Comcast is working on a cable box with a camera of their own. They don't need $500 Xboxes for this. They can do their own version and charge more for the DVR in monthly fees. And the Comcast one will have better integration because it IS actually one box instead of using 3rd party tech.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Bonus Round: Xbox's Money War
- Thread starter dmr87
- Start date
Comcast is working on a cable box with a camera of their own. They don't need $500 Xboxes for this. They can do their own version and charge more for the DVR in monthly fees. And the Comcast one will have better integration because it IS actually one box instead of using 3rd party tech.
That's probably true as Xbox brand has always had Live and it has been its biggest selling point. But how many Xbox Live subscribers are moving over to PS4? How many already did?
It's a new gen and everything changes.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, why would cable companies subsidize MS' $500 box when they have spent R&D and marketing money on their own improved cable boxes. I have Comcast with their X1 DVR which has enough features that I would sort of consider it a fairly decent HTPC if my real HTPC didn't make it look shitty. I can access my DVR, On Demand, several apps including Xfinity Streampix from the box which is much improved from previous DVRs I've had in the past.
I can control it by voice using the Xfinity app on my phone which is always with me. I can program the DVR or change channels while at work. So as cool as the voice control stuff is, it's not $500 cool when the hardware for gaming has been gimped to accommodate it, especially when I have a PS4 and a more powerful gaming PC. Maybe down the line some exclusive comes out that makes me have to get the thing but based on the last few years of Xbox 360 game output, I highly doubt it.
I really don't see Comcast or any other cable company who are trying to push their own hardware signing up for this subsidy idea with MS. And even if they do, how much are they going to subsidize a $500 piece of hardware? Cell phone companies can subsidize stuff like the IPhone because you have to get a data plan and with everything bundled in you're paying somewhere around $100 or more a month which they don't have to share with anyone. Unless you go all out and get every premium channel and the NFL Ticket package or something I doubt your bill is going to be more than $200 a month for just TV service for most folks. I pay $170 for phone, internet, and HD DVR service with a decent package so why would Comcast want to share this with MS in addition to eating the cost of some of the Xbone?
I can control it by voice using the Xfinity app on my phone which is always with me. I can program the DVR or change channels while at work. So as cool as the voice control stuff is, it's not $500 cool when the hardware for gaming has been gimped to accommodate it, especially when I have a PS4 and a more powerful gaming PC. Maybe down the line some exclusive comes out that makes me have to get the thing but based on the last few years of Xbox 360 game output, I highly doubt it.
I really don't see Comcast or any other cable company who are trying to push their own hardware signing up for this subsidy idea with MS. And even if they do, how much are they going to subsidize a $500 piece of hardware? Cell phone companies can subsidize stuff like the IPhone because you have to get a data plan and with everything bundled in you're paying somewhere around $100 or more a month which they don't have to share with anyone. Unless you go all out and get every premium channel and the NFL Ticket package or something I doubt your bill is going to be more than $200 a month for just TV service for most folks. I pay $170 for phone, internet, and HD DVR service with a decent package so why would Comcast want to share this with MS in addition to eating the cost of some of the Xbone?
.
I would really like to hear why Pachter et. al. think this things is going to be subsidized by cable companies, or promoted to their current customer base. I can see using it as part of a promo for a new 3 year first time customer, like offering a free tablet or a year of free cheese-of-the-month (lol), but anything beyond that leaves me scratching my head.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
Because Microsoft has had better strategies historically when it comes to media machines between the Xbox and Playstation platforms. I still think Xbox One is going to be a better media machine than the PS4 - it's just something that I think Microsoft excels at. Granted, the Xbox One hasn't released yet, but the UI and media features look like they will surpass the UI and features of the PS4 at launch. That's okay though because Sony is obviously doing a gamer first system.
The problem with that promo path is that there are better things to offer. A tablet would appeal to a far larger audience than a console. Even if cable companies want to give a console, if MS is in trouble due to price they will go with the PS4 because it will be the hotter item. I don't see how a cable promo fixes the price problem because if the price is a problem they won't want it. The point of a promo item is to offer something a lot of people want.
LiquidSolid
Member
What? The PS3 was a far better media machine than the 360.
twerkitout
Member
yeah agreed, the PS3 may have had the best cost benefit of any media machine for a very long time after it's release. Awesome BD player, fantastic up-scaling of dvds, decode the high end audio codecs when only $1000+ receivers offered it, native 1080p playback, 3D blu ray playing, DNLA compatibility, etc. Even at $600 bucks it was a steal. The cell caused alot of problems on the gaming side, but it was an awesome CPU for audio/video
Surely it is going to be less of a problem as we get later into the generation. Compare Kameo to GTA V.
The PS4 will most likely always have better looking games but that doesn't mean One games will look bad.
Randolph Freelander
Member
In this age of smart TVs with gesture controls, nevermind easy-to-integrate tablets, Xbox One's Kinect functionality seems awfully superfluous. The fact that these televisions run many of the same services makes the whole thing plain redundant.
Microsoft, you might have to win on games and price, and even if you do, I don't think games are what you've ever been trying to win. It ought to make you wonder what's the whole point.
Microsoft, you might have to win on games and price, and even if you do, I don't think games are what you've ever been trying to win. It ought to make you wonder what's the whole point.
Imperfected
Member
As far as (out of context) Pachter quotes from it go, I'm a fan of:
"They [Microsoft] need to eat it."
Sassy!
This is exactly what I thought. I think a lot of the Xbox 360's amazing attach rate and Xbox Live money making was due to the fact that the 360 generally had better multiplatforms and the core gamers flocked to MS. That is not looking nearly as likely this gen.
Time Warner can't even make a passable remote. They could use the help.
Louis Cyphre
Banned
Odd comments considering many believe the launch to favor the XBox One as far as games are concerned. Microsoft also has more games in production right now than at any time in the history of the XBox.
http://www.joystiq.com/2013/05/29/microsoft-investing-1-billion-into-games-on-xbox-one/
Don Mattrick has also left Microsoft, they are taking a new direction now.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
The PS3 didn't have Xbox Live - what the 360 couldn't do through Blu-Ray, it did through streaming and other services. The 360's online system and architecture was so much more superior than the PS3's.
LiquidSolid
Member
1) None of those apps were hosted by Microsoft, so attributing them to Microsoft's system and architecture is laughable.
2) Apps required a Gold account and were free on PS3.
So no, I'm still going PS3 > 360 when it comes to media capabilities.
Personally I as well can't see cable/satellite companies subsidizing Xbox One's, I mean they would basically be allowing Microsoft to piggyback onto the cable/satellite service in order to sell there own content and advertising.
I'm in the UK and I doubt very much Sky would allow the Xbox to take over EPG and navigation of its channels, why would you subscribe to their movie channels if Xbox kept saying you could get it via netflix or cheaper through the Xbox marketplace.
Technology such as voice controls/camera's are easy/cheap enough that if it was seen to becoming popular the companies themselves could come up with an 'acceptable to the consumer' solution (Probably not as advanced as Microsoft's technology though.
I'm in the UK and I doubt very much Sky would allow the Xbox to take over EPG and navigation of its channels, why would you subscribe to their movie channels if Xbox kept saying you could get it via netflix or cheaper through the Xbox marketplace.
Technology such as voice controls/camera's are easy/cheap enough that if it was seen to becoming popular the companies themselves could come up with an 'acceptable to the consumer' solution (Probably not as advanced as Microsoft's technology though.
Pretty much, you are fucked outside of the US.
walltowall
Member
That's not the point of interest for me. Apple gets a lot of flack for its approach and it's user base is dwarfed by Android but any app developer will tell you that they make more on iOS. The reasons are vast and complicated for Android, I'd be curious to know what they are for PS+ vs. Live.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
Well, I'm just going to have to agree to disagree. I have both a 360 and PS3 and I have a PS4 and will have an Xbox One at launch. Xbox Live made those apps accessible to a great many more people than what PSN brought to the table initially and it was only recently that PSN was catching up - the introduction of PS+ was really where things got closer and PS+ itself was clearly a response by Sony to combat Microsoft's success with Xbox Live. Also, even when PS+ existed, I still saw more value in Live than I did with PS+ but that was really just because the community of Live had already been built whereas PSN was always kind of fragmented - I attribute that more to do with the fact that the 360 shipped with a mic at the start of launch and helped nurture a growing online community whereas Sony was always kind of behind in that regard.
So, no, attributing the success of the apps to Live's system and architecture is indeed not laughable at all. Microsoft was able to successfully charge $50 a year and still be in competing territory with Sony who never really charged for their online. Microsoft obviously did something right to attribute value to that subscription.
KoopaTheCasual
Junior Member
Well I think one problem that you sorta touched upon is you guys are likely considering two very different periods of PSN's lifecycle. At the PS3 launch it was... yea. But as of a few years ago, I definitely see why people would say it's definitely more of a value than Live. But that wouldn't really be possible without Live pushing PSN to that level.
Angelus Errare
Banned
I wish I could say I was making that up...unfortunately there are gamers who are THAT dumb.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
Exactly! I definitely think the PS3 has caught up now, but it's the end of the generation. I just think Microsoft might have a few tricks up its sleeve with the Xbox One - historically they lead with that type of stuff (online architecture, UI, media feature accessibility - online media not hardware media capability). With that said, as a gamer, I'm currently more excited about the gaming potential of the PS4, but I would still give Microsoft the edge with the online systems *until* I see otherwise. I honestly believe Microsoft wants the Xbox One to be the cable box, but I'm not sure if they can make it happen. I'm not so confident that they will be able to get cable companies to subsidize the box, but the intentions of Microsoft with the Xbox One being extremely important to the TV makes me think Microsoft may have a winning strategy that is probably going to fail in execution due to their current pricing philosophy. The Xbox One is being marketed as a mass market console, but it does not have a mass market price.
As a side note: I love the idea of PS+. I hope Microsoft sees the value that brings to gamers and I hope PS+ is a huge success on PS4 to get Microsoft to notice. On the other hand, as was already said, PS+ likely wouldn't even be a thing without Microsoft's success with Live. In short, competition is great for consumers.
fatgamecat
Member
Another MS product that's underpowered, overpriced, and has features consumers don't seem interested in, if not outright hostile to? Fits right in with Metro, Windows phones and Surface tablets.
Some MS shareholders are eager to put a stop to what seems to be a big blot of red ink and concentrate on their bread and butter Windows, Office, and server products.
Some MS shareholders are eager to put a stop to what seems to be a big blot of red ink and concentrate on their bread and butter Windows, Office, and server products.
I'm confused with this post. The PS3 can also stream media through services like Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon, etc. It also supports DLNA. What makes the Xbox 360's media capabilities superior again? The chat?
walltowall
Member
While I get that your opinion is just that, your opinion, the fact that the 360 is a media center extender plus it's wealth of VOD apps makes it a better consumption machine right out of the box. The avg. person will not turn to twonky or a gimped plex but they will use the HBO Go or PBS or ESPN app for 360.
BakedSardine
Banned
As someone who just upgraded our TV to a Samsung Smart TV, 100% agree. Having all the apps we need (Netflix, Amazon, even Skype) built into the TV means my wife doesn't have to jigger with the console.
As to this Bonus Round - Blackley and Pachter dropping truth bombs all over the place.
HovaHovito
Banned
Pacther is the worst lol
Who says it wouldn't be exclusive to one cableco? AT&T has had an iPhone exclusivity arrangement for some time now. But let's say that isn't the case. Why would one company not follow suit if their competitor(s) are offering a service/bundle that is taking customer's away from them? There are big assumptions in all of these arguments and none of us know all of the details, so take it FWIW.
Stupid people?!
BakedSardine
Banned
I don't get this - the guy makes predictions on console sales, and often gets them wrong, but he's never afraid to call a spade a spade when companies are doing dumb shit. It doesn't get any more clear than "get [Kinect] the fuck out of the box."
fatgamecat
Member
The ~50% GPU gap isn't going away, I think it'll be a point of discussion for the entire gen. You can drop the price but you can't change the hardware as easily.
Yeah. I haven't followed Pachter over the years, but every time I see the guy on one of these Bonus Rounds or even the "Ask Pach" things that get posted here... he makes a lot of sense. So I've never understood all the anger he generates around here.
And will this Comcast cable box with a camera of their own play Forza 5, Ryse, and COD?
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
To be honest, some of his comments in the past have been... off, to put it nicely.
But since he became an industry figure of sorts, he is been considerably better. Perhaps he follows things a bit more then he used too.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
The PS3 only caught up recently with PS+ and stuff like Netflix - remember that the PS3 didn't have Netflix near the beginning of the generation. Sony's media capabilities with the PS3 were so far behind Microsoft's with the 360's that it was borderline pathetic. Luckily, Sony has caught up and has become a lot stronger in that regard. I just think no one should count Microsoft out when it comes to this stuff with this upcoming generation - the UI and features out of the box with the Xbox One already looks superior to what the PS4 can do as of right now. However, it still has yet to launch so we'll see what happens when the One actually does launch.
LiquidSolid
Member
90% of what you just said is completely irrelevant. We're not talking about "the feel" of better media functionality, so what does the community or PS+ have to do with anything?
You bring up how dire the PS3's streaming options were at launch but you completely ignore the fact that the 360 was in the same boat back then. They had their own video service, which wasn't exactly the greatest and Netflix didn't arrive until late 2008 (then going to PS3 a year later, once Microsoft's exclusivity was over).
Nowadays, the PS3 is the most popular Netflix device in the US, despite having a much smaller install base there, and you can thank the Gold paywall for that.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
That honestly matters more than you seem to think it does.
Chuck Norris
Banned
I've never seen someone try to shift the goalposts so much in a losing argument. PS+, XBL, the community integration, shopping with a mic? What does ANY of that have to do with the media capabilities of the system? Besides 360's media being hidden behind a pay wall
You do realise that Netflix has more users on PS3 than 360, right?
LiquidSolid
Member
Of course it matters in the overall perspective but when it comes to determining a quantifiable thing like media functionality? No, irrelevant.
Teletraan1
Banned
I dont get this subsidize a cable box thing. The XB1 from as far as I can tell cant take a cable wire as an input so you would still need the box to convert that signal to a proper signal that would be outputted to the xb1 through HDMI. I cant see anyone wanting to balloon up the price even more since those boxes are already expensive to buy/rent.
walltowall
Member
Not so sure. There's just as good a chance you can thank more VOD apps on the XBOX for that.
ProfessorMoran
Member
My question is why would Comcast subsidize the xbone when it doesn't even work as a cable box? It's basically an accessory, if it costs $200 it might make sense to give it away as an incentive for people signing up for cable, but it's a $500 box that still requires a cable box in order to watch TV? That's pretty steep.
mr teaspoon
Member
Because Comcast wants people to still pay for cable every month and not go entirely Netflix/Hulu. Microsoft wants you to have to turn on an Xbox for anything media related that's going on in your living room. The two make natural allies in this case.
Shrennin
Didn't get the memo regarding the 14th Amendment
Yes, but you don't see Microsoft getting rid of the paywall to account for that, do you? Live, for better or for worse, is still valuable enough for the paywall. Sony just now is coming up with a party system for the PS4 - Xbox Live was extremely far ahead of where Sony started with PSN at the beginning with the PS3.
Read again. I never attributed the mic with better media functionality with Xbox - I said I think the mic is a major reason the community within Live is just so much more connected than the community with PSN and why I personally still find Live more valuable than even PSN with PS+. It was a separate thought that had nothing to do with media functionality. With that said, on Live I could even watch movies at the same times with friends and that makes the media capabilities of the Xbox much more valuable to me than doing the same thing on PSN because it doesn't have that community aspect with it.
Right now they are basically equal when it comes to online media capabilities, but Sony was far behind in the beginning. That was my point. Also, I still think the perception of quality with Xbox Live versus PSN is in a better place, even with the release of the PS4. I think Microsoft is going to bring some new stuff to the table with the Xbox One and Xbox Live. Sony is definitely at a good place now, but I'm also definitely not counting Microsoft out with the release of the Xbox One.
Teletraan1
Banned
Exactly, this is all just nonsense. They already have to subsidize a $500 device (the cable box) so they are going to subsidize an additional device that merely acts as a companion to the cable box and does not do the functions of the cable box itself. Not going to happen on a wide spread basis.
mr teaspoon
Member
And you do know that that's not really the discussion-ender some people make it out to be, right?
Netflix is massively successful, everyone knows someone who uses it. To have a really popular console (PS3) that can access a really popular service (Netflix) with no additional charge and have a lot of people using it doesn't necessarily mean that people are flocking to the box for its media capabilities.
Imperfected
Member
He says mean/honest things about Nintendo. There's a lynch mob waiting in the wings whenever someone suggests that there may be good market sense in a major shift in Nintendo's business strategy, regardless of what it is and whether or not the person actually has the best intentions.