Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[Bagel seed]

So your assumption is simply that the ps4's power is unrealized because its a launch title. Yet the same doesn't apply to Xbox. Ok got it.

More powerful, less expensive, less in the box too...

Why does everything have to come back to Xbox?

I just find it ironic that some here on B3D aren't able to dredge up an inkling of desire for a box that's less expensive and more powerful over another, and then proceed to spread around some fine spin.

P.S. I don't know if you fit into this category, nor am I insinuating you're in there.

 

[MrFox]

I think there's a need for a few days until reality sink in. There's a denial phase going on right now.

 

[Johnny Awesome]

Not at all. This is a business thread and many of us think it was bad business for Sony to leave $100 on the table at launch.

 

[blakjedi]

Why does everything have to come back to Xbox?

I just find it ironic that some here on B3D aren't able to dredge up an inkling of desire for a box that's less expensive and more powerful over another, and then proceed to spread around some fine spin.

P.S. I don't know if you fit into this category, nor am I insinuating you're in there.

Fine. Which console were you referring to in your post?

As far as business decisions... if you are able to have the same gaming experience and even more functionality from the more expensive box why wouldn't you get that?

If they were both the same price you'd actually be getting even value. There's just more to the other box regardless of price.

 

[Squilliam]

I just find it ironic that some here on B3D aren't able to dredge up an inkling of desire for a box that's less expensive and more powerful over another, and then proceed to spread around some fine spin.

We all have different perspectives. The additional performance of the PS4 may be meaningless for instance to someone who has $1000 of PC performance sitting on the computer they are typing on. On the other hand doing things differently like for instance having Kinect isn't something which is done by computers right now and could be good for family members and other distractions like watching movies.

 

[joker454]

We all have different perspectives. The additional performance of the PS4 may be meaningless for instance to someone who has $1000 of PC performance sitting on the computer they are typing on. On the other hand doing things differently like for instance having Kinect isn't something which is done by computers right now and could be good for family members and other distractions like watching movies.

Yeah I don't know why this is so hard for some to understand. They go on about how important 33% more gpu is for games, yet they totally ignore pc gaming which is basically the same architecture as the new consoles but faster today, much faster tomorrow and far more faster the day after that. That's why yet another game playing box is no big deal, I mean why would I care when my pc will already run rings around the new consoles at launch and just keep pulling ahead after that.

What I'm personally interested in, all business aside, is new experiences that I can't already get on pc. Kinect is an obvious one as is cloud and how the box will interact with our Directv service. But just gaming grunt? Who cares, it's not like these little limited boxes have a chance against a pc today anyways, let alone a pc tomorrow.

 

[DrJay24]

Not at all. This is a business thread and many of us think it was bad business for Sony to leave $100 on the table at launch.

It sounds more like people are bitter that Sony undercut MS. If the PS4 was $600, would the same folks be concerned that MS left $100 on the table?

 

[Pozer]

What I'm finding amazing is MS is not getting in front of their bad press. This is not the MS of 2004-2007. I'm not even sure who they are targeting anymore. I think One is a great idea in design. But, they have to win over the gadget heads and the walmart moms early. More expensive and less powerful is a lose/lose on both those fronts. Even talking about used games now is dumb. The only common thread in every console race is the domino effect. When you're behind in perception or sales you have to work twice as hard to catch up, not stick to your losing strategy.

If One is going to be a media delivery hub, what does it matter to lose $100+ now. Each unit is a potential cash machine for 6+ years. They have to realize perception is reality. They may have a better plan and design, but they have to still remember who owns the living room. We got two people sitting on our steps. PS4 is asking nicely to come in, offering seemingly more for less. The other is a quiet arrogant prick saying they may seem to be offering less for more but once in you'll see.

I don't have anything against MS. I know its trendy to bash the One. But they're not exactly making a compelling fight.

 

[Bagel seed]

We all have different perspectives. The additional performance of the PS4 may be meaningless for instance to someone who has $1000 of PC performance sitting on the computer they are typing on. On the other hand doing things differently like for instance having Kinect isn't something which is done by computers right now and could be good for family members and other distractions like watching movies.

I know, everyone values things differently. It's just interesting to see what one person considers a noteworthy advantage to be spun around as something that isn't due to personal preferences. Guess that goes both ways so I'll stop dwelling on it too much As a hardware enthusiast I'll always make sure that bang for the buck in performance is always the top priority on any device I'm using to game on, no matter if it's my primary or secondary platform.

Business wise, it makes for a good bullet point in the very least. I won't and wouldn't comment on profit strategy because I have no clue on what the true BOM is for either console.

So what's the argument here? More power for less money is less of an advantage than packaged camera and multiple game states, or family sharing, etc, to the masses? Trying to remain unbiased, I don't think I can say which will have a bigger impact because I can't speak for everyone. I guess that's this thread in a nutshell.

 

[Xalion]

When the PS3 released as a harder to develop for, slightly more expensive box with a focus on being the media focal point of your living room - many of the same people now claiming the Xbox offers "new experiences and media services" were claiming it was a colossal waste of money and an awful machine. That was with what in my mind is a far more compelling media feature (the inclusion of Blue Ray) than anything that Microsoft has presented so far.

I guess to get to my point - what changed so much in the past few years to make "media features" worth so much more to you guys?

 

[blakjedi]

What I'm finding amazing is MS is not getting in front of their bad press. This is not the MS of 2004-2007. I'm not even sure who they are targeting anymore. I think One is a great idea in design. But, they have to win over the gadget heads and the walmart moms early. More expensive and less powerful is a lose/lose on both those fronts. Even talking about used games now is dumb. The only common thread in every console race is the domino effect. When you're behind in perception or sales you have to work twice as hard to catch up, not stick to your losing strategy.

If One is going to be a media delivery hub, what does it matter to lose $100+ now. Each unit is a potential cash machine for 6+ years. They have to realize perception is reality. They may have a better plan and design, but they have to still remember who owns the living room. We got two people sitting on our steps. PS4 is asking nicely to come in, offering seemingly more for less. The other is a quiet arrogant prick saying they may seem to be offering less for more but once in you'll see.

I don't have anything against MS. I know its trendy to bash the One. But they're not exactly making a compelling fight.

The mainstream is not people that ride tech messageboards. We are considered geeks and losers in the real world. regular people think changing channels with their voice or finding Netflix movies by talking to their tv pretty nifty. Even women.

 

[blakjedi]

When the PS3 released as a harder to develop for, slightly more expensive box with a focus on being the media focal point of your living room - many of the same people now claiming the Xbox offers "new experiences and media services" were claiming it was a colossal waste of money and an awful machine. That was with what in my mind is a far more compelling media feature (the inclusion of Blue Ray) than anything that Microsoft has presented so far.

I guess to get to my point - what changed so much in the past few years to make "media features" worth so much more to you guys?

Blue ray is basically dead and had zero effect on Xbox sales. Shrug

Ms is focusing more on DD and voice control than ps4. Those things are bigger than bluray.

 

[Gradthrawn]

Blue ray is basically dead and had zero effect on Xbox sales. Shrug
.

You have sourceable data to back that statement up, right?

 

[Bagel seed]

Blue ray is basically dead and had zero effect on Xbox sales. Shrug

Ms is focusing more on DD and voice control than ps4. Those things are bigger than bluray.

Yeah.. see, those are the blanket proclamations I was talking about. Without backing up those statements with facts and figures it just degenerates this thread into a 'yes this is better' and 'no this is better' debate. Tell us how voice control is bigger than bluray, etc. Where is that coming from?

 

[Squilliam]

Yeah I don't know why this is so hard for some to understand. They go on about how important 33% more gpu is for games, yet they totally ignore pc gaming which is basically the same architecture as the new consoles but faster today, much faster tomorrow and far more faster the day after that. That's why yet another game playing box is no big deal, I mean why would I care when my pc will already run rings around the new consoles at launch and just keep pulling aheard after that.

It is almost as if Microsoft went through India spreading foot and mouth disease amongst the sacred cows. They aren't the only game in town so why must there be such a controversy when all people have to do is vote with their feet and choose an alternative they do like. This whole thing is truly irrational and thinking about things from their perspective it does seem like something they have agonised over internally for quite some time. In the end it is their box and if you buy their box you sign up to their terms for as long as you choose to use their box. It seems like the biggest fear for a lot of people is that other people will like the Xbox One so they are doing their hardest to try to sway opinion elsewhere. I remember similar things happening with Apple and Google between their respective smart-phone platforms.

What I'm personally interested in, all business aside, is new experiences that I can't already get on pc. Kinect is an obvious one as is cloud and how the box will interact with our Directv service. But just gaming grunt? Who cares, it's not like these little limited boxes have a chance against a pc today anyways, let alone a pc tomorrow.

I will always be a PC gamer and I always will be as long as the PC remains a viable platform. PC gaming has never been more attractive than it is today because we now have a prospect where even exclusive Sony/Microsoft games will become available, no need to dual wield systems, so this is the glorious future promised to the PC gamer purists huh?

The console platform has always seemed to have been stuck in the middle. The business decision to include Kinect for instance makes sense in a context that you can't just keep running away/towards the Red Queen. They can make the box more powerful, but never enough to satisfy the hardcore and they can never make the system cheap enough to satisfy the low end of the market. The only way I can see out of the dilemma is to make the system *useful* in other ways: they can't just make the system able to play movies because *everything* does that; they can't satisfy the hardcore gamer, nor keep the casual gamer enthralled. Their answer is of course the Xbox One, but time will tell if it is indeed the right one. I think they may be onto something which could be the reason why people are so offended by the system.

 

[blakjedi]

You have sourceable data to back that statement up, right?

You find it. I find responding to you pretty annoying.

I'm pretty sure the fact that Netflix is the largest purveyor of video in the world means bluray is dying. Never mind... here you go

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418409,00.asp

May 1st 2013


"While there are more Blu-ray disc players installed and connected to the Internet than streaming media players such as Apple TV $149.99 at Amazon and Roku $49.97 at Amazon, we expect that to change in the next year. Streaming media players will exceed the number of installed and Internet connected Blu-ray players in 2014," NPD analyst John Buffone said in a statement.

"This inflection point will help drive over-the-top content adoption, as the new generation of streaming media devices are optimized for content delivery, providing a more compelling interface that will aid in consumer discovery of new services, especially when compared to Blu-ray disc players," he said.

Meanwhile, Netflix remained the leading OTT service tapped by owners of Internet-connected TVs and devices. NPD found that "40 percent of TVs connected to the Internet, either through the TV itself or through another device, are used to watch Netflix streaming." Some 17 percent of surveyed consumers with Internet-capable home entertainment systems used them to access YouTube and 11 percent were accessing Hulu's free ad-supported service or the paid Hulu Plus service, the research firm said.

"Content usage remains dominated by Netflix and YouTube. An opportunity for digital distribution lies in enticing consumers to plug in to the Internet and download the apps available on devices they already own," Buffone said. "

 

[AlphaWolf]

You have sourceable data to back that statement up, right?

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/files/homemediamagazine/nodes/2013/30653/Webresearch-061713.jpg

Dvd will beat blu-ray to zero, but not sure by how much.

 

[blakjedi]

Yeah.. see, those are the blanket proclamations I was talking about. Without backing up those statements with facts and figures it just degenerates this thread into a 'yes this is better' and 'no this is better' debate. Tell us how voice control is bigger than bluray, etc. Where is that coming from?

You think the advent of Siri and voice recognition on Kinect is not going to outlast freaking bluray? Logic should rule posting sometimes.

The ipod is the reason why people don't buy cds..How is the cd changer in your car working out? Bluray is going in the same direction.

 

[Gradthrawn]

You find it. I find responding to you pretty annoying.

What an amazing response! You don't like someone asking you to provide a source for your statements? Further, you tell me to find a source for you. Which is strange since I don't recall disagreeing or agreeing with you. Just simply asking you to source your statements. Wow.

I'm pretty sure the fact that Netflix is the largest purveyor of video in the world means bluray is dying. Never mind... here you go

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2418409,00.asp

May 1st 2013


"While there are more Blu-ray disc players installed and connected to the Internet than streaming media players such as Apple TV $149.99 at Amazon and Roku $49.97 at Amazon, we expect that to change in the next year. Streaming media players will exceed the number of installed and Internet connected Blu-ray players in 2014," NPD analyst John Buffone said in a statement.

"This inflection point will help drive over-the-top content adoption, as the new generation of streaming media devices are optimized for content delivery, providing a more compelling interface that will aid in consumer discovery of new services, especially when compared to Blu-ray disc players," he said.

Meanwhile, Netflix remained the leading OTT service tapped by owners of Internet-connected TVs and devices. NPD found that "40 percent of TVs connected to the Internet, either through the TV itself or through another device, are used to watch Netflix streaming." Some 17 percent of surveyed consumers with Internet-capable home entertainment systems used them to access YouTube and 11 percent were accessing Hulu's free ad-supported service or the paid Hulu Plus service, the research firm said.

"Content usage remains dominated by Netflix and YouTube. An opportunity for digital distribution lies in enticing consumers to plug in to the Internet and download the apps available on devices they already own," Buffone said. "

So, I've now read through the entire article. What data are you using from that to conclude that Blu-ray is dead? Remember your exact words were "Blue ray is basically dead". You specifically used present tense and concluded that its "basically dead". That has very specific implications and needs very specific supporting data.

On a side note, if you find someone asking you to source your statements "annoying", maybe you should think a bit more about the conclusions you come to and blanket statements you make? But what the hell do I know? I'm just an annoying guy looking for a source and real data.

 

[blakjedi]

What an amazing response! You don't like someone asking you to provide a source for your statements? Further, you tell me to find a source for you. Which is strange since I don't recall disagreeing or agreeing with you. Just simply asking you to source your statements. Wow.



So, I've now read through the entire article. What data are you using from that to conclude that Blu-ray is dead? Remember your exact words were "Blue ray is basically dead". You specifically used present tense and concluded that its "basically dead". That has very specific implications and needs very specific supporting data.

On a side note, if you find someone asking you to source your statements "annoying", maybe you should think a bit more about the conclusions you come to and blanket statements you make? But what the hell do I know? I'm just an annoying guy looking for a source and real data.

I apologize. I was annoyed. it actually had nothing to do with you.

that said. Digital downloads have been and will continue to overtake and replace blu ray sales as early as next year (according to the sourced article).

apologies again.