Fancy watching a movie? Well you can't

fisicx

Moderator
Sep 12, 2006
46,722
8
15,391
Aldershot
www.aerin.co.uk
History Lesson - in the beginning, the producers, distributors, theatres and studios were all one company. If you wanted to make that entertainment involving moving pictures, you needed to own every corner of the production and distribution process.

That of course soon changed and today, every little bit of the process is a separate company. Producers no longer own studios, cameras and all the other bits and bobs and when a movie is completed, all you have to show for your $200m is a series of hard-disks in a vault and folder filled with contracts deposited with your lawyers. You also have a limited company, usually carrying the title of that one movie - that company is your product!

Today, movie rights inhabit a world that is very different to the world most people live in. Even if you are a known maker of successful movies (director, producer, whatever) you will spend most of your time putting the finances together for your next movie. To do this, you must negotiate with all kinds of people who have money, loads and loads of money!

The largest lump of money comes from the distributors. Others, such as agencies for product placement, star actors and directors and even the production company can be persuaded to either dig into their pockets or work for what is known as 'points-on-gross' (i.e. a percentage of gross revenues) but the real profits down the road come from distribution.

If the movie is a 'tent-pole' (lifts the whole industry around it) aka 'blockbuster' then it will make a profit right from the start. Home and World box-office (i.e. USA and rest-of-World ticket sales) cover the costs and the rest is jam. If you are sitting on a hot franchise (Batman) or are self-financing (Bond) or you believe that the movie will become a cult product with a long tail that will be earning for decades to come (Bladerunner-2049) you may seek to limit the time the rights sit with the distributor. Perhaps you negotiate a deal where the rights revert to the producers after say ten years.

Or it could be that you are just so damn powerful (e.g. Kathleen Kennedy) that you can dictate terms, so you hang onto what is known as the residuals - all those rights that generate money in a steady stream for decades to come. That is how Oprah Winfrey does business - she sells her programming relatively cheaply but hangs onto the residuals like grim death!

Movies are exploited in waves, starting with cinema release, followed by BluRay sales. Then comes PPV (pay per view) followed by several waves of decreasingly valuable pay per channel. Each wave is separated by at least three months. Right at the end, comes terrestrial TV about two years after the movie is released.

Each wave is negotiated separately and is a different set of rights. As the value decreases, the movie gets bundled with other movies into ever-larger packages, whose value can run to a billion dollars or more. Each wave is time-limited. Terrestrial TV gets two years and is given the rights for two screenings plus channel repeats.

On-line streaming runs parallel to the conventional rights, but it too is limited to sets of waves and each wave is also time-limited. Apple can no more buy the streaming rights to a movie in perpetuity, than any other distribution channel.

In the distant past, producers and distributors assumed that movies had a set life-span and after that they were worthless. Then along came television and home viewing on VHS and one enterprising man called Leo Kirch, who began buying up old rights. He started in 1960 with Fellini's La Strada using money borrowed from his in-laws. He sold that movie on many times over and then bought all the rights to the Hal Roach library of Laurel and Hardy for just $1m, which were being slaughtered and ruined by TV stations across the World. He had the entire collection lovingly restored and was able to sell the rights to TV stations everywhere and at very good prices.

But the movie industry woke up big-time when the rights battle emerged over 'It's a Wonderful Life' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It's_a_Wonderful_Life#Ownership_and_copyright_issues and the long-tail was born.

P.S. 'Movies' come strictly in three acts, have 15 'beats' and 45-48 scenes. There is an A-story and a B- and a C-story. Act two ends with 'All Hope is Lost' and act three begins with the fight back. The rest are films and that is a different art form!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Mr D

Free Member
Feb 12, 2017
28,915
3,627
Stirling
People have been watching streamed movies, films and shows for many decades. Its a well established method of providing content for watching / listening.
If they want to buy it to watch whenever they want then there are methods. Sometimes with studios making the buyer purchase multiple times if they want the item in its new format. Cough Star Wars cough.
 
Upvote 0
Sometimes with studios making the buyer purchase multiple times if they want the item in its new format.

I have bought some films on both VHS and DVD but my record for continually buying the same product in different formats is Dark Side of the Moon which I have bought on vinyl, cassette, CD and SACD. No doubt I could also buy it on Blu-ray but enough's enough
 
Upvote 0
Just get the DVD for Pulse.

Crank up the 5.1 to eleven, esp. the bass and get the beers in. Unfortunately, they only filmed in SD, but the audio is excellent and Dark Side of the Moon takes up the entire second half, followed by 'Teacher' and 'Run'.

The great thing about every PF concert I have attended is that the audience is fully rehearsed and word-perfect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ian J
Upvote 0

Mr D

Free Member
Feb 12, 2017
28,915
3,627
Stirling
I have bought some films on both VHS and DVD but my record for continually buying the same product in different formats is Dark Side of the Moon which I have bought on vinyl, cassette, CD and SACD. No doubt I could also buy it on Blu-ray but enough's enough

I've Babylon 5 on video and DVD. And have watched it streamed several times.
Got all the carry on movies on video and DVD plus watched each one streamed probably dozens of times - used to be a bank holiday favourite. Still make me laugh.
 
Upvote 0
it's just that i don't get people who still buy stuff that is available for free anywhere on the web.
That's what you think!

The free-to-air and free download stuff is always of lower quality and always in stereo that has been both dynamically compressed so that the range from quiet to loud is almost nil and digitally compressed, reducing quality and increasing distortion.

A BluRay disk has up to 50GB of video and audio (plus about another 50GB of 'Reed-Solomon' error correction) and inhabits a completely different World as far as quality is concerned.

The fastest Internet supplies in the UK run at 50Mbps on a good day - that's bits per second and not Bytes - so even a smaller capacity BR disk of just 20GB of movie (40GB in all) would take about 2hrs to download. It happens a great deal faster, because the movie will be digitally compressed using 'lossy' compression (i.e. less data, but lower quality). This is true for both downloads and terrestrial TV and less true for most (though not all!) satellite channels. (Netflix streams HD at 3GB per hour and 4K at about 12, making real-time 4K live-to-air TV impossible for nearly all broadband subscribers.)

On a small TV set, one does not see or hear the difference, but on a large 4K set with a good 5.1 or 7.1 sound system, the difference is massive.

People think they've seen a movie - and then they see it at our place and the sound and the image is totally immersive. Dialogue can be a whisper and (assuming good sound design) gunfire can sound as if a real gun just went off in the room!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

alan1302

Free Member
Jun 2, 2018
2,135
399
it's just that i don't get people who still buy stuff that is available for free anywhere on the web.
maybe the only movies that actually worth buying (for my opinion) are some old rare stuff that you can't find in a decent quality online.

So you recommend people don't pay for what they watch?

I'll assume your business is not in the movie business ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Byre
Upvote 0

Inva

Free Member
Aug 10, 2018
370
62
So you recommend people don't pay for what they watch?
People are pushed to this by the greedy movie studios who now want you to rent stuff instead of buying them. If a movie would cost half a pound to watch once then i think the incentive for piracy would not exist for most of the world as the effort would not be worth it.

Anyway, 50GB blu-ray quality is nice for the new films but for old films it is largely useless.
 
Upvote 0
People are pushed to this by the greedy movie studios who now want you to rent stuff instead of buying them. If a movie would cost half a pound to watch once then i think the incentive for piracy would not exist for most of the world as the effort would not be worth it.

Does that work in bricks and mortar shops too where if the price of something is too high it's acceptable to steal it?
 
Upvote 0

obscure

Free Member
Jan 18, 2008
3,370
879
The world
People are pushed to this by the greedy movie studios who now want you to rent stuff instead of buying them. If a movie would cost half a pound to watch once then i think the incentive for piracy would not exist for most of the world as the effort would not be worth it.
If only that were true. There are a host of excuses offered by pirates as to why they copy/distribute games and movies. It's too expensive, it's copy protected (won't work on my machine), it's not good enough (not worth paying for - yet worth going to the effort to hack/upload/download).

There have been lots of experiments in the games industry releasing products without DRM (trust your customers and they will reward you), release quality games at low prices etc etc and none of them ever made the slightest bit of difference. The pirates still pirate because the simple truth is that it isn't someone else's fault that they do it. They just want it for free.
 
Upvote 0

fisicx

Moderator
Sep 12, 2006
46,722
8
15,391
Aldershot
www.aerin.co.uk
it's just that i don't get people who still buy stuff that is available for free anywhere on the web.
So how is the studio going to recover their costs if everyone watches the film for free?

Don’t know what you do for a living but maybe you could let everyone have your goods and services for free as well. How about I come live in your house for free.

If you want to watch a movie pay for it so that the studio has the money to make more movies.
 
Upvote 0

Inva

Free Member
Aug 10, 2018
370
62
Does that work in bricks and mortar shops too where if the price of something is too high it's acceptable to steal it?
Where did i say that stealing is acceptable please?

If only that were true. There are a host of excuses offered by pirates as to why they copy/distribute games and movies. It's too expensive, it's copy protected (won't work on my machine), it's not good enough (not worth paying for - yet worth going to the effort to hack/upload/download).

There have been lots of experiments in the games industry releasing products without DRM (trust your customers and they will reward you), release quality games at low prices etc etc and none of them ever made the slightest bit of difference. The pirates still pirate because the simple truth is that it isn't someone else's fault that they do it. They just want it for free.
There will always be those people who will not pay any amount if they can get it for free. But the majority of people i think will pay $2 or $5 to buy a game. That way you get to replay it whenever you want and you also get updates to it. If you get bored of it, the investment was not too large.

But have you seen the prices of some of the popular titles nowadays? $50 or $60, sorry that's way out of the price range of most of the world. So it's normal it will be pirated.

Regarding cheap games without success, i dont know about that. I know of www.gog.com which offers old games on the cheap and it's a thriving business. Can buy classic games for $1, and get updates to them. Anyone reasonable will pay that price because it has benefits.

In the movie industry the situation is even worse. A $50 game will give you many hours of entertainment. On the other hand, a movie only lasts 2 hours, there are no updates which improve it, the quality is plain average most of the time and they simply cost too much for the 2 hours they offer. Were they much cheaper, the convenience of paying a small fee vs finding a pirated copy would make up for the lower price by having more volume.
 
Upvote 0

alan1302

Free Member
Jun 2, 2018
2,135
399
People are pushed to this by the greedy movie studios who now want you to rent stuff instead of buying them. If a movie would cost half a pound to watch once then i think the incentive for piracy would not exist for most of the world as the effort would not be worth it.

Anyway, 50GB blu-ray quality is nice for the new films but for old films it is largely useless.

So people think it's ok to steal expensive items?
 
Upvote 0

Inva

Free Member
Aug 10, 2018
370
62
So people think it's ok to steal expensive items?
If it's freely available then you'd be surprised how many think of that as the only reasonable option. For much of the world paying western prices for movies is simply too much. Thinking otherwise is denying reality. These people would never buy that movie anyway so the studio is not really losing money. If anything, they'd rather these people "steal" their product as it increases their brand recognition for future use.

Bill Gates summed it up nicely on Windows piracy:
"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, people don't pay for the software. Someday they will, though. And as long as they're going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."
 
Upvote 0
@Inva, you are spouting the most frightful nonsense! Software and movies are completely different in every possible way and the rest of your statements are obviously being made from a position of deep and profound ignorance!
People are pushed to this by the greedy movie studios who now want you to rent stuff instead of buying them. If a movie would cost half a pound to watch once then i think the incentive for piracy would not exist for most of the world as the effort would not be worth it.
The studios the way you seem to imagine them, no longer exist. You have producers, who put the project together and distributors who buy the movie outright and hope to earn all the money, if there is any! Most movies are made for the love of the art form and lose money. A very few earn a great deal and keep that whole circus going!

The uninformed imagine that making movies is pretty much like having a license to print money - so let's look at the figures -

Bladerunner-2049 cost $185m to make and grossed $260m World-wide. Of that $260m the distributors (Warner Bros and Sony) get about 40%, so just over $100m. The rest goes to the cinema chains. That is an immediate loss of $80m that has to be financed and made good over many years with DVD and BR sales, streaming, PPV, PPC and terrestrial free-to-air TV. Losing 'just' $80m was deemed to be a moderate success!

War for the Planet of the Apes was a real money earner. It cost just $150m to make and grossed $490m, so distributor 20th Century Fox took less than $200m and made a gross profit of roughly $50 World-wide.

A Million Ways to Die in the West is hailed as a cultural success and a great spoof on the Western genre. It was written, directed, produced and starred Seth MacFarlane and was distributed by Universal. It cost $40m to make and grossed $87m so another loss-making hit!

Let's look at a UK hit - T2-Trainspotting. The second in the series cost Sony-TriStar $20m and grossed $40m, so another loss, this time a loss of about $6m that has to be made up via BR, DVD, etc.

Anyway, 50GB blu-ray quality is nice for the new films but for old films it is largely useless.
Completely and utterly wrong! Nearly all movies are shot on 35mm film and always have been. Even in today's digital world, big-budget movies are nearly all shot on 35mm and then transferred to digital. From Charlie Chaplin shorts to War Horse, from Laurel & Hardy to Batman Rises, all shot on 35mm.

Yes, there have been exceptions, such as the original low-budget Trainspotting (Super-16) but there are hundreds of movies that were made on 70mm film. Older 35mm is roughly equivalent to 4K and modern 35mm compares favourably with 6K, esp. the Cinemascope anamorphic 2.39:1 format. If you can find the original footage to an older film (and not a degraded copy) you have quality far superior to HD.

a movie only lasts 2 hours, there are no updates which improve it, the quality is plain average most of the time and they simply cost too much for the 2 hours they offer. Were they much cheaper, the convenience of paying a small fee vs finding a pirated copy would make up for the lower price by having more volume.
The theatres are filled on a Saturday night with punters willing to pay £10 or more and the BluRay disks move at £12-£20.

You can get movies at the prices you want, but you have to wait until they have moved through the higher priced sales-waves. If you wait two years, you get a low-quality, watered-down version on terrestrial TV and completely free - no pirate copying required!

Considering the cost of making a decent movie, that is a pretty good deal!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

Inva

Free Member
Aug 10, 2018
370
62
Apologies for not being an expert in movie distribution. But how does that change the fact that movies are too expensive for a lot of people? Also are we talking why there is piracy or did we shift to whether the film industry is profitable?

Regarding blu-ray, what i said stands and i am surprised you seem to suggest that because films are shot with 35mm then somehow they can have the same quality. No, i don't think we can put "the cabinet of dr Caligari" in blu-ray and it will magically become crisp and modern. That would put Janus Films out of business.

the BluRay disks move at £12-£20
Too expensive for someone who makes 200-300 pounds per month.
 
Upvote 0

alan1302

Free Member
Jun 2, 2018
2,135
399
If it's freely available then you'd be surprised how many think of that as the only reasonable option. For much of the world paying western prices for movies is simply too much. Thinking otherwise is denying reality. These people would never buy that movie anyway so the studio is not really losing money. :

I never buy into this - people download movies/games/music illegally as they don't think they will get caught. It's not because they are too expensive or because they would not buy them anyway it's due to them thinking they won't get caught doing. If people thought they would get caught then they simply would not do it.
 
Upvote 0
Why? Surely there are plenty of copies till about of some films? Even if they are not the original they will still be full film quality transfers.
Some films yes, but that particular film - no!

There is no such thing as a 'full-quality' transfer. Even the transfer to digital involves a significant loss of quality, unless the digital medium AND the transfer method are both of a much higher quality than the 35mm or 70mm original. A film-to-film transfer was all we had until recently (about 1995) and each generation of film lead to a big drop in quality.

Because chemical film has random grain (i.e. the chemical surface is made of random particles of silver and dye cells, similar to the pixels in a digital camera) and because each and every time a new frame is shot 24 times a second or faster, every grain is in a different place, a film-to-digital transfer must have several digital pixels to represent one grain on the original film.

Old films were shot onto stock that (by about 1955-60) was more or less as good as film stock today.

BUT today we either shoot in digital or transfer straight to digital and the original footage just gets stored somewhere. Back before about 2000, the original negative was copied to another negative and that copy was copied several times for each market, i.e. one for the UK, one for Germany, four for the US, one for Australia - and so on.

From that THIRD copy, all the distribution copies were made, so the film you saw in the theatre was a FOURTH GENERATION COPY. A copy of a copy of a copy of a copy! And each copy causes the light from each gain to 'spill' to neighbouring grains, so the image deteriorates as the film enters the market. And the film stock used for distribution was nowhere near the quality used for the original - that would have been prohibitively expensive!

Digital of course, does not degrade from copy to copy and the pixels are always in the same place.

In order to have the pristine quality of a modern movie, you have to go back to the original film stock, the actual film that was in the camera back in 1936 or '45 or whenever. Sadly, all too often, either that original is lost or (being celluloid) has deteriorated. The footage you get to see today is often just taken from some copy of a copy of a copy of a copy that someone hung onto and stored somewhere safe.

There are however many originals of the big movies (e.g. Gone with the Wind) and those have been lovingly restored and transferred to digital.

I mentioned earlier Leo Kirch and his restoration of the Laurel & Hardy films made by Hal Roach. He was able to access the original footage that Roach had kept for 30-to-40 years and he had that transferred frame by frame to high quality stock. Today, we get to see that footage in a quality that is higher than the quality cinema audiences saw in the 1930s.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Upvote 0

obscure

Free Member
Jan 18, 2008
3,370
879
The world
Apologies for not being an expert in movie distribution. But how does that change the fact that movies are too expensive for a lot of people? Also are we talking why there is piracy or did we shift to whether the film industry is profitable?
No, he was explaining to you why your suggestion that movies and games should be sold for just a couple of £ won't work. As I pointed out earlier doing so has zero effect on piracy and just results in lower overall income... meaning you don't have enough money to fund the next set of movies.

Inva said:
But have you seen the prices of some of the popular titles nowadays? $50 or $60, sorry that's way out of the price range of most of the world. So it's normal it will be pirated.
Unfortunately you clearly don't know anything about the subject under discussion (the business model of the entertainment industry). I don't say that to be rude but because what you say simply has no connection to the reality of the industry.
1. "Most of the world" don't pay anything like the same price for games/movies as 1st world countries do. Film Studios and Game Publishers license localised (language) titles to local distributors who charge way less to their end users.
2. Just because someone in India can't pay $50 doesn't mean someone who can afford to live in London/New York/Paris can't. The profit from the developed countries is what allows the companies to make these titles in the first place.
3. The big games and movies cost tens - hundreds of millions to make. Major video game titles need teams of over 100 people to make them, big movies even more. Budgets from $50-200 million need to be recouped then the same amount again if you want to be able to make the next game.

Inva said:
Regarding cheap games without success, i dont know about that. I know of www.gog.com which offers old games on the cheap and it's a thriving business. Can buy classic games for $1, and get updates to them. Anyone reasonable will pay that price because it has benefits.
But how did those games get to be old? By being new first. They can only sell them for £1 now because the publisher invested $millions to make them and then recouped that through full price sales, then budget range (older), then compilation packs/super budget (even older) and then onto sites like gog. Just as with movies that go to cinema then DVD/BD sales, then rental, then TV, then budget disk sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Byre
Upvote 0

Inva

Free Member
Aug 10, 2018
370
62
I never buy into this - people download movies/games/music illegally as they don't think they will get caught. It's not because they are too expensive or because they would not buy them anyway it's due to them thinking they won't get caught doing. If people thought they would get caught then they simply would not do it.
Well this may well be your experience, but i think it's wrong to put everyone on the same basket. Btw i acknowledged earlier that some people will get pirated copies no matter the price. I am not discussing these people as there's little that can be done in their case. Getting caught is something that exists only in a handful of western countries. No government outside that is ever going to lose money and votes by systematically punishing piracy of products from overseas.


Lamborghinis are too expensive for a lot of people so is that a good reason for those that can't afford them to go out and "pirate" them
This comparison is manipulative and plain wrong for the fact that each Lamborghini is a physical product which costs money to produce. "Obtaining an illegal copy" of that has a direct cost on the manufacturer. On the other hand a digital product like a game or movie has already been paid for and obtaining a copy of it costs nothing to the manufacturer, as it's obviously done through third party channels. The loss here is incurred from the fact that they're not buying it rather than from the fact that they got it.

You keep saying "piracy is bad" but i don't see how that is constructive and also i never maintained otherwise.

No, he was explaining to you why your suggestion that movies and games should be sold for just a couple of £ won't work. As I pointed out earlier doing so has zero effect on piracy and just results in lower overall income... meaning you don't have enough money to fund the next set of movies.
If that were true why isn't Netflix or GOG bankrupting? The problem is not that this model does not work, the problem is that since fighting piracy is practically impossible, then between A) more low-priced sales and less piracy and B) less high-priced sales and more piracy, option B makes more money for those involved.


Unfortunately you clearly don't know anything about the subject under discussion (the business model of the entertainment industry). I don't say that to be rude but because what you say simply has no connection to the reality of the industry.
1. "Most of the world" don't pay anything like the same price for games/movies as 1st world countries do. Film Studios and Game Publishers license localised (language) titles to local distributors who charge way less to their end users.
I'm not an expert on the entertainment industry business model but i'm not a stranger to it either. So i believe it's a bit premature for you to draw conclusions by one single phrase, "movie studios", which may or may not have been wrong but nonetheless was used in relation to product price and piracy to begin with, not anything to do with how the movie industry works.

Furthermore i find it funny mainly because then you go on to say the part i underlined in the quote. Maybe it was the case that local distributors existed 20 years ago but nowadays people download their stuff from the Internet and i would be hard pressed to believe that anyone is going to employ a local overseas company to distribute their product (so therefore 50 local companies to distribute it in countries left and right), in order to also sell it at a lower price, when they can just put a link to it on their website and sell at full price! Regarding localisation you don't need a local distributor to translate anything. Companies hire online now, send the text and get it back translated. In regard to movies, premier movies do not play on free TV, they are sold normally at normal prices like everywhere, and play on paid platforms. Said platforms will buy only a few premium/new movies and the rest will be a mix that makes sense to them for the price.


But how did those games get to be old? By being new first. They can only sell them for £1 now because the publisher invested $millions to make them and then recouped that through full price sales, then budget range (older), then compilation packs/super budget (even older) and then onto sites like gog. Just as with movies that go to cinema then DVD/BD sales, then rental, then TV, then budget disk sales.
I don't disagree but the point is, regardless of age, the price is reasonable and more people will buy. And by buying they develop a culture of buying so there's more chance to buy something more expensive in the future. But some games cost a ridiculous amount of money for what they offer so of course they will get pirated. What did they expect? But of course they already knew and it's a business decision, as i explained above.
 
Upvote 0

obscure

Free Member
Jan 18, 2008
3,370
879
The world
With streaming services I think buying is a thing of the past
Which brings us right back to the problem that started this thread. With streaming services you own nothing and only have access to the content for as long as they do. I recently went to watch a movie on Netflix that they had been promoting a few months before and it was no longer available on the service. If you buy it you own it and can watch it without fear of it disappearing.
 
Upvote 0

DavidWH

Free Member
Feb 15, 2011
1,785
358
Manchester
You can now get games for 'free'... I believe fortnight is one such game... until you start playing and start buying in game addon's.

I'm sure that game quickly becomes more expensive than the more conventional way of buying a disc.

Software developers aren't stupid, they know people wont pay £xxx for adobe suite or an accounts package, but will happily pay a £20p/m subscription.

Interesting insight from the Byre as to how movies work
 
Upvote 0
This comparison is manipulative and plain wrong for the fact that each Lamborghini is a physical product which costs money to produce. "Obtaining an illegal copy" of that has a direct cost on the manufacturer. On the other hand a digital product like a game or movie has already been paid for and obtaining a copy of it costs nothing to the manufacturer,
So now I see that you not only do not understand how the movie industry works, but you don't know how that car industry works either!

BOTH the car and the movie BluRay disk are virtual products with a physical manifestation.

The average mass produced car has physical build costs (aka marginal costs) of about one-eighth the UK RRP. That is of course a very rough guide and hand-built cars like a Morgan will be more like one-half - but for your average million seller World-wide, one eighth is about right. In the US, the figure is higher, because new car prices are lower.

Most of the cost of manufacturing a car are not in that shiny new beast parked outside your house, waiting to be keyed or stolen, but are in development. If you are absolutely starting from scratch, new engine, new platform, new body, etc., expect to have to de-trouser about one billion dollars, before the first car gets to a showroom in Scunthorpe or Tring.

Just as most of the value of a BR disk is virtual, most of the value in a car is virtual. Just as you may own the disk, you may own the car. BUT that is all you own. The underlying IP in that car, the licenses, permits and designs, the software and methods of building and even the shade of paint are not yours - only the physical manifestation of all that is yours.

That massive up-front cost is very similar to the massive up-front cost of making Bladerunner-2049. The Blu-Ray disks cost pennies each to manufacture, assuming you order a few thousand - but the origination and other costs for that movie were $185m. The movie lost just $80m at the box-office, so that sum has to be made up with BR sales, streaming, PPV and so on. If two million people World-wide Annie-up $8 each for a disk or a streaming, then we stand a fighting chance of being able to cover our costs and bank-roll the next tent-pole movie.

To argue that a download or a disk does not cost the manufacturer anything like the sticker price and that the price they charge should reflect the 'real' cost of manufacture, is like demanding that VW should have charged me just £4,000 for my car, because that's all it cost to build.

Fortunately for all of us, car manufacturers (with the notable exception of Tesla!) are able to calculate and we get better cars as a direct result.
 
Upvote 0

Inva

Free Member
Aug 10, 2018
370
62
You can now get games for 'free'... I believe fortnight is one such game... until you start playing and start buying in game addon's.

I'm sure that game quickly becomes more expensive than the more conventional way of buying a disc.

Software developers aren't stupid, they know people wont pay £xxx for adobe suite or an accounts package, but will happily pay a £20p/m subscription.

Interesting insight from the Byre as to how movies work
Very good points but this pay-as-you-go model is pretty old, i remember there were (and are?) "pizza by the meter" shops and similar things. Now it's very popular on the internet with "cloud" (devised to make servers have no unused resources), addon/pay-to-win business models in games and these streaming services in the movie industry. So far it's working pretty well on all fronts i believe, at least profits wise.

However at least in the big league software sector, they will never make it too hard to pirate because that represents market share loss. Windows is going towards "desktop as a service", already announced for Windows 7. If that becomes their standard model and it's hard to pirate it, a lot of people will be turned elsewhere. I believe Microsoft will much rather they pirate their OS.
 
Upvote 0

Latest Articles