I tried the option with the most channels- of course most are still bug and commercial-infested, showing mostly reality shows and censored versions of movies. Picture quality was worse than Sling, and STILL no 5.1 audio.

Explain what your complaints are about it. I think it's fantastic for the price. A similar package with my provider is $70.

Have you not seen any of his ridiculous complaints? He hates everything about 21st century TV. Bitches and complains about network TV logos bugging him, commercials, promos and frame rates, 5.1 audio, proper aspect ratios. He hates cable TV because he thinks all TV should be free and commercial free.

When it comes to TV, he's the wrong guy to talk to.

Well when you put it that way....lol

Uh, no, I think TV should either be free WITH commercials, because those are what pay for it, or commercial free if I DO have to pay for it, because then *I* am who is paying for it.

Exactly- there is NO justification for constant logos on the screen- I simply can't enjoy a show with them on (and in more than 20 years of doing this, there's been NO proof that they've done ANYTHING positive for any channels or networks- most people DON'T EVEN NOTICE THEM AT ALL, which shows how blind they are but also how pointless it is for them to be there), commercials are insulting and annoying and I should not have to see them in anything I'm PAYING for, and yes I want the proper audio, frame rate and aspect ratio on everything. Not too much to ask there.

I've cancelled Netflix due to the grandfather price ending. For $8 I'm fine with leaving it go every month even if I don't use it much, but for $10, I'll leave it cancelled and only sign up for a month here and there when there's something original I want to watch, just like I do with HBO and Showtime.

So did you think with Vue that the logos would magically disappear? Or that commercials would magically disappear?

It would've been nice if they did! Since it was free I wanted to check it out no matter how bad it was, but oddly I still hold it to the same standards as everything else on the Roku. Netflix gives me exactly what I want with no crap for far less per month. I'd have more fun lighting $45 on fire than spending it on this. (Does cable even cost this much? At least that delivers far better quality.)

The problem is you are absolutely wrong and your logic is as faulty as the shelves in your overcrowded apartment.

You are SUBSIDIZING the content. You are not even coming close to paying for it. Moreover, the basis for creating content is profitability - otherwise there is no point in creating it.

There is literally no counter argument to this. Anything you say will be wrong. Your view is simply erroneous. It's 1+1=3.

If I'm absolutely wrong, than why do I get over-the-air channels for free without having to "subsidize" them? For over 60 years they've been making their money by selling advertising.

There's plenty of companies providing on-line content that are making profits and NOT showing commercials.

Yup, DJ was right , there's no point in arguing with crazy.

Do you actually like these things? Call me crazy, but I have to agree with Alan. I tried both Sling & Vue & quickly asked myself, "People pay for THIS?"

But it's not even the services, but the horrific mess that basic cable has become. Even more so now that that Big Pharma has overtaken TV advertising.

Then I switch over to Netflix/Amazon & they have programming that far exceeds the dreck on basic cable, presented properly, and much much more enjoyable for it. For about $10/mo.

"Crazy" is anyone who pays for- uh, I mean subsidizes- and happily watches this:


or this:


or this: (the fucking clock on this thing was actually counting down in real time!)


or this:


or this:


interrupted by this:


or this:


or this:


or this:


or this:


There is literally no counter argument against this- anyone who subscribes to this type of thing is paying to be insulted. (All of these pictures were taken from PSVue tonight- and I feel incredibly dumber for it.)

^How about spoiler-tagging those multiple large images?

Comparing prices across so many TV services is just silly. Yes, I watch stuff on Netflix and Amazon Prime, but network TV and cable are so different in their business models. I think it's generally assumed that Netflix and Amazon aren't making money on their subscription fees. By all means, subscribe to those services and enjoy them for the price, but I don't think it's worth saying "Such and such provides this for $X so everyone else should too." If you don't like services that feel they need to provide advertising along with subscription fees, that's a perfectly legit opinion. Just don't subscribe to them.

And which one of these is LOSING viewers while the other is gaining them? Which one deserves to stay in business and which will fade away and die if it doesn't change something? Why is "cord-cutting" now a "thing" (with many people realizing what I did over 25 years ago, but having far more alternatives than there were then?)

Well, I don't. Usually when anything has a free trial, I'll check it out if I have the least bit of interest in it. (I still haven't tried the potentially good ones like Warner Archive and Exploitation.tv because I want to make sure I have time to actually WATCH those when I do that.) But my initial comment was "$44.99 a month for THIS?" and the general reaction was "How dare you criticize it, they need to make money and everything the "TV" industry does nowadays is great and you're crazy if you don't agree." I think the pictures here speak for themselves. And for the price, if you actually wanted these channels you're still far better off getting them from cable, as the overall technical quality is less than HD YouTube videos- not that that really matters.

Playstation Vue - I tried if for a month after the trail period, but I just don't get these types of services. It's like cable, only worse. Sure it's a bit cheaper, but the picture & sound quality not as good. It's clumsy to do simple things like change channels, and worst of all you can't skip commercials. After having the ability to FF or skip them for 30 years, this is unbearable.

But it really reminded me of why I cut the cord in the first place - programming. This stuff is awful. Kardashians, tiny houses, naked dating shows, just ugh. Even the rare show I want to 'DVR' is unwatchable because of 20/40 min ratio of forced commercials.

But haven't you read the other comments? Ted Turner and everyone who runs those channels NEED money, and you owe it to them to give it to them AND watch the commercials they air too! And it's blasphemous to call their programming "awful"! (I might actually like the "naked dating shows", but ironically they CENSOR everything on those- kinda ruins the point, doesn't it?)

But sadly, I have finally cancelled Sugar Instant, which DOES deserve my money but I've had absolutely no time to watch it at all lately. I made it clear that was the main reason I was cancelling which is nobody's fault, but added that I sent them suggestions several times to add more classic movies and not a single one was added for the past couple years. When I have more free viewing time again I may try Exploitation.tv; AdultDVDEmpire seems to have the best of both worlds but it's REALLY expensive; I'd have to watch that practically every day to get my money's worth.

Exploitation.tv has really dropped the ball,lately. They seem too be adding 9 minute loops instead of full length movies(still once in awhile) and if I cancel another service ,this is at the top of the list.

Soon to be Hulu. Still waiting on Ray Donovan season finale. Plenty of pissed off people on FB and all Hulu says is they are working on the problem.