WWE Network finally happening

[Bix]

Let me try to ask this as clearly as possible.

 

WWE digitised most of their library before they came to an agreement with World Wild Life fund.

 

So will the WWE Network have the blurred scratch logo on footage at launch?

 

Did WWE keep an unblurred copy of each show when they were digitising their library over the past decade or so? Or will they have to go through the process all over again?

 

I do remember hearing somewhere that WWE only made a blurred logo digital transfers of shows.

They only blurred footage when they were editing it for a new release. All of the main digital masters have no editing of amything.

 

The only blurred footage on WWE Network will be DVD releases of scratch logo era footage that came out before the settlement that happened around Raw 1,000.

 

Well, unless they're lazy enough to recycle old Classics on Demand versions of some PPVs. Which I doubt since there's no editing on WWE Network and there was heavy editing on Classics early on.

[goc]

I think this has the potential to really screw up their TV rights negotiations. But in the end, it's not like they are going to take anything LESS than what they are making now. And on top of that, I think the WWE Network will be a big success. They are going to market the shit out of it on all their shows. They have probably 3 or 4 million people who watch on TV every week. That doesn't account for the people who watch with Hulu Plus, torrents, Youtube, whatever.

 

If they can get 25% of those people to sign up for the WWE Network, it will be a success. The fact that you pay $60 and it is in time for WrestleMania, and I assume it'll also be in time for Elimination Chamber is huge. That's two of the biggest PPVs of the year, at a discount. Then you have people who are lapsed fans but will buy it for the old footage and perhaps become interested again by watching a current PPV. I really think the WWE Network is going to be a big success, at least in the short term. If they are plagued with technical issues for the first 6 months, they are going to have a real problem because I think the well is already going to be poisoned with satellite and cable.

 

EDIT: I just noticed the Network launches the day AFTER Elimination Chamber. I would call that a bad idea. I think it'd be much better to get a good test run in before possibly shitting the bed with WrestleMania. I know everyone seems to hand wave any concerns away with "MLB.tv" but I'd like to know what kind of traffic volume they are used to dealing with regularly. I know TV ratings for baseball aren't that great, even in the postseason so I'm kind of wondering if the MLB.tv structure has been tested the way it could potentially be tested for WrestleMania.

[Loss]

It's kind of the opposite of the saying -- penny foolish and dollar wise.

[jdw]

Dave brought up a great point in their Q&A show:

 

Comcast, as a cable company, is likely as upset about potentially losing PPV revenue as DirecTV is (just not likely to write a pissy PR release about it). They also own NBCUniversal, who WWE is trying to get 2-3x the TV revenue from. That could make for some interesting talks when Vince comes in asking to get paid more when the network is taking cash out of Universal's pockets.

This is something I've been saying: launching the network, particularly with including Wrestlemania, seemed like they were risking thumbing their nose at the sugar daddy. That's why I didn't think they'd want to launch before they had the TV rights negotiations wrapped up. But they did, because they figured they had to launch in Road to Wrestlemania mode. Its a gamble but that's how McMahons roll, I guess.

 

My guess, given (i) how much they pay for WWE content and (ii) how many different ways the PPV revenue is split up and Comcast's size that WWE Content is more valuable to their bottom line that WWE PPV. Even more so if they were willing to increase the rates by 50% or more in the new deal.

 

If WWE Content is of value to them, they'll be more than happy to pay for it at a price that can make them money. This is all just business.

 

John

[Bix]

Dave brought up a great point in their Q&A show:

 

Comcast, as a cable company, is likely as upset about potentially losing PPV revenue as DirecTV is (just not likely to write a pissy PR release about it). They also own NBCUniversal, who WWE is trying to get 2-3x the TV revenue from. That could make for some interesting talks when Vince comes in asking to get paid more when the network is taking cash out of Universal's pockets.

This is something I've been saying: launching the network, particularly with including Wrestlemania, seemed like they were risking thumbing their nose at the sugar daddy. That's why I didn't think they'd want to launch before they had the TV rights negotiations wrapped up. But they did, because they figured they had to launch in Road to Wrestlemania mode. Its a gamble but that's how McMahons roll, I guess.

 

My guess, given (i) how much they pay for WWE content and (ii) how many different ways the PPV revenue is split up and Comcast's size that WWE Content is more valuable to their bottom line that WWE PPV. Even more so if they were willing to increase the rates by 50% or more in the new deal.

 

If WWE Content is of value to them, they'll be more than happy to pay for it at a price that can make them money. This is all just business.

 

Also, as Dave pointed out: If there's anything resembling a bidding war, it probably won't matter.

[jdw]

EDIT: I just noticed the Network launches the day AFTER Elimination Chamber. I would call that a bad idea. I think it'd be much better to get a good test run in before possibly shitting the bed with WrestleMania. I know everyone seems to hand wave any concerns away with "MLB.tv" but I'd like to know what kind of traffic volume they are used to dealing with regularly. I know TV ratings for baseball aren't that great, even in the postseason so I'm kind of wondering if the MLB.tv structure has been tested the way it could potentially be tested for WrestleMania.

Back in 2011 it was 1M live streams a day. Given how rapidly these things are going (such as Netflix subs), it's likely grow a fair amount since then.

 

Here's the thing about this: MLB.tv will know exactly what level of resource they'll need to dedicate to it by the number of subs that the Network gets. This isn't like an iPPV where people impulse buy it at the last minute. It's unlikely that say 250K people are going to sign up for WWE Network 1-2 hours before Mania, trying to figure out how to make it work on their TV, etc. The vast majority of subs will come in advance where they'll have a very good idea of what they need to dedicate, and in turn build in a bit of margin above that for a small % of last minute attempts.

 

It's not likely to be a problem on the back end. The greater problem will be on the front end: User Error in setting it up. And that's where the WWE and/or MLB.tv is going to need to dedicate some resources. The annoying thing about User Error is that a large number of them just can't grasp that they're fucking up, can't fix it, and tend to turn to Support to fix it for them.

[Kevin Ridge]

Was thinking about it and not that I care to watch it myself but I am sure that Over the Edge 99 will not get included on Network even though they mentioned every WWE/WCW/ECW PPV would be available from the start. The show did not get a home video release and individual matches from it have not made themselves on to WWE compilation DVDs. That one will probably remain retired.

[sek69]

Dave brought up a great point in their Q&A show:

 

Comcast, as a cable company, is likely as upset about potentially losing PPV revenue as DirecTV is (just not likely to write a pissy PR release about it). They also own NBCUniversal, who WWE is trying to get 2-3x the TV revenue from. That could make for some interesting talks when Vince comes in asking to get paid more when the network is taking cash out of Universal's pockets.

This is something I've been saying: launching the network, particularly with including Wrestlemania, seemed like they were risking thumbing their nose at the sugar daddy. That's why I didn't think they'd want to launch before they had the TV rights negotiations wrapped up. But they did, because they figured they had to launch in Road to Wrestlemania mode. Its a gamble but that's how McMahons roll, I guess.

 

My guess, given (i) how much they pay for WWE content and (ii) how many different ways the PPV revenue is split up and Comcast's size that WWE Content is more valuable to their bottom line that WWE PPV. Even more so if they were willing to increase the rates by 50% or more in the new deal.

 

If WWE Content is of value to them, they'll be more than happy to pay for it at a price that can make them money. This is all just business.

 

Also, as Dave pointed out: If there's anything resembling a bidding war, it probably won't matter.

 

 

True, but the last time their rights came up no one made an offer. That's why they got stuck with the deal they got from USA, it was either take it or have no TV. There's a pretty established history of networks not valuing wrestling content despite the ratings they provide.

[Marty]

RAW 20th Anniversary Collection was promoted as "uncut and unedited". It wasn't. (I enjoy the set, but it wasn't what it was promoted as.) Until I see or hear otherwise, as opposed to "access to the entire WWE Library", I suspect you'll see the usual limitations from them (music, old advertising cut, certain commentary cut, OTE 99, Benoit kept to a limit, even less (nothing) of a mask-less Mysterio, etc.).

[Kevin Ridge]

RAW 20th Anniversary Collection was promoted as "uncut and unedited". It wasn't. (I enjoy the set, but it wasn't what it was promoted as.) Until I see or hear otherwise, as opposed to "access to the entire WWE Library", I suspect you'll see the usual limitations from them (music, old advertising cut, certain commentary cut, OTE 99, Benoit kept to a limit, even less (nothing) of a mask-less Mysterio, etc.).

The editing on the Raw set didn't bother me too much from what I've seen so far. Having purchased many WWE dvds before I've got use to them not always using the original music. Though it sucks for certain guys like Demolition, Bossman, etc. when it gets dubbed over. I hope the keep in Hotline plugs though. Simple to just dub out that phone number and not show the graphic on screen. Ventura on commentary for WCW is a must. Mysterio is interesting as they ignore the late WCW run of his career when he was without mask on all DVD releases. They have to show him without the mask though if you are going to be including all the WCW ppvs. They won't be blurring out his face. I think they were more protective of him previously with the mask when he was pushed more.

[W2BTD]

EDIT: I just noticed the Network launches the day AFTER Elimination Chamber. I would call that a bad idea. I think it'd be much better to get a good test run in before possibly shitting the bed with WrestleMania. I know everyone seems to hand wave any concerns away with "MLB.tv" but I'd like to know what kind of traffic volume they are used to dealing with regularly. I know TV ratings for baseball aren't that great, even in the postseason so I'm kind of wondering if the MLB.tv structure has been tested the way it could potentially be tested for WrestleMania.

Back in 2011 it was 1M live streams a day. Given how rapidly these things are going (such as Netflix subs), it's likely grow a fair amount since then.

 

Here's the thing about this: MLB.tv will know exactly what level of resource they'll need to dedicate to it by the number of subs that the Network gets. This isn't like an iPPV where people impulse buy it at the last minute. It's unlikely that say 250K people are going to sign up for WWE Network 1-2 hours before Mania, trying to figure out how to make it work on their TV, etc. The vast majority of subs will come in advance where they'll have a very good idea of what they need to dedicate, and in turn build in a bit of margin above that for a small % of last minute attempts.

 

It's not likely to be a problem on the back end. The greater problem will be on the front end: User Error in setting it up. And that's where the WWE and/or MLB.tv is going to need to dedicate some resources. The annoying thing about User Error is that a large number of them just can't grasp that they're fucking up, can't fix it, and tend to turn to Support to fix it for them.

 

Also should be noted that MLB Advanced Media also handles all ESPN streaming, NCAA March Madness, The Masters, and did last year's Super Bowl for CBS.

 

WWE went to the best people.

[cm funk]

Listening to Meltzer pod kinda cool that Austin says he's only seen 1 Ray Stevens match, and is looking forward to see more.

He said the same thing on his podcast a while back, might have even been the one with Dave, and I found it funny for a few reasons. Austin watches wrestling on youtube like a regular jerk. He could call up WWE and request a DVD of their best Ray Stevens matches and it would happen no sweat, lol. Heck, Dave probably has a ton of Ray Stevens matches buried somewhere in his tape library. Meanwhile....the WWE Network will not be featuring Ray Stevens in any capacity unless Austin or someone else demands it.

 

Which actually gave me a great idea for the network and something I'd love to see.....get wrestlers to host specific wrestler related match/clip packages. Austin wants to see Ray Stevens.....give him a bunch of stuff to watch, and then let him pick his favorite stuff and talk about it. There is so much potential with something like that. So much talent on the roster and under the umbrella who are legitimate fans and students of the game. Heck, it could even be used as a learning tool for young talent. Find someone who you want to improve in certain areas and have him watch a bunch of footage of a guy who was great at that stuff, have him report on it, and record it for the network.

 

On piracy....this won't cut down on sources of it, but will definitely cut down on end users. Personally, I don't have cable and I haven't spent on WWE in years other than a few DVDs....you can take a wild guess how I watch their product. I am absolutely subscribing to this Network, and I have a feeling that once I have it I'm not unsubscribing. That's just one person. But from reading this and other boards, heck even youtube comments, it sounds like there are a lot of people exactly like me. People are ready to throw money hand over fist at WWE for this. We love wrestling, but we ain't marks in the traditional meaning of the word, and we're not going to pay $60 for their tepid PPV offerings. It's been proven so many times that people will pay a reasonable price for content of any kind if they feel it offers value....and everyone wins....but when you try to screw your consumers the way say the record industry has...people won't take it lying down.

 

I do find the streaming sources coming from the UK and other foreign countries a very interesting topic that I'd love to have more of a definitive answer/reason on. I rarely see USA Network streams of RAW....that vast majority are Sky Sports UK. I actually like that because the British commercials are way more interesting to me than US commercials. I'm a Yankees fan......a lot of the streams of their games come from Asia, but are English language broadcasts. I always found that bizarre. NBA streams are always right from the US...either NBA tv or whatever regional channel covers the games. Also, FWIW, you rarely see pirated content from MLB network, or people jacking dot TV stuff, and I think a big part of the reason for that is that the audience that would want that stuff would just as soon already be paying for the content. I've subscribed to mlb.tv in the past and it's a really great service and an extremely affordable price. My only problem is the regional blackouts, and that's the only reason I'm not a current subscriber.

 

To the people asking about the viability of ripping stuff from the WWE Network....first of all I know people will do it but it seems like a waste of time when the Network is priced so affordably. Second....I assume MLBAM has some of the best copywrite protection on streaming content around. Plus....somebody might stream the WWE network live feed....but 95% of what people want to see is the archives

[goc]

To the people asking about the viability of ripping stuff from the WWE Network....first of all I know people will do it but it seems like a waste of time when the Network is priced so affordably. Second....I assume MLBAM has some of the best copywrite protection on streaming content around. Plus....somebody might stream the WWE network live feed....but 95% of what people want to see is the archives

There is still a lot of people who would like to have rips of archives so they can burn them to hard drives, dvds, whatever. I'm not sure how MLBAM handles their protection but I don't think it would be hard to track things that are ripped from the Network. If that was my call I would look into a way to digitally watermark their streams to include subscriber # that is randomly placed somewhere in the duration of the stream. Even if people knew what you were doing, it seems like it'd be a real pain in the ass and not worth the trouble to find it if it was randomly placed.

[cm funk]

EDIT: I just noticed the Network launches the day AFTER Elimination Chamber. I would call that a bad idea. I think it'd be much better to get a good test run in before possibly shitting the bed with WrestleMania. I know everyone seems to hand wave any concerns away with "MLB.tv" but I'd like to know what kind of traffic volume they are used to dealing with regularly. I know TV ratings for baseball aren't that great, even in the postseason so I'm kind of wondering if the MLB.tv structure has been tested the way it could potentially be tested for WrestleMania.

That's a legitimate question and something I've wondered myself. I'm doubting it will be a problem, but streaming WM is a lot different from having 14 or 15 different streaming games based on one central hub. I don't know any sort of #'s on how many people watch games with mlb.tv, but I'm assuming with 30 teams it's a pretty substantial #. They've also worked on other major, high traffic events. These aren't amateurs. And really, how many people will be watching WM on the network, really? A lot of people are still going to buy it as a traditional PPV. A lot of the buys come from foreign markets that won't have access to the network. A lot of buys come from Canada, which won't have the Network. The actual # won't be something MLBAM hasn't dealt with before.

 

I think the bigger potential technical issue is the launch date signup. I don't know why they made it a "sign up at 9 AM the day of the launch" type deal. Are they not ready to handle subscriptions right now? Is the infrastructure not fully implemented? That would be a little worrisome. I don't see the benefit to them of having everyone sign up the day of the launch at roughly the same time. wwe.com can handle the trafic for sure, but it seems a completely unnecesary burden on them. I would not be at all surprised to see sign up related issues

[goc]

I really hate the 9 A.M. signup as well. I wish it was just "sign up February 24" and pretty much at 12:01 the Network goes online. If you have people ready and working at the time you can tackle any problems that might pop up early before you start seeing high traffic. Plus it would be nice for me because I work Monday night overnight and thus could stay up all night Sunday/into the day Monday checking it out.

 

On another note, on NFL Game Rewind there is a chat room function for every game. I never really understood what that was for, since you can't watch games live with that service. It would however be pretty cool if they had that included in the Network, where maybe you could set up a room with a password and anyone who joined would synch up with what you're watching and you can type/talk with each other.'

[BlueGuy]

A simple Google search reveals that some MLB.TV subscribers have complained about the video quality of this service, specifically on fast motion and audience panning. When checking MLB.TV, a lot of their FAQ material leads you to believe that while you can watch games on your TV, the service is really meant for watching on other devices (laptops, ipads, etc).

 

Meanwhile, WWE has really pushed the idea that their service will work great on any platform including TVs. Is there any chance at all that WWE Network will be better than MLB.TV? Will it even be any better than their free videos on YouTube? Are they simply hoping that wrestling fans will gladly take any quality and shut up? I really can't imagine inviting a bunch of people (specifically casual and lapsed fans who are intrigued by the Network) over to watch WrestleMania and turning on the TV to reveal something arguably worse than an analog picture, but if it's no better than MLB.TV I guess that's bound to happen.

[fishbaugh]

I watch MLB.tv on my Roku without any real picture issues -- the stream always starts off with shitty quality for 20-30 seconds before getting up to 'HD'. Once that happens, I have never noticed any real issues. And I have Time Warner internet in LA, which has a terrible reputation (I've never had any trouble with it but to read online they have been known to cap your speeds so they can use the extra bandwidth to murder the elderly). If the network can stream a PPV at the quality I watch MLB.tv at, it'll be more than good enough for me.

[BlueGuy]

I watch MLB.tv on my Roku without any real picture issues -- the stream always starts off with shitty quality for 20-30 seconds before getting up to 'HD'. Once that happens, I have never noticed any real issues. And I have Time Warner internet in LA, which has a terrible reputation (I've never had any trouble with it but to read online they have been known to cap your speeds so they can use the extra bandwidth to murder the elderly). If the network can stream a PPV at the quality I watch MLB.tv at, it'll be more than good enough for me.

That's great to hear and I've heard it from others as well. I imagine at its best, the colors and sharpness are every bit as vibrant and perfect as a cable HD broadcast. Would the fast motions and camera panning look as good as a Blu-ray or even a DVD? Or, are you seeing a film-like effect that generally isn't seen on cable TV live sports or a WWE release? For example, does it look like cable quality when the batter swings?

[fishbaugh]

I watch MLB.tv on my Roku without any real picture issues -- the stream always starts off with shitty quality for 20-30 seconds before getting up to 'HD'. Once that happens, I have never noticed any real issues. And I have Time Warner internet in LA, which has a terrible reputation (I've never had any trouble with it but to read online they have been known to cap your speeds so they can use the extra bandwidth to murder the elderly). If the network can stream a PPV at the quality I watch MLB.tv at, it'll be more than good enough for me.

That's great to hear and I've heard it from others as well. I imagine at its best, the colors and sharpness are every bit as vibrant and perfect as a cable HD broadcast. Would the fast motions and camera panning look as good as a Blu-ray or even a DVD? Or, are you seeing a film-like effect that generally isn't seen on cable TV live sports or a WWE release? For example, does it look like cable quality when the batter swings?

 

I just got a new TV that has that motion smoothing effect/higher resolution, but that was after the season was over so I can't comment. I never noticed an issue on my older LCD TV, but maybe it would be noticeable on one of the fancier ones?

[BlueGuy]

I watch MLB.tv on my Roku without any real picture issues -- the stream always starts off with shitty quality for 20-30 seconds before getting up to 'HD'. Once that happens, I have never noticed any real issues. And I have Time Warner internet in LA, which has a terrible reputation (I've never had any trouble with it but to read online they have been known to cap your speeds so they can use the extra bandwidth to murder the elderly). If the network can stream a PPV at the quality I watch MLB.tv at, it'll be more than good enough for me.

That's great to hear and I've heard it from others as well. I imagine at its best, the colors and sharpness are every bit as vibrant and perfect as a cable HD broadcast. Would the fast motions and camera panning look as good as a Blu-ray or even a DVD? Or, are you seeing a film-like effect that generally isn't seen on cable TV live sports or a WWE release? For example, does it look like cable quality when the batter swings?

 

I just got a new TV that has that motion smoothing effect/higher resolution, but that was after the season was over so I can't comment. I never noticed an issue on my older LCD TV, but maybe it would be noticeable on one of the fancier ones?

 

Good to know. Actually, if you didn't have a problem before, you shouldn't have a problem with motion on the newer sets as they generally offer you the ability to turn off or on the motion smoothing effect to suit your needs.

[Zoo Enthusiast]

I use MLB.TV on both a Roku and PS3 and have never had a complaint with the VQ.

[kayfabe1984]

I've used MLB.TV on my Roku as well and never once has there been an issue with the quality of the picture. I think the picture quality, honestly, is better than cable.

[Log]

I have approval from the wife to get a Roku and a subscription to the network!

 

I mean, I told my wife I'm getting a Roku and a subscription to the network!

[Steven]

I mean, I told my wife I'm getting a Roku and a subscription to the network!

And then she gave approval?

[Log]

Yes.

 

(hangs head)