3 ms·

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

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...
  - gtvwill 3y ago
    $840 a year just on watching TV is heaps. $4200 over 5 years. That's a fair wack cash.
    - maccard 3y ago
      It's not just TV though, it's TV & movies. I used to go to a blockbuster equivalent with my parents most Fridays, and we would rent 3-5 movies. Usually it would be 1 new releasae and some from the back catalog. I was only about 14 so I don't know exactly how much it cost, but the "New Release, only €5.25" poster is etched into my brain. I'd guess we did that 3 out of 4 weekends, spending probably €10 each time, which is about half of that cost. > That's a fair wack cash. I never said it wasn't, but (I would wager) it's most households primary form of entertainment. It being ~2% of the median household's income it's good value.
    - mi_z 3y ago
      No it isn't. Compare that to any other activity and the price would be similar for how often you do it. If you eat out once a week you'd be paying a similar amount if not more. Most people watch things more than once a week.
      - gtvwill 3y ago
        Yeah I get to eat out on date night with my partner maybe twice a year if we are lucky. We get takeout maybe once a month. More likely once a quarter. This is a huge amount of money for entertainment.
Mystrl 3y ago
I think media like TV/Movies might be fundamentally different than games because of how easy it is to serve pirated content. With games there's a lot of friction with getting cracks working and risks with malware while with TV/Movies you just watch them in your browser. Recently my friends showed me a pirate site that I'm in awe hasn't been taken down. Don't think I can post a link here but it has all the things I'd expect from a paid streaming service (slick and fast ui, large catalog with good discovery options, high quality streams, no lag, random ui niceties like a dimmer switch, skip op/ed and multi language subs). Being honest as long as something like this is available I don't really see what a site like netflix could offer that would convince me to pay. Actually the more I think about it the less I understand how it hasn't been taken down.
- maccard 3y ago
  > Being honest as long as something like this is available I don't really see what a site like netflix could offer that would convince me to pay Most people are honest, and will do the the legal thing when faced with two equal options. If the choice is between that UI but it's illegal, and a reskin of that UI but it's £30/mo, I'd pay. But it's not, as the other comments here said. It's a choice between that for free and a limited catalog of region restricted, ever changing, poor video quality streams spread of multiple services, and given the choice between paying 4 providers for a poor service and getting a good service from one location, people will pick the latter.
  - mi_z 3y ago
    You wanting everything for £30 is just not a sustainable cost though. They would lose money like that.
    - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
      That’s their problem though :) bet they lose more money from the $0 they get from pirates - or so they whine.
    - maccard 3y ago
int_19h 3y ago
There is a very simple thing that I would personally want that would make piracy not worth the bother: disentangle the content and the platforms. I don't want to have a dozen different apps with different (but equally crappy) UX, and I don't want to track which megacorp owns the license to my favorite movie to know what subscription I need this month to have access to it. I want to go to a single marketplace (like e.g. Steam), pick the titles I actually care about, and have access to it. I don't want to care who gets that money, and the platform and the rights owners can and should figure this out between themselves. If prices for that particular piece of content change next months because it changed owners, let me know and approve the exact amount by which my combined subscription will change next month. Note that this doesn't imply that there should be just one marketplace. Let there be many indepedent ones, all participating in the same system that routes the money from consumers to rights owners, and providing the same catalog and pricing, but different UX etc. But that would kill lock-in. And lock-in is how they can squeeze the most out of us. So it won't happen, and piracy it is.

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...
- gtvwill 3y ago
  $840 a year just on watching TV is heaps. $4200 over 5 years. That's a fair wack cash.
  - maccard 3y ago
    It's not just TV though, it's TV & movies. I used to go to a blockbuster equivalent with my parents most Fridays, and we would rent 3-5 movies. Usually it would be 1 new releasae and some from the back catalog. I was only about 14 so I don't know exactly how much it cost, but the "New Release, only €5.25" poster is etched into my brain. I'd guess we did that 3 out of 4 weekends, spending probably €10 each time, which is about half of that cost. > That's a fair wack cash. I never said it wasn't, but (I would wager) it's most households primary form of entertainment. It being ~2% of the median household's income it's good value.
  - mi_z 3y ago
    No it isn't. Compare that to any other activity and the price would be similar for how often you do it. If you eat out once a week you'd be paying a similar amount if not more. Most people watch things more than once a week.
    - gtvwill 3y ago
      Yeah I get to eat out on date night with my partner maybe twice a year if we are lucky. We get takeout maybe once a month. More likely once a quarter. This is a huge amount of money for entertainment.

Mystrl 3y ago

I think media like TV/Movies might be fundamentally different than games because of how easy it is to serve pirated content. With games there's a lot of friction with getting cracks working and risks with malware while with TV/Movies you just watch them in your browser. Recently my friends showed me a pirate site that I'm in awe hasn't been taken down. Don't think I can post a link here but it has all the things I'd expect from a paid streaming service (slick and fast ui, large catalog with good discovery options, high quality streams, no lag, random ui niceties like a dimmer switch, skip op/ed and multi language subs). Being honest as long as something like this is available I don't really see what a site like netflix could offer that would convince me to pay. Actually the more I think about it the less I understand how it hasn't been taken down.

maccard 3y ago
> Being honest as long as something like this is available I don't really see what a site like netflix could offer that would convince me to pay Most people are honest, and will do the the legal thing when faced with two equal options. If the choice is between that UI but it's illegal, and a reskin of that UI but it's £30/mo, I'd pay. But it's not, as the other comments here said. It's a choice between that for free and a limited catalog of region restricted, ever changing, poor video quality streams spread of multiple services, and given the choice between paying 4 providers for a poor service and getting a good service from one location, people will pick the latter.
- mi_z 3y ago
  You wanting everything for £30 is just not a sustainable cost though. They would lose money like that.
  - loloquwowndueo 3y ago
    That’s their problem though :) bet they lose more money from the $0 they get from pirates - or so they whine.
  - maccard 3y ago

int_19h 3y ago

There is a very simple thing that I would personally want that would make piracy not worth the bother: disentangle the content and the platforms. I don't want to have a dozen different apps with different (but equally crappy) UX, and I don't want to track which megacorp owns the license to my favorite movie to know what subscription I need this month to have access to it. I want to go to a single marketplace (like e.g. Steam), pick the titles I actually care about, and have access to it. I don't want to care who gets that money, and the platform and the rights owners can and should figure this out between themselves. If prices for that particular piece of content change next months because it changed owners, let me know and approve the exact amount by which my combined subscription will change next month. Note that this doesn't imply that there should be just one marketplace. Let there be many indepedent ones, all participating in the same system that routes the money from consumers to rights owners, and providing the same catalog and pricing, but different UX etc. But that would kill lock-in. And lock-in is how they can squeeze the most out of us. So it won't happen, and piracy it is.