cotss2012 wrote:Blu-Ray isn't supposed to replace DVD any more than DVD was supposed to replace CD. Blu-Rays and their players cost a little bit more to make and they're much more sensitive to damage, and not everyone needs the extra resolution or disc space.
of course dvds weren't gonna replace cds, its two different forms of entertainment. dvds replaced vhs just like cds replaced cassette tapes which they themselves replaced 8-track tapes. they were each the next step in evolution for watching/listening to the entertainment. although in film's case, we did have an attempt with laserdisc but that died fast and quick but of course dvd holds many similarities as far as style and content go, especially in the early days.
and now blu-ray is that next step. its just suffering from the fact its not the giant leap that dvd was from vhs. its basically just a better version of a dvd so the average joe can't be bothered to really get into it and most are just not informed well enough. i mean blu-ray is finally a mainstream thing and some people still believe they "have to" replace their dvd library and thats a main reason they dont bother. of course if they did their homework they'd realize there's no need for that unless you choose to as the blu-ray player plays both.
although even the "informed" have issues to deal with. can't count how often i see people on HD forums/websites complain that a certain movie has hit the format. as if blu-ray was just made for specific movies or genres. lol
but of course dvd got big and accepted really fast. its to the point you have grandparents who have no problem watching and using them. so i'm sure dvd will be around a while and wont disappear into nothing like vhs did anytime soon. which is even more reason why its so pointless to include them with blu-ray movies.