Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Sonic]

So there's not one person who passed up the X1 when they found out they had to pay an XBL subscription in addition to their Netflix subscription?

Sure those people exist. Just not a whole lot of them I imagine. If an early adopter chose PS4 over XB1 due to the fact they need Live for XB1 then I think that would be rather rare. Some might not like it, but most early adopters would be getting Gold simply for multiplayer and if they have Netflix then might as well use that on XB1 as well. This may be a bigger issue going forward now that we're out of the launch time frame. Those who've haven't switched to next gen yet (vast majority) might perceive PS4 as better value overall with netflix being usable without a PS+ subscription...of course in addition to all the other value factors.

 

[Blazkowicz]

What about a consumer that buys without knowing about that crap?
I think I know about this stuff only by looking at beyond3D forum threads.

If I bought a Samsung or LG phone or tablet and had to pay 10€ per month to LG or Samsung (or whatever the vendor is) to browse the web, I would return the unit.
I would not care about online gaming on a console, prefering games where I can actually game with people on the same couch as me. Because that's what we did in the 8/16bit and N64 days. Though I don't know if there are many such games remaining outside of racing and sports.

Online gaming had to be paid for with the first Xbox, there are servers to run and maintain so I can understand that.
But to advertise the console as doing computer duties and locking everything out is rude and lame. Wii had a browser but you didn't need a credit card or account to use it.
How to justify it? It's like buying an IBM mainframe in the 60s or 70s and paying by the CPU cycle or paying for features to be unlocked (i.e. for $10,000 a "technician" will show up and flip a switch so your printer outputs more characters per second or something)

 

[Sonic]

Well then those consumers should learn about that crap. I believe it to be a relatively minor factor within the launch time frame when the console will mostly be bought up by gamers eager to start a new generation of gaming. I also believe most of these gamers are well informed and would know of netflix requiring Gold. With that said, it could become a greater issue going into the future having a greater impact on people's purchase decision. Maybe MS will change it to the way Sony has or maybe not but time will tell.

 

[thatdude90210]

So there's not one person who passed up the X1 when they found out they had to pay an XBL subscription in addition to their Netflix subscription?

MS is so out of touch. In 2006, basic PC stuff like youtube, webbrowsers were added value for consoles. I can understand keeping those behind Gold. But now it's 2014, you can find those functions in $35 android sticks. Keeping those behind a pay wall in your $500 console is a middle finger to consumer.

 

[wco81]

Yeah regardless of whether enough people care when making their purchasing decisions, is it the right thing to do?

 

[BRiT]

Yeah regardless of whether enough people care when making their purchasing decisions, is it the right thing to do?

This is not the thread for discussing moral or ethical concerns.

 

[wco81]

I didn't mean it in the moral sense.

Is it a good strategy to try to extract some premium for content you can get so many other ways?

Is it good for the brand to be perceived as gouging?

 

[-tkf-]

Who is talking about "value"? I'm certainly not.

I'm saying that Netflix functionality was behind a paywall on the 360 and not on the PS3 and it didn't matter worth a lick..

Wrong, every feature that you can offer over the competition" for free" makes your product more attractive. For some consumers it may very well have been the tipping point. And let's not forget that Netflix wasn't a $35 stick always. And for most people today it still isn't.
Finally, Netflix on the Playstation is fast have a good ui, supports the different features and deliver way better than most other players.
I have 2 chrome casts,and I still use the Playstation for Netflix.

And it's not the only streaming service it supports out if the box and pay wall.

 

[Rangers]

I doubt the brand is perceived as gouging except by some limited groups on the internet. I dont think the wider populace cares or may even know.

Is it a good strategy? I dont think so. I remember PS3 used to beat 360 in netflix usage stats, presumably because it was free. If part of MS's wider goal is to position Xbox as a set top box a lot of people use, free netflix/Apps is a good thing.

They must think it will cost them more money in people who choose not to purchase Gold, that it's worth it to them. Personally, I dont like it. Heck I think to this day my parents may still use the Wii for netflix, just because it's free (in fact that's surely been the main use of the Wii since they got it!)

Who knows, we've already seen Sony roll p2p multiplayer behind a paywall when it turned out rented games wasn't enough of an inducement to get people to pay for PS+, no saying they dont roll more behind it later if they still lag. But I kind of doubt it as I'd think pay p2p MP will force 90%+ of the people to sign up who ever would. You're not talking about very many people for who netflix access is likely a factor.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I'm saying that Netflix functionality was behind a paywall on the 360 and not on the PS3 and it didn't matter worth a lick.

It clearly matters to some people, in late 2012 PlayStation 3 became the largest platform of choice for accessing Netflix.

 

[Rangers]

The "first example" you grabbed was a low-resolution multisampled game?

Right.

The 360 probably commanded an overall advantage out of this list, but it's not a cartoonishly massive one; most of the wins are fairly small, and the PS3 has a fair number of its own victories. By contrast, this DF Face-Off dump from January 2008 gives exactly one small victory to the PS3... not because the PS3 version of the game was doing more under the hood, but because that version chose not to include a blurry post-process filter used by the 360 version. Besides that and a few no-cares and near-parities, the January 2008 list is dominated by decisive 360 victories.

It's hard to judge whether the PS3 multiplat problem ultimately vanished, but it does seem to have gotten smaller over the gen.

But COD is the 2nd best selling title of last year behind GTA V. That one game alone is a big deal, probably by volume of sales.

The January 08 list you mention looks to be a lot of mostly low budget filler titles, where smaller devs couldn't spare the added expense needed to bring the PS3 up to a semblance of par. Hence why they were all "dumped".

I think I can agree the "gap" shrunk, but it didn't go away, even in 2013 and 14.

The fact more games had parity on PS3 later could just be because it became the lead platform with the most effort expended on it. EA used PS3 as the lead for most of the gen, for example. Of course if 360 wasn't given as much care and attention, but just had ports dumped on it because it was the "easy" platform to begin with, it might not be able to flex it's muscles as much later in the gen. Hell the Ps4 could be at risk for the same thing for all we know.

 

[temesgen]

I doubt the brand is perceived as gouging except by some limited groups on the internet. I dont think the wider populace cares or may even know.

Is it a good strategy? I dont think so. I remember PS3 used to beat 360 in netflix usage stats, presumably because it was free. If part of MS's wider goal is to position Xbox as a set top box a lot of people use, free netflix/Apps is a good thing.

They must think it will cost them more money in people who choose not to purchase Gold, that it's worth it to them. Personally, I dont like it. Heck I think to this day my parents may still use the Wii for netflix, just because it's free (in fact that's surely been the main use of the Wii since they got it!)

Who knows, we've already seen Sony roll p2p multiplayer behind a paywall when it turned out rented games wasn't enough of an inducement to get people to pay for PS+, no saying they dont roll more behind it later if they still lag. But I kind of doubt it as I'd think pay p2p MP will force 90%+ of the people to sign up who ever would. You're not talking about very many people for who netflix access is likely a factor.

Free Netflix streaming is available on all phones, tablets, computers, DVD/Blu Ray players and all gaming consoles not named Xbox. Its a bad policy. I would probably own a XB1 for either or family room or home theater but won't because that basic functionality cost more money.

I subscribe to PS Plus because of all the free content they give away. If Sony wanted me to pay for Netflix there is a good chance I would have passed on the PS4 and bought a Roku or similar streaming box and simply waited for the net gen machines to have more games before I dove in. As it is I have the PS3 and 360 in one room and we use the Netflix on it to stream video and the PS4 in the other and use it to stream in the other.

That said I am annoyed my PS4 doesn't do Youtube and MP3s as I feel pretty strongly that any box should be doing all that in 2014.

 

[HTupolev]

I dont think the wider populace cares or may even know.

???

They don't know that accessing media streaming services is not behind a paywall on every other device they use on a regular basis?

(Or are you saying they don't notice the discrepancy because they pay for XBL anyway?)

The January 08 list you mention looks to be a lot of mostly low budget filler titles, where smaller devs couldn't spare the added expense needed to bring the PS3 up to a semblance of par. Hence why they were all "dumped".

They were "dumped" because that's the format DF used for all their comparisons in those days. They offered less thorough reviews in greater volume, which permitted the inclusion of some games you haven't heard of.

(I also didn't see a strong correlation between "I've heard of this game" and PS3 holding its own, as your suggestion would seem to be imply.)

The fact more games had parity on PS3 later could just be because it became the lead platform with the most effort expended on it.

Although I'm not convinced that it "became the lead platform" on a broad scale (I'd expect that the very notion of "lead platform" would have reduced in applicability as the PS3 rose in prominence), the gist of this is basically what I suggested. PS3's suffering was reduced as multiplats stopped being 360 ports.

 

[Xalion]

I'm saying that Netflix functionality was behind a paywall on the 360 and not on the PS3 and it didn't matter worth a lick.

I don't really understand this argument. Access to Netflix and other services for free when they were behind a paywall on the 360 was a major point in most value based arguments last generation. The general argument was that while the PS3 was more expensive, you got features like free multi-player, free access to Netflix and other apps, and extras like an add on drive. So Netflix being behind the paywall on the 360 did matter - quite a bit. It was frequently argued that the PS3 was more expensive, but had more features and free access to frequently* used programs so you made up the cost difference over the lifetime of the console.

This generation the price difference has swapped. The PS4 is less expensive, but still has free access to frequently used apps. They moved multi-player behind the paywall, and many here thought that was a big deal. But they still have the value argument - they are less expensive and for that price still give access to frequently used apps. This is especially true now that MS is trying to position themselves as the "heart" of the entertainment center with voice control, HDMI in, and all that.

This did matter last generation, and it does matter this generation. It is another differentiator between the two consoles. One that clearly favors Sony.

*I would say being the #1 platform for Netflix Streaming which is the #1 online streaming service says a lot about how much this mattered to the PS3.

 

[temesgen]

I don't really understand this argument. Access to Netflix and other services for free when they were behind a paywall on the 360 was a major point in most value based arguments last generation. The general argument was that while the PS3 was more expensive, you got features like free multi-player, free access to Netflix and other apps, and extras like an add on drive. So Netflix being behind the paywall on the 360 did matter - quite a bit. It was frequently argued that the PS3 was more expensive, but had more features and free access to frequently* used programs so you made up the cost difference over the lifetime of the console.

This generation the price difference has swapped. The PS4 is less expensive, but still has free access to frequently used apps. They moved multi-player behind the paywall, and many here thought that was a big deal. But they still have the value argument - they are less expensive and for that price still give access to frequently used apps. This is especially true now that MS is trying to position themselves as the "heart" of the entertainment center with voice control, HDMI in, and all that.

This did matter last generation, and it does matter this generation. It is another differentiator between the two consoles. One that clearly favors Sony.

*I would say being the #1 platform for Netflix Streaming which is the #1 online streaming service says a lot about how much this mattered to the PS3.

Many of same people who argued that 499 wasn't a problem are the same ones arguing that Netflix isn't a big deal. Many are the same ones who said voice controls for TV was worth extra money too and felt that Kinect would replace the remote as best way to control your TV. Many of those who felt the price was too high and paywalls would be an issue are the ones who are being critical now. I think its pretty safe to say the truth is somewhere in the middle, for many the cost and paywall are an issue but for others XB1 design choices are a good fit and the price is acceptable.

I'd like to hear how often people are using the voice controls for TV 6 months and if they still feel that it is an improvement over the remote. It may very well be for some and I am genuinely curious what a 'long term test drive' might suggest. I asked in the XB1 forum a while back but didn't get many responses.

 

[BRiT]

I'd like to hear how often people are using the voice controls for TV 6 months and if they still feel that it is an improvement over the remote. It may very well be for some and I am genuinely curious what a 'long term test drive' might suggest. I asked in the XB1 forum a while back but didn't get many responses.

For me, voice control is where it's at. I hate not having voice control in other rooms or for other items. I wish I had voice controlled lights.

 

[wco81]

Maybe this will do?

http://www.amazon.com/The-Clapper-Sound-Activated-Switch/dp/B0000CGKLR

I installed light switches with occupancy sensors in my bathrooms and kitchen as part of remodeling.

They go for about $30-40 each.

Obviously wouldn't work for the bedroom and living room but at some point, I might get something like Ube.

 

[Sonic]

It appears netflix being behind the Gold pay wall is a bigger issue than I thought, at least on this forum. Maybe it would behoove MS to get parity with PS Plus and allow media functionality for free. At worst they lose a few Gold subscribers. They also erode one advantage of the PS4 in terms of value perception. Every bit helps.

As far as voice controls go. I still dabble with it when the XB1 is turned on but haven't used it for regular TV watching. I'm too accustomed to the remote and voice controls still have a ways to go before it's natural for me to use them in addition to a remote control let alone as a replacement all together. We might get there one day, but seems MS is in no rush to get there.

 

[function]

Directed at no-one in particular

On the one hand, the overwhelming majority of console gamers don't want to pay for MS's (deluded) vision.

On the other hand, the entirety of none console gamers don't want to pay $500 for the chance to pay MS $60 a year to do what a $50 tv dongle or $100 BR player will give them, only with no ongoing fees to pay. (Or that a tablet or PC or PS3 will give them for free).

And honestly? None console gamers won't want to pay $400, or $300, or $200 for the chance to pay MS $60 a year for what the Xbox One does.

MS saw media usage figures and Gold memberships for the (cheapish) 360 and thought they could charge a lot more and go light on the games part. They didn't realise / forgot / wat? that the Xbox 360 was driven primarily by its role as a leading games device.

MS now need to work on creating and selling a product that people want, because selling a product that people don't want won't work out for them. The only thing driving the Xbox One and differentiating it from free media access on cheap or already owned ('free') media friendly devices (which at this point is everything, everywhere) is it being a games console.

What would boost sales momentum? A cheap console with compelling games and good multiplayer that all your friends also have.

An SKU with a lower point of entry would be far more beneficial than forcing every Xbox to continue to have Kinect. Having Kinect ship with every SKU hasn't helped Kinect games become established at all. It's done dick all for games. All that not offering a none Kinect SKU has done is sell lots of PS4s - meaning that now all of your friends are on PS4.

Regarding the paywall: it's not 2009 any more. You'll pay for Gold for online games if you're already on Xbox. If you're the kind of customer that doesn't intend to pay for Gold for gaming, all that putting apps and media behind a paywall will do is block (yet another) Xbox sale.

 

[McHuj]

On the one hand, the overwhelming majority of console gamers don't want to pay for MS's (deluded) vision.
.

Pretty much. I agree.

I hope there's a behind the scenes book/lengthy article one day that details the dirt behind all the decisions. Hubris or incompetence?

It seems that each of the things that the xbox brings to the table are fine, but the final product just isn't there.

The thing is that I think the product is very salvageable for MS if they make quick decisions and are aggressive.