Which format are you backing?

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 3:01 pm

I've always had a soft spot for HD-DVD.

Adbot · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 3:01 pm

Christopher · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 4:41 pm

Mushroom Queen wrote:

I've always had a soft spot for HD-DVD.

Wait how do you have an emotional attachment to a technology product? That doesn't seem possible...

Fangda · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 5:34 pm

CreepyPirate wrote:

Now i don't see the point, you can already fit hours worth of extras on DVDs as it is but who the hell watches them? They suck, there nothing interesting.

Speak for yourself.

Shane · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 6:16 pm

Fangda wrote:

CreepyPirate wrote:

Now i don't see the point, you can already fit hours worth of extras on DVDs as it is but who the hell watches them? They suck, there nothing interesting.

Speak for yourself.

Lets keep this going about the topic and not what people think about DVD extras.

Mushroom Queen · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 6:36 pm

Christopher wrote:

Mushroom Queen wrote:

I've always had a soft spot for HD-DVD.

Wait how do you have an emotional attachment to a technology product? That doesn't seem possible...

It's possible for me. I'm special.

Be quiet, you.

I think that if people just get an Xbox with the HD-DVD add-on, they can spare having to go out and buy an actual HD-DVD player. I don't know how the price compares to Blu-ray or to going out and buying a PS3

EnglishPenguin · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 8:31 pm

On the whole, I don't care. But, for games, I would prefer Blu-ray because you are bound to get a lot better graphics, and more gameplay expericance. However, like Creepy said, I think there's no need to use Blu-ray for DVD's, as I personally don't watch the extras, well rarely anyways, and I wouldn't like to fork out the extra money for no reason. Ah well, I dunno.

Adbot · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 8:31 pm

I Spel Good · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 8:44 pm

blu-ray all da way!

Christopher · **Posted:** August 22nd, 2007, 9:54 pm

EnglishPenguin wrote:

On the whole, I don't care. But, for games, I would prefer Blu-ray because you are bound to get a lot better graphics, and more gameplay expericance. However, like Creepy said, I think there's no need to use Blu-ray for DVD's, as I personally don't watch the extras, well rarely anyways, and I wouldn't like to fork out the extra money for no reason. Ah well, I dunno.

I think it is a good point that with more data storage games may be able to become more complicated...i.e. better graphics and greater format support (so a Linux, Mac, and Windows version all on one disc).

The same might be possible for a DVD's say offer 10 different versions of a movie: wide screen, extended edition, subtitles, different languages, etc...I"m just making a point that many different formats of the same movie could be put on one disc. All in high definition of course. This means for the company that they don't have to bother guessing how much of one object to produce...they can produce one disc for all formats. One size fits all. This is all of course assuming that the read speed on a blue-ray disc/player can keep up with say the 100 gb of data on a quad layered size...the benefits may be out there for blue-ray, even though it is currently the more expensive product to take the lead.

I liken this argument to the Wii/360/PS3 debate...the Wii had the early lead because it was refined, simple, and easily accessible. But the other two are making great strides in the present, because they are expandable and have a greater for potential via games and alterations. This is why I think the Wii will need an earlier replacement. Sport/fitness genre games rarely make a lasting impact as sagas and epics do.

Anyway that is my take on the whole thing.

CreepyPirate · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 12:48 am

Christopher wrote:

EnglishPenguin wrote:

On the whole, I don't care. But, for games, I would prefer Blu-ray because you are bound to get a lot better graphics, and more gameplay expericance. However, like Creepy said, I think there's no need to use Blu-ray for DVD's, as I personally don't watch the extras, well rarely anyways, and I wouldn't like to fork out the extra money for no reason. Ah well, I dunno.

I think it is a good point that with more data storage games may be able to become more complicated...i.e. better graphics and greater format support (so a Linux, Mac, and Windows version all on one disc).

The same might be possible for a DVD's say offer 10 different versions of a movie: wide screen, extended edition, subtitles, different languages, etc...I"m just making a point that many different formats of the same movie could be put on one disc. All in high definition of course. This means for the company that they don't have to bother guessing how much of one object to produce...they can produce one disc for all formats. One size fits all. This is all of course assuming that the read speed on a blue-ray disc/player can keep up with say the 100 gb of data on a quad layered size...the benefits may be out there for blue-ray, even though it is currently the more expensive product to take the lead.

I liken this argument to the Wii/360/PS3 debate...the Wii had the early lead because it was refined, simple, and easily accessible. But the other two are making great strides in the present, because they are expandable and have a greater for potential via games and alterations. This is why I think the Wii will need an earlier replacement. Sport/fitness genre games rarely make a lasting impact as sagas and epics do.

Anyway that is my take on the whole thing.

That's the thing. The Blu-Ray disks don't have the speed and there not meant to play games on, that's just how it is. That's why developers for the PS3 has been having a hard time getting it to run properly.

The latest example of that is the Madden games, they've been able to run at 60FPS on all consoles, including the wii i believe but the ps3 runs at 30. For something that's been hyped as the most advanced console ever that's rather sad.

This is why i hate the PS3, it's not a gaming console it's a blu-ray player and Sony shuved it in there and cranked up the price in order to further benefit themselves in this format war of theres. They should of done what Microsoft did, have it as an add on option, don't force it on people.

Gontcha · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 5:33 am

What Shaun said, I don't care about movies, DVD is just enough. Blu-ray disc in ps3 loads some data into ps3 HDD for speed, creepy... Ps3 doesn't suck, the developers do...
Anyways, holographic discs will own all, 3.9 Terabytes per disc

MattVortex · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 6:41 am

Gontcha wrote:

What Shaun said, I don't care about movies, DVD is just enough. Blu-ray disc in ps3 loads some data into ps3 HDD for speed, creepy... Ps3 doesn't suck, the developers do...
Anyways, holographic discs will own all, 3.9 Terabytes per disc

Yeah, I've seen them. Quite insane, really.

As for the speed, I didn't know that, although that's another reason to go with HD-DVD.

For what you said, Christopher - HD movies are big. Really big. And that's why they need these huge discs. The HD movie itself, without any extras, is probably around 20GB in size. You can't realistically fit any more than two on any disc.

Also, I like the idea of a Mac/Linux/Windows universal disc, but it's never going to happen. Game developers aren't interested in universal compatibility, and usually aren't interested in any platform but Windows, even though OpenGL 2.1 (The latest Linux and Mac 3D graphics framework) kicks the *** of DirectX 10. They're using the extra space for huge textures and maps - not for other formats. There's also the fact that the adoption of HD-DVD and Bluray drives in PCs is... small.

Christopher · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 9:42 am

MattVortex wrote:

For what you said, Christopher - HD movies are big. Really big. And that's why they need these huge discs. The HD movie itself, without any extras, is probably around 20GB in size. You can't realistically fit any more than two on any disc.

Apparently a technique is in the early stages that can allow blu-ray 250 gb of space and hd-dvd 150 gb of space...

Oh and Creepy from what I see it looks like Blu-ray and HD-DVD have either the same read rate or that Blu-ray is actually faster.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD

Edit: Apparently there are multiple generations of Blu-ray with the newest fixing many of the problems initially dealt with. Including scratching, speed, and capacity issues.

Anubis · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 9:51 am

I think that Blu-ray has been brought forward before it's time. HD-DVD isn't doing too badly and it's cheaper to produce. In a couple of years time when the extra memory is needed and resources will be cheaper to get (hopefully) then Blu-Ray will win hands down.

In video games we switched from cartridges, to CDs, to DVDs. This was all down to increasing memory requirements (who has games which have 4 CDs, or even 8 floppy disks? (Doom)) It will go into Blu-Ray or another easier to produce format soon, I'm sure of it - because the extra memory will be needed.

To repeat myself, I think Blu-Ray will do better later on. It's far too expensive now and the extra memory isn't needed.

Ranging God · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 6:16 pm

Shane wrote:

Neither will win. As long as there are some movie studios on each format there will be no winner. I think what will happen is that more electronic companies will end up making dual format players or DVD media will just die out, see the end of my post for what I think will happen. That way it's just easier for the consumer.

But as for which one I'd support... That's complicated as I'm sure you know I watch quite a bit of Star Trek. I'd have to go with HD DVD since Paramount is supporting HD DVD. They havn't done any HD releases of Star Trek yet though...

Then again if I wanted to watch 24 in HD I'd need to go with Blu-Ray.

I'm just going to wait it out until they become cheaper. We don't even have a HD Tv here yet. There's really no point to HD in Canada unless you've got lots of money to fork out for the extra channels. I think it's like an extra $30 a month for the HD pack :roll:

Call me the one to rain on everyone's parade but I think DVD media will come to an end in the next few years and this will be an irrelevant debate. In the next few years a few things could happen:
1. Consumers in North America will get better internet connections.
2. 1 will enable consumers to download movies on demand from places such as the iTunes store.

It just needs to be cheaper and easier to use than a HD video format...

The Singularity Is Near...

I think that tv's with have on demand, highspeed dlof all videos, so that you have all u rmedia on ur tv (which will have a hd)

Christopher · **Posted:** August 23rd, 2007, 8:33 pm

The other thing is that as hard drives get bigger, it will be possible to store movie programs and shows all one a single TV/ computer. The nature of a beast is that with thumb drives for quick transfers, high internet bandwidth, and large storage systems, removable data storage in the form of discs may become obsolete...but I do think this is at least 15 years away as high enough bandwidth is not really commonplace yet.