JRugby2
Phil Hardcastle (33)
All ICC Tournaments in Aus now. Fortunately it seems it's just on the regular prime plan which is still reasonably priced
Broadcast options for Australian Rugby
- Thread starter WorkingClassRugger
- Start date
PhilClinton
Paul McLean (56)
It is going to be interesting from their price point - Kayo is now $40 per month I believe. I am sure they're working hard behind the scenes to negotiate ongoing service with ESPN but I'm not sure what the appetite would be.
I have kids so we've had Disney for ages, getting ESPN added to the service means I am covered either way as I can't see us flicking Disney anytime soon.
D-Box
Cyril Towers (30)
Boomers with big bank balances
PhilClinton
Paul McLean (56)
They still have a fairly exclusive arrangement with the NRL and AFL which would be their main demographic of subscribers.
PhilClinton
Paul McLean (56)
It is only $9 more expensive than Stan Sports. Not saying I enjoy either pricing model but it's not exactly a huge jump from what we need to pay to watch rugby.
Dctarget
David Wilson (68)
At least with Stan you get a semi decent streaming service. Kayo it's just footy and footy.
The Ghost of Raelene
Phil Kearns (64)
I have it and it's better value than Stan because I watch RL as well as the US sports while they are there. Might be different when they leave. As soon as the Lions series is done Stan is a hard one to keep.
Love to know tje numbers after 3-4 weeks.
PhilClinton
Paul McLean (56)
They actually have all the ESPN and Fox Sports documentaries which are actually really well made. But yes I take your point, although I find the Stan catalogue to be the weakest of the main streaming services.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
My vaguest recollection of prices from around 15 years ago was that your minimum "get everything other than PPV" sport package from Foxtel involved Basic + Sport + HD + HD box Rental fee + Setanta: which ran you around $100/month: that translates into about $145 in today's money. It also didn't involve movies, or HBO channels either which i think would take you up to $150 in old money.
i don't have the energy to look it up, but is that significantly less than Prime + Disney + Kayo + Stan + Paramount + Optus costs you?
i don't have the energy to look it up, but is that significantly less than Prime + Disney + Kayo + Stan + Paramount + Optus costs you?
Slim 293
George Smith (75)
The key is that all of those streaming services aren't necessary all the time...
I don't have Kayo, and if I was interested in ESPN I'd watch it on Disney, which is only necessary for a few months of the year for a handful of shows including a Die Hard Xmas.
My other half pays for Prime, largely due to its benefits for Amazon deliveries, but otherwise would rarely subscribe because it's mostly rubbish, produces minimal decent exclusive content and its movie selection is on most other streaming services.
Stan, Netflix, and now Max run almost all year round, with Stan Sports only between February and November.
Paramount is only worthwhile if you want to re-binge Twin Peaks.
Optus... LOL.
I don't have Kayo, and if I was interested in ESPN I'd watch it on Disney, which is only necessary for a few months of the year for a handful of shows including a Die Hard Xmas.
My other half pays for Prime, largely due to its benefits for Amazon deliveries, but otherwise would rarely subscribe because it's mostly rubbish, produces minimal decent exclusive content and its movie selection is on most other streaming services.
Stan, Netflix, and now Max run almost all year round, with Stan Sports only between February and November.
Paramount is only worthwhile if you want to re-binge Twin Peaks.
Optus... LOL.
Ignoto
John Hipwell (52)
Just ask a LLM;
Total Monthly Cost
- Prime: $9.99
- Disney+ (Standard): $15.99
- Kayo (Standard): $25.00
- Stan Sport (Basic + Sport): $27.00
- Paramount+ (Standard): $10.99
- Optus Sport: $24.99
Total: $113.97 per month
If you did enroll in all of that, you're still saving $500 compared to the old model. That's even without the old "account" sharing model that you can take advantage of these days.
JRugby2
Phil Hardcastle (33)
Those all together are $108.96 per month for the basic plans, add in Netflix and its + $7.99 so about $116.
Also I don't remember the old foxtel price but the first result from googling "foxtel prices in 2010" gave me this:
Get Started $42 up $2
As before but adds Sky News Local, Lifestyle You
+
Sports (formerly My Sport) $16 (todays money $83.70)
Adds Eurosport
Or
Sports iQ $88 (todays money $126.99)
Get Started, Kids & Music, Drama & Lifestyle, Knowledge & Adventure, Sports, IQ
So there ya go - not much different I suppose but you could access it cheaper back in the day when everything was on foxtel.
Last edited:
PhilClinton
Paul McLean (56)
Each to their own but I think Prime is the best value service on the market when paid annually - you get the Amazon delivery benefits, and they have a heap of exclusive original programs and now also some sports.
Reacher, The Boys, Fallout, Goliath and Bosch would be up there with some of the best TV I've watched in the past 5 years.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I'm not suggesting any of the individual services are up to snuff, simply talking apples for apples comparisons to where we were around 15 years ago, where Sport was on FTA or Foxtel (including extra subscriptions). If we say we want 4K to keep up with the technology of the times:
Prime - $10 (w ads)
Disney+ - $21
Kayo - $40
Stan w Sport- $37
Paramount - $14
Optus Sport - $25
That's $147 by my count, which is roughly in line with Inflation Adjusted figure from 2010.
It's definitely inconvenient to have all the content in a bunch of different places, yes. And it must be exceptionally administratively difficult for a corporate location like pubs and hotels etc. to facilitate that broadcast. I certainly wouldn't pay it, as both a late millennial with a proactive attitude towards adventuring on the ocean, and lacking enough care for the Aleague or English Football to justify Optus or Paramount subscriptions. But cost wise for the individual, particularly if you're binging non-sport content and managing your subscriptions in the off seasons, doesn't seem unreasonable compared to the past.
Prime - $10 (w ads)
Disney+ - $21
Kayo - $40
Stan w Sport- $37
Paramount - $14
Optus Sport - $25
That's $147 by my count, which is roughly in line with Inflation Adjusted figure from 2010.
It's definitely inconvenient to have all the content in a bunch of different places, yes. And it must be exceptionally administratively difficult for a corporate location like pubs and hotels etc. to facilitate that broadcast. I certainly wouldn't pay it, as both a late millennial with a proactive attitude towards adventuring on the ocean, and lacking enough care for the Aleague or English Football to justify Optus or Paramount subscriptions. But cost wise for the individual, particularly if you're binging non-sport content and managing your subscriptions in the off seasons, doesn't seem unreasonable compared to the past.
The Ghost of Raelene
Phil Kearns (64)
I don't pay for YouTube but I'm pretty close with how the kids absolutely berate me like Craig Bellamy when ads interrupt their brain rot time.
Highlander35
Steve Williams (59)
I'm going to have to switch back to firefox whenever chrome finally kills ublock
PhilClinton
Paul McLean (56)
I have been a paid Youtuber for a while now BUT apparently they've now moved the goalposts on the earnings for the content creators and I am noticing a lot of my favourite foodie guys putting more exclusive stuff behind additional paywalls. Youtube have also built in their own premium subscriber tool now which I haven't used yet.
Frustrating.
The Ghost of Raelene
Phil Kearns (64)
If I'm really tied to something though I'd rather pay the creator through Patreon etc than the platform tbh. I don't have anything I'm that dedicated to but I get it.