Do people actually think that people subscribed to Netflix to watch an ad?
People already subscribed to Netflix might have watched an ad earlier than you did. And you’re so upset over that you made a comic about it?
Who is actually most deserving of that crown?
There is a tier of Netflix where people pay to see ads in their content.
“Just because my man is made of straw doesn’t mean he’s not real.”
Of course it’s Rockstar
Removed by mod
If the adverts are locked behind paywalls, it really doesn’t bode well for in game content.
They said that “they want to reach a wider audience”, so that’s why they’re doing it. At least it’s coming to the Rockstar games website and YouTube 6 hrs later.
I feel like they could’ve done it differently, but I get it. I guess. Idk, all corporations suck at this point.
I expect the real reason why is an exclusivity deal that sees them profit before the games even released. Releasing the ad to the wider audience is simply to allow the ad to do what its intended to do; bring attention to the game.
Once they’ve got the dollar from Netflix for exclusivity, its no longer in their interest to keep the ad exclusive. I’m sure the same will happen with netflix’s ‘exclusive’ extended look in August.
Yeah, corporations definitely suck, and unfortunately suckers will lap this nonsense up just so they can be ‘first’ or whatever. Really takes the soul out of gaming in my withered and humble opinion.
“they want to reach a wider audience”
By locking their ads behind a $20 (or however much Netflix is these days) paywall.
What’s next? They’re going to try to reach Trump fans by making the only playable character a transfem POC atheist who’s married to and has children with a transmasc immigrant and doesn’t like guns?
Because that would probably be pretty rad… Where was I going with this again? 😁
Netflix is up to $27/month now. It’s insane.
Ew… $27/month for the shit they have these days?
This is how I view anyone still paying Netflix while constantly complaining about their “second screen” policy.
If you hate how shitty modern Netflix is, yet you still pay a subscription to them… YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, FUCKFACE!!
If you hate how shitty modern Netflix i
I don’t have a Netlifx subscription but it worked fine couple of years ago. What’s so shitty about it now? Do they have availability issues? Ads? Bugs? Less content? Or is the only issue that they don’t let people share accounts anymore?
Yes, yes, not sure, yes, and that is a big reason
The “Second Screen” complaint is that they produce shows with shallow depth. So simple that you still get it while focussing on your main screen (e.g. Instagram, Tiktok on your phone).
Oh, but are most people subscribing to Netflix for its original content?
Shitty content is definitely not just Netlix issue. A lot of content from many different providers is simply bland now. The issue is that production companies rely on algorithms to decide what will sell. “People liked this show about ghosts and this show about pirates so let’s make a show about ghost pirates”. That being said, many original shows are still huge success so they still try to branch out and try new things. So yes, there’s more and more mediocre, bland content but it affects all platform and all content, not just Netflix.
For me personally fragmentation is the big issue. If someone made “Spotify for movies”, where I could watch literally all the shows on a single subscription, without ads, with good UI and interoperability between platforms I would pay for it. I will not pay for 10 subscriptions to watch one show from each one of them. I think Netflix as a platform is fine, it’s the market that shitty.
If someone made “Spotify for movies”, where I could watch literally all the shows on a single subscription, without ads, with good UI and interoperability between platforms I would pay for it.
So Netflix, a few years ago. I know, they didn’t license everything, but they did have a good catalogue, good price, and it just worked. Now they’ve got tiers and ads and bullshit.
I’m not sure creating a streaming monopoly is much better as an alternative. I’ve been workshoping the idea that we should have a “public option” for being able to buy and watch shows and movies so that the subscription model would need to become more competitive, but the US especially is just too private enterprise focused support that right now.
It’s actually interesting topic. I think Spotify worked fine and now that they are starting to behave like every evil corporation out there we’re getting alternatives like Qobuz. Music is different because you have many publishers and platforms like Spotify are just another distribution channel. You can still buy discs or use iTunes or whatever but you also get streaming. Spotify doesn’t make music themselves but artists are getting pennies from them. They make more money from other channels.
With TV it’s different because IP is so incredibly valuable here. Everyone is trying to control their content. Netflix used to be kind of the default streaming distribution channel like Spotify but then Disney decided that since they have Star Wars they can just split and monetize it themselves (Disney probably wasn’t first but you get my point). So now all the streaming platform produce their own content and since it’s the thing that gives them value they don’t want to share it.
So the real solution here would be to follow the music industry model: separate content producers from streaming platforms. The streaming platform would compete on features (remember when Netflix had perfectly functioning ‘skip intro’ and ‘next episode’ features but Amazon didn’t?) and producers would compete on content. Mixing those two jobs is what’s killing the experience. No idea if it’s economically viable but I think that would be the model that would give us best user experience.
What about your local library/interlibrary loan media collections?
Not good for capital generation. Media needs to generate revenue like everything else in this system, otherwise it starves.
That sounds as though people don’t actually want to watch it if they’re looking at their phone instead. Maybe watch one of the 6000 odd other titles that you can focus on. If you can’t find something to enjoy out of that catalogue, maybe you’re just being overly picky.
Fully agree. But from a business standpoint they don’t care that you actually watch. As long qs you pay.
I pay for Netflix and don’t find it in any way shitty. Never did. I have zero complaints about what I get for my small monthly fee. There’s more than plenty on there to keep me and my kids busy.
I dont have a Netflix subscription.
Preaching to the choir here
What’s this referencing?
Netflix made a deal with Rockstar to run a GTA VI ad on Netflix six hours before it’s on other platforms.
Wow that’s really dumb
See, you hypetrain the hypetrain now.
12 dimensional marketing.
People are simplifying it a bit too much. Take Two is calling it an extended look at the game. Knowing Rockstar, it’ll preview a lot of the story and show off the gameplay adjustments/additions from the last release. Some agreement happened between Take Two and Netflix, understanding that this release was going to draw a lot of attention, so they worked out this timed exclusivity thing.
Let’s be honest, this will be the official look at Lucina’s absolute fat ass for those who weren’t able to see it 2 years ago.
Rockstar is honestly innovating ass technology to new levels
Dropping all civility, I’ll say; hummuna hummuna, awwwooooga, boiyoiyoing, SCHWIINNGGG
This is just a racket to get money from streamers because they need to be the first ones to see it to drive up engagement. I will wait until some youtuber makes a video with the most important parts. What I find unbelievable is that they made an announcement for an ad for a game.
I doubt streamers will even be able to stream it with netflix DRM
“Most important parts”
I’m really not understanding what would be so important in the ad… They’re not creating anything revolutionary.
That it plays without stuttering and the amount of NPCs in the street
But it’s an ad for a game. Cut scenes aren’t going to be gameplay and any gameplay will be done in a controlled code stable version of the few seconds they’ll show at a time with heavy editing.
The games going to be a buggy mess when it releases. I’m sorry to break the news to you.
I am not going to play the game on release as it will only be available on console. I will be waiting for the PC release with most of the bugs ironed out. The ad for the ad said that there would be gameplay so I am waiting for that. AAA or not, I know of a certain fit girl that can supply me.
Is that Rockstar’s track record now? I remember RDR2 releasing in a pretty stable condition. Regardless, bugs or no, I think people deep into gaming usually see the most important parts as what the gameplay is shaping up to be. So that would be, how has the driving changed, is there more thought and effort put into the non-violent side-content, how intractable is the world and to what degree is the world responsive? Stuff like that. The folks I usually listen to are mostly on that track since graphics are generally irrelevant now and the story is… Gonna be a Rockstar story, and won’t be anywhere near GTA IV, so it’s not that exciting.
It sucks, but GTA is one of our last tentpole entertainment products. I understand people being a little excited to participate, and that also means the corps milking it for every last cent. The Netflix thing makes sense in the same way superbowl commercials make sense. And it does look like this is supposed to be the big gameplay showcase, so wanting to tune in as a gaming insider also tracks. It is what it is.
I will do the same as with GTA V:
- Play the whole story
- Do side-content till I’m bored
- Fuck around trying to go as fast as possible around the whole city.
I am a simple man, I just want to have a big city to run around.
We finally found him! John Openworld! The core reason why game devs keep making every game into an open world!
I have a question I always wanted to ask. Is it more important for the world to be deep or wide? More side content or more to navigate?
I do prefer content to be distributed in central hubs with fast transportation between them. I don’t like fast travel, I want to be the one moving. I want to play the first spiderman game because of that.
If you want a deep world, you should use the dark souls formula using branching paths with a defined beginning and ending.
Open world is for 3 good missions in each central location and 100 fetch quest I will not do
GTA is one of our last tentpole entertainment products.
Pure opinion. And yes there were tons of bugs that’s how all AAA games are released now. That’s why I now avoid them like the plague. Especially at launch if I am interested in it, which is practically never. To a significant amount of people, this is just another game they aren’t interested in.
That’s just, like, your opinion, man…
Erratic? Is that the right adjective to use?
inconsistent, irregular, or unpredictable
I’d say their desire to be FiRsT and sPeCiAl is quite predictable. That’s how discord makes its money, why the crApple is “premium”, and why digital presales exist.
