Kaz Hirai discusses recent Sony events

by Nick Doerr { Nov 8th 2007 at 8:30PM }

Recently, Kaz Hirai sat down with Famitsu and talked about some of the recent goings-on in the PlayStation universe. The main topics of discussion talked about the delay of Home, the loss of backwards compatibility, and the loss of the Monster Hunter title to the Wii. Bullet points should be exactly what the doctor ordered here.

Hirai feels the delay of Home will ultimately have a positive effect, as he is not happy with the current working version. He wants to make sure it's the best Sony can deliver to its fans and that's always nice, whether it's truth or spin.
As for backwards compatibility, Hirai and company decided it was more important to get PS3 owners to buy PS3 games and Blu-ray movies and play those on the system, in addtion to PSN content. Removing the backwards compatibility and lowering the price is just one strategy employed to get the PS3 in more homes, he says.
As for Monster Hunter going to the Wii, Hirai passed the announcement off saying that game companies get to choose what platform to slap their titles on. The franchise helped the PS2 and PSP, but there's another Monster Hunter title due on the PSP in March of '08, so it's not as big of a deal. Or something.

Other talking points included why the 40GB model wasn't announced at TGS, the selling of Cell manufacturing facilities, and a short discussion of the upcoming holiday and all the excitement that entails.

Tags: kaz-hirai

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

leiwei @ Nov 8th 2007 8:37PM

Read somewhere (probably here, gamersyde, or psu) that Sony wants people to purchase PS3 titles so that everyone moves away from PS2 to the new system, hence a final decision to cut out BC. Someone on gamefaqs also speculated this because the PS2 memcard adapter -> PS3 can put PS2 gamesaves into the PS3, but can't convert them back to PS2 format.

Andy @ Nov 8th 2007 8:43PM

I like this method of cutting off last gen. Sony isn't completely abandoning their prior console but still moving forward. As someone who values the longevity of my purchases this is a big deal to me.

linebeginstoblur @ Nov 8th 2007 9:18PM

@1

I have a memory card adapter, and I play almost all PS2 games on my PS3 now. But there have been a few times that I was going to play on someone else's PS2, and I was able to copy it to a memory card via an adaptor and use the same save data on a PS2. I haven't had a problem with it yet, so I don't know what you are talking about.

Jason B. @ Nov 8th 2007 9:36PM

@1 and 3, one of the earlier updates allowed people to move their PS2 game saves back and forth through the memory card adapter. Originally, it was only a one way thing.

eugene @ Nov 8th 2007 10:24PM

i think sony's new stance on backwards compatibility betrays a deeper issue at hand: sony completely misunderstood their target demographic for the playstation3. customers who buy a now sub-$200 device to play games are not typically the same customers who would buy a $400 game console (which itself is mired in electronics identity crisis). sony may spin their new lack of backwards compatibility as a step forward for playstation3 software, but let's face it - it's an attempt at force-feeding their loyal customers software for a system they weren't willing to purchase in the first place.

i've been a playstation fan for as long as they've been in the business, but this 40gb model debacle has really hurt my commitment to the sony brand.

eugene @ Nov 8th 2007 10:25PM

oh, and by "sub-$200 device" i'm obviously referring to the playstation2.

Zombie Huggles @ Nov 8th 2007 10:46PM

Calm thyself eugene, there is still an 80 gig version available, obviously they were trying to open up their market. They're not forcing use to buy a "weaker" system, they're just offering it. I personally find BC very important and as a loyal sony customer, I was sure to get my hands on a 60 gig at launch. As long as future Playstation 3s and the eventual PS4 always offer a model with BC, I don't mind them throwing out "cheap" versions that ax-it.

eugene @ Nov 8th 2007 11:04PM

but isn't the bwc on the 80gb version gimped? and reports suggest that the 60gb version will be replaced by the 80gb versions once the 60gb's are sold out. so i'm not sure that bwc is something that will always exist.

eugene @ Nov 8th 2007 11:07PM

what irritates me is not that they didn't go the extra mile to put bwc on the 40gb. what bothers me is that it would've been so easy and was a major selling point for the ps3 in general. as an employee at a retail store, i know that customers are disappointed with sony's decision, a disappointment that keeps them from taking the bait of a $400 ps3.

mccomber @ Nov 8th 2007 11:06PM

OK Eugene, you lost me. If customers who would buy a ps2 are not customers who would buy a ps3... what is the loss in not having BC? It's a very, very small minority who are buying a ps3 at this point who never owned a ps2, but own or plan to buy ps2 games. For those people, the ps2 still exists at a very low price, and the 80gb ps3 is in place.
I believe it's the early adopters are the ones who are most interested in having BC, since we are the ones who are most likely more "hardcore" gamers, and are more likely to keep our old games around and still play them. At one year in, we're leaving behind the early adopter phase, and entering the real deal of hardware sales. The 40gb fits into that market quite well, and the 80gb still fills the BC niche.
How is Sony "force-feeding" anyone ps3 software? You are the one who chose to buy a ps3, obviously you bought it to play ps3 games. Otherwise... you would have bought a ps2. Complaining about buying games for console designed to play them? Whatever.

eugene @ Nov 8th 2007 11:11PM

i'm speaking from a merchant's perspective. the ps3 is a luxury console in the eyes of our store's customers. having backwards compatibility was a stepping stone to getting people to buy ps3's. the number of people who can afford a luxury system with so few games is quite few, even if this site's readership features a greater proportion of those who can. bottom line is that it is cheaper and more affective from a business standpoint to maintain repeat customers. sony made a mistake in changing target demographics from a larger one with the ps2 to a smaller one with the ps3. they should've foreseen the shift.

Neil @ Nov 9th 2007 1:00AM

@eugene

How would it have been "so easy" for the 40GB to have backwards compatibility when Sony removed ALL the chips necessary for backwards compatibility? From what Sony said it sounds like they would have had to do every thing in software emulation like what Microsoft had to do with the 360 which was very costly and time consuming.

Not having backwards compatibility is a bit of a downer, but far from the end of the world and for sure isn't worth getting upset about.

ZeroSA @ Nov 9th 2007 1:52AM

@ 12

The "chips" you mentioned in your post, the ones that were used for Backwards Compatibility, is what eugene was talking about. It saved Sony very little money to remove those chips from their system. Basically, the sole reason they did remove said chips was to force people to buy PS3 software. Software for the PS3 has not been doing too hot and Sony hopes that forcing people to buy only PS3 games will help this.

Truckondo @ Nov 9th 2007 2:24AM

PS2 still has PS1 compatibility and look at the success of that system. PS3 has had a pretty bad year for games. The good games are now finally starting to show up and Electronic Arts is being exposed for the shoddy ports they've been dumping on us. I own both a 360 and PS3. I still go for 360 versions of dual format releases due to controller comfort and LIVE integration. I think removing the PS2 compatibility was a stupid move as it goes against the tradition of the playstation features. Home is something I have no interest in. They should spend time working on a more simple way to connect gamers like live. I don't want to spend time loading "my pad" with little chairs and sofas that will cost real money through the wonders of micro-transactions. That might float some peoples boats but not mine.

Popfrogs @ Nov 9th 2007 7:41AM

Personally I say good riddance to BC. If you're concerned about it, buy the 80G instead. The 40G is physically simpler inside and runs cooler. The decision to delete 2 USB ports on it, however, puzzles me.

It seems like Sony has some grand plan here, but I can't figure it out. There's always something weird with everything they do these days.

halebound00 @ Nov 9th 2007 10:57AM

Quick question, after the first year of having a PS2, did anybody play PS1 games anymore? No? You know why? Probably because PS2 games came out and were way cooler. Now, kids, lets apply this logic to the PS3. Now (after being out for a year) the PS3 has lots of great games either out, or out within a month. Who is gonna have time to play PS2 games once they can get bigger and better PS3 games. I mean seriously, if it was for the GOW franchise and Manhunt 2, I wouldn't've played a PS2 game since I had my PS3 and that was even during the drought. BC isn't that important and if it was, you should've gotten a 60 gig when they were available.

XDragon @ Nov 9th 2007 11:46AM

Its not easy to add bc on the 40g because its a lot harder to emulate a gpu than a cpu. Even with a more powerful gpc and cpu in the ps3, the ps2 gpu does things very differently and those differences have to be translated for the emulation to work; you can't just throw more power at it. The 80g still has the gpu and the bc is almost as good as the 60g and i'm sure will be on par with future updates. Thats not to say that one day the 40g won't be updated to have ps2 bc but its not a priority for Sony as customers have the choice of which system to purchase based on the customers needs. Don't get me wrong, i'd only buy a 40g as a 2nd system more as a cheap blu ray player because i still like being able to have everything work and not have multiple systems but it looks like a lot of people don't care to play their old games once next gen sequels are released which makes the 40g an excellent option for them.

Kruegmeister @ Nov 9th 2007 1:00PM

I think the Removal of Backwards Compatibility is a move to make the Game Developers Happy.

Like others have said the 80 Gig gets you that Backwards Compatibility + Double the Hard Drive + MotorStorm all for an extra $100. So if it is important to you then get the 80 Gig. If your on a tight budget then you have to make that call if you can sacrifice the Backwards Compatibility to save $100.

I personally put a high value on Backwards Compatibility because my Kids and I play a lot of PS2 games still which is why I bought the 60 Gig. Many Titles simply don't need the Next Gen Power, like Dance Dance Revolution for Instance. I've bought PS2 titles even after purchasing my PS3.

Even with that said that has not slowed down my PS3 buying habits as I have 10 PS3 titles already and a few Blu-Ray Movies.

To sum it up:
Backwards Compatibility is Important to some but not all people. At least on the PS3 we have a choice. I was not given a choice on my XBox360, It is 10% Backwards Compatible.

Consolcwby @ Nov 11th 2007 12:31AM

As I've said on this site before: The only Sony exec who wanted bc was Kutaragi. He fought Sony to put bc in the PS2, and he had to fight to get it in the PS3. Sony's decision to cut bc in the PS3 was made shortly after edging Kutaragi out. The 40GB unit is Sony taking the brand and making it the console they originally wanted. Considerably cheaper, but then again, you get what you pay for. I'm very happy to have my 60GB unit. VERY happy!