In a decade this might be true, but for right now streaming selection is way more limited. It’s moving in that direction very slowly. It’s definitely not moot.
Aye, I didn’t think it was because of a law, but rather because of a contractual obligation. But it does seem to be the case that they do pay a fee per rental to the studio, rather than just buy the DVD and rent it with the studio never seeing anymore money from them than they do from the average consumer.
Here’s the problem: by blocking the extras on rental discs, they have reduced the value of the rental experience, but I’m still getting charged the same price. If the extras had remained and the rental price had gone up fifty cents, I probably wouldn’t have complained.
With the value of the rental experience having been reduced so, yes, I’m slightly less enthusiastic about renting movies. I’m not gonna storm off in a huff mumbling “never again,” but given this lowered enthusiasm, it seems likely that I will rent less frequently going forward.
I’d happily pay a smidge more to rent a disc that contains extras, but that’s not being offered.
Having watched the movie already for $4, I have no interest in paying $20 to then buy it outright just so I can watch the extras. But that’s exactly what the studios are telling me to do.
And if the idea is to buy the disc for $20 instead of renting it for $4, then that means the extras cost me a net of $16. The extra material is certainly interesting, but not four times as interesting as the movie itself.
You know what’s more annoying that disabled features?
People saying “price point” when they just mean “price”. It’s worse that “rate of speed” because at least that doesn’t have a completely fucking different definition than just “speed”.
Yes our TV has a closed caption setting which we always leave on. Having a hearing impared person in our household means I know all the fine differences between subtitles closed captioning etc. Some dvds have both closed captions and subtitles particularly dvds of TV programs which is why you sometimes get them twice. This DVD had **NONE **of the above. I spent about 20 minutes fiddling with different options and buttons before I finally accepted that Disney was really that evil.
Oooh, that bites.
I agree with you - I said it because he did*, but I don’t see the need to say price point when price will do.
*Yes, I AM using the “He started it!” argument. 
Are you talking Edison cylinders (no bonus features), or those shellac disks that turn at 78 rpm?
The thing with the “78s” (as we call them) is that they have an entire second side. Try it! Hold it by the edges and flip it over. You get another side of bonus materials.
Some musicians are putting “grooves” on that second side, and Bix is even recording lesser “B-quality” songs for his “B-sides”.
They suck even more than that. I received a copy of Kick Ass for Christmas that a friend had purchased new, full price. It was an expensive three disc set. The set contained (according to the cover), a DVD, Blu-ray and a digital copy. There were also a lot of tantalizing extras listed.
Last night I popped it in to watch only to be told that the extra materials were only available on the Blu-ray disc. That’s right, there was a separate disc for DVD version that did NOT contain one single extra. I am really pissed. Greedy fuckers.
This is standard practice. The DVD in these sets is not supposed to be a complete duplicate of the Blu-ray, but rather, they’re included as another option for how to watch the movie (in this case in a room with only a DVD player).
The extras are already filmed. It would cost them nothing to include them on the DVD.
Also, it would have been more fair for the packaging to identify itself as a Blu-ray with a DVD included. This set was purchased for me by someone who knew I wanted to watch the extras and only had a DVD player.
Hey! Just who DO you expect to pay for all the hookers, blow and corrupt accountants?
That’s an outrage! That’s false advertising! You’re right! It’s unfair that the package doesn’t mention that all of the special features are on the Blu-ray and the DVD only contains the movie.
Get all jumpy about it if that makes you feel better but it doesn’t “totally”. If it totally did it would be on the front cover. Also, I didn’t buy it, an older (less tech savvy) friend did.
Who’s getting jumpy? Or did you forget the sequence of posts in the last ten minutes:
- You complain that the Blu-ray and the DVD aren’t identical in a combo set.
- I explain that is common practice.
- You come back with a specific example of a movie-only DVD included with a Blu-ray where it’s unmentioned on the package. IT’S HERE WHERE YOU ARE WRONG.
- I link to a picture of said package showing that they’re upfront about the DVD being movie-only.
- You accuse me of being jumpy. EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE WRONG.
After the OP’s reasonable rant, this whole thread has devolved into people whining about shit that is either untrue or the result of not reading the box at all before purchase. Christ, someone even pulled out the old “rental shops have to buy special, more expensive, rental copies” argument.
Actually I don’t see what the big problem is. They are just applying the business model that was established by dope pushers since the Dawn of time : hook them with cheap stuff. And when properly hooked, raise the price.
That information is never on the front cover. All the specs have always been on the back. You don’t have to be tech-savvy to flip a box over.
So, the side with the pretty pictures goes down. Right?
I had a patron angrily return a DVD once for that very reason. He thought we cheated him because “the movie was only on one side.”
Did you explain that the viewer turns the disk over to watch the part after the Intermission ?