Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on April 30, 2012, 11:36:15 am
-
http://www.worldtvpc.com/blog/hbo-boss-cord-cutting/
The boss of HBO as poured cold water on a single digital delivery streaming option for the HBO Go service, maintaining that cord cutting is just a temporary phenomenon that will magically disappear when the economy improves.
HBO co-president Eric Kessler talking at the VideoshmoozeNYC event yesterday said, “there is no chance his company will make its original programs like True Blood or The Wire available to non-cable subscribers.”
Currently HBO subscribers can use the HBO Go service to stream programming around the house, but the company obviously do not want a streaming only option a’la Netflix or Hulu Plus, or even allow those companies to license content.
As to the reason why they do not want to join the 21st century? Well, HBO believes that streaming only services such as Netflix and Hulu are in competition with HBO for the paying TV customers. So it seems that streaming as a complimentary service is ok, but streaming only is a big no-no.
Kessler dismissed cord cutting as a blip, saying it is a “temporary phenomenon” that will end when the economy improves.
I was hunting around for a way to legally watch and pay for Game of Thrones episodes in a la cart or subscription fashion. Apparently, my only legal options are:
1. $20/month on top of my cable bill to subscribe to all of HBO/MovieCentral's package for this one show, where episodes are uploaded a few weeks after airing or
2. Wait for it on DVD.
Guess I'll wait for it on DVD.
This kills me though - how many people out there would gladly pay $2-$5 per episode to watch the show as it airs? How many of said people instead turn to torrents or streaming operations from which HBO sees no revenue? Honestly, these companies can keep filing DMCA requests like crazy, but they will never keep up with the sites popping up, and they are alienating a huge portion of the market that wants to pay them for content but isn't willing to enter the traditional cable subscriber model. Media companies love to ***** about piracy, but it seems more and more of them are driving otherwise honest people to do so for simple lack of reasonable paid alternatives because they think technology is a momentary 'fad' that isn't going to change the way they've always done business.
If I was a shareholder I'd be screaming at this sort of head-in-the-sand stupidity.
On the plus side, every major television network in Canada now offers their content online with inserted advertisements the same as on actual TV, so they've gotten a clue, it's just traditional cable that doesn't see the writing on the wall. I tell you, if I could get the content for the few non-network channels my wife occasionally watches through independent subscriptions, my television subscription would be gone tomorrow.
-
Having an on-Demand service (preferably one that works world-wide) for these things would be nice. I personally would gladly pay for a subscription service like that.
-
whatever you do dont give money to cable companies, or networks for that matter. they are the reason tv has gone to **** lately.
-
HBO's programming has typically been kick-ass, Nuke. They're one of the exceptions to ****ty TV lately. Along with AMC, of all channels.
-
whatever you do dont give money to cable companies, or networks for that matter. they are the reason tv has gone to **** lately.
he said, in the middle of literally the golden age of scripted television, a ten-year period unmatched in terms of the quality of excellent television available
-
i miss the 90s. tv didnt suck and you didnt need cable to find good shows. seasons lasted 25 episodes instead of 10, and you could rely on it as a weekly source of entertainment goodness. so theres a couple good shows on amc, and a bunch of supposedly really good shows on premium channels that i dont get. but theres still nothing to watch on tv on a regular basis, unless of course you actually like all this reality tv thats on these days.
-
I'll agree that network TV mostly blows, but with a Netflix subscription, you've got basically an infinity of really good TV from the post-2000 boom.
-
network tv used to be good though. and basic cable used to be a good extension of that. but it seems they are shifting all the good shows up to the premium sector. maybe theres some quantity->quality shift going on. but it doesnt make up for all the other crap thats on there. cable network comes out with a show and its a hit, and you get 3 networks trying to copycat it with their own show instead of coming up with something original. they fill in every timeslot with cheap reality tv. they even ruined basic cable documentry channels. pbs actually has better **** than discovery/history for example.
-
The Oatmeal has a comic on this. (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones)
-
The Oatmeal has a comic on this. (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones)
hahahahahahaha holy **** that was the funniest thing i've ever
ahahahahaha
i can't type i'm laughing so hard
what about the author? he's a hardworking, creative individual
what a jape! it's like nipples on a breastplate! pass me a lemoncake, nuncle
-
And let me guess, HBO is going to blame their lost revenue on piracy, because it is the only thing they can really quantify?
This sounds very much like the current state of the video game industry, which by large has yet to learn that piracy is a service problem. If you want to defeat the pirates, provide a better service then them. When you make it very difficult or even impossible for customers to buy your stuff legally, you leave your would-be customers with no other option but piracy.
-
I feel the need to bring up that whatever bundle it was that you could buy it for however much money you wanted to, period. And half the people still pirated it.
In short, no, piracy is not just a service problem. It's a problem with everything, and saying that the fault lies entirely in the hands of the producers and distributers is just as stupid as thinking that the entire problem is "bad consumers".
-
I actually agree with Alex/Ghostavo/MP on this issue. It's a huge gaffe by HBO to tie their online subscription service to their cable service. Not only are they missing out on revenue, I bet they're also missing out on a big demographic swathe.
-
The Oatmeal has a comic on this. (http://theoatmeal.com/comics/game_of_thrones)
I feel like that author was inspired by my morning, minus the torrent.
-
really it makes no since to buy entertainment shotgun style. buy 200 channels and maybe you might find a couple shows you like, lost in a sea of drivel. it makes more sense just to buy the stuff you want directly, than to pay for cable service. too bad it doesnt ****ing work.
what about the author? he's a hardworking, creative individual
they make more money than i do, so i consider it charity when i pirate their stuff. hell i bet they could even claim it as a tax writeoff. id even send them a receipt if i thought they wouldnt sue me.
-
i don't think this is as bone-headed a move as you are all suggesting. they aren't thinking about how many new customers they might get at $2-3 an episode, but how many they are going to LOOSE at $20 a month if they do it. and i'm with the execs in assuming that number is going to be way bigger. how many people do you think subscribe to HBO to watch movies they've already seen? just about none. the original shows are the draw. it would be like cable companies giving us the option to pick individual channels at a buck each. yes, it would be great for us, but their revenue would plummet.
-
i don't think this is as bone-headed a move as you are all suggesting. they aren't thinking about how many new customers they might get at $2-3 an episode, but how many they are going to LOOSE at $20 a month if they do it. and i'm with the execs in assuming that number is going to be way bigger. how many people do you think subscribe to HBO to watch movies they've already seen? just about none. the original shows are the draw. it would be like cable companies giving us the option to pick individual channels at a buck each. yes, it would be great for us, but their revenue would plummet.
They could charge $10 for an online subscription and pick up hordes of users.
-
i don't think this is as bone-headed a move as you are all suggesting. they aren't thinking about how many new customers they might get at $2-3 an episode, but how many they are going to LOOSE at $20 a month if they do it. and i'm with the execs in assuming that number is going to be way bigger. how many people do you think subscribe to HBO to watch movies they've already seen? just about none. the original shows are the draw. it would be like cable companies giving us the option to pick individual channels at a buck each. yes, it would be great for us, but their revenue would plummet.
They could charge $10 for an online subscription and pick up hordes of users.
This. What the execs, and you klaustrophobia, are discounting is the sheer number of people who torrent/download/stream content illegally because they have no (1) simple and (2) economical alternative for their usage desires. Used to be providers could count on the monopoly effect - if you wanted only some content, you either ponied up the ridiculous subscription fee, or you said forget it. Now, users are setting the terms of content delivery, and if providers don't oblige, users will get it without paying for it. Much as I loathe piracy, I actually think it serves a very important function - it makes creative providers rethink business models, and make a ****load of money in the process. Look at the unqualified success of iTunes - NO ONE in the music industry wanted to monetize music on a per-song instant-download basis. 12-13 years after Napster got big, and the amount of money made off iTunes and comparable services absolutely dwarfs the amount of money potentially lost to pirates.
I've made this argument before, and it's worth repeating. There are essentially 3 types of content users out there (group 2 can be further broken down, but I'll leave it as an umbrella):
1. "The honest folk" who will always pay for something, even if they are ripped off, gouged, disrespected, or otherwise damaged by the business practices of the provider. This is a small minority. Includes the vote-with-your-wallet crowd.
2. Pragmatists, who prefer to pay for content and do things above-board, but who demand services be reasonably-priced, easy and convenient to use, and hassle-free. These people used to be part of the vote-with-your-wallet paradigm, but now they also [can] obtain the content anyway (illegally) while denying providers revenue. The overwhelming majority of the Internet-savvy generations fall into this broad category, and this is where providers are losing a ridiculous amount of revenue when they pull stupid stunts like HBO. Instead of getting $10/mo online subscriptions from even a modest number of users, they're getting $0/mo and the users are getting the content anyway. This is the group that politicians end up legislating against, instead of who they think they are legislating against, which is
3. Pirates, who will never pay for anything, ever, be it because they're cheap, broke, or just on whatever principle they use to justify it to themselves. There are a lot fewer of these people than providers and politicians think.
Valve proves this every year with Steam sales - to simplify, if you sell 10 units at $50 apiece or 50 units at $10 apiece, you still make $500 either way. The difference with the lower price is that you broaden your consumer base tenfold, which translates into broader exposure, more referrals, a broader userbase, and higher overall revenue. Valve has repeatedly commented that they make far more money in Steam sales with reduced prices than they make the entire rest of the year with titles at regular price. They've also mastered the art of induced scarcity, which makes more people make the purchases at reduced prices in a shorter timeframe than would do so if the price was set at that level throughout the year.
These same concepts apply to content providers in all media forms. Most of them just have directing officers that are too out of touch and just don't friggin' get it.
-
there is also the possibility that HBO signed some sort of non-competition agreement with the cable providers.
-
So I'm the only one who still waits for DVD releases (and yells at people to use spoiler tags lol)?
/hangs head in shame.
-
there is also the possibility that HBO signed some sort of non-competition agreement with the cable providers.
isn't that illegal? i got an email a while back about a class-action lawsuit against netflix and walmart accusing them of such a deal.
-
doesn't mean they are not doing this.
-
but theres still nothing to watch on tv on a regular basis, unless of course you actually like all this reality tv thats on these days.
Charlie Brooker once questioned the realism of reality TV. I found it quite ... inspiring. Or demotivating.
I miss the old Cartoon Network and its website.
-
Charlie Brooker once questioned the realism of reality TV. I found it quite ... inspiring. Or demotivating.
What is there to question? I thought everyone knows by now that "reality TV" is anything but.
-
When I was a kid, I thought they were quite convincing. :nervous:
-
When I was a kid, I thought they were quite convincing. :nervous:
You still are a kid. Therefore, your statement is invalid. :doubt:
:D Anyway, I agree with the 3-group idea. I use and pay for Netflix because I know I'll use it eventually. I use Steam because it integrates IMing without the hassle of 3rd party software and provides good games at good prices. Their induced scarcity model works very well--because I'd much rather pay $30 for a $50 title or $5 for a $20 title. I've found some really awesome games that way--like Mount&Blade & Sol Survivor. I'll buy the game--I'll pay for the content--so long as I'm not being completely ripped off.
-
When I was a kid, I thought they were quite convincing. :nervous:
You still are a kid. Therefore, your statement is invalid. :doubt:
He's been through military service and dealt rather stoically with the death of his father. Please continue to talk about your love of video games, this post has provided valuable information on who's a child
-
When I was a kid, I thought they were quite convincing. :nervous:
when i was a kid the only reality tv we had was cops (i consider this the first reality show ever). growing up poor and with broadcast tv the only form of entertainment at hand, and cops was on all the ****ing time, and that was reality tv. they didnt edit for drama they didnt play the individuals against each other. they just followed cops around and recorded it and with very little editing (aside from trimming the boring parts, getting arrested is usually a long and drawn out process), aired it. then came the sensationalized season long game shows, which became the standard for the reality tv for awhile. i didnt like those much. then they started doing the thing where they introduce cameras into real world situations (for example the angry mechanic shows and the fishing shows), no prize but still a lot of sensationalism, setups, and overdramatization. there have been a few good ones, like mythbusters. but the problem with the genre is its everywhere. ive always considered reality shows (even the good ones) as filler for watching between the shows you actually wanted to see. and my major issue with reality shows is that everyone is doing them.
its like if every cable network up and decided to "lets do nothing but space operas", as much as a lot of people here would go for that. what do you think would happen? you would get 2 good scifi shows, and hundreds of bad scifi shows and nothing else to watch because every channel is clogged up with bad space operas. variety is your friend, and i shouldnt have to teir up my cable service to get some.
-
its like if every cable network up and decided to "lets do nothing but space operas"
I take the right to ignore the rest of your post and bask in the glory of this singular thought. :)
-
When I was a kid, I thought they were quite convincing. :nervous:
You still are a kid. Therefore, your statement is invalid. :doubt:
He's been through military service and dealt rather stoically with the death of his father. Please continue to talk about your love of video games, this post has provided valuable information on who's a child
Dude, I was joking. I posted from my cellphone so I got the wrong emote.
-
Yeah that's understandable. It's too bad there's no way to review a post before posting it, or that once you have posted it you can't see it, and that furthermore, even if you could see it, that there's no way to modify it.
-
Yeah that's understandable. It's too bad there's no way to review a post before posting it, or that once you have posted it you can't see it, and that furthermore, even if you could see it, that there's no way to modify it.
You tell me how enjoyable finding your new post & modifying it is when you're roaming in the middle of nowhere with 1 or occasionally 2 bar reception. I'm home now so I have no problem pointing out how you're a judgmental bastard who has a stick lodged so far up his ass that he can neither take a joke (like the text) nor understand that touchscreens suck for fine work (like misclicking a grid of emotes, each smaller than my pinkie). So no, I didn't verify what my post contained.
AE: Sorry about my mistap earlier. I really did mean to hit :D instead of :doubt: .
-
Yeah that's understandable. It's too bad there's no way to review a post before posting it, or that once you have posted it you can't see it, and that furthermore, even if you could see it, that there's no way to modify it.
You tell me how enjoyable finding your new post & modifying it is when you're roaming in the middle of nowhere with 1 or occasionally 2 bar reception. I'm home now so I have no problem pointing out how you're a judgmental bastard who has a stick lodged so far up his ass that he can neither take a joke (like the text) nor understand that touchscreens suck for fine work (like misclicking a grid of emotes, each smaller than my pinkie). So no, I didn't verify what my post contained.
AE: Sorry about my mistap earlier. I really did mean to hit :D instead of :doubt: .
You sound pretty mad about posts on the internet.
Some mod readin this thread accidentally released a scroll button while mousing over 'pin thread'.