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.
If it were concurrent release with theaters @ $20, I'd watch it VOD in a heartbeat!! Beats going to a dirty ass loud theater any day of the week!
No, just no.
What on earth are they thinking? Renting a film for that much? What has the world come to.
Underground theaters! Why pay $10 to watch a movie in a theater, when you can watch it before it reaches the big theaters, and for only $3, at an underground theater?
Hmm...I think it's kinda dumb but at the same time I'm sure the pirates will see it as an opportunity to rip movies ahead of there dvd release, so I'm totally for this.
I bet the redbox people must be quivering in fear.
Bwaaaaahahaha...Ha ha ha ha.... Oh $&%*.... If I want to a see a movie that close to when it comes out, I'll pay the damn $11.00 and see it in a theater.
Only with a family or group of at least 4 people does this become logical as a way to pay less to see a movie sooner. For someone like me with a wife and no kids, I'll see it in the theater, wait for Netflix, or in the case of a really great movie, buy it on BD.
If I need to wait for 30 days, might as well wait for another 90 days to get it from redbox or netflix.
As Hollywood has showed us before... Cocaine is a helluva drug. What kind of blow were the execs snorting to have thought this would be a good idea?
@Jamus
Whatever blow they were snorting it must be good and expensive. That is why they are charging these outrageous prices. To support their cocaine addiction.
Thank god I have a torrent leech account.
If I'm going to pay $20-$30 to see a movie, it's going to be in a theater with the full theater experience....including getting raped on sodas and popcorn.
So for once, it'd actually be CHEAPER to go see the movie in theaters instead of renting?
In related news, another local Blockbuster is shuttering...
Unless this "rental" includes free shipment of the BlueRay to my doorstep several months later on its release day, the MPAA can jolly well fuck me for that $20-30. At that price, WTF not just see it in the theater? A family of 4 at a matinée doesn't cost $30....
A $4 or $4 premium to see it vs regular PPV, MAYBE, but i even struggle justifying the $1 extra to rent it in HD as it is vs just waiting for it to arrive from netflix where I can watch a dozen movies a month for only $7... I can wait, it;s just a fucking movie, and I already missed all the water cooler chat and have had the ending spoiled by day 30, so I'm not gaining anything.
Ah... No.
Worst... Idea... Ever.
i think it's awesome. the quality of the torrents will be astounding (hdfury anyone?) thanks hollywood.
Wow, this is yet another example of how disconnected they are from the reality of the marketplace. The ONLY way anyone in their right mind would consider paying that inflated price without any ownership, is if the rental were offered on day and date of the theatrical release. NOT 30 days after.
MPAA idea's goofy... They must have been High...
ooh-ooh-ooh...
$20 to $30 for a movie... They must haven been High...
la da da da...
Now I'm watching bootlegs! And they know Why...
Because they were High... Because they were High... Because they were High!!!
@Fornication Under Concent of the Thanks man... now I'll have Afroman in mah head all damn day! :p
how about VOD release 2wks after theater release? i might pay 20 bucks for that.
I guess the studios forget I own a 360 and have no problems passing the time playing COD4-MW2. That kind of entertainment is free after paying for the game up-front.
I'd be game for that pricing. I mean, nowadays the pricing is outrageous anyway to attend a movie. Take this past Saturday for example. I paid $47 for 4 people to watch Shrek 4 in 3D (not IMAX). I already own a 3D TV and a sweet home theater setup. Why not pay the $30 to watch it at home? You'd be silly not to. Now, those saying "well you're paying more if you count the electricity you're utilizing", well I'd be using it anyway playing other movies/games/tv.
Regardless, I'm most likely a minority with a 3D HDTV Home theater setup at home. But this I'd give two thumbs up for any day. I HATE crying/whinny kids.
@Ecran As I mention in a standalone post, I'd be ok with that as long as the quality is flawless and I get to watch it at the same time as others see it in the theater. While I don't have 3d, I do have a 130" screen with a 1080p projector that produces better picture than most theaters around me. (I also went to see Shrek (not 3d) and the projector was horribly out of focus (well, in my eyes, my wife rolled her eyes when I said so.. :))
I'd love to know how they come up with their pricing, though I doubt they'll ever be transparent about that. Did they poll all the entertainment executives and ask what price they thought was good? Do they even know what their market is? Sounds like whoever made the recommendation report to the boards just did a bunch of arse-kissing on the figures. Any polling of actual customers, if any, probably got deliberately stacked with a misleading sampling of their market to fudge the figures to satisfy some dope that shouldn't be in the business.
I LOVE the pic!!
I'll bite. I could consider doing this occasionally provided the following two conditions are met:
a) It has to be the same day as released in theaters
b) The quality must be but-to-bit identical to the Blu-Ray video/audio stream.
@tosvus
You didn't read the article?
You're also the sort of person who says however much something costs it's still too much and you'll find an excuse to keep using bittorrent
@suicidebob I'm saying that if they want me to pay $20-$30 for a rental, that is the conditions I would require. Otherwise for me, I would rather wait to buy the Blu-Ray (or rent it much cheaper, or go to the movies). The article is not saying anything that makes me think they would do this, but then it is not really interesting.
Also, I'm offended by your comment that I would always find an excuse. First of all, you do not know me, so that is one heck of a presumption to make, secondly, I own about 600 dvds and 100+ blu-rays, plus I go to the theater with my family about 10 times a year. I also have a 130" 1080p front projection system in my house with high quality video and sound, several rows of theater chairs etc, so quality is a big point with me. Spending money on movies is not a problem (as you should see from my habits/equipment). Next time, think before you throw out accusations....
I have a huge library of 2-3 y/o movies on dvd, $3-5 each. If I haven't seen them, they're new to me!
LOL
And these same companies wonder why piracy is so popular...
I like the options. If they sold the rental price at that much the day of the theatrical release parents would like that. As other posters have noted. Taking two kids to the theater+ one adult could set you back $21-30 (three tickets) Renting the movie for $25 saves time, money, hassle of worrying about movie times. Then the parents could provide their own treats instead of sneaking stuff in or worrying about the insane concession prices.
Um, this is an additional thing? I don't see anyone forcing you to buy it.
Jeez, you guys act like you have a god given RIGHT to see every movie for free before it even gets released.
Grow up. People work to make movies, they deserve to be paid for it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! fools.
Hilarious. So instead of getting $5-10 from people renting movies at home, they will be getting $0, because everyone will just pirate it.
Until they start charging five dollars or less for HD VOD rentals and twenty dollars or less for hard copies of blu-rays, I will continue pirating their shit. Every movie I want to see, I watch in a theater with a magnificent screen and fantastic sound, for five or six dollars, between Monday and Thursday. If I'm renting a movie, it's because I want to watch it with a friend in a private setting. If I'm buying a movie, it's because I want to see it again and again. Movies just aren't worth what they're asking for.
I get all the music I want for $15/mo. All of it. I even get to keep 10 songs each month in MP3. (Thank you, Zune) I'd pay $40/mo for all the TV shows to be in HD and on demand on a Windows computer with HDCP. And if they can figure out how to work movies into a similar plan, (say $30/mo per six rentals), then I'd go for that, too. But if you think I can afford to watch everything I want to watch at the prices studios want to charge, I guess I'm just going to have to break the law and risk complete financial ruin by a wildly inflated lawsuit. Greedy, irrational pricks.
I can see this selling good if it were simulated porn on demand (SPD?) But we don't live in the year 2300 just yet. Sorry but $20-$30 for a simple rental is going to generate a lot more pirates, especially since the content will be available sooner.
Bunch of idiots with money
Why not let people who pre order the DVD have VOD for free before the DVD hits? It would encourage DVD sales and the movie studios aren't giving away anything people would have paid for otherwise.
More proof that the MPAA is out-of-touch with consumers. Greed to offset piracy will result in....more piracy!
This is why I don't go to theaters: 50 dollar date with wifey.
This is why I won't rent a movie for $20: I won't own it.
And this article is why I hate the MPAA. ;)
$25 or find a torrent? Hmmm...looks like a bad move.
Parents frequently say that between tickets and a sitter, going to see a movie in the theater can cost them over $80. This seems aimed at them. It could work. I sure won't pay this much.
Sorry, but for that price, it NEEDS to be same-as-theater release day.
Wait, so their plan to compete with free pirated movies....and turn downloaders into purchasers....is to charge $30???
I think they get the "Demand" side of the equation, but not the "Supply" part.
$30 can get your di¢k sucked. I hope for $30 Megan Fox pops out of the screen and finishes me off after Transformers 3 VOD.
@YearZer0
She won't be in Transformers 3, though that does mean she may be available for your happy-ending needs.
The MPAA: taking the "demand" out of "video on demand."
@boomshadow lol it is VSD , Video "STAND" & "DELIVER", highway robbery. The movie business really wants to go the same way as the music industry in a hurry!
Wow I guess I'm almost the only person that thinks this is good. It doesn't remove any of our existing options for watching or buying movies, but it makes it cheaper for a family to see a new movie just a few weeks after it opens in theaters. And for those of us with good home setups, it also means better sound, better images, better snacks -- all of which is great. I hate going to theaters because of the inferior experience, but sometimes I cannot wait. Now I don't have to wait (very long).
@nathanh Yeah, real value! When you could wait a few extra days and rent it on DVD or own it for the same amount. This is not a movie @ the cinema VOD, this DVD a pre-release!
What a bargain.not.
So you want us to pay $20-$30 and not own the physical copy, i don't think so.
Movie ticket $7, VOD $20/30 , stupid!
Would they offer refunds like the cinema does when the movie is shit?
Looks to me like they are trying to be like pay-per-view events...Have your friends over and have everyone pitch money in to rent it. I don't think it will be successful. Just those that have dedicated home theater rooms and throw parties frequently.
~Syntronic Systems~
Michigan Technology Integrator
Home Theater - A/V Distribution - Home Automation
http://www.syntronicsystemsllc.com