The Golden Age of the Streaming Wars is Over

[Blackhawk]

My greatest concern with this is not accessibility (there's always a usable underground streaming site around, just strap in with ad blockers), but that these shows will disappear from public consciousness to a degree, meaning the good sleeper/less popular shows are less likely to be heard about or recommended.

Star Trek would be a forgotten footnote had it not been for syndication years later.

[Kraken]

How many classic TV series didn't hit their stride until their second or third season? Nowadays they'd better be firing on all cylinders halfway through their first.

[Smoove_B]

One odd aspect of streamers taking down shows that never got a physical media release is that it almost feels like we’re returning to an era before home video; an era I wasn’t around to see. Missed something on broadcast TV in the 1960s? Tough luck. It’s gone.

It feels like they're finally realizing that having 24/7 access to a limitless library doesn't drive demand for new things - the cornerstone of American capitalism.

[Rumpy]

My greatest concern with this is not accessibility (there's always a usable underground streaming site around, just strap in with ad blockers), but that these shows will disappear from public consciousness to a degree, meaning the good sleeper/less popular shows are less likely to be heard about or recommended.

Star Trek would be a forgotten footnote had it not been for syndication years later.

Agreed, and with many of these shows/movies pretty much all of them thrive on word of mouth for people to find them. I've seen a sentiment echoed in multiple places and it's that with this kind of mentality the studios now have, it's going to be much less likely for cult favourites to arise. Or at the very least, it's going to be much more difficult now. We're used to think of Hollywood as being risk-averse, but it's going to possibly be even worse going forward. Think of it, no more Clue. Ironically, I think they were moving forward with a remake recently.

And Matt Novak is right, unfortunately. Streaming services were promised with a wealth of potential, of having virtually unhindered access to back-catalogues, but the reality is that we'll only ever have access to a small portion. I would love if obscure titles could live alongside popular and new releases, which streaming should technically be really good for. I'd love to watch a number of older Canadian series that are simply no longer available, some of which never got physical releases.

[Blackhawk]

That's partially because of episode count. Back then they'd often spend the entire first season world building/character building (also known as 'monster of the week'.) Now they have to get all of that done in the first ten minutes.

It's good that we don't have as many bottle episodes (or clip show episodes), but we did lose something - those MotW episodes did fulfill a purpose. Now big things have to happen to and between the characters before we really get to know them, characters tend to have a 'character depth' issue or personality trait, but have lost lots of the fun quirks, and elements of the world building often don't happen until after events that are tied to it (resulting in confusing moments, moments that just fall flat, or shows that really only get their full dramatic impact on a second watching.) Sure a few of those extra episodes were often bad - but some of them established parts of the universe and characters that grew to make them something special.

And there's also the issue of having a series that's so short that it only lasts a few weeks. Instead of a three- or four-month hiatus every year, it's often been 10 months or more before the next season comes out, which makes it really hard to keep track of the continuity. It also means that in order to fill our time, we have to watch a huge number of shows (since we're replacing our entire roster every couple of months), which gets unwieldy when it comes to keeping track of what's been released, what hasn't, and even what has been canceled.

I know, whenever I say anything like this, people say that they don't have the time for longer seasons anymore. I disagree - we don't have the attention span anymore. Episode count doesn't change how much TV you watch. If you're going to watch X number of hours of TV per day/week, does it matter if you finish six series over the summer vs four?

I don't want the 30+ episodes of the 60s, or even the 20+ of the 90s. But I also don't want 6- or 8-episode seasons. I wish they'd settle somewhere in between and put more in the ~12-16 range.

[Blackhawk]

We're used to think of Hollywood as being risk-averse, but it's going to possibly be even worse going forward.

Which sucks. A lot of the best shows (and trends) have always been something completely outside the norm. Now we're just going to get more and more clones of whatever is popular with the 'general American audience.' Which isn't me.

[Zarathud]

It was conceived as unlimited leverage of existing content = profit!

That profit funded new content who was happy to create with freedom, and it produced hits = profit!

Now everyone’s realized the value of created content and wants continuing payment, which increases the price and is NOT profit!

The turning point is when consumers realize they’re getting less for higher prices.

[Rumpy]

We're used to think of Hollywood as being risk-averse, but it's going to possibly be even worse going forward.

Which sucks. A lot of the best shows (and trends) have always been something completely outside the norm. Now we're just going to get more and more clones of whatever is popular with the 'general American audience.' Which isn't me.

Yeah, same here. And I'm often very late to the game if I do end up getting to something. In this landscape, that could mean it disappears before I get to it. Which really sucks. It's not like I'm not interested, it's more that I have so many shows on my plate that I DO want to see, that it takes me awhile to get to them. That's something I wish streamers like Netflix would understand, that everyone needs the freedom to watch at their own pace.

And understandably, not everything is going to be an instant hit. To be expecting it to be so is just not logical, and it undervalues the property.

I've noticed a Disney+ series appear on the Roku channel recently. American Born Chinese. It came out on May 24th, ffs. And I still remember the media tour from just a few weeks ago.

Whatever happened to having faith in your product? Guess it doesn't mean much anymore.

[Blackhawk]

It sounds like they've learned from video games and are taking advantage of FOMO marketing.

[Isgrimnur]

[malchior]

We're used to think of Hollywood as being risk-averse, but it's going to possibly be even worse going forward.

Which sucks. A lot of the best shows (and trends) have always been something completely outside the norm. Now we're just going to get more and more clones of whatever is popular with the 'general American audience.' Which isn't me.

And reality slop. It's cheap. It's easy to watch and no one even cares if they can re-watch it.

[Blackhawk]

We're used to think of Hollywood as being risk-averse, but it's going to possibly be even worse going forward.

Which sucks. A lot of the best shows (and trends) have always been something completely outside the norm. Now we're just going to get more and more clones of whatever is popular with the 'general American audience.' Which isn't me.

And reality slop. It's cheap. It's easy to watch and no one even cares if they can re-watch it.

With the writer's strike, we should expect a lot of it soon.

[malchior]

Anecdotal but two of my friends are in that business and they have been surprised so far that they've seen no uptick in reality tv production. They're both working but they know people who are "on the bench" since much of reality tv work is by contract.

[Rumpy]

We're used to think of Hollywood as being risk-averse, but it's going to possibly be even worse going forward.

Which sucks. A lot of the best shows (and trends) have always been something completely outside the norm. Now we're just going to get more and more clones of whatever is popular with the 'general American audience.' Which isn't me.

And reality slop. It's cheap. It's easy to watch and no one even cares if they can re-watch it.

With the writer's strike, we should expect a lot of it soon.

See, that's when I'd expect these networks and streaming services to start offering foreign shows. Many shows have already been produced in Canada and are just awaiting licensing to be streamed elsewhere. We have a long-tunning sitcom called Corner Gas that you guys would love if given the chance. I know it appeared on WGN at one point, but it deserves a wider audience. Especially after the ciritical success of Schiit's Creek. This sitcom is among our greats and it's really unlike anything else. It's a bit older with it having ended in 2009, but if Seinfeld's taught us anything, it's that some shows are timeless.

[Isgrimnur]

Six seasons of Corner Gas are on Amazon Freevee (ads, formerly IMDb TV).

[Grifman]

I've noticed a Disney+ series appear on the Roku channel recently. American Born Chinese. It came out on May 24th, ffs. And I still remember the media tour from just a few weeks ago.

Whatever happened to having faith in your product? Guess it doesn't mean much anymore.

It's not just a matter of having faith. Many streaming services are taking product out of their streams and reselling it to other streamers. I'm thinking this is happening because they think these titles don't bring much to their service but do bring in real cash when licensed to others.

[Grifman]

The suggestion I'm seeing online is that it's a matter of not wanting to pay residuals.

Yeah, according to a discussion I saw elsewhere, residuals are calculated based on the platform's subscriber base and how long since the show/film was released. If a title isn't popular enough to be a reason for people to maintain a subscription, then it apparently makes financial sense to drop it in order to avoid paying residuals, then perhaps bring it back eventually once the residual rates have dropped low enough.

It would explain why they're dropping so many of their own titles. When they own all the IP themselves, pretty much the only ongoing expense involved would seem to be the residual payments going to the creative folks who made it for them.

I don't think that's it. A lot of these dropped titles are being pulled from their creator streams but not disappearing. They are being licensed to other streamers. On their own streams they aren't necessarily bringing in new subscribers, but licensing does bring in hard cold cash. So they don't think the loss will hurt their subscriber base while the licensing brings in income. They've bifurcated their properties by the value they think they bring to their streaming services.

[Rumpy]

I've noticed a Disney+ series appear on the Roku channel recently. American Born Chinese. It came out on May 24th, ffs. And I still remember the media tour from just a few weeks ago.

Whatever happened to having faith in your product? Guess it doesn't mean much anymore.

It's not just a matter of having faith. Many streaming services are taking product out of their streams and reselling it to other streamers. I'm thinking this is happening because they think these titles don't bring much to their service but do bring in real cash when licensed to others.

Right, but if that's the case, why even produce them at all? It just seems like the numbers aren't there. They're spending lots but not getting the return on them and they end up not supporting them. That would seem to indicate they should spend more on creating fewer shows that they can actually support. If I were involved in a production and this happened, I'd find it hugely depressing.

[Blackhawk]

On their own streams they aren't necessarily bringing in new subscribers, but licensing does bring in hard cold cash.

Especially since many of them are licensing them to ad-based streaming services. I wouldn't be surprised if the contracts involved a percentage.

Right, but if that's the case, why even produce them at all? It just seems like the numbers aren't there. They're spending lots but not getting the return on them and they end up not supporting them. That would seem to indicate they should spend more on creating fewer shows that they can actually support. If I were involved in a production and this happened, I'd find it hugely depressing.

Because new shows bring in new subscribers, and it is new subscribers that drives their revenue. And probably* because constant new content keeps many people subscribed. They always want to try new things. And they keep producing because (my guess) if they make ten shows, dump nine of them, but the tenth is a hit, it's a net gain.

*I say 'probably' because it's just guesswork on my part, but I can guarantee you that every one of those services has so much data analysis going on that it makes the CIA look like a grade school science class. They are not doing it the way they're doing it on a whim. They have very good reasons to believe that it will result in a net increase. Of course, that doesn't mean that they can account for every single factor. They doubtlessly account for some subscription losses as a result of what they're doing, but what happens if the market, en masse, decides they've had enough and stops subscribing to most services?

I know I have. A year ago I had Netflix, Hulu, HBO, Discovery, and Paramount+ - I am currently only paying for Paramount+ When I'm done with the Trek I want to watch, I'll dump that and sub to another channel. (I also get Disney+ for free from my phone plan, and I have Prime, but not for the video. Oh, and Peacock from Comcast, but after checking their offerings, I never actually bothered to install it on my Roku.)

[gilraen]

Because new shows bring in new subscribers, and it is new subscribers that drives their revenue. And probably* because constant new content keeps many people subscribed. They always want to try new things. And they keep producing because (my guess) if they make ten shows, dump nine of them, but the tenth is a hit, it's a net gain.

Which is also why you'll see them cutting more shows in the upcoming months. The writers' strike has just deprived them from the conveyor belt of new shows (like you said, most of them may be crap but subscribers stick around to see if maybe it *won't* be crap). They are now dumping shows to take tax writeoffs and get payable residuals off the books.

[Blackhawk]

And why they'll likely go the AAA video game route and only release mild variants of proven formulas.

[Rumpy]

Because new shows bring in new subscribers, and it is new subscribers that drives their revenue.

Well, not if the new shows end up being cut barely a month later. They become empty promises.

[Carpet_pissr]

Great article explaining what appears to be the absolute clusterfuck of modern streaming:

https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streami ... mount.html

[Pyperkub]

Great article explaining what appears to be the absolute clusterfuck of modern streaming:

https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streami ... mount.html

I'm trying to find the article, but the one I'm looking for goes back further, to all the free money cable subscriptions brought in, and the gist is chasing those financial margins, as well as the tech monopolistic view of generating wealth are the issue.

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Blackhawk]

As an aside, the sudden trend of using 'streamer' to refer to streaming services has made the internet a confusing place. 'Streamer' already has a meaning, and it's starting to get hard to figure out which one is being talked about.

[Rumpy]

Yeah, that's why I prefer the term 'streaming service', or "content provider'. Streamer refers more to a person doing the streaming activity, say someone on TwitchTV. TwitchTV would be the streaming service, but the person publishing themselves would be the streamer, ie the individual. When I hear 'Streamer', I immediately envision a bunch of individuals making their own content via a streaming service.

[Pyperkub]

Great article explaining what appears to be the absolute clusterfuck of modern streaming:

https://www.vulture.com/2023/06/streami ... mount.html

Found the article - it is actually an interview.

https://www.theringer.com/2023/7/19/238 ... -streaming

Sent from my SM-S908U1 using Tapatalk

[Blackhawk]

Note: This is speculation intended for conversation, not some deep dive.

Everything that I've read, both about how this came to be, and about the writers/actors strikes, suggests (to me) that we're going to end up with a hybrid, somewhere between the TV of the past and the streaming model we're used to. We're going to have to expect to compromise somewhere.

For instance, I wouldn't be surprised to see a new model in which new releases are presented the way we're used to (and with the staggered, not binging release schedule), but that after a set time - 30 days, 90 days, six months - they all include ads. It would solve a lot of problems.

I don't see people being willing to go back to linear TV - we want to watch what we want to watch, when we want to watch it, not plan our schedules around air times. I can't see that one being altered much.

I wouldn't be surprised to see metrics come back. Things like the Nielsen ratings and viewership numbers disappearing have been a big problem (now the services keep that info secret.) It was how advertisers chose where to invest, and it was a big part of how residuals were calculated.

Viewership numbers plus ads on older content could solve some problems both for the channels, and for the writers/actors.

Regardless, I think (once we're past the strike blip), we're going to see a lot fewer new shows. The studios are going to be much more conservative. We're going to see fewer experimental shows, and a lot fewer big investments in unproven properties (like Rings of Power, which cost a quarter of a billion for the rights, and a commitment to a minimum of five seasons.) We'll see a lot fewer big-budget effects shows, and a lot fewer A-list film actors being hired for TV. It's going to be much closer to what TV used to be, for good or for ill.

I do wonder if this will result in longer seasons, especially for more traditional scripted shows. Longer seasons would mean more content with fewer contracts.

I also think we're going to see something like what's happened with Steam. Steam was the Netflix, the innovator whose pie everyone wanted a slice of. Tons of studios pulled their content off of Steam and launched their own services. Few were successful. A few folded and brought their content back to Steam (like Bethesda, and it sounds like Microsoft may be planning something similar with Battle.net.) Most of those that still exist either use a different model (like GoG's no-DRM policy) or they've compromised and listed their games on Steam as well as on their own platforms (EA and Ubisoft, for instance.)

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the medium-sized networks started putting their content on one of the big channels - Disney, Netflix, Hulu, and possibly shutting down their own services (and I'd possibly include 'Max' on the list to be consolidated, given some of the stuff that's been happening at Warner), possibly at a premium with 'packages' more like cable used to be (although hopefully without the terrible bundling and 'markets'.) Some super-niche channels (like Crunchyroll or Curiosity Stream) may be able to continue on their own.

[Kraken]

I’d like to see a world where viewers subscribe to shows, rather than services. The show creators and the streaming services would be different entities. You’d choose a service based on how much you like the design of their app, their virtual DVR, etc. Then you would order content through that service. Suppose that I prefer Netflix's environment and I want to watch Succession. Netflix sells me all of the seasons for a bundle price, then buys the rights from the show creator and takes a cut. Basically, everything is pay per view.

The viewer is only paying for shows that they want to watch, and they only need one subscription. Say that four seasons of Succession can be had for $10. Netflix gets $2 for acting as a conduit; they're basically just processing the transaction, so their cut is almost pure profit. The other $8 goes to the content creator.

Of course there is a ton of existing content -- basically all of it -- that isn't owned by creators; that would remain in the streaming services' libraries, still available per view, but they'd get to keep all the money for that according to their existing contract/fee structure. Howthefuckever, all of their libraries would be pooled so that any viewer can watch any content through their preferred streaming service, regardless of who owns it, and the viewer doesn't have to know or care who's getting their $2 to watch a movie.

IDK how you'd transition the entire industry to a cooperative model that centers on the viewers and rewards the creators while relegating today's powerhouses to mere conduits, because that's socialism. But that's how I'd start out if I were designing the system from scratch.

[Blackhawk]

A big chunk of that (other than the sharing of exclusives) is already being done on Amazon. You can go watch Succession on Amazon right now for $2.99 per episode or $28.99 per season (at which point you 'own' it), or you can sub to Max through Amazon and stream it the traditional way. For a lot of films you can also rent them for X days for a few bucks. If you wanted to watch Uncharted, for instance, you can rent it for $3.59 for a few days, or buy it for $14.99.

Too bad they have a terrible interface/search feature.

Also: I have no idea what a virtual DVR would be on a streaming service. Isn't that functionality already core to streaming itself?

[Smoove_B]

Also: I have no idea what a virtual DVR would be on a streaming service. Isn't that functionality already core to streaming itself?

I have a virtual DVR through Hulu to record things I don't want sit through commercials for. Sometimes Hulu streaming will give me access to streaming new shows without commercials, other times it forces me to sit through a few every hour. My days of watching commercials ended somewhere around the year 2000 when I purchased a TiVo; never will I go back.

I do think you're probably right with your bigger prediction post. Things are coming to a head and there's no way 37 different streaming services are going to survive this. What I don't know is how you consolidate in such a way that doesn't just re-create the stranglehold the cable TV industry has where you're paying insane prices for access to nonsense. The à la cart feels like it should work better, but somehow it never seems to.

And yes, Amazon does seem to have the best options (in terms of just being able to buy shows by the season) but yes - their UI is terrible.

[Rumpy]

Ironically, it's when Hulu was a collab between multiple companies that it was at its best in terms of streaming models. Truly, these companies didn't know how good they had it until they had to develop seperate streaming entities. We need more collabs and less individual services.

[Blackhawk]

What I don't know is how you consolidate in such a way that doesn't just re-create the stranglehold the cable TV industry has where you're paying insane prices for access to nonsense.

I don't know that we can. Some of the things that we hated during that era (like commercials and everything being tied to ratings) turned out to be part of what greased the wheels. We wished for a world without such things, and they gave it to us - and the result was the Streaming Crash of 2023 along with the double strike. It was a great concept (for the viewer), but it just didn't work.

I'm just hoping that they hybrid we end up with is closer to what we want and further away from what they want.

I dislike ads, but I'd be happier with ads than with only being able to watch Strange New Worlds on Tuesdays at 8, or having to pay for 30 different home improvement 'channels' in order to get the one channel I want.

[hepcat]

The problem is that I want free big budget entertainment, damn it!

[Isgrimnur]

Hoist the Jolly Roger

[hepcat]

That way leads to ransomeware, viruses, trojans, etc.. it’s just easier to either pay for stuff, or live without it.

[Kraken]

And yes, Amazon does seem to have the best options (in terms of just being able to buy shows by the season) but yes - their UI is terrible.

+1. Netflix’s is worse, though. Netflix does not tolerate silence or inactivity.

I do watch a fair amount of PPV content through Prime, and subscribe to Paramount+ off and on via Prime. That's what I want -- one service to rule them all. But I don't want to subscribe to Paramount+; I want to watch Star Trek.

My DVR on YTTV enables me to “record” shows such as Resident Alien, What We Do…, the Walking Deads, Bob’s Burgers, Rick & Morty, and a bunch more as they are aired, and then play them at my leisure. Basically anything that’s released episodically on any of YTTV's channels, as well as movies on TCM. YTTV is basically just streaming cable.

[Blackhawk]

Hoist the Jolly Roger

I have no doubt that the end of the golden age of streaming is going to usher in a new golden age of piracy. They ensured that when they started completely removing series from channels, eliminating the only legitimate way of watching them.

[Carpet_pissr]

I wouldn't be surprised to see metrics come back. Things like the Nielsen ratings and viewership numbers disappearing have been a big problem (now the services keep that info secret.) It was how advertisers chose where to invest, and it was a big part of how residuals were calculated.

Come back?! They have been amped up beyond recognition from the old school Nielsen ratings days. It's Nielsen on crack, speed and gamma rays combined, with the metrics and the tracking going on with streaming services. They have more data and metrics and your behavior patterns than ever before. They probably can predict when you are going to pause for a bathroom break well before you do.

[Blackhawk]

And yes, Amazon does seem to have the best options (in terms of just being able to buy shows by the season) but yes - their UI is terrible.

+1. Netflix’s is worse, though. Netflix does not tolerate silence or inactivity.

The biggest problem with Amazon are that it's video search function is the store search function, so you get the DVD/BluRay sales options, the premium rental options, videos on premium channels, and the videos actually included with your subscription all mixed together. It doesn't help that they massively pad their 'available videos' numbers with gazillions of weird, decades-old... stuff. Public service films. Whatever the B-movie equivalent of a documentary is. Vintage pro wrestling compilations. Homemade 'documentaries' about conspiracy theories. Ever feel like rewatching some of those school filmstrips? I've seen some of those on there, too.

It's not as bad as it used to be. They used to let anyone submit stuff. Prime Video's "Stream XX,000 videos for free!" used to include personal vlogs, gameplay videos, and so much other garbage that it made your head spin.

At least they stopped presenting each season of each show as a separate entry. It use to be that if you wanted to watch, say, Stargate SG1, you'd have to manually add all ten seasons to your list, and it didn't take long before your list was so much of a mess that you couldn't find anything.