Blu-ray/HD-DVD format war discussion thread.......
 

A German website is reporting that Universal will drop its exclusive deal with Toshiba, which leaves no studios exclusively publishing on the HD-DVD format. This may be the final blow to Toshiba's HD media alternative.

http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=180

When did HD-DVD mean microsoft? I mean they are part of the consortium, but not the only party. Toshiba is the main dumbasses that are getting railed on the format.

Yes, you are correct. MS is the one most identified with the format because of the 360, but you're correct that Toshiba is the official HD-DVD creator.

You love busting the 360's balls don't you? :)

Talk about the great games on the ps3 will ya?

:D

I think it's a significant development, don't you? This final move is very important for Sony's bottom line as they're likely to become the sole HD media format at this point. This is what Sony wanted to accomplish when it hatched the idea of putting a Blu-ray player in the PS3. They literally put all their eggs in one basket. If they would have lost this format war, they would have been in a heap of trouble.

Now that they have likely won the HD format war, the PS3 now becomes a great value. This Christmas, you can get a Blu-ray player for $300 or you can pick up a PS3 and have a gaming console as well for $300 more. Toss in price cuts that are likely next year and it becomes even a better value.

The next question is whether Microsoft will relent and create Blu-ray add-on drives for the 360. Not sure it would look that good for them to basically abandon the HD-DVD add-on owners and create another drive that people will have to pay another $200 to buy. It will be an interesting situation to watch.

I just choked on my coffee.

I still could care less about HD-DVD and or Blue Ray. To me, it's all about the games and the 360 is so far ahead it's not even funny.

We'll have to revisit this later on to see the real implications.

Toshiba should decapitate a goat.

Funny, about two weeks ago I read something that claimed it spelled the end for Blu-ray.

Microsoft wins either way because they partly own the compression algorithm Blu-Ray and HD-DVD uses.

I just don't get what I might be missing. VHS to DVD, that was a huge leap. More stuff, didn't have to rewind, great picture but, with HD-DVD and Blu-ray.. eh.. I just don't see a need to run out to buy one.

Either way, this is a race that will have big implications inside of what, 2-3 years when every tv has to be HD ready/compatible. The whole PS3 race aside, no matter what the drive behind it, the winner of the HD format war is going to make a mark, and because MS backed HD-DVD, it will also affect the new consoles. Sure, PS3 doesn't have the library that the 360 does, but by Christmas, it's title list will be much more attractive to new customer's than it is right now. Not many people (granted some will of course) are going to care that much about any of the titles on the market now, it'll be what is out between late summer and Christmas that will dominate, so it'll depend which console is smarter with their prices by then. If the PS3 brings out an advanced unit (bigger HD, whatever) at the current top end price and drops the 60gig model $100-$150 (or even does this without a new top end model on the market) they'll be competitive. Add in build in blu ray and it is a factor if they can also win this (HD-DVD/Blu Ray) race.

Certainly not out of the woods, but given the ineptness of how they've handled things to now from a PS3 perspective, the fact that a couple right decisions at this point could get them back in the race isn't something to be discounted.

The picture quality alone is enough for me.

Much much bigger leap than it was between VHS and DVD.

Absolutely. If you solely want a game console, the 360 is the better option at this point, assuming you purchase the Premium system. The Elite is a bit pricey for what you're getting.

Not necessarily on the subject of video games, but watching sports on hd compared to standard def is an amazing difference. I've got a couple movies on Blu Ray (Resident Evil 2 coming to mind) where the difference from standard DVD to BR as far as colors/definition/clarity is equally as great.

Game wise, it's harder for me to compare as I went from a game cube on an old 52" projection TV with a lot of blue bleed to a PS3 on a new 37" HD LCD, so yeah, it looks fantastic, but not an apples to apples to comparison at all.

If you've every watched a movie on HD media, there's a big difference in quality. Granted, some people don't watch movies often enough to make it worth it. If you spend time at home watching movies, it's a must. The quality of the picture is a big step up.

Interesting. I have no idea why that would be the case. Do you have a link to the article?

I'll have to try to watch a movie then in HD. The only thing I've ever seen are 'samples' at Electronics stores that just blantantly distorted DVD to pump up HD-DVD & Blu-Ray quality to the point of being comical. Here is DVD (show picture that looks like it was shot through a shower door) and new HD-DVD!!!! (show clear picture) So, left more of a 'ya.. whatever' feeling with me.

I do have HD TV though so, not disputing that quality.

I fail to see this logic. Most people don't want a blu-ray player right now. Even if HD-DVD were discontinued tomorrow, that fact wouldn't change. The market hasn't shown that its ready to support either. DVD is going to continue to dwarf the sales of both of these formats combined for the forseeable future.

This is a small win for Sony. Not necessarily a win for the PS3.

Mods, can we change this thread title to "April Console Sales Numbers", kthx.

The PS3 will catch the 360 if/when it has games that will sell the system.

Blu-ray isn't going to help. If it was, it would have already.

Agreed. At this point, it's not a big shift in the market. 2008 and 2009 will be the years where the big change will likely occur. There's going to be a big push of HDTV's next year as the 2009 conversion date to all digital gets closer. HDTV's and associated media are going to be pushed really hard this holiday and in the 2008 holiday season and you can be sure that the big box places like Best Buy will have their sales people fully stocked with all of the usual sales pitches.

Also, you're likely to see the PS3 at a $499 or lower price point in 2008 and stand-alone Blu-ray players in the sub-200 range. That's when you're going to see a bigger adoption rate and where Sony's gamble could pay big dividends.

DVD to HD and VHS to DVD are not really comparable situations, and everyone should stop acting like they are. VHS had serious technical issues that made everyone want to upgrade to a much more user friendly disc based system with significant alacrity. There's no such incentive with HD. Further, you didn't have to buy a new TV to make your new DVD player work, unless your TV was 10-15 years old and you needed to upgrade into the world of AV cables. Overall, HD is much more of a "luxury" upgrade than going to DVD.

Now, the PS3 is going to get some extra sales because it is a next gen DVD player. However, the timing is all wrong for it to use that capacity to boost it into the PS2 sales range. When it came out the PS2 was timed perfectly and priced perfectly to take advantage of the market -- people really wanted to upgrade away from VHS, it came out at a price point people were used to paying for video game systems and not a crazy 500+ number, and the PS2 didn't have any real competition in the gaming market; at the time Sony was the champ and it didn't look like anyone was going to be able to fight them anytime soon. The PS3 is in a completely different situation, where it is having to fight for every inch of market share, and being the option with fewer games and a higher price point it's going to have a hard time ripping users away from the XBox right now.

Sorry, but that's REALLY a short-sighted statement. Sony knew that the dividends for their gamble wouldn't pay off for 2-3 years as far as Blu-ray goes. Until the media gets at a price point where it becomes accessable to the general public, you can't really declare that at all. 6 months into the media's life cycle is not a good place to do that. DVD's were selling at an even slower rate at this point in the life cycle. Once the prices for the players came down to an acceptable level (due to cost efficiencies in manufacturing) after a year or two, they sold like hotcakes.

It was something like a store deciding to go with HD over BR...more of the bullshit that's being spewed in this rumor.

As Atocep said, this isn't a simple one versus the other "war." Neither wins until they can go up against SD DVDs, and that is a long, long way from happening. It's not a VHS vs DVD debate; it's DVDs of excellent quality, of which people already own multiple players and a large catalog of their favorite movies, going up against DVDs of a greater excellent quality, that require very expensive new players and upgrading their collections.

That's why HD will not simply go away because a studio has dropped its HD exclusivity. It has great enough penetration already to survive, especially if they can be the ones to come to market with more affordable players first (and obviously they're much closer than BR is now).

When BR came out and it wasn't doing hot, it was "just wait until the PS3 launches...that will end the war." It didn't. The PS3 isn't going to be the deciding factor in this. A typical family is not thinking about whatever "excellent value" the PS3 might be when deciding if they want to spend $1000 on upgrading their DVD collection, which is already of high quality.

It will pay off 2-3 years down the road because that's when they will have it priced reasonably and have some games that are worth playing.

But, and this is where I think it was a move made ahead of time, anybody who wants to watch TV past 2010 (or 2009, whenever the US switchover is), will have to buy a TV that has the capability to take advantage of this technology. Yes, DVD upscalers will also be all over and DVD's are not going to die, but the forced switch to HDTV is going to happen. Give them an option of buying a DVD player for $80 or a BR player with DVD upscaling for $200 and the market will begin to shift. Especially if the price of BR movies themselves start hitting the $20-$25 mark (my numbers could be out a bit as I'm used to Canadian pricing).

Again, not a deal clincher for the PS3 by any means if BR is declared the winner today, and maybe they tried to make their move a bit too early (I personally don't think so), but attempting to corner the HD market with a forced switch on the horizon is probably one of the few smart things they've done in the past year or so.

Wow, you're entitled to your own perceptions but based on my own experiences this isn't even close. VHS to DVD was a huge leap.

There's been several 'blind' tests where users had a hard time distinguishing between an upconverting DVD player and a HD DVD (this may get better as HD DVD players mature). I doubt anyone had problems distinguishing between VHS and DVD.

Just wanted to point out cable is going all DIGITAL by 2008/2009. there is no mandate for anyone to switch to hd ever at this point.

IT'S OPPOSITE DAY!!!111!!1!11

At this point, I'd certainly agree with that. This is something that won't fully create any type of major market forces for another 1-2 years.


Both players are going to have stand-along players in the sub-$300 price range by the holiday season. Also, given that all of the major movies will be on Blu-ray and only a portion of them will be on HD-DVD, I'd be hard pressed as a consumer to say that I'm better off buying a HD-DVD if I'm forced to choose.


Really? While the overall sales numbers are relatively small when compared to the DVD sales, it has been noted in multiple articles that the Blu-ray Disks are outselling HD-DVD's at a minimum of a 2:1 margin at this point. Before the PS3 release, Blu-ray was getting beat pretty soundly by the HD-DVD format. I'm not sure how you could attribute that to anything other than the PS3.

That's what I meant when I said "end" the war. Winning at this point doesn't mean it's going to conquer the regular DVD format.

This can't be your lovefest for the PS3 talking.

Yes, but it's not an 'either/or' situation. You don't have to buy the new HD disk. HD media players are somewhat like a console in that they are backward compatible and even 'upconvert' the picture. There is a significant increase in appearance of the DVD disks when you upconvert the picture. So you can keep your old collection of DVD's while buying the newer movies in the HD format.

Now I will grant you that there's no reason to go out and buy a HD player right now for $600 or more. It's simply too much. But later in the year and early next year as the prices fall to the $200-300 range, it becomes a much better value with no reason to rebuy your entire collection. This is an advantage that you didn't have with the VHS/DVD situation because you couldn't play your old tapes in the new player unless you had a VHS/DVD combo player.

What would you attribute that large turnaround in sales to?

If the wholesale tv prices continue to head down at the same rate, by next spring a 50" projection will comfortably be under a grand, and a 32" LCD will probably be 6-700(for a top name one) at the very most

Even HD front projectors are becoming a very affordable option where you can have a monster picture at a reasonable price. I bought a 720p/1080i projector last month for under $800. By the holiday season, it will likely be in the $600-700 range. If you have a big enough room, it's a great deal.

The format being on the market longer? Better movies coming out in the format?

Eh, for those, man, the Bulb costs are so expensive that unless you're a baller it's a significant chunk of change every 2000 hours.

The greatest movies in the world released on the format do not mean anything unless you have a player to play the movies on - and right now the PS3 is the smartest choice for a blu-ray player.

Saying the PS3 had little or no impact on the sales of blu-ray disc is ridiculous, No matter what anyone thinks of Sony - this was apart of their plan, and even if it's not working on the grand scheme they thought it would the ball is still moving.

Yep, I wanted to point this out as well... digital doesn't mean HD ready or compatible or anything. Just that the signal has to be in digital format.

Agreed. The only movies that weren't on Blu-ray were the Universal Studios movies. All of the rest of the movies have been on Blu-ray both before and after the PS3 came out. If the quality of the movies was an issue, HD-DVD should have seen a similar spike in sales when the newer ones came out. That has not happened. In fact, the HD-DVD sales rates have actually gone down.

I would say the PS3 has definitely had an impact on penetration of blue ray DVD players. I'm not sure enough PS3 owners are actively buying the discs to say it has had a major impact on disc sales. I think both formats have struggled selling discs.

Yes, but penetration of the players has to be your primary focus as a company. Without players, no one is going to buy the discs. Eventually, as with any other product, the larger your installed base is, the more discs you sell.

My bad, I had thought from articles I had read that you'd have to have at least HD ready tv's at that point. Not something I've dug too far into as I already have HD, good to point out for sure.

I am curious to see over the next 2-3 years what the percentage of HD compatible TV's to non HD units sold will be. Even without a forced turnover, I can't imagine that a lot of first or second tv's (living room/bedroom) in homes won't be HD ready (guessing the smaller kitchen type tv's will be the last to see a significant changeover, though even prices there appear to be getting better). Still a rapidly expanding market that should only accelerate.

Sounds like a good strategy for the 360 and the wii.

It's a good strategy for any product. Business 101.

Thanks for the lesson.

I guess I'm not sure why you even mentioned the Wii. It has no relevance to the HD format war.

I think the vast majority of TV's next year and going forward will be HDTV. The SDTV's will remain in the market just because people won't get rid of them. By next year, the prices on these HDTV's are going to be pretty affordable to the point where they will be the choice of most consumers.

I stumbled into the thread high on muscatine wine. What do I know?

Oh I agree with that.

As far as it being a good strategy though, I think the book is still out on that one. It all depends on how much money Sony can recoup from having BluRay adopted as a standard. In the meantime, they're taking a bath with the PS3 ... and there's at least one ex-Sony executive who would probably say it wasn't the best strategy.

Certainly, it's a risk that hasn't panned out initially. Sony's going to lose a lot of money over this first year.

I would disagree with your assertion that the ex-Sony executive is the one who thinks it wasn't the best strategy. Assuming you're talking about Crazy Ken K., he's likely the only one who still thinks it WAS a good strategy. Hence the reason that he was moved to a different division and then decided to 'retire'.

Mmmmmmmmmm........wine.

If you think he voluntarily "retired" I've got a bridge to sell you, as I think we can agree he was forced out due to the disaster that is the PS3. But my point (tongue in cheek) was that the strategy cost him his job, so while I no doubt believe that he thought it was a good strategy, he might be rethinking it due to the shame (and loss of job) that it created.

If stand alone Blu-ray players are going to be 300 bucks by Christmas...and the PS3 is going to be 500 dollars...then doesn't the PS3 lose a lot of the pricing power that would have potentially made it a better option for people just looking to buy movie players and not gaming systems? AT that point the PS3 is so much more expensive than a standalone player that it becomes prohibitive. Directly or indirectly most of the PS3's problems can be traced back to the fact that it's too expensive.

I think the thinking goes is that the PS3 (Sony) essentially gave away Blu Ray players to help them get the highest penetration and win the format wars. Since Sony owns (at least some part) of the Blu-Ray technology they can collect licensing fees for years to come if the technology takes off.

As far as other blu-ray players undercutting the PS3, it really is irrelevant for Sony if (and I dont' think it's been decided yet) they win the format war. The PS3 sales is a separate problem for them.

It's too expensive for a gaming system right now, but it's the best deal available for a Blu-ray player. The pricing of the player isn't going to affect much. If you don't want a gaming system and you're looking for a player, the stand along is a relatively good deal at $300. If you're a gamer and you want a Blu-ray player, there's no reason you shouldn't get the PS3 for only $200 more.

26" "bedroom" type TV's are way too expensive at this point, and would need to significantly drop in price if people are going to get them in droves. You're still near a grand on those....ideally the "better" brands would need to get into the 400 dollar range for a 26" before most people would consider getting one. We rarely sell anything smaller than 32" at work(primarly 40-42" range), occasionally a few off brand 20" sets when they go on significant sale.

That's kind of a half-truth. It's correct that you will be able to watch the channels still off your cable or satellite feeds on your standard TV's. The problem is that most of the channels on those two types of providers will be digital channels. So if you have a standard TV, you'll be watching a distinctly smaller picture due to the black bars that will constantly be at the top and bottom of your TV screen. So while you may have a 20" SDTV, the image size will likely be a few inches smaller than 20".

Um... you do realize that digital channels can come in 4:3 resolution right? Digital channels will not have the "black bars" on them on a standard definition TV. They didn't when I had a SDTV and digital cable.

True. You'll lose some of the picture, but you can get it 4:3. So you have a smaller image if you go the 16:9 route or you'll lose the left and right sides of the image if you go 4:3. It's a choose your poison situation.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong, so you could've put the poison in your own goblet, trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied, and in studying you must have learned that man is mortal, so you would have put the poison as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me.

I'm curious on the Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD disk sales numbers - first off, how many sales are we talking about compared to regular DVD's. Secondly, wasn't a copy of "Casino Royale" being included with PS3 purchases for a while, and if so, how many of those count against those Blu-Ray disk sales numbers?

It was an article about the porn industy. They did not like blu-ray format because of its initial cost to make a disc and how hard it was to copy blu-ray discs.


I wonder if Microsoft has the balls to give the finger to every 360 owner that has purchased a HD-DVD player and come out with a blu-ray addon for the 360?


Also, I was a person who based some of the deciosion to buy a PS3 player on the fact that it had a built in blu-ray player, and I could rent blu-ray movies from NetFlix. Anyone who is trying to tell you they can't see a difference between the old DVD format and blu-ray should be immediately sent to an eye doctor.:)

You can bet every one of them.

Err.. no.

The digital channels I get (Comcast, but I believe all cable companies do it similar), EXCEPT for the High Def channels, are ALL broadcast in 4:3 aspect ratio. ONLY the High Def channels are broadcast in 16:9.

So, if I watch Fox Soccer Channel (digital channel), its broadcast in 4:3, and I'm not losing any of the picture if I'm on an SD TV.

This is a small battle won for Blu-Ray, but its still a drop in the bucket. If Wal-Mart announces tomorrow they will exclusively sell HD-DVD, the war would be over in one swoop. Its still way too early to call this one.

digital does not equal high definition. 90% of "digital" is in native 4:3. only high def is true 16:9. just admit you dont know what youre talking about.

Microsoft has said all along in several interviews that if Blu-Ray won, they were prepared to come out with a Blu-Ray addon.

I understand perfectly well that digital is not the same as HD. Digital has to do with the signal while HD has to do with the definition (i.e. pixels) on the screen.

To follow through on your thought.........

Why would Wal-Mart (or any other retailer) go exclusively to a medium that doesn't offer a relatively large portion of the new releases currently hitting the market?

The only reason it's too early to call the format war is because it's only a rumor at this point. If/when they announce that Universal will be on Blu-ray, it's over. The HD-DVD would have no competitve advantage at that point and would quickly lose shelf space. The installed base at this point is so lopsided that retail outlets would pretty quickly convert to Blu-ray only.

Talking about shelf space anyways, I don't think I see BR's or HDDVD's anywhere right now on the shelfs. We have a few of each at work, but they are mainly there to get stolen.

Yeah, it's pretty small at this point. Best Buy has a shelf section 6-7 shelves high and about 8 feet wide for Blu-ray and the same for HD-DVD at this point. Most people simply aren't buying them in those places due to the high price point. Amazon has 50% off on Blu-ray movies here and there. That's the best way to buy them. Also, I have 4 friends with the PS3. All of us use our PS3 to watch BR movies, but we rent them. It's a much cheaper way to get all the quality of the HD movies at a much lower price.

Ouch. Another tough blow for the HD-DVD format. Multiple sites are reporting that Star Wars Trilogy HD movies will be Blu-ray only. These are one of the few movies that a lot of people will rebuy on the new format.

Here's the links for the movies on Amazon......

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tril...8799361&sr=8-2

http://www.amazon.com/Star-Wars-Tril...8799361&sr=8-1

He wasn't referring to the HD format war there. He was referring to your comment that the more installed base you have, the more discs you sell. Meaning that the more Wii's and 360's there are than the PS3, the more gaming discs those two consoles will sell.

I think Blu-Ray wins the format war but I don't think it makes a bit of difference for a couple of years. By the time it does make a difference, Blu-Ray players will be a lot cheaper than they are now. The PS3 improved the install base of Blu-Ray and maybe it did win the format war for Sony.

But they alienated a lot of their fans (not all obviously) and got their asses handed to them hard in the first few months of the gaming battle to do that. If they recover and start dominating in a couple of years with the PS3, all is forgiven and they were right. If the Wii and 360 continue to obliterate them, it was a horrific decision for their gaming line, allowing not one but two competitors to leapfrog them and taking something they OWNED and making it a battle.

Yes, but here's the thing. If BR becomes the market standard, the amount of money they make on that media alone will make Sony VERY wealthy. You don't have to look any further than the stock market yesterday to realize what impact the investors believe this announcement had for Sony. The stock jumped roughly 2% higher after the rumors of Universal dropping the exclusive agreement hit the web. For Sony as a whole, this would be huge.

But the point is: will the PS3 truly be the reason for Blu-Ray winning? Or will Blu-Ray have won for other reasons, and they set back their PS3 line by a year or more for no good reason?

I'd have to do the math on it, but to "win" the BR war would probably net a ton more profit than they would ever make on a console, assuming that BR replaces DVD's within a few years.

The million dollar question... I think, looking at everything that has happened, that Blu-Ray would have won regardless of the PS3.

Yes, that would be the logical next step to this argument. The profit that Sony will make on BR if it becomes the HD standard would make video game profits look like crumbs on the ground. It's not even close.

Then the argument become 'Did Sony use the PS3 to win the format war without concern for the overall success of the console?'. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, however, the statement could also be made that the long-term success of the PS3 likely hinges on them winning the HD format war. The PS3 has its competitive advantage significantly reduced if BR does not become the HD stardard.

You may understand the difference, but your posts sure make it look like you don't.

I think it's too soon to say what wins or how much impact the PS3 will have in the end, but looking at the numbers I think it's hard to discount the impact the PS3 has had so far. The last numbers I saw had total number of sales pretty even, but the BR discs have been outselling HD-DVD discs by about 2:1 since the PS3 release. That's a pretty significant push to catch up that BR got from what appears to be the PS3 release and they've now taken the lead. I think for that to change the HD-DVD backers are going to need a major push (like the Wal-Mart rumor that came out a month or so ago that was never confirmed).

Bingo. This isn't a question of are they going to make millioins off the Blu-Ray market. The question is did they need to sacrifice the PS3 to do it.

I don't think they willingly did sacrifice the PS3, I think they just made a monster miscalculation. They assumed the success of the PS2 would mean they could do anything they wanted. It didn't work out and rather than alter their strategy, they made PR mistake after PR mistake to try and cover up that they'd made a blunder.

So if you feel they couldn't have won the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD battle without the PS3, then they made a good decision. If you feel they didn't need the PS3's help to win that war, they made a horrible decision that'll have long term consequences for a very profitable arm of the company.

If they recover and win the console war a couple of years from now, they win either way.

I don't think they needed the PS3 to win the format war and I don't think they have a chance in hell of winning the console war now, so I think they made a mistake. Just my opinion, nothing more.

That's assuming either of the formats become mainstream. I've read several articles that have proposed neither will become mainstream and on-demand PPV type of distribution of HD movies will be what ends up winning out. I don't know if that will happen, but I can see it as a possibility.

I doubt that will happen quite yet. I do think that PPV distribution will have some of the market, but there are going to be just as many people that want large media disks that they can use to store movies. Blu-ray has plenty of room for HD format movies, so it will still play a major factor, whether it will be in the form of a disk from a movie company or a disk that the person burns copies of their movies on for later use. Sony makes money in either case.

Looks like Universal is denying the rumor.

Not sure how I missed this one. Blu-ray player is now available stand-alone for $299 from Pioneer.

Evidently, Sony plans to launch a major marketing push emphasizing the capabilities of the PS3 as a HD movie device.......

http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6439199.html

Wow... that's impressive. It's that cheap because they took out the burning capabilities? That's all?

That is impressive. I had been leaning towards asking for a PS3 for Christmas, primarily because of the Blu-Ray capabilities. However, if stand alone players of quality are available for 300 and under, I'm just going to ask for one of those unless the PS3 really steps up with some exclusive games that I want or has a significant price drop.

Yes. The price on the non-burning BR drive has come down quite a bit due to cost reduction. Sony isn't losing nearly as much now as they were at launch on the PS3 as they would like you to believe. Their cost point is dropping. By that same token, waiting to buy a PS3 until the holiday season (or even next spring) would probably be a good move if you don't have one at this point. Not only will the monster titles begin to come out (FF, MGS, GT, etc.), but you may have a price drop to $499 or an improved version of the PS3 at the $599 price (larger hard drive).

That doesn't sound like a standalone player, but a drive for a PC. In which case it won't have much if any impact on the consumer market, but I might buy one. :)

DOLA, confirmed that it is an internal drive for a PC and not a standalone Blu-Ray player.

http://news.digitaltrends.com/article12887.html

With that said, if that drive can sell for $300 (which is over $400 cheaper than the previous units), some very cheap stand-alones can't be far away. We already know that sub-$300 players are expected by November. Perhaps they may be on the way even sooner than that given that the drive prices are literally being cut in half by removing the burning option.

I have a confession to make, and I figure that this thread is a good place in which to do it.

I've seen standard definition TV, and I've seen high definition TV, and the difference isn't nearly enough to make me want to go with HD yet. I just don't see what the big deal is, and I was even watching sports in HD, and it didn't do much for me. With that said, this whole HD-DVD/Blu-Ray deal doesn't do anything for me either.

I just had to get that off my chest. I know I'm an idiot. :(

Dude, if you can seriously watch a 720P Widescreen Football (or even better Hockey, Hockey was MADE for HD) game and watch the same game in 480i narrow and tell me you can't see what the big deal is, it's time to visit the Optometrist...

Heck, I can finally tell who is carrying the ball / has the puck as I can actually read the numbers on their jersey now (and often the names). Plus you can see far more of the field or ice and follow what's going on easier.

I never had a problem with this on a SD TV. HD doesn't really let you see anything you couldn't see before, it just makes the picture more pretty.

Having said that, the difference between HD and non-HD TV signals (cable, DirecTV) is MUCH bigger than the difference between a DVD and a HD-DVD.