Lionsgate was recently touting how they make $15-$21 profit on each Blu-ray sold. So regardless of how much it costs to make them, studios could obviously offer them at lower MSRP prices. Instead we get the occasional deal, which is typically a store based discount and not the studios (see BOGOs of nearly all of 2007).

I think we all know Blu-ray discs costs more. With the yields being the way they are (2 out of 3 BD discs pressed are bad and throw away, can't recycle), BD disc machines being twice the size of DVD, BD lines costing $1+ million to build, the hard coating required etc. Blu-rays SHOULD be cost more then DVDs...but there comes the issue. If they want Blu-ray to catch on and replace DVD, they need to lure people in. Instead, they would rather charge higher prices and make a quick buck today and hope Blu-ray survives rather then build a base of customers who will continue to buy for years to come. Double edged sword. Make as much money now or make less money now and hope to recoup over several years. The way things already went (buyouts, R&D costs and whatnot) its pretty clear to me that they want to get as much as that back as soon as possible rather then collect it over the years. Makes me wonder if they know Blu-ray is going to be a failure (i.e. not going to replace DVD but sell side by side at the 10% range until downloads or whatever catches on).

Your right their not as much. And HD media is as much a mass market item as 2k HDTV's and expensive speaker systems that people practically need to get their moneys worth of HD media. So, then those people are not being hit as you say. If you have the cash to dedicate to those things, you have the cash for HD media. BD doesn't need to be a so called "mass market success" the way DVD did. Laserdisc remained a niche format for decades and provided HT buffs what they wanted, just like BD is doing.

Really, so hundreds of thousands of video game systems aren't being sold each month? Hmm, yep they are. Sales may be a little slower, but that doesn't negate what I said. So, I'd appreciate it if you actually read what I said instead of glossing over it to agree with your own argument.

That fact that I can have a 100 million dollar film on a HD disc, (that I can watch for decades) for $20-30 is a "bargain" in my book as well. So, different strokes I guess.

I never said sales weren't decreasing in entertainment or related industries. Only that people will find a way and make sacrifices to get what they want. You Chicago example only backs that up. Casual fans no longer buying as many tickets, and spending it on a hobby they enjoy even more. Say, buying Grand Theft Auto instead.

Quiet! I'm trying to convince myself that the increase in PS3 sales is because of the format war ending.

While numbers might appear static with PS3 sales, we don't know who's buying them for Blu-Ray vs. gaming in Q1 2008. Maybe sales for PS3 would have been even lower without HD DVD taking a dirt nap. There's really no way to know.

Very true. However I am positive a decent % (10-20%) of PS3 numbers in the past 3 month is because HD DVD is no more. I know I would have gladly purchased a stand alone if even one came close to feature my A1 had back in April 2006. I still have this damn PS3 that I want to replace with a stand alone....c'mon S550!

Or a BD-50.

Bah. Its a sad day when Panasonic is widely regarded as "the best" in the CE world. I'll pass on a Panasonic. S550 it is...just waiting for Sony to hurry their butts up and release it.

First off, the majority of HDTVs being sold is not costing 2K. If I were to take a wild guess, I would guess the average cost for an HDTV is around $1K, and dropping.(thats a complete guess, but I do look at circulars every weekend)

I think I read the most popular size for an HDTV flat screen is around 37-42 inches.

So no, for purposes of buying a new TV, I don't think its fair to lump "Mercedes Benz buyers + expensive dinner" people with people buying HDTVs nowadays. Hell, I do expensive dinners with the wife every other weekend or so, drop $160 easily and I still don't feel the need to buy a Blu Ray player for $400.00 or a 2K HDTV.

Furthermore, the simple fact is that 100 million dollar film will be released in another format in 7 years from now that is better than Blu Ray...so honestly I doubt you will be keeping that Blu Ray version for "decades" If you are so keen on jumping for Blu Ray now, I doubt you will be able to resist the temptation for Hyper Blu or whatever they call it next time.

So I doubt you will keep that Blu Ray for decades. Maybe some will, maybe some won't. I plan on keeping my DVD collection around for at least a decade (hell I guess some of them are getting that old already), but the more I keep around, the less likely to buy the next round of marketing the studios try to sell us.

And finally video games, while increasing in cost, are still relatively cheap compared to other things, on a time expended with the game value. You buy a 2 hr movie for $30, or you can buy a video game for $60 and probably play it a lot more hours for 2 hrs. Grand Theft Auto? People are probably spending the equivalent of entire weeks with the game. so the net result is pretty cheap.

Hmm, I fail to see where I said the majority of HDTV's costs 2k. I never said that. 1k, 2k, 5k, whatever it's a lot chunk of change either way.

I don't know why you'd assume your habits translate to other people. I'm the opposite. I hardly spend any extra money on food (dinner out at a restaurant or otherwise) but save it for a video game here, a BD here, or put it towards a vacation or something. So, I don't think that argument has much to do with anything. Just simple preference and interests really.

That's hilarious how you say that you'll be keeping DVD around for decades, but say that I probably won't be keeping BD. Yeah, I will be keeping it around for decades. Just like I've kept some DVD's around for 10 years and have forgone upgrading many discs already. Just like I've kept some CD's around for 15+ years instead of buying the SACD or DVD-Audio version. They'll be an even better version of Grand Theft Auto on the PS4 and next Xbox as well, baring the unthinkable.

And hey it's all relative when it comes to value. I haven't touched a PS1 game, since lord knows when. I've still pop in DVD's I've bought from 8+ years. So, again, preferences are just different.

This is where I stopped reading your post.

Cool, its always great to meet more people who don't listen to reason or logic. I'll be sure to disregard your posts in the future.

while I completely understand Chansters POV, and would even agree with some (not all) of his guesstimations- there are a couple points he brings up that I see consistent with other people who seem to resent what they see as a corporate manufactured 'need' to upgrade to HD. I think that without a doubt, Blu-ray will NOT be the last physical format. I do think it will be the last disc based media format, and how long it remains in the marketplace, and how broad and deep a catalog it leaves behind when it does fade away is anyones guess. I'm sure it won't be anywhere close to having the library that DVD or even LD had.
OTOH, I don't agree that the format that replaces it will be 'better'. At least not from a pure A/V standpoint. What is more likely is that it will be more compact and/or offer some new convienence. At best, it's likely to look and sound as good as most Bds do now, because it just won't need to be significantly better. If you have had a chance to see a sampling of Bd's on a large screen from a decent 1080p front projector, then you know that Bd is easily capable of driving screen sizes 10' wide and in some cases even larger. Considering that most people probably do have screen sizes well under 52" , and that won't likely significantly change (for a variety of reasons) over the next 10-20 years, Blu-ray doesn't need to be bettered in the area of visual capabilities. What WILL happen though is just what happens with dvd- titles will get remastered and re-packaged multiple times with early transfers being re-done at 4K yielding even more subtle refinements. Whether you 'need' the highest quality is a totally subjective answer. For anyone with a front pj or very large display, HDMs are obviously very much desired.
But I honestly think most people out there just don't need Bd and won't need it...ever. For casual viewing, for smaller screen sizes and farther seating distances a remastered high bit rate dvd well upconverted will more than suffice.

Actually if you are eyeing an expensive electronics item, get it now with your tax incentive. I read an article on yahoo last week saying prices will be going up by the end of summer. Something about the Chinese raising prices on electronic components to actually pay their slave labor employees.

haha. i didn't stop reading his post, but i did shake my head in disbelief at that first sentence.

Looks like Sony will be making price cuts on their HDTVs..with the rest of the industry following..
http://gizmodo.com/385729/dealzmodo-...eap-next-month

This is like the Tide commercial..with the talking inkstain- you just can't divert your attention away from a problem... the glaring grammatical errors prevented me from reading everything else that came after that sentence. ;-)

Seriously, BD has not even penetrated the market as deeply as it SHOULD be doing..expect more specials etc to come..why do people keep referring to sale prices during the Christmas shopping season as the benchmark at which all sales should be made????

...right in time for my stimulus check too.

This post is really interesting to me and something I have been tracking from the videogame side (hence why I registered on the site, that and the awesome HD-DVD bargains people were posting). I own a 360 and a PS3 (and a Wii too). I have been at Best Buy probably about 30+ times and have gotten to know a lot of the current Magnolia/TV crew in the store I frequent in the Chicago area.

The way a lot of the Best Buy's are advertising the PS3 in store is in the Blu-Ray section (you can see this clearly on the Best Buy in Naperville off 59). So let's just look at the hard numbers, shall we:

According to NPD, here are the console sales since November 2007.

PS3

Nov: 466,000
Dec: 797,000
Jan: 269,000
Feb: 280,800
Mar: 257,000

So since November, the PS3 has sold 2,069,800 systems. This is an "instant" Blu-Ray market. Now let's look at the X360 over that same period:

X360

Nov: 770,000
Dec: 1,260,000
Jan: 230,000
Feb: 254,600
Mar: 262,000

Since November, the X360 has sold 2,776,600 consoles. One of the most important things to notice is that since the next-gen format war declared Blu-Ray the winner, the PS3 sales have beaten the 360 in Jan and Feb and barely lost in March.

So let's analyze this further. As a videogame player, I want to catch up on a lot of the PS3 games that that I might have missed. Here is where the discrepancy begins to form.

If you look at NPD's Top 10 games for all consoles since November 2007, the PS3 has had the following games in the Top 10 for sales:

November: Call of Duty 4, Assassian's Creed
December: None
January: Call of Duty 4
February: Devil May Cry 4
March: Army of Two

If you compare this to the 360, despite it's larger install base, here is what you see for their games in the Top 10:

November: COD4, Assassian's Creed, Mass Effect, Halo 3, Rock Band
December: COD4, Assassian's Creed, Halo 3, Guitar Hero 3
January: COD4, Rock Band, Guitar Hero 3, Burnout Paradise (the only major new release in Jan for both systems)
February: COD4, Devil May Cry 4, Lost Odyssey, Turok, Rock Band
March: Rainbow 6 Vegas 2, Army of Two, MLB 2K8, COD4

So what can we surmise from this data? PS3's are being sold, but the people getting the PS3 aren't buying a lot of games.

What would be interesting to track, which I have been unable to find, is a way to see if Blu-Ray sales have increased each month. Or more specifically, if major titles released in Jan/Feb. have seen a boost in sales.

Movies in Jan. included: Resident Evil Collection, 3:10 to Yuma, Saw IV, etc.
Movies in Feb included: Michael Clayton, Gone Baby Gone, 30 Days of Night, etc.

If we could see if individual Blu-Ray disc sales increased a certain percentage, then we could attribute that to PS3 sales. So for instance, if in October a new Blu-Ray was achieving 56% sell-through in its first week and was averaging sales of 86,000; if a new movie in Febuary was achieving a 72% sell-through in its first week and was averaging sales of 142,000, then you could speculate that a lot of the PS3 sales made in Jan/Feb were for Blu-Ray playback than Videogame playing.

Ok, I've rambled on long enough.....thanks for listening.

SC

Don't forget the Wii sold 2-3x more then both the PS3/360 and the 360 was in short supply during January and February.

I suppose people are simply waiting for player prices to drop.

That's where I'm at.

I bought into HD-DVD last December, in part because the players cost less (and I foolishly thought "the war" would drag out longer than it did).

For awhile I was hoping Blu-Ray player prices might have dipped a little after the death of HD-DVD, just to entice the masses into taking the plunge.

A $400+ DVD player is just not an option right now - and that's coming from a guy who just bought a new 50" plasma in December. For now, I'm content with the upscaling on standard DVDs, and the HD discs I have look outstanding.

Don't get me wrong: I really want a Blu-Ray player, but I need the price point to move south a little. And all of the Profile talk confuses the hell out of me. Do I want 1.0, 1.1 or wait for 2.0? Why? Will firmware updates change a Profile 1.0 to 2.0 (providing they're available from the manufacturer)?

In my case I am simply waiting for the new batch of players to be released.

Same here, as long as it is ~$350. I'll buy in at that price or below this upcoming Holiday season. Until then, I have plenty of HD DVDs to watch

Profile 1.0: the now-obsolete first generation of players. They can't take advantage of such things as "picture-in-picture" (PIP) commentaries or go on-line for extra features.

Profile 1.1, also called "Bonus View": will allow the viewing of such features as "picture-in-picture" (PIP) commentaries because the machine has a second video decoder and 250 MB of persistent memory.

Profile 2.0, also called "BD Live": has an ethernet port and 1 GB of persistent memory that allows the viewing of on-line features, in addition to the PIP features of Profile 1.1 players.

Profile 1.0 players can't be upgraded to 1.1 or 2.0, save for the PS3, which has already been upgraded to 2.0. Profile 1.1 machines can't be upgraded to 2.0 unless they have an ethernet port (most will not) and some provision for 1 GB of persistent memory, which can be some sort of flash memory card/chip.

For more information on 1.1 and 2.0 players, check out the Blu-ray Disc Player thread. I have a glossary at the bottom of the first post that attempts to explain some of the terminology.

thx Lizard