That's only in the cases where the product has some sort of storage to accommodate DL. For an apple tv streaming and downloading aren't the same thing.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
That's only in the cases where the product has some sort of storage to accommodate DL. For an apple tv streaming and downloading aren't the same thing.
DS3 works on Android as is. I use mine on my Xperia Z and also my Asus Transformer Infinity. Mainly for playing Shadowgun and Dead Trigger!
So according to Shu, 5k a week sales in Japan is healthy??
I guess pro rated for population, it's a slightly better rate than the USA...
Nope, it means the portable market is Japan-centric when it comes to the Vita/PSP. What Sony is hoping to do is leverage that aspect of Vita as a lower-cost entry into streaming and Vita-oriented digital content, all catered toward a casual Japanese audience.
There is no "IOW", the responses and reasoning behind it were pretty straight-forward.
upnorthsox
Veteran
I don't disagree with any of this, the question is/was why will Vita TV exclusive to Japan at the moment? My opinion is that it was offered to Japan first primarily to offset the PS4 launch delay. I could certainly be wrong in that assessment.
The Japanese don't care about expensive home consoles where the (3)DS(i)/PSP/Vita will suit the demands of their lifestyle. But what if they were to take what the Vita/PSP offers and merge it with a low-cost streaming device that allows Hulu and other kinds entertainment services? Now that might actually be an interesting and lucrative idea.
The PS4 is going to launch in Japan late no matter what, and that's not a bad thing considering Japan's less-than-enthusiastic view on new home consoles. Sony is more focused on the Western market where MS is much more competitive and people are more interested in buying home consoles at launch.
I don't think it's to offset the PS4 launch delay so much as it has to do with releasing and testing a new kind of hardware first in Japan. The kind of device they're planning on selling doesn't have any real competition, and it's a Sony product that the JP audience might be lenient on initially when it comes to software/hardware problems. Launching a product like that internationally will take more effort if isn't decent-to-good from the beginning, and using Japan as an example for what could wrong might help with improvements and possible reiterations.
Well all that, and you don't want the Vita TV and PS4 competing with one another in the West because of being released at the same time. Anyone who's in-the-know might understand these are different devices, but the less informed might just say "I'll get the cheaper PlayStation!" like it's as simple as that.
upnorthsox
Veteran
That's a good point.
east of eastside
Newcomer
Vita TV is the Japanese home console market exit-strategy for SCEJA, imo. At the very least a back-up plan so PS3/PS4 don't cede the whole market to 3DS.
http://www.edge-online.com/features/an-audience-with-toshihiro-nagoshi/
Last time I checked, Nagoshi made the top-selling Playstation console exclusive franchise in Japan...
http://www.edge-online.com/features/an-audience-with-toshihiro-nagoshi/
Last time I checked, Nagoshi made the top-selling Playstation console exclusive franchise in Japan...
Last edited by a moderator:
http://news.xbox.com/2013/10/xbox-one-cloud
Interesting article, but that bit above is what got my attention. Free cloud could definitely drive cloud adoption by developers. We'll probably start seeing cloud features on almost all X1 games over time. It's also an excellent business advantage over Sony for a developer. Not having to maintain your own servers, and getting cloud compute for free will provide an incentive for a company to provide cloud features on one platform and not the other.
Interesting, do you think that came to be as a result of the mandatory online requirement being removed? You'd know more about this than me, but originally I had heard cloud wasn't free but subsidized, so it was available at a cheaper cost to all and with online being guaranteed meant there was a good chance of everyone making use of it. Once the console online requirement was removed and killed cloud plans for some 3rd parties (some of which I heard first hand, others of which I'm speculating), perhaps then Microsoft made it totally free now to entice people back to use cloud again?
Another consideration is MS having cloud capacity going unused. If they have time available on their servers, they may as well make use of it. Once people start using it and become reliant, then they can start introducing fees, but you have to get people on board first, and another added cost for an optional nicety is probably good for scaring developers away from trying it out.
The major issue I see is cross-platform cloud support. How are devs going to target cloud utilisation for cross platform games? Have MS said about devs licensing their cloud services for other platforms? That'd be the most straightforward solution. Otherwise, next-gen development's going to be a new level of nightmare with having to write 3 code bases for the game and another 2 server-side code bases for all the online functionality!
The major issue I see is cross-platform cloud support. How are devs going to target cloud utilisation for cross platform games? Have MS said about devs licensing their cloud services for other platforms? That'd be the most straightforward solution. Otherwise, next-gen development's going to be a new level of nightmare with having to write 3 code bases for the game and another 2 server-side code bases for all the online functionality!
No idea. Sounds plausible though.
I believe you can use the cloud functionality across platforms, but you may have to pay for traffic and compute that doesn't originate from an X1.
Free cloud or free compute?
I would expect them to do both. There is quite a bit of slack in current cloud usage and, with recent events, I can foresee a lot more in the near future.
MS has extended their Games with Gold service indefinitely. So we're seeing a normalisation between platforms. Both Live Gold and PSN+ are paywalls for multiplayer that offer 'free' games now. Although MS hasn't confirmed GwG for XB1.
Which is kinda odd. I guess MS see there must be consumer value in the PSN+ service that actually amounts to something. I mean, they've been taking in the money without having to shell out for free game for their users, while Sony have had trouble attracting masses of PSN+ users.
Which is kinda odd. I guess MS see there must be consumer value in the PSN+ service that actually amounts to something. I mean, they've been taking in the money without having to shell out for free game for their users, while Sony have had trouble attracting masses of PSN+ users.
Sony is catching up. I dont think MS would want to appear that their service offers less value than competition.
Btw PSN+ free games AFAIK are playable as long as your subscribed. On the 360 a friend of mine downloaded Assasin's Creed 2 when he got a one month free Gold subscription. When his Gold ended he told me that the game was still playable.
Can someone confirm?
Yes, on XB360 Live Games for Gold you own the game forever. On PS+ you rent the game.
Is it odd ? A lot of the games are 4 or 5 years old. Didn't halo 3 come out in 2007 ?
Its content that wont sell very well in the future and currently they have no BC in the xbox one . So it will serve a small market well that would most likely pick up halo 3 for $5 bucks used anyway. So getting them to sub to live would at least bring in money.
Then in a year or so when they announce their own streaming BC there will prob be an additional monthly cost to play anyway , so no harm no foul
I wonder what the impact would be on free content and if Sony will change their policy later now that multiplayer on PS4 will require a subscription.
Motivation to pay for Plus is zero for multiplayer since its free on PS3. So the value had to come from somewhere else. And they largely tried to bring value through discounts and "free" game access. Some "free" PSN+ games were relatively "recent" releases to strengthen the incentive. Of course letting them to be playable only as long as you had PSN+ limited to some extent software sale cannibalization. This is what helps Sony afford to have more "recent content" for "free". This is a somewhat complicated way to create value to attract demand that will pay back in maximized profit.
On the other hand Live did not need to create incentives as much as PSN since core features required a paywall. It wasnt an incentive as such but a requirement. Live offers free games forever and I think thats the reason why they are very very old. These games are probably not produced or are produced at extremely low quantities. Their sales potential are almost zero so they have almost zero opportunity cost. MS doesnt need to offer free games to get money from Live but needs them to make the customers delighted and maintain competitiveness.
Now that Sony will require a payment to access a core feature, it makes things simpler. the question is, will Sony change their business plan regarding what/when/how content will be free now?
