Toshiba drops HD DVD; Blu-ray wins
by Ross Miller 
{ Feb 16th 2008 at 1:15PM }
The rumors were true. Japanese news source NHK (english translation and Reuters validation) is reporting that Toshiba is planning to drop support of HD DVD, striking a final blow to the format and conceding victory to Blu-ray. The Sony-backed high-definition disc has been gaining strides for some time, most notably after Warner Bros switched to Blu-ray exclusively. Toshiba is expected to face hundreds of millions of dollars in losses.The so-called "format wars" seems to be at an end, and now we're left to ponder about the future, such as how big is the office party Sony is throwing in honor of its victory? More related to video games, might we see a future Blu-ray add-on (and subsequently rumors of a built-in drive) for the Xbox 360?
[Via Engadget; thanks to everyone who sent this in!]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 5)
Brian Jarrett @ Feb 16th 2008 1:21PM
Sweet! Sony is going to get crazy royalties. For all of you people railing Sony for taking a loss on every unit sold. Looks like MS and Nintendo will eventually be funding future Sony toys.
bAssackwards @ Feb 16th 2008 1:24PM
Microsoft I might see the royalty fees coming from a BD add-on, but why... or rather what in the world would Nintendo pay BD royalties for?
mji245 @ Feb 16th 2008 1:31PM
Ok, so when is the funeral?
Mr Khan @ Feb 16th 2008 1:56PM
Even when Nintendo adopts a Blu-ray style technology, it won't be called Blu-ray, and they won't have to pay for it. It will be called "Nintendo _______ Optical Disc"
Just like the Wii Optical Disc is just a DVD 9 that they don't have to pay royalties on, and GC Optical Disc was a Mini-DVD that they didn't have to pay royalties on
killploki @ Feb 16th 2008 2:21PM
why do you care so much about how much sony will make?
Xizer @ Feb 16th 2008 2:58PM
Nope. That's the nice thing about game consoles. Microsoft and Nintendo can use their own, proprietary formats.
spongebolton @ Feb 16th 2008 3:39PM
too bad holographic versatile disc and card are on the horizon in a couple of years to obsolete blu-ray. then generational media iteration + 1 a couple of years after that. this will repeat until digital distribution becomes a real solution
DrXym @ Feb 16th 2008 3:55PM
Nintendo haven't even offered DVD playback (which is pathetic frankly) so I doubt they'll be paying BD royalties any time soon.
Johk @ Feb 16th 2008 5:31PM
Blu-ray is not just sony, the BDA was founded by 9 major manufacturers and the early research was done by Sony and Pioneer.
I don't know exactly who benefits but it isn't just sony...
CB @ Feb 16th 2008 5:31PM
@Brian: You don't know how companies work, do you? In your eyes, companies look like they have some weird rivalries going on but the fact is they work together where the money is.
For example, even though Sony and others in the BD Association will get royalties, so will Microsoft as long as movies continue to use MS' VC-1 video codec (it's a standard on HD DVD and Blu-ray).
Enemies on the outside, friends in the smoked-filled rooms on the inside.
John McPoop @ Feb 16th 2008 7:23PM
@spongebolton
You are sadly mistaken if you think Holographic media will become affordable within the next two years. While it is the superior format and has much higher theoretical limits the problem is two fold. 1. The production cost are still far to high even for a small disc of around 100 GB (over $100.00 per disc) not to mention the cost of the drives to playback the media due to the intricate laser technology. 2. By the time the price of holographic media approaches a price the public is comfortable with Blu-Ray will already have saturated the market and consumer adoption of a new standard other than Digital downloads is not likely in my opinion. I think the true benefit of Holographic media is going to be for big corporations data storage rather than for the general public and consumers. I do think digital downloads are the future but there are still a litany of problems with that technology. Our data infrastructure and download speeds is a big concern, affordable mass storage, portability of media between multiple devices and the whole DRm aspect. For example, if I buy a game and I beat it or don't like with digital downloads I wont have a physical copy to trade for another game or sell for store credit. So unless they make transferability between owners a reality I don't see digital downloads taking off in terms of overall consumer adoption.
Just my 2 cents.
t_m @ Feb 17th 2008 8:58AM
Yay! sony will make more money this year!
I'm so happy that I could cry!
WAIT A SEC! Why are we happy about this again?
Spartana @ Feb 17th 2008 12:36PM
Hi everyone
deaftly @ Feb 18th 2008 9:51AM
Funny that bluray and hddvd both use Microsoft's VC1 Codec
Ninja_Nun @ Feb 18th 2008 11:34AM
Am i the only one whos surprised that like 20 thousand people have voted on this? i didnt even realise that many people read Joystiq, ah well i liked it before it was cool
Todd @ Feb 19th 2008 1:06PM
I'm still not sold, and won't be sold, until Sony fixes some of the limitations of Blu-ray.
c.Lake @ Feb 19th 2008 6:20PM
@killploki
...Because "Brian Jarrett" is Sony's personal "Back-Door-Whore". He will do anything they tell him to do. He has no brain and a big sore ass.
Michael Monet @ Mar 8th 2008 3:19AM
How is Nintendo going to be supporting them? I think Nintendo is doing far better than MS 360 and definitely better than PS3
glitched @ Feb 16th 2008 1:21PM
How do we know this isn't a mistranslation of a reporting of the rumors?
Joshua @ Feb 16th 2008 1:24PM
Look around on the Internet. This isn't the only source.
It's over, finally.
bAssackwards @ Feb 16th 2008 1:22PM
Hahah, as of posting this all the votes are at 1. I say it's about time the format war finished up!
gozer @ Feb 16th 2008 1:22PM
heh
when will we hear from universal and paramount?
Esat @ Feb 16th 2008 1:23PM
Ah. Well, I'm just glad I have my trusty kaleidoscope to fall back on. Now, THATS some good HD content right there....
copa @ Feb 16th 2008 1:24PM
In other news, Amazon is offering an additional $10 discount on HD-DVD players.
Act now!
Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Feb 16th 2008 4:51PM
I wish it was so in Yorupe...
Cheapest here is about 130€. On Amazon.de - about 200€
riggs @ Feb 17th 2008 9:54PM
yorupe...really?
Hoopla @ Feb 16th 2008 1:28PM
I still like regular DVD's :(
LaughingTarget @ Feb 16th 2008 1:42PM
A lot of people are in your camp. Many consumers find the HD picture to be disorienting or destroys the suspension of disbelief factor. The image quality is so realistic in some cases, people hate it because they think they're watching the actors film the movie, not the movie itself.
BluRay will always be in the shadow of the DVD.
Curtis the Claw Game Master @ Feb 16th 2008 1:56PM
Just like how DVD will always be in the shadow of VHS right?
Cesaria @ Feb 16th 2008 1:57PM
I'm content with DVDs as well. I don't really feel like upgrading my fucking movie catalog every time a new format comes along. I have a feeling this will be the sentiment of a lot of people. HD movie watching won't take off for 4-5 years. Mark my words. bitches.
Mr Khan @ Feb 16th 2008 2:03PM
VHS's had enough storage capacity for the vast percentage of movies, DVD had a clearer advantage over it simply by being the first optical format that wasn't the size of a full-scale vinyl album that had the capacity for a whole movie and more
a DVD over component looks fine on an HDTV (not like a VHS over composite), and the storage capacity advantage of BR will only really come in handy for putting whole Seasons of TV shows on one disc, or whole collections of movie trilogies or something
For just watching movies, the VHS - DVD transition >>> the DVD BR transition
It is the better technology, but its not as essential of a transition
LaughingTarget @ Feb 16th 2008 2:52PM
Wrong, DVDs are clearly better than VHS. The picture quality just happened to come with other, real advantages. The key advantages are the price point, DVDs are cheaper than VHS to buy and manufacture; DVDs don't have to be rewound; DVDs don't deteriorate with use like VHS tapes; DVDs don't jam in the player; DVDs can store additional features beyond the movie; DVDs have chapter skip options, you have to fast forward until you get to the right place with the VHS; pausing a DVD doesn't fuck up the player like it did with the VHS.
What does BluRay have over DVD? Higher resolution. That's it, the resolution that, despite people not liking to hear about it (hence vote down), is not popular with a lot of people because it destroys the suspense of disbelief. There just isn't any justification for the extra cost. It makes a great archival format and is cheaper per gigabyte than the DVD is, but as a movie format, it doesn't have enough going for it to justify its existence.
tcc3 @ Feb 16th 2008 3:09PM
Man color totally destroys the suspension of disbelief. If i want color I'll go our side. The colors are m,ore vivid in my imaginations any way.
Get off my lawn!
PointyThings @ Feb 16th 2008 3:41PM
That suspension of disbelief thing is just not something I can subscribe to. I have never, ever heard that complaint, and since 35mm film has always been higher resolution than VHS or DVD, and is still near HD, then we would have heard that point back around 1892.
That's not why people aren't buying HD formats, they aren't buying them because they're expensive and are have, for the money, little to no advantage over DVDs.
DVD players just recently, a year or two ago, outnumbered the amount of VHS players.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 16th 2008 3:42PM
It feels like I'm repeating an old debate...
Color - Advancement. Use of color has long been used as a device for directors to portray emotion. Fantasia would not have had an impact if filmed in black and white.
Higher resolution - not an advancement. It does force directors and producers to take more care with their filming. For example, watch Pirates of the Caribbean in HD and you'll see just how bad the costumes are. They're too perfect and use high quality material for a supposed rugged pirate environment. However, HD isn't a tool that can be used to further the art of film making. Movie film is already of a much higher resolution than BluRay can hold. No movie is suddenly better because it's in HD.
It's more of an excuse to charge more for movies. Hear about the $10-$20 price hike for HD movies? It won't go away, that's what HD gives us, minor fidelity increases and a higher price tag.
ill trooper @ Feb 16th 2008 3:52PM
LaughingTarget, that's some crazy conjecture there about more detail destroying the 'willing suspension of disbelief,' in fact, I would say it might have the opposite effect, as HD resolution is closer to the original level of detail you get with film when it's projected in a theater.
I know what you're getting at, but I think it has more to do with the original movie or TV show. So it can vary from source to source - if the HD resolution reveals flaws in the effects from an old film, then that might prevent you from 'suspending disbelief,' but a clearer, sharper image that holds up and still has detail on say, a 52" screen, can only help sell a well-made movie or story, or allow a film to look the best it has since the time it was projected of of film.
konajinx @ Feb 16th 2008 4:12PM
Amen to that. I don't care a whit about HD anything right now. I have a huge DVD collection...a lot of which is centered around TV and Anime series, and I figure it's going to be a while before any of those sorts of things are released on Blu-Ray in the numbers and regularity that they are on DVD. I guess to a number of people high def is the best thing to have, but I'm still happy with my SD TV and "regular" DVDs.
FidliousWong @ Feb 16th 2008 4:36PM
laughing target,
You also forget that it's a commonly held belief among movie makers that, should SOUND have been introduced 10-15 years later, the art of film would be significantly greater. There was also a very huge backlash among the film critic community as color was introduced. As someone who, in order to get my degree in 3D animation, had to study over a hundred years of filming techniques and film history, I can say you're far off from this one.
Each new innovation is always initially used, frankly, as a toy. Filmmakers are forced into it since that is where the market and the mass appeal comes from. When actors had to lean into flowerpots to talk so the microphone could pick them up, it was a travesty. When Charlie Chaplin detested the death of silent cinema so much to the point that his "caving in" film was a Hitler flick, there is your sign. And the change to color was just as bad. From it's early days of dying the negatives to it's first debut is gaudy and saturated tripe (something to be mocked directly by Wizard of Oz FYI), color was detested.
Now, having said that, HiDef is not a huge advancement and the initial usage would be extremely cheap and cheesy. But then you do have people who see the potential. Such as? In Ghost in the Shell 2, some of the text rotating in one of the robots eyes was actually Hex code for the eye color at it's different depths. Without HD, you would miss that. Also, I'll take Crank as a great example since I own both SD and HD versions of it. In SD, the heat distortion off the waffle iron is barely visible whereas in HD, it's very much present. Likewise, in the limo scene where they are watching the news cast about Chip, they make a comment about how long ago he should have died. They never mention a time or how unusually long he's been living. The HD version shows the time in the newscast. These are the little touches HD adds. More information or better places for the more advanced directors to hide details.
Let's just put it this way, imagine what Orsen Welles and Gregg Toland would do with this format....
Geoffrey Sperl @ Feb 16th 2008 4:59PM
A lot of us are. I'm firmly in the BD camp, but I'm still actively buying DVD, too.
Look, there's a lot of old movies and TV that will never look any better in HD than they do in SD. Even some old B&W movies look worse in progressive scan than they do with regular old 480i. Those sort of things are not going to be helped by being moved to an HD format.
Star Wars? Well, I'm biased because I'm a huge SW fan, but SW will look great in HD. Indiana Jones? Lord of the Rings? All worth buying again.
But The Maltese Falcon? North By Northwest? The original Dracula or Frankenstein? Probably not.
Bill @ Feb 16th 2008 5:03PM
@Cesaria
You won't have to upgrade your ENTIRE movie collection because DVD's will still play in BR players.
I have a BR player and out of all the movies that I buy only about 20% are on BR, because I don't feel the need for certain older films.
Vidikron (FU) @ Feb 16th 2008 5:08PM
@Laughing Target
That suspension of disbelief aregument is pure bullshit. The source materials, the actual theater movies themselves, are higher resolution than even the BR discs... and no one seems to have a problem with the resolution there. That argument fails.
Cesaria @ Feb 16th 2008 5:35PM
@Bill
Do they upconvert to 1080p? That would be the only reason I don't buy them all over again. Unless they offer me some really sweet extra content. Also, I do imagine it would be really nice to have a full season of Battlestar Galactica on one disc. Something tells me they won't be doing that, though.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 16th 2008 6:39PM
I wouldn't call it pure bullshit. Was showing Pirates off to the parents a while back and they looked at it and said, "Why are we watching them film the movie?" They hated it, said it felt disorienting and wasn't all that great. To be fair, they did like Cars in HD. Few movies, especially old catalog movies, are any good in HD. Full CG and animated films work well. All HD live action does is show off flaws in the filming process and give you that watching them film a movie effect.
FidliousWong -
Is that really worth the extra cost? A sizzling waffle iron and a date on a background scene? Sound had real value, well beyond just basic dialog. Your examples are easter eggs, not pertinent plot points. HD was specifically designed to highlight minute details that have little bearing on the whole of the movie. The hex code is great, but was the inclusion of any merit to the series? No. HD isn't going to be anything of value to the directorial process beyond minor aspects that directors won't use as key plot points because they're hard to notice in the first place.
PointyThings @ Feb 16th 2008 6:59PM
"Movie film is already of a much higher resolution than BluRay can hold."
Exactly, which is why your argument about it being too realistic for people doesn't make any Goddamn sense.
As for color, there is so much variation in color among just TV sets (go stand in Circuit City) that that couldn't possibly make a difference. Even if it did, you can adjust the color, hue, brightness ect.
As for an advancement in film making, when VHS came out, film makers had to make sure everything important in the movie happened in the 4:3 ratio, so it could be converted to VHS and TV without missing anything. HD formats (and DVDs with the anthropomorphic dealy), thankfully, are letter box 16:9, so if it takes off then we can see less simple shots and angles. That and storage are really the only reasons I give a flying shit about Blu- Ray/HD DVD.
FidliousWong @ Feb 16th 2008 10:54PM
Laughingtarget
"Is that really worth the extra cost? A sizzling waffle iron and a date on a background scene?"
Actually, yes. because, if you recall, 35mm has wonderful resolution. These were all details you noticed in the theatrical release. These are not details added for the BluRay. These are details which were stolen from you by a DVD release. These are the little touches effects guys go nuts over. This is a detail that tells you a man who was supposed to be dead in an hour is now on his tenth.
"Sound had real value, well beyond just basic dialog."
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Sound came far too soon to the film industry. Period. This is not a debatable opinion, this is fact. Overnight you saw a sudden rush of new actors who, facing facts, couldn't act. They were unable to exhibit real emotion through their expressions and instead depended almost entirely on dialogue. Now take a look at theatre and how your posture and your stance tell more of the story than the words. Suddenly, and instantly, that was lost. Take a look at the great comedians of our time and how they rely upon the spoken word. Frankly, only Jim Carrey could dare stand in the shadow of Buster Keaton or Charlie Chaplin but Jim Carrey knows knows how to perform without words. Now look at current films... when was the last time a movie MOVED you emotionally just by the facial expression of an actor/actress? During the Silent era, it wasn't all that uncommon. Sound was introduced before silence was perfected and the film industry is all the worse for it. Likewsie with color. Now that we have color, how many directors truly pay attention to light and shadow? The symbology found in the unknown darkness or how often have you seen a movie in recent memory where darkness itself told the story more than the dialogue? When color came in, an acknowledgement of light and shadow was removed. Only on rare occassions does this come back and ironically, these are often thought of as standout moments in film. When Marlon Brando's eyes were completely in shadow in The Godfather, was that a trick of color? And now, todays directors are barely remembering these ideas unless they happen to be making a horror movie. You argue where things got better but in the art of the film rather than the recycling of pulp fiction, I see they have gotten worse. But granted, as I said before, when I was essentially forced to watch movies from every era, you suddenly appreciate whats missing in todays films. But then again, the entire basis for your arguement is deeply seeded in a fucking summer blockbuster. This is like arguing classical music with Garth Brooks.
"Your examples are easter eggs, not pertinent plot points. HD was specifically designed to highlight minute details that have little bearing on the whole of the movie. "
Actually, no. In a good directors film, nothing is incidental. It's called Mise En Scene. They were placed there for a reason. A good director has you question why things are the way they are. If a truly exceptional director has done his job, nothing is out of the ordinary. If not, continuity breaks.
"The hex code is great, but was the inclusion of any merit to the series?"
The movie you mean? The series exists outside the universe of the movies. The second movie have an arching theme is seeing the humanity in cold machines. To see a cold unfeeling Hex Code describe an eyes color is important to the overall theme.
"HD isn't going to be anything of value to the directorial process beyond minor aspects that directors won't use as key plot points because they're hard to notice in the first place."
HD is going to give us back all those things we lose as we take the movie home. You may not give a shit. Me? I'm a guy who, for shits and giggles, laughs at how many rules your average Brett Ratner film breaks or enjoys watching how the use of shadow either confirms or denies a characters personality. You... well, you're oblivious to this shit so enjoy Witless Protection...
Boss Tempo @ Feb 19th 2008 2:15PM
Oh man these are my favorite posts. Yes lets all gaze at our giant anime and TV Series DVD collection and keep convincing ourselves that we're not really looking at a future flea market stand of laser discs and beta maxes. Really. If you clutch you precious standard DVDs tight enough, you'll make them last that much longer. Wipe those tears! DVD is still good and all this HD nonsense is just a fad! Oh the humanity!
Stop fooling yourselves. Go buy some 8 track tapes, rent a laser disc player and go hibernate in a pair of baggy MC Hammer pants that say "You Can't Touch This".
cranium @ Feb 16th 2008 1:29PM
well, looks like im waiting for digital distribution.
it's a shame that so many people (though not all) were willing to blindly follow blu-ray simply because sony produced it. hd-dvd was better for both the consumer and filmmakers but that didn't matter. which is a shame too. because as much as you feel you may love a company they will never love you back. they want your money, not your favor. we just got hoodwinked.
obelisk45 @ Feb 16th 2008 1:37PM
I get tired of hearing Sony conspiracy theories. Yes, Sony is known for cut-throat tactics and quality issues. No, Sony is not actually out to get you, they are just there to profit on you. And, finally, no Blu-ray is not inferior: it originally had an inferior compression methodology, but it switched to the higher compression. But, it didn't really matter all that much to begin with.
Bluebrake @ Feb 16th 2008 1:44PM
What the hell are you talking about? No one supported BluRay because they love Sony. Given Sony's track record with proprietary formats, their name is a warning against their products, if anything.
BluRay won because millions of people happened to have a player lying around their house via their PS3. Whether you trust a company or not, you're not going to go buy another expensive player when you've got one already.
LaughingTarget @ Feb 16th 2008 1:51PM
It's an empty victory anyway. The studios are thinking the PS3 will be the primary movie player, which means it will always be a tiny, enthusiast device. The PS2 is a tiny flea bite in the worldwide DVD player sales at 120 million and if 6 million PS3s are enough to decide a format, then the format is doomed all by itself. DVDs will still kick BluRay's ass all up and down the place until a real improvement comes along.
This is just like successfully holding a coup in Liberia. You may have won against someone, but you still don't matter.