Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 7, 2014 18:18:36 GMT -5
The other thread seems to have gone. Thought it might be good to have this here to discuss the possibilities and probabilities of the details of the launch and address issues such as pricing, Sky's involvement, content etc.
As I think was said in the other thread, I'd be very surprised if Sky aren't all over this. Even to the point where they may offer it 'free' for Sky Sports subscribers and charging those on other platforms £9.99 to access it. In order to win over subscribers I could well imagine Sky willing to take a short-term financial hit to offer the gimmick. They have deep pockets and it's in line with other gimmicks they've been shelling out recently (free 2 years broadband if you add another channel that costs nothing extra anyway, which is what they've done with Sky Sports 5)
So I could well see Sky agreeing to carry the service at a loss.
In fact we should have a competition on who is closest. My guesses are:
Free for Sky Sports subscribers -£5.99 a month for other Sky customers (£9.99 with no commitment -£9.99 for all other subscribers -Virgin, Freeview, etc - (£14.95, the price of a regular PPV, no commitment)
No smart TV/Roku access. Instead available exclusively on TV sets via the Skystore and to Sky customers (as per above pricing structure) with customers with other providers only receiving web access.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Aug 7, 2014 19:41:51 GMT -5
Don't forget that Sky have branched out into the Smart TV market with their NowTV boxes, I wouldn't be shocked if there was some exclusivity deal involving that platform.
|
|
|
Post by chazzbusby on Aug 7, 2014 19:42:59 GMT -5
Would a sky based service still offer access 24.7 to the on demand stuff or would it simply be streaming the live stuff?
|
|
|
Post by chazzbusby on Aug 7, 2014 19:44:04 GMT -5
Do you think Vince knows what a chromecast is yet? I want chromecast compatibility.
|
|
|
Post by chazzbusby on Aug 7, 2014 19:45:32 GMT -5
PS I hate myself for this but I know it's going to happen - the moment it launches I will spend most of my day flicking between UK and US network to try and find something that's not available to both. Insisting in increasingly violent and graphic terms that there are differences and I will find them.
Maybe Regal could replace dye-job McMahon when that little "first viewing" thing appears.
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Aug 8, 2014 5:28:44 GMT -5
Free for Sky Sports subscribers Yes Please, I hope you are right! My guess is something like £8.99 per month, and with Sky Sports putting blackout restrictions on certain events they televise like they do with NFL Gamepass. -Raw would be available to view on the UK Network from Thursday -Smackdown available to view from Saturday -PPVs would be available to view from Saturdays after they stop showing the replays on Sky Box Office
|
|
Marty McFry
Don Corleone
"She was mine before she was yours.... Wooooo"
Posts: 1,657
|
Post by Marty McFry on Aug 10, 2014 12:00:55 GMT -5
Free for Sky Sports subscribers Yes Please, I hope you are right! My guess is something like £8.99 per month, and with Sky Sports putting blackout restrictions on certain events they televise like they do with NFL Gamepass. -Raw would be available to view on the UK Network from Thursday -Smackdown available to view from Saturday -PPVs would be available to view from Saturdays after they stop showing the replays on Sky Box Office This seems most likely to me.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Aug 10, 2014 14:21:29 GMT -5
f*** it man it better be Netflix-y rather than Sky TV-y.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2014 14:50:58 GMT -5
£20 a month (for Sky Sports Subscribers) £55 a month (for non Sky Sports Subscribers).
HD Version £10 extra a month
Only available to Sky subscribers. 12 month minimum subscription, PPV's not included (available on Box Office), Adverts, not available on Now TV or Sky Go. Limited On demand selection only available via glitchy app you need a sky box to use
It might not be all of the above, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't too far off the mark come October.
|
|
keezy
Dennis Stamp
full time slacker
Posts: 4,621
|
Post by keezy on Aug 10, 2014 15:39:46 GMT -5
I just hope it has Raw and Smackdown unlike the US version, and better streaming.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 10, 2014 17:24:35 GMT -5
If it has Raw and SD Sky will need to be involved and we'd need to get a different feed as the US version shows stuff when they're on.
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Aug 10, 2014 20:42:08 GMT -5
I'm really dreading to see what pillaging Sky will do on the network content if they get their grubby little paws on this.
|
|
|
Post by I'm Team Bayley and Indi on Aug 11, 2014 5:29:23 GMT -5
My fear is if Sky is involved that it ends up as part of NowTV which I got a months trial of a few months back and was at most times practically unwatchable with all the buffering and crash on the PS3 (even tried multiple ways to correct it), I just hope if is Sky is involved it's more they get money per every subscription.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 11, 2014 6:12:14 GMT -5
I'm sure the audience won't be as narrow as just Now TV audience. I do expect Sky's involvement for two reasons:
1) WWE need their cooperation if they're to offer the monthly PPVs on that platform as well as the weekly television shows
2) WWE is one of the most popular weekly shows on Sky and therefore they'd not want something from WWE which could have big appeal and make them extra money do go ahead without their involvement. It could be quite a coup for Sky to announce the WWE Network would be available only for Sky customers who subscribe to the Sports package with a fee being levied on those who access via other platforms. I could well see Sky seeing the appeal of getting more subscribers and agreeing to run the network at a loss to themselves with an eye on the bigger picture.
I think you have to look at something such as Sky Sports 5's launch to see what we might possibly see with the WWE Network. It was a channel that's 'free' but you still had to register to gain access to. I think a linear version of the Network will be available as a stand-alone channel exclusively on their online SkyGo platform with a joint WWE/Sky portal to access the on demand services which you can only log into via your SkyGo account with subscribers from other platforms (BT, Virgin etc) still being able to access the ondemand service but not getting access to the PPVs except through the traditional means on Sky Box Office.
That way WWE get instantly millions of subscribers and Sky get a hook for new subscribers to their platform. I certainly don't see Sky allowing WWE to launch the service independent of them nor do I see WWE wanting to launch without Sky's name associated with the ready-made subscriber base that came with it. If Sky aren't involved in the WWE Network they could make it very difficult for WWE to promote its launch here, they could insist mention of it is edited out of all shows and air Raw on delay to ensure that any mention to it is blocked.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,506
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Aug 11, 2014 6:13:31 GMT -5
Dammit Monsoon! I was like Cheap Heat Barrett thinking it will be a big rip-off but now you've built my hopes up because Sky have been strangely nice with new channels like SS5, the F1 channel and Sky Atlantic. I'm sure Sky and WWE came to some sort of agreement when the TV deal was made. On the flip-side I think both WWE and Sky see us as cash-cows willing to pay more to prop up other parts of their respective businesses. Would a sky based service still offer access 24.7 to the on demand stuff or would it simply be streaming the live stuff? For Sky subscribers I'd imagine it would be a paid part of their On Demand service and you'd be able to download content to your Sky box. Not sure how they'd handle other platforms.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 12, 2014 17:53:41 GMT -5
Anyone else starting to feel like the unwanted ginger stepson?
|
|
RedDevil
Don Corleone
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,692
|
Post by RedDevil on Aug 13, 2014 16:18:54 GMT -5
Anyone else starting to feel like the unwanted ginger stepson? Reading about the farce the Canadians have seemingly been handed makes me all the more curious about what they have in store for us - particularly if Sky get involved as you predict.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,095
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Aug 13, 2014 16:31:41 GMT -5
I really hope Sky aren't involved.
Is there any word from our US counterparts on how quickly the PPVs are uploaded to the network after they finish? Because I rarely get the chance to watch PPV's live (sans 'Mania, and even that I've watched on replay the past two years) and I don't want to have to wait days or even weeks to watch the PPV. I want to be able to watch it as soon as I get home from work on the Monday.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Aug 13, 2014 16:46:25 GMT -5
Anyone else starting to feel like the unwanted ginger stepson? Reading about the farce the Canadians have seemingly been handed makes me all the more curious about what they have in store for us - particularly if Sky get involved as you predict. I think it might be a case of making non Sky customers cough up for them to either cover the subsidised Sky subscribers or (preferably for Sky) convince subscribers of Virgin, Top-up TV, BT etc to switch to the Sky platform for the saving. As been said above there's a trend Sky have due to market pressures to launch new channels and to offer them 'free' for subscribers. The Canadian "launch" does seem bizarre. I don't know too much but reading on here it looks as if they've sold the rights to the equivalent of Birmingham Local TV which only people in that area can get. Which seems odd even before you get into the very limited library. I do imagine a similar regional TV partner deal in the UK with Sky but I can't imagine it'd be anything like that service. It'd literally be worth nobodies time bothering if it was.
|
|
|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Aug 13, 2014 17:04:53 GMT -5
Reading about the farce the Canadians have seemingly been handed makes me all the more curious about what they have in store for us - particularly if Sky get involved as you predict. I think it might be a case of making non Sky customers cough up for them to either cover the subsidised Sky subscribers or (preferably for Sky) convince subscribers of Virgin, Top-up TV, BT etc to switch to the Sky platform for the saving. As been said above there's a trend Sky have due to market pressures to launch new channels and to offer them 'free' for subscribers. The Canadian "launch" does seem bizarre. I don't know too much but reading on here it looks as if they've sold the rights to the equivalent of Birmingham Local TV which only people in that area can get. Which seems odd even before you get into the very limited library. I do imagine a similar regional TV partner deal in the UK with Sky but I can't imagine it'd be anything like that service. It'd literally be worth nobodies time bothering if it was. I just don't think WWE are influential enough for people to go through the headache of changing suppliers etc. If Sky/WWE/whoever would cover cancellation charges etc then maybe. If I wasn't with Sky already I don't think I'd be switching. We recently cancelled our sports package as no one really watched it, too much cash when noones using it. Doubt I'll get it again. In my very limited knowledge of Canadian TV, I think that Canada is that vast a country that different suppliers can operate without a lot of competition, unlike the huge national market share Sky has here. Slightly bigger than Brum but I get what you mean
|
|