|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Sept 30, 2014 13:35:28 GMT -5
Will Sky want to take on the VOD archive? Seems like too much of a headache for them. And, if they don't have the infrastructure set up to have 1000s of hours dedicated to WWE library content (I assume dedicated servers would need to be bought depending on the size/power of the current Sky setup), it could hold the launch date back even more.
|
|
|
Post by FunkerCM on Sept 30, 2014 13:58:18 GMT -5
This is turning into another elongated shambles, similar to when it looked like SilverVision were dumped in favour of Fremantle as DVD distributors about 6-9 months before they eventually did.
Pure speculation but I think they've gone to potential carriers of the Network as a stand-alone channel in the hope that Sky would blink and offer over and above the recently-agreed TV deal.
Nobody bit so Sky have probably got Sky WWE at a snip, making it seem WWE has no confidence in it's own product to go it alone and compete with other On Demand providers.
If they traded in London, WWE's stock price would be in the toilet at the moment.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 14:05:24 GMT -5
Will Sky want to take on the VOD archive? Seems like too much of a headache for them. And, if they don't have the infrastructure set up to have 1000s of hours dedicated to WWE library content (I assume dedicated servers would need to be bought depending on the size/power of the current Sky setup), it could hold the launch date back even more. They have the capability. Their SkyGo/OD service is huge as it is. But I'd realistically see the WWE Network being accessible via a Sky login-portal and selective programming being available through the Sky Box on-demand as well as the linear channel. So you'd still be able to go to WWE.com or watch on your device but you'd have the option of logging in using your Sky account details rather than logging in directly to WWE. So your Sky account details/login will unlock the content on the WWE Network, so there'd have to be some kind of technical information sharing. All guess work at this stage, of course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2014 14:18:14 GMT -5
Why can't we just get the damn thing the way it is in every other country except Canada? Why was Canada screwed over too?
US, UK and Canada are the big 3 for WWE - so why are they all except US being treated like garbage?
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 14:32:13 GMT -5
I think maybe, to put it crudely, other places didn't matter as much so they were happy to take the punt and with little fanfare too. But UK and Canada need a good return in terms of how much it brings in. In Canada the money from the Rogers Network may have been guaranteed and too good to turn down, ditto the prospect of making it a joint venture with Sky (if that's what it is to be) in the UK is too lucrative to turn down for a 'float it and see' direct subscription to the general audience.
If they get it wrong in UK and Canada in terms of not making as much as they hope, I think it's more of a problem than if they get it wrong in Denmark, for example.
Rogers and Sky could have offered (or in Sky's case may offer) guaranteed income that an ordinary launch might not have garnered.
|
|
|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Sept 30, 2014 14:42:14 GMT -5
Will Sky want to take on the VOD archive? Seems like too much of a headache for them. And, if they don't have the infrastructure set up to have 1000s of hours dedicated to WWE library content (I assume dedicated servers would need to be bought depending on the size/power of the current Sky setup), it could hold the launch date back even more. They have the capability. Their SkyGo/OD service is huge as it is. But I'd realistically see the WWE Network being accessible via a Sky login-portal and selective programming being available through the Sky Box on-demand as well as the linear channel. So you'd still be able to go to WWE.com or watch on your device but you'd have the option of logging in using your Sky account details rather than logging in directly to WWE. So your Sky account details/login will unlock the content on the WWE Network, so there'd have to be some kind of technical information sharing. All guess work at this stage, of course. Oh OK, admittedly I don't know much about servers etc. I recently got a trial of Now TV through my PlayStation, which is powered by Sky. I really just got it for the free £10 PSN voucher lol but its pretty decent content wise. Price permitting, I could maybe make do with a Sky-run Network if Now TV became a platform for the Network. It does crash quite a bit though. I do find it amusing that the Bhutan and Cambodia have the Network before the UK, and a better Network than Canada!
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Sept 30, 2014 14:47:05 GMT -5
They have the capability. Their SkyGo/OD service is huge as it is. But I'd realistically see the WWE Network being accessible via a Sky login-portal and selective programming being available through the Sky Box on-demand as well as the linear channel. So you'd still be able to go to WWE.com or watch on your device but you'd have the option of logging in using your Sky account details rather than logging in directly to WWE. So your Sky account details/login will unlock the content on the WWE Network, so there'd have to be some kind of technical information sharing. All guess work at this stage, of course. Oh OK, admittedly I don't know much about servers etc. I recently got a trial of Now TV through my PlayStation, which is powered by Sky. I really just got it for the free £10 PSN voucher lol but its pretty decent content wise. Price permitting, I could maybe make do with a Sky-run Network if Now TV became a platform for the Network. It does crash quite a bit though. I do find it amusing that the Bhutan and Cambodia have the Network before the UK, and a better Network than Canada! I think Now TV is too niche. It'd be like buying Premier league rights and making it exclusive on Roku devices....whatever they are. It may be used to increase the On demand content if Sky don't want to dedicate too much of it that's delivered the traditional way e.g directly through Sky box They could also offer Network Lite for Now TV viewers - no PPVs or Raw/SD but access to minor shows and the PPV archive.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Sept 30, 2014 15:50:56 GMT -5
Somewhat hilariously for me personally, November 1st is my birthday.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 1, 2014 5:01:01 GMT -5
On another forum someone's posting who is involved the preliminary "stress test" rollout or the UK market. They say, other than content being heavily PG'ed (presumably they're being shown the parental restrictive versions) they also say Virgin are interested if it is a stand-alone channel but due to Sky's exclusivity with WWE in the UK they fear that it might cost more and have other restrictions such as on PPVs etc.
If were a betting man I think stand alone TV channel is where this is going.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 13:03:59 GMT -5
I don't like where this is going. It kills being able to watch during lunch at work, etc - a major selling point. It's horrid.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 1, 2014 13:20:55 GMT -5
I don't like where this is going. It kills being able to watch during lunch at work, etc - a major selling point. It's horrid. Not necessarily. You could watch on SkyGo and I imagine the deal would be that WWE would host the archive on their site as it's there already and it saves Sky hosting it. It's a shrewd move for Sky as if they make it free for their customers it'll be a big incentive for kids to nag their parents to switch to Sky. If the PPVs are included mum and dad may think "Well the Network is free, and I'll be saving £14.95 a month...." I don't really see the fuss as long as the content is there and accessible. I don't see why there's any suggestion it isn't going to be just because it's Sky, who are hardly a two-bit 'Setanta Sports' broadcaster. Think of it like Sky Movies. They have their bunch of linear channels, plus hundreds of others on demand able to watch on TV or online. I don't understand why everyone is up in arms about it. Unless you subscribe to Sky it might cost you a bit extra but content delivery shouldn't be an issue.
|
|
RedDevil
Don Corleone
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 1,692
|
Post by RedDevil on Oct 1, 2014 17:12:07 GMT -5
Well if nothing else, the complete lack of information from WWE on this has produced some interesting speculation from us, the would-be customers they are doing their best to ignore.
Whilst I expect this situation will end with us getting a good Rogersing, I am interested in seeing how this works out if Sky is the party they are in talks with (rather than a Sky rival, or an app supplier or whatever else it could be). As a Sky Sports subscriber, I couldn't exactly hate the idea of being handed a Sky Sports WWE channel within my existing subscription - all the more if they offer the "Over the Top" On Demand archive, and the PPVs included with the channel.
But I don't think that's too likely given the respective reputations of both Sky and WWE in regard to their customers. However then again it's not like we don't have a well documented alternative to access the "real" network if they decide to sell us a poor imitation.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 1, 2014 17:29:30 GMT -5
What Sky crave is exclusivity. The 'rate card' set-up with Ofcom means they have no choice but to offer Sky Sports across a range of platforms. This is done for main sports such as football, cricket etc and wouldn't apply 'entertainment' such as WWE. Right now though they've got nowhere else to logically put it other than a share platform channel. I could well see them paying WWE the equivalent of say 200,000 Network subscribers on top of their current deal just to be able to have somewhere exclusive to screen all WWE content, shielded from other platforms. It may even be worth Sky to run it at a loss.
Look at Sky Atlantic. They probably choose to run that as a loss-making venture because they believe it does its job in convincing switchers from other providers and makes the broadcaster more appealing to new potential subscribers looking to make a choice. Everything Sky have done recently from 2 years free internet if you subscribe to a channel that's included in your package anyway at no extra cost (Sky Sports 5) is just another example.
IMO Sky would happily run a Sky Sports WWE channel at a loss, including giving away PPVs 'free' if it was able market it exclusively to Sky customers. If WWE make money, as we've seen in Canada - why do they care? Imagie subscribing to Sky Sports via the Sky platform is the only way to access ANY WWE programming (legally) it'd suck balls for subscribers of other packages but Sky would rake it in from switchers. WWE in turn may end up having initially a reduced UK audience but they'd probably be heavily compensated for it.
EDIT: I think 'Sky Sports WWE' is unlikely, more 'Sky WWE' so it can promote it (and restrict it) same way as Sky Atlantic as an "entertainment" channel.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2014 17:46:55 GMT -5
f*** Sky.
I don't wish to pay for their outdated, technically inadequate content delivery system and loads of channels I will never watch just for the WWE network.
I don't watch linear broadcast TV in any shape or form and haven't done for years and certaintly don't plan on starting now.
Sky aren't going to give it away. They'll probably bundle it with their sports package, or even charge for it seperately but give a discount to sports subscribers. If they bundle it with the sports thats a 2 year contract at £50 a month, plus having a dish and box installed that you might not want even if you just want to use the network online (they won't offer it as standalone)
Skys business model is going the way of the dinosaur, it is funny watching them cling on and try and keep up with the times. Their NOW TV service is piss poor compared to the alternative like Netflix and Amazon prime
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 1, 2014 17:52:02 GMT -5
f*** Sky. I don't wish to pay for their outdated, technically inadequate content delivery system and loads of channels I will never watch just for the WWE network. I don't watch linear broadcast TV in any shape or form and haven't done for years and certaintly don't plan on starting now. Sky aren't going to give it away. They'll probably bundle it with their sports package, or even charge for it seperately but give a discount to sports subscribers. If they bundle it with the sports thats a 2 year contract at £50 a month, plus having a dish and box installed that you might not want even if you just want to use the network online (they won't offer it as standalone) Skys business model is going the way of the dinosaur, it is funny watching them cling on and try and keep up with the times. Their NOW TV service is piss poor compared to the alternative like Netflix and Amazon prime I think they will "give it away" from the point of use but they'll definitely recoup it back. I am a Sky Sports subscriber but I rarely watch anything on TV and instead use SkyGo/Netflix etc. I'm surprised at how slow the uptake on this kind of viewing is. I'd have thought it'd be a large share of the market but I read recently that something like 98% of TV is still done through traditional means e.g the TV in the living room. Wasn't it WWE's original intention to launch the service in the US as a TV channel but couldn't find partners to back it? UK could get what was intended for the US - a standalone TV channel with ondemand/streaming webcasting service to back it up.
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Oct 1, 2014 18:05:35 GMT -5
Even though Im a Sky subscriber I really don't like the sound of a tv channel as part of my existing Sky Sports subscription.
The big draw for me was the extensive on demand library of old WWF, WCW and ECW PPVs, Raws, Nitros & Hardcore TV shows rather than the current shows & PPVs.
I fear the classic library will be nowhere near as vast on Sky tv service.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 1, 2014 18:09:45 GMT -5
Even though Im a Sky subscriber I really don't like the sound of a tv channel as part of my existing Sky Sports subscription. The big draw for me was the extensive on demand library of old WWF, WCW and ECW PPVs, Raws, Nitros & Hardcore TV shows rather than the current shows & PPVs. I fear the classic library will be nowhere near as vast on Sky tv service. But why won't Sky subscribers be able to access via the WWE Network website? People keep bringing this up but I don't understand why it being a TV channel precludes access to the website content. The website is already there. All it'll take is a Sky customer login portal. It'd seem a tremendous waste of time transferring ANY on demand content to a Sky-run website.
|
|
Futureraven: Beelzebruv
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Ultimate Arbiter of Right And Wrong
Spent half my life here, God help me
Posts: 15,079
|
Post by Futureraven: Beelzebruv on Oct 2, 2014 13:14:08 GMT -5
Even though Im a Sky subscriber I really don't like the sound of a tv channel as part of my existing Sky Sports subscription. The big draw for me was the extensive on demand library of old WWF, WCW and ECW PPVs, Raws, Nitros & Hardcore TV shows rather than the current shows & PPVs. I fear the classic library will be nowhere near as vast on Sky tv service. But why won't Sky subscribers be able to access via the WWE Network website? People keep bringing this up but I don't understand why it being a TV channel precludes access to the website content. The website is already there. All it'll take is a Sky customer login portal. It'd seem a tremendous waste of time transferring ANY on demand content to a Sky-run website. Yeah, like certain adult channels give you access to their website if you subscribe for the night. Not that I'd know.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 2, 2014 14:43:54 GMT -5
But why won't Sky subscribers be able to access via the WWE Network website? People keep bringing this up but I don't understand why it being a TV channel precludes access to the website content. The website is already there. All it'll take is a Sky customer login portal. It'd seem a tremendous waste of time transferring ANY on demand content to a Sky-run website. Yeah, like certain adult channels give you access to their website if you subscribe for the night. Not that I'd know. Exactly. And the argument that Sky-only will limit the number of customers people forget that a TV channel (presumably backed by an online content library) is how WWE wanted the Network to be launched in the US in the first place. Presumably the channel would have been available only to customers with certain providers. And it also would have given them what an online streaming service doesn't - the ability to make decent money through sponsors and adverts. Sure they could advertise now but the value of advertisement on a subscription-based streaming service isn't as lucrative as advertising on TV.
|
|
|
Post by Zombie Mod on Oct 2, 2014 14:45:57 GMT -5
if sky are running the service it'll fall apart quickly.
their nowtv service suffered every week when game of thrones episodes premiered this year due to the demand placed upon it ( game of thrones & football at the same time caused their servers for it to run and cower behind a settee.) while not massive numbers for that sort of service it'll be similar numbers for the wwe network if it's an online on demand type of thing and will suffer every time there is a live ppv.
|
|