i have to wonder how much people are expecting these things to cost. you say that $19.99/$24.99 are "too costly?" here in Los Angeles, a standard DVD with regular ol' resolution, is $19.99 if you don't purchase it on sale at a Best Buy (that's usually $14.99, but just for the first few days after release, then it goes up to regular price). i mean, are the movies $5 where you're at, Rica? $19.99 is a standard price for DVD, so if Blu Ray (a much better format) is the same price, buying Blu Ray over DVD seems like the logical decision. of course, you'd have to have a costly Blu Ray player, first (i'm waiting for my shiny new PS3, however).



here, i've seen Blu Ray movies range from $24.99 to $29.99(not on sale), whereas HD DVD movies are all $29.99. this begs the question: where are all the dissenters claiming that Blu Ray would be loads more expensive than HD DVD? from my view, the two formats are priced practically the same, and it looks like those folks jumped the gun, so i think i'll take this opportunity to be smug, and hand out some slices of "humble pie" to the many conclusion jumpers out there, and be on my merry way. enjoy (this smugness is not directed to anyone who's posted so far, and the people who haven't jumped on the "bash anything that is associated with Sony" bandwagon).

I would slightly rather have BluRay win this round even though I'm starting to hate Sony just because of size difference. However they NEED to change compression formats or they will be ridiculed and lose PERIOD. I mean really, they use the far outdated MPEG2 WTF are they smoking!? Reviews coming out are saying BluRay movies which are using more GB are looking like crap compared to the HDDVDs because HDDVD uses a FAR better compression scheme.



Get your head out of your ass Sony!

What state u live in bud?

I fail to see how



1. It is news worthy that 2 movies are on sale @ Walmart

2. They are different movies

3. Did anyone check the prices of those 2 movies in regular dvd format, maybe one is $5 more money anyway!?



This is a really dumb post. Do us a favor. Go to a retail store that carries more than 20 movies, take a survey of the AVG cost of each format's disks based on an entire random sample. Otherwise, this means NOTHING.

at Best Buy yesterday, i was looking at Serenity on HD DVD, and the Fifth Element on Blu Ray, and honestly, the Blu Ray picture was loads crisper, but both were great quality. i go with Blu Ray because of the industry support. the price seems to be a big issue here, with HD DVD players being $500, and Blu Ray players being in the $1000 range, but what some people seem to be forgetting is that come November 17, there's going to be a $500 and $600 Blu Ray player on the market called the PS3, *and* it plays video games.



things were in the gray area during the PS2/GC/X Box era, when it came to deciding what console to get, if you wanted DVD playback, and didn't have a DVD player. this time, though, either way you cut it, the PS3 is a good deal, especially if you're in the market for a high def movie and gaming experience.

Hmm... I have had both of thoes at my work for the better part of a month. Actually I remeber putting them out about June 2nd.

BTW I work at compusa

The HD-DVD drive will cost more than $100, mabye even more than $200, so it would be about the same as the PS3. Don't even count on microsoft giving you a bargain on the drive.

hi guys. look, i dunno why people are kicking up a fuss about the price. $20 for you would roughly work out £12 in the uk, which is kind of the average price we pay for a dvd. the Fifth Element is selling, on dvd, where i work for 9.99...roughly bout $16-$17. So it aint exactly breaking the bank in spending an extra $3 to get something alot better than dvd.

no.22, you say buying a premium 360 and hd-dvd add on will still be cheaper than a non premium ps3. ok, the premium 360 in the uk costs £280, and at Gamestation we've been told to expect the hd-dvd add on to be around the £100-£150. That puts it in right on the price of a premium ps3 in the uk (£424.99).

The whole PS3 price thing is really wearing thin now. True its an expensive machine, especially for people who can't afford one (which seems to be the case for alot of you, otherwise you wouldn't moan so much) but theres no doubt that its VALUE for money, which it is. Remember it will be the cheapest blu-ray player on the market by several £££ or $$$, and oh, it plays next gen games too.

All fanboys seem to do is stick the knives into the ps3 without taking their head out there ass n see that yes it is expensive, anything over £400 (or $600) is, but it definitely is value for money.



anyway, more back to the point, i think both will struggle to take off to be honest. I just think DVD is such a big format now, and stupidly cheap if you go the right places. Blu ray does have that bonus of PS3 having blu-ray straight out of the box and if microsoft where clever, they would try to release the hd-dvd player several weeks before the PS3, it might not mean so much to you guys about the hd-dvd or bluray, but its gonna mean an awful lot to millions of people and affect which console to buy come november.

BR loses auto style. you know why?... DRM, thats why.

Why is the movie-watching aspect of the new consoles such a big deal? Surely the games are what counts to the people that buy it? No?



Anybody else remember when a DVD player was the size of a small country and cost upwards of £250? The price will come down, that's the nature of technology.



Also, the 360 addon will be (apparently) for films only, not games. PS3 will use the BD format for games aswell as films. And who is going to choose the 360 over PS3 if they have to buy 2 seperate devices? The HD player will be bought by those who already own a 360. And those people are unlikely to be in the market for a PS3 anyway. So, no argument.



And, final point, the bigger picture... A PS3 will be $600, a 360 plus HD addon is a total of just below that. But, the killer question here - How many people actually have the $2000 television capable of displaying the resolution these things kick out? Not many.

No contest really.

fifth element is 28.99 on walmarts site!!!! this is fake. and the fugitive is the same price.

---

I don't understand? People here are saying the price of normal DVD's is $20 U.S.? In Australia, the price of a normal DVD is $20... how can that be right when AU$20 converts to about US$30?

---

differences:

499 PS3 supports 1080P

Has Blu-Ray which WILL be used for games

Has a motion sensing controller.









give me one reason why you would spend $100 more on that? only warhawk makes the tilt sensitive controller useful, and bluray games ARE NOT NEEDED, plus give me 10 people in a room with 1080p television sets.

$19.95 to $34.95



and 19.95 is the crap ones.



it's usually $30 to $25.

Look guys, there's clearly an issue of varying sale price or something going on because if you look on walmart.com you'll see that both formats are pretty much priced the same.



Personally I think Toshiba has been getting ancy about the war lately because they realise that they're losing their window to make HD DVD popular. Both formats are pretty much the same as far as playing movies is concerned. The huge price difference between machines is what is giving Toshiba the edge, but so far neither format is really moving anywhere. But come November millions of homes around the world will have a fully functional Blu-ray player. Even DVD took years to truly take off, it took people a long time to decide to switch formats. And this will take even longer to really take off, if for no other reason than HD tv isn't exactly easy or cheap to come by in north america. But the fact that millions of people will have a Blu-Ray player in the coming months means Toshiba may have to bite the bullet.

another comment that i do agree with, aok. I do think Toshiba have been rather worrying about the format taking off, so they've had no choice but to release it now. By the end of November, at least 2million people globally will have a blu-ray player in there living room/bedroom.

HDTV is being massively pushed here in the UK. Infact in every shop you walk into theres HDTV signs all over the place, and i haven't been to someone's house where they haven't got at least one HDTV. I own 3, 2 23inch and one 32inch and we have 4 27inch hd lcd tvs in our workplace.

As for DVD, i remember working for a huge elecrtical retailer in the UK when dvd first came out. I didnt buy one, instead i bought a PS2 when that came out, and like many here in the UK, that was my first DVD playing machine. I think DVD's success owns alot to not just PS2, but the xbox aswell, as these where, for many, there first dvd player too. Thats why i think its really important for microsoft to release the hd-dvd as cheap as possible and/or in a cheap bundle with the 360 in order for the hd-dvd format to take off, otherwise its going to be blu-ray that'll dominate the next gen format

that its toshiba that makes hd-dvd not microsoft so they could careless if it fails or not. there just pushing it because its sony's rival. also now when you look at it even though the 360 was rushed, you have to think about what if the hd-dvd drive was added into the 360, would it have made any difference.



any way it doesnt matter cause the format will fail, even the president of toshiba is worried and still wants to negotiate with sony to come up with a unified format, and that is not going to happen any time soon/ever.

i swear we must have some kind of hive mind, because i agree 100% with all of your points, and it'd be unnecessary to post my opinion, since it's exactly the same.

lol. tell me about it. i admit that my primary console is PS2, but i do have (and play on occasion) and X Box and GC, so being a supporter of Sony for the most part (hey, the moment they lose their killer franchises, i'm gone, but that's not gonna happen), it's been hella frustrating going on the internet to talk about how excited i am for the PS3, when every high school boy on the planet is pissed because they've been robbed of bragging rights by Sony, so they ally themselves with the console they *can* afford.



after having gone to E3 and got my hands on some of their upcoming games, i can honestly say i was impressed with the system. and to think that the games were running off of the Cell, and not the RSX has me even more excited. to be fair, the 360 impressed me greatly also, and the hands on time i've had with the system has been very enjoyable, but my wallet for this year only has room for one console, so i'm going for the one that is offering me the more varied game experience (as nice as the games for the 360 are, they all tend to fall into the category of "bald guy pointing guns at things and shooting them").



this year alone, there are more games i'm eager to play for the PS3 than the 360, and next years prospects look even better. for the 360, there is Lost Planet, Mass Effect, and Crackdown that really have my interest, but 3 games is not enough. i bought my original X Box for Fable, and was highly dissappointed and frustrated, as most games available on the X Box are multiplatform, and i like the PS2 controller more, so any multiplatform titles i get on that console.



anyway, eventually i'll own all 3 systems (like most people on her will, probably. well, except for the raging fanboys), i'm just prioritizing according to my tastes and budget. it's just so worthless to demean or hate on somebody because they like something you don't.

nocomment

again, another very good point by some-else, this time Dan.



i rememeber buying a 32x for the sega megadrive/genesis when that first arrived on the scene. It promised so much and delievered nothing but two or three decent games (i only ever onwed Virtua Fighter and Virtua Racing)



Having an add-on definitely adds to the confusion for your "everyday" customer. Us gamers might understand it all, but joe bloggs on the street might not. Infact, i cant think of many console add ons that have been even a decent success.



Im quite suprised microsoft hasn't entered the filming industry by buying or running a movie studio. Again, its another advantage sony has, as Blu-Ray has backing of 90% of the filimg industry, probably, most importantly, the porn industry is firmly behind blu-ray. Lets face it, porn is probably one of the biggest dvd sellers of all, and with blu-ray being backed by such a massive industry, its another reason why toshiba may have reason to worry

oh yeah, forgot about the game shark and game genie.



see, personally, i need all systems and formats to sell well in order for me to keep a job lol, otherwise im screwed lol (nervous laughter by the way)

i actually can't remember where i read that, it could have been a magazine, as i take everything i read off of the internet with a grain of salt. until i hear otherwise, i won't mention that information anymore. :)

damn lol..u beat me to it dan...i was just gonna say the exact same thing about the whole "i dont need blu-ray" thing then compare it from the cd to dvd generation.



ah well, well done for stating it anyway "claps" lol

Honestly neither one is going to win... too many people own standard definition tv's and dont really know or understand what 1080i/1080p stands for. In my opinion DVD will remain king untill downloadable movies take over just like mp3 has basically stalled brick and mortar cd sales.

then what makes you people think that everybody who buys a ps3 will use it to watch movies. i know for sure am not going to waste my money on some blue-ray movie, i rather use that money for games. if you look at things realisticly, then somewhere in your mind you will have umds and something tells me both this formatts will go the umd way. thats just my opinion, blu-ray for games = good but unless the price for BD movies are the same for dvd's or slightly expensive, i dont care if its hd or not.

im not saying that the ps3 will be used as a blu-ray player n thats it, im saying that it will b peoples first blu ray player, like ps2 was peoples first dvd player.



As for the pricing, either your too young to remember or completely forgot, that when dvd launched dvds cost around £20 (or about $30). everything is expensive when it first comes out because its always new technology. You cant expect something brand new to come out like this and expect it to just cost the price of the dvd. Alot of companies have to make up the shortfall of the money they spent in research and development costs into blu-ray or hd-dvd before u notice prices dropping.



again i worked in electrical retail when lcd came out at £2000 for a 27inch screen and people where wondering what all the fuss was about. Now look at how weel lcd and plasma are doing

lol just checked out that article, i knew something about that but could never find the proof of it lol



i give it 20 minutes before QJ posts this as some sort of exclusive lol

you're the reason why Hollywood is pressuring manufacturers (like Sony) to create formats like HD DVD and Blu Ray, because, if it wasn't for the pirates, there would be no need for a more secure format, thus driving up the costs of our next gen machines because for Sony to recoup the development costs of Blu Ray, it needs to do more than just be used for movies. i find it ironic.



at least Blu Ray is being used for games too, and not just movies (like HD DVD). it's very naive to think that gaming won't require over 9 gigs of space in the near future, even *without* extensive HD CGI. trust me, some ambitious developer (in the vein of a Rockstar or something), will nearly break the bank creating a game that will use up that disc, and probably revolutionize the industry.



remember your gaming history, people. a game like GTA would never have been possible on a CD. it took the move to DVD for that game to come to fruition. stop looking at the here and now, and look at the *future* (i guess that's why many of you guys aren't game developers yet). from Sony's ten year history in the gaming market, they've shown themselves to be one of the most forward thinking companies in the industry. and judging from the fair prices they release their systems at, contrary to popular belief, they do care about their consumers: the PS1 was $299, the PS2 was $299, even though analyst's said it just *had* to retail for $800. the PSP was $250, when analysts once again said it just *had* to be $500, and the PS3 is retailing for $499 and $599 when analysts yet again predicted a $800/$900 price tag, and replaces everything from your CD/DVD/PS1/PS2 devices, and could potentially replace your PC if it can truly run Linnux, and maybe even Windows (if the rumors ring true). all of that for $500/$600. it boggles my mind that everyone is up and arms about the price. now, if it did only the things that the 360 did, had a DVD player and no Blu Ray and HDMI, and charged $500/$600, i'd be pissed. as it stands now, you're getting what you pay for: a powerful, versatile entertainment system.

Regarding game prices - £50 or there abouts is going to be standard until PS2 dies out. Think about it - back in the heady days of Megadrive/Genesis my mum paid £50 for Street Fighter II Championship Edition for me!!! Oh, cartridges. Good times, good times...



Regarding San Andreas - Rockstar used up pretty much all of the 9GB available on DVD for that game. Now if people are expecting GTA IV to be better then they need a larger medium to hold it... Which begs the question - how will that work on the 360? It will still only be a 9GB DVD available for use on release in November 2007. Must be some fancy M$ compression methods in the works there... But PS3 will have BD.



My only hope is that the PS3 BD player isn't complete turd like the PS2 DVD player. Time will tell...



ps - chief, if you only watch bad quality pirate movies then this discussion is clearly not for you.

Im kinda gathering nobody in here works for a games developer in here except me (so, so lonely).

Theres a large difference between console gaming and pc gaming in how the data is used on a disc. For Console gaming, all data is written onto a disc in individual files, unlike with pc, where files are packed together (like winzip/winrar) in order to save disc space. If you check most of your games on your pc, once installed, you'll see either all the data will be packed into one file, or spread out over a few files. Now, these files, if you had the correct tools, would probably be almost 2times the size of what that files actually says e.g for pro evolution soccer 5, the people.dat file is 100m/b, yet if your where to open it and stretch it out it would actually open to about 130-150m/b. Console gaming doesnt have that luxury, as it has to be able to access the data at all times. Some data can be packed (thats why you have loading times etc) but it can't be packed like a pc version can be.

So GTA SA might take up 4.7gig on pc, but in reality, if you unpacked all files...it'd b about 9-10gig.

So the console game might just be about the 8-9gig mark.

"So GTA SA might take up 4.7gig on pc, but in reality, if you unpacked all files...it'd b about 9-10gig.

So the console game might just be about the 8-9gig mark."



With all due respect daz, I don't need a lesson on the differences between console and PC game files and the differences between packed and unpacked data. :)



I mentioned the PC version because it was a quick way to demonstrate the game's size.



However, to highlight the point more clearly, if you search the internet, you can download illegal copies of games as iso files, enabling you to burn copies onto DVD. These files reveal the ACTUAL size of the game (since they are not compressed), and therefore they show that GTA:SA is less than 5GB for ALL versions.



eg.



http://isohunt.com/torrents.php?ihq=GTA+San+Andreas&ext=&op=and



http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/709492/GTA_SA



It's a good way to find out the actual size of games, hence as I stated earlier, GTA:SA is less than 5GB (4.72GB), not 9GB as claimed here.

erm, just a pointer, i know quite alot about video and game piracy through work i've done. i know alot about the ps2 ones, and you'll find actually alot of these files are a)packed into a zip tool like winrar, hence the 4gig size b) alot of those files have videos, music ripped from them and c) once you unpack the winrar file and install the game as full, you still left with the same explanation i gave above.



If you read my statement proper i did agree that the game file or folder would be around 4.7-5gig, but when completely unpacking the pc version put on hard disk, the total would be more around 8-9, unlike a console game which doesnt pack folders and game data to make the files much shorter.

see, its people like yaz that just make this world seem so stupid.



if you did any research, you'd find theres also 8.5 gig dual layered, not to mention you can overburn without any problems



even better, ill get the full info from rockstar for you, and ill see if QJ will post it on here, that should settle the arguement

"even better, ill get the full info from rockstar for you, and ill see if QJ will post it on here, that should settle the arguement"



Go ahead, you'll only find that GTA:SA was originally released on a dual-layered DVD, and it is because of THIS that some gamers assumed it must be 9GB in size!!!. An idea which still continues today (as shown in this thread).



Rockstar were able to trim down the size of the game slightly for the PAL version (4.19GB), and it was released on a single-layered DVD.



Anyway, as I said above, I'm aware of games being released on 7.9GB dual-layered DVDs, but I'm not aware of any games (on console or PC) being released on a 8.5GB DVDs. If I'm wrong, then please mention the game. Thanks. :|

Then no more stupid comments please. :)



(more on 7.95 and 8.5 later....(quite interesting)).



Anyway, I'm not disputing the point about unpacking files. What I'm saying is that for GTA:SA, the size of the game installed on the PC harddrive and the size of the game on the PS2 DVD is the same! Hence all those saying GTA:SA fills up DVD-9 are wrong.



So, about the dual-layered capacity, actually we were BOTH correct, it is 7.9GB and it is 8.5GB because they are exactly the same. Confusing? Well not if you read the following;



http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html



Like HDD sizes, the DVD capacity is specified in base 10, rather than base 2.



So for single-layered discs, 4.7GB is actually 4.7*10^9, which is 4.37GB.



Likewise for dual-layered discs, 8.5GB is actually 8.5*10^9, which works out to be 7.95GB. :)

"Then no more stupid comments please"



I meant no more references to 'stupid', not that your comments were stupid.

""97. » To clarify #95



"Then no more stupid comments please"



I meant no more references to 'stupid', not that your comments were stupid. :D""



sorry, but it is massively late over here now lol, i dont usually resort to calling peeps stupid.



anyway ive really gotta go otherwise ill have no chance tomorrow at work.



once im home ill post back onto here again. if this part goes, just look for my name on other posts as im always posting stuff

alot of gaming companies are pushinh torwards using in game for cut scenes alot cheaper to do and make...so your theory for size and hd video for bluray is true to a point but not the fully true...



second games like oblivion as big as game as it is doesnt even use a full dvd 9 and it actually uses about same as part 3 on the xbox...



but none less someone will always say what formart is better then what and 99% who comment dont have either



and most tvs that cost under 900 dont have hmdi some due but not all and far as the projection tv ..its garbaged compared to a 16:9 nice hd lcd ...but lcd still has a ways to go for improvment its catcvhing up but crts still kick its ass but the prob with those is they can only get to a certian size mainly due to weight factors like a 30inc wide crt hd tv weighs around 100-150 pounds give or take



none less alot good points but what shmuck is gonna get a gamming system and use it to mostly play blu ray movies

stand alone players will always offer more features..play better and in the end be cheaper when prices drop which i think if either or both formats do well by next year or so both stand alone players will prolly drop by 50%

but i predict that hddvd will become king in pc..and bluray at home...but i could be wrong that just what i think who knows what will happen they also have to compete with regular dvds which have millions of players already in homes...hell afte dvd came out they said the vhs doesnt stand a chance and it hung on for quiet a few years ...and look at beta max alot better then the vhs but more costly for movies and the player in the end killed it...so just because something is way better doesnt mean its a clear winner...in the end the average consumer will decide what wins not some damn gaming machine...get real true audio buffs wouldnt by a ps3 for bluray..and the avrage consumer who isnt a gamer isnt going to buy one to just play movies with and not games.....it would be like pissing in the wind

That's right Dan, but HD-DVD offers uncompressed audio too.



You may have meant that, but the way you worded it made it sound like only blu-ray offers uncompressed audio.

Just found the following link which mentions the issue with dummy files in games (and check the posts from Fakk2):



http://www.psxforum.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=99946&highlight=



In fact, all the iso file sizes I've given for GTA:SA so far will fit onto a single-layered DVD disc, because I've just noticed that, like DVD discs, the iso sizes quoted are either in base 10 or base 2 (hence 4.7GB (base 10)=4.4GB, 4.19GB (base 10)=3.9GB).



Also, from what I'm reading, GTA:SA on DVD-9 appears to have some game demos, hence pushing the total size above DVD-5.



Whichever way you look at it, GTA:SA fits onto DVD-5 and therefore doesn't fill DVD-9. :)

Yaz and daz, hmm... similar names.... I hope you're not the same person, otherwise this is all very disturbing.



;)

why is this a big deal?



i work at sears and we have been selling hd dvd movies and players for monthes

Justin, you sound no different than the so-called 'idiots' you're referring too. No disrespect, but any fool can be condescending and dismissive online.



Next time, try making a REAL contribution to the the arguement/discussion taking place.