Bank’s equity research unit forecasts heavy losses on the out-of-market games package through 2029
  • radiohead37@lemmy.world
    34·
    11 months ago

    It would be cool to watch my out of state team but I’m not paying $400 for that privilege, not even close.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      13·
      11 months ago

      The gatekeeping of sports is such a wild thing to me.

      A couple years ago, I couldn’t even watch a Braves game in Atlanta because of blackouts.

      How does that make sense?

      • Grangle1@lemm.ee
        6·
        11 months ago

        I still have to use MLB.TV and a VPN to watch the Twins in their own market on anything but expensive cable. Bally Sports is the only place that carries them and they priced themselves off of every single streaming TV service. I don’t need the VPN to watch anyone BUT the Twins. The MLB.TV and VPN is still cheaper than the cable subscription. And Bally wonders why they’re going bankrupt.

        • ShunkW@lemmy.world
          3·
          11 months ago

          Yeah Bally is garbage. I’m in Columbus Ohio, so the MLB blacks out the reds, the guardians, and the pirates. It’s insane.

    • silverbax@lemmy.world
      6·
      11 months ago

      I’m with you - a few times early in this season I looked into it, but I have to pay MORE to just buy the NFL and I don’t need YouTube TV so I said fuck it, I’m not paying $400 bucks just to watch 3 or 4 out of market games a year.

      So basically YouTube is trying the old ‘just buy our whole service for less’…but I don’t want your whole service and I’m not going to buy it unless I want it.

      I just want to watch a few out of market NFL games a year, and neither Google or the NFL will take my money.

      I’d gladly pay for an out of market game once in a while. It’s stupid business not to take customer’s money just because you’re trying to wedge your overall business into our lives.

  • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    211·
    11 months ago

    I usually watch one game a weekend, but if I wanted all of them, I would have three options. First, I could go to a sports bar. It’s fun, social, and costs whatever I would spend on food and drinks. Option 2 is to give Youtube $400 a year and watch whatever games they want to show me on multiview, because I don’t get to pick. Option 3 is I don’t give Youtube $400 and I stream whichever games I want to watch for free.

    I’m not surprised they have millions of subscribers. A lot of people don’t want to go to a bar, and a lot of people don’t have the patience for piracy. But the product they are putting out should be better than those options. They should offer features the make it worth $400 a year. Otherwise, they overpaid for the license.

  • Objects in Space@infosec.pub
    3·
    11 months ago

    I have other financial priorities at the moment so most streaming services are a want and not a need even if I love watching sports. The price is not low enough to buy it because I enjoy it and can justify it. Maybe I’ll budget for it next year.

    Baseball was the same way but luckily YES network did streaming for baseball and I was able to watch the games at a price I felt was reasonable. Also I only subscribed for the season, well technically not the whole season because the Yankees were killing me. That’s part of the deal only streaming 1 team. I couldn’t watch any other team so why stay subbed?

    • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.worldOPM
      3·
      11 months ago

      I know the feeling, we didn’t get past all the burdens until our forties. Now though we are finally making enough money to save and have some luxury items.