So, I've got a problem that seems as though it should be easily fixable by modern technology as it is, partially, already being done. After all the local video stores permanently shut down, my family and I signed up for Netflix because we had no other options available to us and I later learned that it had both instant streaming possible for some movies, documentaries, and TV shows and that it had those features available on game consoles, as well. Well, I have a PS3, and I gladly utilize it much of the time, so the use of my PS3 to stream videos through Netflix became a regular thing. Before I go further, I would like to address a separate problem.

I'm assuming the local video stores went out of business because of Netflix and, in my opinion, how lazy people never bothered to realize what would happen to video stores when their status as a customer went elsewhere (Is that, more or less, correct? I really don't know.). Thanks to that, I had to eventually sign up for Netflix, but I just want to go down to the local video store (which doesn't exist) and rent a movie or a show on the same day I watch it instead of having to deal with the stupid one day shipping following the time it takes to ship a DVD/Blu-Ray disk back... without shipping on weekends being a possibility. I'm going to go off on a bit of rambling rant of a tangent, here, but I hate this... how fellow members of society largely don't stop to think about what their decisions result in, think they're just one person who don't make a difference so it doesn't matter if they do it (how egotistical to think they are the only one who thinks these things), and/or are too lazy to get off their couch that they don't care about wait times in the specific case of video rentals. I can't stand it. I want a video now. I don't want it tomorrow, I don't want it the day after tomorrow, and I don't want it on Monday, I want it now and I'm willing to endure the five minute car ride to get it now.

Anyway, that's my criticism of society and how some of its members function, sometimes. Yes, I'm probably being selfish and not properly calculating what conditions may lead other people to do this type of thing, but I don't think most people who did it really have conditions to justify it all too much... not enough people to cause the local Blockbuster to go out of business. However, I do see a bit of a shining light in which I would gladly support Netflix over any video rental store. I love this concept of instant, online streaming. The only problem is that it's so freaking limited and I, again, have to deal with the wait times for most videos I want to watch. :wallbash:

I was wondering why Netflix didn't allow all their movies, shows, and documentaries to be instantly streamed. I suspect it doesn't have to do with not having digital, distributable formats of all their videos because I recall them actually removing some videos from the instant streaming list. Doing such a thing would save them shipping costs, as well. The only reason I could think of as to why they wouldn't do such a thing are for those people who don't have a stable internet connection and/or a game console (as in most people don't want to watch a movie on a computer) and the likely lack of use of shipping, for the most part, would render the entire option of shipping disks obsolete due to costs that aren't justified by the number of orders. Yet if that were the case, than they theoretically wouldn't be losing much business, anyway, and the lack of shipping costs would make up for it, correct?

If enough people to turn a profit on the shipping side of things still would be around, then they should be able to have both complete instant streaming and shipping as options. Maybe they could even strike a deal with console manufacturers to allow instant streaming of all videos and strongly advertise that as a reason to buy consoles, or something such as that. I don't understand why they don't allow instant streaming of all videos. It seems as though it should be able to be worked out, somehow. So, fellow Bethesda forum dwellers, what do you think? Would you strongly embrace the realization of the concept of instant online streaming for all videos? Why do you think it currently isn't being done? When, if ever, do you believe we may expect it to be done? I'm ready to accept this future of unlimited media at the press of a button. It seems amazing and modern technology seems capable of handling it, so why not?

P.S. I've been trying to get the first half of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood part 3 for the past few weeks. It's still on the "very long wait" status. :wallbash:

It would probably be a big strain on their servers to stream everything. I imagine the costs of shipping DVDs is less than building and maintaining new servers, but I could be wrong.

I was also wondering about that, but I also don't have any estimates about cost.

Well for perspective, apparently the Google servers use approximately $2,000,000 a month just for electricity. But Google's video database is probably larger than the entire library of Netflix by now....

I'm having trouble understanding your question from reading through all of your very lengthy post, but I think you are asking:

"Why is that that not all of the films on Netflix are available for instant streaming?"

Is that your question?

If so the answer is that Netflix would love to have all of their films available but they have to enter into contracts and license these streaming rights from all of the rights holders.

About 3 years ago, Netflix signed a deal with Starz, which had acquired digital streaming rights from numerous studios for a huge catalog of films, including pretty recent movies. Netflix paid only about $30 million to license these rights from Starz for 3 years.

When Netflix used these rights as leverage to grow their streaming business (ultimately becoming the No. 1 US movie rental business with 24 million monthly subscribers and over $3.4 billion market capitalization), the studios became angry when they learned that Starz licensed these rights to Netflix, as they felt they should be getting a bigger share of this business.

The first titles Netflix licensed from Starz have begun to expire during 2011 and Netflix has been signing deals directly with studios now, paying much, much more than the Starz deal.

For example, Netflix has paid $1 million per episode for the rights to stream each episode of Mad Men for 3 years. Also Netflix recently paid $100 million to license the library of titles owned by the Weinstein company for 3 years.

licensing
licensing
licensing
licensing
...

Oh

did I mention licensing?

Hollywood and the big 4 svck and hate everything they can't squeeze between their thumbs, as such they don't let Netflix instantly stream whatever they please

Netflix svcks anyway

Yes, that was my question.


I presume that what I wish for won't be plausible anytime in the next decade, then?

Disney and a bunch of other companies are actually trying to kill Netflix with their own quasi-streaming service that's basically DRM for movies: buy the DVD, register it, and you can stream it to any of their pre-approved affiliated devices (yeah....)

So, yeah, it isn't going to change any time soon. Will probably get worse, actually. And don't forget that more ISPs are implementing bandwidth caps to try and squash Netflix too (Netflix competes with their Videos on Demand services -- which if you use those they don't count against your bandwidth allowance)

I'll try to dig up the article on that, I read it like a year ago.

Yes, you are wrong.

It is much, much cheaper to stream everything than it is to buy wholesale DVDs on a spindle, store them and ship them around by mail.

When Netflix started streaming movies 3 years ago, it was only 10% of their business. Now it is 70%, thanks to a very dilligent effort to get people to switch from watching DVDs by mail to streaming.

Netflix would love to have 90-100% of its customers consuming movies by streaming.

This is garbage. I take it the resurgence of video rental stores won't be happening anytime, soon, either, then? Out of all the problems I have in modern times, it is something that was perfectly fine by me 10 years ago. How are we supposed to rent movies at any reasonable rate like this (Did I mention that several weeks for merely two hours of Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood?)?

Well that's a shame. I think physical discs are much better for watching movies/anime than streaming them off the internet. (though I just buy them, I don't use Netflix)

If you get a chance to try Netflix streaming over broadband connection, the quality is actually much better than NTSC DVD quality (almost double the resolution - Netflix HD streaming is 720p vs. NTSC DVD which is 480p).

Of course 1080p blu-rays are still much better than Netflix streaming, but hopefully the compression technology will continue to improve and I think there is a rumor that next year Netflix will begin streaming 1080p.

One huge problem with some Netflix titles is that they sometimes use English language dubbed audio tracks for foreign films, instead of using the original language + subtitles. Not all foreign films are butchered like this, but quite a few.

extras, box-art, language choice, and ownership are all things you get for buying a DVD that you can't get from Netflix's instant streaming. (not to mention pre-order bonuses when applicable)

Also Netflix can't stream HD if no HD version exists.

How can they increase the native resolution of a DVD though? I can play my DVDs in 1080p if I just watch it in fullscreen.... :confused:


Agreed.

Oh man I truly wish there were a million of you, DEFRON!

I work in the film industry, and I would love to be able to sell as many DVDs as I could a few years ago. The market has almost totally collapsed.

The problem is that these days
- consumers don't buy as many DVDs as they used to, they prefer to rent, stream, etc. and tend to buy only "event" movies (big budget tentpoles like Avatar)
- key retail stores limit shelf space to the "event" movies, recent studio films and popular TV on DVD, so they won't even stock most indie films
- piracy has really hurt DVD sales

Now, digital streaming services like Netflix, Hulu, Fandor, Vudu, Mubi, CinemaNow, are a godsend for indie films because they help to make up some of the revenue we have lost from not being able to sell as many DVDs.

Oh, I don't support the American film industry, in fact I actively attack them

Netflix licenses the movies for streaming and receives a 1080p digital master video file from the content owner. They convert this 1080p file to 720p and encode it in a way that allows it to stream instantly (I think it starts streaming at lower resolution and this gets replaced by the higher resolution file as soon as it buffers).

Your DVD player might have a capacity to "upscale" the DVD image to improve the quality for playback on a 1080p television, but the source material is only 480p. There is no way it can look as good as 720p or 1080p source material.



Well, I sure wish there were more people like you out there buying DVDs. It's a tough market.

I don't buy DVDs, as much, for a fourth reason. I've got a PS3, I've got an HDTV (720p), and Blu-Ray exists, so...

Only when possible, though. I know there is quite a bit of materials on instant streaming not available in HD, especially some of the older Comedy Central stuff.


*currently has 3 DVD box sets preordered*

As long as you are buying blu-rays or DVDs, whichever format, that's great to hear. Especially if they are my blu-rays or DVDs

By the way, how do Blu-Ray disks work with 720p resolution TVs? How does anything with a native resolution of 1080p work on a 720p TV?

You would clearly not get the full benefit of the higher resolution blu-ray has to offer, but, as long as the HD transfer was not POS, it will still look much better than watching a blu-ray on NTSC (480p) TV, or watching an upscaled DVD on 720p TV.

Most blu-rays released after 2007 or so have excellent HD transfers. some of the early ones were POS. check a blu-ray review site if you're not certain.

This is also something about that that's been bothering me (right when I thought I caught up with technology). The fact that my TV is advertised as a 720p TV rather than a 1080p TV annoys me. The thing is 32" in size and I was wondering if the difference between the two resolutions at that size was really anything remarkable or not. In other words, am I missing anything I really should be worrying about? Also keep in mind that I play games on my PS3 and I'm not sure what the truth is behind PS3 game resolutions.

With computer monitors there is a big difference between those resolutions, and they're a lot smaller. With a TV I guess it depends on how close you watch it from.

I'd suggest to go to an electronics store and look at blu-ray playback on some 1080p 32" TVs

If it is relatively far away from you when you are watching it, probably you need to get up above 40" before your eyes really start to notice the difference between 720p vs 1080p.

obviously for PS3 games, they do not go above 720p resolution, so you are only missing out a bit on the blu-rays