4 ms·
Part of the issue was trying to cram a BluRay player into the console at a time when BluRay players were new (and could cost $1k). HD-DVD hadn't even lost the b
by pyre 13y ago
Part of the issue was trying to cram a BluRay player into the console at a time when BluRay players were new (and could cost $1k). HD-DVD hadn't even lost the battle when the PS3 came out. That, and going with the Cell processor probably really pumped up the cost.
- jrockway 13y agoBlu-Ray "won", right? So it sounds like that was money well spent.
- wmf 13y agoYep. IIRC at the time Sony said something to the effect that they were willing to lose $4B in the short term to ensure that Blu-ray won the format war.
- possibilistic 13y agoBut what happens if and when digital video goes completely to a streaming/download model? And what about 4K/8K? Can Blu-ray as it stands even support that, or would there have to be yet another disc format? I'm wondering if perhaps Sony won a Pyrrhic victory here.
- jrockway 13y agoUltimately, all the protons in the Universe will decay, rendering movies obsolete. I'm wondering what the point of anything is, knowing we will all become nothingness some day. (To be less abstract: they probably made back the money already. Everything else is gravy.)
- wmf 13y agoI think Blu-ray will live out its full allotted decade of life; whether Sony makes back their $4B during that time is questionable but it's their strategy tax to bear. 4K will probably be download-only (and probably fiber-only).
- orbitur 13y ago> 4K will probably be download-only (and probably fiber-only). Legality aside, I'm a member of a private movie tracker. High quality 1080p rips come in at ~12GBs or more for ~1h45m of content. I have an 80Mb connection, and it still takes me about 30-35 minutes to complete the download. 1080p, let alone 4k, downloads are years away for the average consumer. What are they getting these days, 20Mb + download caps? So sure, fiber only, but my god it's a long way off.