Harry Potter: Goblet Of Fire, Which Version? (1 Viewer)

[John Alderson]

I look at it as having gotten a great deal on the sets in the past, and today I just didn't get that great a deal. Yeah, I'm a sucker for the special editions.

How about this: if the SE is worth the extra $5 you pay it. If not, don't. Pretty simple, no one's holding a gun to your head. DVD is already way cheaper than I ever thought it would be.

 

[todd stone]

single... extras are a waste of time

 

[MarkHastings]

That's the way I see it too. The thing is, not many other people see it that way because they've determined the DVD's 'worth' based on what they WANT to pay (or can afford to pay) for it. I simply suggest that that's not always the case.

I still don't see this new edition (at $22) as being not worth the money. $22 for a 2 disc DVD movie is still very reasonable. It may not be as cheap as in the past, but again, that doesn't always equate to 'unreasonable'.

 

[Jonathan Kaye]

It's entirely possible that the cost of the 2-disc set has gone up in comparison to previous sets to offset the reduced sales from people (like me) who have bought the previous sets but are holding off new purchases until Hi-Def has settled down.

Hear, hear.

 

[Shawn.F]

Larry,

The sound is great on the disc, the picture is merely okay. I noticed some serious compression issues during the opening scenes of the film. Those issues in the beginning aside, the rest of the transfer looked good.

 

[Malcolm R]

It's a change too, in the way companies do business today compared with years past.

It used to be that people offered their goods at a reasonable price that ensured a reasonable profit, and everyone was happy.

Now, companies that used to be happy with a "reasonable" profit are no longer happy unless they're "maximizing" profits. Heaven forbid they don't drain every last dime out of the consumer.

Warner was making a reasonable profit from their first three 2-disc releases. However, given the popularity of the franchise they decided that they could probably grab even more money, even though the releases were already profitable, by instituting this 2-tier scheme.

As others have said, this is not an inflationary increase. That would be if the 2-disc release were sold for a unit price of $15.99 vs. $14.99 a year ago.

This is simply corporate greed to maximize profits. Reasonable profits are no longer acceptable. The same $14.99 price buys half what it did last time. And if you want the equivalent product, you have to pay a premium price.

 

[MarkHastings]

Gas has gone up and so has everything else. DVD's need to be trucked out, so the gas increase gets reflected in the price.

And also, just as a restaurant will open its doors with great prices, it too will increase the prices once it gains a fan base. That's what businesses do. They start off really cheap (to entice consumers) then they raise the prices to where they should (or need to) be.

I don't honestly believe that $20 DVD's are unreasonable.

 

[Patrick Sun]

And it's why $5 DVDs in the Wal-Mart bin seem to be a steal!

 

[Qui-Gon John]

Just got back from getting some groceries at Sam's. Mine had HP for $19 and change and I think it was only the 1-disk. Did not see anything on the packaging to indicate it was the 2-disc. Does anyone have pics of the covers for each one?

 

[mattEarl]

I really have to chime in here, since you all seem so passionate about somehting that you clearly don't understand. Studios only make money off of the units that they sell to retailers. Retailers decide what they are going to price their product at. Once the studio has shipped their product to the retailer, their "hand" in the deal is pretty much done (with the exception of returns). When you've all been paying $14.99 in the states or $19.99 in Canada, the RETAILER has been selling it BELOW COST to get your butts into their store. They take the hit so they can gain market share for that week or they hopefully suck you into buying an additional catalog title that they actually MAKE money on. Now I understand that the consumer is generally in disbeleife "Why would they lose money, that's ridiculous' or they simply don't care. But please, don't call it greed. These people are running a business, not a charity auction so you can build a nice DVD collection.

 

[Bob clamer]

The 2 disc set has silver/grey around the border of the case and say "2 Disc Special Edition" across the top.

 

[MarkHastings]

Yeah, my local supermarket was selling the single for $19 too.

 

[Larry Sutliff]

Thanks, Shawn!

 

[Andrew Bunk]

Once again on this release and Batman Begins, the difference in list price is like $1 or $2. The retailers are the ones responsible for this. They presumably asked the studios for this and got it. If the retailers are happy and order more, the studios are happy. Also, it costs the studio less to make the same amount of money. Not surprising that they didn't pass on the savings to the consumer, but I'd wager most who purchased the loss leading 2-disc releases of HP 1, 2 and 3 don't care about disc 2 anyway.

Besides, the ~$15 price is based on loss leading. It's like a 50% markdown from list. This is obviously only done during release week or other special occasions. The stores only need 1 or 2 loss leaders a week. They have their loss leader in the 1-disc, why would they loss lead the 2-disc? I don't condone it, but this is surely part of the logic behind this move. Make more money by spending less in production/manufacturing. Can't say I'm surprised. More surprised it took them this long to figure it out.

 

[Shawn.F]

No problem, Larry. Please don't let my small gripe about the artificats at the beginning of the film sway you from picking it up. I was just a bit surprised at what I had saw. Perhaps QC at Warner went to get a coffee when that part of the transfer was on.

 

[Nathan A]

In the end, it doesn't matter. Customers are paying more, regardless of who's profiting. Although, I would rather be upset at the proper party, so...is there any evidence that the retailers truly started this? And I find it extremely hard to believe that the studio only makes an extra $1 profit when the list price is only $1 more. Even if it's the retailers' fault, the studios are partly to blame for giving in to this consumer unfriendly practice.

And this "loss leader" term gets thrown around a lot. Has anyone actually seen what the retailers pay? I mean actually seen the figures, not just an informed estimate based on the retail industry in general. As an aside in a conversation I once had with a video store owner, it was implied that these "loss leaders" aren't really losses.

 

[MarkHastings]

Well, like I said, if the studio is to blame, it's for producing 2 versions to begin with. Putting out 2 versions is always going to cause this scenario.

Now the real question is, why did they put out 2 versions? Did they do it because production costs increased and they wanted to offer a less expensive product without just issuing a 2 disc at a higher price?

Or did they really decide that they'd put out the single disc (to please the casual fans) and figure that the hard core fans would pay any price for the 2 disc, so they'll raise the price as if it were a 'premium' disc? (i.e. the "screw the fans" rationale that I hear so much about)

 

[Ray H]

Hmmm. I went for the 2-disc after all.

 

[Rhoq]

I bought the 2-Disc set...$19.99 at Tower Records.

Just a quick note - I've noticed that over the last month or two, Tower has become quite competitive with their pricing on new DVD (and to a lesser extent, CD) releases. Many of the more popular release week titles are on sale for $14.99 and $16.99 now (they used to be sale-priced at $19.99 and $22.99).

 

[Qui-Gon John]

MarkHastings, my example was not a Grocery Store.

I was buying some groceries at SAMS CLUB, and thought I'd check the price, if it wasn't too bad, $14-$16 for the single, I was just gonna pick it up while I was there. But for almost $20, I can drive over to Circuit City later today and get it for $13.99, (per the roundup).