Why are Blu-Ray discs so expensive?

[RaceTripper]

Originally Posted by Mikado

many years ago. But what price is that Trinitron now?

No price. It doesn't exist anymore. But maybe it would be like the $5 DVD bin, where the old stuff is reduced in price, and the new stuff takes on pre-reduction price of the old. Thus -- like the HDTVs that are at prices the old SDTVs were in their day -- the $19.99 BD disks I wait for.

I guess I'm just arguing the point I said I wasn't going to, so let's leave it at that (feel free to respond if you want to make a final point).

[Mikado]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

No price. It doesn't exist anymore. But maybe it would be like the $5 DVD bin, where the old stuff is reduced in price, and the new stuff takes on pre-reduction price of the old. Thus -- like the HDTVs that are at prices the old SDTVs were in their day -- the $19.99 BD disks I wait for.

I guess I'm just arguing the point I said I wasn't going to, so let's leave it at that (feel free to respond if you want to make a final point).

haha, I can see where you're coming from. I want the prices lower myself. My buying habits are different than yours so there's the big difference I think. I've never paid over $19.99 for a title and get them on good sales from Amazon or use coupons and the latest deals etc. I usually can get them for around $15 a piece factoring in all the deals. But I haven't gone out to get a new release yet. That might change with The Dark Knight(We'll see how it is). Overall though I just remember buying dvds when they first came out and the prices of BD not being too far off from 96/97 and factoring in inflation I would think it's about the same. They'll come down. They want to move product and get it to go mainstream. Fox cut their prices a few weeks back, which desperately needed it. They were way too high.

[Derb]

If studios offer up a BD with a sticker price identical to the DVD than what?

BDs have to be more expensive than DVDs if they want to have some sorta profit. For 1, it costs more to replicate & author a BD disc than a DVD. The hard coating on them BD discs isn't free either.

If new release DVDs drop to $9.99USD than you might see BDs around $13.99USD but why wait?

[RaceTripper]

Originally Posted by Derb

If studios offer up a BD with a sticker price identical to the DVD than what?

BDs have to be more expensive than DVDs if they want to have some sorta profit. For 1, it costs more to replicate & author a BD disc than a DVD. The hard coating on them BD discs isn't free either.

If new release DVDs drop to $9.99USD than you might see BDs around $13.99USD but why wait?

It doesn't cost an extra $10 to make a BD. That's just crazy talk. It probably doesn't even cost an extra $1.

Why wait? Because I have better things to spend my extra money on.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

It doesn't cost an extra $10 to make a BD. That's just crazy talk. It probably doesn't even cost an extra $1.

Why wait? Because I have better things to spend my extra money on.

There are about 650+ replication plants for DVD.
There about 12-20 for BD.

If what you are after is price identical to current new release DVD, than I'd wait 10 years. That way there will not be DVD to "get in the way"

[chlngr1970]

Actually, BD costs are quite a bit more than DVD. The data layer is much closer, and tolerances are much higher. Failure rate of BD 50 was a NEWS STORY for quite some time. And, there are only a few BD Production houses. Add to that, BD-J. It has also been widely reported that BD-J Programing is difficult at best, so production costs are quite a bit more than DVD. Not to even mention the royalties you have to pay...

j

[Jast3r Rogu3]

Originally Posted by GaLvAtRoN187

the way i look at it you pay a price for premium product.

You get what you pay for.

[Moonraker]

Originally Posted by chlngr1970

Not to even mention the royalties you have to pay...

j

The rotalties are quite outrageous at this point in time. The main offender is AACS (which had to be paid for both Blu and HDDVD). I was told in time they would go down but as of now its $40 grand to them as a starter plus a cash out of every disc produced.

[Sehnzeleid]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

The main offender is AACS (which had to be paid for both Blu and HDDVD).

No, AACS is (or "was") optional with HD DVD, many discs lack it. BD requires it for every release. Goldhil had to pay something like $16k to get through AACS after multiple failed test discs for their Chronos BD, but their HD DVD edition completely lacks AACS.

[Moonraker]

I was told otherwise by representatives.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

I was told otherwise by representatives.

Seh is right, AACS is optional for HD DVD, hence why many of the smaller studios flocked to it first.

[No6PackJoe]

Originally Posted by Derb

There are about 650+ replication plants for DVD.
There about 12-20 for BD.

If what you are after is price identical to current new release DVD, than I'd wait 10 years. That way there will not be DVD to "get in the way"

by then we will be arguing about why Ultra HD is so much.

[videoworx]

J&R just had a bunch of BDs on sale for $8-14 (including both seasons of Weeds). The first time DVDs were sale-priced that far below MSRP was when Best Buy put discs like Fight Club on sale for $6 during its Xmas 2001 Black Friday sale.

I think Image's 1998-99 Universal-licensed releases were the exception (all were priced around $7-10), which is why they were pulled from the market by 2000.

I'm buying BDs at a significantly lower price-point now, than I was for DVDs back in 1999. Take inflation into account, and it's a bargain.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by videoworx

J&R just had a bunch of BDs on sale for $8-14 (including both seasons of Weeds). The first time DVDs were sale-priced that far below MSRP was when Best Buy put discs like Fight Club on sale for $6 during its Xmas 2001 Black Friday sale.

I think Image's 1998-99 Universal-licensed releases were the exception (all were priced around $7-10), which is why they were pulled from the market by 2000.

I'm buying BDs at a significantly lower price-point now, than I was for DVDs back in 1999. Take inflation into account, and it's a bargain.

Yup, I don't buy BDs unless they are $15 or less. I got a bunch from the J&R sale.

Still, Best Buy is the largest movie seller and their pricing is horrid - $34.99 for most new releases and $24.99-$29.99 for most catalog titles.

[Mikado]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Yup, I don't buy BDs unless they are $15 or less. I got a bunch from the J&R sale.

Same here.

I got Simpson's movie and 3:10 to Yuma for $30 from the Target sale
and Weeds Season 2 and Saw I-IV from the JR sale. $11 - $14 on those.

[Derb]

Originally Posted by Ruined

Yup, I don't buy BDs unless they are $15 or less. I got a bunch from the J&R sale.

"bunch" Sounds like this was a steal when in fact it was capped at only 2 titles. Unless you could make multiple orders, I don't see the J&R sale as.. um.. that great.

[Ruined]

Originally Posted by Derb

"bunch" Sounds like this was a steal when in fact it was capped at only 2 titles. Unless you could make multiple orders, I don't see the J&R sale as.. um.. that great.

You could order as many different titles as you wanted, the cap was only for ordering more than 2 of the same title. I ordered ~7 at the sale prices.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by RaceTripper

We're just beating this to death. You know my opinion on it. I don't see any point arguing it further.

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you on all points in this thread.

I will never fail to be surprised when otherwise-smart people fail to recognize the small increase in PQ is simply not worth the extra $$$ to the vast majority of people.

Until BR comes down in price - and I mean WAY down, like 50% (ignoring internet specials and old catalog title deals), BR is going to lose millions (likely billioons) of dollars by greedily holding their pricepoints and losing years of their rapidly-shrinking tech window.

[biglyle]

I agree.

I have bought a player, a few disc on special, and rent a lot. I will not buy movies at these prices. Its $20 and under for me, anything more isnt even getting a second look.

[Mikado]

Originally Posted by biglyle

I agree.

I have bought a player, a few disc on special, and rent a lot. I will not buy movies at these prices. Its $20 and under for me, anything more isnt even getting a second look.

$20 is the absolute max I will pay and that has to be something I really like. And I haven't paid that much for anything yet.

[ganthc]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

I just wanted to let you know that I agree with you on all points in this thread.

I will never fail to be surprised when otherwise-smart people fail to recognize the small increase in PQ is simply not worth the extra $$$ to the vast majority of people.

Until BR comes down in price - and I mean WAY down, like 50% (ignoring internet specials and old catalog title deals), BR is going to lose millions (likely billioons) of dollars by greedily holding their pricepoints and losing years of their rapidly-shrinking tech window.

Maybe those smart people don't see it as a "small increase in PQ." Maybe those people see standard dvd, even "upconverted" as blurry and edge enhanced, and their eyes are relieved to see things in HD. I agree prices need to come down, but considering what people paid for LD, or what they paid for dvd back at its inception, I still don't see how bd is so confiscatory in its pricing scheme.

[Pirate]

The Bonnie and Clyde Ultimate Edition SD-DVD set is $29.99 on Amazon. The Blu-ray is $23.99, and it has the same features--plus it's, y'know, in HD.

If you want to be angry at BD, be angry at Fox and their outrageous prices (especially for catalogue titles). Otherwise, BD prices seems pretty fair to me at this point.

And, not to play the 1337 card, but if you have the right equipment, there is nothing "small" about the jump to HD.

[reapersaurus]

Originally Posted by Pirate

And, not to play the 1337 card, but if you have the right equipment, there is nothing "small" about the jump to HD.

Isn't that kind of self-fulfilling, though?

If you have the right equipment (i.e. a LARGE projection screen being replaced by a large expensive HD plasma or something) then of course you're going to see a larger difference than the vast majority of people on the planet.

But of course when talking about the majority, you shouldn't be assuming that high-end equipment is in place, or is being replaced with.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by reapersaurus

Isn't that kind of self-fulfilling, though?

Well, my comment was more a justification of why we don’t feel the prices are too high, but, as others have stated here, you can see a difference on a 26" 720p TV (the "right" equipment doesn't always mean prohibitively expensive). Sure, it won't look as impressive as on my projection screen, but it's still a pretty big improvement. It’s true that there aren’t enough US homes with HDTV’s for Blu-ray to saturate the market, but as HDTV’s become more and more common (you can now buy HDTV’s at Wal-mart, some for under $500) so to will the desire for HDM. Whether BD will remain the premiere delivery system remains to be seen.

It comes down to what the "average" person's definition of "small" is. To me, the stronger colors, sharper image and lossless audio justify every dime. But, to someone else, maybe even someone with a stellar home system, that may not be enough to justify a new format.

I'm not arguing that, to most people with limited systems, the difference is going to be mind-blowing. A lot of people still buy fullscreen DVDs and listen to soundtracks via 2-channel television speakers. But, those of us who do see the difference can attest to it not being "small"--even on J6P's TV.