(04-12-2018 11:37 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  ESPN+ shows support for iOS, Android, Apple TV Gen 4, Chromecast and Amazon Fire but not Roku.

saw that. weak sauce. not being on the #1 streaming platform is silly

(04-12-2018 12:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 11:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:31 AM)sctvman Wrote:  What will be interesting is if ESPN places softball and baseball regional coverage on ESPN+. There will be a lot of outcry from people if that happens. They have the Bases Loaded coverage for both on digital cable and DirecTV, but people want more.

I don't think people would complain if the college baseball and softball tournaments get additional coverage on ESPN+ above the games that are already shown on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. In fact, it would be a good use of ESPN+ to provide coverage for all of the regional games not shown on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. OTOH if the coverage on the "cable" ESPN channels is drastically cut back and those games moved to ESPN+, then some people would grumble.

More than grumble. I bet a LOT of ESPN subscribers are like me, very keen to see what content is shifted from what we currently get with our purchase of the ESPN cable channels to "+", as that would represent a reduction of content without a commensurate cut in price.

I have some issue with ESPN signing up or creating new content and putting it on "+", but not much of one because I was never getting that to begin with. But shifting stuff that was already included in my cable bill to "+" is another matter entirely.

Some conferences don't need to give ESPN permission to move content from 3 to +

http://augustafreepress.com/vmi-wcu-base...d-to-espn/

(04-12-2018 12:12 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 11:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:31 AM)sctvman Wrote:  What will be interesting is if ESPN places softball and baseball regional coverage on ESPN+. There will be a lot of outcry from people if that happens. They have the Bases Loaded coverage for both on digital cable and DirecTV, but people want more.

I don't think people would complain if the college baseball and softball tournaments get additional coverage on ESPN+ above the games that are already shown on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. In fact, it would be a good use of ESPN+ to provide coverage for all of the regional games not shown on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. OTOH if the coverage on the "cable" ESPN channels is drastically cut back and those games moved to ESPN+, then some people would grumble.

More than grumble. I bet a LOT of ESPN subscribers are like me, very keen to see what content is shifted from what we currently get with our purchase of the ESPN cable channels to "+", as that would represent a reduction of content without a commensurate cut in price.

I have some issue with ESPN signing up or creating new content and putting it on "+", but not much of one because I was never getting that to begin with. But shifting stuff that was already included in my cable bill to "+" is another matter entirely.

Some conferences don't need to give ESPN permission to move content from 3 to +

http://augustafreepress.com/vmi-wcu-base...d-to-espn/

Damn, it's already happening.

IMO, that doesn't really suck for those who were getting ESPN3 because their cable or ISP company paid fees to ESPN for it, but they were not actually subscribing to any ESPN linear channels. For them, it's more like losing access that was much more 'bonus' to begin with.

But for those who are paying for the linear channels, this is a slap.

Other ESPN+ news,
The MLB game of the day they are offering is DIFFERENT than the MLB.TV free game of the day.

4/12 - MLB.TV: Tigers v. Indians; ESPN+: Giants v. Padres

4/13 - MLB.TV: Rangers v Astros; ESPN+ Oakland v Mariners

(04-12-2018 12:46 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:12 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 12:10 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 11:30 AM)Wedge Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 09:31 AM)sctvman Wrote:  What will be interesting is if ESPN places softball and baseball regional coverage on ESPN+. There will be a lot of outcry from people if that happens. They have the Bases Loaded coverage for both on digital cable and DirecTV, but people want more.

I don't think people would complain if the college baseball and softball tournaments get additional coverage on ESPN+ above the games that are already shown on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. In fact, it would be a good use of ESPN+ to provide coverage for all of the regional games not shown on ESPN/ESPN2/ESPNU. OTOH if the coverage on the "cable" ESPN channels is drastically cut back and those games moved to ESPN+, then some people would grumble.

More than grumble. I bet a LOT of ESPN subscribers are like me, very keen to see what content is shifted from what we currently get with our purchase of the ESPN cable channels to "+", as that would represent a reduction of content without a commensurate cut in price.

I have some issue with ESPN signing up or creating new content and putting it on "+", but not much of one because I was never getting that to begin with. But shifting stuff that was already included in my cable bill to "+" is another matter entirely.

Some conferences don't need to give ESPN permission to move content from 3 to +

http://augustafreepress.com/vmi-wcu-base...d-to-espn/

Damn, it's already happening.

IMO, that doesn't really suck for those who were getting ESPN3 because their cable or ISP company paid fees to ESPN for it, but they were not actually subscribing to any ESPN linear channels. For them, it's more like losing access that was much more 'bonus' to begin with.

But for those who are paying for the linear channels, this is a slap.

Yep

My guess will be ESPN will only be putting things on ESPN3 they have to by contract. Whether that be with the conferences, I.E. 10 games must appear on ESPN3 or the cable/internet companies, I.E. ESPN3 must contain X Hours of content per month in order for the fee to be paid.

Like I had said a bit back, ESPN contracts tend to say digital rights rather than specifying the platform.

(04-12-2018 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Like I had said a bit back, ESPN contracts tend to say digital rights rather than specifying the platform.

Yup. To be fair, at the time these deals were done, nobody likely considered "digital" could mean anything other than ESPN3. It was really pretty much their only digital platform for games.

(04-12-2018 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Like I had said a bit back, ESPN contracts tend to say digital rights rather than specifying the platform.

Yup. To be fair, at the time these deals were done, nobody likely considered "digital" could mean anything other than ESPN3. It was really pretty much their only digital platform for games.

It's a nice loop-hole for ESPN.

(04-12-2018 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Like I had said a bit back, ESPN contracts tend to say digital rights rather than specifying the platform.

Yup. To be fair, at the time these deals were done, nobody likely considered "digital" could mean anything other than ESPN3. It was really pretty much their only digital platform for games.

It's a nice loop-hole for ESPN.

People had to know the free ESPN3 ride would eventually come to an end.

Apparently, ESPN3 and ESPN+ are both going to be available on the same app and through the ESPN website, meaning that certain programs are just blocked for those who are not + subscribers; or if you subscribe to ESPN+, nothing is blocked.

This is bs by ESPN....purely dishonest. What a joke this espn plus is.

(04-12-2018 03:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Like I had said a bit back, ESPN contracts tend to say digital rights rather than specifying the platform.

Yup. To be fair, at the time these deals were done, nobody likely considered "digital" could mean anything other than ESPN3. It was really pretty much their only digital platform for games.

It's a nice loop-hole for ESPN.

People had to know the free ESPN3 ride would eventually come to an end.

It was never actually "free". You could only get ESPN3 if your Internet or TV provider paid fees to ESPN, so when you paid your bill, you were paying a fee to ESPN for ESPN3.

ESPN has now just effectively hiked the price you have to pay.

(04-12-2018 04:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 03:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 01:19 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  Like I had said a bit back, ESPN contracts tend to say digital rights rather than specifying the platform.

Yup. To be fair, at the time these deals were done, nobody likely considered "digital" could mean anything other than ESPN3. It was really pretty much their only digital platform for games.

It's a nice loop-hole for ESPN.

People had to know the free ESPN3 ride would eventually come to an end.

It was never actually "free". You could only get ESPN3 if your Internet or TV provider paid fees to ESPN, so when you paid your bill, you were paying a fee to ESPN for ESPN3.

ESPN has now just effectively hiked the price you have to pay.

While devaluing the ESPN-3 platform that the current internet/TV providers are already contracted to pay "access fees" for ....this move is really a little sketchy from that angle.

(04-12-2018 04:40 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 04:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 03:43 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 03:25 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-12-2018 02:57 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Yup. To be fair, at the time these deals were done, nobody likely considered "digital" could mean anything other than ESPN3. It was really pretty much their only digital platform for games.

It's a nice loop-hole for ESPN.

People had to know the free ESPN3 ride would eventually come to an end.

It was never actually "free". You could only get ESPN3 if your Internet or TV provider paid fees to ESPN, so when you paid your bill, you were paying a fee to ESPN for ESPN3.

ESPN has now just effectively hiked the price you have to pay.

While devaluing the ESPN-3 platform that the current internet/TV providers are already contracted to pay "access fees" for ....this move is really a little sketchy from that angle.

Yeah, ESPN may be forced to refund that $1 per YEAR (approx.) they were getting for ESPN3 (IIRC).

I signed up today and don’t see why you all are complaining. Nobody is forcing you to get it and I think it’s great. Sure, free is better, but it’s $5 a month. If you’re a sports fan and can’t afford the usual cable or OTT options, this will do.

(04-14-2018 03:11 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I signed up today and don’t see why you all are complaining. Nobody is forcing you to get it and I think it’s great. Sure, free is better, but it’s $5 a month. If you’re a sports fan and can’t afford the usual cable or OTT options, this will do.

I wrote a letter to espn and asked them to stop referring to 5 of the 10 FBS football conferences as “non-power” conferences. No one is forcing them to use the identity politics labels in their sportscasting but they doubled down and go out of their way to do it even more. No, not a penny to a “sportscaster” actively trying to destroy college athletic teams with their destructive labeling.

(04-14-2018 03:11 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I signed up today and don’t see why you all are complaining. Nobody is forcing you to get it and I think it’s great. Sure, free is better, but it’s $5 a month. If you’re a sports fan and can’t afford the usual cable or OTT options, this will do.

The complaints are from those of us who previously were getting content that is now on PLUS via our subscriptions to the ESPN linear channels. ESPN is shifting content that was on linear or WATCH or 3 to PLUS, such that we now have to pay an extra $5 to get that stuff.

So while yes, I can choose not to get PLUS, and as of now I'm not getting it, that means I'm now getting less stuff than i used to.

And that's ground for a complaint.

(04-14-2018 03:56 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-14-2018 03:11 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I signed up today and don’t see why you all are complaining. Nobody is forcing you to get it and I think it’s great. Sure, free is better, but it’s $5 a month. If you’re a sports fan and can’t afford the usual cable or OTT options, this will do.

I wrote a letter to espn and asked them to stop referring to 5 of the 10 FBS football conferences as “non-power” conferences. No one is forcing them to use the identity politics labels in their sportscasting but they doubled down and go out of their way to do it even more. No, not a penny to a “sportscaster” actively trying to destroy college athletic teams with their destructive labeling.

Agreed. They should use the official NCAA terminology, which is "Non-Autonomy" conferences.

(04-14-2018 05:47 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(04-14-2018 03:56 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(04-14-2018 03:11 PM)DoubleRSU Wrote:  I signed up today and don’t see why you all are complaining. Nobody is forcing you to get it and I think it’s great. Sure, free is better, but it’s $5 a month. If you’re a sports fan and can’t afford the usual cable or OTT options, this will do.

I wrote a letter to espn and asked them to stop referring to 5 of the 10 FBS football conferences as “non-power” conferences. No one is forcing them to use the identity politics labels in their sportscasting but they doubled down and go out of their way to do it even more. No, not a penny to a “sportscaster” actively trying to destroy college athletic teams with their destructive labeling.

Agreed. They should use the official NCAA terminology, which is "Non-Autonomy" conferences.

No. Wrong. That’s not what the NCAA says. It says FBS, FCS etc. our schools are part of the 10 official FBS conferences. So No, Quo.

Got the free trial so I could watch the Bobby Knight 30 for 30. If they can 1 or 2 30 for 30s every month and couple that with their ESPN3 level content and maybe a surprise ESPN original show I think they will find this new venture to be worthwhile. They cannot rely solely on a ESPN3 to + migration though