Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[randian]

If you're talking music, some crazy people (like me) only want lossless audio and hate MP3. It's an insult. I only buy CD or high-res FLAC downloads.

[huskerbear]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

That's what people ignore. Cheap codes are the order of the day. People in general, will not pay full price for Digital HD.

You are hearing from people right here telling you they would rather stream it even if they have the disc. As someone else pointed out there isn't much of a reason to buy direct ....yet. The codes will go away, and people will buy direct. Many including myself already are. I was an early adopter. I did all the code and D2D stuff long ago, most are just now building their libraries. They are spending a lot more than I did, because of supply and demand, the cost of UV codes have gone up considerably.
At this point I have been buying direct for a couple years. I think many will follow that path. We don't want to mess with a disc anymore but, I do hope they continue with discs for those that want that for many years....and I think they will.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I've said this before (possibly even in this thread) and I'll say it again... while digital distribution (be it streaming or sales) is having an impact on physical sales, the reality is that the overall decline in physical media sales was inevitable, even if digital never came along as an option.

At it's height, DVD was the biggest sell-through medium ever for home media of any sort (physical or digital). It was toted as being longer lasting than VHS, had bonus features, etc. People who may not have been big collectors in the VHS days (maybe owned some movies, but did a lot of renting) were collecting more.

But the reality is that once they add titles to their collection, collectively they are less likely to go out and buy them again in a future re-release (be it on DVD with more features, or on another format entirely).


Star Wars Rogue One sold extremely well on release, with 83% of it's sales being on Blu-Ray. But now that many, many people own it, only a fraction of them are going to be willing to rebuy it on a future re-release in a better format/quality (i.e. in 4K, for example).

We are simply at a point where most major and somewhat less-than-major catalog titles have been released, in some cases a few times over. People who want to hang onto their movies already have their older favorites for the most part. Back then people were buying up those titles in addition to the then-newly released movies coming out after their theatrical runs.

So it's mostly new releases and the occasional catalog title that didn't have a prior release that are generating the most physical sales now. And those sales are doing just fine. But of course collectively they aren't going to add up to as much as during the big DVD "boom."

While I fully understand the studios wanting to make as much money as possible, this is really something that they should have anticipated. They are only going to be able to sell essentially the same thing to the same people so many times before those sales drop off. So for those titles, they now basically have to rely on the occasional DVD or Blu-Ray purchase, the handful of people buying them digitally, and/or the money they get from subscription agreements from Netflix and the like, and of course TV/cable airings.

It doesn't mean that physical media is on it's death-bed.



I don't see why we should be worried.

As huge as digital music sales are, for example, they still haven't fully killed off the CD (and even vinyl had a niche resurgence in recent years). We aren't that far off from it being 20 years since Napster first started as a file sharing site and the controversy that followed (hard to believe it's almost been that long), and it wasn't long after that before music started being officially sold digitally. And digital has had a much bigger effect on the music industry thus far than it has on the movie/TV industry in respect to sales.

And even if hypothetically the manufacturing of DVDs and Blu-Rays were to 100% stop cold-turkey, it doesn't mean our existing collections suddenly stop working.

I'm not entirely anti some aspects of digital distribution. I do have Netflix and Hulu subscriptions, and I have redeemed some digital copies that have come with my physical purchases. But I will not be giving up my physical collection in favor of going 100% digital, as at some point I would most certainly lose access to at least some content that I care about that I now have on physical media.


As far as the organizational argument goes, digital is very limited IMO. On Vudu, for example (which is what I use for most of my redeemed digital copies), the only useful organizational options seems to be alphabetical. Other options are in order of code redemption, which IMO is really only useful for access a recently redeemed movie if I want to watch it right away.... after a while the order in which they were redeemed doesn't matter.

And even the alphabetical order option is somewhat flawed in some circumstances. For instance, I have my Disney Movies Anywhere account (from my Disney digital redemptions) linked to my Vudu account. And I have both of the Avengers movies redeemed. The problem is that one is listed as "Marvel's The Avengers" while the other is simply under "Avengers," so one movie gets alphabetized within the titles that start with "M," while the other gets put with titles that start with "A."

And on the topic of the Marvel Cinematic Universe as a specific example, I have all of the movies released on Blu-Ray to date, and I specifically and purposely in order of release, and not alphabetically (i.e. in order of: Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America, Avengers, Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Cap 2, etc...). Since it's all one big connected film universe with there being a continuity that is built with these films in order that they were released, I find this easier to keep track of that order. It keeps it more fresh in my mind seeing my collection in that order, rather than mixing them in alphabetically with other unrelated movies, and then trying to piece it back together later if I decide to watch the movies in order sometime down the road.

And with Star Wars now doing these "side" movies, some people may opt to organize those in their collection in continuity order (i.e. placing Rogue One between Episodes III and IV on the shelf), or they may opt to organize the "side" movies separately from the main "saga."

And then there are cases of direct sequels that have titles that don't sync up alphabetically (Batman Begins followed by The Dark Knight, Jurassic Park followed by The Lost World, Romancing the Stone followed by Jewel of the Nile, etc.).



And the whole "connected world," while valid in some respects, is extremely ridiculous in other respects.

I get the convenience of having digital copies when away from home. I even somewhat get the convenience of them in terms of not having to get up to swap out a movie if you want to watch a few in a row (though I would likely still opt for the disc if I'm at home... usually better quality unless it's a movie that I only have on DVD and the digital is in HD).

But at the same time, being almost completely dependent upon an internet connection for streaming a purchased movie - something that has otherwise not been needed in most other respects to watch a movie at home - is kind of silly IMO. If the connection goes down, so does your access to the content, at least for a time. Even if you have a great connection that almost never goes down (which in my experience, while it works most of the time, I have far more problems with my internet connection than say the electricity running to my place), it is still an additional variable that can potentially cause a problem with being able to watch the content that you want.

I'll admit this is a purpose absurd comparison to illustrate the point, but to me it's kind of like arguing that we should all have toilets that require an internet connection in order to be able to flush some simply on the basis that we live in a "connected world." Why add something that can otherwise go wrong?

We NEED electricity in order to watch movies at home, regardless of the medium (disc, streamed, or whatever). We NEED running water/working plumbing for our toilets, sinks, and showers to work. But we don't necessarily need internet, and I don't see the point in adding a variable where one doesn't need to be.

In the case of media, I get having internet as an option for streaming services like Netflix for content that you may not necessarily want to buy, and I guess to an extent I can see option to watch a digital copy for the sake of convenience to not always have to get up and get the disc, but for content that I am flat out buying to keep and have ongoing access to, even if it comes with a digital copy as a bonus, I want the physical version that is not dependent on neither my internet connection working, nor the service at the other end being perpetually maintained and never changing with regard to my content being available (no matter how obscure any given piece of content may be).

As long as those physical versions continue to be an options, those are the ones that I will go with.



Not really...

While some collectors care about the packaging that the movie comes in and want to keep it in as best of shape as possible, others may not care about packaging, but still prefer physical media for all of the various reasons that Penguin Master, me, and many others have pointed out here (i.e. not losing access, not being dependent on internet and the servers at the other end, etc.).

And there are those who care to an extent about packaging, but not necessarily the official packaging. There is a whole ongoing thread in the North Amercian Blu-Ray section on this site for custom cover art that people print up and use. And there are several websites out there for that sort of thing as well. These days the studios often use crappy photoshopped images for the covers, so for older movies, people may make custom ones based on original theatrical posters, or just simply make something that looks better to many people than the official release.

And some people use these options also as a way to save shelf space (i.e. putting a related series of movies/sequels that were purchased separately in one multi-disc case and having cover art that corresponds with that series).

Some people care about, collect, and covet the cardboard slip covers that come on many movies, especially when they first come out. Others don't care about them, and sell theirs to others on here to get a few bucks back, or sometimes just throw them away.

This isn't some kind of black-or-white issue here where people who don't care about the official packaging should just give up on physical media altogether. That's just absurd.

You make some great points. Especially with the CD aspect. But as we know CD is as good as dead. Even moreso than movies.

I read a tweet from an artist this weekend that stated that his recently released album will be his last ever physical release since his album leaked early. Many cds are digital only these days even from artists as big as Kanye West.

I know physical movies will still be here for a long time, but I am also ready and do get some movies digitally. I'm more like 90-10 in favor of physical but if it ever went all digital I wouldn't be too upset.

And you can actually sort vudu by release date as well.

One thing I do not understand is why you all do not act like internet is pretty much a necessity for us all these days. We will all be connected for the rest of our lives. It's just odd to me that some of you post on a message board but refuse to connect your high end game consoles to the internet as if it will break them.

[zodwriter]

Originally Posted by flyry

You make some great points. Especially with the CD aspect. But as we know CD is as good as dead. Even moreso than movies.

I read a tweet from an artist this weekend that stated that his recently released album will be his last ever physical release since his album leaked early. Many cds are digital only these days even from artists as big as Kanye West.

I know physical movies will still be here for a long time, but I am also ready and do get some movies digitally. I'm more like 90-10 in favor of physical but if it ever went all digital I wouldn't be too upset.

And you can actually sort vudu by release date as well.

One thing I do not understand is why you all do not act like internet is pretty much a necessity for us all these days. We will all be connected for the rest of our lives. It's just odd to me that some of you post on a message board but refuse to connect your high end game consoles to the internet as if it will break them.

Excellent point. I think a lot of these people are just saying that to bolster their position about supporting physical media. I still hold to my earlier posts that modern consoles are paper weights without internet connectivity.

[WOODMO]

Just speaking to the resale market of discs, it is a bad investment if you're acquiring them as an investment, but I have done much better than expected selling them. Granted many I only get like $4-$5 or so after fees, but I rarely bought a disc at full price and opted to wait for Black Friday sales, so I am not taking a tremendous loss and in some cases find myself breaking even

Digital wise, I obviously will never be able to sell those movies, but since it's just an icon in my Apple TV library I'd never really want to. I am not selling my physical movies because I want the money, but rather I no longer want cabinets filled with things I never touch.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

The key word for me is collector. The way I view collector is keeping everything with packaging intact. I pointed that out in my initial post.

I care about movies always being available. With physical media they will be. No one can can possibly remove every disc from people's collections or from the marketplace. Whether the packaging is intact isn't part of that equation.

Originally Posted by zodwriter

The reality is discs have essentially no monetary value beyond their initial sale which makes owning discs very similar to owning digital versions.

If a disc has "essentially no monetary value" that means it is cheap and readily available. I would like every movie to be available to everyone forever so movies being cheap and readily available is fantastic. Is it bad for the monetary value of my collection? Sure. But it's great for preservation and availability.

Originally Posted by alchav21

Even here on Blu-ray.com using Discs is becoming Archaic, no one wants to do it anymore.

Only in the digital movies sub-forum.

Originally Posted by flyry

You make some great points. Especially with the CD aspect. But as we know CD is as good as dead. Even moreso than movies.

CDs are still about 25% of all home sales for music. "Not as popular as they used to be" is a long way from "as good as dead".

Originally Posted by flyry

One thing I do not understand is why you all do not act like internet is pretty much a necessity for us all these days. We will all be connected for the rest of our lives. It's just odd to me that some of you post on a message board but refuse to connect your high end game consoles to the internet as if it will break them.

I'm not concerned that I'm going to lose internet access. I'm concerned that I'm going to lose access to specific content. The fact that I have internet access doesn't help me access all the downloadable content on the original Xbox, that was all removed. In a few years Microsoft and Sony will stop offering downloads for Xbox 360 and PS3 as well (even patches). I refuse to support any products that can be removed at any time.

Originally Posted by zodwriter

Excellent point. I think a lot of these people are just saying that to bolster their position about supporting physical media. I still hold to my earlier posts that modern consoles are paper weights without internet connectivity.

I know plenty of people that connect their consoles to the internet but have no problem using them without an internet connection.

I still have no idea what you're doing wrong that has made your console useless without internet. I have never heard of anyone else having that issue. Could you upload a video of starting up your Playstation 3 without an internet connection? I'm really curious to see where the problem lies.

[zodwriter]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I care about movies always being available. With physical media they will be. No one can can possibly remove every disc from people's collections or from the marketplace. Whether the packaging is intact isn't part of that equation.



If a disc has "essentially no monetary value" that means it is cheap and readily available. I would like every movie to be available to everyone forever so movies being cheap and readily available is fantastic. Is it bad for the monetary value of my collection? Sure. But it's great for preservation and availability.

You claim that you don't use the internet for consoles and Blu Ray players because of studio control. What happens when discs will no longer play without an internet connection? On Saturday I tested 3 Blu Ray players that did not require an internet connection and none of the players could read dual-layer blu ray discs. In contrast the other player (control player) that I used in the experiment that was internet connected read the discs that would not play in the others flawlessly. (As a side note I also tested my PS3 that barely plays anything regardless of being connected or not.)

The point being that physical discs are not guaranteed playable forever. So that is another similarity with digital. That says something about your preservation argument.

[Texan26]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I'm not concerned that I'm going to lose internet access. I'm concerned that I'm going to lose access to specific content. The fact that I have internet access doesn't help me access all the downloadable content on the original Xbox, that was all removed. In a few years Microsoft and Sony will stop offering downloads for Xbox 360 and PS3 as well (even patches). I refuse to support any products that can be removed at any time.

Do you seriously have your original Xbox connected? It's different for digital movies, the Vudu app moves on to each new video game system or streaming device. It doesn't rely on one specific console.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

You claim that you don't use the internet for consoles and Blu Ray players because of studio control. What happens when discs will no longer play without an internet connection? On Saturday I tested 3 Blu Ray players that did not require an internet connection and none of the players could read dual-layer blu ray discs. In contrast the other player (control player) that I used in the experiment that was internet connected read the discs that would not play in the others flawlessly. (As I side note I also tested my PS3 that barely plays anything regardless of being connected or not.)

All 6 of my household's Blu-ray players play everything without any problems. None of them have ever been connected to the internet. I'm really trying to figure out what you're doing wrong that makes all of your systems useless without an internet connection. I know it isn't just because I've never connected my systems to the internet. I've used friends' systems that are normally connected to the internet, when disconnected they still work just fine. They obviously can't play online multiplayer or use BD-Live but everything else works great.

If a disc is released that won't work without an internet connection then I won't buy it, those are just as bad as streaming. So far it hasn't happened with any movies or TV shows but I've avoided around a dozen video games.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by Texan26

Do you seriously have your original Xbox connected?

Yes. I currently have my Genesis, SNES, N64, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, Wii U, and Playstation 4 hooked up. Despite support being dropped many years ago for most of those consoles they all continue to work great. All of the out-of-print games are also still available to buy.

Originally Posted by Texan26

It's different for digital movies, the Vudu app moves on to each new video game system or streaming device. It doesn't rely on one specific console.

That makes it far less likely that Vudu will ever drop access to a large percentage of their movies simultaneously. But it certainly doesn't guarantee that the old movies that aren't selling well will always remain available.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

The key word for me is collector. The way I view collector is keeping everything with packaging intact. I pointed
that out in my initial post. Living space/storage space is a real life factor in this argument.

Regardless of the semantics and how you define "collector," the point is that you pretty much made an argument for one extreme or the other.... either being the most extreme collector who basically has to keep every little aspects of the packaging intact OR being completely digital, as to suggest that anything inbetween is absurd and silly.

I agree that living space and storage space is a factor. Hence options such as consolidating discs into multi-disc cases and so forth. That is one viable option amongst many.

People who collect discs and prefer it over digital for concerns about long term access don't all necessarily have to keep everything in the original packaging.

I had hundreds of Blu Rays and DVDs and lost them in a basement flood years ago. Reacquiring that entire collection was not cost effective for me, nor did it make sense from a shelf-space/storage point of view either. When I collected Blu Rays and DVDs I kept everything in great condition. Nowadays most of the titles I collected are available digitally and anywhere I move I can access them all with ease and without lugging around a huge disc collection.

I'm sorry that happened to you. Though that's why I wouldn't keep my movies and anything of importance/value to me in a basement if I had one (I'm not trying to be snarky towards the fact that you did, it's just something that would concern me).

And further, apparently you were a collector, kept the boxes and everything in great condition, but upon losing it all, went pretty much completely digital. That's a valid choice for you to make, especially under the circumstances. But you seem to be taking this all or nothing attitude between physical and digital (which your transition from one to the other wasn't even fully by your own choice, you lost your physical collection due to a disaster that you weren't expecting - it's not like you simply chose to get rid of your physical collection and go digital), and applying these as the only two valid, viable options for anyone and everyone else.

Originally Posted by flyry

You make some great points. Especially with the CD aspect. But as we know CD is as good as dead. Even moreso than movies.

I read a tweet from an artist this weekend that stated that his recently released album will be his last ever physical release since his album leaked early. Many cds are digital only these days even from artists as big as Kanye West.

I know physical movies will still be here for a long time, but I am also ready and do get some movies digitally. I'm more like 90-10 in favor of physical but if it ever went all digital I wouldn't be too upset.

They could always stave off the piracy issue by releasing the physical CD a couple of weeks after the digital release.

That said, the digital distribution of music has never really quite bothered me as much as movies and video games. This is for a few reasons...

A lot of music has been sold DRM free over time. And even with things like ITunes back when they had DRM, you could still use the program to burn a CD if you want to, there by having a physical back up.

And with most music files being DRM free they are more user friendly, easy to back up, and use without going back online again.

And there's of course the ability to just buy an individual song or two rather than an entire album when you may not want all of the songs from it, which I think is one of the most appealing aspects of digital over physical with music (that and the ability to make and alter playlists since it is common for people to listen to several songs back to back, where as save for people going out of their way to marathon a specific series, most people probably don't watch more than 1 or 2 movies at a time).

There are a lot of practical reasons why digitally distributed music caught on like it did. And even then, it still hasn't completely killed off physical media.

And you can actually sort vudu by release date as well.

Which doesn't really do me that much good. Sure, technically the Marvel movies, for example, would ultimately be in release order, but unless they are the only movies that you own digitally, they would get intermixed with any other unrelated titles in the digital "collection" in release order.

It may take the guess-work out of remembering the release order, but it would still require scrolling through a bunch of other titles to find them all, versus just keeping them all lined up together on a shelf.

One thing I do not understand is why you all do not act like internet is pretty much a necessity for us all these days. We will all be connected for the rest of our lives. It's just odd to me that some of you post on a message board but refuse to connect your high end game consoles to the internet as if it will break them.

Originally Posted by zodwriter

Excellent point. I think a lot of these people are just saying that to bolster their position about supporting physical media. I still hold to my earlier posts that modern consoles are paper weights without internet connectivity.

I do have my game consoles connected online.

I'm not necessarily against the internet or connectivity in general.

Beyond internet even simply being another variable in the mix, it is the dependence on their servers that bothers me. If they ever shut those down, there goes the ability to redownload content, patches, etc.

This is where the need for internet is quite different than the need for electricity. It's not like old gaming consoles like the NES or Sega Genesis have to connect to some kind of Nintendo or Sega specific "electrical server" just to function. They just need the same general electricity that we use today. You can still plug those in and use them.


And to be clear, I'm fine with options like online multiplayer. That doesn't bother me. And I'm fine with them connecting to Netflix and so forth.

And while I don't care for digital distribution for the most part, I'm not 100% against the option to buy a game digitally that can otherwise be bought physically.


But I'm not thrilled with add-on dlc (especially if it's paid, but even when it's free), and even less thrilled with games that basically come out "broken" and need a patch to function properly. Even if they offer a patch as a quick fix, IMO they should at least offer replacement discs to those who want them.

I also don't like how with some game series that in the past have had a single player mode/campaign and/or a local multiplayer option, more recent incarnations of those series often skimp, if not entirely eliminate those options in favor of online multiplayer as the main or only option. The idea that I can connect to play with several friends remotely, but CAN'T play a simple 2-player game with the person sitting next to me on the couch in many instances (especially when that was an option for similar games in the past) is just ludicrous.


And if the publishers and developers need to make more money than the $60 for the disc, then IMO release the games complete, and just charge more if needed.

IMO dlc is almost entirely unneeded save for a very few handful of exceptions for games that couldn't reasonably logistically exist without it (I'm thinking of something like Rock Band here, and the thousands of dlc songs licensed for it).

I can also see the argument for games made by indie developers that simply can't realistically release their game physically.



Otherwise, internet connectivity has really become an excuse for game developers and publishers to rush out incomplete buggy games that they patch afterwards, nickel and dime the end user, and procrastinate.

A while back when people were complaining about things like, for example, Capcom having on-disc dlc (content that is already on the disc, but you have to separately pay for online to unlock) and were "having a cow" over it, I laughed, and not because I think it was a good business practice on Capcom's part (I consider it to be a really awful practice)... but rather I was laughing at the idea that being charged the same amount of money for the exact same content would be perfectly a-okay if Capcom simply had it be downloaded instead of on the disc and were to release it at a later date after the initial game came out (especially since this was during the PS3/360 era, before physical games required full installation on the hard drive like on the current systems, and downloading it also meant taking up hard drive space that the content didn't otherwise take up when on the disc... an ironic downside for the option that people consider to be "better"). It's kind of like calling someone a jerk if they knee you in the groin with their left knee today, but considering it to be perfectly reasonable if they wait a month and use their right knee.

While I don't specifically want to pay more money for games than I have to, I'd rather spend $80 or $100 for a game upfront and have it be as complete as possible from the start, and for those games to be able to be playable and usable without an internet connection except for modes and features that absolutely require it and couldn't exist without it, like online multiplayer.

Online multiplayer, much like posting on a message board, is simply something that couldn't exist without the internet. But making internet connectivity a requirement to simply do things with current systems that we've been able to do with the vast majority of past game systems without the internet is just as absurd IMO as making a toilet that requires internet connectivity to flush when you really get down to it. I won't go into a ton of detail (as this post is really long as is), but a little while back I took my Xbox One with me to visit my sister. I didn't bother connecting it to her internet connection because we were only going to play some things that (I thought) shouldn't require internet, only to find that some really simple things that should not require internet became ridiculously complicated and in some cases completely unusable without it. In other words, as you put it, the system in a few respects did become a "paperweight" without an internet connection, but in respects of me trying to do things that should have never required internet to do in the first place. It's beyond absurd.

I care about long term access, preservation, and accessibility. The problem is that companies can and eventually will shut down servers when it suits them. I figure that the ability to redownload PS3 and 360 digital content is currently on borrowed time. If me simply having internet access in-and-of-itself was all that I would ever need to guarantee being able to continue accessing and redownloading that content, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned as I am now.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

ICDs are still about 25% of all home sales for music. "Not as popular as they used to be" is a long way from "as good as dead".



I'm not concerned that I'm going to lose internet access. I'm concerned that I'm going to lose access to specific content. The fact that I have internet access doesn't help me access all the downloadable content on the original Xbox, that was all removed. In a few years Microsoft and Sony will stop offering downloads for Xbox 360 and PS3 as well (even patches). I refuse to support any products that can be removed at any time.

Not sure where you got those stats, but they seem pretty high to me.

I sold a DVD on offerup(from rogue one) and I dropped it while I was at the donut shop and some guy turned around shocked "is that a CD!? Oh wow old school!". That pretty much explains modern sentiment towards physical media.

And you may not get older content from other consoles, but being offline with that you may miss out on PSN exclusives. IE the recent parappa remaster.

And if you are so anti streaming you are missing out on some great Originals on Netflix.

No reason one cannot support both, don't see why it is so black and white on here.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by zodwriter

Excellent point. I think a lot of these people are just saying that to bolster their position about supporting physical media. I still hold to my earlier posts that modern consoles are paper weights without internet connectivity.

Well I certainly don't have that stance. For one simple reason, AV quality is Identical. Games are games and I love them but films are more important and I have to have the best A/V. Soon that will be UHD Bluray.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

Not sure where you got those stats, but they seem pretty high to me.

I sold a DVD on offerup(from rogue one) and I dropped it while I was at the donut shop and some guy turned around shocked "is that a CD!? Oh wow old school!". That pretty much explains modern sentiment towards physical media.

And you may not get older content from other consoles, but being offline with that you may miss out on PSN exclusives. IE the recent parappa remaster.

And if you are so anti streaming you are missing out on some great Originals on Netflix.

No reason one cannot support both, don't see why it is so black and white on here.

Sounds about right. Certainly , in the U.K I believe CD sales are even higher than that. I think last I looked, they were hovering at 30%.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by huskerbear

You are hearing from people right here telling you they would rather stream it even if they have the disc. As someone else pointed out there isn't much of a reason to buy direct ....yet. The codes will go away, and people will buy direct. Many including myself already are. I was an early adopter. I did all the code and D2D stuff long ago, most are just now building their libraries. They are spending a lot more than I did, because of supply and demand, the cost of UV codes have gone up considerably.
At this point I have been buying direct for a couple years. I think many will follow that path. We don't want to mess with a disc anymore but, I do hope they continue with discs for those that want that for many years....and I think they will.

The mainstream are not going to pay full price for a digital download. Not now and not in ten years. A small selection of people will, most won't. The Netflix genie is out of the bottle.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Sounds about right. Certainly , in the U.K I believe CD sales are even higher than that. I think last I looked, they were hovering at 30%.

With all 30% being made up by Adele

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

With all 30% being made up by Adele

Irrelevant. Some of those streaming figures are massively boosted by just one artist.

[Talal86]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

I use more efficient cases.

that's evil

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Irrelevant. Some of those streaming figures are massively boosted by just one artist.

Not really. Every major release breaks the 24 hour and 1 week streaming release it seems whether its drake, ed sheeran or Kendrick lamar.

The same with youtube trailer views. These records get broken every few months. Further proof of our streaming future?

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by flyry

Not really. Every major release breaks the 24 hour and 1 week streaming release it seems whether its drake, ed sheeran or Kendrick lamar.

The same with youtube trailer views. These records get broken every few months. Further proof of our streaming future?

I don't have a streaming future.