As a counter example if Steam were to be the model going forwards you would have even more draconian DRM with their one account one user policy. At the end of the day it is a matter of perspective and Microsoft are not the worst of the bunch when it comes to online DRM. I like Steam but I can see very real advantages if the Microsoft model were to take hold and influence other players in the market. It works both ways because whilst they are taking some rights away they are giving some new ones in return. Indeed if they were selling the system for $299 and taking a massive loss in order to corner the industry the situation would be an entirely different one.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
As a counter example if Steam were to be the model going forwards you would have even more draconian DRM with their one account one user policy. At the end of the day it is a matter of perspective and Microsoft are not the worst of the bunch when it comes to online DRM. I like Steam but I can see very real advantages if the Microsoft model were to take hold and influence other players in the market. It works both ways because whilst they are taking some rights away they are giving some new ones in return. Indeed if they were selling the system for $299 and taking a massive loss in order to corner the industry the situation would be an entirely different one.
SedentaryJourney
Regular
Competitive pricing is probably the most important facet of the PS4 after what happened last gen. It was intended to launch at $399, and Sony caught a break with MS launching $100 higher. For those saying this is a bad idea, we'll see if it pays off in market share.
MS just seems to be making odd choices that don't seem to benefit them greatly. The IP based region locking is just bizarre. This wouldn't be too bad except XBO is launching in Asia in late 2014, and there's no word about Japan and Eastern Europe. Also, what happens if you are a US XBO owner and you move to Japan?
Last edited by a moderator:
Quick summary that I also posted elsewhere:
Despite it being unfortunate that online gaming will require Playstation Plus (I already have it, so not a problem for me, but a fixed yearly cost isn't going to sit well with 'casuals', so online play with them is going to be even less likely than it is now - something that only happens briefly with some of the really big games), there's a list of things that Sony does better:
1. F2P games don't have to be behind the paywall. I hated that for Xbox Live
2. Apps don't have to be behind the paywall. Stuff like Youtube and Internet Explorer 10 for Xbox Live Gold members only? Even trying to push the BBC behind that? Come on Microsoft! This is not going to work if you want your device to be widely accepted by a more casual audience. Despite having by far smaller install-base in the US, Netflix has the most single platform users on Playstation 3, and it's for this reason.
3. Asynchronous multiplayer doesn't fall behind the paywall. This is a really big one for me, and while I haven't seen a statement on this from Microsoft, the way they seem to want to push the Cloud (which if anything, is perfect for all things asynchronous) and based on some of the stuff they've done so far on 360, I'm currently expecting this to be behind the paywall.
4. Devs can self-publish. No further comment necessary - most (not all) publishers that can currently afford the proper status on 360 have too much power over content, and are too risk averse. A dev-team should be able to kickstart a project and self-publish, without too much interference.
I'm willing to bet that Microsoft may have to change their mind on some of these, but I appreciate that Sony has been wise enough to figure out the right thing to do on their own.
However, if Microsoft gets all their other visions right - Kinect turns out good this time, WinRT apps work uniformly on 360 and work well with Kinect-Touch, WinRT apps can support gamepads making it a good platform for Indie self-publishing, TV-in proves useful, WinRT can take over some of the paywalled media features (Netflix WinRT app), the Xbox becomes the better SmartTV device (face it, it will out-power TVs and Apple devices for years), SmartGlass is a big success, Cloud turns out really useful* then Microsoft is definitely not out for the count.
But we have seen in the past - that price difference will make it hard in the beginning. The onus is on you to prove that your device is worth the extra cash, which is not always easy, and with the prime function being gaming first and foremost, there's a risk that the PS4 is both cheaper and more powerful, and that could make reasoning 'but it does all these other things' hard for a significant portion of gamers.
And while Microsoft seems poised well for making a Wii-like play for a larger, more casual market, the Wii started at $249 or thereabouts. This was an important part of that strategy.
* (I can see some benefits for publishers if Cloud performance for online enabled games like MMOs is budgetted to individual players - then no matter what they play, they will always have this single bit of server resource alotted, which could be far more efficient then shifting resources around all the time depending on what game)
----
Also, Phil Spenser interview on Eurogamer:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...osoft-studios-phil-spencer-discusses-xbox-one
Despite it being unfortunate that online gaming will require Playstation Plus (I already have it, so not a problem for me, but a fixed yearly cost isn't going to sit well with 'casuals', so online play with them is going to be even less likely than it is now - something that only happens briefly with some of the really big games), there's a list of things that Sony does better:
1. F2P games don't have to be behind the paywall. I hated that for Xbox Live
2. Apps don't have to be behind the paywall. Stuff like Youtube and Internet Explorer 10 for Xbox Live Gold members only? Even trying to push the BBC behind that? Come on Microsoft! This is not going to work if you want your device to be widely accepted by a more casual audience. Despite having by far smaller install-base in the US, Netflix has the most single platform users on Playstation 3, and it's for this reason.
3. Asynchronous multiplayer doesn't fall behind the paywall. This is a really big one for me, and while I haven't seen a statement on this from Microsoft, the way they seem to want to push the Cloud (which if anything, is perfect for all things asynchronous) and based on some of the stuff they've done so far on 360, I'm currently expecting this to be behind the paywall.
4. Devs can self-publish. No further comment necessary - most (not all) publishers that can currently afford the proper status on 360 have too much power over content, and are too risk averse. A dev-team should be able to kickstart a project and self-publish, without too much interference.
I'm willing to bet that Microsoft may have to change their mind on some of these, but I appreciate that Sony has been wise enough to figure out the right thing to do on their own.
However, if Microsoft gets all their other visions right - Kinect turns out good this time, WinRT apps work uniformly on 360 and work well with Kinect-Touch, WinRT apps can support gamepads making it a good platform for Indie self-publishing, TV-in proves useful, WinRT can take over some of the paywalled media features (Netflix WinRT app), the Xbox becomes the better SmartTV device (face it, it will out-power TVs and Apple devices for years), SmartGlass is a big success, Cloud turns out really useful* then Microsoft is definitely not out for the count.
But we have seen in the past - that price difference will make it hard in the beginning. The onus is on you to prove that your device is worth the extra cash, which is not always easy, and with the prime function being gaming first and foremost, there's a risk that the PS4 is both cheaper and more powerful, and that could make reasoning 'but it does all these other things' hard for a significant portion of gamers.
And while Microsoft seems poised well for making a Wii-like play for a larger, more casual market, the Wii started at $249 or thereabouts. This was an important part of that strategy.
* (I can see some benefits for publishers if Cloud performance for online enabled games like MMOs is budgetted to individual players - then no matter what they play, they will always have this single bit of server resource alotted, which could be far more efficient then shifting resources around all the time depending on what game)
----
Also, Phil Spenser interview on Eurogamer:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...osoft-studios-phil-spencer-discusses-xbox-one
Not everyone with a $1000 PC is actually intersted in gaming on the PC. Not everyone is simply interested in graphics. And most importantly, not everyone is interested in gaming in their office or bedroom when they can do that more comfortably in the livingroom. And as an additional point, there are many people who buy consoles because of the games that are not available on the PC. So, I'm not really sure why console buyers should be less concerned about hardware specs - especially given that most people that buy a console actually invest in that platform that will likely last them 5 to 8 years.
For me Xbox ones issue is in the UK is most certainty not DRM and most certainly is £429.99. MS need to differentiate the extra cost, I think the design helps, it looks more "adult" and grown up than the PS4 but for £80 extra just pushing the "Cloud" tag is not going to cut it. To be honest I'd love to be working in the MS marketing team, nothing better than a tough story and product to sell.
Billy Idol
Legend
But consoles offer exclusive titles. Exclusive titles are imo the best. This alone justifies having both consoles...as both offer games your 10xpower PC will never be able to play...
I guess some PC gamers would dispute that, PC has plenty of exclusives games.
SedentaryJourney
Regular
A lot of the big PC franchises are moving over to multiplatform. Even Star Citizen, which is probably the highest profile PC exclusive in the works, might make its way over to PS4. I think strategy is the one genre that's still PC centric for obvious reasons.
Consoles are more PC like than ever, provide access to a larger market, and one of them costs $399. Of course PC gaming still has advantages, but I think the high end PC market will become more niche over time. Mass market consoles are going to be where the audience is, and between two consoles with 90% overlap in game lineups I can see people favouring the one with better graphical performance, lower price, and more consumer friendly policies.
It's not about number, but variety and style. Take Diablo 3 for example. On PC it's a point and click game. I hate those. I hate the disassociation between me and the avatar. On consoles, it's a direct-control dungeon crawler. For people who don't like mouse-based gaming and prefer to sit back while gaming, consoles offer a better experience. Or at least, are perceived as such because no-one's advertising the controller experience for PC and everyone who game on PC tends to talk about the superior KB+M experience.
I started a thread to explore the very topic of switching from console to PC, and it's clear to me PC isn't a direct substitute yet (best discussed in that thread). That's why the consoles still persist and are vying with each other for the living room game space rather than fighting a losing battle with PC.
This avoids my question - doesn't really answer it. I still say that the inclusion of a Blu-Ray player is a more compelling media feature than anything Microsoft is adding. It was something "new" - not an aggregation or iteration on things that most people already have. Most people have a remote control already, and voice controlled remotes have existed for a while. So in terms of people shopping for a media experience, it seems like the features you are touting for the XBox fall in the "bells and whistles" category - not the "compelling feature".
But I can ask the question another way with digital sales if that helps.
Microsoft hides all digital streaming services behind a pay wall. The PS3 does not. So if digital sales are the next big thing in media, why is Microsoft's strategy of making you pay to use subscriptions you already have more compelling than the PS3 strategy of letting you use them for free? What is there to compell someone to switch their media system from the PS3 (or for that matter, a smart TV or just a good reciever) to the XBox One?
Last edited by a moderator:
I think fast switching between media sources as well as the option to do so with voice, motion or a controller represents something new and compelling. I mentioned in a different thread that folks I have interacted with who would never be compelled to purchase a gaming solution regardless of the games available were intrigued by the simplicity of voice controlled media search on XB1.
Most people couldn't really tell the difference or care about the difference between dvd and bluray. Eventually it took over as standards do but once people acquired the option to simply download a movie from a catalogue larger than they could possibly keep themselves that won and continues to win the day.
As far as the paywall, that's always been a pain point. However MS has 48 million paywall customers. If that number grows this generation their solution would be validated.
SedentaryJourney
Regular
Fast input switching isn't compelling. When Microsoft were pitching it during their unveiling it felt like the kind of exaggerated claim you'd find on an infomercial. I'm not even sure most people will bother to plug their cable boxes into their XBOs since this essentially means you need to have your Xbox on everytime you watch TV.
I think the UI does offer certain advantages in terms of multitasking. At first I thought snap wasn't really worth the resources when fast app switching would accomplish the same goal, but MS actually made it look useful during their E3 press conference when they were live streaming KI and snapping the Twtich comments on the side. Right now it remains to be seen how Sony are going to handle OS functions and apps, but I asssume Microsoft have dedicated more run-time resources to its secondary OS.
I do agree with that PC is not a replacement for consoles or the other way around, though I was just answering Billy Idol, he stated consoles offers exclusive , I stated that PC too though not the same indeed. It is a matter of taste (and budget if I could afford it I would have "everything"
).Billy Idol
Legend
Yes, you are right. I did word it wrong...I did not mean that PC has no exclusive...they have, like Diablo 3 and Torchlight 2 e.g. which I want to play (but with gamepad
)!What I meant is that consoles have some exclusive IP's I care about and you can only play those exclusive titles on a console...
Edit: And I wonder how many PC exclusive titles we will really see next gen.
This is another thing I don't understand regarding DRM. If all the games are available digitally on the day of launch as well as on physical copy, will the digital copies be locked on PS4? Will I be able to freely trade my digital copy on PS4? Further as highlighted, these new consoles are reported to have around a 10yr cycle, well before that cycle is over my guess is the majority of games bought will be via digital download. This will impact far more greatly on the retailer, than anything MS is implementing at the moment, in fact what MS is proposing is a positive for retailers as it keeps them in the game(!) I think theres a lot of PR nonsense going around regarding DRM and Sony have been clever enough to take full advantage. Does anyone really believe they didn't have a DRM strategy read to roll?
Well we have a difference of opinion then because I think fast realtime switching of simultaneously active inputs between my game, the internet, streaming sources, and television is the bees knees. With the option to use voice, motion or controller...? Thats some futuristic shyt
Well we have a difference of opinion then because I think fast realtime switching of simultaneously active inputs between my game, the internet, streaming sources, and television is the bees knees. With the option to use voice, motion or controller...? Thats some futuristic shyt
I should point out that most people already have something like this. My television has 6 inputs - and all it takes is one press of a button on my remote to switch between television, internet, streaming, and gaming. I don't actually use that though. I have a decent reciever and a 4x2 matrix HDMI switch that not only allows real time switching but allows me to do two at the same time if I choose.
If you were to point out the "innovative" part of what MS did it isn't the switching - it is trying to integrate those into one service/device rather than the switching. Right now, most media consumers keep an array of devices on their stands. Personally, I have three game consoles, a reciever, a cable box, a TiVo box (because I can't stand the cable DVR), a router, and a NAS. Microsoft is trying to combine those into one "media" hub.
This is where we get into the "compelling" argument. My setup with a decent remote (I use the Harmony 720) allows me to do basically everything the XBox does - in many cases in a fashion better than what the XBox would provide. About the only feature I don't have is voice control, and that is more by choice right now than by lack of options.
That doesn't mean the XBox doesn't offer me something else. It is just right now I can't see it. I would think that I'm the type of person that the media features would be aimed at. The price doesn't bother me, I currently own an XBox, and media is important to me. That is why I asked people to define why they thought the XBox would be a better media source. I wanted to see if people could make a case for someone like me with a mid-range AV setup to use the XBox as part of my setup.
I only mentioned the PS3 because it actually achieved that goal last generation. It currently serves as my DVD / Blu-Ray / Streaming device. I use both the 360 and the PS3 for gaming. Given the initial attachment ratio for PS3 games and the statistics released on Blu-Ray use during the first couple of years, it seems several million other consumers did the same thing. I guess it is just me - but I have a hard time thinking that the media features alone on the XBox could sell several million consoles right now. I was hoping someone would explain why they thought it would.
