Sony Begins Selling HD Movies On Its PSN 153
itwbennett writes "Sony on Tuesday 'rolled out the ability to buy HD movies from the PlayStation Network,' writes blogger Peter Smith. Sony claims they're the first service to offer HD titles to own from all six major movie studios. Smith runs the numbers on 'standard' pricing for titles ($19.99 for new releases; $17.99 for older movies), file sizes (ranging from 4 GB for Zombieland to 7.5 GB for 2012), and resolution (720P as far as he can tell)."
Titles to "own" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, but do any of the others give you the benefit of having your wallet and your ass both brutally violated directly by Sony at the same time?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably not, but I'm not spoiled, I can do without those features.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To "own"? Let's not kid ourselves here... there's no real ownership involved . . ..
"To watch as many times as you like but only on your PS3 and only for as long as you keep your PS3 and don't erase the file or the hard drive fails or something else goes wrong" does not sound as snappy as "to own." But, I don't mind the idea of paying for content with limitations and that won't necessarily last forever, as long as the pricing is in line with the limitations. This pricing scheme provides no reason to buy from PSN.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can "back up" the file using the PS3's backup utility and restore it on a new drive. That will protect against a failed drive but not a failed PS3 since a replacement PS3 will refuse to restore any DRM'd content.
Also note: it won't protect you against false leap years as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the point of buying the digital version if you have to buy an extra hard drive to back up the file?? You might as well buy the physical version and save yourself the trouble of making a backup (which you can resell later to pay rent if you have to).
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely. There is absolutely 0 difference between this service and a movie-rental service. None.
Re: (Score:2)
To "own"? Let's not kid ourselves here... there's no real ownership involved unless there is a way to get DRM-free files in 720p off the device using anything other than your eyeballs. I seriously doubt there is, which makes this just a really expensive rental service. I'm sure there are already lots of services which feature renting movies from all 6 major studios while taking your money and laughing about it.
Really - your eyeballs can get files off a device? So should I call you Jordi LaForge?
Not that I would use this service (I prefer having the physical media), but if I get to d/l it to my computer, and it resides there as long as I so choose to keep it then I own the right to view the movie as much as I want. I don't own the movie, that ownership resides with the company that released it...but I own the right to view it. Same thing if I buy a dvd from a store. It's about preference. My friend prefers
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, there in no real physical ownership of non-physical things at all. We don’t “own” it. But they also don’t. The ones having it control it. But the more there are, the harder weaker the power of the single entity, and the lower the value of what you can ask for in exchange.
Their problem is, that they use sneaky criminal methods (DRM) to try to remove it from under your ass and keep control, after you paid for it. Which is like buying a car, and at home noticing that it falls
Re:Titles to "own" (Score:5, Informative)
Pure and complete utter bullshit.
I have a 40" TV and you have to be close to blind not to see the difference between 1080p and an upscaled DVD from couch distance.
That being said, no chance I'm paying for a BR when I can get DVD for 1/3 the price.
Re: (Score:2)
Likewise for quality.
I tend to wait til the blu-rays are about £10-15 which is usually around twice the price of the DVD. It's well worth it for any movie that is 3D rendered, panoramic outdoor scenes or even just a nice soundtrack (as long as you have a decent 5.1 system). There are a few blu-ray bargains to be had on Amazon too. If a blu-ray drops under £10 I often just snap up immediately.
Re:Titles to "own" (Score:4, Insightful)
A common thing for people who don't want to admit they were ripped off.
Of course. If that were true I am not being forced to buy any more blu-rays, yet I keep doing so. I'll also point out that after being a devout Christian my whole life I recently changed my beliefs and no longer believe in any god. I'm now quite capable of letting things go in life if needs be.
The first two films I ever watched on blu-ray were Independence Day and Ratatouille (bought at the same time when I got my PS3).
Independence Day didn't look much cop at all. I was slightly disappointed.
Then I watched Ratatouille and it was truly stunning.
I have since realised that Independence Day was either a poor conversion or simply shot on very grainy film (it does have a lot of dark scenes so it probably did need a high ISO film).
I don't see how someone with a /. UID under 1000000 could not understand how having a higher resolution picture and uncompressed audio would not make a difference for a video recording. Obviously there will be a point where we are unable to make out extra detail and quality, but we have not yet arrived at that point. Go watch a Pixar or Disney 3D animation on blu-ray on a HDTV and you will definitely notice how fantastic it looks even without the DVD playing alongside.
Re: (Score:2)
nd it was truly stunning ... you will definitely notice how fantastic it looks
It doesn't look "stunning" or "fantastic", that's just marketing drivel. It looks a little better. And just like music and mp3's most consumers these days don't give a shit. Most will probably buy into it eventually but only if the cost difference is marginal.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it can have negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Re: (Score:2)
and it was truly stunning ... you will definitely notice how fantastic it looks
It doesn't look "stunning" or "fantastic", that's just marketing drivel. It looks a little better.
What you are saying, basically, is that your opinion is more valid/correct than GP's. Which, in my opinion, is false. More so since you admit it does look better, if even a little. I too would use the words "stunning" to describe more current 3D animation in BD as compared to DVD. But its a question of taste and appreciation, and no amount of shouting down and arm waving is going to make either of us correct.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are saying, basically, is that your opinion is more valid/correct than GP's.
No, I'm saying like many marketing parasites he's misusing language to exaggerate and mislead. "Stunning [wiktionary.org]" has specific meanings that both he and you are misusing.
More so since you admit it does look better, if even a little. I too would use the words "stunning" to describe more current 3D animation in BD as compared to DVD. But its a question of taste and appreciation, and no amount of shouting down and arm waving is go
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm saying like many marketing parasites he's misusing language to exaggerate and mislead. "Stunning [wiktionary.org]" has specific meanings that both he and you are misusing.
From your link: 2. Beautiful, pretty. That woman is stunning!
3. Amazing That was amazing but stunning.
Both GP and I are choosing meaning 2: "That movie is stunning!". You disagree, which is fine, but then you try to dismiss dissenting opinions with value judgments, which isn't.
and no amount of shouting down and arm waving is going to make either of us correct.
Give it a rest. You're bullshitting and you know it.
That rebuttal does not really contribute anything to the discussion. You of course are within your right to believe we are wrong (after all, I believe you are). But in turning around and going "not true!" you seem to be saying we a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I have a 40" TV and you have to be close to blind not to see the difference between 1080p and an upscaled DVD from couch distance.
I'd like to point out that "couch distance" varies for everyone. I have a 61" 1080p set and a long living room. While the difference between DVD and Bluray is noticeable to a small degree, there really doesn't seem to be that much of a difference to me. Both DVD and Bluray are miles ahead of the over-compressed and artifact-riddled "1080p" offered by Time Warner or Dish Network, but the difference between the two disc formats appears minimal to my 20/20 eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
True, for couch distance vs. TV fits with normal recommendation of 10" per 1m. of sitting distance (for me, milage and wanting to impress with bling may vary).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a massive difference between DVD and blu ray on TVs a lot smaller than 72". On my 65" it's night and day, on a 50" (which is very common for HDTV) it's unquestionably noticable, hell even on a 42" you can definitely tell the difference assuming its 1080p. However, this service is most definitely not blu ray, and the difference between compressed 720p and an upscaled DVD is probably pretty minimal.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Sigh.
Trying to convince yourself you didn't get ripped off? Don't let me stop you with those inconvenient facts [soundandvisionmag.com].
Inverse Square Law [gsu.edu] applies.
A good upsampling DVD player - functionally, giving you 720p quality on a "50 1080p" screen - at a normal couch distance of 10 feet will be nearly indistinguishable from putting the blu-ray disc in. That's reality.
Add on to that the crappy "own but don't really own" DRM attached to this, and the fact that it will only play on your PS3 and can't be traded/gifted/loaned to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I always love those graphs. For our "reasonable sized" TV (26" in a ~12'-14' room, which is fairly standard in a UK terrace and includes a 2' extension) we need to be sat stupidly close to hit the "visibile difference" distance.
I do sometimes watch things like House on standard-def Sky and wonder why, when I can already see enough apparent individual hairs, I'd need to go high-def. It always just seems like overkill.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, DVD only looks bad if you watch it in HD first :)
I watched Lethal Weapon 1 and 2 (I encoded it to 720p) and could very well notice the difference compared to 3 and 4 from DVD. (Funny thing that the older ones looked better)
And that is 720p being converted to an analog signal as I wait for the new alsa patch to be officially release so i can use the HDMI out for my nvidia 220GT on my 37 in TV. (I live in an apartment. Anything bigger than this would be like sitting in the front from of a movie thea
Re: (Score:2)
72"? 65"? 50"? 42"? They're not "televisions" they're "room dominating behemoths equivalent to a home cinema screen"! Sizes in the 20s and low 30s are TVs ;)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, "person who wants to have a TV in their front room, not a room built around their TV" ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a 46" TV, and there's a noticable difference between an upscaled DVD and a bluray at 1080p.
Maybe you have a crap TV that only goes to 720p, or is 50hz or something, I don't know.
I'm also not sure what is dumb about buying a PS3; I've been very happy with mine. A combo bluray player, game console, media player, browser, etc. Its been well worth it.
Re: (Score:2)
I have roughly that size display on a 800x600 digital projector. It needs replacing, and the only reason I'm planning on getting a higher resolution one is because my xbox 360 won't output 800x600 resolution natively, leaving me with 640x480 resolution either badly stretched or centred with massive borders...
The resolution (which is only a few pixels higher than British SD (720x576)) is plenty for film watching. Being able to make out the individual stubble hairs on the Hollywood hero's face just doesn't im
Re: (Score:2)
Any title older than 6 minutes can be had for zero or less on the P2P network of your choice. I didn't check recently, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't in the highest possible resolution...
Sony is being very carful not to undercut themself (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see:
-Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.
-Price comparable to a Bluray off of Amazon.
-Quality less than Bluray.
-Limited to watching it on my PS3.
Sounds like a real winner, Sony!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.
A trip to the store can take more than a day if you happen to want a movie on a day when the city buses are not running. In some cities, buses don't run on Sundays or about six major holidays.
Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems (Score:5, Funny)
Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.
A trip to the store can take more than a day if you happen to want a movie on a day when the city buses are not running. In some cities, buses don't run on Sundays or about six major holidays.
That's nothing. A trip to the store could take weeks if you get taken hostage by an arm gang on the way and released later after lengthy negotiations by Jimmy Carter. Of course we always take this sort of scenario into account when deciding whether to download or buy from the store.
Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems (Score:4, Funny)
Ha! That's nothing. My dad went out to buy cigarettes 20 years ago and still hasn't comeback... At least, that taught me not to smoke.
Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems (Score:5, Funny)
Lengthy download instead of a trip to the store.
A trip to the store can take more than a day if you happen to want a movie on a day when the city buses are not running. In some cities, buses don't run on Sundays or about six major holidays.
That's nothing. A trip to the store could take weeks if you get taken hostage by an arm gang on the way and released later after lengthy negotiations by Jimmy Carter. Of course we always take this sort of scenario into account when deciding whether to download or buy from the store.
That's nothing. It could take months if you have your PS3 in your boat and you are traveling near the cost of Africa while testing your new satellite Internet link. While you might think that a short trip to the coast to take some pictures, meet some people, sightseeing and buying that new BluRay you heard about in some store could be interesting, you can also get kidnapped by one of those pirates gangs and spend months while someone put (a lot of) money on the table to take you back. This could specially apply also if you ship oil for a work on a large boat, or move large amounts of people around, or you do some high level fishing.
Of course we always take this sort of scenario into account when deciding whether to download or buy from the store at the shore.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just amazed your scenario doesn't involve aliens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can also get kidnapped by one of those pirates gangs and spend months while someone put (a lot of) money on the table to take you back.
See, that's exactly why Sony includes DRM on the movies, to prevent exactly this sort of piracy.....
Re: (Score:2)
If public transport is such a mess in your town, you should invest in some form of personal transportation. I suggest a bicycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You wouldn't last a day in Copenhagen [copenhagencyclechic.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The only weather that stops a bicycle is hail*, and even then just invest in a suit of plate armor and that won't even matter.
* OK, a hurricane or tornado might also make matters difficult.
Re: (Score:2)
The only weather that stops a bicycle is hail
Would you recommend cycling in a thunderstorm?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're comparing a few minutes in the rain to what could be HOURS.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So how did you manage to get hold of a PS3 then?
One buys a console far less often than games or movies for that console.
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
We have similar bad transit in my city. I'd make a day trip to buy a Console because I only have to do it once. I wouldn't take the same day or half day to go rent a movie for a couple of reasons.
1) You never know if the movie you want is going to be at the store. Wasting a half a day, a few hours there and a few hours back, to go to the store just to find out the don't carry or don't have the movie you wanted in is a major frustration. Before I spent more time downloading then renting I'd try to call ahead
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not even just being out in the wilds. I've been to London and their transit system is infinitely better then what we have here in Dartmouth, Nova Scota. Then again, I think you'd be hard pressed to find any place with worse transit.
Sure I can walk or take a bike, but if you've ever been to Halifax or Dartmouth, you'd know the cities are made up of hills, hills on hills and more hills.
The advantage is I'm in great shape. I was at a bachelor party for a friend of mine about a year ago. He had friends from Alb
Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems (Score:4, Insightful)
You can't download snacks.
Snacks are more fungible than movies (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And even if you forget the snacks and only notice it after you slipped the DVD in, you can still go out and get them, and be back just in the nick of time after the unskippable ads have rolled.
Re: (Score:2)
We're working on that...
Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
The Playstation network has been DOG SLOW lately... I don't think your fast connection is gonna help much.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't buy movies anymore - I rent them. I know it's a (slightly) different comparison to what you were complaining about, but renting HD movies from PSN makes a ton of sense. I hate going to the rental store to pick up a movie, only to have to drive back a day or two later to return it. My wife & I prefer to pick a movie on Thursday evening (when new stuff gets posted to PSN) and if anything looks interesting, we rent a movie to watch on the weekend. It's like $4 to rent an HD movie from PSN, about th
Re: (Score:2)
Given a choice between a $4.50 "old release" HD "rental" and a $1 new release RedBox DVD (oh, and some RedBoxes have Blu-Ray), I'll take the $1 DVD for instant gratification.
Given a choice between two $4.50 "old release" HD "rentals" and a 2-disc Netflix plan - I'll take the Netflix plan, which will easily get a lower "rental" price per month, plus there's Netflix Instant Streaming.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried streaming to my PS3 for the first time last night. No buffering problems, no obvious compression artifacts.
Yeah, it was limited to stereo, but so are half my TV recordings until I can fix a small bug in MythTV. (5.1 channel AC3 is being misreported in the stream info as 2 channel for Fox and NBC recordings, causing the PS3 to decode it and output it as PCM instead of passthrough.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, for most of us, this is a limitation common to Bluray as well.
Comparable to Blu-Ray? (Score:3, Insightful)
At $17.99 for older movies, it's WORSE than buying a Blu-Ray.
Most older movies have gotten down to $10-15 at Wally World, and I managed to even find some 2-packs (admittedly of made-for-TV movies) for $10.
I worry that this might affect Netflix streaming to the PS3 though - Netflix's prices blow Sony's "rental" prices away. A 2-disc Netflix sub is only slightly more expensive than two "old release" HD "rentals".
Re: (Score:2)
Their prices for movies are obscene. No way I'd "buy" one, but I was excited when I saw that rental was an option--until I saw the price. I expected maybe $2, $3 tops. Nope. $6. These dumbasses don't seem to realize that they're competing with Redbox and its $1/day rentals. In many cases, that's enough to buy a DVD of the movie (used, at least).
I'm willing to pay a bit more for the convenience of not having to go out to get the disc and to return it, but not that much. $2 is really what I expected to
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, most of us are limited to watching blu-rays on our PS3s, anyway. Not that I'll do this, because I like owning the discs, but...
Plus, I can just download the 720p ripped version and play *that* on my PS3, if the movie isn't worth it or I haven't seen it yet.
So I agree there that their pricing is dubious.
Re:Sony is being very carful not to undercut thems (Score:5, Insightful)
But wait, there's more!
-Quickly fill up your PS3 hard drive.
-Wonder what happens if your hard drive crashes or if you want to switch to another console.
-No more saving money by selling a movie or by buying movies used.
-No more borrowing movies among friends.
prices (Score:2)
1) what price?
2) gouge them
1) what?
2) let's see what the market will bear
1) not a little excessive?
2) if it works it'll pay off big
2) and besides we can refuse to sell to anybody who undercuts us
1) no B-movie bargain bin at walmart. sweet!
Pricing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So the old complaint works. You know, the "now we're already reducing the price of the movie and STILL nobody buys it, must be the pirates"
The pricing is way off... (Score:5, Insightful)
You can get Zombieland on blu-ray at Amazon for $23.49. It's yours, you can loan it, sell it, make backups (shhhh), etc. Plus it's in full 1080p. Who the frick would buy a "virtual" copy for nearly the same price?
Re:The pricing is way off... (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, it's strategies like this that made me stop working for Sony.
Oh, that and the regular shafting by management.
The irony is, management will email you and say "please tell us how to be a better company" and you tell them to try selling things that are a good value proposition and they don't want to know.
For instance, I emailed the head of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe and told him that no-one would ever buy a UMD movie at that price/quality, but did he listen? Did he fuck.
Sony needs to get rid of the morons in upper management and start listening to the people making the products.
Re: (Score:2)
Great suggestion! Why don't you just email that to upper management, and they'll get right on it!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Who the frick would pay $23.49 for Zombieland (or any other movie for that matter)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I would put what they are offering, at under 5 bucks. Truthfully. Since I'm paying for the bandwidth, and the storage, and they will most likely still own it, and probably be able to delete the damn thing remotely or something... 5 bucks is about all it's worth.
Shipping and handling (Score:2)
You can get [some movie] on blu-ray at Amazon for $23.49.
The disadvantage there is you wait a week for "super saver shipping".
A Premium.. (Score:2)
I'd pay a $2 premium to have the movie watchable right then AND shipped to me as the true blu-ray version.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
Cruel, but ultimately fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, he's a pirate. If he wants to continue doing what he's doing, he's going to have to deal with people getting pissed off at him.
And why shouldn't we be pissed? Piracy does no favours for us. It allows the pirate as much entertainment he can get his greedy little hands on, while honest customers have to sweat the higher prices and increasingly invasive copy protection measures. Fuck, it's gotten to the point where the DRM on Assassin's Creed 2 (which I wouldn't mind playing) has made it literally impossi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
HD? (Score:1)
It may be 720p, but if the file is no larger than 7.5 GB, it'll be compressed all to hell, and no better than DVD.
Re:HD? (Score:4, Insightful)
The best thing of course would be to have a choice! I still think the old Russian AllOfMP3 site set the standard for media webshops in that regard: a choice of compression rates and file formats, or the raw uncompressed file, priced by the MB. I'd like online movie stores to offer downloads in formats suitable for portable players, DVD, HDTV (720p and 1080p), with or without compression, etc. And of course, no DRM and download to own. If they offer that, I'd stop bothering with Usenet or torrents, and I'd happily pay close to the full price for movies ($20-25).
Re: (Score:1)
H.264 vs. MPEG-2 (Score:3, Informative)
Post-PS3? (Score:2)
Of course, then there's the matter of downloaded content on other systems like the Xbox 360...
Linked to PSN Account, Perhaps (Score:2)
So... what happens to the downloaded movies that you've "bought" once the inevitable PS4 comes out?
I imagine these downloads are treated like all other content on the PSN, they are linked to your account. You are allowed to activate your downloadable content on up to 5 devices so I imagine you could simply sign into your new PS4 when it comes out and re-download your content.
On a similar note, two other friends and I have all activated our PSN accounts on all of our PS3s and we share DLC all the time. I'm saving my other two activations in case my PS3 goes bad or the day I say "Hey look at my new PS4!
Re: (Score:2)
Awesome. (Score:2)
Tried it, hate it (Score:2)
I tried this on the xbox and hated it. First you have to download about 4gigs which takes time, that's 4 gigs coming off your own internet connection if you happen to have a monthly limit. For xbox once you start watching the movie you need to finish it in like 2 days or it auto-deletes. That's right you can just watch part of it, go do something else and be like "oh I have to finish that movie I paid $$$$" for only to find out it's disappeared.
The deal breaker is the price. at 17.99$ might as well just buy
Why the price premium? (Score:2)
Is any HD movie worth a 50% premium over SD? $2 more (to rent, $3.99 SD, $5.99HD)?
When I first saw the Matrix on a very low-quality rip, it was not substantially changed by the DVD version, or even my current Blu-Ray version (thanks WB for the HD/BluRay swap!) . It is rather appalling when Netflix is on the same system and you get streaming movies for $8/mo. That's what, 2 SD rentals? If Sony priced the HD rentals at SD rates, they might actually compete with the value proposition of Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
When it cuts out the shipping and manufacturing cost for them
Internet bandwidth and server maintenance still cost money.
Re: (Score:2)
server maintenance is a fixed cost, not a marginal cost
Storing movies to be served costs per title, and encrypting each copy sent over the wire costs per concurrent user just like bandwidth does.
Assuming they are always sending out at peak capacity
I don't see the reason behind such an assumption unless Sony promises overnight delivery in the background. People don't tend to start a download going while at work or asleep.
Re: (Score:2)
Video rental in HD and SD on PSN have been available since mid 2008. Seo Sony already has that covered. Whats new here is that HD movies may now be bought. SD was available day 1. These movies can be shared with a PSP so it could happen that they will also be transferable to a PS4 if that ever comes out.