Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

Okay. I'm not in favour of that meself, preferring good old buttons as more direct and responsive, or a motion interface. Tapping the PS3's shoulder button three times to skip ahead quickly is faster than saying, "Xbox, fast forward, faster, faster," and I value that immediacy. I'll be perfectly happy with any box that provides a conventional interface. If I were to get XB1, I'd rather have a really swish Surface interface, navigating schedules by touch and having options appear.

Sorry, Shifty but I completely disagree, well, mostly. If you are talking about a controller it is only faster if and when the controller is actually on. Even if it IS on, my voice is still faster when I hop out of my seat and say, "xbox pause" than grabbing my controller and then double-tapping "A" (again this assuming the controller is on). Maybe I'm just completely different than all of you but I don't walk around my condo with either my remote or my controller when heading to the bathroom or while cooking or when just moving about, even when not doing those things my controller or even my remote control always seem to be...where I'm not...old-school habit of tossing the remote or controller to the side. Side-note, though it is absent in Netflix the 360 does have some apps, like Video Marketplace, where you can chapter skip through voice as well (the equivalent of the bumpers).

I also find theres some cognitive dissonance going on with gamers with respect to "easier" it is as if the complaints about controllers being difficult to use the "too many buttons" aren't heard (the same is true for universal remotes which is why touch-screens came about). The number or people in my circle that stare at the buttons of a universal or even single product remote control is amazing, hell, I still have to do that in my sons room since he doesn't have a Harmony remote. Separate from this, if it stands to reason that most people don't have completely illuminated remotes then would it also stand to reason that using them in the dark is more difficult, for what some already deem a difficult device, to use?

What I really, Really, REALLY find amazing is that many of you are under the impression that some very large number of people are even going to take the time to learn which button to depress to do which action...have you never experienced, "it tells you on the screen what to push, push Y, Push Y, PUSH Y...THE YELLOW ONE!!!" but somehow push RB1 three times is going to be "easy".
 
Sorry, Shifty but I completely disagree, well, mostly. If you are talking about a controller it is only faster if and when the controller is actually on. Even if it IS on, my voice is still faster when I hop out of my seat and say, "xbox pause" than grabbing my controller and then double-tapping "A" (again this assuming the controller is on). Maybe I'm just completely different than all of you but I don't walk around my condo with either my remote or my controller when heading to the bathroom or while cooking or when just moving about, even when not doing those things my controller or even my remote control always seem to be...where I'm not...old-school habit of tossing the remote or controller to the side. Side-note, though it is absent in Netflix the 360 does have some apps, like Video Marketplace, where you can chapter skip through voice as well (the equivalent of the bumpers).

I also find theres some cognitive dissonance going on with gamers with respect to "easier" it is as if the complaints about controllers being difficult to use the "too many buttons" aren't heard (the same is true for universal remotes which is why touch-screens came about). The number or people in my circle that stare at the buttons of a universal or even single product remote control is amazing, hell, I still have to do that in my sons room since he doesn't have a Harmony remote. Separate from this, if it stands to reason that most people don't have completely illuminated remotes then would it also stand to reason that using them in the dark is more difficult, for what some already deem a difficult device, to use?

What I really, Really, REALLY find amazing is that many of you are under the impression that some very large number of people are even going to take the time to learn which button to depress to do which action...have you never experienced, "it tells you on the screen what to push, push Y, Push Y, PUSH Y...THE YELLOW ONE!!!" but somehow push RB1 three times is going to be "easy".

NavNuc i completely agree with you. Remotes are a hassle. Voice control if at all possible is the way forward with the option to use the controllers. BTW gaming controllers suck for controlling media.
 
Saying "Skip 5 minutes ahead" is a far better experience than triple tapping fast forward and waiting. What about something more complicated like "Skip to the 1 hour and 34 minute mark"? There's no button on a remote for that! And when you have the power of the cloud, you can get even more awesome commands like "Show me all the scenes with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts in Iron Man 2". I'd like to see a remote do that!

Voice commands != natural user interface. The former has been around for years, the latter is far more powerful.
 
Sorry, Shifty but I completely disagree, well, mostly...What I really, Really, REALLY find amazing is that many of you are under the impression that some very large number of people are even going to take the time to learn which button to depress to do which action...have you never experienced, "it tells you on the screen what to push, push Y, Push Y, PUSH Y...THE YELLOW ONE!!!" but somehow push RB1 three times is going to be "easy".
Firstly I was giving my personal opinion - a controller is easier in most cases. I know for some of the techno-illiterate mums and dads out there, talking to the computer/TV will be great, although I also know plenty of people using vague and uncertain language to communicate. Whatever, that's a problem for Kinect. If it works, it works, but I still won't like it. ;)

But my interests are clearly tied to my media consumption behaviour. I only want to control the TV/digibox when I set in the living room. The remote or PS3 controller is on the chair arm. I pick it up and press buttons. Finding 'that film with that guy who was in that film with Kevin Bacon when he was killing space worms' is not going to be easy with a controller, and Kinect could be a huge improvement there. But for everyday TV interfacing, I'm not seeing the appeal. Note I am making that distinction. I waded in when dobwal suggested everyone would like to use voice control to control their living room. I don't know anyone who has trouble using a current digibox to find what's on and set up series records. It's not like the days of programming VCRs! So the benefits of voice control don't seem a significant draw and something to bet the platform on IMO.

PS3's controls also aren't intuitive. I have no problem with them, but I can understand how people will. However, we're talking next-gen here, and I expect other interfaces. I expect hand-waving controls as well as button controls. Is PS4 offers everything XB1 does without voice control but with some other really nice interface, I don't think it'll negatively impact sales.
 
Saying "Skip 5 minutes ahead" is a far better experience than triple tapping fast forward and waiting. What about something more complicated like "Skip to the 1 hour and 34 minute mark"? There's no button on a remote for that! And when you have the power of the cloud, you can get even more awesome commands like "Show me all the scenes with Tony Stark and Pepper Potts in Iron Man 2". I'd like to see a remote do that!

Voice commands != natural user interface. The former has been around for years, the latter is far more powerful.

Are we sure Xbone will be able to FF ahead by specific amounts?

Isn't it going to have to use IR boasters in a lot of cases?
 
Are we sure Xbone will be able to FF ahead by specific amounts?

Isn't it going to have to use IR boasters in a lot of cases?

Not if you are streaming media to the xbox itself or using the blueray... if your cable box has HDMI -CEC then you shouldnt need it either...
 
Are we sure Xbone will be able to FF ahead by specific amounts?

Isn't it going to have to use IR boasters in a lot of cases?

Obviously it's going to be limited to the abilities of the box it's controlling. Hopefully those boxes stuck in the 90s will take a step or two forward with the advent of X1. Zune and netflix (and other digital) apps could have really advanced control options out of the gate if they desire.

I expect it's going to evolve quite a bit over the generation.
 
I think a lot of core gamers out there (especially Sony and Nintendo fans) don't understand the Xbox One offering that MS has decided to put together, and therefore misconstrue some of their decisions as stupid.

MS entered the business to gain a major share of household entertainment revenue. Games are only a part of that picture, a beach-head really.

In other words, if you aren't someone who spends money on entertainment then MS doesn't care about you. Period.

Taken a step further, if you only want free networking (ala PSN) and aren't willing to pay for Live or other micro transactions, then MS doesn't care much about you either.

To that end they've basically created a box designed for the customer they want. The kind of customer that will use cable tv or satellite, buy games, get family oriented products etc... In other words, the kind of customer that will spend money, not whine about used game DRM, always online, and other nonsense.

The very fact that MS loses money on each unit sold means they don't even want to sell a console to that person. Let Sony have that cheap guy.

Imagine that Sony or MS have to spend $100 (hardware loss) + $50 in marketing and incentives = $150 to sell a console.

Take customer A that: Bought a PS3 and 20 games (which is considered a high attach rate) and maybe generated $200 in licensing fee/gaming revenue. So the net gain for that customer is $50.

Take customer B that: Bought an X360 and 5 games (a low attach rate), but signed up for Xbox Live for 5 years, thus generating $50 in licensing/gaming revenue but $300 in Xbox live revenue, for a net gain of $200. ie. 4 times more profitable, and that's before we talk about that customer being more likely to spend other money on Live.

MS wants customer B, but doesn't care too much about customer A.

The Xbox One is designed as much to repel Customer A as it is to attract Customer B.

PS: You guys realize that the TV and Kinect stuff is mainly there to make it easier for a 30 year old father of two to convince his wife that the Xbox One is the right thing to spend $500 on right? :)
 
Or MS is chasing:

- The casual Wii/Kinect crowd that is fleeting and not dependable.
- The ever shrinking cable TV crowd that only really exists in the US.
- Synergy with Win8/WP8/Surface which is not the draw they expected.

Time will tell if one or more of these actually pans out or if they turn into the next Wii U that was expecting the same tablet familiar, Wii BC family to jump on board.
 
Distilled into the basic components...

MS is chasing more money by going after more & bigger markets.

Will they be successful? Let's at least wait until the product ships before we write it off.

BTW, great post Johnny Awesome. Too bad it's lost on a lot here that consider themselves Customer A & are having a hard time coming to terms with that new focus. We'll get to hear the same complaints from them for the next 8 years.

Tommy McClain
 
Or MS is chasing:

- The casual Wii/Kinect crowd that is fleeting and not dependable.
- The ever shrinking cable TV crowd that only really exists in the US.
- Synergy with Win8/WP8/Surface which is not the draw they expected.

Sure, I bet that's exactly the demographics listed in their business plan. :rolleyes:

Guys, how about everyone. They are chasing everyone, they aren't trying to repel anyone.
 
Pachter:

Pachter estimates that consumers can expect to pay around $399 for the Xbox One and about $349 for the PS4. "The boxes will both sell out at the above prices

Xbox One = $399 (weaker console, online behind paywall)
PS4 = $349 (more powerful console, free online)

What's happening here? PS4 at $349 looks great, but Xbox One at $399 is too expensive.
 
I think a lot of core gamers out there (especially Sony and Nintendo fans) don't understand the Xbox One offering that MS has decided to put together, and therefore misconstrue some of their decisions as stupid.

MS entered the business to gain a major share of household entertainment revenue. Games are only a part of that picture, a beach-head really.

In other words, if you aren't someone who spends money on entertainment then MS doesn't care about you. Period.

Taken a step further, if you only want free networking (ala PSN) and aren't willing to pay for Live or other micro transactions, then MS doesn't care much about you either.

To that end they've basically created a box designed for the customer they want. The kind of customer that will use cable tv or satellite, buy games, get family oriented products etc... In other words, the kind of customer that will spend money, not whine about used game DRM, always online, and other nonsense.

The very fact that MS loses money on each unit sold means they don't even want to sell a console to that person. Let Sony have that cheap guy.

Imagine that Sony or MS have to spend $100 (hardware loss) + $50 in marketing and incentives = $150 to sell a console.

Take customer A that: Bought a PS3 and 20 games (which is considered a high attach rate) and maybe generated $200 in licensing fee/gaming revenue. So the net gain for that customer is $50.

Take customer B that: Bought an X360 and 5 games (a low attach rate), but signed up for Xbox Live for 5 years, thus generating $50 in licensing/gaming revenue but $300 in Xbox live revenue, for a net gain of $200. ie. 4 times more profitable, and that's before we talk about that customer being more likely to spend other money on Live.

MS wants customer B, but doesn't care too much about customer A.

The Xbox One is designed as much to repel Customer A as it is to attract Customer B.

PS: You guys realize that the TV and Kinect stuff is mainly there to make it easier for a 30 year old father of two to convince his wife that the Xbox One is the right thing to spend $500 on right? :)

Sounds great in theory.

Reality is that many of those gamers in group B that they want oh so desperately to spend ever more on their platform were just given a S*** sandwich by MS.

People were willing to spend the $50/yr when the service and gaming experience was premium and therefore worthy of a premium price tag (xbl).

When that experience is no longer premium (see inevitable DF face-offs at launch), why would gamers pay that $50 to MS when the premium experience is then on Sony’s platform?
 
To that end they've basically created a box designed for the customer they want. The kind of customer that will use cable tv or satellite, buy games, get family oriented products etc... In other words, the kind of customer that will spend money, not whine about used game DRM, always online, and other nonsense.

MS doesnt care about that customer and this customer and the next customer and we are left with......this???
Are you implying other customers dont spend money????
Are you implying the XBone customer is only the guy who overspends???
Are you implying that the customer MS cares about is a customer who satisfies a crap load of credentials?
Define family oriented products.
What about those who dont have cable TV?
What about those who dont play games?
Talk about expanding the market. Gain some from there and lose some from here?? Yep that should do the trick. MARKET EXPANSION!!!
If MS doesnt care about the complaining customer because of some bad business decisions and cares about those only willing to accept a "bone" doesnt necessarily make it a good decision and the complaining customer has every right to complain.
Really I am tired of this idea/myth that whatever the business decides should always be above the customer.
 
Pachter:



Xbox One = $399 (weaker console, online behind paywall)
PS4 = $349 (more powerful console, free online)

What's happening here? PS4 at $349 looks great, but Xbox One at $399 is too expensive.
I like Pachter, he's fun. But 50% more powerful, GDDR5, less expensive? Not unless the kinect2 is extremely expensive to make.
Myself I'm hoping for 399 for both and that'd be considered optimistic.
 
Both companies made boxes geared towards the consumers they want to attract, I will definitely agree with that.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that strategy either. Either Sony or Microsoft will upset or disinterest some people and impress others at the very same time.

If Microsoft is shifting away from one group of consumers and towards another group of consumers more, that's just being a bit different. It's not fundamentally good or bad, because it's their strategy they want to take. It might spurn one population a bit, but it's also in place to attract another population.

It can be said as patsu said 'different strokes for different folks,' but it's also just two businesses preparing and taking aim in very different ways and frankly that's making this generation so far more interesting than last generation where PS3 and 360 kind of competed on the same merits, at least for the first few years. It was like SNES vs. Genesis maybe.

Now we have WiiU and Xbone and PS4 all being different, and that's kind of cool.

Anyway, we all have our own reservations and prejudices and biases for one or the other console, which should go without saying. But that shouldn't get in the way of discussing the merits and drawbacks of the different strategies each company is taking (and I think this exploration should be consumer focused since most of us are consumers). I think we can be a little less partial in this thread personally.

I think it's more important to not focus so much on what was, and start focusing on what is now. Comparing what was done last gen doesn't look like it will apply so much this gen. And just as importantly not look at Xbone's or PS4's strategies as something that is "good versus bad", but more in the sense that they are different and different for a reason (or many). We don't need to necessarily try to prove to each other why one way is "better" but more simply how it might make us use the two devices differently.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
XB1 is fighting two markets at once: The Gaming market vs Sony, and the casuals/streaming app market vs Apple/Google. Its a battle royale.

One box to fight against the three most powerful companies in tech; all of whom want to dominate your living room also. While they should have added more CU's to XB1 to match the GPU of PS4 that's water under the bridge now.

Lets see if they can leverage their entire ecosystem to their benefit.
 
XB1 is fighting two markets at once: The Gaming market vs Sony, and the casuals/streaming app market vs Apple/Google. Its a battle royale.

One box to fight against the three most powerful companies in tech; all of whom want to dominate your living room also. While they should have added more CU's to XB1 to match the GPU of PS4 that's water under the bridge now.

Lets see if they can leverage their entire ecosystem to their benefit.

Yeah the PIP stuff seems to be a strategy to counteract the second screens -- people having phones and tablets, two product categories where MS is trailing, on hand while watching TV.

Maybe trying to do too many things. There was a time when multifunction designs like the CD-I failed spectacularly.
 
Back
Top