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

[echopulse]

Wal-Mart began selling Vudu code cards almost three years ago. In fact they had a 4 foot rack dedicated to the cards. I haven't been to that Wal-mart in a while, so I don't know if it is still there, but it was.

[Texan26]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Haven't you heard? 4K Bluray is taking off waaay quicker than Bluray did at the same time of its lifespan.

That's not saying much. Blu-rays got off to a very slow start. THere was competition from HD-DVDs and the consumers were confused on what format to buy. Sales didn't take off until the format war was over and then even more once they started including a DVD. The studios learned from that and included a blu-ray with 4K releases. Many people that buy 4K discs don't even have the technology to play those discs yet but buy them since they include a blu-ray and a digital code.

[Steedeel]

This crappy move from studios only including extended cuts via digital codes (Thr Fate Of The Furious) got me thinking. Could we see exclusive titles, directors cuts only on UV compatible Digital HD movies? . In other words, could people who have Itunes Digital HD or Amazon/Google Play Digital HD get shafted down the line. It may happen as part of a desperate attempt to push more folk towards UV. That in turn means the big hitters would either have to join UV or miss out on sales because UV would get the exclusives.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Haven't you heard? 4K Bluray is taking off waaay quicker than Bluray did at the same time of its lifespan.

Originally Posted by Texan26

That's not saying much. Blu-rays got off to a very slow start. THere was competition from HD-DVDs and the consumers were confused on what format to buy. Sales didn't take off until the format war was over and then even more once they started including a DVD. The studios learned from that and included a blu-ray with 4K releases. Many people that buy 4K discs don't even have the technology to play those discs yet but buy them since they include a blu-ray and a digital code.

I have bought a few 4K Combo Packs only for the Digital 4K Code, and then I sell the Discs. The 4K Discs sell pretty good, but people want to pay less than $20 for them.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This crappy move from studios only including extended cuts via digital codes (Thr Fate Of The Furious) got me thinking. Could we see exclusive titles, directors cuts only on UV compatible Digital HD movies? . In other words, could people who have Itunes Digital HD or Amazon/Google Play Digital HD get shafted down the line. It may happen as part of a desperate attempt to push more folk towards UV. That in turn means the big hitters would either have to join UV or miss out on sales because UV would get the exclusives.

They don't say UV any longer just Digital HD, the Studios involved want to make it seamless and universal. When you say Digital HD it will be for the Standard Streaming Providers, like Vudu, Fandango, Flixster, Sony Ultra.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

They don't say UV any longer just Digital HD, the Studios involved want to make it seamless and universal. When you say Digital HD it will be for the Standard Streaming Providers, like Vudu, Fandango, Flixster, Sony Ultra.

Yes but what I am saying is, what about the non UV Digital HD storefronts? ITunes, Amazon, GooglecPlsy etc.. could they be ostracised by pushing exclusive content to UV only Digital HD?

[PCFan]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I have bought a few 4K Combo Packs only for the Digital 4K Code, and then I sell the Discs. The 4K Discs sell pretty good, but people want to pay less than $20 for them.

I'm sure people also want to pay less than $20 for a 4k digital movie as well if buying directly from a digital service. Actually I think more people are buying 4k blu-rays than digital 4k movies from digital services. Some 4k blu-rays have been going on sale for less than $20 this year.

[BlakkMajik3000]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

This crappy move from studios only including extended cuts via digital codes (Thr Fate Of The Furious) got me thinking. Could we see exclusive titles, directors cuts only on UV compatible Digital HD movies? . In other words, could people who have Itunes Digital HD or Amazon/Google Play Digital HD get shafted down the line. It may happen as part of a desperate attempt to push more folk towards UV. That in turn means the big hitters would either have to join UV or miss out on sales because UV would get the exclusives.

I don't think so. At the end of the day, the studios want a digital copy they either control (UV) or set the rules for control (iTunes, Amazon, etc.).

Only Sony and WB are still UV only, so there's definitely a possibility they might try to pull some "UV only" stunt. While I think there's no need in cutting off your nose to spite your face, they may be petty enough to do it.

The studios trying to figure out ways to drive digital adoption. I think it's a rather tasteless move to use director's cuts/extras to try and achieve this.

[randian]

MGM is UV only too. Yes, the studios are only too happy to cut off their nose to spite their face. Look at what's happening with 4k digital codes. Whether they redeem in 4k depends on the studio and where you redeem. You might have to redeem at a studio specific site or a specific UV provider. It shreds the one stop convenience marketing for UV and makes it woefully confusing for ordinary consumers. It's terrible for driving adoption of 4k discs. I hope Apple demands that all 4k code releases work in iTunes to prevent these shenanigans.

[Zu Nim]

Originally Posted by BlakkMajik3000

The studios trying to figure out ways to drive digital adoption. I think it's a rather tasteless move to use director's cuts/extras to try and achieve this.

It's not about adoption. Digital is here, it's not 2012. (They actually need to prop up disc sales.) If all things were equal then yes, it would be tasteless. But I'd first assume this is a trial designed to improve the bottom line before assuming it's part of a larger marketing strategy. The home video market isn't growing so reducing costs is the way to improving profitability.

Digital delivery is dirt cheap. It doesn't require manufacturing, sales estimates, inventory, etc. Brick & mortar retailers want to carry fewer cuts given the reduction in shelf space (due to reduced sales). And nobody at the studios wants to be responsible for pressing 100,000 copies of a cut that ends up sitting in warehouses. Digital cuts have none of those issues.

[BlakkMajik3000]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

It's not about adoption. Digital is here, it's not 2012. (They actually need to prop up disc sales.) If all things were equal then yes, it would be tasteless. But I'd first assume this is a trial designed to improve the bottom line before assuming it's part of a larger marketing strategy. The home video market isn't growing so reducing costs is the way to improving profitability.

All businesses live to reduce costs, that much is true. However, I disagree about driving digital adoption. While there are indeed millions of users with digital movie accounts, there's no reliable data on how many of those users actually WATCH their digital movies. UV, in particular, likes to parade around how many accounts they have, but never provide any stats on how many of those accounts actively watch movies and/or the specific consumption (how much) patterns.

Let's say I sell a product on a website, and I have a million accounts set up. However, nobody ever buys anything. All I have is a bunch of accounts that are created but I'm not generating any meaningful revenue from the customers. The amount of accounts I have is a pointless stat.

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

Digital delivery is dirt cheap. It doesn't require manufacturing, sales estimates, inventory, etc. Brick & mortar retailers want to carry fewer cuts given the reduction in shelf space (due to reduced sales). And nobody at the studios wants to be responsible for pressing 100,000 copies of a cut that ends up sitting in warehouses. Digital cuts have none of those issues.

I do agree here. With digital, you create a file and send it to the providers. There's likely different specs among the providers, but it's in all likelihood a completely automated process at this point. That slashes costs considerably, while boosting profit. Studios love this.

However, I do maintain that digital adoption (people actually BUYING digital copies, not just redeeming codes) is not currently enough to offset the decline in physical sales. That means they (the studios) are trying different ways to encourage people to buy the digital copies directly.

The rationale (what they're hoping you decide) is, if you can buy the digital version directly and get all the content you want, why buy the disc that doesn't include all the content? Once the digital version becomes the primary way to access the extra content, disc can be phased out because users don't want to buy a disc just to have "standard" stuff. They will buy the Digital (HD or SD) version so they can have all the bonus features/extra content.

As I said, and I still stand by it, using additional content that was previously available on disc (director's cuts, etc.) is a very tasteless and manipulative way to get people to buy in to digital content.

[stonesfan129]

Physical formats will still be around for awhile. Look at CDs. Hardly anyone buys them anymore, but they're still being made.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by stonesfan129

Physical formats will still be around for awhile. Look at CDs. Hardly anyone buys them anymore, but they're still being made.

They will be around, but in less quantities. Before you know it the Disc will just Fade Away!

[Zu Nim]

Originally Posted by BlakkMajik3000

UV, in particular, likes to parade around how many accounts they have, but never provide any stats on how many of those accounts actively watch movies and/or the specific consumption (how much) patterns.

I'm not sure UV has that information. The original UV specs tracked concurrent streams but there's no evidence that was ever implemented and it was removed from subsequent specs. They can't report what they don't have, but I agree it's an incomplete picture.

I can't find any numbers for stream counts from any providers - not surprising. But the three public figures we have from UV say a little something: 28 million accounts, 250 million rights, and in late December they had a peak of 1.7 million transactions per hour. I presume those transactions are post-holiday code redemptions. If a significant percentage of redemptions on top end up at iTunes (or Google Play... ha ha ha) that's a lot of combined buy-in for digital. Even if you started your collection with redemptions, you're now familiar with the ecosystem and the adoption phase is over.

However, I do maintain that digital adoption (people actually BUYING digital copies, not just redeeming codes) is not currently enough to offset the decline in physical sales. That means they (the studios) are trying different ways to encourage people to buy the digital copies directly.

Definitely. But it's not a digital problem, it's an ownership problem. Combined digital and physical sales are being smothered by subscription. That said, digital keeps growing while physical continues to shrink. Barring an unexpected shift, digital sales should be about 40% the size of physical sales this year (approaching 30% of combined sales). With that kind of revenue and then including redemptions, digital awareness is already high. I don't need a stream count to know that people are figuratively and literally buying in.

We're past convincing consumers to use (and buy) digital. That's why I believe this extended cut test is a revenue play and not a "please try digital" play. Not tasteless, just business. It's also notable that the last three installments of this franchise have had alternate cuts. Universal may have gotten burned carrying two physical versions of each title. They ought to know their buyers at this point.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

They will be around, but in less quantities. Before you know it the Disc will just Fade Away!

See, I think that about Digital HD. Not streaming, that is here and staying.

Like the guys said, Digital HD is not offsetting the loss in disc sales (DVD sales) nor is it likely to in the future. I have said all along, let's see what happens if discs do fade away many years from now. Digital HD would have to stand on its own two feet. Once it hits it peek in the U.S, it has nowhere else to go but down. No expansion to other countries will hit it hard.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

I'm not sure UV has that information. The original UV specs tracked concurrent streams but there's no evidence that was ever implemented and it was removed from subsequent specs. They can't report what they don't have, but I agree it's an incomplete picture.

I can't find any numbers for stream counts from any providers - not surprising. But the three public figures we have from UV say a little something: 28 million accounts, 250 million rights, and in late December they had a peak of 1.7 million transactions per hour. I presume those transactions are post-holiday code redemptions. If a significant percentage of redemptions on top end up at iTunes (or Google Play... ha ha ha) that's a lot of combined buy-in for digital. Even if you started your collection with redemptions, you're now familiar with the ecosystem and the adoption phase is over.

UV has been a disaster, let's not pretend otherwise. They have broke up Apple but failed to give a global market a suitable replacement. At least Apple know how to supply a product properly IMO.


Definitely. But it's not a digital problem, it's an ownership problem. Combined digital and physical sales are being smothered by subscription. That said, digital keeps growing while physical continues to shrink. Barring an unexpected shift, digital sales should be about 40% the size of physical sales this year (approaching 30% of combined sales). With that kind of revenue and then including redemptions, digital awareness is already high. I don't need a stream count to know that people are figuratively and literally buying in.

We're past convincing consumers to use (and buy) digital. That's why I believe this extended cut test is a revenue play and not a "please try digital" play. Not tasteless, just business. It's also notable that the last three installments of this franchise have had alternate cuts. Universal may have gotten burned carrying two physical versions of each title. They ought to know their buyers at this point.

You believe what you want to believe. It's tasteless, no other way of describing it. You can burn your customers by pissing them off one too many times. Trying to force people who love discs to buy Digital HD will not make them want to rush out and get digital copies. It wil meek them indifferent, either waiting for the film to hit Subscription or renting it. That's certainly what I would do If no disc existed.

Let's see if you still back Digital when all the studios make their titles exclusive to THEIR studio. UV exclusives, Amazon Studio exclusives, Netflix exclusives, Disney exclusives, Warner exclusives, you get the idea. This is coming, make no mistake.
Want to watch Spider-Man 10? That's Sony/Marvel exclusive, want Affleck new film? That's Amazon Studios. You will need Vudu, Disney, Amazon, Sky etc.. you will need to sign up for every movie studio to enable rental, purchase or streaming.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

It's not about adoption. Digital is here, it's not 2012. (They actually need to prop up disc sales.) If all things were equal then yes, it would be tasteless. But I'd first assume this is a trial designed to improve the bottom line before assuming it's part of a larger marketing strategy. The home video market isn't growing so reducing costs is the way to improving profitability.

Digital delivery is dirt cheap. It doesn't require manufacturing, sales estimates, inventory, etc. Brick & mortar retailers want to carry fewer cuts given the reduction in shelf space (due to reduced sales). And nobody at the studios wants to be responsible for pressing 100,000 copies of a cut that ends up sitting in warehouses. Digital cuts have none of those issues.

Just look at how Digital downloads haven't psssed on the savings via games downloads. Digital is £10 more expensive to buy a new game than the disc equivalent.

[Zu Nim]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

UV has been a disaster, let's not pretend otherwise. They have broke up Apple but failed to give a global market a suitable replacement. At least Apple know how to supply a product properly IMO.

A disaster, you say. No hyperbole there. No doubt UV hasn't flourished the way the studios would have preferred, but it did its primary job by not forfeiting their entire digital distribution to iTunes. UV's international presence is farcical, though. That is a disaster.

You believe what you want to believe. It's tasteless, no other way of describing it.

If you find digital-only alternate cuts tasteless, that's on you. Nobody can keep you from being personally offended. But there's a business case for it as I laid out above and not just crass marketing.

It wil meek them indifferent, either waiting for the film to hit Subscription or renting it.

Music has been shifting to subscription and away from ownership. No reason filmed entertainment shouldn't move the same way. I don't think the studios care whether you own it, rent it, or subscribe to it. Why should they?

Let's see if you still back Digital when all the studios make their titles exclusive to THEIR studio. UV exclusives, Amazon Studio exclusives, Netflix exclusives, Disney exclusives, Warner exclusives, you get the idea. This is coming, make no mistake.
Want to watch Spider-Man 10? That's Sony/Marvel exclusive, want Affleck new film? That's Amazon Studios. You will need Vudu, Disney, Amazon, Sky etc.. you will need to sign up for every movie studio to enable rental, purchase or streaming.

I look forward to the discussions in this thread in five years where you can tell me "I told you so". You know, when they're mostly making studio-exclusive choose-your-own-adventure movies made for phones and watches. At twice the price too, apparently.

Somehow, despite every indication that there's no elasticity in the annual home entertainment spend, you think they'll be able to charge much more per movie despite their costs being dramatically reduced. It's nonsense.

Video games aren't a good analog. It's a different market with different costs and different drivers. We haven't even started to see a video game subscription service yet. I will say that I have hundreds of Steam games and paid a pittance for most of them.

[Groot]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

A disaster, you say. No hyperbole there. No doubt UV hasn't flourished the way the studios would have preferred, but it did its primary job by not forfeiting their entire digital distribution to iTunes. UV's international presence is farcical, though. That is a disaster.


If you find digital-only alternate cuts tasteless, that's on you. Nobody can keep you from being personally offended. But there's a business case for it as I laid out above and not just crass marketing.


Music has been shifting to subscription and away from ownership. No reason filmed entertainment shouldn't move the same way. I don't think the studios care whether you own it, rent it, or subscribe to it. Why should they?



I look forward to the discussions in this thread in five years where you can tell me "I told you so". You know, when they're mostly making studio-exclusive choose-your-own-adventure movies made for phones and watches. At twice the price too, apparently.

Somehow, despite every indication that there's no elasticity in the annual home entertainment spend, you think they'll be able to charge much more per movie despite their costs being dramatically reduced. It's nonsense.

Video games aren't a good analog. It's a different market with different costs and different drivers. We haven't even started to see a video game subscription service yet. I will say that I have hundreds of Steam games and paid a pittance for most of them.

EA Access
Xbox Game Pass

[Fiffy]

Originally Posted by veritas

Ya thats true if you want to use a product as its intended I have found apple to be best in that regard but if you want to do something weird then apple computers will fight you every step of the way. Its built that way partly to make apple computers more idiot proof but it can make slightly odd requests a pain in the but which a pc can do effortlessly.

Like what, for example?

It really works best to have a mac and a pc. A mac to run smoothly and do easy stuff like streaming browsing document creation, simple file organization etc and a pc when you want to actually mess with command prompts and run programs of your own to optimize some things.

What a weird thing to say. Have you ever owned a Mac? MacOS has Unix underpinnings, and along with that comes a Unix shell (bash) and a full set of command line tools. And using the Homebrew package manager, you can install loads of additional tools. It's much better for this kind of thing than Windows. There is a reason why most developers prefer MacOS for anything but writing Windows applications.

What you say is true for iOS devices (which are much more locked down for good reasons), but certainly not for the Mac.