Sky outbid for EPL rights (Premier League Pass discussion)

Forums › Online streaming services › Sky outbid for EPL rights (Premier League Pass discussion)

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 210

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#872344 5-Aug-2013 20:28

richardgnz:
So for those 400k Sky Sports subscribers without the HD ticket I say this. Switch to PLP to watch your football and you won't notice any difference.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your comments here. Anyone who subscribes to sky sports without the hd ticket on a 40" + TV will notice a massive decrease in quality when comparing the video stream offered by PLP.

yep, if they have Mysky via HDMi with no HD ticket PLP will look worse.

But compared to standard sky digital (which is still half of sky's customers) connected via composite cable or scart, which most people do, then I would say it is more or less equivalent to that.

(furthermore, a good chunk of those people will also not have high quality 40"+ LED tvs either. they will probably still be on CRT or, maybe, 32" LCD)

474742

25 posts

Geek

#872348 5-Aug-2013 20:34

If EPL is your main interest, PLP wins on most fronts. No more basic package, no more shoddy EPL coverage. Your choice of any game live for $150!
If EPL isn't your main sport, then I don't see why you'd be upset, especially with the free to air games, and sky's delayed coverage recently announced.
Stick it to sky and sign up.
My only gripe is Champions League!!

richardgnz

64 posts

Master Geek

#872359 5-Aug-2013 20:43

NonprayingMantis:
richardgnz:
So for those 400k Sky Sports subscribers without the HD ticket I say this. Switch to PLP to watch your football and you won't notice any difference.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your comments here. Anyone who subscribes to sky sports without the hd ticket on a 40" + TV will notice a massive decrease in quality when comparing the video stream offered by PLP.

yep, if they have Mysky via HDMi with no HD ticket PLP will look worse.

But compared to standard sky digital (which is still half of sky's customers) connected via composite cable or scart, which most people do, then I would say it is more or less equivalent to that.

(furthermore, a good chunk of those people will also not have high quality 40"+ LED tvs either. they will probably still be on CRT or, maybe, 32" LCD)

I agree, if people are watching in rubbish quality now (scart, composite) then they will probably be content with the rubbish stream provided by PLP.

I am amazed that there are so many NZ consumers that do not realise what they are mising out on!

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#872362 5-Aug-2013 20:50

@474742

I would disagree, I'm a born and bred Manc, from the borough of Trafford. Football is almost a religion to me but I refuse to give my money to PLP as they're simply releasing a far inferior product to what we had before and it pains me to do this but I'd rather give my money to sky until PLP sorts itself out and offers more connectivity options and bitrates. Then I might consider them.

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#872367 5-Aug-2013 20:58

richardgnz:
NonprayingMantis:
richardgnz:
So for those 400k Sky Sports subscribers without the HD ticket I say this. Switch to PLP to watch your football and you won't notice any difference.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your comments here. Anyone who subscribes to sky sports without the hd ticket on a 40" + TV will notice a massive decrease in quality when comparing the video stream offered by PLP.

yep, if they have Mysky via HDMi with no HD ticket PLP will look worse.

But compared to standard sky digital (which is still half of sky's customers) connected via composite cable or scart, which most people do, then I would say it is more or less equivalent to that.

(furthermore, a good chunk of those people will also not have high quality 40"+ LED tvs either. they will probably still be on CRT or, maybe, 32" LCD)

I agree, if people are watching in rubbish quality now (scart, composite) then they will probably be content with the rubbish stream provided by PLP.

I am amazed that there are so many NZ consumers that do not realise what they are mising out on!

or they can't afford it....

Not everyone can afford to spend $100+ on sky every month, because that's what it costs to get basic + sports + MySky + HD ticket.
some people have more important things to spend money on - like food for their family, or rent. Heck, 50% of households don't even have Sky at all, let alone basic + sport + mysky + hd ticket,

standard digital is not 'rubbish', and nor is the PLP stream. It's not HD, but it's no worse than the picture quality we all had to live with before about 5 years ago

richardgnz

64 posts

Master Geek

#872372 5-Aug-2013 21:04

NonprayingMantis:
richardgnz:
NonprayingMantis:
richardgnz:
So for those 400k Sky Sports subscribers without the HD ticket I say this. Switch to PLP to watch your football and you won't notice any difference.

Sorry, but I completely disagree with your comments here. Anyone who subscribes to sky sports without the hd ticket on a 40" + TV will notice a massive decrease in quality when comparing the video stream offered by PLP.

yep, if they have Mysky via HDMi with no HD ticket PLP will look worse.

But compared to standard sky digital (which is still half of sky's customers) connected via composite cable or scart, which most people do, then I would say it is more or less equivalent to that.

(furthermore, a good chunk of those people will also not have high quality 40"+ LED tvs either. they will probably still be on CRT or, maybe, 32" LCD)

I agree, if people are watching in rubbish quality now (scart, composite) then they will probably be content with the rubbish stream provided by PLP.

I am amazed that there are so many NZ consumers that do not realise what they are mising out on!

or they can't afford it....

Not everyone can afford to spend $100+ on sky every month, because that's what it costs to get basic + sports + MySky + HD ticket.
some people have more important things to spend money on - like food for their family, or rent. Heck, 50% of households don't even have Sky at all, let alone basic + sport + mysky + hd ticket,

standard digital is not 'rubbish', and nor is the PLP stream. It's not HD, but it's no worse than the picture quality we all had to live with before about 5 years ago

Yes, but 40" + TV's are far more common now than 5 years ago. I would argue that standard digital and PLP streams are "rubbish" on 40" + TV's.

happyone65

131 posts

Master Geek

#872380 5-Aug-2013 21:13

i agree,i have sky but only because im getting it really cheap and will cancel when my 12 months are up,i love watching epl soccer but i have a 50"tv and i would not even bother watching that crap on it right now that soccer pass are offering,

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

474742

25 posts

Geek

#872391 5-Aug-2013 21:32

Benoire: @474742

I would disagree, I'm a born and bred Manc, from the borough of Trafford. Football is almost a religion to me but I refuse to give my money to PLP as they're simply releasing a far inferior product to what we had before and it pains me to do this but I'd rather give my money to sky until PLP sorts itself out and offers more connectivity options and bitrates. Then I might consider them.

Well I suppose as a ManU fan you got to see all your games live on sky. But the smaller teams weren't so lucky. They can now see 38 games live, versus how many on Sky, about 5?

Edit: Would be really interesting to hear from any club fan who wants to take a guess at how many of their games were shown live on Sky last season. State your team obviously.

gunnerpc

29 posts

Geek

#872399 5-Aug-2013 21:51

Dororke: Yep gotta agree there.

I have the Telecom 500GB plan and VDSL2. Have trialled the Spurs game with the Man City v Sunderland in PnP and it works fine. Yes quality can be better but as I keep saying at the moment it's adequate. This deal runs for 3 years and it seems to be Colosseum are listening.

For me watching any game not live is not an option so the timing means more to me that the quality. Yes I regularly stay up through the night on Saturdays/Sunday morning. I would prefer both naturally and I have told PLP that I would be willing to pay more if they were able to improve the feed - a abit like the Sky HD ticket.

I watched the Super 14 final the other night in glorious SD delayed on Prime (cancelled my Sky Sports and HD ticket a while back); and to me the feed was on a par with what PLP is pushing out. So for those 400k Sky Sports subscribers without the HD ticket I say this. Switch to PLP to watch your football and you won't notice any difference.

Adequate? What

Pay more? What you are already paying too much!

Wont notice a difference. What. What. Where?

richardgnz

64 posts

Master Geek

#872402 5-Aug-2013 21:55

>Do you work for PLP?

I was thinking the same thing :)

NonprayingMantis

6434 posts

Uber Geek

#872405 5-Aug-2013 22:02

gunnerpc:
Dororke: Yep gotta agree there.

I have the Telecom 500GB plan and VDSL2. Have trialled the Spurs game with the Man City v Sunderland in PnP and it works fine. Yes quality can be better but as I keep saying at the moment it's adequate. This deal runs for 3 years and it seems to be Colosseum are listening.

For me watching any game not live is not an option so the timing means more to me that the quality. Yes I regularly stay up through the night on Saturdays/Sunday morning. I would prefer both naturally and I have told PLP that I would be willing to pay more if they were able to improve the feed - a abit like the Sky HD ticket.

I watched the Super 14 final the other night in glorious SD delayed on Prime (cancelled my Sky Sports and HD ticket a while back); and to me the feed was on a par with what PLP is pushing out. So for those 400k Sky Sports subscribers without the HD ticket I say this. Switch to PLP to watch your football and you won't notice any difference.

Adequate? What

Pay more? What you are already paying too much!

Wont notice a difference. What. What. Where, WTF?

Do you work for PLP?

so because someone disagrees with you, you think they must be working for PLP? give me a break.

you should have read the FUG when you signed up too.

http://www.geekzone.co.nz/content.asp?contentid=1046

"Accusing someone of working for a company or being paid by company because of disagreement in opinions may result on a ban at the discretion of the Administrators or Moderators. "

474742

25 posts

Geek

#872406 5-Aug-2013 22:03

richardgnz:
>Do you work for PLP?

I was thinking the same thing :)

No, he nailed it. Timing is more important than quality. A true sports fan. Watching live > Knowing the result and watching in HD.

Benoire

2798 posts

Uber Geek

#872413 5-Aug-2013 22:35

@474742

I'm just fortunate that my team which was rubbish in the 80's became one of the most prolific in the modern era so for me the whole I can get to watch x games a season now is mute, I had that before.

My biggest gripe is not that Sky don't have it, it is more that on my 51" Plasma it just looks crap when the camera is panning around, really crap. Blocky and pixelated, the only decent image is the static ones. I might be able to forgive them if they produced apps for Apple TVs, Google TVs and the multitude of Smart TVs available now (and have been for a few years so they're not exactly new) and pumped up the bitrate / resolution. I still have an issue with the price given that I'm paying for Sky Sports as well but hell, you take the rough with the smooth.

Chris

djrm

191 posts

Master Geek

#872415 5-Aug-2013 22:36

Otagolad:
djrm:
Benoire: @djrm,

You'll find a laptop is 'ok' due to the lower resolution of the screen and higher PPI count of the screen. It's when you connect it to a larger TV that it goes to crap!

Absolutely but it's the only option and they have said that they will be working on SMART tv apps now that many people have aksed for them.

DJRM,

Are you Tim Martin in disguise (Tim Martin effectively said the same thing about sucking it up as PLP are the only option)? It may be the only legal option for live coverage, but I can assure you it is not the only option and a number of the "other" options offer higher quality streams than the PLP cowboys.

As an aside, I was watching the live stream of the Dolphins v Cowboys NFL pre-season Hall of Fame game today and even though the stream is increased at 4500k, the quality was on another planet from the PLP streams - PLP must be the tightest operators in the world if they're not prepared to fork out for a decent quality stream - Kama bites you in the backside sometimes and that's what SKY's announcement last week did.

Just because I have a different view to you doesn't mean that I am Tim Martin not does it mean I work for PLP.

I have never seen another stream anywhere near the quality that you proclaim.

As others have said watching delayed coverage is just not an option.

invisibleman18

1360 posts

Uber Geek

#872418 5-Aug-2013 22:40

474742:
richardgnz:
>Do you work for PLP?

I was thinking the same thing :)

No, he nailed it. Timing is more important than quality. A true sports fan. Watching live > Knowing the result and watching in HD.

Who says you have to know the result to watch it recorded or delayed? When I record the game in the night, have a decent sleep and get up and watch it at 8 or 9am before doing anything else and without looking up the result, how is it any different to watching it live? I don't understand why this can never be "the same." When I watch it live at 3am I tend to doze off and miss the 2nd half.

1 | ... | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | ... | 210