Slashdot Mirror
Media Fight - PS3 Blu-ray vs. 360 HD DVD Add-On
An anonymous reader sent a link suggesting we might enjoy High Def Digest's next-gen console media comparison. They take a look at the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray playback capabilities, and compare it to the performance of the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on. The article offers a number of technical details for the movie, audio, and gaming buff. As you might expect, given the companies involved, both products basically perform their functions very well. From the article: "That doesn't mean both aren't without their drawbacks. The Xbox 360 add-on suffers from a lack of HDMI and analog outputs, though it still delivers excellent results despite those limitations. The PS3, meanwhile, also lacks analog outs, but it does have HDMI 1.3 support and can decode Dolby TrueHD. The lack of 1080 upconversion of 720p sources on the PS3 is a huge issue, though, so unless you have a 1080p-capable HDTV, you may suffer buyer's remorse."
An anonymous reader sent a link suggesting we might enjoy High Def Digest's next-gen console media comparison. They take a look at the PlayStation 3's Blu-ray playback capabilities, and compare it to the performance of the Xbox 360's HD DVD add-on.
A comparison of the actual games might be a bit more relevant. To be perfectly honest, I don't think anyone buys a gaming console BASED ON THE FUCKING PERFORMANCE OF THE OPTICAL DRIVE. They buy it because it has the games they want to play.
Push Button, Receive Bacon
... usually end in failure.
-Sega CD, 32X, etc.
No one wants to buy extra hardware to play games and these add-ons better be dirt cheap if they expect anyone to pick them up for HD-DVD playback. That and why is there even a need to replace DVD as it stands for most people?
I understand the benefits of blue-ray and HD-DVD for computer storage for applications like games, archiving, etc. But console history is filled with failed peripherals.
It seems probable to me that the primary motivation for the PS3, is to put a blu-ray drive under every expensive TV. Perhaps that is why there is no 720p downsampler, they want people to look at blu-ray disks and say wow. Rather than creating a cheap console that will do the job, they went overkill (I want one, by the way, even if I may never get one). With high prices, and low cost alternatives, you can expect that the early owners of PS3s are going to have their displays up to date as well. Demand for blu-ray grows, more studios sign on, Sony Pictures can put out more movies in Blu-ray, and pretty soon the profits destroy the losses on the PS3. More of an "investment" than a "terrible blunder" if you consider not just game sales, but blu-ray proliferation.
I have freaks! I did something right...
The difference is that there were about four people in that backlash watching eight films between them. The real dominant format was VHS; laserdisc was just a museum piece to most people.
Now almost everyone has a DVD player and a pile of movies and are not sitting in front of their TV going "Jesus, this is crap quality. I wish there was something better", which was what a lot of people WERE saying about VHS.
I didn't mean to seriously suggest that people would pick it just because it's a cooler name, but I definitely think that Bluray will be the winning format and that it will be due substantially to it having a better name (although I accept that this will be patently unprovable). Blu-ray is a name that sticks in the consumer's head, HD-DVD on the other hand, while more descriptive, is easily ignored.
To someone uniformed, the name "HD-DVD" doesn't stand out, it sort of sounds like "HDTV" and sort of like "DVD" so you group it in with those technologies in your mind. Blu-ray on the otherhand doesn't sound like anything else so it stands out in the casual observer's mind as something distinct and different -- a new technology.
I've been saying this from the beginning, but Blu-Ray will be the winner of the HD format war simply because it has a cooler name. HDDVD is hard to say and sounds like obscure computer nerd bullshit. Blu-ray on the other hand sounds like a devastating weapon that has fallen into enemy hands, putting the world at risk and now needs to be saved by a commando soldier who was recently kicked out of the army for disobeying orders and saving a village of orphans, but now is the world's only hope to avoid sure destruction. Coming to theaters near you, this July 4th.
No. VHS vs. Betamax proves you wrong on that one.
The format that first/most conviniently gets ripped and XvidD'ed.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
This will probably be the first time a large number of customers begins to "get it" in regards to having DRM force-fed down our throats.
Soooo... They didn't "get it" with the iPod?
Correct. They did not get DRM force-fed down their throats with the iPod.
It's not like buying from the iTunes Store (which requires DRM) is mandatory for using the iPod (which does not).
This is the difference though. You only notice the difference with HD DVD and Blu-Ray if you have a $2000 TV, and quality surround sound. That means, to really get any advantage from the new formats, you need to spend over $3000 (player, sound, and TV). It wasn't this way when DVD came out. You could hook up your $500 dvd player to your old TV with low end sound system, and still get a significant number of advantages. No rewind, no tape wear, better sound, better picture, all with only upgrading the player. This is why HD TV isn't catching on either, because you can't just buy the new TV and get a better picture. You have to get more expensive cable (over the air isn't everywhere), and buy new HD-DVDs, . So, upgrading to HD can't be compared to upgrading to DVD because there's more than just buying the player. You have to get a new expensive TV, just to see the difference, and for that TV to make a difference with TV shows, you have to pay even more for cable.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.