5 ms·

> I just feel like if we’re at peak monetization. We're really not. If anything there's more content (for lack of a better word) available for token amounts of

> I just feel like if we’re at peak monetization. We're really not. If anything there's more content (for lack of a better word) available for token amounts of money than there ever has been. I don't know how old you are but back in the distant past of the 90s you had two choices if you wanted to watch a film, you could go to a shop and buy a copy, probably for more money than you'd pay for a monthly Netflix subscription now, or you could go to the video rental store and rent it for a few pounds. If you were really lucky someone you know might own a copy and would lend it to you. Games would cost £40+ new, or you could pick up the really big older ones for £10 or so. If you happened to want a game no one else did you were out of luck. Compare that to something like Steam now, or Game Pass where for ~$15/month you can have hundreds of games to choose from. Maybe you don't like the model of monthly subscriptions. Guess what, for almost any film you can still buy a copy, either physically on disk, or digitally and be able to watch it right now. Don't like the level of ads on YouTube (which is honestly still better than what you'd see on any TV channel)? You can pay to turn them off. This whole thing just reeks of entitlement. You don't have a god given right to watch and play anything you choose, whenever you choose, without paying anything for that. That's not how the world works. I'm not aware that ever having been how the world works. So sure, go pirate the things you want, but don't try to justify it as anything other than "I'd rather not pay".

smolder 4y ago
Owning a physical copy of a movie hasn't gotten any cheaper since the 90s. A Top Gun Maverick blu-ray is $25. Netflix streaming has gone up in price significantly from debut and has a worse content library, due to "the streaming wars." Streaming access is not fair to compare to ownership --it's closer to rental, but without any of the supply-side cost of making and distributing physical media, so value to consumers should be better, based on that. The subscription services aim to lock in some or all of your entertainment budget to maximize per capita revenue month to month. If you want access to the full gamut you need to pay 5+ different ways and end up spending more than what's reasonable for a month full of viewing content (with next to no distribution cost.) IMO, it's only a good deal then if you're spending absurd an amount of time streaming, and there probably isn't enough good content to keep you busy. Quantity and variety of niche shows/films available has gone up over the years, but you can definitely argue quality has gone down apart from format fidelity and CGI quality. Games haven't really gone down in price either, and now since so many of the games themselves are "live service" things, many of them expire after a few years when they turn the servers off. $25 cosmetic "virtual goods" are often sold in game, representing an absurd markup on the time of artists. You get manipulated/harassed to spend (maybe more like burn) money in them, often after having spent $40-70 to get in the front door. Monetization is awful, and that shouldn't be too surprising. Businesses endeavor to extract what the market can bear most profitably, and to have a bigger piece of that pie, not so much to give the benefit of progress to the people paying.
- Hamuko 4y ago
  >Games haven't really gone down in price either They have though. Games used to be so much more expensive back in the day. I actually ran across this nugget recently: https://twitter.com/Mailia/status/1608496022589952003 https://twitter.com/Mailia/status/1608496022589952003 You had to shell out $70 for a copy of Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey '98. That's $130 when adjusted for inflation. And disc-based games weren't as cheap as you'd expect either. I think I saw an ad for Crash Bandicoot and the inflation-adjusted price of the game was like $74. These days you might need to pay for $70 if you want a triple-A title on release date. If you don't mind waiting a bit or just go non-blockbuster titles, you can find a lot of games for quite a lot less.
  - uconnectlol 4y ago
    and once you adjust for cancer (microtransactions, skins, grind2win, slightly lower code quality, thought police, platforms like steam, no control over versioning, no ability to make your own server) you get the same value as they were back in the 90s.
  - fallat 4y ago
    No, triple A games these days are $90+.
    - Hamuko 4y ago
      God of War Ragnarök – $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B61YDF5V/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B61YDF5V/) Horizon Forbidden West – $55 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FBCRKC9/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FBCRKC9/) Bayonetta 3 – $53 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MK1CLN/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MK1CLN/) Need for Speed Unbound – $44 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHF4XXK5/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHF4XXK5/) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II - $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B3H227Z5/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B3H227Z5/) Hogwarts Legacy – $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4HF94W/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4HF94W/) Elden Ring – $53 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09743F8P6/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09743F8P6/) You're gonna have to show me the $90+ triple-A game.
tenebrisalietum 4y ago
Intellectual property is an artificial, legal notion with a specific stated Constitutional purpose. It's not God-given either. It is also supposed to be limited, but currently it's 100+ years which is effectively unlimited since it's beyond a normal human lifetime. The current situation overly incentivizes creation of intellectual property, particularly entertainment. Did we really need 50+ cable channels with shows 24/7? Did we need endless talk shows in the 90's and reality shows in the 00's? Do we need remakes upon remakes upon remakes of franchises of stuff? If copyright returned to sane durations instead of the corporate-legacy-creating ones in effect currently, or even didn't exist at all, much of the resources that go into entertainment might go into better, less wasteful uses, or might go into developing actual novel entertainment. > This whole thing just reeks of entitlement. DRM schemes also reveal that entitlement goes both ways. External companies don't have a god given right to tell me I cannot watch X on my screen or download X. Subjecting my personal property to surveillance to enforce a parallel to this old world is too far.
lm28469 4y ago
> content (for lack of a better word) Content is the perfect word, insipid material to fill our bottomless pit of boredom > which is honestly still better than what you'd see on any TV channel The last time we had less ads on youtube than on TV they were still releasing new episodes of starget sg1, I'm too lazy to check when that was but I didn't even finish high school back then
jesuscript 4y ago
Well, here’s the thing. That is how the world works. You do get shit delivered to you within a day or two. You do get to watch whatever you want, either for free, or for a price. We do get to do those entitled things simply because we were deadly serious about being entitled fucks. So, with that said. I do want prices to a) drop b) services to consolidate and if they don’t, I will get all my shit for free. And so will others. And we’ll have a better world because of it. The same way we have everything else at our fingertips. See, if we want to talk about reality and how the world works, then the truth is everything is built on leverage. If users opt for free, well then that’s a whole lot of leverage. No huffing and puffing will solve that, now will it? That’s reality. If we couldn’t get it for free, then we’d have no leverage, they would. Then they can charge anything, and no huffing and puffing would solve it. Calling them greedy, or calling us entitled, is just huffing and puffing. That’s how the world works. The consumer and business are never in a discussion (there’s nothing to discuss). It is always a barter based on leverage. “Why don’t you pay this price, you are being entitled”, is not something the business can say to me, and likewise, “Why don’t you lower the price, you are being greedy”, is not something I can say to the business.
- cheq 4y ago
  Loved the analogy, thanks!
squeaky-clean 4y ago
> You don't have a god given right to watch and play anything you choose, whenever you choose, without paying anything for that. Why not? Some sense of morals towards HBO or etc? Life is too short for me to receive a worse experience just because it might hurt Casey Bloys' massive paycheck. If they want me to pay for it they need to offer it at a reasonable quality. Because I CAN watch anything anytime I want without paying. And they don't have a God given right to demand otherwise. They have a police-enforced right to demand otherwise, but good luck doing anything about it when I'm behind a VPN.
dml2135 4y ago
Well, you also don't have a god-given right to get paid for something you made, if there are a million copies of it out there free for the taking.

smolder 4y ago

Owning a physical copy of a movie hasn't gotten any cheaper since the 90s. A Top Gun Maverick blu-ray is $25. Netflix streaming has gone up in price significantly from debut and has a worse content library, due to "the streaming wars." Streaming access is not fair to compare to ownership --it's closer to rental, but without any of the supply-side cost of making and distributing physical media, so value to consumers should be better, based on that. The subscription services aim to lock in some or all of your entertainment budget to maximize per capita revenue month to month. If you want access to the full gamut you need to pay 5+ different ways and end up spending more than what's reasonable for a month full of viewing content (with next to no distribution cost.) IMO, it's only a good deal then if you're spending absurd an amount of time streaming, and there probably isn't enough good content to keep you busy. Quantity and variety of niche shows/films available has gone up over the years, but you can definitely argue quality has gone down apart from format fidelity and CGI quality. Games haven't really gone down in price either, and now since so many of the games themselves are "live service" things, many of them expire after a few years when they turn the servers off. $25 cosmetic "virtual goods" are often sold in game, representing an absurd markup on the time of artists. You get manipulated/harassed to spend (maybe more like burn) money in them, often after having spent $40-70 to get in the front door. Monetization is awful, and that shouldn't be too surprising. Businesses endeavor to extract what the market can bear most profitably, and to have a bigger piece of that pie, not so much to give the benefit of progress to the people paying.

Hamuko 4y ago
>Games haven't really gone down in price either They have though. Games used to be so much more expensive back in the day. I actually ran across this nugget recently: https://twitter.com/Mailia/status/1608496022589952003 https://twitter.com/Mailia/status/1608496022589952003 You had to shell out $70 for a copy of Wayne Gretzky's 3D Hockey '98. That's $130 when adjusted for inflation. And disc-based games weren't as cheap as you'd expect either. I think I saw an ad for Crash Bandicoot and the inflation-adjusted price of the game was like $74. These days you might need to pay for $70 if you want a triple-A title on release date. If you don't mind waiting a bit or just go non-blockbuster titles, you can find a lot of games for quite a lot less.
- uconnectlol 4y ago
  and once you adjust for cancer (microtransactions, skins, grind2win, slightly lower code quality, thought police, platforms like steam, no control over versioning, no ability to make your own server) you get the same value as they were back in the 90s.
- fallat 4y ago
  No, triple A games these days are $90+.
  - Hamuko 4y ago
    God of War Ragnarök – $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B61YDF5V/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B61YDF5V/) Horizon Forbidden West – $55 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FBCRKC9/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09FBCRKC9/) Bayonetta 3 – $53 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MK1CLN/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B072MK1CLN/) Need for Speed Unbound – $44 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHF4XXK5/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0BHF4XXK5/) Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II - $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B3H227Z5/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B3H227Z5/) Hogwarts Legacy – $70 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4HF94W/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09W4HF94W/) Elden Ring – $53 (https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09743F8P6/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09743F8P6/) You're gonna have to show me the $90+ triple-A game.

tenebrisalietum 4y ago

Intellectual property is an artificial, legal notion with a specific stated Constitutional purpose. It's not God-given either. It is also supposed to be limited, but currently it's 100+ years which is effectively unlimited since it's beyond a normal human lifetime. The current situation overly incentivizes creation of intellectual property, particularly entertainment. Did we really need 50+ cable channels with shows 24/7? Did we need endless talk shows in the 90's and reality shows in the 00's? Do we need remakes upon remakes upon remakes of franchises of stuff? If copyright returned to sane durations instead of the corporate-legacy-creating ones in effect currently, or even didn't exist at all, much of the resources that go into entertainment might go into better, less wasteful uses, or might go into developing actual novel entertainment. > This whole thing just reeks of entitlement. DRM schemes also reveal that entitlement goes both ways. External companies don't have a god given right to tell me I cannot watch X on my screen or download X. Subjecting my personal property to surveillance to enforce a parallel to this old world is too far.

lm28469 4y ago

> content (for lack of a better word) Content is the perfect word, insipid material to fill our bottomless pit of boredom > which is honestly still better than what you'd see on any TV channel The last time we had less ads on youtube than on TV they were still releasing new episodes of starget sg1, I'm too lazy to check when that was but I didn't even finish high school back then

jesuscript 4y ago

Well, here’s the thing. That is how the world works. You do get shit delivered to you within a day or two. You do get to watch whatever you want, either for free, or for a price. We do get to do those entitled things simply because we were deadly serious about being entitled fucks. So, with that said. I do want prices to a) drop b) services to consolidate and if they don’t, I will get all my shit for free. And so will others. And we’ll have a better world because of it. The same way we have everything else at our fingertips. See, if we want to talk about reality and how the world works, then the truth is everything is built on leverage. If users opt for free, well then that’s a whole lot of leverage. No huffing and puffing will solve that, now will it? That’s reality. If we couldn’t get it for free, then we’d have no leverage, they would. Then they can charge anything, and no huffing and puffing would solve it. Calling them greedy, or calling us entitled, is just huffing and puffing. That’s how the world works. The consumer and business are never in a discussion (there’s nothing to discuss). It is always a barter based on leverage. “Why don’t you pay this price, you are being entitled”, is not something the business can say to me, and likewise, “Why don’t you lower the price, you are being greedy”, is not something I can say to the business.

cheq 4y ago
Loved the analogy, thanks!

squeaky-clean 4y ago

> You don't have a god given right to watch and play anything you choose, whenever you choose, without paying anything for that. Why not? Some sense of morals towards HBO or etc? Life is too short for me to receive a worse experience just because it might hurt Casey Bloys' massive paycheck. If they want me to pay for it they need to offer it at a reasonable quality. Because I CAN watch anything anytime I want without paying. And they don't have a God given right to demand otherwise. They have a police-enforced right to demand otherwise, but good luck doing anything about it when I'm behind a VPN.

dml2135 4y ago

Well, you also don't have a god-given right to get paid for something you made, if there are a million copies of it out there free for the taking.