MudMan

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.

Because it shouldn't be on me to ask for permission to do stuff with my software that I bought.

Maybe I'm too old, because I remember when I bought a disk and I just copied it and used that. Which is legal, by the way.

Well, alright, I don't need to remember too far back, because I was ripping some movies today. Which, again, fair game. I paid for them, I get to use them. I shouldn't have to explain to you, Valve, Netflix or anybody else why I want to back up the thing I bought.

In fairness, the headlines written around this were generally atrocious, save a few (shout out to IGN and the original reporter, which may or may not have been techradar). Sure, in most of those you could read a more complete quote inside, but... staying at the headline isn't just a gamer thing. Clickbait is dangerous for a reason.

And also in fairness, the point he's making is still not great. I mean, he's the guy in charge of their subscription service, so I wouldn't expect him to be too negative on the idea, but he's still saying that it's a future that will come. Not that all models will coexist, but that a Netflix future for gaming is coming.

But yeah, gamers can be hostile without justification and often default to treating every relationship with the people making the games as an antagonistic or competitive one, which is a bummer. In that context, letting this guy talk was clearly a mistake.

No, that's where the service provider's backups are stored. I don't have the ability to make my own. That's a huge stretch and very tortured logic. And even if I went for it, by not being able to make backups at my pleasure I'm still being impacted, so... still, by definition, a negative impact on the paying customer that people pirating the same media don't have. They just Ctrl C Ctrl V that stuff.

This is such a weird take. I mean, either I am sharing the bill (I'm not), and the cutting off is rising my price or I... you know, actually like the person using the sub when I'm not and I'm still mad that they are getting cut off. Plus who's to say I'm the primary user? For all I know I'm in there way less than the other person.

It's weird to assume that I would only be annoyed at my own inconvenience and not by the inconvenience of someone else. Plus in practice the outcome would have to be paying their cut-down "second account" nonsense and paying more myself, it'd be kinda petty otherwise.

I would have to sanity check that math, honestly. I am so sporadically in so many of my media subs that if we counted by watched items as opposed to all items you get access to it may break even.

That said, I'd be lying if I said I don't have BluRays still shrink-wrapped that I haven't watched, so I guess it does cut both ways.

Yeah, I thought we had figured this out after Twitter. Or Reddit.

FWIW, I did not remove my subscription, but I did respond to the recent price bump by downgrading to a lower tier, and we're still sharing it (if they ever shut us down for that I'm certainly not paying a second sub, but so far the locations are close enough and it's used rarely enough in one of them that it's never been an issue).

The big thing that I did was to go back to physical media and home streaming. Boycotts won't work, but that? That might. At least it'll make it less likely for physical media to be fully eliminated as an option.

At an absolute minimum, the DRM prevents me from easily making a backup of my legitimate copy, which I am otherwise entitled to do.

So yeah, by definition DRM has a negative impact on paying customers.