- Status
gm0n3y
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2006
- 1,548
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]In terms of making a lot of money, they make it hand over fist on Blu-Ray already. They sold 3.4 million copies of Avatar the first day it came out, on Blu-Ray, just counting U.S. and Canada. Whether physical media loses sales long term is debatable, but I think it's likely, but looking at it from the context of whether Sony made the right decision by backing Blu-Ray on their PS3, it's clear they did. They already have made a lot of money on it, and sales just keep adding to it. It's still a much bigger market than kiddies that play video games at home. But, unless they lower the prices of these movies on Blu-Ray, I'm in complete agreement they're going to lose a lot. $30 a movie is just not going to inspire people to make purchases unless it's a movie they really, really want. Impulse purchases are poorly served by the $30 cost of Blu-Ray discs.[/citation]
I'm not sure if Bluray was the right move for Sony (from a console point of view). I would guess that a large percentage of the early adopters bought a PS3 specifically for the Bluray player. However, if they could have knocked the price down $100 without the BR drive, I think they might be doing even better. Remember that Sony came into this console generation off the unprecedented success of the PS2. For them to be losing to the xbox right now (yes I know they had a late start) is actually a huge win for M$. I'm willing to bet that Sony learns from this and makes their next console much cheaper.
I'm not sure if Bluray was the right move for Sony (from a console point of view). I would guess that a large percentage of the early adopters bought a PS3 specifically for the Bluray player. However, if they could have knocked the price down $100 without the BR drive, I think they might be doing even better. Remember that Sony came into this console generation off the unprecedented success of the PS2. For them to be losing to the xbox right now (yes I know they had a late start) is actually a huge win for M$. I'm willing to bet that Sony learns from this and makes their next console much cheaper.
zaznet
Distinguished
- May 10, 2010
- 262
- 0
- 18,930
Microsoft will add Bluray or HD-DVD drives in their next version for increase capacity not for movie support. Microsoft has maintained a push towards download and streaming for movies.
I suspect HD-DVD would be possible WITHOUT movie support as a capacity increase without giving in to Bluray. Bluray would be better for the consumer, it's all about how nice Microsoft wants to get with Sony.
I suspect HD-DVD would be possible WITHOUT movie support as a capacity increase without giving in to Bluray. Bluray would be better for the consumer, it's all about how nice Microsoft wants to get with Sony.
demonhorde665
Distinguished
- Jul 13, 2008
- 802
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]welshmousepk[/nom]demonhorde: you forget that outside of the USA, we are stuck with incredibly restrictive download caps. Here in NZ, i must pay a buttload for a 40gb a month download limit. thats not even the capacity of a single blu-ray disc. so for the foreseeable future, many of us must rely on physical media for HD content.[/citation]
that is no fault of the xbx 306 it';s self so it is irelevant to the argument
that is no fault of the xbx 306 it';s self so it is irelevant to the argument
gm0n3y
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2006
- 1,548
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]welshmousepk[/nom]demonhorde: you forget that outside of the USA, we are stuck with incredibly restrictive download caps. Here in NZ, i must pay a buttload for a 40gb a month download limit. thats not even the capacity of a single blu-ray disc. so for the foreseeable future, many of us must rely on physical media for HD content.[/citation]
Well hopefully once digital distribution really takes off this will force companies (also provide more incentive) to upgrade their networks. And once the majority of people jump on board, the competition should help to keep prices reasonable.
Well hopefully once digital distribution really takes off this will force companies (also provide more incentive) to upgrade their networks. And once the majority of people jump on board, the competition should help to keep prices reasonable.
meowkitty77
Distinguished
- May 7, 2006
- 4
- 0
- 18,510
I hope that everyone who makes a negative comment regarding any console in this thread knows they looks like an idiot
These incremental changes are getting boring and rather irritating. Do not get me wrong, I do not want to be forced into purchasing a new console, yet, but a new console should actually be new. Microsoft needs to focus on giving us(current and potential customers) new products. Sony has tried to play this game, only to see their customer base shrink, when it comes to new hardware purchases.
Microsoft needs to focus on giving us more affordable storage options, bigger storage options(500 GB, 1 TB, etc), Blu-ray(it is beyond time for this), etc. How about give customer that pay for Xbox Live access more value for their money? Forcing me to pay to play a part of the game I already paid for is not value. Why do we(customers) have pay for something that only leads to nothing but premium content? XBL customers are essentially paying to get past one "paywall" to get hit with 100 others.
If there is a problem with a system's design, then, by all means, fix it. If there is not a problem, then quit wasting money on cosmetic changes and invest that money into service improvements and such. When a new system is needed, then release a brand new system.
Microsoft needs to focus on giving us more affordable storage options, bigger storage options(500 GB, 1 TB, etc), Blu-ray(it is beyond time for this), etc. How about give customer that pay for Xbox Live access more value for their money? Forcing me to pay to play a part of the game I already paid for is not value. Why do we(customers) have pay for something that only leads to nothing but premium content? XBL customers are essentially paying to get past one "paywall" to get hit with 100 others.
If there is a problem with a system's design, then, by all means, fix it. If there is not a problem, then quit wasting money on cosmetic changes and invest that money into service improvements and such. When a new system is needed, then release a brand new system.
belardo
Distinguished
- Nov 23, 2008
- 1,143
- 0
- 19,230
Montezuma:
The first 24" LCD ($3000) monitor box was HUGE in 2004. It was about 10x the weight of a modern 24~23" display (Nobody makes 24" 1920x1200 displays ugh). When I bought my 24" 2 years ago ($450), 4 of my monitor boxes can fit into the 2004. Todays (2010) monitors ($200), the packaging is HALF the size... and makes my monitor feel heavy.
You are right thou, the change in the 360 DOESN'T warrant pissing in your pants excitement. Even SONY's PS3-mini wasn't that big of a deal - it was expected.... but funny thou, the PS3 came out a year after the 360, which gave MS their head start, yet SONY was able to SHRINK their console a year before MS. Shows that SONY knows hardware better than MS, be we already KNEW that.
Whaaaaaaat? Hmmmm, you must know something that 35+ million PS3 owners don't know. Gap between the two is less than 5 million... keep in mind that PS3 came out about 15 months after the 360. The 360 was hurried, which is a big reason for its high failure rates. Sure the PS3 isn't quite at 360 sales numbers, but it is selling very good and still has MORE value than the 360. Go back about two years when there were 25m 360s vs 18m PS3s... was the PS3 or 360 a failure? Some fan boys called the PS3 a failure because of the 7m unit difference... but here we are today with almost 40million PS3s. Hmmmmm. The PS3 is doing fine.
The new 360 is a better unit than the OLD and gives more values to its user. But still, it doesn't have Blu-Ray. And its doubtful the 360-slim is HD upgradable.
PS3-slim = $300, can be user upgrade to 500GB or larger. 500GB is best.
360-slim = $300 + $100 for a cheap Blu-Ray player.
By making the unit smaller, they are SAVING money by making it cheaper. Less materials, less weight. This also means less fuel and effort in freight. So lets say you have a container (A cargo box, that you may see a truck pulling) that would hold 10,000 Xbox 360s, but the 360-Slim means that 14,000 more can fit in the same container *IS* a savings. It also means smaller packaging and easier to protect from damage during shipment.
The first 24" LCD ($3000) monitor box was HUGE in 2004. It was about 10x the weight of a modern 24~23" display (Nobody makes 24" 1920x1200 displays ugh). When I bought my 24" 2 years ago ($450), 4 of my monitor boxes can fit into the 2004. Todays (2010) monitors ($200), the packaging is HALF the size... and makes my monitor feel heavy.
You are right thou, the change in the 360 DOESN'T warrant pissing in your pants excitement. Even SONY's PS3-mini wasn't that big of a deal - it was expected.... but funny thou, the PS3 came out a year after the 360, which gave MS their head start, yet SONY was able to SHRINK their console a year before MS. Shows that SONY knows hardware better than MS, be we already KNEW that.
Whaaaaaaat? Hmmmm, you must know something that 35+ million PS3 owners don't know. Gap between the two is less than 5 million... keep in mind that PS3 came out about 15 months after the 360. The 360 was hurried, which is a big reason for its high failure rates. Sure the PS3 isn't quite at 360 sales numbers, but it is selling very good and still has MORE value than the 360. Go back about two years when there were 25m 360s vs 18m PS3s... was the PS3 or 360 a failure? Some fan boys called the PS3 a failure because of the 7m unit difference... but here we are today with almost 40million PS3s. Hmmmmm. The PS3 is doing fine.
The new 360 is a better unit than the OLD and gives more values to its user. But still, it doesn't have Blu-Ray. And its doubtful the 360-slim is HD upgradable.
PS3-slim = $300, can be user upgrade to 500GB or larger. 500GB is best.
360-slim = $300 + $100 for a cheap Blu-Ray player.
belardo
Distinguished
- Nov 23, 2008
- 1,143
- 0
- 19,230
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]your argument is invalid you are stating opinionated premises with no supporting facts ,1. i can down load a high def version of avatar off my xbx 360 it is at the same 1080p resolution as the blu ray disc , and it uses the same 5.1 surround as the blu-ray disc does so tell me in your argument where do you get that no DL version of avatar is the same as blu-ray because really i don't see how the two are differnt they have the same resolution, are you hoenstly trying to bullsh-t me into thinking that dl'ed 1080p looks different some how from 1080p on a disc ??? [/citation]
Because 1080p is the resolution, not the compression ratio. The Blu-Ray Avatar is all movie, with the least amount of compression. So, how big was your Avatar download? More compression = worse looking picture.
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom] Now that i'm done using what i learned in my logic clase , to compeltely anahilate your pathetic attempt to bullsh-t back up your argument, I think i will go watch a movie on my 360. Or play a game on my pc , which also serves adequately as an entertainment center despite not having a blu ray player.[/citation]
Your points are valid... and flawed.
- DL content costs almost as much as real media.
- DL content includes NO extras
- DL content is locked to your hardware/account (usually just hardware)
- Backup? When your HD fails?
- Bricked? MS bricked thousands of 360s... hmmm, have fun with that.
- the PS3 allows the user to plug in a backup external drive for their data... the 360... er.
- You paid $20 for your DL content... you want to watch the movie with friends AT your bothers house. Uh oh, gotta bring the WHOLE 360 with you and wire it up. While with a blu-ray or DVD disc, you simply pick it up and BRING IT WITH YOU. Or how about if you want to play the movie in your truck so friends or kids can watch it while you drive?
- How much 1080 movies can you store? if we go with typical compression and run times... lets say you have 15GB per movie. Typical 360s have 60GB HDs... maybe 120GB. now ONLY if you can upgrade to a 250 or 500GB drive? Okay, back to math.
60GB HD 360 - can hold about 2 or 3 HD movies.... ouch.
120GB HD 360 - can hold about 8 movies. Gee kid, your screwed?
I have hundreds of DVDs... they won't sure won't fit onto any console.
So... your argument is also bull.
DL content has it place. I use my cable DVR to watch on demand. Love it.
I have 4 TVs in my home... and the discs can be used on any of them.
I also convert my old videos and record TV shows on to my computer... but since its not DRM, I am able to bring them with me or grab an external 1TB drive.
Blu-Ray is the LAST disc media.... but won't be the last physical media.
Flash-type cards (READ ONLY) will replace them.
Your logic is serious flawed. Your life is not others.
Because 1080p is the resolution, not the compression ratio. The Blu-Ray Avatar is all movie, with the least amount of compression. So, how big was your Avatar download? More compression = worse looking picture.
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom] Now that i'm done using what i learned in my logic clase , to compeltely anahilate your pathetic attempt to bullsh-t back up your argument, I think i will go watch a movie on my 360. Or play a game on my pc , which also serves adequately as an entertainment center despite not having a blu ray player.[/citation]
Your points are valid... and flawed.
- DL content costs almost as much as real media.
- DL content includes NO extras
- DL content is locked to your hardware/account (usually just hardware)
- Backup? When your HD fails?
- Bricked? MS bricked thousands of 360s... hmmm, have fun with that.
- the PS3 allows the user to plug in a backup external drive for their data... the 360... er.
- You paid $20 for your DL content... you want to watch the movie with friends AT your bothers house. Uh oh, gotta bring the WHOLE 360 with you and wire it up. While with a blu-ray or DVD disc, you simply pick it up and BRING IT WITH YOU. Or how about if you want to play the movie in your truck so friends or kids can watch it while you drive?
- How much 1080 movies can you store? if we go with typical compression and run times... lets say you have 15GB per movie. Typical 360s have 60GB HDs... maybe 120GB. now ONLY if you can upgrade to a 250 or 500GB drive? Okay, back to math.
60GB HD 360 - can hold about 2 or 3 HD movies.... ouch.
120GB HD 360 - can hold about 8 movies. Gee kid, your screwed?
I have hundreds of DVDs... they won't sure won't fit onto any console.
So... your argument is also bull.
DL content has it place. I use my cable DVR to watch on demand. Love it.
I have 4 TVs in my home... and the discs can be used on any of them.
I also convert my old videos and record TV shows on to my computer... but since its not DRM, I am able to bring them with me or grab an external 1TB drive.
Blu-Ray is the LAST disc media.... but won't be the last physical media.
Flash-type cards (READ ONLY) will replace them.
Your logic is serious flawed. Your life is not others.
gm0n3y
Distinguished
- Mar 13, 2006
- 1,548
- 0
- 19,730
[citation][nom]Belardo[/nom]Because 1080p is the resolution, not the compression ratio. The Blu-Ray Avatar is all movie, with the least amount of compression. So, how big was your Avatar download? More compression = worse looking picture.[/citation]
Uh, compression does not mean a worse picture. There are many good lossless compression algorithms out there. There are many even better lossy algorithms that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I have over 1000 movies on my computer. All of which I can burn to a disc if I want, or stream to any machine in my house. Most of the movies I have are compressed to less than 1GB and I don't see the quality difference between them and Bluray (mind you, my TV is running at 720p). I often take an external hard drive full of movies (hundreds) over to a friend's house to watch them. Much easier than having to decide which ones I want to bring or worry about losing them, breaking them (or the cases). Physical media has upsides, but the upsides for digital media are even better. Sure there are awful business models out right now that are DRM-laden, but those will die off as well.
Uh, compression does not mean a worse picture. There are many good lossless compression algorithms out there. There are many even better lossy algorithms that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
I have over 1000 movies on my computer. All of which I can burn to a disc if I want, or stream to any machine in my house. Most of the movies I have are compressed to less than 1GB and I don't see the quality difference between them and Bluray (mind you, my TV is running at 720p). I often take an external hard drive full of movies (hundreds) over to a friend's house to watch them. Much easier than having to decide which ones I want to bring or worry about losing them, breaking them (or the cases). Physical media has upsides, but the upsides for digital media are even better. Sure there are awful business models out right now that are DRM-laden, but those will die off as well.
Regulas
Distinguished
- May 11, 2008
- 520
- 0
- 18,930
[citation][nom]soldier37[/nom]Really this late? My PC is litterly laughing at this outdated garbage! You can paint a terd shiny it's still a terd! It's about time for new round of consoles isn't it so I can jump 2 more generations ahead hardware wise and laugh at all the jaggies.[/citation]
I agree Soldier37. Don't let the low rating from all the Crapbox 360 fanboys get you down.
I agree Soldier37. Don't let the low rating from all the Crapbox 360 fanboys get you down.
socrates047
Distinguished
- Apr 23, 2009
- 90
- 0
- 18,580
welshmousepk
Distinguished
- Sep 12, 2009
- 274
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]demonhorde665[/nom]that is no fault of the xbx 306 it';s self so it is irelevant to the argument[/citation]
it IS relevent, because if i want a HD media center, it HAS to be a PS3. since i cannot rely on downloaded HD movies.
and millions of others are in the same boat.
I own neither console, quite frankly i find arguing the superiority of a console ,when a PC is more capable in every way, ridiculous. not to say both consoles dont have their advantages.
it IS relevent, because if i want a HD media center, it HAS to be a PS3. since i cannot rely on downloaded HD movies.
and millions of others are in the same boat.
I own neither console, quite frankly i find arguing the superiority of a console ,when a PC is more capable in every way, ridiculous. not to say both consoles dont have their advantages.
belardo
Distinguished
- Nov 23, 2008
- 1,143
- 0
- 19,230
[citation][nom]gm0n3y[/nom]Uh, compression does not mean a worse picture. There are many good lossless compression algorithms out there. There are many even better lossy algorithms that you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.I have over 1000 movies on my computer.
~~ Most of the movies I have are compressed to less than 1GB and I don't see the quality difference between them and Bluray[/citation]
Uh, yes. More compression = worse picture. Thats why MP3s at 320 bit rate sound better than 128. Go ahead, turn some of your MP3s into 32 and let me know the difference.
I saw the new StarTrek ripped, about 1.3GB. It looked very good, I'll admit. But even compared to the DVD version, it looks like CRAP. Its blurry, etc. So compressing a 720P 2hr movie to 1GB *IS* noticeable to anyone who cares. When I record TV (with my computer), in raw - its about 4.5GB per hour. I re-encode my TV shows two ways. Down to 300mb per hour - when quality isn't high on the list or 800~900mb if I do care, especially if its Adult Swim. The difference is noticeable.
People like you can't tell the difference between VHSDVDHiDef, so such poor quality is fine for you. For me, if *I'm* going to spend $20 on a movie - I want my $20 worth. The packaging, the extras and more. Many of these include media-player editions.
As far I know, many people are talking about pirated downloads. So $0 for no extras or anything else works for them. Fine, not my problem - I BUY my movies. I do wish Legit versions included DRM-Less media-player versions for more flexibility. So again, the DRM-ed Download content *IS* not transferable. Not Amazon, Not AppleTV, Not iTunes.
DL content is GREAT for rentals... where you spend $2~5 for the rental, good for 1-2 days. In multi-family homes, where a video can be watched dozens of times and from who knows where. A physical media that is bought and pa
~~ Most of the movies I have are compressed to less than 1GB and I don't see the quality difference between them and Bluray[/citation]
Uh, yes. More compression = worse picture. Thats why MP3s at 320 bit rate sound better than 128. Go ahead, turn some of your MP3s into 32 and let me know the difference.
I saw the new StarTrek ripped, about 1.3GB. It looked very good, I'll admit. But even compared to the DVD version, it looks like CRAP. Its blurry, etc. So compressing a 720P 2hr movie to 1GB *IS* noticeable to anyone who cares. When I record TV (with my computer), in raw - its about 4.5GB per hour. I re-encode my TV shows two ways. Down to 300mb per hour - when quality isn't high on the list or 800~900mb if I do care, especially if its Adult Swim. The difference is noticeable.
People like you can't tell the difference between VHSDVDHiDef, so such poor quality is fine for you. For me, if *I'm* going to spend $20 on a movie - I want my $20 worth. The packaging, the extras and more. Many of these include media-player editions.
As far I know, many people are talking about pirated downloads. So $0 for no extras or anything else works for them. Fine, not my problem - I BUY my movies. I do wish Legit versions included DRM-Less media-player versions for more flexibility. So again, the DRM-ed Download content *IS* not transferable. Not Amazon, Not AppleTV, Not iTunes.
DL content is GREAT for rentals... where you spend $2~5 for the rental, good for 1-2 days. In multi-family homes, where a video can be watched dozens of times and from who knows where. A physical media that is bought and pa
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Solved
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Connecting Optical headphones and HDMI soundbar to smart TV with TV speakers on
- Started by eac1948
- Replies: 15
-
Question Help with HP Laptop Battery and Boot Issues After Replacement
- Started by GusBloom
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter