Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Xbox/XBL] Pour one out in Memory of the Super Duper Graphics Pack

16869707274

Posts

  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    I think the music rights are extra tricky because they are chiptune covers by one band, and the originals are by Beck. But, I'm not sure the music is the issue, since the album for the game is readily available to stream on many services.

    It's a shame, the game is quite excellent. I even had the DLC.

    Local H Jay on
    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • Crippl3Crippl3 oh noRegistered User regular
    edited August 8
    I think the music rights are extra tricky because they are chiptune covers by one band, and the originals are by Beck. But, I'm not sure the music is the issue, since the album for the game is readily available to stream on many services.

    It's a shame, the game is quite excellent. I even had the DLC.

    Anamanaguchi have said multiple times that they have nothing to do with the game being delisted, and they want it to come back. Also AFAIK there's no covers in the game, the game soundtrack is completely separate from the movie soundtrack and all original.

    Crippl3 on
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    edited August 8
    Crippl3 wrote: »
    I think the music rights are extra tricky because they are chiptune covers by one band, and the originals are by Beck. But, I'm not sure the music is the issue, since the album for the game is readily available to stream on many services.

    It's a shame, the game is quite excellent. I even had the DLC.

    Anamanaguchi have said multiple times that they have nothing to do with the game being delisted, and they want it to come back. Also AFAIK there's no covers in the game, the game soundtrack is completely separate from the movie soundtrack and all original.

    No like, they absolutely covered Beck's original songs for the movie. There's several songs that share the same title, and if you listen to them back to back it's evident it's a cover. I love both the movie and the game's soundtracks so trust me, I know.

    I agree though, that the music isn't the issue. Which I said in the first post.

    Edit: actually looking into it, the chiptune covers of those songs were made by Brian Lebarton. I just compiled them all into one playlist and for the last ten years, they became one in my mind. Apologies.

    Local H Jay on
    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    The big thing is probably between Ubi and/or Universal renewing the licensing

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • pablo_pricepablo_price Registered User regular
    Platform holders should definitely put a rule in place along the lines of, "Hey, if you have a game on our platform, and someone pays money to play it, you can't revoke their access to it". I know it's not that simple, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.
    I'd take it a step further, and add "and you cannot patch out content from a purchased game"

    If Rockstar has to start selling a new version of gta whatever with some of the songs removed, that's fine.
    But everyone who already bought the game, should still own the full version that they paid for

    NitsuaRickRudeJazzZilla360Heffling
  • baudattitudebaudattitude Registered User regular
    Platform holders should definitely put a rule in place along the lines of, "Hey, if you have a game on our platform, and someone pays money to play it, you can't revoke their access to it". I know it's not that simple, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.
    I'd take it a step further, and add "and you cannot patch out content from a purchased game"

    If Rockstar has to start selling a new version of gta whatever with some of the songs removed, that's fine.
    But everyone who already bought the game, should still own the full version that they paid for

    For another example, Plants Vs. Zombies. That coincided with the point where Steam stopped letting you turn off patching for games, too, so you couldn’t block the patch that pulled Zombie Michael Jackson.

    Nintendo is... a little better in this space? They let you turn off patches for games on a case by case basis, but it still prompts me to update every time I launch a game that’s been patches where I am declining the patches.

  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Platform holders should definitely put a rule in place along the lines of, "Hey, if you have a game on our platform, and someone pays money to play it, you can't revoke their access to it". I know it's not that simple, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.
    I'd take it a step further, and add "and you cannot patch out content from a purchased game"

    If Rockstar has to start selling a new version of gta whatever with some of the songs removed, that's fine.
    But everyone who already bought the game, should still own the full version that they paid for

    That's completely unworkable. If you remove a bug, is that "patching out content"?

  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Eh, I get what the thrust of the argument is. It's hard for game preservation when it's almost impossible to access a game as it was when it released. It's not easy, since game makers wanna be able to fix things and if they have to remove something due to license issues, they have to for fear of legal action.

    It further complicates things with backwards compatibility. When you pop your original Xbox copy of GTA San Andreas, it isn't really loading that game. It's loading the 360, crappy Android port version, which not only is missing songs... It's missing the really impressive lighting engine that added a lot of character to the game. So while I'm happy there's any way at all to play GTA SA on the One, it's hardly the same game as the one actually on your Xbox disc.

    I find stuff like this fascinating but also sad. I tried really hard to enjoy that 360 version of San Andreas but, my nostalgia prevented me from getting far. It probably won't matter to someone playing the game for the first time now, but for me it's like playing an off brand or bootleg version of something I love.

    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
    tastydonutsZilla360pablo_priceDizzen
  • LBD_NytetraynLBD_Nytetrayn TorontoRegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    They went full PT on it? That sucks.

    Always wanted to play that game, since it takes place in my hometown (I'd love a clear screenshot of the map for desktop wallpaper), but couldn't manage it at the time.

    ...you live in Duckburg?

    Nice.
    I was referring to Scott Pilgrim, in case anyone needed it clarified.

    On a related note, I'd love for SEGA/Sumo to re-release OutRun Online Arcade the way they did 3D Classics Out Run, with the Ferrari licensing removed.

    qjWUWdm.gif1edr1cF.gif0g9jaoG.gifuWt4fLV.gif
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Eh, I get what the thrust of the argument is. It's hard for game preservation when it's almost impossible to access a game as it was when it released. It's not easy, since game makers wanna be able to fix things and if they have to remove something due to license issues, they have to for fear of legal action.

    It further complicates things with backwards compatibility. When you pop your original Xbox copy of GTA San Andreas, it isn't really loading that game. It's loading the 360, crappy Android port version, which not only is missing songs... It's missing the really impressive lighting engine that added a lot of character to the game. So while I'm happy there's any way at all to play GTA SA on the One, it's hardly the same game as the one actually on your Xbox disc.

    I find stuff like this fascinating but also sad. I tried really hard to enjoy that 360 version of San Andreas but, my nostalgia prevented me from getting far. It probably won't matter to someone playing the game for the first time now, but for me it's like playing an off brand or bootleg version of something I love.

    I'm just happy that I purchased the Originals version at one point. The port was just disappointingly lousy and except for the achievements, was hardly worth the ~$4 I paid for it.

  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    I assume the Originals version doesn't play on the One?

    I've got GTA:SA on disc for the original Xbox, and the old console to play it on should the urge strike.

    SA is an unusual case in several ways. The weird 360-from-Android port, the old Xbox disc running what is now a 360 game on the One, the removed songs even on the Steam release... I don't know that there's any other game with all those factors going on.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    I assume the Originals version doesn't play on the One?

    I've got GTA:SA on disc for the original Xbox, and the old console to play it on should the urge strike.

    SA is an unusual case in several ways. The weird 360-from-Android port, the old Xbox disc running what is now a 360 game on the One, the removed songs even on the Steam release... I don't know that there's any other game with all those factors going on.

    Any attempt to play the Original version is supposed to trigger the download of the Android port on the X1. The only way to play it 'properly' is to have an oXbox or 360.

  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited August 9
    Platform holders should definitely put a rule in place along the lines of, "Hey, if you have a game on our platform, and someone pays money to play it, you can't revoke their access to it". I know it's not that simple, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.
    I'd take it a step further, and add "and you cannot patch out content from a purchased game"

    If Rockstar has to start selling a new version of gta whatever with some of the songs removed, that's fine.
    But everyone who already bought the game, should still own the full version that they paid for

    The full version of the game that you paid for included a license for the game to use songs for a set duration though. It didn't include indefinite access to the songs that they paid for to use in the game.

    Companies are compelled to make a reasonable effort to ensure that those things are honored. If you have a hardcopy of a game, and you connect to their servers (or bring it online for updates), then they have the means to maintain those licenses.

    eta: the license is a contractual agreement between those parties.. music games and games with music obviously work differently or have longer terms in their licenses too. possibly even indefinite.

    tastydonuts on
    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    Platform holders should definitely put a rule in place along the lines of, "Hey, if you have a game on our platform, and someone pays money to play it, you can't revoke their access to it". I know it's not that simple, but it's definitely something that needs to be addressed.
    I'd take it a step further, and add "and you cannot patch out content from a purchased game"

    If Rockstar has to start selling a new version of gta whatever with some of the songs removed, that's fine.
    But everyone who already bought the game, should still own the full version that they paid for

    The full version of the game that you paid for included a license for the game to use songs for a set duration though. It didn't include indefinite access to the songs that they paid for to use in the game.

    Companies are compelled to make a reasonable effort to ensure that those things are honored. If you have a hardcopy of a game, and you connect to their servers (or bring it online for updates), then they have the means to maintain those licenses.

    eta: the license is a contractual agreement between those parties.. music games and games with music obviously work differently or have longer terms in their licenses too. possibly even indefinite.

    This is what needs fixed. Licensing for a game should be permanent for that game a re-release on a different console may be a grey area, but back comparability should be.

    JazzCrippl3pablo_price
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Music licensing is hard, yo.

    tastydonutsSynthesiscloudeagleLocal H JayJazzZilla360
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    Music licensing is hard, yo.

    It's expensive too. And it's not like they would get the same money on a game sale years into its life.

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
    Local H JayJazz
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    Jazz wrote: »
    I assume the Originals version doesn't play on the One?

    I've got GTA:SA on disc for the original Xbox, and the old console to play it on should the urge strike.

    SA is an unusual case in several ways. The weird 360-from-Android port, the old Xbox disc running what is now a 360 game on the One, the removed songs even on the Steam release... I don't know that there's any other game with all those factors going on.

    Any attempt to play the Original version is supposed to trigger the download of the Android port on the X1. The only way to play it 'properly' is to have an oXbox or 360.

    There's enough decent non-BC games that I still have both, but not presently hooked up. And thankfully both consoles are (presently) very, very cheap to acquire. But it's still a pain in the ass that it's all set up this way.

  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited August 9
    Really, with digital distribution of games becoming such a big thing, licensing really needs to be reevaluated on a large scale.

    It shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that if you pay for a game, you should at minimum retain access to that game on the platform you originally purchased it for.
    Removing the ability to purchase due to licensing issues is one thing. But in reality, that really shouldn't affect people who already made the purchase. If it does, (and it should be noted, there's precedent for things tucked away in a terms of service agreement not actually being enforceable), that's a pretty glaring flaw that needs to be addressed.

    I'll again say that I know it isn't a simple thing to solve, but the fact that it's even possible for purchased items to be revoked is extremely anti-customer, and needs to be addressed as we move into an increasingly digital future.

    Fake edit: (This isn't really aimed at anyone here. It's more shouting into the void).

    TubularLuggage on
    JazzLostNinja
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    edited August 9
    Jazz wrote: »
    Jazz wrote: »
    I assume the Originals version doesn't play on the One?

    I've got GTA:SA on disc for the original Xbox, and the old console to play it on should the urge strike.

    SA is an unusual case in several ways. The weird 360-from-Android port, the old Xbox disc running what is now a 360 game on the One, the removed songs even on the Steam release... I don't know that there's any other game with all those factors going on.

    Any attempt to play the Original version is supposed to trigger the download of the Android port on the X1. The only way to play it 'properly' is to have an oXbox or 360.

    There's enough decent non-BC games that I still have both, but not presently hooked up. And thankfully both consoles are (presently) very, very cheap to acquire. But it's still a pain in the ass that it's all set up this way.

    I really do wish there was a comparatively straightforward and reliable way to use an Xbox One controller on Xbox 360. That would cover my need for original Xbox games too.

    The conspicuous absence of campaign footage in Gears 5 was noted both here and in the Gears of War thread--apparently, they will show some at Gamescom Opening Live Night.

    Synthesis on
    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
    LBD_Nytetrayn
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    Microsoft seems strangely absent from PAX West this year, which is a bummer as that was one of the things I was looking forward to.

  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited August 9
    Really, with digital distribution of games becoming such a big thing, licensing really needs to be reevaluated on a large scale.

    It shouldn't be unreasonable to expect that if you pay for a game, you should at minimum retain access to that game on the platform you originally purchased it for.
    Removing the ability to purchase due to licensing issues is one thing. But in reality, that really shouldn't affect people who already made the purchase. If it does, (and it should be noted, there's precedent for things tucked away in a terms of service agreement not actually being enforceable), that's a pretty glaring flaw that needs to be addressed.

    I'll again say that I know it isn't a simple thing to solve, but the fact that it's even possible for purchased items to be revoked is extremely anti-customer, and needs to be addressed as we move into an increasingly digital future.

    Fake edit: (This isn't really aimed at anyone here. It's more shouting into the void).

    The only difference between licensing in the past and now is that content owners actually have much stronger means to enforce their right to revoke on their products. If they could, in the past do what they can now, they would have.

    The ability for a content owner to revoke access to a thing is a fundamental function of copyright/licensing. It's not going anywhere.

    edit: so if you really want to be able to go back and play your digital content, put it on an external. Going back to download it again is not a guarantee because the provider may not have the ability/permission to distribute it anymore in any capacity.

    tastydonuts on
    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Microsoft seems strangely absent from PAX West this year, which is a bummer as that was one of the things I was looking forward to.

    That's weird. You'd think Microsoft would want to push the hell out of Gears 5, considering it's coming out days later at almost exactly the same time as Borderlands 3.

    Also, releasing Gears 5 at the same time as Borderlands 3 strikes me as a terrible idea, but hey, maybe there's less overlap than I think between arty dudes with titanic necks and guns and cartoon psychos making dick jokes with guns. (Yes, I'm being reductive for comedy, I know there's more to the games than that.)

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Registered User regular
    There's a lot of criticism towards MS and The Coalition over how, uh, underwhelming the marketing for Gears 5 has been. Rod Fergusson has been QUITE outspoken in how he hates how much they have to show of a game before its released and wishes he could just put the game out without saying a single thing about it. Given Xbox has finally given him the leeway to call his game "Gears 5" this time, they may also be indulging him a bit on keeping Gears 5 close to the chest.

    I think that's going to backfire a lot, though.

    Borderlands 3 has some outside baggage that (Lack of Steam version/Getting wrapped up in the Epic backlash, Randy Pitchfords numerous acts of asshattery), but I don't think that's going to affect the sales that much.

    cloudeagleDizzen
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Well, that explains why we've seen so little of Gears 5, then. May also explain the lack of Microsoft at PAX West too, since that's Microsoft's main holiday tentpole.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • BRIAN BLESSEDBRIAN BLESSED Maybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHH Registered User regular
    They're planning to show off two different modes at Gamescom (including a look at the Campaign) which is honestly a pretty good date to set for a game coming out in like, a month.

    There was also a pretty nice weekend for a Multiplayer tech test and a meaty presence of the Invasion(?) mode at E3, the marketing hasn't been aggressive but the content is out there.

    In other news, uh, this seems like a pretty unambiguous response.

    JazzZilla360LBD_Nytetrayn
  • DirtyDirty Registered User regular
    2 questions: Is that Game Pass Ultimate upgrade still in effect? And are there any deals going on for Gold anywhere?

  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Music licensing is hard, yo.

    It's only hard because music industry executives have made it hard. They are the ones that decided to treat video games differently than other genres. Imagine if you went to watch Escape from LA on a streaming service only to find that the Tool and White Zombie songs were pulled due to licensing issues? Or if you went to listen to your Escape from LA soundtrack you bought on iTunes only to find those songs were pulled.

    From a consumer standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to have restricted video game music in this manner. From the music industry standpoint, it's all about the benjamins.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
    JazzshoeboxjeddyLostNinjaZilla360Crippl3TubularLuggage
  • HefflingHeffling No Pic EverRegistered User regular
    Dirty wrote: »
    2 questions: Is that Game Pass Ultimate upgrade still in effect? And are there any deals going on for Gold anywhere?

    Yes, I used it earlier this week. No, the best I could find was a legit 12-month number on eBay for about $50 USD.

    If a movement doesn't have someone that can sit down opposite those in a position of power and strike a deal, how can that movement achieve success?
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    Ah, Escape from LA. I actually went and saw that in the cinema.

    No regrets. :+1:

    PreacherZilla360Heffling
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Heffling wrote: »
    Music licensing is hard, yo.

    It's only hard because music industry executives have made it hard. They are the ones that decided to treat video games differently than other genres. Imagine if you went to watch Escape from LA on a streaming service only to find that the Tool and White Zombie songs were pulled due to licensing issues? Or if you went to listen to your Escape from LA soundtrack you bought on iTunes only to find those songs were pulled.

    From a consumer standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to have restricted video game music in this manner. From the music industry standpoint, it's all about the benjamins.

    They pulled the same stunt with TV shows too, any drama you watch on streaming is bound to have its original music changed up in several places.

  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    Music licensing: still hard, yo.

    tastydonutsZilla360
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    I mean, this is the same general industry that thinks people will happily pony up for roughly 47 streaming services.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I mean, this is the same general industry that thinks people will happily pony up for roughly 47 streaming services.

    Which is because for ages people demanded a la carte media and the like because supply and demand chase each other.

    I remember years ago my friend who works for a major cable company doing the channel negotiation/billing junk said that we would regret a la carte over bundles and I disagreed. But I now see why.

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Eh I pay for... Spotify, which also gives me Hulu. Every other service I have borrowed from a friend or family member. I'm able to have access to Netflix, Amazon, YouTube Music, Crunchyroll and VRV without paying a cent. I also have a library of digital films, because when me and my brothers buy Blu-rays, we share the digital codes to one another. I also game share on Xbox with my best friend, where my install list is 500+.

    I'd say I like this set up a lot :bzz:

    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I mean, this is the same general industry that thinks people will happily pony up for roughly 47 streaming services.

    Which is because for ages people demanded a la carte media and the like because supply and demand chase each other.

    I remember years ago my friend who works for a major cable company doing the channel negotiation/billing junk said that we would regret a la carte over bundles and I disagreed. But I now see why.

    Back when I had one, I had an a la carte TV subscription from my cable company (after many years of a more normal arrangement), which I still miss.

    Music streaming still surprises me with all the bullshit hassle it might entail. Even if I had to buy every song I listen to, individually, I would still prefer it to dealing with multiple music subscriptions, Never mind that CDs are both cheap (at least the ones I want) and absurdly easy to rip.

    Orca wrote: »
    Synthesis wrote:
    Isn't "Your sarcasm makes me wet," the highest compliment an Abh can pay a human?

    Only if said Abh is a member of the nobility.
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    edited August 11
    Eh I pay for... Spotify, which also gives me Hulu. Every other service I have borrowed from a friend or family member. I'm able to have access to Netflix, Amazon, YouTube Music, Crunchyroll and VRV without paying a cent. I also have a library of digital films, because when me and my brothers buy Blu-rays, we share the digital codes to one another. I also game share on Xbox with my best friend, where my install list is 500+.

    I'd say I like this set up a lot :bzz:

    being that technically, if you are using household sharing functions outside of your household or just straight up accessing another person’s account you are actually stealing access to that service... well, yeah.

    edit: it’s the similar to splitting a cable line to another house on the same block.

    edit2: not saying you are a bad person or whatever before anyone gets caught up in their feelings about how good of a person they are or whatever.... Just saying a duck is a duck.

    Only the most egregious of offenders would ever get hit with anything because its simply not worth it for corporations to act on such things

    tastydonuts on
    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • Local H JayLocal H Jay Registered User regular
    Yeah but, they have the ability to shut that option off/recognize when it's being abused, but they don't. I don't count it as stealing, it's maximizing the value of the service by using it with as many people as possible. The services are being paid for, much like if my brother lent me a Blu-ray in person. Idk, it's similar to using a VPN to access shows in another region. It's the end user taking some measure of control over the services they use. The use agreements are usually unenforceable anyways, and designed to protect the platform holder, not the customer. Especially when many of these services offer family plans that give even more profiles under one account! They know it's a selling point to give more friends and family access. It's part of the value of the service, and if they did disable sharing, I'd bet you see a lot of cancelled subs in favor of services that do allow it.

    XB1/360 - Local H Jay
    PS4 - Local_H_Jay
    Sub me on Youtube
    And Twitch
  • Santa ClaustrophobiaSanta Claustrophobia Ho Ho Ho Disconnecting from Xbox LIVERegistered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I mean, this is the same general industry that thinks people will happily pony up for roughly 47 streaming services.

    Which is because for ages people demanded a la carte media and the like because supply and demand chase each other.

    I remember years ago my friend who works for a major cable company doing the channel negotiation/billing junk said that we would regret a la carte over bundles and I disagreed. But I now see why.

    The problem is that the bundles suck. Back when I thought I might finally get a place, I'd price things to get the channels I wanted. And for the twenty or so I wanted, I'd have to pay for 500 I'd hardly watch.

    And what do you do when they no longer provide what you wanted (Fuck you, Larry Scott and the Pac-12 Network!)? And how many fucking times do I have to be cajoled into calling somebody because CBS is about to be dropped?

    Cable sucks.

    tastydonutsLocal H JayLostNinjashoeboxjeddy
  • tastydonutstastydonuts Registered User regular
    yeah, the threats to drop are another annoying thing. The giant bundles offset that because they all got their piece. The fragmentation we have now means a question of the value/cost to carry the channel and all the negotiations behind that, it gave a lot of power to the service providers.

    “I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
  • LostNinjaLostNinja Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I mean, this is the same general industry that thinks people will happily pony up for roughly 47 streaming services.

    Which is because for ages people demanded a la carte media and the like because supply and demand chase each other.

    I remember years ago my friend who works for a major cable company doing the channel negotiation/billing junk said that we would regret a la carte over bundles and I disagreed. But I now see why.

    The problem is that the bundles suck. Back when I thought I might finally get a place, I'd price things to get the channels I wanted. And for the twenty or so I wanted, I'd have to pay for 500 I'd hardly watch.

    And what do you do when they no longer provide what you wanted (Fuck you, Larry Scott and the Pac-12 Network!)? And how many fucking times do I have to be cajoled into calling somebody because CBS is about to be dropped?

    Cable sucks.

    Can we go back to the early days of digital/streaming now? For TV you could get everything you wanted with Netflix (movies and completed TV shows) and Hulu (currently airing seasons), and for music Pandora had all songs and was less shitty with their ads.

    It says a lot when video games are the most consumer friendly of the digital options now even with games getting pulled due to licensing.

Sign In or Register to comment.