Skip to main content

New technology question


> Hi Scott,
>
> I recently cut the cable cord (saving myself $190 in the process) and I was thinking:
>
> UFC has a channel on Roku boxes that can be downloaded. For a yearly fee of $59.99, you can stream live HD PPV's at a cost of $44.95. That's $20 less than my cable company offered. It also gives me access to a rich library of fights and events that I may not normally watch.
>
> WWE put an app on my smart tv, that also allows me to stream PPV's at the same price, however, there's nothing else. I downloaded the app, thinking it may be similar to their mobile app, and it's not. It just offers the PPV poser, cost & countdown clock to the next event (that I'm not buying)
>
> Why doesn't WWE give us access to 24/7 via their app a la UFC. In the very least design an app that would provide me content like their on-line subscribers see. I have a hulu plus account, so I can watch the condensed versions of Raw, Smackdown etc. if I wish. It just doesn't make sense that they want to devote a whole network to cable tv (one you would have to pay extra for) when people are starting to get out of the cable age.

A fine idea.  Someone should ask Joey Styles on Twitter.

Comments

  1. Wait, you have to pay 60 bucks a year just for the right to pay 45 bucks for a PPV?

    ReplyDelete
  2. No you pay $60 a year to get access to the library of other content, this gives you the ability to pay 45 for the PPV, 20 Less then you pay normally, buy more then 3 UFC PPV's your in money

    ReplyDelete
  3. Don't we ponder this question about once every two months with almost the same exact results and conclusions (people bring up TNA and UFC business models, Vince is an idiot, Roku is pretty cool, salivation over an expanded 24/7 or Classics on Demand, etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
  4. What kind of access do they give to their library? Can you bring up any show in the past, or do they put up a selection of a few fights or something like that?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I just wish Direct TV would put Classics on its on demand content.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cutting the cord is one of the smartest things I've ever done. Plus, as more of us do it, more content will become available via things like Roku, Hulu Plus, etc. It's ludicrous that I had an easier time (and a better viewing platform!) getting access to every NBA game while I was overseas. And it's moronic that there are times when it's literally impossible for me to legally access the college football game(s) I want. Cable needs to die.

    ReplyDelete
  7. We've been saying it for over a year, but the "WWE Network" really should just be a dedicated streaming outfit.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I didn't know that DirecTV had on-demand content. What, do you have to hook your box up to the internet or something?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah and then you can selelct what you want and it will download it to your DVR. Quality is so-so. Sadly, no wrestling classics.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So there's no benefit to this vs. plugging in computer to TV with HDMI?

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you're already "acquiring" the programs you like through other means, no.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When I lived in Massachusetts and Chicago, I didn't bother with cable. I ordered MLB.tv to watch baseball, had Hulu and Netflix for other TV shows and paid the $30 per year for access to WWE Classics on Demand online.



    WWE killed the online version of Classics, Hulu went to a pay service for its good stuff, and I moved back to New York, so I wouldn't get Yankees games on MLB.tv, so I went back to cable. Blackout restrictions are stupid and suck royally.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It reminds me of those K-Mart WWE chairs. "Spend $70 or more, and we'll let you buy this chair for $30!"

    ReplyDelete
  14. yeah but THIS time we'll solve it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I've had a Roku for the last three years, and still have the original model. I've been meaning to upgrade to the new Roku 3, because some of the newer content cannot be loaded onto the original. Anyway, in the early days I had emailed the Roku people about acquiring some WWE content, and they replied that they were actively seeking a way to get WWE to agree, but it never came to fruition. You know, there is a GoFight app for Roku, which gives you access to the ROH iPPVs, as well as other off-the-beaten path companies in both MMA, wrestling and kickboxing. I had it for a while, but decided I wasn't utilizing it enough, so I ditched it to make room for other channels.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whatever you do, don't direct this question towards Styles on Twitter. You'll be accusing of being a commie liberal who wants everything for free.

    ReplyDelete
  17. how is this related to "commie liberal[ism]?" It offers another platform for WWE programming, leading to, possibly, more revenue. Competition between platforms. Capitalism.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Satan, formerly WankerMay 2, 2013 at 1:25 AM

    Roku... reminds me of a Filipino tranny I banged.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Can you explain to me exactly what the advantage of a Roku is? Like you still have to pay for Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc... right? So where is the advantage to just using and HDMI cable from my computer instead? Also how does it compare to Apple TV? And how well do either work for live programming? Like if I wanted to watch a Football game (lol), or a State of the Union address or something would I have a way of doing that? Do the networks have apps for that sort of thing?


    Sorry for all the questions, but I never had cable prior to the Mrs. Parallax1978 regime and I would like to be able to create a presentation that allows me sell her on getting rid of it again and most of the information on the net seems to be corporately funded and therefore bias...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Roku has the TNA On-Demand channel which you can pay around $3-5/month for past PPV access, plus there are free videos of Impact previews, clips from Impacts, pretty much a segment by segment cliff-notes version of video clips. It works for me because I can catch up on Impact shows in a matter of a few minutes if I want to see what actually happened, the clips are usually clipped towards the end of the matches anyway.
    WWE would have a gold mine from this type of thing. Granted you have some WWE videos on Netflix but they could have thousands of shows from AWA, WCCW, WCW, ECW, and all the other libraries they own, all with access for a monthly fee. TNA's channel has the streaming option of current PPV's when they air, haven't tried it but thinking of it for this next one on Friday just to see what its like. WWE could do the same: Charge $8-10/month for video access to all old PPV's and TV shows, and have the option to stream the PPV via your Roku. The library is there, the PPV capability is there, its one more PPV outlet they can tap into via Roku's and other smart tv devices. There are plenty of opportunities with just this device alone, after seeing other Roku channels and how they operate. It should be a no-brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Live TV is hard to come by on Roku. Pretty much your sports packages such as MLB.TV, NHL, NBA (no NFL), American soccer, UFC PPV. Live network TV is not officially found on Roku. There is an app called USTVNow, but if you live within the US, it's not available and it only contains about 30 cable channels. I don't see it has a clearcut advantage over HDMI hookup. Personally, I've never seen Apple TV so I don't know how it compares there. But if you're into religion, well.....there are like 800 different churches that offer a live service.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Roku: Dragon Ball z character left on the cutting board.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment