Fox cuts out the extras on rental discs
by Richard Lawler 
posted Mar 6th 2009 at 1:11PM
With DVD sales slipping, every studio is trying new strategies to eke out a buck, and now Fox is trying to coax people towards buying instead of renting, by selling stripped down versions of some movies to rental outlets and keeping premium extras for buyers. According to a letter obtained by Video Business, Slumdog Millionaire will be one of the first discs with the treatment, where extras like deleted scenes and commentaries go retail only on the DVD, while the rental Blu-ray edition loses the (probably useless on a rental) digital copy. At least so far the HD editions of these movies don't seem to be affected, but unless prices come down we wouldn't be surprised to see this kind desperation double dipping on the Blu-ray front as well. Still, with as many of our readers that have said they don't care about extras and the relative ease of piracy, studios may just have to learn to be happy people are paying to watch at all.[Via Switched]
Filed under: Blu-ray
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
murpheous @ Mar 6th 2009 1:22PM
This is only going to drive more people to download movies illegally.
DEEZNUTZ @ Mar 6th 2009 2:11PM
Don't be such a drama queen.
I could care less if my rental discs don;t have extras... and I'm sure I'm in the majority. Still, I don't think this will have a material affect on buying vs renting.
David S @ Mar 6th 2009 3:31PM
That only applies if renting Blu-Ray is your alternative to piracy and the reason you consume Blu-Ray is for the additional Blu-Ray extras instead of higher resolution.
Most people I'd assume rent Blu-Ray to see the content in HD, not for the additional extras available on Blu-Ray and not DVD.
I didn't hop on Blu-Ray for Yakuza Fighter.
If you were after Higher Res, then whether or not there are extras is irrelevant. Personally I feel the dilmena for potential pirates comes down to availability, price, platform interoperability, and bitrate. Does the extra bitrate for the feature film on the disc outweigh the availability, price, and portability advantage of an mkv or m2ts download?
If the industry wants to combat piracy, I would address those issues. Cheaper hardware, fewer restrictions on digital copy, included SD DVDs, easier licensing so laptops like MacBooks can read Blu-Ray, more availability of titles at retailers like Net Flix, and lower prices. For me personally, "Very Long Wait" is the best reason to consider piracy over rental.
Jon @ Mar 6th 2009 1:30PM
Lets be honest except for a few classics .. Xtras are worthless ... My vote for best Extras of all time is Lord of the rings .. 10+ hours of remarkable documentaries
HC @ Mar 6th 2009 1:36PM
Actually, I think this only helps rentals...
Lets be honest, no one really watches the extras unless its a movie they love and in that case most will end up buying the disc. Most renters (myself included) just want to watch a new movie once on the weekend or something without having to spend money to buy it.
scyber @ Mar 6th 2009 2:23PM
Honestly I can't recall ever watching an extra for any DVD. And I own over 200 DVDs(stopped buying once I joined netflix in 04).
Hmmm....I don't think I ever realized this before. Perhaps I will check out some extras tonight to see if they are worth it.
Jonsson @ Mar 6th 2009 2:27PM
I think this is a really good idea. I which they would do this on the DVS's and BD's for sale and lower the prices as well. I couldn't care less for the extras. Of my 450+ disks that I own I have not whatched the extras on more than one or two of them.
Bozster @ Mar 6th 2009 2:29PM
Here's the problem..they are giving rental vanilla Blu-ray discs to rental chains while trying to sell more expensive versions at retail without cheap option.
This will just ensure that Blu-ray stays in the niche market IMO.
This is not a good sign of things to come.
JimC @ Mar 6th 2009 2:40PM
The sun rises and sets, therefore Blu-ray will remain a niche market...that about covers any and all future reasons for yet another "niche" market comment...
Bozster @ Mar 6th 2009 2:54PM
If you don't see what the problem is with this then we really have nothing to discuss.
They are giving cheap versions to rental chains and selling us overpriced versions packed with a bunch of unnecessary stuff at retail.
Instead, they should offer vanilla versions in retail for those who want cheap movies, then offer special and limited editions as well for higher price. But of course, they don't want to go DVD route. They want to milk us for the top dollar.
If that doesn't concern you as a consumer, then you should maybe take your blinders off.
Jonsson @ Mar 6th 2009 3:09PM
Bozster I generally do not seem to agree with you. I certainly do not agree (maybe it is wishfull thinking but anyway) that BD will forever remain a "niche" market.
But I certainly agree fully with your comment that BD should offer plain versions (movie only without all the extra crap) for a decent price to those who actually by a disk for the MOVIE.
Bozster @ Mar 6th 2009 3:26PM
Jonsson,
I don't say that Blu-ray will remain niche. I say if they do stuff like this it will because mainstream just won't pick it up due to price.
The proper way if they wanted to do it right would be to follow the same model as DVD and offer cheap (maybe $2-$3 premium of DVD) versions of movie with HD picture and audio with just standard DVD like features, then they can charge whatever they want for special editions, digital copies and whatever they want on others.
Right now, Fox and even Disney are doing a diffferent thing. They are offering only expensive versions to retail and cheap ones to rentals.
This will just turn people more off from Blu-ray in retail and back to DVD, especially in this economy. I certainly know that I won't be buying overpacked versions for $35-$40.
Jonsson @ Mar 6th 2009 3:44PM
Bozster, well I agree largely. The studios seems to think that just because they pack a lot of (pure) crap in there they think they can charge a lot as well. It is a shame because I think they could make more money by just pricing the stuff slightly above DVD's and providing premium or collectors version for those who really cares.
Maybe I'm wrong but I do think that the wast majority actually just want to what the damned movie. I certainly do.
Having said that, the current BD prices (in Europe) is about what we where forced to fork up for a DVD (granted for a newly released movie) only at the beginning of this millennia so...
Mike @ Mar 6th 2009 7:00PM
Would you stop with the $35-$40 comments. No one pays that. Try less then $25 and a lot of people find new movies around $21-$23
Bozster @ Mar 6th 2009 7:08PM
@Mike
Right.. on catalog titles that cost $5 on DVD. Give me a break. That's for your $20-$25 titles. Have you looked at the prices with digital copies and other stuff included? They are $30+ and that's what we'll be getting with this initiative. The $24.99 new titles and below are vanilla regular Blu-ray titles for the most part which are going to be now sent only to rental chains.
cashmonee @ Mar 6th 2009 7:27PM
"But I certainly agree fully with your comment that BD should offer plain versions (movie only without all the extra crap) for a decent price to those who actually by a disk for the MOVIE."
The studios did this several years back with DVD's. Not sure if it was successful or not, but they have tried and abandoned it before.
imonit @ Mar 6th 2009 3:05PM
Thank God! I hated having to strip out all of that useless crap through DVD Shrink. About time Hollywood started looking out for us pirates.
Jonsson @ Mar 6th 2009 3:23PM
Yes I certainly hope they do...by properly procecuting parasites like you.
I do no tlike a lot of the crap that the big studios are pulling but protesting by turning into a simple thief is, as far as I am concerned, simply wrong.
imonit @ Mar 6th 2009 8:21PM
Guess what? I don't actually think Hollywood is doing this for pirates, either. Gasp! I'm glad you felt the need to climb atop your moral high horse, though. Pipe it down, noob.
HC @ Mar 7th 2009 2:29AM
What's the difference between you and a guy who steals cars or other things? Nothing, except that you "think" that it is a victimless crime. But tell that to the millions employed in the movie industry who take a hit everytime you illegally download.
I am not a fan of the overpaid actors/directors/producers, but the silent millions that hollywood employs who barely make enough.
And the sad fact is, piraters like you can probably afford to buy the movie in the first place.
imonit @ Mar 7th 2009 9:27AM
What’s the difference between you and a DRM-loving sheep? Look, I figured the sarcasm was clear enough by referring to myself as a pirate and suggesting that Hollywood was promoting that kind of behavior, but apparently the upstairs lighting is relatively dim for a few Engadget readers.
I don’t give a rat’s behind what the MPAA tells you, using DVD Shrink doesn’t make you a common thief as you not-so-eloquently put it. I’m one of those who (regrettably) spent the time and money setting up an HTPC with my entire DVD collection at my finger tips from any room in my house (and in the screened-in room in the backyard). Now, I had to break the DRM on my *legally* purchased DVDs to achieve this. You can continue to believe that allowing Hollywood to dictate how you choose to use your content makes you a saint, but they (and you) can take your DRM-loving rhetoric elsewhere. If I want compress a few movies to take with me on a business trip for use on my netbook, you won’t find me on Itunes re-buying what I have on my DVD shelf. Oh no! It’s like I stole a car!
If someone wants to pirate movies, they will. Most of the people who profit from this kind of activity will invest the time and money to be able to do so. But littering the content that I own for something that isn’t effective in its very purpose is nothing short of ridiculous. The same can be said for you defending it. How much of the development costs related to BD+ was passed on to consumers? I assure you that it is not zero. And was it worth it? It was for AnyDVD. Cha-ching.
And for crying out loud, HC. Your assertion that using DVD shrink affects these millions of underpaid workers in Hollywood is simply wrong and, frankly, ignorant. Now you’re blaming the consumer for studios that don’t share profits from DVD sales? Do you not remember why your favorite TV shows were missing about a year and a half ago? Read up: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15912607. While this was from TV writers and not necessarily the movie industry, the same concept applies. It’s not the volume of revenue coming in from DVD sales, it’s how it’s distributed.
Bink @ Mar 27th 2009 7:55PM
Yes, this comment is for an old article. So what? I can't believe that guy couldn't understand the sarcasm. I mean, I got it right away... Although I am likely of a higher intelligence than many. Anyways, I agree, if you bought the DVD, why shouldn't you be able to rip it to your computer to watch it without having to use a disc? If you're doing it to share on the interweb, then yeah, that's pretty wrong (...or something), but if it's just for personal use, who cares? I wonder how many of the people who complain about piracy also complain about DRM? DRM is there to prevent piracy. If you don't want the piracy, don't complain about the DRM. (Well, ok, they still are able to pirate games with DRM. Just look at Spore.) So yeah, that's my two cents (or perhaps two dollars). And as I put after many of my long posts in places, if it's a bit disjointed or confusing, blame my fingers unable to type exactly what my mind says. Woo.
nick @ Mar 6th 2009 3:21PM
As a renter, not having the extras doesn't bother me. Most of the content is rather unnecessary anyway or forgettable. But it does upset me that they're offering extras if you 'buy' the same movie. That they offered different versions of the same movie is what drove me to renting in the first place.
Kumar @ Mar 6th 2009 3:24PM
I tend to watch the cut scenes and blooper reels, but if they're missing from the disc that Netflix sends me, I don't rush out and buy the disc.
If anything, I *might* buy a full featured disc a long ways down the road after renting it, when I know it will be on a fire sale, long after these yahoos intend for their little tricks to work.
reallynotnick @ Mar 6th 2009 5:43PM
Am I the only one who sees this as a feature? Why don't they sell these discs at retail?! lol
Bozster @ Mar 6th 2009 7:59PM
Here's your example of this new approach:
Amazon's Slumdog Millionaire offering:
DVD - 1 disc - $16.99 (2.35 WS only)
BD - 2 disc $27.99
Alex @ Mar 6th 2009 8:42PM
How is this different than the a-hole studios releasing a bare-bones movie first then releasing an Extras edition a few months later? (not to mention several versions after that)
Screw em all
Squid7085 @ Mar 7th 2009 12:27AM
All this will do is make it easier to copy with out using some app to strip out the extras. Thanks Fox! ;-)
kevin @ Mar 8th 2009 9:55AM
I still have no plans to buy movies. I rarely watch a single title more than once in over the course of a couple of years, so why buy it when I can pop over to Blockbuster and rent it for a buck? If I'm dying to see the extras on something (fat chance), I'll just wait until the movie gets cheap on the used market, pick up a copy, then sell it again after watching it.
My entire DVD collection right now: roughly one dozen. And we bought our DVD player six years ago. Taking extras off isn't going to change that; making movies that I actually want to watch more than once is a better idea.
jakeneff @ Mar 11th 2009 10:20PM
Wow, am I the only one that watches the special features? I can't get enough of them. I find them to be a fascinating look at moviemaking and I'm not even in the business. I'm just a fan of movies.