Bix

I like all of the stuff with the handcuffs and other only in WWE drama stuff. They're trying to have a memorable TLC match without dangerous TLC bumps (though Cena's blown bump at the end looked horrific). My only problem was that they did the handcuffs/unscrew the turnbuckle spot with Punk in the main event of the same show just two years ago.

The only reason I don't bother to talk about what I'd like on the network is that's been talked to death for years. More and more signs are pointing to them trying to put as much as they can up there that I'm pretty optimistic about content. Also: What Matt said about Rob. That he's at least outwardly largely unchanged is pretty great.

Honestly a good comp is best. There are a lot of years in the '80s with long stretches where nothing happens on the Saturday show.

Scroll down. Specific wording in the promos.

After reading the WWE Network story in the new Observer I'm starting to find myself wondering if WWE actually has a plan to get around their deals with the PPV distributors. It seems like Dave has no idea how they plan on addressing it.

My own take, though Chris's is probably better. Emailed and left a message for Nielsen's media relations department asking if they have non-overlapping "watches on a TV" and "watches on a mobile device" figures for Netflix/Hulu Plus to go along with their "watches directly on a computer" and more device specific figures listed in the article. Fingers crossed...

It was lower in the early years, yes. It's been the same for a long time, going back to before the quality was comparable.

WWE would LOVE to try charging less online. At $30 they'd net more than they would on cable/satellite. It's their contracts that force them into charging the cable/satellite price online. Again, nobody has explained how the WWE Network gets around this. There can be other terms, like how UFC PPV fights are restricted to PPV replays for 60 days normally (UFC got this waived so they could show Jones-Gustafsson on FS1). Regardless of what's been said before, they are going to effectively be charging $10 for PPVs now.

I just don't see where it's going to pull in fans aside from the Netflix crowd(Well done on that explanation, Bix) or international viewers(who will get blacked out anyway). I think the people who don't pay for it are going to continue to do so and I think the usual people who buy it are going to also continue to do so. Honestly, this whole thing feels like they are trying to undercut themselves. People don't mention it either but you have to factor in the economy these days. There's hardly a bright outlook for most of America right now and people are finding it really easy to cut out media. Obviously this will be cheaper than the current PPV model, but I don't think people are looking to add any more unnecessary monthly bills. I really also have no idea how anyone with a job and kids could possibly ever find time these days to watch shows. The only real pro that I see here is that it should be pretty cheap for them to pull off. They just need to pay for the set up and the server bills. I disagree, because while all of the historic PPV prices say otherwise, there was a very real sense of "no mas" when they started with the current pricing scheme. The results of that extensive survey Bryan Alvarez did in F4W a few years ago was heavy on this: "Many people noted the WWE price increase as a major deterrent. It was noted that paying $44.95 or $54.95 for WrestleMania or even Royal Rumble could be justified, but paying that for pretty much any other B-show was out of the question (and for the record, based on responses a B-show is now anything outside Royal Rumble or WrestleMania, with a few people adding SummerSlam and No Way Out). Nearly everyone, to a person, suggested a tiered pricing structure, where the current prices would be in effect for Mania and maybe Rumble, and all other shows would be priced significantly lower." Granted, as hardcore fans they'd be more likely to buy the PPVs anyway, but I think it's a legitimate issue. When the pricing flew past DVDs, Blu-Rays, etc. and entered new release video game territory, it ceased being anything resembling value for your money.

Can we please, please stop pretending this is a thing? They're working with MLB Advanced Media. MLB.TV is on almost every connected device that matters: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/subscriptions/index...ts&c_id=mlb Plus, as long as they have at least one supported device, anyone who is already planning on buying WrestleMania would be dumb to not buy the WWE Network launch bundle. For the standard definition WrestleMania price, you get WrestleMania in HD and several months' worth of subsequent PPVs. Don't have a supported device? Get a Roku LT for halfway between the SD and HD price for the other PPVs and you get months worth of PPVs. That's before you even factor in the other content and who it appeals to. They will HAMMER this into everyone's heads. These are people who air a segment about how to download their smartphone/tablet app on every show. If what we're hearing is accurate, the network bombing would have nothing to do with a lack of effort on WWE's part. The biggest question mark is that they're trying to rope in older fans who the archival content would appeal to and/or who just watch the shows around WM each year. Do they have game consoles or other potentially supported devices?

If there's no PS3 app I'd be shocked.

If there's no PS3 app I'd be shocked. They just got online with PS3 for WWE PPVs in Q3 this year, so it would seem natural that supporting that console would be part of the roll-out plan. That's actually via a Sony app (Live Events Viewer), though the PS3 is one of the devices WWE absolutely needs to develop for to make the network work.

You understand that's not what you'd have to do, right? Get a Chromecast or Roku or use a game console.

People cancel HBO, but isn't it seasonal around the end of different shows?

Immediately one of my favorite MMA fights ever. Amazing birthday present. Catch the replay tomorrow night if you missed it. Words can't so it justice other than to say it was a draw and for the first time ever, a draw was absolutely, positively, the best possible result that everyone should be overjoyed for.

You'd think, although from what I understood MLB.TV operated on 2 fronts -- providing MLB.TV that people consume and then providing service / consultation on the delivery of online streaming services, which is essentially a flat, fee-based business. Yeah, that's my understanding now, too.

What issues would they have? Yeah, not sure why they wouldn't go the route of 24/7 and just use generic music. That's by far their biggest rights issue. Being online would not effect that - the issue is attaching music to a video, so the problem is the same. Its why none of the SNL episodes on Netflix have the music (other than the first 5 years, where they did the clearance for the DVDs). On the royalties, the question is based on what the contracts say that determine what the wrestlers are owed. My guess is that whatever the answer is for anything shown on 24/7 would transfer to the network as well. Highly possible that the contracts only cover home video sales, which is why the DVDs are covered. It's not that they can't, it's that it's a lot to Re-edit.

The fact that it will have a 24/7 live stream makes me think we'll still get plenty of original programming. What issues would they have? Music rights, although the era we're talking about ('93-on aside from the first several years of PPVs) is much easier to handle in that respect that older stuff would be.

There's no way they're not using Amazon Web Services or someone similarly huge and reliable to host this. It would be spectacular dumb even by WWE standards and AWS is the obvious choice nowadays. Dave posted this after I mentioned MLB.TV being the closest service because of the combination of live and on demand content: So they're clearly moving in the right direction on the technical side.

Netflix's best quality HD streams are (arguably) better quality than cable HD for a number of reasons including the use of more efficient video compression formats. I don't want to get into the technical explanation of the Classics on Demand picture quality issues (we know what happened, just not why) but Classics is an afterthought and this isn't. They won't make sloppy mistakes.

Dave:

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/436381-maj...-details-on-csr Justin LaBar's saying it's launching on 2/24/14 as PWInsider reported, online only available on all major connected devices, 24/7 stream plus an on demand library that includes every Raw, Smackdown, and PPV to date at launch. $10/month, you pay $60 up-front at launch for the first 6 months but get WM30 and all subsequent non-WM PPVs as part of the subscription. Obviously WZ's track record is mixed, but they have broken legitimate stories before and there a number of things there that make sense, especially the pricing scheme at launch.

Link?