Ken Kutaragi's Famous Last Words

When we look back on this E3, I think one of the moments we're most clearly going to remember is the dead silence in the Sony press conference following the price announcement. Eurogamer and GameDaily has coverage of Phil Harrison's spin work, trying to recover from that moment, discussing how Sony is not ripping off Nintendo and Microsoft probably won't meet their 10 million units goal. More interestingly, they discuss an interview with Ken Kutaragi conducted by a Japanese website. From that piece: "SCEI president Ken Kutaragi has defended the PlayStation 3's high price tag once again, declaring that not only will consumers be prepared to pay the cost but that the console is 'probably too cheap.' In an interview with Japanese website IT Media, partially translated by IGN, Kutaragi said: 'This is the PS3 price. Expensive, cheap - we don't want you to think of it in terms of game machines ... For instance ... Is it not nonsense to compare the charge for dinner at the company cafeteria with dinner at a fine restaurant? It's a question of what you can do with that game machine. If you can have an amazing experience, we believe price is not a problem.'"

Yeah, well...

... I don't know about the rest of you, but I never, ever eat in really expensive restaurants. As good as the food may be, it's simply not worth the additional cost. Which is why I'll be getting a Wii and not the PS3.

Re:Yeah, well...

I think it depends on the situation, and the person. If you're hungry, and you just want food, it would be nonsensicle to go to the fancy restaurant when you could get a filling burrito from a value menu.

On the other hand, if you're trying to impress a guest or a boss, you don't bring them to Taco Bell, you bring them to a fancy restaurant.

But just how fancy are we talking here? I don't think this analogy is valid, ESPECIALLY in today's world. 'Fancy' usually amounts to an Olive Garden or some other such chain restaurant, whose prices are reasonable. If we were talking about the 1600's, this would be a different story, of course. Fancy restaurants were all the rage, because it wasn't about being full, it was about impressing people. Then again, everyone had head lice in the 1600's. Go figure.

In the modern world, people want what is cheap and gives them the most for their money. Sony's not doing well on this point: if we extend the analogy, our 'hunger' is for games, not for music or movies or dancing and singing. It's wonderful that the fancy restaurant has live music or dancers or a movie or whatnot, but I'm not about to pay extra for it when all I want is food (games).

I'll take the cafeteria, thank you very much. Oooh, look! Pudding cups!

Re:Yeah, well...

Yeah, we're getting into fois gras/escargot territory. Stuff that may be fancy but no one in their right mind would want to eat. ;)

Re:Yeah, well...

Yeah, we're getting into fois gras/escargot territory. Stuff that may be fancy but no one in their right mind would want to eat. ;)

Sorta like caviar, eh? Speaking of which, for the cost of the high end PS3, you could get about 7 ounces of Russian Imperial caviar. For a Wii, you could get about 50 foot long subs.

I know which I'd take!

Re:Yeah, well...

Foie gras is amazing. It's like warm, meat-flavored butter.

Re:Yeah, well...

Foie gras and veal are great rabble rousers, and, I confess, I don't eat either of them. However, the reasons behind their emergence as foodstuffs challenge the usual presentation of them as "wanton cruelty in action".

Veal arose as a foodstuff because raising male cattle was considered wasteful. Female dairy cows were kept as milk-producers, of course, but keeping a male bull was cruel and wasteful if it was not going to be bred. The modern practice of gelding them to increase fat production is also cruel and wasteful, but steers don't fight one another. Bulls do, and the fights result in unnecessary injuries. Thus, all the animals were slaughtered except for one which was kept for breeding.

The result? Veal.

Similarly, foie gras arose from the feeding of male geese to fatten them for slaughter. Again, you can argue that slaughter is intrinsically cruel; as an omnivore, I'll respectfully disagree. It turns out that the liver of any fattened bird is particuarly luscious, and the net result is foie gras.

Re:Yeah, well...

On the other hand, if you're trying to impress a guest or a boss, you don't bring them to Taco Bell, you bring them to a fancy restaurant.

Unless you're Sylvester Stallone, that is....

Re:Yeah, well...

not true. people don't always want what's cheap and gives them the most for their money.

the ipod is the perfect example of this. there are boundless examples of DAPs with more features at or below ipod costs. nonetheless, the ipod is synonymous with digital music in 2006 in popular culture.

I live in New York. Fancy here definitly does not amount to Olive Garden. lol. You'd be drawn and quartered before being ceremoniously fired for taking a client there.

All of which is to say - if people associate the PS3 as the premium must have gaming device, price might not be an issue. Also, if Sony gets 70% retention of the PS2 installation base, PS3 will be an awesome success. I just don't see that not happening.

Re:Yeah, well...

You want a fancy restaurant? Buy a PC.

Re:Yeah, well...

But just how fancy are we talking here? I don't think this analogy is valid, ESPECIALLY in today's world. 'Fancy' usually amounts to an Olive Garden or some other such chain restaurant, whose prices are reasonable.

Fancy may amount to that to the uneducated, (understanding food, like understanding tech, takes experience and education) - but I can take you to at least four different restaurants in my town where you can get gourmet cooking at Denny's prices.

If we were talking about the 1600's, this would be a different story, of course. Fancy restaurants were all the rage, because it wasn't about being full, it was about impressing people.

It would be awful hard to impress someone with a fancy restaurant in the 1600's - they didn't exist. The modern restaurant is a child of the French Revolution.

I Eat at Expensive Restaurants

My wife and I quite enjoy an occasional trip to a 4 or 5-star restaurant (when I'm employed and not in school). We go... probably once every two years or so. We also take our daughter to McDonalds for frenmch fries, ice cream, and the PlayPlace 5-10 times per year. I can tell you this: La Caille [lacaille.com] has amazing ambiance, good food, and excellent service... and McDonalds [mcdonalds.com] is a multi-billion dollar global fast food chain.

Sony wants the ubiquity of McDonalds at La Caille prices... but what's more, this isn't like 5-star versus Fast Food. The games that come out for the PS3 will largely be the same games on the 360, and in many cases they will be the same games on the Wii. On any TV with 480p resolution or less (which is the majority of TVs out there), all three systems will look the same.

No wonder Sony is running scared. This entire interview is filled with backpedalling--Sony called Nintendo's controller a "gimmick," but now? Oh, they've been thinking about it since 1994. Sony shows us the banana controller, but now? Oh, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Spin control? Sony desperately needs the PS3 to succeed, not as a game machine, but as a trojan set-top box. To this point they have been operating under the assumption that PS2 owners would naturally gravitate to the PS3.

And now, not only has Microsoft financed an enormous end-run around Sony's media console strategy, Nintendo is breaking out the big guns--virtually every major franchise in their formidable arsenal has appeared at this year's E3.

Before E3, I was hoping that Nintendo could beat out Microsoft and take 2nd place in this console war. I figured Sony had pretty much locked 1st place up. Now? The past generation doesn't matter. After this E3, it's anyone's game. Which is Sony's unique challenge: when you're number 1, there's really nowhere to go but down.

Maybe I'll get a PS3 the next time I eat at La Caille.

Sinking Dollar to Blame?

In the last 120 days, the value of the dollar has gone from about 120 yen to under 110. If this trend continues, it could give the 360 a pretty decent home-field advantage. Granted, all components are made outside the US (and possibly outside of Japan), but demonimating the wealth in dollars is probably much easier than doing so in Yen.

Re:Sinking Dollar to Blame?

It's caused by two effects:

1. The exchange rate [google.com]. £410 is equivalent to what we pay in the US, but thanks to the exchange rate that gets jacked up by 27%.

2. VAT. Up to 20% in taxes really sucks. Sales tax isn't reflected in US prices, but it's usually about 5-7% over the store price. Thus a $399 machine will go out the door for as much as $426.

Pride cometh before a fall...

You know, Ken, if the gaming press is saying that's probably too expensive, and a lot of hard-core gamers are looking at your price and honestly wondering if they can even afford it, maybe you should listen.

On the other hand, by E3 it was already too late to change course on that.

It's amazing how badly E3 went for Sony. I'd say Microsoft at least broke even, Nintendo scored in a big way, almost entirely at the expense of Sony, which lost big.

On Slashdot, digg, and other gaming sites I've been looking at, the Sony fanboy has overnight become an endangered species. That is what is really telling me Sony has a problem. If even the Retardusfuckwitis Internetus, a species Sony nearly owned last week, is defecting, you're gonna die.

Re:Pride cometh before a fall...

its not even that, they also took out the HDMI hookup, which is the whole POINT of the system. Without it all that system is is a PS2 with a more expensive untried possessor and a more expensive and untried Blu-ray drive that you CANT EVEN USE since Blu-Ray requires you have HDMI output.

whats worse is the developers are saying the PS3 is incredibly hard to code for, Sony hasn't given them the tools to help them make the best use of the cell possessor, and as such the games shown looked no better than 360 games which are on a system 200 dollars LESS for the top system, and didnt require you to spend the extra money on a HD-DVD drive since it didnt ship with it in the first place.

Sony isnt in a bind for money, its they thought that being top dog they could continue to be it even if what they asked from the players in financial payment was ridiculous. What Sony forgot was when it comes to new systems, you start fresh and new and you have to get EVERYONE back, even the fanboys. Nintendo didnt forget this because they have been on both ends that of the top dog and that of fighting for teh win. Microsoft didnt forget this because this is what they where praying for after the disaster that was the original Xbox launch. They knew that new system = fresh start.

Sony and its executives in particular got very cocky, a problem that has plagued their company since day one (can you say Walkman)

Re:The Dual Shock Wii

You mean DualShake, not DualShock. "Dual" referred to the two analog sticks, which the DualShake has. "Shock" referred to the force feedback, which Sony removed from the DualShake.

According to Sony, this has nothing to do with their losing a patent case with Immersion Corporation [arstechnica.com] and is because their motion sensing technology would be "confused" by the force feedback technology.

It's worth noting that the Wii controller will support rumble technology along with motion detection. Personally, I'm curious if the hastely-added "motion" technology wasn't the only reason force feedback was removed, and if it weren't also due to battery concerns, since the new controller is wireless. I have a feeling that the motion feedback was added for three reasons:

1. To try and steal some thunder from the Wii.
2. To try and provide a reason why they removed the force feedback function due to the ongoing lawsuit with Immersion Corporation.
3. Because when the controller contained force feedback technology, the battery life in the wireless controller was far too short.

Although this is all wild speculation on my behalf.

Re:The Dual Shock Wii

You can subtract out the effect of the force feedback on acceleration fairly successfully, but not perfectly. It'd cause the controller to noticably drift, probably in a matter of seconds of force feedback, so that where a straight controller was driving the car straight a moment ago, now it's 5 degrees to the right. It'd add up fast. Expensive precision components might limit this to an acceptable degree but it'll be too expensive.

The reason Nintendo can "get away with" having force feedback in their controller is they have a second (and probably third and possibly fourth) point of reference in the sensor bar, so they can correct drift by referencing this other point (or points). (I don't have inside info, but the bar is presumably a bar because it has a position sensor on each end, or it'd be a "sensor button", and since accuracy is probably a big deal, I'd add one in the middle for another reference point; not as good as having a non-colinear reference point but still better than just 2; how much better would depend on a math analysis.) Or, more accurately, they never have drift problems because they don't have to try to trust the controller in the first place, just the sensor bar's assessment of the position and velocity, and the controller's report of acceleration.

So, my conclusion is Sony removed their rumble because it was far too late to add a sensor bar to their package, and so the only other choice was dropping force feedback. Their controllers will still need periodic re-zeroing, although clever programming and a bit of guesswork can minimize the need to do this explicitly. Still, it could have some tricky cases; if you've ever powered up your console while an analog stick wasn't centered, you've experienced this already. Make sure your new PS3 controllers are correctly horizontal when powering them up.

So the PS3 is the gourmet restaurant of consoles?

In that case...waiter? Check please!

Value of PS3

IF you see the PS3 as more than a game console, and intend to use it as a Blue-Ray disc player and/or whatever other features Sony decides to add to it, then it might be worth it. From a purely gaming perspective, unless there is some game only on the PS3 you can't live without, it just ain't worth it.

Translation: "We can't lower our costs"

Or at least, that's what I'm getting out of the whole thing. We already knew the PS3 was going to be expensive to produce. The only question was how much Sony would charge for the machine.

"However, when released, both [PlayStation and PlayStation 2] had sales that were unthinkable for previous game machines. This is because both offered experiences that could not be had on previous machines." [SCEI president Ken Kutaragi said.] "Things like next-generation graphics and various services via the network. And, as with the PS and PS2, we believe people who like games will, without question, purchase it."

Right... no one's ever seen next generation graphics [xbox360.com] before, or even various services via the network [xbox.com].

Seriously, I never had any intention of buying any of the next-gen consoles when they were released (that includes the Wii; by the time it comes out, I may finally get around to getting a DS :)), but the more I hear about the PS3, the more I realize I'm definitely not going to be buying any of the first-generation PS3s. Two versions, one an un-upgradable "cheap" version, weird controllers without force feedback, and the $500/$600 price tag all are making me that much more willing to wait for a PS3.

I'm more than willing to wait until the PSThwii gets released, with a single version that supports everything, and hopefully with wireless controllers that support force feedback. Oops, sorry, that's supposed to be "PSthree" in the style of the "PStwo" and "PSone" rereleases.

And to think, if anything, I'm a Sony fanboy...

Viva la Sony!

SCEI president Ken Kutaragi has defended the PlayStation 3's high price tag once again, declaring that not only will consumers be prepared to pay the cost but that the console is 'probably too cheap.'

This man is a genius! I've got to get me a piece of this...

I hereby announce that not only are the rest of you Slashdotters fully prepared to Paypal me ten bucks every time you get to read one of my fabulous posts, but I'm letting you all off easy by not demanding twenty.

It Costs Too Much

That's all there is too it.

I was thinking of getting a 360 but didn't because I wasn't going to pay $400 for a console without games that I saw as must have (still none in my eyes, although there are games I want to play).

I probably would have bought a PS3 at $400.

There is no way I'm paying $600 for a console. When the non-crippled version is available for $400 I'll probably buy it. If I can get it used for $350 I'll buy it. I'm not paying $600 unless it comes with 5 games of my choice.

And let's forget that stupid "it's also a blu-ray player" argument. That's a great argument... for anyone who wants a blu-ray player. I don't want a blu-ray player. I don't care. I don't have a HDTV so it doesn't make a difference to me. It's like saying "buy a Sega-CD because it's also a LaserDisc player (I know it wasn't)". That's how useless it is to me (and I'm willing to bet most everyone).

When the PS2 came out the DVD player argument was actually quite good. DVD players were in demand and there was a very noticeable leap in quality over VHS, along with the convenience (no rewinding, better sound, random access, doesn't degrade with repeated playings, etc). The market was starving for DVDs so they were being bought. The ability to buy something that cost a little more than a DVD player that also played excellent games and PS1 games was a good one (not why I bought mine, but a good reason).

No one cares about Blu-Ray or HD-DVD except a few early adopters. For the rest of us, you're just asking us to buy a $600 toy (plus games at $70 or $80 a pop). No sale.

I thought MS's pricing was bad. MS is going to do very good this holiday season. All those people waiting for PS3s? Lots will buy a 360 and a couple of games instead (especially if there is a price drop or redesign, say the new 360 full version (not core) for $300 or so). The Wii will be under $300, with many rumors placing it at $150 or $200.

Billy wants a video-game system for Christmas. Do I buy him the one with Mario for $200, the one with Halo for $350, or the one with Warhawk for $600. Guess how many average american families will choose that last one.

Sony, you lead for 2 generations. Obviously, it's time for you to step aside for a while so you can look at your play book and get a clue. I hope Nintendo can put it out and get a big lead, but Sony is shooting themselves in the foot with a RPG.

The 3DO launched at $700 and could play Video CDs and do all these other things too. It died, pretty much completely due to the price (it could have been a good also-ran like the DC if the price was better). The CD-i was the same thing, and it cost $400 (when other consoles were $150-$200). It bombed too.

Sony: it was nice knowing you. Come back in a generation or two.

Go Nintendo!... and Microsoft's price suddenly looks sane and like a bargain.

Remember the PS2!

No offense Ken. But I heard this same BS when the PS2 came out. You know, how the PS2 wasn't a video game console, it was a home entertainment device that was going to revolutionize my living room. There was all this talk of expansion, it had built in Firewire and USB, space for a hard drive, people speculated it might function as a DVR too. Even Microsoft tried to sell the original XBOX the same way -- That it was much more than a console. (and before anyone accuses me of being a Nintento fanboy I assure you I'm not. The last Nintendo I ever owned was an SNES).

Fortunately for Sony, the PS2 came out at a time when a lot of people still didn't have DVD players so Sony was somewhat vindicated by that. But Sony has a habit of overhyping and under-delivering (i.e. using cut scenes in product promos and passing them off as real graphics). I think that this round, the PS3 is going to have a tough sell since no one seems to really want to be an early adopter of Blu-Ray / HD-DVD.

I had high hopes for this latest round of next generation systems. I bought a 360, and while it's pretty impressive there still isn't a huge library of games, let alone decent ones, for it. I want to get a PS3 but I am not going to buy one right away if there aren't any decent launch titles (learned my lesson on the 360). I still think the Wii is too gimicky but I might be proven wrong. I want to actually play with one before I decide.

I am starting to wonder if we aren't about to have another video game crash. But maybe I'm being too melodramatic. Either that or Nintendo is about to make a triumphant return to the "good old days". Will be interesting to see...

Re:Remember the PS2!

Yeah, but the Xbox at least got a Media Center Extender option and had Live.

The PS2 phased out the IEEE 1394 ports, and the hard drive/LAN adapter was used for... Final Fantasy XI?

There's the problem. MS actually figured out how to sell more than just a console, Nintendo figured out how to make a profit selling just a console, and Sony... hyped up a piece of crap which was crippled more and more with each hardware revision.

And let's not talk about how many of those 100 million shipped PS2's were replacements for burnt-out DVD drives.

Not getting it

I really don't know what the fuss is about.

Sony will charge high prices for the initial release of the PS3 and they will sell them as fast as they can make them. After demand decreases at that price, they will adjust the price to match the competition.

They can do this because there are people that will pay the initial release price and be happy to do so. The XBOX 360 was arguably underpriced on release: how many were sold on ebay for prices way above the MSRP?

Freaking about the price of the PS3 is meaningless, because the price is temporary, and will come down when it makes sense for it to do so. In the meantime, Sony will recoup their costs on a production line that is still scaling up to volume production, early adopters will voluntarily get screwed and appreciate the experience, and life will go on for everyone else.

Until then, I'll be playing games on my GameCube, PSP, and PS2, and will be generally chilling out. I suggest everyone else do the same.

-Nurf

It's expensive, but...

I'll be buying one. I think is just the fact that game consoles are being marketed to more gen x'ers and not starving college students and kids anymore.

I'm in the minority

I'm completely willing to pay Sony's asking price for the PS3. People knew it was going to be expensive, and what do you know, it is expensive.

In Canada with our once devalued dollar, the PS2 would launch at $299 USD and we'd be paying $499 CDN for it. But thanks to the poor American dollars, and the rising Canadian dollar, as PS3 launched at $499 USD is now only $549 CDN. So really for Canadian, the PS3 isn't expensive at all. It's only $50 more than the PS2 was at launch!

The PS3's price hype has worked tripley against Sony:

1) It seems to have stifled the PS3's momentum
2) It has drawn attention away from a -completely- underwhelming showing of the Xbox 360. (In terms of future games, I'm very disappointed in what's coming out for the 360.)
3) Its taken attention away from PS3 games that at least truly appear to distance the PS3's technical abilities from the Xbox 360 (MGS4, Heavy Rain, Assassin's Creed, a handful of tech demos)

Ultimately though, I think people -want- the PS3. They're underwhelmed by the 360, and they want the PS3 to be spectacular. They've been waiting for it forever. It will be flying off the shelf when it launches whether Sony deserves it or not.