>WB tries "DC Universe" streaming service
>it bombs
>WB tries "Max" streaming service
>it bombs
I get the impression people are tired of content being splintered across a million different streaming services and are just saying "frick it" to paying for them. We may be on the cusp of returning to the good old days of streaming, where the whole reason streaming got popular was because everything good could be found on one or two services. A ton of those companies license out their movies to those services and everyone is happy.
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
why are you moronic? why do you see a headline that agrees with your world view and just assume it is true? Max is the fifth most popular streaming service (this includes music streaming sites) of all time and was launched the most recently of the top 5: https://www.alltopeverything.com/most-popular-streaming-services/ and isn't bundled with other services like Amazon Prime
Hulu has like half of what they do and is worth 30 billion, you're moronic, like so fricking stupid
It's bundled with some ATT services.
The other ones come bundled too. Netflix is on t mobile. Paramount (gag) is on Walmart plus. Disney is bundled somewhere.
What is the context of "popular" in terms of actual subscriptions and views? Where are the subscribers numbers? Where are the viewer numbers? Why won't they tell us? Why do you trust SambaTV, when SambaTV doesn't have access to any of that information either? What's your Endgame for simping to corporations?
this is the correct answer. they're like dot com bubbles. they're rapidly trying to build up the infrastructure and networks with revenue tagging a decade behind.
it's not that surprising that Netflix is the only profitable service. they spent their decade squeezing profits from mailing DVDs out and acquiring cheap content.
> Streaming subscribers across WBD’s HBO, Max and Discovery+ now total 95.8 million, per the company’s Q2 earnings report
>isn't bundled with other services like Amazon Prime
I get a Max subscription with my cellphone service.
Yeah, I get it. Consumers don't want to pay for all that shit (and why should they), but money doesn't fricking grow on trees.
Oranges grow on tree. And guess what orange juice cost money
you can literally just watch anything for free on bflix and the interface is decent. no idea why normies pay for shit
>bflix
DC Universe was baffling
The weirdest thing is that they're reusing the name DC Universe for the reboot of their MCU knockoff film series. Seems like a ridiculously stupid business decision, people are going to mentally associate it with something that already failed hard.
Was it? It was actually kind of convenient to have a one-stop shop for all DC movies and shows.
Sounds redundant when they could just have a "DC universe" section on HBO max.
Which they do, I think? They were probably just so greedy they thought they were popular enough to double dip and make people pay for both HBO and a separate DC service.
That is so incredibly niche to be it's own streaming service
Have they ever explained why they didn't just keep HBO Go from 10 years ago? I remember that being pretty successful
They're dominating pretty hard tho
Wow, and they only had to do a scorched earth campaign removing basically everything from their catalog to make it profitable. Streaming truly is the future.
>business men do business
>"y-yeah but it was messier than I think it should have been"
yeah that's business, homosexual
WB & DC properties aren't big enough for a streaming service of their very own
WB owns an absolute shit ton, the fact that they're failing despite a dominance of the industry that rivals Disney is really quite impressive.
There’s no money in steaming. Netflix been in red since its existence. In the past, studio get video rental sales, buys which they didn’t have to split with theaters. Than money off whatever cable channels want the play the movie or series
They must be making money off business deals resultant from streaming or else they wouldn't have lasted this long.
That’s the thing. None of them are making money. They all taken losses in a desperate attempt to corner the market and compete with Netflix. Think about it, in the past you had to pay to rent all this shit. Or get cable. Now, most people’s pirate it, share user accounts or just pay for one or two steaming services. Even if you had say 20 million subscribers, that’s not going to pay for half of your original content. Shit, Netflix paid 500 million for Seinfeld! How the frick can they justify that cost!
That's exactly why I'm thinking it's invisible money, you don't profit directly from people paying for the service but when your show is successful you please investors and they fund more of your stuff. A lot of business is dictated by this kind of thing.
That’s basically Netflix. They’ve never been profitable.
legit morons
they arent failing see
and
this is a lie studios are trying to push, they literally just reported that Hulu is worth 30 billion dollars, there is tons of money in streaming, stop drinking the corporate kool aid
They're getting desperate because movies have been bombing in theaters these last couple years. There are tons of movies that fail in the theaters but then prove to be a huge hit on streaming but they don't like that because they don't get the money from selling them to movie theaters.
People are starting to realize you get a better experience watching the movie at home than watching it in the theater where you can't pause, have to deal with babies screaming and people on their phones.
Why are they offloading their own properties?
>I get the impression people are tired of content being splintered across a million different streaming services and are just saying "frick it" to paying for them
No, really?
Streaming services need to:
1. slash prices to make paying for multiple worth it
2. collaborate for a shared interface that lets you search all of their catalogs simultaneously. Split search results up by service and put a big "PROVIDED BY [service]" before the play button if you really need your fricking name on it.
They need to agree to make it basically cable television but on-demand, no gay ads, and easier to modify and cancel.
>all of their catalogs simultaneously
Such an interface could be run by a third party and get paid by the streaming services for access, in exchange for the free advertising of "THIS RESULT YOU SEARCH FOR IS AVAILABLE ON OUR SERVICE" and a "selections from service X" section of the main menu showing you all the cool stuff you're missing out on by not giving them your money.
Prime Video actually does do the shared interface thing, it's probably why it's one of the more successful services.
AppleTV does too
>it's probably why it's one of the more successful services.
Prime is successful because it comes paired with having an Amazon Prime membership. I guarantee you that a good chunk of members do not actually watch any videos on Prime. Theyre just there for the delivery discounts
The shared interface is fricking annoying because you will see thumbos for things you think you can stream but it's actually paid rental.
After a while you start to get a feel for the little icons they use to show something is available to stream, it used to throw me off too but now I can tell 100% of the time.
Its called Google TV moron.
once again gamers did it right
they gatekept their online sales to basically steam and gog, and all the studios with their own stores and launchers eventually gave up
streaming needs an independent platform that just hosts content and takes a cut
That’s what Netflix originally was. Then studios got greedy, over priced their content or just pulled it. Forced Netflix to
make their own original stuff
Well, Netflix originally was a DVD rental service. It was only later that they moved exclusively to streaming.
Epic has infinite money so even if Fortnite made $0, literally every game uses Unreal Engine, so they'll always be able to afford being an alternative storefront for weirdos. But I have noticed that they've stopped doing that timed exclusivity thing because everyone would just wait and buy the game on Steam, even if it took years. I'm relieved that little stunt of theirs failed. I actually don't mind there being a bunch of different storefronts as long as that's not the only way to buy the game. That's what sets gaming storefronts apart from streaming services, the fact that you have a bunch of different options for the same game and you just buy it on whatever storefront you like the most or, if you're smart, wherever it's cheapest. Epic was trying to forcefully claim a chunk of the market by turning it into an exclusivity war and I didn't like that.
So far I've only paid for one game on EGS which is Death Stranding, because they gave the base game away for free and the Director's Cut upgrade was only six dollars and I thought, damn, that's a really good deal. So I bought it. That's the appeal of alternative storefronts, it was a lot more than six dollars on Steam so by taking advantage of the deal I was able to get a game for a good price. But downloading a separate client because it's the only place you can buy Kingdom Hearts, no thanks.
yeah, true
plus gaming platforms set different price points for different tiers of games and you buy the individual products you want rather than a bundle which is 90% trash
switch to single item purchases in tv streaming and the hacks and opportunists will drift away
Is this sarcasm? Roku TVs all do this. Helps search and find obscure shit on the free channels too
I mainly watch older movies so all those services like Tubi and Pluto which are completely free are great for me. Especially because I usually watch them on my computer so my adblocker blocks the ads, but I've tried them on TV too and the ads aren't all that obnoxious compared to regular television ads. In theory, yeah, I could use a piracy streaming site for roughly the same experience, but when I tried them before they always had a lot of buffering so I'd rather use them as a last resort if a movie I want to see isn't on any of the free services.
Youtube TV is basically what you're describing, it's just cable TV with the ability to DVR anything and most channels provide a selection of movies and shows as VODs. It's like $70 per month though so you're undershooting it with the price. Plus obviously your ad idea is not financially feasible.
I actually don't care for it that much because even though you can just fastforward through the commercials on recorded stuff, movies on TV are usually cut or censored in some way and I can't stand that. I like watching TCM because those movies are uncut and have no commercials but that's about it. One good thing they do is during the commercials sometimes there's a "skip ad" button and when you press it it just shows a video of nature instead.
HBO Max was great and the one streaming service I thought was worth paying for but then they removed Space Ghost Coast to Coast and I immediately canceled.
So it was worth paying for because it had an old show that hasn't been on for 20 years?
Pirates are terrible archivists so sometimes legit is the only option.
What? Piracy is famously very comprehensive. It'd have to be something particularly obscure to be so hard to find that legit is easier, and Space Ghost isn't all that obscure. I mean like a Czech art film from the 70s or something.
It wasn't paying for just that show but I wasn't going to keep paying for HBOMax when they started to cut stuff I liked. I just went back to pirating.
That's a respectable move, these streaming services need to be sent a message that they can't just drop shows people like just because they're old.
Better just put ZSJL on TNT for free
So they put a bunch of WB/DC stuff on Prime out of nowhere the other day which is the reason for this article, but it's weird because they aren't even consistent with the versions they put. Watchmen and Justice League are the shitty theatrical cuts, but then Batman v. Superman is the Ultimate Edition. I'm surprised they haven't put ZSJL out there yet because I seriously doubt anyone is paying for Max to see it two years later.
>surprised they haven't put ZSJL out there yet because I seriously doubt anyone is paying for Max to see it two years later.
I seriously doubt any other streaming services want that shit on their platform.
This isn’t really anything to do with the state of Max, it’s about the sorry state of the DC universe. The author is either being disingenuous for clickbait purposes or a complete moron.
my problem is that these services are so selective about what they put up, most of the stuff i want to watch is owned by the studio but only available to rent digitally. at that point i'm just gonna go back to pirating everything. (and i have)
Depends on the audience these days. Couples over 30 will go see one or.two movies a year and it better be guaranteed to be good or they'll wait. If they have kids they want to see something like Mario for their one movie, not shit with subversive political shit and guilt sprinkled in. Yes having a token lesbian couple on screen for 2 seconds to kiss in your CGIslop is political and no one wants to PAY money to see it.
LMAO at the thought that the Mario movie isn't political. Really proving the old "I liked it so it isn't political" cliche true.
I didn't see it because I'm not a child but if I had one that's the one we would have gone to instead of whatever muttslop #859295 Pixar keeps shitting out
For me it's the chicken of the woods