Business Approach Comparison Sony PS4 and Microsoft Xbox

[wco81]

If this gen lasts more than five years, I'll be blown away. With people demanding the industry stays pretty much status quo in every respect, including distribution, offline play and not wanting Eye or Kinect in the box, they're pretty much guaranteeing all we'll get is the same games with better graphics. "We want innovation, but not any of the things that enable it!"

What is the value of buying a PS4 over a PC, with the exception of some exclusive games? There isn't one. We saw last gen that multiplatforms are more often than not the best games, and the best sellers.

What is the value of buying a Xbox One over a PC with the exception of Kinect and some exclusives? The only unique thing they have going is Kinect. That's it. Kinect at least enables some things that your PC won't do. Some exclusives too, but same applies from PS4.

The cost of getting a reasonable gaming PC is going to drop. In two or three years, if I didn't have an Xbox One or PS4 already, why would I buy one instead of getting a new PC with whatever comes after Intel's Haswell, or a tablet, Apple TV or whatever? Apple, Valve and some of the indies are going to make a killing. Microsoft, Sony and the traditional console market is going to face tough times.

Yeah I'm wondering if the console business will even reach the peaks of this generation. It sounds like MS expects it too, as their forecasting over 100 million units of their console alone, with the potential of the entire industry reaching a billion units installed base.

But I think that's more hope than a realistic forecast.

A lot of console gamers don't want to do the legwork of building a PC. Not to mention, certain gaming genres like sports games will never be big on the PC.


If consoles run into trouble, it won't be because they don't have a DD model similar to mobile games. It will be because $60 games become devalued and the cheap iOS and Android games become "good enough" for a lot of people.

A lot of the people who bought the Wii may already be in this camp. They're more than satisfied with Angry Birds and the like, rather than spending hundreds again on a dedicated gaming device.

The "good enough" standard is what has caused mobile devices to disrupt the businesses of music (lossy compressed music) and photography (look at point and shoot camera sales). It may eventually do the same to TV since mobile devices can facilitate cord cutting.

Ultimately, "good enough" games from mobile devices may bring down console gaming or at least reduce its size.

 

[joker454]

Joker, do you exactly know how the sharing system is supposed to work? Do you have insider information, or is all an assumption of yours?

I'm going by what Microsoft has said rather than what forum jockeys have inferred/fudded. Yeah, that makes me a complete anomaly on forums by listening to the maker of the product rather than what K3wld00d47 says on a forum Here's what they had said:

Give your family access to your entire games library anytime, anywhere: Xbox One will enable new forms of access for families. Up to ten members of your family can log in and play from your shared games library on any Xbox One. Just like today, a family member can play your copy of Forza Motorsport at a friend’s house. Only now, they will see not just Forza, but all of your shared games. You can always play your games, and any one of your family members can be playing from your shared library at a given time.

That's pretty clear to me. I know that forum idiots have tried to obfuscate the situation and make it seem like a bad thing, but it's clear as day in the above quote right from Microsoft. It doesn't matter anymore anyways, that awesome feature has been killed (with cloud as a possible side casualty) and the internet-less 'hardcore" gamers can rejoice. I suppose it party makes sense, "hardcore" gamers are the lowest common denominator, they seem less acceptable to new tech, spend less than casuals, etc, so I guess they decided to cater to them with an old fashioned console box that they can play while listening to Abba on their 8-track. Microsoft does have other devices to cater to more tech accepting folks with internet like their tablets and pc's, so I'm hoping things can advance there. They can always revisit the "hardcore" gamer market in 8 years from now and see what decade they are still in.

 

[Arwin]

Sony had the 5 PS3 install limit, but had to dial it down to 2. And that was with the limitation that you had to trust the others enough to give them access to your account (and that they would deactive the licence if you asked them). I don't think people were being realistic on how the family plan was going to work.

Again, if the system is so brilliant that everyone would want to have it eventually, why not make that opt-in? There have been retail games with codes that unlock digital content now. It's all still possible without locking out the current options.

Also, I am actually still hoping that the EU will start enforcing digital stores to allow for reselling licences.

 

[blakjedi]

From the end user's perspective:

1. Forced checkings every 24 hours or loss of all gaming ability
2. Restrictions on how you could sell / lend your game disks
3. Restrictions on who could count as a "friend" for gifting/transfer purchases
4. Restrictions on WHO you could sell your used games too.
5. No guarentee that third party studios would allow resale, transfer, or trade
6. Built in ability of third party studios to restrict transfer, set up transfer fees, and prohibit resale.

Etc. Basically, Microsoft said "We own any and all rights to the game from the time it is purchased on. You must cede those rights to us in order to play these games. But don't worry - we are good guys and won't restrict you too much.". That is draconian.

Once again the part you gloss over is fairly glaring: People feel like they own physical disks. While there are still licenses attached, courts have supported people in that assumption in the past. Microsoft was trying to say that Microsoft owned the content - even when it was purchased in physical form. That was the heart of the DRM debate. This "it was all about the 24 hour checking" crap that keeps getting thrown out is a bit ridiculous.

As for your list:

1. I can currently share my games on the PS3. The restriction is tighter (only 2 people instead of 10) - but it most certainly currently exists. Maybe I'm just special, or maybe this has existed for a long time. As we don't even know what Microsoft's final implementation of this feature would have been - there is no way to know if their service would have been better.
2. This is currently available on the PC through Steam for most games. Both Microsoft and Sony could implement this on their machines if they chose to do so.
3. Gaikai - look it up. I know you want to define cloud gaming as "whatever Microsoft does, and only what Microsoft does", but in this case Gaikai is most certainly cloud based gaming.
4. Move is motion based gaming. Once again, it is just plain dishonest to define motion based gaming as "whatever Microsoft does, and only what Microsoft does". The basic concept is that the games are controlled through movement rather than controllers. The Wii, Wii U, PS3 Move, PS4 Move, XBox Kinect, and XBox One Kinect all conform to this type of control. You can argue strengths and weaknesses of different implementations, but to say "It isn't motion based gaming if it isn't like Microsoft does it!" is not accurate.

From what end users perspective? Were you in the market for an Xbox One before the DRM policies were announced? If yes then was that the straw? If not then the opinions of people who actually were in the market should trump yours. My opinion was that MS was on the right track and the DRM needed tweaks.

I find only number one onerous but not draconian. Draconian is me only having that game for as long as there is an active connection state. Like a movie rental. Or I would have to repurchase my entire catalog if I dropped my connection for longer than 24 hrs.

Points two and three are handled quite handily by family share. Full stop.

I dont sell my disks until the end of a console generation.

Points five and six dont really have anything to do with MS. Sony is offering the same "draconian" restrictions allowing their third parties to dictate their own DRM strategies.

You have an MS chip on your shoulder. That has no place in reasoned debate so I wont address any comment where you attempt to play out a "Mind of Microsoft" versus battle between MS and the public.

Gaikai for PS remains to be seen. We dont know WHAT it will be like. Right now its only streamed games. What indication do you have thats its anything more? Since MS isnt a benchmark, what cloud capabilities has Sony described that Gaikai enables that makes it something you want? BC is not a big deal to me whatsoever so if thats the value proposition of Sony's cloud I dont need it. We know about one companies cloud strategy - its pervasive across their entire ecosystem. Gaikai under Sony not so much.

Move was the least successful of the motion controlled implementations of last generation. Taking it out of the box this generation relegates it to continued back burner status. Kinect as an accessory was a lot more successful and intergrated. Why shouldnt I look at MS' implementation as the benchmark in that respect? Now its fully integrated system wide. That isnt innovative? Thats more innovative than Siri or Galaxy 4's motion controls by a longshot. That said Puppeteer looks amazing.

MS' DRM with one tweak was fully acceptable to me and very forward looking.

 

[Rurouni]

I have a feeling that selling "used" digital content just being thrown by MS to calm people down. I don't think they wouldn't have formulated a good enough idea to apply that ability in near or far future.
How the system of selling "used" digital content could work? You probably can only sell your used games through MS, thus if someone wants to buy a game, they might as well check the use of the "used" the game marketplace. That would mean an automatic loss of new game sales. Sure, the publisher would get something, but how much? It probably would erode the income from new game sales. Unlike buying a physical disc, buying a "used" digital content doesn't pose any downside at all because there is no such thing as a "used" digital content.

Can anyone formulate good enough plan for this to work?

 

[warb]

Can you play the shared game for an arbitrary amount of time? Can another one play a game in the shared library simultaneously?

They were not very clear on whether it was one person could share at a time, or if different people on the list could share different games at the same time.

I wonder if it could still work if you were to specify DD games to share, with those games requiring a connection while they're in the shared list.

 

[Billy Idol]

Ok, a question: if this family share is really working like people hope. Why would a publisher support this? Does anyone has an answer to this?

You would basically cut the sales of all single player games by a factor of 10(!!) Think about a scenario where 10 people group together over the web to share an account....

The only logic solution to such a scenario is that publisher won't release SP content on X1. E.g. no Halo single player campaign.

Are you guys really sure about the family sharing?

 

[3dilettante]

^ My assumption is that almost all of those who buy the new ~£400 systems with their extensive online services, will be connected. There are a lot of sucessful products and services that require an internet connection.

There's a problem with that assumption, even though it should be generally true.
These are consumer novelties, and they sell in part on objective features and in part on emotions.
There's hype, social cachet, peer pressure, brand loyalty, nostalgia, etc., and these contribute to network effects that cause masses of people to move to buy the mass-produced product.

While everyone in Microsoft's target market and subset of the world's geography and population should fit its conditions, it's also increasingly likely the more edge cases you cut off that they know somebody who doesn't.
There's a threshold to where that becomes a net emotional negative, and it can become self-reinforcing.

Maybe your best friend who you play games with all the time can't buy in. Are you supposed to leave your friend/relative behind when an alternative exists?
There were economic, geographic, philosophical, perceptual, and lifestyle kinks to the One's total package that snipped off a region there, a demographic here, and some informal social contract or tradition there.


People tend to pay attention to and remain loyal to friends, family, and groups on the societal conscience such as some military members (big in the USA). The press and media are also still human, and they can both have the same perception and realize they can get ratings by exploiting it.
Hit enough of their network and the safe majority can perceive it as a concerted attack on themselves. It became an Us versus Them, and now all those feelings you want to sell your product are going the other way.

There's a line where this becomes a negative feedback loop, and maybe Microsoft could have found a way to control the narrative so that it wouldn't be crossed. The narrative got away from them, if it was one they could have controlled at any point.

 

[warb]

Ok, a question: if this family share is really working like people hope. Why would a publisher support this? Does anyone has an answer to this?

You would basically cut the sales of all single player games by a factor of 10(!!) Think about a scenario where 10 people group together over the web to share an account....

The only logic solution to such a scenario is that publisher won't release SP content on X1. E.g. no Halo single player campaign.

Are you guys really sure about the family sharing?

Only one person could use the shared copy at a time, so at best it was like having an extra disc to post to people, over XBL.

If more that two wanted to play at the same time, you'd need another copy.

 

[2real4tv]

I'm going by what Microsoft has said rather than what forum jockeys have inferred/fudded. Yeah, that makes me a complete anomaly on forums by listening to the maker of the product rather than what K3wld00d47 says on a forum Here's what they had said:



That's pretty clear to me. I know that forum idiots have tried to obfuscate the situation and make it seem like a bad thing, but it's clear as day in the above quote right from Microsoft. It doesn't matter anymore anyways, that awesome feature has been killed (with cloud as a possible side casualty) and the internet-less 'hardcore" gamers can rejoice. I suppose it party makes sense, "hardcore" gamers are the lowest common denominator, they seem less acceptable to new tech, spend less than casuals, etc, so I guess they decided to cater to them with an old fashioned console box that they can play while listening to Abba on their 8-track. Microsoft does have other devices to cater to more tech accepting folks with internet like their tablets and pc's, so I'm hoping things can advance there. They can always revisit the "hardcore" gamer market in 8 years from now and see what decade they are still in.

The new speculation is that you could only share for a limited time.

 

[Billy Idol]

Only one person could use the shared copy at a time, so at best it was like having an extra disc to post to people, over XBL.

No difference. SP takes 2-3 days to finish. So the next one in the row can use the shared library to play the SP campaign, finish it...next one...this 10 times will cost you 9 out of 10 potential customers.

So, again, is family sharing really working the way people hope?

 

[warb]

No difference. SP takes 2-3 days to finish. So the next one in the row can use the shared library to play the SP campaign, finish it...next one...this 10 times will cost you 9 put of 10 potential customers.

So, is family sharing really working the way people hope?

The 10th guy is waiting a long time, and the people on your family list may more often want to be playing at the same time.

Also maybe someone else on the list snatches up the shared copy, and you really want to continue your game without that interuption. +1 sale.

 

[Cranky]

You know your alienating college kids right? Also terrible spin, $250/hr to look for remote, how about pay me half of that and I will do it for you and fetch your drinks also Sarcasm?

Were you incapable of reading the whole post? I clearly state that others would value their time differently but the concept would still apply. Time has value. That value varies from person to person. For me, it is $250/hr. So, I just consumed $12.5 replying to you. Really should have included much flaming and gnashing of the teeth to get proper value though.

How is that alienating college kids? Either they have suffient money to pay expenses and buy the console (either on their own or via their parents) or they choose to trade-off eating eating ramen to buy a console. The latter folks are probably making a poor decison. That's ok, college kids do that all the time.

 

[AlphaWolf]

The 10th guy is waiting a long time, and the people on your family list may more often want to be playing at the same time.

I'd expect some overlap amongst the people on the list. I know I wouldn't have been sharing my list with 10 have nots.

 

[Nisaaru]

Wow!!! Talk about your post E3 over reaction.

New rumor is no price drop, but Xbox Day One Editions will be getting 1TB hard drive instead and 3 month Xbox Live Gold Card.

Now it gets really surreal. First they claim they only will offer one SKU with a fixed 500GB non upgradable because more SKUs it only confuses the market/developers and its a super special HD anyway. And now they plan to change that "well thought out" concept.

 

[Billy Idol]

The 10th guy is waiting a long time, and the people on your family list may more often want to be playing at the same time.

Does not matter...the gaming backlog of most gamers is so huge, for 6$ a AAA SP game...most people are willing to wait a few days...e.g. rotate the different games, one starts with Halo, one with Forza, one with Project: Sparks, COD, etc...

Sorry warb, no offence, but this is no argument. Then we would not have a problem with used games, where people wait comparable long time to get the game...if day 1 is important.

I agree that online coop sp games may attract people, or maybe not.

Death of SP games?

 

[Cranky]

Seriously - tell this to the families of U.S. Navy individuals who like their consoles. Or perhaps markets in countries like Brazil where internet is not always readily available. Even in the US, there is a significant market where internet is not always available - for instance some college dorms don't offer internet because there are on campus labs.

Actually, let us be more precise. In North America - the country with the single largest penetration of internet users - the penetration rate for 2012 Q2 was 78.6%. It drops from there. In Asia, the percentage is 27.5%. The world average is 34.3%.

Those are significant numbers for a system that requires 100% of users to have an internet connection 100% of the time.

But none of those people matter - because they aren't you right?



I could launch into an exhaustive explanation of IP and how you are wrong on each count, but instead I think I can make this much simpler: you are entitled to your opinion but the courts (and judgeing by recent events a large portion of the population) don't agree with you.

Did you miss the part where I said target market? If you don't have a stable internet connection you are not the target market. What could be clearer?

The courts have clearly shown fundament inability to grasp simple concepts, particularily with regard to the difference between digital and analogue IP so how that is relevant to my point above.

 

[Xalion]

From what end users perspective? Were you in the market for an Xbox One before the DRM policies were announced? If yes then was that the straw? If not then the opinions of people who actually were in the market should trump yours. My opinion was that MS was on the right track and the DRM needed tweaks.

I was. If you want proof, go back and review the polls on this forum. You will find before E3 I said I would probably buy both. After I said I would only buy the PS4. In the most recent poll you will find I have gone back to probably buying both. This generation, I have purchased 2 PS3s and 2 XBox 360s, so I have a track record that supports my assertions.

I know you want to paint me as a forum warrior - but I vote with my wallet. Ultimately I understand that nothing I say here will have much effect. On the other hand, my money is definately in play here. I think that is more than I can say for most who are supporting the XBox. I have a feeling they are going to buy an XBox regardless of what Microsoft dos.

Points two and three are handled quite handily by family share. Full stop.

We disagree entirely on this. The point of me giving a game to a neighbor is not to share it with family. The point of my lending a game disk to a co-worker so he can try it before he buys it has nothing to do with family share.

Let me be quite clear here - I rarely sell games to large retail stores like GameStop. If I sell games, it is usually in a yard sale. I give my games away quite frequently to family/friends that cannot always afford to buy them themselves. Points 2 and 3 would have made both of these impossible for most of my gifting / selling. Family share would have done nothing to help me with that.

Points five and six dont really have anything to do with MS. Sony is offering the same "draconian" restrictions allowing their third parties to dictate their own DRM strategies.

The difference is that Sony didn't have points 2 and 3. Even if we assumed that Microsoft was going to always act in the best interest of their consumer - I am pretty sure companies like EA won't. Through the past few years, we have seen companies pushing DRM strategies that I wouldn't support. The point with 5 and 6 is the claim that "family share takes care of everything" cannot co-exist with a system that says "oh, and by the way - family share is only by the good will of these companies that have been screwing you over for the past few years".

The policy as a whole was too much for me. Instead of being forward looking, I found it to be a huge regression.

You have an MS chip on your shoulder. That has no place in reasoned debate so I wont address any comment where you attempt to play out a "Mind of Microsoft" versus battle between MS and the public.

This is at best a poor ad hominem. Everyone here can go back and review my voting record on the polls to see I have no problem with Microsoft problems in general. I can prove I purchase both Microsoft and Sony products with some regularity. Can you say the same thing with the Playstation?

Gaikai for PS remains to be seen. We dont know WHAT it will be like. Right now its only streamed games. What indication do you have thats its anything more?

I see. So please, describe in detail how every feature that Microsoft plans to implement in the cloud. Oh - wait - they haven't released any details. Just that games will be "in the cloud".

It is silly to say that Gaikai doesn't count as the cloud because we don't know the exact implementation when turning around and saying that another service that we have even fewer details on should be the benchmark. What we can say for certain is that both systems are moving forward with a cloud based strategy.

Move was the least successful of the motion controlled implementations of last generation.

So what? Really - this is a fairly simple question. Is the Move a motion based control system or not? Oh - it is? Well then, the Playstation has movement based controls!

MS' DRM with one tweak was fully acceptable to me and very forward looking.

You are welcome to your opinion. You just shouldn't be angry that a large portion of the gaming population disagrees with you.

 

[joker454]

Sony had the 5 PS3 install limit, but had to dial it down to 2. And that was with the limitation that you had to trust the others enough to give them access to your account (and that they would deactive the licence if you asked them). I don't think people were being realistic on how the family plan was going to work.

Yeah I don't know why people keep bringing up ps3 sharing, it's not at all the same thing as what xb1 was going to be offering.

Ok, a question: if this family share is really working like people hope. Why would a publisher support this? Does anyone has an answer to this?

There's many answers to this but to keep it short, it's a way to target new audiences (and hence new revenue), a way to get an advantage over your competition (and hence bring in more customers), and a way to kill off used gaming all at the same time (a place where they make no revenue). Now what I'm curious about is who will copy what Microsoft was doing and beat them to market with it. We now know that Valve is contemplating it, how about Apple? If Apple did it then everyone would love their "new invention". I think that's what will have to happen, another less hated company will copy the idea and market it first, then Microsoft can come back years later and support it themselves. Anyone want to place bets as who will be the first out with family plan digital sharing?

The new speculation is that you could only share for a limited time.

See that's my point, speculation. What the company says on it's own website doesn't matter anymore, all that matters is speculation.

 

[XpiderMX]

They were not very clear on whether it was one person could share at a time, or if different people on the list could share different games at the same time.

They did not have time to clarify their plans.