There are ads for them all over the place as everybody seems to be pushing Blu-ray as the better version of DVD -- much like DAT was the new audio cassette (but at least that's digital vs. analog, not better digital vs. digital) and we know what happened to DAT ...And who can argue with 1080 lines of resolution (BR) vs. 480 (DVD), but we the consuming universe just don't want to shell out $30 for a BR title when we are quite happy to pay less (often much, much less) for a regular, good old DVD.
(And DVD are not really that old, are they?)
In a sign that there is than one of us out there with the same way of thinking, as of last month, only 4% of U.S. movie disc sales were Blu-ray, according to Nielsen VideoScan. Many consumers remain happy with mainstream DVDs, surveys show.
So let me hear your arguments about going over the blu side ...
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
I don't own a Blu-ray player but I would just buy a PS3 if I wanted one.
$30 is a lot for a movie, when you can get the DVD version for $15. I think the MPAA wants what the RIAA in the 80's. Everyone was buying CD's of music they had on LP's and cassettes; the RIAA was raking in the $$$'s. The MPAA would like to see us pay a premium for Blu-ray versions of movies we already have on DVD and VHS.
IIRC I have purchased at least 6 copies of Back in Black in my life, two cassette, two LP's, and two CD's....I am done chasing the formats.
-Matt