Ok thanks.
In this sense Sony and MS strategies are aligned then.
IMO anyway MS system was excellent.
Last edited by a moderator:
Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
Ok thanks.
In this sense Sony and MS strategies are aligned then.
IMO anyway MS system was excellent.
HollovVpo1nt
Newcomer
It was GAF and horrible games journalism combined. I don't mean to be rude, but in an income situation like that, it's not smart to have or logical to own a 500 dollar console of which the games are at least 60 dollars new.
There haven't been many technical standards that started out without any problems. Yes, able providers will craps out sometime. But I'd like to think that the more devices that are connected, the more pressure on cable companies to maintain their network. The way mobile operators operate has changed dramatically when people relied heavily on daily connections, to a point that when when a mobile operator craps out for even a day, the government gets involved. We shouldn't we be limited by the way if scenarios of today. We can't doubt every new innovation by that. Games are going DD anyway aand I think MS solution was a great middle ground in the transition, especially with family sharing.
Well, given the fact that Microsoft is backtracking, I'm not all that confident that *they* were confident in the advantages they were going to offer by having the 24-hour-online-checkin.
When you are confronted with the amount of criticism that Microsoft has, they have two options:
- communicate better what advantages this brings to the community and buyer and sell it on that
- backtrack and lift the restriction, which is essentially, pointing to that critics have a valid point
When you are confronted with the amount of criticism that Microsoft has, they have two options:
- communicate better what advantages this brings to the community and buyer and sell it on that
- backtrack and lift the restriction, which is essentially, pointing to that critics have a valid point
I love how you're willing to lump some 115.000 gamers that happen to frequent a forum on a shared interest as some kind of evil, unified body bent on destroying any and all good market developments. It's kind of ... offensive, to be honest.
Microsoft's solution wasn't any form of middle-ground solution. It just removed the retail model and replaced it with the Digital model. If games are going to go all DD anyway, then why bother? It's a problem that solves itself. The model they suggested now in many ways was the worst of all solutions combined. They can implement all that you loved about this model (which partly I doubt you even fully understood the implications of) and apply it to DD only.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
My theory is that PSEye isn't as good as Kinect, so Sony doesn't want the comparison and by including it they would be encouraging multiplatform devs to use it. By not including it Sony are virtually assuring that only MS exclusives will get the full Kinect treatment, so to speak.
I would say following the tidal-wave of negative publicity MS were very confident that their PR pathway for one had been well and truly been shot to bits. They had no choice but to announce the retraction in DRM policies. I said in an early thread that for DRM to work both MS and Sony had to have methods that were similar or cross referenced with each other.When Sony pulled its PR stunt at E3, Microsofts DRM policy was dead.
The only investment MS could have done to make this work was release an Xbone Digital version.
My theory is that:
1. $399 is a holy target, just as the Vita's $249 was.
2. So is not making loss on hardware.
3. Survey of the first year early adapter market for PS4 overwhelmingly dismisses motion controls and camera's packed in (especially in the US)
4. The tech isn't reliable enough to function as a generic interface as much as Kinect, making it less desireable for basic UI interaction
5. PS Eye isn't good enough by itself to add significantly to gameplay. It needs the Move controller. But the Move controller, the DS4, the PS Eye all added into the PS4 box, would have made it break rule 1 and 2, and be a complicated message to consumers.
6. PS Eye would have invited comparisons not necessarily favorable vs Kinect (as you say), especially without Move
That said, they could still indirectly benefit from Kinect being standard - multi-platform developers integrating basic camera features with Kinect can relatively cheaply also support (some of) them on PS4, for those that do have the PS Eye.
Also, they still have an option to include PS Eye by default later, should it have been a mistake.
Microsoft have the exclusive games at launch ....now this whole big bad Microsoft taking away our rights is off the table ( I don't believe that argument by the way )
They can concentrate on promoting the idea they have the best exclusives at launch and are family friendly by using kinect to appeal to younger gamers and families who like to game together .
Its quite possible this was part of the reason to pull back from there DRM plans they were fighting on to many fronts now they only have to fight on one front the game front .
Show the games with great experiences and the people will follow instead of trying to talk people into a digital future .
They can concentrate on promoting the idea they have the best exclusives at launch and are family friendly by using kinect to appeal to younger gamers and families who like to game together .
Its quite possible this was part of the reason to pull back from there DRM plans they were fighting on to many fronts now they only have to fight on one front the game front .
Show the games with great experiences and the people will follow instead of trying to talk people into a digital future .
Yes please I already have a day one machine so any upgrade is more than welcome
PSE was never meant to be like Kinect or do what Kinect does.
Both Sony & MS motion control philosophies/solutions make sense.
MS will get its ROI, just later than they though.
What MS, but also Sony, will do next is to progressively ease customers into DD and "always online" which is a longer process that though will get them what they want.
Also all would be done in a less "aggressive" way which is just good for them and for us as well.
MS has lost a battle but not the war.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just because the mob forces you to change your policies, doesn't mean they were right. MS was trying to break new ground with regards to DRM by allowing gifting and trade-ins on discs converted to digital (but with all the benefits of digital downloads).
It was a middle ground solution actually because it allowed disc-based purchases to have all the benefits of a digital download (no disc checks, game library follows profile not disc) while retaining the ability to gift and trade in. Don't be so offended be characterizations of GAF. There is intelligent discussion there but there is definitely an undercurrent of 'angry mob.' I have no data but assume its a younger crowd than the folks who post here.
I still feel that someday we'll all look back on this and regret how this DRM solution was killed.
In the end i think they are somewhat overcompensating by the perceived weakness from last gen which was price. Its a shame they sacrificed it for price though since it essentially relegates it to having minor impact on core gaming experiences this gen.
HollovVpo1nt
Newcomer
Have you been around GAF lately? Sure, there are down to Earth people actually think before they write something, but the vast majority creates a thread on some silly thing they heard, some silly theory or their silly thoughts, and that silly stuff gets exposure. My point is that GAF has a lot of influence, and people on the board are acting like 12 year olds. Microsoft had a vision for the future and some geniounly nice ideas on how to make gaming a better user experience and had nice ideas to transition to a digital only model, in which the physical copy of a game is basically a way of authentication. Regarding authentication, isn't it obvious why frequent online connection (24h) is required? Imagine if there was no 24h autentication:
- A buys game, authenticates in on his console, pulls out internet plug, plays game offline infinetly long
- A gives game to B, B authenticates game, a deactivation command is sent to A, but A is offline so that command never arrives
- B pulls internet plug, gives game to C, C authenticates games, deactivation command sent to B, command never arrives,
Repeat cycle. Sure, there are ways to make this process better, but the what I'm very disappointed in is that people over at GAF and gaming journalists jumped to conclusions way to fast, without proper discussion. I bet a lot of people are realising now how decent MS's policies were. Oh well, you don't know what you got till it's gone.
Microsoft is the only one of the 'big three' who had a vision to change the environment of how we play and trade, and their vision was based on a connected world. I feel that Microsoft should have spent more time discussing benefits rather than backtracking. But that was also inevitable. They had to. The internet went bananas after the reveal event while Majon Nelson specifically said there would be few games in the reveal event.
This is all so disappointing. I can't beleive Microsoft gave in so quickly.
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
On DRM:
As a gamer I'm sad to see MS change their mind. I was looking forward to Family Sharing and not needing discs to play.
Their system was awesome. I could buy a game for $60, install it and then share it with friends. Then after it got old I could sell it to Game Stop and get $20-30 back. Consumers were pretty stupid for reacting the way they did IMO.
I know I could still go disc-less by downloading my games, but I have a 50 GB download cap on my Internet, so that's really not going to fly.
From a business standpoint though, I agree with the decision. Sony hung publishers out to dry and then publishers threw MS under the bus. They had no choice. Consumers were in a frenzy.
As for $499 being the bigger issue. That might be true, but not at launch. There's plenty of time to drop to $399 later on.
As a gamer I'm sad to see MS change their mind. I was looking forward to Family Sharing and not needing discs to play.
Their system was awesome. I could buy a game for $60, install it and then share it with friends. Then after it got old I could sell it to Game Stop and get $20-30 back. Consumers were pretty stupid for reacting the way they did IMO.
I know I could still go disc-less by downloading my games, but I have a 50 GB download cap on my Internet, so that's really not going to fly.
From a business standpoint though, I agree with the decision. Sony hung publishers out to dry and then publishers threw MS under the bus. They had no choice. Consumers were in a frenzy.
As for $499 being the bigger issue. That might be true, but not at launch. There's plenty of time to drop to $399 later on.
I'm disappointed in needing disc...I would love to go all digital, and MS solution did provided sharing and maybe resell/gift. Im afraid by the time we all go digital, it would be like the current model of digital...no sharing and no resell/ gifting.
MS should have stuck to their guns and go down blazing...
Johnny Awesome
Veteran
People have really low attention spans. It was difficult for MS to message their somewhat complex (but better IMO) system to consumers. I still have hope that they might offer family sharing later for downloadable titles to owners that agree to 24 hour checks (see what a mouthful that was).
They absolutely can't say anything about this until after launch. The only message they can spread now is basically: "Status quo, status quo, status quo...." Anything else would just confuse people (unfortunately).
I'm not sure. If the policy had inherent strengths that they believed in, in other words, if they're business approach on that front was stronger, or outweigh the cons, I believe they could have sticked to their guns. The pure fact that they are backtracking shows that, as many Xbox and PS users alike argued on this very board, the drm policies are rather hard to swallow.
Either that is down to miss-communication which could have been addressed - or the people arguing it actually have a point. Mainly that the inherent disadvantage of not being able to run an offline console is rather big. Too big, it seems.
