Craptain Crunch

February 6th, 2018 at 6:05 PM ^

Like I'm going to give those morons in Bristol $4.99 let alone a nickle.

ESPN, along with the NFL, will both be a great case study on how to alienate your fan base and destroy your business model.

 

corundum

February 6th, 2018 at 6:05 PM ^

If you bundle high speed internet, ESPN, Netflix, Hulu, and HBO together, you can get all the shows you want to watch for a flat low rate of.. Probably something similar to what you would pay for cable!

johnthesavage

February 7th, 2018 at 1:03 AM ^

Eh, I ditched horrible Comcast, which here in the bay area was delivering only SD BTN for extra money, for gigabit internet ($80 / mo) and YouTubeTV ($35 / mo, and includes BTN). We had Netfix and Hulu anyway, so this is less than I was paying for cable, and the internet is miles better. It's like I'm actually in the 21st century now. I'd happily pay more, because Comcast is so goddamn bad they can just go straigh to hell. But, I'm not.

wile_e8

February 7th, 2018 at 10:39 AM ^

Well, the whole point of cutting the cord is that you are paying for a whole bunch of content you never watch with your current cable bill. If you go around subscribing to *every* streaming service, you're kind of ruining the point of cutting the cord. Most cord cutters will be fine with one or two services. 

Of course, MGoBoard users are part of the worst segment of the population for cord cutting. Sports leagues have become dependent on TV contracts, and TV contracts are dependent on cable subscriptions. And college sports are the worst, with multiple conferences with multiple TV deals each. So it is unlikely get an affordable way to stream all your sports needs any time soon. Until that day arrives (not any time soon), sports fans are probably going to be better off with cable. 

WirlingDirvish

February 6th, 2018 at 6:05 PM ^

So just to be clear here, I'd be paying $4.99/month and would NOT be able to access ESPN for that price. looks like this is for "video and text content" that isn't on it's traditional broadcasting channels. Why would I pay them for that exactly? Still need Comcast, or Vue etc., to get ESPN.

Mp1228

February 6th, 2018 at 6:18 PM ^

Is this only for people who don’t have the cable login credentials? Or is this a standalone service for people who only stream and don’t have cable? For example if u pay for HBO on your cable package, you can use your cable provider login to access HBOGo for free. Basically every major tv channel now has an app you can use for streaming, as long as your cable package has that channel in it.

Braylons Butte…

February 6th, 2018 at 6:31 PM ^

ESPN and the networks will still be subscription based via cable or other OTT packages.

It's more like CBS All-Access - where you get CBS content via broadcast or cable anyway, but then subscribe to get access to their old content catalogue or exclusive streaming only content (e.g., Star Trek Discovery).

My guess is this will have special original sports themed programming, more "30 for 30"-style short docs, some of their B-tier podcast/radio talent doing visual stuff, access to back catalogue 30 for 30s and the like, special ESPY, OTL and similar shows "extra" coverage, and perhaps most notable of all, I bet Insider morphs into this entirely.

Instead of paying to get access to special writing (like the Athletic), I think ESPN is going to go increasingly visual with video production, and they're going to want you to subscribe to this to see special pieces, interviews, highlight packages, and analysis dedicated to your favorite teams.

KC Wolve

February 6th, 2018 at 6:36 PM ^

They are way ahead of us on this one. They have to know that no sane person would pay for ESPN without the live sports so they came up with a reasonable price that dummies will pay and sign up for thinking they will get games and then forget they are paying for it. Free money.

mrkid

February 6th, 2018 at 6:36 PM ^

Why would I pay $4.99 to watch the ESPN Loading screen and get to see every third play of the games? ESPN has one of the worst streaming services I've ever experienced.

It was so bad this year that I decided I will have to get cable for the next football season because it was unwatchable at times. And no, it wasn't my connection. I was 60mb down, hardwired to the modem to my TV.

UMFoster

February 7th, 2018 at 7:55 AM ^

ESPN is by far the worst sports streaming app out there.  If they want to charge $4.99 a month for this service they better up the quality a lot.

jaydubya

February 7th, 2018 at 9:30 AM ^

"Iger says the redesigned ESPN App will have three new features:

...

2. Live-streamed ESPN networks (provided a user is a subscriber to ESPN's service, either through a traditional cable package or digital TV package)"

 

A standalone ESPN streaming service would be appealing, but why would one pay an extra $5/month when ESPN is already part of an existing, paid subscription?

MGoArchive

February 7th, 2018 at 9:37 AM ^

Iger is delusional if he thinks people are going to pay an extra $5/month for archived ESPN content. This $5/month service does not include live content.