Post Xbox One Two Scorpio, what should Sony do next? *spawn* (oh, and Nintendo?)

[tongue_of_colicab]

Not yet, Windows 10 hasn't been out that long and it will take some time (and maybe some effort on MS' side) before much of the popular software to be available on UWP.

I still think PS4 Neo is a dumb idea. People buy consoles because they are fairly inexpensive and guarantee that you and everybody else is going to get the same game for the next 5 ~ 6 years. That is also what makes it attractive for devs. One spec to rule them all.

New generations are attractive because they offer a big leap in technology.

The Neo isn't doing anything of the above. It's not a positive for most console buyers, they suddenly are stuck with games that are marketed for Neo and while they might run on their old console, they are not going to get the same experience because if that was the case there wouldn't be any reason to release the Neo so at some point current users are going to loose out and devs have to deal with two specs.

The only one winning is Sony because they can keep prices up and stretch this gen with a minimal investment in hardware.

Anyway, I don't think a whateverconsole 1.x is the way forward. I do think shorter cycles (~4 year) would be an option with whatever fits in a 400 YFC at that time. If MS can make UWP take off they would be in a strong position as the same games would be playable on a whole range of hardware.

 

[Entropy]

A substantial pricedrop may help the XBox maintain momentum in the US+UK.
In my country however, XB1 has been offered at $220 equivalent including a pack in game, without moving off shelves. And we were a strong XB360 territory. Frankly, given the situation, and the extra attention the PS4K and possibly even the NX will attract, the outlook for the MS seems dark no matter what they do in console space. I tend to agree with Grall here, that a joint PC and XBox strategy, is a strategy to drop consoles. Who can look at their console business and honestly say that's how MS should invest their funds and engineering resources? Still, they are an American company, and their product does OK in the USA, so maybe they are good for another round. In which case they should price the XBox to move in its core markets, and then bring something NEW to the market, rather than something that seems like an upgrade of the same old unappealing device. Which, unfortunately, is the corner they have painted themselves into with the joint PC and console strategy.

 

[Jay]

what i think and what's possible/viable is two different things, but here you go.
i think ms should release a revised slim this year. maybe couple more CU with it clocked bit higher to make it 2tf, slightly more esram if space permits. Apu would be on smaller node.
upgradeable hdd
hdmi 2, with upgraded x265 encode/decode blocks.
upgradable gpu via a cartridge not dangling off a lead.

it's not sold as XB1.5 just revised slim model, let DF/social media proclaim its not loosing any more. Cost should be $250 until they can get it to 200 with out selling at a loss.

Xbox 1.5 next year same box as revised slim, but with gddr5x and polaris 4tf $400 or so.
release upgrade module at same time or end of this year, 4tf, $200?
the module can work in both xb1 slim and x1.5. it would be xfire not replacing on board gpu.
allow dx vr, they can release own elite headset if it takes off.

xb2 in few years time hbm2, vega, etc.

why wait till next gen to implement upgradeable hardware?

this would give:
2tf media 'casual' gaming device
4tf gaming device
6tf upgraded casual device to hardcore
8tf ultimate console vr, hardcore 4k device.

available when person can afford, justify, or wants it.

 

[one]

I still think PS4 Neo is a dumb idea. People buy consoles because they are fairly inexpensive and guarantee that you and everybody else is going to get the same game for the next 5 ~ 6 years. That is also what makes it attractive for devs. One spec to rule them all.

New generations are attractive because they offer a big leap in technology.

The Neo isn't doing anything of the above. It's not a positive for most console buyers, they suddenly are stuck with games that are marketed for Neo and while they might run on their old console, they are not going to get the same experience because if that was the case there wouldn't be any reason to release the Neo so at some point current users are going to loose out and devs have to deal with two specs.

The paradoxical thing is, since the difference is not huge between console versions, only tech-savvy people can notice and appreciate the value in the spec difference. Such people are more willing to pay price premium for better tech. Most consumers who will buy a console at $199 down the line won't care if it can play games at good enough quality. There's a confusion happening in this kind of theories, they conveniently forget the fact that the difference is not comparable to the traditional generational change while assuming the difference is big enough to break the illusion of the same experience for laymen. The point is only hardcore gamers are keen to Digital Foundry PS4/Xbox comparisons and can discern the difference, and those hardcore guys who can pay more money for their entertainment include the early adopters of PSVR.

 

[mpg1]

http://venturebeat.com/2016/04/20/why-sony-needs-the-playstation-4-neo-even-if-you-hate-it/

I posted this in another thread, and it went unnoticed, but I think it rings true. Sony and Microsoft need premium-priced consoles to maximize their revenues. I don't think microsoft can just get by with a slim for years.

Isn't Microsoft measuring Gold subscriptions as key success indicator... not actual hardware sales?

 

[mpg1]

Release Xbox One slim model. Price it at $250 and include media remote as well. Not that bad. Also they could offer $50 off every so often like they are doing now...

 

[liolio]

I don't think an Xbox at $249 will do anything for MS. With deals Xbox console bundles can be already had for $299. A $50 saving isn't much. MS needs to move to the $199 tier.

I do beleive that there is room for a cheaper console offering a more barebone experience, now doing that in the middle of this gen when Sony is to further brutalize them as far as market shares are concerned... I'm not sure it is worse the investment (it would need new hardware, ads, etc.). It is neither MSFT traditional target as far as gaming is concerned their attempt toward a more casual audience have not been successful.

Imho they just have to suffer trhough this gen and go with a short generation 4.5/5 years.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Isn't Microsoft measuring Gold subscriptions as key success indicator... not actual hardware sales?

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted. The simple fact is having a way to keep prices high means more revenue.

 

[nggamer]

I don't think an Xbox at $249 will do anything for MS. With deals Xbox console bundles can be already had for $299. A $50 saving isn't much. MS needs to move to the $199 tier.

Even at $199, the core gamers, the ones who buy the most games and value performance, will still buy the majority of games on PS4/PS4K. I really think MS needs to match or exceed PS4K if they want to start winning back some of the core gamers that have gone to PS4.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Microsoft shouldn't respond to Neo. They need to stick with their plan to unify gaming development through DirectX and UWP. When all the kinks are worked out they'll have the flexibility to do what they like.

 

[orangpelupa]

Yeah it's kind of weird that MS have the most potential to have unified service but it's actually Sony that already did it (cross buy, cross play).

 

[Entropy]

Microsoft shouldn't respond to Neo. They need to stick with their plan to unify gaming development through DirectX and UWP. When all the kinks are worked out they'll have the flexibility to do what they like.

And that would be....?

 

[Globalisateur]

And that would be....?

What they should have being doing from the start: unify PC & console ecosystems in order to seriously compete also with Steam, not only Playstation.

I am talking about all their games available on PC. Yes even Halo. Particularly Halo.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

And that would be....?

Only Microsoft know. But they currently have two competing gaming platforms so consolidating or unifying them seems like a smart move because right now they're fighting themselves, Sony and Nintendo. A single development platform with good hardware abstraction could give them an apparent advantage over Sony - assuming Sony's GNM/GNMX aren't already hardware abstracted.

 

[Entropy]

I just don't see why I should care as a consumer. I already have access to MS console games on PC, and can play them there. I guess the porting process can get a tad smoother, but the cost differential compared to now would seem modest.
Something has to entice new buyers to rip out their creditcards.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I just don't see why I should care as a consumer.

Why should the consumer care about the manufacturer? Manufacturer and consumer interests are rarely aligned but this thread is about what Microsoft should do and Microsoft should do what is best for Microsoft.

 

[Scott_Arm]

Microsoft shouldn't respond to Neo. They need to stick with their plan to unify gaming development through DirectX and UWP. When all the kinks are worked out they'll have the flexibility to do what they like.

There's no reason they can't do both.

 

[liolio]

And that would be....?

It is really tough to guess what some marketing and financial guys are to decide as the next thing. The whole xbox One package (business plan, hardware, etc) was quite unexpected. Those people have the wrong set of skills imho.
I'm not a big believer in MSFT unified strategy. Windows 10 mobile is still born, reception of the first UWP games has been underwhelming (it was deserved it seems). No matter MSFT efforts the programs that makes Windows Windows and those that makes them are more than reluctant to go along with MSFT plans. The fact that there are no relevant hardware powered by MSFT OS that is not powered by X86 is not making a case for them.

I believe MSFT will fail behind more and more in the personal realm, they chose the wrong path to evolve Windows, they chose the wrong path with mobile OS too, and they chose a wrong path with console. Money can only to do that much against the compound effects of so many bad decisions.

I suspect Nadella is going to pull the plug off of many unfruitful and MSFT product lines. They can't give up on Windows in the personal realm yet, so that is where they need to focus their efforts, and damned it need a good deal of efforts.
Google is readying Chrome so it can runs Android Apps and access the playstore. That is a death sentence for Microsoft own app market (on Windows). Then there are touch enabled Chromebook that could get turn into a lot more tempting devices for casual users than they are now.

Universal Apps are pointless when the only device people have that is powered by a msft OS is extremely likely to be a laptop or a desktop (none able to run decent games). It is impossible for me to think of a way out for them, it is so highly unlikely that they will make Windows (and it sold once for all) model into a iOS/Android model, money they give up by giving WIndows for free is money they are never going to make for the way they are trying. They better go back to their old approach till it lasts (while WIndows is relevant in the consumer space and that is costumers call).

Imo crazing as it sounds I believe MSFT should go back to ask good money for Windows, and stop fighting battles they already lost.I would cut a lot of expenditure on stuff that is not going to make money ever and work with those that have successful product running on their OS instead of fighting them. How many billions MSFT wasted to fight Google services with the success we know? What the end result Google never ported any of its apps to any Windows platform and there is no way back (Android Apps are coming to Windows through Chrome /browser).

On the specific case of the XB1 if it has been priced in (original deal with amd)
they should try to price reduce it significantly (/redesign). Brand loyalty has been tested and it only goes that far but still they should spare the XB1 the fate of the first XBOX for their own sake. So for them a short gen seems to be the way for me but I'm sure the financial and marketing won't let it be and sink some extra hundred millions (if not billions) into ti with marginal results and manage to "powerpoint claim" it a success or at least labelled it as something that needed to be done.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

There's no reason they can't do both.

Elucidate.

 

[Entropy]

Why should the consumer care about the manufacturer? Manufacturer and consumer interests are rarely aligned but this thread is about what Microsoft should do and Microsoft should do what is best for Microsoft.

And at the end of the day, this means they have to sell. Present a deal that is perceived as better than that of their competition. They are failing to do that now in console space, Sony is acting to extend their lead, Nintendo will step up to the plate and make their play, and Microsoft responds with what? Opaque corporate strategy?