Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[dobwal]

Except you can't do any of Xbox One's fabulous multimedia things without it, while Sony only paywalls multiplayer. If you're not really a hard core gamer, but are interested in Xbox One as a convergence device you aren't going to be keen that you have to pay $60 a year for the entire life of the device just to keep them from locking out Netflix, HBO Go and Fantasy Football. Xbox One can't "go mainstream" with Gold the way it is.

If you aren't a core gamer than likely you aren't purchasing a lot of games which is used to subsidize the low cost of the hardware that comes with low to negative margins.

I rather have all the ancillary features behind the pay wall than multiplayer, as its a feature that that can make the most justification for not being behind a paywall. Only SP can make a greater argument.

 

[McHuj]

In order to replace the 100% working remote though, it needs to work flawless. .

I wish they had gone with an approach for Kinect to augment and not replace a remote control. If they had shipped a universal remote that is very simple (maybe like the Apple TV one) with buttons for only the basic stuff like channel, volume, power, guide and then focused the voice commands on just the stuff that requires much more input and menu navigation, I think it would have been a better winning combo.

It seems to be the same pattern as with Kinect 1.0. It's the "you are the controller" message. When that proved to be a failure, they moved to more reasonable stance of using the kinect to augment controller based games. It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up with a simpler approach in the end for the TV stuff.

 

[blakjedi]

I wish they had gone with an approach for Kinect to augment and not replace a remote control. If they had shipped a universal remote that is very simple (maybe like the Apple TV one) with buttons for only the basic stuff like channel, volume, power, guide and then focused the voice commands on just the stuff that requires much more input and menu navigation, I think it would have been a better winning combo.

It seems to be the same pattern as with Kinect 1.0. It's the "you are the controller" message. When that proved to be a failure, they moved to more reasonable stance of using the kinect to augment controller based games. It wouldn't surprise me if they ended up with a simpler approach in the end for the TV stuff.

Logitech is working on gettin gtheir remotes to work with Xbox One on day one (doubt it but still)

http://microsoft-news.com/logitech-working-with-microsoft-to-make-harmony-work-for-xbox-one/

 

[dobwal]

Why the comparisons to Apple TV? That's a media streamer, doing nothing that people aren't doing on other devices generally. It doesn't integrate with your TV, doesn't provide a guide, doesn't provide video chat overlays, doesn't search for content by name, nor change channels by name. XB1's TV aspect is unique and fairly compelling for a significant part of the population IMO. Not $500 compelling, but certainly "would like to have" compelling.

Whats closer from a competition standpoint? Google TV? That has even worse adoption.

If the TV aspect isn't any different to other devices that aren't popular, then one can only assume these features aren't of any great interest to the XB1 audience. At which point they're being asked to pay $500 for a console that's providing lower quality games than the $100 rival. If XB1 is worth the asking price to anyone, it'll be chiefly because the extended media functionality is worth something as that's a significant USP. So I don't see how the media functionality can be considered worthless and unable to compete as a standalone product with other simple boxes when it's offering something unique (auto login, voice control, TV integration, video phone like the movies) and yet that functionality is something chief to XB1 being able to shift many millions of consoles at its present $500 pricetag.

No. As I said many times. WinMo and Blackberry did nothing to show how willing general consumers would adopt the iOS and Android based smartphones.

The success of the iphone doesn't mean Apple could of just offered a feature phone and would of experience the same level of success of the iphone with the sales of that phone combined with the ipod touch sales.

There is more value in having one device that serve many functions versus offering multiple devices with each serving a subsets of those functions. General consumers don't tend to like to piece meal together functionality.

I'd think most would like a TV landscape more akin to the PC space where one device serves many functions versus an even deeper quagmire of what we have now. Adding more devices to plethora of devices that can go under the TV to serve specific functions.

I think consolidation in the AV space is the future not greater fragmentation. The move in that direction will start with imperfect devices that will get better over time.

 

[wco81]

I read one review where the guy has hooked up his Direct TV DVR to the X1 and it can change channels and turn on his TV and receiver (which is the last chain before the X1 to the TV).

That part sounds slick, but I believe they have to use IR blasters for that setup (one each for the TV and the receiver?).

But he said that Kinect didn't know anything about his recordings so if he wanted to view any recording, he'd have to use his DVR remote.

If you have a DVR, hang on to those remotes.

On my Tivo remote, I press the 30-second skip 5 or 6 times to skip commercial breaks. I can press that 5 or 6 times in a second. Compare that to what, telling Kinect "Skip, skip, skip, skip, skip?"

Or maybe "Xbox, skip ahead 3 minutes?"

That wouldn't be too smooth. I can press the skip button faster than that.

Like I said, if they really want to bring something new to TV, they have to disrupt the distribution model. A la carte programming, full on-demand viewing via IPTV, etc.

But to be fair, no tech company has been able to break the stranglehold that the networks and cable TV companies have on TV. Nor will they ever be able to, unless they get into TV content production, as Netflix and now Amazon Video have started to do.

 

[Scott_Arm]

That's why they allow you to add "app channels" to your guide. So your live tv over cable is listed and accessed the same way as VOD. As the transition happens over the next 10 years, they already have the two experiences integrated.

 

[dobwal]

I read one review where the guy has hooked up his Direct TV DVR to the X1 and it can change channels and turn on his TV and receiver (which is the last chain before the X1 to the TV).

That part sounds slick, but I believe they have to use IR blasters for that setup (one each for the TV and the receiver?).

But he said that Kinect didn't know anything about his recordings so if he wanted to view any recording, he'd have to use his DVR remote.

If you have a DVR, hang on to those remotes.

On my Tivo remote, I press the 30-second skip 5 or 6 times to skip commercial breaks. I can press that 5 or 6 times in a second. Compare that to what, telling Kinect "Skip, skip, skip, skip, skip?"

Or maybe "Xbox, skip ahead 3 minutes?"

That wouldn't be too smooth. I can press the skip button faster than that.

Like I said, if they really want to bring something new to TV, they have to disrupt the distribution model. A la carte programming, full on-demand viewing via IPTV, etc.

But to be fair, no tech company has been able to break the stranglehold that the networks and cable TV companies have on TV. Nor will they ever be able to, unless they get into TV content production, as Netflix and now Amazon Video have started to do.

No the Xbox One doesn't have to know anything about his DVR recordings. The XB1 just needs the ability to act as his DVR remote. What does a universal remote know about your DVR recordings? Under such scenario the XB1 would be no more than a voice controlled remote navigating a foreign UI, which might not be the most compelling way to navigate.

 

[Brad Grenz]

If you aren't a core gamer than likely you aren't purchasing a lot of games which is used to subsidize the low cost of the hardware that comes with low to negative margins.

They are selling Xbox One at a profitable price point. Look, the Xbox One can't have it both ways. If it wants to exploit a vast, untapped mass market with appealing media features, it can't simultaneously insist on charging for access to services Microsoft doesn't provide in a manner those potential customers will find hostile. Hardcore gamers were the ones that made Xbox Live Gold a viable revenue stream, but they're chasing a lot of those people to PlayStation as they try to go after a broader market where the Gold paywall simply will not fly.

 

[Arwin]

I wholeheartedly agree with that. They should make it an ecosystem like Apple's, and benefit from content delivery only. They can still charge for online gaming services if they must, but the Apps shouldn't be part of it.

 

[Cyan]

I also kinda agree. I am on for the new approach because it's in line with what I want, more of an ecosystem where I can everything I like, but some apps should be free from the get go because core gamers are slowly migrating from the looks of things and the revenue from Xbox Live Gold may weaken afterwards.

Besides that, some of the new people using the environment probably won't like to have a paywall for some things.

The future looks fascinating, whatever happens this generation. Let's see how everything pans out.

 

[bkilian]

They are selling Xbox One at a profitable price point. Look, the Xbox One can't have it both ways. If it wants to exploit a vast, untapped mass market with appealing media features, it can't simultaneously insist on charging for access to services Microsoft doesn't provide in a manner those potential customers will find hostile. Hardcore gamers were the ones that made Xbox Live Gold a viable revenue stream, but they're chasing a lot of those people to PlayStation as they try to go after a broader market where the Gold paywall simply will not fly.

Why not? My TiVo is a brick without the $15 a month payment, and they provide less value-add than gold does with it's $5 a month charge.

 

[Nesh]

Why not? My TiVo is a brick without the $15 a month payment, and they provide less value-add than gold does with it's $5 a month charge.

With the Xbox One you pay for the hardware, the gold subscription plus any other subscription hidden behind the pay wall plus you can't access what the consumer knows it's free unless he subscribes with Gold

 

[bkilian]

With the Xbox One you pay for the hardware, the gold subscription plus any other subscription hidden behind the pay wall plus you can't access what the consumer knows it's free unless he subscribes with Gold

Same with the TiVo. Without paying the TiVo subscription, you can't access Netflix, Hulu or Amazon video. You can't record shows or anything. It is a brick. And you pay for the hardware, I just payed $350 for my new one coming today, and I got a discount. They range up to $600. At least on the Xbox, you can still play games.

 

[wco81]

I paid for the Lifetime on my Roamio Plus.

Going by previous Tivos, you can recover a lot of the costs when you resell Tivos with Lifetime subscriptions.

So there is residual value there.

Plus, Comcast charges $16.95 a month for using their crappy Motorola DVRs. So it makes the Tivo service charges or Lifetimes easier to take.

 

[dobwal]

They are selling Xbox One at a profitable price point. Look, the Xbox One can't have it both ways. If it wants to exploit a vast, untapped mass market with appealing media features, it can't simultaneously insist on charging for access to services Microsoft doesn't provide in a manner those potential customers will find hostile. Hardcore gamers were the ones that made Xbox Live Gold a viable revenue stream, but they're chasing a lot of those people to PlayStation as they try to go after a broader market where the Gold paywall simply will not fly.

When selling a product its not just a simple matter of being profitable. How much profit matter and is no different than your willingness to perform any particular service is dependent on the salary being offered for that service.

Furthermore, we live in a world where smartphones has been one of the fastest growing as well as one of the largest most profitable market in the last five years. All while being way more exploitative in nature than what Xb1 proposes in terms of profit generation. Apple and phone carriers can use the iphone to extract thousands of dollars over a two year time period just so most users can play angry birds on their phones. They do this because users find value in the iphone even though feature phones offer far cheaper plans even with a data plan attached and devices like an ipod touch or a gps devices can be had for far lower costs to their users.

Whether MS can have it both ways is dependent on what the market will bear. No more no less. And Live has thrived as a service even though most of the complaints of paying for multiplayer didn't come from the mainstream it came from us. As paying for Live was readily used here and other places as a negative not a positive.

 

[joker454]

As paying for Live was readily used here and other places as a negative not a positive.

That's an important point to make. To people like me, paying for Live was a positive not a negative. I did not want a free service. Free to me means it will be crappy, neglected, an afterthought, optional, or just plain terrible. Because after all it's free, there's less incentive for the owner to improve it. That's why personally I'm not interested in free services because they will likely suck compared to paid services. With paid services there is at least some pressure on the owner of the service to continually improve it and make sure it's at the top of it's game. Perfect, that's exactly what I'm looking for. I have no interest in a free substandard service, they can keep it. Free is not a positive to me, it's a negative. I want a paid service that offers a quality experience, I don't want to waste my time with crap.

 

[RudeCurve]

Yep free vs $3 a month is not that big of a deal especially when you factor in the perks.

 

[bkilian]

I paid for the Lifetime on my Roamio Plus.

Going by previous Tivos, you can recover a lot of the costs when you resell Tivos with Lifetime subscriptions.

So there is residual value there.

Plus, Comcast charges $16.95 a month for using their crappy Motorola DVRs. So it makes the Tivo service charges or Lifetimes easier to take.

Yeah, I tried to convince them to transfer my lifetime over from my defunct Series 3, which was transferred from my original series 1, but they wouldn't.

 

[Brad Grenz]

Why not? My TiVo is a brick without the $15 a month payment, and they provide less value-add than gold does with it's $5 a month charge.

TiVo's business model isn't exactly flourishing. If Microsoft is looking at them as a model they are in more trouble than I thought.

 

[dobwal]

TiVo's business model isn't exactly flourishing. If Microsoft is looking at them as a model they are in more trouble than I thought.

If you haven't notice selling hardware tied to subscriptions exists for far larger and healthier markets than gaming.

I am not a fan of such models but then again buying consoles with 30-50% profit margins isn't a compelling proposition either (even though I would chose it over a subscription based model).

There is always the Google route, but who wants ad invested GUIs with console cameras that are trying to collect as much relevant advertising info as possible?

XBOX Live
Brought to you by Tampax

Imagine that as a splash screen.