New Ken Kutaragi interview (1) @ PC Watch

[heliosphere]

1. A lot of people wants a MediaCenter computer like a MacMini or any overpriced crap for be a complement of their main computer and we know that these computers are more expansive than PS3 and less powerful than them.

A basic Mac Mini costs $599 and has similar specs to the PS3 in many areas (512MB RAM, 60GB Hard Drive, built in wireless networking and bluetooth) and let's not forget you can buy one today rather than waiting 6 months.

It's not going to match the PS3 as a gaming machine - the main processor, RAM and graphics are significantly slower than the PS3's - but it will do a much better job for general computing / PC tasks. The Mac already has a solid OS, good driver support and a wide range of high quality 1st and 3rd party software covering every category of application. The PS3 has yet to show any evidence it will be able to compete there and even if it does have Linux it will still lack in driver support and commercial software availability.

On top of all that a Mac Mini is smaller, cooler and quieter than a PS3, you can run any major OS on it (Mac OS, Linux and Windows) and there will probably be a faster version available by the time the PS3 ships. If the PS3 is going to be compared to other alternatives in the same price range as a computer it doesn't have a hope of competing. It's relative strengths are as a games machine and as a low cost bluray player not as a PC and Sony should be concentrating on that and not making stupid suggestions of replacing the PC.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Uh... Huh?

Why would you fire KK?

Because his vision for what the PS needs to be has always been consistant, and the fact that Sony can't actually deliver on his promise has made his claims look silly?

KK's vision isn't the problem.

Sony's ability to deliver on KK's vision is what is at issue.

Actually, when we look backwards a little, he's vision really has been very consistent.

Form PS to PS2 to PSX via PSP to PS3.


The PSX was already a materialisation of what Ken Kutaragi had visioned for the platform already in the days of the original Playstation.

It failed as a gaming platform, and can be viewed as more a market experiment than introduction of a next gen platform. Everybody already had a PS2, so the appeal of PSX rested mainly on the other functions.
How succesfull it was if viewed as a home entertainment, or "Hi-Fi" device would be interesting to know. Is it still being sold?

I wonder, how much of the applications that were in the PSX, like video editing, photo software etc... will come to the PS3 in some form or other.
I couldn't find detailed tech data of the PSX, so I could compare how much memory it had for the apps compared to the PS3.

And Ken Kutaragi wasn't fired even though the PSX did

 

[sonyps35]

Even if KK has a "vision" who's to say it's the right one? Particularly if it leads to marketplace failure?

I dont see what was so much a "vision" about the PSX and PS2 anyway. They were nothing more than well timed, well speced, well supported, game consoles. Nothing more. If anything, PS2 does less than an Xbox with live as far as things outside gaming.

You can already see a possible scenario for PS3's failure developing, with a rapidness that would have stunned many even six months ago. Basically it is that the 360 is narrowly targeted, has a significant price advantage, one year headstart, which is invaluable in many ways, yet for all that the games may look just as good, or close to it, as the PS3. I have to consider it a stumble if a one year headstart leads to very little graphical superiority on PS3's part.

On the other hand, perhaps PS3 is the trojan horse that will lead to huge Blu-Ray profits and a foray in general computing for Sony?

I agree we need to see how PS3 plays out, maybe it will be a success after all, but certainly, there seems to be stumbles.

One decision I really think Ken blew on the PS3 though, is to include a base HDD. Whatever else comes out of it, I think that will prove to be a bad decision. A lot of the other decisions, they sort of have good side and bad, like the Blu-Ray decision, and we have to see how they pan out. The HDD decision I really dont see as having any upside.

I think one could also wonder about Cell's success, whether it will really be worth it to differentiate the consoles games, versus some sort of more traditional, powerful, more off the shelf multi-core part. But I know those are touchy subjects and anyway, have yet to be played out.

For that matter, the fact RSX is apparantly a late off the shelf part, does not smack greatly of "vision". But again, we're getting into controversial issues there.

I guess the point is, KK's "vision" whatever it is seems more grand. And there's a big question to me whether people want anything more than a games console+. This sort of issue has been going on for ages and so far the fabled multimedia "set top box" has never proved it's worth.

Does this bigger vision hurt the narrow gaming focus of PS3? I think you can argue it has.

Again, we'll see where it all leads with PS3.

 

[rabidrabbit]

You're putting too much magnitude and finality to the word "vision".

Had the HDD not been standard on every PS3, and the PS3 some $100 cheaper, wuold your view really had been that different, or is it just because MS decided not to put it standard this time, it is the right way to go?

The HDD is there mainly for that every PS3 owner would be capable to download chargeable content from Sony, not so much for the games (in sense of bringing money to Sony)

I don't think there is "PS3 failure developing with stunning rapidness" as much as thes forums make it out to be.
True, the higher than competition price has gotten some media time, but in the real world the athmosphere and hype surrounding Sony's next gen console is still very positive.
Fan-fuelled forums and websites really don't give the most realistic outlook to what really is going on in the market.

 

[TheChefO]

No inside info, but it may not be coincidence that just a few of weeks earlier, a former SCEA exec returned and basically was given the run of SCEA's entire marketing operation..

It's been suggested she left because she may have felt snubbed and passed over for the roles given to him. They were both at SCEA at the launch of the original Playstation, but he subsequently left to go to THQ at some point, whereas she stuck with the company. So I guess it'd be kinda understandable if she felt miffed at that.

Certainly - in that situation I'd be pissed too. Perhaps it was a disagreement in philosophy

 

[TheChefO]

quad RSX or 4x RSX performance would be horribly outdated feature-wise and underpowered for PS4.

We dissagree with this statement and find it insulting to think this bleeding edge technology would be insufficient for the 2010 timeframe. It would be difficult to compete with a machine of this calibre but we believe we will be up to the challenge.

- Microsoft

 

[TheChefO]

you are only concerened about the single PS3 you may or may not buy on launch day , while he is talking about PS3 as a platform.
There will be faults in PS3 and they will break down but PS3 as a platform will probably live for 10 years. PS1 did... PS2 will most likely do that ...so taking that as a case its more likely that PS3 will live as a platform for 10 years.

I'm not questioning the platforms lifespan. In the interview, Kuta was driving home the point that while ps3 pricepoint is high, it will last at least ten years. Basicly selling the idea that even though your paying $600 it's worth the cost based on the relative longevity of the platform.

Anyone who knows about tech knows this statement to be a bit misleading.

Even my top of the line 1998 Sony av reciever is glitching on me already.

 

[Carl B]

One decision I really think Ken blew on the PS3 though, is to include a base HDD. Whatever else comes out of it, I think that will prove to be a bad decision. A lot of the other decisions, they sort of have good side and bad, like the Blu-Ray decision, and we have to see how they pan out. The HDD decision I really dont see as having any upside.

Well, *if* you're going to target the neo-Amiga space, including the hard drive as standard makes perfect sense then. How else do you put a 'computer' in peoples homes?

Whether Sony can execute on that vision or not is a different matter, and we'll see how it plays out. I think it's definitely risky. It's very risky, but you have to grant that it's bold as hell.

I think one could also wonder about Cell's success, whether it will really be worth it to differentiate the consoles games, versus some sort of more traditional, powerful, more off the shelf multi-core part. But I know those are touchy subjects and anyway, have yet to be played out.

Cell isn't just about console differentiation - it's about a cheap mass-produced chip that can carve a niche for itself in the consumer electronics and computing. I don't know what you're saying about traditional, more powerful, off-the-shelf multi-core chips... what manner of chip is this you refer to? And do you feel Microsoft should also have gone with suh a more 'powerful' design?

For that matter, the fact RSX is apparantly a late off the shelf part, does not smack greatly of "vision". But again, we're getting into controversial issues there.

NVidia's relationship with Sony began at roughly the same time that ATI's relationship with Microsoft began; take that for what it's worth. I'll grant that the Xenos looks much more the custom chip, but at the same time it's a little much that in your above quote you get down on Sony for not having gone with an off-the-shelf CPU, but here you are criticizing the off-the-shelf GPU.

- Microsoft

Chef-O, what is that quote you responded with? Megadrive is just stating a fact - it doesn't matter who else has said what. 4x the power of the current GPUs five years from now would equate to weak chips.

 

[TheChefO]

Chef-O, what is that quote you responded with? Megadrive is just stating a fact - it doesn't matter who else has said what. 4x the power of the current GPUs five years from now would equate to weak chips.

xb - it was a joke - a fictional quote from Microsoft.

(I think they might even enjoy competing with such a configuration in that timeframe, but hey I could be wrong - perhaps their quietly saying to themselves at this point "crap they stole our idea.")

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

xb - it was a joke - a fictional quote from Microsoft.

(I think they might even enjoy competing with such a configuration in that timeframe, but hey I could be wrong - perhaps their quietly saying to themselves at this point "crap they stole our idea.")

Well can you explain your "joke" better?

Because it wasn't funny at all, and it doesn't make sense in the context of what we are discussing.

Are you proposing the idea that if Sony offered a PS4 with quad cell and RSX that MS would offer comments saying that their current tech could compete with it?

The entire concept of your joke makes no sense at all, because if anybody is going to force the next generation of consoles on the market, it will be MS once again.. just as they did this generation.

Why? Because their cost/price ratio is far superior to that of the PS3 and Nintendo doesn't appear to be in any position to push console upgrades due to tech at this point.

So it would be Sony, not MS, that would be saying that their current tech is sufficent in order to handle the current generation of gaming while MS would be promoting and pushing the fact that people need to buy a new console within 5 years instead of 7.

 

[TheChefO]

Well can you explain your "joke" better?

Because it wasn't funny at all, and it doesn't make sense in the context of what we are discussing.

Are you proposing the idea that if Sony offered a PS4 with quad cell and RSX that MS would offer comments saying that their current tech could compete with it?

The entire concept of your joke makes no sense at all, because if anybody is going to force the next generation of consoles on the market, it will be MS once again.. just as they did this generation.

Why? Because their cost/price ratio is far superior to that of the PS3 and Nintendo doesn't appear to be in any position to push console upgrades due to tech at this point.

So it would be Sony, not MS, that would be saying that their current tech is sufficent in order to handle the current generation of gaming while MS would be promoting and pushing the fact that people need to buy a new console within 5 years instead of 7.

Hey - relax Rancid It was a joke based on the fact that yes, if Sony were to announce that what they will produce for ps4 would be a 4-cell 4-rsx machine without regard to new feature sets or efficiencies or clockspeed improvements, then Microsoft would have a party that day and be very happy campers that the tech they would have to compete with would be a relatively small advancement and it would be very cheap for them to come up with a competing tech for xbox720.

I appologize if I offended anyone with this joke but seriously - lighten up guys

 

[Powderkeg]

He is definitely not crazy or a nutcase. He is a man with a vision who has been given the funding to realize that vision. Kuturagi's vision for the PS3 is a little out there, maybe even far fetched. That doesn't mean it is a bad vision.

The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane. - Nicola Tesla

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I appologize if I offended anyone with this joke but seriously - lighten up guys

Not offended at all. It was just unclear that it was a joke and then when you said it was supposed to be taken as one, it wasn't funny.

Maybe it would have come across better with some different phrasing.

 

[TheChefO]

Not offended at all. It was just unclear that it was a joke and then when you said it was supposed to be taken as one, it wasn't funny.

Maybe it would have come across better with some different phrasing.

Perhaps - I'll have to be careful with how I present them in the future I suppose, but I thought it came across well in a dry humor way.

RR - If ps3 were available without a HD for $100 less and also available without bluray(dvd) for another $100 less then I'd say with great confidence that we have some great competition ahead. But I think that even if they offered a "core system" speced as such it would still cost Sony more than MS core for core which I think Sony realized and hence went forth with a mindframe of "if we can't be equal in cost then we might as well push the tech advantage angle and we have the brand equity to get away with the higher pricepoint so lets throw in hdd standard which we could use later for microtransactions and bluray standard which will lure in movie sales."

On the specific topic of what the standard hdd does for them I agree it makes the possibility of on-line sales easier for them. I just take issue with Sony not giving customers the option of buying a next gen "Playstation" for games only. Instead they say to gamers "if you want one bad enough you'll buy it, and as a bonus if you call right now we'll throw in a bluray movie player free! [que price-is-right theme music] This is a $1000 value! But wait! There's more! If you call within the next three months we'll throw in, absolutely free, a new media center pc!"

All these things are great and all but what about those who have a media center pc? What about those who have a hd-dvd movie player or aren't interested in hd movies? What about the gamers who just want HD playstation games?

 

[Johnny Awesome]

The PS3 project seems to have been a litany of errors IMO:

1. They were obsessed with Cell and wasted time trying to make a Cell GPU with Toshiba

2. A last minute deal with NVidia saved them.

3. They are obsessed with Blu-Ray and this has cost them 6-9 months waiting for the hick-ups to be ironed out.

4. Having bet the farm on Blu-Ray they now have to include a hard drive in each unit to improve load times because Blu-Ray is likely slower than the DVD drive in the X360.

5. Even with the delay, the PS3 architecture is such a beast that the big franchises aren't due in the US until 2007 (MGS) or 2008 (GT, FF).

6. Many of the above factors have combined to create a pretty expensive PS3.

Now, I think Sony can recover as long as they get a handle on their costs and market well, but they've definitely ceded a lot of ground to MS IMO.

 

[TheChefO]

The PS3 project seems to have been a litany of errors IMO:

1. They were obsessed with Cell and wasted time trying to make a Cell GPU with Toshiba

2. A last minute deal with NVidia saved them.

3. They are obsessed with Blu-Ray and this has cost them 6-9 months waiting for the hick-ups to be ironed out.

4. Having bet the farm on Blu-Ray they now have to include a hard drive in each unit to improve load times because Blu-Ray is likely slower than the DVD drive in the X360.

5. Even with the delay, the PS3 architecture is such a beast that the big franchises aren't due in the US until 2007 (MGS) or 2008 (GT, FF).

6. Many of the above factors have combined to create a pretty expensive PS3.

Now, I think Sony can recover as long as they get a handle on their costs and market well, but they've definitely ceded a lot of ground to MS IMO.

Agreed - As I've pointed out in other threads and as you've illustrated here, there are many unknown factors that play into the overall success of ps3. With that said most here believe it will not have a problem selling out to at least the first 6million within 6months, but also concede they will lose marketshare to MS/Nintendo. The question is: How much marketshare will they lose?

Is there any interest in creating a poll for 2010 marketshare percentages?

 

[rabidrabbit]

Had xbox360 launched with Blu-ray or HD-DVD and $100 more expensive, would PS3 have half a chance then or would xbox360 sold more or less than it is selling now?

If not, why do you think MS didn't launch with either of them, other than they would have had to postpone the launch to spring-autumn 2006?

 

[TheChefO]

Had xbox360 launched with Blu-ray or HD-DVD and $100 more expensive, would PS3 have half a chance then or would xbox360 sold more or less than it is selling now?

If not, why do you think MS didn't launch with either of them, other than they would have had to postpone the launch to spring-autumn 2006?

hmm - If hd-dvd was available at launch and was standard and bumped the "core" to $400 I think Ms would have still sold out of their rediculously low volume launch. How far outside of that though I don't know. The games library at launch and up to this point is fairly thin so all else being equal I'd say the availability issue might have been cleared up around February

I think a lot of people who are interested in hd movies though are curious to see what bluray brings to the table as well before plunking down the cash and if hd-dvd is standard and adds cost into the system then it becomes a factor in whether or not to purchase a 360 at this time.

The caveat to this argument though is from what I understand of hddvd, the advantage was that the tech is very close to dvd and hence very cheap to produce. How cheap I don't know but I assumed it would have added maybe $50 to the cost to replace the dvd. I could be way off though.

edit - Another angle to add to this hypothetical is Nintendo as I think they'd benefit huge from this scenario because it would leave the pricepoint that most people are used to for videogames open to only one player for quite some time.

 

[Arwin]

The PS3 project seems to have been a litany of errors IMO:

And this post comes close to trolling.

1. They were obsessed with Cell and wasted time trying to make a Cell GPU with Toshiba

Or their vision was right, but the timing was wrong and the fruits of this labor will instead go into the next generation.

2. A last minute deal with NVidia saved them.

Or Sony realised that it was too soon for a radically different way of creating graphics and decided, probably rightly, that having the Cell as CPU and the RSX as GPU offered the right combination of innovation and familiarity.

3. They are obsessed with Blu-Ray and this has cost them 6-9 months waiting for the hick-ups to be ironed out.

Or it didn't matter so much anyway because they already announced that they wouldn't launch the PS3 if there wasn't any software, and although some of the games looked pretty good at E3, it was also very clear that there wasn't reallyanything launchable.

4. Having bet the farm on Blu-Ray they now have to include a hard drive in each unit to improve load times because Blu-Ray is likely slower than the DVD drive in the X360.

Or BluRay is more suitable for streaming than the DVD drive, with a constant speed that is slightly faster than the DVDs minimum speed. And perhaps the difference between the two isn't big enough to cover the problem of having to code your games to work without a harddrive on the Xbox.

5. Even with the delay, the PS3 architecture is such a beast that the big franchises aren't due in the US until 2007 (MGS) or 2008 (GT, FF).

Or you actually have no clue about GT and FF and this is just speculation. None of these games have been launch games on the PS2.

6. Many of the above factors have combined to create a pretty expensive PS3.

Expensive in terms of investment, or expensive in terms of actual hardware cost of the machine? None of your points seem to refer to the latter.

Now, I think Sony can recover as long as they get a handle on their costs and market well, but they've definitely ceded a lot of ground to MS IMO.

At least I agree with this partly.

 

[rabidrabbit]

Had MS launched xbox360 later this year instead of Nov 2005, would it have been actually better than to rush the launch only so that it would be first.

xbox360 launched with good games, but are they enough to keep up the momentum beyond the usually games dry season of summer up to November 2007 when PS3 launches. It's as if after the "launch period" there has been not much games launched, and not much scheduled until late this year/early next year.

I already hear people say "Where are the new games for xbox360?", and while there certainly are good games scheduled later this year, they'll compete for attention with the PS3, and it really is not a good signal to the mainstream gamers if there's a long empty season before the competition launches. It can unintentionally give a false bad image.
There's already a dip in xbox 360 sales due to the summer (Xbox 360: 221,000 ( -25%) ), how will it rise from there in the autumn months when it has heavy competition?

One could always argue "But people will look at the cheaper xbox360 with a much larger library of games and compare it with the more expensive PS3 and the limited launch library. The xbox360 must look like a sure bet, and with GTA4 no longer exclusive and Halo3 they choose the xbox360 if they have any sense!"

But it does not go that way. We're talking of a hundred dollar difference here, not thousands of dollars. It's not that big an investment really.