Will You Pay for Star Trek?

[Mudd]

Since I'm not a CBS shareholder, there's no good reason for me to give a damn about their distribution model and whether it's "flawed" or not.

The only matter that affects me is the six dollars to watch Star Trek. It's not complicated; of course I'll pay it. And if I chose not to, you wouldn't see me arguing and bitching about it on the Internet any more than I do all the other things I decide every day not to buy.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

Since I'm not a CBS shareholder, there's no good reason for me to give a damn about their distribution model and whether it's "flawed" or not.

But you are a Trekkie right?

The reason this concerns people is that the distribution model might effect how much Trek they ultimatly get. Fail and it perhaps means another dark age of TV sci-fi. Succeed, and we get our favourite show for longer.

 

[at Quark's]

Somehow, I managed to misread the topic title as : 'Will you pray for Star Trek?'

But no, I don't think I would pay for it. At least, not inititally. Though I'm a loyal fan, I'm not that anxious to see the new series really soon. I could easily wait a year or two and then see if I could still get it at a handsome discount.

That is, assuming I'd even have the option to pay for it in January, which I suppose I won't, in my country.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

In a way this streaming announcement makes the future of Star Trek almost exactly resemble how video games consoles operate.

Imagine Netflix as Playstation

Imagine Hulu as Xbox

Imagine CBS All Access as Nintendo

Right now, these services have some multi-platform series. But they are trying to attract people by making exclusives. CBS is looking like Nintendo; using a strong property like Mario/Star Trek to attract sales, but lacking in significant third party support. Will it be enough?

 

[bbailey861]

I would pay for it if I had to, so I answered yes, but I'm not sure I will have to.

Being in Canada, it's entirely possible that one of our networks will end up picking it up. If it ends up being picked up by one of the Netflix competitors, Crave or Shomi, then I am sure that I'll end up subscribing.

 

[Blamo]

I've paid money into STO, so I can't see it being any worse :P

 

[Philip Guyott]

If I were able to access ‘CBS access’ then I would pay for the service. However, I live in the United Kingdom. I could use a VPN but I would still need a credit card registered within the United States.

 

[Terok Nor]

I voted no. Apparently it will be shown on tv outside of the US so I'll see it that way.

 

[TheGoodStuff]

Absolutely not.

Firstly, and most importantly, I need vastly more information on this series to know if I am even interested.

Secondly, I am in the UK, so it will no doubt be picked up by a channel over here.

Thirdly, paying for a one network subscription service, to me, is laughable. I can not fathom how a business practice like that can actually work in the long run.

Ive pointed out a way it could be done AND save money. It's also not a big deal, since streaming is likely to replace cable at some point anyway. The technology model people have in their heads and can't shake out for Tv watching is out of date. I swear every time I hear somebody saying I won't pay for a streaming channel I can hear people saying they won't switch from rabbit ears to cable.

I think you have completely missed the point I was making. You are having a streaming debate with yourself. Of course streaming is the way forward and TV in its current format is beyond archaic.

However, a service for a single network is far too limited in a world with Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Video, Youtube...

It is also questionable why anyone would add ANOTHER subscription streaming service when they are most likely to already be subscribed to a seperate, superior service.

 

[RAMA]

Viewing figures for Enterprise premiere: 12.5 million. It'll be 12 years since the last TV show. I think the statute of limitations on "giving trek a rest" is over. I think a lot of people will subscirbe fore a month or two and watch the show. If Daredevil can get 4.4 million viewers in 30 days, a new Trek show premiere will get 6-10 million.

You know you guys will watch. Fibbers

 

[Mudd]

Since I'm not a CBS shareholder, there's no good reason for me to give a damn about their distribution model and whether it's "flawed" or not.

But you are a Trekkie right?

When did "Trekkie" become s synonym for "addict?"

I mean, how much TV Trek have you been getting for the last decade?

Bupkis, right?

So...now that CBS is going to produce some, it makes sense to begin fretting immediately about how to protect the supply?

This is what they're doing. This is their distribution model. They're not taking a vote on the Internet.

Fans get this whacked-out notion that if they reject whatever the studio chooses to do that the natural response of the business people will be to turn around and do what fans want, instead.

Well...that "successed" once, and what the studio did was put the product on the back shelf for ten years. Good luck.

 

[INACTIVEUSS Einstein]

I suppose so.

But you can understand fans desperation right? Even if it is an addictive behavior; they do fear their "supply" getting cut. And I can sympathize, given the fate of shows like Firefly.

 

[dub]

paying for a one network subscription service, to me, is laughable. I can not fathom how a business practice like that can actually work in the long run.

Listen, I'd pay a subscription service for ONE SERIES if I liked it enough and the price was right, let alone one network. In fact, if they did that and offered an even cheaper rate, that might be an even better model - at least from this consumer's perspective.

It's more laughable (painfully so) to me that I pay for a cable service that has a crap to of stations when I only watch a handful. If all of the networks followed CBS' lead and offered subscription-based streaming apps, I'd save so much money. In that scenario, if a network starts getting crappy, well I'll just cancel my subscription until they get shows that I'd actually watch.

It is also questionable why anyone would add ANOTHER subscription streaming service when they are most likely to already be subscribed to a seperate, superior service.

Because the additional service would have other offerings that you can't get on the other services. Simple. Logic.

 

[C.E. Evans]

Nah, I won't be getting CBS All Access. I know it's the future, but streaming really doesn't work too well for me. It'd probably be better for me just to wait for the new Trek series to come out on home video or until the reruns pop up on regular TV.

Not saying it won't happen...but with DVD sales dropping and streaming viewers rising, there's no guarantee it will be released on physical media.

I disagree with that. Movies and TV shows continue to be released on physical media. Retail stores continue to sell and restock it because there are still people who buy it. The market still exists and probably will continue to do so as long as there are still collectors or people that still want physical things. Just like printed books and magazines, it's not going to just go "poof" and disappear suddenly due to online websites.

See: DS9. It has to be cost effective.

The entire run of DS9 was released on home video years ago.

 

[HIjol]

Won't have the option here, Female Arabic Captain or not.
If I get home, when I get home, then sure, depending on the delivery system. All the live streaming and Fly Phishing and VPNing and VOPing and VIPing and Apping and Craping and Hulu and Shaka Zulu might make it a little hard to find...

If I am a phishing, can I stream VOiP live on You Tube...?

...or, no?

 

[RandyS]

For streaming? Unlikely. For the DVD set we all know is coming? Yes.

 

[The Overlord]

Since I'm not a CBS shareholder, there's no good reason for me to give a damn about their distribution model and whether it's "flawed" or not.

The only matter that affects me is the six dollars to watch Star Trek. It's not complicated; of course I'll pay it. And if I chose not to, you wouldn't see me arguing and bitching about it on the Internet any more than I do all the other things I decide every day not to buy.

Meh, its not liking I am putting that much energy into writing a few message board posts complaining about what I don't like, its no more energy then you put in complaining about my complaining, I am not going to have a vendetta against CBS for this movie, but I will get annoyed by what I see as a flawed distribution system. Again if this show was on Netflix or something, guess what I wouldn't be complaining and do you know why, because that is a better distribution system then All Access.

And again when you say you are only paying 6 dollars for Star Trek, do you mean paying 6 dollars for one month to watch the Star Trek for one month and then ditch the service or keeping this service around indefinitely and giving it 6 bucks every month, in the hopes that they won't cancel Star Trek, because this service is not attracting enough subscribers?

Again this seems like forcing me to buy a bunch of other stuff, like back catalogued of Two and a Half Men, just to get a new Star Trek show. With the 6 bucks a month, you are buying a service, not one show and no streaming service can survive on one show. Its not a good media strategy and I have not heard one good defense for it in this day and age, when you have other streaming sites that cost maybe a little more, but have a huge library.

Frankly I would consider myself a smart consumer first over a Star Trek fan, so I want to feel I get my money's worth for this service like I feel I do with Netflix and again, I really don't care how much Star Trek VHS tapes cost in the 90s, because its not the 90s anymore and I never spent outrageous amounts of money for Star Trek.

I don't think you are understanding the nature of my complaints, I think this article shows why some people have some problems with the distribution model.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/03/im-not-paying-cbs-to-watch-star-trek-online/

Just saying "stop your whinging and be happy we got any sort of Star Trek, no matter how bad the distribution model is" is non starter for me, address why you think my concerns over this distribution idea are invalid. If not, well then I guess I have nothing more to say to you at this point, on this topic.

 

[Greg Cox]

Then again, the problem with waiting for the DVD (which I have been known to do) is that you miss out on the fun of joining the conversation AND run the risk of encountering serious spoilers before you finally get a chance to watch the show.

("What? They killed Rita on DEXTER? How can I unhear this?")

Hell, I'm still waiting for DAREDEVIL to come out on DVD . . .

 

[Warped9]

Then again, the problem with waiting for the DVD (which I have been known to do) is that you miss out on the fun of joining the conversation AND run the risk of encountering serious spoilers before you finally get a chance to watch the show.

("What? They killed Rita on DEXTER? How can I unhear this?")

Hell, I'm still waiting for DAREDEVIL to come out on DVD . . .

That isn't a real issue if you're not really into a series. I wasn't watching TNG regularly so at the time I was hardly bothered by hearing discussions regarding things I hadn't seen. Ditto for DS9. Later I caught up with all of TNG and I feel I can get in on the discussion when it suits me.

As far as VOY and ENT I was turned off very early on and largely ignored both series. So not getting any references from there or knowing what went on isn't a problem, reinforced by I never go into those forums.

If I don't get into the new series then i won't be bothered by discussions about it and not knowing what happens in the show. I've seen both of JJtrek and yet I never go into that forum. What could I contribute in regard to something that holds no interest for me and for which I have a negative opinion?

 

[RandyS]

Then again, the problem with waiting for the DVD (which I have been known to do) is that you miss out on the fun of joining the conversation AND run the risk of encountering serious spoilers before you finally get a chance to watch the show.

("What? They killed Rita on DEXTER? How can I unhear this?")

Hell, I'm still waiting for DAREDEVIL to come out on DVD . . .

You know, the whole idea of "spoilers" has always struck me as silly. Maybe it's because I was a kid during the days when "A New Hope" was simply "Star Wars", and etc, when the internet was a thing of science fiction, and we REALLY had to look out for any scrap of information about an upcoming movie or episode, I don't know.

Plus, we're all fans of this stuff, and anybody who says they're not gonna watch their desired show or movie mulitiple times is lying to themselves anyway, so really, who cares of a plot point is "spoiled" or not. Hell, with my memory being affected by chronic migraines, I usually forget the finer details even when I remember seeing something more than once.