No. It just means they understand what the future might yield in terms of a profitable angle.

This is the smartest thing I've heard out of the Microsoft camp. They're 100% correct on this one.

BluRay disc reminds me of those MP3 compatable Discmans with 3 minute anti-skip that Sony tried to combat early iPods with. At some point you just gotta give it up.

LOL, uh, no.

There will be a market for discs for a long time to come. Blu-Ray is only now starting to get traction, but it will explode around the holidays now that there is only one HD format.

MS is just saying this to try to downplay the pretty significant victory that Blu-Ray handed Sony. If MS would smart they'd release a Blu-Ray player ASAP to try to blunt a "But the PS3 can play HD discs, the 360 can't!" talking point, rather than pretending HD discs are already outdated when they are only just getting started.

For what it's worth - this is coming from someone who is a fan of both the 360 and HD DVD.

While I prefer to listen to my music on a file-based PMP, 99% of the music I listen to is still ripped from discs.

The only time I buy MP3s is if I need a particular song and don't actually like the band or can't find them on CD anymore. It's great to have that option, but discs are still superior while costing about the same as downloads.

Same with movies and TV shows, if it was way cheaper and DRM-free, then I'd probably buy stuff as downloads that I only rent now. The stuff that I do buy (on disc) are the movies that I really love like Star Wars and LotR, and in those cases I want the best possible quality.

The best of both world... They say digital distribution is the way to go, yet they still sell a console without a hard disk!!! Make sense since they do own a large chunk of the internet backbone and distribution services, and they also sell their own hard disk at twice the price. OUCH!

Sorry, but I like to be able to buy a physical media that I can sell back if I get bored of the game. I also like to be able to rent games. I even like to borrow my friend's games from time to time.

Oh, and I forgot to mention hard drive space. Lots of music stores well on a HDD. High quality video is another story... heck even low quality video is a problem. We're just not at a place right now where hard drive capacity can support moderate library of movies.

yeah. Digital distribution is NOT the future. This is because of space vs quality ratio. Hard drive space is increasing at a steady pace, so is quality of video and size limit. Unfortunetly, these gaps are too close, unlike music. A proper quality 1080p rip of a movie should be around 10-12gb, which they dont even have on the marketplace. And even if they did, owning a 1TB hard drive still only lets you store around 80 movies. Hardly a bargin paying for a digital download of lesser quality and bunching it up on 1 expensive hard drive which can fail.

Also, the only way to get DTS hd MA is through a blu-ray disc (since hd-dvd is dead). Digital downloads are also jsut encodes. Blu ray still offers better quality sounds and video over a digital download. If I want to own my favorite movie of all time (terminator 2), I want to watch it over and over again with the best quality audio and video. a 24 hour rental over xbl does not allow this while a high quality blu-ray version does (although the current T2 version released on blu-ray is crap but hopefully there will be a re-release once T4 comes out, but thats another issue).

Lets not mention older and more casual folks who cant even operate the xbl marketplace or other digital distribution mediums. And theres more of these people out there then there are of those who know how.

Physical media will never die. The only way it will die is if DRM is removed, storage capacity somehow becomes a complete non-issue, digital downloads offer the same and more of a selection then the physical media, its cheaper, and the quality is the same as whats found on a disc. Very unlikely. Its gonna be at least 100 years before that happen, if it even can/will. Im just tired of all the people claiming digital downloads are the futre, because they are not. 10 years from now, people will still be buying blu-ray and dvds just starting to die off.

Hey mike, before you put away your crystal ball, Bill gates is on record as having said that 1MB is more than anyone will ever use too.

100 years? you're fucking crazy.

3 years ago a terabyte was pretty much unheard of in a single drive.

7-8 years ago a gigahertz processor was a pipe dream, and 12 years ago you were paying $300 for 4 MB of ram.

Just because you are afraid of the big bad movie companies not letting you redownload your purchased content doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to be wanting to hoard all that easily damaged physical media.

I'll bet you bury your savings in mason jars in your back yard too because the evil banks only give you a piece of paper with a number on it instead of actual dollars.

By the end of this year...the 360 will look old and crippled next to the PS3.

Marathon Microsoft...NOT a sprint.

Maybe when the 'Next Gen' consoles come out, but now? Atleast with PS3 you can have 750gb, but 120gb? I couldn't even fit my DVD collection on that. Yet alone a couple Blu-Ray movies.

Maybe Microsoft is planning on releasing 1TB drives for only $1000... lol

Besides that, most ISP cap your limit per month.
Residential
256kbps = 10gb/month (Not for gaming lol)
5mbps = 60gb/month ($30/month = Majority of people)
10mbps = 100gb/month ($60/month)
25mbps = 150gb/month ($93/month)

Most ISPs don't cap your bandwidth with hard limits :P If they do, get a new ISP.

Regardless, with a full 8mpbs connection on a newsgroup server, it still takes me 6 hours to download a full 20gb blu-ray disc rip. Most people won't see 1MB/sec, so to solve this, the movies downloaded from XBL are encoded and extremely low bitrate.

Essentially, they're psuedo HD and a waste of extra money over the regular 480p version.

For once I actually agree with you. I think that even Microsoft fanboys can agree with this. There is no way digital distribution for movies will outsell DVD's and Blurays for at least 10 years. A movie is something I like to be able to take to a friends, watch on a plane, or any other place. I know some people will say "well it worked with music"...but that's not the same as movies. With music you can put it on your iPod, or you can burn it on a CD to listen to in your car, or to let your friend borrow it or whatever else. You can't do that with digital distributed movies and I doubt you ever will be able to.

"They lost the chance of every movie studio using VC-1"

All recent big Blu-Ray releases (including Spiderman 3) use VC-1.

Remember, when the first batch of discs came out and HD-DVD was hailed as having the higher video quality on the comparisons? It's because the early Blu-Rays used MPEG-2, and the early HD-DVDs used VC-1.

Yes, I agree. I don't think digital distribution is going to the be the cornerstone format everyone thinks it is. Sure, it's cool - but I'd rather have a disc and case sitting on my shelf than a movie taking up space on my DVR/computer. What happens if my hard drive crashes? Will they keep records as to what I have purchased? And as a collector - it's always cool to get the special cover art/booklets/etc. with the movie. Not to mention how they would handle special features on digitally distributed movies.

@copa.

Now most are using mpeg4 because its better. The best PQ blu ray releases early on were Mpeg2 however, Some of them were just rushed so it gave the impression Mpeg2 sucked.

"All recent big Blu-Ray releases (including Spiderman 3) use VC-1."

Copa, you are wrong. The ONLY movie studio currently releasing on Blu-ray that uses VC-1 is Warner Bros.
All of the other currently releasing Blu-ray studios, Buena Vista, Sony Pictures, Fox use AVC exclusively.

Do you even HAVE a Blu-ray player/PS3? If you did, you would know that movies encoded on VC-1 have a grainy, dull blurry look around the edges. AVC is a codec designed from the ground up for HD media.
VC-1 was a half assed attempt by Microsoft using a dressed up Windows Media 9.

Please, do not post FUD. It only makes you look stupid.

I agree that it will never be a cornerstone format at least not for a decade or two. The reason downloading music works is because you put it on your MP3 player and take it to go somewhere. Sure you can take movies with you on your iPod or whatever, but that will never replace watching a movie at home with a group of people. Maybe one day when a 25gb movie takes about the same percent of hard drive space as a 3mb MP3 does now digital distribution will work.

Big secret: WMV9 is a slightly modified MPEG4 codec.

But yeah, unless MS somehow ninja's a 50 mb connection to everyones house, digital distribution isn't going to get off the ground as viable for movies.

It works for audio, because audio has a very small file size. Downloads are measured in minutes and seconds. Movies have downloads measured in quarter hours.

For DD to be viable, everyone needs excruciatingly huge HDDs in addition to excruciatingly fast internet connections, AND come with an easily transferable medium (like, large flash drives), and be drm free.

The music industry has seen the wisdom of DRM free files, its time for the movie industry to follow suit.

You guys are thinking about DD the wrong way. Theres no way anyone will ever let you 'OWN' a digitally distributed movie in the future...they are just going to ask you to pay 5 bucks like a rental everytime you watch it.

Thats the digital distribution the big corps are dreaming about, not just the sell them a disk model thats used now.

You're right shag, and thats exactly why DD will never succeed.

Uggh...it's remarkable how I actually agree with 'Marry me' here. MS seems to be heading in the right direction aiming for a much more standard DD outlook. However, the fact that your average consumer, even myself included (most times), doesn't have the time to wait a few hours to watch a movie.

I realize that once the movie has DLL'd about a quarter of the way it's playable, but then the issue of only a 20gig HDD comes into play.

The real thing that MS will need to work-around is the small, over-priced HDDs and the relatively slow internet connection speeds as compared to the rest of the world. I suppose I could just buy a T1 or two and run directly to my 360....but that would inevitably be a major waste of my finances. I don't consider myself to be a fanboy of any particular system/genre/brand or anything. I just use what I want, and right now a brand new PS3 is looking mighty fine.

Maybe just one more price-drop though...come on Sony..give me a new 60GB for around $350-399..plz?

Digital distribution has some serious obstacles in its way. It's a shame, because I love it. While a lot of people [still] hate Steam, I actually prefer it. The only thing that kinda scares me about digital distribuation is whether or not that content will be available to me far into the future. Movies and MP3's are the least of my worries; what'll happen to the hundreds of dollars in games that I've purchased on Steam when that service no longer exists? (I don't foresee it going anywhere, but you never know.)

You guys are kookoo if you don't think digital distribution will take over one day soon.

Sure, they're going to try DAMN hard to stop it by doing everything from instituting draconian, anti-consumer DRM to even lobbying and making deals to keep our crappy internet lines in the dark ages...
...but people said that about MP3s some 8-10 years or so ago, too.
Technology will continue to improve and people will keep finding a way to get what they want, legally or otherwise. The full might of the music industry failed to stop MP3s. The movie industry is equally destined to failure.


That said, there will always be a market for people wanting to own a physical disc. I imagine there'll be a scalable standard disc format within the next 15 years, too, so we don't have to keep buying new players every time there's a technology upgrade.

If they did that, then they could not nickel and dime the consumer like they do with everything.

Sony said this was a marathon, they took their lumps and now they are yet again going to come out on top thanks to THINKING AHEAD and not short-term.

Once prices come down a bit more...and capacities grow, I will replace my 60GB HDD and I DONT have to pay Microsoft to do it. I can choose whatever HDD I want.

The average joe isn't upgrading his PS3. Get with the picture, guys.

@ Marty

I'm an average Joe, and I stuck a 160GB hard disk in my PS3. Even tells me what to do in the PS3 instruction manual.

But anyway, have fun with that proprietary hard disk of yours.

i think marty is right. the average ps3 owner doesn't have the $$ or the know how to upgrade their ps3. i for one will NOT be upgrading my ps3 and i only have the 40gb version. if i'm upgrading anything, it will be my laptop. i bought a ps3 and 360 for games and some media. i bought a laptop for major media and business purposes. in the end, i prefer downloads to anything and i think it will catch on (with a slow start, just like HD) in the time frame they specified. 12-18 months is an eternity in the digital world. plus, isn't that how long it took for blu-ray to win the format war once it and hd-dvd were both introduced to consumers and readily available?? hmmmmm.

@Super

If you come here and regularly comment in Joystiq,

Then you're not the average joe.

Plenty of, "Average Joes," come in here to comment. And yes, the "Average Joe" will find it rather easy to replace a PS3 Hard Drive - it isn't rocket-surgery.. 1) It's in the manual. 2) It only requires a screw driver and hands. 3) With how popular YouTube is with, "Average Joes," I'm sure they can watch one of the many videos on how to do it if getting passed a screw is too difficult for them.

This isn't 1995 - people are more informed and more inclined to try open up their electronic hardware and upgrade things.

i gotta agree with marty. Remember that survey where like at least half of ps3 owners didn't even know it was a blu ray player? yeah they're not figuring out you can replace the HD anytime soon

How could you possibly claim that a lack of competition is good for the market / consumer? Sony owns a music label, a film studio, a game platform, and has stakes in a HD disc format... if anyone is monopolizing media here, it's them.

Nobody has won or lost yet, and to claim otherwise is just throwing out the flamebait without pretending otherwise.

"How could you possibly claim that a lack of competition is good for the market / consumer?"

Ironic is it not? Had Toshiba/Microsoft won the HD War, you would have Microsoft controlling ALL movie studios codecs (VC-1) and Microsoft controlling ALL interactive features (HDi)

Where as now we have Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Pioneer and a Codec that was designed for HD media along with the soon to be used Java that was designed for HD media.

Choice? You would have had none had Microsoft won.

Jebus is basically telling us that a unified set standard isn't nearly as good as a standard that hasn't been standardized, uses different codecs depending on who's pressing the discs, and different interactive features that only work in certain players.

And he's totally right!

/sarcasm

@Crono
Because Microsoft has a great track record when it comes to monopoly on technology, right?

The Blu-Ray profile thing is a mess, but as for different codecs, as long as they all play in the same player, does it really matter? In fact, isn't it a -good- thing? Warner licensed VC-1, and doesn't want to pay the MPEG group? Fine, they don't have to.

Industry standards are good things, they're not the path to an evil monopoly like some people seem to think. Now manufacturers can compete on the players themselves, and customers don't have to invest twice in players just so they can watch any HD movie that comes out.

Isn't there already? You have Amazon, iTunes, Walmart, Napster, Rhapsody, all offering music and claiming theirs is the best.

There will be but it will be about the compression they use on the films to make them faster to download.

Whats a Napster? o_O




lol

I used to feel the same way, but Steam pretty much changed my mind on the whole thing. Why put up with waiting for discs, discs with ridiculous copy protection schemes, etc. when you can just download and play wherever you are?

I'd also like to say that market penetration for all things HD are pretty weak right now anyway - HD has a long, uphill battle for market supremacy, especially in light of a US recession, and the fact that aside from higher clarity, it really offers nothing to people who have decent A/V equipment that that still works just fine.

Hehe, so finishing my thoughts on that, HD downloads won't be an issue because most people don't have HD setups, and won't need the HDD space for them. But I still think to make this all work (at least, on 360) MS needs to lower the cost of their HDD and make XBL work like Steam, where a purchase is always remembered on your account, and you can download your media whenever you want.