Microsft-Sony presents it's next console, the PlayStation X...if it were only true.

[tuna]

No, the other advantage is quality, stability and consistency.

In what whay do quality and stability differ?

 

[SedentaryJourney]

I prefer the new Dashboard, it's clean and less cluttered.

As for XBL vs PSN...we've been over that many times on this board and the concensus is always XBL is better that's why people don't mind paying for it...just ask Shifty Geezer.

XBL may be better, but that doesn't mean everyone should pay for perceived value. By that I mean whether the fee existed or not XBL would offer the same basic service and so paying $60 is getting me what? By now basic multiplayer should just be free.

Being a user of both PSN and XBL I can honesty say I pay the XBL fee because I have no choice if I want basic multiplayer for Halo and Gears, not the fact that I can join session in progress or have cross game chat. Let's not forget that PSN is also getting better due to competition from MS and handles things well on the developer side. Back in 2007 you could download user generated content for UT3 and today you can connect to steamworks.

The future in a one console market where MS calls the shots looks a lot like mandatory online fees for basic multiplayer over a tightly controlled network. A good thing this is not, unless you enjoy being had by the balls.

 

[Sigfried1977]

I wouldn't wanna know what's going to happen to all the great IPs Sony has created over the last decade if MS (aka the seller, dismantler and destroyer of ips and well regarded companies) gets to have a say in all of this. Right now Sony seems like the only company left who are still making stuff for gamers first and foremost. The other 2 on the other hand have shifted their attention to my mom instead.

 

[Ike Turner]

Microsoft's head of PR tweeted the following 2 days ago:

"re: sony/ms domain names: Sony = great MS partner. No scoop here, this was just a defensive domain hold. Let's move on to weekend, kay? "

So nothing to see here other than blogs trying to create buzz.

 

[zed]

Honestly I betcha they have 10,000's domain names
eg
fuckmicrosoft.com
microsoftsucks.com
etc
I doubt theyre going to use them

registering a domainname for a year is a pittance ~$10 I think, better them owning it than someone else

 

[boommoob1]

Patsu, since Stringer took charge Sony have been run by focus groups and marketing. I expect a big realignment when stringers finally got rid of. The last several years have resulted in multiple misj udgements. Has Stringer already been sidelined?. There seems to be new strategies across many of there product lines.

 

[RudeCurve]

In what whay do quality and stability differ?

Read patsu's post...

 

[dobwal]

If there were a monopoly in the console market advancement would slow down. However it wouldn't stop entirely. The sole manufacturer still needs growth for shareholders so they will routinely need to release new hardware. It would never be sold at a loss howerver. Each new generation would likely have significantly smaller advancement than we see now. Hardware would never be bleeding edge stuff compared to what we'd see on the PC side of things.

Advancements in console tech are about to slow down regardless due to heavy competiton and cost, not the lack of it. And lets not forget that Nintendo chose less than stellar tech in the midst of competing against both MS and Sony. Healthy competition is great for any market but you can have unhealthy levels competition when you have too many players.

Outside of Nintendo most console makers have their hardware subsidize by their software, so advancement in tech is mostly dictated by software marketshare more than competition from outside companies. A company with 60-70% of the software amongst 1 or 2 other players can more readily advance its tech than a company where the top player on has 25% of the market and competes with dozens of companies when the total potential of sales is the same for both circumstances.

Also, you can say that smaller players are more willing to risk more in terms of the tech they put into their console when market tends to favor one console who gets the lionshare of software sales. Chasing 20-30% because of a more competitive enviroment, where no one company gains dominant marketshare would warrant a more conservative approach, given that software is the profit generator not the hardware.

 

[deathindustrial]

A company with 60-70% of the software amongst 1 or 2 other players can more readily advance its tech than a company where the top player on has 25% of the market and competes with dozens of companies when the total potential of sales is the same for both circumstances.

Doesn't this only apply if companies stick with a legacy closed source approach? If gaming development shifts to embrace open source methodologies like other software industries then the costs of tech advancement are amortized over the entire eco-system, not a single company.

Cheers

 

[dobwal]

Doesn't this only apply if companies stick with a legacy closed source approach? If gaming development shifts to embrace open source methodologies like other software industries then the costs of tech advancement are amortized over the entire eco-system, not a single company.

Cheers

I am not sure of your point. The only way a hardware manufacturer can amortized hardware cost over an entire eco-system is if they received a licensing fee on every software unit sold.

 

[patsu]

Patsu, since Stringer took charge Sony have been run by focus groups and marketing. I expect a big realignment when stringers finally got rid of. The last several years have resulted in multiple misj udgements. Has Stringer already been sidelined?. There seems to be new strategies across many of there product lines.

Focus group is common in large companies. I read that Stringer himself championed DIVX and Sony Reader. Not sure how Sony's focus on 3D came about.

PSN is one of the success stories because it gained traction compared to other Sony online efforts. It actually makes sense to halt the Playstation Rewards program because I think they can build loyalty via the lighter weight PS+ program.

However, the PS Rewards social services platform (the technical part) may be useful to consolidate Sony's services across all divisions. I don't have all the details but at 30,000 feet, it sounds like the missing piece in my mind. May be it's too expensive to license but they have to start somewhere.

 

[patsu]

Phil Harrison's take on nextgen business model:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-07-21-phil-harrison-discusses-new-xbox-ps4

"I think by and large we're moving towards a free-to-play business model where the entry point is going to be free and you're monetizing the engagement," said Harrison, formerly head of Sony's Worldwide Studios and currently acting on Gaikai's board of directors. "70-90 per cent will be playing for free, but that other per cent will make the game far more profitable than you could ever get selling it in the shop."

Harrison himself is evidently a champion of the free-to-play model - earlier this week it was revealed that he pushed for Media Molecule's PlayStation 3 hit LittleBigPlanet to launch as a free-to-play downloadable game.

There are, however, challenges to an immediate switch, one of them being the expectations surrounding console games - though Lee offered that it'll just take a courageous leap to prove the model's worth. "The console audience expects a certain amount of visual fidelity," added Lee, "the challenge is are you willing to put £5-10 million up front to create a compelling console experience and then flip it to free-to-play - I think people should and I think people will."

Phil Harrison was happy to offer one tangible example. "I think in some short period of time, if a Call of Duty game on the next PlayStation or the next Xbox starts life as free-to-play" he said, "you've got hundreds of millions worth of product development open to the world to play. Then the industry will change overnight, instantly and forever."

Interesting take but IMHO I don't think F2P is necessarily the only model or the strongest model, even for LBP.

 

[RudeCurve]

So how does this model make money? Do you have to pay a monthly fee? Or is it on a month per month basis. Phil Harrison's model sounds similar to GameFly but he hides the rental fee using the term "services". What services is he talking about?

 

[patsu]

It's like Free Realm. Free to play but you pay for incremental resources, powerups, premium services, etc.

 

[patsu]

...

Google+ seems to be well accepted so far. Most of the press and users like Google Circle. Yet Sony ignored implemented features like Home clubhouses and XMB chatroom. The former is similar in spirit to Google Circles, the latter is like an open, multi-owner, democratic Google Circle, which is extremely useful for heavily connected gamers and communities.

...

Heh heh, that's why I mentioned Sony should open up PS Home to all Internet users, and make it 2D. Do the social graph based on Playstation momentum first, and then introduce casual games:

http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/30/google-code-reveals-intent-to-unleash-games-and-questions-to-th/

Buried deep in Google Plus' source code are a few curious references to at least two new services that may very well be destined for the invite-only social networking suite. The first is Google Games, the tech giant's first venture into the world of social gaming. While this isn't a big stunner -- recent job postings insinuated that this feature would come around sooner or later -- it makes perfect sense for it to be included as part of the Google+ experience to help strengthen Mountain View's bid against the likes of Facebook.

Meanwhile, playstation.com is still only a simple forum with no mechanism to capture facebook, google, or even PS3 game traffic. ^_^

EDIT: Come to think of it, Home was introduced back in 2007.

 

[scooby_dooby]

So how does this model make money? Do you have to pay a monthly fee? Or is it on a month per month basis. Phil Harrison's model sounds similar to GameFly but he hides the rental fee using the term "services". What services is he talking about?

Think FarmVille...

 

[ShadowWolf64]

I wouldn't wanna know what's going to happen to all the great IPs Sony has created over the last decade if MS (aka the seller, dismantler and destroyer of ips and well regarded companies) gets to have a say in all of this. Right now Sony seems like the only company left who are still making stuff for gamers first and foremost. The other 2 on the other hand have shifted their attention to my mom instead.

Both MS and Sony hve released motion controls to get a piece of that casual gamer pie that Nintendo and the Wii have dominated in during this console generation.Yet, you intentionally ignore that fact to try and spin it as a negative against MS.It's also laughable that you say Sony is the only one releasing games for gamers which definitely isn't true at all.Both MS and Sony have released great exclusives because of the good competition going on between them..

 

[Grall]

So nothing to see here other than blogs trying to create buzz.

Probably yeah. Then again, you'd expect them to deny everything totally and completely up until the point they decide to make an announcement...

Sony and MS partnering up makes so much sense though, which is exactly why I believe it'll never happen. Corporations aren't run on making sense, but just plain ol' greed - and why share the cake with someone else when you can try to grab it all for yourself?

Furthermore, MS doesn't particulary need Sony. They had their issues with their in-house designed hardware for sure, but those days are in the past now by and large. There's also some exclusive developers working only for Sony, but MS have enough exclusive stuff themselves and developers are fickle anyhow - tempt them with big enough stacks of cash - which MS has oodles of - and they'll instantly switch sides most of them.

So a cooperation effort would mostly help Sony, and not MS all that much, which is why I think MS would never go for it even if Sony tried to convince them (which I think they're too boneheaded to do anyhow.)

 

[boommoob1]

Grall is that another Sony is doomed post?. Sony got software spot on with PS3 . Invest in 1st party that way you get your money back and profit from it. As opposed to moneyhatting 3rd parties and losing even more money. On PS4 i'd imagine it'l be a profitable console. I see no reason at all why Sony would want to partner with MS.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Grall is that another Sony is doomed post?. Sony got software spot on with PS3 . Invest in 1st party that way you get your money back and profit from it. As opposed to moneyhatting 3rd parties and losing even more money. On PS4 i'd imagine it'l be a profitable console. I see no reason at all why Sony would want to partner with MS.

Neither approach is gauranteed money. first party titles can fail just as well as 3rd parties, and whether you make money on a title depends largely on whether it sells big numbers of not. I'm sure MS have made more money of Gears than Sony have made off any first party franchise. Save maybe LBP with it's mass of DLC, but we have no figures on that. There have been Sony 1st party titles that haven't done well at all, and no doubt cost Sony more to run the studio than the studio generates. Like Ms buying Rare. Ignoring the massive price they paid, just running the studio probably cost MS more than the studio made over the years because it's turn out didn't do well.

As long as you get the games that sell, 1st or 3rd party, you'll be making money.