The Hot Blog

PS3 sales are 20% compared to November 2007 sales, but year-round sales are up. Sssooo, a wash?

I don't think I understand the PS3 story - what I see is 'it's expensive' and 'its biggest added-value is something that is unappealing to non-rich people'. Is there some extra twist that I'm missing?

The differences between Blu-Ray and DVD are hard to see on a TV less than 50".

---

Bullshit. My HD-TV is a mere 26" and Blu-Ray movies look remarkably improved over standard definition DVDs.

The problem with the PS3 is the price, and the lack of added value for that price. I know of many people that finally settled into standard DVD in the last 3-5 years. No one really cares about Blu Ray, except the hardware geeks and the money to burn crowd. The 360 and Wii are less expensive, and are perceived to have decent hardware, and great software. PS3 is seen is that same-gen as the 360, yet it came out later, and for more money. I expect Sony to get it together for the PS4 and just focus on a great game machine instead of some trojan horse of a new media format.

Bart, the quality difference is obvious with the right connection and the right tv (certainly not 50"), but the real question is whether that quality difference is important to the average consumer? It's not. DVDs look good, sound good, and are modestly priced. DVD finally took home movie viewing from the ghetto of P&S scan TV and fuzzy VHS, to a sharp nice looking format. BR looks better, but the fact of the matter is that many consumers just plain happy with regular old DVD for the time being. And unless they just start taking SD off the market, that is not going to change anytime soon.

DVD is dying. Aside from better picture what do I get with a blu-ray of Hancock? More extras? Better extras? Probably not. I just got a 360, because there are twice as many used games around for the system as the ps3 and they are much cheaper. But the Netflix streaming options on it kind of make physical media obsolete. I watched the Pixar movie about the cooking rat, didn't want to look up the title, streaming via netflix it was DVD quality with only 2 minor hicups caused by me trying to fast forward. It was great quality. Sony should start pushing the Bravia streaming network as an add in product for the PS3

Hmmm. No gamers here. As noted in the story, there aren't any exclusive games to drive sales. People bought Nintendo for Mario. Grand Theft Auto was exclusively on the PS2 for a while and plenty of people bought the system for it. Same with Halo and Xbox. The PS3 hasn't had one of these system-sellers and that's a bigger reason than Blu-ray.

Well, that and the Xbox 360 is a better system. The online stuff is better and most games actually look better on it because the PS3 is so hard to program. Factor in price and why WOULD you buy a PS3?

I'm a gamer. Anyone want to join me for a game of Left 4 Dead on the 360, let me know.

I remember renting laser discs (and the player) and taping them on VHS. I remember Danny Devito saying everyone should get a laser disc player and a Dolby Surround System.
I ended up buying a cheap all-in-one 5.1 system , then when it got too buzzy, a better Sony all-in-one.
I think most people are fairly satisfied with what they've built up over the years, they really don't want to buy the White Album all over again.
Whenever I see a HD TV I'm always comparing the picture to the 2K image in theaters and they just don't seem as good.
Maybe I just need a Christie projector and a good silvered wall....

I'm a gamer. I have a 360 Elite, my brother has a Wii. We have tons of games for both. The PS3 will come for Xmas. It will be used as a BD player. There are maybe three games I want for it, not including the bundled MGS4, in which I have no real interest since I haven't played any of the other ones. The games on the Wii60 that I haven't gotten too yet or haven't finished are enough to keep me occupied for a long time.

As for the PS3, it is suffering from worst of both worlds syndrome. It has no major system selling exclusive games, and BD hasn't reached a level which is enough to drive sales of it either. And now that standalone players have dropped below $300, the PS3's adavantage as the best (and cheapest) BD player has evaporated. I have no idea how Sony makes up for that, but I do know they are paying someone a lot of money to figure out how. Bottom line is that the PS3 needs to see a price drop ASAP.

I bought a PS3 last year because the price point was cheaper as a BD player than most actual BD players -- plus it updates. My father followed suit. We both have two or three video games, but plenty of Blu Ray discs. Give it time, the format will catch on. The Digital Bits has recently said that Blu is selling a little faster than DVD was at the same time -- though I'm sure the recession will put the format at a disadvantage. As for the PS3...that's a whole other issue. This system is made for 30-year-olds with money, not kids who only half care about their graphics and get their systems for Christmas and their games with allowance money from cutting the neighbour's lawn.

I bought a PS3 early last year, and only as the cheapest, best BD player on the market at that time. I've bought and played a few games since then, but the machine (and it really is a remarkable piece of engineering) still is mostly used as a media center and BD player.

As for disappointing BD sales, the facts point otherwise. Blu-Ray is pretty much on the same level as DVD was at the same time in the cycle. We're about to see the first million-selling BD (Dark Knight, who sold 600.000 copies on BD on the first day, over 20% of the total Dark Knight sales that day), which The Matrix accomplished late in 1999 on DVD, more than 2 years in, and BD hardware/software sales are up both in the US and Europe about 400% since last year.

As a matter of fact, BD hardware sales on Black Friday generated more revenue than DVD hardware sales, which obviously means that the DVD market is saturated. Personally I don't think that BD will ever be quite the same success that DVD was, but a lot of people forget that DVD is one of the most successful formats of anything ever (it's in about 90% of all homes). If BD could get perhaps a 30% market share, something that I don't think is all that unrealistic, it would be a hugely successful format.

Oh, and anyone that claims that BD quality is indistinguishable from DVD quality at

Don't know why the damn thing cut the rest of my post off...

"below 50¨instantly loses all credibility. The quality difference is readily obvious at anything above 32¨(and even 26¨as someone here mentioned)."

The difference may be obvious, but I think martin's point of whether the bump in quality is big enough to merit the investment is valid. The Black Friday discounts on the hardware were eye-opening, but you're still looking at a list price for BD movies in the mid-$30 range, with "sale" prices in the mid-$20 range, on average. You're asking a lot for people to pay twice as much for a new movie.

I know I rarely buy DVDs anymore as I just can't justify the cost - I stick to buying TV on DVD, much more bang for my buck in that regard - and at the moment can't even contemplate buying a Blu-Ray player and then not having the money to buy Blu-Ray DVDs.

And considering my DVD service isn't exactly overflowing with older films on Blu-Ray (i have over 400 titles in my queue) and all the video stores near me have minute Blu-Ray sections filled with movies from mostly the last five years there's just no true incentive (I also don't have a huge TV, also I share a tiny apartment with somebody and I can't have the volume up to incredible house-shaking levels so there's another quality lost).

My partner has a PS3 and a 52" tv and we've watched one Blu-Ray (30 Days of Night) and can't say it blew me away. Needless to say, I have bigger priorities right now (paying rent, paying for a trip to NYC) and I'd rather go out for a nice dinner and some drinks with the scant savings I have at the end of the week than buy a Blu-Ray that I may watch once before going back to my Golden Girls or The Closer box sets that I've gotten more use out of than the DVD of Adaptation that I got for $10 (I have DVDs I bought years ago that I have never watched once!)

As I buy almost exclusively online, and cannot with any authority comment on the difference in street price between the same title on DVD and Blu-Ray, I do know that the difference is fairly small online (10-15%) between comparable editions.

Comparing "The Dark Knight" on Amazon, you'll find a 3 dollar difference between the Special Edition and the Blu-Ray edition (20.99 vs. 23.99), Hancock and Iron Man are 22.99 vs. 25.99, The Incredible Hulk is 20.99 vs. 23.99 and Hellboy II 25.49 vs 21.99. Those are all new releases, but I readily acknowledge that catalog titles are much more expensive on blu-ray than DVD.

As for the bump in quality being big enough to merit the investment, I of course think so. I also believe that a combination of factors will increase mainstream blu-ray acceptance.

a) The more people get used to watching HD television, the more they'll want that same quality in their movies at home.

b) There are a lot of offers that bundle HDTV's with a blu-ray player, either free or for a token price. Once you get it in the house and start using it, you'll get used to the quality.

c) When it's time to replace your old DVD player (and blu-ray players are rapidly coming down in price), why not get a blu-ray player that doubles (they all do) as a kick-ass DVD upscaler. Best of both worlds.

I think it'll take some time, and the current economic situation isn't helping anyone, but I believe that eventually (2 years maybe) blu-ray will be counted as a very successful format.

Here's a question for you: what percentage of homes have HD tvs? Googling that, I see that the number published in the last month is 1/3 of homes. And lets say that half of those go for a Blu-Ray player. You're looking at a best case scenario in the next 12-18 months of maybe 20% adoption of the format in all homes. Compared to standard DVD, which is somewhere around 80-90%. Then you can say, well, people have to have HD tv because of the switch. No, only people that... watch tv through an antenna will need a box to make that switch. I don't personally know anyone that watches tv with an antenna. If you have satellite or some form of cable, you're not obligated in any way to get an HDtv, or furthermore accessories like a BR. I see BR getting to decent in-home #'s over the next few years, by which point On-Demand delivery will be much more commonplace on cable systems.

As far as the quality, etc. I like the format, and I like the ability to own a physical copy of a film. I was one of the early adopters of laserdisc as well. But I do not see this format ever becoming as mainstream as DVD or VHS. As a movie fan though, that shouldn't matter. Films will be released to the format, and they will look great. You won't by affected by the lack of demand, except on the somewhat higher purchase prices.

"As I buy almost exclusively online, and cannot with any authority comment on the difference in street price between the same title on DVD and Blu-Ray"

My numbers were from Best Buy. A smart shopper like yourself will be able to find better deals.

What percentage of consumers go for the Collector's/Special Edition of a standard DVD though? I think comparing that to a Blu-Ray can be a little deceiving. Most brand-new DVD titles I see at box box retailers are around $13.

The PS3 has 8 more years left of life in it. It could win this battle by attrition alone. So claiming it's a dead console ignores next year. Analog dies next year. A lot of people will buy even more HD TVs, and they will have an option between two consoles that look good. While one looks as good as a gamecube. Yeah... Wiis... it's not a gaming console. It's a baby's TOY!

Oh yeah: how on earth is a online package that you have to pay for better than one you do not? Seriously, XBOX live is nothing but Itunes for people to lazy to turn on their computers.

If you are picking Windows over other companies. Good on you. Great choice. Try not to melt.

I find it really hard to believe that 1/3 of homes have an HD TV in them - I would believe more like 1/10. Martin, where did you find that figure?

Jeff, I also find it hard to believe and think it's a trumped up stat. I would tend to believe it's more like 10-15%.

Google: "percentage with hd tvs" and a money.com link comes up that says 34%. For some reason the link doesn't work on my firefox right now. My thing on that stat is that even if you say that 34% of homes have HDtvs, I really doubt that a majority of those have their tvs set up properly to show HD quality content, you know they've got them stretched from 4:3 to 16:9 and just could care less about a DVD upconvert or res increase from BR.

"A smart shopper like yourself will be able to find better deals"

Nope, not really. I'm from a very expensive Scandinavian country where everything costs an arm and a leg. Street prices here are obscene.

And I think that comparing the Special Editions to the blu-ray editions is pretty fair, considering that in a sense, a blu-ray edition IS a special edition. They're more expensive to make (the production yield rates of usable discs is nowhere near DVD levels presently, very understandable given that DVD has had 10 years of practice) and as of yet, cater to a more specific audience although I'm hoping that's changing.

And Martin: if you check my earlier post I said "If BD could get perhaps a 30% market share, something that I don't think is all that unrealistic, it would be a hugely successful format."

I agree with you. I don't think that BD will ever reach DVD penetration, but nor do I think it needs to be very successful.

The "1/3 of homes have HD" stat is based off of having access to it, not that they are subscribing or able to use it. Time-Warner has an entire free HD tier for premium network and cable channels, but they are useless without the right box. Satellite, IIRC, offers a massive amount of free HD channels. So the stat is right, but it's not based on usage.

Ah, well by that standard _I_ have HD TV (except that of course I don't, too poor for an actual HDTV).

Exactly, Jeff.

The odd thing about HD television is that it could revive live theater via simulcast, in much the same way sports are turning out to be its saving grace for subscriptions. I'd be interested in an HD live-play of Penny Woolcock's Doctor Atomic, Piven in Speed The Plow, or Shore's now-dead The Fly. Isn't Taymor involved in that Spider-Man musical? That would generate some interest.

Martin: that's a seriously good idea.

PIVEN IS A DOUCHE AND HAS 10X MORE "HAIR" NOW THAN HE DID IN HEAT IN 1995.

LOOK IT UP.

IO - Imagine being at NBC where you own Bravo and you have a choice between funding live-play theater or Kathy Griffin.

Kathy Griffin all the way!

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: