I'll have you know that in the highest test, Blu-ray got 100GB on it. HD-DVD got 45GB. Much bigger difference, bud.
That's the maximum they have been able to put on a disc. Not nearly what they can put on a disc and mass manufacture for cheap. BIG DIFFERENCE, bud.
That's changing as it becomes a more popular format for multimedia. And if by players, you mean codecs, then you're wrong as hell. Because on that link I offered earlier, they have the same exact codecs.
I'm not talking about codecs. In order to make use of the extra features Blu-Ray uses, your blu-ray player must support these. Few players do and it has nothing to do with the diodes.
I'm not very informed on the most specific of technological aspects, but it doesn't take a genius to know that once they begin mass-producing blu-ray diodes, that will greatly decrease the manufacturing costs of at least the Blu-ray players.
You can now get stand alone HD-DVD players for around $200 after rebates. That's an excellent price.
Also, with an increase in technology, comes an increase in the need for space to fit that technology into. Even if it's not completely utilized now, it would possibly take over in the future.
Within 5 years, there will be formats holding 300GB per disc with ease and these will not be Blu-Ray or HD-DVD (300GB has already been done on holographic media so this is a low ball estimate). Tape formats already hold way more than HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. The 50 GB difference isn't nearly as big of a deal as you think.
Alluding to the automobile market, if gas cars were able to overtake electric cars in the very beginning, despite the fact that they are more inconvenient and more powerful (on top of being more expensive), who's to say that the same thing won't happen with Blu-ray and HD-DVD.
Nothing to do with this argument. I'll just ignore this paragraph.
he was making a reference to the automotive industry, but i think your right on this one. just as in the console war, microsoft is already so much further ahead than sony in terms of getting out to people and pricing it better. even thought the 360 is inferior in terms of power, it is standing over an unfed ps3, which is gathering dust in shelves as well as spitting blood at the foot of the 360.
That's the maximum they have been able to put on a disc. Not nearly what they can put on a disc and mass manufacture for cheap. BIG DIFFERENCE, bud.
Okay, on single layet, a Blu-ray can hold 25GB, while the HD-DVD can only hold 15. On dual-layer the difference is 20 gigs.
I'm not talking about codecs. In order to make use of the extra features Blu-Ray uses, your blu-ray player must support these. Few players do and it has nothing to do with the diodes.
What extra features do you speak of?
You can now get stand alone HD-DVD players for around $200 after rebates. That's an excellent price.
Well, just to keep this in relation to the thread, you can get the PS3 for 600, be able to play Blu-ray movies, as well as video games and not worry about buying extra equipment. The Xbox 360 Pro is 500 and 200 for the HD-DVD player. Now who is promoting their format better...
Despite the fact that HD-DVD is cheaper, Blu-ray has hella exposure. It's already been put into circulation, moreso than the HD-DVD and has more companies pushing the brand.
By the way, the standard hits for a HD-DVD player cost about 250-300 bucks on Amazon, even after price cuts and such. Not to say that you aren't paying out the ass for a stand-alone Blu-ray player, but why get that when the PS3 offers that function for cheaper?
Within 5 years, there will be formats holding 300GB per disc with ease and these will not be Blu-Ray or HD-DVD (300GB has already been done on holographic media so this is a low ball estimate). Tape formats already hold way more than HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. The 50 GB difference isn't nearly as big of a deal as you think.
Okay, but that will be available around the next round of format fighting, possibly. But by that time, Blu-ray would be far cheaper and would most likely be hella tweaked for better performance.
Nothing to do with this argument. I'll just ignore this paragraph.
If you'll notice, I said "Alluding to", as in I was comparing this format comparison to the automobile industry in their gas vs. electric car struggle. Gas cars, in this case, would be more like Blu-ray, is more expensive, yet has more capacity, more promoters, and an already seemingly growing market to appeal to.
And yes, Carloseus, we've gone over this a dozen times already. PS3 doesn't have the game support that it needs to do as well as the 360 and Wii. And just recently, I read a blog article about the possibility of MGS4 going cross-platform. It was just developer speculation though. Nothing official.
They can manufacture 3-layer HD-DVDs easily and dual layer blu-ray. That's a 5 GB difference.
Are 3-layers standard or are you just saying that to make the difference smaller. Because that would also make the cost much less different. And I'm more than sure that most of the Blu-rays manufactured are single-layers.
Buying th PS3 for it's crappy games and the ability to watch blu-ray titles seems pretty wasteful to me.
Regardless of whether or not other people think they're crappy games, you know, the people that you don't speak for, that's still promotion right there.
PS3 sucks so bad it has publishers demanding price cuts because it's hurting their business. That right there is enough to make the 360 the winner.
It's not a matter of 'sucking'. It's a matter of not being economically suitable. It takes more resources to produce for PS3 and developers want some insurance to make sure that they'll get some revenue from their investment.
some people think blu ray is the revolution of videos and games...
Im not really sure, im just sticking to good ol hard drives! [which are way outdated by the way, we need sumthing new for mass storage... so many moving parts]
but my opinion is based solely on online performance, so i think xbox 360 is the winner. [ i know theres a lot more variables i can include in myopinion, but i think online multiplayer is most important for me...]
plus the best games [ in my opinion ] are on 360. halo series, gears of war, etc.
then again....i never got into console gaming...
Personal Computers are the latest and greatest beasts out there!!!
theyre technologically more advanced than consoles, and the room for upgradability is amazing!!
plus you can use it for far more stuff than a console can.
ive always like computer monitors more than telivisons...specially the 1800 x 2400 resolution
Are 3-layers standard or are you just saying that to make the difference smaller. Because that would also make the cost much less different. And I'm more than sure that most of the Blu-rays manufactured are single-layers.
Dual-layer DVDs arent even the standard. Standard and being cost effective are different. Adding a third layer to HD-DVD is cheaper than adding a third to Blu-Ray. Dual-layer HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs aren't even standard right now. In the long run, I'd definitly put my money on HD-DVD.
Regardless of whether or not other people think they're crappy games, you know, the people that you don't speak for, that's still promotion right there.
General consensus/majority say PS3 titles suck ass. Nuff' said.
It's not a matter of 'sucking'. It's a matter of not being economically suitable. It takes more resources to produce for PS3 and developers want some insurance to make sure that they'll get some revenue from their investment.
when i meant something new for harddrive, i meant something that wood support maybe 500 gbs of it...no one has invented anything new yet thats affordable and, well, useable in real life situations.
not going to have sum 1 mm thick box with plasma inside it and another layer of bose-einstein matter on the outside to keep it cool.... lol
Dual-layer DVDs arent even the standard. Standard and being cost effective are different. Adding a third layer to HD-DVD is cheaper than adding a third to Blu-Ray. Dual-layer HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs aren't even standard right now. In the long run, I'd definitly put my money on HD-DVD.
So what's new about that statement? No shit HD-DVD is still cheaper. We've gone over this before. Adding an extra layer to either one doesn't make a difference, because Blu-ray still remains the more expensive one.
General consensus/majority say PS3 titles suck ass. Nuff' said.
Oh my bad. When I said "the people you don't speak for", I really meant the people you shouldn't speak for. As you are not the embodiment of several others. But anyways, I didn't disagree with that. In fact, I stated that long before this argument.
Not being "economically suitable" makes it sucky.
No, being sucky make it not worth a damn. Not being economically suitable makes it not worth 600 bucks.
But anyways, you seem to be avoiding the fact that I'm saying Blu-ray has more exposure, thus making it more applicable as the next-gen format. Or are you conceding that?
Blu-Ray doesn't have more exposure. HD-DVD is actually a more common household name. If you polled 1000 people and asked them which one they've heard the most about, I'm positive HD-DVD would win.
more exposure? well ill state which movie and game studios have which support
Blu-Ray
20th Century Fox, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Electronic Arts, MGM Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company, Vivendi Universal Games [ Blizzard ], Warner Bros.
HD DVD = Buena Vista Home Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Paramount Pictures, The Walt Disney Company, Universal Studios, Warner Bros.
________
some cancel out and end up like this
Blu-Ray = 20th Century Fox, Electronic Arts, MGM Studios, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Vivendi Universal Games [ Blizzard ]
HDDVD = New Line Cinema, Universal Studios
________
so i guess Blu-Ray has more support. [those are the independant studios that only support one format, blu-ray or hddvd, at the end.
more exposure? well ill state which movie and game studios have which support
Blu-Ray
20th Century Fox, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Electronic Arts, MGM Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company, Vivendi Universal Games [ Blizzard ], Warner Bros.
HD DVD = Buena Vista Home Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Paramount Pictures, The Walt Disney Company, Universal Studios, Warner Bros.
________
some cancel out and end up like this
Blu-Ray = 20th Century Fox, Electronic Arts, MGM Studios, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Vivendi Universal Games [ Blizzard ]
HDDVD = New Line Cinema, Universal Studios
________
so i guess Blu-Ray has more support. [those are the independant studios that only support one format, blu-ray or hddvd, at the end.
Instead of listing the companies, list their biggest movies so we can see what we are actually dealing with here.
Blu-ray, unlike HD DVD, requires a hard coating on its discs because it's 0.5m closer to the surface. The polymer coating it uses, called Durabis, was developed by TDK and is supposedly extremely resilient and fingerprint resistant.
Instead of listing the companies, list their biggest movies so we can see what we are actually dealing with here.
thats a little unnecassary.. common, only new line cinema and universal studios sided with hddvd...but then again..this information is from early 2006.. sho i probably shood have my foot in my mouth right now.
HD DVDTM. Studio Support = Paramount, Warner Bros. and Universal Pictures
Blu-ray Disc®. technology Studio Support = Paramount, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment, Twentieth Century Fox, Walt Disney Pictures and Television, Warner Bros., Lion's Gate and MGM.
Whereas the HD DVD Promotion Group has 64 general members, the Blu-ray Disc®. Association is comprised of more than 170 companies including: Apple, Dell Inc., Hewlett Packard Company, Hitachi, Ltd., LG Electronics Inc., Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Panasonic (Matsushita Electric), Pioneer Corporation, Royal Philips Electronics, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Sharp Corporation, Sony Corporation, TDK Corporation and Thomson.
i'm not sure when that info was given...it shoudl be mandatory that websites shood have to put date when it was last updated...
I have no time for Lair, I'm afraid. My limited playtime with the game has only encouraged me to further limit said playtime, throttling this value until it reaches zero. As one of the long-known exclusives, a kind of cult has formed around the game - one whose creed hinges on the glorious arrival of their reptile saint. It is a weird hunger, one quite outside reality, and it would be best to manage those expectations before their piss-smelling vagrant messiah stumbles into the retail channel.
Ouch Sony and Factor 5. If that's not a shot in the groin, I don't know what is.
what the hell? how does that affect anything. you didn't state why that person is important, what game that is, what disc it's on, blu-ray or hddvd, or why this statement is any more important than anything else here.\
but of course, i googled it and its just some game...
but why is that important in the blu-ray vs. hddvd?
that games gameplayablility looks horrible anyways. it doesn't look like it has a story line either. or elese it would state somewhere that it does..
what the hell? how does that affect anything. you didn't state why that person is important, what game that is, what disc it's on, blu-ray or hddvd, or why this statement is any more important than anything else here.\
but of course, i googled it and its just some game...
but why is that important in the blu-ray vs. hddvd?
that games gameplayablility looks horrible anyways. it doesn't look like it has a story line either. or elese it would state somewhere that it does..
You don't know who Tycho Brahe is? Anyone who is a true gamer knows Tycho and Gabe.
Lair is PS3's most anticipated game at the moment and its amounting to a steaming pile.
This is a PS3 vs Xbox360 thread, not a Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD thread. So I can post anything related to the PS3 and Xbox360.
Blu-Ray doesn't have more exposure. HD-DVD is actually a more common household name. If you polled 1000 people and asked them which one they've heard the most about, I'm positive HD-DVD would win.
If we were talking about who has heard of it, then you'd probably be right. At this point, it seems like a simpler name. But, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that more Blu-ray movie and games have been released than HD-DVD. Therefore, just by probability, a Blu-ray disc has a greater chance of ending up in your house, than an HD-DVD (if DVD is taken out of the equation).
Instead of listing the companies, list their biggest movies so we can see what we are actually dealing with here.
Those are all huge movie/game companies. He basically posted the names of the companies that use the format for their publishing that I gave in that Engadget source.
Lair is PS3's most anticipated game at the moment and its amounting to a steaming pile.
Hardly. FFXIII and MGS4 are more anticipated by far.
ive never heard of lair, and by looking at some of the cinematics at lair.com or w/e, it looks pretty horrible.. like Isaid, the storyline and playability looks horrible.
but then again, i mostly like pc games, they can look better, and be a lot more customizable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Dimebog" »
Your logic just blew my mustaches backwards.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's the maximum they have been able to put on a disc. Not nearly what they can put on a disc and mass manufacture for cheap. BIG DIFFERENCE, bud.
I'm not talking about codecs. In order to make use of the extra features Blu-Ray uses, your blu-ray player must support these. Few players do and it has nothing to do with the diodes.
You can now get stand alone HD-DVD players for around $200 after rebates. That's an excellent price.
Within 5 years, there will be formats holding 300GB per disc with ease and these will not be Blu-Ray or HD-DVD (300GB has already been done on holographic media so this is a low ball estimate). Tape formats already hold way more than HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. The 50 GB difference isn't nearly as big of a deal as you think.
Nothing to do with this argument. I'll just ignore this paragraph.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Okay, on single layet, a Blu-ray can hold 25GB, while the HD-DVD can only hold 15. On dual-layer the difference is 20 gigs.
What extra features do you speak of?
Well, just to keep this in relation to the thread, you can get the PS3 for 600, be able to play Blu-ray movies, as well as video games and not worry about buying extra equipment. The Xbox 360 Pro is 500 and 200 for the HD-DVD player. Now who is promoting their format better...
Despite the fact that HD-DVD is cheaper, Blu-ray has hella exposure. It's already been put into circulation, moreso than the HD-DVD and has more companies pushing the brand.
By the way, the standard hits for a HD-DVD player cost about 250-300 bucks on Amazon, even after price cuts and such. Not to say that you aren't paying out the ass for a stand-alone Blu-ray player, but why get that when the PS3 offers that function for cheaper?
Okay, but that will be available around the next round of format fighting, possibly. But by that time, Blu-ray would be far cheaper and would most likely be hella tweaked for better performance.
If you'll notice, I said "Alluding to", as in I was comparing this format comparison to the automobile industry in their gas vs. electric car struggle. Gas cars, in this case, would be more like Blu-ray, is more expensive, yet has more capacity, more promoters, and an already seemingly growing market to appeal to.
And yes, Carloseus, we've gone over this a dozen times already. PS3 doesn't have the game support that it needs to do as well as the 360 and Wii. And just recently, I read a blog article about the possibility of MGS4 going cross-platform. It was just developer speculation though. Nothing official.
Buying th PS3 for it's crappy games and the ability to watch blu-ray titles seems pretty wasteful to me.
PS3 sucks so bad it has publishers demanding price cuts because it's hurting their business. That right there is enough to make the 360 the winner.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Are 3-layers standard or are you just saying that to make the difference smaller. Because that would also make the cost much less different. And I'm more than sure that most of the Blu-rays manufactured are single-layers.
Regardless of whether or not other people think they're crappy games, you know, the people that you don't speak for, that's still promotion right there.
It's not a matter of 'sucking'. It's a matter of not being economically suitable. It takes more resources to produce for PS3 and developers want some insurance to make sure that they'll get some revenue from their investment.
Im not really sure, im just sticking to good ol hard drives! [which are way outdated by the way, we need sumthing new for mass storage... so many moving parts]
but my opinion is based solely on online performance, so i think xbox 360 is the winner. [ i know theres a lot more variables i can include in myopinion, but i think online multiplayer is most important for me...]
plus the best games [ in my opinion ] are on 360. halo series, gears of war, etc.
then again....i never got into console gaming...
Personal Computers are the latest and greatest beasts out there!!!
theyre technologically more advanced than consoles, and the room for upgradability is amazing!!
plus you can use it for far more stuff than a console can.
ive always like computer monitors more than telivisons...specially the 1800 x 2400 resolution
One words, "expensive."
A 32 GB SSD is over $3000.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Dual-layer DVDs arent even the standard. Standard and being cost effective are different. Adding a third layer to HD-DVD is cheaper than adding a third to Blu-Ray. Dual-layer HD-DVDs and Blu-Ray discs aren't even standard right now. In the long run, I'd definitly put my money on HD-DVD.
General consensus/majority say PS3 titles suck ass. Nuff' said.
Not being "economically suitable" makes it sucky.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
not going to have sum 1 mm thick box with plasma inside it and another layer of bose-einstein matter on the outside to keep it cool.... lol
Oh my bad. When I said "the people you don't speak for", I really meant the people you shouldn't speak for. As you are not the embodiment of several others. But anyways, I didn't disagree with that. In fact, I stated that long before this argument.
No, being sucky make it not worth a damn. Not being economically suitable makes it not worth 600 bucks.
But anyways, you seem to be avoiding the fact that I'm saying Blu-ray has more exposure, thus making it more applicable as the next-gen format. Or are you conceding that?
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
Blu-Ray
20th Century Fox, Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Electronic Arts, MGM Studios, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, The Walt Disney Company, Vivendi Universal Games [ Blizzard ], Warner Bros.
HD DVD = Buena Vista Home Entertainment, New Line Cinema, Paramount Pictures, The Walt Disney Company, Universal Studios, Warner Bros.
________
some cancel out and end up like this
Blu-Ray = 20th Century Fox, Electronic Arts, MGM Studios, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Vivendi Universal Games [ Blizzard ]
HDDVD = New Line Cinema, Universal Studios
________
so i guess Blu-Ray has more support. [those are the independant studios that only support one format, blu-ray or hddvd, at the end.
Instead of listing the companies, list their biggest movies so we can see what we are actually dealing with here.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
thats a little unnecassary.. common, only new line cinema and universal studios sided with hddvd...but then again..this information is from early 2006.. sho i probably shood have my foot in my mouth right now.
ill find an updated page of this.
i'm not sure when that info was given...it shoudl be mandatory that websites shood have to put date when it was last updated...
Ouch Sony and Factor 5. If that's not a shot in the groin, I don't know what is.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
but of course, i googled it and its just some game...
but why is that important in the blu-ray vs. hddvd?
that games gameplayablility looks horrible anyways. it doesn't look like it has a story line either. or elese it would state somewhere that it does..
You don't know who Tycho Brahe is? Anyone who is a true gamer knows Tycho and Gabe.
Lair is PS3's most anticipated game at the moment and its amounting to a steaming pile.
This is a PS3 vs Xbox360 thread, not a Blu-Ray vs HD-DVD thread. So I can post anything related to the PS3 and Xbox360.
Vote:
http://www.diablofans.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17929
If we were talking about who has heard of it, then you'd probably be right. At this point, it seems like a simpler name. But, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm saying that more Blu-ray movie and games have been released than HD-DVD. Therefore, just by probability, a Blu-ray disc has a greater chance of ending up in your house, than an HD-DVD (if DVD is taken out of the equation).
Those are all huge movie/game companies. He basically posted the names of the companies that use the format for their publishing that I gave in that Engadget source.
Hardly. FFXIII and MGS4 are more anticipated by far.
but then again, i mostly like pc games, they can look better, and be a lot more customizable.