posted by
cmn32480
on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:58AM
from the optimus-prime-is-not-happy dept.
from the optimus-prime-is-not-happy dept.
Thousands of movies will be removed from Netflix in the US after the streaming service decided not to renew a deal with distributor Epix.
Removed titles will include the Hunger Games and Transformers movies.
Netflix, which has more than 60 million subscribers worldwide, said it wanted to focus on exclusive content.
...
Explaining the move to subscribers, Netflix's chief content officer Ted Sarandos wrote: "While many of these movies are popular, they are also widely available on cable and other subscription platforms at the same time as they are on Netflix and subject to the same drawn out licensing periods."
Will this change in their library make you more or less likely to subscribe, or continue to subscribe?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Netflix Takes Gamble With Epix Film Cull in U.S.
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 33 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @05:14AM
So, they want to be another HBO. They let the success of a series or two go to their heads and now they're moving away from what made them successful.
Let the slide to mediocrity begin.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by slinches on Wednesday September 02 2015, @05:31AM
I don't think they want to be just another TV channel. I'm betting that the content rights owners are trying to jack up their contract rates now that they're expiring and some of Netflix's competitors are more willing to pay a premium for content to help improve their position in the market.
Maybe eventually we'll realize how insane it is for everyone to keep paying over and over for the same content and finally reform copyright. I mean how many of those movies would be in the public domain if we had kept the old 14+14yr terms? Then we could have a robust streaming market competing on cost and quality of the service rather than who can wrangle the most favorable contracts with the media companies.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Wednesday September 02 2015, @03:06PM
Begins? This has been going on for years. I remember when they raised their rates substantially just prior to them losing a bunch of content. The online catalog is still not very good and if it gets much worse, I'm not sure I'm going to even bother giving them money.
They no longer allow you to buffer out all or most of an episode, so on days where the internet sucks here, I can be waiting through a half dozen buffers on a 50 minute show.
The insulting thing is that they raised rates in order to fund their expansion into other countries, but I get to pay more money, but there's less and less content being provided. I'm not really sure how much longer I'm going to be paying, if the content continues to dwindle.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:31PM
What do you mean? They picked up a whole bunch of "History" Channel shows. You know the ones that aren't very good and even then aren't complete. Hell they can't even get How It's Made or Modern Marvels. And their movie selection? Try finding a scifi that wasn't part of the Epix package you want to watch. Sci-fi in general is garbage online. Anime on the other hand people seem to have in spades. The only sad part is that selection on cable is less and is getting worse. FFS having a Plex server is becoming a requirement.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:42PM
I probably should have been more clear. It's mostly things that I'm likely to want to watch. I seem to have to work harder and harder to find things that I'm interested in watching. Even just watching things that I've already watched is getting rather hard.
I'll probably start keeping a bit of a log of shows that I look for and can't find versus can find. But, I'm not looking for shows that are particularly obscure in most cases. They weren't the most popular things during their respective time, but they weren't obscure either. Things that they really ought to have, but aren't necessarily too expensive to license either.
But, it does seem to be getting worse as time goes by and when Netflix refuses to sign an extension it just makes matters worse.
OTOH, the industry is at risk of killing the goose with the golden eggs as I'm not going to be buying large numbers of DVDs because I can't find what I want on Netflix. I'll just do without. There's plenty of cool content online that doesn't come from the MAFIAA and I probably shouldn't be spending any time watching TV anyways.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 02 2015, @11:47PM
I written this before on SN, but I too have totally mined out Netflix's DVD and streaming selection. More and more I watch content on Instructables and YouTube. The more I watch there, the more inspired I feel to undertake my own projects and as I do, the happier I feel generally. For example, I've taken up brass etching and augmented my survival skills with different forms of snare building, etc. Maybe other people will experience this progression, too, and the DIY movement will swell with new practitioners.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jmorris on Wednesday September 02 2015, @05:15AM
This is nothing more than reality beginning to assert itself. Question: Who thought Netflix could offer all of the content of cable/sat at pennies on the dollar while ALSO producing original content? Answer, that couldn't but .com unreality allowed them to lose money on every subscriber and make it up on volume... and jacked stock valuations. But they were buying the exact same content (and producing in partnership with) the same media companies who own the cable companies, cable channels and broadcast networks, own the rights to all of the content viewers want to watch, etc.
So yes, cut the cord if it makes you happy or saves you some money NOW. Just don't expect the good times to roll on, looks like the ride is about to get bumpy. And when the ride comes to a complete stop don't be shocked when you are paying a hundie or so per month plus Internet costs (which will be higher as per megabyte billing mainstreams to make up the loss to the cable co) to stream. In the end, Hollywierd expects to make a certain amount of money per eyeball and they intend to get it. If you stop watching cable they will get you on streaming, and since most streaming lacks ads they will need to make that loss up too. The streaming companies, as they transition from .com wonderkids into GAAP method profitable media distribution companies will make about the same margins as cable does now. Meet the new boss, almost the same as the old. But you won't need a DVR anymore.. they won't work anyway, but you will get almost the same thing. A sealed silo that gives you the content on demand... until the contract isn't renewed. With most DVRs you keep the stuff you hadn't watched yet even if the channel gets dropped, with streaming... not so much.
And once they eliminate all physical media, when they memory hole a movie or show it will STAY in the hole.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday September 02 2015, @05:37AM
Nah [soylentnews.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:11AM
Really? I stopped watching cable and never get on streaming, are they going to shoot me then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by jmorris on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:47AM
Don't give them ideas.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday September 02 2015, @07:02AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:00PM
> This is nothing more than reality beginning to assert itself.
Nah, this is more about you just being unfamiliar with the way netflix works.
Netflix has been rotating content in and out of their streaming library since the beginning. [time.com] This is a non-story, business as usual.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @09:10PM
Hulu just announced a commercial-free subscription option.
That one-two might be enough to get people to switch.
(Score: 2) by Subsentient on Wednesday September 02 2015, @05:48AM
Waste of money, poor service, and they love giving the finger to non-Chrome Linux users, and until recently, Linux users in general.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @09:59AM
That's better than the other streaming content providers. Hulu just changed their player to require HAL. Amazon also requires HAL. You know a piece of software that has been dropped by every distribution.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @06:46AM
There's no way I'm going to pay to see a movie unless I get the whole moviegoing experience: giant screen, bag of popcorn, super big gulp, dirty seat, sticky floor, and a guy sitting behind me yelling "YES I AM TALKING DURING THE MOVIE BECAUSE I AM AN ASSHOLE."
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday September 02 2015, @10:23AM
Funny, that was only ever my experience at the old cheapo strip-mall movie theater in the 80s & 90s — all of the other theaters in the area upgraded in the late 1990s to high-backed soft chairs in stadium-seating arrangement (so we're unlikely to see/hear anyone unless they're REALLY loud), and they're generally kept clean.
Not that I go to the movies more than once every year or two; it's too expensive, especially after popcorn/drinks are factored in.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday September 02 2015, @12:31PM
When my wife and i watch netflix, we watch TV shows (although, my wife enjoys all the schlocky old horror movies, etc).
I rarely go to the movies (too expensive, YES!), so i pick and choose. Yes, went to the Star Trek Reboots... 'cause! (Green lovelies in their underwear, lol)
And went to see the Dr. Who movie just to see Tom Baker! (my wife didn't get it, but it was still great... especially all the young kids dressed up)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:33PM
Don't call that new drivel Star Trek. It doesn't have the right. Tom Baker Dr. Who on the other hand.. ::thumbsup::
(Score: 3, Funny) by VLM on Wednesday September 02 2015, @11:52AM
I may not know much about AC, but I do know AC does not have teen / tween children.
Yup that's pretty much my living room movie viewing experience.
Next time you want to watch something, just let me know, I can send over a couple kids to "improve" your experience.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by anubi on Wednesday September 02 2015, @07:11AM
Actually, things like this make other ways of getting content... like bit-torrent ... look like a more reliable way of getting stuff.
Not to say I condone it, but while the businessmen are bickering, their customers are getting fed up and going elsewhere and learning new tricks.
Another example of demand destruction is a couple of years ago, the soft drink prices seemed to skyrocket. I learned how to carbonate my own sodas with a cylinder of CO2 and a soda-bottle with a tire stem mounted in the cap. I have not bought soda since. I make my own. The prices came back down, but I still no longer buy soda pop. I now prefer my "roll my own" stuff to that the stores sell. I was not motivated sufficiently to learn how to make my own soda pop until some people got carried away with their pricing schemes.
Sometimes, this "artificial scarcity" meme - created only by lawmaker's pens - backfires. The credibility of law fails as lawmakers pander to the ones trying to create shortages of something that in reality is in nearly unlimited supply. They might as well try to charge for lighting a fire because someone submitted a claim on doing it. They think that law is going to shore up a business model supported solely by enforcement of "right to produce"? Only thing those kind of laws have ever done is foment a disrespect for the law. Matter of fact, we have no law except for those enforced by physics. All the rest of the tomes of books in lawyer's offices are merely ordinances, enforced only if some agent catches you doing it against his will.
I guess what I am trying to say is while some executive types are trying to create an artificial scarcity of their content, an unintended consequence is they are encouraging more of what used to be paying customers into the benefits of other distribution methods, and once their former customers learn the other ways of doing things, they now have the additional burden of trying to get them back.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @08:29AM
You can find plastic ones that are cheaper, but a CO2 cap like this may be interesting to you. I use them often. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00X08WCQE/ [amazon.com]
Depending on how much you drink, a 5 gallon pony keg might also be something to acquire. Keep it on CO2 and put it on tap.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Wednesday September 02 2015, @08:33AM
The great thing about Netflix was that just about anything I wanted to watch was available. Now, not so much. Exclusive deals balkanize the marketplace.
The way things are going, I'll have to subscribe to twenty streaming services if there are twenty movies I want to watch.
That's not going to happen. We're going to end up with impoverished video availability.
If this were to happen to the book industry, if I wanted to buy a book, I'd have to spend most of my time figuring out which bookstore happened to sell it, rather than just going to my regular one and letting the store figure out which publisher to special-order it from.
Come to think of it, isn't that what Amazon is in process of doing to the indie authors? Requiring exclusive deals in the hope of forcing the customers onto Kindles?
-- hendrik
(Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:16PM
Agree. It is this sort of bollocks that causes piracy to be a leading markey alternative...
No ads. All content. And on demand.
These 3 things are fundamentally different to media from 50 years ago...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Rivenaleem on Wednesday September 02 2015, @10:43AM
I don't mind so much if they are culling their back catalogue, of movies I've had ample opportunity to watch already. I'm more interested in the potential movies I have not yet seen that would have been added to Netflix.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @12:51PM
You can google for the list, it is comprised of crap.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @08:54PM
So you are saying more transformer movies?
(Score: 1) by esperto123 on Wednesday September 02 2015, @11:19AM
And nothing of value was lost...
Kidding aside, from what I've heard, this is only valid for the US, other places have different contracts and will not be affected (like Brazil).
To me this is a bad thing for them because they are now like a one stop shop where people would find all kinds of movies and series, if they start limiting their content too much without big catalogs and mostly with self production, people can start leaving, and, as pointed out above, using "free" alternatives.
But I guess Epix was probably getting too greedy on licensing terms because netflix is getting really big. In the end is hard to know if this is good for the consumer or not, on one hand getting this movies to other streaming services can create more competition, but on the other we would need to subscribe to more services and end up increasing costs.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 02 2015, @04:43PM
I think that Netflix is a very data-driven company, much more so than their rivals in Cable. They have extremely granular information on how people watch shows, where they drop off, which shows they try based on shows they know, etc. Remember that big contest they had several years back to come up with a better recommendation engine? I think that's a big part of what's driving this decision.
I suspect they've parsed the viewing patterns and found that the cost/benefit for the back library isn't there any more. The people who might know what those old movies and shows are are old, and already have seen them, or already have them on VHS or DVD, etc. Or they just stick with cable, because that's what they're used to. Young people don't know those shows and don't care and don't search for them. Apart from a handful of film/TV buffs, that is. So it seems like a strategic move on Netflix's part to dump that content, let their rivals stupidly snap them up at a premium, because that's what they think is valuable, and re-create their cord-cutting dilemma online. It could shape up to be a shrewd move on their part.
I do think that part of what Netflix is seeing in the viewership of their older content is self-reinforcing. I don't search for old content on Netflix anymore because over the years 9 times out of 10 they surprisingly do not have the movie or show I want to see, or they'll have had it one week but not the next. I look at the "Newly Added" sort of sections because that's what they have. So the more Netflix removes libraries of old content, the less people search for old content because it's futile.
As such, I think they're playing a dangerous game with their critical mass. Netflix's original series have been OK, but it's not must-see TV. "House of Cards?" If I want that kind of content, I can do something called "Watch the News." "Orange is the New Black?" Sorry, I tried, but I'm not a lesbian or in prison and I can't identify with any of it. If that's what they think their future is, I think they're going to be in for a surprise. Ironically, they will have turned themselves into the content producers that are withering in the new media landscape.
All this is notional. I don't have their data sets to analyze, nor do I those of their competitors. But after cancelling our DVD service because there's nothing left we want to watch, we nearly cancelled the streaming, too, because it's gotten quite thin there, too. We kept it to keep our kids entertained (when we needed them to sit down and be quiet), but they're choosing YouTube 3 times out of 4 while my wife and I have lost interest in video entirely (we've just seen it all).
For us it feels like the passive media forms of entertainment that prevailed in the 20th century are reaching their conclusion.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @10:06PM
a handful of film/TV buffs
Those might well be the most influential people [wikipedia.org], who guide others toward what's worth watching.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 02 2015, @05:37PM
Good job :)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Flyingmoose on Wednesday September 02 2015, @08:42PM
Netflix's DVD by mail service is a much better option, they literally have pretty much everything. The selection on streaming is shit.
(Score: 2) by everdred on Thursday September 03 2015, @05:00PM
Yes, this. Why is it that the world seems to have forgotten that this still exists?