Hellsing321
Member
If thats the case, then they can take my instant streaming disc from my cold dead hands.Tobor said:
Hulu Plus announced, coming to iPhone/PS3 2010, Xbox 360 2011, $9.99/mo
- Thread starter devildog820
- Start date
- Status
badcrumble said:
That's just the way it works. If Hulu and Netflix want to be on consoles they have to play by Sony & Microsoft's rules. It's better for them to sell their service to a percentage of 360/PS3 owners rather than ignoring that market altogether.
Not saying I agree with it, but it makes sense IMO. They don't make shit on selling the consoles, but if they can lock people into paying subscription service thats hundreds of millions of dollars.
badcrumble
Member
So much for either of them setting out to make a truly great all-in-one media machine.Sean said:
D
Deleted member 8095
Unconfirmed Member
Cruzader said:
I literally rolled my eyes.
Anyway, just tried out the preview on the iPhone 4. Streaming on wifi has really good quality. Very tempting!
Beer Monkey
Member
Cruzader said:
Sony blew an opportunity to push a competitive advantage. I don't see how that is Microsoft's fault.
Agent X
Member
badcrumble said:
I agree with you.
For what it's worth, Netflix on the PS3 and Wii does not require any additional "paid gateway" services.
From Hulu's perspective, it would be wise for them to negotiate a similar deal for their service, meaning that (using PS3 as an example) Hulu would work on basic PSN and not require PlayStation Plus, just like Netflix currently does. If Hulu requires PS+ and Netflix doesn't, then that's a competitive edge that tilts in favor of Netflix.
From the game console manufacturer's perspective, they should want to add value to their devices so that they potentially appeal to a wider base of users, just as you pointed out.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
shagg_187 said:
Sorry guys. My post was picked up by Sony Ninjas and they are now making it come true. Should've wished for something else...
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
I'll be the first to admit, I was very skeptical about this one when it was announced. My first concern was that it would lead to Hulu cutting content and basically keeping all the good stuff for Plus users. Looking at what is being offered right now, it doesn't seem that way. By the looks of it, Plus users are just getting access to content that isn't restricted with all that "Available Until..." crap and stuff that wasn't available before (ex. All 7 Seasons of Buffy).
So now I'm actually considering getting a subscription...in the near future. My university network is amazingly speedy during the summer but during this past school year Hulu was basically unwatchable. Not going to get drawn into subscribing just to have it be useless in August. Looks good so far though.
So now I'm actually considering getting a subscription...in the near future. My university network is amazingly speedy during the summer but during this past school year Hulu was basically unwatchable. Not going to get drawn into subscribing just to have it be useless in August. Looks good so far though.
Minsc
Gold Member
Belfast said:
Pretty much. Just for some perspective, I pay around $80/month for cable (when I'm not in a promotional period), and that's like 50% ads, and I pay even more for the ability to access my content on my own schedule (DVR).
$10/month seems like a bargain, and makes normal cable look like the biggest rip off ever!
Interfectum
Member
Cruzader said:
:lol what a tool.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
To be fair, reality makes cable TV look like the biggest rip off ever.Minsc said:
Hulu Plus with ads isn't that bad of a deal, but the delays in getting some things up and the shitty selection drops it down a few notches. If all you ever watch is NBC, ABC, and Fox, you're golden.
somuchwater said:
That is going to be such a small subset of the userbase I'm really surprised Hulu agreed to it because I really can't see that being worth it to them. Yet to have a wait of six months on Live is just silly in comparison. I'm not really sure if Sony managed to do this deal with a time wait on Live or if MS really is taking their sweet time to get it right. That latter seems more like PR talk, but Hulu is not doing itself a service like this to say the very least.
Interfectum
Member
Jtyettis said:
I think Sony did this as an added incentive to get PSN+
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Incisive analysis.Interfectum said:
WanderingWind
Mecklemore Is My Favorite Wrapper
The only way I will ever consider paying for this is if they broadcast NFL games live through the service.
If not, then fuck paying for basic channels.
If not, then fuck paying for basic channels.
magnificent83
Member
Not happening, the online rights are a clusterfuck with the blackout and local market rules in effect.WanderingWind said:
Joel Was Right
Member
Hulu is free on the PC right? And they want people to pay for it on their console right next to their PC? I don't understand
quickwhips
Member
It won't matter soon everyone on PSN will pay for the service. I mean if it adds enough value. They made XBL have value and its only like 60 bucks a year if you don't find it cheaper with a card. How much is PSN service suppose to cost?
Cheesemeister
Member
This is what the "battle for the living room" hullabaloo was all about. Hulu may be relatively anemic in terms of content right now, but that'll change. It and other providers will invariably be stepping up to deliver content through MS and Sony's ubiquitous set top boxes. Some have even mentioned dropping cable in favor of streaming; that's precisely their game plan.
And the platform holders are supposed to allow free access to those content stream providers, after working so long to gain market entry so they can... sell more set top boxes?
When you control the living room, you're the middleman for all content subscription and purchase transactions.
And the platform holders are supposed to allow free access to those content stream providers, after working so long to gain market entry so they can... sell more set top boxes?
When you control the living room, you're the middleman for all content subscription and purchase transactions.
badcrumble
Member
It's silly because Google TV won't require an additional subscription fee to get access to Hulu and Netflix, and whenever Apple turns its attention back toward the AppleTV, neither will that. In their quest for short-term profits, Sony and Microsoft are both going to lose the 'battle for the living room' if they don't focus first and foremost on the goal of making a high quality entertainment center product.Draft said:
They don't control it yet and this is likely to bite them in the ass if they honestly want to use Netflix and Hulu as a selling point going forward.Cheesemeister said:
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Can you write this in English instead of Business?Cheesemeister said:
Did you mean to say "if everyone likes the Xbox, the Xbox gets used for everything"?
morningbus
Serious Sam is a wicked gahbidge series for chowdaheads.
Meus Renaissance said:
There are two aspects to Hulu Plus and you pay for both regardless of your need:
1) Access to T.V. shows' backlogs.
2) Access from various devices.
PC-only users will have to pay if they want part 1. They will have free access to a set number of episodes in a series otherwise.
If you want to access Hulu from your non-PC device, it appears you have to opt-in to the episode backlog service.
charlequin
Banned
WanderingWind said:
This is my holy grail for streaming, but pretty much all indications are that any meaningful progress on this is a hell of a long way off. :/
Cheesemeister
Member
badcrumble said:
How many people honestly buy a video game console for the content streaming as the killer app? They're trojan horses, like nearly all consoles before them. Netflix and Hulu want access to those users so as to expand their subscriber bases.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie said:
In short: "It's not a free ride, so expect to pay for the car. And the gas. And at the toll booth."
charlequin said:
Maybe next E3?
badcrumble
Member
The subscription model that PSN+ and XBL Gold are following is pretty silly, though. I think they'd be smarter to use something like the App Store model - it's much more customer friendly and quite profitable too.
The fact is that if you can buy a different set-top box that DOESN'T require its own subscription fee simply to have access to the separate paid services of Hulu+ and Netflix, the model that Microsoft and Sony are following is poor competition, period. Perhaps it's a result of the loss-leader model that both consoles followed, but it's still consumer-unfriendly practice.
It's less like the gas/toll metaphor and more like Personal Seat Licenses (paying a sports team a membership fee simply for the right to buy season tickets from them).
The fact is that if you can buy a different set-top box that DOESN'T require its own subscription fee simply to have access to the separate paid services of Hulu+ and Netflix, the model that Microsoft and Sony are following is poor competition, period. Perhaps it's a result of the loss-leader model that both consoles followed, but it's still consumer-unfriendly practice.
It's less like the gas/toll metaphor and more like Personal Seat Licenses (paying a sports team a membership fee simply for the right to buy season tickets from them).
Kano on the Phone
Member
Not until the contract with Direct TV is done, AFAIK. Once that's done, whoever gets NFL streaming wins.charlequin said:
Cheesemeister
Member
badcrumble said:
No matter how you slice it, the platform holders WILL monetize content distribution just like cable providers have charged outrageous prices for access to channels that are already ad-supported. The cable fees pay for the distribution system and the cable companies' profit. The ads pay for the content providers' productions and profits.
The competition is cable, and the console platform holders will price competitively based on what can be delivered. They're most certainly doing market research to determine the maximum amount that people are willing to pay. If it seems like too much to you, that's fine, but others are most certainly ready to pony up. Saving $50/mo. on cutting cable TV packages will be a big consideration.
badcrumble
Member
That's true - compared to the dominant model it is still better even if it's not my ideal. Still, I think that products like GoogleTV and AppleTV are likely to help keep pushing prices lower on these things, and my hope is that as a result Microsoft and Sony will be forced to stop putting services like Hulu and Netflix behind their own paid gateway.Cheesemeister said:
vicissitudes
Banned
somuchwater said:
Interest immediately plunges to zero.
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
Meus Renaissance said:
IIRC, there will be 2 levels of service. The paid version will be on all platforms.
The paid version will offer a longer archive, like complete series. Also exclusive content that is not on the free version. The free version will have like the last 3 episodes of shows.
I am not that disappointed in that in general, but at the same time when comparing it to Netflix, it doesn't seem like much of a value. If this Hulu Plus came out and there was no NetFlix, I would be a bit more positive about it. But the simple fact is that I don't look at hardly any network TV and that is Hulu's main draw.
blame space
Banned
:lolLiu Kang Baking A Pie said:
Cheesemeister said:
cable providers also get charged to carry channels that are ad supported. This isn't some new revelation in re: paying a monthly fee and having ads. The only thing free is broadcast TV, which you can get with an antenna, or you pay $5/month fee from a cable provider to not have to use an antenna
Cheesemeister
Member
gcubed said:
It's an over-simplification, to be sure. The point is, expecting the platform holders not to take a cut from content distribution is laughable.
Beer Monkey
Member
badcrumble said:
Settop box from Google etc. doesn't play Madden.
Bottom line is over 40% of homes have a game console. Even Wii is getting in on the act with the Netflix disc. It's going to be quite a while before 40% of homes have a Google TV or Samsung box etc.
Microsoft and Sony are leveraging the fact that they are either already in your home, or if at some point you are wanting something like Hulu on a settop box that you might also want to play Madden or Halo or Grand Turismo and that this synergy will sway you to their platform instead of a 'TV' box.
badcrumble
Member
Taking a cut is fine; they ought to just take a percentage of the Hulu+ or Netflix membership fees for folks using them on their 360 or PS3, even if it drives that fee up slightly.Cheesemeister said:
Cheesemeister said:
i'm just not sure why Sony didn't announce this at E3 in there laughable PSN+ section. It would have gotten more peoples attention then "PSN+, you can do stuff... next!"
Beer Monkey said:
after this year that "TV" box will be the actual TV itself, which is even more accessible and easier to use then a game console.
Cheesemeister
Member
gcubed said:
Complicated business models filled with package pricing options and revenue sharing pie charts aren't very entertaining. Note the glaring lack of any charts in Powerpoint slides.
charlequin
Banned
Kano On The Phone said:
Not done until 2015. :/
There's a claim that they're supposed to set up a streaming service by 2012 but I'm skeptical.
- Status