14
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 45 points 6 months ago

Oh no! People don't want to keep paying companies for shows they don't watch and a service they only need for a short time????

How dare they screw with investor forecasts like that!

[-] Pavidus@lemmy.world 24 points 6 months ago

Well, we all had a good thing going. We were happy with our subscription, and they could ride that golden goose into the sunset. The worst thing you can do with a subscription service is remind people that they are paying every month. As usual, greed took over. Prices keep going up, content/features keep going down, and shows are "presented ad free, after this ad."

Furthermore, why in the hell is 4k still a premium these days? It's been available for more than a decade. I will absolutely cancel a service for low quality video and lack of surround sound.

[-] kakes@sh.itjust.works 10 points 6 months ago

Man I lost it the first time I saw that "ad-free" bullshit. Like, no, this brand isn't paying for this experience, you fucks, I am!

[-] Pavidus@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Right? My first thought was, "How stupid do they think we are?" I guess the point is moot though, because folks will still gobble it up.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

I will absolutely cancel a service for low quality video and lack of surround sound.

The funny thing is I cancel the service for the opposite. Netflix used to have the ad-free "basic" plan which was one simultaneous stream and limited to 720p with no Dolby Atmos sound support. We stayed subscribed to it because it was cheap at $7.99/month. Netflix eliminated that plan leaving the cheapest being the ad-free "standard" plan which was $11.99/month at the time. Thats when our household started canceling Netflix when we weren't watching it.

[-] Pavidus@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

That's totally valid as well. I'm cool with paying for those options, I realize they use more data. I paid for it because I needed the screens anyways. However, up sizing the budget package is a total dick move.

[-] TheFriar@lemm.ee 2 points 6 months ago

This concept is capitalism. Endless growth = never sated companies gobbling up more and more until they devour the world. And we’re at the part where the world is starting to resent being devoured.

[-] DestroyerOfWorlds@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago

Fuck this propaganda shit. Tv, and everybody associated with tv/streaming/movies/sports/ip/critics/partners/senior correspondants/sponsors etc, are always somehow the victim of the evil and all powerful consumer's whim. This sickening narrative and "toxic fandom" are just stupid little games played to keep the investors placated while they figure out how to cover their ass, because they never had a good idea to begin with. All the while they change the rules to bleed everyone dry while trying to shovel the least entertaining shit into our faces. "Show Chasers?" wtf? Naw, yeah sorry, you unearned parasitic cancerous pustules, we don't give a shit anymore. May your Mercedes catch fire while tumbling violently off the road to Malibu.

[-] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 11 points 6 months ago

Shows are spread out over so many streaming services that there’s only 2 or 3 shows I like on each one at this point

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

and it’s not like you can even count on those 2-3 shows to have seasons released every year. you could go an entire year without anything new you’re interested in.

[-] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 2 points 6 months ago

And by the time a new season is out the show could be on a different streaming platform anyway

[-] acosmichippo@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

i wonder who the first will be to only offer yearly subscriptions. i guess you could say amazon already does.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

i wonder who the first will be to only offer yearly subscriptions.

I don't agree thats likely to happen. Consumers are price sensitive. The linear demand curve has price elasticity at a specific point. This is where a service can obtain the maximum number of subscribers at a specific price that will net the service the most money. Raise the price any more and the service earns less money even with the higher rate. Lower the price, and the service can pick up more subscribers, but the overall loss of profit will leave money on the table.

The likely $99+ annual subscription rate with no monthly option will drive so many customers away, the streaming service would die.

i guess you could say amazon already does.

Not only can you get Prime subscription on a monthly basis, Amazon even offers a Prime-video only monthly sub with zero shipping benefits for even less.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 5 points 6 months ago

Video-only prime subscriptions aren’t available in all markets.

[-] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 4 points 6 months ago

Nice article, contains quite a few show titles I haven't pirated, yet.

[-] SaintWacko@midwest.social 4 points 6 months ago

We're still subscribed to a lot of streaming services, but when I want to watch something I tend to hit up *arr instead

[-] stardust@lemmy.ca 6 points 6 months ago

Easier than trying to keep track of all the different streaming services that keep popping up and managing payments for each to make sure you aren't paying for what isn't being used that month. It's become too much.

this post was submitted on 02 May 2024
14 points (76.9% liked)

Television

4601 readers
49 users here now

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS