Originally Posted by evilchris
Afterall... doesn't BD have more gigabytes? I thought this would mean it would offer superior content over HD DVD.....
Bolded additional features the low gigabyte having HD DVD will offer.
Ask WB and they'd say because the HD DVD spec has superior support for (supposed) "advanced features" because of the inclusion of an XML-based HDi programming language. It is simpler than Blu-ray's Java-based equivalent, but it was also fasttracked and developed by Microsoft to be put into HD DVD in time for the final spec. So because HDi was finalized a long time ago, it's been supported for the devices to include cheap 480i PiP blocks for windows. Meanwhile, Blu-ray mandated that its java language (Bd-J) could be finished later (later this year in fact) and that PiP would become required at that time, so today's BD players do not include the necessary chips to incorporate PiP as mandated by the Blu-ray standard. The BDA wants higher res PiP than HD DVD thought necessary, so we have to wait longer for it.
Truth is, the "game" (as it's called) could be programmed in BD-J now and be playable on 90% of BD players out there (aka PS3) as evidenced by the game included with Chicken Little, BUT that would mean WB would be supporting both formats equally. One can never forget that WB makes money off the patents in HD DVD (as they did with DVD), but not (so much) with Blu-ray.
So WB has a very vested interest in not seeing Blu-ray take over the market. Unlike Toshiba, they're not unwilling to make some money off the competition and be in a position to hedge their bets, but like Microsoft they clearly have their favorite.
And that's why every VC1-encoded Blu-ray that is made today is made to the bandwidth restrictions of a 30 gig HD DVD rather than a 50 gig BD. Because they are playing to the Lowest Common Denominator just to "prove" that Blu-ray is not superior to HD DVD. However, Disney and Sony are quickly proving this wrong by encoding to the highest bitrates allowable by BD, which is superior to the lower encode rates of HD DVD.
And releases like Blood Diamond are just embarrassing WB with encode rates that drop below 10 when the spec for Blu-ray goes as high as 40.
There's the two reasons that most people will tell you for why the Blu-ray of 300 will lack those features of the HD DVD equivalent. If there is one saving grace of these releases, it's that WB didn't try to shove an expensive TotalHD disc down our throats that combines a 30 gig HD DVD with a 25 gig BD on the other side, increasing the cost and bringing back the flipper combo disc in an even more expensive (and fragile) package.