Yeah, I'm curious about the show, but I'm not gonna pay CBS just to watch that -- or even the rest of their library.
I said this elsewhere, but this strikes me as an "also ran" move on CBS' part. It was likely inspired by HBO's move to offer its online service as a standalone product, which was driven by the huge success of Game of Thrones.
But there are two key differences that I think CBS fails to recognize:
1. HBO generally produces a few shows that everyone LOVES, and a bunch of shows that niche audiences really love. CBS...produces Two Broke Girls.
2. HBO has ALWAYS been a pay service, and often with a hidden second cost: that you had to have cable in the first place to get it, followed by the additional $10-15/month for HBO's service. CBS...has always been free. Everything on HBO costs you money to see, whereas almost everything on CBS is free, with the exception (thus far) of the new Trek series which may or may not be worth a fart.
So, the implication -- and why I expect CBS to fail with this endeavor -- is that HBO's move actually reduced the paywall barrier to entry by getting rid of the 800 channels you DON'T watch so that you can pay for content you can't otherwise get and want to have available. CBS is paywalling stuff you already get for free (mostly) and its premium content (Star Trek) ain't that premium. Moreover, CBS will be...competing with itself and its streaming service. Aside from convenience, the ability to watch old CBS shows, and the new Trek series, there's just no reason to sign up for the CBS streaming service.
It's like they don't understand what drives the appeal of these streaming service models. Amazon gets away with it by including music, fast shipping, and original programming that people actually want to see. Netflix gets away with it by being the first and, again, original programming people want to see. HBO, see above. But CBS? What the hell do they bring to the table?