Hulu Plus announced, coming to iPhone/PS3 2010, Xbox 360 2011, $9.99/mo
- Thread starter devildog820
- Start date
- Status
jagowar said:
Well that is interesting. The app was said to already be up an running with Live per a 1up story. I don't know maybe more streamlined or something, but perhaps Kinect functionality. At $10/month for someone without cable I mean it's likely a good deal and maybe even for those who want to get rid of their service. I may try this just to test it out although I doubt I can give up Directv altogether which would be the only way I pay. I don't even watch that much TV and the first thing I looked for was the History channel, but they don't have everything up there I want. It certainly wouldn't happen with the loss of the Cooking Channel any day any time for the wife however. Ad free and maybe a tad cheaper would have been better.
Guardian Bob
Member
Bad_Boy said:
Isn't hulu just a collaboration between nbc and other studios?
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
cable is different from hulu -- the same company isnt running ads and collecting your money 100% of the time. in the case of hulu, they are running ads AND collecting your money.
Hulu is the ONLY company involved with their distribution system, no one else is being "carried" on a signal or anything of that sort.
Hulu is the ONLY company involved with their distribution system, no one else is being "carried" on a signal or anything of that sort.
jagowar said:
which is a monstrous waste of time if they are holding on on kinect features for it, because its been shown many times that no one wants motion control of TV. Its a silly thing to wait 8+ months for
davepoobond said:
ummm... well, i guess you can say they arent running ALL of the ads and collecting your money, but they are running ads and collecting your money
jagowar said:
Sounds like Hulu is driving this bus, not any of the partners. They are probably scrambling to play catch up to Netflix at this point.
That said.. ESPN3, Netflix and Hulu are *almost* enough for me to ditch cable completely. If ESPN3 could somehow contract for live games shown by other networks (Fox, Speed, CBS, Vs, etc) I would ditch cable super fast.
badcrumble
Member
I agree (though, as I said, I still want PBS), but good luck with that considering that sports and especially ESPN are what made cable catch on in the US in the first place. It's cable's killer app and they'll fight to the death to keep it (and they've got the power to fight it really hard until net neutrality legislation is passed).StoOgE said:
badcrumble said:
I don't disagree... but I think the ball has begun rolling downhill and it will eventually destroy cable TV as we know it. The funny thing is, I think it's going to take most of the cable networks down with it. Why syndicate your show on PBS when you can sell a package via Hulu or something directly to the customer for more money?
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Hulu is so fucking overrated. It has a shitty selection. I had such high hopes for it when I signed up for the beta.
badcrumble
Member
People aren't likely to syndicate their shows on PBS because PBS isn't ad-driven (it's public broadcasting, like NPR) and is poor as shit. But yeah, I think that a la carte services are going to chip away at cable pretty significantly; that's why net neutrality legislation is so important to pass, because the pipe owners want to charge people for the right to get their content to users instead of just charging them for bandwidth.StoOgE said:
I'll probably still pick it up for the iPad/360/mobile phone connectivity, but man I guess I hyped myself up too high on this one. Hulu with HBO, Starz, Showtime added...I would have paid 20 a month lol. I might have even gone as high as $30 with back catalogs to those network's shows!
Draft said:
When you figure out how to get bandwidth charges and infrastructures down to almost $0, let us know. Until then, charging a nominal fee + ad supported services is a reasonable path to take. People talk about cable/sat charges + ads, you also do this on XM Satellite Radio, movie theaters, etc. Just because there is a subscription fee does not automatically negate the need for additional revenue unless the subscription fees can carry the service. Maybe if they charged $100 per month with no commercials?
Back OT, good to see Hulu getting in on the console side.
shagg_187 said:
Why F them? Because they don't own the distribution rights of the content you want to see? Because, perhaps there are licensees of said content for other countries? Hmm....
PeakPointMatrix
Member
I remember when I could access Hulu on my PS3 browser. Those were good times.
BattleMonkey
Member
Tobor said:
The fuck, Netflix was huge before it went with watch it now features.
Interfectum
Member
Jtrizzy said:
Why would they make it a part of PSN+? You think Sony is going to pay them using their PSN+ royalties? Are you kidding?
It will most certainly require PSN+ but you'll have to pay Hulu the $10 a month still.
styl3s
Member
This service is beyond a rip off, paying 10$ for a service that is free on PC and you have to watch ads? lets say even the PC version goes pay it's still a rip off, when you pay for a service like this one would assume you would get rid of ads, that is the whole point of paying for a "premium" service
No thanks, ill stick to watching it on my pc for free and again even if PC goes to premium with ads ill just watch the other free legal streaming sites like
IMDB
TV.com
NBC, ABC, FOX, FX etc.
Fancast
etc
Anyone who pays for this rip off of a service is a sucker plain and simple, hell you can get netflix w/ 1 blu-ray out at a time for the same price with a larger and better library, most in HD and you get a dvd/blu-ray out at a time, hulu plus should be renamed to hulu piece of **** service.
No thanks, ill stick to watching it on my pc for free and again even if PC goes to premium with ads ill just watch the other free legal streaming sites like
IMDB
TV.com
NBC, ABC, FOX, FX etc.
Fancast
etc
Anyone who pays for this rip off of a service is a sucker plain and simple, hell you can get netflix w/ 1 blu-ray out at a time for the same price with a larger and better library, most in HD and you get a dvd/blu-ray out at a time, hulu plus should be renamed to hulu piece of **** service.
ICallItFutile said:
Hulu is great as a backup DVR service, which is what I use it for. Just missed an episode? Hulu has your back.
That said, this premium service better bring full seasons of ABC/NBC/Fox back catalogs. At least for shows currently on the air, but for 10 dollars a month I would hope for past shows as well.
Also, I'm hopeful that this premium tier will bring CBS and its cable networks on board.
Fox Mulder
Member
StoOgE said:
seeing as how many cable networks only exist because of subsidized costs through bullshit bundles, they're not going to go without a fight.
Plus all this movement to streaming over the internet will have the attention of ISP's, which are often the same as your cable company. It's funny seeing people say they're almost ready to ditch their cable bill, like the ISP's won't adapt to make more money from this.
styl3s
Member
I wouldn't mind paying for hulu if it didn't have ads, and don't compare cable/satt to hulu, for one you can get a 12 month plan from dish/direct tv for under 50 with hundreds of channels plus 50+ HD channels, better then hulu, or comcast and that has on demand which is essentially hulu without ads..cRIPticon said:
paying for hulu w/ ads is stupid, the whole point of hulu being free was because of the ads, that is how they make money but now they rip off its loyal users by charging and getting ad pay? no thanks ill use one of the other 30+ free legal sites or just download the shows i like for free
thechristoph
Sir!
I need to call Comcast and ask them if it's possible to continue internet service and cancel cable TV... this is really tempting.
Monty Mole
Member
They were jerky times.SwiftSketcher said:
Buckethead
Banned
Ad-Supported AND $9.99/month?
Fuck that. Greedy muggs.
Fuck that. Greedy muggs.
Jim said:
I would hope not (not that I can avail of this, alas...).
Sony isn't nearly as picky about distributing things 'free' for example compared to MS. It's the reason things like iPlayer are on PS3 but still not on Xbox. I don't think Plus will change Sony's attitude on that, particularly wrt third party things. I'd be quite surprised.
Assuming Sony did want to do that, however, restricting it to Plus would do nothing but restrict Hulu's revenue (and or Sony's if they're getting any cut). I can't imagine Hulu would agree to that with Plus being so early, in particular. By July, there ain't gonna be an enormous number of Plus members, relatively.
styl3s said:
I will compare them, absolutely, to cable TV. Does not matter the amount of content, you are still paying for a service with ads in either case.
As for the point of Hulu being free because of the ads, that was not the point of Hulu being launched at all. It was a mechanism for the studious to control the distribution of their content on the web instead of it going viral. Now you have them expanding the reach of the platform and it will be a paid service.
I understand the feeling you have of being ripped off, as a loyal user and it was "free" to you, even though you were giving your time up in exchange for ads, but I can't fault them for wanting to further monetize the pipeline.
Manos: The Hans of Fate
Banned
shidoshi said:
Deep Voice
This broadcast is sponsored by you...but you dumbasses still have to pay.:lol
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
:lol
Yeah, good luck with that.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
StoOgE said:
From what I've seen Hulu has a fairly poor back catalog. I want Hulu to have a huge selection of shows with an ad structure similar to what the major networks use for their online players and a fee cheaper then basic cable. I don't want to go out of my way to record shows to watch them later. Things like HBO on demand or Netflix on the consoles don't cut it for me. I want to be able to watch a show any time I want, whether recent or not.
- Status