• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

UK PS3 and Blu Ray Sales

quest said:
I would say online renting has hurt blockbuster and other B&M stores more than bootlegging. People are lazy when there is an easier cheaper way they will do it. It takes a few minutes a month to manage a netflix que and sit on your ass and wait for the movies to come. There it no driving to the store walking around looking for movies then the next day having to drop it off. I have not rented a movie in a B&M in a long time I like the convience and price of netflix. Blockbuster could offer unlimited in store rentals for the same price as netflix and I would not bite thanks to laziness.


Nope.

Why are you shutting down? Piracy is the answer I normally get.

I for one would never dream of renting online, and I don't think the rest of the UK would either, especially since it's much easier to use SKY Box office, or some Virgin Media equivalent.
 
Koren said:
Laserdisc was also a 'niche market' but a different technology prevented it to be a success...

The benefits of BR and HD-DVD are not obvious for most people (many of them don't really understand the difference between upscaled DVD and HD discs), so the task is difficult, and it's not obvious whether a new technology could bring more interesting stuff to the market in a couple of years...

Laserdisc was also bigger then VHS, more prone to damage, noisy, had larger players, and needed midway movie that you flip the disc to see the rest.

It wasnt that people didnt care for PQ, its because peopel didnt care for all the above mentioned.
 
Lobster said:
I think you forgot to read further down..

(470,000 Blu-Ray discs, 200,000 HD DVDs)

Despite having 12 times the amount of players on the market the disc sales where 2 to 1

The attatch rate on blu ray is 0.6 ish, seems like most people dont know it has a bluray player in there :lol
 
Tf53 said:
Let's play this game some more.

"I have a 3-year-old Toyota. Why should I buy a Porsche?"

I think the more pressing thing you should acknowledge is that while DVDs are compatible with a HDM player, HDM won't work on a DVD player (duh?). So what, you ask? What if your average family has a DVD player in the living room, another in the bedroom and a third one in the kids' room? Do you honestly think it'll be obvious that the family will go and buy 3 HDM players just to get better PQ? Even if they buy one for the living room, the problem remains: how is is smart to buy a movie you can only use in one of the three players?

Your average Joe upgrades his system because the sales person recommends him to do so. Unless a shitload of people get half-conned (I've heard of stories about sales personnel saying "you just bought an HDTV, you need to buy a 360/PS3 to enjoy the better PQ"), the format is gonna have an uphill struggle.

explain how DVD did it? We had 1 DVD player, my Ps2, and 3 other VHS players. It didnt stop any of us from buying DVD movies. Eventually we got more DVD players.

Its been done before.
 
B-Ri said:
explain how DVD did it? We had 1 DVD player, my Ps2, and 3 other VHS players. It didnt stop any of us from buying DVD movies. Eventually we got more DVD players.

Its been done before.
The difference between VHS and DVD was waaaayyyyy bigger than this time around.
 
Feral Youth said:
I for one would never dream of renting online, and I don't think the rest of the UK would either, especially since it's much easier to use SKY Box office, or some Virgin Media equivalent.

Do you even know how online rentals work? From a value for money perspective Lovefilm is way better value than Sky Box Office. You pay ÂŁ9.99 a month to have one disc at home at a time, and there is no limit on the number you can have per month, so if you watch it and send it back the day you got it, you can get maybe 8 movies a month which is ÂŁ1.25 a movie, way cheaper than Box Office. Plus unlike Box Office you can watch it on any TV or portable DVD player you want.

EDIT: also unlike regular bricks and mortar rental stores, there are no late fees, and the envelope to post the disc back in is provided and prepaid, so there's no cost there either.
 
For those posters who think HDTVs are selling because customers appreciate HD content

In the keynote address referenced earlier, Werner said that consumers are purchasing HDTV sets now more because of form factor than any other reason. “What they really want is a flat TV that they can hang on the wall,” he said.

In late October 2007, Nielsen released statistics on the success of HD penetration inside the estimated 112.8 million U.S. television households.

Surprisingly (for anyone who imagines that HD adoption is close to ubiquitous) the Nielsen numbers revealed that only 11.3 percent or 12.7 million of those households possessed the full compliment of technology necessary to experience HD programming: an HDTV set, an HD tuner and reception of at least one HD network or station.

An estimated 13.7 percent or 15.5 million of U.S. television households are ready and willing but not able to enjoy HD. Those happy few are said to have the proper TV and tuner but lack programming.

An August 2007 telephone survey of men and women age 18 and older conducted for Best Buy discovered that a majority of potential customers had more basic misconceptions about both the technology and cost of a proper HDTV system:

—11 percent of consumers in general and only 19 percent of HDTV owners felt they completely understood the technology.
—32 percent of consumers said they had no understanding of HDTV at all.
—39 percent did not identify an HD-ready TV set as necessary for the HD experience.
—52 percent of the group underestimated the significant (and necessary) peripheral costs.

I am among the many who has his doubts regarding Blu-Ray and its ability to take over from DVD. Basically, I don't think that it will happen.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
It won't.

Give it another five to ten years of DVD, and people will probably move to something else. BluRay will be long dead before that happens.

DVD sold PS2's. PS2's did not sell DVD.
In my mind it was a question of timing. VCR was on the market for 27 years before DVD overtook it and 20 of those years it enjoyed as the dominant format. DVD has been on the market for 13 years, of which, 5 have been spent as the dominant format.

I know the hardware manufacturers want faster cycles to improve controls over content and their own profit margins, but I have serious doubts that the consumer is ready for another format.
 
Snah said:
and they're not excited about 8x the resolution, richer colors, uncompressed lossless audio that rivals a movie theatre experience, PiP Bonus features, etc?

What, you mean that uncompressed, lossless audio that they are playing through their TV speakers? :lol :lol
A lot of people don't even have a HDTV, let alone a sound system that could rival a movie theatre. Audio is ionly as good as the amp/speakers you are playing it through. Go take a look at the "Show us your Setup 2008" thread. There are only about 3 systems there that have an audio system anywhere near good enough to do lossless audio justice, let alone rival a movie theatre.
Even on the best systems most people would be hard pressed to hear a tangible difference. People really do not care.

Richer colours? It is all down to the display. No point in having rich colours when someone is using a ÂŁ400 bargain bin 42" LCD that makes everything look shit.

PiP Bonus features? I don't even watch the bonus features on my DVDs and i would be willing to bet that the majority don't either. Bonus features are for movie buffs and a few others. Hell, most people are happy watching a ripped DVD compressed in to an AVI format so long as it is more convenient.

It is ALL about convenience here. DVD took on because of the vast improvement in quality, the fact that the media is much more durable for those making collections and they fact that DVD is much more user friendly than VHS ever was.

Now, i think HD formats will take off but they will never be as big a DVD simply because of stuff like VoD. By the time a HD format is coming anywhere close to DVD adoption, VoD will have started to take off.
 
B-Ri said:
Laserdisc was also bigger then VHS, more prone to damage, noisy, had larger players, and needed midway movie that you flip the disc to see the rest.
Oh, I fully agree that laserdisc had many drawbacks that drove people away (even if PQ was often above DVD). I can understand why it was a failure. Maybe a better comparison would have been elcaset or HiFD.

If nothing happen, HD discs (and most probably Blu-ray) will take the place of DVD, but that could take 5, 10, 15 years... Even DVD adoption was really slow, and advantages of HD discs are far less obvious. And in these years, something else may arise (I just hope it's not a downloading, medialess solution).
 
viciouskillersquirrel said:
In my mind it was a question of timing. VCR was on the market for 27 years before DVD overtook it and 20 of those years it enjoyed as the dominant format. DVD has been on the market for 13 years, of which, 5 have been spent as the dominant format.

I know the hardware manufacturers want faster cycles to improve controls over content and their own profit margins, but I have serious doubts that the consumer is ready for another format.
I'd say they definitely aren't.

Ignore the fact that the PS3 is pretty much a stillborn console. Would standalone BluRay players make up the difference without the PS3? Would BluRay have sold that 725,000 units without being attached to the PS3?

I don't see why this is such a point of contention among gamers... or hell, anyone for that matter. The simple truth is people were ready for DVD. They put up with nearly 30 years of VHS before they shifted, and people expect the new mainstream format (DVD) to disappear in 13?

Not going to happen. BluRay and HDDVD are blips in the market. Whatever the next mainstream format is, it won't be revealed or released anytime soon.

Bluntly, neither HD formats offer the leap that VHS to DVD offered.
 
It is true what those articles point to - owning a HDTV is more of a "hey, it's big, flat, would look great in my living room, and I don't have to squint anymore" kinda buy for the majority. My dad is quite happy watching SDTV on our one, he just likes it cause it is big.

I had no idea what component cables were a year or two ago and I'm right into the tech stuff (especially now), the mainstream is boggled when it comes to that kinda stuff.

However I will say, from my experience working in an electronics store in Aus, a lot of people do seem willing to learn and the knowledge is spreading. It will definitely become more popular in time, as more and more people are getting into home cinemas.
 
viciouskillersquirrel said:
In my mind it was a question of timing. VCR was on the market for 27 years before DVD overtook it and 20 of those years it enjoyed as the dominant format. DVD has been on the market for 13 years, of which, 5 have been spent as the dominant format.

I know the hardware manufacturers want faster cycles to improve controls over content and their own profit margins, but I have serious doubts that the consumer is ready for another format.
I don't believe the majority wants a new format because the upgrade is more complicated and costs a great deal more to actually take advantage of. DVD is not that old. Not really. Blu Ray and HD DVD are just more Laserdiscs. The market, IMO, is just waiting for something as convenient as video on demand to happen in a big way. As broadband, torrents, and cheap portable media have changed everything in as little a space of time as five years, the way for video digital distribution is coming sooner than most expect, IMO. The music side of things has changed dramatically and in a very short amount of time. The same has been happening with games on PCs and consoles through things like XBL, Steam, and Gametap. Video is getting there fine and will be more accepted at a faster rate than most think, IMO.
 
Danj said:
Do you even know how online rentals work? From a value for money perspective Lovefilm is way better value than Sky Box Office. You pay ÂŁ9.99 a month to have one disc at home at a time, and there is no limit on the number you can have per month, so if you watch it and send it back the day you got it, you can get maybe 8 movies a month which is ÂŁ1.25 a movie, way cheaper than Box Office. Plus unlike Box Office you can watch it on any TV or portable DVD player you want.

EDIT: also unlike regular bricks and mortar rental stores, there are no late fees, and the envelope to post the disc back in is provided and prepaid, so there's no cost there either.

Why wouldn't I know how online rentals work?. Better question is why would I rent anything online at all? Not everyone wants to wait a day for a film to drop through the letter box. People might just decide one night they want to watch a film. Four button presses later they're doing just that.

Not only do you have to wait for online rentals, But you still have to walk or drive to the post office to send it back.

Frankly most people can't be arsed, especially if they live in the countryside like myself. Also not everybody has the internet.

Cost isn't an issue, look at how many people paid for the Ricky Hatton fight for example, record sales via Box office. These people are willing to pay an extra quid or two for a film, and they don't even have to leave the house.
 
mr_bishiuk said:
Have to agree, when you consider the amount of forum "debate" here and all over the net it makes you wonder if its all worth it! After all laser disc never replaced VHS because people were happy with what they had.
Pretty much, Its funny but the amount of how it will save the PS3 and everything. Yet its not even at 1% and has a long ways to go to get there.
Best you can say...by the time the other next gen consules come out...Then it has a chance:lol
 
shintoki said:
Pretty much, Its funny but the amount of how it will save the PS3 and everything. Yet its not even at 1% and has a long ways to go to get there.
Well, according to the numbers quoted, Blu-Ray sales account for around 0.2% of the disc-based movie market (rounded up).
 
im from the UK and I have purchased 2 blu rays here, in a buy one get one free sale. All my others have been imported due to the fuckin insane prices. I imported Pirates of the Caribbean 2 Blu-Ray from the states for ÂŁ7.99, it is ÂŁ17.99 on Play.com and ÂŁ24.99 instore at HMV. The disk sales figures probably mean very little due to both formats being "hardcore" AVS people who would probably be buying from the states
 
painey said:
im from the UK and I have purchased 2 blu rays here, in a buy one get one free sale. All my others have been imported due to the fuckin insane prices. I imported Pirates of the Caribbean 2 Blu-Ray from the states for ÂŁ7.99, it is ÂŁ17.99 on Play.com and ÂŁ24.99 instore at HMV. The disk sales figures probably mean very little due to both formats being "hardcore" AVS people who would probably be buying from the states

I knew that was true of HDDVD but I thought Blu ray was region coded?

Kamakazie! said:
What, you mean that uncompressed, lossless audio that they are playing through their TV speakers? :lol :lol
A lot of people don't even have a HDTV, let alone a sound system that could rival a movie theatre. Audio is ionly as good as the amp/speakers you are playing it through. Go take a look at the "Show us your Setup 2008" thread. There are only about 3 systems there that have an audio system anywhere near good enough to do lossless audio justice, let alone rival a movie theatre.
Even on the best systems most people would be hard pressed to hear a tangible difference. People really do not care.

Richer colours? It is all down to the display. No point in having rich colours when someone is using a ÂŁ400 bargain bin 42" LCD that makes everything look shit.

PiP Bonus features? I don't even watch the bonus features on my DVDs and i would be willing to bet that the majority don't either. Bonus features are for movie buffs and a few others. Hell, most people are happy watching a ripped DVD compressed in to an AVI format so long as it is more convenient.

It is ALL about convenience here. DVD took on because of the vast improvement in quality, the fact that the media is much more durable for those making collections and they fact that DVD is much more user friendly than VHS ever was.

Now, i think HD formats will take off but they will never be as big a DVD simply because of stuff like VoD. By the time a HD format is coming anywhere close to DVD adoption, VoD will have started to take off.

Well said!!
 
It's hard to not buy into HD nowadays. It's not easy to get your hand on a CRT TV these days here in Sweden.

DVDs though.. will live on because the quality is nice enough for most people.


"HD Ready" is the only thing people look for when they buy new equipment. It was a smart move. Information about "HD Ready": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_ready
 
SolidSnakex said:
This is really the biggest issue with HD right now. When you go to buy a movie and see a DVD for 15 dollars and on another isle there's a BR for 10+ dollars more most consumers aren't going to go anywhere near that. Until the prices come down within a few dollars of DVD's its not going to get alot of traction among your average consumer.
The price of blu-ray discs is still too high for me, especially considering the amount of movies I buy.
 
Hmm no rebuttals for the string of well thought out replies from doubters above? Who would have thought.

I recently purchased a PS3 and want some discs to play on it, but no way at their current price. ÂŁ25 for a movie is not acceptable. Even though i own a HDTV and now a bluray player i still went out and bought The Big Lebowski the other day on DVD, because i wanted to show the film to my house mate. I got it for ÂŁ3 at Tesco. Thats why DVD will remain the dominate format for the foreseeable future.

I dont want to buy DVDs, the picture quality just isnt up to snuff on a HDTV (Lebowski looked horrible) but the price of discs has a long way to drop before i'll have a decent collection.

PQ is being overestimated. I'm not saying people cant see the difference, sure they can, doesnt mean they care enough to upgrade. My parents were telling me the other day that they saw a bluray display in a shop and were stunned by the PQ, going as far as to say the picture looked 3D as it was so vibrant :lol They have absolutely no plans to purchase a bluray or hddvd player.
 
Lobster said:
IMO, if the 360 had the HD-DVD drive built in..we'd see a very different outcome..

Looks like we'll have a blu future! Wonder how long it will take for DVD to die though.

Those sales for Ps3 are pretty good. They're behind Wii but still very impressive.
If the 360 had hd-dvd built in from the start the it would have cost allot more and the 360 wouldn't have sold as much.
 
quest said:
No they are not because they were not there for other format changes. They were not even born during the cassette to CD change. Lots of them were not adults when vhs to dvd happened. Unless you were around you do not understand why the shifts happened.

I'm not sure that one can assume that for two reasons. One, some of them where there (me included). Secondly, at least some of them have taken the time to actually research the history.

You get grand ideas like PQ/SQ won people over. They forget how horrible VHS and cassettes were with mechanical noise durablity not being able to skip to any track and form factor.

For the reasons I stated previously, I know I certainly don't think PQ/SQ was the main reason or that transition. I've heard others allude to this realization as well.

Most of them think the jump in PQ/SQ from DVD to blu is the same as vhs to dvd or sq from cassette to CD.

Most of them realize the jump is actually more significant than it was from analog.

They are kids with out families they don't know what a god send that DVD player in the car is to a parent to keep the peace. They don't understand having to budget for things and not being able to go out and replace all their players with blu. Which is what you must do to avoid double dipping thanks to blu media not working in DVD players.

Again, more assumptions. Regardless, who ever said the expectation was that people will double dip for a majority of their content?
 
Research: You May Not Actually Be Watching HDTV
11.12.2007 — What is it about high-definition television that is so confusing to people?

New research from Leichtman Research Group has found that, while more than 75 percent of HDTV owners think they are watching high-definition programming, only about 57 percent actually are.

While that number is pretty astounding, the scary part is that it hasn’t changed at all—in fact, it may have risen.


About 18 months ago, the Leichtman Research Group did a similar study, showing that 17% of HDTV owners think they are watching HD from a cable or DBS provider but arenÂ’t.

In a year-and-a-half, that number hasnÂ’t changed. What is the industry doing wrong?

Nielsen Gives Fuzzy Picture of HDTV Penetration
10/30/2007 7:18:00 PM
Nielsen found that only 13.7% of TV households in the United States -- or roughly 15.5 million out of 112.8 million total U.S. TV households -- are equipped with HD televisions and HD tuners capable of receiving HDTV signals, a status Nielsen described as “HD Capable.”

Nielsen didn’t define what an “HD tuner” means, but a conversation with a Nielsen spokesman indicated that it could mean an integrated ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee) tuner in the set or a connected HD-capable cable or satellite set-top (there are also over-the-air set-tops that receive HD signals, albeit few).

That 13.7% figure is much lower than research from the Consumer Electronics Association, the trade group representing HDTV-set manufacturers. The CEA estimated that HDTV household penetration in July 2007 stood at 32% -- or some 36 million homes, going by NielsenÂ’s household numbers -- and would rise to 36% by year-end. The CEA put the total number of HDTV sets sold by year-end 2006 at 39.9 million, climbing to 60.6 million by the end of this year, and it said one-third of HD households own multiple sets.

Of course, not all HDTV sets are actually used to watch HD programming -- something both set-makers and programmers have long lamented. Industry research has generally indicated that anywhere from 40%-60% of HD sets are still being fed exclusively with standard-definition content, either because consumers donÂ’t know any better or they havenÂ’t bothered to sign up for HD cable or satellite service or to hook their TVs up to over-the-air antennas to receive local broadcast HD signals.

The CEAÂ’s own research, in fact, indicated that in 2007, only 44% of HDTV owners are actually receiving HD programming. A CEA spokesperson explained that this was because many consumers buy the wide-screen sets simply to watch DVD movies.

Interesting to see HD adaption is much lower than thought in the US. I fully expect these numbers to only get worse as time goes on and the technology gets more saturated by your J6Ps who just buy the HDTVs because that's all there is and it's the cool thing to do, and hook it up with the same cables they had running to their old TV.

Just the other month, someone from my work had bought a new LCD HDTV, and they had absolutely no plans on buying any new cables for it, they were simply going to use what they had, because they didn't want to spend any more money on the cables. It was a challenge convincing them otherwise, but in the end, even though they bought the cables, I doubt they really cared.

Just remember, for every intelligent, well-researched forum dweller, there's probably a couple hundred idiots.

And really what it all comes down to, is in general as a whole, people don't really care about picture quality beyond what they have now. Sure, it matters a whole lot to some people, and less-but-still important to others, but as a single group overall, I'm entirely unconvinced picture quality is a concern.

Sound quality? Ha, don't even go there, you're just going to make yourself look dumb.
 
herod said:
If the bootleg scene really was that rampant, that's just more incentive for the labels to kill off DVD as soon as they reasonably can.

I know I'm skipping a bunch of posts here, so someone might have pointed this out already, but the DVD piracy scene really IS "that rampant" and it's a huge issue for the studios.

Some of you may not be aware that DVD was never intended to be copyable- when the encryption was broken by DVD jon a while back, the floodgates opened and now not only are bootlegs EVERYWHERE (I can't throw a rock downtown without hitting someone selling them) but a huge community of people sprang up that do nothing but use netflix/blockbuster to burn massive amounts of dvds in the privacy of their own home.

This is a huge concern for the studios, obviously- a big difference between Laserdisc and VHS, or VHS and DVD here is that the studios REALLY, REALLY want to put an end to DVD since the copy protection is all but worthless now.

In fact, now that it appears that HD-DVD is essentially finished and there will be only one next gen format, don't be surprised if studios begin actively promoting Blu-ray OVER DVD by doing things like releasing the Blu-Ray version of a hot film several weeks earlier than it's DVD counterpart, to spur the masses to jump into HD.

Think that's farfetched? it isn't. things like this are exactly what happened when they decided to phase out vhs.

edit: now I'm sorry I skipped some posts- I missed some gems like this:


No they are not because they were not there for other format changes. They were not even born during the cassette to CD change. Lots of them were not adults when vhs to dvd happened.

I think you're underestimating the age of some of the posters here, chief. Quite a few of us- me included- were most certainly around and aware during those eras. Some of us (me again!) even worked IN the retail side of the Consumer Electronics industry and are VERY aware of the ins and outs of why certain formats won out. Hell, I still have the first VCR I got for christmas in 1984- It's a zenith, it's the size of a freaking refridgerator and yes, it still works.

Unless you were around you do not understand why the shifts happened. You get grand ideas like PQ/SQ won people over. They forget how horrible VHS and cassettes were with mechanical noise durablity not being able to skip to any track and form factor. Most of them think the jump in PQ/SQ from DVD to blu is the same as vhs to dvd or sq from cassette to CD

different people have different reasons for upgrading. interesting you bring up the casette to CD shift, since that's one area where Sound Quality WAS a gigantic advantage and most certainly a reason for people to switch- "digital sound!" was quite the buzzword back then, and it's certainly arguable that casette tapes had the advantage in form factor over CDs- they were a LOT more durable and easier to carry around, scratches weren't an issue, casettes were recordable (CD-R didn't come about until long after that war was decided, and not at mass market prices) and the better models of cassette players DID have "track skip" capability.

They are kids with out families they don't know what a god send that DVD player in the car is to a parent to keep the peace. They don't understand having to budget for things and not being able to go out and replace all their players with blu. Which is what you must do to avoid double dipping thanks to blu media not working in DVD players.

If and when blu takes off, portable blu players will be quick to follow, no worries there. There USED to be a market for portable VCRs for car use, and before that car mounted antennas so one could watch broadcast television on the go. No one is lamenting the death of either of these technologies, and it will be the same with portable DVD as well.

LOL at you for going into a panic at the thought of not having a portable DVD player to keep the crotchfruit entertained though. Something tells me you wouldnt have lasted 5 seconds being a parent in the late 70s/early 80s when such things didn't exist. Kids would have actually had to read! or talk to each other during car rides! the horror!
 
People are not as dumb as many of you think.

Reason for bad sales in UK is small choice of movies and very high prices of HD movies.

For god sakes, MSRP for BD movie in England is $50 and after big discounts price is $30-35.

Pricing in USA is 50% lower.

And worst part is that you can get most of the DVD's in UK for 5-10 USD, and thats the latest releases like SM3, 300, etc.
 
Screen Digest? Aren't they the ones behind the infamous graphs predicting the PS3 will outpace everyone in the next couple of years?
 
Minsc said:
Interesting to see HD adaption is much lower than thought in the US.
Actually, this is exactly what everyone has thought for a while: approximately 15% penetration in the U.S.

Minsc said:
I fully expect these numbers to only get worse as time goes on and the technology gets more saturated by your J6Ps who just buy the HDTVs because that's all there is and it's the cool thing to do, and hook it up with the same cables they had running to their old TV.
You don't understand what you're saying. Yes, most people are buying HDTVs just because they're big and flat, and many consumers don't understand the technology. Only a small portion of them will end up with actual HD content. But everyone in that portion represents a rise in HD penetration, not a drop.

When DVD first came around, it was an expensive niche technology that regularly got thrashed in sales by VHS, and people wondered if it was the next Laserdisc. It remains to be seen if BD can surge like DVD did, but its slow ramp-up so far isn't much different (apart from the war with HD-DVD).
 
XiaNaphryz said:
Screen Digest? Aren't they the ones behind the infamous graphs predicting the PS3 will outpace everyone in the next couple of years?
Yes... yes they are.

I didn't realize it... now I can ignore everything... right?!
 
Liabe Brave said:
Actually, this is exactly what everyone has thought for a while: approximately 15% penetration in the U.S.

I'm not sure about that, I read a lot of people claiming 25% adoption rates for HDTVs, like the article states.

Liabe Brave said:
You don't understand what you're saying. Yes, most people are buying HDTVs just because they're big and flat, and many consumers don't understand the technology. Only a small portion of them will end up with actual HD content. But everyone in that portion represents a rise in HD penetration, not a drop.

I meant the percentage of people using HDTVs for HD content will go down as the technology is adapted over higher percentages of your average consumer, and lower percentages of techies. Sorry for the confusion.
 
Minsc said:

music DRM and MOVIE DRM are two completely different animals. As another poster above me already pointed out, the death of MUSIC DRM is likely a move aimed at reducing apple's dominance in the marketplace.

Music also already has a robust digital distribution medium in place online where movies do not, and MP3 is so well entrenched among musical formats that it's pointless to try and introduce another DRM laden format to take it's place- MP3 quality is "good enough" for just about everyone, and it's ubiquitious. Don't think the labels haven't tried to replace it already (ATRAC or WMA anyone?) because it's been done and they failed.

Music might be a "loss" as far as the industry sees it (because MP3 caught everyone by suprise) but there is no WAY they're going to sit back and let movies go the same route.
 
Snah said:
That makes perfect sense!

When I buy an HDTV, I don't expect to use it!

Prices are still high for players. When $99 blu-ray players become a reality, which they will, you will see great "clamour" for HD players

I've had an HDTV for 6 years now. I now have two. What do I use it for? HD Sports, HBO HD, Showtime HD, etc. Almost every show I watch is now recorded, and broadcast, in HD. I have access to an HD version of most major channels.

As for movies, if I want something on disk, I just buy the DVD. It's not worth the price to upgrade to an HD player. At least for me. Come to think of it, I don't even watch DVD's much anymore. I have 40 premium channels, 4 of which have an HD version also. Granted, of those 40 channels, most of them are of the same brands (HBO takes up 10 of them). But each of them is playing something different at any given time.

If I can't find a movie I want to watch from that list, my 2nd option is On Demand. I have another couple hundred different things to pick from to watch there, all of which are free (sure, not HD, but you can watch it anytime you want, and it's free).

My 3rd option is DVD's.

For me, it's not worth spending a few hundred bucks to upgrade something that's only a 3rd option.

On Demand's HD content will eventually be free (or unlimited use with a monthly fee). The content will expand greatly. That would be a better option for me than buying the same thing on disk.

Not to mention digital downloading is just around the corner.

So, in the end, HD disks could run into the Laserdisk conundrum. Not better enough than the current offerings to warrant mass upgrade, and a better option is just around the corner.
 
Thunder Monkey said:
Ignore the fact that the PS3 is pretty much a stillborn console. Would standalone BluRay players make up the difference without the PS3? Would BluRay have sold that 725,000 units without being attached to the PS3?

Ah, facts. Well played, kid, well played.
 
670000 HD discs vs. 250000000 DVDs sold? That can't be right.

That would be a miniscule amount (only ~0,3 per cent(!)) of all HD + DVD media sold. I thought it was higher already...

If that's really true, I don't see Blu-Ray overtaking DVD at all in the next few years. PS2 had the perfect timing and rode the DVD wave straight to the top, the PS3 with its Blu-Ray drive comes a few years too early, imo.
 
mr_bishiuk said:
For gods sake surely you understand that Blu ray is outpacing DVD simply because it came included in the PS3, I mean SURELY? After 2 years DVD rocketed blu ray WONT!!

o so you can see the future. so how's the games in 09' ? how the sales of the 3 consoles coming along? :rollseyes:
 
Top Bottom