You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Comcast is making 45 billion Dollar deals to devour more market share. They have a $135 Billion market cap. The couple billion in incentive MS might offer them is inconsequential to them and does not align with their own "Entertainment Operating System" agenda. They have no interest in a third party being between them and their customers and MS literally could never pay enough to change that.
The best estimate I've seen regarding 8th gen was that X360 made about 4 billion and PS3 lost about 4 billion.
MS ate Sony's lunch last Gen. Why would they stop now?
Do you have anything that backs up your lunch claim?
Comcast is making 45 billion Dollar deals to devour more market share. They have a $135 Billion market cap. The couple billion in incentive MS might offer them is inconsequential to them and does not align with their own "Entertainment Operating System" agenda. They have no interest in a third party being between them and their customers and MS literally could never pay enough to change that.
What if Microsoft spun off the Xbox division to Comcast?
What if Microsoft spun off the Xbox division to Comcast?
The BOM for XB1 is rather high for what Comcast would need though isn't it? If they wanted to get into IPTV they could it with a small form factor like Roku and have a proprietary app store much like Amazon does now for much less investment up front. Xbox would push them into big leagues and what experience do they have in that space?
A small Android 4.x OS with Tegra hardware set top box running both wirelessly and coax in with HDMI and component out and a USB port for local DVR content storage could be done rather cheap and it would be just what the doctor ordered.
Even the HDMI in is sort overkill, Google TV uses the similar tech and while its cheaper it hasn't exactly taken the market by storm. It really comes down to the current box not providing enough of what is actually needed (no coax input or cable tuners btw) and too much ancillary tech which drives up the cost with what would be a very unpredictable return on investment IMO. And we haven't even gotten to the power consumption of an XB1 yet....
Some countries may have a different point of view. X360 Kinect never had finnish lang pack, I have low hope for XOne Kinect finnish lang pack, all the local fragmented tv guide integrations, dvb-c/t settopbox, most have internal LCD dvb tuner anyway, whatnot else making the experience less smooth. What if UI in english(games in english) but voice commands in finnish (our finglish is a language of its own with harsh R), etc.. big questions. But then most small locales are so small its insignificant selling 10K or 100k skus a year. We are a static background noice.I disagree. A One without Kinect would lose its main competitive advantage - or at least the one they've been touting for so long now. It's far too late to release a Kinect less sku.
Quite many in my neighborhood would take XBOne without Kinect and even without HDMI-IN port. Slap -100EUR and see how it compares to current selling.
Not a good news for MSFT, but actually whereas the ps4 is unavailable in a lot of places /heavily supplied constrained I'm still doubtful about the fate of those consoles.
A couple of year ago I was wanting powerful consoles as every body, then I toned back my expectations. Now that new systems have been released I'm on different stance, once I did not expect:
Having wait such a long time, I actually grew a consistent library of games, some I am still unwilling to give up upon: think guitar heroes games, geometry wars, or a game like diablo 3.
It turns out I'm a bit bothered by by the lack of BC, and I did not expect that one.
I am also surprised by how good the games ended up looking. Games have rough edges but it would not take much to improve them significantly. A great example a cheap "upgrade" was the move to HD textures in BF4. I think more and more "casually", so I don't think that graphics are irrelevant, I don't think that dimishing returns are already hitting hard, nowadays I would say that a lot in most cases the last (/highest) level of LOD for example is simply irrelevant to the gameplay, you really simply do not notice in the heat of action and only when you stall or during a cut scene. I think it lessens the difference between this gen and the previous one, it is not diminishing returns it is the nature of most games: fast paced action packed, with lots of stuffs going on: simply put you won't care (or even notice) a nicely tessellated helmet in the heat of a MP FPS party. It is somehow even truer when dealing with a third person view, charcters, NPC critters are more and more detailed but gameplay mechanics makes it irrelevant as you can't game in close up mode.
Then there is both MSFT and Sony moving away from free online, I think the effect is still underestimated because early adopters that have been waiting new systems for years are as irrelevent as it gets on the topic.
Ultimately I'm growing uncomfotable with the consoles business model, forward or backward compatibility is not a given, we are asked quite some money when lower end hardware would have provide mostly the experience and part of that premium comes for usages I'm not really care for, simply put if people were caring that much for social features, access to video stores, etc. there would be a lot more TV things sold or devices like Chromecast. We (I don't speak as a hardcore gamers for the ref) are asked to pay for online, and so on.
I used to think that Sony should aim for lower end hardware at a really low price (keeping in mind the financial state of the company), it is turning out well for them as MSFT decided to launch at a pretty high price so they are both cheaper and provide a better hardware. I still think that in the long run a lesser system would have served them better.
I think that the trend toward a commodity approach to gaming is to get stronger, that lack of BC is going to bother more and more people in a world where whatever apps you buy on Apple appstore or Google play store runs on mostly all you devices, etc.
MSFT went back on its online policies, whether it was a bad choice or not is not my point, but the point is that neither Sony or MSFT really tried to adapt to the new consuming habits: you buy something affordabe then a couples of years latter a new one (affordable too), it still runs your software (or most of it), etc.
That generation is really interesting for me, and it is paradoxical as in a lot of ways I've a lot less interest in the products than I did last gen. This gen is about business model, whether Sony wins or MSFT does is quite irrelevant to me, they represent mostly the same approach. A newer model might be presented to costumers soon (they could turns into worthy alternatives within 2 or 3 years) that is where the fight is (or is going to be).
A couple of year ago I was wanting powerful consoles as every body, then I toned back my expectations. Now that new systems have been released I'm on different stance, once I did not expect:
Having wait such a long time, I actually grew a consistent library of games, some I am still unwilling to give up upon: think guitar heroes games, geometry wars, or a game like diablo 3.
It turns out I'm a bit bothered by by the lack of BC, and I did not expect that one.
I am also surprised by how good the games ended up looking. Games have rough edges but it would not take much to improve them significantly. A great example a cheap "upgrade" was the move to HD textures in BF4. I think more and more "casually", so I don't think that graphics are irrelevant, I don't think that dimishing returns are already hitting hard, nowadays I would say that a lot in most cases the last (/highest) level of LOD for example is simply irrelevant to the gameplay, you really simply do not notice in the heat of action and only when you stall or during a cut scene. I think it lessens the difference between this gen and the previous one, it is not diminishing returns it is the nature of most games: fast paced action packed, with lots of stuffs going on: simply put you won't care (or even notice) a nicely tessellated helmet in the heat of a MP FPS party. It is somehow even truer when dealing with a third person view, charcters, NPC critters are more and more detailed but gameplay mechanics makes it irrelevant as you can't game in close up mode.
Then there is both MSFT and Sony moving away from free online, I think the effect is still underestimated because early adopters that have been waiting new systems for years are as irrelevent as it gets on the topic.
Ultimately I'm growing uncomfotable with the consoles business model, forward or backward compatibility is not a given, we are asked quite some money when lower end hardware would have provide mostly the experience and part of that premium comes for usages I'm not really care for, simply put if people were caring that much for social features, access to video stores, etc. there would be a lot more TV things sold or devices like Chromecast. We (I don't speak as a hardcore gamers for the ref) are asked to pay for online, and so on.
I used to think that Sony should aim for lower end hardware at a really low price (keeping in mind the financial state of the company), it is turning out well for them as MSFT decided to launch at a pretty high price so they are both cheaper and provide a better hardware. I still think that in the long run a lesser system would have served them better.
I think that the trend toward a commodity approach to gaming is to get stronger, that lack of BC is going to bother more and more people in a world where whatever apps you buy on Apple appstore or Google play store runs on mostly all you devices, etc.
MSFT went back on its online policies, whether it was a bad choice or not is not my point, but the point is that neither Sony or MSFT really tried to adapt to the new consuming habits: you buy something affordabe then a couples of years latter a new one (affordable too), it still runs your software (or most of it), etc.
That generation is really interesting for me, and it is paradoxical as in a lot of ways I've a lot less interest in the products than I did last gen. This gen is about business model, whether Sony wins or MSFT does is quite irrelevant to me, they represent mostly the same approach. A newer model might be presented to costumers soon (they could turns into worthy alternatives within 2 or 3 years) that is where the fight is (or is going to be).
What if Microsoft spun off the Xbox division to Comcast?
Could the Xbox business still be viable if it was effectively limited to the range of Comcast's cable infrastructure? Even if they could get the Xbox One into all their subscriber's homes would enough of them be actively buying game to make that worthwhile? Do their studios in Canada and Europe want to make exclusive games for cable boxes in America? Why invest in expensive hardware when we're potentially a couple years from cloud gaming that would work on every existing cable box being viable, especially for a company that literally controls the network it would be delivered on?
At this point I even wonder if IHV (or lots of them) are simply to pass till the next one is available along with finfet.Speaking of fab nodes... I get the feeling (what with IHVs not even being able to introduce 20nm GPUs this year) that we won't see 20nm consoles until 2016. :s
Comcast is making 45 billion Dollar deals to devour more market share. They have a $135 Billion market cap. The couple billion in incentive MS might offer them is inconsequential to them and does not align with their own "Entertainment Operating System" agenda. They have no interest in a third party being between them and their customers and MS literally could never pay enough to change that.
Thats not entirely true. TW essentially begged Comcast to buy them. It was all stock deal that simply outpriced Malone's offer... HBO, a TW property, recently saw Netflix outclass it in subscribers and revenue. If there was a ever a time to sell it was now.
Neither Comcast not TW manufacture their own cable boxes. Infact, Motorola manufactures the most recent of their Xfinity boxen so there is room for another manufacturer, if persuasive, to get involvled in that tie-up. Especially since all TW subs will have to changeover hw boxes over the next year anyway.
Thats not entirely true. TW essentially begged Comcast to buy them. It was all stock deal that simply outpriced Malone's offer... HBO, a TW property, recently saw Netflix outclass it in subscribers and revenue. If there was a ever a time to sell it was now.
Neither Comcast not TW manufacture their own cable boxes. Infact, Motorola manufactures the most recent of their Xfinity boxen so there is room for another manufacturer, if persuasive, to get involvled in that tie-up. Especially since all TW subs will have to changeover hw boxes over the next year anyway.
With a new larger Comcast are they likely to make a deal and share subscribers, revenues and future control with say MS or would they be more likely to want to hold on just a bit longer and keep more of everything for themselves ? I don't imagine they are looking to have somebody between them and their subscriber base until they get a bit more desperate and I don't know when that happens. Honestly MS and/or Apple would likely pursue content producers to get some leverage but if the Comcast deal goes through you are looking a fairly well integrated content/telecom company, one less likely to make deals at their expense this early in the game.
With a new larger Comcast are they likely to make a deal and share subscribers, revenues and future control with say MS or would they be more likely to want to hold on just a bit longer and keep more of everything for themselves ? I don't imagine they are looking to have somebody between them and their subscriber base until they get a bit more desperate and I don't know when that happens. Honestly MS and/or Apple would likely pursue content producers to get some leverage but if the Comcast deal goes through you are looking a fairly well integrated content/telecom company, one less likely to make deals at their expense this early in the game.
im just looking at it from the MS as a manufacturer point of view. Which would actually be a boon to both sides.
The thing is, -and this is all you need to know, people aren't buying it.
Therefore, it's not a competitive advantage.
If the Xone proposition is "$100 more, but Kinect", it's important to note, so far, it has failed.
Trying to shove something on people they just dont want is just arrogance and stupidity.
Now, I'm sure you can caveat this til the cows come home. Maybe when more Kinect software comes out it'll pick up a little. Kinect Sports Rivals is in April, but what else? Maybe over time it'll be a bigger factor. If's and maybe's can go on forever though.
Well, the same math looks to be true of Kinect. Having Kinect isn't allowing them to charge more for it, at least not so far. So guess what? they are fixing to eat that Kinect cost (if they drop to parity with PS4). Thus they are better off without Kinect. The logic is inescapable.
The only way Kinect even remotely has value is if lets say once they hit 399, they then consistently outsell PS4 due to Kinect. That seems unlikely currently, but I guess we'd have to see.
What's the benefit of a kinectless Xbox @ 399 ? It's just a weaker PS4 .
They should price it 399 with Kinect , eat the cost and pray for something amazing down the line .
The TW and Comcast merger would result in a subscriber base of 30 million. In fact Comcast is basically going to cast off 3 million subscribers to come in at that number for antitrust reasons. 30 million is smaller than the current 360 userbase in NA and that would require 100% adoption across a subscriber base. How many subscribers do you think installed the cable equipment under their TVs. How much would Comcast have to pay to have cable installers set up a XB1 in homes across America.
Nevermind that Comcast is heavily pushing it X1 setup box, which some analyst see as a competitor to the apple TV (Comcast is making efforts to license the IP to other cable companies) and turning to the Xbox 1 would totally under mind that investment.
Nevermind that Comcast is heavily pushing it X1 setup box, which some analyst see as a competitor to the apple TV (Comcast is making efforts to license the IP to other cable companies) and turning to the Xbox 1 would totally under mind that investment.
Thats not entirely true. TW essentially begged Comcast to buy them. It was all stock deal that simply outpriced Malone's offer... HBO, a TW property, recently saw Netflix outclass it in subscribers and revenue. If there was a ever a time to sell it was now.
Neither Comcast not TW manufacture their own cable boxes. Infact, Motorola manufactures the most recent of their Xfinity boxen so there is room for another manufacturer, if persuasive, to get involvled in that tie-up. Especially since all TW subs will have to changeover hw boxes over the next year anyway.
I think the deal is only for TW Cable.
Not the part of Time Warner which owns HBO and CNN and other media properties.
HBO is more profitable than Netflix but NF is growing like crazy, though there are concerns that as programming costs increase, NF growth may become limited, if they have to raise prices.
Oh and I was looking into X1 and X2 "cloud DVR" from Comcast before buying Tivos on my own.
Lot of problems with those X1 boxes, like not recording stuff.
Now imagine MS handing them the Xbox 1 and letting them manage the software side.
Now imagine MS handing them the Xbox 1 and letting them manage the software side.
If MS sold off the Xbox division, I'd probably sell my x1 right away. There are very few companies I'd trust to get the software right, and I can't see any of them buying the Xbox division.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 223
- Views
- 19K
- Replies
- 54
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 90
- Views
- 16K