Here It Is -- Your $98 Blu-ray Player
Filed under: Home Entertainment
It's been about 18 months since Blu-ray officially defeated HD-DVD in the high-def format war, and while sales of Blu-ray players have surged since then, one thing has prevented a lot of people from taking the plunge: the &$*@ players are still too *#&@* expensive. There have been other factors too, of course -- we just converted to DVD a few years ago; the difference in picture quality over DVD isn't great enough to justify re-buying all those movies; etc. -- but obviously sales would skyrocket if the cost would come down. The general theory has been that $100 was the magic number, that once Blu-ray players dropped below that price everyone would buy them. As usual, Wal-Mart is the first to give it a shot. EngadgetHD reports that Wal-Mart has permanently reduced the price of a particular Magnavox Blu-ray player from $168 to $98. It's not the top-of-the-line player, of course, and Magnavox isn't a high-end brand for Blu-ray anyway -- but that doesn't matter to the average consumer. As one of Engadget's commenters points out, it was a huge boon to DVD sales when Wal-Mart first sold a crappy DVD player for less than $100. This could potentially do the same for Blu-ray, not just through Wal-Mart sales (although that's a great way to get the format into lots of American homes) but because this will inspire other retailers to do the same thing. Once one Blu-ray player is available for $98, people will start wondering -- even more than they already do -- why the others are so much more expensive.
There is one problem, though. The average Blu-ray disc still costs about $25 -- one-fourth the cost of the player. That ratio is insane. I suspect that regardless of how cheap the player gets, a lot of people are going to resist switching over until the discs are comparable to DVDs in price. We're starting to see that, especially with online retailers, but there's still a long way to go. And the real technophiles aren't going to go for this $98 bare-bones Magnavox player anyway. Still, it's a start.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
7-11-2009 @ 6:05PM
dkev said...
At over 600 DVD's in my library, I am in no hurry to upgrade to Blu-Ray. My up converting DVD player does a great job. The slight image improvement isn't enough to get me to jump over. There is just no way I am gonna pay $25 - $30 for a disk. I know a lot of people prefer downloads. Screw that, I want the physical media.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 6:13PM
chris said...
I'm with dkev. I just don't feel the need to start paying more right now, and an upconverting DVD player makes them look pretty decent. I'm sure Blu-ray is much better, but I just bought an upconverting DVD player + recorder not too long ago, and I'm not spending that money AGAIN on a new player... just not worth it to me to make a change anytime in the near future.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 6:22PM
Bubbameister33 said...
Once the price of the discs go down all will be good.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 6:25PM
cufford said...
Not only does it make no sense to me to replace my perfectly fine DVDs with a brand new format, but it's pretty obvious that this format will soon give way to the next overly-priced one and become obsolete as well. What's the point.
In fact, DVDs, regardless of format, are going the way of VHS anyway in just a few years. Everything will soon be online delivery anyway.
And with studios now removing all the "extras" from rental DVDs, to try and get me to buy DVDs instead of rent them, I definitely don't buy DVDs anymore either. Fuck them!
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 11:52PM
Michael said...
Everyone keeps talking about replacing their current library and how they don't want to do that. I don't know why everyone assumes they need to. Upgrading to a blu-ray player just opens up more options for rentals and purchases. Its not like all your old dvd's will all of a sudden stop working. I've had an Oppo blu-ray player for a few months now and only own 3 blu-ray disks. I have about 300 dvds and I have no intention of replacing any of them. If anything I'll just start selling them to get them out of the house.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 6:58PM
Michele said...
If you have a good audio and tv setup then the new bluray releases are definitely worth it. The main problem that I've found is that some of the studies take a very lazy approach and don't take full advantage of the format. So you basically endup with a BD disc with the film and little else - even though you've paid a premium for it.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 9:08PM
Scott K. said...
I think the picture quality of bluray is impressive, but I'm with the rest. I have a lot of DVDs and I am not inclined to replace them.
I also disagree that DVDs are on their way out. I like having physical media, so while I may occasionally rent a movie digitally, I am buying a DVD. And considering 9 out of 10 DVDs I buy are under $10 (used or sale), the price premium is pretty significant.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 10:06PM
Andy said...
The only problem with this is that if you go to your local Walmart and the player is still $168 and they don't know what you're talking about.
This was my experience last night. Had several of that model but had no idea what I was talking about even after being shown the articles in question. You might want to call your local Walmart first.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 11:12PM
RTMS said...
I was under the impression that in order to enjoy the blu ray picture you also needed a HDTV capable of receiving 720p or 1080p picture. I think this is the other big reason why blu ray hasn't taken off, as people are not buying the new TV's in order to enjoy the better picture. It's the reason I'm not buying the disc, no use wasting money on a player if I can' t use it with my standard TV.
Reply
7-11-2009 @ 11:35PM
Adam said...
To those saying upconverting DVD player offers PQ anywhere near a Blu-Ray player, head down to Pearle Vision and get those eyes checked!! I'm in the huge DVD library club, and now my Blu-Ray library is growing. Of the 300+ DVDs I have and the 50+ Blu-Rays in my library I have exactly 3 of the same titles, so this "I don't want to replace my current library" argument holds as much water as a sheet of paper. It's about future titles, and catalog titles that you don't have. That $99 dollar Blu-Ray player will play all of your current DVDs, so please stop all of this "replacing" nonsense. If you don't want to see films like "Star Trek" and "Watchmen" in all of their 1080p glory, something is wrong with you. Don't even get me started on the sound difference or the sheet limitations of extras thar can be fit on a single DVD. As for downloads, you'd only be able to hold about 36 films on a 1TB drive, and that doesnt include any supplements. Another limitation is network speed. People tend to forget that the PS2 was one of the biggest factors in the DVD taking off, and I honestly think a $250 PS3 would damn near make Blu-Ray more popular than DVDs. But Sony isn't likely to lop $150 off of their console, so we'll see if their likely $100 dollar price cut is enough to get consumers buying en masse. A cheap stand alone player isn't likely to produce a huge bump in Blu-Ray sales though.
Reply
7-12-2009 @ 12:36AM
justin said...
I was like a lot of you, I was pretty on the fence about Blu-Ray, considering I already own 500+ DVD, so what was the point? After getting a Blu-Ray title, I finally decided to make the switch. And for those saying 'I don't wanna re-buy all my movies', why would you? Blu-Ray players will still play DVD's and they do improve slightly on their picture. My suggestion, only convert the titles that you really like, personal favorites, movies you really love and want to experinece on Blu-Ray, not shell out money for a bunch of other films you probally don't care about, that's what I'm doing. Anyway, just my advice.
Reply
7-12-2009 @ 1:07PM
Chad said...
Compared to blu-ray, an upconverting dvd player is NOT fine. Sure, it works, but its nowhere near the quality, sharpness, or vibrance of a blu. A great blu transfer offers not only clarity but almost 3-D depth... and yes, great transfers can be made film films older than 1990. Film has and has always had more resolution than digital, so depending on what filmstock/lenses were used to shoot a film, a movie made in the 40s can look as good as a movie made today. Just look at the blus for Casablanca, The Searchers, The Third Man, etc.
Digital downloads ate probably 15 years away from becoming a reality, especially at the quality level current blus offer. There just isnt enough bandwidth. Even HD TV doesn't broadcast with the quality of a blu.
Reply
7-13-2009 @ 1:31AM
MediaOKra said...
If the Magnavox Blu-Ray is equivalent in quality to the cheap Magnavox digital converter box Wal-Mart offered, I must regretfully pass.
Reply
7-13-2009 @ 10:45AM
Stunbunny said...
Once I finally got my HDTV and connected my up-sampling DVD player via component video, the argument for Blu-Ray went out the window. The picture looks fantastic!
Then, a few weekends ago, I bought a stack of 6 used DVDs from Blockbuster and Hollywood Video for $30. That's 6 DVDs vs. 1 average new Blu-Ray disc. Why would I want to start buying all my movies again in a new format? This isn't exactly the no-brainer of moving from VHS to DVD. Blu-Ray needs to be comparable, and therefore competitive, with DVD or it may follow HD-DVD down the drain.
The videophiles can argue resolution and Blu-Ray quality till they're, um, blue in the face but it doesn't mean a thing if a) you're happy with your DVD + HDTV combo, b) you're relatively broke, and c) you already have several hundred or thousand DVDs. It still beats VHS and broadcast tv.
Reply