'PlayStation winning is best for industry' - Sony

PlayStation 'winning' this current generation of consoles would be the best result for the games industry.

That's according to Sony Computer Entertainment America boss, who, speaking to Forbes, delivered the kind of PR modesty we used to hear from Ken Kutaragi.

"In an industry that's certainly had its challenges this year, we like to say that the environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry," he said.

That's because, says Tretton, "we have a brand that can play on a worldwide basis, young and old, male and female, where our competition tends to be relegated to either select regions or to select consumer audiences."

The SCEA boss said Sony is more profit driven than Microsoft in the short-term, suggesting that the Xbox maker "can afford to be more patient" when it comes to making its money back.

That said, the PS3 has enjoyed "skyrocketing sales" since its price cut last month, says Tretton.

"We don't have unlimited money, we cater to a more mass market audience. I think we're willing to take a little bit more risk than a competitor like Nintendo is and ultimately we deliver to the masses on a worldwide basis and that's what we've done for the last 15 years," he said

http://computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=224944

Wow, thanks for the unbiased opinion Jack. I thought for sure you'd say that it would be best if Microsoft won.

I thought he was going to say Toyota.

Now this is good PR lol I was about to give up on statements like these.

In all honesty, they asked the question. What did you expect him to say? Nintendo or Microsoft is the best?WadeFan

I didn't see where he was asked, it looks like he just volunteered it

i was hoping he'd endorse intellivision for 2010..... :(

saying nintendo doesn't take chances is ridiculous, is he even aware of all the shovelware out for the wii? releasing.... lets just call them "low quality" games is definitely taking a risk.

As much as people will probably ridicule him for these statements, he's probably right. Microsoft is doing damage to the industry by trying to monopolize it. Nintendo is taking gaming in a direction that is much too casual for the taste of people who have grown up with video games. Sony seems to have a pretty altruistic formula that caters to everybody equally.Jared2720

Sony isn't the patron saint of gaming. They're releasing motion controls as well, and who knows if Sony money paid for MGS4s exclusivity.

i was hoping he'd endorse intellivision for 2010..... :(

saying nintendo doesn't take chances is ridiculous, is he even aware of all the shovelware out for the wii? releasing.... lets just call them "low quality" games is definitely taking a risk.

z4twenny

No it isn't, because they sell. Nintendo really doesn't take risks, which is why quality games like Fatal Frame IV will never come to the US. If games like Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles were owned by Nintendo they probably wouldn't hit western shores either.

think we're willing to take a little bit more risk than a competitor like Nintendo is and ultimately we deliver to the masses on a worldwide basis and that's what we've done for the last 15 years," he saidRickGotti

Also, when you think about it, hasn't Nintendo taken more risk by not going the next-gen HD route the other two did and daring to incorporate motion control as a primary control scheme on top of it all? Sure it paid off, but before it looked uncertain.

yea playstation should win the war, and someone should buy me my dream Bugatti Veyron and i should be with Gemma Atkinson. *sigh* wishful thinking is fun.

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

i was hoping he'd endorse intellivision for 2010..... :(

saying nintendo doesn't take chances is ridiculous, is he even aware of all the shovelware out for the wii? releasing.... lets just call them "low quality" games is definitely taking a risk.

hakanakumono

No it isn't, because they sell. Nintendo really doesn't take risks, which is why quality games like Fatal Frame IV will never come to the US. If games like Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles were owned by Nintendo they probably wouldn't hit western shores either.

Unveiling the wii remote was riskier than anything the playstation brand has ever done. To think that Sony takes more risks than Nintendo is being delusional.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="z4twenny"]

i was hoping he'd endorse intellivision for 2010..... :(

saying nintendo doesn't take chances is ridiculous, is he even aware of all the shovelware out for the wii? releasing.... lets just call them "low quality" games is definitely taking a risk.

Bukowski81

No it isn't, because they sell. Nintendo really doesn't take risks, which is why quality games like Fatal Frame IV will never come to the US. If games like Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles were owned by Nintendo they probably wouldn't hit western shores either.

Unveiling the wii remote was riskier than anything the playstation brand has ever done. To think that Sony takes more risks than Nintendo is being delusional.

I guess that could be called a risk, but I would call it "desperation." They didn't really have anyting to lose at that point.

Sony takes risks in the games that it produces and releases (Siren, Rule of Rose, Shadow of the Collossus, etc).

Anyone else find it ironic that sony says they should win the gen?:?

The SCEA boss said Sony is more profit driven than Microsoft in the short-term, suggesting that the Xbox maker "can afford to be more patient" when it comes to making its money back.RickGotti

^ yes and no, while i agree the wii's motion controls were somewhat risky they did also include a way to use "normal" control pad type controls so they kinda backed themselves up with "well if the motion control doesn't work we still have an ok game system with normal controls" as for nintendo taking risks, the shovelware does sell but not like you'd think. if you'd look at the sales numbers for the real shovelware games (not mario, conduit, zelda etc etc) they don't sell particularly well..... but i suppose they do sell enough to cover their costs for making the game (i guess thats what happens when you only charge $15 and sell them in drugstores)

Guys, stop laughing. If you lovevideogames you'll make sure that Sony wins for the future of gaming!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don't buy the PS3 for Sony, do it for yourselves

[QUOTE="Bukowski81"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

No it isn't, because they sell. Nintendo really doesn't take risks, which is why quality games like Fatal Frame IV will never come to the US. If games like Demon's Souls and Valkyria Chronicles were owned by Nintendo they probably wouldn't hit western shores either.

hakanakumono

Unveiling the wii remote was riskier than anything the playstation brand has ever done. To think that Sony takes more risks than Nintendo is being delusional.

I guess that could be called a risk, but I would call it "desperation." They didn't really have anyting to lose at that point.

Sony takes risks in the games that it produces and releases (Siren, Rule of Rose, Shadow of the Collossus, etc).

Call it as you wish, but it doesnt change the fact that it was a huge risk, a huge risk that Sony would never take IMO. And about the games, Nintendo takes more risks in that department too, his flagship title this holiday is a 2d platformer in a completely 3d era. Thats a risk.

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

[QUOTE="Bukowski81"]

Unveiling the wii remote was riskier than anything the playstation brand has ever done. To think that Sony takes more risks than Nintendo is being delusional.

Bukowski81

I guess that could be called a risk, but I would call it "desperation." They didn't really have anyting to lose at that point.

Sony takes risks in the games that it produces and releases (Siren, Rule of Rose, Shadow of the Collossus, etc).

Call it as you wish, but it doesnt change the fact that it was a huge risk, a huge risk that Sony would never take IMO. And about the games, Nintendo takes more risks in that department too, his flagship title this holiday is a 2d platformer in a completely 3d era. Thats a risk.

"Mario" is never a risk, it's guaranteed money. Nintendo really doesn't take more risks in this department because nearly all of the games they release are anchored to a familiar character. Sony, unlike Nintendo, is failure comfortable with regularly releasing new IPs.

We are talking about the PS3 here, the platform that is apparently hard to work with "on purpose" according to Sony.

Sony thought the days of the PS2 would keep going and developers would be forced to work with PS3's development difficulties, thankfully reality smacked them one in the face.

We are talking about the PS3 here, the platform that is apparently hard to work with "on purpose" according to Sony.

Sony thought the days of the PS2 would keep going and developers would be forced to work with PS3's development difficulties, thankfully reality smacked them one in the face.

AnnoyedDragon

Are you insinuating that it wasn't on purpose?

I would have agreed, if the spectre of the PS3 exclusives matched PS1/PS2 in any way shape or form.

once again, sony demonstrate thier arrogance. honestly, who do they think they are?

[QUOTE="Bukowski81"]

[QUOTE="hakanakumono"]

I guess that could be called a risk, but I would call it "desperation." They didn't really have anyting to lose at that point.

Sony takes risks in the games that it produces and releases (Siren, Rule of Rose, Shadow of the Collossus, etc).

hakanakumono

Call it as you wish, but it doesnt change the fact that it was a huge risk, a huge risk that Sony would never take IMO. And about the games, Nintendo takes more risks in that department too, his flagship title this holiday is a 2d platformer in a completely 3d era. Thats a risk.

"Mario" is never a risk, it's guaranteed money. Nintendo really doesn't take more risks in this department because nearly all of the games they release are anchored to a familiar character. Sony, unlike Nintendo, is failure comfortable with regularly releasing new IPs.

Whatever man, I like both, currently I just own a Wii and 360, but after Mass Effect 2 im selling my 360 and buying a PS3.

Are you insinuating that it wasn't on purpose?

hakanakumono

Well if it was it shows how arrogant they are, if it wasn't then they are using a rather ridiculous lie that makes them look bad to cover up their mistakes.

Either way they are hardly 'best' for the industry.

Im kind of glad Sony was humbled this gen. They work even harder to please the gamer and we have reaped the benefits ten fold. I hope I never hear about a "$599 us dollars" console anytime soon.

once again, sony demonstrate thier arrogance. honestly, who do they think they are?

gamedude234

Coming from the boss of Sony. seriously why does anyone even waste time posting these.

Is any boss of any company going to say their rival is better no.

If the same question was asked to microsoft. they would say the same stuff about the 360

once again, sony demonstrate thier arrogance. honestly, who do they think they are?

gamedude234

[QUOTE="Shafftehr"][QUOTE="Jared2720"]As much as people will probably ridicule him for these statements, he's probably right. Microsoft is doing damage to the industry by trying to monopolize it. Nintendo is taking gaming in a direction that is much too casual for the taste of people who have grown up with video games. Sony seems to have a pretty altruistic formula that caters to everybody equally.Jared2720

I respectfully disagree with this Jared. Microsoft has went out of its way to make its console easy and inexpensive to develop on, which is why they have strong support from independant games, and have very original arcade titles on Xbox live such as Braid. I'm not saying that Sony does not have original titles, but they made a system that is very hard to develop on and do nothing to encourage development except throwing money at talented developers, hoping that they will, in turn, save their console.

Also, I don't see how Microsoft is trying to Monopolize the industry by selling a console that is clearly targeted at specific regions. I don't know how Sony winning because it "appeals to everyone" is not trying to monopolize the industry seeing that if it wins, we would have one standard console everywhere. That sounds like a monopoly to me. Not to mention they already have a monopoly on the HD disc format.

i disagree the guys that came with the 600$ launch console deserve to be last

I don't see PS3 utterly winning and demolishing competition bringing any positive changes. It's the most difficult and expensive system to develop for, and it had too many non-gaming features bringing the price up. Its only shining light are the exclusives that Sony is bringing, and that's because of the desperation caused by being last, where they belong. Not that the other two are any better, Ninty's catering to non-gamers and MS dreaming of a monopoly they could milk to death, in perfect world they would all lose.ManicAce

Hes right though. Yall think MS winning would be a good thing? MS just throws money around to get games and to get sales. And they keep their devs on tight time lines that result in games that don't have that polish that a great game should have. I mean what we've heard literally 2 dev teams comment on this, heck even a dev team that is still with MS just said this not long ago about MS pushing what they want and not letting the devs have any creativity.

I mean look at ND, do you really think MS would let a dev team work without any manager or oversight like how Sony allows ND to work? I don't think so. MS goes with what works and don't take any risks, and by doing this they let their fan base down. Sorry but 2 years ago I was saying all MS had was Halo and Gears, and guess what, its the same today.

So yea it is better if Sony wins.

There are such things as stupid questions tc. What do you expect him to say?

There are such things as stupid questions tc. What do you expect him to say?

Rudy25

It didn't say anything about him answering a question, so i don't know that it was a response to a question. It sounds just like more PR drivel that was churned out to me

pretty LOL-tastic. i like how they make themselves sound like they appeal to the masses and have a diverse demographic when independent data shows that the wii has the young and old and much better male to female ratio than the ps3.Ontain

Can't say I disagree. Look at Nintendo. They suck in the lead. MS would too. Sony doesn't seem half as greedy as MS. If it were up to me, I think Sony would be best as #1.

[QUOTE="ManicAce"]I don't see PS3 utterly winning and demolishing competition bringing any positive changes. It's the most difficult and expensive system to develop for, and it had too many non-gaming features bringing the price up. Its only shining light are the exclusives that Sony is bringing, and that's because of the desperation caused by being last, where they belong. Not that the other two are any better, Ninty's catering to non-gamers and MS dreaming of a monopoly they could milk to death, in perfect world they would all lose.Shafftehr

Microsoft is doing damage to the industry by trying to monopolize it.Jared2720

when the playstation wins everybody wins

[QUOTE="ManicAce"]I don't see PS3 utterly winning and demolishing competition bringing any positive changes. It's the most difficult and expensive system to develop for, and it had too many non-gaming features bringing the price up. Its only shining light are the exclusives that Sony is bringing, and that's because of the desperation caused by being last, where they belong. Not that the other two are any better, Ninty's catering to non-gamers and MS dreaming of a monopoly they could milk to death, in perfect world they would all lose.Shafftehr

Perhaps not the gaming division ... but MS has been fined regularly for well over a decade for non-competitive business practices. Given this problem has been rife across Microsoft, it seems questionable to believe that it's not a part of their corporate culture.