Poll: Will Blu-ray ever replace dvd?

[JakePwnsAtLife]

It better not.

I don't fancy paying about £500 for something that's no different to DVD.

This. I already have a DVD player, I'm not buying anything else to play movies until it explodes, killing several Irish immigrant families.

Well, since I -am- an Irish immigrant, I hope not either -___-

But in all seriousness, I JUST got done converting all my VHS to DVD and it was expensive and now like a year later they want me to do it again for -more- money?? Uhh, sorry, no thanks. I like DVD's.

 

[rossatdi]

No. The reason DVD overtook Video, was because it was prettier, had better access to the film (skipping and such) and could easily be hooked up to an existing t.v For blu-ray requires a whole new media set up. I doubt people wanna spend close to 2 grand for a slightly better picture.

Most people who are even vaguely AV inclined have an HDTV. Blu-ray players are coming down in price quickly.

And it's not 'slightly' better. It's ALOT better. Plus it's very easy to be backwards compatible. That's certainly a thing going in its favour.

Most people? I know many lovers of film and gaming, only a small percentage of which have an HDTV.

You're shitting me? I think I can count the number of people I know without HDTVs on one hand. We're not well off but its not like they're expensive any more. My parents have one!

Not expensive? Its close to 1500 pounds for a decent 32 inch T.V

It's really not. My 37" plasma 1080i cost £650 a year ago. And that was top of the range for its size.

 

[13lackfriday]

Give it a year or two and it'll take with the general populace instead of being concentrated on the tech-savvy, elitist top (jk).

btw on digital distribution: no way in hell.
It's the 21st Century and my bandwidth is still shit.

 

[shatnershaman]

Blu-ray could be the new format but it doesn't have that definitive must buy extra feature that DVD had which was no rewinding. Not having to rewind before I returned that rental was why I bought a DVD player.

 

[Lazzi]

I belive it will eventually but we wont have to worry about it for a while. As soen as the technology become cheaper, it will becoem more common.

While alot more things will become ditect downloads, I belive that BlueRay will still be an induvigual storage medium to back up data for beused for very large programs like FFMDXII, or what every emeensly unholy version of microsoft office will exist in the future.

 

[Goldbling]

I already have PS3, wich i secondarly use as a DVD player, and when I get a 1080p HDTV, i will consider buying blu-ray

Edit: movies, not another blu-ray player

 

[Raven's Nest]

This is the thread of pure ignorance and flame...

Somebody lock it please...

I can no longer read it without going mad!

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'm not sure how much ignorance there is here.

The step from VHS to DVD was warranted, but took a damned long time, and there's still people using videos, and a lot of people using video recorders to record TV. I'd give video recorders a good 5 years before they're reduced to an insigificant minority.

Secondly, while I'm sure blu ray is a reasonable step up in quality, it only is, if you have the suitable equipment, which I'd wager the majority do not have. We need to remember we're quite the techy, advanced lot here at the escapist and not a cross section of society as a whole, and there's an awfully large amount of people who are quite happy with their old 21" old style TV and video recorder, or if not happy, not willing to shell out the amount needed to upgrade, for what is nowhere near the leap forward that DVD was.

Blu Ray is nice, but its basically more storage space, and better quality, its not a whole new idea like DVD was, and as such doesn't have all the selling points of DVD over VHS.

Also, not to sound like a Luddite, but is it needed yet? I've seen enough 2 disc DVD special editions where it's obvious they could have put it all on one disc, to know that movies just don't need 50gb of space, except in exceptional cases like the Lord of the Ring, and I seem to remember one of the Godfather movies came on 2 discs as it was so long.

From a gaming perspective, fine, if it's going to be used to gaming, but that's going to increase the time taken to make a game hugely, and of course push up costs, and really, how much more could you add to the next FIFA or MADDEN, apart from what I think will happen to nearly all blu ray games, that they'll just pack them with hi res FMV to warrant using the format.

I'm already seeing a Metal Gear Solid Sequel where it takes 3 hours before you get to move your character instead of half an hour, because they realised they can force even more plot on you, in HD this time!

TL;DR Version, I don't believe the masses will see Blu Ray as having enough advances to warrant investing in the new technology, but hold out for a new idea that will come after it that will bring extra utility and ease of use to everyone.

 

[LooseNugget]

It will someday. Maybe not this year but I'm almost sure it will. But for now let's look at a funny post.

Digital downloads are the future...optical disc is dead.

Yeah because everybody has a credit card/paypal/whatever or has the time to download a game which he can buy at a store in a shorter amount of time.

Things like Steam aren't the best thing. Steam isn't bad but it has it's flaws (anyone remember the Empire: Total War launch day? Or the fact that you can't play some Steam games without an internet connection?).

Which is why I used the operative word "future". We're certainly not there yet - but thankfully, virtual stores, digital content delivery systems, e-payment methods, etc have infinite room to grow - you're kinda stuck with the Blu-ray format aren't ya. Games generally don't require BD-capacity, and probably won't ship on that media since Sony's got it licensed up the ass - Nintendo and Microsoft aren't going anywhere, and they probably won't be using BD anytime soon and how many PCs or Macs ship with blu-ray players, and when's the last time you saw Office, Windows, Adobe Creative Suite, OS X, Final Cut Suite, etc shipping on Blu-ray? I know they don't need to, but that's kind of my point...if the big companies don't start injecting the media into the mainstream, it's never going to take. So games, music, computer software - no need for Blu-ray. Blu-ray = video distribution only

Network capabilities of game consoles and PCs are already pretty damn good, and high-speed internet will be as common place as the standard tv and telephone in a few years. Steam is good, but it's certainly not the only system out there, nor did I claim it was the best (in fact, I didn't mention any specific platform, nor did I need to). HDTVs are quickly transforming into full-fledged mediacenters capable of internet access, email and video streaming. Why would they lock themselves into an uncertain optical-disc future? (in fact, they don't - they leave the option open to the user by having the HDMI/DVI port - but, again, no standardization means no mass appeal/market acceptance.) It goes without saying that with the rise of things XBox Live!/NetFlix/iTunes video stores/rentals, digital content delivery is not going away - in fact, as dsl/cable modem connections get faster, and as mediacenter PCs, game consoles and smart-TVs become more prevalent or commonplace in the home (more than 1 of each) - the only thing that will tie all of this technology together is the network on which they sit - why not use this infrastructure to make $. Let's not forget about portable electronics like Blackberrys, iPhones, iPods, cell phones, etc - again, no need for blu-ray, so why not sell a portable version of the movie instead? (we like making more $) hmm...problem though, how are we going to deliver it?

Certainly not via optical disc or sending an SD-card in the mail. Kill several birds with one stone. Sell/rent HD-quality music/video (queued download or streaming, once the ISPs actually get off their ass to update infrastructure so we can start matching some of the speeds that the "third-world" countries enjoy) for the smart-HDTV/console/PC customers and make lower quality versions available for portable users - all using one standardized method of delivery.

 

[killereddy]

remember VHS, no? not surprising. However, it took DVDs a long time to replace VHS completly, in fact it hasn't yet

 

[faselei]

I don't think Blu-ray will outlive DVD.

When it came to switching from VHS to DVD there was a clear advantage to the DVD (discs are easier to store, don't have to rewind, have subtitles, different languages and special features, can be played on games consoles and PC's etc.) so the DVD became the standard while the VHS faded into memory.

The only advantage Blu-ray has over DVD is a greater capacity on the discs (wow! I can have an extra commentary that I probably won't listen to) and slightly higher HD resolution (which isn't that great a bonus when you remember that not everyone has a HD TV and not that many people actually care about the scrren resolution).

I'm not going to shell out all that cash (and ditch my DVD collection) for what is only a minor improvement (a minor improvement that most of us won't notice anyway).

I am going to be very lazy and simply agree with this as it was prety much word for word what i was goingto say anyway. Despite reading most of the other posts this hasn't changed. That said... i will be buying a PS3 soon, so maybe my mind will be changed.

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

No. The reason DVD overtook Video, was because it was prettier, had better access to the film (skipping and such) and could easily be hooked up to an existing t.v For blu-ray requires a whole new media set up. I doubt people wanna spend close to 2 grand for a slightly better picture.

Most people who are even vaguely AV inclined have an HDTV. Blu-ray players are coming down in price quickly.

And it's not 'slightly' better. It's ALOT better. Plus it's very easy to be backwards compatible. That's certainly a thing going in its favour.

Most people? I know many lovers of film and gaming, only a small percentage of which have an HDTV.

You're shitting me? I think I can count the number of people I know without HDTVs on one hand. We're not well off but its not like they're expensive any more. My parents have one!

Not expensive? Its close to 1500 pounds for a decent 32 inch T.V

Wow where the hell are you shopping? I'm buying a 43" 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV for $1,200 (that's a good £900)

On topic: Eventually they will take over DVD's just give it time.
I don't think most of you realize that you don't have to restock your movie collection, blu-ray is backwards compatible.

 

[Sebdeas]

Sure, in a few years it will become cheaper and DVD's will be phased out, just like it happened with the VHS and anything before that.

 

[CyberAkuma]

Did Laserdiscs replace VHS?
Did BETAMAX replace VHS?
Did A-DAT replaces CDs?
Did MiniDiscs replace CDs?
Did 8-cm Discs replace CDs?
Did DVD-A replace CDs?
Did UMD-discs replace anything?

F.Y.I BluRay is dead [http://blogs.zdnet.com/storage/?p=365], you know

 

[TopHatTim]

OK did anyone see how fast it took out HDDVD, they outsold them so much that they just gave up. it will one day maybe in the next few years.

 

[IxionIndustries]

Oh god, I hope not.. I am so sick of the government dealing with things that don't matter, and switching over to things that aren't at all different from others. Like the "Digital T.V." transition? That was just downright ridiculous. Especially since there was no difference! Shouldn't they be worrying about more important things than the quality of our television?

 

[Leefank137]

Doubt it will replace it. Too big of a price change for too little product.

 

[DannyDamage]

Not in the way people think.

Blu-Ray is nothing more than a slight improvement of a pre-existing medium. Just like when we went from having 650mb cds, then 700mb, then 800mb and so on.

Only this time they've given the slight upgrade a cool and funky name for you all to latch onto and act like they've re-invented digital media.If people didn't buy into it as this magical new invention, they wouldn't separate the markets and encourage people to buy 2 copies of things.

Remember when you bought a music CD that was longer than the average 650mb/70min run time? Did you need another type of player to listen to the longer albums? No! So why should we now?

I for one boycotted blu-ray when I first discovered the industries' marketing approach and laminated my decision when all you cool trendy hip-kids started getting ps3s and acting like we'd gone from analogue to digital technology again.

Is it really that much of a ball-ache to have a film with 2 disks inside? 1 for the main feature and another for bonus stuff? No, it isn't.

In fact, the disks cost distributors LESS than 2 DVDs, meaning the logical step would be that blu-ray products should be cheaper than their 2/3 disk DVD counterpart.

Do they charge less? No!

Do you all pay more for the "privilege" of having this "better" medium? Yes!

The industry wins once again thanks to the fickle show-boating ways of the mainstream consumer. Joy.

 

[jthm]

No, the replacement disc format for Blu-Ray is already finished. As soon as the price of manufacturing it comes down to make it reasonable in a market (figure another year or two) then the ray is gone.