Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted October 1, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2014 WWE won’t do anything: it’s income for them and any sign-ups bolsters their poor subscribers numbers.  However, I don’t know what’s going to happen when the Network eventually launches in the UK and WWE finds that a good percentage of the UK audience who were interested in the Network already have accounts by other means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) If it's a carbon copy of what the US version is, I may switch to the UK version once the 6 month period is up. If it's a strange version like what Canada I'm sticking with using it through UnblockUS. Â Is it easy to set up on a PS4, as I'm thinking of maybe upgrading to one of those in the future too. Is it just the same as getting it on the PS3, I.e set up a US account Edited October 1, 2014 by WyattSheepMask Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
300 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Would it be easy to set it up now on the xbox 360? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanz25 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) So with all this stuff going on supposedly Sky getting involved what do we think the outcome will be?- My guess is it will just be a SkyGo or whatever there tablet/pc/smartphone online service is called stream of the 24/7 channel live with a little more on-demand content through the usual on-demand access method sky offer. Can't see them going out the way to put it on the TV and that. - Unlikely they stick the 24/7 channel on between SSP channels, they have too many channels with filler during the day anyway, it'd be a mess but it wouldn't surprise me, for example say 6AM - 5PM it's on SSP3 then 5PM - 6AM it moves over to SPP F1 or something.  - Seriously though this is probably the worst case WWE could want. If sky want involved it'll mean a bulk of customers on Virgin Media, BT, TalkTalk will either have to wait 2-3 years to get all the features sky will offer if they take it on or they won't get it at all, if we base it on how Sky handle stuff like this in the past. I take it the PPV's are the issue? Sky do good business from them but it's probably mostly the same people who always buy them? I'd imagine other than the four big one's the others don't fluctuate numbers wise greatly? Sky won't want them being given away free practically or for cheaper than they charge with less content?Edit: A comment from DS forums claiming that virginmedia want to get it as a proper standalone channel or as somesort of TiVo service which would easily be possible for them, issue arises with sky owning the sole WWE TV Rights. Make of that what you will but someone who's been involved with testing the UK network supposedly."  Edited October 1, 2014 by seanz25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doctor Whos Next Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Sky are in an interesting position...  I can't see them wanting to let PPVs go, especially ones that are on Box Office. Other Pay Per Views like Boxing and Concerts don't seem as frequent, so they must be a nice little earner. Plus, the B List WWE stuff - Main event, Superstars, NXT and DVD Docco's are decent schedule fillers. Something like WWE Experience gets 21,000 Viewers.  Plus, by being the exclusive home of WWE content, people have to subscribe to Sky if they want to watch everything.  So, if they did come out with the Network Independent of Sky, I think that will eat into their viewership somewhat, especially when Raw and Smackdown start to promote the bejesus out of it. In fact, isn't there a law that is supposed to prevent excessive advertising?  That being said, WWE Network's success is far from assured - the US Version is struggling and I can only assume Sky would know that. When WWE tried to go into business with someone else in the UK, (Channel 4) the results were less than successful. So, Sky have an advantage there.  Or I could be wrong and the Rupert Murchoch's dog might have eaten the contract  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanz25 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 The problem may well lie with the sky/WWE contract. As we don't know the ins and outs there's potential that the right to 'exclusively show wwe' within the UK may mean a breach of terms by WWE if they where to go on and run there own network. I'm not sure how that all works with online and actual tv etc though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelMush Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 If it's not available through Xbox then I'm going to have to maybe get the American version Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator Onyx2 Posted October 1, 2014 Awards Moderator Share Posted October 1, 2014 If this ends up exclusive to any provider other than Freeview I'll be fucking livid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Benno Posted October 1, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) If it's a carbon copy of what the US version is, I may switch to the UK version once the 6 month period is up.If they go the route they have with the rest of the world, it won't be a carbon copy, it'll litterally be the same service and your existing subscription keeps going. You'll be able to change your address to a UK one if you wish, but it's the same service at the same $9.99 price from Malta to New Zealand. Nobody has their own service. They just lift the Geoblock when they "launch" in an individual country.  Can't see them going out the way to put it on the TV and that.  Unlikely they stick the 24/7 channel on between SSP channels, they have too many channels with filler during the day anyway, it'd be a mess but it wouldn't surprise me, for example say 6AM - 5PM it's on SSP3 then 5PM - 6AM it moves over to SPP F1 or something.   What on earth are you on about. They have 24 Hour Horse Racing channels and channels dedicated to individual football clubs in the sports section. Having a 24 hour wrestling channel (you know, like the wrestling channel) isn't far fetched at all. My guess on all this is Sky weren't arsed about the Network, then loads of people like us contacted them asking if they were carrying it and they're either now wanting to carry it, or are kicking off to WWE having realised their shiny new WWE deal is being undercut online. Edited October 1, 2014 by Benno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 1, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2014 it won't be a carbon copy, it'll litterally be the same You know what carbon copy means, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Arch Stanton Posted October 1, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2014 What I don't understand is that WWE only signed their new TV rights deal with Sky in January of this year, just weeks after the Network launch date had been officially announced. Surely the future of the Network would have formed a big part of those negotiations given they were agreeing such a long term rights deal? How could it not have done? It would strike me as complete ineptitude on the part of both Sky and WWE to go into that deal without working terms for the Network and Sky don't usually fuck anything up at all. Â As a Sky subscriber, I'd be very happy if the Network was to be made available through my Sky box, under the On Demand options and perhaps with a channel showing the Network live stream. The convenience of that alone would probably be enough to tempt me to sign up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Benno Posted October 1, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) Â it won't be a carbon copy, it'll litterally be the same You know what carbon copy means, right? Â You've cut my sentence off to make your mistaken point. I said "it'll lit(t)erally be the same service". Â In the context of what he was saying, saying it's a carbon copy indicates it's a duplicate, i.e. he was talking about there being a carbon copy online UK service he could "switch to" and get a secondary subscription to. There aren't multiple versions, my point is It's one service - the same service, there is no copy, no UK Service to switch to as he suggests in that scenario. Edited October 2, 2014 by Benno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 2, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 2, 2014 Â Â it won't be a carbon copy, it'll litterally be the same You know what carbon copy means, right? Â You've cut my sentence off to make your mistaken point. I said "it'll lit(t)erally be the same service". Â In the context of what he was saying, saying it's a carbon copy indicates it's a duplicate, i.e. he was talking about there being a carbon copy online UK service he could "switch to" and get a secondary subscription to. There aren't multiple versions, my point is It's one service - the same service, there is no copy, no UK Service to switch to as he suggests in that scenario. Â Â It isn't one service. The Canada one is different. That's what everyone is referring to when wondering if we'll get the Network as is. And "literally the same" is still the definition of "carbon copy". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Benno Posted October 2, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) It isn't one service. The Canada one is different. That's what everyone is referring to when wondering if we'll get the Network as is.  It actually isn't. Read the persons post I'm quoting for some context. The poster I was talking to, was suggesting two scenarios, one where we get a Network like the Canadian version that he's not interested in, and one, which we're talking about here, where he's supposed we get a "carbon copy" online service, like the rest of the world got, that he could sign up to independent from his current US subscription. As far as online goes, there is only one service, what he's suggesting, based on how the online service works worldwide, isn't possible in the scenario suggested by the poster. And "literally the same" is still the definition of "carbon copy".Again, I said "litterally the same service." If you use the word literally in it's proper context and actually read what I said in full without cuttting off my sentence, you'll see what I essentially meant was there's "litterally one service", which online, there is. Edited October 2, 2014 by Benno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 2, 2014 Paid Members Share Posted October 2, 2014  And "literally the same" is still the definition of "carbon copy".Again, I said "litterally the same service." If you use the word literally in it's proper context and actually read what I said in full without cuttting off my sentence, you'll see what I essentially meant was there's "litterally one service", which online, there is. Fair point. But in context, that's exactly what he meant. Continue thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.