So first, buy a $1000 TV, and second, cave in to your child's every whining want and spring more than twice as much for a rental than if you just waited a month. Good luck with that, Sony. This one's destined to be a windfall.
I could understand it if this were The Dark Knight or something, but Cloudy didn't do anywhere near that kind of business. Of course, the studio's biggest hit in the US this year has been Paul Blart, so there's not a hell of a lot of choice for this kind of bold and rather silly promotion.
Now Sony just waits for customers to decide to pay more to rent a movie than it costs to buy a DVD or buy two tickets at a movie theater, sits back and watches the profits roll in.
Sony's 'Cloudy' with a Chance of Corporate Stupidity [Get The Big Picture]
]]>Nah, that's where piracy comes in. Then the little sprog can watch it over and over and over again. Way to go, Sony!
]]>That's usually the reason for bringing a product to market.
]]>@The Porkchop Express: I have another embarassing confession. I never really liked the Goonies. I think I didn't see it until I was too old to really enjoy it.
The joys of being the oldest child.
]]>@hotdogsunrise: Goonies?
]]>@pecan 3.14159265: true, they only see the commercials that tell them when you can buy it. They would have no idea that you could get to rent it with this TV.
]]>@Rectilinear Propagation: hell, even while it was in the theater. I would pay $30 to rent it while it's out in theaters with tons of commercials and all the daddy, daddy can we go see "kids' movie with the occassional adult joke thrown in"?
]]>@Saboth: I saw it for 24.95 somewhere...
]]>@jivesukka: Not necessarily. Plenty of companies have offered products and services that the public didn't want.
]]>@Oranges w/ Cheese has 2 cats! ahahaha.: You're right. I did forget about how long it used to take.
I mean, Ghost Dad took forever to come out. ... uh, I mean, (insert a good movie here) took forever to come out!
]]>hmm, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, studio is...
Sony
]]>@JGKojak: Ya, or other movies for that matter. Charge $25 to watch it when it is in the theaters. That would actually be pretty cool.
]]>No, they do not. You can have those items downloaded on your PSPgo, however.
The no longer include those items due to the secondary market for used broomsticks and sandpaper at GameStop and Amazon.
]]>I'm going to give a moderate thumbs up to sony here at least for the option...yeah it doesn't work for single people economically but it's not as horrendous as advertised.
]]>They weren't asking people to buy the rootkit as a service, though. Poor analogy.
Presumably, when Sony launches a new product, they do so because they believe that somebody's going to buy it.
]]>@qwerty001984: That doesn't even make any sense.
]]>Now you are on to something. I wouldn't pay *the same* to watch a movie at home, but I'd pay maybe...50-75%. Like, if I could watch the new Star Trek at home a week after it was released in theaters, for $10-$12, Instead of $18-$20 at a theater (because...although my home theater is ok, it obviously doesn't compare to the real thing...but then I can watch from the comfort of my home). As-is, I missed it in theaters and decided to just watch it on Netflix.
]]>I was just thinking the other day "wish Zoolander was on". Maybe one day I will buy dvds.
]]>@jivesukka: If Sony only does things that people obviously want, what's their excuse for the rootkit crap? I'm sure everyone was just chomping at the bit to have that software installed without their knowledge!
]]>@Underpants Gnome: I imagine the movie is probably *already* on torrents.
]]>@pecan 3.14159265: I actually did, because I was obsessed with movies. Yeah, movies used to take 8-9 months to come to video. Now it's around 3-4. Six is the max, I think, and that's for big movies like Star Trek that still time themselves to come out with the DVD for the holidays.
]]>@jivesukka: I know who might want to do this - the people who look at this as being cheaper than taking a family of four to see it at the theater.
]]>@quail: Trust me, I stay far away from kids movies like they're the plague. I saw Up in theaters only because we were able to go at an evening showing and there were fewer kids.
]]>"Sony Executive doesn't understand why piracy is so popular."
]]>@NeverLetMeDown: I agree with you completely - somebody must want this or Sony wouldn't have done it. I wounldn't do this ever, I rather just buy it. I am just more excited when I see companies trying new things, especially when it can lead to something awesome and affordable.
]]>@bhr:
People who buy the Iphone.
"Sony falls on its face with a bad idea, blockbuster style."
]]>Perhaps it is you who hates free speech?
]]>@JulesNoctambule: I've heard the same thing from an industry friend.
But after coughing up money for the "3D" release of Toy Story 1&2, I am not paying for another 3D movie.
]]>My guess is both the studios and theaters are enjoying the extra revenue nicely, and as you say, it seems the pattern is here to stay.
Which is fine, we all make the sorta-choice to go or not go; wish I had the option of 2D, but oh well.
]]>@Trai_Dep:
Generally, yes, but in this case, they're one and the same. Cloudy was a Sony Animation release.
]]>All of that said, I read online where they're working on HD TV sets that can reproduce the actual 3D experience you're getting in the cinema. The other thing I know about the 3D in the theatres is that it's one more measure the studios are using to stop piracy.
]]>How nice of you to say. So, you basically think that there's no possibility that someone else might, I don't know, value certain things differently than you do? Wow, I should hang out with you more, since you're clearly the absolute standard for all value in the universe.
]]>Still, it's not like Sony is forcing anyone to buy it. It's an interesting experiment in a new means of media delivery.
]]>Of course this is insane. UP which just released is $15. So is this movie twice as good as Up?
The reality is of course that very few people pay retail (which is $35), but Sony is limited in how much it can undercut those retailers which do sell retail. So everyone pretends.
]]>Hardware manufacturers don't set prices for content, the studios/labels do. As they decide what, if any, DRM is attached.
Shift the blame/scorn away from Sony and towards the studios/labels.
]]>My theory is that Sony is setting up a straw man here. They'll release this movie a month early. it'll show up on torrents. They'll run crying to congress talking about how unless they plug our analog holes, they can't offer us great services like this in the future.
]]>But hey, I'm the guy watching Zoolander every time it comes on TV, so who am I to judge intelligence?
]]>@aka_mich:
Someone's about to get disemvoweled
]]>ummm, not. Standards, people, create a standard...
]]>Idiots--
You know- if they did this with, say, Star Trek or Harry Potter WHILE IT WAS IN THEATERS it would make perfect sense- but a month early- sorry, I can wait for Santa.
]]>they're probably making a list of whatever suckers pay this. that list would be priceless. they could probably sell it to every company hawking credit protection, auto warrantys and any other high margin sucker product imaginable and make a bundle.
]]>@pecan 3.14159265: Most kids, yes.
There were a few movies when I was an obnoxious little kid that I wanted to see NOW! Why weren't they out yet?!? It's embarassing when I think back on it. Mostly because of the movies...
But most kids, yeah they don't know.
]]>@Cantras: you can get the movie at the library for free too.
]]>@Rectilinear Propagation: Ha, I didn't even catch that last part. Sketchy people are sketchy. It's $1 from Redbox, and there are hundreds of free rental codes out there! Just rent the damn movie - for free! Geesh.
]]>not even if it was available same time as the theater, and i had my own movie theater, and i had 10 buddies to split the price with. still wouldnt touch it with a 10 foot pole.
]]>@Rectilinear Propagation: You're right. It seems Sony's Marketing Department thought it was opposite day when they decided to do this!
]]>@savvy999: I've never seen a 3D movie released on DVD, but I'm guessing that it's no longer 3D once it gets put on DVD or Blu-Ray, right?
]]>No thanks, I'll keep my composite jacks and wait a month and save $23.95.
]]>How many kids, even the savvy ones, track when movies come out on DVD? I mean, I do, but I'm an adult. Chances are, most kids won't know the difference if you get it 30 days later, you know, for $1 at Redbox. And Netflix users aren't going to do this when they're already paying for DVD rentals.
]]>@Colonel Jack O'Neill: That's why this probably wouldn't work for Sony. You can buy the movie for less than $25 and have it forever and ever for the rugrats to watch. I'm just not seeing the reason anyone would pay more to rent a movie.
]]>They're thinking wrong, since those events happen once in real time. Once the content is created and distributed, watching a movie kinda happens whenever you want.
FWIW, I saw CWACOM in the theaters, dropped $36 on the fam to do so (stupid, mandatory "3D glasses fee", and no theater within 50 miles had 2D). LOL that I'm going to pay more than a $1 in the future, to rent the DVD from redbox, and burn 10 copies of it for my nieghbors and their kids.
]]>Of course, the book and the movie have nothing in common besides the title, human characters, and food falling from the sky...
]]>@NeverLetMeDown: honestly. There has to be a group somewhere who will find this appeals to them. If they buy Sony is + whatever over money they wouldnt have made to begin with. Then they just release the movie to rental as usual in 30 days and make that money. Its an all reward no risk deal
]]>I feel like they would really have to come up with something better than "Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs." It was kind of smart to pick a kids movie, though. Parents will pay more to shut children up than they will for a movie they themselves intend to watch.
]]>Sony would no doubt argue the high price for the rental is not only related to its early access, but also because it's less than the cost of taking the whole family to the theater (and most renters of this film will be families).
Then they should have done this a month before it came out in theaters not a month before the DVD comes out. Heck, do it right after it stops playing in most theaters for people who ended up missing it. But offering an expensive rental a month before you could buy it for less makes no sense.
]]>I've seen better buys, actually.
]]>Why does this make someone a moron? Ever thought that, maybe, the fact that YOU don't consider paying an extra $20 to rent the movie now rather than later doesn't mean that EVERYBODY doesn't feel the same way? Sure, there will be a low take rate for this, but some people will buy it, and it's another data point toward figuring out what people WILL pay. Maybe the right price point is $10. Maybe it's $8. Who knows.
]]>