1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Now you can order movies for $30

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by SledgeHammer, Apr 20, 2011.

  1. Apr 22, 2011 #61 of 129

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I don't see how it is a money sucking dud. They are offering it through the standard method in On Demand, so there is no real cost there. They are probably only paying the studio based upon actual purchase, so no additional cost there (unless they pay more than what they get for the first few purchases, which I doubt). There is some advertising money involved but the side benefit of advertising On Demand and DirecTV having something new and shiny probably pays for that and I doubt they added commercial time, just focus some ads towards this rather than the standard PPV release of another recent movie. Little to no cost there.

    All they have to do is reset the expired time on the movie from the standard film (which is probably just meta data as they have this mechanism on every On Demand feature, even "free" ones) and change the price (which is always adjustable anyway).

    This is a no risk venture for everyone. If it doesn't sell, it doesn't sell. No lost costs, really.

    So, relax. Try to stop worrying about everything causing you pain in the end. Not everything does.
  2. Apr 22, 2011 #62 of 129

    joshjr Hall Of Fame

    Aug 2, 2008
    NE Oklahoma
    Some movies dont come to DVD for 9 months. Thats hardly another 60 days. If I was guessing I would say that on average its more like 7 months after Theatrical Release before most movies come to DVD. You are also talking like most people go to the theater for the theater experience. If the movies were offered at the same price to us on PPV the same day do you honestly think as many people would go to the theaters to watch it? It would be more convienant to watch it on our schedule and not have to deal with crowds, lines, excessive concession prices, disruptive people in the theater.
  3. Apr 22, 2011 #63 of 129
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jun 22, 2001
    I'm a movie fan. If I can see it 60 days before the Blu-Ray release AND I want to see it bad enough, I will pay the $30. Of course, this is coming from someone with a job. Things would be different if I'm not working.

    Much of the time, going to the theater for me is a hassle. With a complete home theater with 106" projection system, surround sound and now 3D (using the projector), going to the theater is less of a draw for me.

    I like this idea and I hope the selection of movies gets better.
  4. Apr 22, 2011 #64 of 129

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    If they only could detect how many people are watching. I won't pay $30 for me as I would watch alone. If I had a party of people, maybe.
  5. Apr 22, 2011 #65 of 129

    susanandmark Godfather

    Feb 15, 2007
    You'd guess wrong. The "industry standard" for theatre to DVD is currently four months. Some as short as three months from debut to disc, some as long as six. Seven would be basically unheard of.

    And, yeah, LOTS of people go to theatre for the experience. Be it just getting out of the house and "doing something" or the big screen, popcorn and sticky floors, going to the movies is a long-standing American tradition and a nationwide past time.

    We can already "watch it on our schedule" with big screens, DVRs, DVDs, premium channels, etc. and yet movie theatres are going strong, with some of their best box office receipts in history reported in the last three years.

    EDITED TO ADD: And this is coming from someone who has been to one movie--a freebie, at that--in the theatre in the past five years and would be happy to never go again, but who attended movies every week, sometimes multiple times, through most of my teens and early 20s. While we had a VCR and rented movies regularly, it didn't replace going to the movies, and I don't think it would have even with the far superior sound and screen set-up we now have. Going to the movies was very much about the experience of, if nothing else, going out of our house--especially as a teen; still a HUGE percentage of the theatre-going audience.
  6. Apr 22, 2011 #66 of 129
    Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    Jun 22, 2001
    I agree with you on that. To make the experience a little extra special, my wife and I now go and see movies in theaters with full bars and pizza. Makes it a little extra special. :)
  7. Apr 22, 2011 #67 of 129

    scorpion43 Duplicate User (Account Closed)

    Mar 16, 2011
    $30 to watch a movie on a lets say 150" home theater screen 60 days later :nono:
    $15 to watch a movie on a HUGE,BIG ,ENORMOUS movie theater screen on opening day :hurah::D

    i'll take the $15 movie on a HUGE,BIG ,ENORMOUS movie theater screen on opening day everytime
  8. Apr 22, 2011 #68 of 129

    Sharkie_Fan Hall Of Fame

    Sep 26, 2006
    I'm buying the exact same movie that I would see in the theater. Only I don't have to put up with anyone else's crying kids, or sticky floors, or snack bar prices that border on criminal. Frankly, the theater experience isn't all it's cracked up to be, IMO - which is why the movie a few weeks ago is, I think, the second time I've been to a theater in the last 3 or 4 years.

    As to your second part... having thought about things for a day... maybe 60 days is too long from theatrical release to make this worth while. I'm not sure - it's been a while since a movie came out that I really wanted to see... Next time that happens, I won't pay for the theater, and I'll see if 60 days down the road I still really want to see it. If I do, $30 is not that big a deal to me. If, on the other hand, after 60 days my excitement has waned, I'll just wait for it to come to the redbox around the corner.

    For this to work, it has to be close enough to when it's in the theater that people still feel like they're getting the theater experience without the theater. Too long and it will (as you've pointed out) feel like an overpriced PPV.

    If they can find that point in time, I can definitely see the market for something like this. If they can't find that sweet spot - or aren't allowed to show it in that time frame - then people will have trouble justifying that price.
  9. Apr 22, 2011 #69 of 129

    Herdfan Well-Known Member

    Mar 18, 2006
    I could deal with it a lot better if they used the old Blockbuster model. Rent today and keep it until midnight tomorrow or similar.

    The only time my wife and I get to watch movies at home is usually when our daughter is sleeping over somewhere. So lets say we start a movie at 9:00pm and at 10:15 she calls and wants to come home. Good chance we won't finish it that night and no way to finish it before 9:00pm the next night.

    So relax the 24-hour rule a bit to maybe a 36-hour rule. If I am intent on copying the movie, I am going to buy it at 2 in the afternoon and have a copy ready before I going to watch it at 9.

    As for the $30 PPV, my daughter's birthday is in a couple of weeks and she is having a slumber party. If they have a kid friendly movie that is not yet available on DVD and the girls want to watch it, sure. I can't see my wife and I doing it for $30 as there are enough movies already out on DVD/BR we haven't yet seen.
  10. Apr 22, 2011 #70 of 129

    Sharkie_Fan Hall Of Fame

    Sep 26, 2006
    According to the list posted earlier in the thread, How to train your Dragon was only a week short of 7 months. Not that it necessarily changes the rest of your assertion...

    The key is the exclusive, newness, as you pointed out. Time will tell if 60 days is too far away from the movie release. It is a two month wait.. but it's also two months (or even more) sooner than you could see it if you wait for the DVD.

    IF I can get a movie close enough to "theater timeline" without having to deal with the theater, I could justify $30 as a savings... pretty easily, in my mind. What I can't say with any certainty is whether 60 days is a close enough timeline to justify that.

    Obviously several here don't think it's close enough to the release date. I just don't know because there aren't often movies that I have any pressing desire to see. Certainly there haven't been any in the last few years...

    It all comes down to the timing, in my mind... and eventually we'll either see this service continue as it is - meaning that there are enough people who think the timeline is good enough to justify the premium - or we'll see the service change (or go away) which will tell us that the timeline is too long and people are willing to wait for the DVD release.
  11. Apr 23, 2011 #71 of 129

    billsharpe Hall Of Fame

    Jan 25, 2007
    The story I read in the LA Times says that this feature will have a 48-hour window for viewing instead of 24. That's about the only good part I see...
  12. Apr 23, 2011 #72 of 129

    MysteryMan Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    May 17, 2010
    For what it's worth our friend Swanni has a article on the $30.00 VOD. The article states DirecTV executive vice president Derek Chang as saying the new $29.95 VOD is in a testing window with a testing price point. DirecTV may lower the $29.95 VOD and offer movies sooner than 60 days if buy rates are low.
  13. Apr 24, 2011 #73 of 129
    KK in CT

    KK in CT Legend

    Jul 13, 2010
    yes, you see the same movie. But on a much smaller screen, with less quality sound, 60 days later. It's simply not the same thing. Ask any kid if watching something on TV is the same thing as seeing it in the theater. For a majority of families, it's probably on a 50" screen or less, with 2 channel stereo sound. And they've waited 60 days for that. Why not wait another 60 days or so and get it on regular PPV for a fraction of the $30? Again, if the object is to save money, then not waiting for the regular PPV goes directly against your objective. The only thing your gaining is a shorter wait. Is 6 times the price really worth that? I would bet not to most people.

    So what you're basically arguing is that watching Avatar in 3D at home is the exact same thing as watching it in 3D at the theater?? I don't think so. Speaking of which, for most this obviously won't work for most with 3D movies. Which seems to be the direction of where most new movies are going,...
  14. Apr 24, 2011 #74 of 129

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Maybe for you, but not for everyone. Yes, my 126" screen is technically smaller than the one in the theater, but when I sit 12' away, the experience is much more engrossing than in a theater. The quality of the picture is almost always better as well, and I can assure you that the 7.1 sound is equal to what I've heard in any commercial theater. Don't make assumptions based on your own gear.

    In many cases, it's better, especially if you have good equipment.

    Here's one snipet from the latest issue of Home Theater Magazine where they reviewed 3D projectors:

    "Compared to the soft, unfocused 3D presentation I saw theatrically, this was like seeing a whole new movie" (regarding Tangled in 3D on the JVC DLA-X7)

    And it's not an isolated quote.

    Regardless, paying $30 for a PPV is absurd.
  15. Apr 24, 2011 #75 of 129

    rock819 AllStar

    Mar 13, 2007
    For me I can wait to own it on bluray Plain and simple I will not pay $30 to watch a movie one time especially when bluray offers better picture/sound quality and usually when it comes out on bluray they are on sale and sometimes you can end up getting 2 bluray disks for close to the same cost as renting it on directv at a $30 cost NO THANKS directv I can wait its not a big deal to wait. I hate going to the theater standing in line watching a movie with complete strangers and kids being loud or crying not to mention there are no theaters in my city I would have to drive an hour to a theater so..... I would say like many others have IF it was available to watch same day as theatrical release I MIGHT CONSIDER watching it but I would invite another couple or friends over and split the cost of it just like I do with wrestlemania
  16. Apr 24, 2011 #76 of 129

    fluffybear Hall Of Fame DBSTalk Club

    Jun 19, 2004
    While I will agree that paying $30 for a PPV is absurd and I wouldn't do it, I should remind you that some pay as much as $80+ for a PPV event.
  17. Apr 24, 2011 #77 of 129

    anleva Icon

    Nov 14, 2007
    But isn't quality then the more important factor than cost or getting it 60 days earlier for the videophile?

    I wouldn't think videophiles, who are obviously very discriminating when it comes to selecting high-end home theater equipment, would choose inferior source material regardless of cost. They have invested a lot to make their home theater an equal to or superior experience to the movie theater. Why would they compromise with lossy audio and lower quality video than what they could have on Blu-Ray. Doesn't make sense to me.
  18. Apr 24, 2011 #78 of 129

    TheRatPatrol Hall Of Fame

    Oct 1, 2003
    Phoenix, AZ
  19. Apr 24, 2011 #79 of 129

    spartanstew Dry as a bone

    Nov 16, 2005
    Wylie, Texas
    Yep, also absurd.

    Very true. I rarely watch a movie for the first time on anything other than Blu Ray.
  20. Apr 24, 2011 #80 of 129

    sigma1914 Well-Known Member DBSTalk Club

    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    His "big secret" wasn't even a secret...there have been mentions that a HD-DVR is required. Swanni used his big boy calculator to figure the percentage of subs with HD-DVRs.

    Thanks for telling us what only you know, Swanni. :rolleyes: Tool.

Share This Page