So, this blog indicates that the so-called extinct format of HD-DVD is still outselling Blu-Ray.
The way this piece is written is troublesome. You should never exclude PS3 from the coverage of Blu-Ray player sales. I have no clue in the world why any rational empirical investigator would ever do such a thing, except out of pure study bias. You want to show poor uptake for Blu-Ray, so you exclude the top selling player. The primary function of the PS3 is Blu-Ray playback. Truth be told, it is a distant 3rd place as a game console. People like me seldom play games on our PS3s. We use them because they are the most advanced media consoles on the market. Nothing beats PS3 as a media player.
Nevertheless, this blog does eventually put a grip on the real issue. The poll at the bottom indicates that 41% of the people surveyed believe Blu-Ray movies are too expensive. I would qualify that in with the following tag: to buy and to rent. The cheapest Blu-Ray disks are about $9.99 on the shelf at Frys. These are Universal/NBC/SciFi channel made for Cable TV movies. That is, this is not sort of material videophiles desire in the first place. The more normative price, even when sharply discounted, is around $25. With tax or shipping (hopefully not both) it's $27.
In sharp contrast, the full spectrum of HD-DVDs {which is a very short spotty list indeed} can be had for less than $10. Most can be had for $7.99. This includes some damn good stuff. The whole first season of Battlestar Galactica can be had for $10.00. I can get The Sting for $7.99. I can have the Bourne movies for the same price.
There is a serious lesson here for Hollywood. Drop your prices and they will buy it. For some unseemly reason, Hollywood seems hopelessly fixated on the $30 price point. I understand their logic and it is utterly defeated by the realities of the market. Studios believe you should be willing to pay $30 per Blu-Ray. More than 3 people will watch it, in all likelihood. You can see it as often as you like. It kills both DVD and the theater experience. Since tickets cost about $10 per seat, why wouldn't you buy the movie at $30?
- Perhaps we are not willing to buy until we know we like the film
- That means we saw it at the theater at a high cost.
- Maybe we make far less money than Hollywood thinks.
- Maybe Hollywood produces cash at such a vastly different level of scale that they have lost all touch with typical Midwestern average people.
In any case, accept what the market is telling you, oh Hollywood studios. Make $11.99 the top price for any Blu-Ray. Sell many more at $8.99. Watch the system take off and fly.
One thing I want to insist on: If you can't tell the difference between a Blu-Ray and a DVD, you are vision impaired. Seek Lasik vision correction now. You have some real problems. If you say there isn't much quality difference between a DVD and Blu-Ray, you are just plain damn wrong. You can be mathematically discredited very quickly. Further, I can run a controlled experiment that will embarrass you. Of course, we know these kinds of statements, challanging Blu-Ray's undisputable quality, amount to thinly veiled sour grapes.
Of course there is the possibility that you connected a PS3 to a plain old fashioned NTSC CRT. If you did this, you are just a plain old flaming fucktard, and there is nothing I can do to help you.
