Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Strike Ending & Amazon Antitrust - Streaming Services: Power Rankings, FALL 2023
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9186438" data-attributes="member: 18"><p>[USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] first off thanks for the thoughtful and in-depth response!</p><p></p><p>Honestly I tend to think it's more likely to be something like this 15 years from now than the shakeout you suggest.</p><p></p><p>Not because that shakeout is inherently unreasonable - it definitely isn't, it's logical, even, and it's kind of already happening to some extent - but it's a sort of a projection of unchanging technology and culture, and nigh-infinite acceptance of FAST or low-cost AST (LCAST?), and whilst I'm obviously not an industry analyst (though they don't have a great record here), my impression is that it would be very easy for FAST/LCAST reach levels where everyone willing to watch that is watching it, and everyone else has pissed off to other forms of entertainment. I think a lot of the push in that direction is the realization by streamers that that can actually be more profitable than "honest subscriptions" (a partisan term but for want of a better one), for example as you pointed out Netflix ad-supported sub is more profitable than the actual lowest cost sub. I'm skeptical how much of it is audience demand/desire. I notice that with UK FAST services, a lot of why people watch them is because they have shows that aren't available on paid streamers and/or even POD - so exclusivity is the driver, not being free (being free obviously negates the cost-of-entry barrier).</p><p></p><p>I mean, there was a view, and I don't think an entirely inaccurate view that TV was kind of on the way out as entertainment before the rise of streaming, and I think it would be very easy for many streaming companies, in the rush to maximally please shareholders, to create a situation where TV was increasingly less favoured as a mode of entertainment. It does have far, far more serious competition for entertainment, including passively watched entertainment than it did, say, 15 years ago. We joke about returning to the cable era, but you know what I remember the latter part of that era? People increasingly dropping or reducing cable/satellite TV (satellite was bigger in the UK and a lot of the world, but essentially similar to cable in real functionality), before streaming services really became a thing. And I could easily see the streamers painting themselves into the same sort of corner.</p><p></p><p>POD I really hope you're right about expanding, because right now it's absolute crap. If a show isn't a on a streamer, and never was, the odds are extremely good it's also not on POD. In many cases even if it was, it's simply not legally available anywhere! An awful lot of movies from before 2005-ish aren't available either, particularly non-English-language ones - absolutely including some famous ones by famous directors, which just blows my mind. Money is being left on tables, and I don't think it's even small amounts.</p><p></p><p>I'd love to see the residuals model improve for everyone, but sadly I suspect that's unlikely with both streamers and Hollywood being rather silly about the situation. That said, given how Spotify operates, I'm not surprised both sides are leery.</p><p></p><p>Oh my god. Well I guess even Apple can't win 'em all! A terrible show on every possible level (particularly the conceptual) except visually, where it was rather attractive in a certain muted way. Not as big of a miss as Invasion, which the winner of "show most inexplicably getting a second season" this year.</p><p></p><p>I do wonder if this assumption is in the process of changing, because absolutely that was my assumption and I think almost everyone's assumption a few years ago, but it seems to be increasingly challenged by the reality of streaming services! What it seems like - and this is feeling not fact - at least from a UK perspective, is that after various "new contenders" like Paramount+ arrived, fewer old shows are actually available on<em> any </em>streaming service or POD, rather than more, especially as belts are tightened and less watched shows cut. There is definitely phenomenon where, if you know something is available and thus "safe" you might not bother subscribing right now, but equally sometimes you just want to watch some stupid old Law & Order episodes, and you don't want to pay like £12 for each season (even though, realistically, you might be paying about that to a streamer you were watching it on, depending on how fast you were going - also you can't even get all the seasons, not even from Amazon POD, which usually does better than other POD services), and in the UK literally no-one is currently offering any of it on streaming, even though 5 years ago, IIRC, it was all on some service or another. Anyway, I'm maundering on but my point is I think that this particular aspect might be being underestimated at the moment.</p><p></p><p>Re: sports - yeah that definitely is a huge driver for a lot of people, but I feel utterly unqualified to comment on the issue, because I'm<em> just not that into it</em>. It's weird - I'm not a "sportsball lol"-type person at all, I don't mock or disparage these games or people who like them, on the contrary, I quite enjoy watching team sports when I'm actually watching them <em>with other people</em> and can temporarily get quite into them (I also love knowing about the histories and weirdnesses of various team sports), but under my own power I would literally never seek out any of them and don't follow any of them, and am slightly amazed (again, not in a judging way, just surprised) by just how much some people will pay to watch them live.</p><p></p><p>EDIT - Re: FAST, I do wonder if some streaming services should consider a model a bit more like those of paywalled newspapers, i.e. you can watch 2 episodes per month (and movies are entirely behind the paywall) without paying or entering into some formal contract, but it says "please subscribe to view more" after that. This is just spitballing and I'm not sure how practical it would be, especially given how many hyped shows actually kind of suck - and it might be just too easy to evade - but it feels like there's another model out there. The question will any streaming service be willing to try it? We are kind of seeing a bit of this with certain shows putting their first episode or two on YouTube or whatever.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 9186438, member: 18"] [USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] first off thanks for the thoughtful and in-depth response! Honestly I tend to think it's more likely to be something like this 15 years from now than the shakeout you suggest. Not because that shakeout is inherently unreasonable - it definitely isn't, it's logical, even, and it's kind of already happening to some extent - but it's a sort of a projection of unchanging technology and culture, and nigh-infinite acceptance of FAST or low-cost AST (LCAST?), and whilst I'm obviously not an industry analyst (though they don't have a great record here), my impression is that it would be very easy for FAST/LCAST reach levels where everyone willing to watch that is watching it, and everyone else has pissed off to other forms of entertainment. I think a lot of the push in that direction is the realization by streamers that that can actually be more profitable than "honest subscriptions" (a partisan term but for want of a better one), for example as you pointed out Netflix ad-supported sub is more profitable than the actual lowest cost sub. I'm skeptical how much of it is audience demand/desire. I notice that with UK FAST services, a lot of why people watch them is because they have shows that aren't available on paid streamers and/or even POD - so exclusivity is the driver, not being free (being free obviously negates the cost-of-entry barrier). I mean, there was a view, and I don't think an entirely inaccurate view that TV was kind of on the way out as entertainment before the rise of streaming, and I think it would be very easy for many streaming companies, in the rush to maximally please shareholders, to create a situation where TV was increasingly less favoured as a mode of entertainment. It does have far, far more serious competition for entertainment, including passively watched entertainment than it did, say, 15 years ago. We joke about returning to the cable era, but you know what I remember the latter part of that era? People increasingly dropping or reducing cable/satellite TV (satellite was bigger in the UK and a lot of the world, but essentially similar to cable in real functionality), before streaming services really became a thing. And I could easily see the streamers painting themselves into the same sort of corner. POD I really hope you're right about expanding, because right now it's absolute crap. If a show isn't a on a streamer, and never was, the odds are extremely good it's also not on POD. In many cases even if it was, it's simply not legally available anywhere! An awful lot of movies from before 2005-ish aren't available either, particularly non-English-language ones - absolutely including some famous ones by famous directors, which just blows my mind. Money is being left on tables, and I don't think it's even small amounts. I'd love to see the residuals model improve for everyone, but sadly I suspect that's unlikely with both streamers and Hollywood being rather silly about the situation. That said, given how Spotify operates, I'm not surprised both sides are leery. Oh my god. Well I guess even Apple can't win 'em all! A terrible show on every possible level (particularly the conceptual) except visually, where it was rather attractive in a certain muted way. Not as big of a miss as Invasion, which the winner of "show most inexplicably getting a second season" this year. I do wonder if this assumption is in the process of changing, because absolutely that was my assumption and I think almost everyone's assumption a few years ago, but it seems to be increasingly challenged by the reality of streaming services! What it seems like - and this is feeling not fact - at least from a UK perspective, is that after various "new contenders" like Paramount+ arrived, fewer old shows are actually available on[I] any [/I]streaming service or POD, rather than more, especially as belts are tightened and less watched shows cut. There is definitely phenomenon where, if you know something is available and thus "safe" you might not bother subscribing right now, but equally sometimes you just want to watch some stupid old Law & Order episodes, and you don't want to pay like £12 for each season (even though, realistically, you might be paying about that to a streamer you were watching it on, depending on how fast you were going - also you can't even get all the seasons, not even from Amazon POD, which usually does better than other POD services), and in the UK literally no-one is currently offering any of it on streaming, even though 5 years ago, IIRC, it was all on some service or another. Anyway, I'm maundering on but my point is I think that this particular aspect might be being underestimated at the moment. Re: sports - yeah that definitely is a huge driver for a lot of people, but I feel utterly unqualified to comment on the issue, because I'm[I] just not that into it[/I]. It's weird - I'm not a "sportsball lol"-type person at all, I don't mock or disparage these games or people who like them, on the contrary, I quite enjoy watching team sports when I'm actually watching them [I]with other people[/I] and can temporarily get quite into them (I also love knowing about the histories and weirdnesses of various team sports), but under my own power I would literally never seek out any of them and don't follow any of them, and am slightly amazed (again, not in a judging way, just surprised) by just how much some people will pay to watch them live. EDIT - Re: FAST, I do wonder if some streaming services should consider a model a bit more like those of paywalled newspapers, i.e. you can watch 2 episodes per month (and movies are entirely behind the paywall) without paying or entering into some formal contract, but it says "please subscribe to view more" after that. This is just spitballing and I'm not sure how practical it would be, especially given how many hyped shows actually kind of suck - and it might be just too easy to evade - but it feels like there's another model out there. The question will any streaming service be willing to try it? We are kind of seeing a bit of this with certain shows putting their first episode or two on YouTube or whatever. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Geek Talk & Media
Strike Ending & Amazon Antitrust - Streaming Services: Power Rankings, FALL 2023
Top