/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/19821429/acastro_200320_1777_huluStock_0002.0.jpg)
Hulu with Live TV is raising its price to $70 but will include the Disney Bundle
Disney Plus and ESPN Plus will now be included in the sub.
www.theverge.com
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Hulu with Live TV raising price to $69.99 ($75.99 ad-free) but adding The Disney Bundle (D+/ESPN+)
- Thread starter KoolAid
- Start date
www.theverge.com
it isn't really giving you anything as you are paying for disney/espn.
its much worse as you can at least get deals with your cable provider if they also provide your internet.
What's so great about Hulu live? Am I getting more than what I would get with regular Hulu and some rabbit ears* on the TV? I legit don't know
*I'm getting close to 70 OTA channels currently.
*I'm getting close to 70 OTA channels currently.
You're getting non-ota channels and some things that are only available on demand
This right here, I used to have 5 tv boxes and at $8-10 each per month was almost the most expensive thing on the bill. Had playstation vue which was great and now sling.
Sucked when it happened to YouTube TV and sucks here too. I don't know why anyone thought internet TV would be the future though. The TV providers? Owned by the same companies that own the channels themselves. We are really thought they would allow things like Hulu and YTTV to offer them cheaper? Nah, they just took a minute to squeeze the internet tv companies to raise the price. Same reason you see the "tv disputes" with Viacom and YTTV recently, etc. We were fools.
I did the free trial about a year or two ago. My parents use my Hulu account but since they live in another state I got a warning saying something like I needed to pick a zip code. So basically for that week I let them have it and couldn't use Hulu.
I'd like to consolidate since this is about the same price as YouTube tv that I'm paying for now, but that's not going to work because of the aforementioned problem.
For the record YouTube tv has the same limitation last time I tried it when my parents had it. Sharing is allowed, but only within the home viewing area/market. So after visiting then going back to my home it stops allowing you to use it after a couple of months unless you access it from an IP within the home area.
I'd like to consolidate since this is about the same price as YouTube tv that I'm paying for now, but that's not going to work because of the aforementioned problem.
For the record YouTube tv has the same limitation last time I tried it when my parents had it. Sharing is allowed, but only within the home viewing area/market. So after visiting then going back to my home it stops allowing you to use it after a couple of months unless you access it from an IP within the home area.
Oh really? I thought it was just for people with bad local digital reception.
I am already higher than I ever paid for cable. It was a good run.
It does offer Stine of the Ota channels so there's that. But yeah it's mostly a cable replacement
All these streaming live TV services have virtually eliminated any price advantage they had over traditional cable after only 3-4 years. Only thing you gain is a more slick interface.
The value in streaming at this point is non-live services. Can have a few of those and it be really cheap. Now of course, you'll still get screwed by your internet provider because they will raise their prices for having only internet and no cable added, but if you have some restraint, it can work.
Edit: Hell you could set a budget of $20-25 a month and find 3-4 services to cover a lot of variety with non-live/sports stuff.
Edit: Hell you could set a budget of $20-25 a month and find 3-4 services to cover a lot of variety with non-live/sports stuff.
This is basically what I do. Couldn't really give a shit about live tv, so I just stream whatever is interesting in a given month.
at that point just go back to cable. i pay like $50 for cable and internet every month and then just do random months of services. so i don't miss local sports or watching events.
Without sports and cable news there is literally zero reason for me to have cable. Others probably disagree but I'm fine with the sports games becoming streaming exclusive, it's the only way I can watch them without dropping $70 for cable.
Paramount, and Amazon both provide US football games for example. Paramount offers the local CBS station live as well. It's basically just football and basketball I miss out on for not having cable. I can usually find a good deal with MLB with some promotion or another and watch all the games on my xbox.
Idk even with the high prices for these packages it still seems like unless you're getting a limited time deal, no cable is still better. Maybe it just depends on the area but getting my grandma on YouTube TV and porting her landline saved her $100/month.
Disney+/ESPN+ costs more than $5 a month though unless I'm missing something. So you do gain in savings if you wanted all three.
Kind of blows since I already have Disney+ and Hulu Live separately and have zero interest in ESPN. I guess I'll be kind of paying twice for Disney+ now.
Genuinely curious why you think it's superior. I looked in to YouTube TV years ago when trying to decide which one to go with but ended up going with Hulu Live.
More streams last time I checked. Also better chance at getting all local channels. Unlimited DVR.
I've been using my uncle's YouTube TV account for well over a year now and we both live in different states.
What it does after a few months is ask you if the area you're in right now is your new home area or are you there temporarily. I select that I'm here temporarily and the only thing that changes is that it gives me the local channels for where I'm at.
Everything else works exactly the same; DVR, library, etc.
Anytime that I feel like going back to his local channels, I just ask him to login on my account and it switches me back for another few months.
It also helps to make a family account and then add their own email to it, so they can have their own unique settings like we do.
Seriously. I guess it's never happening. Total bs.
Sling Blue is quite a good value but the streaming quality could be better.
People would balk at true a la carte pricing. How people react to show many streaming services has shown that people wouldn't actually like a la carte.
I couldn't figure out ESPN unless I was doing it wrong. It basically seemed to be just select shows and a few sports games that I would never watch. You don't get access to the actual ESPN channel. But I am prepared to admit I could be wrong and just gave up without figuring it out.
You'd be surprised. Basically a lot of folks that grew up with cable where it's just the norm for them and have always had it.
Anecdotally, maybe 25% of the people I know have cable and it's mostly older folks.
Heavy sports fans tend to have cable or satellite.
Before Disney and Paramount in the US, cable was basically required if you had kids lol. Now you can just pop on a Nick Jr show or Disney show.
And I'll continue to not pay for this type of shit. I don't watch near enough TV to justify stupid prices like this.
I'll continue with what I get OTA for live TV and just go without the rest.
I'll continue with what I get OTA for live TV and just go without the rest.
I think some people don't understand what this is. For $76, you get:
Hulu w/o Ads
Hulu Live TV
Disney+
ESPN+
If you want to save $5, you can get Hulu with ads. Hulu w/o ads is $12.99, Disney+ is $7.99, and ESPN+ is $6.99. That's $28 in streaming service before the Live TV is factored in which would be $48. That's cheaper than cable/satellite and cheaper than other similar services like YouTube TV. It's not just straight up live TV service.
Nah, because people in their heads think 200 channels divided by 60 means it should cost them 30 cents a channel. A markup would make it a $1 a channel. They'll balk when they're paying $5 to $10 per channel depending on what the channel is. People have unrealistic expectations just like expecting a $13 service was going to offer everything and replace $60 to $100 services and then are suddenly surprised when multiple services comes out to add up to the same cost. Multiple streaming services is essentially a la carte where you can pick the content provider based on the content they offer and is essentially a channel and people complain constantly about it.
It's mostly sports fan and old folks I bet. I have it for sports.
Locals, RedZone, unlimited recordings, and a bunch of other reasons I'm currently forgetting that ended up being extra fees on Hulu. I also hate the tv interface on Hulu.
One reason is because most network owners (ie Viacom/CBS, Disney, etc) want to bundle the big channels they have, with the smaller channels that don't get nearly as many viewers. If the channels were offered a la carte, then those smaller channels would die off. ESPN is one such example. Not everyone wants or needs ESPN, but if you want something like The History Channel or A&E, it is better for Disney if that is forced to be bundled with those channels, and typically the TV provider will either drop all the channels (dispute), not offer them (which pushes you to other competitors that do) or pass the costs onto you.
It is more complicated and nuanced than that,. but that's one reason.
Streaming was always going to wind up this way. Netflix (streaming) is a good example here. Really great when it first started, but once people started to realize just how much money there is to make in there, the cost of rights acquisitions started to go up, and the market became more and more fragmented and expensive. You've also had things like retransmission fees come into play (TV providers having to pay local channels to [re]broadcast their feeds), and all of that has made things a lot more expensive as costs have been passed to the consumer.
It also doesn't help that you've had internet providers (Comcast and AT&T for example) also trying to jump in to content production by buying up studios. That let them make money from charging others to carry their content. They've also been in the position of being able to cap your internet to push you to either pay more for your data, or preferably, subscribe to their TV services which wind up being about as expensive with a bundle as the internet service + a couple of streaming services.
Last edited:
I def get what it is, still think it's too much or at the very least more than I would consider paying.
Though I'm a bit incensed they're forcing these services on me to justify a price increase, I'll save like $2/mo b/c I do have Disney+ but I won't have the option to cancel to save money while there's no content I'm interested in.
I still prefer Hulu TV to Cable because I can watch everything, even live TV, anywhere, any time.
Comcast (when I left about 3 years ago) only offered a limited selection of channels live if you were outside your home network.
AT&T's U-Verse TV (around the same time) was an absolute fucking joke and had even fewer live streaming channels. You couldn't even stream DVR recordings. They had to be watched on the physical box they were recorded on like it was 2008.
I still prefer Hulu TV to Cable because I can watch everything, even live TV, anywhere, any time.
Comcast (when I left about 3 years ago) only offered a limited selection of channels live if you were outside your home network.
AT&T's U-Verse TV (around the same time) was an absolute fucking joke and had even fewer live streaming channels. You couldn't even stream DVR recordings. They had to be watched on the physical box they were recorded on like it was 2008.
Same thing for DirecTV Stream, which now starts at $70. These streaming cable services used to be really cheap just a few years ago. YouTube TV launched at $35 but is now $65. I think Sling is the only one left with packages starting in the $30 range.
I get enough live sports through ESPN+, peacock, paramount and prime that I don't feel I miss out on much. Live is not worth what Hulu and YouTube is charging