Support NeoGAF

[EatMyFace]

So it's basically a cable package and priced as such. Not very enticing actually for cord cutters. I'd rather have SlingTV for $20.

SlingTV on 3 TVs = $60
PS Vue on 3 TVs = $50

Really the only problem with Vue is the no ABC channels. Also maybe they should give people the option of just having 1 Stream for $20. Not everyone likes sharing their stuff.

 

[AmuroChan]

$50? I feel like I could get a better bundle package with comcast if I wanted this and more with that price.

Having dealt with Comcast in the past I would rather pay more for another service than to ever give my money to Comcast again.

 

[InsaneTiger]

Cable companies aren't better than Sony or Sling when it comes to pricing. Cable box rentals, modem rentals, fees out the ass, it fucking crazy.

I think this is a good alternative and I'm the deal with Sony and ABC will be worked out, its all about money after all.

 

[darkazcura]

Wouldn't you need multiple devices?

Like a PS3/4 for every tv?

You could get the playstation TV also. Better than renting boxes, imo, though I wish Sony would offer the service through more popular boxes like Roku.

 

[Natureboy99]

It's $50 for 3 simultaneous streams.

Sling TV is $20 for 1 stream.

Channels aside, Sling TV price point isn't necessarily better.

This seems to become a better deal if you use multiple TVs at once. If you don't, then theres not much value here ahead of the competition. Needs BBC America too. and ESPN.

 

[marrec]

First time service, brand new world of actual cable alternatives and everybody is going to crucify them not it not being exactly what they want.

Depending on your tastes you might not mind the lack of ESPN. Its a test market, happens all the time and adjust as needed.

Chill bros.

This doesn't seem as much as a cable alternative as it is a total cable replacement. If you want exactly what Cable offers but with less stuff for slightly cheaper, than Vue is for you.

 

[vpance]

snip

Good post. You should still make the thread in OT

 

[EatMyFace]

I'm surprised this isn't coming to PS TV.....I mean if that thing has any use at all, its for Vue.

 

[Bgamer90]

SlingTV on 3 TVs = $60
PS Vue on 3 TVs = $50

Haha; this is a good point too. $10 more for Disney channel content on three different accounts.

 

[InsaneTiger]

Well that's the thing -- ESPN is a major reason why people are keeping cable. A cable alternative at this price ($50/month) in my opinion needs to have ESPN if it wants any chance to really take off.

I agree with you but it is the same deal as Netflix and Hulu, how much you gonna pay me Sony?

I'm sure once ABC hears the right number they will come over to Vue.

IT JUST LAUNCHED IN THREE CITIES! Give it time to grow and adjust, nothing is perfect in the beginning.

 

[Memorabilia]

It depends on what you're looking for.

If you want a "cable replacement" in the most literal sense of the word than this service is probably your best bet.

But I think cord cutters aren't looking for "cable replacements" they're looking for numerous discrete services that build up to a relatively smaller selection of channels they want for cheaper than cable.

Despite my having Sling and Hulu and Netflix, all of that still costs less than Vue and gives me exactly what I want without a preponderance of chaff to weed through.

Exactly right again. People dont want more packages filled with channels they don't necessarily want and missing others they do want at prices that are no cheaper than cable. This entire concept is idiotic if they are actually hoping to target cord cutters.

What cord cutters want is a choice to sub to exactly what they want to watch. A la carte style. Packages that emulate cable are retarded.

Every cord cutter will vary. For me, Netflix is where I start. Its my base. After that I'm interested in checking out HBO Now (when I can sub without having to use an apple device). AMC. ESPN. Comcast Sports Northwest (for Blazer games...yes this one is a pipe dream without a cable pkg for the foreseeable future). Possibly CNN/MSNBC (for a little infotainment/news). Thats it. I dont want or care about much else. Everything else, including the major networks, is pretty much fluff that I don't want to pay more for.

It mind boggling to think there are actual executives at Sony with presumably high intelligence making decisions which are obviously so tone-deaf about the needs/desires of the market they want to target. Its enough to make me think Sony imported some MS executives or something for Gods sakes.

 

[EatMyFace]

Cable companies aren't better than Sony or Sling when it comes to pricing. Cable box rentals, modem rentals, fees out the ass, it fucking crazy.

I think this is a good alternative and I'm the deal with Sony and ABC will be worked out, its all about money after all.

Don't we have access to ABC shows on Hulu?
No ABC is a deal breaker for me but it's not something I can't get around and I'm sure ABC would come on board eventually if Vue ends up being successful.

 

[AmuroChan]

Cable companies aren't better than Sony or Sling when it comes to pricing. Cable box rentals, modem rentals, fees out the ass, it fucking crazy.

I think this is a good alternative and I'm the deal with Sony and ABC will be worked out, its all about money after all.

Cable companies are far worse with their hidden charges. WTF is a convenience fee and why am I paying that every month?

 

[LJ11]

More than ESPN, I need MSG and SNY. ESPN is dog shit, I already get NFL Gamepass to watch all NFL games live, don't care about Basketball, CFB would be the only thing I miss out on.

 

[Sephzilla]

This is way too expensive for what it's offering.

 

[benicillin]

Exactly right again. People dont want more packages filled with channels they don't necessarily want and missing others they do want at prices that are no cheaper than cable. This entire concept is idiotic if they are actually hoping to target cord cutters.

What cord cutters want is a choice to sub to exactly what they want to watch. A la carte style. Packages that emulate cable are retarded.

Every cord cutter will vary. For me, Netflix is where I start. Its my base. After that I'm interested in checking out HBO Now (when I can sub without having to use an apple device). AMC. ESPN. Comcast Sports Northwest (for Blazer games...yes this one is a pipe dream without a cable pkg for the foreseeable future). Possibly CNN/MSNBC (for a little infotainment/news). Thats it. I dont want or care about much else. Everything else, including the major networks, is pretty much fluff that I don't want to pay more for.

It mind boggling to think there are actual executives at Sony with presumably high intelligence making decisions which are obviously so tone-deaf about the needs/desires of the market they want to target. Its enough to make me think Sony imported some MS executives or something for Gods sakes.

As others have mentioned, packages that emulate cable are the first step in a long process of dismantling the broken cable television industry. There is no way you can offer a la carte programming right now - it's just not possible. First there needs to be competition (services like Vue) that can gain a subscriber base and lobby for changes to contracts to allow things like a la carte to happen. Right now if you're a startup TV provider (like Sony) you pretty much have to play by their rules or you don't get their programming. It's that simple.

 

[Leatherface]

Regarding the price versus SlingTV and cable / sat ... people seem to not be factoring everything that's going on here.


Versus SlingTV:

* This is 3 streams. So for a typical household where 2 to 3 streams are potentially active at a given time, this is either only bit more or actually less than Sling, but with far more stations
* The feature set is far better, and appears to be consistent with all channels / content - Pausing live TV, cloud DVR, etc. Those features are huge.
* I'd argue a much nicer layout. While that's subjective, objectively it has far more customization in terms of sorting, searching, etc​

Versus Cable / Sat:

* Price when considering features. While yes the base cost is quite similar to cable / sat packages, you need to factor in hardware. You want 2 or 3 rooms? You're paying a rental per month for each box (at least after any initial discounts run out for new service). You want a DVR? That's more than a box. Whole home DVR? Even more from most providers
* Features - Few providers offer a cloud DVR. You need to manage your DVR yourself. My only concern is how long you can keep recordings. With a traditional DVR, it's forever - at least while you still have room.
* UI - While some providers are better than others and TiVo is usually an option for cable / fiber providers, this UI is obviously better than most. If only for the far better sorting and searching.​

Obviously in all the above, one needs to determine for themselves if the lineup itself meets their requirements. If it does though, I find it hard to argue the costs are out of line, or that the features are anything but industry leading.

..but the whole point of "cutting the cord" is to save money, so if the cable companies offer a better package at a better price, what is the point? Personally, I am not a sports fan so I don't care about that and I think most channels are not worth the price of admission in a package. So a decent selection of channels at $20 w/ no contract is a very attractive to a person like myself. Also, the quasi On Demand feature of SLINGTV is more than enough to give variety in things to watch.

 

[InsaneTiger]

Don't we have access to ABC shows on Hulu?
No ABC is a deal breaker for me but it's not something I can't get around and I'm sure ABC would come on board eventually if Vue ends up being successful.

Hulu has been around mucb longer too... You are failing to see the point. I am not saying buy it now, I am saying that the reason you can watch what you watch on Netflix and Hulu is because of content deals between them and the content holders (ABC, NBC, CBS, etc) It doesn't magically appear just because Netflix and Hulu will it to happen.

Sony wants ABC for sure because it would convince more people to try it out. Once ABC is offered a certain amount than ABC and ESPN will be on Vue.

 

[Raistlin]

It depends on what you're looking for.

If you want a "cable replacement" in the most literal sense of the word than this service is probably your best bet.

But I think cord cutters aren't looking for "cable replacements" they're looking for numerous discrete services that build up to a relatively smaller selection of channels they want for cheaper than cable.

Despite my having Sling and Hulu and Netflix, all of that still costs less than Vue and gives me exactly what I want without a preponderance of chaff to weed through.

For some, yes ... but that's changing.

I've been heavily involved in TV / streaming / etc for a long time, and keep a pretty keen eye on the industry as a whole (sub to HT magazines, listen to numerous A/V podcasts - including Cord Killers). Early on, there was definitely an eye towards cost savings.

And while that still is true to some extent (particularly when it comes to hardware costs), the movement has shifted. As the Cord Killers mantra states, it's all about 'Watch what you want, when you want, on any device you please.'. They've been openly talking about this for quite some time ... that the reality is when you add all these services together, for many there won't really be a significant savings. What is now the main crux is being able to full control when and where you watch things.

With that in mind, this meets those demands quite well. At least for anyone that is hoping to have this level of lineup. Obviously there are some that simply don't want or need this content. For others though, this is great. You're getting a lot of the same content you had access to before, but with a much better experience and features-set. That you'll likely save a bit on hardware is really just icing on the cake. There are some that would actually pay more for a better experience. Here you're paying around the same (or less) for a better experience.

Certainly to some, potentially many, that's a compelling offering.

..but the whole point of "cutting the cord" is to save money, so if the cable companies offer a better package at a better price, what is the point? Personally, I am not a sports fan so I don't care about that and I think most channels are not worth the price of admission in a package. So a decent selection of channels at $20 w/ no contract is a very attractive to a person like myself. Also, the quasi On Demand feature of SLINGTV is more than enough to give variety in things to watch.

See the above.

For many, that's no longer the primary target at all. Hell, the really popular podcast / site Cord Killers has been openly discussing that for quite some time. What you're getting is a better experience and feature-set, for at least some savings.

Now certainly if you are living solo, I could see where this isn't a great match. You'd only need one stream, and hardware costs aren't super high if you go the cable / sat route. For many homes though, this will actually save you a bit ... plus the other benefits.

 

[Bold One]

Sony really seems out of touch with reality when pricing their new services

.

 

[HammerOfThor]

So Chicago means literally in Chicago? Not suburbs? I'm considered Chicago for EVERY service I have, except this one. WTF. I was going to give them the benefit of the doubt and try it but I guess not...

 

[Exile20]

Can you have a PS4 without PS+ and use Vue?

 

[Jeronimo Jones]

Having dealt with Comcast in the past I would rather pay more for another service than to ever give my money to Comcast again.

This too. I really don't like giving them my money.

I'm a potential cord cutter, I already have Hulu and Netflix but what I want is channels with cheaper, more stable prices. Not hidden fees and taxes, not the threaten to leave or change my package every few months song and dance.

 

[Gestault]

It is not more than many cable plans at all - considering you're not paying hardware fees, taxes, etc. you end up paying $20-$50 more per month on an average cable plan. DVR alone is $15 plus.

I assure you there are comparable cable plans for less than $70-$100 per month.

 

[InsaneTiger]

People pay $20 for EA Access that only plays EA games. No other games are on the service but people gladly pay that and don't bitch about the lack of diversity. Imagine of there was just one channel of ESPN for $50 per month, would you pay that?

I bet a lot would.

 

[Sephzilla]

For some, yes ... but that's changing.

I've been heavily involved in TV / streaming / etc for a long time, and keep a pretty keen eye on the industry as a whole (sub to HT magazines, listen to numerous A/V podcasts - including Cord Killers). Early on, there was definitely an eye towards cost savings.

And while that still is true to some extent (particularly when it comes to hardware costs), the movement has shifted. As the Cord Killers mantra states, it's all about 'Watch what you want, when you want, on any device you please.'. They've been openly talking about this for quite some time ... that the reality is when you add all these services together, for many there won't really be a significant savings. What is now the main crux is being able to full control when and where you watch things.

With that in mind, this meets those demands quite well. At least for anyone that is hoping to have this level of lineup. Obviously there are some that simply don't want or need this content. For others though, this is great. You're getting a lot of the same content you had access to before, but with a much better experience and features-set. That you'll likely save a bit on hardware is really just icing on the cake. There are some that would actually pay more for a better experience. Here you're paying around the same (or less) for a better experience.

Certainly to some, potentially many, that's a compelling offering.

This sure as hell isn't my mantra. I could care less about being able to watch Game of Thrones on everything short of a toaster. Being able to watch TV on my phone doesn't appeal to be because A) goodbye battery life and B) goodbye data for the month. I just don't want to shell out 50+ dollars a month for a handful of channels that I actually watch

 

[marrec]

As others have mentioned, packages that emulate cable are the first step in a long process of dismantling the broken cable television industry. There is no way you can offer a la carte programming right now - it's just not possible. First there needs to be competition (services like Vue) that can gain a subscriber base and lobby for changes to contracts to allow things like a la carte to happen. Right now if you're a startup TV provider (like Sony) you pretty much have to play by their rules or you don't get their programming. It's that simple.

What is this assumption based on? Logically it doesn't make much sense as if you offer a competing service like Vue that is basically cable with a few extra bells but a few less whistles for a comparable price then we've innovated sideways and not forward. There are millions of people every year who decide that cable, in any form, isn't for them anymore and Playstation Vue's extra bells aren't going to convince many of them to come back to what is basically the thing they left behind.

Services like Sling TV which offer a small variety of channels but ones that may be in high demand is more logical as a forward innovation. You give me multiple options at around 20 bucks for 10-20 channels that I'll actually watch and you've got my money.

 

[vanhanz]

The reason why this is so high is because the networks demand so much for their content and refuse to break up channels, as evidenced by the high price by non cable companies. Cable companies and Sony (et all) have to make money after they pay for the channels (its a very slim profit margin).

Trust me, if they could, your cable company would love to charge a la cart for channels, although you would probably end up paying more unless you only watched 2-3 channels.

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

$50 with DVR is actually pretty good. In my area a cable DVR package pretty much starts at $100.

 

[HammerOfThor]

Speaking of Sling, can I watch a show later if I miss it live?

 

[InsaneTiger]

Sony really seems out of touch with reality when pricing their new services

Because everything should priced like Netflix or Hulu.

Nevermind Netflix losing stuff because of content deals expiring.

 

[Memorabilia]

As others have mentioned, packages that emulate cable are the first step in a long process of dismantling the broken cable television industry. There is no way you can offer a la carte programming right now - it's just not possible. First there needs to be competition (services like Vue) that can gain a subscriber base and lobby for changes to contracts to allow things like a la carte to happen. Right now if you're a startup TV provider (like Sony) you pretty much have to play by their rules or you don't get their programming. It's that simple.

I understand the market dynamics but ultimately this is a process that is being dragged out by greed on the part of the content providers that Sony has to deal with. I don't solely blame Sony here. But ignoring what their market wants rather than delivering it is a sure way to make this fail a la the Playstation TV. At least make packages more price competitive. $50 is too much by half. Get the ABC/package in there and get that price down to $29.99 a month and now we're talking. People would sign up for that in droves and drop cable like a hot rock.

 

[vanhanz]

Also, ESPN commands a good 20% of the network charges on your cable bill alone, which is why you won't see them in services like these unless they create a much higher priced tier.

 

[DrRussian]

One thing I think a lot of you are missing with this is that the $50 dollar price point is it. The price won't go up in a year, there are no equipment fees, and it has more channels than sling. For people in some areas of the US it's actually a good deal because many cable companies are really expensive.

 

[Cap'n Cook]

I recently cut the cord and can't see me ever going back. Purchased an outdoor antenna ($50) to get all my local channels (NBC,PBS,ABC,CBS,FOX) its hooked up to 4 rooms using the same cables used Dish. I'm recording shows on my computer using windows media center. I have a couple of Roku's which has thousands of options and I'm subscribed to SlingTV, Hulu+ and Netflix. Cut my monthly bill from $95 down to $36 and there's more than enough to watch to keep us entertained. For me at least $50 is a little too much especially since no ESPN.

 

[AmuroChan]

..but the whole point of "cutting the cord" is to save money, so if the cable companies offer a better package at a better price, what is the point? Personally, I am not a sports fan so I don't care about that and I think most channels are not worth the price of admission in a package. So a decent selection of channels at $20 w/ no contract is a very attractive to a person like myself. Also, the quasi On Demand feature of SLINGTV is more than enough to give variety in things to watch.

Right, and both services are viable with two different target audiences. Sling is geared towards more single users living by themselves. Vue is targeting families who pay well over $100 for their cable packages because of extra equipment and services. If you're a family with multiple TV watchers living in the NYC metro area, you most likely have Cablevision and there's no way you're paying less than $50 a month. I pay $150 a month and that's on the low end in my social circle. Most of my friends and colleagues are paying $200+.

 

[benicillin]

What is this assumption based on? Logically it doesn't make much sense as if you offer a competing service like Vue that is basically cable with a few extra bells but a few less whistles for a comparable price then we've innovated sideways and not forward. There are millions of people every year who decide that cable, in any form, isn't for them anymore and Playstation Vue's extra bells aren't going to convince many of them to come back to what is basically the thing they left behind.

Services like Sling TV which offer a small variety of channels but ones that may be in high demand is more logical as a forward innovation. You give me multiple options at around 20 bucks for 10-20 channels that I'll actually watch and you've got my money.

SlingTV is one strategy and PlayStation Vue is another - it offers local programming, a large number of channels, etc. This isn't a service for someone who has decided they don't want cable, it's a service that offers an alternative to being beholden to your local cable company (usually Comcast or similar) and their ridiculous hidden fees, contracts, etc. Give it time to evolve and you'll see better prices, smaller packages and greater value because Sony will be able to look at their customer base and say "we have X number of subscribers who use our service" and will have a better bargaining chip.

 

[Raistlin]

This sure as hell isn't my mantra. I could care less about being able to watch Game of Thrones on everything short of a toaster. Being able to watch TV on my phone doesn't appeal to be because A) goodbye battery life and B) goodbye data for the month. I just don't want to shell out 50+ dollars a month for a handful of channels that I actually watch

It's not just different devices, it's also watching it when you want ... being able to pause it, etc.


Note I'm not arguing this is for everyone. Of course different people in different situations have different needs. But you and others are doing the opposite of what you're accusing me of, and generalizing this isn't a good offering in general - that it has no place or no potential userbase.

 

[Exile20]

One thing I think a lot of you are missing with this is that the $50 dollar price point is it. The price won't go up in a year, there are no equipment fees, and it has more channels than sling. For people in some areas of the US it's actually a good deal because many cable companies are really expensive.

People do not want to pay more for channels they dont want. That is what the cables companies do.

Would rather pay $20 for Channels I do want than pad it out and pay more.

 

[HIGH DEF JEFF]

Exactly right again. People dont want more packages filled with channels they don't necessarily want and missing others they do want at prices that are no cheaper than cable. This entire concept is idiotic if they are actually hoping to target cord cutters.

What cord cutters want is a choice to sub to exactly what they want to watch. A la carte style. Packages that emulate cable are retarded.

Every cord cutter will vary. For me, Netflix is where I start. Its my base. After that I'm interested in checking out HBO Now (when I can sub without having to use an apple device). AMC. ESPN. Comcast Sports Northwest (for Blazer games...yes this one is a pipe dream without a cable pkg for the foreseeable future). Possibly CNN/MSNBC (for a little infotainment/news). Thats it. I dont want or care about much else. Everything else, including the major networks, is pretty much fluff that I don't want to pay more for.

It mind boggling to think there are actual executives at Sony with presumably high intelligence making decisions which are obviously so tone-deaf about the needs/desires of the market they want to target. Its enough to make me think Sony imported some MS executives or something for Gods sakes.

Vues price is high but the cord cutter line of think of buying channels a la carte does will NEVER make ecomomical sense.
You probably pay 40 cents for AMC via the cheapest cable package. You think you are going to pay that if they go over the top?
ESPN on its own would probably be like 25 bucks. Pick your 5 favorite channels and imagine paying 5 dollars a piece for access, on the low end.
It adds up quick.

When I read the technology gymnastics people go through to get a shitty stream tossed to their TV I am grateful I never go to anyones house that is so militant towards the cable companies.......but still pay them for broadband access.

 

[marrec]

SlingTV is one strategy and PlayStation Vue is another - it offers local programming, a large number of channels, etc. This isn't a service for someone who has decided they don't want cable, it's a service that offers an alternative to being beholden to your local cable company (usually Comcast or similar) and their ridiculous hidden fees, contracts, etc. Give it time to evolve and you'll see better prices, smaller packages and greater value because Sony will be able to look at their customer base and say "we have X number of subscribers who use our service" and will have a better bargaining chip.

Well I can't speak to this idea that Sony will someone bend the market to it's cord-cutting will but...

You're totally correct in that Sling and Vue are two entirely different strategies which is why people are a bit up in arms about this announcement. Playstation Vue was supposed to be for me and other cord-cutters and it turns out its really just another choice for people who like having tons of channels to wade through for a, relatively, high price.

Which is fine for those people, but disappointing for me.

 

[Kill3r7]

It's a decent enough deal for people with multiple TVs (assuming you have the capabilities to stream to 3 TVs). I'm not sure how good a deal it will end up being for someone like myself, who only uses one primary TV. As a matter a fact Fios is significantly cheaper.

 

[Memorabilia]

Because everything should priced like Netflix or Hulu.

Nevermind Netflix losing stuff because of content deals expiring.

They also gain tons of new shows at the same pace all the time. And are producing some really great original programming. So, yes, its a great value. This package, on the other hand, is objectively not as good a value and doesn't offer as attractive of an alternative to lure new cord cutters or get existent cord cutters with Netflix to add it to their monthly bill. $8/month is impulse sub territory = "Oh, sure ill give it a shot, what the heck?" And then boom they're addicted to Netflix. $50 a month isn't impulse sub territory. Its close to cable territory. So, people have to consider it, weigh the pros & cons, do the math & compare the channel lineup vs. Cable. It just doesn't work out to being that great of a deal. Some will jump on, sure, because hell you can get some suckers to try anything. But this package at this price point? Good luck getting it to catch on. Ain't happenin folks.

 

[Toki767]

People do not want to pay more for channels they dont want. That is what the cables companies do.

Would rather pay $20 for Channels I do want than pad it out and pay more.

Totally agree. Which is why neither service is right for me. I don't watch ESPN so I feel like Sling TV could be even cheaper if they didn't force every subscriber to pay that fee.

I would however love the NBC Universal family of channels which Vue offers and Sling TV does not, but neither services offer ABC/CW/BBC so the ala carte would be much more appreciated.

 

[Navy Bean]

The fact is NONE of these services work for me. My ideal setup would be local channels, sports channels (ESPN, NFL, NBCSN and regional sports networks) and maybe about 10-12 additional cable channels.

I'm sure many others are in the same boat - these services are a good start but do not completely meet the needs of any one user...

 

[benicillin]

Well I can't speak to this idea that Sony will someone bend the market to it's cord-cutting will but...

You're totally correct in that Sling and Vue are two entirely different strategies which is why people are a bit up in arms about this announcement. Playstation Vue was supposed to be for me and other cord-cutters and it turns out its really just another choice for people who like having tons of channels to wade through for a, relatively, high price.

Which is fine for those people, but disappointing for me.

Understandably. I'm not even sure I'll get Vue, but when my significant other lobbies to get a TV subscription because they enjoy watching live TV or whatever it's nice to have an option other than upgrading my service through my ISP and getting locked into a two year contract with planned price increases, hidden fees, etc.

 

[AmuroChan]

They also gain tons of new shows at the same pace all the time. And are producing some really great original programming. So, yes, its a great value. This package, on the other hand, is objectively not as good a value and doesn't offer as attractive of an alternative to lure new cord cutters or get existent cord cutters with Netflix to add it to their monthly bill. $8/month is impulse sub territory = "Oh, sure ill give it a shot, what the heck?" And then boom they're addicted to Netflix. $50 a month isn't impulse sub territory. Its close to cable territory. So, people have to consider it, weigh the pros & cons, do the math & compare the channel lineup vs. Cable. It just doesn't work out to being that great of a deal. Some will jump on, sure, because hell you can get some suckers to try anything. But this package at this price point? Good luck getting it to catch on. Ain't happenin folks.

I don't see how people who choose to jump on this are somehow "suckers". Would saving over $100 a month and $1200 a year be classified as being a sucker?

 

[Memorabilia]

Vues price is high but the cord cutter line of think of buying channels a la carte does will NEVER make ecomomical sense.
You probably pay 40 cents for AMC via the cheapest cable package. You think you are going to pay that if they go over the top?
ESPN on its own would probably be like 25 bucks. Pick your 5 favorite channels and imagine paying 5 dollars a piece for access, on the low end.
It adds up quick.

When I read the technology gymnastics people go through to get a shitty stream tossed to their TV I am grateful I never go to anyones house that is so militant towards the cable companies.......but still pay them for broadband access.

Lol Saving $100+ per month by cutting the cord so I dont waste money paying for 250 bullshit channels I never watch is now considered "militant"? Are you for real?

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

Sony really seems out of touch with reality when pricing their new services

For what they're offering I can't really see it being that much cheaper. Seems like people are out of touch with the current realties of cable pricing. At $10 - $15 they'd be offering channels like: Action, ScyFy, and MTV2. It won't succeed unless they have the channels people want to watch and Sony isn't getting those channels for free.

 

[McDougles]

Wait, the Vue lineup includes Fox Sports 1? That includes the best sports anchors in Jay Onrait and Dan O'Toole, instead of E!SPN's "LeBron! Tebow! LeBron! Yankees! Red Sox! LEBRON!" offering.