Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
08-16-09, 11:08 AM
#26
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by orangerunner
There was a clear difference between VHS and S-VHS as well.
Originally Posted by orangerunner
There's a clear difference with Blu-ray if you put it on on a 52" HDTV screen and sit four feet away from the set. For most set-ups with a 40" or smaller TV the difference isn't going to make most people's socks roll up and down and start buying everything Blu-ray.
Originally Posted by orangerunner
I still feel Blu-ray is going to be a stop-gap for something better coming up shortly.
Originally Posted by orangerunner
Even within the Blu-ray format itself, if you buy a title now, in a few months a better version of the film comes out. No, "you don't have to double-dip", "no one's forcing you" is always the retort but most Blu-ray owners want the best, or they wouldn't have bothered with Blu-ray in the first place.
Originally Posted by orangerunner
The recordable Blu-ray blank discs are at least six bucks a pop still don't have a very good track record of playing in the various machines. Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.
Add in firmware upgrades and it just feels like a format that hasn't matured enough yet.
Add in firmware upgrades and it just feels like a format that hasn't matured enough yet.
08-16-09, 11:40 AM
#27
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by drak b
Sadly, no. I can’t imagine any legal recourse unless they started to do something very different and blatantly illegal.
It ticks me off to no end to see stuff like this. Between Blu Ray “exclusives“ and digital copies, I have finally pretty much given up on buying SEs. For the past decade, I’ve always wanted to buy the “best” version possible of a movie on DVD but with a second disc occupied solely by a digital copy I don’t want or basic bonus features needlessly withheld to force collectors to buy their blu ray crap, why bother? This past summer I reluctantly bought my first non-SE version of a title, Watchmen. With most other titles I probably would have purchased in the past, I find myself skipping them altogether.
Frankly I think that most studios got fat and spoiled on DVD revenue during the golden days and are trying to force us into a repeat. Since video and sound quality are apparently not enough alone, they feel the need to rip off their consumers in this manner.
It ticks me off to no end to see stuff like this. Between Blu Ray “exclusives“ and digital copies, I have finally pretty much given up on buying SEs. For the past decade, I’ve always wanted to buy the “best” version possible of a movie on DVD but with a second disc occupied solely by a digital copy I don’t want or basic bonus features needlessly withheld to force collectors to buy their blu ray crap, why bother? This past summer I reluctantly bought my first non-SE version of a title, Watchmen. With most other titles I probably would have purchased in the past, I find myself skipping them altogether.
Frankly I think that most studios got fat and spoiled on DVD revenue during the golden days and are trying to force us into a repeat. Since video and sound quality are apparently not enough alone, they feel the need to rip off their consumers in this manner.
08-16-09, 11:56 AM
#28
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by stingermck
Did VHS collectors feel this same sense of entitlement when DVD was released? 
08-16-09, 12:01 PM
#29
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Studios are definitely not liable for discrimination against dvd consumers. It is their product and thay are free to do as the please.
It is up to the consumer to make his feelings known. I will say that I havent bought a two disc version of a dvd title if there was a one disc version available in at least a year. I jsut dont really care about the special features, or what passes for special features nowadays. When blue ray comes down to a reasonable price, i will jump on that bandwagon. Till then I will get my single disc dvds at 1/3 the price of the blue ray version.
It is up to the consumer to make his feelings known. I will say that I havent bought a two disc version of a dvd title if there was a one disc version available in at least a year. I jsut dont really care about the special features, or what passes for special features nowadays. When blue ray comes down to a reasonable price, i will jump on that bandwagon. Till then I will get my single disc dvds at 1/3 the price of the blue ray version.
08-16-09, 12:53 PM
#31
DVD Talk God
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
It's a part of life that Studios and companies will start pushing premium product.
Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
08-16-09, 12:53 PM
#32
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by Silverscreenvid
If you buy a Cadillac, it has more features than a Chevy. If you buy a high end TV or dishwasher, it has more features than the standard model. Why should it be any different for DVD/Blu Ray?
Then a Cadillac GT (Blu-ray) is released for 30% more money but it comes with all the standard features and the addition of leather seats with a scratch proof paint job.
08-16-09, 01:03 PM
#33
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bellefontaine, Ohio
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by DJariya
It's a part of life that Studios and companies will start pushing premium product.
Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
Back in the 90's, Baseball card companies started pushing their $2-$5 Packs of Premium Cards with special "Inserts" and the old 50 cent bubble cards were eventually pushed to the backburner. And you know what, people were more than happy to spend the extra $$$$ for the premium cards.
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
And I know I rarely buy any title that is barebones. Even if it is one of my favorite films of the year. No way am i gonna spend money on a title that no effort has been put into. I will if I really like something and its only a couple of bucks or so but even then its gotta be something special.
Its fine if they wanna do this I just want Warner Bros (and other studios) to know I wont buy there titles if they do this. Sorry but Trick Or Treat (and many other titles) is now a netflix rental ONLY!
08-16-09, 01:08 PM
#34
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by orangerunner
Creating & editing your own HD home videos on Blu-ray is very difficult and time consuming.
08-16-09, 01:14 PM
#35
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by DJariya
If you really care about the movie, why the hell does it matter if it's barebones? Were people complaining in 1998 paying $29.95 for the barebones Columbia-Tri Star release of Glory? I like bonus features as well, but it's just a bonus and if it's not there, it's not going to take away the experience of enjoying the movie and I'm not going to go off an a ridiculous tangent and bash/be jealous of Blu Ray product.
It's not a matter of being jealous or bashing Blu-ray. It's a matter of the studios degrading the existing format in order to make the higher-profit disc appear far superior.
If Blu-ray wants to make a good impression give customers, at the very least, everything they had on the DVD plus something they didn't have.
Going back to the beginning of the cycle of releasing bare-bones first then following up with a SE or the Unrated edition is a merry-go-round that isn't going to fly with consumers.
Last edited by orangerunner; 08-16-09 at 01:18 PM.
08-16-09, 01:17 PM
#36
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by Mr. Salty
Speaking as someone who has an HD camcorder, I can tell you that you don't need a Blu-ray burner or expensive blank Blu-ray discs. Most Blu-ray players play HD video burned onto regular DVD-R and DVD+R. And I'm doing so with a seven-year-old PC.
08-16-09, 01:19 PM
#37
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
In other news:
It seems "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" on Blu-Ray contains the same extras as the DVD from 1997 does.
So much for the Christian Slater scenes.
It seems "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery" on Blu-Ray contains the same extras as the DVD from 1997 does.
So much for the Christian Slater scenes.
08-16-09, 02:06 PM
#38
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by orangerunner
True enough but I imagine you're down-converting it to SD, which looks fine too. You're not getting "true" 1080i HD picture quality.
08-16-09, 02:19 PM
#39
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Hey guys, guess what's going to happen when old movie format y is being pushed to replace new movie format x? The same thing every time.
08-16-09, 07:23 PM
#40
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Twin Cities
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
This isn't anything illegal, it's just business. If the movie studios want to try to leverage DVD buyers into Blu Ray by withholding features from DVDs, that's their right. Equally, it's my right to keep buying DVDs and live with a reduced feature set; and/or wait until Blu Ray is available at the costs I pay for today's DVDs. But I will not jump to Blu Ray before I'm ready, just to get some extras.
08-16-09, 08:12 PM
#41
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by hindolio
i apologize if i am not in the loop on this, but why are some new sd dvd releases so poor in quality compared to their blu counterparts? ive seen numerous threads lately about how bad the sd dvd release is while the blu is near perfect. i recall comments about this on the dark knight.
if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but ill argue it is pretty sucky.
if this is accurate, as a few posters in the past have suggested, are studios intentionally releasing subpar sd dvds in order to widen the difference when compared to blu? of course, this is not illegal or discriminatory in the sense of each word. but ill argue it is pretty sucky.
08-16-09, 08:15 PM
#42
DVD Talk Hero
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
You're a studio. You've been on the gravy train for the last ten years because everyone in the world has buying DVDs. But DVD income is not increasing like it once was, and you need to come up with another way to separate people from their money.
The natural response is to come out with the same movies on a new format and convince customers to buy your movies again. Since the picture quality is only marginally better, and can only be seen on giant screens, the "upgrade" pitch will only take you so far. So you throw a little prize onto the new format to convince people to buy that instead of the less profitable old format. (But wait! There's more! NOW how much would you pay?)
It's not discrimination. It's just salesmanship.
The natural response is to come out with the same movies on a new format and convince customers to buy your movies again. Since the picture quality is only marginally better, and can only be seen on giant screens, the "upgrade" pitch will only take you so far. So you throw a little prize onto the new format to convince people to buy that instead of the less profitable old format. (But wait! There's more! NOW how much would you pay?)
It's not discrimination. It's just salesmanship.
08-16-09, 09:40 PM
#43
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by Willo007
What are your thoughts regarding this issue guys, let the hazing begin!!!
It's a pleasant change from the late '90s, when the best treatment was reserved for the archaic and dying Laserdisc while DVD, then the premiere home video format, would wait months (in some cases, over a year).
Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.
08-16-09, 09:50 PM
#44
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by UAIOE
Holographic storage, that was the supposed "next" big tech beyond Blu-Ray.
Hindolio, I really don't know if it's true that DVD releases are getting shafted in terms of quality. I don't think The Dark Knight would be the best example, since as far as I'm concerned the BD isn't perfect either. It looks to me like it has problems with edge enhancement that may be due to the IMAX DMR process. But this is controversial, and some claim it looks fine. I haven't seen the DVD, so I don't know how it looks.
08-16-09, 09:52 PM
#45
DVD Talk Reviewer
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Why shun Blu-ray because you have no interest in upgrading your current DVD's? Blu-ray players still play DVD's, and you can buy all your newer favorites you don't own yet as they become available in high definition. Why buy an HDTV if you have no interest in upgrading to HD content at all? And no, they're not legally liable. To say you don't want to upgrade is one thing, to ask such a question is just downright silly. It's a business, and they'll do what they want to get the money flowing to the next big thing that they've dumped so much money into. Fair? No. Smart? Yes.
08-16-09, 10:38 PM
#46
DVD Talk Legend
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
I've seen a few posts allude to a "better" format upcoming after Blu-Ray. I'm sure there will always be something newer and fancier. But let's face two facts:
(1) The main upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray is better picture and audio
(2) The audio on Blu-Ray can be lossless, which means it can't get better. Picture quality can get better, since its only at 1080p. But to appreciate it, you'll need a pretty big screen. Good luck adopting that to the masses, especially after so many are already whining about the minimal advantages of Blu-Ray.
There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.
(1) The main upgrade from DVD to Blu-ray is better picture and audio
(2) The audio on Blu-Ray can be lossless, which means it can't get better. Picture quality can get better, since its only at 1080p. But to appreciate it, you'll need a pretty big screen. Good luck adopting that to the masses, especially after so many are already whining about the minimal advantages of Blu-Ray.
There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.
08-16-09, 10:44 PM
#47
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by drmar35mm
This isn't anything illegal, it's just business. If the movie studios want to try to leverage DVD buyers into Blu Ray by withholding features from DVDs, that's their right. Equally, it's my right to keep buying DVDs and live with a reduced feature set; and/or wait until Blu Ray is available at the costs I pay for today's DVDs. But I will not jump to Blu Ray before I'm ready, just to get some extras.
08-16-09, 10:45 PM
#48
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bellefontaine, Ohio
Posts: 5,628
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by DivxGuy
Disc collecting is shifting to Blu, and I'd suggest you holdouts buy in.
08-16-09, 11:05 PM
#49
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by mzupeman2
Why shun Blu-ray because you have no interest in upgrading your current DVD's? Blu-ray players still play DVD's, and you can buy all your newer favorites you don't own yet as they become available in high definition.
08-16-09, 11:09 PM
#50
Re: Are Studios legally liable for discrimination against DVD consumers?
Originally Posted by Jericho
I've seen a few posts allude to a "better" format upcoming after Blu-Ray.
There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.
There may be a new format coming, but it'll have a hard time offering huge benefits to anyone other than storage space.
Though I can't imagine Super Hi-Vision ever coming to home theaters...you'd need a TV about four times the size of the largest 1080p TV on the market today.
