And most people getting burned by Blockbuster are people who simply don't get their tapes back on time....or people whose late fees were artificially boosted, which they have been sued for before. As recently as this year, states have sued Blockbuster of their late fee policies. Not individual consumers, whole states. It's been covered on Slashdot; that's where I read about it.
In an endurance race being slow off the line is often a decent predictor of the winner. Rent Hidalgo.
If you want to call it an endurance race, I'd point out that Blockbuster's $1 billion in debt vs Netflix's $0 is the equivilant of one athelete coming to the race 40 pounds overweight and after an all-night bender, vs the other who got good rest.
With that debt, and the rapid shrinkage of their brick and mortar store base, they can't afford to make it an endurance race... this fact was, I believe, pointed out in the article, as well.
And Netflix has the throttling people who seek to get maximum value from their subscription thing going.
I have watched an average of 3-4 Netflix discs per week since 2000 and my disc turnaround has only gotten faster since then (because they opened a warehouse near me). The only time I have noticed oddities in delievery was when I queued an obscure or rare film, or something that was brand new. So, that's 12-16 movies a month with no apparent throttling... to get throttled, I'd have to watch more than 16 netflix movies a month? I'll never have that much free time.
Either I am quite lucky, or, more likely, most people getting throttled are burning discs and returning them unwatched, same day. Most people don't know about this practice, so I doubt it will affect the average person's desire to join Netflix, if they even hear about it. Most people don't watch 30 movies a month.
Being late to the starting line does not imply finishing last.
Didn't say it does. The article states that Netflix is signing up customers at a quicker rate than BB is. If BB's brand recognition is a big boon to them, I would think that they would be signing up new customers faster than Netflix (who have been in the rent-by-mail business for longer), but that doesn't appear to be the case. Netflix's base is apparently growing faster than BBO, not slower.
The little rental place downstairs from me rents DVD's for $2 for a 3-day rental. I'd have to watch five movies a month from netflix to beat that with their one-at-a-time $10/month package, and I really don't believe that their turnaround is THAT good.
I watch about 12 movies a month from netflix on average, sometimes as much as 15 or 16. My movies generally arrive to them the day after i mail them, and i have a new movie the next day. Their turnaround is pretty good if you live near one of their warehouses.
The problem with your idea is that with these services, you have movies at home even if you aren't watching them. So even if you didn't watch any movies, you have 3 or more movies at your house that whole month you didn't watch anything.
I like the idea, though. It would be nice if the rent-by-mail services would let you put a temporary hold on your account, like if you go on vacation or are just going to be busy. You would have to mail back the DVDs you have, of course, but they wouldn't bill you again until you take the hold off.
Blockbuster has a really low public image. They are known for over-aggressive late fee policies, for not carrying the unrated versions of movies, for not carrying specific titles that were controversial, etc. I believe that BBO does indeed carry unrated versions, but, in general, most people have a very negative view of Blockbuster. Their brand recognition doesn't help them much (obviously, or they'd be ahead of Netflix).
Except that their web interface leaves a LOT to be desired. Netflix is really easy to use, get recommendations, and the whole "friends" interface is great... does BB have something to compete with this? I wouldn't switch just based on how useful the friends interface is in seeing if you really would like a film... You can see what all your friends thought about a film, including a short review. It's very useful.
I don't do the burn thing, but still I return about 3-4 movies a week and have never been throttled. I don't think the throttling thing really happens much anymore. Or maybe you have to return them the same day they arrive, but really... 3-4 movies a week for $20 is worth it.
They actually have a legal mandate to move to DTV, not HDTV. There is a difference. But I think we pretty much agree. It's gonna happen eventually... I would be disappointed if HDTV didn't overtake regular TV. I want something just as hi-res as what's in the theaters, eventually.
That link says there were 7 million HDTVs by the end of 2004. So even if you say that # is 20 million now, that is probably less than 5% of all TVs.
DVD was an upgrade anyone could enjoy with only a new player. HDTV is an upgrade 5% can enjoy.
The rate of adoption will be much lower. Sorry, but that's just a fact. DVD was the fastest adobpted home elctronic device ever. I really doubt BD or HD will even approach the rate of adoption... especially with the "format war".
This isn't to say those people who have HDTVs already won't buy. But people like myself just aren't going to drop $400+ for a player, then at least that much again for a TV, all at once. It's going to be far more incremental than that.
Also note that when I said that DVD was a big improvement over VHS, I wasn't just talking picture - I was talking the fact that DVDs don't wear out or get eaten by your player thus making you owe $60-100 to blockbuster (happened to me THREE TIMES during the VHS era), the fact that you can play them in your computer, skippable chapters, special features, commentary, no putting in the second tape for long movies, smaller size, multi-use (PS2 played DVDs, CDs AND games)... The only thing BD/HD has over DVD is image quality, which most people can't appreciate anyway without upgrading their TVs. (For data it also has much more storage, but for movies that doesn't really matter much)
Bottom line is that the upgrade to DVD from VHS bought you ALOT for not too much money (just the player). The upgrade to BR/HD from DVD doesn't get you as much, even if you have a HDTV, and if you don't, it's more $$$.
HD or BR will undoubtedly be very successful and probably replace DVD (either that or downloads). But it will not happen as fast as DVD overtaking VHS. There are simply more barriers than there were in that format change.
I dunno. I used to do the same exact thing with CDs/Records. (I still do that with DVDs)... but now those are all in my closet(s). Downloads and MP3 players made it just so easy that I found them to collect dust, so I filed them away.
I think many people (mine, anyway)'s mindset is that if it's something they have to touch anyway, then display them and make it an impressive collection... but if it's not something you need to touch (like my CD collection which is now basically a very voluminous backup for my iPod), why not file it away? And once I filed it away I realized I'd rather not deal with the hassle of new CDs.
It took me awhile to get to that point with music. I'm not there yet with DVDs. But I can see myself getting there eventually.
You must have had bad luck - most of the early DVDs I had were identical LaserDisc transfers. (And I remember when there were only 20-30 DVDs out.) Which is cool, I liked DVD at the time because it was the same quality as my friends' LaserDiscs, but without having to flip the laserdisc or change between two different discs for a movie. And much smaller on the shelf.
Ehh, there is a big difference, however, between an e-book and a book. The way you interact with them is different. The form factor of the book is a huge advantage when it comes to readability, usability, expendability, etc... If my paperback gets something spilled on it, oh well. If I leave it on the train, oh well. I can read while i fall asleep and if it falls out of my fingers onto the hardwood floor, it will be fine. It will never run out of batteries.
The way you'd watch a downloaded/on-demand movie is not that much different from the way you'd watch a DVD - you don't interact with the disc at all, except to put it in the player. In fact, no disc is better since you don't have to change discs to watch different movies.
The main problem with on-demand is that it will be quite awhile until it can offer as big a library as DVDs can... You can get really obscure stuff on DVD now, but could an on-demand service offer that? Downloads could, but getting the stuff from your PC to the TV is a pain for the average person, plus download speeds aren't quite there yet.
Home movies will likely eventually be mostly downloaded/streamed, with a smaller "on disc" market, but it's a ways off... I used to think like you "it'll never happen", but I thought that way about music too, and now I can't even imagine buying a physical CD, unless it's from a band at their concert (because if it's a local or small band they probably aren't on itunes).
However, this time around, it won't be as big a deal since anyone could buy a PS2 and a DVD and see a big improvement over their VCR. With the nextgen discs, if you don't have a HDTV, you won't see any real improvement. So (I would think) a smaller # of people will buy a PS3 to act as a budget DVD player. Some will, but it's not like the VHS-to-DVD transition...
I was among the first people to buy a DVD player (had one years before the PS2 came out), and I will not be on the cusp of HD/BR disc because I don't have an HDTV and don't feel like upgrading yet... gonna wait for prices to fall a bit more/the winner of the disc war to be decided.
Actually, no. The point of the poster I responded to was that video game movies were dumbing down cinema. My point is that dumb films have always existed.
I also think it's pretty elitist (and plainly wrong on many levels) to say "exploiting the bad taste of the populace is shameful, no matter how you try to paint it"... First off, why is it shameful (or exploitative) to give someone what they like? If someone likes Kelly Clarkson, you're being a jerk if you try and shove Opera music down their throat. And how is exploitative to provide a product someone wants to buy? Maybe if it was giving drugs to an addict, but making a dumb movie for people who like dumb movies is not exploitation.
While I don't personally like most Hollywood movies (mostly because they are simplistic and/or redone), obviously other people do. Who am I to judge their taste and say it's bad? I can say I don't like those movies, and I wish that they made "smarter" ones... but to say that people who make or enjoy them should be ashamed? I can't really get behind that. People have their own taste and like things for their own reasons.
I didn't hate Sky Captain... but I don't think there was anything really memorable about it except it's unique visual style. Had the movie been made to look like a "normal" movie, we wouldn't even be discussing it, and it probbaly would've been straight to video. I hope the director goes on to make other movies with the same visual flair that have better plots. At one point he was attached to direct an adaptation of "the Warlord of Mars", which could be amazing done in that style.
Yeah, I mean honestly that movie wasn't as bad as some others I could probably mention, because if it came to mind, it must have some saving grace... I forgot Mark Hammil was in it, also.
Actually, RE4 changed the RE play style significantly... chnaged the camera system, the combat system, added "cinematic action" elements similar to Shenmue...
the failure of many blockbusters to aspire to anything greater than a series of explosions linked by some car chases is directly connected to the games-as-films phenomenon
Except that it's poppycock, since films like that have been made for quite a long time. Take a glance at Burt Reynolds' early 80s filmography, for example, and you will see many examples of films that aspire to be nothing more than just some car chases and things blowing up... and this was well before the video game-movie phenomenon.
In truth, there have always been movies without good plots... why? Because there is a segment of the audience that doesn't care and will see these movies anyway. That's not a story, though, so reporters have to claim it's a "new trend".
Seriously, go look at a list of major hollywood films that were released in the past- you will see tons of brainless crap in every year. You will see some classics too, of course, but the thing is, we tend to ONLY remember the classics. You remember Chinatown from '74, but do you recall the original Gone In Sixty Seconds (which has even LESS plot than the original, and was advertised as having a 60-minute-long car chase)? No, you probably don't...
Now, I'm not saying that there haven't been better times for American movies than today - there have. But there have ALWAYS been brainless movies.
Re:1st person movie? for a 1st person shooter?
on
Why Game Movies Stink
·
· Score: 1
Resident Evil isn't a first person shooter. It's a third person survival horror game...
However, if the "web-based Office" market takes off, I'm sure these companies will seek to make extra funds by selling "web-based Office" Server Appliances to the aforementioned large companies, which would largely remove that issue, while still saving the company on individual licenses.
Slashdot Mirror
the equivilant of one athelete coming to the race 40 pounds overweight and after an all-night bender
Worked for Babe Ruth. Of course he was the strike out king, but he made up for it in volume.
Won a lot of races, did he?
And most people getting burned by Blockbuster are people who simply don't get their tapes back on time. ...or people whose late fees were artificially boosted, which they have been sued for before. As recently as this year, states have sued Blockbuster of their late fee policies. Not individual consumers, whole states. It's been covered on Slashdot; that's where I read about it.
In an endurance race being slow off the line is often a decent predictor of the winner. Rent Hidalgo.
If you want to call it an endurance race, I'd point out that Blockbuster's $1 billion in debt vs Netflix's $0 is the equivilant of one athelete coming to the race 40 pounds overweight and after an all-night bender, vs the other who got good rest.
With that debt, and the rapid shrinkage of their brick and mortar store base, they can't afford to make it an endurance race... this fact was, I believe, pointed out in the article, as well.
And Netflix has the throttling people who seek to get maximum value from their subscription thing going.
I have watched an average of 3-4 Netflix discs per week since 2000 and my disc turnaround has only gotten faster since then (because they opened a warehouse near me). The only time I have noticed oddities in delievery was when I queued an obscure or rare film, or something that was brand new. So, that's 12-16 movies a month with no apparent throttling... to get throttled, I'd have to watch more than 16 netflix movies a month? I'll never have that much free time.
Either I am quite lucky, or, more likely, most people getting throttled are burning discs and returning them unwatched, same day. Most people don't know about this practice, so I doubt it will affect the average person's desire to join Netflix, if they even hear about it. Most people don't watch 30 movies a month.
Being late to the starting line does not imply finishing last.
Didn't say it does. The article states that Netflix is signing up customers at a quicker rate than BB is. If BB's brand recognition is a big boon to them, I would think that they would be signing up new customers faster than Netflix (who have been in the rent-by-mail business for longer), but that doesn't appear to be the case. Netflix's base is apparently growing faster than BBO, not slower.
The little rental place downstairs from me rents DVD's for $2 for a 3-day rental. I'd have to watch five movies a month from netflix to beat that with their one-at-a-time $10/month package, and I really don't believe that their turnaround is THAT good.
I watch about 12 movies a month from netflix on average, sometimes as much as 15 or 16. My movies generally arrive to them the day after i mail them, and i have a new movie the next day. Their turnaround is pretty good if you live near one of their warehouses.
The problem with your idea is that with these services, you have movies at home even if you aren't watching them. So even if you didn't watch any movies, you have 3 or more movies at your house that whole month you didn't watch anything.
I like the idea, though. It would be nice if the rent-by-mail services would let you put a temporary hold on your account, like if you go on vacation or are just going to be busy. You would have to mail back the DVDs you have, of course, but they wouldn't bill you again until you take the hold off.
Blockbuster has a really low public image. They are known for over-aggressive late fee policies, for not carrying the unrated versions of movies, for not carrying specific titles that were controversial, etc. I believe that BBO does indeed carry unrated versions, but, in general, most people have a very negative view of Blockbuster. Their brand recognition doesn't help them much (obviously, or they'd be ahead of Netflix).
Except that their web interface leaves a LOT to be desired. Netflix is really easy to use, get recommendations, and the whole "friends" interface is great... does BB have something to compete with this? I wouldn't switch just based on how useful the friends interface is in seeing if you really would like a film... You can see what all your friends thought about a film, including a short review. It's very useful.
I don't do the burn thing, but still I return about 3-4 movies a week and have never been throttled. I don't think the throttling thing really happens much anymore. Or maybe you have to return them the same day they arrive, but really... 3-4 movies a week for $20 is worth it.
They actually have a legal mandate to move to DTV, not HDTV. There is a difference. But I think we pretty much agree. It's gonna happen eventually... I would be disappointed if HDTV didn't overtake regular TV. I want something just as hi-res as what's in the theaters, eventually.
"This will drive a more consumer oriented driven alternative to this crap."
Actually, this will make those alternatives illegal.
That link says there were 7 million HDTVs by the end of 2004. So even if you say that # is 20 million now, that is probably less than 5% of all TVs.
DVD was an upgrade anyone could enjoy with only a new player. HDTV is an upgrade 5% can enjoy.
The rate of adoption will be much lower. Sorry, but that's just a fact. DVD was the fastest adobpted home elctronic device ever. I really doubt BD or HD will even approach the rate of adoption... especially with the "format war".
This isn't to say those people who have HDTVs already won't buy. But people like myself just aren't going to drop $400+ for a player, then at least that much again for a TV, all at once. It's going to be far more incremental than that.
Also note that when I said that DVD was a big improvement over VHS, I wasn't just talking picture - I was talking the fact that DVDs don't wear out or get eaten by your player thus making you owe $60-100 to blockbuster (happened to me THREE TIMES during the VHS era), the fact that you can play them in your computer, skippable chapters, special features, commentary, no putting in the second tape for long movies, smaller size, multi-use (PS2 played DVDs, CDs AND games)... The only thing BD/HD has over DVD is image quality, which most people can't appreciate anyway without upgrading their TVs. (For data it also has much more storage, but for movies that doesn't really matter much)
Bottom line is that the upgrade to DVD from VHS bought you ALOT for not too much money (just the player). The upgrade to BR/HD from DVD doesn't get you as much, even if you have a HDTV, and if you don't, it's more $$$.
HD or BR will undoubtedly be very successful and probably replace DVD (either that or downloads). But it will not happen as fast as DVD overtaking VHS. There are simply more barriers than there were in that format change.
I dunno. I used to do the same exact thing with CDs/Records. (I still do that with DVDs)... but now those are all in my closet(s). Downloads and MP3 players made it just so easy that I found them to collect dust, so I filed them away.
I think many people (mine, anyway)'s mindset is that if it's something they have to touch anyway, then display them and make it an impressive collection... but if it's not something you need to touch (like my CD collection which is now basically a very voluminous backup for my iPod), why not file it away? And once I filed it away I realized I'd rather not deal with the hassle of new CDs.
It took me awhile to get to that point with music. I'm not there yet with DVDs. But I can see myself getting there eventually.
You must have had bad luck - most of the early DVDs I had were identical LaserDisc transfers. (And I remember when there were only 20-30 DVDs out.) Which is cool, I liked DVD at the time because it was the same quality as my friends' LaserDiscs, but without having to flip the laserdisc or change between two different discs for a movie. And much smaller on the shelf.
Ehh, there is a big difference, however, between an e-book and a book. The way you interact with them is different. The form factor of the book is a huge advantage when it comes to readability, usability, expendability, etc... If my paperback gets something spilled on it, oh well. If I leave it on the train, oh well. I can read while i fall asleep and if it falls out of my fingers onto the hardwood floor, it will be fine. It will never run out of batteries.
The way you'd watch a downloaded/on-demand movie is not that much different from the way you'd watch a DVD - you don't interact with the disc at all, except to put it in the player. In fact, no disc is better since you don't have to change discs to watch different movies.
The main problem with on-demand is that it will be quite awhile until it can offer as big a library as DVDs can... You can get really obscure stuff on DVD now, but could an on-demand service offer that? Downloads could, but getting the stuff from your PC to the TV is a pain for the average person, plus download speeds aren't quite there yet.
Home movies will likely eventually be mostly downloaded/streamed, with a smaller "on disc" market, but it's a ways off... I used to think like you "it'll never happen", but I thought that way about music too, and now I can't even imagine buying a physical CD, unless it's from a band at their concert (because if it's a local or small band they probably aren't on itunes).
However, this time around, it won't be as big a deal since anyone could buy a PS2 and a DVD and see a big improvement over their VCR. With the nextgen discs, if you don't have a HDTV, you won't see any real improvement. So (I would think) a smaller # of people will buy a PS3 to act as a budget DVD player. Some will, but it's not like the VHS-to-DVD transition...
I was among the first people to buy a DVD player (had one years before the PS2 came out), and I will not be on the cusp of HD/BR disc because I don't have an HDTV and don't feel like upgrading yet... gonna wait for prices to fall a bit more/the winner of the disc war to be decided.
Actually, no. The point of the poster I responded to was that video game movies were dumbing down cinema. My point is that dumb films have always existed.
I also think it's pretty elitist (and plainly wrong on many levels) to say "exploiting the bad taste of the populace is shameful, no matter how you try to paint it"... First off, why is it shameful (or exploitative) to give someone what they like? If someone likes Kelly Clarkson, you're being a jerk if you try and shove Opera music down their throat. And how is exploitative to provide a product someone wants to buy? Maybe if it was giving drugs to an addict, but making a dumb movie for people who like dumb movies is not exploitation.
While I don't personally like most Hollywood movies (mostly because they are simplistic and/or redone), obviously other people do. Who am I to judge their taste and say it's bad? I can say I don't like those movies, and I wish that they made "smarter" ones... but to say that people who make or enjoy them should be ashamed? I can't really get behind that. People have their own taste and like things for their own reasons.
I was just responding to "So the new RE game will play like an RE game?", which implied the series' gameplay has remained unchanged.
My point was that RE4 didn't play like the previous RE games.
I didn't hate Sky Captain... but I don't think there was anything really memorable about it except it's unique visual style. Had the movie been made to look like a "normal" movie, we wouldn't even be discussing it, and it probbaly would've been straight to video. I hope the director goes on to make other movies with the same visual flair that have better plots. At one point he was attached to direct an adaptation of "the Warlord of Mars", which could be amazing done in that style.
I agree. RE4 was my favorite console game of 2004. It was excellent. Hopefully they won't mess up the sequel.
Yeah, I mean honestly that movie wasn't as bad as some others I could probably mention, because if it came to mind, it must have some saving grace... I forgot Mark Hammil was in it, also.
Actually, RE4 changed the RE play style significantly... chnaged the camera system, the combat system, added "cinematic action" elements similar to Shenmue...
the failure of many blockbusters to aspire to anything greater than a series of explosions linked by some car chases is directly connected to the games-as-films phenomenon
Except that it's poppycock, since films like that have been made for quite a long time. Take a glance at Burt Reynolds' early 80s filmography, for example, and you will see many examples of films that aspire to be nothing more than just some car chases and things blowing up... and this was well before the video game-movie phenomenon.
In truth, there have always been movies without good plots... why? Because there is a segment of the audience that doesn't care and will see these movies anyway. That's not a story, though, so reporters have to claim it's a "new trend".
Seriously, go look at a list of major hollywood films that were released in the past- you will see tons of brainless crap in every year. You will see some classics too, of course, but the thing is, we tend to ONLY remember the classics. You remember Chinatown from '74, but do you recall the original Gone In Sixty Seconds (which has even LESS plot than the original, and was advertised as having a 60-minute-long car chase)? No, you probably don't...
Now, I'm not saying that there haven't been better times for American movies than today - there have. But there have ALWAYS been brainless movies.
Resident Evil isn't a first person shooter. It's a third person survival horror game...
Angelina Jolie was in Sky Captain for a grand total of MAYBE ten minutes (if that), so I wouldn't blame the movie's problems on her...
Also, she is popular because people find her attractive, not because she is a good actress.
However, if the "web-based Office" market takes off, I'm sure these companies will seek to make extra funds by selling "web-based Office" Server Appliances to the aforementioned large companies, which would largely remove that issue, while still saving the company on individual licenses.