Disney Confirms Upcoming Streaming Service Will Include Marvel and Star Wars Films

[Kabeyun]

This is why I prefer to own my video content, just as I do my music content. Who knows what movie will be yanked from the streaming service du jour just as you planned to watch it? No one is going to want to spend $10/month for each streaming rights holder's service anyway. I predict a surge in torrenting and a correlating uptick in VPN subscriptions. Just sayin'.

 

[acarney]

People have been asking/demanding a la carte pricing for cable for years... looks like they're getting it now, but in the streaming world. I could see this really working well if the prices were targeted toward a la carte style. If Netflix lost most major movies but had original content and B style movies and maybe classics but was $4.99/mo I could see lots of people keeping that. If Disney was $4.99 month and gave you Star Wars, Marvel, Disney Channel TV shows and old cartoons and stuff, I could see that. If ESPN was $4.99 to $10/mo or something (Sports are always more expensive for some reason...) that could work...

ABC, NBC, Fox, etc would probably need to be down near $2.99 or $3.99/mo each or something and maybe still have ads. Or partner with someone like Hulu or YouTube TV or something and bundle those plus extra channels (Food, Syfy, etc) for $20 to $30/mo it might all work.

If you wanted everything sure, you would be back up near $40 to $60/mo. But if you just were a Disney fan and standard TV style stuff you might be down near $35/mo. If you just wanted old movies, Netflix originals, and sports, maybe $15 or something.

I hate to say this, but it's almost like they need a cartel or something to fix the prices on all the options. I think if each guy thinks his service is the best and "worth" high end prices (which come on, when you've got share holders of course you're going to value your service high) no one is going to be able to pick up more then two or three streaming services (at $10+/month each). However, if you had someone that controlled those prices and basically packaged them into groups (but still allowed them to be bought one by one) the prices would start to fall in line with what "made sense" and then each individual could customize their personal cost based on their desire.

 

[jonnysods]

Post-cable era looks to be very fragmented and expensive.

Its sad. We are back where we started.

 

[lowendlinux]

I have 4k Netflix and Prime I'm not subbing to another service

 

[mw360]

Its sad. We are back where we started.

Maybe it just didn't get any cheaper to make TV and movies.

 

[Nunyabinez]

People have been asking/demanding a la carte pricing for cable for years... looks like they're getting it now, but in the streaming world. I could see this really working well if the prices were targeted toward a la carte style. If Netflix lost most major movies but had original content and B style movies and maybe classics but was $4.99/mo I could see lots of people keeping that. If Disney was $4.99 month and gave you Star Wars, Marvel, Disney Channel TV shows and old cartoons and stuff, I could see that. If ESPN was $4.99 to $10/mo or something (Sports are always more expensive for some reason...) that could work...

ABC, NBC, Fox, etc would probably need to be down near $2.99 or $3.99/mo each or something and maybe still have ads. Or partner with someone like Hulu or YouTube TV or something and bundle those plus extra channels (Food, Syfy, etc) for $20 to $30/mo it might all work.

If you wanted everything sure, you would be back up near $40 to $60/mo. But if you just were a Disney fan and standard TV style stuff you might be down near $35/mo. If you just wanted old movies, Netflix originals, and sports, maybe $15 or something.

I hate to say this, but it's almost like they need a cartel or something to fix the prices on all the options. I think if each guy thinks his service is the best and "worth" high end prices (which come on, when you've got share holders of course you're going to value your service high) no one is going to be able to pick up more then two or three streaming services (at $10+/month each). However, if you had someone that controlled those prices and basically packaged them into groups (but still allowed them to be bought one by one) the prices would start to fall in line with what "made sense" and then each individual could customize their personal cost based on their desire.

I don't want al-a-carte channels, I want al-a-carte media, i.e. I want to be able to buy one movie or one series, or even one episode of a series.

What consumers want is the iTunes model. The movie and TV industry is so out of touch with what people want that they think they are making things better, but actually making things worse.

The simple reality is that people expect things to be easy and cheap. If they can't get that legitimately they will get it for free, because it's really easy to do and free.

Most people are willing to pay a fair price, especially when it becomes easier to actually pay than steal, but regardless of what is morally right, people won't be gauged and they won't stop watching.

 

[Gasu E.]

Yes and that is a problem that needs to be addressed. I still maintain there needs to be a universal central system (think Amazon channels kind of) where all channels/services are priced at say $3 per channel or bundle them and save:
$5 for 3 channels
$10 for 10 channels
$20 for 25 channels

Yes, all channels should be worth (and be forced to charge) the same. That pretty much guarantees 999 different versions of The Discovery Channel. /s
[doublepost=1504812549][/doublepost]

I don't want al-a-carte channels, I want al-a-carte media, i.e. I want to be able to buy one movie or one series, or even one episode of a series.

What consumers want is the iTunes model. The movie and TV industry is so out of touch with what people want that they think they are making things better, but actually making things worse.

This actually exists. It's called "iTunes". It has competitors, too.

 

[nwcs]

Soon there will be a subscription service for all the various subscription streaming services. Cable 2.0 rises from the ashes of Cable 1.0. Same story, different distribution.

 

[0007776]

Its sad. We are back where we started.

There's a reason why cable cost so much. It has only got more expensive to make movies and shows.

 

[Juicy Box]

Post-cable era looks to be very fragmented and expensive.

Yep. I simply will not subscribe to multiple services just to get content that I already pay for with a single service today. By the time I add it all up, its worse than cable/fios. At some point, I'll cut the cord and decide to simply do with less.

Hulu, $7.99 - $11.99/month
Netflix, $7.99 - $11.99/month
Amazon Video, $8.99/month or $99/year
HBO Now, $14.99/month
ShowTime, $10.99/month or $109.90/year
DirecTV Now, $35 - $70/month
Sling TV, $20 - $40/month
Sony Playstation Vue, $39.99 - $74.99/month
YouTube TV, $35/month

So many options, with so much overlap.

There is even a few others I didn't price out here like Starz and CBS All Access.

You'd have to subscribe to at least 4-5 of these to access most exclusive programming and get a wide enough breadth of content to match comparable cable TV subscriptions.

Depending on what you choose, it may not cost any less than a cable TV subscription, which, I would imagine, is the main reason most people switch to streaming options and away from cable TV services.

And of course you'd need to be paying for an internet service connection on top of all of that.

It is definitely a mess. And now Disney is trying to add yet another subscription service to the lineup...

I really don't understand comments like this. No one said that people need to subscribe to every streaming service out there. Subscribe to a service you want, pay for it for a few months, get your fill on content, then unsubscribe for a while.

I am sure I am not the only person that does this for HBO. When GoT is on, subscribe to HBO, catch up on everything else you want to watch, then cancel.

If you subscribe using the ATV and iTunes, you can cancel your subscription using an iPhone and in less than 20 seconds.

Depending on what you choose, it may not cost any less than a cable TV subscription, which, I would imagine, is the main reason most people switch to streaming options and away from cable TV services.

And of course you'd need to be paying for an internet service connection on top of all of that.

If a consumer tries to save money and ends up paying more for their streaming services than their cable bill, it is their own fault. I find this hard to believe for most families anyways. A medium size family could have $40 a month or more in just rental equipment on their cable bill.

About internet, I think that many people over spend on that too. People paying for 200Mbps download speeds to stream movies, it is such a waste.

What consumers want is the iTunes model. The movie and TV industry is so out of touch with what people want that they think they are making things better, but actually making things worse.

I am not so sure about that, considering iTunes and other services like it have been selling media like this for a while now.

 

[HiRez]

Disney, I like your movies, but you can stuff it (same goes for you, CBS and everyone else). I am maxed out on streaming service subscriptions (Netflix, Amazon, HBO).

 

[Juicy Box]

Its sad. We are back where we started.

I disagree.

Think about amount of content you get for one streaming service, such as Netflix, or Hulu, for the amount that it costs.

Now, compare that to the amount of content that was available from pre-Netflix Cable companies for the same amount of money that Netflix costs. That might get you a few days of Cable TV service.

 

[daftpunker909]

Netflix, Amazon, and HBO are the only ones I am interested in. Ridiculous to think that Disney starts their own channel. Definitely not going to pay for that.

 

[TraceyS/FL]

No. No no no......

I will just go without, sorry kids.

 

[apolloa]

What I want to know, is does this mean no DVD or Blue Rays? And does this also mean no Marvels content on services like Sky or Now TV?

I'm still working out which service I prefer, Amazon is a given really cause of Prime delivery. But I've been testing Netflix and Now TV and subbing to TVPlayer. I have to say I'd be reluctant to try any others..

 

[Black Tiger]

This fragmentation will be what kills streaming, unfortunately.

Disney is pulling it's shows from Netflix to make their own service. Amazon is buying their own original programming to get people to subscribe to Prime. ESPN is launching their own streaming service. Hulu is buying their own original programming. Netflix is buying their own exclusives and original programming. There's rumors of Apple buying exclusive programming.

By the time these services are mature, the market will be massively segmented; people will need to buy separate subscriptions to Netflix, Prime, Hulu, ESPN, and Disney, among likely others (Apple?), many of these having huge overlap, just to get access to a couple shows.


And when people say: "X and Y have a 99% overlap in shows I want to watch- except this one exclusive show"...they won't want to sign up for a whole new service just to watch one show.


So what will they do? For many people, pirate.

Netflix has massively reduced film piracy rates just like Steam has reduced game piracy rates. Why? Because, as Gabe Newell put it, piracy is partially a service problem. Piracy rates increase when piracy becomes more convenient than the traditional product. Harsh DRM or poor distribution frequently drives up piracy rates.


Unless these new services are very cheap...when the digital market fragments and people don't want to spend enormous amounts of money to subscribe to redundant services just to get access to a show...I'm going to predict high piracy rates of those shows.

I agree with all of this. I do however get concerned about Netflix having a monopoly so I wonder what the solution is?

 

[omihek]

In other news, Taylor Swift confirms her upcoming album will feature herself on every song.

 

[unobtainium]

How much would it cost to just buy every Disney-owned movie every year? Looking at their roadmap there are only 6 releases this year, most of which I don't care about. Even looking to next year there are 10, but maybe 5 or 6 I'd care to watch. At $20/video (if you don't do codes) you might save some money buying vs. paying this service. Where they really get you is with the back catalog. But I only really care about the cartoons from the 90s onwards and I already own about every Pixar movie. Maybe once they flush out their TV content a bit more and ramp up more Star Wars content it would be worth it—probably even more if you have kids and they like to watch all their cruddy sequels like Lion King 1-1/2.

Well Disney also owns ABC, ESPN, the Disney Channel and its various offshoots, etc. Add that to the film catalog (including all the Star Wars and Marvel movies) and you have a fairly huge collection.

 

[Mac 128]

This fragmentation will be what kills streaming, unfortunately.

Disney is pulling it's shows from Netflix to make their own service. Amazon is buying their own original programming to get people to subscribe to Prime. ESPN is launching their own streaming service. Hulu is buying their own original programming. Netflix is buying their own exclusives and original programming. There's rumors of Apple buying exclusive programming.

By the time these services are mature, the market will be massively segmented; people will need to buy separate subscriptions to Netflix, Prime, Hulu, ESPN, and Disney, among likely others (Apple?), many of these having huge overlap, just to get access to a couple shows.


And when people say: "X and Y have a 99% overlap in shows I want to watch- except this one exclusive show"...they won't want to sign up for a whole new service just to watch one show.


So what will they do? For many people, pirate.

Netflix has massively reduced film piracy rates just like Steam has reduced game piracy rates. Why? Because, as Gabe Newell put it, piracy is partially a service problem. Piracy rates increase when piracy becomes more convenient than the traditional product. Harsh DRM or poor distribution frequently drives up piracy rates.


Unless these new services are very cheap...when the digital market fragments and people don't want to spend enormous amounts of money to subscribe to redundant services just to get access to a show...I'm going to predict high piracy rates of those shows.

And then there's Warner Bros. and ATT. WB is already producing an exclusive DC Titans for their streaming service. Here's the reality, there's over 500 scripted TV series in production right now. All being produced at very high standards. What will happen is that people will subscribe to the services with the shows they want to watch, and studios will have to raise the quality of their shows to get a subscriber to spend their money on it. A rising tide raises all boats. Creatively, the content should improve dramatically. I'd rather pay for high quality entertainment than watch whatever crap happens to be available in a cheap package.

 

[jonnysods]

I disagree.

Think about amount of content you get for one streaming service, such as Netflix, or Hulu, for the amount that it costs.

Now, compare that to the amount of content that was available from pre-Netflix Cable companies for the same amount of money that Netflix costs. That might get you a few days of Cable TV service.

Yes but now those services are so segmented, that the shows you want are on separate services, and the rest is filler. It's exactly like cable TV now. 10% of a service is something you actually want to watch.

 

[Blu Reel]

Streaming is definitely overpriced, but to say that streaming is more fragmented than cable puzzles me as I recall having a variety of cable packages to choose from, but for some funny reason, none of those packages were an exact match to what I wanted to watch. I don't see streaming services as being fragmented, but rather a move towards organization of content by the different producers of those content. Instead of a Disney channel on cable, it's now a Disney streaming service, a Sony pictures streaming service, a Warner Bros streaming service. They produce their own content. They cut out the middle men. Now they just need to be reasonable in the pricing.

 

[cast128]

About internet, I think that many people over spend on that too. People paying for 200Mbps download speeds to stream movies, it is such a waste.

If I could get a 'symmetrical' 200 Mbps internet connection I would be ecstatic. Upload speed is becoming increasingly important and many people, like myself, upgrade their internet just to get the increased upload speed. But don't even get me started on that...

 

[macduke]

Well Disney also owns ABC, ESPN, the Disney Channel and its various offshoots, etc. Add that to the film catalog (including all the Star Wars and Marvel movies) and you have a fairly huge collection.

I always forget about ESPN. But Disney Channel? Meh. Even EPSN is pretty much garbage nowadays.

 

[Juicy Box]

Yes but now those services are so segmented, that the shows you want are on separate services, and the rest is filler. It's exactly like cable TV now. 10% of a service is something you actually want to watch.

But unlike cable, you can quickly and easily cancel and re-subscribe the streaming services at anytime.

Watch what HBO has then cancel, move on to Showtime, and do the same thing. Binge watching all the HBO programming that interests you over a month or two, then cancelling for a few months is a great option for getting all the content you want, while saving a lot over cable.
[doublepost=1504827602][/doublepost]

If I could get a 'symmetrical' 200 Mbps internet connection I would be ecstatic. Upload speed is becoming increasingly important and many people, like myself, upgrade their internet just to get the increased upload speed. But don't even get me started on that...

Yeah I understand, and some cable companies like Comcast have horrible upload speeds. Although, I bet the speeds are just fine for the average joe streamer.

My parents for example, have FiOS 200/200 Mbps, and I am sure they could get by on a tiny fraction of that. They occasionally use Netflix and surf the web.

 

[Gasu E.]

Post-cable era looks to be very fragmented and expensive.

This should have come as a surprise. Cable bundles have been keeping the total price down, contrary to what some have been saying.