Blu-rays are 8 years old and DVDs still cling to them like a cancerous tumor. Why?

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

OK, interesting to know that VHS players are still available. I actually haven't seen a VHS tape for sale in a retail store since around 2003....I remember that when Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith came out on DVD in 2005, they announced that it was the first SW film that wouldn't be available on VHS tape.

I personally have not had a VHS player since 1996; I always hated the format, and after mine died I never got it fixed or replaced...Of course, I had no way to see movies at home until I got my DVD Player years later, but at that time I wasn't the avid film/TV fan that I am now....

[KRW1]

VHS was a lousy format. Absolutely terrible. I have a nostalgia for it because it was the first time we could watch movies at home and start a little collection. People used to think I was mad buying films when you could tape them off the TV for nothing.

Come to think of it, it was the same sort of people that used to tell me VHS would die when film channels first started up in the UK; probably the same people wondering why I buy bluray now when Netflix does HD. C'est la vie.

[Anthony P]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

OK, interesting to know that VHS players are still available. I actually haven't seen a VHS tape for sale in a retail store since around 2003....I remember that when Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith came out on DVD in 2005, they announced that it was the first SW film that wouldn't be available on VHS tape.

But that was exactly the point and the reason I went with VHS. I could have said I have some old 78's that my grand parents bought in the 30's and 40's but even though 78's got replaced as a distribution format by 33's in the 50's, 33's are still being distributed and it is the same turntable that will play both formats, So it is not a big deal that if my turn table brakes I can still get a new one and listen to that 70+ year old music. But VHS has been dead as a distribution format and the end of an evolutionary line for close to a decade. When one realizes that you will most likely be able to buy a new player for a decade or two after an evolutionary line is dead and then most likely used for an other decade or two the question "But what happens if blu-ray dies in __ years? Yes, we'll own our favorite films on blu-ray, but what will we do when our bluray player craps out and can't buy another player? Does our collection become obsolete?" doesn't make sense any more.

[Wman1996]

I really would like Blu-ray only releases. I have a strong feeling if there was no DVD or Digital Copy included, the overall sets would be $5-$10 cheaper.
I have really no use whatsoever for the DVDs. I keep the DVD copies in the set, but that is only for collecting/presentation sake. I sure as heck don't need the DVDs.

[Tok]

The studios keep doing this to keep the prices artificially high. I can see it with family aimed films but not for a majority of releases. I think it's getting rather ridiculous especially on 3D releases containing 3 discs or more of the same film.

[evoxturbo]

Boardwalk Empire Season 4. No DVDs and cheaper packaging than season 1,2,3, which all had DVDs. Price is five dollars higher on release day than Season 3 on release day. Real slap in the face.

[Carlanga]

Originally Posted by Wman1996

I really would like Blu-ray only releases. I have a strong feeling if there was no DVD or Digital Copy included, the overall sets would be $5-$10 cheaper.
I have really no use whatsoever for the DVDs. I keep the DVD copies in the set, but that is only for collecting/presentation sake. I sure as heck don't need the DVDs.

umm maybe cheaper n the first 6 months, then they will back up the prices again and you will have even less content.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by Wman1996

I really would like Blu-ray only releases. I have a strong feeling if there was no DVD or Digital Copy included, the overall sets would be $5-$10 cheaper.
I have really no use whatsoever for the DVDs. I keep the DVD copies in the set, but that is only for collecting/presentation sake. I sure as heck don't need the DVDs.

Vote right here:

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=240420

You'll see most people would rather pay ($16) for just a blu-ray - many dont wanna pay for a blu-ray that comes with a DVD copy of the same content for $20.

[eiknarf]

D.F.T.
Dead Forum Tuesday.

Subscribed to 220 threads. Not one active today.

Great work guys!

[Lipcsey]

From my experience people that watch movies on their 32" 720P TV (which is what some of my family members have for TVs and are quite happy with them) would not notice much difference between DVD and bluray. Now I have personally bought bluray players for my family members so they can start buying blurays because I want to support the format and think it's superior. The problem is that they are using such a small screen with low resolution. I admit that on my Sony Bravia 40" I could notice a difference between DVD and bluray; however, it is not NEARLY as much of a difference when compared to viewing content on my pj with a 100" screen. I can no longer watch DVDs now that I have a projector and have sold off my entire DVD collection.

[bruceames]

Originally Posted by Tok

The studios keep doing this to keep the prices artificially high. I can see it with family aimed films but not for a majority of releases. I think it's getting rather ridiculous especially on 3D releases containing 3 discs or more of the same film.

3D aside, I don't find this at all the case. New releases by the same studio tend to have the same price whether it has a DVD in it or not. The greater the sales potential, the more likely it will include a DVD.

Of course the 3D SKU is around $5.00 more but it is worth every penny, IMO.

[thankyouforthevenom]

Never once played a dvd that comes with a blu ray. Never once "watched it anywhere" using the ultraviolet code thing. What a lot of pointless fluff we get with our blu rays.

I'm sorry but there's just no reason for people to want to "watch it anywhere", you bought the blu ray to watch it on your tv. How much can you like a movie that you then need to watch it on your tablet on the train? Listen to music on the train instead, or play a game, or read a book or magazine. Who are all these people that are watching movies anywhere they go? Why? Nope, don't get it at all.

[crystalized]

Originally Posted by buzzwoody

The difference between DVD and VHS is HUGE. There is very little reason to change from DVD to Blu-ray. The next logical move for the market is to change to digital and skip blu-ray altogether.

This exactly. But also the price of blu-ray. If you put DVD and Blu-ray at the same price next to each other on the shelf, then people would choose Blu-ray. But there just isn't enough incentive to the average folk to justify the price difference between DVD and Blu-ray. Same goes for blu-ray equipment: players, readers, and burners are a lot more expensive that dvd equipment.

The price gap between blu-ray and DVD is still often $10-30 depending on the movie. That's a sizable gap. If the gap was always less than $10, blu-ray would have conquered by now.

[Canada]

Originally Posted by crystalized

This exactly. But also the price of blu-ray. If you put DVD and Blu-ray at the same price next to each other on the shelf, then people would choose Blu-ray. But there just isn't enough incentive to the average folk to justify the price difference between DVD and Blu-ray. Same goes for blu-ray equipment: players, readers, and burners are a lot more expensive that dvd equipment.

The price gap between blu-ray and DVD is still often $10-30 depending on the movie. That's a sizable gap. If the gap was always less than $10, blu-ray would have conquered by now.

Oh my god Blu ray's been around for nearly 10 years. The price gap between blu-ray and DVD is still often $10-30 depending on the movie. That may be true but Quentin Tarantino was on Craig Fergeson last night and he that VHS tapes were $ 75 when they first came out.

[Thomas Irwin]

Originally Posted by Canada

Oh my god Blu ray's been around for nearly 10 years. The price gap between blu-ray and DVD is still often $10-30 depending on the movie. That may be true but Quentin Tarantino was on Craig Fergeson last night and he that VHS tapes were $ 75 when they first came out.

I remember those days well. There was a New England retail store called Lechmere (no longer in existence) that used to carry some releases for roughly $100 (mostly Betamax). People just didn't really own many films back then. You either rented them or taped stuff off TV.

[Dylan34]

Originally Posted by Thomas Irwin

I remember those days well. There was a New England department store called Lechmere (no longer in existence) that used to carry some releases for over $100 (mostly Betamax). People just didn't really own many films back then. You either rented them or taped stuff of TV.

Yep, VHS started to come down in the late '80s. I remember my mom always told me to make sure we had the rentals together because if one ever got lost, it would cost like 90 bucks. By 1987 though, prices had dropped considerably. I went and saw Superman lV at the theater in '87 when I was like 8 or 9 and then I got the VHS for christmas. That was the first VHS I owned.

[Tok]

Originally Posted by crystalized

This exactly. But also the price of blu-ray. If you put DVD and Blu-ray at the same price next to each other on the shelf, then people would choose Blu-ray. But there just isn't enough incentive to the average folk to justify the price difference between DVD and Blu-ray. Same goes for blu-ray equipment: players, readers, and burners are a lot more expensive that dvd equipment.



The price gap between blu-ray and DVD is still often $10-30 depending on the movie. That's a sizable gap. If the gap was always less than $10, blu-ray would have conquered by now.

Your shopping in the wrong places. At most I see $10 premium but that's comparing a bare bones DVD with a multiple copy BD/DVD/DC combo. Most BDs I purchase are well under $15.

[eiknarf]

the point is, it's 2014, and I shouldn't have to buy a DVD when I shop for a blu-ray

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by eiknarf

the point is, it's 2014, and I shouldn't have to buy a DVD when I shop for a blu-ray

Tell the studios that. Some are catching on though. Sony doesn't include a DVD anymore with most of their new releases unless it's a kids/family title.

[eiknarf]

Originally Posted by HD Goofnut

Tell the studios that. Some are catching on though. Sony doesn't include a DVD anymore with most of their new releases unless it's a kids/family title.

If they still release a DVD by itself, then why release a blu-ray with a DVD packaged with it? I understand giving people an option to buy one package that has both in it, but that's just it; it should only be an option