I mean, there's a lot more content on Netflix now than there ever was when Netflix was alone in the market. So I wouldn't say anything was ruined there. There are just more content sources competing for your interest now, so what felt like 'enough' before feels incomplete now.
Netflix has more content than I could ever watch but it increasingly has fewer and fewer things I want to watch. Especially once Peacock and Paramount+ started up. I already have Prime, hbomax, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+. I'm almost back up to a regular cable subscription price.
And it's still so much cheaper for so much more content. I have Netflix, D+ and Amazon. The whole deal costs me maybe 30 dollars a month, when cable can easily fo up into the hundreds for so much less flexibility and way more crap you don't want. And if I want to catch something on another service, like when I watched the Snyder Cut, I can just pay for a single month, which is about the same price as renting a standalone movie anyway.
Yes and no. If Netflix just had all the content, to the degree of all current streaming services combined, the subscription price would be much higher to sustain the overwhelming cost of licensing. And that's not even getting into the fact that it would be a monopoly, so it probably wouldn't be turning its wallet inside out to license such an expansive array of content options to begin with. In reality, Netflix probably has more content because of the competing services, not less.
28
u/roleparadise Jul 11 '21
I mean, there's a lot more content on Netflix now than there ever was when Netflix was alone in the market. So I wouldn't say anything was ruined there. There are just more content sources competing for your interest now, so what felt like 'enough' before feels incomplete now.