Blu-ray prices not coming down — Page 2

lordjedi said:

Sorry, but I just don't think that's going to cut it with John Q Public.

I don't care to debate what the public likes or dislikes when it comes to such fuzzy areas and so your apology is unneeded. However, if the profile can't be upgraded to have "picture in picture" and "web content," I don't really see that being as big a deal for John Q Dipshit as you want to argue. The player still works fine (albeit slower) and you get what you pay for. But, anyways, I was just showing you that a player was on sale for $200 somewhere (since were trying to look for one).

Fair enough.  It probably won't be a big deal until some killer title comes out that really uses it.  Similar to how seamless branching wasn't a big deal until the T2 Ultimate set really used it.  Then the people with players that don't support it will get pissed anyway.  Unless of course the price of the players is substantially lower by then.

This article also points out that player http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080923-blu-ray-stutters-in-face-of-tough-economy-hd-downloads.html.  I hadn't seen that player before, which I guess I can blame on Amazon not really wanting to move them since there's a better model out now.  I think it's pretty bad that the format is actually doing worse than it was during the "war".

I'm thinking about convincing my wife that she needs Iron Man, her new favorite movie, on Blu Ray.  That might push her in the right direction.  But she'll probably be afraid of that format dying since I convinced her last year that HD DVD was the answer...

They cost what, 5 bucks or less than DVD's?

Get a PS3.

The BDP-S350 is now $299.99 MSRP.  The prices are starting to drop...

My wife still says that we're holding out for a BD 360 add-on...

Stinky-Dinkins said:

They cost what, 5 bucks or less than DVD's?

Get a PS3.

<sarcasm> Yeah, because we like spending about twice what the player should cost </sarcasm>

I have no PS3 games and I don't intend to play any.  The PS3 is an overpriced Blu-ray player.  Maybe next year when the prices are under $200 I'll invest in a player.  Somehow I doubt it though.

I'll stick with standard DVDs for now.  Even though I don't have an upconverting player, they still look fine to me on my TV (I sit 15-20' from the screen, so I'd need a much bigger set in order to realize the benefits anyway).

Something that has always bothered me about Blu-ray from day one, the cases. I find them very unattractive, being bright blue just doesn't do it for me. Anybody else feel this way?

PS3 cases being clear plastic is a large improvement, but the blue of the blu-ray discs really distracts from the artwork. I almost enjoy my DVD collection just as much for their nice shiny cases look as I do for their watch ability. I don't think I could ever feel that way for a blu-ray title. 

I have always felt the same way about Xbox cases vs. PS2 cases, the green case looks fine enough for some games with lots of green in the label, like Halo, but for other games it looks like crap. PS2 games on the other hand, with their dark blue/black cases and that sleek black steak across the top doesn't conflict with any box art.

Take Half-Life 2 for Xbox or the Orange Box for 360 for example, both contain large amounts of orange on the cover art, contrasted with the green case, it just looks awful. Look at their PC counterparts with black cases, 100% improvement.

Green and blue just are not nutrual enough colors, I know they want to be unique, but it just doesn't look good. Or am I the only one who feel this way?

I think it is time for me to go to bed, I am starting to rant about ridiculous things.

It may be a space saving feature, but why do you need to save space when the case is still the same size? It is really a matter of preference. I, and many like me, feel that duel sided discs are lame, and thus to us they are lame. It isn't style over function, what better function do flippers have that two discs don't? Nothing! Again, it is a matter of preference, and since most places are going with the 2 disc method, seems that the majority prefer that over the duel sided discs.

Yeah, we all know the data layer of the disc is only protected by the label, but the fact of the matter is the top side is NOT more prone to damage, because the polycarbonate layer scratches VERY easily. The labels are usually very sturdy and resistant to damage, at least all the discs I have owned have been.

And as far as Ziz saying it is more than likely someone in that much of a hurry is going to place the disc label side up so they can see what it is, well, from my experience that is highly unlikely. I always see people placing them label side down on top of the player, I have seen friends of mine do it, my sister does it, and my wife does it. Bugs the crap out of me, just put the thing back in its case. I am grateful that at the very least, they put it label side down. It would take quite a lot to scratch through the label, and since my DVD player does not have an extremely rough and jagged surface or is not covered in rocks or cement, this has never been a problem for me. On the other hand, the polycarbonate on the data side of the disc scratches like mad just by using the wrong kind of cloth to remove smudges. Despite my wife putting my discs label side down on my player, and my sister doing the same before here, my discs all remain in pristine condition, both on their data side and on their label side.

IMHO all Blu-ray players, including the PS3 are over priced. Some of us just don't feel that the difference between Blu-ray and DVD is worth throwing so much of our hard earned money at.

bluedragon1971 said:

Huh?  The PS3 is actually one of the more affordable Blu-Ray players on the market, and arguably one of the best, since it also does MUCH more than just play movies.

 

How is it more affordable?  It's $400 on Amazon.  http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=ps3&x=0&y=0

Any other Blu-ray player is $300.  Yeah, it's one of the best, but only because the profiles can be upgraded and because it has a few games (that I wouldn't be playing anyway).

bluedragon1971 said:

 Read what I wrote again: scratches on the bottom side can be repaired, scratches on the top cannot.  That is why I still think it's stupid to put discs down on the label side.  I've had far too many discs ruined by scratches to the label side, but few if any have ever been permanently damaged by a scratch on the bottom.  A little bit of disc polish and they play just as good as new again.

It's also possible that the bottom side was exposed to UV light.  I know that at least in the case of DVD-Rs, exposing the bottom to UV light is even worse than putting the disc down on its bottom.  That's why I always place any kind of DVDs face down if they're going to be exposed to direct sunlight.  Otherwise, they get put label side down (I've yet to end up with a single damaged disc doing this).

C3PX said:

It may be a space saving feature, but why do you need to save space when the case is still the same size?

For standard movies that come in regular sized cases, no it doesn't save space.  But there are a lot more TV series coming out on DVD now than a few years ago when double sided discs were in use more.  A box of any given TV show season can be anywhere from 5 to 8 discs.  Hell, the "Young Indy" box sets were 10 and 12 discs per box, and there's three of those.  That's over 30 discs.  Star Trek is 6 to 7 discs per season, and there's 28 seasons among the five series, plus 10 movies, each of them being a 2 disc set.  That's well over 200 discs if you're a completist.  Doing those as double sided adds up to a considerable space savings.

This isn't related to Blu-ray player prices, but I still found it interesting:

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa160.html#ironps3

That's the just released Iron Man Blu-ray disc.  Why in the hell does the disc even need to go online and download this content the first time it's played?  And for that matter, shouldn't this setting be set to disabled or prompt when it leaves the factory?  If I buy a disc, and thankfully I've decided to just continue buying DVDs, I want to watch it when I get home, not download a whole bunch of extra crap.  And besides all that, why not just put this extra stuff on another disc?  Does the content get downloaded to a hard drive?  What happens if the drive crashes?  Do I lose all the content or do I have to download it again?  What happens if the studio suddenly decides that they don't want people to have that content anymore?  Will the disc automatically delete it?

I'm pretty sure this is the type of thing that all the anti-Blu-ray crowd was railing about before Blu-ray won.  I see no need for something like this.  If there's extra content to put out with a movie, just put it on another disc.

bluedragon1971 said:

You do realize that the TOP side of a DVD is far more prone to damage than the bottom side.  A scratch that damages the top side will usually damage the data layer, while a scratch on the bottom side can usually simply be buffed out.  The data layer is only protected on the top side by the label, on the bottom side it is protected by a much thicker piece of polycarbonate.

I think the data layer usually is between 2 layers of polycarbonate. I've never had problems with scratches on the label side, it will hardly ever reach the data layer. A scratch on the read side of the disc doesn't need to reach the data layer to make it unreadable.

C3PX said:

Something that has always bothered me about Blu-ray from day one, the cases. I find them very unattractive, being bright blue just doesn't do it for me. Anybody else feel this way?

PS3 cases being clear plastic is a large improvement, but the blue of the blu-ray discs really distracts from the artwork. I almost enjoy my DVD collection just as much for their nice shiny cases look as I do for their watch ability. I don't think I could ever feel that way for a blu-ray title. 

I have always felt the same way about Xbox cases vs. PS2 cases, the green case looks fine enough for some games with lots of green in the label, like Halo, but for other games it looks like crap. PS2 games on the other hand, with their dark blue/black cases and that sleek black steak across the top doesn't conflict with any box art.

Take Half-Life 2 for Xbox or the Orange Box for 360 for example, both contain large amounts of orange on the cover art, contrasted with the green case, it just looks awful. Look at their PC counterparts with black cases, 100% improvement.

Green and blue just are not nutrual enough colors, I know they want to be unique, but it just doesn't look good. Or am I the only one who feel this way?

I think it is time for me to go to bed, I am starting to rant about ridiculous things.

I don't like the cases either. I only like the standard black amaray dvd cases.

All the DVDs I've got are made from two layers of plastic with the data layer (foil) sandwiched between.

CDs on the other hand, comprise one plastic layer with only a clear coat sprayed over the foil on the label side.  And I still lay them upside down for some reason I can't explain.

I don't own any BDs....

C3PX said:Something that has always bothered me about Blu-ray from day one, the cases. I find them very unattractive, being bright blue just doesn't do it for me. Anybody else feel this way?

My theory is that the cases are just used in that pretty cheap-looking blue plastic format until Blu-Ray becomes the norm (to differentiate it between DVD). Then they'll ditch that disgusting blue box and start getting a lot more creative with the designs. We already witnessed this with the "Blu-Ray" inlay paper:

as you can see; each new release begins to shed off the first designs. I have no doubt this will happen to the cases eventually. The Blue circle around the Blu-Ray logo will also dissappear. Just like DVDs before it.

I remember seeing a 1998 Godzilla DVD... (really early) it was COVERED with DVD logos and it was in a weird transparent cd-jewel-case-material case too! So it's just a matter of time.

Player prices are starting to come down.  Saw a Sylvania unit at BJ's today for $199.

Ziz said:

Player prices are starting to come down. Saw a Sylvania unit at BJ's today for $199.

still not worth it...

no point in supporting an overpriced format...

later

-1

negative1 said:

Ziz said:

Player prices are starting to come down. Saw a Sylvania unit at BJ's today for $199.

 

still not worth it...

no point in supporting an overpriced format...

later

-1

I expected you to say something like that with you being being a HD-DVD supporter. I'd rather support , what you call, an over-priced format than a dead one. lol

Actually blu-ray isn't overpriced at all. Players and discs are coming down in price all the time. Its only been out for a couple of years and prices are about in line with what DVD was when that format came out. I can remember when DVD's were almost £30 when they first came out. My first DVD player was £250 and that was a few years after the format came out. Blu-Ray players can be found for under £200 now. Up until a couple of years ago double disc edition DVD's were still priced at around £19 and Blu-rays are already around that price now and even cheeper, so Blu-Ray is actually better value now compared to when DVD's first came out.

hmm, Jay makes a point.