$30US Titles Are Killing HDM's Chances! (1 Viewer)

[Mike Frezon]

Couldn't agree with the last few posts more. But that's a strategy that goes hand-in-hand with what I said earlier. If we're not willing to pay the high prices--that ARE out there, we go "used" or wait for deals. And the deals will come as long as we're willing to wait for them.

As an example: Fox' Master & Commander is finally starting to drop. I've seen it at both BB & Target now for $24.99 on sale. Of course...that's already after I had found it even cheaper in a "used" bin. And that was a "must own" title for me. But I was willing to wait until I found a price I liked.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I know we are impatient and want BD to succeed, but aren't we at the same point pricewise that we were with DVDs circa 1999 - or even the early-to-mid 00s? It seemed like it took forever for Paramount to back off of their $30 list prices, Columbia/Somy to bring their catalog titles below $30, etc.

I seriously doubt that the chances for BD success are being killed by companies pricing them consistent with supply (limited by manufacturing facilities & associated costs), demand (limited by installed player base), and their desire not to take a complete financial bath on them.

Regards,

 

[David Wilkins]

A beginner? You know absolutely nothing about me, my friend.

My outlook toward the high-def marketplace is entirely realistic. Nobody wants to pay more than they have to, and neither do I. I've waited for a sale price before buying about 70% of the titles that I own. The remainder were "must have" titles that I was completely willing to pay for on the day of release. Each of those purchase decisions were made willingly by me, and I would call that democratic.

As for "J6P": I care not what "he" thinks. I doubt that he has a real interest in BD, or he would be among us HT hobbyists. The market, such as it is, will filter down to him in price, over time. When DVD was new on the scene, J6P wasn't interested enough to become an early adopter of that format either, and that is the way the world is, and has always been. At this "toddler" phase of BD, the masses of J6P's aren't required in order for the format to survive.

Production costs are still relatively high, and if we want studios to have the incentive to produce titles in this format, with all that it entails, then...we just might have to pay a few dollars more, for the time being.

And, please, try to avoid using the "e" (elitist) word. During the past few years, the word has been over-used and done to death, and mostly used in a wrong-headed way to invoke disdain; at this point, it has filtered down to describe someone who chooses to buy a drink at Starbucks, or chooses to pay $25.00 to $30.00 for a silly Blu-ray Disc. That is a mighty thin interpretation of "elitist". The word can refer to virtually anything and anyone, depending upon how it's framed, or should I say, misused.

Way back in 1998, I paid $32.00 for 'Vertigo' on DVD. I won't bother with the math, but if you adjust for ten years of inflation, the dollar value paid might be shocking to anyone who's now fretting over their next BD purchase.

So, like I said: we're in fine shape for this early stage of the game. And aside from Fox titles, which always seem to be used as a yardstick when people are fretting over prices...the rest of the studios are pretty darn reasonable. This is a hobby, and nothing more. Silly, shiny discs, not life sustaining drugs.

Come to think of it: perhaps they are a drug, for those of us who are delightfully addicted.

 

[TravisR]

Yes.

 

[Will_B]

The comparison to DVD is not appropriate. We aren't on a timetable where we can wait 5 ot 10 years for BluRay to make it. Everything has to move faster. By the end of this year, BluRays must cost close to what DVDs cost -- $15 to $20 tops.

 

[Dave Mack]

agreed. Except for a few super AV enthusiasts that I know, NOBODY else I know is rushing to get a BD player. Even people I know with HDTVs...

Prices do need to come down IMHO. My friend just got a decent 46" 1080P LCD set and when I mentioned a Blu Ray player, he got that but it honestly hadn't clicked with him that the player alone wouldn't do it, he would need to buy BD discs for HD. His response was simply, "Oh great, I have rebuy all the movies I want...!" or something like that.

 

[RickER]

Why?

 

[Ed St. Clair]

Agree.

I thought HDM would be a tough sell; just was hoping people would buy new releases in BD. Even I was hoping not to replace my "entire" DVD collection. "Casablanca" was a GREAT SD DVD, yet when I even replaced that early on un the HD wars, I knew I was in trouble! ;-)
However, if people aren't buying HDMD's now...
WHEN?!?!?!

WB had titles like "Altered States" (still LUV my SD DVD copy from the LD master) w/anamorphic, DD 5.1, & commentary for ten bucks in '98.
So no, we are know where near SD DVD third yr pricepoints.
Heck, we are ABOVE '07 HDM pricepoints!!! :-(

Which is totally the WRONG direction to go too get more people in HD Discs.

 

[Will_B]

Why this year, or why the same price?

This year, because there is still a viable alternative to BluRay that could still undo the headway that BluRay has made. There was no viable alternative to CDs -- CDs were so much more convenient than vinyl albums or audio cassettes; it won on merits even though the cost was higher. But in situations when there is a viable alternative, a higher-priced competitor will not succeed. (SACD vs CDs, Beta vs VHS).

This price, because if BluRay is supposed to compete with DVD, it must compete on cost as well as merits, because BluRay is no more or less convenient than DVD, and the improvement in quality is incremental. Merits aren't quite enough, as shocking as that may seem to people like ourselves who study the pixels.

 

[Alfonso_M]

I don't know about specific studio pricing now, I would have to check my records in more detail, but the great majority of titles I purchased in the late 90's were less or around $15.00, with the exception of SE and such.

Besides IMO the comparison of Blu ray to DVD's acceptance is bogus, DVD was competing against VHS and the advantages were clear to all, even if J6p didn't buy into DVD right away they knew they wanted this toy sooner or later.

Blu is competing against DVD and the advantages are not that clear to the majority even if they had the proper equipment to catch the difference, which they don't and will never in all likelihood ever have, especially a properly set up system that will allow them to detect the difference between an "excellent" picture and Audio and a "more excellent" picture and audio.

Good luck with selling that difference to the masses, especially at the current Blu-Ray hardware/Software prices and in this economy.

And another thing, many here seem to have the laws of Supply and demand upside down, if you want prices to come down you stop buying the product, not the other way around, and if the company goes under, well, so be it, something better and at the right price will surely come along to replace it soon enough.

 

[Joe McCabe]

Agree 100%.
Most people I talk to simply don't see the difference in picture quality.
YES, we all know it's there...but to the majority of people out there, it's just not noticeable enough to merit a player purchase, let alone spend double on software in some cases. This isn't like the jump from VHS to DVD that most people experienced. There's not a whole lot of "wow" factor here for them.
They've had the luxury of chapter stops and menus for over 10 years now....the thrill of not rewinding doesn't mean anything like it did back then.

So removing that from the equation, and adding that most people aren't seeing the "amazing improvement in picture quality" that the medium promises, the added cost is really a detriment.

 

[Alfonso_M]

well, this analogy has been now de-bunked, as the more expensive Blu-Ray won over HD-DVD, as incredible as that seems now, and we are all now paying the price, aren't we???

 

[Jimi C]

The only reason bluray won so quickly was because of the PS3, if not for that who knows what may have been..

I understand what these guys are saying, Ive watched quite a few HD movies at my place with different people in the past 2 years and of them only a few guy friends have been able to tell the difference between standard DVDs and bluray/HDDVD. Women think im totally nuts including my current girlfriend. The ones who claimed they could see the improved quality werent exactly pissing themselves with excitment over getting there own. If the average person cant even tell the difference than there is no way they are going to be willing to pay nearly double for what is in there minds, the same movie in a blue case, not to mention fork over the $500 for the player. This is not comparable to DVD vs VHS, this is CD vs SACD/DVDA. And we all know how that one is going..

 

[Dale MA]

$30? That's a bargain. My local HMV is selling Blu-rays for £30 here in the UK...

 

[Jari K]

Funny, since many of my friends and relatives are saying how "great" my TV (meaning the picture) looks when I play some 720p/1080p games or 1080p movies.. Of course, I don´t really do these "Blu-ray vs DVD" demonstrations to them, so who knows... I did it once, and my friend said that he sees "the difference". I also compared the "Black Book" DVD to Blu-ray (superb HD-transfer) where the difference is literally "night and day" and my girlfriend said: "Now that´s a huge difference.". DVD really looks like s*** compared to Blu-ray with "Black Book" (some examples.. http://whiggles.landofwhimsy.com/wri...ackbookhd.html ).

I would say, that the people probably "see" the difference if they want (let´s face, many won´t care), but is that difference "enough" is the big question, IMO.

This "I can´t see the difference" is not true IMO, since the difference is quite noticeable in the end. People just don´t care..

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

DVD was the quickest adopted home media format in history. Blu-Ray is not that far behind it and moving along quicker than compact discs. Being early in the game, there's always a chance for the wheels to come off of the wagon, but if you have to slash prices because consumers see no incremental value in your product that is and will always be more expensive to produce than its alternative, then you should not be in the business of selling the new product anyway.

Regards,

 

[Scott-S]

I don't get the whole notion that Blu-Ray discs have to be the same price as DVD discs.

Prime Rib cost more than hamburger. Mercede's cost more than Kia's.

People understand that sometimes you pay more for higher quality. It isn't a new idea.

also, If you are showing off your Blu-Ray system and your friends don't see a deference, you have something wrong somewhere.

 

[Wayne_j]

I think the best chance of HDM succeeding quickly in the marketplace would have been if combo HD-DVDs weren't so flawed in execution and the studios replaced SD DVD 2 disc special editions with a combo disc and a bonus DVD. This way consumers would already own the media and could eventually migrate to a player.

As far as pricing on Blu-Ray titles are concerned, I don't think its realistic to expect the prices to be less than $5 - $10 more expensive per title. There is additional costs for the studios to produce them. The BOGO sales that were so common a year ago was only to win the war, the studios now need to recoup from the losses they likely had to take to support those sales.

 

[Paul Arnette]

Yes, and most likely it is your friends.

 

[Jason Seaver]

The inherent assumption there is that Blu-ray should be looking to displace DVD, and I don't know that that's necessarily true. If, as you say, the quality improvement is incremental - I don't find it so, but I upgraded to a new HDTV when I bought my HD-DVD player, so I saw things doubly improve - then perhaps people shouldn't be moving on from DVD and BD should naturally settle into the position of being a high(er)-end product.

The two formats will be co-existing for a long time, anyway - there's just too many DVD and DVD-ROM players out there. I upgraded to HD-DVD and later Blu-ray because I saw a compelling improvement in quality, but if the larger audience doesn't, then they probably shouldn't do the same, and it doesn't make sense to push them to.