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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by alchav21

You guys have hit on some good points, the cost of Movies. The Studios just want to sell, and the Movie Buyers just want the best price. Codes made a secondary market that Movie Buyers could use to reduce their cost on Movie purchases. Many Movies on Discs are not coming out with Codes, or only on iTunes. I have also seen that the price of Movies are not coming down like in the past, and I think that has to do with the Distributors that control their prices. Studios just want to sell their Movies, and people just want the best price to see those Movies. So it all comes down to Supplies, Demand, and Marketing. Disc or Digital is irrelevant, the Average Person just wants to see that Movie!

Which is a very bad thing as quality be dammed. Codes have been a disaster for the movie industry. A very,very bad idea.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Which is a very bad thing as quality be dammed. Codes have been a disaster for the movie industry. A very,very bad idea.

Movie and TV Shows quality are very subjective, that's why DVD's continue to be so popular. The Average Person just wants to view that content, and enjoy it. Well Codes were an added Marketing incentive, and helped bring on the Digital Streaming revolution. Some Studios don't like them, we'll have to see how it all works out.

Movie and TV Shows quality are very subjective, that's why DVD's continue to be so popular. The Average Person just wants to view that content, and enjoy it. Well Codes were an added Marketing incentive, and helped bring on the Digital Streaming revolution. Some Studios don't like them, we'll have to see how it all works out.


Everyone is jumping on the Streaming Band Wagon, and that Rude Awakening is starting to happen. The Average Person barely knows about Amazon and Netflix, let along all the other Streaming Providers. Here is an Article in my Local Paper Page 7A:

https://saintgeorgespectrum-ut.newsm...id_subscriber&

Streaming is getting complicated, and you have to have the right set up to really enjoy everything. We talk about Quality in Discs, and for now there is no question in this, but I believe you're going to have to pay for this Quality!

[dublinbluray108]

A lot of people may want Apple to release a streaming stick for the general public; but will they want to justify paying for their content as it could be really expensive to view the individual stuff on their streaming service? I couldn't tell you if that was the ideal situation. I read from a recent article that said if you wanted to rent a single movie from Apple's streaming service; it could cost you between $30 & $50 per title (£24). These movies would be the same standard movies that we would normally get to see in a movie theater. They would be kept for a PVOD movie subscription service which stands for Premium Video on Demand. This appears to be a reserved selection of movies that appears from Apples streaming service which would appear months before they appear on Netflix or NowTV (NowTV is a online service owned by Sky in the UK). These movies will command a much higher price than the regular prices that you will see for them provided on iTunes.

https://www.macworld.co.uk/news/appl...rvice-3610603/

If that news is appearing to become true from Apple. Well that is an insanely expensive for average people if they wanted to use Apple all of the time for their viewing preference. I could not justify myself to pay Apple an obscene amount of money like those figures quoted above just to see new movies once. I would rather have the physical hard copy in my hand to let myself enjoy my choice of movies or TV shows. I particularly love seeing extended cuts of movies & extras so I can have the full experience of the movie while I watch it straight from a TV screen with a Blu-ray player.

I do understand though that the pricing above is from August 2017. We are obviously within the first week of 2019 already so we still officially don't know if those prices are accurate. But knowing Apple; they do have a serious ability to shock people with their obscene pricing for their products. I guess that we should wait & see until Apple officially release the product to see what people could get out of it & let them decide for themselves.

[alchav21]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

So everyone is streaming, but the average person doesn't know about streaming?

Penguin where have you been hiding, glad to have you back. Yes Streaming Digital has come a long way, but the Average Person is very confused. There are so many options to viewing content on your UHD TV, that people just don't know what to do. Most are just plugging in dongles, and hoping for the best. I have never been big on Wireless when it comes to Streaming to your UHD TV.

[PenguinInfinity]

But how can streaming be the future (as you so often claim) if the average person doesn't know anything about it?

Those who are streaming are primarily doing so because it's cheap. With lots of different streaming services popping up that will no longer be the case so many customers will have to rethink if any of them are really worth it. Personally I expect many of the streaming services (even the big ones) to fail miserably.

Netflix is already billions of dollars in debt due to their continued overspending on content and they are likely to lose customers rather than continue gaining them over the next couple of years with all the competition from Disney and Warner's new streaming services.

Overall streaming has been extremely bad for business for all the studios. They've lost tens of billions of dollars from people switching from expensive cable packages to cheap streaming subscriptions. And those cheap streaming services have also caused most people to value individual movie purchases (both physical and digital) a lot less too. Most movies now drop down to under $10 within a month or two.

Though as a customer it's hard to see that as all bad. My collection has more than doubled in the last 3 years do to so many movies being available for $3-$6 each. Even 4K Blu-rays have rarely cost me more than $10 each.

In any case it's very hard to predict what the future will bring for streaming. Will increased competition cause most customers to become accustomed to having multiple streaming subscriptions and paying high prices again like they were with cable? Or will all the competition cause most of them to fail and studios to turn back to their more consistently profitable products like physical media? Only time will tell.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Movie and TV Shows quality are very subjective, that's why DVD's continue to be so popular. The Average Person just wants to view that content, and enjoy it. Well Codes were an added Marketing incentive, and helped bring on the Digital Streaming revolution. Some Studios don't like them, we'll have to see how it all works out.

Movie and TV Shows quality are very subjective, that's why DVD's continue to be so popular. The Average Person just wants to view that content, and enjoy it. Well Codes were an added Marketing incentive, and helped bring on the Digital Streaming revolution. Some Studios don't like them, we'll have to see how it all works out.


Everyone is jumping on the Streaming Band Wagon, and that Rude Awakening is starting to happen. The Average Person barely knows about Amazon and Netflix, let along all the other Streaming Providers. Here is an Article in my Local Paper Page 7A:

https://saintgeorgespectrum-ut.newsm...id_subscriber&

Streaming is getting complicated, and you have to have the right set up to really enjoy everything. We talk about Quality in Discs, and for now there is no question in this, but I believe you're going to have to pay for this Quality!

Please proof read your posts. Your opening paragraph was barely worth reading once, yet alone twice.

Everyone and their dog knows about Netflix and Amazon. They also know about Hulu and Vudu. A little company called Walmart owns Vudu and they promote it heavily. This comment of yours is the DUMBEST thing you have ever said and it faced some stiff competition to earn that distinction from your long history of ridiculous remarks. It is likely among the top 10 dumbest remarks ever posted on these forums.

As far back as Sept. 2017:

"Among a group of broadcast networks and to competing subscription video on-demand offerings — Amazon.com Inc.'s (NASDAQ: AMZN) Prime video on-demand and Hulu — Netflix's brand recognition (65%) was more than three times higher than Amazon's (20%) and more than four times higher than Hulu's (15%) among millennials ages 18 to 26 in a recent survey conducted by ad agency Anatomy.

The same survey revealed that Netflix's brand recognition among that demographic was more than double ABC's, CBS's or NBC's (31%) and more than 1.5 times higher than Fox's (40%)."

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ho...nds-2017-09-25

"Netflix gets an “A” for brand recognition..."

"As of last count, Netflix had about 118 million global customers."

https://www.multichannel.com/blog/po...ciation-418602

Streaming is as simple as it can be. Convenience is one of its biggest selling points. If it wasn't easy to use people would not be partaking in this "revolution" that you babble on about. If streaming is half as wonderful as you insist, what be could possibly be "rude" about "awakening" to it? You just make no damn sense. I know 80 year-olds and grade school aged children who all stream with ease. Just the fact that you can do it shows how easy it is.

DVDs remain viable not because people do not care about quality, but because a great deal of content, especially TV shows, are only available on DVD. Your precious streaming services do not offer much in vintage TV or catalog movie titles. DVDs are also quite economical and some people are living on tight budgets.

Paying for quality is to be expected and should go without saying, but thanks for saying it anyway.

Disc prices have been stable for years, barely fluctuating in over 7 years. If you actually bought them, you would know this. I DO buy them and most new blu-rays sell for between $15-$20 same price this year as last year and the year before that and the year before that and the year before that and even the year before that. New 4K discs are typically about $25 when released and that has not changed in the nearly 3 years that they have been on the market. DISC PRICES ARE STABLE for the thousandth time already!

If you wait for sales many blus can be had for $5-$10. Even 4K discs have been on sale for under $10 with many sale priced at $10-$15. Please stop talking about the prices of things you do not buy and clearly know NOTHING about.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Penguin where have you been hiding, glad to have you back. Yes Streaming Digital has come a long way, but the Average Person is very confused. There are so many options to viewing content on your UHD TV, that people just don't know what to do. Most are just plugging in dongles, and hoping for the best. I have never been big on Wireless when it comes to Streaming to your UHD TV.

No one is confoozed but you. Streaming is popular because it is affordable, offers decent quality under ideal conditions, and because anyone can do it, among other reasons.

Many people stream through the apps built-in with their smart TVs. Those who want a wider selection of streaming services use a Roku or similar device and these, too, are EZ to use.

Streaming is simple. Small kids know how to do it and so do the elderly and everyone in between.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

DVDs remain viable not because people do not care about quality, but because a great deal of content, especially TV shows, are only available on DVD.

Lots of content is only available on DVD because DVD sells so well, not the other way around. If most titles consistently sold better on Blu-ray than DVD, then everything would be available on Blu-ray. But even when Blu-ray and DVD are both readily available (and similarly priced) DVD often sells better. That clearly shows that most people don't care about quality.

That being said, those who do care about quality remains a large and profitable market. If it wasn't then Blu-ray would have been discontinued years ago and Ultra HD Blu-ray would never have been developed, it's just unlikely to ever be the largest market.

The rise of subscription streaming has pretty much guaranteed that most people will never again be willing to pay $10 or more to buy a single movie (in any format). But that doesn't mean that the number of people who are willing to pay a premium will ever be small enough that the studios are willing to ignore them.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Lots of content is only available on DVD because DVD sells so well, not the other way around. If most titles consistently sold better on Blu-ray than DVD, then everything would be available on Blu-ray. But even when Blu-ray and DVD are both readily available (and similarly priced) DVD often sells better. That clearly shows that most people don't care about quality.

That being said, those who do care about quality remains a large and profitable market. If it wasn't then Blu-ray would have been discontinued years ago and Ultra HD Blu-ray would never have been developed, it's just unlikely to ever be the largest market.

The rise of subscription service has pretty much guaranteed that most people will never again be willing to pay $10 or more to buy a single movie (in any format). But that doesn't mean that the number of people who are willing to pay a premium will ever be small enough that the studios are willing to ignore them.

That is the common assumption, but I think it is often a mistaken one. I live in a rural area where the average household income is $19,000. There are lots of people here, and elsewhere, that live on a very meager budget. DVDs are the most that they can afford. Saving $5 or more on a movie purchase is a big deal for them.

Still others think the quality of a DVD is pretty good, especially when upscaled on that recent 4K TV they acquired. There are people who look at the cost benefit analysis of what they buy and DVD measures up pretty well for many of them. Families with kids often buy DVDs as they are more affordable, there's that tight budget again, and they are also surprisingly durable.

Anecdotally, I often see people digging through that big bin of $3.74 DVDs at Walmart. These prices make physical media accessible to the poor and also delight the bargain hunter.

Most people want the best quality, but it should not just be assumed that everyone can afford it.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

That is the common assumption, but I think it is often a mistaken one. I live in a rural area where the average household income is $19,000. There are lots of people here, and elsewhere, that live on a very meager budget. DVDs are the most that they can afford.

Still others think the quality of a DVD is pretty good, especially when upscaled on that recent 4K TV they acquired. There are people who look at the cost benefit analysis of what they buy and DVD measures up pretty well for many of them. Families with kids often buy DVDs as they are more affordable, there's that tight budget again, and they are also surprisingly durable.

Anecdotally, I often see people digging through that big bin of $3.74 DVDs at Walmart. These prices make physical media accessible to the poor and the bargain hunter alike.

Most people want the best quality, but it should not just be assumed that everyone can afford it.

It's perfectly understandable for old releases and budget releases to sell better on DVD than Blu-ray. I certainly understand people not wanting to upgrade the titles they already have on DVD.

But new release movies continue to sell great on DVD for $20 each (often a Blu-ray/DVD/digital combo is only a dollar or two more expensive). Anyone on a tight budget should never be spending $20 on a single movie. The only explanation for new release DVDs selling well is that many people don't care about picture and audio quality.

DVD is good enough so many people have no interest in anything better. They certainly aren't doing a cost benefit analysis, they likely aren't ever looking at anything but the DVD.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

It's perfectly understandable for old releases and budget releases to sell better on DVD than Blu-ray. I certainly understand people not wanting to upgrade the titles they already have on DVD.

But new release movies continue to sell great on DVD for $20 each (often a Blu-ray/DVD/digital combo is only a dollar or two more expensive). Anyone on a tight budget should never be spending $20 on a single movie. The only explanation for new release DVDs selling well is that many people don't care about picture and audio quality.

DVD is good enough so many people have no interest in anything better. They certainly aren't doing a cost benefit analysis, they likely aren't ever looking at anything but the DVD.

Of course they are; we all do it. We may not call it that, but we pay what we are willing to pay with the expectation that the quality received will at least be satisfactory. Many people see blu-ray, and certainly 4K discs, as a premium product and that is often outside what their budget can afford. People want filet mignon, but often have to settle for sirloin.

The price difference between the DVD and the blu-ray of a new release is quite often more than just $2. The price for Venom on DVD is $4 lower than the blu-ray (at Amazon). Saving $4 a movie, or even just $2, is significant and it adds up especially when your discretionary income is small to begin with. The budget minded, by necessity, have to make saving a buck or two on everything that they buy a habit. Every $2-$5 that you save adds up fast. It is a lifestyle that many have to adopt.

You and I are likely fortunate enough that we do not even blink at such small price differences; we are fortunate. People on a tight budget have to save money anywhere they can and it is their doing so that allows them to budget for that next big Disney release that their kiddies are clamoring for. DVDs, especially now, are hardly the eyesores that VHS tapes were. They look and sound quite good overall.

If you budget for it, and save for it, yes, even the poorer members of our society can afford a $20 movie.

I continue to maintain that many people buy the best quality that they can afford. Such behavior is evident in everything we purchase unless you can honestly claim that you own the very best of every product category that you shop. At some point, we all deem the quality to be good and the price for it reasonable. I can safely say that I do not own the best of everything and I would readily bet that you don't, either. You and I both settled for "less than" many, many times over. Saying that people do not care about quality is nonsense; quality is just one of many considerations that a consumer must weigh.

The one thing that I can agree with from alchav's earlier post is that it is good to have you back.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The price difference between the DVD and the blu-ray of a new release is quite often more than just $2. The price for Venom on DVD is $4 lower than the blu-ray (at Amazon). Saving $4 a movie, or even just $2, is significant and it adds up especially when your discretionary income is small to begin with. The budget minded, by necessity, have to make saving a buck or two on everything that they buy a habit. Every $2-$5 that you save adds up fast.

I ordered Venom a few days ago on 4K/Blu-ray combo for $12. Anyone who's budget conscious can easily get great deals on every format.

Originally Posted by Vilya

If you budget for it, and save for it, yes, even the poorer members of our society can afford a $20 movie.

I'm not saying they can't afford it, I'm saying they are stupid to spend that much. If money is that much of an issue then they should wait a couple of weeks and get their movies for half the price. It doesn't take long at all for the Blu-ray (or even 4K Blu-ray) to be much cheaper than the DVD launched for.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I ordered Venom a few days ago on 4K/Blu-ray combo for $12. Anyone who's budget conscious can easily get great deals on every format.

I'm not saying they can't afford it, I'm saying they are stupid to spend that much. If money is that much of an issue then they should wait a couple of weeks and get their movies for half the price. If they wait just a little bit they'd get a better and cheaper product.

When the blu-ray drops in price, the DVD often does, too.

Birthdays and Christmas, and other events in people's lives, don't always allow for such waiting. Assuming they are "stupid" for paying the asking price occasionally is exactly the type of assumptions I wish people would avoid. If they planned for it, if they saved for it, then they were SMART about it. Even the poor are allowed to indulge once in awhile.

I am very confident that both you and I have paid the asking price more than a few times. Were we stupid for not waiting for a better sale? Spending more than necessary is generally considered to be pretty dumb even if you can easily afford it. Resist judging others by standards you don't apply to yourself.

Again, living on a budget is a lifestyle that ingrains the habit of buying the product that represents the best overall value. Virtually everyone settles for what they can afford. By the logic you have been applying, none of us care about quality because we often buy less than the very best.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Birthdays and Christmas, and other events in people's lives, don't always allow for such waiting. Assuming they are "stupid" for paying the asking price occasionally is exactly the type of assumptions I wish people would avoid. If they planned for it, if they saved for it, then they were SMART about it. Even the poor are allowed to indulge once in awhile.

If they were smart about it they would have bought a few movies at a great price for Birthdays and Christmas. That's what I do. People love my gifts because they get a few great movies (on a great format) instead of just one.

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am very confident that both you and I have paid the asking price more than a few times. Were we stupid for not waiting for a better sale? Spending more than necessary is generally considered to be pretty dumb even if you can easily afford it. Resist judging others by standards you don't apply to yourself.

Sorry to shatter your confidence but you'd be wrong about that. I've never paid more than $15 for a 4K movie and never more than $10 for a Blu-ray movie. I haven't spent over $5 for a DVD movie in over 10 years.

I am perfectly willing to spend more for titles that I am concerned about future physical releases (all of which have been TV shows). But Venom absolutely does not need the extra support, it'll sell millions of copies on every format.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Again, living on a budget is a lifestyle that ingrains the habit of buying the product that represents the best overall value. Virtually everyone settles for what they can afford. By the logic you have been applying, none of us care about quality because we often buy less than the very best.

Caring about quality doesn't mean always buying the best. It means being willing to spend a little more for better quality. Buying a better TV and sound system could easily cost 1000% more than what I paid for my equipment. Buying a Blu-ray is generally only 10-20% higher than the price of a DVD. They aren't the least bit comparable.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

If they were smart about it they would have bought a few movies at a great price for Birthdays and Christmas. That's what I do. People love my gifts because they get a few great movies (on a great format) instead of just one.



Sorry to shatter your confidence but you'd be wrong about that. I've never paid more than $15 for a 4K movie and never more than $10 for a Blu-ray movie. I haven't spent over $5 for a DVD movie in over 10 years.

I am perfectly willing to spend more for titles that I am concerned about future physical releases (all of which have been TV shows). But Venom absolutely does not need the extra support, it'll sell millions of copies on every format.



Caring about quality doesn't mean always buying the best. It means being willing to spend a little more for better quality. Buying a better TV and sound system could easily cost 1000% more than what I paid for my equipment. Buying a Blu-ray is generally only 10-20% higher than the price of a DVD. They aren't the least bit comparable.

It is really great that you know what your gift recipients want well enough in advance to buy their gifts at bargain prices, but kids, and others, often have no idea what they want until their big day approaches. SMART people just budget an amount for the event and shop accordingly for the best price once their recipient's desire is known.

I did not limit that remark to just movie purchases. I remain confident that you have paid the asking price many times.

Your last paragraph is simply waffling around the issue. When you buy less than the best, you are being shrewd. When someone else does it, they do not care about quality and/or they are stupid.

Comparing home theater gear purchases to disc purchases is just an attempt to deflect from the fact that you apply a different set of standards to yourself than you do to others. You could have spent 10-20% more on your gear and likely even that little bit more would have gotten you better quality, but you decided that what you did buy was good enough. Had you had more discipline you could have saved longer or, gasp , waited for a better sale, but you didn't. You settled for less like everyone else. The only difference is that you congratulate yourself for it, but criticize others when they do it.

Paying 10-20% percent more for blu-rays is easy for you, so you assume that when others do not do the same it is because they do not care about quality. You make assumptions by the bushel and pass judgement summarily. People on a tight budget need to save that 10-20% percent; the fact that you don't does not make you a connoisseur nor does it make them a rube that is oblivious to quality. It means that maybe they are poorer than you and very possibly smarter than you. Someone famous, and pretty smart, too, once said that "a penny saved is a penny earned."

You appear to shop for movies when the prices are low, your principle motivation, but according to you movies should be purchased in the best quality possible. Do you own the very best rated editions of your movies or was that great deal more important? If the latter was ever the case, then, again, by your logic you cared less about quality and more about saving a buck.

By now this dead horse has been duly beaten...

[PenguinInfinity]

Saying that people always care about quality but can't afford it is ridiculous. I am well aware that there are things I don't care about quality regardless of price.

As long as my car works well I don't care what it looks like or how fast it can go from 0-60. As long as my clothing fits and is comfortable I don't care if it is high quality fabric or a renowned designer. As long as my washing machine cleans decently well I'm never going to look at any other options. As long as my cell phone doesn't drop calls I'm not interested in anything else. As long as my computer can run all the fairly basic tasks I do on it (mostly web browsing and playing DVDs) I'm not interested in anything more powerful.

There are obviously people who have the same attitude about movies: DVD is fine and they aren't interested in anything better. To argue against that is asinine. I stand by my original statement: DVD sells well because plenty of people don't care about quality.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Saying that people always care about quality but can't afford it is ridiculous. I am well aware that there are things I don't care about quality regardless of price.

As long as my car works well I don't care what it looks like or how fast it can go from 0-60. As long as my clothing fits and is comfortable I don't care if it is high quality fabric or a renowned designer. As long as my washing machine cleans decently well I'm never going to look at any other options.

There are obviously people who have the same attitude about movies: DVD is fine and they aren't interested in anything better. To argue against that is asinine.

I stand by my original statement: DVD sells well because plenty of people don't care about quality.

The correct, less arrogant and less judgmental, way of saying that would be to say:

DVD sells well because plenty of people care less about quality and more about value. They care about their budget more than extra image resolution.

It is permissible, possible, even probable for someone to care less about something than you or I do without assuming that they do not care at all.

Assuming that either of us truly know the reasons why people do what they do, yet alone what they are interested in, is the pinnacle of asinine.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The correct, less arrogant and less judgmental, way of saying that would be to say:

Do you not see the irony in telling someone the "correct" way to be less arrogant and less judgmental?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Saying that your way is "correct" is pretty arrogant and judgmental.

There is nothing of the sort in my rephrasing of your absolutist assessment of the purchase decisions of people you know nothing about. My wording of the statement makes no judgment and assigns no negative connotation to their behavior. Your phrasing says they do not care about quality and that is an unknowable assumption that has unflattering implications and it is even rather insulting.

You have no idea why people buy what they buy nor do you have any knowledge as to their interests. Making assumptions about others IS being judgmental and being judgmental IS being arrogant.

Pot meet kettle as they say.....

[PenguinInfinity]

Everything both of us said was assumptions. You assume that people looked at the Blu-ray and the DVD and did a cost benefit analysis. I assume they didn't.