Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Deleted member 11852]

Its bias if you can somehow logically twist always on console DRM policy complaints and the lack of complaints about an internet connection for Youtube, Netflix as some sort of double standard - both require the internet afterall....

This argument has been had before and is bogus. An internet connection is a technical requirement for your box to connect to YouTube and Netflix servers. Most single player games do not require an internet connection to function, so making internet a requirement is an arbitrary policy decision not related to a technical need.

However, I'm out of this thread. It's already borderline lunacy

 

[temesgen]

... or when using the stupid stock picks argument, that someone made money with MS because of "bias", it's better to ignore the media saying in december that sony was basically fucked, and it was junk, and it was doomed.... since then those who ignored the bias against Sony more than doubled their money.

That can't be true, the media is all carrying water for Sony, they love Sony that can't be right...

Seriously all these companies get handled with kid gloves by some members of the press and at times they get treated unfairly but when the messaging is as poor as MS's was coming out of E3 or as arrogant as Sony's was back in 2006 it's going to have a impact. The good news for all our stock pickers is they can buy options on the stock and make $$$.

 

[bkilian]

Ive said this before but will state again since some people dont seem to understand
Record profits - Huh. theres this thing called inflation etc which impacts monetary things. be them a companies earnings, a dude whos been down the burger joint flipping burgers for the last 15 years etc.
Now you dont hear mr flipper going, this year I made a record wage for the 15th straight year in a row. Its just the normal nature of things.

Microsoft grew profits an average of >10-15% per year for the last 15 years (Except for 2008, where every other company was losing money, MS only grew 3 or 4%). Inflation in the US averages out at about 2% per year. Apple, of course has grown profits by something like 30-50% per year for the last 8-10 years, but they're not going to be able to maintain that, they've pretty much hit saturation for the iphone market.

Let me Godwin this thread, since it's heading toward more victim bullshit again.

Apple being worse than MS doesn't make MS a victim of the media. Nobody would use the argument that Stalin was worse than Hitler as an argument to prove anything.

Godwin! Awesome! I'm impressed it took this many posts in a topic as contentious as "business approach comparison"

 

[MrFox]

Godwin! Awesome! I'm impressed it took this many posts in a topic as contentious as "business approach comparison"

I'm glad you appreciate.

 

[zed]

Microsoft grew profits an average of >10-15% per year for the last 15 years (Except for 2008, where every other company was losing money, MS only grew 3 or 4%).

sure I agree MS's profits have been increasing far higher than the average companies.

though if you remember my previous posts where I spoke about this, with IT yes you have inflation but you also have increasing markets (not just cause the population is getting bigger) contrast this with say hamburgers where people are consuming the same amount per person they were 15 years ago. with IT people are consuming far more than they were 15 years ago.eg 15 years ago perhaps a PC and a games console per household now its a PC & a couple of laptops and a console and a tablet and 4 phones or something. with IT if you have been growing at 10% in the last 15 years youve actually prolly been going backwards.
Perhaps someone can link to a post/article that explains this better than I can

 

[-tkf-]

Its bias if you can somehow logically twist always on console DRM policy complaints and the lack of complaints about an internet connection for Youtube, Netflix as some sort of double standard - both require the internet afterall....

You should also ignore many articles written from 2006 thru 2010 regarding Sony and PS3 to conclude the media is out to hang MS in favor or Sony, Google and Apple. Or better yet ignore all the NSA/Google articles since Snowden and many of the Apple articles since Jobs left the company.

If you actually believe what you sarcasm here then you have bigger issues..

Always on drm is not required to play my games unless someone forces it on me.

Watching streaming content requires a Internet connection, there is no choice.

See the difference, the same did so many that Microsoft have been back tracking on it ever since along with a multitude of other stupid decisions.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Streaming only requires it as a form of DRM, they could let you cache it and watch it anytime if they wanted.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's downloading, not streaming. That model requires a significant wait while your film downloads. People want instant access, which requires streaming, which requires an internet connection while you watch. There are also download services available for those who want to go that route

MS's model required an internet connection regardless of what you were doing. By contrast, Sony would offer offline play if you wanted that, or an internet connection requirement for online play or streamed (Gaikai) games. One can argue (again) whether MS's choice was right or wrong, but it was certainly different from other models and services, and not at all comparable with optionally online services.

 

[AlphaWolf]

That's downloading, not streaming. That model requires a significant wait while your film downloads. People want instant access, which requires streaming, which requires an internet connection while you watch. There are also download services available for those who want to go that route

You are transferring all of the data to the destination regardless of streaming or downloading. It's easy enough to make the cache data from a stream persist.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

You are transferring all of the data to the destination regardless of streaming or downloading.

That's immaterial to the nature of the service. The reason a streaming video service requires always on is because there's no other way to stream without an internet connection. The internet requirement is intrinsic to the service. If the user wanted a download service, they can just download and then watch later without an internet connection. Likewise, the reason for requiring an internet connection for online multiplayer is because the internet is required to facilitate multiplayer. The reason for requiring an internet connection to play a local copy of a game locally is...none whatsoever (well, possibly for cloud services, but that's part of the discussion as to whether MS's choice was the right one or not), so MS were trying something new and different. The parallel would be needing an internet connection to watch your DVDs in your DVD player, or needing one to use your Android/iPad tablet for running local apps, or needing an internet connection on your kettle in order to boil water. MS had a requirement that wasn't necessary to perform the service they offered - an internet requirement isn't necessary to play locally stored games.

If it was a case that MS needed an always on internet connection to provide constant internet-powered services, then there was legitimate cause for their choice, but they failed to communicate that very well, and certainly failed to market the idea successfully as to excite the market to the prospect.

 

[-tkf-]

Streaming only requires it as a form of DRM, they could let you cache it and watch it anytime if they wanted.

There is plenty of solutions for local based playback via a cache. I prefer blu-ray for that.
Always on drm did not give me anything i needed. But thanks to MS dropping it i could actually sign up for the xb1.

 

[temesgen]

If you actually believe what you sarcasm here then you have bigger issues..

Always on drm is not required to play my games unless someone forces it on me.

Watching streaming content requires a Internet connection, there is no choice.

See the difference, the same did so many that Microsoft have been back tracking on it ever since along with a multitude of other stupid decisions.

I was pointing out the comparison is flawed... Its a poor argument to equate the two and worse to try and cite it as proof of bias.

 

[-tkf-]

I was pointing out the comparison is flawed... Its a poor argument to equate the two and worse to try and cite it as proof of bias.

I think i understand... this subthread on stock speculation based on bias/hate for one brand or another has gone to far i think

 

[Cranky]

There is plenty of solutions for local based playback via a cache. I prefer blu-ray for that.
Always on drm did not give me anything i needed. But thanks to MS dropping it i could actually sign up for the xb1.

This is where I have a problem. There is zero meaningful downside or penalty for always on and they promised incredibly useful benefits. Rarely have I been so angry at the general stupidity of the internet as during this whole fiasco.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

This is where I have a problem. There is zero meaningful downside or penalty for always on and they promised incredibly useful benefits.

The issue was being unable to play local games when the internet was down, which was rare in the grand scheme of things but often enough to be of concern for some people. I've experienced three internet downs in two houses this year due to any of a number of reasons from router failure to line failure to maintenance work. The actual impact on a real gamer might be 2 hours in a year, maybe, but as that always online requirement was considered irrevelant to the game experience, it was a potential 2 hours cost for zero gain, so a poor economy. That's in stark contrast to parallels drawn at the time with things like an always on connection to the power grid to play your games - electricity is essential to playing a game; a network connection isn't when playing locally.

The current setup means if you have an hour's free time and want to play online but something in the network chain is broken, you can still play an offline game and enjoy your console instead of having to find something else to do.

The offering by MS was new, and different, and rejected for a rational, provable argument even if not one that everybody agrees with. Everyone should just let it go as it's no longer relevant to MS's business plan, except in considering how their current design was perhaps dependent on a dropped feature. It's the fact the design has changed that is relevant to this discussion; the reasons why it's changed don't need revisiting (in this thread or any other. There's a thread dedicated to that discussion).

 

[MrFox]

It doesn't matter whether the data is local, remote, or cached. The problem is where the key is, and who controls it's access.

service = tethered, remote key (company owned internet server).
product = untethered, local key (part of the physical disc).

Messing with this causes problems. A service with a local key, or none, means I can use it a long as I want, and the provider opens itself up to wide spread piracy. A product with a remote key means a shrewed planned obsolescence system, and reliability outside of the user's control, depending on the continued profitability of the company, until the servers are finally shutdown. There's plenty of historical examples of clusterfucks with remote keys applied to products, those who remember them are on the antiDRM side, no matter which console tries to implement it. Nobody have any problem with remote DRM applied to services, it's an understandable necessity.

 

[patsu]

Shuhei talks a bit about virtualizing/opening Playstation ecosystem on other devices:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-02-shuhei-yoshida-vita-vita-tv-and-sonys-future

Like I said, run faster to iOS. The more you wait, the less they will need you.

 

[wco81]

Yeah apparently you can pair the DS3 to an Experia phone?

They should be supporting that on other brands of devices.

 

[patsu]

They will all have game controllers by end of this year. Something's cooking if Apple jumped so quickly to 64-bit.

 

[upnorthsox]

Shuhei talks a bit about virtualizing/opening Playstation ecosystem on other devices:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-10-02-shuhei-yoshida-vita-vita-tv-and-sonys-future

Like I said, run faster to iOS. The more you wait, the less they will need you.

Q: PS Vita TV is Asia-only at the moment - you still have no plans for North America or Europe?
Shuhei Yoshida: I don't think we are saying that we have no plans - we have no plans that we can discuss!
Q: What do you see as the difference between the Asian market and the North American or European market that makes PS Vita more sensible for Asia but not for those other markets - at least at the start?
Shuhei Yoshida: Vita TV is a very versatile device. There are so many different things that that small device can do, and there are quite distinct usage and distinct consumer targets that we can pursue. The market situation is very different between Japan and the Western market in terms of whether it's a portable market, whether it's a console market... Especially the situation with Vita in Japan right now is quite healthy. Lots of new titles have been announced and we're launching the new hardware here first. The messaging and the targeting have to be carefully planned - that's why we decided not to go global with one message. We'll tailor our message and focus first on the Japanese market where the Vita is most active.

So IOW, Vita TV is the bone Japan is getting tossed for having to wait for PS4. I expect everyone else will get announced at E3.