Yeah, I don't really see what the problem is here. New technology like this always takes a while to settle out. Plus, it's not as if people who bought early Blu-Ray players weren't taking a 50% chance of their format dying in the face of HD-DVD anyway.
That said, I have no intention of buying a Blu-Ray player. The quality jump from standard DVD to Blu-Ray just isn't as pronounced as the one from VHS to DVD (and yes, I have a 1080p tv). 3 times the cost for a negligible increase in picture quality just isn't an expense that I can justify.
Within the next decade, we should see a real rise in digital distribution. Broadband speeds are getting to the point where you could watch a DVD quality movie as it downloads and then save it to your hard drive. There just isn't a good system in place yet that delivers this, but I'm sure it's coming.
I don't see why they couldn't. Even with archaic compression standards, most movies don't even fill a 4.7GB disc. If they got the file size down to 1 gigabyte, that would only take 20 minutes to download on my connection.
Hmm. I've ripped my DVDs from whatever bitrate they normally have (8mbps MPEG2?) to 1.5mbps H.264 at the same res and there's no loss in quality. Apple have just started a renting service and updated the proper puchasing service so you can watch as they download. Steve Jobs demonstrated on an 8mbps connection and it took 30 seconds to begin the streaming.
'sall ready here. A might good service too. DD is where we're going.
I want discs. Downloading films is for piracy. People aren't going to switch to paying for them. If they want high quality shit they're gonna buy the discs. Or, at least, I HOPE they will. :-\
Originally Posted by Kirby Smith The quality jump from standard DVD to Blu-Ray just isn't as pronounced as the one from VHS to DVD (and yes, I have a 1080p tv).
The jump from DVD to HD-DVD/Blu Ray is merely an increase of resolution. Going from VHS to DVD however gave more convenience (no rewinding tapes), reliability (no tapewear), a HUGE boost in color resolution, about 100 times better signal/noise ratio, ehh did I forget anything?
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Originally Posted by Kirby Smith The quality jump from standard DVD to Blu-Ray just isn't as pronounced as the one from VHS to DVD (and yes, I have a 1080p tv).
The jump from DVD to HD-DVD/Blu Ray is merely an increase of resolution. Going from VHS to DVD however gave more convenience (no rewinding tapes), reliability (no tapewear), a HUGE boost in color resolution, about 100 times better signal/noise ratio, ehh did I forget anything?
Exactly. DVD is going to win this war, there's too much apathy towards this technology. DVD wasn't an overnight success and it took, was it 2003/4 before Curry's and all them lot dropped dedicated VHS recorders? Yet it did better than both these new HD standards combined.
With Xbox Marketplace and iTunes now offering HD film purchasing and rental it's going to be even tougher for both physical HD media to make an impact. Convenience and price; DD has it. id super pack on steam is £30 for 23 games, and the GTA collection is £20. Remove packaging and delivery = nice prices.
I really wonder if the complete and utter lack of consumer confidence will eventually kill the ENTIRE generation; stand-alone blu-ray players buyers get abandoned, and the only other (and main) player, the PS3, is flopping like a turd. If blu-ray wins against HD-DVD, it will be a Pyhrric victory; both formats will lose.
I think we're all going to be using DVDs up till the point that portable hard-data storage itself becomes obsolete, which is something already in the works.
Yea, a failure. But still it doesn't mean you don't like the games. Hell I'd put Metroid Prime and Smash Bros Melee above any other games last gen, didn't stop me owning other systems too...
I have a blu-ray player (due to owning a PS3). I don't own any BD movies, and I don't really care. I also have a 50" HDTV...so yeah, Downloading is the new media. I can download and stream a DVD-9 no problem (if that service became available, internet isn't getting any slower). I have a 15mbps connection.
thinking is like pong, it's easy, but you miss sometimes.
Well, flop might be a strong / disproportionate word here. But I see PS3 going essentially along the lines of the 'cube; it won't be the dominant system this generation. And considering its pretty much the sole backer of the Blu-Ray right now, thats a serious hit to the industry. Without a solid lead player/console to prop up the sales, and the with the fact that confidence in the PS3 itself is ALREADY gone, consumer confidence means that BR will have a giant hurdle into its growth, one that probably won't be bypassed until its already obsolete. So yeah, even if HDDVD goes bust, I don't imagine many people will buy blu-ray players.
And I'm not saying the PS3 is bad, just that its not selling well :/ I'd put eternal darkness on my GC gem list, though, too
Originally Posted by Pixelthief Well, flop might be a strong / disproportionate word here. But I see PS3 going essentially along the lines of the 'cube; it won't be the dominant system this generation. And considering its pretty much the sole backer of the Blu-Ray right now, thats a serious hit to the industry. Without a solid lead player/console to prop up the sales, and the with the fact that confidence in the PS3 itself is ALREADY gone, consumer confidence means that BR will have a giant hurdle into its growth, one that probably won't be bypassed until its already obsolete. So yeah, even if HDDVD goes bust, I don't imagine many people will buy blu-ray players.
And I'm not saying the PS3 is bad, just that its not selling well :/ I'd put eternal darkness on my GC gem list, though, too
The PS3 wasn't selling well - but if you look at the sales now they've greatly improved, and if you visit websites like 1up, gamespot and gametrailers then it's clear to see that confidence in the PS3 has actually improved greatly. And if you line up the PS3s sales with the 360 (and align the launch dates), they're practically the same.
At the end of the day both the PS3 and 360 have "failed" because of the fact that the Wii has totally dominated with sales. But I have no doubt that Microsoft and Sony won't consider it a failure as they both have their own specific goals and targets.
Sorta. For a long time Oblivion was the only 90+ rated 360 game.
The Wii launched with TP and that gathered higher ratings. Then Galaxy came out Ocarina of Time-like ratings.
But yea in the whole top 10 of Metacritic it has 2 Wii games (near the top), 6 360 games all over the place and 2 PS3 games (near the bottom). And both the Wii and PS3 have only been out 1 year too so it's probably understandable.
The 360, PS3 and Wii all have their exclusives. But the 360 and PS3 shares a lot of games, Call of Duty 4 and Orange Box for example. Meanwhile the Wii gets crappy PS2 ports with motion control added in to compensate.
Don't get me wrong, Super Mario Galaxy is great, but except for first party titles the Wii library is full of crap. I suppose Wii gamers aren't picky
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
There are not enough good games on ANY of these systems to warrant me getting one.
By that I mean games I enjoy.
And those games are pretty much only RPG games.
The PSX had a lot of good games, and I'm only just now discovering some of them.
The Snes had a few decent games (FF series, Secret Of mana and it's sequal, Terranigma, Secret of evermore, Chrono trigger etc... there are a LOT of games on here that shouldn't be forgotten)
Sadly, the GC only had a few I liked (Tales Of Symphonia and SKies of Arcadia) - these are the only reason i regret selling it. And I had about 40 games for it.
It seems now that companies are more concerned about spewing out so many games a year, each with a ridiculous price tag, rather than putting together a game that is decent in both gameplay and graphics.
Yeah the Gamecube was supposedly easy to develop for, and the N64 even moreso. And both those consoles were marked by tons of blockbuster, high quality games. I have a Wii and theres only really 3-4 games on it worth playing; Mario, SSB, Metroid, and Zelda. The rest is all shovelware that gets dumped on the system because developers aren't taking it seriously. If the Wii started getting games like oblivion, this would already be over. But as long as someone tries to force us to buy "Zack and Wiki's Quest" or "Elebits", nintendo won't clinch their victory.
I always heard that the n64 was very difficult to develop for due to a few poor decisions made by those that created it. Like incredibly low texture cache and poor fill rates, often lower than even the playsation 1 despite being much more powerful in most areas.
However the gamecube is, (to my knowledge) much easier to develop for. Perhaps only because Nintendo listened to developer feedback and themlseves learned from N64's errors.
in my opinion, console gaming is dying. fewer and fewer truly innovative and original titles. this generation makes me not want to game no more. i own a ps2 and a few games, i dont see a point in buying a new system that costs two three or four times what i can pay for the last gen, which had better games anyways. if it weren't for guitar hero id probably sell it.
also, next gen systems (current generation) launched at such high prices. yeah theres always a significant price drop after about the first or second quarter of sales, but soon won't it just be cheaper to buy and play games on a pc? a pc that can play better looking games can be built for about the same or a little more than the ps3 lunch price of 600$
Well the console market has been rising since it was born, and with the Wii and the newly tapped casual market it's really accelerating. I don't know about the games though. I play around 1-2 truly great games a year which hasn't changed (for me) since the Amiga days.
Console gaming is bad because PC's are more powerful? Didn't know that would affect gameplay so much. There's no Mario Galaxy on PC.