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, 04:26 PM
  #126  
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
 
Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: spiritually, Minnesota
Posts: 36,891
Received 683 Likes on 458 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by cpgator
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?
No! Really? And you do realize that there is no waiting with CH, right? And I basically never buy used btw.

I've mentioned my CH/coupons/numbers maybe twelve times, once each in twelve different threads over the past year. If you have a good memory or have stumbled upon it enough to bother you, I apologize. I don't bring it up all the time, it just seemed an appropriate response at that moment. Just as you deemed the above an appropriate response.

Last edited by Trevor; 08-19-09 at 04:58 PM. Reason: change never to basically never
Old 08-19-09, 05:13 PM
  #127  
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?

I'm pretty sure I average out to $10 a Blu-ray. So that's not quite Trevor's $8 figure, but it's far from being that bad either.
Old 08-19-09, 09:46 PM
  #128  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Malvern, PA
Posts: 5,010
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by TheKing
Anyone that bought into HD DVD has a pretty compelling reason to dislike Blu-ray. Maybe not the technology itself, but most definitely the forces behind it.

The format war left a bad taste in the mouth of many consumers, and not just those that picked Red over Blu.
Dude, the "war" officially ended over a year and a half ago and was dying long before that. Time to move on.

I don't understand why people take these decisions so personally, especially after so much time has passed. I can understand being pissed at the time, but come on now.
Old 08-19-09, 10:39 PM
  #129  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,992
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Goldblum
Dude, the "war" officially ended over a year and a half ago and was dying long before that. Time to move on.

I don't understand why people take these decisions so personally, especially after so much time has passed. I can understand being pissed at the time, but come on now.
Looking back, HD-DVD was clearly the underdog and those of us who bought in should have expected what happened.
Old 08-20-09, 10:00 AM
  #130  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: closer than you'd like
Posts: 1,668
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

^ Hindsight is 1080p.
Old 08-20-09, 10:01 AM
  #131  
Challenge Guru & Comic Nerd
 
Trevor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: spiritually, Minnesota
Posts: 36,891
Received 683 Likes on 458 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

I agree that bitterness over "the war" is a silly reason to be anti-blu now.

But couldn't one easily take exception with the last two posts?

Yes, HD was the underdog, but right up to the end, there was big potential for it to swing either way, right? Didn't one major studio almost commit to red, before switching at the last minute to blu, causing the rest of the studios to follow suit?

But again, not trying to bring that dreck up again. Blu won, it looks great, and can be found almost as cheap as SD.
Old 08-20-09, 11:01 AM
  #132  
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 DivxGuy
Looking back, HD-DVD was clearly the underdog and those of us who bought in should have expected what happened.
I bought into HD-DVD because it was first and because BD had some quality issues. Once I became happy with BD, I started buying both. Then HD-DVD went away, and I now only purchase BD. Not a big deal and I still enjoy the movies I have on HD-DVD.

I never tried to guess who would win out - i just was interested in enjoying what was currently available.
Old 08-20-09, 11:33 AM
  #133  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 6,290
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

We should put all HD-DVD owners in a refugee camp and let them rot there.
Old 08-20-09, 11:37 AM
  #134  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy
I'd like to add that DVD revenues are dropping while Blu-ray revenues are rising. Blu-ray margins are several times those of DVD, just like DVD margins were once several times those of VHS. N
DVD is a 10+ year old product that has exhausted most of its catalog while Blu-ray is just now growing. Of course Blu-ray would be increasing
Old 08-20-09, 11:41 AM
  #135  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by DivxGuy
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.
FYI - Wal-Mart recently cut back on Blu-ray titles at most of their stores. And high-volume are typical Day and Date titles. Catalog titles may only sell a few thousand copies a month even if its 'new to Blu'.
Old 08-20-09, 11:43 AM
  #136  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

And for all those that are bitching - go to Wal-mart/Best Buy and grab a Blu-ray player for $100. It'll still play all your DVDs - I promise.
Old 08-20-09, 12:02 PM
  #137  
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 GizmoDVD
And for all those that are bitching - go to Wal-mart/Best Buy and grab a Blu-ray player for $100. It'll still play all your DVDs - I promise.
Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.

Last edited by bsmith; 08-20-09 at 12:05 PM.
Old 08-20-09, 12:07 PM
  #138  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: South Surrey, BC
Posts: 3,992
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by GizmoDVD
FYI - Wal-Mart recently cut back on Blu-ray titles at most of their stores. And high-volume are typical Day and Date titles. Catalog titles may only sell a few thousand copies a month even if its 'new to Blu'.
That's the case with catalog titles of any format and explains why most catalog titles don't appear on a format until several years after its introduction.
Old 08-20-09, 12:24 PM
  #139  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by bsmith
Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.
What DVD players are you guys using now? Most BD players will do a better job upscaling DVDs then a $100 DVD player bought at Best Buy. Oppo is a bit extreme.
Old 08-20-09, 12:42 PM
  #140  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
jjcool's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 7,673
Received 129 Likes on 103 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
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 when you compare prices of dvds with their blue ray counterparts at amazon, you still get that $7-10 difference.
Old 08-20-09, 12:47 PM
  #141  
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
Ahhh...but will it do it as well. Personally, the only BR player I would get for dual purpose BR and SD playback at this time would be the Oppo, which costs $499.
You do realize you can keep your current DVD player, right? I use my DVD player for DVDs and my BD player for BD. Works out just fine.
Old 08-20-09, 12:57 PM
  #142  
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 GizmoDVD
What DVD players are you guys using now? Most BD players will do a better job upscaling DVDs then a $100 DVD player bought at Best Buy. Oppo is a bit extreme.
Not according to most of the reviews I've read. Many don't regard quality SD playback as a priority. Maybe for you the Oppo is extreme but not to me and others that want the best output of our existing SD collections as well.

Perception in the value of improved output quality is subjective, which is probably why some don't feel that HD is absolutely necessary for them. But I would think that someone that craves HD would also crave the best upconversion and processing available for SD content as well.
Old 08-20-09, 01:08 PM
  #143  
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
You do realize you can keep your current DVD player, right? I use my DVD player for DVDs and my BD player for BD. Works out just fine.
Yes, I do. I was just referring to a comment suggesting that a low-end BR player could do as good a job with SD content as many upscaling DVD players.

Interestingly, enough some people either don't want to deal with multiple players or don't have space for another player and would want a single player solution. That is part of the reason many have an interest in the Oppo. I'm not one that needs that, but I'd still prefer the Oppo.

In addition, some prefer not to replace a high-end receiver that just happen to be out of date with the HD audio formats. So a BR player with quality analog outputs is necessary in order to take advantage of HD audio. Many of your cheap BR players do not provides this support.
Old 08-20-09, 03:09 PM
  #144  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by bsmith
Not according to most of the reviews I've read. Many don't regard quality SD playback as a priority. Maybe for you the Oppo is extreme but not to me and others that want the best output of our existing SD collections as well.

Perception in the value of improved output quality is subjective, which is probably why some don't feel that HD is absolutely necessary for them. But I would think that someone that craves HD would also crave the best upconversion and processing available for SD content as well.
Most of those SD comparisons are towards a high-level SD upconverter. Assuming a good chunk of people simply have a Sony/Toshiba/whatever upconverter almost any BD player on the market will provide similar if not better quality.
Old 08-20-09, 03:12 PM
  #145  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by bsmith
In addition, some prefer not to replace a high-end receiver that just happen to be out of date with the HD audio formats. So a BR player with quality analog outputs is necessary in order to take advantage of HD audio. Many of your cheap BR players do not provides this support.
Many actually do. You may have to spend $200 or so, but I could recommend several with Analog outputs. Fact is - many people have since upgraded and putting in additional hardware when most people are just going to connect directly to their TV is stupid. I'd rather see cheaper players without Analog.
Old 08-20-09, 03:37 PM
  #146  
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 GizmoDVD
Most of those SD comparisons are towards a high-level SD upconverter. Assuming a good chunk of people simply have a Sony/Toshiba/whatever upconverter almost any BD player on the market will provide similar if not better quality.
Most of the comparisons I've seen have been regarding BR players of $250 and up (last year it would have been more like $500 and up) against high-end SD upconverters. And most don't fair well because they usually only contain the most basic of upconverting processing capabilities. Which isn't necessarily a slight if they are trying to provide quality BR capabilities at a price point, unless one also has a high interest in using it for SD as well.

Which makes me question what upconverting capabilities a $100 BR player would have. Now if someone is using a $50 DVD player then maybe they would be happy with the SD playback of a $100 BR player. But a $100 BR player would not satisfy the needs of many of us and that is more of the point I was making.
Old 08-20-09, 03:44 PM
  #147  
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 GizmoDVD
Many actually do. You may have to spend $200 or so, but I could recommend several with Analog outputs. Fact is - many people have since upgraded and putting in additional hardware when most people are just going to connect directly to their TV is stupid. I'd rather see cheaper players without Analog.
Just because it supports analog out doesn't necessarily mean it provides a quality output, you still have to consider the DACs involved. What good is it to have a high-end receiver with quality DACs if earlier in the chain you are going to use cheap DACs in a BR player. Just referencing that just because $100 BR players are available it doesn't mean it's a good fit for everyone.
Old 08-20-09, 07:28 PM
  #148  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

So now you want a cheap Blu-ray player with analogs? Well, act quick as the CEs are moving away from Analog as it adds too much to cost of players. Besides a few "premium" players you won't be seeing much analog out there. Sony has already stopped production of their last (besides the very expensive ones available in speciality shops) analog player, the S550.
Old 08-20-09, 07:49 PM
  #149  
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 GizmoDVD
So now you want a cheap Blu-ray player with analogs? Well, act quick as the CEs are moving away from Analog as it adds too much to cost of players. Besides a few "premium" players you won't be seeing much analog out there. Sony has already stopped production of their last (besides the very expensive ones available in speciality shops) analog player, the S550.
I never said I wanted a cheap player. But when people continue to make references that you can get a player for cheap (only $100), it comes off as if they are saying there no logical reason not to get one. For so little, why not right?

Well I have just been clarifying why someone might not be ready to jump aboard just yet. For example, that the majority of content they are most interested in is not currently available. And that even though players can be had cheap does not mean that those are players they would consider worth purchasing.

Players with internal decoders and analog outputs really only began appearing last summer. I highly doubt they are going to go away anytime soon. It is an extra expense to produce and I wouldn't purchase a sub $200 unit with those capabilities anyway since for that price it would likely have had to cut corners some where. The likelihood is that these players will cost anywhere from $400 and up to maintain a quality product. I don't mind that at all and will pursue it when I feel it is worth my while based on more content of interest becoming available within the format. Until then why spend the money on a still evolving technology when each generation released is better then the previous.
Old 08-21-09, 11:31 AM
  #150  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Formerly known as "GizmoDVD"/Southern CA
Posts: 31,779
Received 101 Likes on 87 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?

Originally Posted by bsmith
I never said I wanted a cheap player. But when people continue to make references that you can get a player for cheap (only $100), it comes off as if they are saying there no logical reason not to get one. For so little, why not right?

Well I have just been clarifying why someone might not be ready to jump aboard just yet. For example, that the majority of content they are most interested in is not currently available. And that even though players can be had cheap does not mean that those are players they would consider worth purchasing.
The majority of people in this thread are bitching about new titles that have BD Exclusive features. So $100 to play those title (which people are complaining about) makes sense.

Players with internal decoders and analog outputs really only began appearing last summer. I highly doubt they are going to go away anytime soon. It is an extra expense to produce and I wouldn't purchase a sub $200 unit with those capabilities anyway since for that price it would likely have had to cut corners some where. The likelihood is that these players will cost anywhere from $400 and up to maintain a quality product. I don't mind that at all and will pursue it when I feel it is worth my while based on more content of interest becoming available within the format. Until then why spend the money on a still evolving technology when each generation released is better then the previous.
Analog has been in Blu-ray since day One - you might mean players that internally decode both TrueHD and DTS MA...which would be correct. However the CEs are moving away from Analog (in BD Players) since most receivers are now HDMI capable. Why keep putting (expensive) features into a player that few are going to need?

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.