Poll: 1080p streaming video vs. Blu-ray
Relevant Posts
- Xbox 360 Dashboard Update... updates: Preview program reopened, Sky TV due Oct. 27 (45 days ago - 5 Comments)
- Poll: What is the best Blu-ray player? (34 days ago - 95 Comments)
- Poll: Where do you buy your Blu-ray discs now, if you buy them at all? (41 days ago - 50 Comments)
- Microsoft: 'We have no plans for Blu-ray on Xbox 360' (36 days ago - 30 Comments)
- OWC takes quad-interface Mercury Pro external BD burner to 12x (24 days ago - 0 Comments)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
UnnDunn @ Jun 7th 2009 3:49PM
Convenience nearly always trumps quality. This will be no exception.
img eL @ Jun 7th 2009 5:04PM
Ditto, hd-lite
NorthCranky @ Jun 7th 2009 6:31PM
Netflix [blu-ray] is convenient.
TeflonFong @ Jun 7th 2009 7:19PM
Not convenient for people who have less than 8mb connection...and even if you do have the bandwidth, you lose the convenience of taking a movie to a friends/family or girlfriend/boyfriend house.
Spiza @ Jun 7th 2009 9:46PM
I stopped using the netflix streaming because I could never get HD without pausing every ten minutes to refill the buffer. Not very convenient.
UnnDunn @ Jun 7th 2009 11:50PM
Unless your connection is so slow as to be unusable, you will not experience buffering on the Xbox 360 1080p streaming service. Instead, the service will dynamically switch to a bitstream that is slow enough to fit in available bandwidth. The service will continuously switch resolutions and bitrates on the fly based on the nature of the scene being viewed and the available bandwidth.
For example, if your connection speed unexpectedly dips below the threshold for 1080p, the system will switch from the 1080p stream to the 720p stream. You may notice a softening of the picture, but the movie will continue to play with no interruption or buffering.
Spiza @ Jun 8th 2009 8:14AM
You do know that Netflix used the same software, right? The netflix service would also convert to "crap view". The HD on netflix way to get DVD quality (netflix HD was a little better than DVD).
UnnDunn @ Jun 8th 2009 8:57AM
Yes, Netflix uses an earlier version of the same technology. Xbox Live will use an improved version with better codecs and more granular bitrate adjustments.
Multi-format-mayhem @ Jun 8th 2009 9:55AM
TeflonFong
"you lose the convenience of taking a movie to a friends/family or girlfriend/boyfriend house".
Oh come on, be honest & get real.
In which alternate reality do most people have friends and family with Blu-ray players?
I know 2 other people (who fit that description) with them.
Blu-ray is about as isolated in that regard as can be, hardly anyone in the mass-market has it. Still.
TeflonFong @ Jul 18th 2009 10:15AM
Multi-Format-Mayhem
I am talking about Discs in general (Blu-Ray as well as DVD). Not everybody had a DVD player in their house...it took time for it to penetrate the market. With Blu-Ray players getting cheaper more and more people will adopt Blu-Ray. I live in Miami and travel every summer to Jamaica- especially in Jamaica where people own HDTVs that they get abroad but there is not yet local HD content Blu-Ray is a popular way to get the MOST out of their Home Theater setup...I actually bought a Toshiba HD-XA1 for my uncle when it came out for 500.00. You would be surprised how much people own a Blu-Ray player here in Miami- my friend Jermaine in Countrywalk, Jose in Hammocks, Andy in Richmond Heights, Kevan who lives 5min away from Andy, Justin in Hialeah...more of my friends have DVD players but there are a lot of people here that have Blu-Ray players.
Adam @ Jun 7th 2009 3:55PM
Commentary track(s)? Featuretts? Suppilments? Ability to re-watch months later, and share it with friends? It's a pretty clear choice for a film enthuiast like me. If I could get 15-20gb downloads that included all of the extras on physical disks, then it would be a no brainer. But streaming offers none of that, so it's only marginally above Netfiix (but still leaps and bounds above Blockbuster).
Nohone @ Jun 7th 2009 4:32PM
During the great HD DVD and Blu-Ray wars HD fans were talking up the interactive capabilities over the 1.0 profile of Blu-Ray. Blu-Ray fans on sites such as this one or AVSForum were down-talking those features saying that nobody, even hard-core movie fans, ever watch the commentary or other additions. Also, the extras on HD DVD were bad because it increased the price because of production of those extra features. Blu-Ray has won, Blu-Ray packages regularly ship with an additional disk with all the extras (wasn't the benefit of Blu-Ray the capacity, and you didn't need to get up and change disks?). So not only do we have the production costs of those extras, but also the price of the extra disk).
Now we have downloads, and suddenly the internet is filled with talk about how important the extras are and we cannot live without them.
For me, I will download movies that I have no intent of watching again. But for movies that I know I will watch over and over, I will be adding another Blu-Ray package to my bookshelf.
Adam @ Jun 7th 2009 4:58PM
DVD Collection:240+(stopped counting)
Blu-Ray Collection:43
Not your average movie fan, I have no idea what you're really addressing. The reason I prefenced my comment with "film enthuiast like me" was to express that. I want at least a director's track with my film, and sometimes producer's tracks. Hell, I even listen to Hype Williams' commentary on "Belly", so quality of the film isn't a determing factor as to whether I'll give the commentary track a try. I didn't give two shits about Blu vs HD-DVD, I don't use 2.0 features usually, but I still prefer the extras available on atandard DVDs versus just getting a streaming HD movie.
Andrew @ Jun 8th 2009 7:59AM
I see no reason to believe streaming services won't offer alternate audio tracks at some point. The only real overhead added for that is storage, which is cheap.
I personally don't like audio commentaries. I would prefer the original audio with subtitles for the commentary, but that's just me.
A1 @ Jun 7th 2009 4:03PM
Nope. Where's the re-sale value? MS needs to accept the inevitable and go BD. For Christ sakes think how much the game developers could do with their games. Even FF13 is going to have to be on multiple discs.
Raffi @ Jun 25th 2009 6:34PM
Given that they've gone and announced they are providing games through Internet delivery, I doubt they are considering BD as a media for distributing games. Developers don't want BD, the technical bottlenecks games run into today is usually something like available RAM, not storage on the disc. There are just a couple JRPGs that use multiple discs.
Raffi @ Jun 7th 2009 4:35PM
I'm dreaming of a world where I don't have tons of easily breakable discs cluttering up my home. Any advantages blu-ray has can easily be gone in a couple years and provided through some digital distribution scheme as home bandwidth increases.
3dpenguin @ Jun 7th 2009 4:50PM
Consider this...
All distribution companies have shown interest in Digital Distribution, this includes hardliner Blu-ray companies Sony, Disney, and Fox. Why? Simply speaking it has far more potential profit.
Future Technology is going to be supporting higher compressions and resolutions than current technology supports, Blu-ray can't support these format without new equipment, Blu-ray was released with no upgradability, yes there are firmware dates, but those only go so far, it will not allow a machine using 1080p/24 5.1 standard to use 2160p/120 8.1 standard, the machine doesn't have to hardware to do so.
Computers now are heading to surpass the bandwidth capabilities of optical media, which is being limited not only by the hardware BUS but the laser capabilities.
Consuls are heading to none disc compatibility, the Wii came with it, 360 has been using is for slightly longer than that, and Sony certainly hasn't denied looking into it. PSP-Go Anyone?
Face it the only people clinging tooth and nail to optical media are those who fought tooth and nail for Blu-ray to win out, and now that its won and has shown no real sign of any significant gain in the over all market since HD DVD went out, if Direct/Digital Download becomes an option for full HD content Blu-ray will probably lose because the content will constantly come out cheaper with a higher profit margin than Blu-ray and will be favored by the distribution companies more.
People doesn't care about how they get their content anymore, much less the quality of the content.
img eL @ Jun 7th 2009 5:02PM
It's Buffering!
Dave @ Jun 7th 2009 4:58PM
If I wasn't interested in quality I'd still be watching DVD's on a SDTV!
To get the best video & audio quality it has to be Blu-Ray!!
If the downloads come with lossless audio (which I doubt they will) it will take hours & hours to download a movie over most connections (so much for convenience) & what happens when your ISP hits you with band width limits & 1 movie eats up most of that limit?
Downloads do not have the quality that Blu-ray does & downloads are just not ready for prime time.
PuBeLeSs @ Jun 7th 2009 5:37PM
thank you.... first true statement.
Andrew @ Jun 8th 2009 10:03AM
While this is true in most markets, it's not universally true. There are many cities in the US and countries around the world where fiber-optic, DOCSIS 3, or other internet connections faster than 50 megabits/sec are commonplace. The bandwidth of these connections exceeds that of Blu-Ray media.
While I don't know much about Blu-Ray, I know the few HD DVDs I got for my xbox 360 are encoded with bitrates around 15 mbps (audio + video).
Fast technologies for internet connections exist and I think it's naive to believe that streaming services won't take advantage of them as they roll out.
Nohone @ Jun 7th 2009 5:24PM
I have 2 200 disk DVD changers full with a stack of other movies not loaded, as well as 98 HD DVD and Blu-Ray disks, so I am not exactly a casual movie watcher either. I usually do watch the extras.
The point I was getting at was (and I was not accusing you of this - just using it as an example) that during the war, there were many people who said that these extras were useless. But now we are in a new "war", and suddenly extras are important to the same people group of people who didn't want them. If they were so useless before that nobody watched them, and people were concerned about extras increasing the price, shouldn't people be happy about downloads not having them and keeping the price down?
Garst @ Jun 7th 2009 5:41PM
With a 1.5 mbps connection, I won't be streaming 1080p content.
nick @ Jun 7th 2009 5:42PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, was once a huge supporter of disc, and have a HUGE inventory of movies, many of which-- save a small few, do I ever watching repeatedly. I'm done with owning disc. It's expensive. And I realized I didn't have to own every movie. Simply being able to watch them on demand is enough for me. Now I don't want to 'rent' each movie individually either, but if I can pay a subscription and have access to any movie any time, then I'm certainly fine with that. I've been a big fan of Netflix, and I'm beginning to enjoy internet based content from services such as Netflix, Hulu, Fancast, Youtube, or whatever...
Flowah @ Jun 7th 2009 5:48PM
I consider myself a "casual watcher". I have 3-4 blu rays, and less than 50 DVD's, and half of those DVD's are TV DVD's like Arrested Development/Futurama (Classy people will recognize those two shows as meaning I have GREAT TASTE! :D )
But I will always care about extras. The extras on the LotR special editions have spoiled me rotten. With over 10 total hours of incredibly interesting extras and multiple audio commentary tracks I now expect the same for every other purchase. The Futurama DVD's also have a commentary for every single episode, and they are as funny as the episode themselves! I DEMAND such quality extras from my movies now.
Am I every "casual watcher"? Probably not, but I know there are other people like me. Extras aren't extras to me anymore, they are musts.
Flowah @ Jun 7th 2009 5:49PM
To add, I feel like people who spend 20-25 bucks on a DVD/Blu ray without caring about extras are really doing themselves a disservice. If the disc comes with good extras, not only are they missing out on some fantastic material, but if they don't have any good stuff, I mean, you just overpaid for something.
Lazarus @ Jun 7th 2009 7:08PM
I'm in Canada so I'll have to wait a billion years and for hell to freeze over before I see streaming. I think the real problem for broad-base streaming will be the bandwidth requirements. A household with a 10Mbit connection and 3-4 people constantly on-line could never truly support this kind of activity.
I don't think streaming will be a viable alternative until we all have fiber running to our homes.
Lowery M Posey @ Jun 7th 2009 7:03PM
I was in early on streaming movies from CinemaNow, and have been using that service for the last 4-5 years (at 700Kb DVD-like rates usually). Even that service has gotten worse over the last year as more people try to adopt Internet streaming into better quality desktop and more potent laptop infrastruture.
Non-compressed HD [1920 x 1080 x 60 = 124,416,000 bits/second] requires too much bandwidth for most input pipes into the home through even the best ubiquitous cable providers.
Buy your HD downloads from Hulu or PSN...or purchase BR media from Amazon for now. Personally, I am waiting patiently on XStreamTV.
Carl @ Jun 10th 2009 5:01PM
Blu-ray doesn't do uncompressed video, either. Your calculations are wrong.
It would be more like this:
1920 * 1080 * 60 fps * [24/32/36/48bpp (bits per pixel)] = 3/4/4.5/6Gbps
Big Sam @ Jun 7th 2009 7:04PM
Still can't beat the price of Netflix and I get full Blu-ray quality. But I will watch Netflix streaming though.
minimalist @ Jun 7th 2009 7:35PM
I'll believe it when I see it. If Netflix streaming, as good as it is, can't reliably deliver 720p HD video to me over a cable modem that averages 6-10 Mbps then Microsoft's making empty promises. Just having 1080 lines of resolution is not enough.
Picture quality aside, I still want to own my favorite movies and I am not going to buy DRM'd files with all sorts of restrictions an where I can watch or store them. So purchases will still be on Blu-ray for me. Rental? Sure. But an all you can eat service like Netflix is much more affordable than paying 5 or 6 bucks a pop to rent a movie al la carte on Apple TV or XBLM. I'd easily spend 30 plus dollars with the number of movies we rent a month.
I do use Netflix streaming on occasion but for the most part renting discs gives me the best value and buying them gives me the best quality.
TeflonFong @ Jun 7th 2009 7:38PM
My family laughed at me when they see an OTA antenna in my room...they asked why do I have an antenna when we have satellite. They don't laugh anymore- Whenever the dish goes out because of thunderstorms they all have to watch TV in my room.
In the future when the cable/DSL is out (or the bandwidth cap is reached) and my family wants to watch an HD movie they won't laugh at my Blu-Rays.
James T @ Jun 7th 2009 9:46PM
The answer seems simple, Plasma beats the quality of LCD hands down. Joe consumer picked LCD and Plasma is dying a slow but inevitable death. Those of us that can remember Beta know that it was better in quality to VHS. Joe consumer picked VHS and Beta died. We agree that Blu-ray is far superior in quality to any online streaming. Joe consumer will pick the convenience of online streaming and Blu-ray will die too.
Joe consumer can kiss my ass.
Bozster @ Jun 7th 2009 10:46PM
I like how people are constantly talking about streaming as if it's a dead end.
Realize this.. within 5 years, streaming and subscription services will annihilate Blu-ray. Blu-ray simple can't grow fast enough and people using online for content be it TV or movies is going up exponentially in huge numbers.
We already have adoptable bitrate for various connections for instant HD but the best thing is that they are achieving same quality with 6-8mbps streams at peak. That means that if you have 2 mbps connection you will have a shittier quality but if you have 8mbps or above you will have 1080p quality that is very close to Blu-ray. The point here is that cable speeds are increasing even in this economy. Let's not even get into full downloads like Vudu which is pretty much identical to Blu-ray quality wise.
People are in denial really. Every piece of news these days, studios and networks are moving to digital delivery and movies are now getting available day and date with Blu-ray and DVD. The quality is not maybe on par with Blu-ray today, but it will be here within year or two and that's the moment I stop buying or renting Blu-ray's completely.
I prefer Blu-ray today for top quality, but it is definitely no future there. I want the ability to enjoy even higher quality content down the road without repurchasing everything and buying new equipment and the only infrastructure that can provide us with that is digital downloads.
Convenience is also another huge thing that's already evident. More and more people simply don't care as much for optical media in general unless it's dirt cheap. That is reflected by the fact that DVD sales are dropping and Blu-ray is not growing enough to compensate for DVD sales.
jitty @ Jun 7th 2009 11:51PM
You do realize if you want higher quality, you will need to buy new hardware anyway. Right now, blu-ray offers the best 1080p possible. Any improvements on blu-ray 1080p would truly be negligible. Higher quality would be like 1440p, for which you would probably have to buy a new TV and new hardware that will handle that resolution. Not to mention faster download speeds.
Really, as long as physical media can increase in capacity, they might be able to offer higher quality than digital. Giving people a reason to buy it. Though I suppose at some point there would be no point in improving the quality, what's the point of 2160p on anything less than a 60 inch (which, even in the future, I doubt most will have). But is that point 1080p? Maybe...
NIUHuskie @ Jun 8th 2009 12:04AM
Bozster, we all get it, you aren't a believer in BD. I have no idea what makes you think that streaming/subscription services will be destroying BD in 5 years though. How long has downloading/streaming music been in the mainstream now? Coming up on 10 years? And for almost as long people have been saying that it will replace compact discs. Yet here's a stat for you...digital music sales totaled $2.9 billion in 2008, but that still only represents 15% of the total. Here's a link to the story in the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/business/worldbusiness/25music.html
A huge chunk of that other 85% (approximately $17 billion) went to CD's. If digital downloads of music haven't even come close to overtaking physical media in this amount of time, why would anyone think that digital movies are going to do it that quickly? And this is considering the fact that a vast majority of homes already have access to internet that's fast enough to download an album in a few minutes or less. That same capability is not as widely available for movies, much less HD movies. Also, do not discount the need for people to actually be able to hold on to the things they pay for. Most people do not want to spend money on something as intangible as a digital file that can be damaged or lost with a hard drive failure, or something that could have it's license revoked rendering it useless.
TeflonFong @ Jun 8th 2009 12:52AM
Realize this...people STILL USE DIAL-UP.
Bozster @ Jun 8th 2009 1:51AM
Huskie,
Video streaming and online distribution has been working really just over a year. Digital downloads for music has been for available for a few years now and it's already killing CD sales. Walmart and other retailers are just discontinuing CD sales because they occupy shelf space and are not really that popular especially with the amount of mp3 players and ipods and similar.
The same will hold true with digital downloads. In the next 2-3 years most people (in the States really) will be using online methods to get their content, be it SD or HD. It's already happening at a rapid pace:
Americans Viewed a Record 16.8 Billion Videos Online in April
http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2009/6/Americans_Viewed_a_Record_16.8_Billion_Videos_Online_in_April
Netflix CFO: Streaming Offers Greater Opportunity than DVD-by-Mail
http://www.homemediamagazine.com/netflix/netflix-cfo-streaming-offers-greater-opportunity-dvd-mail-15785
Vudu to offer permanent high-definition downloads - Blu-ray in sights
Day and date releases of the major studios available in HDX
www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6639448.html
Best Buy partners with Sonic on digital movies
www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6663016.html
Internet TVs, Other Video Devices To More Than Quadruple By 2013
http://www.multichannel.com/article/277225-Internet_TVs_Other_Video_Devices_To_More_Than_Quadruple_By_2013.php
Major manufacturers including digital download services in their TVs and other devices and even Blu-ray players guarantees that people will have much easier access to different content HD or SD anywhere.
Let's face it, it's happening at the record pace and Blu-ray simply has no chance to be any dominant force. It will be just another way of getting content that will die out in a few years anyways because better and more convenient ways of content delivery will go through digital downloads/streaming and other sources.
NIUHuskie @ Jun 8th 2009 1:24PM
Boz, did you completely disregard the data in that article (and my post)? Approximately $20 billion was spent on music in 2008 and $2.9 billion of that was on digital music. That's 15%. The vast majority of the other 85% was spent on CD's. I have no idea where you get the idea that CD's are getting killed. iTunes was introduced over 8 years ago now, and was preceded by several other online music options. In what amounts to a decade, digital downloads of music still haven't cracked the 20% barrier. Why will digital downloads/streaming of movies grow so much more quickly than music has?
I haven't heard one word about Wal-Mart or any other retailer dropping CD's. Best Buy still has racks and racks of them every time I go in.
As for people watching "16.8 billion videos" online in April, the majority of those were viewed on YouTube and were most likely of the homemade video variety...not the kind of videos that would be competing with optical media.
Also, I wouldn't expect to see the CFO of NetFlix say anything less than how streaming represents a big opportunity over discs by envelope. Obviously one of the biggest costs that NetFlix incurs is postage...something that would be easily rectified if everyone stopped renting movies by mail. I'm sure the execs at NetFlix are just about wetting their pants over the possibility, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.
Godfail @ Jun 8th 2009 4:58PM
NIUHuskie, if you take a look at the article you're citing, it's actually published in January 2008 and is referring to 2007.
Godfail @ Jun 8th 2009 5:00PM
Oh, you're also referring to worldwide sales here, not the countries that usually set the precedent for the future.
Godfail @ Jun 8th 2009 5:03PM
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10130206-93.html
There's the 2008 data. It seems digital sales are increasing at a very solid rate...you might not want to be so quick to discount it.
jitty @ Jun 7th 2009 11:41PM
I think digital distribution will have interesting affects. One interesting affect could be that it would drive down blu-ray movie prices, in just a few years, to sub DVD levels of today.
Second, it will take a LONG time till 1080p movies become fast and as good as blu-rays. Right now, a decent blu-ray runs at about 25mbps. What percent of the USA has even half that internet speed? What percent of the USA will have even half that speed in 2 years? Not that many! And so to get it to play with no buffering interruptions, blu-ray quality downloads would need to buffer at least half the movie, taking maybe 1 hour at the least. Not very convenient. In fact I can drive to my blockbuster and back in maybe 30 minutes.
Though that is assuming consumers want full blu-ray quality and not downgraded 1080p. But as long as blu-ray has better quality than most downloadable movies, consumers will still have a reason to buy it.
It's not like the mp3 vs CD thing. A large advantage of mp3 was that it was mobile. Movies being mobile is not a huge concern to consumers. In fact, in some ways, as stated before here, blu-rays are more mobile and at this point you can't watch a movie you rented digitally and take it to a friends house. You CAN with a blu-ray.
So in some ways, even now, digital movies are less convenient and off lesser quality than blu-ray. And since most people will agree the convenience gap between CD's and mp3's is not nearly as big as blu-rays and digital movies. Blu-ray will have a strong presence against digital for a long time.
kcmurphy88 @ Jun 7th 2009 11:46PM
Given an internet connection better than the 4-6MB you can get from ATT in many parts of Los Angeles, yeah. As it stands, not much of an option.
Rob @ Jun 8th 2009 1:40AM
The ONLY reason people are enthusiastic about Digital Distribution via streaming or downloads is because they figure it will be even easier to get for free.
Do you REALLY want to pay $6 to "rent" a streaming movie? One that you have to start watching within 30 days and once you start watching it, you have to finish it within 24 hours? And with that price and those restrictions, you also get frequent drops in quality as the stream "dynamically" switches to lower resolutions and bitrates?
Oh yeah...sounds like a dream...
Or how about "buying" a download for $20? 'Cause that's the going price. And then what do you do if you decide you want to sell that movie? You can't! You also can't lend it to a friend or take it to another house or even another room in your own house unless you take the whole freaking set-top-box with you!
Oh yeah...so much better than a disc...
Or what if you want to go bargain hunting? It's easy to find dirt cheap, used discs. But when the streams or downloads are controlled by the studios and aggregators? Streams and downloads are never "used". You are stuck with whatever price they set!
The ONLY model that makes any sense is an "all you can eat" subscription. But that's only good for people who consistently watch several movies every month.
Have people REALLY thought about what streaming and downloads will mean? Or do you all just figure it'll be magically free?
minimalist @ Jun 8th 2009 9:06AM
None of it has been thought through, Rob.
The people who gush about how streaming and downloads and the cloud are right around the corner have their heads (literally) in the clouds. To them its all about potential. It's all about a magical utopian world of dirt cheap on-demand 24/7/365 media they want to believe is just around the corner. But reality has a way of throwing wrenches into dreams like these (studio greed and control issues can prove to be the biggest wrenches of all). And the reality of all this streaming and download stuff right now, as you so ably point out, kind of sucks once you get past the novelty factor. Unreliable streams, lack of flexibility with the files once you download them, onerous DRM, and higher than necessary prices.
I have no doubt that streaming and downloads will fit of our media consumption in a major way... that is in the long term. But I also know how slowly this stuff happens when we are talking about real mainstream adoption.
livesinHD @ Jun 8th 2009 11:26AM
Here in Germany we get 30 Mbit/s for just 20€, but still the online offers are nowhere close to Blu-Ray qualitywise. I guess it depends what setup you have, most people might go with the convenience factor, as they don't see / hear the quality differences anyways in their low-budget living rooms. Fair enough!
As for me, I want the best stuff for my home theater. I just don't get why there's no legal offer for high quality downloadable video. Bittorrent shows it's possible to get near Blu-Ray quality to the homes without a disc, so why won't you let me pay for it? Have you learned nothing from the music business???
Richard @ Jun 8th 2009 9:24AM
I usually choose how I view content depending on the content. As an example, I will try to view big, visually deep movies such as Blade Runner on Blue Ray. For these, you want the precise detail of the sets. For your standard comedy/plot piece such as Juno, the visuals are not as important to the picture and streaming for these is fine.
I think the important thing here is that we have choice to consume it either way.
Pingles @ Jun 8th 2009 11:37AM
I still prefer hav
...buffering...
...buffering...
...buffering...
ing physical media, especi
...buffering...
...buffering...
...buffering...
ally for movies I plan on watching over and over.
I got burned by game-distribution of Steam. No more digital distribution for me until I am convinced that the retention is reliable.