backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 145 comment(s) - last by AWeav09.. on Aug 15 at 1:31 PM

Blue box sales are nearly doubling red box sales  (Source: Warner Home Video)
Many more Spartans marching on Blu-ray Disc

Warner was proud to announce last week that its CGI-heavy film “300” is the fastest selling high-definition movie yet. What the movie studio did not reveal was the breakdown between the two formats.

Market research firms, however, were glad to share their findings of the exact split between Blu-ray Disc and HD DVD version of “300.” According to the Hollywood Reporter, sales charts from Nielsen VideoScan First Alert put the Blu-ray Disc product outselling its HD DVD counterpart by roughly 2-to-1.

The split between the versions closely follow the current market trend of there being twice as many Blu-ray discs sold as compared to HD DVD.

Despite the sales being greater for the Blu-ray version, it is the HD DVD product that is the more feature-laden of the two. Found only on the HD DVD version is the “Bluescreen Picture-in-Picture Version” of the film and other web-enabled features.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Why buy when ya can rent?
By kusala on 8/13/2007 11:09:47 AM , Rating: 5
This may seem like a dumb question but do they keep track of rentals?

I have never bought a BR or HD title. Seems pointless to buy a movie.




RE: Why buy when ya can rent?
By Spoelie on 8/13/2007 11:20:45 AM , Rating: 1
Is it total sold since release or the current ratio of sales? Since the Blu-Ray version came out first, it wouldn't be all that surprising if it was the former.


RE: Why buy when ya can rent?
By rninneman on 8/13/2007 11:37:35 AM , Rating: 4
You may want to check your sources; they both came out on July 31st.

Blu-Ray: http://bluray.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_histo...
HD-DVD: http://hddvd.highdefdigest.com/releasedates_histor...

Denial is not going to make HD-DVD win. (Although, both formats have sold enough software that the studios have made their investment in the formats back already so both are probably here to stay. Now the hardware manufacturers have to do the same.)


RE: Why buy when ya can rent?
By steven975 on 8/13/2007 2:46:35 PM , Rating: 1
with blockbuster putting out ONE COPY PER STORE in most places, renting is not an option.


RE: Why buy when ya can rent?
By kusala on 8/14/2007 9:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I do not use in store I use Netflix.


Blu-Ray 300 still outstripping HD DVD 300
By Jimmybones on 8/13/2007 1:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
It is funny how people come out and defend one product over the other. This being said I own neither a Blu-Ray capable device or HD DVD.

Amazon still has the Blu-Ray 300 in the top 10 and HD DVD continues to fall now down to 16th.

So, even if 100% of the stores in America were out of 300, I would expect to see the HD DVD topping the Blu-Ray charts at Amazon. This hasn't happened.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/dvd

Personally, I just want on format and cheap discs. Heck I'd settle for a decent combo player that was priced under $300.




RE: Blu-Ray 300 still outstripping HD DVD 300
By elmikethemike on 8/13/2007 1:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
What's even funnier is the BluRay version is less expensive than the HD DVD version on Amazon.

So I guess the HD fanboys can throw that argument right out the window.


RE: Blu-Ray 300 still outstripping HD DVD 300
By blaster5k on 8/13/2007 3:13:10 PM , Rating: 2
Who knows why it's listed as more expensive. There's any number of reasons. The cost of making the disc itself is still lower.


RE: Blu-Ray 300 still outstripping HD DVD 300
By Guyver on 8/13/2007 4:49:43 PM , Rating: 3
The reason why the HD-DVD version is "more expensive" is because it adds a standard defintion DVD layer to be played on standard DVD players.


By blaster5k on 8/13/2007 11:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't realize it was a combo disc. My bad.


By JimFear on 8/14/2007 7:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
Seems silly though, most people would then buy the normal DVD instead of a more expensive HD-DVD/DVD combo, like an article on DT has said, most people don't even realise what their consoles can do in regards to HD, if peopel are that clueless about a console they're likely to be just as confused about the rest of the hardware available to them.

I suppose the only benefit the dual format discs have is when people don't realise the difference and buy the HD-DVD version when they only have a DVD player, that and possibly those who understand what HD is and will buy a HD-DVD player in the future and don't want to have to buy a chunk of their library again.

Either way this whole HD debacle is a right mess, as most camps now support both formats I think I'll just stick with BR for the moment unless something REALLY gets my juices going in the HD-DVD camp.


HD vs BR
By elmikethemike on 8/13/2007 1:31:24 PM , Rating: 5
1.) When I bought 300 on BluRay, there were plenty of HD DVD versions on shelves right next to it.

2.) The HD DVD version might have more features, but if anyone here thinks that's a valid reason to choose one format over the other in general, you're flat out silly. I mean, you HD DVD fans make it sound as if BR is incapable of any extra content at all. There is plenty of extra content on the BR version of 300. But in any event, who really cares?? People want the movie, not some silly PiP option. Honestly, are you that proud of HD DVD for including that? lol

3.) Both the BR and HD version were selling for the exact same price at best buy when I bought them - $30. Big whoop.

4.) Most Ps3 users are aware that their machine can play blu-ray. I mean, there's a giant blu-ray logo right on the box, so unless you're blind, you know what it can do. The real issue or question is how many PS3 owners have an HDTV to make playing a BluRay movie worth it?

5.) Face it, BluRay is doing better than HD DVD. No amount of misinformation on DailyTech's forum is going to change that. So fanboys can try and spin everyone's posts to their favor, but you're all looking pretty silly doing it.

6.) I had the HD DVD addon for the 360, but I sold both of them in favor for a Toshiba HD DVD standalone player. If anyone here thinks the 360 and its addon compares to the PS3's BluRay player, you are 100% dead wrong. The PS3 is immensely better as a player. Just try it out forself.




RE: HD vs BR
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 1:47:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most Ps3 users are aware that their machine can play blu-ray. I mean, there's a giant blu-ray logo right on the box, so unless you're blind, you know what it can do. The real issue or question is how many PS3 owners have an HDTV to make playing a BluRay movie worth it?

You would think so, go look at previous DT articles, one last week outlined how only 40% of ps3 owners knew what the bd player did, or knew they even had one. You wouldnt believe how many people play their ps3/360/wii on a CRT TV, or use the analogue rca (y/r/w) cables on their fancy LCD TV.


RE: HD vs BR
By elmikethemike on 8/13/2007 1:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
I figure most users DONT have a HDTV to experience full on high definition content. But that doesn't mean they don't know what each console is capable of.

The article should have been about the current lack of HDTVs in most households.


RE: HD vs BR
By JimFear on 8/14/2007 7:44:54 AM , Rating: 3
Most owners = men

Men don't need to read those nancy fancy instruction manuals, we just plug it in and shout when it doesn't work :)


What about the price difference?
By steven975 on 8/13/07, Rating: 0
RE: What about the price difference?
By omnicronx on 8/13/2007 1:51:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
IMO, I think Universal and Warner are using HD-DVD owners as guinea pigs for the combo format. I think that when they perfect them (almost there) they will just outright replace DVD with HD-DVD/DVD combos. If that happens, Blu-Ray's future will be in question.

you should seek a job at toshiba, seems like their marketing department needs a bit of help. And with DVD compatability not in the BD spec, (unless the manufacturer chooses to add it) you would think Sony would be hardpressed to do the same thing.

Great post!


By steven975 on 8/13/2007 2:42:10 PM , Rating: 3
There's lots of speculation at AVS that the Combo will replace DVD for Universal and possibly Warner.

Then there's the TotalHD hybrid disc that Warner is offering the IP for FREE to anyone wanting to use it.

Then there's the hybrid players. The BD manufacturers can't make money (Sony undercuts them) so slowly they are moving to combo players to differentiate themselves.

Either of these 3 will keep HD-DVD around. TWO of the three will probably propel it to the win.


RE: What about the price difference?
By Loc13 on 8/13/2007 3:52:19 PM , Rating: 2
So how many people out there have both HD DVD and Blu-Ray players? And how many people would decide to buy a blu-ray player to watch 300 in HD just because the blu-ray version is $5 cheaper but the player itself $200 more expensive?

Your logic is flawed. The price of the disk doesn't determine which format sells more.


RE: What about the price difference?
By steven975 on 8/13/2007 3:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
No my point has nothing to do with players.

As the price of a disc rises, more of your POTENTIAL market opts not to buy the product. Basic economics.

I have both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray as do many of the enthusiasts (not fanboys) on AVS. Many of them opted for the BD purely because of price. Do not underestimate pricing as a factor in demand.


By masher2 (blog) on 8/13/2007 4:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
I also own players of both formats. Usually, I'll buy HD-DVD because I prefer region-unlocked discs, but if given a choice between the pricey HD-DVD combo discs and Blu-Ray, I tend to pick BD.

In the case of "300", though, I still went HD-DVD because of the special features not present in the BD version. The PiP bluescreen feature on the HD-DVD version is worth the extra cost alone.


As a side note
By soulbabel on 8/13/2007 3:21:42 PM , Rating: 2