My solution for the problem of microtransactions and media in general

jasong · 2014-06-22, 02:51

People complain a lot about "pay to win" tablet games, sometimes you have to pay a lot of money to play a game without interruption. Another related problem is that sometimes you'll buy a video and then angrily state to yourself,"This is horrendous, I wish I could get my money back."

I believe the solution should be a combination of the Hulu and Amazon model. On Hulu, they offer everything free, but with commercials added so they can make money. With Amazon, you pay for videos, but except for Prime, it's an all-or-nothing proposition, you either buy the whole thing or you go without.

My idea is a combination. You'd pay a certain amount per hour to avoid commercials, but if a video(say, a movie) were particularly horrid, you could just walk away and not pay for the stuff you didn't view.

An hour long episode of a show costs about $2.99 on Amazon and tends to be about 45 minutes long, a little less, actually, when the commercials are removed. I think an everything available plan should, because of the cost of the hour long episode, be $4/hour to watch anything available, with the people who made the content getting paid by how much people actually watched the content. Since credit cards charge a fee every time they're used, people would get discounts for buying their viewing time in large chunks. The money would be non-refundable unless it was established the purchase was an accident, like from a precocious 3-year old or a twitchy thumb. Obviously, you wouldn't get a refund from time actually spent watching video on the account.

What do you think? And, please don't turn this into a thread about torrenting unless you suggest a way it can be monetized by content creaters. It costs almost nothing to torrent, but the first time the file was made cost big bucks.

retina · 2014-06-22, 03:25

Firstly: Not all content is equal in value. Some is cheap rubbish like children's cartoons and some is expensive big-budget movies costing 10's of millions for two hours.

Secondly: $4 per hour is far too much. In an average home with, say, two adults and two children, they could watch as much as 24 hours per day (4 people x 6 hours each). That is far too much to pay for such content.

jasong · 2014-06-22, 05:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by retina

Firstly: Not all content is equal in value. Some is cheap rubbish like children's cartoons and some is expensive big-budget movies costing 10's of millions for two hours.

Secondly: $4 per hour is far too much. In an average home with, say, two adults and two children, they could watch as much as 24 hours per day (4 people x 6 hours each). That is far too much to pay for such content.

Minimum wage is more than $4 in the US. When you and an employer determine your paycheck, you're indirectly stating the value of your time. Admittedly, you're not earning money the whole time you're alive, but it indirectly affects the value of things. For example, it would be a waste of time for Oprah Winfrey to do her own shopping unless she actually enjoyed the experience or got some other sort of value from the experience. It would be better use of her time to have her groceries delivered in some way even though that might be extravagant to you or me.

Slightly off-topic, but I'm always getting frustrated at my mother for going 20-30 minutes out of her way to save a few bucks on things when, after the gas is factored in, she's basically wasted her own time.

TheMawn · 2014-06-22, 06:38

What $2.99 video are you mad about having wasted money on?

kladner · 2014-06-22, 14:19

Quote:

Some is cheap rubbish like children's cartoons and some is expensive big-budget movies costing 10's of millions for two hours....

.....which may still be rubbish.

retina · 2014-06-22, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by kladner

.....which may still be rubbish.

Agreed.

chappy · 2014-06-22, 17:36

More likely to be rubbish than the aforementioned children's shows, imo. :)

ewmayer · 2014-06-22, 20:29

A lot of this sounds like the stuff Stargate38 likes to post in Lounge, complaining about having to pay (either in $ or ad-watching) to obtain online goodies he wants.

Perhaps we need an "addicts complain about the cost of their habits" thread.

"If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch/play it" seems to be a non-option for such folks.

jasong · 2014-06-24, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMawn

What $2.99 video are you mad about having wasted money on?

It was worth $2.99. If it wasn't worth $2.99 I wouldn't have watched it.

jasong · 2014-06-24, 23:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewmayer

A lot of this sounds like the stuff Stargate38 likes to post in Lounge, complaining about having to pay (either in $ or ad-watching) to obtain online goodies he wants.

Perhaps we need an "addicts complain about the cost of their habits" thread.

"If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch/play it" seems to be a non-option for such folks.

Are you complaining about me or kladner and TheMawn. If you're complaining about me, I suggest you reread the thread, since that would mean you assumed the opposite of what I've meant.

Xyzzy · 2014-06-26, 17:15

Quote:

In an average home with, say, two adults and two children, they could watch as much as 24 hours per day (4 people x 6 hours each).

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-styl...icle-1.1844932

2014-06-22, 02:51	#1
jasong "Jason Goatcher" Mar 2005 6663₈ Posts	My solution for the problem of microtransactions and media in general People complain a lot about "pay to win" tablet games, sometimes you have to pay a lot of money to play a game without interruption. Another related problem is that sometimes you'll buy a video and then angrily state to yourself,"This is horrendous, I wish I could get my money back." I believe the solution should be a combination of the Hulu and Amazon model. On Hulu, they offer everything free, but with commercials added so they can make money. With Amazon, you pay for videos, but except for Prime, it's an all-or-nothing proposition, you either buy the whole thing or you go without. My idea is a combination. You'd pay a certain amount per hour to avoid commercials, but if a video(say, a movie) were particularly horrid, you could just walk away and not pay for the stuff you didn't view. An hour long episode of a show costs about $2.99 on Amazon and tends to be about 45 minutes long, a little less, actually, when the commercials are removed. I think an everything available plan should, because of the cost of the hour long episode, be $4/hour to watch anything available, with the people who made the content getting paid by how much people actually watched the content. Since credit cards charge a fee every time they're used, people would get discounts for buying their viewing time in large chunks. The money would be non-refundable unless it was established the purchase was an accident, like from a precocious 3-year old or a twitchy thumb. Obviously, you wouldn't get a refund from time actually spent watching video on the account. What do you think? And, please don't turn this into a thread about torrenting unless you suggest a way it can be monetized by content creaters. It costs almost nothing to torrent, but the first time the file was made cost big bucks. Last fiddled with by jasong on 2014-06-22 at 02:52

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Not A Solution to Discrete Logarithm Problem (limited version).	SarK0Y	Miscellaneous Math	30	2017-05-14 03:08
Demand Media search, not sure how to do it	jasong	Lounge	2	2009-11-02 20:12
Media pet peeves	ixfd64	Lounge	10	2008-10-11 06:07
General Solution to Polynomial Equations	jfollas	Math	37	2005-04-02 20:24
Linux undefined symbol: cerr problem and solution	frmky	NFSNET Discussion	4	2004-02-19 12:40

2014-06-22, 03:25	#2
retina Undefined "The unspeakable one" Jun 2006 My evil lair 2⁴·13·31 Posts	Firstly: Not all content is equal in value. Some is cheap rubbish like children's cartoons and some is expensive big-budget movies costing 10's of millions for two hours. Secondly: $4 per hour is far too much. In an average home with, say, two adults and two children, they could watch as much as 24 hours per day (4 people x 6 hours each). That is far too much to pay for such content.

2014-06-22, 06:38	#4
TheMawn May 2013 East. Always East. 11×157 Posts	What $2.99 video are you mad about having wasted money on?

2014-06-22, 17:36	#7
chappy "Jeff" Feb 2012 St. Louis, Missouri, USA 13×89 Posts	More likely to be rubbish than the aforementioned children's shows, imo. :)

2014-06-22, 20:29	#8
ewmayer ∂²ω=0 Sep 2002 República de California 2×11×13×41 Posts	A lot of this sounds like the stuff Stargate38 likes to post in Lounge, complaining about having to pay (either in $ or ad-watching) to obtain online goodies he wants. Perhaps we need an "addicts complain about the cost of their habits" thread. "If you don't want to pay for it, don't watch/play it" seems to be a non-option for such folks.