Should DVDs be discontinued in 2021?

[stratford]

Originally Posted by Aclea

Unlike your Ground Zero format extermination policy, they still had choice for other brands. That's very different from eliminating every single DVD product in the world and forcibly re-educating consumers to your preferred format. Your analogy would actually be that if every soft drink were eliminated as you wish DVD were, people would have no choice but to drink New Coke, even if they didn't want it. Which would not have worked.

When deprived of choice, customers not only refused to adopt the new flavor the conglomerate tried to force on them, they actively lobbied for it to be stopped altogether and sought out surviving stocks of the original: you had to pry the existing classic Coke stock from their cold dead hands, that's how emotive the issue became. Conglomerates stopping manufacturing one of the most successful consumer products ever and forcing a mass market to buy a much more expensive option that still has less choice of titles (and kinds of titles) available would have been a catastrophe.

The market - consumers - decide. Had Coke introduced New Coke as an addition to the range rather than a replacement they would have avoided customer ill will and rebellion (and yes, it became a huge issue in its day because it was an evil corporation taking away a product that people liked) and it may have taken off. Instead, the very act of removing choice and leaving consumers no option led to people refusing to even try it and violently opposing it - and, ironically, ultimately resulted in an increase in sales of classic Coke. Trying the same stunt with DVD would have quite possibly damaged the BD format even more because people would just dig their heels in and refuse to even try it until the conglomerates reversed their decision, and even then it would leave such a bitter taste in the craw that many would make a point of not upgrading. It would turn what was being marketed as a Rolls Royce into something the public saw as an Edsel.



Laser Disc was not a 'bad tasting' version of VHS, but the mass market never adopted it.

ref 'Laser Disc was not a 'bad tasting' version of VHS, but the mass market never adopted it.' Laser Disc was a visible improvement over VHS, I owned one. Other things including the limited number of titles and cost of titles available did not help

[orangerunner]

Originally Posted by stratford

ref 'Laser Disc was not a 'bad tasting' version of VHS, but the mass market never adopted it.' Laser Disc was a visible improvement over VHS, I owned one. Other things including the limited number of titles and cost of titles available did not help

Laser Disc didn't catch on for a number of reasons. In the 1980s and early-mid 1990s, the VHS format was still relatively new and expensive so switching formats was a big financial decision.

-this era was also a time of economic recession

-the format reminded people more of records (as opposed to CDs), which were quickly phased-out of the retail market by the early 1990s.

-the format was never adopted by most of the major rental outlets. Again, their size made displaying them difficult, they scratched quite easily.

[Lee A Stewart]

Originally Posted by stratford

ref 'Laser Disc was not a 'bad tasting' version of VHS, but the mass market never adopted it.' Laser Disc was a visible improvement over VHS, I owned one. Other things including the limited number of titles and cost of titles available did not help

LD was the videophile's choice of formats during the VHS Era. It was never going to be a mass market product because:

1. It didn't record like VHS did.
2. It had side breaks
3. It was expensive
4. It was not readily available in video rental stores like Blockbuster.

But it did prove one thing. That a niche home video format can survive and thrive. Just like 4K UHD Blu-ray is today.

[meremortal]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

LD was the videophile's choice of formats during the VHS Era. It was never going to be a mass market product because:

1. It didn't record like VHS did.
2. It had side breaks
3. It was expensive
4. It was not readily available in video rental stores like Blockbuster.

But it did prove one thing. That a niche home video format can survive and thrive. Just like 4K UHD Blu-ray is today.

Or for purchase in Wal Mart/K-Mart (K-Mart was nearly equally as popular in the area, especially in the early to mid 90s). I'd never been to a Best Buy or Target growing up since there wasn't one anywhere nearby - not sure if they carried LDs in the 90s or earlier. The only store I can recall selling LDs was a Camelot Music and that was a small clearance section. Don't remember if they were regularly carried in the store or not. Also don't ever recall seeing any D-VHS tapes in a store in the early 2000s.

[Lee A Stewart]

I went to Tower Records and a specialty high end audio/video store - both in New York City. I worked in the city so it was convenient for me. Strictly sales, no rentals.

Years later I discovered Laserland in Carle Place, Long Island where they sold and rented LDs. I never rented because it was a drive from Lynbrook and it was a per day rental.

[smithb]

Originally Posted by Lee A Stewart

I went to Tower Records and a specialty high end audio/video store - both in New York City. I worked in the city so it was convenient for me. Strictly sales, no rentals.

Years later I discovered Laserland in Carle Place, Long Island where they sold and rented LDs. I never rented because it was a drive from Lynbrook and it was a per day rental.

Yes, Tower Records was the main place I went for rental and purchases of VHS. They also had a decent section of Laser Disks for purchase. I do not recall BestBuy Superstores dominating VHS sales until a few years later.

I recall a person on another site claiming serious movie collecting didn't start until DVD. That VHS was mainly for rental only. However, many of us from that time were heavily involved in collecting VHS tapes. The only difference was that VHS collecting was primarily catalogue titles. Due to the rental side, it took much longer for new releases to be released for sale on VHS (other than as used from rental stores). Batman was an exception.

[Gizz]

Originally Posted by smithb

Yes, Tower Records was the main place I went for rental and purchases of VHS. They also had a decent section of Laser Disks for purchase. I do not recall BestBuy Superstores dominating VHS sales until a few years later.

I recall a person on another site claiming serious movie collecting didn't start until DVD. That VHS was mainly for rental only. However, many of us from that time were heavily involved in collecting VHS tapes. The only difference was that VHS collecting was primarily catalogue titles. Due to the rental side, it took much longer for new releases to be released for sale on VHS (other than as used from rental stores). Batman was an exception.

VHS was my first gateway in collecting films. I would get a few for my Birthday then a pile for Christmas. If there was a film that I could not wait for like Twister I would save up and get a ex-Rental copy before it would be released I really do miss the days of Blockbuster Video. As for DVD I got more DVD,s for Christmas this year. Classic Doctor Who so no I would like DVD to stick around.

[Pohjanpaju]

At least here in Northern Europe we have many pretty good TV-series that are available on DVD and more will come each year. However, none of these is available on Blu-ray simply due to higher manufacturing cost . If DVD would be discontinued that would mean a lot less titles to choose from and thus only mainstream would remain.

[skynetwins90]

the price is too good to miss. when infinity war and endgame hit home media every best buy and walmart around me sold out of the dvds. I mostly buy bluray but it seems like most people will grab the dvd version. my dad has way more dvds then blu-ray. For what I've seen it seems like 4k and bluray still sell but the dvd's fly of the selves.

[Winnerden]

I buy both, but it would be a shame to lose DVDs, as a lot of films and TV shows maybe wouldn't get a release. Plus I have a few friends who can't afford the higher price of Blu Ray's and 4K UHD hardware and software.

[renegadeviking]

Are you kidding me? I find dvds for 2.99 or 3.99 for seeing it three or four times with nobody to show off. They want to know if I have the movie no matter the format and this is once in a while. Normally people ask if I seen a movie enough to carry dialogue. I had someone borrow the dvds and ship it back.

Being jealous of bluray or 4k doesn't even exist with most people. They are only jealous of my Playstation 4 Pro or Playstation 5. Blurays are literally for Youtube channels like CoolDuder. Youtube channels is a lot of hard work BTW. It takes 25% of the whole day to make a 6 minute video! I think CoolDuder is make believe just like Angry videogame nerd.
There is something fake about this videos such as he drives to electronic stores and finds bad movies to collect and keeps them. Most people collect good movies.

[fourfliesDVD]

I have what I think is a relatively small Blu-Ray collection (probably less than 400 discs)...

Yet, I bought How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days. It was maybe $2.00. I might even keep it for years. Matthew McConaughey is hot and worth a couple bucks shirtless in HD, even in a bad movie.

Though- there are many movies I wouldn't buy for $0.60.

[hanshotfirst1138]

There’s lots of stuff, particularly TV shows, which will never get mastered in HD. I’d rather have them on DVD than not have them at all.

[Cruel Angel]

Originally Posted by hanshotfirst1138

There’s lots of stuff, particularly TV shows, which will never get mastered in HD. I’d rather have them on DVD than not have them at all.

Damn right.

That's why my main concern when I moved up to 4k was how well dvds would upscale than watching actual 4k content

[kuzronk]

SD on Blu-ray > DVD

[larsknudsen]

Originally Posted by kuzronk

SD on Blu-ray > DVD

There are legal restrictions preventing that.

[kuzronk]

Originally Posted by larsknudsen

There are legal restrictions preventing that.

?

Anime in the US has these releases all the time, looks a tiny bit nicer with far less discs.

[KPackratt2k]

As interesting as it may seem to release older content in SD on Blu-ray, there are many issues that prevent it from being the most viable option. First of all, Blu-ray still has a small market share compared to that of DVD (roughly 30% compared to 60%), so releasing exclusively to SD Blu would basically limit the potential audience of that content. The average DVD user is more likely to resort to streaming than spend the extra money upgrading to Blu-ray at a time where physical media is declining.

Second, Blu-ray was meant to be a high-definition format, so when a movie enthusiast hears the word "Blu-ray", they immediately associate the term with high definition video. This is the reason why many of the SD Blu-ray releases get criticized for (obviously) not being in HD. To me, authoring SD content onto Blu-ray handicaps the format the same way as authoring VHS content onto DVD. Sure, you get the benefit of higher bit-rates with less discs to deal with, but in the end it's only worth the effort to those who care about getting the absolute best AV quality and the convenience of not having to change the discs often.

Third, because of Blu-ray's extensive DRM mechanisms, getting a Blu-ray player to play your SD Blu-rays on a period-correct CRT display will be difficult, if not outright impossible. They stopped making players with analog outputs a long time ago, so if you manage to find one, chances are you wouldn't be able to play the discs on it due to the lack of updates. While HDMI-to-AV adapters exist, their quality varies and not all of them can handle HDCP signals. While CRT users may be a minor crowd (outside of retro gaming), this is still a valid concern to point out for those who want to watch older content on older displays for quality purposes, as older lower-quality video looks worse on larger screens.

And finally, how many times have you seen a major movie publisher (i.e. not a boutique label or a lesser-known publisher) release an old TV show on Blu-ray as-is without any HD restoration work? Probably next to never. That's because the major movie studios know there's a risk with releasing things with very little revenue generated in return. This in conjunction with the first problem is the reason why TV shows on DVD (even if those produced in HD) are more common than TV show releases on Blu-ray.

By releasing SD content on Blu-ray only, it would be a matter of sacrificing a significant part of your audience for the sake of using less discs on a format that wasn't meant for just SD content.

Though I admit, I suppose SD Blu-ray makes sense for long-running shows with a huge number of episodes where the storage space of DVD would make it impractical to release on the format. Still, in my opinion, I'd rather see more HD shows get released on Blu-ray first.

[frederiickx]

No. DVD's are still the biggest sellers of physical media over Blu-rays, and are cheaper for a lot of people. I only buy Blu-ray unless I have a movie I love that isn't on Blu-ray. I think they can always co-exist, together. I'd hate to have to end up replacing all my DVD's like we had to do with VHS. Let them co-exist together.

[Vilya]

It might be obvious, but I still enjoy a few DVDs myself. Our nice upscaling disc players and/or upscaling TVs have made many of them more watchable than ever before.

I prefer that a product live or die upon its merits and a popular profitable product has much merit. I also prefer to decide for myself what to buy without anyone arbitrarily limiting my choices.