PS3 will not impact format wars, says Time Warner CEO
The fate of the Blu-ray will not have a big impact by the inclusion of a Blu-ray player in the PlayStation 3, according to Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons. Speaking to an investor conference in New York, Parson called the next-gen DVD format war "unfortunate," remarking that the competing formats -- Blu-ray and HD DVD -- drive costs down and confuse consumers.We don't mind a competition-spurred price reduction in our movies, but we're also hesitant to purchase a next-gen DVD in the event we pick the losing format. Parsons notes that people were more likely to use the PS3 for games -- but if we want to watch high-definition films, at least we know there's a Blu-ray player already in our entertainment center. If the PlayStation 3 becomes a success in hardware sales, might Parsons be underestimating its impact?
Time Warner is a media conglomerate that owns Warner Bros., Turner, NewLine, HBO and AOL, our parent company. Warner Bros. currently releases films in both HD DVD and Blu-ray. Sony's decision to put a Blu-ray player in the PS3 has been frequently called a "trojan horse" move to drive sales of Blu-ray discs.
[Via Game|Life]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Jason W @ Dec 6th 2006 2:46PM
Well if you own a PS3 you only need to hook it up via componet or HDMI to watch HD movies on your hd tv. Since most people who want a PS3 do not have a hdtv it is a moot point at this point in time. As HDtvs become more common then the inclusion of BLUray may be a good thing for PS3 if it is still around. Some estimate it will be within the next 5-10 years that the HDTV will become the norm in people's home. This gen of video game systems could be long gone by then. As for the hddvd add on on MS's machine you know everyone who buys one will be wanting one just for HDDVD movies since that is all it does.
mywhitenoise @ Dec 6th 2006 2:57PM
#1 HDTV's are already almost the 'norm'...in fact, if your TV isn't digital by February of 2009, you're not going to see shit.
"Since most people who want a PS3 do not have a hdtv it is a moot point at this point in time."
WHAT!!??? The people who are willing to spend $550/$650 for a console, are willing to spend $600 - $2000 for a TV.
pablo @ Dec 6th 2006 3:09PM
If by "norm" you mean that it is only expected for 55% of homes to have them by the END OF 2010 (Leichtman Research Group Inc.), then yes it is already almost the norm... And against your "fact", requiring digital broadcasts by 2009 means nothing about the resolution of the tv displaying the digital signal. It only deals with the means by which you introduce the signal to the tv. Blu-ray and PS3 are not guaranteed to have great success, and in fact look to be struggling against an uphill battle right now.
pirateninja @ Dec 6th 2006 3:11PM
I actually thought of buying a ps3 for blu ray purposes...
hooha @ Dec 6th 2006 3:14PM
5-10 years? Way too conservative. I think you underestimate greatly people's adaption to new technologies around *TV*. This is America aferall! HDTV's are going to have a banner year this year, and each following year will out-do the last - exponentially. This is an easy one. Prices are dropping like a rock.
kodec @ Dec 6th 2006 3:24PM
Blu-Ray is poised to be as smashing a success as Sony's other innovative formats, like the UMD, MiniDisc and Betamax.
Lucas @ Dec 6th 2006 3:25PM
I bought the HDTV I'm using (an Olevia 26" one) from Compusa for $800 2 years ago. I use it for everything... It's currently a TV for watching shows, upconverting DVD player, playing Xbox and Gamecube, and also a computer monitor for my PC. You can now buy a replacement (better model with better specs) 27" HDTV from Olevia for $450. At this rate it won't take long for the majority of American homes to have an HDTV. It may not be a 40-50", but the 20-27" sizes will be down to below $300 soon, leading to widespread adoption.
Justice @ Dec 6th 2006 3:31PM
Ah it's people's opinions. Let's leave it as that, and see where BR will do in the near future. If Ps3 does well then BR will do well. Simple as that.
Off topic: I don't know why people complain about the $600 price when there is a $500 version. Especially if the $600 gives me memory slots I don't need a hard drive I can upgrade and wi-fi that's slow, when I can buy a network adapter. Can someone show me the logic in that, when people complain about the price, when there is an alternative.
everythingsablur @ Dec 6th 2006 3:48PM
You're unfortunately pretty far off #2. HDTV market penetration is currently less than 10% of all homes. Less than 10% of all US households have an HDTV. That makes having an HDTV *FAR* from the norm. Sure that number is on the rise, but let's face facts here, there just isn't enough HD content to create a critical mass to convert the other 90% at this point. How many broadcast HD channels are there? Depending on your market, maybe 25 tops. How many high def movies have been purchased (BD or HD-DVD)? Probably less than 1% of overall DVD sales. How many Xbox 360's are still connected to SDTVs? Probably a number that will surprise you.
HD is a nice-to-have in the current gen, but int 4-5 years is when it will truly be a necessity for a game console. Yes, in 2-3 years, Nintendo might look long in the tooth with only 480P in the Wii, but they will be on the verge of their next console when that comes around.
And as someone who works with MSOs on a daily basis and has been to CableLabs meetings (formerly working for a cable giant), I'd expect that HDTV mandated deadline to be further extended.
syco @ Dec 6th 2006 3:49PM
Basically what I'm saying is it will be MORE than 5-10 years before >50% of households have an HDTV. It will be something like 15-20.
m3mnoch @ Dec 6th 2006 4:10PM
"5-10 years? Way too conservative. I think you underestimate greatly people's adaption to new technologies around *TV*."
you realize too, that hdtv has been selling into the consumer for 20 years now, right? their sales model isn't "buy me for new features," it's "buy me when your old tv dies."
adoption through attrition is a long row to hoe.
m3mnoch.
sonofnone @ Dec 6th 2006 4:20PM
Wow. Where is this guy and who's his dealer? Because that there is some grade A smokin' material. Share the wealth man!
Eskil Steenberg @ Dec 6th 2006 4:44PM
I think PS3 will win the format war for Blu Ray.
If you own a PS3, would you buy a film on DVD or Blu Ray? I would buy a Blu ray, even if i don't have a HDTV because I might get a HDTV in the future and i don't want to have to re buy my films then.
Even if you have no intention of buying a ps3 for the Blu Ray, If you buy it, would you then buy a separate HD-DVD player to watch films on? Not likely. You would use the Blu Ray even if that in no way influenced your decision to buy the PS3.
Selling a HDDVD player to some one who owns a PS3 will be almost impossible. And remember most HDDVD players costs more then the PS3.
Consider: If sony sells only half as many PS3s as PS2s, then they would still have 50 million BluRay players out there. That's plenty. If all thouse people buy one or two films....
syco @ Dec 6th 2006 4:47PM
My first post never came through the email, which is good because it wasn't very clear anyway. Color television standards were finalized in the US in 1950. Sales of Color Television sets didn't exceed B&W sets until 1972, and obviously it was even later before half all households had a color TV since people do not replace their TV very often.
I would consider color MUCH more compelling than a higher resolution, and yet it was more than 20 years before color really took off. How can you expect HDTV to be any real consideration for a long time to come?
bird @ Dec 6th 2006 4:49PM
i bought my ps3 early because i wanted a blu ray player and microsoft can't get their 1080p working so i won't be getting a hd-dvd until they do, so in my case this guy couldn't be more wrong
bird @ Dec 6th 2006 4:50PM
I also own 3 blu rays and don't own a ps3 game yet. So yeah this guy is a fool if he doesn't think it will have an affect.
VampireHunter Z @ Dec 6th 2006 5:01PM
AOL is your parent company?!?! Uck! Well at least Time Warner has a very deep library of movies.
Jason W @ Dec 6th 2006 5:03PM
I have an HDDVD player (Toshiba) and a bluray player (PS3). I still dont think that putting a player in a system that will most likely not be used for Bluray movies due to HDtv adoption rates is a bit premature. It will be nessary in the next gen but not now since most house holds will not use it for movies after the novelty of bluray wears off on those who do not own HDTVS yet. You may buy one or two Bluray movies if you have a PS3 and no hdtv but I dout most would throw away money after that.
I dont care wich on wins since I have both. I do however think that every xbox 360 add on HDDVD add on will help HDDVD sales since its only used for movies.
daxiang12 @ Dec 6th 2006 6:04PM
#2,
Most people (>70%) don't have HDTV yet. And the majority of people who own HDTV probably have 1080i only CRT RP sets, which as far as I remember is totally ignored by SONY or considered as "outdated" by them.
Mr. Khan @ Dec 6th 2006 6:11PM
the joke here should be:
"lolz, it will not impact the format wars because PS3 is teh suckzorz and it will not sell"
Spreading Humor through faux fanboyism
SuicideNinja @ Dec 6th 2006 7:06PM
They're going to have to release some decent "flicks" on either format if there is to be a war at all. Most stores are "lucky" to even have a dedicated section to the new video formats.
Jeramy @ Dec 6th 2006 10:44PM
no, it's going to be quite a while until everyone has an hd set in their home. the only people i know with hd sets are quite well off, and it isn't so much getting an upgrade as it is "ooh, let me flaunt my wealth with the most intrusive and expensive thing that i can buy to complement by bmw." (and yes, the people i know with hd sets all have nice cars).
granted, there's still the nerd demographic which we all fit into, but other than those two no one really gives a shit about hd. they just want something to watch grey's anatomy on and see that it's much much cheaper to buy an sd set. even when half of households have an hd set it still will not be the death of sd sets. if people do make the jump, it will only be for the main tv.
Evan @ Dec 7th 2006 8:45AM
Sony will no doubt come along and claim "BluRay is victorious because there are x number of BluRay players, and only y number of HD-DVD players". But Warner's CEO seems to be smart enough to smell that BS, because he realizes that just because someone owns a PS3 doesn't mean they'll buy BluRay movies.
josh @ Dec 8th 2006 5:13PM
"2. #1 HDTV's are already almost the 'norm'...in fact, if your TV isn't digital by February of 2009, you're not going to see shit."
Uhhhhh... no. You are referring to when broadcasters are required to drop analog in favor of a DIGITAL signal, not a HD signal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_tv#Analog_switch-off
"In the United States, the switch-off of all analog terrestrial TV broadcasts has been mandated for no later than February 17, 2009. Legislation setting this date as the hard deadline was passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in early 2006. Currently, most U.S. broadcasters are beaming their signals in both analog and digital formats; a few are digital-only."
Again, DTV signal is not the same as HDTV. While DTV can transmit HDTV, the Feb. date you are referring to is unrelated to HDTV. It's simply the date when all broadcasters must be using DTV and not analog.