Should Xbox / PS go OEM? with hardware providers like Samsung Dell making their own boxes?
- Thread starter onQ
- Start date
There's a reason nobody did this or even attempted it after Trip Hawkin's 3DO & M2-project. Just looking at the math in this age of selling-at-a-loss console hardware.
They'd certainly lose the console war by a even bigger margin then. Samsung and Vizio would need to make for-profit Xbox hardware with a decent profit margin and the platform would be $499 or even more without the kinect.
This increases price didn't help the $700 3DO when it launched , and that business model hurt the 3DO. The licensing model would only hurt Xbox brand.
MS would walk into a whole host of quality assurance uncertainties, trying to ensure the product quality among all licensors, as well as likely warrantee service and customer support for hardware issues. All those people with coil hum issues might not have gotten free replacements under Samsung or Vizio or Dell, since for those guys this is a one time sale, not a continuous revenue stream for years and years with like it is with MS. The Dells and Samsungs have less of an interest to go out of their way for customer support because the customer is not a continuous revenue stream.
Then in a console price war vs the PS4, MS could reduce licensing costs, but those Samsungs and Dells would be less inclined to go for razor thin profit margins. If they are forced into a pricewar with sony expect warrantee support and bulid quality for the hardware to go down as these hardware sellers start incuring razor thin profit margins. Sony could KO knock Xbox out of the race almost entirely if they chose to take an even bigger loss on the console than they currently are which these OEM hardware vendors could not even afford razor thin margins, and of course forget about them taking a loss on each system sold.
They'd certainly lose the console war by a even bigger margin then. Samsung and Vizio would need to make for-profit Xbox hardware with a decent profit margin and the platform would be $499 or even more without the kinect.
This increases price didn't help the $700 3DO when it launched , and that business model hurt the 3DO. The licensing model would only hurt Xbox brand.
MS would walk into a whole host of quality assurance uncertainties, trying to ensure the product quality among all licensors, as well as likely warrantee service and customer support for hardware issues. All those people with coil hum issues might not have gotten free replacements under Samsung or Vizio or Dell, since for those guys this is a one time sale, not a continuous revenue stream for years and years with like it is with MS. The Dells and Samsungs have less of an interest to go out of their way for customer support because the customer is not a continuous revenue stream.
Then in a console price war vs the PS4, MS could reduce licensing costs, but those Samsungs and Dells would be less inclined to go for razor thin profit margins. If they are forced into a pricewar with sony expect warrantee support and bulid quality for the hardware to go down as these hardware sellers start incuring razor thin profit margins. Sony could KO knock Xbox out of the race almost entirely if they chose to take an even bigger loss on the console than they currently are which these OEM hardware vendors could not even afford razor thin margins, and of course forget about them taking a loss on each system sold.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just look at the friggen mess that is steam OS .
I'd be more interested in them developing a Xbox Boy based on threshold that can stream games from a windows 9 pc or xbox one and liscensing that our to dell and what not. That new broadwell core M at 4.5 watts would be pretty nice
or even the next gen atom.
Either one would have no trouble with ports of the xbox and xbox 360 games at this point in time.
I'd be more interested in them developing a Xbox Boy based on threshold that can stream games from a windows 9 pc or xbox one and liscensing that our to dell and what not. That new broadwell core M at 4.5 watts would be pretty nice
or even the next gen atom.
Either one would have no trouble with ports of the xbox and xbox 360 games at this point in time.
Sony should combine their ps4 business with their loan business. When you go to buy a house and get a mortage you get a free ps4.
I asked about Xbox because it's something that MS already does with Windows & it would seem like the idea situation for MS to have a hold of the Set top market the same way they do the PC market.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
And this sums it up. The economies of game consoles have profits (licensing, sales) are in the games. You want to sell to as large an audience as possible so need to sell the box as cheap as possible to keep the barrier to entry (ownership) as low as possible.
Having third party manufacturers make consoles means they are going to want paying which is taking profit and margins from the platform owner.
<CUIRenditionMetrics: 0x14f45a50>
That's where Xbox Live, Xbox TV , Games on demand , Cloud gaming & so on come in at.
If Kinect just so happened to be the new standard for media interacting & the Xbox OS became the standard OS for interacting with TV. Other companies would also want to have Kinect & Xbox OS in their boxes.
MS wanted to do that as they didn't want the hardware headaches, but no manufacturers would bite because they'd be competing with other manufacturers for the minimal hardware profits but not getting any of the software money. It's basically a dead-end business model. It only works with competing CE devices because they are very cheap to make using commodity parts.
The best you can hope for is a standard that hardware manufacturers can make the devices support and run games, like Sony's ill-fated PS Mobile. That's similarly doomed as a waste of effort for the hardware manufacturers and a PITA for developers struggling with conflicting hardware. MS have the viable part of that market sewn up with Windows PCs too.
Basically, to make that case you need to make a case to the IHVs. When you can explain to Samsung and Dell why they would want to make an MS or Sony console, you have an argument for that strategy.
The best you can hope for is a standard that hardware manufacturers can make the devices support and run games, like Sony's ill-fated PS Mobile. That's similarly doomed as a waste of effort for the hardware manufacturers and a PITA for developers struggling with conflicting hardware. MS have the viable part of that market sewn up with Windows PCs too.
Basically, to make that case you need to make a case to the IHVs. When you can explain to Samsung and Dell why they would want to make an MS or Sony console, you have an argument for that strategy.
This is why I think Kinect & the Xbox TV stuff was so important to MS. Because if they could make Xbox the media center of the future at some point other companies are going to want to use the software & interface with their hardware.
Sega tried with the Saturn, but you can guess how much success that was....
Can someone remind me of these examples? I am trying to remember but my memory is a little foggy.
I recall the PSX but I have no recollection of Sony using another manufacturer to produce a console marketed under that manufacturer's name.
I vaguely remember the Panasonic Q, which was a gamecube with DVD playback.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
I don't follow. It's not a great business model if the hardware is more expensive than it needs to be to draw interest from manufacturers. For example, suppose Microsoft did this for their next console and Sony did not, so you can buy a Samsung Xbox, Panasonic Xbox and Philips Xbox. Each manufacturer is going to want a profitable slice of the hardware sale which will push the price up so out of the gate, compared to Sony's paired down pricing, Xbox Two is already more expensive.
That's the mother-of-almihgty-God sized if there; it's basically utter fantasy given Microsoft's current OS position on anything but desktop.
D
Deleted member 11852
Guest
Why would LG, Samsung or Sony pay Microsoft for a Windows licence over what they have now?
Microsoft's problem is all they have is potential. What they need is inertia, a well-supported ecosystem and an actual selling point to make is attractive over GoogleTV or Android/linux derivatives. They need a better product and to give it away free.
Nevermind what we'd feel - what would be the motivation driving such a decision? What would sony/ms gain from this?
It'd just risk increasing market fragmentation, dilute their respective brands with diverse and potentially inferior products and increase research and development recoup times. It'd cost the same to develop a new console, but they'd sell fewer copies of it, meaning less money earned.
In addition to the link tuna has posted this should provide some extra info on different Saturn model's including the JVC V-Saturn.
http://segaretro.org/Sega_Saturn_consoles
It's also a great site to reminisce about much of SEGA's released hardware.
As per the thread:
I do not think it would be beneficial for MS or Sony to let other manufacturers produce their hardware. It is important for these companies to retain control over their platforms in order to maximize the monetary return they will see over a consumer's lifetime purchases. I associate Xbox with MS and Playstation with Sony. It would be confusing to hear of a Samsung Xbox One or a Panasonic Playstation 4. As Dsoup has said it would be more difficult to control costs and if there's profit to be made from the machine then all that is lost to MS or Sony, which for one of those companies could be vital to its future.
