Here's a tough-but-fair Q for Mr. Hyrb: what's the logic for placing non-Microsoft services, such as Netflix, Hulu Plus, or Amazon Prime, behind the Xbox Live Gold pay-wall?
I understand there's some opportunity cost associated with a consumer spending time watching Netflix (and not buying and playing a game on Xbox, thereby shorting Microsoft whatever licensing fees the company would earn if the customer chose to spend his time differently), but virtually every other platform has gone the other way on that decision. Competitor game consoles, handhelds, phones... they all allow unfettered access to third-party streaming apps. It strikes some customers as unfair to charge a subscription fee (Gold) to access another service with a subscription fee. Fees to access fees.
Perhaps if Netflix on Xbox streamed at a higher bitrate or if there were Xbox-exclusive movies or TV shows on Netflix, placing the app behind a pay-wall might make sense. It certainly does for Microsoft-created content (Halo TV, 1 vs. 100, etc). The only logic I've seen on this point is that Microsoft seeks to create significant incentive for customers to purchase Gold. This makes sense for Microsoft's bottom line, but as an end consumer, it incentivizes me to watch streaming TV on other devices--counter the unique selling point of the new system ("One box, input one").
I suspect this is one of those "anti-consumer" policies that contributed to the recent backlash during the XB1 policy reveal. Customers were already uneasy with the Gold pay-wall for online multiplayer, but at least we justified it as the cost of occasional dedicated servers or upgrading Azure. Can you walk us through the decision calculus for sequestering third party apps like Netflix?
And welcome to GAF!
" before quickly editing it to something random. He's also been registered for ages and only posted for the first time today.
