Newsmaker: PlayStation 3 playmaker

(continued from previous page)

We were not first to market with the PlayStation against our ultimate competition. We weren't first in the market with PlayStation 2. And yes, we won't be first with PlayStation 3. But if you look back at the most recent battle on PlayStation 2, we sold 3 million PlayStation 2s in that period before Microsoft launched, and we had gone on to sell 103 million worldwide to their midteen number.

Ultimately, if your platform is successful, that initial year represents less than 5 percent of your sales. So ultimately, it has little or no bearing on the success of the platform long-term, and I think we've borne that out over the last 10 years.

How committed is Sony to releasing the PlayStation 3 before the '06 holidays?
Tretton: Well I think when we were talking about it last year at E3--and we were talking about timing--it was a very general statement. It was not market-specific, it was not date-specific, and that was the planning stages upwards of two years out. I think the tremendous success that we've enjoyed on our other two platforms has given us the very enviable position about being able to pick and choose our date.

If there was some reason that you weren't able to get the PlayStation 3 out before holiday '06, what do you think the effect would be in terms of perception of the platform and the bottom line?
Tretton: Well, at this point, we'll be left with the No. 1-selling platform with PlayStation 2 because, as we speak today, it's still outselling the Xbox 360, so I think, you know, given our 10-year heritage, we're talking very hypothetical, and things aren't going to happen, but we would maintain the leadership position we already enjoy with our PlayStation 3, and we wouldn't be able to add on that gravy, and that will ultimately propel us to an even more dominant position that we enjoy right now, which is 55 percent market share.

You've got a library of 5,000 games that are already available to play on PlayStation 3 the first day.

When the Xbox 360 launched, they had, I believe, 18 titles. Do you have a sense of what the number of launch titles will be when PlayStation 3 hits the shelves?
Tretton: One of the tremendous benefits that we have going for us, without being able to speak specifically to the number of the titles available for PlayStation 3, is that, before the first title being used--thanks to our 100 percent backward compatibility, dating all the way back to the first PlayStation game ever sold--you've got a library of 5,000 games that are already available to play on PlayStation 3 the first day. And I would point to our previous platform introductions--most recently on the PlayStation Portable, where there are 25 games available on day one. We've always had the most extensive library, and I don't think PlayStation 3 will be any exception.

And what about availability? There was a lot of kind of negative press about the Xbox 360 launch, in terms of what availability they had. What do you anticipate, in terms of being able to meet demand that's right there for launch for the PlayStation 3?
Tretton: It's very important to us that we don't dress everybody up and leave them with no place to go. I think when we make a commitment to deliver a launch, we're not only committed to a significant number at launch, we're committed to product flow after that. Again, the most recent example--just a year ago--was the launch of PlayStation Portable.

The anticipation was 500,000 units would be available for the North American market, in fact, we delivered a million units day 1, and we had a good product flow behind it, and I think if you go back to the original PlayStation or PlayStation 2, the story would be the same. So, we are a company that has effectively executed product launches three times. We've dominated the market on our three platforms, and PlayStation 3 won't be an exception.

The big game news everybody expects out of Microsoft next week is the announcement of "Halo 3." Regardless of whether that's going to happen, do you have a sense of what game will be the one that everybody gets for PlayStation 3?
Tretton: You just hit on our greatest strength, and there is no one game. We're not a one-trick pony; we're not dependent on one game to ultimately define our platform, and I think that's why we've been so successful and why we stand in the demographics and continue to do it today, and why there's 100 million people for whom PlayStation 2 is out there--in that there's something there for everybody.

And if you were to ask 10 different people, they'll tell you there's a different must-have game, and that's the reason why they bought the platform, and I think if you're dependant on one game, you're dependant on people who have been in that game. If you have a number of games, then you're going to attract a much more diverse audience, and like I said, past history has really borne that out.

And I think it's a leap of faith, but not a real stretch, to say that given what we've done over the last 10 years, we know what we're doing; we're in a position to deliver for the next 10.

What has been the best-selling game for PlayStation 2?
Tretton: It depends on what period of time you're talking about. I think the most successful game is either "Gran Turismo" or "Grand Theft Auto," and I'm not sure which iteration it would be.

How can you price the PlayStation 3 so it's going to be attractive to the mass market?
Tretton: I think that's the great question. There's a well-documented history that hardware publishers have to invest in the technology to ultimately deliver a device that's going to get consumers excited. There is a willingness and a desire from consumers to get the best out of the best. They'll pay for the value, and I think that we've proven time and time again--and we will prove with PlayStation 3--that the value to consumers, and what we ultimately deliver, is far in excess of what they'll be willing to pay. Price has not been the barrier for us in the past, and we don't anticipate it being a barrier for us on PlayStation 3.

Does that mean that if the price has to be $600, people are going to pay it?
Tretton: It means that people are going to perceive enough value that they're not going to consider the price to be a barrier to entry; that they're going to be willing to do it just as they have on the last three platforms.  

More Newsmakers

[techguy83]

better not be too high of a price

Or several people won't pick one up until it does drop in price.

[HalfEmptyGlass]

Gosh, talk about evasive!

I wish these kind of interviews never got published.

The guy didn't give any meaningful answer, what is all that supposed to mean? Hey Sony when you have a real answer for our questions let us know. Until then please keep quiet and don't waste our time!

[ajbright]

The price will matter

He keeps talking about long term, and in the long term if the price of the PS3 is over $500 they will hand their market share over to Nintendo and Microsoft.

Short term they could get away with selling a PS3 at $1000. They'd sell out on their launch day whether they had 1 million, 2 million or even 3 million.

But long term, parents in particular, are not going to care whether the PS3, XBox 360 or the Urinate is the better spec'd console (that's console, not consul - someone needs to learn to spell or spend less time txt messaging), they're going to care about providing their kid with a coolish Christmas present.

Ofcourse if the only console available next Christmas is the XBox 360, then the current lead of about 3 million is going to be peanuts compared to what Microsoft will have by summer '07.

The only saving grace here for Sony is that they have successfully marketed their box to the 25-35 yr old game player. Nintendo have yet to achieve this, and by naming their product Urinate, lowering the specs to achieve better value for money will not help them now that they've alienated their product from the only group of people that will bother to buy their console in English speaking countries - parents.

Parents still see Nintendo as kid-friendly, ie. no gore, violence or nudity. Although this is not particularly true, Nintendo's products are generally viewed as consoles for kidz.

So if the long term is as important to Sony as this guy claims, in the end the price will have to be competitive with the XBox 360. People buy consoles for games - not movies, not internet connectivity, not to view photos and definitely not to play music. Those things do increase the attractiveness of something that costs over $400, but in the end the game playing public are not going to overspend if they can get roughly the same game playing experience on something that costs hundreds of dollars less.

If the PS3 is within a hundred dollars of the XBox 360, I'll get one because the blu-ray player makes it worth the extra cost. But blu-ray or HD-DVD is not important enough to me to spend more than that, even if a standalone player costs between $1500-$2000. Anyone who spends that on a next gen dvd player is a complete moron. Your TV won't be able to display a better picture than the current HD movie channels deliver right now, which can be recorded commercial free to your dvr right now, and for a lot less money than some hokey piece of hardware that looks like it belongs in the a '70s retro electronics store.

[Sure Thing]

that was one useless rant

and calling a system Urinate doesn't make you sound like an adult either.

[bobby_brady]

I read the whole article, but nothing was said

why was this even published?

[scrumbus]

I agree, nothing said

I hate interviews like that, it provides no insight whatsoever. Also, he's mistaken if he thinks everyone is going to ante up just because they see value.

[Sure Thing]

That was one useless rant

and calling a system Urinate doesn't make you sound like an adult either.

[Sure Thing]

Oops my mistake

trying to reply to ajbright's comments but instead replies to the whole story.

[Tomcat Adam]

They were first.

I really can't believe they treat the Dreamcast as part of this generation. Or the not to be named vaporware.

They were first, and they established a nice base on top of that of the already massive PS1 player base. This was definitly a factor in the previous/current 'console war'. Not the biggest, but a damn important one.

The reason I believe that launching first doesn't matter this time is because they already have a player base. However, if they have a massive price tag (anything above the X360, for instance; 500$ CND---IMO) then the casual gamers will go flocking away.

That said, this article was just another big bowl of nothing. Time to wait out E3...

[nonicks]

This Sony guy sounds soooooooooooooo NERVOUS

Goodness... was he trying to hide everything and wasting the very basis of this interview or the only hope Sony has for it's SALVAGE with PSP3 is ----- it's glorious past.

I was sick of listening that 10yrs lifecycle and the heritage of 103 million units.

I think, the interview was about getting some news on PSP3 and SONY's plans with it.

The guy couldn't even name the Games on PSP3.... Simply Pathetic.

Looking at it from the strategic view point - if the guy was hiding everything for it to be unvieled at E3 .. still he did the worst job. Seems, as if he was soooooooooo UN PREPARED for the interview. or as if, the interview was kind of a liability.

Would have been much better, instead of that 10yr jargon, he had answered in some Technical terms.. throwing some text on cell processor.. the new experience with PSP3 and all that.

To Summarize - it was an excuse of an Interview. The worst I ever read at CNET.

IMPROVIZE guys...