|
I just want on demand Nitros though. Is that ever going to come or is all their footage from other libraries gonna be framed in some dumb original series format.
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
epitasis posted:I just want on demand Nitros though. Is that ever going to come or is all their footage from other libraries gonna be framed in some dumb original series format. The Monday Night War show is this, yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
yeah I don't want that I just want the library on demand
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
At least it looks like Best of Raw and Smackdown will have full episodes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
Hahaha, the syntax of "NXT ArRival" is so nonsensically '90s
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
This Is NXT looks pretty cool, I've wanted to see stuff from inside the Performance Center and other stuff like that for a while.Minidust posted:Hahaha, the syntax of "NXT ArRival" is so nonsensically '90s The hashtag the NXT twitter's been using was #NXTarRIVAL which is probably worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
njsykora posted:The hashtag the NXT twitter's been using was #NXTarRIVAL which is probably worse. Albertan tar sands, the WWE is comin for you!
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
I thought every episode of RAW was going to be on there, but instead it's just encores of the recent episodes Laaaaaame
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:38
|
|
|
I guess they are going to cut out Benoit off the RAWS and Smackdowns I guess. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
NutritiousSnack posted:I guess they are going to cut out Benoit off the RAWS and Smackdowns I guess. No, they aren't.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Is the free week available just the very first week it launches?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
The Grey posted:Is the free week available just the very first week it launches? That's the way it seems. I don't know if that means "sign up anytime within the week and your next week is a free trial" or if just the first week is free if you signup. Also: It'd be great if you guys would read the OP before posting. It's pretty comprehensive and now answers 99% of your questions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Will PPVs be searchable by match? I'm thinking like DVD chapters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
emjayo posted:Will PPVs be searchable by match? I'm thinking like DVD chapters. There's been talk of "extensive metadata" which would make me think that's the case but we haven't had it demonstrated yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
I just want early Velocity, back when it was a Cruiserweight-themed show. Is that too much to ask?  Batista posted:John CenaŽ Nobody else can be named John Cena or we will sue you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I thought every episode of RAW was going to be on there, but instead it's just encores of the recent episodes That'd be an enormous amount of data to host for little return.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:If there's one thing I wanted, it's a 30 min pre-show plus a post-show after a 3-hour Raw! Thanks WWE Network
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
Hmmm... This kind of dampens my enthusiasm of signing up right away: WWE's Elimination Chamber PPV will not be available on the WWE Network until 30 days after the air-date on Sunday, according to WWE. The Grey fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 04:46
|
|
|
The Grey posted:Hmmm... This kind of dampens my enthusiasm of signing up right away: It is kind of stupid that Elimination Chamber will be the only PPV not available for 30 days, but this shouldn't be a problem in the future since the shows are going to be put on the network server as the show happens (I would assume at least because they are going to have the DVR ability built into the PPVs) so this might be a rare case of them wanting people to order the PPV and not completely wreck the buy rate, of the last event before the network launches,
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:It is kind of stupid that Elimination Chamber will be the only PPV not available for 30 days, but this shouldn't be a problem in the future since the shows are going to be put on the network server as the show happens (I would assume at least because they are going to have the DVR ability built into the PPVs) so this might be a rare case of them wanting people to order the PPV and not completely wreck the buy rate, of the last event before the network launches, It's absolutely the case. Chamber is the only PPV that will have a delayed replay. All others will be available for replay instantly.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Batista posted:It's absolutely the case. Chamber is the only PPV that will have a delayed replay. All others will be available for replay instantly. You do have to wonder if they will change the date of when Chamber gets put on the network with DiSH not carrying the event now though. Maybe put it up a couple of days later with an announcement that they are putting it up earlier than planned for the fans that were not able to purchase it from their PPV providers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:You do have to wonder if they will change the date of when Chamber gets put on the network with DiSH not carrying the event now though. Maybe put it up a couple of days later with an announcement that they are putting it up earlier than planned for the fans that were not able to purchase it from their PPV providers. If they do that they are crazy. They can't piss off the cable companies any more than they already have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:19
|
|
|
Considering that they are still expecting PPVs buys and would pull in bar licenses for an event like Wrestlemania, further pissing off providers over Elimination Chamber is giving up free money. After Wrestlemania, sure, but that's still significant money that will be made through traditional PPV buys until then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
"Dish Network" posted:"WWE has chosen to launch a 24/7 online network, without its TV partners, that includes all of its pay-per-view events. As WWE enters the increasingly fragmented media world by themselves, DISH will continue to consider the value of WWE pay-per-view on an event by event basis. DISH continues to provide a variety of WWE programming, including 'WWE Raw' on USA, 'WWE Smackdown' on Syfy, 'WWE Main Event' on Ion and 'WWE Total Divas" on E!. At this time, WWE pay-per-view events are not available on DISH." Funny that they neglect to mention that WWE shopped the network to Dish, Direct and most cable companies and was shut down completely back in late 2011
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:10
|
|
|
There's a free trial first week. No way in hell are they going to replay a PPV the next night for free.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:Funny that they neglect to mention that WWE shopped the network to Dish, Direct and most cable companies and was shut down completely back in late 2011 Directv was open to carrying the premium version of the network. Why should cable companies not being thrilled about WWE's TV network idea (which would violate their PPV agreements as well) be mentioned in this release? Just because they didn't sign off on one of Vince's hair brained schemes doesn't mean they have to be cool with him doing something that harms their business and breaks agreements.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 08:12
|
|
|
MassRafTer posted:Directv was open to carrying the premium version of the network. Why should cable companies not being thrilled about WWE's TV network idea (which would violate their PPV agreements as well) be mentioned in this release? Just because they didn't sign off on one of Vince's hair brained schemes doesn't mean they have to be cool with him doing something that harms their business and breaks agreements. I remember hearing DirectTV turned them down after a brief initial interest, and the point I was trying to make was that if Dish and cable companies had not just turned them down flat the PPV part might not actually be a part of the network at all, and WWE took a path that allowed them more freedom after being stuffed down multiple times, yet they are presenting it to their customer base as if the idea of the network just came out of left field and they didn't try to involve any other companies. and one would have to assume that WWE's legal team found a loophole on the agreements, as they technically aren't undercutting the PPV companies, as they aren't directly charging for the pay per views, and are just including them as a normal broadcast on their premium network. Brokenogre fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 08:32
|
|
|
emjayo posted:Will PPVs be searchable by match? I'm thinking like DVD chapters. MLBAM has every baseball game in the last 10 years set up like this for half-innings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:I remember hearing DirectTV turned them down after a brief initial interest, and the point I was trying to make was that if Dish and cable companies had not just turned them down flat the PPV part might not actually be a part of the network at all, and WWE took a path that allowed them more freedom after being stuffed down multiple times, yet they are presenting it to their customer base as if the idea of the network just came out of left field and they didn't try to involve any other companies. and one would have to assume that WWE's legal team found a loophole on the agreements, as they technically aren't undercutting the PPV companies, as they aren't directly charging for the pay per views, and are just including them as a normal broadcast on their premium network. This did come out of the blue for the cable companies. While the Observer reported they were planning to switch to an online format after the premium network talks fell through and Wrestlezone reported the full details a couple months ago, the cable companies had no clue WWE was about to launch this network. The PPVs have been part of the network for about the last two years. When they were trying to get a carriage fee for a regular cable network they switched their plans to carry all of the B shows on the network. Then when they decided that wouldn't work (because no cable provider wants to pay for more risky channels right now) they decided on every PPV but Wrestlemania on a premium network. They couldn't get enough interest in that, so they struck out on everything on an over the top network. No matter what, the cable companies were going to lose out on PPV revenue here, and in the first case WWE wanted to be paid for it! Not everything ends in lawsuits. WWE has clearly broken their agreements not to undercut PPV by offering them on the network. Showing it for free sure as hell counts, guess why they aren't allowed to release DVDs or show much footage of PPVs on free TV? In this case, the best solutions are just dropping WWE, renegotiating or keeping it as is and taking a fraction of the buys they used to get. From their perspective it is completely and utterly lovely, they are losing out on millions with no prior notice. A press release as mild as that one is completely fair.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 08:48
|
|
|
I suspect that for many people, the cable/dish networks are the heels in this program. They are overpriced dinosaurs that have been offering poor service and terrible value for many years. So while their whining may be justified from some perspective, I'd bet most WWE Network subscribers could not possibly care less about their sad little song or lost potential revenue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:I suspect that for many people, the cable/dish networks are the heels in this program. They are overpriced dinosaurs that have been offering poor service and terrible value for many years. So while their whining may be justified from some perspective, I'd bet most WWE Network subscribers could not possibly care less about their sad little song or lost potential revenue. As customer I have the same perspective although I do kind of feel bad for cable providers in some ways, they've been held hostage by ESPN and now every other network for years, so at a time when they need to reduce prices their costs keep going up. At the same time, who cares, $10 a month for PPVs and a decent selection of back content is awesome.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
I wouldn't mind binging through all the old Tough Enoughs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Batista posted:There's been talk of "extensive metadata" which would make me think that's the case but we haven't had it demonstrated yet. Didn't someone say they were going so far as to having metadata for stuff like "Orton hits RKO on Kofi Kingston" and you could find all those instances?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
triplexpac posted:Didn't someone say they were going so far as to having metadata for stuff like "Orton hits RKO on Kofi Kingston" and you could find all those instances? A query for "Dolph hits Zig Zag on Kofi" would probably crash the service
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
They have this stuff tagged on the video library anyway so they can find poo poo they need quickly. Wouldn't surprise me if they just dumped the metadata they already have onto the Network versions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
so buy rates for October-December 2013 just came out, if WWE hits that million in America subscriber base and based these buy rates is it possible that PPV paydays could actually go up, I had read in the past that WWE was getting between 11 and 15 dollars from PPV providers per each PPV buy, so if they are getting 5-10 times more viewers, and getting close to the same amount wouldn't it stand to reason that the talent might get more. * WWE Battleground (10/6/13, headlined by Daniel Bryan vs. Randy Orton for the vacant WWE Title) - 114.000 buys * WWE Hell in a Cell (10/27/13, headlined by Daniel Bryan vs. Randy Orton for the vacant WWE Title inside Hell in a Cell with Shawn Michaels as guest referee) - 228,000 buys (up from 198,000 buys in 2012) * WWE Survivor Series (11/17/13, headlined by Randy Orton vs. the Big Show for the WWE Title) - 177,000 buys (down from 208,000 buys in 2012) * WWE TLC (12/15/13, headlined by John Cena vs. Randy Orton in a TLC match to unify the WWE & World Heavyweight Titles) - 181,000 buys (up from 175,000 buys in 2012)
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:so buy rates for October-December 2013 just came out, if WWE hits that million in America subscriber base and based these buy rates is it possible that PPV paydays could actually go up, I had read in the past that WWE was getting between 11 and 15 dollars from PPV providers per each PPV buy, so if they are getting 5-10 times more viewers, and getting close to the same amount wouldn't it stand to reason that the talent might get more. if those are worldwide totals it should be mentioned that the PPVs can be substantially cheaper in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
sportsgenius86 posted:if those are worldwide totals it should be mentioned that the PPVs can be substantially cheaper in other countries. Honestly I assume they are world wide totals but I am just not sure, got the data from a WWE Corporate press release the point I was trying to make though was if WWE hits their goal of 1-2 million subscribers in the US alone could it be possible that PPV paydays go up meaning all the backstage fear about paydays that was going on back in january would have been for nothing since WWE is going to be receiving approximately the same amount per month per viewer as they were getting from PPV carriers Brokenogre fucked around with this message at 17:49 on Feb 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Brokenogre posted:Honestly I assume they are world wide totals but I am just not sure, got the data from a WWE Corporate press release the point I was trying to make though was if WWE hits their goal of 1-2 million subscribers in the US alone could it be possible that PPV paydays go up meaning all the backstage fear about paydays that was going on back in january would have been for nothing since WWE is going to be receiving approximately the same amount per month per viewer as they were getting from PPV carriers You can't blindly apply the full $10 to the PPVs. There's probably a lot of overhead that goes along with running the network, so at most you can give them $5 per subscriber but it wouldn't shock me if it's closer to $2.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 05:55 |
|
|
IcePhoenix posted:You can't blindly apply the full $10 to the PPVs. There's probably a lot of overhead that goes along with running the network, so at most you can give them $5 per subscriber but it wouldn't shock me if it's closer to $2. In the same regards, the $11-$15 figure per PPV is not profit, but revenue.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2014 18:07
|
|