4 ms·
Well, with the exception of price point. Maybe it's because I've been spoiled by Steam, but $10-$15 to buy a movie that's 10+ years ago. I would've paid the sam
by ThunderSizzle 5y ago
Well, with the exception of price point. Maybe it's because I've been spoiled by Steam, but $10-$15 to buy a movie that's 10+ years ago. I would've paid the same price if I bought it a month or two after release, or bought a ticket to see it in the theater.
If they can ever match the $40-$60 to $5-$10 price decay by waiting a year, then I think a-la-carte could make more sense, but currently for the price of buying 1 HD movie on Amazon, I get one month of Netflix for a month.
If I wanted to watch a new movie every week or so, a la carte is currently prohibitive.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y agoYou should use the renting prices instead of the buying prices to compare against other subscription services. $2.99 to watch a movie in the evening is anything but prohibitive. Or buying TV seasons, which amounts to close enough to the same hourly cost in my experience. It’s less than I remember rentals costing when physical rentals were a thing, and while it’s certainly less cheap than a $10/mo subscription service, it seems like a stretch to call it prohibitive to most people. A season of a show plus a half dozen movies comes out to like $40/mo (ignoring all the ‘free’ stuff). $40/mo for a vast selection isn’t fantastic, but in my eyes, it pokes holes in the pirate’s “If it were just more convenient while affordable I’d pay, I swear.”