LOL @ "proper, actual insiders"

If Fox and Warner went HD then Blu-Ray would still be in the position it is in today, the lead. Also Blu-Ray won't fail simply because of the fact that it is in every PS3. Do the maths.

Posted by: gawd | January 7, 2008 12:08 PM

Um... if Warner, Paramount, Universal and Fox were all exclusively supporting HD DVD, Blu-ray would indeed be 100% dead.

Yes, people would still own Blu-ray "players" but there would be no films to buy.

As it is, it's HD DVD that's about to perish, thanks to the toss of a coin last week in the Fox office :(

Posted by: Losers | January 7, 2008 2:23 PM

Ya know when you watch football and your team almost wins and could have if just a few plays had gone their way? Your perspective on your precious format is like that...and its ridiculous. What do you have to back that Warner and Fox ALMOST went with HD-DVD anyways? And the 360 Ultimate rumor? Do you know how that even got started? Stuff.com started discussing how great it would be if the 360 had an HD-DVD drive and real HDMI support, along with cooler running chips and because of internet idiots like you, it started running as a rumor and then as almost fact. I'm sure Microsoft had nothing of the sort planned no matter how much you wish they had come up with a PS3 killing system. But I suppose...considering the site you post on...

Posted by: RuddigerPez | January 7, 2008 3:48 PM

LOL, Microsoft almost made a big mistake coming out with the Ultimate. It pretty much is admitting defeat when over 2 years later they decide to release a 360 with built in HD DVD.
HD DVD is done, and even though it might have been on the wire, it's still obvious that Blu Ray is the better format.

Posted by: LOL | January 7, 2008 3:57 PM

Do you guys even have a blu-ray player? You're all a bunch of morons. blu-ray players are notoriously slow on boot-up (on the order of minutes), they are slow to load the menu systems. They are NOT the superior format. HD-DVD wins hands down on the speed. Initial blu-ray players can't even run blu-ray discs that currently come out due to poor planned standard compatiblities. HD-DVD was able to increase it's side with all existing HD-DVD players to 51 Gigs with ALL players being able to read the disc.

I don't care which format wins (or won), but you all are obviously informational challanged.

Posted by: bunch_of_dummies_here | January 7, 2008 10:46 PM

to LOL,

I have a PS3 & it only takes 15-20 second to load a BD,
menu systems activate virtually instantaneously & for your
information, they are developing 100gb discs that are
playable in all BD drives which will be out by the end of the
year as well as 8 layer 200gb BD discs in 2009, just use google

Posted by: BluDawn | January 8, 2008 1:34 AM

This article is a bunch of speculation and the posts about Blu superiority on this are equally ridiculous. First off as both an HD DVD and Blu owner (separate stand alones as well as one for my dual format for my pc), I do not believe one format has superiority over the other barring technicalities (i.e. load times, capacity, blah blah) But even those, most consumers don't even both to think about.

The fact is there is no substantial proof of MS offering a HD DVD enabled 360 because they made a clear decision to allow consumers to choose. Second the format to "win" is the one with studio support (i.e. catalog of movies). Simply accounting for PS3 's sold does not claim victory for Blu. In fact hardware sales of standalone HD DVD's have been exceptional over the holiday beating out standalone blu players.

Dont be fanboys and think playstations are going to continue to rule man

Posted by: Dude of Life | January 8, 2008 4:24 AM

How exactly does a multi-national organisation, and I quote you directly, "pull out at the last minute and go crying off to Sony instead"? And how exactly do "insiders" differ from "actual insiders"?

Your article is simplistic in style and content, and as you know this to be true, you have decided to remain an anonymous author, and as such you should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Razza | January 8, 2008 5:22 AM

PS3 rules bitchesss!!!!!

Posted by: PS3Rules | January 8, 2008 6:30 AM

hello i would like to start off by saying the one who posted this is half right.

warner and fox did announce they are going blu.
but the whole 360 hd-dvd thing i don't know about.
and what i do know about is that microsoft has announced that they are making a blue ray 360 and making an add on player for it as well.

and now on to the format.
well i have to say blue rays are better because of the fact of space blue rays have m ore space for more information like longer games more and better sound.
longer movies as well as more bonus features.
and also lets don't forget about that blue rays are more secure they run a complicated encryption code so it is harder to break the code to copy the disc.

hd-dvd's are good but they don't come close to blue ray.
they have less space less picture quality and so on.
the only thing they have in common is that they are round.

and as for the players well i have to say that the load times on the players are not slow at all.

i have a ps3 that loads up in about 4 seconds it is the new 80 gig model.
and i have an hd-dvd standalone player and it loads in about 15 seconds.

so we are clear on this issue which is faster?
blue ray is faster load up.
and as for the rpm speed well hd-dvd has that hands down but that is because why you ask well it has to do with the fact that hd-dvd is nothing but a dvd on steroids.

and blue ray rotates slower because it has to read more information and it also gives more quality as a result it never skips because it rewrite the information on the disc if it is scratched.

so all in all hands down blue ray is the winner because it is more thought out and better technology.
what i am saying that blue ray is worth your money.

because blu is the future just like the commercial says.

it is future technology and hd-dvd is old tech but with a new name.

there we have it people the harsh truth for both sides whether you like it or not blue ray is the winner end of story.

oh yeah almost forgot universal is going blu soon also.
and so is the horror movie studio i can't think of the name of it.
they make nightmare on elmestreet and so on.

this was announce at CES.

Posted by: hjason7812 | January 8, 2008 9:26 AM

You see..it's idiots like the idiot above that give fanboys a bad name and everyone ends up laughing at them thinking "what a muppet".
Blu-ray (notice the spelling) is not more secure than HD-DVD ..both were broken within days of being released.
Pic quality is the same for both. Some films are better on hd than on blu-ray and vica versa.
Nothing to do with the format but poor encoding.

Posted by: Jay | January 8, 2008 3:30 PM

200 Gigs? Who CARES! An HD movie NEVER needs more than about 10...heck...lets just say 20.

200 Gigs is pointless, so space has never been the issue here.

Posted by: 200 gigs? | January 8, 2008 4:07 PM

to 200 gigs,
"Space has never been an issue", you dipstick, what about TV
series? More space on discs means less room on shelf which
means more room for other movies & other TV series'.

Also, I'm sick & tired of changing discs every bloody
four episodes. And before you mention the E word (for
exercise) I get enough of that at work & gym

Posted by: BluDawn | January 8, 2008 4:31 PM

You DA! You actually think that they will put a whole series on one disc!?! Dream on! they want your $$. In many cases...they can put more than 4 episodes on a disc...and I've found that that only put 2 (TWO) episodes on a disc. They want you to pay per disc...They want you to RENT per disc!

I've rented a meesly cartoon series before...it contained only 4 episodes of the series (about 23 minutes a piece). Do the math. They could have put 14 episodes on it.

That a regular DVD.

Space has NEVER been the issue.

'nuff said.

Posted by: 200 gigs? | January 8, 2008 6:54 PM

NOT A WHOLE SERIES PER DISC YOU SIMPLETON, JUST A
SEASON PER DISC. Although some idiotic studios put only
a few episodes of a series on a disc that can take a lot
more, most studios fill em' right up.

Space is a huge issue, otherwise Sony wouldn't be pushing it
as a benefit so strongly would they?

What planet is this guy from? Stupidito 321?

Would you be satisfied with a one maybe two gigabyte hard disk
drive in your computer? It might just be adequate for you wouldn't it?

Posted by: BluDawn | January 9, 2008 3:00 AM

Now you're mixing apples and oranges. Hard drives take on the order of Terabytes. Hopefully, even you can see that the simply 200GB doesn't come close to competing in speed and storage of the Hard drive. Besides, the Hard drive is used for an entirely different reason - it's called DATA STORAGE. How about you do a little research on your own.

Now...back to the REAL world. SONY is all about PROPAGANDA. I know...it's a big word...look it up. Propaganda is what you have fallen into. Hook, line & sinker. You've bought into this "Mega storage - 200 Gigs" hype. Congrats - you're a bonified product of SONY.

The Corporates never wanted to give you a whole season on a disc. DVDs use to cost $199 a piece...now, they cost about $10. They want to make sure you buy and rent MULTIPLE DISCS.

So, now - listen closely, because I'm not going to repeat it.

You won't see the 200 Gig discs. (Especially if the HD-DVD has been killed off - competiton dead).

R&D = done.

I haven't a clue why you can't do any of this thinking on your own. Intellectually impaired as you are, I have hope that some of this has actually sunken in...

Posted by: 200 gigs? | January 9, 2008 8:33 PM

Listen you imbecilic, mentally retarded, neurotic, brain cell deficient
sad case of human intellectual consciousness. Let me make it
quite plain to you;

1. I'm not mixing anything up! I know that HDDs can go to the
Terabytes range but for a movie buff like myself who has several
hundred DVDs, who wants to see movies in their best HD form,
even TBs are not good enough, I hate the idea of downloading
10s of GBs to a HDD. I just don,t think that the Internet is quite
ready for that sort of load & even HDDs can certainly not hold a
fraction of my film library. So for the next decade Blu-ray will be
the main way to watch movies, at least untill HDD technology or
its successor reaches PBs & the Internet is fast & stable enough
to handle the data.

2. 200GB discs are not propaganda they are a reality, along with
other discs that are in R&D (non-Sony/Blu-ray) that can wipe the
floor with HDDs.

3. I'm not a product of Sony, in fact, I've disagreed with a lot of
Sony's practises in the past, I never owned a PlayStation because I
thought it was rubbish. I never owned a PlayStation 2 because I
thought that was little better. But I bought a PlayStation 3 because
it has a ton of potential. Sony have basically have been doing a lot
better of late & I evaluated the options & think Blu-ray was & is the
right way to go.

4. The "Corporates" prefer utilising the maximum of a discs capacity
because it'll cost them less to produce & in turn less for consumers
to pay which means enticing more consumers that would not pay
the high cost if they sold the products with more discs. If the
"Corporates" did what you say, consumers would lean more towards
downloading movies, & you know what? I don't think Sony wants
that to happen, do you? Sooooo, listen to me, Sony WILL keep up
the R&D for 200GB discs & beyond because it's in their best
interest to.

Now I can imagine how clogged & rusty your miniscule brain is but
maybe if you read this about 10, heck... lets say 20 times you may
yet be able to retain, compute then come to the realisation that I'm
correct & your just deluded.

The end of an this era marks the beginning of Blu

Posted by: BluDawn | January 10, 2008 2:09 AM

You lost this arguement a long time ago. You're just blowing out hot wind. Me, and all the others, can read you like a book - page per page.

You're angry...you're mad. And you should be. Your a pawn. You've fallen in the corporate mindset so perfectly.

So, keep on venting. Continue with your ranting and raging like a lunatic. Noone takes you seriously.

You've just SPUN you're own 200 gig propaganda. You obviously didn't read my last post...or, perhaps you simply haven't the comprehension level to understand it.

DVDs would sell for almost $200 to produce. NOW they sell for about $10...maybe $20, but drop drastactly in price. The PRODUCTION of this media is way...WAY cheaper.

The BOTTOM LINE is you rent a DVD ONLY once...and you've made back the manufacturing price of the DISC! You are even more of an idiot if you don't think that, it's not going to be the same way with blu-ray.

Media production cost will not be the issue.
Storage will space will not be the issue.

Your way of thinking is totally counter-intuitive in their business model.

Besides, SONY wasn't even the one that really was pushing the "200 GB" potential, it was SONY FANBOIs. And who is pushing it now? You...

Anyone can put two and two together here...except obviosly you.

Posted by: 200 gigs? | January 10, 2008 6:53 PM

Losers!

Posted by: smoothn00dle | January 10, 2008 7:54 PM

This is ridiculous, this is getting absolutely nowhere, smoothn00dle
is right, were losers. Why don't we just agree to disagree &
just move on in our lives....

Posted by: BluDawn | January 10, 2008 11:29 PM

Fox have been part of the BDA since before release, it wasn't a new thing. BluRay has /always/ had more studio support, and Warner and New Line were just the last straw.

The 360 Ultimate never existed.

Posted by: zeek | January 11, 2008 7:43 PM

It is clear that Blu-Ray is winning (won) the HD war thanks mainly to the PS3.

Perhaps if Microshaft had showed more commitment in the first place HD-DVD may have had a chance.

Posted by: Jason | February 17, 2008 9:29 AM

good news for all

Posted by: Rock | April 12, 2008 8:21 PM