Four Brewers games in the first half of 2023 airing exclusively on Apple TV ($)

[owbc]

Paying for a handful of streaming services to get all of the games isn't a big deal. 

Paying for cable to get all of the games isn't a big deal.

Paying for cable AND a handful of streaming services to get all of the games is a problem. 

 

[MVP2110]

4 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

6% of the Packers schedule was on Amazon. Another 6% was on NFL Network. So 12% of the Packers schedule was on channels/streaming service many people do not have. Of course, a single NFL game in a schedule is huge and each game has huge implications. So simply shrugging your shoulders and not watching that game is not as easy as missing out on 3% of the Brewers schedule in rather meaningless June games.

You aren't going to lose an ounce of sleep missing these four games by not getting Apple TV, the same cannot be said for a Packers fan not watching the Giants or Titans game last year. 

 

This is annoying, but hardly something problematic for watching the sport or having interest in it.

They aired those games locally still, I know because I watched them

[KeithStone53151]

35 minutes ago, owbc said:

Paying for a handful of streaming services to get all of the games isn't a big deal. 

Paying for cable to get all of the games isn't a big deal.

Paying for cable AND a handful of streaming services to get all of the games is a problem. 

 

I tend to have a bigger problem with one service holding a very small selection of games hostage then if say 4 services bought up 25% each of the Brewers games. It might be worth paying $10-15/month to each service to get 25% of games plus whatever else they have. This doesn't solve the elderly issue, and that issue shouldn't be as easily cast aside as "aging demographic who cares". But I do tend to agree it's more problematic to have a guy get cable for $100/month(I cut cable at least 5 years ago, is this the cost?) and then have to pay $7/month to get 1-2 games a month that apple holds hostage multiplied by 3 other services doing the same thing.

Football, every single packer game gets aired locally. Even if its on amazon or nfl network or whatever, they all get aired locally no matter what. That makes so much more sense than what mlb does.

[jerichoholicninja]

Streaming services are great right?

It's become just cable with a different name but you have to switch services all the time because of wanting to watch certain shows and the constant price changes. I'll keep my cable as it has by far the fewest hassles of all the other options. I don't care that it costs me a little more money.

[folly412]

MLB.TV even now says on their site "Stream EVERY out-of-market MLB game" (https://www.mlb.com/live-stream-games), yet clicking the link in the fine print, and then another link in the fine print, they have made up the term "national blackout" for games on Apple TV to call those unavailable.  So $25 per month, yet they can't arrange to carry these games.

[MrTPlush]

7 hours ago, owbc said:

Paying for cable AND a handful of streaming services to get all of the games is a problem. 

 

Well , good thing you don’t have to do that!

[MVP2110]

18 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Well , good thing you don’t have to do that!

Funny how you dropped the NFL argument once it was brought up how the NFL televises all games locally. MLB could easily do something similar 

[MrTPlush]

3 minutes ago, MVP2110 said:

Funny how you dropped the NFL argument once it was brought up how the NFL televises all games locally. MLB could easily do something similar 

I didn’t drop any argument, thanks for your concern though.

The two aren’t even remotely comparable though. NFL is televising that one game on prime time. NFL fans happily gobble up and watch random games because it is the only one on and watching teams you aren’t a fan of is simply more popular in that sport. This is putting two games on Apple TV+ when another dozen games are also going on as is. If you made it freely televised for in-market fans, you would attract no one actually on the paid platform. Because at the end of the day, MLB fans watch their team and that is it. People rarely watch random games and those that do, certainly aren’t going to pay to do so.

[MVP2110]

1 hour ago, MrTPlush said:

I didn’t drop any argument, thanks for your concern though.

The two aren’t even remotely comparable though. NFL is televising that one game on prime time. NFL fans happily gobble up and watch random games because it is the only one on and watching teams you aren’t a fan of is simply more popular in that sport. This is putting two games on Apple TV+ when another dozen games are also going on as is. If you made it freely televised for in-market fans, you would attract no one actually on the paid platform. Because at the end of the day, MLB fans watch their team and that is it. People rarely watch random games and those that do, certainly aren’t going to pay to do so.

Except your whole point was that the NFL makes you subscribe to multiple outlets like Amazon & NFL Network to watch your team and that's just not true, anyone who is in the Green Bay or Milwaukee market can watch every single game. The two aren't really similar. For the NBA you don't need any streaming services to watch every Bucks game. MLB is the only one who is doing this and like you said MLB is very regional where people typically only watch their team so it would seem logical that you would want to make those games easily available in those markets. 

[brewmann04]

I think i can afford to miss the few Brewer games on Apple TV  Not worth the Money.

[Brock Beauchamp]

3 minutes ago, brewmann04 said:

I think i can afford to miss the few Brewer games on Apple TV  Not worth the Money.

It's not worth the money in perpetuity but if you watch TV, Apple TV+ is one of the best bang-for-buck services available, especially if you only subscribe for a month or two and then cancel. Their library isn't big but it's incredibly high quality.

[endaround]

45 minutes ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

It's not worth the money in perpetuity but if you watch TV, Apple TV+ is one of the best bang-for-buck services available, especially if you only subscribe for a month or two and then cancel. Their library isn't big but it's incredibly high quality.

It is also the case that every few months, Target Circle members(Target's loyalty program) have been offered 3-6 months of Apple subscriptions for free.

[SeaBass]

Two pages in and nobody has posted the scheduled days the Brewers are on.

Quote

Friday, May 12
vs Kansas City Royals

Friday, June 2
at Cincinnati Reds

Friday, June 16
vs Pittsburgh Pirates

Friday, June 30
at Pittsburgh Pirates

So let's apply some logic.

Skip paying Apple to watch the lone May game against Kansas City. You're likely not missing much.

The 3 games you get in June might be easier to justify spending $6 on for one month. Or don't.

I also reject the propagation of "the old people" that don't understand how streaming services and the internet works. Then they're less likely to miss being able to watch one Brewers game on that one night that week. They'll just move on and watch Wheel of Fortune or Ghost Hunters instead.

[MrTPlush]

10 hours ago, MVP2110 said:

Except your whole point was that the NFL makes you subscribe to multiple outlets like Amazon & NFL Network to watch your team and that's just not true, anyone who is in the Green Bay or Milwaukee market can watch every single game. The two aren't really similar. For the NBA you don't need any streaming services to watch every Bucks game. MLB is the only one who is doing this and like you said MLB is very regional where people typically only watch their team so it would seem logical that you would want to make those games easily available in those markets. 

Except you’re missing the point that exponentially more NFL fans are inconvenienced and care about missing those games whether it is local or not / whether it is their team or not. Saying the NFL isn’t making it harder for fans to watch is just not true because NFL fans exist outside of the two local markets facing off. Amazon still gets millions upon millions tuning in regardless. 

The NFL can just let local markets access it because they still have the entire nation wanting to watch it…thus they still get the best of both worlds. The MLB cannot do this because literally no one cares about a Royals/Brewers game in May other than Royals/Brewers fans. If you give local markets access for free there will be zero viewership on AppleTV+.

Saying the MLB can just do what the NFL does is really missing the point of this TV deal and really missing the basic economics of it.

[MVP2110]

29 minutes ago, MrTPlush said:

Except you’re missing the point that exponentially more NFL fans are inconvenienced and care about missing those games whether it is local or not / whether it is their team or not. Saying the NFL isn’t making it harder for fans to watch is just not true because NFL fans exist outside of the two local markets facing off. Amazon still gets millions upon millions tuning in regardless. 

The NFL can just let local markets access it because they still have the entire nation wanting to watch it…thus they still get the best of both worlds. The MLB cannot do this because literally no one cares about a Royals/Brewers game in May other than Royals/Brewers fans. If you give local markets access for free there will be zero viewership on AppleTV+.

Saying the MLB can just do what the NFL does is really missing the point of this TV deal and really missing the basic economics of it.

We clearly aren't going to see eye to eye on this, but I'm very willing to bet the ratings on these games are far lower than if they aired it on cable. The NFL is keenly aware that letting a teams fanbase watch the games of their team is paramount which is why they have these exceptions, whereas MLB seems to be making it harder for their fans to watch their team. 

[Playing Catch]

I'm guessing both MLB and Apple have pretty smart people looking at the numbers to come to the conclusion that this will likely (A) make them money, (B) grow the sport, or (C) have some other benefit for them to leverage. I am also guessing those smart people will consider making hard core fans upset, but count on hard core fans to get over it.

$7 is still cheaper than a popcorn at the movie theater on Friday night. $7 is probably about the same price as going down to the local legion ball game in one's local community. 

As someone that probably watches 5+ games a week, I too, find this annoying, and am baffled that this is supposedly good for the game, but it's not expensive.

My guess is that this is a way in which MLB gets to keep test-driving as many providers as possible before settling in on a larger, more comprehensive way to stream their content to baseball fans AS WELL as try to find new audiences.

As a sports fan, I always believe it behooves the leagues to provide their entertainment content to as many people as possible for as little as possible, but I say the same thing for overpriced tickets to games that are only 50% capacity. Like SOMEBODY is doing the numbers to make that make sense, but I don't get it.