Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

taylor.town

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 138 posts

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#71

Post by danpalmer »

josh-sematic wrote: post #68
danpalmer wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah all of this is just a lot of work and decisions, and rolling a dice just feels weird and unfair. I do pay for YT premium which distributes money across my views which is therefore somewhat fair, and I'm considering a Nebula subscription (if Curiosity Stream's sign up flow doesn't persuade me not to again). I wish that Patreon had a support format where I could pay, say, $20 a month to Patreon and have that sprea…

The dice strategy is only unfair if you look at it from the perspective that you’re the only one doing things that way. But lots of people are likely doing something similar to that so that on average across enough people it works out. I would wager that most people who support at least one creator probably still consume media from far more creators than they can afford to support, so they just pick one or two someho…

Oh sure I realise rationally that it's fair, but given that my aim is somewhat to support creators and somewhat to feel good about supporting creators, it doesn't really help me on the latter because irrationally it feels unfair. I am not sure lots of people would be doing this though.

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#72

Post by pcthrowaway »

rglullis wrote: post #34
danpalmer wrote: post #19

While the numbers might be a bit hit and miss, the comparison with individual creators is fascinating and definitely hits upon something that keeps me from subscribing to patreons/etc. I don't have just one creator who I would consistently want to support the most, there are probably 10-20 who I would like to support, however I'm not going to pay 10x of them $5/h for content when YouTube is 1x $0.50/h (and has their…

I wonder if there would be interest in a non-crypto version of the Brave program. In theory, that's exactly what they do: you set a total monthly donation and which creators you want to support, and the browser keeps track of how much each should get at the end of the month. Unfortunately, what ended up happening is that the program is too complicated for people with disposable income who would be interested and it g…

Not to mention, it's pretty much impossible to get paid with the program in a lot of (most?) countries. As in, you get paid in BAT in some custodial service, but you can't really get it off that service to trade it to your local currency and get it into your bank account. You can't get it onto a blockchain to swap on a DEX and convert to USDT or whatever. And if you can, you'd be eaten away by fees.

Add to that, tax on BAT payments would be a nightmare to figure out.

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#73

Post by skyyler »

c2h5oh wrote: post #67

Video games take an average of 18h to beat now: https://howlongtobeat.com/stats and on average players will play less than half of that https://deathisawhale.com/2021/01/20/how-many-players-actual... Excluding multiplayer games with huge replayability AAA titles cost closer to $8-10/h of entertainment. A LOT of AAA titles can be completed in about 10 hours and still cost $60

The value proposition of AAA video games is actually just sad compared to indies.

Stardew Valley comes to mind, but also infinitely re-playable games like The Binding of Isaac...

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#74

Post by pcthrowaway »

danpalmer wrote: post #66
rglullis wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BAT only leaves the user wallet if the creators joins the program. There is no black hole.

Ah good, that's better than Flattr and previous attempts at this then. Does this mean that if none of the creators you support accept BAT then you aren't paying anything? Does it mean that if just one of them accepts it then you're paying all of your BAT to them? What if you mostly watch YouTube channels of people who wouldn't be onboard with it, but get linked one video by someone you don't like but they do accept i…

See my other comment, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38685162

It's impossible for many creators to actually benefit from the program (but this isn't straightforward when they sign up, which does in fact leave a black hole)

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#75

Post by AaronFriel »

c2h5oh wrote: post #67

Video games take an average of 18h to beat now: https://howlongtobeat.com/stats and on average players will play less than half of that https://deathisawhale.com/2021/01/20/how-many-players-actual... Excluding multiplayer games with huge replayability AAA titles cost closer to $8-10/h of entertainment. A LOT of AAA titles can be completed in about 10 hours and still cost $60

Important to remember that the distributions here are multi-modal, so averages don't represent the data well. For AAA games I think you're way off. Looking at the 5 top played games in 2023, "main story" to "completionist":

    Title                  Main Story (hrs)      Completionist (hrs)
    Baldur's Gate 3              57                    146
    Super Mario Wonder           10                     19
    Starfield                    22                    145
    Zelda: ToTK                  59                    235
    Hogwarts Legacy              27                     68
Of these, the first two are co-op but not the same kind of multiplayer I think you allude to. Super Mario Wonder is not, I think, what many people would call "AAA".

If we add Spider-Man 2, that's still a 17 hour main story, and has been criticized for being "too short". Many people who purchase AAA titles do expect 20-30 hours of entertainment, for a ~$2/hour return. And the Game of the Year is the title with the second best ROI!

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#76

Post by cj »

ceejayoz wrote: post #21
reedf1 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hours of TV watched a day are unintuitive to me, and by my opinion absurdly high. I discovered a few months ago, this graph: https://www.statista.com/statistics/269918/daily-tv-viewing-... Which completely shifted my understanding of TV consumption. Median daily UK linear TV viewing time was 3 hours in 2021.

I suspect the stat gets blown out of proportion by people who leave the TV on as background noise. I'll never personally understand having a TV in the bedroom, but I know folks who can't fall asleep without it on.

The GP said median, which should reduce the bias of the outliers.

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#77

Post by westurner »

danpalmer wrote: post #19

While the numbers might be a bit hit and miss, the comparison with individual creators is fascinating and definitely hits upon something that keeps me from subscribing to patreons/etc. I don't have just one creator who I would consistently want to support the most, there are probably 10-20 who I would like to support, however I'm not going to pay 10x of them $5/h for content when YouTube is 1x $0.50/h (and has their…

> To me, content creation is always going to need to be bundled at some level

W3C Web Monetization does micropayments with It is an open spec: https://webmonetization.org/specification/

Micropayments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micropayment

Upcoming, Subscribing, and Word of Mouth get creators more viewers and thus ad revenue.

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#79

Post by nkohari »

eliblock wrote: post #65
readams wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's sort of how YouTube premium actually works; creators are paid an allocation based on time watched for premium users to replace ad revenue.

Yeah I guess in general I would just rather pay per use for streaming. Also it might feel more like directly supporting the creator.

Most people aren't like you FWIW; there's a lot of research that suggests consumers prefer higher fixed prices to lower variable prices. The trouble with PPV (even if it's much cheaper than something like YouTube Premium) is that now before I watch any video, I have to consider whether that particular video is worth watching. For lots of content on YouTube, that bar would be too high to clear. It's much more comfortable knowing I've already paid for the service and don't need to think twice.

Re: Paying Netflix $0.53/H, etc.

#80

Post by boplicity »

The easy mistake to make with this type of data is to assume that any creator (or business like Netflix) would have a functional business model if they were paid "hourly" or by piece of content. Such a model would ensure the enshitification of content by enforcing pressure to create predictably "successful" content.

The alternative: Give real, predictable, support to creators and not content. Pay people to create.

Give them the opportunity to fail and support them anyways. If they keep failing, sure, stop supporting them. But at least give them a few chances.

This is why subscription models work: They provide stability and predictability. The problem with "microtransactions" is that it's all about commodification, which is the worst possible outcome for the creation of good art, reporting, and journalism.

Post reply on HN