zlacker

>>ksec+(OP)
I know it's morally dubious, but I'm completely back in pirateland because of all the changes/price hikes/partitioning in the streaming space. My interests make it so I only watch 1-2 shows per platform so I'd be approaching ~100$/month.

And even if I was swimming in money, it's often easier to just download the shows I want and watch them on Plex/Jellyfin than trying to navigate the (often ad-riddled) interfaces of the various platforms and finding where the content I want is.

One example is Rick and Morty, it's made by Adult Swim, but they don't have a streaming service in Canada. It seems to be on Primevideo but under a different system than their regular content. The other way to watch it is to buy it from my cable provider (I don't have cable). So to watch a 20-minutes animated show I'd have to take a +40$ subscription.

>>belval+Qg
I don't find this particularly morally dubious. These companies are approaching monopoly powers and using it to squeeze consumers. Disney owns about 1/3 of all box office revenue. The government has shown they're unwilling to break up monopolies, or even really limit them in any meaningful way.

Also, I don't quite know my feelings on this yet, but there is something real about some shows and movies being part of the milieu. Something doesn't sit quite right about repeatedly increasing the pricing via anti-consumer acquisitions on products that are contributing a substantial part of how the society collectively feels and thinks. It feels like you have to make more money to live in the same society.

>>nscalf+FE
> These companies are approaching monopoly powers and using it to squeeze consumers.

This doesn’t compute. Firstly, multiple companies cannot simultaneously have monopoly power of the same resource. Secondly, there is by just one company who controls the majority or all content. In fact, having to subscribe to multiple services proves that there are multiple companies who provide tv shows and movies.

>>andsoi+EI
> Firstly, multiple companies cannot simultaneously have monopoly power of the same resource.

Sure they can; it's called a cartel when that happens.

The major content publishers have acted in concert to kneecap Netflix; pulling licensed content, no longer licensing popular new content, etc.

>>ceejay+1L
So you're saying you WANT Netflix to be a monopoly and have all of the licensed content and new shows?

>>motoxp+pQ
From a consumer standpoint, life was much better when that was the case. One app, one service, pretty much anything I want to watch. Per-network streaming services were just a glint in some executive's eye, and things were good.

The current state of things is confusing, expensive, and user hostile.

I was trying to figure out how to watch Rick & Morty S6 the other night. It'll be on Hulu, but not for months. It'll be on HBO Max, too, but it's only downloadable for offline viewing on Hulu. Wanna watch it now? Need a cable subscription, even though Adult Swim's website says "now available on HBO Max".

I like the idea of any streaming service being able to license any show, if they can pay the fee. Another comment mentioned the Paramount Decree as a similar example.

>>ceejay+221
What you're describing is competition. It is an entire industry on content creators selling their creations to the highest bidder. The thing that streaming enabled was for the small documentary filmmaker to sell their work to a large studio (family member did just this). I don't think it's their fault that their is ALSO intense competition above them in the stack, which is what you're saying is the bad experience.

You're arguing there is TOO MUCH competition not too little and that a centralizing force needs to help improve consumer experience. Fair, but not your original point.