Streaming service prices have more than doubled since coming onto market
Streaming video prices have risen sharply while content libraries shrink, more ads appear, and shows are fragmented across many competing platforms. Commenters argue this “enshittification” stems from studios trying to recapture cable-era profits, executive greed, and unstable streaming economics, rather than fairly paying writers and actors. Many say the value proposition has collapsed compared to piracy or personal media libraries, predicting a renewed shift toward illegal downloading and niche alternatives unless the user experience improves.
Pricing, profits, and who benefits
- Many argue higher prices are not flowing to creators but to executives and shareholders; several point to recent strikes over low residuals despite price hikes.
- Counterpoint: even large executive salaries are “a drop in the bucket”; services charge what the market will bear regardless.
- Some note streaming itself often runs at a loss; past low prices were “predatory” or subsidized growth, not sustainable.
Market structure, capitalism, and consolidation
- Studios pulled content from Netflix to run their own services, hoping for a bigger slice; several comments cite large streaming losses (e.g., Disney+) as evidence that bet has often failed.
- Debate over whether this is “capitalism working” (firms maximizing what households can pay, ~$150/month) vs. corruption and regulatory capture enabling abuses like long copyrights and weak antitrust.
- Skepticism that a stable equilibrium exists; consolidation back to “one big service” is seen as unlikely under current incentives.
User experience, fragmentation, and “cable 2.0”
- Core complaint: more services, higher prices, shrinking catalogs, regional gaps, blackouts, and ad tiers—often worse than cable + DVR.
- Many say the issue is less “paying” and more value and UX: multiple apps/accounts, constant churn, upsells inside subscriptions, disappearing titles.
- Some lament bundling streaming into phone plans or retail memberships, adding to subscription fatigue.
Piracy: protest, service gap, and limits
- Many openly say they’ve canceled subscriptions and returned to torrents/streams, framing piracy as protest against greed, fragmentation, and blackouts.
- One view: piracy is primarily a “service problem” (availability, convenience, region locks); another insists a significant share of pirates are “pay never” and will avoid paying at any price.
- Piracy is also praised for preserving content and offering better subtitle options and language tracks than legal services.
- Others warn enforcement is getting stronger (laws, device controls), so piracy’s long‑term advantage is “unclear.”
Content quantity, quality, and strikes
- Perception that originals chase quantity over quality; lots of formulaic, B‑tier shows.
- Some expect less content overall as budgets are cut; a few hope this raises average quality, others think greed will just mean fewer, worse shows.
- Strikes and recent production shutdowns are expected to create a content drought, worsening the value proposition.
Alternatives and proposals
- Growing interest in physical media and self‑hosted libraries (e.g., ripping Blu‑rays to Jellyfin/Plex), though future disc availability is uncertain.
- Ideas floated: per‑hour/pay‑per‑view models, federated subscription pools, banning exclusivity, backend “any title from any studio” platforms—generally seen as desirable but unlikely under current industry incentives.