AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Why are blu-rays still so expensive?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are blu-rays still so expensive?

post #1 of 381
2/27/13 at 5:29pm
Thread Starter 
Blu-ray has been around for a long time now. I remember when they first came out the talk was that after the manufacturing equipment cost was re-couped the prices would drop quite a bit. Looking at the new releases coming out over the next few weeks they are still on sale for $22-$24 and retailing for $39. Now I'm all for making a reasonable profit but I think we're being ripped off. Many said this is exactly what would happen when blu-ray out muscled HDDVD. Good old Sony.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #2 of 381
2/27/13 at 5:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Blu-ray has been around for a long time now. I remember when they first came out the talk was that after the manufacturing equipment cost was re-couped the prices would drop quite a bit. Looking at the new releases coming out over the next few weeks they are still on sale for $22-$24 and retailing for $39. Now I'm all for making a reasonable profit but I think we're being ripped off. Many said this is exactly what would happen when blu-ray out muscled HDDVD. Good old Sony.
Where do you get those prices? I'm looking at a side bar as I type this that shows Avatar 3D on sale for $17. Funny Girl is on preorder for $14.99. Sometimes you have to wait a bit for prices to come down, but it seems like your complaint is overblown.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 381
2/27/13 at 9:24pm
I think he's referring to new releases of new movies. Most of them are $20-$25.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 381
2/27/13 at 9:52pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Where do you get those prices? I'm looking at a side bar as I type this that shows Avatar 3D on sale for $17. Funny Girl is on preorder for $14.99. Sometimes you have to wait a bit for prices to come down, but it seems like your complaint is overblown.
I can also get $7 blu rays at Wal-Mart, if you don't mind them being 15 years old and of terrible PQ. Why is my complaint overblown? Do you think after all these years it cost 25% to 30% more to make a blu-ray than a standard DVD? With the exception of the latest Twilight, every new major release is between $22 and $25. I'm sure you can find some exceptions but the point is the prices are still way higher then we were led to believe 10-12 years ago. Look at the prices of blu-ray players. I saw a major brand last weekend for $59...My definition of a rip off is when a profit marginis too much, in my eyes, and that's the only eyes I care about.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 381
2/28/13 at 5:46am
T.K. Arnold has commented that Blu-ray titles should be priced the same as the counterpart DVD and I agree. It seems that most anything associated with HDTV is more expensive than the SD counterpart. I fully expect that trend to continue with UHDTV as in more expensive than HDTV.

BTW, Sony is just ONE player in this, there are many others. Sony was just one of nine original members that announced the Blu-ray format on 02/19/2002.

For me, I always thought the music CD was overpriced and has remained so for 30 years.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 381
2/28/13 at 5:52am
Maybe if they would stop putting a DVD in the BD package they could lower the price of the BD. I am sick of getting all these versions when I only want the BD. And the 3D versions are even worse. Including a DVD and standard BD. When all I need is the 3D BD and with that I can play it in 2D or 3D. All those extras dics add to the cost and I will never use them.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 381
2/28/13 at 6:01am
Supply and demand and peoples willingness to pay more.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 381
2/28/13 at 6:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaronwt View Post

Maybe if they would stop putting a DVD in the BD package they could lower the price of the BD. I am sick of getting all these versions when I only want the BD. And the 3D versions are even worse. Including a DVD and standard BD. When all I need is the 3D BD and with that I can play it in 2D or 3D. All those extras dics add to the cost and I will never use them.

I think it costs them like a nickel to include an extra disc, so I don't think that's the issue. I don't have a problem with the price structure. As others mentioned, I just wait until they go on sale. I just picked up Pirates of the Caribbean for 10 bucks at Wal Mart, hardly 15 years old and great picture quality.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 381
2/28/13 at 7:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by batutta View Post

I think it costs them like a nickel to include an extra disc, so I don't think that's the issue. I don't have a problem with the price structure. As others mentioned, I just wait until they go on sale. I just picked up Pirates of the Caribbean for 10 bucks at Wal Mart, hardly 15 years old and great picture quality.
Pirates is 10 years old which falls into my 10-12 years old scenario. I understand the supply and demand thing for sure. It will always be that way. My real question is based on the cost to produce a blu-ray compared to the cost to produce a SD version. I'm not privy to the manufacturing costs involved but we were told that when the cost of retooling a facility to manufacture blu-rays was recouped the prices would drastically come down. They have not. FWIW they were talking about new releases not 5-10 year old movies. Most people I know want to watch a movie shortly after it is released. That's one of their excuses for not going to see it at the theater. Just wait till the DVD release.
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 381
2/28/13 at 8:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Pirates is 10 years old which falls into my 10-12 years old scenario. I understand the supply and demand thing for sure. It will always be that way. My real question is based on the cost to produce a blu-ray compared to the cost to produce a SD version. I'm not privy to the manufacturing costs involved but we were told that when the cost of retooling a facility to manufacture blu-rays was recouped the prices would drastically come down. They have not. FWIW they were talking about new releases not 5-10 year old movies. Most people I know want to watch a movie shortly after it is released. That's one of their excuses for not going to see it at the theater. Just wait till the DVD release.
imo It means nothing to talk about manufacturing costs and material costs and so forth. That stuff means nothing. They figure if you are willing to pay $10.00 to go to the theater you will pay $20.00 to own it. And as long as everyone pays that then that is what it will cost.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 381
2/28/13 at 8:34am
Am I the only one who thinks that $20 bucks is NOT too expensive? People expect what, to pay the same price as a blank CD?
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 381
2/28/13 at 8:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Most people I know want to watch a movie shortly after it is released. That's one of their excuses for not going to see it at the theater. Just wait till the DVD release.

I don't know anyone who buys a movie sight unseen. Perhaps it's something some people started doing recently because DVD's got so ridiculously cheap. For me it's either rental or streaming for something I haven't seen. I typically only buy a movie on first release if I saw it and loved it in the theater. Then it's worth paying the 20-30 dollars. And really, considering you can own something that cost the studio upwards of a 100 million dollars to make for only 20 dollars, I think it's a pretty good deal!
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 381
2/28/13 at 8:41am
I have bought quite a few movies lately without seeing them first - mostly 3D family-type releases. In many cases, it's cheaper to just buy the 3D Blu-ray than to take the family to the theater to see the same title - and no one in town has any 3D titles for rent. At least here I know the sound and picture will be great - and I don't have to deal with idiots (except for myself).
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 381
2/28/13 at 9:10am
?
I pay $12.99 - $19.99 per disc.
That's still cheaper than two tickets to the movie theater in NYC.
I buy movies unseen all the time.
Nice to meet you.

If you don't care to keep it- sell back on Amazon or Ebay.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 381
2/28/13 at 9:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Am I the only one who thinks that $20 bucks is NOT too expensive? People expect what, to pay the same price as a blank CD?

I think $20 IS too expensive. My target price for a new release is $15. My target price for a release of an old title on blu-ray is $10. There are exceptions to both, naturally.
But with a little bit of patience, these are achievable 90% of the time. I am usually in no rush to own any particular title as I have plenty on the shelf waiting to be viewed.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 381
2/28/13 at 9:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Am I the only one who thinks that $20 bucks is NOT too expensive? People expect what, to pay the same price as a blank CD?

In the 80's the average discounted price for LaserDics was about $35.00 (about $71.00 in 2013 $s). I paid about $50.00 each (now $101.00) for several LaserDics titles. In the 2003 range the best discounted price for D-Theater was about $34.00 (now $42.00). So for A titles $20.00 on Blu seems to be a bargain in some respects.

To me it is just a sign of the times, folks want to be paid $25.00 an hour for remedial jobs, complain constantly and expect government handouts.

Movie watching is still a luxury, not a necessity. That said, I try to be very frugal with every Blu purchase (mostly Amazon and quite a few titles purchased used).
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 381
2/28/13 at 9:53am
Thread Starter 
I guess we all look at things differently. To me $20+ for a piece of plastic encoded with a movie is too expensive. A movie studio spending a million plus for a movie is a high reward medium risk proposition. The advent of DVD's and blu-rays have made losing money on a big release movie almost no risk. Many movies make way more profit with DVD/blu-ray sales than they ever make at the theaters. Actually many movies never even hit the theaters but go straight to DVD. My guess is that a blu-ray costs $1 to manufacture and $1 for studio rights. You are correct in saying that as long as enough people pay then that will determine the price. Supply and demand. That doesn't change my opinion that we're being ripped off.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 381
2/28/13 at 10:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

That doesn't change my opinion that we're being ripped off.

If this is being ripped off, fleece me, baby.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 381
2/28/13 at 10:23am
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

I guess we all look at things differently. To me $20+ for a piece of plastic encoded with a movie is too expensive. A movie studio spending a million plus for a movie is a high reward medium risk proposition. The advent of DVD's and blu-rays have made losing money on a big release movie almost no risk. Many movies make way more profit with DVD/blu-ray sales than they ever make at the theaters. Actually many movies never even hit the theaters but go straight to DVD. My guess is that a blu-ray costs $1 to manufacture and $1 for studio rights. You are correct in saying that as long as enough people pay then that will determine the price. Supply and demand. That doesn't change my opinion that we're being ripped off.
Your post just reinforces the fact that cost of production has nothing to do with how much something costs (what's the "cost of production" of a Rembrandt?). A thing is worth whatever people are willing to pay. It's as simple as that, even if YOUR opinion differs.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 381
2/28/13 at 10:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Your post just reinforces the fact that cost of production has nothing to do with how much something costs (what's the "cost of production" of a Rembrandt?). A thing is worth whatever people are willing to pay. It's as simple as that, even if YOUR opinion differs.

I couldn't agree more. It mirrors the service based economy we are in. It is not the physical costs, it's the market value.
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 381
2/28/13 at 10:57am
I could not agree more OP... new BD's are way over priced. but I would assume they are playing for licensing fees and royalties, not how much it actually takes to make a BD.

Disk technology is a dead technology.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 381
2/28/13 at 11:22am

One word: Profit maximization.

Reply
Reply
post #23 of 381
2/28/13 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

One word: Profit maximization.
Actually, that's two words. And what rational person doesn't want to minimize his costs and maximize his revenue? I'm sure if you sold a disc, you'd want as much as you could get for it.
Quote:
Disk technology is a dead technology.
What's "dead" about it? Is there another technology with:

a. Lower cost of production

b. Equal to or better quality

That I'm not aware of?
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 381
2/28/13 at 12:01pm
I don't think Studios make more money off of BluRays and DVDs. I believe It's the TV air time rights they sell.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 381
2/28/13 at 12:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

Blu-ray has been around for a long time now. I remember when they first came out the talk was that after the manufacturing equipment cost was re-couped the prices would drop quite a bit. Looking at the new releases coming out over the next few weeks they are still on sale for $22-$24 and retailing for $39. Now I'm all for making a reasonable profit but I think we're being ripped off. Many said this is exactly what would happen when blu-ray out muscled HDDVD. Good old Sony.

I hear ya - that's why I wait.
I stay behind the power curve on purpose.
I only just picked up a BRD player 2 weeks ago for $88.00 and have paid no more than 5.00 for any of my titles, of which I only have a few.
I will not pay for a new movie just to have it at midnight of the release date....let the Jones's do that, I can wait. wink.gif
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 381
2/28/13 at 12:21pm
You know who has it all figured out? DISNEY! Release an old movie for a couple months and charge $35 for it.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 381
2/28/13 at 12:28pm
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post
Actually, that's two words. 

 

Not if you say it real fast Nono2

Reply
Reply
post #28 of 381
2/28/13 at 12:31pm
I was told one time by a reliable source that is costs LESS than a penny to make a 12 oz can of Coke. I dont know all the details but you get the idea.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 381
2/28/13 at 12:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertR View Post

Actually, that's two words. And what rational person doesn't want to minimize his costs and maximize his revenue? I'm sure if you sold a disc, you'd want as much as you could get for it.
What's "dead" about it? Is there another technology with:

a. Lower cost of production

b. Equal to or better quality

That I'm not aware of?

No & No. Stamped disc has been with us a long time and likely to hang around for some time to come. The reason is simple, cost. Large quantities can be turned out at very low cost, the dream of any manufacturer.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 381
2/28/13 at 1:46pm
Why do new release DVD's still cost $14-16 and retail for $19-25?
For catalog releases, most BD movies can be had for $5-10, just like their DVD version and there are sales all the time.

Paying $5 more for a BD version over DVD new release doesn't sound that bad.
You get better PQ and AQ.

Are we to believe if HD DVD was the HiDef disc format that prices would be different?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Why are blu-rays still so expensive?