Star Trek General Discussion

ATTENTION: If you had an account that was created before September 1st 2021 you will need to re-create your account again. We apologize for this inconvenience. This should not happen again.

Cradok

Member
Citizen
On the removal of Star Trek: Discovery from Netflix abroad:

Announcing that you're pulling a show off the international version of the streaming service you've used to deliver it to consumers for the past 3 seasons about 2 days before they'd have settled in to start watching is a pro-league dick-move. The other shoe drops when you mention that your own streaming service won't be available in those markets for months.

Way to go, Paramount.

And the boot in the groin is given to the cast and crew, who spent the weekend in London promoting season 4 on Netflix, not knowing that Paramount were going to be making liars out of them two days later.
 

AgentOrange

New member
Citizen
The only way to defeat piracy is ease of use.
Ease of use doesn't make cheap assholes decide that they aren't entitled to a luxury. Can't afford/don't want to spend $10 a month for the service? Then don't watch the ******* show, you're not owed it.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
Ease of use doesn't make cheap assholes decide that they aren't entitled to a luxury. Can't afford/don't want to spend $10 a month for the service? Then don't watch the ******* show, you're not owed it.
We're also not owed artificial scarcity. There's exactly NO reason to not put any given show on literally every streaming service everywhere, or region locking them. It's the 21st century with a global spanning, instant communication network, not the 1960's.
 

Cradok

Member
Citizen
The problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay $10 a month each for a service or two, it's that it's now $10 each for ten or twenty services, each of which offer less than before. Paramount isn't launching P+ because it's the only way for them to get their programming to the world, they're doing it because they don't want to share, because sharing is anathema to corporate shareholders.
 

AgentOrange

New member
Citizen
The problem isn't that people aren't willing to pay $10 a month each for a service or two, it's that it's now $10 each for ten or twenty services, each of which offer less than before. Paramount isn't launching P+ because it's the only way for them to get their programming to the world, they're doing it because they don't want to share, because sharing is anathema to corporate shareholders.
You could always NOT watch the shows and not pay?
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
You could always NOT watch the shows and not pay?
And they could always NOT create yet another streaming service with limited content, and use the other, more established with more content, services to allow access to their content.

Instead, they're repeating the stupidity of the 90's by creating limited content "channels" and trying to upsell the internet like a cable company.

Piracy is an economic problem, not a social one. If you don't want people trying to steal content: you make that content readily accessible. Adding another paywall to try to cash in on the popularity of a single IP will only increase piracy. Increased piracy means lost revenue, lost revenue means it's no longer economically viable to produce that content, and without the draw of that IP and lacking in OTHER desirable content: the streaming service will fail. No one makes money, no one gets star trek.

It's in their own best interest to put AND KEEP star trek on netflix, on amazon prime, (hell: put the first four series and the first six movies on ******* Tubi.), to reach the largest possible audience, and maximize their revenue.
 

Donocropolis

Olde-Timey Member
Citizen
Yeah, while I agree that the current glut of streaming services has become unwieldy, I don't feel like that is a justification for a "morally clean" pirating of shows. This isn't stealing bread to feed your starving family. I don't want to pay for CBS streaming, so I've been watching Discovery as the seasons become available at my local library. I'm getting it a season behind everyone that pays, but I still get to see it on the up-and-up.

I'm hoping that in time, some of these streaming services with only 1 or 2 "banner" shows will realize that they aren't a profitable way to go, and will merge back into some of the larger services so that the streaming ecosystem finds a good balance with a reasonable number of options.
 

wonko the sane?

You may test that assumption at your convinience.
Citizen
It'll probably happen sooner rather than later with the streaming services. It basically cost nothing to create an exclusive content channel for a cable package, but there's a fair bit of overhead when it comes to streaming. A year or two of marginal existence; or even worse, operating in the red, will more than likely see most execs either scrap it entirely, or change it for an even worse model (like subscription service... WITH ADS!) for a short period of time.

Hell, why they didn't just make it free/supported by advertising in the first place boggles my mind. I know folks are spoiled by services like prime and netflix with ad free content: but most are more willing to sit through commercials than they are to pay another monthly.
 

TM2-Megatron

Member
Citizen
Ease of use doesn't make cheap assholes decide that they aren't entitled to a luxury. Can't afford/don't want to spend $10 a month for the service? Then don't watch the ******* show, you're not owed it.

And then $10 for this service, and another $12 for that one. And just $10 more each for these other two. Before you know it you're back up to the price of a regular cable subscription. Except these days, food costs 15% more and renting a bachelor in a slum is $2500/month.

No thanks. I'm anything but cheap, and I happily buy shows that I've obtained via alternative means on blu-ray once they're released on the format, but $*#@ all these different streaming services, and doubly *$#& anyone who tells me I can't do as I damn well please.

Hell, why they didn't just make it free/supported by advertising in the first place boggles my mind. I know folks are spoiled by services like prime and netflix with ad free content: but most are more willing to sit through commercials than they are to pay another monthly.

I'd love to go back to the days when CityTV, an entirely free OTA channel, was Canada's "Federation Station". Somehow Paramount didn't sink into the abyss.
 
Last edited:

AgentOrange

New member
Citizen
And then $10 for this service, and another $12 for that one. And just $10 more each for these other two. Before you know it you're back up to the price of a regular cable subscription. Except these days, food costs 15% more and renting a bachelor in a slum is $2500/month.

No thanks. I'm anything but cheap, and I happily buy shows that I've obtained via alternative means on blu-ray once they're released on the format, but $*#@ all these different streaming services, and doubly *$#& anyone who tells me I can't do as I damn well please.
Then you're cheap. And a thief. And you can thank me and everyone else morally superior to you for subsidizing your entertainment.
 

TM2-Megatron

Member
Citizen
Then you're cheap. And a thief. And you can thank me and everyone else morally superior to you for subsidizing your entertainment.

I own all three seasons of Discovery as well as the first seasons of Picard and Lower Decks on blu-ray, all bought on release week when the prices are highest. Altogether they probably cost around $160, enough for 15 months of access to CBS All Access, Paramount+, or whatever it's called these days.... a period of time that'll likely end up being double the span of time their streaming services manages to stick around. Throw in the $80/season I paid for TNG and ENT when I bought each of those seasons on their release weeks, then TOS and TAS and you're up to well over the equivalent of 100 months of subscription money I've laid down for Trek. Still not counting the DVDs of VOY and DS9.

Paramount should thank me for not wasting their server's bandwidth, and you can take your opinion and attitude and get lost. Morally superior my ass; you're nothing but a malcontent and an agitator. Piss off.
 
Last edited:

AgentOrange

New member
Citizen
I own all three seasons of Discovery as well as the first seasons of Picard and Lower Decks on blu-ray. Altogether they probably cost around $160, enough for 15 years of access to CBS All Access, Paramount+, or whatever it's called these days.... a period of time that'll likely end up being double the span of time their streaming services manages to stick around.

Paramount should thank me for not wasting their server's bandwidth, and you can take your opinion and attitude and get lost. Morally superior my ass; you're nothing but a malcontent and an agitator. Piss off.
Do you also decide whatever foods you think look tasty at the grocery store are free samples, eat whatever you please, and then justify it by buying things later, thief?
 

TM2-Megatron

Member
Citizen
Do you also decide whatever foods you think look tasty at the grocery store are free samples, eat whatever you please, and then justify it by buying things later, thief?

I'm really not interested in morality lessons from someone whose repeatedly proven himself to be an unsympathetic sack of s*$% when it comes to actual people, but will gladly defend the rights of billion dollar corporations. As long as your posts get a rise out of someone, isn't that right?

Fat shame any other actresses lately, or are you still mostly focused on your Tilly-hating? You're as worthless as your opinions.
 

AgentOrange

New member
Citizen
I'm really not interested in morality lessons from someone whose repeatedly proven himself to be an unsympathetic sack of s*$% when it comes to actual people, but will gladly defend the rights of billion dollar corporations. As long as your posts get a rise out of someone, isn't that right?

Fat shame any other actresses lately, or are you still mostly focused on your Tilly-hating? You're as worthless as your opinions.
Tilly's still terrible in Kobayashi Maru, being fat is the least of her problems. I can tell you this because I paid to watch the episode.
 

Dekafox

Fabulously Foxy Dragon
Citizen
Cable was once describe as being ad-free because you're paying for it as opposed to broadcast. That ultimately didn't last...
Hell, why they didn't just make it free/supported by advertising in the first place boggles my mind. I know folks are spoiled by services like prime and netflix with ad free content: but most are more willing to sit through commercials than they are to pay another monthly.

This is actually the model Tsuburaya uses for Ultraman. The show is uploaded to Youtube free to view, with ads for their stuff included. It's only Ultraman-related stuff too though, so I'm not sure how that would translate to Star Trek when it doesn't mechandise like it used to. They leave it up like that for 2 weeks, then pull the episode which give people time to view it, and then if they want to see it later they can buy the discs(once released) or subscribe to Tsuburaya's service. (Or someone else's service in the case of older shows they're re-airing).
 

Gridlock

New member
Citizen
Paramount + is not even avaible in my country (and wont be for years), neither is Disney +. I do sub Amazon Prime and netflix tho', and was hoping to watch Discovery there, buuut in that case... Alternate sources it is. Thanks P+.
 

SHIELD Agent 47

Active member
Citizen
Ease of use doesn't make cheap assholes decide that they aren't entitled to a luxury. Can't afford/don't want to spend $10 a month for the service? Then don't watch the ******* show, you're not owed it.
No, you really do not understand how a business can succeed at mathematical psychology. Studies have shown piracy rarely if ever a killing factor for any given production.

You could always NOT watch the shows and not pay?
Uh, why are you even here if you advocate for someone not to peruse the content in the title?
 
Top Bottom