I have no facts or figures to present, just my own personal experience and a desire to open up a discussion on the matter. I once owned a laserdisc player and paid about $35-40/movie for many movies I watched once or twice. I later sold them for a fraction of what I paid for them when the DVD format was introduced. When I bought my first DVD player I vowed not to make the same mistake, but disc prices were better and I still bought a lot more discs than I originally planned to.

I recently bought my first high-def DVD player (an HD DVD Toshiba HD-D2 from Costco). Between the higher (laserdisc-style) prices of the discs and the easy availability through places like Netflix and Blockbuster Online (though, sadly, not through my local Blockbuster), and the pile of DVDs that I've only watched a couple of times, I'm once again planning not to own my movies (except for a small number that I *know* I'll watch several times). Sure, the format war is helping to push me in that direction, too, but that's honestly only contributing to my decision in a minor way.

This has all got me to thinking about the obsession here about the "attachment" rates (I believe that's the term): how many HD DVD player owners are buying discs vs how many Blu-Ray player owners are buying discs. If there are a good number of people like me, those numbers won't indicate which format is being adopted by the mass market. Rather, the number of players sold or, even better, the number of discs mailed out daily by Netflix and Blockbuster Online would be more telling. This has also got me to thinking about something some here may be too young to even know about: how in the VHS days, non-blockbuster (I'm talking about whether they were huge moneymakers, not whether Blockbuster rented them) movies were priced "for rental" (e.g., about $80) while only the movies that the studios thought would be big hits with the average consumer were priced affordably. The idea was that if a movie wouldn't sell in large numbers to regular folk, they'd at least make more per unit from the rental stores.

I would suggest that reintroducing this concept might not be such a horrible idea. This would no doubt come across as heresy to many here. I have a few more thoughts on the subject which I'll add later, but I wanted to throw the topic out here for discussion to see what others thought about it.

Good topic of discussion.

DVD from day one was a purchase format. It was a lot less than VHS and less than LD. It took almost 2 years from launch date until BB decided to bring them into their stores nationwide for rental.

Not so with HDD. From pratcially day one, you have had a choice due to first Netflix, and then BB. You can rent your HDD's and only pay a monthly charge versus per rental.

Studios do not sell HDD's (or DVD's) to NF or BB. They work on a revenue sharing plan - so much for NF - so much for the studio. So NF and BB inessence get the discs for free. They of course do not show up in the Neilsen numbers because no money is changing hands at the time of the exchange.

I can give you some "facts" which are in 2006 DVD sales were about $18 billion, while rentals were about $8 billion.

Netflick has said that HDD represents less than 5% of their business in a recent article. So if anyone can determine what their total "business" is then you will know approx how much is being created by HDD. And as they give no break downs of any kind we are again left in the dark as to what is really going on.

And you are NOT alone as far as previous collections. When i just bought BULLETT on HD DVD - that will be the 4th time I have bought it (VHS, LD, DVD - now HD DVD). I own 350+ DVD's and 12 HD DVD's. (includes 3 freebee's) Because I too look at my collection of DVD's and ask myself, "how many times have I watched that versus how much did it cost me?"

I do see people on these forums with 50, 100, 150, 200 HDD's. Good for them. Maybe this is the first time they are building a library so anything is fair game. But if you are on your 3rd or 4th, or maybe even 2nd time - thinking overpowers the desire to spend (at least it does for me)

IMHO I believe that HDD is being rented more than it is being purchased. For the price of a great bargin HDD ($ wise) you can rent how many HDD's from NF in a months time?

For this reason, that is why I am becoming skeptical about the sales numbers that are shown weekly. They are being used for bragging rites. IMO

We do know that some titles have sold less than 2000. Some have sold less than 5000. and so on. Of course we hear about the big sales - again bragging rites. And the Amazon Top 10.

But we are in the middle of a war. And we need to keep score of the victories and the defeats.

So what if BD owners are buying their movies while HD DVD owners are renting theirs?
:D

It's all in the hands of the studios. If they want to give away revenue to satiate a delusional corporate leadership's fears then so be it. At least we do have Netflix and BBO. I love buying movies, they're like colorful books. When HD media comes down to what we've come to accept movies at (around $15, IMO) then I'll buy them en-masse. If some studios like Fox want to stop selling movies to the public by pricing them at $35, then ok. It's their loss, and when their profits tank they'll come around, like every other company has. Just look at the RIAA, their schemes with CD pricing, and the current trending towards reducing if not eliminating DRM all together for music downloads. And CDs are finally falling in price. It took a while where a movie's soundtrack cost more than the actual movie on DVD, but it's happened.

More concerning to me is what I want to feel about my large DVD collection. Was it a waste? For now, no. That's both frustrating because the reason why it isn't a waste is the abysmal release rate on HD media, and good because at least I can still watch many films even if in lower res.

For the moment I've decided to stop buying movies entirely unless it's something I know for sure I will watch a minimum of three times over its lifetime (on whatever media it is). I won't invest in DVD because it's obsolete, I won't invest in HD media because it's deliberately overpriced to an intolerable degree (except some of those warner sales, I have most of their catalog titles at $14.xx).

So all this is stupidity on the studio end, I think. Especially when you see not only marketing schemes but repeated mastering problems and new releases in theaters that simply boggle the mind (things that are known stinkers). Meh. It'll all pan out in the end. All we need to do is be patient, wait, and give more money to Netflix for doing a good job.

Remember Hollywood once tanked too, everything comes around to begin again--eventually.

So what if BD owners are buying their movies while HD DVD owners are renting theirs?
:D

A very excellent point. What if those who are buying the HD-A2 for a great price are people who rent rather than buy HD DVDs? People who wait for the player price to drop are also people who are unlikely to buy disks until the prices for those also drop. I for one know a number of people who rent rather than buy, even though they really like their HD DVD players. They just can't justify paying the present prices for HD DVDs. There is a disparity between the "mass market" prices of the HD DVD players and the "boutique prices" of the disks. (Blu-ray, on the other hand, offers boutique players and boutique disks.) To keep pace with the player sales, HD DVD disks will have to go for $10 to $15. If the studios are trying to figure out what will drive the market, they need only look to themselves. The winner of the format war. insofar as it is calculated in terms of disk purchases, IMHO, will not be the side with the cheapest players (although that is a solid strategy); nor will it be the side with the greatest number of studios. It will be the side with the least expensive content. With that development, people will buy rather than rent.

with services like netflix and blockbuster that send out 3 movies a week, theres no reason to buy movies unless they are excellent. I bought over 300 dvds and been over a year since i bought one. With all these new releases being sent to me every week, not much time to watch old movies.

[deleted]

well as for me, i'd prefer inexpensive movies i can buy, even if i only watch them once. i go to the theater, i pay 10 (20 if i have a date) bucks for a ticket to watch a movie once. so i'd gladly pay 20 bucks to own a movie for good in blu-ray format, even if i end up only watching it once. the days of VHS tapes coming out for 80 bucks or whatever can remain buried, thank you.

so basically this thread is going to turn into a bunch of hd-dvd guys trying to come up with excuses for why blu-ray is still kicking hd-dvd's butt in sales even when toshiba is bleeding cash while handing out hd-dvd players and movies for free?

What the f---??? dude no one's trying to make excuses. The whole point of the thread is rather if the high prices of HD media are leading to a rental media like VHS mostly was instead of a purchase media like DVD turned out to be. Leave the war out of it buddy.


well as for me, i'd have inexpensive movies i can buy, even if i only watch them once. i go to the theater, i pay 10 (20 if i have a date) bucks for a ticket to watch a movie once. so i'd gladly pay 20 bucks to own a movie for good in blu-ray format, even if i end up only watching it once. the days of VHS tapes coming out for 80 bucks or whatever can remain buried, thank you.

Now that I agree with you totally on.

I would suggest that reintroducing this concept might not be such a horrible idea. This would no doubt come across as heresy to many here. I have a few more thoughts on the subject which I'll add later, but I wanted to throw the topic out here for discussion to see what others thought about it.
Then crap would be king as far as I'm concerned, I'd stick with DVD which is so cheap to produce that small-volume title can both turn a profit and be affordable. HD can go screw if Casino Royalle and POTC are the only affordable releases.

I have no facts or figures to present, just my own personal experience and a desire to open up a discussion on the matter. I once owned a laserdisc player and paid about $35-40/movie for many movies I watched once or twice. I later sold them for a fraction of what I paid for them when the DVD format was introduced. When I bought my first DVD player I vowed not to make the same mistake, but disc prices were better and I still bought a lot more discs than I originally planned to.


While I agree to some degree what everyone forgets it has gotten a lot cheaper. I don't think that the price in itself is the problem. It's that everyone is expecting everything to be free now.

Those 35-40 bucks 15-20 years ago would be 55-70 dollars today adjusted for inflation. What are you actually paying? 20-30? So price is a third of back then? In many times better quality. How low do we demand it to go?

You buy a pair of Nikes for 50 bucks in 1985. In 2005 you buy another pair for 150 bucks. Do you expect to get it cheaper because you already bought a pair 20 years ago?

It looks like the movie business is expected to work on some different level than the rest of the world. And no I don't make a cent from the movie business.

Those 35-40 bucks 15-20 years ago would be 55-70 dollars today adjusted for inflation.
<snip>Do you expect to get it cheaper because you already bought a pair 20 years ago?
No, you expect it to get cheaper because it gets less expensive to manufacture. You can press a DVD today for under a quarter and your choice of HD formats for under a buck fitty. Manufacturing a VHS tape way back when was several dollars. It's all about percentage of sell price.

If gas cost 40% less to harvest and refine today (than in say, 1980), would you be fine it it went up 50% in cost, because inflation went up 20%? Studios are experimenting with price points. The more movies you buy today at $35, the more you'll be buying at that price in the future.

It looks like the movie business is expected to work on some different level than the rest of the world. And no I don't make a cent from the movie business.
Unfortunately the problem is that the media industry (includes movies and music) already does operate on some different level. When they get back to traditional business principles (e.g. producing product people want and not throwing away money to please political partners) then things will level out. That doesn't happen until the gravy train derails, however. Either that or something even more lucrative comes along...

Imagine if you could reign in director, star, and specialist post-production costs and produce Spider Man 3 for under $75mil, and sold it on disc for $14.95 a pop, day-and-date with movie theaters (who also somehow clean up their act and get a break on film cost). And less for films smaller in scope.

The more indie films I watch the more I realize how broken "commercial" movie-making (and everything that trickles down from it, like digital media) has become. And also how insane some people with video cameras are. :)

No, you expect it to get cheaper because it gets less expensive to manufacture. You can press a DVD today for under a quarter and your choice of HD formats for under a buck fitty. Manufacturing a VHS tape way back when was several dollars. It's all about percentage of sell price.

The more indie films I watch the more I realize how broken "commercial" movie-making (and everything that trickles down from it, like digital media) has become. And also how insane some people with video cameras are. :)

The cost of producing the media is not the matter here.

Let's say you sell 10 million copies of some new big movie. The cost is obviously not 5 million (if manufacturing cost is 50 cents). It's a 105 million if the movie in itself cost 100 million to make. You can't figure some percentage on disk manufacturing cost.

Actually, the indie films might be more of a rip off percentage wise.

And gas was a funny example to bring up regarding cost/price.

I like your idea, but I think it might not work so well in the rest of the world as it does in the USA.

I've been getting about 95% of my DVDs by mail order rental on a monthly subscription for a couple of years. I only buy titles that aren't available to rent, mostly imports e.g. smaller Asian movies or the US 4:3 Buffy discs (instead of the UK 16:9 abominations).

My rental service reckons to have "pretty much" all the HD titles available for rent in Britain; but that's about 200 BluRay and 150 HD DVD, which is a rather underwhelming percentage of the discs available globally. So if I took the plunge on Hi-Def, I'd be severely limited to content unless I bought most of it and frequently paid international shipping on top. I'd also have to pass on some region coded BluRay titles.

Therefore, I'm still watching DVD.

[The really sensible thing would be for me to download the unavailable titles and play them via my PC. I'd be happy to do that legally and pay the rental price, but the distribution madhouse seems purpose-designed to make me to do it illegally. I can't say I'd feel guilty if I did it -- if they want me to pay for single use of the material, they should *@&#ing well offer it for rental.]

with services like netflix and blockbuster that send out 3 movies a week,.

Is that how many movies you can get with these services . . .12 per month?

Wow. So for $15 a month you get to see a dozen movies, or instead, for the $15, you wouldn't even be able to buy 1 movie. If your desire is to see the movies in HD that is a great deal.

We know that HD is not the last format we will ever see so buiding a large library doesn't seem to make sense any more unless you are one of those kinds of people that like to collect things. for the sake of having a collection. I mean 100 movies will cost you about $2000 versus less than $150 to rent those 100 movies

It used to be about $3.00 per movie rental so that cost has been reduced by over 50%.

Doesn't seem to make sense to buy anymore does it?

It used to be about $3.00 per movie rental so that cost has been reduced by over 50%.

Doesn't seem to make sense to buy anymore does it?

I have thousands of DVDs, and though I may never see them all, owning a lot of software is like having your own personal Netflicks. I tend to go in spurts with my viewing habits hitting different types of movies at different times. Sometimes I surprise myself with what I end up watching the most.

No, the mass market isn't sick of buying. HDD's should get less expensive, not more. The old VHS model is dead and buried. DVD saw to that. Once all new players are 'Universal' players and HDD prices have dropped to the level of DVD, then HDD's will surplant DVD. Sure people will be choosier on 'double dipping' the features and shows they already own on DVD. But HDD new releases will eventually replace DVD. After all, they're not re-inventing the wheel. The HD discs look just like the old DVD's. And once in place, will simply be what home video is. Just like color TV was inevitable, so is higher definition video.

The whole point of the thread is rather if the high prices of HD media are leading to a rental media like VHS mostly was instead of a purchase media like DVD turned out to be.Well, I wouldn't want to sum up the point of this thread in those terms. The point of this thread was just to get a discussion going on the topic. Personally, I don't know that I would "blame" my intent to rent rather than buy on the relatively (compared to standard DVD) high prices of high-def DVDs. As Lee (and others) have mentioned, renting simply makes more sense to me. If I could buy every movie for $5, I'd probably always buy them and never rent them (but what a mess that would be - I'd need to dedicate a room in my house to store them all).

As has been mentioned, even the high-def discs can be pressed for under $2 (I'm taking your word for it), and after getting a taste of consumers buying discs rather than renting them, it probably makes more sense for the studios to try to price them in impulse-buy territory rather than ever return to the old priced-for-rental pricing. Right now they're pricing them at a premium because they are essentially premium discs. That makes sense with combo discs, but it could be argued that until they price them under $20, they're going to lose out on mass market impulse-buying.

Lee, thanks for the info about the revenue sharing that Netflix and Blockbuster make use of. I did not know that. I assume, then, that they essentially get free replacements for scratched/unplayable discs, etc.? That's another reason I've changed my habits about buying. I'm too lazy to treat these discs like babies and don't want to have to be in charge of inserting/ejecting discs for my daughter. As a result, I've got plenty of scratched DVDs, which result in skipping, etc. If I'm going to get back into the mode of buying lots of movies, I'd want to see the discs priced under $20 and the studios offer free lifetime replacement discs.

Just like color TV was inevitable, so is higher definition video.I don't think anyone is arguing against the inevitability of DVDs being replaced with a high-def format (though some could argue that it will end up being downloadable high-def video rather than a "hard-copy" disc). But just because the mass market will switch to high-def eventually, it doesn't necessarily mean that the mass market will "buy into" buying them vs renting them.

Part of my thinking when I started this thread was that maybe, just maybe, DVDs have been as successful as they have been (in terms of being purchased rather than rented) was/is due to certain market conditions and a public mindset that had been partially set up by the old medium (VHS). DVDs were smaller, PQ and sound quality were noticeably better even on relatively lackluster equipment, there was no need to rewind, and if you treated them halfway-decently they would last a good long while without signs of video noise or other age issues that were common with VHS. Netflix and Blockbuster Online weren't around back then, and are probably still in their infancy in terms of their potential userbase. With a high-def format, there are lots of little niggles, though. As more people become familiar with Netflix and Blockbuster Online, there's a good chance people will be content getting their high-def movies that way (otherwise, they've got to drive out to a store and buy it since, for most people, the local stores aren't renting them). There are no usability advantages over standard DVDs as there was with DVD vs VHS (in fact, the longer player bootup times would be a step backwards in this regard), and the discs are priced higher and will most likely be priced at a premium over standard DVDs for the forseeable future. And after having amassed a large DVD collection, how many consumers might take a minute to think about it all and come to decide that their huge collection was, in the grand scheme of it all, a big waste of money since they only have watched most of them a couple of times? If they start adding up the numbers in their heads, they might decide that renting really is a more desirable approach for the future.

But just because the mass market will switch to high-def eventually, it doesn't necessarily mean that the mass market will "buy into" buying them vs renting them.



The thing is, renting has always been an option in the home video market. It was prevalent in VHS and now DVD. What made buying DVD's so desirable was the price and convenience. As someone else pointed out, you can buy a DVD for about the same price as two people going to the movies. Even less if you buy popcorn when you go. HD discs are already dropping in price. You can find them all day long in some B&M stores for under $20.00. That's the same price as DVD was just a couple of short years ago. So, I don't think people are going to suddenly change their habits just because the "DVD's" they are buying are now in HD. Like I indicated in my previous post, HD discs aren't a totally new animal. They look and work just like the old DVD's people have come to know and love. They just need to get an updated player and then viola!

So I see no reason why people are going to change their habits just because the shiny little discs they're buying, now have better video quality. No more than people changed they're buying habits because most DVD's quietly became Anamorphic. HD is simply the next step.

The thing is, renting has always been an option in the home video market. It was prevalent in VHS and now DVD. What made buying DVD's so desirable was the price and convenience. As someone else pointed out, you can buy a DVD for about the same price as two people going to the movies. Even less if you buy popcorn when you go. HD discs are already dropping in price. You can find them all day long in some B&M stores for under $20.00. That's the same price as DVD was just a couple of short years ago. So, I don't think people are going to suddenly change their habits just because the "DVD's" they are buying are now in HD. Like I indicated in my previous post, HD discs aren't a totally new animal. They look and work just like the old DVD's people have come to know and love. They just need to get an updated player and then viola!

So I see no reason why people are going to change their habits just because the shiny little discs they're buying, now have better video quality. No more than people changed they're buying habits because most DVD's quietly became Anamorphic. HD is simply the next step.

And here lies the problem with HDD. "It is the next step"

Not a revolutionary change like DVD over VHS - but an evolutionary change.

Advantages of DVD over VHS:

1. Better PQ
2. Better AQ
3. No Rewinding
4. Menu's
5. Chapter Stops
6. Doesn't wear out
7. Special Features and Extra's
8. Less Expensive From Day One
9. No Blinking Clock on Face of Player
10. Seamless Branching
11. OAR and Fullscreen Options
12. Anamorphic Transfers for Still Better PQ
13. Smaller Packaging - Takes Up Less Space
14. Incorporated Into PC's

I miss any?

Advantages of HDD over DVD:

1. Better PQ
2. Better AQ
3. Web Enabled Feature

Anyone who thinks that HDD "will eventually replace DVD" needs to understand that there just will not be enough time to do this. 120 million players in the USA alone. Experts give HDD 7 to 10 years before it is replaced with Super/Ultra HD (5 million to 8 million pixels versus 2 million today). They also say that VOD will be a mass appeal delivery system for movies in 10 years.

How many times have you seen this phrase in threads;

"DVD is good enough."

I have seen it dozens of times my self. And for someone with a 42" or less size display it really is good enough. The most popular selling LCD is 37". Then comes the 42". And these two make up the lions share of the sales of LCD displays. Go into any Target or Wal-Mart and you will see dozens and dozens of DVD's that sell for less than $6.00. There are over 50,000 DVD's available versus less than 600 for HDD. And they add almost 1000 per month versus 20 . . . or less.

DVD works with ANY of the 1.2 Billion TV's throughout the world. Not so with HDD cause you need an expensive HDTV to see that better PQ.

IMHO - HDD will be just like LD was. A format for the buyer who wants the very best PQ and AQ that is available . . . a niche. And this is NOT because of the format war, though that issue helps to stymie it even more. It is just a fact that Joe Public does not crave better PQ and AQ over what he has today.

When I see HDD's selling for $5.50, then I might change my mind. But until then, it is firmly set on "my logic" - hence my signature.

Is that how many movies you can get with these services . . .12 per month?

Wow. So for $15 a month you get to see a dozen movies, or instead, for the $15, you wouldn't even be able to buy 1 movie. If your desire is to see the movies in HD that is a great deal.

We know that HD is not the last format we will ever see so buiding a large library doesn't seem to make sense any more unless you are one of those kinds of people that like to collect things. for the sake of having a collection. I mean 100 movies will cost you about $2000 versus less than $150 to rent those 100 movies

It used to be about $3.00 per movie rental so that cost has been reduced by over 50%.

Doesn't seem to make sense to buy anymore does it?

I do not agree with this as you are assuming that people are able to max out thier rental plan. I personally am traveling on average one week a month and find that weekends seem to be best to watch a 2 hr movie so I am not someone that could max out a mail rental plan. I tend to buy movies, but will not buy over the $15 price that the BD specials are starting to make common.

i think we will see more and more going rental.... i am like the op where i rent 95% of my movies and only buy the ones i know i will watch multiple times.

Well, my history has fairly well matched that of the original poster, except it seems like I was spending more like $40-$70 per movie on LaserDisc (I was too young to have a credit card back then, so Ken Cranes didn't get ALL my money, and I bought many discs at full price). Honestly, the price seems exhorbinant now, but at the time the alternative (VHS) was so awful I was just thankful to get the movies in widescreen and at decent quality.

Then, once DVD hit, I was an immediate convert, and started switching out my collection as DVDs were released. The special features and more convenient disc size sold me pretty early on, even before DVDs dropped below the original $30-40 price points. I didn't really mind replacing my collection, although I did miss the cool disc jackets for laserdisc. In the end, I sold most of collection for about what I payed just for the nice heavy plastic jacket covers for all my discs. Oh, well.

Now it's time for HD, and I'm starting to replace my collection with BDs. The price is actually quite a bit lower ($20-30 per title) than I was paying for LDs or even DVDs in the beginning. And my logic this time is simple: this is likely the end of the line. Does anyone think we are likely to see any more packaged optical disc formats released? Downloads are the only thing yet to come en masse, and as someone who prefers owning to renting, I want my discs. Also, encoded at 1080p, there's really not much further to go. Unless the film industry goes back to 65/70mm or IMAX, we're getting about all the resolution you can grab off a 35mm film negative without just getting additional grain.

I'm hoping one or both of these formats (hopefully BD for me) lasts and 'makes it' so I won't be forced to go down the download path in the near future. The quality of audio and video are there... the special features are there... the small disc size combined with enormous capacity is there. I guess I'm just not a renter... it never appealed to me. So, yes, your idea of going back to rental pricing DOES strike me as blasphemy. What's the consumer benefit? Even if you prefer renting, it's not like video stores are going to rent the movies for less. All that happens is rental chains (having to spend $80-100 per copy on a movie) stock MANY less copies of new releases than they do now, making both renting and owning less appealing. Also, I think movie studios much prefer their revenue sharing arrangement (especially on larger titles), and like the marketing blitz they can do with "Buy or rent it Tuesday on DVD and Blu-ray (and/or HD DVD)." So, hopefully, studios aren't too seriously considering this.

My $.02

I know just what the OP means. I never went overboard with VHS, DVD or DVHS (never got into laserdisc), although I may have gone overboard on DVHS if there had been more movies available. Instead, I ended up using DVHS to archive broadcast and satellite HD. I think this, plus my purchase of a JVC HD2K, was how I caught the HD "bug". :)

I think that given the current pricing of HD optical, both BD and HD, that it's a good time to stock up. Wih DVHS, the pricing was much higher, and there wasn't as much release support as we see on both HD and BD.

I understand the rental thing, too. I have been renting BD titles which I felt an interest in, and saving the purchases for HD DVD, on the whole. However, these decisions are on a case-by-case basis, judging on the quality of the respective releases.

Some folks may have had the "bug" before HD/BD launched, and may be doing less purchasing. But then again, I also think a lot of folks are just getting into this for the first time, and are getting new displays and movies to go with their new passion.

HD discs are already dropping in price. You can find them all day long in some B&M stores for under $20.00. That's the same price as DVD was just a couple of short years ago. So, I don't think people are going to suddenly change their habits just because the "DVD's" they are buying are now in HD. Like I indicated in my previous post, HD discs aren't a totally new animal. They look and work just like the old DVD's people have come to know and love. They just need to get an updated player and then viola!

So I see no reason why people are going to change their habits just because the shiny little discs they're buying, now have better video quality. No more than people changed they're buying habits because most DVD's quietly became Anamorphic. HD is simply the next step.

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807.htm
D-Sales D-Rent VHS Total
1999 $0.7 $0.1 $12.0 $12.8
2000 $1.9 $0.6 $11.5 $14.0
2001 $5.4 $1.4 $10.0 $16.8
2002 $8.7 $2.9 $8.7 $20.3
2003 $11.6 $4.5 $6.4 $22.5
2004 $15.5 $5.7 $3.3 $24.5
2005 $16.3 $6.5 $1.5 $24.3
2006 $16.6 $7.5 $0.1 $24.2



People already have changed their habits. HD DVD will just continue the trend. DVD sales are essentially flat for last 2 years. DVD rentals have grown 32% in last 2 years. If with $10 DVD we have seen sales lose market share to rentals why would anyone think that $25+ HD DVD will change that trend?

7.5 billion from renting. 16.6 from sales.
Figure average sale is $20 and average rental is $4. That about 830 million sales and 1.8 billion rentals. Consumers have been renting more movies than they buy for a while now.

Analyst are already predicting a 8%-10% slowdown in DVD sales for 2007. Circuit City reported that for 5 of the last 8 qtrs dvd sales have been down. The easy money is gone. For the last 5 years DVD has seen 10%+ annual growth by replacing VHS. VHS is dead, most movies are available on DVD as are most successful TV shows it will get harder to grown revenue going forward.

Consumers simply don't see the value in paying $20+ for a disc they will watch 1 or 2 times. With netflix a rental cost me <$2 ea. For buying to make economical sense I would need to watch a movie 10+ times. What % of your DVD collection have you watched 10 or more times?

Does anyone think we are likely to see any more packaged optical disc formats released? Downloads are the only thing yet to come en masse, and as someone who prefers owning to renting, I want my discs. Also, encoded at 1080p, there's really not much further to go. Unless the film industry goes back to 65/70mm or IMAX, we're getting about all the resolution you can grab off a 35mm film negative without just getting additional grain.I think HD and BD might well be the last major disc formats for home entertainment. But I don't think we are at the end of the technology just yet.

Even though HDTV at 2 megapixels is resolving a lot of grain, the grain itself is actually closer to 19 megapixels.

So I feel that there will still be improvements in the masters used to encode these HD/BD releases. More 4K masters and better encoding will mean that we will see even more stunning titles.

The masters will continue to make a big difference. I don't want to get into a format debate, but there are still, even in the last 3 weeks, some big-name releases that show a lot of very visible and distracting grain. I still feel that unless the grain was supposed to be there for artistic effect, it should not intrude, as it is still just an artifact of film media.

There are certain releases that really show off the full HD experience without letting the grain dominate, and I feel confident that there will be lots more to come. There are also encoding technologies that will suck the most detail from the source material.

In addition, there are going to be display technologies that make the most of the playback experience from these HD and BD discs. MCTi is one I am dying for, and should show up by the end of this year. Also, I plan on upscaling my HD content to 4K, as soon as a certain projector I am waiting for arrives.

The future is bright! :)

Advantages of DVD over VHS:

1. Better PQ
2. Better AQ
3. No Rewinding
4. Menu's
5. Chapter Stops
6. Doesn't wear out
7. Special Features and Extra's
8. Less Expensive From Day One
9. No Blinking Clock on Face of Player
10. Seamless Branching
11. OAR and Fullscreen Options
12. Anamorphic Transfers for Still Better PQ
13. Smaller Packaging - Takes Up Less Space
14. Incorporated Into PC's

I miss any?15. No Tracking

Bluescreen: - thank you - missed one. an important one at that!

rdjam: - Good post. And we can see you are a lover of technology, so for my part, I do hope you get what you are after. Unfortunately you are part of a very small market that strives for this.

namechamps: Could you please give me/us a link to that chart you provided. It would help me with a discussion I am having on another thread in a different forum.

The proof is there. No question. Sales are stagnent while rentals are up, up, up. So as far as the OP - no need to do a price increase as was suggested. It is happening on it's own - more and more people are renting for the reasons that have been pointed out by some of the posters here on this thread.

Nice to have a discussion about HDD and not have it resort to a format battle royale'.

My initial comment suggesting the idea of "priced-for-rental" pricing was driven by the thought that if people were renting more and buying less, could there still be a way for high-def DVDs to survive long-term and be a lucrative business for the studios. It sounds like the revenue sharing model that Netflix and Blockbuster (Online only?) are employing may be the new method to accomplish that same goal, with the advantage of still allowing all discs to be priced at consumer-friendly prices for those who still wish to own their own hard-copy collection. So perhaps this is a win-win for everyone.

As for the Blu-ray/HD DVD issue...My personal thought is that I don't see *both* Blu-ray-only players and HD DVD-only players surviving long-term, as I just don't see all of the studios wanting to release their titles in both formats, or stores wanting to devote shelf space to both. But I think it's possible we could see this happening short-term. If one side wins short-term, which would involve one format having the backing of all studios (even if not exclusive backing), player prices being mass-market affordable and the mass-market adopting that format in large numbers, then that's that. But if each side can hold onto at least one exclusive studio and/or the "underdog" (in terms of studio support) can enjoy significantly lower player pricing (as is currently the case), and this holds out for a while, I can see things remaining the status quo (with the possibility of some Blu-ray studios adding HD DVD support or even changing sides) until the time that combo players become mass-market affordable ($250 or less). At that point, I could see it coming to pass where each studio will then decide to adopt one or the other format (and not both) with the assumption that every consumer will/should have a combo player. Early adopters will suffer a bit but, as I said, player prices will be more affordable at that point, and so the need to buy a new combo player for $250 or less won't be that hard a pill to swallow for the early-adopters.

Hopefully these ending ramblings of mine won't cause this thread to divert into a HD DVD vs Blu-ray debate. :)

The proof is there. No question. Sales are stagnent while rentals are up, up, up. So as far as the OP - no need to do a price increase as was suggested. It is happening on it's own - more and more people are renting for the reasons that have been pointed out by some of the posters here on this thread.



Um... prices are not going up on their own. In fact, prices are decreasing. Which is a good thing.

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807.htm
D-Sales D-Rent VHS Total
1999 $0.7 $0.1 $12.0 $12.8
2000 $1.9 $0.6 $11.5 $14.0
2001 $5.4 $1.4 $10.0 $16.8
2002 $8.7 $2.9 $8.7 $20.3
2003 $11.6 $4.5 $6.4 $22.5
2004 $15.5 $5.7 $3.3 $24.5
2005 $16.3 $6.5 $1.5 $24.3
2006 $16.6 $7.5 $0.1 $24.2



People already have changed their habits. HD DVD will just continue the trend. DVD sales are essentially flat for last 2 years. DVD rentals have grown 32% in last 2 years. If with $10 DVD we have seen sales lose market share to rentals why would anyone think that $25+ HD DVD will change that trend?

7.5 billion from renting. 16.6 from sales.
Figure average sale is $20 and average rental is $4. That about 830 million sales and 1.8 billion rentals. Consumers have been renting more movies than they buy for a while now.

Analyst are already predicting a 8%-10% slowdown in DVD sales for 2007. Circuit City reported that for 5 of the last 8 qtrs dvd sales have been down. The easy money is gone. For the last 5 years DVD has seen 10%+ annual growth by replacing VHS. VHS is dead, most movies are available on DVD as are most successful TV shows it will get harder to grown revenue going forward.

Consumers simply don't see the value in paying $20+ for a disc they will watch 1 or 2 times. With netflix a rental cost me <$2 ea. For buying to make economical sense I would need to watch a movie 10+ times. What % of your DVD collection have you watched 10 or more times?

I disagree with your assesment. Sure in the last year rentals have increased more than sales of DVD's. But the lion's share still goes to sales. And by a huge margin! The bottom line is about money. Not about volume.

Well, I own a HD-DVD player and I've only purchased 3 HD-DVD's for. I'm thankful that Netflix has the ability to rent these, because I want to notice a difference in quality when compared to the original DVD.

An example would be the movie V for Vendetta, the HD version looks much better than the regular DVD. Breakfast Club on the other hand didn't look noticeably better at all (still looked soft and grainy).

Had my wife and I purchased a Blu-Ray player we'd be in the same boat. This is keeping us from owning a lot of crap titles that we know we won't watch over and over again.

As someone mentioned earlier, I fully agree that DVD was a purchase format.

Great thread!

I'm thankful that Netflix has the ability to rent these, because I want to notice a difference in quality when compared to the original DVD.

An example would be the movie V for Vendetta, the HD version looks much better than the regular DVD. Breakfast Club on the other hand didn't look noticeably better at all (still looked soft and grainy).

Had my wife and I purchased a Blu-Ray player we'd be in the same boat. This is keeping us from owning a lot of crap titles that we know we won't watch over and over again.You bring up an important point further highlights the difficulty high-def DVD formats have in terms of taking over the mainstream market. When a consumer bought an older movie on DVD, they might have been disappointed in the clarity of the transfer, but they could still justify the purchase because of the other advantages DVD had over VHS ("never" wears out, no need to rewind, etc.). When a consumer buys that same movie in a high-def DVD format, anything less than a pristine, sharp transfer is going to be a big disappointment. I really think that, at this early stage in the game, studios are doing these high-def formats more harm than good by releasing "classics" with lackluster no-better-than-standard-DVD transfers.

I disagree with your assesment. Sure in the last year rentals have increased more than sales of DVD's. But the lion's share still goes to sales. And by a huge margin! The bottom line is about money. Not about volume.

Bottom line is important but growth is also important. At one time VHS was the lion's share of the market. Volume with no growth can only take you so far.

DVD sales are essentially flat. They are flat despite inexpensive players, sub $10 prices on media and killing off the last of VHS sales. If people are renting vs buying with $10-$15 purchase prices what do you think will happen when given the choise between rental & $20+ purchase prices.

First half of 2007 DVD sales are 8% down from 2006. Like it or not rentals are surging which is indicating a shift in the way consumer's access content. If J6P movie budget is $200 per year they could either purchase 10 movies many of which they won't watch more than once or twice or they could sign up for netflix 3 @ once plan and watch 3 movies per week * 52 weeks = 156 movies. For many people (not many people on AVS) it simply is more bang for the buck.

There is nothing in the future to indicate this trend will change. If despite easy access, 10,000+ movies, and the cheapest media prices ever DVD sales have been losing market share to rentals why would it change when media prices are higher, and there is more competition from downloads and HD VOD?

Some rent, some collect. It's not that big of a deal.

Take books for example, until a decade ago, nice houses were built with a Library, and people install bookshelves in their libraries and they buy books to put on the shelves.

Now, people could have just gone to the library and borrowed the books, but some do want to buy and own them, even if they're paperback.

In a sense shiny disks containing movies are like the books, except they can be consumed faster than a typical book and they don't challenge you as much as a nice book would.

I lost interest in collecting books, though I still buy the odd paperback every week or so, but I still enjoy filing away my shiny disks sorted alphabetically. If you want a hobby, there are many more expensive ones than collecting shiny disks of movies. Take golf, or exotic travel. One indulgence on those things can easily cost you a decade of movie collecting if you're not careful.

http://www.dvdinformation.com/News/press/CES010807.htm
D-Sales D-Rent VHS Total
1999 $0.7 $0.1 $12.0 $12.8
2000 $1.9 $0.6 $11.5 $14.0
2001 $5.4 $1.4 $10.0 $16.8
2002 $8.7 $2.9 $8.7 $20.3
2003 $11.6 $4.5 $6.4 $22.5
2004 $15.5 $5.7 $3.3 $24.5
2005 $16.3 $6.5 $1.5 $24.3
2006 $16.6 $7.5 $0.1 $24.2



People already have changed their habits. HD DVD will just continue the trend. DVD sales are essentially flat for last 2 years. DVD rentals have grown 32% in last 2 years. If with $10 DVD we have seen sales lose market share to rentals why would anyone think that $25+ HD DVD will change that trend?

7.5 billion from renting. 16.6 from sales.
Figure average sale is $20 and average rental is $4. That about 830 million sales and 1.8 billion rentals. Consumers have been renting more movies than they buy for a while now.

Analyst are already predicting a 8%-10% slowdown in DVD sales for 2007. Circuit City reported that for 5 of the last 8 qtrs dvd sales have been down. The easy money is gone. For the last 5 years DVD has seen 10%+ annual growth by replacing VHS. VHS is dead, most movies are available on DVD as are most successful TV shows it will get harder to grown revenue going forward.

Consumers simply don't see the value in paying $20+ for a disc they will watch 1 or 2 times. With netflix a rental cost me <$2 ea. For buying to make economical sense I would need to watch a movie 10+ times. What % of your DVD collection have you watched 10 or more times?


Your link has some great information that can be used in a lot of other discussions. Thanks for the post and kudos to everyone in here for having an intelligent non-inflamatory dialog. It is refreshing. I think that the trend towards rentals versus sales is very evident when you see the first year of DVD sales for both players and discs. 350K in players and over 5 millions dvds shipped. Shows how voracious the early adopters were for buying content. I am not sure if either format combined has broken 3 million discs to date. It goes to show that this may not be the new sales channel the studios were looking for. Only time will tell of course.