NBC Sports shifting four or five Premier League matches per week from overflow/alternate channels that had no advertising and few viewers to a streaming-only pay service is a lot different than ESPN moving its NBA broadcasts to ESPN+. NBC wasn't making any money from Stoke City v. Middlesbrough on Sports Alternate Channel 7, so it put those overflow matches behind the paywall to recoup something. Last season, NBA games on ESPN averaged 1.63 million viewers (and 3.82 millionon ABC), so there's plenty of advertising dollars coming in. By comparison, the PL matches NBC broadcast on TV averaged 449k viewers, which is obviously way higher than whatever overflow matches got or what Gold matches get now. It does look like we're going in a direction that leads to more fragmentation and more paywalls, but I don't think we're going to see anything new with the major pro sports in the U.S. too soon. They've already got their own subscription services and are more focused on getting them on all streaming platforms (e.g., YouTube TV carrying NBA League Pass). That doesn't mean ESPN won't throw more desirable things onto ESPN+, but it's still a niche service as evidenced by all the European soccer. We would've seen a big college football game on the service this fall if ESPN was trying to make ESPN+ as wide-ranging as some fear it will become (and still could).
They won't put behind the paywall things that would cause people to ditch their tv channels. That's still their bread and butter. ESPN+ is worth it for me. I watch ESPN FC daily, plus ocassional Serie A game, plus the NHL recap as I don't have the NHL network. There is an NHL game every day and I get to see Blackhawks a few extra times. Also, even though DC United games say they are blacked out here, they are actually not, so I got to see few of their live games too. All said, it was the best $50 dollars I spent the entire year, and I've only been using it for two months.
That was me, but I was paying $194 a month for TV and internet, not just tv. It covered my internet, however many channels I was getting and the extra $15 a month I had to pay for the Sports Pass in order to get beIN Sports because that's who had Serie A. So now, I pay $65 to Spectrum for just internet, Hulu Live and then $49.99 a year for ESPN+. I paid LESS for a years worth of ESPN+ than 4 months of the Sports Pass just to watch beIN Sports. It's safe to say that ESPN+ has paid for itself and then some. I'm paying significantly less now and getting a ton more soccer content. You might be paying $73 for just DISH, but what's your internet costs?
Someone who will remain nameless (ok it's my sister) pays $200 for Comcast cable and internet and doesn't even have HD set top boxes. She basically pays $120 for SD television.
Its not about finding time to watch the full swath of games that ESPN+ offers. But the more games that are available to you the more likely you'll be able to watch that one match you really want to see, whether that's the Milan derby or Montreal Impact v TFC. I only anticipate watching one match on ESPN+ this weekend - Heerenveen v Ajax. And that still makes it totally worth 27 cents that I pay for it over a two-day period.
There is a fair amount of content where this is absolutely what happened. The recent England games and other Euro-centric internationals, espnfc, league cup games, and future FA cup games are behind a paywall and weren't a year ago. I'm fine paying it because it was sort of anticipated and I prepped for it by cutting the cord, but it's not a no-brainer to sub and it's not better than it was 2 years ago.
Okay, so some content that was available via WatchESPN with just your TV subscription is now on ESPN+, but there's also stuff that ESPN didn't have previously. Yes, you could watch some internationals previously, but ESPN+ has every Nations League match and I assume it'll be the same for Euro 2020 qualifying. You could watch some FA Cup matches before on Fox Sports channels, but ESPN+ will show 79 matches and the full competition once the Premier League joins only has 63 matches (not including replays). Plus there's every Serie A match and so on. You have to pay, but you're getting comprehensive coverage. If I can pay $5/mo. for comprehensive coverage of a league or competition I follow, that's an incredible steal.
To me ESPN+ isn't a platform designed to eventually push NBA/MLB/NFL TV offerings behind a paywall -- it's a platform to show low-rated niche leagues to a) recoup some revenue and b) build a system that could one day be used as an over-the-top all-ESPN service for cord-cutters (like HBO Now). I don't think there's any coincidence that ESPN+ costs $5 and cable/sat subscribers usually end up paying $5 a month for ESPN properties via their provider contracts.
I pay 45 dollars a month for Internet through a different provider. I live rural and for me it is either Dish or Direct TV for television. The 73 dollars a month includes beIN Sports. Somebody said that nothing on ESPN + was readily available a year ago. Not so for me I had Serie A with beIN sports. Now I don't and would have to pay 50 dollars a year extra to get Serie A for the season. Not worth it to me. I will watch the games on cable. Plus if I wanted as many Champions League games as I had last year that is another ten bucks a month.
How do you get the 250 pack for $73? When we left Spectrum we looked at DirecTV/Dish and felt that they were all too expensive. They wanted $90 +tax/fees for 2 years for the 250 package from Dish.
I have been with them for 11 years. Maybe that is how. I have only a one year contract as well. Actually less since it is up in February.
I agree. Its either pay it or not. Complaining will chang nothing. I rememer paying $15 extra per month for Setanta in SD only. The crazy part is I miss watching that channel. These are pretty good deals
I suspect that some of the people who think the new streaming options are hands-down great, are people who didn't have cable/satellite, sports packs and DVR's. Those of us who did (and still do) can more easily see the warts of the new fragmented world of streaming. And whoever said that complaining never helped anything, obviously never lived in NYC.
So I’m trying to watch this weeks Serie A preview show on ESPN+ and there’s no audio track. There’s music, when they interview players you hear them speaking in Italian, but nothing else. Nada, zip, zilch. I noticed something like this with the last review show, just music and crowd audio. About halfway through you heard the announcers.
I get the "fragmented" argument. But with each new soccer league / competition that gets added to ESPN+, the less fragmented it becomes. And there's been a shit-tonne added the past few months, which I guess is why I have a general happy attitude when posting in this thread. Well, that and because $1/week is basically nothing. I mean if you don't pay it, its not like you'll notice tremendous savings at the end of the year. What I notice more is not being able to watch a game I really would want to. On a related note, Serie A coverage got significantly upgraded this season. Sure it costs us a bit more money but we're not paying for something that was free last season. A nice IPA also costs more than a Bud Light.
Up until last month I had FIOS Ultimate HD with just about every sports channel possible, with a DVR. Had basically the highest tier of cable for the last 10 years. Before that, DirecTV. My Verizon contract was up and they wanted to raise my bill from $140 to $165 (I have 50mb internet too). So I blew it up. We dropped Ultimate, HBO and DVR (two things I like but don’t really have time for). Got the bill down to $125. Plenty of savings per month to cover streaming plans. So now I still have great cable sports TV and authenticated access to NBC, beIN, Turner, etc. with Gold, ESPN+, Willow, Netflix and Prime. Way too much sports content for me to ever use for what a lot of people pay for cable, boxes and DVRs. I’ve cut movies (which I get through streaming), DVR (also largely covered online) and some American sports access (like RedZone, don’t care). People talk about fragmented streaming costs but there’s also some insane rate jumps going on in the cable world right now. As subscribers drop I think that Comcast, FIOS and others are trying to bilk their rapidly aging customer base. People who may not realize or think critically about the bill they’re paying each month. They’ve lost young people and are barely trying to get them to subscribe.
The fragmentation I was talking about was between the various providers: ESPN, FOX, B/R, NBC (who adds even more fragmentation with it's various Gold "passes"), etc, etc. If ESPN were to buy all the footy rights away from the other guys then there might be a bit less fragmentation, but something tells me that ain't happening! And even if it did, there's probably no way they'd keep the "low" price of $5 for all that. But assuming that fragmentation of streaming is with us to stay, and perhaps maybe even to become even more fragmented in coming years, there's not only the fact that fragmented costs can start to add up (at $5, $10, maybe even $15 per month to each provider), but there's also the hassle of managing all all these fragmented subscriptions, plus the lack of standardization between the apps and their controls. Those are some of the warts I was alluding to before. My Cable+Tivo setup is so simple, so unified, so reliable, so easy to manage billing wise... it's not even a contest. But yes cable costs have been escalating at a disturbing pace. And since many of us are in "hybrid mode" between traditional TV/DVR and Internet streaming (i.e. we haven't cut the cord completely) the new streaming costs are just being piled on top, which is not a good thing budget-wise. It's certainly going to be an "interesting" next few years. But I guess if I think about the current state of American politics, this new streaming landscape starts to look relatively good.
Whoa, you fly in style dude. Now I can sort of see why the costs of streaming subscriptions are relatively immaterial to you.
True, true about cable rate increases in recent years. It may just force me to re-engineer the way I watch "TV" one of these days. But I must say that if/when that happens, I'm really going to miss what I can do with my Tivo DVR (2 Tivo's actually). The new world of streaming doesn't hold a candle to the functionality I get with that. The one functional aspect that streaming seems to win on is the sheer volume of content that is available, although sadly sports content has a stupidly short shelf-life... at least at the moment.
Im not trying to be argumentative here but i have had and currently still have fios, sports pack and multi room dvr. Aaaaaand Ive live on Long Island my whole life which puts nyc complaining to shame
I switched to YouTube TV from DirecTV (from Dish from U-verse from Comcast), and I'd had the whole shebang for years. However, I've used Roku exclusively outside my living room for like seven years, so while I'm very familiar with the benefits of cable/satellite I'd have to be considered an early adopter of streaming too. It doesn't really matter to me how much money I save via streaming because I just greatly prefer the experience of streaming to that of dealing with cable/satellite companies. I feel like I'm able to take more control and ownership of the viewing experience by paying for a grab bag of streaming services and using my own reasonably priced, preferred hardware.
I think you got that right! So do you like your current setup or are you ready to cut the cord and dive into the deep end of this new world of streaming?
I love the old set up and have a family so I cant see myself cutting the cord any time soon. I dont love the monthly bill but while I prefer the dvr’d tv option of watching most things I also have to accept the fact that if i want to watch CL, Europa League, Scottish Prem, Belgian League, Serie A, Championship, Nations League, Eredivisie, etc weekly then the extra payments are a must.