Blu-ray prices go up following HD DVD's death

[JohnnyMalaria]

In a parallel universe exists a forum frequented by many learned people with emotional views about two competing attempts to make lot$ of lolly $elling new optical discs. But in that universe, HD-DVD won the battle against Blu-Ray. Once won, the HD-DVD manufacturers had to finally stop trying to saturating the market with goods priced below the break-even point. So the prices sky rocketed in order to provide a healthy return on investment. In the learned forum, three pages of outpouring decry HD-DVD and yearn for the more cuddly Blu-Ray. In both universes, consumers end up on the receiving end due to an enforced lack of choice. It doesn't matter who won - the consequences are the same.

[Video Head]

The public didn't choose Blu-ray the movie industry did.

Well said, ejai. Especially the part about the public didn't choose Blu-Ray.

Two interesting statements. Both completely wrong of course, but interesting all the same.

So, how is it that "the public" didn't chose Blu-Ray? Was the fact that "the public" chose Blu-Ray movies over HD DVD movies 2-1 for the entire 2007 a result of Sony having all its employees out there buying movies? BTW, Sony doesn't own Blu-Ray any more than they own DVD.

The fact that stand-alone Blu-Ray players (not counting the PS3) out-sold HD DVD players with a decent margin in December of 2007 was also not a result of "the public"? Who was it buying those Blu-Ray players? If the public favored HD DVD, can you explain how Blu-Ray players at $500-$900 was outselling HD DVD players at $150 or so?

Perhaps you are one of those nuts who actually still believe Warner was paid by the Blu-Ray consortium to go Blu exclusive.

Yes, Blu-Ray outsold HD-DVD. No argument. My argument with you is how you cannot understand that Hollywood influenced the outcome...and the fact that you feel entitled to call people names...try to keep it civil and professional.

Are you unaware that organizations and companies use consultants, lobbyists and their own sales and marketing resources to influence the outcome of events? Do you honestly believe that organizations and companies just "go with the flow" and let what happens happen? Do you not believe that they strategize and plan how they would like events to go and then set out their resources to make it so?

Possibly the Blu-Ray consortium did influence in some way on the matter. I never really gave that much thought. You can be guaranteed that they did have their resources doing everything within their power to influence decisions though. They could smell blood and went for the kill. That's just business.

My take on the matter is that Hollywood just plain got tired of the format war and needed to move forward. They looked at the two formats and chose the one selling the most. Best to go with the highest consumer adoption...you retain more customers. They set their influencers upon the studios, distributors and retailers. Bring it down to one format because most consumers were waiting out the format war...in a round about way the consumer did chose the format, but Hollywood made it so. That's just business. And now they are hoping to get on with the business of selling lots of Blu-Ray discs.

It's going to be interesting watching their dog and pony show.

[cracula]

Are the discs considered hardware?

Do discs play themselves without the hardware?

Are you serious? Do you actually read and understand what you post? You said this thread was about hardware and i brought it to your attention that it was about software as well. Reading is one thing, comprehension is another.

"Well, firstly, the topic of this thread was the price of hardware, not of software. "
Do this look familiar to you?

[valvehead]

My take on the matter is that Hollywood just plain got tired of the format war and needed to move forward. They looked at the two formats and chose the one selling the most.

Don't forget about region coding and forced content protection. It's all about control.

[Video Head]

My take on the matter is that Hollywood just plain got tired of the format war and needed to move forward. They looked at the two formats and chose the one selling the most.

Don't forget about region coding and forced content protection. It's all about control.

Did (does) HD-DVD not have the same HDCP and region protection as Blu-Ray? I'm one of those consumers on the wall and have not had to deal with the content protection and region coding issues...yet.

[lordsmurf]

When a brand new DVD player in great quality is $50, or a brand new DVD recorder with great quality is $200, I'd feel like a moron dropping $100-200 on a BD player.

When a brand new DVD release is $5-15, I see no point in $20-30 for the BD version.

Better? Sure. Double-the-price better? Hell no.

And I probably AM consider a technology-inclined buyer.

[Video Head]

When a brand new DVD player in great quality is $50, or a brand new DVD recorder with great quality is $200, I'd feel like a moron dropping $100-200 on a BD player.

When a brand new DVD release is $5-15, I see no point in $20-30 for the BD version.

Better? Sure. Double-the-price better? Hell no.

And I probably AM consider a technology-inclined buyer.

Well said LS.

[Video Head]

I really don't understand all this nonsense.

I watched the Blu-Ray of BLADE RUNNER via my PS3 to my Hitachi 51" 16x9 WS Rear Projection CRT HDTV via HDMI in 1080i last week.

I cried it looked so good. Yes ... I cried. It was simply gorgeous. Stupendous. Magical.

I hear ya, Brother. The first time I watched Planet Earth using my PS3 on my new 52"KDL Sony LCD I almost shit myself.

Amen to that. The sour grapes you get from the people on this forum who clearly have 29" CRTs or smaller is a little pathetic. I mean, this is a video forum after all, not a "I can't afford a decent TV so I'll bitch about those who can" forum.

For anyone with a decent TV, the Planet Earth set is a brilliant place to start, and one good place to go is the "Shallow Seas" segment. Not just for the shark, but because this segment has a decent amount of up-scaled SD video. Yup, not all of Planet Earth is HD, some of it is SD. I always use this segment when showing HD, because when the viewers are sitting at an appropriate distance from the TV, the switching between SD and HD content on this segment becomes jarring. You see it immediately, and it is not all that nice.

Oh, and yes, I also cried during the Blu version of Bladerunner. This thing is astonishing. I've heard PQ is as good on I, Robot, so it has been ordered.

Being the premier video forum, the people you will most likely find posting here are the technically inclined and informed who purchase equipment based upon the best performance for the money spent and those who are seeking informed answers to questions from the inclined and informed.

I would hazzard a guess that the regular posters here have some pretty decent theatre and technology set-up's. You will probably not see many 29" CRT TV's in their homes...unless there is a specific application (let's start a poll of how many posters have 29" or smaller CRT's ). Most of the posters here are probably within the means of purchasing new gear when they want. But they have to want to...

To imply that Planet Earth and Shallow Seas make Blu-Ray worth the investment speaks volumes. I saw Bladrunner in its original theatrical version...in the theatre. I did not cry then, I would not cry now. I own it on DVD, its an entertainment novelty in our collection along with Working Girl, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark - guess the common thread and you could win a prize!

To most, movies are movies...entertainment. If you are making money from it, then the rules change.

[disturbed1]

in our collection along with Working Girl, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark - guess the common thread and you could win a prize!

Harrison Ford.


Now give my cookie

[Video Head]

in our collection along with Working Girl, Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark - guess the common thread and you could win a prize!

Harrison Ford.


Now give my cookie

A BIG gold star!

[Conquest10]

My take on the matter is that Hollywood just plain got tired of the format war and needed to move forward. They looked at the two formats and chose the one selling the most.

Not really. They chose the one that did the most bending over and asked for seconds and then paid for the pleasure.

The selling more came out of that support. People already had a PS3 with this thing called "Blu-Ray". Advertising for Blu-Ray just blew away what ever little advertising HD-DVD did (if you can call that advertising). Also, more support = more titles available. So I think it was the opposite that happened. Most support equaled more sales.

[Video Head]

My take on the matter is that Hollywood just plain got tired of the format war and needed to move forward. They looked at the two formats and chose the one selling the most.

Not really. They chose the one that did the most bending over and asked for seconds and then paid for the pleasure.

The selling more came out of that support. People already had a PS3 with this thing called "Blu-Ray". Advertising for Blu-Ray just blew away what ever little advertising HD-DVD did (if you can call that advertising). Also, more support = more titles available. So I think it was the opposite that happened. Most support equaled more sales.

Sorry, I probably did not make myself clear. By "selling" I did not mean that the BR people were more proactive than the HD people. I meant that more people had purchased BR than HD, making the market saturation heavy on the BR side. I agree with you that the BR people probably did alot of things they would rather forget to gain the prize.

[jagabo]

Did (does) HD-DVD not have the same HDCP and region protection as Blu-Ray?

Blu-ray has the same AACS encryption as HD-DVD -- which has already been cracked. But it has a second layer, BD+, which has not.

[bbanderic]

When a brand new DVD player in great quality is $50, or a brand new DVD recorder with great quality is $200, I'd feel like a moron dropping $100-200 on a BD player.

When a brand new DVD release is $5-15, I see no point in $20-30 for the BD version.

Better? Sure. Double-the-price better? Hell no.

And I probably AM consider a technology-inclined buyer.

Brand new DVD releases are more like $15-20, can someone please show me a new release in the $5-10 range? After some time yes, but not straight away. As far as the hardware goes, wait until Christmas time, the prices are sure to come down significantly.

I don't think anyone, including the Blu-ray camp, expects Blu-ray to overtake DVD anytime soon, if ever. I think they'll be happy for them to co-exist with Blu-ray's market share increasing every year. All this talk in this thread, DVD vs. Blu-ray, is way off the mark IMO.

Most likely, movies on demand or movie downloads will be more popular by the time Blu-ray can overtake DVD. I do believe however that physical media will remain viable for the duration of most of our lifetimes. As long as physical media is viable, Blu-ray and especially BD-R is here to stay, like it or not.

[sanlyn]

Whether HD-DVD wins or Blu-Ray doesn't matter to me, nor does it seem to matter to most people I know (note, I said "most people" that "I know"). IMHO, most of my acquaintances in 4 states have never gone for the high-resolution/low-quality digital "revolution". It's a revolution that has quickly de-volved into junk content and junk equipment, rather that e-volving into something truly worth the trouble and $$$.

I have spent about the last 8 months scouring the 'net for refurbed spare editions of all my SD-DVD players and recorders. That should hold me for about 10 years or so until a really nice hi-def DVD player or recorder actually sells for less than $2000. Please note: The typical BestBuy Blue-Ray or upscaling SD-DVD player now uses cheaper decoding chips that have the crappiest images I ever saw - I'd rather be watching high-end VHS than these astoundingly dreadful consumer units. From what I've seen of Blu-Ray so far, the overall image may have more lines per millimeter but the overall image quality is not something I want to look at in a 48" screen from a block away.

Over the past few years I've watched consumers spend less and less on worse and worse video and audio quality. They listen to subwoofers that bottom-out at 200 Hz and think they're getting "incredible" bass, and watch "hi-def" images with the screen developing a severe case of hair balls every time something moves and shows people with what appear to be clinically fatal skin problems.

Like some who have posted here, I'm unimpressed by this technological "devolution". I'm still listening to vinyl discs played on a $2000 1985 turntable through a 1979 Dynaco power amp that is still in use today in many movie houses because of its superior reliability and audio quality. I bought a CD player in 1988 and a DVD player in 2001, and there are still technicians who service them beautifully and expect to stay in business for some time to come.

Yes, I've made a few trips to local stores over the past few years and brought home the latest hi-def low-quality junk, and returned it immediately. For the past 5 years or so, each new purchase has bought me little more than a worse image and worse sound than I get from so-called "obsolete" gear.

This hi-def stuff really isn't ready, folks. Not for me, anyway. When they start making LCD's or plasmas that don't make images look like jello molds, I'll be moving ahead. But I give the industry another 10 years to get it straight -- that is, if consumers don't let their wallets speak louder than their eyes and ears.

I really do believe that consumers are losing the use of their biological senses -- all of which are analog, BTW, and not one of which is digital.

[lordsmurf]

BD re-releases costs as much as a new movie $20-30+, while the DVD version is easy to find for $5 - $7.50 at your nearest Walmart. At most, new releases are typically $15. Few hit the $20 range.

Then there's Amazon, Target, etc.

[sanlyn]

In one respect, lordsmurf, I take after your dislike of video distortion. Either BD itself or their players just aren't clean or accurate enough for my taste. I suppose Blu-Ray will clean up its act eventually, but those 1940's Technicolor classics just don't look right with Blu-Ray -- so far. My criteria are based on what I saw (and see) on the big silver screen, not on the latest digital gizmo. The number of lines of resolution does not, by itself, compel me to reach for my credit card.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I suppose Blu-Ray will clean up its act eventually, but those 1940's Technicolor classics just don't look right with Blu-Ray -- so far.

But isn't that an issue of restoration rather than final delivery? Some Technicolor (and other technology) movies are simply beyond full restoration.

[sanlyn]

But isn't that an issue of restoration rather than final delivery? Some Technicolor (and other technology) movies are simply beyond full restoration.

Not quite sure what you mean. Those that are beyond restoration likely won't look good, period. Take a look at the DVD of "The Quiet Man" -- it looks even worse than the VHS tape. Regardless, Blu-Ray's color problems are noted by many viewers and owners of BD players. BD doesn't look good enough to me -- yet. Believe me, I've been looking. Don't like what I see with BD, and I'm not alone. Toshiba's HD-DVD was much better. I'm not throwing away 25 years of art and entertainment at the BD industry's whim. With good equipment, even the old stuff looks pretty nice. With cheap or carelessly designed gear none of it looks good, period.

[bbanderic]

But isn't that an issue of restoration rather than final delivery? Some Technicolor (and other technology) movies are simply beyond full restoration.

Not quite sure what you mean. Those that are beyond restoration likely won't look good, period. Take a look at the DVD of "The Quiet Man" -- it looks even worse than the VHS tape. Regardless, Blu-Ray's color problems are noted by many viewers and owners of BD players. BD doesn't look good enough to me -- yet. Believe me, I've been looking. Don't like what I see with BD, and I'm not alone. Toshiba's HD-DVD was much better. I'm not throwing away 25 years of art and entertainment at the BD industry's whim. With good equipment, even the old stuff looks pretty nice. With cheap or carelessly designed gear none of it looks good, period.

Ok, the fanboy has come out. Now the topic has turned to..."HD-DVD was much better" ...come on. Not sure where you get you're getting your info from but from my experience, and the vast majority of folks who have had both HD-DVD and BD, the quality difference is indistinguishable between the two. As we saw with DVD, Blu-ray or HD-DVD quality is HIGHLY dependant on the transfer/restoration process, not the delivery (delivery meaning the Blue-ray disc/technology itself), there is nothing "inherently" wrong with Blu-ray from a quality standpoint.

If you want to say Blu-ray hardware and software is too expensive, fine, understood. But to say Blu-ray isn't that great from a quality standpoint and that you think "watching a high end VHS is better" is laughable .

[sanlyn]

[quote="bbanderic
Ok, the fanboy has come out. Now the topic has turned to..."HD-DVD was much better" ...come on. Not sure where you get you're getting your info from but from my experience, and the vast majority of folks who have had both HD-DVD and BD, the quality difference is indistinguishable between the two. As we saw with DVD, Blu-ray or HD-DVD quality is HIGHLY dependant on the transfer. There is nothing "inherently" wrong with Blu-ray from a quality standpoint.[/quote]

"Not sure where you're getting your information" ... My information comes from reading what others have to say, and from looking at the two media myself.

"the vast majority of folks who have had both HD-DVD and BD..." There are "majorities" on both sides.

"...the quality difference is indistinguishable between the two..." The quality differences are easily distinguishable. I am talking about BD's color problems, not lines of resolution.

"...Blu-ray or HD-DVD quality is HIGHLY dependant on the transfer..." Agreed.

"There is nothing "inherently" wrong with Blu-ray from a quality standpoint..." I disagree. Strongly.

As for HD-DVD, this is not likely the thread to debate it, so I leave HD-DVD out of the equation. Let's just talk about Blu-Ray. It's not good enough for me, and it will all change again within the year anyway -- maybe within the next 15 minutes. The fact that Sony has succeeded with it, sort of, is the point. Sony hasn't been able to sell me one of their products since about 1995, and I returned their Blu-Ray player the same day I brought it home. BD didn't look good in the stores, neither did it look good in my living room. Lovely resolution. Ghastly color. Compression artifacts, even on a 36" tv. That's just not good enough.

[bbanderic]

As for HD-DVD, this is not likely the thread to debate it, so I leave HD-DVD out of the equation. Let's just talk about Blu-Ray. It's not good enough for me, and it will all change again within the year anyway -- maybe within the next 15 minutes. The fact that Sony has succeeded with it, sort of, is the point. Sony hasn't been able to sell me one of their products since about 1995, and I returned their Blu-Ray player the same day I brought it home. BD didn't look good in the stores, neither did it look good in my living room. Lovely resolution. Ghastly color. That's just not good enough.

This is my point exactly, many posters here rail on BD just because of Sony's affiliation rather than form an opinion just on the technology itself. I don't love or hate Sony, I could give a rat's ass about them, I just want to watch HiDef. Blu-ray won and that's what we're left with, IMO Blu-ray is great, if HD-DVD came out on top I'd have felt the same way. BTW, I strongly disagree that Blu-ray produces "ghastly colors". I've had both BD and HD-DVD and I don't see a difference.

I will agree with you on onr thing though, the Sony "standalone" BD players currently on the market suck. However, the PS3 as a BD player is top notch.

[JohnnyMalaria]

But isn't that an issue of restoration rather than final delivery? Some Technicolor (and other technology) movies are simply beyond full restoration.

Not quite sure what you mean. Those that are beyond restoration likely won't look good, period. Take a look at the DVD of "The Quiet Man" -- it looks even worse than the VHS tape. Regardless, Blu-Ray's color problems are noted by many viewers and owners of BD players. BD doesn't look good enough to me -- yet. Believe me, I've been looking. Don't like what I see with BD, and I'm not alone. Toshiba's HD-DVD was much better. I'm not throwing away 25 years of art and entertainment at the BD industry's whim. With good equipment, even the old stuff looks pretty nice. With cheap or carelessly designed gear none of it looks good, period.

Coincidently, "The Quiet Man" was the one on my mind. I saw it on TCM recently and was appalled. I assume that they broadcast it from the DVD. I assumed that you were implying that Blu-Ray was responsible for poor quality and I made the point that it is the master material that is responsible and that the optical format is just the vehicle.

You seem to be saying both, though. i.e., the restoration is bad and, separately, the playback format is bad.

I can understand holding off until restoration improves but I don't understand the Blu-Ray = poor quality angle. "Features" aside, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray are logically very similar - MPEG2, VC-1 etc. In a pure digital processing stream from disc to display, there really shouldn't be much difference unless the displays used are poor. If analog outputs from the disc player are used then any quality issues lie with the manufacturer and not with Blu-Ray per se.

BTW, I have neither and have no intention of getting an HD optical disc format recorder/player until all the early adopters have parted with their money and the manufacturers can bring costs down via the usual Economics 101 reasons.

[sanlyn]

Johnny, I agree -- I've stayed away from both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray. I don't think either was (is) ready for prime time. "Quiet Man" is a specific case of a poor original source -- which, I should think, could be made to look better with some digital work, but no one seems willing to make the effort. "African Queen" is another example, and I'm sure there are more.

Yup, TCM did a crappy job, but the artifacts on their broadcast made me think it was a laserdisc, which had its own problems. I made my own DVD transfers of each from VHS -- no they don't look HD, but I spent weeks on my PC getting rid of noise and cleaning up the color, scene shift by scene shift, until I thought I'd go mad.

All things being equal, it appears (to me) that Blu-Ray's problem is over-compression. That's what I get from forums like:
http://boardreader.com/tp/Compression+artifacts.html
and others. I don't say the problems can't be solved. I do say the HD and BD industries aren't making enough of an effort to get at my credit cards. All this digital stuff is wonderful, and fare thee well VHS. But the promise hasn't been fulfilled so far. There's too much sloppy work out there, from BD to Vista and cars and toaster ovens, and not even a hefty price tag fetches the quality one would expect. It's always been that way to an extent, but sloppy work today is too rampant, IMHO.

The format war is over, thanks to the gods of commerce, and amen. Meanwhile, like you I'm not making any major moves until the marketplace (hopefully) gets the techies at work to offer me some better goods, even at highway robbery rates.

[FulciLives]

When both formats were new and just coming out I remember reading that HD-DVD looked better than Blu-Ray because the first wave or so of Blu-Ray releases were using MPEG-2 whereas HD-DVD was using VC-1 and that apparently VC-1 is superior to MPEG-2 for HD content (although I never read anything definitive on if the difference is down to VC-1 actually being the "better" codec or if the difference is that MPEG-2 just can't "cut it" with the bitrate "limitation" of Blu-Ray where the size of the disc might not be big enough thus causing MPEG-2 to be "starved" for bitrate).

Apparently once Blu-Ray switched more-or-less full time to VC-1 the quality differences between HD-DVD and Blu-Ray became nil.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[sanlyn]

I recall seeing that about VC-1. I saw a few more recent Blu-ray DVD reviews that say BD was apparently looking better. Now if they can just get the color right and some better players, I might have to talk to the wife about loading up our Amex again.

Now, that might be the one insurmountable problem that BD can't solve . . .

[terjeber]

Well, firstly, the topic of this thread was the price of hardware, not of software. There was no HD DVD competition, but there is Blu-Ray competition.

Below is part of the article from the link that started this thread. Are the discs considered hardware?

No. The movies you buy is the software. Hardware is players, and the price of a DVD or a Blu-Ray movie is not particularly strongly related to the production cost of a disc, and it is 100% unrelated to the competition between formats. What is the main competitor to, let's say "The Matrix" movie? A Toshiba player? Nope. It is probably another movie either on DVD, HD DVD, Blu-Ray, VHS or in the theaters.

So, except for very short periods of time, format competition has no bearing on prices of much. The only thing that you will really see is the price on players as one format is dying. In fact this is a pretty sure way of determining what format is doing well and what is dying. If the hardware manufacturer of one format is dumping players on the market at well below production cost, which is what Toshiba was doing, then they are dying and desperate.

[terjeber]

Perhaps you are one of those nuts who actually still believe Warner was paid by the Blu-Ray consortium to go Blu exclusive.

And you are one of the nuts that don't.

Actually, you don't really have to be nuts to believe in gravity, air or the sun rising tomorrow. That Warner was not paid to switch is quite well documented. The story about them being paid was a misunderstanding of what went on, but here is the short version:

• September 2007, Warner decides internally to go Blu-Ray exclusive.
• Some time between September and beginning of early November they inform Toshiba about this (contractual obligations and all).
• In early November a Warner executive misspeaks and basically pre-announces that they are going to go Blu in the new year.
• In November Toshiba and Microsoft starts lobbying Warner to stay neutral or go HD DVD exclusive, Warner is promised significant incentives to do so. In mid December they are offered $300M in incentives, mainly production rebates and marketing stuff. Warner says a polite "No thanks". The incentives are similar to those that were given to Paramount, but since Warner is a much larger studio with a larger catalog, the offer has a higher value.
• Leading up to the announcement Tosh and MS intensify their lobbying at Warner, and the day before the announcement was originally meant they have a final meeting. At that point in time the incentives are increased to $500M to go HD DVD exclusive. Warner still says "No thanks".
• Warner announces Blu-Ray exclusivity and the format war ends.

The $500M number was the final offer from Tosh/MS. No such offer was extended to Warner from the Blu camp. You will of course be able to see this for your self next year when Warner's numbers are out, such things are public information.

[terjeber]

Blu-ray came as a package deal with the purchase of the PS3, I know no one who purchased a PS3 with the mind set that they were getting a blu-ray player.

That is probably a factor of who you know more than anything else. I am a video enthusiast and I got my HD camcorder about a year ago. For anyone lurking in the video editing forums of creativecow or similar, it is quite obvious that a large number of people have been buying the PS3 solely as a Blu-Ray player and media center.

Big business has chosen the winner and is attempting to make the consumer pay for it.

Exactly how do you figure that? Just curious. How did Big Business make it so that consumers chose Blu over HD DVD by a factor of 2:1 for the entire 2007 (well before the Warner announcement)? How did Big Business go out and force consumers to chose Blu-Ray players in December 2007 over HD DVD, despite a $250 price difference between the two? Did Big Business travel around the US and hold a gun to the consumers' head and force them to buy Blu over HD DVD?

Please fill us in on these business practices if you can.

[terjeber]

So, how is it that "the public" didn't chose Blu-Ray? Was the fact that "the public" chose Blu-Ray movies over HD DVD movies 2-1 for the entire 2007 a result of Sony having all its employees out there buying movies? BTW, Sony doesn't own Blu-Ray any more than they own DVD.

Yes, Blu-Ray outsold HD-DVD.

Good, so the public chose Blu over HD DVD. That settles it then. Why would anyone then state that it was not the public who chose?