Seriously? 11 million? That's absolutely terrible. Much, much worse than I expected.

@Viper1 No, beginning of 1997 to end of 2001, that's 5 years.

1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, see?

And DVD players well selling , although at very high prices, since Q4 of 1996. A friend of mine bought one of the first models, a Toshiba for around $1,100 at the end of 1996.

And as for their figures not including PS2, I couldn't know, they don't tell, so how do you know? Do I smell bias?

I hope Blu Ray does well, but I just don't see how it will pass DVD sales ever unless movie companies stopped selling movies on DVD.
Blu Ray is great but not so greater than DVD.

MikeB said: @ HappySqurriel Everyone here will say that Blu-Ray is only as successful as it is because Sony included it with the PS3, but had the PS3 not included Blu-Ray would Blu-Ray's release had any reaction except for yawns? On top of this does anyone beyond PS3 owners actually care about Blu-Ray? Many consumers are blown away by the quality upgrade enjoyed from Blu-Ray/HDTV compared to NTSC targeted content. But without the PS3 the price would be quite a hurdle at this point, especially considering you need a HDTV to truly enjoy the difference (apart from maybe audio). Also the HD DVD vs Blu-Ray format would have raged on for longer, also having a negative impact. With regard to market penetration please understand it took 5 years before DVD started to outsell VHS. Rome isn't build in a day, I'm always scratching my head when people bring forward the argument DVD is still outselling Blu-Ray at this point. I think..... Duh.....

It may be true that "Many consumers are blown away by the quality upgrade enjoyed from Blu-Ray/HDTV compared to NTSC targeted content" but that doesn't mean that the majority of consumers care at all. Being that rear-projection and CRT HDTVs existed for years in the same price range and quality range of the 720p/1080i LCD HDTVs that people are buying today (and yet sold poorly, and that most HDTV owners don't watch HD content on their HDTV, I have suspected for awhile that the primary selling feature of HDTVs is that they're large flat pannel displays (not their ability to handle HD content); another peice of evidence to support this was demonstrated last year when it was revealed that the majority of Wii owners had their Wii system hooked up to a HDTV.

Now, my overall point in this thread could have been summed up by your last paragraph ... I'm not saying that Blu-Ray's adoption rate is bad, I am saying that people are getting ahead of themself in assuming that since Blu-Ray's adoption has been faster than DVD's adoption at this point in time means that Blu-Ray will continue to be adopted at such a fast rate; the natural slow uptake of a new format by the majority of users, the low number of households with the necessary equipment, and the distortion of the adoption rate caused by it being included in the PS3, means that Blu-Ray acceptance will (probably) not branch out (much) beyond PS3 owners for several years.

It took until the week which ended on the 11th of May 2003 before DVD rentals outperformed VHS tapes for the United States. (Source: SDA VidTrac)

DVD players were sold in the United States since late 1997. So this took more than 5 years and just shows it takes time for a format to take off. And DVD was adopted extremely quickly, especially compared to the previously successful VHS format.

@ HappySqurriel

Certainly if things progress like they have so far. The educated movie enthusiast will know the PS3 is a very sweet deal, not only delivering sound and visual quality on par with the best far more expensive dedicated Blu-Ray players, the device has also proven to be more future proof than most and usually loads disc faster than rival players as well.

But in addition you get a kickass games system as well. I think the major factor going against the PS3 is its form factor and maybe some misinformative press. But I can see the PS3 continue to perform well amongst the more educated movie enthusiasts, for example a cheaper slicker slimline PS3.

Blu Ray is wiked, i already have 14 blu-rays, i also want to point out that i dont consider transformers a majour release, if they anounce Star Wars or Lord of The Rings or The Matrix for blu-ray. that will be a Majour release.

Magnific0 said: @Viper1 No, beginning of 1997 to end of 2001, that's 5 years. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, see? And DVD players well selling , although at very high prices, since Q4 of 1996. A friend of mine bought one of the first models, a Toshiba for around $1,100 at the end of 1996. And as for their figures not including PS2, I couldn't know, they don't tell, so how do you know? Do I smell bias?

Here's a link for standalone players only.

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/cemadvdsales.html

disolitude said: Euphoria14 said: Reasonable said: disolitude said: The thing about bluray is that its great technology. Its awesome to have a 50 GB storage capacity on a optical media... what isn't aweosme is that they are trying to push this technology on the normal/average consumer. The technology will come to light when its affordable enough and ready for the mainstream. I suspect it will have far move practical use in the computer world than in the Movie world as Indiana Jones:the crystal skull is an average movie no matter what resolution you watch it at... But Sony should have waited for the mainstream push until they could give us blank disks for 5 bucks a pop and burners for 100 bucks. Err... in actual fact its the norm for technology to release before the mainstream is ready.  Cassette tapes - expensive (at first), CDs - expensive (at first) and recording your own, sorry you'll have to wait for that, VHS - expensive (at first), DVD - expensive (at first) and recording your own, sorry you'll have to wait for that. BR is no different.  Eventually it will get cheaper, you'll get BR recorders, etc.  But no way would the electronics giants wait until they got it all affordable - that's simply not how the market works nor how its ever worked. New tech = expensive for first 2 years and early adopters only, then mainstream adoption (if its succeeds and doesn't disappear).  The point being made in the OP is that BR, given this cost and looking back to DVD adoption, seems to be growing at a more than acceptable pace vs previous formats such as DVD adoption over VHS format. I know a lot of gamers didn't want the PS3 with BR because they didn't want that cost but at the end of the day businesses like Sony make their choies and you vote with your money.  If you don't want it at all you don't buy, if you want it at a lower price then you have to wait the 2 years or so that normally takes, if you want it now you buy it now. When I think on how much the first Betamax and VHS players cost vs their specs... never mind the cost of the first CD and DVD burners...    You know what would have happened to DVD if they listened to his opinion? Think of DVD first coming out in 2001 as opposed to 1997. We would be in a completely different situation right now, considering PS2 games would all run on CD's. Why don't people stop whining and just... I don't know... wait till prices drop? As millions did with DVD players, CD players, VHS players, etc... You guys are silly. I never said that bluray should not have been released when it was made...however, bundling it with the succesor to the best selling console of all time at such an early stage of blurays life cycle was dumb. We all see how thats worked out for Sony... You can talk market penetration...stats...DVD vs bluray sales...whatever else justifies the success of bluray.  The bottom line is, Bluray has offered nothing to gaming thus far...and we gamers are picking up the tab for the technology to become more mainstream. Unless you own sony stock and are happy about them getting this technology to 12 million people who bought a ps3 at atleast 100 dollars more per unit...or you like watching bluray movies and don't mind paying the price for your HD content....you have nothing really to be happy about for getting bluray as gamers.

How is my post Silly?

It responded fairly to your point on Sony waiting to release BR (which was what you said, not the actually clearler point you then made regarding wisdom of putting something so new in their next console rather than releasing it with standalone players only)...

It acknowledged that from a purely gaming perspective a lot of people were less than thrilled Sony put brand new (as in expensive new) tech their new console vs the lower cost DVD format...

I pointed out that like all consumers while its fair to have your opinion they are going to ignore it as they are following their own plan (right or wrong) and that like all consumers you vote with your wallet....

I kind of wish PS3 was less expensive and had DVD rather than BR but it doesn't so I have to decide whether I buy it or not on that basis.  One thing seems certain which is that its never not going to have BR in it so there's little point complaining now.

Although as a film fan I have to admit love it (HD quality films that is, not necessarily the somewhat slippery format that is BR just yet).  I agree about Indy  but Blade Runner and many other astonishing visual films look way better in HD than DVD (and that includes upscaling) on a 1080p HD TV so I see plenty of movie fans being interested in BR once the price drops... after all unlike DVD to VHS BR to DVD is backwards compatible so you don't have to repurchase films you can keep your existing collection and just add new films in BR.

At the end of the day Sony are just like MS, etc. and make decisions for themselves, not really us the consumer.  I suspect PS3 got BR more to give them an additional edge vs HD DVD although I may be doing them an injustice and they really wanted their console to have BR because they believed it was best in the long run... who knows.  But you can bet they thought it was worth it for Sony when they made the decision (whether it turns out to be won't be known for year or two yet IMHO).

 

 

rocketpig said: Magnific0 said: @Viper1 No, beginning of 1997 to end of 2001, that's 5 years. 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, see? And DVD players well selling , although at very high prices, since Q4 of 1996. A friend of mine bought one of the first models, a Toshiba for around $1,100 at the end of 1996. And as for their figures not including PS2, I couldn't know, they don't tell, so how do you know? Do I smell bias? Here's a link for standalone players only. http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/cemadvdsales.html

This one provides numbers that include portable units, home theater units and combo players but also omits the PS2.

http://www.dvdinformation.com/industryData/index.cfm

 

The difference seems to be about an additional 100 million DVD players.   Neither include PC DVD drives.