Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[MrFox]

MS doesn't have that luxury. Removing the features that result in the additional cost would remove core functionality and leave a console that can differentiate itself from the competition only by being the less capable.

The TV HDMI IN is cool because it doesn't add much cost. But Kinect is definitely an attempt at differentiation and it's not a core functionality. No more than a force-feedback wheel or the Move controller, or PSEye. They tried to make it mandatory, and finally changed course to allow people to unplug it, or to use the XB1 without it. Some people won't connect it, some don't have the room or AV setup for it, I'm one of them. Games work just fine.

Saying "this is the future" over and over wasn't enough to make it happen. They didn't deliver on the promise. Next E3 is pretty much the last hope.

Suppose the sales were to increase when they drop the price and remove this differentiation, that would mean the mandatory bundle was the wrong move. OTOH if nobody buys the lower SKU, they would have a point.

EDIT: Also, historically the most important differentiation has NEVER been the console power, as soon as there are really great exclusives, the console flies off the shelves. The novelty factor being a differentiation was a one time thing with the Wii. It didn't repeat with WiiU, or Move, or Kinect 1 or Kinect 2. As much as I'm excited personally, upcoming VR from Sony won't either. Core functionality equals games. Everything else is added value that can only do a little shift, nothing more.

 

[wco81]

You don't have to subscribe to PSN+ to watch Netflix on the PS4.

 

[Rangers]

Was Netflix ever not behind a paywall? If you want to use the internet with an Xbox - any Xbox, you have to pay a fee. Right?

MS didn't migrate anything new behind a paywall this generation - Sony did. The price of the live membership isn't the stumbling block this generation just as it wasn't last generation. The price of entry though, the extra $100 for added features that might be cool to have but nobody is interested in paying for specifically is the problem.

Just as the extra memory card slots and hdmi ports and usb ports weren't worth the extra cost to many with the PS3. Fortunately for Sony, none of those things effected the console's core functionality and it had enough remaining core features to differentiate it from the competition that it could just get rid of those additional features and their additional costs and very few cared.

MS doesn't have that luxury. Removing the features that result in the additional cost would remove core functionality and leave a console that can differentiate itself from the competition only by being the less capable.

Last gen- "Paying for free p2p multiplayer, what a crock!"

This gen- "Paying for netflix access, what a crock!"

 

[zupallinere]

Was Netflix ever not behind a paywall? If you want to use the internet with an Xbox - any Xbox, you have to pay a fee. Right?

This is like saying that buying gas is the same thing as having to pay a toll for a stretch of road, a toll road that is parallel to a non-toll road that goes to the same destination.

Basic functionality is put behind the paywall, not just netflix. It's not really value if you put everything behind a paywall and then try and call that value because you get so much for you money.

As for the kinect well if things stay the same as they are and the distance between the 2 consoles gets bigger then MS will have to make a decision, are they in the business of selling kinect or the xbox one. When they have to make that decision is up to them of course.

 

[AzBat]

Basic functionality is put behind the paywall, not just netflix. It's not really value if you put everything behind a paywall and then try and call that value because you get so much for you money.

What basic functionality would that be? You can still play games, purchase & download games & chat with friends without Gold. Are we now considering Netflix & Internet Explorer basic functionality on a game console?

Tommy McClain

 

[wco81]

Last gen- "Paying for free p2p multiplayer, what a crock!"

This gen- "Paying for netflix access, what a crock!"

Oh no, Netflix behind the paywall was always a crock.

 

[dobwal]

This is like saying that buying gas is the same thing as having to pay a toll for a stretch of road, a toll road that is parallel to a non-toll road that goes to the same destination.

Basic functionality is put behind the paywall, not just netflix. It's not really value if you put everything behind a paywall and then try and call that value because you get so much for you money.

As for the kinect well if things stay the same as they are and the distance between the 2 consoles gets bigger then MS will have to make a decision, are they in the business of selling kinect or the xbox one. When they have to make that decision is up to them of course.

No it's like the non toll road owner saying, "bump trying to use a tax on gas for road construction and maintenance, let's just charge a toll!".

The reality is from the get go MS has been straight up about their pay model. When you pay for a console, you get single and local multiplayer functionality. The online functionality Is a service that is paid through a subscription. And any ancillary online features are benefits provided strictly to their gold members.

Regardless of what many have said against MS's position, there are a ton of PS4 owners who have had no problem accepting a similar scheme on the PS4. In terms of comparing userbases, Sony saw relatively little benefit with the PS3 from offering free multiplayer and little to no detriment from placing multiplayer behind a pay wall on the PS4.

Off topic.

I am sitting here watching the NBA playoffs being bombarded with Samsung adverts that straight rips off the PS3 theme and startup music. The first time it was played I was in the kitchen and thought my son booted up the PS3. I thought I was watching an advert for a Sony phone until I saw 'Samsung Galaxy' flash across the screen.

 

[HTupolev]

I dont think so necessarily. This is just the first example I grabbed as I perused DF last gen face offs, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-face-off

PS3 renders COD Ghosts at 860X600 (!) (1024X600 for 360). PS3 tends to still lag in many multiplats, after all these years, it's not a problem that somehow went away, it's just not focused on lately as we move to current gen and focus on that.

The "first example" you grabbed was a low-resolution multisampled game?

Right.

Here's the last year or so of DF face-offs:

Dark Souls 2: Maybe slightly in favor of 360, but some people have visual preferences which might favor the PS3 version
Castlevania LoS2: No preference
Strider: Both versions hold 30fps much of the time, but the PS3 has larger drops more frequently
Batman: Arkham Origins: Slight framerate advantage on 360
CoD Ghosts: 360 versions clearly wins, with a significantly higher resolution and more consistent framerate
BF4: Very close to perfect parity, but they give the PS3 the advantage on account of no tearing
AC4: 360 has a performance lead, but DF notes that it's far smaller than in earlier games in the series
FIFA14: 360 version arguably wins due to shorter start-up time, otherwise they're technically nearly identical
GTAV: Close, but PS3 wins due to texture filtering advantages
Diablo 3: 360 wins due to significant framerate advantages during intense sequences
Rayman Legends: No preference
Splinter Cell Blacklist: PS3 has poorer IQ, but superior framerates
Saint's Row 4: 360 has significantly better IQ and maybe slightly better framerates
RE Revelations: No preference
Metro Last Light: Overall comparable per-frame graphics, significant framerate advantage for PS3
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon: Overall comparable per-frame graphics, framerate advantage for 360
Dead Island Riptide: The 360 commands a large framerate advantage
NFS Most Wanted: No preference
Bioshock Infinite: Close, but they're leaning toward the PS3's overall better framerates
Tomb Raider: PS3 has slightly lower performance, but wins overall for better visuals
Crysis 3: 360 has somewhat sharper IQ and a small framerate advantage
MGR Revengeance: No overall preference; 360 has significant framerate advantage, PS3 has significantly better IQ
Dead Space 3: No preference

The 360 probably commanded an overall advantage out of this list, but it's not a cartoonishly massive one; most of the wins are fairly small, and the PS3 has a fair number of its own victories. By contrast, this DF Face-Off dump from January 2008 gives exactly one small victory to the PS3... not because the PS3 version of the game was doing more under the hood, but because that version chose not to include a blurry post-process filter used by the 360 version. Besides that and a few no-cares and near-parities, the January 2008 list is dominated by decisive 360 victories.

It's hard to judge whether the PS3 multiplat problem ultimately vanished, but it does seem to have gotten smaller over the gen.

 

[-tkf-]

I dont think so necessarily. This is just the first example I grabbed as I perused DF last gen face offs, http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-call-of-duty-ghosts-face-off

PS3 renders COD Ghosts at 860X600 (!) (1024X600 for 360). PS3 tends to still lag in many multiplats, after all these years, it's not a problem that somehow went away, it's just not focused on lately as we move to current gen and focus on that.

While we're on the subject, I think MS and any console company underestimates the effect of weaker hardware in one specific aspect for example, every game gets demoed on the stronger hardware. So, every game defaults to "PS4 version" now, when shown publicly, trailers, etc. Just as most games were demoed on 360 last gen, which was a powerful help for 360. Every dev of course wants to put the best foot of their game forward, and demo the best looking version, it's common sense. Why would Ubisoft demo Watch Dogs on X1 when rumor is it's not even 1080P? Granted I believe Wtch Dogs has some kind of marketing deal with Sony, but it will be the case regardless.

It's funny MS just assumed this wasn't an issue or didn't even think about it or just brushed it off with arrogance "oh consumers dont care about graphics". Video game companies, so out of touch...

Gta5 was specifically mentioned that is why I linked to it. I am well aware of the many 3rd party games that over history has lacked on the ps3. But as I mentioned, I think that time has proven the difference ended up being down to the developers.... budget.

 

[zed]

Originally Posted by function View Post
PS3 was ravaged by the 360 in terms of multiplatforms when it first launched, in a similar way to Xbone

Ravaged!!!! Im calling you out on this
Give the best example you can name, facts please facts

Whilst the majority of multiplatform games ran better on the 360 than the ps3, the difference were slight certainly nowhere near the difference of the 1920x1080 vs 1280x720 we've seen already this gen = 125% larger res

the largest difference last gen I can see is this, funnily enuf its the ps3 that has the advantage as well

Final Fantasy XIII = 1280x720 (2xAA) PS3
vs
Final Fantasy XIII = 1024x576 (2xAA) XB360 = 56.25% larger res

Or is there another game last gen with a larger difference? balls in your court function, show me the similar difference last gen

 

[temesgen]

The "first example" you grabbed was a low-resolution multisampled game?

Right.

Here's the last year or so of DF face-offs:

Dark Souls 2: Maybe slightly in favor of 360, but some people have visual preferences which might favor the PS3 version
Castlevania LoS2: No preference
Strider: Both versions hold 30fps much of the time, but the PS3 has larger drops more frequently
Batman: Arkham Origins: Slight framerate advantage on 360
CoD Ghosts: 360 versions clearly wins, with a significantly higher resolution and more consistent framerate
BF4: Very close to perfect parity, but they give the PS3 the advantage on account of no tearing
AC4: 360 has a performance lead, but DF notes that it's far smaller than in earlier games in the series
FIFA14: 360 version arguably wins due to shorter start-up time, otherwise they're technically nearly identical
GTAV: Close, but PS3 wins due to texture filtering advantages
Diablo 3: 360 wins due to significant framerate advantages during intense sequences
Rayman Legends: No preference
Splinter Cell Blacklist: PS3 has poorer IQ, but superior framerates
Saint's Row 4: 360 has significantly better IQ and maybe slightly better framerates
RE Revelations: No preference
Metro Last Light: Overall comparable per-frame graphics, significant framerate advantage for PS3
Far Cry 3 Blood Dragon: Overall comparable per-frame graphics, framerate advantage for 360
Dead Island Riptide: The 360 commands a large framerate advantage
NFS Most Wanted: No preference
Bioshock Infinite: Close, but they're leaning toward the PS3's overall better framerates
Tomb Raider: PS3 has slightly lower performance, but wins overall for better visuals
Crysis 3: 360 has somewhat sharper IQ and a small framerate advantage
MGR Revengeance: No overall preference; 360 has significant framerate advantage, PS3 has significantly better IQ
Dead Space 3: No preference

The 360 probably commanded an overall advantage out of this list, but it's not a cartoonishly massive one; most of the wins are fairly small, and the PS3 has a fair number of its own victories. By contrast, this DF Face-Off dump from January 2008 gives exactly one small victory to the PS3... not because the PS3 version of the game was doing more under the hood, but because that version chose not to include a blurry post-process filter used by the 360 version. Besides that and a few no-cares and near-parities, the January 2008 list is dominated by decisive 360 victories.

It's hard to judge whether the PS3 multiplat problem ultimately vanished, but it does seem to have gotten smaller over the gen.

great post and it shows the selective revisionism by some to try and force a point. The differences declined as the generation wore on, the reasons why however vary. To try and insist that it was due to 3rd parties developing to the lowest common denominator is just conjecture to again force a narrative that really is nothing more than guess.

In some cases that might be true but its also true the tools on PS3 improved dramatically in past few years. Its also reasonable to say that as developers got more familiar with the architecture they learned how to get better results and in some cases use the CPU to make up for the deficiencies of the GPU.

Also regardless of how titles sold on both platforms the overall review scores (consumers and gaming journalist) IMO are a better indication of how good a game is. Using that metric PS3 was every bit as strong as 360 even if titles like Halo and Gears tended to sell more at retail. Sales volume does not equal quality, there tends to be a correlation but there are outliers for sure.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

the largest difference last gen I can see is this, funnily enuf its the ps3 that has the advantage as well

Final Fantasy XIII = 1280x720 (2xAA) PS3
vs
Final Fantasy XIII = 1024x576 (2xAA) XB360 = 56.25% larger res

Or is there another game last gen with a larger difference? balls in your court function, show me the similar difference last gen

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/xbox-360-vs-ps3-face-off-round-20

I think Ghostbusters showed even bigger difference the other way. 360 was 1280x720, PS3 launched at 960x540, though was patched to 1024x576 later on. PS3 version also had lower quality assets.

 

[shredenvain]

I am not trying to start anything or take anyones side in this issue but there were more differences in multiplat titles last gen than just resolution. The Xbox 360 won a majority of all the face offs that Df did.
I dont see why you need to call someone out over something like last gen faceoffs.

This gen it is obvious that the Ps4 is likely to win more faceoffs. One difference between this gen and last gen is that the differences in multiplats this time will likely only be in resolution and sometimes framerate if one runs locked and the other unlocked for example. Or the Ps4 averaging a few frames higher. It isnt worth calling anyone out over.

 

[HTupolev]

Ravaged!!!! Im calling you out on this
Give the best example you can name, facts please facts

Whilst the majority of multiplatform games ran better on the 360 than the ps3, the difference were slight certainly nowhere near the difference of the 1920x1080 vs 1280x720 we've seen already this gen = 125% larger res

the largest difference last gen I can see is this, funnily enuf its the ps3 that has the advantage as well

Final Fantasy XIII = 1280x720 (2xAA) PS3
vs
Final Fantasy XIII = 1024x576 (2xAA) XB360 = 56.25% larger res

Or is there another game last gen with a larger difference? balls in your court function, show me the similar difference last gen

Bayonetta is the figurehead example here.

Framerates during intense sequences are pretty much always higher on 360 than on PS3, usually by a very large margin, very frequently greater than double if we go by DF's face-off. Even in the cutscenes where the 360 drops to a locked 30, it sometimes has a 50% framerate advantage.

The PS3 version also has more screen tearing, alpha blending is carried out at a lower resolution, and texture quality is very badly compromised.

//=================

In any case, both Bayonetta and FFXIII show the same thing: if you build a game around one platform and then do a lower-budget port to the other platform, the results are likely to be strikingly in the lead platform's favour.

One of the problems for the PS3 early in the seventh gen is that the 360 was likely of greater focus for many developers. Part of why I called out the CoD example earlier is that it seems like a blatant example of this, with an overall approach to IQ and frame buffering that is precisely suited to the 360's eDRAM pool size and strengths. Square Enix was the unusual example of a huge developer which was seemingly very strongly on the Sony side of the fence and suddenly decided to go multiplat deep into development of their first round of big FF games (which unfortunately for them turned into their only seventh-gen "round" of big FF games when their ridiculously ambitious development plans Halo 2'd their way back to reality).

 

[Shifty Geezer]

What basic functionality would that be? You can still play games, purchase & download games & chat with friends without Gold. Are we now considering Netflix & Internet Explorer basic functionality on a game console?

They're basic functionality in CE devices (including TVs and PVRs these days) where they are all free to access on the device except for XB1. They're not essential functionality for a games console, but as features they add value. The difference is MS moves that value behind their paywall, so it's far, far less value. Buy a PS4 (or TV, or tablet, etc.) and get everything except multiplayer gaming for free, meaning if you've no interest in multiplayer, you still have a very functional device. Buy an XB1 and to do anything more than local gaming, you have to pay a subscription. Which is even poorer value when MS made a point of this machine being more than just games. They set it up to be a media box and then charge an additional annual fee to use it with your media services.

I for one certainly won't buy a device that charges me to access my Netflix account when there are so many other options that'll let me use that account for free. MS would have to come up with an exceptional service differentiator to make playing Netflix on XB1 and paying the yearly subscription more appealing than playing Netflix on some other device.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Now that Sony is charging for multiplayer, I think Microsoft should take apps like Netflix out from behind the paywall.

 

[zupallinere]

No it's like the non toll road owner saying, "bump trying to use a tax on gas for road construction and maintenance, let's just charge a toll!".

Not enough coffee in me but are you saying that a LIVE subscription is like road construction and maintenance ( computer networky version ) for Netflix ?

Howsabout MS charging a Live subscription just to use the Internet on Windows ( barring system update ) ? That is basically what they are doing with their consoles.

The reality is from the get go MS has been straight up about their pay model. When you pay for a console, you get single and local multiplayer functionality. The online functionality Is a service that is paid through a subscription. And any ancillary online features are benefits provided strictly to their gold members.

MS is free to do what they want but "ancillary online features ... " is this a press release from MS Bluray players, Roku boxes, Smart TVs and just about everything else that access services like Netflix don't charge an extra fee for the privilege of using their box to do so. It's still hiding functionality behind a paywall and calling it a value add. I'm not a fan of Sony putting multiplayer behind a paywall BUT the value add of PS Plus when it comes to games is a true value add. I have more good games to play than I have time to play and NO I don't consider that a problem Games for Gold and the sales and all are great and I'm glad MS is catching up.

I'm a consumer not a fan so I look at things from a consumer point of view. I appreciate getting value for a subscription rather than being punished for not getting one. Up until PS4 Sony did that for everything now for the PS4 only you need PS Plus for multiplayer. On top of the Added Value of PS Plus it isn't as big a deal IM ever so HO.

 

[zupallinere]

What basic functionality would that be? You can still play games, purchase & download games & chat with friends without Gold. Are we now considering Netflix & Internet Explorer basic functionality on a game console?

Tommy McClain

I'm not sure what you can actually do with kinect and TVTVTV without a Gold subscription, turn things on and off and change the volume ?? While not exactly basic functionality, although it almost seems like it this generation, the game dvr/twtich stuff is behind the gold wall.

To quote Eurogamer on the subject

What do you get without an Xbox Live Gold subscription on Xbox One? Not much. You can play games single-player only and watch Blu-rays and that's about it.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

This is like saying that buying gas is the same thing as having to pay a toll for a stretch of road, a toll road that is parallel to a non-toll road that goes to the same destination.

Basic functionality is put behind the paywall, not just netflix. It's not really value if you put everything behind a paywall and then try and call that value because you get so much for you money. .

Who is talking about "value"? I'm certainly not.

I'm saying that Netflix functionality was behind a paywall on the 360 and not on the PS3 and it didn't matter worth a lick.

Therefore, it doesn't matter worth a lick this generation either. Anybody purchasing a $200-$500 console for the ability to play netflix which can be done with anything from a free to a $35 device is in the minority.

It's a complete non-issue, it's just something for MS bashers to bash MS about. Anybody buying the One without planning to pay for a Live subscription has bigger issues and bigger losses in functionality than Netflix to worry about.

It's an absurd argument to make, it's petty and ridiculous. Focus on the complicated memory pathway or the gimped GPU. Netflix requires Gold is just utterly lame as an argument. Nobody is purchasing the PS4 over the One because Netflix doesn't require a PS+ subscription. Just like nobody purchased a PS3 over a 360 for that same reason. Give it up.

 

[wco81]

So there's not one person who passed up the X1 when they found out they had to pay an XBL subscription in addition to their Netflix subscription?