MSG's Sabre Games: No Cable Needed Next Season

[That Aud Smell]

This is good news, I think.

Also, I called it!

 

Edited March 2, 2023 by That Aud Smell

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Yuchhhhhhh i would rather have ESPN plus! Although i use an app to change my location so i can watch sabres games against NY and NJ games on my phone. MSG+ may be good for Buffalonians, but those of us in the NY markets it will not

[Marvin]

Just now, Stormcloudmember66 said:

Yuchhhhhhh i would rather have ESPN plus! Although i use an app to change my location so i can watch sabres games against NY and NJ games on my phone. MSG+ may be good for Buffalonians, but those of us in the NY markets it will not

Will there be a way to access it via Center Ice?

[mjd1001]

Seems a bit pricey.  Maybe not for a lot of consumers, but if you go by the fact that a large portion of 'cord cutters' are younger people or people who can't afford a full cable package, then $10 a game or $30 a month doesn't help much.

The NHL is so afraid of giving their fans/consumers 'too good of a deal' today where they might lose that $1 right now, they are losing out on $10 in the future.  The NFL gets it, and the NFL already has the fan base so they really don't need to make their games as available as the NHL. The NHL, with a much smaller fanbase, should be falling all over themselves to make as many of their games free or at a very, VERY low cost for fans.  Let them watch your game, let them love your game, let them want to buy tickets, buy jerseys, T-shirts etc.

I posted in another thread about this.  I have 2 nieces, a nephew, and our daughter and her boyfriend all in their 20's and no longer 'living at home'. They all are/were big Sabres fans, but none of them watch the games anymore as they won't buy a full cable package.  $10 a game, $30 a month or $300+ dollars per year will do ZERO to get them to sign up so they can watch games again.

Does the NHL want to grown their fanbase today? Or would they rather not grow the fanbase but squeeze every dollar they can out of their current fanbase? they are doing the latter.

Edited March 2, 2023 by mjd1001

[WhenWillItEnd66]

Espn+ is a lot cheaper as i get it in a bundle with Disney+ and Hulu. Better then paying $150 + for CI (Which i used to do)

[Norcal]

Seems pricey 

[Taro T]

Hmm, $310 for a full year, or $210 for a full Sabres season paying month by month. Decisions, decisions. ;)

[Stoner]

41 minutes ago, Stormcloudmember66 said:

Espn+ is a lot cheaper as i get it in a bundle with Disney+ and Hulu. Better then paying $150 + for CI (Which i used to do)

You're out of Sabres TV territory?

For those in market I take it ESPN+ games are blacked out unless they are exclusive to ESPN+.

This move is for in market cord cutters. I like it but the cost is high. And... Givem that hockey season is seven months (ahem)... How did they come up with an annual charge that's higher than 7x30?

[Taro T]

With DirecTV losing the Sunday Ticket, this announcement might mean our time as DTV customers migh t be ending soon.  Provided we can figure out how to get streaming to come in at the same quality as the picture we currently get via DTV.  (On our setup, the picture via streaming is significantly poorer quality than satellite.)

[Stoner]

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

Hmm, $310 for a full year, or $210 for a full Sabres season paying month by month. Decisions, decisions. 😉

See there ya go! Let's hug.

[Taro T]

Just now, PASabreFan said:

You're out of Sabres TV territory?

For those in market I take it ESPN+ games are blacked out unless they are exclusive to ESPN+.

This move is for in market cord cutters. I like it but the cost is high. And... Givem that hockey season is seven months (ahem)... How did they come up with an annual charge that's higher than 7x30?

You get bouncey ball too.  (Adding the 2-3 months extra of that would still seem to be cheaper than a full year, so who knows.  Maybe they'll do like they do on the main MSG channel and have "classic" games available on the service out of season to keep people subscribed during the off season?)

[GoPuckYourself]

I've been trying to find an MSG app but you have to purchase either this or that to watch so this is great news for me.

[bills_fan_in_raleigh]

39 minutes ago, Taro T said:

With DirecTV losing the Sunday Ticket, this announcement might mean our time as DTV customers migh t be ending soon.  Provided we can figure out how to get streaming to come in at the same quality as the picture we currently get via DTV.  (On our setup, the picture via streaming is significantly poorer quality than satellite.)

Really we have only streaming of comcast and ESPN and other services on appletv.  Picture is fine 

[Drag0nDan]

1 hour ago, mjd1001 said:

Seems a bit pricey.  Maybe not for a lot of consumers, but if you go by the fact that a large portion of 'cord cutters' are younger people or people who can't afford a full cable package, then $10 a game or $30 a month doesn't help much.

The NHL is so afraid of giving their fans/consumers 'too good of a deal' today where they might lose that $1 right now, they are losing out on $10 in the future.  The NFL gets it, and the NFL already has the fan base so they really don't need to make their games as available as the NHL. The NHL, with a much smaller fanbase, should be falling all over themselves to make as many of their games free or at a very, VERY low cost for fans.  Let them watch your game, let them love your game, let them want to buy tickets, buy jerseys, T-shirts etc.

I posted in another thread about this.  I have 2 nieces, a nephew, and our daughter and her boyfriend all in their 20's and no longer 'living at home'. They all are/were big Sabres fans, but none of them watch the games anymore as they won't buy a full cable package.  $10 a game, $30 a month or $300+ dollars per year will do ZERO to get them to sign up so they can watch games again.

Does the NHL want to grown their fanbase today? Or would they rather not grow the fanbase but squeeze every dollar they can out of their current fanbase? they are doing the latter.

It changes nothing for people who already have cable, or out of market people with ESPN+.   Its just giving people who don't have or want cable in the buffalo market an option to watch the games.  

I think its overpriced, but maybe they'll see low subscriber counts and adjust - but it literally already exists as a platform.  They don't need to do much of anything other than lift blackout restrictions for subscribers.  So all this really does is address a portion of fans who had no access, so i don't see how it could be anything other than growth.  

I'm more wondering when they're going to address the absolute terrible quality of it.  Sound is off, especially on away games.  Camera feeds are terrible.  Feels like its dark - that could be our terrible arena though.  It's a consistently poor product. 

Edited March 2, 2023 by Drag0nDan

[That Aud Smell]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

Hmm, $310 for a full year, or $210 for a full Sabres season paying month by month. Decisions, decisions. 😉

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

This move is for in market cord cutters. I like it but the cost is high. And... Givem that hockey season is seven months (ahem)... How did they come up with an annual charge that's higher than 7x30?

Wait - ha. Is that right? 

I'll add: This app isn't just for the Sabres. There's other content. Mainly the Knicks. So maybe that's why it's more expensive to get it for the entire year than it would be to go monthly for the Sabres games.

That's better news (to the tune of $100), then, for in-market cord cutters.

[That Aud Smell]

Also: Is "7" the correct number to use when multiplying

1 hour ago, PASabreFan said:

Given that hockey season is seven months (ahem)

I reckon that, if the Sabres' season goes longer than 7 months, I will not care what I am paying for extended viewing access. Right?

[mjd1001]

33 minutes ago, Drag0nDan said:

 

I think its overpriced, but maybe they'll see low subscriber counts and adjust - but it literally already exists as a platform.  They don't need to do much of anything other than lift blackout restrictions for subscribers.  So all this really does is address a portion of fans who had no access, so i don't see how it could be anything other than growth.  

 

I'm not disagreeing with you saying they see it as nothing but growth. What I am thinking is that is the problem. They see nothing but growth compared to where they are.  What they should be doing is talking a half step back today in order to take 3 steps forward tomorrow by making their games available and affordable.

The NFL is different, but they make sure that EVERY game in the home market is available no matter what.  They do the opposite of the NHL where the NHL makes sure that if you want to see your local team you are going to pay one way or the other (buy a tick, or pay for a cable package, or pay for a package like this.).  Fans of the NFL, they may never pay for a cable package or never go to a game, but many of those same people talk about the game, buy t-shirts, buy merchandiser, and many of them become fans when they are younger because they were exposed to the game and then later in life they spend MORE and go to more games.  The NHL is so backwards just to make that $buck today.

Bettman and the old school owners are dinosaurs.  Their league exists and grows (MARGINALLY) because of the product and despite their managment of it. Bettman is condescending and will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting a mistake. The NHL and Bettman/the owners basically run the league in large part like it is 40 years ago and present it and themselves in a very unappealing way to fans or people who WANT to like what they are doing. They do not present their product the way their fans want to consume it, they instead present it the way they want to present it and then try to convince the fans that is the best way.  Most of your existing fans, especially the hard-core fans aren't going away. As the #4 league out of the 4 major North American leagues, they should be thinking about growth, how to get more casual fans and turn them into more than casual fans. The NHL needs to do this more than the other 3 leagues. They continue to not do so.

Edited March 2, 2023 by mjd1001

[Getpucksdeep]

Higher than expected but I'm in. Rochester / YouTube TV / ESPN+ here. Been using pirate on laptop for years.  $210 is cost of attending a game or two.  Also less than a new goathead Adidas jersey.  

[nucci]

1 hour ago, Taro T said:

With DirecTV losing the Sunday Ticket, this announcement might mean our time as DTV customers migh t be ending soon.  Provided we can figure out how to get streaming to come in at the same quality as the picture we currently get via DTV.  (On our setup, the picture via streaming is significantly poorer quality than satellite.)

I dropped directv and now have youtube tv and disney bundle. I'm not in Buffalo so I watch games on ESPN+. Picture quality is great. I have comcast so my internet is excellent. 

[nucci]

8 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you saying they see it as nothing but growth. What I am thinking is that is the problem. They see nothing but growth compared to where they are.  What they should be doing is talking a half step back today in order to take 3 steps forward tomorrow by making their games available and affordable.

The NFL is different, but they make sure that EVERY game in the home market is available no matter what.  They do the opposite of the NHL where the NHL makes sure that if you want to see your local team you are going to pay one way or the other (buy a tick, or pay for a cable package, or pay for a package like this.).  Fans of the NFL, they may never pay for a cable package or never go to a game, but many of those same people talk about the game, buy t-shirts, buy merchandiser, and many of them become fans when they are younger because they were exposed to the game and then later in life they spend MORE and go to more games.  The NHL is so backwards just to make that $buck today.

Bettman and the old school owners are dinosaurs.  Their league exists and grows (MARGINALLY) because of the product and despite their managment of it. Bettman is condescending and will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting a mistake. The NHL and Bettman/the owners basically run the league in large part like it is 40 years ago and present it and themselves in a very unappealing way to fans or people who WANT to like what they are doing. They do not present their product the way their fans want to consume it, they instead present it the way they want to present it and then try to convince the fans that is the best way.  

incredible there are still blackouts is some sports

[mjd1001]

1 minute ago, nucci said:

incredible there are still blackouts is some sports

Some owners fall into the 'grumpy old man' category.  If you want to watch my product, you are going to pay for it, no free-loaders.  Doesn't matter to them that if they made entry to their product free or at least more affordable, they would make a LOT more revenue down the road through other sources, they don't care.  They sell tickets. They get cash NOW from viewership, They want to make sure you pay up, or you don't get their product.

[Taro T]

41 minutes ago, That Aud Smell said:

Also: Is "7" the correct number to use when multiplying

I reckon that, if the Sabres' season goes longer than 7 months, I will not care what I am paying for extended viewing access. Right?

ESPN/ABC and TNT have the rights to all the post season games, so 7 months (October - April) covers it for MSG content.  (Who cares about preseason games which tend not to be on MSG anyhow.)

[Taro T]

25 minutes ago, mjd1001 said:

I'm not disagreeing with you saying they see it as nothing but growth. What I am thinking is that is the problem. They see nothing but growth compared to where they are.  What they should be doing is talking a half step back today in order to take 3 steps forward tomorrow by making their games available and affordable.

The NFL is different, but they make sure that EVERY game in the home market is available no matter what.  They do the opposite of the NHL where the NHL makes sure that if you want to see your local team you are going to pay one way or the other (buy a tick, or pay for a cable package, or pay for a package like this.).  Fans of the NFL, they may never pay for a cable package or never go to a game, but many of those same people talk about the game, buy t-shirts, buy merchandiser, and many of them become fans when they are younger because they were exposed to the game and then later in life they spend MORE and go to more games.  The NHL is so backwards just to make that $buck today.

Bettman and the old school owners are dinosaurs.  Their league exists and grows (MARGINALLY) because of the product and despite their managment of it. Bettman is condescending and will do ANYTHING to avoid admitting a mistake. The NHL and Bettman/the owners basically run the league in large part like it is 40 years ago and present it and themselves in a very unappealing way to fans or people who WANT to like what they are doing. They do not present their product the way their fans want to consume it, they instead present it the way they want to present it and then try to convince the fans that is the best way.  Most of your existing fans, especially the hard-core fans aren't going away. As the #4 league out of the 4 major North American leagues, they should be thinking about growth, how to get more casual fans and turn them into more than casual fans. The NHL needs to do this more than the other 3 leagues. They continue to not do so.

For the last 5 years or so that is true, but home game blackouts were real until very recently for football too.

[Taro T]

21 minutes ago, nucci said:

I dropped directv and now have youtube tv and disney bundle. I'm not in Buffalo so I watch games on ESPN+. Picture quality is great. I have comcast so my internet is excellent. 

@lts was saying the same thing in a different thread.  Have spectrum for internet (formerly time warner roadrunner) and a very good WiFi router, so should have a good setup.  But the picture quality of stuff that we stream is significantly (well, noticably) lower quality than that which we get over satellite.  Not sure what has to be adjusted on the laptop's settings but must have something not configured properly.

[Contempt]

2 hours ago, Taro T said:

Hmm, $310 for a full year, or $210 for a full Sabres season paying month by month. Decisions, decisions. 😉

Seriously. I haven't wanted to watch the Knicks since the days of Ewing and Starks.