For me, definitely not. I guess I'm not much of a collector, but I will not own a big collection until the prices drop down closer to what current DVDs sell for now. I own both HD and Blu-ray players, but will simply use Netflix to satisfy my craving. I'm the kind person who doesn't have a huge list of movies I even want to see more than once (not with tons of other newer ones waiting to be seen).

I didn't buy any HD movies the past year, but after purchasing a Blu-ray player two weeks ago and starting to look at deals I ended up buying an Ebay lot of HD-DVD movies for 1/3 or 1/4 the price of Blu-rays. The price of a movie totally affects how many I will own and right now I wouldn't even consider buying one for $20. No way.

I can say with ease that the only two movies I spent over $15 for on Blu-ray was for Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

So how that equates to as much as $20 more than the DVD counterparts I don't know. Based on the list price, that sounds accurate in some instances, and that is downright ridiculous. But I have never paid anywhere near those prices and I never will. In fact, I only see Blu-ray pricing continuing to decrease.

Edit: My bad. I also purchased Sleeping Beauty, Speed Racer, For Your Eyes Only (ouch), and Almost Famous: Directors Cut (Import) for $15+.

No, you're not looking at the terms in context. DVD was revolutionary at the time it was released. The dominant format was VHS. DVD offered so many improvements over VHS (better picture/sound, special features, commentaries, low prices) that it was a revolution in home video. It completely changed the way people thought about watching movies at home. VHS couldn't ever replicate a theater experience. DVD could begin to do that, with clear images and 5.1 sound.

Now, Blu-ray comes out. It's also on a disc-based format. Its biggest selling point is better picture and sound, but only if you have an HDTV that's not stuck on factory default settings and the right connections. DVD's picture was noticeably better from VHS even on composite video. The most revolutionary thing about Blu-ray are the online special features, which many people can't or won't take advantage of, and really aren't all that well developed yet (a simple text chat on The Dark Knight had technical problems on both the user end and WB's end). Thus Blu-ray is an evolution from DVD. It isn't changing the very face of home video. It's simply taking what was good from DVD and making it better. And there's nothing wrong with that. I like that I can play DVDs in my HD DVD and Blu-ray players. I like that the menus feel familiar. Blu-ray didn't re-invent the wheel and it didn't have to. But it is an evolution, not a revolution. And that's not a knock against it at all. I think you know that I, of all people, love Blu-ray and want to see it succeed. I'd love it if Blu-ray supplanted DVD. But that doesn't change the fact that the step from VHS to DVD was seen as a complete paradigm shift in a variety of ways, while Blu-ray is seen as an upgrade from DVD.

A revolutionary new format would not be disc-based, for one thing. You can start with that. I used the term "paradigm shift" above, and perhaps that's a better term than "revolutionary." Blu-ray does not shift the paradigm, it stands firmly within the bounds of what DVD has already done. It simply does it better, with more interactivity and better PQ/AQ. And again, there's nothing wrong with that. No one here is attacking Blu-ray as a product or a format. What we are pointing out is where the marketing/public perception is going wrong, and why some people are content to stay with DVD. No one here is arguing that we should get rid of BD or go back to DVD.

Correct, players have dropped dramatically in price.

Also correct. He's on to something. Notice he didn't mention MSRP for this title ($39.95), he mentions Amazon's current price for this title, $25.

I think this sounds correct. It also baffles me that we are into third and fourth generation players and load times are a common question among people on forums like this.

So very true. The majority of people are clearly not singing the praises of this format. In forums like this, there's a very vocal group... perhaps a majority here who appreciate and root for the format. A minority are drinking the Blu-Koolaid.

The article linked isn't very convincing. But the $2B+ hole over last year that 2008 home video sales and rentals look to leave behind is something Blu-ray was supposed to help backfill. From initial hopeful estimates of 1 Billion in Blu-ray movie sales early this year from studio execs to likely a 25%+ shortfall on those numbers say the author's got some basis for it. He just doesn't make the case with just the linked article. That's too murky and short-lived evidence for me.

Important point, and it shows smarts that he knows people may be thinking this very thing.

The key thing here is his putting Blu-ray on the worst list. That's an assumption that's clearly very subjective on his part. I'd put it on my, "Sorry, try again." list myself. But, he's not that far off.

-beebs

I am being very selective on my Blu Ray purchases. I find I've actually been purchasing more HDDVD's at clearance sales than BD's. With Blockbuster online I can see 10 or 12 in a month for $20. If I decide I like it, it's Christmas or birthday. With DVD's, there were internet deals initially , then a good supply of $10 used discs, then came the mark downs.

maybe it's just me.. but decided to look at what it would cost to RENT a BRD from blockbuster.

$9.. NINE Dollars for a RENTAL??

Sorry- that just seems insane. For some bizarre reason I thought renting these would be a cost effective alternative to buying these...

I haven't spent more the $7 on buying a DVD in years. To have to pay more than that to rent is something I can never see me doing..

Playstation 3 games cost $8.99 to rent, where did you get your info from regarding BD rentals?

I get mine online and in the store. BB doesn't upcharge BD the way Netflix does. I get anywhere from 10 - 20 discs per month so my avg cost is $1 - $2 each rental

Load times may be a question on some peoples' minds, but that is only because many previous generation players were problematic in that regard. However, the recent generation of players are vastly improved in this area, where your comments imply otherwise.

Comments such as this are uncalled for. They add nothing of value to any discussion, and only serve to diminish your own credibility, by demonstrating your intolerance for opinions that disagree with your own.

Actually, the reason I questioned the use of revolutionary was precisely because I try to see things in context:

1. LD was also a disc-based format.
2. LD was also a quality-touted format (standard definition).
3. LD also eliminated a lot of the technical setbacks VHS introduced (rewinding, durability).
4. LD also offered better viewing quality (OAR for many films).

Fast-forward to DVD:

1. Evolutionary improvement in terms of portability (size)
2. Evolutionary improvement in terms of quality (OAR)
3. Evolutionary improvement in terms of language options
4. Evolutionary improvement in terms of storage (dual layer capacity)

The only revolutionary aspect of DVD's history is pricing. But pricing as we know it today was certainly not introduced as part of the format's portfolio, with other other words, DVD did not become an own-format until Lieberfarb and team decided to effectively stave off any future chances of DIVX-copycats. Every other aspect of DVD's tech portfolio was, in my opinion, evolutionary.

Fast-forward to Blu-ray:

1. Evolutionary improvement in terms of quality (higher resolution)
2. Evolutionary improvement in terms of durability (hard-coating)
3. Evolutionary improvement in terms of interactivity (not peaked yet)
4. Evolutionary improvement in terms of capacity

You want to argue that Blu-ray isn't where DVD is in terms of pricing, fine, there is no argument there. But, once again, DVD did not arrive as an own-format, it matured to become such, and BD isn't even close to being a mature format. With other words, the technical application "revolutionary" is attached to appears contradictory to say the least as, once again, other than pricing I don't see another feature DVD boasts that wasn't an improvement of what LD introduced.


Using all of the points you've made in your post I don't see how any such format, if it ever arrives, could be described as revolutionary. To me personally, revolutionary implies something groundbreaking, never before done. At this point, unless someone invents a 3D device where the audience is granted a 3D live access to the content the device plays, meaning real-time interaction with the data simulating nerve-based emotions, and allowing content alteration, I don't see a real possibility for a "revolutionary" format - based upon the fact that every single new tech spec this new format would be introducing will be of evolutionary nature - improvements in terms of delivery (online, interactive, etc), capacity, resolution, interactivity, etc.

Pro-B

You're comparing VHS to component video?? That is....ridiculous.

True. But $1/month upcharge spreads pretty evenly over 10-20 discs, no? I'd put both services pretty even on pricing. And now Redbox is rolling out BD rentals, although nada here so far.

I disagree. Am I the only one here who remembers that there was no $5 bargain DVD bin 10 years ago? DVD came out at the same prices as BD is right now. And even today DVD street prices for recent releases are $20-23 for normal editions. BD is $26-30, usually. What's the inflation for the last 10 years? Does that cover the $1-3 difference between BD prices today and DVD then?

This is understood. I meant at this very moment, regardless of the formats' progression cycles. With other words, you are correct.

Pro-B

Thats not what you said earlier. If you wanted to mention laserdiscs, go right ahead, but you equated "revolutionary" with someone saying better.

Also, you forget to mention that laserdiscs were for many , a big pain in the ass, getting up during the movie to flip or change discs. Sure there were a few flipper DVDs, but not many.

I wouldn't call shrinking movies down to the size of CDs, evolutionary. I would call it revolutionary. It allowed people to take movies in the airplane, on notebook computers, in the car. etc.

I don't have exact numbers, but one source here claims that only 3 million laserdisc players were sold in the 7 years of the format. And other guy claims there were only 17,000 releases during the 23 year life of Laserdisc. Most people did not have laserdiscs to upgrade from, they had VHS. I don;t believe there is any credibile argument that people don't have DVD players now.

http://www.totalrewind.org/disc/disc_opt.htm
http://laserdiscplanet.com/museum2.html

DVD changed the way the public at large watched movies. Blu-ray doesn't. That's the beginning and end of the argument. I adore Blu-ray, and it's spoiled me to the point where I really don't want to watch DVDs anymore, but I also see why it's not "exciting" the average guy off the street in the same way...of changing that mindset that DVD is good enough.

DVD didn't arrive as an own-format? I remember discs in 1997 being priced to own. Regardless of what kinds of deals that may have been proposed, DVDs were never rental-priced.

The argument is silly. DVD is revolutionary in quality, features, practicality, price and portability. It changed the way people viewed movies and is a monster success that almost everyone adopted because it's so revolutionary. And DVDs were priced to own when first released. Blu-Ray is evolutionary.

They've always been under $5 here, maybe like 20 or 30 cents more then a regular DVD rental.

Yeah...not understanding this at all. I purchased DVDs up to a year before (if not longer) I even owned a DVD player simply because of the great deals this forum had. Sure, some were as high as $40, but those were still "priced to own" considering VHS copies were not available for sale or were priced in the $100 range. Me thinks someone needs to stop re-writing history to help serve their purpose.

I was just replying to the previous post that implied renting BD was $8 or $9 per rental. I was using the BB pricing system to demonstrate my cost is far less than that for each BD rental.

Although I prefer BB over Netflix, I will agree that the $1 upcharge is minimal when spread out over that many discs.

I see some folks with a rapid defensive response to things anti-Blu and I call like I see it. You don't see that. That's a difference of opinion, I say.

-beebs

And that's fine. Having a difference of opinion isn't a bad thing. By way of example, I see many posts from people quick to jump on the "Blu-ray is nearly dead" bandwagon, despite their protestations that the support the format, and I strongly disagree with many such opinions. But I don't accuse those people of drinking the "Sony-hater kool-aid".

It wasn't your difference of opinion that I was questioning. It was the insulting and offensive way you chose to demean other peoples' opinions.

Are you making this stuff up? Seriously, get some glasses.

It is very easy to see I was refering to people who used to argue the merits of digital and analog connections in addition to the arguements over VHS v.s. DVD.

I think some posters look for fights without even reading and thinking about what they are responding to.

Rather than taking an all-or-nothing, extreme stance on the issue, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge that there were some aspects of DVD that were revolutionary, some that were evolutionary, and some that were neither?

In terms of physical size and accessibility of content (menus, direct scene access, etc), I would easily agree that DVD was revolutionary. Both of those areas made the discs more portable, and more important, more usable.

In terms of image and sound quality, DVD was marginally evolutionary. Other than the widespread introduction of anamorphic widescreen video, it really didn't offer a significant jump in quality over Laserdisc.

In terms of pricing, aside from the earlier availability of titles, it was neither evolutionary nor revolutionary. By the time DVD arrived on the scene, sell-through VHS, priced at $20 or less, was becoming more and more common. That concept was not invented for DVD, the DVD format merely exploited it better.

Similarly, special features such as deleted scenes, commentaries, and documentaries were common on Laserdisc, and even on some VHS titles. None of that was new to DVD. The menu-driven architecture of DVD made the features more accessible, but that is a separate point.

Jumping in here... I think comparing DVD to Laserdisc is a poor argument. It's like comparing CDs or MP3s to DVD Audio. Also, there were far more movies available at sell through prices on DVD instead of VHS. Titles like The Matrix you could buy on VHS, titles like Go or Disturbing Behavior... not so much.

You can say some aspects of DVD weren't revolutionary while others were. But overall, as a movie format, DVD was revolutionary. Part of that revolution wasn't just what it offered over previous formats in a technical sense, but also that it was accepted by the masses. It's not much of a revolutionary change if hardly anyone adopts it. It changed the business of home video and the expectations of consumers. Laserdisc didn't do that.