I agree. There's a lot going on inside those characters. Without the voiceover, much of it might be lost on the typical viewer -- or even the experienced one. When I watch the Director's Cut, I hear Deckard's voice in my memory. I wonder what it's like for someone who's never seen the theatrical release? I can't imagine it.
I never saw the original before seeing the no-voiceover version, and still haven't seen the version with voiceover. From seeing commercials and trailers, the movie seemed too weird to me when I was a youngster (I was into more "conventional" sci-fi) and for some reason seeing it just never became a priority in the intervening years.
With that in mind, I'll say that I loved the "Director's Cut" when I saw it for the first time on DVD (I bought it because I was a fairly early DVD adopter, needed some content and kept hearing it was a great movie). In fact, I had no idea that there was a voiceover "missing" until a year or more later (after repeated viewings). I didn't feel lost at all while watching the film, though I did feel at times like I was thinking a little harder during the viewing than I would during most Hollywood films - by itself, not a bad thing at all.
I'll certainly buy the multi-disc release (too bad it's not HD-DVD as it could move up my adoption of that format) so that I can finally see what folks are talking about with the voiceover, but I never felt like I was missing anything that important.
Oh yeah, and I'll note finally that, being a "no-voiceover-only" viewer, it seemed clear to me that Deckard was a replicant.:)
Despite the demonization of corporations (particularly multinationals), few of them (maybe Union Carbide as an example) can approach the atrocity level of even the "nicest" nation...
Re:Pasting for the PS3 because it invents not copi
on
How the PS3 Hit $600
·
· Score: 1
That's a pretty silly question, because until the PS3, a videogame console has never the cheapest way to get a movie player.
It still won't be, even for an HD-capable movie player. Toshiba and RCA already have HD-DVD players available right now that are $500 and it's not at all ridiculous to figure that by the time the PS3 hits the retail prices of those devices will have dropped $50, $100 or even more (depending on which manufacturers release devices within the next six months).
I've got to think that people willing to early adopt a new HD disc format for the purpose of watching movies aren't going to care about having an all-in-one device. I've also got to think that many of those early adopters who are also gamers will already have an Xbox 360. That kind of thing tends to shrink the value of buying a $500-600 Blu-Ray player which can also play a few games.
Besides referrals, it would seem like the most definitive method of assuring a hosting company's honesty would be to choose one local to you and ask to tour their facilities. Assuming you have serious need of reliability and backups (folks with blogs can keep their own backups and it isn't a crisis if the host has some downtime), they'll probably be willing to accommodate you. If they're not, then they might just be writing checks their systems can't cash...
I imagine MS is much more eager than other console makers to jump to the next-gen because they know the original XBox has hacked wide open.
I know this is the Slashdot party line, but Xbox hacking has little or nothing to do with Microsoft's desire to pull the plug on the Xbox. They want to pull the plug because every time they make and sell an Xbox they're still losing money. It's far more advantageous for them to produce and sell the Xbox 360 for a loss than the Xbox. If Microsoft could produce the Xbox dirt cheap and sell them for a hundred bucks a pop like Sony did with the PSOne, they'd do it in a heartbeat, hacking or not.
They talk a lot about license transfers in the article but don't go into detail about how Sony wants to tie particular pieces of software to a particular PS3 unit. This seems like it would only be enforceable if both the new and used purchasers' PS3s are connected to the Internet. If so, it would mean that anyone wanting to use their PS3 for online gaming would be restricted to buying only brand new games. It would also probably result in people buying only single player/local multiplayer games and ignoring the Internet altogether.
If game publishers can't make money in the current environment, then that's just too damn bad. Maybe, someday, they'll figure out that selling a million units at $20 a piece is better than selling 200,000 units at $50 a piece. Forcing these kinds of restrictions on people will affect the first sale as much as the subsequent used sales.
I just find it funny then that the PSP got slammed for size and the DS did not. Hinged or not it shows you how prejudiced people can be.
I think there are two issues at work relating to this "prejudice." The first is that the DS has two LCDs and one of them is a touchscreen. While the PSP has a much larger screen, people will still still forgive a bigger size when they get two of them. The second issue is that the DS has more good games. The PSP gets cut no slack on any issue because there are so few games that people want to play - battery life, size, load times (my reason for not touching a PSP), etc. all get a lot more negative attention because the PSP doesn't have Phoenix Wright, Trauma Center, Animal Crossing DS, Advance Wars DS, Mario Kart DS, and more. Given the lead the DS has in this area, the PSP isn't going to generate a lot more positive feeling until the next (last?) price cut - for example, I'd consider picking one up if a PSP plus a minimal memory card (enough for game saves) could be had new for $200 or less.
Oh yeah gameplay is alright but really does a Advance Wars Dual Strike deserve the same price point as an Oblivion?
At ebgames.com, Oblivion is selling for $49.99 PC and $59.99 Xbox 360. Advance Wars DS, on the other hand, is selling for $34.99 (which is where it started by the way). DS titles debut typically at either $29.99 or $34.99 while console titles debut typically at $49.99 (and $59.99, though that's 360 only until the PS3 comes along). In other words, all your DS talk is a bunch of hot air...
And since when does Nintendo have a reputation for being cheap? Just check out the hardware vs price cost of the new tiny GBA and a PSP. The PSP at the moment is only twice as expensive but surely it got two times the hardware inside?
The GBA Micro is $94.99 and the PSP is $199.99, so, yes, it's more than twice as expensive - well done! Of course, that PSP is all but worthless as a gaming machine until you spend at least $30-35 on a Memory Stick. Further, the GBA Micro is so tiny it's ridiculous (the PSP is a giant, bloated hog compared to the Micro) and you pay a $15 premium for that size over the GBA SP which has the same functionality at $79.99, an even BETTER value.
In the case of the PS3, most people will buy it because it will have the widest selection of games out of the new consoles.
Why does every Sony nerd and his developmentally disabled cousin say this as if it's a foregone conclusion? The thing is going to cost US$500 minimum. Whether or not it's going to have a dominating marketshare (the determining factor for whether it has "the widest selection of games") is very much in question.
...the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation.
Oh, yeah. This is why plasma TVs are actually cheap and Mercedes is the new Hyundai. In other words, you're trying way too hard.
The bottom line for many of us is this: The PS3 is debuting at a higher price than either of its two competitors, and a higher price, even considering inflation, than all but a couple (Neo-Geo and 3DO) consoles in history. Whatever your dollar analysis says, the Xbox 360 will still be at least $100 cheaper than the "budget" PS3 and the Wii will be at least $200 cheaper...unless, of course, the Federal Reserve devalues currency spent on specific game consoles...
That said, the mind boggles as to who rents *or* buys them. Maybe there's far more PSP users here than I thought.
It's more likely that wholesalers are giving good deals on UMD movies to the rental places. If they can make back the wholesale price of a UMD in 1 or 2 rentals, then even a bargain-bin sale of the things later could net a profit.
...for the developer, the cart was a major part of the cost.
True. As I recall, Nintendo also produced every N64 cartridge, so third-party folks had to pay them for that in addition to the licensing (or as part of same). It was a terrible deal for third parties all the way around unless they could be sure that the game would sell like hot [johnny] cakes...
Sounds like it could have been a copy protection issue. Before I upgraded to a TV with more inputs I had to use a specific VCR that wouldn't activate Macrovision when trying to pass through a DVD signal (with Macrovision encoding, of course). Specifically, I found that one of my VCRs would only activate the Macrovision protection when it was placed in record mode, while the others had the protection on all the time. This worked out fine for me since copying a DVD to a VHS tape is just plain silly.:)
What in God's name are you talking about? So, you're positing that the primary reason for the ridiculous price of Blu-Ray is to keep demand down? What a crock. There has to be a lot more to it than that considering Toshiba is already selling HD-DVD players for $500 and RCA units hitting the street next week for the same price. And if your theory is correct, then what does that say about the prices of HD-DVD players in the next 6-12 months? Blu-Ray will have zero ability to compete for the mass home movie audience unless their prices can match up (down) to HD-DVD.
Apparently, you don't know what HDCP is. HDCP is not an interface. It is copy protection that is integrated into the interface (or, if you prefer, the chipset supporting the interface). So, unless an HDMI->DVI or DVI->HDMI adapter doesn't pass the HDCP information (all of them claim to do so), then HDCP isn't an issue. It's only an issue if HDCP isn't built into the DVI interface on the TV (I've never seen a TV with HDMI that is non-compliant with HDCP).
I don't think you understand. See, people who don't have HDTVs understand that all HDTVs are either big plasmas, big LCDs or very big rear-projection setups. My 27" Samsung which I bought about 2 years ago for $600 is simply a figment of my imagination.
In addition to the potential (considering the history of PS2) for weak Blu-Ray movie playback, there are also the "next-gen" audio formats from Dolby and DTS that - for the time being at least with no receivers available to decode a digital output of these new formats - have to be decoded in the player and output via discrete 5.1 outputs to a receiver. The flagship HD-DVD and Blu-Ray standalone players have these decoders built in while the PS3 does not.
That's why we have reviews. A movie theater or a restaurant won't give you a refund just because you didn't like their fare either, but success is still (roughly) correlated with quality in those industries
I think you misunderstood GP. These questions about how likely one is to play a game with ads ignore the question of overall quality. In other words, the aforementioned game that is being returned to Best Buy isn't necessarily being returned because the game sucks, bur rather because the hypothetical person didn't like the ad content.
Perceived game quality (gleaned through reviews, testimonials from friends, etc.) will typically be the determining factor as to whether a game is bought, but the question in this article is whether in-game ads bring the perceived quality down. For me, if I'm playing a fantasy RPG and there are Nike "swooshes" on my armor, that's over the line and I wouldn't play. If, however, I'm going down a street in a game set in the present, then a big Nike billboard isn't going to bother me that much (assuming, of course, that the game isn't somehow forcing me to experience that content by taking control of what I look at in the game).
No shite. I wonder, though, why people are assuming that Blu-Ray is going to be the HD format of choice. HD-DVD players cost half as much as Blu-Ray players and the prices of HD-DVD players are going to go down MUCH faster than the prices of the two PS3 models (unless Sony decides to take a monstrous loss on those units). Even if Blu-Ray standalone players go down in price at the same rate as HD-DVD players, that would mean a $300 HD-DVD player would be competing against a $600 Blu-Ray player, $200 versus $400, etc. Assuming home movie watchers have an interest in an HD format, I just don't see how Blu-Ray can stay relevant without big price cuts, PS3 or not...
As for your list of companies, well, at least one of those you got wrong (Thomson/RCA has an HD-DVD product coming out next week) and others (like LG) will be producing HD-DVD hardware as well.
And now its not an issue at all, since almost all the players are multiregion.
No, most of the players are not multiregion, at least not in the US. Most (I won't give a percentage since it would be BS but it would be "super-high") players in the US are region 1 only, and the vast majority of people couldn't possibly care less because when they go into a store to buy or rent a DVD virtually all of those discs are region 1 (a very tiny percentage are region "0") as well.
Region encoding - again, in the US at least - is only something that geeks who want to import discs care about. Believe me, that's not even a significant minority of DVD users.
Sony can promise all they want in regard to their own movies. The minute a big studio decides to follow the "down-rezzing via component" path, however, is the minute that the $500 PS3 becomes a pain in the ass and not fully functional as a Blu-Ray player. That isn't FUD (or, if it is, then it's accurate, very possible FUD) because the people who pushed for the inclusion of that damned protection in the hardware are exactly the people who will be deciding whether or not to use it.
I get that this issue only affects a minority of potential owners, but that's the group of people who would most want an HD movie format in the first place. Pure gamers will only care about the games and the issue isn't that big for them. But, they should still be aware that this secondary functionality of the PS3 can be easily crippled by the movie industry.
You know what I can see? I can see people (especially the non-gaming movie watchers, who outnumber the gamers) asking themselves what the real difference is between an HD-DVD player and a Blu-Ray player, realizing that it's the price and skipping Blu-Ray altogether. The "flagship" HD-DVD players from Toshiba and RCA are $500 - half the cost of a Blu-Ray player and already matching the announced low-end PS3 price. And the HD-DVD player prices will inevitably go down much faster than the PS3 prices...
Well, that's great! Here I was concerned that we'd be dealing with paranoid movie executives who pushed hard for this kind of copy protection. I'm sure there will be no movies protected in this fashion and I'm absolutely willing to rely on their good and fair nature. And, what the heck! If they decide to implement that protection, I can just blow another stack of money on yet another Blu-Ray player. YAY!
Slashdot Mirror
Who in the freaking hell needs a book about Xbox(n) ?
I'm just guessing here, but probably a slightly greater number of people than needed a comment on Slashdot asking that question...
How long until this is used by them to just make their in game avatars and on screen camera shots be nothing but penis? You just wait and see..
I hope so, at least for the online poker game. A penis would be far easier to read than a face when it comes to bluffing...
I agree. There's a lot going on inside those characters. Without the voiceover, much of it might be lost on the typical viewer -- or even the experienced one. When I watch the Director's Cut, I hear Deckard's voice in my memory. I wonder what it's like for someone who's never seen the theatrical release? I can't imagine it.
:)
I never saw the original before seeing the no-voiceover version, and still haven't seen the version with voiceover. From seeing commercials and trailers, the movie seemed too weird to me when I was a youngster (I was into more "conventional" sci-fi) and for some reason seeing it just never became a priority in the intervening years.
With that in mind, I'll say that I loved the "Director's Cut" when I saw it for the first time on DVD (I bought it because I was a fairly early DVD adopter, needed some content and kept hearing it was a great movie). In fact, I had no idea that there was a voiceover "missing" until a year or more later (after repeated viewings). I didn't feel lost at all while watching the film, though I did feel at times like I was thinking a little harder during the viewing than I would during most Hollywood films - by itself, not a bad thing at all.
I'll certainly buy the multi-disc release (too bad it's not HD-DVD as it could move up my adoption of that format) so that I can finally see what folks are talking about with the voiceover, but I never felt like I was missing anything that important.
Oh yeah, and I'll note finally that, being a "no-voiceover-only" viewer, it seemed clear to me that Deckard was a replicant.
Despite the demonization of corporations (particularly multinationals), few of them (maybe Union Carbide as an example) can approach the atrocity level of even the "nicest" nation...
That's a pretty silly question, because until the PS3, a videogame console has never the cheapest way to get a movie player.
It still won't be, even for an HD-capable movie player. Toshiba and RCA already have HD-DVD players available right now that are $500 and it's not at all ridiculous to figure that by the time the PS3 hits the retail prices of those devices will have dropped $50, $100 or even more (depending on which manufacturers release devices within the next six months).
I've got to think that people willing to early adopt a new HD disc format for the purpose of watching movies aren't going to care about having an all-in-one device. I've also got to think that many of those early adopters who are also gamers will already have an Xbox 360. That kind of thing tends to shrink the value of buying a $500-600 Blu-Ray player which can also play a few games.
Besides referrals, it would seem like the most definitive method of assuring a hosting company's honesty would be to choose one local to you and ask to tour their facilities. Assuming you have serious need of reliability and backups (folks with blogs can keep their own backups and it isn't a crisis if the host has some downtime), they'll probably be willing to accommodate you. If they're not, then they might just be writing checks their systems can't cash...
I imagine MS is much more eager than other console makers to jump to the next-gen because they know the original XBox has hacked wide open.
I know this is the Slashdot party line, but Xbox hacking has little or nothing to do with Microsoft's desire to pull the plug on the Xbox. They want to pull the plug because every time they make and sell an Xbox they're still losing money. It's far more advantageous for them to produce and sell the Xbox 360 for a loss than the Xbox. If Microsoft could produce the Xbox dirt cheap and sell them for a hundred bucks a pop like Sony did with the PSOne, they'd do it in a heartbeat, hacking or not.
They talk a lot about license transfers in the article but don't go into detail about how Sony wants to tie particular pieces of software to a particular PS3 unit. This seems like it would only be enforceable if both the new and used purchasers' PS3s are connected to the Internet. If so, it would mean that anyone wanting to use their PS3 for online gaming would be restricted to buying only brand new games. It would also probably result in people buying only single player/local multiplayer games and ignoring the Internet altogether.
If game publishers can't make money in the current environment, then that's just too damn bad. Maybe, someday, they'll figure out that selling a million units at $20 a piece is better than selling 200,000 units at $50 a piece. Forcing these kinds of restrictions on people will affect the first sale as much as the subsequent used sales.
I just find it funny then that the PSP got slammed for size and the DS did not. Hinged or not it shows you how prejudiced people can be.
I think there are two issues at work relating to this "prejudice." The first is that the DS has two LCDs and one of them is a touchscreen. While the PSP has a much larger screen, people will still still forgive a bigger size when they get two of them. The second issue is that the DS has more good games. The PSP gets cut no slack on any issue because there are so few games that people want to play - battery life, size, load times (my reason for not touching a PSP), etc. all get a lot more negative attention because the PSP doesn't have Phoenix Wright, Trauma Center, Animal Crossing DS, Advance Wars DS, Mario Kart DS, and more. Given the lead the DS has in this area, the PSP isn't going to generate a lot more positive feeling until the next (last?) price cut - for example, I'd consider picking one up if a PSP plus a minimal memory card (enough for game saves) could be had new for $200 or less.
Oh yeah gameplay is alright but really does a Advance Wars Dual Strike deserve the same price point as an Oblivion?
At ebgames.com, Oblivion is selling for $49.99 PC and $59.99 Xbox 360. Advance Wars DS, on the other hand, is selling for $34.99 (which is where it started by the way). DS titles debut typically at either $29.99 or $34.99 while console titles debut typically at $49.99 (and $59.99, though that's 360 only until the PS3 comes along). In other words, all your DS talk is a bunch of hot air...
And since when does Nintendo have a reputation for being cheap? Just check out the hardware vs price cost of the new tiny GBA and a PSP. The PSP at the moment is only twice as expensive but surely it got two times the hardware inside?
The GBA Micro is $94.99 and the PSP is $199.99, so, yes, it's more than twice as expensive - well done! Of course, that PSP is all but worthless as a gaming machine until you spend at least $30-35 on a Memory Stick. Further, the GBA Micro is so tiny it's ridiculous (the PSP is a giant, bloated hog compared to the Micro) and you pay a $15 premium for that size over the GBA SP which has the same functionality at $79.99, an even BETTER value.
You shouldn't bring a Sony to a price fight...
In the case of the PS3, most people will buy it because it will have the widest selection of games out of the new consoles.
Why does every Sony nerd and his developmentally disabled cousin say this as if it's a foregone conclusion? The thing is going to cost US$500 minimum . Whether or not it's going to have a dominating marketshare (the determining factor for whether it has "the widest selection of games") is very much in question.
...the PS3 is not really that much more expensive once you factor in Federal Reserve currency devaluation.
Oh, yeah. This is why plasma TVs are actually cheap and Mercedes is the new Hyundai. In other words, you're trying way too hard.
The bottom line for many of us is this: The PS3 is debuting at a higher price than either of its two competitors, and a higher price, even considering inflation, than all but a couple (Neo-Geo and 3DO) consoles in history. Whatever your dollar analysis says, the Xbox 360 will still be at least $100 cheaper than the "budget" PS3 and the Wii will be at least $200 cheaper...unless, of course, the Federal Reserve devalues currency spent on specific game consoles...
That said, the mind boggles as to who rents *or* buys them. Maybe there's far more PSP users here than I thought.
It's more likely that wholesalers are giving good deals on UMD movies to the rental places. If they can make back the wholesale price of a UMD in 1 or 2 rentals, then even a bargain-bin sale of the things later could net a profit.
...for the developer, the cart was a major part of the cost.
True. As I recall, Nintendo also produced every N64 cartridge, so third-party folks had to pay them for that in addition to the licensing (or as part of same). It was a terrible deal for third parties all the way around unless they could be sure that the game would sell like hot [johnny] cakes...
Sounds like it could have been a copy protection issue. Before I upgraded to a TV with more inputs I had to use a specific VCR that wouldn't activate Macrovision when trying to pass through a DVD signal (with Macrovision encoding, of course). Specifically, I found that one of my VCRs would only activate the Macrovision protection when it was placed in record mode, while the others had the protection on all the time. This worked out fine for me since copying a DVD to a VHS tape is just plain silly. :)
What in God's name are you talking about? So, you're positing that the primary reason for the ridiculous price of Blu-Ray is to keep demand down? What a crock. There has to be a lot more to it than that considering Toshiba is already selling HD-DVD players for $500 and RCA units hitting the street next week for the same price. And if your theory is correct, then what does that say about the prices of HD-DVD players in the next 6-12 months? Blu-Ray will have zero ability to compete for the mass home movie audience unless their prices can match up (down) to HD-DVD.
Apparently, you don't know what HDCP is. HDCP is not an interface. It is copy protection that is integrated into the interface (or, if you prefer, the chipset supporting the interface). So, unless an HDMI->DVI or DVI->HDMI adapter doesn't pass the HDCP information (all of them claim to do so), then HDCP isn't an issue. It's only an issue if HDCP isn't built into the DVI interface on the TV (I've never seen a TV with HDMI that is non-compliant with HDCP).
I don't think you understand. See, people who don't have HDTVs understand that all HDTVs are either big plasmas, big LCDs or very big rear-projection setups. My 27" Samsung which I bought about 2 years ago for $600 is simply a figment of my imagination.
In addition to the potential (considering the history of PS2) for weak Blu-Ray movie playback, there are also the "next-gen" audio formats from Dolby and DTS that - for the time being at least with no receivers available to decode a digital output of these new formats - have to be decoded in the player and output via discrete 5.1 outputs to a receiver. The flagship HD-DVD and Blu-Ray standalone players have these decoders built in while the PS3 does not.
That's why we have reviews. A movie theater or a restaurant won't give you a refund just because you didn't like their fare either, but success is still (roughly) correlated with quality in those industries
I think you misunderstood GP. These questions about how likely one is to play a game with ads ignore the question of overall quality. In other words, the aforementioned game that is being returned to Best Buy isn't necessarily being returned because the game sucks, bur rather because the hypothetical person didn't like the ad content.
Perceived game quality (gleaned through reviews, testimonials from friends, etc.) will typically be the determining factor as to whether a game is bought, but the question in this article is whether in-game ads bring the perceived quality down. For me, if I'm playing a fantasy RPG and there are Nike "swooshes" on my armor, that's over the line and I wouldn't play. If, however, I'm going down a street in a game set in the present, then a big Nike billboard isn't going to bother me that much (assuming, of course, that the game isn't somehow forcing me to experience that content by taking control of what I look at in the game).
No shite. I wonder, though, why people are assuming that Blu-Ray is going to be the HD format of choice. HD-DVD players cost half as much as Blu-Ray players and the prices of HD-DVD players are going to go down MUCH faster than the prices of the two PS3 models (unless Sony decides to take a monstrous loss on those units). Even if Blu-Ray standalone players go down in price at the same rate as HD-DVD players, that would mean a $300 HD-DVD player would be competing against a $600 Blu-Ray player, $200 versus $400, etc. Assuming home movie watchers have an interest in an HD format, I just don't see how Blu-Ray can stay relevant without big price cuts, PS3 or not...
As for your list of companies, well, at least one of those you got wrong (Thomson/RCA has an HD-DVD product coming out next week) and others (like LG) will be producing HD-DVD hardware as well.
And now its not an issue at all, since almost all the players are multiregion.
No, most of the players are not multiregion, at least not in the US. Most (I won't give a percentage since it would be BS but it would be "super-high") players in the US are region 1 only, and the vast majority of people couldn't possibly care less because when they go into a store to buy or rent a DVD virtually all of those discs are region 1 (a very tiny percentage are region "0") as well.
Region encoding - again, in the US at least - is only something that geeks who want to import discs care about. Believe me, that's not even a significant minority of DVD users.
Sony can promise all they want in regard to their own movies. The minute a big studio decides to follow the "down-rezzing via component" path, however, is the minute that the $500 PS3 becomes a pain in the ass and not fully functional as a Blu-Ray player. That isn't FUD (or, if it is, then it's accurate, very possible FUD) because the people who pushed for the inclusion of that damned protection in the hardware are exactly the people who will be deciding whether or not to use it.
I get that this issue only affects a minority of potential owners, but that's the group of people who would most want an HD movie format in the first place. Pure gamers will only care about the games and the issue isn't that big for them. But, they should still be aware that this secondary functionality of the PS3 can be easily crippled by the movie industry.
You know what I can see? I can see people (especially the non-gaming movie watchers, who outnumber the gamers) asking themselves what the real difference is between an HD-DVD player and a Blu-Ray player, realizing that it's the price and skipping Blu-Ray altogether. The "flagship" HD-DVD players from Toshiba and RCA are $500 - half the cost of a Blu-Ray player and already matching the announced low-end PS3 price. And the HD-DVD player prices will inevitably go down much faster than the PS3 prices...
Well, that's great! Here I was concerned that we'd be dealing with paranoid movie executives who pushed hard for this kind of copy protection. I'm sure there will be no movies protected in this fashion and I'm absolutely willing to rely on their good and fair nature. And, what the heck! If they decide to implement that protection, I can just blow another stack of money on yet another Blu-Ray player. YAY!