Blu-Ray Still Blows
ascii.textfiles.com
ascii.textfiles.com
Street Fighter 2 super dooper HD remix might only need 5-10 gigs worth of memory, so they just throw in one 16 gig module (or two 8 / four 4 gig modules for data striping and faster loading times) and ship it. Metal Gear Solid 7 and its over 9000 hours of CGI might need 200+ gigs, so they just throw in as much flash memory as they can and go to town with their high res textures and lossless a/v.
Lets say Rock Band 5 ships with 80 songs at approximately a half gig a song, as well as 20 gigs of everything else, for a 60 gig total footprint. They then could ship the game on a 120 gig flash cartridge, mark half of it writable to the console, and boom. Now instead of having to carry around your xbox hard drive when visiting friends for RB parties, you just take the cartridge and it has the DLC on it.
Flash is a loooooong way from beating the disc.
Also, I suppose Blu-Ray will be stuck at it's size because of the norms and patent hell, whereas sticks can just continue to grow. Flash drives are becoming popular, so the price of Flash in general might come down.
Who cares about reprogramming your stick: for blu-ray, you want to buy a movie. The movie studio is the one wanting to make a profit, so most of the sale price of the movie should not go into the media.
Therefore, mass producing blu-ray movies, at around $1 (or less) per disc is very effective (the studios will sell you the movie at $9.99 or more).
When will a USB stick for 20GB cost less than $1? It's still quite far off.
Whereas a USB stick, even bought in large volumes, can only be so cheap.
You don't care if memory sticks can grow - you have, say, 20GB of content you want to deliver to your customer. It's just extra cost if you buy a 40GB memory stick to carry it.
I just don't see any incentive (other than marketing/coolness) for distributing anything on a USB stick.
These types of whiny posts don't contribute much of anything. There's no real solution proposed. Other than "I want to use proprietary technology but I don't want to pay the fees".
Get support from other independent producers, get a following, get some press, and eventually get your way.
Instead he chooses to just complain. That's just lazy.
No, it's presumptuous. You made no mention of ongoing negotiation, and I assumed a post entitled "Blu-Ray Still Blows" would muddy up negotiations if they existed.
Since you're here, correct me. Are you working with the owners of the technology to get this solved for independent producers?
My tactic has been to release my work under open licenses (www.bbsdocumentary.com is one, www.getlamp.com is about to be), give presentations in which I discuss this situation, and write weblog entries about such, which, as you see, do garner attention.
I donate to the EFF and their occasional efforts to improve the situation on a legal basis.
Large companies/organizations usually dictate their licensing terms downwards. They only make exceptions if they view you as a large enough group to be talking on their level (i.e. a major movie studio).
You really think an independent film producer, hell, even all independent film producers as a group, have any negotiating power with the Blu-Ray licensing people? Seriously? If anything, the owners are deeply in bed with the big studios, who have a vested interest in keeping anybody but themselves off the platform.
I'm not sure why negotiation with and appeasement of the Blu-Ray people would be that productive. Explaining to consumers why Blu-Ray, as a technology, sucks, and encouraging them to use something else -- which right now might be "stick with DVDs" -- so as not to give their money to Blu-Ray's owners, seems like perfectly a valid strategy, since it might result in something better than Blu-Ray down the road. Working with Blu-Ray won't do that.
Blu-Ray may be the "winner" of the HD format war, but they're not gaining traction very fast. If adoption can be slowed down enough -- if users can be convinced it's a shitty format run by a would-be cartel who want to crush independent cinema beneath punitive fees -- then it'll be that much easier for a new format to succeed.
Of course it's the economy more than anything that has slowed down Blu-Ray adoption, but I don't see how telling people about the weaknesses of the format and its backers is a bad thing. The more people who know about it, the better, and the greater demand they'll be for an alternative (whether it's USB sticks, SD cards, or some form of online distribution).
Personally I like what Blu-ray does now and can live with the restrictions. It's preferable to me to both watch and potentially distribute that format than to sit around waiting a decade for the infrastructure to catch up with the leading solution for low-cost bulk media.
That's a good thing. While it's got some irritating side effects, the overall idea is getting rid of bullshit attitudes towards one another. Swearing is a part of language. There's nothing wrong with its being used.
Off topic: it's so refreshing to come here (HN) and read a reply that isn't some kind of verbal attack towards me for the opinion I presented. I thank you for that, for stating your opinion with insights without attacking me.
(Excepting politeness, of course. I consider that to be an important component.)
I'd like to visit Japan and see what the culture there's like. I'd like to visit anywhere that's not the US, for that matter, but Japan's the place that I've heard is radically different in nearly every way.
The polite attitude sometimes blocks on getting things done. They have a very hard time openly disagreeing. Instead they would state their position over and over. Ask you for your thoughts and if they do no match, repeat the process.
This is what makes Westerners great IMO. They take a position, scream about it, and action on it. The Japanese will be stuck in a planning committee and not get things done.
Of course this is just generalizations. Just seems in general that Japanese are polite spectators and Westerners are rowdy spectators that are more likely run on to the field to make a change.
If I say fuck blue ray, I am IMMEDIATELY in few words getting the point accross that:
a) I dislike blue ray. b) I am having an very negative emotional reaction to it and want to convey this fact. c) Has an immediate effect.
Now just like any word it can be misused, however if you want the above 3 points conveyed then fuck is the perfect word to use.
d) Rather than thinking through what I have to say, I'd rather slip down to the lowest common denominator expression because it's easier, without regard to the large percentage of my audience that may be offended.
e) For me, emotion trumps reason.
f) Has an immediate effect, although not the one I might hope for.
hn is a great place for technically minded people to share ideas on achieving success. Discarding x% of your audience for no apparent reason is hardly a perfect form of anything.
Jason Scott, the writer in question, is known for using lots of swears to achieve an emotional effect, but he's excused for that by working really fucking hard on the projects he's chosen to care about. So for me, the context of who he is justifies his swearing, because I know where he's coming from.
As for discarding audience: absolutely get rid of them if you want to! That's the choice of the writer. Maybe I don't want the sort of audience that still gets childjitters when I say the word shit in front of them. I had a professor last semester who told me he didn't approve of my describing another student's project idea as "fucked-up", because it conveyed a lack of respect for the idea. Fact was, the idea was disrespectable—but if I'd used that word, I'd have implied in my politeness some respect for the idea, when in fact I had none.
Jason Scott isn't writing to give constructive criticism. He's writing because he thinks the idea of BluRay needs demolition. In the past, when he's critiqued things, he's shown a restraint of language; this deserved none. (I'll also respond to your manner of responding by saying that I find snarky sarcasm as much of a turn-off as you find my crude mouth, and that I'm much less likely to respect snark than I am swears.)
Not necessarily 'no apparent reason.' Maybe you just don't care if your audience is offended, because people that are so easily offended are people that you don't want as part of your audience. Granted we're talking about people and blogs here, not corporate/startup communications with the public/customers.
If I start talking about my support of gay marriage I immediately offend x% of the population that view gay marriage as some sort of 'affront to God.' I am probably ok with this if I'm in support of something that offends them, but from a company/startup perspective, I probably don't want to talk about gay marriage if it will alienate potential customers and has nothing to do with my underlying business (e.g. it would be appropriate if my business was in selling gay marriage accessories or gay wedding planning services or something).
What do I mean by "unnecessary"? When it doesn't communicate any information. Example from the essay:
They’re fucking breaking the functionality of shit just because they can and you’re fine with this?
"Fucking" and "shit" don't impart any information. The following is a better version of the sentence because it communicates the same amount of information with less words:
They’re breaking functionality just because they can and you’re fine with this?
Calling something "bullshit" on the other hand, communicates information since "bullshit" is a concept we are all familiar with. There are alternatives - "bullcrap" or just "bull" - but that just invites the reader to think "They mean 'bullshit' but don't want to say 'shit.'"
On the other hand, using harsh words rarely has power. If someone you've never heard curse before calls something "bullshit," you'll take notice. This only works, though, if you swear so rarely that people take note that when you do, it has meaning.
In other words, swearing casually removes the power of swearing.
Yes. Which is why we need stronger swear words than ever now. I propose "kruftonic." Nice and consonant-y for your stronger swearing needs.
So I think I'm agreeing with you here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/28/david-mi...
excerpt:
Is saying "fuck" offensive?
That's not the same as asking: "Is 'fuck' a rude word?" Everyone accepts it's a rude word - it would hardly be used if it weren't. The disagreement is about whether using it (and other swearing, but "fuck" is the Gaza Strip here) is an offensive act.
I don't think it is. I don't think it matters a shit, damn or piss if someone says "fuck" or how many times they say it. My friends and colleagues unthinkingly use it all the time and, as far as I can tell, it hasn't resulted in the poisoning of their souls or their becoming unable to express themselves because of the effect of linguistic inflation.
While it's nice to talk about all sorts of OGG hippydippery and how it should be released online, the fact remains that many people who'd want to see someone's "film" will own or use blu-ray and wonder why the film isn't being released on a 'real' format that can be bought on a nice disc and put into the components in their home. And my bringing these subjects up the way I do is an attempt to explain why that is the case.
Look at it from the customer's point of view. They really don't care about you or your worldview in 99% of cases. To paraphrase Dov Simens, nobody says 'let's go see a Sony movie tonight, or would you prefer a Paramount film?'. People care about the distribution company even les than they care about the studio, which to say hardly at all. From a distributor's point of view the licensing requirements and costs to release on blu-ray are trivial operating costs, just like there has always been a fee to use the DVD logo on DVD cases and small fees for use of the MPEG codecs, h.264 codecs etc. OK, so the fee is more expensive with blu-ray. You object, I see your point - it doesn't make economic sense if you expect to sell under 3-5000 copies.
I know, you hate distributors. They take a chunk of your money and have overly cosy relationships with theaters and video rental businesses, and this is one reason among many that you market directly. On the other hand, distributors have the funds and expertise to advertise and otherwise promote a film to increase its chances of commercial success, and thus increase your future possibilities for obtaining production financing and having more negotiation power the next time you are looking at a distribution deal.
It seems to me that people who might be interested in your film won't be very exercised about the format (not least because 99% of text adventures employed graphics well below the resolution of DVD anyway), and the people who are merely curious rather than enthusiastic about IF etc. are going to read 1 paragraph of your rant and decide you're a computer geek with a chip on his shoulder.
Most indies will treat these expenses as just another line item. $3000 to buy a lifetime blu-ray reproduction license? OK, I've been on no-budget projects that racked up similar amounts of money just on beta duplication fees for an eventual release to DVD because the distributor didn't have a digital pipeline. Me, I'd rather pay it and have some chance of getting a review by submitting copies of the movie to every little film magazine/website in hopes that they'd work the 'anyone can release to blu-ray now' angle and promote the damn film...which might even get a wider audience for your (valid) thoughts about the licensing costs involved if you mentioned to an interviewer how filmmakers should be prepared for some sticker shock and it's holding them back.
tl;dr valid perspective, but ultimately you're choosing to limit your own distribution.
For one thing, I just don't see distributors as a necessary evil to large-scale success and I certainly don't think they are necessarily more capable of promotion and advertising around properties than a particularly-driven filmmaker/producer in the modern era. I don't think this has been the case for some time, and certainly not in the five+ years you've been doing your pro work.
And for the kind of people I am talking about, yes, 5000 copies or less is the goal, and $3000 is terrible, terrible money to lose. That's the "indies" I mean, not the "indies" I read about in Entertainment Weekly or on the Sundance weblog.
BBS Documentary got reviews in Wired, Film Threat, and a pile of other locations without paying for a distributor or out to other such organizations. As a result, I sell a bunch less, but all the non-production costs go to me, not to someone who gave me a nice dinner four years ago.
I'm going to give you a pass for indicating IF enthusiasts would tolerate a standard definition film because they once or currently liked games with scant graphics.
Like I said, different worlds, and in my world I really do think Blu-ray is a cancer and that this sort of treatment needs to be pointed out.
When I compare that dollar amount to a line-item expense for digibeta tapes, the particular example I was thinking was for a sub-$50k DVD-bargain-bin film, which basically didn't (and won't) make a penny for most of the people involved...but the release of which by [Well Known Company] has been enough to get the maker into a project with a proper budget: in other words, it looks as if someone else will pick up the tab for the next one, and he'll earn a respectable paycheck at least, which is a step forward in my book.
What I'm trying to say comes down to two issues: first, would you rather bank half the proceeds from selling 5000 copies or bank 10% of the proceeds from selling 50,000? and second, will your approach help you sell more or fewer copies - that is, are you fighting a useful battle?
Let's say that between the licensing and other factors it would cost $4000 to be able to sell GET LAMP on Blu-ray. OK, that's the suck. But at $45, which is what you sell the BBS film for, that would start to be profitable after 100 extra copies. So when the question is 'Could you sell more than 100 extra copies by putting it onto a single BR disc'? If the answer is yes, which I think it might be, then there would be benefits in doing so.
As I said, I am completely with you about the (lack of) ethics of this licensing scheme and the resulting financial headache it creates as you try to please both your potential customers and your bank manger. But I feel that merely shaking your fist at it may not be the best strategy.
If this were a game, and in a maze of twisty passages, all alike you met a gnome who was offering you a magic key but demanding an excessive amount of your gold, possibly even more than you have... would you assume it was a red herring and just forget about it, or at least entertain the possibility that paying off the gnome would turn out to be worth it later?
I'd very much like to continue this conversation by email and/or telephone. I can't help with money but perhaps I can assist you with some aspect of production or post.
And it's Massachusetts, not Texas. :) Good try.
Yes, you have to pay for it.
This won't change. In fact, most independent authors and musicians I know would kill for a transparent, workable DRM system that effectively stopped casual piracy. Without it, 0-day piracy would become ubiquitous. For Hannah Montana that won't matter much because Hannah Montana's shit is going to be bought -- and pirated -- in massive volume anyway. For the local musician it could mean not getting the big break he was hoping for because he didn't cross the threshold of 50,000 or 100,000 albums sold necessary for the record company to heavily market him. In the worst case it means not being able to feed his family with the income from his music.
So no, DRM is necessary if you want small independent creators to succeed in the age of the Pirate Bay. And it's not going away anytime soon.
It sucks... but for a couple hundred bucks, I'm fine with my blu-ray player, my netflix subscription, and my purchased copy of Planet Earth.
A netflix subscription and a blu-ray player is both cheaper and more interesting than subscribing to all the premium movie channels.
<sarcasm>I wonder if that will last?</sarcasm>
a) proprietary formats hurt independents
b) this is yet another anti-piracy heal of crap which will hurt consumers.
So yea I would not be concerned with blue ray. If the porn industry does not embrace it it won't be the next big thing.
However being that this is sony you are garanteed that they will cater to destroying independents and growing sony's monopoly.
As I've mentioned a couple times before, I always use chunky pixely fonts to code in, though the wheat-on-dark-slate-gray I used for my first Red Hat install gives me t3h warm fuzzies. It just feels namby-pamby typing your code in Lucida Console.