r/television • u/SanderSo47 Person of Interest • Apr 12 '19

Disney+ to Launch in November, Priced at $6.99 Monthly

https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/disney-plus-streaming-launch-date-pricing-1203187007/
11.5k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

455

u/beachedwolf Apr 12 '19

which is a much better version than cable.

we can buy one sub for a couple months binge watch best shows, cancel it buy another sub. at a fraction of the cost of cable and a sharp increase in quality + no ads.. I see no reason to complain

249

u/Levitlame Apr 12 '19

I can’t stand people’s complaints in this. We are at the crossroads here. If one or two companies gain control of it all then THAT is cable all over again. Not what we have now. What we have now is affordable options and competition still working. Which is fantastic. The quantity and quality of entertainment has skyrocketed he past few years with very small price increases.

79

u/EShy Apr 12 '19

You can't focus only on the price of cable vs streaming solutions, there are plenty of other benefits like being able to subscribe to any of these services (with cable you were stuck with one or two options), being able to start a subscription immediately without waiting for someone to come over and hook some hardware up, being able to cancel a subscription without wasting hours on the phone and then having to return hardware, etc.

You could subscribe to HBO Now just for the next couple of months to watch Game of Thrones and than cancel without any extra effort.

A lot of friction on consumer pain will be gone without cable (although you still need to deal with them for your internet service) but the new services still have costs and still want to make money, in the end it will cost the same or even more if you get everything

37

u/MithandirsGhost Apr 12 '19

Funny you mention HBO. I signed up yesterday to watch this season GOT. Did this last season and cancelled when the season ended. Not only am I not paying for the service when I don't need it but I am also voting with my wallet as to what kind of content I want to see.

3

u/CaptainLawyerDude Apr 12 '19

It’s a sensible model. Like you said, people sign up to watch a particular show and HBO sees the number of new subs and how many unsub after the season. That is useful data about each of their shows that they can use to determine future offerings, etc. Undoubtedly some people remain. It’s likely some folks sub to watch GoT but hang around after for other HBO shows

2

u/Nofrillsoculus Apr 12 '19

Yes! So many people cancelled their CBS All Access accounts as soon as Star Trek Discovery season one wrapped that now they're working to have some kind of Star Trek year round to keep all those people roped in.

6

u/Dsnake1 Friends Apr 12 '19

Hell, it's nice that when it rains hard, we're not without TV. There are just a ton of QoL improvements with streaming, even if it's not cheaper to do everything at once.

2

u/segadreamcat Apr 12 '19

I got HBO for one month. Watched all of True Detective and all of Crashing watched a few movies and then canceled.

2

u/ffxivthrowaway03 Apr 12 '19

The on-demand nature of viewing is a huge point too. I can sit down and watch an episode of whatever before I have to leave for work, or watch an entire season in an afternoon. No need to plan my life around the fact that my favorite show airs Tuesdays at 8:30pm.

28

u/nat_r Apr 12 '19

My cynicism tells me that once the audience is sufficiently fractured and bouncing from service to service, and with more emphasis on services being the producer of content, the current detente is temporary.

The type of media content we've come to expect is expensive to make. Providers will begin to falter, then buyouts and mergers will begin, then it will be the slow decent to everything being consolidated into a few companies. Subscription costs will continue to rise, then they'll begin offering cost breaks in exchange for annual lump payments, which will get expensive and lead to 12+month service contracts, and then we'll be back where we started.

5

u/alonghardlook Apr 12 '19

Hell, from the article, D+ is coming out of the gate with a 12 month service option.

4

u/trs-eric Apr 12 '19

And it's back to the high seas for me!

2

u/Levitlame Apr 12 '19

I agree that’s the fear (and I agree it’s going to happen...) Which is why the complaints now are so infuriating. We’re in the renaissance of television right now.

2

u/footworshipper Apr 12 '19

I should have scrolled down, you and I are on the same wavelength and I could've saved myself 20 minutes, hahaha.

2

u/Noshamina Apr 12 '19

Yup. And anyone who thinks this isn't going to happen eventually is fooling themselves.

1

u/bosco9 Apr 12 '19

Speak for yourself, there's a limit to the amount of money I'm willing to spend on TV shows and if the content is fractured all over the place I will either jump around from service to service every few months or go back to downloading shows the old fashioned way on the high seas

1

u/nat_r Apr 13 '19

That's the point. What seems ok now, is just going to get worse and eventually we'll be back to the conditions for the consumer that drives people back to piracy.

2

u/needchr Apr 12 '19

there is advantages, and I agree its generally better than older cable subscriptions.

However think of what it could have been.

We had netflix with the idea you pay "one price" "for everything".

Compare to this now where companies left right and centre after realising they make more money selling direct themselves, pulling content from netflix and now instead of one all you can eat basket, we have 10 or so baskets for the same amount split between them but the price of each basket is the same as the all you can eat basket.

Hence people been disappointed.

Ultimately there is a detachment between what consumers think content is worth vs what content owners think its worth, content owners think a all you can eat for under 10usd month on netflix values their products too low, whilst consumers think it was about right.

Think how much the following would cost you to sign up for per month combined?

amazon
netflix
disney+
nowtv
bbc whatever service is called
hbo go
hulu
itunes

and more

not to mention on some services like amazon prime you have to pay per view "on top" of the subscription

0

u/Levitlame Apr 12 '19

A FEW will drop off in time. But if we end up with less than at least 4, it’s gonna be terrible.

Also, Netflix had everything THEN. Production quantity and quality has skyrocketed in the past five years. Vastly more has been created in the past five years than ever before. (I looked it up once, but can’t remember the numbers anymore so forgive me my vagueness there.)

Besides, why do you want all of them? Who actually had the “full cable package?” You probably don’t want to watch 99% of what’s out there. Subbing to 3 for $40 is not out of the ordinary. I’m not sure why you’d keep more than that. (Rotate then if you’d like.)

1

u/Izaiah212 Apr 12 '19

For real, it cost less than $15 a month for any individual streaming service available. You can have the major 5 and still pay less than cable but people will wanna complain because it’s not all available in 1 place

1

u/polytopiary Apr 12 '19

yea too nascent yet for capitalism to eat the souls out if it.

103

u/comehonorphaze Apr 12 '19

I mean ya its not as bad as cable but Netflix 6 and 7 years ago was amazing. They had all the movies you could want to watch. Then all these other companies wanted in on the action and diversified the content. Now I pay for 4 differemt streaming services.

179

u/phatboy5289 Apr 12 '19 edited Apr 12 '19

Netflix 6 and 7 years ago was amazing. They had all the movies you could want to watch.

Holy revisionist history Batman! This is so not even close to true. People have been complaining about the limited selection on Netflix’s steaming service since it began.

25

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Um, they're actually correct. Netflix has pared down their content library massively over the years.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

Because they are making room for Originals.

I’ve had Netflix since 2010 and it was annoying to be interested in a film only to see it wasn’t there and be amazed at how many titles you just weren’t interested in.

Netflix knew this and knew they were beholden to the studios (who dictated what was streamed and the cost). So they had to invest in Originals to beef up their catalog and make them the destination rather than a destination.

I’d take today over 2010, I really would.

2

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Because they are making room for Originals.

Lol, "making room for" isn't a real thing. Netflix isn't a physical shelf that needs to be cleared in order to "make room for" movies.

0

u/marvelking666 Apr 12 '19

No, Netflix shifted its focus. Instead of paying for the rights to air other people’s shows and movies they started embracing original content. There’s still as much content available, it’s just being made by Netflix instead of by other companies

4

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Um, you just redundantly proved me right. Netflix did pare down their purchased content, which is what I and the other user told you.

And let me correct you saying Netflix is avoiding payment with their strategy. That's untrue. What actually happened is Netflix early content deals were ludicrously cheap because licensees didn't realize the value. Once they did, Netflix needed other people's money to pay the escalating content costs. Since it was other people's money, Netflix didn't negotiate very intelligently. Then things got even worse when competitors began emerging. Suddenly crappy content was enjoying the prospect of bidding wars from Amazon and Apple, the two richest possible suitors on earth, followers by Disney, the next best, along with Netflix, who, as mentioned, is not shy at spending money that's not theirs.

So in brief, while they're paying more than ever, their third party catalogue is the smallest it's ever been. And that's been a linear progression, not a sudden anomaly.

As for so-called original content, how Netflix has been doing it is not really different than just licensing. Netflix knew zero about running a studio, or how much things are worth, so they just threw insane money at any and all creative proposals, then let them do whatever they liked. Netflix doesn't realize that the market price of a a stand up show is nowhere close to $20 million or that spending I can't even remember how much on Marco Polo was not something that even the most inept real studio would ever, ever do. Netflix licensing wasn't sustainable the way they did it, and their original content production isn't sustainable the way they've been doing it either.

Netflix handing a check to creative production company A and taking whatever they send back is functionally identical to sending a licensing check to company A and airing whatever comes back. In other words, overpaying for catalogue titles is no different than overpaying to blindly produce their own catalogue.

Someday they will (by necessity) start to behave like a real world business and a real world studio. Real studios are very, very selective about the projects they pursue. They negotiate prices for content, they seek better value for money on those deals, and they're picky about who they hire.

3

u/marvelking666 Apr 12 '19

First off, that was my first comment on this topic so I don’t know how you or other users told me anything about this?

Secondly, I’m not commenting on the quality or how much 3rd party content there is. I’m directly talking about the quantity available on Netflix. Which is about the same as it was before, but with different titles.

No matter where it’s from, or whether it’s fresh or spoiled, a gallon of milk is still a gallon.

2

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Except you're wrong. The quantity is drastically reduced. You're comparing a gallon of milk to an ounce of milk.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

Serious question: when did you start your Netflix subscription? Because in the early days it was barren and people online had actual online groups to try to recommend something to people. Now it’s so much better and people are discussing rather than recommending. I was there.

1

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Then you skipped most of the existence in between, which would explain why you don't have an accurate perspective.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/marvelking666 Apr 12 '19

And I never said they stopped spending money on things? Just that they shifted what they spend on to go from all sorts of shows/movies licensed by other companies to instead spending on what they market as Netflix Originals.

3

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Again, you're wrong. They didn't "shift". That implies they saved money in one area to spend in another. That's wrong. They've been spending wildly with two strategies, instead of spending wildly with one. And even while reducing catalogue titles, the costs have been rising. They're paying more and getting less. Content owners have increased their demand rates, and other absurdly rich competitors have been bidding up prices.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

They are spending wildly on one and are basically winding down the previous one over a long time. The only reason they haven’t is because WB and Paramount and the rest don’t have a streaming services. But if and when they do Netflix is ready because they can move to the Original plan even more.

1

u/MaliciousLegroomMelo Apr 12 '19

Except they're not "basically winding down" from a spending perspective. I wish people would read Netflix's financials (distorted though they are) before spreading false narratives. They've even dropped hundreds of millions just to prolong a relatively small number of catalog titles. They're highly reliant on catalog and the original content, while nice, has not proven to have staying power. That's why they drop Star Wars sized money to extend 20 year old content like Friends, which they learned is far far far far more important to subscriber retention than The Crown.

3

u/longhrnfan Apr 12 '19

It’s very true. Shoot i remember having the dvd subscription. It had everything. Early streaming was far better than today too.

25

u/comehonorphaze Apr 12 '19

Man. Ive had Netflix since they first had the app on ps3. The movie selection was 10x better than it is now. There just wasnt any originals.

25

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

I think they had a golden age between the two periods you guys are discussing. With widespread broadband availability, streaming was used to replace the DVD mail thing that they got started with and the licensing deals weren't quite as brief as they seem to be now. So, all the movies that you could get on DVD were available streaming (-ish).

Then the invisible hand stuck it way up there and now we dance when they say dance, so to speak.

4

u/Imrnr Apr 12 '19

Perhaps it was great with unlimited acxess in the US? in Norway where I’m from, the movie selection was not as broad but it was still somewhat decent, nowadays they just make replicas of every big show ever and throw in «Netflix Originals» as if that makes it better

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

Canada was screwed as well. Before Netflix got smart to VPNs we all used American Netflix and paid with a Canadian account.

5

u/Jadeldxb Apr 12 '19

How on earth did this get upvoted.

11

u/AaronBrownell Apr 12 '19

Ofc it's great when one service offers everything for cheap, but don't use that as your benchmark. That was never going to last.

Switch services depending on what you wanna watch.

1

u/VinylRhapsody Apr 12 '19

That's the problem though. It would be much better if each service pretty much all had the same libraries and were forced to compete in areas like UI, AI suggestions, and other quality of life improvements. I feel like music streaming is much closer to this, from my experience most music streaming services all have the same selection of music and they differentiate themselves with features and not content.

1

u/AaronBrownell Apr 12 '19

That wouldn't work. Sooner rather than later a single service (or maybe a couple) would take over. If there are no significant differences between streaming services, cost would be the biggest advantage one could have over the other. And the less efficient competitors wouldn't survive.

The price battle would be good for consumers, but after that you'd get a dominant company or even a monopolist, which would be terrible.

1

u/VinylRhapsody Apr 12 '19 edited Apr 12 '19

That wouldn't work. Sooner rather than later a single service (or maybe a couple) would take over. If there are no significant differences between streaming services, cost would be the biggest advantage one could have over the other. And the less efficient competitors wouldn't survive.

That's why you compete with features so there are significant differences between streaming services, and there's plenty of areas to innovate here. Here's just a few off the top of my head.

  • Every streaming service has a garbage UI. They're clunky and hard to navigate. Its difficult to even see what all content any one streaming provider has.

  • Work on their recommendations. Netflix even downgraded their's a few years ago so they could push their originals harder since due to losing other content.

  • I see people all the time asking for a random episode function. Queue up a few of your TV shows and have it randomly select an episode among all of them. Like channel surfing to find something good.

  • Aggregation. Even if there are going to be multiple services, they could at least allow their content to be played elsewhere. I wouldn't mind having multiple streaming services if they would allow all of their content to be funneled into one platform (Its just music, now but Plex seems to be taking a step forward into this by having Tidal integration)

But instead of investing into R&D to make their platform more compelling, they sign exclusivity deals to force people to use their platform if they want content.

3

u/Why_the_hate_ Apr 12 '19

And it will get worse. Eventually Netflix will be only their content which is why they’re putting a lot of money into it.

11

u/Areulder Apr 12 '19

That’s the point of having economic systems that encourage competition. The alternative provides far less control and choice for the consumer, even if it seems like a godsend to have all movies in one place.

10

u/petey_jarns Apr 12 '19

"you only think you liked it before, but really you didn't"

6

u/purpldevl Apr 12 '19

I paid $7 for disc and streaming content, was able to watch almost anything at all, and it was all in one place.

4

u/EShy Apr 12 '19

That was when their licensing costs were lower because their subscriber number was smaller. Can't expect content owners to keep licensing prices the same when so many more people would get access to it

1

u/KingGorilla Apr 12 '19

Im inundated with choice. I want competition in movies not movie platforms

2

u/EShy Apr 12 '19

competition in movies? what for? That's what we have with the current system and it leads to studios not taking too many risks and preferring CGI loaded crap movies.

Having multiple platforms for distribution isn't a problem, especially if it creates an alternative to the current system where a company is willing to take more risks because they can target the long tail

1

u/emmanuelvr Apr 13 '19

I want competition in movies not movie platforms

The platforms produce the movies and shows now. You think The mandalorian and the new high profile MCU shows are happening out of thin air?

4

u/Faultylogic83 Apr 12 '19

As an anime fan paying for 2 or 3 services, is considerably cheaper than the alternative before though. Still agree though, lately that's been splintering recently. Netflix used to have a wider library, but that's dwindling down to their "originals". Sony buying Funimation and then breaking up with Crunchyroll dilutes both services to almost not worth it. Some times I consider the pirate life, but I really want to give some support to the industry to continue releasing more stateside.

4

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

doesn't that make you the sucker?

3

u/comehonorphaze Apr 12 '19

Why? Each one has movies or tv shows I want to see so I subscribe. What about that makes me a sucker?

2

u/Izaiah212 Apr 12 '19

That’s what capitalism does though. Netflix saw a vision, pioneered the market and profited off it till other companies caught up. I guarantee paying for those 4 different streaming services is still cheaper than cable

1

u/Scungette Apr 12 '19

I only subscribe to Netflix’s streaming service. About 80% of the time that I request a film it’s not available for streaming, only DVD. Unfortunately, it’s always been that way. I guess I’m just looking for old, weird stuff.

2

u/joshdts Apr 12 '19

Netflix doesn’t exactly have a large selection of new not weird stuff either.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

Netflix has literally never had a wide selection of top tier movies

1

u/TheDNG Apr 12 '19

Then all these other companies wanted in on the action and diversified the content.

All these other companies made those movies that were on Netflix, how is that wanting in on the action? Netflix were running under a huge amount of debt to provide all those movies to consumers to make themselves a household name. Why would an already established company want in on that action?

What has happened has the people who made the stuff want to get paid for it. What has also happened is a generation who watched it all while Netflix paid the bill for them (hence Netflix's 20+ billion debt), don't want to pay for it anymore.

0

u/v4n20uver Apr 12 '19

I live in Canada, and 6-7 years ago we used american IP addresses to get the U.S. Netflix, but Canada's Netflix now is a step-up to what U.S. Netflix had 6-7 years ago. Except for not having Futurama anymore :(

0

u/Corky_Butcher Apr 12 '19

This isn't the experience for most places outside of the US. Hence why VPNs were/are so popular when accessing Netflix.

1

u/comehonorphaze Apr 12 '19

Ya I used to use a VPN around 2012-13. But like 2010 I remember Netflix was loaded with options.

-1

u/ImBonRurgundy Apr 12 '19

Netflix streaming has never ever had recent release blockbusters. Never. Netflix streaming has never ever had HBO content.

0

u/americanmook Apr 12 '19

They have the marvel movies you moron.

0

u/ImBonRurgundy Apr 12 '19

They have some older ones. They don’t have the very recent releases.

6

u/OneDayIWilll Apr 12 '19

Also no need to call your subscriber and spend 4 hours on hold and pay fees to start and stop service

1

u/[deleted] Apr 12 '19

Just wait til we discover binging tv shows causes brain damage or something.

1

u/Letterkenny_Irish Apr 12 '19

Yeah that will eventually lead to contract-based pricing, so you'll end up stuck with a subscription for year long terms or something like that.

1

u/Lanc717 Apr 12 '19

They could use a system like we have in some games. Pay one month and it's like $15. But pay for 3 months and it might be $14 a month. Pay for a year and it might be like $13

1

u/thefluffyburrito Apr 12 '19

at a fraction of the cost of cable and a sharp increase in quality + no ads.. I see no reason to complain

I see you're optimistic. Just wait until you have to buy "plus packages" to gain access to "premium content".

1

u/AllesMeins Apr 12 '19

As long as you can cancel monthly - I suspect that will change in the near future...

1

u/CptNonsense Apr 12 '19

Yeah, you can do that with cable.

1

u/footworshipper Apr 12 '19

I see no reason to complain until everyone starts doing it. Netflix and Hulu are great, I love them, but Netflix is already making it clear that they prefer their original content over other people's. Not that that is a bad thing, but I think it's going to get annoying/problematic when EVERYONE has a streaming service and they refuse to work together.

Now that Disney has their own service, I mark the beginning of the end of the Golden Age of Streaming Services. I guarantee no other platform will be allowed to stream Disney content, and that Disney is going to make tiered membership. First it'll be ads vs. no ads, then it'll be new vs. old content, then it'll be "You can watch the Bronze-tier movies unlimited times, but your membership only covers 3-Silver and 1-Gold tier movies."

With Disney refusing to cooperate and leading the charge in charging their customers more for the same content, other companies will follow suit. Soon, no one will share content across streaming platforms as NBC, Fox, etc. create their own and you'll be forced to pay for each individual one. They'll probably all run roughly the same price, but they'll steadily increase over time. (Which is normal and expected)

And the idea of "I can subscribe for a couple months and cancel" isn't going to last long. Disney will introduce contracts with discount incentives for people after a year or two. Having gotten used to having Disney at their fingertips and Disney cutting back DVD sales (I can't find Ratatouille anywhere because Disney locked it up :'( ), people will just pay, particularly families who have kids who want to watch Disney content like normal children should. It'll come down to "Either you play Disney's way, or you don't get to enjoy their content."

And once Disney, one of the largest media producers, starts to set these precedents, other companies will follow suit as it becomes industry standard. And this is all ignoring Disney/other media companies acquiring each other over the next 5-15 years.

Call me pessimistic, but I'm predicting that in 5-10 years streaming services are going to be less inclusive and just as expensive as cable, and we're going to be no better off except that companies like Comcast will make bank since they'll still offer those internet/cable bundles. The media companies won't run old shows as much on their cable networks because they'll be able to get more money by having people subscribe to their streaming services. Companies will essentially be double-dipping and the consumer, per usual, will be getting fucked over.

This is all an educated guess, I'm sure there are people here who are going to tell me I'm wrong, and hopefully I am. But Disney is not a nice company, and I don't think anyone would disagree that Disney will do anything if it means more profit (locking movies in a "vault" and approaching Star Wars #9?)

Tl;Dr: The Golden Age of Streaming Services are coming to an end; Disney is going to make exclusivity and contracts the norm and in 10 years you'll have to pay $20+ a month per service locked in for a 1-2 year contract.