Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[blakjedi]

I think a lot of casual gaming occurs due to mobility.

*waiting for the bus or train? Lemme play candy crush*

Sitting in a five hour flight? Pull out the cell and play angry birds.

Kids nagging on the family vacation? Pass em the nexus tablet with a movie.

Hardcore systems require too much infrastructure (power, large screen tv, entertainment center) to really attack the casual space.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I think you have to look at the games that were big this generation and think that outside of Kinect MS didn't sell much to casual gamers and they know they need to pimp Kinect to push more into that market.

It seems clear that Sony and MS aren't willing to lose money on hardware anymore either.

 

[Scott_Arm]

You don't sell 70 million consoles without selling to casuals. The problem is those people don't spend a lot of money on retail games, so they need a way to bring them in and get them to pay for online services and content.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

I think what a lot of people call casuals are really core gamers, but not hardcore gamers.

Is the guy who buys every other CoD and Madden game really a "casual" gamer?

Not really IMO, and that's the guy who got MS to 70 million, not people that are into Zynga games.

 

[temesgen]

I think a lot of casual gaming occurs due to mobility.

*waiting for the bus or train? Lemme play candy crush*

Sitting in a five hour flight? Pull out the cell and play angry birds.

Kids nagging on the family vacation? Pass em the nexus tablet with a movie.

Hardcore systems require too much infrastructure (power, large screen tv, entertainment center) to really attack the casual space.

Excellent points and to add to that why would a casual pay a monthly subscription fee to access PSN or Live? Casual gaming typically has a low cost of entry, the games are free to try or very low cost and work on platforms that the user owns for reasons other than gaming. They aren't going to commit to anything long term and they aren't likely to spend hundreds of dollars because they might see something they like next month.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Money isn't always a barrier. I know people who spend thousands a year on their mobile/casual games. $50 a year for a sub is nothing when they spend that on whatever resource for the game they're playing every week.

 

[temesgen]

Money isn't always a barrier. I know people who spend thousands a year on their mobile/casual games. $50 a year for a sub is nothing when they spend that on whatever resource for the game they're playing every week.

The whole nomenclature can be somewhat useless; personally I'd define casual as someone who occasionally plays games primarily on their phone or tablet. If they play every week I wouldn't call them casual. Lets say someone plays bridge or chess on XB1 or PS4 online those games take a lot of effort to be good even if they aren't the most demanding from a graphics standpoint are they casual? Again IMO the term casual is overused to fill in the blanks and at times aggregate segments of the market that may not even belong together.

But to your comment someone who buys 2 and 3 dollar games on their phone occasionally isn't likely to pay for a subscription on top of paying 60 dollars for a game that on their phone cost less than 5 bucks...

 

[AlphaWolf]

The whole nomenclature can be somewhat useless; personally I'd define casual as someone who occasionally plays games primarily on their phone or tablet. If they play every week I wouldn't call them casual. Lets say someone plays bridge or chess on XB1 or PS4 online those games take a lot of effort to be good even if they aren't the most demanding from a graphics standpoint are they casual? Again IMO the term casual is overused to fill in the blanks and at times aggregate segments of the market that may not even belong together.

But to your comment someone who buys 2 and 3 dollar games on their phone occasionally isn't likely to pay for a subscription on top of paying 60 dollars for a game that on their phone cost less than 5 bucks...

So how often can you play a game to be casual? I mean seriously if you spend an hour a week on a game you're a core gamer now? I guess it's all semantics. I just look at casuals as non-traditional gaming market and are not heavily invested (time wise) into gaming.

$50 sub is only $4 a month. It's probably less than they spend on their text plan, it just matters if the product offers something they want and they see the value in having it. Lots of people have no problem dropping $100 a year on netflix, many of those people still pay a cable or satellite bill on top of it which can be $100 a month. The sub prices are nothing to almost anyone with a decent job, it's just a matter if they feel it's worth signing up for in the first place, once they do sign up, they'll probably just keep renewing.

 

[Blazkowicz]

I think there are many single-issue buyers, i.e. people who buy the football game (US or international), the car game, and not much else. So casual gaming, along video can be a relevant addition and what people do are party games and musical games.
Some of those people don't bring a whole lot of profit (very few games bought) some maybe more..

I think what really is missing is local multiplayer. Heck too many games are either the cinematic adventure-action game infested with cutscenes, or on-line or maybe dual mode. No room for 2 to 5 player fun on the same TV, because of both the nature of games and people who don't want to spend $50-$80 on a controller.
At that point maybe controllers should be sold bundled with a game.

But maybe both vendors are too set to try getting you hooked on PSN / Xbox live (monetizing, vendor lock-in) so a great opportunity for having fun is lost.

 

[temesgen]

So how often can you play a game to be casual? I mean seriously if you spend an hour a week on a game you're a core gamer now? I guess it's all semantics. I just look at casuals as non-traditional gaming market and are not heavily invested (time wise) into gaming.

$50 sub is only $4 a month. It's probably less than they spend on their text plan, it just matters if the product offers something they want and they see the value in having it. Lots of people have no problem dropping $100 a year on netflix, many of those people still pay a cable or satellite bill on top of it which can be $100 a month. The sub prices are nothing to almost anyone with a decent job, it's just a matter if they feel it's worth signing up for in the first place, once they do sign up, they'll probably just keep renewing.

I'd be willing to wager that someone who pays the subscription for Netflix uses it more than a hour a week.... Which is my point, people don't have to have a deep understanding of technology to understand their wallet. Consumers generally will pay for things they use; things they have trouble quantifying the value for or double fees (50/yr for Live/PSN) and another 10 bucks to access Netflix tend not to be long lasting relationships.

If it worked the way you are suggesting why doesn't Apple or Google charge to access their store and keep in mind that with this audience that is who you are competing with.

 

[wco81]

My gaming time on consoles have declined a lot over the years. Now I am one of those who buys a couple of sports games and maybe some other games on sales each year.

I have been gaming a lot though on my iPhone and iPad, simple turn-based games, which I spent less than $10 total on.

Preordered the PS4 but I have to say it's a lot easier to get in a few minutes of play at a time on these devices, which are always within reach, than going to the TV and booting up the console, switching to it.

 

[AlphaWolf]

I'd be willing to wager that someone who pays the subscription for Netflix uses it more than a hour a week.... Which is my point, people don't have to have a deep understanding of technology to understand their wallet. Consumers generally will pay for things they use; things they have trouble quantifying the value for or double fees (50/yr for Live/PSN) and another 10 bucks to access Netflix tend not to be long lasting relationships.

If it worked the way you are suggesting why doesn't Apple or Google charge to access their store and keep in mind that with this audience that is who you are competing with.

An hour a week is about exactly how much I use my netflix in the summer, I'm still paying the subscription. 2 movies a month is still good value for $8 for me.

I think you over rate people's concern with a subscription cost. If they see value in having the service they will pay for it (within reason).

 

[eastmen]

Heck im pauing for hulu at 8 bucks a month even tho nothing new has aired simce what may ?

 

[temesgen]

An hour a week is about exactly how much I use my netflix in the summer, I'm still paying the subscription. 2 movies a month is still good value for $8 for me.

I think you over rate people's concern with a subscription cost. If they see value in having the service they will pay for it (within reason).

We agree that seeing the value is important. I bought my 360 as well as one for my brother at launch (both still work BTW ) and never paid for Live all these years. I bought my PS3 a couple months after it launched and only purchased PSN+ after I bought a VAIO laptop which included a free VITA and at the time PSN+ was offering some really good games which would have been much more expensive to pay for individually and I was comfortable paying for a year of PSN+ because I knew I would certainly finish the games in that time and have 12 months of other entertainment to choose from.

All 3 examples (Eastmen's, yours and mine) are anecdotal and don't count for much individually. But again there are plenty of examples in the marketplace to choose from as well as just basic economic reality (finite resources chasing infinite demand) to realize that generally consumers have to choose between goods and services.

What happened to the portable market? Why are 3DS and to a larger degree Vita suffering? Why didn't the consumer buy a 3DS and a tablet? For every consumer there are a different factors but a huge common denominator would be cost. I drive a sports car and my wife drives a luxury SUV, some of my friends see the value in my car but due to finite resources they can't afford to buy one.

 

[Rangers]

i just had a new take on cloud computing.

what do we see in a console? every fixed resource is exploited to the fullest...

i dont think it's going to be too awfully long before people are really exploiting and pursuing cloud...

what if it's lets just simplify a lot and say it's like having two more cpu cores in the cloud? if you had two more cpu cores in the console, they're gonna get tapped. i think it's the same principle.

Lost in all the fuzzyness of cloud and "is it possible", is I think the above angle, which is likely how it's going to inevitably settle out.

You're 343i or Crytek, and your job is exploiting that console...you now have some nebulous cloud resources at your disposal...

You're going to use them. To make your game look better than the next game...you're going to apply all your cleverness.

 

[zed]

i just had a new take on cloud computing

I'm going on record now to say nope Nada zilch. It's not like adding a few extra cores to increase graphics realism etc. the whole idea is laughable. Do people still buy into this PR BS yes perhaps in a decade but now
Then again we had these people talking about all the wondrous things/games that kinect was gonna do with the xb360 and we now how that (didn't) pan out. PR is PR and should be treated as such

Money isn't always a barrier. I know people who spend thousands a year on their mobile/casual games. $50 a year for a sub is nothing when they spend that on whatever resource for the game they're playing every week.

it's not the money is people's percipience ideas of the money rightly or wrongly egg Im in Thailand atm. you see this all the time people will bargain down with a shirt from 100 to 80 baht but will happily buy 10 40 baht overpriced beers that night

 

[Rangers]

I'm going on record now to say nope Nada zilch. It's not like adding a few extra cores to increase graphics realism etc. the whole idea is laughable. Do people still buy into this PR BS yes perhaps in a decade but now

Have you read any of the cloud thread? Cause you're pretty much factually incorrect. There's several technical proof papers in there.

Plus statements from publishers. Funny people actually making games dont seem to have the same attitude towards cloud.

In the easiest case it wont even be used for graphics, but for some things that normally would be done by the CPU. this though in effect frees up more local CPU cores. If it's the equivalent of one core, or two local cores freed up, it's an advantage.

Tell the likes of Crytek or Guerrilla they have a resource available somewhere, in a competitive fixed resource platform, and they will find a way to use it. That's my newfound opinion/realization...

 

[BoardBonobo]

Have you read any of the cloud thread? Cause you're pretty much factually incorrect. There's several technical proof papers in there.

Plus statements from publishers. Funny people actually making games dont seem to have the same attitude towards cloud.

In the easiest case it wont even be used for graphics, but for some things that normally would be done by the CPU. this though in effect frees up more local CPU cores. If it's the equivalent of one core, or two local cores freed up, it's an advantage.

Tell the likes of Crytek or Guerrilla they have a resource available somewhere, in a competitive fixed resource platform, and they will find a way to use it. That's my newfound opinion/realization...

It's one thing to theorize and produce a technical proof based on controlled situations. It's another thing entirely to put that tech 'out there' where you don't have control over all the variables.

I think that Zed is closer to the mark with the 'in a decade' statement, though I think that if the willpower is there and the money is available then the support infrastructure will be brought up to speed. But that's not going to driven by games and even MS doesn't have the funds to make it happen.

There is nothing available in the cloud that can't be utilised by anybody at the same level. There is no secret sauce that is going to work 100% of the time. If that's what you are expecting then it's going to be a disappointing reality.

 

[DrJay24]

I think it is laughable that the ESRAM in the XB1 is hailed as a latency savior for the system, yet the cloud is going to add a few cores. Sure why not, if saving a few clock cycles is going to help, how could an unknown number of tens or hundreds milliseconds hurt?

 

[Kaotik]

I think it is laughable that the ESRAM in the XB1 is hailed as a latency savior for the system, yet the cloud is going to add a few cores. Sure why not, if saving a few clock cycles is going to help, how could an unknown number of tens or hundreds milliseconds hurt?

Because not everything is as latency sensitive as something else.