Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter has thrown his weight behind the idea of a subscription-based next generation Xbox, building on Microsoft's own declaration that smartphone-style deferred costs "should be a part of our model".
"I think Microsoft's got it right, and I think Sony will keep plugging away because they have an integrated strategy across all of their consumer electronic products," Pachter told audiences at the Develop Evolve conference today, via IncGamers. "Microsoft, they have a strategy to take over the world.
"You won't need a 'smart TV' when you've got an Xbox 720, it will be your television and your internet. It's going to be open architecture and I think it's real trick will be that one Xbox will be able to display television to as many screens as you have in your possession.
"The next Xbox will be Windows for sure, and you'll be able to open up multiple TV channels in different windows and you'll use SmartGlass to shoot off different channels to how ever many screens you want. That is happening, that I'm certain of.
"I'm pretty confident that in the US Microsoft is going to partner with a cable TV provider, so I expect that the console will be priced like a smart phone. I expect you'll be paying $99 for the console with a cable TV subscription."
Other analysts have speculated that the new Xbox will support full cloud gaming, a la OnLive. Possibly titled Xbox 8, the device is thought to offer a Blu-ray drive, augmented reality glasses, Xbox SmartGlass features and an expanded, upgraded Kinect, based on leaked design materials from 2010.
A $299 price tag is bandied around in the same design materials, but Microsoft's recent trial run of a $99 Xbox 360 supported by $15 monthly payments implies otherwise. What do you think?
21 comments so far...
CunningSmile on 10 Jul '12 said:
Stopped reading three words in when I saw the name Pachter. Has this guy ever been right? Why keep reporting what basically amounts to wild guesses and the reading of chicken entrails?
msbhvn on 10 Jul '12 said:
I said the next Xbox will be funded via subscription not long after MS started testing the idea. Consoles are sold at a loss when they are new and this would be a way to minimise the losses. Of course you're locked into using the console for two years and reselling/trading in would be problematic. This doesn't sound like the best deal for the consumer, but I suppose having a £200 console with a subscription fee would be better than a console that costs £500.
Plamsa wing on 10 Jul '12 said:
Hang on, it sounds like a PC, but not quite as good as a PC.
What's next pies that taste like cakes? Hot salads? Cold soup?
msbhvn on 10 Jul '12 said:
Gazpacho?
terry cheyne on 10 Jul '12 said:
you'd actually be more acurate using chicken entrails
sonicmark on 10 Jul '12 said:
A console at a slightly cheaper price tied in with a monthly subscription sounds rather perculiar, I mean I wonder what features the subscription will include if any, and if that's the case, will the Xbox live subscription be added on top of this rumoured one?
DGR1980 on 10 Jul '12 said:
Using $1 = £0.80 for the estimate
£200 console + 2 years gold (£75) or £80 console + 2 year subscription (24 * £12)
£275 or £368
Tough choice.
Then you have to take into account microsofts usual exchange rate of $1 = £1.
msbhvn on 10 Jul '12 said:
The PS3 cost close to £500 when it came out, and Sony were making a loss on them even at that price. The PS3 hasn't been the dominant console this generation for that very reason. You could even buy a Wii and a 360 and still have had change from the price of a launch PS3.
The 360 was £300 when it launched and again, MS were losing money on each one. The next Xbox will start off better if the initial price is the same as a 250GB 360 is now, but tying it to a subscription means they're guaranteed two years of XBL payments. I'm not saying it's a win-win, but it's a better situation than this gen's launches.
schwepterbrowser on 10 Jul '12 said:
According to an episode of his show, 'Pach-Attack!', he's been right once when he predicted the sales figures for Spider-Man 2...
Spiderless on 10 Jul '12 said:
What are people's opinions on whether the subscription thing will happen? Obviously this Pachter guy is considered a moron but with other evidence I'm a tad worried. There is no way in hell I'd personally buy into a contract/subscription based console, I'd jump ship to PC or PS4 instantly.
Bezza89 on 10 Jul '12 said:
I'd not go that far that's for sure - would it be compulsary? No, you're alienating customers otherwise. Is it a good idea? Yes and no - depending on the pricing of a subscription model compared to a bog standard console and getting live, you're probably looking at £340 off the bat, but say £80 and £10 a month for two years, it's a lot more attractive for people in this economic climate and would definitely secure xboxs place as best seller due to the apparent cheapness of buying one compared to other consoles.
When D-Day comes, we can weigh the options, either we can afford the box without having to subscribe, or buy the subscription - if it exists - or we can ignore the sub and save up because it is overpriced.
Geois on 10 Jul '12 said:
I don't like the monthly sub plan. I feel like they are screwing me over, because I won't be able to know any better. I don't buy Live through xbox, cause I can get cards for cheaper.
If this is the only way they want to do business on the next gen, then I will stand firm against it. They can only make that model work if we agree to buy into it. If they don't have the sales then they'll go back to letting us buy them, instead of some rent to own plan.
njdark25 on 10 Jul '12 said:
Let's be fair; most of us are paying the £40/year for XBL gold, so if this were to become, say, £10/month over two years with the console costing £99 at launch with all the features of a gold subscription, it would't change much.
This console generation has shown that we are willing to invest vast amounts into our gaming and entertainment, it just means that we can pay £340 over 2 years with the gold subscription, which otherwise would cost approx £380 (£300: console, £80: 2 yrs of XBL gold). That is if MS don't get crazy and unrealistic with pricing.
I wouldnt be adverse to paying it, if it does demonstrate value for money; I mean I got my 360 on launch morning (7am 02/12/05), so I'm in for a 2 year haul
Spiderless on 10 Jul '12 said:
Hadn't thought of it that way, if you basically end up paying the same amount it would obviously be a good deal for a lot of people (still not something I'd be keen on, I'd rather save up and buy the thing in one go), its basically a long term payment plan. I had the odd idea that it would be like an electricity bill where they switch it off if you don't pay, which is of course ridiculous (I suppose a MMO would be a better metaphor).
Malkyp2000 on 10 Jul '12 said:
People love upgrades but hate change. I'm excited to see what the package entails. If for instance your next console is indeed TiVo like and includes your cable package then it's a winner for me. One less box under my tv one less plug sucking energy. It's definitely a great idea for those of us who pay all our own bills. It may not be so popular with kids living at home and unable to sign up to these kind of deals. Microsoft aren't stupid, you can get a contract phone or you can buy a pay as you go. There will be options. A very very clever piece of marketing though. Less not kid ourselves, everyone will want one, especially now it's much more affordable.
Grummy on 11 Jul '12 said:
As much as I like to keep saying the guy is batting a zero, the truth is that he is actually a nice guy, and he gets it right a fair amount of the time, he is also often quite surprised that people put so much stock in what he says. Me too, because even though he does get it right a fair bit, he's never once 'predicted' anything that wasn't blatantly obvious. He has 2 roads he always goes down, one makes him utterly wrong, the other is to 'predict' something that anyone with even a passing interest in the industry could tell you.
To be honest, it pisses me off that OXM give him so much time in articles, and report his words like he's an important voice in the industry and that what he says is worth hearing. He's not. The guy is a hack. Example, his 'prediction' that Xbox will be your TV and that you'll have no need for a Smart TV. Well no f**king shit. Microsoft already told me that at E3, dumbass, and even if they hadn't, all it would take is a little bit of knowledge about Smart TV's and to have paid attention to the Smartglass reveal at E3 to put together this 'prediction'.
He plays himself off as an industry analyst, and place like OXM give him a lot of time and space, but the truth is that he has no better insight into the industry than any of us do.
The best way to deal with Pachter is, when reading his stuff, first ask yourself "is this blatantly obvious?" If it is, then it will likely turn out to be true, if it's not, then it won't happen. I say the guy is batting a zero because everytime he has made an actual prediction that wasn't obvious, he's got it wrong. Recent example, his prediction that R* would do a major GTAV reveal before E3 to one up them and get everyone talking. Yeah, right.
OXM, for the love god, I beg you, stop reporting what this hack says. Reporting what Pachter says as if it was news is like repeating what your drunk-to-his-eyeballs mate says down the pub as if it was law. It's rumourmongering.
*rant over until next stupid Pachter article*
thatmad1 on 11 Jul '12 said:
The one thing that bothers me is that we are supposedly being forced into a cable or possibly a satellite subscription. This bothers me a lot. For starters, Sky, Virgin etc would have choice words to say about this as its likely that only one company will get the rights and since microsoft is already in with Sky that would leave a lot of people out or eventually leave us with only one sat tv provider which in turn might drive the other out of business hence no competition meaning subscription prices will rise. I would rather just buy the console outright and have a choice to do with it as I choose and not feel like I was renting it. To be honest I would be surprised if this was to be done by microsoft as it sounds like they want it their way, almost like master and slave (sorry if that was a bad analogy, couldnt think of another quickly). I think Pachman is talking out of his a**e.
CunningSmile on 11 Jul '12 said:
Don't we already only have one sat provider? Sky bough out Virgin Media TV about two years ago.
msbhvn on 11 Jul '12 said:
No, Sky bought the channels that Virgin owned; Living, Bravo (which they promptly shut down) and some others. It was nothing to do with the Cable business.
CunningSmile on 11 Jul '12 said:
Ah, fairy nuff. Does seem a bit pointless for Sky though.
Uncle dozens on 12 Jul '12 said:
People seem to be overlooking the link to tv channels, if this is a frugally going to happen. I have just sacked off my sky subscription of £20 a month so paying £15 a month to Microsoft wouldn't be an issue to me. What is worrying though is that we have 2 xboxes in my house. How does this subscription apply to multiple devices? I don't pay for my son to have a gold account yet but it is totally unfair to expect parents to pay out a huge extra monthly amount just so their kids can have a console in their room. How about a none smart version?