Has the WWE Network lowered quality?

[Roadster]

Back when PPVs cost $40-$60, WWE would spend more time on their PPV. More build, unique sets and solid cards. Both in terms of quality and sustainability. But since the WWE Network, they've been getting lazier and lazier. They rehash the same sets, flash book 70% of the card, and don't put on much or any memorable matches/angles. The only exception to this is WrestleMania.

So my question to you guys- is the WWE Network allowing the WWE to get lazier with their monthly PPVs?

I'm not saying that the expensive PPVs were any better, but the fact that they attempted to draw in fans, showed an effort that seems lost with the guaranteed paychecks from the Network. It's becoming more and more of a monthly special rather than a PPV. Most Saturday Night Main Event's had better action/cards than 1/2 of the Network era PPVs. That's just my opinion, anyways.

 

[Stopspot]

All you described was gone at least 2 years before the network.
The network should have the opposite effect, force WWE to up quality. Since they are very reliant on subscription numbers to stay up. And as statistics prove, the old content is not what the subscribers are there for.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I am not sure I agree with that at all. WWE has always gone through phases where they spend time building up PPVS and phases where they throw a bunch of crap together at the last minute. What you have described has not just been a thing exclusive to the existence of the network. This is confusing correlation with causation I think.

And besides, I think a lot of the WWE PPVs this year have been outstanding. I have watched every Wrestlemania and Wrestlemania 31 was undoubtedly the best one I've ever seen. The Rumble was crap and the Survivor Series was abysmmal... but Hell in a Cell, BattleGround, Elimination Chamber and Payback were all absolutely excellent in my opinion, with Summerslam, Night of champions and Money in the Bank all decent.

 

[The GOAT]

I don't think so. This is probably a big statement to make, but I think some of the highest quality PPVs of this decade have been in the past couple of years since the Network was launched. Other than the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series (which were both huge duds, although the Rumble at least had that awesome triple-threat match), pretty much all the ones put on this year have been top notch.

 

[Jacob Fox]

I don't think so. This is probably a big statement to make, but I think some of the highest quality PPVs of this decade have been in the past couple of years since the Network was launched. Other than the Royal Rumble and Survivor Series (which were both huge duds, although the Rumble at least had that awesome triple-threat match), pretty much all the ones put on this year have been top notch.

Hey, we agree on something! Oh shit, that means the Apocalypse is nigh. Oh well it was a nice run while it lasted

Seriously though, you're absolutely correct.

 

[edge4ever]

Well that can depend on the cash flow, if they're dropping viewers, gaining viewers, etc. To Lockards point, some of the best PPV have been in the past years. I loved the setting for mania 31, for example. Awesome setting.

 

[Jacob Fox]

Well that can depend on the cash flow, if they're dropping viewers, gaining viewers, etc. To Lockards point, some of the best PPV have been in the past years. I loved the setting for mania 31, for example. Awesome setting.

Yeah the entire setup was wonderful... it felt like Wrestlemania should.

 

[Prince Bálor]

Yeah the entire setup was wonderful... it felt like Wrestlemania should.

While other PPVs feel like RAW, just without the stage and all that jazz :smirk2:

 

[Stopspot]

If people think most PPVs this year have been bad they just have bad taste or too high expectations.

 

[Snowman1]

Seem to remember in 2011 they habitually wouldn't even announce the full card.
Now when they don't tell you the participants of the 5 on 5, it almost feels unique.

Again, looking back to 2011, there were many shows that had PLENTY of stale matchups.
Not to mention the in-ring talent roster is much better now and they're capable of putting on far superior matches.
Pretty sure that sans the emotional rollercoaster of Punk vs Cena, that Cesaro vs Reigns match last week would have won MOTY that year easily. And 2014/15 have had tons of matches of around that quality.

 

[Prince Bálor]

If people think most PPVs this year have been bad they just have bad taste or too high expectations.

Ah, yes. It's the WWE, everyone should cut the biggest wrestling sports entertainment promotion in the world some slack.

Because expecting the company that is filled with great talent to put on a great show is so wrong.

 

[Stopspot]

Ah, yes. It's the WWE, everyone should cut the biggest wrestling sports entertainment promotion in the world some slack.

Because expecting the company that is filled with great talent to put on a great show is so wrong.

First off, WWE isn't a work rate promotion, if people think that they are just going to be disappointed.

Every show doesn't need to be five stars. A lot of these ppvs are so called "minor" shows. They are not expected to be perfect, that's stupid. They are just there as road's to the four major shows. Don't be stupid and expect five star classics only at Fastlane since Mania is right around the corner and all that.

Also most of the PPVs this year have been good borderline great. Ringwise this has been the best year the WWE has had in a long long time.

People just think that good equals Bret vs Austin from Survivor Series 96 ad naseum.

 

[Leo C]

The PPVs aren't bad. Their workrate is normally not totally neutralized by asinine booking, although sometimes that is the case.

 

[Prince Bálor]

First off, WWE isn't a work rate promotion, if people think that they are just going to be disappointed.

Every show doesn't need to be five stars. A lot of these ppvs are so called "minor" shows. They are not expected to be perfect, that's stupid. They are just there as road's to the four major shows. Don't be stupid and expect five star classics only at Fastlane since Mania is right around the corner and all that.

Also most of the PPVs this year have been good borderline great. Ringwise this has been the best year the WWE has had in a long long time.

People just think that good equals Bret vs Austin from Survivor Series 96 ad naseum.

No, no and no. You did not get what I was trying to say.

The whole point of my previous post, and my main gripe with the product overall, is the booking, not the in-ring work.

It'd be stupid to expect each match on PPVs to be a ***** match and for the PPVs themselves to be a pure, perfect 10/10.

WWE has some great in-ring performers, but some of their booking/feuds/storylines suck. That is all I want for them to improve.

Who the fuck can shit on WWE's in-ring performers when they've got guys like Rollins, Lesnar, Cesaro, KO, ADR, Harper, Ambrose, Orton, etc... But, when you're constantly writing bad shit, it's hard to get people invested in storylines, that's why they've been leaving these last couple of weeks.

The ratings are now below 3 million viewers, it should be a wake-up call.

 

[Stopspot]

WWE has never had particularly great booking cross field. Vince works his way, he doesn't care if we don't like it. He books what he likes and that's it.

Not even the heralded attitude era had good booking from top to bottom. A lot of it was mediocre or okay booking brought up by hot crowds.