Sony's Peter Dille: 'We're attacking online very, very aggressively'
by Ludwig Kietzmann 
{ Jul 25th 2007 at 1:25PM }
However, a serious omission is a dependable online standard for those developers less enthused by the network nitty-gritty. You can be sure that Virtua Tennis 3 and Virtua Fighter 5 aren't trapped in the offline realm due to the PlayStation 3's lack of technical cooperation. If you want to attack (each other) online very, very aggressively, you'll have to do it on the Xbox 360.
That's another subject Dille responded quite candidly to, noting that Microsoft's inconsistent design precludes it from partaking in the ten-year life cycle coveted by the PS3. "Some of them have a hard drive, and some of them don't," he said. "None of them have a Blu-ray player, and the HD-DVD will be out of business in a matter of months. Is this a ten-year product?" Naturally, no answer to that question would be without a jab at the system's notoriously unreliable hardware. "By the way, it doesn't even work, so do they want to be selling it for ten years and refurbishing them all for ten more years? I don't think that's a ten-year product. You or they could disagree with me, but I'd put that up against the PS3 anyday."
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Erwos @ Jul 25th 2007 1:28PM
That picture is priceless, especially given the subject context.
Anonim @ Jul 25th 2007 1:33PM
*Snicker*
BTW. Lovely jab at RROD.
Will MS counter with jab that their paperweights last longer than ten years and doesn't cost 600$?
bob8807 @ Jul 25th 2007 1:49PM
It's people like Peter Dille and Anonim (above me) that make me embarassed to own a PS3. It's an alright console, but the 360 is far better, and until you own them both this is something you'll never realize.
What? @ Jul 25th 2007 2:33PM
Indeed, like myself who owns both the 360 and PS3, Have had to Send my 360 back twice and am looking forward to more games that are coming out on the PS3. Don't get me wrong they are both good systems unless your one of the unlucky 1/3... twice.
Anticrawl @ Jul 25th 2007 4:57PM
Oh yeah they're attacking online aggressively. It's remnicent of when they capped old yeller..
Karn Eggie @ Jul 25th 2007 1:29PM
i have a PS3 but my concern is HOW LONG will it be free? i would liek to be assured that i wont have to pay for online, only map packs and new materials not for games already purchased!
first post!!!
DBX00 @ Jul 25th 2007 1:33PM
This interview is old; I wouldn't worry about paying for the service since as it grows they can easily offset costs with advertisements in Home or first party software sales. The key to Sony not having to charge is that it gives them another platform to distribute their OWN content. They really need to hurry up and get their movies and music up on the store b/c that would become a huge profit center and you can bet it would mean more free stuff to entice people to use the service.
WizarDru @ Jul 25th 2007 1:33PM
"The other offerings are just fine, and they do things really well, but that's not to say that we feel like we have to do everything they're doing."
Are you sure this guy works for SONY marketing? Because this sounds reasonable and competent, and that really hasn't been one of their hallmarks for a long time.
Sederien @ Jul 25th 2007 3:10PM
"None of them have a Blu-ray player, and the HD-DVD will be out of business in a matter of months. Is this a ten-year product?"
Yes. We can be reasonably sure he is. ;)
WiNG @ Jul 25th 2007 1:34PM
does "10 yr product" even MEAN anything at this point?
I mean who will be using a Wii, 360 or PS3 in 10 years?
By then we will have flying cars, so fuck video games.
poprocker @ Jul 25th 2007 3:31PM
lmao! love it!!
Stevo @ Jul 25th 2007 1:35PM
I love the '10 year life-cycle' argument that Sony uses to damage control. The Wii and Xbox 360 will definitely be onto another generation within 5 years...so do they really believe the upside of the PS3 will be able to compete with Next-Next-Gen consoles?
I've given thought to the theory that if the PS3 fulfills enough of its ever-decreasing potential, it will become the PS2 in the year 1014 and will be the kind of console everyone buys because it costs $100 and the next Xbox costs $500. Even if this happens, in a purely hypothetical (and optimistic) scenario, the 10-year lifecycle is a pussy way for Sony to squirm out of the fact they've fucked up.
Matt B @ Jul 25th 2007 2:39PM
And please tell us how they fucked up. I'd really like to know. I want facts, not the usual tripe of no games and price. All my games play wonderful and price wasn't a hindrance.
Jason @ Jul 25th 2007 3:05PM
Sorry, those ARE facts. I bet those are the two most common reasons people are not buying. If it had more great games (exclusives) people could overlook the price. If it was cheaper, people could overlook the lack of games. Currently though, the general public has decided to wait it out. F-A-C-T
Stevo @ Jul 25th 2007 3:25PM
Jason's covered this pretty well, so I won't go into it too much. I think it's great that price isn't a hindrance to you, Jason-- but most consumers don't have the money (nor desire) to drop $600 for AA games like Motorstorm and Resistance.
The hardware is the main place I think Sony screwed up. The Cell processor was touted to redefine graphical and processing power on a console and has, so far, been anything but that. There is still yet to be a multiplatform game on PS3 that clearly outperforms the X360 counterpart while the "Best Versions" continue to roll to the Xbox.
Sony has taken plenty of losses on exclusive content in North America and so far Sony's few exclusive titles have been nothing to brag about.
...lol, why am I arguing w/ a PS3 fanboy?...
Collie @ Jul 25th 2007 10:42PM
Look at it from Sony's perspective: they are making boatloads of money of the PS2 right now - supertankersize. From their cashflow model point of view 10 year life cycle is a very good thing, even if next next gen starts in year 5 or 6 or 7.
vidGuy @ Jul 25th 2007 1:35PM
"content from previous generations" - Oh, so that's not Playstation games on the PSN?
Is it just me or are Sony's executives getting more fanboyish and more offensive as time goes on? I've seen some mud-slinging from MS and Nintendo, but not nearly this much.
And somebody edit that pic to have the names say "Sony" and "online". Gold I say!
Richard Mitchell @ Jul 25th 2007 1:35PM
This "10 year" talk is getting old. Of course, it's in Sony's best interest to have a console that lasts for 10 years, but I doubt the average gamer thinks about it on a daily basis. Stick with making good games, the life cycle will follow.
borland502 @ Jul 25th 2007 3:02PM
"This "10 year" talk is getting old."
Even as a Sony fan, I might have agreed with you in the PS1 generation. However, the fact that the PS2 is still going strong means that there is some truth to that boast. I think only the Wii is outselling the PS2 week by week.
However, that assumes the widespread adoption of the PS3 to get the life extension given to the PS2.
Penguin Warlord @ Jul 25th 2007 1:37PM
HD DVD out in a matter of months? Yeah right. I'm not saying that it will win in the end but it willl atleast take a couple of years for it to go unless Sony can some up with some crazy new innovation (note Sony's recent trackrecord shows that their "innovations" are actually just copies). Plus Xbox Live kicks ass. Sony could use the argument that people will prefer the playstation network because it's free but then you have to go and look at a game like WoW over 9 million users and 5 months costs the same as a year of Xbox Live.
tcc3 @ Jul 25th 2007 1:37PM
Maybe they should worry bout how to sell PS3s *this* year.
CaptNink @ Jul 25th 2007 1:37PM
I cringe every time I hear Sony tout the PS3 as a "10-year product". This is not a good thing! Video game consoles and computers are not future-proof—there is no such thing!
Technology advancements are not linear, they expand exponentially. With that kind of change, why would you lock yourself in to a product spec for 10 years?
Negativecool @ Jul 25th 2007 1:50PM
Well said [+]
Matt B @ Jul 25th 2007 2:48PM
Would you pay $500 for a 10 year product or $400 for a 5 year product or $250 for a 2-3 year product?
For me, it looks better to say that they are standing behind this product for at least 10 years. How long has MS or Nintendo claimed to stand behind their products?
Jouten @ Jul 25th 2007 3:12PM
According to all the Sony Fanboys, it's a 'Sony Thing' and you wouldn't understand.
And WE don't.
Matt B @ Jul 25th 2007 3:48PM
Because you are narrow minded and short sighted. Sony is not going to abandon the PS3 after a year of low sales. More games will come more systems will sell. It's a long race.
Revo @ Jul 25th 2007 9:26PM
Matt B, don't kid yourself. Sony's milking the 10-year argument because they have nothing going for them at this point in time but want to sustain the illusion that they'll somehow become wildly successful in the future. In reality, a console's sales is the most important factor in its lifespan, and that means that as of now the Wii is the 10-year product and the PS3 the 2-3 year one. Not saying that will happen, mind you, just that it's much more likely than the scenario you're suggesting.
Sure, you can go Sony's route and believe they'll make a miraculous turnaround... just make sure you realize that it would go completely against all reason (consoles with low installed bases attract fewer developers, meaning fewer games, meaning continued low installed base, etc.) and all precedents in videogame history (no console has ever come back to prominence from this far behind).
Matt B @ Jul 25th 2007 9:55PM
If things never change REVO, how come NINTENDO is doing so well?
Revo @ Jul 26th 2007 12:02AM
Way to misquote. Where did I say things never change? What I said was that it's just stupid to believe a console can make complete 180º turnaround smack in the middle of its lifespan.
UltimaAvalon @ Aug 1st 2007 4:48PM
Isn't that what happened to the original XBox though? At first I thought Microsoft was stupid for even considering entering the console market, then Fable, Morrowind, and Halo came and I couldn't wait to get one
DBX00 @ Jul 25th 2007 1:37PM
Plenty of people are still buying and using the PS2 long into its lifecycle; you don't have to be the best product on the market to have a lifecycle. Unlike the other two guys, Sony continues support for their last generation (hence a 10 year life cycle). I'm sure they'll come out with another console for the next-next generation.
vidGuy @ Jul 25th 2007 1:47PM
Yes, the Playstation and PS2 had/have long lifecycles. But they were adopted quickly and continuously. The PS2 sold more than 3 times the number of consoles in its first 8 months as the PS3 has. It starts the cycle that keeps the system alive - people buy the console, so developers make games for the console, so more people buy the console... If there were very few games on the PS2 that weren't on a cheaper console, do you think people would still be buying the PS2?
The point is, if the PS3 doesn't get its act together, it won't have a full five year lifecycle, let alone ten year. They have to show the developers that their system is where the money is or there won't be any reasons for people to buy the console in the future.
Marasai @ Jul 25th 2007 2:05PM
That is because they can. If the ps3 doesn't do as well as hoped (a shocking situation, i know) then just watch them dump it. Do you really think if they don't win this generation they will waste effort on holding up what was a failed console? No, they are gonna go head first into the PS4, just like MS did this time.
Fanboys need to look at history. This isn't a unique sony philosophy, it is simple business. Nintnedo supported the NES for 2 years into the 16bit generation...because at that point, it was raw profit.
oldschoolgamer @ Jul 25th 2007 2:33PM
"Unlike the other two guys, Sony continues support for their last generation (hence a 10 year life cycle)"
Here's the problem with your argument. SONY isn't providing the support. Their ps2 support is coming primarily from 3rd PARTY COMPANIES. As long as third party companies continue to support your system you will have viability unless (like Nintendo)you have first party support that can match third party support. Sony never had to really worry about 1st party support because of the number of ps2s sold the last generation so they didn't focus on it. Now that they don't have the largest installed user base with the next-generation they're having problems because without 3rd party exclusives there really is no reason to get your system. Unless of course you offer a better version of those games or can offer them at a cheaper price. Sony presently can do neither. Sony is being very cocky to make the assumption that:
1.Their system will still be a viable platform for gaming for ten years. That is a long time to make predictions over.
and 2.Third party companies will continue to decide to release exclusive content on their system to the point where it justifies purchasing your system.
If they can barely get exclusive content now how will they manage that over the course of 10 years? And what happens when they decide they need to upgrade their hardware to match the competition? I guarantee you that if it happens before 10 years is up alot of people are going to be pissed. ("I thought they were in this for a ten years time span. They lied!") I think that is Sony's biggest problem. They need to think before they start making statements. And who's to know how reliable ps3 hardware is? Of course it is doing better than the 360 right now. But anytime you have technology that is composed of so many different components you're bound to have problems over time. Will the ps3 blue diodes wear out due to frequent use for movies and gaming? Will the rumored blu-disc rotting become a more serious problem as blu-ray discs get older? Something to think about.
FrankTheCrank @ Jul 25th 2007 1:38PM
Ten Year Life Cycle....blah blah blah...
People don't buy systems because they have a "life cycle", just ask XBOX 1 owners. Sure the PS2 has been out for 7 years this fall and it's still selling, but it's not because of it's life cycle. It's because of the games that are available and the price of the system/games. It's been an incredible platform.
Just concentrate on game development and stop talking about life cycles. It's a solid system, now just work on development and forget about the competition.
Taco_Hell @ Jul 25th 2007 1:39PM
So, according to him, the games don't make the live-spawn of a system, its the hardware. Also, he seems to forget about the people who bought the PS3 with the 20GB HDD who have no HDMI or most of the features that the 60/80GB ones have. And about the whole RROD thing, I've had my 360 since launch and have been constantly playing it for hours, and still it has not RROD on me, same goes for my friends who own a 360 so its reliability has never been a problem for me, but thats just my 2 cents.
NotNormal23224 @ Jul 25th 2007 1:44PM
The 20GB PS3 had HDMI, that's how mine is hooked up right now. It's missing Wifi and memory card readers, that's it (oh and I've upgraded the drive to 120GB). If you must bash be accurate.
James @ Jul 25th 2007 1:45PM
ALL PS3's come with HDMI, even the 20 GB. The 20 GB lacked Wi-fi... it was basically the same thing as an Elite but with Premium sized hard drive.
FrankTheCrank @ Jul 25th 2007 1:50PM
Taco,
It's just a matter of time. RROD will rear it's ugly head when you least expect it. Just ask my nephew, he's on number two. He just got his this last Christmas. His friends went as well.
It's just too bad.
Aex @ Jul 25th 2007 1:50PM
... The 20gb PS3 DID have hdmi o.o
The only differences between the 20gb and the 60gb were wireless, chrome, memory stick reader, oh, and 40gb.
Taco_Hell @ Jul 25th 2007 1:56PM
Ah...don't I feel like an idiot now. I forgot what the 20GB didn't have from the 60GB one since all I remember from looking at it is go "Holy crap! Why the hell would anyone the 20GB then!?" Thanks for correcting me.
J.Goodwin @ Jul 25th 2007 1:42PM
Yeah, pretty sure this interview has already made the rounds (right before E3 proper started, I think). Either that, or Sony's handing out a talking points memo for all their staff.
mfed3 @ Jul 25th 2007 1:46PM
once again...GAMING CONSOLE. FOR GAAAMEESSS. all of his defense is about a freaking dvd player. die sony
Watership @ Jul 25th 2007 1:53PM
I want a game machine. Stop shoving the "10 year life cycle at me" Sony. Stop telling me that the 360 doesn't have the right HD player. 360 has been doing online games for almost 2 years. Catch up or shut up.
Buckshot @ Jul 25th 2007 1:56PM
Hah, HD-DVD has outsold blu-ghey in europe, and $ony claims it will be out of business, they need to check the numbers before they start talking shit. Yet another joke of PR for $ony and their gameless system. But the free "Ricky Bobby" rules...
Phranctoast @ Jul 25th 2007 2:36PM
Let see the numbers. I really interested to see proof of hddvd selling more in Europe than blu ray. Do you have a link?
King of all the Cosmos @ Jul 25th 2007 2:51PM
http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/18/hd-dvd-touts-sales-growth-over-blu-rays-decline/
Wes @ Jul 25th 2007 10:23PM
Phranctoast, I'm not sure sir, but I think you may have just got SERVED.
Also thanks for the link Cosmo, it was an interesting read. I've always felt a bit nervous about hd-dvd to be honest. A bit concerned it would die but I think I might shell out the $200.00 bucks in a year or two or however long it takes my local blockbuster to carry them.
Snukadaman @ Jul 25th 2007 1:58PM
im starting too think that 10 year lifecycle bullshit is just a subliminal message too ease you into thinking your going too get value in your 600 dollar purchase....oh excuse me..500 dollar purchase
Martez @ Jul 25th 2007 2:04PM
Playstation's online network needs more zazz.