Peacock. NBC's new streaming service.

[YellowKing]

I currently subscribe to 7 different streaming services, and even with recent price increases I'm still paying less than I was for cable. Far less. I'm not a sports guy though, so that's been the biggest cost savings.

[hepcat]

I’m usually able to find deals for the streaming services right around the holidays. For example, I got a year of AMC+ for less than 40 bucks last year.

[hepcat]

And I just finished season 2 of Killing It. I praised the first season when it debuted, but the second season is even better. Hopefully the critical acclaim it’s garnered will result in a third season.

If you like dark comedies with a twist of the absurd, or if you’re just a fan of the insanely funny as always Craig Robinson, then watch this gem of a show.

[Carpet_pissr]

I’m usually able to find deals for the streaming services right around the holidays. For example, I got a year of AMC+ for less than 40 bucks last year.

Exactly - it would take a LOT of streaming services, or paying full price for them (something I never do) to get even close to cable.

Currently paying (and these include taxes, so total billed):
Peacock $2/mo
Disney + and Hulu: $5.38/mo
HBO Max: $8.75/mo
Paramount+ I think I got a few months of that for free, or maybe .99/mo can't remember.

Then I add Apple+ every few months when they give 2-3 months away for free. Then Amazon Prime Video (which I get from paying for Prime of course, but I don't consider their video worth much (though they do have some great programming exclusives)

So let's say that's $20 a month if I'm being generous and consider that Amazon "charges" $3/month or so. I bet if I added some kind of ABC premium (their live tv is free as far as I can tell) and a Fox premium, I could simulate getting a "live TV" sub (which starts around $60 or $65 I think.

So that's around $25, $30 MAX, per month, vs. $110+.

The one big thing I am missing with the above is ESPN though.

[Blackhawk]

How do you consistently pay half price (or less) for every service, though?

[hepcat]

Around the holidays there are always tons of sales on many of the streaming services. Also, bundling (Disney + Hulu, for example) often results in some decent savings.

Some services don't offer these things though. You'll notice Netflix is missing from his list. But many do.

Also, you can always take the ad supported versions of these services to save more money. I've found that the ads on my paramount and peacock subs are fairly minimal.

All this does require some diligence, of course. But no more than clipping coupons to save money on groceries.

[Smoove_B]

Yeah, that's what I've been doing. There were cheap 60-90 day add-on subscriptions on Prime Day (that's how I picked up Paramount+) and at some point earlier in the year Peacock had a 1 year sub for a flat $40.

I don't see Apple TV deals (other than those associated with new phones) all that much; never for Netflix.

As Hepcat noted, I'd expect the next batch of deals to hit in November, but there could be random sales between now and then. From what I've seen, it doesn't pay to be a long time subscriber. I know a few people that only have one service (like Hulu) and they're just always bouncing around to various add-ons when deals come up. Definitely takes more work to monitor for things like that, but you can certainly save more money.

[Carpet_pissr]

Apple TV deals are fairly common (usually via Best Buy oddly enough). Usually for 3 months at a time. Next time I see one I’ll post…somewhere here.

And as for the Netflix comment, good eye. I’ve NEVER seen a Netflix deal like these other services constantly offer. At least not in several years.

They really don’t need to..their viewers are pretty loyal, and vast.

[hepcat]

Also if you're a fan of the John Wick murderverse there's the upcoming

https://www.peacocktv.com/stream-movies ... -john-wick

I know a lot of people are excited about this, and I would love for it to be a good show, but my expectations are pretty low... hopefully I'm wrong...

It’s a fun take on…Escape from New York?

Seriously, that’s what it feels like after the initial setup. It doesn’t even feel like it’s set in the world of John Wick most of the time. Still, I had fun with it. I just kept hoping Earnest Borgnine would show up in one of the cabs.

Is it a good show? No, not really. But just like Twisted Metal, I went in with almost zero hope it would be even entertaining, then was pleasantly surprised it wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.

[Isgrimnur]

Genie

[hepcat]

I've been watching the new limited series for Ted. It's surprisingly fun. I expected nothing but raunchy jokes....and I'm getting them...a lot...but it also finds a way to work in a decent amount of political and societal commentary by framing the show as a sitcom set during the early 90s and comparing it to today's world. It's also rather heartfelt. I've enjoyed it enough that I've laughed a few times. The kid they got playing John (his human sidekick) is naturally funny, I will say.



It's no Killing It, but I would recommend. Especially if you found the movies even slightly funny.

[Jaymon]

I may or may not have had feelings about peacock. It ws just another streaming service, pulling their shit off netflix and screwing things up, just like all the others. but then, oh buddy. They hosted a football game, and it required a subscription fee to watch it. that means I will never ever give them any money. They are now the most hated service.

[hepcat]

Are...are you under the impression that the NFL is a charity organization? Dude, sports are ALWAYS going to charge you out the wazoo no matter where you stream them.

[JCC]

I may or may not have had feelings about peacock. It ws just another streaming service, pulling their shit off netflix and screwing things up, just like all the others. but then, oh buddy. They hosted a football game, and it required a subscription fee to watch it. that means I will never ever give them any money. They are now the most hated service.

They are all going to do this in the future. The rights holders of sports are also running streaming services. If you stay firm in this stance, you will eventually have to give up watching practically any sports.

Streaming is going to continue to get costlier and we as consumers are going to need to be more disciplined about rotating the ones we actively subscribe to. (Looking at myself in the mirror here.) They are counting on us remaining lazy about this, and they are probably right to have their low opinion of us.

My Netflix bill is at least $30 more than when I first subbed to their streaming service (for around $8). Granted I pay the 4K tax (for myself) and for family sharing for my parents. Prime is also "always on" for me since it's cheaper to pay for a whole year... (I think)... and I use it for the shipping too. And of course it just went up again for no ads. I haven't watched anything since the change, so I haven't evaluated how much it annoys me yet.

I am not even paying for Hulu or Disney + since I (probably) live close enough to my buddy who shares his account with me for them to realize it... hopefully. If AT&T ever takes away Max as included with my internet, that one will definitely be a "part timer".

[hepcat]

Streaming used to be an alternative to cable television. But increasingly it's being viewed as the replacement. Especially since ads are now finding their way back into streaming at a faster clip.

As long as I can a la carte the hell out it, I'm happier this way though. Plus, unlike cable, there are often good sales that can be found throughout the course of the year that can bring annual subs down in price significantly.

[Jaymon]

Oh I am aware, and I am sure somebody out there saw the peacock deal and thinks they can make a better one. "What if NFL was like, Pay Per View?"

[hepcat]

"What if NFL was like, Pay Per View?"

When hasn't it been on streaming?

On cable/network tv, you have the stations subsidizing some games via sponsored ads during broadcast. But the NFL has had subscription based service on cable tv for quite some time too. I remember people bitching up a storm when that started.

If you wanna watch sports on streaming, you're gonna have to pay someone.

[Jaymon]

Yes you can pay subscriptions for NFL. Otherwise you only get to see your local teams for free. Thats how its been for a long time. BUT, until recently, all the playoff games were available to watch everywhere in the country without being behind a paywall. The peacock deal put a playoff game behind a paywall. You had to subscribe and pay for peacock in order to watch it. And thats why I hate them. not just for doing it, but for paving the way, enabling more. In a few years I imagine a complicated map of trying to figure out which playoff games are on which services, and am I already paying.



Ys, if it goes down that path, I will have to stop being a fan.

[hepcat]

You had to subscribe and pay for peacock in order to watch it. And thats why I hate them. not just for doing it, but for paving the way, enabling more.

Which streaming service is free AND allows you to watch NFL playoff games (hell, any NFL games) without paying for even their basic services (let alone a separate sports subscription)? Football games aren't just now being streamed. So it's not like Peacock is guilty of inventing a new paywall system. They're hardly "paving the way".

It sounds like you want streaming to work like network tv or cable tv. i.e. ad subsidized. So my suggestion is to just go that route. Save yourself some heartache.

[JCC]

ESPN has NFL games too. You have to pay for it. This is the way it's going to be. TV has changed and news and sports are the most valuable properties keeping live TV going.

[hepcat]

Here's an article on where to watch the playoffs.

Summary: if you want free, get an HD antenna and watch it over the air. It's easy enough and not that expensive.

[ImLawBoy]

I think some folks are missing the point. The NFL put one of the playoff games exclusively on Peacock (except in local markets where it was still available OTA). This is the first time that the NFL has put a playoff game exclusively on a streaming service, and it ticked off a lot of people.

[hepcat]

That's a bit of info I did not know. So it was a blackout game for anyone but people living in a specific locale or watching it on peacock? Also, did it cost anything beyond a basic subscription to watch it on peacock?

note: sheesh, NBC paid 110 million dollars to broadcast one game on Peacock? And it appears the agreement the NFL signed with broadcasters allows them to make one playoff game a year exclusive to a streaming service of their choice.

It all boils down to this: Peacock paid more for the exclusive rights. They're no more evil than any other streaming or broadcast service that pays for exclusivity. The NFL chose to make one game exclusive in order to rake in more money.

I'd be more pissed at the NFL than I would peacock.

Also, looks like they tried this back in 2015 too.

The NFL tried to air a playoff game that wasn't on free over-the-air broadcast television once, when the Carolina Panthers beat the Arizona Cardinals in the opening game of the wild card round of the playoffs in January of 2015 (the first year of the new television contract). That game aired on ESPN exclusively, but that lasted only a year.

Seems it didn't go over well back then, but they're trying it again now. The NFL is one of the greediest organizations around, so it doesn't surprise me. It's become a multi billion dollar industry, after all.

[ImLawBoy]

That's a bit of info I did not know. So it was a blackout game for anyone but people living in a specific locale or watching it on peacock?

Correct.

Also, did it cost anything beyond a basic subscription to watch it on peacock?

I don't think so, but I wasn't going to subscribe to Peacock to watch one game that didn't involve one of my teams, so i can't confirm.

Still not seeing how it was that egregious as the NFL has always tried to become a subscription based service outside broadcast TV though (where they rake in the dough through ads).

I don't think that's accurate. All games have always been available on OTA in local markets, and that's a big thing for the NFL as they know that mass audiences build their brand. On Sundays, the two networks carrying NFL day games (currently CBS and Fox) have 1 or 2 game windows depending on region and whether home teams are playing in their region and various other voodoo. To fill those windows, many games are essentially national games over regular broadcast channels. Sunday night games are nationally broadcast on NBC and Monday night games are nationally broadcast on ESPN (and OTA for local markets for teams playing - typically on the ABC affiliate). Thursday night games are broadcast these days on Amazon Prime (and locally OTA), which was their first big foray into the new streaming world. You can subscribe to NFL Sunday Ticket, which gives you access to all games regardless of market. I think that's a bit of a streaming play these days - it used to be a DirecTV exclusive, but I don't think it is anymore.

But bottom line, the NFL has never indicated that they wanted to push everyone to a subscription model. Any subscription services (like Sunday Ticket) were supplemental revenue to their cash cow of network rights. Even then, all of the games were largely available on traditional broadcast or cable TV until Amazon, and they've never put a playoff game on streaming exclusively.

It all boils down to this: Peacock paid more for the streaming rights. They're no more evil than any other streaming or broadcast service that pays for exclusivity.

Ah, but no one else has paid for exclusivity for NFL playoff games, so they're as evil as a group of one!

note: sheesh, NBC paid 110 million dollars to broadcast one game? And it appears the agreement the NFL signed with broadcasters allows them to make one playoff game a year exclusive to a streaming service of their choice.

I'm guessing it was a shrewd business move on the part of Peacock. They really goosed their subscriber numbers. If the people stick around and keep paying, it may pay for itself. Of course, if everyone drops it after a month, they're probably going to regret it.

I'd be more pissed at the NFL than I would peacock.

That's a fair take! But that would require Jaymon to give up the NFL altogether, so probably not going to happen.

FWIW, Peacock seems to be leaning heavily into live sports to get their numbers up, probably moreso than any other service. I know they had soccer on early, and they carry a number of Big Ten football and basketball games exclusively.

[hepcat]

I did edit my original reply and took out the part you said was incorrect while you were writing yours. I also realized it wasn't entirely correct.

[ImLawBoy]

Also, looks like they tried this back in 2015 too.

The NFL tried to air a playoff game that wasn't on free over-the-air broadcast television once, when the Carolina Panthers beat the Arizona Cardinals in the opening game of the wild card round of the playoffs in January of 2015 (the first year of the new television contract). That game aired on ESPN exclusively, but that lasted only a year.

Seems it didn't go over well back then, but they're trying it again now. The NFL is one of the greediest organizations around, so it doesn't surprise me. It's become a multi billion dollar industry, after all.

I don't even remember that one! Still, I'd argue it's different because it was on cable/satellite, which was largely ubiquitous those days. Not nearly as limited as a single streaming service since pretty much everyone who had cable/satellite back then had ESPN - whether they wanted it or not.

[ImLawBoy]

I did edit my original reply and took out the part you said was incorrect while you were writing yours. I also realized it wasn't entirely correct.

Yeah, well I'm not going to back and edit all that stuff! It's some of my best work! (Low bar and all . . . .)

[hepcat]

Also, looks like they tried this back in 2015 too.

The NFL tried to air a playoff game that wasn't on free over-the-air broadcast television once, when the Carolina Panthers beat the Arizona Cardinals in the opening game of the wild card round of the playoffs in January of 2015 (the first year of the new television contract). That game aired on ESPN exclusively, but that lasted only a year.

Seems it didn't go over well back then, but they're trying it again now. The NFL is one of the greediest organizations around, so it doesn't surprise me. It's become a multi billion dollar industry, after all.

I don't even remember that one! Still, I'd argue it's different because it was on cable/satellite, which was largely ubiquitous those days. Not nearly as limited as a single streaming service since pretty much everyone who had cable/satellite back then had ESPN - whether they wanted it or not.

Wasn't ESPN a "premium channel" back in those days though? i.e. you had to pay extra for it like you did with HBO and the JeffV sponsored Skinemax?

Also, that question has made me a little less critical of pricing for streaming services as I remember the premium channels on cable were usually around 15 bucks a month. Peacock, Paramount and many of the other ones I subscribe to can be as little as 4.99 a month. Plus, I'm not paying 150 dollars a month for regular cable on top of that.

[ImLawBoy]

ESPN was always on the basic tier I think. It's never been a subscription service in the mode of HBO, although it's possible that there were some super basic tiers of service that didn't include it.

[JCC]

For the record, I am not saying anyone should be happy about streaming services like Peacock having (near) exclusive rights to important games. But, this is probably only the beginning of this type of thing. Streaming is the present (and likely future). Everyone wants in. Having key live shows (ie. sports) is highly in demand. Everyone offering any TV product wants in on live sports - particularly football.

[Isgrimnur]

[Punisher]

Are...are you under the impression that the NFL is a charity organization? Dude, sports are ALWAYS going to charge you out the wazoo no matter where you stream them.

I dont follow sports but I did play fir fun at times as a kid and just assume that's what people do as adults now.
They clock out of their 9-5 job then go play the sports.
Am I missing something?

[hepcat]

[Kraken]

I haven't watched anything since the change, so I haven't evaluated how much it annoys me yet.

I watched two half-hour Prime shows tonight and only saw one ad, for one of their own products. I expect they'll start out light and gradually ratchet them up.

[hepcat]

I’m just resigned to ads making a return. I have been for a while now. I honestly don’t see how television can exist without them long term.

[Blackhawk]

I look at streaming as we've known it for the last decade+ as a failed experiment. It was good idea - it just wasn't feasible in the end. What we're getting now is a correction.

With that said, these services - especially Amazon - have a very different view of advertising than the cable broadcasters of old. I worry that we're going to start seeing YouTube style ads (where I've watched four minute videos with three sets of ads.)

[hepcat]

Yeah, there was very little chance subscription fees alone were going to keep big budget shows flowing. Ad revenue was always going to come back, I believe.

[YellowKing]

Some of the streaming services (some, not all) haven't figured out that there are video accelerator plug-ins out there that you can use to speed through commercials. Of course, that's only if you're on a PC and doesn't help if you're watching from a streaming stick.

[Carpet_pissr]

Here's an article on where to watch the playoffs.

Summary: if you want free, get an HD antenna and watch it over the air. It's easy enough and not that expensive.

I signed up for Sling (I think) a few months ago, and realized it didn't include local channels (NBC, CBS, etc). Which makes their "we're the lowest cost Live TV!" shtick meaningless, for me.

I literally put a large paperclip into the side of my TV, in the ANT port and voila...20 HD channels OTA (except Fox, which is the one I needed for a specific game IIRC). Added some aluminum foil and voila...20 more channels appeared (including Fox HD). Can't see any of this metallic monstrosity because it's behind the side...lip of the TV, where my inputs are. I didn't have to pull the TV from the wall to do it. So damn easy, and looks better in terms of PQ.

[hepcat]

I literally put a large paperclip into the side of my TV, in the ANT port and voila...20 HD channels OTA (except Fox, which is the one I needed for a specific game IIRC). Added some aluminum foil and voila...20 more channels appeared (including Fox HD).

love it. You're the MacGyver of Streaming.