Slashdot Mirror
Sony's Ultra 4K Streaming Service Launching On April 4; Titles Priced At $30 (variety.com)
Janko Roettgers reports for Variety: Sony is launching its 4K movie streaming service called Ultra next month: Consumers will be able to buy movies from the service, and stream to supported Sony 4K TV sets, starting April 4. The new service will offer 4K HDR movies to stream, including extras that have previously been able only on physical discs. Ultra ties into UltraViolet, the cloud locker service backed by Sony. Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Has anyone here watched any 4k porn? How did you get aroused with all the high resolution pimples and stretch marks?
And just how well is this going to work on AT&T DSL?
Yet another service I can't use due to the Data caps on my internet. Yay.......
Hahahahahahahaha!! Yeah Right!
I for one prefer to "own" the copies that I buy. If I'm to buy a digital only copy that I will never actually "own" why should I pay the same price, or even more, as a physical copy? No thank you Sony.
You're not buying the movie, you're licensing it.
This is a streaming service and should it go away, you will no longer be able to watch the movie you "purchased". You are not allowed to re-sell or format-shift the movie, nor make local backup copies.
Please tell me why this is worth $30 when I can torrent the same movie and *actually* own it for free?
The pricing is crazy. The only time I would even consider this is if a group was over splitting the bill.
I thought Ultra Violet was that comic-book shoot-em-up where Millia Jovovovvich shoots anything and everything that moves.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I knew it wasn't meant for playing 4K games (hell, my $600 videocard can barely handle that).
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Another reason they are releasing a "4K Playstation", to try and get you into their flashy new streaming service.
Although no mention of bitrates and if it compares to the UHD discs, price is the same as the disc.
You must be joking...
I bought most of my HD digital copies for less than $8, some for $5.
If someone at Sony thinks that I'll pay $12 to UPGRADE my HD copies of movies to UHD, they should pass whatever it is they are smoking.
Maybe if the whole movie was $12 and the upgrade cost was $3, I'd do it, but that's about it.
Having lived through VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray, and now this, I'm just not going to buy anything again.
4k is nice, but meh, whatever, 1080p is good enough.
Answer $30
What was Sony Ultra 4K steaming service movie price.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
4K really is a joke. Why would I replace my current TV with 4K when no human on earth can detect improved quality on the 4K TV over my TV at 7.5'-8' or more???
IF there were an improvement over my current TV why would I upgrade when Midcontinent cannot stream 1080 without SUPER ANNOYING ARTIFACTS IN THE PICTURE???
If I had a gargantuan TV or needed a better computer monitor then I would consider 4K. For TV, not a chance.
Other than the torrent, the ONLY two formats where Han Solo just shoots Greedo are VHS and LaserDisc. Reason enough, to me, to keep some of them around.
I am, slowly, replacing LaserDiscs as they delaminate, or as I add the title to the in-house streaming collection. Only a couple out of the collection, so far, has delaminated, though.
30 bucks per movie and I don't even get a copy to store?
So what happens when the service goes out of business? I lose everything I've bought?
Thank you, no.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
it's most likely the last resolution increase they're gonna charge people with. 8K for all intents and purposes might never materialize at home 'cause 99% of people out there just won't notice any difference (vs 4K).
Another opportunity to pay for content yet AGAIN !
If you're lucky enough to be able to afford it. Not like any of us could put $30 to better use such as putting food on the table...
Rachael: Do you like our new movie service?
Deckard: It's streaming?
Rachael: Of course it is.
Deckard: Must be expensive.
Rachael: Very.
Rachael: I'm Rachael.
Deckard: Deckard.
Rachael: It seems you feel our work is not a benefit to the public.
Deckard: Streaming is like any other service - it's either a good deal or a rip-off. If it's a good deal, it's not my problem.
>> Sony
>> Digital Content Delivery Network
What could possibly go wrong?
> Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
So this is saying that if you have the SD version of a movie, you can upgrade it to 4K for $12. If you have the HD version, you'll have to pay $15 to upgrade it to 4K, even though it is already at a higher definition (and thus closer to the 4K objective) than the SD version.
That's obviously not the case, and the author who used the word "respectively" to qualify this statement is an idiot.
I can tell you right now that good 4K is going to required 25 Mbps and up of HEVC for on-demand (and ~35 Mbps for live encoded 60p sports content, the bit rate of live 4K cable channels in Korea and Japan).
If you are only going to be able to stream 15 Mbps, then a 1080p24 image would look far better at that bit rate than a 2160p24 image!
That is one reason for the existence of Vidity 4K/HDR download (not streaming) service. The average US Internet connection can not sustain 25 Mbps.
So how long before Ultraflix gets hit with trademark? Or is it copyright? I'd dont even know anymore....
> Consumers will be able to upgrade SD and HD quality movies from their UltraViolet cloud locker for $12 to $15, respectively.
Looks like pretty good deal, encouraging us to have higher density (HD) than lower (SD)...
If I'm going to drop $30 on a movie I want to see it on a huge screen with a colossal sound system - in other words in a movie theater. Currently I'm paying about $9 a month for Netflix. I think I'll stay with that.
Oh good, yet MORE market fragmentation in the streaming video industry. I miss the good old days when there were three TV channels and no VCRs.
$30 for less than or equal to a single watching of a movie? No. For a physical copy that I can watch whenever I want? No, still too high. But the fact that it is streaming over the internet and may be subject to buffering, disconnects, jitters, bad encoding and all manner of other issues? No way.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yup, that's the new model ... pay, and then pay again, and then pay some more.
Like them, or hate them, Apple's "Digital Copy" was a one-time download, and didn't have all of this bullshit.
UltraViolet is pretty much crap, and I refuse to use it. It means I need to sign up with pretty much every studio, let them track everything I do, ask their permission to watch the damned movie, and be at their mercy if they ever change their minds.
If I don't get to keep my digital copy on my local machine, put it on a device of my choosing, and play it without an internet connected device ... then I refuse to buy the damned things.
UltraViolet basically killed digital movies for me. I will not keep supporting this rent-seeking bullshit, nor will I keep paying to upgrade.
And, no, I don't give a crap about yet another movie format. I see 4K as having zero value, and other than the media companies wanting to sell me a new TV every year or two, I don't see why I should get on it.
UltraViolet is just letting the media companies keep you on an upgrade treadmill, and ensure you keep paying for the same thing.
I saw this coming, and simply refuse to use this UltraViolet bullshit ... because sooner or later they'll just tell you that you need to pay more just because they want it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Umm yeah no thanks.
I was just reading yet another article about Sony shutting down a service yesterday. They are known for it, plus their awesome track record for bending over their customers without even offering up some lube. That said, $30 is beyond insane, a quick search on Amazon shows I can buy actual discs, which I can keep and play whenever I want without the worry of some random service having the rug yanked out from under me, or connection / buffering issues for $15-$30.
$30 for a movie in a format few people can tell the difference, across bandwidth few people have, to watch some lonely set of movies few people want to see?
How can this not be a success?
Always making horrible ideas possible.
Call me when they charge 2.99/movie. That's about what I'd be willing to pay for streaming.