Movies could be available as a VOD rental before DVD, Blu-ray -- for $20 to $30 each
By Richard Lawler 
posted May 24th 2010 2:57PM
posted May 24th 2010 2:57PM
posted May 24th 2010 2:57PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
$20 to rent a movie? Piss off VOD, I'll wait the extra 5 days to see it.
OMG. Best image ever
@Jaylittles531
They wonder why people pirate movies...
@Ken J
Off-topic, but Engadget comment reply folding is very much welcome!
Great job Engadget!
@who said what
Oh yeah! Just noticed that!
I do not strongly like or hate it.
My thoughts are the same as my thoughts on the iPhone: "Meh"
Isnt it less at the cinema?
Bigget screen,
better sound,
greater atmosphere,
better food/snacks,
and you get to see it earlier
@Jaylittles531
That's just ridiculus. It shouldn't cost anymore money to see a movie on your couch then to watch it in theatres.
@who said what
You do realize that only applies to Engadget HD and Engadget Mobile, right? (Perhaps others too, idk) And right now, you've been linked to Engadget HD from Engadget... Classic?
@Kloc I assume their logic is that you won't be watching it at home alone. If you think two people going to the movies (maybe $12 each, plus gas) vs two people watching it via VOD ($25 for both) then perhaps it makes some sense.
Personally, I still think it's outrageous even if I had a living room filled with people.
@Jaylittles531
They are simply on crack.
If I am paying that much to watch it on my own TV then I am going to own it.
@Jaylittles531 They are disconnected and greedy. Totally wrong price point on this.Try 8:95 for a 30 days from Theatrical opening and it might work. Anything over that then I need to own the media.
@SamTatr
Yeah. Your thoughts are so 'meh' you had to bring up in in a topic that has nothing to do with the Iphone.
We believe you, kid
@Jaylittles531
The only way I could justify this is if it was released maybe a month or so after it came out in theaters. In which case you look at the cost of a movie ticket, plus the cost at the concession stands and it would be about the same only you get it at home.
@SamTatr
well if youre nuying food at the cinema its more expensive, cinema food is THE biggest rip off ever...
@Ken J - Exactly! So silly! Don't they realize "THE HUMAN EYE SEES ANALOG?!" So the determined torrent'er in the privacy of their home busts out the tripod and that high def video camera and commences to record said VOD. Now the follow up DVD/BRD sales are completely ass-out!
Hollywood stop trying to put the cash squeeze on. This will always be an issue until the day comes when some future HDCP can be jacked into our individual optic nerves (addressable and super encrypted) directly. Make it affordable and you choke of the majority of casual torrent'ers. Saying...
@Jaylittles531
I think they are assuming that people are going to whip out the HD camera and record it. So this way if they are getting $30 up front, they are okay with the reduction in DVD sales afterwards.
@SamTatr $25 to watch Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs in the nude while rubbing spaghetti all over my body? TOTALLY WORTH IT!
@Jaylittles531
"Oh hey man, we're getting this shit Blu-ray in a few days, but why don't you drop 30 bucks and I'll let ya borrow my copy for a day?"
ummm......no.
@Jaylittles531
How out of touch can you be. You have 3 kinds of people out there ...
1. People who pay a premium to see the movie in a theater for the theater experience.
2. People who prefer to save money and will happily wait 3+ months for a rental from Red Box or Netflix.
3. People who want to own movies and will pay a premium equivalent to several rentals (knowing that they will watch the movie 3 or more times).
What the studios are carving out is a 4th group - people who want to (1) wait longer than the release date to see a movie (2) pay more for the movie than if they were watching it in the theater and (3) prefer watching a movie on their TV instead of on the big screen. I'm sure that these people exist - I just don't know who they are. This is a crazy business model that will surely fail.
@Jaylittles531
I agree that it is expensive but doesn't it say one month instead of four? Where did you get 5 days from???
@Jaylittles531
And I bet it'll still have commercials/ads that you can't skip too...
@SamTatr I agree. I love that movie.
Does this mean people would be able to record these movies on their DVR's?... so movies would be leaked online very fast...
what's next? a tax for movie like social security and medicare?
@alexbates
No. Read "closing the analog hole"
*rental/purchase/bittorrent habits
While I am sure there are a decent number of retards who will agree to this price point, I cannot believe they would even consider charging such an insane amount for this.
@arnavdesai They are probably trying to price it in competition with movie tickets, especially if they are thinking of making it available only 30 days after theater release. I think I'll wait the extra 365 days for the disc to be in a bargain bin somewhere.
@arnavdesai Yes price looks crazy, but if they release the thing at the same time in theaters then 30 bucks isnt crazy for let's say family of 4. Plus they save on ridiculously priced snacks/beverages.
@arnavdesai
And yet they tried to sell a single ticket to Shrek for $20 in Manhattan. Then they pulled the "Oops! $20 is ludicrous. We meant $19."
@NHAnimator Heh... that dollar makes all the difference... (Well, that and the fact that the Shrek series is tired and stale)
@memeslayer
Or watch something else..
$20 for a rental.. No way.$20 for a rental and a DVD/Blu ray copy delivered to your door on release day.. Possibly.
I'm all for capitalism and making money... but... screw the MPAA!! This sounds a lot like DIVX reloaded. I hope it fails miserably.
lol screw that. I'll wait for the iTunes release.
'we're going to charge you extra because it costs us less'
well thanks
OK, how stupid are they. I know another way to get a movie a month before release! It certainly doesn't cost $20-30 either!
@maattp good point. it's just to get more and more money but hopefully it will fail terrible. i'm a big movie fan myself but i would never "rent" those movies because it is wrong to support such an money making modell
@maattp
seriously, if movie execs really want to counter the prevalence of movie pirating, they need to LOWER their prices, not raise them.
@maattp
It's not a month before DVD/BD release, it is a month after theatrical release. So essentially 4 to 6 months before DVD/BD release
This has to be a joke? For that price I'd better get a call girl at my door before the movie is over.
@admlshake A call girl that costs only $30 sounds gross.
@JoeJoeJoeJoeJoe
It's a recession call girl. So normally she'd cost $90.
I can't imagine being that excited to see any movie.
Wow, those guys are shameless.
" The price for cutting the usual four month wait for home viewing to just 30 days? As much as $20 to $30 for a rental."
If I want see a movie so bad that I am willing to spend $20 to $30, I'll see it in the theater months before it is available on VOD.
Distribution model fail.
@feeble11
Have to agree with you, if I'm going to drop $30 on a movie, I either want to see it on the big screen or hold the shiny BluRay in my grubby paws.
And the movie studios continue to wonder why people are bittorrenting their movies.
@Jack Holy shi-. I thought that price was for a whole movie.
Who in their right mind would rent a movie for a price like that?
@Jack Even if movies would only be $3-$5 people still would be downloading movies, as it's still cheaper as the $3-$5..
MPAA - "plugging holes" everywhere. I guess that's one way of putting it.