backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by Axbattler.. on Mar 21 at 10:54 PM

Tretton hoists his black monolith - Image courtesy GamePro
Sony CEO responds to critical bloggers

SCEA CEO Jack Tretton’s recent soundbite offering $1,200 for any PlayStation 3 still sitting on store shelves made him the Internet Man of the Hour on gaming blogs and cartoon sites.


In a more recent interview inside the April issue of GamePro, Tretton responds to criticism from Internet blogs with a  little criticism of his own, saying, “We have a new phenomenon as well in recent years, something we didn't have during the PlayStation or PlayStation 2. And that is everybody is a journalist - if you have a PC, then you're a journalist. There are a lot of people weighing in with opinions who are just individual consumers, a very small and vocal group of consumers, that just want everything for free. I'd love that to be the case, but that's not how the world works.”

Despite critics’ observations that the PS3 is selling slower than the competition, Tretton expressed much pleasure in the sales performance of the new console, pointing out that the PS3 reached a million units sold faster than the uber-successful PS2. “But [critics] are microscopically looking at the first sixty or eighty days,” he said. “In reality, the fact that people were paying thousands of dollars for the PS3 on eBay supports the message that they see the value in it and they want it.”

One topic of constant debate amongst bloggers is the high price of the PS3. Tretton said nothing to argue against that sentiment, but added that it’s costing Sony a pretty penny too. “$599 is a lot of money, but it's the world's worst-kept secret that we're selling it at a significant investment from Sony. The consumer is investing for $599, but we're investing along with them,” he said. “We're hoping that investment will return profitability to us over time as we manufacture more and more units.”

 “For [$599], the consumer will see that paid off in time in spades. You could get a machine that costs less money, but if you're not happy with the games or if the system becomes obsolete in less than five years, you won't think about how much you saved but how much you wasted,” Tretton states. “Those PlayStations and PlayStation 2s paid off for ten years, and [so will the PS3]. I'll stack our $599 price tag and our technology against our competition all day long.”

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
No Jack
By xphile on 3/7/2007 4:48:58 AM , Rating: 4
“We have a new phenomenon as well in recent years, something we didn't have during the PlayStation or PlayStation 2. And that is everybody is a journalist - if you have a PC, then you're a journalist. There are a lot of people weighing in with opinions who are just individual consumers, a very small and vocal group of consumers, that just want everything for free. I'd love that to be the case, but that's not how the world works.”

No Jack, I'm not a journalist. I'm an educated consumer. I have an opinion. Lots of people have them, they are just like arseholes. It's only a loud noise Jack when everyone is saying the same thing at once. And to educated consumers that says something, and they take notice. Educated consumers don’t have to voice their negative opinions about dodgy overpriced products, they just vote with their wallets, just as you are finding out. Educated consumers don’t want anything for free, they just want good well thought out products that damn well work well, that aren’t forced down their throat at stupidly high prices with add on technology they don’t want and cant opt out of. And me, I'm no more a good journalist than you are a good CEO.

“In reality, the fact that people were paying thousands of dollars for the PS3 on eBay supports the message that they see the value in it and they want it.”

No Jack, IDIOTS were paying thousands of dollars for the PS3 on eBay. Then very quickly even the absolute idiots realised they were just being absolute idiots, and nobody could even get retail on their PS3's on Ebay because nobody wanted them. They took them back to the stores they'd bought them from en masse or tried to swap or exchange them for Wii's.

“$599 is a lot of money, but it's the world's worst-kept secret that we're selling it at a significant investment from Sony. The consumer is investing for $599, but we're investing along with them,”

No Jack, the consumer is being asked to take the RISK along with Sony, with absolutely no guarantee, that this is even remotely a good balance of cost versus value. And frankly that sucks, and consumers aren't idiots, and your selling far less of them than you want - because "RISK" is a very old game, and it's well outdated and not a good thing to hang your companies hat on.

"You could get a machine that costs less money, but if you're not happy with the games or if the system becomes obsolete in less than five years, you won't think about how much you saved but how much you wasted,”

No Jack, you could get a machine that costs less money, is more innovative, has more and more fun games, and know full well that you can spend LESS than the difference you saved on that companies NEXT console within 5 years and care less about a quickly outdated PS3.

"I'll stack our $599 price tag and our technology against our competition all day long.”

And Jack you do and will have a HUGE stack of unsold PS3's to do it with too.




RE: No Jack
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2007 7:33:14 AM , Rating: 4
Good post. And last I've seen, no ones called for the PS3 to be free, or any other games console. We've said that Blu-ray was your(Sony) way of pushing your high def format on us and added unnecessary cost to an already expensive console.

The fact that people were willing to pay thousands for a PS3 speaks to uneducated consumer's stupidity. And the PS3 is already partially out of date and was the day it was released. The graphics card technology in it is over a year and a half old. The 360s GPU is at least up to current spec since it supports the unified shader model of current DX10 GPUs(not that the 360 runs DX10 exactly).

About the only thing Sony can do at this point to earn my respect is get on their knees and beg forgiveness.


RE: No Jack
By Solema on 3/7/2007 7:40:16 AM , Rating: 2
Just because 360 supports unified shaders does not mean it is not outdated. Its GPU speed is comparable to PS3's, and both are outdated, at least compared to PC's.


RE: No Jack
By jkostans on 3/7/2007 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 4
Both the RSX and Xenos are slightly outdated compared to the highest end PC graphics cards (which alone cost as much as a damn PS3). They are both roughly equivalent to an overclocked 7800GTX, regardless of the unified shader thing. I would say that until the average PC gamer has a video card better than the 7800GTX, the graphics are not outdated on either console. So they won't be outdated for a while in my book.


RE: No Jack
By ViperROhb34 on 3/7/2007 6:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
On that same comparison the Wii is using technology that is about 8yrs old at best.. just more powerful extensions, faster clocked version of the game cube.. which is why all game cube games play on the wii natively without any translation.

I think comparing consoles to PC's is a moot point because you can build a uber PC today and next week a new chip is introduced along with a new graphics card. You can update quarterly on pc's..


RE: No Jack
By otispunkmeyer on 3/9/2007 4:29:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 360s GPU is at least up to current spec since it supports the unified shader model of current DX10 GPUs(not that the 360 runs DX10 exactly).


its not really up to current spec. if you look at its more like a DX9 part with some added functionality. DX9.5 if you like. as far as DX9 goes Xenos isnt even top of the tree...its middle of the road at best. but is Unified shaders do give it that added flexibility that will come in handy.

PS3's GPU is much the same, no its not unified, but G70 is able to do beyond DX9 somewhat (features that rarely got used in the PC segment due them just being Nvidia only) and despite its lacklustre filtering algorithms the G70 has proven to be a quite efficient GPU with alot of Raw power behind it.

in summary, both chips are out of date, both chips are no where near the top of the tree. id wager PS3's has more raw power, but the 360's has that added versatility of unified shaders, tile based rendering and the eDRAM (needs to emply tile based rendering to fit AA sampled 720p in that 10meg eDRAM)


RE: No Jack
By Solema on 3/7/2007 7:38:49 AM , Rating: 3
Xphile, while you make some valid points, you are missing a few key reasons as to why he said what he did. First off, his comment about people wanting stuff for free was an exaggeration, one he should not have made in his position.

BUT, if you look around at all of the negative talk on the Internet about the PS3, you will find that for every one "educated consumer" like yourself you will find MANY idiots spewing ignorance. These idiots' comments tend to bury intelligent opinions like your own.

As for your opinion, you are entitled to it and I respect it, but I do disagree. The fact that people WERE willing to pay that much on eBay for a PS3 WAS a good indication of how much people wanted the system, even if those people were foolish.

And the fact that Sony has sold more PS3's in in the small amount of time it has been available compared to the same timeframe for PS2 is definitely a positive sign for Sony. It is not a foolproof indicator of future sales performance, but businesses can never predict the future with absolute certaintly. They can only hope the outcome will be the one they were trying to achieve.

I am one of those people who does believe that the PS3 represents a great cost-versus-value product. Is it expensive relative to the market it is in? Absolutely. But based on the TECH you actually get for your money? The build cost alone validates that one is absolutely getting $900 of tech for $599. Again, this is based on tech alone and not on games or perceived entertainment value.

That being said, I do not own a PS3 yet, and that is squarely due to its cost and my ability to afford it. It does not change my opinion on the system. I just need to wait to buy it when I can spend the money for it.

If you want an example of the tech-vs-cost and how it can affect consumers' perceived value, look at how many HD-DVD players were sold last year. The HD-DVD consortium had announced that 175,000 HD-DVD players were sold in 2006. That's 175,000 people who spent $500-$1000 just for a high-def MOVIE PLAYER. Then you look at PS3, and $500 gets you a high-def movie player and next-generation games machine, and it is definitely a great tech-vs-cost example.


RE: No Jack
By lukasbradley on 3/7/2007 10:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
I agree.

Xphile, do you own a PS3?


RE: No Jack
By xphile on 3/7/2007 8:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Xphile, while you make some valid points, you are missing a few key reasons as to why he said what he did. First off, his comment about people wanting stuff for free was an exaggeration, one he should not have made in his position."

Then forgive me, but as a CEO he had no right to make it without FULLY expecting the sort of response I gave. If you are a CEO you know very well that you dont shoot off at the mouth - or the bullet will ALWAYS go straight into your own foot.

"BUT, if you look around at all of the negative talk on the Internet about the PS3, you will find that for every one "educated consumer" like yourself you will find MANY idiots spewing ignorance. These idiots' comments tend to bury intelligent opinions like your own."

Granted, but my point is he makes sweeping statements joining all consumers together regarding their comments, and while idiots make comments of all kinds, there has been a lot of similar, constructive statement that has said the same thing. It is THAT comment which should be noted and acted on by Sony, of course you ignore the rubbish, but it seems like they are insistent on ignoring it ALL.

"As for your opinion, you are entitled to it and I respect it, but I do disagree. The fact that people WERE willing to pay that much on eBay for a PS3 WAS a good indication of how much people wanted the system, even if those people were foolish."

And I in turn respect both your own comments and your right to make them too. I just see the early Ebay sales as a result of lots of hype that the product would be a huge seller, that everyone would need it, and that the probably rarity of the units would make securing one a near impossibility. In the end even after all the advertising it doesnt seem to me that any of those things have come true, and even if some people at that time did want the PS3 that badly, surely it means nothing if it was just a 2 week flash in the pan. Sony want and need them to want it that badly now, next week and next year - "wanted" is history, the word Sony need is "want" and I just dont see where that desire is.

"And the fact that Sony has sold more PS3's in in the small amount of time it has been available compared to the same timeframe for PS2 is definitely a positive sign for Sony. It is not a foolproof indicator of future sales performance, but businesses can never predict the future with absolute certaintly. They can only hope the outcome will be the one they were trying to achieve."

Wouldn't it be time to start comparing apples with apples (no pun intended) The PS2 is a nearly 7 year old system. Gaming and console demand overall has increased in popularity HUGELY in that time. The fact that the PS3 is selling faster in its first 2 or 3 months than the PS2 did in its first 2 or 3 months Seven years ago is hardly surprising or much of an achievement. It's well known that the week of 22-28 Jan in Japan the PS2 outsold the PS3 20,995 to 19,996 units. So well is the PS2 selling, Sony have increased forecast sales from 11 to 13 million for 2007. It's great they have a strong product and well deserved too - the PS2 has always been a great unit. But it SAYS something strongly about what people want - in particular even what Japanese people very loyal to Sony do and dont want. I believe that is quality gaming at a reasonable price, and that they are still saying they dont see the PS3 as better value than the PS2. Better yet Sony should compare its own PS3 sales to CURRENT sales of its competitors. Dont look for great numbers versus 7 year old figures. What about now? In that same week that the PS2 beat the PS3 in Japan with 20,995 units, the Wii sold 83,754 units in Japan. Tell me how Sony put a positive spin on that?

"I am one of those people who does believe that the PS3 represents a great cost-versus-value product. Is it expensive relative to the market it is in? Absolutely. But based on the TECH you actually get for your money? The build cost alone validates that one is absolutely getting $900 of tech for $599. Again, this is based on tech alone and not on games or perceived entertainment value."

Ok yes and no - in fact that should be "were getting" $900 of tech, since Sony themselves are already announcing cheaper fully featured Blu-ray stand alone players coming soon. But lets forget that and say yes you're right. IF you want a high tech new gaming platform AND you want a new hi-def movie platform then damn straight the PS3 is the bargain of the year. If you just want a Blu-ray player then initially compared to stand alone player its cheap. People know from dvd however that even then player prices will soon come down so maybe 600 is still a lot and perhaps I will just wait for a cheaper player (And that's started already). If you were in the majority camp and you just wanted a great new hi-def gaming platform with great games and really dont care too much about movies, then no it isn't cheap and maybe there are better value for money options. Nobody cares if it costs Sony 1000 dollars a unit to make it, there MUST be the value of the retail cost in the product compared to its competitors and the reason you are buying it. So yes for some there is that value - you are one of those people perhaps, for others like me then no I'm afraid there isn’t. For Sony the big question becomes which one of you or I is in the majority when it comes to the actual sales.

"That being said, I do not own a PS3 yet, and that is squarely due to its cost and my ability to afford it. It does not change my opinion on the system. I just need to wait to buy it when I can spend the money for it."

I do not own one either - I couldn't if I wanted to I live in New Zealand and it's released here on March 23, for the insignificant cost of $1200.00 NZ. Is that a lot you ask? - only about 815.076 USD at today's exchange rate. I seriously considered it for quite some time, but the delay didn't help, and the stripping down of the backwards compatibility for PS2 games totally made my mind up. I will wait for the next gen high def players that are cheaper and probably buy when they record as well.

"If you want an example of the tech-vs-cost and how it can affect consumers' perceived value, look at how many HD-DVD players were sold last year. The HD-DVD consortium had announced that 175,000 HD-DVD players were sold in 2006. That's 175,000 people who spent $500-$1000 just for a high-def MOVIE PLAYER. Then you look at PS3, and $500 gets you a high-def movie player and next-generation games machine, and it is definitely a great tech-vs-cost example."

If Sony thought for a moment they'd sell 175,000 PS3's in one year they'd all commit suicide. In one aspect 175K seems like a reasonable number but really it isn’t much. Sure it will get higher and I wont disagree HD formats will be the future. $500 will get you a Blu-ray player and a next gen games machine, agreed. Blu-ray "might" even win the format war, or "might" well co-exist beside HD-Dvd. The use of your laser repeatedly to play movies "might" not even be detrimental to the life of your console and Sony "might" even release a large number of games that are considered must haves. But all of these mights aside it is still only of high value if you are one of the people who really WANTS both a game console AND a movie player in one package. If you dont then you dont get the choice to just want to be a gamer. Being asked to buy something you dont want in order to get something you do want is where the value evaporates and if most people do not really want both enough to pay for both then as the manufacturer you have a big problem.


RE: No Jack
By akugami on 3/8/2007 2:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
One the note of value. I agree 100% with xphile that the PS3 is a good value only if you're in the market for both a PS3 and a Blu-Ray player. It wasn't a bad deal if you wanted a Blu-Ray player but the costs for new technology drops drastically in the first couple of years. Already Blu-Ray player prices are dropping, or will soon drop, to prices roughly on par with the PS3 and it's not out of line to think that Blu-Ray prices will drop even further by the end of the year or in early 2008.

At this moment, at it's not a good idea to buy either HD-DVD or Blu-Ray as there is no clear cut winner so it's not advisable to for general consumers to buy one or the other anyways.

So if you're in the market for both a console and want Blu-Ray, the PS3 is a great value. No question about it.

What if all you want is a games console? What if you don't want a Blu-Ray (or HD-DVD) player? From reports, the Blu-Ray optical drive which is slower than a decent DVD drive costs roughly $200-250. That means that had Sony went with a DVD drive, it could have knocked roughly $200 off the sticker price and been price competitive with the Xbox 360 from the first day. I truly believe the 60GB PS3 at $400 would knock out the Xbox 360 and seriously hindered the Wii. In this respect, the PS3 is a bad value because it is forcing features onto you that you don't need or want at a very high cost to you.

Judging by current games, the PS3 is a bit more powerful than the Xbox 360 but not significantly so. Not to the point where the Xbox 360 is not even in the same ballpark. The Cell is also a costly component in the PS3 and while it is more powerful than the CPU used in the Xbox 360, reports are it's not significantly more powerful as a games CPU. I am not a programmer nor am I familiar with the PS3 and Xbox 360 CPU's. I'm just going by what I read on places like Ars Technica and a couple other web sites.

So the PS3 is more costly to produce overall and they are selling it at a loss to the consumer. In this regard, considering the price to manufacture the product, the PS3 is a great great value. On the other hand, even with the cost of the tech, it doesn't seem to be heads and tails better than the technology used in something like the Xbox 360. Certainly in the consumer's eyes, it's not good enough to justify such a high cost for a product that is not much better. In that regards, it's a poor value. And that's probably why sales of the PS3 are dismal after the initial rush.


RE: No Jack
By Serenade on 3/8/2007 2:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that value is different for everyone. If you have use for all the technology of the PS3, it's an absolute steal. However, if you don't have a HDTV and/or you don't care about Blueray movies, the PS3 is an expensive game console bloated with extraneous features.

Unfortunately, the cost of the Blueray separates the two disparities like an ocean between two continents, and never shall the twain meet :p

For me, if I had the money to spare, I'd travel. I can imagine though, that if the bulk of my entertainment comes from my living room, the PS3 can be a bargain.


RE: No Jack
By Trisped on 3/8/2007 6:49:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As for your opinion, you are entitled to it and I respect it, but I do disagree. The fact that people WERE willing to pay that much on eBay for a PS3 WAS a good indication of how much people wanted the system, even if those people were foolish.
While this is true, it does not reflect the fact that the people who bought the consol for large sums of money were not informed consumers interested in the next generation system. Most of those people had preordered the system. These buyers were the ones caught up in the hype, where all their friends or the cool people said it was the system to get. They forked over the dough so the could be just like everyone else, and now they have the not so uberly popular product they thought they were getting. So while the fact that people were willing to pay that much on eBay for a PS3 was a good indication of how much people wanted the system, it was not a good indication of the actual value of the system nor the reason why the system was being bought.

quote:
And the fact that Sony has sold more PS3's in in the small amount of time it has been available compared to the same timeframe for PS2 is definitely a positive sign for Sony. It is not a foolproof indicator of future sales performance, but businesses can never predict the future with absolute certaintly. They can only hope the outcome will be the one they were trying to achieve.
If you are saying that to indicate that the PS3 will still make money, then I agree. If you are saying that this is a positive indicator of the value of the system, then I disagree. There are more game consoles sold every year due to the increase in audience. Just because you are making more sales now does not mean your product is doing better. Of course the REAL issue with the statement is that when the PS2 launched they said they where having trouble getting memory. While this may or not be true (common consensus is that the memory lack was real, but it seems too convenient to me) the fact is that they didn’t sell the PS2s not because they couldn’t, or there wasn’t a market for them, but because there weren’t enough on the market. It was months before they even started to fill demand and months after that before they could keep them on the shelves.

quote:
I am one of those people who does believe that the PS3 represents a great cost-versus-value product. Is it expensive relative to the market it is in? Absolutely. But based on the TECH you actually get for your money? The build cost alone validates that one is absolutely getting $900 of tech for $599. Again, this is based on tech alone and not on games or perceived entertainment value.
Value is not determent on the cost of the components or the cost of assembling them, but on the use that can be derived from the product. Value can not yet be determined now due to the lack of content, a young market, and lack of proving time. Will the average owner get thousands of hours of enjoyable play time out of the system, how much will it cost per game hour, could the same quality be found in a less expensive piece of hardware?

quote:
If you want an example of the tech-vs-cost and how it can affect consumers' perceived value, look at how many HD-DVD players were sold last year. The HD-DVD consortium had announced that 175,000 HD-DVD players were sold in 2006. That's 175,000 people who spent $500-$1000 just for a high-def MOVIE PLAYER. Then you look at PS3, and $500 gets you a high-def movie player and next-generation games machine, and it is definitely a great tech-vs-cost example.
Up till recently all HDDVD players were $600 or less (I think the MSRP was $500), so your numbers of $500-$1000 are way off, as Blue-Ray players are not the same as HDDVD players. And yes, there were X number of people who spend X number of dollars on a movie player to go with their 2-10x more expensive TVs and sound systems. But these are not buyers of consoles. It is estimated that the Blue-Ray drive alone adds $100 to the cost of the player, and it has been blamed for the extremely late entry into the market (which lets face it, is why they are doing so bad, they just can’t compete with Wii ). Gamers don’t needed, they don’t really want it, and the only reason that Sony put it in there is to generate support for their console (because it is the cheapest BD player out there) and their format (because every gamer that owns a PS3 that wants an HD movie is going to buy it on BD because they already have a player for it).

In reality this is more PR crap that Sony is putting out to keep people confused enough to buy their over priced system. If they drop the price to $400-$450 then they will be ready to compete, but since they can't, they have to keep using tricks to get what they want.


RE: No Jack
By Timeless on 3/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: No Jack
By Timeless on 3/7/2007 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
P.S.S I'm not trying to defend Sony's mistakes(MAN! What is their PR department trying to do? Wreck their own company?), but your comments have pass the line from being just comments to just bashing people(AKA Jack). The last thing I want to see is mindless bashing on already stupid people(also AKA JAck) starting on a server where I finally found intelligent people to talk to. Please keep the kiddy stuff to yourself and post comments actually worth reading.
I am sorry if my comment is offending but I'm just tired of all the bashing going on.


RE: No Jack
By xphile on 3/7/2007 7:28:26 PM , Rating: 2
Um I think many others see there was a good bit of thought put into my post and I dont consider myself a basher of Sony. I would make the same statements about any company that had done the same.

That said though you do make a point, the paragraph you have dissected does essentially have a sentence in it that is a bit out of order compared to what I was thinking / meaning when I wrote it. I didn't actually mean the unit is forced down peoples throats but that the all the additional tech (Blu-ray in particular) is if you want to buy one.

If I was to rewrite it and change the order with the same words it would say this:

...they just want good well thought out products that damn well work well, that don't contain add on technology which is forced down their throat at stupidly high prices which with they don’t want and cant opt out of.


RE: No Jack
By somegeek on 3/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: No Jack