or Connect
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? - Page 3

post #61 of 480
What I find amusing is that it probably doesn't cost the studio any more to produce a 3D disc vs. a 2D one. Just like it wouldn't take them any more to compress a 4k master file to 10 bit UHD. Yes, if they release media on stamped BDXL discs, you'll have to pay a little more for the early stages of BDXL manufacturing due to a higher reject rate to start (just like when BD was first released). However, there is no way it should cost many, many times that of a 1080p Blu-ray version.

The studios really should be phasing out DVD... like they did with laserdisc and VHS and price Blu-ray more in the DVD range. That's how you change the market. Then ramp up UHD discs to replace the Blu-ray market. You still have two tiers of quality: 8 bit 1080p with 7.1 audio and 10 bit UHD with improved object-oriented sound.
post #62 of 480
I sure do like it when a DVD of a new release is under $10 on release week.

I don't buy near as many BD's as I thought I would when the HD format war was won.
post #63 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOHNnDENVER View Post

I sure do like it when a DVD of a new release is under $10 on release week.

I don't buy near as many BD's as I thought I would when the HD format war was won.

I've pretty much started sticking to titles that I know will take forever to show up on any video format: Disney or PIXAR classics, Spielberg, catalog titles I really like; that sort of thing. If it looks like UHD won't have much of a physical presence (if any) and the download services start looking locked down and onerous (and the quality on any of them isn't up to snuff or really worth the upgrade), then I might as well stock up on a few more titles on Blu-ray when they're cheaper. At least I'll have them in HD of some sort.
post #64 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

. You still have two tiers of quality: 8 bit 1080p with 7.1 audio and 10 bit UHD with improved object-oriented sound.

Hold your horses, 5.1 still dominates the soundtrack format (unfortunately). 7.1 is great and all, but the content just isn't being made available. And while I think the Audyssey DSX with 11.1 was a nice touch for the Expendables 2 BD release, I just didn't find that movie's soundtrack as impressive as part 1.
post #65 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by batutta View Post

I don't know anyone who buys a movie sight unseen.
Why is that any worse than paying to see a movie in the theater sight unseen? If two people are going together, now it's as expensive as the disc - and all you get out of it when the credits roll is an empty popcorn bag. Meanwhile, you're out the ticket price, any food you comsume and the gas to get to the theater and back.

At least when you buy the BD, you have the option to sell it and get some of your money back if you don't like the movie. If you sit there and watch the whole movie in the theater, it's unlikely they'll refund any of your money unless they actually screw something up when showing it.

On the other hand, if you really like the movie and want to see it again you're going to have to pay the theater all over again - full price, too. Plus gas, etc, etc.... With the disc, you just pop it into the player at no extra charge.

For couples with children, buying discs can be far cheaper than going to the theater when you take the above costs and add in a baby sitter.

Now, having said that, for new movies that are released with just the BD and not a DVD combo, I'd like to see them under $20 and under $12-$15 for catalog films that actually include some extras. A bare bones catalog release with no real restoration (and DNR is not restoration) done to it should be under $10. The big issue I have is the crap effort releases often are sometimes wanting new release bonus pack prices.
post #66 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by 42Plasmaman View Post

On Apollo 13, I don't think so.

Well, I don't have that one, but most of my HD=DVDs have Dolby TrueHD or DTS or both! (Constantine, Riddick, U-571, etc. etc.)
post #67 of 480
All of my HD-DVDs have Dolby TrueHD. Which ones were released with DTS?
post #68 of 480
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.

You obviously weren't arouns when we were paying $100 -$120 for special edition films... I know I paid $100 for the Abyss on Laser Disc and $225 for the Star Wars Ultimate Laser Dsic Trilogy. Basic new release LDs with analog quality video and lossy audio tracks aaveraged $39.99 per movie (with rarely a discount).

I'm enjoying today's cheap movies (and we get HD and lossless audio)!!

I guess it's all relative as media has never been cheaper.
post #69 of 480
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?

for me not so much expensive...Most blu rays I bought I have watched one time...maybe twice. If I rent from Redbox and the quality is = to new purchase....DTSMA not DD, full rez. etc...for 1.50 it is hard to justify buying something at 10-20 times the cost of a rental...particularly for a movie I will most likely watch once. Even at 5.00 for a rental...I could see three times the cost of a rental for purchase but 4+ times the cost is promoting a rental market over purchasing.
post #70 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich86 View Post

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.

very reasonable...I think the same price wise...not so much being "too expensive" as much as priced according relative to rentals, downloading etc.
post #71 of 480
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.

Good question. The reason is because Blu-ray is taking too long to become mainstream. When DVDs came out, it completely replaced VHS and hit mainstream within a couple of years. With Blu-ray, DVDs are still co-existing. Blu-ray hasn't completely replaced DVDs yet and from the looks of it, it never will. But to be honest, we were paying $25-30 a movie back in 2009. Now, you can easily buy a movie for $20 or less. So the prices have gone down, but it will never become as low as DVD prices, if that's what you're expecting.
post #72 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

The studios really should be phasing out DVD... like they did with laserdisc and VHS and price Blu-ray more in the DVD range.

Studios do things based on demand. If there is still a demand for DVD, then they will not phase them out. When DVDs came out, everyone loved the new, convenient format. So people stopped buying VHS and therefore VHS got phased out. Just like laserdiscs. Laserdiscs actually had much better quality than VHS, but VHS had the higher demand. So, laserdisc got phased out. In order to phase out DVDs, people need to stop buying them. But so long as people still buy them, it will not get phased out.
post #73 of 480
This is what I don't understand. For example, the combo for The Amazing Spiderman on blu consist of a blu/dvd for $19.99 and the dvd version is for $14.99. So, it's $5 more for the stupid dvd thrown in which I don't want anyway. I'd be happy to pay $15 instead of $19.99..or if you want to get technical, the blu for $19.99-$14.99 for dvd which comes to $5 for the blu. I don't think the studios would go for this though.


http://www.amazon.com/The-Amazing-Spider-Man-Three-Disc-Combo/dp/B008QZ5PY2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1362692142&sr=8-2&keywords=the+amazing+spiderman
http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Spider-Man-UltraViolet-Digital-Copy/dp/B004LWZWFQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1362692142&sr=8-3&keywords=the+amazing+spiderman
post #74 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by tienvg View Post

This is what I don't understand. For example, the combo for The Amazing Spiderman on blu consist of a blu/dvd for $19.99 and the dvd version is for $14.99. So, it's $5 more for the stupid dvd thrown in which I don't want anyway. I'd be happy to pay $15 instead of $19.99..or if you want to get technical, the blu for $19.99-$14.99 for dvd which comes to $5 for the blu. I don't think the studios would go for this though.

Compare the extras for each release and the fact that you get a lossless audio track+1080p... and that doesn't justify a higher price?
post #75 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Compare the extras for each release and the fact that you get a lossless audio track+1080p... and that doesn't justify a higher price?

Special features and extras were entirely the reason DVD was so popular to begin with. You didn't get any of the commentary tracks and supplements with VHS. Then in 2000, Warner Bros had the idea to start having the 2 disc sets, where disc 2 would be the special features. Eventually, bare bones DVDs came into existence and the special features became a $5 premium. I am pretty sure BD will head that way too.
post #76 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebland View Post

You obviously weren't arouns when we were paying $100 -$120 for special edition films... I know I paid $100 for the Abyss on Laser Disc and $225 for the Star Wars Ultimate Laser Dsic Trilogy. Basic new release LDs with analog quality video and lossy audio tracks aaveraged $39.99 per movie (with rarely a discount).

I'm enjoying today's cheap movies (and we get HD and lossless audio)!!

I guess it's all relative as media has never been cheaper.

See my earlier post:

Does anyone not remember that the movie studios had a monopoly on the VHS and rental industry? Back in the 90s most new release VHS titles would sell for $20. There were those obnoxious releases that would retail between $90-$100, and that's for one VHS tape. This is why Blockbuster was a big business back in the day.

When DVDs started popping up back in 1997, I certainly remember new releases being sold for $20, the same price as their VHS counterpart; Disney DVDs were the exception to this and were as high as $35. It is no wonder that DVD vanquished VHS in less than 3 years. When Bluray and HD-DVD came out, Bluray was higher priced as well. Sony's launch player was $1,000 where Toshiba's was $500. People might choose to forget that HD-DVD was the superior format to Bluray when they both launched. Sony eventually caught up and the rest is history.

Bottom line, until the prices of Bluray match DVD, Bluray will not be replacing the DVD format anytime soon. The studios need to go back to memory lane and look at how fast DVD was adopted over VHS. Price played a major role in this. We are already at the $50 player mark. It's time for discs to follow suit.

By the way, format wars suck. I still have my trusty old CED videodisc player which lost out to VHS, Betamax, and Laserdisc back in 1983. Besides, discs are old hat now. Media servers are the way of the future now.
post #77 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHT View Post

Good question. The reason is because Blu-ray is taking too long to become mainstream. When DVDs came out, it completely replaced VHS and hit mainstream within a couple of years. With Blu-ray, DVDs are still co-existing. Blu-ray hasn't completely replaced DVDs yet and from the looks of it, it never will. But to be honest, we were paying $25-30 a movie back in 2009. Now, you can easily buy a movie for $20 or less. So the prices have gone down, but it will never become as low as DVD prices, if that's what you're expecting.

The reason DVD killed VHS so quickly was because the benefits were completely obvious. Superior film quality could be gotten, at the same price as the current VHS format. Once the first DVD players went below the $100 mark back in 2001 (I bought my third DVD player at this point), then the final nail was in the VHS coffin.

Price is a major point to keep aware of. When HD DVD launched in 2006, they had the right formula in mind. All of Warner Bros discs were $20, same as their DVD counterpart, where Universal would be in the $25-$30 mark. Bluray went opposite and charged $25-$40 to boot. I remember my friend buying Live Free or Die Hard for $35 in 2007. Insane I told him. The point is, buying a $20 DVD back in the day over the same priced VHS was a no brainer.

Today, the majority of TVs under 42 inches are still 720p, and all broadcast signals are 1080i. Bluray is a hard sell to the mainstream public, just like going HD was when the switch happened. My mom going to the store and seeing a $5-$10 premium for Bluray over DVD will always choose the latter. Besides, a salesman will have a hard time showing the advantages of a Bluray over an upconverted DVD on a 720p 32 inch set.
post #78 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeantYnot View Post

The reason DVD killed VHS so quickly was because the benefits were completely obvious. Superior film quality could be gotten, at the same price as the current VHS format. Once the first DVD players went below the $100 mark back in 2001 (I bought my third DVD player at this point), then the final nail was in the VHS coffin.

Yes, but those "obvious" benefits were available for years via laserdisc, along with *eventually" DTS and Dolby Digital. Prices started at $29.00 and up. And while some deluxe editions cost $100, you could always opt for a cheaper version...and yet that didn't kill VHS. The common refrain was that, even though picture and sound was much better than VHS (much more obvious than DVD and LD, where, with a top LD player, the PQ was usually the same and the audio superior on LD), you couldn't record on them! When DVD arrived, a concentrated effort was made to eliminate laserdisc from the market (I was there and I remember how retailers begged for re-orders of LDs and distributors refused.) Ah, the good old days.. LD was quickly driven out...leaving the field open for DVD
post #79 of 480
Sometimes I just don't know how things turn out the way they do. In terms of analog formats and PQ, I think Videodisc and Betamax were way beyond VHS back in the day. Videodisc players even had digital remotes and LED timers to scan through movies, no different than LD and disc media today. My friend was a Betamax fanboy and swore by it.
post #80 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by SergeantYnot View Post

The reason DVD killed VHS so quickly was because the benefits were completely obvious. Superior film quality could be gotten, at the same price as the current VHS format. Once the first DVD players went below the $100 mark back in 2001 (I bought my third DVD player at this point), then the final nail was in the VHS coffin.

Price is a major point to keep aware of. When HD DVD launched in 2006, they had the right formula in mind. All of Warner Bros discs were $20, same as their DVD counterpart, where Universal would be in the $25-$30 mark. Bluray went opposite and charged $25-$40 to boot. I remember my friend buying Live Free or Die Hard for $35 in 2007. Insane I told him. The point is, buying a $20 DVD back in the day over the same priced VHS was a no brainer.

Today, the majority of TVs under 42 inches are still 720p, and all broadcast signals are 1080i. Bluray is a hard sell to the mainstream public, just like going HD was when the switch happened. My mom going to the store and seeing a $5-$10 premium for Bluray over DVD will always choose the latter. Besides, a salesman will have a hard time showing the advantages of a Bluray over an upconverted DVD on a 720p 32 inch set.

Not only that, but there were a lot more benefits that DVD had over VHS, such as chapter selections, no rewinding, better picture and sound, subtitles and language selections, more extras, no tracking issues, no tape wear, etc... With Blu-ray, all we get is better picture/sound and BD-Live (which most people don't care about). And the picture and sound upgrade really all depends on the source and transfer. Many people don't feel that's enough to warrant a repurchase of their entire movie library. And I'm with them. While I love buying movies on Blu-ray and do occasionally upgrade some of my DVDs, there are still a number of DVDs that I have and still buy and plan to watch for many years to come. I don't mind watching both formats. But with DVDs, once I experienced those bad boys, there was no way I could touch a VHS tape ever again!

And with a good upconverter, some DVDs can look pretty darn good on an HDTV.
post #81 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHT View Post

Not only that, but there were a lot more benefits that DVD had over VHS, such as chapter selections, no rewinding, better picture and sound, subtitles and language selections, more extras, no tracking issues, no tape wear, etc... With Blu-ray, all we get is better picture/sound and BD-Live (which most people don't care about). And the picture and sound upgrade really all depends on the source and transfer. Many people don't feel that's enough to warrant a repurchase of their entire movie library. And I'm with them. While I love buying movies on Blu-ray and do occasionally upgrade some of my DVDs, there are still a number of DVDs that I have and still buy and plan to watch for many years to come. I don't mind watching both formats. But with DVDs, once I experienced those bad boys, there was no way I could touch a VHS tape ever again!

And with a good upconverter, some DVDs can look pretty darn good on an HDTV.


Ah the good ole tracking issues of VHS. How I miss thee, LOL. Remember how some of the earlier players didn't have the tracking fix? What a nightmare.

While watching DVDs on my larger TVs can be unbearable, watching an upconverted DVD in My bedroom that has a 32 inch 720p LED is perfectly acceptable.
post #82 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Yes, but those "obvious" benefits were available for years via laserdisc, along with *eventually" DTS and Dolby Digital. Prices started at $29.00 and up. And while some deluxe editions cost $100, you could always opt for a cheaper version...and yet that didn't kill VHS. The common refrain was that, even though picture and sound was much better than VHS (much more obvious than DVD and LD, where, with a top LD player, the PQ was usually the same and the audio superior on LD), you couldn't record on them! When DVD arrived, a concentrated effort was made to eliminate laserdisc from the market (I was there and I remember how retailers begged for re-orders of LDs and distributors refused.) Ah, the good old days.. LD was quickly driven out...leaving the field open for DVD
Bad comparison.

Laser discs were the size of LPs. People were already set on things being smaller by that point in the audio world with tapes and CDs. DVDs fit on the same shelves people stored their VHS tapes on - plus being slimmer than the tapes so you could fit more.

Plus, laser discs felt like something that could be damaged if you didn't hold it like a crystal punch bowl. It felt too much like a record, which many people were glad to be rid of in favor of CDs.

By the time DVD came out, people were used to disc media and were familiar with the form factor via CDs, especially once dual layer discs allowed for a printed label on one side. The bonus was, DVD players could also play CDs, so you only needed one player.

But, the real killer of LD was the lack of places to rent titles. Rental places were a bit more open to devoting a small amount of shelf space to DVD since the price was lower and they fit the same shelves and could fit multiple titles in the space of one tape in the rental cases. When customers found renting them easier and the rental outlets found they were less troublesome than tape, they really began taking over.
post #83 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


Plus, laser discs felt like something that could be damaged if you didn't hold it like a crystal punch bowl. It felt too much like a record, which many people were glad to be rid of in favor of CDs.

.

Some may have "felt" that way, but LDs were more durable than DVDs. I've had LDs (bought used) that looked like someone had ice-skated on them, yet they played flawlessly. The same couldn't be said for DVDs in similar conditions. And sales of vinyl LPs have risen 500% over the past 4 or 5 years.
post #84 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by cinema13 View Post

Some may have "felt" that way, but LDs were more durable than DVDs. I've had LDs (bought used) that looked like someone had ice-skated on them, yet they played flawlessly. The same couldn't be said for DVDs in similar conditions.
That's why I said "felt". Something so big with no good place to grab it just feels fragile. DVDs are more like 45's in that you have an easy to grab inner hub and it's not a big deal to set it down on the label side if you need to.

Having said that, I've encountered plenty of DVDs that played fine despite looking like they were used to play hockey. Blu-rays, on the other hand, seem to often not play for no reason at all.
Quote:
And sales of vinyl LPs have risen 500% over the past 4 or 5 years.
500% increase from less than 1% of the marketplace is still very small. It's like saying home churning butter is on the rise because there's an increase of suburban antique fans that think it's quaint. The butter may taste better, but most people will think you're crazy.

Keep in mind, too, I'm talking the heyday of each format. In the biggest days of the CD, no one wanted vinyl unless they were an enthusiast. Now, it's still only a "badge of honor" format. Hardly on any sort of major comeback. If the numbers ever match up with CD numbers again, it's only because the CD has seen it's day, too.
post #85 of 480
Thread Starter 
They can charge whatever they want and I'm sure they have plenty of bean counters telling them what price point each release can handle. The newest Twilight movie can be had in BD for $17.97 but they are also releasing the four movie set at almost the same time. These people are experts at marketing. Let's take this movie and wonder (we can do that, it's not illegal) how much profit is being made on the SD version compared to the BD version? I'm guessing $10 on the $14.95 SD and $13 on the BD. Now that profit has to be spread around but that's still a pretty nice margin.
post #86 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkTV View Post


Keep in mind, too, I'm talking the heyday of each format. In the biggest days of the CD, no one wanted vinyl unless they were an enthusiast. Now, it's still only a "badge of honor" format. Hardly on any sort of major comeback. If the numbers ever match up with CD numbers again, it's only because the CD has seen it's day, too.

CDs, and disc media, is coming to its end of life too. Some auto manufacturers (I believe Ford was the first) are already phasing out CD players from their cars in lieu of bluetooth and MP3 media playback.
post #87 of 480
Quote:
Originally Posted by andy sullivan View Post

They can charge whatever they want and I'm sure they have plenty of bean counters telling them what price point each release can handle. The newest Twilight movie can be had in BD for $17.97 but they are also releasing the four movie set at almost the same time. These people are experts at marketing. Let's take this movie and wonder (we can do that, it's not illegal) how much profit is being made on the SD version compared to the BD version? I'm guessing $10 on the $14.95 SD and $13 on the BD. Now that profit has to be spread around but that's still a pretty nice margin.

Here is an interesting fact. When you search Amazon for the new Twilight movie, the first result is the DVD copy, second is BD. There is exactly a $5 premium for the BD.
post #88 of 480
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.

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while. Sony does not control the prices that Studios list their movies for. For all the HD DVD is cheaper to produce malarkey they never passed it on to the consumers.

On average new releases especially popular titles are selling for much less than new releases a few years ago. Skyfall was $20 at Amazon and many other retailers... Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were priced higher than that when considered a new release.

Wreck It Ralph 2D was $20 at some retailers. Many popular Disney titles have sold for well above that when new. Now sure the 3D is more but you are getting niche product for a small increase.

Blu-ray has come down in price... now the real advantage is waiting for most titles to reach catalog status because that's when you get the best deals. BDs can be purchased for much less than what the download/streaming services are selling the same titles for when they reach catalog status.
post #89 of 480
New release debut pricing is creeping back up. Some studios are also more stubborn on price drops. Universal's newer releases seem to hang around the $19.99 a little longer nowadays. Anything from Disney, including catalog, doesn't seem to drop that often. I remember specifically Inception and Star Trek '09 both debuting to around $17.99 on release week. Being released in Q4 probably was partly due to that, but 2-3 years later, we're seeing titles debuting back to around $22.99, such as Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, which will be that price at Target. I would like to see more of the combo packs going for $19.99 instead of the other direction.
post #90 of 480
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toknowshita View Post

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I have seen in a while. Sony does not control the prices that Studios list their movies for. For all the HD DVD is cheaper to produce malarkey they never passed it on to the consumers.

On average new releases especially popular titles are selling for much less than new releases a few years ago. Skyfall was $20 at Amazon and many other retailers... Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were priced higher than that when considered a new release.

Wreck It Ralph 2D was $20 at some retailers. Many popular Disney titles have sold for well above that when new. Now sure the 3D is more but you are getting niche product for a small increase.

Blu-ray has come down in price... now the real advantage is waiting for most titles to reach catalog status because that's when you get the best deals. BDs can be purchased for much less than what the download/streaming services are selling the same titles for when they reach catalog status.
What's so dumb about it? I never said that Sony controlled blu-ray pricing, but they did refuse to allow any movies distributes buy a Sony Studio to be released on HDDVD. That's pretty controlling. . I said that the advent of the Play Station was the nail in the coffin for HDDVD. I remember reading a survey of people buying the Play Station after a year of ownership and many of them did not even know they played blu-rays. Naturally you can find blu-rays on Amazon for a good price in the $17-$20 range. But a quick scan also list's "The Hobbit @ $25.99, Les Miserables @ $23.99, Lincoln @ $26.99, Zero Dark Thirty @ $28.99, Shindlers List @ $22.99 Django Unchained @ $22.99, Wreck it Ralph @ $27.99. If it's a big release movie that I want to see I prefer not to wait 2 or 3 years for it hit the $10 price. I may be dead by then.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › Why are blu-rays still so expensive?