I've been wanting to see the new Spiderman movie, but am a father of a newborn so it's difficult to get out to see it. I was looking forward to it coming out on rental. Today I found out it's finally available - if I want to pay $24.99 for a temporary rental... It just astonishes me that if someone making minimum wage wasted to rent this movie for a night, they'd have to work at least 4 hours to afford a 2.5 hour rental.
Its the same price in most of the places I've checked. Its also the same price regardless of what quality you rent it in. Seems like Sony really is going to milk all they can from this movie.
Rental prices increased once the exclusive theatrical window shortened due to covid. They always go down after a few weeks of being available to very reasonable prices.
And in this case, I think the movie is still in the theater.
I mentioned somewhere else in this thread that I think this $24 seems really high if you’re young and single.
But there are lots of families with kids who want to see the movie and the price of four tickets would be close to $60 at the theater. So paying $24 to watch the movie at home and not deal with the entire hassle is definitely worth it.
This is much more meant to be a family deal than for single people. Some single people might still rent it but the unit economics makes way more sense if you’re a family of four.
If it's still in theaters, I personally see nothing wrong with this price. Is this a new thing? I remember it took months for movies to be available for rent after leaving the theaters. This is like a perk.
I usually wait for them to become available on one if the streaming services I already pay for. That said spiderman movies take forever to hit one if those because the rights are owned by Sony who doesn’t have a streaming service. They’ll eventually let Disney put it on plus but not before they’ve wrung every dollar from it they can first.
Look I don’t love high rental prices, but the one thing that I think is missing in this thread is that the movie is still in theaters and this is an option that started during the pandemic and actually works really well for a lot of families.
If you are younger or single than the idea of paying $24 for a movie instead of just going to see the theater probably sounds absurd.
But if you’re somebody who has two kids (especially if they are on the somewhat younger side), than the idea of ordering a pizza and watching a movie at home instead of wrangling the entire family, getting to the theater, paying $60 four tickets, more money for overpriced popcorn and drinks, and dealing with kids who might be tired or restless suddenly makes $24 seem like a great deal.
Honestly, it’s kind of the same thing with some of the delivery apps. The high delivery fees don’t make much sense if you are young and live in the city and can just go get your own food pretty easily. But I certainly know some families that love using things like DoorDash when it’s a Friday night and they don’t wanna have to pack the kids up in the car or deal with going to a restaurant after a long week of work.
Thank you. Classic Reddit mentality taking over this thread. $25 to watch a first run movie with the whole family where we can take off our shoes eat all the snack we want and pause it for bathroom breaks is not at all unreasonable.
Came here to say this. It's probably priced for two people also since it's still in theaters. Rentals are usually $19.99 and have been for years. Around me a theater ticket is about $16-$17 so it's not much different.
This is just not true, the movie is still in theatres, that’s why the price is high, as soon as its run is over it will be 10 dollars to stream. That’s how all of these releases have been for years now.
You’re the first person I’ve seen mention this. It’s insane. It’s still out in theaters. Just wait a bit and the rental will go down to a reasonable price. Not a terrible price if you have a couple of people over and wanna watch something still in theaters.
Own what? It's streaming, they are assuming people don't want to leave the house and spend that much for physical. It's predatory, especially combined with the destruction of DVD sales.
Exactly why I put own in quotation marks. You get the illusion of owning it cause you can watch it whenever you want for one price. Also I agree it’s extremely predatory and shouldn’t be allowed but my comment was about the small price difference between rent and buy. Truthfully the rent should only be like 5 bucks
This is how I thought of buying digital music when I first heard of it on Amazon or Apple (I don't remember which). It seemed kind of too good to be true. Turns out I was correct.
I remember digital albums that I "bought" would just randomly disappear from my library and I'd dig back through my purchase history to send a complaint, then they'd pop back up again. I imagine most people would forget and buy again but I'm neurotic like that. They were soft launching this grift over a decade ago.
You're smart and far more organized than me to complain! I wish I had looked into it further, but I was too busy at the time to give it enough attention. These days I would try to keep better track and would do a better job at trying to see what my issue was (and how to prevent it from happening again).
I completely lost the entirety of my Apple Music library way back in 2008 or so becauze I had too many "new sign in" attempts made from different devices. I guess they assumed i was sharing the account but does Apple not realize people have more than 1 device? And it wasnt a lot either. It was like 5 different times. One of them on the same computer that I had formatted.
Was something like over 2000 songs, the majority i purchased, instantly gone and not recoverable.
It's also not illegal to make copies of legitimately obtained media for your own storage and personal use. Maybe against the terms of service of whatever provider, but not illegal.
It literally isn't stealing by their own idiotic logic. Just like Sony's take on buying and owning ("a reasonable customer would know they only get a license without ownership"), stealing would imply the real owner lost access to the original when you pirate it. Which they obviously don't.
Reading through these comments, it looks like this is absolutely working as intended.
“Buying it is only $5 more” is quite literally the strategy. It’s price anchoring and upselling. Price the rental close enough to the purchase price that owning it suddenly feels like the obvious better value.
At $25 to rent and $30 to own, they want you thinking, “Screw it, it’s only $5 more. I might as well just buy it.”
They put the purchase price within arm’s reach on purpose.
That's the point. They don't want to deter people from going to the theater to see it if they know it will be available on demand in a month for just $5. Once it hits streaming the price of the digital rental/purchase will drop
There was a point I stopped doing it in the early 2010s because there were plenty of streaming options and it wasn't expensive to but or rent. More recently Ive started doing it again.
It's almost as if they got too greedy and fragmented their services to the point that you need so many for everything you want to watch, and the prices crept up so high that it's just cable 2.0.
The market is too fragmented. Too many streaming platforms all with their constantly shifting catalogue and thus unreliable availability of stuff you may actually want. I've checked many of them and often they just don't have the one thing I'm in the mood for and instead suggest their own slop. I'm not gonna pay for a gazillion platforms and I'm not gonna put much money in one with constantly shifting catalogue with stuff suddenly vanishing
Getting my entertainment on the high seas has just been more convenient.
Typically convenience comes at a premium. You pay more for convenience. Streaming, for some reason, costs more and is less convenient.
On the other side of things, lootin' and plunderin' on the open ocean is just convenient.
Add a good VPN, and you cloak your ship. Do it in Usenet and no one even knows something's getting looted.
Then at the same time, you don't pay money for a digital copy only for you to get an email later saying that you never bought the copy, you were holding a longterm license which they are now revoking. You don't log into a platform on the first of the month and find that a bunch of stuff has disappeared.
And you aren't paying twice as much as you used to pay for cable for the privilege.
Of course - when building your fancy ship it's not free. You might want to really build something big and powerful. A rack server, multiple HDDs, power, a few cheap subscriptions to indexers and trackers, but it beats the hell out of being jerked around by 10 different streaming companies.
This is the “still in theaters” price that assumes this rental is replacing two or more tickets sold. It’s a fine deal if you’re a family on the couch; bad deal if you’re watching alone. The price will drop, a lot, if you wait.
100%. I know that this app gives younger and with your families, but this is 100% a product intended for families. Obviously they’re thrilled when a single person decides. I’d rather just watch it at home as well.
But from a price perspective, if you are single, you could go see this movie in the theater for cheaper. But if you’re a family of four, this is much cheaper than buying four tickets.
And if it’s a Friday night or if your kids are a bit restless and rambunctious, then just watching the movie at home might be a much better experience in trying to get everyone to the theater and paying the extra $16.
Supposedly it will go to Netflix first around December before moving permanently to Disney+ in Spring. Im sure Netflix paid a lot to cash in on Avengers hype if true.
Not defending any company or business practice, but this has been the norm for years, and it’s not specific to Sony. Once a movie is available “digitally,” while still in theaters, renting it ranges from 19.99 to 24.99. Once it’s out of theaters and nears its physical release (if the movie gets one, this one will) the price to buy digitally will likely drop to a sale of 12.99 and rent for anywhere from 6.99-9.99.
They call it a “premium” rental, because it’s still in theaters. I have never bothered to buy or rent a movie early, I’d rather see it in theaters or own it physically. In my eyes, the digital market has always been and always will be a scam, for the simple fact that you will never own what you buy
Yep I’m not sure how many of the comments don’t know this
It’s literally still in theaters! This was a new thing birthed from Covid to allow the movies to get to streaming before the usual “for rent” time line
I agree that price is insane but people are acting like this is what all rentals cost now lol
I'd bet that some of them do know it. They just also know that they'll get more internet points from jumping on the outrage bandwagon than they would from explaining it. And they want internet points.
i agree with you. another factor is that one rental for $20 or $25 isnt for one person, its for however many people are there to watch it. so while it is crazy to pay $25 to rent a movie...if you had 5 people watching it its $5 each.
i go to the theater often because i enjoy the experience and its just me going so $20-25 rentals would never appeal to me but it could be a good option for some.
My family of 4 is spending at least $40 probably $60 on tickets at a theatre and we have to have popcorn with it. I’m out $100 versus waiting for it to be $10 at home and I pop my on popcorn.
My roommate once on vacation rented the Beekeeper with Jason Statham for $25 while it was in theaters. We all fell asleep and were too busy to watch the next day, so he rented it again. We fell asleep again, and 48 hours later I had to slap the remote out his hands before he spent a total of $75 to watch the FUCKING BEEKEEPER
This may be a tinfoil hat conspiracy, but I'm certain they charge that much to try and get you to buy the movie. Like when you compare the price to rent it vs to own it you'll probably think "for what they're asking I might as well pay the extra 5 bucks to own it." But that's just a theory
Yes! I noticed this too when I went to rent an old movie for 3.99 and it magically dropped the purchase price to be 5.99 - so obviously I have to buy it.
I remember learning about this type of strategy at my first job with Craftsman. They offered "lower quality" products just so they could charge more for the best item, when in reality it was the same tool.
It's unfathomable to me how "The store where you bought it no longer has the license to sell it, so naturally, you no longer have the license to use it" will not immediately result in the judge clotheslining the lawyer who brought that argument.
I’ve always had this dream if I ever hit the lotto like became a multimillion or billionaire I’d reopen blockbuster but make it work for the modern world
You’d come in browse same experience you pick your movie scan your card but, that’s it. Go home, take the receipt, enter the code into the blockbuster app we’d make and it’ll play depending on what you paid. 24, 48, or 7 day rental. It’ll be cheap too like 1.99, 3.99, or 5.99 each.
You still get to come in smell that amazing carpet that fresh amazing AC on a hot summer night , get recommendations from the workers grab your candies and snacks and drinks just the whole experience but no return fees no coming back unless you wanna get another lol
And no subscription model. Just rent a movie when you wanna. Maybe we’d have deals like combos 3 weekly movies 13.99 or something but that’s it!
Wouldn’t have to have the giant overhead ( I mean not as much ) since we wouldn’t be buying the dvds just licensing playback which I don’t know if that’s more or less expensive then buying hundreds of thousands of a copy of uncle buck but, yeah that’s my dream
I used to work at block buster. I fuggin miss it so much!
Seriously, everyone crying over this is ridiculous. It only hit theaters 2 months ago. If you want a better price, just wait 2 more months until the physical release in December. The price will probably drop then.
This is always how movie rentals work while the movie is still actively playing in theaters. Even before amazon prime video when i would want to rent newer movies on FIOS it cost the same. Had to wait a few months for the price to come down.
I have seen some dumb reddit threads, but this one might honestly take the cake.
Like, I can't believe how many people are up in arms about this. This has been happening for years. In the grey area between theatrical run and DVD/BluRay release, they do this. It's about the same price as two tickets, so if you watch with one other person, it's fine. The alternative used to be waiting until it released on DVD at all, and having to drive to the store to rent it.
That's the "you should have went to see it in the theaters" price
They're trying to get top dollar for it... The solution is not paying for it... But ofc it'll be longer before it'll be available at a discounted price... Capitalism/were live in a society.
This is probably because the production company is demanding parity with theaters. Ticket sales are how movies are paid for. Amazon (and the theaters) only get to keep a fraction, the rest goes back to the studio.
I'm not gonna lie, companies will keep doing this until we decide to just get digital files they can't control of the movies and shows we want to keep on our personal devices.
As a father of a newborn, you must make arrangements for going out once in a while to keep your sanity. Or if you really want to watch this at home, get together with 10 of your friends and stick it to greedy movie companies.
seriously, renting movies is typically much cheaper nowdays then it was at blockbuster than when we were kids, it's only this expensive because it's a brand new blockbuster that is literally still in theaters, no shit it's expensive.
I rented obsession the other night for 6 bucks, most movies are 4. In a month or two it'll be priced like that.
That's the point. They want you to spend more to just buy it
Edit: yes everyone... I know you don't actually buy it and you're not even guaranteed it won't be taken away. It's all an illusion to take your money since either way you're just granted a license to view it while they're given a license to distribute it
Yeah, video game companies and companies that "sell" you movies all say you never owned it, it was just a license.
Ummm no, YOU have the licensing agreement with another company. When that deal falls through, YOU, the company, lose the ability to SELL it. I didn't lose the right to own what I bought! I bought media. I didn't buy a license. I can't license it! I didn't enter into a licensing agreement, no matter how much they try to rewrite history.
They distribute copies via THEIR licensing agreement with another company and I now have a copy. That I cannot duplicate, I cannot license (if I had a licensing agreement, couldn't I do that?). It's a damn copy!
The thing that pisses me off the most about their arguments is "If we SOLD it to you, how did we give it to anyone else, smart guy??" "If you OWNED it, you could sell copies and you can't!" "WE would no longer own it if you did!"
Yup. You don’t own shit by pressing that button. You get to keep it for a year or so but it will inevitably vanish from your library the second it becomes unavailable on the platform.
Yup. That's exactly why they're priced that way. It's a mental trick to get people to buy something that they otherwise would not have. Unfortunately, it works
Thats the price of a blu-ray, and about $5 less than a 4k blu-ray. Please for the love of God buy physical, it's the best way to experience things and you own them!
Exec 1: "wow, turns out people don't like spending a fortune to go to theaters and are souring on the whole theater experience. The pandemic showed them their home theaters are also pretty great. This is bad for us! '
Exec 2: "damnit, but how do we get people back to the theaters? Make it more affordable? Make meaningful changes on our end? "
Exec 1: "No, picture this-- novelty popcorn buckets and make renting movies also cost a fortune. "
Yeah that's because usually movies aren't available to rent while they are still in theaters. If they are, they make them the price of the most expensive theater ticket in the country. Literally. I mean, so many people would choose to rent over pay to see it in theaters if they did it any differently. Just wait until it's out of theaters and it'll go down to the normal price of $3.99
This comment is buried way too far down. So many people are ignoring that this is the “still in theater”, early release rental price. Which has been a thing for over a decade. Once it comes to streaming it’ll drop to a “normal” rental price
I’m gonna be honest, for a brand new, huge movie like that, prices haven’t changed much in the last like 10 years. It’ll go down in a few weeks or at the very least go on Disney plus and you can get a free trial, watch it, cancel the trial.
Yes, this will be a lower price in another month or so. You just have to wait. Sometimes I’ve thought it was worth it to pay $20 if it’s for a specific movie and reason, the vast majority of the time I just wait until it’s free to stream somewhere.
A new release at Blockbuster in 2005 was $5. with inflation today that's $8.50. They didn't put it at a price for you to rent it but instead trying to convince you to "buy" it instead.
Not surprising that movie piracy is going back up.
100% because it’s still in Theators. Once it leaves and is available to rent again it should drop to a normal price. It’s inflated because they’re giving you the option to see it at home early. I do think the price is insane but you’d pay more for 2 tix at the Theator
This is the normal day one rental price for most new releases. It’s usually around this price for a month or two, then will drop significantly after the blu ray gets released. Then a month after that when it finds a home on Netflix or Disney+ (not sure which service will carry it) the price will go down to around $4-5.
It’s not just Spider-Man, it’s literally any movie that just came out.
The last ~5 years or so i’ve noticed new movies are at this rental price point for the first ~6 months they’re available online. It’ll eventually go down to the $5 rental price, i assume. But yeah at that price you may as well just go buy the hard copy blu ray, if they’re still producing those.
This has been happening forever, it’ll be $19.99 for smaller movies and $24.99 for big budget. It’s because it’s still in theaters and/or hasn’t been released physically yet. When it releases physically in December, the price of the rental will drop to $5.99 or so.
I just setup a local server at home with an old Mac and 4tb external because of this crap. I’m going back to pirating movies and letting my family access it on the server.
It’s still in theaters. They’ve been doing these hybrid releases where streaming is available but you’re going to pay more than a movie ticket because they assume more than one person is watching it. They’ve release in theaters and a couple weeks later release on streaming. After it leaves theaters after a couple weeks it’ll be the normal $5, which is the time period when you used to be able to rent it.
If you have a Blu-ray player or PlayStation, go to your library and check out a copy for free when it's available. It will be better quality than streaming, and is already paid for in your taxes.
I do this all the time with movies and video games, and it has saved me hundreds in Switch 2 games alone.
Participation is a vote. You don't like it, don't do it. Wait until it's included with a subscription or just go pirate it. But adding to the revenue is just contributing to the trends that make this a viable business model. I guess I'll keep waiting
For a while I thought piracy would become a thing of the past.
Netflix (and lovefilm when it still existed) were offering a reasonable price subscription to watch all the movies and series you could want. The whole world basically stopped pirating because the offer was reasonable and worth the money.
That has all changed now as companies are trying to squeeze every penny out of the consumer.
People do not mind paying a small amount for a rental, most people do want to contribute to the people who have actually created the film. However, once it becomes excessive, all goodwill is lost and the consumer feels they are being taken advantage of. At this point, piracy becomes a reasonable option to them.
The movie and streaming industries only have themselves to blame for the resurgence of piracy, which can actually fairly easily replicate all of the benefits of streaming services now. (Jellyfin and other tools)
This is a blockbuster release they're trying to promote in theaters. You can rent it but it will cost the price of a movie ticket, plus the ticket of the person you're most likely going to be watching it with.
I watch a lot of movies and this price is pretty standard while the movie is still in theaters. Generally a big movie is exclusively in theaters for about a month, then when hype dies down you can rent it for $20-25 at home rather than buy the blu ray (for Spiderman the Blu Ray is currently $27.99), then once it’s out of theaters you can rent it at home for $5-10. For example, Backrooms was $20 to rent at home as recently as 2 months ago, but now it’s $7.99 as its left theaters.
The idea is if you want to watch it with something like a family of 4 you can rent it for much less than it would cost to go to the theater. To each their own on if they’re willing to do that though. I usually wait until it’s in the $5 range to rent unless it’s a movie that I’m dying to see and didn’t get a chance to catch it in theaters.
I don't see a big deal in renting a currently airing moving for $20. My mindset is that I can pay for one movie ticket, invite some friends, make some food, relax, and watch a movie.
I'll typically only do it if the movie rates well and it's unique though. I don't buy any of the Hollywood slop garbage they put out.
3.9k
u/Striking_Interest_25 7d ago
The main reason the rental is so high is because they assume most people would just spend the extra five dollars to “own” it