Support NeoGAF

[Opus Angelorum]

I suppose you are right, but man that is just silly. If you choose to be an early adopter during a format war, you take your chances and really have no right to complain.

I don't think anyone is complaining as such, more disappointed.

 

[OokieSpookie]

not only stupid, but there obviously have to be a lot of HD-DVD-only users out there who are feeling screwed by this. It is definitely in Sony's best interest to make them feel better about this turn of events. And as bill hunt suggested, if they made it a cutoff (say 12/1/07) there are only a finite amount of consumers they have to appease. you can add up the dollars and cents on something like that from the get go.

I am still hoping some money is paid out to get Paramount and Universal over. Unfortunately the inconvenience of all of this isn't over until all studios are releasing on one format. But it probably is a good idea to make sure the 1M users out there simply feel a bit inconvenienced by HDMedia vs entirely screwed and left out in the cold by it.

Hd users knew that there would have to be one winner.
Magazines, news stories, everything called it a war and they made a choice.
They went with the cheap option instead of the smart option.
Buyer beware.
They deserve nothing.
Period.
Toshiba is STILL playing the jackass by still dragging this out and it is THEM that is hurting hd users and will continue to do so because there are still plenty of people who hate sony enough.
I sure as hell didn't see anyone making offers when Paramount jumped and now people are all boo hooing?

 

[Opus Angelorum]

They went with the cheap option instead of the smart option.

The studios have determined which format will succeed, rather than the consumer. That for me is not the smart option.

 

[fse]

Just saw the US PSN trailer for the Shakira Tour Blu-ray. Fuck.

Ordered.

5/5 PQ and 4/5 AQ from most HD reviewers.

I hope Sony-BMG and Universal Music Group continue to expand their concert Blu-ray offerings. HDTV and HD optical was made for this shit.

Shakira

 

[Beer Monkey]

The studios have determined which format will succeed, rather than the consumer. That for me is not the smart option.

That's why I laugh at the people who think Bill Gates could possibly choose the revenue and DRM models for Digital Delivery. The studios are like the mafia about this stuff.

 

[fse]

Hd users knew that there would have to be one winner.
Magazines, news stories, everything called it a war and they made a choice.
They went with the cheap option instead of the smart option.
Buyer beware.
They deserve nothing.
Period.
Toshiba is STILL playing the jackass by still dragging this out and it is THEM that is hurting hd users and will continue to do so because there are still plenty of people who hate sony enough.
I sure as hell didn't see anyone making offers when Paramount jumped and now people are all boo hooing?

to be fair, doesn't toshiba make all their players full spec? most br players might not be able to play bd 2.0 soon if they aren't up to spec.

 

[bill0527]

The studios have determined which format will succeed, rather than the consumer. That for me is not the smart option.

How is it that the studios decided this and not consumers, when Blu-Ray discs outsold HD-DVD discs 60/40, sometimes 70/30 all year long, and even sold more stand alones during the holidays, even though HD-DVD players were about $200 cheaper than the lowest end Blu-Ray player?

 

[nubbe]

Also, HD-DVD arent even relevant in EU or Japan.

 

[fse]

How is it that the studios decided this and not consumers, when Blu-Ray discs outsold HD-DVD discs 60/40, sometimes 70/30 all year long, and even sold more stand alones during the holidays, even though HD-DVD players were about $200 cheaper than the lowest end Blu-Ray player?

true, think he meant wb should have stayed neutral a bit more.

 

[polyh3dron]

The studios have determined which format will succeed, rather than the consumer. That for me is not the smart option.

Nielsen VideoScan media sales figures and NPD hardware sales figures say a big, fat NO.

 

[OokieSpookie]

to be fair, doesn't toshiba make all their players full spec? most br players might not be able to play bd 2.0 soon if they aren't up to spec.

Which has what to do with what I said?
Every movie will play on every blu ray player, period.
Access to additional features is determined by which gen player you have but has nothing to do with the main features.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

How is it that the studios decided this and not consumers, when Blu-Ray discs outsold HD-DVD discs 60/40, sometimes 70/30 all year long, and even sold more stand alones during the holidays, even though HD-DVD players were about $200 cheaper than the lowest end Blu-Ray player?

I never like to use numbers for an argument, I do agree however that they are significant.

What I was alluding too is that for the consumer, HD-DVD was a much more friendly format in regards to feature set (no regional restrictions) and pricing.

 

[dallow_bg]

Hey Funai is still making that "cheap" BD player.

Too bad Sony and Samsung players have already hit the sub-300 market.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Funai/CES_2008/CES:_Funais_Sub-$300_Blu-ray_Player/1341

 

[Suikoguy]

I never like to use numbers for an argument, I do agree however that they are significant.

What I was alluding too is that for the consumer, HD-DVD was a much more friendly format in regards to feature set (no regional restrictions) and pricing.

Right, but the no Regional Restrictions, is one of the major reason it did not have studio support.

 

[smurfx]

I never like to use numbers for an argument, I do agree however that they are significant.

What I was alluding too is that for the consumer, HD-DVD was a much more friendly format in regards to feature set (no regional restrictions) and pricing.

if it was that much friendlier then people would of chosen hd-dvd. obviously people didn't care and went with blu ray. the people have chosen and they chose blu ray.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Right, but the no Regional Restrictions, is one of the major reason it did not have studio support.

Exactly my point.

 

[borghe]

How is it that the studios decided this and not consumers, when Blu-Ray discs outsold HD-DVD discs 60/40, sometimes 70/30 all year long, and even sold more stand alones during the holidays, even though HD-DVD players were about $200 cheaper than the lowest end Blu-Ray player?

touting those numbers though taking into account studio exclusives is pointless. Which format had more blockbusters on it? Which format had more must-have catalog titles on it? Which catalog had more mass appealing hits on it?

I mean all year long I've read this thread where it was specifically brought up how barren the HD-DVD schedule looked at times, and then in the next breath you really want to turn around and say "The consumers made their choice!" No they didn't, they bought the movies they wanted to buy and blu-ray had more of those movies exclusive. That's not a choice on what format to support, that's just a choice on what movies you want to buy.

Had all studios been neutral, for all we know HD-DVD could be declaring itself the winner tonight. The point is that the only choice the consumers were truly given had no real bearing on the outcome of this format war, because at the end of the day "brd vs. HD-DVD" was never there at a choice. Only "Do I pick up Spider-Man 3 or not" o "Do I pick up Transformers or not" Doesn't sound like a single choice based on consumer education in the bunch.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

Vae victis

Toshiba Shares Fall After Warner Backs Sony's Blu-Ray (Update1)

By Mikako Nakajima and Yoshinori Eki
Enlarge Image/Details

Jan. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Toshiba Corp. shares fell to a nine- month low after Time Warner Inc., the world's largest publisher of DVD titles, abandoned the Japanese company's HD DVD format to adopt Sony Corp.'s Blu-ray technology.

Time Warner's decision may tip the balance in Sony's favor in the home theater industry's biggest format war since VHS beat Betamax two decades ago. Warner Bros. Entertainment, which had been releasing movies based on both technologies, said on Jan. 4 it will drop Toshiba's standard at the end of May.

``It's a game-changing event, game over for HD DVD,'' Macquarie Securities Ltd. analyst David Gibson said in an e-mail today. ``Other studios will follow'' industry leader Warner, which distributes more than 300 million DVDs a year, Gibson said.

Toshiba, HD DVD's leading promoter, declined 2.3 percent to 783 yen, its lowest since March 28, at the close on the Tokyo Stock Exchange. Tokyo-based Sony, the world's second-largest consumer electronics maker, climbed 0.7 percent. The Nikkei 225 Stock Average fell 1.2 percent.

Toshiba is disappointed with Warner's decision, Keisuke Ohmori, a spokesman for the Tokyo-based company, said by telephone from Las Vegas today, reiterating comments in Toshiba's Jan. 4 statement.

``We will assess the potential impact of this announcement with the other HD DVD partner companies and evaluate potential next steps,'' he said.

HD DVD has six times the recording capacity of current DVDs, while Blu-ray has five times more storage, based on data from the Web sites for the two standards. Blu-ray disks outsold HD DVD by two to one in the first half of 2007, according to Home Media Research.

Joining Disney, Fox

``We think Warner prefers Blu-ray because consumers have clearly chosen BD as the next-generation DVD format,'' Masayo Endo, a spokeswoman for Sony, said by telephone from Tokyo. She declined to comment on the impact on sales of Blu-ray players in the U.S.

Warner Bros., the second-largest studio in U.S. box-office receipts last year, joins Walt Disney Co. and News Corp.'s Fox in backing Blu-ray. The top studio, Viacom Inc.'s Paramount Pictures, DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. and General Electric Co.'s Universal Pictures endorse HD DVD.

The North American HD DVD Promotion Group, which promotes the Toshiba-backed format, canceled a press conference on Jan. 5 in the U.S. after Warner's announcement.

Warner's backing may also help sales of Sony's PlayStation 3 game consoles, which includes a built-in Blu-ray player.

Sony today said it sold 1.2 million PlayStation 3 machines in the U.S. during the year-end shopping season. That's more than double the 466,000 PlayStation 3s sold in the U.S. in November, according to data from Port Washington, New York-based NPD.

VHS vs. Betamax

The standoff revives memories of the format war during the 1980s, when the VHS videotape technology created by Victor Co. of Japan beat Sony's Betamax as the dominant standard.

``Content was always going to be the determinant of the winner of the formats as it was in VHS/Betamax,'' Macquarie's Gibson said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Mikako Nakajima in Tokyo at mikako@bloomberg.net ; Yoshinori Eki in Tokyo at yeki@bloomberg.net .
Last Updated: January 7, 2008 02:45 EST

 

[OokieSpookie]

The studios have determined which format will succeed, rather than the consumer. That for me is not the smart option.

Even though your stance is well known so this is all moot, I still want to know what it takes for you to say that the consumer decided?

CONSUMERS bought more movies week after week on blu.
If you want to say it is because of which studio is where, we can even ignore that.
When a movie was released on BOTH formats at the same price and at the same time, consumers STILL chose blu more.
How does that not say that the consumer decided?
52 fucking weeks in a row and more to come, week in and week out.

 

[Laurent]

The DVD format is not going anywhere. It's the main and only movie medium. Only enthusiasts knows about the HD formats.

I meant to said that the transition will not start before a minimum of 5 years. That means that we will start to see stronger sales figures of BRD in 2013...

 

[Snah]

Even though your stance is well known so this is all moot, I still want to know what it takes for you to say that the consumer decided?

CONSUMERS bought more movies week after week on blu.
If you want to say it is because of which studio is where, we can even ignore that.
When a movie was released on BOTH formats at the same price and at the same time, consumers STILL chose blu more.
How does that not say that the consumer decided?
52 fucking weeks in a row and more to come, week in and week out.

He thinks that all there was to this decision was a payout.

I don't think that's true. Sure, money may have exchanged hands, but you have to believe that Warner also chose sides based upon consumer trends and the adoption of Blu-Ray; hell, they've made that BLATANTLY clear with their press release.

He doesn't have much ground to stand on when he says consumers didn't play a part in this war. They did. Warner just made ending it a whole lot quickers/easier rather than needlessly dragging this out.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

Hey Funai is still making that "cheap" BD player.

Too bad Sony and Samsung players have already hit the sub-300 market.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Funai/CES_2008/CES:_Funais_Sub-$300_Blu-ray_Player/1341

really?? Where?

 

[borghe]

Even though your stance is well known so this is all moot, I still want to know what it takes for you to say that the consumer decided?

CONSUMERS bought more movies week after week on blu.

read my post above. Exclusives were setup from day one, and BRD had three of the biggest studios exclusive from day one vs. HD-DVD having only two. By the time HD-DVD gained its third one, one of its original ones went neutral. This means that 5 studios worth of material were exclusive to one format or the other. Thus if I wanted to buy Batman Begins, it wasn't making a decision between Blu-ray or HD-DVD, it was making a decision between buying it or not. If I wanted to buy King Kong on Blu-ray, I could never voice that opinion.

And while it's nice to be able to point out numbers like 300, again those are pointless considering those division lines between the studios have been cast from day one.

all of this crowing about consumers making the choice is shit. Consumers bought the movies they wanted in the only format it was available in, except for warner movies, and more than likely purchasers of warner movies bought it for the only format they owned, thanks to having to make a choice in the first place based solely off of which format had more movies they would be interested in. that's not consumers making a choice over which format they wanted but over which movies they wanted to watch. to test this logic, do you honestly believe the story would have ended the same way had the studio situation been reversed?

He thinks that all there was to this decision was a payout.

I don't think any rational person thinks that. But saying it was consumer choice is completely disregarding the fact that consumers had to make their choice about what format to watch their movies based on studio support since the launch of both.

 

[OokieSpookie]

He thinks that all there was to this decision was a payout.

I don't think that's true. Sure, money may have exchanged hands, but you have to believe that Warner also chose sides based upon consumer trends and the adoption of Blu-Ray; hell, they've made that BLATANTLY clear with their press release.

He doesn't have much ground to stand on when he says consumers didn't play a part in this war. They did. Warner just made ending it a whole lot quickers/easier rather than needlessly dragging this out.

I hope there were payoffs.
I hope they had coke filled orgies on piles of payoff cash and took pics to send to Toshiba.
They made their bed when they bought Paramount, so let them sleep in it.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Even though your stance is well known so this is all moot, I still want to know what it takes for you to say that the consumer decided?

My stance is that I own more Blu-Ray movies than HD-DVD, why? Because it's the only format they were available on.

 

[borghe]

My stance is that I own more Blu-Ray movies than HD-DVD, why? Because it's the only format they were available on.

pretty much. when you prop up pirates trilogy, ratatouille, spider-man 3, superbad, etc up against transformers and bourne supermacy, there isn't much there. and considering 2006 is a similar story.... people didn't support the format they preferred, they bought the movies they wanted to watch.

 

[avaya]

really?? Where?

they aren't profile 1.1 players though, the Funai (Sylvania) is.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Consumers didn't really pick, but so what? Picture quality is the same, basically, between the two, and the movies cost the same. The rest is just small details. You had two essentially undifferentiated formats. There was the player cost difference pre-PS3, but post PS3 it's been somewhere around $100-$150 depending on when-- and that's only 3-4 movies' price difference.

You didn't need the consumer to decide this, both products were fine. You needed to get the studios to all back one format. Blu-ray one that game.

 

[borghe]

I agree with you completely. 100%. I just take exception with the utterly wrong insistence that consumers picked the superior product. whether superior or not, consumer choice from the beginning had nothing to do with it. I don't doubt that warner's decision was based on sales figures from the holiday season, but again those numbers are not based in true consumer choice, but simply what format they could buy their favorite movies in.

as I just said, had the studio situation been turned 180°, I have no doubt that HD-DVD would be the one celebrating tonight.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

So is a Profile 1.1 a Blu thing? Don't have clue #1 what that is.

 

[Oni Jazar]

So much bickering over vapid PR statements. Did consumers have a choice? Yes! They could have voted with their wallets, paid for HD DVD players and movies and shunned BD content. Was it a balanced decision? If all studios were neutral (and content quality were equal) then why the hell would anyone buy a more expensive, feature incomplete BD player? But when studios made their alignment on day one it was clear that BD had a larger collection of exclusive content, and the consumers decided on purchasing more BD titles and eventually more BD standalones. So what did HD DVD do to fight this? Cheaper players.

Warner wanted to see if the cheap HD DVD players in Q4 could trump the more expensive BD players + PS3. But by the end of the year it was evident that BD still sold more any way you look at it so to the victor goes the spoils.

 

[bill0527]

But saying it was consumer choice is completely disregarding the fact that consumers had to make their choice about what format to watch their movies based on studio support since the launch of both.

And most consumers chose to do nothing because of this very fact.

Warner's decision was based on the hope that they could get those people off the sidelines and get them to invest in a Hi-Def player, and they based their decision on which side to go with because of sales trends.

 

[Xisiqomelir]

I agree with you completely. 100%. I just take exception with the utterly wrong insistence that consumers picked the superior product. whether superior or not, consumer choice from the beginning had nothing to do with it. I don't doubt that warner's decision was based on sales figures from the holiday season, but again those numbers are not based in true consumer choice, but simply what format they could buy their favorite movies in.

I disagree with this "true consumer choice" argument. In gaming, we realize that releases aren't always going to be multiplat, and that exclusivity and limited selections on each platform are going to be a given. Consumers made a choice based on what was presented to them in the market, and there's no reason to deprecate that choice because the selection of offered products didn't meet a standard of freedom that will never really exist outside of hypothesis.

 

[borghe]

So is a Profile 1.1 a Blu thing? Don't have clue #1 what that is.

yes. the biggest feature of 1.1 is multiple video stream allowing for picture-in-picture content.

just buy a PS3 and you don't have to worry about blu-ray profiles

Warner's decision was based on the hope that they could get those people off the sidelines and get them to invest in a Hi-Def player, and they based their decision on which side to go with because of sales trends.

as I said, I agree with this completely. However this was based off the skewing of the formats from the start, not some educated decision consumers made over the past two years. did BRD have the upperhand from the beginning? Absolutely... but then say that, don't try and prop it up behind "consumer choice". Not you in particular, just in general.

I disagree with this "true consumer choice" argument. In gaming, we realize that releases aren't always going to be multiplat, and that exclusivity and limited selections on each platform are going to be a given. Consumers made a choice based on what was presented to them in the market, and there's no reason to deprecate that choice because the selection of offered products didn't meet a standard of freedom that will never really exist outside of hypothesis.

the problem with your assertion is that the movie market has never seen a division like this. Even going back to betamax releases were not this segregated (though I was only about 5-8 at the time, from what I've read and remember). This was really the first time a movie viewer has ever had to choose "between" systems. And I think honest to god most didn't. They just did as I said. They bought the format that had the movie they wanted. I even believe there are a lot more dual format supporters out there than speak up. That's what it was for me at least. I wanted Transformers and Batman Begins, but I also wanted Meet the Robinsons and Ratatouille.

 

[VictimOfGrief]

yes. the biggest feature of 1.1 is multiple video stream allowing for picture-in-picture content.

just buy a PS3 and you don't have to worry about blu-ray profiles

Well that was/is the beauty of the 360 add-on, it updates when Toshiba pushed the updates.

Choices, choices.

 

[Mifune]

pretty much. when you prop up pirates trilogy, ratatouille, spider-man 3, superbad, etc up against transformers and bourne supermacy, there isn't much there. and considering 2006 is a similar story.... people didn't support the format they preferred, they bought the movies they wanted to watch.

I actually think HD-DVD has many more titles I would want to buy. Unfortunately for HD-DVD, they are mostly catalog titles...good movies, but older ones that aren't going to entice most early adopters. Blu-Ray has most of the big blockbuster-type titles that cater to the hardcore AV fans. Warner seems to be the only BD studio willing to dig into their library a bit, so I'm quite happy they've gone BD exclusive.

 

[bill0527]

So is a Profile 1.1 a Blu thing? Don't have clue #1 what that is.

Yes it is. Each Blu-Ray profile 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 is about having access to a feature set on a Blu-Ray disc.

A Blu-Ray disc may incorporate features that can only be used on a 1.1 BD player such as picture-in-picture. Blu Ray spec 2.0 is going to BD-Live and it will allow online interactive features. All Blu-Ray players will play the movie, no matter if its a 1.0, 1.1, or 2.0 player, its just that older BR players won't be able to take advantage of the latest features on the disc.

One of the knocks against Blu-Ray is that they haven't set the final spec yet.

The solution: Buy a PS3 because its the only forward compatible Blu-Ray player on the market.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

The solution: Buy a PS3 because its the only forward compatible Blu-Ray player on the market.

Indeed, and by far the best value as well.

 

[bill0527]

as I said, I agree with this completely. However this was based off the skewing of the formats from the start, not some educated decision consumers made over the past two years. did BRD have the upperhand from the beginning? Absolutely... but then say that, don't try and prop it up behind "consumer choice". Not you in particular, just in general.

But you can't really list this as a complaint because the consumers that jumped in, knew exactly who was lined up on each side. They still chose to make a purchase in a format and then sit back and pray that their side had the bigger wallet and PR machine. The people that jumped in KNEW that this is how it would have to play out from day 1. I don't see how you can fault anyone for this when everyone knew this was how the game was going to be played from the beginning.

 

[borghe]

But you can't really list this as a complaint because the consumers that jumped in, knew exactly who was lined up on each side. They still chose to make a purchase in a format and then sit back and pray that their side had the bigger wallet and PR machine. The people that jumped in KNEW that this is how it would have to play out from day 1. I don't see how you can fault anyone for this when everyone knew this was how the game was going to be played from the beginning.

not really. I consider myself bleeding edge as far as knowledge in technology AND pretty well versed in movies, and still except for the obvious ones (Disney animation, pixar, spider-man, etc) couldn't necessarily tell you with definite certainty which titles were coming out on which formats. and the studio flip flopping (paramount and warner) certainly didn't help matters. I honestly believe once you step outside of the internet message boards that most people didn't know (or care) which movies were coming out on which formats.

 

[OokieSpookie]

pretty much. when you prop up pirates trilogy, ratatouille, spider-man 3, superbad, etc up against transformers and bourne supermacy, there isn't much there. and considering 2006 is a similar story.... people didn't support the format they preferred, they bought the movies they wanted to watch.

That has nothing to do with same titles on both formats.

Studio support was lined up from day one?
Warner was hd exclusive from day one as were others, they did not shift until after.

 

[kaching]

Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion that consumer choice wasn't a factor. Oni, Xisiq and bill have already said the things I'd say. BD/HDDVD consumers could have just as easily chose not to buy into either format. Don't pull this BS about anyone's hands being tied just because a particular movie wasn't available on both formats.

 

[maharg]

But when studios made their alignment on day one it was clear that BD had a larger collection of exclusive content, and the consumers decided on purchasing more BD titles and eventually more BD standalones.

Let's be completely honest here. HD had plenty of exclusive content and had about as many releases overall as BD did. It wasn't until fairly recently that the content side of things *really* tilted either way, and then it was one way and then the other.

People bought into BD because of PS3 manifest destiny. The promise of more content on one side than the other was pure vapour (dare I say, FUD?) intended to make the decision seem more based on real consumer concerns instead of horse betting.

That PS3 domination didn't really happen is irrelevant, because even the Gamecube could have probably carried one of these formats at this point. Which is, I'll grant you, something that the HD-DVD side of things didn't really consider very carefully.

Oh yeah. Other things I'll miss about HD-DVD when it comes down to it:
- Region free
- Less draconian DRM (I want my 8TB HD/BD jukebox, damnit).

 

[Laurent]

I actually think HD-DVD has many more titles I would want to buy. Unfortunately for HD-DVD, they are mostly catalog titles...good movies, but older ones that aren't going to entice most early adopters. Blu-Ray has most of the big blockbuster-type titles that cater to the hardcore AV fans. Warner seems to be the only BD studio willing to dig into their library a bit, so I'm quite happy they've gone BD exclusive.

That would be Paramount to you, am I wrong? I haven't noticed many remastered oldies that would benefit much to be viewed in HD... then again, I bought Coming to America and Trading Places in BRD the week Paramount made the switch!

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The "consumers made a choice" angle only came up because a couple of people here were lamenting the fact that the studios decided things... I don't recall any of these people making noises when Paramount went from offering a format choice to HD-DVD only.

And *nobody* bought a format and movies before the ground rules were drawn up, because studio backing was an issue before either format went on sale.

Truth is, the studios' buy-in is always key to a new format success. Same issue occurred with DVD, with Disney and Fox not wanting to support open DVD and instead releasing (initially) on DiVX exclusively. This is not new.

 

[Oni Jazar]

To put it another way: The choice was between content or price.

 

[borghe]

Studio support was lined up from day one?
Warner was hd exclusive from day one as were others, they did not shift until after.

I said the studio split was setup from day one. On launch the only neutral studio was paramount. right now the only one is Warner. At any given time there have been 5 exclusive majors out there. That's a big fucking deal when you are talking about something as universally desegregated as movies.

Yeah, I wholeheartedly disagree with this notion that consumer choice wasn't a factor. Oni, Xisiq and bill have already said the things I'd say. BD/HDDDVD consumers could have just as easily chose not to buy into either format. Don't pull this BS about anyone's hands being tied just because a particular movie wasn't available on both formats.

And you don't think a whole ton of people didn't make exactly just that decision? Their hands absolutely were tied!! I mean put it this way... if you wante Batman Begins, is there any possible way you could buy it in HD without buying HD-DVD? That is 100% tying their hands. Same with Blu-ray and say Spider-Man 3.

 

[bill0527]

And you don't think a whole ton of people didn't make exactly just that decision? There hands absolutely were tied!! I mean put it this way... if you wante Batman Begins, is there any possible way you could buy it in HD without buying HD-DVD? That is 100% tying their hands. Same with Blu-ray and say Spider-Man 3.

I would make the case, and so does Warner Bros, that the consumers who had their hands tied, as you put it, sat back on the sidelines until this thing was over. The people that jumped in early were the enthusiasts, and I would also argue with your assessment that enthusiasts don't pay attention to internet message boards and had no clue who was lined up on which side.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Yeah, I would have argued the same point had HD-DVD been the winner.

Having the option to buy something, or not at all is hardly a choice.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

And you don't think a whole ton of people didn't make exactly just that decision? Their hands absolutely were tied!! I mean put it this way... if you wante Batman Begins, is there any possible way you could buy it in HD without buying HD-DVD? That is 100% tying their hands. Same with Blu-ray and say Spider-Man 3.

They still have a choice-- buy the other platform and go neutral, or abstain.

There are lots of movies that are HD-DVD exclusive that I want. I chose to wait, and so did others, apparently.

This isn't like food and rent. It's a luxury item.

More people chose to abstain from the HD-DVD catalog than from the Blu-ray catalog. Even more people have skipped out on both.