3 ms·
That's probably preferable, but would increase the cost to the consumer, as Sony (or whoever) would need to negotiate permanent deals with Disney (or whoever) i
by alistairSH 3y ago
That's probably preferable, but would increase the cost to the consumer, as Sony (or whoever) would need to negotiate permanent deals with Disney (or whoever) instead of the current system.
I'm sort of mostly ok with paying $15 for a semi-permanent license to a movie. I'm not ok with paying $40 for a true permanent purchase. Big guess on those prices, as I mostly just stream whatever is available today, so I'm not the target audience either way, I suppose.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago> I'm sort of mostly ok with paying $15 for a semi-permanent license to a movie. Everyone is until the content goes away.
- globular-toast 3y agoIncrease cost compared to what? You can't compare it to current rental systems, you have to compare it to Blu-ray etc. If the cost of buying a digital copy is significantly higher than Blu-ray then people will just stick with Blu-ray. If they don't want to issue such deals at all then that's fine too, but they just can't use the words "buy" or "purchase" at all and can only say "rent".