This is pretty shocking to me. I can't believe a company would accept a loss of 3 billion. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3169439
I highly doubt this. Not that Sony isn't hurting from the high cost of manufacturing the PS3, but profit doesn't automatically go into a bank account somewhere. It's reinvested, either in the business or in other ventures. This report is probably factoring in the costs of R&D for the components, even the outsourced ones (like the RSX) which makes it more than a little deceptive. Far as I'm concerned, Microsoft is still the major money drain in the gaming industry. (Hell, that entire company is a money hole, but that's another thread.)
I don't understand why everything is a Sony VS Microsoft arguement. The guy didn't post a word about Microsoft. He didn't make any pro Microsoft statements or fanboyish remarks at all, and automatically, everyone starts saying, "Well Microsoft this... and Microsoft that..." The guy was posting news people. Geez
I personally was trying to show that everybody loses money some where. Its not really news that shocks me.
maybe, I'm not convinced Blu Ray is going to win. Upconverting DVD's are much cheaper and about the same quality.
BluRay has already won. The quality is only the same to people who have trouble deciphering the differences between resolutions in the first place(many, many people). Regardless, even with the "upscaled" resolution, they do not offer any HD content and is severely limited compared to BluRay. The price issue is only due to it being relatively new tech. I remember people saying that DVD's were too expensive to be "worth it" as well, look how that turned out.
Not even close IMO. Upconverting DVDs does nothing for altering the sound. And even the best upconverters can't match the PQ of blu-ray.
about the same quality? I do not agree with that AT ALL. Going from Blu Ray to upconverted DVDs is like watching tv with sand in your eyes.
Not quite. To the average eye, there really is no difference. I can see a slight difference from afar but honestly without looking close up it's not a big difference in image quality. Sound likewise.
I see a bigger jump from upconverted dvd to blu ray from regular dvd to upconverted dvd. Also interesting, I see more of a difference from afar than I do up close.
For those that don't know the PS3 does upconvert your DVDs so its like buying an upconverting DVD player no matter if you choose to play Blu-Rays or DVDs it doesn't matter. Also the 360 upconverts dvds as well. Look at it as the PS3 upconverts DVDs and plays Blu-Ray so you get the best of both worlds.
To each his own. The general thing I see is striking differences more up close rather than afar, though slightly noticeable from there. To the casual watcher, the difference isn't big enough to justify plopping $300-400 for a new system and an extra $10 each disc. There were a number of articles on upconvert vs. HD-DVD/Blu-Ray but here's one I still found (HD-DVD vs. DVD but same deal). http://www.firingsquad.com/features/transformers_hd_dvd_review/images/03.png - DVD http://www.firingsquad.com/features/transformers_hd_dvd_review/images/04.png - HD
I see a HUGE difference between clarity, color, and brightness/darkness in those pictures. I don't see how someone can't tell the difference in those two.
Well, unless you have surround sound setup, it's moot. I thinking of things in terms of the general population, who will dictate whether Bluray manages to succeed, not just those with a home theater setup.
Look at the screen at about 10-15 feet and not just up close on a monitor. And again, those differences may not be enough to sway casual owners from switching and the higher prices. The difference isn't as huge as say DVD vs. VHS.
I have a pretty damn good surround sound set up and the difference between "Blu Ray" sound and regular DVD sound is night and freaking day. I was astonished by the difference. I can't WAIT until Blu-Ray is fully mainstream and the established technology so all music "DVD's" will be on Blu-Ray.
On a 40"+ TV, even from 10-15ft away you will see a difference. And I don't get this higher price talk. DVDs were proportionally just as expensive compared to VHS, and it sure seems like that was adopted fine despite the initial complaints about cost.
Some of you need to realize your the hardcore. The vast majority of people do not set up home theater systems etc and don't give a rats ***. DVD didn't start mass retailing until 1997 and it didn't surpass VHS until 2003 in rentals etc. This was considered fast as lets face it VHS sucked and this was the first time you could store your movies you bought without worry of your machine chewing it ;p Blu-Ray on the other hand only started in 2006, people are satisfied with DVD (still accounting for 97% of sales) and faces a large installed base. Blu-Ray probably won't stick in the long run (and that comes from someone with one) and it's already got competition in the works that will blow it away in Holographic data systems expected to start it's run around 2010 or so and you just know MS etc will jump to that one just to spite Sony. So chances are people will stick with DVD until there is a real reason to do so.
Pretty much every industry/marketing group I have seen info from, they say blu-ray will replace dvds (as being #1 in sales I mean) by 2012. PS: I am far from the hardcore, as my entire home theater (game systems, players, tv, sound system) cost about $2000 (certainly no more than $2500). Plenty of people spend that just on their tv (hell, I don't even have a tv that can do 1080p/24, let alone 1080p/60).
Not even close.. Without getting into a technical argument you can't replace what isnt on the DVD by simply upscaling it. The best you can do it smooth out some rough surfaces, and make it look a little crisper to the eye. There is a HUGE differnce in a full 1080p Blu-Ray title and an upscaled DVD in my opinion..Sadly I own very few Blu-Rays as I am changing over to Digital Formats for the future.
Not everyone will agree with you on that part. I see a difference on my 46" but it's not an extremely large one. VanDolPhan touched on a bit of it in his post but the "majority" don't know as much about 1080p/24 vs 1080p/60. They just buy something with a heavy emphasis on cost-value. The differences between DVD and Blu-Ray just don't justify that. Hell, I'm still buying more DVD's than Blu-Ray+HD-DVD. We're in a recession so comparisons with DVDs, which was introduced in a tech boom, is moot. That takes into pretty hefty consideration. I've read industry papers that suggest people are satisfied enough with DVD's to not make the switch to Blu-ray.
Pretty much everybody I know wants to have blu-ray. And there are a ton of blu-ray movies you can get for 20 dollars or less. I bought American Psycho on blu-ray for 14 bucks. Every new movie now is being released on blu-ray. You can rent them straight out of most blockbuster video stores now. By the time this new stuff comes out it should have a firm hold on the HD market. I am far from hardcore, a year and a half ago I didn't even know what a blu-ray disc was and now it's all I watch. I have a 1500 dollar plasma TV and and it's hooked up to an ancient Sony stereo system. I can still notice a significant difference.
I've only paid over $20 on four of my blu-ray movies. I have 60. I even bought one and had it shipped from England and it was less than $17. tower.com has some good prices (though shipping time sucks sometimes)
The only movie I got for over $20 was 300 and that was because I was excited to just buy my ps3 at the time. I generally just rent them at Blockbuster. I mostly wait for sales to buy my blu ray dics. Which is also how I bought most of my DVDs as well.
I guess I've just never been interested enough to go buy surround sound to make it worth it for me. The only things I care to watch in Hi Def are sports.
And this is pretty much where I stand, and backs up what I said about the expense Of course Blu-Ray has come down signifigantly and will continue to..but I literally have hundreds of DVD's, which when mulitplied by $20.00 equals an ENTIRE boatload of money that I WILL NOT spend again. I will also remain skeptical as I also think Blu-Ray will last all of a hand-full of years, and then those of you that have bought up 100's of them will be in the exact same boat I am now.
Only Blu-rays I paid more than $20 for were Planet Earth ($50 was a huge bargain), the Ocean's Trilogy set, and the amazon.com National Treasure/National Treasure 2 package. I don't think I have more than 15 Blu-rays and 20 HD-DVD's at the present.
planet earth is a must have on blu ray the whole 'shallow waters' or w/e with the reefs and tropical fish will blow ANYONES mind who hasn't seen it...it is a great thing to have when people say 'so whats blu ray and is it even worth it?'
