MudMan

I am honestly not super sure about this strategy of buying your way into being a major publisher by vacuuming up IP nobody else was bidding for. What did they think would happen? Did they think the old majors were leaving a ton of money on the table and then realized too late that these really weren't that profitable? Or was it just a bid that the low interest rates would last forever and the portfolion would just pay for itself if they bundled it large enough?

I don't know what the business plan was meant to be, and it's kinda killing me that I don't fully grasp it.

The only one remotely close to being a hit was the first reboot. I guess it depends on whether you count the "I can't believe it's not Deus Ex" franchises they kept spinning up for a while. The first Dishonored probably did very well.

US politics, often on both ends, semi-purposefully failing to acknowledge the difference between social democrats and socialists is both weirdly sticky and frankly makes it very hard to talk about politics with them at all.

Social democrats in places where this is not the case are so often considered borderline neoliberal, centrist traitors by communists and other far left people, and the distinction between liberalism and social democracy is seen as more a matter of nuance than between social democracy and communism.

Although I guess that's changing because American fascists exported their playbook and now conservatives all over the world talk about "freedom" and push anarchocapitalist ideas they've copy-pasted from the mothership, so if anything everybody else is drifting towards this nonsense now.

I mean, yeah, turns out that when you are in a quasi monopolistic position in many different markets and you get to decide the rules for all of your competitors you can absolutely integrate your "ecosystem" very smoothly. Go figure.

Their stubbornness on this makes the software/hardware divide the most obvious and a good place to start. Right now they're keeping the hardware hostage to benefit first party software and exclude everyone else's. That clearly has to change.

Well, tough luck. Should have been better at their jobs, then. They sure make enough money to expect them to be.

It's not just the marketing, though, it's the non-enforcement. "Cracking down" is only a thing if you weren't cracking down before. If you allow the practice and then you don't, you've downgraded the service.

Now, if capitalism didn't suck and technocapitalism wasn't fundamentally broken, the way this would work is you'd pay per screen and it wouldn't matter where or when those screens are used. After all, the service itself has costs related to buying media, storing media and sending media over the Internet. One screen is one data stream is one payment stream. Makes sense.

But that's not the idea. That was never the idea. The idea of tech start ups is that they'll disrupt an old established business by losing money on purpose to grow very fast to a position of quasi-monopoly, then squeeze the newly captive audience for as much as possible. That's what Netflix was trying to do, we're all adults here, it's not a secret.

What I'm saying is my fuse is super short on that one and I won't play that game for too long. Which is why I'm here instead of Reddit, in Mastodon instead of Twitter and in the process of buying a bunch of 4K Blu Rays. I'm not gonna tell people how to live their lives, but I'd argue that both Netflix and the Internet at large would suck much less if I wasn't in a very slim minority.

No, it wasn't. They were VERY glad to suggest that password sharing was a feature, not a bug, while they were trying to drive cable TV out of business and establish a leadership position against other streaming services. They also allow you to watch on multiple screens, download files to watch offline on the go and, crucially, actively provide discounted accounts to watch on multiple locations even after reneging on the promises they made during the user acquisition stage. Nothing they do is consistent with the service being tied to households instead of accounts except trying to charge you extra for it. Hey, I know that tech start ups will eventually try to pee on me, but don't come here to tell me it's raining.

So I say again, Netflix doesn't get to arbitrarily limit tech and back out of features just because they engaged in a suicidal business model in the pursuit of endless growth, and they don't get to redefine my social relationships for me. I am the client here, and I get to say when their offer has enshittified enough that I no longer want it.

For now, I don't want their overpriced premium tier anymore. It's back to UHD BR for me if I want something to look shiny. And the moment they try to enforce their dumb password sharing rule I'm out entirely. I feel zero remorse or sense that I'm taking advantage of them for this. If anything, they are the ones "breaking things", so they have the responsibility to fix them.

Hey, I wasn't the one who switched the system to a username and passwod authorization. My "household" isn't defined by the physical location anymore than their account system is. Friends and family groups don't work however Netflix wants them to work for monetization purposes. There are blood relations who don't sleep under the same roof but hang out daily. There are friend groups that share a roof. There are couples who spend weeks at a time apart but still live together.

It's not my fault that Netflix borked the business model and then tried to walk it back once it lured everybody else to a profit dark hole. I'm not gonna change how my social relationships work for the sake of them having a neat revenue stream with no gray areas.

So no, PW sharing is fine, period, that's what concurrent screen limits are for. What constitutes a "household" is not for Netflix to define, and I have a social group where some expenses just float around in limbo without a clear attribution or distinction between payers and users. Welcome to existing in real life and having zero time to worry about enshittified late captialist terminally online bullshit, honestly.

Again, you're looking at it wrong. Or weird, at least. It's like asking why I'd be mad that the brand of cookies a member of my family eats gets a price hike if I don't like them myself. They're still in my shopping cart every week.

I don't have a concept of a "primary sub holder". It's stuff a group of people gets for the group, and who is paying for which specific parts of the fixed expenses is lost to the mists of time.

I get that US and anglo cultures in general are less collectivist, but this seems more extreme than that. Surely the concept of a close-knit group of people sharing costs without much precise bookkeeping is not completely alien to you. Do you split grocery shopping with the rest of your household? I mean, I did that when I was sharing an apartment during university, so maybe it's an age thing?

I make a living off of media creation and have for over twenty years, across multiple mediums and in different capacities. Some of the stuff I've worked on has been DRMd and some has not.

The financial benefit coming my way has not been dependent on DRM at any point to any extent I can discern. You want to impact "the right to financially benefit from their creations"? Fix the fact that companies can just hire a creator to work for hire and own all their output in perpetuity with no requirement for additional compensation and indeed no IP rights staying with the people doing the actual work.

If you're gonna high horse me with the morality of financially compensating creators you better be talking about the actual creators, not the corporations keeping the bulk of the revenue.

You are overestimating how much we're willing to think or talk about this. It may be a cultural thing or a socioeconomic thing, but with media subs being a thing for decades there's a blob of people where some have each other's subs, different people are paying for different subs and there are different shares and accesses floating around. Some of the subs come from cable bundles, even.

I'm pretty sure in the extended friends and family group there are multiple bundled subs for some of the same services, some of which may not even be in use because devices are grandfathered into the first one that got acquired.

We really aren't putting that much collective attention into this problem. People just watch what they have. When a show isn't in a service the group has access to it just gets ignored. I'm easily the most engaged in the whole thing and even I don't care that much. So that explains why I'd be making decisions about which tier of Netflix is being paid. I am the one who has paid access to that one, and I'm the one engaged enough to have an opinion. At one point I told the group that Netflix had hiked prices and I had downgraded to the 1080p tier with two screens, in case we hit the screen limit or the location restrictions. Everybody just shrugged, said "eff Netflix" and moved on with their lives. We've never hit the limits or been flagged for password sharing.

With music it gets weirder because for some reason we've all accepted that anybody can just upload music to Youtube as long as they're fine with whoever owns the rights reclaiming the ad revenue, which is very weird.

But in any case I think the value calculation gets a bit weird for a number of reasons. TV was indeed overpriced in physical media, but movies were a different story. It's gonna depend on your consumption habits, but I can tell you there's no way my average viewing on each of the services I pay for at 15 bucks a pop (not ten anymore on any of them, unless you're ok with also watching ads) is anywhere close to one movie or five episodes on average. Across the whole lot, maybe, for each individual one? Probably not. Across the whole household... maybe.

Second, a lot of the media consumption was not made physically at the time, either, TV was a thing (and depending on the time period a source of home recordings, which are also fair game). But then those options haven't been technically removed, I guess, so... I don't know, it's hard to calculate.

Which I guess is part of why these services are so resilient. It's hard to figure out if you're over or underpaying relative to the alternatives, and since there's no way to grasp the core cost or value of what you're getting intuitively it's hard to understand if they're priced reasonably, either. Netflix was doing this at a loss in that "disruptor start up" style that broke the 2010s that who knows what entertainment should cost at this point.

Well, no. I was happily buying my games on discs and cartridges and my movies on DVDs and tapes and my music in CDs. If they're going to swing around, tell me I'm buying digital licenses and I can no longer do the legal things I used to do it's them who owe an explanation.

I have no idea why you feel the need to shill so hard for these things, but it's clearly not sticking. You're putting the onus on the customer and, as a customer I get to just say "no, screw you" and keep buying physical media instead. It's a shame that more people don't, but it's pretty obvious that having them take over my computer to limit what I do with my purchases is damaging to me, and I don't have to like it because you say so.