Someone should figure out a way to bundle all channels in one platform and beam it to me from outer space.
Someone should figure out a way to bundle all channels in one platform and beam it to me from outer space.
With ESPN having ~25M I would think that is conservative.Fox-Disney-Warner Bros. Discovery Sports Bundle Projected to Hit 5 Million Subscribers in Five Years, Lachlan Murdoch Says
The Fox-Disney-WBD sports streaming venture is expected to sign up 5 million customers in the first five years, Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch said.variety.com
If they are expecting $35-$50 per month, I'm not sure it is. If you are only paying like $7 add on for ESPN, you really going to shell out another $43 to watch Fox and WB? Keeping in mind any games of Fox you can see over antenna anyways?With ESPN having ~25M I would think that is conservative.
Given that this is essentially more than just ESPN the cost can be justified for the sports fanatic that want more than just local sports. Also I suspect existing ESPN+ subs will get the service at a discount at least initially.If they are expecting $35-$50 per month, I'm not sure it is. If you are only paying like $7 add on for ESPN, you really going to shell out another $43 to watch Fox and WB? Keeping in mind any games of Fox you can see over antenna anyways?
But is it justified? Like, as an out of market hockey fan, I certainly don't see the need to watch when my team is on TNT maybe once or twice, and if it's the playoffs and my team that I care for, I will find a way to watch without having this kind of service throughout the year. Hockey has done just an immaculate job (sarcasm here) of making every team think the league is out to get them, and therefore making hockey fans hate nearly every other team (and people don't want to tune in to watch two teams they hate play each other), but a different subject somewhat here)Given that this is essentially more than just ESPN the cost can be justified for the sports fanatic that want more than just local sports. Also I suspect existing ESPN+ subs will get the service at a discount at least initially.
Also you're assuming that any of the games on Fox carried over an antenna would be local games that would be cared about by the subscriber, which is not a guarantee. Plenty of times where I'm out of region and I can't see my local teams play, especially NFL, on the local Fox broadcast.
I've never watched football on Youtube a day in my life, not especially my local team, and I don't know of anyone who has. I'm sure there are plenty that do but just like you can't imagine that many wanting a service like this, I can't image many watching on Youtube either.But is it justified? Like, as an out of market hockey fan, I certainly don't see the need to watch when my team is on TNT maybe once or twice, and if it's the playoffs and my team that I care for, I will find a way to watch without having this kind of service throughout the year. Hockey has done just an immaculate job (sarcasm here) of making every team think the league is out to get them, and therefore making hockey fans hate nearly every other team (and people don't want to tune in to watch two teams they hate play each other), but a different subject somewhat here)
My antenna comment was about football, and you aren't getting those out of market games with this either, that belongs to youtube. I'm also just not convinced there are that kind of fan bases out there. If you don't want to watch your local team, are you really buying this? I mean, if I'm an NHL fan, I need ESPN+. But first question, is there really THAT large an overlap between NHL fan and say MLB fan? Or NBA fan? How many people are big hockey fans, but casual enough basketball fans that they want to be able to watch occasional games on TNT, or random MLB games on TBS? Cause if you are a big MLB fan, does having all these stations matter much when you can spend $150 for the year and see every game not covered under the networks (and again, do you justify $50 to watch the few games you might really want to see you wouldn't otherwise)?
Right, but you are missing my point. If you want your local team, antenna will get it (outside of if you get one game or two on Sunday/Monday nights). If you want out of market games, Youtube owns Sunday Ticket, so you have to go there. This service will not have all the NFL games on a Sunday.I've never watched football on Youtube a day in my life, not especially my local team, and I don't know of anyone who has. I'm sure there are plenty that do but just like you can't imagine that many wanting a service like this, I can't image many watching on Youtube either.
There are all kinds of fans out there. And I'm sure there are lots out there just like you that don't see a point to this service. But I'm also sure there are lots that do want a service where they get access to multiple sports in one location without paying for a cable package.
Anyways I just think the 5M in its first 5 years seems low, I would expect at least double that. But I guess we'll see how it goes.
Well this will be cheaper than Sunday Ticket.Right, but you are missing my point. If you want your local team, antenna will get it (outside of if you get one game or two on Sunday/Monday nights). If you want out of market games, Youtube owns Sunday Ticket, so you have to go there. This service will not have all the NFL games on a Sunday.
But unless I'm missing something, you won't get the games on it. I can't imagine that any of these groups have the rights to broadcast all out of market games as well with Youtube paying $2 billion a year to have those rights. The only thing that would be affected would be Monday Night football games and maybe a random Peacock only game? So you purchase for your locally televised games (which you can get free over antenna) and Monday Night Football (which you get for $7 a month if you already have Disney +, or $10 a month without).Well this will be cheaper than Sunday Ticket.
All details haven't come out yet. So we don't know all the specifics of games, schedules, etc., that will be available on the service.But unless I'm missing something, you won't get the games on it. I can't imagine that any of these groups have the rights to broadcast all out of market games as well with Youtube paying $2 billion a year to have those rights. The only thing that would be affected would be Monday Night football games and maybe a random Peacock only game? So you purchase for your locally televised games (which you can get free over antenna) and Monday Night Football (which you get for $7 a month if you already have Disney +, or $10 a month without).
See, but that's my larger question. I don't think that service is going to be able to offer all NFL games, and that was the largest amount that wants it (maybe it can for college?). In fact, I'm not sure any of them will do this outside of maybe hockey (since their streaming is ESPN+). Doesn't the NBA use their own streaming service? Tennis as well. And is MLS AppleTV still? So this would just be nationally televised games and sports shows (which only 3% said they care about).Survey: 57% of Sports Fans Willing to Pay $50 Monthly For Live Streaming App - Media Play News
More than 57% of TV sports fans said they would pay $50 monthly for a sports-only streaming app service in a February online survey of 2,000 respondents conducted by CasinoReviews.net, an advocate for online wagering. The finding comes as Disney, Fox Corp., and Warner Bros. Discovery have...www.mediaplaynews.com
Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery’s Sports Streamer Venu to Launch at $42.99 per Month
Venu, the streaming sports venture backed by Disney, Fox and Warner Bros. Discovery, plans to launch with a monthly price tag of $42.99variety.com
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.