Paramount+ Channel to Cost $9.99 a Month Ad-Free or $4.99 With Ads

[Saturn1995]

I have Amazon, free with prime.
HBO max free with my cell provider.
Apple TV+ free with my last apple device.
Paying for disney+ $7 monthly

For very little cost I have way more TV than I could ever watch. I think this is the thing people forget. With the really competitive price points and bundles, and studios competing against each other to produce great shows, my guess is an average consumer doesn't feel compelled to get every new service.

My guess is paramount is gonna bundle up with another company, maybe even another network like peacock.

 

[sw1tcher]

im still surprised people pay 100$ a month for cable or directv and there's 5 minute commercials every 30 minutes. I cant deal with commercials anymore they literally drive me insane.
Theres too may pay for Services that need to just die. Everybody is trying to get in on that subscription based life that consumers hate.
IF one company could do it all for 50$ a month with no ads then that would be something but having them all scattered all over the place will never work.
Only thing I pay for now is YouTube premium because there is a ton of content constantly updated. I get my shows and movies in other ways.

$50 a month? No thanks.

That's more than subscribing to 5 individual services all at one time which would give me more content than I have time to watch.

Netflix: $13.99
Disney+: $6.99
Hulu (no ads): $11.99
Apple TV+: free ($4.99 after free period)
Peacock+ (no ads): $9.99
__________________________________
Total: $42.96 ($47.95 if you have to pay for Apple TV+)


I like it the way it is now where I can pause a service whenever I feel like it/am done watching what interests me, and then restart another service when there's new content. I only subscribe to 2 services concurrently (3 if you include the free year of Apple TV+).

 

[mzubb]

Just subscribe to one at a time. Binge watch for a month or two and move on to the next. No need to have 10 streaming services active at once.

 

[The Oak]

If you "cut the cable" and do the "with ads" options of the various streaming services, you essentially end up back to "the cable" that you originally had.

The light at the end of the tunnel:

1. You get to schedule your viewing as you see fit.
   1. Sure you can set a timer.
   2. You don't have to "wait and hope" when a prior episode will air if you missed it. You will have access to prior seasons and episodes.
2. Potentially "higher quality" content versus what "the cable" gave you. For example: 4k, HDR, Dolby, etc.

Folks then state "I won't pay for a service with ads". Why was a program an hour long to begin with; because, the commercials took up 20 minutes. Hence the sponsors subsidize your payment for a given program.

By paying for no ads, you are essentially sponsoring the program that the various commercials did for you prior.

 

[Wanted797]

Hey YOU... that’s an awesome idea. I want that like yesterday. Start a service... called “TopPicks” maybe, that gets the content from everyone and charges me per topic I know that the selection of “topics” will have to be limited, but I’m willing to deal with that!

Sadly no studio would do it. Netflix could, but I doubt any studio would agree to license away customers from their own platform.

 

[innovationwho]

So tired of being bombarded with ads. Don’t know if $9.99 is really worth it.

It’s not. Especially when you think how even Netflix has started limiting the episode releases. They no longer release the whole season at once for some shows. Paramount will be worse about that just to acquire more money. They all are become stale like 5 year old crackers.

 

[Rigby]

I would subscribe to the new CBS/Paramount streaming service if CBS Access did not destroy the legacy of Star Trek franchise. STD and STicard took down all the original franchise movies and TV shows before it. It is a terrible thing CBS Access did to wreck the Trek franchise.

On the other hand, Lower Decks is pretty much the best Star Trek since the original series.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Oh, good - we can pay to watch ads!

Or not.

 

[Apple_Robert]

I already have a free year of AppleTV+ and 3 years of Disney+. I am not going to pay for this service. Most of what I watch are shows and movies purchased from iTunes.

 

[Alan Wynn]

Keyword is Channels. Traditional cable channels would air a whole host of shows from all different studios. Meaning we got a variety of studios content on a specific topic.

Most channels were not topic based, but even with those, one would often need multiples. Golf was on:

• The Golf Channel
• ESPN (all variants)
• Fox Sports 1
• Various of the Regional Sports Networks
• ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, etc.

What we wanted was to be able to buy the topics that interest us the most without having to pay for the sport or documentaries we don’t watch.

Not really. What people really meant was: My cable subscription is too expensive. In order to get The Knitting Channel, I also have to pay for the Crocheting channel and that is probably why my subscription is so expensive. I just want to pay for the one channel I want, but I want to carry all the other shows I sometimes watch, but I just want it to be much cheaper.

What we’ve been given is now the ability to buy content by this studio and some by this studio.

Or other collections like Shudder and Netflix (both of which are examples of services from more than one studio).

We still can’t just buy the topics we want from all the studios.

Actually, you can just buy what you want for the most part, by buying/renting the shows that you via iTunes or some other aggregator.

 

[Alan Wynn]

I actually think there’s more stuff I’ll watch on this than Disney plus. Only so many times anyone in my family can watch Marvell and Star Wars movies, and most weeks we watch it just once. Remains to be seen though. Disney has a lot of stuff in the pipeline.

They have more current shows I like than Disney+ does. Future content can only be judged when it is real.

I have 2 years of Disney+ pre-paid, so I am not going anywhere, but once I have to re-up, we will see.

 

[DeepIn2U]

This is EXACTLY what i was waiting for! Another streaming service so pay for, since i dont think that paying for Netflix, Amazon and (later after year)Apple TV+ is enough. I WANT TO PAY FOR STREAMING SERVICES AS MUCH AS I DID FOR CABLE, OR EVEN MORE!
In the one of most frequently used phrase these days - MONTHLY EXPANSES TO THE MOON!🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀🧑‍🚀

You mean you were waiting to watch Fatal Attraction again ... cause well you missed the leg cross scene in the theatres right? RIGHT? !

LMAO ... just kidding.

that movie is just so old ... but the story line and acting was decent in hindsight today, and honestly I cannot fault Paramount for highlighting it in this press release.

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

Oh, good - we can pay to watch ads!

Or not.

What streaming services offer free service with ads?

 

[Alan Wynn]

DOA.

DOA was Touchstone, so will probably be on Disney+.

 

[Alan Wynn]

What streaming services offer free service with ads?

Tubi and Pluto are both free with ads.

 

[jettredmont]

They are making it harder to save $$ by cutting the cord. The best value in cutting the cord was 5+ years ago before every network started splintering off and forming their own streaming service. Back then it was Netflix & maybe Hulu. Netflix had tons of content from all networks plus their own original content. Hulu had everything else (current shows from CBS, NBC, ABC, FOX). Then Hulu lost most CBS. I'm sure they'll lose the others eventually. It seems Hulu is going with lots of older/classic shows now.

I think to save $$ going forward you'll have to "share" memberships with friends/and family. Thankfully you can do that. I pay for Netflix, Hulu, and now CBS All Access/Paramount+ (I'll probably drop Hulu soon and pick it up a month at a time here or there to watch things like "Nomadland"). Sister pays for HBO Max, Showtime Anytime, and Starz. Then we share logins/profiles, essentially cutting the bills in half. Apple+ is free for the next year due to buying an Apple product and Disney+ is included with my Verizon bill (as is commercial Hulu, but I can't stand commercials).

I still buy faves on iTunes/Amazon/Vudu. I prefer to own movies on Apple/iTunes and shows on Amazon due to Apple make the stupid decision to not allow autoplay of the next episode (unless you put all of the episodes into a playlist or something). Most studios belonging to Movies Anywhere is nice too, as buying a movie in iTunes automatically adds the movie to Amazon & Vudu too.

Honestly, "cutting the cord" has saved me so much in the past 12.5 years that even if it was break-even with cable at this point I'd be fine. That said, we are *still* paying (as a large family) less for pretty much every service than we were for our DirectTV bundle in 2008. We have Netflix (middle tier 2-streams), Hulu, Disney+, AppleTV+, Amazon Prime (primarily for the shipping), HBO Max, CBS+Showtime bundle, and AMC+. That whole shebang is about $80, still less than the $85 (plus taxes and fees) we were paying DirectTV in 2008 and far less than the same "everything" bundle would cost from our local cable company today (last i priced it it was $230/mo regular price, with introductory 6-month offers reducing it by about 50% but only for those 6 months).

For individuals instead of families, the ability to rotate the services / binge what you like cuts the costs significantly (it just isn't worth the monthly cost for us to deal with organizing that in a family of 8, although we do that at the margins by cancelling / re-adding the lesser-used services).

Moreover, people I know with cable service also have multiple streaming services, because even that $230/month "everything" service doesn't include any of the streaming originals or wealth of on-demand back catalogue. Even with cable, we'd still have subscriptions to Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV+, and Amazon Prime, plus probably CBS and AMC+ honestly (a good amount of what is watched there would be available on-demand or on the cable channel to DVR, but also a lot wouldn't...). It's just HBO Max and Showtime that are really redundant with cable.

 

[Abombito]

This article fails to mention the most important news that was part of this announcement, THERE WILL BE A WORKAHOLICS MOVIE!! Not to mention new Reno 911 episodes.

 

[QT Performa]

ViacomCBS executives announced the pricing tiers in a virtual investor event held on Thursday, and also revealed that the service will be available across Latin America and Canada on March 4, with a Nordic launch a few weeks later and an Australian launch also planned for this year.

Except "news" outlets that are not MacRumors are reporting if one purchases a year up-front, the cost will be reduced to $50.

 

[Wanted797]

Most channels were not topic based, but even with those, one would often need multiples. Golf was on:

• The Golf Channel
• ESPN (all variants)
• Fox Sports 1
• Various of the Regional Sports Networks
• ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC, etc.

Not really. What people really meant was: My cable subscription is too expensive. In order to get The Knitting Channel, I also have to pay for the Crocheting channel and that is probably why my subscription is so expensive. I just want to pay for the one channel I want, but I want to carry all the other shows I sometimes watch, but I just want it to be much cheaper.

Or other collections like Shudder and Netflix (both of which are examples of services from more than one studio).

Actually, you can just buy what you want for the most part, by buying/renting the shows that you via iTunes or some other aggregator.

What I was getting at is I always liked documentaries and movies. But in order to get that here in Australia you had to pay for the base package plus the things you wanted etc.

Now I can get my movies and documentaries from collections like Netflix but it has no Disney movies because Disney have their own streaming service. So I have to also get Disney+

The good one in Aus is that we can get Kayo which has all different sports in one subscription.

 

[MacSince1985]

And, as noted, prior to March 4th (next Thursday, one week from today) you have the option of paying $30/year (ads included) or $50/year (ad-free, save for a small # of shows) for this new service. It's half off the $60 or $100 per year. I did the $50. Works out to $4.17/month.

Do you have a link for this offer? I can't find it anywhere.

Edit: Found it! Coupon code "paramountplus" with new annual subscription.

 

[x-evil-x]

Because it's stealing and stealing is morally wrong and illegal... 🤷‍♂

Not all people follow the cookie cutter lifestyle. Don’t need to look down on others for getting things other ways.
sex before marriage is forbidden also. Everyone is a sinner. Yadada. Getting shows for free is the least of anybody’s worries.

 

[cmaier]

Not all people follow the cookie cutter lifestyle. Don’t need to look down on others for getting things other ways.
sex before marriage is forbidden also. Everyone is a sinner. Yadada. Getting shows for free is the least of anybody’s worries.

You missed the point where he explained that it is ILLEGAL

 

[Fred Zed]

They better not be messing around with the football ( soccer ), these incompetent folks in charge of showing live games are a disgrace to this sport. Either have feeds mislabeled , or feeds are always tardy. They were speaking to one of their head honchos recently and he's interested in purchasing further rights to soccer games stateside. Their likes have bought some EPL clubs then turn them into tripe. "good job". Then again, I shouldn't be blaming the player, but the weak UK system that basically allows the highest bidder to buy anything they want, cue Citeh.