macnorton

There is an answer to this rhetorical question...no not right now.

But like anything else, it is going to phase out eventually. But even after that, no one is holding a gun to your head...if you don't want to jump on the next thing, then don't. At this point, I can't see myself doing it, I am very happy with Blu as it is and can't imagine going to something else.

MarcinL

I agree with most of you!!! The reason DVD sales are in a slump is because of damn studios. I stopped buying DVDs when HD formats came out and at the same token if the movie is too expensive on BD, I just won't buy it until it comes down in price and I'm surely not going to spend money on a DVD.. Not worth it anymore.

Right now my limit is about $15 dollars for the movies I want and $9.99 for the movies I like to have. I'll probably spend the $20+ on movies I really need to have. For example, just spend $22 on Towering Inferno, but prior to that the last movie I bought for more than $20 was Valkyrie

I like to buy few catalogs like THE SIEGE or OUT OF TIME, but I'll wait for those to dip below $10 bucks. Bought Wedding Crashers and Fantastic Four for around $12 bucks. I'm sure as hell won't buy Mall Cop for $24 or the upcoming THE WATERBOY for $25+

So if studios want to continue to release BD's with $39.99 MSRP, be my guest. I for one won't be bying them. I suspect the only movies that I will be purchasing soon for above $25 are the Gladiator, Braveheart and Forrest Gump but that's about it for $20+ until Christmas

lizard

This is my view also.

Qui Gon Jim

I am not disagreeing with you, but I think my point wasn't clear.

For the majority of consumers (BD enthusiasts excluded here), I think that the studios and retailers have de-valued movies to where $15 is a lot. How many hundreds of titles are available at huge resale B&M's, never mind online retailers.

How do you get people to spend $20 for something they can find for $5 two aisles over?

Qui Gon Jim

Downloading and watching on a computer is not really the idea of "digital downloads" we are discussing. We are talking about OnDemand types of service. Since we are hardly comapring launch model BD players to state-of-the-art high speed connections, we can't compare the full-featured product BD is to crappy downloaded films.

Keep the comparisons fair.

JimRochester

What he said.

Start releasing some big name catalog titles and you'll see big time numbers. Get some Spielberg titles going and you'll see numbers increase. It worked with DVD.

orangerunner

I'm not as optimistic that the core catalogue titles such as Star Wars, Indiana Jones etc. will send Blu-ray into the sales stratosphere.

The anticipation for older films on Blu-ray can't be fairly compared to DVD. With DVD there was a lot of excitement to get a crisp widescreen anamorphic transfer, audio commentary, retrospective documentaries, trailers, old featuettes & deleted scenes that hadn't been seen since the film came out originally etc.

With Blu-ray, the hardcore fans will be an easy sell but I feel much of that anticipation of catalogue titles will be replaced with "been there, seen that" for the typical "Joe" consumer.

Ask any honest Sony rep and he/she will agree this has been the sales challenge with Blu-ray on a wide scale so far.

Qui Gon Jim

I agree. I really think the public is a bit burned out on upgrading and double-dipping. SW or Indy would be an absolute no-brainer for me, and most here, and either without doubt instantly be in the top 1% of "most sold," but is that a hard to achieve award?

E Unit

If you are assuming the public is the same set of people who have been collecting and upgrading/double-dipping. I have a couple of cousins who are 15 and 16 who are now starting to buy stuff on their own. They buy DVD's for the most part, but they have said more than once how they plan on buying the "better version" coming out of whatever it may be. So while it may be double-dipping for many, I'm guessing there's also a steady market of those who are buying certain titles for the fist time, no matter how old the movie may be and how often it may have been previously released on DVD or BD.

rfduncan

This is correct.

DVD had similar issues taking off when it was competing with DIVX. Once DIVX disappeared, DVD started catching on (also I attribute some of its success from the "multi-language" option that allowed Spanish speakers to watch movies they'd otherwise not be able to understand). Now that Blu-ray is the sole HD format, it will be the new DVD. Without question. The recession will drastically affect the time it takes, but I believe this Christmas will be a big one for the format as retailers are forced to drop prices on the hardware.

Qui Gon Jim

I disagree. I wouldn't call BD a failure by any stretch of the imagination, but I am pretty sure that there are influential people who think it is underperforming.

I think it will take another paradigm shift like DVD over VHS was to replace DVD. Hell, maybe it will be decades before something comes along. Look how many CD are still sold every week.

Hardware is well under $150. That is no barrier to adoption, and we have heard this "This is the big year!" nonsense every year since BD launched.

Gizmo

It'll will never be as big as DVD and I think the studios know this hence the new Premium pricing from most of the studios. Hardware is already priced low enough ($98 at Wal-mart right now) where anyone could really get in.

Adam Tyner

Sigh. Closing.

Supermallet

Mod Note: I'm re-opening this thread provisionally and have deleted the messages that led the discussion off course. If it looks like things are going to go south again, I will close it and administrative action will be taken on those who forced my hand.

necros

I'm one of those folks that thinks BD will replace DVD, not for a while, but it will. However it won't really reach "mainstream appeal" till the prices on the movies and players come down to an affordable level, and Wal Mart sells one for $60 on black friday and 4 old fat ladies in alabama get trampled to death trying to get one. No one will want one till someone dies on black friday trying to get one. Same thing happened with DVD

Seriously though, what I think BD has going for it the most is that it plays DVDs. So the people that don't have big home theaters will still get to keep their collection and keep buying those $3 DVDs to watch on their blu ray players. VHS to DVD was a forced upgrade and it was hard for a lot of folks. Heck my girlfriend still has a dvd/vcr combo and still watches tapes and still records stuff on vhs sometimes when her dvr is busy Since you can play your DVDs in a BD player no problem, I think upgrading will be a lot less of an issue for most people once the players get cheaper

GreenMonkey

Agreed.

There's nothing wrong with it being a big fat niche, either. I think DVD is here for the long haul, just like CDs. Downloads aren't managing to replace it and BD certainly isn't any time soon. Maybe in a decade.

BTW: speaking of downloads. Streaming Netflix was handy on our vacation this past weekend to keep the kids occupied in the hotel in the morning/evening (mostly Dora). It looked awfully fuzzy though on the wimpy Hampton Inn wireless though.

Qui Gon Jim

LOL! Success has been redefined!

Brian Shannon

I said the same thing with vinyl, cassettes, cd's, beta tapes, vhs tapes and laser discs.

vjack99

My prediction is that Blu-Ray will phase out because the step up from SD to Blu just isn't enough to justify the added cost for most consumers.

Personally, if it was as simple as buying a Blu-Ray player and discs, I would have already done so. However, I'd also have to upgrade my receiver to an HDMI model. When I add everything up and realize that the total cost would be around $1000, I just don't see it as being worthwhile.

Jay G.

I have Blu-Ray, and still have a non-HDMI receiver. I'm currently sending legacy bitstreams to it, but if I had got a BD player that could output 5.1 analog, I could've hooked it up that way.

It's a bit more cumbersome to have to switch both TV input and receiver input, but a Logitech Harmony remote can help with that.

For me, already having an HDTV and receiver, the cost of getting into Blu-Ray was the $120 I payed for the player (on clearance). So you don't need to pay $1000+ to start viewing BDs, anymore than someone who got in DVD needed to do so.

Trevor

You don't even need a receiver. I bet 80% of people with blu-ray players just use the sound from their TVs.

Gizmo

Sad, but true.

But still, you can get many players that allow you to use your old non-HDMI receivers and still experience HD Audio. Sure, its becoming less and less because more and more receivers have HDMI inputs...but the Sony S550 is $300ish and analog friendly.

Mr. Cinema

It's a one time cost. You don't have to get everything at once. If you want to upgrade, just save money and get a piece here and there.

MarcinL

I don't think DVD's will go away for a long time. I think BD will take over one day, however 2 formats will co-exist, even if streaming will take on. Remember that CD's are still here. CD's are still being sold in stores and new releases are still being released, even though there were MINI-DISCS, MP3 players, IPODS, and downloads are now really a mainstream.. however I think that while streaming of movies might take off, it will never reach the same amount as the music downloads have!

orangerunner

I just went to the mall today to the Future Shop (a branch of Best Buy in Western Canada) and noticed their whole home video section has been moved from the high traffic area of the store and cut back considerably.

It seems about a 60/40 split in favour of DVD, for now, which is a step forward for Blu-ray.

I think stores are getting reluctant to stock any more non-sale DVD library titles as they are not moving. Although Blu-ray is not picking up much of the slack, at least they can see some growth in that format.

Like CDs, I think we'll see much less floor space dedicated to physical media period.