Just when you thought the next-gen DVD war was on the verge of being over, a couple of studios decide to muck things up even further. Today, Paramount and DreamWorks Animation announced that they will exclusively support HD DVD on a worldwide basis.
The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com
Add this feed to your online news reader
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
The logical conclusion for the neutral is for somebody to win quick, and I envisaged a HD-DVD win just as much as Blu-ray. If this was a path with two routes to the same destination, we are clearly further down one than the other. The greedy man would say even if I have walked less, we should give up the other's guy route and all walk down mine - to the neutral that is.
As for the point of even if HD-DVD, I will still have the player and not give it up - yeah right. How many Beta-max videos were still in use 3 years after launch. Who's going to service your MS HD-DVD drive when it throws out the equivalent of the red ring of death. And you are going to run to Paramount and say "fair-use - please swap my HD-DVD for a Blu-ray" and they will probably say "sucks to be you, go and buy it yourself". HD has the potential to be in use for at least 10 years and you are gonna cross your fingers and hope your machine lasts that long and if it doesn't you are happy to not watch those movies again?! And before you have a go at me, yes this could be Blu-ray in those shoes just as easily.
Which goes to my whole point, whoever wins, an extension of the war will just cause more suffering, and the warlords win.
There are far more valid issues in this world that would describe the word suffering.
within the next few years someone in china will make a dual format player.
whatever
The logical conclusion for the neutral is for somebody to win quick, and I envisaged a HD-DVD win just as much as Blu-ray. If this was a path with two routes to the same destination, we are clearly further down one than the other. The greedy man would say even if I have walked less, we should give up the other's guy route and all walk down mine - to the neutral that is.
As for the point of even if HD-DVD, I will still have the player and not give it up - yeah right. How many Beta-max videos were still in use 3 years after launch. Who's going to service your MS HD-DVD drive when it throws out the equivalent of the red ring of death. And you are going to run to Paramount and say "fair-use - please swap my HD-DVD for a Blu-ray" and they will probably say "sucks to be you, go and buy it yourself". HD has the potential to be in use for at least 10 years and you are gonna cross your fingers and hope your machine lasts that long and if it doesn't you are happy to not watch those movies again?! And before you have a go at me, yes this could be Blu-ray in those shoes just as easily.
Which goes to my whole point, whoever wins, an extension of the war will just cause more suffering, and the warlords win.
There are far more valid issues in this world that would describe the word suffering.
within the next few years someone in china will make a dual format player.
whatever
AND...please allow me to kindly point out that contacting the movie studios about why they support HDDVD over bluRay will do nothing! You don't sit in their boardroom. You do not hold their assets or bank balance. They know and I know that you will STILL buy their movies, watch their movies in theatres, or even buy their sister-company's movies on bluray just to prove the otherside is unworthy of adoption...that is dumb as hell, in my opinion. Either way, they are getting your money. You cries are in vain.
Saying HDDVD prolonged the war is true perhaps, but who is saying that BluRay didnt do the same with Target/Blockbuster....they were pehaps the first camp to throw money at studios for exclusives.
Please everyone just stop the madness and think....breathe....and except the fact that if you are reading this and own a HD or Bray player, you ARE an early adoptor....all you can do is buy movies in your format and enjoy them. Everything else is beyond your control.
Money talks.
AND...please allow me to kindly point out that contacting the movie studios about why they support HDDVD over bluRay will do nothing! You don't sit in their boardroom. You do not hold their assets or bank balance. They know and I know that you will STILL buy their movies, watch their movies in theatres, or even buy their sister-company's movies on bluray just to prove the otherside is unworthy of adoption...that is dumb as hell, in my opinion. Either way, they are getting your money. You cries are in vain.
Saying HDDVD prolonged the war is true perhaps, but who is saying that BluRay didnt do the same with Target/Blockbuster....they were pehaps the first camp to throw money at studios for exclusives.
Please everyone just stop the madness and think....breathe....and except the fact that if you are reading this and own a HD or Bray player, you ARE an early adoptor....all you can do is buy movies in your format and enjoy them. Everything else is beyond your control.
Money talks.
ContentAgenda
Missing the point on Paramount and HD DVD
Much is being made in the blogosphere of anonymously sourced reports suggesting that the decision by Paramount and DreamWorks Animation to drop their dual-format posture in the high-def wars and support HD DVD exclusively may have been greased by "promotional considerations" forthcoming from HD DVD's hardware makers.
Figures as high as $100 million are being thrown around, supposedly the amount paid to Paramount by Toshiba in a desperate move to save a "dying format."
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if such "promotional considerations" were involved. They usually are in this business. But as an explanation for why the studios would make the switch it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Both the Blu-ray and HD DVD hardware camps have been throwing money and considerations at studios and retailers since the formats were launched. Paramount has been in both formats for over a year. Any deal that might have been put on the table now it could have had a year ago, or at any time since. The relevant question is not how much but, why now?
At the time Paramount switched its allegiance from HD DVD-only to supporting both formats (under a different regime at its home entertainment division) the studio was working off a weak release slate. The weight of its titles wasn't going to tip the format war one way or the other. So when Blu-ray offered to cap the costs of replication at a level no greater than HD DVD, effectively removing any risk to the studio in supporting the format, it probably wasn't that tough a call for Paramount.
Today, Paramount boasts the strongest release slate of any title going into the fourth quarter, including Blades of Glory, Transformers and DWA's Shrek the Third. Having the ability to actually influence the course of events in the format war was one reason, I think, that Paramount abandoned its format-neutral stance.
The impact of its decision, in fact, was almost immediately apparent. Mere hours after the Paramount/DreamWorks move was announced, Fox and MGM broke their long silence on their future slate of Blu-ray releases, announcing 29 titles between them through the rest of the year. While those plans were doubtless in the works long before the Paramount announcement, the timing of the announcement was just as surely not a coincidence.
But why wouldn't Paramount and DreamWorks not go exclusively Blu-ray?
I think emphasis the two studios placed on the cost delta between the formats in the press release was probably on the level. And it reflects the growing anxiety, at least at some studios, over flattening DVD sales and the need to turn high-def into a volume business quickly. The combination of lower-priced players and lower costs to the studio make HD DVD the logical choice if you're looking to push volume.
"Our real focus is on, how do we jump start this thing?" Paramount Home Entertainment president Kelly Avery said Monday. "This is still a very small market and we need to start moving some movies and some players."
The combination of a strong slate of movies and sub-$300 players represents the best chance to do that in the near term, in Avery's view. Splitting the studios' hard costs over two formats also made the dual-format strategy less efficient, she added.
"Ultimately, we don't want this to become a niche business," she said. "We need to get consumers to step up to high-def DVD players and we think this fourth quarter presents an opportunity to do that."
Will it work? It's probably not going to settle matter this year. But it's likely that it will make it difficult for either side to credibly claim victory early next year. That's when the really hard questions will start.
ContentAgenda
Missing the point on Paramount and HD DVD
Much is being made in the blogosphere of anonymously sourced reports suggesting that the decision by Paramount and DreamWorks Animation to drop their dual-format posture in the high-def wars and support HD DVD exclusively may have been greased by "promotional considerations" forthcoming from HD DVD's hardware makers.
Figures as high as $100 million are being thrown around, supposedly the amount paid to Paramount by Toshiba in a desperate move to save a "dying format."
It certainly wouldn't surprise me if such "promotional considerations" were involved. They usually are in this business. But as an explanation for why the studios would make the switch it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Both the Blu-ray and HD DVD hardware camps have been throwing money and considerations at studios and retailers since the formats were launched. Paramount has been in both formats for over a year. Any deal that might have been put on the table now it could have had a year ago, or at any time since. The relevant question is not how much but, why now?
At the time Paramount switched its allegiance from HD DVD-only to supporting both formats (under a different regime at its home entertainment division) the studio was working off a weak release slate. The weight of its titles wasn't going to tip the format war one way or the other. So when Blu-ray offered to cap the costs of replication at a level no greater than HD DVD, effectively removing any risk to the studio in supporting the format, it probably wasn't that tough a call for Paramount.
Today, Paramount boasts the strongest release slate of any title going into the fourth quarter, including Blades of Glory, Transformers and DWA's Shrek the Third. Having the ability to actually influence the course of events in the format war was one reason, I think, that Paramount abandoned its format-neutral stance.
The impact of its decision, in fact, was almost immediately apparent. Mere hours after the Paramount/DreamWorks move was announced, Fox and MGM broke their long silence on their future slate of Blu-ray releases, announcing 29 titles between them through the rest of the year. While those plans were doubtless in the works long before the Paramount announcement, the timing of the announcement was just as surely not a coincidence.
But why wouldn't Paramount and DreamWorks not go exclusively Blu-ray?
I think emphasis the two studios placed on the cost delta between the formats in the press release was probably on the level. And it reflects the growing anxiety, at least at some studios, over flattening DVD sales and the need to turn high-def into a volume business quickly. The combination of lower-priced players and lower costs to the studio make HD DVD the logical choice if you're looking to push volume.
"Our real focus is on, how do we jump start this thing?" Paramount Home Entertainment president Kelly Avery said Monday. "This is still a very small market and we need to start moving some movies and some players."
The combination of a strong slate of movies and sub-$300 players represents the best chance to do that in the near term, in Avery's view. Splitting the studios' hard costs over two formats also made the dual-format strategy less efficient, she added.
"Ultimately, we don't want this to become a niche business," she said. "We need to get consumers to step up to high-def DVD players and we think this fourth quarter presents an opportunity to do that."
Will it work? It's probably not going to settle matter this year. But it's likely that it will make it difficult for either side to credibly claim victory early next year. That's when the really hard questions will start.
The problem is potentially made worse by adding uncompressed PCM audio (possibly in several languages). I have yet to see a "consumer friendly" (rather than corporate friendly) use of this extra space yet. I'm happy to see the newer BD discs coming out not using MPEG2 anymore and sort of wish they'd reissue the MPEG2 ones so I can finally buy them. At present, I only buy the BD discs encoded with AVC. With purchasing HD-DVDs, I've yet to have worry about this.
HD-DVD discs and players already support triple layer discs possible already (51 GB) with up to 10 layers on the horizon. There is no need for this yet when the space is being used effiencently.
You say that Blu-ray will never require two discs. I wouldn't say "never" because, it would be quite easy (even today) to fill up even the biggest available Blu-ray disc.
If you don't care how the space is used, I understand why you prefer the larger format disc. To you, more might equal more. To me, typically less equals more. To each his / her own, though.
The problem is potentially made worse by adding uncompressed PCM audio (possibly in several languages). I have yet to see a "consumer friendly" (rather than corporate friendly) use of this extra space yet. I'm happy to see the newer BD discs coming out not using MPEG2 anymore and sort of wish they'd reissue the MPEG2 ones so I can finally buy them. At present, I only buy the BD discs encoded with AVC. With purchasing HD-DVDs, I've yet to have worry about this.
HD-DVD discs and players already support triple layer discs possible already (51 GB) with up to 10 layers on the horizon. There is no need for this yet when the space is being used effiencently.
You say that Blu-ray will never require two discs. I wouldn't say "never" because, it would be quite easy (even today) to fill up even the biggest available Blu-ray disc.
If you don't care how the space is used, I understand why you prefer the larger format disc. To you, more might equal more. To me, typically less equals more. To each his / her own, though.
All movie studios, etc were originally agreeable members of the "DVD Forum". The all managed to coordinate with each other to bring the paper specification of DVD format to life. Unfortunately, when it came to HD format proposals things weren't so agreeable anymore.
Certain studios wanted more DRM (copy protection) among other things and they saw it was never going to happen with HD-DVD. The Blu-ray disc format quelled their fears and paranoia while promising to line their pockets with more riches.
The DVD Forum only wanted to support HD-DVD. Those who disagreed with the DVD Forum's decision lured to join the "Blu-ray Disc Association". The "HD-DVD Promotion Group" now also exists.
Here are links to all the mentioned organizations...
The DVD Forum - http://www.dvdforum.org
HD-DVD Promotion Group - http://www.hddvdprg.com/
Blu-ray Disc Association - http://www.blu-raydisc.com/
So, it is my opinion that if there no studios that ever left to join the Blu-ray Disc Association (for whatever reason), then there might not be another side to "war" with. ;)
All movie studios, etc were originally agreeable members of the "DVD Forum". The all managed to coordinate with each other to bring the paper specification of DVD format to life. Unfortunately, when it came to HD format proposals things weren't so agreeable anymore.
Certain studios wanted more DRM (copy protection) among other things and they saw it was never going to happen with HD-DVD. The Blu-ray disc format quelled their fears and paranoia while promising to line their pockets with more riches.
The DVD Forum only wanted to support HD-DVD. Those who disagreed with the DVD Forum's decision lured to join the "Blu-ray Disc Association". The "HD-DVD Promotion Group" now also exists.
Here are links to all the mentioned organizations...
The DVD Forum - http://www.dvdforum.org
HD-DVD Promotion Group - http://www.hddvdprg.com/
Blu-ray Disc Association - http://www.blu-raydisc.com/
So, it is my opinion that if there no studios that ever left to join the Blu-ray Disc Association (for whatever reason), then there might not be another side to "war" with. ;)
Maybe someone in the CNET community can bring us all up to date about the merits of each system. Then we'll decide. I don't think a few dollars difference makes a hoot---the best technology for consumers will win out. Best meaning storage capacity of each disk, easy to make copies, etc.
Bixxo
Maybe someone in the CNET community can bring us all up to date about the merits of each system. Then we'll decide. I don't think a few dollars difference makes a hoot---the best technology for consumers will win out. Best meaning storage capacity of each disk, easy to make copies, etc.
Bixxo
They lost a small fortune too.
Greed will get you every time.
They lost a small fortune too.
Greed will get you every time.
- Who cares!
- by bblackmoor August 22, 2007 6:33 PM PDT
- Who cares about this stuff? Normal DVDs look fantastic on a 46" 1080p monitor. Unless you have a monitor 20 feet wide, this is just an excuse to sell you something you don't need.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- lots of us
- by lawgone August 22, 2007 6:43 PM PDT
- I have a 42" 720p and have a PS3 and HDDVD for XBox. Both formats look quite a bit better than DVD. It's like comparing a hidef broadcast to a non hidef.
- Like this
-
Showing 3 of 20 pages (479 Comments)