ATDHE.net domain seized by Homeland Security

[valo403]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Yeah, I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that sort of model. In my mind $10 is still a bit much (I can rent an HD new release movie for $7, I think that's the highest they could price it), but it would be a good starting point. If the NHL were to set that up as a distribution model, they could then experiment with the pricing and find the sweet spot.

The issue with dropping single games too low is it could result in existing centerice/gamecenter subscribers who would otherwise drop the $200 year after year moving over to a lower tier. I could see myself doing that actually. Pricing would be a difficult problem in this type of system.

Btw, another thing the NHL has added that appeals to some of the issues presented is the ability to purchase center ice/gc for the finishing stretch at a lower price. That hits those people who aren't going to watch a sharks/kings game in october but will be all over one in march, which seems to be a lot of people.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by HOOT

Personally I'd rather keep paying the $200/year and not have the service bogged down by freeloaders.

I think those who want it free can enjoy the awesome viewing of ADTHE, the others who find the 50 cents per day worth it can watch any game they want in HD quality, with PVR option along with the access to every game replayed for the past 4 seasons.

Exactly my point. People like you believe that they are getting a great product for a reasonable price. You likely aren't interested in watching a game online and you clearly feel that the cost is not an issue, so you'll remain a customer either way. I'm not suggesting that they get rid of the CI package, just that they add free online streaming. Heck, even if the NHL offered crappy ATDHE quality, they could still stop people from pirating while gaining advertising revenue so long as the feed was reliable. Offer slightly better streaming quality and no one would bother with ATDHE when it comes to watching hockey at all.

I think that something like this could have the potential to be quite viable for the NHL should a sound business plan be put together for it. This has nothing to do with the holier than thou attitude that some of you seem saddled with. I'm sure you guys will find a way to pay your $200 annual fee while still managing to thumb your noses at those who prefer to watch online for free. Everyone could win here.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Exactly my point. People like you believe that they are getting a great product for a reasonable price. You likely aren't interested in watching a game online and you clearly feel that the cost is not an issue, so you'll remain a customer either way. I'm not suggesting that they get rid of the CI package, just that they add free online streaming. Heck, even if the NHL offered crappy ATDHE quality, they could still stop people from pirating while gaining advertising revenue so long as the feed was reliable. Offer slightly better streaming quality and no one would bother with ATDHE when it comes to watching hockey at all.

I think that something like this could have the potential to be quite viable for the NHL should a sound business plan be put together for it. This has nothing to do with the holier than thou attitude that some of you seem saddled with. I'm sure you guys will find a way to pay your $200 annual fee while still managing to thumb your noses at those who prefer to watch online for free. Everyone could win here.

The problem with pirating, from the NHL perspective is that they don't get any money from their work. Your solution is that they should, in addition to charging people $200 a year, give away the same product at the same time?

Maybe I slept through my Econ classes, but that seems like a terrible way to make money.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The problem with pirating, from the NHL perspective is that they don't get any money from their work. Your solution is that they should, in addition to charging people $200 a year, give away the same product at the same time?

Maybe I slept through my Econ classes, but that seems like a terrible way to make money.

It's not the same product. CI would be HD games that you watch on TV. You could stress the whole HD/PVR/replay ability aspect of the product. Free online streaming would be a much lower quality feed that you watch on your computer. Ideally, having both at the same time could help ease the transition from one format to the other. I think it would give the NHL a great deal of flexibility.

[Yeah_Baby]

You take penny's from the 'take a penny leave and penny jar' and keep them don't you?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Exactly my point. People like you believe that they are getting a great product for a reasonable price. You likely aren't interested in watching a game online and you clearly feel that the cost is not an issue, so you'll remain a customer either way. I'm not suggesting that they get rid of the CI package, just that they add free online streaming. Heck, even if the NHL offered crappy ATDHE quality, they could still stop people from pirating while gaining advertising revenue so long as the feed was reliable. Offer slightly better streaming quality and no one would bother with ATDHE when it comes to watching hockey at all.

I think that something like this could have the potential to be quite viable for the NHL should a sound business plan be put together for it. This has nothing to do with the holier than thou attitude that some of you seem saddled with. I'm sure you guys will find a way to pay your $200 annual fee while still managing to thumb your noses at those who prefer to watch online for free. Everyone could win here.

And, as I said to FP12, you're pretending that there aren't massive negatives to that tactic. It would be nice to see one of you actually address those issues.

[HPLovecraft]

How about they just offer a service where you can pay a low amount (a couple bucks?) to view just one game at a time. Personally, I don't want an entire season of every game, and I don't have the money to drop on it a lot of the time. Something that would give me the flexibility to watch the games I want to watch at an affordable price would be superb.

I understand they're looking for the big $200 price tag, but they could easily make it so individual games are affordable, while still costing a lot if you went a whole season that way.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Exactly my point. People like you believe that they are getting a great product for a reasonable price. You likely aren't interested in watching a game online and you clearly feel that the cost is not an issue, so you'll remain a customer either way. I'm not suggesting that they get rid of the CI package, just that they add free online streaming.

This is beyond moronic. Seriously.

You really think people will pay for a product that they can legally get for free?

Heck, even if the NHL offered crappy ATDHE quality, they could still stop people from pirating while gaining advertising revenue so long as the feed was reliable. Offer slightly better streaming quality and no one would bother with ATDHE when it comes to watching hockey at all.

Or with paying for cable.

I think that something like this could have the potential to be quite viable for the NHL should a sound business plan be put together for it. This has nothing to do with the holier than thou attitude that some of you seem saddled with. I'm sure you guys will find a way to pay your $200 annual fee while still managing to thumb your noses at those who prefer to watch online for free. Everyone could win here.

It's not a holier than thou attitude, it's called having a semblance of intelligence. Continuing to think this is a good idea after multiple people have pointed out glaring flaws with your idea is insanely moronic.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It's not the same product. CI would be HD games that you watch on TV. You could stress the whole HD/PVR/replay ability aspect of the product. Free online streaming would be a much lower quality feed that you watch on your computer. Ideally, having both at the same time could help ease the transition from one format to the other. I think it would give the NHL a great deal of flexibility.

You know that gamecenter exists right? You're asking the NHL to replace it with a free version. So yes, it is the same product.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

Everyone could win here.

Only one group of people would win and that's the people who want everything for free.

If you can show me how the NHL can raise a half billion dollars from banner advertising during games then I'd be with you on this but I truly believe they can't which is why they stick to having the specialty channels/online viewing for those who love the game. Just like every other sport the casual fans can check out the games when they come on TV or are streamed online.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by Ark2

It's not the same product. CI would be HD games that you watch on TV. You could stress the whole HD/PVR/replay ability aspect of the product. Free online streaming would be a much lower quality feed that you watch on your computer. Ideally, having both at the same time could help ease the transition from one format to the other. I think it would give the NHL a great deal of flexibility.

Are you aware there is a product through NHL.com called Game Centre that you can stream all the games on, in HD quality, with the PVR feature?

Why would they put out the same product for free but just lesser quality? Makes no sense.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by Rathji

The problem with pirating, from the NHL perspective is that they don't get any money from their work. Your solution is that they should, in addition to charging people $200 a year, give away the same product at the same time?

Maybe I slept through my Econ classes, but that seems like a terrible way to make money.

You must have slept through your econ classes. Price discrimination is an excellent way for companies to increase overall revenue.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Deegee

You must have slept through your econ classes. Price discrimination is an excellent way for companies to increase overall revenue.

It's not price discrimination when the idea is to just give it away for free.

[Deegee]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not price discrimination when the idea is to just give it away for free.

I agree. However, I doubt that the NHL would give away advertising space for free with the potential for a large amount of viewers on a free service.

[HOOT]

Originally Posted by valo403

It's not price discrimination when the idea is to just give it away for free.

Makes you wonder why they charge for anything in this world. Doesn't Wal-Mart know if they gave me all my groceries for free they would maximize their profits?

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by valo403

And, as I said to FP12, you're pretending that there aren't massive negatives to that tactic. It would be nice to see one of you actually address those issues.

I'm not pretending anything. This is the sort of thing that you do your homework on, and, if it doesn't look like it will work, you scrap it (or at least table until potential problems can be better addressed).

Simply saying "subscription revenues gone" means absolutely nothing as you don't know anything about these revenues. What kind of profits do they produce? How likely are they to be reduced should free online streaming be provided? How much could such a potential loss be offset by free streaming? The point is, neither of us know the answers to these questions, so unequivocally calling this a "massive negative" makes absolutely no sense at this point.

You also say that local TV deals would be undermined. How? Local broadcasts aren't driven by CI subscriptions anyway. They are driven by advertising revenue directed at local viewer ship that doesn't need CI to watch these games in the first place. These ads wouldn't be circumvented by online streaming. People that watch online would still have to watch them and the added bonus would be that these ads would reach viewers that would not otherwise see them. If Fox Pittsburgh broadcasts the game, then just like in the case of CI, the NHL would broadcast this feed online and everyone in North America would be able to get this game for free, just as if they lived in Pittsburgh. How would this constitute a "massive negative"?

[FlamesPuck12]

Originally Posted by Yeah_Baby

Are you a foreign student? Or you implying that the students I know go to a clown college compared to you?

Nope, I'm not a foreign student nor am I implying you're going a clown college compared to you.
I'm just responding to your assumption that every student has $200 that they can throw away every weekend. You and your friend might have the luxury to go spend $200 at a bar on a weekend or something but don't assume all other students are the same way.

Originally Posted by HOOT

Personally I'd rather keep paying the $200/year and not have the service bogged down by freeloaders.

I think those who want it free can enjoy the awesome viewing of ADTHE, the others who find the 50 cents per day worth it can watch any game they want in HD quality, with PVR option along with the access to every game replayed for the past 4 seasons.

Every Saturday CBC offers free streaming of Hockey Night in Canada and it does not get bogged down by all the freeloaders. In fact, the quality is a lot better than any illegal streams while being just as convenient to launch.

Originally Posted by valo403

And once again you demonstrate that you don't grasp the mass negatives here. It's all 'they could add this and gain from that' without consideration of the losses. Until you take that into consideration your premise is completely flawed.

Subscription revenues? Gone
Local TV deals? Completely undermined, to the point where I could honestly see local networks declining to broadcast at all in certain markets. Why pay the NHL, or incur the costs of production, when you lose the massive benefit of having a monopoly over free broadcasts in your region? At the very least it would significantly reduce the bargaining position of the NHL.

And you think the banner ads on online streams will replace those revenue streams?

Subscription revenues, gone, yes I agree but number of viewers, increased.

Local TV deals undermined? Not at all. CBC willingly puts the stream of HNIC for free on their website every Saturday. Not only do they gain revenue from the TV advertising, they gain additional revenue from putting up ad banners on the site.

[Deegee]

They don't like people linking to pages that are illegal in nature/content.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by GreenTeaFrapp

This is beyond moronic. Seriously.

You really think people will pay for a product that they can legally get for free?

CI is not the same as free online streaming. Sure, it would be replacing GC, but if it is financially viable, then you do it. If not, they you scrap the idea. How is that moronic?

It's not a holier than thou attitude, it's called having a semblance of intelligence. Continuing to think this is a good idea after multiple people have pointed out glaring flaws with your idea is insanely moronic.

What glaring flaws have been pointed out? Does anyone here know any specific numbers? How much GC brings in? What if, just for argument's sake, it's losing money? Is it a "moronic idea" then? Is it a glaring flaw to want to replace it with something else? You talk about having a semblance of intelligence but I don't see a shred of it coming from you here.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by FlamesPuck12

Subscription revenues, gone, yes I agree but number of viewers, increased.

Local TV deals undermined? Not at all. CBC willingly puts the stream of HNIC for free on their website every Saturday. Not only do they gain revenue from the TV advertising, they gain additional revenue from putting up ad banners on the site.

CBC doesn't have any local TV deals with the NHL. Nor does the CBC generate revenue from subscriber fees. Notice that TSN doesn't put their broadcasts on their website.