IGN: Why DVD's better than Blu-Ray....

[steven787]

Ascended_Saiyan3 said:

steven787 said:
The argument is flawed in so many ways.

Bluray doesn't have to "beat" DVD. It only has to be profitable and it is.

Will it last? Probably, Blurays aren't expensive to transport and store. Will it become the standard? No, it will always be a semi-luxury item because DVD is good enough for most people and viable HD downloads for the masses are just around the corner.

Blu-ray is the successor of DVD.  This is what the HD format war was about.  Your statement about DVD being "good enough" for most people was the same for VHS (as seen is the links I posted a few pages ago to old VHS vs DVD sites).

 

The term "good enough" may be the same, but the reasoning behind the statement is different.

The reason why DVD "beat" VHS was for practical reasons - size, production cost, tranportation, storage, longevity, navigation.

Blu-Ray (which I love) has no PRACTICAL advantages over DVD.  It has some cool features and a better image but it will cost more than DVD to produce for many more years, it will always be the same size, it will always cost the same amount to tranport, it will always be about as durable*, and it will always have similar navigation.

By the time the production costs go down enough to compete on a true world wide mass market, there will be many forms of competition through digital distribution.

I'm not saying that they're a failure, I'm saying that they're not going to "beat" DVD.    It's gonna be around awhile and it's gonna be profitable.

Besides all that, I never said it wasn't the successor to DVD... that term is marketing hype that the companies that produce them have given as a label.  It is because the manufacturers say it is, I can't argue with a abstract statement like that.