Should digital copies be cheaper than CDs and DVDs?

I think the reason why Digital Copies are more expensive than those DVD / CD copies is that they are easier to reproduce / copy. Haha. All you need is a storage device such as an external hard drive or a flash drive and you're good to go. Lol.

 

I don't know if they should be, but if I'm not mistaken, it's not really the physical media and few pages of catalog that increases the price of the DVD to begin with. Most of the price we pay as the consumer comes from the high cost of marketing and advertising, which would probably turn out to be priced generally the same whether the product they are selling is digital or physical. The blank Blurays, DVDs, and the prints probably only cost the studios a few cents each since they buy and make so many of them, so no, I don't think it should affect the price much.

 

I think digital copies should definitely be cheaper than physical copies, besides the cost of making the DVD, box, etc, there is also the cost of shipping, store clerk's wages, store rent, etc.

The amount that companies save by selling digital copies must be a very solid percentage of the final price, I don't see why it can't be cheaper.

 

I agree with you 100% on this point. The digital copies should be cheaper, you're not receiving a physical copy and the DVD has more features last time I checked. I purchased the Lion King Dvd and it came with 2 Blu-Rays, a DVD, a Digital Copy and a free tin lunch box, all for just $30. If I can get all that for this price, then why would I want to pay a similar price for a Digital Copy?

 

Yes - with the cost of physical production, without paying for store space, without supporting the practice of company -> store -> consumer: why are they as expensive if not sometimes more so? Greed and I don't support those kinds of shenanigans.

 

You aren't taking into account the logistics.

 

I agree with this too. I don't understand why purely digital versions aren't cheaper than the physical product. The cost of manufacturing should be dramatically cheaper. The saving in production costs are not being passed on to the consumer.

 

There are still costs to make these files available digitally. Whereas they would previously pay up front to have copies of the music/movie manufactured, now they have to pay for the servers to make them deliverable at all times, and they have to pay for all the excessive bandwith, all the backups, CDN's and other infrastructure. Overall though, music and movies are cheaper than they were in the 80's & 90's. CD's used to be like $17 when I was growing up, now albums are generally less than $10. Cassette singles were about $3.50 each, now you can buy songs for 99 cents.

 

I think digital copies should be cheapter than CDs and DVDs because people cannot keep their digital copies. For instance, I am a huge collection of CDs and DVDs, and I have found that I can't collect digital copies beside putting them on my computer. That's not the definition of owning a CD or DVD. I think digital copies are meant for instant viewing.

 

It makes little difference. Few people ever buy DVDs or digital movies or music. They have to price them high anyway so that they can get back a little for that which is lost when people download the files illegally from p2p networks, torrent sites and so on. While pirating lasts, I don't suppose we'll see cheap digital copies of movies any time soon.

 

It would make no sense if they weren't. You aren't providing a physical container to go with the thing so there is no way a digital should be priced the same as a physical copy. It is essentially a rip off if they have the same price. That after the physical copies are overpriced anyways.

 

I buy combo movies so this is a moot point with me.I like to have a physical copy because I like to have as many backups as I can get. at way I don't have to worry about losing the digital copy.

 

I think they should, since they don't need to spend money with packaging and the overall materials. Digital is pretty cheap, after the CD or DVD is digitalized they shouldn't have too many extra costs aside from the author rights..

 

I also think that they should be cheaper, after all, digital products don't use other tangible materials in their packaging. I know mp3's in Amazon only cost 99 cents per song, so I think that's quite cheap already, but are there other digital media out there that is the same price as the physical one? Since I haven't encountered one yet.

 

Totally, this was basically going to be everything I was going to say. I think that companies are aware that they will lose more money on digital copies so they try to charge a little more for them. Though this is probably counter-intuitive.

 

Actually, digital copy prices are relied heavily on hard copy distributors. This is especially true with games. Physical distributors (Gamestop, EB Games, etc) have a lot of say in the price of digital copies, and many have to be priced the same as physical copies because they know they will lose business if digital becomes cheaper, and because these places are some of the only ones that distribute physical copies to those who can't get digital ones, they basically have the publishers wrapped around their fingers.
Basically what I'm saying is they will say 'I won't distribute your product anymore if you price the digital copies lower' because, let's face it, it's always nicer to have a hard copy of something that won't get lost in the depths of cyberspace if something goes wrong, but we would all pay for the digital version if it costs less.

Digital versions should be cheaper, because you are no longer paying for the physical materials (the CD itself, the case, the paper booklets/fancy covers), but until everything becomes completely digital and manufacturers no longer need physical distributors, they will most likely stay the same. We're already seeing it happen with books.