CBS Is Right To Make Us Pay For 'Star Trek: Discovery'

[galad2003]

I've said many many many times...6-10 dollars per month for 4-5 new Star Trek shows, plus the extras and featurettes is peanuts. Absolute PEANUTS. The only way it becomes a "no go" is if the show dips into the "I just am not entertained by this any longer" zone...which only Voyager was able to accomplish.

Then, I'll simply unsubscribe and stop watching.

But, it would need to get to that point first...and I'm not a guy who is nitpicky or particular...so unless the show really blows...that's not likely.

Thanks for telling me about my budget. But it's not about what I can afford, I am not rewarding CBS for an inferior business model nor an inferior trek. When CBS provides enough value for my money I will pay them. I am not such a fanboy that I am going to pay for it "just because it's trek." Until then I will watch the myriad of other (better)shows I get for free on TV or for my Netflix subscription.

 

[nutshell]

If you watched a Trek movie you paid about $12 for two hours of entertainment. One month of CBSAA will get you almost four hours for $10.

 

[nutshell]

Will they "post" each episode of the season on a weekly basis? Or is there a plan to do some kind of mid-season break? If I'm going to pay for this, it's going to be just for Discovery. I don't want to be held hostage because they suddenly wait a month to air the second half of the season.

Then cancel for the month it's not on.

 

[Albinator]

Thanks for telling me about my budget. But it's not about what I can afford, I am not rewarding CBS for an inferior business model nor an inferior trek. When CBS provides enough value for my money I will pay them. I am not such a fanboy that I am going to pay for it "just because it's trek." Until then I will watch the myriad of other (better)shows I get for free on TV or for my Netflix subscription.

If you don't like the show, I agree-- vote with your wallet and don't subscribe. If nobody watches, they'll know they made the wrong kind of show and try something different.

But to not subscribe because you "don't want to reward a bad business model"-- I find that perplexing.

 

[F. King Daniel]

CBS Is Right To Make Us Pay For 'Star Trek: Discovery'

Yes.

 

[nutshell]

If you don't like the show, I agree-- vote with your wallet and don't subscribe. If nobody watches, they'll know they made the wrong kind of show and try something different.

But to not subscribe because you "don't want to reward a bad business model"-- I find that perplexing.

Yep. Especially where this is the future of television.

 

[Vger23]

Thanks for telling me about my budget. But it's not about what I can afford, I am not rewarding CBS for an inferior business model nor an inferior trek. When CBS provides enough value for my money I will pay them. I am not such a fanboy that I am going to pay for it "just because it's trek." Until then I will watch the myriad of other (better)shows I get for free on TV or for my Netflix subscription.

If you read this post or any of the others I've posted in the last 6 months on this topic...you'd know my comments have nothing to do with budget.

It has to do with MY assessment of value for the entertainment I receive vs. the cost of said entertainment. For me, for the excitement and engagement I get out of a new Trek show being available, $6-10 is peanuts. If you don't like it, well $hit I don't know anyone dumb enough to pay for something they don't like (which I also addressed in my post when I said that if it becomes crap, I'd pull the plug). So don't pay for it. Good for you. Welcome to basic common sense. You deserve a medal.

But that wasn't, isn't, and never has been my point. Not even sure what you're talking about. It's almost as if you didn't read anything past my first sentence or two.

 

[Vger23]

Yes.

I love your new screen name and avatar.

Spot on, spot on.

 

[Kevin Wolff]

They're already making fans pay by offering up this schlock as Star Trek. Should we pay money for it? Maybe someday when CBS's entire program lineup is streamed (which still wouldn't interest most genre fans) and there is no longer a broadcast version of CBS, but not when all they offer is a couple new shows and reruns of old Trek which pretty much every fan already has in the their DVD, etc collection.
I still maintain that ala carte is a better model for the consumer. The subscription model only serves the corporation which is why the wind is violently blowing that way.

 

[JWPlatt]

I...But to not subscribe because you "don't want to reward a bad business model"-- I find that perplexing.

Sticking to one's principles and sacrificing on that basis isn't so perplexing.

 

[JWPlatt]

...$6-10 is peanuts. ...

That's monthly and ignores a recurring cost over time- so $72 to $120 annually. When there are more important things on your budget, and you're annual net revenue is negative, for example, it's not peanuts. The annual cost could mean clothes, food, education, health, or power for a month - for some. It would be irresponsible for someone who can't afford it to dig themselves deeper in the hole. Saying it's peanuts is ignorant of all those for whom it's not.

 

[The Librarian]

They're already making fans pay by offering up this schlock as Star Trek. Should we pay money for it? Maybe someday when CBS's entire program lineup is streamed (which still wouldn't interest most genre fans) and there is no longer a broadcast version of CBS, but not when all they offer is a couple new shows and reruns of old Trek which pretty much every fan already has in the their DVD, etc collection.
I still maintain that ala carte is a better model for the consumer. The subscription model only serves the corporation which is why the wind is violently blowing that way.

This is the ala carte model people have been demanding for years! You pay for one channel instead of a bunch at once, and only get content from that channel. It appears what people actually wanted was "I get everything that is produced by everyone, from one service for ten bucks a month."

 

[Vger23]

That's monthly and ignores a recurring cost over time- so $72 to $120 annually. When there are more important things on your budget, and you're annual net revenue is negative, for example, it's not peanuts. The annual cost could mean clothes, food, education, health, or power for a month - for some. It would be irresponsible for someone who can't afford it to dig themselves deeper in the hole. Saying it's peanuts is ignorant of all those for whom it's not.

I






WASN'T





TALKING





ABOUT





PERSONAL






BUDGETS

OR ANYONE ELSE'S SITUATION BUT MINE.

Read the posts again. Relax...oh ye defender of those who don't have $6 to spare.

If you read this post or any of the others I've posted in the last 6 months on this topic...you'd know my comments have nothing to do with budget.

It has to do with MY assessment of value for the entertainment I receive vs. the cost of said entertainment. For me, for the excitement and engagement I get out of a new Trek show being available, $6-10 is peanuts. If you don't like it, well $hit I don't know anyone dumb enough to pay for something they don't like (which I also addressed in my post when I said that if it becomes crap, I'd pull the plug). So don't pay for it. Good for you. Welcome to basic common sense. You deserve a medal.

But that wasn't, isn't, and never has been my point. Not even sure what you're talking about. It's almost as if you didn't read anything past my first sentence or two.

 

[NeoStar9]

That's monthly and ignores a recurring cost over time- so $72 to $120 annually. When there are more important things on your budget, and you're annual net revenue is negative, for example, it's not peanuts. The annual cost could mean clothes, food, education, health, or power for a month - for some. It would be irresponsible for someone who can't afford it to dig themselves deeper in the hole. Saying it's peanuts is ignorant of all those for whom it's not.

One is only spending those numbers if they choose to. NO ONE is saying you have to subscribe to CBS AA year round. Nor are you locked into any contract. YOu watch the show while it's on. Unsubscribe when it goes on break. Come back. Then unsubscribe again after the finale. Or you wait until all the episodes are out at the break or at the end and then subscribe and binge watch in a few days or a few weeks. Then unsubscribe.

I understand some people don't want to pay anything but people need to stop acting like the situation is worse then it is. Or acting like people are trying to steal hundreds of dollars from people or that they're going to hurt your budget. If one can spare the cash to see a Star Trek film in the theater they can spare the cash to sub for a month or two. It's likely cheaper then the movie. Hell one can spend more at a trip to McDonalds.

Now if one doesn't have Internet at all then that's another story. That's an added expense. At that point one needs to wait until the show comes out on blu-ray/dvd like a host of other shows and films. All these talks are based on people already having decent Internet connections and people stream stuff from youtube, etc already.

 

[galad2003]

I've said many many many times...6-10 dollars per month for 4-5 new Star Trek shows, plus the extras and featurettes is peanuts. Absolute PEANUTS. The only way it becomes a "no go" is if the show dips into the "I just am not entertained by this any longer" zone...which only Voyager was able to accomplish.

Then, I'll simply unsubscribe and stop watching.

But, it would need to get to that point first...and I'm not a guy who is nitpicky or particular...so unless the show really blows...that's not likely.

If you don't like the show, I agree-- vote with your wallet and don't subscribe. If nobody watches, they'll know they made the wrong kind of show and try something different.

But to not subscribe because you "don't want to reward a bad business model"-- I find that perplexing.

What's perplexing? People don't shop at businesses all the time they don't agree with or have an issue with. People don't shop at Chic Fil A or Hobby Lobby because of their anti gay stance, people don't shop at Wal Mart due to a whole slew of reasons.

I don't like that CBSAA has one show I am interested in and I can't binge watch it. I don't like that business model. While 6-10 isn't much I also think it is much for one channel. That's the same price for Netflix which has 100x more content that interests me.

 

[Vger23]

What's perplexing? People don't shop at businesses all the time they don't agree with or have an issue with. People don't shop at Chic Fil A or Hobby Lobby because of their anti gay stance, people don't shop at Wal Mart due to a whole slew of reasons.

I don't like that CBSAA has one show I am interested in and I can't binge watch it. I don't like that business model. While 6-10 isn't much I also think it is much for one channel. That's the same price for Netflix which has 100x more content that interests me.

We hear ya loud and clear.

We'll light a candle for you.

 

[galad2003]

This is the ala carte model people have been demanding for years! You pay for one channel instead of a bunch at once, and only get content from that channel. It appears what people actually wanted was "I get everything that is produced by everyone, from one service for ten bucks a month."

I never demanded this model and I won't support it.

Ps. CBS isn't right now wrong to make us pay for it. They simply own the rights and can do as they please. I too can do as I please and not pay for it. (and complain about it on the internet

 

[Vger23]

I understand some people don't want to pay anything but people need to stop acting like the situation is worse then it is. Or acting like people are trying to steal hundreds of dollars from people or that they're going to hurt your budget. If one can spare the cash to see a Star Trek film in the theater they can spare the cash to sub for a month or two. It's likely cheaper then the movie. Hell one can spend more at a trip to McDonalds.

The problem is, when people clamor and drone on about "not paying..." it's NOT budget driven. Because, again...open your frigging piggy bank and scrape up the spare change. Or lay off one Starbuck's coffee per month...or skip going to McDonald's for your #3.

So, despite the strong "I take offense to this" attitudes to the contrary...it ain't about budget.

It's about sending a message.

And that's fine. But stop trying to make it about budget and ill-affordability. Turn off your frigging lights when you leave the room and drive 5 MPH less on the highway and you'll have enough money for a month's subscription. Enough already.

 

[galad2003]

We hear ya loud and clear.

We'll light a candle for you.

I am expressing my opinion in a civil non sarcastic way. Can you do the same? Why is it so hard to accept that people have different opinions? This is an online forum where people come together and discuss a show they like. The good and the bad. Most people on here have been thoughtful, courteous and civil whether they like the show or not. If you don't want to hear the negative opinions or those who disagree then don't read or respond. But frankly, the increased traffic from fans and detractors are driving web traffic which helps the forum owners sell ads so discussing this is good for everyone.

 

[Vger23]

I am expressing my opinion in a civil non sarcastic way. Can you do the same?

I CAN...but what sport would that be?