Sony wins the battle but loses the War, high definiiton DVD

blu-ray > dvd (movie wise) all dvd's should be blu-rayfied.....i mean wtf why cant i find terminator 1 on blu-ray but i can get T2 on blu-ray :( I sooo much want Terminator on blu-ray

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

You're wrong. CDs weren't used for movies. And everyone immediately recognized DVD's improvement over VHS.

Blu-ray will be fine, but it won't match DVD's success. But it doesn't need to

LosDaddie

Probably you were too young to remember Video CDs it was used for Videos

I'm probably older than you.

And tell me when was the last time you bought a major movie release on VCD. Or heck, just tell me what store(s) rented VCDs.

I'll be waiting :)

Where do you live iam not from US.

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

Probably you were too young to remember Video CDs it was used for Videos

Kashiwaba

I'm probably older than you.

And tell me when was the last time you bought a major movie release on VCD. Or heck, just tell me what store(s) rented VCDs.

I'll be waiting :)

Where do you live iam not from US.

Why are you avoiding my questions?

And it should be obvious where I'm from if you have sigs enabled.

[QUOTE="Kashiwaba"]

[QUOTE="LosDaddie"]

I'm probably older than you.

And tell me when was the last time you bought a major movie release on VCD. Or heck, just tell me what store(s) rented VCDs.

I'll be waiting :)

LosDaddie

Where do you live iam not from US.

Why are you avoiding my questions?

And it should be obvious where I'm from if you have sigs enabled.

I remember VCD being around, it never caught on, probably because it was realeased along side DVD, I remember cause i bought a VCD of the movie FRIDAY because i didnt have a dvd player at the time but i had a a cd player in my pc.

[QUOTE="Indie_Hitman"].......................The 'war' was over when HD DVD died. Bad analogy, try another.aussenbagen

You clearly flunked out of your classics units. You have no idea who King Pyrrhus was. Or what a Pyrrhic victory is. It would be fine to disagree whether or not Sony has suffered a pyrrhic vicory, but saying it is a bad analogy because the war is over is really, really stupid.

Thanks, to everyone who posts about their view on blu-ray sales. I appreciate the information.

I didn't make myself clear. This is systems wars part of the forum and I am posting about Sony's PS3 not mopping up due to the inclusion of a blu-ray player. I think one of the reasons that MS is not posting record losses like Sony is because they lost the Blu-ray battle and MS is no longer tied down to the production cost of that HD DVD accessory. However, Sony by having their platform locked into a Blu-ray player has to incur significant additional costs.

From one of the articles posted by another person, as of April 16th: "More importantly, of the 10.5 Million US homes that have a Blu-ray player, nearly 75% (7-8 Million) own stand-alone Blu-ray players, around twice as many as the same time last year. The correlation is obvious - twice as many Blu-ray players equals twice as many Blu-ray sales."

So when I mean they won the blu-ray battle I mean that they did win over MS. But it came at a tremoundous cost. People are not poplulating their living rooms with PS3s but rather they are buying stand alone blu-ray players.

Therefore, Sony won the high definition battle against MS, but they lost the war, because people did not buy PS3's to get to blu-ray technology. It was a pyhrrhic victory because the cost of their consoles is very high and they did not get the benefit of the blu-ray boon that is happening now.

Anybody want to speak to this issue instead of jumping on the popularity of blu-ray itself.

Read my original post again. Thanks everyone.

I don't buy DVDs or BDs, but I do rent blu rays.

I think BR will eventually take over as more people adopt the HD format. But its still too expensive, and not a huge improvment over standard DVD when you upscale on a TV less than 40". I feel BR makes the biggest difference when you have a big big TV.

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

The difference between upscaled DVDs and Blu-rays is significant

I have 8 blu-rays btw

DBhova23

it's worth it on any hdtv. i have a 32" sammy. BD is even better with HD audio (either through HDMI or multichannel audio). i have 4 blu-rays and 41 hd dvd's.

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

aussenbagen

However, I think this proposition of my original post is not correct:

"Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, "

So, why hasn't the PS3 ridden the blu-ray wave to rule the living room Hidefination experience? Or has it? Was it a great idea to include the player? How is Sony doing with it's own stand alone blu-ray players?

Was it really a pyrrhic victory or is it too early to tell?

I didn't make myself clear. This is systems wars part of the forum and I am posting about Sony's PS3 not mopping up due to the inclusion of a blu-ray player. I think one of the reasons that MS is not posting record losses like Sony is because they lost the Blu-ray battle and MS is no longer tied down to the production cost of that HD DVD accessory. However, Sony by having their platform locked into a Blu-ray player has to incur significant additional costs.

From one of the articles posted by another person, as of April 16th: "More importantly, of the 10.5 Million US homes that have a Blu-ray player, nearly 75% (7-8 Million) own stand-alone Blu-ray players, around twice as many as the same time last year. The correlation is obvious - twice as many Blu-ray players equals twice as many Blu-ray sales."

So when I mean they won the blu-ray battle I mean that they did win over MS. But it came at a tremoundous cost. People are not poplulating their living rooms with PS3s but rather they are buying stand alone blu-ray players.

Therefore, Sony won the high definition battle against MS, but they lost the war, because people did not buy PS3's to get to blu-ray technology. It was a pyhrrhic victory because the cost of their consoles is very high and they did not get the benefit of the blu-ray boon that is happening now.

Anybody want to speak to this issue instead of jumping on the popularity of blu-ray itself.

Read my original post again. Thanks everyone.

I didn't make myself clear. This is systems wars part of the forum and I am posting about Sony's PS3 not mopping up due to the inclusion of a blu-ray player. I think one of the reasons that MS is not posting record losses like Sony is because they lost the Blu-ray battle and MS is no longer tied down to the production cost of that HD DVD accessory. However, Sony by having their platform locked into a Blu-ray player has to incur significant additional costs.

From one of the articles posted by another person, as of April 16th: "More importantly, of the 10.5 Million US homes that have a Blu-ray player, nearly 75% (7-8 Million) own stand-alone Blu-ray players, around twice as many as the same time last year. The correlation is obvious - twice as many Blu-ray players equals twice as many Blu-ray sales."

So when I mean they won the blu-ray battle I mean that they did win over MS. But it came at a tremoundous cost. People are not poplulating their living rooms with PS3s but rather they are buying stand alone blu-ray players.

Therefore, Sony won the high definition battle against MS, but they lost the war, because people did not buy PS3's to get to blu-ray technology. It was a pyhrrhic victory because the cost of their consoles is very high and they did not get the benefit of the blu-ray boon that is happening now.

Anybody want to speak to this issue instead of jumping on the popularity of blu-ray itself.

Read my original post again. Thanks everyone.

aussenbagen

So the Fact that theres 7-8 million stand alone players means no one is buying the ps3, last time i heard PS3 sold 20 million consoles, and for a system that started out at 600 and is still currently the most expensive system and the fact that it released a year behind MS xbox 360, thats not bad, its not good either, I look at it this way, i bought the ps3 and 360 for their exclusives, and having blu ray in the ps3 is a plus for me. Besides some people that got into blu ray may just be interested in blu ray and didn't see the justification in spending 600 dollars on a gaming/blu ray console vs buying a 300-400 stand alone player

[QUOTE="aussenbagen"]

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

aussenbagen

However, I think this proposition of my original post is not correct:

"Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, "

So, why hasn't the PS3 ridden the blu-ray wave to rule the living room Hidefination experience? Or has it? Was it a great idea to include the player? How is Sony doing with it's own stand alone blu-ray players?

Was it really a pyrrhic victory or is it too early to tell?

While Blu-Ray cost Sony's a huge price on their PS Brand, on the flip side, Blu-Ray and movies in general are huge sellers.

So, Sony, it seems sacrificed a bit of their game division, to achieve a format victory. Sony owns a ton of movies and movie studios, like Tristar, Columbia, Sony Pictures, and MGM's catalog, so that's a huge plus.

I am very, very appreciative of the Blu-Ray Tech, since I know have movies that go along with my HDTV's at home, and Sony's PS3 is a terrific gaming machine with all the bell's and whistles, so I'm happy.

I knew from the get go, that the PS3 wasn't going to be a PS2, being that Sony did too many things differently, and the mass market isn't going to adopt as fast, as the prequisites are that you have an HDTV for some users, and gamers for the others.

I am happy the PS3 is the way it is, but I know that others that are less fortunate would not like Blu in the PS3.

One thing that no one saw coming, is the Global Recession, which is going to put a hurt on HDTV adoption, and of course, PS3 sales.

It's too early to say it's a pyrrihic victory, since the 360 and PS3's sales are really, really, really close. This is the closest war we've ever seen, it's literally neck and neck. To give you perspective, it's closer than the GENESIS Vs. SNES War, sales wise.

Sony had brand to help them, but M$ had Price, a year headstart, and aggressive3rd party contracts.

I'm surprised the PS3 is doing as well as it has, considering the PRICE this entire generation.

[QUOTE="aussenbagen"]

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

aussenbagen

However, I think this proposition of my original post is not correct:

"Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, "

So, why hasn't the PS3 ridden the blu-ray wave to rule the living room Hidefination experience? Or has it? Was it a great idea to include the player? How is Sony doing with it's own stand alone blu-ray players?

Was it really a pyrrhic victory or is it too early to tell?

It's too early to tell with a majority of people in the US not owning HDTVS, the shift may be soon because of the national broadcast swith to HD signals, and given that Blu ray and player prices are still high, they need to reach to 125-250 to shift stand alone players, and blu rays to hit 15-20 to really move large numbers. The ps3 was a trojan horse to get gamers to buy blu ray movies at least thats what i think the same way as ps2 was, IMO the group that bought the ps3 in its first year were gamers first then movie enthusiast second. like i said before i doubt someone would buy a 600 dollar console to play blu rays when theres a 400 dollar can do just that.

I own over 20 blu rays. The video quality and lossless audio are pure bliss on my 52" LCD.

People that can't tell the difference are clueless or in extreme denial.

Blu ray is here to stay. Deal with it.

The PS3 is also my main movie player even for DVDs. It upscales them very well.

The prices for blu ray disks are also getting better and you can already find a lot of great deals. It's a huge leap from standard DVD. Not even close!

[QUOTE="aussenbagen"]

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

Microsoft is enjoying the advantage of getting to drop the production costs of having to support a HD-DVD manufacturing and marketing division. So, they are that much more profitable overall than Sony, in the short term and the long term.

One poster already said it best, but I will tweak it, Sony won the hi-definition DVD battle but lost the high definition DVD war. There are no spoils, just ongoing unrecoupable costs.

Funny, how ironic this is.

darthogre

I just am picking this post to make a point, there are others that are similar. I realize that you think that I am knocking the PS3. But you can't hear my tone. I am not mocking the PS3 as a platform. I am just trying to understand the economics between the xbox and ps3. I own all the consoles, and PC's and Mac's, laptops, desktops, and all the handhelds.

So, sniping at me about fanboyism is a waste. No need to be defensive about your choice of product. What you are writing in these types of deliberately sarcastic posts tells us that you are actually the fanboy.

And specifically to this post, Time Warner just announced they are re-thinking the download cap pricing tests they were going to roll out due to the public pressure. So, don't be so certain that download caps are an absolute, Funny how that worked out isn't it. (doesn't feel good does it?)

If you come to a Game Forum or internet Forum, you will run into the Younger crowd, teens, etc., and those are comprised of mostly nonHD gamers that just want to play great gamesSolidTy

Go take a look around at some of the more serious Home Theater forums on the net. Many serious home theater enthusiasts include the PS3 as part of their complete system and the PS3 is still widely regarded as one of the best BD players around.

I love movies. I love games. There are many others out there like me. You don't have to be either one or the other (gamer, or movie fanatic), you can be both.

Hence why the PS3 is perfect for people that are fans of gaming and movies.

The HD-DVd add-on from Microsoft for thr 360 was a big joke from the beginning and didn't stand a chance.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]If you come to a Game Forum or internet Forum, you will run into the Younger crowd, teens, etc., and those are comprised of mostly nonHD gamers that just want to play great gamesBK-Sleeper

Yeah, most people...if that's what they are in the market for...

I love Books, Movies and VideoGames. While the PS3 doesn't help me with my Book love, it's AWESOME for MOVIE and Video Game lovers.

When I bought both my PS3's it was specifically for two of my HDTV's, and the games I knew would come as well.

As a bonus, CNET rated the PS3 as the top Blu-Ray player, which was great.

Some of us, want MORE than a gaming console, but if you are ONLY looking for one, I don't blame ya, I just wanted more...like many consumers.

It sucks to watch NFL in HD, and WWE in HD, and UFC in HD, and even the NEWS in HD, but not be able to watch movies in HD...the best we got is UPSCALED DVD's? Lame. Streaming and DD's offer a bit but it's all just not as good as what was needed, luckily with the PS3 I got MGS4, Uncharted, Twisted Metal, Warhawk, God Of War, Gran Turismo 5, Ratchet, InFAMOUS, Killzone 2, Resistance 1&2, Flower, et cetera...AND a kick but High Definition Multimedia machine as well.

I was in the market for both, and I got what I wanted.

I don't expect everyone to be in my shoes though, which I talk about on PAGE ONE.

People clearly dont understand DD and how it is delivered to the consumer. All of the gamer/techie throttle down and think past your methods for watching movies, Hulu, Youtube, Netflix, etc etc....and think about the average consumer. These are NOT the services that are leading the DD trend. The same cable companies people gripe about internet bandwidth are the same who have been providing DD for decades it called Pay Per View.... Its finally catching on with the masses (beyond sports events). In addtion to HD PPV movies most cable company have their on demand service as well (Charter Cable, in Missouri). You can watch movies and TV shows until you explode...if you want to latest and greatest flick refer back to PPV.

People are not sitting at home trying to stream a video through a browser, they are using their cable services to provide that entertainment. Everyone is focused on physical media when it is clear that is not the direction of the industry. If you enjoy your Blu-ray player/movies thats great, but similar to the laserdisk it will be obsolete in a few years. Music, Games, and Movies are all distributed digitally today, If our "obsolete" technology is able to handle the traffic today, just imagine the exponential increase in bandwidth in a few years.

Back in 1996 56k was badass, in 2000 DSL was the bomb, in 2009 we have 20mb connections...you do the math folks.

Game On...

Everyone said the same thing when DVD first appeared they said its expensive and no much Difference between it and the CD look what happend now.

Kashiwaba

[QUOTE="thelastguy"]

The difference between upscaled DVDs and Blu-rays is significant

I have 8 blu-rays btw

DBhova23

I really can't tell a major difference on my 110" screen nor on my 60" Plasma or my 57" CRT. Yes i can tell a difference, but it's not really a distraction if I don't watch the movie in HD.

[QUOTE="DBhova23"][QUOTE="thelastguy"]

The difference between upscaled DVDs and Blu-rays is significant

I have 8 blu-rays btw

stiltzsy

I really can't tell a major difference on my 110" screen nor on my 60" Plasma or my 57" CRT. Yes i can tell a difference, but it's not really a distraction if I don't watch the movie in HD.

Blah, I can't go back to DVD now. I watched "The Day the Earth Stood Still" last night on DVD, and the entire time, I noticed the quality.

Obviously everybody isn't that way, and aren't such sticklers. I just hate going from 1080p to 480p.

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

Microsoft is enjoying the advantage of getting to drop the production costs of having to support a HD-DVD manufacturing and marketing division. So, they are that much more profitable overall than Sony, in the short term and the long term.

One poster already said it best, but I will tweak it, Sony won the hi-definition DVD battle but lost the high definition DVD war. There are no spoils, just ongoing unrecoupable costs.

Funny, how ironic this is.

aussenbagen

UHmmm...sorry but your information is wrong on practically everything you say.

1) I watch a lot of movies and have a fairly decent DVD collection. I have not bought a single DVD since I got my PS3 and now have roughly 15 BR movies/TV shows. I will never buy another DVD again if I don't have to. And this "more expensive" BS needs to stop. New movies on BR are typically only $5 more than their DVD counterpart. That is a very small difference and people are really pushing it by whining about it.

2) The difference between DVD and HD is definitely noticeable. Anyone one who doesn't see it either doesn't have an HDTV, or they are being deliberately ignorant and sticking their head in the sand.

3) HD-DVD lost because more movie studios were on board to support BR. Simple as that. More movie studios exclusive to BR meant a larger library of movies available ot BR. What doyou think happens when potential consumers walked into a store, and sees movies like Cars, Rattatoullie (?), James Bond, Spider Man,etc only on DVD? Three of the biggest companies in movies were exlcusive to BR compared to one exlcusive to HD-DVD. This guaranteed that adopters were far more likely to find the movie they wanted on BR compared to HD-DVD.

4) PS3 meant way more BR players in homes than HD-DVD players. More players in homes, means more movies were being sold on BR, so stores would stock more BR movies. There were reports coming out during this battle fromplaces likenetflix that BRsupport was much higher than HD-DVD support, so they dropped HD-DVD.

5)Unrecoupable costs? That doesn't make any sense at all. Sony is making money off BR and the sale of HDTVs...as aremany other companies that sell HDTVs and/or BR players. While Sony took a hit on the PS3, BR players are nowreasonably priced, and many stores now throw them in for free whenyou purchase an HDTV.

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]

Exactly and its worth it on my 55" lsd samsung.. i have 7DBhova23

I really can't tell a major difference on my 110" screen nor on my 60" Plasma or my 57" CRT. Yes i can tell a difference, but it's not really a distraction if I don't watch the movie in HD.

Blah, I can't go back to DVD now. I watched "The Day the Earth Stood Still" last night on DVD, and the entire time, I noticed the quality.

Obviously everybody isn't that way, and aren't such sticklers. I just hate going from 1080p to 480p.

[QUOTE="-Traveller-"]

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]

I really can't tell a major difference on my 110" screen nor on my 60" Plasma or my 57" CRT. Yes i can tell a difference, but it's not really a distraction if I don't watch the movie in HD.

stiltzsy

Blah, I can't go back to DVD now. I watched "The Day the Earth Stood Still" last night on DVD, and the entire time, I noticed the quality.

Obviously everybody isn't that way, and aren't such sticklers. I just hate going from 1080p to 480p.

Lol I hate you. 110 inch screen is awesome.

Yeah most people aren't going to notice a huge difference.

Edit: "that's why I hate it." LOL don't know why I typed that. Random type FTW.

I've done tests between HD movies and DVDs upsampled with guests that don't know the difference. no one really said anything about the DVD being inferior. They were just overwhelmed by the 110" screen.stiltzsy

What does that prove? Just because they didn't say anything, doesn't mean they didn't notice. And if they were overwhelmed by the screen, then they clearly weren't paying that close attention, because if you have a 110" 1080P screen, then you'd have to be blind not to notice the difference between BR and an upscaled DVD.

[QUOTE="-Traveller-"]

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"]

I really can't tell a major difference on my 110" screen nor on my 60" Plasma or my 57" CRT. Yes i can tell a difference, but it's not really a distraction if I don't watch the movie in HD.

stiltzsy

Blah, I can't go back to DVD now. I watched "The Day the Earth Stood Still" last night on DVD, and the entire time, I noticed the quality.

Obviously everybody isn't that way, and aren't such sticklers. I just hate going from 1080p to 480p.

ROFL. Stop inviting blind people to wach movies.

Personaly i can't go back to DVD, especialy on a > 40'' screen. Is just horrible and very pixelated.

[QUOTE="stiltzsy"] I've done tests between HD movies and DVDs upsampled with guests that don't know the difference. no one really said anything about the DVD being inferior. They were just overwhelmed by the 110" screen.ZIMdoom

What does that prove? Just because they didn't say anything, doesn't mean they didn't notice. And if they were overwhelmed by the screen, then they clearly weren't paying that close attention, because if you have a 110" 1080P screen, then you'd have to be blind not to notice the difference between BR and an upscaled DVD.

I own more Blu Rays than games for both Xbox 360 and PS3. I'd rather buy a blu ray movie than a game.

Obviously tc has never seen a decently transferred Blu Ray running on a good tv, as otherwise he would know the difference in picture quality, color and vibrance is quite dynamic between blu ray and dvd.

This would be the same as people claiming that dvd did not show much of a difference to videotape. Go back to your optometrist TC.

[QUOTE="aussenbagen"]

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

Microsoft is enjoying the advantage of getting to drop the production costs of having to support a HD-DVD manufacturing and marketing division. So, they are that much more profitable overall than Sony, in the short term and the long term.

One poster already said it best, but I will tweak it, Sony won the hi-definition DVD battle but lost the high definition DVD war. There are no spoils, just ongoing unrecoupable costs.

Funny, how ironic this is.

darthogre

Time Warner back tracked on that proposed testing of download caps due to public and private outcry, including govt threat of intervention. Sorry about your cap though. That totally sucks. I won't say funny how that works out though.

And just because I said "funny how that works out though" and said it was ironic. I did not mean it in a sarcastic nasty way. I own a ps3 and everything else. Not a fanboy, but a fan of it all.:P

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

Microsoft is enjoying the advantage of getting to drop the production costs of having to support a HD-DVD manufacturing and marketing division. So, they are that much more profitable overall than Sony, in the short term and the long term.

One poster already said it best, but I will tweak it, Sony won the hi-definition DVD battle but lost the high definition DVD war. There are no spoils, just ongoing unrecoupable costs.

Funny, how ironic this isaussenbagen

this is so incorrect its ridiculous

[QUOTE="aussenbagen"]

Tell me the truth, how many of you PS3 guys actually buy a significant amount of blu-ray dvds. Hardly any. Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business.

Microsoft is enjoying the advantage of getting to drop the production costs of having to support a HD-DVD manufacturing and marketing division. So, they are that much more profitable overall than Sony, in the short term and the long term.

One poster already said it best, but I will tweak it, Sony won the hi-definition DVD battle but lost the high definition DVD war. There are no spoils, just ongoing unrecoupable costs.

Funny, how ironic this iswinner-ps3

this is so incorrect its ridiculous

Yes, I was incorrect about this "Why? Because they cost more than DVDs and don't provide enough of a difference to justify the increased costs. Which is the same reason that MS lost the HD-DVD market position, not solely because of the Blu-ray being included in the PS3, but because of that price/performance problem inherent in the hi-def DVD business."

If you bothered to read thread you would have seen that discussion. Since then the discussion has moved on. I will edit the first post so people won't just respond to that part.

This is what I thought at first, read the rest of the thread and find out what I may have been right about, and comment on that.

i buy all movies on BR now. they are only like 5 bucks more, but b4 they were rediculously overpriced.

News flash, when DVD's first came out there were $30 too. Best Buy always have sales on Blu-Ray's for around $17, the same price as a DVD. So how did Sony lose the battle.....where is HD DVD?CubanBlunt

No you don't know what a phyrric victory is do you? Sony won the battle against MS, yes the HD DVD was defeated by the Blu-ray. But it was a phyrric victory. The blu-ray costs so much that it causes Sony to sell fewer PS3s than if they left out the Blu-ray technology. Look up phyrric victory on google. Then, decide for yourself if you think it was a phyrric victory or not and post again if you like.

I'm loving Bluray. Well at first...i didn't think it was worth it. The thing that made me realise was watching a little bit of The godfather on DVD and then i watched the whole movie on Bluray. The difference is so huge...it's ridiculous. i can't believe they can make it look so good. Same goes with Wall-E. If you want to watch absolutely stunning Graphics animation i suggest you watch Wall-E. It will blow you.. Maybe it's my tv a little bit. My Bravia is amazing.

I've got bout 15 movies and it's growing by the day.

Lems care about the tiniest multiplat differences, but can't tell the difference between DVD and BRD. LOL.wstfld

did TC edit his first post b/c of you? good job lol

i have about 50 blu-rays.... all u got to do is shop around... they sell real chip ones at stores like...gamestop, the weare house, costco...i never have boght a blu ray thats more that 25....IM COLLECTING BLU-RAYS FASTER THAT I DID DVDS....