[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;40587388]No, it's not. The shitty pay to watch channels are probably gonna be those "featured" videos every time you log into youtube.[/QUOTE]
Why don't you read the article to see which channels will be pay to watch before making such flippant statements?
From what they listed, it looks like this might just be them charging monthly for you to watch select TV channels on Youtube at your leisure.
[QUOTE=Derp Y. Mail;40587313]Well shit. Let's see which of the major let's-play channels adapt to this model the first.
My bets are on PewDiePie.[/QUOTE]
People like PewDiePie, Toby Turner and whoever idk would never do this because they already make a ton of money through their advertisements. If they switched to this, they would have a fraction of the viewers and probably end up making less money.
[QUOTE=KorJax;40587402]Honestly
As someone who would never get cable because there are only 3-4 shows I'd ever even want to watch (and as such I'm more likely to want to use netflix or feel encouraged to pirate such shows)...
I'd fucking love if I could get TV quality content and episodes of a show for $1/mo or whatever per show.
Imagine if you could get Game of Thrones or Walking dead on YouTube for a "premium price" of $3-4/mo on YouTube during the length of the season (or rather, you'd stop subscribing to it once the season ends unless you wanted to keep watching old episodes)?
Or you wait until GoT/whatever is all done, subscribe for a "cheaper" price of 2-3 months for $3-4/mo and watch it all in that timeframe.
Granted I feel like that would never happen at that price point because cable would NEVER allow it, and the shows would feel like their profit margins are going to be infringed on, but I feel like this is just a logical progression. Plus it gets money directly to the content creators instead of relying on cable subscriptions, networks, ads, etc. To me, this is the natural future of "television" - cable becomes something only enthusiasts would ever pay for, and a much larger, much wider audience just pays for the stuff they actually would want on a series by series basis at a much lower price per month than cable.[/QUOTE]
Hell I'd pay a nominal fee [i]per episode[/i] if it meant I could see it on-demand and no later than when it airs on TV. The iTunes model for TV shows would be great if it caught on more, but networks are really dragging their feet when it comes to adapting to modern technology. There's the Playstation Store and whatnot but that selection is limited.
[QUOTE=bdd458;40587241]Ignoring the second half of a quote is a fantastic idea. If all those kids start to pay, Google and a lot of other partners might start to see the profits go up, and then upping the prices, extending it to non partner channels etc...
The ramifications of this are endless.[/QUOTE]
Slippery slope fallacy, much?
Plenty of channels are already making loadsamoney through ads, they will have to consider whether becoming subscription-based will actually make their profits go down. They will also become vulnerable to subscribers uploading their videos for others to pirate, reducing their income further.
[QUOTE=icemaz;40587447]People like PewDiePie, Toby Turner and whoever idk would never do this because they already make a ton of money through their advertisements. If they switched to this, they would have a fraction of the viewers and probably end up making less money.[/QUOTE]
Beat me to it!
Calm down people, this doesn't mean watching two best friends play shitty games and curse at eachother is gonna be $0.99 a month, it just means that they're basically adding hulu functionality to it allowing for showing real tv series legally on youtube.
Also this is a GOOD thing, youtube hasn't been profitable for a long time and what with the increase in both user numbers and bandwidth requirements due to HD video, anything that sees youtube upgrading their shitty servers so I don't have to wait 2 minutes to buffer a 30 second video at peak hours is a GOOD THING.
Oh man can't wait to pay for some elite fragvids from pro's
I think they're trying to incorperate tv shows into youtube.
Also, get over yourself youtube. Were not fucking watching Game of Thrones or Dexter.
I don't see a problem with this. It could even be a way to support my favorite channels instead of watching the ads all the time, and plus - it's only a dollar or two at most a month, if partners even start being able to do this.
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;40587297]i love it when people dont actually see the article/see it themselves. the only channels using this are tv channels like cable and stuff.[/QUOTE]Those are just the ones they've done so far. Any channel can apply to become a subscription based channel.
Don't really see what the fuzz is about. Obviously most channels don't have the kind of magnetism to make people want to watch their cat videos so much they start paying for it, especially when reuploads aren't uncommon.
It could however be a step to replacing at least a part of television if they get the pricing right and maybe introduce a general fee that's later split up between YouTube and whoever's videos you watched.
I do think it could be helpful for attracting higher production value content since revenue lost via AdBlock can be a real issue for people not YouTube-famous enough to swim in gold, but kinda sorta considering concentrating efforts and resources into getting a YouTube career off the ground.
Might sound strange to us remembering the net as beepworld and crappy Newgrounds flash movies, but as it spreads the Internet is indeed becoming srs bsns. And everyone would like a headstart in this new medium that's slowly eating away certain others.
There's also of course the possibility of premium content coexisting with usual content, which is probably a wise compromise to test the waters and see if people's behavior continues to prove pretty unpredictable, if they'll pay for simply more of the same, for exclusive stuff with higher production values, behind-the-scenes and uncut versions with bloopers or simply higher resolutions.
If you want YouTube to become a place richer with higher quality content and not just a parody of itself, you gotta give people a way to make a fair amount of money for their work - and ad revenue only gets many people only so far with AdBlock being a thing.
Seriously, it's a big problem for a lot of folks that really love what they're doing on the internet and that also really love food and being able to pay rent.
youtube died october 10th 2006 when google bought it up and started dumping shittons of adds on it
[editline]9th May 2013[/editline]
still its just google trying to do the most with what they already have, i can see the reason for this, it would allow people like radio dj's or authors to gain an additional source of income
[QUOTE=Sableye;40587694]youtube died october 10th 2006 when google bought it up and started dumping shittons of adds on it
[editline]9th May 2013[/editline]
still its just google trying to do the most with what they already have, i can see the reason for this, it would allow people like radio dj's or authors to gain an additional source of income[/QUOTE]
So it was shit back in 2006 when they bought it?
even though they've brought us HTML 5, better quality videos, the new channels would be great if there were more options.
imo it got worse in 2010, but it's still great, I just watch videos though, so stuff doesn't hit me too much
[QUOTE=icemaz;40587447]People like PewDiePie, Toby Turner and whoever idk would never do this because they already make a ton of money through their advertisements. If they switched to this, they would have a fraction of the viewers and probably end up making less money.[/QUOTE]
Fair point, but I was mostly joking.
[QUOTE=chipset;40587494]Also this is a GOOD thing, youtube hasn't been profitable for a long time and what with the increase in both user numbers and bandwidth requirements due to HD video, anything that sees youtube upgrading their shitty servers so I don't have to wait 2 minutes to buffer a 30 second video at peak hours is a GOOD THING.[/QUOTE]
They've been profitable for a long time.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40587667]Those are just the ones they've done so far. Any channel can apply to become a subscription based channel.[/QUOTE]
What about channels that use small amounts of copyrighted matierals, "Fair Use"-style? Could they reasonably be subscription-based? Because this includes a LOT of channels relating to gaming and music.
[QUOTE=JayFeather1337;40587732]So it was shit back in 2006 when they bought it?
even though they've brought us HTML 5, better quality videos, the new channels would be great if there were more options.
imo it got worse in 2010, but it's still great, I just watch videos though, so stuff doesn't hit me too much[/QUOTE]
im just saying if you want to look back at a time when youtube died, it was 2006 when the original youtube was rehabbed by google, the youtube back then was filled with tons of crappyish videos and nobody really used it for web-series like they do today, google made it profitable by adding adds
[QUOTE=SPESSMEHREN;40587337]Flaw in your anti-youtube circlejerk: Smosh's target audience isn't old enough to have a credit card.[/QUOTE]
Neither is Runescape's.
[QUOTE=Doj;40587903]Neither is Runescape's.[/QUOTE]
You can buy Runescape cards in retail stores though.
if it's for something like HBO show's and so on then it might be a good idea but if it's for something like Pewdiepie or what the fuck it's called then good luck with that
I'd probably only consider it for channels I really like, and even then if I want to support the owner of the channel I'd just use a paypal link if he gives one or something
If there is anything on them worth watching I'll pay. It really just comes down to content obviously.
You guys are awful. Read the article. It's very obscure channels that no one has even heard of settle down.
And of all channels to start on the pay to view subscription, its freaking sesame street rofl
this is a great idea imho. i pay over $1000 a year for cable television. my bundle includes 100 channels and thats the bare minimum, but i only watch ESPN. so this is going to allow me to break away from the cable companies and just pay for the channel i watch. hopefully this will change the business model of the cable companies and they will start selling separate stand alone channels.
I hope Numberphile won't switch!
[QUOTE=Shadaez;40587351]Calm down, this is a good thing and is entirely optional.[/QUOTE]
Is there an option where you can watch the specific channels without paying?
Nope. Not optional.
[QUOTE=nick_9_8;40589957]Is there an option where you can watch the specific channels without paying?
Nope. Not optional.[/QUOTE]
Did you watch the channels before they became paid? No, because they didn't exist until now.
And if they did a $1 a MONTH is fucking awesome. That's $12 a year for premium content.
[QUOTE=X6ZioN6X;40587238]From the looks of it, it appears to be just tv channels with shows and the like. Other stuff will probably be safe.. for now.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, this is the same feel that I get from the article.
It's weird to think that TV will be obsolete one day (already feels obsolete since there's the internet and all)
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;40587793]What about channels that use small amounts of copyrighted matierals, "Fair Use"-style? Could they reasonably be subscription-based? Because this includes a LOT of channels relating to gaming and music.[/QUOTE]If they could otherwise get a partnership with such content, then yes.
[QUOTE=sYnced;40589844] hopefully this will change the business model of the cable companies and they will start selling separate stand alone channels.[/QUOTE]
..They do though? My cable company offers lots of channels as standalones.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
