Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
steveOrino
Regular
Straight from Phil Spencer mouth.
Nah, it's clearly price #1....If you disagree with that how do you think a $199 XOne would do? I think it would at least tie PS4 in worldwide sales.
Also, the console needs power to begin with. Which is why imo Wii U is unsavable.
It suddenly occurred to me that MS almost struck gold with this "botched" One design IMO. All they needed to do was enable those two redundant CU's. That would have put the console at 1.4+TF @800 mhz or 1.5+ TF @853 mhz. Probably close enough to effectively blur any lines with PS4 once and for all. AND with lower cost DDR3 in tow. I think that design could have been a winner.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I bought Uncharted 3 twice because it was that good. Or because I forgot I preordered from two outlets. I can't rememberActually, forget that, UC4 will crush TR because UC4 is going to sell to over 2x the console install base, both being exclusive to one platform so being dependent on that platform numbers.
I missed the news, but is TR now exclusive to MS? Timed?
Also I would wait before saying UC4 will crush TR. The TR games have always sold pretty well - especially the last one - and while critically acclaimed and big successes for Sony, the UC games are not exactly in the tens of millions of copies sold kind of realm. I had the impression that TR
I don't believe Tomb raider has gone up against UC yet. But if it was on the ps4 next year it would go up against a first party title that would likely have much more money thrown at it for not only the game itself but advertising.
Of course UC could slip in to 2016 for all we know but that would hurt sony a lot more than no TR as the ps4 is lacking exclusives enough as it is.
Rurouni
Veteran
It's probably timed. But they (MS and SE) try very hard to make it look like permanent exclusive (at least for Rise and not for other Tomb Rider titles).
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/13/xboxs-phil-spencer-responds-tomb-raider-exclusivity-questions
For the time being, Rise will only came out in 2015 for Xbox only. SE can still release other Tomb Raider games on other platforms.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rise permanent exclusive for Xbox or a very long one like Mass Effect. I also wouldn't be surprised if the sales on Xbox don't perform well (because of the relatively smaller user base), SE will try to push Rise earlier to other platforms (maybe circumvent it by renaming the title and making a definitive edition?)
http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2014/08/13/xboxs-phil-spencer-responds-tomb-raider-exclusivity-questions
For the time being, Rise will only came out in 2015 for Xbox only. SE can still release other Tomb Raider games on other platforms.
I wouldn't be surprised if Rise permanent exclusive for Xbox or a very long one like Mass Effect. I also wouldn't be surprised if the sales on Xbox don't perform well (because of the relatively smaller user base), SE will try to push Rise earlier to other platforms (maybe circumvent it by renaming the title and making a definitive edition?)
Eidos is the traditional publisher of TR however they are now part of a Square Enix. Crystal Dynamics are the developer.
Thanks for the clarification. Lot of consolidation there.
Shocked CD is still around. I thought Gex sounded pretty imaginative, kind of like a Jack in the Beanstalks story, with the lizard roaming among giants. But it wasn't executed that well.
Maybe 20 years later, they could do more with the concept.
Shocked CD is still around. I thought Gex sounded pretty imaginative, kind of like a Jack in the Beanstalks story, with the lizard roaming among giants. But it wasn't executed that well.
Maybe 20 years later, they could do more with the concept.
Brought up in the other thread (forgot which poster to credit). MS is really helping out with The Division and it's good to see. http://www.totalxbox.com/80362/divis...and-microsoft/
If you're going to have the more difficult to develop for console, ala the PS3 last gen, this type of engineering help to third parties (separate from co marketing deals mind you) is a must and it appears at least here MS hasn't been slacking. We know they did the same to help Destiny to get to 1080P and that game has a deal with Sony.
Initially posted this in The Division thread but decided it belonged better here.
If you're going to have the more difficult to develop for console, ala the PS3 last gen, this type of engineering help to third parties (separate from co marketing deals mind you) is a must and it appears at least here MS hasn't been slacking. We know they did the same to help Destiny to get to 1080P and that game has a deal with Sony.
Initially posted this in The Division thread but decided it belonged better here.
They are doing the same thing with Crystal Dynamics. Also Turn 10 share their tech with other studios, it's interesting since their new game (mostly Playground games game) uses a Forward+ rendering technique. IIRC, Lionhead did the same thing and helped Epic to make UE4 better (it means that every game that uses UE4 can use their tech):
http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/08...est-gains-come-from-optimizing-your-own-code/
MS is spending it's money and resources to make XB1 games better (even multi-platform games may get better, since both console share similar architecture) and all they are getting in response is some hate on internet (even for some exclusive physical items on XB1 CE of Witcher 3).
The 'hate' response is for particular actions. Sony also share best practices with 3rd parties. Please don't start muddling different PR events all together in one gestalt view of the console companies. When companies get things right (in the view of gamers), gamers praise them, and when the console companies get things wrong, they get crucified. Don't forget Sony got a lot of beatings for shitty attitude which sorted out their present, gamer-friendly behaviour alteration.
Keeping this more on topic, part of Sony's business strategy is a PR strategy much more in keeping with what gamer's want to hear. They got on top of their terrible PR from last gen (get a second job to buy a PS3 even if it has no games, etc.) and they've at times played MS (how to share games on PS4 video, swapping a disc). This has worked well. They've managed to position themselves as the Good Guy. Their messaging is even 'for the gamers'. MS haven't managed to target the core gamer, because originally that wasn't their plan, and their present attempts aren't going too well. Either they have to raise their game, or go after another market. I'd say it's harder for them to compete directly with Sony as the core gamer market is both already enamoured with Sony and Sony offers a better device for the core games.
They did the same thing last gen as well, not so much because the 360 was the more difficult to dev for console but because there were still many gotchas (especially cpu side) that they wanted to inform people of so that they could get up to speed on as quick as possible, and also because they wanted feedback for tool updates.
Some people (e.g. Neogaf users, but not all of them) acting like everything that MS done in the past year is wrong. I'm not saying that MS original vision was entirely correct, but I can see some people that use double standards in their discussions to show everything that they have done is incorrect.
Sony has great PR with PS4 to date and they don't need to do anything special to save their current momentum, but avoiding big mistakes which should be easy in their current position. Both Indie developers and gamers like Sony much more than MS (because of good PR and PS4 HW) and they will support Sony products (some games launch on PS Vita before XB1) much more than XB1. MS messed up with their PR in the past months (mostly before XB1 launch) but they made big decisions/changes with their massage/goal early this year. They choose wrong massage/decision pre-launch and now they are trying hard to improve their massage/efforts, so they shouldn't expect to receive any kind of reward at this time. But I don't understand why some people like to punish them more further by saying what MS was supposed to do with them and then debunk validity of all of their current efforts.
For example both MS and Sony have exclusive contents for 3rd party games (e.g. one year exclusive in-game content for Destiny) but people showed big hatred for some exclusive physical items on XB1 CE of Witcher 3 that everyone can buy and use/sell (some part of it), as they want (they can sell the XB1 version of the game and still keep other things). They are co-marketing/developing a 3rd party game that now is exclusive/time exclusive and people say that their main intent is punishing the non-owners of Xbox platforms. I can't understand this kind of behaviors.
Offering technical assistance to developers and improving the development platform is one of the jobs of platform holders. Microsoft doesn't get extra credit for earning their licensing fee in the expected manner. In fact, they should be admonished for trying to portray this universal practice as evidence of a special development relationship in the face of a backlash to their cynical strategy for securing exclusives.
This is part of the problem, its hard to find people who can discuss the business decisions in a rational way without being emotionally charged. If you say MS hasn't done anything with Kinect, people cite Kinect Sports Rivals or Just Dance and when you ask about all the tech demos and promise and say is this really delivering on the promise/potential of the tech? They say you hate MS or have an ax to grind...
A year ago we were arguing how important talking to your TV to change channels and adjust volume was going to be and how Kinect was in some people's minds the only way to move gaming forward. People were pounding their chest over a 100 dollars of profit on each XB1 sold and insisting that the price was not an issue and resolution wasn't an issue and even if it is buy a PC or saying that PS4 didn't have any games.
Now most of that has been proven to be false and we've moved on to MS can cut the price quicker than Sony or how MS will release a new platform that is bc compatible. When you point out the potential problems with this approach you get nowhere. There have been so many ideas and theories thrown around that are patently wrong, exaggerations, fabrications and most of all intellectually dishonest it makes my head spin.
That said I don't see MS securing timed exclusives as cynical, Nintendo did it, then Sony and MS did it with the 360. Each company that has done this so far has moved on and developed very good first party studios which arguably are good enough to keep the platform alive even with limited third party support. I'd be surprised if MS is still reliant on this tactic by the end of the generation though.
FWIW I think they are probably smart enough to realize the diminishing returns associated with buying exclusivity and like the other companies I mentioned they will likely start to deliver some new IPs from their own studios. If QB is any indicator they will have some really good properties too, that game looks very good to me.
I'll say it again, I think if MS was willing to subsidize the price and get hardware into the hands of consumers for less and match that with 5 to 10 dollar cheaper games they'd do very well. BC if I'm a consumer and I see 2 machines at the same price and one is more powerful I have a hard time buying the less powerful system. OTOH if the less powerful system is 10 to 15% less and has all the same games for 10 to 15% less I might be interested.
I think LIVE is a better network than PSN in terms of quality of the service even if the value of PSN is arguably better especially if you own VITA, PS3 and PS4. MS has a lot of cards left to play and I think the signs are they working quickly to correct their mistakes.
To put it another way Sony is not as far ahead as some like to make them out to be and if they get distracted with VR or PSNOW, there is a real chance that the limited capital they have to work with is wasted on projects that won't go anywhere. If that happens and MS does cut cost, develop IPs and continue to invest in supperior infrastructure they could very well end up with larger install base and even if that does not happen, they might end up selling more services to a smaller group of consumers and making more money.
Last edited by a moderator:
You get those in every walk of life. I don't see why they're worth talking about. In the scientific perspective, they'd count as noise and outliers. My recommendation is adding those people you your ignore list, rather than complaining that the internet as a whole is represented by these few individuals.
Good old fashioned prejudice.
Some people. And some people have also shown anger at Sony for securing exclusive content in games. You also have a significant Tr exclusive deal that sets people thinking MS is buying up their hobby and that colours their perspective when they see more exclusive content.
For MS to adjust their PR, they need to ignoring the fanatics, who'll only be pleased in XB1 is given away and Live made free and MS provides free games for life, and just focus on the common population to evaluate their general messaging.
The console companies control the game price only up to their license fee. Everything else is decided by the publisher. If the license fee is about $10 a disk, reducing the price of the game by $5 - $10 means cutting this fee which means reducing profit from game sales from 50-100%. At which point MS have no business! We've seen lower priced first/second-party games. I'm guessing it didn't do enough to spur on sales as it's not a tactic that's been widely implemented. I guess publishers are happier to have a higher launch price and reductions to react wider audiences while maximising profits.
How did Nintendo release titles at 49.99 for Wii versus 59.99 on everything else? We've seen pricing vary on other platforms historically based on power.
