hmm. based on this, and other comments, maybe they were keeping the BRD on the rack that had a PS2/3 rental sign. Need to double check. I don't mind paying a little more for BRD rental than DVD, but thought $9 was insane.

Glad to know the sign was just wrong.

Realistic looks at sales figures does not equal the "Blu-ray is nearly dead" bandwagon.

I've asked others to show sources of people saying "Blu-ray is nearly dead" and they never do.

Can you?

Then maybe average people shouldn't be complacent with being "average people" and turn around to bitch about high prices. Heaven forbid consumers from doing some basic pricing research on this new fangled thing called the internet.

If something is priced high enough to be complained about, then it is priced high enough to do some minimal research for the best available price.

We've already had too many threads closed because of this type of confrontation. Let's not have another one, okay? I was merely pointing out that accusing people of "drinking the Blu-koolaid" is counterproductive. If you can't see that, then there is no point in furthering this discussion.

Sure you could. The $5 and drug store titles were VHS.

Or maybe they don't buy stuff at all.

Nope. It was quite a while before that happened.

Once DVD started taking off, then there were many more VHS titles available for sell-through, and that is when we started seeing those dumps of $5 VHS. Eventually, DVD took that segment over too.

No, there were bargain VHS catalog titles before DVD even launched.

Here's a Usenet post from 1994 referring to $7 VHS titles:
http://groups.google.com/group/bit.l...91d29dda1c3308

And here's a thread from 1996 mentioning $8 and $4 VHS titles:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.v...2de0c05d854afb

Here's another post from 1996 mentioning a $7 VHS title:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.c...45e9895376267?

+1. I literally knew like one person who had laserdisc. It simply was not a format for the masses. Most of us skipped laserdisc, so it was VHS to DVD, and for practically everyone I know, DVD was revolutionary.


+1 again. Over the years, I have known very few people who were real collectors of DVDs (like us), and I have not seen all that much enthusiasm for blu-ray, especially buying the discs.

But hey, I'm rooting for it. I love my blu-rays, and I still love my HD-DVDs. And I do still buy fairly regularly. But it has simply become very apparent that we are in the minority. We shall see.

WalMart, I guess I will concede was carrying sell-through VHS, but the other two hardly support your argument. Best Buy and especially Suncoast are more specialty dealers, and not exactly indicative of the penetration DVD has. Also WalMart never carried VHS the way it does DVD.

Perhaps VHS would have penetrated like DVD did given the pricing and time, but DVD is sold everywhere. VHS never realized that kind of penetration.

When I say, "Blu-Koolaid" I mean someone who reflexively defends any failings of Blu-ray. Someone who insists Blu-ray will be success in the face of roadblocks. Who never admits that Blu-ray has fumbled, and continues to have issues.

The original article in question here has the following line: "There's a very loud and vocal minority that insists that Blu-ray will be a huge success." This was my basis for throwing out the Blu-Koolaid line, btw. It seems well within the limits of discussion of this article. To me, drinking the Blu-Koolaid, is the same as someone who "insists Blu-ray will be a huge success." In my opinion, there are people here on this and other forums who fit this description. I contend, as I did in my original remark, they are a subset of general Blu-ray supporters.

So, I stand by my Blu-Koolaid remark. In my opinion, it's a completely acceptable remark in the face of the original article. And, further more, I see people who fit this bill on forums all the time. The author of this article also sees people like this, though I'm not certain of his context.

-beebs

That's cool. If people like you want to keep throwing out lies that can't be backed up, yet keep throwing them out, then there's no point in furthering this discussion.

You know exactly the type of people that refuse to say anything bad and if there's bad news they completely disregard it. There's no problem with honesty, even if it doesn't make someone happy. It's silly to think an issue is completely black and white and the only viewpoints are either blindly worshiping or wishing it were dead and buried.

But hey, whatever floats your boat. We'll agree to disagree and I'll just live happily in your "Blu-ray is nearly dead" bandwagon while still buying the product that I apparently hope fails.

Mod Note: I find this conversation interesting enough that I don't wish to close it, but the "Blu Kool Aid" and "Blu is nearly dead" comments aren't helping out in that regard. Can we continue this without making it personal? Debate the points a person makes, don't attack the person. If you think their opinion is based on an inflexible point of view, then don't respond.

Here is the point though with those movies - Heathers, Total Recall etc. They came out in VHS for the rental market first and it took years for them to show up in sale through prices. My rudimentary google search finds multiple VHS releases of total recall - the earliest being 1993, and the EP version in 1995, but I'm pretty sure there would be an earlier one a few months or a year after the movie came out in 1990. That would be the key MSRP or SRP.

Studios especially in the mid 1990's definitely released movies on VHS for sale through prices, but were almost exclusively catalog titles in which the rental period had already come and gone. I'm sure there are exceptions, so blast me all you want.

I think that is a valid point. Most of the sell-through priced VHS product was catalog product. However, there was a small, yet growing, number of new releases seeing similar pricing, even before DVD hit the market.

And, there is no question that Warren Lieberfarb was brilliant in positioning DVD as a sell-through-only medium, and that did change the public's perception of owning versus renting, at least for most of the next decade.

People don't realize that it's actually Blu Flavor Aid.

As for VHS sell-through titles, at first they were mostly kids' movies (not just Disney, but also stuff like Home Alone), but by the mid-90s they had added blockbusters. For instance, I remember buying Forrest Gump when it was first released on VHS in 1995. Quite a few titles were still rental-only though, not dropping to sell-through pricing for months. At first it took a year or longer for that to happen, but by the mid 90s it was down to about 4-6 months.

Seriously! Do we always need one arguing thread? C'mon ...

I agree and apologize. I was just tired of people putting words into other people's mouths or doing the whole, you're either with us or against us thing.

Nightmare on Elm Street 3 was the first one I remember. Terminator 2 was another one but by that time, prices were decent for VHS.

I still remember the first VHS movie I bought, Godzilla vs Megalon. Bought it with our top loading vcr with the wired remote.

That statement is not entirely correct. The first 'Sell-thru' i remember for 19.95 was Purple Rain for Christmas 84 - and the grand daddy of them all was Batman for Christmas of '89. Thru the 80's most new VHS releases were priced in the $40 - 70 range - but would drop by about 50% six months later at the exact same time as they premiered on HBO/Premium cable channels...

Which brings us back to the original topic as to Blu-Ray - and paying prices around $25 dollars for a title like 'Step-Brothers'

Blu-Ray is not the replacement of standard DVD - it is the Premium format of DVD delivering advance special features and high definition picture. It is a luxury product. It's like complaining about the price of a Cadillac vs a Chevy Cavalier. They both have four wheels and a engine and will take you where you want to go.
(please don't post and debate what you think is a nicer car, it's only an example)

So yes, Blu-Ray titles and players should be priced higher than standard def DVDs, and $25 is nothing considering my buying history...

$400 in 1984 for a RCA VHS Deck
$500 in 1993 for a Pioneer Laserdisc player
$125 for Close Encounters and $250 for the original Star Wars in 1993 on laserdisc
$600 in 1998 for a Sony DVD player
$23.99 for Yellow Submarine on DVD from Tower Records in 1999

So for what you get now for Blu-ray is extremely affordable... considering inflation!

Paramount experimented with sell-thru new release VHS with Temple Of Doom, Top Gun and Star Trek IV in 1987. I believe Pepsi may have had a coupon too to help the price which was around $30.

I like how when someone brings up high Blu-ray software prices, people chime in and say something like, "Well, I paid $119.95 for a VHS tape of Iron Eagle II and learned to live with it." The high prices are slowing down mass adoption of a format whose advantages over its predecessor are slim.

The sub-$25 are an improvement but until we see a wide variety of BD movies in stores for $10-$20, we're not there yet.

cool VHS article from today. Not really relevant but since the VHS discussion is going on someone might enjoy it as much as I did. Pro B will like this part . . .

Having finally adopted Blu-Ray tech, I can certainly see the prices of software holding back the format.

I went to buy a new Blu-Ray disc, and just couldn't pull the trigger. Sure, Wal-Mart has some $10 titles (Total Recall, Stargate and a few others) but scanning the "bargains" at Fry's, Best Buy and CC there is just not a decent selection of discs in the sub $20 price range ($15 and below is an impulse buy for many).

Sure, I can wait for another buy 2 get 1 free deal at Amazon, but sometimes you just want to run into a store and pick something up. Staring at all those $24.99-$29.99 prices just doesn't get me excited about picking up new discs, especially with their $15 dollar and lower DVD counterparts. Also, until the big box stores really embrace the format by giving it decent floor space (Fry's is by far the only retailer in my area to carry a HUGE selection), the inroads will be tough to make.

I agree with it!

Unlike some of the other "realists" on this site I am firmly convinced that standard-definition, and DVD as the format that embodies it, will be phased out. I believe that there is a very good reason why Mr. Kornblau emphasized that the studios will be after the active 10-15% (if I recall correctly) percentage of consumers that drove DVD's success. If you look at the bigger picture, and not necessarily what appears as real to you, there are plenty of reasons why one would produce a statement such as the one found in your article.

Pro-B