3 ms·

I feel like this is a chicken and egg scenario between big media wanting more for their content and consumers wanting a better selection of first run movies via

I feel like this is a chicken and egg scenario between big media wanting more for their content and consumers wanting a better selection of first run movies via streaming. Netflix (at its current pricing structure I assume from the comments here) can't afford newer titles however people want a better selection in the streaming section. One's gotta give and I feel like they chose to go with letting the customer pay more in an attempt to secure better streaming titles. Unfortunately in the climate of hearing about monthly caps from ISPs I don't feel like it was the best choice. I am going to go back to physical medium, and somewhat debating if I even want to continue that. $12 is 3 decent titles from a console service or Amazon a month. A la carte will win the day. edit: clarity of second sentence.

thecoffman 15y ago
Contrary to what you've said here - I've never been a fan of a la carte pricing. I want the unlimited plan. When I get home from work - I generally have netflix on in the background with some documentary or other while I do housework or hack on stuff - same as I'm going to sleep. I probably play 3-4 titles every single day. Clearly a la carte pricing would not be a viable option for streaming 90-120 programs a month.
- masterzora 15y ago
  My use case is very similar and, as such, I agree with you. Unfortunately, given unlimited plans, heavy usage like ours tends to be subsidised by people who aren't anywhere near the average usage but still pay the same amount. I'm generally in favour of such subsidies (even for services where I'm an underutiliser), but I don't believe this to be a popular opinion since it's "unfair".