News

Hulu Plus will not require PlayStation Plus

You are here: blasteroids.com / news / hulu plus will not require playstation plus /

Latest news | News archive | Search news

Not registered yet? Register here.

DVDBack23 @ Jul 07, 2010 05:03 | 6 comments

Hulu announced last week the launch of Hulu Plus, a premium version of the popular streaming site that will cost $10 per month.

Buyers of the subscription get expanded content, and the ability to play the shows on their HDTVs, Blu-ray players, Xbox 360 (with Gold subscription), PS3 and iPad and iPhone.

Hulu Plus gives users season passes for most current shows, which is a massive improvement from only being able to watch the trailing five episodes of a given show. You will also be able to watch back seasons of the shows.

After the announcement, a Google search found that Hulu Plus for the PS3 appeared to need a PlayStation Plus subscription, which also costs money.

Today, those fears have been put to rest, with Hulu confirming that a PlayStation Plus subscription is only required, temporarily, while Hulu Plus is still in its "preview phase."

When the service goes off beta, the PS Plus subscription will no longer be needed.

Previous Next

Comments

Comment by: KillerBug (Jul 07, 2010 05:45)

It is still a tiny selection, with ads, and costing more than Netflix's huge selection without ads.

Comment by: KSib (Jul 07, 2010 18:29)

I'd say Hulu and Netflix aren't really for the same thing, at least for me. I use Hulu for TV series stuff because I don't care to sit down at a particular time to catch it on TV so I wait until it shows up on Hulu. If you're looking for movies or slightly older DVD-released TV series then stick with Netflix.

That being said, I have no use for this paid service.

Comment by: lamain (Jul 07, 2010 18:33)

Hulu will need s MUCH larger selection of things to watch for me to be interested. I would spend that much to get ride of the commercials on what they have now though.

Comment by: KillerBug (Jul 08, 2010 03:12)

I would be willing to pay the $10 a month for current (or near current) TV, but for a handful of free broadcast channels? NO.

Comment by: Hunt720 (Jul 09, 2010 00:18)

I still don't get all the whining about Hulu plus. I think it's a great idea.

I did the math and it works out MUCH better for me anyhow. If I drop my cable/dvr service, and then add the subscription for Hulu I save a TON of money every month. Sure, there won't be EVERY show I watch on the site, but the vast majority of shows I do watch are on there (SNL,Family Guy,The Office,30 Rock,Law and Order,Archer,etc) and for the 2 or 3 shows that I occasionally watch (via my wife due to her retarded need for "reality" television)I can get a multitude of ways via other similar services. Some of those services even work on my PS3 browser. In fact, I can even add both a monthly Netflix subscription AND a Gamefly subscription (just for S#!ts and giggles) and still come out under what my home DVR set up costs monthly....

and as far as the bitching about the "ads" goes:

YOU STILL HAVE ADS ON CABLE! In fact you have MANY more ads on cable than on Hulu. I can't tell you the last time my DVR asked me if I'd like to watch a 2 minute ad up front instead of breaking it up into three 30 second ads (the average amount of ads on a typical episode of anything via hulu). I spend probably a minute and thirty seconds just fast forwarding through ads on my dvr in an effort to not go too far and cut off sections of my recorded shows anyway. And to top it off I pay nearly 4 times the amount for my cable service... but nobody ever seems to whine about how they pay for cable, but still have to watch ads. That's because we are all aware that the actual FUNDING for our favorite TV shows comes from their advertising rate which is in turn based on perceived popularity. Even if all the money you spend on cable went to the funding of these shows, they would never have the budget to continue. Period. Personally, I'd rather pay less for the opportunity to be advertised at.

... and seriously, "free broadcast channels"? You mean to tell me you pay for internet, and take the time to post on a tech-enthusiast site and you are watching television via its free broadcast service? So you don't own a DVR? That still makes Hulu a service of convenience in comparison to what you already inferred you use.

I also agree that Hulu and Netflix are basically apples and oranges... Netflix has a larger selection of shows sure... but try finding an episode from the current season. I think the two services can even compliment each other and as I said before, they are significantly less than the average cable bill COMBINED.

To be fair, I also don't watch sports too often. So if you have a cable package that lets you DVR games, that may make all the difference. I should also point out that you can watch MLB games via the PS3 already in HD LIVE. And the 360 is adding ESPN this fall. But... those are already free via broadcast I guess.

Comment by: Anonymous User (Jul 17, 2010 04:07)

Give me live sporting events and I would be interested. Not saying it's a bad deal for certain people and in no way does it replace cable, though I guess if you only watch a handful of shows and don't need sports or news on TV then maybe it's for you. I look at is as just another option for people. And lastly my wife would hate it ;).