• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WSJ: "Microsoft Plots Original TV Shows for Xbox"

Nydius

Member
This isnt like getting into tablets or phones late where getting in the market early means you get brand loyalty and more support. All MS needs is to make a good show on the level of Breaking Bad or House of Cards and people will be more than happy to sub to watch. Theres no such thing as too late in this case. Especially when you have tens of millions of gold subscribers who are already in that ecosystem and would likely get access to the shows for free or at a discounted rate.

C'mon man. You act like it's super easy to make a hit show that's worth a premium fee. Breaking Bad, by the way, doesn't count since it was on extended basic and doesn't require a premium content subscription to view. It was a great show, but not in the same market as House of Cards or other premium cable shows.

Not too late? Their delivery service is inferior to at least three competing services, two of which now offer original programming. Every premium cable channel offers their own direct-to-consumer streaming software. The XBL "ecosystem" includes Netflix and Hulu, by the way. A fact they were happy to point out at XBO's reveal as part of their multimedia strategy. If I have subs to either (or both), Xbox Video will be competing with them on the very same console. Not a very sound strategy.

There is more competition for consumers' dollars for premium shows now than there ever has been in the past. Microsoft missed the boat by several miles and this just smells of the same desperate "we can do that too" strategy they used (and failed with, repeatedly) under Ballmer's leadership. Shareholders are already pissed at Microsoft's recent issues. They took a heavy loss on Surface RT and Surface Pro, the new iterations of Surface are selling better but still not up to expectations, they just threw out a shitload of money to take full control of the Nokia/Windows Phone pipeline while Windows Phone continues to sell at a disappointing rate, and the Xbox One is somewhere between disappointment and disastrous. Where's the logic in throwing EVEN MORE more money into a crowded market space where, once again, all they have is the HOPE that it pays off?
 

QaaQer

Member
But isn't one of the biggest demos for GoT the 18 to 39 age range? Isn't that what's meant by the term 'young adult'.

I think young adult refers to media made for adolescents. Although, as Harrry Potter proved, good YA stuff transcends ages.

It is true that some shows do skew, but the fact remains HBO makes shows targeting 18-65 men/women who are willing to pay a subscription for tv episodes, not young males etc. They do not operate that way.

BTW, the first season of Girls is pretty funny. defo worth a look.
 

AmyS

Member
I know they have it to spend, but throwing money at the problem like this isn't going to get XBone to overtake PS4.
 
I really hope the Atari documentary turns out well, it seems like they're taking it rather seriously at least. And in general I hope the original programming works out for them.

The games will always be there, and there will always be first and third party titles worth playing, and if MS can expand the amount of cool stuff for their platform that is fine by me. My consoles are used more for Netflix then games anyway, so I might as well get all the quality TV I can get from whoever wants to provide it.
 

RulkezX

Member
But isn't one of the biggest demos for GoT the 18 to 39 age range? Isn't that what's meant by the term 'young adult'.

That's an interesting site by the way...

Lz3iT0X.gif

http://www.wired.com/2013/06/women-game-of-thrones/

YA , at least in literature refers to 12-18. The popular ones have massive crossover appeal which is why 55% of YA sales are from over 18's.

GoT has never been classified YA.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
Which luckily MS has loads of. I dont see this as something strictly tied to xbox, it may start there, but i see it as MS investing some money to see if they can create an entirely new revenue stream for them. Even if it fails its not going to be something investors penalize the xbox divison for.

A waste of money is still a waste of money, regardless of the amount of money Microsoft has.
And it's god-damn hilarious to see there's still people around who believe that just because a company has a lot of money, they are going to spend it on all kinds of frivolous investments. Like the people who think microsoft will just keep throwing billions of dollars to third parties for exclusive games.
Yeah, I bet shareholders are thrilled for that kind of spending, seeing how Titanfall really rocketed XB1 sales and all.
 

p3tran

Banned
I approve of these news.
interesting documentaries related to the gaming side of this world (example the dig for the burried E.T. games) is something I probably would care to watch, if done nicely.

just make sure your content works globally microsoft! yes, I mean for tier 3542 countries too!
 
A waste of money is still a waste of money, regardless of the amount of money Microsoft has.
And it's god-damn hilarious to see there's still people around who believe that just because a company has a lot of money, they are going to spend it on all kinds of frivolous investments. Like the people who think microsoft will just keep throwing billions of dollars to third parties for exclusive games.
Yeah, I bet shareholders are thrilled for that kind of spending, seeing how Titanfall really rocketed XB1 sales and all.

To be fair, without Titanfall I think MS's sales would be much worse.
 
like others have said, wouldn't you prefer MS to spend the money on making new games? using a studio, writers, actors, all the usual stuff with tv and movies costs alot.

after all, they dropped the whole tv tv tv bollocks to focus back on games didn't they?
Who says they aren't? MS is deep in so many different business ventures it makes sense that they would want to step into television through Xbox. When I hear of new windows phone updates I don't get pissed and assume that they should put all that money into Xbox development. I don't get pissed at Sony when I see their tvs or movies they produce. Damn that new bravia tv could been a PS4 game! And yes it is a very similar argument.
 
A waste of money is still a waste of money, regardless of the amount of money Microsoft has.
And it's god-damn hilarious to see there's still people around who believe that just because a company has a lot of money, they are going to spend it on all kinds of frivolous investments. Like the people who think microsoft will just keep throwing billions of dollars to third parties for exclusive games.
Yeah, I bet shareholders are thrilled for that kind of spending, seeing how Titanfall really rocketed XB1 sales and all.
Yes new potentially good television series are just a waste of time and money. I mean come on people. Try a little harder. I don't care at all what this does for MS financially Its good for consumers to have more content.
 
I know it's not quite the same, but I actually enjoyed when Sony had "The Tester" and "Qore" on PlayStation Network.

I can see something like this achieving moderate success, if done spectacularly well.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
Yes new potentially good television series are just a waste of time and money. I mean come on people. Try a little harder. I don't care at all what this does for MS financially Its good for consumers to have more content.

There are dozens of TV shows made every day that are not restricted to only Xbox devices. Many of them fail.

Let's just say I don't think the chances of them succeeding with this show, taking into account the comparatively tiny Xbox userbase, are very high.
If they want something to boost Xbox appeal, i'd do it with games, not TV shows.

But then again, maybe they'll just throw it on Netflix. Would be kind of useless for Xbox though.
 

Tregard

Soothsayer
Didn't Xbox try hiring Conan O'Brian/Jay Leno a few years back? I could see them probably trying something like that again.

What if Craig Ferguson genuinely does get dropped by CBS....

Oh god.
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
I'm all for internet companies making TV shows, broadcast media had the opportunity to embrace the internet and control the programming but they chose to stick with the existing model, not because there was more money in it, just because it was easier money to make.

Now Netflix, Amazon, etc will eat their lunches by making shows and selling them straight to consumers AND make more money selling them back to broadcasters to go out on cable. I'd call that just desserts.
 

Synth

Member
There are dozens of TV shows made every day that are not restricted to only Xbox devices. Many of them fail.

Let's just say I don't think the chances of them succeeding with this show, taking into account the comparatively tiny Xbox userbase, are very high.
If they want something to boost Xbox appeal, i'd do it with games, not TV shows.

But then again, maybe they'll just throw it on Netflix. Would be kind of useless for Xbox though.

And if they put it on Xbox Video, which can be accessed by most things with a web browser?

Why do some people have such a narrow view of things? Not everything is just Xbox vs PlayStation.
 

Marcel

Member
Didn't Xbox try hiring Conan O'Brian/Jay Leno a few years back? I could see them probably trying something like that again.

What if Craig Ferguson genuinely does get dropped by CBS....

Oh god.

Craig Ferguson is okay and all but I doubt he's gonna drive any interest in Xbox's TV side. Considering we're in a time of where television is better and usually more relevant to cultural conversation than film and games, Microsoft is obligated to do it right since there's tons of other things 18-35 males could be watching.
 
There are dozens of TV shows made every day that are not restricted to only Xbox devices. Many of them fail.

Let's just say I don't think the chances of them succeeding with this show, taking into account the comparatively tiny Xbox userbase, are very high.
If they want something to boost Xbox appeal, i'd do it with games, not TV shows.

But then again, maybe they'll just throw it on Netflix. Would be kind of useless for Xbox though.
First, again there is no reason this would effect game development at all. Pointless to even mention it.

If its great it will be seen as valuable to people deciding what console to get. Not at the expense of games but again this doesn't affect game development at all.

Netflix pays a ton of money of digital distribution. If any series goes on Netflix they make money from Netflix and then if a season shows up on Netflix and people might consider getting an Xbox one so they don't have to wait for the next season. See how breaking bad was saved by Netflix. Personally I borrowed a friends season 1 of Game of thrones and had no interest in getting HBO and now I have HBO cause I don't want to wait. More content will absolutely be a deciding factor in what console people get. One day these consoles are gonna be cheap and more consumers not as interested in games will buy one.

Again I don't care one bit whether it is a great business decision. MS thinks it is and I get new content. Its a win.
 

Hoo-doo

Banned
And if they put it on Xbox Video, which can be accessed by most things with a web browser?

Why do some people have such a narrow view of things? Not everything is just Xbox vs PlayStation.

I was under the impression this was primarily to entice people to pick up a new Xbox. You know, with Spielberg being at E3 last year and all.

If it's just Microsoft funding random new shows, then I don't really have problems with it.
 

Synth

Member
I was under the impression this was primarily to entice people to pick up a new Xbox. You know, with Spielberg being at E3 last year and all.

If it's just Microsoft funding random new shows, then I don't really have problems with it.

The way I see it, anything that is part of Microsoft's entertainment ecosystem works to entice people to Xbox (or Windows devices), even if the Xbox is not the only way to access it. iTunes isn't locked to Apple devices, but it goes a long towards drawing people to them. MS has a lot more to worry about overall than Sony and the PS4, and it's very likely that its easier to justify some funds going to areas that will help them in more areas than just the console war. That does not mean these funds would otherwise have been made available for gaming.
 
Yes new potentially good television series are just a waste of time and money. I mean come on people. Try a little harder. I don't care at all what this does for MS financially Its good for consumers to have more content.

No one is against good content. What people are saying is that TV content is not going to sell many game consoles. If this was a truly independent investment, like if Microsoft was trying to start their own version of Netflix, then this wouldn't be bad at all. That isn't happening here. This is an Xbox initiative to help promote the Xbox. The funds are coming out of those allocated for the Xbox, so it is entirely reasonably to question if those funds could have been better spent elsewhere.

Game of Thrones costs 60 million for a 10 hour season's worth of content. House of Cards costs $50 million for a 13 episode season. So the question is what would sell more consoles, a season of House of Cards or Titanfall?

I also hate to bring up the reality of the situation, but if any of these shows turns out to be good they will be pirated and placed on torrent sites. I only bring that up because video games would be much less likely to be pirated so a good video game would be worth more to sell the XB1 than a good series.
 

Marcel

Member
I also hate to bring up the reality of the situation, but if any of these shows turns out to be good they will be pirated and placed on torrent sites. I only bring that up because video games would be much less likely to be pirated so a good video game would be worth more to sell the XB1 than a good series.

They will be pirated and on torrent sites even if the shows are bad. Pirates don't care.
 

BigDug13

Member
They will be pirated and on torrent sites even if the shows are bad. Pirates don't care.

Yeah no matter what, the shows being generated by this initiative WILL be available to non-Xbox owners. While exclusive games can't be (until console is successfully hacked).
 

Synth

Member
No one is against good content. What people are saying is that TV content is not going to sell many game consoles. If this was a truly independent investment, like if Microsoft was trying to start their own version of Netflix, then this wouldn't be bad at all. That isn't happening here. This is an Xbox initiative to help promote the Xbox. The funds are coming out of those allocated for the Xbox, so it is entirely reasonably to question if those funds could have been better spent elsewhere.

Game of Thrones costs 60 million for a 10 hour season's worth of content. House of Cards costs $50 million for a 13 episode season. So the question is what would sell more consoles, a season of House of Cards or Titanfall?

I also hate to bring up the reality of the situation, but if any of these shows turns out to be good they will be pirated and placed on torrent sites. I only bring that up because video games would be much less likely to be pirated so a good video game would be worth more to sell the XB1 than a good series.

How do you know this? Is it because it has the word Xbox attached to it? Xbox Video does not currently have a subscription model, but there's nothing to say that MS isn't planning to have one once the service has enough unique content to distinguish itself against competitors. If Xbox Entertainment was instead named Microsoft Pictures, would this suddenly be ok for you?

Titanfall would certainly sell more consoles, yes. But as Nintendo has already shown, at some point you end up selling only to those that already have the console. House of Cards has an audience beyond only those with the console, and with Xbox Video, so would MS' TV content. So it's weaker system selling potential is balanced by its potential audience beyond the gaming realm.

Also, bringing up piracy is completely pointless, as that's hardly a problem that will be unique to MS' content. If you're making a comparison between a AAA game and a show like House of Cards, then the piracy aspect has already been accounted for.
 
Every xbone user has a Kinect now, why aren't they bringing One VS 100 back?

Kids and lifestyle entertainment (KALE) are a Microsoft studio who have said they're working in something along those lines. (I'll get a link in a minute)

It won't be 1vs100 specifically as there were license issues I think

Perhaps we will see more at e3
 

Marcel

Member
Or you know, it's a fucking legal nightmare the second you want to appeal to the entire world, and not just USA.

It's okay to have country-exclusive content. Considering Microsoft's biggest market is young males in the US, it's probably way okay.
 

KungFucius

King Snowflake
No one is going to pay $500 and $60 a year to watch TV shows....

Do you really think this is what they are going for? Really? Jesus! I think you need to go back to school if you think this is the way the world works, though I suspect you are just parroting the generic anti MS hate without thinking of how stupid your post is.

All these things are is a collection of little perks to woo people on the fence to one platform over another. They are not supposed to be a killer app that people will buy a system for. They are just flashy things to throw on the box that the majority of people who buy the system do not really care about yet might be a nice bonus for some.
 

Marcel

Member
I think the bigger problem is that Nancy Tellem's programming successes in traditional TV aren't really relevant to the Xbox TV brand. You don't need to poach somebody from CBS to tell you that a Halo show has the possibility of getting your base interested.
 

Epcott

Member
Give me shows based on games with production and writing similar to Orange is the New Black, House of Cards and Hannibal sure, you can take my money (as long as game content is still the main focus).

If shows are like The Tester or Videogame Highschool, meh... pass.

They seem to be amassing exclusive game content so I doubt they'll abandon them in favor of shows. Heck, if they can bring stellar original programming like Netflix and premium cable networks have, that could potentially be awesome.
 

Amir0x

Banned
They've shown their true intentions last year. Anyone who falls for it again has only themselves to blame.

I feel like even for people like me who were on the forefront of criticizing Microsoft, this is still a bit much.

For the past year since that infamous TV TV TV debut, they have pretty much focused on nothing but games, non-stop, around the clock. They revealed an inordinate amount of exclusive games at E3, far more than Sony (not that Sony didn't have equal or more, it's just they knew they had the strategic advantage and thus saved more), and since that showing, they haven't really diverted from that course other than to say, yeah, our console does TV pass through.

Does it really matter to us if they devote some segment of their show to TV stuff they're putting on their system after a year of showing nothing but games? It's interactive TV stuff too, apparently.

I want to make it clear I think this is a huge blunder on Microsoft's part to devote resources to this, and I don't think they even remotely properly read what's going on in the TV business. But that's their cross to hold. I still don't see how Microsoft having some portion of their show to reveal some Xbox exclusive TV programs is really somehow pulling the wool over some people's eyes.
 
It's okay to have country-exclusive content. Considering Microsoft's biggest market is young males in the US, it's probably way okay.

In theory yes. But as a company with their console available internationally, I would rather they spent resources on projects that are easier to distribute world wide. Such as documentaries, tv shows and games.
 
How do you know this? Is it because it has the word Xbox attached to it? Xbox Video does not currently have a subscription model, but there's nothing to say that MS isn't planning to have one once the service has enough unique content to distinguish itself against competitors. If Xbox Entertainment was instead named Microsoft Pictures, would this suddenly be ok for you?

Titanfall would certainly sell more consoles, yes. But as Nintendo has already shown, at some point you end up selling only to those that already have the console. House of Cards has an audience beyond only those with the console, and with Xbox Video, so would MS' TV content. So it's weaker system selling potential is balanced by its potential audience beyond the gaming realm.

Also, bringing up piracy is completely pointless, as that's hardly a problem that will be unique to MS' content. If you're making a comparison between a AAA game and a show like House of Cards, then the piracy aspect has already been accounted for.


I think that this is an Xbox initiative because the article said "Microsoft is producing TV-like series in an effort to broaden the appeal of the console beyond videogame devotees. "

The problem Microsoft has with this initiative is the same one they always had by trying to make the XB1 a mass market product. It costs too damn much. No casual viewer is going to hear about these shows and the go out and spend $400-$500 dollars plus a gold subscription to watch it. The reason why House of Cards works for Netflix is because it only has an $8 per month barrier of entry. Oh and btw with that $8 per month you get a lot more than just House of Cards.
 

Marcel

Member
Give me shows based on games with production and writing similar to Orange is the New Black, House of Cards and Hannibal sure, you can take my money (as long as game content is still the main focus).

Say what you will about the networks or studios, some of them have the ability to foster great television. Some of those great shows are ones you mentioned. They have producers, directors, schedulers, marketers that are all veterans of the industry and their role is just as important as the writing/showrunner side.

Microsoft is taking a big leap with no real guarantee of critical or monetary success with little to no experience. And as you implied, the content is likely to skew toward the lowest common denominator.
 

Riki

Member
Do you really think this is what they are going for? Really? Jesus! I think you need to go back to school if you think this is the way the world works, though I suspect you are just parroting the generic anti MS hate without thinking of how stupid your post is.

All these things are is a collection of little perks to woo people on the fence to one platform over another. They are not supposed to be a killer app that people will buy a system for. They are just flashy things to throw on the box that the majority of people who buy the system do not really care about yet might be a nice bonus for some.
So they're devoting millions of dollars and an entire division to something most people don't care about. Yeah that's so much better.
Microsoft is free to blow their money however they want. Hell, it's the only way the XBox has even stayed afloat.
Doesn't make this deal any better or a good idea and this is money that could be spent on games for their gaming console.
 

prodan

Neo Member
Here is the whole article, since I didn't it posted anywhere in the thread.

Microsoft next week plans to reveal hints of its original video programming for the Xbox. The company faces big challenges to stand out in a very crowded field.

Microsoft is producing TV-like series in an effort to broaden the appeal of the console beyond videogame devotees. Shows will include a reality-style series about soccer and a documentary about a landfill with discarded Atari games.

Unoriginal Originals
A growing number of Web companies are pushing into original TV-like programming to help them stand out. Microsoft's Xbox videogame console in coming weeks will join the crowded field. A sampling:

NETFLIX: At the cost of about $100 million over two years, the political thriller 'House of Cards,' shown above, has generated buzz for Netflix, which doesn't disclose ratings.
AMAZON: Amazon has had a spotty track record with original shows like 'Alpha House,' but made a big splash recently by landing HBO's first deal with an online-video provider.
HULU: 'A Day in the Life' from documentary film maker Morgan Spurlock and 'Endgame,' about a chess playing crime solver, are among the exclusives bought by Hulu.
YAHOO: The struggling Web firm is on the cusp of ordering multiple half-hour comedy series, following prior stabs at original shows like 'Electric City,' an animated series from Tom Hanks.
But 19 months after Microsoft hired veteran television executive Nancy Tellem to start a mini-Hollywood production arm, original programming has become unoriginal.

Netflix, Amazon.com, Hulu and Yahoo each now produce their own shows. Some, like Netflix's "House of Cards," have won critical acclaim. Google's YouTube and Sony's PlayStation also are signing up exclusive programming. The glut threatens to blunt the appeal of Xbox's entertainment lineup.

"It's increasingly tough for Xbox or anybody else to stand out in the surge of Web and TV companies investing in original programming," said Michael Nathanson, a media-industry analyst at research firm MoffettNathanson LLC.

Moreover, Microsoft hasn't made clear the strategy behind original programming, or its business model. Microsoft hasn't said if it will make the programming available free, include it as part of its Xbox Live package, or charge an additional subscription fee.

It enters the fray with some advantages. More than 80 million Xbox devices have been sold. At $5 a month, Xbox Live, which offers sports programming from ESPN and the ability to use video-calling service Skype from a TV, is cheaper than rival services.

But the Xbox is also costly, about $500 for the newest model. Programming from Hulu, Netflix and Amazon can be viewed on personal computers or a variety of devices that cost less than $100.

Microsoft lured Ms. Tellem from CBS Corp. in September 2012 to bolster the Xbox's standing as a hub for home entertainment. She hired more than 150 people, including dozens to court veteran makers of movies and TV shows to create programming for the Xbox. Ms. Tellem several times pushed back the planned time frame to launch the first batch of programs.

Ms. Tellem recently told Bloomberg News the first of more than a dozen planned shows will appear in June. The programming includes an expected series from director Steven Spielberg based on the videogame "Halo," and a version of Swedish sci-fi show "Humans."

She has faced internal turmoil. The Microsoft executives who brought in Ms. Tellem, CEO Steve Ballmer and Xbox chief Don Mattrick, have left. The Xbox unit has had three leaders in less than a year. Several Xbox executives have left recently, for jobs at online-game firm Zynga Inc. and speaker company Sonos Inc., among others.

Microsoft declined to make Ms. Tellem or other Xbox executives available for interviews.

Hollywood officials who have spoken with Xbox executives say Ms. Tellem's group plans initially to focus on the device's prime demographic of young men. Subsequent offerings will try to appeal to a wider audience. They've described two types of programming: cable-like scripted shows and bite-sized fare like sketch comedy pieces.

Analysts question whether Microsoft is willing to devote the money and attention to compete with Netflix, Amazon and others. Richard Greenfield, an analyst with research firm BTIG, says few people know the Xbox has original programming. "If Microsoft wants to devote the dollars to create unbelievable, awesome content, they can do it," he said. "They just have to spend the money and have the focus."

The price is rising as the new entrants drive up the costs of producing original programming. Bernstein Research estimates Amazon will spend about $2 billion this year to buy programming rights for streaming video, up from roughly $1.2 billion in 2013. Netflix says it expects nearly $3 billion in Web-video acquisition costs this year. Microsoft hasn't detailed its financial commitments to the Xbox Entertainment Studio.

For Hollywood, the Web players' war is a bonanza. "We're selling to a bunch of buyers that didn't exist when we were founded" two years ago, said Mike Tollin, an executive producer on "Every Street United" a soccer documentary-style series for Xbox, set to debut around June's World Cup.

Microsoft certainly has the resources, including more than $88 billion in cash. But new Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella has been stressing the need to focus Microsoft on what it does best. Mr. Nadella has scarcely mentioned Xbox publicly in his first three months on the job.

"If I were Sayta, I would be saying, 'Why are we doing this?" said Rick Sherlund, a longtime Microsoft analyst at Nomura Securities. "Do you really want to double down on content?"

Ms. Tellem also will have to win over people like Derik Linch. The Xbox owner in Westminster, Colo., said he's not sure exclusive programming is enough to make the Xbox a must-buy item, as it was in high school when he and friends played "Halo."

"I'm a little hesitant," Mr. Linch said. "It seems like a trendy fad thing for these tech companies to make original shows."
 

Marcel

Member
But 19 months after Microsoft hired veteran television executive Nancy Tellem to start a mini-Hollywood production arm, original programming has become unoriginal.

This is basically a nice way of saying "who gives a shit?" with regards to Xbox and Microsoft getting into original programming.
 

Synth

Member
Did MS ever give an actual reason why it was shut down? I'm just shooting from the hip here.

If I remember correctly they had some licensing issue with the company that was producing the show. I don't think prize money would be a factor at all. The prize money can just be a small portion of any revenue generated. If it's costing too much, drop in additional ads, or offer smaller prizes. You don't just scrap the whole idea over something like that.

I think that this is an Xbox initiative because the article said "Microsoft is producing TV-like series in an effort to broaden the appeal of the console beyond videogame devotees. "

The problem Microsoft has with this initiative is the same one they always had by trying to make the XB1 a mass market product. It costs too damn much. No casual viewer is going to hear about these shows and the go out and spend $400-$500 dollars plus a gold subscription to watch it. The reason why House of Cards works for Netflix is because it only has an $8 per month barrier of entry. Oh and btw with that $8 per month you get a lot more than just House of Cards.

How would having a Netflix-like service under the Xbox brand name not help to broaden the appeal of the console? I've made the iTunes comparison here before. It's not exclusive to Apple devices, but did a hell of a lot to broaden the appeal of those devices.

Why would MS not be able to offer other content as well as part of a subscription? They already have a wealth of content on their store (far more than Netflix from what I can tell), so they already have some sort of license agreement with content providers in order to rent/sell their content. What would make it so hard for them to strike a deal with some of these to offer a part of this catalogue as part of a monthly subscription? If Rakuten has managed to pull this off recently beginning from nothing with Wuaki, how do you expect MS to be unable to? Xbox Video is not limited to the Xbox One, it exists on the 360, it exists on Windows 8, and it exists on pretty much everything with a web browser and HTML5 support. So why is there always the assumption that this is a $500 + $60 subscription deal? Have they clarified this somewhere that I may have missed?
 
Because the act of giving prize money away to users probably steamed some high-level executive's beans at MS.

They could give away Live subs, special Achievements, digital games or even limited run t-shirts and tat like that. It might cost them a little in the first instance, but the whole point is to get people subscribing and keep them there for everything else they want to sell.
 

Marcel

Member
They could give away Live subs, special Achievements, digital games or even limited run t-shirts and tat like that. It might cost them a little in the first instance, but the whole point is to get people subscribing and keep them there for everything else they want to sell.

All good ideas. I'd love if they brought back 1 vs. 100. There was lots of promise in the Xbox brand around the time of The New Xbox Experience, or whatever it was called. A shame they squandered it.
 
All good ideas. I'd love if they brought back 1 vs. 100. There was lots of promise in the Xbox brand around the time of The New Xbox Experience, or whatever it was called. A shame they squandered it.

They need to look at what Playroom + PS camera has brought to the table (disregarding all the grotty twerk-houses and such) in user interaction and broadcasting with a cheap TV broadcast studio, and a bit of AR, and stop thinking it needs to be Kinect for motion-control.
 
How would having a Netflix-like service under the Xbox brand name not help to broaden the appeal of the console? I've made the iTunes comparison here before. It's not exclusive to Apple devices, but did a hell of a lot to broaden the appeal of those devices.

Why would MS not be able to offer other content as well as part of a subscription? They already have a wealth of content on their store (far more than Netflix from what I can tell), so they already have some sort of license agreement with content providers in order to rent/sell their content. What would make it so hard for them to strike a deal with some of these to offer a part of this catalogue as part of a monthly subscription? If Rakuten has managed to pull this off recently beginning from nothing with Wuaki, how do you expect MS to be unable to? Xbox Video is not limited to the Xbox One, it exists on the 360, it exists on Windows 8, and it exists on pretty much everything with a web browser and HTML5 support. So why is there always the assumption that this is a $500 + $60 subscription deal? Have they clarified this somewhere that I may have missed?

First off you are assuming a lot that is not currently evident. I already said that if they were trying to start their own Neflix this would be fine, but the article didn't state that. It said that these shows were being made to sell the Xbox, not to launch a new video service. You are adding a bunch of what-ifs just to make the idea sound better.

Btw, if this was yet another set of shows added to Xbox Video, how does that help Xbox sales as stated. If the shows are truly available everywhere, why would anyone pay $400-$500 to buy an XB1 in order to watch them.

Second I'm not sure how the iTunes comparison applies. It is a content management tool for Apple's devices. For a long while it was the only way to move content to the device. It's not some independent service driving users to buy an iPad. Yes you could use iTunes without owning an Apple device but I don't know anybody that does that.
 

Synth

Member
First off you are assuming a lot that is not currently evident. I already said that if they were trying to start their own Neflix this would be fine, but the article didn't state that. It said that these shows were being made to sell the Xbox, not to launch a new video service. You are adding a bunch of what-ifs just to make the idea sound better.

Btw, if this was yet another set of shows added to Xbox Video, how does that help Xbox sales as stated. If the shows are truly available everywhere, why would anyone pay $400-$500 to buy an XB1 in order to watch them.

Second I'm not sure how the iTunes comparison applies. It is a content management tool for Apple's devices. For a long while it was the only way to move content to the device. It's not some independent service driving users to buy an iPad. Yes you could use iTunes without owning an Apple device but I don't know anybody that does that.

The difference is I am arguing what they "could" choose to do. You were claiming "That isn't happening here" in no uncertain terms. I don't need to prove that this is what they are doing, because I haven't made any concrete claims that they are. You made very definite claims of the opposite.

You don't know anyone that purchases music from iTunes, but doesn't use iDevices? Fair enough, but I can tell you now, it's not at all uncommon. Deals like the timed exclusivity for albums like Watch the Throne or Beyonce's latest video album are designed to attract people to the service.. and it does work (I got in on Watch the Throne). If you don't know a single person using the service that doesn't also use iDevices, then that probably has a lot to do with how good a job it does drawing people towards the ecosystem at large.

I don't understand why you keep bringing up the $400-$500 console point. Nobody is going to do that exclusively for a TV show (especially not one which can be potentially viewed on other devices), but a strong implementation of the service tied to the platform can provide additional incentive over a similar device that lacks a decent implementation of the service (such as PlayStation). The initiative is also cushioned from relying purely on the sales of the console because it has other avenues available to recoup the investment. I don't see the problem here?
 
Top Bottom