THE END OF PHYSICAL MEDIA?

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Yes but you still can't compare the price of a game with the price of a film for the reasons i said above.

If a game costs £50 why doesn't an Indicator dual format release?

No, you're right in that respect. I thought you were generally making a statement about the price of media being high in general when you mentioned Killer Dames earlier on in the thread.

A films' expense is recouped theatrically and then via a home video release, which isn't the case with a game. All the expense that has gone in to creating and developing it has to be incorporated in the retail price. If films weren't released theatrically then I could see the home video release being priced a lot higher to off-set the expense of creating it. A crude analogy I know, but I think one that kind of explains the price discrepancy to some extent.

Also a lot of films released now are licensed for a set fee or as part of a package deal so prices can be set based on that - it's not like the distributor 'owns' the film in question and has to recoup all the production and advertising expenses unlike with a game.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

The thing with games and prices is they have come on leaps and bounds in recent years. I mean the animation when i see them as ads on tv are like great big Michael Bay movies. Someone has to pay for what is in effect a great big CGI movie and it's not like it will get it's revenue back from cinemas before it hits the game market. Plus there are all the add ons and extensions, the multi player online gaming (am i making sense, i don't know the terminology?)

You can't really compare the price of a game to the price of a movie on disc.

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

No, you're right in that respect. I thought you were generally making a statement about the price of media being high in general when you mentioned Killer Dames earlier on in the thread.

A films' expense is recouped theatrically and then via a home video release, which isn't the case with a game. All the expense that has gone in to creating and developing it has to be incorporated in the retail price. If films weren't released theatrically then I could see the home video release being priced a lot higher to off-set the expense of creating it. A crude analogy I know, but I think one that kind of explains the price discrepancy to some extent.

Also a lot of films released now are licensed for a set fee or as part of a package deal so prices can be set based on that - it's not like the distributor 'owns' the film in question and has to recoup all the production and advertising expenses unlike with a game.

Good grief. You are agreeing with me...

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

Good grief. You are agreeing with me...

You occasionally make some sense, so I have no choice but to.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

You occasionally make some sense, so I have no choice but to.

This chat has made me think about the whole licensing way of going about things.

Take Indicator and Body Double.

Columbia originally released the film back in 1984. It made approx $9m Stateside (No other figures are illustrated for it's worldwide release) and wouldn't have cost an awful lot to make.

It was then released on home video rental worldwide followed by a worldwide sell thru on the same vhs format. (Both huge markets back in the day)

Since it's been released on dvd and now Indicator have licensed it for blu-ray in the UK and a splendid release it is.

Body Double was a film clearly in profit long before it's dvd release never mind anything else.

Indicator have paid for the rights to release the film on blu in the UK alongside other films in a bundle from the studio. To make money on the film, Indicator have to make enough to finance the payment to the studio and any additional extras they have produced which in this films case isn't much aside from the booklet as the majority are archival from the original dvd release.

A question. Who restored the film in 4k? The studio or Indicator?

Even a 4k restoration can't cost that much money or else Code Red Bill wouldn't be able to release anything in hi-def, what with his films only selling a few hundred copies at best apparently.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

The studio created the 4K master as far as I am aware. Powerhouse simply licensed the transfer from Sony as well as any extras they had ownership of.

I don't think Bill has released any 4K transfers. His forthcoming release of Opera though I think is from a new 2K scan, which he paid the Italian labs to create. A French company has already licensed his transfer for a release over there so it must be pretty good.

For a massive company like Sony though, a venture must be profitable on a fairly sizeable scale, otherwise they just wouldn't bother. This is why most majors license out to other companies now as it isn't worth their while / wallets distributing stuff themselves.

[Justin101]

The main bugbear with games costing so much is that it's now common practice to release an unfinished game and then charge the player even more money to buy a DLC for another tenner, sometimes even £20. There are certain publishers who do this more than others but they are all at it these days.

Records (vinyl) as brought up before are also costing way too much these days because it's all lavish packages and fancy coloured vinyls. The current Fire Walk With Me vinyl for example which has just come out on Death Waltz. It's £40... for a record! It's a double vinyl, when it doesn't need to be and it's on fancy red swirly vinyl and an admittedly lovely die-cut cover, but if there was a black vinyl and in standard cover it would be £15-20. They'll be hindering themselves if they keep this kind of pricing up. Even 12 months ago a new release record from a boutique label was £20 and now £35-40 seems the norm. To put it in perspective the CD of that soundtrack costs £3.99, that's 10% of what the vinyl costs

I'm with you all though, you can't compare one to the other but they're all (the different formats) getting more expensive and the distributors and labels are eventually going to get themselves unstuck because people will just stop buying them.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

The studio created the 4K master as far as I am aware. Powerhouse simply licensed the transfer from Sony as well as any extras they had ownership of.

I don't think Bill has released any 4K transfers. His forthcoming release of Opera though I think is from a new 2K scan, which he paid the Italian labs to create. A French company has already licensed his transfer for a release over there so it must be pretty good.

For a massive company like Sony though, a venture must be profitable on a fairly sizeable scale, otherwise they just wouldn't bother. This is why most majors license out to other companies now as it isn't worth their while / wallets distributing stuff themselves.

Does it need to be hugely profitable though? Well, yes it does need to turn a profit of course but as i mentioned previously the film turned profit decades ago.

Sony for example, will need their back catalogue remastered to the best possible quality no matter what, for future use in whatever format. The fact they can make money on them in the now by licensing them out is surely a bonus.

[bizarre_eye@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by Justin101

Records (vinyl) as brought up before are also costing way too much these days because it's all lavish packages and fancy coloured vinyls. The current Fire Walk With Me vinyl for example which has just come out on Death Waltz. It's £40... for a record! It's a double vinyl, when it doesn't need to be and it's on fancy red swirly vinyl and an admittedly lovely die-cut cover, but if there was a black vinyl and in standard cover it would be £15-20. They'll be hindering themselves if they keep this kind of pricing up. Even 12 months ago a new release record from a boutique label was £20 and now £35-40 seems the norm. To put it in perspective the CD of that soundtrack costs £3.99, that's 10% of what the vinyl costs

This is one of main reasons that I've majorly slowed down in respect to my vinyl purchasing. I keep telling myself that I can get the CD for a fiver!

It is nice to splash out on a lavish edition of a favouite every once in a while, although my days of buying up a lot of Mondo and Death Waltz soundtracks are over.

[Demdike@Cult Labs]

Originally Posted by bizarre_eye@Cult Labs

This is one of main reasons that I've majorly slowed down in respect to my vinyl purchasing. I keep telling myself that I can get the CD for a fiver!

It is nice to splash out on a lavish edition of a favouite every once in a while, although my days of buying up a lot of Mondo and Death Waltz soundtracks are over.

It's a pity and it's clearly through greed on the record companies part. With vinyl selling more year on year it really shouldn't be this way.

If it becomes apparent that their records are not selling as well as they used to they should look at the product and the cost to the collector before anything else.

[Justin101]

Originally Posted by Demdike@Cult Labs

It's a pity and it's clearly through greed on the record companies part. With vinyl selling more year on year it really shouldn't be this way.

If it becomes apparent that their records are not selling as well as they used to they should look at the product and the cost to the collector before anything else.

The likes of Nuclear Blast put everything out on record and they cost £16.99 which I think is pretty reasonable.