Report: Sony signs deal with Viacom, will stream TV to Playstation in 2014

39,379 · September 18, 2014

A recent report indicates Sony is currently meeting with potential content partners in order to introduce an internet TV streaming service to PlayStation later this year.

This is according to the Wall Street Journal*, who spoke with Sony's Andrew House about the company's plans to implement streaming services in the coming months.

The report states that just last week, Sony signed an agreement with Viacom that will allow the streaming of over 20 channels, including MTV and Nickelodeon. At this time, it's unclear exactly on which platforms this service will debut, but Sony has expressed interest in streaming games to other devices outside of PlayStation through their PlayStation Now game-streaming service.

"A streaming-based approach needs to have a very wide funnel of devices, and that inherently means a broad- and manufacturer-agnostic approach," House said of the company's streaming strategy.

PlayStation Now is currently in open beta on PlayStation 3 and has been in beta on the PlayStation 4 since August in North America. Check out IGN's entire list of games currently available on PlayStation Now.

IGN has reached out to Sony for comment and will update this story with any new details.

Source: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/09/18/report-sony-signs-deal-with-viacom-will-stream-tv-to-playstation-in-2014?+main+twitter

3,872 · September 18, 2014

It's amazing that Sony seems to be running to do everything they originally criticized Microsoft for trying to do on the Xbox One, whereas Microsoft is running in the exact opposite direction to say it's ONLY about the games like Sony did, to their detriment. I still maintain that if MS stuck to their original vision for Xbox One, minus the 24 hour check-in, and launched at the same price as PS4, they would have sold a lot more than they have now.

Microsoft had a great vision for the X1, they just had a horrible messenger. Now Sony seems to be cherry picking the best of the stuff and of course nobody is complaining now. Good for Sony, can't blame them because Microsoft seems to be lost at sea now.

9,483 · September 19, 2014

It's amazing that Sony seems to be running to do everything they originally criticized Microsoft for trying to do on the Xbox One, whereas Microsoft is running in the exact opposite direction to say it's ONLY about the games like Sony did, to their detriment. I still maintain that if MS stuck to their original vision for Xbox One, minus the 24 hour check-in, and launched at the same price as PS4, they would have sold a lot more than they have now.

Microsoft had a great vision for the X1, they just had a horrible messenger. Now Sony seems to be cherry picking the best of the stuff and of course nobody is complaining now. Good for Sony, can't blame them because Microsoft seems to be lost at sea now.

You're confused.

The issue people had with TV, TV, TV was that was the big XBox One reveal -- "Here's the hardware, here's the new Kinect, here's our deal with the NFL, here's our TV package (that's being cast aside except for the Halo stuff), and here's the new Call of Duty". That was how we got to know the "gaming system".

Sony talked specs, showed off inFamous, The Order, Knack, Drive Club, Killzone, Watch_Dogs, Destiny, and Diablo IIIl; tech demos from Epic, Square Enix, Media Molecule, and Quantic Dream; and showed off or talked about recording and uploading gameplay, playing PS4 games on a Vita, and using Twitch (along with features that aren't quite out yet like PSNow and SharePlay).

And Microsoft had three months to prepare their reveal after the Sony's.

E3 that year flipped it where Microsoft talked a lot of games, and Sony finally revealed their hardware and has begun moving on the entertainment side (especially considering they own major television and movie studios and music labels). And I'm guessing this will work with Vita and upcoming PS-compatible phones as well.

5,259 · September 19, 2014

You're confused.

The issue people had with TV, TV, TV was that was the big XBox One reveal -- "Here's the hardware, here's the new Kinect, here's our deal with the NFL, here's our TV package (that's being cast aside except for the Halo stuff), and here's the new Call of Duty". That was how we got to know the "gaming system".

The funny thing is, MS did that in order to allow E3 to be all about the games, which it was. Unfortunately, people not only flew off the handle at the first event, MS got little to no credit for an E3 event more focused on games than Sony's. I wonder if they had done that first event after e3 if opinions would be different now? I'm not convinced.

E3 that year flipped it where Microsoft talked a lot of games, and Sony finally revealed their hardware and has begun moving on the entertainment side (especially considering they own major television and movie studios and music labels). And I'm guessing this will work with Vita and upcoming PS-compatible phones as well.

Some people were so enamored with Sony's pr regarding a 100% focus on games, that they would get upset at even the implication that Sony would invest in the entertainment outside of gaming on the ps4. Sony is about much more than gaming, but they were able to convince some that they were not. Now as time goes on, the reality sets in. Sony hinted at offering a TV service on the ps4 a while back which was met with some resistance, but now we see the deals starting to come together to allow them to make the service a reality.

I expect they will allow access to content via their phones, the Vita, and the ps3/ps4. Sony is leveraging their strong position in tv/movies/ and music to land these deals. MS has clearly shown interest in doing the same, but they have no existing leverage in the content industry, so they can't get the deals needed to make such a service a reality. They instead get hit with ridiculous pricing from content creators that force MS to back off its plans.

I'm glad to see Sony pushing in this area and I'm ready to subscribe if the price is right and content is there.

11,194 · September 19, 2014

You're confused.

He doesn't look confused to me, i think you just misspelt "Spot on".

Either way this good for the latest breed of consoles as all in one devices.

2,785 · September 19, 2014

The funny thing is, MS did that in order to allow E3 to be all about the games, which it was. Unfortunately, people not only flew off the handle at the first event, MS got little to no credit for an E3 event more focused on games than Sony's. I wonder if they had done that first event after e3 if opinions would be different now? I'm not convinced.

I do think if the order was switched and MS revealed the Xbox One at a game first conference such as E3 then demo'd the TV capabilities at a later (non games focused) conference it would have improved opinions. Deciding to reveal a new GAME CONSOLE at a non-gaming conference was a mistake. It's not like that's the only mistake though and changing that one thing wouldn't have fixed everything for this botched launch.

Despite what macrosslover may think Sony is NOT "running to do everything they originally criticized Microsoft for trying to do on the Xbox One". The online requirement was also a very real issue as was the mandatory Kinect (both because of the higher price and because of the privacy concerns of an always on mic). Sony is not "running to do" either of those things and I would contend those are what the public had greater issue with not the TV support. The PS3 does movie and music streaming so of course the PS4 is going to do it and internet TV is a natural extension of that (that will likely come to the PS3 as well). In fact I recall reading reviews of the Xbox One that pointed out that internet TV was almost certainly coming this generation (to any internet connected streaming device) so it was odd MS would include the IR Blaster and HDMI-in support for cable boxes when consoles (and other streaming devices) will very likely replace cable boxes entirely this generation anyway. Adding extra hardware features for something that looks to be about to be phased out seems contrary to their "forward thinking" approach.

1,296 · September 19, 2014

It's amazing that Sony seems to be running to do everything they originally criticized Microsoft for trying to do on the Xbox One, whereas Microsoft is running in the exact opposite direction to say it's ONLY about the games like Sony did, to their detriment. I still maintain that if MS stuck to their original vision for Xbox One, minus the 24 hour check-in, and launched at the same price as PS4, they would have sold a lot more than they have now.

Microsoft had a great vision for the X1, they just had a horrible messenger. Now Sony seems to be cherry picking the best of the stuff and of course nobody is complaining now. Good for Sony, can't blame them because Microsoft seems to be lost at sea now.

As much as I agree with you, I could argue that the backlash and some of features we've received now we wouldn't of got before. The console now is definitely a mile ahead of anything they announced previously. Looking at you MKV player, and this image:

Back to topic though, I like this. More features which don't take away the aspect of a games console is welcome on any platform. The more things you can do with that expensive box, the more bang for your buck.

39,379 · September 19, 2014

You're confused.

The issue people had with TV, TV, TV was that was the big XBox One reveal -- "Here's the hardware, here's the new Kinect, here's our deal with the NFL, here's our TV package (that's being cast aside except for the Halo stuff), and here's the new Call of Duty". That was how we got to know the "gaming system".

Sony talked specs, showed off inFamous, The Order, Knack, Drive Club, Killzone, Watch_Dogs, Destiny, and Diablo IIIl; tech demos from Epic, Square Enix, Media Molecule, and Quantic Dream; and showed off or talked about recording and uploading gameplay, playing PS4 games on a Vita, and using Twitch (along with features that aren't quite out yet like PSNow and SharePlay).

And Microsoft had three months to prepare their reveal after the Sony's.

E3 that year flipped it where Microsoft talked a lot of games, and Sony finally revealed their hardware and has begun moving on the entertainment side (especially considering they own major television and movie studios and music labels). And I'm guessing this will work with Vita and upcoming PS-compatible phones as well.

/case closed

There's better ways to announce and do things, we always knew these would be all in one boxes, just like the PS3/360 are, but you cater to your core audience first and foremost and never lose touch with them - Exactly what MS done reflected in sales so far.

5,259 · September 20, 2014

In fact I recall reading reviews of the Xbox One that pointed out that internet TV was almost certainly coming this generation (to any internet connected streaming device) so it was odd MS would include the IR Blaster and HDMI-in support for cable boxes when consoles (and other streaming devices) will very likely replace cable boxes entirely this generation anyway. Adding extra hardware features for something that looks to be about to be phased out seems contrary to their "forward thinking" approach.

The ir blaster is there so that Kinect can act as a universal remote for other devices. There is nothing backwards about that feature. Devices using IR are not being phased out. As far as the hdmi-in option, the reason MS did that was to cover those people that would sitll be using traditional cable. As we see now, that was a wise choice. There are way more people on traditional cable right now then using say IPTV. Plus, MS was unable to secure a deal with content providers early on in order to offer a similar TV-like service that Sony is now close to launching. So until MS can offer customers such a service, integrating their existing cable boxes is the next best thing.

Its not like cable boxes are going away this year. Your talking about at least a few years thanks to the slow pace/rollout of iptv.

/case closed

There's better ways to announce and do things, we always knew these would be all in one boxes, just like the PS3/360 are, but you cater to your core audience first and foremost and never lose touch with them - Exactly what MS done reflected in sales so far.

But the bigger issue for MS is that they have still not been forgiven. We are talking about a single event before the console launched still after nearly a year on the market. In fact all of the serious issues occurred before launch and were resolved before launch. At launch until now, MS has done everything that you would think would result in more popularity, but instead the focus remains on those issues and popularity online, etc continues to be flat.

MS definitely screwed up their messaging before launch though. They should have just moved the non gaming event to after E3 and their messaging at that point should have been games, games, games. Its all about messaging more than what might really be going on. Take the pr away from both companies and you see similar strategies playing out, but Sony knew how to spin the messaging properly so that the gaming core audience felt more appreciated. I'm not sure how MS recovers when they have made so many positive steps only to still be rejected.

39,379 · September 20, 2014

The ir blaster is there so that Kinect can act as a universal remote for other devices. There is nothing backwards about that feature. Devices using IR are not being phased out. As far as the hdmi-in option, the reason MS did that was to cover those people that would sitll be using traditional cable. As we see now, that was a wise choice. There are way more people on traditional cable right now then using say IPTV. Plus, MS was unable to secure a deal with content providers early on in order to offer a similar TV-like service that Sony is now close to launching. So until MS can offer customers such a service, integrating their existing cable boxes is the next best thing.

Its not like cable boxes are going away this year. Your talking about at least a few years thanks to the slow pace/rollout of iptv.

But the bigger issue for MS is that they have still not been forgiven. We are talking about a single event before the console launched still after nearly a year on the market. In fact all of the serious issues occurred before launch and were resolved before launch. At launch until now, MS has done everything that you would think would result in more popularity, but instead the focus remains on those issues and popularity online, etc continues to be flat.

MS definitely screwed up their messaging before launch though. They should have just moved the non gaming event to after E3 and their messaging at that point should have been games, games, games. Its all about messaging more than what might really be going on. Take the pr away from both companies and you see similar strategies playing out, but Sony knew how to spin the messaging properly so that the gaming core audience felt more appreciated. I'm not sure how MS recovers when they have made so many positive steps only to still be rejected.

Precisely.

It just takes some time for "forgiveness" as you put it. I think there's still an air of uncertainty when it comes to MS CEO's/top dogs, they need to appear friendlier like Kaz/Shuhei etc. Don't underestimate how making your rigid ruthless businessman appear to be a bunny helps a lot with fans. MajorNelson has still left a little bit of bad taste in gamers mouths.

Shuhei was recently asked about Minecraft, but here's the important bit

Interviewer: Microsoft bought Minecraft creator Mojang the other day. Would you care to comment on this?

Yoshida: I met Phil Spencer from Microsoft the other day at a party and I said, "Congratulations!"

Interviewer: "Congratulations?"

Yoshida: Well if they had said they were going to end the PlayStation version with the purchase, that would have been terrible for us, but they didn't say that at all.

Interviewer: Are you on good terms with Phil?

Yoshida: Good terms, well, I understand Phil. The previous Microsoft people were very business-like, and I didn't understand what they were saying much (chuckle), and there were many people I got a strange feeling from, but I can understand what Phil Spencer says.

http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20140920_667750.html

5,259 · September 20, 2014

Precisely.

It just takes some time for "forgiveness" as you put it. I think there's still an air of uncertainty when it comes to MS CEO's/top dogs, they need to appear friendlier like Kaz/Shuhei etc. Don't underestimate how making your rigid ruthless businessman appear to be a bunny helps a lot with fans. MajorNelson has still left a little bit of bad taste in gamers mouths.

Shuhei was recently asked about Minecraft, but here's the important bit

http://game.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20140920_667750.html

I think Phil Spencer has received universal praise since he took over thanks to his more open style and a public personality that is just more welcoming and friendly, as you correctly pointed out with that example.

As far as MS' ceo, I don't think anyone has said that Satya Nadella is stiff or 'business-like'. His public image is a lot like Phil's. So hopefully if that is an issue publicly, those two will help fix it. As far as Major Nelson goes, I'm not sure if he should be replaced or what.

1,702 · September 21, 2014

Good deal for Sony, but I think this only effects the US market as Viacom is a US based company?

Sony also partnered up with Telstra to provide IPTV a while back for Australian cable tv viewers, so it's good to see that Sony are focusing their features on a global scale rather than US only.

Also not sure why every PS4 thread turns into a Xbox One comparison thread, PS4 now doubles the sales of the Xbox One and its because of a multitude of reasons, not because the Xbox One reveal was all about tv and media features.

2,785 · September 21, 2014

As far as the hdmi-in option, the reason MS did that was to cover those people that would sitll be using traditional cable.

I understand that. If you read what I said I didn't say it was a bad decision I said (well really I said other reviewers were pointing out) that it ran contrary to their "forward thinking" marketing at launch. I don't see anything you said here that contradicts that. It's just an observation of a marketing oddity at launch.

As we see now, that was a wise choice.

We KNOW no such thing. YOU may THINK it was a wise choice, I may or may not, but it's not so undeniable as you seem to imply here.

There are way more people on traditional cable right now then using say IPTV...

Its not like cable boxes are going away this year. Your talking about at least a few years thanks to the slow pace/rollout of iptv.

At no point did I say anything to the contrary so I'm not sure why you would point out such an obvious fact as if refuting what I was saying when I said nothing of the sort. The closest thing I said at all to that was "will very likely replace cable boxes entirely this generation anyway". "This generation" is over the roughly 8 years of the consoles life (NOT RIGHT NOW) and even then "very likely" isn't exactly definitive.

But the bigger issue for MS is that they have still not been forgiven. We are talking about a single event before the console launched still after nearly a year on the market. In fact all of the serious issues occurred before launch and were resolved before launch. At launch until now, MS has done everything that you would think would result in more popularity, but instead the focus remains on those issues and popularity online, etc continues to be flat.

I think there problem here is that, right or wrong, the impression here is MS has no idea what gamers want and instead of being reactive and fixing things only after there is outcry. It's happened so much now with Xbox One (and even the across MS with Windows 8 for example) that there isn't any great indicator that MS actually does have a sense for what gamers want. People don't want a console holder to just be reactive. Sony PR pushes the idea that they get gamers and the fact they haven't made any major missteps reinforces that. Sure it's all PR but MS doesn't earn a lot of good feelings when they appear to only abandon "bad ideas" long after they've failed. For example, yes removing the Kinect was a good idea but it's not like they just realized that on their own. Instead they kept telling gamers that it was "ESSENTIAL" until they were pretty much forced to remove it by the PS sales gap. This gives the public perception that MS wants to go in some entirely different direction than they do and that they are only on the right track because gamers keep having to drag them back over to it. You don't get credit for making the right choice if you only get there after you've been pushing the wrong one and it fails.

5,259 · September 21, 2014

Also not sure why every PS4 thread turns into a Xbox One comparison thread, PS4 now doubles the sales of the Xbox One and its because of a multitude of reasons, not because the Xbox One reveal was all about tv and media features.

That is true. Sales being what they are, comparisons mean little.

We KNOW no such thing. YOU may THINK it was a wise choice, I may or may not, but it's not so undeniable as you seem to imply here.

So, what is the argument that it was unwise to include? If you feel its not clear, then you obviously have an idea why it was unwise. It just seemed like a logical addition to me if your going to cater to live TV watchers.

I think there problem here is that, right or wrong, the impression here is MS has no idea what gamers want and instead of being reactive and fixing things only after there is outcry. It's happened so much now with Xbox One (and even the across MS with Windows 8 for example) that there isn't any great indicator that MS actually does have a sense for what gamers want. People don't want a console holder to just be reactive.

Ironically, MS was not reactive with their first plan, but bad pr lead to the reversal. I agree that most people online give no credit for fixing issues end users have because it is spun as a 180, which is considered a sign of weakness. At the same time, credit is often given to those that start off catering to their audience. So being reactionary is actually ok, as long as you don't start out in a bad way.

Sony PR pushes the idea that they get gamers and the fact they haven't made any major missteps reinforces that. Sure it's all PR but MS doesn't earn a lot of good feelings when they appear to only abandon "bad ideas" long after they've failed. For example, yes removing the Kinect was a good idea but it's not like they just realized that on their own. Instead they kept telling gamers that it was "ESSENTIAL" until they were pretty much forced to remove it by the PS sales gap. This gives the public perception that MS wants to go in some entirely different direction than they do and that they are only on the right track because gamers keep having to drag them back over to it. You don't get credit for making the right choice if you only get there after you've been pushing the wrong one and it fails.

Honestly, I still think the Kinect removal was a bad idea. I just knew the result would be negative in the long run and you illustrate exactly why it is. Of course people around here and elsewhere demanded it be done, claiming it was necessary to win over customers. So they got what they wanted, but MS loses because of the hit to public perception.

Still, if Sony can get credit for turning around the ps3 after its rough start and poor choices, then so can MS with the Xbox One. If the pre launch crap didn't happen, then the steps and messaging that's been coming from Phil Spencer would have been more positively received. I feel its just going to take time to heal the wounds.

2,785 · September 22, 2014

So, what is the argument that it was unwise to include? If you feel its not clear, then you obviously have an idea why it was unwise. It just seemed like a logical addition to me if your going to cater to live TV watchers.

If I FEEL it's clear or not doesn't make it fact. If it SEEMED like a logical addition to you doesn't make it fact either. The only way we would KNOW if it was wise or not is if we had some research showing less people would have purchased the Xbox One if it didn't include that capability or similarly more would have bought them if it was missing. Since neither of us have that information (heck MS probably doesn't) we don't KNOW if it was a wise choice or not. We may have opinion, our opinions may be the same or they may differ, but they are still just opinions unless they're backed up by some hard evidence and not just "what seems like a logical addition".

Ironically, MS was not reactive with their first plan, but bad pr lead to the reversal. I agree that most people online give no credit for fixing issues end users have because it is spun as a 180, which is considered a sign of weakness.

This is true anywhere. If you do something "innovative" but the public doesn't like it you aren't going to get a lot of love no matter how innovative it was. I totally agree a lot of MSs initial ideas were anything but reactive but they were things that gamers didn't end up wanting. That set up the perception that MS was out of touch with gamers want.

At the same time, credit is often given to those that start off catering to their audience.

As it should be. That's what a company is supposed to do, cater to it's customers. You make it sound like that's a bad thing but it's great thing.

So being reactionary is actually ok, as long as you don't start out in a bad way.

Giving your customers what they want from the get go is not what people mean by reactionary. Reactionary is when you wait for the public to respond to what you are doing and then CHANGE to match it. If you get it right from the start and no change is necessary it's not what is typically meant by reactionary.

The BEST of all possible worlds is to do something innovative AND "cater to your customers" by giving them something they want that they didn't even know they wanted. Something they had never really thought about or didn't think was possible but once you offer it they realize it's something they want. That's hard to do but it's still catering to your customers AND it's innovative not reactionary. MS gambled and if they had been able to sell the public on their original ideas then it would have fallen into this category and probably paid off big for them. In this case though the gamble failed and the public didn't want the innovations they offered so they did a 180 and took them out. That looks horrible for PR as again, it gives the impression that you don't understand what your core audience wants.

Honestly, I still think the Kinect removal was a bad idea. I just knew the result would be negative in the long run and you illustrate exactly why it is. Of course people around here and elsewhere demanded it be done, claiming it was necessary to win over customers. So they got what they wanted, but MS loses because of the hit to public perception.

According to MS the sales of the Xbox One doubled when they removed the Kinect. That seems to affirm is was a good idea, I'm not sure what metric you ar going by to say it will be a negative in the long run. Removing Kinect isn't going to make all the issues magically go away, doing so made things better, that's all that could be hoped for. Yes they take a perception hit for doing a "180". It would have been even worse if if they just were totally tone deaf and kept going in what the public perceives as the wrong direction. If you're going the wrong way then doing a 180 is better than just stubbornly plowing ahead in the wrong direction. It's still not as good as going the right way from the start though which is what Sony lucked out with on the PR front.

Still, if Sony can get credit for turning around the ps3 after its rough start and poor choices, then so can MS with the Xbox One. If the pre launch crap didn't happen, then the steps and messaging that's been coming from Phil Spencer would have been more positively received. I feel its just going to take time to heal the wounds.

It is still VERY early in this console generation and if MS ever does "turn around" the Xbox One sales (i.e. start beating Sony on month to month sales with some degree of regularity) then I'm sure they'll get a ton of credit for that. I don't see any signs of them doing that right now, they've made it so they're not losing by as much but they aren't beating Sony either... again though it's VERY early still so who knows.

If "the pre-launch crap didn't happen" Phil Spencer probably wouldn't be head of Xbox. I agree though that Phil Spencer seems to have a much better handle on what gamers want (or at least better able to sell it) I think even Sony has said Phil Spencer seems to get gamers unlike the previous leadership. If Phil Spencer had been head of Xbox One during its design and launch maybe things would be hugely different, the hardware may even have been totally different or maybe he would have been able to sell the original vision better, who knows.

MS isn't going to catch up by doing the same things the guys beating them are though when they're getting there by doing a 180 and the other guys were doing it from the start. What MS could really use is finding one of those things that gamers want but don't know they want yet and the competition doesn't do. Again though that's not easy and not without risk. I think the perception is though that MS is gun shy after their other innovations didn't pan out. In contrast Sony seems willing to keep gambling on things like PS Now, Share Play, Remote Play, PlayStation TV, Project Morpheus, etc. Maybe they'll flop, maybe they'll stick, but they're trying to innovate wheres the perception is that MS is still recoiling from the rejection of their attempts at innovating and is just being reactive, doing what other consoles (be it last gen or competitors this gen) already do.

5,259 · September 23, 2014

We may have opinion, our opinions may be the same or they may differ, but they are still just opinions unless they're backed up by some hard evidence and not just "what seems like a logical addition".

So do you agree or not?

This is true anywhere. If you do something "innovative" but the public doesn't like it you aren't going to get a lot of love no matter how innovative it was. I totally agree a lot of MSs initial ideas were anything but reactive but they were things that gamers didn't end up wanting. That set up the perception that MS was out of touch with gamers want.

As far as I know, the only thing gamers really rejected was the 24hr check-in. That sparked protests of the highest order. The rest was all the fault of MS and their wasted pr.

As it should be. That's what a company is supposed to do, cater to it's customers. You make it sound like that's a bad thing but it's great thing.

I did not make it sound like a bad thing, please don't assume such things. Catering to customers is the key to ANY successful business. MS needs to keep catering until that hard shell of resistance falls away and more people decide its worth giving them a second chance.

In this case though the gamble failed and the public didn't want the innovations they offered so they did a 180 and took them out. That looks horrible for PR as again, it gives the impression that you don't understand what your core audience wants.

It definitely is a risk and MS lost big time.

According to MS the sales of the Xbox One doubled when they removed the Kinect. That seems to affirm is was a good idea, I'm not sure what metric you ar going by to say it will be a negative in the long run. Removing Kinect isn't going to make all the issues magically go away, doing so made things better, that's all that could be hoped for. Yes they take a perception hit for doing a "180". It would have been even worse if if they just were totally tone deaf and kept going in what the public perceives as the wrong direction. If you're going the wrong way then doing a 180 is better than just stubbornly plowing ahead in the wrong direction. It's still not as good as going the right way from the start though which is what Sony lucked out with on the PR front.

According to MS, sales doubled when they removed Kinect AND dropped the price by $100. No need to leave out an important detail like that.

There is no metric around that tells us which part had the biggest impact, but I still feel like they should have tried dropping the price with Kinect still bundled first. But hey, arguing over Kinect was lost a long time ago and I know around here its a taboo thing. I just thought it hurt MS even more pr wise when they could have lessened the blow.

I don't see any signs of them doing that right now, they've made it so they're not losing by as much but they aren't beating Sony either... again though it's VERY early still so who knows.

I'm starting to wonder if anything will really turn things around. You say its early, but even you don't see much ground being made up.

MS isn't going to catch up by doing the same things the guys beating them are though when they're getting there by doing a 180 and the other guys were doing it from the start. What MS could really use is finding one of those things that gamers want but don't know they want yet and the competition doesn't do. Again though that's not easy and not without risk. I think the perception is though that MS is gun shy after their other innovations didn't pan out. In contrast Sony seems willing to keep gambling on things like PS Now, Share Play, Remote Play, PlayStation TV, Project Morpheus, etc. Maybe they'll flop, maybe they'll stick, but they're trying to innovate wheres the perception is that MS is still recoiling from the rejection of their attempts at innovating and is just being reactive, doing what other consoles (be it last gen or competitors this gen) already do.

It certainly is a tough industry to be in. On the one hand, some demand that MS focus more on core gaming, on the other hand, some demand MS take risks with new ideas. I can understand MS being a bit reserved now. Who do you listen to?

MS has slipped in some innovative ideas around the X1, but they mostly get ignored because of the bigger story being told. Sony and MS are sort of borrowing ideas from each other after all. Sony adopted the pay for online strategy started by MS. MS adopted the give gamers free content for that paid service started by Sony. Both companies are pursuing TV-like content, with MS being more public about those plans then Sony up to this point. Both companies are pursuing core gaming content, but Sony spoke louder about that upfront.

I guess at the end of the day, I just try to stay low and avoid the bombs that get thrown around via pr and the internet. I own my consoles because they appealed to me. I never felt MS or Sony were more or less focused on gaming at launch or now. Its worked out about as I figured. After the dust settled from the launch, I found two consoles with games I wanted and features I enjoyed using.

2,785 · September 23, 2014

So do you agree or not?

Do I agree it was a "wise choice" to include the HDMI in and IR blaster? I wouldn't characterize it as such. It's far from a scientific study but with the people I know who own Xbox Ones most do not have the Kinect hooked up. Some never hooked it up and others may have played with it for a little while and then disconnected it. A fair number have tried to sell them on ebay. With the few that DO use it though using it to control the TV via the HDMI-In is probably their favorite use of it. I did a quick poll and all of them said they still would have bought the Xbox One even if it didn't have the capability and they didn't buy the Xbox One to get that capability. It's just something nice to have if you are already getting the Xbox One, most of my friends haven't even bothered to connect their cable box to the HDMI in though. Now that the Kinect isn't bundled with the majority of Xbox One sales I'm not sure how useful the HDMI-In is anymore. Furthermore in my opinion the ability to control your cable box has been lumped into the public perception that the Xbox One is TV first, games second. So really I don't see it as a net plus or minus, it seems pretty inconsequential to me and I wouldn't call including something inconsequential a "wise choice". I don't think MS hurt themselves by including it but nor do I think it helps them sell systems.

As far as I know, the only thing gamers really rejected was the 24hr check-in. That sparked protests of the highest order. The rest was all the fault of MS and their wasted pr.

Really? I get the impression that the public rejected the always on mic, the mandatory inclusion of the Kinect, the 24hr check-in, the paywall for Netfix, IE, etc.

According to MS, sales doubled when they removed Kinect AND dropped the price by $100. No need to leave out an important detail like that.

There is no metric around that tells us which part had the biggest impact, but I still feel like they should have tried dropping the price with Kinect still bundled first. But hey, arguing over Kinect was lost a long time ago and I know around here its a taboo thing. I just thought it hurt MS even more pr wise when they could have lessened the blow.

I actually agree with you here. I honestly didn't even think about that. I think most people, including reporters covering the consoles, just make the assumption that no one is selling consoles at a loss this generation and moving on from there. If you make that assumption then what you say isn't possible, dropping the price to match the PS4 while still including the Kinect would cause MS to sell the Xbox One at a significant loss. Now that may sound like a no-go but that's how it used to be with consoles anyway so it's really not that crazy of an idea. It's what Sony had to do because of high Blu-Ray prices for the PS3 as well. Thinking about it I think MS would be in a better position now if they had done that. At least they'd have something to show because they could say "Sure you lose a tiny bit of graphics capability that you probably won't notice anyway but you gain all these Kinect based abilities for the same price." Instead they've matched the price by dropping Kinect and in doing so dropped pretty much everything that differentiated it. So now there isn't much the Xbox One can do that the PS4 can't, they're the same price, and the gfx are slightly worse... so there really isn't anything for them to hold up to differentiate themselves.

I'm starting to wonder if anything will really turn things around. You say its early, but even you don't see much ground being made up.

I think MS had done a great job of closing the gap but I honestly don't see anything that would push them ahead in any sustainable fashion. I didn't think a slightly modified GameCube with a gimmick controller would be a big deal though either yet the Wii ended up selling more than the PS3 and Xbox 360 last generation so I'm fully aware that I'm not a good judge of what the public will latch onto. It's possible that Microsoft has something in R&D that the public doesn't know about that could push them ahead. It's possible that there's some killer Kinect app on the horizon that is going to make everyone run out and buy one. It's possible that some first party game MS has in the pipeline will launch the next super franchise. I simply don't know what the future holds and it is less then a year into an 5-10 year console cycle so I hesitate to call the winner this early.

It certainly is a tough industry to be in. On the one hand, some demand that MS focus more on core gaming, on the other hand, some demand MS take risks with new ideas. I can understand MS being a bit reserved now. Who do you listen to?

I think that's part of their problem. It seems they are just blowing in the wind trying to react to all the different demands coming from all directions. That makes people feel like they don't understand their customers. They shouldn't have to listen to others for direction, they should have a vision and move toward that vision. Their initial vision was rejected, that stinks, but they should create a new one instead of floundering around trying to figure out what to do next. I would say they should take risks with new ideas targeting core gamers. They need to come up with some new capabilities relating to gamers (not watching tv or listening to music) that prior consoles and the competition don't have yet. I don't know what specifically that is, if I did I'd probably be rich. They may stumble again or they may hit on something, you just have to keep trying.

MS has slipped in some innovative ideas around the X1, but they mostly get ignored because of the bigger story being told. Sony and MS are sort of borrowing ideas from each other after all. Sony adopted the pay for online strategy started by MS. MS adopted the give gamers free content for that paid service started by Sony. Both companies are pursuing TV-like content, with MS being more public about those plans then Sony up to this point. Both companies are pursuing core gaming content, but Sony spoke louder about that upfront.

Microsoft innovating for the pay for online strategy that Sony has now copied is not a good thing from a gamers point of view. You now have to pay for something that used to be free, you don't get good points for that. It's a necessary evil though to subsidize a common network infrastructure for developers. Sony was free last gen because they didn't have to maintain these infrastructure servers each publisher/developer rolled their own. The issue with that though was that with everyone rolling their own things like cross game chat were impossible. Sony has wanted to integrate PlayStation with TV for a long time. Way back in the PS2 era they launched the PSX in Japan that had a TV tuner and DVR capabilities. They never launched it outside of Japan though because it was expensive and it was hard to get industry support for TV. In the US different cable companies have incompatible systems, CableCard tried to fix that but never really took off. Now IP TV seems the way to go but that's only just starting to ramp up so Sony isn't advertising things until they've got deals signed. It's not like they saw MS try to do TV things with the Xbox and decided to copy them, TV has been on their radar for a long time.

I guess at the end of the day, I just try to stay low and avoid the bombs that get thrown around via pr and the internet. I own my consoles because they appealed to me. I never felt MS or Sony were more or less focused on gaming at launch or now. Its worked out about as I figured. After the dust settled from the launch, I found two consoles with games I wanted and features I enjoyed using.

At then end of the day you should play whatever you enjoy playing no matter what PR depts or internet reviews say.

I do feel that Sony is more games focused even besides the current PR mistakes just because in my mind at least Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc. come to mind for Microsoft before Xbox so I see Xbox as Microsoft's play to get Windows in the living room as part of their "Windows Everywhere" strategy. Microsoft is a software company first, they just use games as a means to an end to get you to buy their hardware/software. On the other hand for Sony the PS software and hardware is just a means to play games, they are a content provider first, be that content games they publish through PlayStation or movies through their movie studios or music through their record labels. Content (thus games) comes first for them and the hardware and software is just used to get you to buy the content. In my mind this DOES make Sony more games (content) focused.

5,259 · September 24, 2014

Do I agree it was a "wise choice" to include the HDMI in and IR blaster? I wouldn't characterize it as such. It's far from a scientific study but with the people I know who own Xbox Ones most do not have the Kinect hooked up. Some never hooked it up and others may have played with it for a little while and then disconnected it. A fair number have tried to sell them on ebay. With the few that DO use it though using it to control the TV via the HDMI-In is probably their favorite use of it. I did a quick poll and all of them said they still would have bought the Xbox One even if it didn't have the capability and they didn't buy the Xbox One to get that capability. It's just something nice to have if you are already getting the Xbox One, most of my friends haven't even bothered to connect their cable box to the HDMI in though. Now that the Kinect isn't bundled with the majority of Xbox One sales I'm not sure how useful the HDMI-In is anymore. Furthermore in my opinion the ability to control your cable box has been lumped into the public perception that the Xbox One is TV first, games second. So really I don't see it as a net plus or minus, it seems pretty inconsequential to me and I wouldn't call including something inconsequential a "wise choice". I don't think MS hurt themselves by including it but nor do I think it helps them sell systems.

Two points I get from this statement.

1. The HDMI-In is a nice option for some users. It is certainly not a system seller on its own, but it is appealing to some users as you discovered. I know you wanted to emphasis how inconsequential it is, but the fact that some people like using it means that the feature is worthwhile to have. If it didn't cost MS much to have, then why not include it? If you were able to find some people that liked the feature even among just your friends, then its not crazy to think that there could be many more people that feel the same way (we could go round and round over anecdotal numbers). To me, its one of those nice niche features that is worth offering. It doesn't have to be a big deal, just one small feature that adds to the pot of features.

2. When Kinect was unbundled, suddenly the feature is less likely to be used because end users wouldn't just have Kinect there to even try it out. You made another great point that supports my feeling that unbundling Kinect might have done more harm than good to the overall platform. There are several features that no longer matter or seem as impressive with Kinect gone.

Really? I get the impression that the public rejected the always on mic, the mandatory inclusion of the Kinect, the 24hr check-in, the paywall for Netfix, IE, etc.

The paywall stuff has been there since the 360, so that was not a big deal, plus it was made easier thanks to Sony adopting a paywall of its own. The always on mic wasn't as big of a deal since MS cleared that up when they explained you could turn it off or disconnect Kinect. The mandatory inclusion of Kinect was a big deal, but most people that complained about that were still willing to accept it if the price was lower.

It was the 24hr check in, followed closely by the end of getting physical used copies of a game, that resulted in the universal outcry and forced MS to scrap its plans and start over.

I actually agree with you here. I honestly didn't even think about that. I think most people, including reporters covering the consoles, just make the assumption that no one is selling consoles at a loss this generation and moving on from there. If you make that assumption then what you say isn't possible, dropping the price to match the PS4 while still including the Kinect would cause MS to sell the Xbox One at a significant loss. Now that may sound like a no-go but that's how it used to be with consoles anyway so it's really not that crazy of an idea. It's what Sony had to do because of high Blu-Ray prices for the PS3 as well. Thinking about it I think MS would be in a better position now if they had done that. At least they'd have something to show because they could say "Sure you lose a tiny bit of graphics capability that you probably won't notice anyway but you gain all these Kinect based abilities for the same price." Instead they've matched the price by dropping Kinect and in doing so dropped pretty much everything that differentiated it. So now there isn't much the Xbox One can do that the PS4 can't, they're the same price, and the gfx are slightly worse... so there really isn't anything for them to hold up to differentiate themselves.

Finally, someone else that feels as I do :laugh:

Most on the net just don't get that point. Most just want to make it about the terrible Kinect. I know taking losses is not ok, but as you rightly pointed out, sometimes you have to do that if you really believe your product is a game changer. Kinect still represents that possibility. Not solely as a gaming device, but as an all around control device. Something that can offer many features that the end user would often not even realize is due to Kinect being there. Now, most people consider it dead and won't even consider it as an option. What Kinect can do is not universally loved, but enough people would appreciate the features to make it worthwhile. The biggest irony is that many of the same people that suggested MS make the cut became those that talked about how now the X1 had little to differentiate itself.

I think that's part of their problem. It seems they are just blowing in the wind trying to react to all the different demands coming from all directions. That makes people feel like they don't understand their customers. They shouldn't have to listen to others for direction, they should have a vision and move toward that vision. Their initial vision was rejected, that stinks, but they should create a new one instead of floundering around trying to figure out what to do next. I would say they should take risks with new ideas targeting core gamers. They need to come up with some new capabilities relating to gamers (not watching tv or listening to music) that prior consoles and the competition don't have yet. I don't know what specifically that is, if I did I'd probably be rich. They may stumble again or they may hit on something, you just have to keep trying.

Its not easy to simply come up with a brand new strategy when the strategy you had worked on for years is rejected and you have to scramble a the last minute to make it right. I'm not sure what would be a success either. My only thought is to keep focusing on gaming first pr wise. Keep pursuing new content and keep developing ideas behind the scenes that improve the gaming experience. That streaming service they have been working on behind the scenes for a couple years is a possibility. Coming up with new ways to leverage their server tech may not be pr friendly, but can have a big impact.

What MS has done in less than a year seems fairly incredible considering it how long it has taken other companies to turn things around in the past.

Now IP TV seems the way to go but that's only just starting to ramp up so Sony isn't advertising things until they've got deals signed. It's not like they saw MS try to do TV things with the Xbox and decided to copy them, TV has been on their radar for a long time.

Oh I'm not saying Sony is copying anyone. My point is the opposite. When people thought Sony was so laser focused on gaming, the reality was that they were working behind the scenes on other content like tv content to bring to the console. The public image was just crafted better. MS had been working behind the scenes to get deals with the same content providers years ago that Sony was also trying to work with. There were stories about MS having to back off that plan because the price tag they demanded was just too high. If Sony does secure the deals, it will be a testament to the leverage Sony has in the industry to get a more reasonable deal. Sony is a content creator, that has been their big bread winner for a long time. MS only seriously considered becoming that several years ago when talks about IPTV and serving content to the xbox platform began.

I do feel that Sony is more games focused even besides the current PR mistakes just because in my mind at least Windows, Office, Visual Studio, etc. come to mind for Microsoft before Xbox so I see Xbox as Microsoft's play to get Windows in the living room as part of their "Windows Everywhere" strategy. Microsoft is a software company first, they just use games as a means to an end to get you to buy their hardware/software. On the other hand for Sony the PS software and hardware is just a means to play games, they are a content provider first, be that content games they publish through PlayStation or movies through their movie studios or music through their record labels. Content (thus games) comes first for them and the hardware and software is just used to get you to buy the content. In my mind this DOES make Sony more games (content) focused.

That is an important distinction. Sony is a content provider first, not gaming content, but all content. I completely agree that Sony is more focused as a complete company due to the fact that content creation is their biggest asset. I just thought it was silly to think that Sony was not working to bring all of its content sources to the ps4, competing as an all around entertainment box just as MS more publicly claimed.

MS' biggest asset is software development, so their focus on in house content creation will never be as big. However, since games are just another form of software, that does mean MS can be focused enough on gaming to do well. MS does not need to be as big of a content creator as Sony though, they just need to create the right environment that encourages 3rd party developers to bring the content.

2,785 · September 24, 2014

The paywall stuff has been there since the 360, so that was not a big deal, plus it was made easier thanks to Sony adopting a paywall of its own.

My point wasn't the introduction of the paywall, which as you say has been around since last gen. My point was that MS's removal of the paywall for Netflix, IE, etc. after Sony announced their new paywall wouldn't apply to video streaming services, the web browser, etc. This change was seen as one of the 180s MS took and contributes to the "reactionary" perception. Sony could have easily made their paywall apply to these things as well since MS had already done it and it is largely accepted by the gaming public with the 360. Instead Sony chose not to so they are being given credit for not trying to gouge gamers whereas MS appears to want to but only changed because of public outcry.

The always on mic wasn't as big of a deal since MS cleared that up when they explained you could turn it off or disconnect Kinect.

I don't think the fact you can set a software setting to turn the mic off put to at easy any of those concerned about the always on mic. Microsoft could easily push an update that turned it back on if given a secret court order to do so or any hacker who was good enough to hack into your Xbox would probably be able to reenable the Kinect comparatively easily. Disconnecting the Kinect IS a valid solution (the one most of my friends have taken) but at first we were told you couldn't do that. The ability to disconnect the Kinect was yet another of the 180s MS did.

Most on the net just don't get that point. Most just want to make it about the terrible Kinect. I know taking losses is not ok, but as you rightly pointed out, sometimes you have to do that if you really believe your product is a game changer.

Taking losses was the norm for launch consoles until this generation I believe. I'm pretty sure all previous Sony consoles were launched at a loss before the PS4. The PS3 was more of a loss than they intended because of blue laser costs and they had to lower the price due to poor sales but even if everything went perfectly it would have still been a slight loss. I'm not sure about Xbox but I believe the first two launched at a loss as well. Only Nintendo has been selling consoles at a profit at launch. That used to be part of the appeal of a console... you could buy hardware for less then it should cost and in return you are locked in to that platforms games (where the console holder takes a cut of sales). That's why there are a bunch of people out there complaining about how this whole generation is underpowered. You don't get more hardware then you pay for anymore.

Now, most people consider it dead and won't even consider it as an option.

I think it's dead even though I agree with you it would have been better to lower the price and still include the Kinect. In removing it though they have effectively killed it. Now there isn't going to be enough people who have them to merit a ton of developers requiring it for their games, it's at best been relegated to a niche. To make matters even worse not only are developers not supporting it in their games, they're actively disabling it. MS now allows developers to disable most of it's features even for people who DO have it connected while the developers game is running in order to get the 10% reserve back. Developers are jumping on that.

The biggest irony is that many of the same people that suggested MS make the cut became those that talked about how now the X1 had little to differentiate itself.

I don't think that's ironic. It's a legitimate concern. MS should not have put all their eggs in one basket. EVERYTHING that differentiated the Xbox One from the PS4 should not have been tied to a single, unproven, attachment.

Its not easy to simply come up with a brand new strategy when the strategy you had worked on for years is rejected and you have to scramble a the last minute to make it right.

I know it's not easy, I tried to emphasis that in my statements. Having to "scramble a the last minute to make it right" does feed the perception you are out of touch with your customers though. Until the scrambling ceases and you're one again cruising toward some cohesive strategy you are going to continue to perpetuate that perception. You were asking why people don't seem to be over it yet despite MS having corrected most, if not all, of the complaints, that's part of the reason why. The perception is they still don't get their customers.

I'm not sure what would be a success either. My only thought is to keep focusing on gaming first pr wise. Keep pursuing new content and keep developing ideas behind the scenes that improve the gaming experience. That streaming service they have been working on behind the scenes for a couple years is a possibility. Coming up with new ways to leverage their server tech may not be pr friendly, but can have a big impact.

I'm not sure what streaming service you are talking about but for them to get credit as innovating or getting their customers it would have to do something that Sony isn't already doing with the PS4. Offering an Xbox version of PS Now would just be seen as them copying Sony again and reactionary.

What MS has done in less than a year seems fairly incredible considering it how long it has taken other companies to turn things around in the past.

I don't know. I don't think it's any more incredible than what Sony did with the PS3 when they found themselves behind the ball. Sony even sucked it up and sold their console for an ever greater loss and they don't have the financial resources MS does. In some ways MS took the easy way out by unbundling Kinect to lower the price. It would be more incredible if they were willing to do as you suggested and take the short term financial hit of lower the price while still including the Kinect. It's too late for that now though. Since the perception is the Xbox One is slightly weaker though they should at least undercut Sony a little on the Kinectless versions. You aren't going to outsell your competition by having the same price for a slightly weaker system.

When people thought Sony was so laser focused on gaming,

Sony PR was laser focused on gaming because Sony understands that the people who buy expensive new game consoles at launch are "hardcore gamers". Microsoft doesn't seem to understand that which contributes to the perception they don't "get gamers". Yes game consoles are general entertainment centers, that isn't new to this generation. The PS3 is the number one Netfix client device I believe (or was at one point.) but people don't pay $400+ to control their cable box, stream movies, surf the web, etc. Those things can be done by MUCH cheaper devices already. You need to get the "early adopters" and "hardcore gamers" onboard first THEN you can start marketing non-gaming capabilities.

MS' biggest asset is software development, so their focus on in house content creation will never be as big. However, since games are just another form of software, that does mean MS can be focused enough on gaming to do well. MS does not need to be as big of a content creator as Sony though, they just need to create the right environment that encourages 3rd party developers to bring the content.

I disagree. If MS just "creates the right environment that encourages 3rd party developers to bring the content" then they aren't going to have much in the way of exclusive content for their platform. While there are rare exceptions, as a general rule 3rd parties want to be on as many platforms as possible and certainly on the most popular one. Since the PS4 slightly outperforms the Xbox One on cross platform titles and is currently outselling the Xbox One this leaves little reason for an undecided consumer to buy an Xbox One over a PS4. Having MS throw money at 3rd parties to try to get them to be Xbox exclusive brings it's own negative perception to gamers. I makes it appear like MS doesn't know gamers themselves so they are just trying to pay off those that do. Having a big "focus on in house content creation" gives you a stable of exclusive titles to differentiate your platform, even if you have worse hardware. People don't see it as a negative if Sony keeps in house titles from Xbox (or vice versa), of course they don't release their own titles on the competition's hardware.

3,782 · September 24, 2014

Sony learned from it's PS3 launch to not sell it as two different things at the same time and not be more expensive then your competition.

Microsoft seemed to repeat the same mistakes as Sony during the PS3 Launch.

The big things that MS botched, failed to control, explain, or sell / convenience consumers

Game "license" vs Game Disc.
Mandatory Kinnect was worth it being more expensive then the PS4.
Mandatory Internet Check In
Too much first revel being TV / NFL focused.
Not as indie friendly as PS4 - not on the programming side but red tape and agreements w/ MS.

Sony did a good job of using consumer's reaction to the above to make them selves look a lot better / attractive.

Sony also focus on better gaming advertising, being better indie friendly at launch.

MS has gone a long ways to undo this damage / make changes, and like Sony with the PS3, believe X1 will be a financial success.

It may not be #1 at the end of this cycle, but should turn out to be a solid performer. Time will tell who really won.

I will say this, how has everyone's (ps4/x1) download only purchase games being 20gb+ installs been?

How long did it takes, were you frustrated at the transfer speed?

2,785 · September 25, 2014

I will say this, how has everyone's (ps4/x1) download only purchase games being 20gb+ installs been?

How long did it takes, were you frustrated at the transfer speed?

Off the top of my head all my PS4 20gb+ installs have been pre-orders and have downloaded in the background prior to release. On release day they unlock and are playable instantly so I haven't had any problems. I also have FiOS 75/75 for internet so my connection is very fast and I haven't had any complaints about patches or DLC downloads that I HAVE had to wait for but I doubt they were 20gb+. You can also start playing before games are 100% downloaded which is nice (I've used this mostly only on the smaller indie games though which allows me to play them almost instantly).

I'd say my biggest complaint is that disc games HAVE to install. I'm already shuffling content because my drive is full of downloadable games so I'd rather have longer load times and run the disc games from disc (with patches, dlc, and saves on the drive of course) to free up more room for non-disc games. It's going to get even worse once the multimedia capabilities upgraded as you'll have movies and music contending for the space as well. At first thought installing all games for the speed boost seemed like a good idea but now I'm not so sure. I'd rather it have been an OPTION where you could choose if you wanted to run from disc with long load times or install on the HDD for quicker (maybe even hybrids where cuts scenes and music and such stream from the disc but the binaries, textures, and sound effects are on the HDD or some such division).

5,259 · September 25, 2014

My point wasn't the introduction of the paywall, which as you say has been around since last gen. My point was that MS's removal of the paywall for Netflix, IE, etc. after Sony announced their new paywall wouldn't apply to video streaming services, the web browser, etc. This change was seen as one of the 180s MS took and contributes to the "reactionary" perception. Sony could have easily made their paywall apply to these things as well since MS had already done it and it is largely accepted by the gaming public with the 360. Instead Sony chose not to so they are being given credit for not trying to gouge gamers whereas MS appears to want to but only changed because of public outcry.

sure its a 180, but my point was it wasn't the big deal that caused the very vocal backlash.

I don't think the fact you can set a software setting to turn the mic off put to at easy any of those concerned about the always on mic. Microsoft could easily push an update that turned it back on if given a secret court order to do so or any hacker who was good enough to hack into your Xbox would probably be able to reenable the Kinect comparatively easily. Disconnecting the Kinect IS a valid solution (the one most of my friends have taken) but at first we were told you couldn't do that. The ability to disconnect the Kinect was yet another of the 180s MS did.

Again, I agree it was an issue, but not the BIG ones

That's why there are a bunch of people out there complaining about how this whole generation is underpowered. You don't get more hardware then you pay for anymore.

You made an excellent point here. Every Xbox and PlayStation before this was sold at a loss, which resulted in more hardware then what you would expect for the cost. Nintendo has always done the opposite. The problem is that the old way was unsustainable for both Sony and MS. So while I understand the complaints this gen, people need to try and realize the reality of the situation.

I don't think that's ironic. It's a legitimate concern. MS should not have put all their eggs in one basket. EVERYTHING that differentiated the Xbox One from the PS4 should not have been tied to a single, unproven, attachment.

That is where I disagree. They did not put all of their eggs in one basket. There are still differentiating features. The issue is that Kinect just became so focused on that everything else took a back seat. Kinect offered a lot, but the perception that it was the end all, be all for the X1 came from the huge focus by journalists and the internet community. MS promoted features made possible by Kinect, but if you followed their pr, they tried to severely limit how much they directly mentioned Kinect. Heck, it was very little at last year's E3 and not at all this E3. MS learned at least that much from last gen.

I still think Kinect is big deal, but now MS has to work so much harder to drive adoption. With the coming wave of VR hardware, tech like Kinect could suddenly be in higher demand. Plus, there is more that could be done for non-gaming uses on a console.

I'm not sure what streaming service you are talking about but for them to get credit as innovating or getting their customers it would have to do something that Sony isn't already doing with the PS4. Offering an Xbox version of PS Now would just be seen as them copying Sony again and reactionary.

Oh I'm sure it will be labeled reactionary regardless of reality. The work I'm referring to has been talked about on this very site. The first hints of it was last year around MS' BUILD conference where there was a closed door demo of halo being streamed to a remote pc. Since then, there has been info come out from MS regarding techniques they are developing to solve issues with lag, etc. MS is clearly working on a PS Now like service and have been for a while. The difference is that MS seems to be building it from scratch where as Sony bought Gaikai to save some time.

You aren't going to outsell your competition by having the same price for a slightly weaker system.

Great point. You have to have compelling content and features. Then it also helps to have a positive buzz and strong fan base.

Sony PR was laser focused on gaming because Sony understands that the people who buy expensive new game consoles at launch are "hardcore gamers". Microsoft doesn't seem to understand that which contributes to the perception they don't "get gamers". Yes game consoles are general entertainment centers, that isn't new to this generation. The PS3 is the number one Netfix client device I believe (or was at one point.) but people don't pay $400+ to control their cable box, stream movies, surf the web, etc. Those things can be done by MUCH cheaper devices already. You need to get the "early adopters" and "hardcore gamers" onboard first THEN you can start marketing non-gaming capabilities.

I do agree with this, but it goes back to pr vs reality. Sony played their cards perfectly and MS needs to do the same, but for me personally, the pr never mattered.

Since the PS4 slightly outperforms the Xbox One on cross platform titles and is currently outselling the Xbox One this leaves little reason for an undecided consumer to buy an Xbox One over a PS4. Having MS throw money at 3rd parties to try to get them to be Xbox exclusive brings it's own negative perception to gamers. I makes it appear like MS doesn't know gamers themselves so they are just trying to pay off those that do. Having a big "focus on in house content creation" gives you a stable of exclusive titles to differentiate your platform, even if you have worse hardware. People don't see it as a negative if Sony keeps in house titles from Xbox (or vice versa), of course they don't release their own titles on the competition's hardware.

Two points here:

1. First party exclusives are a must, I don't disagree. MS does not need to match them in quantity, but just offer enough. The problem with matching Sony on quantity has always been a problem because Sony had such a head start on MS. They had two console generations to build up a stable of developers. They are till riding that wave today. The cost to MS to try and buy in that kind of quantity/quality would be very high. Probably too high to be viable. So instead, the build why they can in house and then partner with 3rd party developers. I know everyone would prefer MS just match Sony first party wise, but I don't know if that is feasible.

2. MS hears it from pc gamers when they keep an X1 title exclusive, but then they hear it from others when a game is on both that the X1 isn't getting enough exclusive content. MS is in a unique situation there.

So as long as MS creates enough popular exclusives, that should bring them out of the hole eventually.

2,785 · September 25, 2014

sure its a 180, but my point was it wasn't the big deal that caused the very vocal backlash.

If it wasn't a big deal and didn't cause a very vocal backlash why did MS change it? It wasn't part of the original launch plan. The decision came later after it was clear the PS4 was outselling the Xbox One. Apparently MS thought it was a big enough deal to make the 180.

Again, I agree it was an issue, but not the BIG ones

I'm not sure what metric you're using to decide if it's big or not. They did a bunch of the 180s at around the same time so it's hard to tell which specific ones were bigger then others.

The problem is that the old way was unsustainable for both Sony and MS.

I don't believe this is true. Platform holders still take a cut of every AAA title they sell and that money should be able to subsidize the hardware to some degree still today. The reason it changed isn't because it was unsustainable, the reason it changed is because the Wii with it's comparatively weak hardware and for profit sales from the beginning outsold the Xbox 360 and the PS3 so MS and Sony decided that why should they take a loss on their superior hardware if consumers had proven they were perfectly willing to pay full price. The Wiis success with comparatively weak hardware also showed them that it wasn't worth the money to do tons of R&D for bleeding edge tech when people were perfectly happy to buy systems with moderate specs as long as they have good games. Both Sony and MS believe they have good games so no need to push the R&D budgets. So now we get mid-range PC like hardware for about what it costs to make instead of bleeding edge custom hardware for less then it would cost to make. The platform holders get to make less advanced consoles and sell them for a profit from the beginning.

That is where I disagree. They did not put all of their eggs in one basket. There are still differentiating features. The issue is that Kinect just became so focused on that everything else took a back seat. Kinect offered a lot, but the perception that it was the end all, be all for the X1 came from the huge focus by journalists and the internet community. MS promoted features made possible by Kinect, but if you followed their pr, they tried to severely limit how much they directly mentioned Kinect. Heck, it was very little at last year's E3 and not at all this E3. MS learned at least that much from last gen.

Ok, can you list me off a few things that the Xbox One can do that the PS3/PS4 can't that do not, in any way, require the Kinect? Not counting capabilities likely to come in a future software update (such as DLNA support). Maybe I'm just forgetting something but nothing comes to mind for me at the moment.

With the coming wave of VR hardware, tech like Kinect could suddenly be in higher demand. Plus, there is more that could be done for non-gaming uses on a console.

I agree Kinect could be a great asset for VR in theory. I've seen nothing that indicates MS is seriously working on a VR Headset like Project Morpheus though, but as I said before maybe they are working on things behind the scenes. This leads to a perception problem as well though because while Sony is seen if trying to pioneer VR ON CONSOLES MS gives the perception of just waiting to see how things work out then possibly following along if the public buys in. Again, following instead of trying to lead, further perpetuating the "reactionary" perception and the narrative that they don't understand their audience. Also on a technical level if the Kinect camera also costs $150 VR googles aren't cheap so a Kinect + VR Goggles package would likely be VERY expensive. Hopefully MS is willing to sell them at a loss to raise adoption because otherwise I can't imagine they'd be priced low enough to take off. Also VR requires very high resolution since the screen is right in front of your face. This means the GPU disadvantage for the Xbox One my limit their VR solution from outperforming the PS4 one. Also I'm not sure but I think Morpheus takes advantage of some of the specialized hardware Sony added for Remote Play and such. MS doesn't have similar hardware so they'd have to use the System CPU/GPU which would further hinder performance. It should be interesting to see if MS doesn't make an Xbox One VR play though and what it turns out looking like.

1. First party exclusives are a must, I don't disagree. MS does not need to match them in quantity, but just offer enough. The problem with matching Sony on quantity has always been a problem because Sony had such a head start on MS. They had two console generations to build up a stable of developers.

"two console generations"??? Sony is on it's 4th generation overall and MS is on it's third. Furthermore MS is not at any more disadvantage than Sony was when they launched the first PlayStation against established giant at the time Nintendo. The original PlayStation still managed to beat the N64 though. The perception also seems to be that the 360 beat the PS3, I'd tend to disagree since the sales are just about even and Xbox 360 had about a year head start but that's beside the point. If the perception is that the 360 won then there should be no more advantage to the PS4 because MS had a winning generation to build up their stable of developers.

The cost to MS to try and buy in that kind of quantity/quality would be very high.

"very high" relative to what? MS has a TON of money. They just spent $2.5 BILLION buying Minecraft. How many first part dev studios could you establish with $2.5 BILLION? I'd imagine at least a few. There is also the perception, again true or not, that when MS does buy a developer more often then not they kill them. Again this contributes to the narrative that they don't understand gamers.

2. MS hears it from pc gamers when they keep an X1 title exclusive, but then they hear it from others when a game is on both that the X1 isn't getting enough exclusive content. MS is in a unique situation there.

The PC/Xbox situation is different and as you say unique to MS. Personally I still think MS should make first party games exclusive to MS platforms (both Windows and Xbox) and I still think those complaining against that are just a vocal minority but I obviously have no hard data to back that up. Again though MS can't just define their policy based off who is screaming, they need to have a clear vision and implement it, if it is rejected then they reset and try again. MS is releasing things for iOS and Android now on mobile (a point I like as an hotmail/outlook.com and onedrive user on Android), they don't seem to be letting the complainers make them change on that front.

So as long as MS creates enough popular exclusives, that should bring them out of the hole eventually.

Woah, I don't think they're in a hole. Let's be clear here that Xbox One is selling well overall compared to prior get consoles. Furthermore as we've said already NO ONE is selling them for a loss and since they are using basic PC components for the most part there was comparatively little R&D this gen. The Xbox One will do just fine, the question is just if they'll ever be able to catch the PS4 or they'll end up second (or third?) this generation. Also there is some concern that if MS does end up not coming in first will MS even bother when an Xbox Two. For Microsoft Xbox isn't their bread and butter so they could spin it off or shut it down if they decide to go in another direction. For Sony the PlayStation is fundamental for them, their are having overall financial issues right now and the PlayStation one of the legs that is promising to prop them up.

5,259 · September 28, 2014

If it wasn't a big deal and didn't cause a very vocal backlash why did MS change it? It wasn't part of the original launch plan. The decision came later after it was clear the PS4 was outselling the Xbox One. Apparently MS thought it was a big enough deal to make the 180.

I'm not sure what metric you're using to decide if it's big or not. They did a bunch of the 180s at around the same time so it's hard to tell which specific ones were bigger then others.

I think you misunderstood my point. I never said those points did not matter. I'm saying they were not the most important based on the biggest public outcries online.

I'll say it another way: The issues your pointing to were 7/10 in importance while what I pointed to was 10/10. All of the issues were serious, hence MS' changes.

Both Sony and MS believe they have good games so no need to push the R&D budgets. So now we get mid-range PC like hardware for about what it costs to make instead of bleeding edge custom hardware for less then it would cost to make. The platform holders get to make less advanced consoles and sell them for a profit from the beginning.

You make good points here. That could indeed be the case. I would say though that Sony was not exactly in a position to post even larger losses then they have been in recent years, which could have made them more likely to adopt the current strategy.

Ok, can you list me off a few things that the Xbox One can do that the PS3/PS4 can't that do not, in any way, require the Kinect? Not counting capabilities likely to come in a future software update (such as DLNA support). Maybe I'm just forgetting something but nothing comes to mind for me at the moment.

Maybe in another thread I would go into more detail. You could also reference other threads in the Microsoft section. I have mentioned this stuff before. I'll mention a couple quick points. One system wide function that comes in very handy is its multitasking capabilities. That leads to scenarios simply impossible last gen. The ps4 offers some of this, but its just not as advanced when you look at a feature like snap. Smartglass is also an area where I think MS is ahead of Sony when you look at the capabilities of each mobile app (using a Vita with remote play is great, but that requires owning a Vita).

One aspect of the X1 that may not be a feature per se is that it runs windows. MS is on a path of bringing all of their devices under a more unified base. We have seen MS' more aggressive pace pushing updates and adding features to the X1. That more flexible base is what allows MS to evolve the platform much quicker and will mean the X1 can have a strong app lineup into the future. I know few, if anyone, follows this side of the platform, but it is a big deal that pays off as time goes on. The 360 was simply too limited OS wise to make quick, meaningful changes.

I agree Kinect could be a great asset for VR in theory. I've seen nothing that indicates MS is seriously working on a VR Headset like Project Morpheus though, but as I said before maybe they are working on things behind the scenes. This leads to a perception problem as well though because while Sony is seen if trying to pioneer VR ON CONSOLES MS gives the perception of just waiting to see how things work out then possibly following along if the public buys in. Again, following instead of trying to lead, further perpetuating the "reactionary" perception and the narrative that they don't understand their audience.

Well there is little MS can do to change the perception. I would just ignore that and focus on putting out a quality product. They tried to lead with Kinect, but that was rejected, so they have been retooling for the next thing.

People can label MS however they want, but eventually reality sets in IF the product is good. All it takes is a good release and suddenly MS 'gets their audience' again.

"two console generations"??? Sony is on it's 4th generation overall and MS is on it's third. Furthermore MS is not at any more disadvantage than Sony was when they launched the first PlayStation against established giant at the time Nintendo. The original PlayStation still managed to beat the N64 though. The perception also seems to be that the 360 beat the PS3, I'd tend to disagree since the sales are just about even and Xbox 360 had about a year head start but that's beside the point. If the perception is that the 360 won then there should be no more advantage to the PS4 because MS had a winning generation to build up their stable of developers.

I said two because by the time the original Xbox launched, the ps2 was already well established.

Perception does not equal reality and the ps3/360 race was close to even. MS didn't gain any real advantage with developers.

MS has certainly grown its stable of developers thanks to the 360, but not at a pace to keep up with Sony.

"very high" relative to what? MS has a TON of money. They just spent $2.5 BILLION buying Minecraft. How many first part dev studios could you establish with $2.5 BILLION? I'd imagine at least a few. There is also the perception, again true or not, that when MS does buy a developer more often then not they kill them. Again this contributes to the narrative that they don't understand gamers.

MS having a 'ton' of money doesn't mean much considering the Xbox division is only one part of a much large group. I agree that $2 billion could buy more developers. I don't know the thinking around the Minecraft deal, so its hard to say if that is an applicable comparison. If they are thinking that Minecraft represents a platform that can grow beyond a game and one that remains multiplatform, then that is different from building an exclusive Xbox IP.

Again with this perception vs reality stuff. MS has killed developer teams. So has Sony. If there are number that can paint a clear picture, I would love to see it. MS also spends money to form new teams. When they dissolve a team, sometimes developers move to other internal teams.

Again though MS can't just define their policy based off who is screaming, they need to have a clear vision and implement it, if it is rejected then they reset and try again.

That is exactly why they are trying to do with the X1. Their plan was rejected and so they reset and are trying again.

2,785 · September 29, 2014

I think you misunderstood my point. I never said those points did not matter. I'm saying they were not the most important based on the biggest public outcries online.

I'll say it another way: The issues your pointing to were 7/10 in importance while what I pointed to was 10/10. All of the issues were serious, hence MS' changes.

I got your point. My point in return was I don't know what metric you are using to rate one a 7/10 and another 10/10. To me at least they all seemed pretty bad and it's not so clear which was the most important or had the biggest public outcry. There was A TON of public outcry on just about everything once the PR went south.

You make good points here. That could indeed be the case. I would say though that Sony was not exactly in a position to post even larger losses then they have been in recent years, which could have made them more likely to adopt the current strategy.

Oh I'm not saying I don't understand why Sony and MS are being more conservative. It would be a stupid business strategy for them to risk a ton of money or R&D when gamers and developers have proven they're willing to pay for more of the same at near cost.

One system wide function that comes in very handy is its multitasking capabilities. That leads to scenarios simply impossible last gen. The ps4 offers some of this, but its just not as advanced when you look at a feature like snap. Smartglass is also an area where I think MS is ahead of Sony when you look at the capabilities of each mobile app (using a Vita with remote play is great, but that requires owning a Vita).

I'm not familiar with Smartglass but from most of the reviews I've read Sony tends to win the companion app comparisons. Also I'm not sure exactly what multitasking Xbox One can do that PS4 can't but if you've gone over this before if you could provide a link I'd be happy to take a look. I haven't seen anything saying Span was revoultionary. I got the impression it was just another UI design that some people like and others don't, not something that added a ton of new capabilities. Other than extensive voice command support which is now a non-issue since Kinect is unbundled and since the whole point here was me asking for what Xbox One does that PS4 and prior gen consoles didn't that does NOT require Kinect. In fact I've heard the Xbox One UI WITHOUT Kinect (which I assume includes snap) is more difficult to navigate than the 360 because they really thought everyone would embrace the voice/gestures stuff.

One aspect of the X1 that may not be a feature per se is that it runs windows. MS is on a path of bringing all of their devices under a more unified base. We have seen MS' more aggressive pace pushing updates and adding features to the X1. That more flexible base is what allows MS to evolve the platform much quicker and will mean the X1 can have a strong app lineup into the future. I know few, if anyone, follows this side of the platform, but it is a big deal that pays off as time goes on. The 360 was simply too limited OS wise to make quick, meaningful changes.

I'm not sure running Windows is a plus. As I mentioned before it contributes to the narrative the MS is more concerned about getting Windows into the living room then what makes a good gaming experience. Also Windows is a very heavy piece of software in console OS terms. Yes MS allows developers to enter a mode minimizing it but running 3 OSs or whatever the PR behind it is doesn't seem to be for much of a point yet. The point from a consumers point of view of running Windows on your console would be that you could run Windows apps on your console. Why would a user care if it runs Windows if they can't run any of their Windows software on it? Even worse why would they be happy to take the resource hit Windows incurs with no apparent gain in return. Now MAYBE eventually it will run Metro apps and you'll be able to buy a Windows app for say Windows 9 and run it on your laptop, your desktop, and your Xbox One. THEN maybe it will be cool for your console to be running windows. Right now that's not possible though and it remains to be seen if the public will even embrace "Metro" apps at all. The Windows Phone apps and Windows 8 apps of today aren't exactly drawing in users as it is.

As for MS's update pace I do give them credit for pushing out a ton of updates where Sony has had fewer and what has been there has often been "stability improvements" or other such generic statements. That said Sony didn't do a bunch of 180s and a fair amount of MSs updates have been a result of having to adapt to their change in direction. As noted before the UI was designed to require the Kinect so they've had to go in and change a bunch of things to make it easier to use without a Kinect. Sony is reasonably happy with it's UI so it hasn't had to do a bunch of updates to fix things. Even with all of it's updates there isn't a big list of things the Xbox One does that the PS4 doesn't. Those that it does are typically not gaming related so not a priority yet for Sony anyway. Things like game pre-install I'm pretty sure Sony had first even without as frequent of updates. Also Sony seems to be planning on fewer but larger updates besides stability fixes whereas MS likes to get whatever they can out each month. Sony seems to be trying to hold off new features until the 2.0 update right now for example so once that hits we'll see how far ahead MS really is, if at all. Again though I don't really see much that all of MS updates have given it that Sony doesn't already do. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the media playback stuff that's not related to gaming. Sony is STILL adding gaming related features, like the upcoming Share Play, so they haven't gotten around to the non-gaming media center stuff yet. That will no doubt come though when they feel confident they have the "early adopter"/"hardcore gamers" and start to draw in a wider audience. It hasn't even been one full year yet though so they're still largely game focused.

Well there is little MS can do to change the perception. I would just ignore that and focus on putting out a quality product. They tried to lead with Kinect, but that was rejected, so they have been retooling for the next thing.

Wait, I thought part of this discussion was about what MS could do to change the perception and now you are saying there is nothing they could do and just ignore it. Also as I've stated retooling for the next thing is exactly what they need to do but it isn't what they appear to be doing. Instead they seem to be floundering around trying to figure out what the next thing might be instead of making a firm decision and retooling for it.

People can label MS however they want, but eventually reality sets in IF the product is good. All it takes is a good release and suddenly MS 'gets their audience' again.

Well with consoles and within a single generation there's a point where a platform can reach critical mass. If most people are on one platform over another then developers are going to go there no matter how much cool tech is on a rival. At less than one year I'd say it's still too early to call that but MS famously said ?History has shown us that the first company to reach 10 million in console sales wins the generation battle. We are uniquely positioned to set a new benchmark for the industry.? back at the 360 launch and if that holds true MS has already lost this generation since PS4 has hit 10 million already. I don't think it is true but the point being I'm not sure MS has time to sit around and wait and see how things pan out before trying new things like VR. I really hope they have some VR stuff in the labs that just hasn't been made public yet because if VR does take off and MS has to start from nothing that could really hurt them bad. Maybe their strategy though is 2nd is good enough as long as they're making a profit though and they'll just try and win the next gen.

Perception does not equal reality and the ps3/360 race was close to even. MS didn't gain any real advantage with developers.

I'm not sure that's true, a lot of 3rd party games had the Xbox 360 as the lead development platform and then they just tried to port them to the PS3.

Again with this perception vs reality stuff. MS has killed developer teams. So has Sony. If there are number that can paint a clear picture, I would love to see it. MS also spends money to form new teams. When they dissolve a team, sometimes developers move to other internal teams.

What's a great Xbox 3rd party developer that MS bought and has flourished under Microsoft? Bungie would have been the go to in my mind with Halo but they left. Lionhead and Rare are currently shadows of their former selves. On the other hand Naughty Dog was bought by Sony and has brought us the Uncharted series and Last of Us since. Sony doesn't have a reputation for killing third parties. I'm not saying it has never happened but there are enough hits with the misses that keeps them from getting such a reputation. I'm not aware of any AAA acquisitions that have panned out for MS, I'm not saying they don't exist, just none come to mind for me.

Sign In

Report: Sony signs deal with Viacom, will stream TV to Playstation in 2014

Recommended Posts

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Link to comment

Share on other sites

macrosslover

Link to comment

Share on other sites

soniqstylz

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

MikeChipshop Member

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JonnyLH

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Audioboxer Subscriber²

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

GotBored

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Eternal Tempest MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

trooper11

Link to comment

Share on other sites

+Asmodai MVC

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Recently Browsing 0 members

Similar Content