Power

Microsoft and Sony head into Round 4 of the console battle. Who will win this time?

Here's what to watch as the two companies fight for dominance – again – in the booming gaming business.

An empty boxing ring

Two decades after the Sony-Microsoft console war began, the companies are now squaring off for Round 4, with each set to release new consoles — Microsoft's Xbox Series X and Sony's PlayStation 5 — this fall.

Image: artpartner-images/Getty Images

It's easy to forget that Sony's PlayStation was just emerging as the planet's top gaming brand when Microsoft introduced the original Xbox in 2001.

PlayStation was only 7 years old at the time. Sony had knocked out Sega, a key Japanese competitor (remember Sonic?), and Nintendo was already on its way out of the mainstream console arena and headed toward the profitable niche it still occupies today.

And then here came this nerdy American software company with a brand-new video game machine (as introduced by Bill Gates and The Rock). That was Round 1 of the Microsoft-Sony console battle. Sony won that round, and the next (barely) and the next (in a landslide). PlayStation is the top family of home consoles in the history of video games.

Two decades later the companies are now squaring off for Round 4, with each set to release new consoles — Microsoft's Xbox Series X and Sony's PlayStation 5 — this fall.

Yet after all these years, they are still behaving quite differently headed into a beyond-uncertain holiday season. Here's how, why and a few things to keep an eye on as the two companies wrangle over gaming's future.

Does No. 2 really try harder?

Both Microsoft and Sony have each now released a similar hourlong compilation of trailers for new games, but neither has released pricing or a firm date for the new consoles (beyond basically saying "this year"). Yet Microsoft has recently announced a steady stream of information about the services, technologies, features and overall structure of the gaming ecosystem it is attempting to create, whereas Sony has been essentially silent about the PS5 since last month's event. (In March the PS5's lead system architect, Mark Cerny, did provide a deep dive into that console's technology.)

Microsoft has been selling a broad vision of gaming anywhere — console, PC, mobile — powered by an attractive all-the-games-you-can-play subscription package called Xbox Game Pass and by Microsoft's cloud computing infrastructure. Sony has been selling … the fact that the PlayStation 5 is coming.

Why? Because like the proverbial generals fighting the last war, Sony and Microsoft are each following strategies formed directly by lessons from their most recent battle: Round 3 of their console rivalry, when they released the PlayStation 4 and Xbox One in 2013.

That launch and the entire current console generation were defined from the start by Microsoft's marketing, product and pricing mistakes. After earning major credibility among gamers during the Xbox 360/PS3 era (Round 2 of their console battle), Microsoft blew it in 2013 by initially positioning the Xbox One primarily as a home video hub rather than a game-first console and by antagonizing players with restrictive digital-rights proposals. Microsoft is a congenitally innovative company, and with the Xbox One, the company simply out-innovated itself when it should have stuck to the basics: games and community.

Not least, Microsoft's insistence on initially packaging the Xbox One with the Kinect motion control system led to the Xbox One debuting at $500; the PS4 was a full $100 less expensive.

Microsoft's stumbles allowed Sony to dominate the 2013 launch with a simple, powerful message: PlayStation is the best place to play the best games. That's it. The result: The PS4 has sold more than twice as many units as the Xbox One.

For Microsoft, the signs and lessons from 2013 have been clear in almost everything the Xbox division does.

Perhaps most important, the company had to repair its credibility with core gamers. And that credibility had to have a face. Phil Spencer arrived at Microsoft in 1988 and joined the Xbox team shortly after its inception. He watched the 2013 disaster from the inside, and Satya Nadella, Microsoft's then-new chief executive, gave him the Xbox reins in 2014 to fix the operation.

The constant drumbeat of news now about the new Xbox — how it will play thousands of older games, how game publishers are encouraged to offer upgrades to the new console for their current titles — is all part of Spencer's shrewd yearslong effort to reestablish Microsoft as "gamer friendly." With Reggie Fils-Aimé — the charismatic former president of Nintendo of America — stepping down last year, Microsoft is clearly trying to position Spencer as the public "face of the industry" (a role the industry does need at least one person to play).

Compared with Microsoft, Sony is being practically Sphinx-like. We have not heard much about, say, virtual reality on the PS5 (the PS4 has a successful VR add-on) or Sony's plans for its PlayStation Now cloud service.

Put another way, Sony is just letting its games do the talking. So far, Sony's vision of gaming in the coming PS5 era seems pretty conventional: Sit on the couch in front of the console and television, pay $60 or more for top-end games, and enjoy better graphics and faster load times from the new technology. That formula has worked for two decades now.

Sony saw in 2013 that it could basically stand back and wait for Microsoft to make mistakes. So far, Sony seems to be following the same conservative playbook this year. The thing is, Microsoft has not appeared to make those mistakes. Yet.

No really, after you

Of course the biggest mistake, which Microsoft learned the hard way last time, would be for one company to price its console $100 above the competition. Theoretically, one company has to be first to announce pricing and availability, and, for now, each seems to be waiting for the other. They're not being polite.

It's unclear what the risks or costs of delaying an announcement are from a distribution or marketing perspective. Consumers want clarity and to be able to submit some sort of preorder, but from the point of view of the companies, they know they will probably sell out of all the consoles they can produce this year regardless of when they say or release anything.

Before either company announces pricing or a release date, we are likely to find out details about Microsoft's long-rumored second version of the new Xbox, which would be less powerful and less expensive than the Xbox Series X. Sony already announced two versions of the PS5, one with a Blu-ray player and one without an optical drive that can only download games.

Many experts seem to believe that each top new console costs $450 to $500 to manufacture. Over the last few generations, initial console prices have generally ranged from $400 to $600. Sony certainly is in no hurry to sell the PS5 at a loss, but the real question is just how low Microsoft is willing to go. And not just because Xbox got burned on pricing last time.

The real reason that Microsoft just might be willing to sell at least one of probable two Xboxes at a loss stems from the business model Microsoft is trying to create around gaming. By offering hundreds of top-quality games as part of a subscription package no matter whether you play on a console, a PC or a mobile device, Microsoft is thinking about a customer's lifetime value, or at least their value over the many years of a console cycle. In that model, it can be especially important to just get the user into the ecosystem, even if that means offering the razor, or in this case the console, at a discount.

Pricing aggressively would mean no higher than $400 for the less expensive new versions, and it is hard to imagine either company wanting to advertise a $600 indulgence in the current economic environment.

And the competition will not be limited solely to outright price. Microsoft is poised to expand its Xbox All Access plan to sell its new consoles on a monthly zero-interest payment plan potentially including the games subscription as well. For perhaps $30 a month over two years, some consumers may be able to get both a new Xbox and access to a large library of top games.

Also worth watching is the extent of Xbox's cooperation with Facebook going forward. Microsoft recently shuttered its Mixer game streaming site and folded it into Facebook Gaming, the social network's streaming service. The underappreciated aspect of that deal was Facebook's commitment last month to integrate Microsoft's xCloud remote game service into Facebook Gaming.

But do gamers really like me?

The essential reason that Sony can afford to be conservative while Microsoft has to make more of an effort is that the PlayStation brand is simply much more powerful globally than the Xbox brand. In much of the world outside North America, PlayStation is synonymous with video games.

Microsoft has invested heavily in recent years in its internal game studios and is closing the gap with Sony in delivering strong games, especially for its systems, but Sony still holds a lead on top-end exclusives. (Most games from third-party publishers are routinely made available for both companies' consoles.)

The overall disparity in perception actually used to be much worse for Microsoft. Back in 2001, when the Xbox first emerged, Microsoft was fixed in the popular and political imagination as the big, bad technology behemoth that everyone had to worry about — a role now played by Alphabet, Amazon, Apple and Facebook — while Sony was generally considered the leading global electronics giant, a role now played by Samsung.

To consumers under 40, Sony is no longer the storied maker of the Walkman, stereos, boom boxes, movies, albums and high-end televisions. To many consumers now, Sony is just the PlayStation company. That's just fine for the video game business.

Xbox mostly seems to be succeeding in repairing the brand's relationship with gamers and has rightfully earned a passionate following. Generally, Microsoft has spent the last couple decades trying to make nice with the public (and politicians) and has largely escaped the opprobrium now being unleashed on the "gang of four."

Gamers, however, have long proven Microsoft's toughest audience of all.

Entertainment

Inside Amazon’s free video strategy

Amazon has been doubling down on original content for Freevee, its ad-supported video service, which has seen a lot of growth thanks to a deep integration with other Amazon properties.

Freevee’s investment into original programming like 'Bosch: Legacy' has increased by 70%.

Photo: Tyler Golden/Amazon Freevee

Amazon’s streaming efforts have long been all about Prime Video. So the company caught pundits by surprise when, in early 2019, it launched a stand-alone ad-supported streaming service called IMDb Freedive, with Techcrunch calling the move “a bit odd.”

Nearly four years and two rebrandings later, Amazon’s ad-supported video efforts appear to be flourishing. Viewership of the service grew by 138% from 2020 to 2021, according to Amazon. The company declined to share any updated performance data on the service, which is now called Freevee, but a spokesperson told Protocol the performance of originals in particular “exceeded expectations,” leading Amazon to increase investments into original content by 70% year-over-year.

Keep Reading Show less
Janko Roettgers

Janko Roettgers (@jank0) is a senior reporter at Protocol, reporting on the shifting power dynamics between tech, media, and entertainment, including the impact of new technologies. Previously, Janko was Variety's first-ever technology writer in San Francisco, where he covered big tech and emerging technologies. He has reported for Gigaom, Frankfurter Rundschau, Berliner Zeitung, and ORF, among others. He has written three books on consumer cord-cutting and online music and co-edited an anthology on internet subcultures. He lives with his family in Oakland.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Fintech

Wall Street is warming up to crypto

Secure, well-regulated technology infrastructure could draw more large banks to crypto.

Technology infrastructure for crypto has begun to mature.

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Despite a downturn in crypto markets, more large institutional investors are seeking to invest in crypto.

One factor holding them back is a lack of infrastructure for large institutions compared to what exists in the traditional, regulated capital markets.

Keep Reading Show less
Tomio Geron

Tomio Geron ( @tomiogeron) is a San Francisco-based reporter covering fintech. He was previously a reporter and editor at The Wall Street Journal, covering venture capital and startups. Before that, he worked as a staff writer at Forbes, covering social media and venture capital, and also edited the Midas List of top tech investors. He has also worked at newspapers covering crime, courts, health and other topics. He can be reached at tgeron@protocol.com or tgeron@protonmail.com.

Policy

How I decided to go all-in on a federal contract — before assignment

Amanda Renteria knew Code for America could help facilitate access to expanded child tax credits. She also knew there was no guarantee her proof of concept would convince others — but tried anyway.

Code for America CEO Amanda Renteria explained how it's helped people claim the Child Tax Credit.

Photo: Code for America

Click banner image for more How I decided series

After the American Rescue Plan Act passed in March 2021, the U.S. government expanded child tax credits to provide relief for American families during the pandemic. The legislation allowed some families to nearly double their tax benefits per child, which was especially critical for low-income families, who disproportionately bore the financial brunt of the pandemic.

Keep Reading Show less
Hirsh Chitkara

Hirsh Chitkara ( @HirshChitkara) is a reporter at Protocol focused on the intersection of politics, technology and society. Before joining Protocol, he helped write a daily newsletter at Insider that covered all things Big Tech. He's based in New York and can be reached at hchitkara@protocol.com.

Climate

This carbon capture startup wants to clean up the worst polluters

The founder and CEO of point-source carbon capture company Carbon Clean discusses what the startup has learned, the future of carbon capture technology, as well as the role of companies like his in battling the climate crisis.

Carbon Clean CEO Aniruddha Sharma told Protocol that fossil fuels are necessary, at least in the near term, to lift the living standards of those who don’t have access to cars and electricity.

Photo: Carbon Clean

Carbon capture and storage has taken on increasing importance as companies with stubborn emissions look for new ways to meet their net zero goals. For hard-to-abate industries like cement and steel production, it’s one of the few options that exist to help them get there.

Yet it’s proven incredibly challenging to scale the technology, which captures carbon pollution at the source. U.K.-based company Carbon Clean is leading the charge to bring down costs. This year, it raised a $150 million series C round, which the startup said is the largest-ever funding round for a point-source carbon capture company.

Keep Reading Show less
Michelle Ma

Michelle Ma (@himichellema) is a reporter at Protocol covering climate. Previously, she was a news editor of live journalism and special coverage for The Wall Street Journal. Prior to that, she worked as a staff writer at Wirecutter. She can be reached at mma@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins