Paramount and Dreamworks Go HD-DVD Exclusive

[PeruvianSkies]

NOPE, and you just dont listen do ya?
Both of these "formats" are the "old" way of thinking, that in order to buy media
you have to get "physical", but the new way of thinking is why buy when what you want
is available on a server somewhere on the planet, available at a moments notice.
We just dont have the petrochemicals to make billions of shiny discs every year just so people can watch movies, downloading is already price competitive with rentals,
with the price of gas going higher downloading looks more attractive all of the time
If the two warring factions had any sense they would team up against their common
enemy, but after three and a half decades of following the electronics industry I have yet
to see anything aproaching "common sense"

I was always told never listen to those who try and teach their opinion and pass it off as fact.

[pixelthis]

I was always told never listen to those who try and teach their opinion and pass it off as fact.

I have never tried to pass of my "opinion" as fact, just because you cant tell the difference
between an opinion and a statement of fact isnt my fault.
Must be the product of a modern education

[drseid]

Well, I suspected that some kind of "behind the scenes" goings were behind Paramount's decision, and here's the short of it ...

Microsoft paid off Paramount and Dreamworks to drop Blu-ray.

Apparently, it's "promotional" considerations and prime placement on their Xbox Live service, along with free VC-1 and HDi authoring tools. Needless to say, Microsoft's intentions all along have been to sabotage the HD optical disc market long enough for HD downloading to take off, and they've obviously now played that hand.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.co...vd-format-war/

Bill Hunt of the Digital Bits is not happy about this development since it ensures that the format war will linger on. I totally agree with him that this is not good for consumers, and it looks like a cash grab by Paramount and Dreamworks Animation. I also agree that now it would not be surprising to see Microsoft also put a full court press on Warner to get them to drop Blu-ray as well, which would leave the HD optical disc market back at square one -- at an impasse and DOA, exactly how Microsoft wants it. Here are the links...

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa141.html#dp
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/#mytwocents

Personally I am elated at the news.

While I am just as disatisfied as most that there is a format war in the first place, with HD DVD players coming down in price all of the time, I think this creates a very *good* market for the consumer.

This announcement is gargantuan, and changes the dynamic entirely. I will not predict an HD DVD win, but I would say this announcement actually now gives HD DVD the upper hand in "the war" with an eventual dual-format player result highly likely. I believe this due to the large price differential between the cost of the two formats' respective players, coupled with the recent seeming destruction of the lame combo HD DVD/DVD discs that put HD DVD at a price disadvantage on the software side. With these two developments in hand, HD DVD is well poised to start attracting the average joe at the store. I also believe retailers will have to start to create more shelf space for HD DVD titles and players... It is happy days in the HD DVD camp indeed!

All of the above said, I too was shocked at Paramount's decision. Apart from the already speculated financial arrangement, I too see no reason why they would do this... I guess HD DVD put up some cash, but it may have been the best investment they could have made for long-term survival.

So PixelThis... Still making predictions of HD DVD's immenent demise? :-) Like I have said previously, I believe both formats can survive long-term, and there will be no "winner" (except the consumer). It is still too early to make predictions with any real certanty.

---Dave

[kexodusc]

Well I've visited a lot of forums on this issue in the last day - aside from the HD-DVD and Microsoft fan boys who are giddy like school girls (a thread unto itself), a lot of people are pretty ticked off that Microsoft decided to use its weight to influence the market. This would include the BluRay fanboys, and more importantly, the vast majority of people who are still on the fence and just want the format war to end so they can go either way.

Can't say I'm surprised - and big kudos to MS on a very smart move. Very self-serving, but smart.
The best comments I've seen have been that the only winner in all of this is going to be Microsoft, if there's a winner at all.

Unless BluRay really rallies and continues to build momentum somehow (or Sony starts buying off support too - which would be absolutely hilarious), or other BluRay studios start accepting bribes and go HD-DVD exclusive, these formats are likely headed to some sort of stalemate.

I don't think Microsoft will offer any other studio the same deal. Microsoft isn't exactly married to HD-DVD, and do not want HD-DVD to win anymore than BluRay, especially this early. Their goal, as has been mentioned, is the HD Downloading market - far more potential for profit than their stake in HD-DVD, and we can bet they'll turn on Toshiba and HD-DVD at the most opportune time.

So as a consumer, here's my options for an HD solution:
1) buy an expensive piece of hardware that has limited software support either way, (great I can watch half the movies I like with it), or

2) start looking at HD downloading options, which still offer vastly inferior quality and limited use options comapred to the disk-based formats - and for many will be more expensive because of the service charge/internet access requirements associated with it. It's not really cheaper, or higher quality. Though I am attracted to the convenience element - definitely in my future.

I'm not exactly a happy consumer in the would-be free market today. My hope is the rest of the industy sees Microsoft's move for what it is, and just rallies behind HD-DVD now. This would blindside a lot of people, but it's probably more likely than other HD-DVD supporters going neutral or BluRay exclusive.

Wonder how long companies like Apple and Dell will sit on the sidelines? I'm sure this isn't the last plot twist.

On the plus side, I can't say I'm not deriving some satisfaction in knowing Sony is sweating a bit...

[Rich-n-Texas]

So should I put that Oppo 981HD back in my cart and be happy with SACD's and upconverted 1080p? I'd be able to implement my HDMI inputs...

[Groundbeef]

I don't think Microsoft will offer any other studio the same deal. Microsoft isn't exactly married to HD-DVD, and do not want HD-DVD to win anymore than BluRay, especially this early. Their goal, as has been mentioned, is the HD Downloading market - far more potential for profit than their stake in HD-DVD, and we can bet they'll turn on Toshiba and HD-DVD at the most opportune time. ...

I think that MS will ride HD-DVD for as long as it takes. Although 150MM is chump change for them, they still have a financial stake in the format. At this point it is more adventageous for them to stick it in Sony's eye than anything else. I don't see them "turning" on Toshiba so much as having HD downloads surpass HD-DVD in sales.

So as a consumer, here's my options for an HD solution:
1) buy an expensive piece of hardware that has limited software support either way, (great I can watch half the movies I like with it), or

2) start looking at HD downloading options, which still offer vastly inferior quality and limited use options comapred to the disk-based formats - and for many will be more expensive because of the service charge/internet access requirements associated with it. It's not really cheaper, or higher quality. Though I am attracted to the convenience element - definitely in my future....

As far as #1, machine prices are only going to go lower. By Christmas a standalone HD-DVD player will be under $200. It may not have all the bells and whistles, but it will run. Currently the 360 HD-DVD addon runs between $149-179 and includes 6 free movies. Not a bad deal.

#2. Have you really ( I mean yourself personally) d/l a HD/ or SD program? Where are you basing "vastly inferior quality" statement from? It has been my experience that the movies that I have personally rented and watched on my Plasma have been OUTSTANDING. Costs are reasonable, around $4.00 per viewing. Your internet cost is "sunk" so that really doesn't factor into the equation. If you are only having cable/DSL just to watch movies then it may be an issue, but for all intents and purposes most people have high speed because they want it. So to try and tie the cost of internet with cost of d/l would be the equivilent of saying rentals at Blockbuster are $$$ because you need to spend $10,000 or so for a car to get there.

I would urge you to find a friend who has a 360, and d/l a movie or 2. You would be amazed how fast, and good the actual product is.

On the plus side, I can't say I'm not deriving some satisfaction in knowing Sony is sweating a bit...

Me either. It's always fun watching the giants stumble. MS has its issues also, but it is nice to see them struggling(Sony). If nothing else it makes them work harder to be better.

[GMichael]

So, I'm thinking, maybe a PS3 for the living room, and an HD-DVD for the bedroom. Or, should I go with an (Xbox + add on) in the living room and a BR for the bedroom. Hmmm...
Plan A seems to cost a little less.

[kexodusc]

I think that MS will ride HD-DVD for as long as it takes. Although 150MM is chump change for them, they still have a financial stake in the format. At this point it is more adventageous for them to stick it in Sony's eye than anything else. I don't see them "turning" on Toshiba so much as having HD downloads surpass HD-DVD in sales.

Bottom line- if MS feels they can make more by incapacitating the HD-DVD format so that downloading is the preferred vehicle of choice for HD movies, they're gonna do that. The profitability of holding a BluRay or HD-DVD patent is insignificant compared to the service charges MS will be raking in. Of course, others will enter that industry soon enough if Microsoft strikes oil. "Turning on them" is a bit harsh of me to say, but I see their actions not as an outright endorsement of the HD-DVD movie format, but rather a tactic to make sure nobody else gets a bigger stranglehold on the HD market. Downloads surpassing HD-disc sales is definitely more desirable for Microsoft than the peanuts they'll take in from HD-DVD. The longer this stupid format war goes, the more attractive HD-DL becomes for a lot of us - I know I don't want to commit to any format that cannot deliver a significant % of the new release market.

As far as #1, machine prices are only going to go lower. By Christmas a standalone HD-DVD player will be under $200. It may not have all the bells and whistles, but it will run. Currently the 360 HD-DVD addon runs between $149-179 and includes 6 free movies. Not a bad deal.

The longer this goes, the more I'd expect BluRay to catch up in the price department. There's been little incentive for them to cut prices in the last year, so they haven't done much there really. Why would you cut prices when you're outselling your competition 2:1 or more with higher prices? That'll change now. If it doesn't BluRay will die a quick death. Though I really never thought they'd compete selling $1000 players vs $400 ones so what do I know? I suspect HD-DVD will always be a bit cheaper, but the gap will decrease.

[QUOTE]#

2. Have you really ( I mean yourself personally) d/l a HD/ or SD program? Where are you basing "vastly inferior quality" statement from?

Come on...I've DL/purchased plenty of HD and SD material from my HD provider, and have personally watched HD movies through Microsoft's service. In both HD and SD, I've found both below the quality in both sound and video of the same titles on HD-DVD or DVD, usually because of compression, or problems in the hardware that supports the network. You know as well as I do that we could poll a ton of people and get the same answer.

I would say the onus is on any provider to prove to me that their picture and audio quality matches HD-DVDs and BluRays. That said, I'm generally satisfied with what I get, only it's not permanent, and it's not quite as good as the tangible disk format. I suspect eventually bit-for-bit copies will be used and this will address the quality side, and purchase options for permanaent copies will be made available too.


.

Your internet cost is "sunk" so that really doesn't factor into the equation. If you are only having cable/DSL just to watch movies then it may be an issue, but for all intents and purposes most people have high speed because they want it. So to try and tie the cost of internet with cost of d/l would be the equivilent of saying rentals at Blockbuster are $$$ because you need to spend $10,000 or so for a car to get there.

Wrong. It absolutely factors into the equation. For me to get the level of service I need to make downloading 30-50 GB movies practical, I need to pay for better service. Eespecially when this really takes off - it is going to put a lot of strain on ISP networks. I'm sure you're well aware of all the subtle talk of "pay by the bit" billing schemes these guys want to use. It's coming - or something to that effect. Imagine a whole neighborhood streaming/dl HD movies, while their kids are downloading MP3's and streaming you tube. It's gonna get more expensive.

Also, the internet costs aren't sunk for a huge portion of the population. Don't just dismiss this. A lot of us are going to have to upgrade services big time to make HD downloading feasible. Monthly service charges will increase as a result. Per month it's not unbearable, I bet over 4-5 years that cost would rival the price of an HD-DVD player at least. To disprove this point, you would have to demonstrate that everyone would have the same demand for their hi-speed internet service whether they download movies or not, and that nobody will have to increase service as a result. I'm sorry I'm not buying that.

I would urge you to find a friend who has a 360, and d/l a movie or 2. You would be amazed how fast, and good the actual product is.

Been there done that. I was impressed - enough that I'm getting one for myself soon...real soon...Just not as impressed as that same movie on the HD-DVD drive.. Are you telling me right now it's absolutely 100% as good in both audio and video? When I saw it, the downloads were in what (I think) MS's proprietary Windows Media-HD format at 720p, and under 7 Mbps 5.1 Dolby Digital. Good, but not nearly as good as HD-DVD. The larger and better your display, the more of an issue this is. I think my TV service provider has similar specs, slightly below. I'll have to ask my brother for the exact specs. Maybe I'm off.

Me either. It's always fun watching the giants stumble. MS has its issues also, but it is nice to see them struggling(Sony). If nothing else it makes them work harder to be better.

I don't get that much satisfaction out of watching someone stumble when it means consumer demand has been bypassed and rendered irrelevant in the process. I hate the arrogance of all these big businesses dictating to us what our choices in the matter will be. It's great they benefit. Not great when/if that comes at my expense. Oh well, happens all the time - like Coke's exlusivity at McDonalds. I've got bigger things to worry about.

I complained when Sony started bribing studios a few years ago, and I'm complaining now. But this is a matter of principle and academics. I'm sure the EU and anit-MS crowd is going to come forward with the anti-trust stuff now...here we go again.

I'll say one thing for MS. They earned a bit of my respect when they extended the XBox warranty...my bro's unit was a coaster for awhile, so he bought a 2nd one. He had both receipts and they actually reimbursed his replacement purchase!

[L.J.]

So far the PS3 has been perfect for my situation. I game as much as I watch BR so it's a win win. Even if BR fell off the planet I would still be able to enjoy whatever BR movies I own and continue to use the system for gaming/streaming.

I had given up my plans on getting an HD DVD player but now I'm thinking about it again. I was reading up on the 360 (been toying with the idea of getting one) at AVS and there seems to be alot of problems with it. My friend is on his 3rd one. Plus I think it can only do DD & DTS. That's really holding me back.

[Groundbeef]

So, I'm thinking, maybe a PS3 for the living room, and an HD-DVD for the bedroom. Or, should I go with an (Xbox + add on) in the living room and a BR for the bedroom. Hmmm...
Plan A seems to cost a little less.

Does it? You can get a premium 360 for $349 + $179(HD-DVD) = $528. Plus 5 free movies and the King Kong HD-DVD with the add-on player for the 360. Composite cable included for HD video. Only has 20 gig HardDrive though, thats a little sad. 360 will run with any standard IR remote or universal remote. Harmony also makes a 360 specific remote.

PS3. 60 gig, w blu-ray on sale for $499 (until the 60 gigs run out. Then price jumps to $599 for the 80 gig hard drive). You get 1 movie, and no freebies. Plus you're on the hook for HDMI cable. If not, you can use the yellow video cable they provide for free (execellent HD playback I hear). Also, you can't use an IR remote control with your PS3, so forget about your fancy universal remote. Have to be satisfied with using your controller.

Add all the extras for the PS3, and its really no bargin.

[Groundbeef]

I had given up my plans on getting an HD DVD player but now I'm thinking about it again. I was reading up on the 360 (been toying with the idea of getting one) at AVS and there seems to be alot of problems with it. My friend is on his 3rd one. Plus I think it can only do DD & DTS. That's really holding me back.

MS has stepped up to the plate recently, and extended the warrenty for 3 years for problems related to machine kills (red ring of death as the phrase goes). Also, they have changed the heat sink configuration, and are now including HDMI in the machine.

Your friend's luck should be changing as far as reliabiltiy. Unfortunatly it is a rather big black eye for MS, but one that I think that they will recover from.

Plus, as a gaming platform it really is good. Depends upon some of the series that you like, but there are a ton of games out for it.

[Groundbeef]

Come on...I've DL/purchased plenty of HD and SD material from my HD provider, and have personally watched HD movies through Microsoft's service. In both HD and SD, I've found both below the quality in both sound and video of the same titles on HD-DVD or DVD, usually because of compression, or problems in the hardware that supports the network. You know as well as I do that we could poll a ton of people and get the same answer.

I would say the onus is on any provider to prove to me that their picture and audio quality matches HD-DVDs and BluRays. That said, I'm generally satisfied with what I get, only it's not permanent, and it's not quite as good as the tangible disk format. I suspect eventually bit-for-bit copies will be used and this will address the quality side, and purchase options for permanaent copies will be made available too.!

While I would agree that the quality is not that of the physical disc, your suggestion that it is 'vastly inferior' is no more accurate. For the huddled masses, the HD d/l you get from at least MS is excellent. I cannot comment on either cable providers, or sat providers because I have never rented from them. But the sound, and video is very crisp, I have never seen artifacting, or other digitial issues with my d/l.

And you know as well as I could that we could poll tons of people and find that I am right as well. I was just suggesting that 'vastly inferior' is a bit much. I don't think that any provider is suggesting that their product is equal too, or surpasses the physical product. But for the 90% that are not A/V freaks, its 'pretty damn good'.

. Wrong. It absolutely factors into the equation. For me to get the level of service I need to make downloading 30-50 GB movies practical, I need to pay for better service. Eespecially when this really takes off - it is going to put a lot of strain on ISP networks. I'm sure you're well aware of all the subtle talk of "pay by the bit" billing schemes these guys want to use. It's coming - or something to that effect. Imagine a whole neighborhood streaming/dl HD movies, while their kids are downloading MP3's and streaming you tube. It's gonna get more expensive.

Also, the internet costs aren't sunk for a huge portion of the population. Don't just dismiss this. A lot of us are going to have to upgrade services big time to make HD downloading feasible. Monthly service charges will increase as a result. Per month it's not unbearable, I bet over 4-5 years that cost would rival the price of an HD-DVD player at least. To disprove this point, you would have to demonstrate that everyone would have the same demand for their hi-speed internet service whether they download movies or not, and that nobody will have to increase service as a result. I'm sorry I'm not buying that. !

Perhaps you are right, in the future if pay per bit becomes prevelant. However, current pricing structures DO NOT support your theory. Unless you can find me that 1 person that gets Hi-Speed internet for the sole purpose of renting movies, your cost for internet is irrelevant. Because I HAVE broadband I am able to rent movies. But my broadband is not for the purpose of renting movies. No more than I bought my mini-van to rent movies at Blockbuster.

And at $30 a pop, it only takes about 1 movie purchase per month of a physical disc to match the cost of a DSL connection.

Been there done that. I was impressed - enough that I'm getting one for myself soon...real soon...Just not as impressed as that same movie on the HD-DVD drive.. Are you telling me right now it's absolutely 100% as good in both audio and video? When I saw it, the downloads were in what (I think) MS's proprietary Windows Media-HD format at 720p, and under 7 Mbps 5.1 Dolby Digital. Good, but not nearly as good as HD-DVD. The larger and better your display, the more of an issue this is. I think my TV service provider has similar specs, slightly below. I'll have to ask my brother for the exact specs. Maybe I'm off. !

No, again, I am not saying it is equal. But it is far better than 'vastly inferior' as you put it. Basically (for myself) I rent a movie from MS in HD if I am considering buying the film. As most video stores in my cental IL town don't rent HD movies, its really the only HD game in town. If I like it, I'll consider buying it. And the HD does really translate into a better picture than an SD d/l.

I use it as a supplemental to buying HD movies. As good? No, but good enough to get a feel for the movie. My display is 50" Pioneer Plasma. Viewed at about 11'.

I'll say one thing for MS. They earned a bit of my respect when they extended the XBox warranty...my bro's unit was a coaster for awhile, so he bought a 2nd one. He had both receipts and they actually reimbursed his replacement purchase!

Actually, I'm kinda wishing mine would break. Maybe I'll get one of them new HDMI ones......

[GMichael]

Does it? You can get a premium 360 for $349 + $179(HD-DVD) = $528. Plus 5 free movies and the King Kong HD-DVD with the add-on player for the 360. Composite cable included for HD video. Only has 20 gig HardDrive though, thats a little sad. 360 will run with any standard IR remote or universal remote. Harmony also makes a 360 specific remote.

PS3. 60 gig, w blu-ray on sale for $499 (until the 60 gigs run out. Then price jumps to $599 for the 80 gig hard drive). You get 1 movie, and no freebies. Plus you're on the hook for HDMI cable. If not, you can use the yellow video cable they provide for free (execellent HD playback I hear). Also, you can't use an IR remote control with your PS3, so forget about your fancy universal remote. Have to be satisfied with using your controller.

Add all the extras for the PS3, and its really no bargin.

But an HD-DVD player cost less than a BR player. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but my first impression was that this would make the bigger difference.

[Groundbeef]

But an HD-DVD player cost less than a BR player. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but my first impression was that this would make the bigger difference.

Well, i suppose if you bought HD-DVD that will run you about $300. Lowest price PS3 $499, total cost about $799. Plus cables.

360 + HD-DVD addon, $528. Lowest Price Blu-Ray $449. Almost $1000. Yes, in that instance your first scenario would be less expenisve.

Then you need to also factor in some features. The 360 does have a robust d/l feature as far as films. and other video content. If that figures in, the 360 would still be the best console to buy. Also depends upon the games. Sony has some good ones, but I'm somewhat more partial to the MS system.

[GMichael]

Then you need to also factor in some features. The 360 does have a robust d/l feature as far as films. and other video content. If that figures in, the 360 would still be the best console to buy. Also depends upon the games. Sony has some good ones, but I'm somewhat more partial to the MS system.

This would be my first dip into the whole gaming thing. I know nothing about who has the best games, other than hearing that Wii is top of that class. But I do know what I like. Who has the better racing games of the two?

[musicman1999]

Quality issues aside downloading will not be a viable alternative for some time.The big reason is download speeds are to slow.Here in Canada we are at about 7mbps and my American friends are at 1.9 mbps,while South Korea is at 45 mbps and Japan 61 mbps.Right now our infrastucture wont keep up if downloading was the main method of movie distribution.

bill

[Groundbeef]

It would cut into the 360's price advantage only if Microsoft chooses to pass the unit cost increases along to consumers, which is why I presumed that it's cheaper to pay the studios to drop Blu-ray than to add HD-DVD support to the 360 (and also a lot cheaper than the costs that MS had to write off to fix the 360's motherboard problems). .

Well, it also goes back to the MS talking points. The 360 is a gaming machine. Those that want the ability to play HD-DVD need to pay for it. Plus if HD-DVD dies, MS is not on the hook for a player that supports a dead format only. As stated before MS has stated if HD-DVD ever dies, they are not against a blu-ray addon.

Frankly I don't see anyone saying that "every PS3 has converted every user into a Blu-ray buyer" so I don't know where you've been reading that. But, no one looking at the market objectively denies that the PS3 has given Blu-ray a decided advantage in the installed user base. .

There is the line I was looking for. "PS3 has given Blu-ray a decided advantage in the installed user base." Yes, in absolute terms, PS3 has expanded the base for players. But the base has not translated directly into movie sales. There are plenty of PS3 users who are either unaware that the PS3 is either HD, or offers HD movie playback.

But, for every HD-DVD addon purchase, you can bet that people are buying HD-DVD's as there is no other purpose for buying it.

Up to this point, Blu-ray has been outmaneuvering HD-DVD for the past 9 months, so I don't know where you get this idea that "Sony" (Blu-ray is more than just Sony) got "caught flat footed AGAIN" (how can Blu-ray get caught flat footed "again" if they have consistently outsold, outreleased, and outpartnered HD-DVD since then?). This is really the first bit of good news for HD-DVD since that time, but no denying that it's a huge coup that could very well end any chance of Blu-ray winning the format war outright..

I was simply pointing out that in this round of fighting, MS has been more nimble, and free with the purse strings. Buying out Paramount is simply another example where MS has either gained an exclusive, or bought into a previously "exclusive" that Sony has had for its own. Sony has lost many more exclusives on the gaming side than MS has in the battle for HD gaming. I guess its not so much a slam on Blu-Ray, other than it appears that Sony seemed to be trying to wrap up the fight, and MS pulled the plans out from under them.

It seems like Sony has everything to lose, and MS can only go up.

[kexodusc]

While I would agree that the quality is not that of the physical disc, your suggestion that it is 'vastly inferior' is no more accurate.

Well now we're engaged in a debate of opinion which will take us nowhere...some people would be just as offended as you were by my "vastly inferior" comment that MS is calling these "HD" at all.

I guess I have higher expectations for my HD videos and put too much value on the audio track then. Some people probably wouldn't notice at all, and for many, there will be little added benefit from the disk - I'll concede that.

Perhaps you are right, in the future if pay per bit becomes prevelant. However, current pricing structures DO NOT support your theory.

Only if you assume everyone who would download HD movies already has a sufficient internet service package. I currently would not. There will be marginal costs for many associated with this. When I get my Xbox 360, I will definitley have to upgrade. My connection is sufficient now for our casual browsing/downloading needs...won't be if I want any kind of suitable connection for downloading large files. Dunno about your ISP's , but ours cap our DL capability after so many GB each month based on which service we have. The next level up costs me about $15/month. Speed goes up nominally. A lot of people are going to run into this, ISP's everywhere have similar price structures. Most people don't have the premium internet package.

Unless you can find me that 1 person that gets Hi-Speed internet for the sole purpose of renting movies, your cost for internet is irrelevant. Because I HAVE broadband I am able to rent movies. But my broadband is not for the purpose of renting movies. No more than I bought my mini-van to rent movies at Blockbuster

.
Again with this? This logic only works if you assume everyone has suitable internet connections already. I don't and will need to spend more than I am right now as a result. For me, this added expense increase is 100% attributable to the resource demands downloading movies will impose. Not other internet functions. The first $20 or whatever (the level of service I have now) covers the other internet usuage. My decision to download movies will necessitate an added expense.

And at $30 a pop, it only takes about 1 movie purchase per month of a physical disc to match the cost of a DSL connection

Well that's 12 fewer titles of superior audio and video quality I'll own each year!!!
Well, I guess if that's what people need to tell themselves to justify it.

My point wasn't really to argue the merits of DL vs discs, as much as my frustration that the industry has again denied all logic and forced me to choose between 2 compromised solutions because several major players continue to ignore the market's demands! (I know of very few people that wanted a format war at all) Grrrrr...

On the DL'ing subject...I wouldn't be surprised if the convenience aspect wins out over the quality aspect though. I could see both BluRay and HD-DVD dragging this on a long time while Microsoft gets more people used to the idea of downloading instead of buying tangible disks...enough so that people just give up on BluRay or HD-DVD altogether.

I'm just waiting for Apple to dive into this business too...iFlicks or somethings...(maybe they have it up and running already?).

[Woochifer]

A lot of good comments posted so far ...

Fitting in with kex's scenario, I'm one of those consumers that had been sitting on the fence, and looking forward to going with Blu-ray sometime next year. But, obviously MS put an end to that plan. At this point, I'm not entirely sure what I'll do, and that's exactly the kind of thinking that MS is likely trying to create in the market. MS is HD-DVD's second biggest purported supporter, yet their actions boil down to impeding the market progress for HD optical media in general. Sure, they're trying to take a bigger piece of the pie away from Blu-ray, but ultimately they're also trying to limit how big the overall pie grows.

It's frustrating because Paramount's actions are clearly not market-driven, but rather totally financially driven. I can see how accepting an in-kind arrangement with MS would benefit Paramount and Dreamworks' bottom line. $150 million is petty cash to MS (Microsoft now claims that it's not a cash arrangement), but I would venture to guess that it's worth a lot more than the revenue that Paramount and Dreamworks would get from Blu-ray sales. They are entitled to make that decision, but it's also anti-consumer considering that this action does nothing more than constrict the market and Paramount had already announced several upcoming Blu-ray releases that they have now cancelled.

An underreported aspect of this Paramount/Dreamworks arrangement is that it will only last 18 months. After that time, Paramount is free to ramp up Blu-ray production again.

But, in the context of this format war, 18 months might be enough time for HD-DVD and Warner in particular to force the market into a dual format compromise of some kind. I don't like it, because it still leaves market confusion and any kind of dual format compromise means higher costs for consumers. Unfortunately, this also has long-term ramifications for both formats, as I think this seriously slows down market adoption for both HD optical discs in general.

Without this move, I seriously doubt that HD-DVD would have remained a viable format for 18 months. The whole market moving to Blu-ray I think would end any lingering confusion, more rapidly ramp up the market for HD optical discs, with lower costs for consumers in the long run. With HD-DVD in the mix as a viable minority format, this increases the likelihood of both formats failing. As I've said before, the real competition should be the DVD, and I doubt that retailers will be too happy with maintaining triple inventories indefinitely. If the HD disc market begins to plateau at any point, I can see retailers pulling back on their orders and letting the Blu-ray and HD-DVD sections languish, which leaves consumers stuck with 480p DVDs much like SACD/DVD-A's failure leaves music fans stuck with two-channel 44.1/16 CDs.

As far as HD downloads go, I think it's a nonfactor so long as these downloads have time and/or view limits. If these downloads could reside on one's hard drive with no time or view limits, then I would see them as viable competition for HD optical media. But, with these restrictions in place, they are not yet viable replacements for disc purchases, but rather a lateral move away from rentals and PPV.

Plus, aside from these HD downloads (at least with the Xbox service) coming with only 720p resolution, I'm also curious as to how they handle the audio. Are we talking about 448k Dolby Digital? Or the lower resolution (and noticeably inferior) 384k Dolby Digital, which is what you get with HDTV broadcasts? And is there any kind of DTS option? Either way, I doubt that these video downloads will come with lossless audio. The mass market might not care, but it's yet another way that HD downloads might wind up taking a step back.

Microsoft is obviously trying to grease the tracks for HD downloading, but that market has a lot of other players waiting in the wings. Depending on how the market plays out, Microsoft might be doing nothing more than the dirty work for other players like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Directv, Dish, and Apple who all likely have their own HD PPV/downloading plans.

[Woochifer]

I was simply pointing out that in this round of fighting, MS has been more nimble, and free with the purse strings. Buying out Paramount is simply another example where MS has either gained an exclusive, or bought into a previously "exclusive" that Sony has had for its own. Sony has lost many more exclusives on the gaming side than MS has in the battle for HD gaming. I guess its not so much a slam on Blu-Ray, other than it appears that Sony seemed to be trying to wrap up the fight, and MS pulled the plans out from under them.

It seems like Sony has everything to lose, and MS can only go up.

Again, you're singling out Sony, when Blu-ray is more than just Sony. Also, Paramount was not an "exclusive" rather they were the only truly neutral major studio (Warner is purportedly neutral, but they've got financial stakes and patents in the DVD, HD-DVD, and TotalHD formats).

The anti-consumer aspect of this action is that Paramount is taking away an option that consumers previously had, and cancelling disc releases that they had previously announced. It's very different than Universal or any of the other "exclusive" studios going neutral, because that would entail expanding market options and have more market-driven justification. At this point, Paramount's move is not market-driven at all, since it entails them purposely taking a payout in order to reduce their product sales. (This happens in other industries as well, and hardly ever to the benefit of consumers)

Like I said, brilliant and very self-serving move on MS' part. Despite the market shift, Blu-ray still has the upper hand, and will likely maintain a market share lead, but they no longer have a sense of inevitability. A lot of things have yet to play out, and everything's setting up for a very interesting holiday season.

[Groundbeef]

Again, you're singling out Sony, when Blu-ray is more than just Sony. Also, Paramount was not an "exclusive" rather they were the only truly neutral major studio (Warner is purportedly neutral, but they've got financial stakes and patents in the DVD, HD-DVD, and TotalHD formats).

Like I said, brilliant and very self-serving move on MS' part. Despite the market shift, Blu-ray still has the upper hand, and will likely maintain a market share lead, but they no longer have a sense of inevitability. A lot of things have yet to play out, and everything's setting up for a very interesting holiday season.

Well, on this board there are those that seperate the Blu-Ray/ Sony segments apart. Travel on over to some of the more gamer oriented sites and they are all wetting themselves either from frustration (Sony) or joy (MS). Like it or not, PS3/Sony has tied themselves together pretty tight with the whole game/HD Blu-Ray movie player theme. So naturally the (Sony) Blu-Ray crowd is none to happy to have gotten the news.
The sense of inevitablity that Sony has had for years is no longer around. That was the point I was making.

And yes, this holiday is going to be brutal. I predict at least one more price cut from both Sony, and MS if things dont pick up. Considering that Sony's 'Price Cut' is simply inventory reduction (after the 60 gig units are out, 80 gig are still $599, and no more 20 gig), they may have to reduce prices still.

[Woochifer]

But an HD-DVD player cost less than a BR player. I haven't crunched the numbers yet, but my first impression was that this would make the bigger difference.

I think that Blu-ray could afford to sit on a price premium because of their superior studio support. But, with Paramount dropping Blu-ray, the justification for Blu-ray players costing upwards of ~$200 more than HD-DVD players has waned considerably.

Of course, one potential reason why HD-DVD players have been so cheap is because Toshiba reportedly was taking a loss on each player sold in order to maintain market share. With the studio support now less of a disadvantage to HD-DVD, will Toshiba continue to drive hardware prices down as loss leaders? Or will they stay at the current price points for the time being and wait for the Blu-ray price drops to catch up? Blu-ray player prices were already projected to drop down to around $300 by the end of the year (current list prices are around $500), and Paramount's action very well could force the price drops to accelerate.

[Groundbeef]

Again with this? This logic only works if you assume everyone has suitable internet connections already. I don't and will need to spend more than I am right now as a result. For me, this added expense increase is 100% attributable to the resource demands downloading movies will impose. Not other internet functions. The first $20 or whatever (the level of service I have now) covers the other internet usuage. My decision to download movies will necessitate an added expense.

On the DL'ing subject...I wouldn't be surprised if the convenience aspect wins out over the quality aspect though. I could see both BluRay and HD-DVD dragging this on a long time while Microsoft gets more people used to the idea of downloading instead of buying tangible disks...enough so that people just give up on BluRay or HD-DVD altogether.

I'm just waiting for Apple to dive into this business too...iFlicks or somethings...(maybe they have it up and running already?).

Ok, I will agree that if you need to upgrade your connection then perhaps you should consider the cost. However, I would venture to guess that after upgrade you would be willing to downgrade service if you were unhappy with the movies you d/l. After all, why have anything but dial-up if you are never going to get movies? The point is, perhaps you will need to upgrade. But after that, you are still going to use the internet for other things.

And Apple is getting into the IPTV business as well. They have it paired to their Itunes network, and frankly its getting its ass handed to it by MS. The 360 is much more user friendly, and intuitive to use. It doesn't require any special adapters other than what a user needs to set it up to play games. Once you are set up to game, your set up to d/l movies, TV shows, music videos and the like. With the Apple system, it is going to sit on your TV until you are specifically ready to utilize the service. And at $299 excluding cables you might as well spend the $50 extra and get a gaming machine to boot.

Currently MS is the nations largest provider of downloadable HD content, and it is being added to constantly. Companies are pretty confident of the security, and the abiltiy to lock content after a time period as well. Unless you are an Uberhacker, I don't think there is anyway to strip the content off the HD and use it later.

[Groundbeef]

This would be my first dip into the whole gaming thing. I know nothing about who has the best games, other than hearing that Wii is top of that class. But I do know what I like. Who has the better racing games of the two?

I'm sorry, but the Wii is crap. Its strictly SD, with no DVD support. The graphics are dated, and with the lowest price of the 360 at $279, the $249 Wii is no bargin.

What kind of racing games do you like? Arcade or realistic? Forza 2 is really hot for the 360, as well as Colin McRea (DIRt). I have Dirt, and it's pretty cool. The first time I went off the track, and my windshield exploded all over my co-pilot I about crapped my pants. This was after I buried my front end in a tree at about 60 mph on dirt.

The buggy races are cool, but online is time trials, and kinda sucks actually.

Project Gotham Racing is also a pretty good game, but I haven't played it. Stay away from the Need for Speed series unless your strictly arcade.

Forza, and Dirt can get technical if you are a gearhead, and like to play with suspensions, gear ratios, and other details. I just use stock ratios, but you can really spend some time if you are into it.

[GMichael]

I think that Blu-ray could afford to sit on a price premium because of their superior studio support. But, with Paramount dropping Blu-ray, the justification for Blu-ray players costing upwards of ~$200 more than HD-DVD players has waned considerably.

Of course, one potential reason why HD-DVD players have been so cheap is because Toshiba reportedly was taking a loss on each player sold in order to maintain market share. With the studio support now less of a disadvantage to HD-DVD, will Toshiba continue to drive hardware prices down as loss leaders? Or will they stay at the current price points for the time being and wait for the Blu-ray price drops to catch up? Blu-ray player prices were already projected to drop down to around $300 by the end of the year (current list prices are around $500), and Paramount's action very well could force the price drops to accelerate.

I have two HT rooms with projectors. I was trying to hedge my bets by putting one gamer in the living room (with an HD player of one kind) and then a stand alone player (of the other format) in the bedroom. Picking out which room gets what format is what's on my table.
Is it better to go with a PS3 in the living room and HD-DVD in the bedroom?
Or is an Xbox with HD-DVD add on in the living room, and a stand alone BR in the bedroom a better way to go?
I was leaning to choice number one because it seems that this combination costs a little less.
Games and ease of use should be determining factors but I don't know which games are "better" or which units are easier to operate.
A plus for choice number two would be that if BR wins out in the end, I may be able to add another BR to the Xbox to replace the HD-DVD add on unit.

Maybe a couple more months will bring the picture into focus better. But, it could become as clear as mudd, as you can see from current events.