|
Human Grand Prix posted:CounterCounterPoint: Those kick rear end. CounterCounterCounterPoint: Jordan 16s
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
Brainwrong posted:F1 is dead in the UK I can see News Corp's Australian Pay TV Sports arm, Fox Sports, doing the same thing in Australia if given the chance
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Even though I'm one of the "young people with no money" Bernie dreads so much, I would have zero issue paying for F1 if the pay-TV coverage in my country wasn't utter poo poo. It used to be mostly tolerable until last year, when the commentators started paying more attention to Twitter than the races and just kept going on about how you can send your questions and comments using their hashtag and how you can win fabulous prizes by answering a trivia question on Twitter (not necessarily correctly, mind, the winner is randomly selected from all participants) every weekend, courtesy of our sponsor! Maybe that doesn't sound so bad when I describe like that, but hearing that exact same spiel every 15 minutes in every single broadcast of the season?  I realize that Finnish TV networks can't spend as much on their coverage as Sky does, but since the MTVF1 coverage gets worse as the prices get higher (I remember a time when you could get the entire season for 45 euros) I don't want to support them any longer. Before the season, they got some angry feedback for their latest price hike, so one of their suits came out and basically said "well we're the only way to legally watch F1 in Finland and your only option, so gently caress you and pay us." That also didn't go well for them, but I don't think they did anything about it. Seriously, as much as everyone in this thread complains about Sky, their coverage is a million times better than what we get. DMorbid fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 02:48
|
|
|
Doc Morbid posted:Seriously, as much as everyone in this thread complains about Sky, their coverage is a million times better than what we get. This, people complaining about Sky don't know how bad it is in other countries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
I want to love NBCSN. They have so many goddamn commercials, oh my god.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
Farmland Park posted:This, people complaining about Sky don't know how bad it is in other countries. Well, after many many years of free coverage from the BBC, The Chain, the god that is Murray Walker and decades of British racers and the occasional British champion, I think the UK F1 fans feel a bit entitled to free F1 coverage. Which is good or bad, depending on your point of view, but how are young motor racing fans going to be encouraged to watch F1 if they can't get it at home? It's a rare pub that will change the channel over from football or cricket - although I have seen it done, it depends if anyone is watching whatever other sport is on at the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:11
|
|
|
Ironically, the more races that occur outside of Europe, the fewer I would be likely to watch live anyway. Presumably there will still be highlights on normal telly, so I'll just avoid the spoilers and watch that. This is how I watch Premiership football and rugby now, so no biggie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
I think people here may be underestimating how many British families have Sky sports now, even broke students get to use the household sky go account (free for 2 people to have access to all sky channels on a tablet, and something like £5 a month to have 4 devices on the account) or people all go in on one package so they can share sky go. This isn't the first major sport to only get good coverage on Sky, Football and Cricket went that way years ago, so if you have a sports fan in the house it's a fair bet you already have Sky sports. Sky. At least they are not BT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 10:35
|
|
|
The pay TV model would be great if the money went to the teams and tracks instead of bernie. I hope his heart fails tonight
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 11:51
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:I hope his heart fails tonight
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:17
|
|
|
You Am I posted:I can see News Corp's Australian Pay TV Sports arm, Fox Sports, doing the same thing in Australia if given the chance Haven't they basically done this halfway? One wasn't showing every race last I checked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
 http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/35889156"Formula 1 boss Bernie Ecclestone says he agrees with drivers' complaints that the sport's decision-making process is "obsolete and ill-structured"."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:24
|
|
|
drat, so close to a resignation letter. Hopefully that's the more to follow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:36
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:I think people here may be underestimating how many British families have Sky sports now, even broke students get to use the household sky go account (free for 2 people to have access to all sky channels on a tablet, and something like £5 a month to have 4 devices on the account) or people all go in on one package so they can share sky go. This isn't the first major sport to only get good coverage on Sky, Football and Cricket went that way years ago, so if you have a sports fan in the house it's a fair bet you already have Sky sports. Sky. At least they are not BT. Is "cord cutting" a big thing like it is in the US in the younger demographic? Maybe it's not as much since you have your annual broadcasting fee or whatever and you're used to paying something for TV anyway, so might as well add Sky sports to it. I would happily pay $100 annually or something to have access to commercial-free live streamed practice/qualifying/races and archived previous seasons, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 12:59
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Is "cord cutting" a big thing like it is in the US in the younger demographic? Not that I've seen (not that I'm in that demo) but the UK is a much much smaller country with actual competition in every area for cable, broadband, mobile, etc., so it's a lot different. I think if FOM pull their head out of their rear end and look at what WEC and MotoGP are doing with season passes (and all the pro sports leagues in the US as well) they could make fans much happier while still keeping TV rights to one supplier, if they wanted.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:05
|
|
|
Diet Crack posted:drat, so close to a resignation letter. Hopefully that's the more to follow. Nah, he was saying the same late last year, hence why he did the threat to completely scrap the existing system and go dictatorial and remove the teams from the decision process, but then Todt backed down after his 'old' paymaster Ferrari got upset. Bernie has realised for years his cash cow is in jeopardy, but its his own fault for agreeing to the stupid Ferrari veto - ever since that decision the sport has been getting worse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Not that I've seen (not that I'm in that demo) but the UK is a much much smaller country with actual competition in every area for cable, broadband, mobile, etc., so it's a lot different. I think if FOM pull their head out of their rear end and look at what WEC and MotoGP are doing with season passes (and all the pro sports leagues in the US as well) they could make fans much happier while still keeping TV rights to one supplier, if they wanted. I realize this is crazy fantasy land territory but assuming Bernie wasn't so technologically inept and they could have written something like this into their contracts with the television stations, it would have been cool to be like "40% of the annual pass sales goes directly to the teams". Anyone who would buy a subscription is obviously more than a casual fan, and I think it would be a cool incentive to say that "you're supporting the sport and their teams!" And really really really far out there in "dreesemonkey you are loving stupid and your ideas are bad" territory - give subscribers a way to vote on some non-critical (nothing safety related or power unit related) parts of that sport like the qualifying format or something like that. I'm not saying let them decide wholly, but maybe count the majority opinion of the subscribers as the same as one team's vote or something. In the end it would likely be useless, but people would really feel involved with the sport. krushgroove posted:Not that I've seen (not that I'm in that demo) but the UK is a much much smaller country with actual competition in every area for cable, broadband, mobile, etc., so it's a lot different. I think if FOM pull their head out of their rear end and look at what WEC and MotoGP are doing with season passes (and all the pro sports leagues in the US as well) they could make fans much happier while still keeping TV rights to one supplier, if they wanted. Cord cutting is less competition based because almost anyone can get 2 satellite TV providers in addition to any cable choice they have (which, to be fair, is a monopoly). The sentiment is more "Why am I going to pay $100/mo for all this poo poo when I may only watch two shows?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Cord cutting is less competition based because almost anyone can get 2 satellite TV providers in addition to any cable choice they have (which, to be fair, is a monopoly). The sentiment is more "Why am I going to pay $100/mo for all this poo poo when I may only watch two shows?" Hell, when Virgin Media tried to increase my subscription by £3 a month just because they were adding a new BT Sport channel, I ranted at them until they not only threw it in for free but also cut the price of my sub by a third and upped my broadband speed. So gently caress paying almost £30 a month more just so Bernie can get another Hublot polished with the tears of an orphan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Is "cord cutting" a big thing like it is in the US in the younger demographic? Maybe it's not as much since you have your annual broadcasting fee or whatever and you're used to paying something for TV anyway, so might as well add Sky sports to it. Overall pay-TV audiences are actually increasing in the UK, but it's not increasing at a very fast pace and adoption is only at ~60% compared to the US's ~80% It's not really a question of "might as well add sky sports" (I wish it was). The license fee is £145.50 a year. For Sky Sports, you'd have to buy a basic Sky subscription and the sports package which comes to around £365 for the first year and £546 after that. So if you're only paying the license fee for basic TV, you'd end up having to almost quintuple your TV budget to get Sky sports. I'm not entirely certain if that includes HD broadcasts either. I hope it does, Christ. This is without taking into account available broadband packages etc, which would obviously make it better value. Still hosed. Bryter fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Bryter posted:Overall pay-TV audiences are increasing in the UK, it's not increasing at a very fast pace and adoption is only at ~60% compared to the US's ~80% Well if it makes you feel better, in the US, if I bought satellite TV package with NBCsports (which shows F1 with commercials) I'm looking at $80/mo which works out to $960/year for non-promotional pricing ($780 for promotional pricing) not including extra fees/taxes. This is probably about as cheap as we could get it unless you get lucky by having your local cable provider including it on a cheaper package. So we're still paying e: So assholes like me don't get TV and then arrrr matey the races from Sky the next day. I care enough about the sport to pay something to watch it, but right now there isn't really an option to do that. dreesemonkey fucked around with this message at 14:16 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:13
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:
Yep. If you're in the US and don't subscribe to cable/satellite there is no way to legally watch F1, aside from the couple of races NBC puts on regular broadcast tv. If there was some kind of streaming option, I'd sign up and gladly pay for it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Remember when Toto said that the decision to go to old qualifying would be a quick vote and they would push it through before Bahrain? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/123446/elimination-qualifying-to-stay-for-bahrain
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Well if it makes you feel better, in the US, if I bought satellite TV package with NBCsports (which shows F1 with commercials) I'm looking at $80/mo which works out to $960/year for non-promotional pricing ($780 for promotional pricing) not including extra fees/taxes. This is probably about as cheap as we could get it unless you get lucky by having your local cable provider including it on a cheaper package. So we're still paying Funzo posted:Yep. If you're in the US and don't subscribe to cable/satellite there is no way to legally watch F1, aside from the couple of races NBC puts on regular broadcast tv. Yeah, the strategy seems to be to wring a shrinking audience for all they're worth in every territory. A winning long term strategy, no doubt. Also, Playstation Vue has NBCSN for $40 a month. Don't know if there's any weird rights restrictions on F1, but it might be worth looking into for some people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Bryter posted:I'm not entirely certain if that includes HD broadcasts either. I hope it does, Christ. If it's the basic package, it doesn't. Throw in another £6 per month.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
dreesemonkey posted:Well if it makes you feel better, in the US, if I bought satellite TV package with NBCsports (which shows F1 with commercials) I'm looking at $80/mo which works out to $960/year for non-promotional pricing ($780 for promotional pricing) not including extra fees/taxes. This is probably about as cheap as we could get it unless you get lucky by having your local cable provider including it on a cheaper package. So we're still paying The perceived lack of bang for your buck with Sky Sports is pretty off-putting too - there are about 60 channels free to air on Freeview in the UK, and £240 per year gets you 270 channels on the baseline Sky package (rival cable providers give you fewer channels but generally cost less and/or bundle their offers with phoneline and broadband). Adding Sky Sports for another £330 gives you an additional 7 (seven) channels and at any one time at least a couple of those will be wall-to-wall football. Do you get any TV in the US not tied to a subscription?
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Payndz posted:Hell, when Virgin Media tried to increase my subscription by £3 a month just because they were adding a new BT Sport channel, I ranted at them until they not only threw it in for free but also cut the price of my sub by a third and upped my broadband speed. So gently caress paying almost £30 a month more just so Bernie can get another Hublot polished with the tears of an orphan. You think you've had a victory, you havn't it's all marketing strategy
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Fair few UK people who only watch the F1 in here really do need to go around friends and family and see if anyone will let them add sky sports to their package and give them the money for it in return for Sky go. You don't have to be a member of the same household to have Sky go, they just see it as someone using up one of their two passes. First year is usually half price or £10, and after that you can cancel it and find new friend to do it. edit: I have everything with sky, TV, broadband and phone. My phone and broadband is cheaper than anywhere else because I'm on a legacy high speed unlimited broadband package, and all anyone watches is on Sky Sports, yes I would like to drop all other TV packages in order to just have Sky sports but they won't let me 
learnincurve fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Helicon One posted:Do you get any TV in the US not tied to a subscription? There is free, over the air TV if you live close enough where you can pick up a signal. Those are the network channels (CBS, NBC, Fox, etc) that offer select sports (dominated by american football when in season) but for the most part everything is bulk subscription. Different packages for more channels. (Here is an example of the more cost effective satellite provider www.dish.com/packages/). The TV networks then negotiate with the TV providers. ESPN, the sports goliath cash cow, gets something like $7 for every cable subscriber in the county which is absolutely insane amounts of money. They throw their weight around because they're a very popular channel, so even the most basic packages include it. But there has been backlash because it's such a high cost baked in for people that don't care about sports at all. There is no "ala cart" option for people picking only channels they want, because then the lovely networks no one cares about would go out of business, which is bad for some reason. Some of the premium networks (HBO, Showtime, etc) are now offering streaming subscriptions to their shows, but they are few and far between right now. I think we may get to a point where it's more the norm, especially if ESPN makes the jump (though they do not show F1), but I'm not going to buy a subscription to watch lovely, commercial-filled broadcasts that cut away from the race ever 8 minutes. Ideally you'd go right to the rights-holder to say "I want to give you money to be able to watch the thing you own the rights to how and when I want".
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:33
|
|
|
What really fucks me off is you now need sky go extra, £5 a month extra, to watch sky go on your Xbox.  So my dad has the whole loving sky package and I can't watch it on my Xbox. Makes my blood boil.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
learnincurve posted:Fair few UK people who only watch the F1 in here really do need to go around friends and family and see if anyone will let them add sky sports to their package and give them the money for it in return for Sky go. You don't have to be a member of the same household to have Sky go, they just see it as someone using up one of their two passes. First year is usually half price or £10, and after that you can cancel it and find new friend to do it. Except Sky Go is often worse than watching a pirate stream, as its often a minute+ delayed and due to it running on Silvershit has massive buffering issues. Tried many a time to use it for races, and every time have gone over to other means as its just so poo poo. Seriously why the hell haven't they already moved away from Silverlight, when a technology is so bad that even Microsoft abandons it (now for almost a year) you really should jump ship ASAP. Hell reading up it was officially abandoned back in 2012, with the abandonment becoming forced when Edge can't use it at all. ukle fucked around with this message at 15:39 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
The fact it makes you use ie and safari and doesn't support chrome also sucks donkey dick.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
ukle posted:Except Sky Go is often worse than watching a pirate stream, as its often a minute+ delayed and due to it running on Silvershit has massive buffering issues. Tried many a time to use it for races, and every time have gone over to other means as its just so poo poo. This. Also gently caress US F1 coverage, commercials during a race are poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
The delay is annoying as hell but it's much less than last year, the buffer depends on how much internet you have and how many people are using the internet in the house. If the formula 1 is on then there is a blanket ban on youtube and downloading stuff from the apple store, as these are the two things which will tip it over from perfect to 2003. I've not found it any worse than streaming netflix or amazon TV. The real kicker is that you can watch stuff on catch up or download it for later onto a tablet but they don't put formula 1 races up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
Hold everything! There is a new McLaren video out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3bDd2qD8oE
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:23
|
|
|
Why hasn't Bernie realised that all the greasy money grabbing that goes on with subscription TV could be all his instead, if he just said "gently caress off we're not selling TV rights in countries X, Y and Z but instead moving to a subscription service online that empties straight into my pockets" and then keep it on TV for countries that still have bigger TV audiences and low streaming audiences Bleeding money out of punters is supposed to be something he's good at, idgi simplefish fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Mar 24, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Only champers alonso and button will get this season.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
Apparently F1 racing sim skin makers (so you can run the latest livery & sponsors on your computer racing game) have been sent cease and desist letters from FOM. Way to go, old guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
I cancelled Sky. I don't love F1 enough to pay 500 pounds a year for it for a bunch of tv channels I never watch included i.e all the sports channels. I got a firebox with kodi side loaded and I streamed the Ausie GP Qualifying and race live, and ive saved 500 pounds a year. Seems a no brainer to me. Also as already stated, Pay to View F1 is causing figures and popularity of F1 to fall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Apparently F1 racing sim skin makers (so you can run the latest livery & sponsors on your computer racing game) have been sent cease and desist letters from FOM. Way to go, old guys. So stupid. It's free advertising.
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:41 |
|
|
when F1 finally goes bankrupt, their epitaph should be "Spend the last 10 years being actively hostile to it's own fanbase."
|
|
#
?
Mar 24, 2016 17:13
|
|
