GRcade

Agreed. It’d be better value if they gave you a physical copy on top of the online access. I’d maybe pay £20 for digital access and a blu-ray.

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different. Very few people (Ad7 aside) have 40 foot TVs.

It's like comparing a microwave meal to a restaurant.

I agree it isnt the same experience but a family of 4 or 5 are unlikely to pay £20 to go to the cinema, and could easily pay over twice that especially if you buy food and drink. In that context, I think they'll get some people happy with the option but they're definitely pricing many people out. I cant really see big budget movies and straight to streaming working because of that.

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different.

I know watching a film at home is so much better than the cinema. No-one eating crisps like they're trying to make as much noise as possible, no teenagers walking around during the film to talk to their friends at the end of the row, no-one using mobile phones in a dark cinema right in your eyeline. It's great.

Memento Mori wrote:

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different.

I know watching a film at home is so much better than the cinema. No-one eating crisps like they're trying to make as much noise as possible, no teenagers walking around during the film to talk to their friends at the end of the row, no-one using mobile phones in a dark cinema right in your eyeline. It's great.

Go to better cinemas.

It's a laughable idea that it's great to pay £20 (on top of an £8 per month subscription) for a movie just because some teenagers might eat crisps near you.

I just think it's short-sighted, regardless of the value proposition of different numbers of viewers etc. I cannot see a world where going for a flat £10 rate doesn't net them more money overall.

Pretty much nobody I know will pay £20 for these "premiere" Disney+ releases but I can guarantee almost everyone I know with Disney+ would dip on a £10 MCU movie release

Jenuall wrote:I just think it's short-sighted, regardless of the value proposition of different numbers of viewers etc. I cannot see a world where going for a flat £10 rate doesn't net them more money overall.

Pretty much nobody I know will pay £20 for these "premiere" Disney+ releases but I can guarantee almost everyone I know with Disney+ would dip on a £10 MCU movie release

Yeah, I think you're right there. They've really been slow to take advantage of the pandemic and test this stuff out properly.

Jenuall wrote:I just think it's short-sighted, regardless of the value proposition of different numbers of viewers etc. I cannot see a world where going for a flat £10 rate doesn't net them more money overall.

Pretty much nobody I know will pay £20 for these "premiere" Disney+ releases but I can guarantee almost everyone I know with Disney+ would dip on a £10 MCU movie release

Yeah £10 would make it a better proposition.

Personally I'll just wait a few months until it's available to all subscribers. Or if I am really desperate to see the movie, I'll pirate it.

Moggy wrote:

Memento Mori wrote:

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different.

I know watching a film at home is so much better than the cinema. No-one eating crisps like they're trying to make as much noise as possible, no teenagers walking around during the film to talk to their friends at the end of the row, no-one using mobile phones in a dark cinema right in your eyeline. It's great.

Go to better cinemas.

It's a laughable idea that it's great to pay £20 (on top of an £8 per month subscription) for a movie just because some teenagers might eat crisps near you.

£5 a month subscription technically but I'm splitting the cost with other people so I'm not even paying that. It's good to have options, no-one is forcing you to pay £20. It was around £12 for a cinema ticket in London pre-pandemic for a good chair as it is.

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:I just think it's short-sighted, regardless of the value proposition of different numbers of viewers etc. I cannot see a world where going for a flat £10 rate doesn't net them more money overall.

Pretty much nobody I know will pay £20 for these "premiere" Disney+ releases but I can guarantee almost everyone I know with Disney+ would dip on a £10 MCU movie release

Yeah £10 would make it a better proposition.

Personally I'll just wait a few months until it's available to all subscribers. Or if I am really desperate to see the movie, I'll pirate it.

Obviously £10 is better from a consumer POV but they're not going to charge below cinema prices.

Memento Mori wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Jenuall wrote:I just think it's short-sighted, regardless of the value proposition of different numbers of viewers etc. I cannot see a world where going for a flat £10 rate doesn't net them more money overall.

Pretty much nobody I know will pay £20 for these "premiere" Disney+ releases but I can guarantee almost everyone I know with Disney+ would dip on a £10 MCU movie release

Yeah £10 would make it a better proposition.

Personally I'll just wait a few months until it's available to all subscribers. Or if I am really desperate to see the movie, I'll pirate it.

Obviously £10 is better from a consumer POV but they're not going to charge below cinema prices.

I guess the point is that they had an opportunity here to break convention - they are the content creators and ultimately the value is in the content not the distribution via cinemas. This was the perfect time to explore options that aren't tied to the traditional cinema business model and pricing

Memento Mori wrote:£5 a month subscription technically but I'm splitting the cost with other people so I'm not even paying that. It's good to have options, no-one is forcing you to pay £20. It was around £12 for a cinema ticket in London pre-pandemic for a good chair as it is.

Obviously £10 is better from a consumer POV but they're not going to charge below cinema prices.

Again, the two experiences are not comparable. The size of the screen, the sound quality and the "night out" feel of the cinema cannot be compared to streaming a movie on a home TV.

And cinema prices wildly vary, £12 in London is not the same as cinema prices elsewhere. It's still possible outside of London to get cinema prices below £6.

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different. Very few people (Ad7 aside) have 40 foot TVs.

It's like comparing a microwave meal to a restaurant.

all the restaurants near me are microwaves

shy guy 64 wrote:

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different. Very few people (Ad7 aside) have 40 foot TVs.

It's like comparing a microwave meal to a restaurant.

all the restaurants near me are microwaves

That's because you live in Argos.

I think the vue cinema in cwmbran was no more than £5 a ticket, and every seat was one of those individual large recliner ones.

But then you have to go to Cwmbran.

Poor mans Caerphilly

Jenuall wrote:Poor mans Caerphilly

More vowels = better cinemas.

Moggy wrote:

shy guy 64 wrote:

Moggy wrote:The "not bad value compared to the cinema" argument doesn't work as the two experiences are so different. Very few people (Ad7 aside) have 40 foot TVs.

It's like comparing a microwave meal to a restaurant.

all the restaurants near me are microwaves

That's because you live in Argos.

Jokes on you I live in an amazon warehouse

Tomous wrote:But then you have to go to Cwmbran.

The provence of the Newport area

Prole-vence more like

Cinema chain selling tickets for a fiver? What is this, 1992?