Unfortunately that's true. The billionaire owners care how much money they are raking in, not who will or will not be able to view the games. Nevertheless, there is a good chance DirecTV will be able to strike a deal with the winning bidder. It would bring in additional revenue for the streamer, and DirecTV would no longer be losing hundreds of millions of dollars to carry the package.Under the DIRECTV contract the NFL received $1.5 billion per year (for the last few years) regardless of the number of actual subscribers. There is no financial reason to care who could or could not receive the content. The NFL's only consideration was could they get more than $1.5 billion from anyone else.
When the streaming contract is announced it won't matter who or who will not be able to watch. What will seal the deal is how many billions of dollars some company is willing to pay.
I often watch 2 or 3 games in the same time slot on Sundays, switching between games and fast-forwarding during breaks in the games. DVR'ing the games also means I don't have to miss anything when games overlap. That's why I'm hoping DirecTV will make a deal with the winning bidder to continue carrying the games.We like to record several ST games on our Directv DVR's, then watch them later. How would we be able to do this using a streaming service?
A number of news sources have reported that DirecTV is interested in cutting a deal with the winning bidder to retain satellite rights. Nobody knows for sure if it will happen. I'm not worried in the least about losing access, since I have Gb fiber service with AT&T. Wherever it ends up, I will have it. The concern I have is whether I'll have the same ability to watch multiple games and time-shift them as needed. It's certainly possible that functionality could be offered. It's also possible that it will be like most of the sports streaming apps that are out there now, where you can only watch one game at a time.I'd bet that these rumors are more speculation and wishful thinking than actual rumors. Probably started by folks who fear they will lose their access and are trying to figure out a way to maintain it. Everything I'm reading is that DirecTV has ZERO interesting in Sunday Ticket, they have ZERO interest in using it as a way to GROW satellite which they think is a dying business and want to push streaming as much as possible. I think eventually DirecTV may get Red Zone channel, and I really think that's the best you could hope for at this point (and for me, that's enough).
Same here - I follow one in-market team and two out-of market teams, and my wife follows a third out-of market team. I often watch 5 or 6 different games on a Sunday.I have a problem that I don't think anybody has addressed in all this. My husband and I follow four football teams. With DirecTV, we can record three games while watching one semi-live. That way we can fast forward through all the commercials on the first game and then do the same on the other three. I guess nobody else follows more than one team? Plus I know this requires an immense amount of discipline to stay off the internet during the games.
I just don't know what you can do with streaming. Will they allow you to watch it on a delayed basis and fast forward through commercials? The few times I have checked out football games on Amazon, they still have the commercials. And I'm pretty sure you have to wait until it's entirely completed to watch it and then fast forward. That certainly something I don't want to do!
In addition fast forwarding on a streaming service is pretty damn hard. Every service acts differently on the way they do it and it's definitely not as easy (or smooth) as doing it on DirecTV.
So so no, I am definitely not happy about Sunday ticket going to a streaming service.
You may also recall that those NBC Game of the Week telecasts were blacked out in both the home and visiting teams' markets, which meant that if your home team was playing that game, you couldn't watch. It didn't make a lot of sense, but those were the rules they followed.I remember when there was only one game a week on TV. Saturday's Game of the Week. That was it. One game. Two teams. The whole broadcast schedule for all of MLB. We survived somehow.
The Sunday Ticket streaming app has shortcuts, but I've never seen any option for watching full game rebroadcasts. You need GamePass for that. I sometimes pull up the streaming app on my tablet while I'm watching games on the DVR, but it's not the same as being able to watch 3 games at a time on the DVR without missing any of the action.Just one guy who's been watching NFL Sunday Ticket only via streaming for the past 4-5 seasons. I don't know how many of you know this, but if you're a subscriber to Sunday Ticket, you have access to the NFL Sunday Ticket streaming app. I'd encourage you to give it a try this fall. Multiview functionality (you can set up 2, 3 or 4 games to view at once on your screen, including Red Zone and/or Fantasy Zone channels), access to Short Cuts and full game re-broadcasts (without commercials!), and you can even plug in your fantasy football team for updates (for those on NFL.com leagues.)
It's not all that bad.
A 30-minute "shortcut" of a 3-hour game is not what most people would consider a "full game rebroadcast".Short Cuts is pretty much a full game broadcast, dependent upon what you consider a "full game rebroadcast." I've used it several times through a week to get caught up on games I didn't get to see much of during a Sunday early/late window.
For a lot of people on this thread, I honestly get it. They know a system (DVR functionality, etc.) and the idea of moving away from a system they're familiar with isn't a comfortable feeling. It's not likely going to be the same, but I'm still a believer that Sunday Ticket will be a solid product moving forward in a streaming world.
Aren't Fox and ESPN still 720p?This is not a logical conclusion. The game coverage will continue to come from most of the same parties (Fox, CBS, NBC, ESPN) that are providing HD feeds up to now. There would need to be a pretty large subscriber base to justify asking the networks to upgrade the finished product.
There is no evidence that is true. It is a claim that was made without any proof in an online article by John Ourand and then quoted by other bloggers, as if quoting an unsubstantiated claim somehow makes it a fact. The article claimed the NFLST package would have to be offered at a "premium price", without saying what price that would be. A legal contract would not use non-specific language like "premium price", which could be interpreted to mean anything. And if Ourand really had inside knowledge of what is in those contracts, he would be able to provide the specifics.Reportedly the new contract will make charging a price similar to the current $300 a requirement for the new rights holder. Requested by the networks when they signed their huge new contracts, to reduce the number of people who want out of market games instead of the in market games they (and therefore their affiliates) are spending so much money for.
Even if Directv had been willing to keep it they would have been required to drop the freebies after this season.
Ad-free tiers of service are not going away. They exist because people are willing to pay for ad-free programming. If there isn't an ad-free tier, you can't charge extra for ad-free programming. Those ad-supported tiers are designed for people who won't pay the full price. Remember, Hulu originally had ONLY ad-supported programming. They added the ad-free tier when they realized there were a lot of people like me who will pay extra for ad-free programming. It would be foolish to pass up that extra revenue.In the late 1990s and early 2000s with the dawn of the DVR, to me, TV became perfect. No longer are you forced to watch ads, you can skip them. You can watch on your own schedule and you can save shows until you can actually watch them. But you knew eventually they'd figure out a way to force us to watch ads again. Advertisers weren't going to pay if we were to just skip their ads. It took about 10 years until they figured out that they could prevent you from skipping ads on OnDemad. That was so frustrating and only used as a last resort for me. But streaming is a new frontier. Once they figured out how to make ads work, they also figured out that they can prevent you from skipping them. And they offer much cheaper packages couched in the "ad supported" moniker. And you know what? People are subscribing, and that's why Netflix is going to that model too. As I said, eventually they are going to "realized" (perhaps make this up), that they can just sunset the "premium packages" and force you to pay for ads on every tier. If the content is good enough, people won't care. So now they have their sweet spot, people PAYING for the privileged of watching ads. The whole point of "free" OTA TV was that you get to watch for free, and we show you ads to make money. Somehow that dynamic changed with cable, where you PAY to watch our content AND our ads (and even MORE ads that OTA, there's a reason why Friends is 35 minutes on Nick at Night). And now with streaming....we can make you pay for OD content AND watch ads, which you can't even skip. And while now there are maybe a couple of minutes of ads, eventually that will become just like cable, where you'll have 4 minutes of ads per break as well. Congratulations folks, we've gone full circle, we are back to TV as we knew it in the 1970s.
Anyone who can use a PC is capable of setting up a Plex server. And there will always be a market for ad-free programming. That's why there was always a market for premium channels on linear TV. If there weren't enough people willing to pay for it, that model would have changed a long time ago. All the streamers have "discovered" is that there is additional money to be made from people who won't pay the full price. So I wouldn't be too worried about TV going back to the 1970s. Those days are over and they're not coming back.Oh sure, if you have the ability to add a Plex server (and Play On and some others), you could do that, but how many people have the technical knowledge to set up something like that? Very few (don't get fooled by people on here, as we are much more tech savvy than the average user.
As for ad tiers, if the streamers discovered that A) They could make more money selling ads than from the premium they charge for ad free, or, the cost of giving an ad free tier makes it not worth their while, they will drop ad free in a heartbeat. We might not be there yet, but lets say (arbitrarily) a streaming service finds that 90% of their users sub to the ad service and only 10% are ad free, they might just drop the ad free as not worth maintaining. So never say never. I remember the days when live sports were broadcast on RSNs without commercials, that changed eventually. And when games streamed orginally via MLB AB, no ads, that changed too.
Yes, it is almost a certainty that the pitch clock will be used in MLB next season. They are testing it in the minors, which is what they do for any major rule changes. It is reducing the length of games by about 20 minutes on average. It is long overdue.Agreed. Football and TV were made for one another. College football tends to last longer than a typical NFL game because of the longer halftime (20 minutes vs. 12 minutes except for the Super Bowl) and the stopping of the clock on first downs. The in-person experience is fun, but it can drag.
I have season tickets to the minor league team here. Games typically last anywhere between 2 hours to 2 1/2 hours. Basically the pitcher has 16 seconds to throw a pitch. Those rules will probably be adapted into MLB soon. It is a zippier experience, but that probably won't be the case on nationally televised games.
Hulu has had an ad-free tier for seven years. Do you really think they haven't figured out yet whether it's more profitable that way?And you know what kept HBO, Showtime and other premium services afloat without ads? People willing to pay for their content and a premium price. But what if you can get that same content for 1/2 the price, and have to put up with ads? I bet you'd get a LOT of subs for that. I wonder what percentage of Hulu subs are ad free? I'd be willing to bet it's way less than half. Why do you think Netflix is going to an ad tier. And again, if they've done the calculation that it can be more profitable offering only an ad supported tier they will do that.
Netflix is adding an ad-supported tier to gain subscribers they aren't getting now, not to lose subscribers they already have, which is why there will continue to be an ad-free version of Netflix (and other major streamers). If you can't afford the ad-free tiers, the cheaper tiers are designed for you. Kind of like going to a ballgame and sitting in the bleachers.Today it is, down the road, I doubt it will be. Nothing stays the same. Netflix SWORE they'd never have an ad supported tier and here we are, one is coming. Why? Because it has gotten too expensive. At some point, they will price it so that the ad free tier is so expensive it just won't be worth it for most, and not worth it for hulu to keep it for the rest. How much are you willing to spend to keep it ad free?
There have been reports that DirecTV will try to cut a deal with the winning bidder, but there is no way to know if that will actually happen.Just because DIRECTV didn’t negotiate to keep Sunday Ticket doesn’t mean they can’t negotiate to retain it. Unless a streaming service negotiates it to be exclusive, I am hopeful that it opens up for multiple outlets including Satellite and Cable.
There was a report on SI.com yesterday that quoted the NFL's chief media and business officer:I'd consider that style of viewing to be "advanced". A lot of buttons to push and a tuner dedicated to each game. Someone who did that would probably be able to figure out a new interface. Hopefully whomever designs the app supports multiple stream pausing and content searching. Just because it is streaming doesn't mean it has to be a steaming mess.
Netflix is trying to ADD subscribers by offering an ad-supported tier, not LOSE subscribers by removing the ad-free tier. And it's obvious the ad-free tier is working for Hulu or they wouldn't still be offering it after all these years. Sorry, but your arguments still don't hold water.You realize that Netlifx has been LOSING subscribers, which is why they went this route.
Netflix is losing a ton of subscribers and even more could be quitting the streaming service. What's happening and why are folks leaving?www.giantfreakinrobot.com
It's gotten too expensive, especially when there's more and cheaper competition. The hope is that if they offer the cheaper, ad supported tier, they will stick around. Hulu for example, in 2019 had 70% of their subscribers on the ad supported plan. I can't find anything newer, but I'd bet it's even a higher percentage now, considering the incentives they've been offering to get you to sign up for the ad supported tier, be it through bundles offered with ESPN+ and Disney or their Black Friday deals for $2 a month (the deal I have, as I don't find it worth spending more for Hulu as there's only a few things I watch there). Hulu's advertising revenue has skyrocketed. At some point, it's going to be worth it to just get rid of the ad-free plan if they can guarantee more eyeballs to advertisers.
If it made sense to have only ad-supported programming, they would be doing it now. They aren't, which means your argument still doesn't hold water. Making the same invalid arguments repeatedly does not make them valid.Tell me how much you would pay (over the ad-supported version) for any service? Eveyone has their breaking point.
Did you ever read the article I posted. Netflix is LOSING subs. By a lot. That's that why they decided to go the ad-supported tier. It's gotten too expensive. Consider the premium tier, the only one that offers 4K, is now $20 a month. That's a lot of money, even more than HBO Max. Even the cheaper HD tier is now more than $15 a month. So people are leaving or just subbing for the months there's something they want to watch, where in the past they'd stick with it. Sure they will gain some subs back with the ad-supported tier, and that's what they are looking to do. But consider this. What if they could convert 2/3 of their base (which is about the percentage of ad-supported vs. no-ad users on Hulu) and they find that they can make MORE money from selling ads than they can by charging a premium for no-ads? Why would they even want to maintain the ad-free tier? It would be a stupid business decision. And that's what's starting to happen. And if the content is good enough the vast majority of people won't care if there are ads. So Again, how much would you pay? And if the number of ad-free subs are dwindling, how long before it's not worth it to THEM to maintain? It's the satellite vs. steaming argument all over again. At what point does DirecTV realize that the expense of maintaining DirecTV satellite not worth it? They don't exist to cater to a few customers that cannot get good internet. They want to cater to the largest portion of users they can. If that's streaming, so be it.