[latortuga]

My daughter will be bummed about this news, though I'm glad at least a few are surviving. I don't get why they'd make this content and then just kill it. Is this like "we don't want to support the feature anymore" kind of thing? That doesn't really make sense though because they're leaving some around. Disappointing.

[shagie]

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/17/1164146728/why-are-dozens-of-...

The issue is residuals. They have to pay the people who were part of the making for having the content available - even if no one streams it.

At some point, the cost of the residuals is greater than the revenue generated by the content.

https://www.sagaftra.org/sites/default/files/sa_documents/St...

https://fortune.com/2023/09/30/why-hollywood-actors-still-on...

https://variety.com/2024/tv/news/netflix-financial-analyst-r...

[ethbr1]

This is one thing that fascinates me about the streaming model.

At some point it boils down to {cost per customer} vs {revenue per customer}.

However, because of residuals, {cost per customer} doesn't scale down as user count scales up. You ammortize the non-residual chunk of production, but that's a weird equation that likely drives the incentives we see playing out.

I'd assume residuals are lower / non-existent on the much-bemoaned formulaic Netflix fodder movies? Hence why they keep getting stuffed in services.

[Suppafly]

>They have to pay the people who were part of the making for having the content available - even if no one streams it.

And no one seems to stream the interactive stuff, so it makes sense to get rid of it. Shame they didn't do the residuals so that they could just keep this stuff around though.

[stonemetal12]

Sort of surprised it doesn't work sort of like Spotify, residuals based on performance. So unused content gets nothing, but also being cheap to have it available.