ROTTEN TOMATOES: Down but Not Out, HD DVD Soldiers On Comments

Down but Not Out, HD DVD Soldiers On

by Jeff Giles | January 18, 2008

Summary

The clock hasn't stopped ticking on the format, but HD DVD consumers can look forward to seeing new films on store shelves -- for at least the next few months, anyway. Back to Article

(1-49 of 49 posts) | Reply

OperaGhost21 writes:
on Jan 18 2008 06:44 AM

I guess I just don't understand the stubborn pride behind the continued backing of a format that will ultimately disappear? Can't Universal, Paramount, and Toshiba just make the final push to Blu-Ray so that all studios can begin a collaborative effort to get people to join the HD revolution? Let's stop the fighting between the red and blue camp, and just focus on inviting others to experience the wonders of HD movies!

(Reply to this)

kubla writes:
on Jan 18 2008 06:54 AM

Easy for you to say. What about all those who bought HD DVD players? And how about all those that cringe at what a money-hungry conglomerate like Sony will do when they own a monopoly on the high definition video format? Sony has always been against other formats and stubbornly pursued their own. Seems like somewhat poetic justice that someone else is doing the same to them. But seriously, look at anything that has a Sony name on it... It is almost always more expensive than the SAME thing of another brand, sometimes absurdly so. There are some who are not so eager for Sony to win.... Well, we are eager for an end to the "war", but there's really no point to ending a war if the wrong side wins.

(Reply to this)

luvincharity writes:
on Jan 18 2008 07:09 AM

My god I am so sick of this. I bought into blu-ray right off the bat. Even if I didn't I would be investing now. I could care a less about the color of my disc or the cost of my player as long as I have a huge selection of movies to choose from. Catalogue title are great but I didn%u2019t invest into HD to revisit the past invested with excitement of what was coming. This whole thing needs to end so everyone can watch all the movies on one format. I feel bad for the average person who isnt educated on the two formats and pick up HD-DVD player expecting to watch many great movies on it and right now will get only a few titles a month. You buy into this for the movies not the format, and until Toshiba realizes that at this point they are only hurting the consumer shame on them. I mean my god I think this week Blu-ray had an 85 percent market share compared to HD-DVD's 15 percent but Toshiba on the HD-DVD website is claiming a 50 percent market share. Hate Sony all you want at least they arent blowing some up my a$$.

(Reply to this)

Slipperypick writes:
on Jan 18 2008 07:36 AM

This is the ugly side of Capitalism laid bare. Classic.

(Reply to this)

OperaGhost21 writes:
on Jan 18 2008 07:42 AM

Kubla, I own an HD-DVD player as well.

(Reply to this)

frogleg writes:
on Jan 18 2008 07:53 AM

Bah!
I'm going to skip the hi-resolution disc "revolution" and jump onboard when we get downloadable, streaming hi-def content.

(Reply to this)

pota1974 writes:
on Jan 18 2008 07:54 AM

I am very Content with my regular DVDs

(Reply to this)

kunglue writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:02 AM

HD & Blue-Ray will both be a short lived fad. Similar to the laser-disc (remember those,) there will be all sorts of hype surrounding it but they will eventually fall short.

Both formats will eventually lose out to downloads. Believe it or not the revolution has already begun. Xbox Live has already made movie downloads in HD quality available.

In a few short years, households will have a central server which connects to TVs and stereos throughout the house. All of your music, movies, and pictures will be in a library on a computer. You will be able to access this library from anywhere a connection is established.

No more bookshelves full of DVD and CD cases. Everything will be electronic.

The biggest thing holding this up is a way to prevent pirating.
Once this is resolved... say good by to hard-copies of movies.

My advice... don't invest in HD or Blue-Ray movies. YES! they do look spectacular and have outstanding picture and sound... but the same thing will be available via download soon. When this happens you'll have a bunch of plastic that you spent hundreds of dollars on.

(Reply to this)

dayfalljesse writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:23 AM

In reply to this comment (#1487105)
If you think this, you are literally insane.

Digital downloads of movies will never, EVER replace physical discs for a variety of reasons:
1) People like owning a physical copy
2) People like bonus features
3) Current connections are nowhere even near allowing the HD streaming of movies that will look correct on the large displays they are intended to play on...file sizes are too high, and we arent even 10 years close to the speed we need...literally 15-20 mb/sec.
4) You can easily take your digital download to watch at someones house

There are more, but the fact is that "Media Center" households will not become common...they will be the few and far betweens.

(Reply to this)

dracus writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:34 AM

Things that die a slow death usually have a sudden spark of life before taking that last desperate gasp. R.I.P HD DVD.

(Reply to this)

daveyhatton writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:45 AM

I chose HD-DVD because of the lower price point, their willingness to allow dual-format DVD/HD discs, ala WB combo (not sure if it%u2019s technically possible with Blu-Ray or if this is just stupid Sony stubborness), and the fact that I%u2019ve always had great luck with Toshiba products (Sony, not so much). People don%u2019t realize how great it is to have the combo discs; case in point, I picked up StarDust last week, but decided on the DVD version simply because I knew my daughter would want to watch it in her room. There%u2019s no way in heck that I%u2019m going to buy multiple Blu-Ray players at $400 a pop, nor multiple HD-DVD players. At first, I cursed the more expensive version of SuperMan Returns combo disc, but after having a difficult time with choosing which StarDust to pick up (I really, really, wanted the HD-DVD version), I realized how important the combo disc will be to the mainstream consumer, not to mention, much cheaper prices for the players. I could give a poo about the extra space Blu-Ray offers, as long as I can see my movies in HD%u2026 (HD-DVD should%u2019ve won from a mainstream consumers perspective)

(Reply to this)

kunglue writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#1487171)
1. Sure they do... that's why digital music hasn't taken off
2. I wasn't aware that bonus features couldn't be downloaded.
3. I bought an 80GB external hard-drive last year for $100. I bought a 500GB hard-drive for $150 this year... HDMI cables have also dropped in half in the past 2-years... Boy! technology sure is slow.
4. You are correct, you CAN take your digital downloads to a friends house via portable storage devices. hmm... travel with a small cube with 50 movies or take a big plastic bin with 50 movies in it... decisions, decisions.

(Reply to this)

ledjam13 writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:58 AM

In reply to this comment (#1487171)
wow dude, you are really far off, downloadable is coming and within 5 years.

1) People like owning a physical copy

- yeah some people love to have their physical dvd collections just like are still people who love their record and cd collections but ever heard of a thing called the ipod, people are moving away from disc collections in favor of mass portal storage devices with music and movies are the next thing

2) People like bonus features

- Everything thats on you physcial dvd will be available downloadable including the dvd menu and bonus features and probably a constant update of them since you will be hardwired to receive updated and new features. Bonus features and naavigation menus arent tied to a physcial disc, they are data written to it and can be written to a hard drive just as easily

3) Current connections are nowhere even near allowing the HD streaming of movies that will look correct on the large displays they are intended to play on...file sizes are too high, and we arent even 10 years close to the speed we need...literally 15-20 mb/sec.

- Yes current speeds prob wont produce a consistantly solid stream of HD video, thats why you will download it one time and its then stored on a "movie ipod box" near your TV, you dont stream everytime you want watch, thats retarded.

4) You cant easily take your digital download to watch at someones house.

- you pick up your "movie ipod box" and bring your entire move collection anywhere you want, just like you dont bring your cd rack to a friends house, you bring your mp3 player

(Reply to this)

kidnova writes:
on Jan 18 2008 09:36 AM

I just wanted to chime in real quickly on the digital download debate. I don't believe downloading of movies will become the norm for many years mainly because of some of the points already addressed: the desire for many users to have a physical copy and limits on download speeds.

My point however is regarding the comparisons being made to music downloads. This is an invalid comparison for a couple of reasons:

1) The size of the files is DRAMATICALLY different and the time required to download the files differs accordingly

2) Music downloads have taken off because they give users the option to buy an individual song at a reasonable price as opposed to purchasing the whole album. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I'd bet this accounts for 95% of music downloads. How many people do you know that will want to download 1 chapter off a movie? I can't think of any. With movies it is all or nothing, which is not the case for music.

So, if you want to make a case for downloading movies, please leave the ridiculous comparison to music downloads out.

(Reply to this)

ninjaandy writes:
on Jan 18 2008 09:38 AM

I don't think Ipod is a good comparison to what movie downloads may eventually look like. Music is generally something people do WHILE they do something else: driving, working, dancing, exercising, whatever.

When movies play, on the other hand, they are the focus of your attention.

Why is this distinction important? Because of the nature of portability. Music is readily snapped up in portable format because it's something you always want with you. But very few people want movies with them in all places and at all times.

Movies can't be compared easily to video games either. Video games, like books, can be put down without finishing them, to be finished later, and most people are fine with that. So they have an element of portability as well. The factor they have in common with movies is the reason you won't see any DS or PSPs being used for gaming in the same numbers people use portable music devices: sure, you can play games on a bus or waiting in line, but since they require your attention (like movies), you can't do anything else while you do that. So they aren't multi-task friendly.

Who wants to watch half an hour of their favorite movie on a bus, on a screen smaller than their palm? Very few people.

Now move it into the home realm. What motivation do people have to switch over to full downloads? They get to put away their shelves? Yippee. Physical storage space is not at that much of a premium. And if your hard drive crashes, there goes your collection. Sure you could download it again for free, but who wants to download hundreds of huge files more than once? As for transport, does anyone really care about taking 50 movies to your friends' houses? Some teenagers and college kids, maybe. That might be enough of a demographic to drive some sales, but won't encourage a society-wide change in thinking.

And ultimately, it just gets down to the visceral sense of ownership you get from seeing a collection of stuff. That's part of the reason we still have, and will always have, a physical library of books in a fully digital age.

I could see us going with majority digital downloads maybe once the next generation of kids is born and grows up with the idea of it. But there will always be a market for physical ownership of stuff.

(Reply to this)

darrinsgoodman writes:
on Jan 18 2008 01:36 PM

downloading will not replace discs - hurt their sales yes - but will not replace

(Reply to this)

Marktime writes:
on Jan 18 2008 01:55 PM

Oh how much I love my standard non-HD dvds.

(Reply to this)

Bane Of Anubis writes:
on Jan 18 2008 02:26 PM

Downloading won't replace discs, but in the next five years, it will surpass it.. and the storage format for physical copies will not remain on disc anyway.

Music may not be the exact analogy, but it's close enough -- People tend to take the path of least resistance and that path will be through fiber optic cables.

Anybody that thinks that dvds will be the mainstay for the next several years hasn't been paying attention to the technological trends of the past generation.

(Reply to this)

gee4411 writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:00 PM

i dont just see why all the companies cant just come up with one HD-DVD player and then copy off that sort of thing.... bringing out the dodgy cheapo's or the really expensive ones... or just improve the quality of regular dvd players to play better dvd's

(Reply to this)

luvincharity writes:
on Jan 18 2008 08:20 PM

This argument is absurd. A 50 gig movie would take a crapload of time to download. There are millions of people in the country that dont even have high-speed internet. Maybe if they really want to watch their huge movie download they should plan a couple months ahead. Plus maybe I want to watch my movies when I cant access my internet when I'm bored and have nothing else to do.

(Reply to this)

TheAnswerMVP2001 writes:
on Jan 19 2008 12:10 AM

HD is floundering because they aren't releasing anything good. Universal and Paramount have a load of catalog classic films they really ought to be releasing here in an attempt to salvage the format, but instead their sitting around picking their noses. All it would take is a HD release of Back to the Future, Gladiator, Braveheart and some others to boost HD sales back up, but right now they just aren't doing anything. Blu-Ray really doesn't have a great list of films either but they're leading the market just because they have a larger studio backing. More films being released (even though mediocre) still means more money.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jan 19 2008 02:16 AM

[b]Current connections are nowhere even near allowing the HD streaming of movies that will look correct on the large displays they are intended to play on...file sizes are too high, and we arent even 10 years close to the speed we need...literally 15-20 mb/sec.[/b]

It doesn't have to stream, and it doesn't have to rely on what people have now. That's where the companies come in, issuing download boxes on the cheap for the public's CONVENIENCE. People will take what they get, and Netflix is sponsoring a bandwidth unit capable of loading a two-hour film in four minutes. Just enough time to make popcorn, empty your load, and shut the family up. You may not bite for this, but it'll get bitten. And it can only go faster from there.

[b]There are more, but the fact is that "Media Center" households will not become common...they will be the few and far betweens. [/b]

They will soon be affordable out of necessity and, get this, CONVENIENT. The magic word. Cinephiles can avoid it all they wish, but no one else will care. But it's in the studios' best interests to go purely digital as soon as possible, that is once they've milked HD discs for all they're worth. One good reason: the end of used sales for physical media.

The previous point about books is a good one, but merely because the public doesn't care that much about books to see them go totally digital. Music and movies, however...

If it doesn't happen in five years, the FCC will make sure it will.

(Reply to this)

High School With Money writes:
on Jan 19 2008 02:33 AM

***This argument is absurd. A 50 gig movie would take a crapload of time to download. There are millions of people in the country that dont even have high-speed internet.***

Who said ANYTHING about the internet? Does a satellite system rely on the internet?

***The size of the files is DRAMATICALLY different and the time required to download the files differs accordingly***

Sure, two years ago, when downloads hit the scene. Now, nnnnnnnnnnnnnotsomuch.

***Music downloads have taken off because they give users the option to buy an individual song at a reasonable price as opposed to purchasing the whole album. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I'd bet this accounts for 95% of music downloads. How many people do you know that will want to download 1 chapter off a movie? I can't think of any. With movies it is all or nothing, which is not the case for music.***

It has to be said: this is the dumbest comparison in terms of movies to music. A movie chapter = a music track? Ever heard of movie renting? All that's needed to happen is to charge a minimal fee to receive a DivX-encrypted movie, and voila. Of course, if you don't watch it within the time alloted, sucks to be you.

(Yay, RT, let's get rid of reply IDs, edit functions, AND text code! Way to reverse engineer!! YAY!!!)

(Reply to this)

luvincharity writes:
on Jan 19 2008 07:30 AM

In reply to this comment (#1489363)
You are right I didnt even think that the dowloads could be done through a satellite service. But on the point of dowloading movies it will never go past the stage of rental. No company is going to feel safe giving movie downloads on a perminent basis you will only be able to use it for a certain amount of time. As you said if you dont sucks to be you. So all these people that say they will never buy a HD disc in the future especially if it going to be blu-ray are just fooling themselves.

(Reply to this)

Scorth writes:
on Jan 19 2008 09:28 AM

As much as I would like to see streaming media become more mainstream, frankly it's not happening anytime soon. I use a media pc at home and streaming/downloading would be great, but simply isn't possible for HD movies anytime soon. Sure standard def movies could easily be done right now, but look at the difference in size. A divx file with 5.1 audio runs around 1.5Gb for standard def. A 1080p in h.264 is a minimum 10Gb file. At the same time you are giving up some of the biggest benefits to blu-ray, uncompressed audio and 7.1 hd audio. You add that to a download and the file sizes jump to 25Gb . There simply aren't connections fast enough to stream that right now, and won't be for years. As for a satellite service, do you honestly think a dedicated satellite system could be deployed and bug tested within 5 years? I hardly think so. For me, I would rather have quality over convienence. A streaming service will have to use compression to keep file sizes down, and with that compression you lose quality.

(Reply to this)

The Tony Show writes:
on Jan 19 2008 10:50 AM

lol @ "Betaville" being used as the photo to the right of this story.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Jan 19 2008 06:59 PM

I love when the people fight about downloads being the future. You know they said that about music yet CDs are still alive and kicking and still making bank. Again no one is going to want to get rid of their actual library of dvds so they can all store it on a flash drive or hard drive that if something happens to it then there goes thousands of dollars.

(Reply to this)

Tennman9985 writes:
on Jan 19 2008 10:53 PM

I agree I think it should all be converted to one form of HD Movie.... but I dont know of those who've heard but... this summer LG Electronics is releasing a box conviently, and currently called "The Box" which brings HD movies streamed directly from Netflix(if you have an account) to your home tv. Which to me is an endless movie collection for just 25-30 bucks a month... the LG made box is going to be listed at 300 dollars on release but i see it as a better way than trying to buy into all this HD war. Also I have a dvd collection of over 500 SD movies so i dont want to immediatley try an buy into the whole HD thing as of yet....

(Reply to this)

ViewAskewian writes:
on Jan 19 2008 11:54 PM

As far as the formats are concerned, my views are as follows: HD/DVD had the deal sealed my friends; the name itself carries on the original ( and well known ) title DVD and added a abbreviation that is also very well known and loved "HD". As far as the average consumer goes that would pretty much seal the deal, hell it even did it for me. Anyone that games and has a X-Box 360, and wants to take a plunge into the HighDef world would only have to cough up $180 bucks for a HD/DVD player ( alot better than $400-500 for a Sony Blu-Ray ) But as stated before they didn't live up to the expectations of the consumer. It's almost as if they saw the Blu-ray platform and admitted defeat; even though it did manage to catch the eye of the porn industry before doing so ha. Also as good as Blu-ray has always sounded, It almost seemed and still seems to good to be true. Especially for a Sony platform. Everyone knows they have strived and tryed to create various platforms from MiniDisc to UMD, and have failed in doing so.... Was Blu-Ray going to follow in the same foot steps? Well now, obviously not with the way things are looking. In hindsight I thought for sure it was going to be another big loss for Sony. It was basically the same platform ( both shedding out full HD; at 1080p res. ) as HD/DVD, but claimed to hold twice as much. All rumors aside this was never a true statement. Blu-Ray holds around 25g for a single layered disc and 50g for a dual layered. Almost the exact same for HD/DVD ( about 5g less ). So how did Sony manage to come out on top? Its not because of the amount of titles released from each side ( Blu-ray dropping about 400 titles, and HD/DVD right behind with 360 titles, As of November, 2007. ) It's because Sony has hook-ups. WALK INTO A F**KING TARGET GO TO THE HD SECTION AND LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLU-RAY AND HD/DVD. Now ask yourself this.... If you were in that store, before you purchased the player wouldn't you want to see the ammount of titles for each side?? you say to yourself "of course" so you run down to the HD section and see blu-ray out number HD/DVD 4-1... Then you go to the players, but for some reason you can only find Blu-Ray players?? ( besides the hd/dvd add on sold for the gamers ) Hmmmmmm.... Sony just has the peeps to back them. All HD has is Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson backing them, Hell that platform has my vote!!

Also As far as a totally Digital world, As cool as it sounds.... It's just not going to happen yet. Thats all that needs to be stated about that subject. Ajmk123 makes an outstanding point on this subject.

Thanks for reading my incoherent ramblings.

-Brandon

(Reply to this)

Christopher256G writes:
on Jan 20 2008 12:58 PM

The PS3 is deciding this race, as I expected, selling far and away better than any standalone player on any side of this format war. Still it's going to be a few years before Blue Ray can even begin to compete with standard DVDs. For me I'll be buying standard DVDs for a while yet.

(Reply to this)

enivel writes:
on Jan 20 2008 01:08 PM

In reply to this comment (#1486909)
In response to Kubla and others saying things like:

"Easy for you to say. What about all those who bought HD DVD players? And how about all those that cringe at what a money-hungry conglomerate like Sony will do when they own a monopoly on the high definition video format? Sony has always been against other formats and stubbornly pursued their own. Seems like somewhat poetic justice that someone else is doing the same to them. But seriously, look at anything that has a Sony name on it... It is almost always more expensive than the SAME thing of another brand, sometimes absurdly so. There are some who are not so eager for Sony to win.... Well, we are eager for an end to the "war", but there's really no point to ending a war if the wrong side wins."

Here is a list of major consumer electronics companies supporting each side:

Blu-ray:
Apple, Inc.
Dell
HP
Hitachi
LG
Mitsubishi Electric
Panasonic
Pioneer
Philips
Samsung
Sharp
Sony

HD-DVD
Toshiba
Microsoft
HP
Acer

Basically the only major electronics manufacturer supporting HD-DVD is Toshiba, with everyone else in the Blu-ray camp. For everyone accusing Sony of starting another format war, you are wrong. Toshiba is the one screwing over consumers this time.

(Reply to this)

Anjohl writes:
on Jan 20 2008 04:51 PM

I don't see DVD sales losing out to digital downloads for at least 10 years. The reason being that North American culture is very domestic-oriented. People know that downloads, even legal ones, kill the domestic economy, and cost a lot of people jobs. Also, I enjoy shopping at the local dvd shops for new movies, it's not the same browsing an online menu to dump credit card funds on megabytes.

There is always the joy of finding a rare, or hard to get movie or videogame for WAY underpriced. Digital downloads will kill that. Plus, dvd downloads will always lose out to piracy, so the industry will continue promoting hard-to-copy special features and packaging to keep people honest.

(Reply to this)

kROCK writes:
on Jan 20 2008 09:55 PM

I doubt the discs will die off with internet downloads, but I think thye will both have chunks of marlet share. Some people like physical copies, some like downloads. As for harddrive issues, as we start switching to flash memory, storage could be as reliable as blu-ray.

(Reply to this)

jokerboy1991 writes:
on Jan 20 2008 10:00 PM

ill probably just bu HD and Blu-Rey players when there really cheap like DVD players our now.

(Reply to this)

iluvatar writes:
on Jan 21 2008 03:20 AM

Just figured I'd pipe in regarding the whole digital versus hard-copy question being debated here ... to point out WHO cares?! Anyone who thinks hard-copy dvd's are going to go the way of the dinosaur in the next 10 years is either smoking crack or 18 years old and jacked into World of Warcraft 24/7. At some point in the not too distant future technology and our personal predilections might "progress" to the point that we don't require a tangible testimony to our consumer impulses, but that time is not now. Digital copies and direct download services will without question become more and more popular, perhaps even overtaking hard-copy DVDs in the next 10 years, but if you truly believe that DVDs will be REPLACED in that time you're off your rocker. I have over 5 Terabytes of miscellaneous digital material strewn across a host of computers and tucked away in binders full of DVDRs, but my DVD collection remains front and center, the pride of my AV room (aside from the TV, reciever, speakers, couch ... nevermind), categorized, alphabetized ... and still growing. And if you acknowledge the more or less incontestable assertion that hard-copy technology will be alive and kicking for at least the next decade it would be pretty ridiculous to trash the mentality of those willing to embrace Hi-Definition DVD technology.

That being said ;) ... I've got less than no sympathy to anyone complaining about being left in the lurch with HD-DVD. We all knew going into this that there was a format war a-brewing and I can only assume that anyone who braved those waters did so because they were financially secure in taking that risk (and in owning the requisite 50" 1080p display), and anyone who doesn't fall into that description, well, there's a sucker born every day, sorry.

(Reply to this)

kidnova writes:
on Jan 21 2008 10:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#1489363)
***The size of the files is DRAMATICALLY different and the time required to download the files differs accordingly***

Sure, two years ago, when downloads hit the scene. Now, nnnnnnnnnnnnnotsomuch.

***Music downloads have taken off because they give users the option to buy an individual song at a reasonable price as opposed to purchasing the whole album. I don't have any stats to back it up, but I'd bet this accounts for 95% of music downloads. How many people do you know that will want to download 1 chapter off a movie? I can't think of any. With movies it is all or nothing, which is not the case for music.***

It has to be said: this is the dumbest comparison in terms of movies to music. A movie chapter = a music track? Ever heard of movie renting? All that's needed to happen is to charge a minimal fee to receive a DivX-encrypted movie, and voila. Of course, if you don't watch it within the time alloted, sucks to be you.

So, you're actually going to tell me that there is no difference between downloading a file that is a few MBs and a file that is a couple GBs? Even on a high speed connection the time it takes to download an HD movie as compared to a song is different. That's leaving out the number of people who don't even have a high speed connection.

Secondly, you completely missed the point of the chapter to song comparison. The reason music downloads have taken off are because consumers are able to download one specific song off of an album for $.99 instead of purchasing the entire CD for $12. Most people who want an entire album would prefer to just buy the CD with as opposed to downloading the entire thing. The COST SAVINGS is what is important to most consumers. Movies, however, do not offer this option. If the consumer has a choice between downloading the movie or purchasing the physical media (along with all of the extras often included in the package), then most of them will choose the latter unless there is a SIGNFICANT difference in cost. I, for one, don't see the movie companies charging much less for a download. I could be wrong, but I would be surprised if the difference is more than a couple dollars.

(Reply to this)

Big Freeze writes:
on Jan 21 2008 10:28 AM

In reply to this comment (#1487105)
yeah, in the future there will also be flying cars and people will live for 300 years. for millions of people who don't feel like waiting 5-10 years to enjoy hi-def via download, they should go ahead and cop a blu-ray or a ps3 now and enjoy the best picture/sound anywhere. and to those who did buy an hd-dvd player, pack it up and put it in your garage right next to the beta-max player and the vcr.

(Reply to this)

meatcake writes:
on Jan 21 2008 01:16 PM

What kills me is HD-DVD is the cheaper format. Cheaper to produce, cheaper to make the players, you would think that as money hungry as the movie industry is, they would have backed the cheaper horse. Instead Sony is throwing money at these guys to get them to go the Blu-ray route. The industry isn't looking at the larger picture, they are just looking at dollar signs. In reality, it will end up costing the movie industry MORE to go 100% blu-ray. Idiots, straight up idiots. Idiots with money...even worse.

(Reply to this)

ajmk123 writes:
on Jan 21 2008 03:01 PM

Idiots for going to the market leader? Where is your info it cost more? Lets see it would cost them more to make HDDvds because the simple fact is that they are smaller than blu ray

(Reply to this)

nathanpoitras writes:
on Jan 21 2008 03:05 PM

You'd have to be crazy or stupid or both to buy an HD-DVD player now, but if you do, I have a few laserdiscs you might also be interested in.

(Reply to this)

talan7 writes:
on Jan 21 2008 04:46 PM

Know what's weird. I have HD-DVD and since I purchased it last year I buy even less movies. Yeah, certain titles are gotta have, like 300 and Transformers but when I see the price of the average HD-DVD I think to myself, I'm not paying that much for a dvd. When I do that something else weird happens. I think well since I'm not going to buy the HD-DVD why buy the 2 disc collectors edtion? Just get the $15 dollar regular edition, or why get it at all. So I buy even less. And if the title is not hd-dvd I don't want cause it's not. Then when they do release older movies on hd-dvd they're not the directors cut.

This is what you get when greedy companies try to brainwash you into buying what you really don't need.

(Reply to this)

ViewAskewian writes:
on Jan 21 2008 11:22 PM

Some people just dont understand. When DVDs came out, the same people were bitching about the prices.... Now you can buy a DVD for $5 bucks. Blu-Ray discs are at most $5 dollars more than HD/DVD, Aftertime you will see the prices come down once more peeople convert over. If companies backed HD/DVD for that measily $5 dollar factor and passed up the better of the two (especially in the long run) being Blu-Ray..... That would just be rediculous and also would be a loss of a great platform. In all reality you get what you pay for....

(Reply to this)

bb963 writes:
on Jan 22 2008 06:16 PM

In reply to this comment (#1487386)
Anyone who thinks downloadable movies will replace or surpass discs in the next 5 years is pretty naive (especially ledjam13). Not only will it take a hell of a long time to download, also the majority of people who have the internet still prefer not to buy things online because of security reasons.

(Reply to this)

kentcrowe writes:
on Jan 22 2008 07:56 PM

I can't believe people want digital downloads to take over. I like having the copy in my hand, plus I quite enjoy having a wall full of movies....haha.

(Reply to this)

Voiceguy writes:
on Jan 23 2008 07:12 AM

In reply to this comment (#1486909)
>>What about all those who bought HD DVD players?
>>And how about all those that cringe at what a
>>money-hungry conglomerate like Sony will do when
>>they own a monopoly on the high definition video format?

Why wouldn't people cringe just as much at Microsoft (the other major backer of HD-DVD) owning a monopoly on the high definition video format?

VG

(Reply to this)

nikplowman writes:
on Jan 26 2008 06:10 AM

In reply to this comment (#1487846)
ME TOO!

I cannot stand all the HD crap, I have spent so much money on my DVD collection, and now I am like, What now? Am I supposed to just move on?
I hope HD and Blu disappear.

(Reply to this)

nikplowman writes:
on Jan 26 2008 06:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#1510631)
I agree, I love having all my dvds up on the wall, free for all to marvel over and for me to look at from time to time and go, wow, look at all those memories. Downloads feel so sterile and non-permanent (I know they are), but there is nothing better than a dvd with fabulous cover art...

fataculture.wordpress.com

(Reply to this)

bigfishjuan writes:
on Feb 18 2008 03:47 PM

There is a big difference between an HD-DVD player and a LaserDisc or BetaMax player. BetaMax and LaserDisc players were pretty much exclusive to their own formats. HD-DVD players, on the other hand, play standard DVDs. Not only do they play them, but they can actually upgrade the picture quality. So, as long as people are still playing standard DVDs, HD-DVD players can serve a purpose.

I don't understand why people who can afford a Blu-Ray player can't just fork out another $150 (the cost of about 5 movies) for an HD-DVD player that comes with at least 5 free movies by mail-in rebate. Then both formats could live on indefinitely and people would buy movies on whichever format the respective movie studios utilized. People who can't afford $150 for an HD-DVD player are probably people who don't have a good enough TV for it to matter, and these are the same people that will keep the standard DVDs alive. If you have a HD-DVD player and all the studios go exclusively to Blu-Ray, you can continue to buy standard definition DVDs, watch them in 1080i, and save up to 75% buying DVDs instead of Blu-Rays. Or, if you have both (like I do), you can use them on different TVs in the house or use the HD-DVD player for whichever HD-DVDs you already own (virtually identical in quality to Blu-Ray) and also for the standard-def DVDs to save the wear-and-tear on your much more expensive Blu-Ray player.

I'm actually enjoying the competition. I got an HD-DVD player for $150 and got 10 free HD-DVDs with it. Furthermore, the mere existence of HD-DVD is keeping Blu-Ray prices in check. I think the competition is good for consumers and I hope HD-DVD sticks it out.

As for the debate about whether downloads will replace discs, if it does happen, it's a long way off. Millions of people take a long time to adapt to new technologies, even for years after they've become available... and we're probably years away from practical availability. I knew a guy in 2000 who had a fully functional HDTV -- I didn't get my first HDTV until late 2007. It took about 6 years before HDTVs were affordable to the general population and we're probably still several years away from complete assimilation by people who have less money or people who just don't care. And that's with a product that is unequivocally superior. Downloads are not unequivocally better than discs for the reasons already given by others in this thread. I like having discs for several reasons:

1) I can keep them on display and take pride in my collection. I take no pride in the thousands of songs that are on my computer.
2) I am not subject to losing everything if something happens to the hard drive. I have had problems with DVR's in the past and I lost everything I had recorded. If I could have burned those programs to a disc, I would have still had them. I have also lost my entire music collection with computer hard drive failurs... thank goodness I had a case of hundreds of CD's.
3) It's also enjoyable to take movies to friends' houses, and to shop for DVDs in stores.

I think, in all likelihood, we will have both technologies side-by-side. It'll be like our DVRs that we already have combined with a downloading option similar to internet downloading (like digital cable's On-Demand programming). These DVRs will probably have built-in Blu-Ray players/burners that allow you to back up your programming to a disc. Of course they'll have to figure out how to protect the formatting from piracy, which gives us even more time for status quo.

(Reply to this)

bigfishjuan writes:
on Feb 18 2008 03:48 PM

There is a big difference between an HD-DVD player and a LaserDisc or BetaMax player. BetaMax and LaserDisc players were pretty much exclusive to their own formats. HD-DVD players, on the other hand, play standard DVDs. Not only do they play them, but they can actually upgrade the picture quality. So, as long as people are still playing standard DVDs, HD-DVD players can serve a purpose.

I don't understand why people who can afford a Blu-Ray player can't just fork out another $150 (the cost of about 5 movies) for an HD-DVD player that comes with at least 5 free movies by mail-in rebate. Then both formats could live on indefinitely and people would buy movies on whichever format the respective movie studios utilized. People who can't afford $150 for an HD-DVD player are probably people who don't have a good enough TV for it to matter, and these are the same people that will keep the standard DVDs alive. If you have a HD-DVD player and all the studios go exclusively to Blu-Ray, you can continue to buy standard definition DVDs, watch them in 1080i, and save up to 75% buying DVDs instead of Blu-Rays. Or, if you have both (like I do), you can use them on different TVs in the house or use the HD-DVD player for whichever HD-DVDs you already own (virtually identical in quality to Blu-Ray) and also for the standard-def DVDs to save the wear-and-tear on your much more expensive Blu-Ray player.

I'm actually enjoying the competition. I got an HD-DVD player for $150 and got 10 free HD-DVDs with it. Furthermore, the mere existence of HD-DVD is keeping Blu-Ray prices in check. I think the competition is good for consumers and I hope HD-DVD sticks it out.

As for the debate about whether downloads will replace discs, if it does happen, it's a long way off. Millions of people take a long time to adapt to new technologies, even for years after they've become available... and we're probably years away from practical availability. I knew a guy in 2000 who had a fully functional HDTV -- I didn't get my first HDTV until late 2007. It took about 6 years before HDTVs were affordable to the general population and we're probably still several years away from complete assimilation by people who have less money or people who just don't care. And that's with a product that is unequivocally superior. Downloads are not unequivocally better than discs for the reasons already given by others in this thread. I like having discs for several reasons:

1) I can keep them on display and take pride in my collection. I take no pride in the thousands of songs that are on my computer.
2) I am not subject to losing everything if something happens to the hard drive. I have had problems with DVR's in the past and I lost everything I had recorded. If I could have burned those programs to a disc, I would have still had them. I have also lost my entire music collection with computer hard drive failurs... thank goodness I had a case of hundreds of CD's.
3) It's also enjoyable to take movies to friends' houses, and to shop for DVDs in stores.

I think, in all likelihood, we will have both technologies side-by-side. It'll be like our DVRs that we already have combined with a downloading option similar to internet downloading (like digital cable's On-Demand programming). These DVRs will probably have built-in Blu-Ray players/burners that allow you to back up your programming to a disc. Of course they'll have to figure out how to protect the formatting from piracy, which gives us even more time for status quo.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Betaville

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links