ESPN to have streaming flagship/deuce package?

[LadyStanley]

What’s next for ESPN’s direct-to-consumer plans? Timeline and what it means for sports fans

Everything you need to know about ESPN's reported plans to sell its flagship channel directly to cord-cutting viewers.

theathletic.com

WSJ mentioned Thursday that ESPN maybe close to providing stand-alone streaming of ESPN channel.


Currently, I either have to go with HuluLive or other streaming service that includes ESPN (e.g., Sling Orange, DirecTV stream, Fubo, etc.) to watch channels.

Something to keep eye on.

 

[wildthing202]

Would be interesting to see what they do with ESPN2, SECN, ACCN, etc. Feels like it would be easier just to roll it all into ESPN+ but I'm guessing the price would increase 5-fold if they did that considering you got local RSNs like NESN having a streaming option for $30 a month.

 

[tucker3434]

It seems like streaming would be the best way to provide 4k, 60fps broadcasts without needing to overhaul current equipment. Maybe when the start trying to market a standalone streaming channel that can be a part of it. I’d even pay extra.

 

[LadyStanley]

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/13/nx-s1-5396864/espn-streaming-app-cost

Finally announced. To start this fall.

$29.99/mo stand alone (does NOT include ESPN+/out of market coverage).

Can be bundled with Disney/Hulu with ads for $36.99/mo

 

[dj4aces]

I know several people who've simply subscribed to a VPN service so they could get Sportsnet+ instead of dealing with needing cable for ESPN and NHLN, $12 a month for ESPN+, $15+ a month for HBO. Now that ESPN is gonna have its own, different subscription rate, I think I'm gonna do the same.

I realize some folks will pay it. I won't be one of them.

 

[IU Hawks fan]

https://www.npr.org/2025/05/13/nx-s1-5396864/espn-streaming-app-cost

Finally announced. To start this fall.

$29.99/mo stand alone (does NOT include ESPN+/out of market coverage).

Can be bundled with Disney/Hulu with ads for $36.99/mo

It DOES include ESPN+ (which is the package they're now calling ESPN Select).

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I've honestly given up on legal streaming, their options are too confusing, too incomplete in terms of rights, and too expensive. This seems like another coat of paint on a broken economic model for the consumer.

 

[awfulwaffle]

I've honestly given up on legal streaming, their options are too confusing, too incomplete in terms of rights, and too expensive. This seems like another coat of paint on a broken economic model for the consumer.

It's really not that confusing if you take just even 1 minute to look at the options. How many times I've seen someone post on reddit "why can't I watch X game on ESPN+, it says it's on ESPN". Blows my mind that people would think a $9.99 per month streaming option would allow you to watch everything that is shown on main ESPN.
The same happens on here, "ESPN+ is supposed to have the NHL package, but my team is blacked out" - BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN THEIR MARKET! It's not as confusing as people make it out to be. I think the issue is, there are now too many streaming options all combining into being able to watch more games(I'm looking at the MLB in this instance).

Here is a better breakdown of what you will get with the ESPN app.

New Direct-to-Consumer Offering to be Singularly Branded ESPN

Recognizing the deep connection the ESPN brand has established with sports fans and the significance of the moment, the new..

espnpressroom.com

The unlimited plan will give fans access to all of ESPN’s linear networks – ESPN, ESPN2, ESPNU, SECN, ACCN, ESPNEWS, ESPN Deportes – in addition to ESPN on ABC, ESPN+, ESPN3, SECN+, and ACCNX, covering 47,000 live events each year, on-demand replays, studio shows, original programming, and more.

The select plan will provide subscribers with access to all content available on ESPN+, including more than 32,000 live sports events annually, a robust library of exclusive studio shows, on-demand replays, acclaimed original content, and more.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

It's really not that confusing if you take just even 1 minute to look at the options. How many times I've seen someone post on reddit "why can't I watch X game on ESPN+, it says it's on ESPN". Blows my mind that people would think a $9.99 per month streaming option would allow you to watch everything that is shown on main ESPN.
The same happens on here, "ESPN+ is supposed to have the NHL package, but my team is blacked out" - BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN THEIR MARKET! It's not as confusing as people make it out to be. I think the issue is, there are now too many streaming options all combining into being able to watch more games(I'm looking at the MLB in this instance).

Here is a better breakdown of what you will get with the ESPN app.

New Direct-to-Consumer Offering to be Singularly Branded ESPN

Recognizing the deep connection the ESPN brand has established with sports fans and the significance of the moment, the new..

espnpressroom.com

Ok I get this simnplifies things and is better than how things used to be but to illustrate the frustration here's a simple question, let's say I want to watch the Stanley cup finals, these games are not known, so I can't look up their tv time/airing. So what games will I get under the current rights situation if I have some combination of the following:

• ABC network via antenna
• ESPN via cable
• TNT via cable
• Hulu with live Sports
• ESPN+ streaming

*looking*

This is what NHL.com says

HOW TO WATCH & STREAM NHL GAMES | NHL.com

Fans around the world have many ways to watch and stream NHL games. Our broadcast partners provide cutting-edge TV production, expert broadcast teams and high-quality streaming apps to ensure you can watch NHL hockey action wherever you are.

www.nhl.com

So effectively I need to figure out if I don't have a cable subscription how to get

• Watch TNT App
• Max App
• The ESPN app
• ESPN+ app which apparently is different? and that's how I get ABC games?

In order to make sure I'm covered for every finals game, these all have presuambly some subscription fee, or possibly I cannot even pay for unless I have a proper cable package. If I live in a region in the finals, I also don't know what that means practically and is another wrinkle.

This is very annoying and confusing for the consumer that has cut the cord and it's probably going to be annoying still even with this new ESPN flagship product. I get the rights have been balkanized and these services don't really have much choice but the constant marketing efforts every few years around a new sports streaming package that ends up being incomplete and a poor value for the consumer has made me effectively check out of even trying.

 

[dj4aces]

It's really not that confusing if you take just even 1 minute to look at the options. How many times I've seen someone post on reddit "why can't I watch X game on ESPN+, it says it's on ESPN". Blows my mind that people would think a $9.99 per month streaming option would allow you to watch everything that is shown on main ESPN.
The same happens on here, "ESPN+ is supposed to have the NHL package, but my team is blacked out" - BECAUSE YOU LIVE IN THEIR MARKET! It's not as confusing as people make it out to be. I think the issue is, there are now too many streaming options all combining into being able to watch more games(I'm looking at the MLB in this instance).

I 100% agree, it's not at all confusing. It's irritating, annoying, and disrespectful to consumers of the content... but not confusing.

The blackout thing, plus "too many streaming options", plus the price tags associated with all of that, is the problem.

Once you get HBO Max for TNT Sports for $15+/mo, ESPN/ESPN+ for $30/mo, and finally the Bally Fanduel Sports Gambling Network App for local teams (if applicable) for another $30/mo, you might as well just get cable. If you wanna watch the half dozen or so games your team plays on NHLN, plus be able to watch World Juniors and World Championship games, you'll need cable anyway.

Meanwhile, the higher tier Sportsnet+ plan at CA$35 (~US$25) gives you in-market and out-of-market games, plus every playoff game, and that's just on the NHL side of things. Blackout restrictions? What are those? Even if we had to pay US$35 for the same amount of access, that's still a far better deal.

I'm not much for raising the Jolly Roger flag and sailing the high seas unless I really have to, but considering what our options are, it should come as no surprise that people will do exactly that.

 

[awfulwaffle]

Ok I get this simnplifies things and is better than how things used to be but to illustrate the frustration here's a simple question, let's say I want to watch the Stanley cup finals, these games are not known, so I can't look up their tv time/airing. So what games will I get under the current rights situation if I have some combination of the following:

• ABC network via antenna
• ESPN via cable
• TNT via cable
• Hulu with live Sports
• ESPN+ streaming

*looking*

This is what NHL.com says

HOW TO WATCH & STREAM NHL GAMES | NHL.com

Fans around the world have many ways to watch and stream NHL games. Our broadcast partners provide cutting-edge TV production, expert broadcast teams and high-quality streaming apps to ensure you can watch NHL hockey action wherever you are.

www.nhl.com

View attachment 1042674

So effectively I need to figure out if I don't have a cable subscription how to get

• Watch TNT App
• Max App
• The ESPN app
• ESPN+ app which apparently is different? and that's how I get ABC games?

In order to make sure I'm covered for every finals game, these all have presuambly some subscription fee, or possibly I cannot even pay for unless I have a proper cable package. If I live in a region in the finals, I also don't know what that means practically and is another wrinkle.

This is very annoying and confusing for the consumer that has cut the cord and it's probably going to be annoying still even with this new ESPN flagship product. I get the rights have been balkanized and these services don't really have much choice but the constant marketing efforts every few years around a new sports streaming package that ends up being incomplete and a poor value for the consumer has made me effectively check out of even trying.

So, you can ignore National games on ESPN+. I don't think any stanley cup playoff games were or will be exclusively on ESPN+. Based on the tier packages, you'd simply want the ESPN standalone premium product, and the HBO Max app(TNT/TBS games comes included in your MAX subscription with the proper tier - believe it specifies bleacher report is included). You do NOT need both TNT/Max app.

ESPN+ is separate from ESPN currently. ESPN+ provides you with OUT OF MARKET games currently, so your local team, won't be accessible. There are some national games on ESPN+ during the regular season that you won't be able to watch anywhere else.

With the switch to the ESPN app, if you have the premium tier, you will get both ESPN/ESPN2, & espn+. ESPN+ does NOT provide you with ABC.

Hope that helps.

 

[awfulwaffle]

I 100% agree, it's not at all confusing. It's irritating, annoying, and disrespectful to consumers of the content... but not confusing.

The blackout thing, plus "too many streaming options", plus the price tags associated with all of that, is the problem.

Once you get HBO Max for TNT Sports for $15+/mo, ESPN/ESPN+ for $30/mo, and finally the Bally Fanduel Sports Gambling Network App for local teams (if applicable) for another $30/mo, you might as well just get cable. If you wanna watch the half dozen or so games your team plays on NHLN, plus be able to watch World Juniors and World Championship games, you'll need cable anyway.

Meanwhile, the higher tier Sportsnet+ plan at CA$35 (~US$25) gives you in-market and out-of-market games, plus every playoff game, and that's just on the NHL side of things. Blackout restrictions? What are those? Even if we had to pay US$35 for the same amount of access, that's still a far better deal.

I'm not much for raising the Jolly Roger flag and sailing the high seas unless I really have to, but considering what our options are, it should come as no surprise that people will do exactly that.

Oh I agree completely. But I also think, how many people are paying these companies with their cable subscription, and might not be watching? Same goes for any channel stuck on cable that I don't watch. I'm paying $80 a month, but what are my actual subscriber fees to the channels I'm actually watching? A fraction of the actual $80 a month I'm paying.

They are banking on people paying a larger $$ share for these channels(the people that are actually going to watch sports). I'm curious if you will be able to share with other people. Currently, I share youtube tv with 2 other people, so it's like $27 a month for access to youtube tv. Perhaps they will allow multiple logins, and you'll be able to share with other people, lowering the cost per person.

I've just been waiting for the money pit that is television rights hits the bubble. If you think about it, Dallas Stars have a free service Victory+. I have no idea how much they make off that, but they were making $25M from Bally each year. If you break that down, that's $2.1M per month, or broken down to 69,444 subscriptions at $30 per month. That's insane when you think about it(excluding the baseball/basketball rights). Obviously, bally will make ad revenue to help, but if you want to break it down just by consumers.

It made sense how much they were paying for rights when they were taking in money hand over fist when everyone was subscribing to cable. But now that that landscape is shifting, the companies are going to have to figure out a different model. I don't feel this is it, but we'll see how successful this is. You are getting a lot of access to things, even if you are only subscribing for short periods of time(college football season I could see an uptick in subscriptions to this new ESPN service).

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

So, you can ignore National games on ESPN+. I don't think any stanley cup playoff games were or will be exclusively on ESPN+.

Based on the NHL website I linked ESPN+ is how you can see ABC telecasts on streaming. It's not clear if you need an ESPN+ subscription to see these telecasts. What cup finals games are going to be on ABC? I don't know but maybe one or two? So I need to get either an antenna or an ESPN+ subscription and I don't know how many games that gets me.

I get that an NHL fanatic can maybe spend 30 minutes digging into this to decipher the rights and make reasonable conjectures about what games will be available to them if they subscribe to different services, but the median NHL fan doesn't post on an internet forum about the "business of hockey." The rest of your post also is not obvious or easy to understand to the median NHL fan I believe, but I do agree the topic of this thread is an improvement.

My macro point is these sports streaming services have traditionally been a poor value and frustrating to the consumer in particular regarding understanding if whatever game they want to watch is going to be available to them. You can not call that confusing if you want, but given hockey rights remain divided between ESPN, ABC (owned by ESPN but with its own network rights system), TNT, and regional sports networks this will not fundamentally change.

 

[dj4aces]

Based on the NHL website I linked ESPN+ is how you can see ABC telecasts on streaming. It's not clear if you need an ESPN+ subscription to see these telecasts. What cup finals games are going to be on ABC? I don't know but maybe one or two? So I need to get either an antenna or an ESPN+ subscription and I don't know how many games that gets me.

You need an ESPN+ subscription to see ABC games. But up until this new $30 a month service launches, one hasn't been able to access any game exclusive to ESPN. If the listing on the NHL's site didn't say "ESPN+" on it anywhere, it would be a national game you couldn't watch.

To your larger point, yes, they are a poor value, because you're not getting everything yet you're paying a high price for it. If you received everything *at* a rate of $30 a month, it becomes more reasonable depending on what and how often you use the app/service. That's why people started cutting the cord 20 years ago, because people started to realize that cable is a poor value. The value of cable has only gotten worse since that time.

 

[awfulwaffle]

Based on the NHL website I linked ESPN+ is how you can see ABC telecasts on streaming. It's not clear if you need an ESPN+ subscription to see these telecasts. What cup finals games are going to be on ABC? I don't know but maybe one or two? So I need to get either an antenna or an ESPN+ subscription and I don't know how many games that gets me.

I get that an NHL fanatic can maybe spend 30 minutes digging into this to decipher the rights and make reasonable conjectures about what games will be available to them if they subscribe to different services, but the median NHL fan doesn't post on an internet forum about the "business of hockey." The rest of your post also is not obvious or easy to understand to the median NHL fan I believe, but I do agree the topic of this thread is an improvement.

My macro point is these sports streaming services have traditionally been a poor value and frustrating to the consumer in particular regarding understanding if whatever game they want to watch is going to be available to them. You can not call that confusing if you want, but given hockey rights remain divided between ESPN, ABC (owned by ESPN but with its own network rights system), TNT, and regional sports networks this will not fundamentally change.

I guess I haven't paid attention, since I have ABC through YouTube TV, and antenna connected to my tv. I don't understand the question, what makes you think ESPN+ would be free to watch ABC games?

End of the day, if you don't want to deal with it, just pay for cable TV, and you'll have access to ESPN, TNT, NHL Network, etc.

 

[Poppy Whoa Sonnet]

I guess I haven't paid attention, since I have ABC through YouTube TV, and antenna connected to my tv. I don't understand the question, what makes you think ESPN+ would be free to watch ABC games?

End of the day, if you don't want to deal with it, just pay for cable TV, and you'll have access to ESPN, TNT, NHL Network, etc.

I totally forgot about YouTube TV, another wrinkle/option for consumers to sift through. I thought perhaps you could watch ABC telecasts on the ESPN+ app without necessarily subscribing cause it was on network TV. I think that's how Peacock works for NBC telecasts, but I could be totally mistaken, I've lost track of all the possible configurations of network tv / cable tv / internet streaming service options.

 

[awfulwaffle]

I totally forgot about YouTube TV, another wrinkle/option for consumers to sift through. I thought perhaps you could watch ABC telecasts on the ESPN+ app without necessarily subscribing cause it was on network TV. I think that's how Peacock works for NBC telecasts, but I could be totally mistaken, I've lost track of all the possible configurations of network tv / cable tv / internet streaming service options.

My understanding is Peacock has limited NBC shows/content. I highly doubt they will allow you to watch NBC for their sports content for free through Peacock, but I'm just guessing on that.

I guess let's start here. Do you live in an urban area? If so, see if you can get an antenna. That way, you will have ABC on your TV, and you can check that one off.

 

[Summer Rose]

I totally forgot about YouTube TV, another wrinkle/option for consumers to sift through. I thought perhaps you could watch ABC telecasts on the ESPN+ app without necessarily subscribing cause it was on network TV. I think that's how Peacock works for NBC telecasts, but I could be totally mistaken, I've lost track of all the possible configurations of network tv / cable tv / internet streaming service options.

I have YouTube TV myself (which I only subscribed to for the duration of the NHL playoffs; afterwards I'll cancel it), and still have ESPN+ for another month because I forgot to cancel it when the regular season ended.

As far as I've been able to tell, the games that are on ABC are also available with my ESPN+ subscription, however, to your point, I'm actually paying for ESPN+ currently (I need to fix that, haha). To your point, however, I don't believe you can watch the game without having paid for the ESPN+ subscription. In some of my experience in the past, if some sporting event is on a free-to-air channel, I've sometimes been able to watch that channel on the website of my local affiliate for that network, but that's not through ESPN+. Other times they'll let you watch the channel live over the internet, which makes enough sense since it's free with an antenna anyway, but the actual sporting event will be blacked out (which makes no sense to me).

Another poster above was bemoaning how the rights have been "balkanized" so much, which is an amusing (and accurate) way to put it.

 

[Tawnos]

What I find funny about this conversation is that watching every game for one team, plus every playoff game for all teams, often can require just two subscriptions. One channel aggregator (whether you do that as a linear cable package or a streaming service like YouTube TV or Fubo) and ESPN+. That's especially true in-market.

Out-of-market... you do need to find a way to access NHLN, which can be challenging, but you still can end up with just two subscriptions.

There's some mental block against simply opening the NHL app or website to find out which channel (and yes, ESPN+ is just a channel in another format) a game is being broadcast on that I don't fully understand.

 

[Summer Rose]

What I find funny about this conversation is that watching every game for one team, plus every playoff game for all teams, often can require just two subscriptions. One channel aggregator (whether you do that as a linear cable package or a streaming service like YouTube TV or Fubo) and ESPN+. That's especially true in-market.

Out-of-market... you do need to find a way to access NHLN, which can be challenging, but you still can end up with just two subscriptions.

There's some mental block against simply opening the NHL app or website to find out which channel (and yes, ESPN+ is just a channel in another format) a game is being broadcast on that I don't fully understand.

This is true and I agree with everything you said. The discussion does shift to whether that's good value for the money. I'll use myself and my own team as an example, and I'm an out-of-market Utah fan. I got the vast majority of Utah games by paying for ESPN+. We were featured on a national network here and there, for which I would have required a traditional cable/satellite or streaming service such as YouTube TV. We also had one game on NHL Network. The availability and cost of NHL Network (I'm pretty sure it's often a "premium" channel which costs extra on top of your normal subscription to access) aside, subscribing to something else for just a few national games is pretty bad value for the money in my opinion. I'll try a numerical breakdown, and while the numbers may not be entirely accurate, they should be good enough to make the basic point.

-73 Utah games completely out of market: $13.99 per month, October through April = $97.93; $1.34 per game

-2 Utah games against the in-market team (Tampa Bay for me): they happened to be close enough to each other to be covered by subscribing to FDSun for one month, at a price of $19.99 for two games

-6 games on a national network included in the basic package: I will use YouTube TV's pricing of $83.99 per month, round it to needing it for 5 out of the seven months of October-April inclusive = $419.95; $69.99 per game

-1 game on NHL Network, not actually available on YouTube TV. On the other hand, pretending it was, it would probably be available as part of a "sports package" that I'll guess at costing $14.99 per month = $14.99; $14.99 per game.

The first one is actually great value for the money. The second one not so much, but I can live with it. The last two, however, are staggeringly bad value.

 

[LadyStanley]

ABC shows may be on Hulu (out the following day) unless upgraded to Hulu Live which includes local network feed and ESPN broadcast channels (viewable through ESPN app)

Peacock app only shows live network if you get the upgraded tier.
Similarly with Paramount app for CBS. (Some Fox network shows come up on Hulu.)

 

[varsaku]

This is true and I agree with everything you said. The discussion does shift to whether that's good value for the money. I'll use myself and my own team as an example, and I'm an out-of-market Utah fan. I got the vast majority of Utah games by paying for ESPN+. We were featured on a national network here and there, for which I would have required a traditional cable/satellite or streaming service such as YouTube TV. We also had one game on NHL Network. The availability and cost of NHL Network (I'm pretty sure it's often a "premium" channel which costs extra on top of your normal subscription to access) aside, subscribing to something else for just a few national games is pretty bad value for the money in my opinion. I'll try a numerical breakdown, and while the numbers may not be entirely accurate, they should be good enough to make the basic point.

-73 Utah games completely out of market: $13.99 per month, October through April = $97.93; $1.34 per game

-2 Utah games against the in-market team (Tampa Bay for me): they happened to be close enough to each other to be covered by subscribing to FDSun for one month, at a price of $19.99 for two games

-6 games on a national network included in the basic package: I will use YouTube TV's pricing of $83.99 per month, round it to needing it for 5 out of the seven months of October-April inclusive = $419.95; $69.99 per game

-1 game on NHL Network, not actually available on YouTube TV. On the other hand, pretending it was, it would probably be available as part of a "sports package" that I'll guess at costing $14.99 per month = $14.99; $14.99 per game.

The first one is actually great value for the money. The second one not so much, but I can live with it. The last two, however, are staggeringly bad value.

As an out of market Habs fan, i just factor in that games against the in-market team, national games and NHL Network games are one i will not be tuning into for the regular season. ESPN+ gets me majority of the games at a great value. I sail the high seas if i absolutely want to watch them which i rarely do.
I only need a cable subscription for the playoffs which drastically brings down my total annual cost.

The issue that needs to be addressed is that majority of fans and casuals will never subscribe at that price point. They are pricing it to maximize revenue which will decrease viewership count in the long run.

 

[Tawnos]

This is true and I agree with everything you said. The discussion does shift to whether that's good value for the money. I'll use myself and my own team as an example, and I'm an out-of-market Utah fan. I got the vast majority of Utah games by paying for ESPN+. We were featured on a national network here and there, for which I would have required a traditional cable/satellite or streaming service such as YouTube TV. We also had one game on NHL Network. The availability and cost of NHL Network (I'm pretty sure it's often a "premium" channel which costs extra on top of your normal subscription to access) aside, subscribing to something else for just a few national games is pretty bad value for the money in my opinion. I'll try a numerical breakdown, and while the numbers may not be entirely accurate, they should be good enough to make the basic point.

-73 Utah games completely out of market: $13.99 per month, October through April = $97.93; $1.34 per game

-2 Utah games against the in-market team (Tampa Bay for me): they happened to be close enough to each other to be covered by subscribing to FDSun for one month, at a price of $19.99 for two games

-6 games on a national network included in the basic package: I will use YouTube TV's pricing of $83.99 per month, round it to needing it for 5 out of the seven months of October-April inclusive = $419.95; $69.99 per game

-1 game on NHL Network, not actually available on YouTube TV. On the other hand, pretending it was, it would probably be available as part of a "sports package" that I'll guess at costing $14.99 per month = $14.99; $14.99 per game.

The first one is actually great value for the money. The second one not so much, but I can live with it. The last two, however, are staggeringly bad value.

Yeah, some of this ends up depending on who exactly you're a fan of.

This is how that all breaks down for a Rangers fan

-53 NYR games completely out-of-market. same $97.93 for Oct-Apr: $1.71 per game
-13 games on national networks and local. Both are included in the Fubo Pro subscription for $84.99 per month. $594.93 for 7 months = $45.76 per game
-16 games on NHLN (seriously). You can get NHLN on Fubo for $10 more on the Elite subscription: $4.38 per game
(You can also look at those last two as $94.99 for 7 months = 664.93 = $22.93 per game)

It works out to $9.30 per game overall, if all you're using the services for is watching the Rangers. That's a bit crazy, I don't disagree. The complication of it all I think is overblown, but the price is ridiculous.

I will admit to only having paid $2.47 per game, but that's beside the point.

 

[Tawnos]

I will add though... using Spectrum to watch the Carolina Hurricanes as my local team would be $95 per month. Add ESPN+... and you're looking at the same $9.30 per game. So it's not better or worse to be a local fan.

Of course, this all assumes that you're only watching hockey. The reason I don't subscribe to anything that would get me the other channels is specifically because the only live TV I watch is hockey and F1, so the value isn't there. I get ESPN and TNT through family's cable subscriptions. NHLN and local I'll leave to the imagination.

 

[Reaser]

You need an ESPN+ subscription to see ABC games. But up until this new $30 a month service launches, one hasn't been able to access any game exclusive to ESPN.

All NHL on ABC regular season & Stanley Cup Playoff games are available on ESPN+ (with subscription to ESPN+, obviously.)

Select ESPN games have also been shown on ESPN+, e.g. Opening Night tripleheader, Stadium Series, the current Western Conference Finals, etc..