var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
Kensuke Nakamura
June 30, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

How much does that hurt Blu-Ray? I assume they get little or no money from used Blu-Ray sales. Also I don't think it's going to affect peoples choice to buy a Blu-Ray, If I don't plan on permanently owning a movie, I'll just rent it.

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
June 30, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kensuke Nakamura: \"How much does that hurt Blu-Ray?\"

This action does not hurt Blu-ray. It merely illustrates what a failure Blu-ray is. Blu-rays are so unsuccessful that GameStop cannot sell them used.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
June 30, 2009 3:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: Gamestop isn't exactly a reliable indicator of Blu-Ray's successes one way or the other. They don't sell them because they no longer sell movies in general, and that's pretty much it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
June 30, 2009 2:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kensuke Nakamura: Not much considering publishers hate GameStop's trade-in program as it is considering they get absolutely nothing back for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
June 30, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kensuke Nakamura: I think the point is that its more of an indicator of Blu-Ray's failure to take off as a widely accepted format.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
June 30, 2009 2:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dbshaw: How so? Because GameStop refuses to take it? By that reasoning, we should say PC Games are not a widely accepted platform considering most GameStop's do not stock them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Robert Synnott
June 30, 2009 7:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Papa Midnight: PC game sales figures would not make the Blu-Ray people happy; PC games are not actually an amazingly high volume product.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
June 30, 2009 2:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Papa Midnight: Bingo. The decline in shelf space gamestop gives to pc games (ya they still do have em) does in fact coincide with a decline of pc gaming.

Besides, like I said, its an indicator.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
TerribleDecade
June 30, 2009 1:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gamestop doesn't even sell videos any more, so why would they bother with Blu-Ray movies?

Reply
5 replies
\"user-pic\"
Dustin Miller
July 3, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TerribleDecade: Hollywood Video takes Blu-Ray trades ^^

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
June 30, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TerribleDecade: Some stores do have a new DVD sales rack. Pretty good prices too. But they don't sell used DVDs anymore, so it's no surprise that they don't buy back Blu-Ray movies.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Papa Midnight
June 30, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TerribleDecade: Exactly what I was thinking. I can't remember the last time I saw a movie for sale at GameStop.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
nukee
June 30, 2009 1:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@TerribleDecade: Yeah. They got out of the Video business last summer. They actually had buy two get three going then. I got 2 Blu-Rays and 3 DVD box sets for about $20.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ShadowFalls
July 1, 2009 9:22 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@nukee:

The reason Gamestop doesn't sell videos anymore is that they have a separate entity now called Moviestop.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Skin Art Squared
June 30, 2009 1:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What the hell is blu-ray?

Never bought one, never will. Discs are dead.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
JonThomasDesigns
June 30, 2009 1:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BZMedia: Enjoy your compressed Fake ass HD .. Streaming HD is far from actual HD

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Morac
June 30, 2009 1:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BZMedia:

Comparing streaming or downloaded video to blu-ray video is like comparing night and day. The highest bit rate I've seen for video downloads is from Amazon which uses 6 Mbps for 1024p24 HD video. Compare this with blu-ray discs which have a maximum A/V bit rate of 54 Mbps (40.0 Mbps for video).

Discs won't be dead until everyone has 100 mbps connections and online video providers stream true hi-def video. Considering OTA broadcasters max out at about 19 Mbps and cable providers frequently provide even lower bit rates for HD channels.

[blogs.zdnet.com]

In other words, discs are very much alive.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mike Gaertner
June 30, 2009 9:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Morac: This also assumes that everyone cares about the quality bluray provides. I love stunning quality, but I bet most people couldn't give a rats ass at this point, cause the DVDs that require no new hardware and don't cost a boatload each are good enough. I'd guarantee the vast majority of people rolling on a 1080p TV have no idea what means nor can they really tell the difference between an Amazon stream vs. Bluray. In this scenario, good enough and convenient beats out best available and expensive.

Discs may not die immediately, but BluRay also isn't showing any signs of suddenly taking off. And by the time they start getting some traction, everybody might just have those 100 mbps connections.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GearheadGeek
June 30, 2009 1:43 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Morac: I would add that discs won't be dead until ISPs are constrained from interfering with that 100 mbps connection you're fantasizing about. The telcos and cable companies will happily charge you for a big fat pipe, but if you try to use too much data that comes from other sources or use that fat pipe to compete with their video cash-cow, they'll look for ways to make it expensive for you.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
June 30, 2009 1:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BZMedia:
There is no legal, DRM-free alternative to Blu-Ray for owning high definition movies. I'm not foolish enough to buy movies that are tied to a particular device (I will rent them though), so Blu-Ray is my only option.

Discs are not dead, and will not be for a long time.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bigmil87
June 30, 2009 1:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@BZMedia: Maybe thats what you think but personally I like having a real disc rather than depending on my hard drive or streaming.

What happens if your hard drive crashes and don't have a back up? Or what if you can't afford high speed internet?

In my case I use Netflix Instant Watch(but most are not in HD) and buy Blu-Rays, however I would rather own a disc that I can sell later on if I need money then have nothing in return at all.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Robert Synnott
June 30, 2009 7:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bigmil87: If you can afford bl-ray disks, you can afford an internet connection.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
R3PUBLIC0N
June 30, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bigmil87: Saying that using hard drives is a bad idea because of what happens if you don't back up your data is like saying your car sucks because of what happens if your brakes fail.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
June 30, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@LordSkippy: I think another contributing factor was that they only ever generally had crap sitting on the shelves.


I remember seeing one of those cheap Walgreens DVDs that sell for like 2 bucks on the shelf, only Gamestop was selling it for 10. Yeah...

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 30, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@R3PUBLIC0N: Dumb analogy. The reason that using a hard drive to store all your media might be a bad idea is that in the case of failure, you lose everything you don't have backed up to another media.

If you have the disc, just because your dvd player dies doesn't mean you can't take it to another drive and play the media you purchased.

I can't think of a better analogy right now, but suffice to say, yours is wayyyy off the mark.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
GMFish
June 30, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: \"you lose everything you don't have backed up to another media.\"

But since you can simply back up everything there's no problem, right? External USB drivers are incredibly cheap nowadays. You can get a 1TB drive for less than a hundred bucks! Actually, to me you're an idiot for not backing up your stuff because nowadays it's so easy and inexpensive to do it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Radi0logy
June 30, 2009 3:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: I wonder if making a copy of that downloaded content breaks the DMCA... :P

Anyways, both forms of media distribution have a valid market and I doubt either one will disappear completely anytime soon. That being said, I avoid digital media for a number of reasons, including reasons cited on Consumerist (like people having their rights to play the media revoked after they paid for it). Personally, for ME, storing my movies on a hard drive is just not convenient, and I really want a hard copy of the media I can always access, no matter what comes along. If it works for you then that is awesome.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cant_stop_the_rock
June 30, 2009 2:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy:

On this whole hard drive tangent - that's actually a strength of downloadable content. There is a record that you bought the content, so in theory you could download it multiple times. I believe that's the way music services work. Maybe it's a pain, but at least you don't lose stuff forever. If your Blu-Ray disc breaks or becomes unreadable, you'll have to pay for a replacement. I know at least some companies will send you a new disc for the cost of shipping/handling, but that's $6+.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Mike Gaertner
June 30, 2009 9:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@GMFish: To jump on the digital bandwagon, screw a device-based backup. Mozy unlimited online backup is only $5 a month. And yes, its really unlimited.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 2:24 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cant_stop_the_rock:

\"that's actually a strength of downloadable content. There is a record that you bought the content, so in theory you could download it multiple times.\"

In theory, this is true. In practice, you will find that it is not. Neither Amazon nor iTunes will allow you to re-download music -- at least not without an impassioned request to customer service.

If you take care of your discs (ie, leave them in the case when not in use, and but the case on the shelf, instead of in a hockey rink), then you're fine. Blu-Rays have an improved scratch-resistant coating to keep them in good condition.

As for downloads being the future... they're convenient, true. I love NetFlix Instant Streaming. But a Blu-Ray is significantly greater quality than any downloaded video I've ever seen. And I've used Xbox 360, iTunes, and PS3.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
godmstr
June 30, 2009 1:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Here in central MA we have a gamestop and a moviestop right next to each other. i wonder if moviestop will take them?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
selianth
June 30, 2009 3:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@godmstr: They should. We go to Movie Stop for DVD's (we'll bring several used DVD's and buy several used; after trading them back in we end up paying around $1.50-$2 per DVD - much better than renting. No, we don't have Netflix yet, no need.)

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
June 30, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gamestop hasn't taken DVDs for a while now. They stopped aelling DVD last year (I made out like a bandit on a bunch of old DVDs that I got for next to nothing during their closeout sales). I don't think this is part of some anti-Blu thing. It's just that they want your movie business to go to Moviestop. I'll bet MS takes Blu-Rays, no problem.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
June 30, 2009 1:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

To the best of my knowledge, they stopped taking movies altogether quite awhile ago. I don't think it has anything to do with Blu Ray in specific, it's just general policy. Movies just never sold all that well at Gamestop, and took up valuable floor space.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
missi1226
June 30, 2009 2:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101: The Gamestop near me stopped accepting all movies a few years ago. The said it was because movies were pirated too easily, so they would only give $1 per movie, which no one was willing to trade their movies in for.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
LordSkippy
June 30, 2009 1:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101: Whenever I looked through the movies they did have at Gamestop, if I found anything interesting, I noticed that I could order the DVD online for at most just a couple of dollars more. If not cheaper than Gamestop had the used DVD for sale. I think that is why they never sold well for them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
June 30, 2009 2:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dbshaw: The problem is that the story paints an inaccurate picture, being that Gamestop has long-since stopped taking movies at large. I don't think they would have made a exception for Blu Ray even if it the format was widely accepted at the time they made this decision.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Vejadu
June 30, 2009 1:18 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Not a shocker, they've been phasing out their DVDs for years. The last time I was in Gamestop, they had gotten rid of all of their movies.

Blu-Ray isn't going to immediately have the same level of success as DVDs enjoyed over the past ten years, simply because they're not the generational leap that VHS to DVD was. However, Blu-Ray will continue to grow and expand as HDTV adoption rates grow and player/disc prices fall.

Digital downloads will compete with Blu-Ray, though they will exist side-by-side for a very long time, as downloads cannot compete with Blu-Ray in picture and sound quality or bonus content. There is also a large number of people who simply prefer to own and collect physical media (like myself) who don't see value in paying to download a file vs. getting an actual tangible product.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!)
June 30, 2009 3:11 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Vejadu: Also because people tend to skip every other generation of movie technology -- remember laser disc? Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are the skippable generation, too expensive and too soon after people upgraded to DVD for them to be willing to replace their movie libraries.

The NEXT technology after this, which will probably be cheaper, will catch on, and it will have been long enough that people then, \"Well, maybe it's time to get rid of some of these DVDs and get some NewTech.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
June 30, 2009 4:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Eyebrows McGee (now with more baby!): I wouldn't call Blu-Ray a \"generation.\" It's more of a slight improvement on existing technology. If you look

As an optics engineer, I can tell you that there is much more advanced, and generally \"better\" technology already out there. People won't buy something until it's a significant improvement over what they already have. VHS to DVD is a significant improvement; moving to a different laser wavelength is not. Paying three times the price for something that looks nicer? No thanks. I'm a gadget type and I don't ever see a Blu-Ray player (aside from a PS3...I still don't own any movies) accompanying my HDTV. DVDs and an upscaling player are a much, much better value for minimally lower quality.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
June 30, 2009 4:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@supercereal: Crap...hit submit too early...nevermind the stray \"If you look.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Ilovemygeek
June 30, 2009 1:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Movie Stop takes them though, they only deal with DVD and Blu-Ray

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Marc Melton
June 30, 2009 1:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They STILL DO take Blu-rays. However, some stores may not want to take them back at all, or they have been told not to take them. You only get, on average, about 6-7 bucks per Blu-ray.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
squinko
June 30, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Marc Melton: How is that possible when GameStop stopped taking DVDs for trade-in over a year ago?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
June 30, 2009 6:23 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Marc Melton: That doesn't answer my question. They take PS3 games, which are Blu-Ray, but because they no longer sell used DVDs, it follows that they wouldn't accept them in trade anymore.

Reply
","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
June 30, 2009 1:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think Blu-Ray is getting ready to suffer the same slightly more successful death as DVD audio. Apparently, there's a price point that consumers are willing to pay for certain products. Nowadays, DVD and CD prices are in line with VHS and cassette prices 15 years ago...Blu-Ray, however, is a much higher fee to pay for something that - unless you have the proper set up at home - provides a negligible difference in quality considering the price difference.

Reply
8 replies
\"user-pic\"
ajlei
June 30, 2009 8:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville: The thing is, I don't even like how Blu-ray movies look. Everytime I go into Fry's they've got something playing (last time it was At World's End) and it just looks, too sharp. I like the idea of a movie where I'm not a part of it. I don't want to be able to see the sweat on Jack's brow or the sand stuck in his eye or whatever. I like that every-so-slight blur between my movie and me.

And.. where I live, Blu-ray is definitely in the $30-$40 range and nowhere near the $17 and up prices some of you are talking about. So not worth it for me, especially when I don't even like that look. It'd be fine for something like Planet Earth but regular movies -- no thanks.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
July 1, 2009 11:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@ajlei:

Most display TVs are improperly calibrated (typically the color saturation is way too high) which will make anything on them look like crap.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Saboth
June 30, 2009 4:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville:

Er actually I can't stand to watch normal dvds anymore. If you have seen Kung Fu Panda in Blu Ray, vs DVD, you would eat your words that quality is negligible.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 2:27 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville:

I don't know where this \"Blu-Rays are $10-$15 more\" keeps coming from.

Walk into Best Buy on a disc's launch day. It's usually $17-22 for Blu, and $15 for DVD. Walk down the Blu aisle and notice all the discs on sale for $15-20. Look at Amazon.

Blu does cost more, but not $10-$15 more per disc. And while some movies might be fine without Blu quality (Clerks, for example), there are plenty of stunners out there: The Dark Knight's IMAX scenes in particular.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
June 30, 2009 3:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg: Nowhere did I say it cost $10-$15 per disc.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 3:30 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville:

Sorry, that was the person beneath you.

But the point stands!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Dillon Barfield
June 30, 2009 2:50 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg: your best buy is apparently cheaper than my best buy

new releases (barring a sale) are in the $30-40 range on blu ray normally. sure, some sale titles are $15-20 ... but they are movies you could pick up on DVD for $5 most of the time.

Blu Ray replication in large runs can't cost more than $1/disc more than DVD ... yet the price difference between formats is almost always at least $10/disc.

There's a huge premium on the format right now and I'm not buying any new movies unless I'm getting them for $5-10 used, $10-15 new ... which what I typically paid for my DVDs (of which I have around 300). Don't even get me started on the costs to convert my collection from DVD to Blu Ray *sigh*

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
June 30, 2009 4:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dillon Barfield: Really? They're $30-$40 normally? The Best Buy here in Santa Fe sells Blu-Ray movies for about $20-$25 on average, depending on whether or not it's a special edition. There shouldn't be any pricing disparities between locations given that pricing is set by corporate. Are you sure you're not talking about stores like FYE! and Borders, which are known to price movies way higher than is reasonable?


While you may get movies for 10-15 bucks new, I'm willing to bet the chances are good that you're buying them from the cheap racks at Walmart, or you're buying the bare-bones single-disk editions the week they hit the stores, when they're on sale. That's what I do at least. Hell, Walmart has a really good DVD box-set rack, where you can find stuff like Alf for 14 bucks a season! :P


All that aside, the great thing about Blu-Ray players is that you don't have to replace your DVDs if you get one. They'll play your old movies just fine, and in fact will up-convert the picture. It doesn't magically make them HD, but it certainly improves picture clarity quite a bit. So instead of replacing your DVDs, you can just buy new flicks on Blu-Ray. Keep your DVDs and expand your collection with the new format. It's not like the transition from VHS to DVD, where the formats were incompatible, so it's not really a hassle.


Anyway, there isn't such a huge disparity in pricing between Blu-Ray and DVD, especially if you're a savvy consumer. For example, I bought a brand new Harry Potter box-set from Amazon.com, which includes all five currently available flicks, for 50 bucks. That amounts to 10 bucks a flick, or the low-end of your preferred pricing for new flicks. I saw it in Walmart for 79.99, which is still about 16 bucks per movie, just a dollar over your preferred pricing for new flicks. Point is though, that I got it cheaper because I shopped around, and you can find that sort of deal yourself if you do the same. You just seem overall too resistant to Blu-Ray. However, that's your prerogative.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
supercereal
June 30, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Cyberxion101:

You just seem overall too resistant to Blu-Ray.

Not directed at me, but in my own case, it's not resistance, but rather the fact that Blu-Ray is an intermediate technology with no real staying power. When I did my Master's thesis (optical engineering) a few years back, I discovered many \"better\" technologies with a consumer focus that various companies hoped to get to market relatively soon (my money says holography the next big thing).

I don't think Blu-Ray has time to let consumers \"catch up to it.\" By the time we see a high HD adoption amongst average people, something new and significantly different will be on the horizon. Overall, Blu-Ray isn't at all a significant step over DVD (it's just a different laser wavelength when it comes down to it) in the way that DVD was to VHS.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 30, 2009 3:40 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dillon Barfield: My BB is cheaper than yours then. New releases are usually 22 to 28 on Blu-Ray and 15 to 18 regular. I don't have a HDTV yet but have been buying certain movies on BR simply because it's more cost effective to only buy it once if I want to watch the movie and know I'll have a HDTV later when I can justify the cost.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 3:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Dillon Barfield:

I've got around 200 DVD's and 40 Blu. I don't plan on converting my entire collection, only standout titles - ones that look especially good, or are among my favorites.

I live in the Chicago area, and I recall seeing Blu-Rays at that price, but it has been a long time. I rarely buy a disc if its over $24.99, and even then it has to be something I really want.

Also, as to the original post: DVD-Audio failed not just because of it not being popular, but because the format was never properly ratified or accepted. There were several formats of higher-quality audio floating around, and still are: SA-CD, HDCD, DVD-Audio, and I think there was even another one. Furthermore, it was rare to find a DVD player that could read one or more of these formats.

Who knows what would have happened if the music industry had actually gotten their act together? 96/24 audio is brilliant. It's a shame it never really made it to market.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Powerlurker
June 30, 2009 7:33 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg:

96/24 audio never made it to market because outside of utility in mastering applications, it's utterly irrelevant for consumers listening to actual audio thanks to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem. Since human hearing cuts off at around 20kHz and the full dynamic range of a 24-bit recording would result in either destroyed speakers or eardrums, they can't really reproduce a listenable signal any better than a CD.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Panoptic
June 30, 2009 8:51 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Powerlurker: The 20-20kHz range is considered normal hearing, but a healthy set of ears can often hear beyond that. Last time I had my hearing tested I could hear up to 23kHz before it started rolling off, 24kHz was barely there and 25kHz was inaudible.

However, while people would argue all day whether or not you're correct, DVD-A discs do sound better for the simple fact that they're not dynamically compressed to insane levels like CDs are nowadays. High resolution disc players also typically have better digital-to-analog conversion, as well.

Back on topic, the difference between Blu-Ray and DVD is huge. Also, supercereal - it's not \"just a different laser wavelength,\" the video compression is taken farther with Blu-Ray, so there's not only more data, but they do more with it as well.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
June 30, 2009 1:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Smashville:


Couldn't agree more. I can't justify spending an extra 10-15 bucks per movie just so I can have slightly better quality. Instead I bought a DVD Upconverter and I've been happy with the results since.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Marc Melton
June 30, 2009 1:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv:

It is NOT a negligible difference in quality. If you have an HDTV (which you should, otherwise you dont need blu-rays), the different between blu-rays and DVD is huge. Yes there is a huge audio difference as well, but you do need a decent home theatre to experience that as well. But you cannot honestly tell me you don't SEE a difference because if you do, you need to get your eyes checked.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
korybing
June 30, 2009 2:16 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Marc Melton: There's a noticeable difference between DVD and Blu-Ray, but not enough of a difference for me to justify getting a player and shelling out 10-15 bucks more per movie than DVD at this point. Maybe if it was only a few bucks more, or if they players were cheaper I would be more inclined to think about it.

Also not everybody has HDTVs yet, so lots and lots of people don't see a need to pay extra for extra quality that they won't notice.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Jason Foster
June 30, 2009 2:03 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Marc Melton: i have both (blu-ray and upconverted dvd) i don't want to spend at least ten bucks more for a movie i don't love. ...AND considering the CRAP that hollywood has been putting out the last few years, blu-ray will have a hard time beating the ticking clock of digital downloads. (i still have more hd-dvds than blu-rays, and i haven't bought one of those in months.)

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Marc Melton
June 30, 2009 2:10 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Jason Foster: I can't fathom digital replacing all discs, for one, it's practically the same price. Also, if you ever decide to get rid of it, you can't At least the discs have a resale value and are easily brought over to a friends house to watch.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
1stMarDiv
June 30, 2009 2:00 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Marc Melton:


I see where you're coming from but I think you misunderstood me. I do notice a difference in the quality, but I don't think it's the same impressive gap that we saw with DVD's when they replaced VHS. My vision is fine and I have the right setup to play Blu-Ray, I just personally don't think it's worth the extra money. But to each his own.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
selianth
June 30, 2009 3:13 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: In our case, the blu-ray IS worth the extra money. We have a home theater in our basement with a 129\" wide screen. At those sizes, the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray is *very* noticeable. There are some older DVD's that we own that we can't even watch on the big screen because they're just too grainy. For us, I think it's just as big of a jump as VHS to DVD. But I understand that we are a special case.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dragonfire81
June 30, 2009 3:31 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@selianth: Actually I believe the problem was Gamestop gave hideous trade in values on Blu-Rays (and DVDs when they took them, I think they gave you on average $1 per disc) so no one wanted to sell them to Gamestop.

There may also have been a problem with folks try to sell Gamestop stolen product, but it's not like that doesn't happen with games and consoles anyway.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 3:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dragonfire81:

A DVD is easier to steal, and available at more sources. But yes, their trade values for DVD were abysmal. That didn't stop us from having thirty copies of The Matrix.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 3:45 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg:

Sorry. My comments are totally posting in the wrong thread.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Marc Melton
June 30, 2009 2:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@1stMarDiv: You'll start the see the actually Blu-Ray disc prices dropping soon, and many of them are actually not expensive at all if you don't want a BRAND NEW movie. You can get players as cheap as 100 bucks too.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Cyberxion101
June 30, 2009 3:36 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Marc Melton: Hell, most stores have sales on new Blu-Ray flicks that put them at about the price of a new DVD. Besides that, Amazon.com is a good place to check if you're looking for inexpensive Blu-Ray disks. I got the Harry Potter box-set with all five flicks for like 50 bucks. That's ten bucks a movie. Not too shabby.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
Elcheecho
June 30, 2009 1:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

this article needs to be cleaned up. Since Gamestop doesn't take movies anymore, the article suggests they're no longer trading PS3 games.

the \"story\" really has nothing at all to do with \"Blu-ray.\"

Reply
","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 2:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

As one with several friends working at GameStop, I can say with complete confidence that, at least in the midwest region, GameStop phased out movies sales long ago.

It was a good idea. It was all crackheads trying to make some extra cash or people trying to add a few bucks to trades. No one ever bought movies unless there was a huge sale.

Point is: why would they take Blu-Ray if they won't take DVD? Why does everyone take the fact that Blu-Ray didn't overtake DVD in 6 months as a sign of its demise? At worst, Blu-Ray has become the new LaserDisc: a format for fans who want a better quality experience. LaserDisc was doing fine until DVD, which surpassed it, helping change the standard before the public at large accepted it.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Brian James Schend
June 30, 2009 2:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg: I'm pretty sure it took way longer than 6 months for DVDs to overtake VHS. I wouldn't call DVDs headed for demise, even after all these years.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
superberg
June 30, 2009 3:41 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Brian James Schend:

The point I am trying to make is that people are saying Blu-Ray is dead, and it hasn't even been on the market that long. It's been a little over 2 years, and its market share isn't that bad. Best Buys by me are increasing their shelf space for Blu.

I don't know if it will overtake DVD, but I can see it being the next enthusiast format.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
ajlei
June 30, 2009 8:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg: Actually, just to be a nitpicker, this month marked three years.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
bilge
June 30, 2009 2:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

secondspin.com

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Shadowfire
June 30, 2009 2:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Gamestop stopped taking DVDs because it was relatively unprofitable, and because it was risky. I can't tell you how often I would have people trying to sell six copies of a movie that came out the following day, saying they were \"gifts.\"

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
dbshaw
June 30, 2009 2:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Blu-ray is an interim format, destined ultimately to be forgot and historically lumped in with dvd's as the same thing. Its got the same form factor as dvd's but costs more and requires not just a blu-ray player but an hd tv to take advantage of what it offers. What I'm going to start upgrading my 300 dvd collection to blu-ray? I don't think so.

Something game changing will come along soon. You'll tell cause it'll be different. Like discs were different than magnetic tape.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
pecan 3.14159265
June 30, 2009 3:47 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dbshaw: I don't think that BR is revolutionary but it is an offshoot of the DVD format and that's why it's successful. I don't think BR is meant to replace DVDs because the delivery method (the disc) is the same. I'm tired of people decrying BR because it's not the messiah of formats - it isn't really meant to be. It's just a different way of viewing media, at a higher level of quality. And the equipment demands for BR are hardly ridiculous - you can get a 36 inch HDTV for $500 now. And since the CRT is going away (unless you buy used) most people who are in the market to get a new TV will upgrade anyway. They're just catching up with the market. And BR players can be as little as $100 so that's hardly an issue for most people. Can't afford it? That's ok. But it's not like it's some ridiculous problem no one can get over.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
RogueSophist
June 30, 2009 3:48 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is a sensational, misleading headline. Is this \"a dagger for DVD\" as well? Gamestop has been phasing out movies -- on all media -- for a while now. Please do some additional research, and update your story above. We all expect more from Consumerist.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Smashville
June 30, 2009 4:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@superberg: All people are beneath me! Mwahahaha!

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Skaperen
June 30, 2009 4:52 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Various flash media devices are the better format. They are smaller. And you don't have to buy a whole new player for the next generation in size.

The trouble is the cost. That's slowly coming down.

It's ability to rewrite reliably is one factor in its favor. The migration to downloads from the internet (legal and illegal) is also a factor. USB and/or SD slots are starting to show up on a few TV sets. Eventually you won't need a separate player at all.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Kishi
June 30, 2009 5:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wait, why would Consumerist readers care what Gamestop thinks?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
squinko
June 30, 2009 8:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Kishi: Because if they don't say that they tried to contact the company in question, people will start crying about it. They'll also cry if Consumerist contacts the company, but doesn't wait for their reply before publishing a story (because you know corporations respond so fast normally!). So they're pretty screwed either way.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
June 30, 2009 6:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Can I expect that, in future articles, calls will be placed to several stores to get clarification for a story?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
squinko
June 30, 2009 8:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MooseOfReason: \"We've contacted GameStop for confirmation multiple times in the last month but the company has yet to get back to us.\"

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
July 1, 2009 7:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko - doesn't need firefighters: There's also the sentence before that, where they contacted GameStop stores.

They could call either. \"We called a GameStop in Richmond, Virginia...\" \"GameStop wasn't available for comment.\"

I think it's courteous.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
squinko
July 1, 2009 11:17 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MooseOfReason: GameStop employees are not allowed to talk to the media for any reason whatsoever. Those calls MUST go through corporate. If someone from this site called and identified themselves as bloggers/journalists, then no one at the store would be allowed to say anything to them except give them a number to contact the appropriate corporate office.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
MooseOfReason
July 2, 2009 4:36 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@squinko - doesn't need firefighters: Fine, but do you agree that \"(Company) was not available for comment\" should be included in future articles where it's appropriate to contact them?

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
layton59
June 30, 2009 7:44 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I used to buy used DVD's from the 6 Gamestops in the Dayton Ohio area. They had some decent sales. I was saddened when they stopped carrying used DVD's. I took my used DVD shopping to the internet at half.c_m, amazon.c_m, etc. On a quality issue, if people will watch awful quality 10 minute videos on sites like youtube.c_m and break.c_m, then regular DVD is alive and well. After watching videos at those sites, my regular DVDs look like high def. Of course I only have a 27\" crt tv. Todays LCDs and Plasmas lack PIP (picture-in-picture) something I like to use.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
MeDennis MyselfAnnie
July 1, 2009 3:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Well, blu-ray may have 'won' for physical media format war...but EVERYTHING that's online for stream like netflix, xbox, etc., is ALL HD, NOT blu-ray.

They are screwing people out of their money for a technology that nobody really asked for.

I used to LOVE Sony, but they have been so arrogant over the past several years - their product quality has really slipped down the slide.

They need to evolve and claim their former glory, or get out of the market altogether. Those jerks.

*note - I've owned many several Sony products over the years and after purchasing my last one and seeing how much of a headache it was to get a hold of anyone to 'fix' what was DOA - no thanks.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
anduin
July 2, 2009 1:56 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

who cares, anyone who sells anything to gamestop lost anyway.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
ekasbury
July 2, 2009 5:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Blu-Ray seems to be killing itself as effectively as it killed Red-Ray, or whatever that other format was called.

Reply
","");