Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > DVD Discussions > DVD Talk
Reload this Page >

Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

DVD Talk Talk about DVDs and Movies on DVD including Covers and Cases

Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Old 08-19-09, 07:11 AM
  #101  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I'm not a Blu "hater" but I have zero interest in it at the moment. I have a 55" Full HD Plasma, upconverted DVD looks great.

Few factors as to why I'm not interested in Blu

1. I watch plenty of HD content with my FIOS, which does look great on my TV.
2. I'm perfectly happy with the way my DVDs look (and I realize that a blu player would make them look great as well) upconverted.
3. I don't buy a lot of "new" movies, I mostly buy catalog titles, and TV on DVD
4. I own over 6k DVDs and although I'm tempted by some upcoming Blu releases, nothing has really been great enough or exclusive enough to warrant the cose.
5. I'm an all region guy and I haven't seen an affordable reliable Blu that can play all region and easily convert PAL to NTSC
Old 08-19-09, 08:00 AM
  #102  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 23,226
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Discrimination? Legally liable?

This. This can't be serious. Can it?
Old 08-19-09, 09:55 AM
  #103  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I personally don't how someone can have an HDTV and subscribe to HD service, but then bitch about blu ray and say that DVD is fine. Makes no sense.
Old 08-19-09, 10:19 AM
  #104  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
I personally don't how someone can have an HDTV and subscribe to HD service, but then bitch about blu ray and say that DVD is fine. Makes no sense.
If you are referring to Lastdaysofrain's post, it makes perferct sense to me. First off it wasn't a bitch'in post as you reference but just common sense on why they haven't been captivated by BR yet. And it is similar to my own feelings at this time.

Older catalog and TV titles are rarely available on BR at this time, and who knows if they even will be for some time. So why get hyped about a technology that currently doesn't support your viewing interests.

When you have a large collection of DVD's (with probably many still unwatched) and you don't watch as much brand new content why go BR for a low percentage of your current viewing when you can wait for prices of both players and content to continue to go down.

Current cheaper DVD players typically offer better upconversion of DVD's then your BR counterparts, except for maybe the Oppo. But then again that isn't cheap.

Based on screen size and viewing distance there can be less of an impact going BR. Remember, the majority of us were happy with DVD for many years, so just because something better comes along does not mean what we previously had was bad.

As DVD's production matured many of us continued to double and triple dip because the products produced the first go around were not of the best quality. From reviews I have read this trend is continuing with BR disks in many cases (especially catalog titles). Excessive DNR, edge enhancements, using older masters that could be better cleaned using newer technology, incompatible disks. Some have already come out twice and are still not where they should be. Why not wait a little longer for better produced content and avoid the double and triple dipping if you wouldn't be watching a majority of BR content anyway.

I currently have a 92" screen 1080p projection system and sit about 12 feet back. I still don't have a BR player. I will probably get the Oppo around the beginning of 2010. Even then probably only about 10% of my viewing will be BR until more and more titles I am interested in come out.

I think that makes perfect sense.

Last edited by bsmith; 08-19-09 at 10:22 AM.
Old 08-19-09, 10:46 AM
  #105  
DVD Talk Reviewer
 
GenPion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,665
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

^^ Have you watched any good Blu-ray discs for PQ/AQ? For your setup, the difference would be huge (and mind-blowing). 1080p Blu-ray High Definition is far better than OTA High Definition is.
Old 08-19-09, 10:49 AM
  #106  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
Older catalog and TV titles are rarely available on BR at this time, and who knows if they even will be for some time. So why get hyped about a technology that currently doesn't support your viewing interests.
So buy it on DVD if its only available on DVD.

Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
When you have a large collection of DVD's (with probably many still unwatched) and you don't watch as much brand new content why go BR for a low percentage of your current viewing when you can wait for prices of both players and content to continue to go down.
Don't buy the BD when it first comes out if you aren't going to be able to watch it. Wait until you are ready, and by that time the price will have fallen.

Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
Current cheaper DVD players typically offer better upconversion of DVD's then your BR counterparts, except for maybe the Oppo. But then again that isn't cheap.
Ok - then don't use your BD player to watch your DVDs.

Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
Based on screen size and viewing distance there can be less of an impact going BR. Remember, the majority of us were happy with DVD for many years, so just because something better comes along does not mean what we previously had was bad.
Then why have HD programming on that HDTV? And it has nothing to do with DVDs being bad, just that there is now something better.

Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
As DVD's production matured many of us continued to double and triple dip because the products produced the first go around were not of the best quality. From reviews I have read this trend is continuing with BR disks in many cases (especially catalog titles). Excessive DNR, edge enhancements, using older masters that could be better cleaned using newer technology, incompatible disks. Some have already come out twice and are still not where they should be. Why not wait a little longer for better produced content and avoid the double and triple dipping if you wouldn't be watching a majority of BR content anyway.
No matter how bad the HD transfer is, it is better than the DVD the vast majority of the time.

My point is why spend money on a HDTV and HD programming, but refuse to watch movies in HD? You'll spend more money with Comcast to watch TV in HD, but won't spend more to watch movies in HD? I just don't get it.

You don't have to throw out your DVD player or your vast collection of DVDs. If something isn't available on BD, then thatís okay because you can still get it on DVD.
Old 08-19-09, 11:30 AM
  #107  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

cpgator,

For the most part your first few responses are just clarifications to my post of what I already do.

As for the HDTV comment. I spend money on HD programming primarily for sports (football and basketball). But in general, when it comes to movies and TV watching I prefer to pick what to watch based on when I have free time and my interest at that moment, not on what just happens to be on cable at the time. I have a vast collection of older TV and movies that won't see the light of day on BR for a long time if ever. Many that have not been viewed yet. This is where my current interests are.

You make it sound like a person should be picking what to watch based on quality of video and sound over content. I haven't planned my viewing habits around what is broadcast for many years now and I'm not likely to change that just to watch something in higher video/sound quality when there is something else I'd prefer to watch that only happens to be on a DVD.

You miss the point, I'm not against BR and don't feel I need to replace my collection to go BR. In fact, I purposely haven't bought any content produced in the past few years that is both available in BR and DVD because I would most likey get it in the BR format. All my purchases have been based on my current interests which are not available on BR.

So as you should be able to see, I'm not refusing to watch HD movies on Comcast. I'm just watching the content I feel like watching at the time and it just doesn't correspond to a cable viewing schedule.

Maybe you like flipping around HD channels to see what to watch based on what is showing at the time. To me that is too limiting.
Old 08-19-09, 11:36 AM
  #108  
New Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Similar thing happened to me when DVD came out. I can't deny it, the appeal of DVD was great, the movie was in a disc, I didn't have to rewind it, and it brought a lot of extra features. Ultimately I just felt like I had spent enough money on VHS and I didn't want to buy a much more expensive machine and spend extra money to buy the movies I already had. Over the years it felt like DVD's were pushed down my throat in terms of promotion and the earlier releases they gave DVD movies. I was having a much harder time renting and buying VHS movies. I just lost interest in movies over that time and didn't upgrade to DVD. It wasn't until 2007 that I bought my first DVD player but at that point there was nothing special to it any more and I just ended up buying a total of 10 movies. I had an HDTV and the image of the DVD didn’t look good. I wanted to enjoy the full potential of my HDTV and decided not to waste much money in DVD movies but instead wait until Blu-ray was in reach and start collecting again.

The upgrade to Blu-ray was extremely easy for me because I didn't put much money into the DVD market. I bought my first Blu-ray player in may and I'm up to about 39 movies already. I do imagine though that the people who invested so much money in DVD's are very bitter towards Blu-ray as they see a new technology is here and the studios will end up putting their favorite format in the back seat. I just don't see any other reason why people say they will never upgrade if they have an HDTV. The market will move towards Blu-ray in similar fashion as the market moved to HDTV’s. Those are about the only TV’s you see in the stores right now.

The studios will push Blu-ray forward and provide less and less features to DVD's and give Blu-ray earlier releases to push the market that way. Heck, when the lowest end Blu-ray players are about $50.00 there won't be any need to produce new DVD players. The studio could also cut the DVD release of a movie and only include it as a bonus disc in a Blu-ray movie. Nothing you can do about it, either upgrade to Blu-ray or just wait a few years to cool off and jump on the next technology like I did back in the late 90’s.
Old 08-19-09, 11:42 AM
  #109  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by GenPion View Post
^^ Have you watched any good Blu-ray discs for PQ/AQ? For your setup, the difference would be huge (and mind-blowing). 1080p Blu-ray High Definition is far better than OTA High Definition is.
No, but I'm sure it would be. Again, for me it is all about content first and fore most. When DVD's first came out I sometimes watched things just to see the quality differences between DVD and VHS. That doesn't interest me anymore.

Having been watching and collecting DVD's from the beginning. I went through the transition of watching movie content from my era (70's+) to branching way back to 30's. And now TV shows primarily from the 50's through 60's.

In a way, it is not that I have no interest in BR, but BR currently has no interest in producing the content I'm most interested in. As a result, I feel no need to put money into something that would most likely only improve upon a small percentage of my viewing. As BR moves either to content I'm interested in or I move closer to what is currently being marketed on BR, I will sure get a player and purchase BR content. At that times, I'll bet both will be cheaper.
Old 08-19-09, 11:55 AM
  #110  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

In addition, In the past I was always about having the best quality and double and triple dipping all the time to get there. But as I got into older content I came to realize top quality was not always available (not saying that some older movies on DVD don't look better then some from the 70's and later, because some do which is a slight on how badly some content has been maintained). Once coming to this realization and really enjoying some excellent content in less then desireable condition (some might even say unwatchable) I found I no longer needed the best quality video to enjoy what I was watching. I think that is why many think DVD is good enough. Would I prefer to watch a BR over a DVD of the same content, of course. But will I choose a BR over a DVD of differing content just because it is a BR, definitely not. Content rules not format.
Old 08-19-09, 12:08 PM
  #111  
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I will mirror what many others have said and say that while this is indeed discrimination, it does not fit the legal definition of it and is therefore not covered under the law.
Old 08-19-09, 12:13 PM
  #112  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by bsmith View Post
You make it sound like a person should be picking what to watch based on quality of video and sound over content.
Not sure why you got that impression. I watch a lot of DVDs because the movies are not on BD. But if they are on BD, then I watch the BD.

Let me ask this - you had a choice to purchase an HDTV and a regular TV, but you chose the HDTV. You have a choice to watch TV programming in HD or regular broadcast, but you chose HD. So why if a movie is available in both DVD and BD, do you chose DVD? And more importantly, why complain about the new format, but not complain about HDTVs and HD programming.

And this isn't necessarily directed at you, more of a general question.
Old 08-19-09, 12:31 PM
  #113  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Bishop_99 View Post
Similar thing happened to me when DVD came out. I can't deny it, the appeal of DVD was great, the movie was in a disc, I didn't have to rewind it, and it brought a lot of extra features. Ultimately I just felt like I had spent enough money on VHS and I didn't want to buy a much more expensive machine and spend extra money to buy the movies I already had. Over the years it felt like DVD's were pushed down my throat in terms of promotion and the earlier releases they gave DVD movies. I was having a much harder time renting and buying VHS movies. I just lost interest in movies over that time and didn't upgrade to DVD. It wasn't until 2007 that I bought my first DVD player but at that point there was nothing special to it any more and I just ended up buying a total of 10 movies. I had an HDTV and the image of the DVD didn’t look good. I wanted to enjoy the full potential of my HDTV and decided not to waste much money in DVD movies but instead wait until Blu-ray was in reach and start collecting again..
My experience was similar. I stopped buying VHS around 1995 after amassing about 250 movies. After watching Laser Disc the quality/pan & scan/macrovision interference picture of VHS bothered me.

I, too lost interest in movies until the spring of 2003 when DVD had finally matured enough and the players were in $150 range.

Originally Posted by Bishop_99 View Post
The upgrade to Blu-ray was extremely easy for me because I didn't put much money into the DVD market. I bought my first Blu-ray player in may and I'm up to about 39 movies already. I do imagine though that the people who invested so much money in DVD's are very bitter towards Blu-ray as they see a new technology is here and the studios will end up putting their favorite format in the back seat. I just don't see any other reason why people say they will never upgrade if they have an HDTV. The market will move towards Blu-ray in similar fashion as the market moved to HDTV’s. Those are about the only TV’s you see in the stores right now..
I think the apathy or bitterness towards Blu-ray comes from the pricing of Blu-ray machines and discs compared to their DVD counterparts.

When you put down $250 on a machine and $20 average for a movie you want to feel some reassurance that the format will still be relevent. With prices remaining high, at least here in Canada, I don't feel that way.

Look at HD-DVD buyers. Sure they can still watch their movies they bought, but with nothing new coming out, your enjoyment of that machine is rather limited.

Originally Posted by Bishop_99 View Post
The studios will push Blu-ray forward and provide less and less features to DVD's and give Blu-ray earlier releases to push the market that way. Heck, when the lowest end Blu-ray players are about $50.00 there won't be any need to produce new DVD players. The studio could also cut the DVD release of a movie and only include it as a bonus disc in a Blu-ray movie. Nothing you can do about it, either upgrade to Blu-ray or just wait a few years to cool off and jump on the next technology like I did back in the late 90’s.
When Blu-ray players hit $50, there's no argument, Blu-ray has taken over the market and no one will complain about DVD being edged out of the market.

Until then, there is skepticism as to whether we are being "forced" to accept an expensive substitute format for a very good quality & affordable existing one that only offers marginally better picture and sound and really no other practical benefits.

It's a bit of a catch-22. If Blu-ray remains a high-profit product, which it is now, it will never be a high volume product. It will take higher volume to bring Blu-ray prices down to the current DVD prices. In the end will the studios have the same complaints as they have now with DVD which is flat(er) sales and low profit margins?

If so, we're on to the next format or delivery.

Last edited by orangerunner; 08-19-09 at 02:09 PM.
Old 08-19-09, 12:33 PM
  #114  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I think the initial idea of this thread is a bit silly, there is no way there is a legal liablity or "discrimination" against DVD consumers.

That being said, I probably won't ever end up buying a Blu Ray, I'm not against it, it's nice to have HD content available on discs. I'm just happy with the DVDs I already own and I don't forsee enough Blu Ray content coming out (again it's mostly new releases and I'm interested in catalog titles and TV on DVD) to warent the purchase.

I get plenty of HD content on demand and on cable when I want to watch HD movies on my set up.

If somewhere down the line Blu Ray player prices drop below $100, and my current quality DVD player dies, sure, I might buy a player, but I suspect by that time physical media will probably be on the outs and an on demand/download format will be the norm for HD content.
Old 08-19-09, 01:04 PM
  #115  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
It's a bit of a catch-22. If Blu-ray remains a high-profit product, which it is now, it will never be a high volume product.
Blu-ray is already a high-volume product. Not as high volume as DVD, but high volume nonetheless. Sufficiently high volume to occupy more and more space at Wal-Mart and other mass market retailers.
Old 08-19-09, 01:16 PM
  #116  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy View Post
Blu-ray is already a high-volume product. Not as high volume as DVD, but high volume nonetheless. Sufficiently high volume to occupy more and more space at Wal-Mart and other mass market retailers.
"High Volume" is loose term. With Blu-ray currently averaging 10-12% of the home video sales, I wouldn't attach the tag of "High Volume" to Blu-ray just yet.

Yes, they are taking up more shelf space in stores but at $30 a pop for a new release it doesn't appear they're taking up that much cash register space.
Old 08-19-09, 01:50 PM
  #117  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
"High Volume" is loose term. With Blu-ray currently averaging 10-12% of the home video sales, I wouldn't attach the tag of "High Volume" to Blu-ray just yet.

Yes, they are taking up more shelf space in stores but at $30 a pop for a new release it doesn't appear they're taking up that much cash register space.
I'd consider 10-12% of today's huge video market as high volume. And it'll only grow.

Regarding new releases, are DVD versions that much cheaper than their Blu-ray counterparts?
Old 08-19-09, 02:00 PM
  #118  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy View Post
I'd consider 10-12% of today's huge video market as high volume. And it'll only grow.

Regarding new releases, are DVD versions that much cheaper than their Blu-ray counterparts?
I can only speak for the store prices here in Vancouver, Canada but this weeks advertised special at Best Buy on Hannah Montana is:

$29.95 Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
$18.99 for the bare-bones DVD
$29.99 DVD 2 disc (DVD + Digital Copy) - obviously priced that no one will actually buy it.

Last House on the Left is $29.99 Blu-ray/ $23.99 DVD

Tyson is $32.99 Blu-ray / $24.99 DVD

Anywhere from a $6-$11 difference is significant to most people's wallets.
Old 08-19-09, 02:20 PM
  #119  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,990
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
I can only speak for the store prices here in Vancouver, Canada but this weeks advertised special at Best Buy on Hannah Montana is:

$29.95 Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
$18.99 for the bare-bones DVD
$29.99 DVD 2 disc (DVD + Digital Copy) - obviously priced that no one will actually buy it.

Last House on the Left is $29.99 Blu-ray/ $23.99 DVD

Tyson is $32.99 Blu-ray / $24.99 DVD

Anywhere from a $6-$11 difference is significant to most people's wallets.
It is, but expect a differential. Always. It was that way with vinyl versus CD, and VHS versus DVD. And even Laserdisc versus VHS. There is always a premium for the superior format.

And the complainers here would be well-served to note that collectible media becomes obsolete faster and faster. They should be bearing that in mind before they amass vast collections of titles they're only going to watch once.
Old 08-19-09, 02:41 PM
  #120  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by cpgator View Post
Not sure why you got that impression. I watch a lot of DVDs because the movies are not on BD. But if they are on BD, then I watch the BD.

Let me ask this - you had a choice to purchase an HDTV and a regular TV, but you chose the HDTV. You have a choice to watch TV programming in HD or regular broadcast, but you chose HD. So why if a movie is available in both DVD and BD, do you chose DVD? And more importantly, why complain about the new format, but not complain about HDTVs and HD programming.

And this isn't necessarily directed at you, more of a general question.
First off I've not complained about the new format and never will. However, I'm just not a user of the format at this time and I'm currently not in a rush to do so. I don't concur with the thread title but was just clarifying a stated position.

I guess I should clarify something and then maybe my position will be clearer. Other then some sports I rarely watch cable/network TV at all. It has been this way for probably five years now. Almost all my TV and movies watching over the last five years has come from Netflix and my own DVD collection. I cancelled Netflix about a year ago because I had too many items in my own collection that had gone unwatched and wanted to catch up on.

As for buying an HDTV over a regular TV, digital is still better then analog even if not HD. I have two HDTV's and a projection system.

My TV watching is actually based on DVD's not HD. About 95% of my TV watching is not available in HD. The one's that are (e.g., 24) I am years behind the network broadcasts and prefer to watch commercial free when I feel like and to watch multiple episodes at a time if it suits me. The convenience factors for me far out weigh the additional quality factors. Maybe I will move to BR when I get to the latest season of 24 but I'm only up to season 4 seasons so far. So other then sports I rarely watch TV in HD.

I would say 98% of the movies I'm currently watching aren't available in BR, and while some may be available broadcast in HD (most probably from upconverted sources and my system can do that) there is the convenience factor again. I watch what I want to when I want to, and not based on some programming schedule. DVD's give me that freedom.

In my case, if I went BR now I would probably only get the benefit of seeing <5% in HD, so why bother. When that percentage changes to being something more like 25% then I will consider a BR player.

So in reality I am not really passing up on an available BR option over DVD. The BR or broadcast HD options are mostly not available for the content I choose to watch, or inconvenient for the few situations they may be. At least for now.

Last edited by bsmith; 08-19-09 at 02:43 PM.
Old 08-19-09, 03:05 PM
  #121  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy View Post
It is, but expect a differential. Always. It was that way with vinyl versus CD, and VHS versus DVD. And even Laserdisc versus VHS. There is always a premium for the superior format.

And the complainers here would be well-served to note that collectible media becomes obsolete faster and faster. They should be bearing that in mind before they amass vast collections of titles they're only going to watch once.
I agree a new technology should come with a higher price tag. With CD, consumers went from paying $7.99 for a cassette or record to $12.99 or more for the CD.

The difference is CD was perceived by the public to be a vastly superior product to their records and tapes and they accepted the higher price. It worked, CD was a huge success. The same goes for VHS to DVD.

Blu-ray's challenge is convincing people that it is vastly superior to DVD to justify the bigger price tag.

This is difficult because Blu-ray, like DVD, has chapter stops, extras, it's on a shiny disc the same size, there's no rewinding etc. The enhanced picture and sound are the only real selling features, which only work if you have an HDTV. Even then it has to be a very large HDTV.

It was much like when JVC launched the S-VHS format with Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade back in 1989. Sure, the picture and sound were better than regular VHS but other than that it was seen by the public as the same product except more expensive.

The format was seen as the best of both worlds. It had picture and sound similar to Laserdisc and yet had the recording features of VHS. JVC could see it wasn't going to work at the consumer level and decided to market it as a semi-professional format with moderate success.

Good point noting that your collection becomes obsolete faster and faster.
In ten years I collected 300 pre-recorded VHS tapes paying as much as $30 each for many of them.

With DVD I wised-up and only bought the films I really cared about or knew I would watch more than once. In eight years, I've collected about 70 DVDs, most of which I paid under $10 for.
Old 08-19-09, 03:09 PM
  #122  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lower Beaver, Iowa
Posts: 10,521
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by orangerunner View Post
I can only speak for the store prices here in Vancouver, Canada but this weeks advertised special at Best Buy on Hannah Montana is:
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:
$29.95 Blu-ray 3 disc (Blu-ray + DVD + Digital Copy)
$18.99 for the bare-bones DVD
$29.99 DVD 2 disc (DVD + Digital Copy) - obviously priced that no one will actually buy it.
Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy

Last House on the Left is $29.99 Blu-ray/ $23.99 DVD
Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy

Tyson is $32.99 Blu-ray / $24.99 DVD
Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy
Old 08-19-09, 03:17 PM
  #123  
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
 
Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: spiritually, Minnesota
Posts: 36,537
Received 522 Likes on 349 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:

Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy
And that is why many of us rarely buy from Amazon, but wait a couple months or for coupons/CH and average $5 a SD and $8 a BD.
Old 08-19-09, 03:32 PM
  #124  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,882
Received 110 Likes on 83 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty View Post
This is why I buy virtually all my discs at Amazon.com (just like when DVDs first came out and in-store prices were significantly higher than online):

Hannah Montana:

Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, cheaper than the 2-disc DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $24.99 Blu-ray, $1 more than the DVD at Best Buy


Amazon: $26.99 Blu-ray, $2 more than the DVD at Best Buy
It's all relative where you decide to shop. I imagine the Hannah Montana DVD is cheaper on Amazon as well.

The $6-$11 price gap between the two formats probably still exists whether you shop at Best Buy or Amazon.
Old 08-19-09, 03:38 PM
  #125  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,614
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Trevor View Post
And that is why many of us rarely buy from Amazon, but wait a couple months or for coupons/CH and average $5 a SD and $8 a BD.
Dude, enough with all the coupon and CH posts. Of course, with anything, if you have a coupon, wait long enough or buy used, you can get it for cheaper.

We get it.

You do realize that some people don't want to wait months to get a movie or join some club? Right?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.