5 ms·

Netflix is removing nearly all of its interactive titles

66 points by amichail 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
chromejs10 2y ago
TIL Netflix had more than 1 interactive title
jsheard 2y ago
They also just shut down a AAA game studio that was years into an unannounced project, so they're on a roll with throwing away interactive content. But not to worry, AI will fix their gaming ambitions... somehow. https://www.404media.co/netflix-games-ai-exec/ https://www.404media.co/netflix-games-ai-exec/ This is all very reminiscent of Amazons gaming push which had an enormous bankroll but mostly squandered it due to terrible leadership.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > mostly squandered it due to terrible leadership. My impression was this was the game industry in general. Some of the management credentials / experience I've seen. Specifically, lack thereof. Just because it's a creative endeavor shouldn't excuse all norms of effective management. (*cough* chrisroberts *cough*)
  - jsheard 2y ago
    Maybe so, but some leadership is more terrible than others. In the five or so years that Amazon has been seriously trying to do AAA games they've cancelled four of them, launched a live service game only to put it back into closed beta when it flopped and then killed it outright, and now have six active projects in varying degrees of development hell with no release windows. The few games they have managed to actually ship are mid at best. They also spent god knows how much money on a no-strings-attached CryEngine license to use as a basis of their own in-house fork, which was such a flop internally that they ended up just open sourcing it to zero fanfare. I don't think anyone is using it, even for free.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      It looks like they paid between 50 and 70 million. Not much for a company like Amazon. But yes, they totally failed in this area. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-is-amazon-lumberyard-right-for-you https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-i...
    - withinboredom 2y ago
      Star Citizen is still using it.
      - lentil_soup 2y ago
        Not really, it's just a heavily modified version of CryEngine
  - majormajor 2y ago
    Games run a high risk of "we ran this project very well and the game still ended up boring as hell." This is not unheard of outside of games - plenty of failed launch SAAS or social or whatever software - but it's particularly crucial in entertainment since "fun" will make people tolerate a LOT of other issues with your software. Beyond "maybe making a huge investment in a creative space hits-driven-business is not a wise move", the actual project leadership may or may not have been any good here. Might just be that they didn't make something fun and compelling enough, or that they just didn't find enough players, or that the marketing fit isn't right for "games with Netflix subscription." You can certainly kill an entertainment project with terrible management, but anything more than "adequate" isn't likely to give you any extra sparks of inspiration. (Hell, sometimes some chaos might be good for that.)
    - feoren 2y ago
      > the game still ended up boring as hell There are two problems here. One is when people haven't played the game enough during development. Everyone on the dev floor should know whether the game is fun or not, and which parts are the most fun and most boring. Often when games end up bland and boring, you find out that devs have been raising this alarm for a year, but management -- who have never played video games and probably think they're stupid -- ignored them in favor of their own ideas. It's the same problem as not talking to your clients when writing any software. The second problem can be summed up thusly[1]: "I worked two years of overtime straight on Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the first Sparkle Pony horse in World of Warcraft. A $15 microtransaction horse made more money than Starcraft 2". -- Jason Hall, former Blizzard employee. Starcraft 2 was a fun game, well-crafted with love. It made less money than a single cosmetic microtransaction in WoW. Why would game companies waste their time making fun games? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY
      - plorkyeran 2y ago
        Jason Hall's claim there was very incorrect and he later walked it back. People tried very hard to find a context in which was true and the best anyone could come up with was that the horse had higher day one profits by virtue of that it cost basically nothing to make and SC2 wasn't profitable off preorders alone.
- paxys 2y ago
  It'll be a shame if they shutter their gaming division. While they themselves haven't produced anything worthy of note, their catalog of games on iOS/Android is impressive. High quality licensed content (like Hades, Monument Valley, GTA, Sonic, Kentucky Route Zero, Oxenfree, Braid) with zero ads or microtransactions, all free with your Netflix subscription.
- mrguyorama 2y ago
  It could very well be that they had bad ideas that were not going to turn into good games and figured that out in time to cancel things and not burn more money. Technically that's good management. Games are a space where ideas that seem good at first blush might take a lot of effort to prove that they are bad. There isn't much data available on a "theory of fun" so we mostly have to deal with hoping people have good ideas and brute force testing.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
  I have to agree, the interactive content was annoying more than anything. I couldn't watch their only interactive show because it required so much interactivity without being fun. As for their gaming department, they can't stop that soon enough. It's a horrible annoyance on my tv and I have zero trust in them
ghjfrdghibt 2y ago
Netflix updated it's UI for me recently and seems to have removed anything decent about their app. Or they've hidden it sooo deep I can't find it. For example instead of browsing the new and popular titles to see what I like and setting reminders for the things that catch my interest, I'm left with their absolutely dogshit recommendation algorithm. I'm close to leaving because of how bad they've fucked the UI.
- parasti 2y ago
  Buy a subscription when something good comes from Netflix, watch that thing, then cancel your subscription. I gave up Netflix years ago because I realized I'm just scrolling the same 15-20 Netflix Originals in every category.
  - reportgunner 2y ago
    You don't even need to buy a subscription to watch netflix shows.
    - recursive 2y ago
      But it is easier.
  - prophesi 2y ago
    I used to do that, but now it's $18+ to watch without ads which is a bit much just for one title you're interested in.
    - standardUser 2y ago
      In yesteryear, it was inconceivable to purchase a series to watch for a scant $18.
      - williamdclt 2y ago
        That's purchasing, though. Using Netflix is very far from purchasing a media, it's barely renting
asciii 2y ago
Netflix is private about their data so I'm curious why they did the interactive video route. Maybe they had money lying around and there was no market need. I'd be curious to know.
- hipadev23 2y ago
  Think it was a just a gamble. They have lower latency edge CDNs than literally everyone else in tech, so they’re in the best position to deliver cloud gaming. And this approach enabled them to roll it out to all user devices without needing any software upgrades. It’s a neat idea, but the games they made simply aren’t fun.
- michaelt 2y ago
  It's not unusual for tech companies to throw lots of stuff at the wall and see what sticks, in the name of innovation. There was probably someone pushing this who hoped adding interactivity to videos would be as revolutionary as adding hyperlinks to the web.
  - jonathanlydall 2y ago
    In my head I read this in J.K. Simmons’ voice.
krisoft 2y ago
Curious, because I understand the benefit of removing all of them (one less thing to maintain across all the platforms they support). Which certainly makes sense if they were not popular. But what is the benefit of removing some, but not removing all? You still need to keep the code and the complexity around until all can be removed. What do they win by removing the ones they remove but not all?
- mrits 2y ago
  I have no idea but I suppose some could provide value even without interaction
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  Media is not like software. Software can be kept going with some maintenance investment. If you built it, you can keep it running for as long as you like. A movie or tv show, on the other hand, is a complex web of rights and contracts. The initial launch aligns everyone’s interests, but releasing it in new countries or on new media types requires business and legal discussion. If it’s worth it, it’ll happen. Each one of those agreements is also time-limited, and so if you do nothing you can still end up with a title that is too much trouble to keep around. (All the above is speculative wrt these titles in particular. But go look at Moonlighting as a tv show that was blocked for many years due to this)
  - maxwell 2y ago
    Funny that the technical reality is the inverse, i.e. media is read-only and storage/playback is now trivial beyond availability, software is executable and requires a degree of active maintenance.
    - adolph 2y ago
      > storage/playback is now trivial Both storage (and retrieval) and playback are based on software. Basically, the recording is in an obscure video format. People at the NSA can’t easily watch it, so they can’t redact it. So they won’t do anything. [0] 0. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/07/the-nsa-has-a-long-lost-lecture-by-adm-grace-hopper.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/07/the-nsa-has-a... 1. https://www.lockss.org/ https://www.lockss.org/
latortuga 2y ago
My daughter will be bummed about this news, though I'm glad at least a few are surviving. I don't get why they'd make this content and then just kill it. Is this like "we don't want to support the feature anymore" kind of thing? That doesn't really make sense though because they're leaving some around. Disappointing.
- shagie 2y ago
  https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/1164146728/why-are-dozens-of-tv-shows-disappearing-from-streaming-platforms-like-hbo-max https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/1164146728/why-are-dozens-of-... The issue is residuals. They have to pay the people who were part of the making for having the content available - even if no one streams it. At some point, the cost of the residuals is greater than the revenue generated by the content. https://www.sagaftra.org/sites/default/files/sa_documents/StreamingResiduals23_F.pdf https://www.sagaftra.org/sites/default/files/sa_documents/St... https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on-strike-2-percent-residuals-streaming/ https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on... https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/netflix-financial-analyst-residuals-union-deals-1235874309/ https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/netflix-financial-analyst-r...
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    This is one thing that fascinates me about the streaming model. At some point it boils down to {cost per customer} vs {revenue per customer}. However, because of residuals, {cost per customer} doesn't scale down as user count scales up. You ammortize the non-residual chunk of production, but that's a weird equation that likely drives the incentives we see playing out. I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services.
    - shagie 2y ago
      > I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services. As I understand it, the residuals are for things beyond the original contract. So if you have a broadcast show, that gets paid out. Then it goes to syndication - residuals get paid. Then it goes to streaming - residuals get paid. However, with an in house production by a streaming service... from the Fortune link ( and http://web.archive.org/web/20231001022043/https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on-strike-2-percent-residuals-streaming/ http://web.archive.org/web/20231001022043/https://fortune.co... if you have trouble with the link) > So shows originally produced for broadcast television aren’t an issue. When “Friends,” which was originally an NBC sitcom, generates $1 billion dollars on streaming platforms, the five leads each earn 2%, or $20 million apiece. But a show like “Stranger Things” – produced and owned by Netflix – never goes to a secondary market as long as it is aired only on Netflix, so the stars earn only their original pay. > The problem, then, comes from the fact that the existing residual model, per the expiring SAG-AFTRA contract, doesn’t take streaming into account. > In the streaming era, all new shows produced by streaming platforms are concurrently reruns and original runs. Actors want 2% of streaming revenue generated by the show or film to replace this line of income.
joejohnson 2y ago
Netflix also removed most of its Palestinian films: https://variety.com/2024/film/global/netflix-palestinian-stories-1236190939/ https://variety.com/2024/film/global/netflix-palestinian-sto...
- paxys 2y ago
  > These films will soon exit the service because the rights acquired by Netflix as part of its licensing deal will end at the end of the month. This standard content licensing practice is also the reason why “Friends” is no longer available in the U.S. or Mr. Robot” is no longer available in Arabic countries. So, a complete non story.
standardUser 2y ago
Whatever your opinion about online piracy, it plays an indispensable role in maintaining access to media that corporations choose to abandon. But I wonder in the case of this kind of novel media if pirated copies can maintain the original experience.
paxys 2y ago
The fundamental problem with interactive shows is that Netflix has to produce 10 hours of very expensive content to give you a high quality 1 hour walkthrough. It then only becomes worth it if you keep going back and trying all the different branches, but that's not really going to happen. Might as well make en entire season of a regular show with the same budget.
- probably_a_gpt 2y ago
  i wonder if they will replace it with generative content in a few years
- postexitus 2y ago
  Any interactive content is interesting for at best 15 mins before FOMO dread sets in for me. After a few false starts, I just don't even start any interactive content at all. This may be the factor driving the decision if common enough.
  - add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
    Another problem with it (for me) is that when there's multiple branches, choosing any given one feels arbitrary. Media feels pointless if it wasn't created with intention. It's the same reason I can't take AI art seriously. Art is meaningful when it's contextualized with its creator and creation. When you dumb down the intention of creation or sidestep it by putting out multiple versions/branches, that puts it firmly in the content category as opposed to art.
dark__paladin 2y ago
I really believe that if Netflix launched its interactive media with a miniseries of Goosebumps: Choose Your Own Adventure adaptations (instead of... whatever Bandersnatch was...) the format could have been a huge success. I still want to Escape from the Carnival of Horrors(TM).
- bena 2y ago
  Bandersnatch is one of the things they're keeping.
  - dark__paladin 2y ago
    I am glad to hear this. I enjoyed Bandersnatch, but I do not think it was the right tone for a launch title for this kind of project, personally.
- jasonjayr 2y ago
  Wouldn't that effectivly be a Visual Novel (DDLC) or Graphic Novel (Maniac Mansion)? If you have good IP and Story, aren't games in this style pretty straightforward to create?
  - dark__paladin 2y ago
    Isn't this effectively how the interactive materials behave, or am I misunderstanding? It was my understanding that they all were analogous to DVD-style interactive extras where you essentially choose left or right at points in the story.
gspencley 2y ago
I have zero interest in playing games on Netflix. It's just not what I subscribe to Netflix for. I know that the Black Mirror thing was a success, but I didn't even really like that. Gaming, and sitting back on my lazy ass to watch content passively are two very different mental modes. When I want to play games, I put on a game. When I want to get fat or fall asleep after long work day, I put on Netflix. I have no idea how representative I am of the average subscriber, but if most people are like me then I would like to offer a big "I told you so" because it made no sense to me when Netflix announced that they were starting to branch out into games. I mean, if Netflix has grown to peak numbers and needs new markets to enter, then by all means produce games but they might want a more suitable distribution channel like Steam or producing console games for mass retail etc.
bena 2y ago
I get it. Bandersnatch is neat. And I see that is staying. Which tracks because "Choose Your Own Adventure" is decently suited to a "TV Remote" experience. However, my wife found this game "Storyteller" on the Switch. I also found it on iOS and noticed the Netflix intro would play when I opened it. Then I saw the promo for it on Netflix. Turns out, it's a Netflix game. And it's cute, but it's not a lot. You can complete the game and most of the bonus bits in a few hours. And once you're done, that's it. There's nothing to do. The little vignettes are very simple story wise. And there's no real through plot. Like, I don't need to play that ever again. It's not even like a game like Super Mario World, where the gameplay itself is enjoyable. So between the interface issue and the type of games they pushed, this is probably for the best.
- Maultasche 2y ago
  I also discovered Storyteller among the Netflix games and loved it: truly a gem. However, just like you said, when I finished it, I didn't have any reason to come back to it. "Into the Breach", on the other hand, kept me coming back for a long time. It's definitely an iOS game though: completely unsuitable for most devices that use Netflix.
jjice 2y ago
I was surprised when they moved towards the medium at all. I enjoyed Bandersnatch when it came out, but it seemed like a lot of extra work (especially relative to the amount of content and viewership) to have on each of their clients - and they have a _ton_ of supported platforms. It's just so much less portable than a traditional video is.
- baobabKoodaa 2y ago
  If it's not easily portable, it's not easily piratable either.
notwhereyouare 2y ago
Could it also be over a lawsuit? They settled back in 2020 with chooseco llc who owns the "choose your own adventure" trademark https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/25/21720533/netflix-bandersnatch-chooseco-lawsuit-settlement-choose-your-own-adventure https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/25/21720533/netflix-banders...

66 points by amichail 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

chromejs10 2y ago

TIL Netflix had more than 1 interactive title

jsheard 2y ago

They also just shut down a AAA game studio that was years into an unannounced project, so they're on a roll with throwing away interactive content. But not to worry, AI will fix their gaming ambitions... somehow. https://www.404media.co/netflix-games-ai-exec/ https://www.404media.co/netflix-games-ai-exec/ This is all very reminiscent of Amazons gaming push which had an enormous bankroll but mostly squandered it due to terrible leadership.

ethbr1 2y ago
> mostly squandered it due to terrible leadership. My impression was this was the game industry in general. Some of the management credentials / experience I've seen. Specifically, lack thereof. Just because it's a creative endeavor shouldn't excuse all norms of effective management. (*cough* chrisroberts *cough*)
- jsheard 2y ago
  Maybe so, but some leadership is more terrible than others. In the five or so years that Amazon has been seriously trying to do AAA games they've cancelled four of them, launched a live service game only to put it back into closed beta when it flopped and then killed it outright, and now have six active projects in varying degrees of development hell with no release windows. The few games they have managed to actually ship are mid at best. They also spent god knows how much money on a no-strings-attached CryEngine license to use as a basis of their own in-house fork, which was such a flop internally that they ended up just open sourcing it to zero fanfare. I don't think anyone is using it, even for free.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    It looks like they paid between 50 and 70 million. Not much for a company like Amazon. But yes, they totally failed in this area. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-is-amazon-lumberyard-right-for-you https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-i...
  - withinboredom 2y ago
    Star Citizen is still using it.
    - lentil_soup 2y ago
      Not really, it's just a heavily modified version of CryEngine
- majormajor 2y ago
  Games run a high risk of "we ran this project very well and the game still ended up boring as hell." This is not unheard of outside of games - plenty of failed launch SAAS or social or whatever software - but it's particularly crucial in entertainment since "fun" will make people tolerate a LOT of other issues with your software. Beyond "maybe making a huge investment in a creative space hits-driven-business is not a wise move", the actual project leadership may or may not have been any good here. Might just be that they didn't make something fun and compelling enough, or that they just didn't find enough players, or that the marketing fit isn't right for "games with Netflix subscription." You can certainly kill an entertainment project with terrible management, but anything more than "adequate" isn't likely to give you any extra sparks of inspiration. (Hell, sometimes some chaos might be good for that.)
  - feoren 2y ago
    > the game still ended up boring as hell There are two problems here. One is when people haven't played the game enough during development. Everyone on the dev floor should know whether the game is fun or not, and which parts are the most fun and most boring. Often when games end up bland and boring, you find out that devs have been raising this alarm for a year, but management -- who have never played video games and probably think they're stupid -- ignored them in favor of their own ideas. It's the same problem as not talking to your clients when writing any software. The second problem can be summed up thusly[1]: "I worked two years of overtime straight on Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the first Sparkle Pony horse in World of Warcraft. A $15 microtransaction horse made more money than Starcraft 2". -- Jason Hall, former Blizzard employee. Starcraft 2 was a fun game, well-crafted with love. It made less money than a single cosmetic microtransaction in WoW. Why would game companies waste their time making fun games? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY
    - plorkyeran 2y ago
      Jason Hall's claim there was very incorrect and he later walked it back. People tried very hard to find a context in which was true and the best anyone could come up with was that the horse had higher day one profits by virtue of that it cost basically nothing to make and SC2 wasn't profitable off preorders alone.
paxys 2y ago
It'll be a shame if they shutter their gaming division. While they themselves haven't produced anything worthy of note, their catalog of games on iOS/Android is impressive. High quality licensed content (like Hades, Monument Valley, GTA, Sonic, Kentucky Route Zero, Oxenfree, Braid) with zero ads or microtransactions, all free with your Netflix subscription.
mrguyorama 2y ago
It could very well be that they had bad ideas that were not going to turn into good games and figured that out in time to cancel things and not burn more money. Technically that's good management. Games are a space where ideas that seem good at first blush might take a lot of effort to prove that they are bad. There isn't much data available on a "theory of fun" so we mostly have to deal with hoping people have good ideas and brute force testing.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 2y ago
I have to agree, the interactive content was annoying more than anything. I couldn't watch their only interactive show because it required so much interactivity without being fun. As for their gaming department, they can't stop that soon enough. It's a horrible annoyance on my tv and I have zero trust in them

ghjfrdghibt 2y ago

Netflix updated it's UI for me recently and seems to have removed anything decent about their app. Or they've hidden it sooo deep I can't find it. For example instead of browsing the new and popular titles to see what I like and setting reminders for the things that catch my interest, I'm left with their absolutely dogshit recommendation algorithm. I'm close to leaving because of how bad they've fucked the UI.

parasti 2y ago
Buy a subscription when something good comes from Netflix, watch that thing, then cancel your subscription. I gave up Netflix years ago because I realized I'm just scrolling the same 15-20 Netflix Originals in every category.
- reportgunner 2y ago
  You don't even need to buy a subscription to watch netflix shows.
  - recursive 2y ago
    But it is easier.
- prophesi 2y ago
  I used to do that, but now it's $18+ to watch without ads which is a bit much just for one title you're interested in.
  - standardUser 2y ago
    In yesteryear, it was inconceivable to purchase a series to watch for a scant $18.
    - williamdclt 2y ago
      That's purchasing, though. Using Netflix is very far from purchasing a media, it's barely renting

asciii 2y ago

Netflix is private about their data so I'm curious why they did the interactive video route. Maybe they had money lying around and there was no market need. I'd be curious to know.

hipadev23 2y ago
Think it was a just a gamble. They have lower latency edge CDNs than literally everyone else in tech, so they’re in the best position to deliver cloud gaming. And this approach enabled them to roll it out to all user devices without needing any software upgrades. It’s a neat idea, but the games they made simply aren’t fun.
michaelt 2y ago
It's not unusual for tech companies to throw lots of stuff at the wall and see what sticks, in the name of innovation. There was probably someone pushing this who hoped adding interactivity to videos would be as revolutionary as adding hyperlinks to the web.
- jonathanlydall 2y ago
  In my head I read this in J.K. Simmons’ voice.

krisoft 2y ago

Curious, because I understand the benefit of removing all of them (one less thing to maintain across all the platforms they support). Which certainly makes sense if they were not popular. But what is the benefit of removing some, but not removing all? You still need to keep the code and the complexity around until all can be removed. What do they win by removing the ones they remove but not all?

mrits 2y ago
I have no idea but I suppose some could provide value even without interaction
shermantanktop 2y ago
Media is not like software. Software can be kept going with some maintenance investment. If you built it, you can keep it running for as long as you like. A movie or tv show, on the other hand, is a complex web of rights and contracts. The initial launch aligns everyone’s interests, but releasing it in new countries or on new media types requires business and legal discussion. If it’s worth it, it’ll happen. Each one of those agreements is also time-limited, and so if you do nothing you can still end up with a title that is too much trouble to keep around. (All the above is speculative wrt these titles in particular. But go look at Moonlighting as a tv show that was blocked for many years due to this)
- maxwell 2y ago
  Funny that the technical reality is the inverse, i.e. media is read-only and storage/playback is now trivial beyond availability, software is executable and requires a degree of active maintenance.
  - adolph 2y ago
    > storage/playback is now trivial Both storage (and retrieval) and playback are based on software. Basically, the recording is in an obscure video format. People at the NSA can’t easily watch it, so they can’t redact it. So they won’t do anything. [0] 0. https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/07/the-nsa-has-a-long-lost-lecture-by-adm-grace-hopper.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2024/07/the-nsa-has-a... 1. https://www.lockss.org/ https://www.lockss.org/

latortuga 2y ago

My daughter will be bummed about this news, though I'm glad at least a few are surviving. I don't get why they'd make this content and then just kill it. Is this like "we don't want to support the feature anymore" kind of thing? That doesn't really make sense though because they're leaving some around. Disappointing.

shagie 2y ago
https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/1164146728/why-are-dozens-of-tv-shows-disappearing-from-streaming-platforms-like-hbo-max https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/1164146728/why-are-dozens-of-... The issue is residuals. They have to pay the people who were part of the making for having the content available - even if no one streams it. At some point, the cost of the residuals is greater than the revenue generated by the content. https://www.sagaftra.org/sites/default/files/sa_documents/StreamingResiduals23_F.pdf https://www.sagaftra.org/sites/default/files/sa_documents/St... https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on-strike-2-percent-residuals-streaming/ https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on... https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/netflix-financial-analyst-residuals-union-deals-1235874309/ https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/netflix-financial-analyst-r...
- ethbr1 2y ago
  This is one thing that fascinates me about the streaming model. At some point it boils down to {cost per customer} vs {revenue per customer}. However, because of residuals, {cost per customer} doesn't scale down as user count scales up. You ammortize the non-residual chunk of production, but that's a weird equation that likely drives the incentives we see playing out. I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services.
  - shagie 2y ago
    > I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services. As I understand it, the residuals are for things beyond the original contract. So if you have a broadcast show, that gets paid out. Then it goes to syndication - residuals get paid. Then it goes to streaming - residuals get paid. However, with an in house production by a streaming service... from the Fortune link ( and http://web.archive.org/web/20231001022043/https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on-strike-2-percent-residuals-streaming/ http://web.archive.org/web/20231001022043/https://fortune.co... if you have trouble with the link) > So shows originally produced for broadcast television aren’t an issue. When “Friends,” which was originally an NBC sitcom, generates $1 billion dollars on streaming platforms, the five leads each earn 2%, or $20 million apiece. But a show like “Stranger Things” – produced and owned by Netflix – never goes to a secondary market as long as it is aired only on Netflix, so the stars earn only their original pay. > The problem, then, comes from the fact that the existing residual model, per the expiring SAG-AFTRA contract, doesn’t take streaming into account. > In the streaming era, all new shows produced by streaming platforms are concurrently reruns and original runs. Actors want 2% of streaming revenue generated by the show or film to replace this line of income.

joejohnson 2y ago

Netflix also removed most of its Palestinian films: https://variety.com/2024/film/global/netflix-palestinian-stories-1236190939/ https://variety.com/2024/film/global/netflix-palestinian-sto...

paxys 2y ago
> These films will soon exit the service because the rights acquired by Netflix as part of its licensing deal will end at the end of the month. This standard content licensing practice is also the reason why “Friends” is no longer available in the U.S. or Mr. Robot” is no longer available in Arabic countries. So, a complete non story.

standardUser 2y ago

Whatever your opinion about online piracy, it plays an indispensable role in maintaining access to media that corporations choose to abandon. But I wonder in the case of this kind of novel media if pirated copies can maintain the original experience.

paxys 2y ago

The fundamental problem with interactive shows is that Netflix has to produce 10 hours of very expensive content to give you a high quality 1 hour walkthrough. It then only becomes worth it if you keep going back and trying all the different branches, but that's not really going to happen. Might as well make en entire season of a regular show with the same budget.

probably_a_gpt 2y ago
i wonder if they will replace it with generative content in a few years
postexitus 2y ago
Any interactive content is interesting for at best 15 mins before FOMO dread sets in for me. After a few false starts, I just don't even start any interactive content at all. This may be the factor driving the decision if common enough.
- add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
  Another problem with it (for me) is that when there's multiple branches, choosing any given one feels arbitrary. Media feels pointless if it wasn't created with intention. It's the same reason I can't take AI art seriously. Art is meaningful when it's contextualized with its creator and creation. When you dumb down the intention of creation or sidestep it by putting out multiple versions/branches, that puts it firmly in the content category as opposed to art.

dark__paladin 2y ago

I really believe that if Netflix launched its interactive media with a miniseries of Goosebumps: Choose Your Own Adventure adaptations (instead of... whatever Bandersnatch was...) the format could have been a huge success. I still want to Escape from the Carnival of Horrors(TM).

bena 2y ago
Bandersnatch is one of the things they're keeping.
- dark__paladin 2y ago
  I am glad to hear this. I enjoyed Bandersnatch, but I do not think it was the right tone for a launch title for this kind of project, personally.
jasonjayr 2y ago
Wouldn't that effectivly be a Visual Novel (DDLC) or Graphic Novel (Maniac Mansion)? If you have good IP and Story, aren't games in this style pretty straightforward to create?
- dark__paladin 2y ago
  Isn't this effectively how the interactive materials behave, or am I misunderstanding? It was my understanding that they all were analogous to DVD-style interactive extras where you essentially choose left or right at points in the story.

gspencley 2y ago

I have zero interest in playing games on Netflix. It's just not what I subscribe to Netflix for. I know that the Black Mirror thing was a success, but I didn't even really like that. Gaming, and sitting back on my lazy ass to watch content passively are two very different mental modes. When I want to play games, I put on a game. When I want to get fat or fall asleep after long work day, I put on Netflix. I have no idea how representative I am of the average subscriber, but if most people are like me then I would like to offer a big "I told you so" because it made no sense to me when Netflix announced that they were starting to branch out into games. I mean, if Netflix has grown to peak numbers and needs new markets to enter, then by all means produce games but they might want a more suitable distribution channel like Steam or producing console games for mass retail etc.

bena 2y ago

I get it. Bandersnatch is neat. And I see that is staying. Which tracks because "Choose Your Own Adventure" is decently suited to a "TV Remote" experience. However, my wife found this game "Storyteller" on the Switch. I also found it on iOS and noticed the Netflix intro would play when I opened it. Then I saw the promo for it on Netflix. Turns out, it's a Netflix game. And it's cute, but it's not a lot. You can complete the game and most of the bonus bits in a few hours. And once you're done, that's it. There's nothing to do. The little vignettes are very simple story wise. And there's no real through plot. Like, I don't need to play that ever again. It's not even like a game like Super Mario World, where the gameplay itself is enjoyable. So between the interface issue and the type of games they pushed, this is probably for the best.

Maultasche 2y ago
I also discovered Storyteller among the Netflix games and loved it: truly a gem. However, just like you said, when I finished it, I didn't have any reason to come back to it. "Into the Breach", on the other hand, kept me coming back for a long time. It's definitely an iOS game though: completely unsuitable for most devices that use Netflix.

jjice 2y ago

I was surprised when they moved towards the medium at all. I enjoyed Bandersnatch when it came out, but it seemed like a lot of extra work (especially relative to the amount of content and viewership) to have on each of their clients - and they have a _ton_ of supported platforms. It's just so much less portable than a traditional video is.

baobabKoodaa 2y ago
If it's not easily portable, it's not easily piratable either.

notwhereyouare 2y ago

Could it also be over a lawsuit? They settled back in 2020 with chooseco llc who owns the "choose your own adventure" trademark https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/25/21720533/netflix-bandersnatch-chooseco-lawsuit-settlement-choose-your-own-adventure https://www.theverge.com/2020/11/25/21720533/netflix-banders...