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

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

Subscription. That's where the money's gone. You can see it in the charts. People are no longer enchanted by owning content - if they ever were. There's a finite amount of time and money to spend on filmed entertainment. They don't want to own or rent relatively expensive new releases. They don't want to have their lives revolve around a TV schedule either. Subscription offers convenience and price in exchange for content selection and it's what people are choosing.

How many people own House of Cards vs. streamed it? There are digital and physical releases for most if not all seasons. It's well-reviewed, it's good content, and I doubt the sales amounted to much except in areas where people have poor internet.

Or take Game of Thrones. As best I can measure, Blu-rays sales have gone down for each season. The show is as popular as ever though, breaking records. Before maybe you didn't want to add HBO to your cable package and then watch it only when it aired. Today you can get HBO NOW and binge and rewatch all seven seasons whenever you like.

Despite Netflix not having all the latest movies, they still have enough to satisfy. I can't tell you the number of times I've purchased a movie but didn't have time to watch it, only to find that it's on Netflix.

There are fewer reasons for people to buy or rent when they can be satisfied with subscription. A similar thing has been happening with music, of course.

Of course there are people who are "enchanted" by owning content; this forum is filled with them. It is not important that I am in the majority, only that I remain enchanted.

Owning an episodic Television series is very different than owning a movie. The time involved in watching it once is considerable and not everyone feels a need to see a series multiple times. One viewing is plenty for many of them.

No one has to be held captive by a TV schedule in this era; cable/ satellite companies provide DVRs that can record shows allowing playback anytime. The networks have apps that will let you watch on your schedule, too.

A movie takes the same amount of time to watch whether you bought a hard copy or decided to stream it from Netflix. If you wait long enough, many movies will wind up there.

I do not know what the sales figures are for House of Cards or for Game of Thrones on disc and clearly you do not, either, as you did not post any statistics or citations supporting them. You are simply speculating here. Suffice it to say that they are selling well enough for them to continue being offered. The content owners are not doing it for their health, but to make money.

The reasons for owning physical media remain. It allows for the best viewing and listening experience possible, always available access (electricity permitting), and control over the content not being changed in some fit of revisionism or fluctuating political correctness. These things matter to enough of us that physical media will survive. I do not care if the great masses stampede to the all you can eat entertainment trough that is subscription streaming with its compressed video/ audio and here today, gone tomorrow selections. I want the best quality presentation I can have, many others feel the same, and that desire is fulfilled by physical media.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by flyry

Yawn.

Another poster using the internet to make a post acting like we will not always pay for internet until we die.

Reading your ennui about my remarks is easily accomplished with the most affordable tier of internet service. Most of what I do online is read so that I won't miss insightful comments like yours and that does not require much money or, in this case, much cognitive processing. I bore you, so sorry. Perhaps your digital library has something more entertaining to offer?

Streaming in HD requires a pricier package and 4K streaming even more so. The impacts of net neutrality's likely demise remain to be seen, too, but it won't be beneficial to the consumer. I do not need to upgrade my internet plan to enjoy my physical library, not now, not tomorrow. Those of you dependent on the internet for access to your digital content are more vulnerable to the whims of your ISP. If I had to, I can accomplish my online activities on my cell phone or even at the public library. You need your expensive gigabit plans.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Reading your ennui about my remarks is easily accomplished with the most affordable tier of internet service. Most of what I do online is read so that I won't miss insightful comments like yours and that does not require much money or, in this case, much cognitive processing. I bore you, so sorry. Perhaps your digital library has something more entertaining to offer?

Streaming in HD requires a pricier package and 4K streaming even more so. The impacts of net neutrality's likely demise remain to be seen, too, but it won't be beneficial to the consumer. I do not need to upgrade my internet plan to enjoy my physical library, not now, not tomorrow. Those of you dependent on the internet for access to your digital content are more vulnerable to the whims of your ISP. If I had to, I can accomplish my online activities on my cell phone or even at the public library. You need your expensive gigabit plans.

You're still paying for the internet, and always will regardless of what you use it for.

It's silly to consider that a "con" since it is basically a utility for everyone at this point.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by flyry

You're still paying for the internet, and always will regardless of what you use it for.

It's silly to consider that a "con" since it is basically a utility for everyone at this point.

I consider it a negative because my internet needs will always be met by the cheapest plan offered. Reading text and watching the occasional youtube short does not require much bandwidth and will never exceed my ISP's data cap. I realistically could cancel internet service and just stroll over to the library and do all I need, but the convenience of in-home service is just too alluring. I pay less than $100 per month for both cellphone and internet service. The most data I have ever used in a month on my internet plan is 70 gb. I barely use 500 mb on my cell phone.

Plans that allow for a lot of hd streaming are more expensive; 4K even pricier. These high data consumption and bandwidth hog plans are more vulnerable to price hikes as so many people are dependent upon them. Remember also that your ISP is most likely your cable company, too, and as cable revenues decline, they will be offset by increases in the cost of internet service. The telecom companies have a lot of people right where they want them.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by flyry

Yawn.

Another poster using the internet to make a post acting like we will not always pay for internet until we die.

You know I know a fair amount of people that only have a cellular data plan meaning they are capped at like 1 to 4 gb a month. Theirs a difference between having enough internet to check your mail or go to this site and having enough internet to stream movies above sd quality. At least half my relatives could not go digital if they wanted to because they don't live in cities and a few others simply don't see the need for more then enough to browse their mail/news sites.

You might find it impossible but you really can live on slow internet or a low data cap if you cut online video from your routine.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I consider it a negative because my internet needs will always be met by the cheapest plan offered. Reading text and watching the occasional youtube short does not require much bandwidth and will never exceed my ISP's data cap. I realistically could cancel internet service and just stroll over to the library and do all I need, but the convenience of in-home service is just too alluring. I pay less than $100 per month for both cellphone and internet service. The most data I have ever used in a month on my internet plan is 70 gb. I barely use 500 mb on my cell phone.

Plans that allow for a lot of hd streaming are more expensive; 4K even pricier. These high data consumption and bandwidth hog plans are more vulnerable to price hikes as so many people are dependent upon them. Remember also that your ISP is most likely your cable company, too, and as cable revenues decline, they will be offset by increases in the cost of internet service. The telecom companies have a lot of people right where they want them.

Sure...

When is the last time you actually set foot in a library????

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by flyry

Sure...

When is the last time you actually set foot in a library????

What is my primary internet activity? Reading.

I visit my library at least once a quarter. I even donate duplicate discs to them occasionally.

The public library is a wonderful institution. The fact that if offers free internet access, among other services, to anyone makes it invaluable to the poorest members of our society.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by flyry

You're still paying for the internet, and always will regardless of what you use it for.

It's silly to consider that a "con" since it is basically a utility for everyone at this point.

Lets put it this way if I lived in a google fiber area I could get 5mb/s for free after the initial payment. If I wanted to stream video I would require more data so I would pay 70$ a month. The first tier 5mb/s is a sunk cost because I would get it anyway for email but its simply not fast enough to stream video so any tier you buy beyond the basic tier is the monthly cost of going digital/gaming.

Originally Posted by flyry

Sure...

When is the last time you actually set foot in a library????

I went yesterday its my primary source for audiobooks.

[Zu Nim]

Originally Posted by WestMan

Here is my prediction....

Kudos on the bold predictions!

1. Streaming hits a plateau in the next 10 years. This includes most of the fringe services going away and a few of the big name ones too.

There will definitely be consolidation at some point but I think we still have a ways to go with new streaming services coming on line. That is, it hasn't fragmented enough yet to be at the point where it needs consolidation but I can see that happening within a decade. Not sure what plateauing means here - market share compared to... Home entertainment? Cable/satellite? I think it's going to keep eating away at both. Cable will last longer only because of broad market failures due to monopoly or duopoly internet providers in cities and towns across the U.S. If you only have one provider and you can't unbundle internet for a fair price, you're going to have cable.

2. Streaming services are going to take away from both digital and physical media sales. However, digital media sales are going to take a bigger hit. For a consumer, the difference between digital ownership and digital streaming is small. Holding a physical copy feels much different then streaming.

I don't think most people care about feeling a physical copy. Poll your local teens as they'll be the ones defining the direction of the market in 10 years. Digital sales will flatten in the next decade but physical will still be shrinking.

3. Physical media sales will end up going down to about $3 Billion annually and then make a slight uptick once the market auto corrects itself. We have seen the same thing for physical for digital books with physical starting back on a slight increase.

It'll go lower than that. $2B. There will be no correction, unless you consider dead cat bounces a correction. Physical books have made a comeback because of pricing, not because people are showing a preference for physical. If Blu-rays are significantly cheaper than EST in 10 years, yes, you'd see some market share move back to physical too.

4. Physical media sales will be mostly big named titles. The days of smaller independent titles being released might become a thing of the past.

Could be. It's obviously cheaper and faster to release digitally, which could mean there's room for independents to have more releases but who knows. Here's where I mention the top 10 vinyl albums of 2017 if you'd like to get a peek into Blu-ray's potential future:

Rank    Sales   Artist, Title
1       72,000  The Beatles, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band 
2       66,000  The Beatles, Abbey Road 
3       62,000  Soundtrack, Guardians of the Galaxy: Awesome Mix Vol. 1 
4       62,000  Ed Sheeran, ÷ (Divide) 
5       58,000  Amy Winehouse, Back to Black 
6       58,000  Prince and the Revolution, Purple Rain (Soundtrack) 
7       49,000  Bob Marley and The Wailers, Legend: The Best Of… 
8       54,000  Pink Floyd, The Dark Side of the Moon 
9       49,000  Soundtrack, La La Land 
10      49,000  Michael Jackson, Thriller

(No, I don't know why #8 is below #7.) In 2028, maybe Blu-ray will be dominated by 8K remasters of Terminator 2, Mad Max: Fury Road, and the complete Avatar box set.

I really don't see a time even in the next 30 years where physical media goes away.

I think the question is not whether it goes away entirely, but whether it can satisfy your needs. If all you need is the big Hollywood hits and a few catalog titles, Blu-ray will never go away for you. Neither will EST or DVD.

[flyry]

Originally Posted by Vilya

What is my primary internet activity? Reading.

I visit my library at least once a quarter. I even donate duplicate discs to them occasionally.

The public library is a wonderful institution. The fact that if offers free internet access, among other services, to anyone makes it invaluable to the poorest members of our society.

Do the poorest members of our society frequent blu-ray.com and obsess over what to spend their disposable income on? Why are you bringing this up?

You are never going to cancel your internet and start spending all your time in the library. Quit being steedeel levels of ridiculous. There may be cord cutters, but there will never be internet cutters.

[Zu Nim]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Of course there are people who are "enchanted" by owning content; this forum is filled with them. It is not important that I am in the majority, only that I remain enchanted.

Nobody's arguing that you won't be able to buy anything in the future - especially digitally. Buyers will be a minority, though, and won't drive the market anymore. Actually they're already the minority, it's a question of how small of a share they're destined to be.

Owning an episodic Television series is very different than owning a movie. The time involved in watching it once is considerable and not everyone feels a need to see a series multiple times. One viewing is plenty for many of them.

Are you saying that the reason people buy physical is to rewatch content, and since rewatching TV seasons is less likely that fewer people buy them? Nah. The reason fewer people buy TV seasons is because they probably watched it once already when it aired; people have broad access to TV shows via cable (excluding premiums). The reason more people buy and rent movies is because they didn't see it in the theater the first time.

No one has to be held captive by a TV schedule in this era; cable/ satellite companies provide DVRs that can record shows allowing playback anytime. The networks have apps that will let you watch on your schedule, too.

Plenty choose to be. You have to pay to rent a DVR. Yes, there are on-demand services and network apps but the content falls out of those quickly and they're full of mandatory ads. Even today, for a lot of people you watch the episode when it airs or you don't see it. It's nowhere near as convenient as streaming. You can't watch it easily outside your home, etc.

Despite having no DVR feature, DirecTV Now has exceeded 1 million subscribers. The same way you don't seem to want to pay for better internet service, others don't want to pay for a DVR. Different strokes for different folks.

A movie takes the same amount of time to watch whether you bought a hard copy or decided to stream it from Netflix. If you wait long enough, many movies will wind up there.

Right, that's why home entertainment revenue (excluding subs) has gone down so much every year. People are finding more value in subscription services than buying or renting home entertainment.

I do not know what the sales figures are for House of Cards or for Game of Thrones on disc and clearly you do not, either, as you did not post any statistics or citations supporting them. You are simply speculating here. Suffice it to say that they are selling well enough for them to continue being offered. The content owners are not doing it for their health, but to make money.

I actually added up the Game of Thrones statistics but couldn't guarantee the numbers were complete so I didn't post them. (If a season doesn't break the top 100 mark it won't appear but that doesn't mean it didn't sell any copies, even if the number might not be enough to tip the scales significantly.) Check the Top-Selling Blu-rays in the United States by year and you'll see Game of Thrones going all the way back to season 1. House of Cards didn't make the top 100 in any year, which says something too.

The reasons for owning physical media remain. It allows for the best viewing and listening experience possible, always available access (electricity permitting), and control over the content not being changed in some fit of revisionism or fluctuating political correctness. These things matter to enough of us that physical media will survive. I do not care if the great masses stampede to the all you can eat entertainment trough that is subscription streaming with its compressed video/ audio and here today, gone tomorrow selections. I want the best quality presentation I can have, many others feel the same, and that desire is fulfilled by physical media.

People keep buying DVDs en masse, albeit fewer. They're owning physical media but don't care about the experience. I doubt they're buying DVDs because they care that the content is permanently fixed in a plastic disc.

I said above Blu-ray sales seem to be dominated by Hollywood hits. If all you want is access to the top 50-60 titles each year, Blu-ray will probably serve you well for years to come.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by flyry

Do the poorest members of our society frequent blu-ray.com and obsess over what to spend their disposable income on? Why are you bringing this up?

You are never going to cancel your internet and start spending all your time in the library. Quit being steedeel levels of ridiculous. There may be cord cutters, but there will never be internet cutters.

I was simply praising the services that the public library offers and its particular importance to the poor after you suggested that visiting the library was some archaic excursion made by no one. Many people still use it; it serves the community well. You may not think it possible, but anyone can find themselves in financial difficulty, even destitute. The library makes internet access possible for those who can not afford it in the same manner that it provides access to literature. The library is relevant to many people for many reasons.

I never said that I was going to cancel my internet service, only that I could do so and still have access to the internet, thanks to the library, without impacting my ability to watch my collection. Digital customers MUST have high speed broadband internet, well above and beyond what I need.

[WestMan]

Even at $2 Billion in sales, that is still 15% of the annual domestic box office. Far too much money to abandon the format. The fact that studios are pushing 4k makes me think they still see a future with the high end market.

And 50 to 60 titles would be extremely low. CD's are still made for almost every new album.

And I think you are underestimating the brick wall the streaming services are going to hit in the next decade.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Zu Nim

Are you saying that the reason people buy physical is to rewatch content, and since rewatching TV seasons is less likely that fewer people buy them? Nah. The reason fewer people buy TV seasons is because they probably watched it once already when it aired; people have broad access to TV shows via cable (excluding premiums). The reason more people buy and rent movies is because they didn't see it in the theater the first time.

Plenty choose to be. You have to pay to rent a DVR. Yes, there are on-demand services and network apps but the content falls out of those quickly and they're full of mandatory ads. Even today, for a lot of people you watch the episode when it airs or you don't see it. It's nowhere near as convenient as streaming. You can't watch it easily outside your home, etc.

People keep buying DVDs en masse, albeit fewer. They're owning physical media but don't care about the experience. I doubt they're buying DVDs because they care that the content is permanently fixed in a plastic disc.

I said above Blu-ray sales seem to be dominated by Hollywood hits. If all you want is access to the top 50-60 titles each year, Blu-ray will probably serve you well for years to come.

The likelihood that I will want to revisit a title, in whole or in part, is a major factor in my purchase decision. I do not just buy a title because I missed it at the theater; I generally dislike the theater and the ill mannered crowds that frequent them. I buy a lot of catalog titles, too, and they haven't been at the theater in many moons.

I think people who buy TV series really like the show they buy and they want to see it more than just once. TV seasons require more time to view and usually cost more to obtain and those who buy them likely have a strong interest in their replay value. The more casual fan will be content with their initial viewing.

As for network apps and/ or their website, I can log into them from any mobile device and watch their offerings anywhere the same as with streaming services. It is easy and convenient enough.

My local cable company provides a DVR for no extra charge with a certain level of service and /or bundling, so the cost of a DVR is not a consideration in such cases.

I disagree that DVD customers do not care about the experience. They may not need the very best, but that is not the same thing as saying they do not care at all. Some people feel DVDs offer a good balance of cost and quality and they can look pretty good thanks to today's players and TVs. I think the DVD customer is more value oriented than quality driven, but that is a far cry from not caring at all.

I also think they would value the permanence of the content on their discs if they were aware of the potential for changes to server based content.

I think blu-ray will continue to offer far more than just the big new hits for many years to come. I buy a lot of catalog titles and there are more released every month. Many of these titles are licensed to other companies when the studios themselves are not interested in offering the title. Criterion, Warner Archive, Sony, Twilight Time, and Kino Lorber are just some of the entities that bring older movies to the blu-ray format. There continue to be more such offerings than I can buy immediately; my wishlist is bursting with them.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I seem to go to the Theater once a year, to watch the latest Star Wars, and the Theaters are real nice now with their Lounge Chairs that lift your feet and everything. I see people taking their shoes off, but pants that's a bit too much.

I'm pretty sure Octagon was joking about the pants thing, and my reply to him was meant as a joke as well.

[jhrobinson]

I’m simply saying that comparing SVOD to TVOD/physical media is like comparing apples to oranges. Why? Because the content is different. People primarily use SVOD for unique content — TV shows, while people use TVOD/physical media primarily for movies. As long as you have cinephiles (people who really like movies), you will have a market for TVOD/physical media. This is similar to how, even though fewer people in the USA (for example) are buying books of any kind, there are still bibliophiles who prefer books.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by alchav21

I seem to go to the Theater once a year, to watch the latest Star Wars, and the Theaters are real nice now with their Lounge Chairs that lift your feet and everything. I see people taking their shoes off, but pants that's a bit too much. The Theaters are doing everything to get those seats filled, even giving you credit for a Movie Ticket when buying Digital.

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I'm pretty sure Octagon was joking about the pants thing, and my reply to him was meant as a joke as well.

I'm aware of that, I also said it Tongue in Cheek, but I'm sure loosening the belt would be closer to the truth.

[Indy64]

Late to thread but I'm pretty much all digital now. I gave up "collecting" discs of movies that usually were seen once and tossed in a box somewhere in the house never to be seen again. Selling them is about useless too.

Now I have multiple sources that allow me to watch older and new movies at the push of a button. No more desire to "own" movies anymore, those days are long gone for me. I don't really care if I can't find a movie on some particular day because I know it will show up on one of my streaming services at some point and I'll catch it then.

To me collecting movies is a dinosaur hobby. I used to love doing it back when DVD first hit the market, couldn't wait to get Best Buy day 1 to snag the newest releases. That lasted for a number of years until I started staring at the piles of discs sitting in boxes or drawers thinking "Hmmm, it's been 10 years since I saw this" but had no desire to spin it again.

I'm happy to be a Roku TV/Chromecast family now and will never again waste my hard earned money on physical discs that I know won't get watched.

[WestMan]

Originally Posted by Indy64

Late to thread but I'm pretty much all digital now. I gave up "collecting" discs of movies that usually were seen once and tossed in a box somewhere in the house never to be seen again. Selling them is about useless too.

Now I have multiple sources that allow me to watch older and new movies at the push of a button. No more desire to "own" movies anymore, those days are long gone for me. I don't really care if I can't find a movie on some particular day because I know it will show up on one of my streaming services at some point and I'll catch it then.

To me collecting movies is a dinosaur hobby. I used to love doing it back when DVD first hit the market, couldn't wait to get Best Buy day 1 to snag the newest releases. That lasted for a number of years until I started staring at the piles of discs sitting in boxes or drawers thinking "Hmmm, it's been 10 years since I saw this" but had no desire to spin it again.

I'm happy to be a Roku TV/Chromecast family now and will never again waste my hard earned money on physical discs that I know won't get watched.

I am the complete opposite. My viewing habits are very picky. I want to watch exactly what I want to watch when I want to watch it. Hence why I still have physical media.

[Vilya]

If collecting movies on disc is a dinosaur hobby, can I claim to be a paleontologist? Well, I can claim anything, so, yes, I am now a paleontologist. Anyone have a bone to pick with that?