Recommended Posts

It's ironic I buy $50-60 games (like 2 in a year) but I refuse to pay $40 for a new movie (on BD that is)

You get more for your money when buying a $50 game though. If a game's play time is at least 10 hours, that's about 5 movies, at $200 total if they're all BD. That doesn't even factor in the hours and hours of online play that some games are capable of.

could happen if blu-ray hardware & movies don't fall in price dramatically. Wasn't that what accelerated DVDs onto our screens?

Dvd's took a few years to really crash in price, Blu ray is still considered a 'new' format, blu ray is currently been parrallel to the DVD timeline.

Just FYI - I went to someone's house, and they have a 5.1 surround sound system - with 5 out of 6 speakers in front pointed at them from beside the TV. The other one was on a table somewhere on the side.

If they don't care how their surround system is set up, they certainly won't care if the image is sharper on their TV. DVD is plenty fine for most people - only audiophiles/videophiles can justify spending $$$$$ to set up an HD system.

it will take off, it will be quite some time before physical media takes off...

If you think about it our generation is the first that accepts buying something doesnt mean having to actually be able to hold it....software, music downloads, ect

Our parents still like physical media and the movie studios will push blu-ray out

I can notice a difference on my 40" set, but true the smaller you go the less important it really gets.

Actually the PS3 will be quickly being phased out as the Blu Ray player to get amongst casuals, as Blu Ray players can now be purchased for cheaper.

For someone not interested in gaming, what's the point in spending the extra cash?

Or someone who isn't invested heavily in specifications, most likely the casuals who in many cases prioritise price over features.

Downloads will always co-inside with physical media for movies, but right now I do not foresee downloads passing physical for the foreseeable future, meaning there HAS to be a physical option on the market, making this whole topic of "is blu ray dead" rather pointless.

The PS3 won't, because for a marginal price increase you get a player that is constantly updated through the web, meaning it will always be up to date with its software making it more future proof than any of the other players. Then throw in the ability to use it as a multimedia device for both digital downloads, music, and gaming you can't beat the PS3 has a home entertainment system. At target the cheapest Blu-Ray players we sell are a mere $50 cheaper than the PS3. At those price people really don't care what is "cheaper" anymore and only want what will last.

Just FYI - I went to someone's house, and they have a 5.1 surround sound system - with 5 out of 6 speakers in front pointed at them from beside the TV. The other one was on a table somewhere on the side.

If they don't care how their surround system is set up, they certainly won't care if the image is sharper on their TV. DVD is plenty fine for most people - only audiophiles/videophiles can justify spending $$$$$ to set up an HD system.

Exactly my point.

The PS3 won't, because for a marginal price increase you get a player that is constantly updated through the web, meaning it will always be up to date with its software making it more future proof than any of the other players. Then throw in the ability to use it as a multimedia device for both digital downloads, music, and gaming you can't beat the PS3 has a home entertainment system. At target the cheapest Blu-Ray players we sell are a mere $50 cheaper than the PS3. At those price people really don't care what is "cheaper" anymore and only want what will last.

Um what?

You have like a bajillion topics on NW from people complaining about Blu Ray prices and you're now saying price doesn't matter, people will buy the most feature packed?

Uhhh no, not if market trends are to go by.

Complete saturation comes when you can get players dirt cheap, and I guarantee you there will end up more standalone Blu Ray players worldwide, than there will be PS3s used as a Blu Ray player.

Plus how many DVD players do people own in their home on average? I do not think people will be buying 2-3-4 PS3s per household.

And FYI as well, many standalone Blu Ray players out there now will update from the internet as well, through a USB stick.

Um what?

You have like a bajillion topics on NW from people complaining about Blu Ray prices and you're now saying price doesn't matter, people will buy the most feature packed?

Uhhh no, not if market trends are to go by.

Complete saturation comes when you can get players dirt cheap, and I guarantee you there will end up more standalone Blu Ray players worldwide, than there will be PS3s used as a Blu Ray player.

Plus how many DVD players do people own in their home on average? I do not think people will be buying 2-3-4 PS3s per household.

And FYI as well, many standalone Blu Ray players out there now will update from the internet as well, through a USB stick.

From my experience selling these things in actual retail, once prices hit over $250 to $300 or so people begin to make bigger leaps in cash for better products. At a difference of $349.99 for an OK player to $400 for 80GB of hard drive space, an player that is constantly updated, the ability to stream music AND play games, would you not spend a mere $50 extra? What I am trying to say is that these people want their money's worth alongside something that has a decent price tag. The PS3 is just that.

And right now, people usually only want one blu-ray player for their main entertainment center. Most people buy normal DVD players from Target and not the PS3 or Blu-Ray. Updates for the PS3 are also automatic with less hassle. Most people probably don't know you have to go to Sony's website, download something, put it on a flash drive and then plug it into the player. They never had to do it for DVD so what makes them think they should do it for Blu-Ray?

All I was pointing out was TVs being sold now are largely in part coming with full 1080p at many entry level sizes.

No TV below 40" being sold at most Wal-Mart stores supports 1080p, they are all 720p. Most of the 42" and above TV's do support 1080p (other than the plasmas, all of which are 720p), but sales of those are far outnumbered by the sales of smaller sets, at least at the store where I work.

From my experience selling these things in actual retail, once prices hit over $250 to $300 or so people begin to make bigger leaps in cash for better products. At a difference of $349.99 for an OK player to $400 for 80GB of hard drive space, an player that is constantly updated, the ability to stream music AND play games, would you not spend a mere $50 extra? What I am trying to say is that these people want their money's worth alongside something that has a decent price tag. The PS3 is just that.

And right now, people usually only want one blu-ray player for their main entertainment center. Most people buy normal DVD players from Target and not the PS3 or Blu-Ray. Updates for the PS3 are also automatic with less hassle. Most people probably don't know you have to go to Sony's website, download something, put it on a flash drive and then plug it into the player. They never had to do it for DVD so what makes them think they should do it for Blu-Ray?

There is no way in hell a $250-300 movie player is going to saturate the casual market Emn1ty.

And if people don't know squat about updating what makes you think they'll even consider the PS3 automatically updating.

Standalone Blu Ray player sales will trash PS3 sales from a pricing perspective, no doubts at all.

Look at the PS2, it's still $120 or something, you can get a DVD player for like $30.

was it ever alive?

My Blu Ray discs talk to me, I think they are breathing just fine? :iiam:

There is no way in hell a $250-300 movie player is going to saturate the casual market Emn1ty.

Which is why I have said Blu-Ray is not for the casual market.

And if people don't know squat about updating what makes you think they'll even consider the PS3 automatically updating.

Because they don't have to consider it beyond plugging it into a internet connection. The PS3 does it automatically, normal players don't. Automatic = less thought process.

Standalone Blu Ray player sales will trash PS3 sales from a pricing perspective, no doubts at all.

Sure, once they are at least $100 cheaper for a decently sized player (right now they are roughly twice the size of a normal DVD player, at least at Target).

Look at the PS2, it's still $120 or something, you can get a DVD player for like $30.

Cause DVD was out before the PS2 and was already gaining popularity. Besides, both the XBox and GameCube used a form of DVD so this is not the same situation.

I think Blu-ray will be around for a while, mainly because of the game consoles. I don't follow the format wars very closely, but last time I saw the numbers, HD-DVD was dead, leaving only Blu-ray. If game consoles don't use Blu-ray, will they go back to multi-disc games using DVDs? What about the HD content? Something's gotta give, and I doubt it'll be Blu-ray.

Sure, once they are at least $100 cheaper for a decently sized player (right now they are roughly twice the size of a normal DVD player, at least at Target).

The size of the player has NOTHING to do with anything, they are not meant to be portable.

besides, the PS3 is huge, so dosnt that kinda contradict what you have said?

I think Blu-ray will be around for a while, mainly because of the game consoles. I don't follow the format wars very closely, but last time I saw the numbers, HD-DVD was dead, leaving only Blu-ray. If game consoles don't use Blu-ray, will they go back to multi-disc games using DVDs? What about the HD content? Something's gotta give, and I doubt it'll be Blu-ray.

You make a pretty good point, you can bet ur ass the Xbox720 and PS4 will use it.

I don't think blu-ray will be around forever, but I think it will for at least 2-3 more years.

We all know that someday it will be all online buying/downloading movies and shows, but people like to get their hands on something that's physical and I don't think that an online store will appeal to the mainstream any time soon.

Seems like most people can hardly turn on an LCD TV and put in a blu-ray movie into a PS3 (or standalone) properly, let alone go through the 'hassle' of buying it online.

I say this because of experience (worked at Future Shop)..

Which is why I have said Blu-Ray is not for the casual market.

Because they don't have to consider it beyond plugging it into a internet connection. The PS3 does it automatically, normal players don't. Automatic = less thought process.

Sure, once they are at least $100 cheaper for a decently sized player (right now they are roughly twice the size of a normal DVD player, at least at Target).

Cause DVD was out before the PS2 and was already gaining popularity. Besides, both the XBox and GameCube used a form of DVD so this is not the same situation.

Which is why I have said Blu-Ray is not for the casual market.

Player posted in here last week for $140 with 4 movies.

That comment is just plain stupid Emn1ty, Blu Ray is for everyone when it's affordable for you, and as prices drop below PS3 prices, standalone players become more viable for everyone.

Because they don't have to consider it beyond plugging it into a internet connection. The PS3 does it automatically, normal players don't. Automatic = less thought process.

Read my point again, if you're talking about a casual person who has no idea about updating, they won't consider the PS3 automatically updating as they know nothing about updates.

Sure, once they are at least $100 cheaper for a decently sized player (right now they are roughly twice the size of a normal DVD player, at least at Target).

Glad we agree there.

Sure, once they are at least $100 cheaper for a decently sized player (right now they are roughly twice the size of a normal DVD player, at least at Target).

Games consoles will never outsell standalone, as standalone will always become cheaper quicker.

Look at the PS2, it's still $120 or something, you can get a DVD player for like $30.
In the U.S., mass retailer sales of DVD-Video titles and players began in late 1997.[17] By June 2003, weekly DVD-Video rentals began out-numbering weekly VHS cassette rentals, reflecting the rapid adoption rate of the technology in the U.S. marketplace.[18][19] Currently DVD-Video is the dominant form of home video distribution worldwide.

True but look how long it took to really kick off.

Take a look at this article I found on yahoo: http://green.yahoo.com/blog/the_conscious_...efficiency.html

Here's a quote from the last part of the article: "Viewing movies on a stand-alone unit is a lot more efficient. The Playstation 3, for example, uses five times more power than the stand-alone Sony Blu-Ray player to play the same movie."

I guess you people may want to think twice before buying a PS3 specially for Blu-ray movies. ;)

I guess you people may want to think twice before buying a PS3 specially for Blu-ray movies. ;)

lol, when I play a blu-ray on my ps3 it's using less power than it usually does. I run folding@home 24 hours a day. Can't do that on my stand alone Samsung downstairs.

The size of the player has NOTHING to do with anything, they are not meant to be portable.

besides, the PS3 is huge, so dosnt that kinda contradict what you have said?

Oh yes it does. Size has everything to do with it. Size doesn't only matter when things are portable devices. Sometimes people like things to be small and out of the way, or they don't have shelf space for the player so they need one that can fit underneath or in front of the television. Right now, even the PS3 takes up less lateral space than any stand alone Blu-Ray player I have seen. Even the DVD-VHS combo machines are sometimes smaller than the Blu-Ray players.

Player posted in here last week for $140 with 4 movies.

That comment is just plain stupid Emn1ty, Blu Ray is for everyone when it's affordable for you, and as prices drop below PS3 prices, standalone players become more viable for everyone.

No, it isn't plain stupid. Just because the player is bundled and cheap does not make it the best bang for your buck. What I am talking about is getting your money's worth, and right now the PS3 is more for your money. Bundles also are limited time offers, not standard releases, so even considering that as something to base your argument off of is stupid.

Read my point again, if you're talking about a casual person who has no idea about updating, they won't consider the PS3 automatically updating as they know nothing about updates.

This is why you tell them when you sell a product. The PS3 eliminates the need to do or know anything about updating beyond having it plugged into a connection. You tell them as long as it is plugged into the internet they will have THE most up-to-date player software wise and they like the sound of that.

Games consoles will never outsell standalone, as standalone will always become cheaper quicker.

Never said it would. As I said above, I am not trying to say buy a PS3 now and forever since it will be forever the best. What I am saying is that at this moment the PS3 is the best for your money as well as the easiest to keep up to date. It will save you money in the long run as a Blu-Ray player and can even double later as an extended media center with it's upgradeable HDD.

Edited by Joel

Just look in stores. I can only speak for to UK here. But store such as HVM and zavvi have a bigger Blu-ray section every time I go in them.

I'd say Blu-ray is far from dying. I do think mass penetration of the market will take longer than DVD's though for two reasons.

1. The benefits of blu-ray to the general public are not as big as DVD was over VHS (No rewind, immensely better picture and sound, no degredation after repeated viewing)

2. To gain the full benefits you need to buy a HD screen. Again the general public are not up for this. Many people I have spoken to are happy with their 32" SD CRT

  • 3 weeks later...

So, to quote myself....

Actually, that predicts well for Blu-ray. Historically, in hard times, people spend money on entertainment to make themselves feel better. It's how Hollywood blew up during the Great Depression. People have to cancel vacations they can't afford, so they end up buying new TVs/movies/etc.

And to quote this article...

http://uk.gear.ign.com/articles/938/938098p1.html

Blu-ray Sales Off The Charts

Consumers place Blu-ray players at the top of their holiday wish lists.

by Chris Iaquinta

US, December 12, 2008 - The holiday shopping season is at full intensity and consumers have made it clear that above all else they want a Blu-ray player in their stocking. Numerous reports have shown a dramatic increase in Blu-ray sales this year, with experts estimating that many more thousands of units will be cleared from the shelves before the New Year.

Early today, the Digital Entertainment Group (DEG) in conjunction with Greenfield Online, announced the findings of their survey data that show that HDTV users have named the Blu-ray as their most sought after holiday wish list item for 2008. In addition, stats from NPD Group and DisplaySearch show that 147,000 Blu-ray players were purchased during Thanksgiving week, a figure up by 300% over last year's sales. Black Friday Blu-ray sales were also off the chart according to an independent DEG analysis, with sales more than quadrupled that of what was sold in 2007.

"This recent survey data combined with these sales numbers illustrates that, given the economy, people will be spending more time entertaining themselves at home by watching movies ? and the delivery system they want is Blu-ray," said Amy Jo Smith, Executive Director, DEG. "These stats are particularly encouraging because, even with the consumer anxiety out there right now, Blu-ray is poised for a strong holiday sales season."

Blu-ray players aren't the only benefactor of the current HD craze, as Blu-ray discs themselves are experiencing exponential sales growth. Greenfield research shows that consumers more than ever want to receive movies on disc this holiday season, with most preferring a Blu-ray disc gift instead of a standard DVDExperts cite the tough economy as the reason behind the heightened Blu-ray interest, as consumers with HDTV's are becoming more likely to focus on in-home entertainment spending, such as purchasing Blu-ray players and discs, instead of using the money for out of the home activities.b>

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
    • For me, the fundamental problems with these "smartglasses" is that they really don't work well for people with significant prescriptions and massively up the price if you use attached lenses if they have displays, and if they don't, then they're not actually "smart" anything, rather just connecting to your phone and relaying voice to an AI. In a few cases like this, they throw in small cameras to feed video to the AI. All around, these feel like both a solution looking for a problem, and the problems it tries to solve seem more easily solved by different approaches and designs. Oddly, if the rumours are true, Apple may actually have invented something for once and it kind of does this right: put cameras in ear buds and manage the interface to AI exactly as most of us do: tapping on an ear bud and saying "Hey Google" or "Hey Siri." That makes them compatible with almost everyone, can double up as a hearing assist device, an impaired vision assist device, a "smart" device... and answer your phone and play music. That just seems like a better solution all around.
    • Usually the bigger ones with many fixes/changes take a few, theyre an exception to the rule most likely
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      452
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      84
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!