Love how it doesn’t mention the fact that services are getting objectively worse content as they stretch thin, are increasing their prices across the board, and cracking down on password sharing which was previously touted as a benefit.
this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Technology
58009 readers
2968 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Guess what’s also been increasing? Prices.
Guess what also has refused to go up? Wages
Guess what also been increasing? The number of streaming platforms trying to out bid their competitors. You know what else is increasing? The number of streaming platforms going after account sharing and they wonder why people are going back to piracy. Piracy is king and no one will be able to stop it.
That’s what I’m worried about….billionaires will convince governments (who haven’t banned them yet) a “think of the children act” which will ban VPNs
Well, at some point people will remember that it's possible to share things via USB stick or a drive.
I've started to pirate games again, which I never saw a reason to in 15 years. Simply because 2 hours refund window isn't enough for the crap they sell now. Performance from hell and half assed story after you left the tutorial.
Gamepass kind of stopped me a bit on that, but it's a subscription and only a matter of time till there's competition with exclusives and increased price.
Games also got too expensive, there's more competition than ever and I earn less money than my parents used to, I simply can't pay that much, yet the games start to cost 90€ upwards. So even if I buy a key, it's still 65€ or more, for an often broken game. No thank you.
Just wait, dude. Prices on games come down so fast, there’s really not much reason to pirate.
Not an option. I dislike spoiler and I need a new PC to play coop games with friends anyways. What's the point of a new expensive PC if I play only old games? I also don't feel like participating in gaming communities much, if everything has been discovered 1 or 2 years before me. No one gives a fuck if I find out some cool hidden features, if it has been discussed already and everyone can watch 1000 better YouTube guides. Playing on release is great entertainment for me and always will be.
I'm gonna be honest, for me, everything you said there is precisely why I like being a patient gamer. Can play all the games I want without spending as much on hardware or on the games themselves. Am playing the most completed and patched version of the game. Have heaps of resources available online to help me optimise my gameplay.
And that's totally fine. I wish people would show more empathy, on why I don't enjoy it the same way as you do. You also lose a lot on being not part of any current community. Patient gamer is a valid way, unless you play online games or care about the points I mentioned above.
Tried crusader kings 3 on game pass, I liked the game but every tube after 30min or an hour, the windows drm would have a hiccup and close the game, ended up getting a cracked version, while still paying for the subscription, never had a crash again... fuck this shitty drm.
Crusader kings 3 (just like all other Paradox Games) doesn't even have DRM. You can start the whole game without steam or the shitty PDX launcher, so no idea what you are on about. A "cracked" version is the exact same piece of software.
If not, we can expect to see legal channels raising their prices again to cover the losses caused by piracy.
what a shitty take. Well, anyone who has better memory than only one month back can realize that the reason the people turned to piracy was that they raised their prices. There is no loss caused by piracy. They only missed potential gains. And the reason they raised their prices were not because they were loosing money. Was because they needed to "grow infinitely". If the free market evangelists are right, the free market will self regulate and the prices will go down in order to attract back the lost customers lol
I'm not disagreeing with you—the conclusion these services have taken are indeed not logical ones based on historical trends—but I'm curious how you know these services didn't need to raise the fees? Why have you assumed that it's to "grow infinitely"?
From my understanding, almost all streaming video providers except Netflix have been operating on a loss. That can only be sustained for so long before the parent company will need to see it begin to generate a positive revenue stream. The most straightforward way to do that is to increase subscription fees. Furthermore, the number of subscribers of Paramount+, MGM+ or even Disney+ is certainly not trending towards "infinite growth."
I'm not justifying anything, because with five monthly services that have been hiking prices I'm looking at what to slash myself, but I was eager to encourage a bit more discourse on this topic.
That can only be sustained for so long before the parent company will need to see it begin to generate a positive revenue stream. The most straightforward way to do that is to increase subscription fees. Furthermore, the number of subscribers of Paramount+, MGM+ or even Disney+ is certainly not trending towards “infinite growth.”
then their model is flawed. They sell something at loss in order to attract customers because they know that if they sell it at higher profit margins customers will not come. Customers are willing to buy it as long as it is in a price that they are willing to compromise at. So, when they raise their prices, customers realize that now it is above the price they are willing to pay and step out. Their model is based on hoping that the customers will forget or be bored to cancel a subscription that they cannot afford anymore. However it is a subscription that they wouldn't had been willing to buy in this price in the first place.
So, their initial market share and adoption rate was what it was because of the price of the subscription and the rate of price/value-of-product. Customers are not willing to pay double price and they wouldn't had paid it in the first place. They are not loosing customers. They are not loosing potential profit. They are basing their numbers in a faked artificial audience that opted in only because it was a good deal in the initial price.
And while the free market evangelists would argue that the market would self regulate, you know what will they in reality do? Ask the government for stricter enforcement of anti-piracy laws because huge loss . Loss based on nothing but their imagination of imaginative potential profit based on "if everyone was continuing buying our product with the same adoption rate we would had X billions. So since we don't have X billions, this is a loss". Great math skills and applying of logic.
There are certainly consumers out there with this kind of mentality, but it's a common sales strategy to lure new customers with a reduced subscription fee for the first months only. It evidently works, because businesses have been doing this long before SVOD services, or even the internet for that matter, existed.
I expect that indeed, a significant number of customers cannot be bothered to cancel a subscription once they begin to use it, or, put another way, perceive the value of it to be justified against the increased price. I don't think it's fair to call this a fake audience, because these are real users of which a certain percentage will be retained.
Another factor that probably weighs into this is the competitive race to the bottom among the many SVOD offerings that are available today. Users like you and me perceive a certain dollar amount as the maximum that we are willing to pay, but where does that figure come from? If you are a new player in this space, you are effectively capped to the current market price for subscription fees, whether or not that covers your costs.
The free market effect will gradually resolve this as services that are all currently operating at a loss will correct their price models, which is what I believe is currently happening.
There are certainly consumers out there with this kind of mentality, but it’s a common sales strategy to lure new customers with a reduced subscription fee for the first months only. It evidently works, because businesses have been doing this long before SVOD services, or even the internet for that matter, existed.
Your claim that this is a tactic happening since for ever doesn't take into account the differences between subscription model and traditional businesses. In traditional businesses, yes, a business may decrease the prices in order to lure customers, but this was never their business model. This was limited time "get to know us". I don't think there was for example any supermarket operating at loss for 5 years before they decide to "ok, lets put the real prices on the shelves now".
I don’t think it’s fair to call this a fake audience, because these are real users of which a certain percentage will be retained.
of course it is a fake audience. The fact that some users will be retained doesn't make the 100% of the audience real. And also by fake audience it doesn't necessarily mean that the whole 100% of the audience is fake. However, when they present their numbers, and they claim that "because of piracy we lost 5 million subscribers" this is based on the 5 million subscribers who potentially would never be subscribers if they had their "real" price upfront, instead of a price in which they operate at loss.
However, when people are charged for piracy, they are charged based on imaginative loses who are based on a potential profit which would had been achieved if their 100% of customer base had been continuing paying a subscription which they would had never agreed paying if the price was not faked in order to attract them.
The free market effect will gradually resolve this as services that are all currently operating at a loss will correct their price models, which is what I believe is currently happening.
the free market will turn to the government to cover their losses and they will push for stricter anti piracy law enforcement. The free market evangelists just want a free to control market. I don't think they will be "ok, customers are leaving after our latest increase in price, then let's just decrease the price to get them back on board"
I am pretty sure they know how many accounts they will lose for every dollar they increase the price. It should be a net positive for them because otherwise they would not do it.
Enforcing terms and conditions that they previously did not is just another price increase in the grey area that is not directly perceived that way.
I agree that "Lost x amount to piracy" does not even make sense in that context. They know exactly what they are doing.
I believe it was Gabe Newell who said the best way to avoid piracy is by making legitimate purchasing easier and/or better.
In the early history of streaming services, you could get access to a lot of content in a straightforward way for not much money. People started doing that instead of pirating. The corporations got greedy, they made the services worse and increased the price to the point that piracy is preferable again.
And I don't have the least amount of sympathy. Yarr matey.
With the advent of self hosted streaming services and the arr services the option is even easier now. If 1 in 20 ppl are motivated/tech savvy that's 20 streaming products not being paid for.
What would be the technology behind my own streaming platform?
So far I do it very old school with data on my Nas and a software that catalogs and plays over Lan only.
2015: Share your Netflix between four people, everyone pays $4 per month, have access to 80% of all online content. The interface is shit but you keep up with it because it is cheap.
2023: You pay $20 for Netflix, pay $15 for Disney, pay $15 for Hulu, pay $10 for Amazon Prime, $15 for Discovery, $15 for Paramount, $15 for Youtube, have access to 50% of all online content. The interface is still shit and you wonder why you pay for that shit.
Joe Average: 🏴☠️😎🏴☠️😎🏴☠️😎🏴☠️😎🏴☠️😎🏴☠️ and the interface is easier than ever.
My 2013 Highest-End Smart-TV barely works with Youtube and no longer with anything else. But Burning Series still works marvellous. Another thing: "Consuming" pirated content is not "illegal" in Germany. It is a violation of private property which the rights owner can sue in a civil court. But as long as you don't use P2P services where you also upload - which would indeed be a fellony - he can not detect what you do and can not take any action against you - so One-Click-Hosters and Warez-Streaming is totally safe. And if the rights owner could find out about you he could at most send you a cease-and-desist-order with a one-time-fee of at max $100 because it is a minor incident. As far as I know there was never a user of Warez-Streaming who paid anything.
The only bad thing: DNS is nowadays filtered at the big Telcos and Providers which means I have to change the DNS inside my Routers to Cloudflare and Google. Which are a lot faster anyway.
I was always wondering why so few people don't complain about the interface. It's abysmal. An absolute minimum of functionality in an unintuitive layout that's always changing. What the absolute fuck. And all streaming services adopted it.
TPB + VPN for many years now, just make sure that killswitch is on, got nabbed once by HBO, fortunately only got a nasty letter, nothing more
It makes me sad when I see people are still using TPB. It's worth the extra effort to get into private trackers.
What's wrong with TPB?