Why Are Blu-ray Sales Suffering?

[Hooch Tan]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10165593-17.html?tag=newsLatestHeadlinesArea.0' target='_blank'>http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-1...HeadlinesArea.0</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Blu-ray U.S. disc sales have tripled in the past year, according to The Digital Entertainment Group, but there's a slight problem--Blu-ray sales are still lower than where film studios would like them to be, and there's no indication that Blu-ray sales will top DVD sales anytime soon. The studios blame Blu-ray's performance on the economy, and claim that if we were enjoying better economic times, the format's sales would be higher. But there's one person, Bill Mechanic, a film producer and former Fox Filmed Entertainment chief, who believes there's more to this story."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/dht/auto/1235004294.usr20447.jpg" style="border: 1px solid #d2d2bb;" /></p><p>It seems as if HD-DVD isn't Blu-ray's greatest challenge.&nbsp; The venerable DVD is still putting up a fight against Sony's fledgling format.&nbsp; While Blu-ray has been around for years now, its sales are not meeting expectations.&nbsp; I have to agree with Bill Mechanic's idea that DVDs are hurting Blu-ray sales more than the economy.&nbsp; While Blu-ray definately provides more features and a sharp HDTV signal, it seems that most people aren't willing to pay a high premium for the extra content and clarity.&nbsp; Having an HDTV myself, I can certainly appreciate 720p and 1080p video, but DVDs fit in that category of "good enough" for me to watch most things.&nbsp; In fact, when shopping, I find myself thinking that Blu-ray is only worth it for certain videos, like documentaries, or movies that provide a lot of visuals.&nbsp; The rest, I look for in the bargain DVD bin!&nbsp; Am I the only one here?&nbsp; Is everyone else busy replacing their DVD collection with Blu-ray discs?</p>

[doogald]

While Blu-ray definately provides more features and a sharp HDTV signal, it seems that most people aren't willing to pay a high premium for the extra content and clarity.

Yep, that's it. There is really nothing wrong with DVD; it is certainly good enough. It's certainly not the same as the difference in quality between standard and hi-def broadcast television.

[mar2k]

Same here. I buy DVDs for the bargain price, compatibility with laptops and other devices beyond the living room TV. Plus DVDs without the extra layers of DRM are easier to rip for personal use on my mobile electronics. My DVD player is not even an upscaling player but my TV does a good enough job upscaling the content over component that for my purposes it is simply good enough and I have no desire for anything more right now.

Its a shame HD DVD did not win this battle. I think the COMBO format (DVD and HD DVD on the same disc) had great potential for people not ready to fully give up DVD. Also even just the name HD DVD would have been self-explanatory in the market. I think there is a large number of people that don't really get what Blu-Ray is.

[Twain]

Some of the slow sales are probably due to the difficulties early adopters had trying to get discs to load on the first and second generation players. Evidently there were/are enough ambiguities in the specification that studios could create discs which didn't load on all players.

In fact, when shopping, I find myself thinking that Blu-ray is only worth it for certain videos, like documentaries, or movies that provide a lot of visuals.

I agree with Hooch. Another reason is simply that the expense of a Blu-ray disc is not warranted for run-of-the-mill movies. I only buy Blu-ray discs for movies with large special effects or for those titles where the visual experience is much better in high definition than regular definition. Some titles sold as "high definition" don't look any better than in regular definition. As such, it is clear some studios are taking advantage of the hype of the format and are releasing titles that are "high definition" in name only.

My bottom line is that both formats will be around for awhile and consumers should assume that the formats will coexist.

[Stinger]

I bought a Xbox 360 HD-DVD drive, not because I wanted to watch HD-DVDs but because it made for a dirty cheap DVD drive for my netbook.

Just out of curiousity, I rented a couple of HD-DVDs from the UK equivalent of Netflix to see how much of a difference there was. The results were mixed. Some films gained a great deal from HD but many didn't.

I prefer the price, flexibility and minimal DRM on DVDs. I can't see myself swapping over for at least three years.

[Felix Torres]

My current guidelines:
1- If I have it on DVD I'm not buying it on BD
2- If I don't have it on DVD and it is visually worth the investment, I won't buy it at all. I can wait until the studios realize Sony suckered them with promises of $50 BD retail sales and "unbreakabale" DRM and they drop the prices to current DVD levels. I have plenty of unread ebooks waiting for me to catch up; I can and will out-wait the studios.
3-If I don't have it on DVD and its (like most hollywood movies) not really HD-worthy, I'll wait for the bargain bin or just rent it off XBOX.

In other words: I'm buying N-O-T-H-I-N-G when it comes to movies.

The studios made their bed so I'll let them lie in it; they chose the more expensive HD delivery format because of consumer-hostile DRM and the promise that we, like good lil suckers, would over-pay 100% for bad MPEG2 transfers on BluRay.
Well, now they know better.

I'm not dropping any money on movies on disk (BD or DVD) until they come down to baseline DVD price levels ($15-20) on the HD stuff. Or until they realize the only way to force the market to BD is to discontinue new DVD releases. (2011, would be my guess). And if they do, I'll probably wait them out a bit longer and make do with rentals and downloads.

Now, TV shows are different; the few shows I'm collecting on DVD I'll keep on getting on DVD until the show ends. But otherwise, my moratorium is absolute. I don't pretend they'll even notice my strike but since they *are* noticing an effect it is clear I'm not the only one who refuses to be fleeced.
That's one bit of good news, I guess.

The key thing is that the studios don't really understand *why* people buy movies on DVD (again, TV shows are different). Except for the upper 2% of movie "connosieurs" in the golden eyeball crowd, most people buy movies for *access* to the movie. Good transfer, bad transfer, extras, none of it matters as much as being able to watch the movie when you feel like it. Which, for most buyers, is really on the order of two or three times over a space of years.
With rentals running at 20-30% of the purchase price, buying made sense, if only for the convenience and timeliness.

Now, add in online movie rental services and the jacked-up prices we've seen of late on *both* BD and new DVD releases (I'm not the only one to notice that the standard dual-DVD "special edition" movie releases are priced at US$20-22 rather than the $18-20 they used to command, right?) and the equation changes.
1- As pointed out, few movies are truly HD worthy to start with.
2- A typical online SD rental at $3-4 works out to 15-20% of the purchase price
3- Add in their infamous RedBox vending machines with their $1-a-night rentals.
Clearly the "lease vs buy" equation is skewing towards lease.
My guess is the movie sales slowdown is only *beginning*.

Studios have but two choices:
1- Drop BD prices as fast as possible to DVD levels, keeping both formats at the same price for a short period while making it clear they *will* phase out DVD
2- Renegotiate the deals in place with the online and rental outfits to force higher rental prices

Of course, any attempt to force higher costs on consumers will simply make piracy more attractive and nowadays anybody inclined in that direction can do web searches to learn and find the necessary tools. And with the "unlicensed" content readily playable on PS3s and 360s...

The studios thought they were herding us to a fleecing and instead they followed Sony and Disney off a cliff.

They get no sympathy from me.

[marvi1]

BD is really only superior on things like concerts, much like HD itself. I really have to be sure the BD purchase is going to be worth it before I shell out. Regular DVD is usually fine for the average movie.

[sundown]

Okay, I agree with you guys but there is still the issue of price. There is no way I'm spending $40 on a Blu-ray movie. I have the money but that's extravagant. People see the price of Blu-ray movies and I think take that as an indication that it's an overpriced concept. And DVD quality is "good enough".

Players are dropping in price (I paid a reasonable $140 for a Sony player) and using Netflix I don't spend much more ($2 a month additional membership fee). But I'm not the average consumer.

[Felix Torres]

Players are dropping in price (I paid a reasonable $140 for a Sony player) and using Netflix I don't spend much more ($2 a month additional membership fee). But I'm not the average consumer.

Don't be so sure.

Netflix just added a million more customers over the holidays.
Microsoft seems to be doing quite well with their online rentals, Amazon has been expanding their reach, and the rumor is Apple is looking to release a fully-baked Apple TV followup to get in the game for real.
*Somebody* has to be keeping those services in business and growing.
Word gets around especially when it comes to saving money.:cool:
Buying movies has never been the only movie-watching game in town, regardless of what the BD "geniuses" might've thought.

[AndyMulhearn]

Price of disks and I don't want to buy disks that won't work on all but one of the laptops in the house - my wife is the only one with a BD player and playback is rubbish.

Having said that, I may buy a BD player after pay day for upscaling to my HDTV and only buy blu-ray disks when worthwhile content appears.

Oh, and I still want to be able to rip it and watch it on my non-BD laptops.

[Jason Dunn]

...but DVDs fit in that category of "good enough" for me to watch most things. In fact, when shopping, I find myself thinking that Blu-ray is only worth it for certain videos, like documentaries, or movies that provide a lot of visuals.

Indeed, and that's the big issue that everyone else has pointed out: Blu-rays lack of momentum had nothing to do with HD-DVD, and everything to do with regular DVD. Modern DVDs tend to have beautiful encoding, great colour, and on a good DVD player that up-samples to 1080p, they look pretty darn good! I own about five Blu-ray DVDs, and all are big-action blockbusters where I feel the added cost is worth it. I watched Speed Racer (got it free with the Blu-ray player) and it was jaw-dropping in 1080p...but for 95% of the movies out there, DVD is more than sufficient.

The movie studios are run by delusional idiots and they deserve all the lackluster sales they're getting. Blu-ray will replace DVD, slowly, but only by attrition as the players get cheaper and the discs get less expensive.

[Jason Dunn]

Its a shame HD DVD did not win this battle. I think the COMBO format (DVD and HD DVD on the same disc) had great potential for people not ready to fully give up DVD.

Yeah, that was one of the things that was really great about HD-DVD! Blu-ray brings nothing but technical misery to the table with all of it's ridiculous Java, non-finished-spec junk. I still can't watch Dexter Season 2 on my Samsung Blu-ray player, even after the latest firmware update. :mad:

[stlbud]

Well, now they know better.
...
They get no sympathy from me.

I doubt they understand anything of the sort.

It's not just the DRM -- It's broken players, TVs and audio. I've spent a lot on my home theater gear and am not going to "invest" in a player that only works part time. I'm still waiting to see BD that is the same price as DVD - as promised. Extra content; my *$$.

I'm with you on the rest.

[Felix Torres]

It's not just the DRM -- It's broken players, TVs and audio. I've spent a lot on my home theater gear and am not going to "invest" in a player that only works part time.


Or not at all.
At least not as advertised.
The AV receiver manufacturers are second only to Sony in the woe they inflict on the unwary.
You don't realize just how crappy a spec HDMI is until you take a stroll through adult gaming forums (yes, they do exist--one or two) and see the tales of woe of people trying to get their PS3s and XBOXes working at full spec on their home theater setups; stuff that works fine when direct-connected fails miserably when connected through supposedly state-of-the-art AV receivers. You get downgraded audio, dropped connections, handshakes that don't work, improper EDID codes, pretty much every conceivable sin.
Even stuff from the same vendor (Sony, I'm looking at you!) doesn't get along...:eek:
Makes you wonder if they're *all* using Java in their firmware... :rolleyes:

As for the studios knowing better now: I do think that sinking feeling they're getting (in their bottom lines) is clueing them in if they're not up to speed by now.

[Felix Torres]

Blu-ray brings nothing but technical misery to the table with all of it's ridiculous Java, non-finished-spec junk. I still can't watch Dexter Season 2 on my Samsung Blu-ray player, even after the latest firmware update. :mad:

Picky-picky!:rolleyes:

You shoulda known better; after all, the spec is only up to version 2.1.
We've all known the real BD won't really show up until version 2.5.
(Although, judging by the PS3, it may take until 2.7 or even 3.5 for them to get where HD-DVD was at version 1.0. Maybe longer if they stick with Java. "Write once, debug forever" isn't a joke, you know... Not with Java.)

Because nothing says "quality firmware" as the name Sony.
<badda-ba-dump!>:D
(Hey, its friday! And I have a whole weekend of snow to look forward to.)

[Jason Dunn]

Okay, I agree with you guys but there is still the issue of price. There is no way I'm spending $40 on a Blu-ray movie. I have the money but that's extravagant.

Yeah, I agree - I think that's the #1 reason, with a bullet, as to why Blu-ray has been so slow to take off. People look at new releases, they see the Blu-ray version next to the DVD version and the Blu-ray version is $10 more...and it creates a negative impression in their mind regarding Blu-ray, that it's more expensive. I think Blu-ray discs should be priced no more than $5 more than regular DVDs, and $3 would be even better. I don't mind paying a SMALL premium to get 1080p video, but not $10-$15 more. The studios are insane.

[Jason Dunn]

The AV receiver manufacturers are second only to Sony in the woe they inflict on the unwary. You don't realize just how crappy a spec HDMI is until you take a stroll through adult gaming forums (yes, they do exist--one or two) and see the tales of woe of people trying to get their PS3s and XBOXes working at full spec on their home theater setups; stuff that works fine when direct-connected fails miserably when connected through supposedly state-of-the-art AV receivers.

I'm working on a post, probably to go live next week, called "Harmon Kardon: We Hate Our Customers". I'm in AV receiver HELL right now, and it's all because of HDMI...:mad:

[Felix Torres]

I'm in AV receiver HELL right now, and it's all because of HDMI...:mad:
You poor soul!
My heart goes out to you.:p

Right now the best advice I can give anybody that asks me is to use the TV as the HDMI switching device, not the receiver. In other words, get a TV that has multiple HDMI and HD Component inputs *and* properly forwards surround sound through optical out (not all do--another pet peeve!) and let the TV send out the selected audio stream out to the receiver. Doesn't always work but the percentage of success is higher than trying to navigate AV Receiver hell.

Failing that, go the old fashioned way (that's how I'm connected--I gave up after the first two HDMI-capable receivers I tried failed to work properly) and use the tv to switch video and the receiver to switch audio via optical.

Trying to get a contemporary AV receiver to properly process and route all the different signals and protocols HDMI can carry is kinda like playing the lottery.
You *could* get lucky.
But you shouldn't expect it.

[Jason Dunn]

Right now the best advice I can give anybody that asks me is to use the TV as the HDMI switching device, not the receiver.

Yeah, that's what I'm going back to doing. HDMI works great with the DVD player, but it's my Shaw Cable box, a Motorola POC (Piece of Crap) that gives the receiver fits. Grr. So frustrating that I paid $700 for this amp, with the purpose of running all HDMI video into and out of it, and it doesn't work! :mad:

[stlbud]

After looking at the innerworkings of the spec and listening to all the grief from early adopters I've left HDMI looking for a purpose. So, there's another reason for no BD in my house (BD - sounds like a fancy washroom fixture).

I still get better sound than many of the theaters. The video isn't eye-popping gorgeous but I don't have the headaches either. Until I get a 1080p projector, I don't care.

And one last thing - since Sony attacked their audio CD customers with a root kit, I'm leary of anything they offer including BlueRay discs.

[Chris Gohlke]

I've only been picking up Blu Ray if there really is a quality difference. A good example is Firefly. I love the show, own the regular DVD's and was going to get the Blu Ray. But I rented them first from Netflix, and honestly, could not see much of a difference. On the flip side, for the Serenity Movie, I could see a noticable difference between the DVD and HD DVD versions.

For new stuff it depends on the item. I'll be replacing very few items I currently own, LOTR being the main thing I can think of. And I've been picking up a few of the cheaper back catalog titles that I did not have but liked anyway. For example, got American Psycho for $10 at Sams Club.