NFL Plus Launched

[Jer]

Finally announced! Man this new service sucks…

Local games only and can only watch on mobile device - no streaming device or tv app.

NFL Plus streaming has live games for $4.99 per month — but not on your TV

NFL Plus lets you stream on your phone or tablet only.

www.theverge.com

 

[Bigman38]

Weird, maybe a test season before they do something worthwhile with it?

 

[Jer]

Weird, maybe a test season before they do something worthwhile with it?

Only possible saving grace is Sunday Ticket with DTV expires after coming season so the 2023-24 season should have a better solution. Of course NFL is dumb enough they’ll probably just move it to Dish Network instead of streaming.

 

[Clonehomer]

Wasn't this free to watch last year on the Yahoo sports app?

 

[Acylum]

Finally announced! Man this new service sucks…

Local games only and can only watch on mobile device - no streaming device or tv app.

NFL Plus streaming has live games for $4.99 per month — but not on your TV

NFL Plus lets you stream on your phone or tablet only.

www.theverge.com

Wow. They talked about this on Murph and Andy but never mentioned it was only for mobile. Couple questions; Will we be able to cast to TV from the app and does this mean I’d be able to watch the Vikings when they’re not on the local networks?

 

[JM4CY]

I’m confused as to what this actually is and what benefit I would be getting.

 

[drmwevr08]

But I can already not watch the local games. For free!

 

[BuschLight]

I’m confused as to what this actually is and what benefit I would be getting.

Sounds like you'll basically get what is on TV locally then the afternoon/evening primetime games. And only on phone or tablet. I don't really see the benefit if you have a TV or a computer that can stream things for free.

 

[KidSilverhair]

The article subhed says it all - “All of the games you’d be able to watch on your TV already but not on your TV.”

Sports leagues really don’t seem to get it - people would throw money at MLB or the NFL if they just gave viewers a way to watch all the games of the teams they want to watch. But, noooo … we can’t figure out a way to do that, for some reason. (Well, I mean, NFL does have Sunday Ticket but it’s only for a specific satellite service, not a streaming app.)

 

[cyfanatic13]

Pretty sure this is what you were already able to do on the yahoo app last year

 

[alarson]

The article subhed says it all - “All of the games you’d be able to watch on your TV already but not on your TV.”

Sports leagues really don’t seem to get it - people would throw money at MLB or the NFL if they just gave viewers a way to watch all the games of the teams they want to watch. But, noooo … we can’t figure out a way to do that, for some reason. (Well, I mean, NFL does have Sunday Ticket but it’s only for a specific satellite service, not a streaming app.)

They absolutely 'get it'.

They also 'get' that they are being paid billions by other partners to not make it that way.

 

[Clonehomer]

Pretty sure this is what you were already able to do on the yahoo app last year

But you'll get to pay for it this year! Yet somehow, the NFL thinks this is what the people want.

 

[KidSilverhair]

They absolutely 'get it'.

They also 'get' that they are being paid billions by other partners to not make it that way.

Wellllll … I dunno. Are they really making more from their media partners than they would from opening up more games to streaming? I’m honestly asking - although my gut feeling is giving fans access to the games they want to watch would be far more profitable in the end.

I mean, look at me, a long-suffering Vikings fan in eastern Iowa. The broadcast preference in Cedar Rapids usually goes Bears-Packers-Vikings, in that order. I probably get around 10 or 11 Vikings games over the air or on a national broadcast each season. How much more could the NFL make having fans like me pay to be able to see their teams in those other 6 or 7 games every year?

Baseball is even worse. Blackouts started because team owners were paranoid about broadcasts keeping people away from the ballparks (radio, at first - owners fought like hell against having their home games, at least, even on the radio). Nowadays, it’s less the fear of losing ticket sales than it is affecting the income streams of each team’s TV partner. It’s not an overall MLB media contract, but each team’s setup with a Regional Sports Network that’s the problem. MLB agrees to uphold blackout restrictions to protect the RSNs, not teams’ attendance numbers. And then, of course, the RSNs are only available with certain providers, if at all (the Brewers remain blacked out in the entire state of Iowa even though their RSN isn’t available in the state - how does that make sense?).

I’m no expert and have no access to the numbers, but I can’t imagine a scenario where allowing streaming of all games to everyone (at a price, of course) wouldn’t be wildly profitable for MLB or the NFL.

 

[brett108]

Finally announced! Man this new service sucks…

Local games only and can only watch on mobile device - no streaming device or tv app.

NFL Plus streaming has live games for $4.99 per month — but not on your TV

NFL Plus lets you stream on your phone or tablet only.

www.theverge.com

The NFL has a monopoly on the product so they can still get away with these half cocked cash grabs.

 

[Clonedogg]

Wellllll … I dunno. Are they really making more from their media partners than they would from opening up more games to streaming? I’m honestly asking - although my gut feeling is giving fans access to the games they want to watch would be far more profitable in the end.

I mean, look at me, a long-suffering Vikings fan in eastern Iowa. The broadcast preference in Cedar Rapids usually goes Bears-Packers-Vikings, in that order. I probably get around 10 or 11 Vikings games over the air or on a national broadcast each season. How much more could the NFL make having fans like me pay to be able to see their teams in those other 6 or 7 games every year?

Baseball is even worse. Blackouts started because team owners were paranoid about broadcasts keeping people away from the ballparks (radio, at first - owners fought like hell against having their home games, at least, even on the radio). Nowadays, it’s less the fear of losing ticket sales than it is affecting the income streams of each team’s TV partner. It’s not an overall MLB media contract, but each team’s setup with a Regional Sports Network that’s the problem. MLB agrees to uphold blackout restrictions to protect the RSNs, not teams’ attendance numbers. And then, of course, the RSNs are only available with certain providers, if at all (the Brewers remain blacked out in the entire state of Iowa even though their RSN isn’t available in the state - how does that make sense?).

I’m no expert and have no access to the numbers, but I can’t imagine a scenario where allowing streaming of all games to everyone (at a price, of course) wouldn’t be wildly profitable for MLB or the NFL.

When I lived in CR I had a decent (but cheap) External OTA antenna. I could usually pull in the Ottumwa FOX station KYOU. They often broadcast Vikings games when the local KFXA in CR had some other game on.

I left that antenna when I sold the house, I moved slightly further from Ottumwa, I need to get a new antenna mounted on this house and test it out.

 

[KidSilverhair]

When I lived in CR I had a decent (but cheap) External OTA antenna. I could usually pull in the Ottumwa FOX station KYOU. They often broadcast Vikings games when the local KFXA in CR had some other game on.

I left that antenna when I sold the house, I moved slightly further from Ottumwa, I need to get a new antenna mounted on this house and test it out.

I used to work at KYOU (then KOIA) when it started up back in 1988! We could also pull it in over the air at the control tower in CR, thanks to our elevation advantage.

 

[1961Cylones]

Isn't all this a violation of anti-trust laws that are designed to keep giant sports leagues and/or corporations from price fixing and eliminating customer options?

 

[mynameisjonas]

I just pay 50 bucks for RZC, that’s all I need.

 

[clone52]

So, question. If my local affiliate airs the Packers game, does that mean I can only watch the Packers game on NFL+, or would I be able to watch the Vikings game since they are local too?

I'm guessing it might mean its only the Packers game.

Even so, I might pay $5/month for the radio broadcast.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that it is tablet or mobile only. CBS, FOX and NFL Sunday Ticket all payed good money to get these things on TV. I'm sure its a breach of contract if the NFL just decides to make them all available for $5/month.

 

[KnappShack]

So, question. If my local affiliate airs the Packers game, does that mean I can only watch the Packers game on NFL+, or would I be able to watch the Vikings game since they are local too?

I'm guessing it might mean its only the Packers game.

Even so, I might pay $5/month for the radio broadcast.

I'm not sure why anyone is surprised that it is tablet or mobile only. CBS, FOX and NFL Sunday Ticket all payed good money to get these things on TV. I'm sure its a breach of contract if the NFL just decides to make them all available for $5/month.

My guess is if the Vikings aren't on your local Fox/CBS/other stations then it would be "out of market"

Just a guess. They have to drive eyes to Sunday Ticket