>>11618920>Guess which one's cheaper and more preferred.false dilemma, because #2 takes 20 years for the streaming service to become profitable (if ever). They're only moving numbers around to make it seem like they're generating real money and hiding losses behind other departments, so that shareholders don't notice.
Streaming makes far less money, hence the studios wanting to make their own streaming services in the first place. And it's also why they don't even want to reveal how many people are watching them, instead obsfucating it with "minutes watched."
I don't know if you're old enough, but Netflix used to release their more popular series on DVD/BD and they made a lot of money, but they stopped doing that because they wanted people to subscribe to them instead, since they were losing licenses due to paramount/disney/etc making their own services.
#1 generated so much money that movies that bombed in theaters would actually become profitable from the amount of physical copies that were sold. The money they made was so big that it actually greenlit sequels from those bombs (blade runner, tron, etc). And movies that didn't bomb? That's a shit ton more cash, ontop of their profitable box office. There's a reason why retailers treated a movie's DVD/VHS/BD release as an event.
The DVD/VHS/BD release is why movie toylines actually existed at retailers for almost an entire year, because they would get a sales boost from the home market release 6-9 months later.
Remember when movies had their own seperate toyline? I remember.
That doesn't exist anymore, due to #1 being killed off because of distributors eating each other and everyone wanting to make their own streaming service.
