Thursday, November 6, 2014

UK Gets Screwed Over On WWE Network, Too!


Hopefully the service isn't as set up as badly over the pond as it is up here.  

55 comments:

  1. As a someone without a Sky subscription this is the news I didn't want to hear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like how they spend all this time promoting the Network as being one thing, then give Canada a half asses Rogers version and expect us to like it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is there an advantage to WWE going this route? Or do Sky and Rodgers have them in a legal bind and forcing this on Vince?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Can someone with the Canadian version give us an insight into what it's like? Do they just choose the schedule or is there an option to choose what to watch?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Canadian version is the live stream presented as a TV channel, plus about 10 of the PPVs in on demand format. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmm. Not sure about the source, there is a possibility the customer service guy was talking out of turn, but no, this wouldn't be great. Especially when they announced that it would be available for Roku et al, to then switch it to nothing but a live stream would be pretty shitty.

    ReplyDelete
  7. And the ppvs are whatever random ones they choose to stick on?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sky and Rodgers pays WWE an "exclusivity" fee, so at least they make some money even if subscriptions are low.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm a Virgin...
    ...Customer.

    So either I get the network via Unblock or I just don't bother.

    Fuck it, I'm not getting it. Well done, WWE.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yet unsurprising.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I find it amusing how if I lived in Botswana I can get the network, but in the UK (WWE's second biggest market) I can't. This is becoming a PR nightmare and Vince only has himself to blame. This is only going to benefit Sky who can afford to be ruthless with them, they have some serious bargaining power that I think WWE underestimated. I was always curious how talks between both parties would go but from the looks of it they never communicated at all.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm on Virgin too. I doubt that this will be a case like Sky Atlantic where if you're not on Sky Digital there's no other place to get it as I don't think that there's the audience to make that worth doing.

    I think this is purely so that Sky can keep their PPVs. So I expect the WWE Network will be a channel like like Sky Sports F1 - an extra channel you get if you're subscribed to Sky Sports.

    ReplyDelete
  13. America, fuck yeah!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Extant1979 - Mr. Cable AccessNovember 6, 2014 at 12:05 PM

    The WWE legal department for the win, baby!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Are deals like this possible one and the one in Canada being forced upon WWE, or are they examples of the fed trying to recoup some money from the lackluster performance of the Network? I'm kind of lost on the specifics, here

    ReplyDelete
  16. And meanwhile I still can't get it in my part of Wisconsin because WWE says we're a foreign country.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Put it this way WWE are screwed with the network in the UK if it becomes a Sky channel. Sky itself costs a lot of money each month even at a basic level and it's not like everyone has it, add Sky Sports 1-5 (you can buy them individually as well) costs a hell of a lot the ONLY reason anyone commits to it begrudgingly is because we want to watch live soccer, to add a WWE network as ANOTHER premium channel well that's asking a hell of a lot from people. The timing couldn't be worse either as the rights for Champions League football is going to BT Sport (ANOTHER premium channel) next year meaning if you want to watch all the footie you can you need both Sky Sports and BT sports, so the forecast is not good.. not good at all.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Someone in Liverpool, during a WWE Network plug during Raw, should start an 'Unblock Us' chant to see if it catches on and how the WWE would react, because surely a fake US subscription is better for their quarterly report than the terrible numbers this Sky deal will probably cause in them losing out on their potential No. 2 total.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I really wont pay for that. The great thing about getting it with a VPN was flicking in and out of things at leisure.

    If its part of the Sports package (and it absolutely should be; the F1 is more popular over here and they include that as there's simply not enough demand to justify charging for it as an extra) i'll catch it from time to time, but I might just go back to the VPN which I cancelled after 6 months in anticipation of the launch!

    They really have done themselves over with this excluisivity deal; there is demand in the UK and with games consoles being ready for it and the advent of Netflix, it seems like they're taking a backward step in one of their biggest markets. They've been pretty impressive at taking advantage of the so called digital age and they could have been at the forefront here. I guess £6.31 doesn't have the same ring to it as $9.99.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I can't see how it will work as a channel. If all we get is the live stream then the appeal is almost zero, but I can't see Sky putting the whole load of content in the On Demand section it would surely be too much.

    Plus if it included PPV's there's no way were getting it for six quid.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I read that PPVs would be dealt with seperately. Presumably as they are now (half paid, half on SS) with the network going off air for the duration?

    ReplyDelete
  22. They may not have a choice but to run it as an over-the-top channel. I can't believe they didn't figure this out earlier. Even if Sky has a ton of power, it's embarrassing that they couldn't work this out instead of trying to go ham-fisted.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It's going to be interesting when SKY and Rogers' contracts with WWE are up.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Same here. Didn't want to hear it, but totally expecting to.

    ReplyDelete
  25. £15 plus the network fee? Not a fucking chance.

    They do know we aren't in a boom period right? The current product isn't worth shelling out for twice.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Surely wwe would do better doing the network as I'm the us and just giving the money to sky/Rogers and biting the loss but making the fan base happy

    ReplyDelete
  27. Depends on the deal I guess. Little information is coming out and what is, isn't necessarily accurate. You'd hope part of the deal is that the PPVs are included in the network. Im surprised they charge anyway given how much they take on the Sports sub.

    I know people complain about the ass backward booking of PPV to sell the TV product, but I only bother with PPVs lately, so giving them away as part of the deal might actually encourage people to watch Raw and Smackdown. Well, Raw at least :D

    ReplyDelete
  28. America, FUCK YEAH!

    ReplyDelete
  29. And none of this was figured out until eleven seconds before the launch...tremendous work.


    Where the fuck is Shane to make this work.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yeah, it is expensive, I pay about £120 per month for Sky with everything inc BT Sport. I think that works out at around $3000.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yeah, my package has hit about that now, although I'm with Virgin, which is another issue, making sure it's available through them.

    ReplyDelete
  32. It's actually gotten better than how it was reported in August. The total titles on their On Demand is about 230 and counting. Overall distribution obviously still sucks, but it's a far different channel (on demand wise) than it was when it was launched.

    ReplyDelete
  33. If true, then there's no way I'll be getting it. Same deal as America and they would've had my money, for a couple of months at least.


    Sky charges a set price for all their channels in a bundle - you can't pick individual channels to add. I don't see how WWE are going to make any additional money from this, but I can see them skewing subscriber numbers to mean everyone who has Sky Sports, because it will be included in the package - whether it's wanted or not.


    In any case, major major fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Sky Sports through Virgin is £27(ish), but that's only for 1 + 2. Extra channels only available through Sky itself.


    Btw, nice Doctor Who reference. Might change my name to Twin Dilemma.

    ReplyDelete
  35. All WWE PPVs are now on Box Office. The four "free" ones we used to get disappeared with the latest contract.

    ReplyDelete
  36. AverageJoeEverymanNovember 6, 2014 at 1:24 PM

    also how does all this guaranteed money affect the need for whatever number of subscribers

    ReplyDelete
  37. AverageJoeEverymanNovember 6, 2014 at 1:26 PM

    Shane would jump off of high places and be suplexed through glass to make that bastard work!

    ReplyDelete
  38. If it's moaning and whinging you want, Raw couldn't be in any better place than Liverpool.

    You can probably expect a minutes silence as well.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Oh yeah. If you want to piss off a group of people with an inflated sense of self importance and excessive reaction to being wronged (and championing breaking the law in a 'cheeky' way) then you want Scousers for that job...

    ReplyDelete
  40. No ppv's and having to have a Sky Subscription? There is literally no point in WWE having a UK network.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Let's put it this way. The Wrestling Channel was free and it still went under.

    ReplyDelete
  42. So, how does the network currently work in Canada? I get that it's a channel, but do you just have the live stream? Do you get any of the other content?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Its really fucked up the WWE didn't know about this sooner, or at least let their UK fans think they were gonna get it right up to launch.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sucks raw won't be live from there then. Vince will edit out any of that shit and insert canned cheering for the network.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's why I dumped all Sky and just watch Netflix and DVD s. I don't see the point in spending money on things that are 90% stuff I don't care about with ad breaks.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Never mind apparently it's not true/definite http://www.thewrestlingmania.com/articles/columns/wwe-network-sky-rumour-debunked/

    ReplyDelete
  47. See maffew twitter page...someone contacted sky and got some answers

    ReplyDelete
  48. MaffewOfBotchamaniaNovember 6, 2014 at 2:25 PM

    Yeah, that's...bollocks.

    There's no way in hell a worker ant at Sky knows more than what's been publicly announced.

    Me and some other like-minded individuals contacted Sky ourselves and they're saying the same ''we don't know anything yet'' messages.

    Shame on wrestling news sites. I mean really.

    ReplyDelete
  49. USA! USA! USA!

    ReplyDelete
  50. I don't think they expected you to LIKE it. I don't think THEY like it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. From what I've read here, it's a channel with the live stream and there's an on demand tv service with a few things but nothing like what we get in the states.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Haha, Sky is more useless than Jamison licking shit off a Bushwacker!! Long live Unblocker!!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Just like dirtyearsbill said, but i'm only going by what other people have reported since the Network is still only available through a single cable provider (Rogers) which isn't available in about oh 80% of the country or so.

    ReplyDelete