*spin-off* Always on/connected... stuff

Phil said:
dobwal,

I agree with the general message of your message in that yes, we all want both Sonys and Microsofts gaming business to be healthy and competitive. I however, don't agree with some of your conclusions, why this hasn't been the case with the PS3.

You named as a reason that "the 360 and the PS3 represent a massive jump over PS2 in not only visual performance. HDDs, online stores (that sell games, movies and music), streaming, achievements and friendlists etc..." - I don't think you are accounting for all the facts here.

The PS3 was a loss making machine because Sony put in a lot of weight behind Bluray. Why is well documented and for obvious reasons - reasons that expand beyond just the gaming-division. This not only raised costs (and indirectly their loss), but also impacted their business model. They were always going to be on the backfoot financially.
Click to expand...

Sony is also putting 8GBs of GDDR5 as well as stuffing 8 cpus (9 if you include the trustzone based arm) and 18 CUs into an apu by a manufacturer that haven't even attempted anything beyond 4 cpus and 6 CUs (relatively speaking). While I have no ideal how going bulk over SOI (if thats still in the plan and applicable to the console apus) will ultimately affect the size of AMD apu going forward, those 4cpus/6CUs processor are 246mm at 32nm. A big APU and GDDR5 might end up being costly components for Sony. A lot of what the PS4 will offer has implications outside of the console market. So while I agree that BluRay represented a costly component for Sony, the motivation that led to BluRay's inclusion is still ever present.

Phil said:
Including a harddrive also raised costs, which was partly put onto the customer with a higher selling point, which in itself impacted image and ultimately their marketshare. In other words, the PS3 is a plan that went wrong. Then there's also the argument to be made that Sony decided to offer PSN for free, where as Microsoft offered Live memberships to regain some of their loss.

I don't see the relation between adding a massive jump in technology, some nifty hardware features like HDD, building their online network as being the reasons why PS3 was unprofitable for most of its time. The PS3 was clearly aiming to push the boundaries and be "cutting-edge" in many areas - but so was the PS2 for its time and I'm not sure one could say the PS4 won't be if you look at the big picture.

There's not a single reason why either Sony or MS can't push the boundaries next generation without making the mistakes they did with this one. And I don't see any reason why they aren't doing exactly that. Sure, the hardware seems less of a jump like when they went from PS2 to PS3 - but then again, that's not only down to costs, but the way the market is changing and that it is better to have simpler more efficient hardware, than exotic that is difficult to utilize. Graphics have also evolved beyond the point where polygon performance accounted for a lot. They are prioritizing adding costly features that should help them offer a more complete experience, like PSeye or Kinect or a fancy new controller with more tech inside.

I simply don't see the argument, that they suddenly need ads to make their business model more profitable. The only reason they weren't profitable on PS3 isn't the point that they lack ads, but because they made some mistakes along the way that turned out to be very costly. The bottom line though is, for a company like Sony, the loss was/is still a better outcome in the long run, since the PS3 has a reasonable marketshare and the importance of Bluray winning the HD optical disk format.

If they hadn't had the blue laser diode problem and the HDMI spec issue which caused delays, they might have launched earlier, at a better price and the generation might have unfolded quite differently and we wouldn't be talking about ads at all, because perhaps they'd have been a whole lot more profitable.

Now, to what I think they should do - if ads really has such an impact - I would simply offer PSN for free with ads - or offer a subscription model that offers an ad-free experience. Most programs on Android are offered in this way and I think it's fair. Paying and having ads however is something I don't see as necessary nor a good idea.
Click to expand...

Mistakes are inevitable in any business and MS, Sony and Nintendo are bound to make them in every generation. Also, I don't see the next generation of consoles as a ho hum situation. I see next gen as an intermediate step going from a hardware based platform to a online based platform. Where current revenue and profit streams are going to be stressed by the need to subsidize hardware as well as the transition to the online platform which will begin to come online over the next few years.

Every feature that MS or Sony adds to the console has a cost associated with it. And has been subsidized by either subscription fees or licensing fees generated through game/accessory sales. The online networks and its associated features has basically changed the traditional console cost model. Worldwide online networks' costs aren't immaterial as they represent labor, hardware and profits in the cases where a third party is involved. And while BluRay was a one shot loss, Sony's network is a far more important endeavor (what comes after digital distribution, telepathic distribution? LOL) and the mistakes or mishaps with the network can be just as or more costly. PSN's breach cost Sony 171 million dollars in security improvements and free giveaways.

Cost complexity has gone up with consoles while on the profit side the number of revenue and profit streams still remain minimal. So MS and Sony has a choice to continue to strictly increase the prices of consoles, games, accessories and subscriptions or diversify their revenue streams where ads and micro-transactions become more relevant income sources. Its basically a lose-lose situation for the console manufacturers as any increase in price or the addition of ads and micro-transactions is looked poorly upon. But ads and micro-transactions will probably more readily accepted as they don't represent a definite monetary cost to the every user.

I have no problem with anyone not liking ads or any hint of "always connected". People have a right to feel anyway they want about a feature or requirement because its ultimately their wallet they are opening. But the reality to me is things like always connected and ads will inevitably be a ubiquitous part of the console market. They are readily accepted in other parts of the CE markets, so these are not things that are new to the mainstream.

If the true intention of MS and Sony is to move to a internet based platform then I understand why MS felt the need to make always connected a requirement other than DRM and ads. The Xbox 720 userbase will have been indoctrinated (can't think of a more positive term, Damn you Mass Effect!!!) to the concept well before the online platform goes online. I think a part of what motivates MS is the ideal of a slow and easily digested move to an online platform.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Davros said:
That wasnt your question (re read your post) but i'll answer it anyway. no ones said its impossible
sure they could do it. all I know is they never done it last time, they just screwed their customers .
Click to expand...

Well forgive me, I should have been clearer.

What content was involved? Are we talking movies or music? If so, in all probability that was due to some draconian contract language imposed by the content owners. Those guys are notorious for being anti-consumer.

If not then I understand your apprehension.
 
dagamer said:
Why bother leaking if its true? Who honestly would base their decision to buy a console from an incorrect rumor on the Internet that's over 6 months old before Microsoft ever officially revealed the system? That's beyond idiotic.
Click to expand...

Whats up "dagamer", you didn't notice the bad press, the bad word of mouth, the foam around angry gamers?
Nobody was satisfied that their next XBOX looked like it required always on drm in order for them to play their XBOX games. A part from a few that only plays brand new games and then throws them away pretty much everyone else was angry.

At some point rumours become truth and then it's hard to sell the real story, this is a good leak!
 
-tkf- said:
Whats up "dagamer", you didn't notice the bad press, the bad word of mouth, the foam around angry gamers?
Nobody was satisfied that their next XBOX looked like it required always on drm in order for them to play their XBOX games. A part from a few that only plays brand new games and then throws them away pretty much everyone else was angry.

At some point rumours become truth and then it's hard to sell the real story, this is a good leak!
Click to expand...

The amount of press coverage from an official announcement dwarfs a leak by several orders if magnitude. If Microsoft actually wants to quell concerns, they'll make an official statement. Leaks rarely help a company.
 
Who exactly do you think is paying attention to this news?

The audience that will hear information for the first time from an official press release, or the audience of grazed entitled internet fanboys that will swallow up every rumor like its been written on a stone tablet and came down from the mountain top?

Please. A little leak for clarification to calm the very small percent of people that care or even are aware of the rumor is all that was needed.

You now can all go back to your normally scheduled bashing of the ram being DDR3 instead of GDDR5 or that Live is a paid service while PSN is (currently) a free service, or whatever else you want to foam at the mouth about.

So therefore, mission accomplished. By a leak. Not an official press release.
 
dagamer said:
The amount of press coverage from an official announcement dwarfs a leak by several orders if magnitude. If Microsoft actually wants to quell concerns, they'll make an official statement. Leaks rarely help a company.
Click to expand...

The number of people is definitely going to be small in comparsion to the overall market but the small group of people discussing or making noise about the issue aren't an insignificant bunch. Look how much outrage it caused here, we aren't a bunch of people whose average attachment rate number run in the single digits. I wouldn't doubt that many of the posters and web viewers keeping up with Durango and Orbis have attachment rates that run from 20-30 games to upwards of triple digits.
 
dobwal said:
What content was involved? Are we talking movies or music? If so, in all probability that was due to some draconian contract language imposed by the content owners. Those guys are notorious for being anti-consumer.
Click to expand...
It was music, and while the adding of drm was to keep the content owners happy the shutting down of the authentication server was due to ms not wanting the hassle and expense of supporting it
 
Davros said:
It was music, and while the adding of drm was to keep the content owners happy the shutting down of the authentication server was due to ms not wanting the hassle and expense of supporting it
Click to expand...

Which should be expected because not many people believe that a online service will last an eternity. And I doubt that this would be applicable to gaming because games aren't hardware agnostic like music and I doubt pubs would be concern about piracy built around defunct console users freely distributing content amongst other users of the same defunct hardware.
 
dobwal said:
Tell me what makes you believe that an always on console requires it lose functionality at the start of a new generation or some arbitrary time point thats picked by the platform provider.

Why does "always connected" supposedly have a "kill switch" thats pointed to the console primary function and not pointed strictly at the "always connected" feature of the console when the platform is at EOL.

If the platform is not worth supporting, there is no need to worry about piracy on that platform.
Click to expand...
Davros explained it quite well. Besides that, perhaps the infrastructure isn't going to be in place if they launch a new hardware, for whatever reason, be it to boost the sales of a new console or to ease traffic load on their servers.

Thing is that if MS explain that in the EULA, and if it says they can shut their propietary servers off at any time, then you can expect the worse. Scant consolation I know because many people don't read that document, but then at least there wouldn't be surprises if there is a disclaimer saying that they may retire their servers with no compensation for the customer. It isn't the first time it happens and it certainly wouldn't be the last.

Video games companies have committed such a litany of crimes against customers that expecting something like that is like a daily occurrence these days, alas.

Scott_Arm said:
You honestly think there's a greater than 0% chance that they won't allow games to be paused?
Click to expand...
I was merely pointing out the fact that a persistent online connection makes pausing more of a virtual thing than something happening in real time.

Things can be happening in the game and in the servers without you noticing. Aside from that, you could pause the game without actually being connected to the servers already, and then a dreaded "no internet connection found" msg can appear.

The only time I had *similar* problems with a game like that was when I purchased Oblivion, back in 2006.

The first X360 consoles were very unreliable and I left the game for about two hours, the disc was in the tray, spinning all the time (the "install game" feature didn't exist then)... When I came back I found that the console showed the dashboard screen, not the screen where I left the game.

In the end, the optical lens of the DVD had scratched the disc, drawing a perfect circle on it, and leaving it unusable. This can happen 1/100000000 times using a classic video game consoles, but losing your connection is a lot easier, as some fellow forumers -one of them is a developer, fyi- explained several times already.

I think this is comparable with having a car that requires an always online connection to start or run.
 
Cyan said:
Davros explained it quite well. Besides that, perhaps the infrastructure isn't going to be in place if they launch a new hardware, for whatever reason, be it to boost the sales of a new console or to ease traffic load on their servers.
Click to expand...

Its a moot point but...

Tell me what makes you believe that an always on console requires it lose functionality at the start of a new generation or some arbitrary time point thats picked by the platform provider.

Why does "always connected" supposedly have a "kill switch" thats pointed to the console primary function and not pointed strictly at the "always connected" feature of the console when the platform is at EOL.

If the platform is not worth supporting, there is no need to worry about piracy on that platform.
Click to expand...

Killing authentication servers may also involve not requiring the need for the hardware to authenticate. Its shouldn't be assume that killing authentication requires killing functionality.
 
Cyan said:
Davros explained it quite well. Besides that, perhaps the infrastructure isn't going to be in place if they launch a new hardware, for whatever reason, be it to boost the sales of a new console or to ease traffic load on their servers.

Thing is that if MS explain that in the EULA, and if it says they can shut their propietary servers off at any time, then you can expect the worse. Scant consolation I know because many people don't read that document, but then at least there wouldn't be surprises if there is a disclaimer saying that they may retire their servers with no compensation for the customer. It isn't the first time it happens and it certainly wouldn't be the last.

Video games companies have committed such a litany of crimes against customers that expecting something like that is like a daily occurrence these days, alas.

I was merely pointing out the fact that a persistent online connection makes pausing more of a virtual thing than something happening in real time.

Things can be happening in the game and in the servers without you noticing. Aside from that, you could pause the game without actually being connected to the servers already, and then a dreaded "no internet connection found" msg can appear.

The only time I had *similar* problems with a game like that was when I purchased Oblivion, back in 2006.

The first X360 consoles were very unreliable and I left the game for about two hours, the disc was in the tray, spinning all the time (the "install game" feature didn't exist then)... When I came back I found that the console showed the dashboard screen, not the screen where I left the game.

In the end, the optical lens of the DVD had scratched the disc, drawing a perfect circle on it, and leaving it unusable. This can happen 1/100000000 times using a classic video game consoles, but losing your connection is a lot easier, as some fellow forumers -one of them is a developer, fyi- explained several times already.

I think this is comparable with having a car that requires an always online connection to start or run.
Click to expand...

What?

I cannot follow what you're trying to say. Pausing your game will be virtual? What does an online connection have to do with a scratched oblivion disc?
 
Sounds like the TV stuff may be at least a big a goal for MS as gaming.

Perhaps they think a new way to interact with the TV would be the Next Big Thing.
 
wco81 said:
Sounds like the TV stuff may be at least a big a goal for MS as gaming.

Perhaps they think a new way to interact with the TV would be the Next Big Thing.
Click to expand...

Well Kinect does lend itself well to TV control. Touch like controls but at a distance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top