Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 2, 2014 15:16:52 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. If Sky run it I'd presume the PPVs would be watched in the most part on their TV service. There'd be no reason why they'd suddenly put it on Now TV and even if they did there'd be even less reason why suddenly now everyone would decide to watch it that way. I also dont get this lack of faith in Sky. As a commercial broadcaster they're probably unrivalled in Europe. Hearing people talk about Sky as if they're some two-bit operation with a guy and his mum in a shed somewhere on the outskirts of Suffolk is strange. Not you necessarily but the internet is full of comments about what an awful job Sky will do of it and I don't see how or why. They're fantastically placed to do the best job possible. A lot of online traffic will be diverted if people can still continue to watch the PPVs on their TV and as Sky is predominately a TV service I don't understand why it's thought they can't provide that.
|
|
|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Oct 2, 2014 16:27:50 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. If Sky run it I'd presume the PPVs would be watched in the most part on their TV service. There'd be no reason why they'd suddenly put it on Now TV and even if they did there'd be even less reason why suddenly now everyone would decide to watch it that way. I also dont get this lack of faith in Sky. As a commercial broadcaster they're probably unrivalled in Europe. Hearing people talk about Sky as if they're some two-bit operation with a guy and his mum in a shed somewhere on the outskirts of Suffolk is strange. Not you necessarily but the internet is full of comments about what an awful job Sky will do of it and I don't see how or why. They're fantastically placed to do the best job possible. A lot of online traffic will be diverted if people can still continue to watch the PPVs on their TV and as Sky is predominately a TV service I don't understand why it's thought they can't provide that. Hehe I giggled. To be honest I think Sky would do fine with it if they are given it, but seeing the way the Network is being done in the US and other countries makes people (including myself) want that version, and compounded with no correspondence from WWE is making folk think the worst. The idea of splitting the whole Network, and having the linear network on TV, and the archive on the WWE website might pose an issue. It would have to be, I think, an app based platform for the archive that can be played through TVs via Sky, PS4, XBone, Chromecast or whatever, whether Sky or WWE make it. I wouldn't be happy personally if I can watch the channel on my large TV, then archive content has to be watched on my much smaller laptop screen or tablet. Want to watch it all on my TV. I know there's cables etc you can purchase but that's just an unnecessary cost. I am starting think someone in WWE forgot they announced an October 1st date and when it was coming up realised it hadnt been sorted out properly yet. Wouldn't be the first time they forget things, they have forgotten to extend wrestlers' contracts before! Should we perhaps change the thread title? Could add a few question marks or change "1st October" to "idunnolol"??
|
|
67 more
King Koopa
He's just a Sexy Kurt
Posts: 11,503
|
Post by 67 more on Oct 2, 2014 17:51:01 GMT -5
If Sky run it I'd presume the PPVs would be watched in the most part on their TV service. There'd be no reason why they'd suddenly put it on Now TV and even if they did there'd be even less reason why suddenly now everyone would decide to watch it that way. I also dont get this lack of faith in Sky. As a commercial broadcaster they're probably unrivalled in Europe. Hearing people talk about Sky as if they're some two-bit operation with a guy and his mum in a shed somewhere on the outskirts of Suffolk is strange. Not you necessarily but the internet is full of comments about what an awful job Sky will do of it and I don't see how or why. They're fantastically placed to do the best job possible. A lot of online traffic will be diverted if people can still continue to watch the PPVs on their TV and as Sky is predominately a TV service I don't understand why it's thought they can't provide that. The idea of splitting the whole Network, and having the linear network on TV, and the archive on the WWE website might pose an issue. It would have to be, I think, an app based platform for the archive that can be played through TVs via Sky, PS4, XBone, Chromecast or whatever, whether Sky or WWE make it. I wouldn't be happy personally if I can watch the channel on my large TV, then archive content has to be watched on my much smaller laptop screen or tablet. Want to watch it all on my TV. I know there's cables etc you can purchase but that's just an unnecessary cost. You can get HDMI cables for a quid from Poundland. Hardly bank-breaking.
|
|
|
Post by Zombie Mod is not a ghoul. on Oct 2, 2014 18:23:18 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. If Sky run it I'd presume the PPVs would be watched in the most part on their TV service. There'd be no reason why they'd suddenly put it on Now TV and even if they did there'd be even less reason why suddenly now everyone would decide to watch it that way. I also dont get this lack of faith in Sky. As a commercial broadcaster they're probably unrivalled in Europe. Hearing people talk about Sky as if they're some two-bit operation with a guy and his mum in a shed somewhere on the outskirts of Suffolk is strange. Not you necessarily but the internet is full of comments about what an awful job Sky will do of it and I don't see how or why. They're fantastically placed to do the best job possible. A lot of online traffic will be diverted if people can still continue to watch the PPVs on their TV and as Sky is predominately a TV service I don't understand why it's thought they can't provide that. The nowtv service is the bit where sky fall down for me, their TV service is second to none... but they're just really lacking when it comes to now TV as I said one of the worlds most anticipated shows of the year and they screwed up 9 hours of it online due to not meeting demand despite heavily advertising it. If its a channel on TV there won't be much of an issue outside of not being able to choose what is shown for the viewer/subscriber, but if they're controlling the online portion of it it'll suffer greatly because sky just underestimate the numbers for online viewing.
|
|
|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Oct 2, 2014 18:23:31 GMT -5
The idea of splitting the whole Network, and having the linear network on TV, and the archive on the WWE website might pose an issue. It would have to be, I think, an app based platform for the archive that can be played through TVs via Sky, PS4, XBone, Chromecast or whatever, whether Sky or WWE make it. I wouldn't be happy personally if I can watch the channel on my large TV, then archive content has to be watched on my much smaller laptop screen or tablet. Want to watch it all on my TV. I know there's cables etc you can purchase but that's just an unnecessary cost. You can get HDMI cables for a quid from Poundland. Hardly bank-breaking. Did not know that. I don't go into Poundland often, I like a bargain tho . My laptop doesn't allow for HDMI connection to telly just through a HDMI cable. Point was more that things would get bit cluttered if we need our Sky box, whatever else you (or family/kids) have there and then a laptop or whatever device you need for Network stuff all sitting at your telly.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 2, 2014 19:43:10 GMT -5
It's possible WWE have learned from their US launch mistakes. It was open to everyone, the assumption that there were eleventy-billion WWE fans in the state of Wisconsin alone and that the Network would have more subscribers than you could shake a stick at before the first set of results were announced. Yes making it freely available without platform restrictions opens up the potential audience but the realistic audience is going to be, 98 times out of 100, current WWE viewers.
In the UK making it freely available without platform restrictions will open up the audience but 99% of wrestling fans in the UK either subscribe to or in some way have access to Sky Sports as that's where all the programming is. By launching with Sky you get a direct 'in' at your core audience, financial assistance and help with advertising and promotion of the product plus the opportunity to use your own and Sky's brand to attract sponsorship. And what do you lose? The risk that someone who has never shown any interest in wrestling whatsoever might be deterred from buying the Network because they don't want to subscribe to Sky?
For me it's a no brainer.
I could well see a scenario where the Network is also available to customers of other platforms (Virgin, BT etc) but perhaps at a nominal fee that's wavered for Sky's own customers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2014 12:42:22 GMT -5
That's my major worry - why should I pay more because I am on Virgin for the same service? The app version is fair for all.
|
|
Marty McFry
Don Corleone
"She was mine before she was yours.... Wooooo"
Posts: 1,657
|
Post by Marty McFry on Oct 4, 2014 14:04:44 GMT -5
Germany was also supposed to launch on October 1st. Anyone know how that went?
|
|
67 more
King Koopa
He's just a Sexy Kurt
Posts: 11,503
|
Post by 67 more on Oct 4, 2014 14:32:52 GMT -5
Still not available in Germany.
|
|
nitro
Mike the Goon
Posts: 34
|
Post by nitro on Oct 4, 2014 17:40:20 GMT -5
Germany was also supposed to launch on October 1st. Anyone know how that went? We never had a concrete date. But seriously, who cares? Watching the US Version is just fine.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard Gerard on Oct 7, 2014 3:03:45 GMT -5
I'm starting to think the UK/Eire/Proper EU rollout has been such a shambles because the 'E have bought shares in a VPN service.
|
|
FinalGwen
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Particularly fond of muffins.
Posts: 16,432
|
Post by FinalGwen on Oct 7, 2014 13:47:05 GMT -5
It's possible WWE have learned from their US launch mistakes. It was open to everyone, the assumption that there were eleventy-billion WWE fans in the state of Wisconsin alone and that the Network would have more subscribers than you could shake a stick at before the first set of results were announced. Yes making it freely available without platform restrictions opens up the potential audience but the realistic audience is going to be, 98 times out of 100, current WWE viewers. In the UK making it freely available without platform restrictions will open up the audience but 99% of wrestling fans in the UK either subscribe to or in some way have access to Sky Sports as that's where all the programming is. By launching with Sky you get a direct 'in' at your core audience, financial assistance and help with advertising and promotion of the product plus the opportunity to use your own and Sky's brand to attract sponsorship. And what do you lose? The risk that someone who has never shown any interest in wrestling whatsoever might be deterred from buying the Network because they don't want to subscribe to Sky? For me it's a no brainer. I could well see a scenario where the Network is also available to customers of other platforms (Virgin, BT etc) but perhaps at a nominal fee that's wavered for Sky's own customers. If that were the case, then there would never have been a point where TNA beat WWE in the UK ratings.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 7, 2014 15:25:08 GMT -5
In the UK making it freely available without platform restrictions will open up the audience but 99% of wrestling fans in the UK either subscribe to or in some way have access to Sky Sports as that's where all the programming is. Please do show me the obviously highly scientific study that turned up this figure, because otherwise it might seem like you've pulled it out of nowhere
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 7, 2014 15:33:45 GMT -5
In the UK making it freely available without platform restrictions will open up the audience but 99% of wrestling fans in the UK either subscribe to or in some way have access to Sky Sports as that's where all the programming is. Please do show me the obviously highly scientific study that turned up this figure, because otherwise it might seem like you've pulled it out of nowhere WWE is only on Sky sports. You need access to Sky Sports in this country to watch WWE. The vast majority of people don't stream illegally online. So who are these WWE fans who don't watch or have access to Sky sports then?
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Oct 7, 2014 15:41:22 GMT -5
Please do show me the obviously highly scientific study that turned up this figure, because otherwise it might seem like you've pulled it out of nowhere WWE is only on Sky sports. You need access to Sky Sports in this country to watch WWE. The vast majority of people don't stream illegally online. So who are these WWE fans who don't watch or have access to Sky sports then? It was the 99% that I questioned, not that it was the majority, although I think you're vastly underestimating the number of people who stream illegally, and also those who would happily watch WWE without having to pay an ungodly amount of money for Sky Sports when you probably don't want to watch any of the other sport. A lot of TNA's viewing figures will have come from people who wanted weekly wrestling without wanting to pay through the nose for it and nothing else.
|
|
Boo!
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 4,417
|
Post by Boo! on Oct 7, 2014 16:16:52 GMT -5
99% is an oft used short hand for "vast majority" it's like the "nine-tenths of the law" quote nobody actually expects anyone to list ten tenets of the legal system and use nine to justify the saying.
Why does everyone have to be a member of the Literal Police?
|
|
|
Post by Flash Burton on Oct 22, 2014 8:18:31 GMT -5
Is this still set for launch in the UK 1st November? Still haven't seen anything promoting it & it's a little over a week away
|
|
|
Post by Martin: #TeamBella Treasurer on Oct 22, 2014 8:26:06 GMT -5
Is this still set for launch in the UK 1st November? Still haven't seen anything promoting it & it's a little over a week away Its just a launch date that will be announced on November 1st . We can only guess when it will actually launch.
|
|
|
Post by Flash Burton on Oct 22, 2014 8:32:59 GMT -5
Is this still set for launch in the UK 1st November? Still haven't seen anything promoting it & it's a little over a week away Its just a launch date that will be announced on November 1st . We can only guess when it will actually launch. Eurgh! Cheers man
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 22, 2014 14:58:21 GMT -5
99% is an oft used short hand for "vast majority" it's like the "nine-tenths of the law" quote nobody actually expects anyone to list ten tenets of the legal system and use nine to justify the saying. "80% of statistics on the internet are made up" - Friedrich Nietzsch
|
|