[barnak]

As revelations about Sony's thinking in not putting playable PS3 titles on the show floor at TGS last month emerge in the media, the difficulties facing the firm in making the next-generation transition without damaging existing business become more apparent, says Rob Fahey.

Sony's balancing act is becoming more and more interesting to watch by the day. Forced into revealing its next-generation hand far earlier than it would have liked by Microsoft's rush to get the Xbox 360 out while the Xbox is dumped unceremoniously into an early grave, much like a protesting elderly relative being dragged in the night from a nursing home and off to his fate, Sony now finds itself in the awkward position of trying to showcase the power of PlayStation 3, while making sure nobody loses interest in PSP or PS2.

The Tokyo Games Show was a good example of this delicate tightrope walking, with the PS3 being showcased in the form of video reels in a large open cinema, while the PS2 and PSP took pride of place on Sony's enormous demo pod area. However, an even more astonishing example comes from statements made by Sony exec Masatsuka Saeki speaking to Famitsu in the wake of the show.

Saeki-san apparently felt the need to explain why Sony had broken Ken Kutaragi's promise to have playable PS3 titles on the show floor - saying that the reason was that while the firm could have put playable code out there if it wanted to, PS3 was being shown in Japan for the first time at TGS, so the company wanted consumers to feel the same impact that people who saw the trailer reel at E3 did.

This is one of those circumstances where Sony might have been better off saying nothing, because any idiot can sniff that statement and tell that it doesn't smell of roses. "This is the first time we've shown PS3 in Japan" is not a reason to show off only the E3 videos and a few new ones, as any fool can tell. Statements like this sound defensive, and will immediately raise suspicions that the company is having trouble with PS3 development, that titles haven't progressed as far as Kutaragi-san might have wished or that the firm simply isn't happy with the quality of the titles as they stand, compared to the far closer to completion Xbox 360 games on the other side of the hall.

In fact, the reality is far more mundane. Sony almost certainly does have playable code ready on PS3, and plenty of real-time PS3 demonstrations took place in private meeting rooms around the TGS venue in Makuhari - it's just that the company is absolutely desperate not to detract attention from the PS2 and PSP line-up for Christmas and beyond. Certainly, it would be tough for Saeki-san to say this in public, but Sony doesn't want the current generation to end right now. PS2 is a cash cow, and PSP is still getting established; focusing on next generation too quickly will destroy what the firm has built with those platforms, and we don't doubt that Microsoft's name is cursed daily in Sony's offices for trying to force the console giant's hand in this manner.

There's a lesson here for the industry as a whole too, though; shortening the console cycle is a very dangerous business. Microsoft is keen to move to the next-gen faster than its rival, simply because it doesn't have so much to lose by dropping its existing platform and may have much to gain from moving first in the next platform battle - but ironically, if the company is too successful, the whole industry will suffer. Whether Microsoft likes it or not, the industry's publishers and developers need the PlayStation 2 to continue to be successful for their businesses to thrive - and launching the next generation into the consumer mindspace, at the same time forcing Sony into this tricky PR balancing act, threatens that entire hugely valuable ecosystem. If consumers lose interest in the current generation, it's not just Sony who'll lose out - every company in the industry will take the hit.

Thankfully, though, Sony seems quite good at the balancing act - even if sometimes it can be a little too cautious. Saeki-san also dropped the bombshell that originally, Sony was considering just showing the E3 demo reel, and that the Metal Gear Solid 4 trailer was only added at the last minute - a lucky eleventh hour addition, since without it, PS3 might as well not have bothered showing its face at TGS. We're glad we're not in the position of the Sony exec who has to make the calls that prevent PS3 from eclipsing the existing, profitable business, while still standing up to Microsoft's Xbox 360 PR machine, but we're also amazed at how close the company apparently came to effectively ceding round two of the next-gen battle before it even began.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11937



clears alot up for me.

[hugo]

It's the Xbox360 launch day that I'm concerned with.Sony is hiding their secrets so that they can reveal it all on that day.Perfect timing.

[blakjedi]

Saeki-san apparently felt the need to explain why Sony had broken Ken Kutaragi's promise to have playable PS3 titles on the show floor...

{highlighted for clarity ]
I remember some poor poster getting cranked on hard by a couple folks... Someone owes someone an apology me thinks...

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by hugo

It's the Xbox360 launch day that I'm concerned with.Sony is hiding their secrets so that they can reveal it all on that day.Perfect timing.

Doubtful. Nothing will stop X360 selling, like any system, at launch. They'd be competing with the X360 launch for attention too. I think we'll just see some more "information release" before the end of the year, and then probably a lot more in the new year.

Originally Posted by blakjedi

{highlighted for clarity ]
I remember some poor poster getting cranked on hard by a couple folks... Someone owes someone an apology me thinks...

When did Kutaragi promise this? I honestly can't remember, I only remember him saying at the PSM that it might be playable. Based on that comment at least, it should have been clear as and from July that playables shouldn't necessarily have been expected at TGS, and I think most who were paying attention weren't.

[hey69]

this thread is gay


voila, i said it

[barnak]

Originally Posted by Titanio

Doubtful. Nothing will stop X360 selling, like any system, at launch. They'd be competing with the X360 launch for attention too. I think we'll just see some more "information release" before the end of the year, and then probably a lot more in the new year.



When did Kutaragi promise this? I honestly can't remember, I only remember him saying at the PSM that it might be playable.

Hmm I thought I saw it in alot of places let me dig up some old sources and find out for sure

[RancidLunchmeat]

Cute spin, but I think the easiest explanation is that Sony isn't happy with their playable demos for the PS3 so they didn't show them.

Also, I fail to understand the part about the launching of the X360 being bad for the industry because people are still developing for the PS2.

Uhhh.. so? That'll teach developers not to keep pushing forwarded with titles on MS's competitor's consoles. Really, how is this bad for the industry? It's good MS, they're part of the industry. It's good for MS developers, they'll be the ones getting their titles off the shelf quicker. It's only bad for Sony and Sony developers who will be announcing new products on inferior hardware to compete with the X360.

As far as Sony walking the tight rope, I think it's laughable to give the props for doing 'such a great job', when at the same time essentially saying there was very little that they got to show and if they hadn't included the MGS vid at the last minute, there wouldn't have even needed to be any reason for them to be there.

MS is the one that forced Sony into this position, and if anybody thinks they didn't do it on purpose, they're too busy drinking the kool-aid.

[aldo]

Sony Computer Entertainment president Ken Kutaragi has hinted that there may be playable PlayStation 3 demos at this year's Tokyo Games Show. Speaking at the PlayStation Meeting in Japan last week, Kutaragi said: We hope to use the Tokyo Game Show as a chance for everyone to get to know, or possibly experience, what next-generation entertainment is all about.- Eurogamer

As Titanio said, Kutaragi only promised that we'd possibly see working games at TGS.

edit: More accurately. he did not necessarily mean playable games. That was the media's interpretation of Kutaragi's statement. To many, the SG4 trailer could be interpreted as a next-generation experience.


-aldo

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Also, I fail to understand the part about the launching of the X360 being bad for the industry because people are still developing for the PS2.

A 3-4 year cycle isn't good for the industry.

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Uhhh.. so? That'll teach developers not to keep pushing forwarded with titles on MS's competitor's consoles. Really, how is this bad for the industry? It's good MS, they're part of the industry. It's good for MS developers, they'll be the ones getting their titles off the shelf quicker.

No they won't, I guarantee you PS2 software will far outsell X360 software this Xmas.

It's about taking advantage of a large and mature userbase. Cutting short the generation prevents this. For MS it's not a problem because they were never going to get that same large userbase with Xbox in the same timeframe as PS2, but for publishers, they simply can't ignore PS2 right now. The transition appears to be slower this time than the last transition - the number of new big PS2 games still to come is quite large given that PS3 is due in the next 12 months. PS2 is a massive market right now, and it's very understandable if Sony and publishers are slower to leave it behind. You make consoles to build this kind of market, you don't just then abandon it when you get there. You'll still have PS2s selling beyond PS3's release, and you'll still see PS2 games beyond PS3's release - the same was true of PSone, but that'll be potentially even more pronounced with PS2.

[Johnny Awesome]

This article is nonsense. Consumers at large don't even pay attention to trade shows. Casuals gamers will walk into EB and buy whatever they can for whatever system they own this holiday, regardless of next-generation demos given to hardcore gamers at E3 and TGS.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Cute spin, but I think the easiest explanation is that Sony isn't happy with their playable demos for the PS3 so they didn't show them.

If we're going to take the article as factual (which you tacitly invoked by your use of the article in the latter portion of your post), It clearly states that playable material was presented behind-closed doors. Something which, IMHO, would be indicative of developers showing off titles to prospective publishers. Obviously, you don't show off RT playable material if it sucks to a publisher. That much is sheer logic.

It also has come to my attention after reading your post that racid (or otherwise rotten) lunchmeat is too close to dead meat for my liking.

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

MS is the one that forced Sony into this position, and if anybody thinks they didn't do it on purpose, they're too busy drinking the kool-aid.

Nobody is saying they didn't, much to the contrary if you would have read the article. What is up for debate is if Microsoft's willingness to cannobilize markets and platforms at their whim is good for the industry as a whole... I, for one, do not believe so. Their truncating and quickening of the console cycle is inheriently dangerous when viewed historically and you note that publishers profit from the latter half of the cycle; keep this in mind everytime you wish to promote the unbearable costs of developing for PlayStation3 argument.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by Titanio

No they won't, I guarantee you PS2 software will far outsell X360 software this Xmas.

En mass? Certainly. There will be more PS2 games available, and more people will own the PS2 than the X360. But I'm fairly certain that none of the X360 buyers will be purchasing PS2 games this Christmas. Do you disagree?

but for publishers, they simply can't ignore PS2 right now. The transition appears to be slower this time than the last transition - the number of new big PS2 games still to come is quite large given that PS3 is due in the next 12 months. PS2 is a massive market right now, and it's very understandable if Sony and publishers are slower to leave it behind. You make consoles to build this kind of market, you don't just then abandon it when you get there. You'll still have PS2s selling beyond PS3's release, and you'll still see PS2 games beyond PS3's release - the same was true of PSone, but that'll be potentially even more pronounced with PS2.

Sorry, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying that essentially because of the large installed base of the PS2, that it is still profitable for developers to continue to develop for that market.

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if Sony showed playable demos at TGS?

Also, you seem to believe (and I'm sure are correct), that the PS2 will continue to sell even after the PS3 is available. And PS2 games will also continue to sell. Once again, if that's the case.. How does Sony benefit or lose from pushing the PS3 now?

Developers won't leave the PS2 because Sony is pushing the PS3 according to this logic, because the PS2 already has such a huge install base the profit/unit is going to be greater. Additionally, the market of people that are going to buy the PS3 within 6 months (probably to 1 year) of it's launch is a completely different market than those who would be going out right now or within that 6 months to 1 year to buy a PS2.

So again, announcing (or pushing, promoting, if you will), the PS3 now shouldn't impact development of PS2 games, or PS2 continued sales.

Either developers are going to drop the PS2 development and go towards PS3 development in order to take advantage of a new market and showcase "better" games on "better" hardware, or they will stick with the PS2 development for as long as possible because the install base is bigger and development costs are lower.

The article seems to believe the first statement is a concern to Sony (and your response seems to illustrate you believe that to be aconcern as well), but then you use the second argument as support and I seem them as contradictory.

Help here?

[Vince]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Sorry, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying that essentially because of the large installed base of the PS2, that it is still profitable for developers to continue to develop for that market.

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if Sony showed playable demos at TGS?

Osborne effect. QED.

[Alpha_Spartan]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

MS is the one that forced Sony into this position, and if anybody thinks they didn't do it on purpose, they're too busy drinking the kool-aid.

Oh please! We all know that the PS3 could launch tomorrow with 18 AAA games if Sony wanted to. MGS4 is actually the worst looking PS3 game. Sony is holding back until February where they'll announce all the launch details with a simultaenous launch in all territories two weeks later. If you think the G70 launch was impressive, then Sony will knock your socks off with the PS3 launch. Shock and awe much? Killzone will be playable and it will look better than the E3 demonstrations. Also, the Cell was bumped up to 4.0GHz and the RSX is running in SLi. But wait, there's more! We will have all this at a retail price of only $299.99!

Chug, chug, chug!!!

Mr., may I have some more?!



Okay, I think I covered all speculative bases.

[ihamoitc2005]

Originally Posted by barnak

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=11937



clears alot up for me.

That article is very sensible and reflects what is obvious and predicatable problem for Sony ... how to keep media focus on PS2 and PSP. Is this not what people mean by battle for "mindshare"? Only way for Sony to reduce "mindshare" of xbox360 is to promote PS3 early but doing so can affect mindshare of PS2 and PSP which are very good and profitable businesses. Microsoft's strategy although expensive, is very effective.

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

En mass? Certainly. There will be more PS2 games available, and more people will own the PS2 than the X360. But I'm fairly certain that none of the X360 buyers will be purchasing PS2 games this Christmas. Do you disagree?

None? Well I'll be one.

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Sorry, but I'm confused. You seem to be saying that essentially because of the large installed base of the PS2, that it is still profitable for developers to continue to develop for that market.

Err...yes.

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

If that's the case, then what difference does it make if Sony showed playable demos at TGS?

Because if they overpromote PS3 now, consumers may easily close their wallets till it comes out. There is a large body of PS2 owners out there, and they want them to keep buying PS2 games, and for new people to keep buying PS2s. As the article says, they have to tread carefully. SCEE has been particularly cautious about this, not least because PSP is only out recently (and doubtless much to their dislike, I've already read a couple of articles now encouraging customers to save PSP money for PS3 instead - that's exactly what they're trying to avoid by being cautious about PS3's profile). Cautious consumers would piss off their publishing partners, who also want to ride the gravy train again this holiday. Sony is being perhaps paranoid about this, but I think it's understandable if they want to eliminate any risk of upsetting this particular apple cart.

Originally Posted by Johnny Awesome

This article is nonsense. Consumers at large don't even pay attention to trade shows.

It was a public show, open to consumers.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by Vince

If we're going to take the article as factual (which you tacitly invoked by your use of the article in the latter portion of your post),

Or, we could simply call the article 'RUBBISH' like some have already deemed necessary to do so and have no further discourse. OR, you could attempt to point out WHY the article is rubbish and the discussion could follow from there. Finally, you could ignore the entire thread entirely and not devote any energy to it.

It clearly states that playable material was presented behind-closed doors.

That it does.

Something which, IMHO, would be indicative of developers showing off titles to prospective publishers.

And that is your opinion, which isn't based on anything contained in this article. It's your hope, it's your dream, because that makes your position on the matter more heavily supported. But it's simply a leap that has no foundation from the source material.

Obviously, you don't show off RT playable material if it sucks to a publisher. That much is sheer logic.

Imaginary points leading to sheer logic? Hmm.

It also has come to my attention after reading your post that racid (or otherwise rotten) lunchmeat is too close to dead meat for my liking.

Rancid. Not racid. I'm glad my choice of user name could strengthen your vocabulary.

Nobody is saying they didn't, much to the contrary if you would have read the article.

Second time now you've insinuated that I haven't read the article. I did, which is why I responded. Why not just attempt to make your point?

What is up for debate is if Microsoft's willingness to cannobilize markets and platforms at their whim is good for the industry as a whole... I, for one, do not believe so. Their truncating and quickening of the console cycle is inheriently dangerous when viewed historically and you note that publishers profit from the latter half of the cycle; keep this in mind everytime you wish to promote the unbearable costs of developing for PlayStation3 argument.

And yet, Titanio seems to believe that those developers will still continue to develop for the PS2 because as you've agreed with, that's where they receive the majority of their profits, and it's also where the largest install base is.

If what you seem to believe in this response are true, you have then provided absoutely zero reason why Sony decided not to show playable demos at TGS. You think they are available and are so far along they are shopping them to publishers, and you believe that developers will continue to make PS2 games regardless because that's where the money is.

So, what then is your explanation of why Sony chose not to provide playable demos at TGS?

[Alpha_Spartan]

Sony's E3 showing didn't look like a company that didn't want to usher in the next gen of console gaming. The press conference seemed to be more PS3 and less PS2. Why all of a sudden are they backtracking? Perhaps the PS3 is farther away than they'd like to admit.

Seems to me like Sony's just buying time. They sure didn't pull any punches at E3. And with the system supposedly launching first in Japan in March, you'd think that the Fall TGS would be to Sony what E3 was to Microsoft. Some stuff just isn't adding up. Everytime a Sony exec gives a statement you better don the hip-waders.

[RancidLunchmeat]

Originally Posted by Titanio

Because if they overpromote PS3 now, consumers may easily close their wallets till it comes out. There is a large body of PS2 owners out there, and they want them to keep buying PS2 games, and for new people to keep buying PS2s. As the article says, they have to tread carefully. SCEE has been particularly cautious about this, not least because PSP is only out recently (and doubtless much to their dislike, I've already read a couple of articles now encouraging customers to save PSP money for PS3 instead - that's exactly what they're trying to avoid by being cautious about PS3's profile). Cautious consumers would piss off their publishing partners, who also want to ride the gravy train again this holiday.

PS2 users are going to stop purchasing PS2 games for a period of 6 months to 1 year while waiting for the PS3? Come on, that's not very likely.

Also, the current buyer of the PS2 is simply not the same market as the buyer of the PS3 at launch.

[Vince]

Originally Posted by RancidLunchmeat

Or, we could simply call the article 'RUBBISH' like some have already deemed necessary to do so and have no further discourse. OR, you could attempt to point out WHY the article is rubbish and the discussion could follow from there. Finally, you could ignore the entire thread entirely and not devote any energy to it.

Uh, ok. *shakes head* I refuse to get into a -point-by-point semantic debate with somone who obviously has an agenda and obviously is trying his hardest to push a specific line of thinking on the rest of us. My statements are all holistically consistent and logical, if you want to troll... so be it, but don't expect a responce.

And that is your opinion, which isn't based on anything contained in this article. It's your hope, it's your dream, because that makes your position on the matter more heavily supported. But it's simply a leap that has no foundation from the source material.

Ok, why else would a developer show off a game behind closed doors? I want an answer: go...

So, what then is your explanation of why Sony chose not to provide playable demos at TGS?

I already did: The Osborne Effect (ps. I'm sure you can google it). This is supported by Phil Harrison's comments concerning how PlayStation3 would go "underground" after E3, the data fits. This isn't that difficult, well for you it is as you need to both attack the article as "rubbish" and make up some logical system of why it's BS. But, for the rest of us it approximated the general situation quite well.

[EndR]

Originally Posted by Titanio

A 3-4 year cycle isn't good for the industry.

Correct but who says this will be the norm in the future? MS *must* shorten the life of Xbox, to compete "on an even scale" against Sony on next gen. Xbox came 18 months after, MS cannot afford to come 18 months after PS3, the same thing would happen again. Now MS has the chance to closen the gape considerably to Sony marketshare-wise..

So, Xbox lifespan was shortened so that 360 could live longer.. is that easy..

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by Alpha_Spartan

Sony's E3 showing didn't look like a company that didn't want to usher in the next gen of console gaming. The press conference seemed to be more PS3 and less PS2. Why all of a sudden are they backtracking? Perhaps the PS3 is farther away than they'd like to admit.

Seems to me like Sony's just buying time. They sure didn't pull any punches at E3. And with the system supposedly launching first in Japan in March, you'd think that the Fall TGS would be to Sony what E3 was to Microsoft. Some stuff just isn't adding up. Everytime a Sony exec gives a statement you better don the hip-waders.

Sony said at E3 that they were going underground about PS3 till next year. They had to come out swinging at E3 to mark their presence (they were already expected to show something in March, remember), that doesn't mean they'd continue to have E3-size knock-outs regularly and consistently throughout the rest of the year.

You can read it whatever way you like, really, but I think they've done a good job thusfar of balancing information with tease/mystery.

[Titanio]

Originally Posted by EndR

Correct but who says this will be the norm in the future? MS *must* shorten the life of Xbox, to compete "on an even scale" against Sony on next gen. Xbox came 18 months after, MS cannot afford to come 18 months after PS3, the same thing would happen again. Now MS has the chance to closen the gape considerably to Sony marketshare-wise..

So, Xbox lifespan was shortened so that 360 could live longer.. is that easy..

Like I said, it was no loss to MS to cut Xbox now and go with X360. But on a successful mature platform with a large market, cutting that after 3 or 4 years would be crazy.

It's not like Xbox software sales were terrible last holidays or anything though! I do wonder how many publishers would have preferred for another holiday with just the current systems. I know as a gamer I'd have liked to see another final, very mature cycle of Xbox titles.

Hopefully MS can stablise now into at least a 5 year cycle.

[Alpha_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Titanio

Sony said at E3 that they were going underground about PS3 till next year. They had to come out swinging at E3 to mark their presence (they were already expected to show something in March, remember), that doesn't mean they'd continue to have E3-size knock-outs regularly and consistently throughout the rest of the year.

You can read it whatever way you like, really, but I think they've done a good job thusfar of balancing information with tease/mystery.

Of course you think they've done a good job.

I call PR BS.

[scooby_dooby]

According to Moore ~160 XBOX titles in development, so you can expect at least 1 full generation of titles over the next year if not more.

You may not be able to buy the system come 2006, but there are still 20million+ users loooking to purchase software.

Also, one look at X360's design and it should be completely obvious they are aiming for a more cost-effective product in the latter years of the lifecycle, so there's no reason to think they will repeat the short lifecycle of the XBOX