RSSReal Launches Movie Download Service
By Nate Mook and David Worthington | Published June 14, 2004, 8:54 PM
RealNetworks and Starz Encore Group have dusted off a 2002 agreement to serve movies over the Internet using RealVideo 10. The new service, dubbed Starz! Ticket on Real Movies, is subscription based with no restriction placed on the number of flicks that consumers can watch for the flat monthly fee of $12.95 USD.
100 movie titles will grace Real's film library at any given time, and can be downloaded to up to three PCs. Each downloaded movie weighs in at roughly 500MB, and can be viewed for six weeks, but not transferred to DVD or a portable device. 25 new movies will become available each week, replacing 25 others.
Subscribers will also be able to watch a live stream of movies chosen by Real, which functions like a cable movie channel.
The concept of streaming flicks on the Web is currently under the looking glass of Real partner America Online. In January 2004, AOL began a trial of a service that offered its broadband subscribers low-cost movie rentals by establishing a loosely knit relationship with Movielink. Without the discount, Movielink members have access to over 600 films that make up the Movielink library at a cost of $3.95 to $4.99 USD per rental.
RealNetworks has given Starz exclusive rights over mainstream movies, but has left the door open to distribute films from other companies as well.
If it was any service other than Real, I would love it. Personally, I can not stand real player. Maybe it is just me, but it acts like spywear whenever I have installed it in the past.
I do like the idea of getting movies and watching them. I have a couple of concerns though.
(1) How will the quality of the movies be ? Are we talking about DVD/DIVX quality ? (If I pump the video to my Plasma TV, will it look great ?)
(2) How soon before someone write a hack so you can save them to DVD ?
(3) What type of movies are we talking about here ? Attack of the 50ft woman ? Ishtar ? Waterworld ? Or will we get just out of the movie theater films...
Score: 0
It's a bit pricey for this kind of service. I wonder what sort of market analysis they've done.
While the internet may be a popular way to catch many of the latest releases, the Internet has not proven itself nearly as good a way to broadcast as television is. I've tried internet movies in the past (with a few then free services), as well as having transferred some of my own material into AVI and MPG files, and they just don't hold up to the quality of even an average VCR tape.
And with a cable channel it's permissable to take the material so you can watch it later. While it's not permissable with this system, it's still possible since all one needs is a TV output on their video card and a VCR (which could then be transferred back to a digital file). People will copy the files.
I think they further fail to realize that most who watch internet movies are trying to avoid paying the movie theatre prices. Do consumers really want to fuss with an Internet services that shows the same movies being shown on TV specialty channels? I don't expect this service to last.
Score: 0
Um. Exactly why is this an expensive system? Go to Movielink and you pay up to 5 bucks to get a movie and watch it for 24 hours. You can watch these for up to SIX WEEKS. And for the cost of 2 or 3 films from any other service, ie Movielink (and that new service in WMP 10). 13 dollars a month.
"I think they further fail to realize that most who watch internet movies are trying to avoid paying the movie theatre prices"
12.95? Thats less than the price of 2 box office tix. I can watch like 100 movies with this. While the quality of the movies is not perfect, it is CONVENIENT. Video on demand is very limited on broadcast media so far, and very expensive.
Aw geez, I can't tape it. I can watch it for SIX weeks! I have and will download movies to watch unlimited times, but this is incredibly reasonable. Little p2p people annoy me. Crowding the internet with inferior rips of movies, selling them to their little buddies and act like theyve done something incredible. Whatever. Ill take advantage of any reasonable deal, whether its free or 13 a month.
I watch pirated movies all the time, but 12.95 is chump change to anyone with a normal job.
My only beef with the service? A 600kps min. before subscription. My home service is cable and 500megs takes like 25 mins (about 350k/s). Is that not fast enough for Real/Starz?
Score: 0
"It's a bit pricey for this kind of service. I wonder what sort of market analysis they've done.
While the internet may be a popular way to catch many of the latest releases, the Internet has not proven itself nearly as good a way to broadcast as television is. I've tried internet movies in the past (with a few then free services), as well as having transferred some of my own material into AVI and MPG files, and they just don't hold up to the quality of even an average VCR tape"
I think the service is incredibly reasonable, considering the alternatives (3.99 per movie at most video stores and a 8 day maximum or 100 per month for digital cable with video on demand). And these aren't movies that are made to be kept - while most people DO want to watch and listen to a movie at it's 'premium', most people wait until they know if they LIKE a movie to care whether or not it's crystal clear or not. At the movie theatres, the movies are far from clear, the sound is what matters.
"And with a cable channel it's permissable to take the material so you can watch it later. While it's not permissable with this system, it's still possible since all one needs is a TV output on their video card and a VCR (which could then be transferred back to a digital file). People will copy the files.
"
I think whoever would want to worry about this, should spend more time worrying about the programs that allow the circumvention of DVD security, which might I add is quite alot more easily done that this VCR rigmarole - think about it, WHO in their right minds would do this, than go to blockbuster or wherever, rent a DVD and then copy it or divx file it?
"I think they further fail to realize that most who watch internet movies are trying to avoid paying the movie theatre prices. Do consumers really want to fuss with an Internet services that shows the same movies being shown on TV specialty channels? I don't expect this service to last."
Um...not entirely true. 2 of 10 may use this service to avoid cinemas. 8 of 10 go because they either want to be the THE or ONE OF THE first to see the film, OR because they want the theater experience. I don't own a 4000 64" Plasma TV or a 2000 7.1 Dolby THX System, so I like to go to certain movies for sure at the cinema.
If this is comparable to Video On Demand, which I've experienced in Washington, DC but which is not yet here in Ft. Lauderdale, FL - I will be one to gladly 'fuss' with it. In DC it's 104 and some change per month to get HBO, Cinemax, Showtime and Starz, all with VOD. It's like 40 bux for cable....and with this 13.00 it'll be like having these channels (or what we REALLY want from them anyway, I've never really been a sex and the city (HBO) fan, or a lover of cheesy, corny, c-movie type soft porn (Showtime), I want the channels for the movies. 100 or 53, 100 or 53. I choose 53, gladly.
I do respect your opinion, don't think I'm being rude or anything - I do totally understand your point of view also; but as I've pointed out, I for one think 'a service like this' could easily last.
Score: 0
I had a similar discussion going on about TV on demand.
How much would you pay to download and replay a TV show you missed? Currently I'm downloading TV episodes I've missed within a few days of the airing. This is something I'd probably pay for, if it was available.
http://geeqs.net/DotText...ive/2004/05/08/155.aspx
Score: 0