koberulz @ koberulz @lemmy.ml

Posts

9

Comments

118

Joined

2 yr. ago

...which side of this argument are you on?

"There's no benefit to physical media." "Yes there is." "Why are you defending corporations?"

...what?

This is false. Firstly, because people don't subscribe to everything forever. But even in some Netflix utopia where everyone has a Netflix subscription, and they keep it forever, then what? Now you can't make any more money, you're making the maximum amount of money your business model can make. But you can keep people subscribed to your service by continuing to add new things, while also making extra money from those who would like to own physical copies.

Subscriptions detach income from titles, meaning all the service needs to do is exist and have things on it. There's no budget to actually create anything special. Physical offers a way to reconnect those, making something that is more expensive and in return making more money.

The ad-based plans everyone is introducing run on the same logic. Subscriptions aren't sustainable.

The "clickbait" title seems the more accurate of the two, having read the article.

Harmy's versions aren't anywhere near as good as TN1's (which have existed for years, none of this is news).

"These days"? They always have.

Clicking the link in Boost just opens it in my web browser. How do I actually subscribe?

Spent the entire last clip waiting for a finish where Becky hits the floor but it doesn't matter because she went through the ropes...but apparently we were just supposed to forget that?

It says "undisputed" on the graphic?

Didn't they just unveil different new tag belts the other day?

You are, in fact, wrong.

No? Words mean things. Enshittification is a deliberately driven business model, you're using it to describe random happenings.

Enshittification is a specific business model, not just "things becoming shit".

"Enshittification" has an actual meaning, and this isn't it.

It's unambiguous that it's not a person's actual name.

You said "Internet darling", not "indy darling".

any internet darling is going to end up in AEW by that fact alone.

This is the logic that had Owens and Zayn as AEW locks a year ago.

Making double your budget is basically breaking even, once you account for marketing costs and the cinema's cut of the take.

Video evidence is far more convincing than someone's say-so.

Streaming doesn't pay out per view, they just pay a lump sum up front to licence. If you're not already a hit, that lump sum will be low, and if millions of people stream the film it makes the studio exactly zero dollars.