[prepend]

Because their own chain versions are bad ($20/month for 3 movies/week for just AMC vs $10/month for 1movie/day anywhere) and will not be successful with consumers.

This reminds me of the late 90s/early 2000s when record company’s response to Napster/mp3 was to make worse services for more money. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PressPlay

[jhbadger]

I'm a Moviepass holder myself, and I love it, but let's face it. It's not going to last. It's losing money and the chains don't like it. Yes, I'd prefer a future with Moviepass, just as I'd like everything to be on Netflix, but neither are going to be the future. Like it or not, multiple streaming services and (likely) multiple movie subscriptions are the future. What this will mean is that people will only have one or two just like they have one or two streaming services.

[s73v3r_]

"Because their own chain versions are bad ($20/month for 3 movies/week for just AMC vs $10/month for 1movie/day anywhere) and will not be successful with consumers."

The AMC one also doesn't involve the dog and pony show you have to pull off with MoviePass, it includes premium showings like IMAX and stuff, and if you're in a place where most, if not all of your local theaters are AMC, it's not a problem.

[prepend]

There are likely a few conditions where this made sense. Just like Pressplay also had a few users.

But I’m willing to bet anyone a $100 value smart contract that this thing will not exist for long.