Is Sony intentionally trying to kill Blu-Ray?

[spacejamz]

Now that we have established all of this, going back to the OP's point of Sony wanting blu ray to fail because they have not reduced their prices, the answer is NO as both player and movie prices are in line with the prices when DVD came out.

Also, I forgot to ask the OP if he thinks Sony controls the prices of all other companies who make blu ray players...

 

[manowar821]

It's cute how they've actually tricked people into thinking that they can see a difference in picture quality on a screen too small to display the extra pixels, though. I'll give them that.

But in other news, fuck sony.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
I have the money.. but I like to get a good bang for the buck.

Additionally, until BSG, DS9, or Farscape come out on blur-ray, I have 0 need to buy one. 99.9999% of movies suck. I have no need to buy them.

Supposedly, Farscape is not in Henson's plans for remastering. Plus, only Season 4 and the PKW movie can be converted easily. The other ones were shot at lower quality.

I just wish I could find the DVDs for Farscape at a good price (or at all) .

Nooo!!!!

Try the Starburst editions for a cheaper way to get the show.. plus they have extras. Also, in June and November, deepdiscount.com has 20% off sales every year.

Starburst editions were like 15 a piece, 3 per season... now it seems like they arent easy to find...

But I found some-

http://www.premiereflix.com/commerce.cgi

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my first dvd player was 350 dollar sony

slightly earlier than you i guess.

as for vhs to dvd more significant, i don't really think so. people had pos tv's back then, even the nice tv's were pos. people were going from fuzzy pictures to clearer pictures on small pos tv's. maybe double the resolution. now the installed base of hdtvs is growing at a rapid pace, stores barely keep any sdtvs around, they look like a joke beside the flat panels. hd is 6 times the resolution of dvd.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102
screenshots

even very old animated films like sleeping beauty look much better
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677

VHS to DVD gave us:
Better picture and sound quality
Special features
Alternate audio tracks (including commentary)
Ubiquitous widescreen format
Better subtitles; multiple subtitle tracks
Ability to advance to any arbitrary part of a movie quickly
No need to rewind
More compact

DVD to Blu-ray gives us:
Better picture and sound quality if you have the right equipment
Some minor feature enhancements like picture-in-picture

The picture and sound quality enhancements are more significant than they were with DVD, but beyond that it doesn't offer a whole lot.

The thing is, the better picture and sound quality doesn't necessarily result in a more enjoyable experience for many movies. Do you laugh harder when watching a comedy in HD? Do you cry more when watching a chick flick in HD? Look at any discussion of Blu-ray that includes more than just videophiles and you'll see the same comments repeated over and over again - many people don't want to pay extra for HD movies except for movies where the visuals are a significant portion of the movie experience. War movies, blockbuster action movies, etc. With DVD you had a lot of people replacing their VHS tapes with DVDs of the same movies. With Blu-ray I don't think that will happen as much. I have about 150 DVD movies and ~100 TV show seasons on DVD. I have maybe 10 movies that I'll want to upgrade. So far I've only upgraded Batman Begins, Transformers and Band of Brothers (unfortunately Transformers was HD-DVD exclusive initially, so I bought the DVD). I'm still buying TV shows on DVD, not Blu-Ray.

no the right equipment line applies to vhs and dvd as well. the picture was a marginal improvement on the average 27" tv of the age. yes there were conveniences and features, but the jump in image quality was marginal compared to bluray. in fact if you want to niggle on equipment, most people didn't have home theater equipment when dvd came out. vhs did one thing very well, and that was recording analog stereo at a very high quality. so the audiophile/videophile argument would apply there as well, and as you've seen with the market, it really didn't work that way with only audiophile/videophiles caring and upgrading. so that whole line of argument is a bit bunk. the flat panel tv sales also show this. and even chick flicks look better in hd, even womens appreciate being able to see detail when watching sex and the city movie in 1080p for instance. you might as well claim that watching a film on vhs is basically the same experience when watching a chick flick if you want to go down that road.

in fact because its about fashion visuals are highly important even for "chicks".
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com...he_city/image1full.jpg
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com...he_city/image3full.jpg

 

[LikeLinus]

You're not only arrogant - you're just plain pathetic and stupid.

QUOTE: "Effect, life becomes harder for you due to that CHOICE." and "Result, I get better stuff. You get a kid, I get stuff."

You're insinuating that you get more because someone who has children have a harder choice and cannot buy stuff because they have kids.

You're just fucking stupid. That is ALL I can gather from your stupid babble.

I find it funny you cannot even provide any relevant responses to the questions I ask. All you can say is that I cannot read. Not only that, you did not dispute any of my points. Your life must be as pathetic as I assume it is. Sad.

 

[n yusef]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my first dvd player was 350 dollar sony

slightly earlier than you i guess.

as for vhs to dvd more significant, i don't really think so. people had pos tv's back then, even the nice tv's were pos. people were going from fuzzy pictures to clearer pictures on small pos tv's. maybe double the resolution. now the installed base of hdtvs is growing at a rapid pace, stores barely keep any sdtvs around, they look like a joke beside the flat panels. hd is 6 times the resolution of dvd.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102
screenshots

even very old animated films like sleeping beauty look much better
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677

VHS to DVD gave us:
Better picture and sound quality
Special features
Alternate audio tracks (including commentary)
Ubiquitous widescreen format
Better subtitles; multiple subtitle tracks
Ability to advance to any arbitrary part of a movie quickly
No need to rewind
More compact

DVD to Blu-ray gives us:
Better picture and sound quality if you have the right equipment
Some minor feature enhancements like picture-in-picture

The picture and sound quality enhancements are more significant than they were with DVD, but beyond that it doesn't offer a whole lot.

The thing is, the better picture and sound quality doesn't necessarily result in a more enjoyable experience for many movies. Do you laugh harder when watching a comedy in HD? Do you cry more when watching a chick flick in HD? Look at any discussion of Blu-ray that includes more than just videophiles and you'll see the same comments repeated over and over again - many people don't want to pay extra for HD movies except for movies where the visuals are a significant portion of the movie experience. War movies, blockbuster action movies, etc. With DVD you had a lot of people replacing their VHS tapes with DVDs of the same movies. With Blu-ray I don't think that will happen as much. I have about 150 DVD movies and ~100 TV show seasons on DVD. I have maybe 10 movies that I'll want to upgrade. So far I've only upgraded Batman Begins, Transformers and Band of Brothers (unfortunately Transformers was HD-DVD exclusive initially, so I bought the DVD). I'm still buying TV shows on DVD, not Blu-Ray.

no the right equipment line applies to vhs and dvd as well. the picture was a marginal improvement on the average 27" tv of the age. yes there were conveniences and features, but the jump in image quality was marginal compared to bluray. in fact if you want to niggle on equipment, most people didn't have home theater equipment when dvd came out. vhs did one thing very well, and that was recording analog stereo at a very high quality. so the audiophile/videophile argument would apply there as well, and as you've seen with the market, it really didn't work that way with only audiophile/videophiles caring and upgrading. so that whole line of argument is a bit bunk. the flat panel tv sales also show this. and even chick flicks look better in hd, even womens appreciate being able to see detail when watching sex and the city movie in 1080p for instance. you might as well claim that watching a film on vhs is basically the same experience when watching a chick flick if you want to go down that road.

in fact because its about fashion visuals are highly important even for "chicks".
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com...he_city/image1full.jpg
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com...he_city/image3full.jpg

I don't know what's worse about your post, the fact that you have poor memory or eyesight, and couldn't notice the differences in quality from VHS to DVD (it was a big deal, even on small screens), or that you repeatedly imply that women are less able to notice picture quality.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: waggy
i get the feeling you either live at home or just entering college.

Wrong on both counts. Nice try though.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
...

Please, Linus, refrain from further feeding of the troll.

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
...

Please, Linus, refrain from further feeding of the troll.

Aye...I've written it off as an act.

If that is the way he speaks in real life then the world is a much sadder place with JackBurtons running around.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: n yusef

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
my first dvd player was 350 dollar sony

slightly earlier than you i guess.

as for vhs to dvd more significant, i don't really think so. people had pos tv's back then, even the nice tv's were pos. people were going from fuzzy pictures to clearer pictures on small pos tv's. maybe double the resolution. now the installed base of hdtvs is growing at a rapid pace, stores barely keep any sdtvs around, they look like a joke beside the flat panels. hd is 6 times the resolution of dvd.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=811102
screenshots

even very old animated films like sleeping beauty look much better
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1073677

VHS to DVD gave us:
Better picture and sound quality
Special features
Alternate audio tracks (including commentary)
Ubiquitous widescreen format
Better subtitles; multiple subtitle tracks
Ability to advance to any arbitrary part of a movie quickly
No need to rewind
More compact

DVD to Blu-ray gives us:
Better picture and sound quality if you have the right equipment
Some minor feature enhancements like picture-in-picture

The picture and sound quality enhancements are more significant than they were with DVD, but beyond that it doesn't offer a whole lot.

The thing is, the better picture and sound quality doesn't necessarily result in a more enjoyable experience for many movies. Do you laugh harder when watching a comedy in HD? Do you cry more when watching a chick flick in HD? Look at any discussion of Blu-ray that includes more than just videophiles and you'll see the same comments repeated over and over again - many people don't want to pay extra for HD movies except for movies where the visuals are a significant portion of the movie experience. War movies, blockbuster action movies, etc. With DVD you had a lot of people replacing their VHS tapes with DVDs of the same movies. With Blu-ray I don't think that will happen as much. I have about 150 DVD movies and ~100 TV show seasons on DVD. I have maybe 10 movies that I'll want to upgrade. So far I've only upgraded Batman Begins, Transformers and Band of Brothers (unfortunately Transformers was HD-DVD exclusive initially, so I bought the DVD). I'm still buying TV shows on DVD, not Blu-Ray.

no the right equipment line applies to vhs and dvd as well. the picture was a marginal improvement on the average 27" tv of the age. yes there were conveniences and features, but the jump in image quality was marginal compared to bluray. in fact if you want to niggle on equipment, most people didn't have home theater equipment when dvd came out. vhs did one thing very well, and that was recording analog stereo at a very high quality. so the audiophile/videophile argument would apply there as well, and as you've seen with the market, it really didn't work that way with only audiophile/videophiles caring and upgrading. so that whole line of argument is a bit bunk. the flat panel tv sales also show this. and even chick flicks look better in hd, even womens appreciate being able to see detail when watching sex and the city movie in 1080p for instance. you might as well claim that watching a film on vhs is basically the same experience when watching a chick flick if you want to go down that road.

in fact because its about fashion visuals are highly important even for "chicks".
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com...he_city/image1full.jpg
http://www.highdefdiscnews.com...he_city/image3full.jpg

I don't know what's worse about your post, the fact that you have poor memory or eyesight, and couldn't notice the differences in quality from VHS to DVD (it was a big deal, even on small screens), or that you repeatedly imply that women are less able to notice picture quality.

no,i have GOOD memory without the nostolgia that blinds some people. when dvd came out most people had sh*t tvs. actually you implied that women couldn't notice or cared about quality, i argued against it

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
You're not only arrogant - you're just plain pathetic and stupid.

QUOTE: "Effect, life becomes harder for you due to that CHOICE." and "Result, I get better stuff. You get a kid, I get stuff."

You're insinuating that you get more because someone who has children have a harder choice and cannot buy stuff because they have kids.

You're just fucking stupid. That is ALL I can gather from your stupid babble.

That is the only thing you gathered because you're not very smart. Let me point out the exact statement I made since you're not smart enough to see it yourself.

Result, I get better stuff. You get a kid, I get stuff. THAT is the trade off. And if you can get both, more power to you.

Apparently I struck a nerve with you. That's too bad. It doesn't change anything though. Life is what it is. Everyone has a choice and with every choice there are consequences. Having a kid under 21 is not a recommended move. And with that choice there are consequences. I didn't have a kid under 21 so all that money you were dishing out, I put elsewhere. Your kid makes you happy, my stuff makes me happy. And if you could have both, you wouldn't be bitching about a mere $300 for a player. Obviously people can have both. There a lot of families that have MUCH better things than I do, but those people aren't complaining about a $300 player being "overpriced."

I find it funny you cannot even provide any relevant responses to the questions I ask. All you can say is that I cannot read. Not only that, you did not dispute any of my points. Your life must be as pathetic as I assume it is. Sad.

I responded to every so called point you made. You just didn't like my answers. Are you talking about the $2K player? You're complaining about a $300 player and you want me to explain to you what a $2K player offers? Nah, that's ok. Just pretend that those manufactures just slapped on a random price tag with no added benefit. That's what you want to hear, right? Does that make you feel better?

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
You're not only arrogant - you're just plain pathetic and stupid.

QUOTE: "Effect, life becomes harder for you due to that CHOICE." and "Result, I get better stuff. You get a kid, I get stuff."

You're insinuating that you get more because someone who has children have a harder choice and cannot buy stuff because they have kids.

You're just fucking stupid. That is ALL I can gather from your stupid babble.

That is the only thing you gathered because you're not very smart. Let me point out the exact statement I made since you're not smart enough to see it yourself.

Result, I get better stuff. You get a kid, I get stuff. THAT is the trade off. And if you can get both, more power to you.

Apparently I struck a nerve with you. That's too bad. It doesn't change anything though. Life is what it is. Everyone has a choice and with every choice there are consequences. Having a kid under 21 is not a recommend move. And with that choice there are consequences. I didn't have a kid under 21 so all that money you were dishing out, I put elsewhere. Your kid makes you happy, my stuff makes me happy. And if you could have both, you wouldn't be bitching about a mere $300 for a player. Obviously people can have both. There a lot of families that have MUCH better things than I do, but those people aren't complaining about a $300 player being "overpriced."

I find it funny you cannot even provide any relevant responses to the questions I ask. All you can say is that I cannot read. Not only that, you did not dispute any of my points. Your life must be as pathetic as I assume it is. Sad.

I responded to every so called point you made. You just didn't like my answers. Are you talking about the $2K player? You're complaining about a $300 player and you want me to explain to you what a $2K player offers? Nah, that's ok. Just pretend that those manufactures just slapped on a random price tag with no added benefit. That's what you want to hear, right? Does that make you feel better?

Ok, it's very apparent the others are right and you are nothing more than a troll. I wasn't aware of that because I've never read your post, but it obviously makes sense now.

Keep on trolling and enjoying your pathetic life!

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Many of the early DVD's looked like crap. Barely better than the VHS version they replaced. And it took a little while for dual layered discs to become the norm, contributing to the lackluster quality. People conveniently forget how long it took DVD to take off, despite it's supposed quantum leap over VHS. People also conveniently forget how expensive DVD players and movies were until the early 2000's. Adoption was slow because people were reluctant to give up video recording.

Upconverted DVD's look almost as good as a Blu-ray movie? I die a little inside every time I read that crap.

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Ok, it's very apparent the others are right and you are nothing more than a troll. I wasn't aware of that because I've never read your post, but it obviously makes sense now.

Keep on trolling and enjoying your pathetic life!

You can dismiss my posts as trolling if that makes you feel better. It really doesn't make a difference to me.

As for my life, of course I'll enjoy it.

 

[Firebot]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
Give me a freakin' break, $300 is a decent price for a good quality Blu-ray player. If you can't afford it or it is more than you are willing to pay, that's YOUR problem. Sony doesn't need to appease the Wal-Mart shopper to have Blu-ray become successful. As a matter of fact, Blu-ray is doing damn fine as it is. And if you ask me, it is doing better than fine which is starting to piss me off. When new releases come out, the Blu-ray version is always sold out, while the shitty DVD version is available by the truck load. Yes they sell way more DVDs than Blu-rays, but however many Blu-rays they get in, they sell out. Great sign for Blu-ray, bad sign for me. I'd rather have Blu-ray stay a niche with just enough revenue to keep the studios happy, but prices high enough that not every Joe Blow can have one.

And let me tell you, that $79 Blu-ray player you found at Newegg doesn't play Blu-rays by itself. You'll need a PC and the HD software which will run you a tad over $79. Any other genius comparisons? :roll:

Enjoy your long lasting Laserdisc wannabe.

 

[RU482]

stand alone blue ray players are not the same as blue ray drives.

apples to oranges

but yeah, what gives

 

[JackBurton]

Originally posted by: Firebot
Enjoy your long lasting Laserdisc wannabe.

lol, sure.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: boomhower
I can live with $300 players but the $30 discs kill it for me.

thats what gets me. $30 disc where the regular are $14 just does nto make it worth it.

for the bajillionth time; if you can't get BDs for under $20, then you must have not heard of Amazon, or the various other online outlets that have been selling BD for prices that out-compete DVD (well, price-wise but not numbers-wise, of course).


Also, BD hardware and software is cheaper at this point than DVD was at the same time from its introduction.

The main problem is the lack of HD adoption, and those that are buying the flatscreens never knowing that they don't have HD (no clue what HDMI is, how to get a real HD signal from their provider, etc).

It's certainly complicated for the ave. user, but when you have lots of people with flatscreens thinking that their signal is HD simply b/c they have an HD TV, then they play a DVD...well, of course they'll never find a reason to go Blu-Ray.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: boomhower
I can live with $300 players but the $30 discs kill it for me.

thats what gets me. $30 disc where the regular are $14 just does nto make it worth it.

for the bajillionth time; if you can't get BDs for under $20, then you must have not heard of Amazon, or the various other online outlets that have been selling BD for prices that out-compete DVD (well, price-wise but not numbers-wise, of course).

Yeah, I have about forty blu-ray movies and the only ones that I paid more than about $16 for was the Dark Knight and Wall-E because those movies were worth $25 to me. I've also bought Band of Brothers, Planet Earth, and the Godfather collection, but I'm not counting those even though I bought them during good sales.

Amazon had a lot of good deals last fall for BRDs and I got about ten movies from the recent Circuit City liquidation for about $8-15. I was lucky about finding decent movies at Circuit City for cheap, but buying a blu-ray player does not mean you have to buy $25 movies. I've still bought a lot of DVDs since I've got my PS3 because it wasn't worth the cost for the blu-ray version.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Dacalo

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: boomhower
I can live with $300 players but the $30 discs kill it for me.

thats what gets me. $30 disc where the regular are $14 just does nto make it worth it.

I have over 20 blu-ray movies and I have not paid over $18 for a movie with exception of Band of Brothers ($33) and Planet Earth ($40). I never understood why people would shop at overpriced stores like Best Buy for electronics.

I also have purchased plenty of $17 BDs at overpriced stores like Best Buy and CC.

I never understood why people let over-sweeping generalizations preclude real bargains.

Hell, the Godfather trilogy on BD was only $33 at Best Buy a few months back. $10 cheaper than Amazon or any other price offered for that set...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: JackBurton

Originally posted by: TruePaige
Elitism is just mind boggling sometimes.

LOL. Yeah, the nerve of people that think they should get rewarded for their hard work and sacrifices.

Money doesn't mean you worked harder than someone who makes less.

You are economically ignorant as well. DVD's make more money in a year than Blu-Ray.

Blu-Ray wishes it had DVD's volume.

I don't care what they price it at. That wasn't the point.

THE POINT (which you ignore every time you read a post) IS:

If prices go DOWN, it is good for THE PUBLIC.

except in the case where the ave public demands that full-screen, reformatted aspect ratios, and sub-par transfers should be the standard. I suppose that is the real downside to widespread success and adoption of the format.

While I hope BD succeeds, I hope it stays true to its current ideal: the best version available.

Honestly, the minute a BD is released with Pan&Scan to appease Witless Mable is the moment the actual film lovers will be searching for a new format....

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Kanalua


I CAN WATCH THE MOVIE IN MY UNDERWEAR!!!! (And no get arrested like I would at the local mega-screen-super-theater)...

pshhh. You're just going to the wrong theaters...

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: spacejamz
Let's see...blu ray sales took off after the PS3 came out in late Nov 2006 (a little over two years ago), and it is supposed to be outselling DVD already? how long did it take for DVD to overtake VHS? However long it took, I'm sure it was longer than 2 years and 3 months...

How long did it take for DVD player prices to go down anyway? I remember buying a Sony single disc player around 1999 for $450. I guess I should have been bitching to Sony back then that their player prices were too high...In any event, it looked like DVD turned out pretty well even though their prices were out of Joe Sixpack's budget when it first came out...

How soon people forget.

The fact is that BD hardware is what...60-70% the price of what a simple, non-progressive scan, non-upscaling, early gen DVD player was at the same time in its life? The same people bitching about the BD quality not being worth it now were feverishly clinging to their VHS tapes when DVD prices were through the roof.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
My question is, why would anyone want blu ray right now? We are seeing that streaming media is the future. Instant gratification is the future. The only advantage blu ray currently holds is picture/sound quality. That will change over the next two years. So why would I want to invest in something that is going to be dead within 5 years. At least DVDs had a pretty darn good lifespan.

I do not believe the same will be said about blu ray.

I make enough money and made good choices to easily afford a blu ray player but as good ole JackBurden has said it is a luxury item for people who made good choices in life. I find that pretty much laughable. The irony is strong in that because I am pretty sure investing in a dying type of media is the epitome of making BAD choices in life.

Malarkey. streaming media will not touch quality BD media in at least 10 years, if ever. It just shows you have no experience with the format's capabilities.

BD quality is about 7-10x that of what broadcast HD gives you. Add to the monumentally inadequate download speeds to match a BD-quality presentation

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: Inferno0032
Right now, I think this is the psychology and economics Sony is going to play a bit.

Person sees Blu-Ray play for $300+
They realize they could have a PS3 for $400, which has a hard drive, and is basically an entire computer.

Psychology is that PS3= good deal, which then hopefully sells some games and accessories.

That's my take on it at this point.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123050978162738293.html

One of the PlayStation 3's key non-gaming selling points - the inexpensive Blu-ray player - has been rendered moot, as the market sees stand-alone players that run for $200. Between that fact and the downturn in the economy, Sony's strategy for the PS3 seems to be backfiring. It isn't that it wasn't a sound strategy - it's just that the economy suddenly became hostile to high prices.

Not all blu-ray players are $300. You're using one example and taking it as fact.

http://www.kokeytechnology.com...ntendo-wii-sales-2009/

PS3 sales are still 1/3 lower than Xbox 360. It's good in theory to believe that people are buying the PS3 for blu-ray, but it's simply overblown. Most mom and pops consider the PS3 to be a gaming console. Only the geek crowd would use the PS3 as a blu-ray player only. I know my mom would never buy a ps3 for a blu-ray player. She'd buy the real thing.

Today, maybe. But to doubt that the real strategy for PS3 was the big-bad HD DVD killer is ridiculous.

The PS3 has already achieved its initial purpose. The format won, and there is no other choice for the current High-end of video and sound quality. Making the argument now, a year after the fact that the PS3 is now priced to make it a good buy over stand-alones (and justification for why some short-minded analyst erroneously believes the format is over-priced) is just silly.