Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[MrFox]

If Xbox One end being successful, and Sony do not implement some DRM in games, can't it be harmful for PS4? Xbox One could be preferred by some publishers.

Maybe, if a publisher decides to fight and screw up their own business. As soon as there's a userbase to support the cost of a port (which will be extremely easy from xbone to PS4), used games don't matter enough to skip that console. The jury is still out about whether an anti-used games will make money or alienate consumers enough to lose more business. They have to spend more in publicity because they'll lose both the word of mouth spread, and the naturally tiered pricing. Public backlash cost reputation, and loss of reputation cost money. Bad business decisions happen when the bean counters are unable to understand the human aspect of their business.

Less than 2 weeks left until E3, after that it's over, we'll have to swallow what they give us.

There's nothing stopping a publisher from implementing their own stupid anti-used games on any console. What they want is that everybody does it at the console level, so they don't look like bad guys, it has to become the norm and inescapable.

 

[AlphaWolf]

You could have user presets with audio level as well. There's really no limit to the way you could have your kinect work there's no reason you need be limited to anything as long as their interface can parse meanings, why would it need to be. I'd love to be able to program different volumes for every channel, because they aren't all the same, add an option for louder (10% more), quiet (50% volume) and mute and that would probably be good enought for me. There's no reason to be limited to a few commands like a remote. I probably wouldn't throw my remote out right away, but if they do it right and allow features like that... It would probably be rare that I would touch it.

A simple phrase should be able to emulate any macro you could make for a harmony remote in my opinion. I don't know that it will, but if it has that functionality, people will use it.

 

[NavNucST3]

Right, but what about my example? How do you control volume? Do you give fractional amount, "Xbox, volume down 30%"? Or keeping pushing in a direction? "Xbox volume down. Down more. A bit more. Stop."?

I don't think voice control is a universal replacement. I don't think, "Xbox, change channel, sixteen" is any better than typing 16 on the remote. "Xbox, change channel, BBC one HD" is better, but I consider the improvement marginal. I'm sure a proportion of people will love it, but I remain unconvinced it'll be a ubiquitously preferable feature.

Shifty, I'm not sure why this would differ much from the current transport controls. I currently say, "xbox rewind" it starts rewinding at 2x I can then say, "faster" (4x) "faster" (8x) "faster" (16x). For the forward transport control it is "xbox fast forward...faster...faster...faster" all the way to 128x and then its just a simple matter of "play" or pause. The 360/Kinect stays in listen mode throughout the duration of this sequence thus requiring only the initial "XBOX,..."

IF the commands can traverse the AVR then "xbox volume down" should start the lowering and "faster" "slower" "stop" should be viable commands like the transport controls.

 

[warb]

Side note:
What's to stop Sony from integrating the voice/hand interaction with their AVR's? Instead of insta-switching between 2 hdmi's, they could insta-switch with 4+, thus one upping xbone and all while not charging a monthly fee.

/slightly offtopic

I just think the value proposition with xbone is centered around technologies which are easily replicable by their competition (and without the anti-consumer policies).

What's left is a weak version of a ps4 but with the "advantage" of paying monthly fees.

X1 will probably be lightyears ahead of PS4 with its OS and itegration of features, to begin with, if we go by 360/PS3. This is Microsoft. They had much better exclusive content for years too, and it looks like they're spending big on games again, focusing on X1. There's not much coming up on 360.

The camera/kinect is better. That will shift a few units.

 

[MrFox]

X1 one will probably be lightyears ahead of PS4 with its OS and itegration of features, to begin with, if we go by 360/PS3. This is Microsoft. They had much better exclusive content for years too, and it looks like they're spending big on games again, focusing on X1. There's not much coming up on 360.

The camera/kinect is better. That will shift a few units.

That misleading and biased argument goes both ways.

Xbone will probably be plagued with RROD issues for the first year, if we go by 360/ps3.
The console that was easier to code for had more games on release, so this time it will be the PS4.

 

[Tap In]

oh boy.... getting frosty in here guys.

 

[MrFox]

Sony's VP of publisher and developer relations now said the NoDRM campaign is working pretty well and he's calling it powerful and humbling. The big corporate poker play seems to be happening pretty much right now.

http://www.gameranx.com/updates/id/14982/article/sony-pr-ps4-no-drm-campaign-working-pretty-well/

 

[ninzel]

To add to that, would it simplistic to say that no DRM seems to be working just fine for the music industry so why not the gaming industry.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Yes ps4 games will be drm free and in other news Sony stock will be equally useful as wall paper or toilet paper.

 

[XpiderMX]

If Microsoft goes to DRM games, with restricted second hand and no game trade in, and the PS4 games will be DRM-free, then the games price can't be the same in both.

 

[MrFox]

Yes ps4 games will be drm free and in other news Sony stock will be equally useful as wall paper or toilet paper.

Depends on what you call DRM. Lack of online DRM doesn't mean it can't have a robust Copy Protection.

With the NoDRM campaign, we are asking Sony to keep the same copy protection model as they used on the PS3, and expressed anger at Microsoft's solution. It doesn't preclude BDmark anti-piracy, nor a DRM scheme for disc less distribution models, or NoCD playing. The only things at stakes here are anti-used games, media ownership versus license, and planned obsolescence.

What do you think will happen, business wise, if they refuse to implement the same aggressive DRM as microsoft?
I can tell you what I think will happen to Microsoft, they will be forced to drop it.

 

[BRiT]

What do you think will happen, business wise, if they refuse to implement the same aggressive DRM as microsoft?
I can tell you what I think will happen the other way around, it's Microsoft who will be forced to drop it.

I do not think that the publishers and Microsoft will drop it.

The publishers will then be forced to go with 1-time activation codes on the Sony platform.

You merely get to pick the flavor of your poison -- a robust license activation/deactivation system or the 1 time activation codes system.

 

[MrFox]

I do not think that the publishers and Microsoft will drop it.

The publishers will then be forced to go with 1-time activation codes on the Sony platform.

You merely get to pick the flavor of your poison -- a robust license activation/deactivation system or the 1 time activation codes system.

Well of course they'll try it anyway, but the gamble is how much it will impact sales on a system which makes it obvious (instead of ubiquitous), and the hope is that it will not be worth the public backlash. I remember the fight we had against divx, maybe those days are long gone.

I don't have any games with a 1-time activation code, except for online multiplayer.... was there any of those for single player games on PS3?

 

[AlphaWolf]

I do not think that the publishers and Microsoft will drop it.

The publishers will then be forced to go with 1-time activation codes on the Sony platform.

You merely get to pick the flavor of your poison -- a robust license activation/deactivation system or the 1 time activation codes system.

Yep. Ubi, Activision and EA aren't going drm free. How Sony differs from MS remains to be seen, but saying you're listening is a long way from doing anything even if the choice were completely theirs.

 

[MrFox]

Yep. Ubi, Activision and EA aren't going drm free. How Sony differs from MS remains to be seen, but saying you're listening is a long way from doing anything even if the choice were completely theirs.

It's only 3 companies to boycott at launch... not too bad considering the number of AAA first parties we'll have.
I think the market and gaming crowd are different on the two platforms. They can't act the same way on both. The most profitable business model on one might not be the same as the most profitable model on the other.

 

[XpiderMX]

It's only 3 companies to boycott at launch... not too bad considering the number of AAA first parties we'll have.
I think the market and gaming crowd are different on the two platforms. They can't act the same way on both. The most profitable business model on one might not be the same as the most profitable model on the other.

But third party support is important for a console.

 

[wco81]

I do not think that the publishers and Microsoft will drop it.

The publishers will then be forced to go with 1-time activation codes on the Sony platform.

You merely get to pick the flavor of your poison -- a robust license activation/deactivation system or the 1 time activation codes system.

Why would the publishers be pushing this exactly?

Are they claiming to be hurt by piracy with the current generation?

The main complaint was that they're not getting any cut of second-hand games sales, I thought.

Already, EA has said they're dropping the online pass, which was their main scheme for capturing second-hand games revenues -- probably because few people bothered.

Do you think EA and others will force second-hand games to be activated with a fee to play at all if Sony doesn't put in some system-level scheme?

That could be an interesting control experiment. Will the sales and overall revenues of those publishers who employ such DRM be greater than those who do not? The metric wouldn't be COD vs. some small game. It would be what COD sales were before and after the DRM.

 

[AlphaWolf]

If EA wants drm on their titles I expect they'll get it. It's billions in royalties over the course of the life of the console.

Dropping online pass could well just be the result of having something better in the wings.

 

[wco81]

Billions from what, getting additional monies from second-hand games?

You don't think a higher prices on second hand games because of some other fees to use used games will reduce demand for those used games?

Or that being unable to re-sell games will impact sales of new games?

Why is there a big second-hand games market in the first place? Because the prices of new games are too high for many people. Why pay $60 for a game that gives you 10-15 hours of game play when you can pick up the game for $10-$20 less off eBay or Craigslist, with the only thing missing being the shrink wrap?

 

[XpiderMX]

Why would the publishers be pushing this exactly?

Are they claiming to be hurt by piracy with the current generation?

The main complaint was that they're not getting any cut of second-hand games sales, I thought.

Already, EA has said they're dropping the online pass, which was their main scheme for capturing second-hand games revenues -- probably because few people bothered.

Do you think EA and others will force second-hand games to be activated with a fee to play at all if Sony doesn't put in some system-level scheme?

That could be an interesting control experiment. Will the sales and overall revenues of those publishers who employ such DRM be greater than those who do not? The metric wouldn't be COD vs. some small game. It would be what COD sales were before and after the DRM.

Piracy is not the issue, they are going for the second hand. If EA drop the online pass it was not because "few people bothered", it was because they know next gen consoles will allow some DRM, with DRM the online pass is not necessary.

Why is there a big second-hand games market in the first place? Because the prices of new games are too high for many people. Why pay $60 for a game that gives you 10-15 hours of game play when you can pick up the game for $10-$20 less off eBay or Craigslist, with the only thing missing being the shrink wrap?

All is related, publishers want to receive some money from the second hand.