|
|
|
|
|
|
by jaredklewis
2472 days ago
|
|
|
Your comment doesn't address the parent's question. Forget about streaming services, you can rent nearly every big screen movie ever from iTunes, Google Play, or Amazon, instantly for $3-6 dollars. Adjusting for inflation, these prices are very much comparable with what video rental stores used to offer. iTunes alone has more than 100k movies (for perspective Netflix doesn't even have 10k). Many in this thread (and to a lesser extent the article) are acting like movie watchers want to pay money, but it's just too complicated to do so. Renting a movie on iTunes/Play/Amazon is at least as easy as torrenting something, and the selection is massive. "If I can watch any movie ever for $10/month, I'll do it, but otherwise I'll just pirate them" is a very strange viewpoint IMHO. I would like unlimited groceries for $10/month, but I'm not going to just to stealing them because that's not an option. |
|
|
For heavy consumers, the renting fees will add up quickly and the selection on those stores is not as flawless as you make it out to be.
To this day Amazon still demands more money for anything better than SD quality, information about supplied subs/dubs is spotty at best, if they are even supplied at all. Bonus content? Completely missing.
Why deal with that when for nearly the same amount of money you can often order a complete Bluray and own the movie in a physical format? Not just a "temporary license to stream"?
> "If I can watch any movie ever for $10/month, I'll do it, but otherwise I'll just pirate them" is a very strange viewpoint IMHO.
Then it's good nobody here claimed anything like that. But you are still stuck in this "all pirates are cheap freeloaders" mode, when in reality piracy usually happens in addition to the user already being a heavily paying fan of the medium [0]. Piracy supplements that when it's more convenient/not legally available/past the monthly budget.
[0] https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/evkmz7/study-again-shows-...