3 ms·

Being earlier doesn't mean it has a better value proposition. It just means it had an opportunity for entrenchment before a competitor can bring their product t

Being earlier doesn't mean it has a better value proposition. It just means it had an opportunity for entrenchment before a competitor can bring their product to market. Had they successfully leveraged that opportunity, that would be valuable, but they didn't. Microsoft/HD-DVD decidedly squandered that opportunity considering the PS3 (primary BR player purchased pre 2010) launched a year later than Xbox but had sold as many units in ~1 yr as the xbox had in 2, effectively eliminating any such market advantage in it's first year. > HD DVD was cheaper. Correct. Which is why my comment talked about value, and why "X is cheaper" as an individual metric in and of itself is not useful in measuring success. BR and the PS3 was decidedly more expensive. People still bought more of them than HD-DVD/360. > At the time there were many claims that the porn industry would be the deciding factor. Which was almost as laughable then as it is now.

cinntaile 5y ago
You claimed the reason why Blu Ray won was mostly because it was bundled with the PS3. I counterclaimed by saying that HD DVD had the same advantage. PS3 sold about 87.3 million while xbox 360 sold about 84 million, the difference is not that much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_cons... edit: It looks like my claim was not correct, a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Yeah, if the 360 had included an internal HD-DVD drive at the same price point we might be somewhere very different. (Thought to be honest BluRay would probably still have won as dual-format drives based on BluRay appeared later).
- jerf 5y ago
  "a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360." Once again demonstrating the murderously huge difference between hardware that ships with the platform and attempts to add on hardware to the install base later. Exceptions will leap to mind, like the rumble pack for the N64 or the Dualshock controller, but in general, add-on attempts fail and fail miserably for gaming consoles. They don't leap to mind precisely because they failed.
- Zandikar 5y ago
  > You claimed the reason why Blu Ray won was mostly because it was bundled with the PS3 And Sony's partnerships with media companies, yes. Both of these are true. > PS3 sold about 87.3 million while xbox 360 sold about 84 million I was referring to sales when xbox been on the market twice as long (2 years) as the PS3 (1 year) at calendar end (2007). If the 360 had an early-to-market advantage, it became irrelevant real quick and never recovered that sales advantage in any meaningful way once a competitor emerged. [1] > a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360. Yes. Further cements what I was saying about the PS3 being instrumental in BR taking over HD-DVD as a consumer entertainment format. it also further highlights my original point of how "cheaper" doesn't necessarily mean better value, or better selling, or better adaption. There's more to it than "first" or "cheapest". BR/PS3 were more expensive and later to market than their HD-DVD/360 counterparts, and yet both when on to be as successful if not more so than their cheaper first-to-market rivals. The original question of this thread is how important "cheap" is to a technology attaining success. This is a clear example of "it doesn't". There are plenty of instances however where it absolutely helped. This was just an instance where it did not, or at least, not enough to outweigh other factors against it. 1. https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending... EDIT: Changed 2017 to 2007 because oops, holy hell it's been 15 years since PS3 launch?! I'm old ffs

cinntaile 5y ago

You claimed the reason why Blu Ray won was mostly because it was bundled with the PS3. I counterclaimed by saying that HD DVD had the same advantage. PS3 sold about 87.3 million while xbox 360 sold about 84 million, the difference is not that much. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_cons... edit: It looks like my claim was not correct, a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360.

bombcar 5y ago
Yeah, if the 360 had included an internal HD-DVD drive at the same price point we might be somewhere very different. (Thought to be honest BluRay would probably still have won as dual-format drives based on BluRay appeared later).
jerf 5y ago
"a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360." Once again demonstrating the murderously huge difference between hardware that ships with the platform and attempts to add on hardware to the install base later. Exceptions will leap to mind, like the rumble pack for the N64 or the Dualshock controller, but in general, add-on attempts fail and fail miserably for gaming consoles. They don't leap to mind precisely because they failed.
Zandikar 5y ago
> You claimed the reason why Blu Ray won was mostly because it was bundled with the PS3 And Sony's partnerships with media companies, yes. Both of these are true. > PS3 sold about 87.3 million while xbox 360 sold about 84 million I was referring to sales when xbox been on the market twice as long (2 years) as the PS3 (1 year) at calendar end (2007). If the 360 had an early-to-market advantage, it became irrelevant real quick and never recovered that sales advantage in any meaningful way once a competitor emerged. [1] > a HD DVD accessory was required to play HD DVD content on the xbox 360. Yes. Further cements what I was saying about the PS3 being instrumental in BR taking over HD-DVD as a consumer entertainment format. it also further highlights my original point of how "cheaper" doesn't necessarily mean better value, or better selling, or better adaption. There's more to it than "first" or "cheapest". BR/PS3 were more expensive and later to market than their HD-DVD/360 counterparts, and yet both when on to be as successful if not more so than their cheaper first-to-market rivals. The original question of this thread is how important "cheap" is to a technology attaining success. This is a clear example of "it doesn't". There are plenty of instances however where it absolutely helped. This was just an instance where it did not, or at least, not enough to outweigh other factors against it. 1. https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending=Yearly https://www.vgchartz.com/tools/hw_date.php?reg=Global&ending... EDIT: Changed 2017 to 2007 because oops, holy hell it's been 15 years since PS3 launch?! I'm old ffs