Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Rangers]

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.

I distinctly remember years ago Shane Bettenhausen (the pro Sony" guy on 1up podcasts) talking about, I'm not even 100% sure but it was some big multiplatform game not up to par on PS3, probably a poor framerate or something. He mentioned how Kaz (I think) should have airlifted engineers to that developer immediately to fix it, and how disappointed he was that they didn't.

I guess that's the attitude I mean. And I think MS was dumb as heck for a ton of decisions they made this gen such as not putting more power in XB1 to begin with. But, I think they deserve credit for the smaller good of at least seemingly doing developer tech help in a pro-active and aggressive fashion.

Also, the latest argument on GAF seem to be that MS more or less demanded 1080P on Diablo

"We did have 1080p, but we were finding it challenging to keep our frame-rate. Because Diablo's so much of an action game, we wanted to have a responsive feel - especially with four players. When you get four witch doctors in a room full of demons, that's probably the worst case scenario for us because we have effects going off everywhere. We want to make sure that it still feels very glassy, very responsive, and that's why we dropped resolution down on it," he explained.

"We did find it challenging early on to get it to 1080p. That's why we made the decision to drop to 900. That's what we demoed and were showing around E3 time. And Microsoft was just like, 'This is unacceptable. You need to figure out a way to get a better resolution.' So we worked with them directly, they gave us a code update to let us get to full 1080p."

This to me is interesting, I'd say in the case of Diablo I'm 100% for 1080P, because Diablo only drops to low 50's, has all (or most) graphics intact, etc. But it gets more nuanced in the case of something like Sniper 3 where the cutbacks where more drastic, and is an interesting argument. I wonder if it's a better PR strategy to MS to "demand" 1080P even if framerates and effects suffer pretty drastically. What might be worse for gamers (1080P with poor FPS/effects cutbacks, vs 900P buttery smooth), may nonetheless actually be better PR I would think, as 1080P is a binary thing and effects and framerates are not so much. That's an interesting debate.

 

[Rangers]

Also, fascinating interview with Shu where he says he doesn't know why PS4 is selling so well

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...itas-no-show-and-the-mystery-of-10m-ps4-sales

That's a very impressive number just nine months into the console's life. Last November we were all hoping the new consoles would sell well, but this is beyond most people's predictions. It suggests something different is going on this time than we've seen in the past. What do you think is the reason for it doing so well so quickly?

Shuhei Yoshida: The 10m sell through in the first nine months is well beyond what we had hoped for. As you know, we have struggled to keep up with demand of PS4 for so many months. It was hard to find and purchase PS4. Now we are able to supply units so in every territory I believe you can find PS4. So we just managed to catch up with demand.

It's just beyond our imagination. We are so happy. But I for one am a bit nervous because we do not completely understand what's happening. You need to understand why your products are selling well so you can plan for the future, right? It defied the conventional thinking. Lots of people thought the dedicated game hardware might not be needed going forward, but still lots of people are very excited. When you see the new games coming out and being announced this E3 and Gamescom, I think there's a good enough reason for a gamer to believe this is something worth investing in.

I agree, but I don't think that explains the speed of sales.

Shuhei Yoshida: Yeah. Actually I'm asking journalists who ask that question their opinion.

I don't know. I was hoping you would know.

Shuhei Yoshida: I'm asking marketing people to tell us why. They've been to people who already purchased, and some of the early data was amazing in terms of the number of people who didn't used to own PS3 have already purchased PS4. So we are getting lots of new customers coming into PlayStation. And some people never purchased any last-gen hardware: PS3, or Xbox 360 or Nintendo Wii. So where did they come from?

Why buy now then?

Shuhei Yoshida: Well, yeah. I don't know. As soon as we see a great sales number, our instinct tells us we should be concerned about future sales, right? Are we exhausting all the core gamers? If we sell this number of units, there are no more consumers we can sell to. That's a really terrifying prospect. So we want to understand who are these consumers who we do not necessarily consider core gamers, who are purchasing PS4 and why they are doing it and what they are doing with PS4, so we can create a bit more of a positive future, rather than saying, wow, we have sold to every single core gamer. So that's what we are doing.

Hint: It's because you have 1.8 teraflops .

 

[function]

1760 * 990 would have probably stayed at a solid 60 fps.

I think that would have been preferable from anything other than a PR standpoint to a fluctuating fps 1080p version.

 

[Rangers]

1760 * 990 would have probably stayed at a solid 60 fps.

I think that would have been preferable from anything other than a PR standpoint to a fluctuating fps 1080p version.

I've got BF4 on my One and 360 and have been comparing them by flipping between on the same TV. My results.

360 version looks and feels a lot worse. Youtube videos just really cant show this, my impression after watching YT comps of BF4 was "wow there's really not much difference". In actuality there's a lot.

I also noticed the 360 version seemed to me to run/feel very choppy and slow. I assumed it must be one of those games that frequently dips into low 20's. I also assumed it must run at 1024X600 or something as well, and that could help explain how much worse it looked. Upon checking the relevant DF articles, I discovered to my surprise 360 version actually runs almost 720P, 1280X704. Also surprising to me, the framerate is pretty close to a solid 30. Only dipping to 28 or so occasionally. Subjectively I assumed the framerate on 360 must be awful, because it felt very slow coming from One version. One version was revealed to run at baseline 60, with dips into the 40's in heavy action. But it seemed so much better than the 360 version. I've generally not known myself to be framerate sensitive, so perhaps just the action of playing the games back to back enabled me to notice a substantial difference?

I guess the point was, in my experience, "60" with drops all the way into the 40's on BF4 was fine and I didn't subjectively notice framerate fluctations (but again I'm far from a IQ or framerate connoisseur). Also, it felt massively better than 30 on the 360.

So knowing that, at least for me something like Diablo's framerate shouldn't be a problem for me, as it's much better than BF4's. The framerate being "unlocked" from 60, terribly so in BF4's case, didn't bother me personally at all.

 

[Phil]

They're all the same. They'll be brutally honest when it's in their interest and they'll be guarded when it's not. Take the EA Access answer for instance. "If every publisher follows suit, and as a consumer you have to choose by publisher which service to subscribe to, that's not something we believe is best for consumers." That answer is complete nonsense.

This may be more relevant to the PS4 thread, but I for one didn't think that answer was complete nonsense. In fact, I see it the same way too. I have one console - and I subsrcibe to one service: PSN. I pay to play online and I access one store. It's one of the trade-offs you make when playing on a console - you pay less for hardware, but instead pay more for games and a mandatory online service.

I don't like the concept of having to subscribe to additional services at all. This already started back on the PS3 when MGS4 launched and to play online, I was required to create an additional Konami-ID or whatever it was called. It defies the whole concept of having one login (your PSN-Id), one unique gamer-tag.

I can understand that EA wants to offer their own subscriptions (huge market, no doubt), but if every single publisher started to do that, it would quickly become a pain for me. It would be better if you could subscribe to 3rd party subscriptions (if you wanted to) through a dedicated interface using PSN that is automatically linked to your ID there and not having to create another one.

 

[Prophecy2k]

This may be more relevant to the PS4 thread, but I for one didn't think that answer was complete nonsense. In fact, I see it the same way too. I have one console - and I subsrcibe to one service: PSN. I pay to play online and I access one store. It's one of the trade-offs you make when playing on a console - you pay less for hardware, but instead pay more for games and a mandatory online service.

I don't like the concept of having to subscribe to additional services at all. This already started back on the PS3 when MGS4 launched and to play online, I was required to create an additional Konami-ID or whatever it was called. It defies the whole concept of having one login (your PSN-Id), one unique gamer-tag.

I can understand that EA wants to offer their own subscriptions (huge market, no doubt), but if every single publisher started to do that, it would quickly become a pain for me. It would be better if you could subscribe to 3rd party subscriptions (if you wanted to) through a dedicated interface using PSN that is automatically linked to your ID there and not having to create another one.

I'd argue that inconvenience is not the only reason that an effective publisher-subscription-free-for-all on console would be a mistake.

People seem to argue against Sony's decision based on the false-premise that " more choice" is always good for the consumer. In this instance I would argue strongly that more "choice" isn't good for the consumer but actually the opposite.

Multiple EA-like sub services would bring the following:

1) lots of different publisher orientated services with different policies/rules that might cause confusion to the consumer (e.g. EA lets you keep your games after dropping your sub, Ubi's doesn't etc)
2) lots of monthly payments to be made by gamers who want access to multiple services
3) gives more incentive to pubs to actively devalue PS+/other services by refusing to offer fee games/deals/DLC in order to try make their own service look like it offers more value
4) more incentive for publishers to lock more content behind their paywall in an effort to make their service "look" as if it offer more value (e.g. demos, betas etc)

Likewise, a consumer having a bad experience with any of the above would reflect badly on Sony and would see Sony taking unnecessary flak for pubs d!cking consumers around on a service offered on Sony's platform.

Without a shadow of a doubt, a single subscription offering content from every publisher is the most ideal, since it offers more value to the consumer, is more convenient and yet still affords the publishers the chance to compete for the consumer's attention with their content and DLC sales, since pubs get money from Sony on a per d/l basis, and their DLC and discounted content benefits from improved visibility on the PSN store.

 

[Dave Baumann]

So, less choice is better for the consumer.

Huh.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't agree with Prophecy2k's points per se, but I also don't agree with the mantra "more choice == better". There is such a thing as too much choice as documented by psychologists. I would see individual publisher subscription services as not much different to different video services, so don't feel it needs to be moderated. However, a singular subscription system would be better, similar to Phil's points. If we can simplify, it's good to. Perhaps something like a tick box selection for publisher bonuses in the PS+ subscription, where one can opt in to added features from publishers all from the same control panel?

 

[Bagel seed]

So, less choice is better for the consumer.

Huh.

Sometimes it's true. When the average console gamer is basically limited between 2 next gen platforms and only one outlet of purchasing a new digital game from some publisher, then what was a choice can quickly become what is mandatory, since there are no real open market forces to keep things in check on each level. Can you trust Joe Consumer to make the right decision for you in this kind of situation?

Now if there were several avenues of digital distro that couldn't be completely hijacked by publishers and a market that could support a dozen successful console platforms, then there wouldn't be as much of a need to worry.

 

[MrFox]

I think arguing about choice is a misdirection.

The primary thing I don't like about a publisher putting it's own service, is that the biggest publishers have the catalog necessary to do this, and it steers consumers away from the smaller publishers who can't afford to do this. The big guys are already way too big. They can put a must-have title there which justify the subscription, and then other smaller games are almost like dumping, which prevents/diminish the ability of smaller studio from competing fairly.

So the big guys grow bigger, small guys can't compete. It's no surprise that the second publisher to show interest is Ubisoft.Hopefully Sony's philosophy has been that it's more profitable for their platform to rebalance the super big AAA versus smaller indies or even mid-sized studios.

For a big publisher, the most important titles to put there are the ones that will hook the consumers to an ongoing franchise. This will exacerbate the current problem where franchises and sequels make a lot of money, and new IPs don't. I hate the current situation, and I don't know what can be done about it, but this kind of service will make it worse.

 

[zed]

So, less choice is better for the consumer.

Huh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market
1987 no choice (single choice goverment owned company)
2014 multiple choices (>10 private companies)

The prosecution rests its case

judge - after reviewing the facts the judgement is,
more choice is not always in the public interest

 

[Dave Baumann]

MrFox, I think that's where the benefits of the platform holders "stores" come in - they are and will be there to offer the wide breadth of choice.

I think the concern over the pubs doing their own thing is overblown - take a look at the PC (which is widely established as digital platform now) realistically we have Steam (which is the equivalent of the platform holder for a console), Origin (EA) and Uplay (Ubi) which isn't exactly a largely splintered environment (and Ubi is still available via Steam).

Having these additional subscriptions options are fine if they add value - if they don't add value then they will die on the vine, if more pubs offer something similar then they will be competing for your dollars and here will be competition between them. Having them available in the consoles can also mean that platform holder may have to release their restrictions and a little more so that the smaller publishers can compete - things like the Steam summer sale on the platforms stores would be great.

So, yeah, let it come. If they are unpopular they will go (EA Access, for instance, has no interest for me at the moment), but if they are popular then the net benefit may increase competition with the platform holder and allow for better deal's through their stores.

 

[MrFox]

Good point, maybe it's overblown, I don't know. It's hard to compare PC with consoles today. The controlled quality on consoles avoids the phenomenon happening on Android/Apple store with 1% great titles in a sea of 99% crap, visibility is less of an issue. Something like Steam seems to partly achieve a similar filter on PC, so without these services, there's no "crap filter" on a google search for small PC games. The unified stores of XBox and Sony certainly helped maintain a nice spread of games and gave a much needed visibility to smaller games, either actively or just by the nature of the store without too many games.

I remember October 2005, some weeks before the launch of the 360, IGN had a (mostly) nice next-gen panel. There was a guy from Obsidian who made a good argument about the AAA games getting more and more insane budgets like Hollywood films, and there was a serious need to bring back what he called "the equivalent of indie films", I think he predicted it very well, and we really achieved this now because the platform holders made it happen. Sadly IGN had to permanently remove all traces of the video (probably because of Mark Rein). I still have it somewhere in an archive.

 

[zed]

So, yeah, let it come. If they are unpopular they will go (EA Access, for instance, has no interest for me at the moment), but if they are popular then the net benefit may increase competition with the platform holder and allow for better deal's through their stores.

So are you saying what the NZ electricity market needs is another 'better' provider we just need more and more choice
ha ha ha (owned)
the reality is more choice does not == a better choice

 

[AzBat]

the reality is more choice does not == a better choice

I think he's saying more choice is better than no choice. In the console market prior to the EA Access program there was no choice. Now we have a choice. How can that be bad? If it's not a good value it will die.

Tommy McClain

 

[temesgen]

For me the most interesting take away from EA's attempt is that services like PSN Plus and more recently Games with Gold on Live have some value for the publishers. For years we've had discussions about the value of these types of services for the content creators, EA attempting to replicate these services suggest that these services can be a legitimate way to generate additional returns and we are likely to see other publishers attempt to follow suit.

Movies generate money at the box office then on cable/satellite and DVD/Blu Ray and digital downloads. This affords the studios additional revenue streams that last far longer than anything we see in gaming. These online programs won't fully replicate or have the reach that Hollywood benefits from but surely it will help keep developers in the black which is a very good thing.

 

[Dave Baumann]

So are you saying what the NZ electricity market needs is another 'better' provider we just need more and more choice
ha ha ha (owned)

Yeah, OK.

You're looking at a basic service and comparing it against a pastime / hobby activity. The difference with an entertainment activity to a basic service is there is no value to the service then people won't buy it.

As I mention, the proliferation of multiple vendors is unlikely to happen - the PC game market is larger than the console market, >90% of PC game software is purchased digitally and there is no pesky platform holders to negotiate with and yet we only have a few publishers doing their own thing; but we do get awesome deals on Steam

Conversely, with consoles, until this came up, we get the walled gardens of the platform holders store with very limited deals - I can frequently find better pricing through brick and morter stores.

 

[Rangers]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_electricity_market
1987 no choice (single choice goverment owned company)
2014 multiple choices (>10 private companies)

The prosecution rests its case

judge - after reviewing the facts the judgement is,
more choice is not always in the public interest

This analogy might hold some merit if Sony was a government controlled, rate fixed company, like a utility monopoly is. Rather than strictly for profit private corporation.

 

[Phil]

I think the concern over the pubs doing their own thing is overblown - take a look at the PC (which is widely established as digital platform now) realistically we have Steam (which is the equivalent of the platform holder for a console), Origin (EA) and Uplay (Ubi) which isn't exactly a largely splintered environment (and Ubi is still available via Steam).

Having these additional subscriptions options are fine if they add value - if they don't add value then they will die on the vine, if more pubs offer something similar then they will be competing for your dollars and here will be competition between them. Having them available in the consoles can also mean that platform holder may have to release their restrictions and a little more so that the smaller publishers can compete - things like the Steam summer sale on the platforms stores would be great.

I guess I'm just not too fond on the idea of a closed ecosystem / console becoming an open market where each publisher will try to get additional money off me by pushing different services and subscriptions down my throat.

The console experience works for me because it isn't anything like the PC one. It's a closed box system - you pay relatively little for the hardware that lasts a couple of years and the now annual membership fee supplies a basic infrastructure that enables us to play online and interact with the people you add as friends. The software follows a simple path too - you buy the software and you 'plug & play' so to speak, without worrying about additional services, subscriptions etc.

If every publisher started to split their games into core content and extra supplied through subscriptions, I'm worried that we're going to be effectively getting half experiences unless you sign up to the subscription they want you to. I can understand it from their point of view that it'd be beneficial for them, but then it just seems as if we're moving away from the rather simple console model to a more "hey, lets try to milk every individual customer by getting them to subscribe to our services that used to be included but now have to pay extra and in the process bind them to our games and services".

In effect, this is exactly what Sony and Microsoft are doing with PSN and Live as well - but in their defence, they're selling consoles (hardware) at an extreme tight budget or at some point even at a loss. That the PSN / Live service costs money is only logical, as they're providing some (basic) infrastructure for it.

Where EA is concerned - what are they providing in the long term that would want me to sign up for an annual fee, rather than a one time single purchase?

 

[Scott_Arm]

Closed markets tend to increase prices, not lower them. You pay what they want you to pay, because you have no other choice. Most people can't buy a second console to "shop around," even though the prices seem to be fixed for other reasons. PC games tend to be cheaper over time, because there is more flexibility in pricing, package deals and competing services all available from the same PC platform.