|
This is the back door to this
question, but I'll take it: Social gamers and some of the more family-oriented
gamers are more value-conscious than the core gamer audience. So there it goes.
How do you feel about the price situation on the PlayStation 3?
PD: Oh,
is there an issue on that?
[laughs]
PD: We
get this question all the time. I can tell you we just made a move on day one
of our fiscal year on PlayStation 2. We're not making any announcements, but we've
got what we believe is a great plan for the year.
We've talked about this next
year being the most aggressive marketing year in PlayStation's history. It
clearly falls into the "we can't comment on rumor and speculation,"
but we're confident in our plan, and we'll just leave it at that.
Some of the third-parties have now
been coming out and saying they'd like to see a move; it's not just the
audience or people's suppositions about what the market might or might not want,
or analysts. That's got to be a little bit delicate.
PD: We have a big event every year called Destination PlayStation. All the
third-parties attend; all the retailers attend. We don't have the press there
for a reason -- because we want to be very candid in our plans and not have
sort of the implication of having the PR aspects to those conversations.
When we
lay out the plans to those folks there -- I think it might be fair to say that
some people came into Destination PlayStation curious about what our plans
were; I think they all left really fired up about the year ahead because, once
they understood what our plans were, we didn't hear any of that grousing that
you're talking about -- certainly not from the folks that attended.
And I was
quoted as saying recently that third-parties want our hardware to be free. We
understand that; we have a business to run, and they have a business to run. As
I said earlier, we were marching to a mantra to be profitable, which meant we
weren't going to be cutting the price of the PS3 last year, and going forward
we'll have a different plight.
I
actually wanted to come back to a point -- we were talking about core gamers,
and before we get off the subject and I forget about it... A lot of stuff gets thrown out there, and our
competition makes a lot of claims; but recently the guys at Xbox were talking
about Metacritic ratings on Xbox 360, and it got our attention.
We did a little
digging on our own, and when you look at the data [subsequently provided to Gamasutra by Sony], one of three games on PS3
has a Metacritic of 80+, and on Xbox 360 I think it's less than one out of five
or about one out of five.
Their
quote was, "Oh, we have more games." You've been in business longer,
and this sort of quantity versus quality message I think got lost in the
shuffle. Clearly, from our perspective, there's two things going. One is there's
a quality message on PlayStation 3 when you look at 33% of the games that have
been released have a Metacritic over 80.
The other
thing gets back to my point earlier about the EA Sports or Street Fighter phenomenon more recently; I think the games that are
coming on now onto PlayStation 3 are higher quality than our competition, and
maybe they've got some things that are older that they're touting but as you
know with gamers it's kind of a "what have you done for me lately?"
mentality.
We're
seeing tremendous momentum now; we're seeing tremendous game quality, whether
it's Killzone, LittleBigPlanet -- as
well as sort of the anticipation for the Uncharteds
and the Ratchets and the MAGs. When you think about one out of
three versus one out of five, I think that's something that didn't get reported
as well as we would have liked, so: food for thought.

Sony/Guerrilla's Killzone 2
To get back to this concept of
tracking the social gamer, it sort of plays into the blue ocean/red ocean
metaphor that Nintendo's been using a lot.
Can you attract them away from the Wii, or do you think it's such a
broad audience that you can find your own success in it?
PD: I
think "both" is the answer. Our view on the Wii: number one, our hat's
off to them. They've created this huge phenomenon that's captivated people's
imagination -- and captivated a lot of dollars. No one around here is in the
camp of "Oh, it's this fad" sort of spin. Again, hats off to them. We
think it's good for the business, to be honest.
There's a
perspective here that, if we all believe that the Wii and Nintendo are doing
something that hasn't been done -- i.e., bringing more people into gaming -- that's
a good thing. Now, if those people get hooked on gaming and they want to
continue with their gaming habit, then many of them will figure out "Okay,
what else can I do?" and "wouldn't a high-definition gaming
experience be of interest to me?"
If those people get to that point, we
believe we're in a really good position because, if you think about the types
of games you're playing on the Wii and the profile of the Wii consumer, and then
their choices to get into next-generation high-definition gaming, then the PlayStation
is the perfect place for them to end up.
It's
always been a platform that's inclusive; it's got something for everyone. We
believe that the family that's been involved in Wii gaming -- having a PS3 as
the centerpiece of their living room is a great thing that the whole family can
enjoy much the same way that you can enjoy Wii but perhaps on steroids; it does
so much more.
Again,
the Wii is not positioned as the digital entertainment hub in the way that the PlayStation
3. So we think that over time all those folks will migrate back to the PlayStation
3 -- when I say "back," that takes the view that they were PS2
gamers, went to the Wii, and then would come back.
As I said earlier, if they
didn't come from anywhere, if they're just new gamers, then that's good for all
of us. We believe that we'll have a fair shot as selling them a lot of our products
down the road.
|
Does he think that everyone is so stupid that we would find such an argument persuasive? Let's see, a lot more 360s have been sold with hardrives than PS3s. There are many more users of Xbox Live than PSN. So how is the fact that EVERY PS3 has a hard drive and the DLC a big differentiating factor? What an a**hole.
Curious about how Rock Band for PSP would play. Music games are fading away. Also, the fun of those games is sharing it with others... having to bring four PSP together when playing... I am skeptical.
Games created for systems usually must adhere to the lowest common denominator. So a 360 game engine cannot assume there is a hard drive to help optimize performance, while a PS3 game can. That's not to say a 360 game can't make use of performance if a hard drive is available, but it is more difficult.
The point that is trying to be made is that there is a lot of value to a PS3 console, whether that comes from a built in hard drive, internal wifi, free live play, etc., and he wants to educate consumers on that fact.
If you are personally a 360 fan and don't like the PS3 then there is nothing wrong with that.
I still play a lot of PS2 games (which look great upscaled on the system - THANK YOU Sony for that!), and what I am hoping to see are more 3rd party exclusives, especially the niche titles like all the JRPGs and SRPGs that make the PS2 library so unique.
...also I feel Sony needs to bring back backwards compatability. They did a great job with the first-gen PS3s, and one close friend of mine is holding off on buying a PS3 until this feature returns.
I do understand the single SKU consideration for developers, but while they can't count on every single solitary 360 having a hard drive, they can count on the lions share of them having one. And they can count on having more 360s with hard drives than the raw number PS3s. This makes his claim that "Those types of differentiating factors are a big deal when we're talking about some of the co-marketing." seem spirious and disengenious. (By the way I actually favor the PS3 as a better value than the 360, if I could only have one, I would have the PS3).
However, he uses a qualifier with his differentiating claim of being significant in terms of "co-marketing." However, what does he mean by co-marketing here? Why is this important when the numbers themselves don't support his premise? I am baffled by the use of co-marketing here.