I don't care what the mass media is saying, we are closing in on the tipping point... (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

The proof is that Walmart garners over 60% of the total dvd sales and has been doing so for years.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I've heard studio executives state that Wally is King and has more say what happens in the video software marketplace than any of the next three retailers combined.

 

[PaulDA]

I've had a number of discs either be bad out of the box (new) or suffer some scratches (the few times I've let others handle my discs) but I have DVD players dating back to 2001 and CD players dating back to 1985 (4 SD DVD players, 2 HD DVD players, 3 CD players, 5 DVD PC drives, 2 CD PC drives) and NONE of them have failed to perform properly, some after two decades of use. So my "experience" is opposite of yours. I did have one VHS VCR die on me--after 16 years of use. Suffice it to say, I'm NOT concerned about players dying "willy-nilly". And my point still stands. BD player prices will go down, but to expect them to be drastically lower than they are NOW is unrealistic. Factor in inflation and there are already cheaper options for BD than there were for SD DVD at an equivalent time in the product cycle.

As for media, if people don't remember paying 30$ a disc for SD DVDs, they weren't buying them in the late 90s.

Prices may well be a deterrent to adoption today (as they were for SD DVD early on) but if that's the case, then people will simply have to either adjust their spending on other things if they want BD RIGHT NOW or do what they do when other things they want are too expensive--WAIT. Drumming up unrealistic expectations of low prices RIGHT NOW does nothing but raise the general level of frustration. There seems to be a sense that if something is not "affordable to the masses", then there is something "evil" about the situation. Sometimes things are expensive and one simply needs to wait until either A) one can afford it because one's economic circumstances have improved or B) one can afford it because the price has come down over time. It may be annoying to be in situation B but there is no "right" to "afford" something new just because one wishes it were so.

 

[John Dirk]

I was definitely buying DVD's in the late 90's, but I can't say I remember what they cost. I can only say I doubt I would have ever paid that much for them.

As others have pointed out, the advantages of BD vs SD are not as apparent [or as significant] to the average person as was the advantages of DVD vs VHS. In my view, this alters the price equation significantly. People won't pay the same price for an improvement on an existing technology as they might for a new groundbreaking technology such as DVD was at its inception.

Just my opinion.

John

 

[Scott-S]

But those same people don't even have a HD tv, so they are moot.

 

[Waylander]

Of course this was last year just before Christmas so this may have changed, but I doubt by very much.

 

[John Dirk]

I respectfully disagree. Many, if not most, probably do. It's hard to buy a quality flat screen TV [which is what everyone wants these days] that does not support HD resolutions.

John

 

[Scott-S]

If Best Buy is the "leader" in HD sales, then that sort of means that the prices of movies are not coming down very soon. Best Buy's Blu-Ray prices are way too high. Why do people spend $10 more per title?????????

 

[Waylander]

Speaking for myself, if most people are like me they still prefer to shop in store with a product in hand. If you're collector, there's not only the instant gratification having it right there with no waiting, but getting one in 'mint condition,' no floaters, etc.

Also, while I do shop on-line now, I did so reluctantly before (many people are still afraid of credit card/identity theft, etc) and only for items I either can't get in store, or if the saving are just that significant. For one or two discs it's just not worth the trouble.

 

[Paul_Scott]

There is one big thing that I consistently see HD/Bd enthusiasts either fail to acknowledge or fail to realize, that is going to retard Bd adoption amongst the masses-16:9 enhancement.
For years we enthusiasts have been making a stink about studios failing to release certain discs without 16:9 enhancement-or browbeating the non enthusiasts we knew (who didn't have an HD display at the time) to boycott non 16:9 releases. We told these people "look, you may not appreciate the difference now, but when you finally get a new TV and it's widescreen and HD, you will defintely notice the difference and understand our militancy on this matter".
Now we are turing around and telling these same people with shiny new HDTVs "forgot DVD, you can't really appreciate that new set without dropping an extra $300-$500 on a new kind of player and $5-$10 more on every disc."
If I were them, I would tell us all to take a hike too. The fact is, they are finally getting and enjoying the benefit of 16:9 DVDs. For most people that improvment will be more than adequete for some time.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

RE: shopping online vs B&M for the average folks, well, I suspect this is changing more and more each year, especially for those folks who'd have any interest at all in a new video format at a reasonable price, instead of only buying DVDs at the bargain bin and such. Obviously, online shopping probably will never completely replace B&M shops, *but* I don't think people will be all that reluctant to migrate to online shopping for small, fairly durable items like movie media (often w/ free shipping), if they will do any online shopping at all. Afterall, isn't that largely why Netflix was a big success and has forced Blockbuster to follow suit?

And isn't that also partly why states like NY are starting to force the issue w/ trying to get sales tax collected, eg. Amazon just started collecting sales tax from NY state customers (though they along w/ Overstock.com are trying to sue NY state over the new law)?

_Man_

 

[LarryH]

It will be interesting to see how BD acceptance is affected by the economy going into the pooper. It has been noted that a bad economy influences people to seek entertainment at home, but if they already have SD DVD, will they be willing to spend more for HD, or do they just care about sports in HD? With gas at $4/gallon and my electric company seeking a 23% rate increase, I'm beginning to think twice about a BR when the SD is available at about half the price (new titles with super first-week deals on SD and the usual no special deal on BR).

 

[Robert Crawford]

When Walmart becomes the leader in HD/BR sales then that means Blu-ray has become mass market. I agree with you that BR software needs to come down before BR becomes mass market. The less than $300 BR player with a $100 gift card that Walmart is currently offering helps, but the software pricing needs to be addressed by the studios.






Crawdaddy

 

[Jari K]

No, that is not what I meant. Blu-ray obviously needs to lower ALL prices in some degree (both software and hardware) and that magical MSRP should be lower from that start. We all agree on that one, I´m sure.

I´m mainly talking about that "middle ground" when we quote these prices, since it´s not that all titles cost "almost 30$". This "Blu-ray-titles cost 30-40$" is something that (some) people constantly say, even when there are *many* places that sell them more cheaply. Do you want to use those "chaper places"? It´s up to you, IMO.

I have over 100 Blu-ray-titles (haven´t count them lately, though) and I can´t say that I have paid 30$ or more in any of them - not counting some box sets of course. So if the person living in Europe can get these (US) Blu-ray-titles "under 30$", I´m sure that the people living in the US can also? Of course, I read the various sites/forums in daily basis and hardly ever miss any "good sales" - so that´s one reason why I have e.g. most of these older Fox/MGM-titles, since I got them from these various sales... And when these Xmas sales arrive (in e.g. Amazon), I probably order like 20-25 titles at the "same time".. This is how a operate.

Sure, I do understand the point that Edwin was making (not all people use Amazon etc), but quite honestly perhaps they should start using them? Anyone paying "35-40$" of one Blu-ray-title hasn´t done all the homework.. Partly they can also "blame themselves" if they do that (pay 35-40$ of one BD-title).

I guess my point also was, that people quote these prices so differently, that it´s hard to keep up.. Some "newcomers" might actually thing, that all Blu-ray-titles cost 30-40$.. That´s certainly not true.

 

[Douglas Monce]

I don't know what the MSRP for the Apex players was. What I do know is that Walmart had them for $80 in 1999 and I bought one.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I'm not comparing what I paid for DVDs. I'm comparing what I was paying for blu-ray discs a year ago. At that time almost everything I was buying was priced between $19.95 and $24. Now I'm hard pressed to find a new release that is $19.95. Most everything is $25 and above. Yes I know that the MSRP hasn't changed...but frankly the MSRP is irrelevant, I'm talking about my actual out of pocket cost.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I started buying DVDs in 97 and NEVER paid $30 for one. At that point that DVDs came out I wasn't even paying $30 for Laserdiscs anymore.

Doug

 

[Douglas Monce]

I read in March that HDTVs are in about 40% of American homes.

Doug

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

If you did, it must have been from a promotion or open-box and at the very end of the year. Even at the end of December 1999, retailers were pegging the lowest DVD prices at $199, and the average price was above $250. Even Netflix says average pricing was well over $200-$300 in 1999:

 

[Douglas Monce]

I believe he was talking about movie sales in general, not HD.

Doug