Pay Per View = Too many to view

[● kaneisdaman ●]

Really, who thinks that WWE is going over the top with their PPVs. It seems lately, more so than any other time, there has been a bombarding of PPVs. There are too many and far too close to allow significant build up in feuds meaning we get predictable PPVs with unclean finishes or poorly booked matches that are a result of a rushed feud.

I just thinkg we have too many PPVs and one every month and a half (or each month at minimum) is satisfactory and would make for much better feud build up and match cards.

Thoughts?

[chokeslamcena]

I think thats one of the reasons people dont really care who's feuding.

I mean.. very three weeks or thereabouts theres a new PPV, meaning that we have:

1) lots of short feuds that nobody cares about because its hard to even remember them when they'er over

2) Long drawn out feuds that have the same match over and over and over again (seems to be happening these days)


So either way it gets dull fast. But WWE won't get rid of them as long as they keep getting money from them, so we have no choice other than to settle with them.

They definitely are a problem though.

If you look back to when there was only four events a year (Rumble, Mania, Summerslam, Survivor Series) the cards were a big deal. Matches had been hugely hyped up, and we didnt see the people wrestling over and over and over again, so it was a big deal that they'd be wrestling at a PPV. This is also why (in my opinion) people cared more about the Intercontinental and tag team chamoionships.


If WWE are gonna force tha tmany PPV's down our throat each year, they should at least enforce the draft, and designate x amount of PPV's to each show and leave it at that.

[mickeyj1130]

It's quite simple. people continue to purchase all the PPV's the WWE offers. As long as the WWE has hardcore fans they will continue with the number of PPV's.

[rkolegendkilla]

I just feel sorry for those parents who buy every PPV for their kids. I hardly spend anything on WWE pay-per-views in comparison to some others. I only order the Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series.

[Hammersmith Hardman]

I feel sorry for you americans/canadians. Becuase (I'm not bragging) over here we don't have to order all of them. We get No way Out, Backlash, One Night Stand, Great American Bash & Unforgiven all on free to air TV.

[Wago]

Eh, I only order Royal Rumbles and Wrestlemanias, maybe I will do the other big two,maybe...

[carly1988]

The should drop it to 5 a year (Royal Rumble in Jan, Wrestlemania in March/April, King of The Ring in July, SummerSlam in August and Survivor Series in Nov) then fill in the rest of the time with made for TV events like Saturday Nights Main Event or bring back Clash of the Champions

[dtldiva]

May 23, 2008 3:23:06 GMT -5 ● kaneisdaman ● said:

Really, who thinks that WWE is going over the top with their PPVs. It seems lately, more so than any other time, there has been a bombarding of PPVs. There are too many and far too close to allow significant build up in feuds meaning we get predictable PPVs with unclean finishes or poorly booked matches that are a result of a rushed feud.

I just thinkg we have too many PPVs and one every month and a half (or each month at minimum) is satisfactory and would make for much better feud build up and match cards.

Thoughts?

I totally agree with you because I thought it was just fine the way it was before, but maybe they should do one every other month.

[thetorontier]

May 23, 2008 5:54:40 GMT -5 Hammersmith Hardman said:

I feel sorry for you americans/canadians. Becuase (I'm not bragging) over here we don't have to order all of them. We get No way Out, Backlash, One Night Stand, Great American Bash & Unforgiven all on free to air TV.

If we got Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania for free also I would be a happy camper.

[Flyrfn144]

Let's just say, that I haven't ordered a PPV on television, since last years WM(23) and that is still the only event I order each year(except I went to it this year).

[The Dude]

Yeah the PPVs are out of control, ever snce they stopped doing brand exclusive PPVs they became too dull

[ericbischoff]

I do agreed with you. The PPV seem like as just threw in match card latest, which I doesn't like that.

I prefer Brand PPV, like as half pf PPV belong to RAW, and other half to Smackdown! and mixed PPV at 4 of PPV per year (Royal Rumble, WrestleMania, SummerSlam and Survivor Series)

So we will see more talents matches. Because there was no room for talents wrestlers to have an matches if we got mixed PPV, sadly.

[Graze]

May 23, 2008 6:19:20 GMT -5 @carly1988 said:

The should drop it to 5 a year (Royal Rumble in Jan, Wrestlemania in March/April, King of The Ring in July, SummerSlam in August and Survivor Series in Nov) then fill in the rest of the time with made for TV events like Saturday Nights Main Event or bring back Clash of the Champions

Agreed. We don't need a PPV every 3 weeks with rematches and lame feuds

[m329]

man you guys are ing hyprocits you bitch about wwe having a pvv every mounth yet you don't bitch about the ufc or tha doing they exact same thing bunch of cock sucking hyprocits you people are.

[Graze]

May 23, 2008 11:49:14 GMT -5 @m329 said:

man you guys are ing hyprocits you bitch about wwe having a pvv every mounth yet you don't bitch about the ufc or tha doing they exact same thing bunch of cock sucking hyprocits you people are.

No one complains about UFC because you don't get a weekly TV show like wrestling. Granted UFC does have TUF, but it doesn't air every week with a new episode like wrestling does. In wrestling, you need to allow a certain time for a storyline to build up where you want to see two guys fight each other. It's hard to do that when you have a two week build, plus you get PPV level matches on free TV for wrestling. Besides, you not always getting the same fighters on every UFC ppv.

[Chicago]

It has almost become commonplace for monthly ppv's ever since 1995-96 when the In Your House events were introduced, so I don't think they're going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree that there should only be 5 or 6 ppv's each year, but it's all about the income for WWE. Also, with all of short attention spans watching at home or sitting in the arena seats, I don't think lengthy feuds work the same anymore. With the exception of the main event, most feuds end in a couple of weeks and don't allow them to be extended like they would during the early '90s, 80s and before then. I also think weekly television shows have changed the dynamic of pay-per-view events and the time between them as there is much more exposure for feuds than there ever has been in the past.

Now, I don't buy every WWE ppv (in fact, I only usually buy 2 or 3 per-year), but if people are willing to pay the prices, than by all means, let them. I'm sure WWE won't object to receiving more money each month.

[mickeyj1130]

Simple solution, save the $40 each month (sometimes twice a month) and buy the dvd for under $20 when it is released the following month. I have been doing that for many years now...

[Edge618]

I dont really have a problem with there being too many, just the price tag with it. To me its almost like they do only have them every 2 months because i only have the money to buy every other PPV.

[Flyrfn144]

I agree there should be one every month, but if you look at certain months, there are two per month. Why do we need two in June? That leaves two weeks between Judgment Day and One Night Stand, it really makes no sense. Just wait until Vengeance, that way you can build up better storylines and keep things interesting. I honestly think if they got rid of two PPVs and went back to 12, one per month, they'd be fine. They wouldn't really lose that much money, and they would most likely get more viewers and buy rates.

[Deleted]

I usually only get No Way Out and Summerslam.