"adding a few cores" - implies those few cores are as able as the local ones. Whatever it is those cores are doing must not be important considering how hamstrung they are due to indeterminate high latency.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
"adding a few cores" - implies those few cores are as able as the local ones. Whatever it is those cores are doing must not be important considering how hamstrung they are due to indeterminate high latency.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
The thing some of you guys are forgetting is that 10 years out is exactly when MS needs this stuff to work right.
It's really smart that they are starting now with Drivatars and dedicated servers.
If all goes according to MS' plan, 10 years from now people will be on digital downloads, Xbox Live Platinum for $15 a month, no more new consoles, no more retail, with cloud computing.
I've said this before and it applies to the "paywall" discussion as well: If you're not willing to go on Xbox Live Gold, then MS doesn't really care about you. That's the whole reason they got into the business - to dominate the living room.
They don't care about a measly $1 billion a year made on traditional gaming. If that's the end game for them, they consider it a wasted effort. They're looking at something that might get them $5 or $10 billion a year. Something like 200 million users paying $15 a month for cloud gaming.
It's really smart that they are starting now with Drivatars and dedicated servers.
If all goes according to MS' plan, 10 years from now people will be on digital downloads, Xbox Live Platinum for $15 a month, no more new consoles, no more retail, with cloud computing.
I've said this before and it applies to the "paywall" discussion as well: If you're not willing to go on Xbox Live Gold, then MS doesn't really care about you. That's the whole reason they got into the business - to dominate the living room.
They don't care about a measly $1 billion a year made on traditional gaming. If that's the end game for them, they consider it a wasted effort. They're looking at something that might get them $5 or $10 billion a year. Something like 200 million users paying $15 a month for cloud gaming.
RancidLunchmeat
Veteran
Yeah, I can't believe this is even a story, let alone a discussion. If you didn't already take the hint from the initial "always" connected policy, or from the fact that you needed Gold membership to do anything on the 360, or from the fact that Sony copied the pay-for-online gaming model for the PS4, there's not much I can do for you.
The 360 is worthless unless you want to play offline, single player games, without Live. The One is worthless, unless you want to play offline, single player games, without Live.
There's nothing new here. There's no story here.
They don't want to sell more units by offering more features for free. They want to get more subscribers, because subscriptions, while not "free" certainly scale a lot better in terms of ROI than hardware does. There's a reason everybody, not just MS, is pushing Software As a Service (SAS).
$15 a month? For what, just the online service or is it an all-you-can eat access to all games, like Spotify for music?
Even if the latter is the case, there are a lot of people who buy consoles who won't use it that much to justify that kind of monthly subscription.
If it's for XBL services and you still have to pay for games, then that would be 3 times what XBL Gold costs now.
Won't fly. There are plenty of electronics devices which doesn't require monthly fees.
Even if the latter is the case, there are a lot of people who buy consoles who won't use it that much to justify that kind of monthly subscription.
If it's for XBL services and you still have to pay for games, then that would be 3 times what XBL Gold costs now.
Won't fly. There are plenty of electronics devices which doesn't require monthly fees.
But there's a stark difference between creating additional incentives for a service, and aggregating other paid-for services into something to pay for a second time over.
I think a lot of people get it, but that doesn't stop them from expressing disdain for the conditions and of that particular service. It's why they support Sony and more people switching to the PS4, it's why they see more value in what they're offering.
XBLG as-is comes from the beginning of the current console generation where MS had Sony beat in console pricing, and started with a significantly better online service (because Sony didn't really have one). Now the times and the competition's standards are changing, and XBLG's conditions/standards should change with it.
But MS is willing to change or reverse certain policies, while at the same time trying to remain firm in other ways. I just hope Sony succeeds in gaining plenty of marketshare this time around, I favor them but I want MS to continue to change in the face of tough competition going forward.
This is a spin-off from the Xbox One rumor thread...
Are MS apps & non-gaming services that are behind the Gold paywall offering a better experience that make it worth paying a monthly subscription? I ask this because I keep seeing the comment that people can get the same experience on the PC for free or MS are not making apps that do anything better than what's on PC or tablet/phone devices.
IMHO, I could possibly get a similar experience on PC or other devices, but I don't think they are equal. I see the Xbox experience as superior to what I can get elsewhere. I see value in the apps & services because they are specifically designed for the TV & Kinect. So while yeah I can get a free service elsewhere I don't think it's as good or better. So I'm willing to pay a fee for the better experience.
Again, I think this goes back the audience here at B3D. There is a large vocal European population here. I can understand if they have a problem with the fee if they are not getting as many apps or services as those like myself who live in the States. I just want people to understand that because I think that's why we have a lot banter about the Gold fee being worthless versus PS+. I just wished some of you weren't so vocal about it. We get it OK? LOL Let's move onto something more worthy of discussion because the Gold paywall discussion is getting a little old.
Tommy McClain
Are MS apps & non-gaming services that are behind the Gold paywall offering a better experience that make it worth paying a monthly subscription? I ask this because I keep seeing the comment that people can get the same experience on the PC for free or MS are not making apps that do anything better than what's on PC or tablet/phone devices.
IMHO, I could possibly get a similar experience on PC or other devices, but I don't think they are equal. I see the Xbox experience as superior to what I can get elsewhere. I see value in the apps & services because they are specifically designed for the TV & Kinect. So while yeah I can get a free service elsewhere I don't think it's as good or better. So I'm willing to pay a fee for the better experience.
Again, I think this goes back the audience here at B3D. There is a large vocal European population here. I can understand if they have a problem with the fee if they are not getting as many apps or services as those like myself who live in the States. I just want people to understand that because I think that's why we have a lot banter about the Gold fee being worthless versus PS+. I just wished some of you weren't so vocal about it. We get it OK? LOL Let's move onto something more worthy of discussion because the Gold paywall discussion is getting a little old.
Tommy McClain
I don't think you saw the title of the thread "Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox".
Gross over exaggeration that it's mainly people in Europe complaining I would say.
In fact, I've not heard anyone say, why should I pay for gold for something that I cant use? haha.
What does the US get that Europe doesn't?
NFL? Well, if they don't get football/soccer, then yes there may be an issue, but they've already said their going to get that.
It's not an old argument, because things are just starting with the next generation, it's not the status quo.
Gross over exaggeration that it's mainly people in Europe complaining I would say.
In fact, I've not heard anyone say, why should I pay for gold for something that I cant use? haha.
What does the US get that Europe doesn't?
NFL? Well, if they don't get football/soccer, then yes there may be an issue, but they've already said their going to get that.
It's not an old argument, because things are just starting with the next generation, it's not the status quo.
Better than what? PS3 has been the lead Netflix platform in terms of tech deployment for a while. It had 5.1 audio first. It had 1080p first. It got SuperHD first. It got Max first. It got Profiles first. I value all those things more than Kinect integration (well, maybe not Max!).
And you are aware MS isn't actually creating these apps, right? Netflix built their app. Amazon built theirs. Even if the experience was superior it's still MS charging you money to use apps they didn't create to access services they don't provide. You can think it's worth eating the cost, but that doesn't mean a lot of people won't simply find that a skeezy business practice.
You can play netflix on anything so you should not need your Xbox for it.
As I've said, I think MS is just playing this game of "the more things behind paywall the more sub". As Sony found out with very low PS+ subscriber rates, so they copied and rolled free online MP behind it. MS proved the business model was a successful one in the end.
I always said I though both couldn't couldn't survive. Either Xbox would have to go free or PS would have to go pay. They coexisted longer than I thought actually.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
What is the number of Plus subscribers?
Joker has hit the nail on the head with his post .........my nieces and nephews spend nearly all the pocket money on small micro transactions on there tablets and smart phones .
They each get £10 a week not for doing nothing they have jobs they have to do around the house if they want there pocket money .
Three of them are old enough for this that's £1560 a year between three children nun are teens yet .
That's more than most of my Xbox life buddies spend a year on multi player games ........think about it three kids spending that much money its like your hardcore gamer buying 39 full price games a year .
Both Sony and Microsoft would be mad to not try and get a piece of that pie as well as giving the hardcore gamer there core multi player gaming fix.
The worlds a changing change with it or get left behind stuck in a old business model watching your business go down the drain.
True, i hooked up a old used laptop for that when I found out that it was pay walled on the 360. When i get my ps4 the ps3 will take the laptops place.
Not sure if this was already discussed, but this discusses the ramifications of Sony's pricing as the value of the yen improves:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ckfires-as-dollar-costs-surge.html?cmpid=yhoo
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ckfires-as-dollar-costs-surge.html?cmpid=yhoo
Nope, netflix isn't paywalled afaik. The ps4 gives more out of the box value than the xbox one. In order to sweeten the deal for ps+ they hand out the "free" games and cloud backup etc.
Note that cloud saves are copies of your local saves that is done every night, so you can screwup a save game and retrieve it from the cloud..
I actually wasn't talking about PS3 users. Just the Xbox users who didn't like the Xbox Gold value proposition, but I'll respond since you've already brought it up.
Better than interfaces I've used: web browser, Android & Roku. I don't own a PS3 & have never used or seen its interface. I could care less about what devices got what features first, but I was enjoying playing movies using the official Netflix app on my 360 about a year before they started making it for other platforms. Hooray for PS3 winning the lead Netflix platform.
Why would I care who makes the apps? They are providing me a service that I feel is worth paying for. There is no eating the cost. I'm sorry you believe it's a "skeezy" business practice, but it's their platform & they believe they offer a better value such that they can charge for it. It's worked out great so far for them. I never thought Xbox One would change that practice. It's called competition & until people stop paying for Gold they will continue to do it. Nothing "skeezy" about that, just business. They're not doing it for charity.
Tommy McClain
Better than interfaces I've used: web browser, Android & Roku. I don't own a PS3 & have never used or seen its interface. I could care less about what devices got what features first, but I was enjoying playing movies using the official Netflix app on my 360 about a year before they started making it for other platforms. Hooray for PS3 winning the lead Netflix platform.
Why would I care who makes the apps? They are providing me a service that I feel is worth paying for. There is no eating the cost. I'm sorry you believe it's a "skeezy" business practice, but it's their platform & they believe they offer a better value such that they can charge for it. It's worked out great so far for them. I never thought Xbox One would change that practice. It's called competition & until people stop paying for Gold they will continue to do it. Nothing "skeezy" about that, just business. They're not doing it for charity.
Tommy McClain
Making an Xbox 360 app isn't exactly a tutorial you can find on YouTube or in a book. Microsoft has dev support which developers can access to get help.
Regardless, trying to trace how your money is spent never works because its a business. They charge what the market can handle, not what it costs to make something, business 101.
From another thread
I think the issue in terms of marketing a system like the XB1 is that there might be a disconnect between what MS thinks NEW customers are willing to pay for and what NEW customers are used to paying for. As somebody said either in this or another thread, MS is in the business of software as a service, which I agree with and it is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do but the XB1 is really hardware as a service now that most of the advertised functionality is going to be hidden behind a fee. It goes Apple one better since it like MS is going to be able to charge people a fee for UI and system access. It's a bit like charging a monthly fee to use a windowed environment and a mouse
Of course many will jump at the chance to pay a fee to use the product but many will find it a bit disingenuous since you need to pay a fee just to change channels with the Kinect ( not the program guide just changing channels ) as a fer instance while you can use the kinect in a single player game for free. It's kind of like how cable companies strategically bundle channels together but instead of bundling channels MS is bundling functionality. Clever.
If MS is looking to make this system the ONE INPUT it is like putting a toll booth inside you living room. Before you could change channels and watch Netflix for free but now you need to pay for the privilege. How that plays with the NEW customers MS is looking to acquire I cannot predict but I don't know if they are going to be fans.
I don't wanna get into how cheap it can be since we don't know what a month or a year is going to cost when the XB1 comes out or a year after. I mean some people see a tv commercial and believe the idea that what is being hocked is a 100 dollar value and they are getting it for 1/2 the price but others won't. When making the buying decision some will see paying a fee for something that is free elsewhere as a problem others won't mind but I don't think cost + or - 10 or 15 bucks is gonna be a variable in that decision.
It's up to MS to sell it of course and with some new management they might pull it off without 180-ing on say Netflix and Hulu plus or some other thing that is hidden behind the paywall.
added: My assumption is that you can only play a single player game and watch a bluray movie for free and of course turn the thing on using the kinect. I am sure system access will be available to the controller for free of course.
I think the issue in terms of marketing a system like the XB1 is that there might be a disconnect between what MS thinks NEW customers are willing to pay for and what NEW customers are used to paying for. As somebody said either in this or another thread, MS is in the business of software as a service, which I agree with and it is a perfectly reasonable thing to want to do but the XB1 is really hardware as a service now that most of the advertised functionality is going to be hidden behind a fee. It goes Apple one better since it like MS is going to be able to charge people a fee for UI and system access. It's a bit like charging a monthly fee to use a windowed environment and a mouse
Of course many will jump at the chance to pay a fee to use the product but many will find it a bit disingenuous since you need to pay a fee just to change channels with the Kinect ( not the program guide just changing channels ) as a fer instance while you can use the kinect in a single player game for free. It's kind of like how cable companies strategically bundle channels together but instead of bundling channels MS is bundling functionality. Clever.
If MS is looking to make this system the ONE INPUT it is like putting a toll booth inside you living room. Before you could change channels and watch Netflix for free but now you need to pay for the privilege. How that plays with the NEW customers MS is looking to acquire I cannot predict but I don't know if they are going to be fans.
I don't wanna get into how cheap it can be since we don't know what a month or a year is going to cost when the XB1 comes out or a year after. I mean some people see a tv commercial and believe the idea that what is being hocked is a 100 dollar value and they are getting it for 1/2 the price but others won't. When making the buying decision some will see paying a fee for something that is free elsewhere as a problem others won't mind but I don't think cost + or - 10 or 15 bucks is gonna be a variable in that decision.
It's up to MS to sell it of course and with some new management they might pull it off without 180-ing on say Netflix and Hulu plus or some other thing that is hidden behind the paywall.
added: My assumption is that you can only play a single player game and watch a bluray movie for free and of course turn the thing on using the kinect. I am sure system access will be available to the controller for free of course.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
