Streaming services good for actors/directors/composers.. what about the viewers?

[ps3bd_owner]

Thanks to multiple streaming services actors/actresses, directors, producers, composers, and so on are hired for shows and movies which theoretically both sides should rejoice, but what do you reckon?

I'd suppose switching streaming services around wouldn't break the bank while being subbed yearly to all, that would be an expensive option for some folks.

[Moviefan2k4]

I don't really have much interest in any streaming service. My reasoning is simple: I don't trust the studios to suddenly change their minds, and remove things I've purchased to watch. That's why I'm all for physical media, and will be for the forseeable future.

[unberechenbar]

Personally I'm not interested in any straight-to-streaming movies unless they get a physical release and don't care for series either so I don't subscribe to any. If I really want something I'll buy it physically.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I don't really have much interest in any streaming service. My reasoning is simple: I don't trust the studios to suddenly change their minds, and remove things I've purchased to watch. That's why I'm all for physical media, and will be for the forseeable future.

That's my stance as well. I only watch movies and TV shows (and play video games and listen to music) on physical media because with streaming, downloads, and broadcasts content can be removed or modified at any time.

[kuzronk]

Streaming is cheaper than psychical media is.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by kuzronk

Streaming is cheaper than psychical media is.

Usually, but with physical media you have the assurance that your films and TV shows will still play years from now...provided of course, that you took proper care of them. And like I already stated, the studios can't take the physical copies away from you.

[SilverFox84]

Apart from sub $2-3 games on Steam, I don't think I have ever bought anything digitally ever, not even music. I'd only ever buy physical media of something I want.

[steve_dave]

Why does the mere mention of subscription or digital just brings out the members who want to start a digital vs physical debate?

That is not the point of this thread and doing so is hijacking the thread.

On topic:

I see it as when television used to have epic mini-series with major stars in the late 1900s. It gave people a reason to tune in and watch the network. Netflix Studios getting Sandra Bullock or Denzel Washington in an exclusive AppleTV+ film just helps fuel competition.

Not everyone subscribes to everything but if you want to watch Black Monday then subscribing to Showtime at $9.99 can be cheaper and easier than adding it to your cable/satellite/IPTV provider. The on demand streaming for Showtime also includes 4K and HDR/Dolby Vision. And almost all subscription services are contract free, so leaving after watching what you wanted is easy.

[veritas]

Originally Posted by kuzronk

Streaming is cheaper than psychical media is.

It depends. My disney collection cost me a negative amount of money because I bought stuff that left the vault and sold stuff in the vault overtime. Physical media can be done quite cheaply and it doesn't incur a monthly cost like streaming.

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I don't really have much interest in any streaming service. My reasoning is simple: I don't trust the studios to suddenly change their minds, and remove things I've purchased to watch. That's why I'm all for physical media, and will be for the forseeable future.

+1,000. If you own it they can’t screw with it. It can’t be pulled from the service, they can’t change the characters, and they can’t add or remove things to eh hem "placate" whiners. Excellent.

Look, streaming has a place and we use a few of the services. It’s a nice addition to my viewing arsenal but physical media is king.

[critterdvd]

My main streamer is the Criterion Channel. They have a lot of very hard to find/expensive to buy stuff

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by steve_dave

Why does the mere mention of subscription or digital just brings out the members who want to start a digital vs physical debate?

That is not the point of this thread and doing so is hijacking the thread.

The OP asked if streaming services are good for viewers. We are simply saying why they aren't good for viewers by stating their shortcomings.

[ps3bd_owner]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The OP asked if streaming services are good for viewers. We are simply saying why they aren't good for viewers by stating their shortcomings.

Yeah, just seems there's no perfect solution of a TV package replacement. Netflix was supposed to be an all-in-one package, but they're constantly losing content to other networks.

At least with paid streaming services there are no ads unlike TV.

[Cornelius Analog]

My viewpoint is that streaming services are good for the viewer. And when I mean the viewer, I'm talking about me and my own experience with it.

There are a lot of competing streaming services these days and I see that as a good thing. There is a lot of money being spent producing all sorts of content on the various services. There is a lot of crap being made for sure, but there is also some good stuff.

There are some good series that I've seen that would otherwise not have existed and never been made if it weren't for streaming services.

I don't mind that there are so many competing today, survival of the fittest.

[Warm Gun]

Originally Posted by kuzronk

Streaming is cheaper than psychical media is.

Been watching Married with Children for about ten months now. DVDs costed 31 dollars with tax and shipping. If I watched it on Hulu with ads, I would have paid 70 dollars already (7 dollars times 10 months). You have to watch A LOT in order to make the subs cheaper, and if you ever want to watch it again, you pay all over again. I like being able to take my time. Got plenty else I wanna do.

[ticTACsnitch]

Originally Posted by unberechenbar

Personally I'm not interested in any straight-to-streaming movies unless they get a physical release and don't care for series either so I don't subscribe to any. If I really want something I'll buy it physically.

You're missing out on some really, really great stuff. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say that the greater share of the best of TV is on streaming currently. Just look at the all the top threads in this sub forum.

[ticTACsnitch]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Been watching Married with Children for about ten months now. DVDs costed 31 dollars with tax and shipping. If I watched it on Hulu with ads, I would have paid 70 dollars already (7 dollars times 10 months). You have to watch A LOT in order to make the subs cheaper, and if you ever want to watch it again, you pay all over again. I like being able to take my time. Got plenty else I wanna do.

That's why you sign up for their BF deal.

[steve_dave]

Originally Posted by Warm Gun

Been watching Married with Children for about ten months now. DVDs costed 31 dollars with tax and shipping. If I watched it on Hulu with ads, I would have paid 70 dollars already (7 dollars times 10 months). You have to watch A LOT in order to make the subs cheaper, and if you ever want to watch it again, you pay all over again. I like being able to take my time. Got plenty else I wanna do.

You don’t have to watch a lot at all…

$20.00/month Disney Bundle: Disney+, ESPN+, Hulu+ (No ads).

Watch 1 movie on Disney+ not currently available on physical video along with a a season of a Hulu Original. Now add in a 30 For 30 documentary.

3 items already make the twenty dollars worth it plus the ability to watch shows you missed next day on Hulu for most networks.

[bladerunner6]

Originally Posted by veritas

It depends. My disney collection cost me a negative amount of money because I bought stuff that left the vault and sold stuff in the vault overtime. Physical media can be done quite cheaply and it doesn't incur a monthly cost like streaming.

That is very true.

I have bought 200 CDs over the last 30 years at probably something like an average cost of $6 each. That is $1200.

30 years of streaming would cost $3600 at $10 a month.

Yes I am talking about music but it does illustrate the point.

[bladerunner6]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The OP asked if streaming services are good for viewers. We are simply saying why they aren't good for viewers by stating their shortcomings.

Streaming services don’t exist to benefit us as viewers. They exist to extract money from us on a regular basis for the rest of our lives.

Regular, automatic investing like 401K’s are a great way to make money. The converse of that is that spending each month for the rest of your life $70 on video streaming, $10 on audio streaming, $10 on an Adobe subscription, $79 on a top of the line cell phone and $575 for a car loan is a way to impoverish yourself.

BTW, the above numbers are based on really values.