4 ms·

> The services have taken the piss and now they'll get the repercussions of it. Whose fault is it really that all content is not available on a single service?

> The services have taken the piss and now they'll get the repercussions of it. Whose fault is it really that all content is not available on a single service? It's nobody's fault, it was inevitable given how things work. How could you "fix" it? You'd need legislation saying that all content must be made available for licensing at the same price for every service. But that's not enough, because why would HBO sell their content to Netflix and vice versa? No, you'd have to force them to make it available. But that's not enough either, as they could just set the price extremely high. And at this point what would be the point in having multiple streaming services at all? Perhaps we need legislation that enforces separation of content producers and distribution, like the Glass-Steagall Act but for TV, or Net Neutrality?

somenameforme 3y ago
It'll be naturally fixed by economics. We'll reach an equilibrium point where offering an exclusive streaming service becomes less profitable than simply licensing your content to another service or services. Obstinance will probably drag out the timeline, but it won't change the outcome. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
- realusername 3y ago
  Those media conglomerates are very stubborn though, they care more about keeping their rights than money itself.
  - pdimitar 3y ago
    Let them be stubborn. They can't outlaw everything that they don't like. They'll die a slow and painful death.
ReptileMan 3y ago
It's type of licensing called FRAND. Has been utilized with success.
josephg 3y ago
There was a wonderful point made by Gabe Newell a few years ago on this. He said the only thing you need to do to “beat piracy” is provide a better service than piracy offers. And that’s pretty easy, for all manner of reasons. I thought he was way too optimistic at the time - but here I am years later with hundreds of games in my steam library. I haven’t pirated a video game in years. I think Gabe’s rule is like gravity. It’s inconvenient for space travel, but what are you gonna do? You don’t get to space by complaining about it. It’s the same in streaming. All the streaming platforms need to do is provide a service that’s better than piracy. And I really do feel for the streaming platforms here. That seems like a hard ask for them. Netflix rarely has content I want to watch any more. Shows I do want to watch are often on a different competing service. And they often remove shows and movies from the platform that I might have otherwise enjoyed. Im not subscribing to multiple streaming platforms at once - that’s ridiculous. I’m not surprised they’re complaining about piracy - they’re rapidly becoming a worse service than piracy and gabe’s law is kicking in for them. But at the end of the day, like space companies, complain if you want but it’s not my problem to fix. And there are plenty of fixes - make it easy to have a grab bag of streaming services which swaps streaming provider every month. Or give me access to every platform for my $10 and distribute the money based on what I actually watched. I dunno. Figure it out. Or don’t, and watch piracy eat your lunch. Your call, Netflix.
- martindbp 3y ago
  I think TV and games are meaningfully different. Most people tend to watch way more number of shows in a year than buying/playing video games. Video games have more replayability, so it's something you need to "own" rather than stream. Therefore, subscriptions for games are not a big thing yet (I doubt it will ever be). As it stands now, if a game I want is not on Steam, that's OK, I can just install another game store. It's a bit inconvenient but not too bad. The problem with TV is cost. I'm OK switching between Netflix, Disney, HBO, Youtube, whatever, but I'm not OK with paying $70 a month,
  - maccard 3y ago
    > Therefore, subscriptions for games are not a big thing yet (I doubt it will ever be) World of warcraft has had a subscription for 20 years and is wildly successful. PSN has a monthly subscription where you get 2-3 games per month added to your account that you can play as long as you're still subscribed. Gamepass has 25+ million subscribers [0] > I'm not OK with paying $70 a month Honest question, why not? That's what cable TV cost 15 years ago, and $70 now has the purchasing power of ~$50 then. [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/15/xbox-game-pass-30-million-subscribers-report https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/15/xbox-game-pass-30-m...
toast0 3y ago
Music has compulsory licensing, and yet we have different radio stations, and multiple streaming services (only some of which is covered by compulsory licensing). If compulsory licensing for tv and movies also implied the service was picking the episodes, you'd have potential for competition if service A just played all of the episodes in order and service B only played the good episodes. Etc.
izacus 3y ago
FRAND licensing is a thing. And forcefully splitting playback/delivery and content creation would create a much healthier market where content companies have interested in distributing their content to as many streaming services as possible to get revenue - e.g. see the situation with audio playback. With Spotify/YTM/Tidal being separate from music labels, there's much MUCH less of this exclusivity BS.
- mambru 3y ago
  Came here to say this.
GoblinSlayer 3y ago
The same price is doable, they just can't be bothered to lift their ass.
holgerschurig 3y ago
> It's nobody's fault, it was inevitable given how things work. Then the video stream vendors must find a different way to make things work. If their goal is to be user-friendly, which I highly doubt. Only in marketing-speak (err, marketing lies) they claim "The experience of our user is our utmost goal". But it really isn't.
tjpnz 3y ago
The way you fix it is through piracy. The media companies then either solve the licensing issue among themselves or go out of business.
trklausss 3y ago
> It was inevitable given how things work. It's like every technology: if this is how things work, and they are suboptimal, the optimal solution will be applied. If we say "oh to bad, it's how it's established", then people will go against the establishment if that means better capabilities. > How could you "fix" it? Take a look at the music industry, they have solved it pretty well. I can stream everything on Spotify paying very little, I get everything that I want and I don't have to pirate it anymore. So maybe fostering independent creation? Forbidding "exclusivity" clauses? Fostering independent studio creation? > They could set the price really high. Prices are elastic: bigger price, less demand, same benefit. So that doesn't cut it either.
- mi_z 3y ago
  The reason it works for spotify is because musicians get fuck all on it. This doesn't work with film and TV because they are unionised and have to be paid a certain amount.
- martindbp 3y ago
  Then what are you claiming the difference is? Are music labels inherently less greedy? Is it harder to build music streaming vs video that leads to a monopoly? Is it because labels have ownership in Spotify? I don't think the HBOs and Disneys will give up their streaming platform unless forced to do it.
  - trklausss 3y ago
    I’d say the key difference is the sheer amount of artists and styles. I’d argue it’s “easier” to make music than filming. That’s why I would foment independent creators. You might be right on HBO and Disney not giving up their service, until customers don’t want to pay for it anymore, and they’ll seek other ways. That’s capitalism after all…
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
People don't care about multiple services, they really care about the hassle. Cable TV sort of already solved this with how they handle movie packages like HBO or Starz. You pay your cable company a little more and you can watch those channels (or stream them). No need to worry about logins, accounts, etc.
2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago
People don't care about multiple services, they really care about the hassle. Cable TV sort of already solved this with how they handle movie packages like HBO or Starz. You pay your cable company a little more and you can watch those channels (or stream them). No need to worry about logins, accounts, separate apps/interfaces, etc.
- cableshaft 3y ago
  Digital sort of has this, at least on Amazon. I can watch Paramount or Starz or HBO Max content via Amazon Prime if I have a subscription to them, for example.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    But not Disney or Netflix or ... And so many things are platform-exclusive these days.
mbravorus 3y ago
One of the possible ways of "fixing" it is natural evolution and selection, the way it happened with communication networks. They once ruled, but eventually the shifted to being "dumb pipes" (leaving aside for a moment how exact that moniker is) and the end-user device manufacturers taking over as the point of delivery of paid services. The same could theoretically happen for entertainment content, in one way or another. A popular scenario present in a lot of sci-fi is that people subscribe to "channels" or data streams or whatchacallit, and the point of access is actually working as an aggregator and single point of payment. I can see no valid reason why big outfits like Sony or Samsung couldn't do that, effectively defragmenting the subscription craziness and easily dealing with backoffice negotiations on licensing and whatnot (Sony could probably do that without leaving the building). Again, it doesn't HAVE to be the end-user device manufacturer to present such a single-point service, but I think they are best positioned to be first movers for such a paradigm. And not saying it would be easy, because they are subject to the same brain-dead enshittification attempts in their "smart" devices as anyone else, and that is a habit that is hard to quit.
troyvit 3y ago
> How could you "fix" it? The larger a company is the more it falls back to "let the market decide." In this case the market is starting to decide (again) to bypass the poor user experience the big players offer and just steal the content. This is the point where it's time for the market to adapt (again) if they want to keep revenue.

somenameforme 3y ago

It'll be naturally fixed by economics. We'll reach an equilibrium point where offering an exclusive streaming service becomes less profitable than simply licensing your content to another service or services. Obstinance will probably drag out the timeline, but it won't change the outcome. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

realusername 3y ago
Those media conglomerates are very stubborn though, they care more about keeping their rights than money itself.
- pdimitar 3y ago
  Let them be stubborn. They can't outlaw everything that they don't like. They'll die a slow and painful death.

ReptileMan 3y ago

It's type of licensing called FRAND. Has been utilized with success.

josephg 3y ago

There was a wonderful point made by Gabe Newell a few years ago on this. He said the only thing you need to do to “beat piracy” is provide a better service than piracy offers. And that’s pretty easy, for all manner of reasons. I thought he was way too optimistic at the time - but here I am years later with hundreds of games in my steam library. I haven’t pirated a video game in years. I think Gabe’s rule is like gravity. It’s inconvenient for space travel, but what are you gonna do? You don’t get to space by complaining about it. It’s the same in streaming. All the streaming platforms need to do is provide a service that’s better than piracy. And I really do feel for the streaming platforms here. That seems like a hard ask for them. Netflix rarely has content I want to watch any more. Shows I do want to watch are often on a different competing service. And they often remove shows and movies from the platform that I might have otherwise enjoyed. Im not subscribing to multiple streaming platforms at once - that’s ridiculous. I’m not surprised they’re complaining about piracy - they’re rapidly becoming a worse service than piracy and gabe’s law is kicking in for them. But at the end of the day, like space companies, complain if you want but it’s not my problem to fix. And there are plenty of fixes - make it easy to have a grab bag of streaming services which swaps streaming provider every month. Or give me access to every platform for my $10 and distribute the money based on what I actually watched. I dunno. Figure it out. Or don’t, and watch piracy eat your lunch. Your call, Netflix.

martindbp 3y ago
I think TV and games are meaningfully different. Most people tend to watch way more number of shows in a year than buying/playing video games. Video games have more replayability, so it's something you need to "own" rather than stream. Therefore, subscriptions for games are not a big thing yet (I doubt it will ever be). As it stands now, if a game I want is not on Steam, that's OK, I can just install another game store. It's a bit inconvenient but not too bad. The problem with TV is cost. I'm OK switching between Netflix, Disney, HBO, Youtube, whatever, but I'm not OK with paying $70 a month,
- maccard 3y ago
  > Therefore, subscriptions for games are not a big thing yet (I doubt it will ever be) World of warcraft has had a subscription for 20 years and is wildly successful. PSN has a monthly subscription where you get 2-3 games per month added to your account that you can play as long as you're still subscribed. Gamepass has 25+ million subscribers [0] > I'm not OK with paying $70 a month Honest question, why not? That's what cable TV cost 15 years ago, and $70 now has the purchasing power of ~$50 then. [0] https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/15/xbox-game-pass-30-million-subscribers-report https://gameworldobserver.com/2023/09/15/xbox-game-pass-30-m...

toast0 3y ago

Music has compulsory licensing, and yet we have different radio stations, and multiple streaming services (only some of which is covered by compulsory licensing). If compulsory licensing for tv and movies also implied the service was picking the episodes, you'd have potential for competition if service A just played all of the episodes in order and service B only played the good episodes. Etc.

izacus 3y ago

FRAND licensing is a thing. And forcefully splitting playback/delivery and content creation would create a much healthier market where content companies have interested in distributing their content to as many streaming services as possible to get revenue - e.g. see the situation with audio playback. With Spotify/YTM/Tidal being separate from music labels, there's much MUCH less of this exclusivity BS.

mambru 3y ago
Came here to say this.

GoblinSlayer 3y ago

The same price is doable, they just can't be bothered to lift their ass.

holgerschurig 3y ago

> It's nobody's fault, it was inevitable given how things work. Then the video stream vendors must find a different way to make things work. If their goal is to be user-friendly, which I highly doubt. Only in marketing-speak (err, marketing lies) they claim "The experience of our user is our utmost goal". But it really isn't.

tjpnz 3y ago

The way you fix it is through piracy. The media companies then either solve the licensing issue among themselves or go out of business.

trklausss 3y ago

> It was inevitable given how things work. It's like every technology: if this is how things work, and they are suboptimal, the optimal solution will be applied. If we say "oh to bad, it's how it's established", then people will go against the establishment if that means better capabilities. > How could you "fix" it? Take a look at the music industry, they have solved it pretty well. I can stream everything on Spotify paying very little, I get everything that I want and I don't have to pirate it anymore. So maybe fostering independent creation? Forbidding "exclusivity" clauses? Fostering independent studio creation? > They could set the price really high. Prices are elastic: bigger price, less demand, same benefit. So that doesn't cut it either.

mi_z 3y ago
The reason it works for spotify is because musicians get fuck all on it. This doesn't work with film and TV because they are unionised and have to be paid a certain amount.
martindbp 3y ago
Then what are you claiming the difference is? Are music labels inherently less greedy? Is it harder to build music streaming vs video that leads to a monopoly? Is it because labels have ownership in Spotify? I don't think the HBOs and Disneys will give up their streaming platform unless forced to do it.
- trklausss 3y ago
  I’d say the key difference is the sheer amount of artists and styles. I’d argue it’s “easier” to make music than filming. That’s why I would foment independent creators. You might be right on HBO and Disney not giving up their service, until customers don’t want to pay for it anymore, and they’ll seek other ways. That’s capitalism after all…

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

People don't care about multiple services, they really care about the hassle. Cable TV sort of already solved this with how they handle movie packages like HBO or Starz. You pay your cable company a little more and you can watch those channels (or stream them). No need to worry about logins, accounts, etc.

2OEH8eoCRo0 3y ago

cableshaft 3y ago
Digital sort of has this, at least on Amazon. I can watch Paramount or Starz or HBO Max content via Amazon Prime if I have a subscription to them, for example.
- int_19h 3y ago
  But not Disney or Netflix or ... And so many things are platform-exclusive these days.

mbravorus 3y ago

One of the possible ways of "fixing" it is natural evolution and selection, the way it happened with communication networks. They once ruled, but eventually the shifted to being "dumb pipes" (leaving aside for a moment how exact that moniker is) and the end-user device manufacturers taking over as the point of delivery of paid services. The same could theoretically happen for entertainment content, in one way or another. A popular scenario present in a lot of sci-fi is that people subscribe to "channels" or data streams or whatchacallit, and the point of access is actually working as an aggregator and single point of payment. I can see no valid reason why big outfits like Sony or Samsung couldn't do that, effectively defragmenting the subscription craziness and easily dealing with backoffice negotiations on licensing and whatnot (Sony could probably do that without leaving the building). Again, it doesn't HAVE to be the end-user device manufacturer to present such a single-point service, but I think they are best positioned to be first movers for such a paradigm. And not saying it would be easy, because they are subject to the same brain-dead enshittification attempts in their "smart" devices as anyone else, and that is a habit that is hard to quit.

troyvit 3y ago

> How could you "fix" it? The larger a company is the more it falls back to "let the market decide." In this case the market is starting to decide (again) to bypass the poor user experience the big players offer and just steal the content. This is the point where it's time for the market to adapt (again) if they want to keep revenue.