Jay G.

There have been far more outlandish hypotheticals asked on this thread already.

mrhan

That is good for only 90 days but I the last time I checked the unlimited return policy still applies for BD players but not TVs.

Trevor

Remember that there are multiple factors involved. Even if blu-ray had the selection and pricing of DVD (which one could easily argue it never will), there are the portability and future arguments.

Right now, I can play my DVDs anywhere on the planet. I can play my BDs in one living room. That's a huge difference. I'm more a homebody that anyone here i imagine, but I still watch my DVDs in places other than my living room more often that not. And even if blu-ray players became as ubiquitous as DVD players, my DVDs will still work on them.

On the future/permanence front, wouldn't you have to admit that DVD is a safer bet? Even if bu-ray really soared and reached the saturation point of DVD players and titles, and who really believes that, my DVDs will still play. But with BD, for many, there is still that fear that they may be stuck with another laser disc collection. A ton of money invested in a technology that never reaches true saturation and permanence.

orangerunner

Pricing is a funny thing. As I've posted before, when you look back at prices for home electronic hardware and software, Blu-Ray is relatively cheap especially when you consider the high quality of the product.

It's about comparative value and that price gap will always be an issue.

Isn't it strange that you pay $5.99 for a film on DVD whereas you pay $14.99 for just the CD soundtrack for the same film? Which one is the perceived better value?

In many people's eyes, Blu-Ray doesn't provide two or three times the value of a DVD. If Blu-Ray became $9.99 and DVD was $3.99, I have a feeling the percentages of sales wouldn't shift that much. Part of that is also due to additional costs of the HDTVs and the Blu-Ray players.

The studios are scrambling to find ways to broaden Blu-Ray's appeal, so I don't think they feel it's a "serious dent" at this point. 10% is still only 10% regardless of the reasons why.

Of those 35-40% who own HDTVs, how many of those are the cheaper 720p sets which don't really benefit as much from Blu-Ray?

beebs

It is. The number of BD titles is growing steadily and accelerating, but the titles coming aren't very encouraging for deeper catalog titles from the majors in the next two years. With perhaps a dozen exceptions, I see little else but day & date, recent hits/critical faves from the last 10 years, 80s and 90s early adopter targeted titles, anything that's charted in the top 100-150, and a trickle of tentpole classic titles from the US majors.

Disney is following through with what their execs said. They continue to trickle out animation classic and Pixar titles. They also over stuff their releases in an effort to collect more money from across their customer base with the addition of digital copies and DVDs in the package. This is all a play to get people to buy a movie at release day for $5+ more than an SD DVD.

Jay G.

The movies in question were located on a DVR, which is typically restricted to viewing in one room as well.

It's probably a poor wording on your part, but: I'm pretty sure people's HD DVDs still play as well, even though that format is completely defunct. As for BD "being the next laserdisc," LD existed for two decades before being usurped by DVD. I'm sure most BD owners would be fine if it existed for another 17 years before being usurped by another format.

A difference between BD and LD though is the same as the difference between DVD and LD: the physical size allowed for backwards compatibility. All BD players play DVDs, so the next physical disc format will likely still play BDs.

And again: the movies in question were stored on a DVR. Eventually that DVR will die, and most cable/satellite boxes don't make it easy to transfer recordings on/off the DVR. So as far as "future-proofing" goes, it's a bad choice as well.

jjcool

That's debatable.

Jay G.

I know that I don't pay $14.99 for a soundtrack, I don't know where you're shopping. And record companies could definitely cut the prices for their older titles, but soundtracks are such a limited genre that it likely wouldn't affect sales as much as it does for films or other musical genres.

I don't think it's as simple as a 3:1 ratio in regards to people's perception of value. For example, a film may be on DVD for years, and the price point drops to where it's available for $5.99. However, the studio then releases a new Special Edition DVD of the exact same film, and it sells for around $20. That ratio is larger than 3:1, and it's still a DVD, so no drastically increased resolution or sound, yet the new DVD release will sell, even if the old DVD is still available on the shelves.

People buy based on perceived value. Cost is only one factor in determining value.

Just because the studios want to increase the format's market share doesn't mean it's doing badly, or that such efforts constitute "scrambling" on their part. Studios have also added Digital Copies to DVDs recently; would you characterize that move as them "scrambling" to save a dying format?

And DVD was at 10% market share as well at one point, and didn't require a new TV. Asking a new format to do better than DVD did in market adoption is just ridiculous.

720p is still 3x the resolution of 480p, so there's still going to be a benefit, even if not as large. But if you really want to argue that the available market for BD is currently smaller than 35-40%, then that makes BD's currently market share even more notable.

Jay G.

Ahem.

Trevor

I win!

pro-bassoonist

DVD is no more a safer bet than is CD. I would argue that CD hardware penetration is far better worldwide than DVD hardware penetration is, yet, I don't think that you could argue convincingly that there is much security in it - yes, just like your DVDs, your CDs will still play, but there are new trends now that have affected its "durability".

On the other hand, there isn't a single trend that I could think of (this includes all of the downloading services, streaming devices, etc) that will affect negatively physical media used for film distribution any time soon - not in five, ten, or fifteen years - other than the studios being committed to promoting BD and naturally phasing DVD. Really, the type of fear you speak of is by large produced by people with an agenda as the real picture - BD growing convincingly - is quite different.

Pro-B

tonyc3742

Pardon if this has been said (I haven't read the entire thread), but is it really "fear" or is it more "resistance"? I think it's more "Great, now I have to buy new hardware, and new disks, and a new TV if I don't have one" than it is "Oh no! My legacy DVDs are worthless/unusable!" I do think fear does come into play--fear of being forced by the industry to upgrade before one is economically or psychologically ready.

I think the CD comparison isn't quite the same...I think there's one demographic of people who perhaps have never bought a CD, they live off downloadable content. Then the other demographic, people who are used to CDs. Going MP3, or streaming, or even satellite radio, is more of an adjunct to CDs, in that all-new or all-different hardware is required or used, so it seems like more of a paradigm shift than simply "upgrading my dvd player". This ties in with the perceived value mentioned earlier. Plus CDs can be integrated with many digital formats as well, much more than DVDs are "integrated" with bluray players. Add to that, the increased hype of video on demand and digital distribution, and there's even more of a reason for the average consumer to stick with what he knows, the library he has, at least until things firm up a bit.

pro-bassoonist

There is a very large demographic of people that never collected DVDs either, yet now these people are BD collectors. Studies also show that the hype you speak of has had very little impact on physical media's expected progression. Considering these two facts, why do you believe that a natural phasing of DVD will be marred by some sort of a fear?

I also keep reading in this thread, from people (not you) who apparently did not fear to buy into HDDVD, that Blu-ray is somehow, now, bound to face a tremendous amount of resistance from the consumer? Why? The economy? BD is growing despite the fact that the US economy is in terrible condition! DVD continues to decline! Is there a trend that someone is willing to point out to me indicating that since the studios united behind Blu-ray the consumer has lost interest in HD physical media? Or, that this interest is still at the same level it was during HDDVD's existence? I mean, I find it astounding that people who apparently moved away from war rhetoric are using old arguments (that did not even affect them) to generalize about the average consumer and make predictions in the face of trends that show that the consumer is anything but fearful. I suppose now that hardware pricing, software pricing, selection, yield rates, studio support, replication issues, hardware compatibility, DNR, post-production filtering, the rise of downloaging/streaming services, region-restrictions, mainstream promotion, etc...are no longer the reason why Blu-ray will fail...we have to talk about...fear.

Pro-B

orangerunner

Your personal price-savvy shopping habits aside, the point was just illustrating that CDs, soundtrack or not are commonly more expensive than DVDs which have a perceived higher value.

That's a fair point. I recently bought Risky Business special edition for $12.99 when the bare-bones version was $4.99. But most of these special editions cater to the real fans of the particular film and don't necessarily sell hundreds of thousands of copies. The special editions have a lot of extra content compared to the bare bones version.

Apart from the better picture and sound, it's still the same content with the same extras when comparing most Blu-Rays and DVD.


They've spent a lot of money on development and marketing, survived a year and a half format war, so yes, I would say that they are "scrambling" to get a quicker return on their investment. With many emerging technologies and methods of delivering those technologies out there, there isn't much time to slowly develop a larger chunk of the market.

Yes, that's a good point because I'm sure many HDTV owner's don't necessarily own Blu-Ray players either.

At the same time the 35-40% that currently own HDTVs (especially the larger 1080p sets) are the most enthusiastic about the HD technology and therefore may purchase a disproportionate amount of Blu-Ray discs compared with the more casual HDTV buyers (720p people) who may not see the extra value of Blu-Ray.

bsmith

Curious, do you think these two are related (BR rise and DVD decline)? I personally don't, but I see it used in arguments as if they are to prove a point. I'm not saying you are because I'm not sure based on how you phrased it, which is why I'm asking. To me they are both in different cycles of maturity which has more to do with the differences in sales.

BR is the new kid on the block with an abundance of titles to still be released that are highly marketable with lots of excitement around the technology. Regardless of the economy, I would expect it to be on the rise just as it was with DVDs early on.

DVDs, on the other hand, have their new releases but are wearing thin on the catalog titles. I'm not saying everything has been released but I would say there is less demand for what is left. I would consider myself as an average collector. Most of my early purchases were new releases and films I knew and grew up with. After that I moved on to films from the 30's through 50's, which were mainly new territory for me. Now I've moved on to 50's and 60's TV shows. My purchases are actually up for the last 12 months due to sales and interest in DVD TV shows. But I could see for many things slowing down because they are just filling in the remaining gaps.

This is why I really don't see a relationship between the two.

chris_sc77

I think the best comparison is:
Blu-ray is to DVD
as
Audio Books are to actual Books

pro-bassoonist

Yes, I do.

I've mentioned a couple of times in this and other similar debates what Universal's Kornblau noted in an article posted in Variety - the DVD market is driven by approximately 10% of active consumers, and this was the group the majors were planning to target later this year. Obviously, this a statement that could be challenged by a number of people on this forum, but a quick look at another article, offered in the latest issue of Home Theater Magazine, where Criterion's business practice is addressed, very much confirms what Kornblau has stated - that a very small percentage of people shapes up the DVD market for the content providers (in the article, Criterion's team confirms that on per title basis Blu-ray releases take up to 50% of their recent output). With other words, the type of fear and resistance some here have brought forward as major obstacles for Blu-ray's (mass) future market status, is very much a non-issue. This small group of heavy buyers, which clearly is responding to Blu-ray, combined with the demographic shift - introducing an entirely new group of collectors (why are gamers who have been spending a lot on films since Blu-ray won aren't mentioned in these discussions anymore; during the war they were often criticized as unreliable) - the market is seeing prove that there is absolutely no reason why the studios should not experiment and redirect it. Which, by the way, they have already started doing - widening the gap between Blu-ray and DVD releases, planning featureless DVDs, phasing of 2DVD sets in favor of SE BDs, etc.

Again, the only fears that I see being tossed around as a viable reason why Blu-ray could/might...should fail, are coming from people hoping that something, not sure what, happens to slow down or stop the transition the studios are planning.

And, no, no one is forcing anyone to upgrade. There are a number of legal alternatives nowadays to see films that you don't want to buy on Blu-ray (if you are a film lover and not a format fan then this solves the dilemma, no? Or, are we to assume that format fans could only exist amongst Blu-ray adopters and not in the DVD camp).

To sum it all up, the future isn't so grim and scary as some here want you to believe.

Pro-B

Kurt D

This comparison is spurious. Better would be Blu-ray is to DVD as glossy magazines are to newsprint.

pro-bassoonist

I have not seen evidence indicating that the consumer desires something else in order to upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray. Have you? Even on these very forums A/V quality often comes first, then people factor in extras, packaging, etc. The much touted portability issue you bring up in this discussion also hasn't been a factor. If it was, the hardware manufacturers would have responded to the demand for improved portability options with the proper hardware; this would happen when the market matures and DVD is phased/almost phased. Finally, the same goes for all those hyped downloading/streaming services, which despite the fact that the manufacturers have accommodated with proper hardware have not been selling well at all.

Pro-B

orangerunner

You're saying that there's no evidence that consumers have any desire for something more from Blu-Ray other than the better video/audio?

If consumers did not have any other desires or concerns with switching from DVD, the debate would be over because Blu-Ray had just officially saturated the market in three short years.

That hasn't happened so consumers must have some further desires, concerns and reservations. The market is the evidence of that.

The possible concerns and reasons consumers have for not switching could be any number of ideas that have been thoroughly discussed here.

Maybe it's just buyers burnout? I have friends who used to walk into the local electronics store every Tuesday and pick up two or three new release DVDs with little regard to how good or bad the movie might be. After three years of doing this, they began to scratch their heads wondering why the hell they bought all these mediocre movies that are now collecting dust.

bsmith

OK...I buy the argument that BR sales have dipped into DVD sales and will continue to increase going forward. But even though the % increase in sales of BR is higher then the % decrease of DVD sales based on previous years. Isn't the actuals number of BR titles that represent that increase quite a bit lower then the number of DVD titles not bought in previous years? I thought I read this somewhere.

If this is the case, it would seem logical that there is more to the DVD decline then just the rise of BR sales. While the economy could be having some impact, I think a lot has to do with people having less DVD choices available that they are interested. Just based on this forum alone there are many with DVD collections with over a 1000 titles. At some point it was destined to slow down whether BR came along or not.

orangerunner

This is a good point. With Blu-Ray being a relatively new technology, it has nowhere to go but up.

Hypothetically, if 500 copies of a Blu-Ray title were sold one week and 750 were sold the next week, it would be a 50% increase in sales.

If 10,000 DVDs were sold one week and 9,500 sold the next, it would be a 5% decline.

The percentage tells you one thing but the number of items sold shows you the bigger picture.

You're right, most of the DVD catalogue titles, by now, are pretty much exhausted. Anyone who wanted, say The Matrix, Die Hard or T2, probably already has it.

tonyc3742

Buyers burnout, poor national or personal economy, less perceived value in the upgrade (VHS to DVD was a more visible "improvement" than DVD to BD in many cases), flooded market (as it is I have more disks than I can ever watch), competing entertainments (video gaming and the Media Center aspects of them), relative lack of quality new releases, a changing politicosocial climate (consipicuous consumption and frivolous luxuries aren't quite as appealing as they used to be), and for those who got 'burned' on HDDVD (such as myself), a bit of "Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me". Any/all of the above.

pro-bassoonist

Yes. Thus far, I have not seen conclusive evidence that something else - interactive features, online SE, etc - has been the key reason why people have been upgrading from DVD to Blu-ray. I asked earlier, have you?

I have no idea what the above paragraph is meant to reveal.

You are an early HDDVD adopter, correct? If improved A/V quality wasn't the key reason why you adopted HDDVD, what was it? Interactivity? I doubt it, even today HDDVD's interactivity could not be the reason why one would have become an early adopter (this also holds true for current Blu-ray interactivity - most if not everything the studios have offered has been of average quality). Price? Could be. But this isn't a tech spec, and it is something that Blu-ray has dealt with in a most impressive fashion. Maybe software and hardware prices are not where most on this forum want them to be, but the studios have been making outstanding progress in both of those areas. So, feel free to respond - if it wasn't better A/V quality that forced you to adopt HDDVD, what was it?

Possible reasons - other than portability, which has not slowed Blu-ray adoption, what other reasons? I am curious.

Buyers burnout - everything is possible. Yet, perhaps you wish to explain how come buyers burnout could be an issue for Blu-ray, even though its numbers continue to improve, and not an issue contributing to DVDs decline, as other posters have suggested?

Pro-B

mdnitoil

If I were to watch just one movie a night from my DVD collection, it would take me almost 6 years to get through the entire collection. This doesn't include any TV series. I've honestly reached a point where, if I never buy another title, I'm still set for life. This reason alone is why it'll be years before I would even bother with BR. I've got a collection of movies on a media that will outlive me with perfectly acceptable audio/video quality. It's not that I have anything against BR, it's just that I'm damn near done.