By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft to launch TV-style adverts on Xbox Live

D-Joe on 25 April 2012
Jereel Hunter said:
I don't think people understand the announcement. They assume ads will be popping up everywhere.
Do you use the hulu app? Hulu provides their own ads, it is built into their app. If I use Hulu on the PC or the Xbox, I get the same ads.

But this is saying MS gives the functionality to provide the ads. What does this mean? Let's say you're too cheap to subscribe to netflix. They could launch a Free NetFlix Lite - and allow basically a copy of the netflix app to run, except with commercials added automatically. If a site like Hulu wants targetted advertising, they can only gauge what you might like based on what you watch on Hulu. As a platform, MS is better set up to know about the user - based on games, shows, time spent, % of money spent on certain types of entertainment, etc. MS Handles the advertising, and coordinated with the content provider, who focuses on content. It would allow smaller providers more targeted advertising, and encourages more free services. It also allows smaller companies who may have trouble securing advertisers to provide content.
In short, until MS starts to abuse it, there's no cause for concern. More TV ads are why we have a bunch of channels today. Ads pay for more entertainment. No ads, no shows.

what's that mean

they just find more partners?



http://zh-tw.justin.tv/johndoe1899

Around the Network
theprof00 on 25 April 2012
DirtyP2002 said:
Sal.Paradise said:

According to Wikipedia-linked articles, Sony announced at GDC that there are 90 million registered PSN accounts and Microsoft announced at CES that there are 40 million subscribers to Xbox Live. 

Of course, Sony's numbers will also include duplicate accounts, but I can't see that being anything over an extra 15 or 20 million. 

Oh, and Steam has 40 million active user accounts.


More PSN users than PS3s confirmed. oO

PSN accounts: PSP, PS Vita, PS3, Playstation Forums (!!!).

I know anectdotal evidence, but every PS3 user I know in real life has at least 2 accounts. 1 for Europe and 1 for US. Some for Japanese content etc.

Yes, but how many of those xbox subscriptions are free? Anyone have the xbox live revenue handy?



theprof00 on 25 April 2012
Akvod said:


No, saying that a company shouldn't monetize its service is simply fucking retarded.

1) Facebook

2) Twitter

3) YouTube

 

You know what the problems with all these services are? They're struggling to MONETIZE their services. If you can't fucking make money off of something, then guess what, you eventually discontinue it, AKA: Go out of business.

Those three companies make a shitload of money already. Look, based on the principles of the public company, a company needs to make more and more money every year. Expect each of these services listed to monetize and monetize and monetize. Facebook has its "apps" and will get commercials eventually. Twitter, shit, I have no idea who pays for that or how they make money. Youtube started with 15 second commercials that were skippable. Now they have thirty second commercials...eventually, they will be longer and longer.

It's not that companies stop doing things that don't make them money, it's that some companies already make so much money that in order to keep their stock up and keep profitting, they need to monetize everything they can.



TheShape31 on 25 April 2012

Lame. Ass. Sh*t.



Porcupine_I on 25 April 2012

Sounds like a good thing



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

Around the Network
Akvod on 25 April 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Akvod said:


No, saying that a company shouldn't monetize its service is simply fucking retarded.

1) Facebook

2) Twitter

3) YouTube

 

You know what the problems with all these services are? They're struggling to MONETIZE their services. If you can't fucking make money off of something, then guess what, you eventually discontinue it, AKA: Go out of business.

I'm not saying they shouldn't monetize their service at all, if the market is there and they don't get punished by their userbase for doing so, then of course they should do it. 

What you said was that if I don't allow a company to monetize their service, they will eventually discontinue it or remove functionality. I cited the two other biggest online gaming services and how they are doing fine from either light monetization (PSN) or practically no monetization at all (Steam), as exceptions to this rule. That's all.


Yeah, and I'm saying we DON'T know how well they are doing. We don't have detailed enough financial information on those two services. We can't just look at the company as a whole (especially for Sony) to judge how costly and profitable their online services are. AND, each company may run those services differently. Some may be more efficient, some may have lower quality and funcitonality (and security).

So, any argument based on the details of the service is pointless. My argument is a general one. Companies should monetize their service in a way that results in the max profit. If they over do and they lose customers, then they lose profits. But to simply say a company shouldn't monetize their service is pure BS. A business is ABOUT monetizing services. If you cannot do that, then you are essentially going to go bankrupt.

One last note. You do have to take into account that these services may be loss leaders. So I'm not necessarily saying that MS has to monetize Xbox Live. It may be making a loss, but as a result of their strong online service they may be selling more consoles and getting more developers for the platform.

Like I said though, we need more data to evaluate MS's decision.

One last time now.

"But to simply say a company shouldn't monetize their service is pure BS."

 That is not what I said.

You have a nice argument and all, but it's not what we were talking about.

 


Errr, what were we talking about then?



Akvod on 25 April 2012
theprof00 said:
Akvod said:


No, saying that a company shouldn't monetize its service is simply fucking retarded.

1) Facebook

2) Twitter

3) YouTube

 

You know what the problems with all these services are? They're struggling to MONETIZE their services. If you can't fucking make money off of something, then guess what, you eventually discontinue it, AKA: Go out of business.

Those three companies make a shitload of money already.

And they spend a shitload times more money on servers and IT costs. Especially for YouTube. For Twitter, the bigger problem for them is revenue generation. Facebook is also facing a similar problem with mobile apps (harder to show ads).



leatherhat on 25 April 2012
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:

I really, really hope this doesn't become the new norm next generation.

Eh, if you don't allow a company to monetize a service, eventually they're going to discontinue it completely, or remove a lot of functionality from it at least.


Doesn't live already cost money? yes it does. 



ǝןdɯıs ʇı dǝǝʞ oʇ ǝʞıן ı ʍouʞ noʎ 

Ask me about being an elitist jerk

Time for hype

Akvod on 25 April 2012
SWORDF1SH said:
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:

I really, really hope this doesn't become the new norm next generation.

Eh, if you don't allow a company to monetize a service, eventually they're going to discontinue it completely, or remove a lot of functionality from it at least.

No other online game services I use thus far have done this, so at the moment Live is the exception to this 'rule' you've put forward. 

Do all other online game services have the same scale and costs as XBox Live? I'm not disputing whether or not MS is making a loss or not, but I don't think your logic is really sound.

According to Wikipedia-linked articles, Sony announced at GDC that there are 90 million registered PSN accounts and Microsoft announced at CES that there are 40 million subscribers to Xbox Live. 

Of course, Sony's numbers will also include duplicate accounts, but I can't see that being anything over an extra 15 or 20 million. 

Oh, and Steam has 40 million active user accounts.


Yes, but does Sony offer chat? How active are Sony users as opposed to Microsoft? My point is that there's no way we know the details how those networks work and the costs behind them. So simply saying that other networks aren't doing this yet isn't very sound logic.

Haha no cross game chat on PS3 no, because of RAM restrictions, but yes you can do it on Vita and Steam etc for free.

Your quote about not allowing a company to monetize a service is what I would point out as 'unsound logic' as the two other biggest online game services are doing just fine without money gained from A) Extensive ad revenue and B) Mandatory Subscription fees to play games online. In addition, Sony has stated that there is a better royalty rate for developers releasing games on PSN than on Live, so we know they aren't making up for any lost money that way. 


No, saying that a company shouldn't monetize its service is simply fucking retarded.

1) Facebook

2) Twitter

3) YouTube

 

You know what the problems with all these services are? They're struggling to MONETIZE their services. If you can't fucking make money off of something, then guess what, you eventually discontinue it, AKA: Go out of business.


Your argument is flawed. Those 3 are free services. They make money off of ads to continue the service.

Live is a paid service and they also make money off of video and game sales. Adverts is wrong on a paid service if you like it or not.

MS are just being greedy and you as a gamer shouldn't stick up for thid type of action.


I really don't distinguish all of those. In the end, revenue is revenue. Yes, all of those services make money and revenue. My point is that they aren't making ENOUGH, to offset their costs. And my point is that we don't really know how much Xbox Live costs Microsoft.

Also, there's nothing wrong with making profit. Even if Xbox Live is profitable, MS should make a trade off choice between ads and the user experience. If it's too intrusive, then they will lose customers and revenue. They need to find the right balance.



Sal.Paradise on 25 April 2012
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:
Akvod said:
Sal.Paradise said:


Errr, what were we talking about then?

Explained in the post that starts with  "I'm not saying they shouldn't monetize their service at all" .  Please read it. 

(Oh, and we do know how well Steam is doing: astronomically. Google 'steam sales 100%' and you'll see for yourself.)