Time Warner CEO Says PS3 Will Not Impact Format Wars
Dick Parsons, CEO of Time Warner, has said that the PlayStation 3’s built-in Blu-Ray drives will do little to change the course of the HD-DVD/BR format war. Here’s what he had to say:
Parsons also said he did not expect Sony’s highly anticipated PlayStation 3, which can also play movies in the Blu-ray format, to have a big impact on video viewing habits, saying people were more likely to use the consoles for playing games.
I can certainly see his viewpoint, but I do not doubt, for even a second, that Sony released the PS3 with the expectation of forcing the new format upon millions of would-be purchasers. At present, I think it’s hard to see which format might be ahead of the other and I honestly do not care, yet. ...but, what kind of impact, if any, do you think the PS3 will have on the format war? Do you think it’s possible for two formats to coexist peacefully? ...or can there be only one!?
Time Warner CEO Dick Parsons calls war over DVD formats ‘unfortunate’ [International Herald Tribune]
[via: Game|Life]
Super Timsy
Posted to Television, Video Games on 6 December 2006
· Comments (12)
Other stuff like this: blu ray, dick parsons, format war, HD DVD, playstation 3, ps3, sony, time warner
I’m not sure how he can assume the sale of millions of Blu-Ray players (in the form of a PS3) won’t have a “big impact” on the format war. People aren’t paying $200 more for the PS3 so that they can play with a SixAxis, they’re paying more because it has a built in Blu-Ray player.
Gamers are not buying PS3’s because there’s a BR disk drive, they’re buying the PS3 because they want to play next-gen games. How many PS3’s are actually in the hands of consumers at this point? Half a million? How long until Sony can even double that number? I certainly don’t care about BR, and I’m interested in owning a PS3 (Devil May Cry!). So I think it’s entirely reasonable to question the impact of this strategy on the larger question of foisting a new (more expensive) format on comsumers. I certainly wouldn’t pay the prices they’re asking for those BR movies.
I’m going to agree with Dick here. I don’t think anyone is actually buying a PS3 for use other than a video game console. This is not like back when the PS2 came out, where people were also actively buying DVD players at the same time.
On a side note, the PS2 is a POS when it comes to playing DVDs. I have similar expectations with regard to the PS3’s Blu-Ray movie capabilities.
I hope Blu-Ray and HD-DVD kill each other. I’ll stick to regular old DVDs. I could care less about High Def and all that garbage. I just wanna watch a movie and not pay $20 more to see things clearer.
Muddbstrd – Reports of the PS3’s Blu-ray player have been very very good. It exceeded the expectations of a lot.
Zodiac – Okay, so we can stick to DVDs, just like we should have stuck with tapes when CDs came out, eh? Watching Blu-ray and HD DVD movies are brilliant, go to a store with one set up (Sony Style stores have great setups, if there’s any around), and then make judgement. I definitely want the better quality, and this whole “DVDs are fine” thing just doesn’t fly for me.
Anyone who uses the PS3 as a Blu Ray player is well, a moron. Using a video game system to watch movies just shortens the lifespan of the lens inside because it has to re adjust itself between games and movies. Not to mention the fact that a movie is always being read from the disk, while a game only reads from the disc in between loading times and the such.
Will – CDs were a completely new media format. HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are just DVDs that can hold more and have a better picture. They’re like DVD+. I’ve seen HD at Best Buy, and I honestly don’t care. You may want better picture and be willing to pay $15+ than the price of a DVD for a HD DVD, but I am not. It’s a matter of preference and, since I don’t own a PS3 or 360, I’ll stick with DVDs.
Consider this from a marketing stand point: People who aren’t tech savvy are likely to hear HD DVD and assume it’s just another type of DVD where as BluRay sounds like a completely different idea. I hate to say they could win based on people not reading but….
Yeah, I was burning VCD’s (which don’t even look as good as a good quality VHS tape) before I ever got a DVD player. (There were VCD players, but I never got one…. they were never big in the US.) DVDs beat tape as much for convenience reasons as for what we saw on the screen.
BR and HD-DVD, though, are just prettier versions of DVD. If someone with a PS3 walks into a store and sees the BR title on sale for the same price as a normal DVD, he’ll probably go for the BR…. any higher and it’s not a given at all. See also: laserdisc.
But I guess time will tell.
VHS vs Betamax: VHS
MP3 vs ATRAC: MP3
DVD vs UMD: DVD
CD vs Minidisc: CD
Floppy Disk vs HiFD: Floppy Disk
DTS vs SDDS: DTS
SD vs Memory Stick: SD (MS not supported on non-Sony products)
HD-DVD vs Blu-Ray: ....
Really, is it even worth speculating on?
Nice list voltRis :D
HD-DVD is an option with the 360 and addon sales obviously don’t point to people wanting hi-res and to pay extra for it. Plus HD-DVD is the standard MS supports, and as soon as HD writers are becoming more available, BluRay will go to the dumps…
A lot of people will want PS3s because they’re the CHEAPEST Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) players on the market. That is, if they were on the market. I couldn’t bring myself to disagree when the guy in the article said they won’t have an effect since they barely even exist.
If you desperately want one but only to play games, congratulations, you’ve just chosen your next-gen video format without even meaning to. Don’t even pretend you’ll go out and buy a huge, expensive HD-DVD player if you already have a PS3, and who wouldn’t be tempted at least to try the video capabilities?
As for the rest of the format war, Blu-Rays hold 67% more data—25 SL or 50 GB DL vs. 15 or 30—and they read it faster, as well, so higher potential a/v bandwidth. They’re more expensive to manufacture at this point, and reports of quality vs. HD-DVD (what an awkward name (that can’t be shortened because HD already means two things)) have not been good, but this could be because initial HD-DVDs use more compression (a form the PS3 also supports), tilting the playing field. However, the compression they use is essentially Windows Media, so yuck. And speaking of Microsoft, both formats are loaded with DRM. CSS? Hah. Now they’re on a changeable encryption scheme somehow. Not only will the earlier adopters get an inferior machine at a higher price, they’ll also probably be locked out entirely at some point when a Norwegian hacker figures out the first run’s cipher, because watching movies on your own terms without allowing the industry to double dip is clearly nefarious criminal behavior, and denying people access to what they paid you for is only right. In short, I don’t like either format, but the PS3 would definitely be a market factor if it were out there.
And finally, let history be a lesson: every other time Sony has come out with a relatively advanced but expensive format, it’s been rejected by consumers and ended up in professional use (Minidisc, digital audio tape, Betamax.) Hitching their latest to a specialized but related market in which they’ve generally enjoyed an edge, and would likely continue to do so if they could deliver a product, is the best reason I can see that this format might break the trend. Otherwise, it will certainly be useful for archive backups.