Microsoft drops 360's HD DVD player

Hardware maker plans to cease manufacturing high-def add-on for flagship console, will continue to provide warranty support; price crashes to as low as $50 at online retailers.

The last backers of Toshiba's HD DVD format are jumping ship in the wake of the electronics company backing out of the format wars. In a statement on Microsoft's Gamerscore Blog, the Xbox 360 maker said it would no longer be manufacturing its HD DVD peripheral, though it will continue providing warranty support for all add-ons purchased by console owners.

"As a result of recent decisions made by Toshiba, Hollywood studios, and retailers, Microsoft plans to withdraw from HD DVD," Microsoft said in its statement. "Xbox will no longer manufacture new HD DVD players for the Xbox 360, but we will continue to provide standard product and warranty support for all Xbox 360 HD DVD Players in the market. As we stated earlier, we do not believe this decision will have any material impact on the Xbox 360 platform or our position in the marketplace. HD DVD is one of the several ways we offer a high definition experience to consumers and we will continue to give consumers the choice to enjoy digital distribution of high definition movies and TV shows directly to their living room, along with playback of the DVD movies they already own."

The format war abruptly shifted toward a resolution in January when HD DVD-exclusive backer Warner Bros. defected to Sony's Blu-ray camp, joining other major Hollywood studios Sony Pictures, 20th Century Fox, and Walt Disney Studios. The news quickly sent HD DVD into a tailspin, culminating in Toshiba pulling the plug on the format and remaining Hollywood majors Paramount and Universal pledging Blu-ray allegiance.

Ringing in February, Microsoft initiated a fire sale of sorts on the failed video playback format player, slashing the price of its HD DVD add-on by $50 to $129. However, most major retailers have taken a more aggressive approach to clearing inventory, with the HD DVD player available for $50 to $65 at many online retailers such as Best Buy and Amazon.

270 Comments

  • el_drifto

    Posted Oct 22, 2009 6:52 pm GMT

    You can find them super cheap now and movies too and they look just as good as Blu-Ray.

  • lanista

    Posted Mar 7, 2008 12:27 pm GMT

    @kalipekona
    "But I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you, that it will apply to downloads and not to Blu-ray. Or you yourself might have to end up eating your words."

    Going bck to your original quote "You do realize that only about 15% of music is sold digitally."

    Then to your latter "I don't agree with your suggestion that the lack of success of music downloads has much to do with iTunes's DRM and proprietary playback measures. After all, they own around 80% of the commercial digital music business."

    Firstly, I empathise with your arguments, as like you (if I've understood where you're coming from) I'm into high quality movies and/or music. Plus you're definitely entitled to your opinion. All I asked was that you didn't so quickly dismiss others' point of view. Therefore one thing, I cannot predict the future and nor do I claim to. Hence I don't anticipate having to eat any words.

    Anyway, I hope I've got this right. We're saying that only 15% of music is sold digitally and that 80% of that is done by iTunes?

    Well in that case - and I don't claim to be Mr Average here - but here's my story. Personally I don't buy from iTunes and never will.

    I don't like the fact that if I buy on one format, cassette tapes, then a few years later I have to repurchase my music on CD. Granted it's a higher quality, but some of the back catalogue are years old and the manufacturing process is supposedly cheaper! Now we move on to DRM. Great but it locks me into a single (or a few) playback product(s). I don't want this.

    I have 1000+ CDs and I like high quality. I can hear the difference between music compressed at 320kbps and 256 kbps. A year ago I wasn't goint to rip my collection, but now that Moore's law is kicking in I'm ripping my personal legitimate collection using EAC and LAME at max settings. It's a compromise I'm now happy to live with even though I can still (slightly) hear the difference between Lossless and MP3 320kbps. MP3 gives me the freedom I want.

    Quality of downloads of even music aren't there yet for me, but I'm sure it's inevitable and they soon will be.

    On movies, I go to my local IMAX which is 15 minutes away. Or at the least to a theatre with a big screen and good Dolby THX system. I enjoy that and I know I can't (ever) replicate that at home. So at home I'm already on a no-win scenario. Also true of music at home as I'm not exactly watching the band live, but as it's mostly sound this is a much better compromise.

    In my case I've got a (now ageing) 5.1 setup which I originally purchased to enjoy my Xbox 1 games, plus movies of course. I had many movies on VHS and I re-purchased on DVD and the quality was way better. Now I'm hit with the same irritating issue as before. That is I'm now expected to repurchase on BluRay. You know what? I'm tired of this buying the same product every time the technology moves on. I'm not even sure that I watch a movie enough times to justify this. Hence why I'm coming round to streaming movies on demand. This is starting to make real sense. In that case I don't have to store a download and as long as it's cheap enough I don't care as I can pay again and watch it a second or third time.

    Dunno but having seen the growth of the internet, physical formats seem irrevocably doomed. It's really only getting us to what we've always had available - i.e. TV and Radio - only this time we can also do the selecting as to the what and when.

    Don't care to argue with you over timescales. Who can say.

    Revenue stream? Yep the movie studios need to earn their profit. But maybe they need to look hard as to how much they pay their actors. They do a job as do you and I. But the fact that a move can generate a studio so much profit is the reason why the stars ask so much. Maybe some cutting on both accounts could reduce the significance of this matter.

    As for the issue of pirating, it's the cost of purchase that people want to reduce (unless you're hell bent on paying out zero). In a distributed format over the wire I don't see why they can't cut the price. Increased (legitimate) volumes could (more than) make up for it. So depends on how greedy the studios want to be? Sadly (based on my observations over several years) I can't see ANY evidence of a fair deal coming from them. Sad.

  • kalipekona

    Posted Mar 7, 2008 10:38 am GMT

    @ Ianista

    Don't get me wrong, I do think HD downloads will eventually come to be the dominant form of HD movie distribution, just not as soon as some people assume it will be. I have nothing againsts downloads per se, except their relatively lower quality at the moment, and I think they have their uses. So my disagreement is not with the idea of downloading movies itself but rather was with those who were claiming that downloads are going to replace physical media (DVD, Blu-ray) this generation (i.e. next 5 to 10 years).

    I don't agree with your suggestion that the lack of success of music downloads has much to do with iTunes's DRM and proprietary playback measures. After all, they own around 80% of the commercial digital music business. And even if that were the problem for most people, that fact wouldn't bode well for movie downloads. Movie studios have seen what has happened to the music business and will fight fiercely to protect their revenue streams. They know that video content without significant DRM will be easily replicated, shared and pirated and they will do everything in their power to make sure that doesn't happen. And so far that is exactly what we are seeing, each distribution channel with their own proprietary DRM and codecs (i.e Apple TV, Netflix, Vudu, Direct TV, cable VOD, etc.) I can't for example take my Vudu download and go play it on my friends Apple TV box. So if we haven't already had enough of format wars, the immediate future of downloads sure gives us more of it.

    You say you are signing up for Virgin Movies? Well good, if that works for you. I mean that sincerely. But I know that the whole downloading issue is confusing for many average consumers and it doesn't offer high enough quality for most home theater enthusiasts.

    You said, "DVD took a while to take off. They even said the TV would never catch on... Many famous quotes / predictions look rather stupid now". Very true. But I wouldn't be so sure, if I were you, that it will apply to downloads and not to Blu-ray. Or you yourself might have to end up eating your words.

  • lanista

    Posted Mar 6, 2008 3:16 pm GMT

    "kalipekona You do realize that only about 15% of music is sold digitally. So downloading music is hardly the great commercial success that many people believe it to be. If Blu-ray had only gained 15% of the market after 7 years of being on the market I bet everyone would be calling it a failed format. Yet that is exactly the case with music downloads, which many people erroneously hold up as the model for future video distribution.

    You also have to realize that music and movies are consumed in entirely different ways."

    Interesting but patronising (and ultimately a very flawed) argument...

    Perhaps DRM and proprietary playback of iTunes on iPods has something to do with the lack of success of music downloads. I notice that MP3 downloads are picking up now "to drive sales" and I see that trend driving the increase in downloads.

    What can we learn from history? Microsoft didn't originally embrace the internet. It quickly changed it's tune. A few major things stand out in the advancement of downloads and/or streaming media.
    - Moore's law - I guess you know what that is? Won't be long before HD isn't a major problem.
    - Very cheap manufacture and distribution compared with physical - I guess you can guess why companies might like that?
    - why download when you can stream? Fibre optic already does that to my home NOW

    DVD took a while to take off. They even said the TV would never catch on... Many famous quotes / predictions look rather stupid now

    This week? I'm about to sign up for Virgin Movies at home. Do I need a DVD or BluRay player? No. Can I watch any movie I want at home? Yes. How easy is it? I just select the one I want to watch and it's streamed into my home on-demand.

    Don't write off what I'm saying just yet... Do YOU get it now??

  • kalipekona

    Posted Mar 4, 2008 10:34 pm GMT

    @ Ninjiz
    "Your PS3 list is pretty stupid. 95% of that list is Multiplatform games. And im sure no one really cares that you played some boring games in the first year of Xbox360. I mean come on Kameo?? for what?

    And comparing the first year of 360 with the games now on ps3, and 360 is mott beyond belief. This isnt 2006-2007"

    You really don't get it do you. 95% percent of my list is mulit-platform games? 10 of those games are first-party titles or otherwise exclusive to the PS3. So, out of the 21 games I listed for the PS3, 10 were exclusives. Nearly 50% of the games I listed were exclusives, not 95% as you are claiming.

    The reason I compared the first-year PS3 games to the first-year 360 games is because that is the only way it makes sense to do it. The PS3 has been out a little over a year, so naturally it is only usefull to compare it to the first year of the 360 when trying to determine if the PS3 really is deficient in games (as some people try to claim).

    In other words, it doesn't make sense to say that the PS3 "has no games" just because it doesn't have as many games as its competitor that has been out nearly twice as long.

    My purpose was to show 2 things:
    1. The PS3 is not deficient in games (so far it is doing just as good as the Xbox 360 did in the same time frame).

    2. Owners of the PS3 can look forward to a similar amount of high quality games over the lifecycle of the console.

    I think both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 are great consoles. I am just tired of seeing so many misconceptions and lies said about the PS3.

  • necronaux

    Posted Mar 3, 2008 11:33 am GMT

    Although no 'new' titles will be released, there are still a ton of movies on HD... no need th throw away the HD drive, yet. Besides, I doubt anyone bought 360 for the ability to play hi-def movies. Where as when the PS3 was released, Blu-ray players were going for about $1,000.00 (i.e. if you were going to go for bluray, buy the PS3, save $400 bucks, and get a game console free).

    So, will Microsoft abandon the HD move capability entirely, or will they find a 3rd party manufaturer to develope a 360-blu-ray compatible drive? Guess time will tell.

  • Ninjiz

    Posted Mar 3, 2008 5:11 am GMT

    kalipekona- Your PS3 list is pretty stupid. 95% of that list is Multiplatform games. And im sure no one really cares that you played some boring games in the first year of Xbox360. I mean come on Kameo?? for what?

    And comparing the first year of 360 with the games now on ps3, and 360 is mott beyond belief. This isnt 2006-2007

  • kalipekona

    Posted Mar 2, 2008 5:00 pm GMT

    @ Ianista
    "Everyone else is downloading / playing on-demand movies over fibre optic cable or satellite from their digital TV provider. That is also moving to hi-def already.

    Hence to be honest that casts some doubt over whether BluRay will even be necessary, or at the very least it may only be niche. And music went this way before films with downloading onto iPod and MP3 players / memory sticks."

    You do realize that only about 15% of music is sold digitally. So downloading music is hardly the great commercial success that many people believe it to be. If Blu-ray had only gained 15% of the market after 7 years of being on the market I bet everyone would be calling it a failed format. Yet that is exactly the case with music downloads, which many people erroneously hold up as the model for future video distribution.

    You also have to realize that music and movies are consumed in entirely different ways. Most of us listen to our music on the go (in our car, at the gym, etc) and so quality is not quite as important as convenience. HD media is not a portable format. We watch movies at home. And when we watch them they recieve 100% of our attention at that moment. Music, on the other hand, we often listen to while we are doing something else (driving, working, excercizing, etc.). For this reason, it is not surprising that people demand higher quality from their movies than they do from their music.

    Even a fairly compressed HD movie at about 20 GB is still about 4000 times as much data to download as an average song download, which poses its own set of problems for the current infrastructure in most parts of the world.

    You also have to consider the perspective of the movie studios. They love the fact that there are multiple distribution channels available for their movies because it increases the likelihood that people will "double dip" on certain titles (buy or rent the same title more than once). You can be sure that the studios would fight tooth and nail to keep from going to a digital distribution only model, they would lose far too much money. Not to mention that there would be great resistance from the mainstream public as well --as evidenced by the meager 15% of the market that music downloads have managed to capture.

    And the obstacles to large scale acceptance of HD movie downloads are even more significant.

  • kalipekona

    Posted Mar 2, 2008 2:17 am GMT

    @ 09231991
    "Sony way to go, now, lets see release some games worth buying, uh (except Uncharted, thats good)"

    Do you really feel the need to go repeating that tired old line. PS3 has no good games, bla, bla, bla...

    I don't agree at all. I have both consoles and I enjoyed my first year PS3 games as much (if not more) as my first year 360 games. The first year PS3 games that I played (either by owning or renting) are:

    Motor Storm, Resistance: Fall of Man, The Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion, Call of Duty 3, The Darkness, Heavenly Sword, Skate, Lair, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Folklore, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Rainbow Six Vegas, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter 2, Warhawk, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Dirt, Virtua Fighter 5, Ratchet and Clank: Future, Call of Duty 4, Unreal Tournament 3.

    The first year on my 360 I played:
    Kameo, Perfect Dark Zero, Call of Duty 2, Project Gotham 3, ES4: Oblivion, Dead or Alive 4, Prey, Quake 4, Dead Rising, Rainbow Six Vegas, King Kong, Splinter Cell: Double Agent, Tomb Raider: Legend, Condemned: Criminal Origins, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter, F.E.A.R, and Gears of War.

    I am sure that there were more games I played (for both systems) but these are all the ones I can think of right now. In my opinion, while the 360 first year line-up wasn't bad, I think the PS3 had a better first year. I was actually moved to buy more PS3 games during the first year of the PS3's life than I did with Xbox 360 games in the first year of the Xbox 360's life.

    Now we all know that the 360 has more quality games overall, but that's not surprising--it's been out nearly twice as long. Of course, the PS3 also benefitted from being released after developers had already got their head around some of the next-gen tech. Whatever the reasons, I would put the first year PS3 games up against the first year 360 games any day. It is so trendy to say that the PS3 has no good games but I am just not buying it. The first year of PS3 games was great with standout titles like:
    Resistance: Fall of Man, Motor Storm, ES4: Oblivion, Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Heavenly Sword, Folklore (very underrated game), Assassin's Creed, Virtua Fighter 5, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, Ratchet and Clank: Future, Call of Duty 4, and Unreal Tournament 3.

    I just didn't see the same number of high quality titles in the first year of the 360. The main first year 360 titles that stood out to me were:
    Call of Duty 2, Project Gotham Racing 3, ES4: Oblivion, Dead Rising, Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter and Gears of War.

    And honestly, Call of Duty 2 on 360 wasn't as good as Call of Duty 4 on PS3, Motor Storm = Project Gotham Racing 3, ES4 = ES4, Dead Rising = Heavenly Sword, GRAW = GRAW2, Dead or Alive 4 is less than Virtua Fighter 5, and Gears of War, while extremely good, does not equal the combined gaming goodness of Ninja Gaiden Sigma, Folklore, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank Future, and Unreal Tournament 3--not by a long shot. And the PS3's future game line-up is looking very strong as well. Resistance 2, Infamous, LittleBigPlanet, Killzone 2, Haze, Metal Gear Solid 4, Grand Turismo 5: Prologue, Final Fantasy XIII, God of War 3, and a whole slew of awesome looking multi-platform titles.

    I know tastes vary from person to person, but sheesh...pretending that the PS3 has no good games is just dishonest. From what I can forsee, I will be buying about an equal number of games on each platform over the next year or two and it seems the PS3 is quickly catching up to the 360 in terms of quality games. So please let this myth die, its getting more and more ridiculous sounding the more time goes by.

  • lanista

    Posted Mar 2, 2008 12:40 am GMT

    No surprise on MS's response. Exactly what I've been predicting in previous posts on this issue.

    And as far as gaming goes, this is a non-event for MS. They have other plans for delivering movie content.

    In the UK this is how it's been going anyway for the last year. The old video rental stores have been dying off, only Blockbuster really left now.

    Everyone else is downloading / playing on-demand movies over fibre optic cable or satellite from their digital TV provider. That is also moving to hi-def already.

    Hence to be honest that casts some doubt over whether BluRay will even be necessary, or at the very least it may only be niche. And music went this way before films with downloading onto iPod and MP3 players / memory sticks.

    My prediction is that DVD and CD may well be the last ubiquitous 'physical' formats for film (movie) / music.

  • nappan

    Posted Mar 1, 2008 11:13 pm GMT

    For 50 bucks, it would be worth it if the standalone players didn't do a better job of playback. That said, even small money thrown to a dead format is a bad investment. I sympathize with xcollector's sentiment that this isn't as momentous as the console "wars", but it's still good to have settled on one HD format. Once blu-ray starts to perk through the market in a big way it will not be a siesmic event, but it will be a pleasure to get 1080p for people who want it.

  • xcollector

    Posted Mar 1, 2008 8:37 pm GMT

    The Next Gen Vid wars suck for one important reason. Theres nothing revolutionary about it compared to Next Gen Game wars.

    With next gen game systems we get new games that are bigger and badder then ever before.

    With next gen Video formats we get the same stuff that was previous released.

    Imagine if Next Gen video games meant you got the same Halo 1 or Metal Gear Solid 3 from last gen but in a higher rez and that was the life cycle of gaming industry. That would suck.

  • kalipekona

    Posted Mar 1, 2008 8:36 pm GMT

    @ OmegaBob

    Yeah, no hard feelings here either. I pretty much agree with all the comments in your last post.

    I too like to have a physical copy of the movies I own and I think that still holds true for most of the general public. And I personally love the quality of picture and sound that I get from my Blu-ray and HD DVD movies. Well worth it in my opinion.

    That said, DVDs look pretty ok and we'll just have to see how many of these new HDTV owners will want to buy a HD media player for their HDTVs. Nothing is certain but I think Blu-ray has a pretty good shot at becoming a successful format.

    I have both a PS3 and an Xbox 360 and I like them both. I also bought into both HD DVD and Blu-ray and I was ready for either one to end up being the winner. It so happens that Blu-ray won. I am just glad that we only have one HD disc format now. The format war was good for nobody, especially in the long run. As long as I can get high quality 1080p and lossless audio, I'm fine. I don't ultimately care what happens.

    Anyway, it has been interesting reading your thoughts and perspectives. Cheers.

  • ljaygrimes

    Posted Mar 1, 2008 10:06 am GMT

    Fine with me, never planned on getting one anyway. My PS3 plays great Blu-Rays right out of the box.

  • DiscGuru101

    Posted Feb 29, 2008 10:52 pm GMT

    When I bought my HD-DVD add on, my upscale DVD player had just died. For me it was a way to get solid DVD quality (better than the 360) and an HD player for a reasonable price. -I wont be buying a PS3/Blu-Ray player before FF13 gets reviewed. At the very soonest.

  • OmegaBob

    Posted Feb 29, 2008 7:04 pm GMT

    @ kalipekona: not a problem at all, no hard feelings and thanks for clarifying

    As for my take on the future of HDM, here are my predictions:

    INEVITABLE
    1 - BD hardware & software prices dive low enough to bite into the DVD market
    2 - Analog TVs go the way of the dodo, obviously b/c of the federal mandate but also b/c older TVs will eventually breakdown. This will take up to 10 years.

    UNKNOWN
    3 - BD will suplant DVD as the physical format of choice (although it probably will happen) or be a niche format?

    The problem here is that the average person may or may not want to replace their existing DVD libraries with BD. I can easily see folks purchasing new releases (when they are in the same price range as DVD) but then another issue pops up: what will the price of DVDs be in the future? If they remain at the level that they are now and BD are priced accordingly, DVD will eventually lose as there would be no reason to get the lower quality DVD version. But will BD software prices fall that much? Granted it's not a lot they have to fall (and not inclduing sales), but a dollar saved is a dollar saved and those BD won't play in mom and dad's mini-van (yet). The reason I wonder how much lower BD software will go is when you think about it, the extras and such of a BD (and HD DVD) probably cost way more to produce than the extars on a DVD - so will it be cost effective for studios to lower the price? Then again, they could produce a BD release, and sell it at a MSRP that matches the average DVD new release now, then release a lower priced DVD version with either no extars or low quality ones ported over from the BD. If they did that, then they are prolonging the lifespan of the DV market, but there are so many DVD players (and compatible devices) out there, that it would be foolish. Basically and to sum up: I have no idea what the future holds. I hope it's not DL though, as I like to own a physical copy, not an electronic copy of things I purchase- but thats just me.

    In case you were wondering, I will dive into BD when the following happens:
    -a brand named BD STO player is released for $199 or less (with $150 being the sweet spot)
    or
    -Sony issues a redesign of the PS3 and lowers the price to what I mentioned above as I hate the current design (looks too much like the 2nd gen Panny 3DO -that I still own). I waited to purchase a PS2 until Sony met my demands and then went nuts purchasing the PStwo and games

    I think this article will soon be off the main news page, so if I don't respond again, it was a fun debate and again, no hard feelings at all

  • kratos_karmakar

    Posted Feb 29, 2008 5:52 pm GMT

    i cant stop laughing

  • 09231991

    Posted Feb 29, 2008 3:50 pm GMT

    This does piss me off about HD losing but I really don't care. Hey Sony way to go, now, lets see release some games worth buying, uh (except Uncharted, thats good)

  • TrueProphecy22

    Posted Feb 29, 2008 10:28 am GMT

    So the war is over... and HD_DVD lost. And here I was thinking it was the better of the two formats... oh well. And to kalipekona... yea... Best Buy is not the place to buy movies from. They're turning into another Media Play - and if anyone remembers that store, they sold movies for 5 to 10 to 15 USD more than any other store - around here even the target just across the street. Say Media Play was still around when the last Harry Potter (Special Edition) came around. Wall Mart and Target had it special price the first week or so, 19.99 (14.99 for regular ed.). Best Buy was 24.99 (19.99 for reg ed.) and Media Play would have been 29.99. (24.99 for reg ed.)

  • kalipekona

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 10:04 pm GMT

    @ OmegaBob
    "No, no. Methinks you confuse me with someone else. I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about DL content (or if I did, it might had been in passing).'

    Hey OmegaBob, you're right. I confused you with Yuck_Too and I truly appologize. So just forget that part. I agree that right now most average consumers are going to be sticking with DVDs. But I guess what all this Blu-ray/HD DVD discussion is about is what is eventually going to replace the DVD format, if anything. Personally I think that Blu-ray has a pretty good shot of eventually gaining a dominant market share of the home video market. I don't think that video downloads will gain a significant share of the home video market (owning movies) any time in the next few years. I do think downloads may grab a significant share of the rental market. That is a summary of what I think. But you know what, even after reading all your posts I still am not sure what you think about the future of HD media. I know that you think that most people don't care about it right now, and I agree, but what do you think will happen over the next 5 years or so. Do you think that people will stay satisfied with DVD from here on out? Or do you think that some other format will eventually gain a dominant share of the market? And what do you think that format will be?

    Anyway, sorry again for confusing you with another poster.

  • kalipekona

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 9:18 pm GMT

    @ Gergroy
    You said:
    "I think you made an unfair comparison on your price of dvd's vs blu ray. Come on now, you can't honestly think that is a normal comparison that you found on amazon. Try walking into an actual retail store and you will see that pirates is 34.99. the 2 disc is 24.99 and 1 disc is 14.99. thats a 20 dollar swing, and those prices are from best buy, its where I work."

    That is why if you are smart you don't buy most of your DVDs and BDs at Best Buy. And by the time J6P is ready to buy into Blu-ray en masse they will likely be able to go to Walmart or Best Buy and get Blu-ray titles for the same price (or close to it) as they are used to paying for DVD titles. And yes, I do think that was a fairly typical comparison I made. I didn't go searching for that particular example either, it just happened to be the first one I came across. (In the amazon search bar type in ‘Blu-ray’ and you’ll see why) Let me give you a couple more examples:

    The movie = 300
    Blu-ray = $23.95
    2 disc DVD = $22.99
    Full screen single disc dvd = $19.98
    Widescreen single disc dvd = $13.99

    The movie = I am legend
    Blu-ray = $24.95
    2 disc DVD = $22.99
    Full screen single dvd = $18.99
    Widescreen single disc dvd = $18.99

    The movie = No Country for Old Men (releases march 11)
    Blu-ray = $23.95
    DVD = $18.99

    The movie = Stargate
    Blu-ray = $13.95
    DVD = $6.99

    The movie = Total Recall
    Blu-ray = $13.95
    Special limited edition single disc DVD = $12.99
    Special edition single disc DVD = $9.95

    The movie = Planet Earth - The complete BBC series
    Blu-ray = $66.95
    DVD = $54.99

    The movie = Underworld
    Blu-ray = $16.95
    Full screen single disc DVD = $12.99
    Widescreen single disc DVD = $10.99
    2 disc extended cut DVD = $11.99 So we can see that these examples, which I chose at random, aren’t too different from the example I gave of Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End.


    On the other hand, your claim that there is a twenty dollar price difference between the BD and DVD versions of Pirates of the Caribbean isn't quite fair--as you are comparing apples to oranges.
    The $14.99 version is a single disc, whereas the $22.95 (or $34.99 at Worst Buy, er sorry Best Buy) Blu-ray version is a two disc set loaded with special features. So obviously the Blu-ray version is most directly comparable to the 2 disc DVD set at $22.99 ($24.99 at Best Buy), not the $14.99 single DVD version. So even in the land of the jacked-up Blu-ray prices (a.k.a. Best Buy) there is a ten dollar difference, not the twenty dollar difference that you claimed. And at amazon this particular Blu-ray title is actually 5 cents cheaper than the equivalent DVD set!

    Next you said:
    "pulling a definition from wikipedia does not make you look more intelligent, probably the exact opposite. For all we know you could of made that definition up and put it on wiki. As any user can contribute to anything on there. Thats why the first thing that they tell you in college is to never use wikipedia as a source in your research. It is unreliable at best."

    I didn't pull that definition from wikipedia to try to make myself look intelligent. I did it because I was being chided for using the term 'future proof' by someone who was trying to redifine the term out of existence. Strangely wikipedia was the only source I could find that gave a somewhat concise definition of the term, despite the fact that it is in wide use both on the net and outside (especially within tech related fields). I used that source not to defer to some absolute and final official judgement on the meaning of the term, as you might get from some official language academy's dictionary, but just to give that poster an example of the term's usage from a source other than myself. Its not like I was writing for the New York Times or even a college paper, so no need to get your panties in a knot. And you're wrong on your second point, you do know that I didn't just write up that definition because Wikipedia entries are date marked. Also, I hope you realize that it makes you seem like you are trying to be trendy when you mention how crappy Wikipedia is. It seems everywhere you go on the net these days you see some forum poster kindly imparting his secret wisdom about how worthless Wikipedia is to some other poster of implied inferior intellect. It’s true, wikipedia might not be as reliable as some commercial encyclopedias, but its strengths lie elsewhere. In the breadth and diversity of its content, for example. I mean, in what other encyclopedia are you going to find entries for each mountain range in New Mexico, or for an individual video game title? And while you state that it is "unreliable at best" (BTW, what is it at worst? super duper extra unreliable?), I haven't found that to be true. I have found the majority of entries to be fairly accurate after cross referencing them with other sources. You do come across stuff here and there that is noticeably off base (especially in newer entries) but you should never rely on only one source when looking for information on a subject. According to an investigation carried out by the prestigious science journal ‘Nature’ it was found that “Wikipedia comes close to Britannica in terms of the accuracy of its science entries”, more specifically they found that “…the average science entry in Wikipedia contained around four inaccuracies; Britannica, about three” (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7070/full/438900a.html). So it seems that it isn’t nearly as unreliable as you make it out to be. Moreover, I have also found inaccuracies in commercial/printed encyclopedias (as did the ‘Nature’ investigation), so it isn't a problem wholly unique to Wikipedia. There is a sort of peer review process in place for Wikipedia that allows users to contest the information contained in any entry and to edit or add to it. This does help to weed out some of the inaccuracies and older entries tend to be highly accurate. In the end though is wikipedia reliable enough to be a reference source for college papers or professional journals? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't have its purposes. And it certainly doesn't mean that you need to be telling me not to reference it in a forum post on a freaking video game site. Especially when I am arguing with another poster who insists that the true definition of 'future proof' can only describe a piece of technology that will remain up-to-date and viable forever. We can all share our views but please don't attack me personally.

  • ZEALOTzeus

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 5:19 pm GMT

    Now I can buy all the hd movies that used to cost too much
    dead format FTW!

  • OmegaBob

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 2:44 pm GMT

    kalipekona: "Ok, let me get this straight....J6P is so tech-ignorant that they do hardly any of their shopping online (if any, as you say) but they are ready for downloads to become the dominant form of getting HD content?..."

    No, no. Methinks you confuse me with someone else. I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about DL content (or if I did, it might had been in passing). My online store reference was a response to your comment about not being able to find DVDs for $4.99 at Amazon (which was a response to my comment about DVDs are $4.99).

    My point was that J6P would more than likely go to a B&M store to purchase a DVD for $4.99 than on Amazon for $14.99.

  • Somebody89

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 2:38 pm GMT

    Well duh this was gonna happen, who else is gonna buy a dead format for over $100. Still wish that hd dvd won but I guess I'll wait for a blu-ray add on for 360 or I'll just finally get a PS3.

  • Kenji_Masamune

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 8:51 am GMT

    The step from going vhs to dvd was big as you said because you got menus, and you now had the ability to jump and skip around and all kinds of stuff. The main difference between dvd and the next gen aside from the picture quality is the ablility to mess around in the menu while watching the movie. It's not because of the next-gen technology per se, it is just a fancier UI, but it still adds that much more to the experience.

  • Chazmeister

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 7:49 am GMT

    To spcphilpot, no I'm not completley joking right. Thats what I mean all Blu-Ray and HD offer over standard DVD is an upgrade in picture quallity. The jump from VHS to DVD offered a lot more in terms of useful features, like being able to instantly skip to various parts of the film, and the addition of extra content. Sure HD and Blu-Ray have more space for that sort of thing, but few DVD film releases bother to make use of the space they get on standard DVD for extra features as it is.

    Plus to really apreciate the difference in quality that HD offers you really do need a good quailty ie expensive HDTV. All the affordable ones I've seen look worse quality than SD TVs, with grainy pictures and washed out colour. Then there's the extra expense of a Blu-Ray player and then the disks themselves, which surprise surprise are more expensive than standard DVD movie releases. So until all this stuff becomes one heck of a lot cheaper, which I can't see happening for a few years yet, then yeah for me personally I'm not that bothered. If you're really into your films and you've got the money then good for you.

    Any way call me a cynic but personally I think this push for a new format is just another attempt by the electronics manufacturers to foist yet more expensive electronics junk on us that we don't really need. And for the film industry to start charging top dollar again for all those films that are currently languishing in bargin buckets.

  • Avenger1324

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 6:39 am GMT

    no point continuing to sell a player for a format that just died. I wonder how long until MS announce what new plans they have to add high-def movie playback for the 360.

  • spcphilpot

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 6:28 am GMT

    To Chazmelster, Your completely joking right?? I work in retail in the electronics department and the difference between Blu-ray and HD-DVD versus DVD is like the difference between VHS and DVD you just have to have an HDTV to see the difference but once you do it's night and day.

  • Thorpe89 Site moderator

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 3:46 am GMT

    Certainly not going with HD-DVD - even with a price cut. Just to sell off old stock.

  • Chazmeister

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 3:07 am GMT

    For me personally neither HD-DVD or Blu-Ray represent a big enough leap from DVD to make me insterested in either of them. DVD was a big step up from VHS not just in terms of picture quality but the disk format its self was a big improvement over the old VHS tape. HD and Blu-Ray on the other hand are mearly just a slightly improved version over the current DVD format. What I want to see is a real next gen format. Ditch the disks, they about as old hat as tape used to be now. How about some sort of flash memory card for instantance?

  • Skyriderlink

    Posted Feb 28, 2008 12:28 am GMT

    Good for all but HD-DVD owners.

  • hart704

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 9:49 pm GMT

    This reminds me of the 32X similarly dropping in price from $150 to $20.

  • pentium4dude

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 8:18 pm GMT

    SrTVBR, you mean "Blu-Ray" without the "e" right?

  • SrTVBR

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 5:49 pm GMT

    Welcome to blue-ray ERA!

  • kalipekona

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 4:46 pm GMT

    @ OmegaBob
    "J6P usually doesn't do all his shopping online (if any) - in fact, grocery/drug stores have DVDs cheap too."

    Ok, let me get this straight....J6P is so tech-ignorant that they do hardly any of their shopping online (if any, as you say) but they are ready for downloads to become the dominant form of getting HD content? I am sorry man, but in what world does that make any sense? I just can't understand how a public that is supposedly so lacking in tech-savy that they don't do almost any shopping online is somehow the same public that is going to embrace downloads as the immediate future of HD content distribution. Oh, but downloads are easy you say. But you forget that the infastructure to deliver said downloads is still not available in many parts of the world--I know it certainly isn't available in my part of the world. Your next point:
    "What I am saying to families... and the majority of the folks in this country... replacing their current DVD collections with high priced BD... not forgetting that they need to purchase a high priced BD player in order to play the discs... is not cost effective to them, especially in this ecomomy."

    Again, you are assuming that everybody has to rush out and buy a Blu-ray player and software right now in order for Blu-ray to have a shot at long term success. That simply isn't true. We are pretty much still in the early adopter phase and for that phase Blu-ray has done suprisingly well, especially considering the competition with HD DVD and consumer confusion caused by the format war. So of course it isn't cost effective for the majority of consumers right now, its not their stage of the game to buy in. Mentioning the economy is a favorite tactic Blu-ray haters use to try to explain why the prices of Blu-ray are too much and will result in the format's failure. But again, neither Blu-ray's prices nor the economy is a static thing. The economy could turn around completely in the next year for all we know. If we use your logic HDTVs would be doomed to failure too. 'No body cares about the picture improvements and they're just too expensive, especially with the economy the way it is'...I can just hear it now.

    As to your next comment:
    "What's better IYO: purchasing high priced hardware and software now to prepare for the future or saving money by using your existing equipment until the prices of the equipment and software are lower and finalized? I alreayd know you would go with the first part... but what about J6P?"

    I bought in early on both formats even though I didn't know who would eventually win. But I knew the risks going in and I don't regret my decision. And I know, I am an early adopter. Now as to J6P, well of course he is going to wait for prices to drop. That is the way these things always work. Each person will buy in when the prices are right for him/her. Some buy in early, some in the middle stages and some wait till the product is mature. And that is how the product goes from low sales to full market penetration. It doesn't have to happen over night. It took DVD 5 years to achieve a 36% adoption rate in north america and 23% in France. And DVD ended up being the most successful consumer electronics products ever released. We are only 2 years into the lifecycle of Blu-ray and the format war just ended so lets just wait and see what happens.

  • YukoAsho

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 12:21 pm GMT

    Um, Warner wasn't HD-DVD. They were format-neutral before their switch to Blu-Ray.

  • Snake329

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 11:51 am GMT

    I just recently got into the HD business, and let me tell you, I could never go back to standard TVs. It really isn't a GINORMOUS change, like, lets say, VHS to DVD, becaust it isn't. But if one were to see all the details that are presented, one could appreciate it. It's worth getting the Blu ray player. It wont take over anytime soon, but give it at least 3-5 years from now. Until then, I'm a happy HD consumer.

  • Daymos

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 5:24 am GMT

    But people can buy an upscaler DVD for £30 and it plays divx with a usb too.. people will continue to choose that insted of a £300 bluray player..

    the difference from SD to HD is massive.. but from DVD to HD is not great to the average eye... I can see the difference but im into all that shissle..

    I watched star wars via an upscaller ... from 4 ft away it was picture perfect on my 40inch lcd.. but when close up like 2 ft away.. I could see some jaggies..

  • Serious

    Posted Feb 27, 2008 1:06 am GMT

    Yuck_Too


    Your still not understanding my stance. I know that digital tv and blu ray have nothing to do with each other. I'm saying to those that believe this will have no effect on the console wars are wrong. That once digital conversion comes people will have a choice of digital antenna or HDTV. I believe many will opt for HDTV. Once that choice is made and you see the clarity of movies. Your next purchase will be a Blu Ray player. Why? cause if you had HDTV you watch a movie like Pirates of a Carribean on Starz HD and the picture is beautiful. Then you see it on a non hd channel like Regular Starz and see a huge difference. Later you in your favorite electronic store window shopping and see Pirates on DVD and Blu Ray. You remember how much you enjoyed looking at it in Hi Def. Do you want to get the regular DVD or are you thinking about upgrading to Blu Ray to enjoy your future purchases in hi def. Plus the salesmen tells you that your old DVD will be upconverted to Hi Def buy the player. If your a gamer your looking at the PS3 which you know is a blu ray player. Even if a consumer loves DVDs why not get a Blu Ray player that will upconvert you existing library?

  • HeathO

    Posted Feb 26, 2008 8:16 pm GMT

    Wow, after reading most of these posts I have to say there are a lot of retards and idiots out there. Kudos to all of you who just pull things out of your ass. To everyone who does their home work and use facts, Thank you, some of these have been very interesting reading.

  • Great_Ragnarok

    Posted Feb 26, 2008 6:31 pm GMT

    Im sure HD movies will come up with better compression in the future.just like DVD movie can be compressed to avi format saving heaps of space!
    so the download service can still be successful.

  • Gergroy_

    Posted Feb 26, 2008 5:08 pm GMT

    @kalipekona

    first of all, holy crap on the novel man, but i think you made an unfair comparison on your price of dvd's vs blu ray. Come on now, you can't honestly think that is a normal comparison that you found on amazon. Try walking into an actual retail store and you will see that pirates is 34.99. the 2 disc is 24.99 and 1 disc is 14.99. thats a 20 dollar swing, and those prices are from best buy, its where i work. Also, pulling a definition from wikipedia does not make you look more intelligent, probably the exact opposite. For all we know you could of made that definition up and put it on wiki. As any user can contribute to anything on there. Thats why the first thing that they tell you in college is to never use wikipedia as a source in your research. It is unreliable at best.

  • wingnut99

    Posted Feb 26, 2008 3:31 pm GMT

    @kingborno. Yes MP3's can sound like crap when over compressed. But Data is diff. Now if PS3 games got the compressed job it would take longer to load. So uncompressed is faster. Thats why loading games on PS3 is not so bad. There is no loss in quality with data. When I say data, I'm talking about compressed games. @ctg867. There is no diff With HD down load, and Blu-Ray. But soon we will have net 2. It is fast. It's like down loading 6 dvd's in 1 hour speed. So movie downloads wont take up at the most a few mins.

  • Daymos

    Posted Feb 26, 2008 3:19 pm GMT

    The microsoft download service is way too expensive..
    id probably just about pay £2 for a new hd film..
    its like £4-£5 and its only in 720p. average about 5gb in size..

    its the whole dload then dissapear in 24 hours that puts me off..

    as for MS putting the hd dvd in at launch.. the 360 would have then cost a bit more which could have meant.. not as much sales as there are at the moment...

    but if HD DVD was included and the 360 was priced as it was.. then yes you are right... it would have been a different story...

    im glad that the hd dvd wasnt built in for one reason.. people now are talking trash now.. saying dvd disk is dead.. bluray is the way..

    im sure these people would have had something to say..

    although if HD DVD won.. i wouldnt diss the ps3.. because bluray is just a way of storing game data.. regardless of its movie player status..

    same goes for 360.. its still the same.. HD DVD or not..

    quality games will still continue to be made..

advertisement
Click Here

Related Content

Matches based on text similarity.

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!