Black Widow’s delays will finally end with combined theatrical, Disney+ launch

<em>Cruella</em> dated for Disney+, as well, following "success" of March's <em>Raya</em>.

Read the whole story

 

[GMBigKev]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

 

[SagePioneer]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

 

[PrionDX]

$30 for early access to one movie? Geez Disney, could you have at least bought me a couple of drinks before trying to screw me? I'll go see this one at the drive-in and then grab the Blu-Ray once it's on clearance at Target. The car's speaker system isn't quite as good as what we have at home but the overall experience is better than watching at home and a lot cheaper to boot.

 

[EvilMonkey2]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

But if you were going to take your spouse, now you're talking $25+tax and fees for tickets and $30-$50 for dinner and drinks. So you're up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 to go see it in the theater, assuming you wanted to go with your spouse and not by yourself. At those prices, I would have to think $30 for the "ticket" and making your own dinner and drinks for like $10-15 (or even ordering takeout) would start to sound tempting. Again, if you wanted to see this movie straight away instead of just waiting ~3 months for it to be included in your regular subscription.

As for distractions, I'd take cats and dogs over the typical theater crowd any day, but that's me. My area is terrible.

 

[GMBigKev]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

But if you were going to take your spouse, now you're talking $25+tax and fees for tickets and $30-$50 for dinner and drinks. So you're up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 to go see it in the theater, assuming you wanted to go with your spouse and not by yourself. At those prices, I would have to think $30 for the "ticket" and making your own dinner and drinks for like $10-15 would start to sound tempting. Again, if you wanted to see this movie straight away instead of just waiting ~3 months for it to be included in your regular subscription.

As for distractions, I'd take cats and dogs over the typical theater crowd any day, but that's me. My area is terrible.

You pay Disney $7 a month. Why can't they just... y'know... let you watch the movie for free when it comes out?

 

[EvilMonkey2]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

But if you were going to take your spouse, now you're talking $25+tax and fees for tickets and $30-$50 for dinner and drinks. So you're up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 to go see it in the theater, assuming you wanted to go with your spouse and not by yourself. At those prices, I would have to think $30 for the "ticket" and making your own dinner and drinks for like $10-15 would start to sound tempting. Again, if you wanted to see this movie straight away instead of just waiting ~3 months for it to be included in your regular subscription.

As for distractions, I'd take cats and dogs over the typical theater crowd any day, but that's me. My area is terrible.

You pay Disney $7 a month. Why can't they just... y'know... let you watch the movie for free when it comes out?

Because it's an early release access? Put it this way,: previously the model was a movie came to theaters. Around 3-6 months later it would come out on PPV (which was a 24 hour "rental" for $6 or so). Then a month or two later you could get it on disc. Remember even things like Redbox and Netflix (disc rental) were ending up with a 30 day delay between when you could buy a disc and when you could rent it from them. Then maybe (possibly) it would come to a streaming service like Netflix a few months later. So maybe, just maybe, if you were lucky, you could stream a movie 9-12 months after it was in theaters as part of your subscription.

Now what they are attempting is a movie comes to theaters so you can pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.50 or so per ticket to see it (prices vary). So 2 people is $25, 3 is $37.50, a family of 4 is now about $50.

That same day as it goes to the theater, you can watch it at home (with as many people as you want) for $30. And you can watch it as many times as you want for as long as you want. And you can pause/rewind/turn on subtitles, not pay $8 for a popcorn, etc.

3 months later it's available as part of your streaming plan with no additional fee.

Is that better than the literally no (legal) way to watch it at home for at least 3-6 months after it's in theaters? And even then you'd be paying PPV prices for 24 hours. And maybe if you're lucky you can watch it on your streaming plan 8-12 months after it's in theaters?

Yes, it's better. You don't have to pay $30 for it. Just wait 3 months and you can watch it without paying anything extra on top of your monthly subscription. It's not really rocket surgery to figure out why they don't want to spend tens/hundreds of millions to develop a movie and then give it to everyone as part of their plan the same day it's in theaters. And it's miles ahead of the old system.

EDIT: I looked up Endgame.
Theater Release: April 26, 2019
VOD Release: July 30
Disc Release: August 13
Streaming Release on Disney+: November 12

So it was actually 3 months from theater to VOD. And 3.5 months from theater to Disc. And 6.5 months from theater to streaming as part of the Disney+ package.

 

[GMBigKev]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

But if you were going to take your spouse, now you're talking $25+tax and fees for tickets and $30-$50 for dinner and drinks. So you're up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 to go see it in the theater, assuming you wanted to go with your spouse and not by yourself. At those prices, I would have to think $30 for the "ticket" and making your own dinner and drinks for like $10-15 would start to sound tempting. Again, if you wanted to see this movie straight away instead of just waiting ~3 months for it to be included in your regular subscription.

As for distractions, I'd take cats and dogs over the typical theater crowd any day, but that's me. My area is terrible.

You pay Disney $7 a month. Why can't they just... y'know... let you watch the movie for free when it comes out?

Because it's an early release access? Put it this way,: previously the model was a movie came to theaters. Around 3-6 months later it would come out on PPV (which was a 24 hour "rental" for $6 or so). Then a month or two later you could get it on disc. Remember even things like Redbox and Netflix (disc rental) were ending up with a 30 day delay between when you could buy a disc and when you could rent it from them. Then maybe (possibly) it would come to a streaming service like Netflix a few months later. So maybe, just maybe, if you were lucky, you could stream a movie 9-12 months after it was in theaters as part of your subscription.

Now what they are attempting is a movie comes to theaters so you can pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.50 or so per ticket to see it (prices vary). So 2 people is $25, 3 is $37.50, a family of 4 is now about $50.

That same day as it goes to the theater, you can watch it at home (with as many people as you want) for $30. And you can watch it as many times as you want for as long as you want. And you can pause/rewind/turn on subtitles, not pay $8 for a popcorn, etc.

3 months later it's available as part of your streaming plan with no additional fee.

Is that better than the literally no (legal) way to watch it at home for at least 3-6 months after it's in theaters? And even then you'd be paying PPV prices for 24 hours. And maybe if you're lucky you can watch it on your streaming plan 8-12 months after it's in theaters?

Yes, it's better. You don't have to pay $30 for it. Just wait 3 months and you can watch it without paying anything extra on top of your monthly subscription.

You don't have to 'splain' the movie model to me, I know how it goes. The money you spend at a theater to watch a movie on release day goes to the theater* and you get to watch it in a nice big auditorium with good lighting and great sound and usually comfortable seats. I'm sure your home theater is just as good for you as a theater experience would be (especially with COVID.)

But you're not going to a theater. The only person you're paying for the benefit of seeing the film is Disney. They own the distribution rights to their platform. You're paying them for a subscription to watch things they put up on their service and now they're asking for $30 to watch a film that they could - if they wanted - just put up on that service for free.

Why don't they?

*Well, most goes to the distributor hence the extreme prices for food / drink.

 

[EvilMonkey2]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

But if you were going to take your spouse, now you're talking $25+tax and fees for tickets and $30-$50 for dinner and drinks. So you're up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 to go see it in the theater, assuming you wanted to go with your spouse and not by yourself. At those prices, I would have to think $30 for the "ticket" and making your own dinner and drinks for like $10-15 would start to sound tempting. Again, if you wanted to see this movie straight away instead of just waiting ~3 months for it to be included in your regular subscription.

As for distractions, I'd take cats and dogs over the typical theater crowd any day, but that's me. My area is terrible.

You pay Disney $7 a month. Why can't they just... y'know... let you watch the movie for free when it comes out?

Because it's an early release access? Put it this way,: previously the model was a movie came to theaters. Around 3-6 months later it would come out on PPV (which was a 24 hour "rental" for $6 or so). Then a month or two later you could get it on disc. Remember even things like Redbox and Netflix (disc rental) were ending up with a 30 day delay between when you could buy a disc and when you could rent it from them. Then maybe (possibly) it would come to a streaming service like Netflix a few months later. So maybe, just maybe, if you were lucky, you could stream a movie 9-12 months after it was in theaters as part of your subscription.

Now what they are attempting is a movie comes to theaters so you can pay somewhere in the neighborhood of $12.50 or so per ticket to see it (prices vary). So 2 people is $25, 3 is $37.50, a family of 4 is now about $50.

That same day as it goes to the theater, you can watch it at home (with as many people as you want) for $30. And you can watch it as many times as you want for as long as you want. And you can pause/rewind/turn on subtitles, not pay $8 for a popcorn, etc.

3 months later it's available as part of your streaming plan with no additional fee.

Is that better than the literally no (legal) way to watch it at home for at least 3-6 months after it's in theaters? And even then you'd be paying PPV prices for 24 hours. And maybe if you're lucky you can watch it on your streaming plan 8-12 months after it's in theaters?

Yes, it's better. You don't have to pay $30 for it. Just wait 3 months and you can watch it without paying anything extra on top of your monthly subscription.

You don't have to 'splain' the movie model to me, I know how it goes. The money you spend at a theater to watch a movie on release day goes to the theater* and you get to watch it in a nice big auditorium with good lighting and great sound and usually comfortable seats. I'm sure your home theater is just as good for you as a theater experience would be (especially with COVID.)

But you're not going to a theater. The only person you're paying for the benefit of seeing the film is Disney. They own the distribution rights to their platform. You're paying them for a subscription to watch things they put up on their service and now they're asking for $30 to watch a film that they could - if they wanted - just put up on that service for free.

Why don't they?

*Well, most goes to the distributor hence the extreme prices for food / drink.

They are putting it up on their service for free. 3 months later. Nobody says you have to pay $30 to watch it and not just wait 3 months (which is still miles ahead of waiting more than twice that long like it was before). The $30 is just another option to watch the movie earlier.

Yes they could the same day as it's in the theaters if they wanted to. It's pretty obvious why they don't want to do that though at the $7/month rate (at least it's obvious to me). Perhaps someday they will create a "premium" tier for $15 or $20 a month where you get access to these without paying the additional fee but that's just a thought/theory and then people would be complaining about another pricing tier.

I won't go into the theater vs. home thing much. I hate the theater with the passion of a thousand suns and will gladly watch movies at home instead of going there. They are so desperate for money (the ones around here at least) that they have no qualms about just letting people do what they want and don't enforce any rules to make it enjoyable to the people who just want to enjoy the movie and not deal with the (typically terrible) crowd.

 

[fyo]

(we're currently watching all the Marvel movies in order every Saturday night - just did Winter Soldier last weekend)

Ahhh... but *which* order? That's the question.

After a little bit of deliberation, we (i.e. my wife) decided we should watch them in proper timeline order. D+ helpfully has this ordering showcased (in addition to phase-release-date, but not "spaghetti order").

Note that for Hulk (Universal) and Spider-Man x2 (Sony) you'll have to find a different source, since they are not on D+. Depending on where you live, that can be a bit of a hassle. In our case, The Edward Norton Incredible Hulk and the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are on two different, non-D+, streaming platforms - and for some strange reason Far From Home (which we haven't gotten to yet) is only available on that platform until the end of this month. No idea where it winds up after that, so we might be looking at yet another streaming platform.

 

[GMBigKev]

You don't have to 'splain' the movie model to me, I know how it goes. The money you spend at a theater to watch a movie on release day goes to the theater* and you get to watch it in a nice big auditorium with good lighting and great sound and usually comfortable seats. I'm sure your home theater is just as good for you as a theater experience would be (especially with COVID.)

But you're not going to a theater. The only person you're paying for the benefit of seeing the film is Disney. They own the distribution rights to their platform. You're paying them for a subscription to watch things they put up on their service and now they're asking for $30 to watch a film that they could - if they wanted - just put up on that service for free.

Why don't they?

*Well, most goes to the distributor hence the extreme prices for food / drink.

They are putting it up on their service for free. 3 months later. Nobody says you have to pay $30 to watch it and not just wait 3 months.

Yes they could the same day as it's in the theaters if they wanted to. It's pretty obvious why they don't want to do that though at the $7/month rate (at least it's obvious to me). Perhaps someday they will create a "premium" tier for $15 or $20 a month where you get access to these without paying the additional fee but that's just a thought/theory and then people would be complaining about another pricing tier.

I won't go into the theater vs. home thing much. I hate the theater with the passion of a thousand suns and will gladly watch movies at home instead of going there. They are so desperate for money (the ones around here at least) that they have no qualms about just letting people do what they want and don't enforce any rules to make it enjoyable to the people who just want to enjoy the movie and not deal with the (typically terrible) crowd.

You have been dancing around my question. There is absolutely nothing stopping Disney from just plopping the movies on their service for free, day one (forbidding any contracts with theaters of which I'm unware.) Everyone who uses the service and pays the $7 a month subscription fee should be able to just... watch the movie. They did this with Soul. HBO does this with their movies.

Why - then - do they require you to pay $30 a month for certain films to see them day one?

 

[GMBigKev]

(we're currently watching all the Marvel movies in order every Saturday night - just did Winter Soldier last weekend)

Ahhh... but *which* order? That's the question.

After a little bit of deliberation, we (i.e. my wife) decided we should watch them in proper timeline order. D+ helpfully has this ordering showcased (in addition to phase-release-date, but not "spaghetti order").

Note that for Hulk (Universal) and Spider-Man x2 (Sony) you'll have to find a different source, since they are not on D+. Depending on where you live, that can be a bit of a hassle. In our case, The Edward Norton Incredible Hulk and the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are on two different, non-D+, streaming platforms - and for some strange reason Far From Home (which we haven't gotten to yet) is only available on that platform until the end of this month. No idea where it winds up after that, so we might be looking at yet another streaming platform.

FTR they have a 'by timeline order' playlist on the main Marvel page on Disney+

 

[fyo]

(we're currently watching all the Marvel movies in order every Saturday night - just did Winter Soldier last weekend)

Ahhh... but *which* order? That's the question.

After a little bit of deliberation, we (i.e. my wife) decided we should watch them in proper timeline order. D+ helpfully has this ordering showcased (in addition to phase-release-date, but not "spaghetti order").

Note that for Hulk (Universal) and Spider-Man x2 (Sony) you'll have to find a different source, since they are not on D+. Depending on where you live, that can be a bit of a hassle. In our case, The Edward Norton Incredible Hulk and the Tom Holland Spider-Man movies are on two different, non-D+, streaming platforms - and for some strange reason Far From Home (which we haven't gotten to yet) is only available on that platform until the end of this month. No idea where it winds up after that, so we might be looking at yet another streaming platform.

FTR they have a 'by timeline order' playlist on the main Marvel page on Disney+

Which is what I meant when I said they helpfully have this order showcased . For what it's worth, I've been enjoying the movies quite a bit in this order and I really don't see any downside even to first-time watchers.

 

[EvilMonkey2]

You don't have to 'splain' the movie model to me, I know how it goes. The money you spend at a theater to watch a movie on release day goes to the theater* and you get to watch it in a nice big auditorium with good lighting and great sound and usually comfortable seats. I'm sure your home theater is just as good for you as a theater experience would be (especially with COVID.)

But you're not going to a theater. The only person you're paying for the benefit of seeing the film is Disney. They own the distribution rights to their platform. You're paying them for a subscription to watch things they put up on their service and now they're asking for $30 to watch a film that they could - if they wanted - just put up on that service for free.

Why don't they?

*Well, most goes to the distributor hence the extreme prices for food / drink.

They are putting it up on their service for free. 3 months later. Nobody says you have to pay $30 to watch it and not just wait 3 months.

Yes they could the same day as it's in the theaters if they wanted to. It's pretty obvious why they don't want to do that though at the $7/month rate (at least it's obvious to me). Perhaps someday they will create a "premium" tier for $15 or $20 a month where you get access to these without paying the additional fee but that's just a thought/theory and then people would be complaining about another pricing tier.

I won't go into the theater vs. home thing much. I hate the theater with the passion of a thousand suns and will gladly watch movies at home instead of going there. They are so desperate for money (the ones around here at least) that they have no qualms about just letting people do what they want and don't enforce any rules to make it enjoyable to the people who just want to enjoy the movie and not deal with the (typically terrible) crowd.

You have been dancing around my question. There is absolutely nothing stopping Disney from just plopping the movies on their service for free, day one (forbidding any contracts with theaters of which I'm unware.) Everyone who uses the service and pays the $7 a month subscription fee should be able to just... watch the movie. They did this with Soul. HBO does this with their movies.

Why - then - do they require you to pay $30 a month for certain films to see them day one?

Because Disney is not HBO and can do whatever they want with their properties (barring contracts as you pointed out). There, question answered.

But if you want my opinion, theaters were closed and they wanted to use the Pixar properties to build up their subscription base as outside of The Mandalorian, they didn't really have any original/new properties coming to the service. Now that that's done and they have a good subscription base and the service is deemed viable and not destined to fail, and theaters are re-opening, they can get back to the business of putting movies out in theaters, while simultaneously offering a watch at home option for an additional fee on the same day. They're gearing it up as a new business model for theater releases.

Also in case you missed it, Warner Brothers is ending their day-and-date releases with HBO Max next year, so that'll probably be going away as well. I assume it's a similar proposition where it was fine while theaters were closed (and while HBO was trying to build a subscriber base), but they're going to try to get back to normal.

 

[GMBigKev]

You don't have to 'splain' the movie model to me, I know how it goes. The money you spend at a theater to watch a movie on release day goes to the theater* and you get to watch it in a nice big auditorium with good lighting and great sound and usually comfortable seats. I'm sure your home theater is just as good for you as a theater experience would be (especially with COVID.)

But you're not going to a theater. The only person you're paying for the benefit of seeing the film is Disney. They own the distribution rights to their platform. You're paying them for a subscription to watch things they put up on their service and now they're asking for $30 to watch a film that they could - if they wanted - just put up on that service for free.

Why don't they?

*Well, most goes to the distributor hence the extreme prices for food / drink.

They are putting it up on their service for free. 3 months later. Nobody says you have to pay $30 to watch it and not just wait 3 months.

Yes they could the same day as it's in the theaters if they wanted to. It's pretty obvious why they don't want to do that though at the $7/month rate (at least it's obvious to me). Perhaps someday they will create a "premium" tier for $15 or $20 a month where you get access to these without paying the additional fee but that's just a thought/theory and then people would be complaining about another pricing tier.

I won't go into the theater vs. home thing much. I hate the theater with the passion of a thousand suns and will gladly watch movies at home instead of going there. They are so desperate for money (the ones around here at least) that they have no qualms about just letting people do what they want and don't enforce any rules to make it enjoyable to the people who just want to enjoy the movie and not deal with the (typically terrible) crowd.

You have been dancing around my question. There is absolutely nothing stopping Disney from just plopping the movies on their service for free, day one (forbidding any contracts with theaters of which I'm unware.) Everyone who uses the service and pays the $7 a month subscription fee should be able to just... watch the movie. They did this with Soul. HBO does this with their movies.

Why - then - do they require you to pay $30 a month for certain films to see them day one?

Because Disney is not HBO and can do whatever they want with their properties (barring contracts as you pointed out). There, question answered.

But if you want my opinion, theaters were closed and they wanted to use the Pixar properties to build up their subscription base as outside of The Mandalorian, they didn't really have any original/new properties coming to the service. Now that that's done and they have a good subscription base and the service is deemed viable and not destined to fail, and theaters are re-opening, they can get back to the business of putting movies out in theaters, while simultaneously offering a watch at home option for an additional fee on the same day.

That's fair then. The problem is, and I expressed that on my first post in this article, is that the logical end of this is charging for more things that aren't movies. I see a future in which they'll release shows for some arbitrary amount (let's say $30 for a season) on top of the subscription fee with maybe a couple weeks lag between initial release and releasing it for free to those who don't want to pay the cost of the season.

There is no reason to think they won't do this - as their initial trial balloon ($30 simultaneous release of movies) has gone over so incredibly well.

And there's no reason to think other services won't also pick up the same practice because money.

(I still don't think theaters should be opening, by the way so I'm slightly more sympathetic to the model in that regard...)

 

[smithersjoe]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

Microtransactions: "You can win a chance to watch this next action sequence! Only 10 Disney Bucks for 5 chances to win! Purchase or skip?"

 

[EvilMonkey2]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

I'd compare it more to a timed exclusive at this point, except instead of "it's only on Playstation and you have to wait 6 months to play it on XBOX" it's more like "It's on Playstation now but if you absolutely want to play it today on XBOX, you can pay $X. Or just wait 6 months and it'll be there for no fee."

Would be annoying but as long as it does come eventually with no additional cost, most people would be okay with waiting (the same way most people were okay waiting for a movie to hit disc or streaming instead of paying the VOD/PPV fee to watch it earlier). I mean, we've been fine/accepting that theater releases don't hit streaming the same day, but suddenly because they are offering that with a fee, people are upset. It wasn't even an option at all before.

 

[Scone Muncher]

Anyone who spends $30 to watch this (or Raya, or whatever else) is part of the problem.

What problem? The problem where instead of waiting months after the theater run before you can watch it on PPV for 24 hours then months later maybe on a streaming service you can now watch it the same day it's in theaters for roughly the same price of 2 tickets and you get to watch it as much as you want for as long as you want after? That problem?

This is actually something new...being able to watch a movie at home the same day it goes to theaters for a reasonable amount (compared to buying theater tickets).

Are movie theater tickets really this expensive in other parts of the country? I'm in the midwest. I usually go on "discount day" (i.e. Tuesday) where tickets are 50% off and cost $5.25. So full price is $10.50. That's for a really nice Cinemark theater with the power reclining seats and all that. If I want to go on a weekend, I usually go to a smaller, independent theater nearby where tickets are always $4. It's not luxurious, but it's perfectly adequate.

I don't have kids. If I did, I can see why the $30 charge might be appealing, but for just the wife and me, $30 is way more than we'd pay to see it in theaters.

It’s (obviously) been a minute since I’ve been in a theater but in my part of the world (Houston) you’re looking at $13 or $14 if you go to a prime time showing on the weekend.

A fun website is Numbeo.com which uses crowdsourced data to compare the cost of living around the world. It also does currency conversion so your relative purchasing power is taken into account. For example, comparing two similarly sized North American cities...

Phoenix, AZ vs. Montreal, QC

Spoiler

Consumer Prices in Phoenix, AZ are 4.54% lower than in Montreal (without rent)
Consumer Prices Including Rent in Phoenix, AZ are 4.68% higher than in Montreal
Rent Prices in Phoenix, AZ are 27.98% higher than in Montreal
Restaurant Prices in Phoenix, AZ are 3.66% higher than in Montreal
Groceries Prices in Phoenix, AZ are 16.07% lower than in Montreal
Local Purchasing Power in Phoenix, AZ is 34.46% higher than in Montreal

You would need around 5,443.33 CAD (4,321.67 USD) in Phoenix, AZ to maintain the same standard of life that you can have with 5,200.00 CAD in Montreal (assuming you rent in both cities). This calculation uses our Cost of Living Plus Rent Index to compare cost of living. This assumes net earnings (after income tax).

 

[Sheep Disorder]

$30 would be cheaper or break even for dine in theaters - $12.50 plus tax and fees for the ticket, $15-$25 for dinner and a beer. But, by the time Black Widow comes out in July, I will be fully vaccinated and probably ready for an in-theater experience.

I do like going to an actual theater for the better sound and screen (spouse nixed buying a larger TV and surround sound) and lack of distractions (looking at you, cat and dogs).

But if you were going to take your spouse, now you're talking $25+tax and fees for tickets and $30-$50 for dinner and drinks. So you're up to somewhere in the neighborhood of $60-80 to go see it in the theater, assuming you wanted to go with your spouse and not by yourself. At those prices, I would have to think $30 for the "ticket" and making your own dinner and drinks for like $10-15 (or even ordering takeout) would start to sound tempting. Again, if you wanted to see this movie straight away instead of just waiting ~3 months for it to be included in your regular subscription.

As for distractions, I'd take cats and dogs over the typical theater crowd any day, but that's me. My area is terrible.

I guessing that you are not over paying for internet and have no data caps!
Streaming in 4K is going to push the limits of most US cable operators and you need a reliable connection to ensure no buffering. Everyone is different but I would have to add $5-10 to the streaming costs due to my situation (pre-pandemic was under data caps).

Dinner out is part of the perk especially after over a year of being locked down. But you can still eat and home and then just go to the movie especially if you have a local drive-in theatre.

 

[LlamaLaBama]

This Premiere+ nonsense has gotta stop... do the right thing, Disney, and release it to paying Disney+ subscribers like HBO Max is doing with their 2021 WB theater releases.

HBO Max costs double what D+ goes for.

 

[LlamaLaBama]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

Microtransactions: "You can win a chance to watch this next action sequence! Only 10 Disney Bucks for 5 chances to win! Purchase or skip?"

Can I get that, but for the Hobbit? I'd like to skip every Legolas and Tauriel scene.

 

[e^ipi+1]

I dunno that I care enough to pay to see it earlier than general release. I'll take the temp of the household, if the family cares I'm down, if we all shrug we'll wait. (We skipped Mulan after the reviews.)

I really don't have a problem with this model though. Nobody is forcing us to pay for it. Clearly it was going to be in theaters, and the budget for it took ticket sales into account. It doesn't seem like a bait and switch or unfair to me.

Likewise with my family, we decided Mulan wasn't worth it because the reviews weren't great. But we paid for Raya. With three kids, $30 is cheaper than theater tickets even before we factor in the exorbitant snack prices.

And as a superhero fan I'll definitely be paying for Black Widow. Sure, I could wait and get the same home-viewing experience without the extra fee... but it's not really the same experience, since part of the fun is getting to talk about the movie with other fans and share their excitement.

 

[Defenestrar]

July 9 had previously been announced as the release date for "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings", the Marvel movie that comes after Black Widow.

Perhaps Shang-Chi will be shuffled down to the previously announced November 5 release date for The Eternals, and so on down the line?

The way meetings keep getting canceled I'll have a nice playlist on my next trans-pacific flight. Although I'd trade all those Marvell movie marathons (or even the all Harry Potter e-book sessions) for the much envied ability to fall asleep on an airplane.

Hey, let’s swap some neurons. I do trans-atlantic flights, and I get the best sleep ever, every single time.

This sounds great, but I always bring a book I’ve been looking forward to, or my Switch, and the frustration at not being able to take advantage of six consecutive hours is real.

The biggest kick is that when on land, I have the worst insomnia.

50-50 split?

 

[Defenestrar]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

What good single player AAA games have micro-transactions? Or put another way, what do you consider a micro-transaction? Something like a $10 to $20 payment for plot relevant DLC? or multiple fully irrelevant $0.10 cosmetic upgrades?

Edit: To be fair, micro-transactions following a AAA price level purchase would almost certainly dump a game out of the "good" quality for me, so perhaps it's perspective.

 

[jasonml]

Yeah, no. I'm not going to pay $30. That's 3 tickets at the movies. It's just me watching it at home. My wife isn't interested. And I don't know about other people, but I don't go to a run-down crappy theater. The one I go to is nice. Maybe find a better theater?

 

[rochrist]

I think that Disney has an eye on the future, and (like me) think the writing is on the wall for the theaters. I'm doubtful that enough people are going to flock to the theaters quickly enough to keep them out of bankruptcy. They were already in decline BEFORE the pandemic.

 

[GMBigKev]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

What good single player AAA games have micro-transactions? Or put another way, what do you consider a micro-transaction? Something like a $10 to $20 payment for plot relevant DLC? or multiple fully irrelevant $0.10 cosmetic upgrades?

Edit: To be fair, micro-transactions following a AAA price level purchase would almost certainly dump a game out of the "good" quality for me, so perhaps it's perspective.

Sims 2 and Sims 3 had microtransactions in the form of purchasable in-game assets.
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey had microtransactions in the form of armor and gear.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided had microtransactions in the form of Praxis kits and chipsets.
Devil May Cry 5 had microtransactions in the form of experience boosts.
Dead Space 3 had microtransactions in the form of materials.
Valve created the Creation Club for Skyrim Special Edition and Fallout 4 which had microtransactions in the form of in-game assets.
Oblivion had horse armor.

DLC is not microtransactions, neither are expansion packs - but they can be arguably as predatory (Paradox Games are notorious for predatory DLC practices.)

 

[peragrin]

The $30 price tag is simply not something a movie theater can compete with, and knowing the film will remain available more or less forever means it's functionally equivalent to buying a Blu-ray for the typical consumer.

For me personally, I haven't really felt the urge to rewatch any of the MCU movies so having it available forever doesn't really matter, I've already had a couple of noise complaints from just a 2.1 setup so I can't imagine how bad it'd get if I tried to set up full surround sound in my current apartment, and I live alone so at $30 on Disney+ it's actually cheaper for me to go to a theater.

As for COVID concerns, although I'm already fully vaccinated I'm still not quite ready to do stuff like indoor dining and movie theaters, but at the pace the vaccination rate seems to be accelerating I think I'll be comfortable going into a movie theater by the end of May.

had a birthday party for our 2 year old his first party was canceled due to covid.

20 people 12 adults 8 kids. Out of the 12 adults 9 were at least partially if not fully vaccinated. Two days later the toddler has had his first cold in over a year.

Worth it. But going back to non mask wearing is going to get rough

 

[froggz]

$30 would have been a good deal if they also give you a code to actually own the movie after the initial theater release period.

 

[Defenestrar]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

Realistically, shouldn't you be happy other people are paying Disney more? These "whales" are directly subsidizing you and the income stream will drive additional content. There is no requirement for you to pay, unlike an across the board cost increase.

I understand what he's worried about, even if you don't. The "whales" also helped subsidize freemium mobile games, and the lure of chasing those whales turned the freemium mobile games into the travesty that they've become. Whether he's right or not, I don't know; but the OP is worried this model is a stepping stone toward that.

Sorry - apparently it didn't post what I wanted to say.

I'm worried how the business model will effect things besides Disney+ - and how far they'll take it. Using the video game model - it starts with freemium mobile games but ends with microtransactions in single-player AAA titles.

What good single player AAA games have micro-transactions? Or put another way, what do you consider a micro-transaction? Something like a $10 to $20 payment for plot relevant DLC? or multiple fully irrelevant $0.10 cosmetic upgrades?

Edit: To be fair, micro-transactions following a AAA price level purchase would almost certainly dump a game out of the "good" quality for me, so perhaps it's perspective.

Sims 2 and Sims 3 had microtransactions in the form of purchasable in-game assets.
Assassin's Creed: Odyssey had microtransactions in the form of armor and gear.
Deus Ex: Mankind Divided had microtransactions in the form of Praxis kits and chipsets.
Devil May Cry 5 had microtransactions in the form of experience boosts.
Dead Space 3 had microtransactions in the form of materials.
Valve created the Creation Club for Skyrim Special Edition and Fallout 4 which had microtransactions in the form of in-game assets.
Oblivion had horse armor.

DLC is not microtransactions, neither are expansion packs - but they can be arguably as predatory (Paradox Games are notorious for predatory DLC practices.)

I played Sims 2 but don't remember microtransactions, but I do remember a fairly robust item creation community - why would someone pay something to EA when they could just download a super-easy cloned item from one of the community websites (or even more fun - learn to make their own items). I did feel the series went downhill (or my tastes changed) as EA seemed to lean more on Maxis for more frequent, smaller, and more expensive DLCs (some of them felt like an intentional withholding core functionality for the express purpose of later release as a mandatory DLC to get the game out of limited beta).

With respect to Skyrim, Fallout 4, and Oblivion. Have people not heard of Nexus Mods?

I've played all of the Deus Ex games (except 2 - I've never gotten around to that) and don't know why someone would pay for praxis - or anything in-game. Why pay-to-advance when there's console commands built in?

But yeah - I guess these things exist even if I never noticed them. It seems weird to pay money for all of these examples though.

 

[AlaskanDruid]

Was just discussing this with my buddy. The $30 price tag is simply not something a movie theater can compete with, and knowing the film will remain available more or less forever means it's functionally equivalent to buying a Blu-ray for the typical consumer.

Plus you have your (probably superior) home theater setup, the ability to pause for bathroom breaks, and cheaper, better refreshments.

I don't see Disney moving away from these concurrent releases at this pricepoint any time soon, to be honest.

Will remain available as long as you pay your subscription fee.

This part is HUGE. Even after you pay $30, it will be stolen from you if you discontinue your subscription.

 

[Battlenun]

Was just discussing this with my buddy. The $30 price tag is simply not something a movie theater can compete with, and knowing the film will remain available more or less forever means it's functionally equivalent to buying a Blu-ray for the typical consumer.

Plus you have your (probably superior) home theater setup, the ability to pause for bathroom breaks, and cheaper, better refreshments.

I don't see Disney moving away from these concurrent releases at this pricepoint any time soon, to be honest.

And yet....I will be going out of my way to see this in a theater with my friends and family. Over the past year we have "purchased" a theater to ourselves for 1st run movies, five times already at $150 plus whatever we spend on concession. A lot more than $30 but it's a great time for 20-ish of us and we feel it's important to continue to support theaters as best we can otherwise, soon, they won't even be an option.

Same reason we buy bamboo paper products and don't use plastic bags or water bottles. It all costs extra in the end, you just need to decide what you want the end result to be and what it is worth to you.

 

[EvilMonkey2]

Was just discussing this with my buddy. The $30 price tag is simply not something a movie theater can compete with, and knowing the film will remain available more or less forever means it's functionally equivalent to buying a Blu-ray for the typical consumer.

Plus you have your (probably superior) home theater setup, the ability to pause for bathroom breaks, and cheaper, better refreshments.

I don't see Disney moving away from these concurrent releases at this pricepoint any time soon, to be honest.

Will remain available as long as you pay your subscription fee.

This part is HUGE. Even after you pay $30, it will be stolen from you if you discontinue your subscription.

That's because you're not buying it. You're just "renting" an early access pass to it. Basically your $30 is for the time it's released to the time it makes it to the service as part of the subscription (in other words, it's like buying a VOD except it expires in ~3 months instead of 24 hours that they typically do).

This is not some big gotcha. It's pretty clear how it works.

If you want to own it, don't rent it and wait for a disc or digital copy you can purchase.

 

[TylerH]

Was just discussing this with my buddy. The $30 price tag is simply not something a movie theater can compete with

Depends if you have a big family. I can go see a movie with my partner for substantially less than $30. I can probably add a snack or two (or a small popcorn) and keep it around $30. But with the monthly price of D+ being $8 now, I could add a popcorn and it'd still be cheaper. If I go alone... that's several snacks.

Of course if I have 2+ people with me, or live in a hyper-inflated region like California, then the scale tips back the other way.

Plus you have your (probably superior) home theater setup, the ability to pause for bathroom breaks, and cheaper, better refreshments.

I definitely agree about the bathroom breaks and cheaper refreshments, but you can't get theater popcorn at home unless you have a popcorn maker and syrup dispenser... and no one's home theater setup has A/V to match, let alone beat, a theater's setup. Someone may *prefer* a more intimate, personal experience or even have a decent, modest home theater room... but they don't have the speakers or 45-65ft screen.

 

[Izeranee]

Was just discussing this with my buddy. The $30 price tag is simply not something a movie theater can compete with, and knowing the film will remain available more or less forever means it's functionally equivalent to buying a Blu-ray for the typical consumer.

Plus you have your (probably superior) home theater setup, the ability to pause for bathroom breaks, and cheaper, better refreshments.

Either your home cinema is Hollywood superstar level or your cinemas are awful. My $15k home cinema can't come close to the local multiplex. Dolby Atmos used in the Cinema is not the same as used in home AV Receivers. Same principle but it supports far more vectored sounds and they have the number of speakers to make a sound properly pan in 3D which the 7, 9 or 11 (rather rare) of a home system can't do as realistically. And subwoofers that go all the way down with sound levels and dynamic range that you'd be arrested for using in your house.

A cinema ticket is only $12 for the luxury reclining seats. Going on a weekday in the afternoon the place is practically empty, I take my own bottle of water and I can go a full film without peeing myself!

For someone living alone, even with a stellar home system $30 is really really expensive IMO. WW84 (bad as it was) was only $15 for pay-per-view. I think they're cashing in on people who don't want to risk going out to the cinema or can't - most countries still haven't opened up that much yet. Once Covid is over I'm sure the number of people willing to pay that much will take a nose-dive but it wouldn't surprise me if they had an agreement with the cinema chains to keep the price high to prevent taking too much business from them - as it certainly has some obvious advantages for families.

Keeping it forever is a fallacious argument on the value too. The 4k disk will be $25 or so and doesn't tie you to a subscription, can be sold, traded, loaned to a friend, donated to charity! Digital ownership of media is about profit, not convenience. Your movies, music even your books are no longer yours, just licensed to you for a subscription and at best for your life. Your kids will have to get their own!

 

[Hack-n-Slash]

I don't really have a problem with the pricing. It's literally the cost of 2 tickets (or nearly, depending on your theater). So if you want to watch it with someone else or 3 or 4 or 8 people, it's cheaper. Plus you don't have the theater crowd (boo!), the noise, the travel/parking, the overpriced food, you can pause/rewind, etc. No worries about picture or sound quality assuming your home setup is okay.

A "date" to the movies with just my wife can run me 70-80+ by the time I include tickets, snacks, parking and a babysitter. Putting the kid to bed and then paying $30 and snuggling up on the couch seems like a much better deal.

And if they didn't release it early access, you'd have no (legal) way of watching it at home until it's released on the normal service anyways, so it's just another option.

That being said, I'm still waiting for it just to be available with my subscription so I probably won't pay $30, but I don't have an issue with the early access system or early-access pricing. Although I wonder if as another poster mentioned, this will be a slippery slope that will sneak its way into Netflix or Hulu or other services that currently don't offer this.

Tickets here are $6.50 matinee $8.00 evenings, and parking is free.
[I just checked to make sure there was no hike using Fandango and Godzilla v Kong.]

Which makes me wonder how much of the "that's insane" vs "that's dirt cheap" comes from metropolis pricing vs everywhere else, as well as other issues arising from high-density populations.

Edit: Ninja'd by 3 hours. <Sigh> I should have spawned some extra sub-processes to read the thread before posting...

 

[jtwrenn]

If you kept access to these after quitting Disney + then I think it would be viable. Other than that I think a lot will just wait.

 

[dimathiel]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

So what is the problem?

Should consumers not have the choice?

If I want to be distracted by mobile device screens, strangers breathing on me and blocking my view when they go to the rest room I can go to the theater. If instead I choose to not experience those things I can pay to watch it at home, avoiding unwanted crowds, traffic and parking fees.

Choice is good right? Right?

 

[dimathiel]

July 9 had previously been announced as the release date for "Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings", the Marvel movie that comes after Black Widow.

Perhaps Shang-Chi will be shuffled down to the previously announced November 5 release date for The Eternals, and so on down the line?

The way meetings keep getting canceled I'll have a nice playlist on my next trans-pacific flight. Although I'd trade all those Marvell movie marathons (or even the all Harry Potter e-book sessions) for the much envied ability to fall asleep on an airplane.

Hey, let’s swap some neurons. I do trans-atlantic flights, and I get the best sleep ever, every single time.

This sounds great, but I always bring a book I’ve been looking forward to, or my Switch, and the frustration at not being able to take advantage of six consecutive hours is real.

The biggest kick is that when on land, I have the worst insomnia.

50-50 split?

Generally a trans pacific flight is twice as long as a trans Atlantic one. In both cases I’d rather sleep in a cocoon during the trip.

 

[GMBigKev]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

So what is the problem?

Should consumers not have the choice?

If I want to be distracted by mobile device screens, strangers breathing on me and blocking my view when they go to the rest room I can go to the theater. If instead I choose to not experience those things I can pay to watch it at home, avoiding unwanted crowds, traffic and parking fees.

Choice is good right? Right?

Some (many) folks won't have that choice. People who can't (or won't) pay for entertainment beyond what they already pay - $7 a month to me is barely worth thinking about because I make enough in a paycheck I can basically just absorb that cost. To a person making $7.25 an hour, it could be a hell of a lot. Putting $30 on top of that to entertain their children for a couple hours? $5 an episode?

It creates a system which splits culture - where they have to sacrifice for what others take for granted. (This is also why I'm glad Stadia went under, but when a more competent company does streaming gaming, we're going to see a similar problem emerge - but for those who haven't got broadband.)

 

[althaz]

Don't do it please folks. It starts with movies now, I knew Black Widow was going to get hit by this.

It ends with series being released under this scheme. Want to watch the next episode of Loki? Pay us $5 or wait a month after the last episode gets released - hope it won't get spoiled for you!!!

This is just a terrible practice and people are rewarding a monopolistic giant. If you think it won't go to other providers like Netflix or HBO you're deluding yourselves. This is a trial balloon, one that's gone overwhelmingly well.

So what is the problem?

Should consumers not have the choice?

If I want to be distracted by mobile device screens, strangers breathing on me and blocking my view when they go to the rest room I can go to the theater. If instead I choose to not experience those things I can pay to watch it at home, avoiding unwanted crowds, traffic and parking fees.

Choice is good right? Right?

Some (many) folks won't have that choice. People who can't (or won't) pay for entertainment beyond what they already pay - $7 a month to me is barely worth thinking about because I make enough in a paycheck I can basically just absorb that cost. To a person making $7.25 an hour, it could be a hell of a lot. Putting $30 on top of that to entertain their children for a couple hours? $5 an episode?

It creates a system which splits culture - where they have to sacrifice for what others take for granted. (This is also why I'm glad Stadia went under, but when a more competent company does streaming gaming, we're going to see a similar problem emerge - but for those who haven't got broadband.)

Those people wouldn't be able to see it anyway? The alternative is a theatrical only release. And that's the *only* viable alternative.