Youtube to charge fees for content sometimes in spring

[shrekfan246]

I'm just gonna put it this way: If I'm browsing through Youtube and come across a video that wants me to pay before I can view it, I'm moving on to another video.

It's already a pain in the ass to find some of the more obscure music that I listen to so that I can link it to people, some of the songs don't even exist on Youtube anymore even though they were there a year or two ago. Having to pay a premium so I can watch some crappy three-minute footage or something? No offense, Youtube, but the content hosted there isn't generally on the level that I'd feel it worth being paid for. Maybe Tomska.

And you just know that the movie/television industry, music industry, and gaming industry are going to either try squashing it or buy into it and slap pay-walls on "official" channels.

 

[David Bjur]

I thought the content creators already could charge fees for content, didn't College Humor make some sort of short film last year and then made it available for rental? Oh here it is. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guhd6-publM]
It seems like you can no longer rent it, so maybe YouTube allowed them to test the new system out, I guess?

 

[rcs619]

I don't think it would be particularly good for a channel to require a payment to watch any of its content, but I suppose I would be ok if it was something along the lines of a premium account - i.e you can watch videos without adds or get to watch them earlier or some such thing. I wouldnt pay for such things, but as long as I would still be able to watch the videos eventually I wouldn't care.

Honestly, the vast majority of youtube contest just isn't worth paying for. That's part of the appeal of youtube, it's where average people can go to upload their work for everyone to see. Using videogames as an example, even the most well-known content makers like Totalbiscuit, GameGrumps, Angry Joe and Rooster Teeth just wouldn't be worth it if you *had* to pay to watch their content. No matter how sophisticated their videos are in comparison to everyone else, they're still essentially amateurs and hobbyists, and they're already getting a lot more money from their fans than the average youtuber via ads to help support said hobby.

Personally, I think something like that would not be a good move from youtube. A lot of people already dislike their service for things like their easily (and often) abused copyright system. Adding some kind of unnecessary premium model would just be something else to push people towards Blip, Vimeo and such.

 

[ramboondiea]

this is mostly for "premium" channels, and wont be on the majority of videos (youtube would go under if that was a chase) if they do open it to all the partners (which the likely wont do) it will probably be an optional subscription similarly to how twitch operates it, so subscribe to a channel, no more adds on that channel, kind of thing.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I only go youtube when im bored so i can live without youtube. Only way i think it would be ok is if its a BBC channel or Fox or whatever and they allow you to watch upto date episodes of current TV series. That would be fine.

 

[Brainwreck]

Pretty sure channels wouldn't risk charging money for previously free (and let's face it, inevitably low-quality) shit, for fear of losing their viewerbase.
Then again, if it does happen, I'm pretty sure I can survive without the absolute bottom line of content around.

 

[V3rtig0]

If I had to predict, I'd say that there would be an outrage and cries of boycotting at first. Maybe for a few months or so, up to a year. Then it would die down and the current userbase would split into two parts - one that accepts the facts and starts paying and one that finds alternative ways of getting whatever content they need(I'm thinking torrents/other P2P mediums).

Though, to be fair, if this charge is completely optional and within control of the author, I'd like to believe the majority of the current most popular authors would stay with the old system. I'll admit, I know close to nothing about how much money can be made from the ads on youtube, but I'm assuming here that even with the majority of the viewers gone because of the fee, there'd still be more money flowing in than just from free viewers via ads.

Well, good thing I only watch youtube for the occasional entertaining viral video of the day and some music. I don't follow any series, so I think the content I need is pretty much safe.

 

[Jiffex]

I can't see many current YouTubers switching to this model, but based on

lure new video creators who want a subscription model rather than rely only on advertising

I imagine it's more to bring in content that maybe wouldn't do too well on TV or something like this. Or maybe like the RoosterTeeth sponsor thing where you pay like $10 every 6 months for early access and exclusive videos.

 

[Lilani]

So, browsing the internet today I found this article here, claiming that some of the youtube content will be charged for money, if you want to see it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323644904578272363861856662.html

Basically, creators of the content on YT will have the ability to make people pay for their content, or for early viewings of said content.
While this makes me somewhat sad, as I always viewed YT as that kind of service that runs on Ads an Sponsoring, I can see the appeal for some content creators out there, to get some extra cash.

Your thoughts?

There are already some pay-to-watch features on YouTube. You can rent and buy movies/show episodes, sort of like iTunes or Amazon.

In other news, I doubt many people will do it, people who start on YouTube anyway. The people who make big profits off YouTube make it through ads and/or merchandise. The only people I see using something like this are TV shows putting stuff on YouTube (maybe full episodes or behind-the-scenes stuff). If a big YouTuber like Annoying Orange were to try to do subscription stuff, they'd piss off too many of their users and lose money in the end.

 

[Mordekaien]

There are already some pay-to-watch features on YouTube. You can rent and buy movies/show episodes, sort of like iTunes or Amazon.

In other news, I doubt many people will do it, people who start on YouTube anyway. The people who make big profits off YouTube make it through ads and/or merchandise. The only people I see using something like this are TV shows putting stuff on YouTube (maybe full episodes or behind-the-scenes stuff). If a big YouTuber like Annoying Orange were to try to do subscription stuff, they'd piss off too many of their users and lose money in the end.

You can rent movies on YT? Huh. I didn't know that. I guess you learn something new everyday.

OT, they can try, you know, do the premium kind of thing- You pay some small amount of money per month/year/whathaveyou, in return you get ad-free videos, early extra content and so on. I would imagine this could work too even for those who already have a big fanbase. Don't force it on everyone, just make it an option for those interested.

 

[Racecarlock]

I already saw this on movies and stuff. Giving it to the user base though... Could work, but I probably wouldn't pay for new foamy episodes. I don't think he would start charging either.

VEVO though, that could be problematic.

 

[jpoon]

Yeah, the day that happens will be the day i stop using the site. I definitely won't pay for the shit (all of it is shit btw) that's on there.

 

[Treblaine]

So, browsing the internet today I found this article here, claiming that some of the youtube content will be charged for money, if you want to see it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323644904578272363861856662.html

Basically, creators of the content on YT will have the ability to make people pay for their content, or for early viewings of said content.
While this makes me somewhat sad, as I always viewed YT as that kind of service that runs on Ads an Sponsoring, I can see the appeal for some content creators out there, to get some extra cash.

Your thoughts?

Pay per view has been on youtube for ages, hasn't it?

it's things like "rentals" and special paid access to some content.

Course you'll probably make more money jsut putting it out there for free with ads, though I wouldn't mind just being like

"I want to watch that John Woo movie broken arrow" you search for it on youtube, it might be there, it might be "blocked or removed for copyright reasons". I'd rather have it be there with the option of paying a little bit than it not being there at all.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

Oh what, the constant ads weren't enough? The ads that load quicker than the videos, and are sometimes longer than the actual videos themselves?

That's ok, I have no idea what an ad-blocker is either.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Google has to know that another site offering the same service for free would pop up if they cut apart the free video viewing that built Youtube into what it is today. I don't foresee this having a big impact on my normal Youtube putzing about. I can tell you that I won't pay for any video posted on youtube though.

 

[Genocidicles]

That's ok, I have no idea what an ad-blocker is either.

I have no idea what you're talking about good sir, and if I did I totally wouldn't use one, no sir!

I also certainly wasn't mentioning the ads just to make my argument better. I definitely have to sit through them whenever I use Youtube. No subversion of ads from me, no sir.

Nope. I totally do no such thing (and I never, ever will!)and I refuse to talk about such things, as it is against the rules here at the Escapist.

 

[Filiecs]

It would be a great idea if you could choose between paying or watching ads. Like a premium subscription.
If you had to also watch ads, though, or were FORCED to pay then I can see why it would be pretty terrible.

Captcha: "It is human." when describing a credit card. That's not creepy at all...

 

[Queen Michael]

I'm pretty sure people with more ambition than self-insight or quality videos will be the only ones trying to charge money.