beebs

Catalog/older titles used to be nearly 40+% of sales in the early days of DVD. Image below for mix of new release or library sales figures.



Early reports on high def media indicated catalog title sales were disappointing. Not sure I've seen any hard numbers of this in 2008 at all.

-beebs

Doctorossi

Well, it's kinda tough to buy non-existent discs!

lovgun7

ive got the TV ive upgraded from 720p to 1080p over Xmas... as for surround ive got some regular speakers that get the job done for me since i have my room to work with. the reason i said what i said was because i was talking in general terms as too why i didn't jump right away at the switch to blu-ray the year it was released...

nah man lol you gotta be kidding me .... lol "DVD barely looked better than VHS on "most" people's shitty 19" TVs" i dont know what kind of 19" you had put if i put on a vhs copy of a movie on my Admiral then switch to the DVD version there is a HUGE difference ....

im glad you got yourr surround system at 18 man but what i ment was Blu Ray offers "BETTER SOUND" BUT .... BUT.... in order to take advantage of that sound you need a sound system . OFCOURSE dvd had surround sound but it was not something that you needed a system for ...OFCOURSE is would have sounded better but the sound on a dvd is superior then the sound on vhs with your regular tv speakers. Hell im sure Blu-ray surround sound is better then DVD but you gotta have that system for it .

dude i ment Special Features lol like the picture in picture that BD has over dvd or for example on the Iron Man BD it has a BD exclusive Hall Of Armor ...where as the dvd 2 disc edition doesn't.

4) Player. You did need to buy a DVD player, you know. Shoving the disc into your VCR didn't work so well. And prices have fallen faster for BD than DVD did.[/QUOTE]

once again your comparing a $250-$450 plus tax expense at a time when people had the cash to almost 1,500-2,500 at a time when people pretty much dont have 2 grand to spare





dude lets face it im sure everyone on the forum knows that HDMI cables can be found for close to nothing (mine was 5 bucks at frys) but to people that think buying the sony, monster or any other high end cable will give them better picture obviously dont know that there is no difference ...

DVD Polizei

And some people would buy anything (including organic material), as long as it said Criterion on it.

The money we pay for Blu-ray discs...yeah, I'm gonna be a whining bitch on a the last day of the month, thanks.

Spiky

No, I am not kidding. I think your memory is faulty, or maybe you weren't even around. The main problem with VHS is lower resolution (but that can also affect DVD, depending on the connection to said crap TV) and wearing out. Most people's TVs couldn't handle full NTSC, anyway. And if you actually had a good TV that clearly showed the difference, you spent more on it than you would today for one of similar size. My 27" with better resolution cost $800 on clearance (around 1997), you can get a 1080p 42" plasma for that these days.

The point is, it depends on your equipment.

The sound on BD is barely better than DVD. Do you even have BD, or are you just going off silly "night and day" reviews? If they used the full capability of HD sound that would be something, like music on SACD does. But movies are either talking (mono would be enough) or special effects that usually aren't even real noises in the first place. And, what do you mean by the bolded part? Of course you needed a "system" to get surround sound from DVD. You aren't making any sense, did you think you could get surround from 2 speakers with DVD? (see last paragraph below, as well)

And they all sound the same on TV speakers, it all sounds like....TV speakers. Well, unless the VHS is damaged, I'll give you that.

Special features are personal taste, so let's not argue on that. Personally, I have no use for PIP when I'm watching a movie. Other than that, and Live, BD doesn't offer anything extraordinary. And Live just means they don't have to give you the features, you have to go fetch them yourself. I call that a downgrade.

So, because you personally have no sound system (or want to upgrade or whatever you mean) and now "need" to buy one, you say BD rollout is more expensive than DVD rollout? You don't "need" a surround system for BD, either. I'll reiterate: if surround is so important to you, why didn't you buy it when you "had the cash"? That isn't a fault of DVD or BD or anything external to you.

Seriously, DVD offered discrete 5.1 surround for the first time ever, and eventually 6.1. That was the biggest upgrade in the history of audio, I even put it above stereo. BD simply offers higher bitrate surround and occasionally 7.1. Now, I've been enjoying DVD-A and SACD for years and made sure my BDp can playback all the new codecs in my system, so I am certainly a proponent of getting the 24/96 capability. But you are way off base saying it is a bigger upgrade than DVD was.

obidawsn

This just shows how people can manipulate numbers. People are saying that Blu-Ray is going to die because it's not overtaking DVD or it's not taking over the slack of DVD sales loss. That's just using numbers that have nothing to do with how successful Blu-ray is. Granted, if Blu-ray was overtaking DVD or it was making up for DVD sales loss, then it would definitely be a success, but just because they aren't doesn't mean it isn't a success. Look at the actual Blu-ray numbers:

Blu-ray is actually more successful than DVD was at this time. Even using the apples and oranges argument, you are saying that Blu-ray should not be doing as well as DVD was at this time because of several factors (purchasing more equipment, seeming quality increase for most people, economy, etc.). However, Blu-ray is doing better than DVD at this time. And there was a huge increase in sales from 2007 for software sales (despite high prices, which I do agree with). No one can look at those numbers and say that Blu-ray is going to die. It's doing well, as far as I'm concerned, in spite of the bad economy. Saying it isn't making up the slack of DVD sales, means nothing. DVD sales have been slacking for many reason. I think that small of a decrease in sales in a bad economy should be considered pretty good. I could be wrong about this, but I would think that DVD wouldn't have as many "new" releases as they did in years past. My thought on this is based on the fact that most major release catalog titles have already been out for a while. When you had new releases on top of major catalog releases (i.e. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Back to the Future, Godfather, and many, many more movies from the past 100+ years of film) sales would be higher. Now that most people who really want those releases already have them, DVD sales won't be as good as they were when those movies were coming out. I know catalog sales supposedly don't do well, but it is still a factor in overall sales, especially when it's a major catalog release. That on top of a lot of people realizing they don't need to buy all those DVDs. I used to buy a lot of DVDs (no where near as many as some do on here, but still a lot compared to most people), but then I realized that I wasn't watching them all, I was running out of space, and it was just becoming a waste of money for most movies I was buying. So I started slimming down my DVD purchases. I believe that I've even read that statement fro other people in these forums over the past few years. Just look at the Deep Discount sales threads. I'm sure people who used to purchase huge orders have now slimmed down their orders (whether it be that they have so many they don't want as many or they realized how many DVDs they had from the previous sales they haven't watched yet and don't see any reason to purchase as many). I think this year will be a good year for Blu-ray. There are a lot of good catalog releases already announced for 2009 (Lord of the Rings, Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Pinnochio, Snow White, Ghostbusters and possibly Goonies and Gremlins just to name a few) and it's just the beginning of the year. I'm sure more announcements will be on their way. Just remember how long it took us to get many catalog titles (even major ones) on DVD. I mean, it was only 4 years ago (January 2005) that Back to the Future was released and Star Wars wasn't released until 2004. Blu-ray has only been out for 2.5 years. I think it's hear to stay for a while. Will it overtake DVD sales? Maybe eventually, but I don't believe the Blu-ray sales will ever take over the peak of DVD for some of the same reasons I mentioned before. People's buying habits for movies have changed (even before the economy took a turn for the worse). As of now, though, I don't think that the BDA is looking to overtake DVD, but rather be a co-existing product for the next couple of years. Would they like it to take over? Sure, why wouldn't they? But it's going to take several years, and I believe they know that. But in now way is Blu-ray going the way of LaserDisc.

Gizmo

Which its not. DVD players were still higher priced and were being sold is far more greater numbers. Same goes for disc sales as well. Numbers will be spun anyway possible to make something look good for consumers and shareholders.

But, we already locked the last sales thread so rehashing this probably won't do very well.

fitprod

Son of bitch... You mean the Pioneer Elite VSX-99 A/V Receiver, Pioneer Elite CLD-59 LD, Clear and Present Danger, Star Trek: Generations and In the Mouth of Madness LD's I bought in 1995 were all vaporware and did not included Dolby Digital 5.1 soundtracks?

I've got to start re-searching my purchases... Wait a minute... Spiky, should start doing research for his comments.

Admittedly, DVD was the first time the public basically had access to 5.1 material, but it was nearly 2 years behind the curve.

fitprod

wakwak007

I certainly hope Blu-Ray lasts awhile. As of today, I finally took the leap and have gone purple. I bought a Panasonic BD-35. I've watched some of "Hairspray" (I had to find a live action film that would keep my four year olds interest) and my wife bought me TDK. Again I certainly hope it lasts abit ( or at least long enough to get HD versions of my favorite films.

PHMustang2000

Disney is already planning re-releasing every title on Blu-Ray and I guess DVD too. First was Sleeping Beauty then Pinocchio then Snow White will be released later.

lovgun7

well i got my ps3 and hands down the graphics are a hell of alot better then the 360. I already knew that going in ... i just wish it had a good amount of some good exclusive games for it.

with it i picked up 4 BD and 1 game...

Target
Cars 19.99

Frys Electronics
Men In Black 11.99
Can't Hardley Wait 11.99
Southland Tails 11.99

well im in the blue lol even though the format is really expensive still ... deals are out there ... you just gotta look ...

beebs

Blu-ray is doing just fine. But this spin that BR is trouncing SD DVD at this same point is simply not well-founded.

Blu-ray sold fewer discs, shipped fewer movies, made less money in disc sales to consumers, and had 1/5th the titles out at this same point compared to SD DVD. DVD had a better attach rate, too. All at very similar unadjusted for inflation price points. BR is not completely out of it, though. Blu-ray beats SD DVD in players sold if you include the PS3.

As for pricing and success of the SD DVD format, see this article, for instance, from November 1999. That's like Nov 2008 for Blu-ray.

Sony cut estimates of Blu-ray players in October, chopping hundreds of thousands of sales from their estimates for Blu-ray hardware. (FYI, They raised SD DVD player volumes for this FY, too.) They definitely missed estimates set earlier in the year. Ending on a 2.75-2.8 million stand-alone sales.

People have forgotten that DVD player pricing plummeted in 1999 because they sold out of stores in 1998. I personally think DVD and Blu-ray pricing in terms of stand-alone pricing is similar. This season saw lots of player sales under $200. In 1999, DVD dipped below $200 as well. Average for DVD player pricing in 1999 was also just under $300 -- this is also similar to Blu-ray (especially if you include PS3s).

Releases are coming at a much slower pace, too. DVD had 5000 titles, Best Buy stocked 1,500 DVD titles in the store (compared to 2000 VHS titles).

Sony, one of the major studios is going to release less than 2 titles per week average. Blu-ray releases are trickling compared to SD DVD. What is it for BR, 15 titles per week?

I see Blu-ray doing well. But, I see claims of Blu-ray tracking to DVD's growth and success as spin and mostly misleading. 2009 will be an even tougher year to match SD DVD, but it may be the year BR proves it will break out and be adopted by the masses. Time will tell.

-beebs

Moopher

I'm not going to turn this into a video game debate...but seriously? I honestly cannot tell the difference, and based upon numerous screenshots and testing it out myself, I can't really find an overall difference between one or the other.

Goldblum

Well, I'm glad you're happy with your purchase.

Gizmo

Cars for the PS3 and 360 are identical. Either its the placebo effect in place or your 360 was hooked up with composite cables playing non-anamorphic DVDs while your PS3 is hooked up with HDMI playing Blu-rays. Either way...congrats.

mdc3000

^I think he picked up the movie Cars (not the game).... and I'm glad you're happy with your purchase but there really is no difference in graphics between PS3 and 360...must be the way you had them hooked up/settings.

Gizmo

Ahh, your right. I read Cars as the game and "Frys Electronics" as a movie title

NoirFan

What's your point? Someone with a slavish brand loyalty is sillier than someone who refuses to buy films because of minor packaging issues?

PopcornTreeCt

I agree. I think the PS3 has better graphics. But then I would also say hands down HD DVD had better picture quality then Blu-ray. But that lost.

The Man with the Golden Doujinshi

At this point, other than the Wii, it doesn't make a lot of sense to say one system has better graphics than the other.

Some games look better on one system than the other, other times it's the other way around, and sometimes they're both about the same.

The trick is to just buy all 3.

lovgun7

just for the sake of answering Moopher

well i played NBA 2k9 on friday hooked up to an hdmi cable

then i was on the PSnetwork for awhile and i was blown away ...360 wouldn't be able to handle such graphics. You gotta know what to look for...

ive been playing the 360 since dec. of 2006 and now jan 2009 i stepped into the ps3 game and right away i was able to tell the difference ... although i would pick the 360 over the ps3 any day.... im able to say and acknowledge that the PS3 is the superior console ... like i said the only thing holding it back is the lack of exclusive games ...



yeah man sorry i didn't want to mention the game and have people correct me about this not being the place for video game talk but the game i got was Unreal Tournament 3...16.99

Cars is a BD. I got it because everyone ive talked to say that even though disney movies are animated they still push Blu-ray to max and show off all that Blu-ray has to give... i was gonna get Ratatouille but i have it for dvd and i dont want to start re-buying everything on BD...

DVD Polizei

Like I said. Criterions aren't selling for $5 in a Walmart bin. If they were...I wouldn't be complaining.

Moopher

There's the problem right there, in 2006 there was no HDMI connectivity with the 360, so that's why you're seeing a difference in graphics.

fumanstan

Generally, most games that are multiplatform have been shown to look better on the 360 then the PS3. Reviews and screenshots have backed that up. There are some exceptions, not sure if NBA 2K9 is one of them.

Gizmo

I've seen some Criterions priced fairly low - typically Wes Anderson films or Chasing Amy. Not $5 of course, but lower then what you would typically expect a Criterion to go for.