Can't convince my friend that Blu is the way to go!!

[SavagePotato]

Originally Posted by CAB

Seriously, Blu-ray is too expensive for some because HD isn't high on their priority list or they really don't appreciate the difference. We can afford what we prioritize. I think only the simple believe that if HD DVD would have won this war that quality players and content would have gotten cheap.

In short, we should take it easy judging those that choose not to buy in to something they won't want or use. I just let them come over to my house so I can enjoy watching their jaws drop.

Exposing people to HD is always fun, I put pirates 1 on for my cousin as he was passing through for a visit, all he could say is man now I want to sit down and watch this.

[CptGreedle]

Well I am assuming the BDA will attack DVD as aggressively as they attacked HD DVD. The BDA said there would not be any players less than $399 for the holidays, then 2 or 3 came out that were less than that. Now the HD DVD is on its last legs, I think they should focus aggressively on DVD now.
I am not saying a firesale is what we want... and without a competing HD format, the damage of cheap players is lessened. As long as they can be produced cheaper, and sold for less, i think a player (maybe even an older model) would hit such a low price. It is not a matter of if, but of when. By the holidays, prices will be dropping to get more sales and get more support over DVD. If the prices do not drop much, I don't see them selling as well as they should.

Still, this is all speculation right now. We still have over 11 months until we will see what happens. Whether or not the players get that cheap, the fact is they are a lot cheaper now than they were, and someone (like the OP's friend), should be able to afford a BD player AND keep his 360 for games.

[MrXpress]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Perhaps, but if it isn't a priority then why buy the $2-3k TV? That's the logical breakdown in all of this.

I think the problem lies in how often a movie will get used; a $3,000 TV will get used just about every day for a long period of time, whereas in most cases a movie will get watched once or twice. At $10-$15, that isn't a huge deal and most people will find it worth it to purchase it (i.e., one's logic may be "I could spend $8 and watch it in the theater, or spend $12 on a DVD and have it forever"), but $30 for a movie is a little too steep for any non-enthusiast, and also creeps into video game territory.

[Sonny]

Hell its 19.99 for a new release DVD...

[Sonny]

I wanted to see 'Cash Back' but its only on DVD is 25$!!!! Magnolia films has some interesting movies coming out but theses NOWAY I'm spending 25$ on a DVD

[Sylin]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Size of the total library is irrelevant in every sense. Only the size of the future pipeline matters.

I respectfully disagree. Imagine buying a new PS3 and there's no games available in stores or on PSN. When you check out Playstation.com you see a big ad declaring, "Hey, but we've got 50 games coming later this year!" Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your investment.

This is an extreme example, but yours was an extreme statement. Ever since the advent of the console, consumers gravitate toward the one with the biggest library. The only exception to this is the Wii, whose success can be attributed to its novelty, low price, and Nintendo's strong brand.

I'm not saying the size of the total library is the ONLY success factor, but it is hardly "irrelevant in every sense."

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

Not a chance.

Seriously

I wouldn't assume BD player pricing is going anywhere anytime soon.

$349.99 to $500 is going to be the pricing on these for a while, the players will however improve in performance for the money you are paying.

Then in about mid 2009 you may start seeing $149-$199 players. And from there on they will be in the $100 ish range.

[FilmmakingFiasco]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

I've never quite gotten that aspect either. If you buy the $2-3k TV, and I boldly assume that your intent in doing so was to see something presented in HD, then how is a few hundred bucks to ACTUALLY SEE something in HD expensive?

Most of my parents and their friends (the 50-60 year old crowd) bought a new TV, not because it was in HD but because it was larger.

When I bought my first TV in 2004, there was the great debate between 720p and 1080i. I picked up a 65" that could do 1080i. From August 2004 to January 2005, I had it hooked up to basic cable. I bought my TV primarily to watch content in widescreen (whether 1:85 or 2:35) and because the TV was larger. When I finally got a satellite in 2005, there wasn't much content in HD yet. HBO had some shows, HD Net existed but there were only a handful of channels.

I remember watching a dog show on ESPN HD with a friends simply because it was in high def.

[phranctoast]

Originally Posted by tqlla

You should tell him to buy an HDDVD player.

Thats what he deserves

I've gone that route before after I got so pissed off at my own friends.

At some point I just hoped they would buy into HDDVD so they could get f*cked later by their own stupididty.....and I could laugh.

yeah..im a dick

[BTBuck1]

Originally Posted by CptGreedle

Well I am assuming the BDA will attack DVD as aggressively as they attacked HD DVD. The BDA said there would not be any players less than $399 for the holidays, then 2 or 3 came out that were less than that. Now the HD DVD is on its last legs, I think they should focus aggressively on DVD now.
I am not saying a firesale is what we want... and without a competing HD format, the damage of cheap players is lessened. As long as they can be produced cheaper, and sold for less, i think a player (maybe even an older model) would hit such a low price. It is not a matter of if, but of when. By the holidays, prices will be dropping to get more sales and get more support over DVD. If the prices do not drop much, I don't see them selling as well as they should.

Still, this is all speculation right now. We still have over 11 months until we will see what happens. Whether or not the players get that cheap, the fact is they are a lot cheaper now than they were, and someone (like the OP's friend), should be able to afford a BD player AND keep his 360 for games.

Remember that these studio's and CE's do make & sell DVD's too. The whole point of making HD formats was/is to recapture some of the revenue they have lost in recent years due to early adopters such as us realizing, DVD now looks like ass on our HDTV's and stopped buying packaged media.
Really, I mean when the same movie looks infinitely better broadcast on HBO, why even buy the DVD right?

Buy comming out with High definition discs, it brings in and back in a whole new audience that really wants a be all, end all format for collecting movies on. Since these discs are virtually transparent to their film origins in Picture and sound, to many of us this represents the once and for all solution to collecting the movies we love.

In no way do these studio's even want to end DVD sales right now, it's a cash cow for them. These HD discs are a supplimentary income and a security blanket for future sales. As each DVD collector comes out from under the ether and realizes their DVD's look terrible, they have an option immediately readily available.

DVD has atleast another 5-6 years in it before it starts showing signs of fading, this just being my opinion, and if history has anything to say about things

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by ikcizokm

I respectfully disagree. Imagine buying a new PS3 and there's no games available in stores or on PSN. When you check out Playstation.com you see a big ad declaring, "Hey, but we've got 50 games coming later this year!" Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in your investment.

This is an extreme example, but yours was an extreme statement. Ever since the advent of the console, consumers gravitate toward the one with the biggest library. The only exception to this is the Wii, whose success can be attributed to its novelty, low price, and Nintendo's strong brand.

I'm not saying the size of the total library is the ONLY success factor, but it is hardly "irrelevant in every sense."

Then why aren't they buying the PS2 more than anything else? Simple, because new games matter more. They buy the system with the best and most "current" and upcoming games, not past releases. Maybe when I say pipeline I should clarify that I am including current year releases. Just saying that people buying consoles in '08 aren't going to be too concenred about games from '06 & early '07.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by FilmmakingFiasco

Most of my parents and their friends (the 50-60 year old crowd) bought a new TV, not because it was in HD but because it was larger.

When I bought my first TV in 2004, there was the great debate between 720p and 1080i. I picked up a 65" that could do 1080i. From August 2004 to January 2005, I had it hooked up to basic cable. I bought my TV primarily to watch content in widescreen (whether 1:85 or 2:35) and because the TV was larger. When I finally got a satellite in 2005, there wasn't much content in HD yet. HBO had some shows, HD Net existed but there were only a handful of channels.

I remember watching a dog show on ESPN HD with a friends simply because it was in high def.

I agree that is often true in regards to buying a new TV for the size, but it's a stupid reason. Most of your cost is in the HD quality not the size. They could buy massive last-gen TVs for far less. They are buying larger current-gen TVs and paying top $$ then not using the main feature.

[Blu-Ray Buckeye]

Originally Posted by MrXpress

I think the problem lies in how often a movie will get used; a $3,000 TV will get used just about every day for a long period of time, whereas in most cases a movie will get watched once or twice. At $10-$15, that isn't a huge deal and most people will find it worth it to purchase it (i.e., one's logic may be "I could spend $8 and watch it in the theater, or spend $12 on a DVD and have it forever"), but $30 for a movie is a little too steep for any non-enthusiast, and also creeps into video game territory.

BDs are no more expesnive right now than DVDs were at the same point in their evolution. I have 50 Bds at least and have never paid near $30.

[MrXpress]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

BDs are no more expesnive right now than DVDs were at the same point in their evolution. I have 50 Bds at least and have never paid near $30.

Right, but DVD was a revolutionary (not evolutionary, as Blu-ray is) format and didn't really take off until prices were lower. Best Buy is, by far, the leading HDM retailer, and prices there don't gravitate too far from MSRP. Thus, the prices most people are seeing for BDs are around the $30 mark, which IMO is slowing adoption tremendously.

The proof in the pudding is the massive increase in volume of HDM discs sold whenever there is a BOGO deal; if enthusiasts are holding out for discs to be under $20, why would the common consumer be any different?

[Flux88MPH]

Originally Posted by BTBuck1

Seriously

I wouldn't assume BD player pricing is going anywhere anytime soon.

$349.99 to $500 is going to be the pricing on these for a while, the players will however improve in performance for the money you are paying.

Then in about mid 2009 you may start seeing $149-$199 players. And from there on they will be in the $100 ish range.

I am with you on this. Sony and the rest of the BDA has to get a return on their R&D before they will drop the prices on players. I'd say your pricing timeframe is probably dead on.

[lovinblu198angrowing]

I have one thing to say, Final levels of Heavenly sword. If you put that in for him and he doesn't feel like he is playing in a blockbuster movie he is either blind or ignorent, or most likely BOTH! Obviously there is always the possability that kind of game is not his cup of tea, but he should be smart enough to know that kind of gameplay "only possible with the PS3" as pointed out by so many developers, will expand into the different genres in gaming leaving the 360 in the dust as it is just not a solid enough system to compete, they will need to launch yet another model, most likely still not as advanced as the PS3, and the PS3 will still have a good long future ahead of it. If he is you typical X-boy and just likes shooters, remind him that Haze and KillZone II will be PS3 exclusive, and I have no doubt that they will be the start of new standards in FPS gaming. I read that when Lair was finished, the developers had not even tapped into 50% of the PS3's raw power, granted this game got some poor reviews, but graphicly and technicaly speaking the game I felt was a good game, and at only fifty percent, that is impressive. Trust me, when the PS3 was Launched Christmas of 2006 I got my first one, at the time I too had an X-box, my wife wanted one. Needless to say, it just could not compare with the PS3 and was sold two weeks after.

[T-Wrecks]

AND if price point was an issue that caused the buyer's remorse/sour grapes response, then you have no shot. His perception is skewed and mind unopen to change.

HOWEVER, if you have a 42" or bigger 1080p TV (preferably Sony/Panny) with a decent stereo system, then get his hind-end in front of it and watch Black Hawk Down or POTC or some other fantastic Blu-ray selection.

[Whyser]

The Dark Knight... in HD

... only available on Blu-Ray.

[bluperch]

Originally Posted by Blu-Ray Buckeye

I agree that is often true in regards to buying a new TV for the size, but it's a stupid reason. Most of your cost is in the HD quality not the size. They could buy massive last-gen TVs for far less. They are buying larger current-gen TVs and paying top $$ then not using the main feature.

It just shows the lack of HD knowledge (and education) for the average consumer. But at least their semi-futureproofed for when someone explains to them about HD. However, for those I know personally with some HD knowledge, they bought HD for sports. Plain and simple. The wife could care less. The dude wanted sports in HD. They're not movie collectors. So they watch their sports and watch other HD content provided by the cable provider and are quite happy with their purchase. I really can't begrudge them this.

However, if they ever talk about getting HD DVD, I'll threaten to destroy their HDTVs.

[tron3]

Let blu-ray speak for itself. Invite him over to watch a movie with drinks and snacks. Obviously, only blu-ray movie choices and be open enough to let him pick.

Sounds like the type who won't confess to you he was wrong, but I bet he rethinks he strategy.