http://n4g.com/industrynews/News-178587.aspx
this is just so dumb, no one is forcing them to buy it if its to expsensive. protest something you don't have? protesting a want but not a need?
Consumers protest blu-ray
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Where does that say anything about protesting?SiKh22
the picture! lol
I'm fairly sure that's a joke.
The step from DVD to Bluray isn't that big....there will be something better...I can buy a DVD for about 15 dollars...yet a movie in bluray will cost me something like 30 dollars. Bluray simply isn't a big enough improvement to warrant a price tag double that of a normal DVD.
As for Bluray players ? They are still overpriced and I believe manufacturers are still milking the fact that its "new".
---> coming from a person who owns a PS3
[QUOTE="SiKh22"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Where does that say anything about protesting?Ninja-Hippo
the picture! lol
I'm fairly sure that's a joke.
Definitely :lol:[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Where does that say anything about protesting?SiKh22
the picture! lol
That was a stock picture from people protesting HD-DVD. Notice the sign that says "Go Blu"?
The actual article is about a survey of 1000 people done by a market research company.
"Consumers are unimpressed with Blu-ray players, preferring to stick with their less expensive standard DVD players, a market researcher said Friday. In a survey of 1,000 consumers, ABI Research found more than half of the respondents citing "other priorities" as their reason for having no plans to purchase a Blu-ray player. The 23% likely to buy one said they wouldn't until sometime next year."
[QUOTE="SiKh22"][QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Where does that say anything about protesting?Ninja-Hippo
the picture! lol
I'm fairly sure that's a joke.
i think not! looks pretty convincing man... :shock: no no! that poster was not finished. It could have been Go Blu-ray protesters!
Actually, the picture looks more like a crummy photoshop in full view.
It can be found in its original setting HERE
If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
I have an hd tv, but I don't see the point to have a blu-ray player yet... It's overpriced and even the location of these blu-ray movie cost 3$ more where I live than a normal dvd
Like Yatzee said in one of his video, watching a movie in a slighty bigger resolution, will not make it any better.
If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
EmperorSupreme
hd cable is free. all you have to do is get an hd cable box from the cable company, which is also free. satellite charges a lot for the equipment and about $10 a month for the hd service but you get a ton more hd channels. blu-ray...a $400 entry level player that is obsolete (because they are profile 1.1 complaint, not profile 2.0 complaint) and discs that run up to $35 for a new release yet it still does the same thing that a 10 year dvd does, play movies. other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound (which most consumers can't take advantage of anyway), there simply isn't enough of a difference between dvd and bd. at least hd dvd was half the price for the players (about the same for movies though). truth be told, consumers are waiting for digital downloads to really become mainstream so that they won't have to have a collection of movies laying around collecting dust and wasting space.
lol at the pic though. get a brain "morans". irony!!!
[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
cowgriller
hd cable is free. all you have to do is get an hd cable box from the cable company, which is also free. satellite charges a lot for the equipment and about $10 a month for the hd service but you get a ton more hd channels. blu-ray...a $400 entry level player that is obsolete (because they are profile 1.1 complaint, not profile 2.0 complaint) and discs that run up to $35 for a new release yet it still does the same thing that a 10 year dvd does, play movies. other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound (which most consumers can't take advantage of anyway), there simply isn't enough of a difference between dvd and bd. at least hd dvd was half the price for the players (about the same for movies though). truth be told, consumers are waiting for digital downloads to really become mainstream so that they won't have to have a collection of movies laying around collecting dust and wasting space.
lol at the pic though. get a brain "morans". irony!!!
"hd cable is free" - Where?? Sorry I live in America, maybe you live in some country where they have crap country run TV but here we pay for it.
"discs that run up to $35" - I've never paid over $24, most I've bought have been in the $10-20 range
"other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound there simply isn't enough of a difference" - Isn't HD picture and higher sound quality kind've the point??
"consumers are waiting for digital downloads" - Who?? The average consumer doesn't even have broadband internet and most people can't stream youtube reliably let alone 1080p videos. You can wait I suppose, I'm enjoying HD now.
[QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
EmperorSupreme
hd cable is free. all you have to do is get an hd cable box from the cable company, which is also free. satellite charges a lot for the equipment and about $10 a month for the hd service but you get a ton more hd channels. blu-ray...a $400 entry level player that is obsolete (because they are profile 1.1 complaint, not profile 2.0 complaint) and discs that run up to $35 for a new release yet it still does the same thing that a 10 year dvd does, play movies. other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound (which most consumers can't take advantage of anyway), there simply isn't enough of a difference between dvd and bd. at least hd dvd was half the price for the players (about the same for movies though). truth be told, consumers are waiting for digital downloads to really become mainstream so that they won't have to have a collection of movies laying around collecting dust and wasting space.
lol at the pic though. get a brain "morans". irony!!!
"hd cable is free" - Where?? Sorry I live in America, maybe you live in some country where they have crap country run TV but here we pay for it.
"discs that run up to $35" - I've never paid over $24, most I've bought have been in the $10-20 range
"other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound there simply isn't enough of a difference" - Isn't HD picture and higher sound quality kind've the point??
"consumers are waiting for digital downloads" - Who?? The average consumer doesn't even have broadband internet and most people can't stream youtube reliably let alone 1080p videos. You can wait I suppose, I'm enjoying HD now.
i'm from america. i'm a new york city native and YES HD CABLE IS FREE!!! may not in the mountains where you live but in city and most suburbs,hd cable is free. there is no extra monthly charge for hd service or the hd cable box.
blu-ray costs up to $35 in brick and mortar stores like best buy. link sometimes older movies that were already on hd dvd cost $45link need i say owned?
blu-ray is suppose to be more than hd pictures and audio. it's suppose to be a whole new experience of watching movies at home via internet enabled movies that support downloads and give info to what is current;y on screen; pip; interactive movies where the user can click on parts of the movie get more info of what is on screen (example, children of men on hd dvd allows the user to actually see the in movie advertisements that are on buildings and walls in the movie as well as look at the fake news articles hanging on the walls in the movie.
more than half of the US is wired for broadband link. once again, maybe not in the mountains where you live but in cities and suburs. the amount of broadband users continue to increase as fiber and cable are run to more plaes allowing for faster broadband. once cable co.'s unleash docsis 3.0, we can expect speeds of upto 100mbps. link
doing some research might help you but i guess you can't do it because you're using 56k.
The step from DVD to Bluray isn't that big....there will be something better...I can buy a DVD for about 15 dollars...yet a movie in bluray will cost me something like 30 dollars. Bluray simply isn't a big enough improvement to warrant a price tag double that of a normal DVD.
As for Bluray players ? They are still overpriced and I believe manufacturers are still milking the fact that its "new".
---> coming from a person who owns a PS3
UnknownSniper65
QFT.
BR is nice...but not $300 + $25-$35/movie nice.
Not when DVD is abundant and almost half the price.
Luckily, no gamer is silly enough to buy a Blu-Ray player over a Playstation 3 in the first place. The people I see who have the hardest time making a decision on the PS3 are those who own a 360 already and feel all they're getting for the price is a Blu-Ray player and a few extra games. But for those who haven't taken the next-generation plunge yet, don't need every game out there and would like to save money down the road, it's not all that hard of decision.
[QUOTE="mephisto_11"]The HD videos from XBLM are just as good as blu ray. I dont care for spending 25 dollars for a movie. Digital distribution will take overSiKh22
wow
Lems are nothing amazing really.
Luckily, no gamer is silly enough to buy a Blu-Ray player over a Playstation 3 in the first place. The people I see who have the hardest time making a decision on the PS3 are those who own a 360 already and feel all they're getting for the price is a Blu-Ray player and a few extra games. But for those who haven't taken the next-generation plunge yet, don't need every game out there and would like to save money down the road, it's not all that hard of decision.
Itinerant_Voice
The thing it though, most people wouldn't be saving money down the road by purchasing a PS3 now. Blu-Ray players will eventually drop to the $100 to $200 mark which is the point at which consumers usually start purchasing item en-masse. Buying a $400 item now to avoid buying a $100 item later doesn't save you money unless you want the Blu-Ray soon. Most of the people in the study don't, which is the point of this thread.
Looking back, I can definately see the difference in quality between DVD and VHS. However, I didn't see the difference at the time, and the immersive nature of the medium ultimately denies the effect of improved visuals. I think what really sold people on DVDs was the bonus features and the scene selection.Tylendal
Not to mention the more compact design of the medium and the decreased degradation over time/use.
[QUOTE="Itinerant_Voice"]Luckily, no gamer is silly enough to buy a Blu-Ray player over a Playstation 3 in the first place. The people I see who have the hardest time making a decision on the PS3 are those who own a 360 already and feel all they're getting for the price is a Blu-Ray player and a few extra games. But for those who haven't taken the next-generation plunge yet, don't need every game out there and would like to save money down the road, it's not all that hard of decision.
mattbbpl
The thing it though, most people wouldn't be saving money down the road by purchasing a PS3 now. Blu-Ray players will eventually drop to the $100 to $200 mark which is the point at which consumers usually start purchasing item en-masse. Buying a $400 item now to avoid buying a $100 item later doesn't save you money unless you want the Blu-Ray soon. Most of the people in the study don't, which is the point of this thread.
Heh, I was speaking solely in terms of the 360 vs. PS3 argument. When one costs $400 and the other costs $350, the reality is that Blu-Ray players will never sell for $50. And they won't sell for $100 for a long, long time.I suppose if you really wanted to save money down the road, you wouldn't buy a next-generation gaming system at all... or wait until the year 2012.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Itinerant_Voice"]Luckily, no gamer is silly enough to buy a Blu-Ray player over a Playstation 3 in the first place. The people I see who have the hardest time making a decision on the PS3 are those who own a 360 already and feel all they're getting for the price is a Blu-Ray player and a few extra games. But for those who haven't taken the next-generation plunge yet, don't need every game out there and would like to save money down the road, it's not all that hard of decision.
Itinerant_Voice
The thing it though, most people wouldn't be saving money down the road by purchasing a PS3 now. Blu-Ray players will eventually drop to the $100 to $200 mark which is the point at which consumers usually start purchasing item en-masse. Buying a $400 item now to avoid buying a $100 item later doesn't save you money unless you want the Blu-Ray soon. Most of the people in the study don't, which is the point of this thread.
Heh, I was speaking solely in terms of the 360 vs. PS3 argument. When one costs $400 and the other costs $350, the reality is that Blu-Ray players will never sell for $50. And they won't sell for $100 for a long, long time.I suppose if you really wanted to save money down the road, you wouldn't buy a next-generation gaming system at all... or wait until the year 2012.
The PS2 selling well still is an example of people wanting to save money. They waited.[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="Itinerant_Voice"]Luckily, no gamer is silly enough to buy a Blu-Ray player over a Playstation 3 in the first place. The people I see who have the hardest time making a decision on the PS3 are those who own a 360 already and feel all they're getting for the price is a Blu-Ray player and a few extra games. But for those who haven't taken the next-generation plunge yet, don't need every game out there and would like to save money down the road, it's not all that hard of decision.
Itinerant_Voice
The thing it though, most people wouldn't be saving money down the road by purchasing a PS3 now. Blu-Ray players will eventually drop to the $100 to $200 mark which is the point at which consumers usually start purchasing item en-masse. Buying a $400 item now to avoid buying a $100 item later doesn't save you money unless you want the Blu-Ray soon. Most of the people in the study don't, which is the point of this thread.
Heh, I was speaking solely in terms of the 360 vs. PS3 argument. When one costs $400 and the other costs $350, the reality is that Blu-Ray players will never sell for $50. And they won't sell for $100 for a long, long time.I suppose if you really wanted to save money down the road, you wouldn't buy a next-generation gaming system at all... or wait until the year 2012.
Ah, I see what you're saying. For a lot of people the consoles aren't interchangeable though. We all know that the Wii is it's own beast, but the PS3 and 360 also have libraries appealing to different types of gamers.
For instance, as an ex-PC gamer, the 360 appeals to me more far more than the PS3.
Since they have different libraries, it isn't a matter of saying, "These two products do same thing, but this one allows me to play Blu-Ray discs as well."
When I last looked at Best Buy I could find three stand alone Blu-Ray players normally priced for less than a PS3. vaderhater
I only saw one...Insignia??? who is that. If your comparing Blue-Ray players, PS3 competes with top of the line machines in performance and options not some Insignia brand crap.
yes exactly i'm perfectly fine watching transformers on DVD on a HDTV Dosen't Bother Me.I have an hd tv, but I don't see the point to have a blu-ray player yet... It's overpriced and even the location of these blu-ray movie cost 3$ more where I live than a normal dvd
Like Yatzee said in one of his video, watching a movie in a slighty bigger resolution, will not make it any better.
Franko_3
[QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
cowgriller
hd cable is free. all you have to do is get an hd cable box from the cable company, which is also free. satellite charges a lot for the equipment and about $10 a month for the hd service but you get a ton more hd channels. blu-ray...a $400 entry level player that is obsolete (because they are profile 1.1 complaint, not profile 2.0 complaint) and discs that run up to $35 for a new release yet it still does the same thing that a 10 year dvd does, play movies. other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound (which most consumers can't take advantage of anyway), there simply isn't enough of a difference between dvd and bd. at least hd dvd was half the price for the players (about the same for movies though). truth be told, consumers are waiting for digital downloads to really become mainstream so that they won't have to have a collection of movies laying around collecting dust and wasting space.
lol at the pic though. get a brain "morans". irony!!!
"hd cable is free" - Where?? Sorry I live in America, maybe you live in some country where they have crap country run TV but here we pay for it.
"discs that run up to $35" - I've never paid over $24, most I've bought have been in the $10-20 range
"other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound there simply isn't enough of a difference" - Isn't HD picture and higher sound quality kind've the point??
"consumers are waiting for digital downloads" - Who?? The average consumer doesn't even have broadband internet and most people can't stream youtube reliably let alone 1080p videos. You can wait I suppose, I'm enjoying HD now.
i'm from america. i'm a new york city native and YES HD CABLE IS FREE!!! may not in the mountains where you live but in city and most suburbs,hd cable is free. there is no extra monthly charge for hd service or the hd cable box.
blu-ray costs up to $35 in brick and mortar stores like best buy. link sometimes older movies that were already on hd dvd cost $45link need i say owned?
blu-ray is suppose to be more than hd pictures and audio. it's suppose to be a whole new experience of watching movies at home via internet enabled movies that support downloads and give info to what is current;y on screen; pip; interactive movies where the user can click on parts of the movie get more info of what is on screen (example, children of men on hd dvd allows the user to actually see the in movie advertisements that are on buildings and walls in the movie as well as look at the fake news articles hanging on the walls in the movie.
more than half of the US is wired for broadband link. once again, maybe not in the mountains where you live but in cities and suburs. the amount of broadband users continue to increase as fiber and cable are run to more plaes allowing for faster broadband. once cable co.'s unleash docsis 3.0, we can expect speeds of upto 100mbps. link
doing some research might help you but i guess you can't do it because you're using 56k.
You bothered to get a receiver to get OTA hd signals to save a few bucks rather than getting "steady" hd signals from cable companies, yet you are linking a $45 blu ray movie when on amazon it sells for $17? link? And when all your neighbours are downloading HD movies over cable, do you think your magical 100mbps speed will keep up? LOL.
Same here. There aren't that many movies that HD matters in. I like good movies w/ strong acting, writing. I don't care about seeing more detail on an actors skin.I have an hd tv, but I don't see the point to have a blu-ray player yet... It's overpriced and even the location of these blu-ray movie cost 3$ more where I live than a normal dvd
Like Yatzee said in one of his video, watching a movie in a slighty bigger resolution, will not make it any better.
Franko_3
I wasn't aware Blu-Ray was expensive...
What is it, $30 bucks for a blu-ray movie? Sounds about right.
[QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
alex77k
hd cable is free. all you have to do is get an hd cable box from the cable company, which is also free. satellite charges a lot for the equipment and about $10 a month for the hd service but you get a ton more hd channels. blu-ray...a $400 entry level player that is obsolete (because they are profile 1.1 complaint, not profile 2.0 complaint) and discs that run up to $35 for a new release yet it still does the same thing that a 10 year dvd does, play movies. other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound (which most consumers can't take advantage of anyway), there simply isn't enough of a difference between dvd and bd. at least hd dvd was half the price for the players (about the same for movies though). truth be told, consumers are waiting for digital downloads to really become mainstream so that they won't have to have a collection of movies laying around collecting dust and wasting space.
lol at the pic though. get a brain "morans". irony!!!
"hd cable is free" - Where?? Sorry I live in America, maybe you live in some country where they have crap country run TV but here we pay for it.
"discs that run up to $35" - I've never paid over $24, most I've bought have been in the $10-20 range
"other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound there simply isn't enough of a difference" - Isn't HD picture and higher sound quality kind've the point??
"consumers are waiting for digital downloads" - Who?? The average consumer doesn't even have broadband internet and most people can't stream youtube reliably let alone 1080p videos. You can wait I suppose, I'm enjoying HD now.
i'm from america. i'm a new york city native and YES HD CABLE IS FREE!!! may not in the mountains where you live but in city and most suburbs,hd cable is free. there is no extra monthly charge for hd service or the hd cable box.
blu-ray costs up to $35 in brick and mortar stores like best buy. link sometimes older movies that were already on hd dvd cost $45link need i say owned?
blu-ray is suppose to be more than hd pictures and audio. it's suppose to be a whole new experience of watching movies at home via internet enabled movies that support downloads and give info to what is current;y on screen; pip; interactive movies where the user can click on parts of the movie get more info of what is on screen (example, children of men on hd dvd allows the user to actually see the in movie advertisements that are on buildings and walls in the movie as well as look at the fake news articles hanging on the walls in the movie.
more than half of the US is wired for broadband link. once again, maybe not in the mountains where you live but in cities and suburs. the amount of broadband users continue to increase as fiber and cable are run to more plaes allowing for faster broadband. once cable co.'s unleash docsis 3.0, we can expect speeds of upto 100mbps. link
doing some research might help you but i guess you can't do it because you're using 56k.
You bothered to get a receiver to get OTA hd signals to save a few bucks rather than getting "steady" hd signals from cable companies, yet you are linking a $45 blu ray movie when on amazon it sells for $17? link? And when all your neighbours are downloading HD movies over cable, do you think your magical 100mbps speed will keep up? LOL.
who said i get ota signals. i have digital cable with FREE HD service. digital cable is not cheap. with the cable service and cable modem, it's $117 a month. but like i said, hd service is free as long as you pay the regular cable bill, ie, there is no extra fee for hd channels like satellite. you just committed self-ownage because those ota boxes yu speak of are $60 and you only get the local channels.
second, best buy is the largest retailer/seller of blu-ray movies in the country meaning that more people will spend $45 on batman begins at best buy than get it at amazon for $17.
third. the 100mbps is a theortical limit on the docsis 3.0 service. even with the 10 mbps service i have, i get 1100kbps downloads steadily depite the fact that everyone in my building has cable and cable modem.
YOU FAIL!
[QUOTE="alex77k"][QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"][QUOTE="cowgriller"][QUOTE="EmperorSupreme"]If you have an HDTV your missing out if you don't watch HD content as well.
I think it's kind've humorous actually. People run out and spend hundreds if not thousands on an HDTV then they won't pay for any HD content thru their cable company, blu-ray, Dish, etc....
cowgriller
hd cable is free. all you have to do is get an hd cable box from the cable company, which is also free. satellite charges a lot for the equipment and about $10 a month for the hd service but you get a ton more hd channels. blu-ray...a $400 entry level player that is obsolete (because they are profile 1.1 complaint, not profile 2.0 complaint) and discs that run up to $35 for a new release yet it still does the same thing that a 10 year dvd does, play movies. other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound (which most consumers can't take advantage of anyway), there simply isn't enough of a difference between dvd and bd. at least hd dvd was half the price for the players (about the same for movies though). truth be told, consumers are waiting for digital downloads to really become mainstream so that they won't have to have a collection of movies laying around collecting dust and wasting space.
lol at the pic though. get a brain "morans". irony!!!
"hd cable is free" - Where?? Sorry I live in America, maybe you live in some country where they have crap country run TV but here we pay for it.
"discs that run up to $35" - I've never paid over $24, most I've bought have been in the $10-20 range
"other than a nice hd picture and higher fidelity sound there simply isn't enough of a difference" - Isn't HD picture and higher sound quality kind've the point??
"consumers are waiting for digital downloads" - Who?? The average consumer doesn't even have broadband internet and most people can't stream youtube reliably let alone 1080p videos. You can wait I suppose, I'm enjoying HD now.
i'm from america. i'm a new york city native and YES HD CABLE IS FREE!!! may not in the mountains where you live but in city and most suburbs,hd cable is free. there is no extra monthly charge for hd service or the hd cable box.
blu-ray costs up to $35 in brick and mortar stores like best buy. link sometimes older movies that were already on hd dvd cost $45link need i say owned?
blu-ray is suppose to be more than hd pictures and audio. it's suppose to be a whole new experience of watching movies at home via internet enabled movies that support downloads and give info to what is current;y on screen; pip; interactive movies where the user can click on parts of the movie get more info of what is on screen (example, children of men on hd dvd allows the user to actually see the in movie advertisements that are on buildings and walls in the movie as well as look at the fake news articles hanging on the walls in the movie.
more than half of the US is wired for broadband link. once again, maybe not in the mountains where you live but in cities and suburs. the amount of broadband users continue to increase as fiber and cable are run to more plaes allowing for faster broadband. once cable co.'s unleash docsis 3.0, we can expect speeds of upto 100mbps. link
doing some research might help you but i guess you can't do it because you're using 56k.
You bothered to get a receiver to get OTA hd signals to save a few bucks rather than getting "steady" hd signals from cable companies, yet you are linking a $45 blu ray movie when on amazon it sells for $17? link? And when all your neighbours are downloading HD movies over cable, do you think your magical 100mbps speed will keep up? LOL.
who said i get ota signals. i have digital cable with FREE HD service. digital cable is not cheap. with the cable service and cable modem, it's $117 a month. but like i said, hd service is free as long as you pay the regular cable bill, ie, there is no extra fee for hd channels like satellite. you just committed self-ownage because those ota boxes yu speak of are $60 and you only get the local channels.
second, best buy is the largest retailer/seller of blu-ray movies in the country meaning that more people will spend $45 on batman begins at best buy than get it at amazon for $17.
third. the 100mbps is a theortical limit on the docsis 3.0 service. even with the 10 mbps service i have, i get 1100kbps downloads steadily depite the fact that everyone in my building has cable and cable modem.
YOU FAIL!
Now, after you pay 117 a month, do you think HD service is FREE? They may advertise it free, but you and I know that it is already included on the monthly charge. What cable company would dare to charge customers these days without "Free" or "For only $5 dollars more" HD service. And you can always rent bluray movies from either netflix or blockbuster. And most consumers are pretty smart these days and wont pay $45 when they know it is available on Amazon for $17.
And finally, you can get 1100kbps because your neighbours are watching HD movies in bluray rather than downloading/streaming! I know because I have a Krystal ball! I win!
Now, after you pay 117 a month, do you think HD service is FREE? They may advertise it free, but you and I know that it is already included on the monthly charge. What cable company would dare to charge customers these days without "Free" or "For only $5 dollars more" HD service. And you can always rent bluray movies from either netflix or blockbuster. And most consumers are pretty smart these days and wont pay $45 when they know it is available on Amazon for $17.
And finally, you can get 1100kbps because your neighbours are watching HD movies in bluray rather than downloading/streaming! I know because I have a Krystal ball! I win!
alex77k
i'm back to shatter your crystal ball. :D actually the hd service is free because even those customers who don't get hd service still pay the same price. satellite companies charge the extra hd fee so that they can pay off the cost of the new satellites that they had to put into orbit. sure you can rent blu-ray from netflix, but they are now implementing a "premium" for those who rent blu-ray. basically you pay $1 more per month. still cheap but you have to wait for the movies to come in the mail. consumers are smarter these days but if you want to buy something and have it the same day, then you have to buy it in store and not online. though prices online are better and lower than brick and mortar stores, you still have to wait a few days for your purchase to arrive in the mail.
as for the last part, i'm not sure whether or not my neighbors have blu-ray but i do new that they all have cable because in nyc, your only options for tv are time warner cable or no cable at all. twc nyc, though it is an old network, is still able to provide very high speeds and close to 30 hd channels in manhattan (50+ in brooklyn/queens/staten island) but when manhattan goes all digital, they will have room to offer 100+ hd channels! all free!!!(as long as you pay the digital cable bill). btw, i download movies off of xbl, though the movies look nice, they really don't compare to my HD DVD's.
blu ray is cheaper then what the dvd was when it released. both disc wise and player wise.trasherhead
actually, it's about the same. the difference really came from the physical characteristics and offering. basically, dvd's were smaller than vhs, thus, they needed less space to store them compared to vhs. also, vhs was incapable of offering extra features such as behind-the-scenes footage, music videos, games (yes some dvd's had games) and the ability to watch your movies on a computer. BLU-RAY is exactly the same as dvd. it offers the same features, but adds to them with internet connectivity, pip, and higher resolution video and audio. other than that, it's the same. they take up the same space, you can view them on a computer/notebook. other than the higher price (twice as much for a BD than dvd and players are $400 for the cheapest compared to $50 for the cheapest dvd or $100 for an upscaling player), there is not much that separates bd from dvd. that is why consumer's arent't buying it. it costs too much to do the same exact thing as dvd. blu-ray, without a doubt will fail. digital distribution will take over soon and will be a big hit because the user doesn't need to store the movie in a physical location. just buy it, download it, watch it, and keep it in your hdd. if you run out of hdd space, delete the movie. if you want to see it again, re-download it. you don't have to pay for the same movie again because you already paid for it once and the service provider (xbl, psn, netflix, amazon, etc.) keep a record of all of your purchases and if they see that you have already paid for it, they'll let you download it again for free as many times as you want (on the same computer). rentals are a different story. just pay, download, watch delete. if you want to see it again and the rental period is over, you just pay the rental fee again.
this also beats renting a dvd from blockbuster or netflix where you have to go to pick up the movie or wait for it to be sent in the mail. DD is almost instantaneous. almost. when broadband speeds go up, the bitrates of the movies will go up allowing for better quality movies with a higher storage space requirement; but since bb speeds go up, it'll take you the same time to download the better quality, higher capacity videos as the older videos with your old, slower speed bb.
blu-ray took too long to beat hd dvd and now they have two years or less to become mainstream or risk being sony's most expensive failure. at least the ps3 has a chance to do better (but not much because of the price) but if and when bd fails, there will be no way to salvage that loss.
they are protesting it because sony makes it, and because stores stock that product-GhostMLD-No that would just be you, its like Sony killed your family and you swore revenge.
Well like the TC said no one is forcing them to buy them, its like they never heard of renting before. Sure they want to have in thier collection but just wait till the price goes down. Same thing with video games and consoles, once they come out they are expensive then after while the game/consoles drops to a nice 20-30 dollars, and then you have 279.99 xbox, or 400 dollar ps3 if you got the extra money.
they are protesting it because sony makes it, and because stores stock that product-GhostMLD-
hopefully that's sarcasm but if it isn't, then could you explain to me why, if that's the case, people still continue to buy sony tv's, cameras, camcorders, ps3's, and computers?
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment