Is there any reason why a dual-sided DVD/Blu-Ray hybrid disc wouldn't be possible? Aside from the fact that Sony would sue any studio's pants off that tried it?

Why couldn't this be the way of the near future?

They couldn't get it working, and they'd need the approval of the DVD Forum anyway.

It really isn't a good idea. The cost of replacing DVDs with BD/DVD hybrids would be too expensive, even if they have the capacity to do it. They can do smaller runs, but they'd be hard pressed (no pun intended) to turn out millions of every hit title. It's just more cost-effective to make lots of DVDs and relatively few BDs. They would probably have to end up charging more, which wouldn't sit well with DVD customers and hurt sales.

By the near future I mean 3-5 years. It wasn't so long ago that every movie was also coming out on VHS, and rarely did they cost less. Since both Blu and DVD are disc-based (and HD DVD tried dual-sided discs half successfully[?]) I thought that large runs of a single (hybrid) format might be cheaper than two separate disc runs.

But you're saying it wouldn't work technically? Why not?

I read that the BDA tried to do a hybrid, but couldn't get it working and gave up on it.

I think the issue with cost (aside from limited replication ability now) is that they'd be producing 2 copies for everyone, even if they are glued together, rather than some for one group and some for the other group. Not many people are going to buy both versions, and of course they prefer that people buy both anyway if they want them. Surely they're also counting on people to buy the DVD now and the BD later when they get the player and HDTV.

If people really clamor for this on BD, they'd be better off just throwing an extra DVD in the case, which is very cheap. No point compromising the stability of the high-def disc for some backwards compatibility many aren't interested in.

Fox is doing that by putting a separate SD disc in with the Hitman BD for the digital copy version. Not sure if that includes a regular SD version of the movie too.

But what about the pretty disc art? That would go away!

Seriously, I'm annoyed by dual-sided DVDs. Having to read the center ring to find out which is widescreen vs. full screen or whatever is a pain.

Yes, but then you get folks like me who have Blu-ray and would simply dump the never-to-be-played DVD on eBay in a heartbeat. Even if I sold it for a buck, that's a buck off the movie I bought.

Who buys movie without cases?

Maybe I'm out of touch.

I bought all the Harry Potter movies on Blu-Ray. I thought I might want to watch these other places than my HT, so I kept my DVD's. Not a big deal.

I don't understand why some who want to buy HDM feel they should get a legacy copy of the movie in SD as well. If you need a DVD version for the car or the kid's room, buy one. Most DVD's can be had dirt cheap these days.

I'd rather spend $25 on a Blu-Ray and $10 for a copy on DVD than $30 on a combo that may not work at all.

These two posts pretty much sum it up.

I hate dual-sided discs to (don't trust them) but I just figured they would be more profitable. Good points, though.

Publicly Blu-ray insiders have stated that they tried to get a BD/dvd combo to work and the yield rates were horrible(not surprising considering BD itself is a brand new technology with new manufacturing techniques). I believe another key factor not mentioned was trying to leave behind dvd and its patent royalties that mostly went to Toshiba. I bet in several years it could be very feasible to produce a BD/dvd combo but I suspect we will never see it for other reasons. Why give Toshiba a piece of the HD pie when they tried to sink BD? Every BD combo would be giving Toshiba money.

One of the biggest disasters for the HD DVD format has been the hybrid disc which was hated by, well pretty much everyone. Why the hell would the BDA want to do the same thing.