 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups Platforms PCXboxPlayStationNintendoGames ActionStrategyRole Playing GamesSimulatorsSport Games |
Game Forum / Xbox / General Xbox Topics / July 2008How bad are Blu-Ray sales?
So we already know that over the first 6 months of 2008 the entire Blu- Ray catalog only managed to sell 7.4 million discs. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080714/media_nm/dvd_dc By comparison, games on both the 360 and PS3 compare quite favorably. Metal Gear Solid 4 - 2.57 million (35% of the entire Blu-Ray catalog) Halo 3 - 8.1 million (109% of the Blu-Ray catalog) Grand Theft Auto IV 360 - 5.71 million (77% of the Blu-Ray catalog) Grand Theft Auto IV PS3 - 4.18 million (56% of the Blu-Ray catalog) But here's the real problem for Blu-Ray: Stand alone Blu-Ray player sales are non-existent. The NPD group can't release the sales data because it's so damn low. But the good news is there are 5.5 million PS3s in the United States right now... The problem is you go back to the 7.4 million discs sold... There's no evidence that PS3 owners are buying Blu-Ray discs in any significant quantity. 7.4 million discs / 5.5 million PS3s = 1.35 Blu-Ray movies sold per PS3 over a 6 month period. (0.225 movies per machine per month?) This is not sustainable. I realize that I'm not a typical consumer, I own 12 Blu-Ray movies (7 of which I actually paid for), but that means for every PS3 owner like me there are many who aren't buying any Blu-Ray discs at all. - Jordan Movies I bought: Adventures of Baron Muchausen Curse of the Golden Flower Fifth Element Justice League: New Frontier Monty Python: Life of Brian Ratatouille Sunshine 5 Free: Hart's War (OK for free, I probably wouldn't have bought it. Worth a rental) The Prestige (excellent, worth buying) Stir of Echoes (to be honest, I've had it for months and haven't watched it.) Swordfish (crap, but they got the well known port numbers correct) Ultraviolet (ultra-crap. But I knew that going in, I had to see just how bad it was.) I think most people are just waiting for prices to drop on Blu-Ray media. Its common knowledge nowadays to 'wait it out' until prices hit an acceptable level ,especially in the consumer electronics section of the market. Only early adopters and people with comfortable incomes are jumping into Blu-Ray. True but they have no incentive to drop BR player and movie prices since the format war is over. BR media still is expensive to replicate. With the economy slow, gas prices high, there is little reason why BR is not being bought by consumers. At best BR will be the next laser disc, e.g. niche format. On Jul 23, 4:43 am, ks...@webtv.net wrote: > I think most people are just waiting for prices to drop on Blu-Ray > media. Its common knowledge nowadays to 'wait it out' until prices hit > an acceptable level ,especially in the consumer electronics section of > the market. Only early adopters and people with comfortable incomes > are jumping into Blu-Ray. > With the economy slow, gas prices high, there is little > reason why BR is not being bought by consumers. At best BR will be the > next laser disc, e.g. niche format. BR has a lot more potential to be more than just a niche like Laserdisk. One thing everybody seems to forget when they try to compare past format evolutions is that this is the only time where the new technology's hardware is backwards compatible with the existing media, and if you have an old DVD player a new blu-ray player even improves the quality of your old media. That is not a trivial fact. When Laser disc, Betamax, DVD, and VHS were trying to get their foot in the door it was a slow process because you had to convince consumers to replace their existing hardware with new hardware that couldn't play their huge investment of existing media. Plus rental stores carried only a certain percentage of the new format for a while and it was too much of a hassle for consumers to make a switch until the new format becomes the majority otherwise you have to keep swapping players on your TV to play one or the other. With blu-ray you simple chunk your old DVD player and hook up the new player. Consumers like it simple. > > With the economy slow, gas prices high, there is little > > reason why BR is not being bought by consumers. At best BR will be the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > you simple chunk your old DVD player and hook up the new player. > Consumers like it simple. By that logic, it's even more simple to not have to chuck the existing DVD player (which at this point probably upscales DVDs) and hook up a new one. I don't think Blu-Ray will be a niche technology (mainly because I think niche implies a very small minority other than a successful minority) but I do think it will be much longer (if ever) than some people here think before Blu-Ray even catches up DVD month-to-month sales. > > BR has a lot more potential to be more than just a niche like > > Laserdisk. One thing everybody seems to forget when they try to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > DVD player (which at this point probably upscales DVDs) and hook up a > new one. Do you really think the majority of people have upscaling DVD players in their homes right now? I know most of the newest ones sold now upscale but most people probably have older DVD players they bought 5+ years ago. When these consumers either buy a new HDTV or their old DVD player goes out they will be faced with a choice: 1. buy an upscaling DVD player or 2. spend more money and buy a player that both upscales and will play the newest disc format. When prices get a bit lower on BR players I think many consumers will start picking option 2. > Do you really think the majority of people have upscaling DVD players > in their homes right now? I know most of the newest ones sold now [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > When prices get a bit lower on BR players I think many consumers will > start picking option 2. When blu-ray players hit $100, you might have a point. However, that isn't going to be a few years. Even then, upscaling DVD playeres will most likely be $35, so there'll still be an inexpensive choice. In the meantime, the blu-ray's adoption is being artificially constrained by the marketshare of HDTVs since until you've upgraded to HD, a blu-ray player or even an upscaling player just isn't going to make sense. And if you're on that tight of a budget that you haven't upgraded to HDTV and don't plan on upgrading anytime soon, chances are you also aren't going to spend the extra money on an upscaling player, much less blu-ray, unless those are literally the only choices you have available. By the time HDTVs have been adopted by the vast majority of the market (>90%) we're going to hearing about the next format, and this time, the vast majority of the market will be more than willing and ready to make the jump.  SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > > > BR has a lot more potential to be more than just a niche like > > > Laserdisk. One thing everybody seems to forget when they try to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Do you really think the majority of people have upscaling DVD players > in their homes right now? No, but plenty of people do. Upscaling DVD players have been around for a few years now and have been selling very well. I'm sure penetration into homes is higher than HDTV's ~30%. > I know most of the newest ones sold now > upscale but most people probably have older DVD players they bought 5+ [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > When prices get a bit lower on BR players I think many consumers will > start picking option 2. Said prices would had to have dropped by a gigantic percentage. Right now, you can purchase an upscaling DVD player for $35 at Wal-mart whereas the cheapest Blu-Ray player is still at $300. When Blu-Ray players drop to maybe around $100-150, perhaps. People will also factor in that they have to pay significantly more for a Blu- Ray versus a DVD. > BR has a lot more potential to be more than just a niche like > Laserdisk. One thing everybody seems to forget when they try to > compare past format evolutions is that this is the only time where the > new technology's hardware is backwards compatible with the existing > media, and if you have an old DVD player a new blu-ray player even > improves the quality of your old media. That is not a trivial fact. Meh. For $80 you can get a good upscaling DVD player. Even then, do you really NEED an upscaling DVD player? All flatscreen HDTVs come with an upscaler of their own, which is going to do a pretty good job by itself - even if you're still using plain old composite video cables. > When Laser disc, Betamax, DVD, and VHS were trying to get their foot > in the door it was a slow process because you had to convince [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > you simple chunk your old DVD player and hook up the new player. > Consumers like it simple. What existing hardware needed replacing with VHS, Beta or LD? There was no previous generation of video players, unless you're thinking of 9mm home projectors (which were still not that commonplace.) You also didn't need to replace your TV to be able to use any of those technologies either, unlike blu-ray which is a waste of money unless you've already upgraded your TV to HD. Only then are you really ready to spend $400 on a new DVD player and its $25-30/movie discs. Rental stores for VHS/Beta/LD didn't come along until a bit afterwards, which again hurt adoption since no one was going to spend $100-150 on a single VHS movie circa 1982-3. LD never captured the mainstream market because you couldn't record on it, and you had to flip the disk halfway through the movie. This left VHS and Beta to battle it out. LDs remained - but only as a high end item for the emerging home theater-philes of the time. While blu-ray players can play DVDs, making that aspect of the upgrade a little easier for consumers, the problem remains that you're still looking at a good $1400 for a blu-ray player AND the HDTV to appreciate it, in order to properly upgrade. That's a lot more than the $100-200 most people paid for their VCR or DVD player. SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > So we already know that over the first 6 months of 2008 the entire Blu- > Ray catalog only managed to sell 7.4 million discs. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > Ultraviolet (ultra-crap. But I knew that going in, I had to see just > how bad it was.) And what does this have to do with games? :-D > This is not sustainable. Yes, lets look at sales for a brand new format that still has high prices and radically declare that it is not sustainable. You would have had to jump the same conclusions for VHS, DVD, CD, or any new format that has ever been introduced at a high initial cost point. > > This is not sustainable. > > Yes, lets look at sales for a brand new format that still has high prices > and radically declare that it is not sustainable. You would have had to > jump the same conclusions for VHS, DVD, CD, or any new format that has ever > been introduced at a high initial cost point. The difference between those formats and this one is that they offered practical advantages and immediate benefits to the consumer whereas Blu-Ray does not. I don't agree with Jordan's apparent predilection to the idea that Blu- Ray will die a quick death but this particular line of reasoning has been succinctly defeated each of the many times it was brought up by Blu-Ray supporters in the past year or so. The two problems with most people trying to argue that Blu-Ray is "the next DVD" are a) they try to make Blu-Ray out to be more than it is (a DVD-like format that only offers high-end video and audio quality) and b) they assume that the mainstream consumer, who is infinitely more important to the success of the format than they are, think like they do. At this point in time, anyone who is "into Blu-Ray" is either an early adopter who thinks the benefit of the technology is worth the price points that most consumers would find unreasonable or a gamer who bought into the Playstation 3 (and we know those people who are regularly buying Blu-Ray movies are few and far between). On the flipside, the mainstream consumer doesn't think the benefit of the technology is worth the money the industry wants them to pay right now and likely doesn't care about gaming where they would buy a system and "try out Blu-Ray" as a side effect. For the overwhelming majority of people, upscaled DVD and compressed HD (or even just plain old standard def) from a cable or satellite provider is more than good enough right now while prices for Blu-Ray are too high. While I agree that price has to drop as a technology gets older, I think the studios will be much more reluctant in this particular instance. The only reason the studios even pushed this technology so hard was because of their prediction that DVD sales are going to drop by more and more significant percentages each year from now on and they want to have something else in place to be their new cash cow. It will be difficult for the studios to justify dropping prices of movies so much so quickly seeing as they have already gone through artificial price adjustments during the HD format war. The studios were so eager to end the format war so profits wouldn't drop even further than they already had (it had nothing to do with consumers choosing). If the studios were to go to the sub-$20 MSRP level, they wouldn't really be making much headway towards getting profits from home disc sales back up to where they used to be (although obviously a little progress is better than no or reverse progress). That's why the studios are now so against Warner Bros.'s decision to release catalog titles at the sub-$20 MSRP level by this holiday season. "The alMIGHTY N" <natlee75@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:0cddf592-a399-46ba-a41b- > The difference between those formats and this one is that they offered > practical advantages and immediate benefits to the consumer whereas > Blu-Ray does not. That has nothing to do with the discussion. How you personally feel about the practical and immediate advantages has nothing to do with my comparision (which is about cost versus product adoption). Doesn't matter whether it's HD sets, new cellphones with touch screens or text messaging, new dvrs, new graphics cards for your PC, photo printers, etc. Simply put, you cannot state, at this early of a new format when costs are still high, that the format is going to die because of lack of sales. In all of the above examples, you could have made the same conclusion based on sales #'s. When costs came down, people made the decision on whether the "practical and immediate" advantages were worth it at that time. In the case of laserdisc? They did not. In the case of DVD? They did. > "The alMIGHTY N" <natle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:0cddf592-a399-46ba-a41b- [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the practical and immediate advantages has nothing to do with my comparision > (which is about cost versus product adoption). What I stated is very relevant. You claimed that anybody using his logic would have concluded the exact same dire end for specific technologies that you listed and you are absolutely wrong about that. This has nothing to do with my personal feelings or beliefs. Blu-Ray does not offer as many improvements over DVD to the viewing experience for the typical consumer as DVD did over VHS. This is a fact, not an opinion. What I personally feel or what you personally feel about the advantages of the technology is not representative of what the typical consumer feels - we are clearly not typical consumers of home entertainment technology. If you want to talk in generalities about the sustainability of no specific product because of early sales statistics and cost factors, then you also have to acknowledge that there are many technologies that cost a lot when they first came out, didn't provide practical advantages to target consumers and went the way of the dodo. > Doesn't matter whether it's HD sets, new cellphones with touch screens or > text messaging, new dvrs, new graphics cards for your PC, photo printers, > etc. > > Simply put, you cannot state, at this early of a new format when costs are > still high, that the format is going to die because of lack of sales. I don't disagree with that. I would also like to point out that by the same token you cannot state at this early stage of a new format that it will be any sort of success and will NOT die before some other technology takes over and will not be relegated to some high-end niche. Your arguments and your point of view are no more or less valid than Jordan, mine or anyone else. The best we can do is present our predictions. People here are too extreme at both ends of the spectrum. Nobody can state absolutely with 100% certainty that Blu-Ray will die, be a niche, be a moderate success or replace DVD no matter what kind of knowledge they have. > In > all of the above examples, you could have made the same conclusion based on > sales #'s. If sales numbers existed in some sort of vaccuum, sure. > When costs came down, people made the decision on whether the > "practical and immediate" advantages were worth it at that time. In the > case of laserdisc? They did not. In the case of DVD? They did. When there are "practical and immediate" advantages, cost doesn't have to come down quite as much. VHS/Beta tape technology changed things up by giving people the convenience of being able to watch movies in the comfort of their own home. It was a no-brainer that it would take off. VCRs changed the game by allowing people to actually record television, providing a convenience they didn't have before. CDs changed things up on the music side by providing not only better quality audio but the ability to skip directly to any song in the album and rewind/fast forward at a faster speed. It also got rid of the inconvenience of lower quality from repeated viewings. CD-Rs changed the game by allowing people to customize their own soundtracks, store computer data, etc. DVD immediately provided the same types of advantages that CDs provided to the audio tape world. Blu-Ray, however, doesn't change the game in the same way. It provides higher quality video when people don't necessarily need higher quality (there are reports that point to how people are actually sacrificing quality for cost and portability in the new iTunes world). That's it. (Sure, it provides better audio quality as well but a very small percentage of people even have speaker set-ups.) Because of this, prices need to come down to much closer to the cost of existing technology since the only advantage it really provides is in a very subjective quality of the experience. > What I stated is very relevant. Not with what I was talking about, not it was not. Cost affects market penetration. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about chewing gum or some new format that YOU don't feel offers enough benefits to warrant buying. The fact that a VERY EXPENSIVE new format in its infancy only has 2% market penetration (in the US mind-you) is no indication of whether the format will eventually succeed/fail. Doesn't matter what that format is, or what benefits it offers over the preceding format, or whether it's even a format at all. Since that is all I was talking about, your repetitive "it's not a big enough upgrade" doesn't come into that discussion at all. I'm strictly talking COST versus MARKET PENETRATION. We could be talking fruit here, for all I care. A new banana that tastes slightly better that cost $5 won't sell as many as an old banana that cost $1. Once that new banana costs $2, then people will decide whether "it's a big enough upgrade" to warrant that extra $1. When the new banana is $5 and not selling, to say that nobody wants that new banana is ridiculous. They don't want it at $5 for sure. Nobody ever thought they would. In a year or 2 when Blu-ray players can be had for $100 and disks can be had regularly for $10-15 (which both certainly will be)...at that time if the market still is bad, then you can say the format failed. But to point at a 2% US market penetration as an example that it has already failed is ludicrous. In fact, 2% at this stage is GOOD, not bad. It's certainly inline with other similar format growth patterns. > > What I stated is very relevant. > > Not with what I was talking about, not it was not. You were making general statements about cost versus market penetration when *that* was not at all what Jordan's post was talking about. You were trying to make some sort of overgeneralized comparison between Blu-Ray and many other technologies that obviously survived in an attempt to imply that Blu-Ray will do just as well as each of those technologies. Hell, your talk about cost versus market penetration isn't even relevant to what Jordan was stating. His statement about a lack of sustainability was not referring to some low percentage of players or discs in the market in general. His statement was referring to the low percentage of disc sales to people who *already* had made the largest part of the investment, having already purchased a Playstation 3. These people, even after becoming early adopters into the technology, *still* aren't buying the discs, which, honestly, aren't really that different in price from DVDs when that technology was still in its first couple of years. > Cost affects market penetration. Of course it does. However, the consumers Jordan was talking about were not general consumers - they were people who had already invested and thus members of the part of the market that had *already* been penetrated. > Doesn't matter whether we're talking about > chewing gum or some new format that YOU don't feel offers enough benefits to > warrant buying. *I* have purchased both HD DVD and Blu-Ray players so *I* feel it offers enough benefits to warrant buying. Obviously, you do as well. However, that is irrelevant to whether those benefits are worthwhile to *MOST* people at such elevated prices. The bottom line is that it is an undisputable fact that Blu-Ray does not offer anywhere near an upgrade over DVD that DVD offered over VHS. Whether you like it or not, and however you try to spin the discussion, that's the way it is. You can try to ignore this all you want in your attempts to "prove" that Blu-Ray is going to be successful and be the replacement for DVD technology, but in the end your predictions are no more valid than anyone else's. > The fact that a VERY EXPENSIVE new format in its infancy only has 2% market > penetration (in the US mind-you) is no indication of whether the format will > eventually succeed/fail. I don't disagree with you on this. That's not what Jordan was talking about. > Doesn't matter what that format is, or what > benefits it offers over the preceding format, or whether it's even a format > at all. Since that is all I was talking about, your repetitive "it's not a > big enough upgrade" doesn't come into that discussion at all. Nor does your repetitive "I'm just talking about cost versus market penetration" which doesn't come into the discussion at all. > I'm strictly > talking COST versus MARKET PENETRATION. We could be talking fruit here, for [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > wants that new banana is ridiculous. They don't want it at $5 for sure. > Nobody ever thought they would. I never stated that nobody wants the new banana no matter what the price. I stated that if the new banana tastes only slightly better (and the average person wouldn't even notice the better taste unless they had just eaten one of the old bananas a second ago), there would need to be a significant price drop to near what people are paying now for the old banana in order for them to switch to the new banana. I also stated that it's ridiculous to compare the viability of this new banana to the viability of the previous "new" banana (now the old banana) because that previous new banana offered not only a more noticeable upgrade in taste, but also offered an easier peel, more health benefits, etc. whereas this current new banana simply recycles all those features and adds the very slight taste improvement. Further, this new banana requires you to purchase a special $500 banana-eating tool otherwise it tastes exactly like the old banana and there's already a banana-eating tool that only costs $10 and gives you a slight improvement in taste that is almost as good as the one provided by the new banana. That most people don't care and will just stick with eating old bananas, which they have hundreds of already, does not even come into play. > In a year or 2 when Blu-ray players can be had for $100 and disks can be had > regularly for $10-15 (which both certainly will be)...at that time if the > market still is bad, then you can say the format failed. It's very doubtful that Blu-Ray players would cost $100 and discs would cost $10-15 MSRP for new releases (versus catalog titles) even in 2 years. > But to point at a > 2% US market penetration as an example that it has already failed is > ludicrous. I agree. Who pointed to that? > In fact, 2% at this stage is GOOD, not bad. It's certainly > inline with other similar format growth patterns. I don't necessarily disagree with this. > > But to point at a > > 2% US market penetration as an example that it has already failed is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I don't necessarily disagree with this. The reason 2% is terrible isn't just because of the size, it's because it's stagnant. Blu-Ray has been on the market for a year and a half now. 6 months into the fight with HD-DVD the HD disc market size was STILL 2%. The only difference was you had two formats fighting over that tiny slice of the pie. Blu-Ray at 1.2% and HD-DVD at 0.8%. To sit here a year later and have a market the same size shows ZERO growth. Have Blu-Ray sales increased? Sure, now they own 100% of the 2% instead of just 60% of the same insignificant sliver. WOW! You think movie studios are still going to be backing Blu-Ray a year from now if they continue selling 1 movie per PS3 in 6 months? Really? The first DVD players came out in March of 1997. 9/21/1999 saw the first DVD million seller (The Matrix). That's 0 to a million in 30 months. We're more than 1/2 way through that time period for Blu- Ray... Are there any 500,000 sellers on the format yet? (no). Hell are there any titles that have sold 300,000 yet? (no.) Pirates of the Carribean did 160,000. Spider-Man 3 did 130,000 copies. That's what hit UMD titles were doing when the plug got pulled. I think the first real hit on Blu-Ray is going to be Iron Man, it will be interesting to see how it does (and if anyone releases real numbers for the format.) - Jordan > > > But to point at a > > > 2% US market penetration as an example that it has already failed is [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Jordan I think Iron Man will do quite well but I don't think it will best Casino Royale in terms of opening numbers. I think The Dark Knight could be Blu-Ray's The Matrix. The opening bank heist on Blu-Ray is absolutely INCREDIBLE. > I don't agree with Jordan's apparent predilection to the idea that Blu- > Ray will die a quick death but this particular line of reasoning has > been succinctly defeated each of the many times it was brought up by > Blu-Ray supporters in the past year or so. Since when has Sony let any of their formats die a quick death? :^) Remember how long Mini Disc hung on? - Jordan > Since when has Sony let any of their formats die a quick death? :^) > Remember how long Mini Disc hung on? Sony is still putting movies on UMD. At least Mini Disc, like Betamax, has its uses as a recordable media. SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. Funny my Mom bought a newer HDTV about 2 weeks ago and while she was on the phone telling me about it , she said the guy told her it has Blu-Ray. I asked her did it come with a Blu-Ray player? She said what do you mean? I told her Blu-Ray is a disc format ,blah blah etc etc. , She said the salesman told her 'it has Blu-Ray capabilities' LOL ...f.cking salesman > Funny my Mom bought a newer HDTV about 2 weeks ago and while she was > on the phone telling me about it , she said the guy told her it has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > She said the salesman told her 'it has Blu-Ray capabilities' > LOL ...f.cking salesman Most sales people barely understand the products they're selling. Or, use scare tactics to get you to buy the more expensive item. "Ooh, you better only use an official Monster Cable, or you'll void your warranty!" SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. >Funny my Mom bought a newer HDTV about 2 weeks ago and while she was >on the phone telling me about it , she said the guy told her it has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >She said the salesman told her 'it has Blu-Ray capabilities' >LOL ...f.cking salesman If my mother got lied to by a salesman like that, I would have made my way over to the store and beat that zitt faced boxer short wearing prick into the ground upfront of his boss. > If my mother got lied to by a salesman like that, I would have made my way > over to the store and beat that zitt faced boxer short wearing prick into the > ground upfront of his boss. The thing is we don't know what the sales dude said to her... it could just be a simple misunderstanding on her part. Sales dude: "And this TV comes with 3 HDMI ports..." Mom: "Oh, what are those for?" Sales dude: "Well, if you have something like a Blu-Ray player that's where you'd hook it up..." But you're right, if it was an outright lie that's grounds for a thrashing. - Jordan > So we already know that over the first 6 months of 2008 the entire Blu- > Ray catalog only managed to sell 7.4 million discs. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > 7.4 million discs / 5.5 million PS3s = 1.35 Blu-Ray movies sold per > PS3 over a 6 month period. (0.225 movies per machine per month?) If the rate is 1.35 movies per PS3, then I'm supporting most of the market considering the number of Blu-ray movies I've bought over the last 6 months (two-for-one sales and other price cuts to get them under $20 each). > This is not sustainable. > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Ultraviolet (ultra-crap. But I knew that going in, I had to see just > how bad it was.) > So we already know that over the first 6 months of 2008 the entire Blu- > Ray catalog only managed to sell 7.4 million discs. [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Stir of Echoes (to be honest, I've had it for months and haven't > watched it.) Great movie > Swordfish (crap, but they got the well known port numbers correct) > Ultraviolet (ultra-crap. But I knew that going in, I had to see just > how bad it was.) Kinda liked it. > Stir of Echoes (to be honest, I've had it for months and haven't > watched it.) Pop it in! It's a much better movie than it deserved to be but it was over-shadowed by The Sixth Sense (IIRC). Bonus enjoyment to be had if you've ever spent time in Bridgeport. > But here's the real problem for Blu-Ray: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > evidence that PS3 owners are buying Blu-Ray discs in any significant > quantity. Does that include those Spiderman3 blu-ray discs that ship with every PS3? Or, how about that "buy a blu-ray player, get 5 movies for free?" deal? (which, btw, the company claimed they "lost" our application...idiots.) SignatureIt's not broken. It's...advanced. > > But here's the real problem for Blu-Ray: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Or, how about that "buy a blu-ray player, get 5 movies for free?" deal? > (which, btw, the company claimed they "lost" our application...idiots.) Wouldn't that depend on whether Sony or some independent entity was reporting the numbers? > -- > It's not broken. It's...advanced. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.