Support NeoGAF

[SkylineRKR]

lolwut?? Do you not realize how you contradicted yourself? BR won the war with HDDVD, and no doubt brought many PS3 sales to people who wanted a bluray player along with a gaming system. BR was also invented by Sony.

I also don't buy this 'Catching up with PSN' business either. It's simply not true for everyone's tastes. PSN does everything i need it to for me to play games online, and it doesnt cost me anything.

There weren't that many at first, then. Sony lost their leadership, and all their Ps2 earnings over the course of mere months.

Even so, what does or did BR add to the gaming experience? And if it did add something, is it comparable to Kinect or Wii-Mote? The Ps3 is a gaming machine, but was used as a vessel for BR to integrate into the living rooms. BR jacked the price up big time. This is one of the biggest reasons the Playstation brand lost such a big share.

Thats not the kind of innovation i was aiming at (plus, the net worth and market share Sony lost pretty much confirms their 'innovation' didn't set the world on fire), but I think it was pretty clear.

Plus, the war with HD-DVD could be considered a loser war of some sorts. As I stated; the DVD format STILL reigns plus digital content is ever increasing. So was the war and investment, and especially using the Playstation brand as a vessel worth it in the end? Think about it.

I agree about PSN. It does what I want; online gaming. But I do miss certain features XBL has over it. I think XBL is better, objectively speaking (but it should be mandatory as you have to pay up).

 

[NavNucST3]

I think we should take the Vita profitability statements as "true at the time" but as far as I know the most recent statement from December 2011 according to Reuters Article

The challenge from smartphones and tablets such as Apple Inc's iPhone and iPad is adding to existing competition from domestic rival Nintendo Co Ltd, which aims to sell 16 million of its 3DS handheld games gadgets by March.

Sony Computer Entertainment made its first profit in five years in the 12 months to March 2011, as it managed to squeeze PS3 production costs, boosting profits for the whole company.

House said the speed at which Sony could turn Vita hardware sales profitable would depend on currency rates. Sony has been hard hit by the yen's rise against the euro.

So whatever someone may have said at E3 is one thing but I have been going by the most recent statements each time I've suggested that the hardware itself is sold at a loss. EDIT: It isn't lost on me that Sony also believed they were "slightly ahead" of their 15M PS3 target...

 

[antonz]

Tell me, what does or did BR add to the gaming experience? And if it did add something, is it comparable to Kinect or Wii-Mote? The Ps3 is a gaming machine, but was used as a vessel for BR to integrate into the living rooms. BR jacked the price up big time, and could be considered a factor in the fall of Playstation earlier this gen.

Thats not the kind of innovation i was aiming at (plus, the net worth and market share Sony lost pretty much confirms their 'innovation' didn't set the world on fire), but I think it was pretty clear.

Plus, the war with HD-DVD could be considered a loser war of some sorts. As I stated; the DVD format STILL reigns plus digital content is ever increasing. So was the war and investment, and especially using the Playstation brand as a vessel worth it in the end?

Not to mention his arguement that Blu ray brought many PS3 sales early on while maybe true isnt positive.

Every single AV nut who bought a PS3 for Blu Ray early on was sticking it to Sony in a negative way with massive losses.

 

[patsu]

If the estimates are to be believed, it added $350 to the BOM, cutting that out for a DVD drive and could have matched the 360's price and still lose less money.

Of course the cheerleaders here will defend sony's decision to sacrifice the market and mindshare for blu-ray.

Edit: Though I would disagree with you on the whole innovation part. Hardware can be debated, but with software like LBP and their willingness to cooperate with developers have proven rather innovative IMO.

Again, this is a false connection you're making. BD lost Sony money, it did not lose them the market or mindshare. Unless they came out with a $250 machine, they were going to lose the market.

Kutaragi was on his way out by the time PS3 launched. Howard Stringer had different ideas. As one of his departing requests, Kutaragi asked Howard to approve a 20Gb PS3 price drop to $429 (from $499), but it would only be implemented in Japan in the end. So there were other factors at work.

Plus there were also other challenges like delays in Cell software, additional cost in the new Cell fab plant that get sold away to Toshiba later.

That Merrill Lynch $350 BOM cost estimation article may be off. Statements from SonyNEC Optiarc indicated that the BD drive may drop at a faster and cheaper rate compared to ML's estimation.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Crediting the BluRay drive in the PlayStation 3 for "rejuvenating the movie industry" is totally wacko, sorry.

pretty much.

 

[KageMaru]

If it goes back to this...



Then he has a point.

In terms of "rejuvenating" he simply means that these companies and movie industry people keep on pushing new tech to sap even more money from consumers. I mean.... SW episode 1 in 3D?

No he doesn't have a point since all of that could have still been in motion whether or not the PS3 had a BD. It's very likely that BD would have won the format war without the PS3, it just would have dragged on longer, and this would have only effected the early adopters and potential buyers waiting on a clear sign.

Yeah, I am confident that the Vita hardware (at least, the Wifi version) is selling at a per-unit loss currently, although that loss is probably small; out of the possible interpretations of the information available to me, the one that makes the most sense to me personally (and I could be wrong here, especially if there's other information available) is that the Vita hardware is sold at a pretty small per-unit loss, that the Vita "ecosystem" is cash-positive on day one (i.e. the average consumer buys enough software and accessories to make up the loss), and they expect the Vita business as a whole to have recouped all R&D and upfront costs and be generating pure profits going forward by its third year.

If that interpretation is correct I'd count that as a pretty significant triumph, BTW. A model like that gives Sony a ton of flexibility to move tactically into a market like gaming handhelds even if they can't actually make an offering that earns market-leader status. (In fact, this model is a lot like the one that let Nintendo profit off of even a market disaster like the Gamecube.)

Yeah that's my thoughts on this as well.

I only asked him to clarify since both of these earlier statements did not indicate profitable hardware from the start.

Again, this is a false connection you're making. BD lost Sony money, it did not lose them the market or mindshare. Unless they came out with a $250 machine, they were going to lose the market.

You're not understanding my point. I agree that without BD, and a $400 price tag, the PS3 still would have not beaten out the Wii. However if it had a more competitive price against the 360, I could easily see it outselling the 360 and having the larger install base right now. Not to mention not losing Sony nearly as much money.

It's not about who would be winning or losing, it's whether or not Sony would be in a better position financially and in the game market if they didn't put BD in the ps3.

Common sense dictates you being right.
But nobody was going on common sense.

Every single market analyst and forums all over the world predicted this gen to play out this way:

1) Sony (by a landslide)
2) Microsoft
3) Nintendo (dead last by a large margin)

OK so there may be a bit of exaggeration there. But even as recently as 2008 (right in the middle of the Wii explosion) you had massive firms posting shit like this:

So yes, what you said is revisionism.

I even recall someone in 2005, maybe Geoff Keighley, stating how everyone should get ready for the PS3 to take over. It was very much a common thought back then that Sony would have kept their dominance.

Kutaragi was on his way out by the time PS3 launched. Howard Stringer had different ideas. As one of his departing requests, Kutaragi asked Howard to approve a 20Gb PS3 price drop to $429 (from $499), but it would only be implemented in Japan in the end. So there were other factors at work.

Plus there were also other challenges like delays in Cell software, additional cost in the Cell fab plant that get sold away to Toshiba later.

That Merrill Lynch $350 BOM cost estimation article may be off. Statements from SonyNEC Optiarc indicated that the BD drive may drop at a faster and cheaper rate compared to ML's estimation.

Sorry but I have a hard time taking anything you post serious.

For one, I agree there is a chance that the $350 BOM estimate is off (it is called an estimate for a reason) but until we see another estimate, it's all we have to work off of.

 

[patsu]

pretty much.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/business/media/for-home-entertainment-industry-a-bright-spot.html

 

[patsu]

No he doesn't have a point since all of that could have still been in motion whether or not the PS3 had a BD. It's very likely that BD would have won the format war without the PS3, it just would have dragged on longer, and this would have only effected the early adopters and potential buyers waiting on a clear sign.

Those were just your thoughts again with nothing to back up. Warner explicitly announced that they wanted to end the HDM war quickly because dragging it further will have negative impact on the movie industry's future.

They picked BR partly because the consumers have chosen the format. At launch, BR was under heavy FUD attack and they were selling less than HD-DVD for a few reasons. HD-DVD had cheap players, and initial BR players were buggy. It was only until PS3 launched a few months later that BR movies overtook HD-DVD virtually overnight and continued to outsell HD-DVD at 2-to-1 (or more) rate for 2 straight years. The PS3 BR players was the best HD player on the market for a few years because of the high hardware specs.

Sorry but I have a hard time taking anything you post serious.

For one, I agree there is a chance that the $350 BOM estimate is off (it is called an estimate for a reason) but until we see another estimate, it's all we have to work off of.

Yet you agree that something in my posts are correct.

 

[KageMaru]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/business/media/for-home-entertainment-industry-a-bright-spot.html

You just aren't getting.

What charlequin, CadetMahoney, myself, or any other sane poster is trying to say is the benefits of that industry was not worth the sacrifices made to their game industry.

Those were just your thoughts again with nothing to back up. Warner explicitly announced that they wanted to end the HDM war quickly because dragging it further will have negative impact on the movie industry's future.

They picked BR partly because the consumers have chosen the format. At launch, BR was under heavy FUD attack and they were selling less than HD-DVD for a few reasons. HD-DVD had cheap players, and initial BR players were buggy. It was only until PS3 launched a few months later that BR movies overtook HD-DVD virtually overnight and continued to outsell HD-DVD at 2-to-1 (or more) rate for 2 straight years. The PS3 BR players was the best HD player on the market for a few years because of the high hardware specs.

That's cute. IIRC BD had more studios backing the format, so again it's likely it would have won even without Sony sacrificing the gaming industry to do so.

Yet you agree that something in my posts are correct.

No I didn't agree to anything, I merely pointed out how your usual spin is something everyone would be already considering when using those estimates. Basically you spinning the $350 was unnecessary and irrelevant.

And what is with you guys not knowing how to hit the edit button?

 

[patsu]

You just aren't getting.

What charlequin, CadetMahoney, myself, or any other sane poster is trying to say is the benefits of that industry was not worth the sacrifices made to their game industry.

That's your perspective. I never said they are wrong. It's your opinion after all. But Sony have their needs to take care of too.

I'm not even championing BR. I'm saying BR is a more complex animal than just disc royalties, and while it did affect PS3, there are also many other negative factors at work too.

YThat's cute. IIRC BD had more studios backing the format, so again it's likely it would have won even without Sony sacrificing the gaming industry to do so.

The studios flipped flopped along the way. Paramount switched, and there were rumors that Fox may want to jump ship too. The consumers were confused and fed up. Again, that's just your theory. Based on real sales numbers, BR players and movies were outsold by HD-DVD players before PS3 launched:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=117

No I didn't agree to anything, I merely pointed out how your usual spin is something everyone would be already considering when using those estimates. Basically you spinning the $350 was unnecessary and irrelevant.

And what is with you guys not knowing how to hit the edit button?

^_^ You are free to see them as spin, but you did agree that their estimates may be off.

 

[Kazerei]

I think we should take the Vita profitability statements as "true at the time" but as far as I know the most recent statement from December 2011 according to Reuters Article



So whatever someone may have said at E3 is one thing but I have been going by the most recent statements each time I've suggested that the hardware itself is sold at a loss. EDIT: It isn't lost on me that Sony also believed they were "slightly ahead" of their 15M PS3 target...

Good point, thanks for bringing it up. The Vita retail prices are

¥24,980/29,980 in Japan
$249/299 in the U.S. which approx equals ¥19,050/22,860
$349/449 in Australia which approx equals ¥28,550/36,710

at current exchange rates. Hardware could be profitable in one region but not another. If the USD picks up that would help alot.

 

[Shogmaster]

^_^ You are free to see them as spin, but you did agree that their estimates may be off.

I'm getting flashbacks to Kittony, and that's never a good thing.

 

[KageMaru]

That's your perspective. I never said they are wrong. It's your opinion after all. But Sony have their needs to take care of too.

I'm not even championing BR. I'm saying BR is a more complex animal than just disc royalties, and while it did affect PS3, there are also many other negative factors at work too.




The studios flipped flopped along the way. Paramount switched, and there were rumors that Fox may want to jump ship too. The consumers were confused and fed up. Again, that's just your theory. Based on real sales numbers, BR players and movies were outsold by HD-DVD players before PS3 launched:
http://www.blu-ray.com/news/?id=117



^_^ You are free to see them as spin, but you did agree that their estimates may be off.

You are either incredibly ignorant or obtuse, not sure which.

Either way, you've once again proven how pointless it is to have a discussion with you regarding all things Sony. Congrats warrior.

 

[staticneuron]

No he doesn't have a point since all of that could have still been in motion whether or not the PS3 had a BD. It's very likely that BD would have won the format war without the PS3, it just would have dragged on longer, and this would have only effected the early adopters and potential buyers waiting on a clear sign.

You were not paying attention then. The success of BR would have not been decided so easily. IIRC the HD DVD camp had more stand alone players thanks to price. The provided decent enough numbers for WB and Paramount to consider throwing products into both markets because they didn't want to miss out.

It was BR disc sales that basically decided things and it is without a doubt thanks to the PS3 because the stand alones did not sell enough to reasonably expect a correlation between the install base and the disc sales.

Chances are HD DVD would have won if the consoles were left out of the fight and that would have been sad.

You are either incredibly ignorant or obtuse, not sure which.

Either way, you've once again proven how pointless it is to have a discussion with you regarding all things Sony. Congrats warrior.

If you are referring to sales numbers it makes no point to argue with what we have seen in the past.
HD DVD stand alones sold much more than BR stand alones and the movies sales on each format reflected that. There wasn't any real change until after the sale of the PS3.

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/423

For Blu-ray backer Sony, this meant emphasizing the one million PlayStation 3 units unleashed on the market in the fourth quarter of 2006. Since each PS3 comes equipped with a Blu-ray drive, Sony's clear victory was in extending Blu-ray's installed base far beyond that of rival format HD DVD, whose supporters announced at their own press conference an installed base of just 175,000 players sold.


But the HD DVD camp had its own story to tell, emphasizing their format's high attach rates (which they annualize at 28 discs per player), while implying that most PS3 owners had yet to actually buy a single Blu-ray movie disc.

Without publicly available (and independently reported) overall high-def disc sales for either HD DVD or Blu-ray, there's no way of officially telling which format might be benefiting most from their stated advantage, although Blu-ray backing studio Fox said this morning in a new press release (look for a separate story on that topic shortly) that Blu-ray disc sales surpassed HD DVD for the first time the week of December 24 -- by a healthy 20%.

also

So while it is easy to talk about who won "now" at the time studios can only gauge interest by disc sales. And the stand alone BR's certainly didn't top HD DVD's offerings. So the numbers at the time didn't support the idea of Blu ray handedly winning "without" the consoles help.

 

[jcm]

I read an interesting statistic at work this morning, a one Yen gain against the Euro and Dollar costs Sony 6bn JPY and in the last 9 months the yen is up around 10% against the Dollar and around 12% against the Euro. That has lost them 120bn JPY since April 2011. Add in the losses from selling their stake of S-LCD and the overpayment for their half of SE and the 220bn loss becomes break even.

It's only the Euro that affects them. They are balanced with the dollar - they have enough dollar denominated expenses (including lots of supply contracts) to use up the dollar revenue.

 

[charlequin]

Yes, BR help fill in DVD's decline.

"Rejuvenating the industry" and "filling some, but not all, of the gulf created by an old format on a massive decline" are not remotely the same thing.

They will keep stacking features (e.g., 3D) on top to prevent commoditization of the format.

BluRay's lifespan is already limited; it's a filler format that will be overtaken by DD and streaming within a pretty narrow window. Consumers pretty demonstrably do not care about the kinds of gimmick-stuffing you're talking about, a company can't keep a format evergreen forever just because they really want to.

BR also fended off MS's iHD effort, making HD movie playback a PS3 differentiator.

Pretty irrelevant when the PS3 was a massive cashhole.

You have a DVD ps3 costing about $400 or more, with a lot fewer games than the 360, horrible online, and nothing at all to counteract public interest in the new Wii. And somehow you think this product takes the market by storm and becomes the new ps2?

This is exceedingly binary thinking. It doesn't have to be the new PS2; it just has to lose a lot less money per unit (already true if we're cutting a $350 component then dropping the price $200), sell incrementally better than the 360 (wouldn't have been hard given that the 360 was doing very poorly early on until it got its own price down), and lose little enough money that a later uptick can push it into the black.

The idea that people would've said "too expensive!" at all the same way about a $400 system is insanity. Take that visceral negative reaction out of the picture, and PS3's advantage on Japanese games and stronger brand equity in Europe would've boosted it significantly compared to reality.

There was literally nothing MS or Sony could do, nothing at all, to blunt the rocket-force impact of the Wii, but right now Microsoft is in a good financial position and a great position for launching their next system while Sony is far worse off; that is what a $400 PS3 could've changed.

I'm not even championing BR. I'm saying BR is a more complex animal than just disc royalties, and while it did affect PS3, there are also many other negative factors at work too.

But when you start to drag in all these umpteenth-level tertiary concerns on the BluRay side, if you're seriously trying to consider the "was bombing the PS3 worth it" question, you have to go out to the same level of nth-removed stuff on that side: factor in the lost profits of another PS2-level product, factor in a PSP that could've been more successful if Sony hadn't yanked attention from it to baby the PS3, factor in the losses of the next generation as they try to rebuild their lost brand strength, etc.

 

[iamshadowlark]

BluRay's lifespan is already limited; it's a filler format that will be overtaken by DD and streaming within a pretty narrow window. Consumers pretty demonstrably do not care about the kinds of gimmick-stuffing you're talking about, a company can't keep a format evergreen forever just because they really want to.

Ummmmm what? Do you know how bad Americas infrastructure still is? Let along all the caps and throttling that goes on. DD/streaming is nowhere close to be the primary platform.

Blu-ray has at least 5 more years.

 

[Rubenov]

Shares probably went up because of short covering. Given that markets are a forward-looking entity, it probably had these bad news priced in with the beating the stock had the last few months. In this case, it was sell the rumor, buy the news. Shorts amassed huge profits from a battered company.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Ummmmm what? Do you know how bad Americas infrastructure still is? Let along all the caps and throttling that goes on. DD/streaming is nowhere close to be the primary platform.

Blu-ray has at least 5 more years.

DD already generates more revenue than blu ray and is growing at a much faster rate and I've posted the proof of that in one of these threads where this silly discussion has gone on.

With all the smart tv's hitting this year and the huge number of ios devices that have been sold recently, that gap will only continue to widen.

 

[spwolf]

Another day, another rise of Sony... why?

Sony jumped 8.1 percent, while the Topix electric machinery subindex was the top performing sector, up 1.4 percent.

"Sony looks incredibly cheap ... Even though the numbers were bad, they were not the shocking erosion of a fundamental sort in the value of a company's asset that happened two days ago with Sharp," the trader said.

Deutsche Bank said most of Sony's losses were impairment losses from exiting a flat panel joint venture with Samsung Electronics, while many divisions in its core operations outperformed guidance and inventory fell to 47 days from 66 days in the second quarter.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com...jobs-data-sony-soars/articleshow/11738542.cms

 

[iamshadowlark]

DD already generates more revenue than blu ray and is growing at a much faster rate and I've posted the proof of that in one of these threads where this silly discussion has gone on.

With all the smart tv's hitting this year and the huge number of ios devices that have been sold recently, that gap will only continue to widen.

You mind posting that proof again? You know, for silly discussion purposes?

 

[Ramblin]

I sure hope MS uses blu-ray in their next system. So we can avoid these movie playing arguments.

 

[charlequin]

Blu-ray has at least 5 more years.

Oh, it definitely has 5 more years, sure. I'm not saying it's about to die or that it won't produce any profits for anyone, just that the idea that it has some endless vista of increasingly profitable years ahead of it is ridiculous. It will wind up all-told a smaller business than DVD was when everything is totaled up.

 

[bigtroyjon]

You mind posting that proof again? You know, for silly discussion purposes?

Here you go

 

[iamshadowlark]

Here you go

What that shows me is that physical media still has some 91% of the market. You think that is just gonna disappear any time soon?

Edit: Also what exactly counts as revenue with this? Subscription fees?


It says that actual sell through is just above half a billion and AFAIK most streaming services don't have the latest releases until some time after the physical versions. Its really looking like a different market.

 

[spwolf]

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

BD revenues (movies) were 2 billion in 2011 in USA. For first 4 weeks on 2012, sales for BD movies have been up 20% consistently.

However, I think it is pretty idiotic to think that VOD is simply replacing packaged goods. This is not music industry. Most people do not buy movies via VOD to keep.... It is replacing rental business, as shown by the stats above. VOD and Electronic sales were up by less than 10% last year. What got the "sales" up is that they started including subscription stats (Netflix) into the numbers.

So market is changing for sure, but Blu-ray and Subscription services are complimentary to each other. IE you do not watch blockbusters on Netflix, you get Netflix to have access to older movies/shows that you would have gotten on cheap DVD sets or rented before. Other digital services like actual movie sales via digital and renting via VOD are growing slower than blu-ray. So it is a lot more about innovative subscription service (pay $10 and get thousands of shows/movies to watch) thats gaining popularity than simply digital vs packaged.

 

[Pureauthor]

What that shows me is that physical media still has some 91% of the market. You think that is just gonna disappear any time soon?

Yes, 91% of the market is physical media. I'm pretty sure the point is that most of that physical media are DVDs, and the segment that are going away from DVDs are not going towards Blu-Ray.

 

[spwolf]

More stats from:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798272&page=371

While generally blu-ray specific data is not really readily available, good people try to figure it out.

Week Ending 1/29/12

Real Steel does 54% Blu-ray unit marketshare.

50/50 does 45% Blu-ray unit marketshare for the week.

Paranormal Activity 3 books 100% of its sales as Blu-ray units as the DVD only version is delayed.

 

[iamshadowlark]

Yes, 91% of the market is physical media. I'm pretty sure the point is that most of that physical media are DVDs, and the segment that are going away from DVDs are not going towards Blu-Ray.

Well I was never claiming blu-ray was the majority format, hope I don't come off as that.

My point is simply:

DD/streaming is nowhere close to be the primary platform.

 

[bigtroyjon]

What that shows me is that physical media still has some 91% of the market. You think that is just gonna disappear any time soon?

Edit: Also what exactly counts as revenue with this? Subscription fees?


It says that actual sell through is just above half a billion and AFAIK most streaming services don't have the latest releases until some time after the physical versions. Its really looking like a different market.

If it's a different market then why are packaged media sales down 13% while streaming sales are growing?

This is why this discussion is silly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, people won't give up on this idea that Blu Ray is going to be the future.

 

[iamshadowlark]

If it's a different market then why are packaged media sales down 13% while streaming sales are growing?

This is why this discussion is silly, despite all the evidence to the contrary, people won't give up on this idea that Blu Ray is going to be the future.

You're not streaming new movies. You're either buying them or renting them.

You just looking at a chart a drawing conclusions such as this is more silly than anything.

 

[bigtroyjon]

You're not streaming new movies.

You just looking at a chart a drawing conclusions such as this is more silly than anything.

LOL, yeah, looking at evidence of sales trends is silly. I should just assume shit based on my gut instead of using facts and evidence.

 

[Black Lawn Finale]

More stats from:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798272&page=371

While generally blu-ray specific data is not really readily available, good people try to figure it out.

Hmm interesting. Are we looking at a slight migration from DVD to Blu-Ray according to these stats? As Blu-Ray players and movies get cheaper, I can only imagine people will want to make the switch. What's really going to be interesting to see is the correlation between Blu-Ray sales combined with sales of HDTVs.

 

[iamshadowlark]

LOL, yeah, looking at evidence of sales trends is silly. I should just assume shit based on my gut instead of using facts and evidence.

Are you ignoring Spwolf's posts? Do you not understand the concept of complimentary products? Do you not understand how there can be different markets for the same type of products?

 

[spwolf]

Hmm interesting. Are we looking at a slight migration from DVD to Blu-Ray according to these stats? As Blu-Ray players and movies get cheaper, I can only imagine people will want to make the switch. What's really going to be interesting to see is the correlation between Blu-Ray sales combined with sales of HDTVs.

"slight"

Week Ending 1/29/12

Real Steel does 54% Blu-ray unit marketshare.

50/50 does 45% Blu-ray unit marketshare for the week.

Paranormal Activity 3 books 100% of its sales as Blu-ray units as the DVD only version is delayed.

Most new releases are around 50%... Thats despite them still being more expensive.
There is no doubt that if BD had same price as DVD, their sales would triple. Studios are using BD as their high-end option to make more revenues.

 

[Black Lawn Finale]

"slight"



Most new releases are around 50%... Thats despite them still being more expensive.
There is no doubt that if BD had same price as DVD, their sales would triple. Studios are using BD as their high-end option to make more revenues.

Oh wow! Color me surprised.

 

[bigtroyjon]

Are you ignoring Spwolf's posts?

As a matter of fact, I am. I couldn't help myself but to get sucked into his usual schtick so I finally bit the bullet and cleaned up the threads I read.

 

[charlequin]

Hmm interesting. Are we looking at a slight migration from DVD to Blu-Ray according to these stats?

People have started migrating for reals in the last year, yes; it's just that the gains in BRD aren't making up for the losses on DVD, both because people aren't 100% upgrading their collections like they did with DVD and because streaming and DD are siphoning off part of the market.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

I agree blu ray will be around for a good amount time as it's get cheaper and cheaper .
They way i see it's going to be blu ray for owning for most and VOD for renting which what is happening in the market right now.

 

[spwolf]

Oh wow! Color me surprised.

why surprised? everyone here would rather play 1080p game than 480i game, right?
So why wouldnt those same everyone want to watch movie in higher resolution if given choice? Right now, average difference in price is $7-$8 per movie, so people get new releases in BD and old ones in DVD to get it cheaper.

It literally seems that some people here are arguing the impossible just because they want to prove something negative about Sony, which is rather silly. I dont see any other reason people would think negatively about BD vs DVD. It is like having option to play Wii game at 480p or 1080p, and then people expecting everyone to select 480p because 1080p is evil.

Moneyball still led the way with 467,000 units / $9.74 million giving it an opening week Blu-ray share of 44%, which is excellent for a drama.

The Killer Elite finished second on Blu-ray, one place higher than its DVD debut, with 242,000 units / $4.85 million. Its opening week Blu-ray share was 53%. This is better than average for the format, and it is even strong for an action film.

Boardwalk Empire: Season One opened in second place in terms of dollars with $4.92 million, but third in terms of units with 141,000. TV on DVD releases tend to struggle on high definition, but this film earned an opening week Blu-ray share of 38%, which is better than a lot of theatrical releases earn.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798272&page=371

 

[Ramblin]

Does anyone think blu-ray will be the standard for the next 30-40 years?

 

[AdventureRacing]

It literally seems that some people here are arguing the impossible just because they want to prove something negative about Sony, which is rather silly. I dont see any other reason people would think negatively about BD vs DVD. It is like having option to play Wii game at 480p or 1080p, and then people expecting everyone to select 480p because 1080p is evil.

I think as usual you're seeing what you want to see. Where in this thread has anyone talked down the benefits of blu-ray?

I see people comparing the relative revenue/profits of dvd and blu-ray but that has nothing to do with the quality of each format. Obviously blu-ray is the superior format but that doesn't mean it will ever reach the same size that DVD did (which is what is being discussed).

 

[spwolf]

People have started migrating for reals in the last year, yes; it's just that the gains in BRD aren't making up for the losses on DVD, both because people aren't 100% upgrading their collections like they did with DVD and because streaming and DD are siphoning off part of the market.

It is subscription services like Netflix. Actual VOD rentals, and VOD purchases are growing less than Blu-Ray.

So Netflix is growing (well, I guess it is, it is growing by industry charts because up to 2011 they never included it before, so it is "suddenly" here), but VOD like itunes, amazon, psn, live, where you rent or buy movies, is actually growing slower than blu-ray.

 

[Black Lawn Finale]

why surprised? everyone here would rather play 1080p game than 480i game, right?
So why wouldnt those same everyone want to watch movie in higher resolution if given choice? Right now, average difference in price is $7-$8 per movie, so people get new releases in BD and old ones in DVD to get it cheaper.

It literally seems that some people here are arguing the impossible just because they want to prove something negative about Sony, which is rather silly. I dont see any other reason people would think negatively about BD vs DVD. It is like having option to play Wii game at 480p or 1080p, and then people expecting everyone to select 480p because 1080p is evil.





http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=798272&page=371

That's why it surprised me because all the data I've been reading from the last few pages about Blu-Ray had me to believe that Blu-Ray is stable but its not doing as well as Sony would like. Thank you for the clarification.

 

[FullMetalx]

In defense of blu ray, I think it is a great format and value for the consumer. I simply cannot go back to watching anything on a SD DVD anymore. Don't believe me? Look at the title screen of Inception on DVD on a 55 inch Panasonic Plasma TV and then look at the blu ray version. Look at LOTR on blu ray as well. It is simply stunning! Something we definitely will not be getting through streaming for at least another several years. Not only that but Blu Ray gave even more values to consumers by ushering in blu ray combo packs. The average price I pay for a brand new blu ray is $16 and that includes, such as in Inception, a blu ray feature, bonus content on blu ray, a DVD copy, and even a digital copy! It is rather unfortunate that Sony had to really struggle to get to this point, but Blu Ray, at least for me, was great leap in tech.

 

[Kuran]

Does anyone think blu-ray will be the standard for the next 30-40 years?

lol

In 5 years there will be a new format, and in ten years 4k or 8k televisions will be the new standard.. probably. Who knows?

But you can count on a new way to buy all your favorite classic movies in the next five years.

 

[spwolf]

I think as usual you're seeing what you want to see. Where in this thread has anyone talked down the benefits of blu-ray?

I see people comparing the relative revenue/profits of dvd and blu-ray but that has nothing to do with the quality of each format. Obviously blu-ray is the superior format but that doesn't mean it will ever reach the same size that DVD did (which is what is being discussed).

BD will not pass DVD because they are complimentary to each other as well. Movie studios are not replacing DVDs with BDs. They are using BDs as high end option of owning an movie, by pricing it on average 70% higher than DVD. So it is really not the same.

Heck BDs might get replaced in 5 years by something else thats more appropriate at that time, who knows.

But yeah, for new releases, BD manages almost 50% market share, despite 30%-50% more expensive pricing. And VOD is not taking packaged sales. BD is growing more than both VOD rentals and VOD purchases. Netflix is what is growing, and what is replacing cheaper DVDs. But I think from all the data above, to say that Netflix is taking BD sales, is simply wrong.

 

[iamshadowlark]

lol

In 5 years there will be a new format, and in ten years 4k or 8k televisions will be the new standard.. probably. Who knows?

But you can count on a new way to buy all your favorite classic movies in the next five years.

Its getting less and less likely that there will be a new physical format.

 

[Vinci]

Does anyone think blu-ray will be the standard for the next 30-40 years?

Odds are, the method we'll be using then to watch shows or movies will be something that does not exist today. So no.

 

[gundamkyoukai]

lol

In 5 years there will be a new format, and in ten years 4k or 8k televisions will be the new standard.. probably. Who knows?

But you can count on a new way to buy all your favorite classic movies in the next five years.

I don't see there being a new format in 5 years to tell the truth .
With H.265\HEVC and more layers blu ray should last a while longer.
People might need new players before a new format and then DD should take over .