zlacker

>>exitb+(OP)
Streaming with a subscription is fundamentally a bad thing for cinema, especially when combined with the streamer also producing content. That's because it shifts the optimized variable from quality of individual movie/show to maximum time spent on platform. But the latter can accept the lowering of the quality of individual movies, so you get a regression towards average instead of a striving for excellence.

Never paid for a subscription and never will, precisely because I want to pay for individual movies to reward them for being good movies.

>>vouaob+23
> maximum time spent on platform

Not even that, they optimize for acquiring and keeping subscribers. They gain nothing from you watching movies, it is just costing them bandwidth, at least on their ad-free plan, which was the only option until recently. It is completely different from YouTube and TikTok, or even oldschool TV, which get most of their revenue from ads.

They need a few good ones to attract new subscribers, and they do. Stranger Things and Squid Games are really good. For the rest, they just need enough content for people not to cancel their subscriptions.

If you want to encourage quality production, just subscribe for the month they are doing something good, ad-free of course, then unsubscribe. Many people are doing that, and maybe that's what it takes to get them to change their strategy. Maybe not for the better though.

>>GuB-42+Sd
>If you want to encourage quality production, just subscribe for the month they are doing something good, ad-free of course, then unsubscribe.

Most people are probably lazier and less organized than you give them credit for. If subscribe/unsubscribe cycles were really that prevalent I think you'd see a lot more incentives to sign up for, say, annual subscriptions.

A lot of people basically use TV as background and, especially if they don't have live TV, that means a lot of streaming content.