Nice picture, I love that music video (and the song).

Also, I prefer digital downloads GENERALLY. It works well with games but movies seem to have so much DRM and take up so much space that isn't quite as convenient.

I guess that's why I stick with Netflix for all my movie viewing needs.

Well, like any good conspiracy theorist, I think Bay may have a few grains of truth mixed in his Cheerios. If physical formats all fail, then MS is in a decent spot to pick up the pieces.

Personally, I don't give a shit. I just want one side to win so I can finally buy an HD money hole to go along with my too-expensive set.

everybody's fooling everybody and everybody gets paid doing it. wtf is the difference? they will not be able to fill that disc space, on both blu-ray and hddvd, with anything useful until we all live on mars.

So? Is it so surprising to see a company work the market itno it's best interests? All they need to do is make shit smaller and more accessible, and then who needs CD's? Download a completely new, possibly even universal, format that doesn't need a physical copy to function. Shit, anyone played the new Crimson Skies yet? I have had 0, nadda, zip, (read: NONE) slowdown or pauses in loading times. AND it looks shraper - although I have had a new TV since I played it last and that might have soemthing to do with it.

Not really surprising to me, all I'm sayin.

@Techno Mage

It will be 9/11 all over again.

You guys are missing the point here: COCHESE.

@Techno Mage don't forget the bunnies mind bullets
i can't really be bothered with either hd, i put a dvd on my new(ish) hd dvd, and touch the screen with my nose and it looks fine to me.

Its a week for calling microsoft cunts isn't it? CUNTS!

Digital won't surpass disc based content until they can provide the same image quality, feature set, and audio quality as a physical medium.

Whether you pick one format or the other, there's no denying that a 25Mb HD signal is far superior in quality to a 3Mb one.

And as of right now, those 720p "HD" videos you rent off of XBLM are probably clocking in somewhere between 3 and 4Mbps, which is "passable" as HD, but nothing that is even close to demo quality reference, which is critical in mass acceptance. If you can't wow someone with the quality, it won't sell as well as it could.

I'd put digital distribution at a good 10-15 years out, seeing as how with current codec compression methods would result in most HD movies being 20-30GB in size, which would be quite difficult to have customers want to download or even stream into their homes when broadband coverage in the US is still less than 50% (47% of households, actually...)

Now convince someone, like my sister (who doesn't have DSL/cable or see any inherent benefit to having it) that this is the only way they'll be able to rent movies in the future, and they'll laugh in your face.

The issue isn't that we're moving toward digital downloads. Everybody knows that. The thing is, Microsoft is allegedly trying to fuck over its own format relatively early in its lifespan to force it to happen sooner.

Also, Cochese.

Lemme clarify, XOR

HD DVD and BluRay are for the most part using IDENTICAL transfers and identical codecs when being released on both formats (old Paramount movies and all WB movies).

If they're going to use a higher codec, AVC is used. HD DVD adopted AVC before BluRay (which is where you probably heard this), and BluRay has long since adopted it into it's format as well.

Seeing as how more than half of the BluRay players being used today are built into PS3's it's also benefitting from the same capability.

Non PS3 based BluRay players are suffering at the hands of not being able to play some movies, but I dealt with the same issues with my first DVD player back in 1998, so this isn't entirely unusual to early adopters with a format.

Early Panasonic and Toshiba DVD players were HORRIBLE machines and had massive amounts of failure rates and playback issues. Some models of Toshiba DVD players couldn't play The Matrix, IIRC...

The feature set that they include for HD DVD doesn't impress me much on a technical merit level. Though they are quite interactive and "fun" to the commonfolk, all I look for when I buy a movie is the movie. Extras RARELY get watched in my home. And I mean REALLY rarely. They add nothing to my experience of watching the movie.

Also adding in features like a web interface to buy Evan Almighty merchandise in my copy of said movie is the wrong way to pitch these features to someone like me. Maybe it's for a rabid fan of a particular movie, but I'm quite capable of finding movie merch on my own without a studio coming in and trying to upsell me on 300% marked up tshirts and posters just because I also bought their movie.

Also, this new shared movie watching feature built into next week's new Harry Potter HD DVD isn't all that hot to me either. There's no keyboard support on HD DVD players, so how is that text chatting feature in the movie with a remote control supposed to be intuitive or fun?

@ShadowXOR: HD-DVD can do the extras because they've got an easier, simpler manner in which to use those tools. The thing is, not many people really care that much about these type of extras since most people aren't even investing in either of the formats yet.

Right now , HD-DVD does win for hardware capabilities, but in the end it doesn't matter since Blu-Ray can achieve the same level but HD can't increase their capacity (or durability, Blu-Ray are so freaking durable). Both Blu-Ray and HD can be updated via the Web or external devices. HD doesn't have a master codec or compression.

The whole high-def war is stupid imo. I've got an A3, and will most definitely go purple at some point and buy a PS3. I agree with you dvd, most of the special features are pretty damn pointless with the exception being the PIP for 300.

@Loki - They just released a 3 layer, 51 Gb HD-DVD, and signs point to it being fully backwards compatible with all HD-DVD players.

The only reason Blue-Ray discs are more durable is because they are coated with an extra protective layer that is NEEDED because the data is placed so close to the surface of the disc. Remember, your gonna pay extra for that coating...

Blu- Ray can achieve the same level but it's not doing it and it pisses me off because there is no incentive to buy Blu Ray over HD. I am convinced that I would rather buy an HD because there is the option to play it on a regular dvd player (if I want to take it over to my friends house) I watch all the extras making of; outakes; sometimes director's commentary all that stuff

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=GatesDepo

watch him weasel and play dumb, and act innocent.

I love my HD DVD player. That's all I care about.

Also, the more Beastie Boys references on Destructoid, the better. WIN.

@Nyteshade: BD has the 50Gb/100Gb single/dual layer advances as well, and actually had them before HD was able to come up with their advancement. It'll be at least 2 years before either becomes anywhere near mainstream, though. BD will win the capacity wars because it's all about the lasers and not the discs. Also, pricing will eventually get to DVD costs. They've kept them at $19.99-$24.99 not because the DVDs were expensive, but because that was a good upper price that people continued to purchase DVDs. BD and HD can get there in the future without trouble and still make a ton of money as overtime it will cost less and less to manufacture the discs themselves.

@Bob Arctor: Agreed. It can do it, but they seem to be taking their sweet time getting anything done. Kind of like the PS3 game selection.

hmmm wow eyerolling.gif

The sales numbers don't lie. Companies don't care what you think about the formats, how much you love one or the other, or which one has what features. For them its all about the bottom line, increashing cash flows and stock price to keep their investors and stock holders happy. If one of them is outselling the other by a factor of 3:1 it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which one is more attractive to them. Again the market should decide the winner not the people distributing the discs.

I think Bay is miffed since the studio went with hd-dvd over bluray and realized how much more money he could have cashed in on if they used bluray.

I still think digital downloads are years and years away. Our broadband penetration is very low compared to other countries, and I have no idea what the fiber optic coverage looks like. Also, you have to convince the average consumer that this is the way to go. And them being acustomed to having a physical copy of a movie in their hand vs. not is a big stepping stone you'll have to overcome.

fuck downloads.
too much bullshit with it.
cant take it to a friends house and see on his computer.
or in car.
or another country.
or corrupted file.
or virus.
or other gay shit

i have HD-DVD & Blu-ray,
but Blu-ray will win/.
anyone who says otherwise is a dumbass.

Yeah, I agree...the internet infrastructure isn’t in place right now for digital distribution, and I don’t see it being there for another decade at the very least. My family just moved and we got Verizon FiOS (TV/internet/phone). I went to speedtest.net, and it clocked my connection at 20 Mbps, which is 2.5 megabytes per second. We live in Long Island, and that test was from a server in NYC. Even if we could sustain that 2.5 MB/s speed for the entirety of the download, it would take 133 minutes to download a 20 GB file. That’s not all that bad...but the computer that is wired to the router only has a 40 GB hard drive (gimme a break — it’s like four years old). So even if 90% of Americans had fiber optic internet lines, digital distribution would require terabyte hard drives as well.

@ MasterMS-

A lot of people don't, and that's why there's nothing to worry about for a long, long time.