Netflix's 4K Ultra HD content now only available through $12/month Family plan

[Shawn Knight]

Netflix’s limited catalog of 4K Ultra HD content now comes at a premium. High-resolution movies and TV shows are now only available to members that subscribe to the company’s top-tier family plan which sells for $11.99 per month.

Ultra HD content was previously offered as part of the standard $8.99 HD package which allows for up to two simultaneous connections at once. The family plan doubles the number of concurrent streams to four which, while great for families, is simply overkill for individuals or even small families.

A Netflix spokesperson told Variety that producing and acquiring 4K content costs more than conventional HD programming which prompted the change (effective as of August 12).

The good news is that anyone that has already watched 4K content prior to then will be grandfathered in and won’t have to pay the extra $3 per month.

Netflix quietly added 4K test clips roughly a year ago before officially supporting the standard this past April with the second season of House of Cards. Since then, the streaming media king has also rolled out 4K versions of Breaking Bad, The Blacklist, Ghostbusters, Ghostbusters 2, The Smurfs 2 and a four-part nature documentary called Moving Art.

Unfortunately, Netflix’s 4K streaming only works on select 4K television sets – you can’t stream it to a PC. It’s unclear whether or not Netflix plans to allow PC streaming in the future.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/58404-netflix-4k-ultra-hd-content-now-only-available.html

 

[JohnCB]

I'm glad Netflix is pushing through and trying to stay on the edge, but I can't help but feel like this is before its time.

4K TVs have an incredibly low adoption rate at the moment and we're in the middle of a war with the ISPs over bandwidth. They want to give less and charge more and even with the current HD streams from Netflix there is buffering problems nation wide through with specific ISPs.

The amount of bandwidth needed for 4K is going to absolutely destroy nearly everyone's connection. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just saying it's a few years ahead of its time.

 

[hahahanoobs]

$12 a month is more than fair imo, assuming it always works and customers are happy with its quality.

 

[robb213]

I'm glad Netflix is pushing through and trying to stay on the edge, but I can't help but feel like this is before its time.

4K TVs have an incredibly low adoption rate at the moment and we're in the middle of a war with the ISPs over bandwidth. They want to give less and charge more and even with the current HD streams from Netflix there is buffering problems nation wide through with specific ISPs.

The amount of bandwidth needed for 4K is going to absolutely destroy nearly everyone's connection. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just saying it's a few years ahead of its time.

That's how it was with the first HD televisions. As they became more reasonably cost efficient to produce with good results, sales skyrocketed. For gaming, it was also the same, but we needed the GPU power to play on higher settings with that resolution. With stacked VRAM on the way, I think it's right around the corner.

I expect the same this time around; I've been guilty myself telling friends to hold off on 4K gaming/content just because there's very little to go along with it at this time.

And fortunately the Internet woes here in the states are easy to solve. It's just special interests and treatment getting in the way, so nothing gets done like usual. With the executive branch and the Senate now publicly supporting Title II, I don't see how Wheeler can keep the "wait and see" attitude for much longer.

 

[cmbjive]

I'm glad Netflix is pushing through and trying to stay on the edge, but I can't help but feel like this is before its time.

4K TVs have an incredibly low adoption rate at the moment and we're in the middle of a war with the ISPs over bandwidth. They want to give less and charge more and even with the current HD streams from Netflix there is buffering problems nation wide through with specific ISPs.

The amount of bandwidth needed for 4K is going to absolutely destroy nearly everyone's connection. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just saying it's a few years ahead of its time.

With the costs of 4K televisions coming down and becoming more popular it's only a matter of time before the content comes through.

The family plan doubles the number of concurrent streams to four which, while great for families, is simply overkill for individuals or even small families.

An extra three dollars a month is overkill? You're still paying close to five times less than what you pay cable or satellite providers. Also, if a family of four doesn't qualify as a "small family" then there is no such thing as a small family.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Good business move by Netflix. It makes sense that they are charging more for 4K since it uses a ton more bandwidth to deliver and it is a new fad with a niche market.

 

[yRaz]

If you can afford a 4k TV or monitor then you can afford an extra $3/m.

 

[mizkitty]

Good to see Netflix finally getting on board the internet "fast lane" business model...

/s

 

[Railman]

An extra three dollars a month is overkill? You're still paying close to five times less than what you pay cable or satellite providers. Also, if a family of four doesn't qualify as a "small family" then there is no such thing as a small family.

Sorry but five times less does not make sense. I think you mean 1/5 of the cost. Five times less would be minus four.

 

[amstech]

I like it.
While you always hear me complain about the source content being filmed at much lower resolutions and 90% of todays content still being upscaled dragon bones; it is nice to see someone offer "4K" for an affordable price.
Newer content and more of it is being filmed at higher FPS and higher resolutions so true 4K is coming...sometime.
Netflix has really done a number on the entertainment industry's Gorillas, and that's saying something.

 

[cmbjive]

An extra three dollars a month is overkill? You're still paying close to five times less than what you pay cable or satellite providers. Also, if a family of four doesn't qualify as a "small family" then there is no such thing as a small family.

Sorry but five times less does not make sense. I think you mean 1/5 of the cost. Five times less would be minus four.

1/5 the cost and five times less are saying essentially the same thing. Since when do you use "times" for addition?

 

[Railman]

1/5 the cost and five times less are saying essentially the same thing. Since when do you use "times" for addition?

I understand what you have written but mathematically they are not the same. Sorry if you think me pedantic but maths does entail precision on the whole.

 

[Chris Barry]

If you can afford a 4k TV or monitor then you can afford an extra $3/m.

Cant argue that!

 

[cmbjive]

I understand what you have written but mathematically they are not the same. Sorry if you think me pedantic but maths does entail precision on the whole.

Math, I presume. And you're more than likely correct.