How long will Blu-ray be around for?

Mickeroo

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which is where I see digital downloading heading as well. But what about people who want to own a film rather than rent it?

I'd imagine it might not be as much of an issue with kids growing up with digital media, as you said VHS generation and all that, the whole idea of owning physical copies of films and that was kind of bred into us I suppose! I'll always want to own a physical copy of something but it's probably going to be different for someone who grows up with downloading/streaming as the norm.

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which is where I see digital downloading heading as well. But what about people who want to own a film rather than rent it?

I'm sure some specialist stores will exist for us, but we'll be a cultural absurdity and will constantly get laughed at by the younger hipper kids
Seriously though, why is it important to actually own the movie or album or game?
If you’ve access to it in the best possible quality then what difference does owning it actually make. We’re not defined by our possessions as much as by our tastes.
As Fugazi sang “You are not what you own”

Sad Professor

bonerm wrote: »

I think owning hundreds/thousands of DVD/BD's is actually a sickness. It's extension of the book / music collection psychology. It's just a bunch of stuff sitting neatly on your shelves that serve no purpose except to be looked at sitting there.

It'd be interesting for people here to look at every DVD/BD they own and ask themself the following questions.

1) How many times have I watched the movie itself off that particular disk?
2) Have I watched all the extras on the disk?
3) When's the last time I actually watched the movie off the disk?

IMHO, if your answer to
1) isn't : "at least twice"
2) isn't "yes"
and
3) isn't : "in the last couple of years"
then I reckon you're wasting your money.

That test goes doubly-so for titles you've been double and triple dipping on.

I've a lot of DVD/BD myself but I'm slowly phasing the process out in favour of various non-physical, non-own download/renting options. I welcome a non-disk future tbh.

Which is a very good point. One which I've taken to heart since switching to Blu-ray. So far I've only bought films that I know I will watch multiple times. Most of the films I've bought on Blu-ray I would count among my favourite and most watched films, which I don't mind double-dipping for because I know I'll get my money's worth back. But this still doesn't eliminate the question of ownership. I mean, Vertigo, for example, is one of my favourite films, I watch it a dozen times a year. I don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch this film, I want to own it.

iMax

I jumped on board BD back in 2009, I jumped out of it about eight months later. The extra cost per disk wasn't worth it for me. I sold off what I had & went back to DVD, even now though, I've a wall with several hundred DVDs (& CDs) on it & they haven't been taken out of their case in eight+ months. Got a mac mini under the TV with Plex & have everything I own in HD format accessible when I want, Have the house networked & it's playable in 3 rooms, the only problem is, I don't have time for them any more (kids), I'm currently evaluating what to drop from the hard drive because although I like having them, I know I'm probably never gonna watch them again. I get maybe an hour to watch stuff most days & I'm filling that with TV mostly.

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

Vertigo, for example, is one of my favourite films, I watch it a dozen times a year. I don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch this film, I want to own it.

But you won't be paying the monthly fee to watch Vertigo, you'll be paying it to watch anything/everything you want to watch (including Vertigo).

If you love a film so much that you want to own a piece of it you can always buy some memorabilia associated with the movie.

bonerm

Sad Professor wrote: »

Which is a very good point. One which I've taken to heart since switching to Blu-ray. So far I've only bought films that I know I will watch multiple times. Most of the films I've bought on Blu-ray I would count among my favourite and most watched films, which I don't mind double-dipping for because I know I'll get my money's worth back. But this still doesn't eliminate the question of ownership. I mean, Vertigo, for example, is one of my favourite films, I watch it a dozen times a year. I don't want to pay a monthly fee to watch this film, I want to own it.

I think I'd be happier then to spend some nominal amount a dozen times in that case (provided it worked out cheaper than buying it). It's not really an either/or question. If it worked cheaper to own the title rather than re-renting constantly then I'd rather own. However I'd just as happily not have it as a physical possession or indefinite licence if it was something that, history had proven, I amen't interested in rewatching (which is probably the definion of 90% of the stuff I own).

Again good metrics is a way of weeding out what's worth buying and what is not but in answer to your question I generally have no particular interest in "owning" the movie.

Sad Professor

black francis wrote: »

But you won't be paying the monthly fee to watch Vertigo, you'll be paying it to watch anything/everything you want to watch (including Vertigo).

If you love a film so much that you want to own a piece of it you can always buy some memorabilia associated with the movie.

If I own it I can lend it to a friend, I can sell it, I can give it away. It's mine to do with as I please. Maybe I don't want to pay a monthly fee to have access to my favourite films on some server somewhere. Like with books, I want to be able to share films with my friends. In fact, perhaps sharing is the main point that the studios need to be taking away from illegal downloading. People don't just want convenience, there's a social element as well.

It's also worth nothing that on the music front not everyone agrees that cloud/subscription services are the future. Apple is still very much of the mind that people want to own music.

conorhal

black francis wrote: »

I'm sure some specialist stores will exist for us, but we'll be a cultural absurdity and will constantly get laughed at by the younger hipper kids
Seriously though, why is it important to actually own the movie or album or game?
If you’ve access to it in the best possible quality then what difference does owning it actually make. We’re not defined by our possessions as much as by our tastes.
As Fugazi sang “You are not what you own”

Why? Because I'm neiter a communist nor a relativist. :mad:

I'm deeply suspicious of digital downloads, like pay per view, there is a move to a model of use that is more akin to rental then ownership. I like the concrete certianty that what I have paid for I own and from my cold dead hands they will have to take it!

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

If I own it I can lend it to a friend, I can sell it, I can give it away. It's mine to do with as I please. Maybe I don't want to pay a monthly fee to have access to my favourite films on some server somewhere. Like with books, I want to be able to share films with my friends. In fact, perhaps sharing is the main point that the studios need to be taking away from illegal downloading. People don't just want convenience, there's a social element as well.

It's also worth nothing that on the music front not everyone agrees that cloud/subscription services are the future. Apple is still very much of the mind that people want to own music.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. All your friends will be members as well. You won't need to physically give them something, they'll already have access to it. In the same way 'selling it' will become a moot point as everyone else will 'own' it as well.
The social element will be increased not decreased.

indough

why would digital downloading/streaming mean and end to ownership? it hasnt done for games or music. you will likely still have the option to both buy or rent the rights to watch each film

Sad Professor

black francis wrote: »

You're thinking about this the wrong way. All your friends will be members as well. You won't need to physically give them something, they'll already have access to it. In the same way 'selling it' will become a moot point as everyone else will 'own' it as well.

They'll only "own" it as long as they pay the subscription. That's not owning, that's renting.

I don't really understand the anti-ownership angle. Either way you are still consuming. Except that with a subscription model you have nothing to show for it. It's great for content providers but not so good for us.

bonerm

Sad Professor wrote: »

I don't really understand the anti-ownership angle.

I guess some people are just happier surrounded by possessions whilst others are not.

Personally I'd love if every piece of digital media data and equipment I own could be fit into some sort of holograpic projecting ring that I could stick on my little finger. That's all I want, that and hoverboards of course.

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

They'll only "own" it as long as they pay the subscription. That's not owning, that's renting.

I don't really understand the anti-ownership angle. Either way you are still consuming. Except that with a subscription model you have nothing to show for it. It's great for content providers but not so good for us.

I'm not really anti-ownership but I can feel which way the wind is blowing.
Of course you’ll only have access to the films if you pay the subscription, in the same way that you only have access to cable tv if you pay sky/upc. But in the future these subscription charges will be small and the idea of not being a subscriber will seem anachronistic and quaint. Future generations will look at such people in the same way you would look at someone who told you they don’t own a tv or computer.

When I did a one month free trial with that Qriocity service that I mentioned, it struck me that anyone who joined automatically had a better music collection than I had. And I had spent lots of years and money assembling mine. It's a sobering thought that made me reconsider the whole principle of 'physically owning' the product.

I can't see any reasons why movies and games will not follow the same route. In fat they are better suited to it as they do not need to be as portable as one's music collection.

Sad Professor

Just to be clear, guys, when I talk about ownership I don't necessarily mean physical ownership. I completely agree that digital downloading is headed towards the sort of subscription model that has been described. But this is renting and will not in any way, shape or form take the place of people's desire to own their favourite films. Reduce it substantially, yes, absolutely. In fact, I think we're going to see a return to what things were like in the 80s, pre-DVD, when most people rented rather than bought because VHS tapes were too expensive (cheap DVDs destroyed the rental market). As has been said, not everyone needs to own a film and a subscription model will more than fill the needs of those people.

However, there many people, just as there were in the 80s, who do like to own films. These people aren't going to go away. Collecting films is their hobby, their passion and they aren't going to be happy with paying a monthly subscription to get access to their favourite films. So ownership will remain IMO. The question is really what form this ownership will take and whether digital downloads can take the place of physical media.

johnny_ultimate

I have a proudly bulky DVD collection that grows by the week. A lot I've watched once, many twice or more. Are the ones I've bought out of curiosity going to waste? Not necessarily. Mostly I'll only buy DVDs when they're on sale - indeed, the glory of something like Amazon is that it's almost more cost effective to buy than to rent when you're paying less than a tenner.

My main reason for ownership, though, is availability. The films I buy tend to veer dominantly towards the foreign and independent, and these are the kind of things I want to see released. I'm more inclined to buy things from certain distributors - Manga, Third Window or Tartan (or whatever stands for Tartan these days!) to name a few. I'd pick up Criterion ones too if they were available over here. They take a chance and release films others won't, and I only want to encourage that. And good luck finding the majority of these titles in Xtravision - it's extremely hit and miss whether you'll find the latest obscurity buried in the bottom row in a rental store. Indeed, I haven't physically seen copies of two anime Blu-Rays I've bought online in retail shops let alone rental ones.

If these films are available online (legally), I'm happy to switch over, even if there is a bit of an OCD spree in me for collecting certain things. I'm not hardcore like some people you hear about (I, luckily, consider myself to have quality control :P) but I do like have a varied library of films I can go to and pick something whenever I want.

Cloud storage will allow this eventually, but so far nothing is available online legally with the variety DVD and Blu-Ray has to offer. And since their price tends to drop within weeks at this rate, I'd rather pay a tenner and support the release of films I like than download 'em for nothing. Of course, I'm more of a cinema goer, but when films ain't getting any sort of release over here buying a physical copy is a good way to make your voice heard. For example, a film I really want to see called Sawako Decides has just been released in the UK but not here. So yeah, I'm probably going to pick up the DVD when it comes out because I'm glad at least it's getting some sort of release than none at all.

I'll occasionally pick up a copy of a big film I liked on Blu-Ray when the price is right (waited for Inception to drop considerably). But for the most part, DVD and Blu-Ray is simply a way of building up a nice library and getting your hands on films you couldn't see in the cinema for one reason or another. When there's a nice legal alternative to that - the film equivalent of Steam, for example - I'll hop on board.

Frank Black

Sad Professor wrote: »

Just to be clear, guys, when I talk about ownership I don't necessarily mean physical ownership. I completely agree that digital downloading is headed towards the sort of subscription model that has been described. But this is renting and will not in any way, shape or form take the place of people's desire to own their favorite films. Reduce it substantially, yes, absolutely. In fact, I think we're going to see a return to what things were like in the 80s, pre-DVD, when most people rented rather than bought because VHS tapes were too expensive (cheap DVDs destroyed the rental market). As has been said, not everyone needs to own a film and a subscription model will more than fill the needs of those people.

However, there many people, just as there were in the 80s, who do like to own films. These people aren't going to go away. Collecting films is their hobby, their passion and they aren't going to be happy with paying a monthly subscription to get access to their favorite films. So ownership will remain IMO. The question is really what form this ownership will take and whether digital downloads can take the place of physical media.

Yeah, I agree and can totally relate to the whole wanting to own something viewpoint - as Johnny Ultimate mentioned I do think there's a bit of OCD about it and I suffer from it as much as anyone.

Regarding the question you've posed, If enough people switch over to a subscription based model, will the drop in demand for blu ray effectively kill off the medium? I mean would it be worth the big studio's time to produce something if there wasn't a big market for it?

TBH I don't see this change coming in the short term anyway - probably 10-15 years away. So until them Blu Ray will be ok.

Mackman

Sad Professor wrote: »

Even CDs now days sound much worse than they did 20 years ago with all the dynamic range compressed. And most people don't notice. Quality clearly isn't everything for people.

Quality isnt important to a lot of people. If im watching Happy Gilmore i dont give a rats ass how many pixels or refresh rate or whatever its being displayed at.

Same with music, i will only notice a difference in quality if im listening on a device that shows up bad quality. So the majority of the time i dont really care. Anyway i prefer listening to records.

black francis wrote: »

Digital downloading is the future – it’s going to happen whether we like it or not.
Look at the music industry. If you join a service like Qriocity or similar, for a monthly fee you instantly have access to tens of thousands of albums. That record collection you spent years painstakingly assembling is rendered obsolete.
It will eventually be the same with movies – you won’t own any, they’ll be all stored in the cloud and you’ll pay a small fee to rent them or have access to them all for a monthly fee.
Current problems like broadband caps and speeds will soon be overcome.

It might be the future, but i dont see it happening for another few decades. I know plenty of people who dont even have an e-mail. I cant see them uploading all their music/movies to a cloud and watching them on an ipad anytime soon.

My point is that while these technological advancments are happening and lots of people are availing of them, there are an equal amount of people who dont have an interest.

As for how long Blu-Ray will last, i dunno, they're not even the most popular format yet. DVD still dominates. If you go into HMV compare the DVD section to the Blu-ray section, DVD's are still more popular, and the difference between the two for most people isnt enough to buy the more expensive option.

johnny_ultimate

Mackman wrote: »

Quality isnt important to a lot of people. If im watching Happy Gilmore i dont give a rats ass how many pixels or refresh rate or whatever its being displayed at.

I'd agree for a lot of people quality doesn't enter the equation (it does for me - I can definitely see the quality variation between a stream and a DVD), but it's more quality is important for certain films. Going with Happy Gilmore, it doesn't have let's say an inspired art design or excellent cinematography, so therefore losing quality doesn't lose an awful lot. But put something on the screen with lots of detail in the visuals and suddenly the quality difference becomes much more apparent and important. The difference between a Pixar film on DVD and one on Blu-Ray is pretty much night and day.

Mackman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'd agree for a lot of people quality doesn't enter the equation (it does for me - I can definitely see the quality variation between a stream and a DVD), but it's more quality is important for certain films. Going with Happy Gilmore, it doesn't have let's say an inspired art design or excellent cinematography, so therefore losing quality doesn't lose an awful lot. But put something on the screen with lots of detail in the visuals and suddenly the quality difference becomes much more apparent and important. The difference between a Pixar film on DVD and one on Blu-Ray is pretty much night and day.

Totally agree, i only have a handful of Blu-ray's, and they look great, but thats because ive bought ones that show off the blu-ray quality, (and they're some of my favourite), e.g. Inception, Apollo 13, Die Hard. On the other hand i bought Toy Story and Finding Nemo recently on DVD and they look great IMO.