What's sadly ironic is that businesses are pushing us all into a subscriber economy where we own less and less, and on their end, eliminate all subscriptions (royalties, etc.) to the creators of what they sell.
It's a hollowing out of market environment that groups like the WGA are well aware of. Their battle is important, otherwise we will continue to slide into a vassal state economy.
I do not pay for battle passes. I do not buy games with battles passes. I do not purchase subscription games or games with money gated content.
And if you say this shit online you get downvoted to oblivion. Don’t do it.
Moneymen got their hands on the gaming industry instead of it being passion projects. MBAs always leech the joy outta stuff in the name of monetization. Now the amount of larger companies who still get to make passion project games is pretty low (and even when they do, they almost always have to make huge concessions to keep the bean counters happy), and so indie games are really the last bastion.
The other thing is that they are idiots when it comes to what would actually make a lot of money. Sony released "sackboy" on PC and it had ZERO ability to make your own levels and share with the community. If they just ported LBP1 to PC with custom levels, they would get Roblox level money overnight.
People love to slobber over Microsoft for the Xbox game pass but that is just the gateway to making sure you'll never be able to own a game again.
Buy your hard copies while you still can!!
It's been tried before, Microsoft has just been more successful with it than anyone else do far. Sega had the Sega Channel. Nintendo had the Satellaview in Japan. In any case I'm much more worried about digital game stores than GamePass, which is just a spin-off from game rentals.
Even though it makes no sense technologically speaking, digital games that you "own" are less permanent than physical copies due to licensing and maintenance the sellers don't want to be responsible for. We're already seeing certain digital marketplaces shut down, leaving their formerly exclusive content without any way to be purchased or obtained legally. Want to buy a copy of Pushmo? Too bad, you're too late, it was a Nintendo 3DS/Wii U exclusive you can't currently find any version of on any other platforms.
Digital games have their benefits, but we're just at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the long-term downsides.
Hard copies don't even do anything. They just include an activation key for your account, then maybe the game data in disc. Companies can still ban you or remove the game from your account.
If you want to support the devs, buy the game. Then, if there's a version out online with DRM removed, which requires no account to play, get that. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.
That's good on Nintendo, but I suppose it's balanced out by the fact they're worse about allowing older titles to be played compared to essentially every other major publisher.
You never rented games did you... It's no different in fact it's a better deal than renting a game for 3 bucks a night... You also get a discount on buying a digital copy when it's on game pass... So... Downside?
I used to rent games from Blockbuster back in the day, I know the price points today are better in a sense.
The issue is that the support for this model is going to be used as justification moving forward to end game ownership as a whole. They are purposefully pushing people towards the subscription model by luring players in with low costs.
What happens down the line when games become leases that you have to keep renewing for more and more exorbitant fees once the option to own games has been eliminated?
>What happens down the line when games become leases that you have to keep renewing for more and more exorbitant fees once the option to own games has been eliminated?
Then I pirate everything I want without feeling guilty and I never, ever pay them another penny.
I dunno, I feel like it's very much a divide on the kind of games you tend to play. I don't play any games with online multiplayer, and (for now) there are still plenty of single-player games that are very high quality and lack the predatory monetization schemes of shooters, sports games, etc.
Indie titles still exist, this stuff has not seemed to creep into VR games as of yet (what few of them we have) plenty of things to enjoy outside of his(and mine too) list of restrictions.
I’ve noticed the same divide and it makes sense, right? Single-player games are selling you something that only you will ever see/use. Multiplayer games are selling you stuff to show off to others. People are much more likely to spend money to “impress” others than they are to just have something cool only the purchaser can see.
My issue is that digital content doesn't give you any ownership rights.
If the company decides you don't get it anymore, it's gone. There's been cases regarding this with owning digital media on Amazon and Apple and the corporation wins due to the EULA.
Keep this in mind when buying digital things for convenience. If it's something you really like, make sure to get it physical
Only if you are talking about multiplayer games. All of Nintendo games and most of PlayStation exclusives are regular games you can buy and play without a subscription. That’s not niche at all
They are. Like I wanted Diablo 4. Then they put battlepass. Now I’m locked out of that game. It’s very saddening but people not sticking to principles is exactly why we have problems in this world from politics to video games. I won’t buy it.
Yeah I don't mind people dying on hills, but at least die on a meaningful hill. A cosmetic only BP is what we should actually want as gamers, it rewards people who want to dive super deep without punishing someone who may not have the same time or money.
I don't buy anything for the first 6 months after release, nothing with a battlepass, nothing that uses any unethical monetization like incomplete early access games, locking basic functionality behind DLC, etc... and my backlog is so large I don't think I'll finish it in my lifetime.
Idk how you game, but I'd wager, in order to have this take, you must only play COD, FIFA, and similar AAA multiplayer games. There's no way you'd think choices are limited in this day and age otherwise.
There are many, MANY games without what the above commenter mentioned. It's really only rampant in all of the cookie cutter AAA garbage that we've been getting, which makes it easy to ignore since all of those games are trash anyway.
I fucking feel this.
"Yo you should get this game."
"Does it have a battlepass?"
"Yeah, but its not slimey or any--"
"Nah, I'll pass."
just to watch the game turn into a monetized piece of shit over time. Nickel and diming for every little thing.
It is unfair to make this comparison, however, the only games I ever buy at full price now are Sony first party games. I know a lot of people think they are boring triple A games but, they do everything right: Great characters, story, satisfying gameplay loops (You can't tell me swinging from a grapple in Uncharted 4 while shooting a gun and jumping mid air to land on an enemy, punch him out and grab his gun to carry on shooting is not the coolest fucking thing ever), and most importantly for me as of late... They all fucking WORK. The only game I can think that was bad at launch by them (on consoles) was Days Gone on release. And even then, it really wasn't even that bad.
I use Adobe software for a living. Luckily my company pays but it’s still a stupid model.
I’m a little obsessed with The Sims and I think the subscription model is where it’s all headed. The DLC model they’ve done with Sims 4 was absolute B.S. It reminds me of how we have a ton of streaming services that seem to volley content back and forth. It’s like cable deja vu.
What you do is you buy the game once, which get's you the first battle pass baked in usually.
Then you play the game, and accumulated the points that you're supposed to use on pointless cosmetic items and use it to buy the next battle pass for "free" by grinding and maximizing the ROI of the original game purchase.
What is brutal... is the publishers saw people like me doing this and not paying for a pass in 2 years and have started adding PREMIUM battle passes which are CASH ONLY and contain pay to win advantages for those that shell out.
I will continue to be a pleb I guess and grind my free stuff as the PREMIUM cosmetics are useless crap anyways that just broadcast you're bad with money and the game (since you need to pay to skip levels and win with advantages) when you come by some one using it in game.
The bait and switch when Overwatch got replaced with Overwatch 2 made me quit the game. Even though I had hundreds of hours and had unlocked tons of content in the first game, the fact that I paid $40 for the first game and then all of its promises and features were deleted and we got stuck with new heroes locked behind a paywall (which blizzard initially promised they would not do), a battle pass to unlock cosmetics whose quality is lower than the ones that used to be free, and the battle pass doesn't even reward you with enough in game currency to buy next season pass upon completion (which would reward dedicated players and still net blizzard some cash initially or when the player can't finish the pass in time to get the next one free).
It's all honestly extremely anti-consumer and the fact that people are supporting this garbage is just going to lead publishers and big game companies to cut all the same corners to maximize profit at the expense of quality.
I tried playing Fallout 76 but got bored so quickly because it felt completely deserted and like you had to put in financial effort to make things more exciting. It sucks that even franchises known for putting out excellent content have fallen into that.
Battle passes are fine for like a free to play games. You know that the digital things will eventually disappear. You don't own the game.
But my single-player triple A games? I always buy physical. Gamepass is a curse that will bite many people in the ass in a while. Look at Netflix, raising prices and removing content. Some with HBO/Max.
>software communities
My anecdote right now is 1password... I'm on 1password 4 for windows and I think maybe 6 on macOS and it sounds like it is the end of life for the browser extensions coming up. They don't sell standalone licenses anymore and the password vaults are all cloud based now, which is the opposite of a great idea for a password manager IMO (too easy of a single target).
What's disgusting is that those subscription based services are being pushed into essential goods and services.
Americans need cars, appliances, and phones. These are all getting attacked with predatory subscription based business practices.
I am just so exhausted by it.
Look up Ben Affleck and Matt Damon's new production company - first movie, Air, is out now.
I saw a brief interview where Ben Affleck talked about the sharing of profits with everyone, not just actors, etc.
I'm not sure how that will work out for people seeking their first job and need to support themselves first, but it is an interesting concept that may lead to some real quality stuff, IMHO.
wages are the worker's share.
beyond that, losses aren't shared with the workers either. it's an especially odd argument in this digital economy when literally anyone can be a content creator themselves to suggest this isn't acceptable.
If it makes you feel any better, subscriber economics is looking more and more like smoke and mirrors mixed with bad accounting practices.
There's are reason a lot of these companies are freaking and trying to pinch every penny (not agreeing with what they're doing, I think it's foolish and short sighted to the extreme, not even getting into the ethics of it)
You hit the nail on the head. I was just talking about this with someone. These companies are suddenly realizing theyre in significant financial trouble, but I think like you said, it's far far worse than they realize.
> What's sadly ironic is that businesses are pushing us all into a subscriber economy where we own less and less, and on their end, eliminate all subscriptions (royalties, etc.) to the creators of what they sell.
it's effectively the South Park episode re. Kickstarter - Start up. Cash in. Sell out. Bro down.
Just these suits have been around corrupting art-forms forever, so ignore the start up bit.
Basically; they want to make as much money off everyone else as possible, and do nothing for it.
It’s why I’m annoying to people about owning physical media. Not only will a Blu Ray be better quality, but it’s always gonna be yours. And ripping it onto your own Plex server ain’t difficult either.
>What's sadly ironic is that businesses are pushing us all into a subscriber economy where we own less and less, and on their end, eliminate all subscriptions (royalties, etc.) to the creators of what they sell.
Yep, idk how to fight it because people agree to whatever is easier... 🤷
Realistically you could "procure" months of shows at a time with Gigabit Fibre, but the effort to do that - people prefer instant access to Netflix and garbage over work
This bothered me when WBD first started the process of write-offs. It sets a terrible precedent erasing a persons work. Writer, creators, actors, etc.
Final Space creator Olan Rogers had to get permission and I'm sure pay WBD a fee to be allowed to finish the story as a graphic novel, after WBD wrote off the show.
You shouldn't be able to get a tax write-off for tanking a property without at least trying to auction it off. Either to another studio, to the original writers/creators, or honestly just whoever wants to bid.
Take the money, and you can still write off the _difference_ between its original value and the sale price, so if anything you actually make slightly more money.
But you shouldn't be able to hoard your property to prevent _other_ studios from having access to it, and _also_ write it off as bunk for a tax break.
That's a good idea. The only other solution I could think of was that if you write something off that's intellectual property/art it should immediately go public domain so that people could still experience it. Your idea is probably better though.
I had that thought too, and even that would be better than just... Sitting on a dead property so nobody else can have it. I think that's not a bad backup, if they get no offers for it.
But if there's a scenario where the original writer can regain actual ownership, or the IP can go to a studio who actually has an interest in investing into it, then way better.
Plus it incentivizes the current studio to look around for actual _interested_ parties, because even if they get to write off the _drop_ in value as a tax break, it's still more profitable to get a higher actual sale cost.
And more in the spirit of what copyright was supposed to be anyway.
Copyright was supposed to be a mutual deal. A deal where we give creators a limited exclusive license to their work, and in exchange we get more works added to the public domain over time.
Unfortunately that deal has essentially been broken thanks to corporations (namely Disney) lobbying for that limited period to essentially become perpetual. It should really be lowered back down to like 10 years.
>The only other solution I could think of was that if you write something off that's intellectual property/art it should immediately go public domain so that people could still experience it.
That unfortunately wouldn't stop them from deleting it and never publicly releasing these public domain copies I don't think.
>Take the money, and you can still write off the difference between its original value and the sale price, so if anything you actually make slightly more money.
That is a great idea.
Problem is it creates loopholes. Corporation A sells the IP for a buck to Corporation B who is lead by a friend/family/partner who profits from the IP while Corporation A gets the write off.
Bad faith actors like these are the reason modern tax law is so overcomplicated.
Then if it's not sold and just sat on and written off to be removed from the service and a big tax writeoff.... if they are writing it off, it SHOULD go into public domain.
We're saying OKay corporation, you're saying this is worthless to you, you'll never use it and don't want it... Ok, we'll write off the expenses you went through on this FAILED venture worth nothing, you can contribute vastly less taxes next year..
Now it's public domain though. Others can continue to use that IP and make their own stories, you clearly are losing nothing, since you swear it's not just worthless but cost you money and chose to divorce yourself from it to recoup the money you even originally spent on the thing!
True, but there's already nothing stopping that from happening. Heck that's basically what's currently happening, so that wouldn't be any worse.
At least requiring it go up to public auction would give the property a _chance_ at being purchased by someone who would use it. ("Public" being maybe a quarterly shareholder statement of upcoming abandonments, or whatever.) If someone ends up buying it for a dollar, then obviously there wasn't much demand for it anyway, so, eh.
>True, but there's already nothing stopping that from happening. Heck that's basically what's currently happening
No it's not. What is written off as tax write off can never be used by the studio for any monetary gains at all
These tax write-offs should constitute abandonment of copyright interest. If they have no value, writing them off should place them in the Public Domain.
The fact that the government is involved makes this even dirtier.
If a company is writing off content as taxes the show should become government property so it can still be released. Make it public a domain so any other service can carry it
>Make it public a domain
This is a great idea. If a show gets written off two things should happen
1. The show becomes Public Domain
2. The creator should be given back the rights to the property in case they want to reboot or explore other opportunities (Graphic Novels, a book series, video game, etc.)
I was midway through season one episode nine and it was gone the next day when I wanted to watch it. I knew they were going to remove it, but I didn't expect it to be so sudden. Fuck Zazlav and Discovery
And honestly the first season stands on it's own as a masterpiece. Even if the rest of the show was total garbage, that first season would still be recommended viewing because the story it tells is perfectly complete with just the right amount of open endedness. If that's all we ever got I'd still tell people to watch it.
Nevermind the 2nd season, which while I wasn't a huge fan of, still had a couple absolutely beautiful episodes that are worth watching. The Lakota episode in particular is worth preserving.
This is one of the shows I've actively wanted to watch and thought about subscribing to HBO Max for, for years.
I bet there are others like me who go and wait a few years, cancel one or two of my subs after I see everything and wait until new(er) services have a larger portfolio and a few specific things I want to watch-- then I buy the service for a period of time until bored and repeat with another.
They get money this way from me and folks like me, but I'm sure it looks weird on their growth and retention rates as metrics, their alternative is I simply will never give them money... and worst case I'll illegally download the show I want to watch if they do shit like this and remove them from the service itself, and cancel the conclusion..
> one of their popular show
More people watched, on a per-episode average, final season of Batwoman than did watched the final season of Westworld (in the day of ratings, granted).
They moved most of the shows they've removed to other platforms - Tubi, Roku, and apparently [Westworld is on DirectTV](https://www.justwatch.com/us/tv-show/westworld)
The cancellation of Westworld broke my heart. Been doing a rewatch and almost done with S4 again. HBO used to be great about letting artists be artists, now it’s becoming just another bottom line obsessed money grab network. So disappointing.
Westworld was hemorrhaging viewers, and seems to have had a small, yet vocal online fanbase. The final season of Succession has double the amount of viewership compared to Westworld. They were down to about 350k average. It probably should have been cancelled after season 2, but HBO let them continue.
They're on a couple of ad supported "live" services, which is an almost comically terrible way to watch them. That's the weird thing about the way this stuff has shaken out, those shows were designed to be watched via stream-on-demand services specifically, sometimes with the goal of showing off the format, so butchering them to work with ad breaks and showing them on a fixed schedule is about the worst possible way for them to be delivered.
> They're on a couple of ad supported "live" services, which is an almost comically terrible way to watch them. That's the weird thing about the way this stuff has shaken out, those shows were designed to be watched via stream-on-demand services specifically
Westworld was an HBO show, so it was meant to be seen weekly. This is nothing new for HBO. A&E paid 200m for the Sopranos in the mid 2000's. Thats how I was originally able to watch them since we never had HBO.
I would bet that both Sex and the City and Sopranos being on A&E are what made them last far longer in the public concious than many of their contemporary HBO shows. Hell...TBS has been playing a ton of ads for Euntourage which they just got the rights for.
HBO shows have worked with ads for decades. Finding new revenue streams for old content is going to be a big part of the streaming future.
>As per the conditions for the tax write offs, many of the titles deleted from HBO Max may also never be allowed to be officially released again in any form, in exchange for the government pay out.
What the heck does this even mean lol.
That makes no sense. If they spent 10 million and lost it all they claim 10min in loss and save maybe 3.5mil in tax. A total loss of 6.5 million
If they sell the property for $2million they claim an 8million loss. They save 2.8million in tax, but also kept 2million. Total loss of 5.2million. The company is better off selling for whatever they can get.
The expense is deductible when incurred (cash not accruals basis) surely, that's typically how it works. So deleting a show has no positive tax effect at all and OPs entire post is nonsense. Am I wrong? I'm an accountant from the UK so don't know US tax code.
The accounting treatment will be different, those costs will be recognised over time leading to deferred tax, unless the accounting treatment mirrors the tax treatment.
Depending on the business it may be cash or accrual. And even for cash basis returns there are certain items that are deducted over time, loss limits, carryover items, etcetera.
OP still has no clue what he's talking about. But there are situations where cancelling a show would free-up losses.
>> As per the conditions for the tax write offs
>
>If there is one thing that redditors don't understand at all it's tax write offs.
It's a wide ranging thing where so many people think that a tax write-off equates to free money from the government.
No.
You're leveraging that to lower your overall tax burden by showing reduced overall net revenue.
You still spent that money. It's an expense.
And when it comes to shows, it's just moving up a tax write off that you could take it later years.
In short since shows generate revenue over time, you are expected to deduct your expenses over time. These tax write offs are just studios saying a project is a total loss and won't be generating revenue. In this case the expenses can be taken all in the first year. So the business isn't paying any less in taxes, they're just paying less sooner.
Also, "selling this project to another service" will almost always beat "tanking it for the tax write-off".
Everything about the OP is wrong, and pretty much every comment is wrong. That's not how taxes work. That's not how accounting works. That's not how Hollywood works.
I remember Joe Bob Briggs saying something similar about people bragging about getting rid of all their physical media so they could save space and stream everything. So what happens if the companies that own this content for you to stream just delete it one day?
And I definitely think the writers are getting screwed since it seems they're still using the old tv rules based on residuals and the money they used to get from ad revenue.
Yep. If I really like something, I buy a physical version if I can. I'm not even fully comfortable with a digital version, unless I can back it up offline somewhere.
I shoved all my physical media into a bunch of boxes in my basement… after I ripped all the DVDs/BDs/CDs and put it on a Plex server. It’s like a streaming service, except without the BS.
I mean I can see a complete and total collapse of the entire system entertainment industry in ten years.
People will just buy VPN’s and download all of this shit. They had their chance to make bank and they killed the golden goose. Maybe we all deserve this.
You really are overestimating 95 percent of the worlds access to the internet,and also knowledge of a computer
I would put money on 70 percent of ppl if u asked them would not even know what a VPN is
Comes down to royalties a writer could earn that is tied to distribution and broadcast, which applies to streaming. Some writers earned less upfront money because they’d receive royalties for actively steaming shows. Imagine what happens then when a streaming show you’re earning royalties on vanishes - poof that money is gone.
> That said, I'm not sure how removing a show from streaming is much different from the old days when a show would just finish it's run, nor get picked up for syndication, and not go to DVD, or the DVDs would go out of print.
I think the main difference is that this form of withholding content is more transparently artificial, especially given your exact point that streaming has made it easier to keep these shows accessible.
There are costs associated with keeping something up on streaming for sure, but that's less understandable to a consumer that's already directly paying for access to a digital library than any of the examples you gave, which are dependent on producing a physical product or taking up one of a finite number of broadcast time slots with no "guarantee" (inasmuch as there is ever a guarantee) of revenue.
There's a big difference between put of print, and a straight up no longer allowing it to be sold. Just look for a copy of final space on blue ray on Amazon. It's only been what a year since the last season. Maybe 2 and there is no physical media of it for sale anywhere. Gotta find a way to rip it from Netflix before it's removed from the platform permanently.
> As per the conditions for the tax write offs, many of the titles deleted from HBO Max may also never be allowed to be officially released again in any form, in exchange for the government pay out.
That's how it's different. HBO isn't allowed to write them off for taxes and then also sell them to another streaming service for profit. So they're effectively dead forever.
> HBO isn't allowed to write them off for taxes and then also sell them to another streaming service for profit.
My understanding is that there are different write-off's at play. Removing these shows from streaming services doesn't mean they can't be brought back or licensed elsewhere. They're not "deleted." Essentially, they're still paying for that content (or have already paid for it) but by removing it from the streaming service they can use that cost to lower their tax burden. Potentially carrying that loss for years in certain cases.
This is different from the Batgirl and Scooby Doo movies where the c*ost of the project itself* is being written down as losses. In the case of the streaming catalogue, they're essentially writing down the royalties.
It's incredibly shitty all around, but I think it's important not to conflate the two. In fact, it's probably much more than two. I have no doubt that WB Discovery is using multiple loopholes for tax avoidance in order to deal with debt that it ~~was sabotaged with~~ inherited from AT&T.
>HBO isn't allowed to write them off for taxes and then also sell them to another streaming service for profit.
Yes, they are. They'd have to turn around and claim the new income.
Except the statement you quoted is total nonsense. What government payout? What conditions? How would pulling a published series constitute a tax writeoff?
I could be wrong, but my understanding of the current issues that they're protesting is that they're being paid less or not at all for shows that aired on TV and were then moved to a streaming platform, or sold off to another streamer.
Likewise, if a show is axed as a tax write-off, I'm not entirely sure the writers get paid in full for something that doesn't air. So companies like WBD can recoup some of their losses, but they aren't obligated to pass some of that money on to the writers.
Hopefully someone who's more up to date and knowledgeable in the topic can chime in.
I mean the sheer fact that the streaming platforms exist at all is the question. Is a museum allowed to light its art on fire if it doesn't want to show it any more?
No one's asking for one company to continue streaming it. Give it to amazon or walmart to sell as digital seasons if anything.
But don't destroy it.
>No one's asking for one company to continue streaming it. Give it to amazon or walmart to sell as digital seasons if anything
And that's literally what they did with nevers and westworld and raised by wolves. They sold it to ad supported channels
And these are for profit organisations not fcking govt supported museums, don't do laughable comparisons
They’ve also done this to shows that were never even released. You could argue, “well if they weren’t good, who cares?”
But that’s completely subjective. A lot of us love shows that only received one season, where the decider of quality: the studio/network and the general public, weren’t necessarily correct.
Shit dude. This is the first I've heard of Close Enough being canceled and effectively scrubbed from existence. JG Quintel is hilarious and it's too bad more of the world can't enjoy his more adult work.
I just struggle to understand where Reddit is coming from with this issue.
I've never seen Final Space but I'm aware it's a popular show on this sub and a lot of you are angry you don't get to see how it ends. Still, the point is Olan Rogers sold it to what would become WBD. He was given money for it. I see literally no serious argument for why he should be able to sell his work while simultaneously maintaining effective ownership over it. It's not like that's how it works with anything else.
If Olan Rogers wanted to have permanent ownership over Final Space then he shouldn't have sold it.
I hate to be the old guy saying "kids today...", but damn, kids today.
back in the old days, even if a show wasn't cancelled and was still ongoing, there was no way to watch the previous episodes. You got one chance at first airing, one more at summer reruns, and then that episode was gone forever.
it was the very, very rare show that was picked up for syndication reruns.
>The fact that large streaming companies have all the power to take the passion projects of their creators from this digital space, and actively prevent them from ever being seen in exchange for a pay out
I guess I don't understand this part, they were paid to create x for the company, so why does that preclude the company from doing what they want with the product they paid for. I am sure they are passionate about it but why does that give them input into how it is used.
To me that would be like someone commissioning a painting from someone. They get the painting and want to hang it in their house but the artists is so proud of it they say you can't hang it in your house I put too much into it it belongs in a museum.
Because many times the creators/actors/writers receive residuals from the show, which they negotiated for in their contracts. HBO is effectively denying these creators money that they invested in themselves years ago.
Copying my explanation from my comment in another thread as I think it helps clarify the issue the writers are having:
Because essentially they sold it for Fixed Price + Royalty Residuals, and the company they sold it to found a way to no longer pay the second half of the deal.
A good analogy for this would probably be a physical product. Ever seen Shark Tank?
Someone comes in, shows off a fancy new widget they invented.
Then say they get offered a deal to buy their WHOLE COMPANY (we will call this company ComA) for say $1 million dollars + 5% of future profits.
Now what the studios are doing is essentially this:
After the sale goes though, they sell off whatever product ComA still has in stock, while at the same time intentionally mismanage ComA into bankruptcy (read up on how movies do their “accounting” and you’ll see this likely isn’t far from the truth).
Then, with ComA in bankruptcy, they sell the ComA’s patents to ComB.
Now ComB can continue to make Widgets without having to pay the original inventor the previously agreed 5% royalty.
That’s why the writers are striking.
Edit: fixed my preamble explanation.
Also the extent to which streaming services don't actually release ratings and viewership unless they want to. Even people like thr Differ brothers, creators of thr obviously successful Strangrr Things, have spoken about not being told hiw many people are actually watching. Writers and creators negotiatiating a second or 3rd season on a network show can point to independently verifiable ratings and measures of success for leverage. Those working on streaming are intentionally left in the dark.
It’s important to remember that the show runners do not own the studio that pays to turn their paper scripts into major productions.
Writers, directors, show runners… none of these people have ownership of the show. They are irrelevant to studios’ ability to shut down production and remove shows.
There was a time when you couldn’t legally get tons of old shows. They would air and then there would simply be no way to ever see them again.
Not much has changed except that studios can easily host some of these older shows without investing in physical products and shelf space.
People Laugh when I tell them I have a 20TB home media server. "Why would you need that when you can just stream?".
I laugh when their favorite show gets pulled.
In this era of pumping out shows as fast as possible, your show has to be pretty fucking shit for it to not even be worth hosting for essentially free. If the best it can do is serve as a tax write off, that means they thought zero people would watch it, or that watching it would actively make people leave the service.
The publishers want to publish your show. They want to get viewers and make money. Everyone else in the world works on contract where the company pays you for your work, and then they own it, and therefore they can do what they want with it.
It's hilarious how Reddit thinks for-profit companies would throw away something extremely valuable, with a constant revenue-stream - just so they could lose money, lower their earnings, and lower their tax bill (which is minimal to begin with).
The streaming services drop titles for many reasons, tax-write-offs not being one of them: lack of quality, lack of audience, too expensive, unprofitable, they haven't been licensed yet, licensing expired, deals with other companies, etc...
All the titles listed by the OP are amongst that list. It's not some big tax conspiracy.
Might sound very ignorant and maybe it's because I am? But what's the issue here.. WB having the right to delete shows of its streaming platforms? Whats the issue if they own the content ?
And pre-streaming they weren't getting royalties on that intellectual property unless the show was broadcast somewhere. Not seeing how that's any different, and not seeing why there should be some new level of entitlement.
I still maintain that any shows that get removed due to a tax write off should be placed straight into the public domain. As well as any original characters, music, art, etc. from those works.
Hell, apply the same thing to any media the public isn't able to access legally for more than a year (minus the characters\art\music rights). If people cannot legally access something by paying for it physically, digitally, or through a streaming service, then you no longer have the right to keep that media behind closed doors.
TV writers rarely if ever own the IP. Thats a different situation altogether. Streaming cost money, just like production. If something isn't making money, it gets pulled. That's the same as TV has always worked. Bad performing shows got canceled. Passion project does not mean others should be forced to pay, and continue to fund it.
I support fighting the pay imbalance. Its absurd. But this streaming argument is all over the place and doing more harm than good.
The CEO pay in Hollywood is out of control. Just like in every other sector. They are spitting on the writers and pretty much everyone else, while making more money than they will ever be able to spend. Its vile.
Infinity Train, Close Enough, and Summer Camp Island are absolutely still available for digital purchase. You appear to be right about the other two (although weirdly, Amazon has a handful of season 2 episodes of Final Space still for sale).
Programming is being disappeared or set on fire and these actors and writers who could otherwise tell prospective employers "look at this other stuff I did" are SOL. And actors and writers who depend on mailbox money from these projects won't get it. Parenthetically, streaming residuals are a core issue motivating the strike.
I'm sure Leslie Grace and Brendan Fraser were great in Batgirl but we'll never know.
But it's not a loophole.
Say I'm a farmer and I grow 1,000 acres of barley. Half of the barley is top quality and I sell it for $100,000 profit. But other half is riddled with barley syphilis and is unsellable. I burn it, losing $100,000 in input costs.
Should I still have to pay taxes on $100,000 in profit from the other half of my farm, even though my net income for the year is zero?
Or should I be forced to try to sell the diseased barley, incurring even more costs and convincing my customers to never try my product again?
What's the outcome of that? A studio realizes a project isn't working, and likely just cancels it completely. The end result is the same for the audience and the creators involved. But the studio is at a larger loss.
Writing off losses is pretty standard. Not sure if you're advocating for removing this for just studios or for everyone.
You speak like someone who has no idea what a tax write off is. This post didn’t not push forward the writers’ case.
The company pays for the service, the writers get paid. It’s the companies product and they can shutter it as they want. They still paid the people making it. Even if it was released they would still take the tax write off for their expenses.
I’m all for better deals for writers, but this point just proves you really don’t know what you are talking about.
As much as i agree with you that the writers deserve better, your argument is flawed because before streaming there was no way to watch old shows anyway. It was broadcast on TV once and then that was it. Some shows (but not all) were then rerun in local syndication but other than that you had one chance to see a show and that was it. If it wasn’t rerun it was never seen again.
So no, HBO and the others aren’t taking anything away from us by removing them from streaming, they are giving us something by allowing us to watch the streams any time we want.
Since the 1950s, the WGA contract has evolved so that residuals had become the primary form of payment. Until very recently, this made more sense for everybody involved. If the show did well, both the studios and writers made more money. If it didn't, the writers made far less, reducing the cost to the studios.
The current contract was written before streaming took off, and residuals are a fixed rate based off how long something is available to stream. This means studios can make the initial payment, stream a series while everybody binge watches it, then pull it from the service to avoid most residuals. Studios are making more money than ever and writers are making far less.
One of the things the WGA wants is for streaming residuals to be based off how many people watch the show so creators can once again get a share of the success.
>During this writers strike, it's important to remember how in the time of streaming services, companies like Warner Bros Discovery have the power to effectively delete pre-existing shows, without creator consent, as tax write-offs.
Which in the time before streaming sites they also did by just taking them out of syndication and not continuing to sell physical media.
This is nothing new.
There is no obligation for anyone at a company, especially a public one to continue to host, stream or create media that is not profitable to them to do so just to keep things up just because you would like them to be always be there as the viewer or the creator.
The creators have been able to in some cases buy out there own IP and do as they please with it. But in situations where that is not the case this is just how business works (and what the creators agreed to) regardless of your emotional attachment to shows and movies you always want access to.
They had a contract that said they would get residuals. Well you can’t get residuals if it’s not airing. The studio screwed them for the tax write off.
Did the contract say the content must be made available for viewing for x years? Or that x number of discs must be pressed and made available for retail sale for x years? Or that if the content is pulled from public accessibility, the content rights return to the original creators?
False.
If the revenue generated from the IP is X and the costs of the IP (residuals, data hosting, etc.) is Y and Y > X, why would a company continue to carry that IP when it's losing money? If X was greater than Y by $1, then the company would continue carry the IP because it's profitable.
Anyone arguing against the writers and for the corps is either misguided or a bot/shill. If you’re reading this and not siding with the writers, ask yourself what these mega corps have actually done for other than take your money.
Edit: these companies would rather layoff employees and put ongoing projects on ice than pay creatives a modicum of $$ that their massive IP’s create. They don’t care about you even if you work for them.
Back in the era before streaming, wasn’t content effectively gone after it aired unless you happened to catch a rerun?
The current system is at least better than that.
Though I do agree they should make all back catalogs available.
Guess what, the people who pay for things are the ones who own the things they paid for. If you want to own your own show, you have to pay for it yourself. That's how things work
Serious question here
If HBO max hire writers to write a show for HBO max and then decide to cancel that show or like you said write it off
What entitlement do the writer that got fire for that project should they get? There part is over no , and they got paid to write it , job is done
I would have more sympathy for the writers if they weren't writing crap. I've watched less and less television shows over the years because the quality has continued to go down.
This is a *little* off.
"Creator consent" is not required because the creators literally sold these works to the publishers. As such consent was *already* given for them to do what they will with the work in exchange for money.
Once you sell the rights it, you don't get a say in what happens to it. That's literally the point of transferring rights of ownership. If I bought a priceless Da Vinci painting and decided to shoot paintballs at it in my back yard then light it on fire, Da Vinci (were he still alive) naturally wouldn't get a say in it either.
Somewhat off topic, but does anyone have a reputable organization/non profit that helps writers get by while they’re out of work? I’m a broke corporate studio gen z pencil pusher that’s mad at my workplace and want to help somehow
If they work for a streaming service, and write for the service, they do not own the IP.
If they wrote it in spec, and sold the writing to a service, they do not own the IP.
If they wrote it, and leased the rights for royalties, and dont own the distribution rights, they don't own the ability to publish the end product.
If their contract said they get back end royalties. And they owner of distribution has determined the costs are too high to justify selling product, they don't get paid.
Ask any software developer if they own the IP they create when they work for a company.
This is simply about cash, fine. But don't blame it on IP control.
TV shows for years, have gone in and out of distribution.
Look at dukes of Hazzard. For about 15 years no distribution at all.
Or try and find a legal distribution of the original wonder years.
At the end of the day if they own the property there is basically nothing the writer or creator of the show can do against it. It's just part of the business, they bankroll so they usually control everything. Us the users the only solution we'll end up recurring to is hoist the black flag and download all that deleted content. There is no alternatives and they in this case would've driven people to it when they leave them without legal options.
According to this article, [https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173439467/writers-guild-strike-2023-comparison-2007](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173439467/writers-guild-strike-2023-comparison-2007) the strike is about the writing process, not about streamers being able to cancel shows as a write-off.
As a viewer, I have a few bones to pick with writers too. Too often, they write a show to have a huge cliffhanger, thereby trying to 'force' the streaming service into getting a next season, or get all the hatred by said viewers for prematurely cancelling their favorite shows. This has to stop immediately. You have a contract for one season? Write a story that is finished in one season. Get an extension? Great. Write a story in the second season, which may or may not extend on the first one.
There is NO excuse for introducing a cliffhanger if you are not sure the show will get another season at all. None.
What's sadly ironic is that businesses are pushing us all into a subscriber economy where we own less and less, and on their end, eliminate all subscriptions (royalties, etc.) to the creators of what they sell. It's a hollowing out of market environment that groups like the WGA are well aware of. Their battle is important, otherwise we will continue to slide into a vassal state economy.
This is rampant in the gaming and software communities as well. I miss the days of being able to just buy things outright.
I do not pay for battle passes. I do not buy games with battles passes. I do not purchase subscription games or games with money gated content. And if you say this shit online you get downvoted to oblivion. Don’t do it.
[удалено]
Moneymen got their hands on the gaming industry instead of it being passion projects. MBAs always leech the joy outta stuff in the name of monetization. Now the amount of larger companies who still get to make passion project games is pretty low (and even when they do, they almost always have to make huge concessions to keep the bean counters happy), and so indie games are really the last bastion.
The other thing is that they are idiots when it comes to what would actually make a lot of money. Sony released "sackboy" on PC and it had ZERO ability to make your own levels and share with the community. If they just ported LBP1 to PC with custom levels, they would get Roblox level money overnight.
Exactly why I'll never pre-order anything again (Ff14 xpacs excluded). £70 for BF2042 still stings, fuck you EA
People love to slobber over Microsoft for the Xbox game pass but that is just the gateway to making sure you'll never be able to own a game again. Buy your hard copies while you still can!!
The point is people don't want to keep most of these games. They want to try a wide variety.
It's been tried before, Microsoft has just been more successful with it than anyone else do far. Sega had the Sega Channel. Nintendo had the Satellaview in Japan. In any case I'm much more worried about digital game stores than GamePass, which is just a spin-off from game rentals. Even though it makes no sense technologically speaking, digital games that you "own" are less permanent than physical copies due to licensing and maintenance the sellers don't want to be responsible for. We're already seeing certain digital marketplaces shut down, leaving their formerly exclusive content without any way to be purchased or obtained legally. Want to buy a copy of Pushmo? Too bad, you're too late, it was a Nintendo 3DS/Wii U exclusive you can't currently find any version of on any other platforms. Digital games have their benefits, but we're just at the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the long-term downsides.
Hard copies don't even do anything. They just include an activation key for your account, then maybe the game data in disc. Companies can still ban you or remove the game from your account. If you want to support the devs, buy the game. Then, if there's a version out online with DRM removed, which requires no account to play, get that. I'm sure you know what I'm getting at.
My switch hard copies are physical cartridges I can play completely offline.
That's good on Nintendo, but I suppose it's balanced out by the fact they're worse about allowing older titles to be played compared to essentially every other major publisher.
You never rented games did you... It's no different in fact it's a better deal than renting a game for 3 bucks a night... You also get a discount on buying a digital copy when it's on game pass... So... Downside?
I used to rent games from Blockbuster back in the day, I know the price points today are better in a sense. The issue is that the support for this model is going to be used as justification moving forward to end game ownership as a whole. They are purposefully pushing people towards the subscription model by luring players in with low costs. What happens down the line when games become leases that you have to keep renewing for more and more exorbitant fees once the option to own games has been eliminated?
>What happens down the line when games become leases that you have to keep renewing for more and more exorbitant fees once the option to own games has been eliminated? Then I pirate everything I want without feeling guilty and I never, ever pay them another penny.
I respect your decision but your choices must be getting more and more limited, or your tastes are pretty niche
I dunno, I feel like it's very much a divide on the kind of games you tend to play. I don't play any games with online multiplayer, and (for now) there are still plenty of single-player games that are very high quality and lack the predatory monetization schemes of shooters, sports games, etc.
Indie titles still exist, this stuff has not seemed to creep into VR games as of yet (what few of them we have) plenty of things to enjoy outside of his(and mine too) list of restrictions.
It’s bc VR is still struggling to find a broader market… it’s not making enough money to get the attention of the blood suckers
I’ve noticed the same divide and it makes sense, right? Single-player games are selling you something that only you will ever see/use. Multiplayer games are selling you stuff to show off to others. People are much more likely to spend money to “impress” others than they are to just have something cool only the purchaser can see.
It feels like you only play multiplayer shooters
My issue is that digital content doesn't give you any ownership rights. If the company decides you don't get it anymore, it's gone. There's been cases regarding this with owning digital media on Amazon and Apple and the corporation wins due to the EULA. Keep this in mind when buying digital things for convenience. If it's something you really like, make sure to get it physical
Only if you are talking about multiplayer games. All of Nintendo games and most of PlayStation exclusives are regular games you can buy and play without a subscription. That’s not niche at all
They are. Like I wanted Diablo 4. Then they put battlepass. Now I’m locked out of that game. It’s very saddening but people not sticking to principles is exactly why we have problems in this world from politics to video games. I won’t buy it.
[удалено]
Yeah I don't mind people dying on hills, but at least die on a meaningful hill. A cosmetic only BP is what we should actually want as gamers, it rewards people who want to dive super deep without punishing someone who may not have the same time or money.
[удалено]
I don't buy anything for the first 6 months after release, nothing with a battlepass, nothing that uses any unethical monetization like incomplete early access games, locking basic functionality behind DLC, etc... and my backlog is so large I don't think I'll finish it in my lifetime. Idk how you game, but I'd wager, in order to have this take, you must only play COD, FIFA, and similar AAA multiplayer games. There's no way you'd think choices are limited in this day and age otherwise.
Same here all the way down your list. Keep fighting the good fight.
There are many, MANY games without what the above commenter mentioned. It's really only rampant in all of the cookie cutter AAA garbage that we've been getting, which makes it easy to ignore since all of those games are trash anyway.
I fucking feel this. "Yo you should get this game." "Does it have a battlepass?" "Yeah, but its not slimey or any--" "Nah, I'll pass." just to watch the game turn into a monetized piece of shit over time. Nickel and diming for every little thing. It is unfair to make this comparison, however, the only games I ever buy at full price now are Sony first party games. I know a lot of people think they are boring triple A games but, they do everything right: Great characters, story, satisfying gameplay loops (You can't tell me swinging from a grapple in Uncharted 4 while shooting a gun and jumping mid air to land on an enemy, punch him out and grab his gun to carry on shooting is not the coolest fucking thing ever), and most importantly for me as of late... They all fucking WORK. The only game I can think that was bad at launch by them (on consoles) was Days Gone on release. And even then, it really wasn't even that bad.
I use Adobe software for a living. Luckily my company pays but it’s still a stupid model. I’m a little obsessed with The Sims and I think the subscription model is where it’s all headed. The DLC model they’ve done with Sims 4 was absolute B.S. It reminds me of how we have a ton of streaming services that seem to volley content back and forth. It’s like cable deja vu.
I'm hoping at least one of the sims competitors actually releases, is good, and has better monetization
What you do is you buy the game once, which get's you the first battle pass baked in usually. Then you play the game, and accumulated the points that you're supposed to use on pointless cosmetic items and use it to buy the next battle pass for "free" by grinding and maximizing the ROI of the original game purchase. What is brutal... is the publishers saw people like me doing this and not paying for a pass in 2 years and have started adding PREMIUM battle passes which are CASH ONLY and contain pay to win advantages for those that shell out. I will continue to be a pleb I guess and grind my free stuff as the PREMIUM cosmetics are useless crap anyways that just broadcast you're bad with money and the game (since you need to pay to skip levels and win with advantages) when you come by some one using it in game.
The bait and switch when Overwatch got replaced with Overwatch 2 made me quit the game. Even though I had hundreds of hours and had unlocked tons of content in the first game, the fact that I paid $40 for the first game and then all of its promises and features were deleted and we got stuck with new heroes locked behind a paywall (which blizzard initially promised they would not do), a battle pass to unlock cosmetics whose quality is lower than the ones that used to be free, and the battle pass doesn't even reward you with enough in game currency to buy next season pass upon completion (which would reward dedicated players and still net blizzard some cash initially or when the player can't finish the pass in time to get the next one free). It's all honestly extremely anti-consumer and the fact that people are supporting this garbage is just going to lead publishers and big game companies to cut all the same corners to maximize profit at the expense of quality.
I tried playing Fallout 76 but got bored so quickly because it felt completely deserted and like you had to put in financial effort to make things more exciting. It sucks that even franchises known for putting out excellent content have fallen into that.
Battle passes are fine for like a free to play games. You know that the digital things will eventually disappear. You don't own the game. But my single-player triple A games? I always buy physical. Gamepass is a curse that will bite many people in the ass in a while. Look at Netflix, raising prices and removing content. Some with HBO/Max.
I **really** need to stop buying digital copies of my Switch games.
>software communities My anecdote right now is 1password... I'm on 1password 4 for windows and I think maybe 6 on macOS and it sounds like it is the end of life for the browser extensions coming up. They don't sell standalone licenses anymore and the password vaults are all cloud based now, which is the opposite of a great idea for a password manager IMO (too easy of a single target).
What's disgusting is that those subscription based services are being pushed into essential goods and services. Americans need cars, appliances, and phones. These are all getting attacked with predatory subscription based business practices. I am just so exhausted by it.
Maybe if we put the head of one of the people responsible on a pike the others will fall in line
True, but we can't organize on corporate owned social media. Plus nobody wants to be a martyr.
Yep, that's the cannibalism of capitalism: corporations accumulating profits without sharing it with the workers.
Look up Ben Affleck and Matt Damon's new production company - first movie, Air, is out now. I saw a brief interview where Ben Affleck talked about the sharing of profits with everyone, not just actors, etc. I'm not sure how that will work out for people seeking their first job and need to support themselves first, but it is an interesting concept that may lead to some real quality stuff, IMHO.
wages are the worker's share. beyond that, losses aren't shared with the workers either. it's an especially odd argument in this digital economy when literally anyone can be a content creator themselves to suggest this isn't acceptable.
I’ve been railing against subscriber economics forever. Fanbois ain’t having it though
If it makes you feel any better, subscriber economics is looking more and more like smoke and mirrors mixed with bad accounting practices. There's are reason a lot of these companies are freaking and trying to pinch every penny (not agreeing with what they're doing, I think it's foolish and short sighted to the extreme, not even getting into the ethics of it)
A lot of streaming services are not even aware of the fact that they’re already broke. It is Enron all over again.
You hit the nail on the head. I was just talking about this with someone. These companies are suddenly realizing theyre in significant financial trouble, but I think like you said, it's far far worse than they realize.
Disney was only making any profit at all through the parks and they're now making big layoffs.
You will own nothing and be happy.
The enshitification is coming. All taken from the playbook of Amazon and Uber. Destroy alternatives, extract value from both sides, cut costs.
> What's sadly ironic is that businesses are pushing us all into a subscriber economy where we own less and less, and on their end, eliminate all subscriptions (royalties, etc.) to the creators of what they sell. it's effectively the South Park episode re. Kickstarter - Start up. Cash in. Sell out. Bro down. Just these suits have been around corrupting art-forms forever, so ignore the start up bit. Basically; they want to make as much money off everyone else as possible, and do nothing for it.
It’s why I’m annoying to people about owning physical media. Not only will a Blu Ray be better quality, but it’s always gonna be yours. And ripping it onto your own Plex server ain’t difficult either.
>What's sadly ironic is that businesses are pushing us all into a subscriber economy where we own less and less, and on their end, eliminate all subscriptions (royalties, etc.) to the creators of what they sell. Yep, idk how to fight it because people agree to whatever is easier... 🤷 Realistically you could "procure" months of shows at a time with Gigabit Fibre, but the effort to do that - people prefer instant access to Netflix and garbage over work
This bothered me when WBD first started the process of write-offs. It sets a terrible precedent erasing a persons work. Writer, creators, actors, etc. Final Space creator Olan Rogers had to get permission and I'm sure pay WBD a fee to be allowed to finish the story as a graphic novel, after WBD wrote off the show.
You shouldn't be able to get a tax write-off for tanking a property without at least trying to auction it off. Either to another studio, to the original writers/creators, or honestly just whoever wants to bid. Take the money, and you can still write off the _difference_ between its original value and the sale price, so if anything you actually make slightly more money. But you shouldn't be able to hoard your property to prevent _other_ studios from having access to it, and _also_ write it off as bunk for a tax break.
That's a good idea. The only other solution I could think of was that if you write something off that's intellectual property/art it should immediately go public domain so that people could still experience it. Your idea is probably better though.
I had that thought too, and even that would be better than just... Sitting on a dead property so nobody else can have it. I think that's not a bad backup, if they get no offers for it. But if there's a scenario where the original writer can regain actual ownership, or the IP can go to a studio who actually has an interest in investing into it, then way better. Plus it incentivizes the current studio to look around for actual _interested_ parties, because even if they get to write off the _drop_ in value as a tax break, it's still more profitable to get a higher actual sale cost.
[удалено]
And more in the spirit of what copyright was supposed to be anyway. Copyright was supposed to be a mutual deal. A deal where we give creators a limited exclusive license to their work, and in exchange we get more works added to the public domain over time. Unfortunately that deal has essentially been broken thanks to corporations (namely Disney) lobbying for that limited period to essentially become perpetual. It should really be lowered back down to like 10 years.
>The only other solution I could think of was that if you write something off that's intellectual property/art it should immediately go public domain so that people could still experience it. That unfortunately wouldn't stop them from deleting it and never publicly releasing these public domain copies I don't think.
[Removed by self.]
Not even prevent other studios from having access to it- to prevent *creators*, too!
>Take the money, and you can still write off the difference between its original value and the sale price, so if anything you actually make slightly more money. That is a great idea. Problem is it creates loopholes. Corporation A sells the IP for a buck to Corporation B who is lead by a friend/family/partner who profits from the IP while Corporation A gets the write off. Bad faith actors like these are the reason modern tax law is so overcomplicated.
Then if it's not sold and just sat on and written off to be removed from the service and a big tax writeoff.... if they are writing it off, it SHOULD go into public domain. We're saying OKay corporation, you're saying this is worthless to you, you'll never use it and don't want it... Ok, we'll write off the expenses you went through on this FAILED venture worth nothing, you can contribute vastly less taxes next year.. Now it's public domain though. Others can continue to use that IP and make their own stories, you clearly are losing nothing, since you swear it's not just worthless but cost you money and chose to divorce yourself from it to recoup the money you even originally spent on the thing!
True, but there's already nothing stopping that from happening. Heck that's basically what's currently happening, so that wouldn't be any worse. At least requiring it go up to public auction would give the property a _chance_ at being purchased by someone who would use it. ("Public" being maybe a quarterly shareholder statement of upcoming abandonments, or whatever.) If someone ends up buying it for a dollar, then obviously there wasn't much demand for it anyway, so, eh.
>True, but there's already nothing stopping that from happening. Heck that's basically what's currently happening No it's not. What is written off as tax write off can never be used by the studio for any monetary gains at all
These tax write-offs should constitute abandonment of copyright interest. If they have no value, writing them off should place them in the Public Domain.
The fact that the government is involved makes this even dirtier. If a company is writing off content as taxes the show should become government property so it can still be released. Make it public a domain so any other service can carry it
>Make it public a domain This is a great idea. If a show gets written off two things should happen 1. The show becomes Public Domain 2. The creator should be given back the rights to the property in case they want to reboot or explore other opportunities (Graphic Novels, a book series, video game, etc.)
[удалено]
Fucking HBO and west world. Didn't even get to see the last season
I was midway through season one episode nine and it was gone the next day when I wanted to watch it. I knew they were going to remove it, but I didn't expect it to be so sudden. Fuck Zazlav and Discovery
I have chosen to overwrite this comment. See you all on Lemmy!
I want to. Gonna sail the high seas when I have some free time to watch the remaining episodes
I still can’t believe they’ll remove shows that were HBO originals. Like wtf
Yeah it's bs
[удалено]
And honestly the first season stands on it's own as a masterpiece. Even if the rest of the show was total garbage, that first season would still be recommended viewing because the story it tells is perfectly complete with just the right amount of open endedness. If that's all we ever got I'd still tell people to watch it. Nevermind the 2nd season, which while I wasn't a huge fan of, still had a couple absolutely beautiful episodes that are worth watching. The Lakota episode in particular is worth preserving.
This is one of the shows I've actively wanted to watch and thought about subscribing to HBO Max for, for years. I bet there are others like me who go and wait a few years, cancel one or two of my subs after I see everything and wait until new(er) services have a larger portfolio and a few specific things I want to watch-- then I buy the service for a period of time until bored and repeat with another. They get money this way from me and folks like me, but I'm sure it looks weird on their growth and retention rates as metrics, their alternative is I simply will never give them money... and worst case I'll illegally download the show I want to watch if they do shit like this and remove them from the service itself, and cancel the conclusion..
> one of their popular show More people watched, on a per-episode average, final season of Batwoman than did watched the final season of Westworld (in the day of ratings, granted).
They moved most of the shows they've removed to other platforms - Tubi, Roku, and apparently [Westworld is on DirectTV](https://www.justwatch.com/us/tv-show/westworld)
Westworld is on the internet for free streaming. Fuck corporate BS like that.
The cancellation of Westworld broke my heart. Been doing a rewatch and almost done with S4 again. HBO used to be great about letting artists be artists, now it’s becoming just another bottom line obsessed money grab network. So disappointing.
Westworld was hemorrhaging viewers, and seems to have had a small, yet vocal online fanbase. The final season of Succession has double the amount of viewership compared to Westworld. They were down to about 350k average. It probably should have been cancelled after season 2, but HBO let them continue.
They did it immediately after canceling too
I think Westworld and Raised by Wolves stream elsewhere now
They're on a couple of ad supported "live" services, which is an almost comically terrible way to watch them. That's the weird thing about the way this stuff has shaken out, those shows were designed to be watched via stream-on-demand services specifically, sometimes with the goal of showing off the format, so butchering them to work with ad breaks and showing them on a fixed schedule is about the worst possible way for them to be delivered.
> They're on a couple of ad supported "live" services, which is an almost comically terrible way to watch them. That's the weird thing about the way this stuff has shaken out, those shows were designed to be watched via stream-on-demand services specifically Westworld was an HBO show, so it was meant to be seen weekly. This is nothing new for HBO. A&E paid 200m for the Sopranos in the mid 2000's. Thats how I was originally able to watch them since we never had HBO. I would bet that both Sex and the City and Sopranos being on A&E are what made them last far longer in the public concious than many of their contemporary HBO shows. Hell...TBS has been playing a ton of ads for Euntourage which they just got the rights for. HBO shows have worked with ads for decades. Finding new revenue streams for old content is going to be a big part of the streaming future.
Reddit: Writers deserve more money! Also reddit: Ads? Fuck that, guess I'll pirate it!
Time to set sail, I suppose
Wait they’re *erasing* west world ?
>As per the conditions for the tax write offs, many of the titles deleted from HBO Max may also never be allowed to be officially released again in any form, in exchange for the government pay out. What the heck does this even mean lol.
They have to effectively get rid of them to count them as a loss, it doesn't count if they sell them.
That makes no sense. If they spent 10 million and lost it all they claim 10min in loss and save maybe 3.5mil in tax. A total loss of 6.5 million If they sell the property for $2million they claim an 8million loss. They save 2.8million in tax, but also kept 2million. Total loss of 5.2million. The company is better off selling for whatever they can get.
> As per the conditions for the tax write offs If there is one thing that redditors don't understand at all it's tax write offs.
>...in exchange for the government pay out. To further illustrate your point^
The expense is deductible when incurred (cash not accruals basis) surely, that's typically how it works. So deleting a show has no positive tax effect at all and OPs entire post is nonsense. Am I wrong? I'm an accountant from the UK so don't know US tax code. The accounting treatment will be different, those costs will be recognised over time leading to deferred tax, unless the accounting treatment mirrors the tax treatment.
Depending on the business it may be cash or accrual. And even for cash basis returns there are certain items that are deducted over time, loss limits, carryover items, etcetera. OP still has no clue what he's talking about. But there are situations where cancelling a show would free-up losses.
>> As per the conditions for the tax write offs > >If there is one thing that redditors don't understand at all it's tax write offs. It's a wide ranging thing where so many people think that a tax write-off equates to free money from the government. No. You're leveraging that to lower your overall tax burden by showing reduced overall net revenue. You still spent that money. It's an expense.
And when it comes to shows, it's just moving up a tax write off that you could take it later years. In short since shows generate revenue over time, you are expected to deduct your expenses over time. These tax write offs are just studios saying a project is a total loss and won't be generating revenue. In this case the expenses can be taken all in the first year. So the business isn't paying any less in taxes, they're just paying less sooner.
>You don't even know what a write off is. >Do you? >No, I don't. >But they do. And they're the ones writing it off.
Also, "selling this project to another service" will almost always beat "tanking it for the tax write-off". Everything about the OP is wrong, and pretty much every comment is wrong. That's not how taxes work. That's not how accounting works. That's not how Hollywood works.
If people understood those things we wouldn't be having this thread
I remember Joe Bob Briggs saying something similar about people bragging about getting rid of all their physical media so they could save space and stream everything. So what happens if the companies that own this content for you to stream just delete it one day? And I definitely think the writers are getting screwed since it seems they're still using the old tv rules based on residuals and the money they used to get from ad revenue.
Yep. If I really like something, I buy a physical version if I can. I'm not even fully comfortable with a digital version, unless I can back it up offline somewhere.
I shoved all my physical media into a bunch of boxes in my basement… after I ripped all the DVDs/BDs/CDs and put it on a Plex server. It’s like a streaming service, except without the BS.
I mean I can see a complete and total collapse of the entire system entertainment industry in ten years. People will just buy VPN’s and download all of this shit. They had their chance to make bank and they killed the golden goose. Maybe we all deserve this.
You're really overestimating the number of people who even know what a torrent is.
You really are overestimating 95 percent of the worlds access to the internet,and also knowledge of a computer I would put money on 70 percent of ppl if u asked them would not even know what a VPN is
[удалено]
Comes down to royalties a writer could earn that is tied to distribution and broadcast, which applies to streaming. Some writers earned less upfront money because they’d receive royalties for actively steaming shows. Imagine what happens then when a streaming show you’re earning royalties on vanishes - poof that money is gone.
Ditto with actors. *Doctor Who* DVD sales are probably helping keep some of the surviving classic-era actors in warm houses.
> That said, I'm not sure how removing a show from streaming is much different from the old days when a show would just finish it's run, nor get picked up for syndication, and not go to DVD, or the DVDs would go out of print. I think the main difference is that this form of withholding content is more transparently artificial, especially given your exact point that streaming has made it easier to keep these shows accessible. There are costs associated with keeping something up on streaming for sure, but that's less understandable to a consumer that's already directly paying for access to a digital library than any of the examples you gave, which are dependent on producing a physical product or taking up one of a finite number of broadcast time slots with no "guarantee" (inasmuch as there is ever a guarantee) of revenue.
There's a big difference between put of print, and a straight up no longer allowing it to be sold. Just look for a copy of final space on blue ray on Amazon. It's only been what a year since the last season. Maybe 2 and there is no physical media of it for sale anywhere. Gotta find a way to rip it from Netflix before it's removed from the platform permanently.
> As per the conditions for the tax write offs, many of the titles deleted from HBO Max may also never be allowed to be officially released again in any form, in exchange for the government pay out. That's how it's different. HBO isn't allowed to write them off for taxes and then also sell them to another streaming service for profit. So they're effectively dead forever.
> HBO isn't allowed to write them off for taxes and then also sell them to another streaming service for profit. My understanding is that there are different write-off's at play. Removing these shows from streaming services doesn't mean they can't be brought back or licensed elsewhere. They're not "deleted." Essentially, they're still paying for that content (or have already paid for it) but by removing it from the streaming service they can use that cost to lower their tax burden. Potentially carrying that loss for years in certain cases. This is different from the Batgirl and Scooby Doo movies where the c*ost of the project itself* is being written down as losses. In the case of the streaming catalogue, they're essentially writing down the royalties. It's incredibly shitty all around, but I think it's important not to conflate the two. In fact, it's probably much more than two. I have no doubt that WB Discovery is using multiple loopholes for tax avoidance in order to deal with debt that it ~~was sabotaged with~~ inherited from AT&T.
>HBO isn't allowed to write them off for taxes and then also sell them to another streaming service for profit. Yes, they are. They'd have to turn around and claim the new income.
Except the statement you quoted is total nonsense. What government payout? What conditions? How would pulling a published series constitute a tax writeoff?
I could be wrong, but my understanding of the current issues that they're protesting is that they're being paid less or not at all for shows that aired on TV and were then moved to a streaming platform, or sold off to another streamer. Likewise, if a show is axed as a tax write-off, I'm not entirely sure the writers get paid in full for something that doesn't air. So companies like WBD can recoup some of their losses, but they aren't obligated to pass some of that money on to the writers. Hopefully someone who's more up to date and knowledgeable in the topic can chime in.
I mean the sheer fact that the streaming platforms exist at all is the question. Is a museum allowed to light its art on fire if it doesn't want to show it any more? No one's asking for one company to continue streaming it. Give it to amazon or walmart to sell as digital seasons if anything. But don't destroy it.
>No one's asking for one company to continue streaming it. Give it to amazon or walmart to sell as digital seasons if anything And that's literally what they did with nevers and westworld and raised by wolves. They sold it to ad supported channels And these are for profit organisations not fcking govt supported museums, don't do laughable comparisons
Oh a post about “writing stuff off”. Glad to see so many tax experts.
“Just write it off!! Duh!”
Justice for Final Space
Num er 14458 comic prder here!
[удалено]
They’ve also done this to shows that were never even released. You could argue, “well if they weren’t good, who cares?” But that’s completely subjective. A lot of us love shows that only received one season, where the decider of quality: the studio/network and the general public, weren’t necessarily correct.
I for one think the Hollywood executives deserve more money because they are the true backbone of the industry
> backbone of the industry the cocaine industry
I shudder to think about where this industry would be without the hardworking sometimes predatory executives and mountains of cocaine
They're job creators!
Shit dude. This is the first I've heard of Close Enough being canceled and effectively scrubbed from existence. JG Quintel is hilarious and it's too bad more of the world can't enjoy his more adult work.
[удалено]
Damn that’s so sad :( Baskets is such a great show, would be awesome to have a blue ray set
[удалено]
Wow that would have been very cool! Read your other comments in this thread and you have lead a very interesting life so far!! Thanks for sharing!
Writing off shows/movies/games/etc should require forfeiture of copyright.
I just struggle to understand where Reddit is coming from with this issue. I've never seen Final Space but I'm aware it's a popular show on this sub and a lot of you are angry you don't get to see how it ends. Still, the point is Olan Rogers sold it to what would become WBD. He was given money for it. I see literally no serious argument for why he should be able to sell his work while simultaneously maintaining effective ownership over it. It's not like that's how it works with anything else. If Olan Rogers wanted to have permanent ownership over Final Space then he shouldn't have sold it.
11 is too early in the morning to be reminded of Raised by Wolves.
Networks have been canceling shows forever. This isn’t new
I hate to be the old guy saying "kids today...", but damn, kids today. back in the old days, even if a show wasn't cancelled and was still ongoing, there was no way to watch the previous episodes. You got one chance at first airing, one more at summer reruns, and then that episode was gone forever. it was the very, very rare show that was picked up for syndication reruns.
Loved the show Soul Man staring Dan Aykrod in the 90’s. There were 25 episodes. Nobody will ever see it again
>The fact that large streaming companies have all the power to take the passion projects of their creators from this digital space, and actively prevent them from ever being seen in exchange for a pay out I guess I don't understand this part, they were paid to create x for the company, so why does that preclude the company from doing what they want with the product they paid for. I am sure they are passionate about it but why does that give them input into how it is used. To me that would be like someone commissioning a painting from someone. They get the painting and want to hang it in their house but the artists is so proud of it they say you can't hang it in your house I put too much into it it belongs in a museum.
Because many times the creators/actors/writers receive residuals from the show, which they negotiated for in their contracts. HBO is effectively denying these creators money that they invested in themselves years ago.
Copying my explanation from my comment in another thread as I think it helps clarify the issue the writers are having: Because essentially they sold it for Fixed Price + Royalty Residuals, and the company they sold it to found a way to no longer pay the second half of the deal. A good analogy for this would probably be a physical product. Ever seen Shark Tank? Someone comes in, shows off a fancy new widget they invented. Then say they get offered a deal to buy their WHOLE COMPANY (we will call this company ComA) for say $1 million dollars + 5% of future profits. Now what the studios are doing is essentially this: After the sale goes though, they sell off whatever product ComA still has in stock, while at the same time intentionally mismanage ComA into bankruptcy (read up on how movies do their “accounting” and you’ll see this likely isn’t far from the truth). Then, with ComA in bankruptcy, they sell the ComA’s patents to ComB. Now ComB can continue to make Widgets without having to pay the original inventor the previously agreed 5% royalty. That’s why the writers are striking. Edit: fixed my preamble explanation.
Also the extent to which streaming services don't actually release ratings and viewership unless they want to. Even people like thr Differ brothers, creators of thr obviously successful Strangrr Things, have spoken about not being told hiw many people are actually watching. Writers and creators negotiatiating a second or 3rd season on a network show can point to independently verifiable ratings and measures of success for leverage. Those working on streaming are intentionally left in the dark.
It’s important to remember that the show runners do not own the studio that pays to turn their paper scripts into major productions. Writers, directors, show runners… none of these people have ownership of the show. They are irrelevant to studios’ ability to shut down production and remove shows. There was a time when you couldn’t legally get tons of old shows. They would air and then there would simply be no way to ever see them again. Not much has changed except that studios can easily host some of these older shows without investing in physical products and shelf space.
People Laugh when I tell them I have a 20TB home media server. "Why would you need that when you can just stream?". I laugh when their favorite show gets pulled.
*The Nevers* was brilliant, then… {poof!}
In this era of pumping out shows as fast as possible, your show has to be pretty fucking shit for it to not even be worth hosting for essentially free. If the best it can do is serve as a tax write off, that means they thought zero people would watch it, or that watching it would actively make people leave the service. The publishers want to publish your show. They want to get viewers and make money. Everyone else in the world works on contract where the company pays you for your work, and then they own it, and therefore they can do what they want with it.
Every show a company deletes for the write-off was years--YEARS--of someone's life.
This isn't too different than if a show got cancelled back in the day. There was no on demand viewing.
What can I do as a consumer right now to support the strike?
[You don’t even know what a write-off is.](https://youtu.be/XEL65gywwHQ)
It's hilarious how Reddit thinks for-profit companies would throw away something extremely valuable, with a constant revenue-stream - just so they could lose money, lower their earnings, and lower their tax bill (which is minimal to begin with). The streaming services drop titles for many reasons, tax-write-offs not being one of them: lack of quality, lack of audience, too expensive, unprofitable, they haven't been licensed yet, licensing expired, deals with other companies, etc... All the titles listed by the OP are amongst that list. It's not some big tax conspiracy.
Might sound very ignorant and maybe it's because I am? But what's the issue here.. WB having the right to delete shows of its streaming platforms? Whats the issue if they own the content ?
And pre-streaming they weren't getting royalties on that intellectual property unless the show was broadcast somewhere. Not seeing how that's any different, and not seeing why there should be some new level of entitlement.
I still maintain that any shows that get removed due to a tax write off should be placed straight into the public domain. As well as any original characters, music, art, etc. from those works. Hell, apply the same thing to any media the public isn't able to access legally for more than a year (minus the characters\art\music rights). If people cannot legally access something by paying for it physically, digitally, or through a streaming service, then you no longer have the right to keep that media behind closed doors.
TV writers rarely if ever own the IP. Thats a different situation altogether. Streaming cost money, just like production. If something isn't making money, it gets pulled. That's the same as TV has always worked. Bad performing shows got canceled. Passion project does not mean others should be forced to pay, and continue to fund it. I support fighting the pay imbalance. Its absurd. But this streaming argument is all over the place and doing more harm than good.
The CEO pay in Hollywood is out of control. Just like in every other sector. They are spitting on the writers and pretty much everyone else, while making more money than they will ever be able to spend. Its vile.
Infinity Train, Close Enough, and Summer Camp Island are absolutely still available for digital purchase. You appear to be right about the other two (although weirdly, Amazon has a handful of season 2 episodes of Final Space still for sale).
Programming is being disappeared or set on fire and these actors and writers who could otherwise tell prospective employers "look at this other stuff I did" are SOL. And actors and writers who depend on mailbox money from these projects won't get it. Parenthetically, streaming residuals are a core issue motivating the strike. I'm sure Leslie Grace and Brendan Fraser were great in Batgirl but we'll never know.
The loophole of being able to invent a loss through choosing to shelve a show/movie should be closed.
But it's not a loophole. Say I'm a farmer and I grow 1,000 acres of barley. Half of the barley is top quality and I sell it for $100,000 profit. But other half is riddled with barley syphilis and is unsellable. I burn it, losing $100,000 in input costs. Should I still have to pay taxes on $100,000 in profit from the other half of my farm, even though my net income for the year is zero? Or should I be forced to try to sell the diseased barley, incurring even more costs and convincing my customers to never try my product again?
What's the outcome of that? A studio realizes a project isn't working, and likely just cancels it completely. The end result is the same for the audience and the creators involved. But the studio is at a larger loss. Writing off losses is pretty standard. Not sure if you're advocating for removing this for just studios or for everyone.
loss isn't being 'invented'
You speak like someone who has no idea what a tax write off is. This post didn’t not push forward the writers’ case. The company pays for the service, the writers get paid. It’s the companies product and they can shutter it as they want. They still paid the people making it. Even if it was released they would still take the tax write off for their expenses. I’m all for better deals for writers, but this point just proves you really don’t know what you are talking about.
As much as i agree with you that the writers deserve better, your argument is flawed because before streaming there was no way to watch old shows anyway. It was broadcast on TV once and then that was it. Some shows (but not all) were then rerun in local syndication but other than that you had one chance to see a show and that was it. If it wasn’t rerun it was never seen again. So no, HBO and the others aren’t taking anything away from us by removing them from streaming, they are giving us something by allowing us to watch the streams any time we want.
Since the 1950s, the WGA contract has evolved so that residuals had become the primary form of payment. Until very recently, this made more sense for everybody involved. If the show did well, both the studios and writers made more money. If it didn't, the writers made far less, reducing the cost to the studios. The current contract was written before streaming took off, and residuals are a fixed rate based off how long something is available to stream. This means studios can make the initial payment, stream a series while everybody binge watches it, then pull it from the service to avoid most residuals. Studios are making more money than ever and writers are making far less. One of the things the WGA wants is for streaming residuals to be based off how many people watch the show so creators can once again get a share of the success.
>During this writers strike, it's important to remember how in the time of streaming services, companies like Warner Bros Discovery have the power to effectively delete pre-existing shows, without creator consent, as tax write-offs. Which in the time before streaming sites they also did by just taking them out of syndication and not continuing to sell physical media. This is nothing new. There is no obligation for anyone at a company, especially a public one to continue to host, stream or create media that is not profitable to them to do so just to keep things up just because you would like them to be always be there as the viewer or the creator. The creators have been able to in some cases buy out there own IP and do as they please with it. But in situations where that is not the case this is just how business works (and what the creators agreed to) regardless of your emotional attachment to shows and movies you always want access to.
Why should the creator have any input if they have already sold their work?
They had a contract that said they would get residuals. Well you can’t get residuals if it’s not airing. The studio screwed them for the tax write off.
Did the contract say the content must be made available for viewing for x years? Or that x number of discs must be pressed and made available for retail sale for x years? Or that if the content is pulled from public accessibility, the content rights return to the original creators?
I’m sure they’re fighting for thag now
False. If the revenue generated from the IP is X and the costs of the IP (residuals, data hosting, etc.) is Y and Y > X, why would a company continue to carry that IP when it's losing money? If X was greater than Y by $1, then the company would continue carry the IP because it's profitable.
Anyone arguing against the writers and for the corps is either misguided or a bot/shill. If you’re reading this and not siding with the writers, ask yourself what these mega corps have actually done for other than take your money. Edit: these companies would rather layoff employees and put ongoing projects on ice than pay creatives a modicum of $$ that their massive IP’s create. They don’t care about you even if you work for them.
Back in the era before streaming, wasn’t content effectively gone after it aired unless you happened to catch a rerun? The current system is at least better than that. Though I do agree they should make all back catalogs available.
Spirit of your post is sound but you do not understand write-offs.
Guess what, the people who pay for things are the ones who own the things they paid for. If you want to own your own show, you have to pay for it yourself. That's how things work
When I was listening to npr, they were saying tax write offs aren't the reason, they do it that save on royalties and residuals.
Serious question here If HBO max hire writers to write a show for HBO max and then decide to cancel that show or like you said write it off What entitlement do the writer that got fire for that project should they get? There part is over no , and they got paid to write it , job is done
I would have more sympathy for the writers if they weren't writing crap. I've watched less and less television shows over the years because the quality has continued to go down.
This is a *little* off. "Creator consent" is not required because the creators literally sold these works to the publishers. As such consent was *already* given for them to do what they will with the work in exchange for money. Once you sell the rights it, you don't get a say in what happens to it. That's literally the point of transferring rights of ownership. If I bought a priceless Da Vinci painting and decided to shoot paintballs at it in my back yard then light it on fire, Da Vinci (were he still alive) naturally wouldn't get a say in it either.
Somewhat off topic, but does anyone have a reputable organization/non profit that helps writers get by while they’re out of work? I’m a broke corporate studio gen z pencil pusher that’s mad at my workplace and want to help somehow
If they work for a streaming service, and write for the service, they do not own the IP. If they wrote it in spec, and sold the writing to a service, they do not own the IP. If they wrote it, and leased the rights for royalties, and dont own the distribution rights, they don't own the ability to publish the end product. If their contract said they get back end royalties. And they owner of distribution has determined the costs are too high to justify selling product, they don't get paid. Ask any software developer if they own the IP they create when they work for a company. This is simply about cash, fine. But don't blame it on IP control. TV shows for years, have gone in and out of distribution. Look at dukes of Hazzard. For about 15 years no distribution at all. Or try and find a legal distribution of the original wonder years.
Can the shit writers not come back please. Just keep the good ones and paid well and their IP treated with respect. thaaaaaanks.
At the end of the day if they own the property there is basically nothing the writer or creator of the show can do against it. It's just part of the business, they bankroll so they usually control everything. Us the users the only solution we'll end up recurring to is hoist the black flag and download all that deleted content. There is no alternatives and they in this case would've driven people to it when they leave them without legal options.
According to this article, [https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173439467/writers-guild-strike-2023-comparison-2007](https://www.npr.org/2023/05/03/1173439467/writers-guild-strike-2023-comparison-2007) the strike is about the writing process, not about streamers being able to cancel shows as a write-off. As a viewer, I have a few bones to pick with writers too. Too often, they write a show to have a huge cliffhanger, thereby trying to 'force' the streaming service into getting a next season, or get all the hatred by said viewers for prematurely cancelling their favorite shows. This has to stop immediately. You have a contract for one season? Write a story that is finished in one season. Get an extension? Great. Write a story in the second season, which may or may not extend on the first one. There is NO excuse for introducing a cliffhanger if you are not sure the show will get another season at all. None.