Not just laziness: in linear or partially linear games, where once past a level or a given hub (like in Quake games, Hexen, Heretic II) you won't ever come back, a few discs to be swapped isn't too bad. But with open worlds (continuosly connected or with hubs), with places that you can visit again many times, disc swapping can become very annoying, besides ruining the sense of immersion. A complete install on hard disk, if available (even with unofficial patches, in PC case) totally solves the problem, anyway, that's probably the reason why BD is not widespread yet on PC (although it could be a cheap and useful alternative to additional USB HDDs for backups of large disks and partitions, that aren't viable anymore on DVDs).

Retarded comment, I know  alot of people who don't have Blueray because they simply don't really care about it when they can usa Netflix. By buying the Xboxone they now have the option to get some bluerays.

No because download is the emerging form of distribution. Both Blue-Ray and DVD should die off about the same time when this happens completely.

http://www.geek.com/games/wii-is-the-top-console-for-netflix-streaming-1407371/

It's about people who haven't bothered trying out blu-ray yet. In case they have an annoying friend like me that will bring over a blu-ray disk and show them what real 1080p looks like :)

Digital distribution still has a long way to go before it becomes interesting to collectors. The whole blu-ray vs streaming debate mostly comes down to buying vs renting. (or pirating) So far I know of no one who has a large legally purchased digital only movie collection.

I have to question the repeated use of that old and flawed press release to indicate that PS3 is the No.1 Netflix userbase. Any study done a month after the debut of an 'unlimited' movie service will show badly skewed percentages. My Netflix was heavily used for the first few months as I went through the 'best' titles and rewatched stuff I hadn't seen in years. A year later it got about a tenth as much use. Obviously any recent information would tell a different tale as PS3 users will have reached the point of waiting for decent new releases or rewatching Firefly like XBL users. I am not unique.

The Wii comment above is also based on an article from two years ago. Maybe Netflix promotional people like to put out these type of comments to inspire loyalty? Or just to get the company name in black and white. Idk. SD streaming should be experiencing a gradual decline in popularity as well, I'd really like to see Netflix' numbers for 2013.

Pleae stop using a comparison of PS3 usage one month after release with XBL Netflix usage a year later or Wii vs PS360 use from 2011. It's unreliable and irrelevant if not deliberately misleading. My opinion may be skewed by the smaller number of titles available in Canada as opposed to the U.S. That would affect how long the initial period of intense usage would last. The drop-off would be delayed but inevitable.

Thanks to the people encouraging me to buy BluRay and mentioning deals. One thing though, is something like Terminator that was shot in SD decades ago really going to be that much better just because it's on a new format? I'm guessing here but I suspect it would be better but nothing like the visual quality of the newer Batman or Star Trek movies. ??

That was the case in 2011. However, by 2012 the PS3 had taken over. Source.

PS3 is our largest TV-connected platform in terms of Netflix viewing, and this year, at times, even surpassed the PC in hours of Netflix enjoyment to become our number one platform overall," Netflix CEO Reed Hastings said.

No not like the latest Batman and Star trek movies, although they can come close. The blu-ray version of Star trek II Wrath of Khan looks amazing. The sound is great too, however there are ofcourse limitations in the sound effects.
Terminator and anything pre digital era wasn't shot in SD... It was filmed on 35mm, which has a resolution of 3K to 4K depending on camera use and preservation of the original. Movies between 2000 and 2010 actually were a step back in resolution, as they were all mastered in 2K. Special effects are sometimes great on old movies as well, actual properly done model work still beats CGI lighting. Blue screen effects however are very noticeable.

http://www.blu-ray.com/ is a great site for reviews of the visual and audio quality of blu-rays.
Terminator actually just got a new version with a hugely improved transfer.
2006 version                                       2013 (remastered) version

Video score went up from 3.1 to 4.8 (out of 5)
The remastered version is $5 on Amazon, damn them, I'm not going to buy it again!

Many old movies look incredible on blu-ray, hard to believe there was so much detail hiding in those old prints. Movies like 2001 and Alien that I never got to see in the theater are visual master pieces.

This is a misconception. Film is HD. All film from its inception has greater resolution then a tape master. Remember film has to be projected on a 50 foot screen. Digital equivalant to film sizes is 8mm/720p, 16mm/1080p (2k), 35mm/2160p (4k), 65-70mm/(8k). This is all determined by how much light is absorbed into the ceuloid. Film stock also determins the res too. Some stock can be a bit lower or higher in resoultion.

The camera used has nothing to do with the resoution that's produced. Unless it's a digital one. So when you see Wizard of OZ on Bluray, or when you see the famous 8mm film of president Kenedy's assination, it's in HD. Another thing I should add. Aspect Ratio also doesn't control what is or isn't HD. A 4:3 show can be HD. And a 16:9 show can be SD. Mythbusters was shot in 16:9 since day one. But seasons 1-4 are in SD, for example. Digial does have disdvantages. Lord Of The Rings Trilogy is locked as a 2K master. So no 4K transfer can be done. Unless upscaled. Hobbit is also locked at 4K. So if we go beyond 4K, that will be stuck at 4K. All TV shows now. Like Simpsons, Futurama, Batman, etc. Are all stuck at 1080p (2k).

It's not that straight forward, more like a theoretical maximum. But film stock scales up beautifully, 8mm footage on blu-ray looks great, while an upscaled dvd (or 720p broadcast) looks soft and artificial. I agree it's a shame movies of the naughties were all done with 2K masters. They won't get any better and combined with early CGI that is ageing quite badly it might become the decade with the least visually impressive movies.
Meanwhile there are plenty movies from before 2000 I'm interested in watching again in 4K.