It's not an issue of not being videophiles or not, though certainly most of the older generation don't seem to care - at least not in my experience. Does HD cable cost more than SD? There's your reason. The content is the same, why should they pay more for it?
Same problem. Blu-ray costs most than DVD
??? What is you definition of videophile? How many people do you know who call themselves videophiles who don't have a blu-ray player, or who only watch SD from cable? Or at least did a few years ago. Both cable providers here include HD channels in your package for free, and all OTA, though very few seem to know it still exists, is HD.
I used the term videophile because scottylans seems to be one. Maybe you include a lot of people who switched to HD packages and bought blu-ray players a few years ago who you do not consider videophiles?
Quote:Assuming you have to, you'd pay because you ARE a videophile and the quality does matter.
The content is the same, why should they pay more for it?
You seem to be arguing with me, or at least disagreeing with me, but you seem to agree with me except over the term videophile?? Or what am i missing?
Edit: added in on last sentence