Game of Thrones Is the Most Pirated Show on TV

[J So]

Since fucking when has any of that actually mattered????? All those costs you mentioned = profit in the pocket of whoever sells the shit not savings for the consumer. Digital media has cost the same as physical since day flipping one.

All those savings have never been seen by the consumer and never will be. Unless you have been asleep since the 90s you should know better.

I'm simply stating what it would take for me to give HBO any money and Of COURSE it doesn't freaking happen! This thread wouldn't be here if they didn't have the most pirated show!

 

[roaf85]

Prenimum cable channel's get kick backs from cable companies basic packages.

The model will never go away. Cable companies and HBO would lose quite a bit in revenue.

All you guys keep commenting like HBO would just be like a 15 dollar a month thing or that GOT would be sold as a season for like 9.99....that is ridiculous.

If GOT was available without HBO it would be more like 9.99 an episode or about 130-150 a season, which people on the internet will still bitch about.

The problem has nothing to do with access as cable is most every where and subscribing is easy.

The problem is people don't want to pay for something.

 

[DeathPrincess]

Because you don't get the packaging, extras, the physical media itself, they would be selling direct to consumers so no shipping costs, no retail markup, no costs in actually creating the packaging or extras.

You do have storage and infrastructure, backend and maintenance though, a disk only costs a fraction of a dollar to produce then costs them nothing. A digital download, especially if it contains some kind of account costs customer service and has a longer lasting cost. The downloads should be cheaper though because they are lower quality.

 

[NKD]

This is the first year that I've actually had to pay to watch the show. For prior seasons, I ended up getting like 6 months of HBO for free due to some complaint I had about the service. This year, I didn't actually have anything to complain about with my service (for once). When I called, I was offered the deal you mentioned: 1/2 price for 6 months--which is apparently $6/mo for me. I figure since the seasons are 10 episodes, I'll have to pay for 3 months of HBO. At a grand total of $18, that comes out to $1.80 per episode (also recorded on my DVR). I can't really complain about that.

Yea thats what I was talking about. I am gonna cancel it after show is over, apparently dish fucking charges 18 a month for HBO, so for me its 9. I used to have comcast and it used to 13 dollars a month.

 

[Ducman69]

The problem is people don't want to pay for something.

No, the problem is that people want to pay a reasonable sum of money for their entertainment. $260 a month for TV w/ your HBO/Showtime and internet package is not reasonable.

Its the same with CDs back in the day, there was usually only one or two good songs but you had to pay $20 for that.

$1 for the song, and people buy it instead of pirate it.

 

[roaf85]

No, the problem is that people want to pay a reasonable sum of money for their entertainment. $260 a month for TV w/ your HBO/Showtime and internet package is not reasonable.

Its the same with CDs back in the day, there was usually only one or two good songs but you had to pay $20 for that.

$1 for the song, and people buy it instead of pirate it.

Before downloading songs went mainstream CD prices were still around 12-15 for a CD. What made CD prices go down was competition. For example Fye or some other Music store sold you whatever CD you wanted for 20 dollars plus.

Then Walmart started carrying CDs, then Amazon and Best Buy and they put music stores out of business over night. Same with DVDs.

The difference like you said with downloading music is that people didn't want to pay 10 dollars for that CD or even 13, they wanted only a few songs.

I am not disagreeing with that model. I am just saying a lot of guys expect to pay only like 9.99 to 14.99 a month for HBO Go. The quality of content for these shows would have to decrease.

No way are you getting movies and original shows for 14.99 a month from HBO without a cable subscription.

Pricing would have to be closer to something like 30 a month without access to movies etc. Basically it would be tiered.

Or if it was episodic it would be like 9.99 per game of thrones episode, which would still be significantly cheaper than 260 a month for what you are saying is a cable and internet package (which I believe you are overstating).

My argument is that people would pirate Game of Thrones if it was 9.99 an episode.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Before downloading songs went mainstream CD prices were still around 12-15 for a CD. What made CD prices go down was competition. For example Fye or some other Music store sold you whatever CD you wanted for 20 dollars plus.

Then Walmart started carrying CDs, then Amazon and Best Buy and they put music stores out of business over night. Same with DVDs.

The difference like you said with downloading music is that people didn't want to pay 10 dollars for that CD or even 13, they wanted only a few songs.

I am not disagreeing with that model. I am just saying a lot of guys expect to pay only like 9.99 to 14.99 a month for HBO Go. The quality of content for these shows would have to decrease.

No way are you getting movies and original shows for 14.99 a month from HBO without a cable subscription.

Pricing would have to be closer to something like 30 a month without access to movies etc. Basically it would be tiered.

Or if it was episodic it would be like 9.99 per game of thrones episode, which would still be significantly cheaper than 260 a month for what you are saying is a cable and internet package (which I believe you are overstating).

My argument is that people would pirate Game of Thrones if it was 9.99 an episode.

It's all relative. $10 gets me a movie ticket to a movie that has much higher production (and marketing) values than a single episode of Game of Thrones.

Anyhow; the two models can coexist. You will still have the majority of people paying $10 a month for HBO through their cable provider, and those of us who cut the cable 10 years ago could pay $10-15 a month to stream it on our HTPC's.

As it works now, I don't pay subs and I buy the whole season when Amazon has it on super sale. Make it easy and worthwhile to stream, and I'll probably pay a sub (and likely still buy the blu ray set).

 

[turbogeek]

punch people in the face if they start talking about it infront of me.

They only get one warning.

I don't have TV either, but I have a lot of shows that I follow.

 

[roaf85]

It's all relative. $10 gets me a movie ticket to a movie that has much higher production (and marketing) values than a single episode of Game of Thrones.

Anyhow; the two models can coexist. You will still have the majority of people paying $10 a month for HBO through their cable provider, and those of us who cut the cable 10 years ago could pay $10-15 a month to stream it on our HTPC's.

As it works now, I don't pay subs and I buy the whole season when Amazon has it on super sale. Make it easy and worthwhile to stream, and I'll probably pay a sub (and likely still buy the blu ray set).

I am not sure if the cable model is really that relative to the movie model, especially when half the time we are watching ADs.

With fees and taxes I would say most cable packages start at around 75 a month. There is a premium that people pay for live TV.

 

[mcravenufo]

Prenimum cable channel's get kick backs from cable companies basic packages.

The model will never go away. Cable companies and HBO would lose quite a bit in revenue.

All you guys keep commenting like HBO would just be like a 15 dollar a month thing or that GOT would be sold as a season for like 9.99....that is ridiculous.

If GOT was available without HBO it would be more like 9.99 an episode or about 130-150 a season, which people on the internet will still bitch about.

The problem has nothing to do with access as cable is most every where and subscribing is easy.

The problem is people don't want to pay for something.

LOL, this seems all too true to me. I agree.

 

[ounumen]

No, the problem is that people want to pay a reasonable sum of money for their entertainment. $260 a month for TV w/ your HBO/Showtime and internet package is not reasonable.

Its the same with CDs back in the day, there was usually only one or two good songs but you had to pay $20 for that.

$1 for the song, and people buy it instead of pirate it.

Seeing as I dont live in a 3rd world country 260 a month is very reasonable for the amount entertainment I recieve. If you want cheap thrills go watch some stray dogs fight for a bone or bums fight for your spare change.

 

[Deleted member 174368]

Seeing as I dont live in a 3rd world country 260 a month is very reasonable for the amount entertainment I recieve. If you want cheap thrills go watch some stray dogs fight for a bone or bums fight for your spare change.

In some 3rd world countries, HBO and most other "premium" channels come with the basic $20 a month package.

 

[Tudz]

You do have storage and infrastructure, backend and maintenance though, a disk only costs a fraction of a dollar to produce then costs them nothing. A digital download, especially if it contains some kind of account costs customer service and has a longer lasting cost. The downloads should be cheaper though because they are lower quality.

Yeah, and they are slightly cheaper, just not 75% cheaper

 

[roaf85]

Seeing as I dont live in a 3rd world country 260 a month is very reasonable for the amount entertainment I recieve. If you want cheap thrills go watch some stray dogs fight for a bone or bums fight for your spare change.

There is no way cable bills are 260 a month unless you are getting internet service over 25 mbs and you are getting phone with every cable package.

And if you are paying 260 a month just to get access to HBO and bitching about it then it sounds like you need to make some sacrifices.

I would love to drive a BMW to work instead of a Ford but that doesn't mean I am about to spend 500 dollars a month on a car payment for a BMW even if I can afford it.

 

[Disposed]

It's all relative. $10 gets me a movie ticket to a movie that has much higher production (and marketing) values than a single episode of Game of Thrones.

Anyhow; the two models can coexist. You will still have the majority of people paying $10 a month for HBO through their cable provider, and those of us who cut the cable 10 years ago could pay $10-15 a month to stream it on our HTPC's.

As it works now, I don't pay subs and I buy the whole season when Amazon has it on super sale. Make it easy and worthwhile to stream, and I'll probably pay a sub (and likely still buy the blu ray set).

You think that $10 movie really has higher production values than an episode of GoT? Maybe one out of ten movies released...

 

[Ur_Mom]

I've never watched it.

Neither have I. I was thinking of buying the Season 1 Blu-ray. But, if I do like it and get through the seasons to the current one (or the last one on Blu), then what? I'm not subscribing to cable/sat again just for one show. HBO could gain some viewers if they did allow ala carte or HBO2Go without the subscription.

I hear a lot of good stuff about the show, but I also heard a lot of good stuff about Survivor, American Idol, and several other 'awesome' shows. Not impressed. Jericho, Fringe, Sarah Connor Chronicles (Lena Headey in GoT, too). Those are the recent shows that I watched all of.

 

[mope54]

You think that $10 movie really has higher production values than an episode of GoT? Maybe one out of ten movies released...

That's what I was thinking...there's no way an episode of GoT has less production value than any of the current slop in theaters much less an entire season.

And that issue of multiple episodes is something lost in these discussions. It's not a fair comparison to stack one movie's price against one episode's price because you really want the entire season. No one would want to watch a single episode of GoT. Regardless of whether you pay 9.99 per episode or $$$ for a Season Pass you're paying for the whole thing.

It's been a long time since HBO productions (and even major network) budgets for actors/actresses and writing have rivaled Hollywood productions except for a sliver of blockbusters.

 

[dremic]

simply the best show on television. even non nerdies get into it

 

[LeninGHOLA]

You think that $10 movie really has higher production values than an episode of GoT? Maybe one out of ten movies released...

I don't know. Usually movies similar in nature and quality do. I'm not comparing it to indie films and the like. The problem is that it's very rare that a movie has the same quality that an episode of Game of Thrones does.

Either way, I'm not subbing to cable TV just for the opportunity to sub to HBO so I can stream it. I will buy the whole season on blu ray, though. Not really because I'm cheap, but more because I don't want to be bothered setting anything up.

 

[gaspah]

only 160k? That's bullshit. I'm guessing there would be at least a million or two people here in australia that watch a pirated version. Almost everyone i know watches GoT and all of those people pirate it.

 

[wonderfield]

I know it's 'taboo' to stomp on everyone's GoT parade, but an entire season costs less to produce than many box office films. Season two cost about half as much to produce as the new G.I. Joe movie.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

simply the best show on television. even non nerdies get into it

Meh, I find myself uninterested...

Yet, I follow Doctor Who religiously

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I know it's 'taboo' to stomp on everyone's GoT parade, but an entire season costs less to produce than many box office films. Season two cost about half as much to produce as the new G.I. Joe movie.

I'm seeing about $70 million per 10 episode season. A big budget for a televisions show, but nowhere near the production cost some of these folks are insinuating.

 

[MavericK]

Meh, I find myself uninterested...

Yet, I follow Doctor Who religiously

Too bad the new writer sucks.



...I made myself sad.

 

[dremic]

Meh, I find myself uninterested...

Yet, I follow Doctor Who religiously

i didnt say everybody likes it; just most people

*whispers*all the cool people..

 

[Ducman69]

I am not disagreeing with that model. I am just saying a lot of guys expect to pay only like 9.99 to 14.99 a month for HBO Go.

If GoT was $10 an episode, ABSOLUTELY people would pirate it. $10 a month though for HBO or $1 an episode, and I don't see why people would go through the hassle, risk, quality concerns, etc for piracy.

Now, regarding income, remember that it costs virtually nothing to distribute digital media, especially if you use torrents where the people are seeding it to each other.

If there are 50 million viewers worldwide (I'm sure an extremely conservative estimate considering the 7 billion population), then that is $50 million per episode.

A quick google search brags about how GoT is one of the most expensive television series to ever be produced, with a season costing $50 million.

At ten episodes a season, that means they have TEN FOLD profits, without eating into the ridiculous amounts paid to all the people involved already (Peter Dinklage has already amassed $7 million from his two seasons, more than most people make in a lifetime... plenty of incentive for competition for his job).

 

[LeninGHOLA]

There is no competition for Peter Dinklage. I think he may have been born for the role.

 

[dremic]

There is no competition for Peter Dinklage. I think he may have been born for the role.

he is arguably most compelling and interesting character... he is a brilliant actor and his performance in season 2 was stellar.

I agree he is absolutely perfect for the role

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Too bad the new writer sucks.



...I made myself sad.

What, unlike those gems in season 2, like "Love & Monsters" in which a gooey absorbing monster absorbs people?

I feel there are just as many decent, episodes now as there were before. Fewer really bad ones though, like the episode above. Not quite as many amazing episodes either though. It's like the amazing and the bad have been cut out leaving a lot of OK episodes left.

 

[roaf85]

If GoT was $10 an episode, ABSOLUTELY people would pirate it. $10 a month though for HBO or $1 an episode, and I don't see why people would go through the hassle, risk, quality concerns, etc for piracy.

Now, regarding income, remember that it costs virtually nothing to distribute digital media, especially if you use torrents where the people are seeding it to each other.

If there are 50 million viewers worldwide (I'm sure an extremely conservative estimate considering the 7 billion population), then that is $50 million per episode.

A quick google search brags about how GoT is one of the most expensive television series to ever be produced, with a season costing $50 million.

At ten episodes a season, that means they have TEN FOLD profits, without eating into the ridiculous amounts paid to all the people involved already (Peter Dinklage has already amassed $7 million from his two seasons, more than most people make in a lifetime... plenty of incentive for competition for his job).

Well that is what I said at 10 dollars people would still pirate it. Hence the problem is people want to watch something, but they do not want to pay for it.

No way is it going to be a dollar per episode. Right now Walking Dead is 1.99 per episode and 2.99 in HD. If the distribution costs are zero why does the HD episodes cost almost 50 percent more? Because people pay a premium for HD service just like Live TV.

And people don't get the model. It is complete speculation that there will be 50 million more viewers over night. First off we don't know the kick backs HBO gets from Providers in the form of their basic cable packages and why would HBO want to offer something like HBO GO in its current form for cheaper than the 15-16 a month it charges regular cable customers?

You guys don't get it. HBO charges a premium because it doesn't have to deal with things like commercials and content restrictions.

If you guys want to the service to be cheaper you will have to deal with commercials and guess what that brings? Censorship.

Show me the first corporation that is going to be commercial time when you have chicks every episode blowing dudes and tits galore.

 

[roaf85]

There is no competition for Peter Dinklage. I think he may have been born for the role.

You are spot on. They would never replace Peter Dinkage. There is a reason some of those actor/actresses get millions. Its because people pay to watch something with those people in it.

Its like every movie with Tom Cruise. I hate Tom Cruise as a person, but god dam I would be lying if I didn't own just about every movie he was in.

5 of my favorite movies of all time have Tom Cruise as the lead role (Vanilla Sky, Days of Thunder, Top Gun, Last Samurai and Minority Report)

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Of course people wouldn't pay $10 per episode. It isn't worth $10 per episode. So they face the choice of keeping their current model with very restrictive streaming capabilities, offering more avenues at possible decreased profit margins, or launching their own stream only service with kickbacks from companies like Netflix or Hulu.

I would pay a bit more for the latter two options, but I will not buy into the expensive cable TV package just to get 1 show I want to watch. I also will not be pirating any of it, as I feel the quality is worth my money. In the end, I'm going to be deciding how much money it is worth to me. Say $3 an episode, or $30 per season. I'm OK with that.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Well that is what I said at 10 dollars people would still pirate it. Hence the problem is people want to watch something, but they do not want to pay for it.

For most employed people it's less of an "I can't afford/unwilling to pay the $10 for this episode" and more of a "fuck those corporate assholes, if they are going to insult me by asking such an unreasonable price, I'm just going to pirate it"

People have a very strong sense of what is fair and what isn't. The two biggest drivers of piracy are convenience (get the show fast, when you want it, how you want it, in compatible formats without DRM) and a sense of fairness (correct or not). people will go out of their way to harm companies they feel are trying to screw them over.

No way is it going to be a dollar per episode. Right now Walking Dead is 1.99 per episode and 2.99 in HD. If the distribution costs are zero why does the HD episodes cost almost 50 percent more? Because people pay a premium for HD service just like Live TV.

And people don't get the model. It is complete speculation that there will be 50 million more viewers over night. First off we don't know the kick backs HBO gets from Providers in the form of their basic cable packages and why would HBO want to offer something like HBO GO in its current form for cheaper than the 15-16 a month it charges regular cable customers?

The $1.99 vs. $2.99 for SD vs HD has nothing to do with bandwidth/distribution costs. They are a pittance in this case. it has everything to do with HD being perceived as "better", and thus they can make people pay more for it. The costs of goods sold in this case are probably nearly identical between the two.

Moving on to the low cost model, we know from interviews with Valve, that at least for games, there is - within reason - almost no limit to how much you can increase profit by lowering prices. In his interviews Gabe Newell has stated that lower pricing almost universally pays for itself in higher volume sales resulting in greater profits, and digital distribution costs are a drop in the bucket even in Steam's direct bandwidth (not torrent p2p) model.

So the question then is, how well does the movie content model compare to video games?

Yes, it is a speculation, we don't know exactly what kind of revenue/profit sharing deals, kickbacks and agreements organizations like HBO have with the cable networks. It doesn't seem a crazy assumption to suggest that the game industry has many of the same types of agreements with traditional retailers, and they haven't had that much of a problem breaking those ties...

You are right, we don't know for sure though, but the body of evidence we do have, seems to suggest dropping prices and going for volume FAR outweighs premium costs and less volume in the digital distribution model.

You guys don't get it. HBO charges a premium because it doesn't have to deal with things like commercials and content restrictions.

If you guys want to the service to be cheaper you will have to deal with commercials and guess what that brings? Censorship.

Show me the first corporation that is going to be commercial time when you have chicks every episode blowing dudes and tits galore.

Well, that's a personal preference, but I kind of prefer cleaner entertainment, so that wouldn't necessarily be a negative for me.

No need for nudity, sex scenes or detailed gory violence IMHO, unless it is extremely important to the plot line or character development, and in no case I ahve ever seen, has that actually been the case.

It's just a perk to young pervs, just like how every stupid buddy-cop movie of the 80's had to have a strip club scene...

 

[MavericK]

What, unlike those gems in season 2, like "Love & Monsters" in which a gooey absorbing monster absorbs people?

I feel there are just as many decent, episodes now as there were before. Fewer really bad ones though, like the episode above. Not quite as many amazing episodes either though. It's like the amazing and the bad have been cut out leaving a lot of OK episodes left.

Fair enough...I felt like the new guy had a hard-on for Amy Pond and this whole love triangle bullshit that I didn't really care about. Hopefully the new girl will be better. I haven't been overly impressed with the first two episodes of this season, though. I think they had a good premise in the most recent episode but they really blew it with the ending...bunch of singing and crying.

But you're right, it was more hit and miss before, whereas now (IMO of course) it's all just sort of mediocre.

 

[MavericK]

You are spot on. They would never replace Peter Dinkage. There is a reason some of those actor/actresses get millions. Its because people pay to watch something with those people in it.

Its like every movie with Tom Cruise. I hate Tom Cruise as a person, but god dam I would be lying if I didn't own just about every movie he was in.

5 of my favorite movies of all time have Tom Cruise as the lead role (Vanilla Sky, Days of Thunder, Top Gun, Last Samurai and Minority Report)

Lol...Last Samurai, really? Not the first Mission: Impossible over that?

I did like Top Gun and Minority Report, though.

 

[dremic]

Fair enough...I felt like the new guy had a hard-on for Amy Pond and this whole love triangle bullshit that I didn't really care about. Hopefully the new girl will be better. I haven't been overly impressed with the first two episodes of this season, though. I think they had a good premise in the most recent episode but they really blew it with the ending...bunch of singing and crying.

But you're right, it was more hit and miss before, whereas now (IMO of course) it's all just sort of mediocre.

there is just more going on now too. this season isnt an entire book its half of a book so expect less to happen

 

[LeninGHOLA]

Well, that's a personal preference, but I kind of prefer cleaner entertainment, so that wouldn't necessarily be a negative for me.

No need for nudity, sex scenes or detailed gory violence IMHO, unless it is extremely important to the plot line or character development, and in no case I ahve ever seen, has that actually been the case.

It's just a perk to young pervs, just like how every stupid buddy-cop movie of the 80's had to have a strip club scene...

I think it has more to do with the reality of human nature than appealing to "young pervs".

 

[Ducman69]

Well that is what I said at 10 dollars people would still pirate it. Hence the problem is people want to watch something, but they do not want to pay for it.

You didn't at all understand what I am saying. Cliffs notes: They can still make more money than God, and all buy themselves their multi-million dollar homes and expensive prostitutes and designer drugs selling to a larger group at a lower price, such as $1. Ten times your investment in most industries is considered ludicrous cash.

If the distribution costs are zero why does the HD episodes cost almost 50 percent more?

Because the market will bare it. You pretend like Hollywood is rubbing sticks together to make fire and living on foodstamps selling their goods at 1% profit margin, when any academy award ceremony is just a glimmer of the cash cow that is hollywood.

If you are so convinced that HBO is operating on such razor thin profit margins, and that's why their and the industries pricing needs to be so high, why not show us what you base this off of?

Do you really think that Justin Bieber or some other cookie-cutter kid would be unwilling to make his "music" if he were paid only $1,000,000 a year? His net worth is $110,000,000 BTW, and he's not even 20 years old. BUT BUT, you're right, if he dropped his margins, there would be no more music. Anywhere!

 

[Skripka]

You didn't at all understand what I am saying. Cliffs notes: They can still make more money than God, and all buy themselves their multi-million dollar homes and expensive prostitutes and designer drugs selling to a larger group at a lower price, such as $1. Ten times your investment in most industries is considered ludicrous cash.

Because the market will bare it. You pretend like Hollywood is rubbing sticks together to make fire and living on foodstamps selling their goods at 1% profit margin, when any academy award ceremony is just a glimmer of the cash cow that is hollywood.

If you are so convinced that HBO is operating on such razor thin profit margins, and that's why their and the industries pricing needs to be so high, why not show us what you base this off of?

Do you really think that Justin Bieber or some other cookie-cutter kid would be unwilling to make his "music" if he were paid only $1,000,000 a year? His net worth is $110,000,000 BTW, and he's not even 20 years old. BUT BUT, you're right, if he dropped his margins, there would be no more music. Anywhere!

In fairness, the popular performance arts have always been massive cash cows and massive money drains. Always. As in dating 400 years back at least.

As a theater tech, and someone who is always getting calls to work backstage for big names...shit costs money, and the biggest killer expense is manpower. A few weeks back, Taylor Swift was up the road a few miles doing a show. When she comes to town, there are 25--YES- TWENTY FIVE--fully loaded 53' tractor-trailer semi rigs full of enough theater production equipment to fill the floor of a football field and still run out of space....to set it up required a crew of 150 pro stagehands earning very good money in addition to the band crew. And in one night used as much electricity as all the households in the city did in one night,

Whenever there's a " _________ Awards" show for music on TV....I LMAO, as the amount of manpower to design and setup and tear down those sets is huge....and no one on the street has any idea how much things cost. Buying a robotic moving light can empty your wallet of $10-15k if you buy them and that is only the light and not the brain or the board.

If overnight, bands quit being pop music, they'd go out of business....just like symphony orchestras are. Because those spectacle shows are hella expensive to put on.

 

[MavericK]

there is just more going on now too. this season isnt an entire book its half of a book so expect less to happen

Sorry, I was still talking about Doctor Who which is totally off-topic.

New GoT season...I can't really remember what happened last season that well so I was a little confused at the situations some of the characters were in. Plus it's hard for me to remember all the names other than really the dozen or so "main" characters.