Decoupled Kinect and Xbox Live improvements
Holy Crap! That was fast. Less than a year and the Kinect is now optional!
Let me start by saying I disagree with this move on two levels, and I think that there are things which could have been done to avoid landing here.
Firstly, this singular move DESTROYS future potential value of the Kinect accessory, and thus any potential value proposition it could have leant the Xbox over the PS4. And secondly, they didn't give it a long enough run to build up.
Lets start with the death of the value prop. Yes, the Kinect still exists and does what it does. And yes the PS4 has an equivalent. Where it hurts though, is it basic kills the Kinect as a key differentiator for platform exclusives. I realize no one was using it... but adoption takes time as a general rule. It takes even longer when the input mechanism isn't the primary input mechanism. Unlike the Wii when it introduced the motion based Wii controllers, the Xbox gamepad is most users primary input method. This means that even among platform exclusives, until a studio comes up with a good idea, most games will be built around the gamepad as the primary input method.
Furthermore, when there is a well adopted controller already out, most studios won't be trying to think about the potential an optional input mechanism. So, while a ground breaking game could still come to the Xbox One that is based on Kinect... it has just become that much less likely.
And that is what I mean about not giving it a long enough run. The console isn't even a year old yet. Most AAA games spend more time in production than the console has been out. I think the platform needed at least 2 years on the market with Kinect as a mandatory option before passing judgement on it.
Others have made other recommendations that very well could serve as better options here. Some have suggested that MS could afford to simply drop the price and leave the Kinect included. I'd argue that they could probably go to $450 officially with their current game bundles. Or they could probably eat a bit of a loss, leave Kinect in, drop the game bundles and then drop the price all the way to $400.
I think that there are a number of ways that they could have handled this without dropping the Kinect in every box mantra. And I think they should have.
The second big move may have killed some of those alternatives though. Starting early June, Xbox Live will no longer be needed for things like Netflix, etc... and this is great for consumers. But it also means a lot of subscribers may jump ship and a lot of potential subscribers may never get on board now. That paywall drew in a lot of people, if somewhat against their will. And that generated a lot of extra revenue that could have enabled Microsoft to slash the hardware prices a little further.
They are also introducing Games With Gold for Xbox One in June. Which takes their subscription and eats into its profit margin. So now, for every person who has an Xbox One and Xbox Live, even if the adoption and retention rates remained constant or even improved, it would generate less money for them. But that seems unlikely. I suspect both retention and adoption rates will lower. Fewer people will get accounts and they will bail on the subscription sooner.
This all helps makes a $400 Kinect bundled Xbox One more of an impossibility.
I think Microsoft had motive though. Games With Gold combined with the PS4 threat was, I suspect, that motive. Right now, a single Xbox Live subscription applies to both Xbox One and Xbox 360. Microsoft's move to bring that program to the Xbox One means doubling up on the freebies for owners of both consoles. They likely wanted to make these changes sooner rather than later to compete with the PS4, but doing so sooner meant a need to accelerate the rate at which people completely abandon their Xbox 360's. And a huge part of that is price. Also, the sooner the lion's share has abandoned the Xbox 360, the sooner they can kill the program on that console. Or degrade it. Either way, they need to bundle these Xbox Live changes with a higher adoption rate for Xbox One consoles. And I suspect that the price drop was an intrinsic part of that.
Honestly, I can't complain. The changes to Xbox Live are definitely consumer friendly. And should positively impact user perception of both the brand and the program. Dropping the paywall will make those who felt strong armed happy. And the free games and other perks will make those who have wanted some sort of parity with PS+ happy. Hard to say whether it will ultimately result in an increase or a decline in subscription.
Personally, I think all they needed to do was one or the other to improve optics. Drop the paywall or add free games. We'll see if the over correction hurts them or helps them in the long run.
Also, I would have preferred other benefits. Games with gold is great... when there is a huge catalogue of games and there is a chance of getting a premium title, even if an older one, free. When you're just getting indie games you probably wouldn't have purchased... sure its nice... but not worth paying for.
I would have preferred a system for, reselling digital games, family/friend sharing of games, etc... Xbox Music Pass needs a family sharing option as well. Or at least needs to grant the music pass to all users on the home console of a subscriber.
But those look like pipe dreams.
Let me start by saying I disagree with this move on two levels, and I think that there are things which could have been done to avoid landing here.
Firstly, this singular move DESTROYS future potential value of the Kinect accessory, and thus any potential value proposition it could have leant the Xbox over the PS4. And secondly, they didn't give it a long enough run to build up.
Lets start with the death of the value prop. Yes, the Kinect still exists and does what it does. And yes the PS4 has an equivalent. Where it hurts though, is it basic kills the Kinect as a key differentiator for platform exclusives. I realize no one was using it... but adoption takes time as a general rule. It takes even longer when the input mechanism isn't the primary input mechanism. Unlike the Wii when it introduced the motion based Wii controllers, the Xbox gamepad is most users primary input method. This means that even among platform exclusives, until a studio comes up with a good idea, most games will be built around the gamepad as the primary input method.
Furthermore, when there is a well adopted controller already out, most studios won't be trying to think about the potential an optional input mechanism. So, while a ground breaking game could still come to the Xbox One that is based on Kinect... it has just become that much less likely.
And that is what I mean about not giving it a long enough run. The console isn't even a year old yet. Most AAA games spend more time in production than the console has been out. I think the platform needed at least 2 years on the market with Kinect as a mandatory option before passing judgement on it.
Others have made other recommendations that very well could serve as better options here. Some have suggested that MS could afford to simply drop the price and leave the Kinect included. I'd argue that they could probably go to $450 officially with their current game bundles. Or they could probably eat a bit of a loss, leave Kinect in, drop the game bundles and then drop the price all the way to $400.
I think that there are a number of ways that they could have handled this without dropping the Kinect in every box mantra. And I think they should have.
The second big move may have killed some of those alternatives though. Starting early June, Xbox Live will no longer be needed for things like Netflix, etc... and this is great for consumers. But it also means a lot of subscribers may jump ship and a lot of potential subscribers may never get on board now. That paywall drew in a lot of people, if somewhat against their will. And that generated a lot of extra revenue that could have enabled Microsoft to slash the hardware prices a little further.
They are also introducing Games With Gold for Xbox One in June. Which takes their subscription and eats into its profit margin. So now, for every person who has an Xbox One and Xbox Live, even if the adoption and retention rates remained constant or even improved, it would generate less money for them. But that seems unlikely. I suspect both retention and adoption rates will lower. Fewer people will get accounts and they will bail on the subscription sooner.
This all helps makes a $400 Kinect bundled Xbox One more of an impossibility.
I think Microsoft had motive though. Games With Gold combined with the PS4 threat was, I suspect, that motive. Right now, a single Xbox Live subscription applies to both Xbox One and Xbox 360. Microsoft's move to bring that program to the Xbox One means doubling up on the freebies for owners of both consoles. They likely wanted to make these changes sooner rather than later to compete with the PS4, but doing so sooner meant a need to accelerate the rate at which people completely abandon their Xbox 360's. And a huge part of that is price. Also, the sooner the lion's share has abandoned the Xbox 360, the sooner they can kill the program on that console. Or degrade it. Either way, they need to bundle these Xbox Live changes with a higher adoption rate for Xbox One consoles. And I suspect that the price drop was an intrinsic part of that.
Honestly, I can't complain. The changes to Xbox Live are definitely consumer friendly. And should positively impact user perception of both the brand and the program. Dropping the paywall will make those who felt strong armed happy. And the free games and other perks will make those who have wanted some sort of parity with PS+ happy. Hard to say whether it will ultimately result in an increase or a decline in subscription.
Personally, I think all they needed to do was one or the other to improve optics. Drop the paywall or add free games. We'll see if the over correction hurts them or helps them in the long run.
Also, I would have preferred other benefits. Games with gold is great... when there is a huge catalogue of games and there is a chance of getting a premium title, even if an older one, free. When you're just getting indie games you probably wouldn't have purchased... sure its nice... but not worth paying for.
I would have preferred a system for, reselling digital games, family/friend sharing of games, etc... Xbox Music Pass needs a family sharing option as well. Or at least needs to grant the music pass to all users on the home console of a subscriber.
But those look like pipe dreams.
Comments
Post a Comment