gaming
Power

Microsoft's muscle could remake the business model of console gaming

Aggressive pricing of a new console and a monthly installment plan for hardware and software, both enabled by deep pockets, could leave Sony in a tough spot.

The Xbox Series S

The new Xbox Series S will retail at $299, which puts significant pricing pressure on Sony.

Image: Microsoft

The traditional video game console business can now consider itself disrupted.

A bit after 3 a.m. ET on Tuesday, Microsoft revealed via a tweet that the low-cost edition of its new gaming machine will cost $299. On its own, that could seem like a run-of-the-mill pricing announcement.

But in the context of the technical and financial changes sweeping the $160 billion game industry, the relatively inexpensive Xbox Series S may prove a watershed. The announcement places significant pricing pressure on Sony, Microsoft's console archrival, and underlines how the global technology giants are flexing their muscles to reshape electronic entertainment.

In short: Microsoft is using its money and clout to try to turn gaming into a subscription business.

Sure, I'll go first

Sony and Microsoft, the two dominant makers of "mainstream" game consoles (Nintendo enjoys the luxury of a private niche, based on exclusive franchises and less-powerful hardware) confirmed long ago that they will each introduce new game machines this fall. It has also been clear that each company intends to release two versions of its new console: one with an optical drive (which costs more) and one without (which costs less).

Until Tuesday, neither company had announced a price or specific release date for either of their new devices. (Microsoft had not even officially confirmed the existence of its low-cost version.)

A series of leaks Monday night revealed the $299 pricing and a video trailer for the Series S. The leaks were followed overnight first by a perfect meme response from Microsoft's Xbox account and then the official confirmation at 3:13 a.m. A credible report from Windows Central said both the Series S and the more-expensive Series X will launch on Nov. 10 and also reaffirmed the crucial detail that the consoles will be sold with zero-interest monthly installment plans. That launch date and installment plan was confirmed by Microsoft on Wednesday.

As Protocol reported in July, Microsoft plans to allow at least some consumers to pay for Xbox hardware and access to hundreds of top-end games through Microsoft's Xbox Game Pass service, for either $24.99 or $34.99 a month over two years, Microsoft confirmed Wednesday.

Whether this was all a highly choreographed PR "leak" and confirmation by Microsoft, the news represents two big cannonballs flying toward the powerful ship that is Sony's PlayStation game business. They don't even have to land squarely to affect Sony's course.

First, the $299 price for the Xbox Series S is extremely aggressive (and attractive to gamers). Anything under $400 would have been low. At $299, it seems likely that Microsoft is barely breaking even or even losing money on each box sold. Microsoft can afford that, but can Sony come close to matching? Sony is far more dependent on game profits than is Microsoft, which could make matching $299 painful for the Japanese company.

Second, Microsoft is offering gamers a deal to avoid spending hundreds of dollars up front on hardware and $60 or more for each top-quality game, which is a fundamental disruption of decades of video game business models. And no company relies more heavily on that traditional model than Sony. Sony still hasn't announced the pricing of its new consoles.

Satya Nadella picks up the controller

The low Series S pricing, bankrolling a zero-interest monthly payment plan and the investment in the Xbox Game Pass subscription service (not to mention xCloud cloud gaming technology) indicate a substantial long-term strategic and financial commitment by Microsoft to reshaping the game business in its own image rather than engaging in yet another "console war" on traditional terms. This appears to represent Satya Nadella buying into a broader strategy developed by Phil Spencer, Microsoft's head of gaming, and his team.

It is an image of the game industry that raises significant strategic questions for Sony. The overall message that gamers are hearing from the company right now about the PlayStation 5 is: "Buy a PS5 so you can play a new Spider-Man game and a new Ratchet & Clank game."

That will certainly be enough for hardcore Sony fans. But now that more Xbox details have emerged, many gamers will be looking for more.

Update: This article was updated to include confirmation from Microsoft of the Xbox Series X and installment plan pricing. Updated September 9.

 Seth Schiesel

Seth Schiesel ( @SethSchiesel) is a former contributing editor for Protocol focused on the business of video games and adjacent industries. He is a former editorial writer for The Boston Globe, entrepreneur and business reporter, technology writer and video game critic for The New York Times.

microsoft sony xbox playstation consoles gaming subscriptions
scotus
Climate

Supreme Court takes a sledgehammer to greenhouse gas regulations

The court ruled 6-3 that the EPA cannot use the Clean Air Act to regulate power plant greenhouse gas emissions. That leaves a patchwork of policies from states, utilities and, increasingly, tech companies to pick up the slack.

The Supreme Court struck a major blow to the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gases.

Eric Lee/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Striking down the right to abortion may be the Supreme Court's highest-profile decision this term. But on Wednesday, the court handed down an equally massive verdict on the federal government's ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of West Virginia v. EPA, the court decided that the agency has no ability to regulate greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act. Weakening the federal government's powers leaves a patchwork of states, utilities and, increasingly, tech companies to pick up the slack in reducing carbon pollution.

Keep Reading Show less
Brian Kahn

Brian ( @blkahn) is Protocol's climate editor. Previously, he was the managing editor and founding senior writer at Earther, Gizmodo's climate site, where he covered everything from the weather to Big Oil's influence on politics. He also reported for Climate Central and the Wall Street Journal. In the even more distant past, he led sleigh rides to visit a herd of 7,000 elk and boat tours on the deepest lake in the U.S.

epa supreme court scotus
sponsored content
Sponsored Content

You’re either real-time or out of time

Every day, millions of us press the “order” button on our favorite coffee store's mobile application: Our chosen brew will be on the counter when we arrive. It’s a personalized, seamless experience that we have all come to expect. What we don’t know is what’s happening behind the scenes. The mobile application is sourcing data from a database that stores information about each customer and what their favorite coffee drinks are. It is also leveraging event-streaming data in real time to ensure the ingredients for your personal coffee are in supply at your local store.

Applications like this power our daily lives, and if they can’t access massive amounts of data stored in a database as well as stream data “in motion” instantaneously, you — and millions of customers — won’t have these in-the-moment experiences.

Keep Reading Show less
Jennifer Goforth Gregory
Jennifer Goforth Gregory has worked in the B2B technology industry for over 20 years. As a freelance writer she writes for top technology brands, including IBM, HPE, Adobe, AT&T, Verizon, Epson, Oracle, Intel and Square. She specializes in a wide range of technology, such as AI, IoT, cloud, cybersecurity, and CX. Jennifer also wrote a bestselling book The Freelance Content Marketing Writer to help other writers launch a high earning freelance business.
sponsored sponsored content
crypto regulation
Fintech

Can crypto regulate itself? The Lummis-Gillibrand bill hopes so.

Creating the equivalent of the stock markets’ FINRA for crypto is the ideal, but experts doubt that it will be easy.

The idea of creating a government-sanctioned private regulatory association has been drawing more attention in the debate over how to rein in a fast-growing industry whose technological quirks have baffled policymakers.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Regulating crypto is complicated. That’s why Sens. Cynthia Lummis and Kirsten Gillibrand want to explore the creation of a private sector group to help federal regulators do their job.

The bipartisan bill introduced by Lummis and Gillibrand would require the CFTC and the SEC to work with the crypto industry to look into setting up a self-regulatory organization to “facilitate innovative, efficient and orderly markets for digital assets.”

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.

self-regulatory organization cryptocurrency lummis-gillibrand bill sro finra sec cftc crypto regulation
cybersecurity
Enterprise

Alperovitch: Cybersecurity defenders can’t be on high alert every day

With the continued threat of Russian cyber escalation, cybersecurity and geopolitics expert Dmitri Alperovitch says it’s not ideal for the U.S. to oscillate between moments of high alert and lesser states of cyber readiness.

Dmitri Alperovitch (the co-founder and former CTO of CrowdStrike) speaks at RSA Conference 2022.

Photo: RSA Conference

When it comes to cybersecurity vigilance, Dmitri Alperovitch wants to see more focus on resiliency of IT systems — and less on doing "surges" around particular dates or events.

For instance, whatever Russia is doing at the moment.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

cyberattacks dmitri alperovitch russia security ukraine cybersecurity
internet for all
Policy

How the internet got privatized and how the government could fix it

Author Ben Tarnoff discusses municipal broadband, Web3 and why closing the “digital divide” isn’t enough.

The Biden administration’s Internet for All initiative, which kicked off in May, will roll out grant programs to expand and improve broadband infrastructure, teach digital skills and improve internet access for “everyone in America by the end of the decade.”

Decisions about who is eligible for these grants will be made based on the Federal Communications Commission’s broken, outdated and incorrect broadband maps — maps the FCC plans to update only after funding has been allocated. Inaccurate broadband maps are just one of many barriers to getting everyone in the country successfully online. Internet service providers that use government funds to connect rural and low-income areas have historically provided those regions with slow speeds and poor service, forcing community residents to find reliable internet outside of their homes.

Keep Reading Show less
Aditi Mukund
Aditi Mukund is Protocol’s Data Analyst. Prior to joining Protocol, she was an analyst at The Daily Beast and NPR where she wrangled data into actionable insights for editorial, audience, commerce, subscription, and product teams. She holds a B.S in Cognitive Science, Human Computer Interaction from The University of California, San Diego.
broadband digital divide infrastructure municipal broadband internet for all interview
Latest Stories
Bulletins