Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Begins Selling HD Movies On Its PSN

Posted by Soulskill on from the pants-and-cheeseburgers-to-follow dept.

itwbennett writes "Sony on Tuesday 'rolled out the ability to buy HD movies from the PlayStation Network,' writes blogger Peter Smith. Sony claims they're the first service to offer HD titles to own from all six major movie studios. Smith runs the numbers on 'standard' pricing for titles ($19.99 for new releases; $17.99 for older movies), file sizes (ranging from 4 GB for Zombieland to 7.5 GB for 2012), and resolution (720P as far as he can tell)."

20 of 153 comments (clear)

  1. Titles to "own" by SoapBox17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To "own"? Let's not kid ourselves here... there's no real ownership involved unless there is a way to get DRM-free files in 720p off the device using anything other than your eyeballs. I seriously doubt there is, which makes this just a really expensive rental service. I'm sure there are already lots of services which feature renting movies from all 6 major studios while taking your money and laughing about it.

    1. Re:Titles to "own" by drcln · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To "own"? Let's not kid ourselves here... there's no real ownership involved . . ..

      "To watch as many times as you like but only on your PS3 and only for as long as you keep your PS3 and don't erase the file or the hard drive fails or something else goes wrong" does not sound as snappy as "to own." But, I don't mind the idea of paying for content with limitations and that won't necessarily last forever, as long as the pricing is in line with the limitations. This pricing scheme provides no reason to buy from PSN.

      --
      your gravity fails and negativity don't pull you through
    2. Re:Titles to "own" by quantumplacet · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There is a massive difference between DVD and blu ray on TVs a lot smaller than 72". On my 65" it's night and day, on a 50" (which is very common for HDTV) it's unquestionably noticable, hell even on a 42" you can definitely tell the difference assuming its 1080p. However, this service is most definitely not blu ray, and the difference between compressed 720p and an upscaled DVD is probably pretty minimal.

    3. Re:Titles to "own" by IBBoard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always love those graphs. For our "reasonable sized" TV (26" in a ~12'-14' room, which is fairly standard in a UK terrace and includes a 2' extension) we need to be sat stupidly close to hit the "visibile difference" distance.

      I do sometimes watch things like House on standard-def Sky and wonder why, when I can already see enough apparent individual hairs, I'd need to go high-def. It always just seems like overkill.

    4. Re:Titles to "own" by somersault · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A common thing for people who don't want to admit they were ripped off.

      Of course. If that were true I am not being forced to buy any more blu-rays, yet I keep doing so. I'll also point out that after being a devout Christian my whole life I recently changed my beliefs and no longer believe in any god. I'm now quite capable of letting things go in life if needs be.

      The first two films I ever watched on blu-ray were Independence Day and Ratatouille (bought at the same time when I got my PS3).

      Independence Day didn't look much cop at all. I was slightly disappointed.

      Then I watched Ratatouille and it was truly stunning.

      I have since realised that Independence Day was either a poor conversion or simply shot on very grainy film (it does have a lot of dark scenes so it probably did need a high ISO film).

      I don't see how someone with a /. UID under 1000000 could not understand how having a higher resolution picture and uncompressed audio would not make a difference for a video recording. Obviously there will be a point where we are unable to make out extra detail and quality, but we have not yet arrived at that point. Go watch a Pixar or Disney 3D animation on blu-ray on a HDTV and you will definitely notice how fantastic it looks even without the DVD playing alongside.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Titles to "own" by rworne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can "back up" the file using the PS3's backup utility and restore it on a new drive. That will protect against a failed drive but not a failed PS3 since a replacement PS3 will refuse to restore any DRM'd content.

      Also note: it won't protect you against false leap years as well.

      --
      I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
    6. Re:Titles to "own" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Inverse square law or not... the fact is a blu-ray contains more pixels and more information. An upscaling dvd player just tries to guess this information. So maybe the difference on a small tv isn't "noticeable" to some people... fine...

      Well, I only a bunch of DVDs collected over the last decade plus some and now I'm re-buying my favorite movies on blu-ray slowly. I only have a 32 inch tv and you can tell the difference. That doesn't really mean the DVD looks "BAD" depending how you define "bad" but you can tell the difference.

      If you honestly think there is no difference, it's you being unwilling to embrace new technology. It has nothing to do with someone else trying to justify getting "ripped off".

      And also, if you buy blu-rays on amazon or used which I ALWAYS do, Blu-rays are no more expensive than dvds were before blu-ray was out. Unless you only shop from the bargin bin at wal-mart new movies will always cost more...

  2. Sony is being very carful not to undercut themself by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Let's see:

    -Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.
    -Price comparable to a Bluray off of Amazon.
    -Quality less than Bluray.
    -Limited to watching it on my PS3.

    Sounds like a real winner, Sony!

  3. Pricing by VisualD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    With a measly $2 reduction for "older titles", one wonders why they even bothered having a tiered pricing scheme.

  4. The pricing is way off... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can get Zombieland on blu-ray at Amazon for $23.49. It's yours, you can loan it, sell it, make backups (shhhh), etc. Plus it's in full 1080p. Who the frick would buy a "virtual" copy for nearly the same price?

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:The pricing is way off... by pandrijeczko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What a clever little "Dick Whittington, highwayman of the Internet" you are - with the emphasis on "Dick"!

      Unfortunately, your miniscule intellect fails to grasp the concept that you're only able to download the movie from "TPB" because lots of other people have actually gone out and bought it in the first place - thus subsidising your entertainment.

      So close your fat mouth and go grow a backbone. If you think shit is overpriced then don't buy it and don't copy it. Then honest people like me don't get DRM restricting our fair usage because Dicks like you give them the excuses they need to do it.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  5. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.

    A trip to the store can take more than a day if you happen to want a movie on a day when the city buses are not running. In some cities, buses don't run on Sundays or about six major holidays.

  6. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by Mystery00 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Don't forget download size, some of us have download quotas.

    --
    "we've got trenchcoats and bad attitudes" - John Constantine, HellBlazer
  7. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by lxs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You wouldn't last a day in Copenhagen

  8. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Playstation network has been DOG SLOW lately... I don't think your fast connection is gonna help much.

  9. Re:HD? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you ever downloaded and watched HD movies off Usenet or torrent sites? These are typically 4-8GB for 720p, and 8-16GB for 1080p. The quality is in no way anywhere as bad or low-def as DVD, and most viewers will probably never notice the difference between these compressed files and the full Blu-ray versions, unless they watch them simultaneously side-by-side. If you have an HD set, these downloads are well worth it compared to plain DVD. Even when I have the chance to download the full Blu-ray, I opt for the compressed file.

    The best thing of course would be to have a choice! I still think the old Russian AllOfMP3 site set the standard for media webshops in that regard: a choice of compression rates and file formats, or the raw uncompressed file, priced by the MB. I'd like online movie stores to offer downloads in formats suitable for portable players, DVD, HDTV (720p and 1080p), with or without compression, etc. And of course, no DRM and download to own. If they offer that, I'd stop bothering with Usenet or torrents, and I'd happily pay close to the full price for movies ($20-25).

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  10. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 2, Insightful

    -Limited to watching it on my PS3.

    Actually, for most of us, this is a limitation common to Bluray as well.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  11. Comparable to Blu-Ray? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At $17.99 for older movies, it's WORSE than buying a Blu-Ray.

    Most older movies have gotten down to $10-15 at Wally World, and I managed to even find some 2-packs (admittedly of made-for-TV movies) for $10.

    I worry that this might affect Netflix streaming to the PS3 though - Netflix's prices blow Sony's "rental" prices away. A 2-disc Netflix sub is only slightly more expensive than two "old release" HD "rentals".

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
  12. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by EvilIdler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You can't download snacks.

  13. Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    -Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.
    -Price comparable to a Bluray off of Amazon.
    -Quality less than Bluray.
    -Limited to watching it on my PS3.

    But wait, there's more!

    -Quickly fill up your PS3 hard drive.
    -Wonder what happens if your hard drive crashes or if you want to switch to another console.
    -No more saving money by selling a movie or by buying movies used.
    -No more borrowing movies among friends.