I have Amazon Prime
No antenna
What is everyone getting this season? Looks like you have to get at least three streaming services to get all games.
Fubo? YouTubeTV? I am so confused
I honestly don’t know since I don’t have much experience with streaming. But for now my plan is to go with YoutubeTV + Sunday Ticket when I move in a few months. Should get me all the sports I care about, and I don’t watch hardly anything else tv-wise.
That’s the Ticket.
.
.
.
.
Sunday Ticket.
For college, nearly every game will be on anyways, eventually, on Big10, SEC, Big12, ACC, N(D)BC networks over the week.
With them all being coast-to-coast, they can start at noon (ET), and end with an 11PM (ET) -start game.
1 Like
The whatinthewhat now?
I went with Fubo, they seemed to have the biggest sports package of the ones I looked at. You can also add on most of the sports packages if you want more.
1 Like
I don’t follow sports closely enough to care, but one common complaint with YouTube TV is that it lacks most of the regional sports networks, which can be a headache if there are specific teams you want to follow.
Last time I checked, I think Fubo was recommended if you wanted the RSNs.
1 Like
Ugh, Fubo is $95 a month. ($75 for Fubo, $15 for RSN, $5 Tax) That sux.
RSN fees.
I wish the RSN model would go away, and we could evolve to subscribing to specific teams’ streaming services.
1 Like
Yup. I don’t get to see my Kings play, except on ESPN or local OTA. Then again, I don’t need to see LAAOA or Clips or LAMDOA, so, not paying an extra $75/month for six games.
This might be of interest to some:
It’s still a manifestation of “it’s too much money if you’re only trying to follow one particular team”, and a step in the wrong direction from my preferred “let me just subscribe to something reasonable so I can just get my team’s games” model…but for those who like watching lots of commercials with some sports interspersed…
1 Like
A cable package without the cable.
That’s what YouTube TV, Fubo, Sling, etc. all are.
1 Like
Pretty much.
This only gets concerning when Fox and ESPN drop those streaming services.
I think there’s a greater risk of some of the services dropping ESPN.
At the very least, I’ve signed an online petition or two asking to YouTubeTV to do “something” rather than pass an increasing cost of ESPN on to the subscribers, given that some of us don’t watch ESPN.
That “something” would most likely be dropping ESPN, since they’d never agree to a cable operator or streaming provider moving ESPN to an optional add-on tier.
ISTR that ESPN was looking into starting its own streaming service (something beyond the mess of ESPN+, anyway) because of the shift towards streaming-in-general and the risk that providers might actually decide that the carriage fees charged by ESPN weren’t worth the customer demand for the channel.
I wonder if Venu is the result.
FWIW, I think I’m on the verge of canceling YouTube TV. I would have done it a year or two ago, given how my and my wife’s video-consumption habits have changed, but it takes time for me to point out that everything she’s interested in is now available on some other streaming service.
It’s always about the $$$$$$ the companies will weight channels v revenue generation it’s that simple.
I hope we are slowly on our way to a per-episode “on demand” market. Want to watch that particular sports contest? $1 please. Want to watch it delayed? $0.50.
You have a million people wanting to watch each of your hockey games for $1, that’s $80 Million. Is that more or less than what they get from a local RSN (especially one that is bankrupt)? Oh, but I will want that with a continuous FF feed (I’ll be watching delayed), not a skip forward. Not sure what the hold-up is on this unavailable technology that has been available for 20 years…
You may be right about the model, but I think you may be off on the relative cost if pay per view boxing is any indication.
Numbers can be adjusted. That is not the revolutionary change. That is fixed by “the invisible hand.” Can use “X” as a placeholder for all I care.
My current issue is that I cannot get the LA Kings on streaming. I can get it on cable, but I’m not going back to that cable, which actually is now streaming – no more box and no more “my TiVo and not their per-month DVR.”
Not unlike when presented with food option, I can choose to starve myself of hockey.
I think the pricing would be inversely correlated with the frequency of games/matches.
A subscription to an NFL or NCAA football team’s matches might be relatively expensive because of the limited number of games per season.
A subscription to an MLB team, on the other hand, would likely have a low per-game cost (particularly if bundled into a whole season).
An EPL team? Something in between, I suspect. If I had the option of paying £5/match or £150/year to follow Man U, I’d certainly have no problem paying the annual subscription (especially if it included EPL, FA Cup, Europe, and friendlies). However, much more than that, and I’d switch to paying to see individual, interesting (and probably depressing, considering how ManU has been doing) matches.