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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

It is just an option that is all. Crackle has been doing free movies with advertisements for years.

Yeah and it's going great for them! They didn't even survive in he U.K.

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Yeah and it's going great for them! They didn't even survive in he U.K.

Than why worry?

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

I don't like the idea. Not one little bit.

I'll reserve some of my judgement towards it until I know more. For all we know, it may not even officially go live. Or if and when it goes live, it could be minimal ads. We shall have to wait and see.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by ArmyOfDarknessAW

Than why worry?

It shouldn't even be a discussion. Adverts breaking up a film? No thanks. If this is our future, they can stick it up their ******!

[ArmyOfDarknessAW]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It shouldn't even be a discussion. Adverts breaking up a film? No thanks. If this is our future, they can stick it up their ******!

As an option. The marketplace decides what works and what doesn't. If it hasn't done so well with Crackle why worry it'll do amazing with Vudu. If Vudu isn't making money on it they won't continue on with it (if it even happens).

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

It shouldn't even be a discussion. Adverts breaking up a film? No thanks. If this is our future, they can stick it up their ******!

You get what you pay for. In this case, it's free, so they can bombard you with ads if they want and if people don't like it, they'll avoid it, and before long it'll be no more.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

You're arguing that the possibility of free rentals with ads on Vudu is bad how? That's another option, not something that is being forced on anyone. This hasn't gone live yet, but it's intriguing.

I can't see it catching on too much. How could ads alone make up for people not paying to rent it? Strange idea. Maybe they just want to get people's attention and the companies running the ads are willing to pay more than the renters during this experiment. Hmm.

It still has no effect on those who buy digital. It can just help renters save money and deter people from pirating perhaps?

Just look at The Simpsons. Fox stopped releasing it on disc because they figured they could make more money in the long run with their free (but ad-supported) app Simpsons World. Money from advertisers is big business and for many properties makes a lot more revenue than what the customers pay.

I could certainly see more and more services becoming ad-supported because the studios think that will make them more money. Unfortunately many customers don't value their time so they are perfectly willing to watch a lot of ads to get something for "free".

Digital media started as just an option, and then it started to replace physical media as the only option for many titles. Ad-supported rentals could follow the same path.

Originally Posted by master gandhi

You get what you pay for. In this case, it's free, so they can bombard you with ads if they want and if people don't like it, they'll avoid it, and before long it'll be no more.

But why do you assume customers will avoid it? The studios may find it to be highly profitable and start to focus on it at the expense of other options.

[Steedeel]

Agree completely.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by PenguinMaster

Just look at The Simpsons. Fox stopped releasing it on disc because they figured they could make more money in the long run with their free (but ad-supported) app Simpsons World. Money from advertisers is big business and for many properties makes a lot more revenue than what the customers pay.

I could certainly see more and more services becoming ad-supported because the studios think that will make them more money. Unfortunately many customers don't value their time so they are perfectly willing to watch a lot of ads to get something for "free".

Digital media started as just an option, and then it started to replace physical media as the only option for many titles. Ad-supported rentals could follow the same path.

But why do you assume customers will avoid it? The studios may find it to be highly profitable and start to focus on it at the expense of other options.

Okay, you have a point.

I suppose they would need the studio's permission first before offering their titles for free with ads. I don't see Disney getting onboard. Obviously Fox would be okay with it, as you pointed out. I still don't see it becoming the only way to rent something, but who knows. Crazier things have happened.

There's always something to worry about, isn't there? Heh

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

Okay, you have a point.

I suppose they would need the studio's permission first before offering their titles for free with ads. I don't see Disney getting onboard. Obviously Fox would be okay with it, as you pointed out. I still don't see it becoming the only way to rent something, but who knows. Crazier things have happened.

There's always something to worry about, isn't there? Heh

With Digital? Yes!

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

With Digital? Yes!

I guess I'm not really too worried, though. I rarely rent things as it is. I prefer to purchase.

[PenguinMaster]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

I guess I'm not really too worried, though. I rarely rent things as it is. I prefer to purchase.

But that option could disappear too. If studios find they can get a few dollars every time someone watches a title (either through paying for a rental or from advertisers) they may not want to offer the purchase option. Plus there's no reason why they can't insert advertisements into purchases as well.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

I guess I'm not really too worried, though. I rarely rent things as it is. I prefer to purchase.

That's presuming the EST market remains though. Growth is not exactly heartwarming is it? Subscription and rentals will be the thing in the coming decade.

[Steedeel]

Along with that scheme I mentioned several weeks ago something like this could kill home cinema. Who wants to watch the latest blockbuster on their big screen and suffer through adverts every ten minutes?

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Along with that scheme I mentioned several weeks ago something like this could kill home cinema. Who wants to watch the latest blockbuster on their big screen and suffer through adverts every ten minutes?

I'm guessing not most people? That's why it couldn't be offered as the only option. If they can get the consumer to pay for the movie (which generally costs the consumer more than a rental), that would still be a revenue stream for them and would please everyone.

Those who don't mind ads can rent. Those who do can buy.

I'm actually surprised they'd even consider offering brand new movies for free with ads. I'd think they'd choose older movies that fewer people are renting. Quite an experiment.

I'll admit that you both make strong points. I really don't know what the studios are thinking. They sometimes know how to run a profitable business better than I do. Part of making profits is to make sure you're not alienating a bunch of consumers. Putting ads on everything and taking away purchase options would do just that. But maybe those consumers would eventually give in if it's all they can do.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

I'm guessing not most people? That's why it couldn't be offered as the only option. If they can get the consumer to pay for the movie (which generally costs the consumer more than a rental), that would still be a revenue stream for them and would please everyone.

Those who don't mind ads can rent. Those who do can buy.

I'm actually surprised they'd even consider offering brand new movies for free with ads. I'd think they'd choose older movies that fewer people are renting. Quite an experiment.

I'll admit that you both make strong points. I really don't know what the studios are thinking. They sometimes know how to run a profitable business better than I do. Part of making profits is to make sure you're not alienating a bunch of consumers. Putting ads on everything and taking away purchase options would do just that. But maybe those consumers would eventually give in if it's all they can do.

What about people who just want to rent? Why should they not have the option of ad free?

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

What about people who just want to rent? Why should they not have the option of ad free?

Indeed. For all we know, they will continue to have that option. I'm just saying, worst case scenario, they'd push people to buy if they want ad-free. But the prices they charge for rentals should be enough to make up for the loss of ad revenue.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by master gandhi

Indeed. For all we know, they will continue to have that option. I'm just saying, worst case scenario, they'd push people to buy if they want ad-free. But the prices they charge for rentals should be enough to make up for the loss of ad revenue.

Can you see why I think Digital is such a cluster****?

[wolfpackTri]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Can you see why I think Digital is such a cluster****?

I don't think it's too big of a cluster****. The hard part is figuring out which service you want to use. Really, it all comes down to iTunes or UV. Amazon, Google Play, and other non-UV just isn't worth it.

I prefer the convenience of digital. I sold all my 3D movies and I'm thinning out my Steelbook and bluray collection. I am buying 4k UHD discs because I want to get a 4k TV next year.

It's just a whole lot easier to turn on my Apple TV or Vudu App on my Smart TV and just watch something then to get up, open up the disc, start the bluray player, etc.

If I really want to see a movie in high quality, I use the disc. If I don't care, it's Apple TV or Vudu.

[master gandhi]

Originally Posted by wolfpackTri

I don't think it's too big of a cluster****. The hard part is figuring out which service you want to use. Really, it all comes down to iTunes or UV. Amazon, Google Play, and other non-UV just isn't worth it.

I prefer the convenience of digital. I sold all my 3D movies and I'm thinning out my Steelbook and bluray collection. I am buying 4k UHD discs because I want to get a 4k TV next year.

It's just a whole lot easier to turn on my Apple TV or Vudu App on my Smart TV and just watch something then to get up, open up the disc, start the bluray player, etc.

If I really want to see a movie in high quality, I use the disc. If I don't care, it's Apple TV or Vudu.

Yeah, for the most part, it's pretty straightforward. Like you said, where it gets complicated is choosing which provider is best for you.

I like iTunes the most overall (mainly because of all the special features), but my wife and I use Vudu more. It's on our Roku, which automatically turns on when we turn on our TV, and I have over 400 titles on Vudu (all in HD at the minimum, plus a couple in UHD), versus over 250 on iTunes (some of which are in SD, due to being redeemed from old codes).

I really like digital because it's convenient and the quality is still quite good IMO, but I'm not planning to thin my physical collection anytime soon. You never know when you'll need it. The other day, we were scrolling through Vudu and decided we'd watch The Fifth Element. Instead of just watching it through Vudu, I popped in the new Blu-ray, which was fortunate, since the internet went out temporarily while we were watching the movie, and it didn't affect our playback one bit.

It's nice that our movie didn't get interrupted or paused, not that that happens very often. If it did, I'd be very against digital.