Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Finding the games on TV challenge, now in its own thread!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finding the games on TV challenge, now in its own thread!

    Originally posted by Harwar View Post
    Just finished watching since i have trouble at night . strong pitching and solid defense does it every time, but i guess that you need the offense to kick it in gear also, to win . man, i always heard what a bum Foster was, glad that he's doing so well . guess i'm going to have to subscribe to Peacock to watch on Sunday . wow .. 10:30am . that's a wake up call.
    ***! I have to subscribe to my local provider to watch NBC Sports Chicago, then I have to subscribe to Apple TV to watch games, and now I have to subscribe to Peacock (whatever that is) to watch games. What is the MLB doing?

  • #2
    Originally posted by longtimefan View Post

    ***! I have to subscribe to my local provider to watch NBC Sports Chicago, then I have to subscribe to Apple TV to watch games, and now I have to subscribe to Peacock (whatever that is) to watch games. What is the MLB doing?
    You don't have to do any of those things. Listen to the radio broadcast and follow on Gameday. It's one game. As far as what MLB is doing, making money. That's the only reason they do these things. It's new revenue stream and possibly new ad revenue as well.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by longtimefan View Post

      ***! I have to subscribe to my local provider to watch NBC Sports Chicago, then I have to subscribe to Apple TV to watch games, and now I have to subscribe to Peacock (whatever that is) to watch games. What is the MLB doing?
      Sure it's kind of a hassle- on the other hand it's $4.99/month for Peacock (cancel any time you want)- that's about half the cost of a single beer at a Sox game. Same with Apple TV. I'm 300+ miles away from Chicago- so just having access to almost every Sox game via MLB.TV, Apple, Peacock, etc.- is a Godsend for me.
      #1 White Sox fan in Leland, MI

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by StanBahnsen72 View Post

        Sure it's kind of a hassle- on the other hand it's $4.99/month for Peacock (cancel any time you want)- that's about half the cost of a single beer at a Sox game. Same with Apple TV. I'm 300+ miles away from Chicago- so just having access to almost every Sox game via MLB.TV, Apple, Peacock, etc.- is a Godsend for me.
        The games that now require AppleTV+ and Peacock subscriptions used to be part of an MLBTV subscription, but no longer are. How is it a "godsend" to now have to pay for three subscriptions to get what you used to get with one? Just another way for them to get their hand in your pocket.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nellie Fox View Post

          The games that now require AppleTV+ and Peacock subscriptions used to be part of an MLBTV subscription, but no longer are. How is it a "godsend" to now have to pay for three subscriptions to get what you used to get with one? Just another way for them to get their hand in your pocket.
          Yeah, this is my feeling to. MLB.TV is marketed as a way to be able to watch out-of-market games, but now there are fewer of those available. Of course, I don't exactly pay for my MLB.TV subscription either (it comes free with my cell phone plan) so I guess I shouldn't really complain too much.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Nellie Fox View Post

            The games that now require AppleTV+ and Peacock subscriptions used to be part of an MLBTV subscription, but no longer are. How is it a "godsend" to now have to pay for three subscriptions to get what you used to get with one? Just another way for them to get their hand in your pocket.
            That and it’s a big pain in the ass.

            Comment


            • #7
              I’m not as old as some of you, but I’m old enough to remember growing up in Chicago in the 80s and 90s when the Sox were on cable TV, and it was a rare treat - once a week or less - to catch a game on Channel 32, 26, or 9, with a rabbit ears antenna because my parents couldn’t afford cable TV.

              And I’m old enough to remember that after I moved to Texas in 1999, the only way I knew what happened in a Sox game was to read the box score in the newspaper the next day.

              I’m old enough to remember thinking it was a miracle in the early 2000s when the Chicago Tribune web site gave “live” text updates of the result of every at bat, that I was able to see whenever I refreshed my browser on my desktop computer on my home DSL line.

              I’m old enough to remember when I could afford an XM satellite radio subscription in 2005 allow me to listen to games, and when WGN Americaon basic cable let me watch one game a week.

              I’m old enough to remember when an app on smart phone updated the progress of a game.

              And now I get to watch most games on my phone. And because I have T-Mobile, it’s covered in my plan.

              The fact that I’ll miss a few games this year because of Apple TV+ or Peacock? Who cares? I can still listen to Len and DJ’s radio broadcast on my phone.

              Comment


              • #8
                I’m 800 miles from Chicago and depend on the MLB Tv app. I did not know about the Apple TV and Peacock exclusive for a couple games a week. Yet, my MLB TV subscription cost was not reduced for less service.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If your family has comcast/xfinity for either your cable or internet, they give peacock for free. Any chance you have either of those?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The good news, I guess, is that all fanbases are just as annoyed by this as we are. Usually only Joe West and Angel Hernandez can bring fans of 30 different teams together like this.
                    "Hope...may be indulged in by those who have abundant resources...but those who stake their all upon the venture see it in its true colors only after they are ruined."
                    -- Thucydides

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Frater Perdurabo View Post
                      I’m not as old as some of you, but I’m old enough to remember growing up in Chicago in the 80s and 90s when the Sox were on cable TV, and it was a rare treat - once a week or less - to catch a game on Channel 32, 26, or 9, with a rabbit ears antenna because my parents couldn’t afford cable TV.

                      And I’m old enough to remember that after I moved to Texas in 1999, the only way I knew what happened in a Sox game was to read the box score in the newspaper the next day.

                      I’m old enough to remember thinking it was a miracle in the early 2000s when the Chicago Tribune web site gave “live” text updates of the result of every at bat, that I was able to see whenever I refreshed my browser on my desktop computer on my home DSL line.

                      I’m old enough to remember when I could afford an XM satellite radio subscription in 2005 allow me to listen to games, and when WGN Americaon basic cable let me watch one game a week.

                      I’m old enough to remember when an app on smart phone updated the progress of a game.

                      And now I get to watch most games on my phone. And because I have T-Mobile, it’s covered in my plan.

                      The fact that I’ll miss a few games this year because of Apple TV+ or Peacock? Who cares? I can still listen to Len and DJ’s radio broadcast on my phone.
                      In the early days of SportsVision, it wasn't even cable TV; it was a stand alone premium service where you needed a decoder box to unscramble the broadcast on an over the air TV channel. I believe it was something like $15/month (in 1982 dollars!) for SportsVision or you could pay $21/month for both SportsVision and a movie channel called "ON-TV". Chicago wasn't even wired for cable yet. Your only other choice was the once a week free TV game as you mentioned (or getting a illegal converter box to get SportsVision).

                      Even during the Channel 44 heyday of "all" games on free-TV, I want to say that it was actually about 120 games per year that were broadcasted. If I'm not mistaken, WGN didn't broadcast every single Cubs game until maybe the mid-80s.

                      Somehow, I think this fanbase will survive a small handful of games on Apple TV and Peacock. The first Apple TV+ game a few weeks ago was free. I didn't need to subscribe to access it.

                      White Sox Division Titles: 1983, 1993, 2000, 2005, 2008, 2021

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        According to this article ( https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/5/...-apple-tv-espn ), the Sox game this Sunday is the only one that will be simulcasted on NBC btw for those people looking.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Hitmen77 View Post

                          In the early days of SportsVision, it wasn't even cable TV; it was a stand alone premium service where you needed a decoder box to unscramble the broadcast on an over the air TV channel. I believe it was something like $15/month (in 1982 dollars!) for SportsVision or you could pay $21/month for both SportsVision and a movie channel called "ON-TV". Chicago wasn't even wired for cable yet. Your only other choice was the once a week free TV game as you mentioned (or getting a illegal converter box to get SportsVision).

                          Even during the Channel 44 heyday of "all" games on free-TV, I want to say that it was actually about 120 games per year that were broadcasted. If I'm not mistaken, WGN didn't broadcast every single Cubs game until maybe the mid-80s.

                          Somehow, I think this fanbase will survive a small handful of games on Apple TV and Peacock. The first Apple TV+ game a few weeks ago was free. I didn't need to subscribe to access it.
                          Yes, there was a time that the games were on the expensive subscription SportsVision service. And that really damaged the Sox fan base, as a whole bunch of kids grew up with the Cubs on channel 9 every day when they got home from school, while the Sox were on some bizarre decoder box that almost no one had (and needed a special antenna mounted up high outside to get the weak UHF signal if you were in the far burbs.)

                          MLB is already suffering from a lack of new, young fans. Scattering the games across a bunch of different streaming services, each of which requires switching not just a channel but an app, each with a separate paid subscription that their parents aren't going to want to pay for, and making it difficult to find out just where the game is on any given day, is going to further lose kids. The one thing the Sox have going for them is (as I understand it) the Cubs have made themselves even less accessible with their Marquee RSN, which apparently isn't being carried by a lot of providers.

                          I'm glad you guys are just fine with it. As an "out-of-market" viewer, I'm not going to pay for three different streaming services. I dropped MLBTV this year because of all the games I wouldn't get (I was already blacked out for all the games against the Twins.)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Nellie Fox View Post

                            MLB is already suffering from a lack of new, young fans. Scattering the games across a bunch of different streaming services, each of which requires switching not just a channel but an app, each with a separate paid subscription that their parents aren't going to want to pay for, and making it difficult to find out just where the game is on any given day, is going to further lose kids. The one thing the Sox have going for them is (as I understand it) the Cubs have made themselves even less accessible with their Marquee RSN, which apparently isn't being carried by a lot of providers.
                            Two things...

                            1) To today's kids, watching something on an app versus a channel is the norm, so that extra step isn't the onerous task that you are making it out to be. It's what they are used to.

                            2) MLB isn't trying to get kids to subscribe to AppleTV or Peacock just to watch baseball. They are trying to get the kids that are ALREADY subscribed to those platforms to watch baseball. Will lit work? Who knows. Is it worth a try? Absolutely. (And yes, the platforms are hoping baseball fans will subscribe just to watch baseball)

                            Originally posted by Nellie Fox View Post
                            I'm glad you guys are just fine with it. As an "out-of-market" viewer, I'm not going to pay for three different streaming services. I dropped MLBTV this year because of all the games I wouldn't get (I was already blacked out for all the games against the Twins.)
                            It is literally 5 games for the White Sox. If that, plus the games that are blacked out normally in your area, is your breaking point, fine. But people are acting like 1/3 of the games have moved to these platforms.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nellie Fox View Post

                              Yes, there was a time that the games were on the expensive subscription SportsVision service. And that really damaged the Sox fan base, as a whole bunch of kids grew up with the Cubs on channel 9 every day when they got home from school, while the Sox were on some bizarre decoder box that almost no one had (and needed a special antenna mounted up high outside to get the weak UHF signal if you were in the far burbs.)

                              MLB is already suffering from a lack of new, young fans. Scattering the games across a bunch of different streaming services, each of which requires switching not just a channel but an app, each with a separate paid subscription that their parents aren't going to want to pay for, and making it difficult to find out just where the game is on any given day, is going to further lose kids. The one thing the Sox have going for them is (as I understand it) the Cubs have made themselves even less accessible with their Marquee RSN, which apparently isn't being carried by a lot of providers.

                              I'm glad you guys are just fine with it. As an "out-of-market" viewer, I'm not going to pay for three different streaming services. I dropped MLBTV this year because of all the games I wouldn't get (I was already blacked out for all the games against the Twins.)
                              Aren't you able to watch the Twins' local broadcast?
                              (Formerly asindc.)

                              "I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)

                              "We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." — George Orwell

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X