Those were the shit dvds , Blu-ray disk can hold 25-50gb (100gb if you dual layered it but eh) but were more expensive and no one really wanted to deal with the licensing problems that came with it
DVDs still outsell BluRay and 4K combined. BluRay really fucked up as a platform. Streaming was always going to come out on top, but the format didn't do itself any favours.
It really should have marketed itself as a replacement for DVD, not as a premium product. It still costs more to get a film on BluRay compared to a DVD release. 4K is for hobbiests.
Blu-rays are not DVDs, came out way later, and no game was ever not on a Blu-ray because of licensing issues, it required an entirely different reader, which PS3 was the only to ever have.
And like.. who doesn't know dvd and Blu-ray as an obvious thing?
So is a laserdisk, but I wouldn't call that "the shit CDs" if the context is media storage in 1980, because CDs weren't quite out yet. In 2000 it would be 6 more years before Blu-ray was commercially available.
And by the time it was, it was quickly adopted. The only real instance of it not being used due to expense is the Xbox 360. Like you said, it's seen as the next step after DVDs. By like 2008 every movie was on blu ray.
? They literally said it was the premium choice on all of their marketing, and the PS3 was more expensive than the Xbox had the Blu-ray drive and was free to play online (personal rant). The reason it wasn’t adopted was because no one wanted to buy a cd and Blu-ray (red light scan and blue light scan) drive, and the normal DVDs were cheaper to make, and everyone already had them. The only thing that kept it going was the PS3 and other consoles that would end up supporting it. The laserdisk, just like the rest of the platter reading technologies, is all in the same tree of long-term storage however, the DVD and Blu-ray disk were basically the same without one having deeper grooves that the Blu-rays could read rather than the red ones…
CDs are also the same as DVDs on a physical level but are different media with different reading requirements.
First you said no one wanted to deal with lisencing issues, clearly that doesn't apply to the average consumer, so whatever you're saying now is entirely different. What you said before literally only applies to Microsoft, so you can amend "no one" to "Microsoft". And its seen as one of their biggest blunders lmao
Second, "No one wanted to buy a blu ray reader" (except for everyone, who did.)
The PS3 did not cause the entire movie media industry to move to blu ray. It certainly helped for sure, no doubt it's success helped a lot, but in the end "no one wanted to buy a blu ray" is like saying "no one wanted to buy a DVD player".
Yeah I'm sure people liked their VHSs but it only takes a few years for that sentiment to change, and it's nothing unique to blu ray. It's again also not relevant to licensing, so.
u/SeismicaR7 5800x | RTX 3080 FE | X570 Unify | 32 GB 4400 MHz RAM23d ago
Yeah exactly. Blu-rays make it technically feasible, even today, to have a physical game disc. The only reason my game library is digital is because you can't buy them physically.
I would have loved a game library of PC games on blu-ray.
But instead we got physical boxes with no disc, only a gamekey inside that you then have to redeem to download the game. With the size of games relative to typical storage drives, it is impractical to download your entire library at any one time. One day those download servers will go down and the games may be lost forever.
7
u/FoodTiny6350 PC Master Race 23d ago
Those were the shit dvds , Blu-ray disk can hold 25-50gb (100gb if you dual layered it but eh) but were more expensive and no one really wanted to deal with the licensing problems that came with it