EddieMoney

zyzzle

All of the above (ISP problems, data caps, DRM, expiration) are very, *very* good reasons to keep a disc-based format going forward many years into the future.

The trouble is, the studios don't care and want the easiest, cheapest (= most lucrative), most friendly option for *them*, not for the end-consumer, their customer base.

So, at best we're stuck with a niche-format and opening our wallets far and wide to support those companies like Scorpion, Olive, Shout, Twilight Time, et al who seem to care enough to release the films. Even these companies seem to have quality-control problems (I'm looking at you, Shout! for your encoding and compression problems).

Even then, if the deep catalog films aren't licensed, there's nothing for those niche labels to release, is there? So, we're again at a Catch-22.

PhantomStranger

The studios don't currently control the physical distribution channel since Walmart and Target really don't owe them anything and could live without them. In an all-digital world, the studios control practically everything through their licensing agreements with VUDU and Netflix. That control will enable them to raise prices as high as they can get away with in the market. It will be an oligarchy much like OPEC controls the price of oil but with even tighter market controls.

This is why the studios want an all-digital world. They are simply letting the videogame companies test out the model first. Wait until that starts creeping into the movie selling business.

TerryW

It's not just streaming vs. physical media. There are still tons of films that need restoration work. If studios don't want to spend money for discs, they won't for movies that need saving either.

orangerunner

This brings up an interesting point.

I've always wondered about 2nd and 3rd tier films and their future in high-def.

For instance, Mill Creek released several Touchstone films from the eighties and nineties like D.O.A., Angie, The Doctor, Gross Anatomy etc., which basically wound up in the dollar store after a few months.

I have to wonder how much money was invested in making high-def transfers of these films and is it worth it to continue issuing films like this on Blu-ray?

Is it even worth the money to make a high-def transfer for the purposes of streaming or licensing to Netflix?

Olive, Kino and Shout have all released much of the MGM catalogue over the past year but I'm not sure if their volume of sales has justified the investment. In the case of Mill Creek, I don't see how dumping their product off at the dollar store has paid off for them.

Josh Z

Dump titles like those are not getting new high-def transfers. The Blu-rays are sourced from existing HD masters that were likely created a decade and a half ago. Studios have been transferring their catalogs to HD since the late 1990s. Before Blu-ray, those masters were used for DVD and for cable syndication (and now streaming).

That's why so many of these catalog titles look like crap on Blu-ray, because the old masters were transferred at a barely-HD res, and often had edge enhancement or DNR baked in.

fitprod

Bruce I have to disagree here... As far as I'm concerned "streaming" is both rental and EST. Just because you can download an EST file, doesn't make it any different.

You honestly do not own that digital file with EST, you're just paying an excessive rental fee. (Perfect for the studios... Until they realize there's no re-buy potential down the road.)

Especially since... When you read the fine print of any service (or UV document), the company providing the access, be it Vudu, Flikster, GooglePlay or whatever, does have the option to charge you an access fee.

None of them do this currently, but do you honestly think these portals are making money? Target already canned their system, and ironically sold it's accounts to cinemanow (Best Buy) that will be the next to go down.

Target realized it was a money loser, and the only way you don't lose money is to charge an access fee. Target figured it wasn't worth either cost.

fitprod

fitprod

But here's the deep dark secret that no one wants to talk about... Those grand billion dollar deals that the studios have with Netflix and Vudu? That's it, those aren't going up... Netflix has already chosen to walk away from new deals, and concentrate on their own product. And I've already had problems getting content from VUDU even though though they support UV because they don't want to license some content.

Once these streaming services produce their own content, they can go "fuck you" to the studios and walk away. The studios will be forced to come back with cheaper and cheaper deals because they will have no choice.

Digital may be the future, but it will ultimately destroy the film business in the long run unless they can get their cost and marketers under control. (You'd be surprised how little current marketing departments in studios actually don't get the concept that they wouldn't have a job if previous marketers didn't know how to sell catalog. That's what keeps the studios alive.)

fitprod

Why So Blu?

I'm not saying it's too much for a player. I'm saying that's a great price. Sure, it's crap but for the AVERAGE person - it's affordable and if it breaks then they can go and buy another affordable model.

Average folks won't buy a moderate or expensive player because they better things to spend their money on. They're not video/audiophiles, so it's a moot point. For them it's easier to buy and replace a cheap BD player with another cheap BD player.

rw2516

For HD and burning to BD maybe. I don't know. Streaming is no different than cable or satellite. I've purchased pay-per-view concerts and saved them to dvd. Recording streaming is no different than recording cable but you are limited to dvd quality.
Why not just buy the BD if you want a physical copy of something on disc in HD?

zyzzle

I don't understand. If the studios own the content (movies), which is licensed to Netflix, VUDU, etc, how can those streaming services offer any unique content? Netflix doesn't own the films, just the rights to stream them. So, how could Netflix ever say "fuck you" to the studios; won't Netflix always be at the mercy of what the studios choose to charge them to license their libraries of films for streaming purposes?

In time, the price will keep going up, so Netflix, et al will probably choose only to pay for recent releases and / or mainstream stuff. So, again, even in a streaming model, it seems the fans would lose most deep catalog titles eventually due to studio greed.

dvdshonna

I'm sure the music labels would like to cut costs and go totally digital too. Currently there is a 3 way split between physical, digital purchases, and streaming. Its virtually even with each sector producing about 33% of the revenue.

If disc sales were at the same levels we saw 7 years ago, do you think the studios would be cutting back? Do you think they will cut back on production of titles like "Frozen"?. More likely they are cutting back, because consumers are burnt out on their overpriced discs and cutting back on their purchases.

Doesn't matter how popular streaming is, (the only thing that has really taken off in the "digital world"), the studios will produce discs to fill whatever demand is there.

The studios can't fix the decline in disc sales, so they hype the "digital future" which is nothing more than subscription services (TV seasons accounting for the majority of viewing).

Little doubt the studios would like to see a complete conversion to digital purchases. Not to worry. They'll fuck it up. $8/mo subscription services does not equate to $9.99-$19.99 digital purchases.

davidh777

I don't see why this article couldn't have been posted in the existing "what's wrong with BD" thread since the arguments are pretty much all the same.

These are excellent reasons to stick with BD. But most movie-watchers don't care. Quality is good enough, and they don't want to own.

The reference was to Netflix's original content, like their series Orange Is the New Black, Daredevil, House of Cards, etc. Amazon does similar TV series, and they're going into movies as well (I assume Netflix is too). While original content will only be a fraction of what's available, Netflix's hope is that enough people will want to watch their shows that they'll pay to subscribe even if they lose other content.

dvdshonna

Streaming is no different than cable or staellite in every aspect, except users can choose when they want to watch a movie/tv show without using a DVR.

This is why I believe the "digital future" is mostly hype and wishful thinking (on the studios' part).

Nothing wrong with discs. The problem is they are overpriced.

"Frozen" wasn't overpriced. If you can sell millions of copies at $15-$20 it's probably priced just right. If you can only sell 50,000 copies of a title at $15-$20 then it's obviously overpriced.

Netflix works because they offer value for the dollar. The studios problems are self inflicted. They can't seem to grasp the concept of selling in volume.

Solid Snake

In some ways... some movies are overpriced. Is a new movie w/ super light (or zero) features worth 20-25 bucks? I'd argue that it's not. But if I really want it? That price doesn't matter.

This has nothing to do w/ the grand picture of what some are mentioning. I'm just isolating the idea to what value a BD really should be, for which many a variable could be a result.

A Criterion BD is worth the price, for most I'd think. Though I think they're a bit too high w/o the B&N sale... hahaha. Most new mainstream BDs aren't worth the price though.

dvdshonna

This is true. Doesn't matter if its DVD, Blu-ray, or a digital purchase. 90% of maintream titles are not worth $10 to $20. Not if you're looking to mass produce and sell millions of copies.

Can you imagine what Netflix would cost if you put the head honchos from the movie studios in charge?

5,500 movie titles and 2,000+ TV seasons. They would be looking to charge more than cable and satellite. Netflix would cost $100/mo instead of $8/mo. And most likely, already be history.

bruceames

True many people stream their purchased content, but I was trying to distinguish between subscription streaming and EST. The prevailing thought is that subscription streaming is getting all the growth but that's not the case. EST is growing even faster, although it's not a large as subscription streaming (about 1/3 the size).

If there was such widespread paranoia, as we see all the time on the physical media boards, about losing access to digital purchases, then obviously EST wouldn't be the fastest growing segment of the market.

orangerunner

Whether something is overpriced is always relative.

In 1984 I was 11 years old and saved up my paper route money all summer to buy a used copy of Raiders of the Lost Ark from the local video store for $30.

I was over-the-moon at what a deal I got!

At the time movies weren't available at the mall and a blank VHS tape was $15. Minimum wage at the time was probably $3.85/hr, to give you some perspective.

Today, we have $8/month Netflix and one can download anything they want, legal or otherwise.

That $20 you pay for a new release is more than just manufacturing costs, which is probably less than a buck. It pays the actors, director, set decorator, gaffers, "best boys" and everyone else involved in the film.

It also helps in getting new movies made.

Even knowing that, I agree it's tough dropping $20 on a single disc when there are plenty of cheaper alternatives.

Adam Tyner

Does EST include digital rentals as well? I've used that more via Amazon Instant Video than I have the Prime selections. Also pretty handy to rent a movie on iTunes and have something in high-def on my iPad to watch on a flight.

dvdshonna

I've never read an industry article that includes rentals as part of EST.

Typically it's: VOD = rentals, SVOD = subscription video on demand, EST = digital purchase

This article refers to the increase of EST (including cable tv) and decline of VOD rentals despite the fact that pay-TV operators are putting more emphasis on paid VOD than ever.

http://iq.videonuze.com/article/elec...illion-in-2014

Wikipedia:
Electronic sell-through (EST) is a method of media distribution whereby consumers pay a one-time fee to download a media file for storage on a hard drive.[1] Although EST is often described as a transaction that grants content "ownership" to the consumer, the content may become unusable after a certain period and may not be viewable using competing platforms.[2] EST is used by a wide array of digital media products, including movies, television, music, games, and mobile applications. The term is sometimes used interchangeably with download to own (DTO).

bruceames

No, digital rentals are under the VOD category. EST only includes video purchases (although I don't know if it's limited to only movies or TV shows, it probably includes all videos).

So there are three categories which make up digital: SVOD (subscription video on demand), VOD and EST.

http://degonline.org/wp-content/uplo...l_1-5-2015.pdf

dvdshonna

Sorry, I posted first. I win. You owe me $100.00

dvdshonna

If there was such widespread paranoia, as we see all the time on the physical media boards, about losing access to digital purchases, then obviously EST wouldn't be the fastest growing segment of the market.

*** DIGITAL FAN BOY ALERT ***

Class316

I don't recall that laserdiscs ever made it to the $7.88 bin at walmart.

dvdshonna

1/06/2015

"Electronic sell-through, or EST (the window when consumers can buy digital copies of TV or film titles from iTunes, Amazon, MVPDs or other distributors), gained a remarkable 30% on the year to reach almost $1.6 billion. Many distributors offer key titles for sale in this window several weeks before the physical discs hit stores or rental options are available on VOD or digital platforms."

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/new...ainment/136776

EST is about 15% of total digital and physical sales. So the "remarkable 30%" gain for EST is a 3% gain (approx.) of total share of digital and physical sales. And the new digital releases are available weeks before discs hit stores.

So how would the EST for new movies being doing if they were released simultaneously with physical discs? Simply put, it wouldn't be shit.

The vast majority of consumers buying digital copies of movies also buy DVDs/Blu-rays. If consumers were interested in digital purchases, they wouldn't need a 3 week window to generate sales.