Live data from Hacker News

Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

joe-steel.com

271–280 of 289 posts

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#271
post #147
post #15

Basically there was a finite amount of content and a lot of it appeared on Netflix. Then 4+ services launched and a near fixed amount of content was divided by 4. Then they doubled the price. So now for a worse discovery experience you are effectively paying 8x the price.

The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…

> How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech company in-house instead of just doing what they know and licensing their content to the experts.

They may or may not have tech issues. Their issues with Star Wars are far larger than anything having to do with tech, starting from the fact that apparently no-one associated with Star Wars in over a decade appears to like, understand or even be more than superficially familiar with Star Wars.

In the particular case of Rian Johnson, if one only examined The Last Jedi it would not be clear that he is even superficially familiar with cinema, film, science fiction, space opera or simple storytelling. The Force Awakens may have been bad fan fiction, but TLJ was something I’ve never seen before: hate fiction. Actually, maybe ‘hate’ is too strong a word: perhaps TLJ is evidence of a creative team who doesn’t appear to hate Star Wars so much as resent it. They appear to have resented it for existing, for being successful, for being a world they had to tell their stories in. But it’s resentment tinged with something verging into hatred.

I honestly believe that for generations to come Disney’s squandering of the Star Wars franchise will be taught in schools alongside the New Coke fiasco. It’s remarkable: while success would not necessarily have been easy, Disney could have churned out low-effort dreck like TFA for years. It would have been bad, but folks would have eaten it up.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#272
post #177
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…

I can’t square your comment with the fact that my experience of the other big name streaming services has been just as good as my experience with Netflix. They basically all just work almost all the time. If Netflix has more valuable technical excellence it should show in the customer experience of the product.

HBO’s offering is particularly terrible. It’s amazing how often it just … pauses with a blank screen. Or thinks that I am episodes back in my watch history.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FTL already exists, so there's not really any point making new video games anyway.

I love FTL, but.. are you playing it with mods or something? I get way more replayability out of Slay the Spire. In particular, a lot of events in FTL have very binary outcomes (literal coin flip: gain a crew, or one of your crew dies), whereas events in STS feel like they have more strategic and tactical value.

I think the big "replayability" factor in FTL for me is the knowledge that there are guys out there with win rates over 95% on Hard difficulty.

There's definitely some sameness that creeps in over time, and the events are for sure one of the places where that happens.

But to me there's something almost mystical about the fact that some guys have managed to "solve" the game to that point - that for almost any problem the game presents you, there's a way to win. Even for the ships that seem shitty, with careful play you can get a run snowballing to the point where victory is assured. It almost feels like chess - if you could just see the solution you almost always have a way to win the game.

I don't use mods except a couple little quality of life mods, as most of the mods I've seen (in particular Multiverse) seem to deviate too much from the fairly minimalist design philosophy that I think makes FTL so great. I'd love to see some mods that just add some more events or something that feels like it's thematically in line with that minimalism.

Lastly, I think FTL is one of the best games ever made in terms of really putting you into the mindset of the theme. You just feel like a spaceship captain, or like a Culture style ship "Mind", when you are doing little micro moments like quickly pulling the power from oxygen to squeeze a bit more out of the engines. Or venting rooms to move boarders around your ship. Or planning for the worst on Mantis B and pre-venting rooms. There's so much depth in the game waiting to be exploited.

Usually I go through kicks with FTL and then lose interest for a while, sometimes years at a time - but I always learn something new when I come back and I've gotten to be quite good on my most recent obsession with the game.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#274

I honestly can never understand people who say there is not enough good content on streamers. Every single service I have subscribed to has way more content that I want to watch than time I have to watch it. I watch maybe an hour a night, and I have a huge backlog of shows I’d like to watch that I slowly work through. Even my current list will take me years, and I have new shows to add all the time. Are these people…

> I honestly can never understand people who say there is not enough good content on streamers.

What is there that is worth watching? They don’t make anything good anymore: no Seinfeld, no Office, no Parks & Rec, no Castle, no Bones, no House. Everything new is terrible, often embarrassingly so.

It’s as though sometime in the last decade all the talent and skill left media, and now we have corporations and people going through the motions but not actually producing anything worth watching.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#275
post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can’t square your comment with the fact that my experience of the other big name streaming services has been just as good as my experience with Netflix. They basically all just work almost all the time. If Netflix has more valuable technical excellence it should show in the customer experience of the product.

HBO’s offering is particularly terrible. It’s amazing how often it just … pauses with a blank screen. Or thinks that I am episodes back in my watch history.

I have not really encountered anything like that in a few years. It was pretty bad back when HBO Now and Go were newer, though.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#276
post #214
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you see a detective show, you basically seen 80% of all detective shows. That's why it seems that there can be nothing to watch, because 80% is basically a rehash, just with different characters and slightly different plots.

Once you've read one HN comment you've basically read 80% of all comments.

Does your comment scale? And is it written in a memory-safe language?

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#277
post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you must like detective fiction, eh? You’ve won me over and to your point you can have a Fr. Brown (1950s Catholic priest detective) and a Dexter (blood splatter analysis turned serial killer). Now of course the basic premise is always the same good (but conflicted) guy sees bad thing done, investigates, finds bad guys and reconciles one small aspect of world and maybe one small aspect of self discovery. Heck, mos…

Nit: Basically all stories have a form like that. (I _think_ detective stories specifically choose for the protagonist to want societally-sanctioned retribution. The protagonist then has to publicly demonstrate that the antagonist deserves retribution, rather than take retribution on their own. And the stories also assume that society can and will inflict retribution on the antagonist once the society's rules are sat…

The more hardboiled the detective story, the more they are willing to seek non-socially sanctioned retribution. It's kind of funny because Father Brown partially refutes both parent and GP: the police never arrest the right guy, and the priest is neither conflicted nor in need of self-discovery, and is motivated mostly by a need to carry through God's mission of forgiveness through repentance.

There are other aspects that you're both missing. One is the puzzle aspect: Detective Conan is almost entirely these kind of alibi and murder weapon tricks. There's only so much you can do in 25 minutes to characterize, after all.

The other aspect in common is dealing with the problem of evil, specifically what drives people to the edge, to the ultimate transgression. So often I'll spend more time thinking about the perps than the detectives.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#278
post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing for me is that the media companies that thought they could just launch their own streaming services and keep all the money for themselves completely devalued the engineering of Netflix. It was "FAANG" for a reason. Viscerally, Netflix doesn't feel like it belongs alongside Google, but it did, because it was good. How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech c…

> How does Disney fail to make money off Star Wars? Because they decided to build a shitty tech company in-house instead of just doing what they know and licensing their content to the experts. They may or may not have tech issues. Their issues with Star Wars are far larger than anything having to do with tech, starting from the fact that apparently no-one associated with Star Wars in over a decade appears to like, u…

My assumption was that Disney makes content for children, and children don't have the same quality standard as adults. The story only needs to be good enough so adults are willing to sit through it on repeat every day for a year.

For Disney, Star Wars exists to sell Lego sets and trips to the theme park.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep thinking about Plex but I struggle with the idea of teaching my kids that stealing is okay. Like, for a little kid: "This kind of theft is okay, this kind of theft isn't." seems nuanced for a little kid.

Why do people think it is OK to steal media? I never understand it. After university, I reduced my media stealing habits by 99+%. During/before uni, I was broke and could not afford to buy media. (Not an excuse, but just the reality.) After uni, I had a job so I could afford to buy some media.

I don't think it's OK to steal. I do think it's OK to copy, because the person I "stole" from still has his/her original.

Property laws exist because property is scarce. But if I copy your idea or your data, all I'm doing is wiring the neurons in my brain in the same fashion as yours, or arranging the bits on my own computer in the same order as yours.

"Intellectual property" is a contradiction in terms. I'm open to arguments that there might still be reasons it shouldn't be OK, but arguments from property rights or analogies to theft just don't work.

Re: Please Pay for a Year of Nothing

#280
I wonder if that effect has a name in economics. But streaming services essentially killed themselves.

When it was only Netflix, is was great, they had a lot of content at an affordable price, consumers liked that, and plenty of people were ready to pay for it. They almost accomplished the impossible: they beat piracy without a single lawsuit, simply because they offered something worth paying the price they asked for.

As a result Netflix made a lot of money, and another company (call it B) thought: why sell our work for a low price to Netflix, we can do it ourselves and get the full benefits. So they launch their service, some people leave Netflix for the new service, so Netflix makes a little less money, and the new company a little more. Now a third player comes in with the same reasoning, and now the third company makes a little more money, and the other two, a little less, repeat as many times as you want.

Now, let's focus on company B. They made more money by launching their streaming service at the time they did it, but now, with all the other players (including piracy that made a comeback), their benefits drop, possibly below what they did when it was only Netflix. Everyone lost money.

So, by a series of seemingly rational decisions: each new streaming service made more money for the company at the time they launched it, in the end, everyone lost. There is some game theory here.

Post reply on HN