| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (70)

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:17PM SheppyReturns said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't wait to see this one explode.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:32PM Gun Barrier said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
lol i thought ur avatar was random marks, but now i see a siluette of a violinist on a roof!

Ha i doubt this news will cause any unnessesary explosions.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:17PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know, maybe Tretton should develop a multi-million selling piece of software.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
It's funny you say that when Activision's most only multi million game seller this year was on the PS2.

http://vgchartz.com/atotals.php?name=&console=&maker=Activision&boxartz=3
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:51PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Matt, if you stop splitting hairs and dissecting multiplatform games into console versions, they have quite a few multi-million sellers.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:20PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Anyone with reading comprehension skills would understand that I was referring to Jack Tretton himself. As in, "Maybe Jack Tretton should try to develop a multi-million selling piece of software." Just because it happened to show up on the PS2 doesn't mean that Tretton knows or knew anything about it, much less developed it. Thanks for wasting everybody's time though.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ummm, didn't Ken Kutaragi design the PS3? I highly doubt Jack Tretton had much to do with the design of the PS3 platform.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:18PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't think it's appropriate to post anything this guys says, ever again.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:41PM copa said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You're overreacting, jsn. This statement was taken out of context, and you didn't read the entirety of his remarks.

Tretton also said this it was inappropriate for consumers to suggest hardware price cuts. Or to ask for quality software titles. Or to ask for a robust online infrastructure. Or to ask for in-game XMB.

"Frankly," said Tretton, "if you aren't sheppy 2.0, you should just shut the fuck up and stop using the internet."
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Who is over reacting?
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:18PM Obienator said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"But I think they should be, because without the hardware manufacturer, the software manufacturer has nothing to publish on."

Actually, they will simply publish their games on systems that, you know...sell.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:22PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
I love how people try to claim that the ps3 doesnt sell even though it pretty much outsells every system outside of the us (as a majority).
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:25PM Obienator said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Sorry, Kaz.
I'll make sure to check my numbers next time. :/
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
itouchmyself,

What are you talking about? Outside of the US the PS3 out sells the 360 in some places and the Wii very ocassionally. What does it out sell consistently? The Vii? GBA SP? Sometimes the PS2?
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:59PM SSUK said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
WRE: Oh sorry, you meant Japan... I forgot that in America that America, Japan and Warland™ are the only places which exist.

Moron.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:23PM Dale P said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
@itouchmyself:

www.vgchartz.com

Or in case you're too lazy to look, the PS3 trails the Wii, Xbox 360, DS and PSP in every territory except Japan, where it only beats the Xbox 360.

It's catching up to the Xbox 360 despite that system's year lead, but the three systems that outsell it everywhere - the Wii, DS and PSP - cost far less money than both.

I don't think it's inappropriate for software publishers to talk about how a price cut for a system will increase its sales and thus the sales of their software. What Mr Tretton seems to forget is that just as the publishers need systems to publish for, a system needs games or it will die on its arse.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 8:49PM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I went to Warland for vacation last summer. Nice place, a little too much war though.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Why does Tretton say this? There is no need for him to say this right? He doesn't want publishers to even remotely think that he is not appreciating them right?

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Exactly. I read this and shake my head because as a PS3 owner, I want better games and features on it. But I can see from a software publisher and designer point of view, this alludes to an "I don't care about you" vibe from Sony.

How about this, no one that collects a check from Sony do an interview with anyone except for Sony's PR people until all the execs take a PR course.

GOD, they don't know how not to burn down bridges! Do Sony NOT relize that they are the THIRD leading game console maker now (do you REALLY want to count the PS2 as part of the equation)? Not to mention that Nintendo literally cannot make Wiis fast enough...
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
$399 is a more than fair price-point for the ps3, considering how much the thing actually costs to make, and how much money Sony is losing. Wii is overpriced, and 360 is slightly overpriced. However, until software proves that good hardware is worth anything at all, it wont be in the eyes of consumers.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:37PM LaughingTarget said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
The value is relative. It doesn't matter if it costs a lot to make. I could find a way to make a dog turd cost $500 but that doesn't mean anyone is willing to buy it for that much. $399 is overpriced for anyone that doesn't view BluRay and the various other multimedia functions it comes with as valuable.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 9:39PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It must have been a real steal at five hundred and ninety nine US dollars then!
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:23PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Activision's prediction of a $199 PS3 in 2 years was pretty ridiculous (360 *might* make it there. PS3? Impossible). That said, Jack should probably have just ignored this one and kept his big mouth shut. No good can come from him mouthing off like this (or being perceived to mouth off).

Come to think of it, that's pretty good advice for him in general.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
But all he is really saying is, is that "Don't tell me how to price my product and I won't tell you how to price yours."
I know it's almost set up to be flaimbait, but it isn't at all.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:39PM scratchh said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
i agree that Tretton should have kept his mouth shut on this one, just cause Sony can't afford to antagonize anyone, let alone Activision Blizzard right now. That's the price of being a CEO, you can't call people idiots, even when they are.
That being said, I think it is ridiculous for Kotick to suggest that the PS3, or really any hardware *needs* to hit a certain price point within a given time-frame. Look at the NPD figures for November. Is the games industry really hurting? I don't think so.
If anything, I think games *need* to be f'ing $50 again. Screw this $60 shite. I'm sure that publishers would argue that the costs of making games is skyrocketing, blah blah blah.
Well the same argument goes for making the PS3. It sure as hell costs sony more than $400 to make. So should they slash the price to $200 and go bankrupt just so Activision Blizzard can make twice as much next year? Ridiculous.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:38PM LaughingTarget said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
So, who told everyone to start charging an extra $10 more?

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:43PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If the biggest third party publisher came up with their own hardware platform, Sony would be fucked. And so would Microsoft.

Nintendo would be ok, because nobody buys 3rd party stuff on their platforms anyway.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:44PM Yuccadude said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because people can't play games without their PS3 or 360 or Wii right? Wrong Mr Tretton, there is this little old machine called a PC, and there are plenty of publishers who only make PC games. Imagine that.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:01PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
and i'd hate to be stuck in that market unless i'm an MMORPG fan, cause it's doing pretty poor everywhere else
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:17PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Plus the complete and total lack of PC standardization, and the fact that they break down infinitely more easily than consoles (well, except the 360, but that's a special case, and 360 still beats it in terms of firmware solidarity, Windows on a Dell PC = Bugfest, and that represents a good number of people)

PC gaming is not a bad platform, but you cannot build a AAA blockbuster and expect it to sell (see, Crysis sales v. Call of Duty 4), if you want to break out in PC's, you have to use DC era graphics, like WoW
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:45PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
How bout instead of defending your price, you grow some balls and release the Rock Band patch in spite of Activision's objections.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:16PM SheppyReturns said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
FidliousWong fully endorses this comment.

Then again, if Sony does this, they have two months of being a hero for consumers, five years of "hahas" because Activision won't release PS3 games. Gamers have very short memories. Gerstmannsgate?
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:52PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bah, screw Tretton. The EA guy is right. A universal open standard console would be better for everyone except Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:13PM Anticrawl said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It would be better for everyone except consumers, who would lose control over the quality of said console and games if there weren't a choice between them. Without the consoles competeing we would not see any noticeable change in hardware in support with each new console.

I guess you're the kinda guy who likes the idea of communism. The idea of a utopian society where everything is equal and controlled.

I hope you get hit by a truck or leave our capitalist society and start you're own backwards society somewhere else.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:19PM Mr Khan said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
They would lose control of console quality, yes, but i think game quality would go up if all publishers had to compete with each other

Imagine a world where EVERYONE had to worry about competing with Halo, Mario, Smash Bros, Gran Turismo, etc, that would be better

Right on the console quality though, last time they tried an industry standard, they created the 3DO...
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:44PM Batzarro The worlds WOrst Detect said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sure, cause they're gonna just stand around while that happens!
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 5:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, it would be much better for consumers. Think about it. A large group of publishers comes together in a standards consortium and agree upon a standard. Then, different hardware manufacturers all work to produce various hardware units that are all capable of playing all of the same games. Competition amongst manufacturers combined with decreasing production costs rapidly drive the price down, creating smooth transitions between one generation and the next.

In the end, consumers have one cheap console that can run all games. Larger publishers and developers don't have to worry about working on multiple platforms. Smaller developers and publishers benefit from decreased licensing fees and consumers having more money to spend. The only losing party is the big three console companies because they can't control the industry. It won't happen, but I really don't see why it would be such a terrible thing.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 5:35PM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Carter. Go wiki "3DO". It was the platform that was EXACTLY what you just described.

It was a colossal failure. Worse than Virtual Boy.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 5:52PM Ludwig Kietzmann said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
MOAR LIEK 3D0NO, amirite?

Actually, the 3DO wasn't backed by software publishers (outside of EA) and still had competition in the form of the PlayStation. It was manufactured by different hardware companies, but it was far from being a universal console (not to mention the fact that it cost $700). The success of a "universal" console is largely reliant on it being the only console supported by all software developers. That wasn't the case with the 3DO.
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2007 11:03AM Crono141 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So what your saying is, the universal console wasn't able to compete with a proprietary console.

Thanks for proving the point. There is no way in hell Microsoft, Sony, and ESPECIALLY Nintendo would agree to a standard platform to put games on.

Will. Never. Happen.
Reply

Posted: Dec 18th 2007 1:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
But I agreed that it will never happen. I was just saying it would be better if it did.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 3:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
It's good to see Sony learning from their past mistakes of arrogant statements alienating everyone from their console.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:00PM The Fuzz 53 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Jackie boy still owes me about $30,000. When's he going to fork it up?

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:02PM BananaBoat said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Sony has been setting the price for games since the PS1. Never tells them what to price their games at...what a load of crap. I'm not sure who is worse with the market BS speak; Tretton or Hirai.

199 would be a joke for a PS3 though. 399 truly is the sweet spot right now, but I'd like to see a 300 dollar model with backwards compatibility before E3. Too late for me though, I just bit on an 80gb bundle.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:28PM Crono141 said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
399 sweet spot? you're out of your fucking mind.
Reply

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:05PM JimJim said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
*lollerskates*

Sony is really afraid.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:12PM ThornedVenom said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Last time I checked, the PS3 needed software, not vice versa, otherwise it'd be ported to the 360.


He's in no situation to make such statements.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:14PM Slaziman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't see this one exploding, I mean, he just made a truthful thing, there is nothing to flame.

Posted: Dec 17th 2007 4:15PM iCSpEEdRaCeR said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Activision should shut up and give it's own consumers a price cut - Let Harmonix release the PS3 Rock Band patch so that those of us with both games can use the guitar we bought in the GH3 bundle for Rock Band.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW