Oh noes teh sky is falling!

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by vargo

I never said they would cease to exist (within our lifetimes). It is impossible to make such definitive statements. Horse-drawn carriages still exist. So of course you cannot say such things. I said they will account for the vast majority of revenue, or units, or transactions or any other metric you care to use. It will become 'the norm'.

Regarding books, Amazon already sell more ebooks than physical books and e-readers are a relatively new product.

In the PC games industry digital delivery has already overtaken discs in unit sales about 3 years ago.

Staying with games, EA made the majority of their revenue from digital sales in Q1 2013 ($378 out of total $495 million).

Pretty much every CD store near me has shut down, and movie stores are following.

How can you look at these trends and not see what is happening?

CDs are available online. Stores in general are closing down, that is the recession for you.

[camper]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

CDs are available online. Stores in general are closing down, that is the recession for you.

It's more than that, the markup on these items is not very high, which makes it very difficult to justify brick and mortar stores devoted just to these items.

PC makers like Dell and Gateway used to have devoted brick and mortar stores, but as prices decreased the markup did as well and it was not feasible to keep stores open.

Online shopping as a whole has cut into the profitability of brick and mortar devotee stores, as has the expansion of stores like Walmart and Target which have taken on the department store model and sell every-day items to create a 'one stop shopping' experience that renders the CD & Movie stores useless.

And Hollywood Video & Blockbuster shutting down is no surprise, they shut down the mom & pop rentals by offering more selection at cheaper prices.

Do you any of you remember when movie rental stores charged a monthly fee???? That was how the mom & pop stores were able to survive, they collected a monthly fee and used the proceeds from there to buy newer releases, then sold the extra copies that were rented dozens of times for a reasonable price. They might only have half a dozen copies of the latest and greatest, but if you were in the shop you'd settle with an older film that cost them almost nothing.

Blockbuster charged per-movie, and did it with more copies and that killed the 'monthly fee' stores, because while you might pay more if you watched a lot of movies, but you'd at least get a newer film. Ironically, Blockbuster tried to implement it to save themselves at the end, but it didn't work because it was too late--Netflix did them in at that point, and they couldn't compete.

Even Netflix sends out physical movies too, so the online streaming/rental method isn't even a good comparison to justify the demise of optical media.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by camper

It's more than that, the markup on these items is not very high, which makes it very difficult to justify brick and mortar stores devoted just to these items.

PC makers like Dell and Gateway used to have devoted brick and mortar stores, but as prices decreased the markup did as well and it was not feasible to keep stores open.

Online shopping as a whole has cut into the profitability of brick and mortar devotee stores, as has the expansion of stores like Walmart and Target which have taken on the department store model and sell every-day items to create a 'one stop shopping' experience that renders the CD & Movie stores useless.

And Hollywood Video & Blockbuster shutting down is no surprise, they shut down the mom & pop rentals by offering more selection at cheaper prices.

Do you any of you remember when movie rental stores charged a monthly fee???? That was how the mom & pop stores were able to survive, they collected a monthly fee and used the proceeds from there to buy newer releases, then sold the extra copies that were rented dozens of times for a reasonable price. They might only have half a dozen copies of the latest and greatest, but if you were in the shop you'd settle with an older film that cost them almost nothing.

Blockbuster charged per-movie, and did it with more copies and that killed the 'monthly fee' stores, because while you might pay more if you watched a lot of movies, but you'd at least get a newer film. Ironically, Blockbuster tried to implement it to save themselves at the end, but it didn't work because it was too late--Netflix did them in at that point, and they couldn't compete.

Even Netflix sends out physical movies too, so the online streaming/rental method isn't even a good comparison to justify the demise of optical media.

Well, I need a new hobby in future. If I can't own it, I don't want it. Streaming is fine for tv, for movie collectors it's a crapfest IMO

[camper]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Well, I need a new hobby in future. If I can't own it, I don't want it. Streaming is fine for tv, for movie collectors it's a crapfest IMO

Agreed, and because of the amount of data required to transmit HD quality video, the desire for the consumer to have an HD quality viewing experience (or one that will pass) and the desire for ISP's to cap the bandwidth of their consumers as a method to charge more for their service, I'm confident that optical media (at least for movies and games) will withstand the next decade at least.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by camper

Agreed, and because of the amount of data required to transmit HD quality video, the desire for the consumer to have an HD quality viewing experience (or one that will pass) and the desire for ISP's to cap the bandwidth of their consumers as a method to charge more for their service, I'm confident that optical media (at least for movies and games) will withstand the next decade at least.

A lot of people are saying 2023-24 will be when disc becomes truly obsolete. When I say people, I mean experts and tech guys. (True home cinema fans anyway)

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The guy said something like " young people are watching low res, low bit rate on their cellphones or whatever they get their hands on. The young generation always dictate what the future holds. That has just stuck And worried me. I love my home cinema too much I think.

There will always be home cinema for those who want it, just as you can still buy a high-end hi-fi system. It just won't dominate the industry. How can it when the major players are leaving the industry? Panasonic and Sony lose money on every set they sell. Panasonic just announced that they're abandoning plasma. Mitsubishi left the business. Pioneer Kuro left the business. Sharp came out with those two high-end sets, but then nothing else. The only player dominating is Samsung.

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

I've seen the concern be raised that movies are becoming an increasingly more disposable thing to the youth of today. I could be wrong, but I'm not so sure I agree that is necessarily the case. I think, thanks to home video formats becoming commonplace the last 30 years or so, movies have an extended shelf life beyond what was possible in earlier times when the cinema was the only way to watch films and the technology wasn't there to restore, remaster and preserve films in as effective a way. Add to that the internet and the easy access you get to researching and acquiring movies, discovering titles you'd maybe never have heard of if things were still the same as 60 years ago.

While everything you say is true, I think that movies are perceived as more disposable and IMO, it's the fault of the industry as a whole. While there were always garbage movies, movies were perceived as more important because going to a theatre, especially in large cities, while much more common in yesteryear than today, was considered to be an "event". You had fancy movie palaces and people would actually get dressed up to go to the movies. And going to a roadshow movie was like going to the theatre. If one went to a reserved seat attraction like "West Side Story" or "Lawrence of Arabia", it was not uncommon to see people dressed in formal wear (or business suits at the worst). From the mid-70s, with Dolby's revival of 70mm 6-track mag, while the theaters had become run down by this time and the hippie culture ended the former formalities, seeing a film like "Close Encounters…" or "Star Wars" was a major cultural event, if only because the big films would play in theaters for a year.

In the early years of home video, this didn't change much, partially because home technology sucked and partially because there was still very large windows between theatrical exhibition and home video release…at least a year and it would generally go to pay cable first, then to a broadcast TV network and only after that would it appear on VHS or Laserdisc.

But today, with everything hinging on the opening weekend of a film, with home video release frequently as little as 60 days after theatrical release (and ever getting smaller), with back catalog DVDs going for as little as $3 and with streaming in the $5 to $8 range once a feature leaves the theatre, movies do seem a lot more disposable. When you can go to the corner newsstand or drug store and there's a bunch of budget DVD's available for a few dollars each or a Redbox machine where you can rent for $1, that certainly reinforces the notion that movies are disposable and have little value. They're cheaper (in equivalent dollars) than a pulp paperback novel of the 1950s.

And then there's the issue that there is far more competition for leisure time (like posting on this site, for example). Because there were fewer alternatives in the past, movies were a far more central part of the culture. Theatrical attendance before TV and before the rise of suburbia was phenomenal: the peak year for the theatrical industry was 1946 when on average, 61% of the U.S. population went to the movies every week and the average person saw 32 movies per year. In 1978, the year after Star Wars was released, 10.36% of the population went to the movies each week and the average person saw 5.39 movies per year, about 24% higher than today. In 2012, 8.36% of the population on average, went to the movies each week and the average person saw 4.35 movies (in a theatre) each year.

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

We grow up, get homes, and get big TVs. The fact that young people put communications/connectivity technology ahead of home theaters is meaningless, because it is not a new trend, it has always been true. For at least 30 years now, kids have been more interested in video games than films and TV... by your reasoning, that preference for video games should have long-since culminated in the death of all other media. What happened? All those kids grew up, got homes, and got HD TVs.

And I'd bet my bottom dollar that twenty years from now, the iTunes and smartphone kids will be middle-aged, have homes, and be buying TVs that are bigger and better than the ones we have now, not smaller and worse... and I'd bet that a lot of them will still be collecting physical media, too.

The problem with arguments like this is that they're presented as absolutes. As another poster pointed out, one technology never completely replaces another and people have different behaviors. There are people who still have ham radio as a hobby. But that doesn't mean that there's a trend either for "hobbies" (which is a term that almost seems antiquated today) or for ham radio.

Yes, it's certainly true that some young people who mainly watch media on portable devices today will eventually settle down and want a large screen experience. But there are also many trends working against that:
- the fact is that the first device you have does tend to be the one you stick with. That's why car companies sell their cars for almost no profit to car rental firms. The car you learn on or the one you rent, tends to be the one you buy.

- In the U.S., this is going to be the first generation of 'kids' who are doing worse than their parents economically. The college educated are graduating with record amounts of debt. There aren't enough jobs, except perhaps for those at the top of their class and with very specific skills. Kids are living in the parents' houses for much longer, sometimes until early 30's. So this generation will not be acquiring homes as quickly as past generations. Because of that, they tend to want to be "on the go". These are the people who are watching portable video and while some will eventually change, many will not.

- Traditional TV watching is way down. There's starting to be a trend of TV shows that will be streamed only on the web, "House of Cards" on Netflix and the new Garry Trudeau show "Alpha House," starring John Goodman on Amazon, being but two. We're at the infancy of this.

Originally Posted by mredman

fact is the studios know that if there would only be digital or streaming and no physical media. Illegal downloading would be unstoppable. The majority of the people would just get their movies illegally noway are they gonna pay 10-20$ for a download or streaming when they can get the same content illegally for free.

Studios are not gonna say goodbye to physical media when its the one the studios earn the most from. How can those streaming trolls here not see that

Roll your eyes all you want. Both will co-exist. While overall revenues may still be higher for physical media, margins are much higher for streaming deals because a studio delivers a "print" to Hulu, Netflix, Vudu or whoever and then sits back and collects royalties. The only risk is cannibalization. They don't have to manufacture anything. Streaming is already pretty secure. I've never heard of anyone being able to "steal" a Vudu stream.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

First the young don't dictate anything. I don't know young people with walkers or even anyone my age but they still exist, there are many industries catering to the old just as there are many to the young or any other age group. Second the problem with statements like that are that they are not based on reality but false causality. For example, last Christmas holydays I went back with my sister to Ottawa (got a lift from her on her way back) my nephew was watching something on his portable device. Is it really a choice on low res low bit rate or just the kid thinking "hey it is better to watch something so I don't have to talk to these people".

Actually, the young dictate almost everything. Why? Because rightly or wrongly they (18 to 35 year olds) are perceived by advertisers and agencies as having the most spendable income and the willingness to spend it (even though they're all going to be deep in debt). They are also perceived as those who can be affected the most by advertising. I don't necessarily agree that this is accurate, and it's a form of agism, but it doesn't matter because it's the big advertising agencies' perceptions. You know why there aren't any classical, jazz, standards or true oldies commercial radio stations anymore? Because their listeners have "demoed out". The advertisers don't want anyone over 50. Yes, there are plenty of advertisers who cater to old people, mostly on the AM talk stations (and on TV), but those are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Originally Posted by mredman

If you really think people are gonna buy things with DRM then you got another thing coming. So it works on only some devices or the file can only be seen or opened a handful of times then it can't be seen anymore the only thing you can do is throw it away.
Yeah people would certainly love such a restriction over a blu ray you can watch everywhere or see as many times you want

And there will also always be people that crack a Code so they can be downloaded illegally on the internet. It has always been that way and that will not change.

People are using DRM every day - they just don't realize it. There's DRM in every streaming download and there's DRM in almost every e-book that you buy from a traditional trade publisher or from Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Apple, etc.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

I am sure someone of my parents age could have said 40 years ago when tapes and 8-track were relatively new "do you expect your children's children to be spinning records", and records still exist today and a few weeks ago my nephew (on record day) bought his first one and took one of our record player.

Totally irrelevant. I might still be playing Edison Cylinders, but it's not a viable market. The fact is that in spite of all the hype about vinyl coming back, it's less than 2% of the physical market and less than 1% of the total music market. Besides, do reel-to-reel pre-recorded tapes, 8-tracks and pre-recorded cassettes exist today? No. Media choices do change over time. You can still buy CDs, but the overall music market has declined 60% since its 1999 peak and that doesn't even include inflation and that's in spite of the billions of downloads that have been sold on iTunes and other services. And we're essentially down to only three major "U.S" labels: Sony, Universal/Vivendi and Warner Brothers. (And I put U.S. in quotes, because they're not really U.S. companies anymore.)

And there's one other issue, which is that movies seem important because they're shown in theaters first. But in the U.S., people have been abandoning theaters because of all the other choices available. We're going to see a LOT of theaters close during the next 10 years. That's not to say that theaters are going away, but they'll be far fewer of them. Like legitimate theatre, they'll just be one or two in each locale, except in big cities like New York. (Although even in NYC, there isn't a single movie theatre left on Broadway between 20th street and 66th street and there used to be over a hundred). As these theaters close, movies will seem even less important. The fact is that except perhaps where land is really cheap, theaters are a really lousy real-estate investment: they're only in use part of the day, they have slow turnover and in the early weeks of a film (which are the only weeks for most films these days), the theatre gets to keep as little as 5% of the ticket price. That's why concessions are so over-priced.

The only reason the studios are surviving is because international attendance and revenues are now greater than U.S. revenues and as countries like China to a large extent and India to a smaller extent, grow their middle-classes, movie attendance is skyrocketing in those regions of the world. In fact, AMC/Loews theaters is now owned by a Chinese company.

The problem with many of the arguments in this thread is that they're based on emotion, research based upon "my cousin did this…" and not on facts. Blu-ray is doing "okay", but it's not doing great. In the U.S. at the end of the first quarter, BD was up 30% cumulatively, year-over-year, which was fantastic, but as of the week ending 10/19/2013, it's only up 6.57% cumulatively and in dollars, it still only has a 29.2% share of physical media (which means its unit share would be far lower, since BD titles are priced higher than DVD titles). That's not good enough. Those numbers certainly won't end BD, but it will mean fewer titles and less money spent by the studios on restorations and extras.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

A lot of people are saying 2023-24 will be when disc becomes truly obsolete. When I say people, I mean experts and tech guys. (True home cinema fans anyway)

They will not become obsolete there will likely always be physical media.

Imagine if there where only downloads. Do you really think people are gonna pay bluray prices for a download or a stream. Noway in hell they are not gonna pay that much for data. Which means studios is gonna lose billions of dollars if there where not physical media.

Not to mention piracy would be even more the norm then and studios will lose money on those that pirate to.

People like to collect thats the way it is. That will never go away you can't collect downloads or steaming.

Studios earn WAY more on physical media than they do on streaming and downloads because they can't charge so much for that than they can for a blu ray or any physical media.

[camper]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

A lot of people are saying 2023-24 will be when disc becomes truly obsolete. When I say people, I mean experts and tech guys. (True home cinema fans anyway)

There would have to be MASSIVE infrastructure improvements and upgrades here in the US for that to happen, and quite frankly I do not see that happening in 10 years.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

There will always be home cinema for those who want it, just as you can still buy a high-end hi-fi system. It just won't dominate the industry. How can it when the major players are leaving the industry? Panasonic and Sony lose money on every set they sell. Panasonic just announced that they're abandoning plasma. Mitsubishi left the business. Pioneer Kuro left the business. Sharp came out with those two high-end sets, but then nothing else. The only player dominating is Samsung.


While everything you say is true, I think that movies are perceived as more disposable and IMO, it's the fault of the industry as a whole. While there were always garbage movies, movies were perceived as more important because going to a theatre, especially in large cities, while much more common in yesteryear than today, was considered to be an "event". You had fancy movie palaces and people would actually get dressed up to go to the movies. And going to a roadshow movie was like going to the theatre. If one went to a reserved seat attraction like "West Side Story" or "Lawrence of Arabia", it was not uncommon to see people dressed in formal wear (or business suits at the worst). From the mid-70s, with Dolby's revival of 70mm 6-track mag, while the theaters had become run down by this time and the hippie culture ended the former formalities, seeing a film like "Close Encounters…" or "Star Wars" was a major cultural event, if only because the big films would play in theaters for a year.

In the early years of home video, this didn't change much, partially because home technology sucked and partially because there was still very large windows between theatrical exhibition and home video release…at least a year and it would generally go to pay cable first, then to a broadcast TV network and only after that would it appear on VHS or Laserdisc.

But today, with everything hinging on the opening weekend of a film, with home video release frequently as little as 60 days after theatrical release (and ever getting smaller), with back catalog DVDs going for as little as $3 and with streaming in the $5 to $8 range once a feature leaves the theatre, movies do seem a lot more disposable. When you can go to the corner newsstand or drug store and there's a bunch of budget DVD's available for a few dollars each or a Redbox machine where you can rent for $1, that certainly reinforces the notion that movies are disposable and have little value. They're cheaper (in equivalent dollars) than a pulp paperback novel of the 1950s.

And then there's the issue that there is far more competition for leisure time (like posting on this site, for example). Because there were fewer alternatives in the past, movies were a far more central part of the culture. Theatrical attendance before TV and before the rise of suburbia was phenomenal: the peak year for the theatrical industry was 1946 when on average, 61% of the U.S. population went to the movies every week and the average person saw 32 movies per year. In 1978, the year after Star Wars was released, 10.36% of the population went to the movies each week and the average person saw 5.39 movies per year, about 24% higher than today. In 2012, 8.36% of the population on average, went to the movies each week and the average person saw 4.35 movies (in a theatre) each year.



The problem with arguments like this is that they're presented as absolutes. As another poster pointed out, one technology never completely replaces another and people have different behaviors. There are people who still have ham radio as a hobby. But that doesn't mean that there's a trend either for "hobbies" (which is a term that almost seems antiquated today) or for ham radio.

Yes, it's certainly true that some young people who mainly watch media on portable devices today will eventually settle down and want a large screen experience. But there are also many trends working against that:
- the fact is that the first device you have does tend to be the one you stick with. That's why car companies sell their cars for almost no profit to car rental firms. The car you learn on or the one you rent, tends to be the one you buy.

- In the U.S., this is going to be the first generation of 'kids' who are doing worse than their parents economically. The college educated are graduating with record amounts of debt. There aren't enough jobs, except perhaps for those at the top of their class and with very specific skills. Kids are living in the parents' houses for much longer, sometimes until early 30's. So this generation will not be acquiring homes as quickly as past generations. Because of that, they tend to want to be "on the go". These are the people who are watching portable video and while some will eventually change, many will not.

- Traditional TV watching is way down. There's starting to be a trend of TV shows that will be streamed only on the web, "House of Cards" on Netflix and the new Garry Trudeau show "Alpha House," starring John Goodman on Amazon, being but two. We're at the infancy of this.


Roll your eyes all you want. Both will co-exist. While overall revenues may still be higher for physical media, margins are much higher for streaming deals because a studio delivers a "print" to Hulu, Netflix, Vudu or whoever and then sits back and collects royalties. The only risk is cannibalization. They don't have to manufacture anything. Streaming is already pretty secure. I've never heard of anyone being able to "steal" a Vudu stream.


Actually, the young dictate almost everything. Why? Because rightly or wrongly they (18 to 35 year olds) are perceived by advertisers and agencies as having the most spendable income and the willingness to spend it (even though they're all going to be deep in debt). They are also perceived as those who can be affected the most by advertising. I don't necessarily agree that this is accurate, and it's a form of agism, but it doesn't matter because it's the big advertising agencies' perceptions. You know why there aren't any classical, jazz, standards or true oldies commercial radio stations anymore? Because their listeners have "demoed out". The advertisers don't want anyone over 50. Yes, there are plenty of advertisers who cater to old people, mostly on the AM talk stations (and on TV), but those are the exceptions that prove the rule.


People are using DRM every day - they just don't realize it. There's DRM in every streaming download and there's DRM in almost every e-book that you buy from a traditional trade publisher or from Barnes & Noble, Amazon, Apple, etc.


Totally irrelevant. I might still be playing Edison Cylinders, but it's not a viable market. The fact is that in spite of all the hype about vinyl coming back, it's less than 2% of the physical market and less than 1% of the total music market. Besides, do reel-to-reel pre-recorded tapes, 8-tracks and pre-recorded cassettes exist today? No. Media choices do change over time. You can still buy CDs, but the overall music market has declined 60% since its 1999 peak and that doesn't even include inflation and that's in spite of the billions of downloads that have been sold on iTunes and other services. And we're essentially down to only three major "U.S" labels: Sony, Universal/Vivendi and Warner Brothers. (And I put U.S. in quotes, because they're not really U.S. companies anymore.)

And there's one other issue, which is that movies seem important because they're shown in theaters first. But in the U.S., people have been abandoning theaters because of all the other choices available. We're going to see a LOT of theaters close during the next 10 years. That's not to say that theaters are going away, but they'll be far fewer of them. Like legitimate theatre, they'll just be one or two in each locale, except in big cities like New York. (Although even in NYC, there isn't a single movie theatre left on Broadway between 20th street and 66th street and there used to be over a hundred). As these theaters close, movies will seem even less important. The fact is that except perhaps where land is really cheap, theaters are a really lousy real-estate investment: they're only in use part of the day, they have slow turnover and in the early weeks of a film (which are the only weeks for most films these days), the theatre gets to keep as little as 5% of the ticket price. That's why concessions are so over-priced.

The only reason the studios are surviving is because international attendance and revenues are now greater than U.S. revenues and as countries like China to a large extent and India to a smaller extent, grow their middle-classes, movie attendance is skyrocketing in those regions of the world. In fact, AMC/Loews theaters is now owned by a Chinese company.

The problem with many of the arguments in this thread is that they're based on emotion, research based upon "my cousin did this…" and not on facts. Blu-ray is doing "okay", but it's not doing great. In the U.S. at the end of the first quarter, BD was up 30% cumulatively, year-over-year, which was fantastic, but as of the week ending 10/19/2013, it's only up 6.57% cumulatively and in dollars, it still only has a 29.2% share of physical media (which means its unit share would be far lower, since BD titles are priced higher than DVD titles). That's not good enough. Those numbers certainly won't end BD, but it will mean fewer titles and less money spent by the studios on restorations and extras.

The first game console I had was an Atari hooked up to a portable 14 inch tv.
Soon I will have a PS4 with (hopefully a 4k set in the next couple of years)
That is the same for most people my age. How is that sticking with what you originally bought?

Also, are you claiming that most of the younger generation will be watching on smartwatches or smartphones, as I have said that is what I fear and people think I am crazy!

Your comments to me, suggest the end of game consoles also, as people need TV sets to play.

[pentatonic]

Originally Posted by Anthony P

they would make a lot less

1) DRM is mostly useless. Haven't you ever heard of films appearing on torrent sites before they even make it on screen on theatres? How do you think that happens? do you think the guy had a time machine, went to the future got the BD/DVD and brought the copy back?

2) digital DRM is always easier to crack then physical DRM, using packet sniffers and stuff

3) You are forgetting the obvious. A collector paying 70$ for a limited edition BD of a film (or even 50 or 30 or 20 or 10 or even 5) brings in a lot of money someone renting a film (for example Netflix) does not.

To make it simple , if someone spends 1000$ a year (and that is very little for a collector- I would guess I spend over 4K a year on films and I don't have no where near the collection as some do) because they buy the physical media but he changes to 100$ a year (12*8$) since he does not own digital media so might as well rent they need to stop a lot more than 10 people from pirating.

So if anyone is not stupid the cost is not worth the result even if you could stop all pirated copies.

Oh well! I guess we'll find out soon enough, and as stated before, I don't care either way as long as the experience improves (I wouldn't mind having a 4k pj and Dolby Atmos sound).

But in the confine of HT becoming media hubs and the stupid redundancy of smart features across all devices in your setup, making it even trickier for the masses, and the fact we see more and more PCs and devices attached to the home network, I see physical media as being a limitation over soft that could be played on anything in that hub. Call me crazy but I'm looking forward to expanding the possibilities of a home network. Why is it such a cool idea for music but such a bad one for movies?

Edit: By the way Anthony, do you really believe that software companies have no resources to make media unpiratable? And then look at the reaction of people to Cinavia for example. Whether it has been cracked or not I don't know, but in the end the honest folks weren't really bugged by it.

Then the XBone, always on, online validation! See the reaction to that? You honestly think they will back out for ever? And for those who say yeah but what if my connection is down. Don't know about you but I haven't lost my connection for years, and when it does happen it's always because of loss of power anyways, if you have a good UPS, you still keep your connection.

They tightened ship on their OS and software and they will just get more aggressive and I believe that to be true for the media industry at large. So unless society foregoes the interoperability of their devices, I don't see how it will be otherwise.

Be fun to come back here in 20 to see where we end up being.

[pentatonic]

[Show spoiler]

My point exactly, just don't have the gift of gab you do Zoet, so thanks for clearing that up

[blonde_devil]

the unfortunate part is that to a large degree, it is no longer a consumer demand world. the studios have more and more control over the product distribution so even if you want that PS6 game on disc, if Sony wants to start doing all thier games as downloads now, you really won't have much say in the matter by then. sure, you can stop buying the games and systems but there are enough people now who are willing to buy it no matter what that it is worth the risk for the companies. society has been trained to follow along with the trends (just look at people and Apple products) so if the game and movie studios decided tomorrow to stop producing physical media and go directly to digital downloads, a majority of people would go with it without hesitation. really, it all comes down to when the studios decide to pull the plug on physical media. besides, it works in their favor to do that. what does it cost to buy a new movie for download? $20-25? you can get the same thing on bluray for around the same price but remember with the download there are usually no extras, no case, no disc, no packaging - they charge pretty much the same price yet their cost is significantly lower. why wouldn't they try and go that route instead?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

the unfortunate part is that to a large degree, it is no longer a consumer demand world. the studios have more and more control over the product distribution so even if you want that PS6 game on disc, if Sony wants to start doing all thier games as downloads now, you really won't have much say in the matter by then. sure, you can stop buying the games and systems but there are enough people now who are willing to buy it no matter what that it is worth the risk for the companies. society has been trained to follow along with the trends (just look at people and Apple products) so if the game and movie studios decided tomorrow to stop producing physical media and go directly to digital downloads, a majority of people would go with it without hesitation. really, it all comes down to when the studios decide to pull the plug on physical media. besides, it works in their favor to do that. what does it cost to buy a new movie for download? $20-25? you can get the same thing on bluray for around the same price but remember with the download there are usually no extras, no case, no disc, no packaging - they charge pretty much the same price yet their cost is significantly lower. why wouldn't they try and go that route instead?

They will fail, miserably.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

The first game console I had was an Atari hooked up to a portable 14 inch tv.
Soon I will have a PS4 with (hopefully a 4k set in the next couple of years)
That is the same for most people my age. How is that sticking with what you originally bought?

Also, are you claiming that most of the younger generation will be watching on smartwatches or smartphones, as I have said that is what I fear and people think I am crazy!

Your comments to me, suggest the end of game consoles also, as people need TV sets to play.

As I've said many times, the market is becoming more diversified. And as part of that diversification, many people, especially young people, are more than satisfied watching movies on a portable device, just as they're more than satisfied listening to MP3 or streamed music on portable devices and small "boom boxes". Those who are primarily into console driven games will certainly continue to use consoles, but many will also only play games for the iPad or whatever is available for those types of devices.

Apple alone has sold 170 million iPads through October of 2013 and they're actually losing market share to the competition. Within a few more years, they'll probably be half a billion such devices out there and that doesn't include smartphones or hybrid Pads/PCs. It's not that you can't own an iPad and also own a big TV (that's what "second screen apps" are all about), but many of those Pads will be used to watch movies.

[blonde_devil]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

They will fail, miserably.

you would think so but look at history - Apple released an iPhone last year and then released another version roughly within a year. people complained but sales are up 25% from the same time a year ago so people will fall for it. looks at the PS3 - when it was first released, you could play PS2 games on it still but when people were buying the PS2 version instead of the PS3 version of games, what did Sony do? stopped making the PS3 compatible. people complained but did Sony reverse their decision? it isn't like people have an option. If you don't like the iPhone, there are other choises. if all studios do downloads and no physical media, what are you going to do? theatres only show movies for so long before they are gone. If they can survive the first few months, things will start to improve and they will make money again.

[KRW1]

Originally Posted by blonde_devil

you would think so but look at history - Apple released an iPhone last year and then released another version roughly within a year. people complained but sales are up 25% from the same time a year ago so people will fall for it. looks at the PS3 - when it was first released, you could play PS2 games on it still but when people were buying the PS2 version instead of the PS3 version of games, what did Sony do? stopped making the PS3 compatible. people complained but did Sony reverse their decision? it isn't like people have an option. If you don't like the iPhone, there are other choises. if all studios do downloads and no physical media, what are you going to do? theatres only show movies for so long before they are gone. If they can survive the first few months, things will start to improve and they will make money again.

Sony actually supported the PS2 for many years into the PS3s lifespan because people were still buying PS2 games and systems. They could have stopped production and support, to force people to upgrade, but they didn't. The simple reason is because they were making money out of it.

(PS2 discontinued Jan 2013!)

If they stopped making bluray tomorrow, as I've said, I'll just spend the next 20 years buying all the releases I've missed as there are thousands I still need.

[mredman]

yes they would fail because if there was no physical media people would just download their stuff illegally and the studios would not get a cent. and if some are willing to buy a download or stream they are not willing to buy it for 10-20$ that the studios get for a blu ray and some even cost way more. So in the end studios would lose billions if there is no physical media. Noway the studios is just gonna throw billions of dollars away.

[mrr1]

If there is a profit to be made on any type of physical media, it will be produced and sold.

15 years ago who would've envisioned that there would be a market for an obsolete format such as vinyl records in 2013? Because people still buy and collect them, vinyl records are still being made, and their sales have been steadily increasing for a while now.

I can't envision a day when there is nobody out there who would refuse to buy a physical copy of a movie they love. And because of that, they will always be available, even if it isn't the "preferred" medium.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

As I've said many times, the market is becoming more diversified. And as part of that diversification, many people, especially young people, are more than satisfied watching movies on a portable device, just as they're more than satisfied listening to MP3 or streamed music on portable devices and small "boom boxes". Those who are primarily into console driven games will certainly continue to use consoles, but many will also only play games for the iPad or whatever is available for those types of devices.

Apple alone has sold 170 million iPads through October of 2013 and they're actually losing market share to the competition. Within a few more years, they'll probably be half a billion such devices out there and that doesn't include smartphones or hybrid Pads/PCs. It's not that you can't own an iPad and also own a big TV (that's what "second screen apps" are all about), but many of those Pads will be used to watch movies.

That is the death of movies for the future gen. Watching on a mobile or worse smartwatch. Doesn't anyone see the sheer tragedy that that represents? It's the death knell for movies in the future, if that happens.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That is the death of movies for the future gen. Watching on a mobile or worse smartwatch. Doesn't anyone see the sheer tragedy that that represents? It's the death knell for movies in the future, if that happens.

that is never gonna happen. MOST people would still want a Big tv to watch their shows and movies on and play their games on. Imagine playing Assassin's Creed on a 8 inch screen. wow that would just kill the whole experience of that game.

Projectors are also still being sold WW. People like big therefore that will not go away ever