Squilliam said:
The problem for Blu Ray is that people as a whole aren't willing to pay a premium for them. Its not that people wouldn't want the best format possible, they just aren't as of yet willing to pay that much more for it. I noticed at my local video rental place that the Blu Ray section has hardly expanded in over a year. I hardly rent videos anymore but it was quite surprising. So whilst Blu Ray is going to be worth a lot of money to the participating companies, it is probably not going to be worth nearly as much as was originally anticipated.
|
It's always a cost/benefit ratio for general consumers, who are essentially the consumers BD has to target and appeal to in order to see continued growth past enthusiast and upmarket niches.
For BD, I'm inclined to agree that in many cases, the additional premium isn't worth it. I mean, does everyone really need to see crappy, view once and forget about it movies in 1080p? As opposed to say classic films, blockbusters, cult films, or any film that a buyer is likely to watch many times over the years. Probably not. They probably shouldn't be paying extra for them anyway. And most probably won't unless BD eventually replaces DVD as the cheap method of media distribution on physical media.
But in general, if a movie is a keeper or a favorite, an extra $5 or so really isn't a big deal considering the difference in image quality. The only problem is that how many movies actually fall into that category for the average consumer?
Rentals (brick and mortar) in general are probably not the best indicator to measure BD growth though. They are just about obsolete as business models with services like RedBox positioned to pick up what's left of the on site rental market. They support BD rentals, just like Netflix, but selection will always reflect their market, so naturally even 50% of their media isn't going to be on BD.