Microsoft wants both formats to fail?

[Derb]

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26216

Interesting read. So do you think from day 1 of Microdudes support of HD DVD, that they want to defect optical media storage in favor of broadband download service?

[tomdkat]

Well, the article certainly makes sense since Microsoft certainly WOULD want to control the future of HD content. If their codecs become the standard for HD content encoding and they provide the transport for distributing said content over the Internet (let's face it, most people run Windows so Windows Media Center or some other Windows thing will be the logical MS tool to receive the HD content), then Microsoft can "own" HD content distribution and that's huge. This is similar to my assertion that Toshiba and Sony wanted to be in control of the next DVD format, or high-def on digital disc. Whichever company won his war would have their technology become the defacto standard, and that's huge.

Microsoft wants us to play in their world, which is nothing new.

So no, I'm not surprised by the statement MS wants HD on physical media to die off in favor of their solution to distributing HD content electronically. They provide the tools to encode the HD content, they provide the foundation for viewing it, and they would provide the DRM to protect it. Of course, that would leave those who don't use MS products ass-out but then we're talking anti-trust again and we've been down that path already.

Peace...

[videoworx]

If their codecs become the standard for HD content encoding

Last week, I posted a news story about how the VC-1 codec royalties are now split so far and wide, that MS wouldn't make very much money from it (they actually now owe millions in back-royalties to all the other patent holders - just google "MPEG LA" and "VC-1" for the story).

So, from MS' perspective, there's not much incentive to push VC-1 anymore. Considering VC-1 isn't used anywhere outside of HD-DVD/BD encoding (as opposed to AVC, which is used everywhere), I would suspect MS would be looking into very different distribution methods for HD content.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by videoworx

Last week, I posted a news story about how the VC-1 codec royalties are now split so far and wide, that MS wouldn't make very much money from it (they actually now owe millions in back-royalties to all the other patent holders - just google "MPEG LA" and "VC-1" for the story).

So, from MS' perspective, there's not much incentive to push VC-1 anymore. Considering VC-1 isn't used anywhere outside of HD-DVD/BD encoding (as opposed to AVC, which is used everywhere), I would suspect MS would be looking into very different distribution methods for HD content.

That's cool. The fundamental point being their technology would be the "electronic HD content" distribution technology.

Peace...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

Last week, I posted a news story about how the VC-1 codec royalties are now split so far and wide, that MS wouldn't make very much money from it (they actually now owe millions in back-royalties to all the other patent holders - just google "MPEG LA" and "VC-1" for the story).

So, from MS' perspective, there's not much incentive to push VC-1 anymore. Considering VC-1 isn't used anywhere outside of HD-DVD/BD encoding (as opposed to AVC, which is used everywhere), I would suspect MS would be looking into very different distribution methods for HD content.

Uh, no.

Virtually every PPV download delivery service on the internet uses VC-1. also known as WMV. It's simply in a lower bitrate form. Also,the VC-1 royalties will be continued to be negotiated for some time to come.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=26216

Interesting read. So do you think from day 1 of Microdudes support of HD DVD, that they want to defect optical media storage in favor of broadband download service?

This is Blu-Ray-driven FUD.

MS wants HD DVD to fail no more than Sony wants Blu-Ray to fail. Both of them have a vested interest in the content-download delivery business, both of them have trojan horse platforms to do so. Sony has just been better in keeping its mouth shut about it.

Microsoft can't lose by backing HD DVD - that is true. Every minute Microsoft backs HD DVD its another minute Sony is pouring out cash to promote Blu-Ray, selling less PS3s, and taking a bigger hit on each PS3 sold. It also does stall the HD-based disc market, but with Microsoft's IP barely being involved in Blu-Ray, why shouldn't they try to stall Blu-Ray? HD DVD has a lot of their IP as obviously does the many download services that use VC-1/WMV, so they will promote both of those markets.

As I see it, in the near future Video-on-demand/downloads is best for rentals while HD DVD is best for owning/collecting. Microsoft has a hand in both of these markets by pushing HD DVD towards success. Remember that Microsoft is a massive company with numerous independent divisons, and it is very liekly that you have some of those divisions in competition with each other.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Microsoft can't lose by backing HD DVD - that is true. Every minute Microsoft backs HD DVD its another minute Sony is pouring out cash to promote Blu-Ray, selling less PS3s, and taking a bigger hit on each PS3 sold.

I disagree. The Nintendo Wii is what's killing the PS3, not Microsoft or HD DVD. Not being a gamer, that's what I've been hearing.

Peace...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

I disagree. The Nintendo Wii is what's killing the PS3, not Microsoft or HD DVD. Not being a gamer, that's what I've been hearing.

Peace...

If Microsoft didn't help keep HD DVD alive, the PS3 would be significantly more appealing - because it would likely have the hd disc nextgen standard builtin. In addition to the obvious effect of the HDAO, Microsoft has also been very important in consumer education + retaining consumer loyalty in HD DVD on AVSFORUM; without MS' support, it would have been much more difficult for Toshiba to withstand the "PS3 effect." With a format war that has no clear winner, consumer confidence in either format is significantly reduced. Further, Microsoft has successfully proved that you don't need to incorporate an HD disc format to get stunning graphics in games, and further that an HD movie addon is something only needs be optionally added by the consumer as evidenced by the HDAO if they desire. Therefore the force-bundled Blu-Ray drive in PS3 and the resulting $200-$300 premium you are paying over the XBOX 360 (for a console that is the same in power) and $350 premium you are paying over the Wii is much more difficult to justify.

In any case, once both formats reach critical mass the next step will have to be convincing the consumer that there is no war as both formats have succeeded. That could proof a lengthy task in itself!

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

If Microsoft didn't help keep HD DVD alive, the PS3 would be significantly more appealing

Not to those buying the Wii since the Wii doesn't play either HD format.

It's funny, when all the talk about the PS3 "dominating" the HD player market when it came out took place way back when, I questioned whether the PS3 would make a "good" Blu-Ray movie player and suggested we all wait for the PS3 to come out and see how it fared. Now that it's out, it sounds like it's a better Blu-Ray movie player than gaming console! I sure as hell didn't see that one coming.

Peace...

[ganthc]

Um, the ps3's problem is not that it's a bad game console, but that it doesn't have a lot of games for it right now. I think that only 360 is really getting the gaming library that's excellent enough to maintain sales volumes. However, once the ps3 library gets more extensive, the games on it are really great. I use it mainly as a bd player, but I do like the games I have: Resistance, Oblivion, Motorstorm. I will want to get NCAA 2008, Madden 08 (which will have VY on it ) and FF. There will be more some fantastic games out for it.

Just wanted to clarify that. I think that the game console lives up to expectations. It's the bd player aspect of it that has surpassed expectations.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

I think that the game console lives up to expectations.

Does it? It is $200-$300 more expensive than the XBOX 360 and almost every multiplatform game runs better on the 360. That is rather disappointing, no?

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Does it? It is $200-$300 more expensive than the XBOX 360 and almost every multiplatform game runs better on the 360. That is rather disappointing, no?

That and I wouldn't expect Wii sales to be so much stronger than the PS3 if the PS3 really delivered the goods enough to be worth the added cost. Of course, I'm not a gamer so I'm in over my head in this (which is not surprising to anyone, I'm sure... ).

Peace...

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Does it? It is $200-$300 more expensive than the XBOX 360 and almost every multiplatform game runs better on the 360. That is rather disappointing, no?

Well, if you want the barebones, skeletal 360, which has been criticized on this forum and others as not being a good deal, because it doesn't have a hard drive, no hdmi, etc. etc. In fact, when you get a 360 that has the same features as the ps3, it is almost the same price, but with no high def drive. From the aspect of games "running better," from your reviews you have posted, the differences have been negligible in most of those cases. And the ps3 has better sound than the 360.

So yeah, I think it does.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

That and I wouldn't expect Wii sales to be so much stronger than the PS3 if the PS3 really delivered the goods enough to be worth the added cost. Of course, I'm not a gamer so I'm in over my head in this (which is not surprising to anyone, I'm sure... ).

Peace...

I would. Nintendo has a great fanbase and makes fun games that are exclusive to the console. Mario, Zelda, etc. are exclusive franchises that always get great sales. Also, the Wii is a game console that can be used by all ages and is fun. But for the longevity of the Wii, it will still sell well, but it won't surpass MS or Sony in the long term. It will fall back to 3rd place.

[tomdkat]

Originally Posted by ganthc

But for the longevity of the Wii, it will still sell well, but it won't surpass MS or Sony in the long term. It will fall back to 3rd place.

Ok, this is an interesting point. How long would you give the Wii to remain in its current position?

Peace...

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by ganthc

In fact, when you get a 360 that has the same features as the ps3, it is almost the same price, but with no high def drive.

The problem being of course, that you don't actually need any those features to play nextgen games. You can get away with a $300 XBOX 360 core + $30 memory card and play every game on the console just fine (with the exception of FFXI). Sure, you won't be able to download massive amounts of content but not everyone wants to do that. Some just want to play games as they have in the past - throw in Madden 08 and your memory card and you are good to go.

Further, the XBOX 360 Elite gives virtually all the same features for gaming that as the PS3 has plus a bigger hard drive for $479. (Not that you need them anyway since it has been shown time and time again that there is minimal difference between component and HDMI).

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by tomdkat

Ok, this is an interesting point. How long would you give the Wii to remain in its current position?

Peace...

From this point, less than a year. Nintendo can't churn out enough games to compete. Eventually, their library will be overrun by 360 and ps3, that offer better graphics, not to mention the price will drop on those consoles. The other appeal for the wii is that it doesn't "require" an hdtv to appreciate the gameplay. But that also is a limitation as more homes get hdtvs.