backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 101 comment(s) - last by afkrotch.. on Dec 8 at 8:19 AM
2.7 million Blu-ray Disc players sold in North America, most of them are a videogames console

Despite Sony Corp.’s CEO Howard Stinger calling the high-definition battle a simple matter of prestige, the Blu-ray Disc Association wasted little time in announcing yet another sales milestone.

Thanks the frenzy of buyers during the Black Friday shopping period, total Blu-ray Disc player sales have reached 2.7 million units in North America. The number, of course, includes Sony’s PlayStation 3 as a Blu-ray Disc player, regardless whether or not owners of the gaming console utilize the high-definition movie function.

According to Video Business, actual numbers of standalone Blu-ray Disc units may be around 700,000, as there were 2 million PlayStation 3 consoles sold through October. Accurate data for standalone player sales is harder to gather for Blu-ray Disc than for HD DVD, however, as there are a greater number of Blu-ray Disc hardware manufacturers. Should the provided data be accurate, it would mean that 74 percent of all Blu-ray Disc players in North America are in the form of the PlayStation 3.

The North American HD DVD Promotional Group released its own sales data following Black Friday, revealing that total sales for HD DVD players in North America have exceeded the 750,000 mark. Like the Blu-ray Disc Association’s numbers, the figures for HD DVD also include console contributions – the Xbox 360 HD DVD drive add-on. Unlike the situation for PlayStation 3, where it’s still unclear how many owners use the Blu-ray function, buyers of the Xbox 360 hardware accessory are assured HD DVD users.

Sales of HD DVD players for as low as under $100 didn’t seem to faze the Blu-ray Disc Association, though, as it said in a statement, “Despite the $99 HD DVD fire sale, Blu-ray movies were flying off the shelves in this crucial holiday shopping period.”

The comment made by the Association comes from Nielsen VideoScan data showing that 72.6 percent of high-definition discs purchased by consumers were Blu-ray Disc, and just 27.4 percent were HD DVD.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The numbers
By diablofish on 12/5/2007 4:39:33 PM , Rating: 5
I recently bought a PS3 because it came with 10 free Blu-Ray movies and 5 more via mail. I intend, and have been, using it as both a gaming console and a movie player. I suspect that the majority of the people who bought a PS3 have the same intentions that I have. That is, they are going to use it for multiple purposes, not exclusively to play games and not exclusively to watch movies.

And I think that's born out in the other statistic that's been reported here: Blu-Rays are outselling HD-DVD by about 3:1. This is awful similar to the nearly 3:1 ratio that Blu-Ray players (including the PS3, because it is, among other things, a Blu-Ray player) over HD-DVD players.

Of course one could also interpret that no one uses their PS3 for playing movies (which I find hard to believe) and that Blu-Ray player owners buy three times the number of movies on Blu-Ray as to HD-DVD owners. While I suppose this is possible, it doesn't seem like the likely explanation.

Taking those two numbers together, I think it shows clearly that Blu-Ray is leading in both player sales and media sales, which would seem to indicate the preferred format among consumers (at least at this point in the "war") is Blu-Ray.




RE: The numbers
By dagamer34 on 12/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/5/2007 10:50:45 PM , Rating: 3
They "shun" the PS3? Sales of 2 million PS3's in the US in a year's time is "shunning" it? Yet HD-DVD has sold 750,000 players that cost less than the PS3? Doesn't seem to me like the PS3 is being "shunned". It also would appear that cost is not the only consideration in making a purchase at this stage of the format "war".

And I'm not saying the PS3 is all that and a bag of chips, either. But it's far from being "shunned".

I think early adopters of either format are generally going to have a higher level of disposable income than the average consumer. Therefore, while cost is obviously a consideration, it's not nearly as much of a consideration for people who are early adopters. If you have $500 to spend, would you rather spend it on a $100 HD-DVD player and 15 movies (at $26 a piece) OR would you buy a dual-purpose PS3 (plays HD movies AND is a HD gaming console) AND get 15 free movies? To me, the PS3 was a better overall value. Granted I'm not a hardcore gamer like I used to be, so I'm not worried about Halo 3, GOW, and Mass Effect. They'll probably be available on the PC eventually anyway.

Of course if you don't have $500 to spend, that $100 is probably even more valuable to you. And given the value of that $100 is more to you relative to the person with $500 disposable income, would you want to spend that $100 on an unproven format that could become obsolete and that doesn't have the backing of several major movie studios? It seems more likely to me that if that $100 is of more value to you you'll probably wait to see which format wins before spending that $100 rather than buying that shiny HD-DVD player.

As media prices drop and the formats become more mainstream, the cost issue will become more and more important. I woulnd't be surprised at all if in a couple years time HD-DVD was outselling Blu-Ray. And that would be fine with me: I got 15 free HD movies with my gaming console AND my gaming console will also play them.


RE: The numbers
By BansheeX on 12/6/2007 1:03:04 AM , Rating: 2
Believe it or not, blu-ray stand-alones have sold almost as many units as HD-DVD stand-alones... at $100-$200 more on average. If blu-ray is selling that well at such a higher price, what do you think will happen when it drops?

A lot of your reasoning is also dependent on the assumption that the PS3 will always be the cheapest blu-ray player. That isn't true. Blu-ray standalones will reach $200 well before the PS3 does.


RE: The numbers
By wallijonn on 12/6/2007 12:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If blu-ray is selling that well at such a higher price, what do you think will happen when it drops?


Many of us will then buy BD. Obviously. The question is "when"? Will it be a year from now or two years from now?

For me it is a question of DRM. At least three times this year I have been unable to watch a Sony SD DVD because of the constant ramping up and ramping down of the movie as it DRMs. After 5 minutes I have to eject the movie and not bother with it. DRM has therefore left a bad taste in my mouth, as bad as having to replace a DVD player because it won't play the latest Macrovision protection (this happened with an Apex player I once had.)

Remember this article?: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070418-sony...

When BD profiles have been standardised and the price drops down bellow $200, I will buy BD.


RE: The numbers
By akugami on 12/6/2007 2:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
Smart people will opt out of the whole war and wait for dual format players. I already bought the LG player than can burn CD's and DVD's and read Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's.

As far as which disc format we will support more, that depends on what's available and how good it is. For instance with the movie 300 I would clearly buy the HD-DVD version over the less fully featured Blu-Ray version.

So far it looks like Blu-Ray is winning. I don't care about cherry picking numbers, the bottom line for studio houses is the fact that by hook or by crook Blu-Ray is moving much much more discs than HD-DVD. While both formats have some gems that are exclusive to it, there seems to be a lot of Blu-Ray movie sets I'm looking at.

Either way I'm opting out of the format war and picking and choosing movies I want to keep regardless of which format it's on. I'm not a compulsive movie buyer and only buy sets that I truly want to keep long term. For instance the Shawshank Redemption is one of my all time favorites and Stanley Kubrik's Full Metal Jacket.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/5/2007 5:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
Oh and you forgot to mention that although the Blu-Ray front has a 3:1 sales ratio, it's also been clear that their attach rate has been less than 1 disc per player. Sounds like you're cherry picking your facts.

What is even more impressive is the perpetual ignorance of fanboys (not implying that you are fanboy even though you seem to quack like one) who do not account for the obvious fact that this format war has been miniscule. Has it occured to anyone why victories swing to either side on any given week? It's because the format war is small.

Using disc sales ratios and total player sales is a tad bit ridiculous when you take a step back to see what a mountain people try to make out of this mole hill called a format war. Take a step back to see the big picture. Earlier this year combined sales of BR and HD-DVD discs exceed VHS sales for this year and that was considered a "milestone". UTTERLY ridiculous.

Honestly. Is 750,000 HD-DVD players or a 3:1 BR disc sales advantage really THAT impressive? What effect does getting 10 free movies at Wal-Mart registers or other free movie offers through merchants have on disc sales ratios? They are being counted since they must be "rung" up. Obviously anything included in a player's box or is sent by mail does not count.

Both sides are using "big" numbers because they impress the sheeple among us. Unfortunately sheeple out number those of us who want to be better informed consumers. And those big numbers are almost always used in carefully worded or cherry picked facts which almost always exclude SD DVD sales because what the best selling title on BR & HD-DVD accomplishes in a matter of a week, DVD accomplishes in a matter of less than a day.

I'll just sit this out for a while and see how many sheeple fall for the self-fullfilling prophesies both sides are trying to promote. This is a war of perception. Not a war of using all the facts.


RE: The numbers
By steven975 on 12/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: The numbers
By michal1980 on 12/5/2007 9:08:03 PM , Rating: 3
so what? cheaper = better.

isnt that the hd-dvd company line. 'our players are cheaper so we are better for the masses'?

so now you whine about cheaper media


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/5/2007 11:08:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, they make sales that never would have occurred INITIALLY. But now that I have a Blu-Ray player and 15 free movies, do you think I'm more likely to buy another player for $100 or $200 or more likely to spend that $100 or $200 on additional Blu-Ray titles?

Hence, "promotion".


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/5/2007 10:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
If the attach rate is that low, then why is the sales ratio that high? Could you provide some further information (numbers) showing the attach ratio?

I'm not "cherry picking" facts. I was merely commenting on a possible explanation for why the ratios (the statistics, not "facts") match up. As I discussed, there are other possible explanations. Yet you fail to offer any other reasonable explanations from the two I offered in my post.

And I don't know what the affect the free movie promotions have on the numbers, and that information isn't presented in that article either. So it's all speculation - which is what I was doing as well.

It is a milestone for a new format to exceed an old format in sales. It demonstrates that the new format is growing and consumers (or sheeple, if you prefer) are embracing the new format(s). DVD accomplished the same milestone over VHS as well. And CD's over cassettes, and cassettes over 8-tracks, and 8-tracks over vinyl, and on and on.

If we were to chart the adoption of the formats, we'd see growth. So yes, at least to a certain extent, selling "x" number of players or "y" number of movies is impressive, considering they started at ZERO.


RE: The numbers
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 12:18:40 AM , Rating: 1
> "Could you provide some further information (numbers) showing the attach ratio?"

You can work out an approximate attach rate just from total disc sales; the value has to be well below 1.0 just for that reason alone.

I saw an attach rate figure for the PS3 alone a few months ago that was 0.29. I can't find it now unfortunately, but this link shows overall attach rates (PS3+standalone) for Europe at 0.6 BD, vs. 3.8 HD-DVD. North American numbers can't be too far off that:

http://www.engadgethd.com/2007/11/12/european-hd-d...


RE: The numbers
By BansheeX on 12/6/2007 1:16:25 AM , Rating: 3
Attach rates will always be lower on blu-ray because blu-ray has a console that automatically includes it while HD-DVD doesn't. Therefore, you're including a lot of people using a "player" purely as a game system in your calculations. It's dubious because of the traditional point of "attach-rates" in industry which normally doesn't have a wrench like this thrown into the equation, and which in this case is trying to display which format's movie fans are buying the most movies. The same problem exists for "player sales" statistics, although it's safe to assume that there have been far more blu-ray "player" sales including the PS3 because of how close the stand-alone numbers are. Therefore, overall disc sales are really the only stat worth quoting if you're trying to get an impression on what's selling better.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 10:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
1. If including PS3s as Blu-Ray players is dubious then perhaps Sony should stop counting every single PS3.

2. Until the freebies that get rung up at the registers come to a stop, the overall disc sales is currently NOT an accurate assessment of the true demand for either format. Especially since the dubious fact that when you consider the PS3 effect of bored gamers waiting on a "Halo 3 killer".

No, it's pretty clear the either side cherry picks their facts. Each side wants to have it both ways. Blu-Ray wants to talk about disc sales ratios, high number of Blu-Ray players, but then whistle and turn their heads hoping that no one notices the average number of discs per player is less than 1. HD-DVD points out your dubious fact and insists only dedicated HD players should be counted which is basically EVERYTHING in the HD-DVD arsenal (since the add-on HD-DVD drive can only play HD-DVDs) then brag about their attach rate.

No, it's pretty clear that both sides relish in blowing things out of proportion with cherry picked facts. It's all about making you think a 3:1 disc sales ratio or an attach rate above 1 in a tiny format skirmish is "news worthy". In reality its about marketing a product (which only 1% to 3% of all HDTV owners have committed to). It's about getting sheeple to go with the "winner". This is truly a perception war.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 11:24:50 AM , Rating: 2
There's a world of difference between stating each side "cherry picks" and accusing me of "cherry picking." I'm just using the information provided in this article, and running some attach rates on numbers provided in other news - which I provided links to.

I'll agree that perception is HUGE part of ANY war - be it a military engagement OR a high definition debate. Heck, perception is a huge part of everyone's daily life, and that's reality (catch the irony in that?). From the content of your posts, I perceive you to think that anyone who buys Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is one of the "sheeple" and incapable of making a choice based on price, value, potential uses, and other factors. And I don't think that's the case at all.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 11:46:52 AM , Rating: 2
1. Totally AGREED that both sides cherry pick. That's an expectation of the business of marketing a product. Should you as a consumer fall for it or promote it?

2. The reality is the format war is quite small. The perception of the war is that it is big with a week-to-week tug-of-war in victories (so as to influence the sheeple).

3. Your perception of what I think of early adopters or those who commit to a particular format is wrong. I never said everyone was a sheeple. The marketing of either side's products are clearly meant to influence the sheeple among us not early adopters or those who care to be more informed. There are those with deeper pockets or are fanboys of a particular format / brand. The sheeple outnumber us all. The marketing is aimed at them since both sides use numbers that seem big but are actually small. 3:1 clearly sounds better if you omit the fact that only about 1% to 3% of American homes have bought a HD player. Or if you compare Blu-Ray / HD-DVD sales against the current leader.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 12:02:10 PM , Rating: 2
1 - If I prefer Blu-Ray or HD-DVD why shouldn't I promote it? I have no preference, but don't care that either camp promotes their products because it's in their best interest to do so. And frankly, they have a right to promote their products.

2 - Who perceives it to be big? Got some data to back this up? Most of the people I know don't care at all about HD-DVD or Blu-Ray at this point because they are happy with DVD.

3 - I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to clarify because I don't understand what you mean at all. Yes, marketing is meant to influence people. Yes, some people have more money than others. Yes, the majority of the market is currently DVD, with "1-3%" being next-gen. But five years ago, what percentage was HD-DVD or Blu-Ray? ZERO. It took time for DVD to become accepted over VHS too and at one point in time DVD had only 1-3% of the market as well. So tracking growth is useful to determine if a technology is being accepted and to determine the marketing is working or not not working. That's how it works and that's why it's reported.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 2:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
1. If you've committed to a format, there's certainly no problem with promoting it, but promote it with your experiences. Why promote the product with the carefully chosen words of the side you prefer? I am not saying neither side has a right to promote their product, but both sides you deceptive tactics that the sheeple fall for.

2. When I see words like "War" and other adjectives in the numerous articles you can find on the net, one can only interpret the skirmish between the two formats as being big. And yes, most people don't know nor probably care about either format. HDTVs have yet to hit 50% markeshare in U.S. homes last time I checked.

3. Tracking growth is very useful when all things are on a level playing field. Things get clouded with freebie offers that qualify as purchases (rung up at the register even though it is free) and things like the "PS3 effect". So when you track growth, a cautious consumer / fence sitter should account for that. So what can you conclude? Pretty much nothing. It all depends on what you want to interpret the data. And that's how it's been working so far. People want to say that somehow the disc sales ratio or player sales numbers somehow prove something. I seriously doubt that. IMHO anyone making a conclusion with so many unknown variables is make a hasty conclusion, but they are certainly entitled to it.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 2:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
1 - If numbers are available, they add meaning to the personal experiences of people. Your preferences are likely vastly different from mine or anyone else's, so reviewing based on your experiences and preferences has limited value.

2 - I don't think everyone takes the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD war in such a literal context. And HDTV's will continue to sell more and more because the price is dropping rapidly and because of the February 2009 changeover. You are absolutely right that as HDTV's become more common, this war between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray is likely to intensify even more and the sales numbers will continue to grow.

3 - If both sides take into account "freebies" (which they BOTH do), then that point is moot.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 3:20:10 PM , Rating: 2
1. Probably true. My perception is probably only valuable to a fence sitter or cautious consumer who would otherwise be influenced by shady marketing tactics used by both sides.

2. Agreed on the literal context and price dropping. Partially agree on the Feb 2009 deadline for sheeple or people who live out in the outskirts of civilization. If you have a cable or satellite box, you already have a D/A converter. So the deadline is for the most part a sheeple problem.

3. The point of purchase scanning is what is being used to count for sales. Unfortunately this would include freebies which must be rung up at the registers. 10 free Blu-Ray movies at Wal-Mart on Black Friday was a very good promo and in this respect is an example of how 10 titles quickly count as a sale. I would not say the point is moot because the free offerings have varied and the 10 free movies is the highest done so far, so it certainly helps in maintaining or increasing the disc sales ratio. At that same time, HD-DVD only had a price drop and the 5 free movies by mail. No disc sales were accounted for since no discs got rung up for their promo offer. What is also unclear is how many people bought either player as presents. What is clear is that the 10 free discs at Wal-Mart count now as well as any other similar but more modest offer from other merchants. So a cautious consumer / fence sitter should not conclude a thing based on the disc sales number / ratio.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 8:37:12 AM , Rating: 3
So those attach rate numbers are given by the European HD-DVD group, who I'm sure isn't biased at all. Also, I think there is a major flaw in assuming the US and European markets are the same: they aren't. Prices (and hardware for that matter) are much different across the pond.

2.7 million Blu-Ray (with PS3 player) players versus 750,000 HD-DVD players: 78% of players sold are Blu-Ray. 72% of "next-gen" discs sold are Blu-Ray.

According to this news: http://news.digitaltrends.com/news/story/14592/blu...

Blu-Ray sold nearly twice as many HD-DVD's in the first nine months of 2007 in the US (2.6 million versus 1.4 million).
It also says that Blu-Ray has sold 5 million total while HD-DVD has sold 3 million total.

Looking at the numbers from the first nine months (since the PS3 would be not more older than that in the US given it's November release date), the attach rate is around 1 disc per player. If we don't include the PS3, the attach rate is around 3.7 (2.6 million disc sales / 700,000 players).

For HD-DVD, there were 1.4 million disc sales and 750,000 player sales for an attach rate of around 1.9.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 11:32:14 AM , Rating: 2
1. And what's your point about the 2.7 million PS3s? Are they all being used for playing Blu-Ray movies on a regular basis?

2. Your use of older disc sales compared to recent player sales is very misleading.

3. You're not factoring in that many recent player sales are probably gifts, so disc sales may not rise sharply after this recent spending spree / fire sale.

4. Even with player sales going up sharply, you may find people who just get the free movies and just use the players as upconverting DVD players until the dust settles. At the very least, the players are good for renting HD movies through Netflix. So you could find some or many people not buying into either format.

BTW, how many DVD players are in American homes? How many hours does it take for a DVD title to eclipse HD title sales? Around Sept of this year, I read "Happy Feet" sold more in DVD sales than all of the cumulative Blu-Ray and HD-DVD titles combined up to that point.

Your numbers sound "big" but only when they are not put into context of the bigger picture. I see no reason to rush out and get either format.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 11:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
1 - It's 2.7 million players, including PS3. Not 2.7 million PS3's. 2 million of those are PS3's. This is clear in both the articles and in my posts.

2 - I thought I clearly defined which numbers are which. If you're confused, click on the link to see the numbers for yourself.

3 - There are MANY things that aren't factored in. They are statistics, not facts. I never claimed that the statistics I used were the end all and be all. And neither this article nor the one I linked to claimed such a thing either.

4 - Yup. I'm one of them. When Blu-Ray media prices come down, that will change for me. If they continue to offer deals, I'll buy some. Heck, I only buy DVD's when they are on sale during the holidays and rent them using Netflix when they aren't. But that doesn't change the fact that sales of Blu-Ray are higher than HD-DVD, regardless of how much everyone paid for them.

The next-gen format war isn't with DVD, it's with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. And everyone, EVERYONE, knows that DVD's outsell both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. And that probably won't change for a while. But guess what, there will come a day when Blu-Ray, HD-DVD, or both will outsell DVD.

If you don't see a need to buy into either format, don't. I don't care. But I (and many others) have for a variety of reasons and there's nothing wrong with that either, is there?


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 12:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
1. My mistake. It happens when two people have a lengthy dialogue.

2. Not confused.

3. The mere act at looking at the raw numbers is misleading. The why's behind how each side gets to those numbers should be considered as well. Marketing from both sides distort the why's.

4. I have considered buying a Blu-Ray buner, but with the price of a 200GB hard drive being on par with a 25GB BR recordable disc, I can wait.

5. The disc sales figures are less important when you realize that Blu-Ray has accomplished those figures on the shoulders of primarily bored gamers (most of whom probably do not want that feature) within the early stages of a small war. I think beating the drums of the sales numbers at this stage in the game only promotes a hasty conclusion.

6. Sheeple do not always know by just how much DVDs outsell HD-DVDs or Blu-Rays. So no, EVERYONE does not know in your oversimplification. The reason why I bring up DVD is to point out that there's no need for rushing into either format. If you want to, then more power to you.

7. I never said I don't want to buy into a HD format. I just see no reason to bite when the marketing has thus far been cherry picked facts, exaggeration of the current state of the war, or oversimplification of the facts.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 12:23:48 PM , Rating: 2
1 - Yes, as do typos. No edit button on here is a nuisance.

2 - :-)

3 - The raw numbers are not misleading. The interpretation and application of those numbers to show something that can be biased is where confusion comes from.

4 - I've never considered a burner for either new format. I just want a player and I can use external hard drives for backup, like you said.

5 - Really? Got some numbers (surveys) of all these bored gamers? Wihtout numbers, it's pure speculation and this explanation probably only accounts for a certain percentage of Blu-Ray adopters. For example, I'm not a "bored gamer" but I bought the PS3 because of an excellent promotion.

6 - I guess I'm guilty of oversimplifying. But I'm not the only one. "Bored gamers but Blu-Rays" is also an over-simplification.

7 - I don't care when (or if) you buy into either format or which format you buy.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 1:59:34 PM , Rating: 2
3. I was implying that a conclusion using the raw numbers would leave some people to be mislead. So we agree.

4. I've only considered it as a more convenient way to backup data, but yes external hard drives are actually cheaper than buying a recordable Blu-Ray disc.

5. You are right that it is speculation, the bored gamer's comment is my opinion. It is based on the fact that until recently most reviews of games for the PS3 have been unimpressive. G4TV has / had been quite vocal about this. How many games has the PS3 been able to call blockbusters so far? How many games has the PS3 had that made someone want to buy a PS3 like Gears of War, Halo 2, or Halo 3 did? Although you wanted a Blu-Ray feature and you are not a "bored" gamer, from the readings I have read, most gamers just wanted a gaming console. Sony wanted to deliver more than that and at a premium and with a lack of blockbuster titles. There's no disagreement that you got your PS3 on a good promo offer. Would you still have gotten it if there was no promo offer? How many other gamers would have still jumped on board with no promo offer?

6. I suppose you can call my comment of "bored gamers" on the PS3 an oversimplification as to why the PS3 has been able to garner a 3:1 sales ratio advantage (even though the PS3 has no blockbuster title). But in a small format war things can shift quite easily and victory can change sides from day to day, it seems quite logical that even a small number of "bored gamers" can have a profound impact on the disc sales ratio since there's 2 million PS3s out in households. That's the key thing here. And simply looking at disc sales numbers will not account for that. The marketing people at Sony know this and turn a blind eye to it of course because it doesn't help sales nor does it help in the perception that everyone is buying into Blu-Ray.

The PS3 struggles to have game titles cracking the Top 10 list of game sales, but it's been able to maintain a Blu-Ray disc sales momentum largely from what I assume to be gamers who aren't buying PS3 games. I suspect that as better game titles start rolling out, many gamers with smaller pockets will evaluate which has a better replay value. A $30 Blu-Ray movie good for 2 hours or a $60 game good for a few weeks. Unreal Tournament 3 may be the beginning of how the tides may change for Blu-Ray. Either good or bad remains to be seen.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash Blu-Ray or the PS3. I just have not seen any hype worth its grain in salt from either side.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 2:27:50 PM , Rating: 2
5 - You base your judgments on your opinions that don't have a basis in any numbers whatsoever that you've shown. Just your opinions on why people buy what they buy. However, there are many blockbuster movie titles that are exclusive to Blu-Ray (Spiderman, Pirates trilogy, etc) that are probably just as likely to spur sales of a PS3 as HD-DVD exclusives are to sway people to buy the HD-DVD add-on to their 360. And when you add up the total cost to get all those things on the 360 that you get with the PS3, the PS3 isn't really at a premium at all. Since the 360 came out a year before the PS3, it should be no surprise that the gaming titles are better.

Example: PS3 80 GB with Blu-Ray player, wireless controller, wireless internet, card reader, and Motorstorm: $499. Add another game for $60 and $10 for an HDMI cable for the sake of comparison. And PSN is free (if you want online multiplayer).

Xbox 360 Premium with two games, 20 GB hard drive, and wireless controller: $349. Last I checked, it's $80 for the wireless internet adapter and $120 for the HD-DVD player add-on bringing the price to $550. Plus Xbox Live Gold is $5 a month (if you want it).

I'm not looking to start a debate as to the merits of each console, because that's not the context of this discussion. I'm merely disputing your claim that a premium must be paid for a PS3 versus a 360. A comparably (hardware only) equipped PS3 versus a 360 costs $20 more. Would you agree that that isn't a huge premium?

6 - Bored gamers is an oversimplification. Especially if you consider that gamers can be bored for a myriad of reasons beyond not having a new blockbuster game title.

I don't think everyone is necessarily buying into Blu-Ray. But regardless of costs, motivations, or other reasons that both sides give for the numbers, 5 million sales is still more than 3 million sales, right? Yes, things can shift, but the sales leader is still clear at this point. I don't hear either camp saying that the sheer numbers of sales is wrong: only squabbling over what they mean.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 3:08:24 PM , Rating: 2
5. I base my opinion on the lack of conclusive evidence that either side is winning. My opinion is based on including all facts that have been presented by both sides (unless refuted by one side for a legitimate reason).

6. My assessment of "bored gamers" is based on the lack of virtually any PS3 game hitting the Top 10 list and due to what seems to be a common thing for PS3 games in general... they have been disappointing... Do you have something to refute either of these assertions? I'm not trying to say the platform can't deliver... but for now it doesn't. It's not unreasonable to think that SOME people will buy / rent Blu-Ray movies while they wait on a Halo 3 killer.

So although the phrase "bored gamer" seems like an over simplification to you, I have given you my definition of it and why I come to those conclusions. I am merely being skeptical over the current disc sales ratio somehow proving anything. I have not seen you explain why you think simply quoting disc sales numbers / ratios without factoring in the unknowns is not an oversimplification.

And yes, because the format war is so small a handful of good titles can and will spur sales towards a format. Not unreasonable to think so especially given how small each format has in marketshare.

I'm not trying to debate the value of a PS3 or the obvious fact that the XBox 360 has a better library due to a one year headstart.... but it's also been one year for the PS3 now and it has not delivered on a blockbuster title... or has it? I could have missed something. The point is regardless of overall value or lack of titles due to the console's release date, it's not unreasonable to think that Blu-Ray sales are probably higher than they normally would be if the PS3 had some killer titles. This of course is IMHO.

For those in the Xbox community who want a HD player, that cost is $129 now. For the PS3 community you will get one no matter what and you will pay at least $399 for it. If you buy a $399 PS3, does this mean you wanted Blu-Ray? Nope. So I wouldn't conclude it. If you buy a $129 HD-DVD add on drive, does this mean you want to watch HD-DVD movies? Yup. As for the premium and such, it's not a big deal for me. Just that if you reduce the argument down to only wanting a gaming console, then yes you are paying a premium.

As for the 5 million > 3 million, I don't have a problem with that so long as you don't conclude it somehow proves something. You act as if 5 million is a big number in the big picture. And it also seems with the wave of a hand you dismiss the unknown variables such as the PS3 effect and the freebie offers which do count if they get rung up at the registers to be accounted for.

For now, I will take a cautious approach and wait for real indications that the "war" is actually being won by one side. When will this be for me? At least after the first quarter / half of 2008 and after the PS3 has had at least one blockbuster game title.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 3:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
5. What exactly is "conclusive" evidence to you? I think the only truly conclusive evidence would be that either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD is around and the other goes the way of the Betamax. But that kind of conclusive evidence is years away.

6. I treat these numbers with skepticism as well. I just don't ignore them completely.

I have no idea what everyone wants with regard to HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray. That's being played out as we sit here discussing it.

My point was that a comparably equipped PS3 to a comparably equipped XBox 360 does not generate a substantial price premium. That's the only context I was addressing, and stated as such in the post. The wants and desires will be determined in the market. Period.

I guess another way to look at it would be for $50 more dollars than a 360, I get more hard drive space, wireless internet access, and HD player capability. But that's also outside the context of this conversation. Each consumer who buys either system is going to have their own (in their mind at least) valid reasons for buying the system they bought. It's not worth arguing over that because it's outside of the context we're discussing.

5 million sales versus 3 million sales in the context of HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray AND the number of players sold for each format AND the attach rates IS the big picture in the context of Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD, which is what the orginal news article was about in the first place!

Neither you nor I knows what the majority of the consumers want in their next-gen gaming console. It's likely that some want HD capability from it and that others don't. The fact that the Wii outsells both these consoles is evidence that not everyone cares about HD content on their gaming console. But again, that's a whole different discussion.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 4:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
5. "Conclusive" evidence in my eyes are stats / trends / facts which are not cherry picked or muddied up with unknown variables. Until you can eliminate the unknowns, you really cannot conclude anything in my eyes because any conclusion made is based on interpretation and is ultimately a hasty conclusion.

6. I don't ignore the numbers, they have their truth values based on the carefully chosen words each side presents them under. A concerned / objective person would try to account for this before coming to a conclusion or insist that the numbers speak for themselves. What matters more to me is how each side disqualifies the other side's assertions / conclusions.

As for my reasons for originally bringing up the premium on a PS3, I was merely pointing out that not every gamer wants a Blu-Ray player. They just want to game. Therefore having an integrated Blu-Ray player was an unwanted feature for some and therefore an additional premium. We can quibble over where you wanted to steer the discussion to, but that is why I brought it up. Period. Just HOW MUCH more does the Blu-Ray feature cost the gamer who only wants the PS3 as a game machine? In order to game, you must buy an integrated Blu-Ray player whether you want one or not.

But again, my intentions are not to talk about which console brings overall value. It's about gamers were required to buy an integrated movie player whether or not they wanted it. That is an extra premium in my eyes whether or not it's a good value.

In your big picture assessment, you're misquoting your own source:
quote:
The new figures bring the total number of high-definition discs sold to about 5 million, with Blu-ray accounting for about 3 million and HD DVD selling about 2 million discs . However, sales of high-definition discs still pale in comparison to standard-definition DVDs: for the most part, consumer seem content to let the format war wage quietly around them, and wait for a clear winner to emerge.


With a 2.7 million to 750,000 player advantage (3.6:1), you'd think the HD disc sales ratio would better than 3:2 for Blu-Ray. What seems clear is that given HD-DVD's size, they seem to be holding their own quite well. And in your big picture assessment, we see that Blu-Ray has an attach rate of roughly 1.1 discs per player (so I erred on the lower than 1 disc per player... my apologies). HD-DVD on the other hand has a 2.67 per player attach rate.

And we haven't even begun to see if gamers will be able to maintain the Blu-Ray disc sales momentum once the good games start rolling out for the PS3 platform which will happen. Your big picture assessment also does not account for players put under Christmas trees. So although you seem to want to conclude that the 3:2 disc sales advantage Blu-Ray has over HD-DVD proves something or speaks for itself, I'm not convinced you've ruled out any of the legitimate unknown variables to logically conclude anything. I would rather err on the side of caution before concluding anything.

I suppose we can disagree over whether or not gamers were ever upset (or still are) over having to pay more for a game machine just because it has an integrated movie player. But in the big picture, I agree that you cannot please everyone.

I guess where we disagree on is I feel there is not enough unknown variables (arguably significant) eliminated to conclude that your numbers prove anything or speak for themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I'm eager to jump on the HD bandwagon once a winner is declared, but so far I have not seen anything CONCLUSIVE. Everything presented thus far at first glance seems contradictory (as you even pointed out) when you gloss them over. But when you take a big picture approach to all the facts I feel that the numbers do not in fact speak for themselves and require a little investigation to understand how Blu-Ray SEEMS to have an upper hand in one respect but not the other.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 2:49:25 PM , Rating: 2
And no, I would not have bought a PS3 without the promotion. And I haven't bought a 360 because I didn't see the value to it since I'm not a hardcore gamer and it doesn't play movies in HD, in any format.

Promotions are designed to get more people to buy the product they are promoting. They benefit me as a consumer by adding value to my purchase and they benefit the producer by having their format be adopted more quickly. They are risking that offering these promotions at a loss will get their format adopted more quickly so demand for the product increases. The HD DVD camp is doing the same thing by offering $100 players. From a business perspective, since the PS3 was a year behind the 360, speeding up adoption should be a priority for Sony, wouldn't you agree?


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 3:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
I think everyone knows what promotions are for :), but the point being is the promotions have a tendency to spike "interest"..... the question is whether this will be sustained. Time will tell. Using disc sales at this point will show the effects of the freebies that got rung up, but nothing with those players waiting to be unboxed.

I totally agree that Sony's best interest would be to increase adoption of their PS3 both as a gaming console and for the Blu-Ray format. However, Sony has been struggling to drop costs of their player. It's already heavily subsidize. There's some consumers who don't know that the $399 PS3 will not play a PS2 game. For hardcore gamers, this is a non-issue. For parents or cost-conscious gamers, this may be an issue.

For now, the PS3 is beneifitting from the Wii shortages and their price drops made possible with the cutting of corners.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 11:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's been well known for some time that the PS3 has been lacking in a killer game for their platform. That is changing now, but historically there has essentially been nothing in offerings. What happens when you have so many PS3s out there with bored gamers? IMHO, the sales ratio is that high because last time I checked, Blu-Ray players outnumber HD-DVD players by at least a 5:1 ratio due to the PS3 being included (at Sony's insistance).

On any given week, there's a good chance that a small percentage of bored gamers will go out and buy a Blu-Ray movie. There's a few million PS3s in homes right now, so it doesn't take many bored gamers to drum up disc sales.

The attach rate is low because every single PS3 is being counted as a Blu-Ray player (HD-DVD humoring Sony's insistance of counting every PS3 as a Blu-Ray player) when factoring in the total discs sold divided by the total players sold.

The problem Sony has is they want a double standard. They want to include every PS3 in Blu-Ray player sales tallies to imply a demand for the Blu-Ray format. However, when other statistics are applied from the competition using every PS3 as a Blu-Ray player, then Sony does not want them counted. In fairness, you can't have it both ways. Having such double standards is deceptive marketing for the sheeple, fence sitters, and people wanting to be more informed consumers.

And when you pick only facts that support your theory or what seemed to be a conclusion, it does come across as cherry picking. If you want to talk about disc sales ratios, then you should include attach rates, as well as separating dedicated players from consoles used strictly for gaming. The latter being impossible to figure out. From this you should come up with a possible explanation. When you ignore some of the facts to reach a possible "explanation", it becomes self-serviing and drives to only one conclusion.

"Free" movies count if they have to be rung up at the register (i.e. Wal-Mart's or Amazon's free offers). These movies have to be accounted for by merchants and this scanning is tracked by Nielsen and others. Free movies do not count if you acquire them by mail-in rebate or if they are included inside the player's box.

When you have to compare a new format against a format that has been made obsolete 10 years ago then it's really not a milestone. It's an exaggeration of the format war and only proves just how small it really is. A milestone would be accomplished if the current King of the Hill (DVD) sharply loses marketshare due to either HD format (which DVD is not). Both HD formats have a long way to go to be able to do that. It's laughable that VHS can even be compared to HD formats in this way.

And when you compare y number of HD movies sold in a week as "impressive" (even though y is easily less than z number of DVDs sold in a few hours), then I suppose you are easily impressed. Take a step back and look at the big picture.

Give me something more compelling than using 3:1 sales ratios constrained to a tiny format skirmish to convince me there is a clear winner. Heck, you'd think that John Kerry would have won the last election they way they were surveying people at voting sites. How is bragging about a 3:1 sales ratio in a tiny war any different? Last I heard only about 1 to 3% of all HDTV owners have committed to either format. Do you want the 1% to 3% of the HDTV viewing population to dictate what you will be watching?


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 11:38:05 AM , Rating: 2
Every technology takes time to grow. Just because the numbers are small now relative to DVD's doesn't mean they are always going to be that way. Remember, when DVD's were in their infancy VHS sales numbers dwarfed DVD sales numbers. And then prices dropped, movie selections grew, and DVD had more uses and capacity than CD with regard to storage, then the small numbers became the dominant sales numbers and surpassed VHS. They reported these milestones then, too. And when HD-DVD or Blu-Ray or both formats surpass DVD in sales, they'll report that too. It's a process that takes time. If you don't care or think these milestones aren't "news-worthy", I'd suggest you ignore these stories since you apparently don't view them to be worth your time.

There's a good chance bored gamers with the HD-DVD add-on will run out and buy an HD-DVD title - but there are fewer HD-DVD players so fewer chances that HD-DVD sales will increase. There's more than one way to look at all these STATISTICS (which are NOT facts, per se).

Please read my posts where I did include attach rates - which I had to link to external sites to get since they were not included in this article. As I stated before, my original post was restricted to the context of the data included in this news article.

No one's saying there's a winner; it's far too early to tell. At this point, I think the numbers are more likely to indicate a preference (at least the perception of a preference, which can often be more important in gaining market share) that Blu-Ray is preferred at the moment, but not necessarily in the future.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 11:59:25 AM , Rating: 2
1. It's obvious it takes time for technology to grow. Did you ever hear of DVD exceeding cassette or LP sales? What about a CD Cassette format war? Or a DVD VHS war? I'm interested in the format skirmish, just not the exaggeration of it being a war.

2. Very true on bored gamers on HD-DVD, but with a superior software library, I would guess the opportunity is far less. Not to mention, those gamers who bought the add on drive want to clearly watch HD-DVD movies on their console. Can you say the same for the 2.7 million bored PS3 gamers?

3. The problem with statistics is that they can manipulate the facts. I think we both agree on this. However, I let each side catch the other in a lie / exaggeration. There's no reason to believe any statistic for now is wrong until the opposing side cites a legitimate reason for disqualifying the statistic.

4. I agree it's too early to tell if there's a winner. At this point, I think the numbers are a good indicator of showing what freebies can do for consumers. I do not agree that the numbers prove any real indication of preference especially since HD player owners represent about 1 to 3% of HDTV owners. I do however agree that the numbers are being manimpuated to promote a potentially false sense of preference.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 12:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
1 - No, because you're comparing apples to oranges. But yes, I did hear about DVD sales surpassing VHS.

2 - 2.7 million Blu-Ray players - 2 million PS3's. Please get this right. And yes, if you're a bored gamer and your console plays Blu-Rays, wouldn't you rent or buy a Blu-Ray instead of HD-DVD or DVD especially when Netflix charges the same for DVD, HD-DVD, or Blu-Ray?

3 - "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." But is anyone arguing that 3 million is bigger than 5 million?

4 - Yes, promotion is a powerful tool used for decades to get consumers to try various products and services.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 2:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
1. In your example, you used a newer technology replacing the previous immediate technology... in the VHS vs. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray there is a skipping of the obvious previous immediate technology (DVD). So no I'm not trying to compare apples to oranges. I'm illustrating how the current comparison is pointless.

2. Sorry, doing a poor job of multi-tasking here when I get disturbed at my desk. I hear you LOUD and CLEAR. :) If I keep doing this, just assume I meant 2 million PS3s. But in either case, the 700,000 difference doesn't matter much when you look at the big picture. But again, just assume that any typos to this misquoting of PS3s sold is meant to be 2 million.

3. I think the problem I'm having is people rushing to a hasty conclusion.

4. Yup so are cherry picked facts, push-polling, over-simplication of the facts, etc. People like to go for a winner, and both sides will do what they can to make sheeple believe they are buying one side's "clear winner".


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 3:48:58 PM , Rating: 2
1 - Beta vs. VHS was continually tracked just like all formats sales are tracked. It's how businesses take stock of how they are doing in the market. It just wasn't broadcast because the internet didn't exist. I didn't see weekly updates on CNN then for VHS/Beta and I don't see them now for HD-DVD/Blu-Ray, either. If the internet were around in the 80's, I'm sure we would have had weekly updates on Beta vs. VHS as well for the purposes of marketing. In my opinion: whoop-tee-do.

2 - I think it does matter when you look at the big picture in the context of the original article. Blu-ray players (including consoles) have outsold HD-DVD players (including console add-ons). Blu-Ray discs have outsold HD-DVD discs recently and overall. While there is no "winner", I think it's clear that one is selling faster than the other at the moment. Key here is neither side disputes the actual numbers - just the way that those numbers should be interpreted. This is important! It used to be that HD-DVD was outselling Blu-Ray, so things can change. No one disputes that either.

3 - I'd love a hasty conclusion to this. That way we can have one format or the other or agree to proceed with both formats and be done with it. And then I could be more productive at work rather than posting to silly web forums! ;-)

4 - See above and other posts.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 5:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
1. We live in a different world my friend. Back then products were pushed to merchants whether or not they were "tracked" as you say. Today, products are replaced as needed due to our network centric business model (what IBM refers to On Demand business model) due to tracking.

2. A few things are clear. Blu-Ray's success so far has relied on the superior numbers the PS3 has provided as a movie player. What is unclear is how many Blu-Ray disc sales are a result of dedicated movie watchers who bought a PS3, or are a result of an occasional bored gamer.

Exactly how many titles need to sell as an HD format to be considered a hit? 100,000? Just a guess. If half of those are from stand alone players or avid movie watchers who bought a PS3 (another guess), that leaves about 50,000 for bored gamers of a PS3. How hard would it be to find 50,000 PS3 owners on any given week to pick up that difference? 50,000 is 2.5% of the entire PS3 population. Not very impressive... but enough to make it seem that demand for the Blu-Ray format is quite high over HD-DVD.

I think it's clear that Blu-Ray wants you to believe that their format seems to be more popular, but the numbers do not really support a very entusiastic support of Blu-Ray from PS3 owners. Also, HD-DVD's lead was due in large part to their head start. No one disputes this either. What is disputed is the actual demand the Blu-Ray has from its gaming community. That remains to be seen.

3. I don't think you understand what a hasty conclusion is. It's a logical fallacy.

http://tinyurl.com/yonkf2

http://home.austin.rr.com/tdotson/

4. Look at the two links above.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 11:47:39 PM , Rating: 2
1- Wait, no one knew how many they sold to merchants? How many they made? What the sales rates were? Really? I know that's not true. I think you need to disabuse yourself of that idea.

2- I think the mix will become apparent as this war continues.

3- I know what a hasty conclusion is. I was just having a little fun playing on some words. No harm intended.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/7/2007 9:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
1. No, I'm explaining that tracking wasn't used to order things like they are done today. The business model back then was a push model. Not a pull model. Did I ever say no one knew? Merchants are more candid about sharing information today than they were back then and the Internet was not the reason for this. So, no I do not agree that information would have been given to the public as it is today if the Internet was in greater use back then.

2. Essentially what I've been saying as to why people should be more cautious rather than reaching a hasty conclusion just by simplying looking at the numbers like you seem to want to do.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 6:00:12 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, the Internet began as ARPANET for the U.S. Army and Darpa back in the late 60s and early 70s. It's older than you realize. :)


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 2:31:42 PM , Rating: 2
And yes, while the internet wasn't around at the time, there was news that VHS surpassed Betamax in total sales as well. That format war was also tracked by both parties.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 2:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
And that analogy would be with respect to Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, however the reporting you're talking about was pretty much done at the conclusion of that format war. Not like on a day-to-day basis at the infancy of this one.


RE: The numbers
By diablofish on 12/6/2007 3:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Not true. It just wasn't as readily available as it is today thanks to the internet.


RE: The numbers
By Guyver on 12/6/2007 5:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
So which is it? You say it was getting tracked like it is today, but now you say news of it wasn't readily available. Seems like people knew but they didn't know.

:)


Surprising? I think not
By mdogs444 on 12/5/2007 4:08:03 PM , Rating: 4
Is this supposed to be a surprising figure? In fact, Im almost shocked the PS3 doesn't account for a higher percentage.




RE: Surprising? I think not
By mcnabney on 12/5/2007 4:14:26 PM , Rating: 1
They don't account for more because the average PS3 owner may own one movie. Many own none and a few have bought at the same rate as a component player owner. It sure was nice of Sony to muddy the waters. I hate format wars.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By 16nm on 12/5/2007 5:00:20 PM , Rating: 1
It's bad news that 74% of BluRay players are the PS3. Don't assume every PS3 buyer is using a HDTV and using their PS3 for HD movies. You can buy a PS3 to play games on a plain old 27" tube type TV, right? That's like assuming that people are buying their XBOX for DVD viewing when I bet that most do not. But buyers who purchase a HD-DVD or Blu-ray stand-alone player most certainly would be buying it to use w/HD media. You need a HDTV to enjoy it. It seems a safe assumption to say that HD-DVD purchasers use their player for HD movies. So really, this is not very positive news for Blu-ray, or have I missed something?

Maybe I have missed something, but I am quite out of patience to see which format will win. I want to begin my HD movie library asap. I really don't give a damn which format wins, just win already.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By mmntech on 12/5/2007 7:44:18 PM , Rating: 3
The PS3 though is heavily marketed as an HTPC though. It's no surprise that the PS3 accounts for some many BD players. DVD capability was a big draw for the PS2 way back in 2000. The PS3 is the best value BD player on the market right now, especially outside the US.

What you've missed though is the disc sales, which are currently outpacing HD-DVD. That means that PS3 owners ARE using it to watch BD movies. Anyway, I personally don't think either format is going to dominate anytime soon. Too few people have HDTVs as you said. You want HD movies? Buy an HD cable/satellite box and get the HBO HD package.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By Blight AC on 12/6/2007 9:24:07 AM , Rating: 2
Showtime also has a HD channel as well, and with the series Dexter, it's a must for me. :D

However, cable HD isn't really GREAT HD like HD-DVD or Blu-Ray, as it's pretty compressed. A good High Def movie blows away Cable HD. The best example I have seen of this is the difference between Heroes on HD-DVD and on Cable. The HD-DVD quality was noticeably superior, and my Cable box uses a HDMI connector, while my Xbox has Component.

I've also being seeing a lot more HD TV adoption in this past year among family and friends.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By wallijonn on 12/6/2007 12:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You want HD movies? Buy an HD cable/satellite box and get the HBO HD package.


OTA HD is about 18 MB/s, satellite is about 12 MB/s and cable is about 9 MB/s. One shouldn't suggest satellite and cable as viable HD alternatives and at the same time tout the higher bit rate of BD. It is much better if you say that the HDBO HD movies can be recorded. But recorded to what? DVD. DivX? So much for the advantage of HBO HD.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 12/5/2007 4:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Compare stand alones to stand alones and Blu Ray is in the same boat as HD DVD. Lack of support over all. If you buy a Blu Ray stand alone player, your intent is to play music. If you buy a PS3, its likely your intent is going to be to play games. It skews the figures. The only thing preventing me from making the same argument about HD DVD, is that the addon for the X360 doesn't play games, and has to be purchased separately. No reason to purchase it otherwise.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By therealnickdanger on 12/5/2007 4:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
It should be noted that the HD-DVD add-on for the 360 just dropped to $129 today. I saw it at a glance on TeamXbox.com's website, but can't access from work, so no link. :(

They also had an interesting blurb from Michael Bay. Apparently he is on a tear again, but this time about the "conspiracy" that no one has the courage to confront: that Microsoft is only pushing HD-DVD in order to stagnate the HD-media "war" until Microsoft's own downloadable content becomes mainstream. Things that make you go "hmmm".


RE: Surprising? I think not
By mcnabney on 12/5/2007 4:25:09 PM , Rating: 4
Like Sony forcing a new format, that is loaded with their IP, based upon all the studios they own and their new game console?

Bay is an advocate that nobody wants on their side.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By BBQmyNUTZ on 12/5/2007 11:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
I really have to ask... if Sony simply developed a high capacity proprietary format primarily to address storage and piracy concerns for their console, would you still be objecting to it? If so, for what reason?

It seems to me that Sony isn't *forcing* you to do anything, they're simply trying to make money by introducing a new technology that is superior to the one that came before it. I'm not understanding where all the bad blood is coming from.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By Chaser on 12/6/2007 8:13:45 AM , Rating: 2
Good question and welcome to the HD-DVD forums.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By zinfamous on 12/6/2007 9:25:16 AM , Rating: 2
Never mind that Sony had developed and already implemented BD technology before the DVD alliance decided to start pushing for HD technology. They were on the boat with everyone else, with many supporters, seeing as how they already had a high capacity technology available that was more than adequate for HDM.

The problem, of course, is utilizing a new laser technology, causing design and finance nightmares in terms of bringing the technology to market prices quickly and effectively. The alliance and Toshiba saw HD DVD as a cheaper alternative, and also perhaps more than adequate. (I still think people would prefer longer movies--LoTR--on one disc as opposed to two when given the choice. DVD didn't really prove that consumers are completely OK with switching discs, just that they'll accept it when they don't have a choice)

Sony made a mistake by backing out and advancing their own technology (with several supporters, mind you). They should have tried to reach a compromise earlier. While HD DVD has shown to be adequate for media, you can't really deny that Blu Ray is still superior technically speaking.

I'm neutral btw, so no fanboyism here...


RE: Surprising? I think not
By nemrod on 12/6/2007 2:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
Do you know what will be the story at the end of the HD war?

I not, but what is sure is if bluray win, there will be useless HDDVD device (still a dvd player...), on the other side, you will have a PS3 which allow to play games, which upscale very well dvd etc...


RE: Surprising? I think not
By Chaser on 12/6/2007 8:11:37 AM , Rating: 2
Kenobi read the article. Blue Ray disks ARE "Flying off the shelves" consistently at a 3 - 1 rate over HD DVD sales over 2007. So PS3 owners are buying Blue Ray movies?

You guys can't have it every way you want when you try and spin this. "Player" sales are undeniably higher right along with Blue Ray disk sales compared to HD.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By lopri on 12/5/2007 5:28:27 PM , Rating: 5
Agree with you. As a matter of fact, I recommend PS3 to anyone who wants to buy a Blu-Ray player. People, think about it. If you were to purchase a Blu-Ray player today for the same $400, which one would you buy? Sony S300? Samsung P1400? Or PlayStation 3 that is a complete system that is capable of just about everything currently and in the future?

The only thing going for the stand-alone Blu-Ray players is their asthetics, in which department the PS3 isn't a slouch.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By Shlong on 12/5/2007 6:30:29 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah I was in the same boat. Stand-alone Blu-Ray Player for $399 vs Sony PS3 80GB (w/ 5 free blu rays, 2 free games, blu ray remote) for $499. The PS3 offered so much more with the ability to play games, downloaded media content, and you can also run linux on it. So yeah it was a no brainer.


RE: Surprising? I think not
By Gio6518 on 12/5/2007 11:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
the PS3 was my first blu-ray player, after doing all the research i decided to go BLU, but wasnt willing to pay the $1000 to get a player, so i decided to get the ps3 since it was cheaper and had the abilities to play video games, so when the Sony BDP-S300 came out i purchased my first stand-alone player (as many people have done), im sure you'll see a rapid rise in stand alone Blu-Ray players in the next few months, as it is now most stores are usually out of stock or only lucky enough to have one player in stock due to the current demand


RE: Surprising? I think not
By HueyD on 12/6/2007 8:51:52 AM , Rating: 3
I think the multi-format players are the way to go. If you have a decent PC you can get the internal LG player for $300. It plays Blu Ray and HD-DVD as well as every other format, the best of both worlds....
linky....
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N8...


RE: Surprising? I think not
By theapparition on 12/6/2007 8:58:08 AM , Rating: 2
Lack of IR kills the PS3 as a serious HT BR player.

My wife refuses to pick up more than one remote. Everything in my HT room is controled by a single remote (of which I have more money invested in than my Pioneer Elite BR player).


RE: Surprising? I think not
By zinfamous on 12/6/2007 9:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
you can use a PS2 DVD remote and USB adapter to go IR on the PS3. ...don't think you can use a Universal on it though...

Personally, I like being able to aim through the wall, or nowhere in particular and have the machine respond. with my current setup, I have to stretch out of the way at crazy angles to get all of my other IR remotes to work


RE: Surprising? I think not
By theapparition on 12/6/2007 10:12:14 AM , Rating: 2
I don't aim either. I use RF to IR converters. In my main HT room, the equipment isn't even in the same room. I doubt the BT remote would even have the range.


Well duh?
By Oroka on 12/5/2007 4:24:57 PM , Rating: 4
I bought a PS3 bout a month ago, and 90% of my reason was that I wanted a Blu-ray player. Why pay $399 for a stand alone player when for a extra $100 I could get a 80GB PS3 with Motorstorm? A month later, I still only have 1 game, but I have 5 BR-DVDs, and 5 more on the way with the 5 free offer.

Back when Blu-ray was still very new, I said that PS3 would be the biggest factor in a Blu-ray win. People would buy PS3s no matter what the format, so having BR-DVD capacity was a bonus and good planning on Sony's part. If it wasnt for the PS3, BR-DVD would be dying right now or we would have a BR/HD-DVD hybrid.




RE: Well duh?
By mcnabney on 12/5/2007 4:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
You are probably quite correct. Sony did include a nice BD player in the PS3.


RE: Well duh?
By Alexstarfire on 12/5/2007 7:15:56 PM , Rating: 2
And that's the only reason we have a format war to date, the PS3. No PS3 = no real Blu-Ray support = no format war. Why the hell would you intentionally start a war single handedly?


RE: Well duh?
By diablofish on 12/5/2007 11:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's entirely accurate. Sony (and others) invested millions upon millions of dollars in developing Blu-Ray technology. From a business perspective, you develop this technology to make money. And they didn't develop Blu-Ray for the PS3: they developed it as the next HD movie standard to replace DVD (among other possible uses). Just like HD-DVD created their technology to be the next movie standard to replace DVD (among other possible uses).

We had a Beta and VHS war decades ago, and no one was peddling competing gaming consoles back then. Each side developed two different technologies and each side wanted to recoup their investment and make money from the technology they developed.


So with the current figures out from both sides...
By Wightout on 12/5/2007 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 1
With these rough estimates out, blu-ray has more then 3.5 times the number of player in the US market than HD-DVD does? That is of course including both HD add on for the 360 and the PS3 as players...

Let me go out on a limb here and say that many of those people who have a PS3 would have gotten a blu-ray player stand alone had they not had a PS3...

Having the player already there would prolly have an effect on people who will eventually moved up to an HDTV on what format they wish to choose... "well we already have a Blue ray player"

What would be an advantage to buying a blu-ray player stand alone vs the PS3? I though the PS3 was the cheapest blu-ray player out there? Are the people who bought the things simply ignorant to the PS3? or maybe they want nothing to do with the system?

I dunno im lost, if anyone can shed some light on the idea that would be great. =)

I like blu-ray myself, because of the size and becuase I already have a PS3, oh and all the Pixar/Disney films are blu-ray exclusively for now.

In truth I think that the Disney thing might have the largest effect on the which way the winds will blow in this storm. Just my $0.02




By mcnabney on 12/5/2007 4:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
The figures make complete sense when you understand that about a quarter of PS3 owners have never bought a BD, about half have one or maybe two, and a quarter bought the PS3 primarily as a cheap way into the BD world and are buying at the same rate as component owners.


By geddarkstorm on 12/5/2007 5:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget: why would you buy BDs or HD-DVDs if you don't have an HD capable TV? You can play the PS3 on any type of TV (that has the proper connectors of course), but you really wouldn't gain much over DVD to play HD discs on a normal TV for the money you'd spend. If anything, that link of "must have HD TV to even try HD disks and players" is probably strong in the mind of consumers, I know it is with me.

So really, to get a good perspective on all this, one needs to know HD TV sales too. Stand alone players would rely more on those sales, but a PS3 wouldn't care.

At least that's my thought on why it's all so ambiguous.


By theapparition on 12/6/2007 9:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What would be an advantage to buying a blu-ray player stand alone vs the PS3? I though the PS3 was the cheapest blu-ray player out there?

It is the cheapest, but certainly not the best. It gets OK reviews for PQ, but does have the largest future potential. When you throw in the fact that it's a console, it makes it a win-win for many.

Not me. As I mentioned above, lack of IR compatibility kills it for me. All the equipment I have in my main HT room is actually located in another isolated room controled by a single remote. I'm not sure the BT reomte would even work. While I'm not a technophobe by any stretch, I also have to consider other users in my house, such as my wife, who gets lost walking out the front door sometimes (<-exageration). For it to be considered a serious piece of HT equipment, it needs to look and act like other HT equipment, and that means properly interfacing with it.


By diablofish on 12/6/2007 9:46:28 AM , Rating: 2
I will admit that not being able to use my Logitech remote with my PS3 is somewhat annoying. However, all I need to to to turn on the PS3 is push the "PS" button in the middle of the wireless SixAxis controller, so it's not a huge annoyance. And that same controller can also be used to control Blu-Ray playback.


By michal1980 on 12/6/2007 10:27:34 AM , Rating: 1
you know whats funny. is you are having a problem because you need to push an extra button to turn the ps3 on and then you can use an ir attachment to use your remote.

But its not a problem to have to walk to your seprate a/v room to put that blu-ray disk in.

just walking over to put the blu-ray in would force you to turn the ps3 on, which would mean that then you could us an ir remote.

So I think your excuse is just plan made up.


Well..
By geddarkstorm on 12/5/2007 5:06:39 PM , Rating: 3
According to the article, the number of blu-ray stand alone players that have been sold is around 700,000; and then the number of HD-DVD players plus X-BOX extensions sold is around 750,000. All this coming after black friday. So it seems, PS3 included or not, the amount of dedicated players sold are neck to neck for each format. At least, that's what I get from reading the article.

The PS3 definitely throws in a ton of more weight and potential market for blu-ray though which may be the major deciding factor in things. It would be really interesting to me to see the number of HD TV sales during the same time period, as one would expect sales of HD players and TVs to be linked. The PS3 though allows a blu-ray player to be bought incidentally regardless of the user's current TV, and thereby opens up the option for HD video content once the user finally upgrades their TV. In that sense, the PS3 is kind of future proofing the market share for blu-ray.

Oh well, we have a long way to go before these formats and HD in general are mainstream (i.e. finally out pacing DVD, and non HD TVs in sales).




RE: Well..
By steven975 on 12/5/2007 6:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
in order to be mainstream, it has to break away from game consoles.

neither format has really done that.


PS3 as best HD player on market
By Vesuvius on 12/5/2007 9:51:24 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the number one complaint of all HD players HD-DVD or Blu Ray is the boot up and disc load times of all of the devices. The PS3 is competitive in price with other Blu Ray players and it can boot up and load a movie is less than 1/4 the time it takes any standalone.

Seems to me it would make sense for many people interested in an HD player to buy a PS3 just for the fact that its way faster than anything else.

I find it ridiculous that everyone is so quick to write the PS3 off as a major force that makes a large portion of blu ray disc sales.

Lastly I believe someone had mentioned they wondered how much money is being made by either of the two parties. I unfortunately don't have any data to back up this potential rumor but I would suspect that both parties are operating in the RED still. But rumor has it that HD-DVD is much farther in the RED than Blu Ray. Is there any data about this as ultimately I believe that money being made (or lost) would play a large role in the eventual success of either format.




RE: PS3 as best HD player on market
By masher2 (blog) on 12/6/2007 12:21:28 AM , Rating: 1
> "I find it ridiculous that everyone is so quick to write the PS3 off as a major force "

If Sony plans on dropping the price to $100 in the next year or two, then it'll be a major force. Do you think that's likely though?


I wish...
By BansheeX on 12/5/2007 9:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
... HD-DVD fans and 360 fans would come to a consensus on the PS3. For the former, the PS3 is getting purchased mainly for games, and for the latter, it's getting purchased mainly for movies because it "has no games." So which is it?

I bought the PS3 for both. I understand that a lot of film buffs don't play games, but is it realistic to think that gamers don't like movies? Every gamer I know likes movies. And as soon as these people get the money, or a title they can't pass up, or realize they have a blu-ray player, it's going to kickstart their HD buying. There are six million people out there are counting with blu-ray players. It will be 18 million by next Christmas. That is a serious advantage in this war. Unlike HD-DVD, these games don't have to buy the player, they just have to realize they have it.




By Eug on 12/5/2007 10:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
As the article says, the 2 million figure for PS3s is through October, but there have been significant November sales after the PS3 price drop. The 2.7 million number is including most of November.

Thus, I wouldn't be surprised if there are only about 500000ish standalone Blu-ray players out there as of the 4th week of November, which would mean that the PS3 probably represents more than 4/5ths (80%) of all Blu-ray players.