Sony's Jack Tretton sticks with 10 year message
As the sales figures continue to show that the PS3 ain't shakin' what its mama gave 'em, Sony's Jack "We're still waiting for our $24,000" Tretton speaks to the LA Times and brings us back the 10 year life cycle message. Tretton tells the LA Times, "We didn't get into PS3 for the first six months of 2007 -- we're into this for the next 10 years and beyond ... A million units one way or another at this point isn't going to worry us."
Sadly, the optimistic Tretton quote was buried somewhere in the story. The first quote was actually from a 32-year-old tech savvy entrepreneur who pretty much echoes a choir of consumers at this point saying, "There's no compelling reason for me to buy it ... There aren't enough good games for it. And it's too expensive." Don't expect Tretton to talk price drop anytime soon.
Kyoshi Shin of the International Game Developers Association is quoted saying, "When people talk about the PS3 on chat forums they say it's like going to a very expensive restaurant and not getting anything to eat." Maybe it's like a good expensive restaurant that takes time to prepare your meal? We hope to get our food soon though, we're getting hungry.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
2ez @ May 14th 2007 4:31PM
HEY... that guy still owes me money. What the fuck.
Roofie @ May 14th 2007 4:32PM
Starved for life.
Joshua @ May 14th 2007 4:32PM
Why not go to the restaurant next door that offers more food for lower prices, all available as soon as you walk in? ;)
As for the 10 year statement, there will obviously still be a PS4 in 2011 or thereabouts, but the PS3 could still slowly die for another five years, like the PS1 did and like the PS2 is doing now.
jason @ May 14th 2007 4:35PM
I saw that movie after reaadong the play lol
wackychan @ May 14th 2007 4:36PM
Heres where he is wrong. Without a decent install base in the first two years, developers are going to be making more games for Nintendo and Xbox 360. Then the snowball effect happens and Sony will not be rolling.
Matt B @ May 14th 2007 4:36PM
Wait... I thought it failed! I read many many posts here saying it had failed. Does that mean that those people had no idea what they were talking about? God, I feel so gullible and abused.
Phew... I forgot I make my own choices there for a second.
Matt B @ May 14th 2007 4:37PM
10 more years of flame wars FTW!!!!
Ryan P. @ May 14th 2007 4:38PM
I'm very surprised at Sony's approach with PS3. I thought they had allready tried the "high-end" experiment with the PSX and it completley tanked due to price.
There is a Jetsons type of techno elitism from the tech sector in general that thinks every one is going to jump on board and clamour for the most recent and expensive tech.
Both PS3 and blue-ray are dependant on HD-TV adoption, that is the main factor they are in denial of. The price just of those TV's just hasn't reached that sweet spot.
I do think PS3 will take off AND rule as soon as the HD-TV's price goes down. It just means they released the console 2 years too early.
Ryan
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 4:40PM
"PS3 could still slowly die for another five years, like the PS1 did and like the PS2 is doing now."
And here I could have sworn PS2 is STILL selling like hotcakes. Considering PS2 games constantly make charts and still remains within the targetting recticle of several major publishers, I don't see PS2 ruly dying anytime soon. People love to forget PS1 had Madden 2005...
tom @ May 14th 2007 4:42PM
10 years? that's the biggest load of marketing BS. Think back 10 years. PS1 and N64. Does ANYBODY think that the PS3 is going to be around in 10 years? Not even Sony does.
Kye @ May 14th 2007 4:42PM
It's Gandalf!
Back row, center!
required @ May 14th 2007 4:50PM
I think this article is relevant to this post:
http://archive.salon.com/tech/log/2000/10/27/playstation_rant/index.html
required @ May 14th 2007 4:51PM
btw, the PS2 is still selling well
bearattack79 @ May 14th 2007 4:55PM
10 YEARS! My 360 died after 10 months.
Im gonna have to buy like 14 Xbox360's.
Hey.... Ill duct tape them togeher and go to war with a country..... Staring at the sky. Hmmmmmm
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 4:59PM
@tom
Playstation production was finally ended on March 23, 2006. Think about that for a second. That means Playstation got an eleven year production run. PS2 is still running strong, unlike Gamecube and Xbox and looks to have at least another 5 years of life in the production runs (based upon the fact that PSX finally started slowing down dramatically in 2003 and here we are, not even the slightest sign of PS2 losing it's relevance). And if anything, PS2 will have a prolonged life just because of Wii as both companies feed off each others libraries.
So is it impossible to see PS3 in 10 years? Certainly not. Improbable maybe. But hell, look at how much support Sony sends their old hardware compared to the other two.
Almack64 @ May 14th 2007 4:59PM
@12
Let's just say reading that article was really weird. I felt like I was in some sort of bazazro world, where I know the future is totally different but all the facts in the article were true at the time. Oh that "wild card" the "X-Box". And Dreamcast FTW... man things just didn't turn out "right".
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 5:00PM
required, the PS2 was never $600. not in 2000, and certainly not now.
i know you've hit your post per thread limit now though. see ya next time.
.
Buckshot @ May 14th 2007 5:01PM
This fall after the price drop I will get one. Lack of good games being the main reason. Between newly built PC, 360, and Wii, I have a lot of good games, just wanting on the must have game for ps3.
MagWheels @ May 14th 2007 5:01PM
@required:
Wow, that Salon article is... spooky. I guess the more things change, the more they stay the same. Thanks for the link.
tom @ May 14th 2007 5:07PM
Just because production of the PSX only stopped a year ago has no bearing on it's actual lifespan as a viable platform for developing games. The PS2 is only barely holding onto it's viability through sheer size of install base, and even that is starting to be debatable as game sales have begun moving solidly to the next-gen counterparts. A game system is only as viable as the companies making games for it. So, again: Who in the world thinks there's still going to be major games developed for the PS3 in 10 years? 6 years? Maybe, but I'd bet $4.23 that in 6 years we see a PS4 and the decline of the PS3, and if PS3 sales don't pick up, then I bet we see a PS4 before that.
Jim @ May 14th 2007 5:07PM
1. Hilarious picture (although I guess the ladies see Jack Thompson...).
2. PlayStation 2 arrived in late 1999, so basically is in its eight year. From that perspective the 10y ps3 statement is not THAT absurd, I guess.
The_Unsane @ May 14th 2007 5:07PM
Maybe Sony deserves to fail if they have douchebags like that working for the company. To flat out lie to deflect some of the critisism is wrong. Own up dude. Your company has screwed itself so hard.
I'd just like one Sony employee to tell the truth "Well we had some douchebag who thought he was designing a system so killer that people would get second jobs and not notice that the Xbox360 is getting the same games. We were wrong and now we have to wait until we drop the price and some actual killer apps get released. Until then we are really screwed, but at least king dick had to retire because of this shit."
Almack64 @ May 14th 2007 5:08PM
@ Digi Small
First of all I'm a Ninendo/Sega fan (wow that's weird to say) While you're right to say that PS2 was not $600 so we're not in the same situtation. I think if you rationally take a minute to think about everything that 2000 article said, you can come to the conclusion that hstory does not always follow the path that it seems it will go down.
Right now Microsoft is doing good, Nintendo is doing amazing, and Sony isn't doing so well. (And Sega is no longer making consoles, there are cross pc/console games, and there is some strange craze for playing games on phones). All I'm saying who knows what the future will hold for video games.
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 5:10PM
I guess I could drive my point further as well. Right now on EBgames website, PS2 has 52 upcoming games listed. Gamecube and Xbox are both pretty much clean in this regard. And during this era of a consoles life, EB is not even remotely getting all the games. Lots of games translation rights are up in arms and we've yet to see the final rush of budget releases PSX received. PS2 is still a strong platform. Sonys challenge right now is merely getting the PS3 up to snuff for when all those new PS2 owners finally start to upgrade.
Right now? Next gen wars aren't even on the casual gamers radar. Too expensive. Now PS3 and 360 both need to drop prices before they can start to get the following they need to reach long term security.
But considering more and more games KEEP being announced for PS2, I don't expect the console to lose relevancy for a while.
Jonathan Tran @ May 14th 2007 5:13PM
@12
Reading that article was amazing. It was like reading old articles about "Iraq will fall within 2 months" articles. HA!
Crono @ May 14th 2007 5:21PM
The salon article is an interesting read, but hindsight is 20/20. No one will argue that the PS2 received its initial install base on hype alone (i mean, Fantavision as a launch title, WTF?) There was nothing worth playing on it, but people bought them due to hype, DVD playback, and backwards compatability.
They don't have the same set of cards this time. First of all, instead of being the "first" out, they are the last. Second there was no DVD format war in 2000, so getting a PS2 for DVD's was a no-brainer. 3rd, Nintendo has stolen Sony's new system hype. Additionally, consumers this time around are much more wise to Sony's marketing speak. Nobody believed Kutaragi when he said "Gaming in 4D" or "games running at 120 fps". All people heard was "Emotion Engine" and "Toy Story Graphics" all over again.
Plus, this is the first time in history where the successor console launched for twice the price of its predicessor.
Simply, in 2000, there was no viable alternate platform for Next gen gaming development. This time, there are 2.
sheppy @ May 14th 2007 5:22PM
In the article, somethings are relevant, others are not. For example, the leap from VHS to DVD was dramatic and apparent to anyone with any TV. Not so with the next gen formats. Also, yes, price has to be considered. Yes, Dreamcast versus PS2 was $200 vs $300 and now we are looking at $400 vs $600... BUT the 360 isn't having a mass attach rate in general showing that $400 is an extreme enough price... just imagine $600. Well, you don't have to imagine.. just look at the sales.
Also, to more grounding to the PS2 games number spouted earlier... Xbox 360 has 91 games on EBgames. For a console to truly be showing signs of death, wouldn't you expect the console the be receiving less than a quarter of new games than the current next gen leader? PS2 has legs, just as GBA won't die, neither will PS2.
haywood jablomey @ May 14th 2007 5:24PM
@22. I think Sony and the Bush admin. have the same PR people. "Whatever you do....NEVER, and we mean NEVER, admit that you screwed up."
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 5:32PM
Almack64, i agree with you, it's always a different situation (HDTV penetration, state of DVD vs. HD media, ONLINE, exclusivity deals etc etc.) and no one can tell what will happen, the point is neither can "required" and his cowardly mass hit-n-run postings.
.
Evan @ May 14th 2007 5:39PM
I think the *PS2* could stay relavent for a couple more years, and perhaps even last 10 years! I was in Japan recently, and PS2 games still commanded the premium display space in many stores! The powerhouses were clearly the DS and PS2, and all other systems appeared minor in comparison.
It's premature to predict the PS3's lifespan when the PS3 hasn't even established itself as the successor of the PS2 yet! In all Japanese stores I visited, the PS2 completely overshadowed the PS3! How can the PS3 be the successor to the PS2 when it's still overshadowed by the PS2? And, the way things are going portable in Japan, it's not even clear if they'll be a market for a major home-platform in a few years!
Mr Khan @ May 14th 2007 5:46PM
The point is that what Tretton means is that, in 2016 (going by 10 years from Launch), when the 9th generation of console gaming will be dawning (we are currently in the 7th), the PS3 will finally be replaced by the PS4
Think about that; he's saying that the console will be so relevant as to not need an upgrade not only against the Wii and 360, but ALSO not need an upgrade against the Xbox 1080 and Nintendo On (viable names both). Now the 10 year strategy could justify the price works, somewhat, because it could take 10 years for the price to finally get down to where the PS2 got after 6 years ($130), now, given Nintendo's new strategy to only upgrade technology as is cost effective, you could presume that the "On" might be technically on the level with the current PS3, but MS's strategy is a dark horse, depending on how they see the market in 5 years
it's still a pretty fucked up comment, though
required @ May 14th 2007 5:53PM
Crono, if it's true that some people bought the PS2 for DVD playback I think a lot of the same sort of people will be interested in things like: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=384
I personally don't care much for tethered consoles though. I prefer portable gaming, but I like what Sony is doing with the PS3. Once they emulate their location free player I might even consider buying one. I know I'd enjoy Planet Earth in HD.
Digi Smalls, in the year 2000 the iPod wasn't even born yet, however in 2001 the 5GB sold for $400.
SuicideNInja @ May 14th 2007 5:54PM
When talking about the PSX, people do need to keep in mind that it was selling well outside of the US for the last of it's production runs (but not necessarily inside). The PS2 started stepping in for the US during 2002-03.
I never really enjoyed gaming on the PS2 all that much though. There were some solid titles, but it never really motivated me as a gamer. I'm seeing the same situation with the PS3.
Decidedly, my PS3 is junk until it gets some games. I've had it for a few months now...and I just don't see any reason to use it unless someone wants to try a Blu-ray movie. I sure hope I don't have to wait half a decade before something happens with it. Those high-profile titles need to hurry up already.
Mr Khan @ May 14th 2007 5:57PM
pertaining to that Salon article
even though the PS2 looked to be the worse platform for 3rd party support on the outset, but what set it head-and-shoulders over the Dreamcast was the fact that Sony actually made a protracted effort to court developers, just as they did with the PSX, when compared to the Xbox and GC, however, PS2 was vastly superior for 3rd parties (the Xbox had its own monster of a processor for anyone not familiar with PC programming, and the GC had only 1/3 of the disc space)
the difference here is that Sony is not making that effort to get developers familiar with the CELL, they got arrogant, and assumed now that developers knew which platform was superior, and thus lost it
required @ May 14th 2007 5:58PM
Digi Smalls, if you find that my comments are "cowardly mass hit-n-run postings" I suggest that you step back from your computer and take a break from joystiq, because you are loosing it.
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 6:05PM
required, you bounce from thread to thread pasting the exact same link and then dont discuss it. thats the definition of a troll. no one likes trolls, or am i still *loosing* it?
required @ May 14th 2007 6:12PM
Digi Smalls,
I posted this link in two threads today. If that is what put the bee in your bonnet, then excuuuse me, I did not know you were so fragile. Thing is Digi Smalls, this is not a message board, it is a blog's comment area. I felt as if the link was worthy being mentioned here as well. Now please explain how posting said link warrants my full attention to be paid to you.
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 6:14PM
not just me, other people have responded here and on the previous blog comment area. so, comment.
required @ May 14th 2007 6:15PM
btw, I have been discussing it and I have been responding to your comments in kind, eventhough you're acting the way you are acting.
tactics @ May 14th 2007 7:04PM
heh. that salon article is a trip.
*sigh* gamecube. why!? i had so much faith.
yeah, that article is eerie. things are a bit different now though, as has been stated above. really though, who can afford a $600 console with so many other cool gadgets to buy out there (not to mention GAMES)? that's what gets me. i'm always spending money on other gadgets too... $250 worked for me. buying controllers (piece by piece...) at my own leisure worked too, and now buying games at 30, 40, and 50 bucks is working for me too.
it'd be great to be rich.
-"superfan" tactics.
Rubang B @ May 14th 2007 7:32PM
I think a lot of the PS2 owners ARE upgrading. They're getting a Wii and a 360 for less than the cost of a PS3 and 1 game.
In 10 years, if the PS3 is even affordable by then, it'll be too late. The Wii and 360 will have 81097501975 games out by then, and the PS3 will be getting its whopping 10th exclusive and a sequel to Super Rub a Dub II Hyper Edition.
laesperanzapaz @ May 14th 2007 7:37PM
PS3 is NOT PS2 or PS1. I know it's hard to accept, dear Sony preachers, but PS3's life span will be just a itty-bitty-bitty shorter than its predecessors, doncha think?
DesertEagle @ May 14th 2007 7:48PM
From the LA Times article:
"For now, Sony is still milking the PS2, with each sale producing $129 in profit."
So they can make PS2's for free now?
Digi Smalls @ May 14th 2007 8:04PM
required - didn't catch your point about the iPod?
required @ May 14th 2007 8:42PM
Digi Smalls, it has much to do about anything as the price of the PS2 (vs PS3) when it launched. Seven years ago gasoline was around $1.50/gallon, now it is around $3.50 and you can no longer buy a 5GB iPod but you can get a 80GB color one for $50 less than the original 5GB one. Point being, prices of goods are always in flux (de/inflation). Hell in 2000 the median price for a US home was around $120,000 now it is over $100,000 higher.
Rubang B @ May 14th 2007 8:49PM
The housing market sucks more than anything, the world is running out of gas and domestic gas prices depend on foreign supplies we can't control, and technological advancements make sure that tech is constantly getting cheaper. What's your point? If we actually stick to the technology aspect of your comment, iPods now have video and games and 16x the hard drive space for 87.50% of the price as the first music-only iPod, so shouldn't the PS3 in all its tech-spec glory be CHEAPER than the PS2? $600 is too much for games, and we hear the same message every month from NPD and the same message every week from Media Create.
The PS3 lasting ten years? In ten years I'll be playing virtual reality games in my flying car! HA!
Rubang B @ May 14th 2007 8:58PM
And when you take inflation into account, every Nintendo console has been cheaper than the last, and Sony is criminally insane. And since when did Microsoft replace Nintendo as the "wild card" of this generation? That still feels weird.
required @ May 14th 2007 9:15PM
Rubang B, the iPod of today is a different product than the original and if you'd read closely you'd notice the line where I said, "Point being...". Silly.
required @ May 14th 2007 9:21PM
btw, the original ipod is a collectors item today and just might fetch its original cost if you could find one ;)
Rubang B @ May 14th 2007 9:35PM
I can buy a new iPod that can do everything the old iPod can do and much more for less money.
I can buy a Wii that can do everything the GameCube can do and much more for a $50 price increase (only $23 after inflation).
I can buy a PS3 for TWICE the launch price of a PS2, and it can do much more, but it doesn't even have full backwards compatibility.
Which one of these 3 things isn't selling like free coffee and cigarettes at an A.A. meeting?