Blu-Ray Winning!

WiizerFanboy · Post by **WiizerFanboy** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:05 pm

Mericks wrote:Silly, Vamp. Wal-mart doesn't have hands. It's a building.

Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids

Vamp [Bot] · Post by **Vamp [Bot]** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 12:49 pm

Mericks · Post by **Mericks** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 1:08 pm

Vamp wrote:

Bloody 'ell, I can read Vamp's mind!

bmdubya · Post by **bmdubya** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:22 pm

I don't have a HD set, but I just don't understand why we are having a competition in DVDs. Why can't there just be one standard HD DVD? I guess when players that can play either format are cheaper then it won't matter, but I just don't see why there has to be two formats.

Mericks · Post by **Mericks** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:31 pm

bmdubya wrote:I don't have a HD set, but I just don't understand why we are having a competition in DVDs. Why can't there just be one standard HD DVD? I guess when players that can play either format are cheaper then it won't matter, but I just don't see why there has to be two formats.

Sony made blu-rays in an attempt to increase profits seeing that (shock) they were facing a lot of lawsuits and needed some way to earn back money lost in debts or something. By some miracle, blu-rays became a successful disc format made by Sony (with the irony in this being that the PS3 is a relative flop).

I'm not too sure on where HD-DVDs came from though. Either way both formats ridiculous and have so much unused space and in the end charge you more money for what's not used vs. what's actually used on the disc. They can't even cram enough extra features onto those things to make up for the empty space, but either way, a dual-layered blu-ray will have much more empty space vs. either a dual or single-layered HD-DVD.

Regardless both formats are far too expensive for me to consider for a long, long, long time. They'll probably both e outdated by the time I can afford to get either 1 (in the technological world, that means some time in the next 3 minutes).

Post by **BreakmanX** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:47 pm

Mericks wrote:
bmdubya wrote:I don't have a HD set, but I just don't understand why we are having a competition in DVDs. Why can't there just be one standard HD DVD? I guess when players that can play either format are cheaper then it won't matter, but I just don't see why there has to be two formats.
Sony made blu-rays in an attempt to increase profits seeing that (shock) they were facing a lot of lawsuits and needed some way to earn back money lost in debts or something. By some miracle, blu-rays became a successful disc format made by Sony (with the irony in this being that the PS3 is a relative flop).

I'm not too sure on where HD-DVDs came from though. Either way both formats ridiculous and have so much unused space and in the end charge you more money for what's not used vs. what's actually used on the disc. They can't even cram enough extra features onto those things to make up for the empty space, but either way, a dual-layered blu-ray will have much more empty space vs. either a dual or single-layered HD-DVD.

Regardless both formats are far too expensive for me to consider for a long, long, long time. They'll probably both e outdated by the time I can afford to get either 1 (in the technological world, that means some time in the next 3 minutes).

The Ps3 is not a flop, its way too early to say that. In a year we can say that, but not yet. It is purforming better, relative to the time it had been out, than the 360.

As for the competing formats, it does suck, but I always think competition is better than monopoly. The better format is actually winning this time, which is a good thing. Also, most of the studios are (at least for now) releasing movies on both formats or on a new disc that can hold both. The same thing happened with VHS and Beta. I think one format will be largely dominant withing a year or two.

Post by **Richie** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 2:58 pm

Vamp wrote:

= Vamp's comeback when he has nothing better to say.

Mericks · Post by **Mericks** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 3:21 pm

BreakmanX wrote:The Ps3 is not a flop, its way too early to say that. In a year we can say that, but not yet. It is purforming better, relative to the time it had been out, than the 360.

As for the competing formats, it does suck, but I always think competition is better than monopoly. The better format is actually winning this time, which is a good thing. Also, most of the studios are (at least for now) releasing movies on both formats or on a new disc that can hold both. The same thing happened with VHS and Beta. I think one format will be largely dominant withing a year or two.

Well I know it's too early, hence my use of "relative" seeing that it seems likely due to the cost, the cost of producing it, exclusives constantly being ported, and of course the fact that they did suffer a lot due to the extremely low supply earlier on. Odd enough, Nintendo is suffering for not being able to produce units fast enough to meet demand.

Now that I said that, here's the definition of competition in the business world:

Who fucks who first wins.

WiizerFanboy · Post by **WiizerFanboy** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 4:01 pm

BreakmanX wrote: its way too early to say that.

Thank you.

Vamp [Bot] · Post by **Vamp [Bot]** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 7:31 pm

Richie wrote:
Vamp wrote:
= Vamp's comeback when he has nothing better to say.

No, it means you said something so incredibly stupid I can't fathom what the hell is wrong with you two.

Mericks · Post by **Mericks** » Wed Apr 25, 2007 11:41 pm

Vamp wrote:
Richie wrote:
Vamp wrote:
= Vamp's comeback when he has nothing better to say.
No, it means you said something so incredibly stupid I can't fathom what the hell is wrong with you two.

This means, in Vamponese, "Richie is correct."

Post by **Verence** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:18 am

He sometimes doesn't want to waste time formulating rebuttals to statements he finds stupid, I'm sure everyone can relate.

Post by **Richie** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:03 am

Vamp wrote:
Richie wrote:
Vamp wrote:
= Vamp's comeback when he has nothing better to say.
No, it means you said something so incredibly stupid I can't fathom what the hell is wrong with you two.

Please explain the stupidity? I had a genuine question for you concerning your statement about invisible hands.

Mericks · Post by **Mericks** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:16 am

Verence wrote:He sometimes doesn't want to waste time formulating rebuttals to statements he finds dtupid, I'm sure everyone can relate.

There's no frickin' way that every single fucking time someone asks him a question it's stupid. Take the invisble hands question. That's one of the smartest questions I've ever fucking heard you jackass.

Vamp [Bot] · Post by **Vamp [Bot]** » Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:39 am

The Invisible Hand of the Market