Tretton: Sony doesn't "bribe" for exclusives
An interview in this month's PlayStation Magazine held a couple revelations. First, Sony doesn't shell out money to keep a game exclusive, or buy exclusive content to make a game seem better on their console. Second, Jack Tretton feels Sony is the "middle ground" for gaming -- we'll explain in a bit. We're not sparking this flame -- this is Tretton himself and we honestly couldn't agree more with him.In the interview, Tretton said "We have a very different approach to exclusives than some of our competitors. We don't buy exclusivity. We don't fund development. We don't, for the lack of a better term, bribe somebody to only do a game on our platform. We earn it by saying "you can build a better game on our platform. If you focus your development on our platform, you will ultimately be more successful." We believe him. Even if, over the next few years, only half of the PS2 owners of the world adopt a PS3, it will be the most successful machine this generation and spending, say, $50 million dollars to some company for exclusive downloadable content would be completely meaningless.
Tretton also touched upon what exclusive games meant to Sony. "You know, if we were working on three games, it doesn't make for a very big exclusive list, but if we got 15, we've got a larger exclusive list before the third party comes to you with an exclusive. You almost get to the point where Nintendo's at, where they can do it without the third parties, but I don't know if that makes for a healthy environment. I think we sit perfectly in the middle. Microsoft is too dependent on the third-party community, and Nintendo is too dependent on first-party. We like to feel that we got a pretty good mix." Nobody can deny this. Tretton hit the nail on the head. Even though the price is high, even though the big library of games is still a month or two away, that is the reason Sony will continue to pull through. They don't, as the old saying goes, put all their eggs in one basket.
[via Joystiq]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
mccomber @ Jul 4th 2007 1:17PM
I like the contrast to this story here as compared to joystiq. I started to post a response there, but figured it would just be drowned out by the "Sony is doomed!" drone.
The whole interview is pretty interesting, especially when he talks about the realization that they're got to help developers more, and share the knowledge that comes from past games. The fact that things learned from Resistance were passed on to the guys working on Lair when, technically speaking, they are two completely separate development teams is great. He also mentions that the development tools for supporting features of Home should be getting into developer's hands in the next month, if they aren't already.
He also talks a lot about making it more clear just what you are buying with a ps3, pushing the media capabilities as well as the games, and branching out beyond the normal users of a gaming system. He also makes it clear that they understand the need to push the gaming side of the system as well though, not just making it a Blu-Ray player that also does games.
"We absolutely have to pull out all the stops. We have to throw budget out the window and do everything we can to showcase the technology as soon as we can, because we think the third-party community is obviously going to be hesitant given the investment that they're going to have to make."
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 1:35PM
This is one of the big reasons why I like Sony more than Microsoft. Microsoft is almost... mean-spirited in it's business practices. Between essentially bribing developers like Take Two to only make certain content for the 360, charging users for online service when other companies offer it for free, I don't get how anyone can STAND what MS does. I don't get how there's ANY brand loyalty for the Xbox, especially considering how they completely abandoned their system FOUR years after its release. Clearly they don't give a damn about customer satisfaction, they're more interested in getting your money.
Hmm. A bit of a rant there. Sorry 'bout that.
Iother @ Jul 4th 2007 1:35PM
They don't spend millions on an exclusive, yet the spend billions to promote a format.
It would be indeed just stupid to spend millions on a console if you can spend billions and a delay of a year on a blue-ray device.
So the PS3 was a cheap blue-ray player, and now it is and an expensive blue-ray player and an expensive console. Not only that: every game on the PS3 is also available on the cheaper XBox, with the potential that in 2/3 years games will look better on the PS3. (if the developers will even care to make it look better)
So we know Sony won't spend millions on MGS, so it will be on the XBox too. Nice work Sony, nice work.
Elliot J @ Jul 4th 2007 1:43PM
It's Sony's problem if they don't want to pay for exclusives. I could care less if M$ went out and paid a gazillion dollars for exclsuivity, it's all about providing a good expierence for their gamers. I'm not bashing Sony, I'm just saying that the industry is changing and they aren't the be all and end all of video games anymore. If they want exclusives they'll have to pony up the cash to compete!
DaveC @ Jul 4th 2007 1:47PM
This sounds to me like
"We're taking the moral highground when it comes to exclusives"
When they're losing money this way.
Kxpuc @ Jul 4th 2007 1:53PM
@Elliot J
that would only lead to some game companies purposely strong arming a hardware maker to do it's bidding. If you ever get to the point where all you worry about is exclusives you'd run yourself ragged shelling out money to them.
@Iother MS has another source of income just like Sony so them pushing their format is not unlike MS pushing Windows/Vista, MSN messenger, charging for some Live stuff. the price you pay for the PS3 having Blu-Ray will go down vs time compared to live which probably never see a reduction of cost. IF by some reason the 360 last 5 years or more this time you'd be spending atleast $250. odds are the PS3 will be around for atleast 7 years (unless some unseen event happens)
rfom @ Jul 4th 2007 2:10PM
Iother, thanks for putting all the crap in one place so they can be addressed together
"the PS3..is an expensive blue-ray player and an expensive console".
The PS3 IS expensive - USD200 more - if you are willing to take a chance on a 33% defect rate. If you are sensible, deduct USD140 for warranty.
So USD60 more for multiplayer, bigger hard disc, 1000+ PS2 games, it seems like a great deal even before you reach blu-ray and wifi which many people, admittedly, wont use.
"every game on the PS3 is also available on the cheaper XBox"
Lair, heavenly, Motorstorm, R:FOM, Warhawk, Ratchet, Drake: uncharted, FF13, MGS4, Wipeout, SOCOM, Killzone, Little Big Planet, White knight Story, Folksoul, God of War 3, Eyedentify, Hot shots Golf, Singstar
And Tretton, ass though he might be, is right - look at the 360 - Ace combat 6, Splinter Cell 5, Bungie, Rare, Mistwalker, GTA 4 episodes - ALL bought!
Adam @ Jul 4th 2007 2:33PM
I was discussing this yesterday with some gamers at work, and we all agree: Tretton is an idiot. Well, he's the mouthpiece for the idiots behind Sony's decision to NOT buy exclusives.
This may seem like an underhanded, mean thing for Microsoft to do, but you know what? For most gamers, THEY DON'T CARE!!! They don't care what goes on behind the scenes, they don't care how much money was spent on the game, and they don't care what any executive has to say about their corporation. What they care about is playing video games. And they'll play it on whatever system they show up on.
So if Microsoft wants to shell out the money to get the exclusive, more power to them. People will be drawn to whatever system has the game they want to play. I was originally going to buy GTAIV for PS3, because I only own one PS3 game. Not anymore. Since the downloadable content is only on the 360, I will buy it for that system. THAT is why Microsoft does what they do. And that is what Sony needs to learn.
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 2:37PM
@rfom: Nice post. I like how you actually multiple legitimate arguments and actually backed them up with facts instead of resorting to the retarded fanboyism that seems to be so prevalent these days. It's a lost art.
While we're on the subject, what worthwhile exclusives does the 360 have coming down the pipe? GTA4 episodes, ok, but I'm betting there'll be enough content in the game as it is. Halo 3? I can think of DOZENS of better shooters. Splinter Cell? Too boring for me.
I know I'm only one person, but I shed no tears in this exclusives battle, because the 360 exclusives don't interest me at all. Not flamebait - I know there's lots of people who are stoked for Halo 3 etc, but the 360 pretty much has NO games I'm interested in that aren't also available on the PS3.
whizthekid @ Jul 4th 2007 2:42PM
This is one of the reasons I like Microsoft more than Sony.Sony is almost...mean-spirited in it's business practices.Between pricing its console at $600 which is more than the average Joe is willing to pay or afford, focusing on Blu-Ray first and fun games second,suggesting that 5 million people would buy it even if it didn't have any games,telling people that rumble was "last generation" and couldn't be done on the PS3,making fun of Microsoft when they released 2 sku's and then doing the same and discontinuing the cheaper version,screwing over Europe by delaying the launch and removing the chip used for backwards compatibility but keeping the price the same,making a hard drive for the PS2 and then changing the PS2 around so it was utterly useless,I don't get how there's any brand loyalty for the Playstation especially considering how they completely screwed over everyone with the disk-read errors on the PS2 and wouldn't fix it until a class-action lawsuit was filed.Clearly they don't give a damn about customer satisfaction they're more interested in getting your money.Hmm... Shows that the tables can be turned anytime and that every company is after your hard earned cash not just Microsoft.
Andres @ Jul 4th 2007 2:46PM
So what if its bought. Honestly what is the big deal. As a Sony owner you should be pissed they do not buy exclusives.
What this tells me pure and simple is that Sony is money hungry. Were as Microsoft gets my $400 console and uses it to buy game exclusives so I can enjoy my experience. This right there right in his words show you were the money for Xbox Live goes. The money from the consoles go. This shows you that Microsoft wants my business by buying games that I want.
Sony needs to take a page from this and realize that the "war" has changed.
Just like in history. The allies were not accustomed to fighting trench warfare in WW1 but they adapted. We were not familiar with Jungle war in Vietnam. And same goes for Iraq.
They need to adapt. If you pull a knife and then someone pulls out a gun you better pull out a gun or something that tops it or you will lose.
Bash me all you want for being an Xbox owner. But the simple truth is they can take the moral highroad all they want. But the way the road looks its going to lead to loser ville.
andres @ Jul 4th 2007 2:51PM
Dude and the American revolution is a good one The British army did not understand how to fight people that ran around and shot. Instead of lining up and firing in shifts.
They lost that war. Adapt or die
Cagalli @ Jul 4th 2007 3:07PM
Wow... every where I have seen this article, it brings out the Xbots.
andres @ Jul 4th 2007 3:14PM
@cagalli
why the insults?
Everyone has added to this conversation in a formal and cordial way. Except you come in and spot out some fanboyism.
grew up dude seriously grew up. Either add something or just be quite. What you do is not only embarrass yourself but ps3 owners all around.
Ninegauger @ Jul 4th 2007 4:11PM
That argument about not putting your eggs into one basket would be a better argument if Sony's first party development wasn't as average as it is.
They make competent and occasionally great game but
has it ever been Sony first-party games selling their systems? I'd argue no.
PS1: Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid
PS2: Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2, Grand Theft Auto III
This just seems like a way of justifying where they find themselves and not a strategy they've been cultivating.
And really it's Nintendo's first-party oriented strategy that's been bringing in the money anyway...
Andy @ Jul 4th 2007 4:43PM
@2 Stef Geiger
You rock. You have the same view I do. I am suprised that Microsoft hasn't completely bought out Take 2. You look at how many games are made just for Xbox its unreal. And looking back into history Halo:Combat Evolved was supposed to be on PS2 as well until Take 2 sold Bungie.
When will people learn that Microsoft is a money grabber (its why they do well but its bad business)
My ten reasons why in no particular order(I will repeat some things other people said)
1. Charge $60 a year for online(canadian dollars)
2. Consoles have short lifespans
3. Warranties do no cover there damaged hardware
4. Consoles are defective
5. Charge $130 for the official Xbox 360 wireless add-on(canadian dollars)
6. Games and movies cost extra money on top of your yearly fee
7. Do not make any advancements in new gaming ideas.
8. Save money on customer service by using 3rd world labour(I have only experience this with Vista support but I imagine its the same
9. Save money by refurbishing the fucked up consoles and giving them back to the consumer
10. I cannot think of ten reasons and this took too long to write
You know whats too bad. Only people that have consoles already are reading this
Tryst @ Jul 4th 2007 4:43PM
@2 - Well said. Thats exactly what I think of M$.
I think from the time MS released the X-Box, they would have released 3 consoles while Sony would have released 1 (PS3) - if you get what I mean (because no doubt MS will release another console in 3 years). And these idiots who follow XBox have the cheek to say that the PS3 is too expensive.
What MS do is bring the quality of what ever market it is in down to very low levels. Look at their browser IE for example, shocking. Its the same in the gaming Industry where devs @ UbiSoft and EA are just churning out games instead of concerntrating on making them exceptional games. I would never buy a game from EA, and for them to come out and say that they are having trouble with Frame-rates on the PS3 means nothing to me. At the end of the day they are incompetant, and have been for over a decade now.
@8 You are completely justifying what Tretton is saying. You care about what you play at the end of the day, yes? What Sony are saying is 'if they create a game on the PS3, a better game will be created', thus WE get a better game - now do you get it? What MS is doing is lowering down the quality of games, and half-assed companies just port shoddy games across. MGS4, KZ2, and GoW3 will all show what the PS3 is capable, and I think then, developers (UbiSoft, EA etc) should all feel ashamed of themselves for releasing such tripe.
Rant over :)
langx @ Jul 4th 2007 4:51PM
MS is doing the same thing Sony did to Dreamcast.
Sony killed the Dreamcast with whatever back door deal they did with EA.
You have got to be kidding me.
Andy @ Jul 4th 2007 5:35PM
@Ace
You are really confusing. You say you spent $600 on the superior system yet you say you want your money back.
Another thing about Msoft. I just got Windows Vista (I enjoy it) but I don't enjoy how you have to pay for every damn thing. FOR EXAMPLE WINZIP SHOULD BE FREE. IT IS $50!!!!!!!!!
When companies give in to Msofts funding they are telling me there game isn't good enough to make a profit on its own! I want to get a Wii someday.
maynard @ Jul 4th 2007 5:38PM
There are too many things wrong with this article to list, so I'll try to stick to the main points...
1. I keep hearing the Sony execs. say that a better game can be made on their console, but we've yet to see any evidence of that.
2. MS is in a position where they have no choice but to pay in order to make up market share from last gen. They can't possibly just "hope" everyone will buy an xbox the same way Sony "expects" you will buy a ps3. If MS wants to make up ground, they have no choice but to pay for it and they have the money to do so.
3. Someone talked about customer loyalty from MS. Blu-ray anyone? Did Sony worry about your bank accounts before they put a tremendously expensive and hugely unneccessary player in their console?
4. The game is changing so either adapt or die off like the dinosaur.
5. Sony needs to put games on their console and by just allowing exclusives to slip away they are putting themselves in a bad position. People didn't buy ps2's because it was a ps2... they bought it because it had the most and best games. Sony has lost site of this in favor of pushing formats.
6. The only reason Sony had so many more exclusives was because there were 100 mil. ps2's in the world. Sony doesn't have that luxury any longer.
7. Having the best selling console (ps2) allows you to bargain in ways other than payoffs.
People don't agree with stubborness. This is business and Sony could care less about you any more than MS cares about its customers. At the end of the day, it's all about the cash and as the old saying goes, "you have to spend money to make money."
T @ Jul 4th 2007 5:42PM
funny how sony didn't have a problem with buying out developers for the dreamcast when those 2 where goin at it.
Tel Prydain @ Jul 4th 2007 5:48PM
An Xbox fan here, but don’t worry – I’m not coming to pick a fight.
I’m new to consoles, as I’ve always been a big PC gamer. In choosing a console exclusives were a big deal to me.
I initially wanted a PS3, as it’s obvious that the PS2 dominated the market in the previous generation. RPGs were of specific interest, as I’m a RPG nut.
But then there were the delays and the price announcement, both of which gave me second thoughts. But if the PS3 had maintained its exclusives I’d have stuck in there.
But over the past year the number of RPGs for the 360 has sky rocketed, and I gave in like a sucker. I’m very happy with it, and with the issues that Sony has had with developers, I feel like I’ve dodged a bullet. I can look forward to Mass Effect, Blue Dragon, Lost Odyssey and Trusty Bell – and I saved $200. And obviously there is a huge 360 liberty floating about to tide me over till then.
I’m open to the idea of getting a PS3, but with no exclusives there is no reason for me to do so.
P.s. On the same note, while Sony says that they do not bribe developers – they have entered into ‘partnerships’ where they actively promote the game to it’s user-base.
P.P.S. Someone, presumably someone whose age has recently entered double digits, attempted to imply that a developer accepting funding for a game was saying that the game was somehow lacking in quality.
In actual fact, if Microsoft does invest in a game’s development it indicates that Microsoft believes that game is high enough quality to sell systems. As games cost millions of dollars to make, one may assume that the developers are grateful for the assistance.
Of course Microsoft gets a cut of the game's profits.
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 6:08PM
@Maynard: I'm so sick of people ignorantly saying that Sony forced Blu-ray down our throats. The manufacturing cost of the PS3's Blu-Ray drive is probably about $10 more than that of the 360's DVD drive. We're talking about the difference of a more expensive LED and a logic board. The real cost difference would show up in the media itself, and last time I checked, most PS3 games are the same price as their 360 counterparts.
The PS3 costs "a lot" because they want to offset the huge amount of R&D put into the cell, and they actually put a really good power supply and cooling system in it. A 360 that runs as quiet and reliably as the PS3 would probably cost nearly the same.
Dahk @ Jul 4th 2007 6:17PM
I think Stef fought that one quite well.
In any case, I like Tel's and maynards arguments.
Sorry just... giving credit where its deserved.
Anyway, a few people mentioned a lot about adapting or die. And I agree, times are changing and you've got to adapt. I think within the past couple months, Sony has recognized this and IS ADAPTING. You guys have GOT to understand that you can't PREDICT the market so well. You got to stab at certain things and then take as quick a reactive stance as you can.
Sony took a stab at sixaxis - it isn't working the greatest (we'll see with Warhawk and Lair). So they're bringing in Immersion now (credit for settling, recognizing and pursuing), with a reported BETTER RUMBLING system than even the PS2 along with area sensitive rumbling.
Sony took a stab at the HD market with blu-ray, and pushed it with all its might. Some may say its not working, but I believe it is. This generation is GOING to turn HD whether you like it or not. Sony realizes this and jammed it into the PS3. Its a SAFE bet for the future, though RISKY for the present. However, they've stabbed at it, and are adapting to the HD market by bringing upscaling action and whatnot in.
Tel, the way you put 'partnerships' make it sound like another word for bribing. Parterships are strong relationships between companies, and these work MUCH better. I work for a company that THRIVES on partnerships, and FROM partnerships we gain high satisfactory rates, and thus further business.
Maynards comments mostly focussed on the PS3 trying to ride the wave of the PS2. And this is very true in fact, and I'm going to bash Sony by not making more of an effort in trying to cannabilize the PS2 user-base. Nintendo is of course, the ultimate example with gamecube owning all N64 folks, and the Wii likewise. PS2 is still shooting out games. Like COME ON its actually killing and stopping users from converting to the PS3, which is crucial in surviving the influx of next-generationism.
maynard @ Jul 4th 2007 6:31PM
@ Staf
I didn't say Sony forced anything on anyone, but the console would've been much cheaper without blu-ray... whether it's due to the laser diode or not. It's a simple fact. If you don't want it, don't buy it - but I didn't say it was forced on you. Sony's not putting a gun to anyone's head. Let's face it, though, the main reason for blu-ray being in the ps3 isn't because of its games usage.
Here are 2 links to articles explaining how Sony has "paid" for exclusive games and content. So Sony again lies right to our faces to make themselves look better. I like the ps3, but this is why I hate Sony.
This is why Jack's statements fail:
http://www.gamesradar.com/us/ps3/game/news/article.jsp?sectionId=1006&articleId=200611021393703056&releaseId=20060314115917309058
http://ps2.joystiq.com/2007/03/09/flow-almost-was-a-wii-title/
T @ Jul 4th 2007 6:48PM
@23: since you say you like rpg's you should also be looking forward to FF13 on the 360 if what tretton says is true however, without a doubt, i bet sony is offering squeenix money by the bucketloads for them to just consider exclusivity and hold out till the userbase goes up especially since the game is using the multiplat white engine. However microsoft loses some points too with their 33 to 35 percent hardware failure rate that is why i am going to stick with my ps2 and DS till all of the problems are sorted out. It will probably start with microsoft getting a class action lawsuit resulting in a total recall and hardware desighn of all the sytems unless they secretly change the hardware using the 65nm chips as an excuse (probably there best bet)
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 6:48PM
"Blu-ray anyone? Did Sony worry about your bank accounts before they put a tremendously expensive and hugely unneccessary player in their console?" - I'm pretty sure most people would interpret that mean that you feel consumers had Blu-Ray forced on them.
Regardless, I'm going to state again that the only real difference between a DVD drive and a Blu-Ray drive is a diode that might cost five cents as opposed to a red one that costs half a cent, and a logic board that probably costs $10. Keep in mind that we're talking about quantities in the millions.
WaSSaBi @ Jul 4th 2007 6:49PM
wake up xbox fanboys... the PS3 has only been out for 7 ish months... Xbox didn't anything 7 months into its life... if you look at what the PS3 will have by the end of the year, it will have not only more games than the 360 had the first year after launch, but the games will be better...
remember the first few games xbox had? ya, they were pretty crappy gameplay wise as well as graphics wise... the PS3 has not hit its stride yet, it's still trotting to the starting gates... when it gets going, well, it's going to be amazing...
i have a 360 as well... the only thing which really excites me with the 360 is Mass Effect and Fable... and that it... hopefully, my 360 does give out by the time those two come out
maynard @ Jul 4th 2007 7:00PM
@ Stef
I really didn't mean to imply that Sony was forcing anything on anyone. We all make our own choices whether to buy something or not.
Blu-ray coupled with the cell chip are 2 items in the ps3 that could have been left out and ps3's would be selling like hotcakes today - while putting out the same quality in games as the 360.
Sony stands to make billions on blu-ray and if you don't believe that is the sole reason there is such a drive in the ps3 then just check the front page for the "ps3 boosts blu-ray sales in Europe by 1000%!" article.
T @ Jul 4th 2007 7:05PM
@30 True however the 360 was the first out of the gate therefore it had nothing to lose by not having a sharp library. Now with the ps3 not having a sharp library people just say oh well i'll just by a wii/360 and in correspondense developers are saying oh well since the ps3 has no userbase i'll just develope for the wii/ps3. Secondly i do not beleive that you have a 360 because nobody in their left mind would buy a 360 just for 2 games and then go on to hope that theyre 360 breaks before the 2 games come out. Lastly my previous statement leads me to beleive that you are just another ps3 rambling fanboy. So in conclusion you really need to STFU!
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 7:19PM
Maynard: Once again I'll state that the Blu-ray drive probably boosts the cost of the PS3 by 2%.
Your argument for the Cell being unnecessary is kind of weak. Yes, right now the 360 is doing stuff better than the PS3, but wait till the fall, or even later on, we'll see what the Cell can do. You may be right. Maybe the Cell WAS a bad choice for the PS3, but I know that other companies have used it in other applications and it's ridiculously fast. When you write highly optimized code for it, it's unrivaled - Fold@Home can churn through a protein about TWENTY times faster than my 2.0gig Core2 Duo Mac. Notice how Stanford hasn't even mentioned the notion of developing an F@H for the 360?
maynard @ Jul 4th 2007 7:30PM
@ Stef
I suppose you could be right, but every article I've seen on the subject suggests otherwise. I'm sure the cost has come down since this article was written, but it has been a while since I've seen anyone talk about it. I've definitely never seen any articles saying it only raises the price by 2%. If you could provide some proof of that, it would be appreciated.
This article actually says $100-$150 and there are millions of similar articles:
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/749/749868p1.html
maynard @ Jul 4th 2007 7:56PM
Here's an even better article, listing the costs for each component in the ps3. The numbers may be a little off from what were the final figures, but they're most likely accurate.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/02/18/playstation-3-costs-900-sez-merrill-lynch-mob/
My point about the cell: considering the cell really doesn't push gaming any further ahead in terms of tech., was it necessary to include that processor considering the costs associated (including dev. costs and especially dev. time)? Sure, the cell is more than likely more powerful than the 360's cpu, but that cpu takes half the time to develop for, is making its games look better (atm), and is more cost effective for devs.
I keep hearing, "wait until such and such date to judge the cell," but am I to believe that devs. are going to suddenly unlock this explosion of cpu power as opposed to what I see today? It may get "marginally" better, but I don't ever see ps3 games doing much more than what can be done on the 360.
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 8:05PM
Yeah, I know. There have been a lot of those cost analysis charts etc, and I know I'm no authority, but I find it hard to believe that they're accurate. I seem to remember a comparison chart showing that the 360's DVD drive cost MS $25 and the BR Drive cost Sony $90. Yeah freaking right. I can probably go buy a decent DVD BURNER for $30, and it won't sound like a Rolls-Royce. So if I, a meager consumer buying a drive with all the packaging pay a whole $30 for a superior drive, how is it possible that MS pays almost as much as I do for an inferior drive purchased by the million? MS probably pays less than $10 for those drives. My point is that those cost analysis things seem like a load of crap.
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 8:13PM
Just looked at that second article. According to engadget, the PS3 BR Drive costs Sony $350. In Canada I can buy an internal Blu-Ray Drive for $509, which is $481 US right here: http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=0926INGFS10082098&catid=20236
Is someone going to try to tell me that Sony, despite buying (wait, don't they make them themselves?) drives by the million, without the packaging and external casing, is only seeing a $130 savings off the consumer price? Absurd.
Stef Geiger @ Jul 4th 2007 8:15PM
Sorry, furthering my argument, I just realized that drive is TWICE as fast as the PS3's, AND it's capable of burning. How much less do you think a 2x Read-only drive would cost?
maynard @ Jul 4th 2007 8:45PM
The ign article says the blue-ray drive is $100-$150. I think that one is more accurate. I was looking at the engadget article for the cell's cost.
If you look in the right column of the engadget article, it DOES say the cost will come down to $100 in 3 years. They seem to have misjudged how quickly it would come down in cost.
T @ Jul 4th 2007 8:54PM
don't you think you guys are just a tad bit off topic?
Dahk @ Jul 4th 2007 10:33PM
Sorry about being a meticulous bastard.
But its BLU-RAY! Not Blue with an E! Its not BLUE! AGGH *runs around the house screaming*
Yeah, it sorta did get a little off topic T =P But its all in good nature, and really I was kinda interested in this too lol.
T @ Jul 4th 2007 10:52PM
You know what? this site could "REALLY" use a forum. I am surprised it doesn't have one it seems like a brilliant idea to me.
P.S. your right why didn't sony just add an E in there now it sound like blood without a D "ray". unless they secretly use blood to make blu ray technology.
Titty Pink @ Jul 4th 2007 11:50PM
Well, as much as i love the PS3 the fact remains that there is no reason to run out and buy one TODAY, and as long as one can find titles at an equal or better quality elsewhere, its gonna be pretty difficult to get real gamers onboard. If Sony could've kept GTA an exclusive title, you wouldn't be able to find a PS3 on a shelf for months after the release date. Many people bought Xboxs just for Halo, and didn't play many (if any) other games for it. Halo is the perfect example of how an exclusive title can push consoles off of the shelves. The PS2 enjoyed similar success with Ace Combat, Devil May Cry, and MGS last generation. I think it's bad business to take the moral high ground in this regard. You don't stand to gain anything by letting giving the competition the opportunity to offer the same product at a seemingly cheaper price. I mean if Nintendo would have used the same logic in the 8 bit era, Sega may still be in the console business. Smarten up Sony, use your buying power and get vicious. If not, its gonna be uphill for a long time...
Titty Pink @ Jul 4th 2007 11:50PM
As far as pushing the blu ray down our throats, the PS2 pushed DVD in a similar fashion. It was many people's first DVD player and who DOESN'T run DVDs now. They probably had the same idea for blu ray and from the way things are looking its working...
Stef Geiger @ Jul 5th 2007 12:38AM
@42: They made it "Blu" because you can't trademark a colour.
Marco Cano Jr @ Jul 5th 2007 1:46AM
It really bothers me that how many people other then Sony Fans have no idea what kind of games they are making themselves (LittleBigPlanet, Warhawk, Ratchet, etc). Tel, who was talking about choosing the 360 because it has more RPGs. Well Sony has RPG's too, they're called Folk Lore and White Knight Story, of course FFXIII (80% sure its a PS3 Exclusive but who knows) and Trusty Bell has been rumored to come out on the PS3 because its showed up on the ESRB website listing. Now I don't know if Tel is interested in the 360 RPGs more then the PS3's but it does have em. Now look, I am obviously a Playstation 3 owner, I have played the other consoles plenty of times and I REALLY know how they are. Xbox live is awesome and Wii is meh and knowing all that I still picked up the PS3. I GUESS do feel bad for Sony for losing a sale on a PS3 because such is avalible on another KIND OF cheaper console (400 is still a lot). I don't care though if its avalible on other consoles. As long I can still play it, I'm fine with it.
Alecks @ Jul 5th 2007 7:50AM
Ninegauger,
Their first party games were the best of all time. Anyone who played Ico Loved it, Anyone who played SOTC, Loved it. I'm sure if you didnt' have a ps2 when those games came out, you woulda gotten one for it. Ico being the earliest of the library and SOTC being the latest, in two time distant contrast. If Sony's first party is decent only, then all other first party developers are in serious trouble.
Ryu Ryuga @ Jul 5th 2007 10:56PM
this doesn't give the developers any more incentive to understand PS3 architecture.
you think companies care if their employer's got a clean conscience? nope. they only care about how fast they can make a game using what they know and how much money they can make with it.
but kudos to Sony for keeping their hands outta the cookie jar and not peeing on the toilet seat. phew.