Netflix is 'Killing' DVD Sales, Research Finds (torrentfreak.com) 316
Netflix has become the go-to destination for many movie and TV fans. The service is bringing in billions for copyright holders, but it also has a downside. New research shows that the availability of content on Netflix can severely hurt physical disc sales, which traditionally have been the industry's largest revenue source. From a report: A new study published by researchers from Hong Kong universities provides some empirical evidence on this issue. Through a natural experiment, they looked at the interplay between Netflix availability and DVD sales in the United States. The experiment took place when the Epix entertainment network, which distributes movies and TV-shows from major studios including Paramount and Lionsgate, left Netflix for Hulu in 2015. Since Hulu has a much smaller market share, these videos no longer reached a large part of the audience. At least not by default. The researchers used difference to examine the effect on DVD sales, while controlling for various other variables. The results, published in a paper this week, show that DVD sales increased significantly after the content was taken off Netflix, almost by a quarter. "Our difference-in-difference analyses show that the decline in the streaming availability of Epix's content leads to a 24.7% increase in their DVD sales in the three months after the event," the paper reads.
Should I care? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Should I care? (Score:5, Insightful)
You might not care, but the studios would. If they think they can increase DVD sales by not letting Netflix stream the movie, they'll do so. Netflix's library can already be a bit thin at times and this could worsen it. (Win win in the mind of the studios except that piracy would increase without Netflix.)
Re: (Score:2)
So, studios gain money from more DVD sales, but loose money that they could have gotten from Netflix. As long as the two amounts are approximately equal, then why would the studio even care?
Re: (Score:2)
The studios are complaining because they aren't maintaining their DVD revenue in *addition to their streaming / licensing revenue. To be completely blunt I don't fucking care. They will always whine when they don't think they are making the maximum possible money. The truth is we can't tell the real economic impact with the data in the article. The only math that matters is this: If $DVD + $NETFLIX >= $DVD-ONLY then the model is working. If $DVD + $NETFLIX $DVD-ONLY then the studios have an argument f
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite correct. If they think they can make more from increased DVD sales than Netflix would pay them for the rights to stream the movie, then they'll shut down Netflix. And they have to ask themselves if consumers will decide to simply watch something that is on Neflix rather than buying the DVD.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I love to own dvd's (Score:2)
I get the hard copy, rip it to digital and then have it all hooked up to a media player so when the intertubes or the services goes down or the streaming service decided it doesn't want to pay for the rights anymore (Ehm Netflix and Babylon 5) I keep on watching and YES I watching things over and over and over.
Who buys DVDs anymore? They're not even HD (Score:2, Insightful)
DVDs are a dying business. The future is streaming. Who doesn't know that?
Re:Who buys DVDs anymore? They're not even HD (Score:5, Insightful)
The owning economy as opposed to the sharing/renting economy. And as past analysis have shown, the Netflix movie catalog is shit.
Even so, at one time you could at least rent a DVD from netflix of an "old" movie. No more. And nowhere else either, streaming or physical. In effect, a huge percentage of the movie catalogue is no longer available.
Re:Who buys DVDs anymore? They're not even HD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the matter with no HD? (Score:3)
Seriously most of my 800 dvd's look perfectly fine on my 5" tv.
Re: (Score:2)
DVD's costing $15-49 is killing DVD sales. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why the hell do people want to own expensive cows and manage barn inventories when milk is cheap and fresh for $10 a month? Netflix is to DVD sales as internal combustion is to horse buggies. Research is limited to finding what research looks for.
Re:DVD's costing $15-49 is killing DVD sales. (Score:4, Insightful)
Why the hell do people want to own expensive cows and manage barn inventories when milk is cheap and fresh for $10 a month?
Why the hell do people want to own [any product] when renting [everything] is cheap and fresh?
There is value and benefit to ownership. Just ask those who own the services you rent.
Unfortunately, there's no fucking way in hell you'll be able to convince the Netflix generation of that, and thus the concept of ownership will be utterly destroyed.
Ignorance has always been the most profitable flavor of capitalism.
Re: (Score:3)
Some people are rewatchers. I like rewatching series and movies that I liked from time to time. My husband cannot stand the thought of watching something he's already seen again. The argument is usually the same: "Why on earth would I waste my time watching something I've already seen a second time when there's so much good stuff that I want to see but haven't?" Different folks, different strokes.
Re: (Score:3)
LOL!
The fact that you think you "OWN" your DVD is hilarious. Read your "LICENCING AGREEMENT"...
It's odd you mention "static licensing", and yet refuse to acknowledge how that does in fact define ownership.
When I want to watch a favorite movie or listen to music, I can put the media in my (dumb) DVD player, connect it up to my (offline) HDTV, and play the fucking thing anytime I want, all without any policing or sharing with 3rd parties who wish to sell everything they know about me and my activities to any bidder who comes asking. For the factors that matter (usage, privacy, and convenience), I own
Bye-bye, DVD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
unlike what we were told initially, that you could scratch it with a screwdriver and it would keep working regardless
But how is streaming going to meet our screwdriver movie-scratching needs?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Further advantages of watching content locally, either ripped or on physical media:
1. You're not relying on your Internet connection being available and able to keep up for the duration of the movie.
2. You're not at the mercy of the content provider deciding to close up shop, update their T&C or just block you for an arbitrary reson.
3. You're not a data point. The only one who knows what you're watching and how often is you and anyone you care to share it with.
Re: (Score:2)
they tend to be shipped with unskippable junk that you have to watch every single time, before watching the material you are interested in.
On the PS3, press Square to get to the main menu and play the movie. On VLC, right click, select Main Menu, play movie. In both cases, the crap is skipped.
The streaming sites' viewing catalog is paltry compared to what's on DVD. I like streaming stuff, too, but DVD's are so superior to streaming that it boggles my mind how so many supposedly tech-savvy people on this site completely miss the many pro's:
1) Watching a DVD doesn't count against my bandwidth, while streaming does:
2) The perceived quality dif
Re: (Score:2)
On the PS3, press Square to get to the main menu and play the movie
"This operation is not allowed at this time."
Or something like that, since I don't have my PS3 available at the moment.
I can't skip the ads, but I can definitely fast-forward past them. The chapter skip button usually works too.
No shit? (Score:3, Funny)
Next thing you know they'll be saying that automobiles are killing off the buggy-whip market.
Econ 101 (Score:3)
Market clearing price to watch a movie – once, or 100 times by streaming – is lower than the cost to own it on Blu-Ray or DVD.
Studios may try to raise that price – temporarily – by not releasing the movie to Netflix streaming. But eventually they will, after disc sales fall off.
I'm in no hurry.
What about Blu-Ray? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We rarely buy DVDs or Blu-Rays anymore simply because streaming satisfies most of our viewing needs. When we want to watch something that's not on streaming, we'll request it from our local library and get it on DVD (because that's the format they have the most of). In rare instances when we actually buy a title, we might get it on DVD to save money if we don't care about it THAT much, but most times we'll buy the Blu-Ray version that comes with a DVD copy as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why would people be buying DVDs anyway?
Because despite being only marginally cheaper to produce, they are sold at a far lower price than the Blu-Ray. BD being kept at a premium is what's driving a lot of people to streaming in the first place. As for me, I just want a physical backup and I'll wait for a fire sale price a few years after release.
Re: (Score:2)
The real problem (Score:2)
I'd mostly stopped buying DVDs before Netflix. For me the real culprit was too many alternatives. I'd watch PrimeTime TV, I'd watch recorded shows, primetime or otherwise, on my DVR, I'd watch YouTube, I'd not watch anything because I was futzing around online. By the time I got around to the DVD I'd bought, it was practically rotting with age.
I haven't bought a BluRay in about a year (Score:3)
Sadly, the days when movies were compelling enough to keep watching over and over again seem to be gone. DVD and BluRay sales are dying as a result.
Duh? (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see, I can buy a physical copy of a movie, store it in my home, fetch it when I want to watch it and stick it in some player and play it. I still have to put it away afterwards, and have a place in my home to keep my movies. Even if I copied the physical disc to a home entertainment server so I don't have to fetch it every time, I still have to store it somewhere.
OR
I go to a website with my computer (or smart TV), click a few times and a movie plays. I don't have to store it, I don't have to rip it
Actually shitty movies are killing sales. (Score:2, Interesting)
Movies I want to watch more than once? I buy it.
Problem is there is only 2 movies in the past 2 years I wanted to buy. Most of the others I only wanted to watch once or did not even bother watching.
MAybe if Hollywood would make things that were not crap they would sell more? NAH, let's do a movie about a 1980's TV show instead.
More of the same. (Score:2)
Show me the bargain bin impulse buy streaming license that replaces the $1.00 old western DVDs.
Where is the obscure horror movie lifetime streaming license from the same bargain bin?
Where is the private buying, selling, and trading of digital content licenses?
Where is the universal streaming license that works based on the content licensed, and not the content providers ecosystem?
Where are the movies and content that are worth more than a single watch to begin with?
This reads like more of the same "poor us,
Re: (Score:2)
What I find amusing is how the MPAA screams bloody murder with every new game-changing technology, and yet, they still seem to make $$$ hand-over-fist in every instance of their crying foul of some technology. They whined about VCR's and it turned into a huge boom for them with people buying/renting movies. They whined about piracy sapping their sales, when the reverse was happening, piracy drove sales upwards! Now they screaming about streaming while in backrooms they make huge profit making deals with
NetFlix is a convenient scapegoat (Score:2)
I'm not a subscriber to Netflix and had been buying DVDs (no BR) the last twelve years.
My buying habit slowed WAY down not because of competing services, but because Hollywood intentionally limited the selection of movies to release on DVDs. I'm not a fan of recent releases and prefer buying older movies. But there are a LOT of good movies that are not getting released on DVD, and the older releases are harder to find. Screw the
Re: (Score:2)
DVDs are just plain inconvenient. With the Amazon TV gizmo, I just speak into the microphone and my show is on for the kids, unlike the DVD which takes what seems like 10 minutes to get going due to all the NON-skippable crap. Either make a more convenient DVD or buh-bye!
Re: (Score:3)
This seems to run against the common talking point that people won't pay for content if they can't find it for free. If people really are buying the physical discs and revenues are going up when they can't find it online for free. (or nearly free, comparatively)
Re:So what. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, I will not purchase a dvd when a HD is available.
No, I will not purchase a blu-ray because I don't want to damage the blu-ray, store the blu-ray, purchase additional blu-ray players or get off my lazy ass to find a blu-ray and put it in the player.
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
Convert (Score:2)
Re:Convert (Score:5, Insightful)
I "pirate" movies I own. Copy protection makes ripping them for my Plex server a PITA, and I refuse to watch them off the disk for the simple reason that:
IT IS MY GODDAMN MOVIE NOW YOU RAGING FUCK-KNUCKLES. IF I WANT TO SKIP YOUR GODDAMN PREVIEWS THAT IS MY FUCKING CHOICE!
But, that is just my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Same here. A 5 TB external drive stores a lot of DVD's! As a bonus you get the exact same viewing experience as putting the disc in a player.
I have considered transcoding everything, but it would be extremely time consuming to do properly. I typically just convert any content I want to watch from tablets or mobile devices.
Re:So what. (Score:5, Interesting)
Nor will I pay for "ownership" of digital goods.
I will buy physical goods that I truly do own. I'm not much of a movie guy but DVD and Bluray are great if there is something I wish to watch.
Same goes for videogame (consoles) and music (cd sometimes vinyl), if I'm going to spend real money I expect a real product.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do the adverts on TV and radio say?
"OWN $Movie/$TVShow on DVD or Blu-Ray today!"
You OWN that COPY. What you do not have is the right to redistribute.
Re: (Score:3)
I will buy physical goods that I truly do own.
But the only thing you actually own is the physical disc, the content of that disc is licensed to you, you don't own it. So it's no different to the "ownership of digital goods", if you think it is then you simply do not understand it. Those "digital goods" (that are licensed to you) are stored on the storage device that you own (your hard drive) just as the "digital goods" (that are licensed to you) are stored on the physical disc that you own in the case of a DVD. The difference being that if the physical storage medium fails then if it's something I purchased online rather than physicall I can just re-download it.
More to the point,the publishers can't suddenly just delete it from the online library at a whim because of a licensing dispute, like when about one third of Netflix's offerings has disappeared over the last couple of years.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
Assuming you mean "purchase the ability to stream whenever I like on an ongoing basis". Whereas my willingness to pay for a rental (streamable for 48 hours) tops out at maybe $3.
Re: (Score:2)
ability to stream whenever I like on an ongoing basis
Assuming you mean "rent the ability to stream, so long as the company doesn't go under and limited to my own lifetime - and loses all value at death."
Re:So what. (Score:5, Insightful)
ability to stream whenever I like on an ongoing basis
Assuming you mean "rent the ability to stream, so long as the company doesn't go under and limited to my own lifetime - and loses all value at death."
My husband learned a valuable lesson long ago when Yahoo Music shut down and all that copy-protected content he'd purchased went up in smoke.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, the company could vanish, but then I had all my music tapes stolen back in the day - risks either way.
Re: (Score:2)
You can't get insurance on your streaming licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? You'd file an insurance claim if some DVDs were stolen, and expect the claim would actually be paid? Sounds like an odd strategy. No sure bets in life, except death at the end.
What I worry about is the case where you can't replace what was lost, because no one has distribution rights. If the DVDs were ever made, then they'll still be there on the used market (though plenty of silly stuff is $100+ per DVD used, just because not many DVDs were ever made).
Re: (Score:3)
You'd file an insurance claim if some DVDs were stolen, and expect the claim would actually be paid?
Yes. Over 200 DVDs and 100 Blu-Rays. Especially assuming I'd had other things stolen to hit a deductible and beyond, since these are in a closet in storage - they'd be the last thing to be stolen.
It's important to document your possessions, though. A few pictures of DVDs on a shelf, or a video of flipping through the DVD binder stored on Dropbox should do it.
Re: (Score:3)
If people don't understand something to be inconvenient, then it isn't.
Maybe it is the aversion to non-vinyl physical media that is irrational. I prefer the one-time chore of ripping the disc to the lifetime chore of maintaining the same vendor (as with streaming). I actually got a CD shipped from Amazon, with auto rip, for a penny less than the mp3 album.
People are literally saying "I'll give you a little more money, in order to receive nothing."
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering why they don't do the same with blurays.
I already notice that the DVD and bluray physical copies are almost always cheaper than a digital copy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm wondering why they don't do the same with blurays.
It seems like many (most?) Blu-Rays come bundled with a digital copy from Ultraviolet or somesuch. I don't really know what that is, never having looked into how it works, but it may be that Amazon doesn't bother because the studios are doing it themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
A DRM digital copy is more convenient to use however the DRM restricted physical copy is easier to rip.
Amazon does not allow you to download copies of videos you own on PC DRM or not.
Although it would be really nice if they did.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Blu-rays usually come with a digital copy included. Usually UV or both a UV and Apple copy. Some give you the option to redeem on Amazon or Google as well. Setting up a UV account is a PITA since you need a UV login and a login to VUDU, Flixster, and link your UV account to several studio redemption sites if the codes won't work straight with VUDU or such. But once you navigate that they work pretty well. Wide device support, offline viewing, and at least with VUDU the stream quality is a cut above Netflix and Amazon.
And, for some reason, UV digital codes have an expiration date, so if you don't register it immediately, you're out of luck. Or if you open a blu-ray and the code is already expired, you're similarly out of luck.
Re:So what. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
We understand, but not everything, and certainly not everything worthwhile, revolves around convenience. You'll learn that as you get older.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't say "everything worthwhile revolves around convenience", you condescending dick. He merely said when it comes to movies, it's far more convenient to stream it than keep a physical disc and player.
He may be off base when saying older people don't understand that, because the real reason might be "noooo I like the way I've always done it and I fear change." Either way, who cares? Young people buy more movies anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
He didn't say "everything worthwhile revolves around convenience", you condescending dick. He merely said when it comes to movies, it's far more convenient to stream it than keep a physical disc and player.
Flooding my Internet connection (slow DSL, naturally) so I can't use the connection is convenient?
Or, if I was using a major broadband ISP, is filling up my download cap with streaming data convenient? (I guess it is, or at least it's orthogonal)
Loss of quality is convenient?
Signing up to 5 different services to get a good library is convenient?
Figuring out which of the different services a particular title is hosted on, that's not terribly convenient.
Netflix's app for the Tivo is particularly badly designe
Re:So what. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yup, you're old. You forgot to shake your fist and tell those streams to get off your lawn, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
We understand, but not everything, and certainly not everything worthwhile, revolves around convenience. You'll learn that as you get older.
Nobody said it did, just that in the case of movies it is. Which makes sense, unless it's going to the cinema (which is often a spur of the moment thing anyway) I don't plan movie-watching in advance, it's a case of "hey I want to watch this movie" and sure if the store is still open I could get in the car, drive there (not doable at all if by this time the kids are in bed), buy the bluray and then drive back home and watch it or I could just get it immediately online. Of course the latter is preferrable.
Re:So what. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, I will not purchase a dvd when a HD is available.
No, I will not purchase a blu-ray because I don't want to damage the blu-ray, store the blu-ray, purchase additional blu-ray players or get off my lazy ass to find a blu-ray and put it in the player.
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
Convenience always comes at a price. That is neither a new concept nor a generational thing.
Privacy comes at a cost as well. Some prefer paying the premium for physical media that often allows consumers to enjoy content without whoring out their digital soul to the streaming overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
Then they love you. I'll pay upwards of $10 for a Blu-Ray - usually I'll wait for a better price. I rip everything myself and make it as convenient as I need it to be (I only want to watch it on a full size TV anyway). For that price, I usually get the digital UV copy for free anyway. So I actually come out ahead on everything.
But really, I buy most of my movies secondhand in fairly good condition and pay under $3/movie. Can't do that with the streaming services. There is no secondhand market, no inhe
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's great but it gets to be a problem when you need a few seasons of a tv show for a gift and its not even available on a disc.
About a month ago I needed to get 3 seasons of edge of Alaska as a gift for a 98yr old. Come to find out it's not available on disc it's digital only and no service that sells digital copy's allows you to burn it to disc or save it in any format that will work with a bluray player.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I'll pay for a movie in one of the common streaming services for $10-$20 per movie.
It's clearly a generational thing. Many older individuals can't seem to understand that dvds are inconvenient.
It's a cost/benefit analysis.
You can either watch something once for $10-$20, or you can buy the DVD for $5 and watch it as many times as you want, lend it out to friends, swap the entire collection in the classifieds with someone who has a different collection, put it on repeat for kids (if it is a kids movie - they often watch the same movie multiple times)...
Paying $10-$20 for a once off use vs paying $5 for unlimited, repeated use. Whether we are talking about movies or coffee-brewing is irrelevant, wha
Re: (Score:2)
"I decided to see if they stream it. The station does. Commercials before it started. Commercials again when it froze and crashed. A few repeats of that was getting pretty annoying. Miss something? Rewind a little. Commercials again. (I'm okay with some, but this was getting ridiculous.) Pause for a few minutes to deal with the 5 year old. More commercials. Then, shortly before the end, it said she had to sign up for an account to see the end. She said "f-that", and got me to tell her how it ended."
Probably
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Download it on BT, and now you have a reasonable-size file that you can just play in any decent media player at your convenience. No messing around with stupid easily-scratched optical discs, no messing around with your Blu-Ray player needing a firmware update because of some encryption keys on the disc, no messing around with slow internet connections and streaming problems (esp. with FF/REW), it "just works". The main problem with the BT stuff is that a lot of it is transcoded to smaller resol
Re: (Score:2)
I would love a movie and TV Steam like source. Amazon is sort of kinda doing that with digital purchases, but it is not nearly as convenient to use or access.
Re: (Score:2)
Most movies after I've watched it once I CBA to watch it again unless it was really good and there was a commentary track in which case I will watch each commentary track once.
I haven't heard a commentary track in several years though the digital copies don't have that type of fun stuff.
Usually anymore I just do digital rentals.
Re: (Score:2)
Many younger individuals can't seem to get the concept that paying over and over for "borrowing" something is a bad deal.
We're talking about movies here, not music. I don't know about you, but there aren't very many movies I really care to watch over and over again. This is the whole reason that video rental stores (like the ill-fated Blockbuster) were such a success as soon as VCRs became commonplace; most of us just want to pay a fee and watch a movie *once*, and that's it. Once in a while we'll see a
Re:So what. (Score:4, Insightful)
This seems to run against the common talking point that people won't pay for content if they can't find it for free. If people really are buying the physical discs and revenues are going up when they can't find it online for free. (or nearly free, comparatively)
To figure out if DVDs or streaming is better you really have to evaluate the full media life-cycle, which is much longer than the 3 months cited in the summary. It makes sense there would be an initial jump in physical sales when media is released or goes off streaming, probably to more "hardcore" or dedicated fans, but those sales will eventually taper off leaving companies with physical inventory that is harder and harder to sell. On the other hand, streaming doesn't have the physical inventory costs and it may generate more "casual" viewing over the long-term, but for less profit on each view. So, I think a 3-month study would be heavily biased to the DVD format.
If you read the full article it does say this:
"...The research above has its limitations. It only focused on DVD sales and not on other physical and digital revenue sources, for example. That said, the present data clearly suggests that content owners might be wise to keep titles off Netflix for a while, especially the blockbusters. Similarly, it affirms that there’s little harm in putting their older back catalogs on the streaming service."
So, media makers who want to maximize profits should do a little of both and carefully time when to switch formats.
Re: (Score:2)
some places don't have fast internet (Score:2)
You mean like grandmas, truckers and sea captains use?
Re: (Score:2)
In 2016.
Re:... and that's bad, why? (Score:4, Interesting)
It is bad because this type of research could lead to less availability of movies on streaming services. If the studios have hard proof that Netflix is costing them money, why would they allow their movies to be shown on Netflix? Either we would see far less movies available, or the prices would go up.
Re:... and that's bad, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
but now they have some actual evidence of what the difference in disc revenue is. This could be useful (to either/both sides) next time Netflix needs to negotiate streaming contracts - Netflix can't claim "it won't affect your DVD sales" and the studios can't claim "without streaming we'd sell ten times as many, you have to pay us based on that".
It will be annoying and sad if this reduces streaming availability, but having it based on evidence seems like an overall win in the long run.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:... and that's bad, why? (Score:5, Informative)
If the studios have hard proof that Netflix is costing them money, why would they allow their movies to be shown on Netflix?
The article doesn't say that Netflix is costing them money, just that they sold 25% more DVDs when they weren't available on Netflix. It's entirely possible that their streaming revenue would exceed the extra revenue from those DVD sales, but there aren't enough details there to say one way or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
I have always thought of Netflix as a bone yard. Movies end up there once they aren't even worthy of the Walmart bargain bin anymore.
This decline in DVD sales and prices has been going on for a VERY long time already.
Blaming it on Netflix is a bit silly.
The idea of a DVD seems quaint to a lot of people these days. I wouldn't buy them myself if I couldn't convert them into nice DRM free files.
Re: (Score:2)
They're a bone yard for overpriced blockbuster content. They are a great source for cult classics and indie films. I've honestly found better movies because of Netflix than what I would have found on my own.
I still have a DVD subscription, but Netflix is putting most of that catalog on the chopping block too.
Re:... and that's bad, why? (Score:4, Informative)
That would depend on what's generating more money. What the studio's want is to have their cake and eat it too, in other words they want disc sales and streaming sales. Practically what that means is they will simply delay streaming availability until a certain number of months after the DVD/BluRay is available so as to capture both revenue streams. Several of the studio's already do this.
Re:How many DVDs do you own? (Score:5, Funny)
Then you are irrelevant as far as this topic goes. Why even bother to post?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't sell someone a physical copy they can watch whenever they want while simultaneously getting them to pay you for it continuously. You can get one or the other. The studios wanted this "pay to play" system because all they saw was "Oh, wow, people will pay us for indefinite rentals! Infinite money! And we can do this for all the movies we don't sell too!" only to learn that the rate at which they will do so is far less than what they get on impulse and short-term need purchases. People will buy a physical copy because they get excited about a title momentarily; they don't watch it more than a few times and ultimately regret or just realize the purchase wasn't really necessary. Now that rush of excitement is spent by the first or second Netflix watch and they don't see the need to purchase the thing.
Then there are used DVD sales, where the studio gets none of the revenue after the first sale.
Re: (Score:2)
Then there are used DVD sales, where the studio gets none of the revenue after the first sale.
Oh come on who would ever go down to the pawn shop on Tuesdays and get 2 DVDs for $2.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I like having what I want when I want it.
Forms of consumption other than privately owned physical media simply don't allow for this.
You're at the mercy of what corporations let you have at a given time and they can change their minds at any moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
the vast majority of films don't need to be watched more than once.
Spoken by an Anonymous Coward who obviously doesn't have children. My six-year-old boy is on what must be his 863rd viewing of his Angry Birds movie DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but of all the movies you've watched, in any format, in the past 3 years, how many do your kids watch continuously like that? Streaming is fine for that vast majority that only need to be watched once. DVD (or ripped copy thereof) for the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
just about anything = "whatever is currently popular"
It's odd that 75-100 year old movies are getting remastered, but movies in between are largely forgotten. There is a lot of good content in the last 10 decades of film.
Re: (Score:2)
studios want to gouge the public for $20+ in physical media sales first. After that they'll bring the price down to $14, $10 and eventually $5 varying by popularity of the content and format (DVD vs BD.)
This is the best part of being several years behind on watching movies. I have a near-endless supply of cheap movies. I watch them for cheap on Netflix, and if I like them I can get a physical copy for $5-8 (sometimes with a free streaming copy too).
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be that movies in general got cheaper to buy with each year after they came out but I keep seeing ones on the shelf that are the same price as when they were new. Marvel has been particularly greedy, a copy of "The Avengers" should not be costing the same as "Captain American: Civil War".
I call bullshit on this. Price has nothing to do with it anymore. I dunno about you, but I don't even stop by the $5 bin of DVD's and Blurays in Walmart anymore. It has nothing to do with the price. Why should I buy it, take it home, find a place to put it, when I can just click on some stuff and watch it without all the hassle of the physical object?
Re: (Score:2)
This. I used to have a large DVD library, which I would rip so I could watch anytime I wanted. It all looked cool, and occasionally there'd be a bump in encoding and I could break out the DVD and make a new version.
However, I noticed that I rarely watched any of it. If I was picking a movie for myself, I'd want to watch something new.
So aside from kid's movies and some classics, I deleted it all. With Redbox for new releases and Netflix et al for finding something new it just didn't make sense.
Re: (Score:2)
DVDs were out of my budget when studios decided I would be forced to watch several minutes of crap I couldn't skip.
This. AC got it right on the nose here. Blurays are even worse with the unskipable ads.