WI: Laserdisc doesn't have a bad launch

Aelita

Aelita

When the first Laserdisc players launched amidst much fanfare in 1978, a whole lot of things went wrong. Most importantly, though, there were tremendous problems with disc quality, leading to a majority of many titles being defective and needing to be replaced. As a result, the consumer base didn't grow very fast, and rental stores shyed away from renting the players and discs.

But even with this, Laserdisc players cost roughly the same as VCRs, the discs were significantly cheaper to make, and cheaper in the consumer market for many years, and the audio video quality was leaps and bounds better. Would a a successful launch in late 1978 give Laserdisc a chance at developing a mass market?
 

Porthos

I dunno. The size of them was a pretty big problem, as was the need to flip over discs in the middle. Once the CD got mass appeal, they just looked far too big, even though laserdiscs were the size of a standard record. Also the fact that VCRs doubled as personal recorders probably can't be overlooked. That was a revolutionary Kill Feature in many ways. So if people already had something that could play (rented) movies and record off the air content, why go ahead and buy another device to play movies, even if it did have superior quality?

Don't get me wrong, I loved laserdiscs. Especially since they were a Pay to Buy model*, instead of the Pay to Rent model. But even back then I could see why people weren't buying them in mass.

* Actually this is a good question. Were laserdiscs priced at a Pay to Buy model (i.e. $25- $35 for a new movie) at launch instead of Pay to Rent (i.e. $80+ for a new title like Betamax and VHS)? I know they were by the time I got interested in them.
 
Cook

Cook

Banned
‘What if Lazarus doesn’t have a bad lunch?’
:eek:

I thought this was an Australian politics thread for a second there.
 
Aelita

Aelita

Porthos said:
I dunno. The size of them was a pretty big problem, as was the need to flip over discs in the middle. Once the CD got mass appeal, they just looked far too big, even though laserdiscs were the size of a standard record. Also the fact that VCRs doubled as personal recorders probably can't be overlooked. That was a revolutionary Kill Feature in many ways. So if people already had something that could play (rented) movies and record off the air content, why go ahead and buy another device to play movies, even if it did have superior quality?

Don't get me wrong, I loved laserdiscs. Especially since they were a Pay to Buy model*, instead of the Pay to Rent model. But even back then I could see why people weren't buying them in mass.

* Actually this is a good question. Were laserdiscs priced at a Pay to Buy model (i.e. $25- $35 for a new movie) at launch instead of Pay to Rent (i.e. $80+ for a new title like Betamax and VHS)? I know they were by the time I got interested in them.
Click to expand...
Well, Laserdisc did pretty well in Japan, nearly on par with VHS for sales.

From what I remember, Laserdisc almost always was on a pay to buy model, but I could be wrong. And the advantage of recording TV that VHS had isn't as big as we might think. Laserdisc is about par with DVD in video quality (slightly less sharp picture, but usually richer color and no digital compression artifacts). DVD managed to crush VHS quite handily without the ability to record. If my own and the people I know's VCR use habits are in anyway typical, the record ability was probably way, way underutilized.

I don't think the VHS could totally flop at this time, but a stronger launch for Laserdisc might end up making it a mass market item.
 

omega21

Honestly, I think it's the size of the LDs. They looked very unwieldy compared to videotapes - and this is coming from a kid who watched Star Wars on them repeatedly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top