Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
I am not convinced either that Phil was the problem at Sony at the time. Rather the opposite - he got too little power too late, if you ask me. He did great stuff in SCEE and is a big part of the reason it has such a big standing there, and was a big proponent of going for the market that the Wii ended up capturing, but couldn't convince SCEA and SCEJ of the potential and importance of doing so. He didn't leave because Sony was unhappy with Phil, I am pretty confident he left Sony because he was unhappy.
I was just reading the Eurogamer interview (I know, a little late), which has some good details about the Sony Near like features that I hadn't heard of before.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-on-xbox-one-kinect-indie-games-and-red-rings
It's actually not a bad interview. I'm personally not very charmed on the focus on sports/call of duty/tv, but I can understand that they feel this is their core strength (for me though that's a core weakness), but otherwise I have a fair bit of faith in Microsoft delivering a robust gaming platform with good social features. I am still curious to see more about the WinRT part of things, if that can run all
apps and games on there perhaps using Kinect and/or Smartglass, and if that includes games that can use the Xbox controller.
But that last comment, that a cloud supported game will run in 25 years? I'm having a very hard time buying that.
That said, whether your DS will still run that game in 25 years is also questionable.
Virtualising these games makes more sense.
And the real question is: licence. Rereleasing a game now is rarely really a technical problem, but a licencing problem (game contains some stupid song that someone in Europe holds the exclusive licence to).
And that's something I wonder will ever change. It may require some changes in law, forced perhaps by the European Union, that if I buy a licence for a game, that licence transfers across any platform that same game releases on in the future, and that virtualisations of the platforms that game (or music, movie etc.) runs on are legal (maybe with some limitation of starting 5 years from the first release of the new platform, to give console c.s. manufacturors some leeway?)
I was just reading the Eurogamer interview (I know, a little late), which has some good details about the Sony Near like features that I hadn't heard of before.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...-on-xbox-one-kinect-indie-games-and-red-rings
It's actually not a bad interview. I'm personally not very charmed on the focus on sports/call of duty/tv, but I can understand that they feel this is their core strength (for me though that's a core weakness), but otherwise I have a fair bit of faith in Microsoft delivering a robust gaming platform with good social features. I am still curious to see more about the WinRT part of things, if that can run all
apps and games on there perhaps using Kinect and/or Smartglass, and if that includes games that can use the Xbox controller.
But that last comment, that a cloud supported game will run in 25 years? I'm having a very hard time buying that.
That said, whether your DS will still run that game in 25 years is also questionable.
Virtualising these games makes more sense. And the real question is: licence. Rereleasing a game now is rarely really a technical problem, but a licencing problem (game contains some stupid song that someone in Europe holds the exclusive licence to).
And that's something I wonder will ever change. It may require some changes in law, forced perhaps by the European Union, that if I buy a licence for a game, that licence transfers across any platform that same game releases on in the future, and that virtualisations of the platforms that game (or music, movie etc.) runs on are legal (maybe with some limitation of starting 5 years from the first release of the new platform, to give console c.s. manufacturors some leeway?)
Nesh actually covered most of this superbly to the point, but I still have something to add:
What's so special about the multi-tasking on a single device? I don't know what most people have in their livingrooms, but just about any decent receiver now days (or TV) has HDMI switching ability for multiple sources. If you want to switch between a game and the TV, all I need to do is pick up the remote and press the TV button to change the source on my receiver. Thanks to a remote that can learn any remote outthere, I can control just about all devices from a single remote. Even if it didn't, having 2 or 3 remote controls wouldn't be such a big deal.
The point remains, if I pause the game and switch to the TV, the game is still running too and I can seemlessly switch back over to it anytime I wish. Or my XBMC running on a HTPC. Anything at a press of a button. This is pretty standard stuff and has been around as long as I've already had the PS3 (2006). Sure, it would be nicer if I could turn it off and resume the game at that point, without skipping through menues, but that is something I expect from next generation consoles. Skype? Is installable on just about every smartphone released in the last 2 years and works well. I still find it easier to use a phone if you have it at your ear rather than speaking to a TV. Sure, webcam chatting is nice - but you'll be either webcam chatting OR playing games but not both (I don't think anyone would fancy watching me play while trying to talk to me through a video feed).
Sure, it would be nicer if my receiver had the ability to show multiple sources at the same time, perhaps next to each other. Or if the switching between sources would be a bit smoother. Sure. But my receiver is also around 4 years of age. I'm sure newer devices already do that a lot better and as performance in such CE devices improve, things will get more hightech too.
Why does it all need to happen over the console? Even if the Xbox One does this a bit better - people will still need a receiver of some sort and a TV. Then, at least in Europe, you will still need some cablebox to watch television. Even if the Xbox could potentially be that device too, having an extra device isn't that awful. We've been used to that for the last 10 years already.
It's also quite likely that there is a certain logic to the point that a dedicated device for watching television, listening to music (cd/sacd/bluray), a sonos, movies (xbmc, boxee, etc) is a lot better than having some device that tries to do a bit of everything but neither particularly well. Well, with the exception of switching between sources. But you already have such a device that makes a lot more sense to do that, and it's your AV receiver.
I would rather the console of next generation focuses on combining features that actually belong together. Gaming and social networks make sense (even if I don't use any social networks), because it gives the opportunity to share achievements or use it to organise play sessions. Or upload videos directly to share on Youtube (some games already do that on PS3 and I'm sure X360 as well). Or perhaps be able to use the internet to find a walkthrough to a game I'm just stuck in. Or have a better way to chat to friends that are online, before or while playing. I expect these features to work well with all next generation console.
But the ability to switch between TV and gaming seemlessly? Nope. Because I already can do that and I've been able to do that ever since the most basic TV or receivers had multiple source inputs.
Also to add: I used to use the PS3 browser for surfing as well. Now that smartphones have become a lot more sophisticated devices capable of browsing the net and the existance of tablets, I really don't see the need to actually use these services on a TV screen with a pathetic resolution/viewing-distance.
Even if a browser is a nice-to-have-feature, it's one I think will be used less and less as more people find themselves owning a tablet. Skyping and chatting is so much easier on a tablet or a smartphone anyway, then on a TV.
Even if a browser is a nice-to-have-feature, it's one I think will be used less and less as more people find themselves owning a tablet. Skyping and chatting is so much easier on a tablet or a smartphone anyway, then on a TV.
Now you have a HTPC, a cable box, a console and a receiver, each with their own idiosyncratic method of control. One unit to control it all? Yes please.
Watch Le Mans PiP while playing Forza / GT ? Yes please.
Watch NHL playoffs/UEFA champions league/NFL, switch to NHL/FIFA/MADDEN in intermissions and play a quick game ? Yes please.
Cheers
But I already have that - it's called a AV receiver (and I don't even have a very up to date nor sophisticated one). And from where I'm sitting, it's not as if the Xbox One (or any device that aims to do the same) will replace that. How could it?
I can do that - by using a tablet, or technically even my smartphone. And I think a tablet is just about on anyones wishlist who doesn't yet have one.
I get the point that it's nice to have a cool new gadget that offers uninterupted switching between sources - but the Xbox One with its HDMI in and out and IR blaster whatever, is only doing what you would be doing otherwise through a remote-controller. If you have all your devices connected to the AV receiver and that connects to the Xbox One - the Xbox One will need to relay the input switching to the AV receiver. That just sounds messy - and could be done so much easier from the proper device sitting amonst all the devices: the AV receiver.
Sure, if you can watch television through your Xbox, then the switching between that app and the game is more seemless. But is that really such a big deal?
For most things, using a dedicated device will be better and the switching between sources is best done from the device that offers dedicated functionality for that. What good is it to switch between television and gaming, if you have at least 4 other devices like a xbmc box, possibly a sonos or some other music device, a CD player, a tuner etc where that switching is still a pain? Just sounds like a half solution for most people.
I have a TV, a Home Theater surround system and I live in a hypothetical future where I buy an XBone.
No PiP for me because I have no cable box. Now I have to pay for a cable box and a subscription so I can use my XBone PiP TV features. And I did it. Now I have a TV, a Home Theater, a console and a cable box to eat up extra money and extra space.
Or I will just have a TV, my home theater and a console which will either be PS4 or an XBone.
And quite honestly when I want to watch a TV I watch TV. When I want to play a game, I play a game. Those very few times I want to switch it takes a few seconds to use the remote. I dont know anyone who switches every five minutes between game and TV.
Point? It is a nice feature, but not a life changer
I use a receiver too (heck, my TV doesn't even have speakers). When I have to switch from TV to XBox, I first have to find the TV remote, and select input 4. Then I need to find my receiver remote and select the input where my XBox is connected (VDP), then start the XBox.
You think that's a minor hassle. I don't, having tried to explain the babysitter how to switch from Netflix to ordinary TV and back.
That's one more device: A HTPC, a console, a cable box, a receiver and a tablet. And unless you glue the tablet to your TV screen it is hardly PiP. Try playing GT while constantly switching your attention between your tablet and your TV screen.
Also try being more than one person doing this.
Yes.
My console already plays all my media, why would I need a xbmc box?
Sonos and a receiver ? No ...
Tuner? Hardly relevant for TV input.
CD player ? Use your console.
Cheers
Then it sounds like your receiver is even older than mine. Or less sophisticated, which surprises me, because as I said, mine is 4 years old, but has a multi functional remote controller that has the ability to 'learn' other remotes functionality. In other words, for all my devices (with an IR receiver), I can use my remote for everything. That also includes the projector btw. Of course it doesn't include my PS3, but neither would it include your Xbox One either - as I'm sure we can agree that we don't really want to control our game using an IR remote, nor would we really be wanting to control your other devices using a game controller with 10 generic buttons, two analog sticks and a directional pad...
While we're at it - I would love to see you explain to your babysitter why it's easier to control all your gadgets with a game controller or have her memorize voice commands and hand gestures when humanity has been used to using simple remote controls as far as I can remember...
Gubbi said:
Actually, I wouldn't know why I would want to be doing two things at the same time. I certainly wouldn't want to be playing a game and have a quarter size TV screen overlayed. Maybe you do? This to me sounds like a cool 'wow' feature at most, for bragging rights etc, but not practical in the least.
I have admittedly had a TV feed running, like a soccer game, but it was good enough for me to have it run on the tablet and listen to the commentator, while having my eyes on the screen to play a multiplayer game. Even if my console had the ability to do it on screen, I wouldn't be using it, because the tablet solution is more convinient. And even if I had to chose what I'd rather be doing - watching television or playing a game, I think I would be prepared to make a decision and sacrifice one for another. Especially now days where shifted television feeds is possible (I can pause any program and continue watching it later).
Gubbi said:
You're missing the point I think. My point is that most average consumers have these devices already. And these devices already connect to the most central device in any living room - a stereo or most probably an AV receiver. Those are just some gadgets that wouldn't be handled by an Xbox. So what good is it if you have a Xbox to control only TV and games, if you also have so many other devices that you can't. Doesn't fit with the "Xbox one" philosophy.
I used to watch my videos, films and listen to music on my console too. Then at some point, I realized, that xbmc (or any equivilant) is much more convinient and feature rich. At that point, I stopped caring what my console plays besides playing games. I really wouldn't want to go back. I might not be the most average consumer I admit (my xbmc is integrated into my network), but then, not many people actually need a specialised box to play MKVs and Mp3s through a TV. For them, a dedicated device to listen to old fashioned CDs, or a Sonos for mp3, as well as a seperate Bluray player is what most people will have. With Bluray out since 6 years, I don't think anyone really needs their expensive console to play these movies, when their standalone players does it perfectly for a quarter of the price. The Bluray player boom is over.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
A distracting image of tv stuff slapped on top of my game or playing a game in a miniaturized picture slapped on top of tv stuff?
Yeah, forcing an attention deficit on myself is everything I'll ever want for ultimate entertainment
Yeah, forcing an attention deficit on myself is everything I'll ever want for ultimate entertainment
Yeah those overlayed images are overrated at best. It just looks cool with not much practical use. Being able to get from one use to another seamlessly is sufficient.
How many of us can watch, talk through skype, play a game, listen to music, and browse the internet? Simultaneously? It can be confusing enough with a PC which has the best multitasking layout->Keyboard/mouse. We can do two different things at best that dont require equal attention and the same sense (i.e vision). For example I can have music in the background and browse, but I cant listen to music and chat at the same time. Cant watch a movie and watch a video conference. Cant browse the internet and watch a video conference at the same time.
Imagine how much confusing it can get trying to do domultitasking with Kinect or a game controller.
How many of us can watch, talk through skype, play a game, listen to music, and browse the internet? Simultaneously? It can be confusing enough with a PC which has the best multitasking layout->Keyboard/mouse. We can do two different things at best that dont require equal attention and the same sense (i.e vision). For example I can have music in the background and browse, but I cant listen to music and chat at the same time. Cant watch a movie and watch a video conference. Cant browse the internet and watch a video conference at the same time.
Imagine how much confusing it can get trying to do domultitasking with Kinect or a game controller.
Just to be fair - I'm not sure if Xbox One effectively is aiming to do that. I did watch the reveal conference and I remember the live switching back and forward well, though I can't remember them demoing that you could effectively do two things at the same time - though theoretically, I'm sure with the resources available, that Xbox could manage it fine, if it wanted to. My point was more, would this be practical beyond it being a bullet point feature?
My main issue with the reveal and the business approach seems to be, that the Xbox one is supposed to be that one device that links all together. I actually like the idea that kinect could be the missing link to offer us a revolutionary way of controlling the device - and my setup with a huge projected screen would be perfect to get a minority report-esque vibe.
The problem is IMO that the Xbox One is the wrong device for this. It's not the center of the living room of most living rooms, because it makes far more sense for it to be some AV receiver. Why? Because most people like the idea to play the sound of their television program through the stereo system with surround sound. Or have a CD player connected to it, a analog or digital radio tuner, some device to play movies (could be a DVD or a Bluray player, or a XBMC box or variant) and to those also into games, also a game-console.
Now, Xbox one may offer a great and exclusive way on how to control it through Kinect. Sure. But it IMO doesn't offer the required number of interfaces to effectively replace your AV receiver as the main source input switch. It offers the most basic means to work with a AV receiver, but the communication between those two and how compatible everything is, is still left to be seen. I'm pretty sure in fact that most devices will not work as smooth, as the demonstrated switch between an installed movie-live-sports-app and a game running on the Xbox.
The main issue I see is that the Xbox is simply too late to the party. If we didn't have tablets or smartphones capable of all these wonderful things, then I'm sure people would be a lot more excited about the concept of using your TV for everything, instead of going into a different room to turn on the huge PC to skype, browse or chat. Even laptops have limited appeal for these things in a living room besides their size advantage. The tablet changed this.
Tablet make it easy to conviniently browse the web, use various chat programs (including skype), to manage basic office documents, even watch television or look at digitalized photo albums. Because of this, the need to do these things on a TV screen has effectively decreased. Why wouldn't it? Doing this on a TV through voice commands, or a game controller is flimsy - and the biggest inherent disadvantage is that for most of us, the TV screen is either too small or too far away to effectively use well for web surfing etc. You might have a full HD screen there, but what good is that pixel accuracy when browsing the web if you're sitting 10+ feet away and your screen is only 46" size (a modest size for todays standards)?
The best thing would be, to find a way to integrate your Xbox well in what you and most people already have in their livingrooms. Not try to replace devices, but work better with them. Microsoft has a strong ability to do that, with their Windows 8 platform, the Windows 8 phones and Windows 8 tablets etc - but somehow, that link and how all these programs could work together well with eachother hasn't been shown yet. That is their main advantage - not some flimsy kinect app switching.
Apple actually has it right in their commercials. One platform and the ability to sync everything across all platforms, regardless if it's the iMac, the iBook, the iPhone or the iPad. Take a picture with your iPhone and its immediately accessable on all your devices. Nice. Not saying that this is different on the Microsoft platforms, but Apple actually goes through a lot of effort to emphasize these features in peoples minds. And I don't even own any Apple product mind you.
Platform synergy is a powerful thing - and IMO the biggest advantage Microsoft has to get itself into the livingroom and have some kind of impact. It's the one thing Sony can only achieve through going with an Android based phone, and even there, actually integrating your phone into a network of other devices through some app is a lot less impressive than if you have a Windows 8 phone that integrates and works together with all Windows 8 devices. The only problem? Well, Windows 8 isn't exactly as widespread as Apple or Android.
My main issue with the reveal and the business approach seems to be, that the Xbox one is supposed to be that one device that links all together. I actually like the idea that kinect could be the missing link to offer us a revolutionary way of controlling the device - and my setup with a huge projected screen would be perfect to get a minority report-esque vibe.
The problem is IMO that the Xbox One is the wrong device for this. It's not the center of the living room of most living rooms, because it makes far more sense for it to be some AV receiver. Why? Because most people like the idea to play the sound of their television program through the stereo system with surround sound. Or have a CD player connected to it, a analog or digital radio tuner, some device to play movies (could be a DVD or a Bluray player, or a XBMC box or variant) and to those also into games, also a game-console.
Now, Xbox one may offer a great and exclusive way on how to control it through Kinect. Sure. But it IMO doesn't offer the required number of interfaces to effectively replace your AV receiver as the main source input switch. It offers the most basic means to work with a AV receiver, but the communication between those two and how compatible everything is, is still left to be seen. I'm pretty sure in fact that most devices will not work as smooth, as the demonstrated switch between an installed movie-live-sports-app and a game running on the Xbox.
The main issue I see is that the Xbox is simply too late to the party. If we didn't have tablets or smartphones capable of all these wonderful things, then I'm sure people would be a lot more excited about the concept of using your TV for everything, instead of going into a different room to turn on the huge PC to skype, browse or chat. Even laptops have limited appeal for these things in a living room besides their size advantage. The tablet changed this.
Tablet make it easy to conviniently browse the web, use various chat programs (including skype), to manage basic office documents, even watch television or look at digitalized photo albums. Because of this, the need to do these things on a TV screen has effectively decreased. Why wouldn't it? Doing this on a TV through voice commands, or a game controller is flimsy - and the biggest inherent disadvantage is that for most of us, the TV screen is either too small or too far away to effectively use well for web surfing etc. You might have a full HD screen there, but what good is that pixel accuracy when browsing the web if you're sitting 10+ feet away and your screen is only 46" size (a modest size for todays standards)?
The best thing would be, to find a way to integrate your Xbox well in what you and most people already have in their livingrooms. Not try to replace devices, but work better with them. Microsoft has a strong ability to do that, with their Windows 8 platform, the Windows 8 phones and Windows 8 tablets etc - but somehow, that link and how all these programs could work together well with eachother hasn't been shown yet. That is their main advantage - not some flimsy kinect app switching.
Apple actually has it right in their commercials. One platform and the ability to sync everything across all platforms, regardless if it's the iMac, the iBook, the iPhone or the iPad. Take a picture with your iPhone and its immediately accessable on all your devices. Nice. Not saying that this is different on the Microsoft platforms, but Apple actually goes through a lot of effort to emphasize these features in peoples minds. And I don't even own any Apple product mind you.
Platform synergy is a powerful thing - and IMO the biggest advantage Microsoft has to get itself into the livingroom and have some kind of impact. It's the one thing Sony can only achieve through going with an Android based phone, and even there, actually integrating your phone into a network of other devices through some app is a lot less impressive than if you have a Windows 8 phone that integrates and works together with all Windows 8 devices. The only problem? Well, Windows 8 isn't exactly as widespread as Apple or Android.
Presume much? I've had a PlayStation 3 since the BC model.
Every person that has ever purchased an NFL ticket package...ever? EDIT: You can't listen to music and chat...at the same time...you're going to need a different analogy or else every party or coffeeshop in existence would be offered as proof that many/most people can do exactly that.
The more I read through this thread, I am wondering if there is some general disconnect between how television/sports are consumed in the States vs other locales. I'm not suggesting one is better than the other, simply, different. I mean we have multiple hours per day/week dedicated to Fantasy leagues and if you've never seen/experienced it, you would naturally be indifferent and not understand why there is potential for MS' strategic alliances to be a big deal. I'm not suggesting that fantasy football is a 1:1 equivalent of SONY and UEFA but I AM suggesting that the NFL is a MAJOR deal even from only a co-marketing standpoint and I say that to mean that even if MSFT only had a deal with the NFL and nothing with EA that it is still a very important deal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps the problem is that you really need a modern AV receiver with built-in HDMI-CEC in order for the demo that Microsoft showed off to really work the way they showed off, but for the few people who do have such a compatible setup, it'll be awesome.
or cable box. and pretty much thats it.
The AVR setup could be somewhat tricky i'll admit. A friend and i were trying to decide whether the AVR would recieve the XB1s output or be an input source. Dunno.
How many visions of the future have a TV remote? Practically none. The ideal of not having to use a remote to control your living room is a very compelling feature.
Who doesnt like the ideal of going to get a snack or a drink and telling your console to load a game as you pass by and then having it already at the start screen when you sit down with some beer and peanuts?
Does anyone here push for a reality where in the PC space, functionality is broaden by connecting multiple devices to your display. Where sound cards and tv tuner cards are devices that all have their own GUI and you simply hit a button on your universal keyboard to move from device to device. You can even argue that setup is more efficient because its easier than navigating through a bunch keyboard strokes.
However, people like a unified experience and if anything the XB1 doesnt go far enough with its TV integration. It should have multiple hdmi AV inputs and outputs to facillitate the control of multiple devices. Also, it should offer the ability to drop multiple devices from your living room space. It should allow multiple configs to accommodate users who have varying desires and need.
The is a reason why the last couple of a explosions of new technology wasnt readily predicted. The mainstream likes simplicity and wants features that are provided as simply and intuitively as possible. Accommodating a broad feature set using 3-4 devices all with their own way of servicing a user's needs leads to a convoluted experience to anyone who isnt motivated to to be knowledgeable enough to make use of the hardware.
Just because its good enough for you doesnt mean its good enough for everybody.
Who doesnt like the ideal of going to get a snack or a drink and telling your console to load a game as you pass by and then having it already at the start screen when you sit down with some beer and peanuts?
Does anyone here push for a reality where in the PC space, functionality is broaden by connecting multiple devices to your display. Where sound cards and tv tuner cards are devices that all have their own GUI and you simply hit a button on your universal keyboard to move from device to device. You can even argue that setup is more efficient because its easier than navigating through a bunch keyboard strokes.
However, people like a unified experience and if anything the XB1 doesnt go far enough with its TV integration. It should have multiple hdmi AV inputs and outputs to facillitate the control of multiple devices. Also, it should offer the ability to drop multiple devices from your living room space. It should allow multiple configs to accommodate users who have varying desires and need.
The is a reason why the last couple of a explosions of new technology wasnt readily predicted. The mainstream likes simplicity and wants features that are provided as simply and intuitively as possible. Accommodating a broad feature set using 3-4 devices all with their own way of servicing a user's needs leads to a convoluted experience to anyone who isnt motivated to to be knowledgeable enough to make use of the hardware.
Just because its good enough for you doesnt mean its good enough for everybody.
I think the only way for the overlay to work is if it's directly in between the TV and the AV receiver. As far as controlling inputs, the XB1 can directly control both the TV and the AV Receiver and switch to any input as long as its part of the chain.
I believe the IR blasters will be used for everyone else though I definitely see the IR blaster setup being a huge headache for many plus the different naming conventions based on mfr. I don't use CEC at all in my setup just my Harmony remote RF/IR and I have probably a 90% success rate with it but its frustrating as hell when it doesn't work properly. I can see all types of complaints coming MSFTs way with this type of setup. They better have a damn good setup video...
