7 ms·

> maybe people think the prices are too high Absurdly high. Game of Thrones costs $167 on Amazon, which is more than binge-watching it eleven times using one-m

> maybe people think the prices are too high Absurdly high. Game of Thrones costs $167 on Amazon, which is more than binge-watching it eleven times using one-month HBO subscriptions.

lotsofpulp 7y ago
How many hundreds of hours of entertainment for $167? Granted it has almost no marginal cost for the seller, but as you said, you can buy HBO for a fraction of $167 and still watch it. People just like to complain. It has never been cheaper or easier to instantly consume media, yet there is no satisfaction (because they’re comparing it to stealing the media, which is illogical of course). Of course, there are legitimate issues in countries that have BS licensing restrictions forcing people to use a middle man such as cable or satellite TV providers. Also, copyright terms are far too long in the US, so there are valid reasons to pirate. But price/availability in US usually aren’t it, in my opinion.
- cyborgx7 7y ago
  > It has never been cheaper or easier That's exactly the thing though. It has been easier. We all remember it being easier, when we pirated something. The actual sentence should be "it has never been easier while also getting to pay for it". That's just not a very compelling case.
  - alistairSH 7y ago
    Is pirating something really easier? Maybe I've been out of that game for too long, but between finding good/complete torrents of content, avoiding my ISP finding out I was doing it (and sending me nastygrams), needing to keep a server up and running to download/store media, juggling front-ends as they evolved (Plex hasn't always been around), ... Today, I have a single device (AppleTV), a single remote, and can stream just about anything I want. And that content is either bundled with Netflix or Amazon, or available to rent for $5 or so. And I don't have to break the law to do it.
    - cyborgx7 7y ago
      Here in Germany, Torrenting legally is distribution, so I don't do it. But find yourself a decent streaming link aggregator, install an adblocker and you are golden. Anything with a webbrowser can play it. No major legal streaming platform can claim this. Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair.
      - alistairSH 7y ago
        Setting up my Apple TV took 5 minutes. Plug in the power, set up the wifi, and add a few apps. Much easier than buying a HTPC + NAS + finding the best software to install. Using is as easy as a smart-phone. Click the search app, find content, hit play. Everything auto-updates, so there's no maintenance. VS a HTPC + NAS which take (slightly) more care+feeing to keep current on software versions.
        cyborgx7 7y ago
        I feel like you are being dense on purpose here. I talk about anything with a webbrowser and you argue about the complication of htpc and nas.
        alistairSH 7y ago
        Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair. I thought you were talking about setting up some sort of torrenting/media server system with this part of your comment. I agree, using a browser is easy enough. But, why would I when the AppleTV is already connected to my TV and I can do everything with a simple remote and voice commands?
        cyborgx7 7y ago
        Then don't if it's easier for you. My usecase is I want to watch things on a reltively low powered Linux laptop. They have nothing for me.
  - pgwhalen 7y ago
    Pirating is easier in the same way an FTP server is easier than Dropbox.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    It’s easier to walk out with groceries than stand in line and pay for them also. There is no purpose to comparing pirating with legal means.
    - cyborgx7 7y ago
      Try walking out with your groceries sometime and tell me again it's easier.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I think I'm with allstairSH here, sorry; I just didn't find piracy to be easier than paying for content. Your "all you need is a web browser" case is fine as long as there's something you can browse to that has the content you want -- and as long as the use case is something like what you want, which I think you said was watching stuff in a web browser on a low-end Unix laptop. My use case is very often watching on a 4K television in my living room. And, frankly, I'm not sure what piracy method is easier even in the only-web-browsing case for me compared to "browse to streaming site with desired content."
    - cyborgx7 7y ago
      I'm sure their approach is either for a lot of people. But it is a huge burden for me. And if they just gave me access to the files and maybe an api, it would work for both of us, instead of just for you.
- Goladus 7y ago
  > How many hundreds of hours of entertainment for $167? That's not relevant. The simple fact is that $167 for a season is well beyond the budget of the average person whose opinion you're considering. "Hours of entertainment" is (always) the wrong formula, by the way. Nobody needs to steal anything to enjoy hours of free entertainment doing a myriad of activities. Most TV shows simply make no effort at all to price either episodes or full seasons for a wide market. Compare two ABC shows on Amazon Video, General Hospital and The Bachelor. General Hospital is a daily soap opera with 36 minute episodes and modest production value. The Bachelor has 2-hour episode with higher production values. A full season of The Bachelor is reasonably priced at $20. Individual episodes are $3. Individual General Hospital episodes are also $3 each. This doesn't seem too crazy if you're talking about someone who might otherwise miss an episode because they are traveling or something. It's probably steeper than it should be, I imagine most soap fans will just read up on what they missed if they care enough rather than shelling out money to watch. But regardless, the full 241-episode season is $735.00. This is quite obviously not priced to sell as a package. No one would buy that. It is simply 241 episodes times $3.00 per episode, which is a generic Amazon price for an HD episode of anything. In fact you can buy the SD version for $15.00. It is clear that no real thought at all has gone into the pricing scheme.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    In discretionary entertainment goods, there is no “should be” price, other than the price a seller is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy at. If the media owner determine there is insufficient revenue and more can be had by lowering price, they can do that. What is relevant is that it used to cost much more to get the same product, and it’s up to the buyer to determine what they want to spend to entertain themselves. There’s so many options nowadays, if GoT $/hour is too much, then choose something else.
    - Goladus 7y ago
      > there is no “should be” price, other than the price a seller is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy at. That's true in most markets, but also totally irrelevant to the point. If a seller has no idea what the market will pay for something, and so just slaps on an absurdly high price because they don't actually care about this secondary (a la carte) market at all, that's almost the same as not offering the service at all. If an a la carte service is prohibitively expensive, it might as well not exist for the purposes of this discussion.
rchaud 7y ago
I don't watch GoT, but that price for an 8-season series with ~10 episodes/season (I"m guessing), is about $2/episode, which I think is pretty reasonable. I have a box set of the old NBC sitcom Frasier. 11 seasons, 264 (!) episodes, probably $200 total. I've had it for over a decade, and it's been a great thing to have while traveling, or moving to a new home where I won't have Internet set up for a week. I'm happy to pay a one-time fee for content I'll own forever and can watch in whatever delivery method I want, be it Plex, Kodi or ripped to my phone's SD card. Netflix, Amazon etc can pull these shows off their catalog whenever they want, and shove some unrelated show in my face when their search results don't show what I'm looking for.

> maybe people think the prices are too high Absurdly high. Game of Thrones costs $167 on Amazon, which is more than binge-watching it eleven times using one-month HBO subscriptions.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

How many hundreds of hours of entertainment for $167? Granted it has almost no marginal cost for the seller, but as you said, you can buy HBO for a fraction of $167 and still watch it. People just like to complain. It has never been cheaper or easier to instantly consume media, yet there is no satisfaction (because they’re comparing it to stealing the media, which is illogical of course). Of course, there are legitimate issues in countries that have BS licensing restrictions forcing people to use a middle man such as cable or satellite TV providers. Also, copyright terms are far too long in the US, so there are valid reasons to pirate. But price/availability in US usually aren’t it, in my opinion.

cyborgx7 7y ago
> It has never been cheaper or easier That's exactly the thing though. It has been easier. We all remember it being easier, when we pirated something. The actual sentence should be "it has never been easier while also getting to pay for it". That's just not a very compelling case.
- alistairSH 7y ago
  Is pirating something really easier? Maybe I've been out of that game for too long, but between finding good/complete torrents of content, avoiding my ISP finding out I was doing it (and sending me nastygrams), needing to keep a server up and running to download/store media, juggling front-ends as they evolved (Plex hasn't always been around), ... Today, I have a single device (AppleTV), a single remote, and can stream just about anything I want. And that content is either bundled with Netflix or Amazon, or available to rent for $5 or so. And I don't have to break the law to do it.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    Here in Germany, Torrenting legally is distribution, so I don't do it. But find yourself a decent streaming link aggregator, install an adblocker and you are golden. Anything with a webbrowser can play it. No major legal streaming platform can claim this. Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair.
    - alistairSH 7y ago
      Setting up my Apple TV took 5 minutes. Plug in the power, set up the wifi, and add a few apps. Much easier than buying a HTPC + NAS + finding the best software to install. Using is as easy as a smart-phone. Click the search app, find content, hit play. Everything auto-updates, so there's no maintenance. VS a HTPC + NAS which take (slightly) more care+feeing to keep current on software versions.
      - cyborgx7 7y ago
        I feel like you are being dense on purpose here. I talk about anything with a webbrowser and you argue about the complication of htpc and nas.
        alistairSH 7y ago
        Also, you are comparing effort it takes to set-up something, with effort it takes to use it, which I'd argue isn't entirely fair. I thought you were talking about setting up some sort of torrenting/media server system with this part of your comment. I agree, using a browser is easy enough. But, why would I when the AppleTV is already connected to my TV and I can do everything with a simple remote and voice commands?
        cyborgx7 7y ago
        Then don't if it's easier for you. My usecase is I want to watch things on a reltively low powered Linux laptop. They have nothing for me.
- pgwhalen 7y ago
  Pirating is easier in the same way an FTP server is easier than Dropbox.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  It’s easier to walk out with groceries than stand in line and pay for them also. There is no purpose to comparing pirating with legal means.
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    Try walking out with your groceries sometime and tell me again it's easier.
- chipotle_coyote 7y ago
  I think I'm with allstairSH here, sorry; I just didn't find piracy to be easier than paying for content. Your "all you need is a web browser" case is fine as long as there's something you can browse to that has the content you want -- and as long as the use case is something like what you want, which I think you said was watching stuff in a web browser on a low-end Unix laptop. My use case is very often watching on a 4K television in my living room. And, frankly, I'm not sure what piracy method is easier even in the only-web-browsing case for me compared to "browse to streaming site with desired content."
  - cyborgx7 7y ago
    I'm sure their approach is either for a lot of people. But it is a huge burden for me. And if they just gave me access to the files and maybe an api, it would work for both of us, instead of just for you.
Goladus 7y ago
> How many hundreds of hours of entertainment for $167? That's not relevant. The simple fact is that $167 for a season is well beyond the budget of the average person whose opinion you're considering. "Hours of entertainment" is (always) the wrong formula, by the way. Nobody needs to steal anything to enjoy hours of free entertainment doing a myriad of activities. Most TV shows simply make no effort at all to price either episodes or full seasons for a wide market. Compare two ABC shows on Amazon Video, General Hospital and The Bachelor. General Hospital is a daily soap opera with 36 minute episodes and modest production value. The Bachelor has 2-hour episode with higher production values. A full season of The Bachelor is reasonably priced at $20. Individual episodes are $3. Individual General Hospital episodes are also $3 each. This doesn't seem too crazy if you're talking about someone who might otherwise miss an episode because they are traveling or something. It's probably steeper than it should be, I imagine most soap fans will just read up on what they missed if they care enough rather than shelling out money to watch. But regardless, the full 241-episode season is $735.00. This is quite obviously not priced to sell as a package. No one would buy that. It is simply 241 episodes times $3.00 per episode, which is a generic Amazon price for an HD episode of anything. In fact you can buy the SD version for $15.00. It is clear that no real thought at all has gone into the pricing scheme.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  In discretionary entertainment goods, there is no “should be” price, other than the price a seller is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy at. If the media owner determine there is insufficient revenue and more can be had by lowering price, they can do that. What is relevant is that it used to cost much more to get the same product, and it’s up to the buyer to determine what they want to spend to entertain themselves. There’s so many options nowadays, if GoT $/hour is too much, then choose something else.
  - Goladus 7y ago
    > there is no “should be” price, other than the price a seller is willing to sell at and a buyer is willing to buy at. That's true in most markets, but also totally irrelevant to the point. If a seller has no idea what the market will pay for something, and so just slaps on an absurdly high price because they don't actually care about this secondary (a la carte) market at all, that's almost the same as not offering the service at all. If an a la carte service is prohibitively expensive, it might as well not exist for the purposes of this discussion.

rchaud 7y ago

I don't watch GoT, but that price for an 8-season series with ~10 episodes/season (I"m guessing), is about $2/episode, which I think is pretty reasonable. I have a box set of the old NBC sitcom Frasier. 11 seasons, 264 (!) episodes, probably $200 total. I've had it for over a decade, and it's been a great thing to have while traveling, or moving to a new home where I won't have Internet set up for a week. I'm happy to pay a one-time fee for content I'll own forever and can watch in whatever delivery method I want, be it Plex, Kodi or ripped to my phone's SD card. Netflix, Amazon etc can pull these shows off their catalog whenever they want, and shove some unrelated show in my face when their search results don't show what I'm looking for.