[nostromo]

> Now I'm supposed to have Disney+, CBS All Access, HBO Max, Peacock, etc., and that list will probably grow

I honestly don't see why anyone needs more than maybe two streaming services. Do you really need to see everything? Even during the pandemic, two seems to be plenty for most families.

Imagine arguing that movies are too expensive now because you have to see a movie every day. The obvious solution is to prioritize what you view and watch fewer movies.

For most people the current approach is better: spending $20 or $30 a month instead of $80 -- and with much better choices available, and often without any ads.

[closeparen]

If you want to be frugal, it also makes a lot of sense to stop and start your subscriptions depending on what show(s) you're actively watching that season. During Game of Thrones I needed only HBO. During The Handmaid's Tale I needed only Hulu. During Stranger Things only Netflix.

[ASalazarMX]

The next headline would be: "Stopping and Starting Subscriptions Pose a Threat to Legitimate Streaming Platforms"

Well, more like "Dear subscriber, for your convenience and security, you can now activate your subscription in 3-month packages. Don't thanks us, at EvilCast, we're always thinking of you".

[closeparen]

This one is easier for them to fix with loyalty-based pricing and/or activation fees.

[ASalazarMX]

At least we can rest for now, knowing they won't do that until one of them is convinced it won the subscription streaming war.

[freeflight]

> Do you really need to see everything?

It's not about seeing everything, it's about seeing what's good, and how that's scattered across a dozen or more services where it's buried under mostly mediocre/bad content.

Sure, sometimes there's an option to just rent/buy digitally, but often that ends up being way more expensive than just buying a physical blu-ray version.

Case in point: If I wanted to stream Battlestar Galactica (2004) in Germany then the first option for that would be Amazon Prime Video. Even tho I pay for a prime membership, buying all 4 seasons digitally in HD quality, would cost me 92€, there is no option to just rent them.

While ordering the blu-ray set for the whole show, on Amazon with delivery tomorrow, would cost me 48€, nearly half as much and I get a physical version I can use as often and wherever I want, even if the unthinkable happens and Amazon goes out of business.

Why does the clearly inferior version of a product cost that much more?

[syntheticnature]

The virtual version doesn't take up space. Physical items occupy space so after a while they want to discount them to since that's costing them money to store. Digital items won't go away even if they put them on sale, and hard drive space is cheap.