• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

YouTube to offer content you pay for

Is Game of Thrones included? :^D

I don't watch many "professional" videos/channels. If paying $2 was the only way to get Youtube at all, I'd likely pay it, but I'm not interested is paying for premium content, as I don't use it now.

Edit"
Btw, paying them $2 would be conditional on them fucking off with their real name campaign. As it stands, I wouldn't pay them anything out of principle.
 
It depends on what the channels are. If the $2 buys me essentially another version of netflix (ie, I can get movies and tv shows without commercials), then I wouldn't mind paying $2. Otherwise, no way am I paying even a penny to get access to any youtube videos.

That, and there's no way I'm giving youtube all my information (as would be required to pay by credit card), so there would have to be another way to pay while maintaining some level of anonymity.
 
I didn't see anything about ads. Does paying just give you access to the content, with ads, like Hulu Plus? Or would it be ad-free?
 
According to El Reg:
The initial trial of the plan will involve up to 50 YouTube channels, sources say, with pricing for each channel beginning at $1.99 per month.

at $ 2 per channel it could get expensive. I might pay $2 for BBC World News.
 
Leymenaide said:
According to El Reg:
The initial trial of the plan will involve up to 50 YouTube channels, sources say, with pricing for each channel beginning at $1.99 per month.

at $ 2 per channel it could get expensive. I might pay $2 for BBC World News.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot more expensive, I thought it was $2 for access to the 50 channels. There is no way I'm paying $2 for any "channel". There's plenty of ways to get all the content you want for free anyway.
 
It sounds to me like these will NOT be professional channels such as BBC or movies such as offered by Netflix.

From the article:
'YouTube's pricing plans — and the quality of video content they can help create — will dictate whether the new service will be successful."

"It's content just created for the Web, and it has lower cost of content creation," he says, referring to videos on popular YouTube channels. "It's still expensive, but it's still not professionally produced broadcast TV shows."
 
Within a year YouTube will be mostly subscription based. Mark it on your calendars. This is just them testing the waters.
 
dank69 said:
Within a year YouTube will be mostly subscription based. Mark it on your calendars. This is just them testing the waters.
Click to expand...

And they will STILL have ad's, long ago when cable TV first started up the big selling point was it was going to be ad-free television, complete lie as we all found out..
 
I just watch cute cat videos occasionally, and music videos (VEVO not necessary for that either).

Also if they don't use it to host TV series, it means it's for the professional channels such as ray william johnson and the likes of that. A subscription model would kill the virality of it though, leading to decreased popularity.
 
I just watch cute cat or syria fighting videos occasionally, and music videos (VEVO not necessary for that either).

Also if they don't use it to host TV series, it means it's for the professional channels such as ray william johnson and the likes of that. A subscription model would kill the virality of it though, leading to decreased popularity.
I absolutely don't care for those videos or other entertainment. Even if I did, I would just give it up, the internet is big.
 
Last edited:
I'd pay for high quality content, provided it was then ad-free.

I'm reasonably sure Google's got my name already anyway.
 
Youtube is my wikipedia for music. When someone tells me about a song or something, I listen to it on youtube. The only other thing I watch is Boogie10988. I am sure I could find another place to listen to music though. I don't use it enough to justify paying a monthly fee.
 
Paranormal Activity cost 15k to produce.
Blair Witch Project
Night of the Living Dead
Slacker
Clerks
In the Company of Men
Swingers

and more. Great movies that were produced very cheaply. With the technology available today, just about anyone can produce movies or television shows. Most would suck. Some would be awesome. But, with little chance of reward, most people don't do it. Give them a little incentive, and we might start seeing some creative things down the road (rather than Hollywood remaking movie after movie, with poor dialogue and lots of CGI effects.)

I don't think the chances are great, but theres a possibility that in the long run, the market could be massively transformed.

For example, look at the Smarter Every Day videos on youtube (dustintv). A lot of them are awesome and easily compare to crap like Mythbusters. I'd happily pay for that content - if I knew that some of the money would be turned into more and better content along the same theme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top