Hulu Plus subscription service rumored: $9.95 a month for access to older shows
By Darren Murph 
posted April 22nd 2010 4:22AM
posted April 22nd 2010 4:22AM
We had a sinking feeling from day one that this so-called "evil plot to destroy the world" was really just an evil plot to eventually invade our wallets, and unfortunately for the freeloaders in attendance, it's looking all the more likely that at least some portion of Hulu won't be free for much longer. We heard back in January that bigwigs surrounding the streaming service were tossing around various pay-for-access schemes, and now the LA Times has it that a bona fide subscription service could go into effect as early as May 24th. Under the terms, which were disclosed by those oh-so-knowledgeable "people familiar with the matter," viewers would be asked to pay $9.95 per month for access to episodes that weren't brand new. We're told that Hulu would continue to provide the five most recent episodes of hit shows for free, but a Hulu Plus pass would be required to view shows older than that. Not surprisingly, Hulu failed to comment on the allegations, but it's safe to say we'll know exactly how legitimate the claims are in just over a month.
Buh-bye Hulu.
Hulu is delusional if they think that people are going to pay $120/year for the luxury of watching 2 month old episodes that not only have commercials, but were broadcast for free just days earlier.
That's what commercials are for dipshits. If you can't base your business model around that idea, then get the hell out of the industry because you have failed.
What is especially absurd about this is that streaming, storage and CPU costs have drop significantly over just the past few years alone where it's almost "free" for them to stream a highly compressed 1/2 hour show to someone. So back a few years ago when it cost them a pretty penny for all that bandwidth it was free, and NOW that it's significantly cheaper they are going to try raping their audience? FU
But then again, what do you expect when the money-grubbing forces of Rupert Murdoch, Comcast and Disney join forces??
@Hazdaz Yeah, if I wake up from a coma, and need to find out what happenend on The Office six weeks ago, I will sign up for this.
@Hazdaz
Almost free? LOL! Please. From the consumer side, it's reached a low cost recently, yes. However for business use it's still expensive. Regardless, there are far more costs than bandwidth that go into Hulu.
Watching one 30-second commercial 3-4 times during a show honestly doesn't hurt me. I could care less about it. Would I rather have a commercial-free access if I paid for the service? Sure, but I have to take into account that I'm already getting a month's worth of free viewing for shows (last 5 shows) and if I want access to older shows, that's when I have to fork over the bucks. Meh. 10 bucks gives me the convenience of watching those shows when I forget to DVR or when I'm away on a business trip and want something with better quality than streaming via SlingBox from my home (even with a 25MB line the quality blows).
Sadly, people will always want free things handed to them. I hate paying for Netflix since their movies available for streaming are old. TV shows I'm usually caught up with and even then, most aren't on HD quality.
I'd be willing to pay 30-40 bucks a month for a service that let me stream new releases in HD quality. Shoot, willing to pay 40-60/mo for service that let me stream movies still in theaters. But I'm sure I'm in the minority in this.
@Ecran
Please note that I put free in quotes when it comes to bandwidth.... yeah, I realize there are costs and that's what commercials are for. But even then, the streaming costs have dropped and continue to drop while files sizes for a SD 1/2 hr show are staying constant.
Also the broadcast TV business model has worked since day-one and offered up quite large profits to the networks for decades - if they can't get that same (or similar) business model to work on the net, then that's their failure. And stop trying to say that users want FREE stuff, because watching ads negates that argument.
Why isn't YouTube - which I would venture to guess streams many times more videos than Hulu - having to charge for monthly access? Between commercials within the show itself and banner ads there is no good reason besides greed that they need to charge a monthly fee.
@Ecran
BS people don't always want something for free, I guess you've never stood in line for Iphone, people would love to have those for free but are willing to pay. When it makes sense people will pay for it. Why pay Hulu $9 for shit I can get around the internet or give that same $9 and get it from Netflix without any adverts?
Why would you miss something on your DVR???? You didn't set it for Season Pass and No Repeats?
@Hazdaz
You think they would have figured out, while Tivo's, Replay TV's and Media Centers can have complete commercial skip, that's not an option on Hulu (yet) and yes we are subjected to banner ads and adverts with watching content on You Tube and with a much larger user base, they make it work.
What's wrong with Hulu = GREED
No thanks Hulu.
If i want the shows that bad, Ill wait for the DVD or Blu-ray set.
The only way this might be worthwhile is if they expanded their libraries considerably. If that's $10/month for every episode of pretty much every tv show ever, then that makes sense. If it's $10 for pretty much the same limited library they have now, then screw it.
Personally, so long as I can still enjoy Hulu in the same capacity it's in now for free, without a reduction in quality, only being able to go back 5 weeks is fine with me.
However, it does make me sad that $10/month is only for access to episodes older than 5 weeks. I was really, really hoping that if they started a paid model, that it would include additional content from other cable channels, and/or higher quality video.
Now if they were charging $10/month for something like that, I'd buy, but if this is the way it plays out, looks like I won't be out any money.
How about $9.95 to access every show on TV new and old alike, commercial free in true HD?
@MadMike
Eventually I think they'll understand that we are willing to pay for access but we don't want our access limited. We don't want DRM, we want to share it on multiple devices and even with god forbid with FRIENDS!
I don't feel the need to watch older shows, I use Hulu if I happen to miss one of the two shows I watch, and I buy each season of The Office and 30 Rock on DVD when it comes out anyways, I'm not going to pay twice.
@korrupt9187
I watch ExoSquad on Hulu.... I don't watch anything "new" on Hulu, I don't like much of the current fare on TV. Glee? C'mon now.
9.99? Sorry too much. 5.99? I'd buy that.
Give me 720p streaming with DD5.1, access to SyFy and the major broadcast networks with air-date streaming and I might be willing to pay $25 with commercials. As much as I hate them, I know the revenue from commercials is necessary, and am willing to compromise. Getting rid of one more middleman (the cable/satellite companies) should allow the producers and customers to both benefit with time.
@MrPointedHelix
Not good enough, I'd pay $29.99 for access to everything in Time Warner's Library and in those Underground Vaults were they keep stuff from the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's.
I want it all, if I have to pay for it, I want access to ALL, everything.
Congrats, Hulu... You have just managed to figure out a brilliant market plan that will cut away 90% of your regular viewers, as we all go find our content elsewhere. Seriously, advertising revenue just wasn't filling the coffers enough, so let's milk the viewers for more, eh?
If I'm going to pay a monthly premium, it'll keep going to Netflix where I get streaming AND physical media when I want, and no commercials.
I never understood the popularity of Hulu, I find the site to be really clunky and I've never found anything decent to watch and every time I click on a show that could be interesting it ends up being nothing more than a bunch of recaps. I'll stick with Netflix Instant Watch
It will be interesting to see how quickly Hulu decides a show is "old" and needs to receive money in order to watch it. My guess is that things will get "old" much more quickly now.
What makes Netflix Instant Viewing work is that it's Ubiquitous and is available just about everywhere now and most importantly I can watch it on my nice big TV Set. Why would I purchase a subscription to something I can only watch on my computer?
Well for me it is time to say goodbye to Hulu it was fun for the 2 shows I watched on it. I do not see paying to watch older shows worth any money at all. Very nice service but I prefer free with commercials.
Not sure what the big deal is. The service as it stands now will still work. The only thing that seems to be changing is charging for old issues.
@spid
That's exactly correct. Hulu is mostly used to watch the latest episodes which in a sub plan would be completely unaffected.
The sub-plan is for older episodes aimed directly at people who don't want to pay for a traditional TV service which is exactly the type of viewer that broadcasters want to avoid losing revenue from.
For everyone else this changes nothing. Unlike TV Everywhere. If that comes into play then all this whining about having a choice of paying for older episodes will sound even more ridiculous than it does now.
@spid - the service as it stands now will be tiny when this goes into effect. From all reports, you will have the latest 5 episodes of current shows only available. Everything else, all of the older shows and archives, will require payment. Still think it won't make a difference?
Suppose you stumble across a show like, say, Chuck. Wow, you are impressed. Want to go back and catch it from the start to see what it's all about? Hand over the wallet.
Having the 5 current episodes is just a teaser, and it's a ridiculously lame one at that... Go to the actual website of the network that aired the program, and you'll find it there too. Hulu will be doing nothing more for you than keeping a small free archive of the latest stuff, which you can find free in multiple sites elsewhere.
So, if you just missed the latest episode of your favorite show, then yes Hulu will remain unchanged in your eyes. If you want more than that, bring out the cash.
@Vrmithrax
and how is that different to any other service? What, you expect Hulu to just start broadcasting everything just to be nice? Why aren't you complaining that you need a Netflix sub to watch older episodes, or have to buy an entire season on iTunes, or buy a complete DVD set, or buy an entire season on Live Marketplace?
They've all been charging for old episodes since they introduced their services. How is this different to what everyone else has been doing forever? The only difference is that Hulu actually gives you content without paying which is something none of those other services do. So without Hulu the only way you could get hooked on Chuck is by paying to see episodes to begin with.
And the episode limit is a provider rule not a Hulu rule. Limiting the amount of shit you can get for free is intentional to push viewers to one of the many other services I mentioned and rerun numbers to earn revenue. Without it you wouldn't be seeing any studios willing to put their content online.
@Vrmithrax
I do not use Hulu in that fashion. I do not use Hulu to discover new shows I just use it to supplement my DVR. The current services has worked in a similar manner since its inception. If you want more than you should be prepared to pay for it.
I wont pay a dime for Hulu. If I need to watch the show I will go to the regular websites of the broadcasters, unless of course they plan to pull from there and make you go to Hulu.
Now if Hulu wanted to charge for an application download for my Android phone or Windows Media Center, I might pay for the app, but not a monthly fee.
If you want to blame Hulu for charging, Blame actors for getting payed for syndication and rebroadcast rights. The studios and broadcasters need to pay these contracts, and guess who they get that money from.
@LowSky
you obviously don't understand what capitalism is, you godless commie.
@Icepop4who Nice with the name calling, when fans complain about how much sports players are paid, you can only blame the owners. Same with TV and Movies, if they can afford to pay Tom Cruise $150 million for ten movies, not including the cost of making those movies its hard to feel sorry for these people. They are trying patchwork because they aren't making enough money from the various ways Content Providers make money. With include free to air tv (adverts), DVD, Fee based TV (Cable, Sat) and download/streaming content.
It has nothing to do with being a commie you moron, you wouldn't know liberalism, socialism or communism if slapped you across the head and said Cheese.
So, does paying 10 bucks a month free us from having to watch commercials? Probably not. Count me out.
All I want to watch are the original Battlestar Galactica shows -- where Starbuck was a guy and Cylons were bots that should be blown up.
@kenjennings
CBS on demand has the original Star Treks ;-)
I'd be willing to pay 30/Month for:
1. Package similar to basic cable, i.e realtime broadcast
2. HD options whenever possible (but not pretend HD...)
3. Ability to stream to multiple devices including iphone and ipad.
4. And of course similar catalog of older content they have today.
Instead of also trying to offer place-shifting using remote storage dvrs, or increasing uploads and selling slingbox-equivalent dvrs, my guess is that most cable companies will respond to this trend by increasing costs of buying internet without tv until they eventually get hammered again when internet provider options invariably expand. That can't come soon enough imo
They are not getting one cent from me until i can use it with Boxee, i would gladly pay 10 bucks a month if it had seamless boxee access, until then they can enjoy their traffic being cut in half!
If the networks are cable carriers are worried about losing subscribers, they should make make a package that includes Hulu. Perhaps they add $5/month to your Comcast bill for access to the full Hulu, and then charge $15ish for non-cable subscribers. This would create an incentive to keep a cable subscription, and perhaps the $5 entry fee won't seem like too much to people who would just be ordering it "in case they miss an episode"
But, personally, I won't pay if I can't watch it on my TV. They need to allow access to the site anywhere, or create apps for Blu Ray players or 360s etc for it to be useful.
Beats buying on iTunes for older stuff. Sure you can get the episode on your iPod or whatnot, but for watching on your computer, $2 a piece is way worse deal. And I don't even think $2 apiece is bad deal.
unless they are providing me with all content free of comercials + exclusive content not available to free hulu users other than episodes of shows older than 5 weeks and some more movies would be nice then 9.95+9 for netflix is fine but hulu must be available to use on tv for the subscription users
I pay $40+ a month for cable as it stands. You really think I'm gonna pay $10 a month just for this too?
Fuck that.
@kenny goo
well i dropped cable, and just use ooma for voip phone that connectes to my router to landline , netflix and ota for hd, and I get standard def basic cable 1-75 and internet for $40 cable internet + 2 at a time netflix plan, so i wouldnt mind adding hulu adding huly would bring my total bill to around 65 maybe a little bit less a month. vs my 130-140 a month when i just had internet, digital cable and cables phone service
@gamedude360
On Long Island you have three options for cable and internet: Optimum from Cablevision, FiOS from Verizon (which has a contract and I'm not gonna be staying at my location long enough for that), and satellite (which I can't do because I'm in an upstairs apartment).
I don't need a landlane phone, so I got a deal through Cablevison for their basic iO TV plain along with one cable box and their basic Optimum Online plan (15Mbps/2Mbps) for a little more than $80 a month. I need the box for the non-HDTV in my living room (which isn't close enough to a PC for anything but cable), and the direct cable line for the two other rooms in my house, one of which (my own room) I can hook up to my computer and watch stuff like Hulu on.
In other words, I can't ditch Optimum because I have no other option, and this Hulu plan is complete shit for what I need it for. Netflix also would be too cost prohibitive for what I use it for, being that most of my TV watching is done in my living room. I have no problem sitting through TV length commercials on Hulu and only getting standard def content (even though the TV in my room is HD). I'm just not gonna get cut off if I wanna dig into the back log of a series.
Goodbye Hulu. It was great while it lasted.
Hulu should charge $19.99 thats as arbitrary as $9.95
I personally wouldn't pay more than $5 per month for Hulu unless it bundled with Netflix for $9.95 per month
Thank God for plugins for Playon Media Server
One thing that made me laugh most (and a lot of the comments here made me laugh from just how ignorant they are) is the '$10 is too much...I'd pay $5' or whatever amount. The best was the guy saying he'd pay $6, but not $10. Really? That $4 a month is that big a deal to you?
Oh wait, its not. If it came out at $6 you clowns would be saying 'I'd pay $3 for it, but not $6!'
Let's face it everyone: we've been spoiled with how convenient and easy to access hulu has been. It's been an effective strategy to get people in the mode of going to the site and then to start charging for it. If you don't want to pay, don't pay! Vote with your dollar, people. But to sit here on some site whining about a business model that you have NO idea about the cost structure of is comical.
Just shut up already. Seriously. You guys are nothing but a bunch of whiny bitches complaining about the 'bad' man taking away one of your toys. Buy a couple less value meals a month at mcdonalds and you could afford this easy.
All these shows are already available (in HD mind you) for FREE, yes FUCKING FREE! There are a thousand torrent sites out there (some private ones too) and all this HD content gets distributed, speeds on public sites can be 500kB/sec+
Again, this is to take advantage of old people who are just learning to use a computer, same goes for porn sites, or playboy cyber club, it's all a sham to get old people to use their credit cards. No one born after 1980 would pay for these things (at least not $10). If you want to win a customer you have to give them faster speeds, better, quality, and better access to programming. Otherwise these stupid execs can go fuck themselves and their business models.
they could do a model like 9.95 a month or $99 a year if you pay a year in advance which comes down to 8.25 a month for people who will keep it at least a full year
fastest way to kill hulu off... ding ding ding charge for it.
I don't see the fuss about Hulu. Yes, it's offering some cool shows free but in my opinion there are plenty more better online video sites out there. Just take a look at the youtube video site and you'll see it's got almost everything nowadays. All the biggest shows, movie clips and classics can be found there. I'm not sure if Hulu is worth all the hype. It may be one of the top streaming sites on http://www.dozenvideo.com but it is not as good as HD sites like Vimeo. In short, I'm not hooked on Hulu… yet.