fordy said:
LivingMetal said:
fordy said:
Badtrooper said:
| Capacity |
Blu-Ray
|
HD DVD
|
ROM single layer:
ROM dual layer:
RW single layer:
RW dual layer:
Highest test:
Theoretical limit:
|
23.3 / 25GB
46.6 / 50GB
23.3 / 25 / 27GB
46.6 / 50 / 54GB
100GB
200GB
|
Single layer:
Dual layer:
-
-
Highest test:
Theoretical limit:
|
15GB
30GB
-
-
45GB
60GB |
Movie studio support
|
| Blu-Ray |
HD DVD |
20th Century Fox
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Hollywood Pictures
Lions Gate
Miramax Entertainment
MGM Studios
New Line Cinema
Sony Pictures Entertainment
Touchstone Entertainment
The Walt Disney Company
Vivendi Universal Games
Warner Bros. |
Dreamworks
Paramount Pictures
Universal Studios
|
|
Funny how you don't include things like initial costs to build new factories as opposed to upgrading DVD factories to use HD-DVD, or costs to produce/license individual discs. Funny indeed.
You do realise that the market followed a similar trend with VHS vs Betamax, right? Betamax would have been classed as superior in quality, yet VHS became the market leader. Do you know why? I'll give you a hint. Read the paragraph above once again.
Are you trying to justify that Sony did right in buying studio support through exclusitivity contracts, despite the higher capital costs that people would be forced to shell out with BluRay?
|
Who cares. Blu-Ray is here and everyone loves it. Well, everyone who matters that is. And for the record, you can thank Warner Bros. for the collaspe of HD-DVD and the flourishment of Blu-Ray. WB saw their DVD's sales dipped 5% during the 2005 Christmas shopping season compared to the previous year while ther HD sales (HD-DVD and Blu-Ray) were abysmal. They saw that consumers were on the fence about the new HD medias, and it hurt their sales. So WB did the logical thing by the supporting of Blu-Ray exclusively, and that's when the dominoes started to fall. True story, bro. Stop hating.
|
You're painting an incredibly simplified scenario. Let me add some points:
1. At the time of WB switching support, HD-DVD WAS the dominant of the two formats (though still an incredibly small amount compared to DVD), both in media sales AND standalone device sales. If WB decided to just suddenly pick and choose ONE format (whereas other companies were indifferent with supporting both formats), the market factors would have pointed towards HD-DVD.
2. And WHY did WB decide to not support both formats in an emerging market, like other studios? They struck a deal with Sony for lower royalties and licensing fees and in exchange for exclusitivity.
You really don't think that WB just suddenly decided to suddenly support the market trailing one of the two emerging formats for no reason, did you? But what can I expect from the same guy who was openly touting about eviscerating somebody who outlined a security flaw in Sony's system? Yes, I remember you...
|
1. HD-DVD WAS the dominant format. Not true. More studios including WB were supporting Blu-Ray. Also, marketshare sales in favor of Blu-Ray were like 2:1.
2. If WB could have afforded to support two formats then they would have. But they didn't because the people weren't buying it regardless of any contracts. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, the contracts just made it sweeter.
And I remember you, too. Always hating. :)
