Netflix ponders password sharing crackdown

[Scryder]

I am currently subscribed to Ubisoft+. I don't like them as a company but I wanted to play the games.

Subscribed since end of October 2020 and for my monthly price I've played 180+ hours of AC Valhalla, 80+ hours of WD Legion and 90+ hours of Immortals: Fenyx Rising. I've had access to the "gold" versions of these titles and although for some the DLC hasn't really come through much, to me it still compares favourably to buying the titles outright.

AC: V and WED would have cost me at least £60 a pop, and Immortals £50. So far I've paid £65 to them and enjoyed 3 games very fully. I can stop the sub if I stop playing and I'll keep all save progress if I decide to restart subscription or purchase any of the games later down the line e.g. on a deep sale or offer.

I think that's a good value for the amount of entertainment I've gotten out of it. Would it be value to other people is a question whose answer depends entirely on what games they like to play and whether Ubisoft has anything on that front. If not, then no way, if yes, then possibly. The issue is like with any of these services, they're all a fraction of what is available out there are there are too many of them. The market is so fragmented it's ridiculous. I suppose at least with games there are fewer massive publishers but there are still quite a few. It can still be a good value if you have time to play a game. You can play it for a month, probably completing it and only have paid £13 which I think is good value compared to plonking £60 on a download that you cannot then resell anyway and might not ever return to after the initial play on it.

Hey, that's fantastic! Glad it's useful for you. That does seem like good value for money for you.
For me, if I don't own the title, it feels a little odd. Also, I already own all the Ubi titles I'd want to play right now. Bought Anno 1800 and all the DLC's recently, also the the Prince of Persia series and old AC games (more about these two later). I also have the FarCry series on Steam (3 to New Dawn and Blood Dragon).

Case in point, I had previously access to EA Access for a while, and initially when I got access, I downloaded a number of games to play. But then I realised I was not playing them at all. By the time I did want to play ME: Andromeda, the time had ran out... and I didn't think it was good investment on my part. My mood to play a game fluctuates constantly! And I'm no longer one who cares to play the latest trending title... mostly prefer playing games a year or two after release (if not older).

I also think back to when I had PS+ and had access to all those "free" games. If I do get a new PS console, I might get the latest iteration of PS+... and those games might still be available. But since I'm not currently subscribed, they're not available. Although I still have my PS3 lying around. Again for reasons above, I don't like that!


Back to Prince of Persia series and old AC games, I was trying to play these older titles with an XBone controller and it's a nightmare. Turned out there's no native support for Assassin's Creed II OR Prince of Persia - Warrior Within.. I was going to play both these series from start... but bad controller support has put me off trying at the moment. Need to figure these out at some point, but can't be bothered currently!

[Unique]

That's not what the article says, Netflix is saying you have to live in the same house. This includes sharing with other family members who live elsewhere!:


And it's not hard for them to stop others from using it, by locking it to one IP address etc...

i know what the article said as i read it, and what i said is what i said, not what the article said

i know what netflix says, i know the rules. what i'm saying is if you choose not to follow the rules by either sharing your account or sharing someone elses, having to put i a code every now and then isn't a big deal

why would they lock onto an IP address, as the rules allow you to use netflix in mutliple locations, including on a laptop or mobile device. there's nothing in the rules about using the same IP address or location, which is why there's not a huge amount they can do if you are sharing in the same locality. if you regularly have IP addresses in uk, brazil, usa and japan that's another kettle of fish. if you travel frequently and only have one screen used at a time, it's different between long term use at the same IP's in different countries

remember living in the same house doesn't mean you have to watch netflix in that account, you can watch it at work, holiday, travelling etc, so whilst you aren't in the house you live in, and you could watch netflix at someone elses house you visit, with your account, all within the rules. so that's why they are doing what they are doing, in a way to check that you are "following" the rules if you are doing those things, but at the same time making it simple for people to break/stretch the rules to let others with permission share an account

[Scryder]

I think you're talking about what Netflix currently do. I (and I presume the article) was speculating on what could happen in the future. I know that currently you can... but this article imo was talking about what could happen. I've had Amazon Prime video in the past geo-locking videos when I was using a VPN (not for any nefarious purposes!). On some occasions, so did Netflix. I wasn't saying you personally weren't following the rules (and don't care either way).This is a public forum, so was just discussing the topic. No personal insult was intended...

Geo-locking by IP was just one thing that came to mind at the time. But as @Danceswithunix said, there are other ways they can do it now.

If they do get desperate for cash, I wouldn't rule out them introducing tougher restrictions. Especially with a strong line-up from the competition, especially in the form of Disney+ and potentially other services that come in the future, like HBO Max...

[Saracen999]

....

If they do get desperate for cash, I wouldn't rule out them introducing tougher restrictions. Especially with a strong line-up from the competition, especially in the form of Disney+ and potentially other services that come in the future, like HBO Max...

That's why introducing tougher rules is dangerous to them .... competition is increasing, and so (paying) customers have more choice. And sure, Netflix have exclusive rights to their home-grown catalog, but if they mess existing customers about too much, a proportion of those customers, especially those not desperate for that home-grown content, will vote with their feet. Or rather, subscription cash.

I don't have Netflix, but I do have a competitor. I also (lockdown aside) have spent the last dozen or so years living about 85:15 between primary and secondary home .... on different IPs. We also periodically visit elsewhere, with different IP's again. And some of that is done via a VPN. If the service I have started restricting IPs and it either meant I can't use the service as I (legally) have been, or they start making me jump through hoops satisfying them that I'm me, my reaction would not be to emulate a performing seal with their hoops, but to cancel the subscription.

Messing legitimate customers about because they think/know some unauthorised usage goes on, in the name of hunting cash, may well end up having entirely the opposite effect to raising cash.

A friend of mine does the same as I do, and travels between primary and holiday home. One of the reasons he has Netflix is the convenience of having service wherever he is, and if that changes, Netflix would become significantly less useful to him, and so, less value for the money.

Putting in a simple code from time to time is no great problem, for legitimate users. But .... suppose I did indeed have Netflix and lent a friend an account for occassional use? He then gets "enter code". All he does is WhatsApp (or these days, Signal) me and I enter it. If they start demanding authentication too regularly, well, we're back in the scenario of messing paying customers about for the sake of trying to block a few freeloaders. And again, risk counterproductive undesirable consequences.

And that logic even applies if they geo-lock, preventing me from VPNing, such as when on a hotel network. Mess me about, deny me the ability to use the service I pay for and I'd deny them my monthly payment ... and not be very bothered about it, due to other options.

They are, IMHO, rather caught between the rock and a hard place and if they choose to play hardball with paying customers, some of those paying customers will decide they'll take their balls and go play with a competitor.

[VincentSilver]

been sharing for years - never an issue

[Unique]

I think you're talking about what Netflix currently do. I (and I presume the article) was speculating on what could happen in the future. I know that currently you can... but this article imo was talking about what could happen. I've had Amazon Prime video in the past geo-locking videos when I was using a VPN (not for any nefarious purposes!). On some occasions, so did Netflix. I wasn't saying you personally weren't following the rules (and don't care either way).This is a public forum, so was just discussing the topic. No personal insult was intended...

Geo-locking by IP was just one thing that came to mind at the time. But as @Danceswithunix said, there are other ways they can do it now.

If they do get desperate for cash, I wouldn't rule out them introducing tougher restrictions. Especially with a strong line-up from the competition, especially in the form of Disney+ and potentially other services that come in the future, like HBO Max...

that's mostly supposition tho. why would they do geo blocking if you are allowed to use on mobile devices like tablets, phones, or even laptops? it could mean you can't use it on holiday, or business travellers who use it regularly in hotels or whilst travelling (trains, airports) could have issues. plus of course you can download content

the problem with presuming things that aren't there is there's a good change you presume wrong. they could do all sorts of things but geo blocking sounds unlikely. they would need a major change to the business practice/model to go down that route. there's also a big difference in geo blocking countries and people sharing your account in the same region, which likely accounts for most sharing (ie. between friends and family who live in the same city or around abouts), rather than sharing with folk in other countries

[Unique]

That's why introducing tougher rules is dangerous to them .... competition is increasing, and so (paying) customers have more choice. And sure, Netflix have exclusive rights to their home-grown catalog, but if they mess existing customers about too much, a proportion of those customers, especially those not desperate for that home-grown content, will vote with their feet. Or rather, subscription cash.

I don't have Netflix, but I do have a competitor. I also (lockdown aside) have spent the last dozen or so years living about 85:15 between primary and secondary home .... on different IPs. We also periodically visit elsewhere, with different IP's again. And some of that is done via a VPN. If the service I have started restricting IPs and it either meant I can't use the service as I (legally) have been, or they start making me jump through hoops satisfying them that I'm me, my reaction would not be to emulate a performing seal with their hoops, but to cancel the subscription.

Messing legitimate customers about because they think/know some unauthorised usage goes on, in the name of hunting cash, may well end up having entirely the opposite effect to raising cash.

A friend of mine does the same as I do, and travels between primary and holiday home. One of the reasons he has Netflix is the convenience of having service wherever he is, and if that changes, Netflix would become significantly less useful to him, and so, less value for the money.

Putting in a simple code from time to time is no great problem, for legitimate users. But .... suppose I did indeed have Netflix and lent a friend an account for occassional use? He then gets "enter code". All he does is WhatsApp (or these days, Signal) me and I enter it. If they start demanding authentication too regularly, well, we're back in the scenario of messing paying customers about for the sake of trying to block a few freeloaders. And again, risk counterproductive undesirable consequences.

And that logic even applies if they geo-lock, preventing me from VPNing, such as when on a hotel network. Mess me about, deny me the ability to use the service I pay for and I'd deny them my monthly payment ... and not be very bothered about it, due to other options.

They are, IMHO, rather caught between the rock and a hard place and if they choose to play hardball with paying customers, some of those paying customers will decide they'll take their balls and go play with a competitor.

that's pretty much it. the business needs to consider how flexible or tough they want to be and the risk of losing customers, and the customer and sharers need to consider how much is the hassle worth to share accounts. i doubt they would do it more than once a month, which isn't too bad if you are saving £14 or whatever in sharing someones 4k account. weekly is more of a pain, but it depends on the individual. if you are one of the type of people who messages frequently to that person it's maybe no big deal. if you have older parents who aren't tech savvy and you need to "hold hands" to talk them through everything then maybe not so much

i know sometimes the 2 factor authentication stuff can drive me nuts when i need to do that to turn on the pc, then again for the vpn, then again for the app, then again for something else and i'm jumping between pc's and phone and different authentication apps and txts, so for some people that may be too much faffing around for them to save a few quid. but then if you had 3 or 4 people to share with, you could have one with netflix, one with amazon, one with disney and one with apple and that's 4 of the big ones covered. i just have my own netflix and have no problems. from time to time i'll get prime and quickly run out of things to watch on it. it's like a nice perk for "free" and quicker delivery/despatch (it seems they despatch stuff quicker with prime, whilst free delivery can take days for them to send

[DanceswithUnix]

And that logic even applies if they geo-lock, preventing me from VPNing, such as when on a hotel network. Mess me about, deny me the ability to use the service I pay for and I'd deny them my monthly payment ... and not be very bothered about it, due to other options.

Geo lock is different though, and an old broadcast industry problem that satellite providers have to deal with as well. A company doesn't buy rights to broadcast a show, they get the rights to broadcast in a certain territory. They then have to demonstrate they are restricting views to that region, or they are in breach of contract.

ISTR my son pulled up Netflix on holiday abroad and it let him watch what was available locally. That seems fair, we paid to see Netflix content, they show us what they are legally able to.

OFC that was the Before Times, and I think Covid has given both the streaming companies and content makers rather more clout. Big films straight to streaming was unimaginable a year ago. I suspect other ingrained ideas in the industry may be getting pulled apart right now.

[probedb]

Totally agree with you jimbouk, I'm the sole user but if I want UHD I have to pay for other screens. I want to pick the number of screens and the quality separately.

[DanceswithUnix]

Totally agree with you jimbouk, I'm the sole user but if I want UHD I have to pay for other screens. I want to pick the number of screens and the quality separately.

You really want a 3x3 matrix of 9 different payment plans? I expect you are assuming it would save you money, but if the number of people who play multiple streams at 4K is vanishingly small then the top tier is already costed as "either multiple streams or UHD" and you've just created a new higher cost tier and saved nothing.

[kalniel]

I'd prefer a straight bandwidth limit based pricing, along with examples of what that means. Eg. 5mbps tier: Enough for one FullHD device or four non-HD devices. That way you can have the flexibility to use it how you like, and it still passes on cost savings (and I could make sure not to chose a tier higher than my internet allows).

[Scryder]

I just looked up their prices and they do call their highest tier "Premium"... I guess it's what it says on the tin... More Screens and/or UHD.
And that's only £4 more per month than "Standard". Not bad all things considered.

[jimbouk]

Back in the news again: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61153252

Their pricing website isn't clear about what, if any, restrictions are in place on who/where the number of screens can be used: https://help.netflix.com/en/node/24926. Only when you read the legal blurb does it say "The Netflix service and any content accessed through the service are for your personal and non-commercial use only and may not be shared with individuals beyond your household." (https://help.netflix.com/en/legal/termsofuse).

It's their service, they can police as they wish. Certainly won't be paying for a subscription myself given the amount we watch. Probably go back to the 'Game of Thrones' style of subbing for 2 months then cancelling after the series is watched. I've got Crunchyroll if I want a binge

[Jonj1611]

Funny that they say customers leaving is in part down to account sharing. It isn't imo, its due to them putting the prices up, which is exactly when they say customers started leaving.

As the kids use it I am still paying for it but have dropped from the 4 screen package down to 2. If they continue putting the prices up then will cancel all together and just subscribe occasionally to catch up on things I would have normally watched.

I do that with Disney Plus.

[ik9000]

Never bothered with it, but it is annoying that just as we hit the point of likely needing it (parenthood) they have jacked the prices. I imagine we'll just not bother and develop a love of cash in the attic and repeats of 90s TV festooned with old people adverts instead.

[Saracen999]

This (and similar) is why I'm digitising my CDs, LP, and tapes, and working my way through my DVDs. And it's why I got the NAS and some big drives. Well, partly. Not just that.

But to be fair to Netflix, not sharing beyond immediate use has always (or at least, since I first looked years and years ago) been a thing, and not allowed. Just not enforced. But surely they musy have known they couldn't keep growing and growing indefinitely, and that at a minimum, the longer things went on, the more likely something would knock confidence and people would belt-tighten. Discretionary spend is always going to be an early casualty of that, whatever the reason for the knock.