Re: OT: PS3 Just Smoked This Past Week
Blig Merk
now the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out of the three,
while being severely deficient compared to the PS3.
The Penny-Arcade is $200 and that is without the hard drive and
wireless. The 120GB "official rip-off" hard drive is $170. The
wireless is $100. Then you don't even have a Blu-ray player. The Lame-
L33t is $300 but still doesn't have wireless and still has no Blu-ray
player. Then you have to addd $50 per year for online, with the rumor
Micro$crew is planning a $10 per month plan. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Fucking piece of junk xflop 3-shitty is screwed from here on. So it
lasted one year longer than the original failed XFLop. Big freaking
deal. It is all downhill from here for the xflop 3-shitty. The PS3 has
a huge lineup firing up at the beginning of next year plus there are
some titles that will be revealed at E3 that are going to make the
xflop fanbitches piss their panties and sob like the little girls they
are. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I will be back here in force when CROSSOVER occurs, you stupid fucking
xflop fanbitches.
Brenden Chase
GMAN
>Heeeeee's Baaaacccckkk... :(
He's back, but he's correct!
M
news:mrUSm.363603$ua.1...@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...
The Iraqi Information Minister, sorry Bligmerk, has been spouting the same
crap for years now.
He might be right, might be wrong (I don't think anyone is going to piss
their pants and start sobbing to be honest). The main thing is, only he and
the other delusional fanboys actually give a shit.
The alMIGHTY N
> As much as the xflop fanbitches used the whining about the PS3 price,
> now the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out of the three,
> while being severely deficient compared to the PS3.
In what reality do you live where the PlayStation 3 is a less
expensive console than the Xbox 360?
If you compare the lowest possible price point for a console in each
of those two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper with the $200
Arcade model compared to the $300 120GB model.
If you compare the highest possible price point for a console in each
of those two lines, the Xbox 360 Elite comes out cheaper with at $300
compared to the $400 250GB model.
If you compare the average price point for a console in each of those
two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper at $250 compared to the
PlayStation 3's $350.
> The Penny-Arcade is $200 and that is without the hard drive and
> wireless. The 120GB "official rip-off" hard drive is $170. The
> wireless is $100. Then you don't even have a Blu-ray player. The Lame-
> L33t is $300 but still doesn't have wireless and still has no Blu-ray
> player. Then you have to addd $50 per year for online, with the rumor
> Micro$crew is planning a $10 per month plan. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
"Value for the price you're paying" is a wholly different concept from
"the price you're paying."
Of course, value is a subjective characteristic. Most people don't
need to use a hard drive - all games play just fine spinning off a
disc. Most people don't care about wireless since most people don't
play online. Blu-ray drive? Well, all you have to do is look at sales
performance of Blu-ray to see how very few people even now with
cheaper pricing on both hardware *and* software care about Blu-ray.
If I knew more people with gaming and entertainment tastes in line
with what seems to be the norm in these newsgroups, I could certainly
recommend a PlayStation 3 to them depending on their taste in games
and how many people they know who own one versus the other. Since most
of the people I know are not crazed 24/7 hardcore gamers who need
1080p movies, however, the Xbox 360 (or even the Wii) is still the
more sensible purchase.
> Fucking piece of junk xflop 3-shitty is screwed from here on. So it
> lasted one year longer than the original failed XFLop. Big freaking
> deal. It is all downhill from here for the xflop 3-shitty. The PS3 has
> a huge lineup firing up at the beginning of next year plus there are
> some titles that will be revealed at E3 that are going to make the
> xflop fanbitches piss their panties and sob like the little girls they
> are. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> I will be back here in force when CROSSOVER occurs, you stupid fucking
> xflop fanbitches.
Haven't you been saying this for the past 3 years?
The alMIGHTY N
> In article <9fSSm.86248$Wf2.84...@newsfe23.iad>, "Brenden Chase" <brenden.chas...@MOVEgmail.com> wrote:>Heeeeee's Baaaacccckkk... :(
>
> He's back, but he's correct!
He's correct in one, maybe two, things he said. Everything else is
just the usual nonsense.
GMAN
>On Dec 6, 12:38 pm, Blig Merk <blig_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> As much as the xflop fanbitches used the whining about the PS3 price,
>> now the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out of the three,
>> while being severely deficient compared to the PS3.
>
>In what reality do you live where the PlayStation 3 is a less
>expensive console than the Xbox 360?
>
>If you compare the lowest possible price point for a console in each
>of those two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper with the $200
>Arcade model compared to the $300 120GB model.
A hard drive to bring the 360 inline with the storage of the Slim is
anywhere from $139-$169 , plus the $79 Wifi adapter. Not to mention the bluray
drive.
Thats at least $100 more than a slim PS3 120GB system
>
>If you compare the highest possible price point for a console in each
>of those two lines, the Xbox 360 Elite comes out cheaper with at $300
>compared to the $400 250GB model.
$300 for a 60GB 360, that you need to add wifi to, $379 ???
>
>If you compare the average price point for a console in each of those
>two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper at $250 compared to the
>PlayStation 3's $350.
Where are PS3's at $350???? The standalone 120GB system is $299. Dont start
adding in extras. You need to add extras to the 360 to equal the hardware in
the PS3.
The alMIGHTY N
> In article <9f310801-bdd8-4038-a93d-b47dbb03f...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:>On Dec 6, 12:38 pm, Blig Merk <blig_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> As much as the xflop fanbitches used the whining about the PS3 price,
> >> now the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out of the three,
> >> while being severely deficient compared to the PS3.
>
> >In what reality do you live where the PlayStation 3 is a less
> >expensive console than the Xbox 360?
>
> The PS3 is when you add in the hard drive and WiFi on the 360
LOL - I have to admit that I fully expected this sort of fanboy
nonsense when I posted the question.
Like I said in my response to Blig - there's a very distinct
difference between "the price you pay" and "the value you get for the
price you pay."
Blig deliberately misstated that the Xbox 360 is the more expensive
console, a statement which clearly and explicitly means, except to
unintelligent people and/or fanboys looking to prove their worth to
Sony, that the price of the console itself is higher when you are
buying the Xbox 360 than when you are buying the PlayStation 3.
I know you're not a moron so please give up the fanboy inanity.
> >If you compare the lowest possible price point for a console in each
> >of those two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper with the $200
> >Arcade model compared to the $300 120GB model.
>
> A hard drive to bring the 360 inline with the storage of the Slim is
> anywhere from $139-$169 , plus the $79 Wifi adapter. Not to mention the bluray
> drive.
>
> Thats at least $100 more than a slim PS3 120GB system
Unfortunately for Blig's self-esteem, the only thing that matters to
most people is which console is cheaper. Since most people don't need
a hard drive, wi-fi or a blu-ray drive for their video game console,
none of this factors into the total purchasing cost.
> >If you compare the highest possible price point for a console in each
> >of those two lines, the Xbox 360 Elite comes out cheaper with at $300
> >compared to the $400 250GB model.
>
> $300 for a 60GB 360, that you need to add wifi to, $379 ???
The 60GB Xbox 360 model is officially retired so the only options are
the 0GB Arcade at $200 or the 120GB Elite at $300 unless you start
considering bundles like the Modern Warfare 2 custom bundle.
And since all the extras you keep trying to bring into the debate as
if they were relevant to the general marketplace actually don't factor
in to the cost of the *console,* it's still the Xbox 360's $300 to the
PlayStation 3's $400.
> >If you compare the average price point for a console in each of those
> >two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper at $250 compared to the
> >PlayStation 3's $350.
>
> Where are PS3's at $350???? The standalone 120GB system is $299. Dont start
> adding in extras. You need to add extras to the 360 to equal the hardware in
> the PS3.
Please let me know where I stated that you could find a PlayStation 3
for $350.
You're probably referring to "the average price point for a...
PlayStation 3 (is) $350." You *do* know what a mathematical average
is, right? You also *do* know that there's a $400 250GB PlayStation
model available at retail, right? It's been in stores for well over a
month.
The Doctor (as portrayed by Sylvester McCoy)
wrote:
> Heeeeee's Baaaacccckkk... :(
Pay no attention to bilgemerk. That stupid asshole perkoff throws its
immature spamtrums because its mammy won't buy it anymore playstations
and it can't hold a job long enough to earn enough to buy a PoS3
itself.
Miles Bader
> Unfortunately for Blig's self-esteem, the only thing that matters to
> most people is which console is cheaper. Since most people don't need
> a hard drive, wi-fi or a blu-ray drive for their video game console,
> none of this factors into the total purchasing cost.
I think what _really_ matters to people is what their friends all
have... The manufacturers just have to keept he price beneath a certain
("that's insane!") threshold, as AFAICS, both the xb360 and the ps3 are
at that point now (they didn't use to be of course...).
-Miles
--
Quotation, n. The act of repeating erroneously the words of another. The words
erroneously repeated.
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Unfortunately for Blig's self-esteem, the only thing that matters to
> > most people is which console is cheaper. Since most people don't need
> > a hard drive, wi-fi or a blu-ray drive for their video game console,
> > none of this factors into the total purchasing cost.
>
> I think what _really_ matters to people is what their friends all
> have...
This only applies to the portion of gamers who play online games. If
you don't ever play games online, don't swap games with friends, etc.,
you're not going to give a crap what your friends have (unless you're
a malleable grade schooler who falls in line with the rest of the
flock).
In any case, I was referring to what one would have to purchase to
start playing games. Ultimately, price is going to be a deciding
factor over included options that most people don't need or care
about.
GMAN
>On Dec 7, 1:33 pm, winniethe...@100acrewoods.org (GMAN) wrote:
>> In article
> <9f310801-bdd8-4038-a93d-b47dbb03f...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, The
> alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:>On Dec 6, 12:38 pm, Blig Merk
> <blig_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> As much as the xflop fanbitches used the whining about the PS3 price,
>> >> now the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out of the three,
>> >> while being severely deficient compared to the PS3.
>>
>> >In what reality do you live where the PlayStation 3 is a less
>> >expensive console than the Xbox 360?
>>
>> The PS3 is when you add in the hard drive and WiFi on the 360
>
>LOL - I have to admit that I fully expected this sort of fanboy
>nonsense when I posted the question.
Pointing the obvious is FANBOY?????
>
A fanboy owns just one system and then just makes up shit.
I own all 3 current gen, 2 PS3's, a 360, a WII. Then we have 2 PS2's , a
couple of PS1's with the LCD screens...
Fanboi, yeah right!
I just think its bullshit to pay $79 to $99 for a fuckin Wireless G USB dongle
for the 360 when you can buy one for the PC for $9
>Like I said in my response to Blig - there's a very distinct
>difference between "the price you pay" and "the value you get for the
>price you pay."
What value do i get in paying nearly $200 for a 120GB hard drive for the 360?
whn you can get a 500GB drive for my PS3 for $88?
>
>Blig deliberately misstated that the Xbox 360 is the more expensive
>console, a statement which clearly and explicitly means, except to
>unintelligent people and/or fanboys looking to prove their worth to
>Sony, that the price of the console itself is higher when you are
>buying the Xbox 360 than when you are buying the PlayStation 3.
>
It is if "I"want to get the same level of hardware functionality that my PS3
has.
>I know you're not a moron so please give up the fanboy inanity.
>
>> >If you compare the lowest possible price point for a console in each
>> >of those two lines, the Xbox 360 comes out cheaper with the $200
>> >Arcade model compared to the $300 120GB model.
>>
>> A hard drive to bring the 360 inline with the storage of the Slim is
>> anywhere from $139-$169 , plus the $79 Wifi adapter. Not to mention the
> bluray
>> drive.
>>
>> Thats at least $100 more than a slim PS3 120GB system
>
>Unfortunately for Blig's self-esteem, the only thing that matters to
>most people is which console is cheaper. Since most people don't need
>a hard drive, wi-fi or a blu-ray drive for their video game console,
>none of this factors into the total purchasing cost.
>
>> >If you compare the highest possible price point for a console in each
>> >of those two lines, the Xbox 360 Elite comes out cheaper with at $300
>> >compared to the $400 250GB model.
>>
>> $300 for a 60GB 360, that you need to add wifi to, $379 ???
>
>The 60GB Xbox 360 model is officially retired so the only options are
>the 0GB Arcade at $200 or the 120GB Elite at $300 unless you start
>considering bundles like the Modern Warfare 2 custom bundle.
>
>And since all the extras you keep trying to bring into the debate as
>if they were relevant to the general marketplace actually don't factor
>in to the cost of the *console,* it's still the Xbox 360's $300 to the
>PlayStation 3's $400.
>
WiFi not relevant? then why is almost every new handheld or system on earth
sporting wireless????
The 360 is the only one not standard issue.
The alMIGHTY N
> In article <fe7676fa-2177-478e-9276-f9e51f88e...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Dec 7, 1:33 pm, winniethe...@100acrewoods.org (GMAN) wrote:
> >> In article
> > <9f310801-bdd8-4038-a93d-b47dbb03f...@u25g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, The
> > alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:>On Dec 6, 12:38 pm, Blig Merk
> > <blig_m...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> As much as the xflop fanbitches used the whining about the PS3 price,
> >> >> now the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out of the three,
> >> >> while being severely deficient compared to the PS3.
>
> >> >In what reality do you live where the PlayStation 3 is a less
> >> >expensive console than the Xbox 360?
>
> >> The PS3 is when you add in the hard drive and WiFi on the 360
>
> >LOL - I have to admit that I fully expected this sort of fanboy
> >nonsense when I posted the question.
>
> Pointing the obvious is FANBOY?????
Not necessarily.
However, pointing out that a consumer would need to spend x dollars on
optional and wholly unnecessary Xbox 360 accessories in order to match
the features of the PlayStation 3, a statement of value, and using it
as a response to a question that is quite obviously dealing with
statement of price is indeed fanboy behavior.
> A fanboy owns just one system and then just makes up shit.
I don't entirely agree with this. Not every fanboyish comment that
Jonah or Blig make is incorrect or invented.
> I own all 3 current gen, 2 PS3's, a 360, a WII. Then we have 2 PS2's , a
> couple of PS1's with the LCD screens...
>
> Fanboi, yeah right!
LOL
I wasn't saying that you were a fanboy. I was saying that the argument
you made in the context in which you made it is a fanboy argument.
> I just think its bullshit to pay $79 to $99 for a fuckin Wireless G USB dongle
> for the 360 when you can buy one for the PC for $9
I don't disagree that many of the Xbox 360 accessories are overpriced.
> >Like I said in my response to Blig - there's a very distinct
> >difference between "the price you pay" and "the value you get for the
> >price you pay."
>
> What value do i get in paying nearly $200 for a 120GB hard drive for the 360?
> whn you can get a 500GB drive for my PS3 for $88?
You're still veered off on your tangent.
Blig stated that "the xflop 3-shitty is the most expensive console out
of the three." This is a statement about price. The price of the Xbox
360 is either $199 or $299. The price of the PlayStation 3 is either
$299 or $399. The price of the Wii is $199. Blig is unquestionably,
inarguably wrong.
Your argument, which is in all likelihood the one Blig intended to
make but didn't because he's a Grade A moron, is that when you pay
$199 for an Xbox 360 Arcade, you don't have a hard drive or wi-fi so
you'd have to spend x dollars to add these features and then the price
you paid for the console *and* the accessories comes out to be more
than the price you would pay for just the PlayStation 3 console.
I didn't disagree with that but simply pointed out that it was a
statement of value - you don't get the same value out of the Xbox 360
than you do out of the PlayStation 3. However, value is a subjective
thing - if one doesn't care about a hard drive or wi-fi, which
describes most Xbox 360 owners, then those accessories are not
necessary and thus it comes right back to a matter of price.
And the Xbox 360 is quite obviously the cheaper choice.
> >Blig deliberately misstated that the Xbox 360 is the more expensive
> >console, a statement which clearly and explicitly means, except to
> >unintelligent people and/or fanboys looking to prove their worth to
> >Sony, that the price of the console itself is higher when you are
> >buying the Xbox 360 than when you are buying the PlayStation 3.
>
> It is if "I"want to get the same level of hardware functionality that my PS3
> has.
Unfortunately for Blig's credibility, he didn't qualify his contention
in that way because he knows that most people don't give a crap about
"the same level of hardware functionality as a PS3."
In fact, he didn't qualify it at all. He made a blanket statement that
the PlayStation 3 is a cheaper console which is flat out incorrect.
Handhelds don't factor into this discussion. Portable devices use
wireless means of communication because tethering a device with a
cable negates the idea of portability. If you want to update your
system or buy downloadable software, it makes sense to not have to be
attached to a computer to do so, especially since 99% of the time
you'll be using that system when you're *not* at home.
Nintendo included wi-fi in the Wii as a synergistic feature. If, as
Nintendo hoped, you had some number of DS devices in your household
which already used wi-fi, what would be the point of having the Wii
use a physical connection for its own communications and a wi-fi
connection for its communication with the DS as an accessory or as a
means for DS users to purchase items from the Nintendo network? It's
not a big leap from having wi-fi communication with DS systems and
having wi-fi as the de facto means of communication for the console
period.
On top of this reasoning, Sony was also trying to position as some
feature-laden do-more-than-just-play-games device that was justified a
$600 price tag. Unfortunately for Sony, that kind of arrogant
mentality, that only the elite should buy the PlayStation 3 and that
people would be willing to shell out a paycheck in order to be in on
the privilege backfired because ultimately most people just want to
play games and don't even really go online with their gaming console.
> The 360 is the only one not standard issue.
Sony was definitely ahead of the curve on this. Unfortunately, "ahead
of the curve" meant that even people who didn't want to utilize this
feature had to pay for it. With Blu-ray, Sony was trying to be the one
actually defining the curve but again consumers paid for it even if
they didn't want to.
Tunnel �
"Blig Merk" <blig...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0b537d1-941a-45f1...@p32g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
I prefer the PS3, but seriously who really cares.
Just play!
Tunnel.
Miles Bader
>> have...
>
> This only applies to the portion of gamers who play online games. If
> you don't ever play games online, don't swap games with friends, etc.,
> you're not going to give a crap what your friends have
No, I think it applies generally -- game systems sell through word of
mouth, people buy what they hear about, what their friends talk about,
etc.
Not _universally_ of course, but certainly in large enough numbers to
make a huge difference in sales, especially when the alternatives are
roughly the same (as the xbox and ps3 are today).
> (unless you're a malleable grade schooler who falls in line with the
> rest of the flock).
That's an apt description for about 99% of the population, whether
they're actually in grade school or not...
-Miles
--
`The suburb is an obsolete and contradictory form of human settlement'
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> I think what _really_ matters to people is what their friends all
> >> have...
>
> > This only applies to the portion of gamers who play online games. If
> > you don't ever play games online, don't swap games with friends, etc.,
> > you're not going to give a crap what your friends have
>
> No, I think it applies generally -- game systems sell through word of
> mouth, people buy what they hear about, what their friends talk about,
> etc.
>
> Not _universally_ of course, but certainly in large enough numbers to
> make a huge difference in sales, especially when the alternatives are
> roughly the same (as the xbox and ps3 are today).
>
> > (unless you're a malleable grade schooler who falls in line with the
> > rest of the flock).
>
> That's an apt description for about 99% of the population, whether
> they're actually in grade school or not...
I don't know how much I agree with these statements.
Nowadays, people don't just blindly spend hundreds of dollars on an
entertainment device just because their friends have it.
If you're in the market for one of the two hardcore game consoles,
your decision is going to be based much more on how of the games
appeal to you and what your personal needs are than whether your
friends tell you how awesome one system is versus the other.
*Negative* comments from friends are going to be much more influential
to you than positive comments.
GMAN
Unnecessary in "YOUR" eyes, not in the opinions of many millions of other
gamers.
>> A fanboy owns just one system and then just makes up shit.
>
>I don't entirely agree with this. Not every fanboyish comment that
>Jonah or Blig make is incorrect or invented.
>
>> I own all 3 current gen, 2 PS3's, a 360, a WII. Then we have 2 PS2's , a
>> couple of PS1's with the LCD screens...
>>
>> Fanboi, yeah right!
>
>LOL
>
>I wasn't saying that you were a fanboy. I was saying that the argument
>you made in the context in which you made it is a fanboy argument.
>
In the words of the immortal Eric Cartman, "Whateva whateva, Ill do what i
want!" LOL
Bill Cable
> Blu-ray drive? Well, all you have to do is look at sales
> performance of Blu-ray to see how very few people even now with
> cheaper pricing on both hardware *and* software care about Blu-ray.
Here's a recent comparison of percentage of sales on Blu-ray v/s DVD:
http://i47.tinypic.com/10i5dt1.jpg
And here's YTD info:
http://i47.tinypic.com/sfukwh.jpg
As you can see, some new releases are 25%+ Blu-ray. That's pretty
significant. You'd be short-sighted to dismiss Blu-ray as a
significant advantage of the PS3.
--
Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!
ca...@creaturecantina.com
The alMIGHTY N
The hard drive is unnecessary for many millions of gamers as well. And
by gamers I mean everyone and not just hardcore gamers.
Wi-fi, too, is unnecessary for many millions of gamers *and* many more
millions of gamers than in the case of the hard drive. There are just
about 20 million *total* Xbox Live members right now and most of them
are not paying for Gold status.
The fact of the matter is that most gamers do not play games online
which eliminates the need for wi-fi.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Dec 7, 12:07 pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Blu-ray drive? Well, all you have to do is look at sales
> > performance of Blu-ray to see how very few people even now with
> > cheaper pricing on both hardware *and* software care about Blu-ray.
>
> Here's a recent comparison of percentage of sales on Blu-ray v/s DVD:
>
> http://i47.tinypic.com/10i5dt1.jpg
>
> And here's YTD info:
>
> http://i47.tinypic.com/sfukwh.jpg
>
> As you can see, some new releases are 25%+ Blu-ray. That's pretty
> significant. You'd be short-sighted to dismiss Blu-ray as a
> significant advantage of the PS3.
On the contrary, I'm seeing very clearly while you are apparently
misinterpreting, intentionally or not, the data in the images.
The chart on the right hand side of 10i5dt1.jpg shows the top 20
movies for which there are both Blu-ray and DVD versions available at
retail ranked according to the percentage share of Blu-ray.
The first thing to note is that the total sales within the reporting
time period are irrelevant - this chart is only ranking titles that
have the highest percentage of Blu-ray sales compared to total disc
sales. For instance, if only 2,000 total Blu-ray and DVD discs of a
theoretical movie sold during this period and 1,800 of those discs
were Blu-ray, the movie would still be number one on the list at 90%.
The second thing to note is the time period in which these sales
occurred. Perhaps you didn't follow all the doorbusters and other
sales at various retailers over the Black Friday weekend. I did.
Wolverine on Blu-ray was available for $9.99 at Best Buy and at Amazon
earlier in the week. Fast & Furious, Wanted, Monsters vs. Aliens, etc.
were all on sale for very good prices during that time period. Of
course the Blu-rays are going to sell better when they're so heavily
discounted.
The third thing to note is that these are only the top 20 on the list
and you're already below 10% market share before you get out of the
top 10 during a time in which a) Blu-ray is slowly gaining market
share on DVD in the sales sector and b) overall disc sales in general
are going down the tubes.
How many movies that had both Blu-ray and DVD versions available were
sold during that week? At least a few hundred. And out of all of
those, only 1 had a Blu-ray market share of at least 50%, only 3 had a
Blu-ray market share of at least 25% and only 7 had a Blu-ray market
share of at least 10%.
The second image paints a slightly better picture for Blu-ray in that
there are a number of movies debuting with over 20% Blu-ray market
share. The only thing to consider is what I mentioned earlier -
*sales* of discs in general are in a downward spiral with no recourse
in sight while *rentals* of discs are booming... and DVD trounces Blu-
ray in rentals. Then, when you consider the ever-growing digital
market (and I don't refer specifically to the high-def segment of that
market), it becomes crystal clear that the overwhelming majority of
video consumers are not hopping on the Blu-ray train and will more
than likely bypass it entirely.
It's not that I don't like Blu-ray. I only buy Blu-ray movies now
unless it's a Disney catalog title that has no solid release date on
Blu-ray in the near future or some movie or special that I really like
that is only available on DVD.
It's simply that I realize few people share the priorities of the
people who tend to frequent these and other online forums. High-
definition image quality is simply not that important to most people,
and thus the Blu-ray drive in a PlayStation 3, while a nice *bonus*
feature, is decidedly not a deciding factor for most consumers looking
for a *gaming* console.
Bill Cable
Star Trek - 33% Blu-ray
Angels & Demons - 25% Blu-ray
Second image - YTD (two weeks prior to the first image):
All major releases listed above 20% Blu-ray
Transformers #1 movie of 2009 - 25% Blu-ray
I'm certain Blu-ray will do exceptionally well among all of the top 10
box office draws of 2009.
That's all I wanted you to pull out of that.
I also saw a stat that Blu-ray sales have increased 137% from 2008.
It's not insignificant. DVD gets a much larger % overall due to
catalog sales. But on new releases Blu-ray is quickly approaching
parity. And I know quite a few people for whom Blu-ray was the
tipping factor in buying a PS3.
--
Tom
"Bill Cable" <bill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:be6c47bb-f2a4-470f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
I'm not one those people. Buying a console for playing movies or videos
never came to mind when I purchased the 360, it is for gaming only, and I
would treat the PS3 the same way had I bought into it. To this day, the
upscaling DVD players I have, put out a damn nice picture on DVD playback.
On my Vizio 36" with a Sony upscaling DVD player, I couldn't tell the
difference if wanted to. Now, on my 52" Sammy, I know I would see a
difference, but it is not big enough to be a deal breaker for me. I would
venture to say that I fall into the majority of those who do watch movies,
but are not videophiles that have to have the highest res to see a movie,
hence DVD is just fine. My 360 plays DVD with great quality for movie
viewing just fine, and I felt no need to get a BR player. I do have one in
the PC I just built and the video card puts out HDMI, I just don't care
enough to buy a connector to run to my Sammy and watch a movie. Besides,
with my 24" PC, that runs 1080p outside of it native resolutio, I can watch
BR movies there if I want.
The only time where I, and most others, will have a need for BR, is if the
DVD market evaporates. I would venture to say that the next version of
Hi-def disc will be out before then and BR would still not have taken over
DVD.
AGENT47
>
>
> The hard drive is unnecessary for many millions of gamers as well. And
> by gamers I mean everyone and not just hardcore gamers.
>
> Wi-fi, too, is unnecessary for many millions of gamers *and* many more
> millions of gamers than in the case of the hard drive. There are just
> about 20 million *total* Xbox Live members right now and most of them
> are not paying for Gold status.
>
> The fact of the matter is that most gamers do not play games online
> which eliminates the need for wi-fi.
>
>
>
from an old survey in 2007 -
"According to a new study issued by consumer and retail information
company The NPD Group, 62 percent of all players of video games report
that they play games online."
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=13820
"2007 data- At 54 percent, the Xbox 360 had the highest percentage of
online use among video game systems"
"At 50%, Xbox 360 remains the console online gaming leader, despite
the noteworthy changes among other major console systems."
Tomcat
>
> The only time where I, and most others, will have a need for BR, is if the
> DVD market evaporates. I would venture to say that the next version of
> Hi-def disc will be out before then and BR would still not have taken over
> DVD.
I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
for a while. After all, what is the demand for the development of a
new version of a Hi-def disc? TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. I agree upscaling
DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
starting to narrow rapidly.
Tom
"Tomcat" <tom_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c1be763b-3d90-497b...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
But will the movies get to that price?
Tomcat
> "Tomcat" <tom_overton_1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The main reason for the high prices of BR discs is not so much
manufacturing costs it's because the majority of the BR consumer base
currently is not very price elastic they will pay the extra premium
but once BR players start to become more mainstream BR disc prices
will have to drop and I think that will happen sooner than people
think. I do think BR will replace DVD slower than DVD replaced VHS
because there is less incentive quality-wise to switch but those that
think BR is somehow going to go the way of laserdisc or be replaced by
some new high def disc format are wrong there just isn't anything
threatening BR right now for the next decade. Digitial movie
downloads represent maybe 1 percent of the market so far and there
will always be need/demand for physical media and BR is the only
option to fill that need long term.
Bill Cable
>
> I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
> for a while. After all, what is the demand for the development of a
> new version of a Hi-def disc? TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
> BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. I agree upscaling
> DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
> soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
> BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
> starting to narrow rapidly.
1080p will be the max resolution we'll see for a long time. Optically
it's really the highest resolution we can appreciate. Check this out:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
To fully notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p (the next
resolution up) you need to sit 5' away from a 50" screen. Nobody
views TV like that. To even begin to see a difference at 10' away you
need an 80" screen. Would you even want an 80" screen if they became
affordable? And to fully appreciate 1440p at 10' you need a 100"
screen. That's 8 and a half feet diagonal!
So I expect Blu-ray to be around for a long time. It provides the
ideal viewing experience at the highest practical resolution. As more
people try out Blu-ray, more people will stick with Blu-ray. I'd
never go back at this point. DVDs look like mud. Anybody who
concludes DVD to be "good enough" after watching a Blu-ray either has
poor vision or just isn't very discerning. At $3 or $4 more per movie
it's money well spent.
The alMIGHTY N
> First image - new releases:
>
> Star Trek - 33% Blu-ray
> Angels & Demons - 25% Blu-ray
I saw those. There was also Funny People starring Adam Sandler and
Seth Rogen.
Unfortunately, top box office releases are really the only movies
where Blu-ray has any sort of significant market share and a format is
not going to be adopted by the mainstream consumer based solely on a
handful of top box office releases.
I'm not saying that things will never change. Nobody can predict what
may happen in the next year, two years, three years, etc. that may
drive people towards or away Blu-ray adoption.
What I'm saying is that right now, Blu-ray still isn't a significant
factor in the overall market place and is not an important feature in
a gaming console for most gaming consumers, most of whom are not
hardcore tech-loving types like many of us here.
> Second image - YTD (two weeks prior to the first image):
>
> All major releases listed above 20% Blu-ray
> Transformers #1 movie of 2009 - 25% Blu-ray
>
> I'm certain Blu-ray will do exceptionally well among all of the top 10
> box office draws of 2009.
How do you define "exceptionally well?" And in what aspect do you
refer to? Market share? Actual sales numbers? Profit? And what of
rentals? More people rent than buy, especially nowadays, and Blu-ray
has a sliver of the rental market for obvious reasons.
> That's all I wanted you to pull out of that.
LOL
I know what you *wanted* me to pull out of that but looking only at
the raw data without context is meaningless.
> I also saw a stat that Blu-ray sales have increased 137% from 2008.
And? If I sell 10 apples one year and then 24 apples the next year,
I've already jumped 100%. Without actual sales/revenue data, the only
thing you can get out of that figure is that total sales more than
doubled from one year to the next, which sounds great but could mean
any number of things.
> It's not insignificant. DVD gets a much larger % overall due to
> catalog sales. But on new releases Blu-ray is quickly approaching
> parity.
Blu-ray is taking more and more market share on very specific kinds of
new releases - the ones with a lot of action or special effects or of
a subject matter that is most appealing to a very specific demographic
(i.e. the demographic of people most likely to be earlier adopters of
new entertainment technology).
Take a look at that list of movies in the YTD top 20. Transformers,
G.I. Joe, Up, RockNRolla, Quantum of Solace, Watchmen, The Day the
Earth Stood Still. These are all blockbuster type movies. Where are
the traditional dramas? The comedies? The romantic films?
Blu-ray does not have a broad appeal - only very specific types of
consumers are upgrading their technology. Blu-ray needs more than just
the year's biggest blockbuster movies to succeed.
Like I said before, I want it to do well - I hope it does well - but
I'm keeping a very open and clear mind about how it's doing *right
now* and what kind of impact it has *right now,* not months or years
in the future.
> And I know quite a few people for whom Blu-ray was the
> tipping factor in buying a PS3.
And?
I know people for whom Blu-ray was a non-factor and *games* like
Uncharted, MGS and Killzone 2 were the reason they bought the system.
And I know many more people who went with the Xbox 360 because they
didn't care about Blu-ray and were focused on the superior games
library.
Yes, Blu-ray is going to be a factor for some people - I have a co-
worker who bought a very expensive laptop just because it had a Blu-
ray drive in it - but it's not going to be a factor for most.
> --
The alMIGHTY N
> First image - new releases:
>
> Star Trek - 33% Blu-ray
> Angels & Demons - 25% Blu-ray
I saw those. There was also Funny People starring Adam Sandler and
Seth Rogen.
Unfortunately, top box office releases are really the only movies
where Blu-ray has any sort of significant market share and a format is
not going to be adopted by the mainstream consumer based solely on a
handful of top box office releases.
I'm not saying that things will never change. Nobody can predict what
may happen in the next year, two years, three years, etc. that may
drive people towards or away Blu-ray adoption.
What I'm saying is that right now, Blu-ray still isn't a significant
factor in the overall market place and is not an important feature in
a gaming console for most gaming consumers, most of whom are not
hardcore tech-loving types like many of us here.
> Second image - YTD (two weeks prior to the first image):
>
> All major releases listed above 20% Blu-ray
> Transformers #1 movie of 2009 - 25% Blu-ray
>
> I'm certain Blu-ray will do exceptionally well among all of the top 10
> box office draws of 2009.
How do you define "exceptionally well?" And in what aspect do you
refer to? Market share? Actual sales numbers? Profit? And what of
rentals? More people rent than buy, especially nowadays, and Blu-ray
has a sliver of the rental market for obvious reasons.
> That's all I wanted you to pull out of that.
LOL
I know what you *wanted* me to pull out of that but looking only at
the raw data without context is meaningless.
> I also saw a stat that Blu-ray sales have increased 137% from 2008.
And? If I sell 10 apples one year and then 24 apples the next year,
I've already jumped 100%. Without actual sales/revenue data, the only
thing you can get out of that figure is that total sales more than
doubled from one year to the next, which sounds great but could mean
any number of things.
> It's not insignificant. DVD gets a much larger % overall due to
> catalog sales. But on new releases Blu-ray is quickly approaching
> parity.
Blu-ray is taking more and more market share on very specific kinds of
new releases - the ones with a lot of action or special effects or of
a subject matter that is most appealing to a very specific demographic
(i.e. the demographic of people most likely to be earlier adopters of
new entertainment technology).
Take a look at that list of movies in the YTD top 20. Transformers,
G.I. Joe, Up, RockNRolla, Quantum of Solace, Watchmen, The Day the
Earth Stood Still. These are all blockbuster type movies. Where are
the traditional dramas? The comedies? The romantic films?
Blu-ray does not have a broad appeal - only very specific types of
consumers are upgrading their technology. Blu-ray needs more than just
the year's biggest blockbuster movies to succeed.
Like I said before, I want it to do well - I hope it does well - but
I'm keeping a very open and clear mind about how it's doing *right
now* and what kind of impact it has *right now,* not months or years
in the future.
> And I know quite a few people for whom Blu-ray was the
> tipping factor in buying a PS3.
And?
I know people for whom Blu-ray was a non-factor and *games* like
Uncharted, MGS and Killzone 2 were the reason they bought the system.
And I know many more people who went with the Xbox 360 because they
didn't care about Blu-ray and were focused on the superior games
library.
Yes, Blu-ray is going to be a factor for some people - I have a co-
worker who bought a very expensive laptop just because it had a Blu-
ray drive in it - but it's not going to be a factor for most.
> --
The alMIGHTY N
> "Bill Cable" <billca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:be6c47bb-f2a4-470f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > First image - new releases:
>
> > Star Trek - 33% Blu-ray
> > Angels & Demons - 25% Blu-ray
>
> > Second image - YTD (two weeks prior to the first image):
>
> > All major releases listed above 20% Blu-ray
> > Transformers #1 movie of 2009 - 25% Blu-ray
>
> > I'm certain Blu-ray will do exceptionally well among all of the top 10
> > box office draws of 2009.
>
> > That's all I wanted you to pull out of that.
>
> > I also saw a stat that Blu-ray sales have increased 137% from 2008.
>
> > It's not insignificant. DVD gets a much larger % overall due to
> > catalog sales. But on new releases Blu-ray is quickly approaching
> > parity. And I know quite a few people for whom Blu-ray was the
> > tipping factor in buying a PS3.
>
> > --
> > Bill Cable - Steelers Fan & Star Wars Collector
> >http://CreatureCantina.com <----- funny!
> > ca...@creaturecantina.com
>
> I'm not one those people. Buying a console for playing movies or videos
> never came to mind when I purchased the 360, it is for gaming only, and I
> would treat the PS3 the same way had I bought into it.
And that's exactly how most people choose their gaming console.
They're buying a gaming console because they want to play games.
Watching movies, especially Blu-rays, is a bonus feature that only
some are going to partake in.
> To this day, the
> upscaling DVD players I have, put out a damn nice picture on DVD playback.
> On my Vizio 36" with a Sony upscaling DVD player, I couldn't tell the
> difference if wanted to. Now, on my 52" Sammy, I know I would see a
> difference, but it is not big enough to be a deal breaker for me. I would
> venture to say that I fall into the majority of those who do watch movies,
> but are not videophiles that have to have the highest res to see a movie,
> hence DVD is just fine.
You're 100% correct there. Most people don't care about Blu-ray right
now. And the trend is going towards convenience - more and more people
are interested in watching movies on their iPods and iPhones and
portability is more important than quality.
> My 360 plays DVD with great quality for movie
> viewing just fine, and I felt no need to get a BR player. I do have one in
> the PC I just built and the video card puts out HDMI, I just don't care
> enough to buy a connector to run to my Sammy and watch a movie. Besides,
> with my 24" PC, that runs 1080p outside of it native resolutio, I can watch
> BR movies there if I want.
>
> The only time where I, and most others, will have a need for BR, is if the
> DVD market evaporates. I would venture to say that the next version of
> Hi-def disc will be out before then and BR would still not have taken over
> DVD.
I don't know if there will be a successor disc. By then, they'll
either go with a different kind of non-disc media altogether or
bandwidth will have improved enough to do digital downloads. But that
won't be for many years.
The alMIGHTY N
When $100 or less is the *standard* street price for a Blu-ray player
made by one of the big electronics names and new Blu-ray releases are
on sale for $15 going back up to $20 *standard* street price, there
will be more mainstream adoption of Blu-ray. When prices go much lower
than that, there will be a huge influx of consumers who had large
libraries of DVDs but were waiting for bottom of the barrel prices to
convert.
The alMIGHTY N
Blu-ray will indeed replace DVD *much* slower than DVD replaced VHS
because the difference in quality, while technically significant, is
not nearly as noticeable to the human eye in the most common settings
and does not have the benefit of all the useful, practical features
that DVD offered over VHS.
The alMIGHTY N
> On Dec 10, 8:20 am, Tomcat <tom_overton_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
> > for a while. After all, what is the demand for the development of a
> > new version of a Hi-def disc? TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
> > BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. I agree upscaling
> > DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
> > soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
> > BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
> > starting to narrow rapidly.
>
> 1080p will be the max resolution we'll see for a long time. Optically
> it's really the highest resolution we can appreciate. Check this out:
>
> http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
>
> To fully notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p (the next
> resolution up) you need to sit 5' away from a 50" screen. Nobody
> views TV like that. To even begin to see a difference at 10' away you
> need an 80" screen. Would you even want an 80" screen if they became
> affordable? And to fully appreciate 1440p at 10' you need a 100"
> screen. That's 8 and a half feet diagonal!
It's kind of funny that you would reference this chart considering
it's the one I constantly use to point out why most people aren't
interested in upgrading to Blu-ray.
Most people have televisions in the mid 30" to mid 40" range. In order
to see the full benefit of 1080p, you would need to sit 5' away from a
40" television, and 7' away from a 50" television. And if you're
sitting 7' away from a 40" television or 9' away from a 50"
television, you'll see *no* difference between a 720p and 1080p
signal.
Most people don't set up their living rooms for optimal viewing,
either - they're likely going to sit 10'+ from their televisions
regardless of its size. The visual benefits of Blu-ray simply aren't
noticeable enough to most people.
> So I expect Blu-ray to be around for a long time. It provides the
> ideal viewing experience at the highest practical resolution. As more
> people try out Blu-ray, more people will stick with Blu-ray. I'd
> never go back at this point. DVDs look like mud. Anybody who
> concludes DVD to be "good enough" after watching a Blu-ray either has
> poor vision or just isn't very discerning.
You're right - *most* people aren't very discerning nor do they need
to be. If you're a steak afficionado, you would probably scoff at
anything less than prime top cuts, but for most people steak is steak
and they're happy with even a select grade sirloin.
> At $3 or $4 more per movie
> it's money well spent.
$5 is the most common difference in price on Amazon. More people buy
at retail stores, though, and while some of the hotter movies on sale
right now are only $5 difference in price, most movies are around
$10-15 difference in price.
However much a difference it is, for most people, that's money well
saved for more important things.
> --
Tomcat
>
> So I expect Blu-ray to be around for a long time. It provides the
> ideal viewing experience at the highest practical resolution. As more
> people try out Blu-ray, more people will stick with Blu-ray. I'd
> never go back at this point. DVDs look like mud. Anybody who
> concludes DVD to be "good enough" after watching a Blu-ray either has
> poor vision or just isn't very discerning. At $3 or $4 more per movie
> it's money well spent.
>
The only thing I can see potentially threatening BR (and all present
and future disc formats) is some type of flash memory storage
alternative. I could see the potential for blockbuster to eventually
be turned into nothing more than a kiosk where you plug in your flash
memory device and copy a movie encoded for viewing for a limited
amount of time or stores selling movies on write-once flash memory
chips.
GMAN
>On Dec 9, 8:00=A0pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>> The only time where I, and most others, will have a need for BR, is if th=
>e
>> DVD market evaporates. I would venture to say that the next version of
>r
>> DVD.
>
>I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
>for a while. After all, what is the demand for the development of a
>new version of a Hi-def disc? TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
>BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. I agree upscaling
>DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
>soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
>BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
>starting to narrow rapidly.
the shelves there now are Blu Ray
The alMIGHTY N
It would be nice to see a breakdown of actual habits - how often do
people play online. It simply says that respondents indicated that
they do or don't play games online. If I play online a couple times a
month, I'm still playing online yet I wouldn't have much of an
incentive to go out of my way to set up the network - I just do it
quick and dirty. If I play online every single day for 2+ hours, I'd
have more of an incentive to put effort into my network configuration.
It's interesting that online usage would have gone DOWN. I suppose
this could be for any number of reasons - 360 users shifting to the
PS3, gamers just not interested in gaming anymore, the less frequent
online gamers completely stopping, a higher percentage of non-online
gamers being new purchasers from 2007 to 2009...
I wish they'd make more data public... I'm not interested in paying
the money to get the reports. :-)
The alMIGHTY N
When the prices come down a bit, we'll see a lot more adoption. What
is the right price? Wal-mart seems to think $78 and reports that an
internal survey shows 80% of mothers would upgrade their system if
"the price was right."
Tomcat
> Blu-ray will indeed replace DVD *much* slower than DVD replaced VHS
> because the difference in quality, while technically significant, is
> not nearly as noticeable to the human eye in the most common settings
> and does not have the benefit of all the useful, practical features
>
BR players will totally replace DVD players at retailers much faster
faster than DVD players replaced VHS due to BR players being backward
compatible with DVD. There is no incentive to carry DVD players when
BR players close to the same price will play everything.
What will be slower though, as you point out, is consumers with fully
functioning DVD players tossing them aside and going out and buying a
BR player just to get that smaller increase in video quality.
GMAN
>On Dec 9, 9:36=A0pm, AGENT47 <ks...@4email.net> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 6:40=A0pm, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > The hard drive is unnecessary for many millions of gamers as well. And
>> > by gamers I mean everyone and not just hardcore gamers.
>>
>> > Wi-fi, too, is unnecessary for many millions of gamers *and* many more
>> > millions of gamers than in the case of the hard drive. There are just
>> > about 20 million *total* Xbox Live members right now and most of them
>> > are not paying for Gold status.
>>
>> > The fact of the matter is that most gamers do not play games online
>> > which eliminates the need for wi-fi.
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> from an old survey in 2007 -
>>
>> "According to a new study issued by consumer and retail information
>> company The NPD Group, 62 percent of all players of video games report
>> that they play games online."
>>
>>
>> "2007 data- =A0At 54 percent, the Xbox 360 had the highest percentage of
>> online use among video game systems"
>>
>> "At 50%, Xbox 360 remains the console online gaming leader, despite
>> the noteworthy changes among other major console systems."
>>
>> http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/multimedia/display/20090311134751_Online...
>
>It would be nice to see a breakdown of actual habits - how often do
>people play online. It simply says that respondents indicated that
>they do or don't play games online. If I play online a couple times a
>month, I'm still playing online yet I wouldn't have much of an
>incentive to go out of my way to set up the network - I just do it
>quick and dirty. If I play online every single day for 2+ hours, I'd
>have more of an incentive to put effort into my network configuration.
>
>It's interesting that online usage would have gone DOWN. I suppose
>this could be for any number of reasons - 360 users shifting to the
>PS3, gamers just not interested in gaming anymore, the less frequent
>online gamers completely stopping, a higher percentage of non-online
>gamers being new purchasers from 2007 to 2009...
>
>I wish they'd make more data public... I'm not interested in paying
>the money to get the reports. :-)
of the player not going onling?
The alMIGHTY N
I was indeed referring to consumer adoption of the technology when I
said that "Blu-ray will replace DVD *much* slower than DVD replaced
VHS." Regardless of how retailers position the hardware, it is
ultimately consumer need that will drive adoption rates.
Considering that people don't buy new disc players on a regular basis,
it really isn't going to make *that* much of a difference if, say, Wal-
mart decided to go 70-30 on their Blu-ray and DVD hardware shelf
space.
As far as DVD consumers who just recently had to replace their DVD
player and ended up with a Blu-ray player, I don't think it's a given
that every one of them, or even a majority of them, are going to
automatically buy the Blu-ray for every new movie they purchase.
If one buys a lot of movies where the $5-10 difference adds up, I
don't think it's so cut and dry that they'll spend that extra money
for the Blu-ray if all they have right now is DVDs, anyway, especially
when you're talking about people who shop at, say, Best Buy, where
there's a $10-15 difference in the price of a Blu-ray and its DVD
counterpart.
I'm just surprised at how vehemently some of the videophiles/
technophiles here insist that Joe Sixpack has the same priorities and
level of discernment as they do.
The alMIGHTY N
I was referring to how the percentage of Xbox 360 gamers playing on
Xbox Live has dropped a bit from 2007 to 2009.
If a person abandons their Xbox 360 and goes full bore into the
PlayStation 3, they wouldn't be counted as part of the "Xbox 360
online gaming" statistic anymore.
Of course, depending on who the questions were written, people who own
both systems and play online via PSN only could still have responded
that yes they own a 360 and yes they game online but then obviously a
transition from one to the other would not have affected the
statistics in their case.
The alMIGHTY N
Off-topic from this already off-topic post...
Blu-ray rental for nine cents an hour?!
Tom
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:20c23f96-1173-4da0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I am think that SSDs or some memory type stick will be the future and they
are (relatively) coming down in price faster than BR is now. The read speed
is phenomenal a I have an SSD in my rig now. Programs don't just load fast,
they just seem to be there loaded already when you open them, it is that
fast.
Tom
"Bill Cable" <bill...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:51e0e135-3cc6-43e4...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 10, 8:20 am, Tomcat <tom_overton_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
>> for a while. After all, what is the demand for the development of a
>> new version of a Hi-def disc? TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
>> BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. I agree upscaling
>> DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
>> soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
>> BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
>> starting to narrow rapidly.
>
> 1080p will be the max resolution we'll see for a long time. Optically
> it's really the highest resolution we can appreciate. Check this out:
>
> http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
>
> To fully notice the difference between 1080p and 1440p (the next
> resolution up) you need to sit 5' away from a 50" screen. Nobody
> views TV like that. To even begin to see a difference at 10' away you
> need an 80" screen. Would you even want an 80" screen if they became
> affordable? And to fully appreciate 1440p at 10' you need a 100"
> screen. That's 8 and a half feet diagonal!
Well, that is the point I made about upscaling and BR, you don't see very
much difference unless you're very close., no one sits like that in front of
their TVs as you give in the example above.
Well, from a viewing perspective, you're wrong. You have to have at least a
42" HDTV and bigger just to begin to notice the difference between upscaled
DVDs and BR and that's in close range. My brother was crowing over his 42"
Vizio and his new BR player over Thanksgiving, I just didn't have the heart
to tell him that I didn't see much difference between his Star Trek flick on
his Vizio and how my upscaler looks on my 36" Vizio. Like I said, you need
to have a sizeable TV to notice a difference. Most people don't sit within
5' of their TVs and from a farther distance, you're damn near not going to
notice anything. No matter how much you want this to mean what you state
technically, it doesn't add up to your numbers viewing wise in the real
world. Human vision doesn't change nor improve from distances because BR is
being used.
>
> So I expect Blu-ray to be around for a long time. It provides the
> ideal viewing experience at the highest practical resolution. As more
> people try out Blu-ray, more people will stick with Blu-ray. I'd
> never go back at this point. DVDs look like mud. Anybody who
> concludes DVD to be "good enough" after watching a Blu-ray either has
> poor vision or just isn't very discerning. At $3 or $4 more per movie
> it's money well spent.
Well, from a viewing perspective, you're wrong. You have to have at least a
42" HDTV and bigger just to begin to notice the difference between upscaled
DVDs and BR and that's in close range. My brother was crowing over his 42"
Vizio and his new BR player over Thanksgiving, I just didn't have the heart
to tell him that I didn't see much difference between his Star Trek flick on
his Vizio and how my upscaler looks on my 36" Vizio. Like I said, you need
to have a sizeable TV to notice a difference. Most people don't sit within
5' of their TVs and from a farther distance, you're damn near not going to
notice anything. No matter how much you want this to mean what you state
technically, it doesn't add up to your numbers viewing wise in the real
world. Human vision doesn't change nor improve from distances because BR is
being used.
The alMIGHTY N
> "Bill Cable" <billca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Is there an echo in here? ;-)
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:20c23f96-1173-4da0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
This topic came up in another discussion recently. The actual material
costs for Blu-ray works out to a matter of cents per disc right now.
The cost is nowhere near what a consumer pays. I don't see SSD costs
coming down to that level anytime soon.
Would it be nice? Sure. Should we expect it within the next generation
or two? Probably not.
Tom
"The alMIGHTY N" <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ca8001cf-ae8d-4c91...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Yeah, don't know what happened there. Windows 7 is funny sometimes. I think
I was copying in another program, while I was composing her at the same
time. I have a bad habit of multitasking while I compose here.
AGENT47
>
> - Show quoted text -
My Mom purchased a Blu-Ray player on impulse at Costco for only $50
Vizio.
There were Samsung's for $100 more with exact same features , she said
she needed a SamSung because her TV is a Samsung and they are more
likely compatible together.lol
I told her you can mix brands . I was gonna tell her to go ahead and
get the Samsung , but after looking at the Vizio they both were
identical , both had Ethernet , digital audio out , and the Vizio has
a silver aluminum metal disc tray and a nice invisible front fascia,
while the Samsung has cheap plastic covering.
Just looking at the 2 very closely the Vizio has more 'love' put into
it.
I'm impressed with some of the Vizio products as of late, if your on a
budget they are decent quality and being a young company they are
hungry for good word of mouth.
We've watched quite a few movies on it and no problems,fast load times
for Blu-rays and fast remote response. For $50 you could by 3 for the
price of the Samsung.
She saved $100 over a cheap looking Samsung version .
She called me lately and said she's been hooked on Blu-Ray movies and
won't even get the regular DVD's anymore, she'll wait till there on
Blu-Ray.
The Vizio even came with a HDMI cable , the Samsung didn't not bad for
$50.
Although it was a 1 hour sale they are back up to $100 at Costco.
Jonah Falcon
PS3 was in 3rd place for November.
Tom
> Smoked?
>
> PS3 was in 3rd place for November.
Yeah, N.A. isn't the only place where consoles sell.
The alMIGHTY N
> "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:ca8001cf-ae8d-4c91...@f16g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
It's happened to me in the past but not to that extent. I'd be writing
code in one app and then I'd switch to Google to do a search and when
I'd return to the first app, some of my keywords would be in the code.
The alMIGHTY N
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My Mom purchased a Blu-Ray player on impulse at Costco for only $50
> Vizio.
That's a great price. Costco rules. I love Costco. We need to see
those kinds of prices at retail, though, since most people don't shop
at wholesale warehouses.
> There were Samsung's for $100 more with exact same features , she said
> she needed a SamSung because her TV is a Samsung and they are more
> likely compatible together.lol
$150 at Costco?!? Jesus...
> I told her you can mix brands . I was gonna tell her to go ahead and
> get the Samsung , but after looking at the Vizio they both were
> identical , both had Ethernet , digital audio out , and the Vizio has
> a silver aluminum metal disc tray and a nice invisible front fascia,
> while the Samsung has cheap plastic covering.
>
> Just looking at the 2 very closely the Vizio has more 'love' put into
> it.
>
> I'm impressed with some of the Vizio products as of late, if your on a
> budget they are decent quality and being a young company they are
> hungry for good word of mouth.
Vizio and LG have come a long way as far as brand recognition. I
remember back when they first entered the market and people wouldn't
touch either brand with a 10 foot pole.
> We've watched quite a few movies on it and no problems,fast load times
> for Blu-rays and fast remote response. For $50 you could by 3 for the
> price of the Samsung.
>
> She saved $100 over a cheap looking Samsung version .
>
> She called me lately and said she's been hooked on Blu-Ray movies and
> won't even get the regular DVD's anymore, she'll wait till there on
> Blu-Ray.
I tend to have this mindset as well. My wife, on the other hand,
couldn't give a crap what quality she's watching. Well, that's not
true... she obviously prefers watching in better quality but she
doesn't let that affect her decision making process.
> The Vizio even came with a HDMI cable , the Samsung didn't not bad for
> $50.
I'll have to keep that in mind if I'm on the market for one. I already
purchased an Insignia for my father earlier this year and I have one
myself. My extended family doesn't really do much gift giving anymore
now that my generation is well into adulthood. It's mainly just
everyone giving gifts to my kids so it works out great for me. :-)
The alMIGHTY N
>
> PS3 was in 3rd place for November.
LOL
As usual, you ignored, intentionally or not, what Tom actually stated
in his post. The PlayStation 3 did indeed outsell the Xbox 360 by a
significant margin both worldwide and specifically in North America
during the last week of November.
What's interesting is that despite the PlayStation 3's better sales
during the Thanksgiving holiday period (thanks mainly to retailer
promotions that were much better for the PlayStation 3 than for the
Xbox 360), the Xbox 360 still managed to outsell the PlayStation 3
over the whole month of November in North America.
Unfortunately for you and yours, Xbox 360 fanboys can't claim total
victory as the PlayStation 3 still outsold the Xbox 360 on a worldwide
basis for the month of November.
Tempest
> On Dec 9, 8:00 pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The only time where I, and most others, will have a need for BR, is if the
> > DVD market evaporates. I would venture to say that the next version of
> > DVD.
>
> I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
> for a while. After all, what is the demand for the development of a
> new version of a Hi-def disc? TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
> BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. I agree upscaling
> DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
> soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
> BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
> starting to narrow rapidly.
That doesn't jibe with what Walmart (the largest seller of DVDs) has
done.
In all but a handful of their stores they have cut back on the number
of Blu-ray movies carried to increase space for standard DVDs.
It was written up in the retail trade magazines several months ago.
Tempest
Harry Potter went on sale on Tuesday.
I went to Walmart to pick it up yesterday and they were sold out of
the standard version selling for $9 and had only sold a few copies on
Blu-ray at $15. The shelf space for the standard version was at least
4x that of the Blu-ray copies.
Consumers are still price oriented in the entertainment market.
Another indication of this is the price wars you are seeing in many
cities at the movie chains. Regal and Reading cinemas have been in a
price war in my town for the last couple of months.
GMAN
>On Dec 10, 5:20=A0am, Tomcat <tom_overton_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 9, 8:00=A0pm, "Tom" <no...@nothere.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > The only time where I, and most others, will have a need for BR, is if =
>the
>> > DVD market evaporates. I would venture to say that the next version of
>ver
>> > DVD.
>>
>> I'm not so sure BR won't be the replacement for the DVD and stay there
>> new version of a Hi-def disc? =A0TV's can accept at most 1080p input and
>> BR easily accomodates that for any length movie. =A0I agree upscaling
>> DVD is good enough for most people, but the fact is BR players will
>> soon be about all you can buy as stores start filling shelf space with
>> BR players to replace DVD players since the prices between the two are
>> starting to narrow rapidly.
>
>That doesn't jibe with what Walmart (the largest seller of DVDs) has
>done.
>
>In all but a handful of their stores they have cut back on the number
>of Blu-ray movies carried to increase space for standard DVDs.
>
>It was written up in the retail trade magazines several months ago.
space is filled with Blu Ray players with only one DVD only player.
And they are increasing space for blu ray disks here. Maybe you live in one of
those towns with a smallmart LOL!!!!!!
The alMIGHTY N
Where did you read in his post that he was talking about a Wal-mart
near him? He specifically stated that he read an article in a trade
magazine talking about how *most* Wal-marts are doing what he
described. It seems like contrary to what you believe, your local Wal-
mart is one of the minority, maybe because you live in a more populous
area?
The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
City.
Miles Bader
> The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
> available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
> City.
It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
-miles
--
Neighbor, n. One whom we are commanded to love as ourselves, and who does all
he knows how to make us disobedient.
jt august
<be6c47bb-f2a4-470f...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Cable <bill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And I know quite a few people for whom Blu-ray was the
> tipping factor in buying a PS3.
That observation may be personally tipped by the people you are
assocatiated with. I personally know of no one in my circle of friends
for whom Blu-Ray had any impact on their choice of PS3. And I know
people with large HD flat screens who chose the Wii despite its HD
support, because of the games. I know people who chose 360 because they
actually like MS and their computers, and see a close alignment between
the two. And I know people who have HD TVs with their SD only
satellites and the composite cable from their DVD plays, and they
stretch the SD pic wide to fill their HD aspect ratio, and they are very
happy.
It really varies by person and what they want. And what they are
willing to pay for.
jt
jt august
<20c23f96-1173-4da0...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
The alMIGHTY N <natl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> And that's exactly how most people choose their gaming console.
> They're buying a gaming console because they want to play games.
> Watching movies, especially Blu-rays, is a bonus feature that only
> some are going to partake in.
As far as Sony game console go, I wonder how many shy away from watching
blu-ray on their PS3 because they remember the early ps/2 DVD debacle?
jt
GMAN
>The alMIGHTY N <natl...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
>> available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
>> City.
>
>It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
>
>-miles
>
The alMIGHTY N
> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
> > available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
> > City.
>
> It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
LOL
Wal-mart *is* the nation's biggest retailer, though...
GMAN
>On Dec 12, 8:16=A0pm, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> > The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
>> > available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
>> > City.
>>
>> It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
>
>LOL
>
>Wal-mart *is* the nation's biggest retailer, though...
>
Actually they are the worlds largest retailer.
>> -miles
>>
>> --
>> Neighbor, n. One whom we are commanded to love as ourselves, and who does=
The alMIGHTY N
> In article <0665107d-2ed6-4981-b47f-42a8bb399...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Dec 12, 8:16=A0pm, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> > The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
> >> > available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
> >> > City.
>
> >> It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
>
> >LOL
>
> >Wal-mart *is* the nation's biggest retailer, though...
>
> Actually they are the worlds largest retailer.
I know they are as a whole... but I don't know if the Wal-mart brand,
which really only exists in the U.S. is the biggest retail brand in
the world. Sam's Club is a different brand under the same parent
company, and in other countries they operate under very different
branding.
In any case, our discussions have been pretty localized so I'm only
focused on the nation. :-)
The alMIGHTY N
>
> >On Dec 12, 8:16=A0pm, Miles Bader <mi...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >> The alMIGHTY N <natle...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> > The two Wal-marts nearest me still have plenty of DVD players
> >> > available and a LOT more DVDs than Blu-rays. And I live near New York
> >> > City.
>
> >> It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
>
> >LOL
>
> >Wal-mart *is* the nation's biggest retailer, though...
>
> Actually they are the worlds largest retailer.
You're right... it's even the biggest public corporation in the world.
Great article on the double-edged sword that doing business with Wal-
mart is for companies...
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
Miles Bader
>>> It's very sad that the discussion comes down to comparing walmarts...
>>
>>LOL
>>
>>Wal-mart *is* the nation's biggest retailer, though...
>
> Actually they are the worlds largest retailer.
That's why it's so sad...
:(
-miles
--
Electricity, n. The cause of all natural phenomena not known to be caused by
something else.