By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sales - How important is it to you 360 beats PS3 in hardware sales?

nightsurge on 30 September 2009

Blu-Ray wasn't the "inferior" product, it just wasn't a superior one like everyone thinks it was. Based on their capabilities, Blu-Ray and HDDVD were equal. The only reason HDDVD would have been the better option had it won is because HDDVD's were cheaper to produce, their players were all $200 or less and up to the Blu-Ray 2.0 standard many months before they were discontinued. And as a result of all this, the movies themselves were cheaper as well.

My HDDVD player was $150 and came with internet support for special features and updates (Blu-Ray 2.0 spec) and this was nearly 2 or 3 years ago. Today the cheapest Blu-Ray player that does all the same features costs at least $200 still. That's why HDDVD would have been the "superior" choice. The disc technologies compared side by side were basically equal (although HDDVD had a faster read speed because it used less layers).



Around the Network
joeorc on 30 September 2009
nightsurge said:
Blu-Ray wasn't the "inferior" product, it just wasn't a superior one like everyone thinks it was. Based on their capabilities, Blu-Ray and HDDVD were equal. The only reason HDDVD would have been the better option had it won is because HDDVD's were cheaper to produce, their players were all $200 or less and up to the Blu-Ray 2.0 standard many months before they were discontinued. And as a result of all this, the movies themselves were cheaper as well.

My HDDVD player was $150 and came with internet support for special features and updates (Blu-Ray 2.0 spec) and this was nearly 2 or 3 years ago. Today the cheapest Blu-Ray player that does all the same features costs at least $200 still. That's why HDDVD would have been the "superior" choice. The disc technologies compared side by side were basically equal (although HDDVD had a faster read speed because it used less layers).

no HD DVD and Blu-Ray were not and i mean 100% a fact that they were not equal.

and yes Blu-Ray was and alway's will be better than HD DVD.

why do you think that was?

for one:

Toshiba was the only hardware company making HD DVD optical drives.

Microsoft's "IHD" interactive software was made for HD DVD and Microsoft tryed their darnest to have all the CE electronic giants back in 2001 to use the IHD control scheme over JAVA. the other CE companies decided on Java over IHD. 

Microsoft rushed out IHD in order to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray and chose HD DVD over Blu-Ray even though Blu-Ray WAS ALREADY ON THE MARKET IN ASIA IN 2003,

An when did the HD DVD was first released to the consumer?

that's right 2006

yet with all that time the HD DVD did not hold as much data, has lower scratch resistance, and was not as cheap per GB to produce on a single side single layer. yes it was cheaper for dual layer HD DVD vs' a Blu-Ray dual layer disc BUT THAT WAS ABOUT IT!

I respect you and all but No HD DVD was not equal to Blu-Ray and that is a fact.

 

 



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

RicHo on 30 September 2009

Not really important... Watching the wars, what both MS & SONY do to beat each other is more important to me.



nightsurge on 30 September 2009
joeorc said:
nightsurge said:
Blu-Ray wasn't the "inferior" product, it just wasn't a superior one like everyone thinks it was. Based on their capabilities, Blu-Ray and HDDVD were equal. The only reason HDDVD would have been the better option had it won is because HDDVD's were cheaper to produce, their players were all $200 or less and up to the Blu-Ray 2.0 standard many months before they were discontinued. And as a result of all this, the movies themselves were cheaper as well.

My HDDVD player was $150 and came with internet support for special features and updates (Blu-Ray 2.0 spec) and this was nearly 2 or 3 years ago. Today the cheapest Blu-Ray player that does all the same features costs at least $200 still. That's why HDDVD would have been the "superior" choice. The disc technologies compared side by side were basically equal (although HDDVD had a faster read speed because it used less layers).

no HD DVD and Blu-Ray were not and i mean 100% a fact that they were not equal.

and yes Blu-Ray was and alway's will be better than HD DVD.

why do you think that was?

for one:

Toshiba was the only hardware company making HD DVD optical drives.

Microsoft's "IHD" interactive software was made for HD DVD and Microsoft tryed their darnest to have all the CE electronic giants back in 2001 to use the IHD control scheme over JAVA. the other CE companies decided on Java over IHD. 

Microsoft rushed out IHD in order to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray and chose HD DVD over Blu-Ray even though Blu-Ray WAS ALREADY ON THE MARKET IN ASIA IN 2003,

An when did the HD DVD was first released to the consumer?

that's right 2006

yet with all that time the HD DVD did not hold as much data, has lower scratch resistance, and was not as cheap per GB to produce on a single side single layer. yes it was cheaper for dual layer HD DVD vs' a Blu-Ray dual layer disc BUT THAT WAS ABOUT IT!

I respect you and all but No HD DVD was not equal to Blu-Ray and that is a fact.

 

You are wrong.  Those facts are wrong.  The only thing you said right was taht Blu-Ray's initially held slightly more data and that they were more scratch resistant.  HD DVD was always cheaper to produce per GB because the pressing process was not too different from DVD so it was much cheaper to transition.  When HD DVD ended it was on nearly the same size discs as Blu-Ray (both 25/30gb max) and had larger disc sizes on the way (such as 50gb+).  HD DVD had a faster read speed and so media on them loaded quicker and data on them streamed faster than on Blu-Ray.  The HD DVD players were cheaper despite optical drives only being made by one manufacturer, and they had a unified system spec to ensure all their devices could support the same discs and all of them could receive updates.  Blu-Ray still isn't all unified on the 2.0 spec and their prices still are no where near HD DVD was and it's been nearly 3 years since HD DVD died.

In terms of what they could do (data size, HD 7.1 surround support, 1080p at highest bit rate, etc) they were equal after HD DVD caught up in disc size.  They each had a few benefits (one being more scratch resistant, one costing much less, etc).



theARTIST0017 on 30 September 2009

not really important. PS3 is getting some very good games so they should be fine.



NINTENDO

nintendo forever . . .

Around the Network
1337 Gamer on 30 September 2009
dorbin2009 said:
So if you don't mind me asking, why is the OP here ripped a new one for saying he thinks its important for the 360 to maintain its lead over the PS3, when in a thread above, the OP thinks its important for the PS3 to overtake the 360 and he's met with "you know, that makes a lot of sense!"

Granted the Blu-Ray argument was sort of retarded, but then again so is charging 600 dollars for a system.

Its in the best interest of the industry for all three hardware giants to do well. Ultimately, it would make me none the happier if at the end of the day, everyone sold 99.99 million hardware units and we were all unbiased members of the gaming community.

However, that isn't the case. It's my opinion that Sony tried to be fashionably late to this generation and is just now playing catchup. They played the arrogance card a little too well. I personally hope Sony falls a little short of Microsoft, only because I agree more with MS's marketing, game library, controller, live service, and effort put into this generation more than their opponents.

If Sony outright won, it would justfiy all of their retarded decisions they've made over the last several years. I want them to be constantly feeling the heat of being third; I think it drastically speeds up the improvement of their product. It's my opinion and you can disagree with it, but saying this does not make me a MS fanboy. I grew up with the first Playstation. I graduated high school in 02 while beating FF10 repeatedly (neerrrrrrd).

But there's a competitive edge that the PS3 lacks, and it trickles down from the software end to the way they handle their exclusive titles. If anything this forum has taught me, its that the only reason why the company is even afloat to start with is its incredibly loyal and passionate fanbase. My hats off to all of you. But I just can't dedicate my money to the product unless I am happy with what said product would give me. And right now, I'm not sure I would be satisfied with it.

i second this post!



Long Live SHIO!

joeorc on 30 September 2009
nightsurge said:
joeorc said:
nightsurge said:
Blu-Ray wasn't the "inferior" product, it just wasn't a superior one like everyone thinks it was. Based on their capabilities, Blu-Ray and HDDVD were equal. The only reason HDDVD would have been the better option had it won is because HDDVD's were cheaper to produce, their players were all $200 or less and up to the Blu-Ray 2.0 standard many months before they were discontinued. And as a result of all this, the movies themselves were cheaper as well.

My HDDVD player was $150 and came with internet support for special features and updates (Blu-Ray 2.0 spec) and this was nearly 2 or 3 years ago. Today the cheapest Blu-Ray player that does all the same features costs at least $200 still. That's why HDDVD would have been the "superior" choice. The disc technologies compared side by side were basically equal (although HDDVD had a faster read speed because it used less layers).

no HD DVD and Blu-Ray were not and i mean 100% a fact that they were not equal.

and yes Blu-Ray was and alway's will be better than HD DVD.

why do you think that was?

for one:

Toshiba was the only hardware company making HD DVD optical drives.

Microsoft's "IHD" interactive software was made for HD DVD and Microsoft tryed their darnest to have all the CE electronic giants back in 2001 to use the IHD control scheme over JAVA. the other CE companies decided on Java over IHD. 

Microsoft rushed out IHD in order to slow the adoption of Blu-Ray and chose HD DVD over Blu-Ray even though Blu-Ray WAS ALREADY ON THE MARKET IN ASIA IN 2003,

An when did the HD DVD was first released to the consumer?

that's right 2006

yet with all that time the HD DVD did not hold as much data, has lower scratch resistance, and was not as cheap per GB to produce on a single side single layer. yes it was cheaper for dual layer HD DVD vs' a Blu-Ray dual layer disc BUT THAT WAS ABOUT IT!

I respect you and all but No HD DVD was not equal to Blu-Ray and that is a fact.

 

You are wrong.  Those facts are wrong.  The only thing you said right was taht Blu-Ray's initially held slightly more data and that they were more scratch resistant.  HD DVD was always cheaper to produce per GB because the pressing process was not too different from DVD so it was much cheaper to transition.  When HD DVD ended it was on nearly the same size discs as Blu-Ray (both 25/30gb max) and had larger disc sizes on the way (such as 50gb+).  HD DVD had a faster read speed and so media on them loaded quicker and data on them streamed faster than on Blu-Ray.  The HD DVD players were cheaper despite optical drives only being made by one manufacturer, and they had a unified system spec to ensure all their devices could support the same discs and all of them could receive updates.  Blu-Ray still isn't all unified on the 2.0 spec and their prices still are no where near HD DVD was and it's been nearly 3 years since HD DVD died.

In terms of what they could do (data size, HD 7.1 surround support, 1080p at highest bit rate, etc) they were equal after HD DVD caught up in disc size.  They each had a few benefits (one being more scratch resistant, one costing much less, etc).

NO IT IS YOU WHO ARE WRONG:

first of all i already said if you are talking about DUAL LAYER YES HD DVD was cheaper, the very fact you stated 25/30 GB just shows you do not know much about both format's.

for one the single layer Blu-Ray disc is 25 GB, 27 WHEN IT WAS IN CART FORM "THAT'S PER SINGLE LAYER"

FOR 

HD DVD IT IS 15 GB per single layer

and yes per GB Blu-Ray was always cheaper than HD DVD unless it was with DUAL LAYER even then the cost of HD DVD was not that much cheaper. Blu-Ray was more expensive for production investment if you wanted to start production lines because you had to build new line's

that was the main increase cost.

as for UNIFIED SPEC'S

that's a complete and utter BS PR propaganda that you fell for because anyone who knows about the optical drive industry, know for a fact OPTICAL DRIVE SPEC'S ARE NEVER UNIFIED OR FINISHED. if anything has taught us one thing they alway's change, and they change often.

HD DVD was quick to lower the cost because no other company would make the optical drives there was no money in it.

so no once again they were no where near Equal.

by bit rate alone they were no where near Equal

that is a fact.



I AM BOLO

100% lover "nothing else matter's" after that...

ps:

Proud psOne/2/3/p owner.  I survived Aplcalyps3 and all I got was this lousy Signature.

ph4nt on 30 September 2009

As far as I know, the only real difference between Blu Ray and HDDVD was the size of the disc, both had 1080P out.

But anyway....

I don't care who wins between MS and Sony, the battle for second place doesn't concern me. As long as it's not a landslide lead for one or the other (ie, they remain close).