are increasing at alarming rates.

    The first American Televisions were manufactured in 1938. Only a few thousand models were able to be produced before manufacturing was shut down in 1942 because of the war. manufacturing was resumed in 1945. The following is according to wikipedia:

    "While only 0.5% of U.S. households had a television set in 1946, 55.7% had one in 1954, and 90% by 1962"

    So, that's over fifty percent of americans adopting the platform in a span of less than ten years from the time thatthey were freely able to purchase it.



    HDTV, in comparison, has had rather slow goings. Part of it is because, simply, it has been tough to even reach what we currently think of as HD (first demonstrated to the public in 1969.) There have been systems that were reffered to as "High Definition" since the 30s, honestly, some of them, such as the 819-line system that the French introduced in 1948. Part of its downfall was that people just didn't care about it enough for it to be worth while for companies to produce igh definition television sets, so you had everyone watching high def signals on standard def TVs (this was all in black and white at the begining, and color by the time the broadcasts stopped, in 1986.)



    So, while the current version of high definition television has only been widely available to consumers since the early nineties, that is in a large part because previous attempts just couldn't cut it. AND regular televisions DID have a noticablequicker adoption rate over their first ten years as opposed to this round of HDTVs. Why? Likely because, with original TVs, having a picture is a HUGE step up from the radio, which is only sound, where as HDTV is not a new product, but rather, is just a new version of an old product. The same applies to the whole issue of HD disc formats.



    By the way, for purpose of comparison, aprox. 28-30% of American households curently have HDTVs. Of that group, about 86% are highly satisfied (which leaves questions about the other 14%)

    Additionally, of the total HDTV owners, only about 55% even recieve broadcasts in HD signals. Yeah, there ARE other uses for thehigh definition televisions, but the numbers show, in my opinon, a market that is definitely concidering HDTV, and will eventually be moving to the format, but the time simply has not yet come.

    Evander on
  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Resident FF7R hater Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    You can't really compare HDTV sales to the sales of TVs when they first came out.

    The options then were: Picture or no picture.

    The options now are: Picture or higher quality picture at a higher price.

    A majority of Americans are cheap asses and won't pay more unless they get some sort of MAJOR deal on it, otherwise they are content on their SDTVs.

    But that's changing slowly, because if one friend has an HDTV they will show it off. One those friends likes the HD thing, and purchases one... and it should slowly grow from there.

    Isn't cable supposed to be switching to HD sometime soon? I know this time a few years ago they said it would happen within a year. But when that does happen, then we'll see an influx of HDtv sales.

    urahonky on
  • Options
    cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    I think the real issue is that while HDTVs are catching on, that doesn't necessarily mean next-gen DVDs will, especially with the format war and lack of new features.

    cloudeagle on
    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Options
    LotharsLothars Registered User regular
    edited August 2007

    Without even looking at pay-per-view numbers, I'd say the whole "next gen HD format war" isn't doing the numbers of anyone in the downloading business, especially when compared to the likes of iTunes.

    Well I am of the opinion that online downloading is great but I prefer buying a DVD of the movie or TV Shows as well as Downloading it, I want the physical copy and honestly nothing will beat that, especially since I don't see downloading moveis ever replacing formats in that sense.

    I just don't see it happening for movies or tv in the same way as music because a physical format cannot be beat.

    Lothars on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    urahonky wrote: »
    You can't really compare HDTV sales to the sales of TVs when they first came out.

    The options then were: Picture or no picture.

    The options now are: Picture or higher quality picture at a higher price.

    A majority of Americans are cheap asses and won't pay more unless they get some sort of MAJOR deal on it, otherwise they are content on their SDTVs.

    But that's changing slowly, because if one friend has an HDTV they will show it off. One those friends likes the HD thing, and purchases one... and it should slowly grow from there.

    Isn't cable supposed to be switching to HD sometime soon? I know this time a few years ago they said it would happen within a year. But when that does happen, then we'll see an influx of HDtv sales.

    That's really the point I've been making on HD disc formats this whole time, though.

    When it was VHS tapes or DVDs, it was a pretty simple decision.

    Now when it's smaller disc that still works, or larger disc that has more future potential, it's a much different scenario.



    And the cable switch has been pushed back multiple times, and likely will be again, simply because they are not going to do it why there are still a sizable number of Americans without HD sets. They'd lose too much business.

    Evander on
  • Options
    EvanderEvander Disappointed Father Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Lothars wrote: »

    Without even looking at pay-per-view numbers, I'd say the whole "next gen HD format war" isn't doing the numbers of anyone in the downloading business, especially when compared to the likes of iTunes.

    Well I am of the opinion that online downloading is great but I prefer buying a DVD of the movie or TV Shows as well as Downloading it, I want the physical copy and honestly nothing will beat that, especially since I don't see downloading moveis ever replacing formats in that sense.

    I just don't see it happening for movies or tv in the same way as a physical format cannot be beat.

    Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

    Personally I feel somewhat similar. I'm 22 yers old, and have been raised in an area of buying things meaning physical items.

    A 12 year old, today, is a lot more used to digital purchases, though, and a 2 year old, by the time he is old enough to purchase, likely won't have a problem with digital stuf at all.

    A 20 year old, in 15 years, will have been five years old today. Kids that grow up on things like iTunes aren't going to feel the same as those of us who grew up going to the store for CDs.

    Evander on
  • Options
    LotharsLothars Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    Lothars wrote: »

    Without even looking at pay-per-view numbers, I'd say the whole "next gen HD format war" isn't doing the numbers of anyone in the downloading business, especially when compared to the likes of iTunes.

    Well I am of the opinion that online downloading is great but I prefer buying a DVD of the movie or TV Shows as well as Downloading it, I want the physical copy and honestly nothing will beat that, especially since I don't see downloading moveis ever replacing formats in that sense.

    I just don't see it happening for movies or tv in the same way as a physical format cannot be beat.

    Do you mind if I ask how old you are?

    Personally I feel somewhat similar. I'm 22 yers old, and have been raised in an area of buying things meaning physical items.

    I am 23 years old, So were basically the same age and that definitely is a good point about being raised in an age of physical items.

    Lothars on
  • Options
    ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Evander wrote: »
    urahonky wrote: »
    You can't really compare HDTV sales to the sales of TVs when they first came out.

    The options then were: Picture or no picture.

    The options now are: Picture or higher quality picture at a higher price.

    A majority of Americans are cheap asses and won't pay more unless they get some sort of MAJOR deal on it, otherwise they are content on their SDTVs.

    But that's changing slowly, because if one friend has an HDTV they will show it off. One those friends likes the HD thing, and purchases one... and it should slowly grow from there.

    Isn't cable supposed to be switching to HD sometime soon? I know this time a few years ago they said it would happen within a year. But when that does happen, then we'll see an influx of HDtv sales.

    That's really the point I've been making on HD disc formats this whole time, though.

    When it was VHS tapes or DVDs, it was a pretty simple decision.

    Now when it's smaller disc that still works, or larger disc that has more future potential, it's a much different scenario.



    And the cable switch has been pushed back multiple times, and likely will be again, simply because they are not going to do it why there are still a sizable number of Americans without HD sets. They'd lose too much business.

    I don't think going to HD = SDTV can't view content. I think they just will provide a HD version of all the channels rather than the select ones available now.

    Also, on the whole downloading thing, I can drive to Blockbuster, rent a movie, get back home, and watch said movie before I can download one off the internet. So unless they get CRAZY bandwidth and persuade Comcast to actually let me use all 6Mb of my available download speeds, I won't be buying/renting movies off the internet anytime soon.
    In the same vein, On Demand won't appeal to me until I can watch the movie for at least 48 hours (not 24) after I "rent" it and I have all the special features available to me as well in a little menu. Otherwise, I'll go to Blockbuster where I can get at least 2 days or a week's worth of time to watch it and I have special features for the same price. On Demand really needs to be cheaper for the content they provide. Give me 24hrs for $2, I'll rent.

    Even so, I won't buy TV shows off iTunes because for the same price I can buy the DVD set when it comes out and have the whole thing in a nice case rather than in a folder. If it were $1 per ep? Then perhaps for a few shows, but I'm not going to buy something out of the blue that way.

    If I could download a movie AND have a DVD shipped to me then that could be ideal - if it were the same price or lower than B&M stores.

    ArcSyn on
    4dm3dwuxq302.png
  • Options
    Marty81Marty81 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    The only person I know with an HDTV watches cable TV over RF and DVD's over composite.

    :(

    Marty81 on
  • Options
    Fatty McBeardoFatty McBeardo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    For the record, the quality of Live's HD movie downloads sucks pretty hard compared to the quality of the same title on HD-DVD or Blu Ray. First of all, the movies released on Live are often cropped and zoomed to 1.85:1 so they fill the entire frame of a widescreen TV. So even if a movie was shot in 2.35:1 they're cuttting off part of the frame and zooming in. I hate that, it's all being done to appease to the "ZOMG why black bars!" morons. Second of all they're running a lot of compression on movies you download in order to keep file sizes as small as possible, which means noticeably reduced image quality. So forget that, the only way I'm going to download is if the quality is as good as the same movie on disc.

    Fatty McBeardo on
  • Options
    Fatty McBeardoFatty McBeardo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Daybreak wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    "The Look And Sound Of Perfect"? Does it say that on the actual cases you'd buy or is it just a promo thing? Because that would be seriously off-putting.

    That's what it says. I really don't like the branding that both formats have gone through.

    Ooh goody. Nothing I like better than my own property advertising at me.

    It gets worse. Some movies begin with commercials (skippable, thankfully) for HD DVD.

    When DVD first launched they did the same shit. Unskippable previews and commercials that would kick off as soon as you inserted the disc. I still have some DVDs from 1997-1998ish that do this. Eventually they finally stopped doing it, it's an evolution of a format. I guess when a format is new the marketing people want to put "ZOMG NEW AND AWESOME!!!" everywhere they possibly can, because that's what stupid marketing people think works.

    Fatty McBeardo on
  • Options
    ArcSynArcSyn Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Daybreak wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    Rook wrote: »
    Paul_IQ164 wrote: »
    "The Look And Sound Of Perfect"? Does it say that on the actual cases you'd buy or is it just a promo thing? Because that would be seriously off-putting.

    That's what it says. I really don't like the branding that both formats have gone through.

    Ooh goody. Nothing I like better than my own property advertising at me.

    It gets worse. Some movies begin with commercials (skippable, thankfully) for HD DVD.

    When DVD first launched they did the same shit. Unskippable previews and commercials that would kick off as soon as you inserted the disc. I still have some DVDs from 1997-1998ish that do this. Eventually they finally stopped doing it, it's an evolution of a format. I guess when a format is new the marketing people want to put "ZOMG NEW AND AWESOME!!!" everywhere they possibly can, because that's what stupid marketing people think works.

    Some movies STILL have unskippable (no FFW, Skip, Menu, Top Menu or other buttons function) previews. Those movies go through a "process".

    ArcSyn on
    4dm3dwuxq302.png
  • Options
    Ant000Ant000 Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    HD porn? Really? I dunno man, that might be a little too detailed.

    Ant000 on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Also, on the whole downloading thing, I can drive to Blockbuster, rent a movie, get back home, and watch said movie before I can download one off the internet.
    I can drive to Blockbuster, find out that they don't have the movie I want, and drive back home. A good download service would offer some harder to find movies. It would also not suffer the problem of all of the copies of a movie being checked out. While it might not be that great yet, a lot of stuff that is now popular started out as pretty bad. It took a long time before game downloads got a decent system with Steam.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    urahonkyurahonky Resident FF7R hater Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ant000 wrote: »
    HD porn? Really? I dunno man, that might be a little too detailed.

    You have to be very selective on what you want to watch.

    urahonky on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    urahonky wrote: »
    Ant000 wrote: »
    HD porn? Really? I dunno man, that might be a little too detailed.

    You have to be very selective on what you want to watch.

    That applies to pretty much all porn.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    Fatty McBeardoFatty McBeardo Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Do not watch any movie called "Grizzly Madames" in HD.
    i just made that up.

    Fatty McBeardo on
  • Options
    corin7corin7 San Diego, CARegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Are people really preferring Blu-Ray, or are they just buying/renting out of convenience because their PS3 came with a player, and a 360 didn't? If Microsoft had decided to ship 360s with HD-DVD, this format war might never have even gotten to this point. I think MS dropped the ball on this one, and is paying for it. I've got an HD set, and now matter how good the transfer on a regular DVD, it will never look as good as true-HD, just because of their native resolutions/upscaling/all that shit. It can come close. Episode III, and 300 both look near HD, with propper settings.

    I think the paramount/dreamworks decision has given me a little more confidence in HD-DVD. I might give them a try.

    Think about what you are saying here. The reason MS is killing sony right now is partly because they didn't include the HD-DVD in the box. We don't want 1 600$ console much less 2. I love my HD-DVD player. It made sense for me and my financial situation. I still wouldn't want it included. Sony is making you buy their next gen video format to play games on their system. Fuck that.

    corin7 on
  • Options
    ThreepioThreepio New Westminster, BCRegistered User regular
    edited August 2007
    After all the negative press (Blockbuster going BD only, BD outselling HD-DVD 2:1) it's great to see HD-DVD with a huge PR win like this.

    I picked up both formats because I can't be bothered making bets on a winner. My HD-A2 puts out a fantastic image and the processor on the XA3 has to be seen to be believed. Good on em, says I.

    Threepio on
    142.jpg
  • Options
    AccualtAccualt Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Marty81 wrote: »
    The only person I know with an HDTV watches cable TV over RF and DVD's over composite.

    :(

    That is disgusting.

    Accualt on
Sign In or Register to comment.