Stringer tips hat to Nintendo's 'superior business model'

by James Ransom-Wiley { Aug 28th 2008 at 4:45PM }

Sony CEO Howard Stringer has rightfully conceded that Nintendo has executed a winning business plan. "Nintendo makes money with the hardware alone," Stringer observed in a recent interview with WELT Online, adding that the competitor's strategy "may be a superior business model, but the Wii is not succeeding at our expense -- it is not hurting [PlayStation 3]." No, PlayStation 3 is hurting PlayStation 3. When questioned about the possibility of recouping the $3.32 billion loss attributed to the console's launch, Stringer joked, "Not for as long as I live." Wait a sec, was that a joke?

[Via Edge Online]

Tags: howard-stringer, nintendo, sony

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Fernando Rocker @ Aug 28th 2008 4:56PM

Well... now Nintendo has enough money to make a very advanced console, and next gen Sony would not want to make some risky decisions.

Funny thing is, people here (specially Sony fanboys) bash Nintendo saying that they are not graphical powerhouses or that they make inferior hardware, but don't remember that both the N64 and Gamecube were far more powerful than the PSX and PS2 (specially the Gamecube and Nintendo games compared to the PS2).

The Wii is the only Nintendo console that is underpowered compared to the competition, but believe, if the Wii had the same graphics capabilities than the PS3, Nintendo would create far better looking games than Sony.

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 28th 2008 5:01PM

You'll never learn will you fernando. Having the possibility of superior graphics doesn't mean shit if no one takes advantage of that. There wasn't 1 game on the N64 that looked better than the FF games at the time, and ridiculously few gamecube games that looked anywhere near as good as the top ps2 games.

Even if they were more powerful systems, nintendo and just about everyone else failed to do anything with it.

TwEE @ Aug 28th 2008 5:03PM

Have you played any games for the N64 or Playstation before tmacairjordan87?

atrimus @ Aug 28th 2008 5:05PM

i guess Microsoft's off in lala land, huh Fernando?

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 28th 2008 5:06PM

Yeah, and ocarina of time for example looks nowhere near as good as Gran Turismo 2 or FF 8.

Fernando Rocker @ Aug 28th 2008 5:07PM

What game has the best graphics on PS2? God of War II?

Metroid Prime I, a 2002, looks better than that game. Heck, God of War II relies a lot in fixed camera angles to achieve those graphics. It doesnt even has the same lighting effects as Metroid Prime.

And you always bash Nintendo games, but I bet that you havent played Metroid Prime 1. and I have played god of War II and a lot of ps3 games, alomost every day, and let me tell you. There is no Ps3 game that cant be done on the 360. and that is a fact.

Mr Khan @ Aug 28th 2008 5:09PM

Ocarina of Time, yes, but look at Majora's Mask, or Conker's Bad Fur Day, or Star Wars: Battle for Naboo

The N64 produced some great stuff, it was sadly limited (once again) by its use of cartridges, which meant that they couldn't store as many textures or as complex of textures on the medium

Danny F. @ Aug 28th 2008 5:09PM

Nintendo been having the money to make a killer system. They just decided to stick with that model of a system to begin with.. i guess u can say it worked business wise.

Stringer is right, business wise Nintendo is killing... but with the gaming consumers it doesnt seem like nintendo has much, and they could do soo much better with the software. But Nintendo has always been targeted to the hardcore nintendo fans when it comes to first party games. While MS and Sony have had much more success with First and Thrid party games.

Nintendo is gonna smell like a rose no matter what in the end, but I still cannot think of a single person who plays the wii to this day on a regular basis.. mine still collects dusts every day..

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 28th 2008 5:11PM

Woah there fernando, twist my words some more why don't you. Who said anything about the 360?

Gran Turismo 4 is probably the best looking game on the ps2 IMO. God of war, while looking good is mostly due to a unique art style. There is nothing on the gamecube that equals GT4 graphically.

Slayer @ Aug 28th 2008 5:13PM

@Fernando Rocker

Didn't use to bash Sony a lot?

Zertoss @ Aug 28th 2008 5:14PM

The PSX games I remember (like FF8) were really jagged and blocky, like the pixels are HUGE. The N64 games were a lot smoother.

Of course, that's what happens when you compare software rendering to hardware rendering. Of course, Fernando already said the N64 was technically superior to the PSX, so what's the argument again?

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 28th 2008 5:19PM

The N64 games were just as jagged. Download an emulator and play them again and you'll see how bad it was. I still have a lot of ps1 games on disc and all of the good N64 games on my computer. While both are jaggy as hell, the PS games have better overall graphics.

Zertoss @ Aug 28th 2008 5:21PM

You can't compare them using emulators! That's like comparing colors while looking through rose-tinted glasses.

"Uh, they all look pink!"

Rodrigo @ Aug 28th 2008 5:24PM

fernando, i had a gamecube and a ps2 and to me the ps2 had always better graphics than the gamecube the only game that i think was better in the gamecube was RE4 but it was very hard to tell... ohhh and God of War 2 kicks the shit out of any of your nintendo games

deaftly @ Aug 28th 2008 5:29PM

I like turtles.

Cody @ Aug 28th 2008 5:30PM

Why are you all trying to rationalize with tmacjordan??

samfish @ Aug 28th 2008 5:34PM

Because arguing with bricks is fun, cody.

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 28th 2008 5:41PM

N64 emulators have evolved to the point where they run the games 100% like they were on the N64 if you have a computer that isn't 10 years old. Hell, they were like that 5 years ago too.

Dopple Boppler @ Aug 28th 2008 5:42PM

"few gamecube games that looked anywhere near as good as the top ps2 games."

Launch day Rogue Leader says "sup"

Also I like how we're having retroactive fanboy wars. As pointless as arguing about this stuff and making up false information (see the quote above) is, pointless arguing and making up false information about video games up to 14 years old is both deliciously and horribly idiotic.

tmacairjordan87 @ Aug 28th 2008 6:00PM

As I said, nothing on the gamecube equals GT4 graphically.

Jack of No Trades 85 @ Aug 28th 2008 6:02PM

Still to this day I love my 64. Jet Force Gemini, Top Gear(the one that release with the ram expansion for the 64), Perfect Dark, Goldeneye, V8, all were very pretty games for the gen.

Now the PS2 and Gamecube were pretty close. PS2 had better textures, but the Gcube had smoother looking games and brighter colors.

Superstar90 @ Aug 28th 2008 6:10PM

I don't know how this argument never got resolved, the GC > PS2 hardware-wise. There is no need to argue something that was settled back in like 2002. While some PS2 games look better than some GC games, overall the GC is stronger than PS2.

Take for example how Capcom made RE4 for GC, one of the best looking games of last-gen, then when they ported it over to PS2 they had to lower the graphics.

http://www.gameswelike.com/web/re/RE%20Comp.htm

So stop your stupid arguing.

doom saber @ Aug 28th 2008 6:10PM

@zertoss

Well, the n64 had a blending effect fliter, which blurred out the pixels, but at the same time, made the graphics in several games like Duke Nukem and Doom, washed out.

Honestly, having such a feature, imo, wouldnt be considered as better graphics since it is a fliter. It makes the game look nice, but all in all, it is just a fliter.

With emulators, you can turn on and off the fliter to see how the game would look if it didn't have it. I think that is what the other poster was gettin to about using an emulator.

Killjebus @ Aug 28th 2008 7:00PM

The N64 had MUDDY textures and FOG everywhere. The 64 and GameCube had some advantages over the PS1 and PS2, but they also had some DISadvantages.

Overall, the PS1 produced better textures but less polygons, the PS2 had way better particle effects and textures but more jaggies.

The N64 and GameCube were comparable to the PS1 and PS2. The Wii is NO WHERE NEAR either the 360 or the PS3. The Wii is MUCH CLOSER to the PS2 and Xbox.

Nintendo is like the Ferengi...PROFIT means everything and they do whatever they have to too get the most profit.

NO matter how you Plumberbois spin....you still come back around to where you began...the GAMECUBE.

I see as everyone does what the PS3 is capable of...I see the Wii as a SAD SAD system horribly gimped to the point of pointing and laughing.

Now, sit on it and spin away Fernandos and pals.

Mr Khan @ Aug 28th 2008 7:55PM

I for one utterly enjoyed the GameCube, and was totally satisfied with the shortcomings. Adding some extra graphical power, an actual OS, WiFi, and Waggle satisfies me completely

But that's just me. GC ruled.

Zertoss @ Aug 28th 2008 8:33PM

@doom saber

You're absolutely right, the N64 used bilinear and trilinear filtering on textures to smooth them out. The PSX and Saturn both used nearest neighbor interpolation, which is what made the textures appear blocky. Neither were capable of bilinear or trilinear filtering.

Since it was all done by the hardware, you can't disregard that when comparing their capabilities.

Also, fact checked myself. The PSX was capable of hardware rendering, it had a dedicated GPU capable of 2D and 3D rendering. My bad.

jimmygotsmack @ Aug 28th 2008 9:27PM

All in agreement that tmacairjordan87 is too fanboy to listen to reason say I.

"Grand Turismo 4 was the best looking game on the ps2, and look better then anything the gamecube did, LALALALALALALA CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALALALALA YOUR LOGIC WILL NOT WORK ON ME, LALALALALALALA"

The resident evil 4 comparison should be more then enough for anyone. I have no idea wtf you are even talking about now. Not to mention car models aren't really much to go by, but if you want, need for speed? NASCAR 2005? Don't let motion blur fool you.

The ps2 could never run metriod prime, but sci-fi games might through you off, if you keep bring up GT4 as some sort of good game.

PS1 = Blocky texture and models
N64 = smoother texture, models that actually had figures, but extremely repetitive textures.

Final Fantasy games? You mean the cut scenes or the actual game play. If I remember, the backgrounds where pre-rendered, so if we go by that logic, then resident-evil remake on the GC looks far better to gt4.

If we go by the actual fight sequences, they look pretty but keep in mind only a few characters are even on screen at a time. Not to mention non of the characters even had appendages like FINGERS. Perfect dark "or golden eye even" had models that look about as detailed, but MANY of them could be on the screen at once. While FF games seemed to have a problem with anything more then 5-8. "I'm not sure how many guys you ever faced at once, but I hardly remember fights where there was more then 5 targets. When ever you used a summon, EVERYONE ONE THE SCREEN DISAPPEARS, until it is done!!!

BigD145 @ Aug 28th 2008 4:58PM

Blu-Ray won but at what cost? I wouldn't call debt a "win."

Slayer @ Aug 28th 2008 5:14PM

@Fernando Rocker

Didn't you use to bash Sony a lot?

Slayer @ Aug 28th 2008 5:15PM

Dammit..when is this fucking comment system going to be fixed?

Phantom @ Aug 28th 2008 6:10PM

No the win comes in a few years when DVD is gone and people have to buy Blu-Ray .

Levi @ Aug 28th 2008 6:30PM

As someone has said before on this site:

Leave it to Sony to lose a format war that it already won.

LaughingTarget @ Aug 28th 2008 6:32PM

They really didn't win much of anything. Sony spent all the money winning the HD war yet the entire BluRay consortium shares in the profits. Sony isn't the only one who gets money from the royalties.

Meresin @ Aug 28th 2008 6:49PM

I have a feeling that if you factor in Blu-ray royalties, PS3 software sales, Cell processor sales for other applications, ad revenue from Home, and hardware sales at the tale end of the console's life cycle, the PS3 will end up making Sony a tidy profit. It's just going to take quite a while.

Keep in mind that they're two years into the console's life cycle. They've got a long way to go before the console is no longer a viable money maker. Eventually they'll be making more on the hardware than they're spending, and it'll all be gravy from that point forward.

I do, however, question whether Sony will be quite so risky next time around. I have a feeling (and frankly, I'm hoping) Sony will go with a more evolutionary upgrade with the PS4, instead of the revolutionary upgrade that the PS3 was. The Cell processor made for a *very* rough transition from a software standpoint since no one really knew how to develop for it.

KarlW @ Aug 29th 2008 8:54AM

The PS3 was largely about BluRay, but it was about more than just that. With BD, Sony gained some credibility in the media format area, where technologies such as MiniDisc, BetaMax, UMD, and a whole host of digital formats showed that they can't get mass adoption (not that they can't built good products. I still have a MiniDisc player. Bought it over an iPod). It also helped their movie division, as they had an official company-wide policy and were actively supporting it.

The PS3 also showed that Sony can do well in online services. The PS2 suffered from not having an upgradeable OS, and coming out before broadband was widely available (and Sony's lack of foresight). They couldn't compete with Microsoft's Xbox Live. The Playstation Network has been a great boost to them, considering its feature set relative to its age. They've also done quite well with digital distribution - making a store that many developers prefer over the Xbox Live Marketplace. Home will (if it ever comes out) prove that Sony can make great online services.

The PS3 is gaining momentum. Better games (LittleBigPlanet, Resistance 2, KillZone 2, MotoStorm Pacific Rift, Final Fantasy 13, Gran Turismo 5 ...etc) should help Sony recover a lot of that loss. As the HD market expands, wider Blu-Ray adoption could also see Sony recover, as movies from Sony Pictures have a larger player base to appeal to. Casual gamers could see the PS3 as an ideal purchase - with Blu-Ray playback, Home and cheap, fun games available on the PSN. No large $60 spends to make on something you're not going to use often (hence casual gamer). Sony have a fairly good strategy.

I know I'm going to be buying most, if not all the games I mentioned above. They look fantastic, and are no longer best-of-platform games, but actually some of the best games on any platform.

WiiFTW @ Aug 28th 2008 4:59PM

Superior business model, but not what's good for gaming. It encourages more shovelware. Once the casuals stop eating up this garbage/run out of money (hopefully something happens soon), Nintendo may realize that there has to be some balance of games to keep people coming back. Both the PS3, 360, and PC have a balance between casual games and core games. Right now, it's just everyone plays the same games for Nintendo.

Jon A. @ Aug 28th 2008 5:06PM

I'll agree with you on the PC front (where the VAST majority of games are casual), but the Xbox 360 or the PS3? Seriously?

The Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 have hardly any retail "casual" games worth talking about, or any "casual" game that has made any sort of impact of the charts except Rock Band, Guitar Hero, and the Beijing Olympics.

Zertoss @ Aug 28th 2008 5:20PM

Well, XBLA has a lot to offer for just about everyone. PSN has some stuff too, but not enough to balance out the core titles.

Still, I'd call both of them mostly core systems while the Wii is mostly casual.

Also, I found the WiiFTW's name/post combo ironic, and I laughed.

Ihar `Philips` Filipau @ Aug 29th 2008 10:23AM

LOL

Thought after reading your comment: I'm on safe - balanced - side, since I have both PC and Wii (and DS too).

And I personally have nothing against shovelware - if it is reasonably priced. The problem with Wii now is that many (most) games are clearly overpriced.

Hyams @ Aug 28th 2008 5:10PM

I'm liking this new, less arrogant SCEI. I guess losing this generation has taught them a lesson in humility.

AlterEgo @ Aug 28th 2008 5:16PM

They lost this generation already?!

Hyams @ Aug 28th 2008 5:24PM

Um, yes?

If things carry on as they are, it's gonna be PS3 and 360 joint second for all intents and purposes (with one a little way ahead of the other, but not by much), whilst the Wii will be in first place by a very large margin.

AlterEgo @ Aug 28th 2008 5:27PM

Oh...you mean lost to "Nintendo"

That changes things.

>_>

Cody @ Aug 28th 2008 5:28PM

No they haven't lost yet. They will pass 360 by the end of the generation and Microsoft will be in it's rightful last place.

deaftly @ Aug 28th 2008 5:31PM

Awesome,you guys went to fortune telling school also?!?

Hyams @ Aug 28th 2008 5:32PM

Well, second place isn't exactly winning when there are only three competitors, is it? =)

AlterEgo @ Aug 28th 2008 5:36PM

Well, thats when the term "winning" sort of changes itself around.

In the midst of the ENTIRE console war, I still think the Wii and the PS3/360 are in different markets. The Wii is in a league of its own with no competition...and the PS3 / 360 are battling it out.

So in THAT competition, later on down the line...there'll probably be a clear cut winner. I just thought you were saying that the PS3 lost "that" battle already.