Sky Player suspended on Xbox Live

By Tom Bramwell Published 28 October, 2009

"Unforeseen technical issue."

Microsoft and Sky have yanked the Sky Player service from Xbox Live after encountering an "unforeseen technical issue".

According to a statement on the Xbox Live support site, "Sky Player engineers are hard at work to resolve the problem" and the service should go live today.

Sky Player had launched on Xbox Live yesterday after much fanfare, with pricing announced just as the curtain went up.

The basic Entertainment Pack provides streaming access to the G.O.L.D., Sky Real Lives, Sky Arts 1, Sky News and MTV One channels for £15 per month on top of your usual Xbox Live Gold rates.

Other, more expensive packs allow you to watch the premium Sky Sports and Sky Movies channels, providing access to Premier League football among other things.

Sky Player, which is already available to PC and Mac users, is a way of accessing Sky's range of channels without the need for a satellite dish, and is built around Microsoft's Silverlight technology.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (47) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • superdelphinus #1 2 years ago

    No one paid the crazy prices?

  • Quixz #2 2 years ago

    Hopefully they will be able to get it sorted out today.

  • jaywalker3010 Verified Mastering Manager, Square Enix #3 2 years ago

    i wondered why i couldnt find it :)

  • Moribundman #4 2 years ago

    Yeah, I think the foreseen ridiculous pricing was more of an issue. You could get more Sky channels, plus Freeview on VIRGIN (a third party) for less money. If you have Sky you can also get the full package and multi-room for less money.

    When you add up what the perfect target audience are potentially paying for Live, plus Sky already this is definitely in "taking the piss" territory. And to cap it all it doesn't even work.

    As others have pointed out I'm something of an Xbox fanboy, but this is a poorly thought through idea...

  • BartonFink #5 2 years ago

    Err from the other article yesterday

    If you've already got Sky, you can access on-demand content for the channels you already pay for. If you've got Sky Multiroom or Sky Broadband Unlimited, you can get live channels too.

    Agreed though the pricing is ridiculous if you are not either a multi-room or broadband subscriber.

  • linksdad #6 2 years ago

    Makes the licence fee seem remarkably good value...

  • Kerome #7 2 years ago

    But the license fee is remarkably good value...

    To be honest, I would have been much happier if they'd linked in BBC iPlayer and the C4 and C5 on-demand catchup services. That'd be free, and I'd actually get some use out of it, in terms of watching stuff that I'd missed.

  • LiveForever #8 2 years ago

    usb tv card for pc or any other + media centre pc + xbox 360 = free tv.

    I've never understood why you have to pay more for multiroom, always seemed like such a rip off, just like this sky player.

  • supersaintee #9 2 years ago

    If you're a Sky subscriber you get all of the catch up channels for free. If you have multiroom or the top broadband package then you get all of the live channels that you currently get on your main subscription. It's like an extra room of multiroom for free! Ok, so its not a great deal if you don't already have sky, but neither is iplayer if you don't already have a tv licence!

  • seasidebaz #10 2 years ago

    But the license fee is remarkably good value...

    Ad-supported viewing is better value though.

  • Brogan #11 2 years ago

    Why give tweeter and facebook a beta test but leave this to chance?

  • rhubarbandcustard #12 2 years ago

    "Makes the licence fee seem remarkably good value"
    "But the license fee is remarkably good value"

    You absolute muppets.

    The BBC is a piece of shit. They can stick their licence fee where the sun don't shine.

    ...only I can't not pay it or the bastards will have me.

    [link url=http://www.bbctvlicence. com/
    ]http://www.bbctvlicence. com/
    [/link]

  • awb83 #13 2 years ago

    I can still use it - http://www .youtube.com/watch?v=Vj_73qB_dPE

  • Subquest #14 2 years ago

    Ad-supported viewing is better value though.

    Depends on how you define value. Pretty much all TV and radio advertising makes me want to slash my wrists.

  • el_pollo_diablo #15 2 years ago

    I think the BBC are fantastic. Compare their output to the utter, utter shit on the other channels.

  • seasidebaz #16 2 years ago

    @Subquest:

    Radio ads are terrible, but I don't use the radio except for when driving to work, at which point Bush, Troy and Paulina quite easily balance out Brian Steele of Bristol Carpets.

    TV ads annoy me even less. I just fast-forward straight past them. What I mean is though you don't pay anything to watch the other freeview channels, and they're all ad-supported. BBC should scrap the licence fee and just show adverts instead.

  • skillian #17 2 years ago

    A pay-per-view one off game subscription model is the best way of Sky monetising Sky Sports on the 360, seeing as impulse buying is all the rage on XBox Live.

    If you could just pay for the individual games you wanted to watch, barely anyone would subscribe to Sky.

    There is huge (HUGE!) demand for a system like that, but there is a reason that Sky would never, ever consider it.

  • stevebosman #18 2 years ago

    @seasidebaz TV ads are such good value for money that ITV can hardly afford to make any drama nowadays and needs to churn out reality programming just to survive.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 10:33

  • Mkwone #19 2 years ago

    I can't believe people complain about the TV license. BBC IS one of the best channels, certainly my most watched. Not to mention their radio shows are the some of if not the most popular.

    For my money it's worth every penny.

  • Retroid #20 2 years ago

    If I just had the BBC channels I'd still be reasonably happy.

    If I just had, say, ITV or the originally-produced-for-Sky stuff I'd slit my wrists from despair and intellectual starvation.

  • kinky_mong #21 2 years ago

    Give me the BBC any day over paying an extortionate subscription fee for loads of channels that are packed with five minute ad breaks.

  • IronCladChicken #22 2 years ago

    I havn't tried today, but last night I was able to access the Sky channels via

    My XBox->Manage Account->Download History->Sky Player->Play Now

    There wasn't much going on though :)

  • Underdoseuk #23 2 years ago

    £15 a month!! holy S**T will anyone seriously pay that on top of live. When it comes to value for money MS are really starting to show that the scales are tipped in there favour. Stupidly priced games on demand which require a HD that is insanely priced for the amount of memory you get and now this. I shudder to think how much natal will cost
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 12:02

  • Caimbeul #24 2 years ago

    "The basic Entertainment Pack provides streaming access to the G.O.L.D., Sky Real Lives, Sky Arts 1, Sky News and MTV One channels for £15 per month on top of your usual Xbox Live Gold rates. "
    £15 for that!!?? for £20 you can have all sky channels apart from movies and sports at a better bitrate. What a joke. This unforseen technical issue is also amusing to me. Sky along with AOL, Dell and Vodafone are among THE worst companies for pretty much everything. I laugh at this problem Mwa ha ha hahahahaaaaaaaa

    yes i have had nothing but problems from Sky for MANY years.

  • septimus #25 2 years ago

    Hopefully this will fail until they realise that paying £15 a month for pure shit is ridiculous.

    Sky News? Free. MTV One? Utter tosh that ends up on TMF. G.O.L.D.? Why would I want to watch shows from the BBC 70/80's, let alone pay for the privilege?

    I can see the benefit in the movies and sports channels, but only one of each for more than it costs to actually get a Sky/HD dish etc. Madness.

  • Mkwone #26 2 years ago

    Bear in mind that it's exactly the same prices for the sky player on PC. The only difference is the price of gold

  • gorf #27 2 years ago

    The pricepoint is, well, its just wrong. Its a bit like WH smiths selling old games at full RRP 6 months after release. This is so woefully out of touch with the market it wants to serve. I bet the majority of the 360 demographic (teenagers?) will be chomping at the bit to tune into some coool Sky Arts.

  • parablax #28 2 years ago

    SKY should concentrate on getting their HD service sorted first. 2 years after SKY HD launched audio and video is out of ysnc on most HD channels. Good luck xboxers.

  • poopmonster #29 2 years ago

    No Sky 1? Pointless.

  • poopmonster #30 2 years ago

    BBC license fee was good value when the BBC made good programmes, and it was half the current fee. That said, it was even more expensive, taking into consideration the price of the pound) in the old days.

    Today it's £142.50
    In 1999 it was £101
    In 1989 it was £66
    In 1979 it was £34
    In 1969 it was £11

    £11 in 1969 had an average earnings value of £270.93 (based on value of sterling in 2008), or a per capita GDP value of £354.43. Maybe if we all put our money in the bank rather than spend it on watching crap on TV, we'd all be much better off.

    Edited by 2 at 28/10/09 @ 13:30

  • Grom #31 2 years ago

    @poopmonster

    So what you're saying is the licence fee was better value back in the old days when it cost less money except it actually cost more money in real terms in the old days so maybe it's actually better value now?

    Or did you not intend to undermine your own entire argument during the course of your post?

  • EuroStalker #32 2 years ago

    Surprise. Another thing broken on Xbox.

    Forget next generation. This is the broken generation.

    ...Now where is my SNES.

  • assache #33 2 years ago

    awb83

    Nice one. Works a treat.

    As a full subscriber with multi room and broadband, this service now allows my son to watch sky in his room on his 360 without the need for an extra multi-room subscription, so, all in all, good for me.

  • Harmonica #34 2 years ago

    ^ what is the visual quality like in comparison to standard digital TV?

    It does make you wonder what they thought would happen when they suddenly offer free Sky to hundreds of thousands if not millions of UK Xbox Live users.

    If they can't handle the launch, then how are they going to handle it when it eventually goes live, and everybody who missed the download actually gets on it.

    I was interested in the Sports package, even at those prices, but if it's going to be buffering constantly and/or out of sync then there's really no point.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 16:15

  • lymonium #35 2 years ago

    Not a Gold subscriber (yet) - is it back up yet?

  • Harmonica #36 2 years ago

    No it's not, and we're not all going to get the tab back at once. If any of us do at all.

  • assache #37 2 years ago

    No buffering from what I've experienced. I only have 4mb line, so, not bad.

    High quality setting looks a good as standard definition tv.
    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 17:04

  • djm99 #38 2 years ago

    stupid idea anyhow, why would you want to watch it via your xbox.I don't think i could if i wanted to.I get a 6mb connection, but come the evening i get about 200kbps which is beyond useless.

  • Sinos83 #39 2 years ago

    it's bloody broken AGAIN

  • Negotiator #40 2 years ago

    can you get the ESPN sport channel on this?

  • poopmonster #41 2 years ago

    So what you're saying is the licence fee was better value back in the old days when it cost less money except it actually cost more money in real terms in the old days so maybe it's actually better value now?

    Or did you not intend to undermine your own entire argument during the course of your post?

    I set out to say it's cheaper now (more affordable by the masses), but it's less value than it was back then. Didn't do it very well, but numbers are worth points...;)

    Thing is, these days there's competition, so lots of choice, and a lot of scrutiny. The Beeb is a shadow of it's former self - not least because it's stretched thin by trying to compete in a do-all market.

    I used to really like their factual stuff but these days it's rubbish - the recent Lost World thing is crap, with annoying people reminding us why David Attenborough was so good; Horizon is a joke (Human 2.0? pull the other one), and so on.

    Their drama doesn't fare too well Dr Who is sci-fi on the budget of a school sweet shop; BBC News can't even find people who know what they're talking about when it comes to tech. They do pull it off some times; Spooks is cool, and they get some good stuff from Moffat (i.e. Hyde), but he's one guy in a corporation that seems to enjoy wiping it's arse with public money.

    Maybe they'll never live up to expectations, which are constantly being raised by programmes coming out of ABC and HBO - stuff like Fringe, True Blood, Lost, oh you know all that stuff we pay to watch on Sky (but not your xbox ;)).

    It's probably a British thing too. To not give a shit about standards. I mean, the beeb makes Torchwood & Dr. Who, and ITV makes Demons and Primeval, while in the states they're making Firefly, Battlestar Galactica, Stargate, etc etc etc...

    Damn. We suck!


    Edited by 1 at 28/10/09 @ 18:54

  • metallicorphan #42 2 years ago

    negotiator -'can you get the ESPN sport channel on this? '

    yes,but it costs a lot,£9 a month i think(separate from the base 15 quid a month...i think anyway)..i have Virgin XL(not included SKY Sports 1,2 and 3 or Movies),and they give us that channel and the other two ESPN channels for free!!

  • captainrentboy #43 2 years ago

    I've been on the Beta for a couple of weeks and as I can now talk about it (Had to sign an NDA form), I will!! :)
    The choice of channels is pretty piss poor and the picture quality ranges from just OK to bloody awful, it's noticeably far worse than the SD channels I get from my standard sky box (I have a 50" HDTV, if that makes a difference)
    The good things were, the choice on offer from the films on demand section, 98% of them were free too and there were some good documentaries to stream for free. That's about it.
    I'd never pay any extra for it.

  • MaskedDave #44 2 years ago

    Hell yeah we've been hard at work. Stressful couple of days.

  • moggsy #45 2 years ago

    @poopmonster

    HBO is a subscription only channel which allows them to make higher budget programmes than the BBC. There is quality drama on the BBC however if you look for it. Micro Men on BBC 4 the other week being an excellent example. Dramas like The Street alsocompete effortlessly with the best the US has to offer.

  • Moribundman #46 2 years ago

    Love the Beeb. Despise this ridiculous and slightly embarrassing FARCE that Microsoft should put behind them with great haste.

    It's the equivalent of being raped in the prison shower by Fox News and saying "yes sir, may I have another?" at great financial cost.

    Amusingly SKy are being cagey about not french kissing Sony. Now I am a red blooded Xbox fanboy, but Sony comes out of this looking like the principled young man that hasn't slept with the viral, filthy slut.

    And Microsoft... doesn't.

    FUCK I hate the Digger and his filthy working class raping empire.

  • poopmonster #47 2 years ago

    @moggsy

    Micro Men was very good - Clive Sinclair made me squirm. Atom was superb - but it disappeared, and isn't on DVD (is it?). I haven't seen The Street.

    Thing is, I buy everything that I really like - I've got loads of Beeb DVDs (and upgraded Blue Planet, Galapagos to Blu-Ray), so they're getting their extra pound for the things they make that are actually good. They just need to recognise that stuff and contract more of it.

    Forgot HBO was subscription only... but, license/subscription...does that not bring round to the "Are they just not better at spending their money because they're well focussed" argument?