Xbox 360 HD-DVD Player + Heroes + 8 or more HD-DVD's Best Buy $179.99

[DonkeyKongSr]

So, anyone figure out what this is worth in resale value? The old "free boxset" version was obviously more, but this is what I'm hoping for what I got (looked on eBay for rough ideas of what these sold for)...

Heroes: $40 (much lower than I expected)
King Kong: $15
Transformers: $25
MI:Ultimate Missions: $50
5 Free Movies (~$15 each seems to be standard for random movies): $75

MOVIE TOTAL: $205 (most fees will be taken care of by overcharging shipping a buck or two)

My bill was like $225, so my player will likely cost me about $20 when it's all said and done. If I sell the player, it looks like it'll go for about $100-$120. So, with the "$34.99 off 2 DVD" deal, it seems to be about $100 profit at the most to be made from this deal. Not bad, but I think I'll stick with my cheap player and rent HD-DVDs.

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i really really hope hd-dvd wins unless blu-ray can also do dual-format

i'm still not ready to spend $30 on a dvd that I could only watch on one dvd player and not on my portable player or my laptop...dual format is where it is at

[/ QUOTE ]

you know someone is misinformed when they are hoping for the technically inferior format to win. bluray has almost 2x the space hddvd has

[/ QUOTE ]

so what if it has 2x the space?

i care MORE about dual-format than i do about space

i am not misinformed...i realize that blu-ray is the technically better solution...but if hd-dvd gives me the FEATURES that i want and blu-ray does not, then why would i root for blu-ray over hd-dvd?

notice i even qualified my statement with 'unless blue-ray can also do dual-format'...because if it can, then i'd root for blu-ray


i told you EXACTLY why i wanted hd-dvd to win: because i want to be able to play the disc on my portable player, my bedroom player and my laptop...yet you go off on some tangent about disc space?



[/ QUOTE ]

Do you do a lot of movie watching on your portable DVD player or your laptop? Personally, I don't so the feature is almost useless.

[Nicholasp27]

if i go on trips, then yeah i do

i personally don't wanna pay $30 (instead of 10-15) for a dvd that i can only play on one player...i can't play it in my bedroom, at my friends' house, on my computer or on my portable player

lots of other consumers are like me as well...and many aren't

i'm one of the biggest fans of hd...i have 3 of them and have wired my house for hd distribution...95% of tv i watch is hd channels

but the price is not right when i can't use those dvds on non-hd players when i'm not in that one room of the house

plus, dvds look pretty good on a plasma...not as good as hdtv, obv but much much better than sdtv


however, the biggest reason that hd formats for dvds have not taken off quicker is that they don't really offer any new features that dvds don't...just better quality and more space

mp3s are worse quality than cd, but have replaced cds because of features

cds replaced tapes because of feature, not quality

dvds replaced vhs because of features, not quality

[capone0]

This doesn't make any sense, your a huge proponent of HD but you are a huge proponent of Wii which isn't even HD compatable.

[Nicholasp27]

that's because i can't get the wii in hd...

i'm a huge fan of wiimote, so that matters more than graphics

i'll be first in line for the wii2, hd version

[4 High]

Why do you keep typing one line paragraphs? Its hurting my eyes.

Come the end of this year, BR will be able to duplicate all those in movie features HD-DVD has had for a while, so once that is done BR will have all the advantages outside of dual format which very few people care about. I don't remember people clamoring that badly for VHS/DVD combo players when DVD first came out.

[Nicholasp27]

well, if br does dual-format, then i'll support br

people didn't care about dual-format back then because dvds offered NEW FUNCTIONALITY...so it was worth the switch just like from tapes to cds etc

but losing the ability to play the dvd on multiple devices just for better quality, not new functionality, isn't as appealing...u pay double the price for that upgrade in quality, but u don't get to use that disc on any other players and all u get is upgrade in quality, not features

consumers chose mp3 players over cd players even tho worse quality because they preferred the feature set...

[capone0]

You really can't tell that much of a difference between MP3s and CDs, your ears aren't that sensitive, but you can tell a huge difference between SD and HD even with an upconverting DVD player, there is a huge difference. I don't think you can use this comparison for a vision based system. The reason HD isn't that popular now is price and the fact that HDTV aren't in everyones homes. There is a huge difference in quality which any person who isn't blind can see.

[AceLuby]

[ QUOTE ]
people didn't care about dual-format back then because dvds offered NEW FUNCTIONALITY...so it was worth the switch just like from tapes to cds etc

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to have to disagree w/ you here. The new functionality was small IMO, you got menus, scene skipping, and extras on a DVD (but most extras were on VHS as well). The reason my family upgraded (and most people I knew) was because of the better picture and CD quality sound, especially after multiple viewings.

CD's were functionality, but I don't think that translates to DVD's as much as most people watch movies start to finish, unlike CD's.

[gusmahler]

[ QUOTE ]

mp3s are worse quality than cd, but have replaced cds because of features

cds replaced tapes because of feature, not quality

dvds replaced vhs because of features, not quality

[/ QUOTE ]
DVDs and CDs won because of the COMBINATION of features and quality. Remember that cassettes and VHS tapes degrade noticeably after a few uses and CD/DVDs don't.