1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

Disney+ will be a $12.99 bundle that includes Hulu and ESPN+

By nanoguy · 14 replies
Aug 7, 2019
Post New Reply
  1. During today's investor call, Disney announced a new bundle that will include all three of its streaming services -- Hulu, ESPN+ and Disney+ -- and will become available when Disney+ launches on November 12. The combination will be cheaper than Netflix's premium tier which is $13.99 per month and Amazon Prime Video's $12.99 per month.

    Taken separately, ESPN+ is $4.99 per month, Hulu is $5.99 per month, and Disney+ will give you access to all Pixar, Disney, Marvel and Star Wars content for $6.99 per month. If you're interested in all three, the bundle makes sense, as you'll save $5. CEO Bob Iger told investors the three services are "three legs of a stool", and that Disney+ is "the most important product the company has launched in my tenure."

    Disney said it will also add several original shows and other exclusive content like movies, documentaries. That said, it hasn't said anything about international availability for the new subscription bundle, which is especially important for ESPN+ and Hulu that have traditionally been restricted to a few regions.

    In a press release, Iger said “the positive response to our direct-to-consumer strategy has been gratifying, and the integration of the businesses we acquired from 21st Century Fox only increases our confidence in our ability to leverage decades of iconic storytelling and the powerful creative engines across the entire company to deliver an extraordinary value proposition to consumers."

    It's worth noting that Disney did say its streaming services will be available through other distributors like Apple and Amazon, but licensing deals are still being negotiated. The company knows it needs to adapt in response to an exodus of pay TV subscribers and that it needs to be on every digital content platform if it wants to achieve enough scale to sustain its increased spending.

    The overall strategy of diving head-first into providing a mix of general entertainment, sports and family-friendly content at a low price is certainly a good idea when you consider the fact that consumers are overwhelmed by the number of streaming services out there. Disney also doesn't really have much of a choice but to appeal to them in the best way they can, as its traditional businesses are hardly keeping it afloat.

    Permalink to story.

     
  2. Vrmithrax

    Vrmithrax TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,474   +510

    Already a Hulu subscriber, Disney service is a maybe for the Marvel and Star Wars content, but really not interested in ESPN. Wonder if they'll have a 2 service bundle as well to save a few bucks a month?
     
    mbrowne5061, wiyosaya and H3llion like this.
  3. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,118   +2,406

    In a way - the two are $0.01 cheaper on their own. Personally, I would not subscribe to ESPN+ even if it is only $0.01 more expensive. A quick search reveals that there are a number of things on ESPN+ for which you have to pay extra. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESPN+ If I had time to watch sports, the thing that makes the most sense for me is an NHL.com package.

    I already subscribe to base Hulu, and for me, the Disney+ package does not offer that much of an attraction. Though I might wait a while for them, my local library will almost certainly get any original content that Disney is offering on DVD/BR/UHD-BR.
     
    H3llion and Vrmithrax like this.
  4. Vrmithrax

    Vrmithrax TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,474   +510

    Yah, I also have Sling and it's got some basic ESPN and sports by default, about all I really need for my interests.

    But, I wouldn't count on that original content always being available on physical media - I recall reading that much of the original Disney+ content was going to be exclusively digital streaming. To force you to have to subscribe, no doubt. Not sure if that is still true, but it was the intent when the service was first announced.
     
    wiyosaya likes this.
  5. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,118   +2,406

    Well, if content coming from Disney+ is streaming only, I will do without. However, my bet is that Disney will not be able to resist the potential to earn much more from their content by selling physical media. Like all the other mega-corporations, Disney is all about profit.
     
    Vrmithrax and lumbeeman like this.
  6. IAMTHESTIG

    IAMTHESTIG TS Evangelist Posts: 1,735   +825

    Certainly plenty of stool in here... Not that good of a deal really - and that's the "ad supported" version of Hulu isn't it? I refuse to pay for commercials. Screw that. Screw optional extras that I have to pay more for when I'm already paying for a subscription. For that matter screw Amazon Prime, that also pisses me off. In fact all these streaming services are becoming crap with stuff I don't want to watch.
     
    wiyosaya likes this.
  7. bea108

    bea108 TS Enthusiast Posts: 39   +15

    Also the cost of adding all these services adds up and on top of so many websites want you to subscribe, man it gets expensive.
     
    wiyosaya likes this.
  8. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,118   +2,406

    Which is exactly what they want because there is no way that you can watch everything and if they get you to subscribe and they you do not watch anything, you are their perfect customer. :laughing:
     
  9. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 15,072   +4,080

    Ever since the topic of, "cutting the (cable) cord", came up, I've said all along that it could wind up being more expensive buying TV services "a la cart", than just paying for basic cable. Either that or we might hear, "well, my cable bill was over $100.00, now it's down to $75.00".

    And really, some people still don't know you can stick an antenna out the window and get all the free TV you can either stand, or have time to watch. And no, prime time shows aren't stinkers. The networks depend on ad revenue to be able to provide the service free. Hence, if something doesn't fly, it's cancelled. There are successful scripted dramas in prime time, which have been viewed and enjoyed for up to two decades. "Law and Order: Special Victim's Unit", (NBC), snaps to mind.
     
    Last edited: Aug 8, 2019
    wiyosaya and IAMTHESTIG like this.
  10. Ravey

    Ravey TS Addict Posts: 161   +68

    It's basically 3 for the price of two offer.... Only really decent if you are into sports.. I know at one point ESPN were having a go at introducing more eSports to thier content. I'm not sure if that is still a big thing...

    I have Netflix... So I could be tempted to drop Netflix for a couple of months so I can catch up on Disny/Marvel/StarWars content. Thats the most affordable option for me...
     
  11. fktech

    fktech TS Maniac Posts: 528   +141

    Yawn!
     
  12. bobc4012

    bobc4012 TS Booster Posts: 101   +43

    While I agree ala carte streaming can add up to more than what many were paying for cable, Just going back to the old networks isn't always an option. There is very little that the networks offer that we would watch. The primary channels in our house is Hallmark (which not every streaming outfit provides (or as an optional add-on at a price with some other stuff we have no interest). I do have an antenna hooked up to a RCA converter box that records to a USB stick if there is something I want to watch that is on at the same time as my wife's Hallmark movie or a History channel show. However, those omni-directional antennas are not good at being omni-directional when the stations are a distance away (10 to 15 miles away, still within the range specified for the antenna). We have Spectrum and it has a package called "Choice". Pick any 10 cable channels (plus you get all your local channels and there sub-channels). It is offered at a much lower cost than the standard cable package and is competitive with the streaming services (around $25-$30/mo. the last time I looked). Also, if the cord-cutting keeps increasing, the cable/DSL providers will just jack up the price for internet. They will get paid one way or another.
     
  13. bea108

    bea108 TS Enthusiast Posts: 39   +15

    Hallmark! I don't watch it but my wife is glued to it, in fact we have, I think, 2 or 3 Hallmark channels. She'd kill me if we ever didn't have it. LOL.
     
    bobc4012 likes this.
  14. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,118   +2,406

    The promise of ATSC 3.0 is on the horizon. It is starting to roll out, though, there is no consumer equipment currently available - 2020 is the estimated time frame. When it gets here, pretty much all reception problems should disappear. That omni should, and likely will, pick up significantly more channels. Though I cannot put my hands on the link, ATSC 3.0 was tested in a major US city, and reception was possible in a car in a tunnel.
     
    Last edited: Aug 9, 2019
  15. wiyosaya

    wiyosaya TS Evangelist Posts: 4,118   +2,406

    Maybe I am setting my expectations too high, but for me, I will never subscribe to so many services that my bill would be anywhere near as high as it was when I was a DishNetwork customer; I cannot even watch all the content on Netflix and Hulu right now. Subscribing to more I cannot watch makes no sense. Like I said above, most of these content providers release their content on disk, and if I want to watch it, I will wait for it, and get it from my local library.
     

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...